Toward a Low-Entropy Right

  • 🏰 The Fediverse is up. If you know, you know.
  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account

In physics, the concept of entropy describes the state of energy within a system. Specifically, it describes how available a system’s energy is for use. A system whose energy is evenly distributed throughout has high entropy. A system whose energy is concentrated has low entropy.

On the left, the euphemism community organizer describes a person who coordinates leftist action. A community organizer concentrates the energy of leftists into a usable form. As a physical law, entropy in any closed system always increases. Organizers fight against entropy by constantly reorganizing their activists, who are like little packets of energy. The media or other entities agitate the activists from outside the closed system, decreasing the entropy of that system. The left is therefore low-entropy.

The right is extremely high-entropy. It’s something that Curtis Yarvin has long recognized, which is why he consistently advocates a one-time, all-at-once, right-wing “reset” of American politics. The right is a closed system with very little energy coming into it from outside. The rare instances in which it does receive new energy are times like the Trump 2016 campaign, but no one is ever there to concentrate the energy into a usable form.

When Yarvin speaks of winning as doing something to make future wins possible, what he is really saying is that winning is reducing entropy so that you can reduce entropy more in the future. Whenever you use a solar panel to collect the energy of the sun and store it in a battery for later use, for instance, you are reducing entropy.

The side-principal rule is described by Qiao Liang and Wang Xiangsui in the Chinese military philosophy text Unrestricted Warfare (1999):
In Chinese grammar, there is a basic sentence structure. This structure divides a sentence or phrase into two parts, the modifier and the center word. The relationship between them is that of modifying and being modified, that is, that the former modifies the latter and determines the tendency and features of the latter. Put more clearly, the former constitutes appearance, and the latter constitutes the organism. This structure is a basic mode in Chinese grammar: The side-principal structure.
This structure of having the principal element modified by a side element exists extensively in the Chinese language to the extent that a Chinese speaker will not be able to speak without using it. For, if there are only subject words in a sentence, without directing modification, the sentence will lack clarity because of the absence of such elements as degree, location, and mode which can be grasped in a concrete manner. For example, if the modifiers in such phrases as “good person,” “good thing,” “tall building,” “red flag,” and “slow running” are all removed, then the center words will all become neutral words without specific references. As shown here, in the side-principal structure, the “side” element, as compared with the “principal” element, is in the position of qualitatively determining the sentence or phrase.
In other words, in a certain sense we can use the understanding that in the side-principal structure the center word is the principal entity, with the modifier serving as the directing element, that is, that the “principal” element is the body for the “side” element, while the “side” element is the soul of the “principal” element. With the body established as the premise, the role of the soul is obviously of decisive significance. The relationship of the principal entity's being subordinate to the directing element is the foundation for the existence of the side-principal structure.

The organism, or organization, is the principal element of politics, and the side element is the motivation behind the organization. The Old Glory Club, for example, is principally an organization, and the side element is the intent to organize heritage Americans and to advocate on behalf of American traditions. Qiao and Wang focus primarily on the “side” element or “directing” element as the decisive element, and extend their analogy from language to warfare. For us, extending the language analogy to politics, the Iron Law of Oligarchy tells us that the principal element is organization itself. Right-wingers tend to focus on the “side element” as the primary purpose of what they are doing, but the real purpose of any organization is not the specific element that makes it concrete, but rather to organize, or reduce entropy.

The left survives almost purely on the habit of entropy reduction. The dispute between Gaetano Mosca and Vilfredo Pareto about whether or not the elites believe their political formula or not almost doesn’t matter, because the left has built up the habit of entropy reduction to the point where their goals are pursued automatically. The left has such a low entropy that they can actually spend their saved-up energy on increasing the entropy of the right by breaking up its organizations and by providing fake right-wing organizations to reduce the available energy for genuine organizations.

Forming habits is a great way to reduce entropy because it costs less energy to reduce entropy the more times it is done, until the point where the organizers no longer have to stimulate the activists to continue the habit. Basket weaving is a good example of this, as well as the Old Glory Club’s habit of scheduled meetings and publications. The purpose of any organization is to make further organization easier. Right-wingers ask what must be done, and the answer is: reduce entropy. The side element that motivates how that is done does not require overthinking. For basket weaving, the side element was simply to meet friends. A more ambitious side element can motivate organization as entropy is reduced, and there is more energy available to spend on more ambitious projects. Old Glory Club’s historical battlefield meetups are useful because they make future meetups more likely.

The left is in such a low-entropy state that the side element can dominate — they are free to spend accumulated energy on whatever they want without increasing their entropy by much. The right must allow the side element to be secondary to the principal of organization until the principal has been sufficiently concentrated for decisive action.

Charlemagne
Jul 10, 2023
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Does this article just basically say the American right sucks at organizing and needs to get better?
 
