nydwracu niþgrim, nihtbealwa mæst

signals, signals everywhere / and not a thought to think

What is to be done?

with 24 comments

The theoretical groundwork for the Dark Enlightenment is in place enough to allow the formation of a general consensus, and a community around that consensus: a community that has in recent times turned most of its energy toward organization and self-reflection, toward answering the question, “Now that we exist, what is our future? What is to be done?

Foseti added fuel to the already burning question here, attacking the growing dextro-Maoist wing of reaction:

Maybe I read too many primary sources from the ’40s and ’50s, but as I read these threads it gets difficult – at times – to distinguish the “reactionary” from the communist. A fair number of us seem to believe that we need to win, and to do so all we need to do is get the proles to rise up and overthrow the bourgeoisie.

No thanks.

When Moldbug wrote about the reboot, step one was getting the elites on our side. Anything else is destructive of order, and better left to some branch of progressivism. A surprising number of “reactionaries” seem to have missed this basic point.

So: what is to be done?

Means must be tailored toward ends. To answer the question, what is to be done?, another question must first be answered: what are the desirable ends?

I count six possible ends.

  1. Registerial reboot. Moldbug’s goal. Government is a sham, a sham that only the elites can do away with. Win over the elites and get them to replace the sham-government with a formalized government run on the triune principle of truth, order, and justice.
  2. Registerial dissolution. The goal of nationalists and separatists. Vaisya culture is threatened by Brahmin dominance, and Vaisyas themselves are threatened by Brahmin-promoted degeneracy. Cultural self-defense is only possible through national self-determination. The South must rise again, a new Confederacy must be born, if its people are to survive as such—or perhaps to survive at all.
  3. Registerial revolution. The goal of the dextro-Maoists. Dictatorship of the proles, not the Brahmins.
  4. Registerial reform. The goal of Ron Paulites and myself a year or two ago. Eat the thing that ate the state. Out-Mafia the Mafia.
  5. Cultural revolution. The goal of some white nationalists, usually alongside registerial dissolution. Find the right reference points and create a new nation, a new national consciousness, toward and/or concomitant with the new state to be formed.
  6. Cultural reform. Hinted at by Steve Sailer, Charles Murray, and myself. Degeneracy reigns among the proles and the children of the elite. The cultural fabric has rotted away, and the ruling principle is that of sex, drugs, and loud music. Virtue is sorely lacking; optimize for it.

The first goal is to figure out which of these ends is desirable.

Registerial reboot is untenable. We have no crypto-guns, and the doctrine of universal absolutism is either an untenable abstraction, an artifact of the clean and theoretical thought-patterns of the libertarian mindset that permeates Moldbug’s libertarianism-accelerated-past-itself, or a curious redefinition of the term ‘government’. Perhaps it is, as James Donald suggests, a myth, in an unwittingly(?) Sorelian sense: a belief to be judged not by its truth or its accuracy, but its products in the real world; or perhaps it is an abstraction to be asymptotically approached by innovation in technologies of control. But I can’t take it seriously. Fnargl, the personification of the neocameral apparatus of governance, is omniscient and omnipotent; he can set up a true panopticon and panastynomicon, the combination of which is required for a truly absolute rule. But USG is not Fnargl. Perhaps future technological innovations will let sovcorps become as gods. But—future!

Registerial revolution is opposed by orthodox reaction, and rightly so. Disorder cannot be fought with disorder; revolution is only appropriate when absolutely necessary. No new historical era, no new organizing principle that would require a clearing of the slate presents itself: USG is not yet so hopelessly suboptimal that even the chaos caused by total absence of Schelling points would be preferable.

Registerial dissolution is not a tenable goal in the near future. The most powerful mafia in the world simply cannot be out-mafiaed.

This leaves registerial reform, cultural revolution, and cultural reform. Each of these is opposed by the Cathedral. But is the Cathedral really the only power? Is the populism, the “genuine, grass-roots cis-democracy” that Moldbug rightly derides, really the only option?

