Saturday, February 11, 2012

Gee, Brain, Whaddya Wanna Do Tonight?

The same thing we do every night, Pinky: Try to take over the world.

I sometimes read through Foseti's archives, in my never-ending search for younglings with high midichlorian counts and general proclivities towards the Dark Side. In doing so, I found this entry, which I'd read previously.

From the post:

I think lack of cohesion is the problem, as I said above. There isn’t too much consensus since no one really knows how to slow or stop Progressivism. Progressivism has been winning and brutally destroying all its enemies for so long, that’s hard to imagine what non-progressive ideas even sound like. As I’ve said before, it’s hard for us to even discuss ideas without using Progressive language.
 Stop Progressivism, you say? Why, that just so happens to be my speciality.

How does one do this? Brain knows. You must take over the world. If you think that sounds hard, well, I never promised it would be easy.

Taking over the world is an excellent starting point, because it's something that's been done before. We already know how to take over the world.

Step one is to find someone worth owning the world. This must be one person, someone strong and young and prone to wisdom. That's a tall order, but so was inconel.

Step two is to build his religion. He must be the center of the religion: If his followers don't wear his emblem around their necks, you're doing it wrong. Progressivism has historically been good at crushing its opposition, but it hasn't had a serious opponent since 1918. I do not think it will be ready, especially not if the religion spends its most vulnerable period as far away from the center of Progressive power as possible.

Step three is to grow until the final conflict between Progressivism and the religion comes to a head. This will look a lot like the 2003 invasion of Iraq, except if Saddam were Alexander of Macedon. The 30-year old air superiority fighters fly in to drop their precision munitions on strategic targets... And are annihilated by the very secret, very advanced air defense network that Alexander had spent the past 15 years building. We know this can be done, because China is currently doing it, though China is not a reactionary party.

With Progressivism's heart cut out, the ceiling on your growth is shattered. Proceed with the takeover.

If this sounds impossible, it's because you're not serious about it. No reactionary bloggers are, certainly not me. None of us really want to take over the world, because the organ that impels us to ambition was surgically removed years ago.

However, there are those who never went under the knife. They're rarer now, but they still exist. If you truly want to defeat Progressivism, you must find one of them who is suitable for the task and reveal to them their destiny. Once they have accepted the mantle, I promise that humans will be more inclined to follow them than we've been lead to believe. After all, if people weren't generally inclined toward an authoritarian society, Progressivism would work as advertised.


  1. Good post. (Narf!)

    I would suggest reversing steps one and two though. Build a new belief system (religion) that appeals to young, ambitious, intelligent proto-reactionaries.

    Part of that belief system must be pride in oneself and a general aspiration to excellence in every aspect of life. If we're going to be the new aristocracy, we need to deserve it.

    Leaders will emerge organically later on.

    Alternatively, we could just organize an IPO for poorly-governed sovereign corporations we presently refer to as 'governments.' After that, let the (shareholding) citizens of, say, Vancouver, choose their own leader/king/CEO.



    1. As I explained here:
      People naturally gravitate towards persons of power, and it is imperative that your religion be built around the Chosen One.

      Why do you think USG would let you get away with the idea presented in your last paragraph?

  2. I too wonder about this. On the pragmatic side, I wonder whether defeating the air superiority fighters would have had the desired effect. Suppose Gaddaffi had similarly shot down the NATO planes, and attacked the aircraft carriers with ballistic munitions (which they have no defense to), sinking most of the fleet a la Operation Millennium Challenge. Would this be sufficient to defeat the beast, or would it enrage it?

    I have no doubt that a single well armed nation could defeat the massed forces of NATO in a single battle, but NATO's massive production capacity would surely win a War of Attrition.

    Here's something I wrote on a similar subject long ago.

    Given the recent "success" of the Arab Spring, I wonder how successful an armed uprising would be if it framed itself in progressive/demotist terms.