The Cycle of Collapse
[This entire article is an excerpt from my future book: Enclavism: A New Government Designed To Conquer The Political Cycle of Collapse]
We first want to fully understand what the ancient philosophers learned about anacyclosis. Then, we want to understand what we can learn from this political cycle that has occurred throughout history since their time. What has worked to offset or delay the cycle? Where have their theories had imperfections? How do we combine both their answers and the answers we can visibly see today?
We are fortunate to have a much larger timeframe to study from than they did, but the answers are still not too far apart from one another. Hindsight perception provides us even more insights than that of which they could have studied at their time.
Naturally, Polybius witnessed the rise of fall of a tremendous amounts of city states in historical times. Both him and Plato had a playground of governments they could watch in fast motion. This allowed them the un-paralleled ability to study the rise and fall of governments. Unlike today, where they tend to be longer lived but follow the same patterns.
Regardless of the longer life span, we do have a longer historical timeline we can view. The evidence from it is damning. Every single region and country follow a pattern similar to this cycle of collapse, with few if any anomalies excluding incredibly small and completely homogeneous nations.
We agree with Polybius on the reasons and methods of descent in anacyclosis. We merely enhance the solutions and rectify the systems with more relevancy to modern times.
Let us first clarify phrases. Anacyclosis is the cycle of regime change. It is how each government form relates to one another through this cyclical nature of regime change. It explains how and why a democracy turns into an oligarchy, which turns into a monarchy, and then repeats. The cycle of collapse specifically looks at how each independent regime type falls. So anacyclosis includes all of them: rule by many, rule by few, and rule by one. Anacyclosis describes how each of them interconnect in the constant recycling of government forms. Whereas the cycle of collapse would focus on only one at a time, such as how a democracy degrades into an oligarchy. Thus, there are three cycles of collapse: the cycle of collapse for the rule by many, the cycle of collapse for the rule by few, and the cycle of collapse for the rule by one. There is only one anacyclosis.
We focus primarily on anacyclosis and the cycle of collapse for the rule by many in this text.
Now, let’s summarize Polybius’ anacyclosis: The cycle of regime change.
We begin with a monarchy, which is a positive form of rule by one. This could be a benevolent leadership with a despot that truly cares about their constituents and seeks out their best interests.
This descends into tyranny, which is a negative form of rule by one. Perhaps the child of the monarch is a tyrant. He only seeks power and control. The people despise this rule.
Eventually this regime is overthrown and an aristocracy forms, which is a positive form of the rule by few. An example would be a band of rebels that get together to overthrow the tyrant and then usher in an era of peace and prosperity.
However, as the hands of power change over time, this degrades into an oligarchy, which is a negative form of the rule by few. This occurs when the “few” seek power, wealth, and privilege above the average citizens.
Over time the people tire of this oligarchical control and revolt for democracy, a positive form of the rule by all. The oligarchs lose control and the people themselves determine the laws and assume the control.
Yet again, this system degenerates. After democracy we witness ochlocracy, which is a negative form of the rule by all. This is better known as “mob rule”. This is when the mob seizes control and ignore the previous laws, culture, and democratic institutions that ushered in their original freedom.
As mob rule continues to disintegrate, a strong man enters to seize control. Thus, ushering in monarchy and bringing us to the beginning of this list.
While we agree with the general theme, we disagree on the direction and the specific governments. Obviously, monarchies are no longer a dominating governmental form so focusing on them is a moot point. Likewise, three hundred years from now the specific government forms are likely to be far different in title. It is long-term appropriate to solely refer to them by their “rule by” types. This encompasses all government names, titles, and differences in the appropriate buckets to describe anacyclosis. A positive rule by many turns into a negative rule by many, which collapses into a rule by few and so forth. So there still exists a total of six regimes, with three positive variants and three negative variants. Additionally, it appears as though typically it does not go from one -> few -> many as Polybius noted. Rather, the general direction is one -> many -> few.
As a final note, we do not believe each system has to follow this trend linearly. Deviations can be made, but only by speeding rapidly along the cycle. This is rare, however. So, a rule by many can deteriorate directly into a rule by one, but it will still pass a fleeting rule by few in the process. The same goes for a rule by few in a rapid spiral down into a rule by many.
That’s the exception to the rule, though. A rule by many almost always deteriorates into a rule by few in modern times, which leads toward the mob rule that eventually deteriorates to a rule by one. The rule by few just does not look like what it used too. Instead of being noticeable as an aristocracy, it is usually a corrupt oligarchy or elitism system masquerading as a rule by many. They make it seems as though a rule by many exists when it doesn’t. This may have been even more easily hidden in Polybius’ time, explaining the deviation in theory.
