If you’re going to do something, the old metics said, you might as well do it right. By this they meant that even if what it is that you’re doing isn’t optimal with respect to your ultimate ends or purposes, you’ll still wind up better off if you do it correctly rather than incorrectly. If what you’re doing is in enough agreement with right Reason to be said to have a nature, by conforming to that rational nature in design and execution you’ll end up with something that has the image of the Divine in it; something that has its own proper virtues, even if those virtues aren’t exactly the most efficient means of getting you where you want to be; and, if nothing else, you’ll at least get to partake in the old metic’s pride in a job well-done.
From the start, the USA constituted itself as a Liberal democracy, and in the design and execution of both its formal written Constitution and its national customs and traditions strived to be as consistently Liberal as it could be. Liberalism, of course, is destined to end up at destructive cross purposes with the proper ends of State and society- and yet, done right, it has certain undeniable virtues all its own.
Americans get a much better deal out of their system of government than they often realize. Uniquely in the modern West, the State there actually tries to make good on the boasts of the Liberal democratic tradition, as famously articulated by their ancestors in the Declaration of Independence and other founding documents: the citizen can carry a gun with him everywhere he goes, keep most of what he earns, speak freely on any subject without fear of formal reprisal, and generally do whatever he wants, or at least to a greater extent than his counterparts in comparable Commonwealth or Continental States. Should the State attempt to interdict these and other popular rights, populist pushback will promptly foment and force the State to retreat, or at least stop it from encroaching any further. The same populist tendency forces the State to try to provide for the domestic security of the people; it punishes crimes with a certainty, severity, and celerity unknown anywhere else in the West, and even the most pampered official victim groups can’t always Black-lives-matter their way around it.
All of this is greatly facilitated by that, by law, Americans vote often, and for a very broad spectrum of State functionaries from the President to the local Sheriff; and those they vote for, by custom, feel themselves duty-bound to represent the desires and interests of the individuals they represent. To be sure, the USA, just like its sister States, is ruled by an open cabal of arrogant technocrats, meddlesome SJWs, plutocratic State capitalists and banksters, irresponsible professors, derelict judges, insubordinate civil servants, and people like that- but they don’t rule everything the way they do even in Canada, to say nothing of Europe, and they don’t rule unopposed.
No, Liberalism isn’t the worst thing Modernity can inflict on a great nation. The worst thing is the aberration known by the appellation, “anarcho-tyranny”. The term itself is transparently suggestive: a concatenation of incongruous elements, so monstrous and absurd on its face that it is offensive to Reason to the point of the ridiculous, that have become degenerated by their articulation, a whole that is less than the separate sum of its parts.
According to Classical political theory, anarchy is the degenerated form of democratic government, and tyranny the degenerated form of monarchy; it follows that anarcho-tyranny finds its etiology in the hybridization of the laws and/or cultural mentalities of monarchy and those of democracy. Constitutional monarchies like Canada and other Commonwealth countries are therefore anarcho-tyrannic by definition and design (though not intent). The emergence of anarcho-tyranny is effectively guaranteed in places like Continental Europe where Liberal political forms were abruptly superimposed on societies where strong social vestiges of a Feudal past remained- and where an aristocracy is one of those vestiges, anarcho-tyrannic tendencies are exacerbated greatly, since the degenerated form of aristocracy, viz. oligarchy, is added to the mix. Another exacerbating factor seems to be highly centralized government and/or prior history of absolute monarchy. These factors probably explain why anarcho-tyranny seems to be worse in the UK and on the Continent than in either Canada or Australia. As for the USA, anarcho-tyrannic tendencies, while clearly present- the term itself was coined by an American addressing American conditions- are relatively muted in expression. just as the present analysis would predict.
Not just any combination of laws, customs, etc. proper to democracy and to monarchy results in anarcho-tyranny. In particular, institutional “separation of powers” in the form of e.g. exclusive Parliamentary control of legislation and taxation, judicial review of legislative acts, limits on the jurisdiction and power of the central State vis-a-vis the provinces, etc. are neither necessary nor sufficient causes. The specific pathogens are rather formal individualistic equality and informal collectivistic hierarchy, and their associated values and practices, on the democratic and aristo-monarchic end of things respectively.
