Formally Informal

upload.jpeg

It may be that it's wholly impossible to go back to the monarchies of old, at least for the foreseeable future, for the very social mechanisms which secured their various reigns are now subjects of such suspicion, hatred and jealousy. Even where they do not incite strong emotions, people have the same intellectual reactions to them that they do to carriages, video stores and cassette players; they are appreciated as a sort of retro fashion, yet no one really considers them necessary. Government is often considered more necessary than strength itself.

  What does not appear to be going away any time soon is the fact that people are always looking for heroes or people who, by their very actions, convince others that certain things are in fact possible. In our world, people willing to accept and seek out guidance often pay for it. People who are the best at guiding others shouldn't be encumbered by the various paper traps which constitute our superstitious world order,  and which constantly grants corrupt cretins a monopoly on force.

  Groups like ISIS, Antifa, the Bloods and the Crips, the KKK, and the various Occupy schemers have the right idea as far as organizing in extra temporal ways; that is to say, in ways which transcend borders and work beneath and above the state. These particular examples, however, comprise people who are, more often than not, violent, neurotic, unstable, misguided, dangerous and just as often, convinced of their own victimhood and always in need of scapegoats. What they have going for them is that they operate on a level of aggressive free association (even if some of them don't believe in the free association of others).

  Libertarian types love to think that free association and the free market are synonymous. They think that they can get rid of the problem of power if they just put dollars between people and hope on principle that no one shows up with a bullet to ensure the transaction. Libertarianism, as an ideology, trusts too much in phantoms like human nature and natural rights.

  What few people want to admit is that in times of crisis, sovereignty is often revealed as a magnetic force. When order collapses, people immediately seek out those who provide the purist example of their own value systems. Modern political systems, whether aware of this or unaware of this, swallow up the forces involved in this process and brainwash people into thinking that only one way of living must be accepted by all at one time. You've heard the cliché 'The people get the government they deserve.' Though punitively democratic as this statement is, it could be improved by being reconfigured: Sovereignty is only as sovereign as the values of the people. Therefore, if you live in a society where people don't believe in sovereignty, and if anyone who displays superiority in more areas of life than most others, heads will be cut off. In a world which values tech and consumerism, we'll always be looking to the next Bill Gates and Steve Jobs to guide us in the direction we need to go to stay plugged in, comfortable and convenienced. In a society where hereditary qualities are thought to be divinely linked to a specific family, you'll always get a monarchy with sibling jealousy and atavistic subterfuge built in. In a society where people believe that popular views and ways of life are best for everyone, even those who don't want them, you'll get a democracy. It was only inevitable that we would get a reality TV star for a president. About seven years from now, it is likely that someone like The Rock or Ron Pearlman will be our next democratic president, and they will offer an edgier version of liberal talking points as Trump did with conservative talking points.

  Our whole notion of sovereignty needs to be completely reconfigured, as it is now centered on involuntary contract, the presumption of protection, crisis and idealism.

  • Involuntary Contract is when you're in a situation in which things are expected of you which you have not been given the option to vet, approve or disapprove of. It goes beyond keeping people from murdering one another. It is the full scale maintenance of every part of life. Think about all of the licences, insurances, bonds, loans and credit systems which permeate everything. It is not about protection; it's about social maintenance and the control of as many people in as wide of a region as possible. We live in a world where it is possible to go to prison for years for crimes that are often too complicated to explain. The law is as complicated as the people implementing them are distant from us in our day to day lives.
  • The Presumption of Protection is when you have a monopoly on force that operates on the official assumption that all people are equal before the law. This is fundamentally contradictory in a democracy, where the laws can change over night. This is precisely why people express fear when a candidate they don't like is likely to win office. They know deep down that there is never any order in a democracy.
  • Crisis is the basis of our system. Things are only voted on when they become problems. They 'become' problems when the people voice some abstract grievance. The grievance either a) tends to be tied directly to the state apparatus or b), is created as a solution to a problem that only one party claims it can solve. People are naive to think that tribes which were artificially created by the state, whether the Republicans, the Democrats, the Greens or the Libertarians, could ever just get along. The state benefits from their antagonism.
  • Ideology is the entire self and social enforcement of a thought structure at the expense of direct experience and knowledge. It often has eschatological implications, masks itself as logical by sequencing noticeable patterns into a digestible interpretation, and plays on people's emotions by offering great rewards for simply identifying with it. It is like a virus.

  An alternative to our current system would be to build organizations which serve the purposes which the state claims to serve, but with intention and greater deliberation, also, without coercion. It is not enough to pay competing businesses to protect your small corner of the world, nor has history proven that it's tenable to expect the state to be able to keep everyone's best interests in check. People should seek out opportunities to fulfill their purpose, and if they can find others who are on the same path, all the better; iron sharpens iron as men and women challenge one another. Churches already partially serve this purpose; this leads to an almost organic inner culture in that people from one church will typically all do business together and provide moral support for one another. But one could form guilds, clubs, brigades, gangs, clans, tribes, communes and ranches along any given number of principles, centers of interest or goals. Even if the internet were to break down someday, it revealed a form by which people can always develop a certain social mold: the horizontal community. Just as these destructive, insane groups like ISIS and Antifa have created networks which transcend borders, groups that are actually positive and constructive could take a few cues and develop systems strong enough to exist even within coercive societies and able to stand even after they fall.

  I suspect we will see the rise of new 'empires,' for lack of a better word. Imagine a world in which one was not only the voluntary member of a positive societal network, but in which one was also part of an even bigger network founded on an organizing principle which the smaller network was not quite capable of on its own, like a joint military meant to secure a specific territory. This would constitute a 'nation' in the classic sense, informally rendered, unlike the nation states of today. The dissident Right has been amping up the idea of an ethno-state, in which they suppose they can solve all of their problems by gathering up a bunch of broken, disenfranchised people who have nothing in common but their coextensive alienation in this homogeneous global system along with whatever hodgepodge ancestry their grandparents claimed, and build walls around the biggest possible territory in which they can muster the strength to isolate themselves. On the other hand, the radical Left, ever hateful and confused about the nature of power, think they can unite everyone in their disenfranchisement by denying that property even exists or that people have different ideas about how life should be lived. Contemptuous of the very idea of 'nation,' they nevertheless create endless networks, subcultures, feel-good communities and cause-unions which could rightly be approximated to micro-nations. The logical conclusion would be to allow the groups which are incompatible to go their separate ways, and for all new ones to emerge under the radar. Historically, Leftist groups have relied on the ability to trade with world powers and nation states in order to arm and secure their revolutions. As this pattern seems to be the result of a pathological oversight concerning the ontological nature of their revolutions and their international implications, there's no reason to think that they are not beyond bribing or pushing out where formal contract isn't an option.

  Most people are completely unable to imagine the world could possibly be different than it is now. The great thing about building independent infrastructure is that it doesn't require the collapse of civilization as a precondition, nor does it require a revolution. As a matter of fact, revolution would more than likely do far more harm, as unilateral violence is never an inevitable predecessor to peace. Rather, the best option would be to build strength quietly and assert it when the time is right. Plenty of groups throughout history have earned recognition by the western states to be more or less left alone, on account of their perceived disenfranchisement, their religious freedoms or their usefulness to society at large. The challenge will then ultimately be wrapped up, once again, in the idea of just what sovereignty is in the first place. It will be the challenge of people of tomorrow, not to simply build societal principles based on what they don't want, as libertarians, anarchists and conservatives in general tend to do, nor to 'raise awareness' or fight economic and social injustices as Marxists and liberals in general do, but to create purpose, meaning and strength in a world that is ever waring earnestly in a never ending cycle of forces which perpetuate themselves out of little more than their own sheer exhausting hungers. The question will not be how to fight power, but how to cultivate it against all odds.