Counter-Currents
2,119 words
Translation: Portuguese, Spanish
In Political Theology
For Schmitt, law and bureaucracy can deal with normal day-to-day life. But, as Aristotle pointed out, generalizations about human affairs pertain only “for the most part.” In addition to normal circumstances, there are exceptional circumstances, in which functionaries cannot simply apply the existing laws.
Thus supreme power cannot lie in laws which are administered by bureaucracies. Supreme power reposes in the person who decides what to do in exceptional cases, when the codifications of past experience are not enough to guide us.
Schmitt’s concept of sovereignty is beguilingly simple, but when one thinks it through, the implications for the liberal project are devastating.
One of the leading slogans of liberalism is “government by laws, not men,” meaning that sovereignty ultimately rests with laws rather than individual men. The desirability of government by laws can be appreciated by imagining a utopia in which there are no laws, just a wise and benevolent judge who looks at the unique circumstances of every dispute and intuits the just decision.
There are two basic problems with this utopia.
First, there is no guarantee that the judge will always be wise and benevolent, and if he fails to deliver justice, then we would need a way to remedy the situation. That remedy cannot consist simply of another man who is empowered to fix the problem, because what if he becomes corrupt or capricious? Obviously, we cannot leave decisions in the hands of men. There have to be principles for evaluating decisions and rules for reviewing and correcting them, which means: reposing sovereignty in general principles or laws.
Second, if every dispute is treated as a unique situation with a unique just outcome, this makes life rather unpredictable. But unpredictability undermines social cooperation, order, and progress. Large business endeavors, for example, involve tremendous financial risks. But people will hesitate to undertake such risks if there is not a legal structure in place that allows them to predict the likely outcomes of certain conflicts. Therefore, we need a code of general laws. And since a lot of conflicts are pretty much the same, there’s no harm in having general rules to adjudicate them.
The liberal dream is to insure that everyone is treated justly by submitting all human decisions to rules. These rules can be applied according to other rules. Individual decision-makers can not only follow rules, they can be chosen according to still other rules, and their positions can based on objective qualifications, i.e., educational attainments and professional certifications. The aim is a society in which justice is produced by a well-oiled, rule-governed machine free of human bias, arbitrariness, and corruption.
In order to insure that the machine performs, it must have built-in self-monitoring and self-correcting mechanisms. It need not depend upon the moral or intellectual virtues of its functionaries if it can watch all their actions, double-check all their decisions, and reward or punish them accordingly. Just as the Catholic sacraments can be dispensed by a corrupt priest, justice can be produced by bored, cynical, and indifferent bureaucrats as long as the machine functions according to its rules.
In sum:
- Liberalism wishes to repose sovereignty in law, not men, the ultimate law being the constitution, which is the blueprint of a vast justice-and-fairness dispensing machine.
- Liberalism believes that human decision is a corrupting force in government, thus decisions must be eliminated where possible and subjected to rules where unavoidable. The ideal government is a machine, like the Newtonian mechanical model of the universe which requires no recourse to divine intervention. Decisions in government are like miracles in nature: “arbitrary” ghosts to be exorcised from the machine.
- Liberalism believes that sovereignty can be divided, i.e., that the machinery of government can diagnose and correct itself. This includes such notions as judicial review and bureaucratic auditing, but at the highest constitutional level, it is the idea of the separation of powers, which “check” and “balance” each other.
- Liberalism believes that if government is sufficiently rule-governed and self-correcting, it need not depend on extraordinary human moral virtue. Honest, wise, and disinterested men are rare, but all people wish to enjoy pleasure and avoid pain. Thus the most stable foundation of political order is greed and fear. Optimally dispensing such awards and punishments requires extensive surveillance and auditing, so nobody gets away with anything.
Just as hell is an instrument of divine love, the modern bureaucratic surveillance state is an instrument of liberal fairness.
The weakness of the liberal model is that human decisions can only be regulated by general rules when dealing with normal circumstances, i.e., with circumstances anticipated by legislators and that thus fall under their rules. But what about exceptional circumstances that do not fall under rules, circumstances that were not foreseen and provided for in advance? These call for decisions. Now, in the case of a judge or a bureaucrat, these decisions can be subjected to higher order review, which can itself be governed by rules.
But what happens when we get to the very top of the legal hierarchy, the constitution itself? What happens when a constitutional order encounters a situation that was not anticipated by the founders and cannot be subsumed under their laws? Then the preservation of the constitutional order depends upon human decision, rather than decision depending upon the constitutional order. Decisions can be guided by the constitution only in circumstances foreseen by the founders. In unforeseen circumstances, decisions must be guided by something higher.
Sovereignty thus lies in the hands of men who decide in exceptional circumstances. Specifically, they decide when exceptional circumstances are at hand, and they decide what to do about them. At that point, the only thing that the legal system can do is specify who is empowered to make such decisions.
If sovereignty ultimately reposes in men, not laws, this is true even in liberal systems which officially deny it. Liberal societies are simply ruled by secret sovereigns, men who exercise decision as they hide behind the laws. In liberal society, there are two kinds of secret sovereigns.
First, there are the founders, the framers of the constitutional order who decided what the fundamental laws will be. Laws are ultimately created by decisions. Thus those who believe that decisions must always be governed by laws are simply abandoning their own freedom and responsibility and choosing to be ruled by the free decisions of those who came before them. Just as the deist model of the universe depends upon divine wisdom to frame its laws and set the machine in motion, liberals depend on the human wisdom of the founders who created the constitution.
Second, since the founders of a liberal system could not anticipate every exceptional circumstance, sovereignty must be exercised in the present day as well. Some liberal societies actually make constitutional provisions granting unlimited dictatorial power to an individual in emergency situations, for instance, article 48 of the Weimar constitution, which Adolf Hitler invoked to take dictatorial power.
But if a society makes no legal provisions for sovereign decisions in emergency situations, such decisions must still be made. Thus they will be made outside the framework of the official state. Such decisions may be made by important political figures, but not in their official capacities, which do not permit such decisions.
This, of course, is what is meant by the idea of a “deep state,” which, interestingly enough, is a Turkish contribution to contemporary political discourse. The Turkish idea of the deep state (derin devlet) refers to a network concentrated in the military and security services but spread throughout the bureaucracy and judiciary and intersecting with organized crime. The deep state works to maintain Turkey as a secular, nationalist society, primarily working against Islamists, Left-wing radicals, and Kurdish separatists. (The Turkish deep state seems to intersect with the crypto-Jewish Dönmeh community.)
A similar deep state heaved into the light in Egypt, when the Supreme Council of Armed Forces, in response the the Egyptian Revolution of 2011, removed President Hosni Mubarak from power. The SCAF then called elections, ceded power to the winner, Mohamed Morsi, and dissolved itself in June of 2012. In July of 2013, when Morsi proved unable to govern, he was removed in a military coup led by SCAF member Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, who is now the President of Egypt. After the coup, SCAF was officially reactivated, although it members were surely in close and constant contact with each other during its official hiatus, particularly in the run up to the coup.
The concept of a deep state overlaps with such notions as an establishment, a permanent bureaucracy, secret agencies, smoke-filled rooms, lobbies, political “inner parties,” NGOs and Quangos, and even secret societies, all of which shape political policy and negotiate between interest groups, which is just politics as usual.
But in Schmittian terms, this has nothing to do with sovereignty, which is comes to light when politics as usual breaks down. And in the cases of Turkey and Egypt, when the political system had been paralyzed by crisis, the deep state centered in the military intervened to preserve a secular, nationalist political order.
Since White Nationalists aim at creating the next political system, and since we are counting on the existing system to collapse under the weight of external shocks and internal corruption, it behooves us to understand where sovereignty resides in the present system. If, for example, America entered a constitutional crisis, who would exercise sovereign power to preserve the system? Where does the American deep state lie? Or, better: where would it emerge? What is the system’s last line of defense? Who will kill and die to preserve it?
Organized Jewry is the most powerful force in America today. In terms of politics as usual, Jews get their way in all matters that concern them. But although organized Jewry surely would intersect with an American sovereign deep state, if America faced a severe constitutional crisis, I do not think that Jews would step in to exercise the sovereign decision-making functions necessary to preserve the system. They would surely try to stave off a crisis for as long as possible, to preserve their wealth and power. Then they would try to milk a crisis for all it is worth. But ultimately, I do not think they would risk their own blood and treasure to preserve the American system, for the simple reason that the Jews today show no sign of caring about America’s long-term viability. It’s not their country, and they act like it. They are just using it, and using it up. They are not stewarding it for future generations. Therefore, they will not take responsibility for its preservation. In a real crisis, I think their deepest instinct would be simply to decamp to friendlier climes.
Would the American deep state emerge in the military? The military is currently the branch of government that Americans hold in highest esteem. But a fatal crisis might include catastrophic military failure. It might involve a standoff between the military and other institutions that can only be resolved by outside parties. It might also involve the American military massacring civilians. In which case, the military would enjoy very low esteem, and all Bonapartism would be off.
Liberal societies may be especially brittle when faced with systemic crises because liberalism corrodes virtue and excellence. Modern political thought promised stability by founding political order on widespread vices — greed and cowardice — rather than rare virtues like moderation, courage, wisdom, justice, and honor. But when the liberal machine breaks down — when it can no longer master crises — when it can no longer dispense rewards and punishments — when it depends for its salvation on the decisions of a sovereign, then liberalism’s very existence will require the virtues that it neglects if not outright disdains and discourages.
If you want to see real terror in an American’s eyes, simply propose a new constitutional convention. Most Americans would never trust their contemporaries with framing a new system because they believe, correctly, they are not just silly and ignorant but also downright vicious.
Wherever sovereignty would ultimately repose in a systemic crisis — wherever a deep state would emerge — what separates a true White Nationalist from a mere race-conscious reactionary is recognizing the system’s ultimate guardians as our worst enemies.
Note
1. Carl Schmitt, Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty
Enjoyed this article?
Be the first to leave a tip in the jar!
26 comments
Good thoughts on the weakness of big C constitutions especially in context of the deep state systems and the general liberal thought process.
My only issue comes down to ignoring where the West’s code of laws actually came from:
” Therefore, we need a code of general laws. And since a lot of conflicts are pretty much the same, there’s no harm in having general rules to adjudicate them.”
The state has conceived today is a modern liberal monstrosity becoming paticulary noticeable after the FDR administration. Hell even the legislative law systems that we cherish are relatively recent. The history of English Common law (and the roman one that preceded) are based of judges making judgements over time in relation to specific cases of injustice. As time goes on certain judgments are respected and codified into law.
If the main goal is to limit injustice and foster stability common law is the way to go. Legislative systems have far too much incentive to foster injustice.
Beyond that a very good article.
Right, if your system laws is old enough, you don’t even need a constitution (I don’t think Britain has one) .
But perhaps you still need someone to ultimately decide things if the system of laws itself fails in a crisis.
Thanks. I agree when it comes to constitutions. The body of law basically codifies the unspoken small c constitution of a group of people. Its an important distinction I hadnt thought about.
I very much doubt a system of laws would fail in a crisis if they are in a system that promotes justice. Laying down a legislative piece in a crisis just incentives the definition of crisis to become excessively vague.
That said the authority will need to take ACTION in a crisis. Men on the ground, clearing up causes, etc etc. Setting up laws doesnt sound like effective immediate action. Any injustices would need to be judged on the case between the accused and the victim. These crisises would actually instruct a body of law and in general seems to be incentivized toward justice rather than against.
Just or unjust, the law cannot anticipate every situation.
It seems to me sovereignty would reside in one of three places:
* The Federal government (in particular the military and whoever can pay/supply them)
* State government (in particular places)
* Local militia (again in specific areas)
In each case, sovereignty would be decided by boots on the ground and force post-collapse. It seems to me your conclusion may be a bit too rejectionist. Obviously there is no chance whatsoever that the Feds could be turned. America cannot be saved. But wouldn’t someone like Buchanan be likely to change his spots and be a little “franker” if a sympathetic secessionist government emerged?
It seems to me that there needs to be a massive cultural change among state-level white elites for the White Nationalist agenda to get anywhere. They will have to become aware of the unworkability of multicultural America and have read Buchanan, Taylor, MacDonald and others. Unfortunately the whitest states are often also those where liberal stupidity is most advanced because they’ve yet to be overwhelmed by racial problems. There’s a bit of Catch-22 there.
I am not convinced that independent militia can do much although they could be important for specific areas. Ultimately, à la Yugoslavia, the Feds and state bureaucracies/armed forces will play key roles as centers of power through their ability to apply organized violence. In this sense, beyond reaching out to the masses, White Nationalists need to conquer the minds of existing, dormant elites and prepare the new elites.
Thanks for your comments.
In a constitutional crisis, I think someone like Patrick Buchanan is actually more dangerous to whites than a Barack Obama, because my fear is that an American Caesar will come along and put the present genocidal anti-white system on more secure political foundations. Liberals simply lack the political realism to accomplish that. Conservatives have realism but do not share our vision. I do not want a multiracial America to become more stable and pragmatic. I want 24/7, amplifiers to 11, pedal-to-the-metal anti-white hate hitting the wall at 100 miles per hour.
If the US federal government effectively defaulted, sovereignty would most likely shift to existing state governments. That would be a good thing for white interests, simply because it is harder for the enemy to control 50 sovereign entities than one. The states would also be more responsible to the public on immigration and race issues.
I think state and private militias would be important factors in a post collapse America in the most racially diverse states, since there will be racial strife. Whites will have to band together to contain the spillage from black urban cores and Mestizo barrios. Since the most primitive form of obligation is based upon protection, militias could be the nuclei for new sovereign states to emerge.
I have some doubts about the viability of specifically Southern Nationalism in such a scenario.
First, when I lived in Atlanta, the majority of the people I knew — especially the wealthy and connected ones — were not Southerners. They weren’t necessarily hostile to Southerners, but they were not Southern. I just don’t know how many Southerners are left in the South and how much political clout they can muster.
Second, if the American federal government failed, white people in the South (which is not the same a Southern whites) would be concerned with security and prosperity. They would definitely be menaced by blacks and browns and learn very rapidly to think in racial terms. But they would not think in Yankee vs. South terms, and they would not think in terms of the South as a political entity, but in terms of existing state and local jurisdictions. So I think the Southern Nationalist idea would simply not be particularly useful in such a situation.
Please allow me a little correction: article 48 of the Weimar constitution was not used by Hitler. He did not need it; he had a majority in the Reichstag. President Hindenburg used it in the last years of the Weimar republic to ease things for chancellors like Bruening and von Schleicher who did not have majorities, and to keep Nazis and Communists off from ruling.
Correct me if I am wrong, but article 48 specifically stated that the president could act without consulting the parliament in states of emergency, which meant that a parliamentary majority was somewhat beside the point. At the time of the Reichstag fire, Hitler did not have a majority in the parliament. Hindenburg, who was president, invoked article 48 at Hitler’s request, placing emergency power in the hands of the cabinet, which was headed by Hitler, and from that point forward, Germany was essentially in a state of emergency until the end of the war. So I think article 48 was very important for Hitler’s rise to dictatorial power.
I have read Dictatorship, and it is the next Schmitt book I will write about. I have read Roman Catholicism, but it bears re-reading. I have not yet read Three Types of Juristic Thought. I did not even know it had been translated. Thanks for the tip.
Wherever sovereignty would ultimately repose in a systemic crisis — wherever a deep state would emerge — what separates a true White Nationalist from a mere race-conscious reactionary is recognizing the system’s ultimate guardians as our worst enemies.
Interesting, yet ambiguous. You seem to mean that non-Jewish white conservatives are the ultimate guardians. I think non-Jewish white mainstream conservatives are people who are basically confused. They are for whites subconsciously, but their conscious awareness is occupied by race-neutral ideological constructs. I don’t think these people are the ultimate guardians of the system any more than an autopilot is the ultimate pilot of an airplane.
I have a simple suggestion that will likely be ridiculed, but hear me out.
