I respond: well, they would, wouldn't they? UR is no fan of recognized authorities. We're not here for your official reality. No - wounded we hung, pierced by a spear, pledged to Odhinn - not for any government truth. Here at UR, we sacrifice ourselves, we hang nine long nights on that cold, cold gallows, for the real thing alone, for reason unmixed, for reality itself. And when we find it we fall down, we crumple, we are thrown to our knees, we abase ourselves utterly, we cry like little girls.
But before your golden calf, lords of Egypt, we have nothing but a little girl's silver laughter. Sue us! Shoot us in the police-station bathroom! When all weapons are gone, all magic spears are lost, all swords are rusted through, truth and laughter remain. You are human. You cannot resist a little girl. Your weakness, which will be your downfall, is just that: your humanity.
So. Reality. In reality? In reality? In reality - yes. Of course, in reality, there are options. Let me tell you about one. I call it the true election. It's really a very simple plan.
And not, of course, a quick one. Honestly, I'd be amazed if anyone tries anything like it, any time before I'm an old man. The true election can succeed anywhere and at any time - but it has to be ready to work. And it does not work itself - you have to be ready to work it.
So it's not an Internet virus. Or at least, not just an Internet virus. Since neither of the above constraints is anywhere near satisfied anywhere, no true election can occur any time soon. So, if it frightens you, there is no need to worry! Ha ha. (In truth, I sometimes scare myself.)
First, I must assure you, there is no danger of a military coup. Ie, no danger of an American coup. The Pakistani coup is never to be counted out; in Turkey, all the TV stations have a special tape they play when there's a coup; and that pioneer of the form, Haiti, first nation of the Third World, is always a hotbed of innovation in advanced civil-military relations. America, however, is entirely exempt from this danger.
Or intractable, of course, to this cure. At least in our own day and age. And with what age can we be concerned? One may act for all ages, for the entire future; many purport to; some do. But all act only in their own. For us, in our own age, a military coup is impossible. For better or worse.
Not that it's at all impossible to argue for a coup in America. (If you disagree, read more UR.) However, any such argument has an inevitable quality of unreality, like suggesting that orange aliens from Titans should float down and repair Washington. Well, sure. In fact, I believe they should. But in fact, they won't.
No, really. I'd have little hesitation in preferring the interstellar colonial domination of arbitrary space aliens, sight unseen, to USG 4 in any present or future revision. Especially the latter. With space aliens - it's a gamble, I admit. They could be carnivorous. But a bit of a Pascal's bet, I fear. So how much rather would I bet on the Marines? Will the Marines feed on my living flesh?
Alas, space aliens are more likely. In historical time, the entire United States is well on its way to turning into Detroit. And what will Detroit turn into - in another forty years? Detroit squared, I have no doubt. And when America is Detroit squared, Detroit is Detroit cubed, and the Marine Corps wears full ballet attire and deploys no weapon unsuitable for a kindergartener, its personnel will unanimously and dutifully obey whatever beyond-ridiculous, idiotic, bureaucratic orders they may receive from the raving, zombie-ridden flanks of the Potomac. What less should we expect? It is always the good captain who goes down with his ship, and for no idle reason.
Or, at least: before America is bad enough to have a coup, she will have to be a bad girl indeed. As a student of history, I can tell you: she has only just started on this process. No - in America, the Devil has made few strides indeed! Rather, the rest of the world mainly has he plowed. The coups will be there, and not here. They are (a) necessary and (b) none of your business.
As Burke said: there is a lot of ruin in a nation. There is certainly a lot less ruin left in England, than in Burke's day! But ruin aplenty yet remains to her, and there is even more in America. Even in California.
If you had told an Englishman of Carlyle's day that in 2010, California itself is bankrupt, he would simply not have believed you. For our state, of course, in the 19th century was a metonym for wealth itself - an almost literal El Dorado. If the San Francisco city fathers of 1910 could see their city now, they would pray for another earthquake to finish it. But Carlyle, among very few (Froude is another) both could and would say: "I told you so."
When you read old books, are you reading the people who were right, or the people who were wrong? The people who told the truth, or those who lied? If the latter, step up to nothing at all. Better not to read history at all, than to read it uncritically. Ignorance of the past is a heinous and shameful thing, but I prefer it a thousand times to misinterpretation of the past. This is always a crime; that is, its systematic perpetuation is always attributable to some unsavory, depressing and mundane motive, which will one day be universally acknowledged.
