The Left and the Right rely on a fictional historical authority to augment the natural necessity of their positions. The Left, saying nothing of chiefs and hierarchies though they existed, will push the line about primordial communism. Likewise, the Right appeal not to the economic primordial condition, but a set of cultural values out of which their lineage has somehow kept an unbroken chain of tradition all this time. All parties wear a mask of historical authenticity, each counting their oppositions as synthetic intrusions on otherwise organic circumstances. But at what point does coercion go unnoticed by everyone in the grasp of a sovereign? Those who notice the very moment the crossover occurs are those who are purchased. They buy the ideal of time-preference in the face of conflict, but at the threat of death. All impersonal wagers come together at once: one eats food from where one does not go and one receives orders from someone one has never and never will meet, for the price would then be to meet them.
But one must seduce others into the sloppy delusion that one can have the world one wants so long as it is not this world. One promises a world of natural movement, of unbound activity, though this must be purchased with a great, efficient and unflinching degree of violence toward the outside, with no promise of ever-forward perpetuation. Violence is either turned outward or inward. What are most anarchists but armchair dictators, and what are dictators but anarchists, having scaled to a height where they themselves are ruled by no one but the constant threat of him who is stronger? ‘True' democracy is no more organic. Since when is freedom defined by one's inability to disagree with another? The primordial succession of party lines, broken only by unfortunate whims of democracy, is one of the greatest myths of our time. What does a leftist professor at Princeton truly have in common with men of France in 1793?
Peaceful secession has not had much of a place in history because it costs far more pride than bloodshed. Peaceful secession would mean humiliation, but also, the failure of an entire identity and not just identity, but an identity's potency in direct distinction to its neighbors.
One imagines a primordial world order because one has had one's desires humiliated. One has had one's life itself called a sin, and so one must defend oneself on the prejudice, not only that desire has no place in society, but that what is closest to natural should be had at the expense of what is unnatural-which contradicts the notion of the natural, as it requires special conditions. The primordial becomes an escape, a Garden of Eden sickness, an abstraction which relieves one of the burden of example, a soil in which one can grow better fruit. However, the primordial would not be soil if it was truly unencumbered. Primordiality is itself a seed.