Posts Tagged ‘demotism’
Friday, January 6th, 2017
The struggle of our time has become clear: realists, who want civilization, stand against ideologues, who want to rationalize the decline by directing our attention with the false metric of “progress,” which is essentially virtue signaling for social status.
Realists face a series of tough realizations. The first is how much recent politics was bungled; after that, the time scale and scope expands. Soon it becomes clear that our society has been afflicted with deep rot for many centuries.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of all this is realizing that the decay runs deeper than politics. It has infested all aspects of life, including the “lifestyle” and daily experience of people, leading to existential misery. Worst of all of these realizations is the knowledge that modern society is a giant waste of time.
Most of what we do is completely unnecessary except that it allows individuals to claim they are important. Most products fail, but their launches allow ambitious little sociopaths to claim they are wizards, at least for long enough to get hired somewhere else. Most tasks at jobs are there to demonstrate the importance of the manager. Most red tape events involve bureaucrats asserting their power over you. Most social events are jockeying for positions in a hierarchy, and art, culture, literature and even friendship get used as means to that end.
In short, competition has created an infinite demand for ways to compete. As has been observed many times, every thing creates more of itself, and so when we make competition in specific areas part of our society, that takes over everything else. That we do it with money makes it mandatory that everyone join in and waste their time.
The average job could be done in a few hours a week, if we subtract out the activities done to demonstrate the importance of managers and employees, the red tape which solves no problems but creates work for everyone, the waiting around for people who are merely posing at being busy elsewhere, the pro forma meetings and emails. Jobs are mental spam for the most part, and they obscure the tasks which actually need doing.
Add to that the other great waste-of-time activities in modernity: returning the constant defective products, researching products to see which of the options are not corner cutting scams designed to get some idiot promoted to management somewhere, spending days or weeks filing paperwork which no one will see, arguing with self-important customer service representatives and waiting in line — endlessly — while someone in front struggles with understanding the simple nuances of the obvious solution to their avoidable problem.
Modern society is a trap. It will kill us off the same way every advanced civilization dies: it tolerates the stupid, who then gang up on the rest, take over and make a society designed for idiots. This exhausts the intelligent, who promptly die out, leaving the stupid in charge for a glorious generation or two before their corruption accrues and society plunges (slowly) into third-world status.
The intelligent are forced into a role by civilization that they feel obligates them to the rest. What this means in reality is that the smarter parts of our civilization are forced to babysit the rest. That group, essentially reckless proles hungry for power and wealth, is the most destructive force in any society, like a stomach that thinks it is a brain.
This exhausts the intelligent, and makes it easier for the proles to take over.
While this happens, those of mental ability are forced to either (1) stand against the ongoing decay and become marginalized, dying childless in small cabins in the woods or (2) rationalize the decline as good, make the right virtue signals and “succeed” despite it wasting all of their time and energy in the process of babysitting the insane and stupid herd.
Rationalization of a clearly sick and moribund society makes them crazy, and from these tormented souls we get our intellectuals and social elites. They tend to be corrupt because their minds are scrambled by having to accept the destruction of their civilization as a good thing, and to assuage their guilt, they tend to endorse ideas like “progress” and Utopia in order to avoid talking about the actual problem, the collapse of civilization, because it is hard to solve where Utopian plans are trivially easy.
The dying civilization of the West has tormented its intelligent people and driven them insane as they try to adapt to a world created for the crass tastes of the herd. They were aliens in their own society long before diversity, and now they are simply ghosts wandering among the others, with everyone waiting for them to die out so the prole party can kick into high gear.
As we come to grips with how utterly insane and corrupt our leaders have been for the past eight years, it is time to reflect on the fact that these acts did not occur in isolation. We The People voted for these idiots; we are the bigger idiots. But who is “we”? Our society has been hijacked by a mob which wants to destroy civilization and replace it with an endless carnival.
Until we start talking about that problem, we are merely putting band-aids on a sucking chest wound. Our civilization is dying. It has been dying for a long time, and its death will be a slow descend into third world chaos, crime, and corruption. The only way to fix it is to take power away from the proles, and restore it to the responsible people, which recent elections have indicated is a popular (enough) idea.
Thursday, July 7th, 2016
Last week, I warned that Neoreaction is following the Leftist model because people are attempting to officialize it to capture an audience, as I have warned of before.
The article included the following paragraph as disclaimer, because Atavisionary’s rant attacked Hestia rather directly:
I want to clarify that I do not target any specific voices in Neoreaction, but the gestalt here. I do not think this is the doing of one, or some, but a general misinterpretation because it is the most likely interpretation one would take if one is coming from a democratic, egalitarian time. We know only what we have experienced, and it is natural to interpret new data through that filter, but in the case of Neoreaction, it turns it into moderate democrats who want gated communities for whites.
Let us zoom our viewfinders on this part in particular:
I do not think this is the doing of one, or some, but a general misinterpretation
I stand by that paragraph, because I see the tendency to try to make an “official” Neoreaction ideology as coming from more places than not. This makes sense, because that is the Leftist model of ideology. In the conservative model, from which all reactionaries descend, one does not create a universal ideology, but derives principles which are applied in specific situations by localized actors.
Unfortunately, Hestia Society threw a tantrum instead and has decided to stop linking to any activity here on their weekly updates. This is something I anticipated, and hoped they would rise above.
I come from the old school of the Anglo-Saxon world where it is possible for gentlemen to disagree, and not have it become a personal attack. Hestia is from a different culture, apparently. Their removal of Amerika.org content mirrors their general approach to my work, which is to ignore it, with the one exception having been Nick B. Steve’s weekly updates.
Most of Neoreaction and many of the Right choose to ignore my 20-plus year history of writing on the same topics they now approach. This is not solely because I am obnoxious, but because I threaten them. If someone else wrote it before, and possibly better, others become irrelevant. In turn, I find it hard to link to much of “Neoreactionary” writing because it is simply going over old ground and often, doing so with more of a robotic outlook.
That Hestia has a tantrum and joins this group is unfortunate, considering that I did not attack them, but offered up a series of general criticisms of Neoreaction as applied. Hestia states in its simplified manifesto that its goal is to “be worthy.” If you cannot handle criticism of your approach, you are behaving like a tyrant, not a leader, and Hestia has unfortunately confirmed this.
Those who cannot tolerate criticism and seek only self-interest are by definition insane and parasitic just like the Leftists they emulate.
This was my email reply to Mr. Steves:
I’m assuming that you’re misinformed here.
> You regularly speak in ignorance of Hestia society and NRx.
> It is hard not to interpret that as hostility.
What is this you are speaking of?
I wrote a fair assessment of a difficult situation, pointing out some
mistakes that NRX is making that I have seen before:
Neoreaction Goes Off The Rails Just Like White Nationalism Did
If I may, let us look at the following lines together:
> I want to clarify that I do not target any specific voices in Neoreaction,
> but the gestalt here. I do not think this is the doing of one, or some, but
> a general misinterpretation because it is the most likely interpretation
> one would take if one is coming from a democratic, egalitarian time.
I quote Atavisionary at length for his analysis, not his specific attack.
Regarding Hestia and Neoreaction.net, however, I do notice that other
than yourself there has been zero support from them for many of us out
here who have two more decades of being active in this area than they
are. It would be hard not to interpret THAT as hostility.
In my view, all right-leaning movements — and by now, I have seen
quite a few — make one of the same cluster of mistakes. When you
think about it, both National Socialism and American Republicans have
tried to make a Leftist hybrid. What I think is “purer” about your
Orthosphere-style approach is that it eschews ideology for realistic
thinking, which in my view includes God (and capitalism, and the other
two of the four pillars).
I contacted what I believe was Atavisionary’s account and have heard
nothing in response.
As always, I appreciate you contacting me directly with comments and concerns.
I suggest a different direction for Neoreaction:
- Theory. Recognize that Neoreaction is a thought experiment and series of arguments designed to allow people to see the weakness of egalitarian theory, and turn toward Reaction, the parent of Neoreaction.
- Policing. Scene policing should be done on the basis of understanding the ideas of reaction. Those who get it are welcome, those who do not are not.
- Demotism. Avoid demotism by avoiding popularity contests which pander to the desires of the individual to be important. This is the opposite message of all reactionary ideals.
If we want to “be worthy,” and be more than an internet trend for disaffected NEETs to blow off steam before going back to Steam for another distraction, Neoreaction must not be a movement, but a cultural shift — this is, again, the opposite of a movement. It is a re-evaluation of values and lifestyles based on a different interpretation of the status and goals of our civilization.
I am sorry to hear that Hestia has chosen this path. I was leery of them before, except for Nick B. Steves who I legitimately enjoy, but now I find myself unable to trust anything that Hestia Society or Neoreaction.net do. However, as I wrote in the original article, this one incident should not overshadow the rest — Hestia is not the only offender.
