2,047 words
Michael Anissimov
A Critique of Democracy: A Guide for Neoreactionaries
Zenit Books, 2015
Neoreaction is a philosophical movement, which emerged from social media in the past few years, seemingly in response to the hordes of social justice warriors that haunt the realms of message boards, blogs, and Twitter. Being a new movement, it is difficult to define, with every prominent neoreactionary on the internet writing his own definitive blog post (or Kindle book) on the subject. But there are certain commonalities they share. Neoreaction is inegalitarian, against democracy, and in favor of monarchy. The stereotype of neoreactionaries is that they are computer geeks who are interested in serious (but geeky) ethical issues surrounding technological innovation, as well as more banal and boyish pastimes like video games and Japanese animation.
Some of the names most often associated with the movement include Mencius Moldbug (who is considered to be its founder), Nick Land, Bryce Laliberte, and Michael Anissimov, who published a book in February 2015 entitled A Critique of Democracy: A Guide for Neoreactionaries. Anissimov is a noted futurist and has participated in a number of intellectual ventures concerning the ethics of transhumanism, artificial intelligence, and nanotechnology. As a neoreactionary, he is known for his writing contributions at the blog More Right (http://www.moreright.net/). He is also prolific Twitter user.
Anissimov’s A Critique of Democracy is short and simple, drawing primarily from a few scholarly sources to make the point that democracy ruins civilization. His chosen alternative to democracy is monarchy, which he advocates for to a small degree in this book, but he has stated that his next book will be entitled Monarchy: A Political Study. His arguments against democracy are largely materialistic, utilizing concepts associated with human biodiversity and basic economic principles. Some of his criticisms are reminiscent of Alain de Benoist’s The Problem of Democracy, but Anissimov arrives at them from a different path.
After a brief introduction summarizing democracy’s flaws in nine key points, the book begins by examining the science of leadership. Anissimov traces the inevitability of hierarchy in society to evolutionary strategies, which can be deduced from observations of non-human primate behavior as well as archeological evidence. The implication is that there will always be leaders and followers and some are better suited for leadership. When this reality is accepted, society can move beyond the inhibiting belief that every individual deserves a vote.
Anissimov examines the roots of civilization in Mesopotamia and notes that the ability to lead increasingly large numbers of people coincided with other major advances in civilization. Citing Ricardo Duchesne’s The Uniqueness of Western Civilization, he makes the assertion that the founders of Western civilization were not Greek but Aryan:
There are three reasons why the Greeks are often referred to as the foundation of Western Civilization rather than Myceneans or Indo-Europeans. The first is that archaeological and paleogenetic studies of Indo-Europeans are more of a challenge than classical Greek studies and have only begun to bear fruit and consensus during the early 90s. The second is that focus on the Athenian Greeks is more politically amenable to educators in present-day liberal democracies. The third is the association of Indo-Europeans with the Aryan racial theories of Nazi Germany. We do not consider any of these good reasons for why study of Indo-Europeans should be neglected, as they are the true forebears of Western Civilization.
Pointing out that liberal democracies prefer to focus on the Greeks rather than Indo-Europeans highlights a pervading theme in the book, that the bias toward democracy has led to lazy thinking and out-of-hand refusal to consider the merits of a more authoritarian style of government such as was found among the Indo-Europeans.
The book continues by addressing the polarizing effect of democratic government on political factions, which results in the fracturing of cultural solidarity and the alienation of the individual. According to Anissimov, a study of European history reveals “that de facto nation states form along ethnic and cultural lines and that the United States is in fact composed of several such states.” However, to demonstrate the reality of these de facto states, he focuses on political differences (the “red state” versus “blue state” phenomenon), rather than the increasingly multi-racial composition of the United States. In reality, any nation, be it democratic or not, can include a spectrum of political variation while maintaining its ethnic cohesion. But it might be conjectured that democracy exacerbates political differences, polarizing parties to a greater degree than would occur under the type of government Anissimov is proposing.
The critique moves on to discuss the incentives resulting from a democratic form of government versus those created by a monarchy. Anissimov’s primary source for this discussion is Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s Democracy: The God That Failed, and largely consists of contrasting the low time preference incentives of monarchy with the high time preference incentives of democracy. In a democracy policymakers tend toward a higher time preference decisions due to the lack of accountability. Democracy makes it possible for opportunists to bribe the foolish masses into giving them power with short-term benefits. The negative effects of short-sighted policies advanced by these devious politicians are usually not seen until years after they leave office. And if not, the only consequence they face is a failure to get re-elected, in which case they can find themselves a prestigious job on the basis of the supposed leadership they have demonstrated. Whereas, in what Anissimov calls the private government, the failure of a monarch to think in the long-term results in the loss of his personal property or that of his descendants.
In a chapter on economics, Anissimov challenges the idea that democracies are necessary for economic growth. He concedes that democracies have a more consistent record for economic growth while authoritarian governments have a wider range of success and failure. However, other factors are involved in the disparity between the worst and the best of authoritarian governments, the most prominent correlation being the average IQ of the citizenry. Additionally, there is a wider degree of variance between leadership styles in different countries:
For instance, the economic and social outcome of the absolute authority of the average African military dictator might be systematically different than the economic and social outcome of the average historical Mongolian despot, which is in turn different from the modern Muslim autocrat, who is in turn different than the Enlightenment-era European monarch, and so on. Not all kings were created equal. Being products of the cultures around them, they inherit certain strengths and weaknesses common to all members of that culture.
He also addresses the assumption made by many that unequal distribution of wealth is inherently unjust. In reality, a healthy nation must have some form of wealth inequality. He cautions that pointing to inequality as if it is a problem that must be solved is a tactic frequently used by politicians who seek to exploit the populace in a democracy by appealing to their most debased instinct—jealousy.
Anissimov argues that the Enlightenment is often viewed as a package of ideas that most people believe must be accepted in their entirety or not at all, even though certain of these ideas contradict one another. One example is liberty and equality. Both are considered Enlightenment values, but true liberty will never result in equality, and any attempt to achieve equality requires the suspension of liberties. Some Enlightenment values should be accepted over others when they contradict one another. Furthermore, the development of the scientific method was also a part of the Enlightenment, and the idea that this could not have occurred without democracy is absurd. The underlying point is that a return of monarchies would not necessarily mean a step back for Western civilization. If anything, a post-democratic world would be a step forward.
In the final chapter, Anissimov discusses alternatives to democracy. He identifies five possible non-democratic alternatives: fascism, monarchy, techno-commercial city states (like Singapore), sea-steading city states, and aristocratic republics with limited voting rights. He makes it clear that monarchies are not fascistic.
There are many differences between monarchy and fascism. The first is that fascism implies a totalitarian state, monarchy does not. Fascism implies no clear separation between the governing party and the governed, monarchy does. Fascism is socialist, monarchy is not. Fascism aggressively presents an overall vision of what society should be, imposed from the top down, monarchy does not. Fascism forbids “unearned income” on paper, meaning any revenue from investment whatsoever, monarchy does not. Fascism has a preoccupation with militarism and “society as barracks,” monarchy does not. Fascism has a leader that represents himself as carrying out the people’s will, monarchy does not. Fascism is about meritocracy independent of social background, monarchy is about heredity and ancestry. Fascism implies a government in control of much of the economy, monarchy implies a government that spends less than 20 percent of the GDP.
Anissimov is clearly coming from a quasi-libertarian perspective and sees capitalism as a good system for society. He sees monarchy as a solution to the degenerative aspects of capitalism by giving a private government the authority to keep non-governmental businesses in check and prevent them from engaging in practices contrary to the national interest. In a democracy this doesn’t happen because people with greater capital have more influence over whether or not policies such as free trade and mass immigration are implemented, which may be detrimental to the nation but are good for those who prefer profit over cultural values. In fact, whenever cultural values get in the way of profit, they can be subverted in a democracy. But a monarch operates as a protector of culture because it is in his best interest to do so.
A Critique of Democracy: A Guide for Neoreactionaries is a useful little book for learning the basic arguments against democracy as well as some of the reasons why neoreactionaries take the idea of monarchy seriously. This book need not be just for reactionaries, but it would be interesting to see how a liberal, particularly a voting rights protester, would respond to the book. The critiques of democracy are sound, but the discussion of alternatives to democracy seems a bit lacking with very one-dimensional perspectives given to all alternatives besides monarchy. However, a more detailed discussion is not really the focus of the book. A spiritual critique of democracy is completely lacking here.
To describe this book as a guide is a bit of a misnomer. While it is fairly easy to navigate because of its brevity, it would be more useful as a guide if the chapters were broken down into subsections with bold headings and if an index were provided. The only chapter with subsections is the final one, and it could have been broken down further. But this criticism of the book’s form is a trifling detail. The book is meant to be read in an electronic format, which would include search functionality that is partially equivalent to an index. When the book was first released, it was only available in electronic formats. Soon afterward, a hard copy became available from the on-demand printing company, Lulu.com, which is where I obtained my copy.
