Monday, October 31, 2016

Mortality is a Knowledge Destroyer

Humans die. We live, oh maybe 70 or 80 years if we're lucky. This means that knowledge dies with us. And that means that knowledge itself is constantly dying. This is knowledge entropy.

Let's face is. You are, just like everyone else, a tard. You are constantly making mistakes, and no one knows how well you fuck up than you do because you probably do a really through job of hiding it. Or at the very least, you don't go around mentioning every way you have fucked up. That would be bad PR.

Just when a man starts to figure out how the universe works, oh at say 70 years of age, he dies. Shit. But that is the way is goes. Mortality is a knowledge destroyer. So we must have some way of cheating entropy—of passing knowledge on to future generations. There are three methods; science, technology, and religion. Let us define them.

Science; the way we pass on technical knowledge about how physical universe works.

Technology; the way we pass on practical application of technique. Technology is applied knowledge that is inherited.

Religion; the way we pass on social technology. Humans can't figure it all out themselves. So they use religion to pass on wisdom about how to configure social relationships to maximize eudaimonia. This is the most important of the three.

And this is why new atheism can be so foolish. It's a three legged stool guys. There is no idiocy greater than aggressive stupidity. Science really can't replace religion in the social technology game. It doesn't have the accretion of 5000 years built into it that faith does. And humans are not really rational. Men like Dawkins think that the entire human race is just like them; classic case of projection. But you really do need commandments, beliefs, injunctions, and appeals to emotion to get people to do what is in their own best interests. I've seen atheists who had, "open marriages." It always ended in disaster. Common sense wasn't enough to get them to be monogamous. Simply telling people; "you're a primate and jealousy is genetic so screwing around will never work," is a remarkably ineffective technique. Most people need the threat of hellfire to behave themselves. And it isn't just knowledge that is destroyed, but wisdom and experience, since the emotion and memory that experience imparts can never be transmitted.

Christianity is so frustrating. It has spawned a thousand heretical communisms. The very notion that all are saved by Christ is egalitarian. And that means that the knowledge preservation engine of western civilization also carries the virus of its subversion.

Indeed, in China, communism is an empty formalism precisely because it has no Christianity to animate it. Political religions do no last on their own. They need to feed vampirically on the energies of the faithful. When communism succeeds in abolishing Christianity, it succeeds in abolishing itself. Faith is like soil preparation. Soil that has already been tilled by one farmer is better for cultivating by the next occupant, and political religion is incapable of breaking in its own soil. It needs someone else to do the primary tilling. It needs Christianity. The Chinese are a fundamentally Confucian and Buddhist people. The soil there doesn't grow liberalism well.

I was not raised on Christianity. I was raised on a much more eastern way of thinking. Concepts like one man dying for the sins of another, consubstantiation, and the like, come across as obscenely barbaric to an eastern mentality. I could never feel Christian guilt, and thus, could never feel white racial guilt. To an outsider, the relationship between Christianity and liberalism is so obvious that any failure to see it makes you seem thickheaded. Whites are racially altruistic because they are Christian. Asians feel no racial guilt, because, like me, they feel no guilt over original sin at all. The later provides the primary tilling for the former.

It has been said that we need a new religion. I see no reason it can't come from the east.

Edited 11/25/2016




Saturday, October 29, 2016

Fixing Democracy

I wrote a series of posts on Twitter and thought I would reproduce the discussion here with elaboration. This is about the degenerative ratchet of democracy, whose technical cause is either ignored or unknown to most of NRx. Before I entered neoreaction I had already studied the cause of America's decline. Moldbug was actually the third theorist I came across in this pursuit, and other people have said it better, have said it with more technical accuracy, and with economic explanation.

There are several causes of this ratchet. This is the major one. The reason given here explains why conservatives fight a loosing battle in all democracies (so far).

Constantly overlooked is that the entire theory for explaining why the Cathedral exists is wrong. It is not just memetics, though that plays a part.

