Without the Father, Nothing Endures

I've spent some time recently renewing my acquaintance with The Godfather and its sequels. The reason I did so was that a recurring theme came to mind, that of loyalty to the family (and Family), with the attendant duty to refrain from behavior that outsiders are not to witness. This behavior serves to undermine the Godfather--the patriarch--as he executes his supreme duty to safeguard and pursue the family's interests, making him seem other than capable and powerful- and thus not to be preyed upon (i.e. disrespected). It is also what drives Michael's sister, Connie, to push his son to supersede him in the third film.

These dynamics are not purely fictional. Change the context, and it becomes the story of a political dynasty navigating the treachery seas of dynastic politics. Change it again, and you get House of Cards. The reason that context merely changes the trappings without changing the behaviors is because of this: the family is the natural unit of Mankind, and all else that is lawful in Mankind's existence is an outgrowth of it.

We are now, globally, observing that this is true. We call this "identity politics", but it is really the reality of Mankind's existence in all of recorded history and most of the current world. The West's deviation is an aberration, and renewed exposure is going to put an end to this heresy--and it is a heresy--soon enough, because if it does not then the West shall cease to exist. The nations currently exploiting the West (with the help of traitors in the states of the West) have no qualms about putting the West to the sword for no other reason than that they are not Westerners and shall not preserve it.

Nations arise as outgrowths of families, through the mechanisms of extended kinship in clans and tribes, and kingdoms emerge when a single father-figure must emerge for the smooth execution of the duty to preserve the nation-family from predators without as well as fools within. (There is such a thing as too much talk at the wrong time.) The issue thereafter is the formalization and ossification of an emergent lawful hierarchy into artifice that does not reflect the shifting circumstances that life imposes; who is king must change when the circumstances shift too severely for the current crown to meet them, something ordinarily done with the simple passage of time and encounters with hostiles taking their toll.

The limit of an authority to respond effectively to predatory threats is the actual boundary condition for any authority, be it the lawful authority of a family (at any scale) or the artifice of a state (similarly, or subset thereof, such as a military). The question of legitimacy turns on this capacity, and people will accept many hardships and restrictions on individual agency so long as their father-figure is seen to effectively execute the duties put to him. It is no accident that political thought equates the people to children, for without the wisdom of the father too many too often are little more than children- and this very well-known phenomenon is proof of a fundamental quality of Mankind's nature, one that cannot be changed.

The answer to the matter of Empire is to acknowledge this as Natural Law, and to abandon everything that denies it in favor of reforming one's communities and societies into lawful reflections of this fact. Patriarchy is Natural Law.

Life is a Solved Problem

I have reason to believe that all of life is a solved problem.

The reason I say so is that all of the issues Mankind faces today are problems faced before, sometimes successfully and sometimes not. The causes are the same, the phenomena through which these problems arise and proceed are the same, and therefore so are the solutions. We already know what to do to solve the problem. This is the definition of a solved problem.

So we are dealing with a lack of will coupled with a lack of clarity caused by deliberate deception. Those pushing the problem (for whatever reasons) are lying to the rest of us for their own benefit, which makes what they are doing fraud and thus inherently predatory. The problems are solved; all that needs be done is to apply the solution.

Ultimately, what this means is simple: to declare clearly what the problem is, who is responsible for it, and execute them all for their predatory behavior. Zombies, et. al., are not real: corpses cannot (and therefore do not) reoffend, so killing those who do you or yours harm is not wrong, not a crime, and not even offensive. It is laudable, necessary, and expected of anyone seeking to get and remain free from Empire.

Apply the solutions. Empire cannot withstand Natural Law, which is what that means. Empire must fall.

The Rules That Exist Are Those Enforced

(Note: This post follows on from last week's post.)

The thing that distinguishes the Law of Nature from the Law of Man is that the latter does not enforce itself. Even children grasp this fact, summarized so brilliantly in this playground retort: "Make me."

Government is about control. You can proclaim all the rules you want, but if you cannot compel compliance then your words are senseless blather and what respect you have soon drains away. When speaking of self-government, starting with the individual, we term this "discipline" and rightly regard a lack of it as a mark of poor character. Individuals do what they do not want to secure benefits or necessities they want or need. As it is for individuals, so it is for groups of any size.

The difference is that enforcement externalizes in groups. The rule-maker relies on enforcers to compel compliance. This is true when the rule is reasonable, right, and proper as when it is not; the reason it is so is because the power to compel compliance means removing the power to act from those one seeks compliance from.

This is why competent rule creation rests upon shaping the ability of those targeted to comply, instead of relying upon argument of any kind; if the capacity to disobey is crippled, depreciated, or eliminated then you need not rely on enforcers as often or as severely to gain compliance. Use technical means over other options whenever you can, because their opinion of the rules is irrelevant is they lack the means to defy it.

Go back to that retort: "Make me". That's what has to be kept in mind when you go about making rules; if you can't make them comply, then your rule will be defied. It is the same if the defiance is reasonable or not, because you lack the means to enforce your will. Control over others necessarily requires possessing the means to destroy what they value most, for otherwise you have nothing to negotiate with.

Make no mistake; enforcement is negotiation. You're using violence (actual or the threat thereof) to say "Compliance is your better option." If you are unable to do this, then your rules--for all intents and purposes--do not exist. Being unwilling is the same as being unable, with the sole difference being the speed of remedy.

This is the practical part of power being in the ability to act, and never in deliberation or judgement. There are plenty of people deliberating on anything and everything; they lack the ability to act, so their opinions can be (and often are) ignored as they can't act on them. Plenty of people make judgments, but also cannot act on them, and are just as impotent so they too get ignored. The open hand and the closed fist matter far more than tomes of law or the councils of the wise, as every man whose dealt with the unruly and predatory knows to his cost.

And it is because human predators exist that the rules must be enforced--and seen to be enforced; invisible enforcement is no enforcement--for them to have their desired effect. The unruly can be cowed; predators must be exterminated without mercy or hesitation, as they brook no other limit to their predation, and they regard non-resistance as weakness (and weakness as consent to their predations).

Fortunately, this is a solved problem. The issue now is the unwillingness to apply the solution.

The Power That Matters Is The Power To Act

I find it interesting that people still think that a spoken or written proclamation is identical to forcing compliance with one's will. If there is a fatal flaw in any system of control, it is in thinking that merely changing what those rules or regulations or proclamations are will itself be sufficient to remedy undesired results.

It's not. It never has. It never will. The real power is in enforcement--in action--and not in deliberation or judgement. This belief is naive and not to be found in the world's elites, or in their counterparts in the underworld. Just as the Rule of Law is not a suicide pact, neither is it (when it works) denying reality; its efficacy relies on possession of might superior to all that challenge it, same as any other governing regime.

John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!

The reason that the dividing line is between speech and action is because speech is nothing until you act on it. Words are meaningless without deeds, and don't lie and say otherwise because you know that's true. You can talk all the shit you want. You can pontificate on all the principles you like. You can stand forth and proclaim the Good News until the day you die. If no action comes of those words, then they were never spoken at all.

So let the black-robed priests of the Law Cult waive their papers and declare Black is White. They are voices without flesh, and rely on others to give their words substance. Let the deliberators consider this, that, the other thing, and stuff. Even their possession of the purse no longer holds the power it once did, and otherwise they too are without substance. Only he who acts has power; everyone else merely appropriates that power by fooling the actor otherwise. The mindful, aware actor is the most powerful man alive- and Empire fears him and him alone.