Images Videos Blog News About Series πŸ—ΊοΈ

Ride the Snake πŸ”—

🏷️ blog

I read an interesting article this morning called Ouroboros Theory. The initial point is that the right operates from the perspective of a lower level of satisfaction of needs. E.G. "Yeah, justice is great and all, but can we please have some bread? I don't care how you got it."

This explains the phenomenon of the peasantry being reliably reactionary. Meanwhile the left cares how we got the bread, as they already have plenty of it. This also is in line with my earlier essay No market for liberty. Libertarianism, "Conservatisim" and progressivism are all essentially the same, just arguing over who gets "justice" first.

This is what there is a market for. Not liberty, but Justice for allβ„’. However, having read Clarence Darrow's excellent Resist Not Evil, I realized the core problem with Justice. This is why this snake eats itself.

Justice can't exist.
Only vengeance is achievable.

This was a disturbing discovery at the time, and I've gradually come to two more realizations in this vein.
  1. This is true because entropy can only increase
  2. This is actually good, "Justice" should not exist.

Amor Fati

The concept of justice is notoriously hard to pin down thanks to people being highly emotional about the subject. I believe that I have nonetheless observed the true meaning in others' behavior around the subject. Justice is not being hurt by other people's externalities.

This does indeed sound good in theory; however it cannot work in practice for reasons of entropy the author of the piece actually touches upon. Externalities are not optional. Entropy can only increase, and it's gotta go somewhere.

The only reason it appears we have progressed at all is due to externalizing most of our entropy on the natural world rather than each other. This is the root of the environmentalist movement. They fail to understand that there will always be enough people for whom this tradeoff is their livelihood and they will kill rather than forgo it. Which the author also touches upon; this endless hectoring by the right about tradeoffs.

The trouble is that the right is correct here. A world where we do not externalize our entropy is nasty, brutish and short. Cannibalism and Suicide (to literally be an ouroboros!) is the most effective way to internalize our entropy. As such the left cannot win this argument, entropy is real and externalities have to go somewhere.

Injustice is not optional if we are to live lives which are worth living. If justice were ever to come about, it would be necessary to abolish it.

Which brings us to what actually is optional, as revealed by Darrow. Vengeance. The reactionaries would argue that we should not pursue vengeance, as hormesis, mutually beneficial exchange and creative destruction is real. This synergistic belief is actually optimistic, in contrast to the theory of the right laid out in "Ouroboros Theory".

Meanwhile the left embraces a "science" which tells us everything is finite and entropy only goes up. There is no room for synergy in this world view; the pie is a fixed size. You must fight for the gods' amusement over the scraps from their table. It is amusing that this is also the biblical worldview, but this should come as no shock given progressivism's roots as dour calvinism.

This probably explains the embrace of nihilism by the philosophers in the past century. In that world the only hope that remains is vicious and brutal. That vengeance is reason enough.

Let's drop the moral posturing shall we? We both know there is no altruism in this pursuit, your reckless indignation brought you here; I counted on it! There's no shame in it Raziel, revenge is motivation enough; at least it's honest. Hate me, but do it honestly.

Feels versus Reals: The true ouroboros

Note that both world views in the end embrace a mystical emotional narrative. This is not a coincidence. It is the grift that is politics in a nutshell. Welcome to the attention economy, where indignation (and the attendant desire for vengeance) is the coin of the realm.

The only reconciliation or escape is to do one of two things, which is where the new ideological divide is actually shaping up among the radicals. You can totally withdraw from the game and focus on improving your individual life. This is the thrust of both the agorists and the neoreactionaries; it is in fact populated by "red-pilled" liberals, of which I freely admit to being.

On the other side, aesthetics is quickly attracting the reactionaries. It is the most emotional possible world view (a build-your-own open-source hyperreality, in fact), and unapologetically so. It is the most postmodern philosophy possible; a negation of the reactionaries' former self. It will by definition will dominate politics totally in the coming years.

This is a good thing. It's essentially society doing what it does best and allowing the emotional ninnies to encyst themselves in the nonproductive pursuits such as politics and clout chasing (I repeat myself). Meanwhile the productive just get on with their lives, (mostly) free of these fools. As it always has been. The only difference is fewer people drinking the kool-aid of their illusions thanks to the internet liberating knowledge from the elite institutions.

In the end, it never mattered that there wasn't a market for liberty; self-actualization was never for sale. To get there you have to "be the bad guy" in something's story thanks to externalizing your entropy. The way forward for both sides is to just stop caring about it. Embrace mortality.

BONUS: You might have noticed this is basically epicureans versus stoics. There is nothing new under the sun.

25 most recent posts older than 1605293612
Prev Size:
Jump to: