nydwracu niþgrim, nihtbealwa mæst

(Note: Finals season has begun, so this will probably be my last post for a while. I might be posting some of my final papers here once my grades are in, since they may turn out to be of interest to at least the alt-right crowd. We’ll see.)

I’ve referenced the concept of ideography before, but I haven’t given it a proper treatment yet. In short, an ideography in the political sense is a set of ideographs: terms assigned a particular emotional load by an ideology for use in its rhetoric.

The use of ideographs will often seem absurd to readers outside the ideology to which they belong. An average American going through Nazi political material would almost certainly find the references to Volksgemeinschaft, das Führerprinzip, and Jewry to be, at the very least, disorienting, similar to the feeling one gets when traveling to a foreign country and finding that the toilets have foot pedals instead of flush handles. But then, so would the average Nazi upon hearing the constant references of Western political material to the somewhat isomorphic concepts of liberty, democracy, and fascism. For an example closer to home, consider the reaction of the average American ‘liberal’ (I’ll dispense with my usual scare quotes from here on out; just keep in mind that, contrary to my usual practice, all terms are to be taken in their usual American senses) to Newt Gingrich’s “secular socialism” routine.

Can an isomorphic example, of a conservative reaction to a sound bite applying the liberal ideography, be constructed? It is possible to come close, with, for example, the constant charges of racism leveled at just about every conservative figure and movement, but there is one crucial difference: liberals don’t respond emotionally to “secular socialism”, but conservatives most definitely do to “racism”. In fact, as the conservative line on affirmative action demonstrates, “racism” is just as much a part of the conservative ideography as the liberal one. And, for that matter, the white supremacist one: David Duke uses it.

Pretty pervasive ideograph we have here, if a former Grand Wizard of the Ku Klux Klan uses it to deliver the exact same emotional load as Tim Wise. They both agree that racism is a Bad Thing; the only difference is in the definition. Duke wants to apply it to Wise, and vice versa. Any debate between the two (ignoring that, in reality, at least one of the two would have to be carted off by security five seconds in) would almost certainly consist mostly of redefinitions of the term, and other ideographs common to the American political arena. These semantic games are common: witness the attempt of Roger Scruton, one of the few conservatives with two brain cells to rub together, to split the positions he disagrees with that can be supported by the positive ideograph “liberty” into a new, negative ideograph, “license”, instead of rejecting the ideograph altogether.

It is clear, then, that in addition to the conservative ideography, there exists an ideography shared by just about the entire American political arena, which I will call the American ideography. Its contents include, on the positive side, liberty, equality, freedom, democracy, progress, fairness, and justice, and on the negative side, racism, fascism, and anything related to Hitler.

The astute reader will, by now, have picked up on an omission: nowhere have I mentioned liberal ideography. There is a reason for this omission: there may be a few minor differences, but at least on the major points, the liberal ideography is the American ideography. Most ideographs used by liberals are also used by conservatives, and with the same intended effect. (This is less so on the alt-right; one of the many instances of convergent evolution between Mencius Moldbug and the European New Right is their explicit refudiation of that ideography.)

Now consider the history of the American ideography. Its terms’ associations have changed consistently, and in a consistent direction: leftward. Equality under the law became equality of opportunity, and is now becoming equality of outcome. Freedom from the tyranny of a single, unelected, overactive monarch became freedom from fear and want, and is now becoming freedom from any sort of moral judgment of all but the most repulsive forms of libertinism. And so on. Considering the structure and history of this ideography, and its identification with ‘Americanism’, there can be no American Right. The American ideography does not hold promise for conservatives, and yet they do not challenge it; in fact, they do the opposite, and in doing so, sign their own death sentence.

That is the failure of conservatism.

Much of what I know about diversity I learned from my home county. The Washington Post, in a two-part series on demographic shifts in the DC area, attempts to do the same, but unfortunately doesn’t learn the right lessons:

From Loudoun to Fairfax to Montgomery, communities that are growing are also growing more integrated, with people of every race and ethnicity living side by side. Prince George’s stands virtually alone as a place that is gaining population yet has an increasing number of residents living in neighborhoods that are overwhelmingly one race — in this case, African American.

… Integrated neighborhoods often are created when Asians and Hispanics move into predominantly white neighborhoods, said John Logan, a Brown University sociologist who has studied segregation patterns for 30 years. He says these “global neighborhoods” pave the way for more blacks to move into a community without triggering white flight.

