Enclavism: The Need For A new System
Previous Piece: The Enclavism Book: Introduction
The Need for a New System
Section 1: The Fall of the Republic
The republic is collapsing.
We are far from the first, nor will we be the last, to recognize this descent. This was a sentiment repeated many times throughout history when the people of the republic accepted the reality of their situation. When they finally recognized that there was no way out and no turning back. When they realized that everything they once knew was ending.
It’s happening now, too. The republic, by its very configuration, is in a constant state of decline from its conception. Its fate is one of inevitable collapse. Neither would we desire it to continue indefinitely. During a republic’s descent, degeneracy[i] and the societal ills that accompany that decline are prolific. These degenerative traits are far from new but are always damaging. Escaping them becomes more important than preserving whatever remains.
The republic of today is not the republic of yesterday. The republic, as it was envisioned, was supposed to be a mixture of different systems of government. One that harmonized them all to prevent the pure expression of any other. It was not to be a “democracy” (a pure expression of one of the frameworks). This is a bastardization of the original intent. The American founding fathers knew the risks of democracy from all the ancient democratic civilizations and especially those found within Western Civilization itself. All democracies fail; this was known. But the problem with the republic is that they, by their nature, descend into a democracy. The forward march from there is then obvious.
We must find a solution to stop this continual degeneration. But before we can find a solution, we must first know the cause. Many pundits of the latter days in degenerative societies can point out the many symptoms of the decline, but not the underlying disease. That disease is the governmental framework they based the republic on. It’s the foundation itself.
Let’s begin with the basics. What is “government”? There are numerous terms in this book that to the untrained eye have a similar meaning. But to the trained eye these terms mean drastically different things, and we need to differentiate between them: nation, state, country, government, and political system. The nation is the collective group of culturally homogeneous, similar peoples that share blood and history. The state is the political government and its leaders that house the nation(s). Conversely, the country is the geographic territory of the nation or state. Government is defined as the system and framework governing an organized community, often a nation-state. It is the entire system of governance, such as a rule-by-many republic. Given these definitions, a state could be composed of numerous nations but will always have only one government and one country.
State comes from the Latin root of “stand” or “to stay,” which meant sustainment and grounding in the face of our nomadic past. The state provided a means of not being entrapped by the constant pressures of nature and gave us a structure through which we could reach for something higher instead of living solely to survive. The state gave us this by using a government to secure the nation. Then, the state formed itself around law, in both a legal and cultural sense. It used divinity to see the future, tradition to learn from the past, and the law and culture to act as a catalyst for the present. The state, using a particular system of government that is carefully selected and heralded by the nation, is what gives us sustainment within the geographic boundary that we call our country.
Government is used as a tool for how power is distributed within a society. This is its most important task. The government must determine that distribution of power. But that leads us to the next question: What is power, and who holds it? We favor James Burnham’s definition of power.[ii] He defines power as the control of access to whatever the society views as valuable, along with preferential treatment in the distribution of that particular asset. The valued asset differs depending on the civilization. For example, a feudal society would view land as the most valuable asset, whereas a capitalist’s most valuable asset would be money. True, deep-rooted power is whoever controls the access and benefits from that most valued item. This also becomes a nested source of power because everyone in the country wants, or needs, this asset. Thus, control of that access creates many subservient people to those who have it. The “ruling class” is then whoever controls this access.
The difference in the distribution of power at first glance might appear insignificant, yet the result of even minor changes is dramatic. In initial republic- or democratic-style governments, the idea is that the power is vested in the people through well-balanced power centers. In an ideal capitalistic republic, money is not centralized. The control is distributed relatively evenly throughout the country between the public, the state, and the institutions. Money is not centralized under the control of the political class, an upper class, or a lower class, but is spread relatively evenly to satisfactorily represent a proper power distribution among the masses. Sure, some make more than others, but there is no overt centralization of the wealth or the ability to earn it. In other words, there is no direct control over the access to money. The same is true of the other management levers of government. Control is dispersed: the institutions control themselves, the public controls the government, and the government controls their limited dominion defined by the constitution. Power is thus dispersed evenly throughout the state between the three key power centers: the state, institutions, and the people. In an ideal scenario, no one group has more power than the other. The republic is unique in this regard as being the only form of government that balanced this allocation equally in the short term between all societal actors. No other form has done this, which we will elaborate on later.
However, as republics turn degenerative (late-stage republics), this distribution changes. This change nearly always begins with the floating of wealth into the hands of the isolated class (for now we will use an unfavorable but familiar term—”financial elites” to define this class) through laissez-faire capitalism or other means. These financial elites are individuals such as influential large business owners, globalists, billionaires, and bankers. The state, being chiefly noninterventionist, is unable to properly balance the access to money in the country. In a republic, they are not designed to do so. The financial elite use their overwhelming capital to fight for more centralization of the power and control. Over time, they acquire it. They not only regulate themselves, but they also start regulating the government. Centralization occurs. These elite become more powerful than the state because they now control the key levers of what the state is supposed to manage. They have gained an uneven advantage over the allocation of power. At the root of the issue, they have gained an unfair advantage over the governmental system. Unlike the state, these isolated elites are not accountable for their actions. They are beholden to none besides themselves. In most cases of degeneration, as we shall see, they outright buy the government using their position as financial centralizers. The benevolent republic vanishes. Oligarchy or mob rule ensues.
What was just described is only one step of centralization—a small piece of the overall puzzle. These degenerative elements enact hundreds of similar actions through different pathways. The framework that the republic uses not only permits these occurrences, but, as you could likely infer from the non-interventionist aspect of the republic, they also encourage it by promoting certain behavior. The same problems occur in nonfinancial realms, such as academia, culture, and the political sphere. True power is siphoned through every area of the state to a select few.
The same underlying disease can be found during each collapse. That disease is centralization. Therein lies a core hypothesis of this book: the republic falls because of component centralization. You cannot sustain a free and healthy republic if those same republican conditions permit it to be freely and openly centralized by an elite few.
Comparing another style of government such as communism or fascism can also be helpful when learning about the distribution of power. These two forms of government are remarkably different in practice but share little difference in their distribution of power. By this, we mean that both forms center the power and control solely with the state, who then ensure they control the allocation of the desired good. The national people and the institutions have a muted voice. The financial elite do not actually exist, instead being morphed into a politburo-financial elite hybrid. Any financial elite would just be government actors in different clothing. In practice, these forms of government simply centralize every important societal resource among the political caste. While that doesn’t necessarily matter yet, what does matter is that the foundation of how the government works differs only slightly from a degenerative republic. A communist government has the power centralized under the political elite. In a degenerative republic, the power is component centralized under a financial or cultural elite. In both scenarios, it is merely centralization by an elite. The people do not have any aspect of control over their government or institutions. Instead, they are actors that toil within this realm under those who do. Every democratic framework, through their degeneration, returns to this type of centralization. This is not a coincidence; this is by design.
