By my count, Anglophone North America ex Canada is on its fifth legal regime. The First Republic was the Congressional regime, which illegally abolished the British colonial governments. The Second Republic was the Constitutional regime, which illegally abolished the Articles of Confederation. The Third Republic was the Unionist regime, which illegally abolished the principle of federalism. The Fourth Republic is the New Deal regime, which illegally abolished the principle of limited government.
[snip]
The key to power in the Fourth Republic is that no one who has power wants anyone to think of them as having power. For example, in the traditional iron triangle, legislators do not have power. They are just expressing the will of the people. Civil servants do not have power. They are just making public policy. Lobbyists do not have power. They are just communicating their concerns.
This is a profoundly Orwellian situation. The root of the problem is that the modern English language has no word which means "power," but carries only positive associations.
Perhaps the most important fact about power is that the powerful are almost always sincere. They honestly believe they are doing good. Every Sauron considers himself a Boromir. And - as Acton observed - every Boromir has an inner Sauron. Since this is widely recognized, and since "power" is generally associated with "evil," the people in the US who have actual power do not and cannot think of themselves as having power.
However, there are euphemisms for it. Perhaps the most common is "responsibility."
A good way to find the most powerful people in the US is to find the most responsible people. No one in the US is scheming for power. A lot of them seem to be working for change. No one in the US is brainwashing the masses. A lot of them seem to be educating the public. No one in the US is ruling the world. A lot of them seem to be making global policies.
[snip]
Let's say that to be a "major vertex" of the Polygon, you need two attributes. One, a vertex must have power - that is, responsibility. Two, it must be protected from public opinion - that is, insulated from "politics," that is, democracy. If you have one of these but not the other, you are at best a "minor vertex."
["The iron polygon: power in the United States," Mencius Moldbug, Unqualified Reservations, 5-12-2007.]
The "Orwellian situation" described by Mencius Moldbug is peculiar, for this reason: the situation leads to abnegation, not only public but private as well.
The reason that "power" does not carry
only positive associations is:
- "power" is value neutral;
- the word addresses our relation to what we are not, particularly our ability to affect or alter what we are not, and alternatively, the ability of what we are not to affect or alter us;
- this relation may take "positive" or "negative' valuations depending on context and personal understandings of various moral imperatives;
- and so "power" as a singular and general concept of force relations, applicable to many situations, cannot have "only positive associations".
The complexity of modern life produces
static. Static in turn produces doubt about these relations, and within such doubt negativity is never ruled out, is itself never
negated.
ab·ne·gate tr.v. 1. To give up (rights or a claim, for example); renounce. 2. To deny (something) to oneself. [Latin abnegare, abnegat-, to refuse : ab-, away; see AB-1 + negare, to deny; see ne below.].
We do not
deny the possibility that we ourselves may be denied. A bigger fish always swims somewhere in the ocean; we as individuals have severe limits. Therefore, we may often preemptively deny ourselves, or abnegate responsibility, when addressing the future with nothing but static as a guide.
Such abnegation is perverse: by preemptively denying ourselves responsibility for the future, we are essentially trying to say,
In the future, what-we-are-not cannot deny us power which we have rejected already. It is an attempt to retain power, primarily defensive power, from the unacknowledged understanding that the best defense is a good offense. We would deny to all future entities the power to deny us, or
to negate us, by negating ourselves preemptively;
yet, our attempt really depends upon negating them into perpetuity. I.e., the areas where what-we-are-not may have the "power" to affect us or alter us in the future determine the line we would draw limiting those entities; "
You shall not pass!!" To
sell that message, the private individual, through abnegation, would tell those entities that passing the line is unnecessary: "We cede responsibility, already."
Mencius Moldbug attempts to address the public face of this abnegation by showing the absurdity of the dance. As a proto-5GW maneuver, the reassurance of successful "personal abnegation" will have a dual effect:
- "Corporations" -- whether strictly governmental or the shadow-governmental MSM, etc. -- would seek to appear powerless and "safe." They will not pass the line you have drawn. Whenever they do appear to cross the line, they apologize profusely.
- Such corporate public abnegation would therefore promote the feeling of personal power. "You, as a citizen of the U.S., have the real power. We merely follow the polls. We merely recognize the market forces -- your demand -- when we act. We are giving you the displays you wish to see."
The perversity of the dance must be viewed as a later step in the linear evolution of the U.S. That is, the Constitution of the U.S. is primarily a reactionary document, designed originally as a intentional counter-stroke directed against tyranny; it
instituted the mob which had heretofore been a subject of the crown, and the mob has been
taught its proper place ever since. Any future king would need to stress, as forcefully as possible, that he merely
sits on his ass when he sits the throne.
You may ponder that last paragraph from a 5GW perspective. Theorists make a great mistake, similar to Mencius Moldbug's mistake, when they suppose the existence of non-human corporations. While it is true that Mencius Moldbug implies that these corporations have individuals within them who have the greatest responsibility and the greatest power --
A good way to find the most powerful people in the US is to find the most responsible people.
[MM]
-- he also negates this observation when he later focuses on The New York Times (and more broadly, the MSM) and other corporations:
The major vertices of the Polygon, by my count, are the press, the universities, the judiciary, the Fed and the banks, the "Hill" (congressional staff), the civil service proper, the NGOs and transnationals, the military, the Beltway bandits (defense and other contractors), and corporate holders of official monopolies (such as "intellectual property").
[MM]
On the surface, MM's Polygon makes sense. But it really does not. The individuals within his Polygon are members of the mob as well, subject to the vicissitudes of power/abnegation. The
need to appear "safe" promotes actual negation as well as public displays of self-negation. Any corporation which would make an overt attempt at a coup, or the capturing of the U.S., would instantly face a million foes; thus, every corporation is limited, somewhat negated, denied some types of activity. Furthermore, these collections of humans are not collectives in the purest sense; within those collections, the need to appear safe to others within the collection limits the activity of each. True, this public face of abnegation may at heart be an attempt to exert power, or to preemptively negate all future competitors by turning their eyes away from what we are doing; but rarely do we find only one person, within the U.S. or within these collections of individuals, operating in this way. Rather, we find multitudes striving for power indirectly; or perhaps we suspect multitudes when we see the static.
We may fantasize that the individual U.S. citizen has absolved himself of all responsibility, thus placing great power in the hands of others who are his unacknowledged, and uncontrollable, delegates --
We can tell this by the fact that they write many stories on the subject. Surely if they didn't want us to think about the subject, it is within their personal discretion to avoid it. They don't. And since many people read the New York Times, many of us are concerned about global warming.
[MM]
-- but in order to do so, we must rule out the Mob. Do you see how Mencius Moldbug has preemptively and openly negated the Mob? To tell us that so many of us are entirely powerless once The New York Times has written a story is to inspire us to reject The New York Times peremptorily. It is as if Mencius Moldbug has decided to speak in the name of the Times in order to make the Times admit overtly that the paper has such control over the minds of readers; thus, ensuring the blowback. Mencius Moldbug attempts to be our friend; Mencius Moldbug has read the polls and serves the people. True, we may wonder if MM really speaks as a friend by calling the people of the U.S. idiots who are susceptible to the influence of the MSM; but instead of insulting everyone, the message merely plays into their own fantasy of abnegation: they have ceded power to the MSM (most individuals do not want to bother with collecting the news first-hand themselves) which is abusing that power; the people must rise up. This is the perverse dance, through which individuals claim weakness in order to dominate.
You may ponder the invention of the cryptocalvinist in the same light, if you like.
Incidentally, this is why so much gridlock happens. You think the MSM is not mired in gridlock, unlike the U.S. Congress? Would you rail against the MSM's failure to address certain topics, in certain styles, or else because it produces banality on a regular basis when purportedly reporting "the news." We can also see how the MSM has increasingly become the laughingstock, the Foe, the Great Evil in America, not only for the American Right but also for the Left (a la Michael Moore and other left-leaning liberals).
The dual nature of this 5GWish abnegation should not be ignored. The individual citizens of the U.S.do not really believe they are powerless regardless of how much they deny responsibility for the future. Some of these individuals seek positions which they believe will increase their power, but they may only attain those positions after jumping through many hoops set by others within the Mob. Having attained those positions, to the degree that they are actually forced to operate in a 5GW manner, they must utilize the fantasies of others within the Mob -- their constituents -- in order to gain and keep "hands in the field." They do not actually negate the rest of the Mob, but the contrary; and the Mob does not actually negate itself, but the contrary.
A true representation of a Polygon with powerful/responsible
vertices would require the realization of individuals who are not subject
to the vicissitudes of personal or public abnegation. I.e., the true Polygon would require heroes in the strictest Greek sense. They would be above and beyond the dance -- really, outside the dance, yet from their privileged place they would appear to serve the needs of all -- or else, dominate so decisively no questioning of their authority would occur. They would not be forced by the public to negate themselves (nor would privately feel the need) but would be loved for their power and responsibility or hated for their power and responsibility without opposition.
At present, what we have is not a polygon, but a danse macabre, or the whinging and vying produced by the confusion of static. Do vertices emerge within the static? Sure, but they are weak and capricious, too volatile to form a polygon in any meaningful sense. Anyone who posits a present Polygon of Power is merely another dancer vying for the right to dominate.
Recent Comments