Regardless of the specifics, the idea is that three of these systems work in the interest of the common man. While the other three degenerative systems work in the interest of a select group at the expense of the common man. The principle theme to take away from our understanding of this effect is that all six forms are undesirable because they are all untenable long-term.
Now, what path does each of these forms follow?
The different forms of government exhibit different reasoning behind why they collapse. We have already addressed the rule by many system. So, let us start with the rule by one.
The rule by one regime begins with a benevolent, merciful leader. This can be categorized in many different categories as wide as the personalities of the dictators. What we do know, is that eventually a single malicious leader will seize control. This leads to the degenerative state which leads toward regime change.
Now onto the rule by few. This rule is notorious for following the same path as the rule by one. Originally, notable aristocrats lead the country to great heights. Eventually, as time passes, these aristocrats become corrupted and apathetic toward their constituents. They seek wealth and absolute centralization. Leading to revolt or the acquiring of that absolute centralization by one of their elites.
It is important to understand that in the transition from rule by many to the rule by few, the elites will work together to centralize their power. However, after they have that centralization, they will be forced to fight amongst themselves for further power because all of it has already been centralized in the hands of the elite. To get more power, they have to fight amongst their own ruling class. Which is what leads toward the decay and a pathway for one elite to acquire absolute centralization. They may work together while bringing the original collapse of a rule by many, but they never reach a level of power where they are all fulfilled. The lust for more never ends. Just as it drives the rule by many into the ground, it drives their own power system into the ground equally as voraciously. It is an essential reason why holes form in the rule by few, leading to a rule by one.
Each of these types of regimes demonstrate a linear path toward collapse. This linear path is what we have coined as the “Cycle of Collapse”. If we break the linear path, we break the cycle of collapse, which breaks anacyclosis. If the system itself cannot collapse, then anacyclosis cannot proceed.
So, anacyclosis describes the entire cycle of regime change over time and how governments move between the rule by many, rule by few, and rule by one. But the cycle of collapse describes how each independent type of regime (rule by one, rule by few, or rule by many) degrades over time in a linear fashion.
To solve anacyclosis we have to look at the exact method our preferred model degrades and correct it. Where our preferred model is the rule by many form because it is the only form that has enough leeway and balances to allow for a sustainable system. Rule by many provides a much stronger framework by which to base an Enclavist society than the other options.
This form and its decline are captured in our anacyclosis model. It includes three points: 1) rule by many (decentralization) 2) rule by few (component centralization) 3) rule by one (absolute centralization). Which we will discuss shortly.
Therefore, the objective of Enclavism is the successful implementation of a framework that breaks the cycle of collapse.
We accomplish this by focusing on the collapse of republics. So, let us revisit why republics collapse.
Republics collapse because the decentralized nature of the republic declines into centralization. The distribution of power and control within the government is no longer decentralized. It becomes the tool of a newly formed ruling class that continually and relentless push for even more centralization. Once centralization occurs, it results in either mob-driven power or oligarchical control. The key to understanding any downfall of a republic is to understand how this distribution has changed.
Then, one of two options typically occur: 1) the mob brings about the destruction of the nation usually being spearheaded by ideologues, resulting in a rule by one or 2)the ruling class (elites) utilize the mob to seize their own form of power, transitioning the nation into an oligarchical degenerative “republic”.
In both cases, note how the centralization of power, wealth, and control shift. Power and control leave the hands of the accountable government and her people into the hands of the mob. Or, all three elements are stolen by a ruling class.
It rarely happens quick. A few decentralized pieces are lost here and there over time. If it happened overnight, it would be too obvious. But a slow takeaway is pain-free and hidden.
This is the primary issue. If unaccountable individuals get ahold of any of these elements or have the ability to alter the law in such a way as to remove societal oversight, with no way for the stakeholders to reign them in, a rule by few is inevitable given enough time. Therefore, the objective is to prevent any form of centralization by any societal elites that are not accountable to the stakeholders in the nation. Additionally, the objective is to also prevent any group or individual from changing the manner by which these elements are distributed in the society to keep the decentralized elements exactly as they exist in the beginning.
One of the modern ways this degeneration to centralization occurs is by cultural markers in the society. Cultural institutions become infiltrated and indoctrinate citizens into following the desired path of the ruling class.
