A change is going to come, because science is the ultimate legitimator of the bourgeois’ opinions, and those in power are very much aware of this. The progressives have been acutely aware of this for some time and exploit it whenever possible. The internet and the breakdown of the monopoly of information exposure in the past decade make any attempt to suppress its eventual mass dissemination impossible. Some among the present socio-political power structures see the danger of the internet, but are trapped. As with the advent of the printing press, the political-information nexus has shifted, and will stay shifted. The genie is not going to be put back in the bottle.
Unfortunately, propositions of how to bring change to the current systems contained in neoreactionary writing is either, at best an immature retelling of literature from pre 1920 in a political attempt at neo-renaissance (A clear example is the calls for a return to Monarchism outlined in the blog More Right), or a fatally flawed attempt to devise a neocolonial administration (SovCorp by Curtis Yarvin aka Moldbug).
A solid third branch using the prevailing ideas as inspiration, and not reincarnation, is desperately needed, but not presently in sight (not a “third way” between the two for the love of God).
I will present a number of flaws which I believe further the point regarding the monarchist and neocolonial corporatism structures being flawed, in the hope that it may inspire further discussion of potential remedies to bring the discussion forward, and to possibly resolve tension between the thedeisitic lineage of Neoreactionaryism and the non, or weakly, thedistic hyper capitalistic thread (or between means-end and means-end-reversal threads – something I will post on at a later point), although this is highly unlikely. I will also raise a couple of issues connected to the transition to the proposed model of reactionary government.
So, to begin.
Understanding the current political system
In a post entitled Specifying a Neoreactionary Research Agenda the call to research how the current demotic system operates is dismissed out of hand with the statement
“Maybe this is just me and my background growing up in San Francisco and the surrounding Bay Area, but I feel that I already understand the Cathedral rather well. It’s clear that it isn’t built by rational design, but via spontaneous order”
And is finally concluded with
“This can be achieved by producing positive theories for a new order, rather than analyzing the nuts and bolts of a decaying order.”
I believe this is wrong. In any journey, two keys pieces of information are needed to ensure you are able to get from A to B – you need to know A and B.
A in this instance is the manner in which power is structured, dispersed and organised and how it can be possible to get to the new desired power structure (neoreactionary government) which comprises of B, which is also still opaque.
A failure to even consider studying the currents of power of the present system is then contradicted on a further post regarding hacking technological determinism. Either you are interested in how the power structures work as a means to attempt to hack it, or you are not (though I do like the technological determinism, and I wonder if the More Rightguys understand this links in with Land’s mean-ends-reversal?).
Understanding the system affords a number of opportunities, which include: highlighting anti-democratic aspects to encourage greater support for Neoreactionaryism, identifying areas which could be utilised to encourage Accelerationism (if that’s your thing), using elections to areas to gain further access as a means to expose the workings of the system, and/ or the futility of democracy (an ends in themselves, and not a means to an end) or identification of potential systemic flaws which would indicate pending civil uncertainty which could be exploited (being aware of the 2008 pandemonium before hand for example). As such, I believe anti-Cathedral study is far from fruitless, even if you accept that the system is unreformable (which I accept it is). A current highly fruitful example of how the Cathedral works is visible in the Gender Mainstreaming policy currently being implemented across the world at present. I have fortunately spotted it being introduced, and have made note of it’s spread and the power groupings it exposes. Further eyes on this phenomenon would be much more useful and would lend a scientific backing to the neoreactionaries claims (please refer back to my point regarding science being a validator).
As for Yarvin on unqualified reservations, His understanding is solid, but his civilised grand reset is probably not practical (a crying shame). His criticisms of the seasteadingprogramme (and flight by extension), however, are very much on the money.
As such, I believe anti-Cathedral study is vital. Among the areas I think should be concentrated on include:
– The contained feedback loop mechanism (both its weak public-establishment-public form, and it’s more strong establishment-public -establishment form)
– Cathedral departmentalisation (beyond media, political, education – how else is it compartmentalised? And do these link offer opportunities?)
