I started thinking on this topic when I read a very insightful quote from Unqualified Reservations:
In 1933, public opinion could still be positively impressed by group calisthenics displaying the face of the Leader, eagles shooting lightning bolts, etc, etc. By today’s standards, the public of 1933 (both German and American) was a seven-year-old boy. Today’s public is more of a thirteen-year-old girl (a smart, plucky, well-meaning girl), and guiding it demands a very different tone.
Talking about Germans in 1933, Adolph Hitler himself considered the masses were like a woman:
Someone who does not understand the intrinsically feminine character of the masses will never be an effective speaker. Ask yourself: ‘What does a woman expect from a man?’ Clearness, decision, power and action. What we want is to get the masses to act. Like a woman, the masses fluctuate between extremes… The crowd is not only like a woman, but women constitute the most important element in an audience. The women usually lead, then follow the children and at last, when I have already won over the whole family – follow the fathers.
In Mein Kampf, he wrote:
The people, in an overwhelming majority, are so feminine in their nature and attitude that their activities and thoughts are motivated less by sober consideration than by feeling and sentiment.
It seems to me like he is not describing women as much as he is describing immaturity: the longing for someone, anyone, to take control and give them orders (a “decider”), the reliance on feelings, and to this we may add the previous points of being impressed by pageantry and the need to be kept ignorant. All of these are stereotypical traits of the immature, childish mind (which is not to say child-like: children in some respect are more mature than adults).
But of course most people do not recognize such a mentally retarded, starry-eyed attitude towards flashy newscasts and uniforms as being immature, because in fact it is hailed as maturity. More specifically, maturity, in statist terms, means to accept to “play the game.” In our society, there are many different games: the democracy game, the capitalism game, the religion game, the relationship/power relations game, the legal game, the attractiveness game, the reproduction game… there are as many games as there are collectivist belief systems. These games all perpetuate either because there is a class of people who benefit from such a perpetuation, or because they have been transmitted from generation to generation and accepted as gospel. In the former case, the rules are written and enforced by people, in the latter by tradition.
Why is there such a virulent reaction against people who refuse to participate? They do not hate their opponents so much. After all, how can you have a game without opponents? But it must necessarily be the case that anyone who refuses to participate in the games is considered to be against society and worse, because they are the only people who deligitimize the game itself. The real opposite of a player is not another player, but rather someone who fights against the game.
It is immature to give away one’s capacity to think in order to feel accepted. The only real opposite of the pseudo-maturity of “going along” and “playing the game” is the real maturity of taking responsibility for one’s actions and beliefs. The only responsible thing to do is to turn on your mind, tune into reality, and drop out of the game.
This is not to say that every single person who has a career or votes or believes in God is fixated on identities. Certainly it is possible to do these things because one really wants to do them, not out of any game duty. But I don’t think you can be authentic and follow all the rules, because they are precisely meant to take away your individuality and your values. They are meant to mold you into one body, one attire, one livelihood, one belief, one way of seeing others. What true self, what expansive being, what expansive mind, can fit such a mold? How do you fit the big principles of freethought in a ballot box without betraying yourself?
Statist immaturity is also related to faggotry in matters of relationships and sexuality. The immature mind sees sexuality as something disgusting, to be avoided, unless it is used for the sole purpose of playing the reproduction game, much like the faggot, who finds sex with women repulsive but must use it in order to affirm his masculinity by having children. The immature mind sees all relationships as power relations, opportunities to assert or lose control, with the male gender as the naturally superior one. All these things are also part of the faggot mentality, especially the male gender being superior: a woman pretending to be a man is amusing, but a man debasing himself to pretend to be a woman is vile. A woman having sex with another woman is relatively irrelevant, since they are both of the weaker gender, but a man having sex with another man is horrifying.
As I mentioned before, immaturity seeks authority. Indeed, the statist attitude towards authority is to officially repudiate it while actively seeking its favors. And this is precisely the paradox of democracy that, while it is formally a system where there are no authorities, it in fact cultivates authority. Because the individual finds himself alone and equally powerless towards his fellows, and yet caught in a law monopoly, he must look up to some centralized authority to bring about what he wants or needs. In short, social warfare is a necessary consequence of democracy, creating the political game.
How these two contradictory inclinations, pride and servility, can coexist [in a democratic system like the United States], Tocqueville explains as a function of the democratic urge itself, observing that in democracies, where equality prevails, “no one is obliged to lend his force to those like him and no one has the right to expect great support from those like him.” Consequently, he argues, “each one is at once independent and weak.” The result is that, despairing of any assistance from their fellow democrats, men naturally turn to the central government as the only power available capable of supporting them in their weak and isolated state.
Fred Nollan, letter to Harper’s, August 2008
The interesting thing is that people are more educated, less psychologically depraved, and are more able to realize the futility of all these games. More and more people are dissatisfied and search for meaning in an increasingly artificial society. I think a lot of the new successful movements (the Greenie movement, the New Age movement, the incredible expansion of the Internet) have their roots in people’s desire for empowerment. But on the other hand, people have more and more to lose by rebelling, so they use “safe” channels to do so- mostly political channels which, as we know, cannot bring about improvement. This is the increasingly relevant problem of Anarchism in the Western world: is the revolution even possible? One thing’s for sure: a revolution can’t be commandeered by immature individuals.