A Brief Response to Reactionary Future over Monarchy and Oligarchy.

Reactionary Future was one of the first reactionaries that I  read after Moldbug. I have tribute here, just before he quit and a this piece was heavily influenced by his insightful proposals.

The following is prompted by this, which is over this, written by this guy. I am very impressed by the synopsis of Moldbug given by Carlsbad, though I make few criticisms on the Xennosystem’s blog.

The following is a response to Reactionary Future over his arguments about monarchy and oligarchy.

I have chatted before with RF over the nature of the Modern Structure.  His claim is that the Modern Structure is neither a democracy or an oligarchy but a monarchy. This sounds very silly, but a good rule is that if someone who is smart and insightful says something very silly – counter-intuitive – then perhaps it should be given a second, closer look.

RF’s claim contradicts Moldbug’s, a point he would readily admit; apparently, he seems to base his claim on the arguments of Sir Robert Filmer – a reactionary critic of John Locke, someone who I have yet to read.

I discern two arguments given for RF’s claim. Firstly, the lack of analytical clarity over what an oligarchy is; secondly, the “pass the parcel argument.”

Let’s take the second first.

When I first saw RF make the claim that the Modern Structure is a monarchy and why, my first thought was “pass the parcel.” However, I think an absolutist reactionary (who I forgot the name of!) used this term first somewhere. We could also call this idea the liquid theory of sovereignty. 

The idea appears to be that the sovereign power moves from person to person and institution to institution. Depending on the situation and the time, different people are exercising sovereign power, thus making them the monarch if only for a moment.

For example, at time T1, the President is the monarch but at time T2 the mayor is and at time T3 the federal judge is and at time T4 the Supreme Court is.

The first problem I see with this is that RF’s new claim seems to contradict his older argument against protocol government. What is the sovereign?  Is it a person? An idea? A group of people, or a protocol?

Secondly, and in a related way, the analysis seems too atomic or myopic. How does “pass the parcel” provide an analysis of the structural and continuous role that institutions play in power? Institutions and ideas exist longer than any one person, and the narrow focus on who is making X decision now misses a more systematic understanding of how power works.

No doubt, you could just fold institutions and ideas into the analysis but already it is getting flabby and falling prey to the same complaints over the lack of clarity concerning oligarchy.

Finally, I think the think the key refutation of this idea is collective decision making. The U.S Supreme Court, to take just one example, are comprised of nine judges and they use majority voting to decide questions. A body of men (or women) can be sovereign (as Hobbes argued), but they cannot constitute a monarchy. I think to say so does violence to our language.

So, let’s define terms then, which is the first argument about conceptual confusion.

Firstly, let’s define power.

Political power is power concerning rules. If you can change the rules, abolish the rules, clarify the rules and introduce new rules, you have power. That is, nominal power. You have real power, if you have the means to have your rules and rulings obeyed.

Next, let’s define the different types of political power structures. Let’s stick with Aristotle’s three categories, but I will define them in my own terms.

A pure democracy is a direct democracy where the majority decide the rules by voting. Suppose, in the future, instead of the Supreme Court deciding cases, they were punted to the people and the majority of the people using a phone and a WiFi connection voted for their choice. That’s direct democracy. Indirect democracy is electing representatives who rule via majority voting.

A monarchy – a real monarchy – is where one person decides the rules by ruling. Even if the monarch delegates the task of judging questions of justice (though he could reverse any decision if he chose), he is still the monarch.

A Moldbuggian monarch is one who rules via the exercise of judgement or prudence.

An oligarchy is where the few rule over the many for the good of the few.

In formalist philosophy, an oligarchy is where the few rule over the many informally; that is where the formal political structure (elected representatives) and the political formula (democracy say) is contradicted by political reality.

The argument as to why the Modern Structure is an oligarchy is via a process of elimination.

Since the Modern Structure is not a monarchy, as defined above, and is not a direct, majoritarian democracy, and since both Presidents and Prime Ministers, Senators and Parliamentarians are a minority ruling over a majority, then the only possibility is that the regime is an oligarchy.

However, the Moldbuggian insight, which I lay out at great length here, is that since the Modern Structure defines itself as a democracy in formal terms, but is contradicted by an accurate understanding of political reality, then the regime is, by definition, corrupt, thus it is, necessarily, an oligarchy.

The claim that the Modern Structure is an oligarchy is supported by Moldbug’s vital analysis of the role that the university plays in the power structure.

Indeed, here again, I lay out this analysis at length.

I believe that the university (Harvard in particular) is the most important institution in the Modern Structure, it is the regime’s foundation, its Church. This is where the oligarchs receive their training, their credentials; this is where they form their social networks; this is where policy is formulated.

Oligarchy is where the few rule over the rest for the good of the few. Who are the few?

In functional terms, at one end of the Modern Structure, stand the professors who teach all the other members of the oligarchy; at the opposite end of the Modern Structure stand the Judges. The professors are the proximate source of the rules and the reasons for those rules; the judges, meanwhile, are the ones who provide legal rationales for the rules that the rest of the oligarchy have settled on – the “consensus of the Cathedral”.

Thus, the Modern Structure is a vertically integrated system which locks out all intellectual competition.

Between, professor and judge, we have journalist, teacher and bureaucrat.

The journalist is both propagandist and witch-hunter.

The teachers are those who indoctrinate the young. Teachers serve two evolutionary or unintentional purposes; firstly, to channel prospective young Brahmins onto university and to corrupt and dull the rest into mediocrity and compliance.

The bureaucrat, meanwhile, are the people who manage the state; it is the bureaucrats who implement the rules first formulated by the professors as theories, arguments, proposals and ideas and propagandised by journalists; it is the bureaucrats who stymie any attempt to implement, change or abolish rules contrary to the  will of the oligarchy.

Finally, the oligarchy constitute a social caste – the Brahmins. You can identity Brahmins usually by the fact they have attended university and studied a humanities subject and or by profession (teacher say) or by their beliefs (universalism). 

Finally, I should say, in terms of explanation and critical and persuasive power, calling the Modern Structure an oligarchy is both important and powerful in a way monarchy or “pass the parcel is not.”






A Key Test for Trump.

The “swamp” is trying to swallow Trump. 


Republican lawmakers have urged the president to focus on border security in general instead of the wall, which Democrats have called a poison pill that would cause them to reject the bill and shut down the government.

Trump told a group of conservative reporters he invited to the White House on Monday that he was open to getting funding for the wall in September when Congress debates the 2018 budget, the Associated Press reported. This is a sharp reversal from his position over the weekend and early Monday, when he doubled down on his demand for the wall. Trump tweeted repeatedly that the wall is necessary to stop the flow of drugs into the United States.

“If the wall is not built, which it will be, the drug situation will NEVER be fixed the way it should be!” Trump exclaimed Monday, adding: “#BuildTheWall.”

On Tuesday morning, the president claimed he had not changed his position on the wall as the “fake media” was claiming, but he didn’t specify whether he still believed he would get the funds in this week’s spending bill, which increasingly looks like a political impossibility.

This is all part of the negotiating process.

“Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., praised Trump in a statement for taking the wall “off the table.””

But did he?

Several Republican senators urged the president to think of the “big, beautiful wall” he promised on the campaign trail as symbolic of border security in general. That way, the president could declare any increase in border spending in the spending bill a victory, right as his presidency passes the symbolic 100-day mark on Friday.

“Border walls and fences are part of an overall plan, but there will never be a 2,200-mile wall built. Period,” Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., told reporters Monday evening. “I think [the wall] has become symbolic for better border security. So it’s a code word for better border security.”

Trump must not fall for it. For Trump to be seen as winning, he needs shovel to break soil. The Wall is visual, and it is a structure that stays – people remember that, they don’t remember “symbolic” “code words.”

The wall itself is not the issue for Trump, or indeed, for his supporters; it is, in reality, ending hostile immigration. However, for Trump, he needs to have the wall, because if he does not, then no matter what get’s said at the time by politicians calling him a responsible politician, come election time the same politicians, the media and his opponents will say he failed and that he betrayed his voters.

This is crucial test for Trump, a test of his ethos.

Let’s see.


The Path to the Dark Reformation Part E: Formalism, Islam and the Need for a New Congress of Vienna.


Image result for the Caliph on horseback

Moldbug’s system has three key elements: formalism, neo-cameralism and neo-royalism.

The central goal of Moldbug’s formalism is to reduce violence. 

The central goal of neo-cameralism is to provide good governance. 

The central goal of neo-royalism is to put a competent king/executive in charge who is experienced, competent and secure in their power so that they can create, change, clarify and abolish rules in order to bring about good governance.

One of the main reasons I began this blog is because I think the war between Islam and the West is one of the most, if not the most, serious problem we have.

How many people agree with that claim I wonder?

How many people even agree that such a war exists?

Samuel Huntington wrote a “notorious” book over twenty years ago that discussed the problem in a serious, rigorous way and it was derided by all the Brahmins in the Cathedral; that was before 9/11, but even long after it, academics and journalists venomously deny it his framework.

There is a global war fought on numerous continents, involving a countless number of countries, institutions and non-state actors.

Yet, despite the almost daily examples of terrorism, and the rise of “populism” which the Brahmins constantly sneer over, they still don’t appear to take it seriously.

See, for example, the attitudes on display here.

Over the last number of years, I admit to have become more increasingly nauseated and admiring of the cynical, psychopathic, dissimulating character of the white Anglo-American ex-protestant ruling elite.

In this lecture, by Edward Luttwak, he claims that grand strategy requires discipline. He provides, as an example, the grand strategy of the English ruling elite of the late 19th and early 20th century.

England’s elite had concluded two things.

Firstly, that the rising Germany was a threat and that the solution, to quote Luttwak, was that Germany “had to be destroyed.” Secondly, the English concluded that the rise of America was unstoppable and that, rather than oppose the Americans, the English should ally with them., that they should “never separate from them.”

So, the English made deals with the French – in which they gave considerable concessions; they made deals with Russians and the Japanese – this was all to deprive Germany of allies.

With the Americans, however, the English disciplined themselves to the insults, humiliations and abuses of the Americans – including the loss of their Empire.

The result?

We all know the result.

Whether or not it was worth it, or that it was the correct choice, the English acted with consummate discipline and amoral ruthlessness.

Luttwak says that to do strategy you must not only think in a “paradoxical way” but in a way that defies moral common sense – only cold logic of conflict must be used.

For instance, Caesar in Gaul was absolutely brutal with the Gauls. At one point, towards the end of the Gallic War, when the proconsular time limit for Caesar was running out, Caesar gave the order to chop of the hands of the Gauls who had broke their promise not to fight him again.

After Caesar, Gaul did not rise again.

Yet, during the Civil War, Caesar pardoned the Republicans who, after being defeated, submitted to him so that they could go home. Indeed, even those who took up arms twice, thus breaking their promise, to Caesar – he forgave them again.

So, the Anglo-American elite are a cold blooded, duplicitous, cynical people who pretend to be moral fanatics, but who are cunning foxes underneath the mask.

Everything that has happened to bring us to this point appears to have been planned with care and attention.

Of course, if it was your child lying dead in the streets of Nice, or your wife lying dead in the streets of Berlin, you’re likely to feel quite different. If it is Muslims moving into your street and hooking your daughter on heroin and then pimping her out, you’re likely to feel different, but that is because you are a poor, stupid serf who means nothing to the elites.

This scene, for instance, captures the attitude of the Anglo elite rather well.

(Though the quote that “you can always buy one half of the poor to kill the other half” was spoken by “Boss” Tweed who was Scots-Irish.)

Gangs of New York was a movie based on real history.

But here is yet another example of Anglo cunning which explains the reason behind this. 

And, of course, who could forget something like this. 

So, the Anglo-Americans sponsor third-world immigration to beat down the proles and the middle-classes in order to secure their power on the one hand, while the resulting terrorism justifies their military adventures abroad on the other –  Steve Sailer’s “invade the world, invite the world.”

Terrorism does not really matter, so say our liberal elites.

Elsewhere, I took Nicholas Kristof and Sam Altman to task for their moral imbecility, so I will try to be brief this time.

Terrorism matters because no one has any idea what the consequences will be of it. Secondly, and as time, technology and the war continues, the possibility of a nuclear dirty-bomb attack, a chemical weapons attack or a destabilising cyber-attack mount.

19 hijackers killed nearly three thousand Americans in a single morning. The Global Structure – my name for the international version of Moldbug’s Modern Structure – directly and indirectly killed over one million Muslims over a fifteen year period.

So, terrorism matters, for both the serfs living in the Global Structure’s open prison and for Muslim serfs in Allah’s prison.

No one really has any idea of how to stop the escalation of violence at this point. In the West, I sense a kind of world weariness: that a long war with massive violence and huge repression will be needed; mixed however, with a frantic panic that someone is an Islamophobe.

No one talks about peace: not the Brahmins at Harvard, or the Brahmins at the Times; the people who do talk about war, however, have no vision of peace, order and stability.

Today, I’m going to talk about both war and peace, and I am going to talk about the only possible solution to the problem posed in the three conjectures.  

Today, we are going to undertake an exercise both in grand strategy and in formalist political theorising for Global Peace and Civilisation. I doubt that I will ever win this however.


Formalism is the idea that conflicts can be eliminated by specifying their results in advance. The idea is that people seem to fight a lot less when both sides know what the outcome will be. As long as the obvious answer and the right answer to this question are both obviously the same, no one has any temptation to test the system, and therefore it is stable.

