The Million Year Recession

Humans are genetically programmed to be xenophobic tribal communists. Leftism, and fear of outsiders, is the natural predisposition of children, though racism itself is a learned behavior that takes advantage of this natural predisposition, and not technically genetically inherent itself—technically. Different cultures express xenophobia differently; intolerance towards lower casts (India), ethno-religious intolerance (the Middle East), and racism (the Americas). But every culture has xenophobia of some kind. They vary only in their expression.

Humans evolved in a  million year economic recession. This recession was caused by two basic problems driven by a combination of envy and failure to coordinate. These two problems are best summed up as the double coincidence of wants and the tyranny of cousins.

The Double coincidence of wants

The double coincidence of wants is a problem in barter where in order for a trade to take place two people must coincidentally want exactly what the other person has. For example; let us say that I want meat, and have only cheese to give you. But you want bread and not cheese, and have only vegetables to give me. A problem exists here because you do not want what I have, and I do not want what you have. This problem makes trade impossible unless one of us accepts what the other person has, despite not wanting it, or we find some sort of intermediary person that wants to facilitate the trade.

The double coincidence of wants problem inhibits economic activity by stopping trade from occurring. All barter economies suffer from it, and it is the reason no ancient tribal society ever build microchips, jumbo jets, or other sophisticated technologies. Without money trade can never develop to the point of complexity necessary to facilitate the long supply chains that complex technologies require.

The Tyranny of cousins

The tyranny of cousins is a problem where, in tribal societies, your cousins can simply come into your dwelling a take what you have. If for example, you kill an animal, your cousins (and other members of your tribe), may simply steal your surplus meat without asking. This is a problem because it destroys the ability of people to accumulate the capital necessary for mass production to occur. Without property rights, all capital is destroyed by the theft of ones tribal members. Thus, no economic progress, or production on a large scale can occur. All of this requires surplus capital.

Native Americans are often glorified by the left for living is a state without property of any kind. The lie here is implicitly asserting that this was a voluntary arrangement. It was not. It was enforced by the violence of theft. The fact that it become a "norm" is simply testament to the human ability to internalize justifications for power. When you cannot prevent people from taking your possessions you psychologically internalize the abuse of theft and create a moral code out of generosity. You become excessively generous because you must.

The members of your tribe are many; you are only one, and guns have not yet been invented. A strong man, or a man with  many violent friends, can take whatever he wants. Thus, the tribe is always socialist and patriarchal. And no, the last two are not contradictions in ancient societies. Tribes were both egalitarian AND male dominated.

The double coincidence of wants problem is abolished by money while the tyranny of cousins is abolished by property. Money facilitates trade between parties by creating a medium of exchange that everyone desires. Property inhibits envy by enforcing a clam on something with a police force. Capitalism can be defined as the gradual encroachment of property concepts into every aspect of life. As property concepts expand, violence decreases. By delegating the function of enforcement to a police force social relationships are formalized — that is, a ritual, or game, takes the place of guns or bombs. You have something I want. I could take it from you, or we could work out a game/ritual for deciding who gets it. This converts a contest of violence into a game of strategy. It transforms the system from one where muscle is evolutionarily adaptive to one where intelligence is genetically advantageous.

This is a persistent self-enforcing system of ritual. It is cultural in origin. It enforces itself through its necessity; humans prefer non-violence whenever possible. Capitalism can be defined as a European, and mostly British system of rituals. Considering that Europeans engaged in hundreds of years of continuous warfare due to the divided geography of their continent, it makes sense that this system would come out of Europe first.

As capitalism expands violence decreases.

Back in Quote Note # 290 I wrote;

"I think of capitalism as being a great alienating machine composed of dozens of social technologies with the tech consisting of turning countless social relationships into property.

For example:
Patents (property in ideas)
Trademarks (property in creativity)
Real estate (property in land/ houses)
Title (property in objects)
Contract (property in agreements)
Marriage (property in sex for men and resources for women)
Constitutions/Tort (property in rights)
Slavery (obsolete property in humans)
Futures (property in hedging risk)
Stocks (property in corporations)
Votes (equal property in government)
Bonds (property in debt)
Vouchers (property in services)
Insurance (property in risk compensation)
Money (property in other people’s work)

Capitalism is PROPERTY. Moreover, as more and more things are be defined as property capitalism expands its dominion into every aspect of life. Capitalism not only is property, it is the expansion of what constitutes property."

Moreover, unlike feudalism, capitalism is distinguished by only allowing humans to be owners, and never to be property. Feudalism allows a person to own both things and people, while capitalism allows only the former. In capitalism you can own but, never be the thing owned. This is an historical accident of democracy giving people equal rights through an equal vote (equal property in government). Without democracy one would have "feudal capitalism," that is, a system of hyper-capitalism where ownership of people is also lawful.

Since all other forms of property allow accumulation except votes, voting is a form of misaligned property. Unlike stock, a person may own only one vote, and it is not transferable. Neocameralism aligns voting with the market by replacing votes with shares. The "equal property" of democracy is in fundamental conflict with the accumulative property of capitalism.

So our current system can be thought of as "democratic capitalism." Seen in this light, feminism is an extension of the democratic capitalist imperative, since it attacks sexual ownership (traditional marriage) by outlawing marital rape, (contract enforcement of sexual ownership).

But I digress.

Tribal societies have extraordinary levels of violence. In summary; capitalism ends that by formalizing all relationships. Formalization is identical to creating a "game" of economics where all outcomes are known in advance and enforced by a neutral third party police force.

The Prisoner's Dilemma of Capitalism

Any society that abandons capitalism gets overrun by the society that doesn't, since capitalism generates a large taxable surplus that is used to build weapons of war. Thus, every civilization is in a type of prisoners dilemma because of enemy armies. If you don't have capitalism then your ability to defend yourself is crippled and you can be invaded. Any society that has capitalism is militarily better off than one without, even if the socialistic preferences of some citizens of each nation would prefer socialism. One may think that Europe is an exception to this rule. But Europe is not really socialist. It is socially democratic, and the American military provides them with national defense.

Ultimately, the basis of capitalism are the militaries of the world and human genetic predisposition to xenophobia. If ones tries real socialism, (communism), then one cripples his economy and leaves himself open to invasion. An example of this is North Korea, who one suspects compensates for tremendous weakness with a lot of bluster and atomic weapons. North Korea has to have border guards watch each other to prevent them from defecting to the South. In the advent of an invasion it would not be surprising if most of their military surrendered to American forces.

One might think it could be possible to abolish capitalism by abolishing xenophobia. After all, without armies it would be possible to abolish property and money successfully. But this could only be done with genetic engineering, and genetic engineering faces the same problem that maintains capitalism: the prisoner's dilemma. Basically, any culture that genetically engineers its own population to no longer be xenophobic is then conquered by the one that doesn't. The remaining xenophobic people of the Earth carve up the land and nation of the "enlightened" people through conquest. They then genocide, interbreed with the conquered peoples, or both. If they interbreed, (which is inevitable) the genetic absence of xenophobia migrates back to the conquering culture. The conquerors are then less xenophobic than their neighbors and less able to defend themselves. They in turn are conquered by more xenophobic societies, and so on and so on. The level of xenophobia then returns to the equilibrium level worldwide after multiple conquests over several centuries.

Conclusion

As a process, civilization advances and violence declines as more relationships are formalized. Additionally, civilization is indistinguishable from the suppression of leftism. Suppression of leftism prevents the return of the million year recession, and prevents the conquest of a people by outside invaders. There is no escaping civilization itself. Thank God.

Oh, but you can destroy your own civilization in the attempt.

The point of all of this is to help the reader understand the nature of capitalism, why it is never going away, why anti-xenophobia is suicidal, why violence has reduced historically, and how formalization accomplishes that. Progress is equal to the expansion of formalization of relationships through property rights. Civilization is identical to suppression of leftism.

Edited 11/24/2016

Responding to Antinomia Imediata

Cyborg_nomade critiqued Chapter 4a of my sprawling thesis on exitocracy. I figured I should get off my ass and respond.

To put it in the briefest way possible, exitocracy is halfway between democracy and monarchical patchwork. It is patchwork where private governments stand for election. It is a system designed to decay into patchwork. When exitocracy is "corrupted" by the inevitable movement towards greater privatization that it would incentivize, it leads to patchwork. Decay is not considered evil in itself; all political systems decay. The current system is the result of dictatorship decaying into monarchy, (gradually after William), monarchy decaying into aristocracy, (some time around the era of the Magna Carta), aristocracy decaying into timocracy, (with the American Revolution), timocracy rapidly decaying into democracy, (with abolition of property qualifications and the 17th Amendment), democracy rapidly into oligarchy, (starting in the 1980's), caused by a vast increase in political donations. It is not decay per say that is the problem but its uncontrolled nature. Decay is inevitable. A system may "decay" into something better if it is controlled correctly. That is the purpose of exitocracy.

Since I wrote only Chapter 4a at the time, some of your questions may be answered in 4b, Exitocracy at the Federal Level, which covers one possible mechanism of enforcement.

You agree with a lot of what I say so I will limit myself to your major objections. For the sake of ease your remarks will be italicized and mine will not except when emphasis is needed.

Your remarks;

“Demotism is Conserved.” Nope. Although mass communication (and, more to the point, the ever greater dissipation of mass lethal power) is an ongoing fact since the dawn of modernity, and one that is unlikely to go away (short of Peak Oil or something), there is ever less a need to control the mob’s minds. The trend set in motion with the internet is much more of cultural, social and (therefore) political fragmentation than of mass maneuver of opinion. The very costs of attempting something like that are ever greater.

So, from what I grasp of the political trends in the 21st century, demotism has its days numbered, T minus the time necessary to build safe exit options. Bit-nations contracting with luxury gated cities for free pass, and ever more nomadic elites wandering around the world. No need for mob control, except insofar as “heavier walls” is mob control.

This really boils down to technology. No one can know the future, but one can guarantee that elites will fight like hell to prevent succession. Personally, I think Elon Musk has a better chance of colonizing Mars than anyone does at abolishing demotism. There will always be a vast incentive to weaponize crowds / useful idiots for conquest against your neighbors. What is worse is that propaganda works because humans want to be told what to think.

Let's list them out;

Technologies in favor of continued demotism;

Nukes, (as long as the supply can be effectively constrained)
Television
Mass-media
University education
K through 12 education
All armies everywhere

Technologies against continued demotism;

An uncensorable internet, (may be impossible).
Urbit.
Crypto currencies, (as long as they don't get co-opted by elites).
Walls.

Anything that makes demotism obsolete also makes nuclear weapons abundant. Atomics follows the law of supply and demand like everything else. Governments are hell-bent on controlling supply—and that is a good thing. We want non-proliferation. Anything that makes atomics available to city states possibly also lowers their cost to the threshold of terrorists getting their hands on it. That would be a catastrophe for mankind. Governments will go through hell to prevent that scenario. In any case, a future where city states can afford atomics is no future at all. It is a post atomic horror. In that case you get whatever tribalism you desire—and cannibal biker gangs.

Another possible technology is small handheld EMP weapons. There have been two eras in human history when people have has access to weapons of equal power to their governments. The first was the Greek city states. In that era the weapon system was the phalanx. When the highest quality weapon is affordable to the average man democracy ensues. Equal weapons = equal society. Granted, you got city states. But you also got Athenian direct democracy. Of course they created quite a few other political systems; Spartan Communism, Sicilian Tyranny, Thebes and its oligarchy.

The next phase was the American revolution. The enabling technology was the Kentucky long riffle. But both of these weapons systems reinforced demotism rather than suppressing it. EMP weapons will do the same by rendering tanks and bombers no more effective than a handheld device. Though this will only last until those machines are reengineered with shielded analogue components. See this.

So it boils down to which technology wins, and I see no evidence that guarantees the trajectory will go exactly towards fragmentation without democracy. For that you need a specific technology that reinforces tribalism without reinforcing individualism. One way, is for it to have an exact price point that is most efficient to deploy with that price point being determined by the size of the group, (say 100,000 to 1 million people). Any more and you gat vastly escalating costs. Any less and you can't afford it. Steel mills are a technology like this. Bigger mills only result in greater administrative costs. If some equivalent economics in weapons systems could be worked out then maybe it would work. You need a technology that favors a certain number of people and no more. Basically, I see no reason for the future to move along the vector we want it to unless deliberate efforts are made to engineer the technology that gets us there.

You quoting me;

1. “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.” It’s important to keep in mind that one needs an unambiguous unbreakable rule for this to work – enforcement matters. I’m saying this to make clear that the criteria for Multi-Part Elections to work is that it provides not only unambiguous rules for conflicts, but also an enforcement mechanism.

This is now covered in Chapter 4b, which was written after your remarks.

“Power creates ideology.” This is unconvincing, if only because ideology is itself a source of power. You seem to admit it straight away: “any different system will seem immoral to you, because you, having been indoctrinated by the current system, share its morals“. To distinguish between power and the idea of power will demand something more than mere affirmation.

The following discussion, based on this distinction, is not so wrong as it reverses the true complication: “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.” Can the federal government maintain that position and have military control? What does the military believe? What is the ideology of those with military capability? Power is this ideology, what will make them pull the trigger.(?)

Ideology may itself be a source of power. I have never claimed it isn't. In Chapter 1 of Neocameral Future I described it as follows;

"Culture really is downstream from power, but what we are missing is that power is downstream from incentives. We may go even one step further and say that incentives are the outcome synthesis of several material conditions in combination with human nature. Also, ideology programs peoples morals. When we put this all together we get a chain of causality. This gives us a diagram that looks something like this:

Technology +
Material Conditions +
Human Nature +
Past Political Programs +
------------------------------
=   A  Synthesis of Incentives -----> (Political + Social Response) ------>Ideology -----> Morals

Another way of saying that is:
(1) Human Nature + Material Conditions + Technology + Past Political Programs = Incentives.
(2) Incentives cause political programs and social change; that is, society reacts.
(3) Political/social action is justified with ideology.
(4) Ideology programs indoctrination, creating the morals of society.
(5) Morals are the psychological internalization of ideology.

What I am describing here is the major flow of social organization. It is certainly possible for something lower on the chain to effect something higher, but in general the flow is downward. One thing I have not decided is whether religion belongs in the location of (1) or (4). It appears to have characteristics of both at it reflexively reacts to new technologies and simultaneously defies their influence. I suppose it depends on how embracing of fads and trends a faith is. More cathedral prone religions are in the category of (4)."

Everything influences everything else. The only claim being made here is that the major flow is downward from phase 1 forces to phase 5. A lot of "ideology influencing things" is false. If Obama makes a "moral decision" (and it is truly motivated by moral concern), this would indicate that phase 5 is affecting phase 3. But in reality, he derived his morals from left-wing indoctrination. Thus, the expression of morals is still consistent with downward flow.

In other words, a lot of ideology influencing things is actually recursive within the overall pattern. It is entirely enclosed by it.

Second, humans, because we are primates, have a compulsive need to think that argument matters. Actually, it really doesn't. We evolved in Dunbar limited environments. In those societies argument can actually change the whole society. This causes an instinctive predilection towards folk activism. This instinctive tendency is why Iceland as a democracy works better than America. (It is small). Democracy doesn't scale well. At large scales it becomes factional and monopolized by special interests. But I digress. The point is that your brain wants to think that ideology matters, but it really doesn't. The entire system runs on blind idiot forces of nature, and not ideology. Reactionary future has a whole thing on this, 1, 2, 3—about how ideology is downstream of power. This is a basic tenant of the whole neoreactionary field. Because of genetic legacy, humans will always compulsively want to believe that the reverse is true, and they must constantly be told that it is not. So this is not just mere affirmation.

So there you go. I hope that answers it. Leave a comment below if you have any thoughts.

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?"

—Myself, Perceptual vs. Concrete Freedom

Synopsis

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.

GDP.

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.
Go to Chapter 4c.

Neocameral Future, Chapter 4a, Exitocracy

Go back to Chapter 3.
Go to the Contents.

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

Chapter 4a, Exitocracy

Note: the terms System of systems, Third Form Democracy, and exitocracy, may be used interchangeably.



2nd Note: I will probally get a lot of grief for this chapter, but I ask that you consider what I write here honestly, and with an open mind.

Neoreaction Has Gotten Many Things Wrong,
Especially the HRx Variant

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

Materialism is not respected. It is constantly alloyed with pseudo-religious ideas by leftists, communists, creationists, etc. Then it is blamed for resultant atrocities by ontological idealists and spritual cultists of every type. The disasterous influence of the human primate spritual compulsion on materialism is used by those same primates to decry materialism. It is the human who is the problem, not the cold reality he refuses to grapple with. Humans compulsively misperceive what they find painful, and they find everything painful. It is an evolutionarily derived coping mechanism, and is  maladaptive to the complexities of modernity.

One must never pollute his materialism with notions of free will, rising above, blank-slatism, choice, or other nonsense words. Humans are MEAT ROBOTS. Free will in an illusion. Environmental influences are actually the sum of the genetics of all individuals, 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 centralized power. "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 collapsed into a communist variant under an unsecure power struggle. Feudalism was the decayed arrangement that evolved out of the ashes of Roman of this. It was the result of employees being forcibly attached to their professions. In a way, roman communism created feudalism. See this excellent video for an explanation. We see then that unsecure power is not limited to democracy. Plain observation will also show that as America has become more centraliced and oligarchical it's politics has become far more insane.

This would seem to indicate that maximum political sanity lies in the direction of agorism or some variant. Buy this is another discussion.

If materialism plus religious dogma gives you communism and a number of other horrors, while materialism stripped of cult ideas simply produces science and technology, then it is your pollutant that is the problem and not materialism. In an of itself it is just physical-ism. It is the discovery of physical explanations for things. It is pure science.

There is no basis in science for equality, universalism, or belief that the present is always morally superior to the past. There is no basis in science for patalogical white racial guilt, social justice, environmental hysteria, etc. These are all simply religious corruptions of science. Power is ultimately religious in nature, and science inevitably trapped by it.

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 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 do with the Japanese), 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
When you are developing political ideas about political systems there is a temptation to throw out everything that currently exists in favor of some radical proposal that changes everything. 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. 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 must not be allowed to occur. Be realistic. 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 you any system of government you want as long as you confine yourselves to a 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. 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 inconvenience for business. Oh well. Business will simply have to adapt, and the idea of immigration controls within the U.S. may shock some. In exitocracy the vote enhances immigration controls. This is contrasted with democracy where the more liberal of the two political parties in any given era has a massive incentive to both expand the voting franchise and bring in foreign populations in order that they may vote against the natives. A third system, monarchy, might be globalist on the subject since it would reflect the makeup of current elites. That would give you no immigration controls at all.

Immigration matters because free immigration is forced integration, and because disruption of the social arrangements of a society is the inevitable consequence of mass immigration. Simply put, immigration represents a negative externality to peoples valuable social relationships. By changing the people in an area you reduce options for friendship, well-being, and intimacy. These social functions are not priced by capitalism currently, and so capitalism disrupts families, communities, and nations for profit without regard to the cost to human mental health. Humans evolved in a tribal environment where you knew your friends all your life. This is why the more you move around as a child the less able you are to form friendships as an adult. Lower social density correlates to higher risk of mental illness. Libertarian arguments ignore the profound social catastrophe of the modern world in this regard. Humans need tribes. People should stay in one place. It is better for their mental health if they do, and exitarianism remedies this situation in a voluntary manner. Mass immigration is driven by the logic of greed and the need of the Democratic party to displace the mostly white, mostly conservative, voting population. The well-being of Americans has nothing to do with it.

Since immigration is controlled, 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? If you can leave but not enter where will you go?

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.

The point is that the format of measuring implicit attitudes could be adapted for everything. 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 well enough for our purposes.

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 to 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. It send leftist employees to left-wing systems.

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 proportionate to 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 are not. 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. 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 desire for control to me. It is not pretty to observe. There is a certain thirst for power in men's hearts. 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.

What's Next

One more thing.

Do you find this terrifying? If so, why didn't you always find neocameralsim terrifying? Is this 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 noncomittal way of saying, "I'm too scared to contemplate it happening in my lifetime." Remember that in a globally interconnected world the elites are just as likely to be globalists as nationalists. How would you feel about King Obama? Never assume that a monarchy would represent you. In fact, do not assume that a prince of an ethnostate would not simply marry outside of his realm and turn it globalist. What reaction really desires is an "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 do not.

Go back to Chapter 3.
Go to the Contents.
Go to Chapter 4b.