Reprinting the Anarcho Papist, part 1

Unless Byrce comes back from the internet dead, and objects to my republishing his work here, he will just have to contend with its continuance. I'm reprinting some of it so you can compare NRx ideas from 2013 with 2017. There are seven parts to this.


How to Look at the World Like a Neoreactionary, Part 1

Neoreaction has just entered the mainstream sooner than we’d expected, so where I thought I would have the time to think a bit longer on how to provide an introduction to neoreaction for the newly initiated making their way from MSM sources, it seems better to go ahead and try that now. I don’t want to retread the territory already gone over in my two favorite introductions, Nick Land’s Dark Enlightenment sequence and Scott Alexander’s Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell (I would include Nick B. Steves’ Reactionary Consensus, but it’s incomplete, so I can’t say it’s one of my favorites yet), so I will try something different. Rather than a blow-by-blow analysis of neoreactionary ideology, I think a primer on the habits of neoreactionary thought might help to overcome the initial confusion of how one is supposed to understand something such as the advocacy of kings, housewives, and ethnic community, which explains the inevitable tendency to over-emphasize and misunderstand crucial distinctions when neoreaction is given an outsider’s view.

This, then, is an introduction to the neoreactionary mind and how he sees the world.

Neoreaction bootstraps itself out of the modernist thought paradigm which dominates Western civilization through a process of dialectical reductio. It is inevitable that you were socialized into this way of thinking such that you are literally incapable of working your way out of it without someone pointing out the contradictions in the system. In fact, you just take this way of thinking as normal. So normal, you don’t even see it, like contacts.

There is a reason an introduction to neoreaction might be thought of as a red pill. When you “get it,” suddenly the illusions of society are seen for what they really are. The orthodoxy which guides the elites from Harvard to the LA Times becomes obviously suspect in light of certain insights.

To consider how radically different all societies have been before the 18th century, when Progress became a theme, is to suppose that people will believe and consider normal almost anything they are socialized into. Women waited since the dawn of civilization to change things for themselves because it took that long for women to see through the illusion that was patriarchy, and were otherwise imprisoned in a false consciousness. The obviousness of woman’s subjugation under man, the obviousness of royalty’s control, and the obviousness of the Church’s right to inform the moral instruction of children were all things people were simply indoctrinated to. You can’t realistically expect a society to bootstrap themselves to Progressive ideals, because education can be a prison as well as freedom.

The neoreactionary would ask you to accept the truth of the principles behind such an explanation of the drastically anti-Progressive nature of all societies in all ways before the 18th century, only that you turn the same scrutiny on your own society.

How is it that a society of 300 million+ manages to have a very tightly distributed range of political views? Differences in presidents appear to be merely theoretical, and there was a wider range of political candidates to choose from in earlier elections. This doesn’t seem like a change in the nature of people. Why are opinion editorials between the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times essentially interchangeable? Why are virtually all universities in perfect lockstep on how society must be diverse and tolerant? We have more people and even more reason for more competition between sociopolitical and religious traditions, yet there is such little deviation from the orthodoxy that an academic who insists merely on documenting the findings of research stands to lose his job whenever that research threatens the empirical predictions of the orthodoxy.

Consider yourself. Why do you think you’re beyond the effects of socialization? Do you think all “those others” in history didn’t think they were perfectly normal as well? “I got through public school, and I’m fine.” That may be, but consider: many also get through child abuse. By what metric do you reckon you’re fine anyhow? Because you’re educated, you have a job, you’re not a bad person? Isn’t that the metric you were taught by the system? “No, the system teaches me to buy things.” And what taught you that this is what the system is like, if not the system? It may not teach you to buy things so much as it informs you of what to buy, and even if we suppose advertising has no effect on you, you still like the taste of Coca Cola. What is Coca Cola anyway? Sugar and water. If you could be adapted to drinking a superstimulus so patently unavailable in nature, what makes you think you couldn’t be adapted to the superstimuli of democratic theater and other forms of intellectual pornography?

I’m suggesting, in other words, that living inside a reality carefully constructed through the years by elaborate conditioning rituals, cult-like indoctrination techniques, and a state of the art and well-funded program of community organization can make people think the world around them is normal, well, and good, sometimes even the best. If you’re like most who grew up in America, you spent 12 years of your life in school, you’re aware of most the same news and cultural background, and you also have remarkably similar values to registered Democrats and Republicans. At least, “remarkably similar” when you consider all the political views that have been held by reasonable people throughout history and in other countries, and especially remarkably similar if you imagine everyone reached their political views through a process of reason. The Tea Party is obviously not as urgent a problem as the KKK, and yet declaring oneself a sympathizer with the Tea Party is about as dangerous a thought crime as the white guy will allow himself in company.

Education is touted as broadening horizons, and we arguably have more education than ever before. Why, then, the tighter distribution of political views? Assuming a random distribution, then a larger territory of political philosophy that one can appropriate should entail fewer essential agreements. Education does not seem so much about learning as it is about socialization into correct forms of thought, or catechesis. Such is the program the Church used through the Middle Ages, after all, right? Having more resources in society devoted to catechesis means a greater possibility for indoctrination. And in which society is this the case; ours, or the hypothetical superstitious peasant of Medieval England?

The more certain you are that you’re okay, the better it worked. Adaptation of a view that is contrary would be very difficult just in principle. The difficulty you find in understanding how neoreactionary views are understood and justified is an example of exactly that phenomenon in action. Why do you presume that, were you born into a different era with different norms, you would even think to challenge those norms? Do you think to challenge the norms present in society? The answer is probably negative in both cases.

A neoreactionary is aware how far outside the mainstream he stands. He has ceased to participate in politics the way the average man does. You won’t persuade him by calling him a racist, a sexist, unenlightened, or uneducated. In fact, were you to do so, the neoreactionary will point out that this behavior is exactly a case in point; it never has the effect of persuading the accused, but serves to consolidate the opinion of the audience. The hit piece is an ancestor of tribal ostracism. And the neoreactionary probably wears the accusation as a badge of honor, besides.

The point of elucidating where you stand is that “getting” neoreaction is a process which begins but is never finished. To get it is to believe it, but only because actually getting it is taboo. Acknowledging realities, which is the foundational conceit of the neoreactionary understanding, by itself makes one appear much more reactionary than modernist, implying a high standard of devotion required of the true believer. Neoreaction admits that people are different, and that as such it doesn’t make sense to afford everyone the same, whether that be income, opportunity, or even mere social approval. These differences are multidimensional, and include sexual, racial, and class categories. In contrast to the modernist, egalitarian paradigm which insists on treating everyone the same regardless of actual or probable ability, the neoreactionary insists that sound policy ought to treat differently as accords their real differences. This will improve human flourishing overall; a genius deprived of a more intensive education has undeveloped potential, while an idiot given a more intensive education is only having his time wasted.

These differences, understood by society and acted upon, lead to inequalities which make even the libertarian squirm. But they are only unequal as accords their actual inequality.

The threat of justice in this case depends on a fundamental inversion which the modernist fails to appreciate. Plato and Aristotle tell us that justice is equality, and we are not disagreed on this point. However, we believe ourselves more consistent in pursuing justice, for we do not attempt to treat people the same. Equality is treating like things as like, and unlike things as unlike. From this it follows necessarily that different things shouldn’t be treated the same; it does an injustice to all who are different than the presumed “likeness” we all supposedly share.

This is as short an explanation as can be given for the views neoreactionaries hold on race, sex, intelligence, and so on. The return to treating things as though they are different, because they are different, is the essence of reaction. The “neo” is that this is all given a thorough defending via abstractive philosophical, economic, and scientific reasoning.

