Organized Disorder

The Center allies with the periphery, using them as a tool to attack subsidiary centers of Power.  Or, the High and Low versus the Middle.

This is a summary of De Jouvenel’s political theory in On Power, which Bond neatly applies in studying modernity. A common view in many liberal circles is that a group of Whig philosophers dragged history away from monarchy into a progressive direction. They proposed better ideas in a marketplace of ideas, and thus their ideas became popular, in this era that we know as the Age of Enlightenment.

Rather, this study tells us that ideas are selected for their service to power structures, and both the genesis and spread of these ideas are a result of Jouvenelian political conflicts. Take for instance, the creation of the tabula rasa Individual of the Enlightenment.

The rise of the individual

This rise of The People was seen earlier in The Reformation itself, where kings contending against the Catholic Church patronized the individualizing and anti-traditional ontology of Protestantism. What is more, the secular/sacred distinction was recovered by (proto) Protestants like Ockham and Luther from Augustine’s City of God, to limit the jurisdiction of the Church. In fact, where the kings had deep control over ecclesiastical affairs, there the Reformation did not have a deep hold, suggesting that the role of kings was vital to the success of the Reformation. Moreover, theories of popular consent didn’t start with Locke and Hobbes; there were dissenting Huguenot theologians and papal supporters like Robert Bellarmine espousing such ideas to undermine monarchies earlier.

This Individual is an array of epistemological, ethical and anthropological assumptions. The anthropology is seen in the social contract theories of Locke and Hobbes, wherein atomic individuals join together to form a society, ceding a part of their natural rights to a sovereign to live in peace. These individuals thus have desires, values and ideas independent of any political order. The epistemological aspect can be seen in Cartesian rationalism, a la cogito ergo sum (I think, therefore I am), where philosophical thought is deemed independent of time, place, tradition and political authority. Then, we have two frameworks of ethics which both place the individual at the center. The individual’s act can either be justified if it can be willed as part of a universal law (Deontology) or based on the degree of happiness that it produces (Utilitarianism).

What Bond illustrates is that ALL of these above ideas develop downstream of political conflict. For instance, the social contract theory of Locke (a Puritan and a Whig) was in service of Parliament, which became the Center of Power post the Civil War. The individual (Low) was promoted at the expense of Monarchy (Middle) by the High (Parliament). Similarly, Descartes lived in places with heavy Protestant influence, and his brand of Catholicism too presumed the importance of the supremacy of secular authorities in the moral domain, as opposed to a united Christendom with authorities regulating collective standards of behavior. These all suggest that Descartes and Locke didn’t suddenly awaken to some Inner Light, but rather were deeply influenced by the political climate of their time, a climate that resulted from Jouvenelian conflict.

This rise of the individual continued, with the federalists propping up the individual in the 1787 Constitution of ‘We the People’ fame, to centralize against the US states. Further, the UNDHR post WWII can also be seen as globalist elites propping up the individual against nation-states. Today, this Individual forms the bedrock of not only all social sciences, but also all Anglospheric cultural productions.

So we see the rise of more anarchist notions, while at the same time Power is becoming more centralized. This subterfuge is carried out to make the authority in societies opaque and unaccountable. We see such anarchist ideas at play when describing the economy too.

The Society and Economy

An example of this intentional opacity is the creation of a private/public distinction.

The Chicago School defines a corporation as an aggregate of contracts between individuals. Here the corporation is consequently absolved of any responsibility toward the public, because of its private nature. Also made opaque is the role of the State, whose role as the controller of the marketplace is denied. Not for no reason was Monetarism of the Chicago School deemed to be a useful ideology for spreading the power of America. Another example is the ‘Non-Governmental’ Foundation, which is supposedly a spontaneous private actor without any association with Power.

Bond traces the influences of these Foundations in the Arab Spring, Civil Rights Movement, BLM, and creation of political science, showing how these movements are deeply connected with the objectives of ‘Blue America’ elites, acting in tandem despite the existence of this private/public distinction.

This public/private subterfuge had to be carried out because the Republic was posing problems with its checks and balances. This raises questions about the validity of democracy – is there any such thing as The Will of the People, if Foundations and Corporations can circumvent electoral politics to mould the desires of masses to suit their vested interests?

Upon further reflection, the promotion of laissez-faire economics internationally is another example of the Jouvenelian mechanism. The Anglosphere promoted anarchist theories of an international economy, championing the individual, in order to suppress growing countries (Kicking off the ladder as expressed by Ha-Joon Chang). The Free Market model thus disguises the role of the Center. Friedrich List uncovered this subterfuge and posited an alternative model in favor of nation-states – a model which helps explain the rise of the economies of USA and East Asia.

Left and Right

What really is meant by LW and RW? A good brief definition that leftists give of their movement is one in support of minorities, of oppressed people. While this uncovers a truth, it is only partial. What left stands for is a Jouvenelian centralization of Power – the alliance of the Center with the Periphery against intermediary power centers (family, nation, religion, etc). This explains how the Left espouses various antinomian doctrines like feminism, anti-natalism and secularism, while growing in influence. They must pretend that the rise of these movements is somehow spontaneous, or even the consequence of a mystical Force of Progress. Leftists however aren’t aware that they are slaves of Power. Most genuinely believe in the individualizing ontology, that they all are speaking truth to Power. here is an explanation of how they operate in unison, even though they may not be aware of it, via a model of spontaneous power coordination (similar to natural selection). Meanwhile, the Right are those who fight for the intermediary structures (religion, nation-state, etc), against the High-Low alliance. While the leftists across the world are united, the Right is just united by a common enemy, catching up to the ever-radicalizing Left, without much substantial success.  

A point of importance is that these peripheral groups come into prominence only with the help of Power (be it in the form of Foundations, Corporations, etc). Why class politics may be popular one day, and race politics on another day, is down to the convenience of the Center. Another key point is that this alliance is structural, not primarily ideological. Why a leftist might be against Christianity in the West, but in favor of Christianity in India, is because of this Jouvenelian structure.

Islam and the Anglosphere

A study of the Anglosphere’s propping up of Islamist groups is also similarly instructive of the power of the Jouvenelian model. The British (high) propped up the House of Saud(low) to counter the threat of Ottomans (middle), especially in nearby Allied territories that housed substantial Muslim populations. Saudi Arabia later helped Zia-ul-Haq sponsor Wahhabi (and Deobandi) schools in Pakistan, establishing large numbers of madrassas along the Afghan border. These, helped also by Anglo funding, would later play a key role in destabilizing the USSR in Afghanistan. A similar pattern of supporting Islamists against secular/ethnic nationalisms can be seen across the Middle East.

In conjunction with these foreign policies is the push by elites to allow Muslim immigrants into their countries as a protected class, aligning with them against the local populations. The invention of the term ‘Islamophobia’ is to dismiss any demographic concerns that such European natives may have.

In this manner, Anglo-American elites have revitalized Islam in such a manner as to achieve their short-sighted goals.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

Create your website with WordPress.com
Get started
%d bloggers like this: