In defense of hierarchy

Every time I say something nice about Vox he follows it up with something embarrassing. In the same way that it may be practically impossible for a Delta to foster the necessary sense of entitlement to thrive in a leadership role, it may not be possible for a Sigma to be anything other than a chaotic subversive. (I began to suspect this after watching Yojimbo, which is the archetypal Sigma movie.)

Portrait of a non-leader

[…]

It’s important to understand that these media celebrities are not, and can never be, leaders. They don’t possess any of the characteristics of a good leader and their primary objectives seldom involve anything beyond personal fame and fortune.

All reasonable observers will grant this premise. There is not much overlap between the talents common to great stage actors and great military leaders.

Once more we see the fate of those organizations and movements that fail to learn the most important lesson of GamerGate: no leaders.

I’d argue the lesson was “When you surround an army, leave an outlet free. Do not press a desperate foe too hard.” White people would have been content to go extinct for their Enlightenment beliefs if they had been allowed to expire during an overnight Call of Duty* marathon with bongs in hand. “[NW European] men like being right far more than they like being alive.”

Leaders are a point of organizational weakness, a point of structural failure. That’s precisely why the media is constantly seeking to determine who is the leader and to anoint someone, anyone, no matter how improbable their claim, as the leader, because that is how they seek to destroy the organizations and movements they consider to be threats. The All-Seeing Eye of Sauron focuses like a laser on those who are climbing to the top of the various glass pyramids, and cannot be defeated, cannot even be effectively resisted, by anyone who is outspoken and in the public eye.

Think about how easy it would be to turn back an army of ants, or an army of locusts, if they were dependent upon leaders.

Armies of ants are, in fact, 100% dependent on the survival of the queen. I don’t know much about locusts but I understand they aren’t big on national boundaries and domestic industry.

It’s so much easier to squash a single insect than turn back a rampaging horde; the only thing that saved the West from the Mongol invasions was the fortuitously-timed death of Ögedei Khan.

This example only serves to completely invalidate Vox’s thesis that leadership weakened the Mongol invasion, by illustrating that it was successful while it had a strong leader and unsuccessful afterward. You might as well make the same argument against supply chains for ground forces.

Vox’s overall point is that formlessness is the best defense against the overwhelming material superiority of the dying NWO, which is correct. For example, we learned in the 20th century that 1) uniformed armies have become a relic of 3GW, and 2) officers in uniformed armies should not wear eye-catching paraphernalia to distinguish them from enlisted troops because snipers will target them. It is not correct—and eminently foolish, moreover—to throw out the principle of military hierarchy itself in the process of concealment. This is an overgeneralization of the principle of formlessness for the purpose of promoting a self-serving narrative of individual intellectual liberty and the irresponsible demagoguery this condones. I say this is self-serving because a man who identifies as a freethinking inquisitor will be familiar the underlying paradox by necessity.

The truth is that the purpose of leadership in particular, and hierarchy in general, is to enable cohesive group action. Without leaders, disputes can’t be navigated and irreconcilable conflicts of interest cannot be managed. Every single defection in any given societal dilemma will spiderweb into backbiting, malevolent compliance, and low-trust purity spiraling. (Not that the Alt-Right would know anything about that.) But when two men with a self-interested stake in intratribal status competition can agree to defer personal judgment to a mutually respected third party, rational cooperation enters the realm of possibility. This deference is why it’s critical for a leader to convince his followers that he has their best interests at heart.

Good leadership is both a necessary and sufficient condition for good faith cooperation, and irresponsible leadership guarantees a vicious spiral of bad faith. People with more or less power and influence will always exist because this is the nature of hierarchical social animals. The great problem of civilization has always been how to promote the ones who best serve the group according to the necessities of multi-level selection. The lesson of the neanderthals is that the alternative to group action is extinction, down to the last disagreeable individual.

*For you young people out there, “Call of Duty” is how we old-timers used to say Fortnight.

About Aeoli Pera

Maybe do this later?
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

11 Responses to In defense of hierarchy

  1. Robotnick says:

    Competence and cooperation, not power, is what leadership and hierarchy should be based on.

    “Power” (not authority mind you) should reside in the group itself and its actions, creations, etc… not individuals.
    It is the harmony, satisfaction, wellbeing, and sense of achievement permeating throughout the group that ought to be the end-all be-all. Not individual self-glorification. Each place in the hierarchy serves a part. And Loyalty is essential.

