You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you

Allow me to preen on the title meme for just a second. Originally a Moldbug Trotsky meme (‘you may not be interested in power war but power war is interested in you’), it has now become a go-to reactionary meme for whatever – you may not be interested in X, but X is interested in you. I love it. Anyway.

Recently I had a conversation with a friend who semi-playfully accused me of turning everything political. It is an important point I feel needs to be addressed.

The first obvious thought that comes to mind, a thought I believe will be backed up by all reactionaries on this side of the internet, is that everything is political. Politics is division of power and power propels life. Analogy: a man wakes up in his house in Rotterdam on the morning of May 14th, 1940. He goes for a walk outside, sees the sun is shining, has a sudden realisation of the beauty of life and thinks to himself: ‘fuck it, life is too short to bother with politics.’ Spoiler alert: it did not work out.

We are the last generation of hopefuls, the children and grandchildren of survivors of two world wars, determined not to make war happen again. It was reasoned that the war was the result of a dictator going ham, so the instinctive solution was to prevent dictators from ever ruling again. Everyone agreed on this proposition and so post-war politics was confined into one tiny meme: ‘prevent dictator, everything will be fine.’ Everyone stuck to this and got on with their life. Problem solved.

But now it seems the problem isn’t solved at all. Politics is rearing its ugly head again. A dictator is already rising in America! How did this happen?

The answer is that our political pearl of wisdom left us with a blind spot. Like an individual, so a society has psychological blind spots. The ‘politics = prevention of dictator’ meme is such a blind spot. It had its pros: it provided us with a simple solution, an easy way of making peace with fellow countrymen. Just keep an eye out on one another. Politics is a naturally sensitive subject so it is nice if you rarely have to risk a defect/defect scenario when you have de facto cooperate/cooperate.

But a one-liner is never enough to fully understand a field of life. Which is not even the worst problem, namely that the one-liner is crappy. ‘The main function of politics is to prevent a dictator from rising to power’. Yes, it sounds nice and like all memes there is a kernel of truth to it (Hitler was quite the suicidal dictator), but generally speaking the statement is more false than true.

Reactionaries are a big fan of what we call natural law. Natural laws are the rules of life as we infer them by looking at nature. We look at biology, animals, evolution and human biodiversity and we reason that since humans are part of nature, laws of human society should follow laws of nature insofar possible. For instance, if nature punishes birds that allow themselves to be cucked by a cuckold, so will nature punish a man that is cucked. Naturally there is an esoteric component with regard to the holiness of natural law, such as reactionary shrines in the honour of Gnon, God of nature and Kek, Gnon’s prophet (Pepe being Kek’s incarnation on earth).

Regarding to society’s hatred of dictators the most relevant observation of natural law was popularised by ReactionaryFuture: someone always rules.

Someone always rules. That’s about it. I could spend 1000 words explaining it, but that is all it boils down to. Someone is always in power, whether you like it or not, and from that one person flow the ripples of power through all of society into your personal life. Whether you call this person a dictator, king, emperor, general, pharao, politician, prime-minister, it does not matter. The result is the same: someone rules, and those rules impact your life.

So collectively deciding not to have a ruler simply does not work. It is like denying the existence of the colour blue. We’ve always had rulers and we still have rulers. Only difference is that our rulers are not really allowed to rule. So our rulers form conspiracies that secretly vie for power. Naturally they can never rule effectively because of their secrecy and so they are mostly interested in fattening their own wallets. The big cities in the Netherlands, like Washington DC, are riddled with conspiracies. Of course we send delegates from all of our conspiracies to Brussels where they have the opportunity to form even more conspiracies! And people are still wondering why the EU is such an irreparable mess.

Natural law says someone always rule. People’s instincts are in line with this. We long for a strong leader because we instinctively know that a strong leader keeps us safe from our enemies. Trump’s enemies hate him for the sole reason that he is a dictator they should prevent from rising to power, but the reactionary perspective is that since we always have a dictator, might as well be a good dictator. We look at Donald Trump, vivat rex, and recognise the character of a good dictator, even a hero, or as we like to call it: a God-Emperor.

So the current political struggle in the West isn’t really a struggle of people preventing evil dictators from ruling. It is more like a bunch of conspiracies struggling with leaders wanting to end those conspiracies. Which beyond the elections is mostly out of our control.

But what’s an individual to do? The reason politics is mostly out of our control is all politics is identity politics and you can’t change one’s identity, as much as mentally ill people would like to. So talking politics is really just a way of affirming who you are. But it is important to affirm who you are. Right now muslims are colonising a large part of West Europe. Muslims believe Allah always rules. The belief that someone always rules is in line with natural law, hence the success of Islam. Our current mainstream society offers no counterweight to Islam — we simply hope that ‘they will see things our way and we will all get along without nasty dictators’. Gnon does not treat such nonsense kindly.

Hence the need to take an interest in politics: one needs to be in tune with the power games being played so that one does not get stomped in the face by Gnon’s boot. Being in tune with all facets of reality, including politics, is simply a good investment. That is all there is to it.

10 thoughts on “You may not be interested in politics, but politics is interested in you

  1. Daarom, geloof dus in God als Allerhoogste Heerser. Er vanuitgaande dat jullie blonde maagden willen, dus niet iemand waar tien Marokkanen overheen zijn gegaan, al dan niet met haar toestemming, zit er niets anders op dan Christenen in Katwijk en de Bible Belt aan te vallen en hun mannen kapot te schieten.

    God heeft mij gezegd dat Christenen uitgeroeid moeten worden. Bekering of de dood voor mannen, bekering of seksslavernij voor de vrouwen.

    Bijkomend voordeel is dat Christenen op de Veluwe een stel zionistische jodenknechten zijn.

    De Hel is eeuwig, de Hel is eeuwig, de Hel is eeuwig.

    1. Geloven in een eeuwige hel is hetzelfde als geloven in globale warming: het zijn doemscenario’s om ons eigen afwijkende gedrag goed te rationaliseren. Ik deel je geloof in een eeuwige hel niet.

  2. “The big cities in the Netherlands, like Washington DC”

    I choose to believe you are not claiming that cities in the Netherlands are like DC, but rather that DC is part of the Netherlands (or, slyly, that the Netherlands is part of DC). Because you should be.

    Anyhow, while I largely agree with this post, I disagree that politics is everything everywhere. That is, in fact, the problem, not the solution. We killed religion, and because man has a religious impulse (our host possibly excepted), we quickly invested politics with the gravity and sanctity of religion.

    If we could rehabilitate religion as a supra-political domain, things would be a LOT better. This might, in fact, be a primary goal of any reactionary who wishes to solve the problem of politics.

    Which isn’t to say that the two aren’t historically entangled. They are. But at one point in time there was a widespread agreement across the realm previously known as Christendom that religion at least SHOULD not be subject to politics.

    1. I’ve been thinking about the politics/religion divide and my thoughts are as follows:
      I think religion and politics exist on the same wavelength, that they are different sides of the same coin. Religion is politics for brahmins, politics is religion for vaisyas.

      I’m not sure whether religion should be rehabilitated as supra-political (who is more important, the king or the bishop?) but priests posing as intellectuals, journalists or politicians is an immense problem indeed.

  3. Cool post.

    I love that Trotsky. I often use “you might not be interested in Jihad, but Jihad is….”

    The reason to take an interest in politics because we are slaves in a democracy.

    In a democracy, everyone has equal rights, thus everyone has equal responsibilities, thus everyone must do what the government and if the government conscripts you into an army, into a work-camp, into a diversity training program – Freedom!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.