Hoping for a Constitutional Crisis, Actually
In the recently released TV show Mussolini: Son of the Century, there is a great scene at the end of the final episode that speaks volumes. While I have not seen the show and can therefore not speak of its overall quality or accuracy, the clips I have seen are filmed in such a way so as to almost be reminiscent of the artistic style of Futurism, which Fascism had undercurrents of. Although I doubt that the libtards who made it wanted it so.
Anyway, in the last scene Mussolini, standing before the Italian parliament in uniform, takes full responsibility for the violence and chaos of his Blackshirts but also declares that if he had put just a fraction of the energy of containing and leashing the Blackshirts, into unleashing their violence – they would see real chaos. Following this, he explains that Article 47 of the Italian constitution gives parliament the power to indict any minister and bring him before the High Court of Justice. He asks if there is such a person in that parliament who would be willing to raise his voice against him, giving full permission to do so. On the balcony of the chamber stand his Blackshirts, overlooking the proceeding. A fast-paced close-up of the faces of all the parliamentarians ensues, with nobody saying a word in opposition to Mussolini’s takeover of power. In the end, turning towards the camera, he utters “silence” and the shot cuts to black.
It is unclear but highly likely that the producers of the show wanted this scene to be “chilling” and a typical “muh democracy dies in darkness” crap. Unfortunately for them, the scene is cool. Apart from that, the scene incapsulates what power is all about. It is violent and forceful, and relies on a myriad of technicalities, legalities, and loopholes to entrench a certain structure. Different people and movements have used these things to gain power. Some use tactical coalitions and alliances, others bombings – the end goal is the same. Eventually there comes a time when a regime has begun to rest on its laurels, on its entrenched power, and begins to calcify and lose actual influence. Nevertheless, the legal framework it has established prevents a change of power through “peaceful” means (there is no such thing as “peaceful” means, it is all violence and battles but with a different form of expression), ultimately leading to the rise of very real and capable opposition. In the face of those who are willing to cross the Rubicon, the entrenched regime spooks because they never prepared for the possibility of something like that happening. And furthermore, the very character of a parliamentarian (so a lawyer, economist, grifter, and snake-oil salesman) is easily intimidated by violence, force, and the sight of weapons.
Those that think that “evil can only take root when good men stay silent” are mistaken. The problem is that if those who, in theory, could stop a radical change of power are powerless to do so because of their own weakness or inability – of what use where they in the first place and what further purpose could they possibly fulfil? It shows that the best stock of a people, those that have a vision, a purpose, and courage now stand with the opposition, while those in power flee like rats from a sinking ship. In this vein, those that are able to arouse and rally the politically and socially active section of the population (because its them that actually matter, the rest are just sheeple), deserve all the spoils of victory. If you want a certain order of things to prevail, much sweat and blood will have to be spilled for that to be so.
This brings us to the liberal democracies of today, these insufferable regimes of humiliation and managerial tyranny. They have become the instruments of judicial and legislative totalitarianism, the rule of overeducated but ultimately unfulfilled bureaucrats, advisors, apparatchiks, and lawyers. The separation of powers, as it is called, has led to the complete imprisonment of the executive branch of government. Today it is impossible to do anything without having to first get the approval of the legislature and then a lengthy legal process through the courts if this or that action is deemed “problematic”. This set of conditions has led to the whole “end of history” farce from the 90s – the belief that ideological struggle has ended, and that liberalism, free trade, and a “rules-based international order” has prevailed. Only a totally cucked pseudo-intellectual could believe in something like that, and he is the exact person who would be intimidated by Mussolini and thrown into the dustbin of history.
The thing with all these parliamentarians and lawyers of today is that they are ahistorical, outside time and space, they are a type of person and class of people. You could pluck them from today’s New York and place them in Baghdad in the year 500 BC, nothing would change. They would be used as the exact same managerial types by Middle Eastern sultanates and empires. The conditions today are of one enormous kindergarten where you are strictly forbidden to act independently and wisely, being overseen by some fat lady. I will never stop calling today’s democracies “regimes”, since they often use the word to describe foreign dictatorships. The forcefulness with which liberal democracy insists upon itself, the threatening to ban a political party for being “undemocratic”, the online and social censorship, is ludicrous and a perfect example of a regime. Of course, it is not about their willingness to control the political landscapes, since this is expected from any power structure, but it is about the collective delusion that it is anything other than a regime.
Furthermore, the claim that current democracy stems from the “will of the people” is frankly insulting to anyone who is actually politically active or interested. “The people”, this abstraction, isn’t real since the majority of individuals are just a mass, a clay from which a real leader and a real power source moulds the world. Those that really matter are on the fringes of things, the small groups of real people who are willing to create something and push things in some direction. These are the people who are capable of taking on the risks of political activism, intellectual discussion, and, in the end, real action. The rest have no say in things. Even when they are given full legal rights to do so, most avoid spending more than five minutes of political or social analysis. This is why every single system ever invented has leaned towards oligarchy. Because it is the select few who actually have the balls or the capability to do something. All states are the imposition of the will of the few on the many, because the many don’t really have a tangible will and are instead fluid, filling the environment that is imposed upon it.
A long time ago, I used to defend the current layout of things by saying that this or that, him or her “isn’t a dictator” or “no, that won’t happen” and the good old “but actually your side are the hypocrites because…”. I used to care about “but the taxes are lower” or whatever. However, here I am hoping for a constitutional crisis, actually. I long for the return of Great Men of history, the brave crossers of Rubicons. The tyranny of the ossified class of managers and merchant speculators must come to an end. The executive is to be at the tip of the power triangle. The sovereign of the land is the one who leads, the merchant and the manager are to serve for a higher purpose while also benefiting themselves (since that is the nature of man and necessary). The scheming merchant, who is fearful of instability, cannot rule. The centrists and “apoliticals”, who are fearful of legal processes and “controversies”, cannot rule. Our future cannot be decided by the prices of eggs or taxes, both of which change every few years anyway. The knot must be slashed with the sword. Few today can comprehend that there are those who are willing to let go of their life, let alone comfort and peace, for a higher goal. Not career politicians, but leaders, architects of a new world and a different future. Today, that has been reduced to petty “interests”. It is a masterful analysis that all great inventions and changes spring from the delight of great man in victory and conquest, while the masses, the journalists, the pen-pushers, all these can only watch and receive the consequences.
The use of force, literal or legal, to push through that which must be done is a prerogative of a real and benevolent sovereign executive. That is his whole point. It is the person and group of persons that have a final say on a matter, after all the party-politicking.
And we haven’t even mentioned the ever-present 65+ year-olds, who make up an increasing percentage of Western society. These indoctrinated, TV-news-glued, grannies and grandpas who cannot (unless in exceedingly rare instances) understand that a new world has come. The time of “just walking into a job interview and giving a firm handshake” and comfortable picket-fence lives after spending a whole decade of being juiced-up hippies is over. Foreigners who hate us are literally stabbing children in playgrounds and ploughing into Christman markets. And yet they have the audacity to lecture anyone about anything, while at the same time their dislike of young people pours out with every sentence. I had the displeasure of having to explain to an old lady in a grocery store how there are two lines, and I didn’t skip. The pleasure with which she brought up the matter, as if to say, “look at this delinquent, I shall be the tribal policeman who will set him in his place”. This is the crap they concern themselves with.
An excess of feminine spirit cares about compassion, compromise, and consensus in politics and a society begins to reflect that in its extremely slow and ineffective functioning. This is why also the modern psychologists and professors, a considerable percentage of whom are women, write moronic theses and create activist “actions” about “what to do about the problem of radical young men”, only to conclude that they ought to be mommied and carefully reintegrated into this hellhole. This is the society that you will have without real authority and when those who’s place isn’t anywhere near power are given mid-level positions that they then turn into their pet projects. As I’ve said, a literal kindergarten.
The rule of the HR department, the office TikTok girlies, the bickering parliamentarians, “principled politicians”, the rule of money and its interests, the cultural bankruptcy of an “open and loving society of all of us, just humans” and the overall standardless chaos cannot continue. No wonder zoomers up to their early twenties are right-wing by such a margin that hasn’t been seen in decades. It’s Weimar conditions all over again.
I wonder for how much longer the dam will hold.
“To understand why a man holds his beliefs, you have to know what was happening in the world when he was in his twenties.”
-Unknown (maybe Napoleon, maybe the web, relevant nonetheless)