Enclavism: Introduction
Previous Piece: The Enclavism Book: Front Matter (Dedication & Table Of Contents)
While living through the decline of the Great American Republic, it had always piqued my interest in how we got to this position. The nation, my nation, had gone from arguably the world’s greatest superpower to a shell of its former self, all within what initially appeared to be a few generations.
Political pundits, theorists, and commentators all have their own theories. They shout into the abyss about “creeping socialism”, or a decline of traditional values, or certain political parties not having their way, or income inequality, or some type of -ism, or some other noticeable symptom.
But these never settled well with me. Because if these are happening, which certainly many are, that still does not explain what is making them occur. What is actually causing that change? Why is there a decline of traditional values? What is causing the economic problems? The result is far less interesting to me than the action that covertly causes the result. Our commentators speak often of the symptoms, but not the disease.
This curiosity led me to spend a better part of the last decade researching political cycles. During this research, I came to uncover a tremendous discovery: the collapse of most governments is not an accident. It is by their own design. The governmental frameworks that we have are not designed to stop the actions that cause their own degeneration. In many ways, they encourage it.
Throughout this research, I also realized that the decline and fall of most great civilizations were eerily similar to one another. Even in nations that are culturally, ethnically, racially, religiously, and spiritually completely opposite of one another. They share more similarities than differences during their descent. This is true of nearly every government form, framework, or system.
This resulted in a troubling conclusion: If all governments are designed to degenerate, then there is no way to stop the rise and fall of any nation. Support for or against any policy or ideology is inherently meaningless, because given enough time, the overall system will degrade no matter what actions we take to stop it. Which also means that no matter what political theory or ideology I would support, I’d merely be supporting a stepping-stone on this overall cycle of collapse that will continue regardless of the ideology or system preferred. Maybe some policy preferences would help delay it, but none could actually stop it.
This startling conclusion led me to not just research this cycle of collapse, but also to compile ways we could prevent it. While doing so, I realized that there is no practical way to amend the current governmental frameworks because the items needed to do so are directly contradictory to the requirements set forth from these legacy frameworks. There are fatal flaws with each that cannot be overcome with amendments within the framework itself. Which means that there is no feasible way to overcome this cycle with the current offerings. This leaves us with the conclusion that a new system, and framework, has to be devised.
Which brought me to writing this book. Its purpose is to present my theory on the cycle of collapse, investigate why the current frameworks are ineffective at preventing their own destruction, and develop an alternative that would prevent the degeneration of its political system.
This is an initial incursion into building that different government. My idea is a massive undertaking; one that will probably never be fully completed in my lifetime. I do not believe that every element I present in this book is fool-proof and flawless. Read this text not as a final version but rather as a foray toward the aim of designing such a government. This is the initial leap to get the conversation started.
I must also stress that what I am attempting to do here is not the entire picture. It is just one important piece of it. A pinnacle society, one with an enduring legacy and prosperous life, is not just the system. It is much more than that. It is also the people that make up the nation-state and the very soul of those people. But all three are necessary: the physical nation that is unified, a proper national soul that is powerful and vigilant, and a sustainable system for those people to utilize. The harmonization of those three elements is absolutely necessary. In this first step, I am only trying to solve the system component. But with it, we should naturally develop some of the necessary systemic safeguards that would help to preserve and make prosperous the nation and its soul. Thereby capturing the Three Essentials.
Throughout the book I have attempted to separate my personal policy and system preferences by using terminology such as “I” or similar first-person point of view, whereas for the framework pieces I use “We” or similar points of view to denote a required inclusion for any Enclavist approach. I am not always flawless in this endeavor, as some may be crossed between the two.
Because of the complexity of this project and the need for new components for our system, I have had to create new words and also strictly define loose terms. A glossary of the most essential definitions is provided at the end of this book, which can be used as an easy reference point.
My theory in this book includes both a governmental framework and a government system that is built off that framework. The difference between those terms is important and will be addressed early on. The governmental framework we create is a “rule-by-contributor” framework. Our political theory of “Enclavism” is the government system that is built off of that framework.
My hope in the writing of this book is to inspire change in the thoughts and minds of its readers. The reader’s adoption of all tenets and beliefs within is not important to me. Rather, I hope to inspire in our reader a new thought process when considering the political questions of the modern day. I hope to shift the reader’s mindset away from fixing the current systems to designing new ones entirely. Away from the false promises of modern systems, toward the reality of the cyclical nature of legacy political governments. Most importantly, I desire to deliver hope to our readers of an alternative option and to provide the potential framework it would require.
Before beginning, our reader should note that Enclavism is a new government system entirely. Which means that we do not have to work within the confines of the existing political systems. Instead, we make our own. It is also important to recognize that we are creating the framework required for this new government system. We are not debating a political stance. A liberal, independent, centrist, and conservative could all agree with the Enclavist framework, yet disagree with the exact implementation, policies, or preferred system. Anyone, regardless of political belief or national heritage, could find worth in the framework.
The policies we adopt when building this framework are exclusive to this framework and our political theory. The policies we recommend are unlikely to work with the legacy frameworks. To truly grasp how our system would function, our reader needs to see the political policies in the full context of our framework. They cannot extrapolate them to the other frameworks nor debate their merits from the vantage point of the other frameworks. For example, many of the policies we recommend would not work correctly if singled out and implemented within our current liberal democracy. Our political theory is only designed to work with our rule-by-contributor framework. There is no single policy strategy that would fit all the frameworks. So, within this book, we only address what would suit our framework. We are not concerned with the others. Trying to implement our policies in your preferred system is not likely to be successful, nor would we desire it to be. While going through this book, we ask our reader to be aware of this comparison bias.
Finally, we also ask our reader to enter with an open mind. Our positions are excruciatingly contrary to the current political discourse. Those that follow ideological lines without question will not be served well here. We are neither “right” nor “left” in the conventional sense. Any politically informed reader will certainly be challenged by many of the items discussed within, regardless of previously held convictions.
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!