In other words, these “global neighborhoods” offer a ‘solution’ to the lack of diversity common to any established neighborhood, and therefore to the natural tendency for people to prefer living near others like themselves. (That does not, of course, just mean race; I know many whites (SWPLs, of course) who would prefer living around nonwhites, as long as those nonwhites are sufficiently like themselves.) The error should be blatantly obvious to any unbiased observer with basic knowledge of the area, but considering that two of the ‘reporters’ are placeless technocrats shipped in from far out of state, not to mention that the Post itself has a deserved reputation as a low-grade propaganda outlet for sappy feel-good left-liberalism, it’s sadly predictable that it wasn’t obvious to them.

The difference between Montgomery and Prince George’s County is that Prince George’s went black first. (Once you go black, you never go back? Not until the gentrifiers come in, anyway, but I doubt they’d like suburbs.) This is going to seem trivial, but considering that a piece that missed this point so catastrophically was published, I feel obligated to point it out anyway: the large-scale entrance of minorities is a much more recent process in Montgomery, and presumably Virginia also. The concomitant collapse of the affected neighborhoods has not yet overtaken inertia: the people I know who want to leave started talking about doing so around two years ago, and I suspect it’ll take them a few more years before they finally move out.

Here is the process: non-Asian minorities move in, the neighborhood gets worse, whites move out. This is a well-known process. (In the case of this area specifically, I suspect blacks move in first, then Hispanics, causing the blacks to leave after the whites, but I haven’t seen anything, either in data or on the ground, to make that more than a hypothesis. All I know is that Hispanics came into Prince George’s after blacks.) And yes, the neighborhood does get worse. Laurel, for example, is, at least in parts, a distinctly well-off area, but the last time I had to take their local public transportation, half the seats were missing, the other half were slashed, and the bus had blown-out speakers blasting gospel music. I am not making this up. And the last time I had the misfortune of having to go to the mall there, it looked like a scene from a bad post-apocalyptic horror movie: there was just about nobody there, half of the storefronts were empty and trashed, and the place looked like it hadn’t been cleaned in months. (That visit was truly frightening, in a way few things are. Imagine seeing an area that you are familiar with dead, killed by an unstoppable process that has already sunk its tendrils into the entire landscape of your youth, and knowing that you may never be able to go back home because there will be nothing to go back to.)

The difference between Prince George’s and other areas, then, is not that those other areas are shining visions of the utopian future dreamed up by the elite; it is simply that they are in different stages of the same process. As anyone on the ground will tell you, Montgomery County is getting worse, but Prince George’s has already gotten worse. (And the notion that Hillandale, of all places, is a beacon on the path toward Enlightenment is particularly laughable. If Hillandale is anything at all, it’s an example of what not to do in suburban design. The only reason racial tension hasn’t hit the absurd level it has in places like Greenbelt is that the place (or rather, nonplace) is so alienating that the neighbors might as well not exist. But that’s a separate issue, for a future post.) In twenty years or less, Montgomery will look demographically like Prince George’s, for two reasons: areas tend to get worse as they get less white (or Asian, possibly), and people like to live near others like them.

I’ll close with an even more telling quote from the same article. This one needs no comment.

As an adult, [Sterling Crockett] yearned for a place where he could feel proud of who he is, where race isn’t everything, and where he and his family would live around other upwardly mobile blacks.

“I saw it as an opportunity to get into a community that is inhabited and run by African Americans,” Crockett said[.]

The absurdities of contemporary society outlined in my previous post come from one clear source: the individualist ideography. Human relations are cast as oppressive restraints, and their participants, due to their nature as interchangeable, detached souls existing outside all human constructs, must be liberated from all such oppression, set free to… well, to do what? Individualism is largely silent on that question, but in practice, all it frees most people to do (in the first world, at least; its policies have been far more disastrous in other areas, most notably the former Rhodesia) is march listlessly about in architectural monstrosities of glass and concrete on weekdays and hammer themselves into the ground with cheap beer at night. Meaningless people living meaningless lives, inhabiting places that cannot be homes, occasionally falling into narcissistic restatements, whether New Age or liberal, of the dogma that created their problems in the first place. Or, of course, drug addiction. Anything to escape the hell they have no language to acknowledge.

