• NRP

The Rise of the Anti-State: Dangers and Psychology of the Modern Anti-Statist Movement in America

By B.K. Burton


In America today we see before us a movement not on the left but on the right which threatens the very foundations of civilization. This may be hard for some to understand. To understand this threat one has to extricate himself from the very scaffolding upon which American government, law, and society has been built. This delirium infecting the American right is not a new phenomena when you look at it in the context of history and across other countries in Europe and Asia. What makes this contagion different is that one entity must become lesser so that the other can necessarily become greater i.e. the state and free enterprise respectively. This no doubt is the root of the anti-statist fever in modern American conservative/libertarian politics. The other cause, one that is tertiary I would contend, is the instinct to cleave to what they see as an essentially American tradition of being free and throwing off the reigns of oppressive government. It has become the case however, that this philosophy (if one may call it such), has in due time been taken to its logical conclusion in libertarianism. This logical conclusion is the notion that any role for the state has no place whatever in society, in the economy, in the nation itself and any attempt by the state to act in its proper and natural role is seen as oppression by those who imagine their lives are somehow diminished by the energetic state rightly acting on behalf of the people and acting according to its proper nature. The dangers to civilization as we know it, as it has been built up for centuries, cannot be overstated. The anti-statist right is unquestionably radical beyond belief. As such they have become too irresponsible to govern and their delirium has clouded their good judgment. We must oppose them at every turn.


The universe, it would appear, is like a living organism. Like a living organism everything about it, even from the very beginning, is now and was then very highly calibrated. We know now that there was a definite point in time that the universe was born due to science’s relatively newfound ability to see microwave background radiation in the universe, which when followed to its source, gives us a very good idea of how old the universe itself is. In fact, had the big bang been too violent then the universe and the planets could not have formed. Conversely, had the explosion not been powerful enough, everything in the universe would have fallen back in on itself and again nothing could have formed. It was however, calibrated so perfectly that the universe has been able to survive if you will for 13.7 billion years. While scientists cannot venture to guess at the origins of the laws of physics, there are other forces that govern the universe. For illustrative purposes I will use just two that causes the universe to live. The universe is not static. It is constantly changing. In fact nothing is static. In this case we can take a lesson from Hermeticism: As above so below. Everything is in constant flux and change is necessary for life. Matter creates gravity. But there is another force in the universe. A force that battles gravity continuously. This is dark energy. We all know that our universe is expanding and has been since the big bang. It wasn’t until more recent times we learned what was counteracting gravity and pushing our universe and everything in it outward. The point of this little physics lesson is that we do not really know how the story will end for the universe. It is possible that it will continue to expand at an ever increasing rate as it is doing now or in due time gravity will turn the tide and cause the universe to contract again. Human affairs and ideas are really no different. The debate of what the state is and how much of it we need has always been at the forefront of political philosophy. The two forces are the state and the anti-state. The anti-state seems to have no rational governor stopping it from going too far. Some on the American right would even argue for the abolition of any role for the state. It is possible, under the auspices of this American experiment that the anti-statist right, like dark energy, could continue to push our politics in the direction they want it to go until the state, which we can liken to the universe in our metaphor, simply dies by way of dispersion.


Luckily for us, the key difference between men and the universe is that the forces at play here are subject to rationality. As irrational as the anti-statist right is, if their philosophy is taken too far, there will likely be a reaction that causes a return to normalcy. Those who belong to the anti-state on the American right first saw their light of day with the candidacy of Barry Goldwater for President in 1964. From Harding to Coolidge to Hoover we saw a hands off approach to economics which fostered a boom and then a massive bust. This economic hands off approach was a feature of the Goldwater candidacy also but with a somewhat latent alternative dimension added to it which was a creeping feeling the campaign projected onto the American people of a government exploding to the scope of something Orwellian. The laissez-faire economics of the roaring 20’s however, caused a reaction in American politics and Franklin Roosevelt was put into office on the promise of a new deal for Americans. For the next 40 years New Deal politics ruled the American Political landscape. I would consider Richard Nixon to be the last New Deal president. This does not mean however, that business interests weren’t trying to buck government along the way. Barry Goldwater was defeated handily by Lyndon Johnson and his Great Society programs. Once Ronald Reagan came into office however, it was business’ day in the sun that they had been waiting for for 40 years and boy did they have an aggressive agenda in mind. The key thing to remember about Reagan is that he masked deregulation behind freedom. He boldly declared that government wasn’t the solution to our problem but that government was the problem and he did it with all the charm of a Hollywood actor. The great communicator he was called. As radically anti government as Reagan was and as much destruction as he carried out against the structural protections put in place by the New Deal, I cannot imagine that Ronald Reagan would have been supportive of government not having a role in regulating morality in society. Yet this is exactly what the anti-statists froth at the mouth over. This new right just doesn’t believe in less government in business they simply do not believe in the role of a state at all. The implications of these beliefs are readily apparent if you were to debate them as I have many times. When you do you will often find that their good senses in the end conflict with their rabidly held and defended political beliefs. Recently, I debated a libertarian on the role of the state. I found that he was even against ballot initiatives that would in some way empower the state to regulate a business. He took issue with the fact that a people can come together as the state and decide for themselves how they would wish their society to be regulated. How they wish as a people to regulate themselves. For him, using the government as a tool to bring to bear the collective will of a people for their own benefit (even as they saw it) went against his philosophy as it pertains to the state. Furthermore, though a Christian, he saw no reason for the state to regulate or license marriage. This of course would leave the door open for gay marriage, polygamy, polyandry, and any other combination one could think of regardless of sex, number of partners, or even species. It is safe to bet that without a rule based society, preferably by way of religious beliefs, eventually humanity and society will slip into chaos. There must be a rule; a standard of conduct for a society to live by or else that society will die. The anti-state right however, does not see the need for this, imagining that as long as people have the “freedom” to regulate their lives as they see fit that they will regulate them at all or that a nation can survive this way. Eventually however, this philosophy runs afoul of most of these people’s good senses. Though they have little of same regarding how to run a country, most of them are simply delusional well meaning individuals who have a lack of understanding of what human progress looks like and what the modern economy and complexity of human relationships necessitate.


The dangers to society can be illustrated with the issue of marriage. It is first useful to say National Reformation’s overarching view of the state with a simple sentence. The state is comprised of rational and ethical individuals; therefore the state must be rational and ethical. We can also put it thus as a compliment to the first sentence: All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state. As it necessarily follows I would have no issue using the state to create a structure by which society would be upheld and truth be told this was never an issue in America in the past. Under a National Reformationist government, marriage would be enshrined in the law as follows: Marriage shall be defined as a union between one man and one woman generally with the view of procreation but explicitly as a recognition of sexual rights. This marriage must be recognized and licensed by the state expressly for the upkeep and regulation of society to the benefit of and protection for the nuclear family and our nation as a whole. In this way the very basis of our society is protected and we can assume this cornerstone of civilization safe and well placed so as to build the rest of the house from here. No house can be built without the cornerstone being laid; no ship can withstand the maelstrom without its anchor. This order, this structure is exactly what the anti-statist right hates. They hate it because it supposedly infringes upon their freedoms and their liberties but my friends they do not understand that true freedom and true liberty exists not in spite of the state but rather only exists within the state and because of it. Freedom can only ever exist alongside the state. It is absolutely true and prudent to say with all confidence that man as a theoretical entity will cease to exist without the state. He will have become little more than a beast. Man’s rationality exists for the express purpose of him being the apex social animal which is the genesis of the state. Anything to the contrary is anti-social which defiles man’s very nature and defiles along with it the state. If then, you ask the libertarian should marriage be addressed by the state they will respond no it should not. It isn’t the state’s place to do so. All well and good. So is it then not the state’s role to address what is pedophilia and what is the age of consent and when one can marry what we would now consider a child? We have destroyed the gender rule of marriage. The anti-state would have it that the state should be no respecter of marriages at all. So by the logic that the state has no role in setting these morals then by what precedent will the anti-statist philosophy have to set morality concerning sexual relations with children of 12 years of age? I can tell you, the reader, that through experience the anti-statist will run immediately to hide behind consenting adults and/or an age of consent. I could very easily argue however that the age of consent is completely arbitrary (a word they are fond of using to address laws they do not like) and as we well know different people mature to different degrees at different ages. Far be it from the state to make those decisions. Far be it from the state to regulate society in this manner or legislate this upon people. With a rational person the principle in question could very well be to what extent should the state be involved in such matters; why and why not. What is so dangerous about the anti-statist right is that this isn’t the conversation. The conversation is whether the state should concern itself with such matters at all. This, as I have just demonstrated, is completely, totally, utterly irrational. The example given may seem outlandish to the reader. The fact of the matter is however, that as the lines in society have become more and more blurred there are already whispering’s out there about pushing this boundary also. It really is only a matter of time before the questioning becomes more and more out in the open. We generally associate this sort of thing with the left. Breaking down societal norms in order to restructure society the way they see fit. In order to break down the patriarchy and religion to fight for supposed equality and the like. They are also attempting to throw off restraint and be more free but the left has no issue with using the state to do it. For the left the state is something to be captured in order to subvert and destroy societal norms and barriers; destroy preconceived notions in general in a never ending search for their utopia. The anti-statist right by virtue of being anti-statist plays right into the left’s hand’s in this way. While the left seeks to capture the government the anti-statist right refuses to participate in the same tactics because their principles will not allow it. And so the left wins time after time because the right doesn’t even want to offer up a fight. The new left and the new right are working hand in hand to literally destroy the state, destroy civilization itself. The National Reformation Party is the only movement in this country that sees the State for what it really is; sees it by its true nature. We see the state as Aristotle saw it. Philosophical realism regarding the state is the only way to combat the left. The anti-statist mentality of those on the new right is, in my own estimation, the most dangerous movement in America today because it is so pervasive and seductive. What’s worse is they have wrapped it up in American mythos making it seem quintessentially American. It can allow the destruction of the economy and the destruction of the very fabric of society. The rise of the anti-state must be stopped if we are to remain free and live in a rule governed society where a future for our progeny and nation lives.