think light is dawning in this citizen's somewhat dim occiput. There
has been a revolution. And there desperately needs to be a counterrevolution.
Yes, indeed. But what form should – must – the counterrevolution take
to be an effective, useful, restorative revolution?
I note with interest Pat Buchanan's fine appreciation in his new
Death of the West, of the roles of Antonio Gramsci and the
so-called "Frankfurt School" in bringing it about that
the society-wreckers of the 60s are society's rulers today (after
the "long march through the institutions"). Thus the revolution.
will be the counterrevolution? How will those of us who detest what
American politics and culture have become, but who still love our
homeland – how, I say, will we deploy a counter-revolution and "get
the country back"?
Let us look at the strategy Garet Garrett said was employed by the
Great Revolutionaries of the New Deal (who had to come before the
thugs and pipsqueaks of the 60s in order for them to have the occasions
to put over their own revolt).
given [writes Garrett in "The
Revolution Was"] – (1) the opportunity, (2) a country
whose fabulous wealth was in the modern forms – dynamic, functional,
non-portable, (3) a people so politically naive as to have passed
a law against any attempt to overthrow their government by force
– and, (4) the intention to bring about what Aristotle called
a revolution in the state, within the frame of existing law –
Then from the point of view of scientific revolutionary technic
what would the problems be?
set themselves down in sequence as follows: The first, naturally,
would be to capture the seat of government. The second would be
to seize economic power. The third would be to mobilize by propaganda
the forces of hatred. . . ."
lists nine steps, but let us stop for now to take a look at how
the first three apply to our present need to bring off a counterrevolution.
If we are to drive the Flaming Jerks out of the high places of our
politics and culture, that is, out of federal office, out of the
bureaucracies, out of the media, out of "Hollywood," and
even to a considerable extent out of the churches, then we certainly
need to do something. Will these first three steps get us launched?
occurs to me that they are what nearly everyone who wants to fix
things, decides he must achieve.
the seat of government": Howard Phillips of the Constitution
Party (formerly the Taxpayers Party), whom I supported in the last
three presidential elections, had a perfectly clear plan for reinstalling
the Constitution as a controlling document (which, as Joseph Sobran
has repeatedly pointed out, it certainly isn't now). He needed to
get elected president and then get a certain modest number of votes
in the U.S. Congress to wipe out the Federal Reserve, the IRS, etc.
A marvelously attractive prospect. I loved it.
at just the last election: Bush and Gore obviously wanted to capture
the seat of government. One of them certainly would. The only question
was which one, and that turned into as hot a debate, and perhaps
nearly as meaningful a one, as the question of which movie will
get the Oscar for Best of 2001.
there were four other "major contenders," Harry Browne,
Pat Buchanan, Howard Phillips, and Ralph Nader (to list them alphabetically
and so without prejudice to their relative standings).
all four subscribed to the idea that the secret of great changes
was to capture the seat of government. And I think it's safe to
say they would also have moved at once, as did FDR once upon a time,
to capture economic power; and they would inevitably have attempted
to arouse the forces of hatred against those opposing them, etc.
(Most emphatically there would have been opposition.) And very likely
they would have gone on with Garrett's other six steps, but there
is no need to speculate on that because we have got far enough with
just three steps to make my point.
of these men are Statists, all in the thrall of the conviction that
political and economic progress comes through the Führer
Prinzip, as the Germans called it; that to be the Supreme Ruler,
Il Duce, El Primo, of THE STATE is the best thing of all. And of
course all that is baloney. No hope down that alley. Not for us
kids, the boobs out in the burbs and the boonies.
light I mentioned in my first sentence above has come to me from
a perusal of Hans-Hermann Hoppe's new book, Democracy:
The God That Failed. I have learned from him at last what
I should have figured out for myself long ago, that the answer lieth
not in further Statism but in deconstructing THE STATE altogether.
I recognize that is going to be One Tough Job, but at least I now
know what kinds of baloney not to buy in the future. I will no longer
respond to claims from faithful Statists that if I help elect them
all will turn wonderful. It won't. It didn't for the German boobs
who elected Hitler, or the Italian ones who suffered Il Duce with
patience and tentative applause, and it certainly didn't for the
long-suffering Russian ones Lenin deigned to oppress with the help
of (Western) bankers' gold.
has supported that old-timey genius La Boétie by suggesting
that the only effective use of our political breath is to help delegitimatize
the State, to spread the word that the State's doings are futile
and inimical, as were the old gods Diana, Mars, and Venus in Dryden's
lines: "All, all of a piece throughout: Thy chase had a beast
in view; thy wars brought nothing about; thy lovers were all untrue.
'Tis well an old age is out, and time to ring in the new."
new, in a few words? A civilized natural order based on – to speak
of political economy – "private property owners, cooperation
based on the division of labor, and market competition" (Hoppe,
page 265). To speak of culture and sociology – it is an order based
on the sacrosanct family and the entirely local government that
would spring up around a natural elite (Jefferson's "natural
aristocracy") of talent and virtue, of people one knows personally
and admires for their accomplishments.
that be something?