Two party system. For many young Americans it is all they have ever known and for those slightly older, it is all there can ever be. It is taken as an issue of strictest faith that America must have two parties, each counter-balancing the other and that, should there be but one party or a true third contender, the whole balance of the world would be swiftly o’er thrown.
To begin with, no provision is made within our constitution for political parties of any kind. It is not that the authors of the constitution were unfamiliar with the concept but rather that they saw no need for them; what’s more, many of them detested the idea. There was and is absolutely no need for political parties in America. One man, one vote. The man that get’s the most votes takes up leadership for the country. The man who gets second-most is awarded with the vice presidency. Simple and straightforward. Elegantly so. Where here is there room for parties? What, really, is their function? Nothing but needless divisiveness. Since the election of Donald Trump, the 45th president of these United States, there have been untold amounts of squealing about “political divisiveness.” Yet, very, very seldom does one hear it said that this is largely a product of the sham party system. To make matters all the worse, even though the public is brought to loggerheads over their political differences both of the major parties propose and instantiate essentially the same progressive equalitarian measures, meaning, of course, that most Americans, most of the time, are fighting for absolutely no good reason.
Much has been said about the current US President’s proposed border wall, with opposition commentary generally running along the lines of, “A border wall is inherently racist!” Let us, from the start, dispense with such foolishness. Walls, no more than doors, columns or cornices, are in any cogently definable way classically “racist” meaning, presumably, bigoted (not that I think much of the term – it means little enough these days, a symptom of Prog Boy-Who-Cried-Wolfism). Furthermore, there are several very good reasons to wish to tighten border security, the opioid epidemic (covered in my previous article, American Deathscape: The Drug Scourge & It’s Sources) being pushed by the Mexican drug cartels that is currently ravishing the nation being just one prime example among many. Others include the prevention of sex trafficking and contraband smuggling operations and the countless injuries, mutilations, thefts, rapes and murders that come along for the ride, and, perhaps most importantly, the future cultural impact which massive Hispanic immigration will undeniably bring; indeed, it has already brought it (consider the curious case of the NCLR, or, The National Council of La Raza; which, literally translated, means, The Race).
Either a nation is sovereign or it is not; it is axiomatically impossible, given a long enough period of time, for any nation to maintain its sovereignty if it does not secure its selfsame borders. Thus, if the United States secures its borders it is taking a potent step in protecting its sovereignty. Yet, some crucial questions here must be asked, such as:
Would a wall really greatly aid in securing the border? That is to say, do fences work?
How much would such a construct cost, how long will it take to construct?
Would imminent domain be invoked or private property need be governmentally purchased?
Who is going to pay for it?
How would Mexicans and Americans respond to it during its construction and after its erection?
The Efficacy of Walls.
To answer the first question: Yes.
Yes, walls greatly secure whatever areas they are built upon from unwanted intrusion; that is their sole purpose. For thousands upon thousands of years civilizations have been using walls to deter unwanted migrants, undesirable criminals and warring invaders (ect. Great Wall of China, the walled keeps of the Scottish Lords, Hadrians Wall, The Berlin Wall, The Israeli West Bank Barrier as well as the twisting fences of the Korean Demilitarized Zone, or DMZ, all spring instantly to mind). Clearly they work. This doesn’t mean that they work everywhere, however, as some portions of the US-Mexican border are simply too hilly and uneven for a proper wall to be erected – but where walls can be built and utilized effectively they most certainly should be.
Financing the Project.
Now, unto a trickier topic – the cost. Estimates for the total cost of the wall to be constructed, were initially placed somewhere in the ballpark of the 15-25 billion dollar range (Mitch McConnell, in 2015 placed, the estimate far lower at around 12-15 billion). More recently, the estimated average price has moved to 21.6 billion dollars which is somewhere in between these extremes – still, it isn’t chump-change. Current estimates place threshold for completion at around 3 years. Mexico won’t pay, that is clear. Not directly anyways. Trump’s strong-man approach has utterly failed; Nieto made that clear when he spurned the President’s invitation to meet in January in the White House after Trump said he should only come if he was prepared to pay for the wall. With talks about the US pulling out of NAFTA (The North American Free Trade Agreement) the relationship between Mexico and America have only disintegrated further which has left many wondering if US taxpayers will end up drawing the short straw and footing the majority, if not the entirety, of the bill. Not good, but hardly hopeless.
