The problem with conservatism in
America is that it always loses. It was losing before the land was even settled.
The Puritans were the leftists of their time, too leftist to remain in the most
leftist nation in the world, and America has adopted the spirit of the
Puritans to guide its political and social development. As Orwell made clear,
the end game of leftism is the abolition of memory, the imprisonment of the
mind, the coercive imposition of equal conditions of body and mind for all
people--in other words, the most absolute tyranny ever conceived--but never thus
far fully implemented.The Soviet Union was merely a primitive and premature
attempt in this direction. Our elites envision a purer achievement. They are
more clever and, technologically, much better equipped to pursue their end.
Chinese elites posit a similar goal in the long run, though their wonderful new
infatuation with Leninist capitalism has temporarily diverted their attention.
The world lies at the feet of this double hegemony.
The following website offers a summary of the ideas of
Mencius Moldbug, who has an unconventional notion of how conservatives (renamed
reactionaries to escape the taint of centuries of retreat) may finally start
winning in America (and by extension throughout the American imperium) and
revive American fortunes and save us from the usual fate of empires. Moldbug is
samizdat for the 21st century. Singapore (surprisingly little emulated) is probably the closest
realized approach to this conception of government:
My two main issues with these ideas:
1. Classical international law may not be possible for much longer given
the continuing spread of WMDs to smaller and smaller entities. This
technological fait accompli, provided that it proceeds apace into
disseminated bio- and nanoweapons capabilities, would create
conditions for either anarchy or a single global state. This is because
deterrence does not work for these types of weapons. This would be sufficient to undo the Moldbug plan.
2. The other issue is the risk that some states will be commandeered by
psychopaths who, moved more by passion than profit, visit grievous harms upon
their people or decide to predate upon neighboring states. However, reactionary
arrangements do not create this risk. They suffer the lesser flaw of not
necessarily eradicating it. The risk of non-reactionary arrangments going psycho
is sufficiently clear from history: any form of government yet tried faces this
risk to one degree or another. The reactionary neocameralist form ought to incur
a lower risk than most, perhaps lower than any, assuming it is attempted in a civilized nation. Even with global implementation
of neocameralist regimes, the requirement of an international balance of power
would remain in effect (at least until the problems associated with my first
issue transcend known contingencies).
If you're interested in readings from the source, the collected works of
Moldbug, as generously and most needfully reorganized by an acolyte:
I'm working my way through--verbose stuff, but with compensations in cleverness and humor.
No comments:
Post a Comment