Mancur Olson already explained all of it with a better theory than Moldbug in The Rise and Decline of Nations. The gyst of what he says is that it is easier for small groups to co-ordinate than large ones. The result is that it is more profitable for insiders to make law at the expense of the public that for the public to defend themselves against predatory law making. Here is Patri Friedman, (grandson of Milton) explaining the problem. Take a moment to watch this 2 minute video. It is central to our discussion. He is basically summarizing Olson and public choice theory, even if he doesn't reference it as such.




This stuff isn't new. The Rise and Decline on Nations came out in the 80's. It was, in turn based on even earlier work. So (some) people have understood the "collective action problem" for quite some time now. This theory explains the reason why democracy is getting worse and yet nobody appears to know about it, and it is not taught in liberal universities. This just goes to show that people won't learn or teach a subject if knowing it undermines their ability to justify their own parasitism.

Anyway, all you have to do to figure out modernity, is pair Olson's theory with an understanding that power is upstream from culture. That is, you simply marry Olson's theory to that of Bertrand de Jouvel's and you get a nice concise way of explaining everything that is wrong with America, (and indeed, democracy in general), and why it is all going to shit.
Olson's theory (in a vastly simplified form);
small groups have a greater incentive and profit for lobbying government that large ones. Thus, there is an incentive to constantly make law for the benefit of elites at the expense of the public. Therefor, legislative accumulation occurs.
de Jouvel's theory;
culture is downstream from power. Whenever a change happens in culture or ideology it is due to some higher level force of power acting on society.  
Thus, as power expands so does the political demand for justifying ideology.

Eventually the whole society becomes saturated with it. Mancur Olson predicted back in the 80's the political divisiveness of the current era. He also predicted gridlock and government dysfunction. His stated reason was that as the amount of rent-seeking law on the books increased, the payoff from those corrupt laws would also increase, and thus, the pitch of the rhetoric would be elevated as a result. More payoff from corrupt law = more incentive to manipulate people with propaganda to control the payoff.

If power expands, so must ideology, since ideology is necessary to justify it. This is because humans are social creatures that rationalize their circumstances.

If a man is given a handout he will rationalize it. Give him free healthcare and after awhile he will believes he has a "right to healthcare." Give him nothing and he will work hard and resent anyone who receives a handout. He will then glorify hard work and self-sufficiency, just like frontiersmen did. Moreover, his attitude of hard work will be transmitted to his children so long as they do not receive handouts.

So ideology will change as rationalizations change. Thus, the greatest predictor of ideology are  incentives. This is the reverse of what people intuitively believe. They think that ideology controls incentives. But most of the time it is the reverse. Consider this depression era quote about the New Deal;
"There was, nevertheless, a remarkable unwillingness to go "on the dole." Government welfare and shame still were a horse and carriage in the popular mind. Researchers into popular attitudes found an accountant turned ditch-digger saying, 'I'd rather stay out in that ditch the rest of my life than take one cent of direct relief.' "
In fact, when one researches the history of the New Deal one finds out that welfare essentially had to be forced on the American people. Then, and only then, did attitudes of entitlement grow. Here is another quote;
"Popularly coined phrases such as, 'There is no elevator to the top, you need to take the stairs,' were a common outlook on working life amongst Americans, and nobody expected anybody else to provide for them. This attitude began to change in the 1980s, with a growing sense of urgency to provide the next generation with an 'easier life' then had been given to its parents. Unfortunately, this genuinely good-intentioned decision made for a generation of children who misunderstand the meaning of work."
This is not the central point of our thesis, only a necessary diversion. The point here is that the entitlement came first, then afterwards social attitudes changed. With a 50 year delay no less. Attitudes were the product of incentives, and not the other way around. Think of that the next time you hear someone complain about "entitled millennials." Then recognize the connection this has to legislative accumulation.