While Mexico may not pay for the wall directly that does not, however, mean that they can’t be tapped to furnish it. Such a statement might sound both strange and more than a little ominous but such worries are easily remedied by taking a clear-eyed look at the sheer amount of money which the United States of America lavishes upon Mexico. Currently Mexico receives around $ 320 million a year from the US in foreign aid. A hefty sum by any measure. It would therefore be highly advantageous to the security of the American people to cease funding, in some portion or in sum total, to the arid federal republic. While some may cry that this would only grant further power to the various Mexican drug cartels – of which the Sinaloa Cartel is easily the most influential and hence, the most dangerous – this argument falls relatively flat by its very admission. If Mexico, since the la Década Perdida of the 80s, has been unable to crush the cartels, even with massive foreign aid from the United States, one can scarcely be expected to believe they will solve the problem in the immediate future. Funding Mexico IS funding the cartels. Thus one is left with a rather cut-and-dry binary decision: fund a failing state and its attendant criminal shadow-lords or fund the defense and further prosperity of one’s own nation. The proper choice here is clear.
Retracted foreign aid alone, however, will not cover the wall in its entirety as currently proposed so what other avenues of action could the government take that would circumnavigate the US taxpayer footing the bill? Remittances, of course! This is a highly promising area of inquiry for our purposes as Mexican Remittances alone make up around 2% of the countries total GDP, such payments by Mexicans living abroad generated $ 24.8 billion for Mexico in 2015 alone (which is more than the country generates in sum total from all of their oil reserves). If the President where to place a sufficient tax on this revenue source in conjunction with the surplus funds to be had after retracting foreign aid, the wall would be well on its way. This is to say nothing of the billions which our government could potentially utilize from the seized assets of Mexican drug lords such as the infamous Joaquin “El Chapo” Guzman. Whether or not there is the political will for such a arduous undertaking is, of course, another matter entirely. But as the old adage goes, where there is the political will, there is a way.
It is now lies with us generate that will and foster a return to an era of great public works that, for generations, will reverberate throughout the world. This newest prospective monument should be a codification of our nations strength and pride, of our indelible spirit of industry and order. A signal to noise.
Kaiter Enless is a novelist and a contributing writer for New Media Central & Thermidor Magazine. He is also the founder & chief-editor of The Logos Club. Follow him here.
The word has become something of a prelude to incantations of aspirations for lofty empire and personal mastery among the contemporary dissident-right. Discerning ears will oft hear the rightist cry of, “We need strong leadership!” Yet, seemingly invariably, once a leader steps up to the plate (or is merely proffered by others as a viable option) he will be roundly denounced for all manner of “reasons” which are all too often inherently unreasonable and, perhaps worse, unprincipled.
Consider the case of Florida attorney, Thelemite and right-wing Libertarian, Augustus Sol Invictus (Austin Gillespie) who was blithely undercut by his own party who scathingly condemned him for ostentation, wackiness, “radicalism” as well as a general lack of respectability. Nevermind that he was the most stalwartly libertarian or the most clearly transformative candidate, touting a message of political insurrection and the right of the people to defend themselves from the pestiferous tyranny of government oversight even if it meant outright war (a melodramatic but definitively Libertarian talking point – consider this not from your own political position but from that of a libertarian), nevermind also that he hit almost all the libertarian talking points, shrinking government, cutting taxes, protecting the environment, personal liberty, the NAP and so on – none of that mattered because he sacrificed a goat. Despite the fact that Invictus’ sacrifice was in no objectively measurable way different from eating some roasted goat dish at any given Mediterranean restaurant he was roundly condemned all the same. Not for leadership qualities, not for legal reasons, but because he was considered to be “too extreme.”
