The Leviathan in the Room

Despite the meme of the World entering a New Cold War is becoming every day more widespread, the question of who is who is just becoming intelligible. Communists and Capitalists of the last century enjoyed the clarity of formal alliances: NATO, on one side; and the Warsaw Pact on the other. And, to top it off, the starkness of the Berlin Wall: a concrete symbol (pun absolutely intended) the liquidity of our current state of affairs does not provide.

Russian adventurism in its near abroad during Putin’s stay in power has distracted the American Empire for two decades now. Chechnya, Georgia, Ukraine, Syria… Western mandarins have failed to provide a coherent narrative for this activity: Nostalgic Revanchism? Duginistic Eurasian Manifest Destiny? The rapacious policy of a failing Mafia-State? There might (or might not) be a grain of truth in all of those, but none of these memetic frameworks has the potential to truly mobilize anybody.

And besides, Westerners of the “patriotic” kind won’t be easily persuaded to go die again in places like Afghanistan. If anything, flyover country, red-blooded Americans find it difficult to dislike Mr. Putin’s 007-esque antics. People who admire the likes of Chesty Puller or George S. Patton rarely care much for the values the US Armed Forces are trying to adopt lately.

For today’s news consumer, there’s a more marketable dichotomy between USA and China. The myth of two huge empires always on the brink of apocalyptic destruction resonates deeply in a generation longing for a transcendent conflict. Thucydidean narratives of falling and rising powers make for a clean, easy-to-understand story endlessly (and often mindlessly) repeated by pundits and politicos. It sounds original the first time you hear it and, as with Russia, there might be a grain of truth in it after all.

We love the stories of Athens and Sparta in this blog, too. And, although the movie 300 tried to claim Spartanity for America, it just could not work. Washington DC is just the Constantinople to London’s Rome, and England was always a nation of shopkeepers.

As the Soviet world before it, China has a marginally better claim to the Spartan myth: austere, disciplined, rigid, and proud. The men who fought in China’s 22-year-long civil war and endured Mao’s Long March probably fitted, at least somewhat, the soldier-peasant archetype that made Laconian warriors famous. Is this true for the modern Chinese citizen? Difficult to tell.

What remains true is that Sparta has always fascinated political thinkers, and that political tides have often tried to tap onto its memetic potential – modern China included. There’s something attractive about Sparta’s supposedly competent, trusty, and rigorous nature. And often, this attraction is not only felt by the warrior castes, but also by Brahmins. Love affairs between the intelligentsia and authoritarian regimes are an old tradition, Socrates’ support of Sparta itself being the trope codifier.

There’s something about the cleanliness of discipline, seriousness, and proficiency that appeals to the intellectual. Chinese reputation for meritocracy and for the qualities outlined above has made Sinophilia something of a high-status opinion. Amy Chua’s Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother, as controversial as it appeared, reflected the longings of the American ruling class for a call to excellence.

American-style liberal democracy, with its values of individuality and self-expression, is seen by some as vulgar and complacent at best. At worst, it is perceived as leading to a tyranny of the masses, and a lowest-common-denominator mentality. That the offspring of accomplished, millionaire technolords study mandarin has already become a cliché. Faced with prevalent dysfunctionality, many capable people are ready to welcome their new Chinese Overlords.

Others still see value in the American dream of independence and self-reliance. They believe China’s sclerotic bureaucracy will eventually crumble under its own weight, and think it can’t keep growing without losing its tight grip on its population. In contrast, rugged individualism makes the American system chaotic and inefficient, but ultimately more resilient. Of course, there’s some truth in that, too.

But perhaps, everything is just more of the same. Maybe, just maybe, there’s no Athens and no Sparta anymore, and we are ruled by the same System: a dark accelerating force, pulling from the Future to usher the Age of the Bugman. After all, the Western CEO does not own the company he works in any more than the Chinese party bureaucrat owns his chair. Both survive by managing a small part of a mechanism much larger than themselves, only while certain conditions are met, and usually under an important surrender of personal freedom.

Are forced vaccinations and Facebook thought-police really that different from the Chinese Social Credit System? The joke goes that the Communist Party of China spies and brainwashes on its citizens, but at least they realize it. There was a time one could pretend the West was any different.

There is, as we can see, a kind of convergence between China and the West. We could even say this convergence is more pronounced in Western elites. Is it contempt or envy, what they feel for the Middle Kingdom? Its credentialist system of competent bureaucrats sounds like a New York Times wet dream. Its productive capacity marvels the world. And guess what, despite tariffs and covid, trade is booming.

The real nightmare is to realize we’re not in late Capitalism, but in its early stages. Zooming out, it is possible that we’re in fact seeing the early stages of a global system. The two apparent rivals are in fact two appàratuses of the same organism. A conflagration does not happen because of their mutual dependency, a phenomenon that is well described by everybody, but never explained. Here, we suggest it’s because they are two legs (fins?) of the same Leviathan in the room.

You better believe in Revelations because Salvation is not coming from either side of the Pacific.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Neo Proletarian Technolords and Dei ex machina

In these times, it has become something of a cliché to criticize the notion of “Rule by Experts”. That is, the expectation that decisions should be taken by the technically prepared, with the Greater Good of the public in mind. The coronavirus pandemic brought this debate to very explicit terms, as policies came to be judged in regards to their relation to current scientific knowledge. The meme of the disconnected, smug elite started to converge with that of the myopic hyper-specialist, oblivious to realities outside his field and prisoner of his abstractions.

In any case, the now-questioned Rule by Experts seems a product of a previous era, in which it seemed that the Technosphere was a refuge of peace and neutrality, far from the stridencies of the National, the Religious or the Ideological. This perception of Technoptimism as a thing of the past is, however, artefactual.

Traditionally, technology is defined as whatever technical means Humans employ to solve a problem. Since solved problems don’t appear as problems anymore, the Technosphere always seems to be at the edge of the Present. We don’t perceive technologies designed to address past problems as technology, but as nondescript objects within our reality of abundance. Thus, primitive technologies such as the knife, the hearth or clothes become trivial in our world of wealth and security.

