Hey! You! Join Us at the Anarchonomicon Discord Server! The tendency toward political centralization that has characterized the western world for many centuries, first under monarchical rule and then under democratic auspices, must be reversed. -Hans Herman Hoppe
In conflict, it is disparity of military capability that produces conditions for victory. One of the critical elements of war is the Will To Win. Sadly, one cannot buy Will To Win from a defense contractor; it's there or it isn't. Presently in the West, mostly it isn't there, and hasn't been in any quantity, since WWII. The West loves its war gadgets, oft thinking them powerful enough to give the disparity that achieves victory. In most cases, they are not enough. Cases in point: Viet Nam and Afghanistan. In both crappy countries, there was no '4 Generation Warfare.' That concept is utter bullshit, a salve for the egos of the warhawks in the West who say 'but muh militarry powah!' as they sought an explanation of why we lost. We lost because we had no Will To Win; we did not prepare, we did not marshal resources enough, we did not lay the foundations of victory, and we did not hammer the foe until victory was achieved. In those countries, there were only half-assed savages, hanging on by their fingernails...not some mystical new way of war.
The disparity gap is forming around digital technologies, combined with creative half-assed innovations, leading to such common sense things as Technicals of various sorts (I was in Somalia with the US Army; I was much impressed with the African light-mechanized warfare operations,) drone bombs of various sorts, remote fired weapons, etc. Many of these kinds of weapons were in Western arsenals once...truck mounted AA guns, rec'less guns on jeeps, mosquito air forces, killdozers and makeshift armored cars, etc. Many such things were ginned up by US troops during WWII and were not products of the MIC. It is the very presence of MICs in the West that PREVENTS innovation of this kind; we deny ourselves our own crackpot inventors by slamming the door on them. Not so in poorer countries. Nowadays, the savages are reshaping the disparity of force gap, and many of the savages are bringing along their Will To Win.
The Foundation novels come to mind on your last point. "Dissolution is inevitable, the goal is to minimize the time between then and the equally inevitable rise of the next order".
Unfortunately, if your scenario becomes true, the death count would be huge. While military tech has made defense against an empire viable, we have the problem that we depend on a wide scale economy to survive.
Even the thought of dividing California up into reasonable sized states runs into the problem of water.
Meanwhile, the Northeast depends on piped in power to avoid freezing to death in winter. The population is too high to go back to burning wood to keep warm.
A more orderly decentralization is to be hoped for. We did manage to have railroads, canals, and telegraphs even in the days of our old republic.
Great article with a lot of useful stuff to chew on, especially the idea that ease of information transfer more quickly erodes decisive military advantages, and that capital/skill-intensive technologies favor decentralizing, whereas manpower-intensive technologies favor centralizing.
As for why centralizing eras end, I think John Michael Greer gets a lot right in his paper "How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse." The gist of it is that centralization allows for a concentration of economic resources (for most of history, food) that allows centralizing powers the kind of advantages that let them conquer their neighbors. Over time, though, bigger, more centralized empires require more complexity to run (think bureaucracy), and in something akin to the square-cube law, if you keep expanding, you eventually have more overhead than you are bringing in, so you start having problems, and to fund dealing with those problems, you cannibalize some of the overhead that made your big empire possible. Trouble is, once you start doing that, you can't hold onto as much empire, which erodes your resource base, which causes more economic troubles, which results in more cannibalization, and before you know it, you're in a vicious cycle that bottoms out in radically localized and decentralized economic and military solutions. Oh, and all of that is, of course, ignoring inefficiency, incompetence, and corruption.
A lot to chew on. Bureaucracy will expand until its mass collapses it like a dying star. Or until barbarian hordes stack their heads in the city squares.
I actually believe this will (by specific locality where applicable) turn into a race war, and blacks will be completely genocided through open air warfare and then starvation in urban areas. Also, honor killings (duels) will return and many Normies will be killed by neighbors and others they thought were allies/friends. The country will be divided like the map shows, many feudal states that eventually, via genocide and resettlement, evolved into modern city states and then nations.
