This is a loose response to Christopher Cantwell’s “Dear Ethnostatist Neoreactionary” and whilst those terms do not describe me perfectly I see this as a good exercise. I first heard of Chris Cantwell when he was on one of the TRS podcasts (probably TDS). The letter Chris has written is laden with rhetoric and is strongly ideological, normally these kind of pieces seem intended for the in-group as a form of signalling, not for actual persuasion or debating purposes. That isn’t meant as a criticism but more an observation in how I’m approaching this.
It is also worth mentioning Cantwell’s opposition to the State in its current form is not 100% wrong, however States can, and have been, forces for good. It’s important to remember that.
The intention of Cantwell’s piece he says is to:
I’m here to tell you, your enemy is the State.
Not any one particular government, mind you, but the State itself. The very institution of the State is the mortal enemy of mankind and planet Earth.
A bold, incendiary claim, but in fact I’d argue this is bad rhetoric simply because I could see a die hard Leftist using identical language (not meant as ad hom attack). Cantwell doesn’t take the time to explain why he grants agency to the State but it seems a key part of his thought. Many Libertarians/AnCaps do this, they ascribe full agency, or at least a very high degree of independent agency, to what they term “the State”. It reminds me of historians who talk of functionalist reasons for the Holocaust. Even if the State has agency, and is all about perpetuating itself it does not require huge ideological battles to do this. Small functioning governments exist without growing even if they are a minority (see places like Switzerland, Iceland). In the Anglo-Sphere it is the ideology that has corrupted the State and is responsible for its bad actions, ignoring this means conceding the State to the Left or the psychotic. In fact this is what has happened over time. (I go as far to argue Libertarian thought is responsible for the growth of the State in this piece on Libertarianism and Consumerism.)
What is the State anyway? Perhaps it can be described as an institution of organized patriarchy responsible for continuing civilization. That it has been corrupted is obvious, we’re living amidst the corruption and decay right now. In fact the State is breaking down because it has strayed so far from what it is meant to be. Many people within our failing States are developing a primary loyalty that is NOT the state. To quote John Robb in his post on Primary Loyalties:
A primary loyalty is a connection to a non-state group that is greater than loyalty to a state. These loyalties include those to clan, religion, tribe, neighborhood gang, etc. These loyalties are reciprocated through the delivery of political goods…by the group that the state cannot or will not deliver.
As the American Left continue to weaken the existing American State those with split loyalties will increase. On the alt-right we talk a lot about how Big Mother welfare state has ‘liberated’ women from men as they can provide welfare to the single mothers and cat ladies, but this flows against the tide. The alt-right must be building organizations and structures that become our primary loyalty as the State does fracture and begin to collapse. The Islamists in Europe have done very well creating parallel societies (complete with the State like structure built into Islam), the main problem is that States have thought they can buy these peoples loyalty, but that is an issue for another time.
Cantwell:
What is it that you think a State does, other than fuck the people who live beneath its boot?
This Libertarian/AnCap conception of the State and how negative it is always strikes me as incredibly ignorant of history. The history of the world really gets going when states form. The stateless Native Americans may have enjoyed a high degree of personal liberty but it was precisely why they were destroyed. They lacked the ability to function as a cohesive front against their enemies. The successful and just State does not merely “fuck the people who live beneath its boot”. The State is the embodiment of the people, it reflects their values, their traditions, enables their dreams, and provides security. The Romans succeeded where the Nazis failed because the Roman state made people Roman citizens, provided security, enabled their dreams and mostly did not interfere with their values and traditions, bar some notable exceptions like the Druids. The Romans also fell when their State began to fail, corrupted, degenerate and lacking in true power.
This is because governments and civilizations are not tied to one another. Governments are parasites which leech from civilizations. The vast majority of us, if the government collapsed tonight, would simply wake up in the morning and do exactly what we did the day before. We would wake up, go to work, feed our families, mow our lawns, etc…
Minor quibble: it’s unclear if Cantwell uses State and Government interchangeably. In this quote again huge claims are thrown around without much depth of thought (signalling being a primary goal of rhetoric). The relationship between the State and Civilization is far more complex than Cantwell suggests. Civilization is more than just people getting up and continuing everyday life, a government/State has a direct impact on civilization especially when it comes to the grand projects that help define a civilization. The impact of the Catholic Church on Europe when it was part of the State would be an example of this, issuing rulings that direct civilization, funding building projects and architectural styles, again the notion civilization is simply continuing existence doesn’t hold true upon examination. How a State impacts culture is less clear, certainly culture exists and evolves without a State (see Aboriginal cultures in Australia), but strong States can directly shape culture, in an extreme bad example DPRK, a good example might be Switzerland.
A freedom-negative ideology such as Anarcho-capitalism will struggle to produce cohesive positive advancements or grand visions, where it does often it either defaults to a charismatic individual with shekels (think Elon Musk or Richard Branson) OR purely shekels. States that carry with them the soul of the nation are far better equipped.
Really, the only reason for an ethnocentric State, is if you have some kind of inferiority complex. The only reason you would need a government to keep a society white, is if you think white people require protectionism to avoid non-white competition defeating them.
So Cantwell hasn’t really gone into much depth on the ethnostate side of things. His main assertion seems to be ‘whites’ are awesome and in a free market with nothing to help minorities whites will be successful. Looking back at South Africa it was a state that did use its government to protect whites. Apartheid was in many ways a guarantor for employment for lower class Afrikanners. The white slums you see in South Africa today are evidence of that, they lost the State’s protection. Cantwell couches it in terms of protectionism and an abstract notion of defeat. The reality in Zimbabwe and South Africa has not been so abstract, it has been brutal deaths, rapes, and continual assault from blacks, with the State turning a blind eye in many cases and actively encouraging the behaviour in others. Whilst the white states of Rhodesia and South Africa were not perfect they functioned better and generally there was a higher quality of life for blacks and whites than there is today.
Reframe “protectionism “as banding together to increase their chances in the face of “competition” (hostility) and you understand why that might happen.
Do you think you are able to outcompete non-whites?
Do you think you can outcompete non-whites who arrive in your land with huge numbers, organization, and a capacity for violence? The concern isn’t about doing better on a job interview, it’s about demographic replacement or invasion. An ethnostate is going to better protect its people.
Personally, I stand pretty confident in white people’s ability to compete, so I have no need of governments. What about you?
It’s a great notion but the reality of the world suggests that governments and States will be around for some time to come and building better ones is the best way of securing white people’s ability to compete in a harsh world. Pure ethnostates don’t have to be the answer either, but homogeneity does seem to promote harmony and stability.
This may have been a slightly jumbled response, I chose not to address the signalling to private police forces for protection mentioned as it seemed too obvious a target. Nor did I see much value in addressing the theories of resistance promoted. My own current research stand at the moment is on 4GW so expect something on that later. Libertarian/AnCap ideas are interesting to read and revisit. Like many I entertained the appeal of the ideology at one point and read my Nozick. The trouble is, the more traveling through history you do the harder it is to take libertarian/AnCap ideology seriously. Reality keeps getting in the way. The Nightwatchman state is the closest I think people could achieve, and I think it would be an autonomous region within a larger State.