Apophatic Politics

‘Dark Enlightenment’ describes a form of government as well as ‘Enlightenment’ does, which is to say: it doesn’t at all. On those grounds alone, George Dvorsky’s inclusion of DE among twelve possible “Futuristic Forms of Government That Could One Day Rule the World” is profoundly misguided. This is not to say the list is entirely without interest.

Its greatest value lies in the abundance of mutually inconsistent political futures, few if any of which will happen. It therefore provides the opportunity for negative thoughts, and more particularly for systematic negative idealization. Which futures are most deserving of prevention?

This blog has no doubt. The epitome of political disaster occupies fourth place in Dvorsky’s list (among a number of other hideous outcomes): Democratic World Government.

Dvorsky seems to quite like it:

We may very well be on our way to achieving the Star Trek-like vision of a global-scale liberal democracy — one capable of ending nuclear proliferation, ensuring global security, intervening to end genocide, defending human rights, and putting a stop to human-caused climate change.

There cannot be a definitive Dark Enlightenment government, but it is certainly possible to envisage a form of government which instantiates the ultimate object of DE critique: a universal demotist regime, from which there could be no escape. As a break from preoccupations with a positive neoreactionary governmental ideal, prone — if not destined — to both intense controversy and deep obscurity, it is energizing to explore the via negativa. Democratic World Government need not necessarily exist. That is already to place NRx in a position of luxurious success, when compared to fraught speculations about alternatives to the present political disaster. Whatever obstructs the DWG’s path to existence is on our side. Such features of specific negative teleology, so easily overlooked from a positive perspective, are highlighted for affirmation and reinforcement. Anything that stands in the DWG’s way is worth defending.

A rough list of these precious (negative-teleological) obstacles is already familiar. Extant structures of geopolitical fragmentation, population diversity, cultural incongruities, borders, occulted social networks, intractable techno-economic processes, administrative malfunctions, stubborn traditional variations, sheer complexities of space, and no doubt much else beside, all contribute their frictional grit. A ruined Tower of Babel looms into view on the via negativa, and no intact edifice has ever looked more glorious.

Carrying NRx perilously close to the brink of euphoria is the intimation that the actually-existing Cathedral has Democratic World Government as its only conceivable equilibrium state. A unification of the planet under its auspices is the sole future that makes sense for it. If it is denied this ‘manifest destiny’ it will die — as its intrinsic tendency to expansionary proselytization makes evident, unambiguously. The Cathedral needs the whole of the earth, merely to survive. On the via negativa the master of our socio-politically devastated world seems like a radically mortal thing.

ADDED: Hoppe touching upon One World Government. Also:

I have been called an extremist, a reactionary, a revisionist, an elitist, a supremacist, a racist, a homophobe, an anti-Semite, a right-winger, a theocrat, a godless cynic, a fascist and, of course, a must for every German, a Nazi. So, it should be expected that I have a foible for politically “incorrect” sites that every “modern,” “decent,” “civilized,” “tolerant,” and “enlightened” man is supposed to ignore and avoid.

June 16, 2014admin 28 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Democracy , Discriminations

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

28 Responses to this entry

  • Chris B Says:

    Do the ten remaining black lesbian transsexual feminist hermaphrodites who survive the left singularity count as a “Global liberal democracy”?

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    Wouldn’t the people with the most guns survive?

    [Reply]

    Arc Reply:

    This is an extremely important point ignored far too often in DE/NRx circles. The attempt by Cathedral elites to develop and implement ever more intrusive and restrictive “gun control” measures is part of an overall strategy designed to eliminate any possible future resistance to their end goal: a monopolistic, progressive enforcement and proselytizing state, eventually culminating in a world government from which to promote their ideas worldwide and thus ensure their ultimate survival (think, the modernization of Trotsky’s idea of “permanent revolution”).

    How many DE/NRx theorists own an AR, AK, M1A, SKS, FAL, Mini 14, SCAR, Tavor, AUG, ACR, or some other semi-automatic rifle, or even a quality bolt action rifle and optic, or a semi-automatic handgun, along with ammo and spare parts for future maintenance? Very few, I think. How many of those who do actually train with it and know how to use their weapon of choice?

    I, for one, have read very little discussion on this matter from DE/NRx theorists, which is why I come to this conclusion.

    Now I recognize that many DE/NRx theorists are behind enemy lines in nations that do not permit ownership of such weaponry. But for those who are in the U.S. or Canada or some European countries, what’s their excuse?