California is ruined. Not by the absolute standards of history; just by the standards of present Californians. As a present Californian, I feel these standards are enough. I feel they are entirely legitimate. I know that, if present trends continue, California will not look like Somalia for a very long time - not personal time, but historical time. There are even permanent geographic differences. For instance, though both are coastal, their climates are quite different.
But suffice it to emerge that over the last 50 years, California has gotten much more like Somalia. By which I mean, of course, Somalia today. Somalia has gotten much more like Somalia over the last 50 years, too! Perhaps these phenomena are related. Perhaps they will continue perhaps, for another 150 years.
Who can say that in 2260, Palo Alto will not see its traffic-jams of gun-mounted technicals? Because frankly, if the last 50 years are smoothed to a line and that line is extrapolated out to four times its length - I see technicals.
Which may in fact be operated by genuine Somalis. Just as champagne isn't really champagne unless it's from Champagne, a technical isn't really a real technical without a real Somali behind the .50-cal. But, well, we're working on that! Ohio, for instance, is full of Somalis. Proving the irresistible power of geography over culture - never mind DNA - they are assimilating perfectly. They look funny, but they act just like other Ohioans. Many, for instance, have become diehard Buckeyes fans; most are Republicans; the very bowling alleys are packed with Somalis.
Not. But, okay, sure - we're working on a lot of things. In the long run, any dystopia, any utopia, is realistic. By 2260, a lot of things can happen. Some, however, are making better progress than others. Which will America see first? Useful nuclear fusion? Authentic Somali technicals? Your guess, dear reader, is as good as mine.
So, yes: America is not ready for an actual coup. It is nowhere near ready. And hopefully it will never be anywhere near ready, for there will be no technicals - authentic or otherwise. I will restrict myself to saying that, once we see technicals, I hope it will act. But there is a lot of ruin in America, and I for one would like to see it stay there. As a student of history, and specifically of the 20th century, I can say: I don't need to see it.
So the true election is not a coup. It's a coup alternative. It's something you do, so that you don't have to have a coup. That said, if successful it achieves the same result: peaceful regime change. A successful coup is, of course, a bloodless coup. An unsuccessful coup can be quite nasty. In an unsuccessful true election, nothing happens at all.
And if the plan is successful, the result is: a reset. A reboot. A reinstall. Out with USG 4; in with USG 5. Out with the present government, which has been proven incompetent; out with the Constitution, or what these days goes by its name (if you want to disturb a supporter of USG 4, ask him to explain the relationship between the Constitution and constitutional law); in with... something else. Something new.
Yes, Virginia, the world is none too old for new things! And if you don't like it, you can always vote for the present government. That's what makes it an election.
Military intervention precluded, there is really only one practical path to genuine and permanent change. Genuine and permanent change can only be produced by the unconditional and irreversible abolition of democracy. Genuine change, permanent or otherwise, can only be produced through the application of democracy.
Therefore, to produce real change, apply the methods, practices and standards of democracy to abolish democracy. This is both difficult and dangerous. But nothing easier or safer will be successful. Anyone who wants to change the government, but is not working toward a true election, is basically wasting his or her time.
As a glance at history will show you, there is nothing even slightly contradictory or impractical about this project. Not only can democracy be overcome by democracy, democracy can be overcome only by democracy. Indeed, it can only be overcome by extreme democracy.
That is: democracy so complete that it sweeps away all nondemocratic political authorities, placing all decisions directly in the hands of the People. Extreme democracy is the democracy of the Committee of Public Safety; democracy without republicanism, in the patois of the civics teacher; democracy above judges, above courts, above law, above everything. In a word: sovereign democracy.
Now, a sovereign people, choosing to act collectively in this majorly bad-ass manner, is not fscking around. Sovereign democracy is not "American Idol" or "The West Wing." Sovereign democracy is the real thing: raw, unconditional authority. Power in the true historical sense. The people become the People.
And if the People want O.J. Simpson hanged, the People have him hanged. If the People want the lower Potomac watershed restored completely to its pre-Columbian condition as a natural wetland and major blue-crab nursery, the People have the bulldozers, the money and the power to get it done. You don't put on the Ring of Sauron and then go to a fscking disco. You don't use your new Sith powers to pick up chicks in a goth bar. If the People recover their sovereignty, it's because they intend to use it. They might not use it wisely, but they'll certainly use the holy fscking Jesus out of it.
Therefore, to exercise their new sovereign power as effectively as possible, the People do the obvious thing. They designate a single individual to act as their agent. They elect a dictator. The democracy of the Jacobins is also the democracy of Napoleon III, of Cromwell, of Hitler.
The results? They depend, obviously, on the dictator. The People are sovereign. If the People, via the dictator who is their agent, choose to invade Poland and massacre the Jews, the People invade Poland and massacre the Jews. That's what sovereignty means. It does not strike me that Americans will invade Poland and massacre the Jews. But people change. The Americans are people. Therefore, better to act sooner, rather than later.
If you have the right to vote, you have the right to elect a dictator (a perfectly respectable Roman title). Otherwise, you don't really have the right to vote at all. You're not actually participating in the circle of power. You're just calling in to American Idol. If you want to actually act politically, the first thing to do is to obtain actual political power. In the present state of USG 4, and in any conceivable future state, this can only be done by this mysterious device of my own invention: the true election.
The pure, wild democracy of the true election is the dioxygen difluoride of republics - the universal solvent and reagent, capable of anything so long as it holds the mob in thrall. It was last seen in this country 75 years ago, in the reign of FDR. FDR was not actually elected in a true election, and nor was America's only other dictator, Lincoln. But both governed as if they were.
Yes. FDR (like Lincoln) was a dictator. He governed America more or less personally by decree. Obviously, many people worked for USG in FDR's time; but, as with a normal corporate CEO, none could flout his will and survive professionally. FDR was not quite in charge of the courts; Lincoln could disregard the judicial process, but FDR couldn't. However, these exceptions should be seen as minor details in an overall pattern of general personal government.
Those who hanker for a New Deal 2.0 should remember that FDR invoked a permanent state of emergency in 1933, just like Hitler. And just like Hitler, he ruled for life. For the next 12 years, he and his minions governed America by whim, like Dick Cheney cubed. It's true that FDR found himself constrained by the Supreme Court. It's not (entirely) true that when he fought the Court, he lost. And there was certainly no one else in America who could contend with him!
(Nor was FDR, as commonly asserted, a "traitor to his class" - anything but it. FDR's beliefs, or at least his speeches (in one so seldom praised for candor, the inference of any actual conviction is at best an exercise of imagination) can indeed be studied as almost perfect reflections of the intellectual fashions of America's apex upper class, the socialite-socialist aristocracy. These fashions have changed somewhat since 1933, but not that much.)
FDR could not, it's true, order someone arrested or shot for no reason at all. At least, not so far as I know. We still have a lot to learn about this era. FDR did not have the powers of Lincoln, who could have anyone arrested, and did - but not shot. Lincoln was no Lenin or Hitler. For the purpose of managing the normal operations of government, however, FDR, Lincoln, Lenin, Hitler, Henry VIII, Cromwell and Napoleon exercised more or less the same level of authority: personal sovereignty.
So this remedy, hardly new to history, is not even new to us. Rather, America has taken the Dictator Pill in the lives of those now living - 75 years ago. And 75 years before that. And its pet historians, though the grant-fed dogs they are, celebrate these episodes as marvelous renewals. Does it compute? Does any of this crap compute? No, gentlemen, we will have the truth!
FDR, personally, was not much of an administrator. FDR was a charming hereditary socialite and a fine political actor. As an administrator, he gets a D for aptitude, a C for effort, and a D for results. (As an actor, his performances turn the stomach today. Try listening to an FDR speech, or worse - watching a propaganda newsreel. This incredible, heavy-handed, flagrantly mendacious schmaltz was pure dynamite for the unsophisticated radio listener of the '30s.)
But in his entourage, FDR had some of the most talented administrators in the history of the world, and those administrators had more or less full executive authority. For instance, if anyone in the lives of those now living has held the job of "CEO of USG," that would be Harry Hopkins. Colonel House dreamed the dream - Harry Hopkins lived it.
There is no Harry Hopkins in Washington today. There is no Colonel House, either. There is no one even remotely like these people; there is no job remotely like their jobs. All the royal powers of the New Deal have been sliced into micron-thick wafers and distributed around ten or fifteen office buildings. These powers have not gone away - quite the contrary. They have, of course, expanded. But they have also become entirely impersonal. (In many cases, they have ended up in the hands of the judiciary - once FDR's worst enemy.)
