The Aesthetics of Leadership: A Manifesto

No successful leader of a people in human history has ever been a man possessed by a fear of power. To talk of a politics of power-renunciation is to talk of suicide or slavery, yet this is the current model (i.e. Merkel, Trudeau). Americans hold it as a sacral moral principal that our leaders be those who are pushed up onto a precarious platform of peers who can at any moment change their mind and throw him over. They throw him over not by violent revolution or ideological out-maneuvering (in the hypothetical utopia), but by simple, unthinking revilement for desired placations, unfulfilled – followed swiftly by the ballot boot.

It is this latter point which bears some consideration; the idea that a leader should serve a system or an ideology rather than a people. In America, the president does not (generally) serve the American People nor even its supreme code of laws, The Constitution, but rather the bureaucracy that interpenetrates it and the manifold moneyed interests which ensure their goodly placing (for sufficient favors of compensation, of course).

The picture of national American leadership, generally speaking, is one where the populace delights in their lords renouncing their power even as said lords continue to amass it. It is one where politicians do not jump forth to uplift, defend and lead their kith and kin, but one wherein they lust after the coinage of superPAC darkmoney groups (, i.e. AIPAC) and the societal adoration of coastal elites and international sov-corps and shell organizations (i.e. Amnesty International, Open Society Foundation, The Fahr Group LLC, ect). Whilst such groups can not always outright buy the loyalties of any given politician, they are usually more than well funded enough to rent them out from time to time.

It is for these very reasons that the prevailing model of the leading man is insufficient (hence the perpetual lib-prog outcry Trump, Pence, Bannon – authoritarians all! as they, in part, buck this model) for efficacious governance. When coupled with crippling bureaucracy and corruption the stultification becomes only more starkly apparent. This simply will not do, not in a age where nuclear arms, globalization, demographic shift, foreign meddling, internal rot and threats from desert death cults threaten the denizens of the United States at every turn. To combat these ills a new man of action, perhaps prefigured by Donald Trump himself, will need to arise. However, unlike our current leader, he should be a man of manners, a man of further reserve, not given over to fits of emotional turbulence.

He should be a “man of the people,” connected to them by a indelible bond of blood, virtues, hopes and shared spaces, but yet well above their class, showing it in his bearing (yet never beating them over the head with his status!)

He should be a man of steel and industry of energy and verve; ever ready to cast himself into the construction of a grand program of national works!

He, this future leader of men and builder of great works, must drive wholly against the grain of the prevailing system whilst working within it – like the ichneumon – to cleave aside the infernal tangle and decimate all those who had dared erect it. As war is politics by other means, our future commander, our prospective leading man, must be sanguine in engaging it. He must subvert, he must destroy. He must conquer.

His means.

Total subversion.

Total war.

His ends.

Restoration and its improvement.

To actualize such a process one needs some directionality – one needs a program for a building towards of such a man. For even those that fail to meet the whole of the measure will be invaluable for those other weighty positions beneath, without which a government cannot sustain itself, no matter how grand its leadership.

When Napoleon Bonaparte returned from his exile, he desired a bloodless coup and so marched with his thousand and so soldiers upon Grenoble which was then under the control of Louis XVIII’s new and extremely unpopular government. Government officials were given word that the dethroned emperor was to be shot on sight. A Royalist general under Louis’ command intercepted Bonaparte and his men at a pass near Laffray before he could reach Grenoble. To the great confusion of the general’s soldiers, Napoleon’s men advanced with muskets reversed. The royalist general gave the order to fire but they were so shaken by this curious display that they refused as Napoleon himself walked stoically within range of their guns, his voice ranging off the narrow pass.

‘Soldiers, I am your emperor.  Know me!  If there is one of you who would kill his Emperor, here I am’.

He threw open his travel coat as if inviting a bullet. Laying himself completely bare to the deadly soldiers before him. Not one among Louis’ men dared take up the challenge. Momentarily they tore the white royalist cockades from their garb, dashed them to the ground, abandoned their weapons and ran to embrace their kinsman, shouting, ‘Vive l’Empereur!’

If that is not the height, the very summit, of rightful leadership, such a thing does not exist in all this world.

Towards A Program of Great Works: The US-Mexican Border Wall

Pertinent First Questions.

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.

Prospective Solutions.

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.