1,284 words
Carl Milles sculptures, Lidingo Island, Stockholm
The Racial Law of Sociopolitical Thermodynamics
The Left has an easier time of things than the Right, given that the Left’s objectives run alongside the flow of increasing entropy, while the Right’s objectives run in the opposite direction. This underlying fundamental difference explains why attempts at “mainstreaming” and “working within the system” are doomed to ultimate failure, and also explains why the Left has been so easily winning all the battles of the last three-quarters of a century.
We can look at entropy not only with respect to the physical sciences, but also from the standpoint of race, civilization, society, and the sociopolitical milieu of any nation and people. The Left traditionally works to increase entropy: increasing dissolution, disorganization, heterogeneity, cultural degradation, miscegenation, breaking down barriers, and eliminating more compartmentalized distinctions. Just as physical entropy is the default direction of flow, so too is sociopolitical entropy. Within the “West” (broadly defined), the Left finds its goals supported by powerful forces: Jews want more diversity and the destruction of traditional Western peoples and their cultures, Coloreds want access to White lands and goods, Big Business wants cheap labor, Leftist politicians want more voters, Cultural Marxists want to impose their degraded vision over a defeated and humiliated West.
The Right on the other hand traditionally has had goals and objectives that run counter to increasing entropy: increasing order, organization, homogeneity, High Culture, racial preservation, maintenance or even heightening of inter-group distinctions. In contrast to the Left’s egalitarian leveling (analogous to the high entropy situation of evenly distributed particles all at the lowest energy state), the Right champions hierarchical distinctions (analogous to the low entropy situation of structured distributions of higher-energy particles mixed along with their lower-energy counterparts). The Left’s agenda flows easily, the agenda of the Right requires constant struggle and vigilance.
The Left can be in power a relatively short time and still do massive damage: open the borders to mass immigration, amnesty illegals, encourage degeneracy by appealing to peoples’ prurient interests, pass “hate speech” laws, enact affirmative action – polices supported by the entrenched interests mentioned above, and only feebly – if at all – opposed by deracinated, individualistic Whites with their universalist altruism. The Left’s high entropy regime can quickly create demographic “facts on the ground” that may prove difficult if not impossible to reverse.
The Right in contrast has to struggle against the entrenched forces, and against the “White Man’s Disease” (unwillingness of Whites to promote their own racial group interests), to reverse the tide of entropy and restore a more healthy racial and cultural state. The situation in the USA is quite instructive. Here, we have no far-Right, but at best, paleo-conservative immigration restrictionists. Very well. How do they fare? Forget about repatriation. Forget about limiting legal immigration. Even forget about curtailing future illegal immigration. The American Right struggles even to stop giving amnesty to the enormous numbers of illegals already here. Everyone throws their hands up in the air and says, “They are here and cannot be deported, what can we do?” Each alien influx becomes considered a permanent part of the population. Each influx is considered “impossible to deport.” The Right struggles mightily to just try and slow down the influx and has given up doing anything about the aliens already here. The Left merely has to maintain the status quo of mass immigration and allow demographic change to inevitably darken the West. The same principles apply to “gay marriage,” promotion of miscegenation, enforced racial integration, or any other Leftist meme. Once achieved, they become a permanent part of the sociopolitical landscape. Society devolves further, falls to a lower level, and becomes more formless, less distinct, more uniformly degenerate, another step toward death and decay. Instead of continued evolution toward a higher form of man, instead of continued racial differentiation and sub-speciation, we head toward the dead-end of the universal Brown Man, the coffee-colored Last Man, the irreversible destruction of humanity’s racial patrimony and its highest hopes for progress and a path to the stars.
