This is follow up on my article “Problems with Democracy: The Reactionary Red Pill.” Although I prefer to avoid talking about myself, when making logical assertions about reality, it is sometimes necessary (or at least helpful), to share the steps. In mathematical terms this would be expressed as “showing your work.” When I was taking math, long ago and far away, I often got in trouble for not showing all the steps I took to arrive at my answer.
I am a far right reactionary. I am not a nationalist or an anarcho-capitalist, but I have sympathies towards both and share many of the positions of both.
The main thing is I want to be left alone and free to do my own thing, which is what every intelligent person who isn’t mentally disabled or psychologically disturbed wants.
The reason why we have different shades of the right is because we don’t all agree on what the best path is to get to that point. The nationalist believes that his autonomy is best protected by a culturally and/or racially homogeneous society, or at least something close to that. The republican believes that a constitutionally regulated and limited democracy is the way to protect his autonomy. The anarchist believes that having no government is the best way to safeguard his interests. But all are different are simply different paths to the same outcome.
Any coherent political and social theories MUST start with an awareness of self, so let’s all be honest about what we really want. If you don’t have any awareness of self, like most millenials and leftists, yet you brazenly and religiously espouse an ideology, then you’re probably advocating for something which is not in your own best interests and/or you are being used.
People on the left say that people on the right are mean, and often some sort of “ist.” It’s not that we’re mean, or that the “ist” means anything objectively, it’s just that we want to be left alone. If you want to be at peace with us, then leave us alone.
I prefer to start from a position of what is best for me, when thinking about the type of system I want, and what sorts of people should or should not be around me. From there I decide which politicians are best, and which types of immigrants are the best, and which are not. At present, the bulk of what we receive are bad, but some are worse than others, and a (very) few are decent.
So I have the INTP personality type, which means I am good at getting to the root of matters, sifting out the truth, and seeing through BS. It also means I am inherently disdainful of authority and being told what to do.
To sum up my mentality: Just because most people sit down and agree that something should be done a certain way, does not mean that it should, nor is that a reason why I should care. How does it affect me? Badly? OK, then I don’t like it. I don’t care if you came to that conclusion democratically. If you want to tell me what to do, then you need to be more qualified than me in the area in which you are instructing me, otherwise your opinion is worth less than nothing, and a multitude of worthless opinions is still nothing. Also, even if someone is more intelligent than me, I may still reject what they want or have to say if it is bad for me. I want to be left alone, if you will leave me alone then I will leave you alone. If you want to be my friend then come as a friend, otherwise bugger off.
I lived out my single digits in the 1980’s. That was probably the last decade where America was still America. We lived in this neighborhood with big yards, and most of them didn’t have fences. When we weren’t in school, my parents would just let us go out, and we would run all over the neighborhood, sometimes for miles. Sometimes I would wander so far that it took over an hour to get back home. Other than occasionally getting into fights with neighbor kids, nothing ever happened to me.
Most of the time I was with my brother, but many times we wandered with other friends, and sometimes I wandered completely alone. When it came to groups, there was usually one kid who became the leader, and that was usually the kid with the strongest personality. Sometimes we attempted to do things democratically, but in either case, if I didn’t like how things were going I would just leave.
Some kids had problems with that, and those who did fell into two camps; the camp of those who would attempt to shame me, and those who would attempt to negotiate. In any case, I never saw the point in remaining in situations which were unfavorable to me. Unless the benefits outweigh the costs of an interaction I don’t with to interact.
If it’s not good for me, then it doesn’t matter what everyone else thinks. If the majority thinks that my bad is their good, then I have a vested interest in isolating myself from those people. But it is not just democracy I dislike, but fools being in charge in any setting.
I remember, we used to go to this skating ring which was full of kids. Whenever the regular skating was going on I was fine, and would go at whatever speed I wished. However, the people who ran the facility would interrupt the regular skating with songs, and during that time they would instruct us to do some sort of dance, hold hands, or some other rubbish. I would immediately get out of the ring whenever these activities were going on, while most of the kids would blithely participate like lemmings. It didn’t matter at all to me that an adult or person of authority wanted me to do something foolish, as that person doesn’t have the power to abolish the foolishness of their whim.
This is why only people of superior caliber should be in charge, period, and any system which is not conducive to that ought to be shunned.
If someone wants to do something, then fine (provided they are not hurting others), but if they want me to do it, then it had better be logical, necessary, and/or something I actually enjoy. Otherwise, forget about it.
Up until 6th grade I was homeschooled. Ironically, I had a good deal more free time when I STARTED going to school, because the school time had a definite end point, whereas when I was homeschooled the schooling almost never stopped. However, the downside of being in school was that it was more difficult to avoid unwanted peer interactions.
During recess I was more interested in going down to the stream or into the forest than playing whatever sports games or group activity the bulk of the kids were doing.
What they were doing was uninteresting to me, and therefore had no relevance to me. I did not begrudge them their activities, I simply did not want to be involved. At one point a delegation of them approached me and said that they had taken a vote and arrived at the consensus that I should join them.
I said no, and that was it. The fact that they all agreed that I should join them was irrelevant, as I had no interest in their activities, and therefore no real incentive to join them. In business terms this would be described as opportunity cost.
I was never able to get on board with the concept of collective guilt. OK, so perhaps based on criterion X I share X amount of characteristics with X group, but just because others in that group may have done something does not mean that I did. If Billy Bob has wronged Sam, then Sam should go to Billy Bob for restitution, not me. If Sam comes to me, demanding restitution for what Billy Bob did, then whatever sympathy I might otherwise feel will decline exponentially. If Billy Bob is not able to make restitution, for whatever reason, then it’s still not my problem.
