Wherein I admit that I am a reactionary
A couple years ago, I ran across - I can't remember how - a peculiar website. Unqualified Reservations is a reactionary anti-democracy advocacy site. It's pseudonymous (I hope, for it would require some truly cruel parents to be otherwise) author Mencius Moldbug argues at great length that our current system of government is irretrievably broken, and that our only hope is a complete do-over. And that when we start over, we should be leaving all the democracy business behind us.
Well, that sounds weird, doesn't it? One's natural instinct is to judge the author mad, and go about one's affairs. But if you dig in a bit, you see that there are two aspects to his voluminous writings. (Those who remember fondly the USS Clueless will not be staggered by their length. But everyone else will.) The first aspect is an incisive critique of what we have right now. The second is a prescription for what we should replace it with, and how. In the first, I find myself more or less completely convinced. The second - I have issues with.
In the time since I first happened upon UR and Moldbuggianism, I've read his entire archives. Which is a metric buttload of stuff, to be sure. Without a whole lot of exaggeration, I can say that it had a serious impact on how I view the world. This may sound cheap - but one of the reasons I've not posted much over the last couple years is that I can't comment on anything related to current affairs without thinking about Moldbug, and I wasn't quite ready to out myself as an anti-democracy reactionary. But I guess that time has come. And I find myself surprised at how much I've resisted actually admitting that, even on a little-read blog with a single digit audience.
In my discussions with intelligent and well-informed individuals over the last decade or so, I often found myself looking at problems, arguing about solutions with a distinct sense that something was missing. While I am temperamentally conservative, I guess, I as often found myself attacking conservatives as liberals. Some cases could be explained away as those politicians or pundits failing to live up to conservative ideals. Or they were idiots. Or they were just politicians of whom i shouldn't be expecting anything. Or in the case of George Bush, some would say all three. Railing against all sides of the political spectrum makes you either a libertarian, I conspiracy nut, or just bitter and confused. I was trending toward the latter, with dalliances in the other two.
I felt that there should be a unifying explanation for everything I hated. A grand unified theory of hate. The whole process was similar to what I went through with dark matter and cosmology, and like then, I found an answer.
Back a couple months ago, I went looking for people who were commenting on Moldbug in an intelligent way, and I do believe I hit the jackpot in finding Aretae, Isegoria and Foseti. (I've been reading them, and dropping a few comments here and there, for a couple weeks now, and I recommend them highly.)
To them, most of what I'm about to say is old hat. Perhaps they can add some thoughts. This is for my fellow Perfidians, and my reader. (Hi Bram!)
Okay, how to summarize Moldbug? The dude has written probably a million words in the last four years. But, thanks to the magic of the internets, we have this: Condensed Moldbuggery. And you can start where I started with "How I Stopped Believing in Democracy" or dive into the first part (of 12!) of "An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives" The basic idea though, is that progressivism is a cancer, descended from universalist protestantism and metastasized into a number of horrific tumors including Nazism, Communism and the US Government. Along the way, he demolishes modern conservatism, takes swipes at libertarianism, and sings the praises of people we've largely forgotten, like the nineteenth century historian Thomas Carlyle.
It's hard to digest in one lump. But his critique of what we have before us is, I think, spot on. It gives us reasons for why the left acts like a religion. Because it is. It gives us a hint as to why conservatism fails, utterly, at most things it tries to do. Because, for one, it is merely warmed over thirty year old progressivism fighting against current progressivism. And for another, it fails to understand what it is. It survives because the dominant religion needs heretics, and because it is a home for traditionalists who don't like change. It explains why the State Department behaves so oddly, why the military is not allowed to win, and any number of other things.
The short of it is that a reactionary believes that the real struggle is between order and chaos. Modern progressives are, at heart, anarchists and the enemy of civilization. True liberty can only occur after order has been secured - the emergent order of markets, networks and the like depend on an underlying real order. And the store of civilizational order that we had built up has been pissed away by ten generations of democracy, the result being the crap heap we see before us.
To take one hypothesis and use it to explain a wide array of phenomena is, to me, a good sign of a powerful theory. So I dig it. It resolved issues that I had long had with politics - and gave me a way of looking at things that was entirely outside the bipolar democratic/republican thinking that had long been unsatisfactory. Moldbug's analysis of the modern world now has a comfortable apartment in my brain.
I have more issues with what he proposes as solutions for these problems, but I'll save that for the future. In the meantime, I really suggest - despite its length - reading the open letter series. Even if you remain unconvinced, I think you'll at least be entertained.
§ 3 Comments
[ You're too late, comments are closed ]


Perfidy,
I'd also watch Devin Finbarr. He may be the most careful expositor of all things Moldbugian going on at the moment. He comments at my blog regularly, and seems to be the guardian angel of Moldbuggery on the web...if the topic comes up on a site somewhere, particularly negatively, Devin shows up, and usually destroys the opposition.
He also has a blog, but only rarely posts. And his comments on my blog, particularly the ones that mention Nick Szabo are universally useful.
Moldbug's needlessly long and, at times, obscurantist writing style might be some kind of linguistic program that when read all the way through (a herculean task) it acts as brainwashing.
Just a fun little idea.
Anyway, I actually find Moldbug to be too simplistic in his thinking. Don't get me wrong, he's well educated and knowledgeable and can really pump out the pages but his actual deduction (ability to draw conclusions from the erudite points he makes) and thought process is weak.
The level of order he deems necessary is one step removed from outright dictatorship and maybe the truth of the matter is that human governance is the need to walk a fine perpetual line between libertarianism and authoritarianism.
If that's true then I'd prefer to live in a society of slow decline than one where the moods of the king or the petulance of his heirs means the difference between some utopian dream and a fascist nightmare.
@aretae, I just started…
@aretae, I just started reading Finbarr's blog, and it is interesting. Thanks for the recent links, too. I think you are the first to link perfidy since our glory days when we were renowned for our trenchant wit and incisive commentary. More recently, we are renowned for not posting anything at all.
@kabuto, I'll grant you long and obscurantist, and raise you inflammatory and irrelevant. But isn't all good writing a kind of linguistic program that acts as brainwashing?
I don't know that I agree with you altogether. I think he makes a lot of valid points in his critique of modern government - it is a useful framework that explains much that is less than obvious when viewed through the lens we were brought up to use.
I agree with you that the biggest problem in a monarchy, or any authoritarian regime is the succession. Assuming for a moment that you have located and installed a successful leader (no small task, to be sure) how can you ensure that the 2nd, 3rd, nth leader will also be competent, and not cruel, mad, quixotic, or a micromanaging pointy-haired boob? Any of those would be disaster.
Part of our problem, though, in coming to terms with Moldbug is the emotional baggage of the terms we use. Liberty, as we see around us, is not necessarily connected with democracy.
And slow decline has a way of becoming rapid and bloody decline.