– The faction organisations (How do the Feminists group and position themselves? What influence do Catholics groups have in the UN? What factions make up the political parties? The media? etc etc)
– The interplay between the conscious and unconscious movements within the Cathedral and the spread of “truth”. (Which actors know what it is happening and know the truth, and which do not but are an active part under their own truth)
– Media studies (not “media studies” but an actual study of media-source symbiosis, message amplification coordination, media activism, the unofficial constant connections between journalists and the establishment/ civil service etc)
– Areas in which the Cathedral encounters difficulties (the financial services, recalcitrant governments, failure of the contained feedback mechanism to manufacture opinion adequately)
Deciphering how the new structures should be formed
Beginning again with the More Right interpretation of Monarchy, I am having to work on a number of assumptions as there is no definitive structure highlighted, however I feel they are fairly safe assumptions to make.
Firstly, the premise of resurrecting a Monarchy as modeled on the Monarchies of the Enlightenment, whilst pulling on the hearts string of a full blooded Englishman such as me, is troubling.
I will not engage in the usual criticisms that have been levelled at Monarchism, which the writers at More Right cover well to their credit, but will instead focus on another which is applicable to all political social organisation building but has not been covered before – Biorealism.
What I mean when I refer to Biorealism is not racial eugenics, genocide, or any conscious attempt to alter the genetic organisation of a body of people through political policies, but rather, what unintended effect will the implementation of the government have on the assorted mating pattern of human groups, and general natural selection pressures.
For my criticism to be valid, we need to take the case for Ashkenazim average IQ being the result of assertive mating and social isolation as proposed by Cochrane and Harpending inThe 10,000 Year Explosion to be accurate, as well as the findings elaborated by the HBD community since.
If we do make this assumption, then the case of Ashkenazim Jews serve as a useful example. The caste system of India and many other hierarchical systems which had isolated groups would also serve, however I am unaware of the relevant research in these areas.
As a result of the monarchical system, loyal servants were highly necessary. Having no stake in the local society, and dependent on the monarch for security (being unable to take the reins of power themselves) the Jews proved excellent in positions of diplomacy as well as usury. To retain this privileged position required smarts, and must have driven the matting patterns of Jews.
My reason for raising this is that if a strict Monarchy is raised in line with the model that appears to be proposed at More Right, then it will be the case that special groups, or castes, will develop. It has in every monarchical system. It’s inbuilt.
In fact, in the latest post On the Structure of the Antimodern University, this is encouraged in the area of the university.
Is this morally acceptable? And is it something to encourage? Or is it irrelevant on the basis that groups will arrange themselves on this basis anyway?
Previous thinkers in Monarchism (and all other political structures) can surely be forgiven for being ignorant of the latest genetic findings regarding hereditary action in humans and the likely feedback mechanism of human social institutions, but it is surely beholden to us to be absolutely clear of the ramifications of models which we put forward.
There is also the discussion to be had regarding the intersection of the middle class, Capitalism and Monarchism – did the changes started under Monarchy (Capitalism) end it by virtue of creating a larger number of people able to “man” capitalism? and is the increased technological changes at present resulting in a reversing of the situation by virtue of the higher barriers to “manning” modern technological aspects of Capitalism (the rise of the techno-industrialists)? What Nick Land refers to as the bifurcation of the world into nerds and non nerds?
In this regard, Yarvin’s model has less of an issue as there is no call for a elite of individuals linked to the thede to run the Sovcorp as it very much a muscularly indifferent beast, which would be a refreshing organisation in contrast to our current liberal progressive model based on continual oppression of those deemed oppressors. But I feel the points raised by More Right are valid, and see no point retreading the ground they have covered.
I am, however, more inclined to a model of this type.
Yarvin’s model in my opinion does fail most acutely with regard to the issue of shareholders (I do not see how this is not a splitting of sovereignty), and the East India company style system had many vast flaws as demonstrated by the Bengali famine. The areas in which the colonial system operated where places in which they could displace the ruling elite (India is the best example), but perhaps this lesson regarding the rise to power of the East India company should be reviewed in greater detail by neoreactionaries. This is some very interesting stuff there.