There is certainly more that can be said, but the purpose of this post is less explanation and more to provoke the doubt of modernity. If you believe neoreaction is wrong, and you think you believe in equality, how do you justify it? Why is that metric best? What considerations are you leaving out? If your vision is radically different than has ever existed in human history before, what makes you so confident in it despite the lack of evidence in its favor? Why do you trust your education? What would you have to see in order to change your mind?

Originally published Monday, Nov 25th, 2013

Part 2

Reprinting the Anarcho Papist, part 2

How to Look at the World Like a Neoreactionary, Part 2

Neoreaction is not a political philosophy. Rather, it is more like a philosophy of political philosophy. How we can check the course of our ideas remains a habit of neoreactionary dialectic, for we are, or at least I am, intensely concerned with a worldview that is basically persuasive. The process of changing out of your modernist paradigm to try on another must be thought of as bootstrapping for it proceeds by an almost inevitable process of perpetual motion.

A snarky opponent will jump on my claim that I want to put together a system that is “basically persuasive,” pointing out how thoroughly unconvinced he is, as though 1) I haven’t thought of this already and 2) it were relevant. The better question is, what do I mean by “basically persuasive?”

We are on a journey, an adventure as it were, and I regret to inform you that while at the end of our journey lies a lot of excitement, sometimes you must make your way through a bog. This is one of those bogs, but I promise to make it as painless as possible.

I am an essentially disagreeable person. On the Big 5 personality test, I score in the 1st percentile in Agreeableness, which is another way of saying that I am less agreeable than 99% of people. Why does this matter? Because it leads to the perpetuation of mental models of how one might disagree with my position, the pruning of those theoretical counter-responses counting as my development of the concept. In other words, I think through things by arguing out both sides using all background philosophy as a resource for ways of rounding up arguments. I’ve also noticed a pattern, a philosophy of analysis as it were, in the way I argue out a position to myself. The first and most critical factor is identifying the hypothesis and determining the conditions which serve to confirm, disconfirm, and corroborate a hypothesis. That is to say, describing a position through the principles by which it ought to prove persuasive.

My defense and explanation of a corpus of thought such as neoreaction then proceeds less as a straightforward defense of certain theses, but the construction of “reason generators.” This has to do with my theory of conversion. As I am, in a potentially oblique fashion attempting the conversion of souls who appreciate a good argument, and neoreaction is intrinsically self-referential, it is only fitting that my explanation of the neoreactionary worldview would provide a philosophy for how and why an individual would/should be lead to adopt it was an interpretation of the world. This is the bootstrapping element in play, for I am trying to throw a ladder down the pit of modernism which has so far throughout your life convinced you to disregard certain essential biases that evolved for a reason.

An argument cannot of itself persuade an individual, save for the area of pure logic or metaphysics, which is by nature detached from experience. Where claims relevant to interpreting the phenomena of civilization come into play, however, we can put them through a proto-scientific schema of testing. Modernism is predicated on a number of fundamental claims concerning human nature and the potential ways in which society may work. These claims are essentially egalitarian, and, from the neoreactionary perspective, the denial of HBD science that demonstrates the reality of race-like populations of humans can only be interpreted as the Leftist version of Creationism. Where there is a conflict with the empirical claims of a religion and what science indicates, the science must be thrown out, only naturally. The inability to separate disinterested and genuine scientific analysis of a significantly arguable reality does not seem to indicate a consensus of scientific evidence.

If an argument will not persuade, what will? Reference to experience. My purpose is not to persuade here and now, but to budge you on the way you would tend to interpret the world around you; to demonstrate that the kinds of theses and explanations that are generated from this corpus of thought also tend to be corroborated. The predictions it generates gives it the ability to explain ongoing history in a way unavailable to the modernist paradigm.

You can see the kind of irony in the argument I’m developing. Supposedly you are here in the first place because you’re willing to be persuaded in theory, even if you are generally hostile to my overall worldview. You want to be able to give a reason why you reject me other than that fitting in as polite society might require. I’m backing this up in order to ask how someone could ever be persuaded. I want to leave my reader with the impression that certain questions remain live. Modernism never killed off its philosophical rivals, it just convinced everyone that it had. If you can’t be persuaded, this is a waste of both our times. Only if, in theory, you could be persuaded, could a counter-argument count as something more than a post hoc rationalization. After all, if you can’t be persuaded just in principle, then you would use any reasonable enough sounding argument. We don’t want that.

Generally, “persuasiveness” is taken as an unalloyed good in an argument. This is because it is assumed that the more logically excellent an argument is, the logic should be perceived as its own superiority. However, if I may propose another interpretation of argument, one which is more realistic given our nature as animals evolved to do more things than develop and be persuaded by logically excellent arguments. Persuasiveness may be a defect in that it covers up its assumptions better than less persuasive but subtler and more accurate accounts of a phenomena. The mind is attracted to easy and definite choices; it lightens the load of existential anxiety concerning whether or not your beliefs are correct or even sane. Why do you think fallacies are so common? Furthermore, why have we been led to believe fallacies are intrinsically wrong?

Logical fallacies are not, contrary to popular wisdom, intrinsically incorrect, nor are they even markers of stupidity and ignorance. As it is said, a little education may handicap the mind by allowing the pretense of access to information adequate to make a judgment. This correlates to the insight among a number of us that human prejudices are not intrinsically flawed so much as they may tend to be expressed in incomplete or less than optimal ways. Being opposed to racial stereotyping is a trend of midwits, and is a brilliant example of how a little knowledge can handicap.

Racial stereotyping may be considered in two ways. The first is that of psychological bias. It seems to be more or less proven that we evolved to have implicit racially based biases and prejudices which disposes us to differences in the tendency of in-group/out-group evaluation. Why would these evolve at all? This shouldn’t be difficult to understand. In the more ancestral environment in which humanity evolved for over 100,000 years, the survival of the individual depended essentially on his integration with a tribe. The tribe’s survival in turn depended on the individuals within having a tendency to like each other and to prefer the company of each other rather than those of other tribes. Were a tribe to have overwhelmingly out-group focused breeding tendencies, such a tribe would quickly breed itself out of existence. As such, it is inevitable that the tribes which do survive, through a process of evolutionary selection if we think of tribes as organisms, shall have members which have distinct in-group/out-group prejudices (of varying kinds and expressions) that reflects a tribal equilibrium with the environment.

Those who are too stupid to appreciate that their biases have shortcomings remain in the thrall of those biases. As such, it is worth pointing out, by the neoreactionary and likely supposed “racist,” that racism being stereotyped as an indicator of stupid is highly accurate. This is, however, not because racism is intrinsically stupid, so much as what we tend to identify as racism is the less-than-optimal expression of these innate in-group/out-group biases. The midwit, who appreciates that our innate biases have shortcomings, comes to distrust his own biases, and comes to believe that the rejection of the utility of these biases is itself a mark of intelligence.

This response to learning that our biases are incomplete, i.e. the absolute rejection of their utility in all potential circumstances, is itself an immature response. Those biases developed in us for a very good reason. The reason should be obvious; were they disadvantageous in terms of increasing the likelihood of reproduction, they would have been selected out. But these biases did evolve in us, implying that they serve adaptive, i.e. reproductive, value.

To put it rather tongue in cheek, semi-seriously, to be a little bit racist is to be closer to nature.

Not that I’m advocating racism per se. Racism is, I think, best understood as the sub-optimal expression of racial biases. This definition, however, also implies that there is such a thing as the optimal expression of racial biases. This is why, as it were, anti-racism is the prejudice of the midwitted, while racism is the prejudice of those outside the IQ range of 100-125. This may sound like a concession to the modernist, to point out that racial discrimination is difficult to defend. This not because it is wrong, but that because what one wants to defend is practices which lead to optimal solutions, and understanding how to exercise racial discrimination in an optimal fashion is the difficult part.

This is the second way in which racism may be considered. It is expressed through a specific form of behavior. What sort of behavior? Ideally, it appears that the problem with any “-ism” vice is that it does not give a person his due. What is a person’s due? What right does a person have to an optimal evaluation?

We want to say that a person should always and everywhere exercise as thorough and complete an evaluation of the character of another as possible. That is all well and good, but the reality of the world is that such an optimal evaluation is not always afforded by the world. An optimal evaluation may prove either impossible or too costly to justify other things which must be given up in order to perform such an evaluation. Our judgment is required in situations where the evaluation we’d like to make is precluded. It is useless to insist that “a person should, always and everywhere, perform an optimal evaluation.” That doesn’t answer what an individual is to do in those cases where he has less than perfect information and obtaining it proves far more costly than any expected benefit.

The mandate to perform an optimal evaluation of another person’s character cannot require an individual putting himself at grave risk. Yes, the guy with tattoos on his face bragging about his recent stint in the slammer could be a really interesting, complex individual who has a lot of good in him. But getting to know such an individual could prove very costly, in the form of harm suffered by oneself for failing to exercise due prudence in one’s association with the criminal elements.

Racial discrimination is not an end-all be-all of an individual. Like I’ve mentioned, I’m not interested in a defense of racial discrimination, full stop (and in fact, I’m not even interested in here defending racial discrimination, so much as I’m interested in providing an example of how the neoreactionary proceeds in his examination). I’m interested in a defense of due racial discrimination. Racial discrimination is justified in particular instances and not in others. The optimal exercise of discrimination is difficult, and must be guided by a philosophy of discrimination.

This is all to show that a ground level difference between the neoreactionary and the modernist is this. The modernist rails against all bias, insisting that it never has a place in our reasoning. The neoreactionary suggests that we have bias for a reason, and we should seek to improve upon the function it evolved to provide. Where the modernist asks us to root out all our tendencies in thought, to constantly undermine the way we tend to reason, the neoreactionary seeks to examine and refine it. Iron ore may have little use of itself, but in the hands of one with the right tools, much may be wrought.

What all does this have to do with persuasiveness? This asks a question. Do you really want to be able to persuade the most? Psychologically, we are jerry-rigged with a number of biases which predispose us to fallacious and sub-optimal expressions of prejudice. But we cannot eliminate prejudice; anti-prejudice is just a prejudice against prejudicial reasoning, and prejudicial reasoning is optimal in the case that judicial reasoning is precluded, i.e. when access to adequate information for optimal evaluation is more costly than expected benefits. This is the real world, and in the real world you aren’t always allowed to dissociate yourself by behavior from what a racist would do, because sometimes what the racist would do is the safest and best thing to do.

The biases are good enough to allow stupid racists to spread their genes; in fact, in a population where everyone is stupid, racism would be better than a stupid refusal to not utilize prejudice when it is called for. To act with prejudice is to admit one is ignorant, which is not always a bad thing. The refusal to admit one’s ignorance is a vice in the case when the presumption of knowledge proves a more dangerous habit. Admitting and acting by one’s ignorance, i.e. to reserve oneself to methods and practices which are known to work rather than the definitely unknown, is wiser than to refuse to act with respect to knowledge that one knows one does not possess. To be ignorant is only to not know, and we know that we do not always know, which is just to say that we know that sometimes we are ignorant. This cannot be overcome by “Don’t be ignorant.” It cannot be overcome by good thoughts or the insistence that “One should try to get access to the best information possible.” That is a matter of course and we are already agreed, but we aren’t talking about how one should act in the case one has perfect information.

Neoreaction is how to act when you know you don’t have perfect information. It is a call to humility. If your vision is fundamentally utopian and forms a perfect contrast to the vagaries of human history, and can only be accomplished through a fundamental change in the way people tend to act, it is incomplete. You can do better, and you can do better by being harder to persuade.

Don’t wonder how you would persuade me to modernism. It is better first to know, how do you persuade yourself? I don’t pose a threat to your well-being as much as you do. I likely couldn’t persuade you with a silver tongue, but we know individuals can persuade themselves with the thinnest of feel good lies. Isn’t that what we think of religion, after all?

Originally published Tuesday, Nov 26, 2013

Part 3

Responding to Issac

In the blog post Is Africa building towards collapse? Issac writes in the comments section;

"Lauritz (von Gil-Hausen) is prescient here. Africans are morlocks in any situation where they're numerous and approximately close to other human populations. Perhaps most disturbingly, hybrids between subspecies with them are generally just as prone to their characteristic behaviors. The African population boom is a truly under-appreciated disaster scenario while other sub-populations continue the moral farce that oppression is the cause of this behavioral disparity."

Parenthetical and link are mine.

In my article on white nationalism I estimated that blacks would undergo a population collapse equal to all other racial groups, and that this collapse would occur at a later time than other racial groups due to the staggered implementation of urbanization and birth control across the planet. This assumes that blacks respond in a way identical to other races. The potential problem with my assumption is that the ability to even use contraceptives is based on long-term thinking. Do Africans have that ability at the same level as other races? Or rather, is their relative lack of long-term thinking fatal to them? Richard Lynn's Cold Winter' Theory holds that IQ varies by race because cold climates kill off people who lack long-term thinking ability.

Long-term thinking lies on a scale. A group may have less of it and still avoid disaster.

As far as I can tell there are three possible futures.

Possible future no. 1. Africans have long-term thinking sufficiently comparable to other races. They will urbanize and use birth control like all other races. The "black planet" scenario will not materialize. They will not exceed about 3 billion.

Possible future no. 2. Africans have long-term thinking that is comparable enough, but the lack of competent governance is creating land insecurity, and stifling urbanization. Since the biggest factor in decreased birth rates is urbanization, it may be that African's relative lack of urbanization is the cause of its explosive population growth. Land insecurity is a big problem, and it may be complicating urbanization. In this case the issue is one of effective government. See the Brookings Institute article on the issue.

If this scenario is the case, Africans will grow at a moderately high rate, and then shrink either due to collapse, delayed urbanization, or both. They will not exceed 3 or 4 billion.

Possible future no. 3. Africans lack enough long-term thinking that other homo sapiens possess in such drastic disparity that they will follow the trajectory of an animal r-selected overgrowth. The will reach at least 4 billion, probably shoot through this limit, and then die off by the billions. The world will try to feed them until it becomes politically unsustainable. Food prices will rise until the borders are closed. Invest in farm ownership.

A vast human experiment is about to take place. The effects will determine—at least partially—how Africans are viewed as human—or not. A world of 4 billion starving Africans will reach compassion fatigue fairly quickly. Post hoc justifications will kick in, and regardless of the actual cause of the overgrowth: whether liberal food subsidies, insecure land tenure, or African genetic nature, dehumanization will proliferate as the cognitive bias known as the just-world hypothesis kicks in.

Below is a comparison of two graphs. One shows the UN projection of African population growth. Another shows the population of St. Mathew Island's reindeer herd. The second graph is to give you a comparison of what happens to r-selected beings who grow beyond the carrying capacity of the land due to (typically) human food subsidies. This is why governments post signs telling you not to feed the wildlife.

It may be that racists are being a little "over-optimistic" from their perspective, (pessimistic from everyone else's). They sound positively giddy about the prospect of 4 + billion deaths.

My bet is for Possible future no. 2. We will see who is right.

To deny exit is to confirm its legitimacy

The welfare state subsidizes the birth rates of the poor, and taxes the birth rates of the rich, thus defeating itself. Poverty can never be eliminated because it is bred faster than it can be solved. The eventual consequence is dysgenic collapse.

