A political manifesto for the UK neoabsolutist restorationist state

One of the problems with elaborating a new political theory is that while it is in the realm of abstract thought the concrete ramifications are not always clear. Using the example of the UK and the blueprint provided by the Letter to France published by Social Matter (and promptly ignored by them) I will explain what neoabsolutism demands:

  • All power must be transferred to the new British state run by the military under the supervision of a suitable leader. All political parties are outlawed, martial law is in place and all media outlets are placed under direct military control. Enough with this shit. It’s finished.

 

  • All UK border are sealed. All foreign nationals are to be deported or interned. All British citizends abroad are either repatriated or expatriated. These measures will not be reversed until the UK is once again a nation, not a province of Globomerica.

 

  • Real borders are not just about migration. Political sovereignty is also compromised by financial, commercial, and intellectual dependency. Since the UK today is a cancer patient and only strict isolation can save her, all these links must be severed. Some future strong and healthy UK may restore them.

 

  • All British securities held outside of the UK are cancelled. All external trade is settled in gold at a single entry point. No manufactured goods are imported. All Internet links are cut. Only the New State routes packets outside UK, only to Washington, and for only three purposes: offering British products for sale; purchasing strategic minerals; and negotiating real planetary issues such as ocean rights, atmospheric contamination, migratory bird protection and asteroid defense.

 

  • Thanks to the criminal acts of the communist regime, which aimed to entrench itself in permanent power by importing a new people, possession of a UK passport issued by the democratic state is not proof of British citizenship. Anyone holding a British passport, but without four great-grandparents born in Britain, must reapply for citizenship in the New British State.

 

  • Applications are evaluated by the police. Anyone both assimilated and civilized, without regard to race, is accepted. Everyone else is deported, or interned if Globomerica will not accept them. Internment is not a punishment and will not become one, but the UK is a sovereign nation and no one colonizes her.

 

  • All civil servants of the democratic state are deemed communist until proven patriotic, and retired with full benefits. Initially, the new government is staffed entirely by former military officers. Where hiring is necessary, any experience in the official or para-official sector, security forces excepted, is an unconditional disqualification. When in doubt, the process of denazification used in Germany in 1945 is a good guide.

 

  • The UK is a Catholic nation, the Church of England has been a horrendous disaster, and cannot be restored without the help of the Church. Unfortunately, this institution too has been overrun by communists. The Society of St. Pius X is the legal successor of the British Catholic Church. All clerics affiliated with the Novus Ordo Church are assumed communist until proven otherwise, and purged as functionaries.

 

  • The Church has full authority over all educational institutions from kindergarten to university; she gains ownership of all existing media and publishing firms. Freedom of speech is not infringed; communists can remain communists and keep trying to peddle their poisonous product, to adults at least. But no point of strength won under communism can survive its fall. A state without a form of intellectual framework such as Catholicism is impossible. Protestantism is beyond the pale and is indelibly tainted. This only leaves Catholicism.

 

  • All philanthropic institutions, NGOs, foundations, etc, are transferred to the State for liquidation. Moreover, the ultimate power source of these pernicious institutions, the 20th-century financial oligarchy, cannot be allowed to survive.

 

  • Many wealthy British men came by their money honestly, even under the corrupt rule of traitors. Many did not. Without inquiring into the affairs of the past, personal wealth of the rich must be declared and capped at the maximum needed to ensure a luxurious lifespan. Assets above the cap, deserved or not, are exchanged for titles of nobility. Thieves and traitors are relieved to escape with this small sacrifice; honest, patriotic businessmen understand the need for it.

 

  • All universities and seats of learning are placed in the hand of the military. All funding for anything except engineering, medical degrees and other associated practical courses are ended. All student loans and debt accrued until now are declared null and void. Philosophy department, various grievance studies and economics departments are shut for good. They will never be reopened.

 

  • All state secrets, except military blueprints, are unsealed. Using these documents, and any living sources still available, the New State will sponsor an intelligence-quality history of the UK in the 20th century, a reference document fully independent, patriotic and Catholic without apology, and contaminated by neither fascist nor communist bias.

 

  • The UK must be restored culturally, architecturally, and industrially. Any buildings built in the UK, of a Modernist, communist, Islamic or other non-British character, are to be demolished and/or replaced in a British historical style.

 

  • To a degree consistent with the actual supply of labor, industrial production of food and clothing is banned. Since the New State has retired the whole government, many Britishmen will need work. The only conceivable source of labor demand is artisanal production on pre-industrial patterns; honor and fulfilment can only be found in tasks equal to the worker’s human potential. Anyone can be a mason or a carpenter; no one should have to be a 19th-century industrial robot.