What happens when the two are conjoined is that each ends up mutilating the other without succeeding in destroying it altogether; this process of mutilation leaves behind severely dilapidated and dysfunctional forms that preserve more of the vices than the virtues of each, and additionally unleashes or altogether creates new types of viciousness not present in either in their respective wholesome forms, among them:
-Where the social structure continues to be divided into relatively closed social (not merely economic) classes, but individuals deemed legally equal before the State, the classes are structurally placed in a position of direct agonistic competition vis-a-vis one another. The values of deference and loyalty to social superiors and noblesse oblige-type duties of care to social inferiors, which under monarchy bound the classes into an organic corporate unity, are severely compromised or altogether erased- but on the other hand, the dissolution of the social body is not carried to the full extent of individualistic atomization and dissolution of its class organs, as it would in the pure democracy. The result is that severe, open, and unmitigated class conflict is inevitable, with the prompt historical result that utopian Socialist and Anarchist ideologies infest the working class like a plague. The persistent deep penetration of these ideologies- which of course are inherently and vehemently anti-Patria and anti-White- in the working class is presently, especially in Europe, severely hampering the ability of the working class to unite and defend itself against the hordes of migrants being imported to replace it. (We will return to this point below).
-The relationship between the individual and the State becomes distorted. In both democracy and monarchy in their wholesome respective forms, the good of each individual is supposed to be the sole and supreme legitimate end of rule. In the one, the individual is a citizen, and stands before the State as a principal to an agent; in the other, the citizen is a subject, and stands before the State as a child to a parent; both modes of relationship, in their own distinct way, impose stringent duties of care on the incumbent of political office, the dereliction of which results in the prompt dismissal of the one and severe personal disgrace (and possible rebellious overthrow) of the other.
Under anarcho-tyranny, the individual is neither a subject nor a citizen; he no longer stands as a child before the State, but he isn’t its rightful master either. And, as in the case of the relationship between social classes, the relationship between the individual and the State becomes bitterly and intemperately adversarial. The State remains as imperiously contemptuous of the will of the people as it was under Monarchy- but is now equally contemptuous of their weal, too. From the point of view of the anarcho-tyrannical State, the individual is neither a citizen to be respected in his rights, nor a subject to be cared for; he is pure garbage, an entity to be exploited for whatever he may be worth and otherwise left to rot by a State that exists for its own sake- and for the sake of an elite courtier-class of rent-seekers, State capitalists, NGOs, and bureaucrats within, or with privileged access to, the State- and which regards the greatest number of its own people as purely instrumental means to its own ends at best, and outright enemies of the State at worst.
Indeed, in the latter respect the law-abiding and tax-paying people appear to altogether trade places with criminals, miscreants, and fifth-columnists in the eyes of this State. The sort of genial, so-what toleration and indulgence the anarcho-tyrannical State displays towards criminal and, more recently, terrorist disorders, and their (mostly non-White) perpetrators, cannot be written off as mere weakness or fecklessness. On the contrary: it is exactly as though this State assigns itself the task of protecting the right of the criminal element to victimize the law-abiding (and mostly White) majority, in some kind of travesty and inversion of both the Liberal doctrine of social contract and the duty to protect given in the patriarchal honour of a King. Let the law-abiding try to defend themselves, and the State will discover an intolerable outrage against its sovereign monopoly on force in the act of self-defense where it failed to see one in the attack; let them express an impolitic thought on the Internet, and the State apparatus of surveillance will swoop in and find them with an Orwellian acumen that never seems to get put to use in uncovering terror plots; let them protest in the streets against, say, a mass rape that also took place in the streets, and the police will all of a sudden remember that they know how to control crowds after all.
-The domestic and foreign policy of this State is based on a doctrine consisting of an illogical and morbid congeries of Liberal-individualistic and authoritarian-collectivistic elements impoverished and deformed by one another. The characteristic ideological and practical effects of this conjunction are well known, but two of them are really remarkable for our present purposes:
- Anarcho-tyranny insists that the individual be made completely helpless and dependent in life and weal on the power of the State, which at discretion can choose to either give the individual what he needs to live or allow him to die. In this respect, it keeps continuity with the older authoritarian tradition- but, thanks to the Liberal influence, strips away its paternalism, and the associated paternal duty of care in the form of providence. This means that the individual is, at once, left to fend for himself and forbidden self-help, which the anarcho-tyrannic ideology always sees as an especially dangerous outrage against the State. Characteristic examples are strict gun control combined with lackadaisical police work or even (as mentioned already) outright toleration of criminality; and, in Canada, single-payer health insurance that forbids the individual from buying needed medical treatments the State rationing system either altogether declines to cover or imposes wait-times in which the patient not infrequently dies in the queue. Both of these policies assume a self-avowedly sacred character in the mentality of anarcho-tyranny.