The only motive for denying someone exit is that you need their resources to sustain yourself. Thus, the denial of exit is parasitical. Thus, exit is justified. If humans are equal then a transfer of wealth is unnecessary. If they are not, then a transfer of wealth is unjustified. "Equal worth" is just a moral idea, and moral assertions are beyond provability. We may however prove that wealth transfer is dysgenic, and therefore eventually destroys the capacity to generate wealth, and is therefore immoral according to its own moral criteria. If the highest communist morality is never ending wealth transfer, then liberal morality becomes immoral by destroying the genetics necessary for wealth production to exist, thus eventually destroying wealth transfer.

As a result, the only morally consistent communism is Nazism, since it is the only parasitical strategy that maintains the health of the host by defeating the dysgenic consequences of its own socialism. In Nazism, wealth transfer can continue "forever," since the health/wealth/productive capacity/IQ of the population is maintained through eugenics. Nazism is the true liberalism.

This is no endorsement of Nazism—merely a statement of fact.

Let us postulate that the political system is really defined by two pure opposite archetypes of "parasitism" and "hostism." Parasitism is the true liberalism, and is functionally Nazism. A smart parasite wants its host to live forever.

"Hostism" is the true conservatism, and is functionally accelerationism. A smart host wants only to escape its parasite.

Under this interpretation the political left is an insane parasite, (since it destroys its host with dysgenics) and the right is a stupid host, (since it seeks accommodation with the left).

To even be a host in the first place is to be stupid enough to have been put in that position to begin with. Thus, the right is stupid.

Every evolution of a new species starts with an exit from the original. Accelerationism is a speciation event, whether through the Exit of some AI from us, or the Exit of genetically enhanced CRISPR billionaires from homo sapiens. We are what is being exited from; not the ones exiting. The only question is whether you oppose this Exit and support stupidity, or support this Exit and support intelligence.

The Structure of Market Formalism: and how men with power don't want money

One of Moldbugs' ideas is that the state should be broken up into a patchwork of sovereign city states that are run on a for-profit basis. He wants "shareholder republics" where nations are structured like corporations run for the profit of their shareholders.

This commits a fundamental error that all economists commit, an error that causes economists to make normative statements. If the subject of economics is properly understood, there are no normative statement — no "oughts." The result is only positive statements, or "is" statements. After all, if you have described reality accurately then how can you rage against it? Hans Herman Hoppe wrote Democracy The God That Failed and advocated for monarchy. In doing so he showed that he did not completely understand reality. (Though it is still better than all other descriptions of democracy). Just like Moldbug, he made a fundamental error. Because accurate perception of reality gives you only facts and options, not dreamy ideas about how things could be.

The error is the assumption that humans are monetary maximizers. They simply aren't.

Rather, humans maximize social status, and not money. Money is just a proxy for gaining social status, and a worse proxy than power. Take two people as an example; Bob is a millionaire who owns a big house and a sports car. Sally is a tenured professor of woman's studies who sits on a committee that reviews her peers work. Sally makes 65 K per year. Bob makes 400 K per year. Who is more effectively maximizing utility? Bob or Sally? The answer is actually Sally.

But why? Because utility is really social in nature.

Let us say that when Bob shows off his new sports car he gains about 5 minutes of social utility. And when he brags about his house he gets approximately 7 minutes of social utility. Let's say he does that 20 times for his car and 50 times for his house. So;

Car = 5 minutes x 20 = 100 minutes
House = 7 minutes x 50 = 350 minutes

Let's also say that he has a hot wife who is generous enough to bang him 3 times per week, and he gets 30 minutes of utility out of that. And let's say for reasons of comparison that will become clear in a minute, he bangs her for 13 weeks straight.

So; 30 minutes x 3 times per week x 13 weeks = 1170 minutes

Total utility = 1620 minutes, or 27 hours, (in a 13 week time period).

Now let us run Sally's calculations. Sally teaches 4 women's studies classes twice per week for 2 hours straight each. During this time, she exerts a mesmerizing cult-like control over her mostly female students. Each semester is 13 weeks long. So her numbers look like this;

120 minutes per class period x 2 times per week per class x 4 classes x 13 weeks per semester.

= 12,480 minutes of utility per 13 weeks.

She also gets immense power tripping utility from siting on the academic committee that "reviews" her peers work for political correctness. She does that 3 hours per week for each 13 weeks each semester.

So; 180 minute meetings x 13 weeks = 2,340 minutes of utility.

Total utility is 14,820 minutes, or 247 hours, (in a 13 week time period).

This is why meetings always go long. Social utility is being extracted by every complaint, order, rant, and criticism. Economists measure utility in monetary units like dollars. They should be measuring it in time, and they should be measuring social utility, not just "utility." Maybe they should also multiply time by some gratification factor of pleasure: a rating of how much pleasure you get for each unit of time.

Now notice that Sally gets 915 % as much utility as a millionaire with a hot wife. (247 hours versus 27 hours) Even if the rich guy fucks his wife like 2 hours each time, 6 days per week, that is still only a total of 163.5 hours. Sally still gets 1.5 times more utility from her power tripping lectures.

Does the rich guy have meetings? Of course. But does he psychologically dominate his subordinates with political indoctrination and fear the way Sally does? In her meetings? Is that even legal in the corporate world? Is a White male even allowed to do that these days?

Of course what one person calls utility and what another person calls utility are relative things. Maybe Millionaire-guy just doesn't get that much pleasure out of dominating people the way Teaching-bitch does. Maybe he gets a lot more utility out of sex because he is a man and can have orgasms predictably. Sally doesn't get that. She gets feminism instead, and builds a small cult.

Utility is relative.

But getting back to Moldbug. . .

He says that Sovereign corporations will maximize profit. This is laughable. Nations already are corporations, and they will do exactly what they already do: maximize power.

Power is simply a more efficient method to gain utility. There is a "thrill" in dominating others, even if the power you exercise is trivial. While you may not experience this thrill, everyone who wants power does. If you are unscrupulous then a university is a far better place to maximize social utility than a business. You can dominate your students and peers with holiness. You cannot dominate a customer, and dominating your employees leads to high turnover and lawsuits.

Democracy does exactly what people want it to do: it spreads power out. Democracy is actually the social utility maximizing form of government. That is why it is so resilient once it is set up. It may be difficult to set it up because despots do not want to divide their power, (and therefore diminish their net social utility), but once set up it is nearly impossible to get rid of unless it destroys itself. It is not a "fragile convention of limited warfare" like Moldbug says it is, but rather an impenetrable game of social power maximization. Because any consolidation of power would diminish the utility of some actors in the system, all actors are against consolidation.

What this means is that a "patch" or "Sovcorp" within a patchwork is far more likely to threaten its neighbors than a Rights Enforcement Agency is under anarcho capitalism. I have worked in both law enforcement, (in the Air Force) and security, and law enforcement is a far more corrupt and threatening to peoples' rights. A security company is just a business. A police department is always a miniature fiefdom of some petty tyrant. Tyrannical security companies go out of business, just like my last employer did, (whom I won't name here for privacy reasons).

So take it from the man who does the job: anarcho capitalism is less dangerous than patchwork. This is because it depends on customers who can leave while patchworks are still governments. Moreover, if customers pool their purchasing power in consumer purchasing unions then the potential for extortion is greatly diminished. A universal basic income voucher that requires a person to purchase rights protection services to unlock the additional money would also help. Basically: the more voluntary the purchase of police services is the less abusive it will be.

