Homo Sapien contra Homo Rancher

The whole idea behind fascism is basically to treat a society like a big farm or ranch where the humans are the animals. In such a system the goal is to maximize the economic value of your human livestock. Seriously, that's what people who actually have fascist opinions say. They don't use the term human livestock, but they definitely approach that exact opinion and their values (or lack thereof) towards other races are based on their assessment of the economic value of those people for capital. A nazi society is basically a giant ranch where useless eaters are slaughtered and the economic value of the population maximized. Paradoxically the nazis themselves were worried about excessive human domestication and yet their system would probably result in it. The contradiction is that a system designed to maximize the value of human beings as productive units necessarily has to decide which human beings are valuable, which are less valuable, and which are worthless. Once you have made that distinction, the system has to find some mechanism for sorting people. That mechanism can be economic, racial, political, or some combination of all three. But the basic logic remains the same: the population is being treated as a productive resource to be managed. The purpose of a thing is what it does, and although the nominal goal of nazism is to secure the future of the white race, it's corporate structure (literally the state as corporate body) and it's incentive structure both double down on the "government as farmer of human beings" approach that brought immigrants in to european nations to begin with. It is likely that if the Third Reich had succeeded it would have evolved into a cucked version of China.

Many thinkers from Hans Hermann Hoppe to Nick Land to Curtis Yarvin all believe in this maximizing the value of human capital logic, even though this obviously contradicts their fondness for ALL whites, (some of which are low human capital value), their disdain for certain high IQ immigrants, the general NRx worry about IQ shredders, and Land's personal claim on his blog Xenosystems that NRx " is the least fascistic thing."  While all the logic is human farm logic, all the conclusions are in-group racial tribal logic. This is an attempt to put a patina of science on what is otherwise a racial preference. I'm not claiming the racial preference is wrong, everyone has their preferences, and I am not claiming that human biodiversity is false or even immoral (it doesn't really matter), but rather that they are inconsistent, and the values they espouse do not support their conclusion. If the argument is really about maximizing human capital, then racial preference should follow human capital. If the argument is instead that a particular racial group should be preferred regardless of the economic value of individual members of that group, then the argument is not really about human capital at all. These thinkers are trying to fit a circle into a square hole. Your race is not something the capital gives a shit about. Indeed at the present moment it seems to have an anti-white bias. Elites imported whites to replace native americans. Elites imported new people to replace whites. Elites will import the next batch to replace those people too. Why do you think the process has an end? Why do you think putting elites in charge would save you? What will you do when the spoiled grandchildren of nazi elites turns against you?

Loyalty scorecard democracy DOES support in-group preferences, through the effect of this is permanent populist politics. It supports it through results rather than claims. It is not necessary for review democracy/loyalty scorecard democracy to make any claims about race, the implementation of the system freezes the racial makeup of a nation by preventing the current crop of voters from having their "shares" diluted by the managerial elite class. Voters are always hostile to immigration and a system that compels serving them compels serving their desires. The implementation of the system is the defense of the current racial makeup, freezing it, with no need to make any claims of human inferiority. It's power is precisely in that it doesn't have to even talk about the issue to work. The important distinction is between a system that explicitly argues for a racial hierarchy and a system whose institutional incentives produce a preference for continuity without ever making a racial argument. The former has to defend a theory about human differences. The latter only has to give the existing population control over whether the population changes. If voters prefer the existing social and demographic composition of their society, and they have the institutional power to prevent managerial elites from changing that composition, then the outcome follows without anybody needing to declare another group inferior.

This is why I think loyalty scorecard democracy is actually more internally consistent with in-group preferences than the racial theories it is sometimes contrasted with. It does not need to prove that outsiders are inferior. It only needs to give the people who already live in the society the ability to say "no" to changes they do not want. The result may still be a defense of an existing racial or cultural composition, but the mechanism is democratic rather than ideological. It produces the result through political control rather than through a theory of racial hierarchy, and ideology won't save you from flawed structural incentives that the grandchildren of those elites inherent.

I lump these people in with fascism despite having shared many of their viewpoints in the past and despite my own racist tendencies. Fascism is incoherent and rife with internal contradictions. Despite my past flirtations with it I have always been consistent in saying that the solution to these problems is more democracy and not less, and the evolution of my viewpoint has been towards reinforcing that conclusion rather than contradicting it. This is also why I don't think the answer to these ideas is simply to declare the people who hold them evil and move on. I have believed versions of some of these ideas myself. I understand the appeal of the argument. If the existing political system is producing obviously bad outcomes, it is tempting to conclude that ordinary people are the problem and that some more competent class needs to take control. But that conclusion creates the exact problem it claims to solve: it transfers control of the human farm from one group of people to another.

Democracy is basically customer-owned government, or perhaps (from the fascist viewpoint) democracy is livestock-owned government. It is customer owned or livestock owned government in its purest form. Of course it is relentlessly corrupted by outside financial forces and activist politics. The financial forces that corrupt it are the forces of livestock owners, aka ranchers of humanity, also known as CEOs and billionaires. The issue—as I see it—has always been to keep activists and financial power out of government, that is, to cement the power of the customer-owner. Government is corrupted by activists on one side and financial power on the other. Activists have an immediate and toxic effect on the government which is very obvious to anyone who has sat through a city council meeting. Financial interests have a more insidious and long-term corrupting influence on the government because they cause the accumulation of rent seeking and inequality which then drives and increases the power of activists as a reaction to it. Financial power is the slow poison of democracy while activists are the fast poison. The important point is that I am not arguing that democracy is naturally immune to these forces. It isn't. Democracy is customer-owned government in the same sense that a business is customer-owned when the customers ultimately have the ability to determine what the business does. But customers can be manipulated, bribed, divided, distracted, or simply deprived of meaningful control. The problem with democracy is therefore not that ordinary people have too much power. It is that they have too little effective power compared with the organized interests that surround them. The way this is solved is by excluding these two forces more effectively from power.

Every system has grappled with these two groups. The mentally ill are attracted to politics and become the activists. The corrupt are attracted to politics for wealth reasons. In the past they have created monarchies with insane kings presiding over corrupt royal courts. Then bourgeois democracy was figured out and power nominally transferred to customer-owners, aka "voters." But the influence remains. The goal is to finally purge that influence and put the chuds who just want to chill and grill in charge. Since the chuds have no interest in power they have to be forced to participate. That's how power always works, the people who don't want it are most qualified to have it. 

The ordinary person who wants to chill and grill has almost no incentive to spend his life learning the intricacies of government. He has a job, a family, a house, a garden, a truck, or whatever else he wants to spend his time doing. He doesn't want to rule anyone. That is precisely why I think he is more qualified to exercise political power than someone who desperately wants to acquire it. The problem is that he will not voluntarily devote his life to politics. So the system has to bring him to politics with a jury summons.

Human civilization is a farm, or a ranch. Fascism is a system that maximizes the economic value of human livestock. Democracy is customer-owned government. The insane and corrupt are the real problem, have always been the real problem, and purging them from politics is the solution. This can only be accomplished through compulsory attendance by ordinary people at sessions where they review everything the government has done and fire non-aligned politicians relentlessly. A system of natural selection then reinforces a system of election. The purpose of compulsory review is therefore not to make ordinary people into politicians. It is to make politicians accountable to ordinary people. The politician becomes a temporary employee of the customer-owners rather than a member of a permanent managerial class. The ordinary person does not need to understand every detail of government. He only needs the ability to look at what the government has done and decide whether the people responsible should continue doing it.

This also creates a form of political natural selection. Politicians who consistently act in ways that satisfy the people who review their work survive. Politicians who consistently alienate those people are removed. Over enough iterations, the system selects for politicians who are capable of governing while remaining aligned with the people who actually own the government. The election selects who gets the job; the review process determines whether they are allowed to keep it.

One more point. There's little difference between the government owning the means of production and the means of production owning the government. Commies and fascists like to split hairs and say that they are different systems. But when the government acquires ownership of a business, even if that government is democratically elected, it acquires the financial incentives of that business. If the US federal government owns a percentage of Intel it now has an incentive to ensure that Intel is profitable. That means it has an incentive against workers rights in any situation where the two conflict. Those workers are also voters and that means it has an incentive against its own voters. To acquire any business is to acquire the same incentives of fascism. It does not matter who owns who, the combination of the two incentives will always produce a fascist / feudal / state capitalist result. It's all the same, it all results in the same, and that's why both marxist and fascist societies run camps to eliminate "low human capital." Ownership creates incentives, and those incentives do not disappear merely because the owner is called "the government" instead of "a corporation." If the government owns the productive enterprise, the government acquires the interests of the productive enterprise. If the productive enterprise controls the government, the productive enterprise acquires the power of the government. In either direction, the separation between economic power and political power begins to disappear.

This is why I don't think the ownership question by itself solves the problem. Private ownership can corrupt government by purchasing influence, while government ownership can corrupt government by giving the government direct financial interests in the things it regulates. The fundamental problem is the combination of economic and political power. Whoever controls both has an enormous incentive to preserve the system that gives them that control, and incentives dictate outcomes over the long term, not ideologies.

Obviously the goals of a customer-owned government should be at odds with the goal of men who wish to farm the human species. The way to eliminate corrupting financial influence from the government is to have all the large corporations owned by their customers. The way to eliminate activist corruption is through the review democracy process that continually eliminates non-aligned politicians before they even have the chance to rise up the ranks of state government and then federal government. This is ultimately the same principle applied in two different directions. Economic power should belong to the people who use the economy, and political power should belong to the people who live under the government. The customer should own the corporation, and the citizen should own the government.

The purpose is not to create a government that is omniscient or perfectly rational. It is to create a government in which the people who actually have to live with the consequences retain ultimate control over the people who make the decisions. I would rather have an imperfect democracy that continually gives ordinary people the ability to remove their political managers than a supposedly more competent system in which the managers become the permanent owners of the human farm. Consider dear reader that you are—from their perspective—the farm animal. Do you really want that farm to be efficient? They import immigrants because they judge them to be better labor livestock for fruit picking. The self avowed fascist should ask themselves the following question: are you sure you want an efficient user of human capital? When you are the capital being used? 

Everything must ultimately be owned by the customer for the citizen to be both free and valued for their dignity. Fascism first destroys your freedom in the name of protecting your race. Then the descendants of those fascists destroy your race because the incentives never changed. Review democracy protects your freedom, freezes the current configuration, and lets you claw your birth rates back up. If this is combined with a customer-owned economy the woke propaganda making your women hate men goes away and hollywood / social media becomes a normal purveyor of entertainment. If customer owned businesses are themselves review democracies then activists cannot hijack them. These two things: customer ownership and review democracy, reinforce each other in every domain. That may mean you spend a few weeks of your life every year sitting in tedious review sessions. It may mean you have to do this across the entire economy with every business you shop at and every level of government. The burden of this might easily take 3 weeks out of your life every year. But you never have to worry about being subverted again, BY ANYONE.