- In part since anarcho-tyranny understands sovereignty overwhelmingly in terms of individual dependence on the State, the anarcho-tyrannical State shows a striking lack of self-awareness of the nature of sovereignty in just about every other way, to the point of forfeiting it altogether by neglect or even explicit design. The eager formation of the European Union, with its explicit aim of reducing its member-States to so many municipalities, is indicative. Meanwhile, the chief response of more than one of these States to the now-openly violent insurrection of the Mohammedan population has been, in the Liberal name of “human rights”, to intentionally increase their number instead of containing and expelling them, as we would normally expect a sovereign State to do (e.g. historically, religious minorities were expelled, massacred, or subjected to severe social and legal disabilities, simply for having been imagined to conspire against the State).
-Finally, the distortion of the relationship between State and individual is a two-way street. It is not just the State that is derelict. What literally puts the anarchy in anarcho-tyranny is that, since the relationship between the individual and the State is adversarial and unmitigated by duty on either side of the equation, political dissent inevitably ends up assuming one form or another of revolutionary Utopianism, which involves an especially poisonous jumble of Liberal-individualistic and authoritarian-collectivistic elements together with a secularized and “materialist” deformation of religious Chiliasm. This ideology demands the immediate abolition of all authority in a bloody mass patricide, to be followed by the establishment of a Schlaraffenland in which self-administering means of production spit out free goods and services, and moreover marriage, the family, and private property are abolished even as the State putatively withers away. It never occurs to this ideology that the “liberated” inhabitants of this land of Cockaigne, it just so happens, have in the very course of being “liberated” acquired the exact set of social and legal disabilities that defines the status of the slave anywhere else, and that cloud-cuckoo land seems to be organized in a way that suspiciously resembles a barracks, but whatever.
Fortunately, the movements based on this ideology are nowhere in the West in a position to make good on any of this and so learn the hard way just what’s wrong with it- but, especially in Europe, self-described anarchists are an enormous pest to society, providing the mainstream Left (and the State itself) with a ready-made and cost-free dragoon squad (“Antifa”) always available for overtly violent deployment against the Patriotic forces. Organized as a set of politically-themed street gangs, Antifa-type groups offer a surrogate Maennerbund to the structurally unemployed and disaffected White working class youth, and so take advantage of social pathology to introduce still more pathology, perversely turning the perfectly healthy fighting instincts of those youth away from their natural ends and against their own people, and in a way that seriously hampers and retards efforts on the part of the White working-class to unite and defend itself against its own imminent extinction.
So much for a basic outline of the anatomy of anarcho-tyranny. By way of conclusion, I shall say the Modern Western world seems to be inescapably caught between the Devil and the deep blue sea where its polity is concerned. The limits of possible variation of the Modern form of State ranges from bad and unsustainable to worse and immediately dysfunctional to a more or less serious extent.
N.B. I am by no means saying that anybody ought to acquiesce to internally-consistent Liberalism as the “least of all evils”. It bears repeating that every anatomical feature of the disease described here, while relatively muted in expression, is clearly present in the American polity. The point is rather that the West is caught in a double-bind, and the modern State ultimately incorrigible. Half-measures in the direction of Rightist authoritarianism not only can’t be counted on to permanently arrest descent down the slope of decline, but seem destined to produce adverse unintended consequences for as long as legal equality and the culture-mentality that surrounds it continue to exist. Since the modern State in any of its forms absolutely presumes legal equality as a logically indispensable condition of its existence, nobody ought to hold his breath waiting for that happen.
In the meanwhile, though, the White working class- indeed, the entire West- is right now in immediate danger of becoming extinct before the cult of equality can fall away and give rise to a new culture-mentality and new, post-Liberal social and political arrangements. The aforementioned half-measures, while unable to cure the disease, may well, so to say, at least keep the patient alive until a cure is discovered, or the condition resolves itself. The new Populism won’t abolish the cult of equality, or come close. But it is producing- and in the recent case of Brexit, already has produced- at least the conditions of collectively living long enough to fight to the finish another day. Anything that can do that deserves support.