Normalcy, and especially the great upholders of order who go beyond normalcy, must be ruthlessly subjugated to degeneracy and disorder. This is the creed of our class engineers. One of my favorite quotes is this astute observation from Italian political philosopher and economist, Vilfredo Pareto:
“Equality is related to the direct interests of individuals who are bent on escaping certain inequalities not in their favor, and setting up new inequalities that will be in their favor, this latter being their chief concern.”
Many make the mistake of thinking that our current decline and ever-spiraling civilizational death is because of the practical implications of the egalitarian ideology, the leveling of the ancient hierarchical society. Were it only that simple, we might actually have some hope of correcting this error before it consumes our world completely. The egalitarian ideology, so integral to the Cult of Progress and its physical manifestation in what many call the ‘Cathedral,’ does not result in an egalitarian society, any more than Marxism resulted in universal equality for citizens of the Soviet Union.
Put into practice, this ideology creates something much worse. Almost as if the whole of Western civilization has capsized, we find that instead of flattening hierarchy, Modernity in fact rotates hierarchy. Those who once ruled our unofficial caste system, the natural Brahmins and Kshatriyas (priests and warriors) have been replaced. The roles remain the same in general practice, but the spiritual constitution of those filling the roles has been completely turned on its head. Today it is the Harijans, the Pariahs, the Untouchables who wear the vestments of priests and particularly wield the enforcement of law through force.
You had better believe you are under a hierarchy. What should truly shock you is how the worst and most unstable elements sit at its peak. No, they don’t wear the finery and regalia, or bear the impressive titles of the ruling castes of bygone eras. After all, they don’t need your respect or awe (that can all go to the supporting castes of smug scientists and vapid celebrities). All that the malicious snowflakes setting policy require from you is your sympathy for their fraudulent plight, and your fear of speaking out against their protected status.
I wish to reproduce in paraphrase a comment that I read recently posted on the Canadian online publication ‘The Globe And Mail‘, specifically relating to the controversial speaking tour of popular neomasculinist author Roosh V. The comment from Helen I. Scott is a rare, candid display of this faux-hierarchical principle of Modernity in action.
“It’s easy to ignore/laugh at/dismiss a guy with a knife (Roosh) when you’re the one holding the gun (the privileged never-been-raped among us who say “just ignore him”). […] But anyone who is vulnerable (women, children, LGBTQ etc…) deserves the comfort of having society give at least lip-service affirmation (through twitter, “moral outrage” etc…) that it is wrong and that we don’t actually believe that rape is ok. […] Denouncing t-shirts, calling out harassers, and expressing moral outrage at hate speech is categorized as mob rule by some – I prefer to call it direct democracy – where everyone has a voice and (via social media) a relatively equal platform. […].”
To make a factual correction, the ‘direct democracy’ referred to here has also included physical assault, an attempted visa ban, doxxings, false rape threats, and ‘swatting’. However the reason I am presenting this is to show how people who are apparently in this ‘privileged’ group feel about those of the professional victim class. Like so many words twisted by our Modern lexiconographers, ‘privileged’ actually translates as ‘Sudras (peasants) – and deserving of it!’.
What you’ll find if you look into those accused of being ‘privileged’ in our day and age is that they are in fact despised by those with power. Not as badly as the avowed racists, sexists, and homophobes of course, but limited in potential by their own tragically unnoticed bigotry. It seems that Ms. Scott is likely one of these such people, and thanks to remarkable Cathedral brainwashing, she defends her betters with gusto.
In practical terms, the ‘privileged’ are below the ‘vulnerable’. See how language works here on Sesame Street? Could it be any more clear, the direction of this hierarchy, when the commenter actually declares that the ‘privileged’ owe tribute to the ‘vulnerable’ in the form of “at least lip-service affirmation”–in other words, a humiliating declaration of inferiority and fealty. In order to appease this new ruling caste, all of us must flagellate ourselves for our wickedness. If anyone steps out of line to challenge this insanity, then direct democracy must be rallied to crush them, critics crying hypocrisy be damned. It is just too easy for the Canadian people to dismiss hateful bigots, without realizing how damaging they truly are to the highest and most exalted individuals. A dereliction of duty takes place when we fail to pay the tribute to our cultural wardens in the form of an open pledge of loyalty to the new order and brutality towards its enemies.
I suppose the genius of this hierarchy is it creates a kind of victimhood optical illusion to fool the common people into thinking that, even while they are acting as if the ‘vulnerable’ are above them, the reality is that such groups, be they victims of imaginary college campus rape, ethnic minorities, or the LGBTBBQ cartel, are actually the lowly oppressed class who should be defended out of charity. It’s a remarkable, rebellion-proof strategy. How can the people rebel against that which they don’t even realize is ruling over them?
The term ‘kakistocracy’ comes from the root words kákisto (worst) and cratia (rule). While Modern governments take on many different representative forms, this word describes all of them on the meta and hierarchical-descriptive level. All of them have reached or are reaching (though delayed in some circumstances) a ‘Rule of the Worst’. The elements of human society that were yesterday consigned to the gutter (liars, cowards, deviants, and foreign bandits) today have more safeguards around them than any Pope in history.
A slavish devotion by the self-harming majority means there is no need for a 24/7 detachment of Swiss Guard, however. All potential threats to the newly installed hierarchy will be handled by ‘direct democracy.’ Undoubtedly the most tragic element of this is that unwittingly, by serving the will of the worst and catering to their every parasitic whim and wish, the laypeople of Western civilization who thresh the crop, man the industries, tend to the sick, and generate the vast capital that keeps society ticking over, are in fact furnishing their own tomb in many respects. We can save very few of them. But let us hope that when this tomb is finally sealed, those who today are pretenders to the glory of the high castes, are sealed inside as well, to rot with the masses they so vindictively tricked with their legacy of deception.
Facing an enemy defined as “The elements of human society that were yesterday consigned to the gutter (liars, cowards, deviants, and foreign bandits)” the foreign bandit being particularly apt..facing this your course is: >> We can save very few of the decent people. <<
My you surrender to quite a motley bunch. Fags, Hags, Halfwit Blacks, foreign adventurers?
Who no won't be sealed up in the mass tomb for they never are….
Really. It's obvious you don't want to hear the Aragon at the Black Gates speech…but seriously? The modern Left?
Who have no fans among the police, military nor their loyalty…but why should they do dirty work for people who quit so easy?
If you'd surrender to that you're quite hopeless. The people aren't, not at all.
Alas, you seem to subscribe to populist theory, that the current order will be overturned by ‘the people’. I have little faith in them to be honest. This isn’t hopeless at all, on the contrary, its perfectly in line with history. The masses are a poor tool. Always have hope, but put it in things that are worthy of that hope.
You mistake this for a declaration of surrender, it isn’t. The commitment to save a few is a lofty goal. Entropy has its end, and the end is unavoidable mass suffering and death. As has been the common Reactionary outlook, the system cannot be destroyed from the outside, it can only destroy itself, inevitably so in fact. The question is, who is left standing when the smoke clears?
Fight, fight, and fight again. This is good for the soul, but don’t expect to prevail against the megalithic forces of the enemy at this time. Remember…
“The essential thing is not to let oneself be impressed by the omnipotence and apparent triumph of the forces of the epoch. These forces, devoid of connection with any higher principle, are in fact on a short chain. One should not become fixated on the present and on things at hand, but keep in view the conditions that may come about in the future.”
All in good time.
As for the martial forces you mention, I’d disagree and say most have a complete loyalty to their masters. The French military wouldn’t dream of doing what the Thai military has done. Your concern for a warrior caste is very apt, but Pinochets are a rare breed. A warrior caste has to be built. And I think you’d agree that Modern society is churning out all the raw material that Reaction would need to build such a caste, disaffected and disenfranchised men. I maintain however, they will be relatively few in number. It’s a good thing then, as history shows, that a few good men is all it takes.