Without structure, there can be no virtue, only subsistence. Asian parenting tactics are widely opposed, and even in my opinion a bit extreme (mostly because they focus on the wrong things; Asian culture emphasizes skill in repetition over skill in thought, which is useful for getting the best government bureaucrats, but not much else), but when was the last time you saw a white college student with actual competence? As in parenting, so in society: lack of structure breeds failure and apathy.

I saw a high school acquaintance go down that road. He was on the MIT track, but due to circumstances nobody possibly could have foreseen, his train got derailed and he ended up in a party college for rich, nihilistic SWPLs, at which point his parents decided not to give a damn about what he did. He ended up changing his major to philosophy, dropping out, and becoming a drug dealer. Many other people were ruined by that college, that shining exemplar of liberal individualism and hedonism at work; several people I knew there are now reportedly homeless, permafried from acid and riddled with STDs. But our language has no words for such concepts. The absurdity of contemporary society is made apparent by the fact that words such as “wasted”, “trashed”, and “hammered” have taken on positive connotations. Productivity is for squares, bro. Real men fuckin’ party. Drop that Bach shit, let’s crank some Kanye.

Thomas Carlyle, the 19th-century arch-reactionary, saw this all coming:

In the progress of Emancipation, are we to look for a time when all the Horses also are to be emancipated, and brought to the supply-and-demand principle? Horses too have “motives;” are acted on by hunger, fear, hope, love of oats, terror of platted leather; nay they have vanity, ambition, emulation, thankfulness, vindictiveness; some rude outline of all our human spiritualities,—a rude resemblance to us in mind and intelligence, even as they have in bodily frame. The Horse, poor dumb four-footed fellow, he too has his private feelings, his affections, gratitudes; and deserves good usage; no human master, without crime, shall treat him unjustly either, or recklessly lay on the whip where it is not needed:—I am sure if I could make him “happy,” I should be willing to grant a small vote (in addition to the late twenty millions) for that object!

Him too you occasionally tyrannize over; and with bad result to yourselves, among others; using the leather in a tyrannous unnecessary manner; withholding, or scantily furnishing, the oats and ventilated stabling that are due. Rugged horse-subduers, one fears they are a little tyrannous at times. “Am I not a horse, and half-brother?”—To remedy which, so far as remediable, fancy—the horses all “emancipated;” restored to their primeval right of property in the grass of this Globe: turned out to graze in an independent supply-and-demand manner! So long as grass lasts, I dare say they are very happy, or think themselves so. And Farmer Hodge sallying forth, on a dry spring morning, with a sieve of oats in his hand, and agony of eager expectation in his heart, is he happy? Help me to plough this day, Black Dobbin: oats in full measure if thou wilt. “Hlunh, No—thank!” snorts Black Dobbin; he prefers glorious liberty and the grass. Bay Darby, wilt not thou perhaps? “Hlunh!”—Gray Joan, then, my beautiful broad-bottomed mare,—O Heaven, she too answers Hlunh! Not a quadruped of them will plough a stroke for me. Corn-crops are ended in this world!—For the sake, if not of Hodge, then of Hodge’s horses, one prays this benevolent practice might now cease, and a new and better one try to begin. Small kindness to Hodge’s horses to emancipate them! The fate of all emancipated horses is, sooner or later, inevitable. To have in this habitable Earth no grass to eat,—in Black Jamaica gradually none, as in White Connemara already none;—to roam aimless, wasting the seedfields of the world; and be hunted home to Chaos, by the due watch-dogs and due hell-dogs, with such horrors of forsaken wretchedness as were never seen before! These things are not sport; they are terribly true, in this country at this hour.

The main error of liberalism is its denial of human nature. We, the Whig says, are superanimal—fundamentally rational beings, homo economicus, separate from our hardware, and yet with no higher purpose than the base fulfillment of that hardware. (This, of course, is the Bentham/Mill debate, and the world, predictably, has taken Bentham’s side, leading to our current predicament. One cannot justify liberalism through Mill, for reasons explained best, albeit unintentionally, by Jeff Moss: Mill does not like big squooshy blobs.) If you build a contraption to dispense cocaine to a rat whenever it pushes a bar, the rat will waste away at the bar, forgetting even to eat; and in the end, we are but rats. At the very least,  if you firehose dopamine down my mesolimbic pathway, I’ll fry like one.