Getting to the Point

We live in a form of anarcho capitalism already. But this form is based on raiding a commons of public income. It is not propertarian in nature. Congressman are brokers who sell one persons money to another in exchange for campaign contributions. The thing is an extortion market. Congress is a marketplace for the purchasing of laws. This is not some joke statement. Consider an excerpt from this article directly from the mouth of the Cathedral itself;
"House Speaker John A. Boehner appears to be a master of the tollbooth. In 2011, he collected a total of over $200,000 in donations from executives and companies in the days before holding votes on just three bills. He delayed scheduling a vote for months on the widely supported Wireless Tax Fairness Act, and after he finally announced a vote, 37 checks from wireless-industry executives totaling nearly $40,000 rolled in. He also delayed votes on the Access to Capital for Job Creators Act and the Small Company Capital Formation Act, scoring $91,000 from investment banks and private equity firms, $32,450 from bank holding companies and $46,500 from self-described investors — all in the 48 hours between scheduling the vote and the vote’s actually being held on the House floor.
Another tactic that politicians use is something beltway insiders call “milker bills.” These are bills designed to “milk” donations from threatened individuals or businesses. The real trick is to pit two industries against each other and pump both for donations, thereby creating a “double milker” bill.
President Obama and Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. seemed to score big in 2011 using the milker tactic in connection with two bills: the Stop Online Piracy Act and the Preventing Real Online Threats to Economic Creativity and Theft of Intellectual Property Act. By pitting their supporters in Silicon Valley who opposed the bills against their allies in Hollywood who supported the measures, Mr. Obama and Mr. Biden were able to create a sort of fund-raising arms race."
It is literally an extortion racket. They propose bills to Congress. The bill threatens someone's interests while either rewarding someone, or threatening someone else's interests. The two groups are then pitted against each other in a bidding war to see whose rights are to be trampled upon. Or to trample on one parties rights at the expense of the other. THAT'S THE TRUTH RUTH. That's how is really works.

We don't care about that though. If America were to collapse we might, like the Romans, endure 300 years of increasingly authoritarian dictatorship until the rise of some benevolent monarch. Keeping this thing going a few hundred years more and reducing the magnitude and insanity of leftism in America would definitely be preferable. We will leave Civil War 2.0 to the distant future. For now, can we at least make this thing function?

The essential flaw in democracy's entire design is legislative accumulation. We live in an anarcho capitalistic coercion market. The Founders designed a flaw right into the system at a Constitutional level. It is obvious to any engineer with half a brain that you never design a system that accumulates anything, (waste, energy, heat, genetic mutations, whatever) over time. Legislative accumulation is democracies basic flaw. The fact that the Founders overlooked this is remarkable, or at least remarkably incompetent.

Every law is a bargain struck that sells coercive force for the profit of at least one party at the expense of another. The problem is that the bargains accumulate over time.

All coercion requires ideological justification, and all bargains cause market distortions. So both accumulate as the law does.

The whole thing can be "balanced" by having a House of Repeal and a mandate that the House of
Enactment cannot make a law or a single word of law until the House of Repeal has unmade the same number of laws and words of law. A BALANCED coercion market would stabilize the current system at status quo. A reduction quota would give it a right-wing / libertarian bias.

So collapse actually could be prevented. As well as continuous left-wing movement. This is because legislative accumulation is the wind in the left's sails. It is what lets them consolidate their gains. Consider two democracies, one with, and one without, legislative accumulation.

With legislative accumulation

Corruption accumulates over time.
Market distortion accumulates over time.
It become harder over time to generate employment.
Ideology grows from being barely noticeable to totalitarian.
Numerous claims of "positive rights" are increasingly made.
Public debts grow continuously.
As the financial stakes become higher for loosing elections, the propaganda gets stronger.
Each generation of leftists consolidates the gains of the previous.
Collapse is guaranteed eventually.

