Looking back through the ages there are many, many more than two paths that a political body may take towards whatever destination they decide is most expedient and desirable. These variable pathways may be dictated by a variety of factors: desired end, capabilities, finances, geography, ethical system, information dissemination and influence, and who, ultimately, is making the decision among many others.
For instance, the path Canada took to eventual autonomy from Britain was decidedly different from that of America, with the former taking the path of preferring diplomacy and waiting, and the latter enacting violent revolution against the Monarch. It would be somewhat presumptuous for any of us to look back on either of these differing paths in stern judgement: we simply lack the fullness of the moment – that appreciation that could only possibly be understood in totality as a contemporary to the particular time and place.
Moreover, there are many particularities of these times and places to which most, or, perhaps, all of us are not privy. An example of this – though, admittedly a shameful one that most people ought to know – is that George Washington himself very likely could have made himself king of this New World. He was so widely beloved, and respected, that there was wholly insufficient pressure or sentiment to have overthrown him – he chose to step down willingly, and in so doing handed us the republic. In this manner America began not with a constitution, but with a Caesar. It was merely good fortune for the ages that our Caesar relinquished those powers once safety (and liberty) was secured. It is further important to note that the need to retain some of these immense powers did not fully vanish in that very moment, as it would not be long before a challenge of legitimacy led Washington to put down the Whisky Rebellion with a prejudice rarely witnessed in American history.
The point, thus far, is that our history should inform our view of the present. We are in difficult times – interesting times, to Dubliners. Not unlike the period surrounding the founding of this nation we, once more, find the fractionalization of factions foremost in the public square: the classical liberals and the conservatives, the libertarians and the orderists, the theonomists and the secularists, and the preservationists versus the accelerationists – to make no mention of those ideologies outside the broad coalition of the right. We should consider the merits of the item at hand dispassionately, and with agreement on a roughly outlined end state: a return to a state of sufficient liberty, yet sufficient order, such that further refinements might be reasonably agreed small and gradual, and not of such scope or speed as to be considered revolutionary under such an established order.
Note, these items would certainly be considered revolutionary under the current order – or, more precisely, counterrevolutionary. The revolution is already here – I would say it’s already complete, but the nature of leftist revolution is necessarily perpetual, so it’s never truly complete, but it is sufficiently so as to call any return to the aforementioned ideologies to be an overturning of the current order. This is something that must be stressed before we can continue to discuss our options going forward earnestly towards efficacy: the current order must be overturned.
That shouldn’t be a particularly controversial statement – at least not to those who would identify as teammates. Our current order is well noted by some to be that of anarcho-tyranny. I might rather describe it simply as 21st century Fascism: the merger of the corporations and State on a scale ranging from the electron (digital) to the global(ist) – the total state, the cathedral, or simply the regime would also suffice. It is a technocratic giant looming large over all, and it is growing still – perhaps even exponentially. With the recent database put together by Claremont demonstrating the way money flows from the taxpayer, to the government, and directly to leftist organizations to do leftist things, we should view our enemies as the clever antiquarian (or is it antiquary, or maybe antique-er), who finds the magic lamp and uses her first wish to wish for more wishes: they use their money and power to buy more money and seize more power.
So, then, what is our best path? Is it to be democratic play – by the rules and within the system – or, is it a second roll of the Caesar die that we require? Is there some other way?
First, we should examine the ethics of the situation. We are facing a tyranny and catastrophe to match, and perhaps exceed, any in human history to date. Our elites are driving a Malthusian, Maoist, Mephistophelean nightmare wagon straight to hell. The circumstances we face put those of the revolutionary generation to shame, and, unlike theirs, ours are truly existential in every respect. If you hold that, purely from a moral analysis, the founders were well within their rights, then you should believe exponentially so for our circumstances – whatever the ultimate course may be.
Next, we look to strategy considerations, and game out a few theories. The first pathway to look at is the pure “fair play” strategy. You might suggest that we simply need to elect better representation to achieve a better outcome. Why would you believe that? It’s a terrible moral prescription. It is akin to arguing for direct democracy – just because the majority can strip you of your rights doesn’t make it good, or legitimate. Further, why would you think that we can actually affect the outcome of elections at the highest level? Have you no knowledge of the debacle of 2020? The “fortification?” Then, what makes you think that this sterling individual would actually be capable of delivering for us on policy? John Kennedy would like a word, and so would Nixon at that. Pure “fair play” is obviously not capable of achieving victory. So, what next?
How about an American Caesar? A strongman could, hypothetically, take control over the executive and wield it in the necessary fashion to right recent wrongs. He might not take the most tactful course of getting there, but, then, we could always examine Washingtons diplomacy with the Hessians for historical precedent. The trouble should be obvious, however, in during a time of near-universally better men Washington was still a unicorn. A second roll of the dice almost certainly starts badly and ends worse. Now, that may still be better than some potential outcomes – I’d suggest its absolutely better than Communist rule. So, the next question is “is that as good as it gets, and it won’t ever get that good again,” or are there genuinely better paths available to us?
I will suggest a third way that transcends “fair play,” but places the onus of the personal responsibility for our circumstances not on a single, great executive, but in distributed, decentralized, and dispersed centers of maximally efficient (geographic and resource wise) resistance. This path is perfectly ethical, and for a summary on that I would direct you to the following resources on why we know face an enemy fixed on our total, arbitrary control, and are therefore in a Lockean state of war to which rules of war, and not normal civics apply. This path is also the only path reasonably likely to avoid the rise of dictatorial power. What might such a path look like?
Well, first, it is a path of unconventional, political warfare. We don’t get out of this without a fight. We are already in a fight – a war even – and not of our own making. Our Constitution was overthrown, and we are sworn to defend it. It’s of extreme import that you understand this, because this strategy cannot be effective without executive overreach on behalf of citizens rights, state and local nullification of overreach and to protect their people, judicial activism of an explicit rightist nature, rampant jury nullification, and so on. There is nothing wrong with fighting political warfare with political warfare - trying to fight it with politics alone would be suicidally stupid.
Another thing: the 1990’s aren’t coming back. Neither are the 2000’s, or 2010’s, or even 1980’s. You have to understand that, at all of those times, we were irrecoverably on a slope with a trajectory to where we’re now at, and where we will be next year. We are reaping the harvest sown by the Progressive Era, Civil Rights Era, Sexual Revolution, and so on. These movements had the effect of enshrining “positive rights” into the American conscience. No future return to a Constitutional Americanism can include any positive rights whatsoever – all positive rights are Marxist. The path forward to avoid significant conflict is to allow States, or whatever lower-level authority, to exercise huge amounts of autonomy and self-determination. That means the liberal who just got run over by the revolution five minutes ago won’t be happy with this third way – but he’ll be much less unhappy with it than any of the other options.
The future does not look like the past. It will not be so nice as the past. It will not be so pleasant as the past. It means learning to vote more with your feet. It means learning that you cannot impose your will – however moral – on those outside your immediate sphere of political influence. It means States look a lot more like European countries in scope of authority. It means uncomfortable alliances. It means abandoning the “all or nothing” approach before we all wind up with nothing at all.