The change is for the worse in a thousand different ways, but perhaps the worst is that it eradicates any conceivable responsibility for bad results. Thus 65 years after the death of FDR, post-New Deal Washington displays all the vices of the real New Deal, and none of its virtues. This will not change. This clock does not roll back. There is no fountain of youth for the State. A Brezhnev does not become a Lenin. Fish soup does not become an aquarium. Etc.
Bismarck said: God has a special providence for fools, drunks, and the United States. In the 20th century we saw one great manifestation of God's providence: America made it to Brezhnev without going through Lenin or Stalin. But after Brezhnev, what's next? More Brezhnev, and nothing else. Chernenko, you might say. Don't tell anyone I told you so, but God's providence seems to be on the wane. At least as it comes to America. Before it goes away entirely, perhaps we should make some collective effort to actually deserve it.
The basic grim truth that Americans need to face up to is that American successes and victories in the 19th and 20th centuries did not happen because of America's unique political system. They happened despite America's unique political system. America became great not because American democracy was great, but because America was a great people in a great place. As such, it was uniquely resistant to the poison of democracy, and alone survived its own disease. Now that the bloom is off the continent's youth, we can see how well American democracy works in a normal country. Others have experienced this disappointment; now, it is our turn.
The paradox is that to act collectively on this realization, we must release the power of pure democracy - which, in a democracy, can do anything. Up to and including terminating democracy. Power can relinquish power; the Ring can destroy the Ring. Indeed, gentlemen, there is no other good use for the Ring!
Many people realize this - almost. They are called libertarians. A libertarian is someone who does not want his agent, the State, to exercise power. He feels the nobility of resignation. There is only one problem with our libertarian: he does not realize that sovereignty cannot be destroyed, but only transferred. Natura abhorret a vacuo. He cannot resign his democratic office until he resigns it - completely - to someone. Preferably not the wrong someone.
When he bridges this great mind-gap, he makes his final escape from the Computer, completes the Carlylean metamorphosis and emerges as a true imperialist butterfly. Watch it happen here. Note that "The Devil" is the chairman of the LPUK:
What is it, to be free? Free to do what one wants? Or free to walk down the street without fearing for one's life? Surely if one permits the former that necessarily puts the latter in jeopardy? Which freedom is more desirable?Alas, there is no present political option for Miss Snuffleupagus. (Read some more of this incredible blog while it's still up - for instance, this or this.) There is no Imperialist Party. At least, not yet. But as a student of history, I can tell you: sanity, though it can disappear almost entirely for centuries, can never be counted out. Truth and laughter!
The Devil at The Devil's Kitchen has me wondering about freedom. From what I can gather, he argues for freedom from the state. Being a lefty kind of girl, I've never questioned the existence of the state before. Being a lefty kind of girl, I grew up believing the state takes money off its citizens in order to redistribute it. It helps the poor to be less poor. It forces the rich to care about those who are less fortunate. It provides free health care and education for all. It enforces rules to ensure its citizens are kind to each other, look after each other, and do upon others as they would do upon themselves. Being a lefty kind of girl, I believed the right-wingers to be evil monsters and the left-wingers to be righteous pursuers of justice.
Then I became a teacher.
Now all I can see is the great harm done to my children by the welfare state. I see young women encouraged to have children at an early age by the state that dangles pseudo-gifts in front of their eyes. I see most children take their education for granted, or indeed reject it entirely because they haven't had to pay for it. I see parents take little interest in their child's education because they'll have an education, no matter what. I see both children and parents abuse books, pencils, or laptops because they have been given to them. I see property defaced over and over, because it belongs to no one. I see my colleagues abused day after day by children who have no sense of gratitude.
My children are no longer free to have motivation. They are no longer free to have ambition. They are no longer free to have a sense of pride, or indeed shame. Gone is the freedom of making plans for the future, or saving for a rainy day. Gone is the idea of building up a bank of skills to make something of oneself. Gone is the idea of being responsible for a life, for one's own life, and for one's family.
But if there were no state, who would build the roads? Who would pick up the rubbish? Who would provide the police who keep me safe when walking down the street?
My children do not have the freedom to do what they want, as I think The Devil would like for himself. They are children. And we take their freedom, with the hope that this will give them greater freedoms later in life. My children are too young to know what is good for them. I don't ask them to do the right thing. I tell them. I tell them to do X in the same way that the state tells us to do Y.
Being a lefty kind of girl, I don't mind being told what to do by the state. I only mind when the state's orders cause harm. My issue with the state is not with its existence. My issue with the state is that it takes away any meaningful freedom from my children. It leaves my children with the freedom to go to prison, work at McDonald's, or have a child. The state robs my children of their lives. And being a lefty kind of girl who pursues righteousness and justice, I hate the state for killing my children.
As a dramatic act of catharsis and termination, American democracy can only be properly decommissioned by the American voter himself. As a democratic citizen, to give up on democratic politics is to say: I relinquish my powers, I resign from office, I surrender my thinly-sliced marshal's baton. I reject this system of government, which has failed. I will no longer serve as its part-time officer. Therefore, I will abstain from voting, until I can vote for a complete transition of authority.
This act of sovereign resignation, however thinly sliced or even entirely forged, is a noble act. It is not at all an act of submission - ie, to the Emperor. Rather, because the democratic voter in a true election establishes both Empire and Emperor, yet concedes her own powers forever, voting for the Emperor is an act of both dominance and self-denial. Among advanced civilizations worldwide, this unusual combination is is characteristic of the historical ideals and principles of nobility. As such many generations have seen it in the stories of Cincinnatus, the Self-Denying Ordinance, the Newburgh Conspiracy, etc, etc.
Surely you're familiar with these episodes. Or not. Alas, nobility is not much studied in the classrooms of USG 4. But its converse, here, will serve our purpose just as well. The problem of democratic de-democratization has its legendary analogue in the surely-apocryphal story of the monkey-hand trap, from which the monkey can only escape by letting go of the banana.
To escape from late, Brezhnevized democracy and advance into history, which contrary to popular belief is not even slightly over, the American voter has one and only one collective problem to solve: letting go of the banana. He can obtain good government by using his democratic power to cancel itself, and replacing democracy with Empire. And in no other way.
As a collective decision, letting go of the banana is so difficult, and so obviously in retrospect redolent of the purest, noblest, and most historic motives, that it will be instantly unsurpassed in the epic drama of history. Like the victory of Augustus, it will usher in a new imperial age of social, economic and political repair and restoration. Not just the capital city, but the entire country, is drastically in need of renovation. Remodeling the burnt, cockroach-ridden wreck of democracy is no easy task. The Emperor, however, is up to it.
If American voters can end democracy in a true election, whether locally in a single state or at the Federal level, the act will instantly and automatically be imitated by every democratic nation in the world. In a flash of golden light, not at all unlike the fall of communism, Empire will break out everywhere. The wave that once so overwhelmed will hesitate, fall and roll back. Again, as democracy ends in America, the world will see military coups everywhere. (Unlike democracy in America, democracy elsewhere is - again - none of your business.)
But the fall of democracy is bigger than the fall of communism. Much bigger. Before communism fell, hardly anyone in a communist country could imagine the end of communism. After it fell, no one could possibly imagine its restoration. When the idol falls, it smashes. Gilt clay, marbled brick, show their guts for what they were. Who worships clay? Clay, in shards?
So once this feat is done, properly done, it is done entirely and for good. For those who say it cannot be done - no empire is eternal, not even yours. For those who say it should not, consider the matter again! If I cannot change your mind, time will. The arrow points downward. History, which is not at all over, holds seven thousand hells beyond your dreams or even mine. "Enormous Megatherions, ugly as were ever born of mud." Somalia! Somalia! Somalia is coming to America. Slowly and certainly, this way or that way, Somalia is coming. Extrapolate the curve. I mean, you do know how to extrapolate curves. You can extrapolate any of a dozen.
But how can it be done? How can we release the powers of pure democracy, to terminate USG 4 and instantiate USG 5, firing the electorate and installing the Emperor? Oh, it's actually quite simple. Again, to start the restoration process in a nation whose fundamental constitution is the principle of popular sovereignty, all you need is a true election.
Let us now unveil this mysterious, yet shockingly simple, plan.
Why is a true election called a true election? Because after a true election, the election's winner (person or party) actually receives complete control of the government.
I know! It's shocking! Dear reader, you can scroll up if you like, and check if I said my plan wasn't shocking. No - this is a shocking plan. You should be shocked. Dogs and cats live together; UR endorses pure democracy.
By unconditional control of the government, of course, I mean absolute sovereignty. If it's not clear to you quite what this means in practice, it will be. You can also read Filmer. I'm a big Filmer fan. And there's always Hobbes, of course. And my own idol, Carlyle.
Now, true elections are not regularly held in America, or in any country. Rather, when you elect a President, you elect a man or woman who will direct a specific agency of government, the White House. What are the actual powers of the White House? The answer is not at all simple. But the answer is certainly not absolute sovereignty. Therefore, an ordinary Presidential election is anything but a true election.
How do you turn an ordinary election into a true election? Quite easily. To create a true election, find an election for some office that could legitimately exercise sovereignty (ie, not dogcatcher, School Board, etc), and place on this ballot a candidate or party who have made the unilateral declaration that, if elected, they will consider their election a true election. If you don't like it - don't vote for the candidate.
We'll call this person the true candidate. Let's assume, just for fun, that she's a woman. If elected, through the magic of popular sovereignty (not to mention the practical asset of almost unanimous grassroots support in the security forces), she will simply assume the emergency powers which the voters have granted them, and exercise them. Since the election is a true election, these are the powers of Augustus - the power of imperium.
And whatever her elected title, her actual duties have only one true name - Empress. Or Queen. Or, of course, CEO. In the 21st century, the English vocabularies of royalism versus imperialism are both effectively equivalent; as opposed to mere monarchism, which refers to the present, symbolic monarchies; they are clear and honest assertions of unconditional executive authority. Equivalent executive authority exists today in the private, corporate sphere, whose bland doxology is far more likely to achieve adoption. But ya can't say I didn't try.
Thus, our true candidate assumes the imperium by the following obvious strategy. She declares that though her name appears on the ballot for Governor of California, a largely titular and legislative position with little meaningful executive authority, the voters of California voters can use this election to communicate their general dissatisfaction with the present government of the state, and their desire for a complete change of regime.
Therefore, if you go to the ballot box on Tuesday and vote for the true candidate, you agree that you are voting to (a) resume your popular sovereignty, and (b) exercise that sovereignty by electing said true candidate to occupy the new office of True Governor of California, for simplicity shortened to Governor, with absolute personal authority - the executive powers of a sovereign CEO. Or, of course, Empress. This delegation of sovereignty is not permanent, but can be retracted in a second true election, which will be held in four years exactly as scheduled.
Obviously, if such votes are in the majority, the voters will expect them to be honored. There is a bit of the Jedi mind-trick to all this, but not much. It's democracy, after all.
To vote for the true candidate is to say: I have no confidence in the present government. I therefore vote to resume the authority of the people, accepted implicitly in all constitutional systems, and transfer complete control of the government for a limited time period to you, my true candidate - in whom I do have confidence.
If you win the election, true candidate, I delegate my entire slice of sovereignty to you. I expect you to demand and assume this personal authority, governing in general accordance with the detailed program you have set out, but overriding all other institutions and authorities by your own personal decisions.
Ideally, the true election is an election for an existing position of nominal executive sovereignty. For instance, if a candidate runs for President on the platform just described, and wins, the mandate is clear. The requested authority is almost certain to be uncontested.
Heck - FDR, though democratically elected, was elected on a platform which promised almost the exact opposite of the policies on which he governed. He assumed personal sovereignty without anything remotely like a democratic mandate. (He just had a rubber-stamp majority in both houses of Congress - a perfectly practical way to run a one-party state ) If a true election actually mandates the imperial scepter, the evidence of consent is overwhelming. And will overwhelm.
But history is not over, and nor will ever be; no border is final; no empire, not even the empire of democracy, is forever. Thus a true election can occur not only in an existing sovereign, but in any plausible one. Victory in this case constitutes a popular declaration of secession. If the new sovereign is not independent, the new sovereign is not sovereign. (Indeed, a true election is probably the only way in which a state, province, or even a city can secede.)
So, for instance, suppose California elects a true candidate in a true election. What is her first act as True Governor? It can only be to: declare the independence of California, institute a state of emergency, and order the state security forces to secure all borders and military installations. (In case you hadn't noticed, Abraham Lincoln is no longer in the White House.)
Can she do this stuff? Of course she can do this stuff! She's the True Governor. If she wants someone shot, the CHP will drag him out and shoot him. That's what absolute sovereignty means. (That's why you should be careful who you vote for in a true election.)