Let us turn our attention to another more stark example within the Libertarian Party, that of the presidential candidate, Gary Johnson, the former Governor of New Mexico. One of the central tenets of the current iteration of Libertarianism within the United States is that the government should not have any say in what a given individual does outside of enforcing the law (sometimes with minor exceptions in relation to transitory processes leading out of existing ‘tyrannical’ government intrusion). Gary Johnson, however, believed that the government was perfectly within its rights to intervene in privately owned business affairs – specifically in regards to upholding “civil rights.” This issue came to the fore during one of the rather amusingly theatrical Libertarian Presidential debates hosted by John Stossel, the be-mustached token-atheist and doctrinal Libertarian host of FOX New’s Stossel.
During the debate the relatively unknown but extremely popular (within Libertarian circles) candidate, Austin Petersen declared that Johnson wasn’t a true Libertarian because, were he elected, he would utilize the government to ensure that businesses weren’t discriminating against their customers for religious reasons. Johnson attempted to respond, stating that, “Discrimination on the basis of religion is a Black Hole!” but was curtly cut-off by Peterson who demanded an answer to the question, “Should Jewish bakers be legally forced to bake Nazi wedding cakes?” Johnson responded with an emphatic, “Yes,” and shortly thereafter went on to win the Libertarian Party nomination for the Presidential Race which everyone knew he would most certainly lose (just in case you have taken up residence upon the seabed – he did).
Now, what to make of all this? Well, the first thing that needs be noted is that regardless of your opinions regarding Libertarianism (mine are admittedly low) or the Libertarian Party, Austin Petersen was perfectly correct when he said that Johnson was not a true Libertarian, if True Libertarian means one who holds to every major precept of party doctrine. However, his civil rights policy of legal enforcement as regards “discrimination prevention” the candidate was in flagrant violation of party policy. Johnson was effectively a nominal Democrat who loved the idea of mass migration and hasheesh. Never you mind the other failings of the candidate, such as his ignorance of the situation in Aleppo, his strange outbursts of rage (specifically in regards to any who dared use the phrase “illegal immigrant”) or his inability to name even a single foreign political leader.
Any of the other candidates were better for the party by the party’s own standards and yet they chose Johnson. One might rightly ask why bother maintaining party policy if it is not adhered to? All of this reveals a fundamental inversion of hierarchy within the Libertarian Party. Perceived affability, eccentricity and marijuana-affinity are deemed qualifying leadership qualities – a drive towards marketability rather than character. Instability is mistaken for righteous indignation. Dizzying ignorance is mistaken for “being one of the people – just a regular Joe.” He doesn’t have time to study stuffy nonsense like general geography – he’s got doobies to burn and Coors to swill! Don’t be so hard on him, he might not be able to point out Aleppo on a map or name a single foreign leader but he’s one of us – the people.
The latter remark is one of the most telling and is a virus which permeates throughout the whole of America’s cultural politik – the idea that what is most desirable in any given candidate is that they be plebeian. This is an understandable notion (though not a desirable one), after all, what rightly vigorous, self-respecting and upright man really wants to admit that one’s leaders are above him in any capacity. Man’s ego recoils at the very notion! Its the cranial whispering of the aspiring alpha – that is, most men – “Dash the throne til I sit upon it!” Here it is instructive to cast the cry back into that great and whispering dark, “But what if the crown doesn’t fit?!”
Naturally, the crown rarely fits as a quick cast-back through the caverns of one’s memory palace will assuredly reveal. After all, when one seeks out a car mechanic one is, by the very action itself, admitting in no uncertain terms that as regards mechanical repair the seeker is second rate – else ways one would fix one’s own car. This is axiomatic. As has been previously noted this is primarily (though not solely) due to ego’s interference in the logical faculties – the cult of individualism is also here at play. There is then a great and pressing need for a return to “knowing’s one’s place,” a cruel sounding edict but one which is essential to a properly ordered and highly functioning grouping. If you are incapable of rallying your brethren and your neighbor isn’t then, in terms of leadership, he is manifestly and objectively better than you just as a Democratic candidate who advocates for Monarchy is a manifestly and objectively poor Democrat or how a Libertarian who adheres to government coercion is manifestly more poorly qualified than one who does not.
One should not be afraid to say, “He is better than thee,” so long as one is humble enough to say, “He is better than me.”
