Millenniyule Roundup #2

Charlemagne

Charlemagne

Neoreactionary and related analysis of politics and meta-politics

In this second look at key issues in Millenniyule 2021, we will look at the stream with Mark Collett. This one is a bit less contentious than the first roundup.

Mark Collett is a leader of Patriotic Alternative, perhaps the most successful right-wing political organization in the Anglosphere, in terms of mass outreach and appeal. The elite theory of politics came up in the stream. Before we get to what was said on the stream, I should get in front of a common misunderstanding of elite theory.

The elite theory of the Italian school of political science outlines that both the elite and the masses are essential elements to a ruling class. The misunderstanding mistakes the masses as being irrelevant objects of the elites’ power; but the support of the masses in some sense is absolutely necessary for an elite to function. The elite do not simply get to choose what to do with the masses without their consent. The combinatorial element of these two is the organized minority – a unit composed of a minority of the masses organized behind some elite. Through this relationship, the elite gains status, money, and power, all of the things and elite needs, and the masses gain some sort of democratic agency.

I will call Patriotic Alternative’s strategy the “populist” strategy from here on out. The populist strategy is when you spread a political message to the masses one person at a time, which develops a network that spreads the message to more persons one an a time at an increasing rate. Eventually, enough people are “red pilled,” so to speak, so that political change is effected. The message is typically not one of “policy” but of “values,” especially with an appeal to the working class and nationalism through the idea that the commoner is the principal element of the nation, and the government should fulfill his needs above all. The populist strategy is typically presented as being in opposition to elite theory, but in fact, it isn’t. To elucidate the relationship between the masses and the elite, we can use the side-principal rule from Unrestricted Warfare. Here is the full explanation of the concept in the book:

In Chinese grammar, there is a basic sentence structure. This structure divides a sentence or phrase into two parts, the modifier and the center word. The relationship between them is that of modifying and being modified, that is, that the former modifies the latter and determines the tendency and features of the latter. Put more clearly, the former constitutes appearance, and the latter constitutes the organism. We usually determine the difference between one person or object with another person or object not according to his (its) appearance as an organism or mechanism but according to his (its) appearance and look. From this perspective, relative to the center word, the modifier should, to a greater extent, be considered the center of a sentence or phrase. For instance, red apple. Before being modified by “red,” apple only refers to a kind of fruit in general and is thus general in nature. But “red” gives this apple a specificity that makes it possible to determine it to be “this one.” Obviously, “red” plays a significant role in this phrase. Also, for instance, special economic zone. Without the word “economic,” special zone is only a concept of a geographical division. When modified by “economic”,” it acquires a special character and orientation, becoming the point of support for the economic lever used by Deng Xiao-ping to reform China. This structure is a basic mode in Chinese grammar: the side-principal structure.

This structure of having the principal element modified by a side element exists extensively in the Chinese language to the extent that a Chinese speaker will not be able to speak without using it. For, if there are only subject words in a sentence, without directing modification, the sentence will lack clarity because of the absence of such elements as degree, location, and mode which can be grasped in a concrete manner. For example, if the modifiers in such phrases as “good person,” “good thing,” “tall building,” “red flag,” and “slow running” are all removed, then the center words will all become neutral words without specific references. As shown here, in the side-principal structure, the “side” element, as compared with the “principal” element, is in the position of qualitatively determining the sentence or phrase. In other words, in a certain sense we can use the understanding that in the side-principal structure the center word is the principal entity, with the modifier serving as the directing element, that is, that the “principal” element is the body for the “side” element, while the “side” element is the soul of the “principal” element. With the body established as the premise, the role of the soul is obviously of decisive significance. The relationship of the principal entity’s being subordinate to the directing element is the foundation for the existence of the side-principal structure. At the same time, as one of the forms of structure of the system of symbols corresponding to the objective world, it seems to suggest to us something lawlike which goes beyond the scope of language.

Going along this path, we will soon see that the side-principal relationship exists in a big way not only in such phrases as “good person,” “bad thing,” “tall building,” and “red flag” or such military terms as aircraft carrier, cruise missile, stealth aircraft, armored personnel carrier, self-propelled artillery, precision bombs, rapid response force, air-land war, and joint operation. This relationship also exists everywhere in the world outside the scope of language in a myriad manner. This is the significance of our borrowing—just borrowing but not copying—this rhetorical device, only seen in human language systems, in our theory. We do not intend to arbitrarily juxtapose war with rhetoric, but only intend to borrow the term “side-principal” to enunciate the deepest core element of our theory. For we believe this side-principal relationship exists in a big way in the movement and development of many things, and that in such a relationship the “side” element, instead of the “principal” element, often plays the role as the directing element. For the time being, we describe this role as “modification by the side element of the principal element.” (note: this is not the original meaning of the side-principal structure as a rhetorical device, but an extended meaning as used by us). For instance, in a country, the people are the principal entity, while government is the directing element of the country; … Without the direction provided by government, the people will be a head of loose sand;

Extending the concept to politics and elite theory (not really an extension, as these two reside within the domain of unrestricted warfare), we can establish that the elite are the “center word” or “principal” element, and the masses are the “modifier” or “side” element. This might seem backwards based on the example I included from the text, where the masses are the principal element, but I justify it as such: where there are masses, there is not necessarily government, but there are always elite. The character of any given society is primarily a product of the elite, and the direction the elite wish to take society is modified or limited by the masses. If you want to reverse the formulation, it’s fine, because the important point is recognizing that the side-principal rule applies to the elite and masses combination.

Effective populism recognizes that the elite are the principal element that any political movement wishes to modify. The modifier is always some organized body of the masses; it can be a body of entrepreneurs, professors, artists, etc. In the case of populism, is the the masses in a very direct way at a large scale. However, the goal of populism is not simply to grow and grow, like a yeast, but to directly interface with and modify the ruling elite. Furthermore, populism is never “grassroots.” Once there is any sort of populist “movement,” as Patriotic Alternative represents, it is now within the paradigm of elite organization. An elite will naturally rise to the top of any organized activity. The masses are only able to approximate “self-rule” through influencing their elite. Populism in Great Britain is already organized around an elite, and now it is is up to that elite to organize further up the hierarchy.

Those who organize Patriotic Alternative are members of the non-ruling elite. The goal of a non-ruling elite that wishes to alter its ruling elite is two-fold: one, to elevate members of the non-ruling elite to the ruling elite, and two, to alter course the existing ruling elite in a preferred direction. The fact is, even radical alteration in the politics of a society will not effect much change in who the specific individuals are that makeup the ruling elite. Usually, a revolutionary collapse of a society, often from an outside force, is required to replace the ruling elite on an individual level; therefore, it is a matter of necessity that an organized political minority must interact with the ruling elite. These can be members of the ruling elite who are more at the fringes who seek opportunity to elevate their own power and influence, or who would prefer their fellow ruling elite altered course. Even within the ruling elite, there is always a tension between factions and individuals that can be exploited by organizes minorities, such as a populist faction.

Furthermore, interaction with the ruling elite is necessary because of the wealth distribution of society. Money is not strictly equivalent to power, but it is close enough. The majority of the wealth is held by the ruling elite. The masses, even 50% of them, cannot match the wealth of the ruling elite. Funding by the ruling elite is not something that can be written off as impossible; it is a necessity, for both theoretical and practical reasons, and there is no point in being involved in politics at all if it is not a goal to receive resources of from a member of the ruling elite.

Fortunately, there is good reason to believe that it is possible to do so. If one examines the backers of Eric Zemmour in France, we can see that prior to his run for president, he was working for CNews, a network run by billionaire Vincent Bolloré. The organization in charge of his campaign money, “The Friends of Eric Zemmour” is run by Vincent Uher, who does legal work for the European Commission. From my research, it appears that Jonathan Nadler and Julien Madar, former bankers for Rothschild, are also involved in his financing.

Distasteful as these associations might be, they simply represent the necessary patronage that must be accepted in order to achieve anything. No political movement can credibly claim that it will ever be able to effect change unless it can say that it will be able to connect to the ruling class. It doesn’t matter how hard it is. The answer cannot be “I don’t believe that that could ever be done,” but “we do not yet know how to do it, but we will do it.”

None of us yet know how to do this, but before you say it cannot be done, can you number how many billionaires there are in the world? In your country? Can you give their names? How about millionaires? It is an ongoing area of learning. The American populists seem to grasp this, as they maintain contact with republican party congressmen and officials. It is why we are reading political theory and testing our strategies in the world. It is the critical question going forward, something that we will all have to figure out together; but we can never mistake any of our organizations as the “principal” element in this formula. We are the “side” element that must modify the principal. Our function is as a potential interface to the ruling elite. The elite must become dependent on us for for something that they instantiate with their patronage; be that pure profit, or some social or power function that we perform. Through this, we can modify them; but we have to make the sale. Making a sale is not easy. Getting from zero to one is the most difficult step, but it is something many of us have proven individually competent at. Now we have to scale that up, or die.