For example, you are in a state of precise internal formalism if, whenever anyone fights the law, the law always wins. Precise internal formalism is always desirable. It is the same thing sometimes known informally as “rule of law.”


Conjecture 1: Terrorism has lowered the nuclear threshold

These obstacles to terrorist capability are the sole reason that the War on Terror has not yet crossed the nuclear theshold, the point at which enemies fight each other with weapons of mass destruction. The terrorist intent to destroy the United States, at whatever cost to themselves, has been a given since September 11. Only their capability is in doubt. ( Emphasis Mine DR.) This is an inversion of the Cold War situation when the capability of the Soviet Union to destroy America was given but their intent to do so, in the face of certain retaliation, was doubtful.  (DREarly warning systems, from the DEW Line of the 1950s to the Defense Support Satellites were merely elaborate mechanisms to ascertain Soviet intent. That put the Cold War nuclear threshold rather high. Even the launch of a few multimegaton warheads at US targets or a nuclear exchange between forces at sea would not necessarily precipitate Central Nuclear War if American national command authority was convinced that the Soviet strike was accidental or could be met with a proportional response; in other words, without the intent to initiate an all out nuclear exchange, there would be none.

Nuclear holocaust was prevented because the players understood the pay-offs and each player’s intent.

Conjecture 2: Attaining WMDs will destroy Islam


This fixity of malice was recognized in President Bush’s West Point address in the summer of 2002, when he concluded that “deterrence — the promise of massive retaliation against nations — means nothing against shadowy terrorist networks with no nation or citizens to defend.”  (DR) The enemy was equally indifferent to inducement or threat. Neither making nice — Jimmy Carter’s withdrawal from Iran, Reagan’s abandonment of Lebanon, Bush’s defense of Saudi Arabia, Clinton’s rescue of Albanian Muslims from Serbian genocide, the payment of billions in aid to Egypt and Pakistan — nor the gravest of threats would alter the enemy’s intent to utterly destroy and enslave America. Allah had condemned America. The Faithful only had to find the means to carry out the execution.

Because capability is the sole variable of interest in the war against terrorism, the greater the Islamic strike capability becomes, the stronger the response will be. (DR) An unrepeatable attack with a stolen WMD weapon would elicit a different response from one arising from a capability to strike on a sustained and repetitive basis. The riposte to an unrepeatable attack would be limited. However, suppose Pakistan or North Korea engineered a reliable plutonium weapon that could be built to one-point safety in any machine shop with a minimum of skill, giving Islamic terrorists the means to repeatedly attack America indefinitely. Under these circumstances, there would no incentive to retaliate proportionately. The WMD exchange would escalate uncontrollably until Islam was destroyed. (DR).

So, the longer this war continues, the faster technology improves, the more people die then the probability that hundreds of millions of Muslims will have to be systematically eliminated using weapons of mass destruction rises.

What Fernandez says next is of critical importance:

In a war between nations, the conflict might stop at this point. But since there is no one with whom to negotiate a peace and no inclination to stop anyhow, the Islamic terrorists will continue while they have the capability and the cycle of destruction continues.

At this point, a United States choked with corpses could still not negotiate an end to hostilities or deter further attacks. There would be no one to call on the Red Telephone, even to surrender to. In fact, there exists no competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world. Even if the terror chiefs could somehow be contacted in this apocalyptic scenario and persuaded to bury the hatchet, the lack of command and control imposed by the cell structure would prevent them from reining in their minions. Due to the fixity of intent, attacks would continue for as long as capability remained. Under these circumstances, any American government would eventually be compelled by public desperation to finish the exchange by entering -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column: total retaliatory extermination. 

(Emphasis mine.)

Public desperation, or because one of my Dark preachers have come to power.

The critical thing, however, is that there is no “competent Islamic authority, no supreme imam who could stop a jihad on behalf of the whole Muslim world.”


Here, at Dark Reformation, we believe that competent, secure, authority is one third of the solution to all our problems: Western, Islamic and Global.

How to do it?


The idea is to eliminate uncertainty in nuclear conflicts, which is the most plausible cause of an actual outbreak of actual nuclear war. Gun nuts say that you shouldn’t point a gun at someone unless you’re ready to use it. They are trying to protect others from their own stupidity, but they are also trying to protect themselves: the less plausible it is to criminals that their victims won’t shoot if they lunge, the less likely they are to test the proposition.

 The system:

….here is one simple system of nuclear law that relies on performance inspections. This design is conflict-free and nonproliferative. However, it is not politically correct.

First, there are two types of sovorgs, nuclear sovorgs and nonnuclear sovorgs.

Second, delivery is assumed, and inspection is as simple as possible: anyone who can test a working bomb is a nuclear sovorg. Inspectors define “working” by their own judgment.

Third, every nonnuclear sovorg must maintain an official affiliation with one, and only one, nuclear sovorg. The nonnuclear sovorg is the client of the nuclear sovorg, which is the protector. A nuclear protector and its affiliates are a nuclear bloc. Either the client or the protector may sever this relationship, for any reason, at any time.

Fourth, an unaffiliated nonnuclear sovorg, or total defector, has no protection. Anyone may conquer and retain it. If multiple forces make the attempt, they should try and agree on a partition beforehand.

Fifth, in all suits between nuclear and nonnuclear sovorgs, whether or not the latter is affiliated with the former, the nuclear power prevails in all disputes except those solely affecting the territory of the nonnuclear sovorgs, in which case the nonnuclear sovorg prevails. Essentially, a nonnuclear sovorg controls its borders, everything inside them, and nothing else.

Sixth, all suits between nonnuclear sovorgs within a single nuclear bloc are judged by the protector. All suits between nonnuclear sovorgs in different blocs are judged by arbitrators appointed by agreement of both protectors. The same is the case for suits between nuclear sovorg, which hopefully will be rare.

Seventh, no nuclear sovorg allows its territory or the territory of its affiliates to be used for the planning or preparation of military attacks against any other sovorg, noting only that this rule cannot be invoked to demand any restriction on free expression.

Eighth, missile defense systems are prohibited, until they can be made as reliable as missiles. If this technical assessment changes, this rule should be revisited, but any missile defense system should be a joint effort between all nuclear sovorgs, designed only for total defectors.

It should be clear that anyone who feels the need to break these rules is a major psycho, and needs to be suppressed or at least contained by any means necessary. The idea of asymmetric war – a war in which different sides play by different rules – is one of the sickest jokes of the twentieth century. If you could explain this concept to Emerich de Vattel, he’d be retching for hours with awful, agonizing laughter. Washcorp can stop playing this game any time it decides it’s done.

It should also be clear that this design is antiproliferative. A nuclear protector has absolutely no incentive to allow its clients to go nuclear. It would lose a customer and gain a competitor.

Therefore, it will require that any client which does not have a nuclear program be prepared to prove it. And it will sever its ties with any client which does not comply. Presumably the latter will happen in time for the client to be devoured, like a shark in the shark tank, by its local competitors. Perhaps with some military aid from the protector if absolutely needed. If the rogue sovorg is to find another protector, it will face exactly the same ban.

Nuclear powers will also place golden handcuffs on their nuclear scientists, paying them like rock stars and placing restrictions on their movements and communication. There is no reason to do otherwise. Not all scientists will accept this bargain, but enough will.

Now, with the set up complete, how do we solve the problem of Islam?

There are two problems with Islam.

The first is internal, the second external.

The internal problem is that the Islamic religion is anarchic. The theology and the authority which adjudicates theological questions is not formalised; nor does formal authority match real authority in many cases. An imam can argue all he wants, but if men with guns and beards show up to kill him, the imam is toast unless he can bring his own men with guns and beards.

Anarchy condemns Muslims to a constant and never-ending war of all against all.

The external problem is with Islam and its relationship to non-Islamic civilisations, in particular Western civilisation.

Muslims can rape, rob and kill with near impunity because there is no mechanism of effective deterrence.

The Islamic world has no competent, secure authority which can negotiate with the West and constrain or eliminate the radicals. This means that the West must either accept being slowly bled and beaten or order brutal acts of collective punishment on the entire Muslim community; finally, as Richard Fernandez argues with the case of nuclear or chemical weapons, total extermination is the only option.

Let’s imagine the answer to the the direst of dire question: what-would-Hitler-do?

I think we know what Hitler would do. It would be the same as Stalin or Mao or Sherman or numerous other men of war.

When the British arranged for Reinhard Heydrich to be assassinated (certainly a folly and arguably a crime, not against Heydrich, but against the people of the town of Lidice who were virtually all killed on the orders of Hitler; all the men were shot, and the women and children were sent to death camps and gassed to death.)

What is the formalist answer, however?

Here is the system.

1: There are four categories of actors: regular Muslims, Imams, Emirs and the Caliph.

2: All Muslims, or anyone who wishes to be a Muslim, or who considers themselves Muslim, must register formally with a Mosque and an Imam. All Muslims who are registered with the Mosque, under the guidance and protection of the Imam, constitute a collective security pact.

3: For our purposes we can say that an attack on one is an attack on all members of the pact; however, the corollary of this is that if one member commits a crime and or an act of terror, then all members, including the Imam, are deemed collectively responsible for the crime.

4: All Imams must register with Emirs, and all Emirs must register with the Caliph.

5: The Emirs and the Caliph are the protectors of Imams and Emirs, who are clients. Disputes between Muslims can be solved by an Imam; disputes between Imams can be solved by Emirs and disputes between Emirs can be solved by the Caliph who is the final and absolute judge.

6: Any and all Muslims, Imams and Emirs who are not part of any formal pact and protector-client relationship are to be judged infidels; thus, it is the duty of all Muslims to use any and all means necessary to bring them into a pact, or eliminate them entirely. In addition, it is perfectly permissible for non-Muslims to use any actions they deem fit and proper against these lone-wolfs, rogues or infidels.

7: If disputes arise between Muslims and non-Muslims, then the protectors of each participant can try to resolve the situation. If this fails at the local level, then it works its way up to the top, where the Caliph and (Ha! Ha!) the King, Tzar or Emperor resolve the situation together.

8: If a Muslim commits an act of terror against a non-Muslim that has not been sanctioned by the Imam, Emir and or Caliph, then it is the duty of any and all Muslims to bring them to justice – which is death. Furthermore, if their friends or family members, who have been registered at the same Mosque with the same Imam, had knowledge of the attack but said and did nothing, then they to must face justice. Also, the entire Mosque will be taxed, including the Imam. Subsequent attacks will result in greater and greater fines and not only for the Imam but for the Emir. If Imams are unhappy with the lack of piety (pacifism) among their members, they may have them punished and the same goes for the Emirs and the Caliph with his Emirs.

9: If violence becomes sustained, widespread and serious, then the relevant authority orders that female members of the infidels are to be enslaved and sold as sex slaves or slaves to anyone who wishes to buy them.

10: If the Caliph fails in his contractual obligations to enforce discipline on his clients, then non-Muslims can take various actions against the Caliph personally. This may involve money, property and apologies. It may also involve sanctions. If disputes cannot be resolved, it may involve assassinating his key or important Emirs and their families. The penultimate action, however, will result in the assassination or elimination of the Caliph and his family. Ultimately, if disputes cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of all parties, then the only recourse is war, and in war, the law is silent.

11: Nevertheless, the contractual relationships are symmetrical. Should a non-Muslim kill a Muslim, then the Muslim community can demand justice over the killing. If the killer is part of pact, such as having a contractual relationship with an insurance company, a private security company, who provide law and order for a neo-cameralist Western state, then they have contractual obligations to punish him.

12: Overall, by having a formal system of promises and relationships with known and certain responses understood in advance of any crime or act of aggression, then violence can be minimised because the parties involved understand the consequences of having collective security.

Thus, Muslims will not want to be part of Mosques that have a poor history of terrorism or failing to honour their obligations and the other side of the coin is that Imams will not want to allow potential terrorists to be part of their pact. The same logic applies between the Emir and the Imam and between the Caliph and the Emirs.

So, if for example, a group were trying to create weapons of mass destruction in order to use them against non-Muslims without the proper sanction, then the structure of incentives all points to Muslims attempting to either constrain or eliminate them.

In conclusion, the system depends on all parties having the means and the will to carry out their contractual obligations to engage in whatever acts of violence is necessary to deter, constrain or eliminate rogues.

I believe the Muslim world has no problem with this aspect of the system; however, it is creating the system itself that would pose the most problems.

The means of creating a Caliph could be done via a direct democratic election. All it requires is a phone and an internet connection. An indirect democratic way, however, would be to directly elect Imams who elect the Caliph.

The Caliph, however, must have some means of enforcing his judgement – the same with Emirs over Imams.

The Caliph needs men, money and materials.

One solution would be, after his election, to form a joint-stock corporation and advertise for investors and donations from all over the world.

With sufficient start-up money, the Caliph and his staff, can buy communication equipment and broadcast to the entire Muslim world.

His first communication would consist of communicating, in his own way, the system I have just explained.

He would offer peace and justice to all, but his authority would extend only to people who have pledged allegiance with him.

His communications consist of legal and theological judgements based upon the cases he hears from Emirs who have pledged their allegiance to him.

Money, either from taxes, payments or fines, can be dealt with using crypto-currency technology.

The next step, is to create a private security company along with an insurance company.

The private security company will provide personal protection for the Caliph, and protection for all those who are his clients; secondly, in order to achieve this, they will threaten no governments – Islamic or non-Islamic. They will request, and try to influence, using non-violent persuasion, any government to allow them to undertake duties of law, order and justice, as it pertains to their members.

If this proves successful, then more investors will invest, and more clients will contract (pledges of allegiance).

The next stage is to both resolve some small, local disputes and one major dispute between Islamic governments his clients and non-western governments respectively. Secondly, it is either to negotiate with and persuade Islamic terrorist groups to desist; if that cannot be done, then deploy the private security company (its private military wing) to defeat and or destroy them. (Boko Haram in Africa would be a good test case.)

Subsequently, the goal would be to have villages, towns, cities and countries pledge their allegiance to him – using the direct democratic methods outlined earlier. It would be wise to work with a small, manageable numbers at first; then expand..

Finally, the entire Muslim world pledges allegiance to him, and the non-Muslim world recognise him as the legitimate ruler of the Islamic world.

There can be little doubt, however, that significant opposition would exist from the start and throughout his rise to power. The only option would be to use the methods I described earlier.

Eventually, the Caliph takes up residence in Mecca, where he will rule. His primary duty, if he were wise, would be to just adjudicate disputes and to appoint Emirs who would govern the various Islamic Patchworks according to their needs and circumstances.

The project of Islamic restoration, however, would prove an attractive draw for Muslims who are both materially and spiritually poor. There would be an Imperial Guard an Imperial Science, an Imperial University and Imperial Administrators. Competition would be fierce, yet open to all Muslims; the training would be gruelling, yet the rewards would be not only financially tremendous but it would confer the highest of high status on those men who made it into the various Imperial Orders.

For Westerners, however, the pay-offs are Win Win Win.

Firstly, if this memebomb spread among the Muslim world it would, more than anything, divide it into even more anarchy and division than what it currently is – and the result would have no moral taint whatsoever. Islam would fight itself, not because the West is trying to bring democracy, but because the West is trying to bring Islam to Islam.    

Secondly, if the plan did prove successful, then the West benefits because it would have a clear, competent, secure authority with which to negotiate (Kissinger once said: “If I need to call Europe who do I call?) and resolve disputes.

Thirdly, if the plan was successful, but this new united Islamic world began to renege on its formal obligations and become aggressive. Then, the West has a clear, defined and easily attacked structure and target set. Thus, if the West uses violence, the violence is much, much more likely to be effective.

If not, if the situation remained hopeless and the use of weapons of mass destruction were used or about to be used, then the West, or China or Russia would have no choice.

However, contra what Fernandez says below, they would not lose their soul over it:

 James Lileks and the Pew respondents would not lose America; but like the boogeyman in Seven, Islam would take it’s soul. The most startling result of this analysis is that a catastrophic outcome for Islam is guaranteed whether America retaliates or not. Even if the President decided to let all Americans die to expiate their historical guilt, why would Islamic terrorists stop after that? They would move on to Europe and Asia until finally China, Russia, Japan, India or Israel, none of them squeamish, wrote -1 x 10^9 in the final right hand column.  (Emphasis mine.) They too would be prisoners of the same dynamic, and they too have weapons of mass destruction.

A guaranteed catastrophic outcome for Islam either way:

Conjecture 3: The War on Terror is the ‘Golden Hour’ — the final chance

It is supremely ironic that the survival of the Islamic world should hinge on an American victory in the War on Terror, the last chance to prevent that terrible day in which all the decisions will have already been made for us. That effort really consists of two separate aspects: a campaign to destroy the locus of militant Islam and prevent their acquisition of WMDs; and an attempt to awaken the world to the urgency of the threat. While American arms have proven irresistible, much of Europe, as well as moderates in the Islamic world, remain blind to the danger and indeed increase it. Prime Minister Mahathir Mohammad recently “told an international conference of young Muslim leaders … (that) … Muslims must acquire skills and technology so they can create modern weapons and strike fear into the hearts of our enemies”. Fecklessness and gunpowder are a lethal combination. The terrible ifs accumulate. (Bold mine.)

The claim that Americans and Europeans are increasing the danger, should not be read in a formal but in a real way – if only for the inner elite among the oligarchy of the Modern Structure.

What is the possibility that such a system could be implemented?

A considerable number of Muslims do want the Caliphate, and I would assume many, if not most, would be happy to live in the system – with some adjustments, of course, and presented in an Islamic language.

Nevertheless, for the system to work, it requires two parties – it requires the West. But as Putin said of the American regime under the Obama administration, USG is not “agreement capable.” Who would the Caliph call in Washington never-mind Brussels?

We need a new congress of Vienna, but for that we need real rulers.

We needs Kings.

We need an American Emperor for an American Empire.








Lord Wellington, in his voluminous and eloquent dispatches, often referred to his critics as “croakers.”

Wellington –  a conservative-cum-reactionary – also said: “to begin reform is to begin revolution.”

Wellington was no fan of either reform or revolution. In his day, men – “scum of the earth” – who stepped out of line were flogged, shot or hanged.

Good Morning.

Wellington did not like change.

But if Wellington were to see our society today?

Moldbug asked his readers to imagine reading the newspaper as if you were Lord Wellington.

I can say it is an interesting exercise.

What would the Iron Duke’s response be to this?


And this?



More gibbets.

Anyway, here I want to gently prod some of the “croakers” in Nrx, who, along with others in the alt-right, have been doing a good bit of “croaking” recently.

This is all friendly stuff, knockabout stuff, My Good Lords.

Now, I believe I have written more on Trump, his methods and his meaning, than anyone else in the reactiosphere.

Yet, nowhere did I claim that Trump was a reactionary. In fact, I don’t think I even ever called him a conservative, or even discussed his ideology -instead I called Trump a “political entrepreneur”.

Here is what I said months ago:

I used to never care about Donald Trump.

I never watched the Apprentice.

When Trump began the game, coming down the escalator, I was in China. I thought, like most people, it was some kind of joke and I never paid any attention.

I do, however, pay attention to many things.

One of the things I pay attention to is Islamic terrorism.

For the last fifteen years, I have paid attention to Islam and studied it most assiduously. For ten years, I have collected nearly every terrorist attack that has occurred — across the entire globe.

Then, I go onto say:

One of my predictions (if current trends continue X is likely or will happen) was Islam becoming a dividing point in politics.

A dividing point in a democracy is when subject X requires an either or position — no middle ground. Either you are for something or against something.

So, my prediction was that at some time T1 a political entrepreneur would take a stand on this subject and say something like “no more Muslims.” (Emphasis mine.)

I stand by that description.

Trump is probably a narcissist, a Machiavellian and a sociopath.

So was Caesar; so was Churchill; so was Grove and so was Jobs.

Nearly all leaders will have a tremendous ego which radiates as confidence to others (narcissism); he will be a real people person/persuader, in other words he will be a charmer (Machiavellian); naturally competitive, he will tell any lie, will crush anyone, will do anything…..to WIN (sociopath).

This is one reason, gentlemen, why the left tend to always win. Think on that gentlemen.

Trump is a real player – an entrepreneur – he wants to WIN WIN WIN.

So, Trump’s moves with Syria acted like a reactionary Rorschach test for all of us.

Spandrell says it does not look good.

Citadel says he was wrong.

Gray Enlightenment was disappointed.

Tsang says he feels betrayed.

Landry is measured.

Jim is working the angles, but is still positive.

Heartiste is upbeat, however.

Gentlemen, the GAME IS THE GAME.

What is the object of the GAME?

The object is to win.

And what is Trump?

A winner.

How does Trump win?

By getting re-elected.

How do you get re-elected?

By persuading a sufficient number of people, in specific locations, to vote for you.

That is the formal reading however.

The real reading, however, is that in order for Trump to win re-election, he has to carefully manage, not just individuals, but coalitions, and not only in America but all around the world.

He has to reward allies with pay, prestige and perks and either defeat enemies or win them over – or at least convince them to be neutral.

He has to keep some allies, sacrifice some, and win over new ones.

He has to manage appearance and reality.

Who ever said Trump was a reactionary?

One of the core ideas of neoreaction is the distinction between form and reality. Don’t pay so much attention to the form (word, text or speech) and more to reality (action and consequences).

Remember, Trump, like all players (which includes politicians) wants to get and keep power. Thus, what he must aim for is re-election in 2020. In order to win in 2020, he will need to not only maintain his base, but expand it.

In all likelihood, outside of a blackswan, Trump will win. The left is going down to defeat everywhere; however, because we still have democracy, Trump will have to pander to people.

Unless Trump does something extremely silly – like do an Iraq on Turkey and bring ten million Muslims into America, his base will vote for him.

This game is a marathon, and not a sprint, and the prize is power, prestige, perks and payment – always and everywhere. Always.

What Trump just did over the last several weeks, is to make him look human/sentimental/humanitarian and also strong/decisive and competent with the Syrian strike.

He has killed the whole “Hitler thing” by “crying” over babies.

Hitler never cried over babies.

Trump has to guard against a potential Republican challenger in 2020, so he needs to look competent and tough – but compassionate. Also, he needs to defang potential charges from Democrat challengers that he is a heartless, reckless, warmonger: “babies! Dead Babies”.

So Far, So Good.

Also, Trump – seemingly – has “put” Bannon in his place – which is a great move politically.


Because Trump can make it seem to the media, and thus the public, including the liberals, that all the “ugly stuff” came from Bannon – this makes Trump look like a “moderate” – which helps with his public relations – “grow the base.”

Also, by  seeming to knock Bannon down a bit, it makes Trump look like he is in charge and not Bannon (does anyone watch SNL?)  If I was Bannon, I would have suggested this line of attack myself.

(Remember that scene in Ender’s Game where Ender says to his new Spanish prick boss that he should pretend to punish him and Ender should pretend to care? The Game is the Game. )

Now, has anything of substance changed ala Bannon? He got removed from the “chair”, but he can still sit on the NSC. He still has access to the President. So, no real change.

Whoever said Trump was going to be an isolationist? An isolationist does not say “Bomb the shit out of em.”

Here is the test for Trump: punish enemies ruthlessly, reward allies generously; support leaders capable of holding down the barbarians; put fear and doubt into America’s rivals and make a deal or two and make it look like you’re a peacemaker one day, and a warlord the next.

If Bannon, Miller, Gorka and Anton get shit-canned, start to worry. If Sessions gets stumped, or starts to cuck, start to worry.

Is the above true?

Maybe, maybe not.

The above is a coherent interpretation of the facts.

There can be many different coherent interpretations however.

Perhaps, the only way we can really judge all of this is from the perspective of history – that is after the events in question have long past.

So, for Trump, all being well, in his opening campaign speech in 2020, he might say:


(Trump, this time, will not be pitching to the public that he is a successful businessman, a political outsider, who wants to fix Washington. No. He is MR SMITH DONE GOOD AND ALL.)


They said Trump couldn’t win the nomination.

Trump won the nomination.

They said Trump couldn’t win the election.

Trump won the election.

They said Trump was not smart.

But Trump outsmarted them all. Look at my beautiful cabinet! Look at my tremendous cabinet – I choose them. Tillerson. Trump! Matthis. Trump! Kelly. Trump! Haley. Trump! Pence. Trump! I-Chose-Them.

They said Trump was a warmonger.

But Trump made great deals – GREAT DEALS –  with Putin, with Xi and ripped up Obama’s bad deal – a horrible, no good, terrible deal –  with Iran. 

They said Trump couldn’t build a wall.

Trump built a wall. We Built a Wall Folks! WE BUILT THE WALL! (USA! USA! USA!)

They said Trump was not competent to deal with Islamic radicalism.

Folks, Bagdadi is dead. DEAD! DEAD!!!

They said Trump cannot ban criminals and terrorists from America.

Trump, thanks to my Supreme Court nomination, won. We can now ban terrorists and other dangerous Islamic radicals – ISLAMIC RADICALS –  from our country. 

Look at the polls, the military loves me, the uneducated love me, the folks from the “blue wall” (which we shattered last time) love me.  (Oh BTW I love Michigan. I LOVE Michigan!) Women love me. 

Now, folks, we have made real progress. REAL PROGRESS! real progress, it’s true, oh it’s true, In KEEPING AMERICA SAFE! America Safe! America safe. 






That, or something like it, is a possible outline of a 2020 campaign strategy. The story begins by telling everyone how Trump has constantly upended expectations and predictions and proved successful. Then, you cite these achievements. Finally, put the fear into people over the other candidates.

If I was a strategist, my advice to Trump would be to take away as much of the white working and middle-class as possible who tend to vote blue in the swing states, or in Dem heartlands. This involves a story about “white hate” coming from the left and fear over physical, economic and social status insecurity.

Trump, also could win big by buying off some of the blacks who vote Dems.

Finally, Trump really needs to get white, single, women, on board. This is a tough one, but he needs to, on the one hand, be Alpha, but also show a caring, tender side. His daughter – Ivanka – is a real ace in the hole here.

So, for Trump to win he has to build a coherent coalition, while the Dems will be left to sputtering incoherence.

But Events dear boy! Events. 

Events is what can spoil a plan, for no plan survives contact with reality.

Talking about events and British Prime Ministers……

In other news, Is Chairman May planning to reverse Brexit?

Probably not.