 

  • The New British State is a temporary regime designed to cure Britain, not to govern her forever. Its last task is designing its own permanent replacement, almost certainly a hereditary absolute monarchy in the great British tradition. Of course, there’s not one British man in a thousand today who would understand or support this plan. Yet half of Britain, at least, sees the same problem.

 

  • Simply nothing short of the total redistribution of wealth and power in line with the creation of a sovereign nation devoid of divisions of power and false and pernicious categories of public and private is worth discussing. Sovereignty demands nullification of all property and its continual redistribution as and when required to maintain sovereignty.

“Spontaneous Order” as Political Down Syndrome

As far as blocks to effective resistance to liberalism go, the issue of spontaneous order is the worst. All currently acceptable means of political discourse demand that we see political organisation in one light, and one light only, this being that movements and political action occur due to a collective organisation of individuals in line with right reason. It’s totally insane.

This means of perceiving the world is effectively modernity. We see it ethics with Kant’s Categorical Imperative, Smith’s economics and also his system of ethics, and we see it in philosophy from Descartes onward.

This entire system is intellectually indefensible, and the ultimate stand that advocates take, tends to center on a claim to inevitability/ success; “the most “modern” AKA the most individual and closely aligned to this system of thought are the most successful,” they say. That this is then not followed up with a demonstration of how these two aspects- the domination of these societies, and their philosophical premises- are connected. Many attempts have been made to provide a robust explanation, and they all fail miserably and end up offering up mysticism. Jouvenel provides an alternative explanation, this being that it has been the centralisation and integration of political space under the aegis of a centralising power that is the cause of the success. This has been conducted by wielding this nexus of individualising thought systems as a means to undermine power centers which were in the way. This process has then brought technological development and advancement in the wake of these “breaking” thought systems. Liberalism in effect becomes a disgusting acid applied to society as step one, to be followed by integrationalist processes (which are occluded) at step two. Consider which parts of society are subjected to primitivist equality/ liberty enforcement that precludes complex organisation, and which parts are excluded from individualist primitivism to see where the disintegrative/ integrative divide is.

A key component for creating this state of affairs is the recognised, and entirely fraudulent, state/ society split. The exceptional power value of maintaining this split can be seen in what has allowed to happen, and what it has suppressed. I would posit that a failure to fully master the intricacies of this state/society fraud adequately was the major defining difference between the USA and the USSR/Nazis “statists.”

A state/society split gives a licence to the governing elites to engage in the most appalling behaviour imaginable. The governmental/state part becomes a mere rubber stamp department where the eyes of the world concentrate. Its ends up a circus full of clowns. What the UK, and subsequently the US elites, managed to master was the process of maintaining extra-governmental centers of wealth and power which were in the “society” part of the split. We see this with pressure groups funded by wealthy patrons in the governing elite, and with subsequent foundations/NGOs which represent the perfection of “society” government mechanisms. All the other governments in the world maintaining this same form of governance, the state/society split liberal model, then leave their societies with open access to Anglo-American governance via NGOs and foundations. The anglo-elite understood this, as they removed direct colonial governance to be replaced by what Lional Curtis often referred to as ties of culture. This is a very vague way of saying that control can be maintained by mechanisms outside of formal governance. The ties of Walter Lippman to the Round Table, the Inquiry, and the CFR gives you an idea of how aware of this the architects of the modern system were.

The US and UK systems were built bit by bit, slowly. It achieved a level of sophistication ( or rather absurd complexity) which Russia and Germany upon adopting the system of liberal republican governance could not hope to achieve in one bound. There would have needed to have been a clear understanding of the need for extra governmental sources of control, but they didn’t have this. So where the US and UK elite were busy controlling media through foundations, the USSR and Germany were clumsily using governmental departments openly. Were the USSR and Germany elites were driving organisational policies through government agencies to change society, the US elites were centring this on foundations. The USSR in the Cold War then became tarred with statism very effectively, and was tarred with governmental oppression despite the US engaging in societal control and manipulation every bit as absurd, and by the end of the Cold War, even more absurd than the Soviets. One only has to consider that Soviet defectors and intellectuals engaged with the US had trouble making sense of Ford Foundation attempts to impose affirmative action for women on them. Yes, the Ford Foundation is a governance arm of the American elite. Yes, the Amercian elites are were more “communist” than the communists.

What is even worse about the Cold War is it provided extra training and space for development of the civil society governance process for the US elites. One has to be aware that often the Civil Rights era justifications are recorded as having an international relation edge. We see this in the Brown versus Board case shenanigans.

