Motus Mentis

A couple of days ago I posted some commentary on Michael Anton’s recent article on “national divorce”. Asylum magazine has now made available online Michael Anton’s response to an anonymous reader’s critique of his dialogue on the topic of “national divorce”. (You can read it here.)

Mr. Anton seems irritated; his rejoinder is titled “How To Read Dialogues”, and he scolds “Anonymous” (not directly, but in what’s known these days as a “subtweet”) by quoting Leo Strauss to the effect that “a certain bewilderment is the beginning of wisdom”. What he seeks to correct is the ascription of his character Tom’s views to Mr. Anton himself; he offers, as an example, that it would be wrong to assume that when Macbeth speaks, he speaks for Shakespeare himself. (Having made such an ascription myself, I suppose I’m guilty as well — but while I wouldn’t suggest that Aaron the Moor is Shakespeare presenting himself, I do suspect that there may be considerable overlap between Mr. Anton’s take on “divorce” and his fictional character Tom’s.)

In his response, Anton rightly points out that the dialogue form has been throughout history a way for controversial thinkers to avoid censorship (or worse): frogs in the West today have good reason to worry about the consequences of public expression of their heresies, and Mr. Anton is brave to have said as much in public as he already has. He also, and also rightly, reminds us that in order to assess our situation, and to deliberate our options, we need to be able to present conflicting positions of the great questions at hand, and that’s what his dialogue was for.

We read:

The value of the dialogue in modern discourse should then be obvious. The censor’s hand is stronger than it has been in centuries and the tools available to him are unprecedented. Censorship may not be the least of our problems but it is a huge problem, and one directly related to our greater problems. It’s hard to know what to do, and harder still when one is not allowed to talk about it. Which is the whole purpose of censorship: to forbid and, if necessary, persecute discussion of alternatives.

This leaves us with three options: forgo discussion, charge ahead heedlessly, or find other ways. The first is contemptible and guarantees failure.

Agreed. Reading on:

As to the second, too many who see clearly the vileness of the present regime appear to believe that direct charges at its authority are the highest priority and indeed the highest good. At their worst, they attack people on their side for failing to say what they personally demand must be said, even—again, especially—if saying it guarantees instant cancellation. They assume either that anything not said must also be a thing not believed, even a thing contradicted, or else that prudence and caution can only be signs of cowardice or treason. Often they insist on both at the same time.

It’s tempting to respond: “Fine, if you want to sacrifice yourself for nothing, charge that machine gun and get shot.” But in fact the consequences of such bravado do not fall on the heedless alone. While heedlessness may be courageous, it also carries costs for those affiliated or associated with, even merely sympathetic to, the heedless. You are not helping your cause by saying things that guarantee the harsh reaction of the regime against your ideas and those who hold them, even—perhaps especially—if the things you say are true. Right now, only the left has the power to smash through the Overton window. We by contrast must nudge it open carefully and slowly. I realize that we’re running out of time, but that doesn’t make breaking glass any more useful at this moment. Besides, to compound the metaphor, anyone who has ever lived in an old house knows that a stuck window, gently worked for a bit, can suddenly become unstuck and fly open. But patience and care are required.

Anton is right about this as well. Curtis Yarvin has spoken often in recent years about the asymmetry of the playing field we find ourselves competing on: dissidents in the West at the moment should regard themselves as prey species in a landscape populated by powerful predators. Indeed, even I worried a bit about the frankness with which I spoke about an “appeal to heaven” in my previous post; and as a retired geezer with no need of employment, I am far less “cancellable” than most people.

Anton continues:

The flipside to counterproductive bravado is the conclusion that nothing big can be done because everything beyond smallball will necessarily fail. So why talk about things that can’t be done?

I think this is what vexes Anton about his anonymous reader’s response: it is a broad-spectrum blackpill that gives up on both divorce and defiant resistance: the former is deemed impossible, the latter futile. (Which they may well be!)

If Anton is objecting to anything here, I think it is to despair. He continues:

It’s a cliché, but not therefore false, to respond that if every dreamer were this “sensible,” then mankind would never have accomplished anything. It is also true that the doing of great deeds will once again require the coupling of great imagination with great daring. Of course, as always, both will have to be tempered by prudence, but a genuine prudence that recognizes the occasional necessity of risk, not the faux prudence which some hold to be synonymous with timidity.

This situation is dire; it is not hopeless. (And let me say as an aside, when you put me of all people in the position of dispensing white pills, that you are too blackpilled.) It is never hopeless because, first, one never knows what may happen. Virtue doesn’t always win, but it often does, and is only certain to lose when it doesn’t try. Second, fortune is capricious and does not consistently favor (as far as the human mind can discern) either side in any struggle. Third, adversaries make mistakes, even unforced errors. Fourth, despite its pretensions, this … thing cannot last forever. Even one of its own founders and most committed partisans admitted as much.II Fifth, and perhaps most encouraging, “there is no reason for despair as long as human nature has not been conquered completely i.e., as long as sun and man still generate man. There will always be men (andres) who will revolt against a state which is destructive of humanity or in which there is no longer a possibility of noble action and of great deeds.”

I might also point out that many of the essays culminating in recommendations to do small things have an almost laughably anticlimactic quality. They sketch problems so huge they could only be addressed by grand solutions, only to propose … running for school board. Not to dismiss or ridicule running for school board. This and many other limited, local actions are going to have to be taken. They may even be (and likely are) indispensable foundation for future success. But if our problems are as large as these same authors assert, then such solutions cannot possibly be sufficient.

So I repeat the truism that, to know what to do, one must first debate what to do, which includes discussing the pros and cons of options that will eventually be ruled out. But the discussion must take place. Choosing smallball in advance is self-limiting, and will prove to be a mistake until and unless it is known that smallball will be sufficient and/or that all alternatives are impossible. Preemptive exclusions tend to cultivate defeatism.

Now we must, in fairness, note that “Anonymous” was “discussing the pros and cons of options that will eventually be ruled out”; to be more precise, he was debating the case made by “Tom” for national divorce. And “Anonymous”, too, tried his best to avoid the black pill, and made more or less the same case for prudence that Anton made:

As bad as the situation is, there is a lot to be positive about in America today. The grassroots protests against lockdown policies had a massive impact on bringing them to a close. Parents have taken a much more active role in fighting back against dangerous ideologies pushed in their children’s schools. Even the chaos and surrender that defined the Floyd Riots was contrasted with the enormous personal bravery of citizen groups and impromptu law enforcement formations, people who just wanted to help. It seems like many more people are paying attention now. This is truly great, but it is very important that that massive energy be harnessed into something productive, that can last for decades, as opposed to ultimately empty rhetoric about a potential suicide run against the US military.

So, in closing, I think that yes, perhaps both “Anonymous” and I were too quick to ascribe Tom’s opinions to Anton himself, but I think Anonymous was right to point out, in the spirit of debate and discussion, that of all the possibilities before us a genuine split of the United States into noncontiguous Red and Blue countries is probably the least plausible future of all. I think we all would also agree that armed revolt is — despite whatever swashbuckling fantasies certain types of naive young men may secretly harbor — a horrifying prospect, and should only be considered when all else has failed beyond all hope, and the only remaining choices are immediate, kinetic resistance or permanent subjugation to tyranny. Finally, I think that all three of us will agree that some sort of “middle way” would be best, if only we can find it; best of all would be if the accelerating obscenities of our Progressive overlords manage, at long last, to awaken enough of the good and decent people of this nation that we can find the will simply to stand up together and say NO.