Once Aryan Skynet Goes Live It Doesn't Matter Who Pulled The Switch
Spot the NRx irony:
The solution is to re-take our institutions and dismantle them, bypassing libertarianism for outright Social Darwinism that disenfranchises those unfit to make leadership decisions
The idea that their own ideological forebears were, in fact, unfit to make leadership decisions thus were disenfranchised by their superiors in a ruthlessly social Darwinist process would cause cognitive dissonance as it interferes with their self-image as a rising intellectual elite.
Much of NRx reads like exactly what you would expect, a bunch of smart young Whites and Jews rhetorically positioning themselves as an “elite” in a society where they are clearly anything but the elite, and doing so while carefully trying to avoid anything that would actually trigger “Cathedral” disapproval.
NRx might benefit from actually reading elite “Cathedral” opinion, which is quite social Darwinist and quite elitist as it is. The Council on Foreign Relation’s publications can be refreshingly forthright about the reality of “democracy” for example. NRx likes to critique democracy but seems rather ignorant about the way the elite manages democracy quite effectively.
As NRx proponents like to contemplate replacing democratic forms with market systems – a very old and rather trite notion it has to be said – let’s take a look at an (admittedly simplified) model.
In a democratic system, the rule is one man, one vote. In a corporate system, the rule is one share, one vote. If someone has 50% of the shares, plus one, they have a controlling interest in the company. At some set time period, shareholders vote their shares and elect directors who in turn elect a CEO.
However another option is to sell shares; if you don’t like what a company is doing, you just sell out. If enough people do this, the share price drops and it becomes more likely that shareholders will vote to replace the directors and CEOs with new management that will presumably do something to make the share price rise.
Buying and selling of shares happens more often than voting shares. The CEO and management know more about the day-to-day operation of the company than the shareholders, and this is especially so in the modern system where shares are often held by funds whose shares are in turn held by funds of funds.
Sometimes there is an outbreak of “shareholder democracy” where shareholders vote to replace the management, or there is an “activist investor” who holds enough shares to force management to manage in a particular way. But usually, the vote is simply buying in and selling out.
We often describe two sectors; the “private sector” which means capitalism, and the “public sector” which means democracy. As it is easy to sell your shares in a company and participation in a company is theoretically voluntary, the one share, one vote system is considered fair even though it is obviously unequal. As it is difficult if not impossible to move from one nation to another, the public sphere is democratic. This is also true because the government, the state, has the power of force; the armed agents of the state can imprison or kill you.
Every once in a while you have “libertarians” of one stripe or another engaging in utopian scheming whereby they imagine if we could just “run the government like a business” things would be better. These are virtually always bright, young White men with no sense of history nor much engagement with the public sphere nor that so far unmentioned third sphere, civil society.
The idea of replacing democracy with market mechanisms is not at all new, and this line of thinking usually leads to discussions about building artificial islands with no government. That the NRx crowd discusses these ideas shows not only the intellectual poverty of that non-movement, but also its complete lack of novelty.
“Yeah, well I’m gonna go build my own theme park, with blackjack and hookers. In fact, forget the park.”
These are arguments over form-of-government as the late Neo-Nietzsche would say. The opponents of ethno-nationalism use similar arguments over form-of-government. The typical conservative who is “for legal immigration but against illegal immigration and supports the Constitution” would, in theory, have no problem with the following scenario.
ALF arrives in his space ship, legally becomes a naturalized US citizen, replicates himself asexually into one billion individual life-forms, votes in a 100% ALF government, replaces every word in the Constitution by precisely following the lawful amendment process, and uses his super-human powers of persuasion to convince the entire human population to stop breeding.
Because the process was followed, it’s all kosher.
It does not take a particularly high IQ to understand the pointlessness of these sorts of “form-of-government” arguments, but it might take an extremely high IQ, with perhaps a touch of autism, to take them seriously.
Meanwhile, in the real world, the really existing elites have some very effective methods to manage democracy. My previous article on the Espionage Model earned me a very interesting new Twitter follower, a high-tech political consultancy named Evolving Strategies. In a reference to the Tom Cruise movie about “pre-crime,” they claim to be able to predict voter behavior by detailed polling and statistical analysis.
[N]one of us really knows what works until we test it with a true experiment. And the results are often quite surprising. We’ve found large persuasion and GOTV effects, both negative and positive, and most wouldn’t have been picked out of a lineup as obvious winners or losers.
We can help you win the Big 4 and the US Senate. In concert with Aristotle, the largest campaign technology firm in the world, we developed a new technology that’s permanently shifting the campaign landscape – the PreCog Audience.
Can we see into the future? Almost. It’s as close to political precognition as humans get.
The PreCog Audience is the easy-to-use product of this complicated work. It’s an audience composed of each and every one of the more than 13,000,000 voters we know in advance will be persuaded by a specific message. With this glimpse into the future, you’ll hit the right voters with the right message every time.
Using the PreCog Audience you’ll know you did everything you could to win the Big 4 and the US Senate.
In theory, this sort of “voter management” is nothing new, merely continued evolution of old fashioned advertising and polling practices as done by the actually existing elites. Notice that unlike NRx, no one is proposing a new elite; actually, really existing social Darwinist forces determine who is, or is not, elite.
Some recent well known examples of managing democracy:
When someone dies, their estate is transferred to an heir, and that transfer is taxed by what is known as the “estate tax.” Repealing that tax is an unpopular idea, because most people are not rich enough to have estates that meet the minimum requirement to be taxed. So legendary GOP pollster Frank Luntz ran some focus groups and found that if you renamed the estate tax to the “death tax,” many more people would support its repeal.
Exit polling – where you ask people who they voted for after they leave the polling center – is an extremely reliable way to predict who will win an election even before the ballots are counted. In 2004, the exit polling showed the Democrats winning, but in precincts where certain electronic voting machines with no paper trail were used, the exit polls failed, and the Republicans won. This, naturally, resulted in many Democrats suggesting that the electronic voting machines were rigged, and since there was no paper trail, there was really no way to recount the ballots, as there were no ballots. Programming the electronic voting machines to rig the vote is trivial.
So some very bright people came up with complex cryptography schemes to make the voting machines un-riggable, but missed the point completely. Since few people understand the principles of cryptography, they still would have no way to be assured that their votes were actually counted. The point of paper ballots, and the point of an open system of counting votes, is that the people who voted for the losing candidate know that they lost fair and square. This gets the buy-in of the losing side, which gives the system legitimacy in the eyes of the public.
It seems unlikely that the really existing elites will give power to some other group because of ideological persuasion. If NRx-ers could, in fact, run the institutions better than the current class, they would be. As of now, NRx could figuratively inflate an airship, but apparently the people who actually run things are reading my blogs, not theirs.
Oh, no room for Bender, huh? Fine, I’ll go build my own lunar lander! With blackjack, and hookers. In fact, forget the lunar lander and the blackjack!
Ah, screw the whole thing.