I think William Lind is
right in his assessment of our having a crisis of the legitimacy of
the state. “Fourth Generation War Comes to a Theater Near You.
Lind writes: “This
crisis varies greatly in intensity from one state to another, but
almost everywhere we see people in growing numbers transfer their
primary loyalty away from the state to non-state entities: race,
religion, ideology, or political causes such as animal rights, etc.
Many of those people, who would never fight for their state, are
willing, even eager, to fight for their new primary loyalty. The
consequence is that the state loses the monopoly on war it claimed at
Westphalia. As van Creveld says, the key change in the Fourth
Generation is not how war
is fought (although that does change), but who fights
and what they fight for.”
Lind
goes on to say: “We threw away our domination in three great
Western civil wars: World War I, World War II, and the Cold War. Now,
the West is just one contending culture among many, the state to
which the West gave birth is failing everywhere, and the questions of
ultimate meaning that modernity discarded are returning to haunt its
senescence.”
Lind asks: “So, is the future of the American
state hopeless? Probably. I can see three possible outcomes to the
crisis of legitimacy of the American state.
The first is that the dynasty falls and a competent
new establishment class replaces it, one that can make the federal
government work for everyone and that ceases to wage ideological war
on its own people. In theory, this is possible, but I see no signs of
it happening, nor any forces on the horizon that are capable of doing
it. The system is so loaded against third parties that this route is
effectively blocked. The Democrats are hopelessly in thrall to
cultural Marxism because their base either believes in it, profits
from it, or both. President Trump has shown himself incapable of
remaking the Republican Party in his anti-Establishment, politically
incorrect image. Could his successor do it, perhaps someone such as
Tucker Carlson? Hope springs eternal, but hope is also a fool.
A second possibility is that both left and right
could see the horrors that widespread Fourth Generation War on
American soil would bring, step back, and work together to avoid it.
There is a way to do that, by returning to American federalism as it
was practiced before 1860.
When the Constitution was drafted and ratified, none
of the men involved ever imagined that life in, say, Massachusetts
and South Carolina would become the same. Still less did they
conceive that the Constitution gave the federal government authority
to make them the same. Were we to return to their understanding of
federalism, we could maintain the union while accommodating cultural
differences. Some states would be right, others left. If you found
yourself being governed by people you despised, you would not need to
fight. You could simply move. We would still be one country for
foreign policy, defense, macroeconomics, and infrastructure. But
leftists would be free to misrule the West Coast to their hearts’
content, while conservatives enjoyed the neighborliness and good food
of the Old South.
The third and most likely possibility is that the
country breaks apart in widespread Fourth Generation War. Welcome to
Libya, Syria, and a growing portion of the world.
If the third possibility becomes reality and America
as we know it disappears from the world’s landscape, its vanishing
will be part of something larger: the end of the modern age that gave
birth to the state.
Can
the times be redeemed? Probably not, but as men of the West, we must
try."
---
I
believe that the science of sociobiology and natural common sense
predict that
if real kin and ethnic-centered human nature was allowed to be what
it is, the
biological origin of social behavior
leads
to ethnostates and an ethnopluralism of ethnostates for all groups,
black, white, brown, yellow, or red. Evolutionary
conservatism suggests that real kin and ethnic-centered human nature
naturally leads to regionalism, localism, general conservative
values, eventually ethnostates, and finally an ethnopluralism of
ethnostates. But each
ethnostate needs to be protected from marauding imperialists, global
businesses, supremacists, Marxists, etc., with some kind of defensive
federalism. An ethnopluralism of ethnostates could be established
legally in the United States with our constitutional separation of
powers and states.
Posts
