Note: the term ‘reconstructionism’ may already have a esoteric meaning. When I use it, I refer only to the ideas articulated in my own writings.
Humans do not live by bread alone. Perhaps some of them do, and it is them who write that everything we know today must fall. But they are not helpful to the majority. Romance — the old romance, with its loyalties and communities, with its broad set of values — has not and should not be forced to perish. Orwell was right to criticize the never-nationalist intellectuals who were “so enlightened that they cannot understand the most ordinary emotions.” Science has discovered that conservatives have broader values than harm-reducing liberals — and under consequentialism, who can say that they are wrong?
Even as we throw off moral myopia, we must recognize that from the outside it is not a given that our circle grows wider. Moral progress probably exists, but should not be taken for granted.
Finally, unless you are actually an anarchist, the organizations and social structures that are at all vulnerable to attack have already fallen. Further social progress requires either conquest or reconstruction, not dynamiting.
I now make the claims for reconstruction.
1. We need a more accurate view of power dynamics.
This would include that they are ‘dynamic’, i.e. that it takes time for them to move. Dynamic systems can have problems such as overshoots and ‘undershoots’. A huge momentum, such as that of the Left, with no clearly planned stopping conditions, is hazardous. Those who understand differential equations will realize that in society there can be several different relevant orders AND separate relevant variables. (for those who don’t: ‘where things are’, ‘how fast are things changing in what direction’, and ‘how fast is the speed at which things are changing, changing’ are all important, and you WILL need to deal with momentum as you approach ‘where things should be’.)
This would also include that there are no total underdogs (if there were, they would have already lost.) The theories of privilege and marginalization are not wrong, but they see things through a glass darkly. We live in a world of long-oppressed, still-oppressed victims handed weapons and forming hosts to contend with the much mightier weapons of the collapsing “Racist Capitalist Colonialists”, who no respectable person lets defend them. What does it matter to the masses what is being promised? They promises only a rain of shrapnel from the glorious battles of liberation in the skies.
I believe that people should be much more careful about claiming bravery, and should not treat the underdog as necessarily a hero. The meme must die. Why ‘liberate’ the future when you can conquer it?
2. Lay to rest hatred.
I explained the desperate need to recognize the consequences of intellectual speech and actions in a world still full of hateful and destructive racism, homophobia, etc. Now I speak of that hatred itself. Some of the more mainstream, more racist, and more hateful reactionary conservatives will not succeed, and cannot succeed, because they have so much hatred and so little hope that they will throw away every advantage, or perhaps they will make the heel-face-turn of young libertarians and university leftists and become the angry bigot who will indiscriminately attack their countrymen who need not be attacked in some communal hope that some corner of a local field will be forever Nonracist.
The white nationalists cannot win, and they do not deserve to win, even as those who hew deconstructively at the majority culture deserve to lose. I have no evidence that nonviolence is possible or desirable for them. I know that they can still do harm, can still alienate and harass and dishonor people who are no less of the West. The hatred that poisons all conservatism is disastrous and must end.
3. Speak of the harm, not of the name of the harm.
What does “racism” mean? What does “Sexism” mean? What is a racist? Horror, evil, slaughtered men, women, and children, the darkness at humankind’s heart. The work of the detested Klan, of the destructive Nazis, the police beating those who cried for freedom in the South in the 1960’s, King Leopold, all things horrible and destable which issue from hatred of people of other appearances?
Who is a racist? Someone who thinks little of that beyond his home country’s shores? Someone who is frustrated by becoming a minority in his ancestral country? Someone who in ignorance or insensitivity insults someone by adopting a cultural practice not her own?
This is why people take being called on a racist act or speech so defensively. It would probably serve the world better to more clearly suggest who is harmed as well as how seriously. Racist speech in a multiracial country causes stress and anxiety, and can spur to action. Sexual harassment is frustrating to women who must deal with it and can be downright scary to those who must bear the cup of woe of womankind in general.
Speaking the harm rather than merely the name of the harm would also likely defuse some of the rather pathetic complaints that develop when someone of the nominally privileged classes explains their difficulties, and wholly eliminate the “it’s only racism when it happens to the people racism happens to” distraction.