Historically, people feared the government. This is no longer the primary threat in the modern world. In fact, the government is only the threat in rule by few and rule by one systems. In a true rule by many, you are the government. In a positive rule by many system, the real threat comes from those outside of the government that are trying to centralize power, which will later allow them to seize control of the government.
Centralization can occur from a variety of negative societal actors besides the government. Examples include financial elite, cultural elite, conspirators, and even the mob. All of these agents seek centralization for their own power gains. All centralization is harmful when considering the cycle of collapse in a majority decentralized (rule by many) form of government.
For example, if the cultural elite secure the entire means of information, means of media, and means of production, what could they then not centralize? At that point, they are infinitely more powerful than the host government, because they have the ability to influence the thoughts and actions of the nation to the point where the government is merely their puppet. They would also control most of the wealth, the politicians, and the ability to block any dissemination of this information.
This elitist control was not plausible back in Polybius’ time. It is readily apparent in the modern era. Which is why anacyclosis and the cycle of collapse had to be updated to reflect the newly discovered reality.
The modern fight for freedom is not just the struggle of the people against the government – but of the people against all forms of elitist centralization. Once you realize this, you realize the entire worldview you were taught is wrong.
This is why the certain philosophies always seem to fail in the long-term. For example, the libertarian view of governance would never work long-term. They offer a solution against the government form of centralization but leave the door wide open for every other centralization-demanding agent. The same problem goes for any type of anarcho-x individual. The government may not be able to bring about the collapse. But the completely unhinged cultural elite or the mob sure could fill that void. The inverse of this thought is true as well: a rule by one cheerleader (such as a communist or fascist) is merely desiring to hand over all centralization to one agent. This will never work out in your own interests long-term.
This is also why a kingship or aristocracy is never viable long-term, because they are both government actors that desire full centralization which will eventually spark resistance, maliciousness, and decay.
To fix the cycle of collapse, we then have to look much further away from the traditional mode of thinking. It is not just the government that we need to fear when confronting the cycle. Especially when considering our model framework. In fact, they are often the lesser of the evils when compared with other unaccountable societal agents seeking centralization.
Too little centralization and we leave the gates open for negative actors to seize control. Too much centralization and the agents controlling that centralization have too much opportunity to grab more. It is a very thin line we must walk. There must exist proper checks and balances against all societal actors that seek centralization, to ensure that one or the other never has enough power to supersede the others in the constant tug fest for power. This constant limbo must be maintained and coded into any sustainable framework.
In the rule by many of Polybius’ stages, we witness this same internal cycle we have described here. The nation starts out relatively free, transparent, market-oriented, accountable, and balanced (decentralized). Slowly, it degrades into the opposite (centralized).
Strong men thrive off of decentralization. Weak men require centralization to survive. Strong men are required for any strong society and any effort to weaken men should be seen as an attempt to further centralization by some hidden agent. Even Machiavelli noted this in his discourse on warriors versus philosophers that we discussed.
Both anacyclosis and the cycle of collapse are necessary tools in understanding where we are currently and where we are heading as a nation.
We believe there is an instinctive understanding of the cycle of collapse that all people know of but cannot name. As culture declines, trust in government falters. As governments decline, apathy in politics rises. The citizens believe that any chance of resistance is futile and resort to “dropping out” or becoming non-participants instead of activists for change. That, or they recognize that as centralization increases the chance of peaceful political change is effectively nonexistent.
The apathy is an issue because it tends to rise up in degenerative systems. The apathy rises primarily because the men and women of the society instinctively, perhaps on a biological level, understand the cycle of collapse. We all understand our current frameworks cannot possibly survive. We want to call out the cycle so everyone knows what it is and why these things are occurring.
They believe that because the ship is sinking, you shouldn’t repair her windows. We can’t change the destiny of the ship. But we can build a stronger ship for the next sail instead of reusing the same materials.
They know they can’t change or fix the broken society from within. Maybe they don’t see every stage of collapse, but they know that this system is unsustainable. Thus, they surrender. This is an incredibly important effect because apathy is a direct contributor to the rise of demagogues and tyrants.[i] Which is a necessary component of anacyclosis itself.
We believe if more people know about anacyclosis and are educated on how it operates, they will naturally become more resilient toward it.
We can see the effect of anacyclosis throughout numerous regions in history. All regions and countries of the world have witnessed this cycle. Let’s discuss a few out of the thousands.
