Saturday, October 22, 2016

Fash the Nation Pulled From SoundCloud

So Fash the Nation was pulled off of SoundCloud for "dedicated" violations  of their terms of service. Luckily they are now up and running over at Zencast.

They are simply too hilarious to ignore.

Tuesday, October 18, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 4b, Exitocracy at the Federal Level

Go back to Chapter 4a.
Go to the Contents.

Chapter 4b, 
Exitocracy at the Federal Level

"As I was saying, she stumbled upon a solution whereby nearly 99% of all test subjects 
accepted the program as long as they were given a choice, even if they were only aware 
of the choice at a near-unconscious level. "
—The Architect, The Matrix Reloaded

"Democracy cultivates perceptual freedom through the cognitive trick of voting. You, having voted, feel responsible for your government. Since everyone else also voted you feel that they are oppressing you when they vote foolishly. This conceals the truth that democracy is always run for the benefit of elites. It directs your anger towards your neighbors and away from the people who are actually in charge. It allows them to conceal their influence. So perceptual freedom is also a democratic trick...

So here is the perverse thought. What if the problem is that the Matrix is not convincing enough?...What if the problem is not the Cathedral, but the glitchy nature of its simulation?"


To briefly recap; our plan call for the welfare state to be divided and delegated to approximately 3100 local districts that are run by local corporate systems accountable in elections every 5 years. These systems act as both political party, domestic law maker, domestic tax authority, administrative bureaucracy, and for-profit corporation with shareholders. They do not control law enforcement, the courts, road and infrastructure building (of interstate highways), or matters of foreign policy. They cannot have armies. The federal government does all matters related to foreign and military policy. The Defense Department, CIA, and State Department still exist. The federal government still runs the National Parks Service, but domestic authority has been almost entirely transferred to the Systems. States still perform exactly the same function they now perform, except that they have lost all federal funding. Any taxes that were collected within a particular State that were used for domestic matters have been abolished or refunded to the Systems in that state with the systems agreement. 

A new level of government—the Systems, exists as an intermediate stage between the federal and State governments. However, the borders of each System district are the same as county lines within states themselves.

Systems compete in multi-stage elections every five years. A multi-stage election consists of a series of choices, structured like a decision tree, that narrow down choices to ever fewer and fewer options. In the first election the first question on the ballot is "left or right?" In every subsequent election the first question is "Do you want to retain the system you have?" 60 % or more must say no in order for the incumbent to loose.

As a result, systems are ruled by the minority, not the majority. Migration should occur between systems as people move to their preferred form of government. Systems should begin instituting an invitation only program. A person can receive hundreds of invitations simultaneously through computerized personality testing. This has complicated internal trade matters a bit. Though there are barriers to moving people within the nation, there are no barriers to moving goods, as that remains a federal policy matter.

The federal government has strict capital requirements to prevent incompetent corporations from getting on the ballot. Systems must meet stringent licencing requirements to ensure solvency. There are three levels; level 1, the foundation or federal level, level 2, the governance marketplace (systems), and level 3, the free market.

But this does not answer a crucial question, namely; what is the enforcement mechanism for this? And how are things structured at the federal level? We will answer that now. Depending on the response I get to this write up I may have not one, but two methods for federal design. Here we will discuss the first possible design.

Modified Neocameralism

The Stocks of a Sovereign Cameralist State

In the conventional neocameral program the state is a corporation with transferable shares. Shares are perfectly formalized with actual power so that those with influence in the society also have a share in its government. The shares pay a divided out of the profits from the government. The state is a joint stock company with a CEO, and a board of directors composed of directors elected by voting shareholders. Military control is achieved though cryptographic weapons locks.

Shares also create an incentive for proper fiscal management.

In my proposed system, at the district (county) level, every microstate works just like this. Except there is no military at the local level and thus no weapons locks. Also, the corporation has to get reelected every five years. But since incumbents tend always to win anyway, and since migration attracts more people to each state that share its philosophy—thus reinforcing its control, and since the reelection is not structured like the first election that brought them to power, getting the boot is next to impossible unless they really screw up. If they refuse to leave, the federal government sends national guardsmen in to assist them.

But this is not how things work at the federal level. At the federal level the state is also a corporation with transferable shares. The shares pay a divided out of the profits from the governments revenue. The state is a joint stock company with an Emperor, and a Council composed of directors elected by voting shareholders. Military control may be achieved partially through cryptographic weapons locks.

But the number of shares outstanding is constantly being increased by the Emperor deliberately in order to dilute the control of shareholders over the government. Rather than wait for democratizing coalitions that buy up shares in the name of the people, the Emperor takes proactive measures to relentlessly increase the number of shares outstanding. This year there may be a million shares, next year two million, the year after that three.

At first look "share inflation" may seem like a horribly abysmal bastardization of the Moldbug dream. Say "inflation" with a positive tone of voice to a libertarian and he sours on whatever you say afterward. But this is of shares and not money. The national currency remains rock solid.

Share inflation performs a number of crucial functions. First, it forces the elite to compete for the favor of the Emperor. This recreates "royal court politics" in a formalized fashion. It prevents palace intrigue by making everyone's status known on a publicly available ledger. The more stock you own the more important you are. If you buy enough stock you get time to speak to the Emperor, and the more stock you own the more time you get. 

Second, it allows the emperor to pit the nobility against each other by offering discounts to weaker parties; "divide and rule." If one person owns too many shares his position is weakened by offering shares to his adversaries at a discount. Similarly, share prices for him are raised, potentially to astronomical levels. Everyone is kept down this way through price discrimination. 

Third, it prevents democratization. The number of shares is constantly increasing, their value constantly decreasing, and their dividend constantly decreasing. Because the number of shares outstanding is constantly increasing, only people who can relentlessly shovel money at the government gain power.

Fourth, what people are willing to pay tells you how weak they are and what they care about. It provides the political equivalent of market feedback to the Emperor about the relative power of the nobles. This prevents civil war by showing the emperor who is strong enough to threaten him. Anyone who is not purchasing shares or is using proxies to make straw purchases in reveling their intent. Using his Royal Financial Intelligence Service (RFIS) he can monitor their behavior and guess their intentions. He can also know who is too strong in advance. The whole point is to get everyone to write down their financial positions in electronic ledgers so that a persons agenda can be discovered by looking at their financials. Where is this man putting his money? What positions is he betting on? How does he profit? What costs him money? The state knows your agenda by formalizing all corruption, bribery, side payments, in order to discover everything about you. It discovers your incentives. 

None of this changes your tax bill. If your taxes are ten million then that is what you own. But you may buy shares in lieu of paying taxes. Since every share entitles you to a vote it is always in your interest to offset your entire tax bill with shares purchased every year. Thus, revenue and voting are unified. Unless the Emperor is practicing price discrimination against you (which only happens to the wealthy) then the cost of a share is whatever the market will bear.

Price discrimination occurs in taxation too. Powerful potential adversaries are taxed at higher rates than weak ones. Everyone is reduced to the same general level of "petite" aristocracy. The globalist rich are made equally "petty" to keep them down. Anti-trust legislation is used to break up conglomerates that are too large and powerful.

