The Consistence of an ethnoethos state

A so called political «state» derives its meaning from people before it can be predicated by procedure and purported as an intrinsic abstraction, and «sovereignty» is seated in the subject whose continuity provides its very reason for coming into being in the first place. No feigned intellectualized legal fiction, however «humanely» enduring and bent on moral appeal, fundamentally changes this fact of ‘Consistence’. An ‘essential state’ thereof, develops as subject and telos hold together in the coherent thing the concept claims to name. Descent and historical character form the actual structure on which people persist as a collective and statehood, and either affirms consistence or ultimately collapse into incoherence, the latter unfortunately ever so much common than the former.

The contemporary universalist-liberal doctrines bury these imperative realities beneath its stilted civics and inane academic abstractions, recklessly supplanting ‘peoples’ with ‘population’ who live in the name of «freedom» from the obligations and civilizational prerequisites that only a particular peoplehood truly can spawn and sustain. The left wing liberal project postures as the ascending political vehicle for ‘rights-bearing persons’ and the passionately vigilant management of their various, «multicultural» procedural claims, though its entire tangibility remains by displacing the intrinsic subject; a conditional it cannot even hypothetically consider without disputing its own theory of mind and society. In a relatively short span of humanitarian history, this inconsistent idealized civilizational extravagance: the evergreen tree of liberal-progressivism, is definitely rationalized by the incidental increase of complexity, i.e. every consequence of deracinated abstraction begets another pledge for institutional and managerial commitment to generally compensate for the loss of substantive support by spurring brittle branches and buds in a frenetic sprawl, where the core crumbles and scatters outward as it cannot center in Consistence.

Correctly contrasted by the concept of Consistence, where human society aligns further with reality, and therefore with the true «God» of nature as intrinsic order, the conventionality of nascent «nationalism» naturally follows as the truthful universal political consequence of substantive particularity. Every people-form seeks sovereign correspondence, and every effort to universalize one people’s inherited order over the another by unbracing its personhood eventually degenerates into juridical incoherence and ideological delinquency.
The typical pseudo-intellectual, incredulous detraction that nationalism is somewhat a historical novelty and supposedly so not logically innate, basically conflate Consistence for early existence, as genealogical continuity arguably precedes the modern political instantiation by which European nationalism became significantly state-conscious. «Nationalism» as an orderly concept is plainly of a more ancient tribal adherence and something that was recalled into a higher order and modern political form; continuity contrasting and reflecting increases of intricacies and radical confusions into a more sovereign, societal syntax. Furthermore, any actualizing radical re-alignment cannot conceivably be correctly recast in the same idealized vein through which it became politically viable in the first place, nor by the veneers of doctrines arriving after the fact that rationalize its assumed wealth and authority. The current liberal state is upheld by a loose correspondence to the intrinsic subject it abusively presumes and in conclusion therefore consumes.

Related: Boomerconservatism, «our» worst enemy

The overall question of most political conceptions and criteria is ontological Consistence, i.e, whether whatever of doctrines actually disciplines and hold with the relative reality, or merely incoherently rearranges its countless illusory evasions with enough procedural confidence and deontological deductions to project as «humane», prudent thought and liberal-progressive statecraft; today, the final framework for «freedom» informed and underpinned by liberal democracy and banal «capitalism». Both the nominalist and conceptualist capital errors of anti-realism readily enter the political discourse wherever Consistence is recognized as an inconvenience and replaced by ideological Newspeak and outright tyranny, e.g. «neo-liberal fascism». The replacement phenomenon at large is basically an pseudo-intellectual, indulgent amalgam of philo-psychosocial repudiation of crucially distinct forms, usually prominently apparent in regime recalcitrances such as «political correctness», whereby ‘inherited realities’ are demoted and dumbfoundedly «differentiated» into contrafactive fictions and other contingent abstractions of various sentiments, while the more traditionally concrete categories still useful to monger power are retained and mixed into the liberal repertoire to bolster juridical protection and forge other disgraceful means of mass coercion.

In so far as philosophy undoubtedly goes, the run of the mill Platonist is at an advantage in arguing these questions at hand. A form is not unreal simply because it may exceed the sensations of the crude crowd, nor is the ideologically intelligible merely actual because it requires the mind to interpret it. The equitable human eye does not see a people-form as it sees a stone, yet this substantiates nothing against the real structure that political subjectivity persist on in time.

Idealistic impairment

The liberal virtue of «tolerance» belongs inside the same adrift ‘humane movement’ and should be contemplated with more suspicion than its self-flattery commonly indulges. Speaking of «virtue», christianity had already altered the semantic gravity of it by radically distorting a defined word grounded in excellence and vigor into a moral complex of submission and redemptive meekness. «Tolerance» candidly continues this displacement in secular drag, pushing itself as the highest of moral elevations and governmental gravitas while engrossing the exhaustion of a civilizational concept no longer capable of asserting itself without apologizing for its own existence.