In addition, it ends up being merely a reworking of the compartmentalization of the US constitutional government but with an executive that has total control. The attempts at impersonal policing via technological innovations such as encryption again fail at their weakest point like the constitution – the human element. In short, it would not work (as we would like it to). However, this is not to say that it has not been useful in reconnecting the current of reactionary thought to the present. A neoreactionary version of the impact of the Greek texts on the Italian renaissance.
How to achieve a change to the new structures
Putting aside the question of the structure of the new system for now, the next most important question is how to bring its existence into being. I believe this discussion needs to be better structured, and as such I present the following structure within which the discussion should take place. The issues fall into what I term strategic considerations, and tactical considerations which present multiple mix and match possible options.
By strategic considerations, I am referring to the overarching environment within which such changes may, be conducted. They are as follows
Monopolar world system
Bipolar world system
Multipolar world system
Anarchy (no polar world system)
These are the prevailing geopolitical considerations impacting the likely hood of a neoreactionary government taking hold. The relevant political leanings of the power centres in each of these potentialities is obviously key.
A monopolar world dominated by a liberal progressive system as we have experienced arguably for the past 20 makes the creation, or continual existence, of a reactionary government very difficult (let alone a neoreactionary one). Notable examples including the Gulf states which exist merely due to their politico-military-economic importance e.g. Saudi Arabia – the petro dollar, or Quatar – Gas and oil, and the necessity of strong controllable government on these strategic points – or due to outright hostility and withdrawal from the world system e.g Iran. There is added complications regarding a number of these states, as their positions with regard to the previous bipolar world (Soviet Russia and USA) was in the process of being “corrected” (see the Project for a New American Century) however the rise of a multipolar world has provided breathing space for these aberrations. While a bi, or multipolar world presents opportunity for possible neoreactionary governments, the need to balance multiple powers is quite challenging, and merely opens you up to becoming a proxy battle ground. The work of CANVAS and the notable list of non progressive (and not on the USA’s Christmas card list) targets should make this clear. Machiavelli also had wise words to offer regarding the inviting of foreign powers into your sphere of influence.
Anarchy appear to be the best bet, and has proven so before. Napoleon demonstrated the potential of this route on a local level, but was ultimately defeated by the multipolar system, had he had anarchy on a strategic level, he would have been set. Any anarchy would need to affect all major power centres, or inordinately affect power centres which would not be amenable to a neoreactionary organisation.
By tactical considerations, I am referring to the specific issues potentially leading to governmental change. They are as follows.
Most of these tactical issues are fairly self evident. I will leave others to discuss at length the relative merits in more detail. Those which need additional elaboration are internal termiting and catastrophic error.
Internal termiting would roughly correspond with Gramsci’s march through the institutions; too long, and too difficult for reactionaries to manage. I will leave this to others to discuss, as I could not envision it happening.
As for catastrophic error, this is basically the premise that the Cathedral will do something so irredeemably stupid it defies belief – like passing full control to a neoreactionary organisation. This may sound odd, but given the jaw dropping, mind numbing, utter insanity of the liberal progressive, this cannot be completely ruled out. This would potentially fall into a East India company situation, but would require the techno-industrial elite being a) neoreactionary to a man and b) in place in whichever company is trading with the current system (this would be obviously in a technological situation – look at Google’s position at present for example). A good example of how this can work can be seen in the “too big to fail” banking industry. The financial industry writes the rules which affect them, because the government officials have no idea how the system operates. The present incumbents of government agencies are also bribed with jobs. The financial industry runs rings around the progressives, who give it free reign as it is its cash machine for their vote bribing, and they have no idea how to stop it. Can you imagine if the financial services where manned by neoreactionaries? The mind boggles.
But this sort of hypothesis is only possible by studying the Cathederal
I will make an attempt at a discussion of possible resolution to the neoreactionary governmental models of Monarchism and Neocameralism on a further post.
*Update – This is of relevance to Biorealism and social political systems.