I was talking with a small group of friends the other day about the relationship between equity and equality (spoiler alert: they aren’t the same thing). One of them soon chimed in to ask me what I thought the relationship between equality and democracy was. I replied that democracy rests on some very egalitarian assumptions (not necessarily the case, I know, but it was to direct the flow of the conversation a certain direction).
The discussion soon moved into talk of democracy itself, and the friend who had asked the previous question began to discuss democracy in his home country. He was skeptical that it was what they needed right now, as he felt his country would be better served by developing the economy, raising standards of living, and increasing both the quality of and the access to education. He didn’t think that having charismatic but foolish leaders running the country into the ground was what his people needed.
We had some fun discussing ways to restrict the franchise that might make things better. It was also a nice reminder of something that we in the Neoreactionary sphere have a tendency to overlook. It is not a “super-edgy” position to be skeptical of democracy (or at least, certain of its aspects). It is fairly common, and many reasonably intelligent people will have questions about it some of the time.
One of the objections I have with the discussions that people have about “red-pill” songs and movies and whatever is that there seems to be some sort of implicit assumption that these things are deliberately and surreptitiously trying to impart some kind of hidden message of masculinity. I get that the more subtle thinkers realize that this isn’t the case, but I’ve talked to guys who actually think that “red pill” music is deliberately trying to spread the “red pill” across our feminized society.
No. Guys, stop.
“Red Pill” is a hermeneutic framework, not a secret code. There’s a difference. You’re seeing what you want to see, which doesn’t necessarily mean it’s not there, but it means that you have to be introspective and self-aware when you’re going about this sort of examination.
It’s easy to get tripped up, and most people aren’t even aware of where they’re putting their feet.
A few days ago, I tweeted this:
I still completely stand by this, and I’ve found that it is true not just in writing, but in many other facets of life. When the pressure is on, and you need — not just want, but need — to get words on paper, you’ll find a way.
Or you collapse. I’ve seen this happen to many people, oftentimes those that many people thought would be good leaders. The tension rises and it becomes too much for them, and they need to be suspended from leadership.
It’s a good thing my colleagues don’t have quite my sense of humor, or else I would have been nicknamed “Battlefield Promotion” a long time ago.
It’s been this way throughout high school. It’s been this way through university. I guess it’s just something about me. Perhaps I should just start smoking cigars and calling myself Churchill. That chap knew quite a bit about this sort of thing.
In the trailer for the latest House of Cards, Frank Underwood dropped a line that resonates with me more and more the more I listen to it:
You know what takes real courage? Holding it all together when the stakes are this high.
Somehow, I always end up being the one that people turn to when the stakes get high and the storm begins to rage. Is it because I thrive off it? Because I live it and love it and would wither away into nothingness without it? I do not know.
I’m agnostic about fate, but sometimes I wonder.
In related news, I just got over the hump of the biggest project of my life. It’ll take a week or two for my schedule to stabilize, but then it’ll be smooth sailing from there to the finish line (end of April). I guess I’ll need something else to do with this load off my back, and I’ll be putting out posts regularly again (until the next big thing comes up…hehe). I’ve something stuff in the works on nationalism (ethno-nationalism and otherwise), as well as a commentary on Hume, plus a few other goodies as well.
Admittedly, I don’t know enough about the recent FCC ruling to weigh in on it, though the outcry of many whose opinions I have come to realize aren’t complete shit has made me skeptical of it (almost as skeptical as the jubilation of those whom I know to be either idealistic fools or politically naive…useful idiots gonna useful idiot, I suppose).
Personally, I have a strong revulsion for authoritarian shenanigans like this. Is it necessary to rule an empire in decline? Possibly. Probably? I won’t pretend I really know.
It made me think, however, and not on the immediate subject matter. Every country has a certain potential for innovation and creative destruction. A squalid nation is one that squanders its potential and/or does not know how to harness it (we are not going to examine the effect of war or foreign occupation or other such outside forces in this model, though a proper analysis would take those things into account as well). A growing nation is one that is harnessing this potential. A nation in a golden age is a nation in which this potential is being utilized in an extremely efficacious manner. A decaying nation is one in which restrictions on this potential are put in place to protect established forces and interests.
These restrictions on manifesting the potential of the human capital of the populace mean that the same energy that fueled the growth and development of society at its finest cannot be upheld. It is like not having enough money for the electric bill. You can dim the lights all you like, but if you can’t get the cash flow back on track, sooner or later you are going to run into big problems.
Repaying a debt of human capital and accomplishment, however, is a lot harder than paying back the debt on a credit card, and a society driven by debt isn’t even going to try paying off either one.