Here is where the libertarian mindset of reaction fails. Libertarianism, like all strands of liberalism, has only a tenuous grasp on the relation between economics and power. Noam Chomsky thinks democracy got eaten by Smaug, who flew in one day breathing lobbyists and Goldman Sachs executives. How do you defeat Smaug? You get a bunch of dwarves together to shove pickets up its ass. The dwarves got together with their pickets, led by the great Thorin Santelli, and got—Marco fucking Rubio. An Outer Party man to the core. Progressivism will win unless we, too, become progressive. Think of the Hispanic votes! Good lord. What a joke. Cis-democracy will either lose or be co-opted. What gains will the evangelical movement, the greatest push for cis-democracy the Fourth Republic has ever seen, have to show for itself in thirty years? Maybe neoliberalism—but was neoliberalism ever cis-democratic? Can you imagine Charles Koch waving cardboard outside the Capitol?

When Foseti says the elites must be captured, he’s right. But which elites? The error of the libertarian mindset lies in the assumption that informal power can overpower formal power. Remind me again: where did Obamacare come from? Harvard? What does Cornel West think? And will his students trade in their Bob Dylan records for Von Thronstahl mp3s and weekly church service?


Which elites? Cornel West or Peter Thiel? I’ll get to the Thiels of the world later, but if Charles Koch, with his net worth of $34 billion, were converted to reaction tomorrow, what would happen? $34 billion is a lot of power.

The problem, of course, is that Marx was right. Materialism explains Charles Koch. Neoliberalism is in the economic interest of him and his class. Is it in Thiel’s?

The economy of knowledge and technology introduces a crack into Marx’s materialist system. Peter Thiel has no interest in cheap chalupas or their providers. The captains of industry need Morlocks to do their work, just as the captains of the Cathedral need Morlocks to do theirs: in the former case as workers, in the latter as weapons. The unholy marriage of neoliberalism and progressivism produces a thoroughly liberalized left, a left that directly attacks the last points of resistance against the ever-more-reigning world order while claiming to serve the ends of justice or socialism. National identity is to be dissolved, virtue and self-discipline are to be destroyed, leaving only self-chosen strings of adjectives to serve as identities, shipped-in armies of immigrants to serve as ever cheaper labor, and atomized individuals to serve as consumers of their chosen identities. A bourgeois pseudo-communism of fat acceptance and Che T-shirts. But the information economy needs no Morlocks. Harvard and George Mason are allied against MIT—and what are the interests and predispositions of the emerging class the latter represents?

The elites that must be won over are the technological elites: the elites whose interests align with those of reaction. Onward with the future! Biotech entrepreneurs, lucky developers, and so on have little to no interest in the expansion of the Morlock horde. Paypal wasn’t made in a Chinese factory. Furthermore, formal power can create informal power, as can be seen from the economic drift that reaction has so far overlooked. What has the Heritage Foundation done?

Here we see how these three goals may be achieved: through the accumulation of formal power, both as an end in itself and as a means toward informal power. The cultural ends can directly address the masses; but this requires the construction of an effective apparatus to do so, which requires formal power. And if the elites are to be won over, how can this happen?

Written by nydwracu

June 12, 2013 at 21:07

Posted in politics

Tagged with ,

24 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Modern tech moguls are about as evil as they come. I’m gearing up to do a post on Nathan Myhrvold, whose company was recently profiled by NPR in “When Patents Attack Pt.2”. I believe he is the most picture perfect representative of the modern technology sector progressive, and it goes without saying he’s also a terrible human being.


    June 12, 2013 at 21:48

    • Starting a blog at last?


      June 13, 2013 at 07:59

      • I’ve got one post in several weeks, and no plans to be remotely responsible in updating regularly.


        June 13, 2013 at 11:33

  2. I can only pray PT might, one day, become an “angel investor” patron of the high-risk but high-yield Neoreactionary venture. But he’s perhaps the only prominent one out there. I don’t think the Koch’s will give up on conventional Cato-Heritage mainstream polite Libertarianism. Which is just as aggressively multiculturalist and open-borders as the progressives.

    Is there a single billionaire in the country who has come out against Illegal Amnesty? Not that I’m aware of. Even PT and Arrington merely declined to put their names on fwd.us, mostly, it seems to me, out of distaste to sully their hands in the dirty business of the court out of a view of “government as this thing that stops us from doing things”.