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    In the US the attempt to implement “ever more intrusive and restrictive “gun control” measures” is long failed. There ate 250 million or more guns about, already. Since 2008 a huge number of semi-auto rifles have been sold. I have emphasized the point several times in different places–the situation in the US is going to play out quite differently than elsewhere, because of all these private weapons.

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    I do, though I’m not a NRX theorist.

    But NRX is ultimately more interesting than mainstream defense of gun rights, because widespread ownership of the means of force is useless without the will to use them. The Cathedral operates upstream of the means of gun ownership.

    The Cathedral’s gun control propaganda has achieved its purpose in making gun owners fervently and loudly commit to being law abiding and not using their weapons for non-authorized purposes.

    an inanimate aluminum tube Reply:

    “the situation in the US is going to play out quite differently than elsewhere, because of all these private weapons.”

    ———–

    Correction, the situation in the US **might** play out quite differently…

    Rest assured, the Cathedral is aware of the guns and it has factored them into its plans. The Cathedral plans to win while ensuring that the guns are never used in an organized fashion.

    If current trends continue it appears that they will accomplish this.

    Posted on June 16th, 2014 at 5:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • neovictorian23 Says:

    A great many very smart people, Cathedralists witting and unwitting, were looking to implement DWG right after World War II, including my very favorite author Robert Heinlein. He thought it likely that atomic war with the Soviets would ensue if nukes weren’t controlled by some sort of international technological elite, backed by a world armed force.

    Proof that he was truly highly intelligent was that he allowed reality to disabuse him of the idea. The fact that so many “intelligent” people cling to it 70 years on as a sort of cure-all indicates that instead of a practical idea it is more of a categorical imperative or, as indicated above, a condition of survival for the current Cathedral.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 16th, 2014 at 5:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • E. Antony Gray (@RiverC) Says:

    Speaking of the topic at hand, sort of, musing from some folks in a Jeffersonian direction, of “left exit” http://mitrailleuse.net/2014/06/14/americas-forgotten-revolutions/ – not realizing that the direction of Jeffersonian values is ultimately reactionary, its dabbling with revolutions and liberal personality quirks aside. In the end, the centerpiece of Jeffersonian sentiment is the so called natural aristocracy, and the means to create it, leftish means, were all utterly (or mostly) repudiated. Its vision however remains constant, as Chesterton says, and I think exit leftward does not fall upon the Jeffersonian eye as a path towards its end.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 16th, 2014 at 6:17 pm Reply | Quote
  • Contemplationist Says:

    The Cathedral needs the whole of the earth, merely to survive. On the via negativa the master of our socio-politically devastated world seems like a radically mortal thing.

    Absolutely spot on!
    This calls for some further thoughts. Just as NRx looks to the Outside as an exit, the very possibility of which reorders the inside to more tolerable climes, Communism/Progressivism/Democratism snarls at the Outside in unspeakable horror – for anything not in its grasp is at once blamed for the lack of utopia on the Inside, and the Outside provides ideological fuel to carry on the fight for expansion and internal conquest of rebel elements.

    [Reply]

    R. Reply:

    Trotsky said the same thing about the revolution..

    [Reply]

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    It’s not a grand enough heroic fantasy adventure to win just one battle with one group of Orcs. Frodo has to throw the ring into Mount Doom and transform the entire world.

    [Reply]

    fotrkd Reply:

    I was thinking of the Cathedral 3D-printing Orcs to achieve its aim of GWD/DWG.

    Peter A. Taylor Reply:

    That could be one of those Facebook “memes”: What I think I do vs. what I really do.

    Posted on June 16th, 2014 at 6:42 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=TpHPQCnHHl4

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 16th, 2014 at 6:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    With luck, your culture might survive as a form of take-out food.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 16th, 2014 at 7:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Apophatic Politics | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on June 16th, 2014 at 8:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • VXXC Says:

    “The Cathedral needs the whole of the earth, merely to survive. ”

    This is a neat formulation.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2014 at 2:20 am Reply | Quote
  • Wilhelm von Überlieferung Says:

    Ahh, so you’ve noticed that too?

    Pretty much every argument I’ve had with liberal and progressive types that doesn’t end with them shouting “racist” or “bigot”, usually ends up with them proclaiming “but Star-Trek!”

    In fact, I had one just the other day, with a younger brother, on the perils of world government.

    “But things are going to be like Star-Trek soon, see look” while pointing to his iDigitalMonitoringDevice.

