Saturday, January 14, 2017

Reciprocal Political Relationships


Actually Existing Democracy, Part Two


III

Democracy and capitalism are not synonymous. In many ways they are deeply inimical to each other. But in western nations they coevolved with the destruction of monarchy. There is a reason for this, having to do with the nature of democracy itself. They coevolved because both capitalism and democracy are the consequence of technologically-induced decentralization of power. Democracy is coercive market power divided against itself. Capitalism is free market power divided against itself. In both cases warring power centers compete. In the case of politics (the coercion market) they compete for dominance over a redistributive coercion market (party politics). In the case of the free market they compete for market share.

This does not preclude the reunification of power. The shredding of power in an historical event contingent upon a landed aristocracy losing its monopoly on economic power through the industrial revolution. The rise of new technologies of heavy industry created competing sources of wealth that could influence the monarchy without owing it the services that other forms of property entailed. A newly formed competing wealth center became a competing power center, or at least that's the theory.

As I have said before here and here, democracy is a coercion market. It is a system for selling other peoples money through brokers (aka Senators). And it is simply a corrupted form of anarcho capitalism that presides over raiding a market commons. The fact that it often does good things is simply a function of the fact that there are common overlapping interests of all the different purchasers. The alternative I presented is a divided propertarian usufructuary market whose territory is leased by various corporations licensed by a central authority and ratified by the people through local multi-phase plebiscites. The name I assigned for this alternative system of anarcho capitalism is exitocracy.

So both democracy and capitalism are systems of warring centers: economic production power war (capitalism) and economic redistribution power war (democracy).

I have explained democracy with the metaphor "coercion market."

But the entire political system of a democracy can be understood with a different metaphor altogether. It can be understood as an operating system that executes whatever programs are run on top of it. These programs consist of reciprocal political relationships. Or what we usually term pork projects, rent seeking, corruption, handouts, etc. As a term "reciprocal relationship" is better. It is more accurate and allows us to describe all the different kinds of relationships.

As a side note it should be understood that since democracy is a form of limited civil war where the troops show up to be counted, there is a massive incentive to do civil war like things, and that means that certain programs are automatically generated by the "operating system" itself — programs like mass immigration, voter suppression, birth rate suppression, and extending the franchise. We will get to defining these in a minute. Let us talk about these different programs, these reciprocal relationships.

All simple reciprocal relationships are like this: I give you something and you give me something. All states, even non-democracies, run on reciprocal relationships.

An authoritarian state will have most of its reciprocal relationships with the armed forces and other force related organs of the state.

Democracies have more total relationships than any other kind type of state, which is why they don't have to rely on the military to keep everyone in line — because they are all invested in the system through its handouts. That's why a democracy can grow to become totalitarian without having to put down serious rebellions. The population is unwilling to give up its economic rents for freedom. That's also why authoritarian states are often more libertarian, and why the growth of a democracies power over the population does not require a corresponding growth in force against the population.

In other words;

In the beginning of a democracy the state has very few reciprocal relationships to support it. The state is weak, but it also encounters no resistance because it is libertarian.

In the end the state is totalitarian, but it still encounters little resistance because the people allow it in order to receive their economic rents.

All conventional reciprocal relationships are privilege for privilege in nature, with an involuntary third-party paying the economic cost of those privileges.

It becomes totalitarian because of the growth of reciprocal relationships. In fact there is no difference between the the two. The reciprocal relationships incur a totalitarian cost on the third-parties who must pay them. Since a third-party is paying it, there is no incentive to limit parasitism, and excessive parasitical behavior is identical to totalitarian government.

But we will learn through examples. Let's start with the most obvious ones.


IV

Everyone knows how social security really works. The government gives the elderly social security money. The elderly vote against politicians who threaten their social security. Thus, a reciprocal relationship exists. The simplest description of this is money for votes. The politician provides money and the retired voter provides votes. The young are the third-party that pay for the old in this case. The cost is incurred to them.

Or take corn subsidies. The state gives agribusinesses a handout. The corn farmers give Congressman campaign contributions. This is money for contributions. The third-party that pays for it is you with your tax dollars and the people with increased obesity levels. Corn is used to make corn syrup and is fed to cows. Two of the worlds most fattening products are made artificially inexpensive by cheep corn. This contributes to the obesity epidemic.

There are lots of examples like this. The state gives big pharma protection from competition with Canadian drug imports. This is anti-competitive laws for campaign contributions. The local government restricts the ability of real estate developers to build houses with greenbelts, zoning laws, and form and space codes. In exchange it receives votes, contributions, and grassroots campaigning for local offices. This is real estate price inflation for political support. The federal government limits competition between medical insurance companies by banning competition across state lines. This is anti-competitive laws for campaign contributions. The federal government gives the banking system a bailout. The banking system gives politicians contributions. This is money for contributions.

Patients are the third-party that pays for increased drug costs. Renters are the third-party that pay for homeowners to profit from inflated real estate costs. Companies and employees are the third-party that pays for increased medical costs. Everyone is the third-party pays for corrupt markets as a result of banking system corruption

Let's call all of these regular relationships "conventional reciprocal relationships." They are conventional because they follow the "I give you something and you give me something" pattern and because they all involve the exchange of money, contributions, rent-seeking, power, or support. They are the basic case of a coercion market. They are not ideological in nature.

Speaking of ideology.

The Department of Education, Ford Foundation, etc. give money to the universities to teach grievance studies to minorities. What do they get in return? Low agency minorities who are loyal to the party machine. This is ideology in exchange for votes.

In government, ideology is really just the political equivalent of marketing. It is not that unusual for companies to exploit psychological weaknesses to gain customers. Advertisers use well known psychological tricks to sell their products. For example; clothing companies advertise their products to women who are nervous about the way their bodies look, and actively exploit that concern over self-image to sell clothing. Everything from sun glasses to sports cars, from dick pills to lingerie sales prey on the insecurities of people to sell them things. "Buy this car and women will find you attractive." "Wear this makeup and no one will have to see your ugly ass face."

The same basic technique is employed politically to gain the support of minorities. They are told that the system is against them, white supremacy runs everything, they have no capabilities, they can only succeed through handouts, etc., and then sold psychological dependence on the Democratic party. Ideology for votes is everywhere on the left. They are masters at it. The Republicans? Not so much.

So these are ideological reciprocal relationships, as opposed to conventional reciprocal relationships.

But it gets worse.

Because there is a form of reciprocal relationship we might call the "inverted reciprocal relationship."

Democrats are familiar with this in the form of voter suppression. Unlike a conventional reciprocal relationship; "I give you something and you give me something" or an ideological reciprocal relationship; "I indoctrinate you and you vote for my party," an inverted relationship goes; "I harm you and you refrain from harming me."

The group who does the harm, reduces the harm done to themselves by the population they are attacking.

Voter suppression is what the left calls voter ID laws. It is an accurate description. It goes like this; "I stop illegal immigrants from voting and they don't harm my interests." It's pattern is harm in exchange for non-harm.

But it gets even worse. There is another one of these. Call it "birth rate suppression." It goes; "I indoctrinate white women to be feminists and white women don't give birth to white babies who will grow up and most likely vote Republican." Like voter suppression its pattern is harm in exchange for non-harm. In this case the Democratic party harms white birth rates with ideology and gets fewer hostile voters in exchange in the long-run.

Another example of an inverted reciprocal relationship is mass importation of immigrants. It's pattern is "I bring in a hostile population to dilute the shareholder strength of your racial group." Again, its pattern is harm in exchange for non-harm. Harm is done to the voter strength of the white race. In exchange the Democratic party receives less harm against itself in the form of proportionately fewer white votes for the Republicans.

Another type could be called an "inverted upside down relationship." Like the inverted relationship it is harm for non-harm, but it is upside down. Meaning: the positions of client and patron are flipped. The US government becomes the client instead of it, or an entity within it like the Democratic party, always being the patron. The clearest example of this is the relationship between the Obama administration and ISIS.

It goes; "I (Obama) give ISIS weapons and leave them alone and in exchange they refrain from attacking America or Israel." Yes, Obama is bombing ISIS. But he has had several opportunities to destroy their leadership and has refrained from doing so. He has also given them weapons indirectly. Inverted upside down reciprocal relationships are what happens when a terrorist organization like ISIS, Al Qaeda, or a gang like MS13 is able to carve out a niche of sovereignty within an empire. The relationship goes "I won't terrorize you if you let me operate freely." It is a harm for non-harm relationship where the state is in the position of being the client of a terrorist group. States allow this because these gangs are useful for terrorizing enemies, or even non-compliant populations within your own society, such as white people in the inner city, or because you have a immoral Commander and Chief who wants to push the problem onto the next administration.

Gangs are allowed to operate for a reason. They are an armed wing of the Democratic party.