    I think the thallish Mongols understood this. They epitomized K-selection in conquest.

    Meanwhile traditional MM-ruled societies have elites too busy jerking themselves off and self-glorifying.

    Though perhaps I’m being naive and overly simplistic

  2. Aeoli Pera says:

    >Competence and cooperation, not power, is what leadership and hierarchy should be based on.

    “Should” is a tricky word.

    >“Power” (not authority mind you) should reside in the group itself and its actions, creations, etc… not individuals.

    This is why I appeal to A) Christianity and B) group selection theory. One of the rules of persuasion is that you always appeal to self-interest. It’s important for people to understand that altruism, properly understood, is always a selfish decision.

    >It is the harmony, satisfaction, wellbeing, and sense of achievement permeating throughout the group that ought to be the end-all be-all. Not individual self-glorification.

    My feeling is that the end-all be-all ought to be fostering moral character in individuals, at least insofar as necessary for transmitting material and cultural prosperity (and very likely moreso). But I’m not sure if this idealism has any purchase in the real world.

    >Each place in the hierarchy serves a part. And Loyalty is essential.
    >I think the thallish Mongols understood this. They epitomized K-selection in conquest.

    I suspect they still do. Their diet is characterized by lots of meat.

    >Meanwhile traditional MM-ruled societies have elites too busy jerking themselves off and self-glorifying.

    I think you’ll like my writeup of Citizen Kane.

    >Though perhaps I’m being naive and overly simplistic

    Lol, welcome to Edenism.

  3. aiaslives says:

    Vox might be counting upon a covert leader.

  4. Aeoli Pera says:

    >Vox might be counting upon a covert leader.

    I hope not, that would indicate an even worse understanding of cultural shift than I’m assuming.

  5. baldrick5 says:

    The Mongols knew what they wanted. I still don’t know if anybody knows what we’re trying to achieve. That’s what makes taking out the leader doubly effective today.

  6. Mycroft Jones says:

    I think Vox made his point well in reference to the Mongols. Yes, they were powerful with a leader. But as soon as the leader died, they were limited. In fact, the Mongol empire only lasted 100 years or so. A cult of personality is short-lived; it takes a whole culture and society to keep going over the long term. That was Vox’ point; I think he succeed in making it.

  7. Aeoli Pera says:

    There’s genetics, shared environment, and non-shared environment. The non-shared environment is genetically determined, and the shared environment is socially engineered. Leadership is a form of shared environment.

    All three mechanics are locked in feedback loops. Push on one and you get effects in the others. So while it may be true that good leadership can’t replace good genetics, the reverse is also true. Which is, again, the lesson of the neanderthals.

  8. bicebicebice says:

    “The Mongols knew what they wanted. I still don’t know if anybody knows what we’re trying to achieve. That’s what makes taking out the leader doubly effective today.”

    >That’s what makes taking out the leader doubly effective today.
    Then vice-versa is also true, (((they))) build up schmucks as “leaders” of the alt-goobers, milktoast homos like milo, richard spencer, sargoy, molymeme, hell even pewdiepie was accused – that was the projected part “They must have a leader somewhere!!!”. Itz a witchhunt.

    Their headache is stemming from meritocracy stemming from genetics. They can’t find the individual who should be responsible, in their minds, so they are broadstroking it with just all in white genocide, fighting a war on all fronts possible which never works. Their new enemy is multiracial white supremacy…

    However, the mongols wanted to protect mongolia by invading the world and setting up new powers that fought each other, why would any of those care about mongolia? Thats a backwater shithole, the perfect plan to be left alone. Treestumpin 101.

    ———————————————————————————————————————————-
    “I think the thallish Mongols understood this. They epitomized K-selection in conquest.

    Meanwhile traditional MM-ruled societies have elites too busy jerking themselves off and self-glorifying.”

    … and all the offspring of the hordes, not living in Mongolia, became cucked subjects under melon rule after the conquest was complete. Many such cases. Sad! This happens when you leave home and does not terraform the new land into home. Those melon jerkers win in the end, or do they?

    There is something about it not being possible to recreate an original, but you can always recreate a sape-town.

  9. Boneflour says:

    I like this post. This is a good post.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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