Without legislative accumulation

Corruption does not accumulates over time.
Markets continue to function as well as they did when the nation was founded.
Employment is easy to come by.
Ideology is minimal and stays that way.
Rights remain relatively the same.
Public debts remain small or grow at a lower rate.
Propaganda does not grow.
Each generation of leftists has to start from scratch.
Collapse is not necessarily guaranteed.

Last Note

I am not convinced that any particular system of government is automatically better than any other, nor that abolishing this system and replacing it with monarchy is preferable. In the Muqaddimah, the North African Arab historiographer and historian Ibn Khaldun says;
'It should be known that at the beginning of the dynasty, taxation yields a large revenue from small assessments. At the end of the dynasty, taxation yields a small revenue from large assessments'"
This is the beginning of the Laffer curve, or the theory of optimum taxation. What is interesting here is not that this forms the basis of Laffer's famous curve, oh no. What concerns us here is that Khaldun is a historian telling us something historical, that is, even in his day regimens were destroying themselves with the accumulation of corruption. After all, this is the only thing that can account for why a political system would raise its taxes past the point of optimum maximization. This also tells us that monarchy is not the answer, that Moldbug's Fnargl is a mirage, that all regimes are supported and corrupted by rent-seekers, and that the accumulation of parasites destroys all nations. And it tells us that this was happening even several hundred years ago, and that is was happening to monarchy too.

Now this is important; in a democracy with rule of law, corruption is written right into the law. In most other countries corruption is extra-judicial in nature. It is customs officials and police taking bribes. It is under the table and technically illegal, and the regime is either too week to do anything about it, or is receiving kick backs, or both. In China you pay a bribe to the traffic cop.

So the problem in all societies is the accumulation of corruption. Obviously, if the power of law expands to control more aspects of peoples lives, and ideology also expands to justify it, then ideology will eventually began to practice censorship. As the demand to control what people think grows so will the need to inhibit competing viewpoints. Thus, censorship is the inevitable end run of legislative accumulation. This of course inhibits feedback into the power structure itself, creating a dangerous ignorance of the real threats it faces.

Summary Conclusion

Because of the collective action problem, as defined by Olson, it is easier for small elite groups to organize than large groups. This results in a relentless push for new law, or legislative accumulation.

Since ideology is downstream from power, and since ideology is powers' rationalization, ideology becomes whatever it needs to be. As power expands so does the reach of ideology. More payoff from corrupt law = more incentive to manipulate people with propaganda to control the payoff, which means more pervasive ideology.

All proposed legislation is extortion of some kind, or the handing out of privileges. In America, privileges are paid for with campaign contributions. Laws are made because of contributions and activism, both which agitate for handouts and privileges.

The degenerative ratchet is caused primarily by legislative accumulation, which allows the left to consolidate gains, and puts the right at a strategic disadvantage. Reversing this with a House of Repeal and a quota for shrinkage would put the left at a permanent disadvantage.

All regime types experience the accumulation of corruption. In most political systems corruption is extra-judicial. In a system of rule of law this takes the form of legislative accumulation. Accumulated rent-seeking is what brings about the failure of all states in history. As the amount of power expands so does the need to control people with ideology, thus ideology expands. The process eventually results in censorship, even in states with constitutional protections of free speech. Ideology grows from a background noise to a totalitarian level.




Thursday, October 27, 2016

Broken Word II, You are Superman

Continuing where Broken World Syndrome left off and sharing some thoughts I had on twitter we continue our discussion of the implicit beliefs society unconsciously trains into people.

A thing can be described from more than one perspective and we are richer off for the exercise. Many times to say a thing over and over from a hundred different perspectives is the only best way to explore it properly—from emotional, technical, process-based, taxonomic, hereditary, memetic, and historical views. American broken world syndrome is something like that.

What people need to understand is that western culture is built on a habitual pattern of thought, one that indoctrinates you to think you can save the world. This presumes the world is broken. Presumes you can save it. Presumes it needs saving. It appeals to people because it is ego gratifying to think you are awesome enough to play Superman. That's why it sticks in peoples brains. That's why it transmits culturally. That's why it is impossible to kill, and why it has infected you, the reader, and everyone else in this society.

But the trade off is the perpetual misery and hate of believing the world is broken. If you accept the world needs saving, then you accept the implication it is broken, needs fixing, and that YOU, yes YOU, are capable of fixing it. Which is a lie. So the cost is perpetual misery is never ending rage against a world you can never change. It is ego gratifying to save the world, but it is soul destroying when you realize that you are incapable, that is is bigger than you thought it would be, that there is really no end of the problem when you think about it.

So there is a cost and a benefit. Cost = misery and rage at a broken world. "Benefit" = megalomania. To the individual of course. But there is a separate cost / benefit where society is concerned. If the cost is individual misery, the benefit is social progress. After all, this is the culture, (America) that landed a man on the moon, cured polio, abolished slavery, and founded the Republic. Believing the world is broken, perfectible, by us, in real life, is why America is not China, not India, and not even Europe. Other societies have stasis. We don't. Teaching everyone that they are Superman is bound to have some positive results.

And Superman is no longer a white male thing—it is a white female thing, as typified by Hollywood's endless parade of girl power movies.

But if Superman is a photographic positive, then entitlement culture is it's negative. For every positive aspect of this thing there is its shadow—which is defined precisely by what it is not, by it's absence or reversal.

If Superman culture is heroic, entitlement culture is pathetic.
If Superman culture is has a deep pathological guilt, entitlement culture is shameless.
If Superman culture is never good enough entitlement culture never stops blaming.
If Superman culture has moral agency entitlement culture is characterized by abject dependence on the state.
If Superman culture is white, entitlement culture is "diverse."
If Superman culture is mature, entitlement culture is childish.
If Superman culture is characterized by rational discussion, entitlement culture is characterized by emotional tyranny, cry-bulling, and censorship.

If Superman culture is typified by Elon Musk at one extreme, then it is typified by the permanent resentful twisted mouth of Tinashe Coates, which says, with a single expression; "white people are at fault."

Because Superman's culture is to tell you that you are always responsible, always to blame, that you can never be good enough. It is the secular inculcation of Christian guilt at white guilt. Superman is everywhere. Superman is all-capable. It is all Superman's fault. And it is all your fault whitey.

Compare these two images;



If whitey is Superman—giving birth to everything, then Coates is the afterbirth, and he knows it.

But do you have to save the world? And do you have to save them from themselves? Letting people destroy themselves is not the evil that it has been made out to be. Help the white girl yes, but leave Tinashe to his fate. Lay down your burdens white man. Neither a savior nor a hater be. You are not evil because you let these people die. Afterbirth is not your problem. Teach your own people not to self-hate. Cure them of their white guilt. Let the rest drown. It was never a realistic goal anyway.

Save your own race Superman.

Read part I.




Tuesday, October 25, 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
Mas-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.




Monday, October 24, 2016

Interview with Mencius Moldbug

You should read him if you haven't already.

Because this blog would not exist without him.

Interview on SoundCloud with Moldbug, aka Curtis Yarvin.



Tuesday, October 18, 2016

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

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



Chapter 4b, 
Exitocracy at the Federal Level


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


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

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


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.




Sunday, October 16, 2016

Unnecessary Female Employment

Motives of Economists

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

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

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

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

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

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

Half the Truth

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Propaganda

Even more cynicism.

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

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

x is too white.
solve for x.

or

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

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




Monday, October 10, 2016

The Private Insurance Relationship Contract | Social Technology No. 3

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ultimately marriage incentives are financial, so that helps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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




Saturday, October 8, 2016

Moldbug Quote No. 1


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


Monday, October 3, 2016

Neocameral Future, Chapter 4a, Exitocracy

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.