Thursday, April 27, 2017

Neocameralism is Globalism: or the great immigration/emigration pump of capitalism, and how Moldbug's entire central thesis is flawed

Housing prices just keep going up. What makes anyone think this process will ever stop? Liberals conspire to restrict the supply of housing while dumping immigrants on American shores. This process shows no sign of slowing down. Already I have been priced out of living in Los Angeles.

People seem to think this is a one way pump. It is not. Eventually poor people in the First World will begin emigrating to the Third World to escape high housing prices. It has already started with expat communities abroad, and retirement communities in Mexico. What you are seeing is a planetary sorting effect based on income. There are more upper middle class people in the Third World than in all of the First. They will all want to buy housing in America or Europe. Nationalism isn't just about immigration. It is about your children and grandchildren being able to afford to live in the country of their ancestors. Everything follows the law of supply and demand. Frenchman can no longer afford to live in Paris. Eventually they will no longer afford to live in France. The same thing will happen everywhere. There is no law of nature that says that you will continue to be able to afford your rent in America or Europe. You could be pushed right out. . .


We already live in a Nick Land fantasy. We already live in a patchwork — in case you haven't noticed, Mencius Moldbug is a globalist, and patchwork is inherently a globalist vision. Consider what he is advocating: he wants to divide the world up into thousands of states, let people freely immigrate wherever they want, and then, once the poor are all clustered into ghetto city-states, let them die there. This is the world we already live in, only the patches are larger and the process is slower. Neocameralism is globalism. If implemented it would create a planet of miscegenated people stratified entirely based on IQ. The ideal neocameral "patch" is described as a sovereign real estate corporation that seeks to maximize its real estate value. Here is Moldbug on his own idea:
"A patchwork - please feel free to drop the capital - is any network consisting of a large number of small but independent states. To be precise, each state's real estate is its patch; the sovereign corporate owner, ie government, of the patch is its realm. At least initially, each realm holds one and only one patch. In practice this may change with time, but the realm-patch structure is at least designed to be stable."
"A Patchwork realm is a business - a corporation. Its capital is the patch it is sovereign over. The realm profits by making its real estate as valuable as possible - whether it is Manhattan or some ranch in Oklahoma. Even the oceans can and should be divided into patches; a naval realm is sovereign over, and profits by taxing, all economic activities within a patch of ocean."
"Which is a more valuable patch of real estate, today: South Korea, or North Korea? Yet before the war, the North was more industrialized and the South was more rural. Such are the profits of converting an entire country into a giant Gulag." — Source.
Let me get this straight. A half Jewish guy who advocates hyper-globalism is the godfather of the alt-right? And his vision is the maximization of profits on real estate.

Oh, and this guy also hates democracy. And he thinks that the solution is direct elite control. Here he is worshiping progressive elite control and hating democracy;
"The original progressives (or Progressives) were original and iconoclastic thinkers, believe it or not. Just as we do here at UR, they found themselves grappling with difficult truths. One of these truths, which has revealed itself again and again ever since Plato, is this: democracy doesn't work. — Link to source.
Really? Democracy works just fine in Switzerland where they have the purest form of democracy: direct democracy. Switzerland also doesn't have any immigration problem. Hmm. . . And Switzerland also doesn't wage aggressive wars for profit. As for Plato? He was the worlds first totalitarian thinker, and all philosophers acknowledge him as such.

Continuing with the quote;
"Or, as Croly puts it:
Majority rule, under certain prescribed conditions, is a necessary constituent of any practicable democratic organization; but the actions or decisions of a majority need not have any binding moral and national authority. Majority rule is merely one means to an extremely difficult, remote, and complicated end; and it is a piece of machinery which is peculiarly liable to get out of order. Its arbitrary and dangerous tendencies can, as a matter of fact, be checked in many effectual and legitimate ways, of which the most effectual is the cherishing of a tradition, partly expressed in some body of fundamental law, that the true people are, as Bismarck declared, in some measure an invisible multitude of spirits — the nation of yesterday and to-morrow, organized for its national historical mission.
"Here we see the seam between progressivism and reaction, under glass. Here at UR, we are perfectly happy to observe that majority rule is an arbitrary and dangerous piece of machinery, which is peculiarly liable to get out of order." — Same source.
"National historical mission." I detect totalitarianism — and a bit of Hegal? Or Marx? The "seam between progressivism and reaction." Meaning: the place where progressiveness (globalism) and reaction are supposed to meet.

He also says that majority rule is liable to get out of order. No dumb-ass. It is elite control which always gets out of order. Please observe that monarchies have constant civil wars. Also observe that as America has become less democratic it's politics has become more insane. In fact, the more America is ruled by an oligarchy, the more insane its' politics become. Could this be because the elite are inherently insane themselves? After all, a wealthy person who has never experienced hardship has never had to test their beliefs against reality, has he? These people can afford to be as delusional as they like. Money buys that kind of indifference.

Moldbug's entire shtick is to;
1. Observe that democracy is broken in some way.
2. Point out that elite control, (the Cathedral) has broken it.
3. Assert that the solution is more elite control.
Imagine if a doctor said: "Cyanide is killing the patient. Clearly the solution is more cyanide and less patient." This is basically Moldbug's entire central thesis. Everything else depends on this.

The problem is ostensibly supposed to be the cure. But we have hundreds of years of experience with elite control, and we know that Kings are despots. Remember the, "right of the first night?" Hmm? Anyone? Bueller? ever see the movie Braveheart? It's called Droit du seigneur, as per la wik;
"Droit du seigneur (/ˈdrɑː də seɪˈnjɜːr/; French pronunciation: ​[dʁwa dy sɛɲœʁ]) ("lord's right"), also known as ius primae noctis (/ʒʌs ˈpraɪmiː ˈnɒktᵻs/; Latin pronunciation: [ju:s ˈpri:mae̯ 'nɔktɪs]) ("right of the first night"), refers to a supposed legal right in medieval Europe, and elsewhere, allowing feudal lords to have sexual relations with subordinate women (the "wedding night" detail is specific to some variants).
Well, that's one way to practice eugenics!

America has a pedophile billionaire. Imagine a world were that guy is your king.

Do you really think that your progressive overlords would be any less insane in a modern monarchy? Remember, Moldbug actually wants progressives to rule you. He actually believes that they will behave responsibly if given absolute power. What a naive vision. And what if they decide to practice their sexual perversions on your children? What if the local lord thinks your son would look good in a dress? What is your recourse? Do you really think that these corrupt people wouldn't wind up ruling you? Imagine a globalist oligarchy with absolute power. That is what Moldbug's vision would really be, whether he realizes it or not.

No thanks. I'll keep democracy.

You are all fucking fools if you think you will be any freer under any other system.

Oh, and for those of you who hate immigration? There is absolutely no reason to think that monarchy will be any better on the subject. Granted, it will not have an incentive to import people to win elections. But it will also not have any incentive to not enslave people, import them, export them, or whatever. There is absolutely no proof that a monarchy won't be co-opted by globalists. The fact that ancient monarchs were not globalists is only caused by the fact that globalism did not exist at the time, and could not, because of the absence of technology. Today is different, and the elites can always afford more palace guards while they turn your country into a Third World hell hole. They will do whatever profits them at your expense. Donald Trump anyone? If he can sell out do you really think a king won't? Hmm?


I regret anything I have ever said in favor of monarchy. At this point I am a nationalist.


  1. So you're a nationalist now- congratulations good sir, you're now fully human.

    All kidding aside, this is probably my favorite post on this blog to date. As for Moldy, he has opened our eyes to different ways of thinking, but we can only ride his cab for so long and then it is time to disembark. Capitalism is destructive of national ends unless controlled firmly, and with stiff consequences for economic misbehavior.

    Yes, it is indeed rather sad to hear globalism coming from 'our side,' it hurts that much more, but alas, this is what it is. As for being the "godfather" of the alt-right, that distinction goes to others, Moldy was godfather of neoreaction (which I generally like, in parts at least), and I think he attempted to distance himself from it once he was doxxed. Whatever, he is only human himself and needs to eat too.

    There is an aura of the sort of twerpy administrative bean counter within neoreaction I must say. I don't mean to cite something as crass as the book "Soul on Ice," but in the final chapter the author has some insightful descriptions what he calls the "hyper-masculine menial" (which would be us in this case) and the sort of effeminate administrator.

    Anyway, blog on good sir, onward and upward.

  2. >Let me get this straight. A half Jewish guy who advocates hyper-globalism is the godfather of the alt-right?
    He's not. Neo-reactionaries tend to think of themselves too much important and they use their blogs to autistically screech about how they were important to the creation of the "Altright" when the truth is that it was founded by ex-Libertarians who turned National Socialists after questioning Free-market dogmas and finding a treasure of lost information about economics (the American System of Economics), discovering the Jews and their destructive role in history and awakening for their Indo-European spirit of true history (the Ancient Middle East was fully White, Central Asia too, "Whites" created practically everything).

    Now, about "Neocameralism", this is from Wikipedia's Cameralism:
    "There are some similarities between cameralism as an oeconomic theory and the (French) Mercantilist school of Jean-Baptiste Colbert, which has sometimes caused cameralism to be viewed as a German version of mercantilism, as they both emphasised import substitution and a strong state directing oeconomic life.[7] However, cameralism was developed with regards to the landlocked nature of many of the German states of the 18th century and attempted to substitute the whole production process, whereas Mercantilism relied on access to raw materials and goods from the colonial periphery.[8] Furthermore, defining cameralism as an early modern school of economy does not accurately portray the scope of the body of knowledge included in cameralism.[9] Throughout the 18th and the first half of the 19th century cameralist science was influential in Northern European states, for example Prussia and Sweden, and its academics and practitioners were pioneers in oeconomic, environmental and administrative knowledge and technology, for example cameralistic accounting, still used in public finance today."

    So, Cameralism is a form of protectionist economic policy independent from colonies (drifting apart from Mercantilism) and relies on state investment and directions.
    How's this different from National Socialism or the American System of Economics? How does this undermine the Nation-state, its citizens and their domestic industries?
    Also, you spoke of NEO-Cameralism, is this a Moldbug thing? Did he subverted it or anything?

  3. This is a good post -some other points; empires tend to impoverish the places they rule; the more distant the center of control, the greater the impoverishment. Palestine was much richer in periods when it was under local control than under the rule of the Egyptians, Babylonians, and Persians (this is a fact confirmed by archaeology). Look at the sorry state of India under the British, as well, and how famine disappears even in poor countries when democracy is established. Hobbes (and Boldmug) saw monarchy as preferable to democracy due to the people having less coincidence of public and private interests than a monarch (in countries where people lack all civic virtue, democracy does generally descend into a tragedy of the commons-type situation). But monarchs are well-known to frequently sacrifice the well-being of their subjects for their own. Mugabe, Kim Jong-Un, the Duvaliers, have all benefited while their countries suffered. Thus, monarchy is not a good system at coinciding public and private interests.

    The whole point of Boldmug's solution is to attempt at a system where public and private interests are most coincident. Thus, his proposal for joint-stock companies to rule us. But, given the right kind of people, democracy isn't all that horrific at coinciding public and private interests, either. In countries where the people lack all civic virtue (e.g., Ukraine), democracy obviously breeds terrible results. But in lands where civic virtue is more common among the people (e.g., Finland), democracy can be an acceptable system. Boldmug also makes this point with his claim those countries in which democracy has the earliest origin are most immune to its harmful effects.

    When I was reading Boldmug on how the civil service state is a band-aid to the problems of direct democracy, I thought one thing: Brexit is good. The people supported it; the civil service state opposed it.

    Yes, democracy created the welfare state (in the U.S., in 1932-6 and 1964). Boldmug is right that after a successful Ron Paul government, the people would simply give power back to the civil service state after fifty or so years. Yes, people are easy to fool. But democracy does, indeed, serve as an occasional and useful check on elite perversions, and I do agree he is too critical of it, at least, for civilized countries like ours. It wasn't democracy that gave us Obergefell.

    I still haven't examined thoroughly the utility of Boldmug's solution of joint stock companies ruling all of us in a patchwork as a successful means to make public and private interests coincide. Your criticisms of it may be correct; but I don't have enough information to decide yet.