In nearly all instances of modern government, we have a situation where the distribution of power is determined by one type of person: an elite. The elite are always in flux based on the structure of the government, but they act in the same void.
We call these elites “centralizers” for reasons that are likely already obvious: they are uniquely positioned authorities that favor centralization for their own benefit. When one hears “elite” they think of their alleged better or superior. This is an undue, undeserved honorary title granted to the enemy. We instead call them centralizers because it more aptly encapsulates who they are and what they seek to accomplish.
The more democratic governments often have the initial centralizer in the form of the wealth holder. Whereas the aristocracy holds the initial centralizer in the form of the politician or unaccountable cultural institution. You could also consider the puppet-holders or the strongmen to be the centralizers during mob rule. The list goes on. Our centralizer, regardless of their preferred avenue of centralization, is still doing the same thing. They are pushing for hegemony and consolidation of power to benefit their social group.
Because of the proclivity of human desire, it is difficult for a centralizer to stay in their position and not desire more. It also does not help that the republic encourages them to desire more.
Having societal elites is not necessarily a problem, it is just a reality that must be accepted. If you removed all of one kind of elite, new elites would simply arise through the same channels as the old ones. So long as the distribution of power is managed effectively, it never becomes an issue. It is when this balance is thrown off that problems arise. It is when the powerful become centralizers and the people have no means of holding them accountable that the problems occur. This is when the clock ticks much faster for the republic. Therein lies the main problem, that this distribution is never managed effectively in a republic because the design of the republican framework does not permit it to do so. The underlying framework demand a free-for-all society that naturally allows the malevolent to seek hegemony at its own expense.
The late-stage democratic systems around the world have been exploiting their citizens since their decline began. The individuals holding the actual power and control over the citizenry are rarely, if ever, accountable to their electorate. Socialism, fascism, and communism do no better at this task of requiring the power-holders to be held accountable in the long term. In actuality, most of them do significantly worse than the republic. So, are we forced to accept the low-class offering of an eventually collapsing republic to escape the unforgiving episodes of more totalitarian options?
Our answer is no. We must create a better option. The premise that there are only these legacy forms of government and none other must be confronted. All limits on our options are artificially constructed and false. New designs can be built and trialed. We have advanced, and our political systems and frameworks should advance with us.
Which brings us to the central point of this text. The individuals who own the distribution of power will eventually dominate the nation-state. They are also the only people that can ensure the long-term viability of a nation. Therefore, if we are to establish a governmental framework that does not degenerate, we must ensure two things: that centralization cannot occur, and that the balance of power remains static throughout each layer of society and is of benefit to the vanguards of that society, not a malignant class.[iii]
Many people are conned into believing in the short-term benefits of democracy and its spin-off, the republic. But do they truly understand the long-term ramifications of such a state and the political cycle that destroys them? We doubt so.
The reality of the situation is devastating. The destruction, the suffering, and the political corruption required to fuel democratic states long term is nothing short of resounding. Even then, these states won’t last forever. Even if we only took the singular issue that we addressed in this section of financial centralization, it clearly demonstrates how the republic will eventually fall to an oligarchy. But that is ignoring the hundreds of other degenerative factors that also plague the system and the framework it manifests from: these factors we will thoroughly, and damningly, disclose.
Which then begets the usual retort: “If a republic cannot work, surely a novel or reformed form of democracy can save us!” But this does not take into consideration that the reason the republic fails is not because of the republican system itself but the framework that it manifests from (the rule-by-many framework), which is the shared framework that both the republic and other democratic systems use. Which means that all forms of modern democratic societies will inevitably degenerate to a point of collapse.
Section 2: The Descent of Democracy
Picture a basic miniature train setup, which goes from one end to another, with no loop. The track is the framework. The train itself is the system. We cannot alter the tracks in the same way that we cannot alter a government framework without changing it entirely. If you take away control from the many in a rule-by-many framework (such as democracy), then it is no longer a rule-by-many. In the same way, if you remove or change pieces of our track, it is no longer the same track. We must follow the framework regardless of the system. The framework will lead us to wherever it leads us. The system cannot change this. Changing the system merely changes our appearance and the speed with which we follow the framework.
At the end of the framework, there is a trap lying in wait. Even if we know the trap is there, we can do nothing to stop it because we have chosen to journey upon this track. No matter what system we use—no matter how slow a train we use—we eventually reach that point of no return. This is why the issue, as we will show in later chapters, is not the system of choice. It is that each system is based on these frameworks, which inevitably have a catastrophic derailing lying at the end of them. It does not matter if you choose a republic, or a constitutional monarchy, or a parliamentary democracy, or a direct democracy: they all share the same track, the same framework.
If all forms of the rule-by-many framework will fall, then so will any form of democracy, as it is just another possible train on the rule-by-many track.
But democracy is an especially egregious instance of the rule-by-many framework because it can be one of the most catastrophic systems for a nation during its descent. It can change the usual cycle of political collapse into a graveyard for a national people. Its risks are high and its reward fleeting.
Democracy is often described as a government by the people, “for the people.” It is envisioned as an ideological incarnation of the common man. Which means that it is a representation for the average man. Consequently, democracy at its absolute best is a government of the average, by the average, for the average. At its worst, it is far less endearing.
It is imperative going forward that we understand that democracy was essentially a tool to gain individual and constitutional freedoms. It was a means, not the end in itself. By not being an end, it was always at risk of the means changing.
Democracies use a rule-by-many framework where, theoretically, a majority holds the source of power. This is rarely the case for long, however. In practice, in a democracy, the people are a lot less important than whoever controls the average majority. The real power rests with whoever holds power over this majority.[iv]
Democracy is at risk for many vices, one of the worst being the constantly looming risk of mob rule, which is displayed often in progressivism. We all share an innate desire for a better future and share the hope that we are progressing toward something better. This desire does not change when looking at an individual’s political worldview. This progressive worldview produces troubling effects, however. We fall into the psychological bubble of seeing our nation and history as merely a pathway along an ever-linear stretch toward some perfect future. Ryszard Legutko’s book The Demon in Democracy explains this effect in painstaking detail.[v] We mistake our new traits as something “new” to humanity as a whole even though this could not be further from the truth. As we will show, everything “progressive” about democratic degeneration has happened hundreds of times over throughout history. Democracy is just the latest golden-calf incarnation of this false belief.