On the left, the euphemism community organizer describes a person who coordinates leftist action. A community organizer concentrates the energy of leftists into a usable form. As a physical law, entropy in any closed system always increases. Organizers fight against entropy by constantly reorganizing their activists, who are like little packets of energy. The media or other entities agitate the activists from outside the closed system, decreasing the entropy of that system. The left is therefore low-entropy.
Which is why every new generation of Leftist finds a new kind of "marginalized community" to have its own Civil Rights Movement.

Now that they've run out of people with legitimate grievances to redress. Now they see any kind of adverse treatment or impact as "persecution", "inequity", or "bias".

They now believe that criminals, druggies, deadbeats, pedos, and other undesirables are on the bottom rungs of society not through any fault of their own, but because everyone else is just a fussy Karen for not wanting them around.

Hence, the worse you behave, the more liberals like you. It's a perfect grift; criminalize being normal while normalizing criminality.
 
Which is why every new generation of Leftist finds a new kind of "marginalized community" to have its own Civil Rights Movement.

Now that they've run out of people with legitimate grievances to redress. Now they see any kind of adverse treatment or impact as "persecution", "inequity", or "bias".

They now believe that criminals, druggies, deadbeats, pedos, and other undesirables are on the bottom rungs of society not through any fault of their own, but because everyone else is just a fussy Karen for not wanting them around.

Hence, the worse you behave, the more liberals like you.
I've long said, when it comes specifically to choosing their martyrs (for things like Black pogroms), Leftists are attracted to the most indefensible, crooked ones possible. There was an old Black man in Memphis who was gunned down sitting in his chair by cops. They had staked out the wrong house, which from my Pa's (police officer) description of it, should have never happened if they had filled out their paperwork correctly and checked it. They burst down the door in a no-knock raid, which should have never happened. Then the chickenshits opened fire the moment they saw him. But cities didn't burn for that man, even though the negligence involved was so great the cops deserved to hang. They burn only when it's thugs that die.
 
I've long said, when it comes specifically to choosing their martyrs (for things like Black pogroms), Leftists are attracted to the most indefensible, crooked ones possible. There was an old Black man in Memphis who was gunned down sitting in his chair by cops. They had staked out the wrong house, which from my Pa's (police officer) description of it, should have never happened if they had filled out their paperwork correctly and checked it. They burst down the door in a no-knock raid, which should have never happened. Then the chickenshits opened fire the moment they saw him. But cities didn't burn for that man, even though the negligence involved was so great the cops deserved to hang. They burn only when it's thugs that die.
Please tell me IA nailed them for it and they're rotting in a cell somewhere.
 
I've long said, when it comes specifically to choosing their martyrs (for things like Black pogroms), Leftists are attracted to the most indefensible, crooked ones possible. There was an old Black man in Memphis who was gunned down sitting in his chair by cops. They had staked out the wrong house, which from my Pa's (police officer) description of it, should have never happened if they had filled out their paperwork correctly and checked it. They burst down the door in a no-knock raid, which should have never happened. Then the chickenshits opened fire the moment they saw him. But cities didn't burn for that man, even though the negligence involved was so great the cops deserved to hang. They burn only when it's thugs that die.
You would think they could get more popular, more bipartisan support for their ostensible goals by getting outraged over real outrages like that.

Alas, I don't believe in Hanlon's Razor. They're not stupid, they're malicious. They canonize shitbags as their saints to demoralize and silence anyone who would dare contradict them. If you do so, they will shout you down as racist, and if one of their own acknolwedges it, they get denounced for "bothsidesism".

Theodore Dalrymple was right about them: they do not want to inform, persuade, or convince. They want to humiliate.
 
I...think I agree with this article? It's hard to say, because the actual meaning behind the words is hidden behind layers of unnecessary analogy. "Oh gee you know activists are fucking protons or whatever", like dude, just speak plainly.

Which is why every new generation of Leftist finds a new kind of "marginalized community" to have its own Civil Rights Movement.

Now that they've run out of people with legitimate grievances to redress. Now they see any kind of adverse treatment or impact as "persecution", "inequity", or "bias".

They now believe that criminals, druggies, deadbeats, pedos, and other undesirables are on the bottom rungs of society not through any fault of their own, but because everyone else is just a fussy Karen for not wanting them around.

Hence, the worse you behave, the more liberals like you. It's a perfect grift; criminalize being normal while normalizing criminality.
Yeah, the reason the left is "low entropy" is because the only tactic they have is tricking morons into doing their job for them. They just have to wave some bennies or a cardboard cutout of a Nazi around to instantly mobilize tens of millions of low IQ pieces of shit. The right doesn't have a paramilitary at their beck and call, so they have to resort to doing craaaazy stuff like actually passing laws, and that takes actual effort.
 
Does this article just basically say the American right sucks at organizing and needs to get better?
I think the author is trying to say that the political parties go through movements. And Trump winning was huge burst of momentum into the GOP. But the GOP didn't approve of Trump so they did nothing with that momentum. When Obama won, the DNC had momentum and used it to pass Obamacare.
 
I've long said, when it comes specifically to choosing their martyrs (for things like Black pogroms), Leftists are attracted to the most indefensible, crooked ones possible. There was an old Black man in Memphis who was gunned down sitting in his chair by cops. They had staked out the wrong house, which from my Pa's (police officer) description of it, should have never happened if they had filled out their paperwork correctly and checked it. They burst down the door in a no-knock raid, which should have never happened. Then the chickenshits opened fire the moment they saw him. But cities didn't burn for that man, even though the negligence involved was so great the cops deserved to hang. They burn only when it's thugs that die.

99.9% of white people would agree that was a bad thing and imo this is why BLM types don't talk about him or a couple cases near me, their goal is to agitate whites and holding up purple floyd or big mike as valued members of society who "did not do anything wrong" all over the news will do just that very nicely.
 
Psychobabble fueled by THC. Gross article.
"Rhetoric that might out me as someone who only enjoys pretending to care about things on the internet, gross."
 
Last edited:
They do, but it's mostly larping fat boomers who are too eager to bootlick cops.
No retard, it's called they have people depending on them and can't just nuke their lives over petty crime after petty crime.

You talk a lot of shit for some useless Internet tough guy.

EDIT: I was mad but @Meat Target handled the situation like a pro and a gentleman. Mea culpa.
 
Last edited:
Does this article just basically say the American right sucks at organizing and needs to get better?
I think the author is trying to say that the political parties go through movements. And Trump winning was huge burst of momentum into the GOP. But the GOP didn't approve of Trump so they did nothing with that momentum. When Obama won, the DNC had momentum and used it to pass Obamacare.
The article, in so many words, is saying forget the demoralization, you can actually do something simply by organizing for any purpose with people who understand they are not friends of the regime. Even better if you can turn it into a group that organizes habitually. Forming bonds between people that are minimally dependent on the regime is a prerequisite to the possibility of these groups aligning with more ambitious goals.

One aspect of the right that is deliberately exasperated by our enemies is the need for explicit purposes or immediately lofty goals. We're fooled into believing armies only form around a purpose instead of the more common reality of purpose forming around armies. The same is true of political praxis.

No retard, it's called they have people depending on them and can't just nuke their lives over petty crime after petty crime.

You talk a lot of shit for some useless Internet tough guy.
You're not wrong, though the people who depend on you also likely rely on you playing a part in ensuring their future conditions aren't perpetual servitude to the grotesque machinations of people who hate them.
 
Last edited:
The article, in so many words, is saying forget the demoralization, you can actually do something simply by organizing for any purpose with people who understand they are not friends of the regime. Even better if you can turn it into a group that organizes habitually. Forming bonds between people that are minimally dependent on the regime is a prerequisite to the possibility of these groups aligning with more ambitious goals.
This is true but also the most dangerous/risky phase. Thousands of little organizations are undermined and destroyed during the "butt sniffing." Look at this site. How valuable would our identities be to the agitator/left and the regime? How thoroughly could our lives be ruined for expressing unpopular opinions?

Exposing opinions is risky in this environment.

You're not wrong, though the people who depend on you also likely rely on you playing a part to ensure their future conditions aren't perpetual servitude to the grotesque machinations of people who hate them.
Sadly, I'm not sure they would understand what it's about when they're so fully indoctrinated.

The information warfare aspect is the most difficult when one "side" has not only the revolutionaries/agitators but also the regime's backing. It's like a government that is also running an insurgency against its own people.
 
The information warfare aspect is the most difficult when one "side" has not only the revolutionaries/agitators but also the regime's backing. It's like a government that is also running an insurgency against its own people.
Scout, you seem to be a nonbullshit type. And I'll tell you that the leftists bullshit types are worse than our Meat Target here and others. There's a big problem going on and it's not good to infight that much on the so-called 'right' which means 'not total communist faggots' now.
 
Scout, you seem to be a nonbullshit type. And I'll tell you that the leftists bullshit types are worse than our Meat Target here and others. There's a big problem going on and it's not good to infight that much on the so-called 'right' which means 'not total communist faggots' now.
You're correct, of course.

To your point and the point of the article, we do need to reduce entropy and I was creating it instead.

It's probably just projection on my part but it seems like "our" side, at this point being a resistance or "reactionary" impulse is necessarily a combative or entropic side.

I need to get better at coalition building though.
 
You're correct, of course.

To your point and the point of the article, we do need to reduce entropy and I was creating it instead.

It's probably just projection on my part but it seems like "our" side, at this point being a resistance or "reactionary" impulse is necessarily a combative or entropic side.

I need to get better at coalition building though.
It does raise the question, however: how can the Right decrease entropy and gain popularity without:

a) purity-spiraling into irrelevance and autistic slapfights (a la NJP, America First, etc);
b) getting infiltrated, sabotaged, and subverted by Feds, impostors, and the milktoast;
c) being constantly cowed into inaction by the threat of being caught by said infiltrators?

It's a tough question, to which an easy answer eludes me.
 
Back
Top Bottom