This forms a second reciprocal relationship; "terrorize my enemies for me in exchange for sovereignty," (harm for privilege) which forms a third inverted relationship, "weakened whites are driven out of minority neighborhoods in exchange for the votes of those minorities (also a harm for privilege relationship). The minorities are allowed to terrorize (harm) in exchange for a mono-ethnic neighborhood with no whites (the privilege).

There are still other reciprocal relationships. One type is extortive in nature between the Department of Veterans Affairs and Congress. It goes; "give us more funding and fewer veterans will die." This is a case of harm for non-harm (inverted relationship) where Congress is the client of the VA bureaucracy. Since the VA is the higher party in this case and Congress is the lower party, it follows that the VA has sovereignty over Congress, and not the reverse!

I hope this clarifies democracy for you.


V

Now the second thing we need to understand, and I keep repeating this over and over again, it that there is a cumulative property to reciprocal relationships. Simply put, new relationships are created and old ones are never destroyed. By their very nature this is a coercion market. And that means that someone else's money is being purchased. As a result, there is no incentive to limit parasitism since the cost is being borne by an outside party who is not typically present at the negotiation table — the public.

Democracy in its present form engages in legislative accumulation. These reciprocal relationships build up over time and destroy the economy and rights of the people. Moreover, as the state and its parasites grow, so does the payoff for controlling the state, and so the general level of ideological hysteria being manufactured by the state and its client parasites is ratcheted up endlessly. This is why democracy leads to dictatorship and why it moves steadily from a libertarian to a totalitarian society, and why democracy slowly goes hysterically crazy.

The solution to almost all of this is to reverse legislative accumulation.

And I talked about how to halt this process in Radical Reform Ideas. In that article, my second recommendation was to create a House of Repeal. I made that same recommendation in Fixing Democracy, along with others.

Each set of reciprocal relationships gives birth to the next. The state expands exponentially. In the beginning only white men who own land can vote. But democracy is a form of limited civil war where the troops line up to be counted. There is always an incentive to add new troops to your side. Thus we see that the voting franchise was expanded endlessly. The left even wants to give felons and illegal immigrants the right to vote. As the percentage of the population that can vote expands, so do the handouts, which is why we are here today. Secondly, new troops are brought in through immigration because of the inverted reciprocal relationship we just described above, and not because of some noble sentiment about a "nation of immigrants."


VI

I have spent many thousands of hours trying to come up with cures for the problems that face democracy. You really would not believe just how much time I have dedicated / wasted trying to figure out how to fix my nation. Unlike most reactionaries I was not so eager to throw the current system away, but I am at my wits end on this and would like to explain my reasoning so that you, the reader, can understand where I am going with this blog and why. We will do this in an informal manner and I will simply give you my thoughts on the issue.

The system is totally incurable.

Don't get me wrong. We could reform it. We could create a House of Repeal dedicated solely to abolishing laws. This could be combined with some sort of quota to repeal laws. If everything works perfectly we could halt legislative accumulation totally. This would mean that the culture war would stop ratcheting up. If the quota was greater than the number of laws made every year then the state would actually recede. The economy would begin improving continuously, and the culture war would shrink in scope over time. The bureaucracy would get smaller. Progressive hegemony would diminish. Political hysteria would die down. Race relations would improve, especially if all laws relating to race were repealed. All of this would be wonderful.

And if my advice was followed about creating a requirement that the vote percentage required in Congress for approval be the remainder of 100%, minus the percentage of the population helped at some point in their lives, then both all identity politics groups and the 1% would be excluded from politics. And while I am not necessarily enthused by excluding the 1%, I am very much enthused by excluding identity politics groups. So you would have real majoritarian democracy in its true raw form, without the hundreds of activist grievance groups that now dominate it.

Excluding them would make democracy much saner. The general level of rationality in society and politics would rise. Politicians would stop pandering to petty grievances. It would no longer matter if you were black, female, gay, etc. Without an incentive to pander to special interests, both corporate welfare and affirmative action would go away. Marriage could probably be reformed. Fathers could get custody more often without a culture slavishly devoted to feminism. Feminism itself would lose institutional power as majorities gained control over the Department of Education. In fact, as a result of the remainder method, majorities would gain control over everything and minorities would be pushed completely out the door of politics.

(See the remainder method + prediction market within the article Radical Reform Ideas for an explanation of the remainder method).

This would also be wonderful.

And in that same article on radical reform I propose to create campaign contribution vouchers and fund those vouchers with taxes on regular campaign contributions. Each voucher gives entitlement to the bearer to make campaign contributions of his own. This has several effects, some positive and some negative.

On the one hand, it weakens almost all reciprocal relationships that currently exist. Those relationships can then be easily dismantled without a fight because politicians are no longer beholden to their campaign contributors. They must go directly to the public to gain funding for election. This means that the globalist elite no loner control American democracy.

But this substitutes one massive reciprocal relationship with the public for a thousand small relationships that are mostly with the business community. Since the bureaucracy is still intact it does nothing to end the ideological reciprocal relationship that the left has with the population. In essence, it turns America into a mass democracy much closer to a full Greek style direct democracy than anything else. Since the Cathedral still potentially controls public opinion, this is not necessarily a good thing. But the Cathedral's will now has to go through the minds of ordinary people to express itself, so the craziest ideas will (probably) be filtered out.

On top of all of this, the reciprocal relationships with the business community were a powerful, if corrupt, bulwark against some Cathedral ideas — though many large corporations are instruments of leftist control. Granted, you have the chance to abolish a thousand corruptions of government, but now you are directly accountable to the whims of the people, and every president is a populist, whether he be a Trump or an Hugo Chavez, a Bernie Sanders or a Marine Le Pen.

So you get mass democracy, and that means who ever controls public opinion controls the state, and we already know who controls public opinion. So we haven't yet solved that problem. But we could with a right-wing Cathedral?

On top of all of this immigration would still occur on a massive scale. There is no guarantee that democracy would halt it. The same incentives of bringing in new troops would still exist. And by the time you implemented a halt using majority will, would whites still be the majority? And would they ever vote cohesively as a block for their own best interests?

Now I tried to solve this problem with exitocracy. But if I am completely honest, this simply converts a struggle for control over a federal system into a kind of block by block street fight to control individual counties in America. And that is not necessarily desirable by any means. Exitocracy separates groups in space. That could very well lead to territorial battles. I proscribe an Emperor to keep everyone in line. But an Emperor is not happening anytime soon in this nation until it collapses, and waiting for collapse obviates the whole purpose of exitocracy.

The problem with writing a book is that by the time you finish chapter 4 you have already changed you mind about what system is best. So I am at an impasse trying to fix this fucking system. It's un-fucking fixable.

I hate that because the whole project of Neocameral Future was to create a path from here to something like patchwork without going through rightist singularity. I wanted to reform my way into a system like patchwork. I even said that exitocracy decays into patchwork when the people become a reserve power. The problem is that the demographic effects of the 1965 Immigration and Naturalization Act has made the idea of fully reforming democracy impossible. Oh sure, you can fix the system and have "civic nationalism," but if your goal has anything to do with returning The US to a prior demographic configuration you are SOL. For that you need a one-party illiberal state which is uncomfortably close to Nat Soc. If only I had been writing this is 1980 then everything would be salvageable with reform measures within the system. But I was born in the 80's and the internet did not exist. The trouble is that by the time you know what the problem is it is already too late. If I knew the future now would you believe me? If I had known the future then would they have believed me?

We went from the optimism of the 1980's with Marty McFly and Back to the Future to the race hatred of today in only 37 years. Fast forward 37 more years and envision a future which is proportionately worse. What will 2054 be like? I don't know. But I think I might need a green card.

The torture of a young mentally handicapped white male for simply being a white male gives new urgency to resolve the demographic crisis. Being a minority in a country where the left has created a vast set of inverted reciprocal relationships against you is not going to be a pleasant experience. The entire left now depends on marketing hatred toward white people as part of its program for winning elections. The sheer volume of handouts and affirmative action programs create an incentive to dehumanize whites as a justifying mechanism for power and redistribution. Remember, ideology comes after power. It was only after African Americans were enslaved that they were regarded as subhuman. Mark my words, their exploitation of you will lead to a guilty conscience, and they will assuage that conscience by dehumanizing you. They already have. Remember also that reciprocal political relationships grow automatically and generate new ones.

I don't want to be behind the curve. I want to see what is coming and be five steps ahead. The only way I see forward is through a one-party nationalist state. Monarchy is academic. We need something now.

What do you think? I need your feedback and advice. The feedback I get will help determine where I go from here. I'll give you a series of options and you can tell me where to go from here.

Option 1: Develop strategy for creating a one-party nationalist state.
Option 2: Work towards a reformed two-party majoritarian system like the one described above. (This does not solve immigration).
Option 3: Continue to develop exitocracy. (This probably won't happen in our lifetimes.)





No comments:

Post a Comment