The dream factory

All alt-right and reactionary thinking which is not anchored in De Jouvenel’s insights is quite simply politics as wish. De Jouvenel’s insights leave no room for wish, and lead to conclusions which no one would want, or wish, had they the option. But they don’t. So you are left with a stark problem. If you imagine you can split sovereignty against itself, you are delusional, and you are setting in motion a process of grinding destruction. Any “We can set up really good blocks” stomping of feet is wish. Pure childish wish.




De Jouvenel or nothing

Liberalism is really the only game in town, and that has been so since the collapse of monarchies and the creation of the USA. This is because liberalism is nothing more than the name given to the symptoms of De Jouvenel’s high-low mechanism. It has followed a straight line of power organised destruction of intermediary powers, with botched and confused reactions against this individualisation coming in the form of Fascism and Communism. All ideology has been selected by this mechanism.

All other concocted explanations of what is right and left wing are pointless,  stupid, arbitrary devices. They contain nothing of value, and cannot explain a thing. They are pure quackery. If De Jouvenel is not your starting point, then you opinions on political theory are less than worthless, as you are wasting time with useless concepts.

The spread of ideas

The question of how ideas spread should be pretty central to political theory, you would think, but obviously it is not, because acceptable political theory holds to the holy concept of rational individuals capable of making clear and reasoned decisions, so obviously the spread of ideas is due to the obvious correctness of the ideas spreading like sunshine and enlightening us all (progress.) This is a democratic society after all, and every aspect of politics is based on this premise. Any deviation is fascism quite frankly, and advocacy of slavery. Of course in business and economics this concept is not really in vogue. If this insight was taken into political theory, then you are treating people as slaves, but in business? Well, crickets.

So how do ideas spread? Well there are a number of obvious ways which are covered by Rene Girard’s mimetic process, and which advertisers use regularly, but maybe the better question is not so much how they spread, but how they are generated. Not only political theory, but economics which is subservient to politics, does not really account for the genesis or spread of ideas, because their central actor is faulty.  So we may ask “why has progressivism been so successful?” or “why are plastic toys based on ‘Frozen’ so popular?” and the only official answer that can be produced is some mush based on the idea that individuals have made rational reasoned choices and have come to the conclusion that X is superior to other options. The individual’s preference is holy. Again, we are not slaves!

Yet, we know this preference is controlled and corralled, in markets and in politics. Entire industries are based on it. The current fiasco involving the Republican Party is demonstration of this process being rebelled against in the name of liberalism (the things refreshes itself from the “right.” But this raises the question, where do the corrallers and controllers get their ideas?

Taking this into account, here is a contentious conclusion which I have pointed to previously which is inherent in Bertrand de Jouvenel’s ‘On Power’ , and that is that Power creates the environment in which ideas are selected. The system of governance – secure or insecure- dictates which ideas ultimately obtain a gravitational pull, and as such these ideas are not cultivated in a rational manner, but are made inevitable by the logic of the roles of the actors within the system.

As such, a monarch in a position of weak power, or other power actors in a similar situation, will favour ideas and concepts which increase their power and undermine their competitors. This will be a process which those taking part of will become puppets of eventually, though at first this will not be obvious. The monarch and even at times the nobility raised the low in a process of levelling which was noted by Tocqueville long ago, but at this point it was clearly cynical. This process was an indirect war of attrition which was engaged clearly engaged in by conscious design. From John of Gaunt, to the Kings and electors of northern Europe who harboured and encouraged the Protestant agitators, to the “enlightened monarchs” that fostered and encouraged the Enlightenment, the game has been the same, and in line with the logic of their unsecure positions. The failure of the monarchs to control this process any longer led to the revolutions and the current democratic system which can only be seen as a complete systemic failure in this light. The whole thing is on autopilot, with the process of levelling going from being a cynical gambit for power, to being the raison d’etre for the system, and with any deviation from this being punished by replacement of the actors in question.It is a self reinforcing feedback loop of ideology being selected by power, which selects for ideology. There is no cephalization now.

Protestantism, and then progressivism is therefore, and has been, selected by power in accordance with this process of levelling. Power can impede, or power can fund, and the overall impetus is not the correctness of the idea. Any concept or theory that is on the surface of it clearly insane will thrive if it is of value in this process, and what is of value in this process changes, and always in the same direction eventually – more levelling. This is how you organise a distributed unorganised conspiracy.

A good way to see this process enacted in the “resistance” to the prevailing progressive system, is to look at the development of popular and successful ideas in conservatism and subsequently the alt- right. There is no way you can argue that the adoption of ideas and theories in this area has been a process of unveiling of the correctness of the same ideas and theories. Instead we have a combination and hodgepodge of bizarre ideas which suit the roles of being both functional within the dominate state’s pushed acceptable barriers, and being sufficiently deviant as to offer a means of dissent, no matter how pitiful. Anything sufficiently deviant as to be a threat is closed down easily, and anything not really a sufficient threat is allowed, and that is what is maintained. Simple selection.

With the dominant ideologies, it is a little more complicated, but not that much more complicated. To get anywhere near power you have to be advocating leveling. Once in power of any sort, you have to continue advocating leveling. You stop advocating leveling, then you get overtaken. This does not mean the actors cynically engage in this process in an act of fraud, they actually believe this is a good thing to do. Governance is about helping after all, and people take their cues on what to believe from superiors, and education. You may find the odd actors who are somewhat self aware, but less than would be indicated by liberal/ libertarianism’s conception of humans. Humans mimic, humans take cues from their social superiors, and humans are not anything like the liberal myth which is spread perversely because of its very value to the political power system of unsecure power.

In this sense then, the state is absolute, in that what is allowed, and is not allowed is ultimately at the discretion of the state. The idea that the state could be entirely neutral is a fallacy. This makes society a negative imprint of power, it is what is allowed and not allowed by the necessity of the state’s level of security. A secure state (a secure central power) will have different, and less onerous demands on society, and an unsecure one engages in all sorts of bizarre behavior by necessity, whilst a state pretending it is self effacing is a dangerous psychotic beast. Unfortunately the self-effacing state is what is advocated for by all, in the most stupid way possible – conflict and/or utopian anarchism.


The Autopsy

I applaud Land’s attempt to bring the Liberalism and Nrx question into the open, as it is something that is really needed. Hestia has failed to halt the slide to the left, and has in fact been in the driving seat. I see zero possibility of it being corrected, but at the very least an autopsy would be an extremely useful enterprise.

Starting with Moldbug, I don’t see how any of Moldbug’s UR is anything other than an extension and elaboration of the work of Bertrand De Jouvenel primarily, followed by additional supplementation by the observations of Thomas Carlyle and Caroll Quigley. All of these thinkers, as well as the rest of the ocean of literature that went into UR all retain a basic underlying function in that they augment the central observation of Jouvenel. This observation puts everything else on a specific footing, this being that divided sovereignty is a solecism, and that what actually occurs is that the central power engages in individualisation, destruction of opposing power centres, and general destruction of society in a process of civil war, the symptom of which we see as the left and the right.

This process is not guided by design, but by the inherent logic of the role of power in a position of insecurity. Direct attacking of opposing power centres would be civil war; attacking by promoting a third party isn’t. The medieval system was the incubator, and once it reached a sufficient point, the failure of the monarchs to deal with it lead to their demise, and the process continued in the form of what is termed the Cathedral. The birth of the modern state in the French Revolution is where Tocqueville (and De Maistre) saw this clearly, and this is where Jouvenel obtained the insight. Any criticism of Moldbug, and attempts to “overcome” him will need to deal with this, otherwise they are not actually understanding his point at all.

The upshot of all this is that liberalism, classical liberalism, or any other form of liberalism is irreducible from the high-low mechanism as described by De Jouvenel. It is the great con of liberalism that this liberalising is trumpeted as being a freeing from government, which then results in levels of government which become ever greater, and evermore destructive. Romanticism, wishful thinking and failing to be clear headed and a realist results in this being missed.