The reason she is having an early election is probably for the following reasons:

1: Golden opportunity to smash Labour.

2: Golden opportunity to nip any new Scottish referendum.

3: The election will NOT just be about Brexit, it will be about who governs Britain. However, May will use her election victory to push the claim that the entire British people are behind Brexit……..

4: Which strengthens her hand in negotiations with Brussels. How? Because Brussels will not be able to negotiate from a strong position and or push for stalemate and wind down the clock till 2020 and hope for a new government. Now, they must face a government with a “mandate” that can go all the way to 2022. And for the EU a lot can happen in five years.

5: If May waited, there is a good chance Labour would have had a new leader by 2018, then this leader would be more formidable than Corbyn.

6: It is also possible, that the French election may – may – have something to do  with her decision.

However, I don’t really think May really wants Brexit, the comedy is that events – events dear girl –  have forced her hand.




The Path to the Dark Reformation Part D: Demons of the Demos.

(This was written – or rather “curated” – several months ago; I have made minor changes to it so that it still reflects the time in which it was created.)

“However, I’ve come to realise that the specific nature of the horror frequently isn’t the primary reason for the glee. It takes a certain level of callous disregard to respond to human suffering in such a manner, but the real target of derision is most often People Like Me. That is, socially liberal, middle-class do-gooders piously informing people that they should care about these various issues. In the words of Rage Against the Machine, the message being conveyed is clear: “Fuck you, I won’t do what you tell me.”


Here is the problem: the Modern Structure is complete. The ancien regime is no more. Therefore, it is simply impossible for the progressive movement to generate anything like the energy it generated in the ’60s. The whole Obama experience, in particular, is a major downer. But this apathy would be growing anyway. It is just increasingly obvious that the ’60s will never be repeated. The logs it burned are ash.


This isn’t something XS has done before, but it seems necessary to do it now. Here (from October last year) is an anticipation of where this blog finds itself right now. Perhaps NRx was from the beginning part of the Cathedral funeral process.

Some serious adjustment is called for. An enemy that can suffer a defeat this stupendous clearly isn’t a radically intimidating adversary. We can already see beyond it. The conflict has moved on. 

My current (uncertain) take: The regime analyzed by classical NRx has descended into a deeply morbid state. Things will get worse for it, perhaps catastrophically, more quickly than we yet imagine, in a cascade of collapse. All the trends that count against it are still strengthening, in many case exponentially. It would be an analytical error to remain fixated upon its corpse.

Demotism is, of course, undefeated (perhaps even temporarily reinforced). The Cathedral, however, appears mortally wounded. This year was — quite plausibly — its 1989.

ADDED: To be a little clearer, it isn’t really 1989, it’s 1517. The quasi-universal authority of a church died (as a result of techonomic media innovation, among other factors).


“We await the start of the politics of the 21st century. We anticipate the American 21st century will be begin with the collapse of the American Left…..”


American democracy has elected Donald Trump as President.

Donald Trump defeated the Cathedral but has certainly not defeated the Modern Structure, or, indeed, the very idea of democracy – though progressives are starting to have some doubt even there.

(MS consists of 1: the “Polygon” aka the extended civil service; 2: The “Cathedral” the universities and the press; 3: The “Caste” structure; 4: The “Universalist” ideological structure.)

Bush, Clinton and Obama have been dispatched. Obama’s Presidency has been an unqualified disaster – for America and even for Democrats – by nearly every yardstick of measurement, most especially the power and perks of elected office.

The next four years, meanwhile, may be the most important for the early 21st century. 

The progressive, Universalist, ideology is being progressively discredited; Trump has taken a mighty hammer to the front door of the Cathedral, stormed in and is now smashing up the altar:

The great locomotive of history is out of gas and we have to walk the remainder of the way wherever it is that the road leads. It’s demise marks the fall of a great civilizational cathedral.


The formal purpose of the Cathedral – as the informational system of the Modern Structure – is to guide the people in their democratic choices – what to think and value; its real purpose, however, is not to aid democracy, but to prevent it. That it failed,  despite hundreds of millions of dollars, and all the best Brahmin minds, reveals  that the hold the rulers have over the ruled is beginning to slip. Trump would not have been possible ten years ago,  never-mind twenty. When the Cathedral falls, demotism rises. The Cathedral is falling, but the consequences of what we are witnessing and are about to witness, will be playing out for many years to come.

Neoreactionaries were in a unique position to not only have anticipated Trump’s victory, but to explain it.

What is that explanation?

No doubt, we can talk about the systematically flawed economy or the fact that crime is out of control or that the ruling elite is utterly corrupt; however, here is a very different analysis from Moldbug, written-all-the-way-back in 2011 where he addressed Lawerence Auster:

Is not this passage all that needs to be said of your Dead Island? Which suffers (along with the rest of the world) one and only one disease, kinglessness–of which all other pathologies are no more than symptoms.
It is possible to be kingless without a Sham-King. But it takes more work. Our presidency serves more or less the same function–providing the necessary symbol of executive authority, to conceal the fact that the reality has disappeared (there is nothing genuinely executive about our “executive branch”). The Hanoverian dynasty is remarkable, though, in that its monarchs have been shams from beginning to end, with perhaps a minor exception in George III’s attempts at a king’s party.
What do you think Americans respond to in “The Donald” and Gov. Christie? To the obvious kinginess of these figures. Supreme personal authority, generally male, is a normal human function and one we recognize instinctively. The job of King does not exist, at least not in the public sector, but the Trumps and Christies come as close to it as possible and are clearly biologically suited for the position.
Thus the genuine enthusiasm for these figures, who alas, win or lose, will never enjoy a fraction of the old Plantagenet, Tudor or Stuart royal prerogative. A true King could still save England, I think, or any of her far-flung children…


Quite. There was even a meme of it:


Moldbug is one of the very few people to have actually understood what Trump’s election meant – and what it doesn’t. I picture his mind in two places at once: in the past, and generating potential futures; seeing the tributaries, streams and rivers of blood, lies, cant and chaos leading to this world-historical, tragic-comic farce of a moment. He could see the time-paradox of this election – the man who should not have been President – the cunning clown, the Cathedral’s Mule. Moldbug understands what Trump is up against, should he really undertake the things he formally says he will. Trump, however, is the Mule – wittingly, or not. Even a debacle – Trump undone, the great disappointment, a downer, a defeat, a democide – will have huge, unintended, ugly cascading ramifications – none of which favours the Modern Structure. His appointment of military and corporate men to the administration is a portent of things to come: the reversal, not only of “progress” but of the idea of “progress”.

Let us look at the “reaction”.

The Shaking of the Modern Structure:

Donald Trump has been elected president of the United States. The extent of the bewilderment is significant. The pollsters were shocked. The media was surprised. The financial markets were stunned. Many in the Republican Party were astonished. And the Democratic Party was totally taken off guard. The thought that a man with Trump’s values and behavior could become president was, to many, unthinkable. I do not mean that they disagreed with him, or hoped that Trump would lose. They thought it inconceivable that a man like Trump could win.That is the reason Hillary Clinton lost. The Democratic Party that nominated her has moved far away from the party that Franklin D. Roosevelt crafted or that Lyndon B. Johnson had led. Their party had as its core the white working class. The liberalism of FDR and LBJ was built around this group, with other elements added and subtracted. Much has been said about this group having become less important. Perhaps so, but it is still the single largest ethnic and social group in the country.

This group, as I have argued before, is in trouble. The middle class, with a median take-home pay in California of about $4,300 a month, can buy a modest house and a car but certainly can’t afford to send their kids to college. Hence the massive student loans their children must take out. The lower-middle class has a take-home pay of about $2,600 a month. A generation ago the lower-middle class could buy a small house in a not-so-great neighborhood. Now they are hard pressed to rent an apartment. Liberals are concerned with inequality. People in the lower-middle class are simply concerned with making enough money to live a decent life. They are two very different things.

https://geopoliticalfutures.com/president-elect-donald-trump/ http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/11/21/donald-trumps-new-world-order/

Reactionary Populism:

The election of Donald Trump represents one of a series of dramatic political uprisings that together signal a collapse of neoliberal hegemony. These uprisings include the Brexit vote in the United Kingdom, the rejection of the Renzi reforms in Italy, the Bernie Sanders campaign for the Democratic Party nomination in the United States, and rising support for the National Front in France, among others. Although they differ in ideology and goals, these electoral mutinies share a common target: all are rejections of corporate globalization, neoliberalism, and the political establishments that have promoted them. In every case, voters are saying “No!” to the lethal combination of austerity, free trade, predatory debt, and precarious, ill-paid work that characterize financialized capitalism today. Their votes are a response to the structural crisis of this form of capitalism, which first came into full view with the near meltdown of the global financial order in 2008.

Until recently, however, the chief response to the crisis was social protest—dramatic and lively, to be sure, but largely ephemeral. Political systems, by contrast, seemed relatively immune, still controlled by party functionaries and establishment elites, at least in powerful capitalist states like the United States, the United Kingdom, and Germany. Now, however, electoral shockwaves reverberate throughout the world, including in the citadels of global finance. Those who voted for Trump, like those who voted for Brexit and against the Italian reforms, have risen up against their political masters. Thumbing their noses at party establishments, they have repudiated the system that has eroded their living conditions for the last thirty years. The surprise is not that they have done so, but that it took them so long.

Nevertheless, Trump’s victory is not solely a revolt against global finance. What his voters rejected was not neoliberalism tout court, but progressive neoliberalism. This may sound to some like an oxymoron, but it is a real, if perverse, political alignment that holds the key to understanding the U.S. election results and perhaps some developments elsewhere too. In its U.S. form, progressive neoliberalism is an alliance of mainstream currents of new social movements (feminism, anti-racism, multiculturalism, and LGBTQ rights), on the one side, and high-end “symbolic” and service-based business sectors (Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and Hollywood), on the other. In this alliance, progressive forces are effectively joined with the forces of cognitive capitalism, especially financialization. However unwittingly, the former lend their charisma to the latter. Ideals like diversity and empowerment, which could in principle serve different ends, now gloss policies that have devastated manufacturing and what were once middle-class lives.


Nancy Fraser is a communist, and she means, by “different ends”, communism.  She is mistaken about the this unwitting alliance, however.

Davos Discombobulated:

The majority of people now believe the economic and political system is failing them, according to the annual Edelman Trust Barometer, released on Monday ahead of the Jan. 17-20 World Economic Forum (WEF). 

“There’s a sense that the system is broken,” Richard Edelman, head of the communications marketing firm that commissioned the research, told Reuters.


Dark Globe:

“After one of the most surprising presidential elections in generations, the need to reexamine core strategic assumptions has become ever more pressing. Since the Cold War, the United States has pursued a grand strategy centered on maintaining America’s global primacy and extending the liberal international order. That grand strategy, in turn, rested upon a set of optimistic assumptions about the sustainability of American dominance and the direction in which the world is moving. Now, however, those assumptions are coming under greater strain than at any time in a quarter-century, thereby casting the future of American grand strategy into greater doubt.


Assumption #5: The Unstoppable and Irreversible Advance of Democracy 

When the Cold War ended, democracy was on the march. The number of electoral democracies rose from 39 to 120 between 1974 and 2000. That this trend is irreversible has been a guiding assumption of post-Cold War strategy. Washington assumed that the world will continue to democratize and that this progression would make the world more peaceful, prosperous, and stable.

Today, however, democracy’s future has become cloudier. In countries from Venezuela to Turkey, illiberal leaders have taken power through democratic means and then set about dismantling the checks and balances that constrained them. Illiberal great powers such as Russia and China have been pushing back against the spread of democracy in their own neighborhoods, opposing anti-authoritarian regime change overseas (in Syria, for instance), and touting the benefits of their own centralized models.

Even in the West, democracy’s prospects seem less certain. The rise of illiberal right-wing governments in Hungary and now Poland has created pockets of quasi-authoritarianism within NATO and the European Union, as the 2008 financial crisis and its aftermath have raised questions about whether democratic systems can deliver the economic goods. As a result, the number of democracies in the world has roughly plateaued since around 2006, and as one expert notes, Freedom House statistics show “that in each of the eight consecutive years from 2006 through 2013 more countries declined in freedom than improved.” Democratic stagnation — even recession — is underway.


Jackson’s Beast versus Hobbist Leviathan:

During the presidential campaign, a number of observers, trying to understand the Trump phenomenon, suddenly discovered the work of Sam Francis, an author and newspaper columnist, from 25 years earlier. Francis wrote about what he called Middle American Radicals (MARs).

The MARs hold political correctness in precisely the same contempt that Hollywood, the media, and the political class hold them. They are not rigidly ideological, nor even ideological at all. While in general, they support private property and the US Constitution, they are not philosophically opposed to business regulation, they believe free trade has made them worse off, and they have no interest at all in cutting Social Security and Medicare. And they are anti-globalist.

At the time Francis wrote about them, his analysis seemed off: if these people existed in the numbers he suggested, how were people like Bob Dole getting the GOP nomination?

The 2016 election, at last, vindicated the Francis analysis. The MARs came out in droves, despite the most relentless attack on their candidate by the media and cultural elite anyone can remember.


Progress Prevented:

The liberal international order has always depended on the idea of progress. Since 1945, Western policymakers have believed that open markets, democracy and individual human rights would gradually spread across the entire globe. Today, such hopes seem naïve.

