Monday, October 3, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 4a, Exitocracy

Go back to Chapter 3.
Go to the Contents.

Murray Rothbard, because neocameralism without th
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.

No comments:

Post a Comment