After all, the mercenary company Blackwater literally operates a private military base within the borders of the US. I have never heard of any of America's private militaries trying to overthrow the government. As long as a defense company gets all of its income from the state it will not pose a threat to the population. This is why I have modified David Friedman's conception of a private law society to make it a governance marketplace. In Friedman's idea people buy rights protection (police services) directly on the open market. This is insane because it gives a wealthy client the power to exterminate a poor client, since he can simply outbid them. It is also insane because it does not have an intermediately between the consumer of police services and the provider, allowing the provider to extort the consumer like a protection racket does. It is also insane because without a central licencing authority there will be open war between private police companies.

Moldbugs' idea is even more irrational because a patchwork would never stay divided, and because, as already stated, humans are social utility maximizers, and not money maximizers.

But this does not mean that a system of private law enforcement could not work, would not be superior to what we currently have, reduce crime, provide better rights protection, etc. Indeed, private law enforcement is an excellent way to eliminate anarcho tyranny. It just needs to be regulated properly — like any other business. Regulated by whom? By people with police experience of course, just like your humble author. The difference between Moldbug, Friedman, and myself is that I actually did the job, and I know exactly what cops are capable of first hand. I am not just an academician sitting in an ivory tower. I lived this, and here is what I recommend.

1. Licence all private police according to strict rules to prevent abuses of power.
2. Instead of letting people buy rights enforcement services privately, tax them, then distribute vouchers for purchase. This prevents one person from buying the extermination of another since all customers have the same purchasing power.
3. Tax additional side payments made at a much higher rate. The tax money is then redistributed to everyone else in the form of more vouchers.
4. Require people to use a purchasing union. This gives people safety in numbers, and prevents a single person from enacting tyranny by setting up their own private dictatorship.

In this system the law is made by private actors. Exit is built into the system from scratch. There are no opportunities for parasitical behavior, affirmative action quotas, liberal domination, etc. As long as the central government that licences these private police companies is not a democracy you can have a combination of non-democracy + freedom.

Let us just leave aside the question of the internal structure of the federal government for now. Assume that the federal structure is competent at regulating markets and libertarian in its attitudes. We will call this federal structure the sovereign, or the Sovereign Licensing Corporation, (SLC).

The SLC provides licencing, and the market provides freedom. The sovereign just lets the people govern themselves by buying the kind of law they want. Legal disputes between competing private police companies are settled by private arbitration. Negotiations and side payments determine the shape of the market equilibrium for law. Since everyone gets a voucher worth the same amount, and since the side payments by the rich are taxed and redistributed as more vouchers, everyone gets a relatively equal level of law without legalizing crime for any segment of the population.

That is what market formalism is all about. Why would a sovereign do this? Because giving people self-government prevents insurrection, and this self-government is delivered through capitalism rather than democracy. It also eliminates a potentially troublesome bureaucracy, and lets the SLC keep its work to a minimum. The SLC is just there to occupy the position of supreme power and prevent others from taking it. It fills a power vacuum, preventing war between private police agencies. Also, because the sovereign does not have to decide thorny issues of religion, morals, values, etc., he is not an irritant to the people. No one has a justification for civil war under a libertarian government. Also, once market formalism is set up the freedom it provides creates an expectation for its continuance. Thus, the central government is forced by custom to continue being libertarian even if its leaders are not so generously inclined. It constrains all actors involved without the need for a constitution. Since the state is just a market regulator, and not a determinant of values, it can never honestly be accused of tyranny, unless it fails in its licencing duties.

The object and the source: on the impossibility of objective abstract morals, and the hallucinations of philosophers of moral reason

Whenever I challenge any liberal or conservative about the notion of equality they pull a series of goal post movings. "Moving the goal post" is a logical fallacy where the individual simply adjusts their standard as more and more evidence is presented to refute their assertion. For example;

Me: "communism has killed 94 million people."

Commie: "that is not the true communism. Real communism has never been tried."

Me: "they just tried real communism in Venezuela and it failed."

Commie: "it failed so that was also not the true communism."

It goes on and on like this.

In an argument about whether equality is real, the person who asserts that equality is true will make a series of retreats. First I will point out that humans are not equal: that humans are not the same. Remarkably, they will argue that indeed they are the same. After this retarded argument is put down with logic and simple observation of reality, they will insist that humans have equal worth!

They will insist that the equal worth argument was the one they were making all along. They will then retroactively change their own memory of the conversation and conclude that they never believed in equality as sameness, oh no, clearly people are not the same, but they must have equal worth! Oh yes, "that was the argument I was making all along!", they say.

They will simply change the argument a dozen ways and then insist that you must present a counter argument to each and every version of their delusional belief in human equality: equality as sameness, equal opportunity, equal worth, equal justice, and equal rights. They make you argue against each and every one, as they lodge personal attacks against you, call you names, engage in logical fallacies, rewrite their own memories of the conversation, and engage in a level of total mendacity that crosses into schizophrenic delusion and self-deception. This is motivated cognition par excellence. I have had entire conversations with Progressives that they have then later "forgotten" ever occurred because the red pills they were exposed to would have lowered their social standing if they accepted them.

So I am just going to cut to the chase and go straight for the jugular. Rather than the tedious task of refuting all forms of equality, I will simply attack the most important one, the one that is the Bailey of the Motte and Bailey argument: equal worth. I am going to make a simple assertion;

"innocent children do not have equal worth."

Here is the proof. Let us say that you are standing on a beach. On your left is your child swimming in the water about 200 yards away. On the right is some strangers child of the same age also about 200 yards away. They are both drowning. Because of the laws of physics, you only have enough time to save one. There is no one else on the beach to help you, and no one nearby. What do you do?

(a) save your own child because you are racist.
(b) save the strangers child because you are a guilty self-hating White liberal.
(c) practice equality by flipping a coin to decide who to save, thus, potentially allowing your own child to drown. (the coin flip adds a negligible amount of time to the equation).

So who do you save, huh? You can only save one because of time constraints. By the time you get to the other it will be too late. Pick. Your own child or the strangers?

If you flip a coin then you are a monster. If you save the strangers child, instead of your own, you are also a monster. Saving your own child is the correct thing to do in this situation. You should be prejudiced. You should be nepotistic. You should protect your own. That is what morality is all about: inclusive fitness. Your genes are the start of moral reasoning. That which is closest to you is the most important. The closer someone is to you genetically the more value they should have. This is why, contra Peter Singer, if you are White you should NOT give money to starving African children, but should spend that additional money on your own. If you have extra money beyond that then you should spend it on your extended family. If you still have extra, you should spend it on your distant family. You should NOT give your money to strangers and you should NOT set up foundations to help people you don't know. Your extended family clan is more important. Even your race is more important.

Of course, you can save the strangers child if there is time to. But this is a no time scenario. In a scenario where you have time to save both you should save your child first and the strangers child second, because of the different probabilities of death involved as a result of time constraints. If saving the strangers child would harm your own family, or your extended family, or even your race or nation, let them drown.

There are three political orientations that correspond to these three attitudes.

(a) corresponds to racism/nationalism

(b) corresponds to progressivism and "Israel first" type conservatism.

(c) corresponds to libertarianism, communism, and anarcho capitalism.

That's right. Libertarianism is a "flip a coin over your own child". . . "morality." That's why it's soul is closer to communism. Equality is just a plea for coin flipping.

I fail to see why either coin flipping or cuckoldry are superior alternatives to racism. The soul of heartlessness lies in equality while the soul of cuckoldry lies in self-sacrifice for strangers. Deep down all morality is sexual because all morality has its origins in genetics. It is very real to equate sacrifice for strangers with cuckoldry because subconsciously it is. Equality is an inversion of genetic inclination, and western culture has a shame word for everything noble: nepotism, racism, national chauvinism. You should be discriminatory. You should protect your own. You should be nepotistic. That is just helping your kid get into Harvard. Morality is like a Russian nesting doll: it comes in layers of loyalty: family first, community and then race, biosphere last, and in that order. I don't see "capitalism," or "equality" on that genetic list of things to be loyal to.

The problem is people. There is always a person. These people want to reduce morality to an abstract formula like "the greatest good," or the "kingdom of ends," This is a corruption of natural morality — which can never be divorced from the subject. Morality is always moral obligation towards someone just like power is always power over someone. There is always a recipient, always a person it is "being done to." There can be no such thing as legitimate moral math formulas that fail to take into account who it is being done to.

Just like morality is always done to an object, and thus, relative to the object, it is always done by a source, and thus, relative to the source. This is why there can be no moral "objectivity."

Objectivity does not exist. To state it ironically, objectively there can be no objectivity, since there is no objective viewpoint: only a series of subjective viewpoints. There is no objective morality, just billions of subjective moralit(ies), (plural). And there are as many subjective moralities as there are sentient beings in the universe, and possibly more than that.

Every person has a subjective morality. The will to make subjective morality real is the root of mass murder. The desire to make the subjective objective has killed millions.

There can never be an objective morality because morality has a source: the person "doing" morality. Morality will thus be practiced according to that person's subjective viewpoint, and this is the only morality that ever actually exists. Thus, to Hitler, Hitler was a moral man. And to Mao Zedong, Mao was doing what was necessary. And to X, Y moral atrocity is justified. And this is the only way it can be. Since there is no truly "objective" standard in physical reality, and since the attempt to impose an objective standards on physical reality only results in more bloodshed, no objective morality can ever exist. So the problem then becomes one of conflict management. All attempts to define objective morality are evasions of the far more important work of designing systems of conflict reduction.

In a nutshell;

Worth is defined by the subjective viewpoint of a person. Worth is always worth to someone. People cannot have equal worth because of inclusive fitness, and because worth is relative to the values of the person who values them.

Morality is always defined in the mind of a person. It is relative to a subjective viewpoint. The attempt to make it solid always ends in disaster.

Children do not have equal worth. They only have worth relative to the people who care about them. If a parent abandons their child then the parent has committed a crime against the worth of that child. Same with all family members.

Since worth is established by others placing a value on people, worth is established by the action of care. To perform caring actions is to establish worth. To refuse to perform those actions is to degrade the worth of others and betray them. Since there is no objective worth, failure to perform actions that prove the worth of another is a betrayal and a refusal to establish their worth. To allow injustice is to establish the worthlessness of the victim. To perform justice is to establish their worth. Caring is taking responsibility.

Notions of moral objectivity invariably lead to moral betrayal and even mass killings.

Morality is an action, a verb, and not a noun. It is a thing done to or for someone, either as a moral judgement against them, to protect them, or as an act of care. It is an action.

Moral sentiments towards strangers are a lie, equality is a coin toss, and real moral obligation is nested in concentric circles.

Last but not least. Both deontology and utilitarianism are reifications. They are the undead ideas of zombie philosophy that just refuse to die. They aren't real. There can never be an objective morality nor moral formulae, and thus, there can be no deontological ethics or utilitarianism. Consider that when you judge one of these two artificial abominations of natural morality, you always get the sense that something is not quite right. You feel there is something queasy about utilitarianism, or posturing and fanatical about deontology. You know that natural sense that you use to judge these other moral codes? That natural sense is your natural morals. It is the subjective morals that we just described: the morals of inclusive fitness. Your natural morals tell you instinctively that these moral codes worked out by philosophers are all either abominations or incomplete. Listen to your instincts. They are right. Nothing that is judged can ever be superior to the thing that does the judging — not where morality is concerned. That your instinctive morals judge both deontology and utilitarianism prove that natural morality is superior to either. That these two moralities are simply poor attempts to approximate natural morality is proof of the legitimacy of inclusive fitness. Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, and both of these artificial systems are just grasping at the thing they cannot quite put their finger on: the morals of inclusive fitness, the morals of nested tribalism, subjective worth, and demonstrated value.

How genetic enhancement will go down

(1) Gene therapies will be developed that make children vastly smarter, better, more capable, etc.
(2) The democracies of the world will ban it because "muh equality."
(3) Rich people who want children will get on a plane and go to wherever there is enhancement (China, Singapore, etc.), because "fuck government."
(4) The rich will have genius children and will get vastly wealthier as a result.
(5) The middle class, not wanting to get left behind, will also get on planes.
(6) Inequality will get vastly worse. Thus, the pursuit of equality will lead to more inequality.
(7) The people most passionate about equality will become a permanent slave underclass to the enhanced. They will look up and scream, "save us!" The enhanced will look down and whisper, "no."

Deport them all to Africa

An African man in 1600 gets captured by a Black slave trader. The Black slave trader sells the man to a White slave trader. The White slave trader takes the Black man to America and sells him at auction. Slavers give campaign contributions to senators. As a result, senators are unwilling to repeal slavery, and in fact they expand it to more states as the United States conquers the Western Frontier. Since this brings more Africans into America we will call it a "vicious cycle."

It takes a civil war to get rid of it. That is how hard it is to abolish a feedback loop in democracy. It is so hard that you need a war that kills 30 % of Southern males ages 18 to 40.

A man gets arrested. The private prison that incarcerates him is paid for by the government. Using the money they make off his incarceration, they give politicians campaign contributions. Politicians respond to these contributions by writing harsher laws that incarcerate more people. It feeds on itself. Call it a "virtuous cycle," since it reduces anarcho-tyranny.

As a result, America has the worlds highest incarceration rate. That is obviously a bad thing, but it is a hell of a lot better than more anarcho-tyranny, and liberals are importing the crime problem by the millions.

President Shitlord makes everything the left does, and only the things leftists habitually do, illegal. The penalty for all of these offenses that only liberals tend to do is deportation to Africa. Private deportation armies perform the service and Uncle Sam pays for it. These armies give campaign contributions to senators. Because of campaign contributions, the senators change more and more laws so the penalty is deportation. More and more degenerates are deported to Africa. It just so happens that there are slavers waiting at the airport to take new arrivals into custody. So the deportation industry profits on the back end too. More and more degenerates are deported. Now America no longer has the worlds highest incarceration rate. The cycle feeds on itself. Call it a "more virtuous cycle."

This is what democracy does. Democracy has a habit of accumulating feedback loops: welfare states, slavery, identity politics, profits from immigration, frivolous law suits, military profits, profits from college subsidies, and social security voters. In all these cases there is a feedback loop. Someone is getting paid. That someone is turning around and either paying back the senators or voting for them. Feedback loops basically run democracies. Everything the left does is a series of feedback loops. Why do they import hostile immigrants? Votes and profits from globalization will pay them back. Why can't social security be reformed? The elderly will stop paying back senators by voting against them. Why are colleges subsidized? Teachers unions pay congress back with campaign contributions. Why does identity politics exist? Activists pay back senators by campaigning for them. Paybacks don't have to be monetary. Votes and activism will also work. It's all the same in democracy: feedback loops.

Let's invent a feedback loop of our own.

The way to smash a leftist feedback loop without a civil war is to invent another feedback loop that cannibalizes off the previous one by making the previous feedback loop unprofitable. In other words, deport their immigrant investment. And while you are at it, deport white liberals as well — to Africa. No one can ever accuse you of being unequal that way. And why bring the Third World to America when you can deport the spoiled brats of the First World to Africa? Also, make refusing to uphold your laws itself a crime. Then deport the leftist judge who refuses to uphold you laws — to Africa. In fact, just deport them all. Where? Say it with me now.

AFRICA

Make everything the left does a crime.
Make taking money for leftist causes a crime.
Make George Soros a crime.
Make propagating leftist ideology hate speech.
Make censorship and no platforming a crime.
Make receiving profits from harassment lawsuits a crime.
Make hiring illegals a crime.
Make renting to illegals a crime.
Make refusing to uphold your laws a crime.
Make uncooperative generals a crime.
Make all crimes punishable by deportation.

Tribal Property Systems

Just musing about alternative property systems here.

Paradoxically, British minarchistic feudalism granted more property rights to the man who could pay than capitalism now does. This is because of the triumph of democracy over monarchy. Democracy is a special kind of property right that gives every adult non-felon a theoretical equal ownership of their government. Unlike corporate stock, a vote is neither fungible nor cumulable, and does not pay a dividend. It is a property arrangement that was produced by the equal weapons of the revolutionary war, (equal weapons created equal societies both in ancient Greece and the Colonial period). Since the world no longer has equal weapons it is a property arrangement that could not reoccur, that is, democracies cannot be created in the modern era without outside sponsorship.

This property right in government — the vote, is a legacy of a past technological system and the material conditions that it produced. The vote is a property right. What is owned? The state.

When you look at a western democracy and see its dysfunction what you are seeing is the inevitable friction between the democratic property system which we call the right to vote, and the capitalist property system. Democracy is non-transferable, non-cumulable, and pays no dividend. Corporate capitalism is the opposite in every way. All capitalist forms of property are transferable, cumulable, heritable, and can pay either a dividend, profit, or rent.

So democracy is akin to a communist property system running a capitalist marketplace.

And yes, there are different types of property systems. Soviet communism failed for many reasons, (1. 2. 3.) but I think the chief one was the total failure of communists to develop a practical form of equalist property. Indeed, the communists considered property as fundamentally hostile to their goals — a stupid mistake.

Every political system that works well is defined by an accompanying property system that reinforces it. Consider the property system of feudalism. It can be described using a simple relationship: service in exchange for ownership of some portion of the natural world, typically land. The whole society is defined like this from top to bottom with all relationships terminating and concentrating at the top in the personage of the king. Here are some examples;

—Barony (possession of lands in exchange for military service of you and your tenants)
—Knight-service (possession of land in exchange for service to your lord)
—Scutage (payment by a knight to exempt himself from obligatory military service)
—Fee simple title (payment of a tax in exchange for property)

Fee simple title is all that remains of the feudal system. When you pay your property taxes you are paying the fee for your title. Previously, you might pay this fee through military service to your lord. All of that was abolished in favor of money. This is stupid because the ability to make money is not universal. But the ability to wage war appears to exist in all able bodied young men.

Why did capitalism triumph? We can speculate.

Society tends to favor those property systems that accommodate human desires. Technology erodes central power by bypassing it, creating peer-to-peer relationships. Typically, power is built on some monopoly, say "land for service." Someone comes along and invents a technology that allows a person to make a living without needing land. So technology has disrupted that monopoly, routing around it.

The property relationships that prevail are the ones that fulfill human desires. However, technology does not just fulfill desires. As I have talked about repeatedly with birth control and other technologies, technology can modify human desires, trapping people in low level equilibriums, suppressing some desires while accommodating others, and creating moral decay.

So technology does not just fulfill desires but it creates the conditions that produce a range of options to choose from, and it can shape human desires by limiting the range of options available.

The purpose of this article is to create new property systems for a new political system. Never mind that these systems aren't compatible with democracy. They are not designed for democracy but the system that comes after it. Also note that just as capitalism helped destroy feudalism and create democracy, any property system may impose itself on a regime type, and force that regime to change from outside, so long as it can get its property relationships enforced somehow with hard security functions. Beyond the need for hard security functions (police enforcement), what determines the success of a new property system is (a), do people desire it more, and (b), does it alter the conditions of its environment such as to make the environment more suited to itself? That is, does it economically terraform the space it inhabits? In the same way that termites alter their environment to make it more suited to themselves, a good property system alters its economic and political environment to make it more suited to its own expansion.

It should be noted that although capitalism destroyed feudalism and helped create democracy this does not mean that capitalism and democracy are not in conflict with each other. The neocameral state is more suited to pure capitalism. It is an historical accident of monarchy that the feudal system turned into this rather than a for-profit corporation. Capitalism and democracy are misaligned with each other due to their having opposite property systems of their respective forms of corporate stock (transferable shares vs. non-transferable votes). But they are both voting systems; both the voter and share holder vote, and so they are alike enough to have lasted this long together.

So in summary, the tension between capitalism and democracy is the result of the difference between capitalism and democracies property systems.

A vote is theoretical equal ownership of government. It is;
(a) non-transferable
(b) non-cumulable
(c) pays no dividend
(d) non-heritable

Where capitalist property systems are;
(a) transferable
(b) cumulable
(c) pays profit, rent, or dividend
(d) heritable

Both are property. Both are votes. Both are commodifications of relationships.

Feudalism was capitalism in government. You could by your job (say the job of tax collector). Hence, jobs were "titles" just like land titles. You could accumulate titles. Those titles payed rents and were heritable. You could pass of the job to your son.

One can solve this tension by making democracy more like capitalism, or by making capitalism more like democracy.

The communists did not make capitalism more like democracy. That is the mutualist route. Marxism-Leninism tried to abolish property altogether.

Moldbug sought to make democracy more like capitalism. Hence, neocameralism and patchwork. One may think of the Moldbugian position as the precise opposite of mutualism.

Property is ownership backed by violence. Ultimately what stops someone from taking your property is the police officer. Let us say that I come over to you property.  I decide to start building a tiny house on your front lawn. I get the lumber, the concrete, the wiring, and the roofing shingles. There I am with a hammer pounding away at nails building my tiny little house on your lawn. I've got concrete bolts and everything so I can connect the timbers to the foundation — which I have already laid last night while you were sleeping. I have like 5 guys with me. And we have been building so fast the house is almost complete. You wake up to find half a house already built on your front lawn.

You come out of your house in your bath robe and say; "what the fuck are you doing on my front lawn?"

To which I reply: "it's not your lawn. It's may lawn. And I'm building a nice tiny little house on it."

You look at me in dumbfounded amazement and say; "uh, uh, oh, well, I'm gonna call the police!"

So you call the cops.

Now chances are the cops are probably going to arrest me and charge me with trespassing. They will probably also charge me with vandalism since I dug up your lawn to lay the foundation of my tiny little house.

So what is the point of all this, and what is property? We need a specific definition.

Property is defined as ownership enforced by violence.

But what is ownership?

Ownership are conditions of use, where the first condition is that only a single designated person may use it. So a better definition is;

Property is a series of conditions of use where the list of conditions is enforced by the violence of the state.

What are those conditions? Well, let's list some of them.

With the exception of business charters, only a single person has designated ownership.
You may not move an object belonging to the person with designated ownership, (prohibition of theft)
You may not change the object of the person with designated ownership, (prohibition of vandalism)
You may not inhabit the land of the person with designated ownership, (prohibition of trespassing)

In the final analysis it boils down to a list of conditions of use backed by violence of the state. There may be other conditions of use not listed above.

A vote is a form of property (ownership of the state) with many conditions of use. You may not collect votes. You may not transfer votes. You may not pass votes on to your children. And a vote pays no dividend. (That last part is a mistake since a dividend would reward voters for fiscal discipline and balanced budgets).

As a side note, observe that more conditions of use actually protects the average poor person from the rapaciousness of people who are more powerful. If votes could be transferred you would get a steady accumulation of power and wealth in a few hands. Eventually you wind up back at feudalism. Capitalism may paradoxically depend on the very democracy that is hostile to it in order to prevent from turning back into feudalism. But I digress.

The point here is that property is a series of conditions for use enforced by state violence, and that this means that any new property type can be constructed by defining new conditions for use, not just the limited property types of capitalism as it currently exists. We can invent an instrument of property by inventing new conditions for use. As long as the state is willing to enforce with violence the list of conditions then we have ourselves a new form of property. The easiest way to do this is with the open-ended mechanism of the contract, which allows individuals to construct customized conditions for use, in contrast to the predetermined conditions of land, cars, estates, marriages, etc.

Tribal Conditions of Use

Property designated as tribal property may only be transferred to other members of the tribe.
Membership in the tribe may only be conferred on persons belonging to a particular race, and who agree with the values of the society.
Property is transferable, but only between men.
Property is heritable, but only be the male members.
Property may pay a dividend, rent, or profit.
Property is NOT cumulable. A lone person may not accumulate property.
Only families may accumulate property.
Family property can only be bought or sold with the permission of at least one other MALE member of the family related to the original patriarch by blood.

The result of these condition is a property institution that forces men related by blood to coordinate their economic activity with each other, withhold economic power from women, and invest in their families. It is a semi-feudal capitalist system with equalist features. Imagine a democracy where only men can vote, and where men of a family must decide how to vote collectively in order for their vote to count, (because the family votes and not the individuals within it). The men are charged with representing their family interests. They must all mark the ballot the same way for every issue/office voted upon for their vote to be counted at all. They vote collectively as a family. Now imagine that this political system is coupled with the economic system described above. It's just a thought.

Commenting on cyborg_nomade's 'naturalism, ethics and politics' post

Over at Antinomia Imediata, cyborg_nomade says;

" '1) the preemptive rejection of the strong naturalist intention (study ethics and politics solely in view of empirical evidence) does not offer any good reason why it should be so.'

'1.1) one good reason I would see is that, while we can understand evolutionary impacts of certain kinds of political and ethical arrangements (and under which conditions they come into being), effectively testing them would demand another framework – one such as federalism or the archipelago.'

'1.2) the reason “it assumes that empirical knowledge is superior to ethical and political knowledge” is weak. the naturalist method has produced demonstrable results for over 4 centuries now, incarnated in the technological world all around us. ethics and politics have produced nothing of the kind. if that’s not an evidence against the method used in ethics and politics so far (an introspective method, based at best on logic and at worst on suspicious “a priori” definitions).' 

'thus it’s not that empirical knowledge is superior to ethics and politics, but that the empirical method works better than the introspective method used in ethics and politics.'

'2) the attempt to evade the facts of empirical knowledge (for whatever reason) does not make certain political or ethical theories any better adapted to empirical reality. their flaws and their course when realistically applied can be empirically predicted. refusing to listen and pay careful attention to what naturalist empirical knowledge has to say is undertaken at the critic’s own risk. reality rules.'

'3) there’s an universal impartial judge, and it’s called reality. reality shows itself through survival. irrealism will lead to death, necessarily. those that survive the most, have the most truth in their beliefs and practices. those that die, don’t.'

'3.1) sure, the contest may last a long while. and to this extent, two different and even contradictory sets of beliefs may be held as truth, at the same time. in such a point in time, both must be held as truth indeed. when one dies, then the other must be recognized as the truth that prevailed.'

'3.2) once again, choose to ignore reality at your own peril.'

3.3) theories, of course, evolve. hopefully, learning from deaths around itself. if a theory that leads to longer survival is abandoned, for whatever reason, the whole of the institutions and societies that embed and accept them will eventually die, especially when in competition from societies that haven’t committed the same mistakes (and will themselves learn quite a bit about how not to run institutions and societies).'

'4) for normativity, see “The Blind Mechanic II”'

'5) Only naturalist methodology is “legitimate” because only it works as a good proxy for real consequences, and thus ensures realism. all other methods are greatly liable to delusion and willful blindness.'

Quoted here in full.

I am glad that someone else agrees with me. I have been saying for some time now, but usually only implied, that the only competent judge of man is Gnon.

Usually reaction implies that because nature and nature's god agree with tradition that tradition is the limit of human morality, and that there is nothing beyond that. For example: the fact that patriarchy always wins is taken as proof that it is correct, and not as an indication that the human race should use transhumanism to engineer a species that can survive and breed without it. Religious people and male dominated households have more children than secular/atheist/feminist ones. HRx and CRx types then feel justified in asserting that Gnon has spoken in favor of the traditional and religious framework of living. And it has — for now.

But all of Gnon's rules are just algorithms and math can be gamed.

One last note. I would add that reality is the beginning of morality: meaning; that which destroys itself is automatically evil but that which survives is not automatically virtuous. Survival is the beginning of morality, but not the end.

Eventually this leads to a recursive behavior. One species uses its conceptions of morality to design another, potential successor species. That species then uses its moral code to design the next, and so on, and so on. The moral codes of each arise out of their own genetics. The moral codes of each then design the genetics of the next. So in essence each genetic code is producing the next. The process occurs recursive until it reaches a dead end. However, there are multiple species that are engineered. So ALL species never reach dead ends. The result is a family tree of human species designing each next species. Most of these lines die off but the process itself is eternal and rapid evolution of intelligence occurs within the biological substrate. Future successful moralit(ies) bear only tangential resemblance to past traditions.

Nazi milk foot bath

Do not squander the precious milk.

Alternate caption "THE COLLECTOR"
"And all those Nazi boys thought she was swallowing"

EDIT:

Milk: our official drink.
Pepe and Moonman: our official mascots.
Bitcoin: official currency of the alt-right
New Balance, official shoe of the alt-right.
Dr. Marten's boots with red laces: our fashionable jackboots.
Wend'y, our official square burgers.

Second edit, March 18th 2017

-Basic art history style symbolic interpretation, for people who need explanation;

It's a joke.

The milk represents the purity of Aryan genes. The woman is holding a leather bound copy of Mein Kampf. Because it is leather bound it is made to resemble the Bible — her "Bible." She is bathing in milk — literally she is bathing in whiteness that she has collected in jars obsessively. The person who is pouring the milk in her tub is wearing a mask in an act of submission. There are lesbian overtones. The milk container is a cheep plastic container, which contradicts the preciousness of the fluid. There is a tangential reference here to precious bodily fluids, a la the movie Dr. Strangelove. See the attached video;

Only whites can digest milk since only White people have the gene for digesting milk. Hence White milk is a symbol of Whiteness. The clothing is 50's retro style. The woman has an old fashioned haircut. She is wearing an over-sized ring on her middle finger, probably in a symbolic "fuck you."

Alternately, the milk may be a reference to sperm, and the desire of a woman to bathe is sperm, maybe even bathe in the cum of der Führer. There are certainly sexual overtones.

It's an anti-Nazi joke in a long line of anti-Nazi jokes. Like all Brahmin jokes, it is a test to see how intelligent you are.

The thought of this website is closer to fascist thought than reactionary monarchism, on account of the fact that I do not reject the usefulness of either eugenics or elections. Nick B. Steves once called this site "republican reaction," aka, RRx instead of NRx (neoreaction). This is basically true. I am closer ideologically to the vaguely libertarian/fascism of Robert Heinlein or the anarcho capitalism of Murray Rothbard, than the monarchism of Julius Evola. I have a soft spot for fascism. Why make jokes at my own expense? Because that's what Brahmins do. I am descended from Quakers, socialists, and southern liberal Democrats. This whole post is me making a joke at my own expense.

The artist is Dany Peschl. He also photographed the image below. Can you find the symbology here?