The implications from all of the above is that any school of thought attempting to develop a means to deal with the above has two broad options. One is to master this civil society governance process and maintain this superficial and facile state/ society split. This is a poisoned pill that has serious problems. The second is to simply discard this distinction and cut off all parts of your sovereign territory from US/ UK elite governance. You in effect declare independence from the international community. There is actually a third option, that is to be exceptionally thick and think the split is real and that it needs refreshing or doesn’t need dealing with by point 1 or 2. It is fairly obvious where almost all alternative political theories stand on this, and that is squarely in option three. That shows you how exceptionally effective liberalism is in destroying opposition before it even starts. Just ask Walter Lipman:

” It is no longer possible, for example, to believe in the original dogma of democracy; that the knowledge needed for the management of human affairs comes up spontaneously from the human heart. Where we act on that theory we expose ourselves to self-deception, and to forms of persuasion that we cannot verify. It has been demonstrated that we cannot rely upon intuition, conscience, or the accidents of casual opinion if we are to deal with the world beyond our reach.”.

— Walter Lippmann, Public Opinion, Chapter XV

Absolutist Accelerationism

Inventing the Future by Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams is a fascinating read and in their analysis of the development of left wing movements into basic stupidity in the form of what they term “horizontalism” is something that hits home hard against the alt-right and neoreaction.

The analysis in the book of the failure of left wing groups to be effective against capitalism, whilst being very astute, lacks a clear explanation for why it occurred. The authors claim that the cause can be traced to a number of factors; including the discrediting of Stalinist regimes, the development of new movements among the student bodies in France with the 1968 revolutions, as well as the failure of the communist party to support the student protests. This lacks rigor, and from the absolutist angle what they have done is effectively followed the symptoms of a process which they are unable to account for. Considering the limitations imposed by a lack of awareness of this process, their ability to follow its contours is exceptionally impressive.

Regular readers will be aware that this process is that of unsecure power acting in familiar ways and the usage of proxy actors to destabilise enemy power centers. It is remarkable that the authors note that the 1968 movement and others around it were influenced and took their cue from civil rights movements in the US, but we can go further and supply the abstract framework which they call for in the book. Much of this is already covered in the first edition of the journal.

The funding of the new left in France appears quite clearly to be a neoliberal project, with neoliberalism being merely the latest mask of the unsecure power system. The power system entrenched in just those hegemonic institutions which the authors cover is busy supporting and funding folk politics whose success is the result of being in the service of a patron in a position of power. The Civil Rights Era and the 1968 French protests had the patron of the US elite power base, so resulted in explosive change. Other folk politics movements that don’t succeed don’t have this patron. Occupy Wall Street for example didn’t, so was an ignored joke. BLM meanwhile is proving effective, and is being run by US neoliberal foundations in alliance with Federal government. This explains the discrepancies between folk politics that worked, and the folk politics that don’t. The new Left post 1968 is a wonderful development for unsecure power/ neoliberal hegemony because it is structurally toothless. It is no threat to neoliberal power itself, but its bellicose and violent activism can be unleashed on power’s enemies. The aspect of power utilizing movements putatively against it as a means of strengthening itself is an abstract point which many seem to be unable to grasp. I am sure Srnicek and Williams have the cognitive sophistication to do so.

The alt-right and neoreaction are likewise folk politics movements which have no intention to offer a threat to neoliberal hegemony/ unsecure power. They check every single box which Srnicek and Williams use to categories folk politics. They are reactive, ignore long term strategic goals in favour of tactics, prefer practices that are inherently fleeting, choose familiarity over the future, and lionize voluntarism and spontaneity over the institutional. In addition, they privilege the local as the site of authenticity, choose the small over the large, favour projects unscalable beyond a small community and “reject the project of hegemony, valuing withdrawal or exit rather than building a broad counter-hegemony.”

Whereas the new left are funded to be inherently toothless against power, the alt-right and neoreaction do it for free. The only significant difference is that they espouse a suite of neoliberal/ unsecure power liberties that are different to the new left’s. Whereas the new left pushes a horizontilaism and negative liberties based on the liberation of the individual’s racial and gender identity from formal authority, the alt right and neoreaction come at you from the angle of economics and law, calling for a liberation of the individual from economic complexity and formal control. Both sets in effect offer a suite of negative liberties which are intrinsically what someone once correctly labelled for me as primitivistic. Both espouse a rejection of organisational complexity, masking it with a referral to a mystical individual level spontaneous order which lacks any coherence and which has real affinity to the most extreme crass fideistic referrals to God as a cause for events. How does the economy work? Invisible hand. How do markets work? Competition is good. How does technology develop? Markets. How will society work if everyone is supplied negative liberties? Their natural goodness will come out. How will change occur? people will awaken spontaneously. Each time the discussion stops exactly where it is believed it supports anarchistic and primitivistic interpretations of events.

To offer any sort of threat to the neoliberal/ unsecure power system, a movement will need to be avowedly hegemonic. Either by developing alternative hegemonic institutions or converting the neoliberal/ unsecure power institutions into absolutist hegemonic institutions. We also need to reject negative liberties which are the basis of neoliberalism and the unsecure power system in favour of true liberty offered by an absolutist accelerationist state. A basic guide is supplied by the actions of Lee Kuan Yew and Deng Xiaoping and the other Asian developmental states of the mid-twentieth century. The west has nothing to offer intellectually except mindless neoliberal friendly destruction and autism in this regard.

Lee Kuan Yew is instructive of the role of the developmental state and liberties provided by state led technological development against the negative liberties of the neoliberal/ unsecure power system of the west. Any claims that the free market is the driver of technological innovation are flat out false and fed by historical illiteracy. When faced with free markets or protection, he chose protectionism. A rejection of fideitic observance of the God of neoliberalism was replaced with the application of human reason to conclude that the population required protected roles within society which would allow for a development of the virtues of the population and the unlocking of liberty which such an action would supply. Once a strengthened society and strengthened set of industries developed, an opening of markets on an equal footing then offered contingent benefits depending on the circumstances. Our argument is that this developmental state doesn’t go far enough. The state requires more power and a complete rejection of the absurdities of neoliberal/ unsecure power predation. Neoliberal/ unsecure power is a shackle on mankind which works by holding back development and true liberty to secure itself.

Lee Kuan Yew rejected fideistic primitivism and it is a joke of horrific proportions that the same extremist primitivists he rejected, regularly celebrate Singapore as a example of their stupidity in such neoliberal rags as The Economist. What sort of liberty is it to be left in an unemployment queue whilst cheap labor is imported to drive the taxi you could have been driving to supply your family based on “competition is good so stop thinking.” To ask this question in the west is to invite the foot soldiers of neoliberalism/ unsecure power to preach their extremist autistic spiel in the service of power.

We will look to develop the concept of the accelorationist absolutist state and reject all folk politics and neoliberal/ unsecure power lies.

Against Class Conflict

Class conflict which underpins Marxism is basically a classical liberal concept. A good yard stick as to if someone is worth listening to on the issue is if they insist that Marxism is Jewish. I don’t mean Jewish in the sense of being heavily over represented by Jews, but as being in some way derived from Judaism. The claim is either one of extreme gross ignorance or is a mendacious lie propagated for ulterior motives. The reality is Maxism and class analysis is perfectly anglo.

Class analysis and class conflict is an extension of classical liberalism. It takes the understanding of their being groups identifiable by their socio-economic position, and then applies a narrative to the process. A great guide to this is supplied by the Communist Manifesto which lays out the history of class conflict and the direction in which communist believed it would develop. Working from the logic of class it is extremely robust.

What we see in the Communist Manifesto is a narrative of modern history in which the bourgeoisie class rose spontaneously and then began to infest the world. They spread their values and economic organisation everywhere and took over and used the state as a tool to further their class values. The bourgeoisie then had a class conscious and dominated as a class. Marx and the communist then applied this same process to the proletariat. They saw the proletariat growing in size, growing in power, and looked to them developing a class consciousness and taking over the machine of governance to then apply their values. This is fully logical within the bounds of the mechanism of class conflict. Of course, we know it failed as a prediction, but the reason why has eluded everyone. In fact, no one can seem to make heads or tails of what classes we now have, and who is in control.

On the one hand, class as an explanation of society has just enough truth to it to be intellectually engaging, but not enough to be correct. It is correct that a man’s economic position will provide him with a context within which the very concept of self-interest makes any sense at all. It also provides him with an orientation within society and life from which he will view reality. This is why Marxist could talk about false consciousness created by the imposition of bourgeoisie frameworks. As far as it goes, this is solid. But there is a gaping and absurd error in class analysis and Marxism – it doesn’t consider power and authority as having its own imperatives and incentives.

Why is such a ridiculous error ingrained in Marxism? Because it is derived from liberalism and modernity. Not only did Marx work with Lockean property conceptions which we absolutists have been criticizing as being derived from a ridiculous Church and State conflict based on biblical exegesis, but his entire outlook was based on the possibility of anarchistic relations. It, like modernity, is not fit for purpose.

Ripping this error out of Marxism, we can put in Jouvenal, Filmer, Moldbug and MacIntyre. With this we can re-narrate history and not only explain the rise of the bourgeoisie, but we can also explain events which occurred after the Communist Manifesto. We can also explain the explosive success of Marxism itself. The narrative is simply that power and authority is ever present, that power has its own imperatives which are defining on society, and that the formation of this authority determines what occurs within the purview of power and authority. If this system is set on a course of conflict as the Western world has been for centuries, then each locus of power in the conflict will engage in leveling schemes as a means to undermine other power centers. Communist parties that took power engaged in the process as well, and in fact communism and its concern for the proles provided an excellent system of high-low versus the middle. Regular readers will understand this all by now.

The rise of the burgoisie then goes from being a spontaneous mystical process to being a symptom of power conflict which history confirms. It was the king’s court which raised common men in the form of the bourgeoisie as a means to undermine the Lords under them. The parliaments of the “people” which the kings convened were a clear means of power consolidation. All of those developments which Marxist take as being driven by an agglomeration of rational individuals all acting within their class conscious were actually brought to fruition by power and authority.

Why does ideologically pure person X become a neoliberal shill when he gets into any part of the power system? because the power system has its own imperatives. The bourgeoisie and capitalism as we see it are symptoms of divided power. They aren’t the main game in town.

Class conflict and class analysis is simply wrong. The central driver of history is, and always will be, authority and power.

Political Correctness as the Monarch’s Will

This article by Cass Sunstein is remarkable for reasons which only come into view clearly with an absolutist framework. Sunstein makes the following bold claim:

“In the U.S. and Europe, many people worry that if prominent politicians signal that they dislike and fear immigrants, foreigners and people of minority religions, they will unleash people’s basest impulses and fuel violence. In their view, social norms of civility, tolerance and respect are fragile. If national leaders such as President Donald Trump flout those norms, they might unravel

The most careful work on this general subject comes from Duke University economist Timur Kuran, who has studied the topic of “preference falsification.”  In Kuran’s view, there is a big difference between what people say they think and what they actually think. Sometimes for better or sometimes for worse, people’s statements and actions are inhibited by prevailing social norms. When norms start to disintegrate, we can see startlingly fast alterations in what people say and do.

Kuran’s leading example is the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe, which, he says, was long sustained by the widespread misconception that other people supported communism. Once prominent citizens started to announce, in public, that they abhorred communism, others felt freer to say that they abhorred it too, and regimes were bound to collapse.

Kuran’s theory can be applied broadly. Writing in the late 1990s, he predicted the backlash against affirmative action programs, contending that a lot of people opposed such programs even though they weren’t saying so. Millions of people favored same-sex marriage before they felt free to announce that they did. When professors keep quiet after left-wing students shut down conservative speakers, it may not be because they approve; they might be capitulating to social norms on campus. There is a strong taboo on anti-Semitism, which limits its public expression.”

Taken out of the anarchist filter of modern political theory (basically every single one except absolutism) we can look at this along the lines that society is directed towards authority, and specifically directed towards the sovereign who by virtue of the fact that we are humans, we anthropologically and automatically orientate to. Sunstein all but admits by his concern regarding the effect of the perceived messaging of Trump.

This puts a completely new perspective on political correctness, as from this model, PC doesn’t work by convincing each person that other persons think that X is unacceptable (this is anarchistic,) but instead by making it clear that the sovereign wills X. Having someone within the political system occupying a place of authority (Trump) confuses society and causes a split. You have all of these institutions making it clear that the sovereign is willing X, but here is a recognisable person who is central to governance indicating his will counters this. What gives? (and please note, we all orientate to hierachies which makes anarchism just plain wrong.)

What makes the situation tragic is that the utilisation of this natural and automatic tendency in human society which cannot be altered is that we see the forcing of norms and values which are destructive to the society in question, but which the society in question will still dutifully enact for authority. This is what we saw with communism and what we see with liberal society.

Restoration projects

The problem for any restoration project, in any nation, is one of first organising and then maintaining organisation in a directed manner. This might seem like a stupidly obvious claim but that is the basic problem.

Firstly, the organisation would need to start off extremely small. Maybe half-dozen to a dozen or so people at the start all on the exact same page theoretically, and with a tight and organised visionary plan of action that is open to some adaptability in the face of practical problems. This is where it gets immediately difficult. These people would have to be driven extremists. The character of these initial party leaders would have to be excellent. They will need a goal to work towards, and they will need access to funds to make it happen. Unfortunately, as Michels notes in Political Parties, the number of people seriously interested in theoretical issues is embarrassingly small. Most men will accept a political formula and a simple myth to direct their attention to. They are also happy to merely engage occasionally and leave the organisation to a minority. That is fine, they can supply money.

Theoretically, the only real goal for an absolutist political party to aim towards is that of securing power and removing conflictual institutions within society. Going down a level, this goal and its value is impossible to explain to average persons raised on liberal stupidity about democracy and balancing power, so it would need to be explained by means of a myth. Ending social conflict, bring peace and bringing a future of technological development would likely be central to such a myth in the form of bringing forward a final battle against the forces of alienation and stultification of modernity. People don’t want to know the details, and after they can all claim they understood it anyway.

So this initial small group, which would have to be highly regimented, have exemplary character, possess a clear direction that was theoretically directed to neoabsolutist theory would then need to present a public face and public myth with which to animate support in the form of finance and man hours. The initial small group would have to be visionary.

There aims are to open up new possibilities which current structures and thinking declare are not possible. A small group with resources could do it.

A suggestion on Neoabsolutist theory of money.

As a way to demonstrate how economics can be re-interpreted via an absolutist perspective, we can use this blog post as a means to begin a discussion on Bitcoin. The post is well thought out and clear, so that is helpful. We can go straight for the definition of money, outlined here:

“The standard economics textbook definition of money says that it has to fulfil 3 purposes, namely

#1. It has to be a unit of account – a way of measuring how much of something you have

#2. It has to be a medium of exchange – a means for people to transact amongst each other and exchange goods and services indirectly, rather than directly through barter

#3. It has to be a store of value – that is, have some worth derived from an alternative use other than the monetary aspect itself, to ensure that people will be willing to hold it.”

This is clear, and from an absolutist position number 1 and 2 are not really objectionable. Point three however is. Point three is the giveaway. We can dump point three and replace it with the following:

#3. It has to be accepted by a sovereign, or authority, within whose territory the transaction can occur.

By doing this we remove the complete lack of reference to society and sovereignty implicit in point three. This make the discussion on Bitcoin far more pointed and allows us to ask clearer questions. For example, “what is the value of Bitcoin?” is a strange question, “what is the value of Bitcoin in the US?” is not, it can be measured against the dollar. What is the value of Bitcoin in Bolivia, Bangladesh, Vietnam etc? Zero legally. So we have located places where the value of Bitcoin is zero. Now the counter to this is that people can trade in those countries illegally and then use those trades as linked to the value of a dollar to set up an exchange rate, but this is parasitical on there being territories elsewhere in which Bitcoin is accepted, it’s also illegal and subject to imprisonment and confiscation. It also acts as an exception which proves the rule. It’s not acceptable as an open trade in that territory and it’s not acceptable in all transactions. The sovereign’s negligence in allowing the illegal transaction to occur is deplorable, but it is another sovereign’s allowance of Bitcoin that gives it money status. Remove those other open markets in which Bitcoin is acceptable as money, and no Bitcoin legally or illegally.

I feel this holds up to scrutiny far more than the following:

“As a consequence, we can begin to formulate an alternative definition of requirement #3 for money that we started with. Specifically:

#3A – If you accept the asset today in exchange for giving up valuable goods or services, you have to have a very strong belief that you will be able to exchange said asset tomorrow for someone else’s goods and services, and receive approximately the same value as what you exchanged today.

Viewed from this angle, we can see that requirement #3A is at heart a co-ordination problem. Once we all agree on something being money, it becomes money. More importantly, we can see why people mistakenly viewed #3 as being the requirement. In essence, being a store of value is one way of solving the co-ordination problem. If it’s common knowledge that some people will be willing to accept gold because it’s useful for jewellery, most people who don’t value it for jewellery are nonetheless willing to hold it.”

We can see the anarchistic chops of this new point three with “Once we all agree on something being money, it becomes money.” This is economics in a nutshell. The “we” here being rational individuals who are co-ordinating spontaneously without reference to authority. There is zero reference to the actions of the sovereign.

Against Mises

I was recently taken to task for suggesting that within absolutist thinking in the area of what we call “economics” nothing much would change, with further thinking I have to conclude that I was pretty wrong. I am sure a great deal of immediately practical aspects categorized under economics which predate economics would still hold, such as scarcity, specialization, markets and so on, but what will fundamentally be rejected is the idea of an “economy” before and aside from society that is a completely neutral space within which individual actors engage in actions to which we must not normatively judge. The greatest, and most pathetic, argument against such a position advanced by advocates of mindless economics, the cold war Randian capitalists still LARPing a fight against the USSR, is that any curtailment of economic intensity of any sort will cede ground to competitors, and anything short of unabashed capitalism is communism. This is patently stupid, and if asked to clarify what exactly they are talking about, they will engage in equivocation, something they do across the board. Given we don’t have a shared definition of capitalism at all, its easy for people to do this. Ask a hyper capitalist if we should have a market in babies, see what happens. Occasionally, some of the more intellectually honest will to their credit follow through the implications of their arguments, such as Rothbard who did argue in favour of a free market in the sale of babies. The average proponent will merely place a limit at some point which is determined by their inherited prejudices. An objective claim becomes a “common sense” tempered one which rejects rational discussion at this point and makes claims to nonsense like unexamined wisdom or appeals to just screaming. Its the standard mode of operation for conservatism since at least Burke, and likely much longer.

The Alt-right is especially interesting in this regard as they often push the hyper-capitalism nonsense whilst complaining about immigration, completely skipping the incoherence of these positions. Immigration increases the economic activity within the area that receives the immigrants so it is positively a good from the angle of economics as currently formulated. I’m sure a series of specious arguments applying unprincipled exceptions could be concocted to try and refute this, I have seen many, but they all fail.  One of the more common arguments is to appeal to HBD and point out that immigrants are less economically productive over the long run, but what has that got to do with economics and capitalism which are about the relationships between agents? They have nothing to say about future time periods or society as such. If you feed value judgements and a consideration of overall good separate from the immediate economic activity or any value external to it then it is not economics, maybe you could claim it is political economics at a stretch, but this all doesn’t really make sense. But this is all central to economics, take a step back and look at it in its entirety and it does not contain a context within which claims can be measured, there is no allowable telos or context, it is a continuation of anarchistic theorising. We will see this later when we get to Mises.

One problem that I commonly find is that many don’t quite understand the claim that all modern society and mainstream theory is basically anarchist because maybe they find a major thinker who puts in writing that they don’t believe in hyper individualism such as Mises, or that a particular thinker like Hume or Kant promoted conservative values like marriage. To this complaint I would counter that the thinkers in question demonstrate conceptual confusion, that they were fooling themselves and being inconsistent. I can again direct the reader to McIntyre who has investigated this issue in far, far greater depth than I could ever hope to, and especially to his critique of the ethical basis of liberalism. In Whose Justice? Which Rationality? MacIntyre writes of Hume’s moral scheme:

“Property and the rules for its safeguarding and transmission — the rules which on Hume’s view specify the content of justice — thus are made the focus for pride, love, hatred, and humility. Our passions according to Hume are such that they produce in us a definition of our interests in terms of our relationship to property, and it is as propertied or unpropertied in particular ways and to particular degrees that we participate in those social exchanges and transactions whose outcome is either the increase or diminution, or at least the sustaining or the undermining, of the pride and love felt by particular individuals. The rights of property are absolute. There is and can be no standard external to them in the light of which some particular distribution of property could be evaluated as just or unjust. Justice on this view serves the ends of property and not vice versa”. [p. 295]

Hume is valuable in that as an outsider to English society which was already fully immersed in this scheme, he was able to see and articulate what was simply existence for English society at this point. This is furthered in the following passage:

““With [Thomas] Reid [1710-1796], … the exercise of fundamental rationality, practical or theoretical, was taken to require no particular type of social setting. … his books appeared in a period in which a number of other such philosophical conceptions of practical rationality as a property of individuals apart from and prior to their entry into social relations were being elaborated, most notably by Bentham in England and Kant in Prussia … we move into a world in which the exercise of practical rationality, if it is to occur at all, has to be embodied in social contexts of fundamental disagreement and conflict”. [p. 325]

Let us narrow in on a particular sentence here – “practical rationality as a property of individuals apart from and prior to their entry into social relations.” This is pure anarchism. Hume, Kant, Bentham, the whole spectrum of liberalism is pure anarchism at base with various attempts to formulate a defence of geographically, spatially and socially determined values being concocted with the delusion of being objective. This would make pure anarcho-capitalists simply the most honest and clear-head proponents of liberalism with all others being various degrees of delusional. So when we get to Mises who writes in Human Action:

“If praxeology speaks of the solitary individual, acting on his own behalf only and independent of fellow men, it does so for the sake of a better comprehension of the problems of social cooperation. We do not assert that such isolated autarkic human beings have ever lived and that the social stage of man’s nonhuman ancestors and the emergence of the primitive social bonds were effected in the same process. Man appeared on the scene of earthly events as a social being. The isolated asocial man is a fictitious construction.”