Hence, all the Left has to do is create a situation (against little to no resistance), and the Right finds itself unable to do anything about it. Turning a blind eye to an unguarded border is easy. We have seen that deporting millions of illegal aliens already here is (politically at least) difficult to the point of being practically impossible. The increase-the-entropy degradation promoted by the Left: easy. The decrease-the-entropy cures wished for by the Right: difficult if not impossible. Certainly, any Right regime elected as a “moderate” force, through “mainstreaming,” is never going to have the political capital to enact any of the harsh measures required to stop, much less reverse, the endlessly flowing damage initiated by the Left. Thus, the Left smirks about the Right being on the “wrong” side of history; more accurate to say the Right is on the wrong side of sociopolitical thermodynamics. We can call it The Racial Law of Sociopolitical Thermodynamics. In the absence of a concerted effort of opposition, the default pathway will be destruction of the higher races, cultural dissolution, a jumbled mass of egalitarian Last Men, the end of any hope for a higher humanity.
Therefore: the objectives of the Left are easy to attain and difficult or impossible to reverse; the objectives of the Right are at best extremely difficult to obtain and very easy to reverse. After all, a Rightist government can struggle for years to achieve even a very limited improvement of the damage done by a previous Leftist regime. Once the Left is in power again, they can very easily reverse any small gains achieved by the Right, and create even worse “facts on the ground” impossible to reverse. Therefore, the Left does not require continuous power to achieve their long-term goals, since most of the actions they take are practically impossible to reverse in the current political system. Every time the Left has the power, they push their agenda a bit further, each time permanently fixing that gain as the new sociopolitical reality. The Right, on the other hand, in truth, requires a permanent hold on power in order to achieve its long-term objectives, since the objectives of the Right are by nature low-entropy and need to be constantly enforced and maintained by will and vigilance. Gains by the Right are not by their nature practically permanent. Low entropy needs to be maintained through outside force, given the natural tendency for entropy to increase. Coloreds will always want access to White lands. The degenerates will always want to vulgarize the culture. All of the dark, negative forces will always be there. Mainstreaming Rightists are in the long term useless, since they lack the moral authority and political capital to enact bold measures, and since as part of the democratic system, their tenure in power is temporary, so that whatever little they do achieve will be wiped out by the next Leftist regime.
The only short-term value for mainstreamers is if they achieve power they can delay further Left advancement, slow down the inevitable entropic decay. But for a real solution, there must be radical change and a permanent racial nationalist regime that will unleash the forces of tribalistic and will-to-power chaos in order to create a system of racial order and advancement (similar to the physical scheme in which localized decreased entropy is achieved only by increased entropy elsewhere – we will replace the Left’s use of order to create chaos by the Right’s use of chaos to create order). And this is something only Hardcore Nationalists can achieve; Softcore Mainstreaming Nationalists need not apply.
Source: http://eginotes.blogspot.co.uk/2015/04/the-racial-law-of-sociopolitical.html
17 Comments
It’s always been easier to destroy than to create.
Also consider Gresham’s Law: Bad money drives out good. Likewise, bad races drive out good ones. What person wants to live with Blacks if they don’t have to?
“Therefore: the objectives of the Left are easy to attain and difficult or impossible to reverse; the objectives of the Right are at best extremely difficult to obtain and very easy to reverse.”
An analysis worthy of Machiavellli! I am reminded of what the head of the Platonic Academy said when the leader of the Sophists boasted about how many Platonist had converted to his side, while losing none to the Platonists: “A man can easily become a eunuch, but a eunuch cannot become a man.”
This is a pretty clear summation of a worldview I was trying to describe to someone over the weekend. My clumsy summary was, “the theory of an ever-expanding universe of ‘tolerance’ and progressivistic entropy,” which is a mouthful. I would illustrate it by saying, “Once practically nobody could vote, but in a few years even dogs will have the vote.” It is a useful hypothesis but it is not literally true. This becomes evident as soon as one tries to cite historical examples. In every case the driving force turns out to be specific persons with specific agenda, not some mystical law of physics. The destructive movements from the Left are not a natural force moving with their own momentum, like a herd of cattle mindlessly wending their way to the abattoir. The cattle are being driven. And the reason the Enemy can drive the cattle is that Enemy are focused on the task at hand, a great deal of which means keeping us un-focused and distracted with “conservative” issues and cocktail-party chatter about IQ, HBD, “immigration reform” and other damp-squib topics that accomplish nothing. Hence your ‘Softcore Mainstreamers.’