    Like, you know, passing immigration laws that prevent us from importing as many low-wage programmers as we want. And policymakers wonder why you can’t get quantitatively talented Americans to go into, and stay in, traditional STEM fields. Vicious cycle – more cheap foreign programmers discourage Americans economically and socially and thus create a need for … more cheap foreign programmers. More cheap foreign fruit pickers depress wages and raise punk kids who won’t do the jobs their parents did which creates the need for … more cheap foreign fruit pickers. Ouroboros.


    June 13, 2013 at 07:14

    • Let’s say you were trying to recruit a new Tech-Lord Optimate to be Patron Saint and Angel Investor in the neoreaction. He already supports Libertarian-esque ideas, and perhaps also HBD. But how would you persuade him to go against the grain of 95% of his ultra community and oppose open borders and unlimited unskilled immigration? (asking them to resist the importation of skilled programmers is probably a bridge too far).

      Well, you could make the Mark Krikorian point that he’s been making for over a decade that a tight market for low-skill labor not only keeps their wages up and minimizes the need for a giant formal and explicit welfare bureaucracy, but provides the best economic incentive for the innovation of automation technologies – just like it does in Japan.

      Don’t Tech Barons all dream of replacing all menial service tasks with robots and IT, scalable at near-zero marginal cost? What about going well beyond aviation in terms of droned military capabilities. You’ll never be able to do it when social demography has been transformed into a state where there is always a vast reserve army of the unemployed who are near-zero marginal produce and available to work for the farmer, government, walmart, whatever, for much less than what it costs to get the singularity off the ground economically.

      And in such a state of affairs, government policy will always explicitly or implicitly subsidize work and socialize the living expenses of ZMP laborers because work is the only policy we have that keeps them out character-corrosion and heaps of externality trouble. USG will ramp up EITC + Section 8 + Snap + Medicaid + Child Credits + etc. to whatever it takes to supplement minimum (or under-the-table less-than-minimum) wages to keep people busy with make-work all day. And that will perpetually maintain a large enough gap between initial robot cost and labor cost to prevent virtuous tech-cycles of eventual cost-reduction from ever getting started. It will also guarantee perpetual stiff political resistance to anything that competes with unskilled labor, because the numbers of voters with their jobs on the line will always be vast.

      Well, it’s a start. Thoughts?


      June 13, 2013 at 18:49

  3. We need to pull a Gramsci. First take back Academia.


    June 13, 2013 at 08:00

    • Academia isn’t influential in the way you think. Philosophy departments are only minor parts of the Cathedral. The bureaucracy is what has to be taken to take academia, and bureaucrats are not, as a class, inclined to resist power.


      June 13, 2013 at 21:44

      • How do you “take” the bureaucracy? How does that even work. Bureaucracies follow orders.


        June 14, 2013 at 05:30

        • Whence the orders? That’s how.


          June 14, 2013 at 06:18

    • You’re defining “academia” as ivory-tower intellectuals at major research universities who spend their lives publishing articles only about 60 other people ever read.

      But “Academia” begins when SWPL parents send their 1-year-olds off to be “socialized” at properly-“multicultural” daycares staffed by people who are accredited as “early childhood development experts” by Academia. This is followed by pre-school, kindergarten, and first grade, where for most of their waking hours they are subject to the not-so-careful control of someone who is “accredited” (by Academia) and spends her free time reading the Atlantic, which is staffed by people who got journalism degrees (from Academia) and who once had a minor orgasm while reading “The Second Sex” and thinks “The Hunger Games” is feminist.

      None of these people has any original thoughts or ideas. The only quasi-original ideas are in places like Horkheimer and Adorno and Friedan, who were read by slightly more than 60 other people, some of who taught classes at university (Academia), and some of whose students got elected, and wrote laws about the qualifications for school superintendents (lots of Academic credits), who hire teachers (based on Academic qualifications), who teach 10-year olds to get lots of Academic credits and how to put a condom on a banana with your mouth.

      If any of these people had read Burke, things would be different. But at most they read the powerpoint slide class notes on the 2-page excerpt from Mary Wollstonecraft’s critique of Burke assigned in their Gender Politics class, so things are as they are.

