I’m reading the anti-reactionary FAQ to flush my cognitive sandbox to reduce the risk of non-consensual data corruption from that mindjob, and the “eargreyish” thing is immensely frustrating. Is it just me, or can “demotism” be defined far more sensibly as approximately “regular people having voice even where they don’t have an equal responsibility of the consequences of the use of that voice”?

For example, if I have a cafe which sells vegan cupcakes, and some non-customer wants to make me sell non-vegan cupcakes too, that’s demotism. If the customers of my cafe vote to lower the prices while also mandating that I use indigo crystals in the production process, despite them not bearing any substantial consequences from that decision (other than my cafe going out of business), that’s demotism. If I myself hear what they think and change what I sell to better match their preferences, that’s not demotism.

I sometimes do terrible things to consenting people behind closed doors. If someone wants me to stop doing those things, it’s either a safeword, or demotism.

If I write a book, and people who’ve read it think it sucks, it isn’t demotism. If they assemble an internet mob to harass me because my book wasn’t the kind of a book they wanted, that’s significantly more demotist.

If I buy hormones from someone without a certain piece of paper, and the state takes away my money at gunpoint as revenge, that’s demotism.

It seems that most of the failures of progressive governments are failures of demotism; where totally irrelevant people stick their noses in others’ business; while successes are often anti-demotist in implementation.

Finnish prison policy is a brilliant example of anti-demotism; US prison policy is a complete demotist POS. The war on drugs is demotist. Sodomy bans are demotist. Competent technocrats running a public healthcare system is anti-demotist. Competent economists getting their way in actually free trade instead of protectionistically favoring cronyist industries is anti-demotist.

(The disgraceful failure of eg. the FDA is a clear example of the same underlying failure: power without responsibility (as banning drugs impacts their users or would-be-users too) and while I could twist demotism to be the singular culprit (people want the FDA to FDA everyone else even if getting FDA’d hurts) I’m going to say that it’s more significantly an instance of the opposite counterpart of unaccountable authority.)

The nazis were demotist because they harnessed the collective butthurt to do terrible things to non-consenting people. The Soviet Union was demotist as it wasn’t satisfied with simply rectifying the failures of czarist Russia but instead embarked on a crusade against individual freedom and choice to appease the mob. Fnargl is very non-demotist because Fnargl only cares about Fnargl’s opinion, not anyone else’s. (Fnargl is still bullshit though, don’t get me wrong.)

(And of course, if the mob wants a king, and a king is crowned, it’s demotism too.)

This seems to match rather well with the way the NRx use the concept.

That’s just you. Soviets and Nazis did not lend any voice to the common people. Now there might be a steelman demotism that means something like “excessive use of democracy to imbue authority where the correct unit of authority should have been the individual” but that’s not what Moldbug proposes – and, indeed, the Monarch he proposes could, just a well as Stalin, interfere where they’re not wanted.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s