To locate the deep state, simply deny the Republican Party any civil legitimacy. In other words, assume that 30-50% of Republican voters stayed home on election day, or voted for a third party, or for local independent candidates, or for “Mickey Mouse” via the write-in option. Then follow the money and watch what happens. The Democrats would become administrators of a more or less one party state. This simply won’t do, of course. The moral authority to rule stems from the facade of civil legitimacy, at least while there remains a sizable, extremely well-armed, and technically proficient white demographic. So the oligarchy, er, Deep State will have its Democratic administrators in the political class put a hold on, or even back off from, some of its “progressive” reforms. Then they will “reform” the Republican Party in a somewhat Pat Buchanan direction (temporarily, for a generation or two at most). Or they will form a “populist” third party designed to (again, temporarily) attract white voters until the Republican Party is, for all practical purposes, killed off. As whites are gently lulled back to sleep and America’s newly naturalized citizens from the Third World start reproducing like gangbusters, the destruction will recommence.
I think you are misunderstanding the distinction between politics as usual and the state of emergency. You are describing politics as usual. We have a strange form of liberalism with divided powers, checks and balances, and legalism/bureaucracy, as well as federalism dividing powers between feds, states, and local governments, all of which are driven by the liberal desire to avoid placing hard choices in the hands of individuals who answer to no one else: i.e., absolute authority, final authority, the ability to make ultimate decisions without appeal. But Schmitt argues that is what sovereignty is. And no society can do without it when a state of emergency arises that cannot be dealt with by the existing system. And such states will always arise, because legislators cannot anticipate all circumstances.
The United States isn’t Turkey or Egypt. Neither do Adel$on and $immon$ play “politics as usual” at the pleasure of the U.S. military. I wouldn’t look for a “Deep State” in the 50 states. The civil war decided the issue of state sovereignty 150 years ago and Nixon’s federal “revenue sharing” put the icing on the cake. National Guard units are no longer “state militias,” and wouldn’t revert to that status even in the next to zero possibility of default by the U.S. government. Guard units will answer to the designated Federal chain of command. In the event of a “constitutional crisis” the command structure will answer to the power behind the banks that comprise the Federal Reserve, for only those entities may lawfully create money from debt, i.e., interest-bearing loans from nothing. In such a crisis loan collateral for the military and federal surveillance apparatus would be the wealth created by the bottom 99%, which, according to Wiki’s figures for wealth distribution, is 64% of the GDP.
I would not bet money on the reality of U.S. sovereignty. On the other hand I would be willing to place a few bucks against it.
Neither do I place any stock in a “Deep State” residing in the Illuminati, UFOs, or paranormal entities.
“If America entered a constitutional crisis, who would exercise sovereign power to preserve the system?”
Very interesting question. Based on my reading, possible answers include the following:
-the President
-Globalists/New World Order/International Bankers
-the Washington, DC Establishment/cocktail circuit (Democratic and Republican Party leaders, the mainstream media, Conservative, Inc., and Liberalism, Inc.)
-The National Security State
-Jews
-Secret societies (Illuminati, Freemasons, Skull and Bones, etc)
-Demons/Satanists/The anti-Christ
-Aliens/UFOs
Unlike Turkey or Egypt, America’s Deep State seems to include overlapping groups with different agendas. If crisis occurred, a makeshift alliance between some or all of the above groups would strive to preserve the status quo. Jews wouldn’t stick their necks out to lead the new authoritarianism, but they would certainly work in the background. Many military officers will push for martial law and side with the Establishment, but many more will abandon their posts. (The vast majority of military officers are white-conservative-Christian types.) Ultimately, I think the “diversity” of the American Establishment will work in our favor. They won’t be able to “get it together” or inspire confidence in the populace. Of course, it all depends on how deep the rabbit hole goes. If there is any truth to conspiracy theories involving paranormal realities at the heart of the Deep State (aliens/demons), it would too weird to even contemplate what happens after the collapse. (Before you dismiss these theories as nonsense, watch some of Richard Dolan’s videos on Youtube).
The most powerful men in America and the world have been meeting in secret for generations now. They obviously have a plan for unifying the world and it is well underway. Some of them seem to have a deep interest in Occultism, but the demon/alien idea is unnecessary. But it certainly works in their favor by getting people to dismiss the obvious as “conspiracy theory”.
Do the Elite have contingency plans for Emergencies? They are all about Emergencies and will create them if they don’t come naturally. But not all is lost – certainly the forces against them (both human and natural) are formidable, even if White Conservatives are not and seem committed to being confused and ineffective.