      That’s Academia. Academia – the academia of Rothbard and Mises – tells Peter Thiel when to take a shit. Now, there are a lot worse things than taking a shit where Murray or Ludwig tell you, but it’s important to remember that what you’re producing is fertilizer, not new ideas.

      Spandrell is right. If you control what people see, hear, and do during the majority of their waking hours from the time they are 5 until 21 or 22, and for the elites from ages 2-30, you control the world. That’s mind control.

      Chevalier de Johnstone

      June 18, 2013 at 20:06

      • Separation of School and State. That’s a casus imperative.


        June 30, 2013 at 08:10

  4. Do your tech elites refer to the tech industry or the STEM components of academia or both?


    June 13, 2013 at 16:02

    • Whoever has money, or whoever influences the people who have money.


      June 13, 2013 at 21:42

  5. What is our timeframe? Why not just let demographics do their work?


    June 13, 2013 at 20:26

  6. […] Reaction has not only registerial goals, goals relating to the structure of the state, but cultural ones. Dysgenic trends threaten not only technological advancement but also the very existence of stable, civilized society. The collapse of long-term monogamy increases the possibility of future violent instability. Whig colonialism dissolves and debases the cultural patchwork of the world, replacing it with the vile orgy, the constant carnival, that already reigns in certain parts of New England. Passivism is no longer a viable strategy; attempting merely to get the word out that Universalism is harmful and philosophically bankrupt may have been defensible thirty years ago, but the situation now is dire. The consensus is that something must be done; but what? […]

  7. $34bln is a lot of power to buy policy with, but not to change ideology. This article shows a much better picture of the real power establishment, business, technology and political elite working together, as opposed to a couple of mega-rich semi-dissidents.

    Another one here: http://freebeacon.com/all-in-the-family-3/

    Anomaly UK

    June 14, 2013 at 16:20

  8. The tech barons primarily want high status relative to everyone else. That’s number 1, 2 and 3 on their wish list and they already got it.

    So really what do you/we have to offer them?


    June 15, 2013 at 12:07

  9. […] dissident knowledge. The most energetic example (orchestrated by Nydwracu) can be followed here, here, and here. Francis St. Pol’s substantial contribution is […]

  10. >The elites that must be won over are the technological elites: the elites whose interests align with those of reaction.





    There are your basic tools.

    I suggest that you budget a lot of time for familiarizing yourselves with them.


    June 19, 2013 at 20:09

  11. […] Nydwracu on what is to be done and […]

    Randoms | Foseti

    June 24, 2013 at 16:06

  12. […] The unimportance of policy. Related: What is to be done? […]

  13. There have been 4 Historical developments the last 5 years:
    * Government governs without Congress [no budgets]
    * The Dems are destroying their captive opposition the Republicans [madness]. No need for a foil now.
    * Democracy is beginning a return after 80 years, as the people suddenly realized it’s gone.
    * In Nov 2012 white self consciousness suddenly returned.
    The potential return of democracy frightens DEC. Too bad. Whatever direction the people take they are indeed moving. And again why blame democracy when it’s been out of power for 80 years? What we have is Demotism and it’s not working anymore. Democracy is a weapon. Somebody’s gonna use it.

    I am not saying seek office, I am saying speak to the people. Not at all the same thing.


    June 30, 2013 at 07:24

  14. Registerial Reform – electoral politics – is being seen to be a decisive failure. By the Ron paulites and what can be loosely described as the Tea Party. It helps that the Cathedral was caught playing STASI. It worked. They didn’t vote.

    So now the next step seen by many is Registerial Dissolution as you put it. Now “what is to be done” if they do it anyway? They’re certainly thinking about it. When you’re in an internal “Durable Goods” race you’ve got something on your mind.

    You don’t know what to DO, because what you want isn’t possible the way you want it DONE. DONE and DOING being anathema. The world doesn’t care about Disorder. Or that the Cathedral isn’t yet so sub-optimal as to not provide a livelihood.


    June 30, 2013 at 08:19

  15. […] Wesley Morganston talks strategy, and settles on reactionary media: […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 169 other followers

%d bloggers like this: