When a smart person thinks of a really new and cutting-edge idea that person can be described as brilliant or deranged. The person is brilliant if a lot of people can actually understand and genuinely like the idea. If either or both forks of the and conditional above go unmet, the smart person gets tagged as eccentric if the mob is in a good mood. So naturally, the smart person will do some lobbying on behalf of the new and cutting-edge idea.
One way to lawyer on behalf of the brilliant idea in a manner that seems detached and scholarly is the case study. The case study is designed to look fact-based, impartial, erudite and a whole bunch of other things it isn’t. A clear and well-written case study is typically a masterpiece of card-stacking propaganda. It should be long enough so that nobody is willing to out-lawyer you and blunt enough so that average readers get the point like a 2×4 squarely across their balding pates.
The truly smart person we’ll discuss today is none other than Good Old Moldbug. The new idea, formalism, is almost a decade old. Thanks to recent events, it’s worth dusting off and oiling like a loyal, old shotgun. And we’ll even cut him some slack on the case study. He could write the heck out of one, and you won’t be any younger chronologically by the time you get done reading it. Plus, he doesn’t need to write one. Pointing to George Soros and his Orwellian Open Society makes the case in favor of formalism for him.
I won’t point to George. It’s impolite and George is evil. If I pointed to him, he’d find out who I was. It would then probably suck to be me. So I’ll just remind folks of what Moldbugian Formalism was exactly and then demonstrate why George Soros makes it a commendable idea.
Formalism is a way of unifying power, authority and responsibility. Owners are in charge of their property, enjoy all the gains and losses thereunto accruing and every Tom, Dick and Harriet knows exactly who the boss is. Think of it as a giant industrial-standard burn-barrel in which to fry all the subversive political bull feces that currently lends pungency to our political and social order. It would shine a giant light on to all the K Street, Wall Street and any other cabal of wire pullers controlling the puppets holding office in your typical corrupted Democracy.
To a formalist, the way to fix the US is to dispense with the ancient mystical horseradish, the corporate prayers and war chants, figure out who owns this monstrosity, and let them decide what in the heck they are going to do with it. I don’t think it’s too crazy to say that all options – including restructuring and liquidation – should be on the table. Whether we’re talking about the US, Baltimore, or your wallet, a formalist is only happy when ownership and control are one and the same. To reformalize, therefore, we need to figure out who has actual power in the US, and assign shares in such a way as to reproduce this distribution as closely as possible.
Thus sayeth Moldbug. Anyone worth a monkey’s buttwipe gets a few stock certificates with which to wipe his hind parts if he so chooses to endeavor. Do that, the theory goes, and you get an Open Society. George Soros should throw a party and spring for all the Singapore Slings. But he wouldn’t, because he is a corrupt offspring of Belial who would fare about as well in the sunlight as any other typical Nosferatu. He recently pinged the progressosphere with a whinge-a-thon worthy of Grima Wormtongue the day Gandalf and Aragorn paid Rohan a visit. He gets straight into the lying below.
I distinguished between two kinds of political regimes: those in which people elected their leaders, who were then supposed to look after the interests of the electorate, and others where the rulers sought to manipulate their subjects to serve the rulers’ interests. Under Popper’s influence, I called the first kind of society open, the second, closed.
So far, so good. You could just openly designate Occupy Wall Street and BLM as your corporate holdings and Warren Buffett could just openly oppose The Keystone Pipeline in order to boost his railroad monopoly. And while we are at it, Twitter could just openly ban all points of view that give Jack Dorsey ideological heartburn. Stalin and Beria would be fine; poor, old Trotsky would still get it with a meat axe. But that would be too simple and honest for a guy who made his killing arbitraging the Thai Bhat.
I find the current moment in history very painful. Open societies are in crisis, and various forms of closed societies – from fascist dictatorships to mafia states – are on the rise. How could this happen? …. Quite simply, many people felt that the elites had stolen their democracy.
Well yes, George. Elites had stolen their Democracy. Turned loose mobs on it in Ferguson, Baltimore, Chicago,…But that didn’t just happen at random. It had to be directed by very powerful people from behind more than a few veils of secrecy. It was a job for either the Evil League of Evil or The Tides Foundation. Essentially, elites arbitraged these democracies the way you used to turn on currencies.
They arbitraged them via information monopolies known as Dark Organizations. Dark Organizations, whether they are the KKK at the height of its powers, the MSM before Wikileaks, or just a dishonest cabal of real estate and banking swindlers all make their money and instill terror in others through information asymmetry. They all flourish in closed societies. Like the current university campus for example.
In an open society, every bum on the Soros plush would be known. BLM would bear the Soros corporate logo. Exxon would have its banner flying proudly over anti-frakking environmentalist propaganda. The game powerful corporatists like Soros play in such an oleaginous fashion would crash and burn. Dark Organizations would have a hard time existing under formalism the way The Mafia, The Hells Angels and The KKK all have trouble doing business in a legal code with RICO statutes.
In a society violently pried open via the imposition of formalism throughout its legal and social institutions, Soros would be defanged. In the absence of an information asymmetry, the man is useless and unable to produce anything. He is thus the perfect case study for why methods of instituting greater formalism in modern Amerika should be seriously studied and pursued.
Neoreaction gained an audience because it spoke a simple truth: governments are businesses, so there is no point having government be a business with special privileges. In this way it took after a long tradition of Rightist thought about government and its self-interest. In fact, we might call Neoreaction “space age paleoconservatism” and be correct.
Its formula possessed the advantage of raw realism in diagnosis, but not so much in prescription. Neoreaction tells us the truth about government, but where a dark enlightenment conservative would then argue for government without interest in harming its citizens, or the abolition of government in favor of aristocracy, Neoreaction argues for more government, just of a for-profit type. This self-defeats because this ultimately creates “economic democracy” and will succumb to the same problems as regular democracy since it is unclear that most people understand the relationship between their actions and the consequences that arrive afterwards.
However, Neoreaction gives us a powerful analytical tool for understanding the cultural shift afoot in the West with Brexit and the election of Donald J. Trump. In this view, government is not just a business, but a business hired for purposes by the consumers at every election. The voters delegate function to the business, and if it fails, they sever the contract created by that election because of non-performance.
This is what has happened to the postwar Left. Since The Enlightenment,™ a narrative has existed in the West: people are good because human reason is universal, and therefore, our only problem is unreasonable people, who we can tell are unreasonable because they do not accept that people are good because human reason is universal, and therefore, that our only problem is unreasonable people. Circularreasoning? Yes.
For this reason, the democratic West goes to war against anyone who wants hierarchy. The Confederate States, Germany and Soviet Union were all attacked on this basis. For the most part, the voters were content to go along with this, because since everything else seemed to be going well, it made sense that removal of the non-conformists would allow the unobstructed good to continue.
History however occurs at a time scale much larger than a human lifespan. This means that centuries go by before we see the effect of any action we have taken. And so, seventy years after the end of WWII, we are beginning to see the results of our policy of smashing down the strong and elevating the weak, which is a third world society caused by social breakdown and unlimited immigration attracted by our welfare states.
During the WWII era and afterwards, the voters hired politicians to get rid of problems that they saw as originating with those evil strong people: racial discontent, class warfare, union strikes, poverty, dictatorship, social decay and censorship. People did not want to go to the extremes that had been taken by the most visible instances of the strong-over-weak societies that contrasted the weak-over-strong democracies.
As time went on, it became clear that — as Neoreaction predicts — government took on a life of its own. It had been given a blank check, so in order to justify growth, all it had to do was connect its proposed plan to one of those fears that the voters had expressed. In this way, government grew under you-cannot-say-no illusions like anti-poverty, anti-discrimination, the war on drugs, the war on drunk driving and finally, the war on terror.
Taking its power to its ultimate extreme, governments on all sides of the ocean then began scheming to unite the world into a single open market. This enabled them to continue their plan of taxing and spending, and using that spending to “prime the pump” in perpetuity. This circular Ponzi scheme enabled governments to combine social welfare programs with aggressive consumerism, adding “wealth” to the economy in each cycle.
Leftism tells us that we should use demand-side economics which hold that if people seek money, it has value, instead of conservative supply-side economics which state that value is created only by the production of goods. Taken to the extreme, demand-side economics tend toward the circular Ponzi scheme, which uses Leftist social welfare as a means of enhancing the value of the currency.
With the “success” of these plans, which amounted to little more than inflating currency but making it plentiful, the Left found itself unopposed because no one else had experienced similar success. In actuality, a series of recessions, first small and later growing in size, hit the West because demand-side economics inevitably falters, causing the markets to devalue false gains or shrink.
At this point, the Left stood for a few things: the welfare state, globalism, diversity and political correctness. Each was necessary to achieve the ultimate end goal, which was a combination of Leftist ideology with the circular Ponzi scheme to fund it in perpetuity, while importing new people to use as permanent Leftist voters. This also gave the state new cheap labor upon which it could lavish welfare, driving the demand-side economy.
In the new millennium, reactions to this plan soured. Dumping more labor into the market devalued the wages of existing citizens, and the high taxes required to keep the circular Ponzi scheme afloat hurt them at the same time that they found their currency could buy less. But even more, people had become existentially miserable, just as they had in the former Soviet Union. There was no point working for a civilization that was obviously in decline and being carved up to be sold piecemeal, there was no unity between citizens, and most of all, no goal. For this reason, the smartest and best “checked out” or emotionally disconnected during the 1990s, allowing the mentally unstable to take over all aspects of society. These changes, the failure of Leftist economies and the increasing destabilization caused by Leftist policies all came home in the late 2000s, as the troublesome rein of the neoconservatives — Leftists in motivation but conservatives in method, like Tony Blair and George W. Bush — wound down and those leaders were replaced by more radical Leftists.
These new leaders were hired by the population to end the crises of those years, notably race relations and foreign wars, much as Bill Clinton had been elected in the 1990s to pacify the consequences of the Reagan years, which were only more volatile because they were spent un-doing the insane Leftist policies of the 1960s. Barack Obama, in particular, was elected to end the racial fracture that had become evident during the Bush years, and to restore the “good” economy under Clinton, which was really a result of the changes made during the Reagan years.
Given leadership in several countries — Sarkozy/Hollande in France, Merkel in Germany, Obama in the USA and Cameron in the UK — the globalist Leftists believed they could not fail. Instead, their ideology failed for them. Racial appeasement brought out more conflict as each group realized that it could not rule as long as other groups were present. The demand-side economy inflated currency and produced frivolous “service economy” businesses like social media instead of hard value. And most tellingly, diversity caused social fracture substantial enough to require foreign wars to keep dissent focused there instead of at home. All at once, the pillars of the Leftist Utopia began to crumble.
At this point, the voters fired their delegate leaders, although it has not yet occurred to those leaders and their allies in the propagandist media that this is the case. They also fired not just the previous seventy years of the postwar Leftist drift, but the very idea of The Enlightenment™ which states that all people are equal because they have universal reason. People rejected ideology entirely, and wanted instead to focus on time-proven solutions in the conservative manner, which has always been the tendency of people in the West.
Many became aware that, in addition to the circular Ponzi scheme, another government scam was ongoing: government specialized in inventing problems which it then claimed to solve, and when those solutions failed, it scapegoated a convenient target — right wing terrorists, third world dictators, the rich — and then broadened the failing programs as a means of giving itself power. This is a political counterpart to planned obsolescence, or the nasty habit of late-stage businesses to design products to fail so that they must be replaced.
This policy fits within the general pattern of Leftism, which is to rise in a dying civilization by offering distraction from the decline by rationalizing the decline as victory. In the Leftist view, a failure of culture and standards is “tolerance”; invasion by other nations is “diversity”; selling the nation by the pound is “globalism” and is presumed to bring wealth and happiness. This directly contradicted what the voters had hired their Leftist overlords to do, and in fact, made those concern areas worse.
However, Leftists had always had the support of intellectuals including those in the media because for these people, signaling “progressive” values was a way to adorn their personal myth with the appearance of good, much like they also liked to buy up-market products like BMW and Apple. The double strategy of distracting from the decline, and scapegoating non-threats as “the real problem,” enabled Leftists to give citizens a “game” they could win, instead of the hard work of fixing deep-seated mental, social and emotional problems that are the source of decline.
For this reason, it took many years for the cracks to appear on the facade of Leftist rule. Once they did, the wave pushed back at a cultural level as people recognized that the promised results had not been achieved. Further, the specific problems that concerned voters had worsened. This fits a typical pattern that we have seen with Leftist takeovers in Athens, Rome, France, Russia, Cuba and Venezuela.
This leads us to the question that is most important of all questions for human beings: what led to the source of our decline? Some offer analyses based on external corruption, as from this highly literate and insightful source:
If there was a breakthrough in 2016 – if there was some kind of awakening, and potential turning point; it was a realisation that the major long-term problems of The West are not accidental, nor are they due to incompetence, nor a consequence of well-meaning but short-sighted and selective self-interest; but they are because The West is ultimately ruled by an evil-motivated ‘conspiracy’.
In other words, at the highest or deepest level of global affairs, there is a dominant grouping that are primarily and strategically aiming to harm the world and its peoples.
Nothing here is incorrect, but it describes a symptom and not cause. Parasites harm their hosts. They also behave in a conspiratorial way in human societies because they can recognize each other, and will advance each other because they share a cause, which is the legitimization of parasitism. What conservatives call “moral relativism” is a symptom of equality, in which the presumption of universal human reason leads us to, by the converse, accept any ideas and results as products of the intent of people, and by the principle of equality, worthy of equal inclusion in civilization. The basic formula of this thinking is Good = Bad, meaning that “good” and “bad” are equal, seen only as preferences of the individual, and when enough individuals prefer bad, it is presumed to be good that they are able to achieve it.
This however is merely the mechanism of the parasite. The motivation of the parasite is found elsewhere. For the sake of new readers, it makes sense to offer another explanation, which is internal corruption.
Civilizations begin with inherent purpose, which is self-referential: create a thriving civilization. Once they achieve this, they enter a period of rent-seeking behavior by citizens, caused by the acceptance of many who would not have participated in the founding, but want to take part in what has been created. This arises from two factors: tool-making and genetics.
When someone observes another person using a tool, the observer adjusts the equation of why that tool is used. In the original equation, a goal exists as a cause, and the tool is used as a means to that end, or effect; in the replacement, the tool is the cause and the effect is social acceptance for having been seen doing what others have done successfully. Results are replaced by conformity.
On the genetic front, a healthy civilization improves hygiene, learning, food supply and stability. From this come conditions where more people are able to survive who would not be able to otherwise. As a result, genetic detritus accumulates in the form of incompetent and parasitic people, including criminals, perverts and grifters, with the latter group being the most destructive. These unwanted people become adept at conformity, turning civilization into a “game” where one wins by conforming and flattering others, instead of by achieving results.
Leaders at this point face an ugly conundrum. If they expel the unwanted, every person will fear for himself that he too might be exiled. If they tolerate the unwanted, they will get more of them, and bad results will occur. Thus they invent control, or the idea of applying rules to everyone to shepherd them toward goals they do not understand. This further entrenches the problem of unwanted people who are able to conform.
These unwanted conformists quickly realize an opportunity. Their leaders are afraid to act against them, so they act against these weakened leaders by forming a cult and a gang — called a Crowd — dedicated to the principle of Bad = Good, because that way, no person can be excluded on the basis of their behavior, especially the failure to achieve results. This group offers other citizens a simple choice: join us, and repeat our dogma, or have us act against you. This essentially holds the population hostage to social attack, and so over the years, the Crowd gains power and size.
As part of its campaign to take over, the Crowd must eliminate all standards which compete with its own non-standard. This places culture, heritage, religion, philosophy and values on the cutting block, but because of its nature as subversive conformist, the Crowd does not eliminate them but merely subverts them by changing the definition of terms and goals to fit the new ideal, “egalitarianism,” or the idea that since every person is presumed equal because they possess reason, all ideas and behaviors must be accepted as equal.
Crowdism takes centuries to fully gain power, but is an eternal temptation like other forms of evil, which are error rationalized in the human mind by dishonesty, specifically by denial of obvious reality. This creates a force in people that seems demonic, and may well be, because it arises from the same emptiness and need for control and affirmation that drives mythical figures of evil such as Satan.
Although we are familiar with Leftism as the source of this evil, and that view is not wrong, there is a greater source, which is the weakness in every person which threatens to overwhelm their ability to perceive any degree of reality. This weakness is individualism, which rapidly becomes solipsism, or the denial of reality as anything but an aspect of the self. Because we perceive the world through our minds, we can choose to believe our minds are the world, and this comforts people who are unwanted and need a justification for their parasitic actions. They use self-pity, or the belief that the order of nature is bad and the world is bad, to convince themselves that they are victims, and with their resentment for this perceived treatment, they rationalize their negative behavior.
Leftism is one form of Crowdism. Any belief system can be infected with Crowdism using the simple idea that everyone should be included, which is a form of self-pity projected onto other people so they can be used as a means to the end of achieving egalitarianism, which is ultimately desired by the individual in an individualistic context because it guarantees the individual inclusion without having to possibly sacrifice for it. This creates the pathology of Leftism as a series of contradictions created by the division between public statements, which manipulate others through egalitarianism, and private motivations, which are parasitic:
In particular, the most idealistic anti-Establishment cultural critics fail to perceive that Leftism is at the very root of that which they most deplore in modern life: the pervasive dishonesty and manipulation of public discourse; the iron cage of bureaucracy; the international global elite; the pacifist warmongers; the pseudo-egalitarianism of exploitative corporate power; state propaganda’ bribery and soft-terror, the corruption of education; the systematic inculcation of fear and resentment between sexes, races, nations; anti-environment fake environmentalism, and so on.
Crowdism forces its way into any organization — business, church, friend group, family, nation — by being socially powerful. It does this by manipulating appearance. In social terms, it is impossible to reject the idea that “everyone should be included” without appearing mean-spirited to others, who fear for themselves that they will not be included. Leftist tropes like equality, diversity, sexual equality and tolerance for sexual non-conformity use this method, but these are not the actual goal of Leftism; its goal is control, and it uses pleasant fictions as a means to that end.
The demonic nature of Crowdism comes from this power. It is difficult to resist, both in the individual and in the group, unless one explicitly affirms natural hierarchy and a purpose to civilization, both of which are taboo to the Crowd. These in turn require that we think by deciding on goals that are logical given their cause-effect relationships in history, or in other words, to desire time-proven ideas instead of conjectural ones like egalitarianism.
As the West looks to reverse its decline, it must heed this warning: we need a sense of natural order, a purpose for our civilization, and the will to be unsociable in order to resist Crowdism. Religion aids in this quest, as does strong national culture, which is why these are two things in Leftist crosshairs as they attempt to seize the remaining power denied to them. For now, the voters have rejected the Leftist business model, but will they reject its soul?
A recent article argued for America to implement a “Department of Culture.” This is actually quite creative when considered psychologically.
In the context of a civilization administered by a managerial central authority, where there is a blueprint for culture, it makes obvious sense that a “Department of Culture” would be the default method of achieving this. There the sleight of hand reveals itself however: this idea is actually intended to lead your thoughts from a department to the idea of an integrated culture as the next level beyond managerial civilization.
It is a recontextualization that makes it easy for you to see culture as an intrinsic survival blueprint for Western civilization. This process would start from a simple model, and branch out to more complex versions using different techniques such as Evolutionary Culture, or “This is what we want.”
A successful simple model would point out how “survival” should become intrinsically part of culture, such as in this example: Passenger cars have doors in order to protect passengers from falling out as well as to reduce noise. Clients accepted this as quite beneficial and are therefore willing to pay for it. However, engine ignition did not require locks at first but technology improvements eventually made a key-ignition possible.
As time passed, locks were added to car doors to protect valuable “goods” left in the passenger compartment from theft. This was followed by adding locks to the baggage compartment as well as the glove-box inside the car. Then lock technology had to be improved to prevent the car itself from being stolen. Then manufacturers realized that they had to put locks on the gas-cover to prevent theft of gas.
“Modern” cars ended up having four keys but customers were happy as long as there was a method to counter the threat. Then criminals got brazen and simply broke the gas-cover open when they required gas, which led to not only the gas-cover having a key, but the actual gas pipe screw-top getting a key as well. Each car owner then proudly carried five keys with him for each car.
Until this point in time, manufacturers were fairly pro-active, but then conceded to the creativity of the criminals by becoming re-active.
Then criminals broke both the gas cover as well as the screw-top in their effort to steal gas. This resulted in manufacturers redesigning the pipe to prevent plastic pipes from being inserted into the gas tank. In the meantime, criminals also got fed up with valuables being inaccessible inside vehicles, so they would simply break windows to gain access. Manufacturers started using specialized glass, but since criminals changed their techniques from rocks to spark plugs, they also darkened the glass to limit a casual view of the vehicle’s contents.
During all this time, clients were applauding manufacturers for taking such effective steps, which resulted in “reducing” their insurance premiums. In other words, the entire “market” has been duped into accepting criminal behavior as a cultural norm. “Our” culture therefore, allows criminals unfettered access to “our” cars. In fact, criminality has become a cultural value, like other externalized costs such as immigration and corruption.
To demonstrate this cultural effect, let us continue:
The only things left on a car without a lock are the wheels. Since that is now also being stolen, manufacturers started using special wheel-nuts. But since hub caps weren’t locked down, those got stolen too.
Clearly the end to all of this is to not have a car at all, because despite all efforts including GPS tracking, cars kept being stolen. In fact, car theft has reached such a scale that people are being hi-jacked or even killed in order to “get” the car, while everybody accepts it as “normal” through paying insurance.
The question is, how did this happen?
The answer is first of all that it became part of the culture, which became part of the financial system making money out of it, resulting in it becoming part of our politics which makes money out of all of us.
Hardening a culture against criminals is on its own a basic requirement to be pro-active. A pro-active culture will stop financial abuse, which will then stop political abuse. Some political commentators indicated that Trump will “harden” politics in future, but that is not enough for a stable civilization.
Political hardening is not enough because the political system can be infiltrated especially under egalitarian rule. What “lock” will you use in future against a mayor, or even police who might also be terrorists? Ask any South African where this is already the status quo: people trust those they know to have shared values, a.k.a. culture, and do not trust “the System.”
Culture needs to harden up as well. When we are merely re-active to problems, we have ceded our direction to the criminals, which means they effectively dictate to the rest of us how to live. By putting solutions in the wrong places, such as making cars into fortresses of locks, we have transferred costs from the criminals to the victims.
In the case of culture, “hardening” only occurs through strong standards of behavior. When car locks are the answer, we internalize the cost of theft instead of spending that money to prevent it. The same is true with the creeping decay in behavior that has afflicted the West for centuries.
Cultural hardening can also be expressed through a simple example. When we tolerate lies, we get more lies; whatever we tolerate, we get more of. A culture that sees lying as an unforgivable sin, and shames those who engage in it, shifts the burden onto criminals to disguise their lies — making it more likely they will be caught — instead of onto the rest of us to figure out what is truth and what is lie.
More complex examples are specific to individual cultures, but start with the idea of purpose. Re-active solutions, including reactionary thinking itself, still cede the narrative to the decay. Rather we need to look at the causes of that decay, and both make those disfavored, and add their antitheses to the list of encouraged behaviors.
The Alt Right rose, then tried to figure out what it was. It knew a general direction, which was that it said the stuff that the mainstream Right wanted to but could not and still keep its jobs, but beyond that, it was confused.
It arose from a mishmash of philosophies. The New Right, Traditionalism, White Nationalism, Paleoconservatives, Neoreaction, Nietzschean conservatives and Dark Enlightenment met in a blender. Some have suggested that the intersection among them is right, but more likely, it is their shared forward ideal: a resurrection of the greatness of Western Civilization, and to that end, the means and methods required to achieve it.
And that is only a small sampling of all that has been written on this topic, although these pieces at least cover all topics and link to all major articles. And still, the definition remains fuzzy… let us look at some recent sources:
It seems to me that, if anything, the Alt-Right is a blanket term applied to all non-mainstream conservatives of all stripes that serves more as a negation than a positive claim. In other words, if anything, the Alt-Right brings people together based on what they mutually dislike, not a shared set of ideas.
Mr. Heft makes an essential basic point here: the Alt Right is formed in opposition to modernity, and there are many degrees of this. On the farthest Right, people want a restoration of traditional civilization to provide a new golden age of Pericles, as Arthur Schopenhauer suggested. We know what we do not want: the soul-killing, environment-killing, culture-destroying, pointless and tedious modern age, despite its good shopping and wide variety of ethnic food.
Meanwhile, the movement itself is an amalgamation of all ‘alternative’ right wing views that are today considered heterodoxy. This means that the views of one person who considers himself to be part of the ‘Alt-Right’ can be, though do not necessarily have to be, radically different to another.
Summary: these views are socially unacceptable. Taboo, in other words, they are forbidden by informal social rules from being uttered. All of the people who are currently thriving in this wasteland think that these things should not be mentioned. So: speakers of hidden, or dare we say… occult… notions of reality.
What I mean with the Real Right are those people, organisations and ideologies who do not accept the framework that the Left has set on the public debate.
…The success of the Alt Right illustrates the effectiveness of metapolitical methods. Via cultural means they have changed discourse and the boundaries of the public debate; they have changed the restraints of how we are allowed to think and eroded the shared dogmas of the Left and Old Right.
Two points here: first, this is a cultural revolution, and second, it rejects Leftist vocabulary. This is important because social pressures invert terms or reverse their meanings in order to control a population of faceless equals. Cultural revolution means that instead of fighting over existing political symbols, we decide what we want first and then cause it to rise organically through many avenues.
Equality is bullshit. Hierarchy is essential. The races are different. The sexes are different. Morality matters and degeneracy is real. All cultures are not equal and we are not obligated to think they are. Man is a fallen creature and there is more to life than hollow materialism. Finally, the white race matters, and civilization is precious. This is the Alt-Right.
This expresses the formula that Alex Birch and I worked up for CORRUPT back in 2008:
Anti-democracy. Realizing that mob rule and trends do not successfully substitute for leadership by quality people.
Human Biodiversity (HBD). Recognizing the differences between groups, and more importantly individuals, and that every ability fits a normal distribution pattern in every population.
Ethnic Self-Determination. Every ethnic group needs its own self-rule and its own continent. This is not an argument against any specific ethnic group but a recognition that each group has its own self-interest and that under diversity these clash. Diversity does not work, no matter which groups are the ingredients.
Transcendental Purpose. We must find some way to connect to the beauty of this world and understand nature as an order superior to our own intentions, possibly including the metaphysical side of nature which is described by the various religions.
Anti-equality. Equality works for arithmetic, not people and not groups, including social castes, races, ethnic groups and families. People are different, with different abilities that are mostly genetic if not all genetic.
In a time when many people want to enter the Alt Right, and control it by redefining it, it is important to remember this bottom line: The Alt Right is against equality.
That dividing line separates the wannabes from the real deal. The wannabes will accept everything else but that; they want to eject certain ethnic groups, but are not against diversity itself; they want to throw out the elites, and then hold more elections to get new rotten elites. They want us to all be Orthodox Medieval Crusader Catholics, but then, equality is the basis of their social order (as long as one prays twice a day whilst facing Mecca, or, perhaps Pennsylvania). All of them get it wrong.
The Alt Right is a revolution against the past millennium. We do not believe in equality. From that, all else flows; equality is the illusion of our time dating back to before the Peasant Revolutions and the Magna Carta. It is the basis of all modernity, all Leftism, and the type of collectivized individualism that creates these things (which in turn arises from civilization success which enables lower orders to outnumber the higher).
This brings us back to the first opinion cited above: the Alt Right is a rejection of Modernity, with modernity not being a span of years or a type of technology, but a type of civilization design based in equality. Modernity is the cold night of the moon to the warm sun of the golden ages of humankind.
The Alt Right formed in order to get away from both mainstream conservatism, which is a hybrid of Leftism called “liberalism” or “neoconservatism,” as well as White Nationalism which essentially wants a classless society in the Leftist model in which all white people are merged together into a grey white race, sometimes called “ethno-Bolshevism.”
White Nationalism is filled with crazies and is at least 50% informants. It failed for a reason. If anything, White Nationalism is a stepping stone to reach the Alt Right. White Nationalism, and its precursor National Socialism, are still stuck in the modern paradigm of equality, “Systems” of rules and regulations, and allowing material orders like demotism — consumerism, democracy and social popularity/peer pressure — to determine what is right. The Alt Right wants us to find what is right, and then have society pursue that, instead of the other way around.
If anything, the Alt Right is more Nationalist than White Nationalism. It recognizes the need for national and regional identity in the identitarian model; it rejects the idea of forming a generic white race and then allowing modernity to exist as it has. It throws down the Constitution and burns the Declaration of Independence. The Alt Right is total rejection of modernity.
Unlike Neoreaction, the Alt Right gives a nod to Radical Traditionalism, the system of thought espoused by Rene Guenon, Aldous Huxley and Julius Evola. It wants a rising civilization against, capable of the greatness of the past.
For this reason, the Alt Right is challenging to define, because first and foremost it requires people to accept an entirely different view of civilization than anything they see around them. Then it leads them through rejection of what exists now, and some basic ideas of what they want instead. Then it shows them the substructure required to support those ideas, and suddenly, we have left modernity far behind, like Peter Pan sailing over London at night.
Those who want to control the Alt Right are trying to boil it down to a single principle, like how the Leftist ideology has “equality” at its core. This takes what is not-modern and places it back within the modern, effectively neutering it. This amounts to entryism by Leftism into the Alt Right and will sabotage it as surely as making it a Justin Bieber fan club.
Instead, the Alt Right suggests we keep going past all boundaries and all expectations. Our societies are doomed if they stay on the current path; this is a good time to dream, and for the first instance, to get it right. We are facing an evolutionary hurdle here: either we surpass modernity, or it buries us.
Perhaps the above will help some intrepid venturers make the journey.
VDARE always cuts to the chase, which is why it makes good daily reading. A recent article looked into the question the Alt Right has raised: the possible that “the end of history” has ended and liberal democracy has been debunked just as thoroughly as Communism. This in turn brings startling implications:
Codevilla’s basic idea: the cultural revolution of the last 50 years has destroyed America as a constitutional republic. As many on the Alt Right have noted, there is nothing left to conserve.
Growing up in a Leftist-dominated time, most of us on the Alt Right have never known any vocabulary for theory except what is drilled into us by the Left. This leads to the illusory thought that conservatives are here to conserve a previous age such as the 1950s or 1980s, either of which would be far superior to what we have now.
Conservatives aim to “conserve” not a specific time, but timeless principles and ways of life. The basis of the philosophy is consequentialism, or the idea of measuring our proposed acts by their likely consequences instead of the emotional feelings or sense of shared social communion that they give us. Conservatism upholds the triumph of reality over intent.
This way of life leads to a natural tendency to prefer optimums, or those principles and ways of life which lead consistently to the best outcomes, not merely acceptable (utilitarian) ones. This requires rejecting the idea of equality, because most people are naturally prone to think in the short term and groups always choose “committee think” style compromises instead of taking decisive action.
In this light, conservatives never approved of America and its Constitution. They like the founders saw the Constitution as a method of restraining democracy by limiting it to the upper echelons of society, mainly because democracy of some form was inevitable given the collapse of monarchies across Europe under the assault of The Enlightenment™ style thought.
Original conservatives recognized that sanity is a fleeting thing that is available to only a few exceptional individuals, and not to groups. For this reason, they opposed mass culture and its ideological arm, “Progress,” in every form. Progress means clear-cutting forests and displacing towns to make cities and industry producing pointless products for a clueless electorate oblivious to anything but its immediate personal impulses.
This explains the fundamental division of America into two states, the raw producers and those who make their money from reselling, cosmopolitanism and entertainment. This split has exploded in 2016 because with the lawlessness of the Obama-Clinton left, the conflict can no longer be masked.
This reflects an increasingly stark conflict between two very different American economies. One, the “Ephemeral Zone” concentrated on the coasts, runs largely on digits and images, the movement of software, media and financial transactions. It produces increasingly little in the way of food, fiber, energy and fewer and fewer manufactured goods. The Ephemeral sectors dominate ultra-blue states such as New York, California, Oregon, Washington, Massachusetts, Maryland, and Connecticut.
The other America constitutes, as economic historian Michael Lind notes in a forthcoming paper for the Center for Opportunity Urbanism, the “New Heartland.” Extending from the Appalachians to the Rockies, this heartland economy relies on tangible goods production. It now encompasses both the traditional Midwest manufacturing regions, and the new industrial areas of Texas, the Southeast and the Intermountain West.
In conservative lexicon, this conflict is one of the oldest in humanity: cities versus countryside. Cities are anonymous and people make their living in them by convincing each other to do things; they are naturally prone to salesmanship, advertising, marketing, peer pressure and other anthropocentric vehicles which are inimicable to the localized, normal and healthy lifestyle of a network of villages, towns and small cities.
It is not surprising that America has divided this way; in fact, it is a verification of conservative ideas yet again. The two sides have become incompatible because they want different ways of life entirely. The cities are increasingly in trouble as their liberal policies become more expensive, and are choking the heartland with taxes.
We have seen this situation before. In the years before the Civil War, the Northern Cities relied heavily on Southern agricultural products. Taxes began rising, but not enough. To fix this situation, the cities provoked a war and invaded the South so that they could incorporate it into the federal system and have more control over the raw product, which is where all the profit — and future tax bonanza — was.
Civil War 2.0 is now on the table. As VDARE states:
The fundamental reason for this fear among the elites: their guilty conscience. They understand that in the last 50 years they have completely upended the old order in America. They have created a revolution that opposes the most fundamental interests of the historic white American nation. They understand that this election could confirm their revolution—but only if Hillary Clinton wins.
The question for conservatives is then what there is left to conserve, and the answer is that we conserve the way of living that has eternally nourished heartlands in all Indo-European civilizations. Heartlands like social order:
Communities where everyone knows each other.
Caste or its less formal cousin social class to put the most capable in charge as social and consumer decision-makers.
Leadership based not on popularity but competence.
Customs, calendars, cuisine, language, values, philosophy and religion which are in unison in understanding of the world and the purpose of the civilization.
Civil penalties or exile of those who transgress against the civilization instead of stewardship through prisons.
Homogeneity of the group in heritage, identity and worldview/culture.
Economies based not on growth but perpetuity, in service to culture.
Personal codes of honor, moral attention and maintenance of the good, beautiful and true.
A shared goal both specific to the group, and a driving force toward excellence through elitism.
Conservatives today have mostly forgotten these in their desire to “remain relevant” by appealing to mass culture and mass tastes, but this is a suicide mission because mass culture rewards the instant gratification life of the city and not the more contemplative, long-term joys of the heartland. This is why “original sin” appealed so much to our ancestors: it explained that people are limited by their abilities, and most tend toward the monkeylike, and among the intelligent, without self-discipline they become agents of evil.
In a long-term view, conservatism is experiencing a revival worldwide as liberal democracy collapses in a stinking cloud of problems created by its own pursuit of the illusion of equality. The Alt Right, Neoreaction, New Right and Traditionalist movements are inheritors of conservatism not so much in details, but in spirit and inclination. With these, we can reclaim and rebuild a world ruined by human pretense.
The Alternative Right or “Alt Right” consists of lone writers who bang out missives in the odd hours of the day and after work, expending their sparse free time on a vision of a better future. They do so knowing that their ideas are incomprehensible to most, and would be disturbing if understood.
Coming from the re-grouping of the right after the Leftward shift that followed the Second World War, the Alt Right combines elements of other anti-liberal movements — the New Right, Neoreaction, black metal music, White Nationalism, Anarcho-Capitalism, Human Biodiversity and Traditionalism — and finds the elements they have in common.
Its fundamental idea rejects centuries of thought from The Renaissance™ and The Enlightenment™ onward, namely the equality of human beings. The Alt Right sees that as a construct of human intention and social reasoning, and suggests instead that biology must be the basis of our understanding of humanity.
Where the contemporary dialogue supports the idea of universalism, or the notion that people are the same and so can be shaped into an ideal society with rules and “education,” the Alt Right sees that people and peoples are highly varied. People have different abilities, inclinations and moral characters, and this also varies in a broader frame with ethnicity and race.
Once we accept this realization, the quest against “inequality” no longer makes sense; inequality is the default state of the universe and also a necessity for change, evolution, conflict and growth. This allows us to discard the past centuries where countries have shattered themselves trying to achieve equality.
Instead it makes sense to look toward a social order where the abilities of each person are matched to a role in which that person can excel and yet be limited from doing damage by acting on questions above his level of ability. This type of internal hierarchy, which is both vertical (ability) and horizontal (specialization), creates a social order unlike the flat single dimension of equality.
As part of this realization, the Alt Right understands that different populations are not arbitrary but specific to things only they can do. For this reason, the Alt Right is strongly Nationalistic, or believes that each ethnic group thrives through self-determination, or homogeneity and command of itself according to its own standards.
Another way to view this is through the principle of self-interest: each group is different and has its own direction, and these self-interests do not combine but conflict. Diversity cannot succeed because it violates this principle and will cause only enmity between the groups involved, whoever they are.
This represents a departure from the conventional view of assessing “good” and “bad” or “inferior” and “superior” groups. In the Alt Right view, every group is superior for its own purposes and if left in isolation. When groups are combined, the unique traits of each are lost and the result is a cultureless “grey race.”
Accepting that equality is nonsense raises another question. If people are unequal, it no longer makes sense to make decisions by mass “consensus” achieved through political promises. Instead, choosing those who are most competent to lead becomes evidently sensible, and this leads away from democratic systems.
The Alt Right is divided on many questions, including what comes next, but royalism/monarchism/aristocracy have significant support because they alone allow us to step outside of the cycle of politics itself where the winning idea is that which flatters the broadest segment of the audience.
That in turn leads to some realizations about humans. Not only are we unequal, but we are not all one. Instead, we are an organic structure where different roles and abilities work together, sometimes through opposition, to achieve an ultimately positive result. Humans are not universally anything, but saying we are all “good” is clearly wrong.
From this comes the idea of hierarchy, or that society must like nature always advance the more competent in every role above others so that all may benefit from the greater competence. In this view, leadership becomes a question of ability and not mass agreement, recognizing that people in groups make “committee-like” decisions and that most people will misjudge complex issues.
With that idea arises one of the fundamental ideas of the Alt Right, which is consequentalism, or the idea that leadership acts are assessed by their effects in reality and not the human intentions, feeling and judgments which fill our heads with idle mental chatter. Reality matters; intent does not.
From this point, the Alt Right belief system transitions to Traditionalism, or the idea that there is an eternal order of human civilizations and interaction with nature and the metaphysical, and that healthy civilizations restore this constantly. Dying civilizations deviate from it and rationalize, or justify, their choices as being more “moral” when in fact they are merely compensatory.
Currently, because we live in a 70-year Leftist acceleration within a society that has been drifting toward egalitarianism for a millennium, these ideas seem incomprehensible to modern people. They have been raised in a series of dichotomies which amount to thinking the current system is good and anything else is bad.
However, as the contemporary order not only fails to achieve its objectives but leaves shattered lives and broken countries in its wake, people are thinking the unthinkable: that perhaps our comfortable order of equality, liberal democracy, diversity and sexual liberation is not just bad policy but a path to doom.
For this reason, the Alt Right invokes Nietzschean ideas and expresses questions about the collapse of Western Civilization. It not only opposes the delusional Left, but wants to remake Western Civilization into the type of eternal order that produced its days of glory, genius and excellence.
In its view, society succeeds when it has a clear purpose and measures that by results. All political systems and static moral measurements are proxies, or symbolic measurements, of this, and they are easily misdirected by the relentless changing of history and meaning that is the hallmark of the Left and other destroyers.
For the Alt Right, diversity and immigration are means the Left uses to destroy any sense of shared purpose, values, culture and heritage. This idea is borne out by historical evidence:
The era of Republican dominance in California was finally broken in the 1990s and has since disappeared into the background at a breathtaking pace. Democrats, who now command a supermajority in both of the state’s legislative houses, along with the governor’s mansion, have been forging ahead with an assertively progressive agenda on all fronts, from the environment to taxes to the culture wars.
The single most visible cause of this shift was mass immigration—or, alternatively, the failure of California Republicans to adapt to immigration—which produced a demographic transformation of the Golden State without parallel in the rest of the country. The California that elected Reagan its Governor was about 80 percent white and 12 percent Hispanic; today, those figures are 38 percent and 39 percent, respectively. In other words, California squeezed into forty years a transformation that is expected to take at least a century for America as a whole (if it takes place at all, given rates of assimilation and ethnic attrition) and which many Trump supporters clearly resent and fear.
In the Alt Right view, civilization success begins with homogeneity not just of race but of ethnicity, such that those who are from an ethnic group like Western Europeans can form a society together, but a society cannot be forged from mixed-race and mixed-ethnic populations. The California experience shows that diversity benefits only Leftism, which seems to speak endlessly of equality but always tend toward controlling, centralized authority.
With the rise of civilization comes the tendency to have purpose beyond the merely physical. With this comes an appreciation for the complexity of our world and its tendency toward positive results, even through its darkest moments. For this reason, many on the Alt Right reject atheism and tend toward a religious viewpoint.
Through that filter, life remains inexplicable when seen through the purely material, or physical, mindset. Instead, life has a purpose, although not an inherent one. We can choose any level of existence we want, but those who wish to go the farthest toward excellence and beauty strive to understand the metaphysical realm and apply its wisdom in the physical world.
As part of that drive, the Alt Right leaves behind the modern mentality of dividing methods into good and bad, and instead focuses on how those are directed. For that reason, the eternal civilization desired by Alt Rightists is entirely compatible with advanced technology, including that pushing far beyond our consumer-oriented gadgets of the present time.
This pairing seems unbelievable but fits within the futurist spirit of the Alt Right: we wish to advance civilization beyond its current stagnant stage to future greatness that marries the wisdom of the ancient past with the abilities of the distant future. As a lone standout in the Leftist The New York Timeswrites:
Reactionary ideas have made modest inroads in the mainstream right: The intellectuals’ case for Trump that I wrote about last week includes a thin but striking “regime change at home” thread. And they have appeal in areas like the tech industry where mainstream conservatism presently has little influence, because (like fascism in its heyday) the new reaction blends nostalgia with a hyper-modernism — monarchy in the service of transhumanism, doubts about human equality alongside dreams of space travel or A.I.
The Alt Right sees life as excellent, and not an unjust condition to be corrected as the Left does, and wants to extend this excellence into new domains. In this view, humanity is a species competing with many others among the stars to see who can produce a stable civilization that can explore the stars without self-destructing from internal conflict.
Like most things Alt Right, this breaks down conventional dichotomies. We are not struggling between oppression/non-oppression, but for competence over incompetence, and if the competence is oppressive yet geared toward our purpose, it serves our goals and is beneficial. In fact, suppression of the human tendency toward chaos may be necessary.
This runs up against the human pretense that everyone is good, and that all individuals deserve to do whatever they want. In the Alt Right world, the goal of humans is something more than themselves; we wish to achieve self-mastery through self-discipline and through that, make a civilization of excellence more than mere adequacy.
For this reason, the Alt Right remains an outsider to the politics and values of today. It accepts that condition with pride because it sees our values now as a byproduct of rationalizing decay, and instead wants to combat that decay by overcoming it through the process of aiming toward something grander, more majestic, more epic.
In the Alt Right world, only two options exist for the future. Either there will be more advanced humans who look back on this time and laugh at it, or there will be a vast cultureless grey mass who cannot comprehend any of these ideas. The choice is ours, and the future will judge us by our decision.
Social media is dying. The primary reason is not because of its censorship, but because of what its censorship portends: it has given up on getting the cutting-edge audience, and wants instead to go out like MySpace, catering to the least competent users for as long as possible, then collapsing.
As an internet service, one has a choice. The service can be designed for the power users, and the rest will tag along as best they can, or when the power users leave, it can be designed for the lowest common denominator. The latter gets a larger audience, over the short term, but the former produces growth.
This creates the “MySpace cycle”: a new hip community grows from an elite of power users and early adopters, then becomes accessible to all, at which point the modern pattern occurs and the masses alter the character of the service by doing the same stupid stuff they do everywhere else. Quality declines.
With the fall of quality, the early adopters and power users flee for greener pastures. The company providing the service has grown and added dependents — more employees, lawyers, stockholders, and advisors — and is reminded by them of its need to kick up the profits. And so, in a classic MBA move, the service slashes costs and makes itself friendlier to the broadest section of its potential audience.
When we see social media banning people for stating the obvious, this cycle is in operation. The company providing the service wants more people in, and the masses always like illusion and human groups fear anything that is not “we are all one” inclusive, so the service hires trigger-happy idiots to remove anything that generates complaints. That way, they can be a safe space and bring in more neurotics, fools, idiots, geeks and hipsters.
The use of bans and censorship shows that the service is no longer interested in being a community. In a community, people exchange conversation, and with it, points of view. They are able to handle having different points of view, including controversial ones, because there is an active dialogue and difference is respected because the issues are interesting.
A service run only for profit however has no interest in community. It is there to provide an illusion as a product, and the people who consume this product — like television watchers in a former generation — want only a reflection of themselves and their thoughts, mainly because people are solipsistic and the less intelligent ones even more so.
Twitter (for example) knows it is going to die, because MySpace died and Digg died. All social media dies when it becomes popular with the idiots and then the power users leave as a result. Twitter is just trying to squeeze as much from the lemon as it can before the end, which requires pandering to total idiots like SJWs — otherwise unemployables — and if it loses some smart people, oh well. Its new audience will not care or want them.
The point of this is what we are looking at is economic Crowdism: how audience demographic shift on the Bell Curve takes once-thriving products and converts them into the same thing as everything else, thus reducing incentive to use them and ending their life cycles.
Crowdism is terrifying because it says that our enemy is not government, economics, politics, etc. but mass thinking; with mass thinking, all things — regardless of discipline or origin — are made into the same low standard, low future-time vision social-type organization. In social organizations, people compete for attention instead of accuracy or moral goodness.
For example, Crowdism has infested the world of publishing. Most books are written on trivial topics, contain little content and have no relevance except for the first year when they are published. They are mostly surface works in that what distinguishes them is the setting of the story, the unique twist on known ideas, or a novel combination of past aesthetics and concepts. The surface changes constantly, but the content is the same, much as how a Crowd will take a new genre or discipline and quickly convert it into more of “the usual.”
When people in the last century referred to something as “typical” or “common,” this was what they were alluding to. Once you let in the Crowd, they make everything into the same thing, a vast field comprised of equal — because that is the social measurement, equal inclusion — actors doing roughly the same stuff and struggling desperately to make their own variant look different. It is like an IQ test: the people who cannot see through the surface get trapped at this level, which we might describe as Sudra or Thrall to use the old Indo-European caste terms.
Therein is the problem: we cannot say that social media is the problem, only that it is conducive to the problem. The same conditions and pathological behaviors can arise anywhere, as they have in blogs and before that, in dial-up systems.
Your average 1980s BBS, once it became popular, shifted Left because Leftism is the socially appropriate answer to any question, and most people do not care about the question or the consequences of action taken in its name, but how they look to others. Boys and girls want to hook up. Middle aged people want business connections. Lonely people just need someone to talk to. Drug addicts and neurotics want far-out stuff to talk about that makes their failed lives seem meaningful. The result is constant activity, and that requires an abolition of eternal standards so that there can always be “new” (old, recombined) theories and topics.
The prevalence of Crowdism in the blogosphere leads to noticings or observations like the following:
Time out gives a man room to think. It is why vacation is an important part of a work-life balance. It is why male only spaces were so crucial to the continued survival of Western Civilization – you had to get away from the nagging wife to concentrate on the bigger picture.
Since I posted my ‘Exit’ post I have maintained relationships with allies, talking to many on a daily basis. In recent weeks I have also kept one eye open on those still blogging. What I see is sad and disappointing.
The more popular publications in this ‘sphere’ are still publishing nonsense articles about topics we already discussed years ago…The masturbatory self indulgence that many crave is happening for them, they rehash the same dead topics, they continue to abyss gaze with the same sick fascination.
Bypassing the excellent observation about “male only spaces” which can be expanded to the ideas of solitude and leisure, essential to any cogent antiwork argument as well as the right side of the Bell Curve in any health society, we see an excellent point being made: the blogosphere rewards those who write about the obvious as if it were mindblowingly complex, which makes people with nothing to contribute feel important and gives writers a way to advance themselves at the expense of others.
Begging your indulgence, perhaps we can review the writings on this site which have covered this topic in the past:
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.
That essay raises the question of goals. If the goal is to be Neoreactionary, that should be done, in full. When that goal gets supplanted by another goal, like money or power, then the goal of Neoreaction is inescapably lost.
Endure a metaphor, if you will: when an artist writes a book to tell a truth, he creates a story, characters, metaphors and setting to express that truth. However, if the same artist realizes that people look forward to confirmation of their existing ideas, and writes books to that end, the method of making money has replaced the goal.
We are all familiar with this process. It explains why a brand that produced good solid products a decade ago now makes flimsy plastic crap, banking on its good name. It explains why every rock band goes to a terrible place after three albums. It explains why promising political candidates, once they get into office, suddenly turn their backs on their own beliefs.
This is the nature of politics: it reverses our thought from acting toward a goal, to acting toward the reward that normally comes from achieving the goal. This means that instead of acting from cause to effect, we are acting from effect (money) and inventing a cause (the book) to match. It is a form of corruption of will.
This is what has happened to Neoreaction. In the struggle for individuals to differentiate themselves and gain an audience, they have moved from writing about relevant topics to writing about that which they know will cultivate an audience, and for that concern alone. This has distorted their message and created entryism by demotism.
[I]n an effort to attract a popular audience, [Neoreaction] reduced itself to a form of individualism. This happens to all internet movements as people want to join so they can appear “edgy,” but fear getting too far from socially acceptable ideas.
My point to the DE/NeR was basically that if your philosophy is functionally similar to conservatism, and you don’t admit it, you’re avoiding the truth out of some personal pretense. Further, this confines your thinking based on the taboos of liberalism, which means you’ll end up back at liberalism. Then I pointed out many of the liberal aspects of the DE, namely that its crusade against the Cathedral is a liberal-style revolution, e.g. an attack against the institution and its replacement with people power. What we actually need is an idea of what we want and thus a competing vision to the current set of pretenses held by our new elite.
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.
In the past, I have warned Neoreaction that it veers too close to become a Leftist-style ideology because Neoreaction has come to include the principles of collectivized individualism. Any time you find yourself arguing that there is a “system” which will manage people and come to good results, you have left behind the fundamental distinction of Dark Enlightenment societies: they believe in hierarchies and moral codes, and therefore, they select the morally best as leaders.
What is subverting Neoreaction is what Neoreaction was designed to avoid: “demotism,” or a substitute for leadership where whatever idea is most popular is chosen. Demotism occurs in politics through democracy, in economics through consumerism, and in socializing through flattery. Neoreaction has been subverted by its inability to purge its opposite from itself, because when emerging from a political system the most common tendency is to carry over unseen elements of that system into the post-revolutionary future society.
The same conflict that crushed Napoleon crushes Neoreaction. He wanted to be a King, but with the revolutionary ideology of egalitarianism behind him. These two ideas conflicted, and so he became a tyrant, using the advertising of the ideology of altruism to justify his seizure of power and wars to enforce these ideas on others.
Neoreaction has stopped moving in a linear direction toward a goal, and instead is circling itself, trying to rid itself of an entryist it cannot identity.
I came from another tradition of writing about these topics: European philosophy, starting in the late 1980s, with a somewhat idiosyncratic take — as is appropriate for any philosophical exploration, to avoid the confinement of crowd-defined language — on society. I posted rants to hacker bulletin boards, published an ezine, raged across USENET, then began distributing my writings through an early underground website, the American Nihilist Underground Society, then CORRUPT which pre-dated the “alternative right” idea with a similar concept, many web bulletin boards back in the day, and finally transitioned to Amerika.
My influences were Friedrich Nietzsche and the philosophical and literary canon, underground (heavy) metal, and life experience. In addition, newer writers like Michel Houellebecq and Ted Kaczynski were massively influential, as well as the rants and outlook of outsider communities like the hacker underground and the heavy metal underground.
Others from the same era picked up the pen and began waging war — words are bullets — through increasingly clarifying statements. One of these, Bruce Charlton, recently penned a pointed critique of the Alternative Right (a silo in which he includes Neoreaction, probably because Neoreaction has been absorbed by it) which was widely ignored by online reactionaries because it hit too close to home:
The (online) excitement among the Alt-Right since they were mentioned in a speech by Hillary Clinton – and since it becomes clear that Donald Trump is (de facto) running unopposed – is palpable.
And it is natural; since the secular Right always sells-out, and opportunities for the secular Right intellectuals to be bought-off, co-opted and in general sell-out (for power, status, cash, sexual opportunity etc.) are looking very good, just at present.
No wonder the leading Alt-Right bloggers are so cheerful!
His point is that political movements default to a focus on people and material concerns when they do not have some transcendental goal, which we can observe happening in Neoreaction and the Alternative Right because to succeed as a blogger there, one must dumb down the message and tell the Crowd that it is the victim. This re-starts the liberal cycle under a new name, in a classic Crowdist gambit, and is not deliberate but is even more destructive than if it were, because the people who now think they are solving a problem are in fact bearing a mental infection that will reproduce the problem.
Inversion, in other terms.
Earlier on, this post mentioned how the threat of censorship and bans on social media services like Twitter destroys the prospect of community. To last, a community requires a transcendental goal, such as the idea of accuracy in information itself, or that problems can be beaten and beauty, goodness, truth and excellence restored through realism plus a gumption that demands a higher aesthetic quality of life; pleasure, even.
When dissident movements become inverted, they lose this sense of community and replace it with a false sense of community based on universal inclusion. At that point, they become Leftist in all but name, and many of the recent attempts to control the narrative are done solely in this aim, even if they state otherwise.
Any incoherence or challenges must then be met, unless they present such a challenge that the model proves wrong. As a result, strict and active management of new ideas must be enacted, prior held ideas which are incompatible must be dismissed, strong discipline must be maintained intellectually to such a degree that those who undermine the tradition are made aware of this issue and encouraged to correct, or stop claiming to be part of the tradition. Relaxing of intellectual rigour and doctrine for mere social requirements should be dismissed as rank stupidity.
…Much of what gets released under the neoreaction banner is intellectually incoherent.
Crowdism has infested social media, but it will infest any platform, and it has infested Alt Right and Neoreactionary blogging. The solution is simple: return the focus to ideas and action, not people. But that will never be as popular as social thinking, so instead, focus on the quality blogs like New Alternative Right, Atavisionary and many of the others listed in our blog list.
Last week, superstar Kanye West tweeted: “I got rid of my phone so I can have air to create.” Singer Katy Perry replied: “unplug to connect.”
Stand-up comedian Brett Kline got so frustrated with smartphone selfie sticks that he made a video of him snipping them with bolt cutters all over New York. It turned out to be a prank, with fake phones and actors as the victims, but the video has more than 1.3 million views on YouTube since Sept. 1.
“Technology is making people sociopaths,” says Buddy Bolton, a comedian who recorded the selfie-stick clip-and-run incidents with Mr. Kline.
These people do not mean they literally got rid of their phones, but that they are using their phones as phones again instead of small portable computers ideally suited for social media.
This is a result of the Myspace cycle described above, but applied not just to the aging big social media services (Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, Reddit) but to social media and the internet itself. Once, it was a new frontier, because the Crowd had not arrived. Then Google, Amazon, Apple and Microsoft made it brain-dead easy to get on and use it, and then social media arose. At first, that was a new space, but then all the people that the people on social media were trying to flee showed up there as well.
Now, it is a bother where most of what is being posted is the same brainless drama that is spoken of at the water cooler, at family dinners or shown on daytime television. People want out as a result. The exact same phenomenon is happening to Neoreaction and Alternative Right, and those who care about the power of those movements should flee the dying zone and head toward a higher level of behavior immediately.
Reactionary Future writes creates of Neoreaction by applying its own ideation recursively, translating it into a higher level of abstraction. This, more than subverting Neoreaction, subverts the nature of politics itself.
If De Jouvenel is correct, divided power is the cause of leftism and is the driver of culture in this system. If this is so, the only way to regain control is to undivide power. To undivide power requires a reorganisation of property in line with the state’s goals, ethics and security. This makes property formaly post societal, therefore it is antithetical to capitalism.
Divided power occurs through democracy. Voters select an appealing image, which necessarily has nothing to do with the more literal and forceful methods of power itself. This creates a divide where politicians must promise an illusion and deliver a compromise.
In addition, government has its own agenda, since it is a separate party from the organic nation comprised of citizens, culture, values, religion and heritage. Its first goal is to remain in power, and this goal dominates all others. For this reason, government has incentive to always expand its reach, which inevitably occurs by promising things that people are afraid to vote against: aid to the poor, welfare, diversity, gender equality.
As a cynical Traditionalist realist, one might simply opine that aristocracy is the better version of undivided power. Aristocrats have no escape from their role, and succeed only when the nation and its traditions do, as well as those citizens which uphold those leanings. In addition, through the use of strong arbitrary power, aristocrats do not need to defer to law, precedent or the opinions of non-contributors.
There is no difference between “classical” liberalism and modern liberalism. There is no difference because they are nothing more than the shrieking insane screams of lunatics being hurled forward by power as it centralizes in an unsecure system.
Smith was a lunatic, Locke was a lunatic, Rawls was a lunatic – all of them were lunatics.
Liberalism is defined by its belief in Systems, or sets of rules and incentives that magically run society without the need for hierarchy and enlightened (or enlightened sociopath, i.e. nihilist) leaders.
Once equality is assumed, only Systems remain, because it is impossible to point out that some people are more equal than others and that we all benefit if they, the more competent leaders, rule us.
From this liberalism arises the need for divided power. People do not trust society itself, so they elect to have a security guard of sorts in government, and feel it is a positive thing when it treats everyone equally, even though this means reducing all of its acts to the lowest common denominator.
Neoreaction contributed this vital point of thought to the debate over politics: government creates divided power, and equality creates government. Without escaping those, there is no escaping the utter disaster that is modernity.