Our American state, like every other similar framework state, has gone through the identical sequence of events. Our “progress” is merely the decadence of a prior nation before framework collapse. There is nothing new that we offer in terms of political progression. The idea that what we are going through now is new, or that history is a linear pathway to betterment, is historically inaccurate. The traits, beliefs, and actions that our nations exhibit today do not differ from the precollapse nations of the past. In terms of real government progress, or what I would call enhanced national sustainability and secured liberty, there has been no long-term betterment. What we have witnessed is merely a recycling of the failed states of the past. We continue beating our head against the wall by foolishly trying them time and time again, expecting a different outcome.
Each system of democracy has a nasty habit of causing its own demise in its own unique way, but many forms share striking similarities. One common example is the decline evidenced through its own electorate system. The voters willingly vote for their own cycle of political collapse because of the rule of the average voter (they are under-informed, pandered to, or some other malicious action). Some countries take a long time to reach this eventual decline. Famous examples, such as Rome and the United States, come to mind. Others are more expeditious, like Venezuela.
In Venezuela, they had relatively free markets and democratic operating principles in the 1970s. They also happened to be the wealthiest country in Latin America during this time. During their positive stages and their ascent, they operated in a generally democratic manner. Over time, their democratic institutions declined, the financial sector failed, human investment fell, and government policies drastically siphoned the wealth away.[vi] By the time Hugo Chavez was democratically voted into power, the free market structure in Venezuela was already in a downward spiral. Chavez enacted significant social reforms, such as nationalizing key industries, implementing costly social programs, and enacting unsustainable socialistic deficit spending, along with price controls. This led to a centralized planned economy instead of a competitive one. This variant of socialism rapidly led to the utter collapse of Venezuela and its currency. For an example, $1 in Venezuela in 1980 is equivalent to the purchasing power of approximately $125,157,331,137,000.00 in 2020.[vii] You read that correctly: one dollar is now equivalent to over one hundred and twenty-five trillion dollars. Venezuela was in freefall already because of antidemocratic centralization and mismanagement, but centralized socialism made it much worse. They now have hyper-inflation, government control of nearly everything with no rule-by-many democratic methods to resolve it, fake voting, and some of the poorest living standards in Latin America. This from a country that was a quite stable democracy since the late 1950s, while most of Latin America was under a military dictatorship. A quick turnaround for a country that was richer than comparable countries such as Greece, Spain, and Israel.[viii] They were democratic. If democracy is invincible and a path to progress, what happened?
While the situation in Venezuela is saddening, it is also an interesting case study. You can see the exact downfall of democratic systems in fast forward. Where most democratic systems take many decades or even centuries, Venezuela shows their collapse in a few short decades.
Did a military coup or other violent rebellion occur against the wealthiest country in Latin America? No, the people in Venezuela voted for this, and the institutions took over. Some would blame socialism, but that is reductionist logic and a post hoc fallacy. The centralizers in their democracy pushed for this. Their democracy fell for a myriad of reasons, but socialism was not the cause: it was just the final striking blow. The primary reason was centralization of power into the hands of a few, distorting the proper balance. It went from a rule-by-many to a rule-by-few due to the institutions slowly thieving power from the masses with the consent of the average. This loss of power from the many was the primary cause. This only can happen because of the centralization of power by the few.
They voted for their own eventual demise, without knowing or considering this as a consequence. After Chavez was in, Venezuela no longer had the power to change its destiny through traditional means. The average no longer had a say. It is now a socialist state, with all the economic and power distribution failings that come with that system. This electoral system, and the democratic system that supported it, hammered the final nail in its own coffin.
These types of actions by the majority electorate are one of many reasons the rule-by-many democracy is unsustainable. People do not always vote in their best interest because they are not educated politically. The majority are also not that interested in the political workings of their system often until it is far too late to change it. The majority would rather not be involved at all, given the option. We have seen throughout history a gradual descent from democracy to a much worse system due to the natural failings and lack of safeguards that the framework exhibits.
If centralization can occur, even when the people hold the source of power, then it is not just the people that are at fault. The framework is also at fault for allowing loopholes to exist where centralization can sneak in and distort the power balance over time. The same issues and problems arose in ancient republic and democratic civilizations of the past. Many times, these failings are not unpredictable. Nor are they external.
If we understand history, we can see the centralizers approaching long before they arrive. The largest threat that democracy has is its own centralizers, who profit and exploit the system to the point that the framework eventually caves in on itself. Venezuela did so with its oil tycoon oligarchy and the political centralizers connected to it. Others can and do take different paths through different centralizers. Before continuing, we should address the main four paths of centralization in a society.
There are four potential centralizer groups in any nation: the political arena centralizer (politburo—a segment of the state), the financial arena centralizer (isolated class), the cultural arena centralizer (sensitive cultural markers or “SCMs”), and the intellectual arena centralizer (intelligentsia). These four groups are imperative in understanding the intra-national dynamic of the political cycle of collapse.
A good example that shows the full spectrum of centralizers is the connection between immigration and nongovernmental organizations (“NGO”) in Europe that have brought in millions of culturally unassimilable migrants. The NGO-Immigration example includes all the centralizers in different parts.
The story starts off with the nongovernmental organizations.[ix] NGOs are part of the institutional power center in any state. Certain NGOs will import immigrants and refugees into their host nation under the guise of “humanitarian aid” or another real-agenda hidden slogan. Examples of these NGOs could be a migrant resettlement business, a politicized church, or pro-refugee association. These NGOs are acting as a cultural catalyst. This is usually done by advancing, promoting, or encouraging further nonhomogeneous immigrants to come into the European nation. Thus, they are sensitive cultural markers acting in the cultural arena.
The NGOs are paid for by the isolated class, who finance them to get immigrants into the host nation for numerous personal financial or other benefits. For example, the isolated class usually own the other businesses that get significant tax benefits for housing, working with, and employing the migrants. They also get kickbacks from the state for their “philanthropy” and a cheap supply of labor. In doing so, the isolated class also aid the centralization efforts of their cultural and politburo allies.
This action benefits the politburo, who encourage these activities because it helps subsidize their voting electorate with state-dependent persons. It also creates discord, making it easier to centralize power as well as adopt more authoritarian practices, causes a friction point through which they can win elections, and launders their own money that they will receive back from the isolated class through various means such as campaign donations.
The intelligentsia is then funded directly by the isolated class (who, as we just explained, are directly funded by the state) to promote centralizer-friendly material and to target any investigative research into this cooperative agreement. They work in the interest of migrants, refugees, and the centralizers in advancing their goals through an “intellectual” arena lens. They get funded to write the journal articles preaching the benefits of cultural heterogeneity, refugees, and diversity.
The cultural, political, financial, and intellectual realms are staffed by centralizers that work together to advance their common goals. They all cooperate with one another in this framework for their own personal benefit. Within traditional democracy, there are no proper tools given to the people to combat this societal self-destruction, because there are no framework tools provided to overcome the institutions that make up three of the four arenas.