A pack of matches or a piece of rope lacks the aura of power projected by more advanced technologies with less obvious ways of functioning, such as the Internet or vaccines. Its true significance only becomes manifest in dire and rare circumstances of remoteness, solitude and lack of preparation, such as being stranded in a desert island. Only in the post-apocalypse will we think of subsistence farmers as the embodiment of Rule by Experts. Soothing notes of absolute, rational neutrality will suddenly become obvious in their voices. We’re not there yet, though.

The faith with which our epoch rewards technical solutions is only a particular case of the Technooptimistic phenomenon, in which we believe to have found in it a territory of ultimate neutrality. Everybody can be served by the existence of electricity or ink: compared to ideological or moral discussions, technical problems are marvelously clear and objective. The comfort they provide is understandably seen as a possible road to peace and understanding amongst all of Humanity.

Those too secure in this promise, however, are victims of magic thinking when they expect from technology any capacity for human and moral progress. The I Fucking Love Science™ types, as their previous historical iterations did, naively believe that technology will only be used “in a sociological sense”, to paraphrase Carl Schmitt’s reflections on The Concept of the Political. Precisely, 15th century transoceanic navigation technologies were seen by Spanish missionaries with the same optimism that shined in the eyes of English capitalists when beholding James Watt’s myriad applications for the steam engine. It’s the hopeful spirit that took over the hearts of early nuclear physicists when they learned they could harness the energy of the atom. We all know how these stories end, and it’s not Universal Salvation.

For every “vulgar mass religion” (Schmitt’s words again) expecting paradise come from the Technosphere, an opposite cult often arises. It’s a cult based around the fear of a new Class; of Mass emerging from technological acceleratio, with Revolution in its womb. The Proletariat was born out of the cultural nothingness and void of Capitalist exploitation: a debt owed by Communist revolutionaries to Capitalists, according to Marx himself. Proletarians brought with them total disdain for old sociological and political forms, their answer to total technification.

And what was radio broadcasting for the world if not a more recent iteration of this meme? From the nothingness of World War I emerged the totalitarian radicals of Right or Left persuasion who would set the globe on fire in the 1930s. The fear engendered by these strange, frightening figures, so particular of their time, is nothing but a lack of faith in Humanity’s capacity to use the enormous potential of Technology. It’s exactly the fear expressed by cyberpunk: that “the street will find its own uses for things”. That nothing will work as expected and no Deus ex Machina is just out of frame, waiting to save us.

Once again, here we are. At the edge, in the crisp rim of a new Total Technological Revolution. What are the supposed techlords of Silicon Valley? No lords at all, but a New Proletariat. This generation’s faceless, uprooted Mass, incessantly produced by the world’s STEM programs. The derisive talk of “bugmen” and “yeast life”, with which they are scorned by those who fear them, is not casual. It’s just perfect for the youngest scions of Technoeconomic Acceleration.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Tsunamis, pranks and uprisings

Sedition is an interesting concept, occupying in most legal systems where it exists a place somewhere beneath open treason and armed rebellion. It means an attempt at overthrowing the government, and in the US it’s punishable with up to 20 years in prison. The word sounds a little bit archaic in English, which is unsurprising since the legislation around it stems from the Civil War Era.

The seriousness of the offense contrasts starkly with the carefree, easy-going attitude of most of the participants on the last Capitol attack, who kept posting barefaced selfies during the whole event, made no attempt at disguising their identity, and, save a minority, seemed to not fully grasp the consequences of their actions. The whole thing seemed to have a performative, oniric quality: protestors were mostly content walking around the complex with confused looks, taking small souvenirs such as pieces of furniture or, infamously, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez’s shoes. There were no public demands, no symbolic gestures or speeches. After making it to the last level’s boss’ dungeon, the boss was nowhere to be found. No victory screen or end-game credits either.

This attitude is of course symptomatic of the pathologies engendered by abusive consumption of super-stimulant simulacra of reality. Videogames, TV and porn: Ersatz-achievement, Ersatz-drama and Ersatz-satisfaction. Aberrant decision-making molded by virtuality and mass psychology, coming to terms with the rock-solid, real, material power of the State.

After these last days’ digital crackdown on dissenters and deplorables of all kinds, there has been a lot of talk about the possibility of technologically-enhanced, decentralized insurgency, thanks to the advances in secure communications and growing security and privacy culture. The State too is coming to terms with virtuality and the elusive power of an anonymous, rhizomatic revolution. We already published some thoughts about crypto-insurrection here at The Outpost, about a week ago.

There was a very interesting precedent of this kind of uprising not too long ago: in Spain, of all places. An illegal referendum for the secession of Catalonia was celebrated on October 1st 2017. Spanish anti-riot police were rushed into the scene to confiscate the illegal ballots, with chaos, disorder and forceful dissolution of protests ensuing.

The referendum had been instigated by prolific tweeter, magic aficionado and regional President Carles Puigdemont, who had promised to lead Catalonia to Independence through it. Catalan society was divided exactly in half in Spanish loyalists and Separatists, but only the latter turned out to vote and face the police. The confrontation confirmed their bias against Spain’s alleged authoritarianism: Puigdemont called for civil disobedience, strikes across the country and the blocking of all land communications between Catalonia and the rest of the country, which lasted weeks. Loyalists were hostage to the regional administration, overwhelmingly pro-independence.

Success seemed so close. In a live broadcast statement, Puigdemont proclaimed the founding of an independent Catalan Republic on the night of October 27th. A few seconds later, however, he backtracked and declared it to be only symbolic. “Out of a sense of responsibility”, he said. There was simply no legal or material structure to build the new country on, and no foreign support. Believers were devasted; loyalists found it hilarious.

The comical reactions of this anticlimactic moment were recorded for posterity. Puigdemont proceeded to run away to Waterloo, Belgium, hiding from Spanish police. Some members of his cabinet also fled to places like Switzerland or Scotland; others stayed and were immediately apprehended by police for misappropriation of public funds and sedition against the Kingdom of Spain. Nobody acknowledged Catalonia’s independence, contrary to expectations.