Classical liberalism is high-low when a great deal of civilisation relative to now was present, the mechanism went way past that a long time ago, and now we have the full rotten flowering of the individualising effect of this process. To dress this up as something mystical or something too difficult to comprehend is to avert your eyes from the horror of the situation in favour of delusion. The hidden hand of power has to be faced, and delusions of individuals freeing themselves has to be shed. It is fantasy in the liberal tradition.

Either this mechanism is accepted as true- and it has significant predictive and explanatory power- or it is denied, and a strong case is made for denying it. If it is accepted, then the spread of ideas, and the movement of society is comprehensible as a symptom of this logical sequence of actions, and society is seen as an engineering and structural problem.

RF – Dugin mind meld


Here ->

Modernity and liberalim = Satanism in the theology of the west.

Fascism and Communism = attempts to react against liberalism’s slow death march in the name of nation and class.

Liberalism will destroy everything, and cannot create. Modernity is done. It is pure destruction.

Dugin’s only problem is he can’t explain why it happened. Moldbug did based on De Jouvenel.

Dugin gets it to a point…

Really fascinating reading from Dugin:

“Ideologically, the problem is liberalism which is imposed on Europe and the rest of humanity by the Anglo-Saxon world as the only unique and official ideology. Liberalism affirms only the individual identity and prohibits any kind of collective or organic identities. Thus, step by step, liberalism refuses religion, nation, gender, and belongingness in general in order to set the individual completely free from any kind of holism.”


“The final step in the development of liberalism will be the negation of the human identity as a collective one at all. Thus, trans-humanism will be welcomed as part of the liberal agenda for tomorrow. cough, cough.

Then he gets it even more:

“We need to combat liberalism, refuse it, and deconstruct it entirely. At the same time, we need to do so not in the name of just class (as in Marxism) or in the name of the nation or race (as in fascism)”

and then even more:


Economically, the problem is in financial capitalism pretending to have overcome the sector of productive industry in favor of stock market technology. Such capitalism is monopolistic and creates bubbles instead of developing economic infrastructure. Such an economy is based on financial speculation (of the G. Soros type) and clings to the illusion of infinite growth. This contradicts reality. The middle class is not growing any more and the growth of financial markets does not correspond to the growth of the actual productive sector. Giving all the attention to financial institutions and promoting the outsourcing of the productive sector to third world countries over the course of globalization is the way to the abyss. The first waves of the crisis have already passed, but new waves will be here soon. The economic collapse of the southern European countries like Greece and, in the near future Italy and Spain, is just the tip of the iceberg of an immense catastrophe. European unity is based on the full acceptance of this logic of financial capitalism. Yet now only Germany struggles to keep the economy in touch with industrial realities, refusing to embark on the train into nothingness. This is the reason for the anti-German hysterics in Europe and the US. The German economy may be the last productive economy, while the others are already virtual economies.

Infinite growth is but a liberal illusion. The fall of the middle class is the harsh reality at hand. The way out of this is a complete revision of the myths of financial capitalism.”

The only thing he doesn’t get is the structural nature of this in the form of unsecured and divided “sovereign” structures.

Middle weaponisation is Libertarianism

Rothbard’s essay ‘What is right –wing populism’ is very interesting in that it demonstrates an understanding the high-low mechanism of De Jouvenel, yet maintains a hard core liberal interpretation in which self interest is the key guide for the motivation of the behavior of the constituent parts. Rothbard states it as clearly as he possibly could:

“The reality of the current system is that it constitutes an unholy alliance of “corporate liberal” Big Business and media elites, who, through big government, have privileged and caused to rise up a parasitic Underclass, who, among them all, are looting and oppressing the bulk of the middle and working classes in America. Therefore, the proper strategy of libertarians and paleos is a strategy of “right-wing populism,” that is: to expose and denounce this unholy alliance, and to call for getting this preppie-underclass-liberal media alliance off the backs of the rest of us: the middle and working classes.”