But will the CHP obey her? That, of course, depends on what she plans to do. For example, if a major plank in her campaign platform is the annihilation of the Jews, no. I don't think the CHP will obey her. Regardless of how many votes she gets for her annihilation-of-the-Jews platform. However, if her platform is not the annihilation of the Jews, but rather the restoration of adult supervision to Sacramento and sound government to California, I suspect the matter will be otherwise. And really, could she win on any other basis?
Having achieved that philosopher's stone of history, the true imperium, personal government of California, our Governor faces her next problem: keeping the new Ring she has forged. Being a pearl of great price, imperium demands a castle of great strength.
FDR had no trouble with this stage. But FDR, I'm sorry to have to tell you, was, um - well - FDR was, um, evil. Not as evil as some; but more evil than many. The Governor, who is not evil, has achieved personal authority by non-evil methods. Indeed none other could have worked. Now that she is True Governor, both ways are open to her. Choose the right true candidate, and she will choose the path of righteousness! Choose the wrong one, and...
First, democracy cannot be undone in a single true election. No electorate can be convinced to elect a dictator-for-life - not by any honest method. And probably not by any dishonest one. The True Governor's sovereignty is absolute, but it isn't permanent. Again, she is no more than the agent of the sovereign people of California - who have tied themselves to the mast for four years, by agreeing not to have another true election until the Governor's term is up.
Rather, by electing the Governor, the citizens of California have merely chosen to test the hypothesis that democracy is the cause of all their polity's ills. The Governor is not elected for life. Quite the contrary - she is elected for the normal term of office. Moreover, she will not run for re-election. Modern dictatorship, 20th-century-style, is the farthest thing from her regime. She is a dictator only in the classical sense of the word.
So, when the Governor's term expires four years later, the New California conducts a two-stage election. In the first stage, the Governor offers Californians a new, post-democratic constitution designed to secure the permanent benefits of stable and effective imperial domination. If they (foolishly) reject this new, golden Empire of California, she offers them two choices.
One, she can select a new True Governor to continue the New California on a trial basis for another four years. This decision can be renewed indefinitely. The interim regime, while not permanent and not permanently stable (it is, after all, a democracy), can go on as long as it wants. It is the tool of the People; it is the People who are sovereign. Until they finally resign.
Two, she can restore the old political system of California - precisely as it was, even down to the individual judges and politicians. If the People of California want Jerry Brown and Stephen Reinhardt back, perhaps they deserve Jerry Brown and Stephen Reinhardt back. For the Lord works in mysterious ways, and collective punishment is not at all outside His philosophy.
And this is the structure of the plan: the true election. Convinced as I am of this strategy, I cannot imagine how regime change can be performed without it. Nor can I imagine how our present government can, without regime change, be repaired.
So this transition plan from democracy to Empire, our very own Augustan renewal, requires victory in two elections, both true in that victory rewards the winner with uncompromised imperium. Of course, the present voters of California (and everywhere else) have a complete spiritual dedication to their present rulers, and to democracy itself. Both these elections will be extremely hard to win. If either is lost, the entire transition fails.
The true election is immeasurably superior to all other plans for restoring good government in America, however. This is because if it succeeds, it will actually work. Making it succeed is, of course, far more difficult in principle than winning a normal election for the same position. Which is already extremely difficult. So why try?
Because difficult and impossible are very different things. Actually, I find it really quite amazing that anyone shows up at elections for the present system of government, or cares about it at all. To anyone who knows anything about Washington, the prospect of achieving any actual result by this means is nothing short of hilarious. Everything in Washington is designed to resist hostile political interference. Indeed, it is nourished by hostile political interference! When you try to defeat Democrats by electing Republicans, you're trying to drown a fish.
It is with Democratic actors in the show, as at present, that Washington languishes and looks weak. Conclusion: if a true election is not yet possible, do your best to keep the Democrats in office. They look dangerous and to some extent they are, but they are an old, old, dog. Their bark is a lot worse than their bite, and there's not even much left of the bark.
Therefore, a simple personal strategy that anyone who wants real political change can follow is this: begin an unconditional and permanent boycott of all normal, ie non-true, elections. Don't vote until you have a true election to vote in. Whoever or whatever is on the paper, you're just voting yes to Washington as it is today.
This strategy adopted, the question thus becomes: how does the true candidate win the first and second true elections? We'll look at the answer in the next UR post.