For White Nationalists it is encouraging to see a movement like neoreaction sprouting up among intelligent young men. But neoreaction conflicts with White Nationalism in a way similar to other race realists (see American Renaissance) in that neoreactionaries refuse to give the Jewish question serious consideration. In some ways, Michael Anissimov may serve as an intermediary between these two movements. There is evidence that he is aware the problems posed by Jewish power and influence and takes it seriously. I haven’t seen a definitive statement of his position on the issue, but have noticed his occasional tongue in cheek comments on Twitter regarding Jews. Furthermore, there is an amusing web site attempting to smear his name by describing him as an anti-Semitic, gay, neo-Nazi, Scientologist. It seems that he is known for not backing away from the Jewish question or giving the typical knee-jerk response to silence those who bring it up.
There may be hope that other neoreactionaries will come around as well. For now, we can be thankful that neoreaction has opened yet another path for truth-seekers who may one day find their home in a nice white country.
26 Comments
Books like this are important because a lot of White Nationalists still harbour democratic fantasies.
I interacted with a number of Neoreax on Twitter for about a year or so. The final paragraphs of this essay illustrate the good and the bad of it. The good is that they are inegalitarian and not wholly subservient to political correctness. Their libertarianism goes both ways — it has good and bad aspects.
But the bad is that their “founder,” Moldburg, is indeed a Jew and firmly pushed Neoreaction into philosemitic territory. His attacks on Dr. Kevin MacDonald are utterly ludicrous, if not laughable. And really, if you go back and read his material, it’s extraordinarily jejune. It weaves narratives based on (a) Moldburg’s own lack of historical knowledge and (b) Moldburg’s correct assumption that a computer-geek audience will have no historical knowledge to counter his cherry-picked, specious narratives.
It would not be inaccurate to call Moldburg’s variety of NRx the most vivid example of “controlled opposition” ever seen on the alt right, certainly in effect and likely in intent.
Just as bad, NRx seems to have attracted a good deal of Catholic chauvinists (many of them Jews who pose as Catholic chauvinists) who latched onto the movement simply as a way to re-fight the Thirty Years War and blame Luther and Protestantism for everything that’s wrong with the world. As usual with this kind of Catholic — and I say this as someone with a lot of respect for true Catholics like the SSPX and Richard Williamson and Father Coughlin– they hate Protestantism (even WN Protestantism) more than they hate Cultural Marxism, and that’s a problem. Plus, they cringe to even consider the JQ, and they often reflexively and inanely push harder against it than they even do against progressivism.
On the other hand, the reviewer is correct that Anissimov is one of the few prominent NRx who are at least amenable to considering the Jew question. He always seemed like one of the sanest and most thoughtful of the lot, and not one who saw Moldburg’s work as some kind of Holy Writ, for all that he continues to cite Moldburg.
The further NRx pries itself away from Moldburg and moves toward reconciliation with the work of Dr. MacDonald (and indeed with national socialism, with Houston Stewart Chamberlain, etc.), the better an ally it could be.
My understanding is that Anissimov is aware of the Jewish Question, and has given it much thought — I think he’s even written somewhere about Prof. Macdonald. Nevertheless, what you’ve got to recognize is that neo-reaction is itself heavily comprised to Jews. Even Mencius Moldbug, the found of neo-reaction, is Jewish. And in any case, neo-reactionaries are as a rule extremely philo-Judiac.
There is a documented phenomenon about counting outgroup members in which one basically goes “One, two, three . . .” and then the amygdala pipes up and the next number is “a lot.” Basically, one is saying, “Too many for my safety.” I think that is going on here with Jews and neoreaction, particularly in the cases of people who have overactive imaginations and propensities to feel fear and aggression (paranoids). There are one, two, three, too many of that type in the White Nationalist world. They look on phenomena like neoreaction — which is a burgeoning scene that attracts a lot of really smart and accomplished young people — as a threat (a Jewish-controlled false opposition), whereas I see it as an opportunity for extending our influence.
The only point that I was trying to get at was that the kind of unrestrained, cannibalistic capitalism, the amoralism and the puerile and myopic worship of IQs over and above anything and everything else that characterizes neo-reaction shows, in my opinion, that the affiliations that that movement has with the Jews is not accidental, but rather tells us something about its essential characteristics. I do not deny that many of their ideas are interesting, though.
It is a mixed bag, to be sure. But your sort of jaundiced negativism is not constructive. You’ll just end up talking to yourself someday.
Actually, I first discovered Mencius Moldbug and NRx, then I discovered Counter-Currents and the New Right.
That’s the way things work. That is why I look at NRx as an opportunity, not a threat.
Exactly. In the same way as the kosher nationalist parties and movements can serve as a springboard for WN. There are many ethnic nationalists who started out as anti-islamic neocons, but then slowly moved on when they realized that neoconservatism is an inadequate and underdeveloped ideology mainly serving jewish interests.
For this reason it is better to view the neoreaction as yet another ground for recruitment, instead of added competition.
With respect, Jannik, I think that’s overly optimistic. In my extensive interactions with the neoreax, I earnestly attempted to introduce them to essays from The Occidental Observer, from Counter Currents, etc. The reception could not have been more hostile, for the most part, with the exception of just a few of their number (Anissimov among them — one of the sanest and more sober voices in the lot, to be sure).
Do you know what neoreaction really is? It’s a political role-playing game. It’s World of Warcraft for the politically minded. It’s a hobby.. That the participants are prolific essay writers and computer programmers makes them scarcely more effective at advancing the cause than if they were poor white trash. They lack the two things that could make this movement truly advance: (1) vast hoards of wealth, with which they could buy or create media enterprises, or (2) creative, artistic talent, so that they could script and film or design commercial films, ads, etc. — in other words, the very tools that the Tribe used to defeat us.
If neoreaction were a movement that were winning over either billionaires or filmmakers/ad-makers (or at the very least university professors) to our side, or at least pulling them some leagues away from Leftism and towards the alt right, I’d be more sanguine about its potential to benefit the cause.
As it stands, I do think that it actually makes its members even less inclined to consider the JQ than they would otherwise be — so I maintain my belief that much of it is a misdirect, at least in effect, and likely (at least on its founder’s part) in intent.
Regarding the JQ, here’s a straight-to-the-point response/statement from the NRx about the nature of the movement:
Social Matter: Neoreaction is a Jewish Conspiracy to Thwart the Incipient National Socialist Revolution.
There’s also an interesting comment, though somewhat patronizing, about the nature of the liberal elites (posted by ‘Valkea’).
I think an important book that deserves mention here is Democracy: The God That Failed, by Hans-Hermann Hoppe, published in 2001.
I agree. I would love to run a review of that sometime. It is a very important contribution.
Ralph,
You have commented here a few times now. I understand you’re a classical liberal and American isolationist and the groups you’ve associated with toe a very different line with respect to race to the one taken by Counter-Currents. I’d be very interested to learn what specifically draws you to this site.
Chans are not known for excessive reliability, but here the /pol/ folks at 8chan make the case that NRx is, indeed, a “Jewish conspiracy” of sorts:
http://8ch.net/duck/res/7151.html
I expect that this debate will go on for a long time (and it will provide further confusion). Anyway, I think that the newcomers to the NRx are likely to diverge from each other over time according to their ethnic identity: the dissident Jews and half-Jews would stick to the NRx cluster, while many of those without Jewish ancestry may end up in the realms of the New Right, which is more appealing to their racial identity (so to speak).
Once again, I provide a useful link to iSocial Matter about the relation between NRx and White identitarians.
Two Prominent Identitarians Give Us Their Thoughts On Neoreaction (the two identitarians being M. McGregor and Gregory Hood).
Quote:
MMG: I think some of the NRx crowd will break off into Identitarianism over time, but if it survives and comes to have more influence over libertarianism, we will definitely be at arm’s length.
GH: Actually, I predict a greater separation over time.
That anon did an outstanding job exposing neo-reaction using their own writings, words and blogs. Nothing unreliable in that.
Here is a recent neoreactionary post on the Jewish Question:
http://www.socialmatter.net/2015/02/23/neoreaction-jewish-conspiracy/
A comment by one Nick B. Steves:
Well, given the writer invokes the conspiracy canard right off the top, and derides national socialism in a passive-aggressive way, one has to consider at least the possibility “Neo-reaction” is Jewish-sponsored or nurtured or influenced by Jewish perspectives.
Who else but Jews, their proxies, the utterly dishonest and the duped peddle the straw man that “so-and-so,” usually Muslims or European nationalists who explicitly speak out against Jewish aggression, “believe in Jewish conspiracies”? It’s a straw man, like it’s cousin, the related claim that is routinely bandied about in Manosphere, Dark Enlightenment, HBD-Sailersphere and, apparently, among the “Neo-reaction” libertarians that some people (usually WNsts) believe it’s only da Joos.
I can tell you, I’ve argued these issues for years. I’ve routinely challenged critics who claim that WNsm “only blames the Jews” to name using the person’s actual words a single person of significance who has ever claimed or implied “it’s only the Jews.” No one, exactly zero people in years, have met this challenge. Because no one of significance takes the position “it’s only the Jews.” It’s just not true, demonstrably. One can conjecture how this false claim has gained so much traction …
The portion of the argument that NR is not Jewish that rests on the claimed demographic composition of the leading Neo-reaction voices was especially not convincing. The demographic composition of the voices means nothing. There are few or no Jews in many mainstream and alt-right circles and activist groups that nevertheless promote Jewish narratives.
The demographic background of a person or group means nothing in itself. US Senator Tom Cotton is a white-gentile country boy from Arkansas who nevertheless just paid back his financial sponsor Sheldon Adelson by whipping up hysteria about Iran in his first speech on the Senate floor. Jews don’t always make their influence obvious. This is basic. Often, gentiles are the public voice of their interests, sometimes knowingly, sometimes not.
I believe my friends out there who have very good reasons to constantly be on guard against controlled opposition should be prudent and restrained on the subject. The question of “controlled opposition” is a red herring and a distraction. Usually, bringing it up plays into the hands of our enemies. Avoid making charges that can’t be conclusively proven with evidence anyone can corroborate. Although web-centered intellectual movements that purport to be right-wing can sometimes definitely be shown be to controlled opposition, such as Counter-Jihad, usually, in my experience, there is no way to conclusively show that a given group, writer, collective is actual sponsored controlled-opposition.
What does matter, and what is not a red herring or blind alley for analysis, is not whether a person or group is controlled opposition but whether they might as well be. A group where major themes are attacking WNsts, deriding their intelligence, promoting canards about people believing conspiracies, using outdated liberal-conservative framing, engaging in zealous promotion of capitalism, and making dubious claims like Jews aren’t mostly monolithic for Jewish interests might just be people in the grip of error. Or maybe not. It does not matter. There is no reason to speculate about controlled opposition when their own writings show poor reasoning and error, and close alignment with themes promoted by dishonest trolls.
“What does matter, and what is not a red herring or blind alley for analysis, is not whether a person or group is controlled opposition but whether they might as well be. A group where major themes are attacking WNsts, deriding their intelligence, promoting canards about people believing conspiracies, using outdated liberal-conservative framing, engaging in zealous promotion of capitalism, and making dubious claims like Jews aren’t mostly monolithic for Jewish interests might just be people in the grip of error. Or maybe not. It does not matter. There is no reason to speculate about controlled opposition when their own writings show poor reasoning and error, and close alignment with themes promoted by dishonest trolls.”
Excellent point. I agree, and in retrospect, wish I had phrased my concerns about NRx in precisely this way. The effect, not the intent, is what matters. And the effect is precisely what you suggest.
The Arch-Druid of so-called neo-reaction, this Jewish Moldbug fellow who, apparently, has a low opinion of Kevin MacDonald and WNsm, offered this comment about the large amounts of data that show crime rates are falling at Sailer’s in 2013. . I ran across it by accident.
What to make of that? The murder rate in the US has been cut about in half since the early 1980s. And according to Moldbug, a possible explanation for that decline is the under reporting of crime, that is, in the case of murders, the explanation is that many people have not been reporting murders since the 1980s.
I think the quality of the reasoning there speaks for itself.
Moldbug’s influence on NRx is overstated. About the only thing people retain from him is the admittedly handy term “Cathedral” (despite it being something of a misnomer) – probably a result of his refusal or inability to state his point clearly and unambiguously. Personally, I find him utterly insufferable.
In fact, that term is the most telling indication of NRx being a misdirect (whether in intent or not, certainly in effect) — describe the secular Synagogue that comprises the Leftist establishment as the one thing it most clearly is not (a cathedral), and in the process take a swipe at an icon of Western gentile culture.
It wasn’t even an original thought by Moldburg — Sobran described exactly the same concept with his term “The Hive” (which is how Heartiste has taken to referring to it: “Hivemind”). But of course, the ahistorical Moldbugites tok it as a brilliant new idea.
Do read the responses by commentator “Cledun” to that socialmatter.net essay that several individuals linked in this thread. They closely parallel my own thoughts vis-a-vis NRx.
Thanks to in part to Moldbug’s influence, smart, disaffected young whites are discussing the impact of Calvinism and using icons of Christian high culture, created during deeply anti-liberal times, as a metaphor for every manifestation of Jewish hegemony. I’d say he has done enough.
I’d rather see smart whites who want something reactionary and anti-liberal convert to Islam than be drawn into time-wasting dead-ends as cannon fodder for Jewish interests.
Anissimov is virtually an ethno-nationalist at this point and has defended Kevin MacDonald’s work on several occasions.
His current Twitter name’s Japanese characters translate as “Removal of Merchants.”
Anissimov is irrelevant. Rudolph Carlyle Evans is still alive, why don’t we ask him what we should do?
http://midnightmodernity.com/mencius-is-not-the-first-neoreactionary/