Which is preceded by the following:

“The basic right-wing populist insight is that we live in a statist country and a statist world dominated by a ruling elite, consisting of a coalition of Big Government, Big Business, and various influential special interest groups. More specifically, the old America of individual liberty, private property, and minimal government has been replaced by a coalition of politicians and bureaucrats allied with, and even dominated by, powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites (e.g., the Rockefellers, the Trilateralists); and the New Class of technocrats and intellectuals, including Ivy League academics and media elites, who constitute the opinion-moulding class in society.”

This is all correct to a point, but in all of it there is an assumption regarding the elite that they are cynical and manipulative, and that the presence of “powerful corporate and Old Money financial elites” is a symptom of their parasitism. Reading what they wrote and looking at what they did, this is completely wrong, and De Jouvenel realised this, and Moldbug realised this. Rothbard’s seeking of alliance with every ‘middle’ he could finds makes total sense in relation to the De Jouvenelian analysis, but it is a libertarian response, it is the promotion of anarchy and the rejection of the state, and it is doomed to disaster as Moldbug notes in one of his best post:

“The true rulers of our country are the professors, the journalists, the mandarins. Any feeble twitch of resistance from the continent squirming in their talons is promptly magnified, through these exquisitely sensitive and powerful information organs, into the most hideous and awful oppression.”

If the high is utterly, utterly all powerful, then weaponising the middle in conflict has one outcome –you are going to get diversified, multiculturalised and toleranced up the ass. The only solution is to take side with the state on different terms. Where De jouvenel, Rothbard and middle weaponisers go left, the reactionary goes… forward (there is no right in a reactionary society, just as there is no left – it’s over.)

The only solution is a reset, and a clean out of the whole thing, it needs shutting down as orderly as possible and a new sovereign structure which is “responsible to no one but God or the Devil” needs to be set up. The structure is run by a:

“a dictator – a single man or woman, who wields absolute and undivided authority. And is not afraid to use it. Of course, our dictator must be prudent. Here is our shortening of the way to prudent government: a prudent dictator. Some things are just simple.

After antiquity, the towering figure in classical political thought is Machiavelli. So don’t take it from me. Take it from the Discourses on Livy:
But we must take it as a rule to which there are very few if any exceptions, that no commonwealth or kingdom ever has salutary institutions given it from the first or has its institutions recast in an entirely new mould, unless by a single person. On the contrary, it must be from one man that it receives its institutions at first, and upon one man that all similar reconstruction must depend. For this reason the wise founder of a commonwealth who seeks to benefit not himself only, or the line of his descendants, but his State and country, must endeavour to acquire an absolute and undivided authority.

Ie, if you want to reboot, you need a dictator. Do Californians want a New California? Then they need to get it together, strap on a pair of balls and hire themselves adictator.

Or if you cling to our modern professors, ponder the oxymoron of phronetic social science. As I suspect Professor Flyvbjerg is aware, there is one fast path to phronesis (ie, prudence): a phronetic dictator. Certainly few phronetic committees, processes, “sciences,” etc, are known to history. Thus we might describe dictatorship as the auteur theory of government.”

That man Aristotle keeps appearing. Also, as an aside, prudence does not mean libertarianism and free trade:

Fourth, you’ll note that libertarianism is a sort of formula for government. To the orthodox believer, whatever the question, free trade is always the answer. I will buy “generally,” but I will not buy “always.” Prudence does conflict with libertarianism, and prudence must win.”

The dictator:

“is a dictator, not a clerk. She is responsible to the Foundation, to her own conscience, and to no one else’s rules or regulations. This is the whole point of sovereignty.”

The dictator as such while not immune to elemental forces, is not beneath the economy to which the charge of elemental force is ascribed by libertarians and liberals. And, as Moldbug even spells out, the idea of the CEO and sov corp is primarily a case of metaphor:

“Note that we could use a euphemism. We could say that California needs a “CEO,” or that it should be “run like a startup,” or that it should report to a “single plenary administrator.” All of these would mean exactly the same thing. But this is where you get into creepy, because you’re sugaring the pill. A dictator is a dictator. You have to just suck it up and take the punch. California needs a dictator – a prudent, responsible dictator, of course.”

Having achieved the creation of a dictatorship (sorry CEO sov corp…) the allowance of liberty can be made because the high (the dictatorship) is not in any way in conflict with society. The battle is over, there is no right and left in the system:

“But freedom is not a function of “rights.” (It is certainly not a function of your political power.) It is a function of your actual personal independence. Similarly, privacy (which is a form of freedom) is a function of your actual personal security. If the Dictator will not tell you what to do, if she will not snoop into your desk drawer or your car or your computer, in what sense is it an injury to you that she could tell you what to do, she could snoop? Isn’t your skin a little thin?

Thus we see the paradox of the Dictatorship: freedom achieved through authority. This is a paradox quite alien to Anglo-American political thought, but well-known in the East. “Confucius compares a virtuous prince to the North Pole in which he finds himself: he does not move, and everything turns around him.” Our Dictator is of course that virtuous prince – or princess.

This simple principle of wu wei is the instinctive spirit behind libertarianism. Once we understand it as the pinnacle of the sovereign’s pyramid of needs, we can see the easy but fatal mistake the libertarian makes.

Quite simply, (policy) libertarians mistake disorder for freedom. They believe it is possible to make government smaller, and achieve wu wei, by weakening and dividing sovereign authority.

While this is in some senses true – disorder can certainly be quite a liberating experience – it never lasts. In the short term there can be such a thing as benign anarchy, but in the long term never. And since power is easy to divide, but hard to unify, the long-term result is always more duplication, less unity of authority and responsibility, and a bigger, nastier government. Thus the attempt to quash the monstrous Megatherions is the exact food on which they thrive.

Weaponising the middle is a foolish path, and it is libertarianism.

The financial ends of sov corp

Moldbug in using the idea of sov corp and the premise of financial profit and capital accumulation as an overall purpose for the state took his political theory into an area which has been closed off by Liberalism. This can of worms works along the lines of the following simple premise: I (or any agent within society) act in relation to agent B, but both of our actions have to be orientated to the profitability of the sov corp. There are therefore at least three loci in this: agent A, agent B and the sovereign organisation. The number of agents may go on indefinitely, but the one constant is the sovereign organisation. This opens up into a realm of political thinking which is alien to modernity.

Once this avenue of thinking is opened up, then  you enter into rejection of liberalism, rejection of economics above all else, rejection of self governance and individual sovereignty, rejection of universalism and rejection of relativism etc.

Moldbug reached this through the prism of Austrian economics, which lends some credence to Barghest’s claims here that economics is a avenue through which communication can occur (though I have serious reservation about vast tracts of that post.) But is this usage of finance as a stand in for the ultimate purpose of the state sufficient? It certainly helps to lead one towards the acceptance of the need for a state with a direction, as can be seen here, here and here but it is limited, and is not compelling for libertarians. The retaining of Liberal anthropology allows for them to remain in fantasy land, and then regression to utopian free trade-ism.

So, is the profit motive of the sov corp a sufficient organizing principle within which the actions of those who make up the society of the sov corp can have coherence? I do not think it is at all, but  making the leap to rejecting the liberal concept of the state as a self effacing safe zone provider for “enlightened self interest,” makes this initial thought process invaluable. All actions as noted by Aristotle long ago, are subsumed by the political, the Enlightenment rejection of this has been an unmitigated disaster.

Rejection of this thought process leads to a regression to Libertarianism and all of the errors of liberalism. Acceptance of this process leads to necessary rejection of vast tracts of liberalism which clearly make no sense, and leads us into exotic areas in which true progress in political theory can move forward.

MacIntyre has been following this process of thought from the angle of ethics, noting that relativism and universalism are concepts which make sense only from the concept of the Enlightenment project to base ethics and morality on grounds which are not based on specific political structures, and without reference to a reality to which the success, or failure of traditions such as Liberalism et al can be measured. For example, whilst different tradition may approach the issue of womens place in society in differing ways, they can be judged against each other by how they succeed in their claims by their own logic. Has Liberalism achieved its claims? if no, then this sets off an epistemology crisis for that tradition, and justifies its alteration or rejection for another tradition.

