Misunderstanding Passivism

The debate on Passivism is largely pointless because next to no-one has grasped the underlying premises that inform the concept.  The central point is that the left is mere anarchy; indiscriminate anarchy which has no central brain. This is only comprehensible from a De Jouvenelian left-right concept. If you don’t understand this, then you don’t understand the concept. This is a point I have been trying to drive home, but it doesn’t seem to stick. It really doesn’t seem to stick. Central power in an unsecure position is lacking intelligence, as such, it is possible to act in such a way that this entity which lacks cephalisation can be avoided.

To make things worse, this un-cephalised entity acts aggressively against certain things that are threats to its power. The brown scare, racism, anything non-democratic, anything which raises the prospect of economic organisation, militarism etc basically, anything which is a threat to the market, and anything which is a threat to liberalism. Anything which stands between the central power and the liberated individual will be chewed up and attacked. If your tactic is to feed this mechanism, then you are beyond stupid.

There is a bizarre failure to see this mechanism, and instead to substitute a strange conception of how things work which seems to revolve around convincing people the truth, or encouraging people to be brave or something, which I sense is premised on liberal anthropology. Every man a sovereign individual, or something, I guess. I don’t know, but either way it is toxic.

I guess, I am saying that attempts to explain or understand Moldbug without the underlying De Jouvenalian base are at best misguided, and at worst subversive.