Regretfully, we cannot dive into each of these as thoroughly as they deserve. An entire book could be written on just a couple of these examples and their connection to anacyclosis and the cycle of collapse. But we do not have the time, nor the space necessary, to do so within this text.
Consider first Rome. The Roman Empire was founded under a form of tribalism. They eventually grew and developed enough to become the Roman Republic, one of the greatest republics in history. Notwithstanding issues, however. This republic eventually decayed into the Roman oligarchy. The peasants lost nearly all of their land in favor of the aristocrats that had turned corrupt. After continual internal strife, the republic fell and Rome had their first emperor: Caesar.[ii] We witness a rule by one, rule by many, and rule by few numerous times in Rome’s case.
Now consider Italy. Following the fall of Roman Empire, much of the Italian region splintered. Much of it eventually succumbing to a form of monarchy or similar governmental form. After monarchy in the 11th century they returned to city states under a republic-type system. Now let’s fast forward to more recent Italian history. Italy had fallen to the fascist Mussolini regime during the World War 2 timeframe. After fascism collapsed in Italy, the government became a Christian Democracy. Now, it is slowly degenerating yet again to mob rule from a democratic system.
Other governments are faster in their changes. Consider Venezuela that we mentioned in the preceding sections. Venezuela had a history of dictatorship to republic following after the Spanish colonization. In 1908 to 1935 it was the world’s largest oil exporter under a dictatorship. They fought between military rule and democratic rule until 1958. Later, in 1973, Venezuela began doing phenomenally well economically. Sadly, after this boom they begin to nationalize key industries such as oil and steel (socialism). In 1989 their economy collapsed for the first of many times. In 1995 their president is impeached on corruption charges as socialism takes hold (rule by few). In 1998 Hugo Chavez takes office and Venezuela officially enters a rule by one. Fast forward to the current year (2019) and the economy has fully collapsed with their current leader Maduro refusing to hand over power to the democratically elected leader Guaido, effectively creating a totalitarian state. Eventually, they will return to a republic.
Or we could discuss the interesting case of Zimbabwe, where one individual rode through the entire cycle. Robert Mugabe paved the way for independence (rule by many) from colonialism (rule by one) in Zimbabwe, becoming the country’s first president. His lifelong love of socialism led him to create socialistic economic policies in Zimbabwe, effectively making him a socialist leader under a rule by few. His socialist economic policies caused massive food shortages which led to him having to use an iron fist to stay in power, enacting a rule by one. He eventually decided to forego honorable elections in favor of being a dictator under rigged elections until he retired. After retirement, the country held general republic-style elections. It’s likely still rigged, but they’ve made progress away from the dictatorship already. Truly, Zimbabwe is an interesting case study by its ability to witness the entire cycle within one president’s tenure.
While on the topic of Africa, it is helpful to explain how the rule by many form can be differentiated based on regional differences. When most Western readers would think of a rule by many, they would picture voting, freedom, and a society with democratic institutions. This does not have to be the case, however. In our definition of a rule by many, it is only that the majority of the population has power, leading toward a decentralized structure of government. This could be found in the warring tribal lands in much of Africa, prior to governmental centralization. The different African nations may not have all had democratic institutions or “freedoms”, as we would call them, but the majority did have a say in their community. Thus, representation within the nation as a whole. It wasn’t until centralization began occurring and one tribe began to dominate the others through the use of force, that this changed. Many African nations have not had success with democratic institutions, but have had clear instances of rule by many forms during their culturally unique history. Other regions, such as the Middle East, share a similar pattern.
How about the Ottoman Empire? In 1550 it was practically a dictatorship under a Sultan. By 1700 it had transformed to a multi-power state where power was shared throughout the nation. After their defeat in World War 1, many of the regions eventually turned to republics. Now, many of the regions have fallen to monarchies under Islamic states or had done so and have now transitioned back to quasi-republics.
Even further we have the interesting case of the US. The United States was under British colonial rule (rule by one) until their rebellion created a republic. It largely operated as a rule by few during the struggle, then as a rule by one under George Washington, and then finally a republic at the struggle’s conclusion. This republic has stood the test of time nearly as well as Rome but is showing significant signs of decay into socialism and centralization. As of this writing, it is solidly in the hands of the rule by few at this point. It will not be long until the US reaches an even further degenerative rule by few stage and then a returns to a rule by one.