Long but good. Generally agree with this. The current regime, in the broad sense, is unsustainable. It appears to be unreformable. So the questions become: How and when does the regime fail? What happens then? How much damage does it do as it fails? What successor institutions arise? How do individuals and groups prepare for it?
My main disagreement is that the radical transparency of our technology means that the existing regime can read and see almost all of its potential enemies, and potential successors, via surveillance of their online activities. It may embark on a vicious campaign against people who have not remained very far below the radar, when, or before, cracks begin to propagate across the foundations. If the regime falters, or perceives itself as failing, it may preemptively attempt to neutralize potential opponents with a heavy hand. This post, and my comment, may have put us both an a list! Oh well, no guts no glory, right?
Thank you. Lack a classical education so learning history helps me understand and plan next moves. Live on a sailboat in the Gulf islands. Sea tribes are becoming a reality as we can't afford to buy a home. Balkanization of Canada. Greer's long descent " crash now and avoid the rush"
If decentralization is the natural state then it is likely that periods of centralizing can only occur when there is a new technology or cultural advance that allows an individual to start centralizing (conquering or gathering). This occurs for a time, until they run out of steam or reach a limit, at which point the period of decentralization starts again
> "[T]hus in the 1980s Argentina, a middle income country of 44 million, could go toe to toe with Britain who once ruled the waves, in an air and sea war… and have the entire thing be close."
And it's critical to realize that if Thatcher hadn't threatened to actually nuke Buenos Aires in order to get the French to use a backdoor in the targeting systems of the missiles the Argentines had bought, the UK might well have lost.
Not that I think the Falklands should belong to Argentina in particular, if the people who live there don't want it to. But still an interesting historical note.
In conflict, it is disparity of military capability that produces conditions for victory. One of the critical elements of war is the Will To Win. Sadly, one cannot buy Will To Win from a defense contractor; it's there or it isn't. Presently in the West, mostly it isn't there, and hasn't been in any quantity, since WWII. The West loves its war gadgets, oft thinking them powerful enough to give the disparity that achieves victory. In most cases, they are not enough. Cases in point: Viet Nam and Afghanistan. In both crappy countries, there was no '4 Generation Warfare.' That concept is utter bullshit, a salve for the egos of the warhawks in the West who say 'but muh militarry powah!' as they sought an explanation of why we lost. We lost because we had no Will To Win; we did not prepare, we did not marshal resources enough, we did not lay the foundations of victory, and we did not hammer the foe until victory was achieved. In those countries, there were only half-assed savages, hanging on by their fingernails...not some mystical new way of war.
The disparity gap is forming around digital technologies, combined with creative half-assed innovations, leading to such common sense things as Technicals of various sorts (I was in Somalia with the US Army; I was much impressed with the African light-mechanized warfare operations,) drone bombs of various sorts, remote fired weapons, etc. Many of these kinds of weapons were in Western arsenals once...truck mounted AA guns, rec'less guns on jeeps, mosquito air forces, killdozers and makeshift armored cars, etc. Many such things were ginned up by US troops during WWII and were not products of the MIC. It is the very presence of MICs in the West that PREVENTS innovation of this kind; we deny ourselves our own crackpot inventors by slamming the door on them. Not so in poorer countries. Nowadays, the savages are reshaping the disparity of force gap, and many of the savages are bringing along their Will To Win.
Kulak, you have a more thorough understanding of history than any of the court historians paraded in the mainstream media. (VDH I'm talking about you)
The Foundation novels come to mind on your last point. "Dissolution is inevitable, the goal is to minimize the time between then and the equally inevitable rise of the next order".
Incredible essay!
Unfortunately, if your scenario becomes true, the death count would be huge. While military tech has made defense against an empire viable, we have the problem that we depend on a wide scale economy to survive.
Even the thought of dividing California up into reasonable sized states runs into the problem of water.
Meanwhile, the Northeast depends on piped in power to avoid freezing to death in winter. The population is too high to go back to burning wood to keep warm.
A more orderly decentralization is to be hoped for. We did manage to have railroads, canals, and telegraphs even in the days of our old republic.
Great article with a lot of useful stuff to chew on, especially the idea that ease of information transfer more quickly erodes decisive military advantages, and that capital/skill-intensive technologies favor decentralizing, whereas manpower-intensive technologies favor centralizing.
As for why centralizing eras end, I think John Michael Greer gets a lot right in his paper "How Civilizations Fall: A Theory of Catabolic Collapse." The gist of it is that centralization allows for a concentration of economic resources (for most of history, food) that allows centralizing powers the kind of advantages that let them conquer their neighbors. Over time, though, bigger, more centralized empires require more complexity to run (think bureaucracy), and in something akin to the square-cube law, if you keep expanding, you eventually have more overhead than you are bringing in, so you start having problems, and to fund dealing with those problems, you cannibalize some of the overhead that made your big empire possible. Trouble is, once you start doing that, you can't hold onto as much empire, which erodes your resource base, which causes more economic troubles, which results in more cannibalization, and before you know it, you're in a vicious cycle that bottoms out in radically localized and decentralized economic and military solutions. Oh, and all of that is, of course, ignoring inefficiency, incompetence, and corruption.
Cheers,
Jeff
Sounds kind of similar to what John Michael Greer has predicted for the future. As he’s fond of saying, “Collapse now and beat the rush!”
A lot to chew on. Bureaucracy will expand until its mass collapses it like a dying star. Or until barbarian hordes stack their heads in the city squares.
Wow—what an epic tour d’force of an essay! Incredible and awesome! Will re-read before commenting further, except to say very well done—indeed!
I actually believe this will (by specific locality where applicable) turn into a race war, and blacks will be completely genocided through open air warfare and then starvation in urban areas. Also, honor killings (duels) will return and many Normies will be killed by neighbors and others they thought were allies/friends. The country will be divided like the map shows, many feudal states that eventually, via genocide and resettlement, evolved into modern city states and then nations.
Long but good. Generally agree with this. The current regime, in the broad sense, is unsustainable. It appears to be unreformable. So the questions become: How and when does the regime fail? What happens then? How much damage does it do as it fails? What successor institutions arise? How do individuals and groups prepare for it?
My main disagreement is that the radical transparency of our technology means that the existing regime can read and see almost all of its potential enemies, and potential successors, via surveillance of their online activities. It may embark on a vicious campaign against people who have not remained very far below the radar, when, or before, cracks begin to propagate across the foundations. If the regime falters, or perceives itself as failing, it may preemptively attempt to neutralize potential opponents with a heavy hand. This post, and my comment, may have put us both an a list! Oh well, no guts no glory, right?
Brilliant; beautiful; eloquently written
Thank you. Lack a classical education so learning history helps me understand and plan next moves. Live on a sailboat in the Gulf islands. Sea tribes are becoming a reality as we can't afford to buy a home. Balkanization of Canada. Greer's long descent " crash now and avoid the rush"
If decentralization is the natural state then it is likely that periods of centralizing can only occur when there is a new technology or cultural advance that allows an individual to start centralizing (conquering or gathering). This occurs for a time, until they run out of steam or reach a limit, at which point the period of decentralization starts again
As soon as I secure a second job, you’ll get a paid subscription from me.
Fascinating article! Loved it
> "[T]hus in the 1980s Argentina, a middle income country of 44 million, could go toe to toe with Britain who once ruled the waves, in an air and sea war… and have the entire thing be close."
And it's critical to realize that if Thatcher hadn't threatened to actually nuke Buenos Aires in order to get the French to use a backdoor in the targeting systems of the missiles the Argentines had bought, the UK might well have lost.
Not that I think the Falklands should belong to Argentina in particular, if the people who live there don't want it to. But still an interesting historical note.