So the share purchase system is a divide and conquer system.

We also see that the System of systems is divide and conquer. In fact we see that is is a masterful way of restructuring divide and conquer as a choice from below rather than an imposition from above. The System of system divides the state while indulging the populations desire for self-expression in politics. It makes the political commons propertarian in nature. It gives the people the vote in a limited way. It allows them to throw out an oppressive government or vote with their feet by moving to a different society. It uses internal migration to enforce rights locally. It controls immigration both internally and externally from below rather than above. It gives everyone their own preferred ideology in practice. It eliminates the moral legitimacy of political dissent by providing everyone with their preferred system of government.

And regardless of who profits and has power at the local level the Emperor always gets his cut.  

This is important because you want your sovereign to have multiple sources of income so that no House of Lords can hold funding hostage and demand democratization. The Emperor collects corporate taxes and issues shares. He collects system taxes on each system. He collects licencing fees for the systems. And his RFIS bureaucracy digs into everyone's financials to discover everything about them. Financial intelligence is the preferred intelligence. 

All laws flow from the Emperors desk downward. No private individual may submit legislation. You may petition the Emperor for a redress of grievances. Surveys are also conducted.

The Supreme Court is appointed directly by his majesty. There is an Imperial Council. Like a Board of Directors, it is composed of Directors / Council Members elected by shareholders. It is a rubber stamping body that provides feedback, and has about three to five-hundred members. It may refuse to ratify legislation. The Emperor may make law without its consent. But he normally won't because it is preferable to enlist the support of the nobility. Submitting legislation to the Council also provides necessary feedback to His Majesty for proper governance.

The Bond Structure of a Sovereign Cameralist State

Modified neocameralism uses its own stock insurance to keep parasites in line and fighting each other in order to safeguard a commons. But it also uses it's debts to incentivize social investment. Unlike in the corporate world, in the neocameral state bond holders rights come before shareholder dividends. This will make sense in a second. In government parasites are inescapable, and so a method for controlling them is necessary. I

n regards to the issuance of shares, this modified form preserves a perfect mapping of social control with share ownership for the wealthy only, but adds a method of balancing these interests against each other with price discrimination and set tax bills that are offset by stock purchase. I will let you be the judge if this is better or worse than the original Moldbugian design. It trades precise formalism (which may be impossible), for less precisely mapped formalism but more secure power. Its metric is dedication to power rather than precise influence. Because obviously only the most dedicated and wealthy players will have influence.

Just like it has stock it has bonds. But it does not simply issue debt certificates in the conventional manner. That would create a perverse incentive because debt holders then lobby the government to increase its debts. Instead, the state packages a financial instrument against its own liabilities, which only pays out if the liability is reduced. Let us say the liability is;
"too much crime in x neighborhood."
When crime is successfully reduced the bond holders receive a payout of the savings to society as a result of reducing the liability. The money for the payout comes from a tax on groups that profit at the expense of society, so that parasites are forced to pay to have their own incentives restructured.

There are whole series of these types of bonds for dozens or even hundreds of different metrics of success. The reason for this configuration is to align all the interests of the market with the state. Together, all of the bonds constitute the well-being market, and serve as a proxy for the Emperors orders in the economy. Secure power is never as secure as it would like to be. Outside actors are always trying to interfere. Bureaucracies are always trying to usurp command, and outside agents are always trying to corrupt the state. To align their interests, both the market and the top managers of every agency are paid in well-being bonds. An agency head can expect to draw a small salary plus a large commission for successful management. His pay consists of salary plus well-being bonds related to his agency. If, for example, he is a sheriff, then he is given crime reduction bonds, if a teacher, educational success bonds, etc. A large portion of his pay is simply how well he does his job.

This is done not just to agency heads, but to everyone who profits in anyway that is contrary to national success.

First method: (A payoff that pays a percentage at maturity if, and only if, a condition of success is met.

Here are some other ways.

Create a metric for measuring failure. Quantify that failure in monetary terms to the nation. Find out who bears the cost of the failure. Tax the people who profit from the failure at close to the level of profit they make. Give them the power to offset their taxes by purchasing a bond whose rate of return is pegged to the success of a project.

For example; news media companies profit from race riots. So they are taxed at 100 percent for all profits made from increased viewership during a riot. The state then hands them well-being bonds which only pay a return on investment if the level of racial tensions decrease according to a predefined metric.

Second example; academics often virtue signal against the state and work to destroy order. Harmful academic departments are collectively taxed at high rate. They are then handed well-being bonds that only pay an ROI when social stability is measured to increase in their community. College professors are looked at as advisers to the community. It is their job to invent the solutions to societies problems. If society has problem it is their fault. So they are taxed and paid more or less depending on whether their immediate communities are getting better or worse.

The formula is simple;
Step 1. Identify parasitical agents.
Step 2. Tax their parasitical behavior at a high rate.
Step 3. Use the tax money to build a bond that pays only for good behavior.
Step 4. Create a trust for the parasitical agent composed of nothing but these bonds.
Step 5. Pay them out of the trust so that the majority of their income now comes from good behavior that is aligned with His Majesty's Orders.

There are other methods. One may simply empower a bureaucracy to fix a problem. The agency heads and top managers are then paid a percentage of the ROI of the success of their own agency in fixing the problem. They are empowered with mission orders, not procedural orders. They then figure out the method they will use to get it done. This prevents Conquests Law from coming into effect by forcing all agency top employees to be aligned with mission orders.

Here are some possible metrics for social success. 

Percent white birth rates above break-even.
Percent criminal birth rates below break-even.
Economic return on investment of immigrants minus tax liability of immigrants.
Liability reduction through deportation of criminals.
Reduction in cost of living.
Affordability of food.
Affordability of minor surgeries in the free market.
Affordability  of major surgeries in the free market.
Emergency room wait times by county, (pays more for less).
Population density in a given district divided by number of public transportation lines running every 10 minutes or less in that district.
Increase of average American wage for bottom 80 % of American.
Decrease in addiction rate.
Decrease in early death rate.
Small business creation rate.
Small business 5 year success rate.
Veteran lifespan.
Decrease in Veteran Waiting Times.
Success of veteran care divided by cost.
Percent of population rating themselves as "happy."
Percent of sex criminals who don't re-offend.
Fitness levels of population (percent not obese).
Happiness level of stay-at-home mothers.
Percent who claim to have "adequate healthcare."

In effect, the market puts pressure on the bureaucracy to implement the Emperors orders. The emperor insures compliance with his orders by determining the exact metric to measure success. This aligns all agencies with his metric. The point is to co-opt all possible opposition and align its interests with the state. This prevents infighting, guarantees a loyal base of support, and creates a counter-lobby to the parasites that normally try to dominate a government. Parasites are always drawn to the state. Making societal success payoff for millions of investors, (and institutional investors) creates a powerful lobby that serves as an opposition to parasitical interest. The rent-seekers are kept fighting each other with share inflation. The bond holders profit from opposing the rent-seekers. All incentives are aligned with the general well-being of the entire nation. Doing the right thing is made profitable in government too—not just the free market.

Notice that this can also be done in a democracy.