The Alternative Right is absorbing Neoreaction much as it has taken over the New Right and pushed White Nationalism to the sidelines. Part of this is because the people who gained popularity in Neoreaction were too often cheerleaders, and only secondarily focused on useful, realistic thought.
The Alternative Right could be stated as not an ideology or movement but a general compilation of topics manifesting in a cultural feeling that we have gone down a wrong path in modernity. Here are some general attributes:
- Anti-democracy. People vote like sheep, no matter how smart they are. A hierarchy of leaders is needed instead.
- HBD. This contains both awareness of the uniqueness of each population and the worth of preserving it, and a recognition that equality is nonsense on a biological level among races, castes, ethnies, clades, classes and regions.
- Civilization. The primary goal of politics is to preserve civilization from destroying itself. Every other goal is secondary to that. The Alternative Right believes in reversing the “right side of history” before it exterminates us.
- Anti-modernism. Modernity creates — through consumerism, sexual revolution, jobs, politics and everything else it does — a hollow life filled with hollow people who are secretly miserable and empty.
The Alternative Right could be seen as a hybrid between the best aspects of the Left (Deep Ecology and anti-Consumerism) with the Right as it is when it acknowledges its inherent need for Nationalism, or the right to exclude all others but the indigenous group so that the indigenous culture can rule instead of the Nanny State, and for social hierarchy. It is radical common sense.
Unlike the Neoreactionaries who hope to profit by their blogs and parlay Neoreaction into a kind of social identity and lifestyle that inverse justifies their low social status, Alternative Righters are concerned with the salvation of civilization from the inevitable decay that arises when mass populism takes over. The more Neoreaction attempts to be a Leftist-style ideology, the more it falls behind.
In the meantime, some forces within Neoreaction are trying to push the envelope by looking at how technology and markets alter human futures and enable alternatives to Leftism. While this is not a complete answer in itself, it also works as an effective purge of the remaining anti-Capitalism (i.e. on the path to Communism) elements from European Rightists and White Nationalists.
The now-inevitable downfall of Hestia Society shows how Neoreaction has been unable to escape its Libertarian roots and is now on the same path that Libertarians travel, which is social Leftism plus “fiscal conservatism,” a condition approximating that of American Republican neoconservatives for the last century. Like their failure, its failure is written in its hybrid genetics which serve to justify Leftism through Conservative methods.
Sunday, June 5th, 2016
Let us journey back in time to high school, which was probably when you first noticed the different between surface and structure. Like many observations from childhood, what you noticed was true, but you did not understand the mechanism.
In your classes, you observed that some people could understand the depth of an issue and how its parts interrelated, and others stayed floating on the surface where they could reduce it to easily-comprehended parts existing in a one-dimensional flat hierarchy. For example, to some Moby-Dick was a story about a whale and algebra was a series of equation-forms; to others, the book looked into the human desire for power and algebra was a language for translating discrete quantities to relative ones.
As you ventured into adulthood, you saw this division occurs everywhere, even among smart people. One can always take life at face value, or look at it through the lens of how one communicates to others and justifies one’s own decision as good. Face value creates an understanding of something in purely human terms, with no relation to how it connects to anything other than humans.
Most people think in terms of face value because it is less threatening to them than looking into the depth of structure. In groups, people agree on face value because the goal of a group is that everyone must all get along, and since face value is easily perceived, a group can share that assessment without it being controversial, where looking into depth involves risk and is thus always controversial. This means that in human societies, it is always opposite day:
- Whatever makes most people feel good or they think is right or profound, is not, and is in fact a scapegoat or distraction from the real issues;
- Whatever makes most people feel uncomfortable or confused is a gateway to the real issues, and most people spend most of their time in flight from it.
On perpetual opposite day, whatever you are told is “clearly” true is in fact not true, and whatever people get together to insist in false contains some grain of truth. This does not mean that you can simply execute a “180 degree rule” on whatever is popular and do the opposite, but that what is popular is distraction, and the answer can be found by beginning with what is denied and looking into it for depth.
The problem with humans is that their thought process rewards what is comprehensible over what is ambiguous. Truth is ambiguous: it has depth, particularity, internal structure and invokes (many) principles of abstract logic as well as natural law (gravity, Darwinism, etc.). As a result, humans tend to think about what they are thinking, and choose what they can communicate that will make others happy, which is always a subset of actual truth.
As any good leader can tell you, the enemy of getting it right is getting it “right enough” for someone else to sign off on it. People prefer a subset of truth, or something quite short of the whole truth, because they view it as something they can implement, starting with explaining it to their friends, colleagues and neighbors. Thus begins the perennial process of dumbing-down that seems endemic to humanity.
Human thinking is based in self-consciousness, or the perpetual question of “how does this look to others?” with a sub-heading of “we must all get along.” This prioritizes the clearly communicable (infectious) ideas that are mostly wrong over the more ambiguous and thus risky and controversial ideas that are mostly right.
The only solution to opposite day is to embrace the controversy, mystery, ambiguity and difficulty and to find the people who excel at understanding reality and put them in charge. The best must oppress the rest, or the rest will oppress the best, and then in incompetence society will dwell and slowly fade away, like every human civilization in history has eventually done.
But the catch — the difficulty in bootstrapping this — is that this principle itself requires understanding, so is anti-social or at least not infectious. It cannot spread like a disease, but is more like a trophy: those who fight to the top of the heap of ideas applied in reality are able to see it. Usually at that point, they despair, because they realize that this idea will be unpopular.
Perhaps, then, our first target is popularity itself.
Wednesday, December 9th, 2015
Individualism is both a personal choice to prioritize the desires of the self over all else, including reality, and a political system. That system has three parts:
- Democracy. The person who flatters the most people wins. This flattery can occur through pacifism or bullying, jingoistic warfare against weaker opponents. Both are perpetually popular.
- Consumerism. Whatever product cultivates a large audience, regardless of who that audience are, wins out over products with smaller audiences, even if better.
- Anti-culture. Culture arises from methods that work; anti-culture arises from a small cluster of intellectuals and entertainers manipulating a vast herd of consumers who are bored.
What these have in common is the simple idea that quantity outweighs quality. The best idea, if not the most popular, is denied. This is the root of our downfall here in the West.
Since the arrival of individualism as a political system in the eighteenth century, much effort has been spent trying to design a “System” that regulates it so it makes quality decisions. All have failed, but that failure is not yet evident because of the wealth of these societies.
Individualism gained power because of the wealth of these societies in the first place. Wealth means that incompetents survive; put them in a room and, because they are incompetent, they will agree that they should rule instead of whoever is in power. They will invent tales of their victimhood to “justify” this choice.
As we look toward the future, as one should always do whenever it is clear the present methods have failed, the race is on to decide what core concept will form the basis of the next era. Since our past era was based on individualism, which in turn forms collectivism as individuals group together, I suggest that the next era be based on the idea of exceptional individuals.
Exceptional individuals are not, as your television will tell you, those who are most popular for having the appearance of a lone genius scorned by all. Instead, they are those who find what works and cling to it. They are the people who get out there and discover reality.
That behavior rewards the best in Us: the brave, honorable, moral and competent people who go into the usual human chaos formed of the pretense of individuals and make it work toward higher goals like social order, beauty, goodness and truth.
This standard rewards heroes instead of salesmen.
If we look at the core of our failure, it is our misery. People have no hope that doing a good thing will be rewarded, and see daily how whores and flatterers are given the keys to the kingdom. This is what makes us weak: we have defeated ourselves.
Tuesday, December 8th, 2015
When you exit the mainstream path of politics, usually by becoming a realist and recognizing that democracy is a scam, you take on new company who are not vetted by social filters like the people in mainstream politics.
Some of these will impress you with their depth and commitment, and others will strike you as people looking for an excuse to act out antisocial fantasies. Sometimes the line blurs: each one of them is enraged (versus mainstream conservative outrage) at how his society has been ruined and turned into an ersatz version of itself. This rage translates into emotional lashing out, and the result is hilarious one-upmanship:
“I’m going to gas the bankers and then throw their bodies into the compost heap.”
“Oh yeah? I’m going to line up all the Jews facing forward down the line, and drill them all through the forehead with a single bullet.”
“Shooting? That’s so mainstream, brah. I’m going to stuff the Jews and bankers in a giant grinder, like you use for weed, you know, and use the paste to make a wall on the Mexican border.”
“Dream on, shorty; that’s not extreme. It’s an acid bath for the Jews, bankers, homosexuals, gypsies and all journalists. Six inches at first, then the knee, then the groin. They will beg for death before it is done.”
“You guys are too dramatic. We just need a day of the rope where we string up the obvious, then armed troops on every streetcorner with a gallows. The minute someone breaks the law, they do the neckless jig.”
Needles to say, there are two factors at work here: (1) people tend to “act out” their emotions, suspending logical judgment, and (2) those who want change almost always end up emulating those who came before them. History is full of these little pitfalls.
Let me stave off some of this chaos with two observations:
1. Genocide is not necessary, not good and not effective.
Trying to whip some sense into the Dark Enlightenment audience, Jim makes some excellent points about the nature of the Other:
All this inclusiveness and diversity is not being reciprocated, and is not going to be reciprocated. It is cuckoldry. And this has been glaringly obvious since whites were ethnically cleansed out of the inner city. When whites are 43% of the voters, the government just takes their stuff away. That is simply the way things are. Just as when Muslims are ten to thirty percent of the population, you get holy war, when whites are in the minority, democracy will dispossess them.
Altruism is seldom the game theoretic solution. When it is the solution it’s a result of a highly successful culture that is fragile. The Dark Enlightenment talks about high trust equilibrium a lot. High trust equilibria are rare and hard to maintain…the trick is to break out of that natural equilibrium, to get a cooperate cooperate equilibrium.
The above summarizes the Dark Enlightenment well, but it should go further: altruism is salesmanship and nothing more. It is how one seduces societies into self-destruction for personal gain.
If the Dark Enlightenment has one core principle, it is this: all people act in self-interest as do all groups and, perhaps more importantly, this is correct behavior. When all act in self-interest, we do not need endless signaling, because we can simply address their self-interest as a contract proposal. They come to us and we assume everything they do and everything we do will be exclusively in self-interest.
Trust level and signaling are inversely proportional. The more trust you have, the less signaling you have; the less trust you have, the more signaling takes its place. In a high trust environment, like an ethnically-homogenous, religiously unified and culturally-ruled society, you do not signal anything because it is known. Your positions are those that are healthy, and those are agreed on not because they are popular but because they are right and have worked for aeons for that civilization.
Altruism is a form of signaling. Why else would it exist? When you do a good deed for someone, you tend to hide it; if you have to tell them about it, you have introduced new terms to the implied contract between the two of you. “I did this for you, now I want something in return.”
You will notice that all liberals behave this way. Liberals succeed in part because for them the contract is clear: you get equality, and in turn, you support our insane ideology by crushing any who disagree. Liberalism is simply an advanced version of the street gang. Anyone can join if they are willing to fight for the gang and die for the gang. And that fight? Revenge on anyone who is stronger than they, of course.
Which brings me to another point: we tend to see Dark Enlightenment theories as applying directly to the Western European (“white”) people. However, these rules are universal. There are only two parties in the world of leadership, and those are Us and Other. Us is your society; Other is everyone else, regardless of how smart, nice and capable they are.
This is one area where the Dark Enlightenment has gone off the rails. There is too much demonization of the Other, not realizing that we need a stricter rule regarding all Others, which is that if it is not Us, it needs to go away. It must not coexist with us in any form. It needs to go back to its continent of origin.
Which brings me to more of Jim’s essay:
A bunch of white American settlers want to settle on American Indian land. Indians have previously indicated that they are unhappy with this, and there are previous agreements that white people will not settle on this land. You offer them payment, including a lot of barrels of firewater. Indians accept the deal, land for nice stuff, including lots of firewater. They get drunk, stay drunk, while settlers move in and build some forts.
After a while, the whiskey runs out. The Indians wake up with a blazing hangover, no food, and no hunting grounds. “We have been cheated”, they wail.
They demand their land back. The settlers in the fort tell them to go to hell.
Some braves agree to go bravely looking for some undefended or minimally defended white women and children. They catch a woman, and two small children. Whom they rape, then skin, then burn alive. Then they bravely go back to their tribe and tell their tribe. “Well now it is war. So which side are you on. The side of us very brave braves, or the side of the people who took your land and gave you this hangover?”
The tribe declares for the warpath.
And then you kill them all and take their stuff.
Unfortunately, this approach is nonsensical because it is classic passive aggression and appeals because it is political, much in the way democracy only fights wars when it can portray itself as the victim and unify the herd behind war.