I never have been able to care when people tried to condemn me based on group association, especially when I have no control over the association.
As unfortunate as it is, I have to say that my first experience with collective guilt accusations were in church. When I was a little kid, I remember there was this bald, fat, middle aged guy at my church who had a problem with my age group. He was always complaining about the kids doing this or that, and some of the kids were acting up but I had nothing to do with that.
I remember one time this fat guy had told all the kids in this open area (there were large hallways) to be seated on the floor. I thought perhaps it would be some sort of interesting game, so I complied. Then he started droning on about how the “group” had done this or that, and his tone became quite hostile, but I was completely unphased as nothing he was complaining about had anything to do with me. He said something about not moving from the spot, but I got up and left anyways.
Collective blame was always zoning out time for me, whether it was a teacher yelling at the class, a college professor, or whatever SJW politician/propagandist. I don’t care what such people have to say. Never have.
As a child, I knew intuitively that collective guilt was a rubbish concept, and as an adult I realize that it is a flimsy cover for one person to dig their hands into another’s pockets, or a tool for demagogues to manipulate people into accepting something which is to their harm.
The multiculturalist left thinks that I should care the most about people who are as different from me as possible, while nationalists would argue that I should care about people who are as similar to me as possible, but neither of those circumstances are really a reason to care about anyone, in and of themselves. I do have preferences for some groups over others, because I wish to maintain a certain lifestyle which is not possible in any and every setting.
I tend to see nationalists as an ally, because the last system I would ever want is world government. World government would be nothing short of a global police state, forced interaction, and heavy regulation. As ironic as it may sound, the more distant a government is, the more intrusive it is. Why? Because they have to be in order to maintain control. When a government rules a large and diverse territory, more police and regulations are required to control it, especially when groups which are fundamentally incompatible with one another are forced to live next to each other.
The fact is, it makes much more sense for the world to be divided up into smaller regions where different groups exist as the majority so that they are free to pursue the lifestyle and create the standard of living which suits them. Culturally compatible minorities will assimilate, and after a generation or two become fully blended with the dominant group.
Personally, I don’t care what sort of people live next to me, provided that they leave me alone, but unfortunately some people are better at that than others (ideally I would have trees for neighbors rather than people of any sort). The 1980’s America I grew up in will never exist again if the US becomes Mexico or durka land. It won’t be there for my children and other descendants to enjoy and reap the benefits of, and that outweighs (by far) whatever dubious benefits the SJW’s will receive from turning the US into their personal social experiment.
So in other words, I see the nationalists as ally because they are a means to an end. Not only do they impede world government abroad, but they also impede the SJW/multiculturalist agenda in their respective countries. I don’t share the group fervor that they do, nor do I see my existence as subordinate to the group or as a means to further group interests, but at the end of the day I will advocate for anything that is in my best interest, and be on the side of whoever is willing to be on my side.
I think the goal should be to get as close to anarchy as possible. Government, at best, is always a disparity as it has to rely on force. Pure anarchy is typically an interim state following the overthrow of a government, and there is usually a body that comes in to fill the power vacuum.
I’m sympathetic to Ancap (letting businesses provide order in place of government), and in fact used to be one, but Ancap is not going to work with everyone in the world. It definitely will not work in countries where people don’t engage in mass production or business. In cultures where people have little to no concept of civilization, the biggest chief or warlord is going to rule. When all production occurs in the home, and most people are small farmers, there are no organizations outside of government to provide order.
In durka land, if there is no government the religious clerics are going to completely take over. Whichever cleric has the most followers is going to rule, and that would technically be a democracy, as in democracy the majority rules.
One thing that got me to think differently about anarchy was going to India, which is a place that is very close to anarchy. The police and government do almost nothing, and there is very little regulation. There are some definite advantages to life in India. For example, if someone does something to your sister you can take revenge, and the people there will typically accept your action as a natural consequence of what that fool did to your sister. Whereas, in the US you have to let the legal system settle such conflicts, and if you should take matters into your own hands and beat, castrate, or do whatever to that guy, then you will also be in trouble.
On the other hand, there was garbage everywhere. Not all of India is like that, of course, but in the area I went there were no services to pick up the garbage. I also noticed that there were business advertisements placed everywhere. There were no billboards as we have them in the US, but there were billboard type ads on the side of every wall that faced a street, regardless of whether it was a house, store, partition, or whatever. When I saw that, I thought that all those people were making money. Back when I was in high school I had a friend who placed an ad on the side of his car, and got regular monthly payments as a result.
It turned I was wrong. When I asked about the signs, I was told that no one got paid for them. The guy who was showing me around said, “This is India, if you want to paint something you go and paint something.” So in other words, no permission was asked or given, people just painted ads on whatever surface was available, regardless of who owned it.
At that point I realized that anarchy was not a universal principal, as it would clearly not work with everyone.
I do believe that Ancap might work on a small scale for some groups, provided that the countries are kept small and borders stringently enforced, but not for most of humanity. I think the easier thing to do is to privatize government, and we already know that that can work as it has been done successfully for thousands of years.
Privatize everything; government, religion, services, military. Natural hierarchies are not bad, they are the most cohesive form of social organization, and a natural outgrowth of specialization of labor. A privatized government would be a natural product of the culture (as monarchies historically were), rather than a force for negative, top-down, forced, cultural change, like the Obama administration.
Furthermore, a privatized government would literally be a family-run business, and in general families do not purposefully scuttle their businesses. On the other hand, democratically elected governments often deliberately sabotage their country as their primary motivations are to get elected (even if it means importing a new people group to vote for them), and/or because they are narcissists who want to do something to leave a mark.