Parasitism is kept down and investment is kept up. It is not enough to control corruption. You must engineer a force of anti-corruption.

In Summary

The System of systems keeps the locals in line by structuring divide and conquer as a "choice" of ideologies. They are allowed limited self-government. The right of exit keeps them free, and elections allow them to throw out abusive private governments. The Emperor does not care what system they choose because he profits no matter who is in change. A limited number of communist systems are allowed, (despite the fact they will fail) to "drain the poison" of leftism from the rest of the system. This is just regarded as the cost of doing business. These communist systems are not undermined. Communist systems are allowed to fail on their own to prove a point to each new generation at a rate of about one every twenty years. They also serve the function of IQ shredding leftists.

Share inflation, combined with anti-trust actions, keeps the parasitical globalist elites fighting each other, and keeps them all equally small.

The well-being market aligns institutions that would normally work at cross purposes to His Majesty with his orders. This is how the civil service, academics, and media are made to serve the general good or the nation in accordance with the Emperors will.

The whole point is to create a dynamic stability. The Emperor creates order through a monopolization on violence that allows political experimentation to take place within a governance marketplace. Systems innovate in the fields of law, social technology, policy, ideology, payment, and taxation structures.

Go back to Chapter 4a.
Go to the Contents.

Monday, October 17, 2016

When Propaganda Works, a Lesson for the Alt-right

Have you ever wondered why the public is so supportive of America's troops? After all, during the
Vietnam war left-wing activists threw eggs at American soldiers returning from combat. What changed?

Propaganda. Or as Reactionary Future likes to reminds us, ideology is downstream from power.

Recalling the horrible treatment of vets during and after the Vietnam War President Bush, (W.) way back in 2004 decided that that was not going to happen on his watch, so he created the America Supports You Program, which was basically a program to enlist the volk in helping the troops. Of course it also had a massive propaganda component. Today, instead of getting eggs thrown at them by liberals they receive hand shakes and support from the public. Back when I was in the Air Force a man came up to me, (while I was in uniform traveling) and insisted on giving me a twenty dollar bill—which I politely accepted with gratitude. He did this in front of my family.

Which is a hell of a lot better than eggs.

The point of all of this is that propaganda can work. The America Supports You Program appealed to peoples emotions—not logic. It said "support the troops," not "support the war." It has been amazingly successful and the whole culture around the military has changed. This is important because if the alt-right is going to try to reverse decline it is going to need a hell of a lot of effective propaganda.

Remember fam, APPEAL TO EMOTIONS, NOT LOGIC. Because logic is really just an attempt to justify emotions for most people.

Sunday, October 16, 2016

Unnecessary Female Employment

Motives of Economists

Well-educated properly trained economists kindly inform us that excessive female university education and competitive professional employment against male peers is absolutely essential to economic growth in all societies everywhere on earth—no exceptions..

This position has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that the government is almost solely responsible for employment of all economists everywhere on earth, and all governments in western democracies serve a globalist agenda that wants the cheapest labor everywhere, and all liberal political parties support mass importation of hostile populations to vote against their own native whites—no relation at all.

Oh no. The fact that all well-educated economists everywhere support these exact policies is in no way correlated to their employers interests. And the fact that all Austrian economists who disagree with this position are somehow always unemployed is also entirely coincidental either.

Because somehow all economists everywhere are immune to all incentives all the time, in complete contradiction to all economic theory as understood by those same well-educated properly trained economists.

And these well-educated properly trained kindly economists who have only your best interests at heart, who completely coincidentally support exactly the policies that favor their employers interests, advise you with complete sincerity that if women do not work outside the home the American economy will collapse.

And of course the demographic catastrophe that this will cause can only be solved with the mass importation of hostile populations, because ya know, racism or something, or maybe lower wages.

Half the Truth

If women work in the home rather than outside it, supply will fall and wages will rise.

As a consequence unemployment will rise in industries that require lower cost labor costs.

But this is a one-sided story. What's the other side?

It assumes the US continues to purse job creation through low labor costs. All jobs are not created equal. An increase in a nations labor costs results in a decrease in low-skilled employment. But, without corrupt environmental regulations and unnecessary licensing requirements, it should also result in an increase in highly skilled employment as industries are forced to shift their techniques of craft and service to afford higher cost labor. This is especially true in a nation with a vast oversupply of highly educated and trained workers, assuming all that extra education bought anything other than indoctrination.

Meaning that a nation with overeducated workers will be able to afford to pay them more by shifting to more productive industries. Which means that women could leave the workplace without harming competitiveness. Which means that female "unemployment" is not a problem if voluntary. Which means that the only reason women must work is to depress wages, enrich the elite, suppress birth rates, and have a political justification for importing immigrants future Democrats who will vote globalist.

And America is one such highly trained country because those same globalists have demanded over-education of workers in order to lower their labor costs, keeping women in college during their fertile years to raise globalists profits and saddling these women with enormous debts to guarantee their wage slavery and contempt towards free markets, and thus, their leftist voting habits.

And of course they pay for their own indoctrination so the Democrats don't have to.

But shifting to more productive industries would involve reducing the rent-seeking corruption that keeps the trust fund children of global liberal elites employed in bogus parasitical make-work jobs virtue signaling their superiority to the great unwashed masses in poetry readings, hug fests, NPR specials, and on therapy couches. They are special, and you must respect their safe space. Because even parasites need to feel good about themselves.


Even more cynicism.

You must be educated goy. It's the current year. WE WHO ARE SUPERIOR TO YOU, (and contribute nothing), will help you see the wisdom of sustainability, hybrid cars, recycling, and everything else that keeps us employed at your expense.

DON'T BE RACIST GOY. Embrace diversity. We care about your world. We're not monsters. Experiment with your sexuality. Get a few masters degrees. Have no white children. Commit adultery—with a black man. Share your wife goy. Relax and smoke pot. Go on welfare. Get a dog instead of a child. Fuck Muslim men. Get a few diseases. Watch interracial cuck porn. Become a lesbian. It's not white genocide if you are destroyed, just deconstructing whiteness. Decolonize science. Become aware of your privilege.

x is too white.
solve for x.


x has power we don't control.
destroy x.

And all of this is in no way motivated purely by money, and our obsession with equality is not about the joy of degrading you, or the quest to lower everyone to the same abject slavery, no, it's about educating you in your privilege goy.

Saturday, October 15, 2016

Sexual Apartheid


If a female boss hits on a male subordinate that is not considered sexual harassment. The man may bring an accusation, but no one will believe him. She is much less likely to be fired. Eventually, a few months later, he will be fired because of his "performance."

If a gay man hits on a straight man this is not considered sexual harassment. Ever.

If a "straight" man in the military hits on another straight man—this is considered sexual harassment, though the rules are rarely enforced.

If a straight acting straight or bisexual man hits on a woman this IS considered sexual harassment. If she even THINKS she has been harassed then clearly she has—even if she clearly projecting her own perversions.

If he acts like a fag, he cannot be guilty unless he claims he is straight.

If a white man is accused of sexual harassment he is guilty. ALWAYS.

If a black man is accused of sexual harassment he is given the benefit of a doubt. If the woman he is accused of harassing is white, they may fire her instead of him. Especially if he cries racism.

Enforcement Mechanism

In sexual harassment, the informal and private nature of enforcement makes it subject to cultural biases. Business enforce sexual harassment law in America—not the state. The left controls the culture. Thus, the left controls the biases. Because it does not go through the courts the Equal Protection Clause does not apply. Because it does not go through the courts, it is not technically "censorship," either. By criminalizing the business and not the individual, the business is made into an enforcement agent of the state. Resentment is transferred onto capitalism instead of its proper location; the government.

Asian men are "white" by default in the scheme because they prosper. Conservative women are also "white" since the system will believe an accusation against a conservative woman, but not a liberal one. "White" is thus second class.

As the left reminds us, law is not just what is written; it is the vast informal enforcement actions that constitute discrimination. When a black man is pulled over for a suspicion that would never cause a white man to be pulled over, the left informs us that we should feel guilty, as we whom have white skin are all "oppressors." When law targets a white male that is viewed as justice. When it targets a black male that is considered injustice.

On this account, white males have infinite moral agency while people of color have none. This proves we are equal they say. Asians are "white" when it hurts white males. Asians are not "white" when it hurts white males. They are successful and so more white than nonwhite. This also proves somehow that we are all equal. All of this is also true with Jews.

Getting to the Point

It will never work. Even the attempt to create equality only results in inequalities in the opposite direction. Wherever multiple races are constituted in a society, sexual apartheid must occur to someone. Wherever divided power is present, there must be an inner and outer party—Democrats and Republicans. Then there will be more and less rights.

Name a single year in American history when everyone had equal rights. You cannot. Perceptual freedom creates the illusion of equality by substituting the normative for the positive, ought for is, prescriptive for descriptive, illusion for reality. There is no ought. There is only what is. Someone will always be above and someone below. If you are not above you are below.

Wednesday, October 12, 2016

Democracy Isn't the Problem, Egalitarianism Is

Normally I would agree. However, the criticism that Mark Citadel makes is not completely specific in nature. It misses the boat. It is not democracy which is the problem. It is the fact that anyone else except white males is allowed to vote.

Simply put; democracy is the white males ethnic form of government, and it only works when white males are in charge. It was designed by white male founding fathers, for white males, by white males. Because in a democracy where only white men can vote, the above statement is actually false. White males are sufficiently equal in moral agency, talents and care, for white male civilization to do democracy effectively. We are equal enough for it to work, but only when we do it. Democracy is a disaster when the vote is given to women or minorities. Look at this other image;

Now look at the reverse if only women voted;

I will say it again; democracy is the white mans ethnic form of government. As far as I can tell there are three great forms of government on the Earth; western democracy, middle-eastern theocracy, and Asian bureaucratic authoritarianism. Democracy is older than you know. The Icelandic Althing goes back to 930 AD. The Medieval period had democracy too. This is why NRx representations of an era before democracy—of a glorious dark age of monarchy, are somewhat spurious. There never really was such a thing in the west—only ages that were more monarchy than democracy, or more democracy than monarchy. 

So what changed to make democracy destructive?


See the timeline for this change.

Now there are many possible reasons that may have caused this destructive pattern of voting among the female sex. The one that I have been fond of is birth control. But that came out in the 60's, and women started gaining the right to vote even earlier than that. We may say that it was the influence of leftism, communism, or feminism, or a combination of these that caused the situation. Or, we may go an entirely different route and say that the problem is not that women were given the right to vote, but that birth control has freed them from the need to behave responsibly where sex is concerned—and that this, not suffrage itself, causes them to behave in a parasitical mode towards the state. After all, married women are more conservative than single ones, and single women are the most liberal.

And there is no real problem in wealth transfer from men to women. The problem is that this wealth transfer now happens outside the confines of marriage, with white males paying white females to get knocked up by low status males outside their own genetics—effectively cuckolding them with the state, and substituting an artificial relationship for a natural one.

So this is the final problem with democracy; not that it is the problem per say, but that the modern world, for whatever reason, cannot allow the vote to be limited only to white males. This is where the neocameral option comes in, since corporate shares are transferable, and serve as a much more effective proxy for responsible people than voting. Stocks can be bought. Only people with an investment in the state and a long-term outlook will tend to buy them. Moreover, you must have money to make the purchase, and women produce and earn less than men. Thus, stock forms an effective barrier to entry to all forms of irresponsible people.


Monday, October 10, 2016

The Private Relationship Insurance Contract | Social Technology No. 3

The feminist left doesn't like marriage and has endeavored to undermine it. They have mostly succeeded. Men don't want to get married because marriage is a guarantee of wealth transfer with no corresponding guarantee of sex or wifely obligation. Since a woman has an incentive to walk away, and a man has an incentive to stay, the effect is to corrupt the very nature of the relationship.

Women cannot respect week men and don't put out for them. By paying women in the divorce every man is weakened and looses respect in the eyes of his wife. Moreover, because she knows he is week she mistreats him, which dramatically raises the divorce rate, since the biggest predictor of divorce is contempt of one partner toward the other.

The result is that the long arm of the state reaches into the bedrooms of people and alters the nature of their relationships without them even realizing it. Then marriage, like capitalism, get blamed by people for the actions of the state corrupting it, since cognitive misers never place the blame in the correct location, preferring to blame the effect, (marriage), rather than the cause, (state incentives corrupting marriage).

Liberals are so trapped in their normative childish delusion of how they think the world ought to work that they either do not see the consequences of their actions, or do not care.

"The universe must be made moral !," said every ovenable fanatic ever.

In a just world, having power and also putting morality above reality should earn a man the death penalty.

Here at NRx we are constantly searching for exit tech. The blockchain promises to create a method for decentralized uncensorable private contracts. These could be especially uncensorable if the contract is issued by a company in a foreign country. So the question becomes; how do you structure an enforceable marriage contract without local courts?

Ultimately marriage incentives are financial, so that helps.

One method is like insurance. The couple sign the contract. In the advent of divorce the husband and wife both pay, oh say, $ 20,000 dollars. The wife gets $ 167 dollars as a monthly payout for each month she is married. The insurance company only looses money if they both make it to the 20 year mark, because 167 per month x 12 months per year x 20 years = about 40k, which it what the couple would pay for getting divorced, (2 people x 20k).

Because a percentage of couples get divorced in any given year the insurance company always makes money collecting divorce debts. The divorced people subsidized the married ones.

There are two potential problems with this method. One, is that it may incentivize the marriage agency to want couples to get divorced. The second is that it relies on debt enforcement in the U.S. through local courts.

A second method is to structure it like an annuity. The couple makes monthly payments into the marriage contract. The contract builds up value and after a certain number of years the wife is awarded a payout in the form of either cash or benefits, (say child care benefits). Marriage is then an investment from her perspective. Since the payout is structured on a time basis there is no incentive for divorce, though a woman may wait until the payout date to get divorced. The money can also be rolled over into a new policy which builds even more value. This also has the benefit of being a financial product that could be sold through the blockchain from overseas, since no debt enforcement is required.

A third method is not to pay the woman but her family, father, or social circle. That way they have an investment in her marriage. The policy could build up a store of value that pays the female friends of the woman after a certain date. Thus, the female friends have an incentive to behave themselves and be supportive of her. This is also an insurance against adultery by other women with her husband.

Another method is to give custody to the father (husband) and debt to the mother (wife) in the advent of divorce. This may seem counterintuitive. But generally the husband does not want custody and the wife does not want to loose money. This works precisely because it is the opposite of what the American family court system would do. Unlike the current court system, this divorce is a penalty for both spouses. The couple can rescind a portion of the wife's debt by getting remarried. This suffers from the flaw that it involves the family court system, or at least a private arbiter, and the U.S. court system could undermine it with corruption.

Maybe the arbiter could himself be private and the police could be privateers.

Of course, other marriage methods may be done, and all methods may be combined with one another.

Also, the more forms of property are on the blockchain the more enforceable a marriage contract can become as other forms of property are linked to it. See this list for an understanding of how extensive it could be. It begins to take on the form of completely private government.

And so we see that some marriage contracts might be enforceable even without government involvement by simply structuring it all as a financial product.

Saturday, October 8, 2016

Moldbug Quote No. 1

"Social justice sounds very nice. But there are three problems with it."
"One is that many of these nice things are not directly comparable. If I get an apple and you get an orange, are we equal? One could debate the subject - with Glocks, perhaps."
"Two is that even if everyone starts with equal everything, people being different, having different needs and skills and so on, and the concept of ownership implying that if you own something you can give it to someone else, all is not likely to stay equal. In fact, it's basically impossible to combine a system in which agreements stay agreed with one in which equality stays equal."
"This tells us that if we try to enforce permanent equality, we can probably expect permanent violence. I am not a big fan of "empirical evidence," but I think this prediction corresponds pretty well to reality."
—Mencius Moldbug, A formalist manifesto 

Monday, October 3, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 4a, Exitocracy

Murray Rothbard, because neocameralism without the spirit of libertarianism is pointless.

Chapter 4a

Note: the terms System of systems,
Third Form Democracy, and exitocracy,
may be used interchangeably. They
refer to different aspects of the
same thing.

2nd Note: I will probally get a lot of grief
for this, but I ask that you consider it honestly.

Neoreaction Has Gotten Many Things Wrong,
Especially the HRx Variant

First, let us address that part of the reactoshpere that rejects materialism.

Materialism gets a bad rap. It is constantly polluted with pseudo-religious ideas by leftists, communists, etc. Then it is blamed for the horrible results by conservatives who rebel against physical explanations. The trick is to never pollute your materialism with notions of free will, genetics, "rising above," choice, or "nurture" in the nature vs nurture debate. Humans are MEAT ROBOTS. Free will in an illusion. "Nurture" is actually caused by the genetics of those around you, etc.

Annihilate cult religious notions from your physical explanations and you won't get bloody mountains of corpses in communist revolutions. Materialism is blamed for the results of human religious impulses in the same way that Moldbug blames democracy for being corrupted by centralized power. This is blaming the recipient for the poison given to him. The recommended solution to this by HRx types is more of the poisons of religion, anti-capitalism, and monarchy. "A is corrupted by B, therefore B is better" is a really truly horrible argument, but most reactionary thought is based on it. If you study the collapse of the Roman Empire you find that it slowly destroyed itself through a parasitical mismanagement of its own economy. It basically collapsed into communism under an unsecure power struggle. Feudalism was the decayed arrangement that evolved out of the ashes of Roman capitalism. It was the result of employees being forcibly attached to their professions. Communism created feudalism in Rome. See this excellent video for an explanation.

All that I am saying in this regard is that materialism plus religious dogma gives you communism, and a number of other horrors, while materialism, stripped of cult ideas, simply produces science and technology. Materialism in an of itself is just physical-ism. It is the discovery of physical explanations for things. It is only when it is corrupted with cultish notions that it becomes evil. There is no basis in science for equality, universalism, or belief that the present is always morally superior to the past. These are religious corruptions of science.

Perhaps I should simply avoid using this term altogether, but I believe that looking for an explanation for how the world works outside of physical processes is lazy thinking. Ultimately, even notions of free will will yield to behavioral genetics as more and more genes that code for behavior are discovered.

Now let me address the HRx argument that asserts that "stability" is a source of legitimacy.

Stability is not actually a good argument for a political system. It can just as easily be based on being at the lowest possible level your society can be. Capitalism, republicanism, and atheism are often good in spite of their destabilizing effects. This blog is probably the only neoreactionary blog that does not reject imperium in imperio, aka, republicanism, though I once heard Jim express some doubts on Moldbug too. Reactionary Futures entire site is dedicated to accusing people of being insufficiently absolutist. He thinks we are all republicans.

Nick Land himself does not assert an absolute injunction against divided power.
"Clearly, monarchism represents a definitive abandonment of this constitutional ambition. It contends that, since sovereignty cannot be effectively or permanently dismantled, rational attention is better focused upon its concentrated expression. The monarchist case is able to draw great sustenance from the manifest degeneration of republican constitutionalism — most obviously within the United States of America — where its most radically deteriorated possibility, mass democracy, betrays a scarcely contestable inferiority to monarchical government in each day’s news headlines. It needs to be emphasized at this point that any constitutional republicanism which is less antidemocratic than absolute monarchy is, in that regard, contemptible. Neoreaction is essentially antidemocratic, but only hypothetically monarchist."
So he objects to democracy per say, but not divided power.

My objections to centralization of power are several. But first let me say that the purpose of this blog is to present the republican alternative, to resolve the problems inherent with divided power by creating another system of divided power—NOT by running to the arms of monarchy. If history is any indication it will be my System of systems that wins, or something like it.

Now let me state my objections to unified power;

1. Demotism is also Conserved
Soverignty is conserved? So what. Demotism is also conserved. We live in the era of mass communication. Once the printing press was invented, it became possible for elites to use the mass of cognitive misers as weapons against each other. This technique is remarkably successful, and Gnon has smiled on it. It works. End of discussion. There is no putting the demotist genie back in the bottle. You must control what the mass of idiots think, whether you use propaganda, "education," reeducation camps, racist nationalist fever (like the Chinese), or the cognitive trick of democracy, you must have some way of making the great mass of idiots get on board with your government. It reduces security costs, and your enemies will use it against you if you don't use it first.

2. Secure Power is an Illusion
I am an architect. In architecture there is always a temptation to throw the whole design out and start fresh. This never works. Radical change always produces radically unintended consequences. It is always smarter to use a known template with predictable results. You get fewer side effects that way. Besides, if you study actual monarchies you come to the realization that secure power does not exist. Nor will it ever. Read The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire, or read Bloody Shovels study of Chinese imperial monarchy. I have read the second reference and the first volume of the first reference. Spandrell believes, and I agree, that secure power is impossible. Since I think like an architect, I am always looking for ways to rearrange an existing system rather than start fresh. Starting over just means creating a whole new pile of side effects that have to be worked out anyway. It actually just wastes time to start over. The best designs are borne out of the lessons of the previous design. See this.

3. Monarchy is Lazy Design
You cannot anticipate the effects of a design if you start from scratch. The factors you are changing multiply against each other to exponential complexity. Since no one can anticipate the results, no one can critique your work. Starting from scratch appeals to people precisely because no one can say if the project will succeed. Bad design can be more effectively hidden that way. This is the real reason NRx loves monarchy. It conceals bad design with platitudes about, "it worked before so it will work again." Actually, it never worked. Again, go read Bloody Shovel if you disagree, or HODFORE. There has never been an absolutist system in the history of mankind. Indeed, state religions are the earliest examples of government attempts to gain the demotist support of the people through indoctrination. Emperor worship is demotist.

4. Nukes are an Issue.
Nuclear bombs prevented democracy from destroying itself. Because of nukes, it is now possible to have a militarily secure city state. Also because of nukes, setting up a monarchy through civil war would be a disaster. Be realistic. If the US regime fails, YOU DIE FROM RADIATION BURNS. Accelerationism is begging for crispy critters. Collapse is not an option. Grow up. You need the cathedral to survive at least as long as you do.

5. NRx will be Made Obsolete
The bomb is an example of technology not just masking a social problem, but eliminating it. Gene editing techniques may do for the cathedral what the bomb did for demotism. If minority groups really can be made to perform as well as whites in areas like, test scores, lack of crime, productivity, etc., then there is absolutely no reason for the cathedral to come to terms with reality. CRISPR may make both the cathedral and Alt-right/NRx obsolete before they succeed in their project. When "throwing cars" "leaping over houses" and, "children doing calculus in their heads," are high school sporting events, notions of equality may die? How does equality survive in a world with designer babies? How does NRx stay relevant when you can design moral humans? Who needs traditions when babies come from the factory genetically programmed to be moral? Why deport minorities when they have been genetically modified to be non-violent? Why care about low trust communities, when all communities are high trust because the people in them are designed to be trusting?

You have not considered the full degree to which genetic modification will make the entire playing field of NRx and its enemies obsolete.

6. It is Not a Single Monolithic Thing
We realize that there is not democracy, but democracies (plural). That is, there is direct democracy, military democracy, republican democracy, illiberal democracy, and exitocracy, (my creation). Just like there are capitalism(s). There are many different types of system and they don't all do the same thing. We'll get to types of capitalism later.

7. Reforming the cathedral is not impossible. As I have already proven in previous chapters, the cathedral obeys incentives. Controlling those incentives controls the cathedral. If you missed those chapters or skim read them then you missed the opportunity to learn how to control it. The purpose of this blog is to accomplish cathedral reform. If you do not understand this, go back and read the previous chapters that you skipped.

For now we are working out a new type of democracy, one that combines Voice with Exit. Every normie that I have talked to finds the System of systems threatening—even to the point of uncontrollable hysteria. I find this promising to say the least.

Due to a Lack of Nuance,
Moldbug Misdiagnosed the Cause of the Cathedral

The actual cause of the Cathedral is compromise in an unsecure power structure, not the nature of unsecure power itself. COMPROMISE, not imperium in imperio, is the actual cause of left-wing power. As Land would say; 
"The left thrives on dialectics, the right perishes through them." — TDE4C
 But this is too vague and general. Specificity matters. Why does the right lose through agreement with the left? Because the loser must live in the winners house under the winners rules. It is true that unsecure power tends to breed compromise as a result of a majoritarian system. Compromise is the first type of method (a) for dealing with an unsecure power system. But there are three other alternatives to compromise, those being (b) dictatorship, (c) separation in physical space, or (d), full consensus. All reactionary thought is dedicated to option (b), or a from of it, since option (c) has been prohibited since the Civil War, and since full consensus raises the cost of bargaining prohibitively high. Though, this last method was preferred by James M. Buchanan in The Calculus of Consent. This is because no one has invented a safe non-violent method for achieving option (c) — separation. But a third form of democracy, one that is neither direct democracy or representative democracy is possible, one we call exitocracy, and it is built on what we will call the "multi-part election."

Basically, compromise makes the loser of the fight accept the moral legitimacy of the winner. This is the actual cause of the tyranny of the left. Yes, it is true that imperium in imperio causes power to fight itself, and that produces all kinds of side effects, but they are only fighting so that one can be forced to compromise, and be ruled under the thumb of the other. If the outcome of every fight was a separation it would produce a different society.

How Multi-Part Elections End Compromise;
an Invention

Formalism ends violence by making the outcome of a dispute known. Another way of saying this is that a process is formalized when violence is eliminated through a rule based mechanism that turns it into a game or contract of sorts. A multi-part election is the formalism of actual civil war where separation would normally be the outcome. Multi-part elections formalize secession.  

The multi-part election works as follows. First a voter is asked, "do you want a left wing or right wing system?" Let us say a plurality or more chooses the right in a particular system district. County lines are identical to system district lines for systems, so in effect systems compete in county elections. Next the voter is asked, "within the right-wing category, "do you want subcategory (a) or subcategory (b)?" Let us say they chose subcategory (b). Then they are asked, "within subcategory (b) which system do you want? Nationalism or libertarianism?"

Now do you see how this differs from a typical election? In our first past the post system you get a two party system with compromise. In a European multiparty system you also get compromise in the form of coalitions of parties ruling in the majority. But in a multi-part System of systems your political party is your political, social and economic system. It is also your domestic law making body, and your tax collector for all domestic related taxes. It is a package deal. And it is controlled not by a majority operating under compromise, but the largest cohesive minority that can dominate a district. It is minority rule, not majority rule.

A system is basically a for-profit corporation with its own legal code, welfare state (if any), internal decision making body, political party (if any), and everything else. It is a package government that you can vote into power. When you vote it in, you vote in all its laws, taxes, and benefits. When you vote it out, you vote out all its laws, taxes, and benefits. If it sufferers a sovereign debt crises this is no matter to stability of the whole nation. It is a corporation and can be liquidated in bankruptcy court. Systems, like corporations, are disposable.

If tomorrow your district/county goes to the socialists, all businesses are confiscated and you get socialist laws. Overnight your legal system changes. You get universal healthcare and your taxes go up. When you vote for a system you import the whole thing: the laws, the welfare state (or lack thereof), the budget, the debts (if any), etc. of that system. It is like bringing in a new nation to rule you with new rulers, and new laws. If you vote wrong it is like being conquered. If you vote right it is like being liberated. Choose wisely.

If you get a libertarian system, then overnight your taxes drop, your social security is abolished, your healthcare costs go down, you lose any socialized medicine you are receiving—your legal code gets simpler, your governments debts are erased because it is a new government without debts, and your economy begins to recover.

If you vote for an ethnostate, then you wake up the next day and minorities are being deported, your taxes go down (or up), and social justice warriors are given 48 hours to leave or be shot on sight.   

What protects you? Your right to exit of course. You can always move when the new government comes in. Rent a truck.

The System of systems is based on that quote by H. L. Mencken that, 
"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." 
Well, democracy may not be, but exitocracy really is. It gives you exactly what you want and is extremely hard about it. 

So notice that there is no compromise involved in this. It shatters the cathedral. Nick Land would say "divided powers flow back together like a shattered Terminator." — TDE1, but consider what is flowing. There is no dialectic of compromise. Moreover, local elites profit from the success of their system. Meaning, that they are tied to a location and its success. This is the opposite of the extractive mode of globalist governance. Every local elites operating the sockpuppet of imperium in imperio can only profit / gain power by caring about his local control and its success. He must care about your system. The current system is an anarcho-capitalism that plunders a commons. a System of systems is the democratic equivalent of medieval manorialism. It divides that commons into a propertarian system. Yes, it is still usufructuary, but it is still acts as though it is owned by someone, since the likelihood of them losing an election diminishes with time.

Also, because every system is brought to power in a multi-part election the elites have a stake in maintaining the same ideological demographics that brought them to power. This means they will all want immigration controls, in every county of the US, since county lines are contiguous
with district lines.

The multi-part election doesn't continue forever. That would be insane. Instead, after 5 years, in the next election people are asked, "do you want to keep the current system?" 60 % or more must say "no" if order to trigger another multi-part election. In local elections incumbents always tend to win over and over. Most local elections are like this. Also, because of the phenomena of the "big sort," places that are taken over by an ideology tend to attract more people of that ideology. People will separate themselves based on ideological lines. The separation will reinforce itself.

It is precisely this separation that actually leads to stability. You would think it wouldn't, but it will. Remember that ideology is downstream from power. Ideology is phase 4 while power is a phase 2 process. Power creates ideology. Every criticism I have heard of this idea proceeds from a position of moral outrage using the current systems morality: equality.

It is illegitimate to criticize a power system using the current systems morality, since the current morality is the product of the current power system, and is designed to reinforce it. Obviously, any different system will seem immoral to you, because you, having been indoctrinated by the current system, share its morals. So whenever anyone hyperventilates over this idea they do so from the perspective of the current systems morality. 

A second thing also occurs; they come up with criticisms like, "but corporations will exploit tax differences," and "but immigration will be a problem." Every criticism is actually a criticism of the status quo. Anything they say about this are problems that all governments face anyway. The other 364 days of the year they are indifferent to the fact that the current democracy has all of those same problems. They criticize me for problems they dismiss their own society for having.

I have also solicited reactionary critique in person from a group that I belong to. Less people hyperventilated. I did get called a degenerate though by a rather animated fellow.

Ideology is downstream from power, and that means that when you design a power system you also design the ideology and morality of that culture as a side effect of that power system. The ideology becomes whatever is necessary to justify the power system. In the System of systems, aka, the exitocracy, a form of "live and let live" becomes the standard. The federal government is forced to take a culturally relativist position in order to maintain military control over its territory. The official religion / state ideology / cathedral, (or whatever you want to call it) must adopt the motto, "when in Rome, do as the Romans do," as its defining doctrine. It winds up with variants on this theme, like this;
"When in white nationalist land do as the white nationalist do."
"When in libertarian land, snort cocaine off a strippers ass."
"When in socialist land don't question socialism."
"When in the black ethnostate, frequent black businesses."
"When in social justice land, don't trigger anyone."
This assumes they even let you in the door.

So intolerance takes on the new meaning of being unaccepting towards peoples systems. This is tribal rather than individual relativism. Intolerance is lack of tolerance towards someones in-group, and not political correctness. The greatest crime in an exitocracy is not racism. It is imposition on another persons private society. "Imposition," or some equivalent term, becomes the new hysterical word that you must never ever be accused of.

As for the systems themselves? Let Gnon be their judge. Ultimately, reality is what keeps them in line. They must all attract residents or breed populations, manage to keep them from wanting to leave, balance their books, and turn a profit for their shareholders.

Exitocracy is formalized secession. It produces a sorting effect. The sorting effect sorts society into tribes. The tribes are all subordinated to the federal government which does ONLY military, intelligence, and security matters. The federal governments job is only the security of the nation. The domestic governance is left up to the systems themselves. The federal government is a kind of referee, or marketplace regulator. The systems are the marketplace. It literally creates a governance marketplace. The US Gov is like Fnargl, who says, "I'll give your any system of government you want as long as you confine yourselves to district, and give me my percentage of the revenue." Fnargl doesn't care—not one bit, and he figures that the best way to prevent rebellion is simply to give everyone everything they want separately in their own little systems.

This is important. Remember how demotism is never going away? As already stated there is a limited number of ways to get the public to support your regime. One is propaganda, another "education," or reeducation camps. A third is racist nationalist fever against an external threat, (like the Chinese do), or the cognitive trick of democracy.

A fifth is the System of systems. Give everyone what they want, separately, in separate locations. A box for every monkey and every monkey in his box.

Tribalism Must be Kept in its Masturbatory Phase

Put the monkeys in boxes until AI arrives. Never forget that humans are basically moneys with nukes and America is Deliverance. Some things are better when they are the real thing; organic produce, grass fed beef, sex. But tribalism is not one of them. That means the return of war and hell, and war is hell. Maybe also genocide. It sucks. America has nukes. Boxes I tell you, boxes!

Tribalism, unlike sex, must be kept in its pornographic masturbatory phase. The tribe is the ultimate demotism. Never forget that. And when our exitocracy decays, what does it decay into? Three thousand one hundred principalities that pay taxes to Rome Washington. It becomes municipality within empire. It becomes a patchwork. Some object and say that this would cause the breakup of the US. Nonsense. Have you seen the Air Force lately? How do you leave when they can nuke you from orbit?

No one will actually secede, and the ability to exit within the system will suppress tensions for secession. In fact, that is the real reason some reactionaries would reject the S of s, precisely because it robs them of military exit. But military exit is not an option. It never was. Don't be stupid. Don't think the cathedral won't burn you to a cinder at the slightest provocation. After all, you're a wacist. Look what they did at Ruby Ridge, or to David Koresh. Destroying you is nothing to them. You only have safety because they cannot get public support for your extermination.

The one thing the cathedral cannot deal with is a united group with an ideology for changing the state peacefully from within. It is their fundamental weakness. It is one of the reasons that they must be so friendly to Islam, because not all Muslims are violent. These are the people who hide in all-white cities and neighborhoods while dumping immigrants in yours. They import hostiles into Europe because their ideology cannot allow them to contradict equality on any point without loosing power. The point here is that the one thing every cathedral member cares about is power. These people love the ring of power. They will do anything for "the precious." No amount of hypocrisy is too extreme. They are all incentive slaves. They got their power by serving incentives without question and internalizing the most base doublethink. The question we will answer later is, "how to we give them the proper incentive to transform democracy into exitocracy?" Since they are all whores to power, whatever gives them more power will be embraced. It will actually work. If you don't think it will then you don't understand your enemy.

Systems Must Qualify to Get on the Ballot, 
and Election Matchmaking

The election is matchmaking. Its purpose is to match the system to the population. The actual process of qualifying a private corporation to become a government is a matter of getting licensed by a central authority. One does not just put his system on the ballot. There are capital requirements. You must have a staff. You must provide a "system plan," similar to a business plan, for how you are going to run things. You must raise capital. You must have investors. You must issue bonds and get a credit rating. You have to write an entire legal code. And all of this is qualified in a series of licencing requirements.

Basically, the bar is set high enough so that low agency people cannot get their system on the ballot. The process of getting licensed is designed to create a high enough barrier to entry that only competent authority can qualify. Washington also wants its cut of tax revenue and you must deliver. Failure to deliver gets you taken off the ballot. 

No one is going to invest in your system if you are incompetent—certainly not the large institutional investors that you need for capital. The actual process in not democratic at all. The election is simply the stamp the people put on your system. It is the democratic equivalent of reserved powers. The electorate, like the British monarchy, has a "reserved power" which it never actually exercises. The election results are, like all modern elections, scientifically quantified and anticipated in advance. It would not be uncommon for all candidate systems on a particular district ballot to be financially backed by the same people in order to guarantee a financial return on investment by guaranteeing an election win.
"If the people want social democracy we give them social democracy, if they want nationalism then nationalism, if conservatism then conservatism."
—Saith the neocameral CEO. 

Of course he has a competent business plan for each scenario. 

This is a feature and not a bug. As for why this won't interfere with a diversity of systems being cranked out? A full explanation will come later. But understand that this is a post cathedral society. While there may be an official ideology of, "when in Rome do as the Roman do," you need to understand that the cathedral as we know it has been broken up into three-thousand one hundred parts. One cathedral has become many. And they compete with one another. This sounds horrible, but it is not. After all, what would happen if you subjected the cathedral to competitive market forces? How would it fair? How would it adapt?

No doubt it would become unrecognizable. It might actually become sane.

Abolishing the Ballot, Invitations, and Tests

Eventually the public may tire of going to the polls and pulling the lever for the same system over and over. They may decide to abolish elections altogether and replace them with a leasing system where a Federal government, or even a national King, leases territory to systems for the profit of the throne. Although that may not be a good thing. As long as an elections exist every system has an incentive to control the flow of immigration into each systems district. 

The boundaries of system district are the same as county lines. Translation; every system has an incentive to control the flow of immigration into its county. Obviously, this brings to a grinding halt the mass movement of people into and with the U.S.

Through immigration controls, only people who agree with the systems ideology will be brought in. That is how each system guarantees its own reelection. The lower the percent required to get reelected, the more vigilant the system will be at controlling immigration. Now some may object and say that this represents a massive pain in the you know what for business. Oh well. Business will just have to adapt. And the idea of immigration controls within the U.S. may shock some. In exitocracy the vote enhances immigration controls rather that incentivizing the importation of foreign populations. Monarchy, in contrast, in neutral on the subject, and in a world of global elites the King may be a globalist. What will you do then?

Of course, everyone has the right of exit but no one has the right of entrance. So this presents another problem. What is the resolution to this conflict?

Invitations and testing.

There is a test that no one can fake. It is called the IAT. I know what you are thinking. "But I'm different and I can fake it." No you cannot. I thought the same thing too at first. But the IAT is a timed exam that revels racial bias. The fact that it revels racial bias is not what concerns us. What concerns us is its proven nature. Go ahead and try it here. If you still think you can cheat it then maybe I am wrong.

Because the point is that it is now possible to create a test that no one can cheat. And even if the IAT could be cheated this is no matter. We can always do a brain scan to revel your preferences. Or we can simply factor the small number of successful cheaters into our immigration polices. Some exam can be devised that will work.

We don't need a test that is one hundred percent accurate. We only need to be able to test peoples political attitudes in order to find out what they secretly believe. Then, using this technology, people can be matched with the system that represents their values.

You go into a testing center. You take a variety of IAT style exams for various subjects. What are your attitudes towards taxes? Towards welfare states? Towards communism? Capitalism? Family values? The white race? Minorities?

Then the computer spits out a giant list of invitations for all the systems you are invited to. When a company hires a traveling salesman to cross borders and sell to another society it simply has him do The Test. Now it can send him to any of the systems on the invitation list. The company hires a variety of sales guys with different ethnic and ideological backgrounds and sends them to different systems to sell its merchandise. It sends its black sales guy to the black ethnostate. It sends its white sales guy to the white ethnostate. It sends its political libertarian to the conservative system, or the libertarian one.

So you are restricted based on your attitudes. If you don't like it? Don't hate anyone. You will get invited to more systems. No one should have to put up with people who hate them.

Deport Yourself

Now some may charge that this is all racist. On the contrary, by giving everyone what they want they are encouraged to leave each other alone. Some states will be racially color blind. A handful won't. Many will be plain vanilla conservative or liberal. The proportion of systems that represent different attitudes will also tend to be the proportion of attitudes in real life. Most of these microstates will be indifferent to race. And all hardcore haters will automatically tend to sequester themselves in the small percentage of systems that aren't. Everyone has a tendency to deport themselves. Physical removal of anyone is largely unnecessary. The racist systems will actually provide a service to the other systems by removing racists from their midst.
"See that communist system over there?" You say to the communist. "Why don't you go there? Huh? If you stay here you can't protest. If you cause any trouble you will be ejected across the county line. Got it? We won't put up with your shit."
"Behave." Says Officer Friendly.

It produces order by encouraging everyone to go to their respective and preferred form of disorder. The key here is that is makes them all want to deport themselves, and that's saying something. What other political system can accomplish that? Even you may deport yourself to your preferred system. Unlike those societies that make you merely want to escape this makes you want to enter instead. It is the lure of positive incentives that cause people to self-separate. Society achieves peace by getting hostile population with different visions to mutually separate themselves from one another on a voluntary basis. It accomplishes with positive incentives everything that others would accomplish with brutality and violence.

Quite horribly, this actually makes some reactionaries reject it. In other words, it is its peaceful nature with actually makes people hate the idea. They want to use violence against their neighbor. They crave it. Every person I have met who objected to the System of systems revealed their Bilbo Baggins demon face to me. There is a certain thirst for power in men's hearts, a will to power. The System of systems can accommodate anything you want politically accept the desire to dominate your neighbors. A percentage of men always hate it for that very reason—the control freaks.

Before you object to what I am proposing look in an actual mirror and ask yourself if what you really crave is power. Look at your face. Is it the Bilbo demon face? It it hate that you see? Because everyone who reacts hysterically to the ideas contained in this thesis has shown that face to me.

What's Next

One more thing.

Do you find this terrifying? If so, why didn't you always find neocameralsim terrifying? Is this to realistic for you? Some people prefer to keep reactionary thought at a distance. "We will wait for the monarchy," they say. It is really a bitchy way of saying, "I'm too scared to contemplate it happening in my lifetime." And remember that in a globally interconnected world the elites are just as likely to be globalists as anything else. How would you feel about King Obama? Never assume that a monarchy would represent you. In fact, don't assume that a prince who is a king of an ethnostate wouldn't marry outside of his realm and turn it globalist. In the end you all what "ethno-demotism," and not monarchy. Kings brought slaves to the new world, and all modern wealthy elites are pro-immigration because it lowers their payroll costs. The feudal wold had their wealth attached to land and place. The modern rich are not.

In the next installment we will define the plan for actually accomplishing this peacefully in our lifetimes.

Go to the Contents.
Go back to Chapter 3.