    I’m by no means averse to technology, I’m a software developer after all, but I can’t help but think that the only Star-Trek like future that awaits most of these people is that of the Borg. They’re practically already there.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2014 at 3:41 am Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    World Government is coming, it is already in the planning stages. Only “wacko kooks” like Alex Jones and Glenn Beck talk about it openly (even the people who openly say that want world government would deride those two as kooks). It is coming because technology is a double edged sword that both empowers the individual and the state. Heinlein was worried about a nuclear war between the US and Russia, but how much more likely is it that a single individual or terrorist group uses one, or develops a biological weapon? Or hacks the power grid and causes thousands of deaths? Add in the financial crisis: the only way they have left to print is to have the IMF become the global central bank and print SDRs. They will take over step by step, brick by brick, and every new brick will be a solution to an imminent threat or crisis, how could anyone oppose it! Russian and China are not threats to this agenda, they want to improve their negotiating position.

    The only extant threat to world government is the other guys with plans for world government: Islamic jihadists.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2014 at 9:10 am Reply | Quote
  • Bryce Laliberte Says:

    Cathedralism is a descendant of Protestantism which is a heresy of Catholicism which is the original formulation of religious universalism.

    I thought the “Cathedral wants to devour the whole earth” conclusion was one of the first we determined. After all, the Moldbug himself originally named the Cathedral’s dogma Universalism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    No pretense to originality was intended.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2014 at 11:31 am Reply | Quote
  • vinteuil Says:

    @ Orthodox: “Russia and China are not threats to this agenda, they want to improve their negotiating position.”

    What do you mean? Russia & China strike me, at least for the time being, as absolutely insuperable obstacles to the realization of the dreams of universalist demotism.

    Agreed that the Islamic world and the Cathedral’s utter inability to comprehend or deal with it might be an even greater obstacle.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2014 at 6:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Says:

    Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia might all benefit from seeing Islam crushed as a political force.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 17th, 2014 at 10:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alrenous Says:

    Democratic World Government isn’t an equilibrium state either due to game theory of conspecific parasitism. They’re trying to exclude white males from the parasite class, but as per communism that just cuts off production.

    Norm a productive unit so that if 100% of the population is self-sustaining, they on average create 1 unit each.

    If 50% of the population is parasitic, then each host must create at least 2 units. But some marginal producers produce only 2 units, and since half of that is taken, net only 1 unit. They have a strong incentive to join the parasite class – which they can, as both are human. As opposed to malaria, you can’t retrain as a malaria. (Even feudal aristocracy only slows this, not stops this, due to downward scion mobility.) But when this marginal (say) 10% joins, the ratio becomes 60:40 and each host must create 2.5 units. Previously nonmarginal producers, who were netting 1.25 units, are now netting only 1 unit. They convert too…and this function is accelerating. 75:25 :: 4 units. 80:20 :: 5 units.

    [Reply]

    neovictorian23 Reply:

    Starnesville.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 18th, 2014 at 1:25 am Reply | Quote
  • Arc Says:

    @

    This is simply not accurate.

    On a state level, many states continue to make more restrictive laws, some requiring registration (such as Connecticut and California), some requiring licensing (Illinois), many limiting magazine capacity (about ten states), and many limiting SBRs (about ten states). Many states are looking at implementing ammo purchase laws.

    On the federal level, the only reason the Assault Weapons Ban went away is because there was a Sunset Clause in it and the law expired. George W. Bush wanted it renewed, by Larry Craig kept it from coming to the floor to be voted on. Had there been no Sunset Clause, the AWB would still be with us today. The original AWB was actually supported by most Republicans until their constituents had a fit when it came up for a vote, and they turned away from their previous support.

    Also, the ATF continues to restrict imports of firearms, parts, and ammo… this is an area that has become more and more restrictive since the 1980s. Unconstitutional laws restricting the movement of firearms across state lines, especially SBRs and in the realm of private sales, continue to get worse, as well.

    Will there be a gun ban where everything gets banned all at once? No, it’ll be done piecemeal over several decades.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 18th, 2014 at 8:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • Arc Says:

    Sorry, I don’t know why that comment did not post under NeoVictorian23. The comment system on this website is very bad.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 18th, 2014 at 8:24 pm Reply | Quote
  • pseudo-chrysostom Says:

    well enough is well enough,

    better or worse is better than best or worst,

    and good with bad is not not bad.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 21st, 2014 at 9:06 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment