Trump’s Terrifying Online Brigades
In Yarvin’s Hobbesian view, history is an unending game of Risk, and the only way to achieve the ideal political state is to destroy the current one and replace it with another. In his eyes, there is no reason to believe that the life of humans in the West in 2016 is at all superior to the way men used to live in 1788, the fateful year before the French Revolution, when everything started going to hell. “We have no reason to think that the political designs we have inherited from this tradition are useful in any way, shape, or form,” Yarvin writes of the Anglo-American political inheritance. “All we know is that they were more militarily successful than their competitors, which may well have been flawed in arbitrary other ways.” Yarvin is more explicit about the future of the American republic: “This thing is done. It is over. It is not fixable by any form of conventional politics. Either you want to keep it, or you want to throw it out. Any other political opinions you may have are irrelevant next to this choice.”
But what about that element of the alt-right that actually does have a political agenda beyond annoying its adversaries? The primary alt-right constituency, according to Yiannopolous and Bokhari, consists of “natural conservatives,” largely white, male, middle-class Americans “who are unapologetically embracing a new identity politics that prioritizes the interests of their own demographic.” These voters are “conservative” not so much in the American sense as in the European one; they show no interest whatsoever in the GOP’s traditional free-market economic agenda of trade, low taxes, and flexible labor regulations, preferring instead a strongman leader promising trade protectionism, entitlement expansion, and the assertion of white male privilege.The alt-right exists because "natural conservatives" realized that agenda may be doomed by demographics and even simply basic math. The difference between the varying strands of alt-right is how they deal with it. The neoreactionaries among others, largely want to preserve Anglo-American liberty for themselves and their posterity. Others have abandoned this agenda because it is doomed.
Anyone who understands demographics and statistics knew the GOP would eventually swing left. It was obvious with Bush's push for the Medicare prescription drug benefit that the entitlement state was never going to be reformed, at least not until many Boomers were dead. Immigration made sure the government would not shrink once the Boomer pigs made it out the other end of the python. Democratic politics is about finding the 51%. When a shrinking minority of people favor the traditional (theoretical) GOP agenda, it is dead. On one side you have the alt-right who want to preserve something close to that agenda, but believe democratic politics isn't the way to do it. On the other side are those who don't want to preserve that agenda, but believe democratic politics (of some sort) is the way to a better future.
In many cases, the more anti-democratic the alt-righter (using the broadest sense of the term, both communism and fascism are democratic), the more likely he is trying to achieve something that would be recognized as an evolution of the Anglo-American political experiment.
One way to understand the neo-reactionaries is to view them as arch-libertarians who have accepted that the liberal democratic state will never wither away—and therefore that more extreme means must be taken against it. “A libertarian democracy is simply an engineering contradiction, like a flying whale or a water-powered car,” Yarvin writes, because the voting masses are too fat and spoiled to ever do something like vote their social-welfare state out of existence. With the option of “exit” foreclosed, the only alternative to living under an oppressive state is to seize control over it.When you put it that way, exit seems like a much smarter solution for you, no?