A new type of young political thinker is emerging.
Call him Blake.
He is not a revolutionary in the traditional sense. He does not want to tear down institutions — he wants to perfect them, centralize them, and harden them.
His core belief is simple:
“Stronger rules create stronger societies.”
On the surface, this seems reasonable. Who doesn’t want safer streets, clearer laws, and fewer conflicts?
The problem is not his desire for order — it is his tolerance for coercion in achieving it.
Blake is willing to:
- Use policing power to manage protest
- Override local autonomy for “national efficiency”
- Expand American legal authority globally
- Make examples of dissenters
This reveals a deeper assumption: that legitimacy flows from control, not consent.
Historically, this is the same logic used by:
- Empires
- Authoritarian technocrats
- Military juntas
- And certain nation-building projects
The risk is not that Blake is dangerous — it is that his framework lacks moral friction. He has no internal line he refuses to cross.
A stable society requires not just strong rules, but strong restraint.
Blake has the former. He has not yet developed the latter.
