by R.J. Jacob
“The thought of you tribal thugs “bringing down the state” is fucking disturbing.” -Anonymous commenter
he above comment is only a taste of the recent wave of fear generated by Jack Donovan and yours truly at Disinfo.com. See more hysteria here.
There’s something ironic about the widespread fear of small time rebels breaking up the state when we’re surrounded by big system fanatics who destroy everything they come into contact with. We have world party socialists for state socialism, austro-fundamentalists who defend the wealth of the largest corporations, neo-Nazis for imperial conquest, and liberal managerialists for “big solutions to big problems,” all building the Unsinkable Titanic, yet we small-time decentralists are the scary ones.
In addition to the Disinfo hysteria, I recently found myself witness to a democrat-republican argument about how “we” should fix things at the national level. The republican talked about Obama, GM, Obama, Israel, Obamacare, and more Obama (“We just need to get rid of Obama!”). The democrat talked about Obama’s gracefulness, Bush Sr, Bush Jr, “Mitt and Newt” and other ridiculous republicans with silly names (“We just can’t let another republican into office!”). After so many minutes of torture, I decided to step into the nightmare and give an argument to explain why secession is the only solution.
In short, I argued that the significant differences between Americans are so great and beyond resolution that the only way to reconcile such irreconcilable differences would be to break up the US federal government by means of pan-secessionism and decentralizing politics and economics into a system of decentralized systems.
That’s when the fear set in.
All of a sudden the republican and democrat were on the same page. The republican thought I was crazy, maybe stupid, possibly deep cover communista. “Secession isn’t the answer, my friend.” The democrat echoed the republican, “yeah, let’s just destroy everything, man.” The democrat thought I was spinning out some sort of “racist” agenda to push welfare recipients into “mass starvation.” He joked (half-seriously) about “cannibal cities” and the “possibility of slavery being reinstated.”
Amazingly, the only issue the republican and democrat agreed upon was staying together, for security reasons.
The desire to feel secure through large structural systems is a thing of modernity. There are many reasons why people run to the state but fear is the primary drive—fear of poverty, crime, racism, hate, violence, terrorism, war, being a minority, and so forth. Bruce Schneier in his book Beyond Fear demonstrates how modern man makes tradeoffs based on the feeling of security, not the reality of security. It’s no coincidence that we have today a therapeutic nanny welfare state partnered with a massive big sister security industrial complex that works to make people feel more secure. The entire ideological premise of the American ruling class is to pretend to guard you from everything—including yourself.
Contrary to popular feeling, the state is a security crisis. Those who control the state can become its juiciest victims in less than a century. States evolve beyond their original intentions to institutionalize the very things they were designed to keep from being institutionalized in the first place. As the state expands and becomes larger, humans are presented with baffling security realities that force them to make the wrong decisions in real time, learn the wrong lessons from terrifying events, select the wrong targets, become cowards, and generally move in an anti-biological direction.
If you want to know which of them are cowards just look for the “big system fanatic” tattooed on their foreheads. Many nationalists even have failed to rid themselves of the modern human symptom of responding only to the feeling of security. For instance, there’s no shortage of right wing “warriors” hanging out in New Right forums day dreaming about revitalizing the Frankensteinian state for “protectionism,” or what have you.
When it comes to “protection,” bigness and statism, I think Murphy’s Law is more than enough: if anything can go wrong, it will. Big systems are big problems, just ask yourself, would you rather be running Craigslist or UPS?
Those who wish to stay in control of things, replenish their ranks, and retain individuals of strength and honor should consider small, strong, relatively anarchistic polyglot confederations. A small system is secure because it is strong, not because it is big. Small and strong means the system is solid yet remains adaptable and able to make adjustments when the enemy or competition changes. Small and strong means things are personal. Small and strong means the elite are kept at sword length.
Of course, this is not to say all bigness is necessarily bad. I think virtues of smallness should be applied only where necessary. Humans do remarkable things and bigness can be beautiful in many ways. The multi-ethnic empires of the Ottoman Dynasty and House of Habsburg managed to provide a decent deal of independence and self-determination to many of its regions, communities, and ethno-cultural groups. But as time has shown, it’s rare for bigness to stay intelligent for very long.
So get real. Get small.