Social Entropy & Authoritarianism

Lately, I’ve been thinking about the breakdown of our societal norms and expectations over the last few hundred years. In everything from personal behavior to sexual expectations to attire, we’re rapidly becoming an ever more degenerative, low-rent, classless society of people. The Left’s disdain for order, for hierarchy, and for the culture that maintained our societies for centuries results in what I’m going to term “Social Entropy”.

Social Entropy is the process by which a Liberalized society slowly loses its natural order. Liberalism promotes the (asserted) equality of all individuals, and rejects the natural hierarchy of people that nature’s Darwinian processes have created. In doing this, they have destroyed the societal order that the aristocratic class and lower social hierarchy helped to enforce and maintain. Without the role of the aristocratic elite to dictate acceptable behavior, relations, and culture, the people have naturally lost their understanding of appropriate moral behavior, and their sense of impropriety. They have instead opted to pursue personal comfort, gain, and pleasure. We see this reflected in the way we treat one another in the workplace, in how we treat potential sexual partners, in how we choose to spend our free time, and even in how we dress.

Entropy, in its original meaning, cannot be reversed. It is possible, however, to create localized regions wherein the entropic process within that defined region is slowed to a trickle. One can recreate order from disorder within a localized space by utilizing energy from areas outside of the defined space. I posit that much like traditional entropy, the social entropy that is occurring is a near-irreversible process, so long as the primary societal ideology is one borne of a Liberal perspective. That does not mean, however, than we cannot reverse or slow the process at all. I think it is possible to once again forge order from disorder while maintaining many of the benefits of our industrialized society. In order to do so, I think it requires three main characteristics:

  1. The right circumstances
  2. An internal will to power
  3. Moral acceptance of the fact that supressive violence is necessary

I think that it is possible to implement social order where there previously was none, and to instill traditional values where no values are found. Freedom has, paradoxically, shackled us to hedonism and materialism, and we have lost our spiritual way. No longer do we pursue virtue as a good in and of itself. No longer do we understand that pain, suffering, and moderation leads one to more deeply appreciate that which is beautiful and that which makes the soul content. Rather, we wallow in gluttony, obsess over our lusts, and envy one another constantly. Freedom is slavery to our baser nature. Without our natural hierarchical aristocracy, and without the social regulation that the Church and widespread religious belief brings, there remain no useful mechanisms for social regulatory feedback, no mechanism for fighting that moral rot.

This is why I believe that a traditional, mythologized, militaristic (particularly, hierarchical), authoritarian political system headed by a single magnanimous leader is the only method by which a modern day society can achieve this cultural regeneration (at least without a total financial collapse and return to a less prosperous, but more historically accurate, form of life). In order to explore this idea further, let’s look at what I mean by the above three things needed in order to reduce social entropy through a case study of Augusto Pinochet.

The Right Circumstances

In the early 1970’s, South America was quickly becoming a proxy continent for Soviet Russia. In Chile, Salvador Allende (who was not milquetoast social Democrat by any means, but rather a full-fledged Communist) was elected President. He, as accused by the House of Deputies in a resolution, began immediately illegally confiscating and seizing its citizens private property, as well as began to arm and train party militias. The Chamber of Deputies stated that Allende:

sought “. . . to conquer absolute power with the obvious purpose of subjecting all citizens to the strictest political and economic control by the State . . . [with] the goal of establishing a totalitarian system”, claiming it had made “violations of the Constitution . . . a permanent system of conduct.” Essentially, most of the accusations were about the Socialist Government disregarding the separation of powers, and arrogating legislative and judicial prerogatives to the executive branch of government. Finally, the resolution condemned the creation and development of government-protected armed groups, which . . . are headed towards a confrontation with the armed forces. President Allende’s efforts to re-organize the military and the police forces were characterised as notorious attempts to use the armed and police forces for partisan ends, destroy their institutional hierarchy, and politically infiltrate their ranks.

Democratically elected Allende’s actions eventually led to a situation wherein the men of the Chilean military could no longer look aside as their leader led the country towards a dehumanizing, totalitarian system of control that would plunge Chile into darkness. Many were looking to one another, pleading internally for some, anyone, to do something. However, many were not; Allende was a democratically elected President, after all. The right circumstances, in this case, was a sizable minority unable to work within the system to fend off the rising Leftism and the inevitable social decay that accompanies Communism. In essence, the right circumstances represent a watershed period of time where great social upheaval, be it political, social, or economic, is set to occur. It can be generally thought of as occurring during a society’s manifestation of Strauss-Howe’s “Fourth Turning”¬†(which is itself highly worthy of a lengthy article).

Internal Will-To-Power

In his memoirs, Pinochet wrote that the coup was spearheaded and coordinated by himself, in conjunction with the other branches of the Chilean military and the National Police. If his claims are true (as history is written by the victor), he took the weight of the decision to overthrow his government upon himself and began taking the necessary steps to ensure that once the time came, he had the resources and bodies at his back to be able to enforce his will. He probably did long for power; most of us do. Regardless of his motivations, he took it upon himself to take action, to assume and bear authority, and to accept responsibility for whatever was to come afterwards. Whatever you say about him as a man, he did not back down from the circumstances that were thrust upon him. I’m reminded of Theodore Roosevelt’s famous quotation on the importance of trying, even in the face of failure:

It is not the critic who counts; not the man who points out how the strong man stumbles, or where the doer of deeds could have done them better. The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood; who strives valiantly; who errs, who comes short again and again, because there is no effort without error and shortcoming; but who does actually strive to do the deeds; who knows great enthusiasms, the great devotions; who spends himself in a worthy cause; who at the best knows in the end the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly, so that his place shall never be with those cold and timid souls who neither know victory nor defeat.

Up until his death, Pinochet remained steadfast in the belief that his decision to seize power and purge Chile of the Communist threat was the right one. He created the world he wished to see; he was just lucky enough to be in a position to do so when his time came.

Moral Acceptance of the Necessity of Violence

The last thing that I think is crucial to have in slowing social entropy is an acceptance of the necessity of violence in purging subversive, degenerative elements of proper society. The tendency towards social entropy is persistent and unending; all civilizations break down and eventually come to an end. Like a Nation must have borders, a garden must have fences; like a garden needs a gardener to strip out the weeds and bugs, a Nation also needs a stern, steady hand to pluck the weeds from society. When the weeds and bugs are cleared away, the crop has the necessary environment in which to thrive. Humans are much the same.

One of the central tenets of the AltRight/Reactosphere is that traditional values are not accidental. They are social adaptations that provide efficient solutions to complex societal issues. Civilizations are, despite what they may seem, rather fragile. Once those traditional values and societal institutions are abandoned and subverted, the corruptible nature of humanity takes over. Like a paper wadded into a ball, it can never be made back into what it once was; however, it can be approximated, and this is the role that violence plays.

Pinochet understood the necessity of force. Those who are true believers in their degenerative causes – be it the humanity-denying socioeconomic theory of Communism or the subversive social virus of Cultural Marxism – cannot be reasoned with. The effort necessary to convert any real number of true believers away from their particular ideological fetish is not worth the payoff. These are the weeds that must be plucked from the garden of society so that the crops may flourish.

Yes, Pinochet killed people. Several thousand, by some accounts. It was all entirely necessary to reclaim his society from the clutches of an ideological evil gripping the power brokers of his society. There are many types of argumentation, and many methods of bringing others over to your point of view. There is, above all else, one particular form that speaks to us all: Force. It is the universal language, our mother tongue. We knew it before we knew ourselves, and it remains the purest means of legitimacy for societal rule. Our Anarcho-Capitalist friends are correct in their assessment of government as violence (force). The very rule of law is backed only by the promise of, and ability to deliver, overwhelming force against that which would stand against it. To pretend that we are above such actions is to deny what we are. Those elements of subversion who are the presumptive targets of a social reformer would easily understand what violence and force against them meant: submit & stop your actions in public, flee, or perish. The message would be loud and clear for those who remain.

It’s not a pretty business. It’s for neither the soft hearted nor for the man who is not completely convinced of his decision. The ethics of such actions are, of course, situational, and that which is permissible under one ethical system is condemned under another. I’m not arguing that actions such as these are a moral imperative or even a moral good; I’m arguing that if one wishes to slow the social entropy of the declining society in which they live, one must be willing to use violence to purge the elements that naturally seek to undermine and subvert the social fabric in which they live. I think it’s the only thing that will actually work. We’re naturally risk-averse creatures, and humans overwhelmingly prioritize preventing losses over attaining gains. When the stakes are at their highest, and people have everything to lose, they’ll do almost anything to prevent further loss. This is the power that being willing to use violence brings – it’s the ultimate bargaining tool.

Today, Chile’s GDP is soaring, its debt is mostly gone compared to the days before Pinochet, and it has a relatively free market through which its citizens can prosper. The garden Pinochet tended yielded both economic success and social rejuvenation – an exceptionally nice harvest, made possible only by the dirt-covered hands that planted and tended it through its harsh Summer days.