China is also a unique example. Starting with the Qing dynasty, the country gradually moved toward a rule by many from a rule by one (the dynasty). Toward the end of the Qing dynasty, numerous elections were being held, even parliamentary elections. The Xinhua revolution occurred which transformed the nation into the Republic of China, which was meant to be a quintessential rule by many republic framework. China is unique in that after this even happened, the clear cyclical splinter between two similar entities can be witnessed. Centralization occurred rapidly in the mainland. The mainland quickly fell to a rule by few that were in a constant struggle for victory against one another. This eventually culminated in the rising of Mao and his form of rule by one communism. In Taiwan, however, the republic lived on in what was meant to be its true form. One survived, while the other rapidly fell throughout the anacyclosis circle right back to absolute centralization. Two very similar nations with two diametrically opposed outcomes. But both followed anacyclosis and the cycle of collapse. The only difference was the timeline.
How about Germany? They went from the Weimar Republic (rule by few) to National Socialist (rule by one). Then, half of them stayed within a rule by one behind the Berlin wall under communism and the other half returned to rule by many.
On the subject of communism, what of Cambodia? The Cambodians had a capitalist form of government that eventually decayed into a corrupt oligarchy. This corrupt oligarchy leads the path for the Khmer Rouge to overtake the country and instill a dictatorial communist regime. Once the communists fell, the republic returned. This demonstrates a rule by many to a rule by few to a rule by one back to a rule by many.
Next up, Iran. After the Soviet withdrawal of Iran in the 1940’s, Iran soon formed a united nation. It began humbly with a middle-eastern style rule by many form, championing a form of secular democracy under the prime minister. Later, after the CIA-backed coup d’état, it increasingly became more authoritarian and centralized. At this point, the “republic” in the “Islamic Republic” is long since gone, instead being clear-cut case of a rule by few, Islamic-style monarchy. Iran follows a clear-cut progression of our theories: A rule by one (Foreigners – Soviet control) fell to a rule by many, which quickly degraded into a rule by few.
We could also look at the largest contiguous land empire in history, the Mongolian Empire. Heralded as probably the most dominating rule by one during the reign of Genghis Khan, it began to splinter after his death because of the inherent problems of rule by one’s, in regards to proper succession of the “one” position. The empire further began to crack as each independent region within the empire began to decentralize authority away from the whole (leading to a splintered empire-style rule by many of distinct regional zones), finalizing in the ending-result of the Khanates separating into four distinct empires.
French history is equally as insightful. In recent history, the French monarchy controlled the nation until the beginnings of a republic in 1789-1792. That is, until the reign of terror occurred, which gradually degraded the system over the decade until Napoleon seized complete control in a rule by one. Eventually, this rule by one fell into the second republic in the mid 1800’s. It did not last long, and soon the second empire arose. The theme doesn’t end here. You can probably guess the progression at this point. This new empire also fell. With it, the third republic was born. Eventually, a rule by one returned in the form of domination by Nazi Germany. After Germany’s defeat in World War 2, the republic has since returned. They are now degrading into what will likely be a rule by few in the coming years. Each step of anacyclosis and the cycle was evident in France all the way back to their original founding.
How about the interesting case of Russia? Russia practiced feudalism for a significantly longer period of time than most other countries. While most abandoned feudalism in the middle ages, Russia had it as the primary form of government until well into the nineteenth century. In 1861, they abandoned serfdom. Later on, the gateway opened for the communists to seize control during the Russian Revolution. This revolution trapped the Russians back into the stage of rule by one. (rule by one to a very short rule by many to a rule by few to a rule by one). Since the fall of the tyrannical USSR, the country has been a republic.
Spain, Poland, Tunisia, Vietnam, and nearly every other nation shares very similar stories to those above. At this point, we are practically just repeating the same thing over and over again, which was the objective. There is a trend here. Through this repetition we can clearly see the trend. That trend is anacyclosis and a cycle of collapse that is clearly evident for all world governments. Regardless of location, demographics, nationality, religion, or context. They all follow a similar trend.
We have spoken for a region or country on nearly every single continent besides Australia and Antarctica. Antarctica being excluded for the obvious reason of lack of civilization. Australia being excluded because it is a relatively new arrival. It was first discovered as recent as 1770 and the commonwealth was not even founded until 1901. They have largely been a democratically-elected constitutional monarchy which is why they have retained their culture for the time being in similar veins to the US Republic and the Roman Republic. But evidence of decline has come to fruition in Australia the same as the other Western nations. They will not be an exception to this rule.
If we had the resources available, we would like to study every single country and their own cycles of collapse over the past 3000 years. The sheer number of civilizations and their complexities is far too great without an entire dedicated field of study, however. It takes months to truly grasp the entire circumstances surrounding one single nation during one single time period. Perhaps in the future we can fund such an excursion to help truly capture anacyclosis and the cycle of collapse for each independent form of government. A data synthesis project like this would surely lead us to even more interesting insights.
We encourage the reader to research their own regions and birth place’s political history. Look up histories of countries you are interested in. Consider it through the lens of the cycle. You will see similar results. There are very few anomalies or countries that escape the hourglass. Over a long enough time period none can escape it because we all reside under one of these failing frameworks. They just pick different names, government titles, and timelines.
It is important to take a break here and note two things: the timeline issue and the exception issue.
Firstly, the finalized timeline it takes from ascension to dust for a nation is far less important than the periods and traits it exhibits during those timelines. Humanity is always exhibiting difference and change, so minor deviations are expected. Yet, if we know the periods and traits it exhibits during those uncertain timelines, we will have a better idea of trending a timeline using those verifiable points. This is why we don’t focus heavily on Sir Glubb’s 250-year hypothesis or other timeline-focused theories. We are much more concerned with the signals that indicate where we are at currently on the timeline to see where we are and how fast we are heading toward the same outcomes. No two countries would be exactly the same in timeline, but they are the same in traits of degeneration.
This timeline issue is easy to grasp when using the Baghdad example. Baghdad used to be a thriving, unbelievable city within a powerful empire in the tenth century. It was the largest city in the world at that time. Baghdad was the center of power during this Golden Age of Islam. Would you have expected that the historians of Baghdad at that time to have complained about the degeneracy they experienced there? The historians complained of sexual immorality, a constant need of materialism, corruption of government, financial elite, debauchery language, and even the equivalent of “pop singers”![iii] Do any of these ring true of degenerative nations of today? Most readers would never expect that the very same thing inflicting us also inflicted one of the most prominent Islamic cities of all time. What happened there is happening here. They fell shortly thereafter and Baghdad has never recovered in prestige since. This is why the timeline of the decline is less important than what is actually happening internally. Because when you know what is happening internally, you will automatically recognize where a nation is on the timeline.
Secondly, the exception issue. It is obvious but it has to be said for the statistically-uninformed: there are always exceptions to the general rule. This is true of nearly everything with humanity. The exceptions exist to prove the rule. In the case of the cycle of collapse, the exceptions are usually limited to small, ethnically homogeneous, culturally homogeneous, moderate to high IQ societies that have not achieved a heightened status of power and wealth that would lead toward degeneracy. Even then, they are still on the cycle, they are just moving much slower due to those specific traits which allow them to resist degeneracy for longer.
With these two issues addressed, we can move forward.
Certain governments, constitutions, and countries have lasted longer than others. We must take into consideration these instances and which government policies help support the sustainment when developing Enclavism.
A key indicator of this sustainability is the culture and the demographics. These two items behind a country drive what happens in society far more than just the structure of their government. But the structure of the government does determine the susceptibility and longevity of the aforementioned pieces. The reason why government systems change is because the culture or internal stability of the nation changes. A strong structure protects against this.
The only other instigator of why governments change is external threats from the outside or the economy. If people are united under a culture and have a promising life with some struggles to cause men to develop appropriately, the government does not change. Once one of those factors shifts, however, the hourglass starts pouring.
While the hourglass visual aid in the previous paragraph was a helpful instruction, we also want to introduce our anacyclosis diagram using our model. Using this as a visual exercise, picture a circle with three points equally spaced apart with the first point at the uppermost region of the circle. We call this point A. Point A is rule by one (absolute centralization). Point B is rule by many (decentralized). Finally, point C is rule by few (component centralized).
Where decentralized means that the power, control, wealth, and other important indicators of the society are adequately spaced apart from all key institutions to allow a proper separation of power along with checks and balances. Component centralization means that certain key societal institutions are centralized in such a manner to effectively create a rule by few by those who control those institutions. However, full centralization has not yet been established. Absolute centralization is the inverse of decentralization: one individual or group holds all essential indicators of the nation.
See the following visual diagram:
Every modern legacy government form is located on this circle. Constantly moving clockwise (note the arrows on the image).
The space between each rule by form is that preceding form’s cycle of collapse. For example, the distance between the rule by many and the rule by few is the cycle of collapse that Enclavists are interested in breaking.
The first half of the distance between two points indicates the positive or beneficial version of that preceding regime. The latter half is the degenerative stage.
