The Piece Often Pushed Aside
Many dissidents and nationalists have taken a pretty large turn away from the government system question. This is a natural reaction, because the system is largely one of the hardest questions to answer. Both in realistic, practical terms—And in philosophical ones. It’s easier to simply avoid, or to use some generic answer like “republic but better”, “monarchy”, etc.
Each system has major drawbacks and problems, so ascribing to any opens one up to massive criticism and challenges that are easily avoided by avoiding the question. But it’s not a question we should be avoiding.
Recall the three essentials of any nation-state: the nation (a culturally homogeneous group of people united by blood and heritage), the soul of the nation (cultural expression, traditions, and related), and the system. These three come together to form a nation-state, if the nation-state is of a single nation (or dominated by one, such as the British Empire or Roman Empire).
Our race nationalist friends and other biology-focused dissidents seem to plce their focus on the nation piece. They figure that if we just get one group in the same area and let us talk it out, the situation will be resolved. This is fallacious, as history has shown, because every single European country was at one point or another mostly homogeneous or dominated by a singular ethnic. They still failed. The American states were once overwhelmingly majority white, with a submissive, subjugated minority black population. Now the country is a disaster. What happened? The demographics changed, but it wasn’t by sorcery. The nation allowed those demographics to change. We had the biology piece at one point, so returning to it isn’t a permanent solution.
If we only focused on the biological piece, how could we prevent that again in the future? We can’t, because creating a sustainable nation-state is not just about the biology piece. The biology piece is important, I am not negating that. A cohesive nation is necessary. But it’s not the end-all. Each of the three essentials has their place.
Other dissidents target culture more so than biology or the system. Evola and many modern dissidents that lean toward monarchial or rule by one would certainly agree with this position. They would say the soul of the nation degraded, which is why the people allowed the nation to drift to unsustainable demographics. This is a step in the right direction from the tunnel vision on biology, but still misses the bigger picture. We need strong leadership and safeguards to protect the culture from degeneration. But then the question arises: how do we protect the soul in a sustainable manner? What tool(s) do we use to do that? Do we entrust a singular leader to rule righteously forever? Because hundreds of countries had at one time strong, rule-by-one systems with proper nations residing within them. They also failed and led to where we are now. Why? The degeneration of the national soul can be the primary culprit, but we need something to preserve it, if it is.
This is where the system piece comes in. It is why the system piece is so important. The system can’t make the nation, nor can it build the national soul. It is also not as glamorous or interesting. So, it is often put aside. But the system can sustain or negate both the soul and people.
A poor system can degrade even the strongest of national souls, as evidenced by the American republican-empire system brought about by the civil war. It degraded each intra-nation within us so extensively that most barely could recall there were once independent nations within this empire.
A poor system can also effectively neuter the biological (nation) piece. Again evidenced by the fact that the American system imported tens of millions of non-nation inhabitants that are now causing the usual ramifications brought about by diversity. Our government system has never given us the systemic tools to resist against this, even though it certainly has never been the popular position of the heritage American nations. If we had a lock-tight system that did not allow unfettered immigration without massive agreement from all parties with no ease-of-override by “representatives” then this couldn’t have happened so easily. The system is at major fault here as well.
Our system failed at the same time our national soul was becoming individualistic, greedy, and weak. The combination of these two allowed the nation’s piece to be hit by unsustainable diversification. Biology was not first, it was last. Our soul and system failed simultaneously, which at least partially indicates the two are essentially correlated in some inexplicable fashion.
Our system can protect the national people by being designed specifically to do so, which would capture two of the Three Essentials. The system could also have ingrained in it steps or provisions that help develop, or at least secure, the national soul. The system can’t fully encompass these two things itself, but they can aid them. We could get the biology and soul component, but if we place them both under a malevolent dictatorship, all it would take is one poor leader to begin the process of destroying both of them. Those of us in America had the biology and soul component, but we placed it under a liberal democracy, so this is what we reap.
The system has its place, and we as dissidents have to address it, even though it opens us up to massive criticisms, failures, and the inevitability of being wrong.
That’s what I’m trying to do with Enclavism. The prior systems simply don’t work for what we need. We need a new one focused on preserving nation-states within the new modern, industrial world. There is no way to “go back” or to correct the failings of these legacy systems. We have to prepare by building forward.
The individuals on the right that refuse to address the system question are doing us all a major disfavor. Even if they don’t agree with my solutions, it’s essential we start the conversation. This avoidance is setting us up to fail again in the future by not developing alternatives now.
Encourage other dissidents to talk about this topic. What political systems would be best to defend a proper nation-state? How can they protect the national soul long-term? What conditions does it need to do so? How can we improve those even further than they are now?
These are the questions we need to ask before we get to the position of having a united nation and budding soul, but are stuck without a system to use. This is not a question you want to answer in a week while trying to figure out how to organize a broken, regionalized country, if it comes to that. But that is how many of our government systems (liberal democracy, communism, etc) have been designed—hastily post-revolution. And that hasn’t worked out well for us. So, let’s stop trying the same thing and expecting something new.
Even if we can’t enact these ideas during our lifetime, we need to pass on the ideas to the next generations. So that they can take it and use it, or further refine it and give it to the next. It’s our mantle to build them.
We also need these new ideas now so we have something to work toward. Not just a blanket, laundry list of random ideas that we think might work in some capacity. We need a practical, tangible, new political system.
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!