As I quoted in this post, this is an Aristotlean (and Thomistic) position, in which the actions of those in society are only comprehensible in relation to their ends, and these ends are only comprehensible in relation to the greater ends these serve. Remove the ultimate end of the state, and you have an equation which keeps pumping out an error message.

Does this now make sense?


Finding new ground

Libertarians are showing no sign of making the leap to realizing that a state is need for liberty, and are stuck in auto-pilot. There is no convergence coming from this angle. This is not that surprising, as libertarians are just aggressively anti-state, which in an era of progressive governance is understandable, but there is no sign of an intellectual leap to Carlyle inspired reaction. The anarchism, anarcho-capitalism and general rabid individualism will be clung to. Even when faced with the crushing insights of De Jouvenel, one of their best (Hoppe) did not make the leap. It is not happening. Leave them to irrelevance and confused cheer leading for that individualism which has been used by unsecure power as a weapon against society, and leave them to the lauding of Randian supermen oligarchs who are channeling their money into promoting all of the degeneracy through donations and foundations.

This leaves open the question of where a possible intellectual base can be found for reactionary development, and this must surely come from a section of the left which does not reject encephalisation. This raises the question of where on the left?, and could a convergence on reactionary thinking on the role of the state come about? The precedence for this appears to be the convergence of socialism, nationalism and anarcho-sydicalism which led to the formation of Fascism.

Libertarianism is a dead end.

Hoppe is not Moldbug

This is Hans-Hermann Hoppe, and here he is discussing De Jouvenel’s insights in relation to his criticisms of democracy. It is deeply flawed, full of giant holes, and ultimately advocates liberalism/ anarchism. It is totally in line with neoreaction.

This is Moldbug, and here he is discussing the very same points, and working from the same De Jouvenelian influence as Hoppe, and rejecting Hoppe in favour of not advocating freedom of the middle powers, aka anarchism:

“There is actually a very easy means by which a Misesian can go past libertarianism. The means has a name: Hans-Hermann Hoppe. Professor Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed is still one of the best anti-democracy tracts I’ve read, and it was most certainly the first. Professor Hoppe is no Mises, perhaps even no Rothbard, but he is certainly the leading Rothbardian scholar of the post-Rothbard era.

To remain within the Newtonian envelope, Professor Hoppe executes a stylish double-axel of libertarian ketman:

Despite the comparatively favorable portrait presented of monarchy, I am not a monarchist and the following is not a defense of monarchy. Instead, the position taken toward monarchy is this: If one must have a state, defined as an agency that exercises a compulsory territorial monopoly of ultimate decision-making (jurisdiction) and of taxation, then it is economically and ethically advantageous to choose monarchy over democracy. But this leaves the question open whether or not a state is necessary, i.e., if there exists an alternative to both, monarchy and democracy. History again cannot provide an answer to this question.

History also cannot provide an answer to the question of whether there are any blue dragons on Neptune – only that none, so far, have been observed.

It can also tell us that our species has been operating on the basis of geographic monopolies of sovereignty for roughly the last 56 million years, ie, since the first tree-rat pissed on the first tree-branch. Perhaps we could hire some chimpanzees to experiment with multiple, overlapping protection agencies, and get back to us on that. Or we could hire the blue dragons from Neptune.

Again, we see anarchism – the pure toxin of chaos – popping up on the right. Why is that? Does it make the right more effective, or less effective? Is an anarchist right more, or less, likely to prevail, than a non-anarchist right? Will it do better, or worse, once in office?

Well, if we generalize to the history of the leftist right – that is, the right perverted to wield the weapons of the left – what we see is… well… Hitler. Left-flavored rightism is fascism. And easily recognizable as such. Fascism, in 2010, is not without enemies. So (a) it probably doesn’t work, and (b) if it works, it produces… Hitler.

Now, a little anarchism does not make Professor Hoppe into Hitler. What it does, however, is to make him much less effective. It entirely dissuades him from leaving the envelope and exploring this strange Einsteinian area, royalism. Instead, he falls back on Rothbard’s blue dragons from Neptune – competing protection agencies. We shall have neither democracy, nor anything else!”

This is not in line with neoreaction.