I wanted to take a minute to respond to Reactionary Reader’s blog post from October 24th regarding a conversation we had earlier last month.
RR writes:
- “The question that needs to be asked regarding this trend however: is centralization inevitable? The answer is yes.”
RR’s forms an inductive argument to assert this.
I can’t recall if I mentioned my own historical examples during our conversation (I believe I did), but it’s worth noting there are some examples from history where political decentralization has happened. We had this under Trump with his economic deregulation, which led to a world historic economy. We had this with the American Revolution (pro-freedom thinkers John Locke and Cicero were the most popular authors in the Colonies in the decades prior to the Revolution). The American Revolution was a rebellion against the money authority of the Crown and established a near-nightwatchman state that lasted 70 years. There was no government bank or central banking during America’s earliest years and most people were content to trade in goods and Spanish Crowns. Bad money drove good money out with the advent of John Adams’ statist/mercantilist Federalist banking order – which only last 20 years before the bank charter ended due to +70% inflation. I guess you’re not supposed to notice this or something.
We also have the example of certain tax farms (“countries”) being decentralized COMPARED TO highly centralized farms such as the USA or Argentina. These comparatively deregulated and decentralized tax farms act as wealth and talent draws away from highly centralized jurisdictions, thereby proving the principle of decentralization having its own influence counter to centralization (decentralization exists).
It’s also funny that RR should cite Brooks Adams as the grand poohbah of Guaranteed Centralization when it was Brooks’ Freemason grandfather who made the deliberate choice to fight against fellow Freemason Thomas Jefferson in order to institute far more centralization (and thus mercantile control of the Colonial America economy). These guys’ personal will-to-power schemes become maxims you cannot question.
Brooks Adams is a funny fellow because he did not have the basic self-knowledge that his grandfather was involved in decentralizing the Colonies away from the Crown.
RR writes:
- “The Franssen strategy of Bitcoin Revolution, small government, and unrestrained individual freedoms differs very little from the strategy of conservatives in America for the past century.”
Of course, the only “strategy” I promote is Peaceful Parenting. Taking a passing interest in the candidacy of Javier Milei, which is highly likely to be sunk by the Argentine Deep State, is not the same as a political endorsement or holding a political position.
RR writes:
- “The adoption of some sort of Bitcoin standardized currency undercuts the state’s ability to control its currency, instead subjugating it to the whims of a digital, international blockchain.”
This is fallacious because a blockchain just is. It doesn’t have sentience and it is not, by its own choice, “international”. A blockchain has no whims. This belies RR’s choice to build up a rebuttal to me based on basic ignorance of crypto.
RR writes:
- “Steve Franssen and all libertarian wishful thinkers will remain just that, thinkers, whilst our real enemies work tirelessly to advance their world-historical project at the expense of our own.”
I am not libertarian. Nor am I some layabout daydreamer counting the petals on flowers and sighing, “If only!”
I practice philosophy, which has a massive “action” component, and peaceful parenting. I have helped a good number of families form, had 3 million views on YouTube before being deplatformed where I helped people become more virtuous and clarify their thinking, and have worked tirelessly in the public sphere for a decade to advance reason and evidence to those prepared to receive it. There is no specific work ethic on the part of an actual person cited by RR as evidence of some tireless “enemy”.
I’ll posit this: the State schools corrupt people and make it exceedingly easy for some halfwit activist to find purchase for their efforts at pooling state monies toward their pet socialist projects. Anyone with a real, honest job knows the superhuman Randian efforts being put forth by the few remaining competents in the modern economy. One famous example is Elon Musk, who has called for everything to be decentralized. Elon is the most successful entrepreneur of all-time and there exists only one of him. Much of the Western world is on the brink of total collapse into Nietzschean barbarism, also known as “centralization”.
However, we are now in a multipolar world where tax farms outside of the United States and Western Europe are maintaining basic immigration, citizenship, economic, and social standards that the West is not able to. Therein, they are not centralizing at anywhere near the same rate and oftentimes not at all. A darling of the dissident right, Vladimir Putin, is practicing deliberate restraint in his military policy. Nuclear exchange would, in fact, centralize the world further as a victor would emerge and seize the tax livestock of the vanquished government. In some manner, this person is a decentralist who seeks not to centralize under his control a separate pole in the multipolar order. He is not guilty of “wishful thinking” and he is not hand-waved away in the manner I have been by such a label.
Basically, Brooks Adams’ dogma of centralization flies in the face of empiricism and basic arguments. Just cause someone wrote something a long time ago and has an amazing Freemason pedigree doesn’t mean that it can’t easily be defeated by a philosophy enthusiast in the here and now.
