True to its name, the book is a bare-bones introduction to the arguments against democracy, rooted in a firmly reactionary frame. Detractors almost immediately complained that Anissimov was just rehashing the arguments against democracy articulated by the Austrian School economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe in his magnum opus Democracy: The God That Failed (see here, and I [and I imagine the opinion would be unanimous among neoreactionaries] cannot recommend the book enough). Similarities notwithstanding, Anissimov also introduces a number of more interesting additions to the case against democracy, and puts Hoppe’s economic arguments in their proper place in a [neo]reactionary perspective, and also categorizes alternatives to democracy and their relations with it and each other. It is important to remember that Hoppe was not a monarchist himself, but only considered monarchy a lesser evil compared to democracy. Hoppe’s preferred form of human political organization, in an ideal world, would have been anarcho-capitalism.

Using Hoppe’s paradigm, a neoreactionary differentiates himself from libertarians, anarcho-capitalists and faithful believers in the democracy by rejecting democracy on Hoppe’s (and Anissimov’s) grounds, and then subsequently rejecting anarcho-capitalism, for whatever reason. The reasons for rejecting anarcho-capitalism might differ, and might be the very reason neoreaction conceives of itself as a trichotomy of blood-and-soil ethnonationalists, throne-and-altar theonomists and hyper-capitalist techno-commercialists. But I digress. The important take-away is that Anissimov has appropriately reframed Hoppe’s arguments as a reactionary should, and thus put the economic arguments against democracy in their appropriate context along with a series of others based on psychology, history, genetics, etc. I am not the first to notice that Anissimov is doing more formulating than original thinking, but I am also the last person to condemn some good formulating — all new ideas are old ideas after all, but that just goes to show the power of formulation.

Anissimov touches on a lot of fertile ground ripe for intellectual cultivation, although their details are deliberately elided in the interest of brevity. In just one chapter, we consider the “problem of civilization” from the viewpoints of chimpanzee gangs, human hunter-gatherers, early Sumeria and the proto-Greek Indo-Europeans and their culture of chariot-riding warrior-chieftains. I’m sure Anissimov realizes each one of these topics could easily fill up a thick tome’s worth of neoreactionary guiding, especially the last one. If it was the particularities of the proto-Greeks and their culture that gave rise to Western civilization as we know it, I’d love to see a long-view study of Western civilization since antiquity and how well it has done with regards to conserving this Ur-culture.

Anissimov also touches on the “Putnam argument” against democracy (i.e. based on Robert Putnam’s research that found that “diversity” reduces social capital) and various other trains of thought relatively palatable to the modern liberal mind. Other examples include the “cognitive bias argument,” that voters are influenced by too many unalterable biases to make good decisions on average, as well as the “polarization argument,” that democracy encourages political polarization and increasingly intrudes into non-political spheres of life. Bringing up the American Founding Fathers’ well-documented aversion to democracy and their blunt elitism is another classic anti-democratic spiel, although it probably serves more to reassure neoreactionaries of their sanity than convince — ahem — “democracy enthusiasts” of the illegitimacy of their favored political system, seeing as most of them have probably been taught by now that the Founding Fathers were slave-owning, old white bigots who ought to be summarily dismissed and ignored insofar as they aren’t overthrowing an even-more-incorrigible old white bigot like the King of England. But hey, no one said this was easy.

Anissimov spends a fair amount of time reiterating Hoppe et al.’s libertarian economic arguments against democracy, and also goes into a fairly long tangent on democracy’s relations to GDP (gross domestic product) and income inequality. Following the latter, he also goes on an even more tangential rant on why income inequality is not inherently wrong. This part of the guide felt quite out-of-place compared to the rest, since it went on too long for what was comparatively a minor issue, and especially one so terribly based in progressive propaganda, coming as it does straight from the ramen-infested bowels of Occupy Wall Street. Anissimov definitely forgot for whom he was writing his book at times — yes, inequality is a fact of nature that will be reflected in society; neoreactionaries do not need persuasion of this fact!

All in all, Anissimov accomplished what he set out to do. Many of his assertions and much of his evidence could be turned into full-length books in and of themselves, and I would advise any intellectual entrepreneurs to take note of this fact. Anissimov critiques democracy, but as much as he critiques democracy, he critiques the average voter, the dogma of equality and modern culture itself. If this was a guide, it was a guide to unexplored territories, beckoning to the bold.

The post Yuray Reviews Anissimov’s Guide for Neoreactionaries appeared first on Social Matter.

Hello. I’m a Russian occupier. It is my profession. Historically, it just happened. I once occupied Siberia… I once occupied the Baltic States … I once occupied Central Asia … I once occupied Ukraine … Yes, I’m an occupier, and I’m tired of apologizing for it! I’m an occupier by birthright, an aggressor and a bloodthirsty monster. Be afraid. … All and sundry came to my house: the Turks, the British, the Poles, the Germans, the French — we’ve got enough land, two and a half meters for each and every one of them! Please, understand. I don’t need your hypocritical “freedom.” I don’t need your rotten “democracy.” Everything that you call “Western values” is alien to me. I have other interests. I politely warn you for the last time: don’t mess with me. I build peace, I love peace, but I know how to fight better than anyone else… Sincerely, your Russian occupier.

You can watch the video for yourself. More than 2.3 million views so far. In Russian. Quite a ride.

Can you imagine the American version?

Hello. I’m an American settler. It is my profession. Historically, it just happened. I once occupied North America… I once occupied Alaska … I once occupied Hawaii … I once occupied Cuba … Yes, I’m an occupier, and I’m tired of apologizing for it! I’m an occupier by birthright, an aggressor and a bloodthirsty monster. Be afraid. … All and sundry came to my house: the Redskins, the British, the Mexicans, the Japanese — we’ve got enough land, two and a half meters for each and every one of them!

Mighty racist, innit?

Hello. I’m a British colonizer. It is my profession. Historically, it just happened. I once occupied India… I once occupied Australia … I once occupied Africa … I once occupied Ireland … Yes, I’m an occupier, and I’m tired of apologizing for it! I’m an occupier by birthright, an aggressor and a bloodthirsty monster. Be afraid. … All and sundry came to my house: the Romans, the Normans, the Vikings, the French, the Germans — we’ve got enough land, two and a half meters for each and every one of them!

I can hear Labour-voters crying in agony.

How did it come to this? Why do Russians celebrate their old conquests and justify them with talk of civilization and glory, but Britons and Americans couldn’t even begin to do the same without being denounced as racists, imperialists, etc.? Come to think of it, why did the latter two stop doing what the first is still doing?

Henry Dampier has commented on the differences between [Novo-] Russian and American propaganda before. Limitless American budgets can nevertheless only focus on the “you-you-you.” Join the American army — you’ll benefit. The closest to an organizing principle they can reach is “diversity.” Token black marine. Token female soldier. Token Asian paratrooper. And so forth. White males with hokey ideas about brothers-in-arms dying for the Honor of the Fatherland need not apply. It’ll be more like gender-non-conforming-individuals-in-arms twisting drone-joysticks for the Justice of the Trayvon. Not so in Russia.

Russian diversity.

Russian propaganda for the fighters in Donbass is focused on Donbass and the people protecting it — grizzly white males who like to shoot, smoke and beseech the Lord Jesus Christ. That typically Western, narcissistic, and solipsistic propaganda trend, where a cast of soft-spoken, diverse characters stand and alternately plead with and browbeat the viewer about this-or-that cause they totally stand united for but are nevertheless hopeless about solving without you, before ending with a hashtag — this particular style of propaganda has been found somewhat wanting by the Russians.

One of these Russian occupiers is worth a hundred thousand teary-eyed liberal actors with hashtags.

It goes without saying that a rejection of narcissistic slave-morality propaganda didn’t arise out of nothing. Judging by the video, the Russian view of the West is markedly dim (and rightly so). Western “democracy” means NATO interventions and Guantanamo Bay. Western “freedom” means rule by the vulgar dykes of Pussy Riot and sermons from the fatuous scatologists of Charlie Hebdo. Western “values” mean “Daddy, Papa, and Me.” Enthusiasm for this societal program is not exactly sky-high. You can tell a lot about a people by their propaganda. Russia and the West may look suspiciously similar at times, were one to take just a surface glance at something like fertility rates. And yet the trend lines couldn’t be farther apart.

It’s worth watching this video about Alexei Mozgovoy, separatist leader in Lugansk, ruling his area like a “fiefdom.” (In the West, apparently, we prefer our lawless chieftains to have titles like “Administrative Chief of the ABCDEFG” instead of “Commander.” So long as it’s a bureaucracy committing the barbarism we can call ourselves civilized, I guess.) Vice is not any less biased than any other Western media outlet, and there is a wrenching juxtaposition between how hard the video-creators want you to hate Mr. Mozgovoy and how much perfect sense he is making. Mozgovoy suggests banning women from nightclubs and cafes, and continues:

Despite their behavior, women remain women and you are not allowed to rape them. At the same time, it’s not a bad idea for a society, and for women in particular, to take some steps to raise their morals.

Simon Ostrovsky asks him what problems they have with morality. The same as you have, he responds.

For instance, those young ladies who are in their childbearing age and need to give birth, so that there is no demographic crisis and so on, instead they are ruining their bodies. What kind of mother can she be after she has ruined her body with alcohol and drugs?

Ostrovsky asks some leading questions, trying to establish Mozgovoy’s “people’s courts” as Medieval barbarisms. Ostrovsky, liberal hipster douche, scarf, glasses and all, apparently doesn’t like democracy when the Russians do it. He apparently also forgot that Mozgovoy’s “people’s courts” are the ones replacing the awful “corrupt Russian courts” Westerners wail about, which Mozgovoy points out immediately. You see, America needs to invade Ukraine (and especially Donbass) to get rid of that corrupt Russian system and replace it with a good American system, for the people! Wait, what’s happening? No, don’t let the people! organize their own courts. Stop it! Democracy is bad! I mean–wait, what?

So did uneducated sexist redneck barbarian bigot on the wrong side of history Mr. Mozgovoy execute the poor man unfairly tried by the Putin’s people’s court? Yes! Bomb Russia now! Nope. What happened to your victim, Mr. Mozgovoy?

Nothing. He is alive, but in prison. […] Even though he was sentenced to death, that does not mean that he will be executed the next day. It’s necessary to allow time for an appeal, isn’t it?

Remember that in the Land of the Free, self-defense against a protected minority will get you publicly tarred and feathered like George Zimmerman or Darren Wilson before a trial has even begun. This will put your family in danger, put a price on your head, alienate you from the ruling powers of your homeland and devastate your livelihood. Even suggesting a protected minority might not be all it’s cracked up to be will turn you into a non-person, everything but flatly murdered. People’s courts come in all shapes and sizes. At least the Russian-run ones are concerned with crime and punishment instead of social justice.

Chalk it up to different mentalities.

The post Different Mentalities appeared first on Social Matter.

Response to the shootings by Le Plus cartoonist JM:o

The horrific attacks on Charlie Hebdo  have brought forth a defence of free expression from politicians, journalists, and ordinary citizens. But the outpouring of support is an exception in a broader pattern of events. The French President tries to call for a national unity that seems little more than a distant memory. Satirists across Europe convey their shock and grief – but everyone is rightfully nervous about republishing the Muhammad cartoons which put Charlie Hebdo on the radical Islamist death list. As Foreign Policy magazine and Reason.com have both pointed out, we are not all Charlie Hebdo, and not a few Western outlets once condemned them for using the same freedoms they now defend. FP recalls a victim-blaming Time article written after Charlie Hebdo’s offices were firebombed. Author Bruce Crumley wondered how the common good could possibly be served by “tempting belligerent reaction”. The most disgusting response following the shootings came from a Financial Times writer who accused the magazine of “Muslim-baiting”. Despite generating a negative reaction, these articles seem to reflect the general trend of free speech more accurately than the vigils currently being held across the world. And even with #JeSuisCharlie trending, there is little reason to think that this will change.

As I’ve written elsewhere, the principle of free speech seems to be losing support among up-and-coming Western brahmins. Would the university which forbade students from discussing ideas the student union didn’t like ever allow cartoons attacking protected religions? Charlie Hebdo’s commitment to intellectual freedom is at odds with Harvard leftists who don’t believe that it should extend to violating their social activist forms of “justice”. One wonders how many of the speech codes which at least 60% of American universities now have would have banned it altogether. But is that the whole story? If these trends in academia and media were reversed, would free and open expression be secured? I submit that there is no reason to believe this is true. The key to understanding why lies in the nature of order in diverse societies.

Let’s look at a non-Western state known for being a cultural hub. Singapore is extremely diverse as a country. The three-quarter Chinese majority lives alongside Malays, Indians, and Western expats. English, Mandarin and other Chinese dialects, Malay, and other languages are widely spoken. Buddhist, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, and traditional Chinese beliefs are practiced. Yet Singapore’s stable and orderly society has been carefully engineered by its leaders and comes with tradeoffs. Free speech in Singapore is a very different thing. The constitution sets limits: citizens must respect the judiciary, and threats to racial or religious harmony are dealt with severely. To quote a 2013 report by the Lee Kuan Yew School of Public Policy:

“A person who promotes ill-will and hostility between different races or classes of the population of Singapore can be convicted under the Sedition Act, and be fined up to $5,000 or jailed up to three years, or both…In recent years, the Sedition Act has been invoked on several occasions.”

The report details these occasions, and most include Chinese citizens making racist comments about Malays and Muslims. In one case, a Christian couple was punished for distributing anti-Islamic and anti-Catholic literature. Punishments range from community service to jail time. Singapore is constantly wary of the social consequences of their investment policies. From cultural differences in the rising Filipino population to the management of foreign workers, its leaders keep the country well away from the brink of conflict.

This helps us understand why Singapore employs the stringent laws it is famous for. Singapore enforces harsh punishments on minor infractions in hopes of avoiding greater disorder. When you can get caned for vandalizing a building, you aren’t going to start fomenting physical violence. It’s essentially a broken-window approach to racial and religious cohesion. New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani employed a similar philosophy against petty offences while in office, known as a period when crime rapidly decreased.

Swedish Artist Dan Park responds to protesters. The sign says “degenerate art”, a term used by the Nazis. Via sydsvenskan.se

Hate speech laws in the West have much the same purpose. They are intended to keep ethnic, religious, and other minorities from feeling threatened by speech which could incite violence. Hate speech laws intended to fight political extremists become more widely used to ensure social cohesion as diversity increases. Flemming Rose, the man who originally published the fateful Muhammad cartoons at Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, knows this rather well. In a recent article, he recounts some of the most shocking examples. Did you know that in 2014 the Swedish government not only jailed an artist for his work, but also destroyed the offending pieces? In his book, Rose argues that such laws reduce humans to mere objects. Those who condemned the cartoons as inciting violence essentially painted Muslims as agency-less automatons, unable to resist waging Jihad against anyone who dares mock their religion. Or so Rose would say. And yet the reality is that the nature of the mob is very different than the nature of the individual. Gustave le Bon, the man who wrote some of the first work on crowd psychology, put it very eloquently:

“It is [because the crowd is more than just a collection of individuals] that juries are seen to deliver verdicts of which each individual juror would disapprove, that parliamentary assemblies adopt laws and measures of which each of their members would disapprove in his own person. Taken separately, the men of the Convention were bourgeoisie of peaceful habits. United in a crowd, they did not hesitate, under the influence of some leaders, to send the most manifestly innocent people to the guillotine.”

What about diversity and its impact? Historically we see that the societies with the strongest traditions of free speech were also some of the most ethnically, religiously, and culturally homogeneous. Finland, Norway, and the Netherlands lead the Press Freedom Index, a fact that Reporters Without Borders attributes to “a real culture of individual freedoms, a culture that is more integrated than in southern Europe.” Also near the top are Luxembourg, Andorra, Liechtenstein, Denmark, Iceland, and New Zealand. The highest-ranking non-Western countries include Jamaica, Costa Rica, Namibia, Cape Verde, Uruguay, and Ghana. But wait, aren’t some of these countries pretty multicultural? In fact, although Namibia is ethnically diverse, its population is only 2.1 million and the country is 80-90% Christian. Most other ethnically diverse countries show similar trends of small populations, religious homogeneity, and economic stability. The exception is Ghana, which has made tremendous gains in education and press freedom despite having large Islamic and Christian populations, in addition to nine widely spoken languages. All in all, the contribution of culture cannot be understated, as evidenced by the country at the very top of the Index:

“The country that has headed the index since 2008, Finland, paradoxically evinces two obstacles to the development of a benign environment for freedom of information: defamation is punishable by imprisonment in certain circumstances, and just three companies own virtually almost all the national media. In practice, however, it is extremely rare for journalists to receive jail terms for what they write and there is a great deal of media pluralism despite the concentrated ownership. In a country where print is resisting digital well, the media are self-regulated through the Council for Mass Media, an independent body based on the voluntary membership of news media and journalists’ associations and funded mainly by member contributions.”

Given these patterns, the question before Western countries is inescapable. The new diversity brings tradeoffs. In countries with large populations, rapidly increasing minorities, and uncertain economies, one of those tradeoffs is between social cohesion and free expression. Governments in Europe, Canada, Australia, and the US are in the midst of historically unprecedented immigration flows. Europe now has a large Muslim population, Canada and Australia experience an increasing Asian presence, and the US has its expanding Hispanic population. If UKIP, the Front National, and all the other nationalist or right-wing parties were elected tomorrow, they would still need to contend with these factors – even if they managed to cut future immigration to historic lows.

As of this writing, there have already been several violent responses to the Charlie Hebdo massacre. Foreign Policy reports that shots and even grenades have been used to attack two mosques in response, and a bomb was used in the eastern region of the country. The dream of the Western liberal was of a cosmopolitan, multicultural, free, and tolerant world. Unfortunately for them, the mass immigration that they supported may ultimately undermine the values they once prized. In Australia, a recent study showed only that 53% of citizens would choose a good democracy to a strong economy – and Australia’s economy is currently pretty good.

History indicates that that number decreases quite a bit when the economy tanks and conflict rises. Flemming Rose himself notes that Weimar Germany was characterized by lax enforcement of laws prohibiting violence. Whether by unwillingness or inability, the results were the same: those who promised order carried the day.  If populations tend towards order over and above freedom in times of strife, then it will be all the easier for governments to curb traditional rights in favour of social cohesion. Charlie Hebdo publisher Stephane “Charb” Charbonnier is reported as having declared that he would rather die on his feet then live on his knees. The words were tragically prophetic. The death of the values which Charlie Hebdo stood for will likely prove far less heroic.

The post #JeSuisCharlie Won’t Save Free Speech appeared first on Social Matter.