In Asia, the rise of China threatens to challenge US military and economic hegemony. In the Middle East, the United States and its European allies have failed to guide the region toward a more liberal and peaceful future in the wake of the Arab Spring. And Russia’s geopolitical influence has reached heights unseen since the Cold War, as it attempts to roll back liberal advances around its periphery.

But the more important threats to the order are internal. For the past half-century, the European Union has seemed to represent the advance guard of a new liberalism in which nations pool sovereignty and cooperate ever more closely with one another. Today, as it reels from one crisis to the next, the EU has stopped expanding.

Other countries will probably not follow the United Kingdom out of the EU. But few European leaders appear willing to continue relinquishing sovereignty, whether to manage flows of refugees or to ensure the long-term viability of the single currency. Many European politicians are demanding more national sovereign control over their destinies rather than more integration.

Across the Atlantic, the US commitment to global leadership, which until now has sustained the liberal international order through good times and bad, looks weaker than at any point since the Second World War.


Last Days for the Last Man?

Two years ago, I argued in these pages that America was suffering from political decay. The country’s constitutional system of checks and balances, combined with partisan polarization and the rise of well-financed interest groups, had combined to yield what I labeled “vetocracy,” a situation in which it was easier to stop government from doing things than it was to use govern­ment to promote the common good. Recurrent budgetary crises, stagnating bureaucracy, and a lack of policy innovation were the hall­marks of a political system in disarray.


Counter-Revolutionary Democracy:

Of greatest concern is the third dimension of the problem, which is the crisis of democratic values and will in the established democracies of the West. This crisis has been gathering momentum since the financial collapse almost a decade ago and the subsequent problems of economic stagnation and dysfunctional governance. More recently it has taken the form of a backlash against globalization, the rise of populism and illiberal politics in Europe and the United States, and the emergence of what Ivan Krastev, in the current issue of the Journal of Democracy, calls “counterrevolutionary democracy, which he links to “a world of vast inequalities and open borders, [where] migration becomes the new form of revolution. Last week George Freeman, the head of the British Prime Minister’s Policy Board, said that the US election and the Brexit vote were linked by the failure of the globalized economy to serve the interests of average workers, adding that “a genuine crisis of legitimacy [is] sweeping through Western political economy.

Since it is the democratic West that has built the security, political, and economic institutions that constitute the liberal world order and that have produced unprecedented peace and prosperity over the past seven decades, this crisis of legitimacy now threatens to shake the foundations of contemporary global civilization.


Crisis of Democracy:

What we find is deeply concerning. Citizens in a number of supposedly consolidated democracies in North America and Western Europe have not only grown more critical of their political leaders. Rather, they have also become more cynical about the value of democracy as a political system, less hopeful that anything they do might influence public policy, and more willing to express support for authoritarian alternatives. The crisis of democratic legitimacy extends across a much wider set of indicators than previously appreciated.


A New Era:

Trump has been yelling “Drain the swamp!” on the campaign trail, and even some Democratic voters who would rather chew off their own legs than vote for him felt a private thrill when he said that. Almost everybody hates the Washington swamp, including lots of people who live there. Of all American institutions, Congress has the lowest approval rating, less than 10 percent, and the military has the highest at 73 percent. In the Middle East and Latin America, numbers like these would portend a military coup. But we don’t live in the Middle East or Latin America. We live here. So instead of a military coup, we got Donald Trump.


Fernandez and the Future that Never Happened:

The causes of the bleak future are easy to understand but difficult for the liberal project to accept.  The West has spent its past and borrowed on its future to buy votes in the present. Now the  millennials are stuck with the bill. Giant deficits, unfunded welfare systems, crushing student debts have come down on them just like anyone who spends more than he earns.  It’s the betrayal that must hurt most.  The were told it was OK.  Socialism would square the circle on the volume.  Nobel Prize winning economist Paul Krugman assured the public there would be no problem.  After all, “the Great Depression wasn’t ended by the intellectual victory of Keynesian economics … what put a decisive end to the slump was World War II … this story is what led me to facetiously suggest that we fake a threat from space aliens, to provide a politically acceptable cover for stimulus.”

It worked until it didn’t.  Youth unemployment turned out to be just deferred unemployment, the can big governments kicked down the road until the road ran out. We may be living through an enormously important period: the collapse of Gramscianism in the West.  If Eastern socialism died with the fall of the Berlin wall in 1989, the Western version may at last be crumbling before a monumental wall of kicked cans.   The Gramscian termites ate through the institutions and found with their last triumphant bite that they had eaten it all.

Its demise will leave an historic hole in Western civilization.  For good or ill the Left was the West’s familiar: the wheedling family bum, what we defined ourselves through and in opposition to.  Without the Left neither the 20th century, the EU or the American progressive project is even comprehensible.  It was the future that never happened, the madness over which mankind walked the narrow path of nuclear destruction yet which framed the debate. Now it is passing from the scene with all the drama of an empty ramen wrapper on the sidewalk.

The Dark Prophet:

The world of 2009 is the root-ball of one ancient gigantic, shaggy and rotting redwood: the Anglo-American tradition we call Universalism. In the redwood’s shade are the seedlings she has thrown among the blackened stumps at her feet. Some of them have prospered and some have not. Some have even evolved a little, but all began as redwood seeds.

In a typical Orwellian fabrication, we call the “nations” of the UN era independent countries. Most are American satellites at best, possessions at worst. Even those that have recreated something like sovereignty, Russia and China, are sterile and uninteresting upstarts, with no real relationship to the old-growth civilizations of the Romanovs or the Ch’ing. Europe also contains some genuine trees, though their independence is questionable and their individuality is nil. They are pallid clones of Massachusetts, planted in grim, mechanical rows. Latin America is a shambles – a festering sink of crime, tyranny and disorder. Africa makes it look healthy.

And everywhere, everywhere – except of course the Anglo-Saxon core – tyranny and rebellion, war and destruction, anarchy and murder, dragged their plow at least once across the land. And not always once. For many, they remain permanent conditions of normal life.


Something Different:

So the conclusion we’ve come to about democratic government as a whole is oddly similar to our conclusion about the financial system. The conclusion is that it’s fatally broken, and needs to be replaced by something completely different. Even in Carlyle’s day, repair did not seem like an option. How less it is today! And still the dungheaps grow, the bats flit in and out, the stacks of paper molder. And we notice, with a chill: the whole damned thing is a colossal firetrap.


Nick Land thinks it’s 1517 for the Cathedral.

Nancy Fraser talks about “Reactionary Populism.”

Moldbug sums the entire problem up, however, as one of “kinglessness.”

Obviously, given that this is the Dark Reformation, the claim that the Cathedral has met, or is about to meet, its moment of Dark Reform is gratifying: popular reactionary movement led by one of Carlyle’s “Commanders” a real “ruler” and not the “sham” leaders we are used to having.

Only, we are not even close.

Who will this figure be – this Commander? Where will he come from? What will he be like? Whoever they are and from wherever they will be- I am certain – they will possess what Weber called “charismatic authority”. Here is Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt Leddihn:

Among modern authors the theme of the “charismatic leader,” as distinguished from the strictly non-democratic ruler, has been dealt with by Max Weber. Yet he was far from being alone in delineating and characterizing this contemporary phenomenon in connection with democratic demands. Others have successfully analyzed these populistic dictators, Burckhardt’s terribles simplificateurs, the “handsome fellows with the talents of non-commissioned officers”—a truly remarkable prophecy (but not quite as accurate as it seems; Hitler was never a non-commissioned officer, only a Gefreiter—lance corporal or p.f.c).

It is a bit like Rock-Paper-Scissors. Traditional authority has been replaced by the Bureaucratic, which prevents – ordinarily – the emergence of the Charismatic. We have the Rock of Bureaucratic dictatorship which has now become the Traditional mode of leadership (if it can be called “leadership”), and only – necessarily but not sufficiently – Charismatic leadership can overcome it.

Charismatic political leaders are nearly always male and all of them are dark and dangerous.

Here is Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt Leddihn quoting Goethe (who twice met Napoleon):

Involuntarily one is reminded of Goethe’s description of the “daimonic man” in the course of history:

The demoniacal element has the most terrifying aspects if it is strongly represented in a human being. I have had during my life-time the occasion to observe several such men, partly from a distance, partly close to. These men are not always exceptional either in intellectual capacities or in talents, and rarely in kindness. Yet they emanate a frightening magnetic force and exert an incredible power over all creatures and even over the elements. Who can tell how far such influence will extend? All the united moral forces are powerless against them, and the more intelligent part of humanity tries in vain to unmask them as simpletons or frauds; the masses are attracted by them. Seldom or never can one find several men of that type as contemporaries, and nothing is able to overpower them except the Universe itself, against which they have picked their fight. And it may well have been from such observations and remarks that that terrible sentence found its origin: Nemo contra deum nisi deus ipse. (God Emperor indeed!)

If history is any guide, I foresee three possibilities.

The first type is what I will call the General. The second type I will call the Preacher and the third type is what I will call the Organizer.

There are two variations of the General type; the first is the Caesar and the Napoleon; the second is the Sulla and the Pinochet. Leddihn:

These nineteenth and early twentieth century vistas were not basically new. Aristotle knew only too well that the tyrants have to come—as stalwart defenders of the lower classes against wealthy, unpopular minorities (aristocrats, plutocrats, etc.). These tyrants have to be “regular fellows” (“ordinary, decent chaps”), and, as we have repeatedly emphasized, of the “leading” rather than the “ruling” type. 

Let’s take the Pinochet type first.

This General will come to power only after something or a series of things have gone fundamentally wrong; perhaps, after a failed leftist revolution or popular revolt or to prevent a RED WOMAN from becoming President. He will be Christian, conservative, stoical and disciplined – but at times kindly and gregarious, if not too clever or quick. He will tirelessly overcome anarchy – at home and abroad – and he will be workmanlike with enemies; although, he will not reform enough. He will go only so far, but his natural caution, and desire for a peaceful, dignified, life will divert him from building a lasting legacy.

The Caesar or Napoleon type is different. Again, seizing power after a serious period of instability, in which this type will be the natural and indisputable Commander of the counter-chaos; he will lead with energy, intelligence, charisma and cunning. Great reforms will be enacted under his direct instruction and supervision; men-money-materials all will be rectified, regimented and regulated; nothing will escape his absolute remit, his roving, restless,  relentlessly rational mind – war, diplomacy, law, economy, morality and religion. If the first kind of General is a lion, then this General is Fox and Lion: strong and sassy, courageous and cunning, urbane and rustic, a leader of men and a killer of women. Leddihn:

Finally, especially dangerous is the influence exercised by “the demoniac” as formulated by Goethe on Burckhardt’s “awful simplifiers” preaching what Henri Hauser called fausses idées claires. The result of that is only too often Irving Babbitt’s “efficient megalomaniac” who—in the words of Burke—wants to “improve the mystery of murder.”

His weakness will be his overwhelmingly brilliance – arrogance leading to hubris. Battle after battle, reform after reform, and triumph upon triumph will lead this General-Consul-King and Emperor up, up and up, until lesser mortals – dogs – whose constant, persistent nips, bring this lion down. Then, chaos and anarchy will rein once more.

The second type is the Preacher.

The Luther, the Khomeini, the Baghdadi, the Hitler.

He will be Christian – but a dark Christian, an old Christian. An “illiterate” “hillbilly” braggart to many, but a Prophet to the rest. Leddihn:

Not only Hitler but perhaps even Antonio Conselheiro, the half mad “counsellor” of the ecstatic backwoods revolutionaries in Brazil, were not simply personifications of the masses and hence “born leaders.”

He will come, as if from nowhere, dazzling like a ray of dark gold. He will fire up the masses with furious energy and his followers will march with berserk rage.  He will reform – utterly and unapologetically – but without the cool reason of the second General or the prudent sternness of the first. He will be unsmiling, gazing out, with unconcealed disgust upon the world; he will shun women; a solitary sage whose inner visions will be painted with blood and steel upon the landscape –  an artist of government. His enemies will be filled with awe and anger as his machine of war, commanded by himself alone, will darken their skies and bloody their lands.

His weakness is that he will break, but he will never bend – never. This Preacher will only emerge if the land and people suffer disaster after disaster after disaster. Only from the howl of pain, humiliation, resentment and the all-consuming human need for hope – will this Preacher emerge.

The Organizer is the Cromwell, the Carnot, and the Lenin type. Taciturn and ferocious; spartan and systematic – not the builder of the machine, but its organizer, its taskmaster, and after years and years spinning various webs, a single moment will provide the chance to strike – and strike he will, with iron and grim, humourless, determination. Not personally likeable, but supremely logical and overawing in set-piece public encounters. With cold, frightful rage friend and foe alike will be beaten into submission: physical, intellectual or moral. This man’s weakness is paranoia and inhumanity.

We stand brooding over the blood and folly of our ancestors, upon the cusp of total unreality – we have seen all this before, we shall probably see it all again and again and again.

The one quality these men will all possess is will.

The one quality these men will not be in possession of is forbearance from the will of GNON.

The question is, if these types are the reformers – who will reform, restrain and retire them?

Who will contain the uncontainable?

Bertrand De Jouvenel:

Now it suffices, as we have just seen and as the whole of history teaches us, for only one of the great powers of the future to produce a leader who will convert into sinews of war the powers taken for social advancement, and then all the others must follow suit. For the more complete the hold which the state gets on the resources of a nation, the higher, the more sudden, the more irresistible will be the wave in which an armed community can break on a pacific one.”