Each major power arena in the society works cooperatively with others to fulfill the agenda of the other and at the marginal benefit of each other. The different centralizer groups instinctively recognize that progress toward centralization benefits them all, even if indirectly or minimally at first. They all have an instinctive nature to pursue further centralization, given the democratic environment provided to them.
Money comes in from billionaire philanthropists, millionaire business owners, or other cash-funneling individuals who manage or have some connection with immigration in the country. The cultural marker NGOs get their bellies fat from the financial centralizers and import immigrants en masse. They also culturally attack and disparage any native citizens who do not submit. The centralizer “philanthropies” their money away to get a larger rate of return for their “charity”. A lot of this money goes right back to the coffers of the political centralizer to help with their reelection and continued support of the other centralizer groups. The intelligentsia lay the intellectual framework to allow this to happen and abruptly attacks anyone who tries to investigate or stop it. The state and isolated class have infinite funds to provide for these organizations. Other centralizer groups then use their power to support the reelection of the same politicians fraudulently supplying them. It’s a cycle of aid. The taxpayers are powerless to do anything about it while being forced to fund it: including paying for both the societal cost of immigration and the cost of funding the billionaire philanthropist’s resettlement business.
Over time, in a democracy, this centralization and centralizer cooperation prove unstoppable. We cannot have a rule-by-many when a few centralize all the power in the state slowly over time. We cannot stop a few when the entire framework is built around decentralization for the many. Decentralization will always be at risk of malicious actors within the many seeking centralization. It only takes time and persistence for them to win. Then the state is no longer a democracy; it is a puppet democracy controlled by the behind-the-scenes financial, political, intellectual, and cultural arena centralizers. Philanthropists, NGOs, the wealthy, the media, the politicians, the academics, and all the other centralizers are factors in this process. They work together to bring down the nation so they can recreate it in a new image where they hold more power.
The most interesting part of this story is that the NGO example is but one tiny instance of the centralizer’s stranglehold on republics and democracies. There are hundreds of examples of similar actions that lead to centralization downfall and thousands of methods that the different centralizer groups can use to reach comparable conclusions. We just discussed the process of how a democracy falls into an oligarchy because of the decentralization provided to the financial centralizer. However, a takeover by other centralizers, such as a cultural arena centralizer, can be just as catastrophic, and this stripe of centralizer has just as many avenues at their disposal to do so. The framework, the rule-by-many, requires that they have these through decentralization of the many.
Think about the power through the combination of these centralization groups. Through the combination takeover of information distribution and culture, the cultural centralizers can lead to splintering levels of degeneracy and degrading internal cohesion, leading to social conflict. This social conflict often proves fatal for a framework that relies on the civility, active involvement, and unification of the many. Even further, a politburo could elect their own new voters through immigration agendas funded by the isolated class that “the many” have little to no control over. This new power granted to the politburo by their own self-election of the voting demographics can allow them to siphon more control away from the many until the politburo is the few. With more control, the politburo can centralize enough power to render futile the actions of the many. These various methods of democratic subversion are notorious.
Democracy provides no safeguards against things like this from occurring. In fact, it wasn’t designed to even attempt to stop such rampant deterioration. Democracy shares the same end goal as communism (a false ideal of utopia and “equality” that can never occur due to human nature), so it is to no surprise that it does not provide the means to prevent certain degeneration goals from being achieved.[x] Ironically, democracy is just as contrary to the natural order as communism. Both systems, while based on completely different frameworks, still operate under an assumption that every single person is “equal.” Democracy does this through the one-man, one-vote concept, while communism does this through forced economic reorganization. But that assumption is unequivocally false. We are not all created equal and never will be. Hierarchies are an innate reality of the human condition. Anything starting from an incorrect premise such as this will naturally lead a nation into a web of political falsehoods, culminating in inevitable failure. The nation must be grounded in truth or the foundational lies will lead to degeneration during the centralization process.
Again, these are just a few examples of how democracy is unable to sustain itself. We will discuss more examples throughout this book, and thousands more could be personally formulated with a quick historical education.
Where a democracy often starts off in relative equanimity with regard to the distribution of power, it doesn’t last long. Distortion is rapid. The centralizers are never satiated. They yearn for more and more until their power extends over the entire society and they control everything. Once this happens, the power cannot be reversed. It is far too ingrained. It requires a collapse or a governmental framework shift to move forward.
There are plenty of other issues leading to the downfall of democracy, and nearly all of them are to the benefit of centralizers. Take greed for another example. The democratic economic implementation of a free market that fosters a rule-by-many economy incentivizes the pursuit of money over everything else. The economy and money become the drivers of everything—a sole focus of the nation. This mindset leads to an initially great economy. Yet, a lot of money goes to the isolated class, which begins to own that economy through monopolistic actions. The bedrock of any civilization, such as family, community, and culture, takes a backseat to economic growth. Nothing else matters aside from satiating our economic and growth desires. Can anyone honestly say they are surprised that degeneracy, narcissism, and individualism occur given these conditions? It is an innate trait of an economic system centered on the constant pursuit of more. With a long enough timeline, the once great economy cannot offset the societal costs of ever-expanding degeneracy or centralization that arises due to the same traits that it promotes. This is the irony of the system. The economy is a means to an end for both the nation and the state, but democracies have a hard time recognizing this until it is far too late.
Democracy also struggles to contain or control the culture. They have no tools at their disposal to do so. Every critical sustainment factor in a nation is downstream from culture because culture is the exemplification of the national soul.[xi] Politics, traditions, beliefs, acceptance of actions, morality, and so forth all rest on culture’s contribution. If a nation is “free” enough to degenerate its core values, then eventually there will be nothing left worth fighting for. The vanguards will cease trying. Centralizers will use cultural degeneracy to break down and create divisions that will cause divergent sides of the nation to demand further authoritarianism to correct. As degeneracy is allowed to run rampant throughout the nation, everything that provided the initial foundation for that society is deteriorated. A nation that does not, or cannot, protect its heritage, beliefs, and traditions will never live forever.[xii]
The average person remains content to go about their lives blind to this reality during the descent. They do not seek this knowledge or wish to change course. They merely want to live their lives uninterrupted by the big questions. Sadly, they are not a reliable source from which to seek preservation. Which is why a government for the average, by the average, is not an excellent solution. The average are not the societal vanguards nor the best for keeping the risks at bay. Nor are they even often cognizant of the problem. The centralizers will always find ways to manipulate and overtake this average apathetic majority.
