Unitary and Panarchial Society

Left-Spenglerianism against Centrism

INTRO:

Multiple directions. Multiple societies. Patchwork constructed via anti-capitalism. Carsonesque post-capitalism combatting neoliberalism, and the Unitary spirit of the machine. Multiple connected streams pulsing with rhythms of syncopated camouflage. Offset the sound of its declining meta-heartbeat with the tone of your human skin, camouflaging meta-obviousness. Unitary governments are in all countries, especially in Faustian (Spenglerian term for Western) countries, like the USA, and England.

The Unitary government is the most common viewpoint in political philosophy, being traditionally held subconsciously as the best mode of living. We came to this point by the subconscious theory of stillness, borrowing a term from Empty Spaces circles, which indicate that history needs to slow down, and be pragmatic in its approach. Change is not a major tenet of stillness, rather keeping to the status quo, in a seeming lack of alternatives. Unitary society is inherently centralized, and nationalism has become restricted by the rhetoric of those who favor a Unitary government, as opposed to a Panarchical society, decentralized and restricted by no government. 

My definition of panarchy is in quotes, “a multitude of decentralized societies living amongst each-other, as opposed to a Unitary society, which contains one government in one country”. Panarchy is inherent in human nature, comparing itself to the many different political, philosophical, and religious views in the world. It seems that in each person’s worldview, there is a society, and a desire to carry out this society. Psychoanalyzing the society in our head is a great way to also develop these viewpoints, taking us to branching paths that we choose from, creating a thoughtstream of paths, like a choose-your-own adventure book. 

Political Ideologies, Morality, and Centrism:

Both the Marxists and the Anti-Civilization Anarchists, even though they are very different from each-other, have one thing that makes them similar: the desire to carry out a society based on core tenets, whether they know it or not. The Marxists (note that I’m talking about the Orthodox Marxists, here, mainly) want a communist society, starting with a gradual slope from capitalism to socialism to communism, and the workers seizing production, outlined by Marx and from there branching various Marxist schools of thought. The Anti-Civilization Anarchists critique various aspects of this thought, and want a return to pre-civilization modes of living, viewing not only Capitalism and the State as a threat to existence, but civilization, namely technological civilization as a whole, to be a threat to existence. The similarity here is made very clear when comparing these two vastly different schools of thought: a construction of a society and carrying the society and its tenets out. 

The panarch in our heads, is hidden throughout this society seeking ordeal. It is shivering for us to grab it and make it known: the plurality of societies, or, using the Spenglerian definition, Civilizations. However, it has been misused by anarcho-capitalist and right-libertarian types, to mean a capitalistic vocabulary. Panarchy, in its decentralized nature, decentralization very uncommon to capitalism, is inherently anti-capitalistic simply because the societies contained within are small and socialistic in nature. Human nature is very uncapitalistic, but is being hurt by Demiurgic grievances. 

Human Nature does not follow the Utopian Socialist to its inherent goodness, or the Ligottists into its inherent dread, but occupies a third position, neatly between them. It can also fluctuate between these moral ideas, or even combine them to make a Nietzschean master morality. Simply put: morality is objective in its subjectiveness, relative in its essentialism, and neutral to both right or wrong. This neutrality isn’t an arrogant Political centrism, but a master morality rising above the good and bad of the moral objectivists found in protestant theology.

Liberalism, in this sense, is Political Centrism that just so happens to adapt the tactics and some beliefs of the Progressives, but never actually lean to their beliefs. It’s the pretension of being on a side, without actually being on a side. The west, as it is, is on a moral decline into this centrism. The Spenglerian decline showcases a contrast to Panarchial norms, which disrupts human behavior into a single-file pattern. The designs of cities like New York, and Los Angeles showcase this, disguised as Panarchial design, into centrist morality. 

There isn’t a peaceful or disruptive way out of centrism. Centrism subsumes and recuperates all there is from revolution into a reformist approach. Take for example, the rhetoric of the democratic socialists: they return to a Fourierian approach to socialism, updated to the 21st century, simply to subsume it and reconstruct it into a centrist view of affairs. Bernie Sanders and his supporters have subsumed leftist discourse in the Faustian world, once and for all, therefore making it hard to destroy this subsumption. 

Outro: 

Coded language helps in order to destroy this subsumed neo-leftism, with a new theory combining Marx with the cybernetic theory of Deleuze and Guattari, and the Historical and Political-Theological outlook of Spengler. The Hidden Meaning of Centrism is a secularized version of religious enlightenment theory: the Deism of the 18th and 19th century, to the Progressive Christianity of the postmodern enlightenment century, obviously influenced by the Protestant Revival and Deism.

Therefore: to split our thinking from leftism, and into a combination of the theories and tactics of both Right-wing spaces, and Left-wing spaces, in order to combat political centrism and capitalism itself, we have achieved a deterritorialization of Centrism, in order to reconstruct it into a Panarchial society.