Very good article. It is always much easier and faster to tear something down than to build it. I sometimes think of the moon landing as sort of a high water mark that was the culmination of centuries of effort. In only a few decades, we no longer have the ability to travel to the moon, let alone the desire.
One quibble. You say the Right favors homogeneity. But homogeneity means sameness. Sameness is another way of saying equilibrium. But equilibrium is what increasing entropy leads to.
The Right only desires homogeneity in the sense of maintaining a unique identity against the threat of dissolution into something larger and less differentiated.
Perhaps what the Right really wants is concentric circles of identity starting with family and radiating outwards through clan and tribe to nation and then finally, and only at the most outer and least concrete of levels, the whole of humanity. Whereas the Left wants (or claims to want) true and total homogeneity, where all real identity is lost in the mixing.
Another point occurs to me. Is there in thermodynamics a sense that there exists higher and more fragile kinds of complexity? We know that white genes are often recessive and easily lost. We know that whites, in comparison to many other peoples, put more and longer care into raising less but more valued children. Perhaps highly complex cultures such as whites are capable of producing are especially vulnerable to the always threatening downward pull of racial and civilizational entropy.
>One quibble. You say the Right favors homogeneity. But homogeneity means sameness. Sameness >is another way of saying equilibrium. But equilibrium is what increasing entropy leads to.
Guenon, in Reign of Quantity, distinguishes uniformity from unity, or the true individual (qualitative) from the atomized but homogeneous unit (quantitative). This kind of ‘equilibrium’ leads to a ‘solidification” of the world, which is, paradoxically, as such increasingly brittle and liable not to stability but fragmentation and pulverization (“Solvet sæclum in favilla,” — Dies Irae)
One of the charms of Old European Cities is the uniformity and harmony of the architecture. One of the horrors of the American suburbs is same things. The former is beautiful and the latter is not. Anglo-American cities are a ridiculous pastiche of old and new buildings right next to each other. Culture means getting everyone on the same general page with individuality as the potential to be a variation on the theme.
This is a very interesting article. It illustrates that there are forces (or principles) of nature at work which appear in all aspects of reality, be it in thermodynamics, the theory of probability, engineering or the sciences of society (I am reluctant to use the term sociology).
If we stick with the quantity of entropy, and its tendency to increase, we can can expect a furthering of the current trends which are all based on expansion, tearing down barriers, doing away with inhibitions, etc. which exist to keep order by cordoning off the outside that works against such an order, chosen by nature to maintain every particular existence.
There is a comparison from the sciences, which furnishes an other comparison of what might happen. It stems from the phenomenon of crystallization. When a solution approaches saturation, crystallization starts. The phenomenon is usually such that once the first crystal has formed there appear in quick succession more such crystals everywhere. Once it has begun, it happens quickly. Mathematically, the crystal formation more or less follows an exponential law (i.e., the faster something becomes, the more it accelerates).
Comparing this with a possible appearance of racial or cultural consciousness in society, it is very well possible that the few isolated seeds existing in society will act as seed crystals once the equivalent of saturation in a solution has been reached.
I liken it to football game where the Left always has the ball and the Right is always on defense.
This author’s use of thermodynamics to explain Western political decline, moving continually from order to chaos, strikes me as simply brilliant. This is something that belongs in one of the first chapters of a political science textbook.
It is a very good metaphor. However it is not literally true that there is a law of thermodynamics giving the other side its equal and opposite reaction. There are people with a plan, with agenda, and they run a tight shop. We must steer away from magical thinking.
The Left wants Entropy socially but Organization politically – it works like a charm in the early and mid stages as they pick up votes like a dirty snowball getting bigger as it rolls. Soon the contradictions will kick in and make it increasingly non-viable. Already in the early stages of that.
The Right wants Organization socially and entropy politically – an absurdity that never could have worked. The only response that could have stopped the Left was Fascism or complete all spectrum organization leading to a counter-attack. It was tried and it was defeated by a stricken but still strong America which also funded and equipped the Russian Army as well. It’s too late in the Cycle now for Fascism, the people have fallen too low and time is running out. Our only option now is to endure until the End, possibly fighting back in various social ways such as boycotting the mainstream society. Obviously we must also keep our 2nd Amendment rights to as a safe guard against the Kulak treatment and ethnic violence from other races allowed by the State to attack us.
That’s why you’ll be happiest, if you start from scratch. You don’t have to save a system or put up with it. You’ll have what you want NOW and you can thrive, as long as, you protect it. If the old colonists could do it, surely, those who really want it now could, too.
Don’t bite off more than you can chew, by trying to change D.C. Without a model of in-your- face success that leaves Americans behind will they bother to strive for better. Before change, something must be there to change to. They want a working model to imitate.
My estimate of starting a new tax-free city-state outside the US is $4 million. 2000 people pledging $2000 could make it happen; which could be paid back as credits in land 2x, 3x, 4x, 5x, or 10x; whatever raises the money. I’ve been looking into municipal bonds, too. Anyone with expertise, I’d like to talk to. If you’re a billionaire who’d like your brain kept ALIVE in a vat, so that you don’t have to pay DEATH taxes, reach out while you can:
bamstorm.us
It would help if laws self-expired every 10 years, so that liberalism would always be expiring and on the defensive. Liberals would have the uphill battle. Instead laws accrete; those who want a return to normalcy have the uphill battle. Their efforts are split among many bad laws and none get abolished. That is why any classical liberal state ends in a dictatorship of, by, and for the worst because the law is presumed to be absolute and forever.
Great essay. I think this thermodynamic paradigm is more than a mere metaphor here. It is used as a description of social processes, and in this case it is as aptly used as when it is used to describe physical or physiological processes. And though we’re dipping here into a kind of sociology, it can be useful to us and not necessarily inimical to our survival as some kinds of “magical” Marxist sociological thinking. But since all we have is language, so-called literal and so called metaphoric descriptions of phenomena will inevitably overlap. (Was the Big Bang really, or only like, a big bang?)
Indeed, I could see how the fight against universal entropy could be adopted as a kind of rallying cry for our vanguard. This has, in a sense, happened before. In the middle of the nineteenth century, when Lord Kelvin articulated the second law of thermodynamics, he ushered in an age in which people were obsessed with reversing entropic, neurasthenic decline with a kind of religious fervor, which we could use a bit of. Hence the Victorian craze for radium belts and electrotherapy, etc. Interestingly, in this rhetorical context, suddenly equilibriums become (rather than the ostensible goal of all social engineers and moralizers) the great nemesis of humanity, something one should want to fight against rather than, as per Marxism/liberalism, seek out. This is simply a useful shift in perspective. Taken in these terms, our struggle to maintain high levels of potential energy, order, & structure in the cultural and racial systems of the human becomes as understandable and commendable and undeniably instinctual as the struggle of living things in general against the inevitable ebbing away of life energy and the flatlining equilibrium of death.
One of the best CC articles ever. Thanks for publishing it.
Daniel wrote:
“Perhaps what the Right really wants is concentric circles of identity starting with family and radiating outwards through clan and tribe to nation and then finally, and only at the most outer and least concrete of levels, the whole of humanity. Whereas the Left wants (or claims to want) true and total homogeneity, where all real identity is lost in the mixing.”
Well said. I believe this accurately describes Hegel’s dialectical theory of identity and right and their misinterpretation by Marx and other Leftist intellectuals.