The art gallery that (bravely) held a Neoreaction conference has experienced an attack by others in the arts community who, contrary to their image as open-minded thinkers, fear any idea but the dying notions of liberal democracy that are now fading away.
As a Facebook thread illustrates, the rabid Left have made their “long march through the institutions” into a type of monomaniacal dogma that seeks to crush not just opponents, but anyone offering any direction of thought other than Leftism.
The gallery, named LD50, also hosted an altright exhibit which presented its patrons with what they crave, which is a window into the ongoing dialogue of ideas. The Left fears this because while they claim to be on the right side of history, their reality denial cannot last without State enforcement.
The mainstream media calls him a “white supremacist,” which originally meant someone who wanted Caucasians to rule the world and subjugate the lesser races, but now apparently means a white person who resists diversity.
Diversity, as a derivation of the idea of equality, works the same way that equality does: whoever is perceived to be on top is penalized and that power and wealth is redistributed to those on the bottom. It might be called anti-Darwinian supremacism.
Bannon’s readings tend to have one thing in common: the view that technocrats have put Western civilization on a downward trajectory and that only a shock to the system can reverse its decline. And they tend to have a dark, apocalyptic tone that at times echoes Bannon’s own public remarks over the years—a sense that humanity is at a hinge point in history. His ascendant presence in the West Wing is giving once-obscure intellectuals unexpected influence over the highest echelons of government.
…“The West is in trouble. I don’t think there’s any doubt about that, and Trump’s election was a sign of health,” said a White House aide who was not authorized to speak publicly. “It was a revolt against managerialism, a revolt against expert rule, a revolt against the administrative state. It opens the door to possibilities.”
…Curtis Yarvin, the self-proclaimed “neoreactionary” who blogs under the name “Mencius Moldbug,” attracted a following in 2008 when he published a wordy treatise asserting, among other things, that “nonsense is a more effective organizing tool than the truth.” When the organizer of a computer science conference canceled Yarvin’s appearance following an outcry over his blogging under his nom de web, Bannon took note: Breitbart News decried the act of censorship in an article about the programmer-blogger’s dismissal.
Neoreaction, like its parent philosophy found among the reactionaries, starts with this cyclic view of history: there are right ways to run a civilization, and less-right ones, and when civilization deviates from the right ways, it enters a decay cycle. At that point, it has become corrupt and must be partially destroyed in order to rebirth itself.
Like many philosophies derived from the libertarian fringe, Neoreaction is based on the idea of offering options in the freedom of association vein. Its primary concepts, “patchwork” and “formalism,” state that the world is breaking apart into many little corporate states where government is no longer viewed as anything but a self-interest, profit-oriented actor, and therefore must compete for citizens according to free market principles.
While in itself this seems dodgy, as we know that the world will shift to Coca-Cola and Big Macs instead of Beethoven and Aristotle, the point is made that currently, under the aegis of a moral imperative, government appears to be a benevolent moral actor but in actuality is acting to increase its own power and share of the wealth of the citizenry.
As the Founding Fathers alleged, then, government is a parasite once given enough power, because like all things on earth, it acts in self-interest. It is better — in the Neoreaction view — to formalize that self-interest by making government competitive, thus giving it an incentive to reduce its own power in order to increase its own wealth.
This misses the point in many areas, notably what aristocracy addressed, which is a recognition that those who are good at making profit are not good leaders because they are specialized in a different area than leadership. A for-profit system will reward lowest common denominator thinking and shape its people into a commercial culture which is incapable of greatness.
Instead, aristocracy chooses the best people and entrusts them with wealth and power which they have an incentive to keep consistent or slightly increase, but because they already have all they need and are not judged by acquisition, have no motivation to keep the kind of growth-oriented Ponzi scheme to which free markets devolve in the hands of the Crowd.
As Plato said in The Republic, Libertarianism is an intermediate stage whereby those with wealth attempt to defend it by arguing for a benevolent “every man for himself” type order, forgetting that the more numerous drones will simply form a big gang or cult called a Crowd and then take over power. Libertarianism is a march to death, but as Moldbug demonstrated, Libertarian theory is a way out from Leftism.
Bannon reputedly reaches a similar state by pairing Neoreaction with transcendental idealism, which he derives from its oldest source, the Bhagavad-Gita:
According to a former friend of Bannon’s, he “used to talk a lot about dharma — he felt very strongly about dharma … one of the strongest principles throughout the Bhagavad Gita.” Dharma, a difficult term to translate from Sanskrit, can mean righteousness, but also duty. Every human must follow his or her own dharma (duty, calling) in accordance with his or her nature and social duties in order for society as a whole to be following the path of dharma (righteousness, order) and be in line with the cosmic order of things:
It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. (Bhagavad Gita 18:47)
…Given Bannon’s worldview, which sees the world, and especially the West as being in a state of moral and economic crisis resulting from the lack of mooring in traditional values (in other words, adharma, or lack of dharma or alignment with a sacred worldview), his interest in dharma is not surprising.
Dharma is (in part) a defense of inequality: each person has a different role, and they contribute unequally toward a cooperative purpose, which is not found in material — like economics, politics and social factors — but in principle, or upholding the ideals and structures which make for a life which is closest to the divine.
With this inclusion, Bannon’s Neoreactionary influences seem more methodological and his goals more like those of the Alt Right, which combines nationalism and traditionalism with a futurism that acknowledges hard truths about humanity.
This pairing of Neoreaction and Hinduism shows a chief strategist who is aware of the trends of history and how we break out of them. We move from materially-derived ideas such as demotism, the Neoreactionary term for popularity contests like consumerism and democracy, toward ideal-based movement toward a stable and qualitatively improving world order.
In itself, that does not seem significant until one realizes what it rejects. Ideals are not fixed but are continuous, meaning that their core principles never change, but adapt and improve qualitatively while remaining essentially the same thing. The notion of Progress has died, including the liberal democratic version which holds that improving the material situation of individuals is the highest good.
Instead, in a Bannonian/Trumpian world, the goal is to establish a civilization that rewards the good and punishes the bad so that all may benefit from the power of inequality, which is a gradual force toward upward qualitative improvement. In this, Bannon echoes not just his recent influences, but the ideals of conservatism and human wisdom since time immemorial, rejecting the Enlightenment and the nightmare it produced.
Under Neoreactionary theory, small states will form that compete on the basis of cost and services offered to citizens, essentially formalizing the knowledge that governments are self-interested corporations and not benevolent charities. While this fails to address the national question and the actual motivation for most human decisions, it does explain the Irish state tax haven.
Apple announced its intentions to move its iTunes biz to Ireland in September when it transferred an estimated $9 billion of iTunes assets. At that time it also shuffled all existing developer contracts to Ireland-based Apple Distribution International. Like Luxembourg, Ireland is known for being a low-tax haven for international businesses. Last month, both Apple and Ireland announced they would appeal a record $14 billion tax bill from the European Commission, which earlier found it had been underpaying tax on profits across the European bloc from 2003 to 2014. Apple today is the biggest private employer in Cork, the Irish Republic’s second-largest city, with a workforce exceeding 5,500. Economists estimate Apple’s Cork operation pumps around $17 billion annually in salaries, tax and investment into the Irish economy.
If Ireland were to set up a libertarian free-trade zone as part of the country, say a major city, and offer citizens the benefits of living in a European country without the high taxes and insane regulations that this normally means, it could see a similar boom in income which would be more important than taxes as it would offer a thriving country which could then achieve financial independence by taking existing tax revenues and investing them in its corporations, providing an eternal revenue stream.
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.