A more sensible view is this:
- Recognize the Other. Look at them: unless they share very similar genetics, similar abilities and inclinations, similar culture and proximate religious values, they are Other. If you are German and they are Irish, Nigerian, Japanese, Greek, Italian or Russian, they are Other. If they are Finnish, Austrian, northern French, English, Dutch, or Scandinavian, they could be Us; this depends on the situation. In America, all Western Europeans are Us. In Europe, only those of the same nationality are Us.
- Deport the Other. Tell them your self-interest: we need a society without Other, and no matter how nice you are, you are Other. So: boats! Big lovely boats with comfortable cabins. Those who resist can be subdued. But put them all on boats and send them away, and I’d make sure the bar is well-stocked with firewater, and never deal with the problem or the misery of murder again.
The angry types will say I’m not being extreme enough. But above I said genocide is “not necessary, not good and not effective.” All are true. Genocide is not necessary because deportation achieves the same result. It is not good because murder and warfare are hard on our people and not interesting for their own sake. It is also not effective because it creates negative goodwill toward themselves in our own people, and gives various Others a flag to take up against us.
My argument is not, by the way, “it is unpopular therefore a bad political move.” Genocide is usually popular if the group committing it thinks they will escape consequences. My argument is that genocide creates bad goodwill, in the form of lower self-esteem, in the group that completes the killing and then realizes they just acted out an emotional outburst and covered themselves in blood for nothing.
Deportation/exile possesses many advantages over genocide: it is not as popular, but it is also easier and easier to forget. It also preserves the order of nature, which is that different tribes separate and mature as they can, working in parallel so that different approaches are taken to the same task ensuring that one will at least work at some point. Other tribes are not a problem when the Other stays in its own continent and your own borders are sealed.
Further, deportation takes the form of a new contract. If your society is prosperous, pay them reparations for future goodwill. The trade is clear: you are displaced so we do not have to murder each other, but we are sending you on your way with gifts so you can set up a new life. This is not our act against you; it is our act against an order which fails each and every time it has tried, namely diversity.
On to our second point…
2. Those who hunger for executions have bought into the reversed logic of democracy.
Realistic people look at nature and reality, see why it works the way it does, and realize that their options are limited to things that work in similar ways. This is true because reality is not a physical thing, so much as an informational/mathematical order; that was the point of Plato’s forms.
Unrealistic people look at themselves, decide on what impulse is strongest, and find a way to justify that according to some universal principle they find that others enjoy as well. The unrealist looks at the Other, realizes that he can gain political power if he calls them rapists or pedophiles or some other unpopular outgroup, and then calls for their execution on the basis that they are bad.
This also occurs at the individual level. People love the thought of killing. They might be surprised to talk to some killers, who rarely will talk about it by the way, and to see that killers view killing as another tool, like we might view a hoe or ratchet wrench. To them, you kill when there is a need and otherwise do not think about it; the wrench stays on the bench. This is both (1) more detached than most people are comfortable with and (2) less “Rambo” emotional than people would expect. It unnerves most people, in fact, which is one reason why killers rarely talk about it.
The problem with unrealist thought is that because it is reversed, it leads to other reversed thought, such as democracy. Our Western mania from equality may have been born long ago when one person decided to act out emotionally, and rallied others to his side to justify the kill. That created a memory in which having a group agree made things easier. That worked for simple problems among honest people, but when manipulators appeared or the problem is complex, the group chooses wrong every time because its unrealistic thought process adapts poorly to reality.
Another article, this time an essay encoded within a story, from Spivonomist, goes awry at a crucial point:
Me: “You might be surprised. Plenty of laws get passed this way. Most of them are pretty standard things: no murder, no theft, no rape, that sort of thing. And nobody’s stupid enough to try to pass a new law if they aren’t very sure they’ll have the support of the crowd.” I paused to consider something. “I’d reckon they don’t have a lot of civic participation on windy days.”
The article is called “Toward a Model of Efficient Self-Governance” and talks about a society based around a gallows. Those who lead, or propose a new idea, do so with their neck in the noose. When the crowd objects, they are hung.
We call that democracy.
Unrealist philosophies are defensive because they are maintaining an illusion, that is, a narrative not based on reality. Instead it is based on preference and political power, or agreement of the group. This reverses focus from “How do we adapt to reality?” to “How do we justify what we desire?” and this reversal is the root of all human error.
You do not want a crowd making judgments. It always makes them in terms of itself alone. A crowd is a replacement reality; in a crowd, your goal is to keep the crowd on your side and not to step over the line, because then the crowd will destroy you. Just like a street gang. I say cut out the middleman and adapt to reality.