This diagram is helpful to visualize that as the rule by forms end, it is not an immediate transition. For example, as a rule by one ends, it does not immediately jump to pure decentralization. It takes time. Slowly or rapidly, it drops its aspects of centralization. Just the same as the rule by many forms slowly lose their decentralized nature when transitioning into a rule by few.
There is no turning back from this centralization under modern structures. Eventually authoritarianism will occur once a certain level of centralization takes hold in the nation.
As mentioned, we can use this diagram to track where each government currently resides on their own cycle of collapse. We implore the reader to ponder where their own nation state currently resides on this cycle and in relation to anacyclosis.
This visual representation also helps explain the interconnectivity of political governance. Very rarely is a country truly 100% centralized or decentralized. Nor are they 100% capitalist, socialist, democratic, or any political catch-phrase. They are a mix, dependent on their placement on this circle. Yet, they never stop moving along it.
Sometimes, such as in the case of Venezuela which we previously explained, the government moves along the cycle very quickly. Other times, like in the case of many well-done republics, it drags out.
We can also use this to understand political movements and political parties. Consider the U.S. political arena. Conservatives desire to conserve a single spot on this circle. As the nation progresses along the circle, the spot they need to hold shifts. They no longer want to conserve the original foundational beliefs as it is far too distant of a possibility to preserve.
This is why they argue for things that the conservatives of decades prior would faint at the thought of. Similarly, this is why over time the conservatives themselves become the progressives of the past. The progressives push forward on the circle, whereas the conservatives want to hold it at an arbitrary line. Eventually, the conservatives are forced to hold the line at the position the previous progressives were pushing for. The best a conservative can do is slightly delay the inevitable.
What is perhaps most ironic is that the progressives are pushing to “progress” back to a preceding governmental form. They are, in effect, pushing power directly into the hands of centralizers. They have been indoctrinated by the very same individuals that profit off of their lack of understanding.
Both the actions of the conservatives and the progressives benefit the centralizers. The progressives for obvious reasons and the conservatives because of their necessitation for continual re-consideration of where they will hold the line (moving further along the cycle as needed).
You can also note that as the circle moves further clockwise, the political discourse changes. As time progresses, the centralizers seize far more power and have far more tools at their disposal to push for more centralization. The tools, institutions, and culture can be used as weapons to increase the speed of the centralization. Since the distance is not as far to full fledge and component centralization compared to the past, it is much easier for them to use them without resistance. This can, and usually does, spark the initial violent unrest. Why not? It is always to the gain of the centralizers. Regardless of if it is left-wing or right-wing unrest. Typically, it’s a mixture of both. Any unrest allows them the power to centralize even further.
The rule by many form is very unique in its cycle of collapse. During the initial stages, there is always phenomenal leadership. Usually, the leaders are the best the nation has to offer. Then, during the middle years, the leaders are as average as the average citizen. During the decadent years, the leaders are not just bad, but evil. If humanity is said to live on a spectrum of good to evil, then as time progresses on the cycle of collapse, the leadership of the nation moves right alongside that character spectrum with it.
Centralizers desire degeneracy because it encourages the average to come to their side (evil). They act as though they are moral as a way to pull the average into their favor. The average, in a rule by many, almost always side with whoever they perceive as being victorious, regardless of the overall struggle. They are followers, through and through.
This effect is also why centralizers favor war. They personally would never go off to fight in wars. They would never defend the homeland or risk their own life for anything but themselves. No, but they are happy to send off the courageous and good citizens to go die for their objectives. It satisfies two of their goals in one: whatever the war profiteering brings them and also the lessening of the number of good citizens, as they are too busy being killed in foreign conflicts.
This is also why in the initial years, the leadership is regularly staffed with soldiers, generals, and warrior-like soldiers. They are good; they have and will fight for their brethren. The average years, 50/50. While in the evil years, very few are of a noble background.
These small trends are noticeable in nearly every rule by many country that has ever existed. While you research them and look forward past this text, keep your eyes open for them. They are usually invisible to the eye until you begin to understand how all of these things interconnect, then they still remain small but visible. These small distinctions are keys to understanding how, and why, nations collapse.
We should also address old theories. Generally, individuals on the right of the political spectrum are trying to “conserve” their spot on the cycle while those on the left desire to advance it. There is a common belief in the U.S. that there is a political pendulum that swings right and left with time. This isn’t fully accurate. While the political fighting noted by the circle may shift here and there, it will not move backwards. While it may nudge back and forth occasionally, it’s only moving back so far as the current zone allows it.
Think of a zone as a small area on the cycle of collapse. Picture a government that is at a random point on the cycle and then add just a short distance both behind this point and in front of it. This would be the “zone” on the cycle. There are potentially hundreds of zones in between two different forms. Or as little as only a handful of zones, depending on the speed of the decline. Each zone allows for a certain level of back-and-forth for some victories from either side, but it is not possible to return to a previous zone. This is why it is impossible to move back. Rather, any victories for conservationists only delay the progression of the current zone for the time being.
Once the zone itself moves forward, it is stuck there, never to return to the prior zone. The fight is then keeping it in its current zone or progressing it to the next zone. The only real question is the speed at which we will move on the circle. If the pendulum goes right, it will just slow this progression for a set amount of time within the zone until it swings back left. The pendulum cannot recognize anacyclosis in its proper lifespan.
There is another old theory called the horseshoe theory in describing political allegiances. It states that the far-left and the far-right are not at the opposite ends of a linear political spectrum. Instead, they closely resemble one another, similar to the way that the opposite ends of a horseshoe are close together. This theory is directly correlated with our circular theory here. Both communists and national socialists (far left and far right) would fall in the same section: the forms desiring centralization. They are both close together in their framework of government, even if they initially seem far apart. They both desire a return to rule by one through centralization and collapse. It is why our regimes are not separated based on political ideology but instead based on the number of rulers. It also explains why fringe ideologies are appealing under certain conditions. A positive, benevolent rule by one is far superior to the majority of the citizenry than a degenerate rule by many or equivalent.
After careful long-term analysis, most honest researchers would come to the conclusion that there is no system as destructive as a degenerative rule by many. Even the more centralized systems (rule by few or rule by one) generally cause less permanent damage on the long-term survivability of the nation. The centralized variants are deadly to the current populations. But the degenerative form of the rule by many is deadly to the entire generational line that comes after it. Think of it as a virus: one kills only the host while the other kills the host and his entire genetic line. Both are damaging and should be avoided but one is far worse than the other.
This degenerative form of the nation destroys the soul of the subjects; the very soul of the nation. It rarely can be recovered after the fact. It is usually a permanent change and never for the better. It makes a shell of the former nation, where the shell eventually realizes it would had been better had it died long ago. Their own descendants will not look like them, not act like them, not think like them, not believe like them, and will more than likely hate them and all they have ever accomplished. Even the degenerative forms of centralized rules such as fascism and communism cannot create this complete annihilation tactic. China is still inhabited by Chinese and Russia by the Russians. Germans were Germans and French were French after the war, until the arrival of the degenerate forms of the rule by many. Now, in how many years will it be until the original population are a minority in their own nations? Will their culture survive? Their beliefs? Their over millennium-long legacies? Certainly not, unless the course is changed very soon.
The rule by many forms result in this because of their skewed incentivization tactics and centralizers. The nations grow to hate themselves and seek their own destruction. They see evil in themselves and desire to destroy it. The centralizers and globalists desire this, as it breaks down society into an easier distribution from which they can further grab more power and reach their inevitable goals. This means the inevitable degradation is actually an innate incentive of the rule by many forms. In the rule by few and rule by one forms, the incentive is the opposite. The centralizers already control the nation; they have a desire to preserve it for their own power-sake. They do not want the people or culture to change, as it would then be harder for them to maintain power. This differing of incentives is what leads the degenerative rule by many form to be even more dangerous than the degenerative variants of the centralized forms when considering a long-term outlook.
For many, a transition into a new centralized form is a welcome relief from the continuation of the degeneracy of the prior form. This is how anacyclosis happens: the population realize there is no manner to fix the endemic problems so they endorse centralization to escape it.
The rule by many variant is the deadliest strain; it has the potential to completely obliterate even the strongest of nations if not rectified rapidly.
No one has stopped it, yet. Every nation that has existed has followed this path on the circle. Our nation’s point on the circle never stops moving clockwise. Sometimes we fight back the progression for a few extra years. Sometimes, even decades. Yet, we have never found a way to fully stop it. The cycle continues on. Endlessly.
The reason most people have not heard nor understand these obvious truths are because those in power have a vested incentive in the regular citizens not knowing them.
For if we truly understand it, we would all desire to resist against it.
[i] Bruce Bueno de Mesquita and Alastair Smith, The Dictator’s Handbook: Why Bad Behavior Is Almost Always Good Politics.
[ii] Ancient History Encyclopedia, “Rome Timeline”.
[iii] The works of Sir John Glubb.