Politics, Metapolitics and Hegemony
The reluctance of the European Nationalists to present detailed plans on how to politically and economically organize the perfect national organizations that they sought was and is still noticeable and partially justified (especially post-war). Indeed, this idiosyncratic political deficiency maintains the constantly promoted establishment view that the Nationalism of the European peoples is – at least – an obsolete, abstract, romantic and utopian ideology. The most appropriate response to this charge of unsubstantiated utopianism is simply to point to de facto and de jure formed nation-states around the world, both in the present and in the past.
Moreover, all the laws and policies needed to turn European homelands into viable and vibrant nation states have been in place since the beginning of the last century. So, in response to those “well-worried” who want details, we need not offer abstract speculations, but concrete, historical examples of nationalisms in action. We know that nationalism is strong enough because it has already made most of its visions a reality.
The fundamental existential and functional law of a state is its Constitution. Therefore, its faithful observance is a constitutive duty of the conscience of the citizens of this state. Of course, the reasonable desire to protect the Constitutions also attributes excessive and obsessive importance to written texts, to official documents. The US Constitution is a technical masterpiece of political thought, but is it really the foundation of the broader American political system? No, indeed it is not its very foundation. The best way to appreciate this is to compare America and England, which are sufficiently similar in their culture, laws, and political institutions. However, England has no written constitution at all. By contrast, the Constitution of the Republic of Liberia, which was in effect from 1847 to 1980, was based strictly and in detail on the US constitution, yet Liberia bears no resemblance to the United States in its culture and governance.
The foundation of the English system of governance is not merely an existing lifeless, imprinted text or an unimprinted vision, but an active people and their traditions. The American system is much like the English one, because it is a product of the same people and the same tradition. The American Constitution is less the foundation of the American system and more an attempt to articulate and summarize important features of the English political tradition, as well as nearly two centuries of its divergent development in the American colonies. This tradition and the people who created and maintained it are the true foundations of the American system of government.
This truth has been overshadowed and obscured by the misplaced and wishful thinking that the Constitution—as an abstract supreme law—is the sole foundation of our political system, although even the most devoted and strict adherents of the constitutional idea admit that no Constitution can to be interpreted without reference to the intention of the legislators and the influence of the culture of the time. Furthermore, the example of Liberia demonstrates that there is no “civilizational magic” of absolute power in any Constitution alone. The American constitution could never in any way be successfully “transplanted” to radically different people, with radically different traditions of government.
The relative weakness of the various Constitutions (both written and discussed) as well as the related unofficial considerations, is underlined by the fact that today, almost every European government has adopted immigration policies that ultimately lead to the replacement of the white race, a course of action so unnatural and morbid that even the wisest of legislators could not have foreseen and prohibited it. Indeed, if they had even posited the possibility of such an unnatural and hasty “above” and “outside” international practice, they would have been rightly derided as absurd. Furthermore, the tacitly carried out “ethno-racial genocide” has become an official and undisputed international policy, without substantially changing the written or unwritten constitutions of European societies. Sanctified institutions and historically tested institutions did not stop the rise of anti-national regimes. But, in the same way, they cannot stop the return of truly national states, of national regimes. But for national regimes to return, we must understand the true basis of political power.
Political constitutions are no better than the people who interpret and apply them. Political institutions are no better than the people who man and staff them. Thus, politics ultimately depends on something outside of politics. The term “metapolitics” refers to the non-political and extra-political conditions that make politics possible. These conditions fall into two categories:
1. Ideas
2. Out of political frame-political institutions, institutions, networks and communities.
As mentioned above, the fundamental metapolitical ideas include questions of identity (who are we and who is not with us?), questions of morality (what are our duties to ourselves, to our nations, to our race and to other nations and tribes?) and questions of practicality (how can we actually create ethnically homogeneous homelands?). Any institutions and communities that exert influence in the political sphere are post-political in nature. These include political parties and movements, educational and religious institutions, the news and entertainment media, organized ethnic and economic pressure groups, and the secret, uncontrollable spirals, those nefarious interest cliques, now referred to in the vague generalization as “deep state”.
To understand how postpolitics shapes politics, we need to make a necessary distinction between ‘hard power’ and ‘soft power’. Hard power is that political power, which is essentially supported by its actors but also dynamically imposed. Soft power is post-political power, which affects politics in two ways:
- Meta political ideas shape people’s beliefs about what is politically possible and desirable.
- Meta political organizations shape political habits, tactics and norms, while they themselves remain outside the political sphere.
If after all “political power comes from the barrel of a gun”, (Mao Zedong – statement at the emergency meeting of the CCP on August 7, 1927, at the start of the Chinese Civil War), then metapolitics determines who is targeted with the weapon, at whom it is aimed and why. If political power is “hard” power because it ultimately boils down to force, postpolitical hegemony is “soft” power, which ultimately boils down to persuasion. Of course, persuasion is not only logical arguments, but also emotional manipulation and the economic incentives of reward and punishment (“carrot and whip”), including of course simple bribery and blackmail.
One of the most critical distinctions between hard and soft power centers on the idea of accountability. Hard political power is, (at least in theory), accountable to the people. Political accountability ultimately means that the people who make the political decisions are known to the public and can be punished for betraying their trust. But the exercise of soft power has no such transparency or accountability. Soft power allows the destinies of nations to be shaped by individuals whose identities and agendas are largely unclear, while individuals are essentially uncontrollable over the consequences of their actions. Indeed, most often they are foreigners, without ties and loyalty to the nations they manipulate.