The most likely outcome is a soft totalitarianism of the deep state (as is, for example, being seen right now in the hopeless confrontation between unruly blacks and a militarized police in Missouri).
However, as the mistakes begin to pile up, a new secessionism will emerge and carry with it more legitimacy than the federal deep state. This provides the spark for the “constitutional crisis” that can only be solved with civil war, and this time the federal state cannot win because, despite the effectiveness of the debt based machinery, it doesn’t carry with it belief, and there won’t be sufficient recruits to operate the machinery.
Some sort of Soviet style breakup seems inevitable.
Schmitt’s concept of sovereignty is beguilingly simple, but when one thinks it through, the implications for the liberal project are devastating.
Your essay fails to substantiate this strong claim.
Furthermore, while authoritarian states are better positioned to respond to states of emergency – both because the populace is accustomed to taking orders and because the state machinery exists to issue them – they too have often failed to hold together. An exploration of alternatives to the liberal order should surely consider this point.
Then too there is the question of trade-offs between security and liberty. An image that always comes to mind for me is that of a survivalist holed up in his fortified compound awaiting a collapse that never comes. That’s few people’s vision of the good life.
Schmitt’s argument is that sovereignty is the sine qua non of political order. Sovereignty resides ultimately in men who make final decisions about the common good who are not bound by the existing institutions, or the existing laws (in other words, the prior decisions of other men) in states of emergency that were not anticipated by founders and legislators. Liberalism systematically seeks to dodge the sovereignty question through legalism, bureaucratic mechanisms, and dividing powers and pitting them against each other. Therefore, it is a weaker system, other things being equal, than other systems that face the personal and decisionistic nature of sovereignty honestly. That does not imply that these systems are immune to other forms of failure.
So in the end, because of this complexity and division, we may not know who is actually calling the shots – perhaps some bureaucrat unknown to any outside his office. And god knows who he or she takes their orders from. Of course no matter what the system, personal weakness is always going to be a possibility. Thus Wilson had his Baruch, Nixon his Kissinger, and Obama his Jarrett.
-the President
The President has been a puppet for decades, perhaps for generations. There is a well developed system in place to weed out actual leaders before election, and a system in place to keep him in line after election. A president going rogue might happen in extraordinary circumstances, but the likelihood is that when the crisis comes, the person occupying the office will be just another empty suit.
-Globalists/New World Order/International Bankers
Who are the ones currently driving us off a cliff.
A deep state must have some kind of interest in the long term survival and health of the state; the bankers are short term oriented, get rich quick scam artists of the worst sort. They don’t give a damn about the long term viability of the USA; they are looters, and thus are not likely to be a deep state.
-the Washington, DC Establishment/cocktail circuit (Democratic and Republican Party leaders, the mainstream media, Conservative, Inc., and Liberalism, Inc.)
These are the people who are the ‘politics as usual’ people, thus according to Schmitt’s view, they are not involved in questions of actual sovereignty. To do so they would have to change their nature but that is unlikely. No doubt there are deep state elements lurking within and monitoring the ‘politics as usual’ crowd, but they are not of said crowd.
-The National Security State
Warmer.
-Jews
Jews heavily overlap with the banker/globalist category and the ‘politics as usual’ category. They don’t care about the long term viability of the USA, and it shows. Not deep state.
-Secret societies (Illuminati, Freemasons, Skull and Bones, etc)
Mere socializing/recruiting tools for various elite groups. The tinfoil hat crowd make too big a deal out of these.
-Demons/Satanists/The anti-Christ
-Aliens/UFOs
Worse than useless tinfoil hat fantasy/paranoia.
Not mentioned in the above list: the military. The US military is unlikely to get involved in a coup or any political situation. Their tradition and training is to avoid these; they are not, be design, intended to be sovereign. Yet they are more conservative, white, and Christian, than the leftist ruling class, and thus not trusted by the powers that be. You can see the steady process at work trying to make the military an uncomfortable place for conservatives; gays in the military being but one example, women in combat another. No doubt there is an affirmative action process in place to promote racial minorities and other reliable leftist elements into high positions in the military, to guard against conservative influence in the event of a crisis. One result of this is an increasingly incompetent military, excluding the combat arms perhaps as they still tend to be white. If there were ever to be a military type coup, it would have to be long prepared for by career military officers who knew each other well and had a network built up – as our frenemy Mencius Moldbug has noted, if he were going to organize a coup he would have started building up such a network within the elite officer class some twenty years ago. You can’t build these things overnight. The political establishment has been poking its fingers in the eyes of the military for the past half century or so; more obviously so in the past 10 years, but still obvious enough to be noted as far back as the 1960s. If conservatives in the military haven’t been quietly organizing themselves by now, they never will.
Now, about the National Security State. These are potentially the most interesting and formidable groups, especially if they were allied with the military. They haven’t been collecting all of that data for the heck of it; they are building up profiles of all Americans and in a crisis some very interesting things could happen. Not necessarily the kinds of things we fear, exactly, either; intelligence is a sword that cuts both ways, and everything depends on the hand that wields the sword. There are people within the National Security State (FBI, CIA, NSA, etc) who are well aware of the Israeli role within the 911 events (and I don’t mean the usual ‘truther’ nonsense either – google things like ‘911 dancing Israelis’ and ‘Israeli art students’ and Carl Cameron’s series on Fox News about Israeli spying and espionage that was pulled off the air back in 2001). One assumes there are still some white gentile Americans in the National Security State who are pissed off about this; they can’t all have been purged or bought off (of course one could have said the same thing about the Lavon Affair or the sinking of the USS Liberty, but nothing has come of these so far, either). These are also the types of analysts who can see that the country is being driven off a financial cliff by the bankers, and they know who these people are, much better than you or I do. Likewise they can see that the push for globalization is making the USA economically weaker, and thus ultimately militarily weaker as well. It’s their job to plan for the long term strength of the USA but the political system is telling them to do the exact opposite; at some point this conflict should come out into the open (one would hope).
Greg is right to fear a ‘conservative’ solution to a crisis which simply shores up the anti-white system so that it can limp along for a few more generations until we are completely racially swamped. Given that alternative, a complete collapse is preferable. But, there is a third option, perhaps very unlikely, but worth considering. Suppose there are elements within the deep state who aren’t just reactionary conservatives, but who are long range thinkers and planners who can see where all of this is going, and realize that the course we are on is unsustainable. They would realize that the course has to be reversed, and the only way to do that is to use some crisis in future to bring about a coup of some kind and institute a new regime; they would also realize that you couldn’t simply have a military coup and try to ‘restore the constitution’ or some such silly libertarian/constitutionalist conservative nonsense that is the type of thinking currently gumming up the works of ‘liberal reactionary’ (ie, conservative American) minds. What to do? A truly new regime is a revolution, a break with the past, and for that you need a revolutionary ideology to justify it. White Nationalism is one such ideology, and the only one that makes any sense if you are trying to preserve the long term racial viability of the USA rather than see if break down into a balkanized third world mediocrity that would be incapable of supporting a true National Security State. This is where the naked self-interest and enlightened self-interest of the National Security State could meet, IMO, in a happy marriage of convenience with White Nationalism, if there is a visionary lurking somewhere within the National Security State who could use, or engineer, a crisis to bring about such a revolution. Which is doubtful. But, I throw the possibility out there for your consideration.
I realize that the possibility I have outlined above will absolutely appall libertarians and constitutionalists, but I submit that it is preferable to the other viable alternatives; and ‘restoring the constitution’ is not one of the viable alternatives that actually exist in our time and place, IMO. We literally ‘can’t get there from here’; we can’t go back and restore the Constitution as it existed 50 years ago, much less 100 or 200 years ago; we are not the same people we were then, and cultural and political conditions have changed, and cannot be restored in the way some people think. At some point pining for the past lurches from mere nostalgia into political necrophilia.
Very well put.
All the instincts of liberalism are the pass the buck regarding the issue of sovereignty. In a crisis, the major players will be staring at each other, waiting for someone else to lead, fearing responsibility, thinking of Nuremberg . . . and letting things slip further out of control.
That is why I don’t think it is productive to ask where the deep state is so much as to ponder where it will emerge.
And I think it will probably emerge in some realm of the National Security State, for the principal reason you state: they think long-term about the survival of the system. The military does that too, of course, or at least that is one of the accidental side effects of war-gaming and contingency planning.
And since White Nationalists also think long term about the survival of this system, and since we understand the most important factors in history and are not blinded by the Great Lie of human equality, I do think there is a natural confluence of WN thinking and the responsibilities of the security state.
Of course these people, like most people, are hemmed in by the existing system. But one of the defining traits of Schmitt’s Ernstfall — the state of emergency, the state of the exception — is that the existing control mechanisms waver and break down. Then many things will become possible.
We saw a brief moment of this kind of crisis paralysis in the constitutional system during the Florida election crisis of 2000. You could sense the relief – it was palpable – when the Supreme Court ended the crisis. Not because everyone agreed with the decision – obviously many did not – but everyone was relieved that someone else had made the decision. In Schmitt’s terms I guess you could say that the Supreme Court exercised sovereignty, because it wasn’t exactly clear beforehand, what kind of authority they had in that case. But, once they declared that they had the authority, everyone went along with it. Because, better to let them decide then have a true crisis in the system.
Is there anyone else besides the National Security State, the military, and White Nationalists who are thinking of the long term survival of anything, these days? I mean, amongst white westerners that is? Ecologists and environmentalists, perhaps, yet so many of them seem to have been captured by the equality crowd and their friends in big government (a hazard of working for the universities, I would imagine).
That’s a good example. One really has to look at fine-grained journalistic accounts of crises to see these issues at work.
Adrian Davies told me once about the end of the East German regime. When Honecker’s generals demanded written orders to start mowing down protesters, they were thinking about Nuremberg and wanted Honecker to take full sovereign responsibility for preserving the regime. When Honecker, also thinking about Nuremberg, refused to put his orders in writing, he in effect defaulted on sovereignty, and the regime began to unravel.
When Hindenburg gave Hitler an ultimatum: deal with Rohm or I will order the military to, Hitler had to act, because if he did not solve the crisis, he and the NSDAP would surrender sovereignty to Hindenburg and the military.
The National Security State thinks long term about the survival of the system. We think long term about the survival of the race. Ecologists think long term about the survival of the planet. We have slightly different interests and therefore can have at best limited cooperation. The ecologists, however, have the most overlap. We only have to save one species, the white race, to save all the rest.
In Pierce’s novel Hunter, Oscar Yeager kills the FBI chief who shows a certain amount of realism and ruthlessness but basically just wants to put the Jew-dominated, white ethnocidal system on firmer foundations. We don’t want to conserve this system. Yet most of our people have fundamentally conservative instincts. So they are constantly being seduced by the Pat Buchanans and Ron Pauls and Rand Pauls and Vladimir Putins, who do not want what we want. Every WN needs to wrap his mind around that particular episode in Hunter. Yeager shoots the FBI guy in the gut. His comment is something to the effect that “You want stasis. I want revolution.” That is the real issue.
One of the sovereign functions is to determine who your friends are and who your enemies are. The sovereign declares war; the sovereign creates alliances. An even deeper level of sovereignty is determining who “we” are. As the old hippie saying goes, “War is when the government tells you who your enemy is. Revolution is when you decide for yourself.” White Nationalists have decided who we are. We are not “Americans.” Our nation is our race. We have also decided who our friends are and who our enemies are. That makes us revolutionaries.
The Deep State is our real enemy. It is the anti-white system’s last line of defense.
At least it is for now.
Snowden shows us how unstable even the National Security State is. He decided his friends and enemies for himself. It is possible that as White Nationalist ideas permeate the culture, they will influence the thinking of the National Security State.
Hell, I want them to spy on us. I want them to keep tabs on us. I want them to think about what we are saying. Because I want to change people’s thinking. And they have to pay attention first. Unfortunately, our enemies are paying better attention than most of our friends.
Comments are closed.
If you have a Subscriber access,
simply login first to see your comment auto-approved.
Note on comments privacy & moderation
Your email is never published nor shared.
Comments are moderated. If you don't see your comment, please be patient. If approved, it will appear here soon. Do not post your comment a second time.
Paywall Access
Lost your password?Edit your comment