The Will and Direction
of
Government
Government is the
technics of the
mass.
Government is the
outward manifestation of its Race-Culture. It shares, or one could say, ‘should share’, the
mores,
traditions [e.g. common-law, precedents, customs], and
combined historical outlook of the entire body of persons making up the Nation. As experience teaches us however,
technics will always take on a life of its own in the systematic
evolution of all organisms through
birth,
life, and
senility. It may be that these changes in technics will be considered good or bad by those which stand to lose or gain power over their particular agendas; to protect these investments, sometimes literally, a monolith of control, that is to say, a government large enough to
control whatever may chance to arise and
disrupt it, had to be created. Hence, the concept ‘bigger is better’ was justified.
The literal growth of
individuals, nationally,
becomes the Race-Culture with the passing of time, so also, its technics. Western culture has always evolved within this
cycle of change, and has created various ‘forms’ of government to deal with the ongoing role of ‘people vs. state’. In this age however, technics, as a tool ‘of and
for the People’, has become synonymous with
overt control,
manipulation of the press, and behavior modification on a
mass scale for the purpose of directing the life of the ‘the people’ to the aims and goals of persons who are, for the most part, out of step with the ‘host race-culture’ of the West.
These persons who control the
technics of our age, through an ongoing process, have convinced the people that bigger armies, buildings, and ‘bigger and better’ government are
essential to a free world; yet the bigger the government then, conversely, means that its [government]
will or
force of will becomes, as rudimentary probability will show, as BIG as the technics of government have become. In other words, the
force of a government is matched simply by its very
size. This has always been seen as the natural outcome of any civilization, which, seeks to extend itself for as long as possible. It is simply the birth, life, and senility of every
organism.
The largest organic manifestation of the modern Western technic has been the
ascendancy of that ever-encroaching ‘mechanism’,
over man. Bigger and faster machines seemed the
panacea of capitalism, for
absolute production was the
art of the Modern; but in doing so, he ensured that ever
brutal and
microscopic man, his
capacity ever smaller, to fulfill the spiritual and esoteric truths of his ‘inner soul’. Ever
less was his sense of aspiration and manly self-discipline, which is, ultimately, his mark of
nobility, and which lies at the very root of his ‘genius’ – true
Aristocratic Nobility – which will lead, ultimately, to that very disintegration of that noble
character under that unpleasant reality of the
mob, that dearest of maneuvers, so loved of the modern
culture-destroyer who, having no direction, other than its own ‘direction’, its own
needs, devolves to the level, that
inevitable level, of the
mediocre and
selfish ‘mass man’. This, of course, levels all to the lowest ‘value’ of the one mind, the
ethos of the smallest and meanest; this, the continuing experiment of the modern
egalitarian.
It is, then, in consequence, that this ‘value of the mechanism’, this value given to ‘production’, is the
true value, the true sense of
god, in which the modern culture-
distorter has placed his values. It is part of his present and future presence. But has this method, this ‘value’ proven itself through the ages?
It has
not.
Democracy, or at least a
form of democracy, has been brought to bear upon every established Western, and even non-Western countries, not by simple ballot, but through the force of arms, revolution, assassination, kidnapping, fiscal maneuvers and the like, to prove that democracy works; that is, which ‘speaks’ for the mass. The Modern is used to ‘coercion’, in the name of ‘democratic’
ideals – hence the ‘proof’ that it works. Coercion, especially under the colour of ‘law’, at whatever level, has been the driving force behind ‘all’ forms of government, including the Modern’s vision of ‘democracy’ since the 15th century.
In his writings on the German philosopher
Goethe, G.H. Lewes gives us a view of the precepts and form of democracy demanded of by the [democratic] revolutionaries of France [of which the hungry American revolutionaries
suckled from], which numbered three principle characteristics promulgated by these revolutionaries which, to Goethe, were the ultimate in absurdities:
The first was the doctrine of equality; not simply in the eyes of the law (this was accepted), but of absolute equality…the second revolutionary principle was the doctrine of government by the people…the mob became the tyrant…the third revolutionary principle was, that political freedom is necessary to man1…[emph. added]
Over the past five-hundred years, Western man has come to believe these tenets with the utmost veracity, so as to cringe at any criticism whatsoever regarding his monopoly of power based, as it were, on anything but the democratic process.
To accept democracy however, one must believe that every ‘man’s opinion has its
worth equal to that of the next man’s’. This, of course, is the accepted
appearance of the democracy of the West. But to the waking eye, it is obvious that something is wrong with the machine, with the
process by which we have put so much faith in; as Lawrence Brown points out however, democracy
”… in operation is not concerned with everyone’s opinion – that is merely its technical form – but only with the organized opinion of those whose opinion’s can be made politically ‘effective’.”2 [emph. added] All these points must be addressed in the context of the Modern for, ultimately, the source of the government must now dictate which of these conditions, namely, ‘equality’, if it be admitted that such does exist, or the simple-minded ‘appearance’ of equality in the [organized] political process, governs the West.
The legacy of modern Western governments, that is, the modern Nation/State, branched from two main sources, neither of which was truly democratic:
Hereditary and
Elective leadership. Of these two forms, ‘hereditary leadership’ was the first ‘great’ leadership technics of the West, and was seen in the formation of the ‘absolute’ Monarchy; the monarchy, in turn, was the progeny of the original system by which ‘the people’ chose their king by affirmation; the ‘rule’ of ‘rule by divine right’ came much later. Elective government, akin to what our early efforts on this continent would show us, was based on the ‘leadership principle’, that is, based upon merit: merit based on
character,
personality, and ‘example’ which was the day to day habits and conditions of life that
created the ‘character’ of the person chosen, and by which the people felt a certain
affinity. Close living approximation aided in this effort; we have a harder time of it, simply because it is ‘hard to know’ who we choose for our leaders. Constitutional government is a
relatively new form of
technic, since with time the formulation of ‘legal nuance’ comes with the complex form of national legal systems, which are the inevitable outcome of ‘modern’ civilization. Anyone who takes any time whatsoever to observe what is going on around them will, of necessity, see the multitudinous amount of Lawyers and their hangers-on. Lawyers, by definition ‘study and practice law’ for the betterment of the social politic. When the ‘size’ of government dictates the presence of so many lawyers, the
common man is removed, and then
again, from the system which was ‘designed’
for the common man. A system in which a man could defend himself, without benefit of a lawyer. Constitutionalism was designed to provide a ‘simple’ set of guidelines for the public to follow. Here, then, does the
irony of the moment become manifest.
Copyright 2009___________
1. Lewes, G.H. – The Life and Works of Goethe
2. Brown, Lawrence R. – Might of the West, pg. 482, Joseph L. Binns, 1978[