Nick Land is correct with his perceptive distinction when he claims that the Cathedral has been beaten, but Demotism has not.

Moldbug’s  “reactionary enlightenment” critique can be summarised in three parts:

1: “democracy” is a sham, a lie, a fiction.

2: The reality is the Cathedral – “managed” or “coherent democracy” – rule by scholar and bureaucrat.

3: The goal of neoreaction is not, as so many people would pursue upon learning the reality in 2, to return to democracy with real elections and real leaders.

The goal is not leaders, but rulers. I will finish with a long, though edited, presentation from Leddihn on the nature of European Monarchy:

Monarchy is by its nature dissociated from party rule. Only in the “constitutional” (i.e., parliamentary) monarchy are royalist parties imaginable; yet in a sound, organic monarchy all parties accept the common monarchic denominator, and the opposition is thus “His Majesty’s Most Loyal Opposition.”…..Democracy is by nature party rule. The President (or Prime Minister) is a          “party man.” He lacks originally—and often permanently—general backing.

The monarch is the political and social head of the nation. The President of the United States, on the other hand, is decidedly not a “social” leader, even though his wife figures—unofficially—as the “first lady.” The monarch can, unlike a republican leader, rule not only through the mechanism of the laws but also though his prestige—an “endogene” force.

Even a monarch of mediocre talents and natural gifts has the advantage of having received an education for his profession. A democratic leader can only have the hasty technical training of those with a “late vocation,” and in most cases he is nothing but a dilettante (see below, point) Yet this harmonizes well with the general tenor of democracy, whose raison d’etre is not truth, efficacy, reason, study, and reflection, but volition pure and simple.

The education which the ideal monarch can enjoy is not only intellectual, but also moral and spiritual. The democratic leader coming into power is always “unprepared.” It is the sudden or quick rise (especially if it is from obscurity) to fame and authority which turns the mind and upsets the balance of the careerist in a democracy.

Kingship was not only an office with religious implications (the coronation of a Catholic ruler is a sacramental), but the whole traditional Christian monarchy was deeply imbued with a religious spirit…..The respect for the human person and the rights of the subjects were strongly emphasized in the “education of a ruler....”

The ruling families—all intermarried and forming a single breed—had biologically a better qualification for their profession than the average man. It seems to be a proven fact that there is a noticeable difference in the I.Q.’s of different social classes, and heredity rather than environment here plays the determining rôle.

Monarchy in the Christian world is an international institution. As long as it was a living force the wars between political units were of a relative and restricted natureKabinettskriege, as the Germans say. Between 1100 and 1866 A.D. no Christian kingdom was eliminated permanently from the map.

Monarchs, unlike democratic leaders, are ethnically “mixed.” They are usually of foreign origin. Their relatives are foreigners. Narrow limits are set to their (ethnic) nationalism—if they ever develop it. (See Notes 498 and 499.) Democracy and nationalism, on the other hand, are closely related and interdependent.

The monarchic principle is thus, as St. Thomas characterized it in his De regimine principum, a uniting, not a dividing principle.—Every election, on the other hand, is a solemn manifestation of division.

Neither is a sound monarchy oligarchical, as democracy is by necessity, and aristocracy by nature.

Due to its inherent patriarchalism, monarchy fits organically into the ecclesiastic and familistic pattern of a Christian

Since monarchy is “rule from above” and thus does not have to exercise a horizontal pressure, it is by its nature more liberal than democracy. Just because monarchs cannot constantly refer to mandates received from the people, their radius of action is psychologically more limited than that of democratic leaders. In a democracy, however, there is an inherent growth towards the regulation of belief, word and deed.

Since, in a monarchy, the societal enforcement of the “common framework of reference” in the ideological sphere is not necessary, the controlling forces of society can be relaxed.

The security and perpetuity of tenure enjoyed by monarchs makes them less exposed to “graft,” bribery or theft.

Neither is there any need for flattering large parts of the population. Flattering the majority is the basic technique and art of governing political parties, as well as plebiscitarian tyrannies.

The monarch, on the other hand, is potentially the protector of minorities—especially the small, powerless and uninfluential minorities—just because he is “everybody’s monarch.” The very concept of a “minority” is non-monarchial and democratic. The constant counting and comparing of numbers characterizes all egalitarian-parliamentary régimes. The protective rôle of kingship is clearly seen in the oath of the Holy Roman Emperor. In democratic republics, on the other hand, we have always seen tiny, unpopular minorities being sacrificed to the whim of the majorities, who in times of stress blissfully disregard constitutional injunctions.

The monarch is a responsible person. The fact that a monarch is responsible “to God alone,” rather than to an assembly or a popular majority, is rather shocking to an agnostic mind; but while God cannot be fooled, the masses can.

While it is perhaps true that “one cannot fool all the people all the time,” it seems that one can fool millions for centuries. History abounds in such examples, especially the history of religions. In spite of the republican-democratic emphasis on “responsible government,” subject to the sanction of not getting re-elected (and of being impeached in only the grossest cases of corruption), the demo-republican government nevertheless derives its authority from anonymous, secretly voting masses on a purely numerical basis. It is even impossible to trace the empowering individual; and thus we get what French authors call the “cult of irresponsibility.” The electees, rejecting all responsibility, can easily blame the electors for their “mandates.” Thus we get today the immoral idea of making whole nations responsible for the deeds and misdeeds of their rulers, regardless of whether these had majority support or not. This collective judgment of moral acts is one of the great maladies of the democratic age.

The monarch is not only a public property which, in a sense, can be claimed by every subject, but he is also classless.

The monarch will be restrained in his actions by the thought of the integrity of his patrimony, which he intends to leave unimpaired to his son or any other heir.

A monarch and, even more so, a dynasty can plan policies on a grand scale—for the remote as well as for the immediate future”

The rise of great statesmen has been fostered more by monarchic than by democratic government. The historical record on this matter is not open to doubt. Even parliamentary monarchy showed a “diminished return” of political geniuses. It can be stated without danger of refutation that the parliaments of the Western world have not yielded since 1890 a single truly outstanding, constructive statesman—not even a genuinely successful Machiavellian.”

Monarchy is a safeguard against foreign intervention in the internal affairs of the country. Through the agency of the internationally organized ideological parties, or through parliamentary groups representing ethnic minorities whose bulk lives in adjoining countries, a unique opportunity is offered to foreign states to intervene efficiently in the inner affairs of a democratic nation.

Last, but not least, the inner antithesis between a plebiscitarian party-dictatorship and a monarchy must be mentioned. …. totalitarian states were, and probably always will be, republican in character……..To these considerations the historical observation must be added that the rise of our Christian civilization took place under the aegis of monarchy which, quite rightly, has been characterized as embodying “le moindre mal, la possibilité du bien—the least evil [and] the possibility of good.” The anti-monarchic currents in the last hundred and sixty years had a more or less anti-Catholic if not, as in many cases, an anti-Christian, character. Under the emphatically parliamentary monarchies and the democratic republics, Christianity declined or suffered minor persecutions. “The Catholic Church, in particular,” says Monsignor Ronald Knox, “has had much to suffer from the democracies. In the totalitarian, illiberal, plebiscitarian republics, these systematic molestations changed into sanguinary persecutions and efforts for a final extermination……..We are convinced that there is a psychological bridge between these facts. They cannot be merely accidental. Neither is it sheer coincidence that in the latest war the Church has received abuse from all sides, and has suffered most grievously and unjustly in a struggle which was, in a sense, the fratricidal strife between the three heirs of the French Revolution: democratic nationalism, national socialism and socialist internationalism—all of them claiming “to be the sole and only embodiment of true democracy.”

 Excerpt From: Erik Ritter von Kuehnelt-Leddihn. “Liberty or Equality.”

That is Royalism. Leddihn is a  Catholic, European, Royalist.

What, however, is Neo-Royalism? What is Moldbug?



The Path to the Dark Reformation Part C: The (Black) God Delusion.


The Modern Structure is the 500 year evolutionary consequence of Martin Luther’s Reformation.

It is the Dark Mirror of the Catholic Church.

Luther’s “priesthood” of all believers, premised on theological equality, is what has led to equality being one of the central faiths of this era.

The Catholic Church has a theory of human nature, so does the Modern Structure — as most religions and comprehensive systems do

What is the Modern Structure’s theory of human nature?

Firstly, it owes some of its conceptual content to Christianity, in particular Protestant Christianity; however, it has undergone evolution and synthesis with other theories from “Protestant” philosophers John Locke and Jean Jacques Rousseau.

The Modern Structure’s theory of human nature is an incoherent combination of Locke’s “blank slate” and Rousseau’s “Noble Savage”.

Steven Pinker, in his book The Blank Slate: and the Modern Denial of Human Nature, calls the above doctrines as forming the “Official Theory.” (Sounds a little like the Catholic Church no?)

Here is Pinker on Locke:

His alternative theory, empiricism, was intended both as a theory of psychology—how the mind works—and as a theory of epistemology—how we come to know the truth. Both goals helped motivate his political philosophy, often honored as the foundation of liberal democracy. Locke opposed dogmatic justifications for the political status quo, such as the authority of the church and the divine right of kings, which had been touted as self-evident truths.”

Isn’t that an interesting term, “motivate”? There is a scholarly question as to if this is an accurate description of Locke’s intention – that his theory of human nature was “motivated” or designed to weaken the political formula of “divine right”; let’s assume that it is accurate however. Reactionary Future, has a lot to say on this subject of empiricism’s role in the Cathedral (the policy and propaganda arm of the Modern Structure). It is excellent research, though the actual epistemological status of empiricism remains untouched.


Locke’s notion of a blank slate also undermined a hereditary royalty and aristocracy, whose members could claim no innate wisdom or merit if their minds had started out as blank as everyone else’s. It also spoke against the institution of slavery, because slaves could no longer be thought of as innately inferior or subservient.

During the past century the doctrine of the Blank Slate has set the agenda for much of the social sciences and humanities. As we shall see, psychology has sought to explain all thought, feeling, and behavior with a few simple mechanisms of learning. The social sciences have sought to explain all customs and social arrangements as a product of the socialization of children by the surrounding culture: a system of words, images, stereotypes, role models, and contingencies of reward and punishment.”

“The Blank Slate has also served as a sacred scripture for political and ethical beliefs. According to the doctrine, any differences we see among races, ethnic groups, sexes, and individuals come not come from differences in their innate constitution but from differences in their experiences. Change the experiences—by reforming parenting, education, the media, and social rewards—and you can change the person. Underachievement, poverty, and antisocial behavior can be ameliorated; indeed, it is irresponsible not to do so. And discrimination on the basis of purportedly inborn traits of a sex or ethnic group is simply irrational.”

Now, you can see how philosophy, politics, history and ethics form a continuous whole; however, you also see how ideas are used as weapons in the struggle for power.

A political formula – such as the one used by the Nazis – premised on intellectual, physical and moral differences, resulting from innate characteristics, could justify a different political formula.

Now, for the second element of the formula; here is Pinker on the noble savage:

The concept of the noble savage was inspired by European colonists’ discovery of indigenous peoples in the Americas, Africa, and (later) Oceania. It captures the belief that humans in their natural state are selfless, peaceable, and untroubled, and that blights such as greed, anxiety, and violence are the products of civilization.

No one can fail to recognize the influence of the doctrine of the Noble Savage in contemporary consciousness. We see it in the current respect for all things natural (natural foods, natural medicines, natural childbirth) and the distrust of the man-made, the unfashionability of authoritarian styles of childrearing and education, and the understanding of social problems as repairable defects in our institutions rather than as tragedies inherent to the human condition.

Thomas Sowell has developed one of the best analytical treatments of left and right and how their different visions of human nature logically lead to different political visions.

I am going to adapt Sowell’s terminology slightly in what follows. In Conflict he uses the term constrained and unconstrained, then in a later book he uses the term Tragic and Utopian to mean the same things; I will use both to refer, on the one hand, a vision of human nature, and the second to the two political visions that follow, more or less deductively, from premises about human nature.

The following is my summary.

Right Wing:

1: Constrained Vision of Human Nature.

There is a definite, universal, human nature that is a product of evolution. Man is constrained by physical, biological and psychological forces (constraints), as well as social and economic ones. These constraints range from being absolutely fixed – the need for water, food and heat – to somewhat fixed – physical, intellectual and personality traits – to more culturally flexible – particular language and religious belief. Furthermore, humans are constrained in terms of intelligence, time-preference and sympathy for others.

2: Human are diverse in their physical, cognitive and emotional abilities and dispositions: humans are thus not equal, except as a moral preference. Given this, and because all human desires cannot be satisfied in principle, cooperation, competition and conflict will be persistent features of human life. Such problems as war, inequality, nepotism, ethno-centrism and various forms of rivalry cannot be eliminated.

3: Since human social problems cannot be solved, they can only be managed; thus, political, social, legal and moral constraints are necessary to constrain conflict.

Politics is thus Tragic.

Left Wing:

1: Unconstrained Vision of Human Nature.

Humans have no nature. Whatever dispositions they have, are given by society. Because man has no innate influences, or constraints, there are no limits for radical change.

2: Social problems – crime, poverty, inequality and war – result from unjust social design.

3: Enlightened social and political engineers can re-design society in order to bring about justice, equality, peace etc.

Politics is thus Utopian.


For a constrained vision, it is necessary not only that (1) man’s resources, both internal and external, are insufficient to satisfy his desires, but also that (2) individuals will not accept limits on the satisfaction of their own desires commensurate with what is socially available, except when inherent social constraints are forcibly imposed on them as individuals through various social mechanisms such as prices (which force each individual to limit his consumption of material goods) or moral traditions and social pressures which limit the amount of psychic pain people inflict on each other “second criterion—the need for systemic processes to convey inherent social limitations to the individual—applies to all mankind, including the wisest thinker, the noblest leader, or the most compassionate humanitarian. Only when all are included within the human limitations it conceives is the constrained vision complete.

Man, as conceived in the constrained vision, could never have planned and achieved even the current level of material and psychic well-being, which is seen as the product of evolved systemic interactions drawing on the experiences and adjusting to the preferences (revealed in behavior rather than words) of vast numbers of people over vast regions of time. The constrained vision sees future progress as a continuation of such systemic interactions—and as threatened by attempts to substitute individually excogitated social schemes for these evolved patterns.

The enormous importance of evolved systemic interactions in the constrained vision does not make it a vision of collective choice, for the end results are not chosen at all—the prices, output, employment, and interest rates emerging from competition under laissez-faire economics being the classic example. Judges adhering closely to the written law—avoiding the choosing of results per se—would be the analogue in “avoiding the choosing of results per se—would be the analogue in law. Laissez-faire economics and “black letter” law are essentially frameworks, with the locus of substantive discretion being innumerable individuals.

That the constrained vision relies on “revealed behaviour” rather than “words” is similar to Mosca’s and Moldbug’s form v reality distinction. Secondly, the use of systemic processes is how patchwork and neocameralism work. Thirdly, the use of “black letter law” with judges adhering closely to the law as written is legal formalism.

Sowell on the unconstrained vision:

It is unnecessary for the unconstrained vision that every single human being individually and spontaneously arrive at this ultimate level of intellectual and moral solution, much less that they do so at the same time or pace. On the contrary, those in the tradition of the unconstrained vision almost invariably assume that some intellectual and moral pioneers advance far beyond their contemporaries, and in one way or another lead them toward ever-higher levels of understanding and practice. These intellectual and moral pioneers become the surrogate decision-makers, pending the eventual progress of mankind to the point where all can make social decisions. A special variant in Godwin is that each individual acts essentially as a social surrogate, making decisions individually but with social responsibility rather than personal benefit uppermost in his thinking. This tradition of “social responsibility” by businessmen, universities, and others implies a capacity to discern the actual social ramifications of one’s acts—an assumption implicitly made in the unconstrained vision and explicitly rejected by those with the constrained vision.

Central to the unconstrained vision is the belief that within human limits lies the potentiality for practical social solutions to be accepted rather than imposed. Those with the unconstrained vision may indeed advocate more draconian impositions, for a transitional period, than would be accepted by those with the constrained vision. But the very willingness of some of those with the unconstrained vision to countenance such transitional methods is predicated precisely on the belief that this is only necessary transitionally, on the road to far more freedom and general well-being than exist currently.

Here, Sowell hints at the chaos that those with the unconstrained vision can cause in their quest for change. Here is Moldbug being more explicit:

Progressives do not, in general, believe in chaos. (Imagine breaking into the Obama website and replacing all uses of the word “change” with “chaos.” Happy, chanting crowds, holding placards that just say “CHAOS…” frankly, the whole thing is creepy enough as it is.) Nor do they believe in disorder, mayhem, destruction, or doing a massive pile of crack and smashing the crap out of some poor woman’s car.

Rather, when you look at what progressives, Whigs, republicans, and other anti-reactionaries actually believe in – whether they are supporters of Obama, Lafayette, Herzen, or any other paladin of the people’s cause – it is rarely (although not never) the simple, nihilistic liquidation of the present order. It is always the construction of some new order, which is at least intended as an improvement on the present one.

However, in order to construct this new order, two things need to happen. One: the builders of the new order need to gain power. Two: they need to destroy the old order, which by its insistence on continuing to exist obstructs the birth of the new.

In the progressive mind, these indispensable tasks are not objectives. They are methods. They may even be conceived as unpleasant, if necessary, duties.

Something like this perhaps.

Lenin, Stalin, Mao all gave orders to kill people and to destroy the old culture. The people who participated in this, at least some of them, thought they were doing good work. The historian – Eric Hobsbawn, for example,  thought that the millions of deaths that the Soviet regime caused would have justified – if it had of worked.

It didn’t work because it was premised on a false view of human nature.

Stephen Pinker, after several chapters of reviewing the scientific evidence, sifting through arguments, dispelling sophistry and illusions has this to say about how the sciences of genetics, evolutionary psychology and cognitive science impacts political philosophy:

My own view is that the new sciences of human nature really do vindicate some version of the Tragic Vision and undermine the Utopian outlook that until recently dominated large segments of intellectual life.

Notice the use of the word “dominated”. Remember, it is the intellectuals and their ideas which dominate not only the universities, but the legal systems, the media, and the public education systems. However, Pinker is wrong when he thinks that the “official theory” dominates no longer. The recent violence at Middlebury over Charles Murray shows that the “official theory” continues to exert its theocratic grip.

Pinker summarises what findings disconfirm the liberal, progressive, left-wing worldview:

The primacy of family ties in all human societies and the consequent appeal of nepotism and inheritance.

The limited scope of communal sharing in human groups, the more common ethos of reciprocity, and the resulting phenomena of social loafing and the collapse of contributions to public goods when reciprocity cannot be implemented.

The universality of dominance and violence across human societies (including supposedly peaceable hunter-gatherers) and the existence of genetic and neurological mechanisms that underlie it.

The universality of ethnocentrism and other forms of group-against-group hostility across societies, and the ease with which such hostility can be aroused in people within our own society.

The partial heritability of intelligence, conscientiousness, and antisocial tendencies, implying that some degree of inequality will arise even in perfectly fair economic systems, and that we therefore face an inherent tradeoff between equality and freedom.

The prevalence of defense mechanisms, self-serving biases, and cognitive dissonance reduction, by which people deceive themselves about their autonomy”

So that’s what science apparently has to say according to Stephen Pinker, a Harvard linguist and all round polymath; indeed, Pinker is, in many ways, a consummate Brahmin, so his patient, sober, demolition of the “official theory” cannot be dismissed as either politically motivated, or the work of a crank.

The following link, however, contains numerous scientific articles and other resources investigating human nature and politics.

Again, we must ask what role the Enlightenment vision of human nature, derived from an emerging secular Protestantism, played in the catastrophe of the 20th century.

Indeed, here is philosopher, Jonathan Glover, who we saw in Part B, commenting on “human nature” and the events of the 20th century:

Now we tend to see the Enlightenment view of human psychology as thin and mechanical, and Enlightenment hopes of social progress through the spread of humanitarianism and the scientific outlook as naïve. John Maynard Keynes said of Bertrand Russell, a follower of the Enlightenment, that his comments about life and affairs were ‘brittle’ because there was ‘no solid diagnosis of human nature underlying them.

There was no solid diagnosis because the liberal, “Enlightenment view” does not really believe in human nature, and if it does it held to the naïve, erroneous and dangerous “black slate” and “noble savage” vision.

Glover argues that this needs to change:

replace the thin, mechanical psychology of the Enlightenment with something more complex, something closer to reality.”

The trouble is that this view of human nature is a modern myth – and taboo; like with Genesis, it is the foundation of the left’s intellectual edifice; consequently, like some Christians with Darwin, they will oppose science on this point because (like some Christians) they will claim that it will have moral and political consequences that they find distasteful.

More importantly, they will resist it, because it means that their justification for power, their social engineering and persecution of heretics, will be seen for what it really is.

And when that happens, when their previous justification of the social order (that was to their benefit) is exposed and when scepticism and resistance becomes widespread, the struggle for naked power, once camouflaged, will no longer be contained.

Which brings us back to the question of violence, in particular, organised violence and human nature.


There has been much philosophical discussion about what factors restrain people from ruthlessly selfish treatment of others, and what reasons there are for accepting moral restraints on conduct. These ‘moral resources’ will be central. There are questions about what happened to them when the First World War started, when the atomic bomb was dropped, in Stalin’s Russia, in Nazi Germany, or, more recently, in Bosnia and in Kosovo. The aim in using ethics to interrogate history is to help understand a side of human nature often left in darkness.”

Darkness indeed.

Moldbug, however, sees the problem very differently. To Moldbug, the problem is not a moral, but an engineering one:

The key is to look at this not as a moral problem, but as an engineering problem. Any solution that solves the problem is acceptable. Any solution that does not solve the problem is not acceptable.


This entire problem can be described as one of security.

Sound political engineering, however, will require an accurate perception of the facts of human nature, history, economics and much else.

Welcome to the Dark Enlightenment.

What is the Dark Enlightenment?

Many good and different answers exist.

Here is my succinct answer.

The DE is the dialectical opposite of the “received” view of what the Enlightenment was.

If this, received view – whose key proponents were Locke, Rousseau and Kant – was optimistic about human nature, reason and reason’s ability to re-shape society, then the Dark Enlightenment, drawing upon history, the human sciences, and contemporary political, economic and social analysis, judges it to not only be a failure, but a catastrophe. More ominously, the Dark Enlightenment offers a prophecy – we are not progressing, but decaying in a vicious Cathedral caused feedback loop, a degenerative socio-politico ratchet.  

The core of the Dark Enlightenment is, as of 2017, dark, unpleasant, dispiriting truths about human nature.

Yet, these “truths”, that the Dark Enlightenment dispels, were not completely held by the Elite in the past. Indeed, men of impeccable Protestant, Puritan, leftish tendencies did not accept it, even if they once did.

I am, of course, talking about Samuel Francis Adams Jr  – a scion of the Brahmins (in both senses of the term). He fought in the American Civil War on the side of the North. He believed that slavery was wrong – at both ends of his life. Yet, in what must count as the most stunning admission of error in the history of America, Adams informs his audience that the premises under which the North fought, and acted upon post-war, were “dangerous” and “erroneous.”

There is much to ponder in the following excerpt from his reflections – Tis Sixty Years Since, published in 1913.

Adams rewards study (see here for another “consciousness raising” reads; here however, I want to make only one key point.

Truths about human nature, about race, and about America, were once recognised, understood and, if with regret, accepted by the “great and the good” – the social, intellectual and political elite of Harvard, Princeton and Yale; these truths were not abandoned, suppressed and forgotten because of scientific evidence and rational argument. Truth was replaced because beliefs that hold that human nature can be changed by social and political engineering of the university trained, social scientists and government bureaucrats will out-compete any rival set of beliefs in a democratic struggle for power.

The reason why the constrained and Tragic vision of politics loses in a democracy is because the answer it gives, to genuine human suffering, is that suffering and disenchantment can only be managed or soothed, not transcended or solved.  The Utopians, like the quack doctors that they are, offer drowning men hope – where only tragedy exists.

Progressivism, or the Utopian vision, is really nothing more, on an individual and existential level, the sigh of the disenchanted creature, heartless self-pity in a pitiless world; it is the opium of the open-minded progressives. In a different political structure, it would be expressed via charity and communal resignation, in a democracy it becomes collective criminal insanity.

Richard Dawkins attacks the God Delusion with glee, but would he dare attack the Black God Delusion?

What is a delusion? A delusion is a persistent, and often pernicious, belief; a belief held in the teeth of contrary or contradictory evidence.

With the exception of a few cuts at the start, I leave you with a long excerpt from Adams.


 If, when I entered Harvard in 1853, it had been suggested that in 1913, I,–born of the New England Sanhedrim, a Brahmin Yankee by blood, tradition and environment–had it been suggested that I, being such, would sixty years later stand by invitation here in Columbia before the faculty and students of the University of South Carolina, I should under circumstances then existing have pronounced the suggestion as beyond reasonable credence. Here, however, I am; and here, from this as my rostrum, I propose to-day to deliver a message,–such as it is.


Here is his message:

When in 1853 I entered Harvard, so far as this country and its polity were concerned certain things were matters of contention, while others were accepted as axiomatic,–the basic truths of our system. Among the former–the subjects of active contention–were the question of Slavery, then grimly assuming shape, and that of Nationality intertwined therewith. Subordinate to this was the issue of Free Trade and Protection, with the school of so-called American political economy arrayed against that of Adam Smith. Beyond these as political ideals were the tenets and theories of Jeffersonian Democracy. That the world had heretofore been governed too much was loudly acclaimed, and the largest possible individualism was preached, not only as a privilege but as a right. The area of government action was to be confined within the narrowest practical limits, and ample scope was to be allowed to each to develop in the way most natural to himself, provided only he did not infringe upon the rights of others. Materially, we were then reaching out to subdue a continent,–a doctrine of Manifest Destiny was in vogue. Beyond this, however, and most important now to be borne in mind, compared with the present the control of man over natural agencies and latent forces was scarcely begun. Not yet had the railroad crossed the Missouri; electricity, just bridled, was still unharnessed.


First and foremost, overshadowing all else, was the political issue raised by African slavery, then ominously assuming shape. The clouds foreboding the coming tempest were gathering thick and heavy; and, moreover, they were even then illumined by electric flashes, accompanied by a mutter of distant thunder. Though we of the North certainly did not appreciate its gravity, the situation was portentous in the extreme.

Involved in this problem of African slavery was the incidental issue of Free Trade and Protection,–apparently only economical and industrial in character, but in reality fundamentally crucial. And behind this lay the constitutional question, involving as it did not only the conflicting theories of a strict or liberal construction of the fundamental law, but nationality also,–the right of a Sovereign State to withdraw from the Union created in 1787, and developed through two generations.


Beyond all this, and coming still under the head of individual theories, was the doctrine enunciated by Thomas Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence,–the doctrine that all men were created equal,–meaning, of course, equal before the law. But the theorist and humanitarian of the North, accepting the fundamental principle laid down in the Declaration, gave to it a far wider application than had been intended by its authors,–a breadth of application it would not bear. Such science as he had being of scriptural origin, he interpreted the word “equal” as signifying equal in the possibilities of their attributes,–physical, moral, intellectual; and in so doing, he of course ignored the first principles of ethnology. It was, I now realize, a somewhat wild-eyed school of philosophy, that of which I myself was a youthful disciple.

But, on the other hand, beside these, between 1850 and 1860 a class of trained and more cautious thinkers, observers, scientists and theologians was coming to the front. Their investigations, though we did not then foresee it, were a generation later destined gently to subvert the accepted fundamentals of religious and economical thought, literary performance, and material existence. The work they had in hand to do was for the next fifteen years to be subordinate, so far as this country was concerned, to the solution of the terrible political problems which were first insistent on settlement; yet, as is now apparent, an initial movement was on foot which foreboded a revolution world-wide in its nature, and one in comparison with which the issues of slavery and American constitutionality became practically insignificant,–in a word, local and passing incidents.

Finally, it remains to consider specifically the political theories then in vogue in their relation to the individual. In this country, it was the period of the equality of man and individuality in the development of the type. It was generally believed that the world had hitherto been governed too much,–that the day of caste, and even class, was over and gone; and finally, that America was a species of vast modern melting-pot of humanity, in which, within a comparatively short period of time, the characteristics of all branches of Indo-Aryan origin would resolve themselves. A new type would emerge,–the American. These theories were also in their consequences far-reaching. Practically, 1853 antedates all our present industrial organizations so loudly in evidence,–the multifarious trades-unions which now divide the population of the United States into what are known as the “masses” and the “classes.” As recently as a century ago, it used to be said of the French army under the Empire, that every soldier carried the baton of the Field-Marshal in his knapsack. And this ideal of equality and individuality was fixed in the American mind.


And here I enter on a field of discussion both difficult and dangerous; and, for reasons too obvious to require statement, what I am about to say will be listened to with no inconsiderable apprehension as to what next may be forthcoming. Nevertheless, this is a necessary part of my theme; and I propose to say what I have in mind to say, setting forth with all possible frankness the more mature conclusions reached with the passage of years. Let it be received in the spirit in which it is offered.

So far, then, as the institution of slavery is concerned, in its relations to ownership and property in those of the human species,–I have seen no reason whatever to revise or in any way to alter the theories and principles I entertained in 1853, and in the maintenance of which I subsequently bore arms between 1861 and 1865. Economically, socially, and from the point of view of abstract political justice, I hold that the institution of slavery, as it existed in this country prior to the year 1865, was in no respect either desirable or justifiable. That it had its good and even its elevating side, so far at least as the African is concerned, I am not here to deny. On the contrary, I see and recognize those features of the institution far more clearly now than I should have said would have been possible in 1853. That the institution in itself, under conditions then existing, tended to the elevation of the less advanced race, I frankly admit I did not then think. On the other hand, that it exercised a most pernicious influence upon those of the more advanced race, and especially upon that large majority of the more advanced race who were not themselves owners of slaves,–of that I have become with time ever more and more satisfied. The noticeable feature, however, so far as I individually am concerned, has been the entire change of view as respects certain of the fundamental propositions at the base of our whole American political and social edifice brought about by a more careful and intelligent ethnological study. I refer to the political equality of man, and to that race absorption to which I have alluded,–that belief that any foreign element introduced into the American social system and body politic would speedily be absorbed therein, and in a brief space thoroughly assimilated. In this all-important respect I do not hesitate to say we theorists and abstractionists of the North, throughout that long anti-slavery discussion which ended with the 1861 clash of arms, were thoroughly wrong. In utter disregard of fundamental, scientific facts, we theoretically believed that all men–no matter what might be the color of their skin, or the texture of their hair–were, if placed under exactly similar conditions, in essentials the same. In other words, we indulged in the curious and, as is now admitted, utterly erroneous theory that the African was, so to speak, an Anglo-Saxon, or, if you will, a Yankee “who had never had a chance,”–a fellow-man who was guilty, as we chose to express it, of a skin not colored like our own. In other words, though carved in ebony, he also was in the image of God.

Following out this theory, under the lead of men to whom scientific analysis and observation were anathema if opposed to accepted cardinal political theories as enunciated in the Declaration as read by them, the African was not only emancipated, but so far as the letter of the law, as expressed in an amended Constitution, would establish the fact, the quondam slave was in all respects placed on an equality, political, legal and moral, with those of the more advanced race.

I do not hesitate here,–as one who largely entertained the theoretical views I have expressed,–I do not hesitate here to say, as the result of sixty years of more careful study and scientific observation, the theories then entertained by us were not only fundamentally wrong, but they further involved a problem in the presence of which I confess to-day I stand appalled.

It is said,–whether truthfully or not,–that when some years ago John Morley, the English writer and thinker, was in this country, on returning to England he remarked that the African race question, as now existing in the United States, presented a problem as nearly, to his mind, insoluble as any human problem well could be. I do not care whether Lord Morley made this statement or did not make it. I am prepared, however, to say that, individually, so far as my present judgment goes, it is a correct presentation. To us in the North, the African is a comparatively negligible factor. So far as Massachusetts, for instance, or the city of Boston more especially, are concerned, as a problem it is solving itself. Proportionately, the African infusion is becoming less–never large, it is incomparably less now than it was in the days of my own youth. Thus manifestly a negligible factor, it is also one tending to extinction. Indeed, it would be fairly open to question whether a single Afro-American of unmixed Ethiopian descent could now be found in Boston. That the problem presents itself with a wholly different aspect here in Carolina is manifest. The difference too is radical; it goes to the heart of the mystery.

As I have already said, the universal “melting-pot” theory in vogue in my youth was that but seven, or at the most fourteen, years were required to convert the alien immigrant–no matter from what region or of what descent–into an American citizen. The educational influences and social environment were assumed to be not only subtle, but all-pervasive and powerful. That this theory was to a large and even dangerous extent erroneous the observation of the last fifty years has proved, and our Massachusetts experience is sadly demonstrating to-day. It was Oliver Wendell Holmes, who, years ago, when asked by an anxious mother at what age the education of a child ought to begin, remarked in reply that it should begin about one hundred and fifty years before the child is born. It has so proved with us; and the fact is to-day in evidence that this statement of Dr. Holmes should be accepted as an undeniable political aphorism. So far from seven or fourteen years making an American citizen, fully and thoroughly impregnated with American ideals to the exclusion of all others, our experience is that it requires at least three generations to eliminate what may be termed the “hyphen” in citizenship. Not in the first, nor in the second, and hardly in the third, generation, does the immigrant cease to be an Irish-American, or a French-American, or a German-American, or a Slavonic-American, or yet a Dago. Nevertheless, in process of tune, those of the Caucasian race do and will become Americans. Ultimately their descendants will be free from the traditions and ideals, so to speak, ground in through centuries passed under other conditions. Not so the Ethiopian. In his case, we find ourselves confronted with a situation never contemplated in that era of political dreams and scriptural science in which our institutions received shape. Stated tersely and in plain language, so far as the African is concerned–the cause and, so to speak, the motive of the great struggle of 1861 to 1865–we recognize the presence in the body politic of a vast alien mass which does not assimilate and which cannot be absorbed. In other words, the melting-pot theory came in sharp contact with an ethnological fact, and the unexpected occurred. The problem of African servitude was solved after a fashion; but in place of it a race issue of most uncompromising character evolved itself.

A survivor of the generation which read “Uncle Tom’s Cabin” as it week by week appeared,–fresh to-day from Massachusetts with its Lawrence race issues of a different character, I feel a sense of satisfaction in discussing here in South Carolina this question and issue in a spirit the reverse of dogmatic, a spirit purely scientific, observant and sympathetic. And in this connection let me say I well remember repeatedly discussing it with your fellow-citizen and my friend, Colonel Alexander Haskell, to whom I have already made reference. Rarely have I been more impressed by a conclusion reached and fixed in the mind of one who to the study of a problem had obviously given much and kindly thought. As those who knew him do not need to be told, Alexander Cheves Haskell was a man of character, pure and just and thoughtful. He felt towards the African as only a Southerner who had himself never been the owner of slaves can feel. He regarded him as of a less advanced race than his own, but one who was entitled not only to just and kindly treatment but to sympathetic consideration. When, however, the question of the future of the Afro-American was raised, as matter for abstract discussion, it was suggestive as well as curious to observe the fixed, hard expression which immediately came over Haskell’s face, as with stern lips, from which all suggestion of a smile had faded away, he pronounced the words:–“Sir, it is a dying race!” To express the thought more fully, Colonel Haskell maintained, as I doubt not many who now listen to me will maintain, that the nominal Afro-American increase, as shown in the figures of the national census, is deceptive,–that in point of fact, the Ethiop in America is incurring the doom which has ever befallen those of an inferior and less advanced race when brought in direct and immediate contact, necessarily and inevitably competitive, with the more advanced, the more masterful, and intellectually the more gifted. In other words, those of the less advanced race have a fatal aptitude for contracting the vices, both moral and physical, of the superior race, in the end leading to destruction; while the capacity for assimilating the elevating qualities and attributes which constitute a saving grace is denied them. Elimination, therefore, became in Haskell’s belief a question of time only,–the law of the survival of the fittest would assert itself. The time required may be long,–numbered by centuries; but, however remotely, it nevertheless would come. God’s mill grinds slowly, but it grinds uncommon small; and, I will add, its grinding is apt to be merciless.

The solution thus most pronouncedly laid down by Colonel Haskell may or may not prove in this case correct and final. It certainly is not for me, coming from the North, to undertake dogmatically to pass upon it. I recur to it here as a plausible suggestion only, in connection with my theme. As such, it unquestionably merits consideration. I am by no means prepared to go the length of an English authority in recently saying that “emancipation on two continents sacrificed the real welfare of the slave and his intrinsic worth as a person, to the impatient vanity of an immediate and theatrical triumph.” This length I say, I cannot go; but so far as the present occasion is concerned, with such means of observation as are within my reach, I find the conclusion difficult to resist that the success of the abolitionists in effecting the emancipation of the Afro-American, as unexpected and sweeping as it was sudden, has led to phases of the race problem quite unanticipated at least. For instance, as respects segregation. Instead of assimilating, with a tendency to ultimate absorption, the movement in the opposite direction since 1865 is pronounced. It has, moreover, received the final stamp of scientific approval. This implies much; for in the old days of the “peculiar institution” there is no question the relations between the two races were far more intimate, kindly, and even absorptive than they now are.

That African slavery, as it existed in the United States anterior to the year 1862, presented a mild form of servitude, as servitude then existed and immemorially had almost everywhere existed, was, moreover, incontrovertibly proven in the course of the Civil War. Before 1862, it was confidently believed that any severe social agitation within, or disturbance from without, would inevitably lead to a Southern servile insurrection. In Europe this result was assumed as of course; and, immediately after it was issued, the Emancipation Proclamation of President Lincoln was denounced in unmeasured terms by the entire London press. Not a voice was raised in its defence. It was regarded as a measure unwarranted in civilized warfare, and a sure and intentional incitement to the horrors which had attended the servile insurrections of Haiti and San Domingo; and, more recently, the unspeakable Sepoy incidents of the Indian mutiny. What actually occurred is now historic. The confident anticipations of our English brethren were, not for the first time, negatived; nor is there any page in our American record more creditable to those concerned than the attitude held by the African during the fierce internecine struggle which prevailed between April, 1861, and April, 1865. In it there is scarcely a trace, if indeed there is any trace at all, of such a condition of affairs as had developed in the Antilles and in Hindustan. The attitude of the African towards his Confederate owner was submissive and kindly. Although the armed and masterful domestic protector was at the front and engaged in deadly, all-absorbing conflict, yet the women and children of the Southern plantation slept with unbarred doors,–free from apprehension, much more from molestation.

Moreover, as you here well know, during the old days of slavery there was hardly a child born, of either sex, who grew up in a Southern household of substantial wealth without holding immediate and most affectionate relations with those of the other race. Every typical Southern man had what he called his “daddy” and his “mammy,” his “uncle” and his “aunty,” by him familiarly addressed as such, and who were to him even closer than are blood relations to most. They had cared for him in his cradle; he followed them to their graves. Is it needful for me to ask to what extent such relations still exist? Of those born thirty years after emancipation, and therefore belonging distinctly to a later generation, how many thus have their kindly, if humble, kin of the African blood? I fancy I would be safe in saying not one in twenty.

What the hell happened? The Modern Structure happened.


Got to. This is America Man.