In the preeminence of Europe, the supposed serene, divine discovery of, and eventually sectarian descent into locally disorderly «tolerance», arguably habitually emerged from the ruinous surplus of theological interpretations between rivalling christian claims for power which produced complex conflicts that no longer could be resolved by a common metaphysical authority without reintroducing the very coercion and inconsistent confusion the anti-realist’s reason already had rendered so radically irrational. Grotius, one of the progenitors of what to proceed as «human rights», and the natural-law tradition laid the transition bare and conventionally overt as the disputed church order was not revised by a possible return to more intrinsic people-form, but by a more moot and polemical form placed above contending confessions, effectively a pacifying abstraction that conveniently converted doctrinal Inconsistence into political principality, which in reality is the mainspring of modern ideological «leftism».
It can ostensibly be argued that the alternative medieval unity of church and papacy inevitably could not preserve their former universality if it did not acquiesce into a supranational spiritual order, and even after disregarding all types of inconsistent fragmentation and moral alignment, it was always destined to speak in the sedate idioms of universalized, liberal values to retain at least some of its original self-evident influence. This is all the same pious liberalistic displacement in motion, albeit in more strict theological form.

Nevertheless, universality, much like an empire, possibly only preserves itself by shedding substance and heading into mass management, i.e. from authority and command into mediation and ensconced institutionalism where its potency gradually stagnates. Once order can no longer justify itself by intrinsic correspondences, it rather scarcely survives by managing the conditions around the thing while abandoning its first and final cause all the same. Plato’s old distinction between mere condition and true explanation is still more politically apt than most modern political commentary, here: as bones and sinews can explain how Socrates remains seated, but they do not explain why he remains in prison.

In the same way, the black box gimmick that is the liberal state barely explains and understands itself how a society functions, and particularly denies to disclose who and what their state actually exists for, so the universalist platitude usually becomes «everything», exactly because the ‘final cause’ of such a state cannot be properly inferred by its ideologically inconsistent instruments, only epitomized by rhetorical signs and equivocations of «equality».

Flawed forms

A simple demonstration against such interpretations is to point out how liberalism categorically fails on the most clearly consistent criterion by the reason of presuming a «state» without the cognate subject and even assuming something beyond the same solidity of ‘national life’ while explaining legitimacy by the thin universal of the individual, that is after which the same individual is returned to the pseudo-state as another civic-economic abstraction. Liberalism is not even genuinely «universal» per se because it construes peoples as temporary placeholders for persons of its ideological interest while vehemently viewing Consistence as some kind of moral defect, totally turning it on the head while believing it hit the nail right on it.

Other ideologies falters differently, but some much more instructively so because they touch and contrasts criteria liberalism must denounce in order to preserve its own abstractions. National Socialism correctly recognizes that ‘peoples’ are not mere malleable and liberal fictions, but then over-integrates this recognition into a total world view, a «weltanschauung», of «struggle» and destiny. Its fight against the «Marxist» and the «capitalistic» empires, especially the specific geopolitical encirclement of its time, belongs to a specific historical emergency, not necessarily to the universal structure of Nationalism. National Socialism is not nationalism ready made, complete and consistent, but rather nationalism made historically and metaphysically overextended. Besides and on other fronts, it is also tainted of certain idealistic insufficiencies of conceptual abstractions like so many others, and therefore only ascends by subordinating the national form to a narrative that arguably cannot remain nationally or rationally bounded at scale.

Evidently and eventually, if every nation were Liberal-progressive capitalist or National Socialist-völkisch in the same doctrinal sense, it is especially naive to believe that the final political order of such would do anything but devolve into mirrored totalisms of idealistic solipsism, with each doctrine positing its own premise as world-logic, and so devising its negation as enemy and squaring the circle by depicting the conflict it induced as proof of its historical necessity.
The same predicament applies to all actualizing extrinsic universalism in theological or humanitarian forms. Their particular historical differences and conditions doesn’t really matter all that much once compared to their common departure from intrinsic Consistence, and the most fundamental and general conceptual fraud of moral universalism today is branding itself as something elevated-sophisticated and advanced just because it is less rooted (in evil) and more academically ‘au courant’; apposite for more intellectual abuse.

A state of ethno-ethos requires no sentimental equality of peoples and no liberal -democratic theatre of local «diversity» to be harmonious and interact with others nations; peoples. People do differ in historical capacity and internal quality, and the point thereof is that each people-form is first coherent from its own inherited structure, and that statehood becomes most consistent when political authority corresponds to this structure rather than diluting it into «mankind» or simply subordinating it to another people’s imperial concept; conserving the universal by refusing to make one particularity transform into all

The fallacious post-modern political age and its many failed experiments has indeed clarified the necessity of Nationalism by raising awareness of actual ideological inconsistence beyond the simplicity of the previous forms which inadvertently concealed the question, and when the appeal to inner order and reason turns to extrinsic nonsensicality, the answer is purposefully exposed.