Political Dark Matter

"J., you've just created a great term, 'political dark matter.' I'm going to use that."-L

It’s been a while since I’ve written an essay, but my new schedule (and new focus on treating the pod seriously) has given me more time to think. Thanks for waiting.

---

In a recent episode of my podcast, I spoke with

Ælþemplær

about the collapse of the Post-War Consensus and how the regime would rationalize its loss of hegemony. During that discussion, we coined a new term that I believe warrants detailed discussion here.

Political Dark Matter, a phrase we will examine in detail, is a shorthand for the post-hoc rationalization that elites use to explain why their rule is rejected. Fundamentally, our leaders are unable to accept responsibility for their actions, so they must create a phantom force (much like dark matter) to explain away their losses.

In any case, while speaking, we used a religious lens to examine the current crisis facing the West. L (I’m not typing out his name another 30 times to write this article) explained that cultural narratives, or civic religions as one might say, are born out of a time of crisis. This crisis creates both taboos and moral strictures, which can be seen as the gods and demons of the new faith.

In our society, the crisis and associated taboos are obvious. The current order, whether we choose to call it the Nuremberg Regime, the Empire of Lies, or the GAE, was born out of the fires of the Second World War. The ultimate demon is a certain Austrian painter, and the taboos are any form of nationalism, exclusivity, or inequality. These gods and demons are central figures in the myths that justify our regime’s existence.

For context, Gaetano Mosca, a 20th-century Italian elite theorist, developed the concept of the ‘Political Formula’ to describe the narrative that elites employ to justify their rule. In the classical world, this might be something as simple as ‘My dad is the sun god Ra, so I get to be in charge,’ but for our modern elites, it’s somewhat more complicated.

A political formula is a myth. It is an ultimate claim about the nature and source of authority that justifies a system of belief. In each case, there are leaders and followers (or priests and parishioners), whose relationship is justified by a central claim.

For the Regime, they justify their global rule by saying something like, ‘We saved you from the human incarnation of evil (a certain A. Hitler), and so we get to rule the world.’ We see the proof of this formula every time the Neocons want to gin up another war. ‘Saddam is basically Hitler, and we need to save the world,’ they said.

The national version of this formula is similar, but with enough essential differences to warrant discussion. On the domestic front, American elites paint the past as an age of unending misery for all of their client groups (women, homosexuals, and racial minorities) and cast themselves as courageous defenders of the downtrodden.

This formula is best exemplified in Joe Biden’s infamous 2012 remarks, where he told black Virginia voters that Mitt Romney (hardly the reincarnation of Stephen Duncan) would reinslave them. Biden, even then known for his gaffes, said, "[Romney] said in the first hundred days, he's going to let the big banks write their own rules — unchain Wall Street. They're going to put y'all back in chains." While the GOP roundly mocked Joe Biden-opolis, he was expressing the ruling formula of our elite elegantly.

In each case, the justification for the rule is a special dispensation from the god of the faith in question. Ultimately, at the basis of every ruling formula is a non-provable and irrational faith-based claim about authority. The only difference between our elite and the Sun Kings of old is that we, as moderns, feel the need to justify our rulers in a different way.

Our current order has endured for 80 years and remains incredibly powerful to this day. However, its domination is weakening. On the domestic front, belief in this faith is declining. With each subsequent generation, the strictures of this faith are seen as less and less sacred, and the founding myth becomes increasingly a part of ‘normal’ history.

We already see figures such as

The Martyr Made Substack

and

RealThomas777

attacking the roots of this myth, and their relative popularity indicates that revisionism is no longer a third rail.

However, the situation is even more pronounced on the global stage. Across the globe, nations on the fringes of the empire have begun to explore alternative options. As expressed by L, this reads something like, ” We don't want to be part of your civilization. We don't want to be part of your cult. We don't want this.” This is a rejection of the myth.

Some of these countries, such as North Korea and Iran, were never under control, but others, like Romania and Georgia, were once nominally under the influence of globalism before attempting to voluntarily exit.

This raises the question: How are our rulers responding to the rejection of their political formula? To put it simply, not well.

On an elementary level, there are two possible responses to the rejection of the central myth of the political formula. First, and far less likely, the ruler could reassess and either modify the existing formula or create a new one. The British elite is adept at this maneuver, and the Tory party, for example, has reinvented itself several times to survive in a new set of constraints.

On the other hand, a ruling elite can shift the blame elsewhere. This is the option our rulers have selected. Instead of modifying their political formula, they have decided to create a series of phantoms that explain why the myth is failing.

One of the most notable examples is the 2016 election of Donald Trump. The elite, faced with a surprising win for the Republican, chose to blame Hilary Clinton’s failure on ‘Russian Interference.’ This response makes DNC political strategists feel more comfortable, but it fails to address the fundamental flaw in the political formula. It does not explain why people are rejecting the central deity of this myth.

For context, dark matter is a hypothetical substance that, according to scientists, accounts for approximately 75% of the matter in the universe. Astronomers have observed that galaxies rotate faster than expected based solely on the visible matter. To balance their equations, they hypothesized the existence of dark matter.

Political dark matter operates in precisely the same way. Our rulers have a series of predictions based on their political formula. When these predictions fall short, an explanation is necessary, and as we have already discussed, taking responsibility is not an option.

Political dark matter is observable in any number of political formulas. In the case of feminism, ‘internalised misogyny” explains why women don’t act as the feminists expect them to. Institutionalized racism, similarly, is an invisible force that explains why 70 years of civil rights law and affirmative action have yet to erase group differences.

In each case, these invisible and unprovable force explains away the failure in the relevant political force, but it does not fix the core failure. This situation is the political equivalent of painting over rusted metal. Sure, it may help you move a used car, but it won’t address the underlying issue.

Because of the elite's belief that they represent the apogee of human progress, and that any rejection of their rule will involve a return to the ‘dark ages,’ it is especially difficult for them to cope with rejection. As I said in the podcast, “[Our elites don’t like] this idea that anyone can reject the … perfect realization of progressive values. Surely, no one would rationally desire to turn the tide back, [or to] turn back the clock to the Dark Ages.”

So, where does this leave us, you may be asking. Fundamentally, every political formula must establish a moral unity between the ruler and the ruled to function effectively. Fundamentally speaking, a state depends more on the threat of violence (the source of authority) than actual enacted violence. The prison guard may have a shotgun, but he can only shoot so many prisoners before he is overwhelmed.

Similarly, states require a certain level of support from the populace to function effectively. The police can’t arrest all 350 million people in the nation if we decided to speed all at once, but the general populace believes that if they speed, eventually they will be forced to pay a fine.

Likewise, the GAE cannot force every one of its colonies to comply all at once. Even with the most significant and most capable force the world has ever seen, this is not possible.

This differs from the consent-based morality found in the liberal tradition. According to John Milton, a famous author and close associate of Cromwell:

“The power of kings and magistrates is nothing else, but what is only derivative, transferred and committed to them in trust from the people, to the common good of them all, in whom the power yet remains fundamentally, and cannot be taken from them, without a violation of their natural birthright.”

In this quote, Milton is saying, in layman’s terms, that authority is only legitimate if the ruled approve of it. Essentially, you can only be in charge if I give my consent. This is a different argument from the one I am putting forth.

My point is that the ruled must believe their elite can make good on their political formula, whether that is “I am the god-king who sacrifices human hearts to ensure the continuance of the world,” or something as simple as “Obey or else.”

In conclusion, to quote L, “Political dark matter is…the liberal order's cope.” And while our enemies’ coping is not a sign that they are inevitably going to be replaced in a “1776 will commence again,” since it is a sign that their grip on power is weakening. The myth of the Nuremberg regime is weakening, and with it their authority, both on the domestic and world stage.

The lie can’t last forever.