4. Render unto Caesar…
Universal attitudes have in many cases been removed upon new evidence, but not always. Critically, explicit attitudes that ideas of the wealthy and the European are universal have been deconstructed but nothing has happened to the presumed defaultness of these august civilizations. Roy d’Andrade rightly called Nisbett’s Human Inference “a good ethnography” [of European epistemology, Asian epistemology is different and possibly closer to the Yudkowskian style]. The reconstruction of Europe and the cultures that spring from it as mundane nations, central only to themselves, must be completed. It also seems like some of the worries about demographic shift, mass immigration, and numerous other issues might be dealt with if cultural communities could be somewhat separated from nation-states and from matters of labor, protected by a universal agreement of core protections focused on freedom to leave.
When the British in their conquest subdued the Kingdom of Oudh, in what we now know as Uttar Pradesh, they initially allowed the King to maintain his throne and continue his reign and patronage of the arts even as they harshly and foolishly disapproved of his culture and attitudes. Without, the British continued their despoliation, but within the continued rule over internal culture consoled him and his subjects. It was only the final insult, much later, when they forced his descendant to quit the throne.
When the EDL rages threatening against immigrants and Asian Englishmen the latter are made to suffer fear and anxiety, and as opinion turns against them they will want for defense in their desperation, fail to find the labor they are fully qualified for, and in the extreme case suffer violent harm. Suppose the nativists could instead choose seclusion? What would the muslims think then? Would they care? The natives are no part of High Britain. I strongly believe that if the defaultness of various very nondefault characteristics could be broken, and genuine ingroups created around them, where togetherness, and not just apartness is visible, many of the frustrations over being unable to reject and unable to join would be alleviated.
5. Henceforth thou shalt come, and no further
Where are we going? Every score of years there is a new, horrific dystopian vision, based on the trends of the current time, which never comes to pass. Shall the whirlwind changes of the past century come to an end, or establish a moving steady state? I am very frustrated by the current situation in which conservatives and reactionaries stand athwart history crying ‘Stop’ and liberals and progressives believe in an eternal progress that often seems less asymptotic approaching a goal than eternally speeding towards parts unknown. There are few things which cannot be overshot, and even apart from my hatred of deconstruction I have been horrified by liberals who would make the whole world of art and culture a plain of ash rather than chance the remainder of some strength or superiority in the world.
Is there a stopping condition? When will we know when the world is mended? Might the iterative process be formalized and made more critical?
6. A Day Will Come…
A day will come when we have achieved a moral world. A day will come when we can lay to rest the wrath and the revolt, when it will not be necessary to be endlessly critical. We can, of course, never cease to question all around us, but a day may come like the old days, when we may largely take the world for granted. A day will come when we get it right, when we build enough adaptability in to accommodate the variety of human life and enough structure to make it safe and comprehensible — but only if we want to. A day will come when the queer of the world inhabit a multitudinous and diverse world, and the ur-straight of the world are permitted to live in the structured hierarchy which is their preference — but only if someone desires it. A day will come to close the crematoria in which each generation burns the heroes their parents reared up for them — if we can remember a day when the good and great raised up cathedrals and monuments that were thought to last for eternity.
A day will come when all is well with the world, even if it is not today. It is not enough to win. Stalin won. Napoleon won. FDR and Reagan both won. Hitler could have won. We must win ahead of Overton, win what is truly proper, and then cease winning.
A day will come when the leftist may cease to fight and the reactionary may cease to die — if we can dream that, contre Marx, the War of Wrath is not eternal or universal.
NOTE: I made many references to the excellent Ozy Frantz. Ozy Frantz’s site is no longer available, but some posts may be available on the Wayback Machine.
This is seriously good.
I’d like to make some comments on your understanding of “The Left”, though, as so much of it seems to be filtered through modern Californian realities. We’ve had some thinkers that are quite far removed from both the modern liberal activist and the stereotypical Leninist of the last century. There have been more nuanced perspectives on the philosophy of history and general teleological stuff; some explicitly breaking with what you call “deconstructionism”, yet counter-reactionary and not compromising with rightist discourse.
Have you read anything of Walter Benjamin? Guess not; you might want to take a look. He’s difficult to parse, though.
http://www.barglow.com/angel_of_history.htm
I’ll need to look at it. Recent events (Stirred up by the normal events) have had me rather distracted.
What do you mean by antinomainism? What I call deconstructionism? Do you have a Twitter?
Hmm, did it just mark my wall of links as spam? Forgot to log in, sorry. If you have it please make it show, ok? Because I just looked at your twitter and realized that this is what you’ve been talking about with your “counter-elites” thing. Especially about our antinomianism and quiet despair re: dreams of victory.
To add some more in plain(er) language… before it is even really *rational* for “my”/”our” side to entertain any thoughts of engaging with any practical modern-day “reconstructionism”… we’d need a loud, direct display of people who identify as Reconstructionist and anti-antinomian going all Joseph de Maistre on clear and present threats to the vulnerable and oppressed groups under “our” aegis.
http://manboobz.com/2013/06/24/heartiste-men-need-to-be-able-to-hit-their-mates-in-order-to-retain-them/
Just saw it in my feed and wondered what would constitute sufficient response, esp. considering your notions of honor and social obligation. To make those notions look persuasive enough to “us” – so that “we” might consider negotiating an arms limitation treaty wrt. the “social justice” activism, resting more securely than in our present frontline conditions – you and any like-minded Reconstructionists might need to somehow help bring about severe disruption and social violence in the neo-reactionary/alternative-right circles.
If we ever get to see “people” like Roissy or John Derbyshire brought so low that they’d wish they were before a revolutionary tribunal instead (metaphorically)… and a “Reconstructionist” current having something to do with their neutralization… then our debate might involve actual meta-political reality, not just ivory-tower philosophy-of-history musings.
(Please don’t take this as me haranguing you to personally take any concrete actions in your actual social circles. I know these aren’t “your circles” per se and that you’re as sickened as I am. And that you’re awesomely articulate but not all that flush with social capital. Just pure idle speculation.)
Not among Californians, outside of my own rights as an aristocrat. Although people who watch the flights of heavy dropships that approach but do not depart Schloss Kalifornen could perhaps tremble at my might and glory.
– I’m not sure what to say about neoreactionaries. I have enough respect for some moldbug-tradition reactionaries (i.e, who I talk to on Twitter) to not want to sabotage them, but the lowest (not necessarily common) denominator is a would-be fascist who read and possibly understood an esoteric explanation of why the Left keeps winning. I’m not sure how Mr. Anissimov manages to stand some of the people he sees on Twitter. On the other hand, if I am correct, the broader alt-right is much less intelligent and much, much more horrible than Konkvistador and Mr. Anissimov. (for example, the things that show up on Manboobz, or the horrifying Golden Dawn/EDL/BNP type stuff in Europe.) Also, some of the meta-theory w/r/t neoreaction is important regardless of effects of neoreaction on actual utility.
– I don’t actually really want a metaphorical arms-limitation treaty. I think. In fact, if you had always had unlimited power, you would have already won and achieved my goals as well. I’d prefer it if the left and the right would stop treating it as their goal to remake literally every faucet of society everywhere. (I think there is some truth to the reactionary idea that the Left is a very gentle, soft, and *WEAK* totalitarian regime). Currently the Left is vaguely aware of this, but only w/r/t imperialism/colonialism, and (unfortunately) usu. when one of the imperialized people (these days, it often seems to be Muslims) points it out, and then a grotesque argument materializes where the state of mind of white liberals is suddenly more important than anybody’s actual utilitarian suffering or happiness.
I don’t necessarily want the Left to be less powerful or considerably more restrained. I want it to know its own strength and to distinguish between things that need to be reformed and specific enemies rather than rounding everything off to a form of crypto-oppression.
I wonder about the possibility of making a strictly guarded reconstructionist community popular in order to draw those who can be reformed away from the Derbyshire-and-Roissy types.