Another degeneration indicator is market condition changes. Democracy favors (and, in most objective interpretations, requires) a relatively free market with minimal hedges to the operation of that competitive market. Yet, the combination of these two only increases the risk. The centralizers use it to garner a stranglehold on the distribution of power to ensure they can use either their financial position or capital-intensive positions to acquire more wealth. This results in larger income inequality, which further splinters the nation into a self-inflicted caste system. Witnessing a person making billions while the average worker receives low pay, pays more tax, and gets hit with larger inflation will drive even the most economically sensible individual into the hands of the socialist. Ironically enough, the centralizers then frequently switch their allegiance to socialism after they already achieve their isolated class positions using the competitive market. They already have the position and power now; they have no need for further capital. In fact, they want to make sure no one else can climb up like they did. So, they switch allegiance to a closed market, one where they dominate and merge with the government and also where they can now be the economic planners but with even more power.
They use capitalism to centralize when it is useful; they use socialism to centralize when it is useful. It is socialism via capitalism. They care little for standards or ideological principles: rather they take a more pragmatic approach to politics in supporting whatever furthers their power base. If that changes over time, so will they. Decentralization is its own worst enemy in the long run. It gives the centralizer an indispensable, later unachievable tool from which to continually hammer the nation into compliance.
Because of the deteriorating conditions evidenced by rogue institutional behavior, more people will seek state dependency and intervention. The politburo couldn’t ask for a better situation. They can now expand their own power, while secretly working in coordination with the other centralizers. The politburo will intervene to limit the beneficial aspects of the free market economy, while incentivizing the negative aspects. In short, they transfer and finalize more power to other centralizers using the new power of the state granted by the demand of the masses, while cutting off the possibility of others following behind. This then provides justification for other actions such as socialistic planning by the isolated class and politburo. It also cuts off any remedies that the many could pursue. We witness damages to the middle class, while boosting up the isolated class. These are but a few of many consequences.
It should come as no surprise that the majority of the free market democratic states eventually deteriorate to pure hatred between their own internal communities. The destruction of internal cohesion is largely a design of the rule-by-many, rather than a flaw in itself. It is no hidden secret that the rule-by-many encourages divisive compartmentalization of the population. Division makes it easier to control the population in the short term.
The system itself encourages widespread income deviations along with “free” markets where cultural and financial centralizers can dominate the lives of the average person through unrestricted institutional power. How could a system like this not result in people acting against one another over time? It’s part of the democratic free market rulebook: profit, strict individualism, and no community-driven connection. An entry-level game theory matrix could tell us that outcome with simplicity. Rich against poor, nation against nation, women against men, isolated class versus lowly entrepreneurs, cultural centralizer versus antidegenerates, and on and on. These are all factors that must exist while using the rule-by-many framework because the only thing that matters is acquiring the majority. To pit groups against one another is to forcefully divide them into choosing the centralizer’s preferred side to create the majority. But a nation is meant to be united and in harmony, not at odds.
From an elitist perspective, it is impossible to control a united population because they can become united against the elitist. Yet, it is easy to control a population that is infighting with itself. If the races, genders, nations, and economic castes are all at war with each other, then they certainly can’t be at war with the ones causing the division. They can divide the groups until they have their preferred majority by forceful division and hatred. Often, they control both sides of the division.
It is typical for a centralizer to act in this manner. The type of individual that would seek this kind of status is not like us. They desire unlimited control and power. They are fully overtaken by an appetitive desire. Most worrisome, in democratic systems, they recognize that they cannot satiate the desire directly through the state because of its democratic limitations. But they know they can acquire it through other means: capital, academia, and culture, along with the intermixing of the four arena elements. For whoever controls them will inevitably control the future.
Even the noble politicians become powerless to do anything. They are outnumbered and blocked from advancement. Politicians in democratic societies are elected for short-term elections. This provides an incentive to do personally advantageous actions in the short term to ensure reelection even if this action is harmful in the long-term for society. They are also incentivized to do whatever it takes to secure money, a job, or prestige in the future after they leave their short-term stint in politics. This often results in politicians selling out to the centralizer for future or current benefit. In late-stage societies, many times the isolated class becomes politicians themselves or gatekeep access to the political parties to guarantee that only their allies actually have a chance at winning.
The politicians, elected by the average, are often also average. Average politicians are rarely going to be beneficial to the long-term health of the nation. Instead, they will often be corrupt, self-seeking, and weak. These politicians will often be forced to cater to the lowest-class voters in the nation, for the highest chance at winning their election. The lowest will not be virtuous, nation-nurturing individuals. They will be dependent, short-sighted, and selfish.
It was Socrates who asked a relevant question: If you were on a ship heading out to sea, who would you rather be in charge of the vessel? The majority of people sitting on the ship or the people who actually know the rules and demands of seafaring?[xiii] Why would we treat our government differently? Still, the debate between the two traditional governmental ideas argued by Plato and Aristotle lives on, in the form of governmental preferences.[xiv] Our idea is a bridge between the two.
The list of items contributing to the descent of democracy does not end here. Democracy also exhibits many other issues for societal long-term viability. A few more issues include: a vanishing middle class, improper incentives, uneducated voters, herd mentality, malicious voters, the spread of unsustainable socialistic policies, the rise of demagogues, moral degeneration from a lack of a stable culture, widespread short-term thinking, an anticommunity attitude, the zealot class formation, and economic issues. These will all be discussed in-depth in the later sections. All of these issues result in or further aid centralization for a privileged group of centralizers. Not a single issue that is brought up during the degeneration grants less centralization to some undeserving sect. This is why, as a nation declines, things only get worse. As more centralization falls into the hands of centralizers, they only speed up their actions by trying to acquire full centralization. They have more power to do so, so the degeneration process hastens. The root of the issue is always centralization. The centralization may occur through different mechanisms or procedures, but the fallout is always the same.
The reason centralization can occur to begin with is due to the framework that democracy uses: a rule-by-many framework. This framework ends up pitting two of the power centers (the people versus the institutions) in the nation against one another in a struggle for dominance over the state power center. Whoever wins in the end wins the nation. Because a government using a rule-by-many framework is weak, the state cannot dominate the others until the power distribution has been satisfactorily affected. An institution and state can dominate the people. Or a state and people can dominate the institutions. But in our legacy rule-by-many framework, the state has minimal power until a crucial point is reached and centralization is spread. Therefore, the two power centers continually fight until one weakens. They do not cooperate as a nation should. There is no balance between the three power centers. If the people win, it is usually at the whims of a strongman who seeks to crush the institutions. If the institutions win, it is at the hands of an oligarchy or aristocracy who seeks to subjugate the people. Both options lead to the end of democracy and of any extant “rule by the people.” Since the power is decentralized and not stably distributed in a rule-by-many, it means that democracy could never sustain itself forever: eventually the power will lean one way or another in the continual fight for centralization dominance. We address this more during discussion on the structure of power in the different frameworks.
The people living in a late-stage degenerating framework environment intuitively begin to recognize the inevitable descent of democracy is just around the corner. These complications result in more and more people turning their mindset away from democracy toward other alternatives. Its ugly transformation into an oligarchical, socialist, mob ruled, or totalitarian state is rapidly approaching. The people realize the system cannot maintain itself. So, they pick a side. Thus, losing faith in the system. The long-term viability of modernized democracy hinges on an incorruptible above-average population, active involvement by the majority, and accountable institutions, which cannot coexist with its own framework.
In most modern Western Civilization states, we can see that the internal decline started long ago. Yet many of the citizens of these states do not yet have the clarity to see it. If the people can’t come up with a diagnosis, how do we develop the cure? We must first expose the root problems of this descent.
As an individual, as we grow older; we learn what to do and what not to do. This life experience allows us the knowledge needed to choose wiser actions in our latter days. Why can’t nations do the same thing? We have millennia of recorded history on the rise and fall of powerful nations. When we look at these nations, no matter their ethnicity, culture, or story, we always witness a similar pattern during their descent. Everything that is happening during our descent has already happened during the descent of every once-powerful nation. Just as a wise old man learns from the mistakes of his youth, our nation should learn from the mistakes of humanity’s early years. In doing so, we would find a way to solve our own problems.
Degenerative democracy holds many unique traits, some more obvious than others. Some we cannot see because they creep inconspicuously into society. But when a single red flag is present, it is a clear sign that we are already one foot into our own grave. Because what we are noticing is an effect, not a cause: meaning the cause has already been occurring long enough to leave an effect. Further decline will include more extreme examples of these societal plagues until eventually it’s no longer a democracy except in name.
This lapse into degeneracy has the unique effect of promoting the single-minded pursuit of “freedom” at the expense of every other virtue. Instead of trying to harmonize each virtue accordingly, we cling desperately to our personal freedom because our personal spirit and our national soul are starved of every other virtue. Our priorities become warped, and we desperately cling to the only virtue we have left. The rest is cast into typical degeneration along with the society at large. We forget every other virtue except the one that is so often cannibalized last. Yet, this “freedom” ends up only making the centralizers freer. They are freer to exploit, centralize, and degrade the nation. The average person becomes censored and chained by those who yell the loudest about preserving “freedom” and “democracy”.
Ever-increasing levels of censorship and cultural degeneracy are a staple in societal collapse, especially with regard to all forms of “free” nations. The most obvious case appeared during the fall of the Roman Republic. However, every empire from Mongolia to the Chinese dynasties to the Weimar Republic experienced a downfall of cultural and moral standards prior to a governmental change. The decline in tradition and valued behaviors results in significant advantages for the cultural centralizer regardless of nation or time period. This is a window into the destruction of the nation and its soul.
Whoever favors the short term will inevitably face long-term consequences. Take the case of drug abusers, for example. A temporary high that will overtake an entire lifetime of potential accomplishments. Democracy is the drug. It thrives and incentivizes short-term behavior in favor of long-term prowess. Short-term benefit for the citizenry through social programs, for the wealthy through an unsustainably boosted economy, for the politicians through their positions of power, and for the centralizer through opportunities for centralization. The entire framework that democracy rests upon caters to the short term.
With this information in mind, if we assume that legacy democracy is destined to descend into a late-stage failing system, what does the future hold for the current democratic states? As we continue on our current path, we will continue to see declining late-stage traits in our democratic societies. Culture will continue to degenerate. Traditions and heritage will be destroyed. The market will be made to work against us. We will see larger income inequality along with class, ethnic, or gender internal strife. We will also see increasing crime. Most alarmingly, however, we will see our institutions become more and more centralized by the ruling class. Eventually, there won’t be a rule-by-many left. Only control by a few. The degenerative behaviors will continue to plague more minds and command more power until collapse is inevitable. Once collapse happens, another governmental framework will be implemented.
This is why we cannot reform the system from within and return to a nondegenerative state. Firstly, by this point there is usually nothing worthwhile left to reform. Secondly, the template we had been using is not fit to return to. Why would we attempt to rewind to an earlier version of the very same system and framework that brought us here? Trying it again will not result in a different outcome; it has not for over two thousand years. But neither do we desire a return of the authoritarian alternatives to democracies. Thus, there is no option within the current frameworks or systems available. So, what can we do? We must create a new system, one that is unlike any of the other fragile legacy frameworks.
However, before we start building this new system, we must address each of the prior frameworks in depth to shed light on the problems we must resolve and to ensure there remains no doubt about the hopelessness in terms of cyclical sustainability of the current government offerings. We start with a dissection of the primary reason all of these frameworks falter: the centralizer. The key to stopping this lies with them.
Section 3: The Centralizer
The centralizer is discussed frequently throughout this book. Before diving in further, it will be helpful for the reader to have a rough understanding of the centralizer, their motives, and how they operate. As we’ll later fully elucidate, the centralizer is the primary reason we need a new system. Because if they did not exist, the current systems would suffice. Regrettably, no modern legacy framework has been designed to expel these individuals or curb their actions. We will expand on them far deeper as we delve into each chapter. For now, we present a basic introduction to the centralizer.
The centralizers are housed in four previously mentioned groups:
- The financial arena centralizer (isolated class)
- The cultural arena centralizer (sensitive cultural markers)
- The intellectual arena centralizer (intelligentsia)
- The political arena centralizer (politburo)
The centralizer is defined as a uniquely positioned authority that seeks centralization to acquire hegemony of their social group. This definition is specific; each word is carefully chosen. Every centralizer is “uniquely positioned” due to their position within one of the four arenas. A centralizer will always hold a unique position within the context of the nation-state that allows them the ability—the power—to seek centralization.
Recall our definition of power.[xv] Centralizers are all authority figures, where power is vested in them through one of the four arenas (financial power, political power, cultural power, or intellectual power). Further, by an “authority with vested power”, we mean an individual whose power is protected and established by the law, custom, or system. For instance, a completely free economic market will vest power into the isolated class by the system attributes, particularly market non-intervention. A system or custom that relies on independent, unaccountable educational institutions will vest power into the administration of those institutions. Both examples create a vested authority. But it is only if this uniquely positioned authority seeks centralization that they can be labelled “centralizer”.
Not all centralizers are able to centralize, but all will seek it. They do this to acquire hegemony. The centralizer lusts after the ascendancy and domination of their group above all others. Their social group may shift over time. Due to emergentism, they gravitate over time to forming their own unique social group: the centralizer social group. This social group often starts out solely in their own arena, but gradually progresses to include other arenas. Given enough time, the centralizer simplifies these social groups into only two: “them” and “the others”.
Under the modern world, we no longer have just domestic centralizers. We even have international centralizers. These are individuals that seek centralization over entire nation-state groups. Because of modern technology, the centralizer social group is becoming far more dominant and pervasive worldwide. This is expected given human’s proclivity toward desiring power and the weaknesses of the legacy systems.
The centralizer generally holds considerably more power compared to other individuals within a society, usually through wealth, position, or institutional influence. All centralizers generally function in a similar capacity to other centralizers—They act similar, understand one another, group together, and even share a tendency to think the same.
The centralizer differs from the ruling class in that the centralizer dominates through their respective arena and the sources of power within their arena, whereas a ruling class is simply the class who determines the political agenda of the nation-state. Typically, centralizers become the ruling class as degeneration and anacyclosis occur, but the centralizer differs from the ruling class in nondegenerative rule-by-many states. A ruling class can be of good character, the centralizer can never be.
A political representative that wants further consolidation of power would be a centralizer, because of their unique position, innate social group, and desire for hegemony. Whereas a supporter of that political centralizer would not be a centralizer even if they support centralization because of their lesser position and lack of standing in the social group. A useful idiot, certainly, but not a centralizer. A centralizer has to be in the position or influence structure that will personally gain from the centralization, usually through more direct control and power.
Why are we so concerned with centralization? As we progress throughout this book, we will discuss many ailments, issues, and problems related to the cycle of political collapse. It’s essential the reader recognizes that these ailments are expressions, not causes, of the decline. The single piece that brings about the tangible aspect of descent is changes to the structure of centralization within the nation-state. This is true for every governmental system and framework. At first glance, this may seem like an oversimplification of a complex issue. But as you progress further in your understanding, it will become undeniable. Moral degeneracy does not cause the collapse; the cultural centralizers force degeneracy on the nation. Economic failures do not cause the collapse; the financial and political centralizers bring about economic failures. Loss of religion does not cause the collapse; the intellectual and cultural centralizers purposefully toss out religion. The same is true for every other supposed “cause” of collapse. We cannot look to the effect to solve the problem. We must look to the root cause, which is changes in centralization brought about by centralizers.
The centralizer operates solely to acquire more power because of the innate drive to dominate, control, and consolidate power. This is an excessive expression based on natural human behavior. Because it is based on a natural tendency, it is impossible to stomp it out by focusing on the specific individuals. We must instead focus on the measures and means by which they do so in a structural format as a group.
Through the legacy frameworks, centralizers are often incentivized to consolidate more power. The systems are designed to encourage this behavior. The different centralizer groups centralize through their preferred or available arena. A financial centralizer would work to acquire further financial or wealth centralization. A cultural centralizer would spend their days trying to gain more power over a nation’s culture, such as their beliefs, customs, and social behavior. The same idea goes for the intelligentsia and the politburo groups, who target their own arena. It is only once they have a majority of centralization of their own arena that they unite and progress to centralize other arenas.
The centralizers work together in the early stages. The isolated class will support others within the isolated class. One conquered cultural marker will support another battling cultural marker. This is for the mutual benefit of both. After the centralizer group has majority centralization within their own arena, they will also begin supporting outside arenas. A mostly centralized isolated class arena will begin supporting the centralization of the intelligentsia arena. A fully centralized intelligentsia will dogmatically support the final centralization of the politburo. The examples could go on endlessly.
They all work together, but only when they have a common enemy (the “others”—the average citizen). When that common enemy is conquered, they quickly turn on their former allegiances. Once the centralizers are dominant, their traditional supportive-but-distant structure among each other dissipates. Numerous alphas cannot coexist peacefully forever. Some centralizer will invariably want more, and the plotting will begin. Fractionalized intra-centralizer groups will form and target one another to achieve overall dominance. Over enough time, either one will come out victorious, or the state will collapse while the groups struggle for victory. This is essential in our understanding for how a rule-by-one arrives. The centralizers are only united when they have that common enemy that still needs to be subjugated. Otherwise, they continue to fight for centralization within their own dominant social group.
While the centralizer groups do work together, there is often a noticeable “leading” arena. For example, in a democracy, the ultra-wealthy are often able to bribe politicians through political lobbying, propagate their own necessary belief structures through funding studies and research, and manipulate the culture by purchasing or funding cultural institutions. This is an example of a leading financial arena. The leading arena is responsible for creating similar centralizers within the other arenas and protecting them as they develop. As another example, in a dictatorship, the political arena can choose the business tycoons that become the isolated class through legislation, require certain parameters from the intellectual arena through agency oversight, and direct the cultural institutions through legal custom. Usually, if there is a leading centralizer, it is from either the political or financial arena. The cultural and intellectual arena centralizers can rarely lead by laying the groundwork, such as in the case of an educational system distorting education of the youth to allow an isolated class to develop, but they often pass off the leading role to one of the other arenas once the other has an appropriate foundation. Through this, we can see that all arenas are subject to an appetite for power, but this predilection is expressed through different mannerisms.
This drive for power has no limits. The centralizer will do whatever is necessary to get even a seemingly insignificant increase in power. Their moral compass reflects this, as do their interactions with the public. As centralizers consolidate more power within their realm, they become increasingly more erratic in their behavior profile. This makes it nearly impossible to predict their actions or plan around predictable societal parameters. We, as citizens, find it difficult to plan even one year out because we have little idea about how the country will look within this time frame under their consolidation. During nondegenerative stages, this is not an issue. There is a generalized understanding of how the society functions and the proper parameters, even if they are not specifically enforced or registered. This effect is especially true in latter degenerative stages, when there is little ruling stability and foundational traits such as the rule of law no longer matter.
The centralizer has no preferences regarding frameworks, economic systems, principles, values, morals, or ideology. Instead, they only have one thing: a “total war” philosophy. They care about only one thing and one thing only: acquiring more power. The centralizer will use whatever will grant them more centralization at that time. They will use any system, any framework, any economic structure, any principle, and any ideology to do so. They will change these, sometimes even within the same sentence, depending on which will grant them more total war control. Little matters to them; they will use our own morality against us in one sentence and then dismiss that moral framework in the next. The centralizer will praise themselves for one thing and condemn you for the same thing. They will ignore treason from one end and demand immediate consequences for it from the other end.
This makes them hypocrites. But they know and accept this. They do not fight on the same wavelength as a noncentralizer. They know that their positions are backward and often conflicting, but they do not care. Whatever is more convenient for acquiring more control and power will be used, and should be used, according to their philosophy. Being a hypocrite is merely a useful tactic for them and thus is a viable strategy that should be knowingly used. A hypocrite often does not know that they are being a hypocrite. Whereas for them, it is a common strategic weapon.
The centralizer uses the state against the nation in the conquest of power. Recall that the nation comprises the peoples that make up the state. The centralizers distinguish between the two only so that they can use one against the other to acquire more power over both. They have no allegiance to any nation or state. History has demonstrated that they will often import completely opposing nations into the state to provoke the host nation.
They are not a conspiratorial group; at least they are not in the beginning. Rather, they begin their careers by operating out of strict self-interest and through the principles of mutual benefit with other centralizers. They later combine to form cohesive conspiratorial groups, but only after significant power has already been centralized.
The centralizer exhibits emergent behavior. Their actions on the individual level do not always produce a sum of values effect at the aggregate. Actions definitely occur at both the individual and aggregate level, with many of them being expected, and they do merge toward the same actions in the latter stages, but their aggregate effects can often throw off those who are not yet well versed in understanding them.
To address the centralizer issue, we must address each centralizer arena. Controlling one centralizer arena does nothing to stop the overall centralization effect over time. For instance, the rule-by-many form assumed taking over the politburo arena would be enough to cut off the powerful ruling class. They assumed that if the government were restricted, freedom would be more plentiful for all. This did not occur. It didn’t occur because the centralizers merely transitioned to other arenas, until such a time that those arenas were majority centralized, and then used those arenas to put pressure on the political arena. An indirect takeover is still a takeover. In the case of most rule-by-many forms, the centralizer takes over the financial arena and then uses the wealth accumulation to overtake the intellectual and cultural arena. They then use these arenas for their own purpose. The intellectual arena indoctrinates the youth and perverts the narrative, while the cultural arena perverts the culture of the nation to one more opportune for the centralizers. Meanwhile, the isolated class uses the financial arena to shut down any opposition to the actions of all three arenas. They use these three arenas to get a stranglehold on the nation and purposefully change the nation into a mutation of its original self that they then use to secure the politburo. With a dominated culture, indoctrinated youth, a controlled narrative, corporate centralization, and nearly all the major influential institutions in a nation under their control, the limited influence exerted by the politburo is ineffective. They can use these other arenas to change the nation itself, which will allow the political arena to decline into their control over time. So, it is worth repeating: The only way to address the centralizers is to address every single centralizer arena. We cannot focus on just one of them. To do so is to handcuff one criminal while leaving your back to the other three.
The centralizer is the most damaging social group within every nation and every state that has ever existed. As we will discuss with anacyclosis and the cycle of collapse, the degeneration of great nations and states occurs because of centralization. These people are the ones that actively push the nation in that direction. Precisely how they do this will be addressed in the next two chapters.
[i] The term “degeneracy” will be further defined and expanded upon in the Corrective Action chapter. For now, we provide our glossary definition: Degeneracy is the process of deteriorating from a higher moral, physical, and intellectual condition to a lower undesirable form. It can also mean the state of being degenerate (the lower form).
[ii] This topic is discussed in Chapter Five: The Struggle for Power within the book The Managerial Revolution by James Burnham.
[iii] Wherein a vanguard is a citizen that exhibits honor, courage, and self-sacrifice, as they contend for their nation. They act as a lighthouse, forever watching and safeguarding their people. These individuals are a necessity for any sustainable system, and they must be the ones that control those essential societal components.
[iv] This power does not have to be direct. It can be subtle, such as cultural power, positional authority, or access to information.
[v] Ryszard Legutko. The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies. The book explains the liberal democracy mindset regarding the evolution of history in the first chapter. It also explains numerous inaccuracies liberal democracy espouses. The book is likewise a helpful manual on the relationship between degrading rule-by-many systems and their future authoritarian implementations (such as communism), which will occur once centralization progresses.
[vi] Hausmann, Ricardo & Rodríguez, Francisco. Venezuela Before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse. The entire book discusses how Venezuela went from being the richest country in the region in 1970 to later economic catastrophe.
[vii] We simply took the consumer price index from the International Monetary Fund to calculate this number and then rounded up to the nearest thousand. However, there is a multitude of easy-to-use online calculators that you can use to find a very close similar approximation.
[viii] Hausmann, Ricardo & Rodríguez, Francisco. Venezuela Before Chávez: Anatomy of an Economic Collapse.
[ix] One could argue that the story starts off far sooner, with the isolated class and the politburo starting wars in foreign nations solely to create a migration crisis. However, that is beyond the scope of this simple explanation. We are not looking to understand the exact implications of the NGO debate, but rather to explain a simple example of how the different centralizer groups interact with one another in a sly and calculating manner. The examples provided in the text are also very easy to fact-check by simply looking up the relevant financial data for the NGOs, their funding sources, and who owns the domestic resettlement and work facilities.
[x] The source for “democracy shares the same end goal as communism” is found from a thorough understanding of Ryszard Legutko’s book “The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies”.
[xi] The concept of a “national soul” is referenced often throughout this book. It’s an essential phenomenon to understand when discussing national and civilizational sustainment. We further define and discuss elements of this soul throughout the book, starting primarily in the cycle of collapse chapter. However, before proceeding, a general understanding of our glossary definition would be helpful. That definition is followed: “The national soul is the animating vital core of the nation. It is an incorporeal essence of a nation, similar to that of an individual, that demonstrates a combination of the mind and spirit on a metaphysical level to produce the very ‘being’ of the nation. It is not based on the state, system, country, or government, and is often expressed through the culture”.
[xii] There is a popular quote, often attributed to Aristotle, but of whose actual origin we cannot exactly determine, that states: “Masculine republics give way to feminine democracies, and feminine democracies give way to tyranny”. While we cannot verify who first said this, it is completely accurate in its understanding of rule-by-many progression. The feminine characteristics shove aside the masculine culture needed for survival, which annihilates the vanguards and brings forth unsustainable societal traits such as tolerance, conformability, weak men, and so on.
[xiii] Plato, The Republic, Book VI. 488a-489d.
[xiv] Recorded in the first volume of Table Talk in 1830, Samuel Coleridge went so far as to say, “Every man is born an Aristotelian or a Platonist. I do not think it possible that anyone born an Aristotelian can become a Platonist; and I am sure that no born Platonist can ever change into an Aristotelian.” This is true not just in reference to general philosophy, but also political governance. A Platonist is typically opposed to democratic systems of governance (viewing them as degenerating into mob rule), whereas an Aristotelian is favorable toward democratic systems. Aristotle argued that monarchy and aristocracy are the best forms of government, but because they degenerate so intensely into tyranny, the only rational alternative is a democratic system. It is interesting to note that both positions emphasize the degenerated form of their opposing government framework, and attempt to shift focus away from their own framework’s degeneration.
[xv] Power is defined as the control of access to whatever the society views as valuable, along with preferential treatment in the distribution of that particular asset.
If you enjoyed this article, bookmark the website and check back often for new content. New articles most weekdays.
You can also keep up with my writing by joining my monthly newsletter.
Help fight the censorship – Share this article!