The following months were of disillusionment. The plot had been beheaded, and most of those responsible for it were scrambling to avoid jail. Those who could tried to leave the sinking ship. Only the least capable politicians stayed: those whose entire career had been staked on the Cause. Puigdemont, aiming to regain some degree of prestige, talked about establishing a “Digital Republic”, ruled from Waterloo. Living on illegally deviated government funds and donations by activists, he went back to tweeting and conspiring. Rallies for independence became every day sadder and more histrionic, a hobby for fanatic boomers and disaffected weirdos.

The Catalan Republic had been conceived as a Progressive, Inclusive, Cosmopolitan Paradise against Fascist Spain. Carving a new State out of a millennia-old European nation is hard, though. Impossible, maybe, if you lack natural resources, an appetite for armed struggle, and/or powerful friends abroad. Separatist leaders knew this. Yearly rallies ending in family barbecues, are not the substrate from which States are built. It’s impossible to simply meme the Republic into existence.

The strategy had been to provoke hard repression. Separatist leaders had hoped to goad the Spanish government into sending the military to try and stop the coup. A couple corpses littering the streets would have been ideal, granting legitimacy to the struggle and maybe forcing the EU to intervene. The Spanish called the bluff, however, when anti-riot police failed to kill anybody on October 2017. Independence was in dire need of martyrs, and none could be found.

On September 2nd, 2019, seemingly out of nowhere, an anonymous platform with the name Tsunami Democràtic (“Democratic Tsunami” in Catalan) suddenly exploded in Separatist social media. The organization released a manifesto appealing to civil disobedience and non-violent struggle as a reaction against the imprisonment of Separatist leaders. Actions immediately started, consisting mostly on occupying government and financial buildings, hindering communications and transportation services, and hanging posters and signs. Public and private property was joyfully burnt and and destroyed.

The most interesting feature of Tsunami Democràtic, however, was its release of an Android app to coordinate protests. To activate it, users had to use a QR code provided directly by another member, screen to screen. This way, they avoided infiltration by security forces, which had cracked down on allied, grassroots organizations such as Antifa or local CDRs (Committees for the Defense of the Republic). Each member could only invite a limited number of people, making it almost mole-proof.

The app tracked members’ GPS location and had access to their camera and microphone. It was not open source, making impossible to know if the data it collected stayed inside the mobile device, or if it was sent to an external server somewhere else. By sending users personalized prompts about protests in the vicinity, they could join actions in real time. Its spontaneity made it almost impossible for police to react against roadblocks, occupations and riots: actions started and ended everywhere, all the time.

The app was developed on Flutter, a Google UI framework, and built on the software Retroshare, which uses peer-to-peer mesh connections. Its architecture seemed designed specifically to protect its creators’ identity. Nobody knew who planned the events: as an organization, Tsunami remained anonymous. Users were asked to show up at a certain time and place, and there they went, blindly. Members confirmed their arrival to a protest on the app, and checked out after leaving. Options were installed to inform about police presence. When activated, the app transformed the user into a single node within a network of personal contacts that stretched all the way to the anonymous planners of the action.

A fully-fleshed human botnet, according to University of Barcelona professor Enric Luján. For a movement that took pride in defending democracy, the dark core that decided which actions to perform remained inaccessible and unknown to the majority of supporters. The organization’s protocols were extremely vertical, opaque and detached from the local reality. A deterritorialized leadership could issue orders from anywhere; even from outside the country.

The app was so successful that the only thing the Spanish government could do was to shut down the URLs were the app could be downloaded, and ask GitHub to remove it from its software repository. This forced Spain to join the likes of China and Russia, whose governments are among the few to have made this type of request for similar reasons. An indisputable propaganda victory.

The end of Tsunami Democràtic, however, was as anti-climactic as Catalonia’s Declaration of Independence. On December 18th, 2019, a momentous action was announced: “something” was about to happen at Football Club Barcelona’s stadium, and it involved drones. Another Declaration of Independence, this time for real? A call to arms? A bomb? Not at all. Some balloons were released, a few flags and signs here and there. No master plan. No 4D chess. Just a regular, conventional protest at the stadium.

The unimpressive show felt like pouring cold water on the fiery spirit of the separatists. Protests attended, personal risks taken and trash containers burnt for nothing. By January 2020, new actions were announced through Twitter, but were received with extreme disdain by former supporters, and so far have not materialized. Tsunami’s Telegram channel went down from its 400,000 subscribers then, to about 1700 last December.

Spanish agents eventually traced the app’s VPS to somewhere in Bucarest, Romania. An odd place, 3000 km away from the action. No suspects belonging to the technical elite behind Tsunami could be found. Were they from Puigdemont’s milieu? Did the “fool of Waterloo” have some powerful, secret connections after all? The strategy was obviously the work of professionals, and was packed full of doctrine for hi-tech 4th Generation Warfare. It would be fantastic if this had been a massive exercise in real conditions: an immense practical joke, played on millions of hopeful dupes. It is worth to remember in these times, however, that both sides have to laugh for the prank to be funny, and that dying for somebody else’s agenda is very rarely a funny thing.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Smooth and striated space in the decline of Spain: a quasi-theory of Revolution

In 1520, Charles Habsburg inherited from his grandfather Maximilian the Holy Roman Empire, which his successors would in turn inherit until the 1700. During their rule as both Holy Roman Emperors and Kings of Spain, the Habsburgs were generally reluctant to integrate all of their possessions into a single, monolithic political entity. This means that all of their estates preserved their structures, institutions and legal codes. They held all of their many titles separately: King of Castile, King of Aragon and Sicily, King of Naples, King of the Romans, Duke of Burgundy, Duke of Brabant, Count of Barcelona, and so on.

The practical government of every region often fell on the shoulders of specially appointed Viceroys, who ruled on behalf of His Catholic Majesty. This was true especially for the overseas territories that were incorporated into the crown after 1492, and which contrary to common knowledge, were of legal status equal to their European counterparts. The name of “Spanish Empire” is, after all, a modern anachronism: the status distinction between metropolis and colony was not officially sanctioned in any way, and the massive political entity was simply known as Hispanic Monarchy to its contemporaries.

In the somewhat en vogue Deleuzo-Guattarian parlance, the Hispanic Monarchy’s vast lands in Europe were composed of mostly striated space. As explained in Chapter 14 of “A Thousand Plateaus”, striated space is made up of formed and perceived elements, hierarchical and measurable. It’s the organized space of the State, which contrasts with the smooth space of the nomad and the war machine: the realm of possibility, in contrast with striated actuality. Smooth space is occupied freely, as if by water on a surface, without regard for previous barriers and codes. Its archetypal landscapes are the desert, the steppe and the open seas: uncharted land, equally a source of potentialities and a prize ripe for conquest, like the New World discovered in 1492.

Immediately after Christopher Columbus’ finding, a single fief was created in America: the Viceroyalty of the Indies, given to him and his descendants with the adjunct title of Admiralty of the Ocean Sea. It gave the holder authority over the soon-to-be-discovered territories, which were of unproven existence and unknown extension at that point. Talk about potential. The enormity of the continent being discovered led to the addition of two more domains: the Viceroyalty of New Spain (1521), including much of North America, the Philippines and Guam; and the Viceroyalty of Peru (1542), containing most of the South American landmass.

Of course, this space was in fact occupied by indigenous civilizations, which imposed on the land their own codes and rules. The Conquistadores’ ambition, though, saw only a smooth America, and exploratory efforts flowed freely from the Atlantic to the Pacific coast, and then beyond, overriding Inca, Maya and Aztec concretions (deterritorialization). The smoothening process prepared the continent for a new striation: one that made it homogenous with the rest of the Hispanic Monarchy (reterritorialization).

The limes between striated Hispanic territories and smooth frontier would only disappear when the continent’s contour was fully mapped, well into the 18th century, with the Bourbons. It was replaced by a different thing altogether: a set of borders between striated structures, in a similar vein to Europe’s intricate system of feudal allegiances, inherited from the Middle Ages. The New World, loaded with possibilities, became another part of the Old World, increasingly becoming subject to its rules and forms. The disappearance of material smooth space would pave the way for a new frontier: the cultural and ideological. This was the Era of Revolution, and the mind became the new home of the Nomad.

The Pacific Northwest was one of the last regions to experience this change. The Northwest Passage between the Atlantic and the Pacific, a shorter sea route to Asia, became the holy grail of European sailors and explorers. A handful of Russian fur traders had crossed the Bering Strait and reached the Aleutians by the 1740s, making up the only non-indigenous population in the barren Alaskan lands. Spain had a de jure claim over the region since 1493, thanks to Pope Alexander VI’s bull Inter caetera. The claim was unenforceable due to the lack of a real presence, either civilian or military. When news came of the Russian, American and British lucrative fur trade in the area, however, Spain decided to act, quickly building a garrison and launching ships from California to assert its rights.

This action led to the Nootka crisis of 1789, an incident in which Spanish mariner José Esteban Martínez arrested the crews of three British ships trading furs with Canton. The ships had sailed under a false Portuguese flag, and were a private enterprise commanded by James Colnett, of the Royal Navy. Martínez sent Colnett to Mexico to be judged, and forced the Chinese laborers he had brought with him to build a fort in Nootka Sound. Since Colnett was, after all, a British officer, his arrest quickly ruined diplomatic relations between the two powers.

It was all a matter of optics. Britain demanded “satisfaction” for the affront to its flag, while Spain struggled to be seen still as a world power. Threats of war were exchanged, and Prime Minister William Pitt the Younger’s saw his prestige increase as he probed for weaknesses in the Bourbon Family Compact, the alliance between the French and Spanish dynasties. France was at the time in full revolutionary turmoil. Louis XVI still reigned, but wasn’t ready to materialize his vocal support for the Spanish, despite the rampant Anglophobia of the Assemblée nationale.

The affair would eventually become a significant loss of face for Spain, which was forced to concede the British trading and fishing rights, never again trying to assert its sovereignty north of San Francisco. The recently founded United States, which had benefited from Bourbon help during its Revolution, also played a small role in the crisis by not supporting their former allies so as to not get entangled into an European war: a policy that would be maintained until 1918, when the meme of an isolationist America died of old age.

The crisis set a precedent for established settlement as the main source of sovereignty, in contrast to historical legal claims and rights of discovery. It also was a further proof that intra-European territorial competition had gone global in a shrinking world. The smoothness of uncharted territory progressively mutated into the striated actuality of international borders: manageable, countable and tradeable. The State slowly overtook the space of the Nomad. By 1793, the patchwork logic of Europe had been transferred overseas, and Britain and Spain were jointly declaring an ideological war against the French Republic, now completely in the hands of the radicals.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Based Poland III: another exercise in wild speculation

As we’ve seen in previous articles (here and here), Poland is a country completely split along ideological lines, each of which belonging to a different geopolitical project: Open Society, Great Reset New Normality Regime vs. Neo-Westphalian National Populism. The causes, thus, are to be found outside of its borders, and within those of the country that leads said rival projects.

Although it is certainly not the first time the US election is legally contested (look no further than George W. Bush’s victory in 2000), it is also true that the establishment’s polarization and the factionalism present, amplified by new technologies, are unprecedented. If the US suffered another 9/11, it’s unclear whether the emotional reaction to the catastrophe would be the same across the country. This cleavage becomes more apparent in the US’s vassals in Europe and elsewhere, whose elites usually favor one or the other project.

Enter Joe Biden, the Open Society candidate. He was the candidate of Germany and all the other governments more or less subscribing to EU orthodoxy: France, Spain, BeNeLux, etc. The reasons for this support were not entirely ideological, but also rooted in the hard power issues of trade and defense. Despite being systemic partners and rivals in the first question, Biden is seen as less untreatable and unpredictable than Trump, who put tariffs on products such as steel, aluminum or wine. A quick defrosting is probably wishful thinking, but the EU will be happy if no new confrontations are ignited.

Defense is a different matter. Germany, in particular, is hopeful that the plans for a draw-down of US troops stationed in its territory, initiated by the Trump administration, will be stopped under then new presidency. In general, the EU is hoping for a US government more lenient with its slacking off in NATO responsibilities, and less sympathetic to “illiberal democracies” like Poland, who try to develop their own bilateral agreements and independent military capabilities.

So what happens to Poland if the Open Societies win? Well, the most likely scenario is that it completely falls back to being a Germany’s political and cultural sidekick. Economic dependency is tough, and Poland relies way too much in its Western neighbor. A government willing to march in step with Open Society Progressives would safeguard the country’s prosperity for a while, in exchange for renouncing any hopes of a leadership role in Central and Eastern Europe.

Polish apparatchiks dominate the game of surfing political tides perfectly. Despite their fame as based conservatives, the Polish Deep State is, as all Deep States, chameleonic. It’s made up of career public servants who grew up as model young Communists, and then rode on Solidarity’s ascendance to eventually thrive during Capitalist democracy, often even rediscovering their lapsed Catholicism.

Perhaps, the operation is already underway. Recently, protests erupted after the Constitutional Court’s ruling against abortion. An unnecessary polemic at the worst possible moment, unless you want to agitate the masses, goading them into loudly proclaiming their antipathy for the government.

The feminist protests pitted Young, Educated, Progressive™ abortionists against hooligans with fashy haircuts, a precise real life reenactment of Internet memes. One element, however was notorious in the narrative. Acording to all European media, it was “a majority of Poles” who protesting against the government. Propaganda meant for Progressive audiences outside of Poland usually portrays Poles as a monolytic nation of Catholic, mysoginistic racists; it is thus meant as an aesop about the dangers of not fighting Fascism hard enough in more enlightened countries. The type of tale that sparks purity spirals and justifies purges against wrongthinkers.

Instead of fostering division through the creation of strawman Fascists, however, this time the story is trying to become a unifying factor between Poles and their fellow EU citizens. The message being sold is: “even these Polish primitives have seen the error of their ways”. Now, when the PiS falls from power in a few years, Poland will be able to brand itself as a victim country, long-oppressed by those retrograde, paranoid and chauvinistic National-Catholics. Just like everybody denies any former allegiance to the old Communist regime, they will now deny the PiS was in any way representative of society at large, and joyfully join the ranks of European conformity. And with an Open Society President on the American throne, this time, with the added benefit of Imperial approval.

For the hell of it, let’s imagine different scenarios. Maybe the US election stays contested for a long time, and the world’s most powerful country becomes trapped in a chronified identity and legitimacy crisis. Maybe the PiS fails in its intent to lose the 2023 election. In that case, Polish Nationalists will not be able to convincingly recant their recalcitrant identitarian ways. They will become an ally of a weakened American opposition, the remnants of Trumpism. This will force them to look for other powerful allies. Perhaps to the East?

Russia and Germany have a special relationship, but one that would not tolerate easily a renewed transatlantic alliance under the banner of the Great Reset. Russia starts the new decade in relatively decent shape, compared to the previous ones. Putin has done his homework and is now ready to retire, rich and shielded against prosecution. A lot of Russia’s former influence in its near-abroad has been recovered, but the country is still poor, depopulated and sorely lacking friends. Wedged between the Woke Empire of Euro-America and a West-bound China, there is a lot of potential for unlikely alliances, common interests and areas of cooperation. The liquefaction of the Arctic is also a variable that should be taken into account.

Wouldn’t it be funny? A hermitic Nationalist Poland, entrenched in the middle of Progressive Europe like a sort of Conservative Cuba. Trying to build its dreamed Intermarium, from the Baltic to the Black Sea, in reluctant, mutually suspicious cooperation with post-Putinist Russia, Islamic Turkey, and rogue US assets who use it as another piece in their homegrown intrigues. But of course, this is just speculation.

This article belongs to a 3-part of a series, which began here.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Based Poland: a new set of rules

Poland, like Hungary, has been cultivating for some time a reputation as one of the EU’s baddest, meanest reactionary regimes. Liberals the world over accuse it of being an “illiberal democracy” since the ruling party, Law and Justice (Prawo i Sprawiedliwość, PiS), rose to power in 2015. Since then, it has enacted a series of policies and attitudes heavily criticized in Brussels: attacks on the press, on LGBT culture, on diversity. Most famously, a new set of rules which allegedly threatened the independence of the judiciary. The ruling was meant to erase the foothold its rival party, Civic Platform (Platforma Obywatelska, PO), had tried to build in the Constitutional Court, prior to losing its 2007-2015 mandate. The ripples raised by the polemic have lasted until recently, and the presidential election of Summer 2020 was won again by Law and Justice’s Andrzej Duda, but by a much smaller margin and in a far more polarized society.

Interestingly, both the PiS and PO share a common origin: they are the factions that emerged after the split of a right wing democratic movement born out the Solidarity trade union, famous for its distinguished role in the fall of Communism. The story of Solidarity is deserving of its own article: for now, suffice it to say that, after a decade together, PiS and PO broke up in 2001. Since then they’ve been taking turns in power as the two most successful brands of Conservatism in a Parliament heavily tilted to the right. Although they even shared a coalition in 2005-2007, they have been bitter enemies since then.

The fact is, despite their shared origin and their meaningless characterization as “right wing”, both parties have not much in common anymore. PO is a purely liberal Open Society-type project, which strongly aligns it with the European Union. After all, Donald Tusk, former Polish PM and PO leader, was President of the European Council (2014-19) and is now the president of the European People’s Party (EPP), the largest transnational party of the European Parliament. The EPP also includes other right-wing liberal forces, such as Angela Merkel’s CDU, the Spanish People’s Party, the French Republicans of Jacques Chirac, and curiously, Fidesz (the party of Viktor Orbán himself).

This suggests that PO represents in Poland the interests of the European establishment, which usually means representing the interests of Germany, specifically. The media landscape supporting PO reflects this fact: mostly foreign-owned groups, either German or American. And those who are American, such as Discovery Inc, are mostly lobbyists for the Democratic Congressional Campaign and Joe Biden’s presidential run. All of this is unsurprising, given the fact that the Polish economy is extremely dependent on Germany. About a third of its exports go there: notably, vehicle parts to be assembled in the latter’s famous factories.

Contrary to PO, the PiS boasts the approval of the Trump administration. Historically, and since its 17th century Deluge, Poland has always sought the protection of far-away foreign powers: France, Britain, the US. It has needed them against most of its neighbors, all of them seeking to correct past grievances committed during the zenith of Polish power. The nationalist, populist ethos of the PiS resonated with Trump’s rhetoric, giving place to a natural alliance. It is not a coincidence that, since around 2015, fringe right online circles began to be filled with different variants of the “Based Poland” meme. From low-brow PUA dating guides to brainy neorreactionary essays, the Polish nation’s capacity to resist Woke imperialism was praised all over the Internet.

It’s difficult to tell what will become of this Based Poland without Trump sitting in the Oval Office. The cultural and political environment that led to populist governments all over Europe was not eternal. It depended heavily on the refugee crisis, the frequent terrorist attacks in European capitals, the War in the Donbass, and the fallout of the 2008 financial crisis. All of these worries have been replaced by a different breed of threat, with a completely different memetic background: Covid-19, racial conflict, Chinese spycraft, cyberpunk surveillance dystopias. It’s a brand new set of tropes for a brand new season, coming soon to a screen near you.

This article is part of a series. You can find the next installment here.

Processing…
Success! You're on the list.

Otto Weininger, Red Pill Prophet of the Biopolitical Age

Viennese philosopher Otto Weininger’s (1880-1903) only published work bore the title “Sex and Character: an investigation of fundamental principles”. At that time of blossoming struggle for sex equality, it was obvious at first glance that the book was a pamphlet against women’s emancipation. And indeed, Weininger did not believe in emancipation; the central message of his book, however, was not restricted to social policy, and sounds visionary in the world of Equality Ministries, gender-fluid zoomers, TFW NO GF hysteria, and Bronze Age anti-longhouse samizdat.

Weininger pioneered the notion that, in an individual, there is a proportion of elements from both sexes. Any man, according to Weininger, always had something of a woman in himself. According to his own research, the nature of sexual desire was such that it was not directed towards the opposite sex. Sexual arithmetic, as conceived by him, led to the conclusion that the only sexual attraction possible was the one arising between components of the same sex: the female was always attracted to the feminine aspects of the man. Conversely, the male would always become more attracted to the traces of masculinity present in a woman. In other words: all sexual attraction was homosexual.

As a corollary to this theory, men who were monolithically masculine proved said masculinity through total chastity. Their sexual integrity prevented them from having non-sodomitical sexual relations. And consequently, completing his global analysis, Weininger came to the conclusion that the 20th century’s increasingly liberal stances on sex made it the worst era in history, for they completely devalued the past greatness of male chastity.

Weininger attributed to women many of the misfortunes that plagued humanity, and saw the turn towards a feminization of society as a net negative. The first sign identified by him was a degeneration of aesthetics and politics, which he tied to the advance of anarchism. He saw feminization in the rejection of authority, which manifested itself in the degradation of art, and in political turmoil. Through this views, he also suscribed to the ancient meme of masculinity being the source of the State and the Law.

The very word virtue comes from virtus, in Latin, which shares the same Indo-European root with virilis: virile, manly. Thus, a virtuous woman was necessarily a woman with a trace of the masculine and its traditional attributes: strength, steadiness, order and rationality. It is not mere coincidence that the Capitoline Triad that protected Rome included Minerva and Juno, rational goddesses of the State, Strategy and Wisdom. Figures like Venus (beauty and erotic love), Diana (the moon, fertility and childbirth) or Vesta (the hearth, the home, the family) were excluded from this central role in Roman public religion.

Weininger found unsurprising that the views of those who ruled over the European turn-de-siècle century had no sense of such things. He believed they had been inspired by a feminized vision of History: one characterized by the material and the chthonic, and a particular lack of depth and genius. And in a time when genius was declared a form of madness, he went on, no great artists or philosophers were possible. It was a time of conformity, of minimal originality and great falsehood; when great visions of history, life and science were being transformed by the vulgar influence of economics and technology. In such an era, it was only natural to expect the advancement of Historical Materialism, Capitalism and Marxism: all of them different aspects of a single reality.

Serving two lords in the Third Rome: a quick note on the Nagorno-Karabakh

In his seminal book Clash of Civilizations, Harvard political scientist Samuel P. Huntington described the world as composed of a handful of civilizations, mostly in competition against each other. The West was thus clearly different to the Orthodox, the Muslim or the Sinic worlds. Cultural differences made conflict short of inevitable, especially in the border territories that are halfway between the centers of two different civilizations.

Places like the Caucasus, Ukraine or the Himalaya are such hotspots (Huntington called them “faultlines”). Gray areas where the Orthodox civilization meets the Muslim world and the West, respectively; or where the Chinese and the Hindi cultures meddle. It is a historical truth that these regions are conflict-prone, and all of the examples mentioned are painfully current.

Last week Ilham Aliyev, President of Azerbaijan, and Nikol Pashinyan, Prime Minister of Armenia, signed an agreement to end hostilities in the Nagorno-Karabakh. The armistice has been brokered by Russia, in what can only be considered a huge strategic success.

The Nagorno-Karabakh is an Armenian exclave in Azeri de jure territory (until just now). It is connected to the Armenian territory through a line called the Lachin corridor. Russia will deploy about 2,000 peacekeeping troops, complete with armored vehicles and enough equipment to hold this line as well as the border between both countries.

The Republic of Azerbaijan and the Republic of Armenia will remain in their current positions. With the armistice, refugees will return home and prisoners and dead bodies will be exchanged, everything supervised by the UN. Land communications will be restored and controlled by Russian border guards.

Conventional knowledge in the West tends to portray this conflict as a proxy war between Russia and Turkey, a memetic inheritance from Huntington. After all, Armenians are known as a Christian people, already genocided by the Turks in the early 20th century, while the Azeris are seen as the Turks Caucasian sidekick. It makes sense to consider them as small projections of their overlords, fighting on their behalf.

Reality is more complicated, though. Azerbaijan and Russia are, and have been for some time, great partners in foreign policy. Russia has made it no secret that it values its relationship with it at the same level it values that with Armenia, and its arms sales to both prove the fact.

The assumption that the “Orthodox civilization” acts as a block is not only betrayed by Russia. Serbia, another country frequently oversimplified as a Russian proxy, was quick to support Baku instead of its Armenian correligionaries. The Azeris and the Serbs support each other on their territorial issues in the international arena; after all, Kosovo is still not recognized by Russia, China, and Spain, among others. Evidently, countries belonging inequivocally to the same civilizational sphere do not behave as a community of interests.

The hypothesis of Azerbaijan being some sort of Turkish puppet is also unsustained by the alliances it makes with others. One of the main tactical advantages of the Azeri military over Armenian forces has been the massive use of drones to obliterate Armenian infantry and armor alike. Military observers the world over have been paying very close attention to these doctrinal advances, made possible by drones supplied by America’s Greatest Ally™. Yes, that’s Israel, the same country that regularly calls Turkey a threat to the region lately, and that has formed an anti-Turkish front by joining former enemies such as the United Arab Emirates or Bahrein.

So who cares for Armenia? Not many people, apparently. Or, more precisely, powerful but unengaged powers. India is one of them, as Armenia favors it against Pakistan in regards to Kashmir. Meanwhile, Iran, an Islamist Revolutionary Republic, also prefers Armenia to Azerbaijan, but has not translated this preference to any military aid. It keeps a rethoric coherent with its enmity towards Israel, but not much else. According to pro-Azeri media, France also supports Armenia to spite Turkey, but there’s nothing material to back up the words. Note that, of the three, at least two are nuclear powers, so they’re not exactly irrelevant geopolitical actors.

What lies behind this isolation? Pashinyan became Prime Minister after a series of protests in 2018, which overthrew the former president. The protests where known as the Velvet Revolution, and were characterized as catering to democratic liberal sensibilities. The West applauded Pashinyan’s aperturistic efforts as he attempted to build a closer relationship with the US. When did things go south?

Well, this will probably be disappointing to those who want to find anti-Christian connotations in Armenia’s abandonment, and attribute them to the Usual Suspects™. Here’s a theory from The Outpost: one cannot serve two masters. Improving Armenia’s rapport with the US is incompatible with remaining in the Russian sphere and the South Caucasus is a long way from Texas. Georgia learned the lesson in 2008, and maybe Armenia needed to hear it too.

Befitting this theory, the immediate reaction to the ceasefire have been calls for Pashinyan to step down, deemed a traitor by his people. The borders have stayed mostly intact, Russia gains a significant presence in the area, Turkey has not made any advances it wouldn’t have made anyway, and further destruction and bloodshed is prevented (the death toll estimates reach way past 4000). And most importantly, American sympathies in the region are curtailed.

In summary: a tidy world of cultural-political spheres makes for great memes, and the Clash of Civilizations made for great propaganda for the War on Terror. But the Orthodox memeplex attributed to Russia needs revision. Moscow may well be the Third Rome, but Holy Rome it isn’t. It aspires to be the capital of the Empire, a fact which should always be kept in mind. If you want to belong as a province, you better burn your offering at Caesar’s altar, and nowhere else.

The Law and the Algorithm: Joe Biden, Donald Trump and Curzio Malaparte

Kurt Erich Suckert escaped from his boarding school in Tuscany in 1914, at the age of sixteen, to join the French Army in the Great War. He quickly rose to the rank of Captain in the 5th Alpine Regiment, earning several decorations for bravery in combat. By 1922 he had grown close to the Fascist movement in Italy, taking the nickname of Curzio Malaparte: a play on Napoleon Buonaparte’s last name, and the moniker for which he is best known.

Two years after taking part in Benito Mussolini’s March on Rome, Malaparte founded the Roman periodical “La Conquista dello Stato”, which would inspire similar publications in other European countries. His literary and political activities drove him to study historical movements, in an attempt to describe how power could be seized by a revolutionary faction. The product of this study was a short book, initially published in French, called “Technique du coup d’État”.

The main thesis of this 1931 work was that the conquest of a State by subversive groups, and its defense from them, was not a political but a technical problem. Malaparte dissected several power struggles led by important figures in recent history, including Lenin, Trotsky, Piłsudski, Primo de Rivera and Hitler. The principles and pitfalls leading to a successful rise to power were carefully analyzed.

Malaparte found that a key to secure victory was to follow Trotsky’s way of organizing the Bolshevik revolution: to focus not on political maneuvering and mass protests, but on capturing vital state resources, such as radio stations, telephone lines, electricity generators and water and food reserves. It is said that the Bolshevik coup was so swift and smooth, that not even public transportation services were interrupted by the Revolution. According to Malaparte, Stalin’s later success was also a fruit of his pragmatic understanding of these technical aspects, as was Mussolini’s (who learnt them in his Marxist years). He attacked Hitler’s outlook, at the time famous only for his failed Munich Beer Hall Putsch; he described him as effeminate and a reactionary; an accusation which sparked his fall from grace in the Fascist movement.

If Malaparte were alive today, which infrastructures would he consider critical for the control of the State? Ability to enforce territorial control is the sine qua non condition for political power, something easy to do in barren, war-time Russia. In a country such as the modern US, split among political, racial, cultural and ethnic lies, infrastructure is so vast, rich and widely distributed that this is impossible without the acquiescence of local administrations. This is only achieved through the shared belief in belonging to a unified polity, the will of the political apparatus to stick together: E pluribus unum.

As these lines are being written, Biden has been proclaimed by the media as the victor in the presidential election. The accusations of fraud, which contrary to what it may seem have been commonplace in all recent elections, are nonetheless a sign of distrust in the System. Biden is being accused of stealing the election, but if he is, he’s not doing it for himself. The real coup is being carried out by the actual managers of belief and shared will in the current world: Big Tech companies, social networks and online platform consensus fabricators, who have an unchecked ability to define Truth and Reality.

Were Trump to win the legal battle that will doubtlessly take place in the next months, the question is whether his procedural victory will be translated into real control of the government and the country. Once the fact-checkers tell to a confused audience that, nonetheless, Biden still won, it’s unlikely that the judicial decision brings Americans together.And if Trump loses the litigation, his followers will not accept defeat either way. The outcome is the same: power belongs to those who can define reality. Precisely what NRx-type authoritarians defended ten years ago: a New Era of Techno-Utopian Despotism. It’s thus beautifully coherent that Mencius Moldbug ended up endorsing Biden.

This war is not being fought between two players of the same game. The regime change underway is more subtle: on one side are those who still believe that standing up and getting themselves to a voting booth is worth something, and on the other those who understand how to manage the flows of the attention economy. Just like the radio in 1917, the Internet is today’s critical infrastructure. Online frogs showed the world in 2016 what Meme Warfare can do, allegedly bringing Trump into the White House. They don’t want to accept Biden’s presidency now, but will the magic work this time?

Questioning the legitimacy of either candidate is the first flight test of a New Regime in real life conditions, because it challenges the democratic religious process itself. Online platforms contribute to disseminate at the same time stories of fraud and a pure Biden victory: they move the contest away from the ballots and into the mind. When the whole story unfolds and verdicts start coming out, what sphere will people chose to accept as the decisive battleground: the Court or the Cloud? Judges or blue-checks?

The New Regime will detach the question of sovereignty and right to rule from details such as the number of votes or the existence of fraud. When the lawfare is over, the time will come to demonstrate who has the last word: the Law or the Algorithm. So there you go, clap your hands if you believe.

“Christianity is gay” III: Blue Moon edition

Christianity, with Catholicism being no exception, has repeatedly been accused of being feminized religion. This claims have come both from all across the political spectrum, from Spanish Civil War Anarcho-Communists to Nazi and Nouvelle Droite Spartanists. This revolutionary movements have all seen in the Church an emasculating force, weakening the mind of men and exerting a powerful influence on women. In this contexts, violence against religion and its representatives was seen as more or less justified, and even a necessary purifying act.

But in the face of this hypothetical anti-Catholic (anti-Feminine?) violence, there have also been those willing to put up a fight. A most surprising thing is that the American Catholic Church has emerged as one of the most prone to confrontation. In this sense, it has taken the path of the Polish Catholics who confronted the Prussian state of Bismarck in the 1870s. This was the original edition of Kulturkampf, the cultural (thus memetic) warfare that has been going on and off between the secular state and the shredded remnants of Christendom.

Today Catholics represent the largest religious minority in the United States, mostly due to immigration from Latin American countries. The USA will be one of the main Catholic world powers of the 21st. Certainly, fantasies about an Integralist America espoused by the likes of Adrian Vermeule, or even Rod Dreher and Ross Douthat, are far-fetched. Reality does not work like that, and nominally Catholic immigrants are not necessarily the most loyal upholders of doctrine. A good marker for this is their support for loaded subjects, such as abortion, which is widespread among American Catholics. A particularly notable example of this is Joe Biden, whose claims to devout Catholicity contrast with the policies he aims to implement in case he were elected.

This Catholic tendency to progressive stances contrasts with that of Evangelicals, mostly aligned with Trump, precisely because he is against abortion. In other words: quite paradoxically, immigrant, culturally-Catholic converts to Protestant denominations might be more adherent to the Church’s teaching regarding specific subjects. Given this reality, it is interesting to note that Donald Trump has decided to take an active part in the controversy, siding with anti-abortion activists in repeated occasions. In this sense, he has carved a memetic path to the category of the first “Catholic” president of the United States, even openly attending an anti-abortion rally.

Adding another twist to the screw, it must be said that the most conservative sectors of the US Church, led by Cardinal Raymond Burke, mostly sided with Trump since the beginning. At the same time, Cardinal Burke’s more traditionalist positions have led him to clash with Pope Francis, particularly regarding the dubia he participated in against the Encyclical Amoris Laetitia. Pope Francis, himself a Latin American, has also been portrayed by the media as criticising Trump’s administration on its treatment of immigrants. Steven K. Bannon, former White House Chief Strategist and a Catholic, disapproves of the Pope’s positions on ideological matters, accusing His Holiness of being a Liberation Theology-type socialist and being coy about Europe’s Islamisation. This latter subject is particularly important, as it intersects with the role of women in European society and is at the same time the central point driving identitarian and euro-skeptic movements within the EU, both religious and secular.

While Bannon’s attempts to build an Anti-Globalist (thus, Trump-friendly) Coalition in Europe have so far seen little success, the battle is not over. Most recently, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo picked another quarrel with the Vatican when he demanded a harsher stance towards China and the Communist Party’s role in Bishop nominations. The Pope declined meeting Pompeo so close to an election, to avoid being again pulled into the fray. Meanwhile, the BLM riots have only contributed to increase Trump’s appeal to Latinos, still mostly Catholic, exploiting the chasm between them and African Americans. For the first time in history, Hispanics will surpass blacks as the largest minority share of voters.

This essay would not be complete without mentioning the recent unrest in Poland: precisely after the Law and Justice-aligned Supreme Court ruled abortion unconstitutional. Law and Justice has been the ruling party in Poland since 2015, and its right-wing populist policies have been the main reason behind the country’s enfant terrible reputation in the EU. Like Viktor Orbán’s Hungary, the Catholic country has become the poster boy of what Brussels’ bureaucrats call illiberal democracies, scandalizing globalists worldwide with their reactionary, anti-Open Society antics. Poland is adamant in its intent to take Germany’s role as America’s beachhead in Europe, something neither the Germans nor the Russians are too excited about.

The final movements of this global game will remain hidden for a while, but some signs have become apparent. Banners, signs and graffitti in Polish churches, carried by abortionists who wave coat hangers at priests. Murders and decapitations in France, the Eldest Daughter of the Church, carried out by the masculine messengers of the Religion of Peace.The election of a New American Emperor. Rumors of war, conquest, death and pestilence loom large accross the world in All Hallow’s Eve. Prepare for the Blue Moon.

This article is part of a series. You can find the previous installment here.

%d bloggers like this: