But first to identify the players. The wokies, according to Yarvin are the kiddies, the "youth militia of happy, hopeful teenage volunteers" in the Czar's religious police. And then there are the Mensheviks.
[All over], people are being busted all over the place for their long-past mindcrimes, which were not even crimes when they thought them, or which were misdemeanors but have become major felonies. Our Mensheviks are against this—as they should be.
Only, of course, our Mensheviks, the good old centrist liberals like Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan, are being canceled too. But "we" are Bolsheviks. What does that mean?
It means we need to be "reactionaries," by which Yarvin means people who can see beyond the horizon of the present, one who "has taken his passport as a citizen of history." And let's learn from that genius of revolution, Lenin.
Revolution is not an ideology, it is a strategy, and Yarvin calls it Lenin's Rule, the first law of revolution.
The essence of revolution is not that a new class shall govern with the old government machinery, but that it shall smash up the existing machinery and govern with a new machine.
"It is easier to replace than reform an old government," says Yarvin: as with software, and he should know. But we modern "techno-Bolsheviks" are not monsters like Lenin & Co. Ours must not be a violent revolution, but rather a "cosy" revolution. How do you do that?
Here is an easy test: in any truly cozy sovereign transition, even the officials of the old government machinery must wind up with better, happier, and more fulfilling lives.
Call that the second law of revolution: "the new regime must not punish anyone for good service to the old regime."
It ain't gonna be easy, because of our chimp-like tendency to "maim any falling power on the way down." But it is not a hopeless cause: Lenin was into butchery, but not Caesar and Napoleon, and not the post-war Germans. Guess what happened to the average SS man and Stasi veteran? They got new careers and new lives. But not generally in the new regime.
Obviously there is no law to cover replacement of the regime, so our "cozy revolution" must pass through a "legal singularity,"
The singularity, while inherently above law, must be as quick and smooth as possible.
Then there's the third law of revolution: "surgery not butchery."
Any revolution requires a process of "expropriation and sequestration." In the singularity the new regime will need the power of expropriation. That's because the billionaires need to be humbled. But not humiliated.
Did you know, for instance, that our Constitution provides for the suspension of habeas corpus?
But do we have to be so mean to the billionaires? Well, yes, says Yarvin, because money is power, and "No regime is safe with a super-plutocratic class of questionable loyalty." But maybe, says Mr. Softy here, only a couple of billionaires need to be expropriated pour encourager les autres. Why do billionaires suck up to the current lefties? Because they know which side their bread is buttered.
Then there is "sequestration." Any revolution needs to separate the "critical human nodes" from the levers of power. They need to be sent on luxurious vacations to various tropical islands, the kind that feature in the NYT travel section.
Such is the sharp edge of 21st-century Bolshevism: a wealth tax on a few zillionaires, involuntary swank vacations for a few VIPs. Is this too much? Red Terror run wild? Must we refuse to countenance such naked violations of the non-aggression policy?
Surgery not butchery means separating the functionaries of the old regime from their power, but not from their lives.
Had enough yet? Yarvin's not quite through.
The fourth law of revolution is that "any new regime must be an unconditional and accountable monarchy." Yes, that means an absolute monarchy. Yarvin wrote a lot about the benefits of monarchy in his Unqualified Reservations blog.
The fifth law of revolution is that "any new regime must be universal. It cannot govern as the regime of a faction—cultural, ideological, religious, racial, linguistic, economic, or geographic."
Well, that is pretty obvious, because the reason for the need for revolution is that our current regime is indeed the regime of a faction, the globalist, leftist educated Gentry faction that believes in a religion of political power as a path to justice. The trick for the new regime is to bury the enmities that led to the crisis: in our case the educated Gentry against the Commoners. That means that the new regime has to honor Gentry as Gentry, and Commoners as Commoners, because all "communities" deserve equal respect.
Do you think this is all a bit too much, "going too far" in the words of George Eliot's Mr. Brooke? Most people usually do, says Yarvin. But,
For any malady of state, there are three possible solutions: do nothing; repair the government; or replace the government.
And usually repairing the government doesn't work. That's because of my Fourth Law, that government programs cannot work because you can never reform them. But if we are going to succeed in our replacement strategy we will have to get the support of the Mensheviks, the good centrists that right now are not ready for extreme action
What is a Menshevik? A Menshevik is a small and good person—an intellectual hobbit. This small and good person is naturally attracted to small and good ideas.
And then Yarvin goes into a long disquisition about the fatuously useless resistance to the "cancel culture" by the centrists like Bari Weiss and Andrew Sullivan and the Harper's Wet-Noodle Manifesto and a new Substack blog called "Persuasion."
Obviously those guys are not going to free us from the the clinking fist of the Czar's cultural police. And yet we need them on our side. How do we do it? Yarvin doesn't tell us. Not yet.
No comments:
Post a Comment