The Decline Of The Rule Of Law

The number of homeschooled children is rising. The amount of Americans seeking concealed carry licenses is exploding. The number of states moving to unlicensed concealed carry is increasing. The number of guns sold in America resembles an army preparing for war. Mainstream conservatives applaud these social trends under the narrative of the rugged individual making a comeback. What these pundits fail to see is that these trends are a symptom of the fading trust in the rule of law and withdrawal from the public sphere into private networks.

It is easy to make fun of the “Muh Constitution” crowd on the Right because of how meaningless the document has become. The meme foil is a picture of a single white child surrounded by Third Worlders with the phrase “at least I still have the Constitution” slapped on it. A paper is only as meaningful as the men who create and enforce it.

The American tradition, derived from its Anglo heritage, advances the concept of rule of law, which essentially implies a practical limit to entirely arbitrary decisions, else decision-makers run the risk of losing legitimacy and hence power. Rule of law boasts a long tradition that stems back to the formation of England itself, particularly through the Angles and Saxons barbarian warlords who invaded the Roman province of Brittania. After filling the vacuum of leadership and authority as the Romans departed, there was an obvious need to secure hold on the newly won fiefdoms, as well as build legitimacy. One could argue that the enforcement of papal anti-cousin marriage laws was a means for the new kings of the heptarchy to socially engineer loyalty not within the tribe or clan, but to the sovereign by breaking down the strong cousin marriage bonds within each clan.

As Henry Kissinger has argued, legitimacy comes from acceptance, not imposition.

The heptarchy did not simply import priests from the continent to ban cousin marriage. The church brought with it educated men, accomplished administrators, and a suite of laws. A way for the sovereigns attempting to gain legitimacy and move beyond being barbarian warlords would be to maintain appearance as a neutral sovereign above the fray, playing no favorite as disputes, arguments, and settlements came before the king’s courts. One would be more inclined to take disputes, trust the supposed sovereign, and believe that contracts would be enforced if the decision-maker had the appearance of a fair and neutral arbiter.

The strong enforcement of contracts, rule of law, and fair play was a strength of the Anglo and American system for centuries. While much is said about the Magna Carta, few comment how line after line details the formalization of the relations and rules between the king and barons, as opposed to ordinary people. This is the founding document for the Anglo tradition of written law, and it contains minutia restraining the king. This focus on rule of law would also mold society to not just trust in the decision of the outside arbiter over the tribal kinship channels, but even select for individuals more likely to adhere to it. Those who broke contracts and committed crimes would be removed from the gene pool, turned into an outlaw, or exiled.

Part of why London and New York became financial centers was this very foundation of fair and strong contract enforcement. Capital markets were and are incredibly deep and liquid, but there was a global belief of a fair hearing in courts that adhered to the rule of law. Today, the neutral sovereign and fair play approach to enforcement is far less present. The average American is likely to complain about the arbitrary nature of sentencing, bemoan prosecutors with no sense of intent, or drop their jaw at the armed robbers and rapists released from prison after eighteen months served.

Confusion over why the abuse of the good reputation of fair play or the enforcement of contracts has grown stems from a failure of America to admit that its empire has no competitors. Born after World War II, America had to fight with the Soviets over Third World scraps as the European empires receded. The collapse of Soviet-sponsored communism removed all competition. The American imperial courts, rules, and administrators have largely gone unchallenged, as there is no other system to defect to for other players. However, there have been tremors, and the bread and butter of the Anglo empire, the financial system, is slowly starting to see a potential challenger in the form of the BRICs Bank, the Russian-Chinese alternative to SWIFT.

On the domestic front, there is no frontier to escape to. Centralization and technology have driven the American priest class to seek any nonconformity. The eye of Soros sweeps the nation for heretics. The centralization and destruction of subsidiarity under FDR started a slow process of destroying the peculiar traits or habits of regions. Even the concept of regional economic powers funding purple politicians, rather than polarized red and blue, melted away as money and consolidated capital interests began to fund candidates for the possibility of steering the federal purse their way. This affects social, not just economic policy, and causes even the little people to seek an outlet.

The pushback is also manifesting itself in people who advocate for concealed carry, homeschooling, or the Benedict Option. The loss of trust does not simply apply to actual enforcement of the law, but also to its fair application. Civilians feel the need to carry a deadly weapon because they believe the government will not effectively police or guide citizens to adhere to laws.

There is no new space for exploration and creation. There is no outlet. People are cocooning and looking inward in response as a form of withdrawal from the anarcho-tyranny of the public sphere in favor of rules and norms in a private sphere.

Liked it? Take a second to support Social Matter on Patreon!
View All


  1. The courts are a joke and the police are government soldiers/lapdogs. The only reasonable thing to do is make your own Justice and protect yourself. Strong networks of violent righteous men are going to be what will stop total anarchy in the near future. Just my opinion though but it is in every mans interest to build these groups as quickly as possible.

  2. People are not isolating themselves but they are preparing against a system of government that has mutated and is alien to them. A system that does not have the loyalty and good faith of its subjects can only exist through force. The American government has long lost the trust of the American people.

    In the sixties tv showed the FBI as a protector and defender of the people. By the 1990s the FBI via the X Files had become the agent of a foreign entity that worked against the people. Communities are being destroyed by the government through section 8 housing, refugee settlement, etc.

    When the people respond it will not be what the experts in the swamp expect although in Nevada we saw how close to the brink the nation has come. Its only a matter of time before the Left through one of its fronts creates a new rebellion. Again this time it will not be what the Left expects nor will America remain as it has been. The words equality, tolerance, justice have lost their meaning in Obama’s America.

    There is a storm coming.

    1. I think Ruby Ridge and Waco had more to do with that than the X Files did.

  3. I’m not smart enough to write beautiful essays about political strategy. I do know that people follow strength and I think alot of armchair warriors write here beautifully but unless the can lead from the front and harden they’re hearts and become a monster for the good this is pointless. I have a high probability of surviving the horror to come but I need a king to follow. The only man I see with the will is Mark Citadel if he would just step over that line to glory. Forgive my presumption but the time for half measures is over.

    1. Patience is an underrated virtue. Consider the following passage from The Art of War. “Victorious warriors win first and then go to war, while defeated warriors go to war first and then seek to win.” – Sun Tzu

    2. Ugh, this sort of comment has become habitual with every article here. (A) Seems to me they are indeed working on action. (B) This is not a new insight. (C) If you’re so concerned about action, act. Complaining that other people aren’t acting to your liking is how the left operates. (D) If we don’t have a deep grasp of the underlying mechanisms that operated historically, we’re doomed to repeat.

      Given that everything I wrote is rather obvious and has been said before, this line of criticism seems like an unproductive status game. I’m not sure of the best response.

      1. Only has a name in death August 8, 2017 at 7:07 am

        >Seems to me they are indeed working on action.

        Not in the sense he is talking. At least to us outsiders, they appear to be working on positive action, a project of building. This is fine and good, as any successful strategy needs a positive theory of winning that attracts the competent to the cause, since the comparative advantage of any outsiders versus the cathedral is competent, virtuous, and organized political leadership.

        But a negative action, a project of disrupting or destroying — which needs to be seriously considered for contingency purposes — is not being considered, since a passivist strategy doesn’t have a built-in negative project, a priori. A posteriori, I’ve yet to see any thing of the sort suggested here (or perhaps they are behind the scenes on secure comms channels). Something that would look like such a post would be an indepth, comparative account of the weaknesses and centers of gravity that might topple the cathedral’s ability to project its power via its usual centers of control (this need not be kinetic, see below). Such a negative project is only being openly talked about by people on the right who are idiots and incompetent at this, i.e. /pol/ and WNs sharing crappy pdfs from the murder/k/ube and shutting down anyone who doesn’t scream “day of the rope” while rollerskating. They also tend to suck at the positive project, which is Hestia’s redeeming feature among the right.

        btw, disrupting or destroying the enemy need not be in the /pol/ sense that HRx and NRx often get their panties in a bunch over. There are more means available to the grand strategist than just military means and going full Breivik, e.g. financial warfare, political warfare, lawfare, etc. Imagine someone on the right building a shadowy financial intelligence and financial warfare organization from ex-wall street alt-right shitlords and anti-sjw Silicon Valley hackers that maps out and targets NGO and foundation funding for disruptions of funds, money, and credit. You could do some serious damage disrupting Soros’s war chest with such an organization. It would probably be highly illegal, and would put you in the spotlight from state actors, but a lot more ethical than deathcamps and RWDS.

        >unproductive status game

        Talking about contingencies and alternate strategies is not unproductive. Ignoring changing competitive conditions and not planning for contingencies is one of the worst things a strategist could do. I will grant you though that some of the “just do it, we need Hitler Napoleon, thnxkbye” guys are annoying.

        1. If it’s really a matter of “we know you’re working on building something, but we’d rather you start waging war right now”, fine, NRx is clearly not waging war at this moment, but hell if it isn’t completely OT for the articles getting hit with this comment. Which you know. So unproductive status game.

          1. Only has a name in death August 8, 2017 at 10:56 pm

            Not talking about waging war. That’s not the issue at hand. Preparation for war and waging war are two different categories. Contingency planning and counter-planning are parts of preparation, and any good strategist worth his salt would be doing this given changing competitive conditions. Is the style, argumentation, and rhetorical flushes of those calling for a negative vision defective? Sure, but these are vices they share with others on the right. Individuals like Tj above realize a storm is coming (pretty sure I’ve also seen members of Hestia admit this on twitter). He’s captured something in spirit that needs to be talked about, even if he can’t clarify it to the level where people accuse him of “unproductive status games” because he also confuses preparation with waging war. There isn’t a single person in the outer right blogosphere who is discussing what is on the horizon that isn’t worthless crap like larping about /pol/ red team planners, or localized operational and tactical level militia theorizing (like brushbeater or mountainguerrilla). There are absolutely no outsiders doing any high level force planning, organizational planning, diplomatic alliance theorizing, financial planning for building war chests, systemic identification of cathedral weaknesses along with outsider comparative advantages, among many other topics under the purview of a strategic theorist or strategic planner. None of this is being theorized about. inb4 I should do it. Nope. I don’t have the experience, plus I’d be accused of being a larping armchair general (which is hilarious, because who isn’t? Only a small minority of the population have been to staff college). It’s important this happens not just for pragmatic reasons, but also because you’ll see the usual online suspects (manosphere and shills) move into this ecological blog niche and manipulate it. I can understand Hestia not wanting to be involved in such a project, for as I said above it a priori precludes such a project, and also for ethical and counterintelligence reasons (it brings them under the eye of the state). But that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be talking about it. Hestia may not be interested in a negative project, but the negative project of their enemies is certainly interested in them (as given by the recent argument in jacobite mag against Perriloux’s article).

            As to the claims about status within an “unproductive status game.” I find this use of the term “status” unproductive. It’s a term that is now quite worthless, and I find some NRx bloggers use it as a kind of deepity. It’s used as a factor in explanatory frameworks that doesn’t really give any sort of explanation for phenomenon, because there are different sorts of research programs and sub-kinds of status out there. If we are using status in its evolutionary psychological prestige sense (one of two senses in evopsych, and the one most appropriate here), then such a game is not really unproductive at all. Prestige status is about knowledge and skills. As said above, just because someone asserts an unclarified statement referencing a potential state of affairs doesn’t mean we can’t spin off a productive conversation about it. All you’ve really criticized is the style, lack of argument, and fiery Breitbart comment-tier rhetoric. Not the contingent propositional content, which may actually have support and may end up being true. And if this is the case, then its the person talking about status that is actually signalling some sort of prestige — and hence engaging in status games — not the other way around. It’s also a bad sense of prestige, since no real signalling of knowledge or skills come from it. If we are using status in the sense of research from dual inheritance theorists, then it becomes about copying the behavior of the political team or online group you belong to, especially high status NRx individuals who use status as a rhetorical attack tool (thus meaning people copy this use of the term “status,” which is mediated by both status bias and conformity bias within the NRx population). And if it ends up becoming the case that HRx and NRx have cultural status biases to reply to every claim about negative projects with “this is a status game,” then that is a significant long-term cultural problem for their statesmanship if events go awry, since culture has an effect on strategy via conformity biases. Again, not unproductive to talk about, but declaring things as status games is certainly unproductive for someone who wants to adapt to certain contingencies.

          2. Only, I have found nothing worthwhile in your commentary.

          3. Only has a name in death August 16, 2017 at 11:17 pm

            >Only, I have found nothing worthwhile in your commentary.

            As opposed to commentary that consists of low-effort, one-liner, soyboy snark that is incapable of responding to counter-claims in a substantive or justified manner. Truly worthy, my friend.

          4. Triggered.

  4. First will be warlords then righteous kingship. It is the natural order and nothing changes. It is human vanity that believes everything is new. Humanity is the same now as it has always been.

  5. While the general outlines are correct, we have to admit much of our knowledge of Saxon democracy is mediated through the 17th century debates about the relative innovations of absolute monarchy and parliamentary politics. Cole’s Institutes didn’t mistate English common law but certainly had a particular perspective. This is the source of our wrong turn in the American Revolution, when the Founders defended relative innovations like natural rights, rather than older institutions.

  6. “There is no new space for exploration and creation. There is no outlet.”
    This may seem like a throwaway line, but it may be the most profound observation of the entire article. A fundamental difference between pre-modern times and the current age is the lack of wilderness, i.e. habitable land that is not controlled by any state. In earlier times, people who were dissatisfied with their governance could go somewhere else and form a new society. The inability to do this eliminates a form of competition that would force states to behave better, as the old love-it-or-leave-it slogan fails when there is nowhere else to go. When there is no longer an exit and the idea of political voice is revealed as an elaborate scam put on by the rulers, the people are left with the sole option of revolt for expressing their frustrations. This is coming soon. The homeschoolers and gun enthusiasts know this and are preparing themselves accordingly.

  7. In only 30-40 years, from “rule of law” (Rhodesia, prosperous bread-basket of Africa) to Zimbabwe, third world, hell-hole, homicidal kleptocracy.

    We are seeing that “transition” now on a global scale.


Comments are closed.