Ethnarchism: An Alternative to Anarcho-Tyranny

Chivalric Knight

Chivalric KnightMen Must Be Controlled

The great paradox of American politics is that the grand experiment in freedom has resulted in more tyranny than the traditional monarchies and theocracies of yore could fathom in their darkest fever dreams. This “free society” is drowning in far more red tape than Hitler’s fascist regime. Our police state has become far more pervasive and invasive than Mussolini’s fascist regime. Our prison complex rivals North Korea‘s and even our public schools commonly feature armed guards, metal detectors, and elaborate electronic surveillance systems.

Depressive realism dictates that men must be controlled. One way or another, our impulses must be regulated. There are three cardinal means of regulating human behavior: indoctrination, social influence, and direct force. In American society, a broad generational decline in inculcation of moral codes and the steady disintegration of ethnic, social, and communal ties entail that the third and final means of control is increasingly necessary: direct force.

Sam Francis explored the phenomenon of secularism and multiculturalism leading inexorably to a totalitarian society in his writings on Anarcho-Tyranny, noting in Chronicles that,

“The late Roman Empire, the Byzantine Empire, the Ottoman Empire, and the dominions of the Habsburgs and the Romanoffs, among others, all presided over a kind of rainbow coalition of nations and peoples, who for the most part managed to live happily because their secret compulsions to spill each other`s blood was restrained by the overwhelming power of the despots and dynasties who ruled them.

“Political freedom relies on a shared political culture as much as on the oppositions and balances that social differentiation creates, and when the common culture disintegrates under the impact of mass migrations, only institutionalized force can hold the regime together.”

When our neighbors and peers are rank strangers, when we’re all bowling alone, we no longer fear losing “face”. We slip into sociopathic thinking and behavioral patterns. There’s no fear of God, no childhood indoctrination in a (coherent) moral system–albeit religious or secular. Prior generations were immersed in biblical lessons and fairy tales, then surrounded by people who gave a damn about their behavior whom they gave a damn about in return. A libertarian political structure with lax enforcement was only natural, as most of the daily enforcement of the social order was internalized.

Working from within this framework, I believe arguing over whether our society should be more “libertarian” or “totalitarian” is pointless. Men will be controlled; it’s merely a matter of balancing how much of that control is ethical, social, or forcible. Americans all agree that our police state solution is unfortunate, yet our collective ignorance and neglect of the other means of controlling the behavior of men guarantees that the anarcho-tyranny will only increase as our society becomes more morally decadent and socially diverse.

Ethnarchy: A Post-Ideological Ideal

Ethnarchism begins with an inversion of contemporary political thinking, which typically asks how people in power should manage their minions. Instead, we should be asking who we as minions entrust with political power. It’s less abstraction-oriented than people-oriented, abandoning the fixation on abstract systems which has primarily informed Western post-Enlightenment politics. A cursory review of the past several decades of politicians’ stated political systems and their political results is sufficient to sharply demote (if not completely ignore) a politician’s ideology in favor of his identity.

Everybody else is already doing this. America’s Black community turns to proven community leaders like Al Sharpton and Barack Obama, uniting behind these men in a mobilized political bloc. America’s nominally Catholic Latin American immigrant community is strongly opposed to the homosexual agenda, abortion, and a range of other ideological positions of the Democratic Party, but identity consistently trumps ideology for them. They unite behind their community leaders, with little if any consideration for the abstractions espoused by those leaders.

In a diverse society, identity necessarily trumps ideology, and the White American failure to perceive and react to that uncomfortable reality is partially a product of our abstraction-oriented nature, and partially due to our mass delusion of ongoing social and political dominance. We vote as if our Christian and European socio-political context is not only dominant, but unchallenged. We vote as if politics were a grand battle of ideas rather than a grand battle of identity blocs.

This confusion is typified in Glenn Beck’s tortured response to this year’s Fourth of July ceremonies,

Glenn BeckThe reason why you’re feeling these things is because nothing is authentic. You don’t know what the flag even stands for. Because you’re questioning, ‘are we good?’

“Is America good?” Beck continued. “Because we used to think we knew it was great. It was great, because we were good. Now, we’re not sure.

It’s a step forward for Beck to question the roots of his patriotism, but he hasn’t dug deep enough. To ask “Are we good?”, there must be a valid “we”. Glenn Beck and the rest of White America still imagine that “America” remains synonymous with a tangible collection of people with something in common. They can’t and won’t answer the question of identity, because to do so would be to unmask this bizarre bazaar for the gaggle of alienated individuals and insular identity groups that it is. “We” have no common religious, ethical, or political (or even spoken) language. There is no “we”.

Even if you care more about abstractions than identity, the immutable laws of nature and power demand that one accounts for identity and empowerment of one’s identity before one can be positioned to dictate an ideology. Black Americans can have a constructive conversation about what “they” should do, but only because they set aside their differences and voted and worked with one united voice to install one of their own in a position of power.

Identifying an Ethnarch

One can’t merely rally behind a leader of White Americans, as doing so would entail rallying behind a Mitt Romney or (quelle horreur) a Glenn Beck. These men are ideologues, systems-oriented politicians promoting “ideas”. What we need are men who promote their fellow men. Barack Obama selflessly dedicated himself to Chicago’s inner-city Blacks, despite having all the access he could ask for to wealthier and whiter circles. Al Sharpton loves and fights for his people in a singular manner we can barely comprehend.

It can be–and assuredly will be–argued that Al Sharpton takes his ethnic advocacy to immoral and ridiculous extremes. I would imagine and hope that our own advocates, whenever and from wherever they emerge, would go about it in a different manner. But Sharpton, Obama, Holder, and the rest of our competitors are waging a battle for their extended family of kindred. They’re imminently more noble than White American “tea partiers” who are not only united by a mere abstract ideology, but are motivated by the abstract ideology of Ayn Rand’s godless individualist greed.

The leader needn’t be a formal politician. The Greek ethnarchs under the Ottoman Empire were Orthodox bishops with no formal political power. Al Sharpton wields more power and influence than any congressman, without being bothered to campaign for an actual public office. Part of the elegance of ethnarchism is that it’s agnostic about the precise mechanisms of power. Whether we live under an empire, a monarchy, a republic, or an anarchist dystopia, uniting behind the men who’ve proven themselves as stewards of and fighters for our community remains constant.

Arguing over whether “Westphalian Nationalism” is an Enlightenment device or whether some sort of overarching Imperium or international body is necessary or appropriate is pointless. Global politics are determined by military technologies and resource monopolies, and we’re largely fated to ride the tiger in terms of how power manifests from the top-down. But we can begin changing how power works from the bottom-up, becoming capable of influencing how those predetermined power structures engage with our community. Embracing ethnarchism, the anti-ideological ideology, is the first step toward manifesting a future that “we” are empowered to shape.


P Erickson

Thought-provoking, as usual. It raised a lot of questions in my mind, as follows:

Should we (white folks) vote for the white equivalent of Al Sharpton (i.e., a huckster, a showman, a race-baiting liar) when he comes along? Should we vote for supporters of the homosexualist and feminist agenda if they also talk about white pride (i.e., should we emulate Hispanics)?

Is Sharpton really “more noble” than the tea-partiers? Or would it be more accurate to say that he’s less deluded than they?

Has the strategy of voting for their own really paid any dividends for the black community? Look at DC and Detroit. Wouldn’t blacks have done better to elect white liberals (who would have supported the same racial preferences) than the black-skinned crooks and incompetents that they did elect?

And doesn’t identity politics already exist to a certain extent within the white community? It’s covert and feeble as far as race goes, but it’s out in the open when it comes to religious affiliation. I know all kinds of people who voted for Bush, Jr. because they considered him a “good Christian.” But for what community did he go to war for?

I think the problem is, in every case, that there aren’t any healthy communities to begin with in the contemporary West, and no community, except for perhaps the Jews, really understands what its real interests are. I would have much preferred to live in a multicultural empire like the Austro-Hungairan, or even the old Ottoman, any day. The emperor or sultan may have been hostile to my community, but at least I would have had a community and one that knew what its real needs and interests were.


Should we (white folks) vote for the white equivalent of Al Sharpton (i.e., a huckster, a showman, a race-baiting liar) when he comes along?

I would hope we would not be in quite that conundrum. But, I land on: Yes. A flawed advocate and steward is a superior choice to a pristine system candidate.

Is Sharpton really “more noble” than the tea-partiers?

Emphatically, yes.

Has the strategy of voting for their own really paid any dividends for the black community? Look at DC and Detroit.

Blacks in DC and Detroit have proven time and again that they would rather be ruled by their incompetent kin than by more competent overlords. This is because Detroit’s typical Black voter intellectually exceeds the White Nationalist intelligentsia in grasping how power and politics work. Once one accounts for their demographic basal line, how bad are DC and Detroit actually doing?

Detroit’s wildly outperforming Kinshasa and Port-au-Prince, for instance. Apples ‘n apples.

I know all kinds of people who voted for Bush, Jr. because they considered him a “good Christian.” But for what community did he go to war for?

Bush claimed to be a passionate Christian Zionist, and had a solid track record of supporting and promoting Christian Zionism. His tenure was marked by a singular commitment to manifesting the Christian Zionist agenda.

He didn’t claim to be a traditionalist or nationalist Christian. I don’t see the disconnect, here. America got pretty much what it said on the can. If anything, had they paid more attention to his CZ history and connections, and less attention to his stated isolationist rhetoric during the campaign, they would have been better-informed.

Jennette Miller

The Amish still know what they stand for and have changed little over time. America was a place for them to come live a life free of harassment (putting it lightly). Even though people still make their jokes and poke fun at their way of life, they continue to live as they believe and have faith in their beliefs.

Gavin James Campbell

Now, take careful note, everyone. Scroll up to see that in the upper right corner, there is an option to donate to TradYouth. That’s right! Matt Parrott wants to be the white Al Sharpton, so don’t spend your hard earned money on anything frivolous like rent or groceries. Instead, give it Matt & The Gang, so they don’t have to work for living.

Orthodox Mike

You’re such a devil, Globalist Gavin. Both Matts work for a living. Real blue collar jobs and don’t make a dime off of this. Go back to your Starbucks job. I’ll have a tall Cafe Latte, please. Libtard.

Leave a Reply