I would like to briefly cover the notion of ‘American Exceptionalism’. This topic has become progressively more and more contentious and now hovers like a spectre of death over public discourse within America like the malevolent khefts of Egyptian folklore. Public opinion has clearly, unquestionably turned. In place of the heroic nationalism of old the public now prostrates itself upon the alter of diverse corporatist internationalism. This paradigm shift has led most, normally level-headed and parsimonious US citizens to believe that to hold the United States of America as exceptional is to call for a return to the dark ages or some kind of jingoistic fascism. This is manifestly untrue.
Indeed, it is not even the crux of the argument. To argue against American Exceptionalism one must assess whether or not the idea holds water. We must endeavor to see if this notion is empirically true. It should here be noted that exceptional does not necessarily mean better or worse, in either a moral, spiritual or material dimension, just wildly, notably divergent. Thus, let us tackle the topic along four main lines, that of military might, economic success, scientific advancement and cultural development. These four attributes are widely held as those most important and crucial to accurately discerning the totality of a nation, state, empire, ect.
First up, then, is the united states military which is currently the largest and most powerful in the world with a massive budget of 601 million dollars, which is larger than the next nine nations listed on the Credit Suisse’s index, combined together. In terms of troops the US boasts an active military personnel roster totaling 1,400,000, as well as a formidable array of technologically advanced armaments including 8,848 tanks, 13,892 aircrafts, 72 submarines as well as 10 air craft carriers and the most airpower of any other nation in the world. Not to mention the enormous stockpile of nuclear weapons, which is, again, bigger than any other single countries nuclear arsenal. But not only is America’s military prowess dominant, currently, it has also boasted world wide military dominance since the end of World War 2.
Next let us look to economics. Currently, the United States of America has the world’s largest economy in terms of GDP with a aggregate value of 17.9 trillion dollars total. This accounts for 24.5 percent of the world’s total gross product, a staggering sum which is widely disproportionate to the actual size of the country and it’s relatively small population density. It should here be noted that though China does indeed produce a slightly higher gross national product, in general, sitting at 19.4 trillion dollars, the united states still has a far higher rate of GDP per capita, with 55,805 dollars per capita in the US as opposed to China which offers only around 14,107 dollars per capita. Thus the United States, which accounts for approximately five percent of the worlds total population creates nearly 25 percent of the world’s total wealth.
So what about science? Well, according the Scimago Journal & Country Rank, a popular aggregating website dedicated to the analysis of the dissemination of scientific journals by country and density, as of 2015 the United States of America has published 567,007 scientific peer reviewed papers, far more than China, the second highest ranked via the website, which has released around 416,409 during that same year. But, of course, scientific research papers are not everything, what about actual technological advancement? Well, here the US is still quite manifestly exceptional both currently and historically. For instance, US researchers, innovators and scientists are responsible for the creation of such technological marvels as: high yield disease resistant crops, nearly all of the life saving pharmaceuticals currently being used all around the world, the invention of refrigeration, the electric telegraph, anesthesia, the airplane, the bull dozer, deep space astronomy, the liquid fueled rocket, the integrated circuit, EEG based brain topography techniques, nylon, trans uranium elements, the transistor, nuclear weapons, the laser, as well as the personal computer. The US is also to thank for completely mapping out the human genome. The list of empirically useful and often life saving scientific advancements just goes on and on. And again, this was done by only five percent of the world’s population.
So lastly, let us look to the most difficult of the four attributes to quantify: culture. Art is a potent signifier of culture so let us begin there. The top fifty highest grossing films of all time were all made by American studios, the top six best selling albums of all time are also all american. The United States is also still heavily relied upon as a basis for the still developing “international culture” which arose out of post enlightenment values. Also, contrary to the popular opinion held by people such as Bill Maher, who state that the world quote “hates america” the global opinion of america is still highly favorable as numerous polls, such as those done by the PEW research center have shown.
We could go on for days but all I really want to convince you of, my fellow Americans, is that the exceptional nature of the united states, whether you love it or hate it, is largely, objectively traceable. So I would encourage you, my fellow countrymen, when next someone says that they are quote, so damned tired of American Exceptionalism, end quote, to tell them that, in essence, what they are really saying is that they are tired of manifest and empirically demonstrable reality.
Editor’s note: This article was originally published earlier this year, exact figures and budgets may have altered slightly since the writing of this piece.