Thursday, February 2, 2017

Responding to Reactionary Future (finally)

Way back in October of 2016 Reactionary Future commented on one of my articles and wrote about me;
"It is surely safe to conclude that neoreaction has no consensus, and it was never going to obtain one. When two people approach a concept with radically differing priors which are not examined in any way, any point of agreement will be necessarily brief and superficial. To supply an example, we can use the neocameral model of Moldbug which was cited as a unifying principle. Now, each person’s understanding of this model is based on their own priors from their own tradition. So, whereas Moldbug approaches it from priors based on rejection of imperium in imperio as he repeatedly announces, others have taken this model and used vastly differing priors, so that what is understood by the neocameral model differ wildly, and any agreement on this point rapidly diverges after this agreement."
A superb example is provided by the anti-puritan blog, as it was previously by Land on Xenosystems, and there are probably others that don’t come to mind immediately. Now, this rejection of imperium in imperio is key to understanding further Moldbug directions, and it was key to understanding the sovcorp model. Moldbug had reached the correct conclusion that having competing centers of authority in a single polity results in them fighting it out surreptitiously until one is supreme, and one always does end up supreme (violence when used short of civil war is always done through a proxy.) The resulting chaos is disastrous. This is a point which is utterly key. Competing centers of authority engage in conflict, but this first principle has not been taken on by those such as Xenosytems and the anti-puritan blog. Why? The answer is simply that they are working on liberal and modern principles. The joke is that the entire political system is based on the same principles held by the likes of Land, Axel and all other neoreactionary thinkers that do not hold the first principle that competing power centers engage in centralising conflict. There is absolutely nothing new or innovative about them."

He links to my post about fixing democracy. To quote myself from Neocameral Future, Chapter 4a;
"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."
I should clarify things, after all, I do literally say that I don't reject imperium in imperio. This does not mean that I disagree with the notion that competing power centers engage in conflict. They obviously do. It means that I have rejected Moldbug's explanation for why imperium in imperio is a problem. Here I am later in Neocameral Future, Ch 4a on the issue;
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."
This blog, the Anti-Puritan, is dedicated to option (c), not (b). It is dedicated to separation and not what many call "secure power." Which I just call "the jackboot."

Essentially, what I believe is that this thing that the current unsecure power system is fighting over, this market for plunder, should be privatized into a patchwork. The method I give in Neocameral Future is a usufructuary market where a corporation called a system is given sovereignty for a period of five years. To gain this sovereignty they must first prove they meet the capital requirements and get licensed. After getting licensed they put themselves on the ballot. They have to get ratified by a multi-part election to gain power.

As for fixing democracy, (the article he linked to), the reasoning is simple. Monarchy is not likely to happen any time soon. Something needs to be done in the short-term to address democracy's pathological flaws. That is what that article is about, and the case is not so hopeless as it seems. Immigration is the only problem that reforming democracy cannot solve. Continuing he says;
"What we see with this whole mess then, is that neoreactionaries come along to the model, ignore the key first principle behind it, and literally assume it is based on liberal first principles."
 I didn't ignore the key first principle. I addressed it, found it lacking, and created my own modified version of it.
"These include conceptions of property conflated with mere possession, the individual being before society and the state,"
 I don't say that the individual in before society and the state. But I do say that human nature is prior to the state when I talk about the five-phase model in Chapter 1 of NF.
". . .and various other theoretical pieces of crap all modern thinkers have taken as a given. The property point is one I have been banging the drum on for a while now, and should be give away that not all is right with the liberal interpretation of sovcorp – it isn’t Hobbesian because Hobbes was justifying oligarchic property distributions. Moldbug instead makes it clear Sovcorp is in full possession and then grants property status. This is a major difference."
As for property rights being mere possession? I don't know where this accusation is coming from. Obviously property is secured by the violence of the state. I never said is wasn't. Going on he says;
"Instead of sovcorp being an intellectual tool to explore the possible formation of political structures that ensure organised and complementary flows of authority, it has been turned into a democratic system, or a republican system with various wish lists list to be enacted."
Yes. So what. The whole project of Neocameral Future is to design a system that decays into patchwork, not patchwork itself. It is supposed to serve as a bridge from here to there.
"The patchwork of differing political states (one communist, one white nationalist etc.) is an absurd concept which is an express rejection of the rejection of the imperium in imperio first principle."
Never rejected the principle that imperium in imperio causes conflict. I rejected COMPROMISE and stated that it was the cause of the left. Without the possibility of compromise the left cannot exist. Anything that ends majoritarian compromise, (separation, full consensus, secure power) will end left-wing power. Unsecure power may be the cause of conflict, but there are more resolutions available to the problem than mere secure power. Moldbug listed only one solution. There are four in total.
"Rather than being political theory based on historical observation, it reverts to being liberal absurdity with no consideration of the effects of the political system on the participants. . ."
Liberal absurdity? Are you serious? No consideration of the effects? I am well aware of the effects of exitocracy; the stupid will perish.

Or is he referring to the article Fixing Democracy? In that case the effects will be a temporary reprieve from democracies worst effects.
". . .within the system because this conflicts with the liberal first principles that were basically pulled out of Hobbes and Locke’s asses to justify the collapse of western monarchy into oligarchy."
Obviously the state of nature as described by Hobbes and Locke is nonsense. I don't recall ever saying it wasn't. Reactionary Future appears to think that because he spends endless amounts of time blathering about Hobbes that somehow I care about this or take it as my central concern. I do not.

No comments:

Post a Comment