The fags, hags, halfwit blacks and foreign adventurers aren’t in charge. They are merely the tools of those in charge. The ones in charge are quite wealthy, powerful and intelligent. It makes no sense to underestimate them, after all, they’ve been winning for more than a century.
Supply and demand.
When the opiates wear off and the markets are in free fall, and you have scores of young men and their families being told they’re not gonna get the life they were promised, it will make a Pinochet that much more likely to materialize. Plus let’s assume #BlackLivesMatter is still burning our cities to the ground, and Feminism Inc tells these miserable, single/divorced, and unemployed young white men how priviliged they are. Etc etc. when a Pinochet is demanded, we just may find a Pinochet is supplied.
Just be careful what you wish for…
Alas I subscribe to reality. Neither as Glorious or as Grim as adults in role playing adventures of intellect.
The Military answers to it’s Masters….??
What Master’s do you refer to? The ones our elites and academia give us, or the hacks the voters have to choose from?
The American Military and for that matter the entire government at every level have as “Masters” their Oath to the Constitution. From President to Private and for that matter every Civil Servant. The State or Local Employees add their own Constitutions to the Sworn Oath. That and the Laws are our Masters. The Laws of course are core to the problem of our present insane and evil rulers, it’s the trick they hold all of us and not just the armed forces and police by…for becoming a lawbreaker a huge step. As is rule of men on horseback.
In real life what you’re asking for has irrevocable consequences and opens the door to wide open abuses, atrocities and endless strife. Doesn’t mean it won’t happen or that it isn’t the choice that must be made, it means serious men who do things don’t enter into such conversations lightly and not at all with those who are willing to risk nothing. <<<
Also very problematic but we're getting into reality. We shan't trouble our assumed Lord and LARP-ships with such pettifoggery.
======================
***This Lofty Florid pose with many classical references strikes familiar historical notes.
Such florid and ultimately going nowhere but the putting on of classical and indeed semi-divine airs was a criticism of the Jacobins and the National Assembly.
Truly this Moldbug fellow will be giggling himself silly in Tel Aviv while we're running round tearing each others heads off. He'll be the Toast of the Town.
I’d say it was more ‘LARP’-ish to be counting on some glorious revolution to turn the tide without the occurrence of some devastating event. I’m trying to be brutally realistic about it. Even if America had a Pinochet, is he going to undo the entire foundations of the country, which are flawed from the beginning? Is he going to abolish Liberalism permanently? I doubt it.
As for risk, why would anybody risk the most major of things at a time when the enemy is at strength, especially considering the enemy is on a terminal decline and will be much weaker in the future? If you have a real proposal for taking down the ‘Cathedral’ tomorrow then I’m sure everyone would love to hear it.
“The American Military and for that matter the entire government at every level have as “Masters” their Oath to the Constitution.”
If this was the case, there would have been a coup a long time ago. The entire present government is built on a string of constitutional contortions and law-breaking for ideological expediency and financial gain.
I’ll take LARPy earnestness over cowardly cynicism any day of the week.
So, I’m confused as to whether I’m ‘LARP-ing’ or not. If you have a planned coup that you’ll be undertaking soon with great bravery, then please outline how this will work. I’m sure your numerous connections in high level military circles will be of massive benefit to this undertaking, and democracy will be dead by Christmas.
I don’t see any cynicism in what I predict. I have predicted eventual victory, I just believe that many, many, many people will have to die to get there. A virtual wasteland will have to emerge. I don’t have a problem with that.
It’s of course very easy to call an analysis of the actual state of play ‘cowardly’ when you have produced virtually nothing with regards to any concrete proposals. To refute the view of entropic decline to destruction which was forwarded by Guénon, Evola, Laliberte, etc. you have to demonstrate some method by which you will turn the tide where almost 300 years of men failed. I’m sure you’ll be able to do so, and I look forward to it.
My comment was to vxxc2014, who accused you (and the readers in general) of being LARPy and says Moldbug will be laughing at us in Tel Avv. That’s why it was nested under his comment not yours.
But while I got ya,
“without the occurrence of some devastating event” It doesn’t have to be devastating in the terms of some distinct event. A Japan style “lost decade” would do wonders for the already brewing undercurrent of faschism that’s been brewing and already showed it’s beginnings of ability to mobilize in things as early as the tea party and the border militia men. And that’s assuming a lot more economic stability than I think is in store for us. The Fed’s magic potions are going to have to cause the hangover some time, and again EVEN THAT is just the domestic based problems we created our selves. Something like misbehavior from China could throw everything in a real tailspin. Remember Sadam Hussein’s threat to the petro dollar was enough to cause serious fear in American financial policy advisors and may have been the biggest real reason we took out Sadam.
We still don’t know what caused WWI. It was just some very dry conditions and a little spark. Even if the Heebs did have a more significant impact than the History Books (TM) general state, I would argue they were just one more piece of kindling.
It’s fair to say that a traumatic rather than devastating event would cause havoc, but with the debts where they stand, and the stocks going crazier than ever before, coupled with rising terrorist threats, racial balkanization, mistrust, and of course the nature of an increasingly interconnected world, a traumatic even in one place is likely to domino into mass devastation. Let’s remember, in the last financial crisis, nobody even exited the Euro. It was minor. Imagine a scenario where banks all over the world have to block off access to their customer’s money, completely. Not just for a day or two, but to literally be mandated to seize the assets and prevent people withdrawing. The chaotic effects of such a countermeasure would be whole cities reduced to running civil wars with the police.
At some point, the governments of the West will have to completely do away with their ‘principles’ and introduce totalitarianism just to keep the elite in power. This will be the final nail in their coffin.
I’m genuinely not trying to stir the pot here, but wouldn’t the term “Synagogue” be much more accurate and much more relevant than the term “Cathedral”? I’m new here, so please feel free to law down the law and let me know what the rules of polite discourse in NRx are and if certain topics are off limits.
It’s a fair criticism and one that has been leveled several times before. I don’t use the term very often myself, almost exclusively in fact for conversing with neoreactionaries. I’d leave such terminological decisions up to the heads of the Nrx movement, since it is ‘their’ word. Hadley Bishop might have something to say on this score.
Why not call progressive establishment Fluxus. Far more descriptive. Fluxus was a Dada movement in the 50s. It implies nihilism, “change,” chaos, emptiness and irony.
Cathedral is very misleading.
Synogogues are local largely autocephalous structures and not well at all coordinated with the Center of Jewry, which (as you now note from me suggesting it) doesn’t exist. Such an image is precisely the opposite of what we are trying to convey by term Cathedral.
Every major college in America has an African American studies department.
Every
Did someone order it? If so, do you think compliance would be nearly as uniformly high? Here there is almost perfect coordination. Certainly evidence of a conspiracy, yet there are few if any conspirators, and certainly none with the power to enforce compliance. And yet compliance is enforced. That, and not everyone’s pet gripe, is the Cathedral.
You mention conspiracy, but what I think you ignore is the fact that where interests align, no conventional conspiracy need obtain. If two people on opposite sides of the globe share the same set of interests and have access to the same pool of information, they never need to meet, speak or even know of each other’s existence in order to act in unison toward a shared goal. You’re wanting to make overt “conspiracy” the issue, but in reality the issue is solely shared interest, and more precisely, shared perceived interest. And where perceived interests align, overt conspiracy is not only not necessary, it is risky. To that extent, there doesn’t need to be any central administration of, say, Jewish organization (“the Synagogue”) in order for perceived Jewish interests to be pursued with a ruthless singularity of vision. The same applies to any other group that has a set of shared perceived interests, not just Jews.
The function of reproduction carries with it not only direct modifications of the body and mind, but a whole set of social institutions, for the existence of which social institutions and habits are necessary in man.