Even more, do not be so hasty with your desire to kill. When the penalty is death, only the crazy step up — or the sociopathic, because they know they can manipulate you. They will put their head in the noose, tell lies that most people think are pleasant, and then hijack your civilization just as surely as the West was stolen by democracy.
Tying this in to the first point: beware of the crowd especially when it comes to genocide. They will kill the Other they fear and keep the Other they think they can dominate, and that more innocuous Other will then simply out-reproduce them, miscegenate and assimilate them. Self-destruction in three easy steps.
I acknowledge that the problems facing us are dire. But we do not get to solutions by acting out our emotions, or by pandering to the crowd. We get to the solution by Dark Enlightenment itself — realizing the nature of people, and the nature of crowds, and instead of going with the herd, putting our best in charge and choosing honorable, efficient and effective solutions over emotional outbursts.
Sunday, April 5th, 2015
In this world, all good things become destroyed, and they all go out the same way.
Neoreaction, the post-libertarian reactionary conservative movement that has showed so much promise, is in the midst of a stumble. Interest flags, writings have petered out or become circular, and internal divisions have reached an apex.
We do not have to look far for the causes. Neoreaction began as a movement that is like most conservative movements consequentialist, or based in results rather than intent. It arose from the libertarian idea of minimizing government to avoid it adopting an “ideological mandate” by which in the name of protecting its most vulnerable citizens it enforces control on all. Its idea, held in common with some anarchists and transhumanists, was to treat government like a corporation which sold enumerable services to its clients in exchange for a fair market price, and to deprecate all of its other functions.
However, by escaping the mental ghetto which says that Western liberal democracy is the ultimate evolution of human society and the best we can achieve, Neoreaction opened the door to other dangerous and scary ideas. Its members embraced ethnonationalism, patriarchy, hierarchy/royalism and other ideas which have been the norm for most of human evolution but have been denied in the West since The EnlightenmentTM, which held that the individual human’s preferences were more important than social or natural order.
Rejecting consequentialism, the Age of Reason created the idea of “equality” where each human had the absolute right to make any choices he or she desired, with the idea emerging later that society would subsidize these choices. As a form of “Dark Enlightenment,” Neoreaction rejected the Age of Reason as a wrong turn and suggested instead a merging of what has been perennially true in human relations with modern technological know-how and engineering standards.
It is an appealing mix. Many of us warned of the problem with being a conservative movement that does not admit it is conservative, which is that it will quickly turn on itself as it tries to adapt to the status quo of steadily increasing liberalism in the West since the 1700s. Conservatism represents the only alternative to liberal ideology, which is based in equality, and generally consists of two components: (1) consequentialism or results being more important than intent or methods and (2) transcendental goals, such as “the good, the beautiful and the true” or for many a religious purpose to human existence.
The problem is that in human society, things do not die of weakness but of strength. What made Neoreaction strong was that it introduced eternal ideas of human civilization in a new form, separating them from the forms which have become tired in the hands of the GOP and other seemingly misguided and disorganized conservatives. This strength drew people to it and, not having first cleared their minds of liberal programming, they began to treat Neoreaction as if it were another liberal concept.
Liberal concepts value individual participation and self-expression because the individual is more important than the results. Conservative concepts value individual participation where it achieves certain results, and only then. The same writers who gave Neoreaction its early strength pulled it apart as they competed for audience with blogs, books and YouTube videos. To differentiate their product, they had to each invent unique theories and viewpoints. These in turn created confusion about the core of Neoreaction, and drifted farther away, which meant they lost their conservative core and as a result became increasingly liberalized.
If we listened to the liberals at the outset, Neoreaction was doomed because it was not liberal enough. As it turns out, it was too liberal, but not by ideology but rather by the behavior of human individuals seeking to profit from it. All those blog hits, video watches, and book sales became a goal in and of themselves, and the idea of Neoreaction got lost in the muddle.
Thus the movement became moribund in the same way a civilization does: it becomes a vehicle for individuals to express their own self-importance, not a cooperation toward a qualitative end. Neoreaction became assimilated by liberalism because it adopted the methods of commerce and popularity, part of the demotism that makes up modernism.
Naturally, there are some who kept the idea strong and you can find their blogs in the list to the left. But in the meantime, for Neoreaction “The quest stands upon the edge of a knife. Stray but a little and it will fail to the ruin of all.”