We can see this for the conceptually confused statement it is. This is made more pointed when you ask the question of what a human agent actually is which Mises to his credit is very clear on:

We call contentment or satisfaction that state of a human being which does not and cannot result in any action. Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory. His mind imagines conditions which suit him better, and his action aims at bringing about this desired state. The incentive that impels a man to act is always some uneasiness1. A man perfectly content with the state of his affairs would have no incentive to change things. He would have neither wishes nor desires; he would be perfectly [p. 14] happy. He would not act; he would simply live free from care.

But to make a man act, uneasiness and the image of a more satisfactory state alone are not sufficient. A third condition is required: the expectation that purposeful behavior has the power to remove or at least to alleviate the felt uneasiness. In the absence of this condition no action is feasible. Man must yield to the inevitable. He must submit to destiny.

These are the general conditions of human action. Man is the being that lives under these conditions. He is not only homo sapiens, but no less homo agens. Beings of human descent who either from birth or from acquired defects are unchangeably unfit for any action (in the strict sense of the term and not merely in the legal sense) are practically not human. Although the statutes and biology consider them to be men, they lack the essential feature of humanity. The newborn child too is not an acting being. It has not yet gone the whole way from conception to the full development of its human qualities. But at the end of this evolution it becomes an acting being.

Notice that Mises has declared the asocial being a myth, but at each point his acting agent operates on an “I” basis, a “me” basis, never a “us” or “our” basis. So when he says “The isolated asocial man is a fictitious construction” we have to be very careful here. We have to be careful because there is a complex web of meaning behind this claim. Mises still believes that man is an individual, that all his thinking is done on an individual “me” basis, and that all social relationships are then a matter of these individuals engaging in practical rationality on this individual basis just as Kant, Bentham and Hume did. So when Mises calls man a social being, he means an anarchistic individual engaging in rational actions to co-operate with others as such, which is not very helpful. Mises in effect is claiming man is a social being only in so much as he is an individual which engages in rational cooperation for his own benefit. We see Hobbes, Locke and the rest show up right here.

Every criticism that MacIntyre throws at Hume and the rest also applies to Mises precisely (Mises being a derivative of Hume.) We can raise a number of MacIntyre flavoured questions regarding the above passage relating to the human agent. At what point does the baby become a human agent? That would be societally dependent even by Mises standards. How about “His mind imagines conditions which suit him better,” this implicitly assumes that the desires of the agent are interior, and not derivative. Or how about the line “Acting man is eager to substitute a more satisfactory state of affairs for a less satisfactory” which rejects telos, and instead makes an agent a kind of pain and pleasure seeking reflexive creature, like an amoeba being moved by heat or cold in a particular direction. Or even the assumption that man is in society for his individual benefit, which despite Mises claim to the contrary is not separable from the state of nature thought experiment from which it claims. The passage in effect is just liberalism, or rather the assumptions of Protestant North-Western European society circa 16- 17th century dressed up as objective thought. We could go on, and on, but we are better served by picking fights with liberalism and its anarchism much further upstream than Mises.

Elites and Jihadis

From an absolutist framework, we will be able to make a number of claims which are open to falsification. The primary claim will be that the perpetrator will have been known to UK secret services, this is followed by the claim that they will have allowed him to operate freely with the aim of encouraging him to direct his attentions towards a geopolitical conflict where they are utilising Jihadists. This is pretty much the reason why the likes of Tommy Robinson will be locked up on nonsense and open to attack, whilst preachers encouraging Jihadism and facilitating Jihadism are allowed to run free. Jihadists are useful conflict tools, Tommy Robinson is not.

This mechanism expands further, as it is clear that Jihadists are the best friends of the western elite and as such the resultant problems which occur, such as an unfortunate bombing on western soil, or their co-ethinic’s predation of little girls/ basic savagery, will be met as problems to be managed, not resolved. This is also amplified by the elites’ electoral immigration requirements as an issue in itself. Those electoral parties and anti-Islam agitators are problems for the elite, the Muslims are not really.

The problem with Islam and by extension immigration is a problem of the elites operating in a deranged political system. The solution being put forward so far of electing anti-Islam parties appears obviously laughable considering the above. Just look at Trump’s about turn on Syria. Such a prescription inherently assumes the political system has no effect on those taking power – this is magical thinking.

A further problem inherent in the common reaction to Islamic terrorism is the inability of those responding to comprehend the principals of the above absolutist model, and this leads to calls for the “people” to wake up. Blaming the “people” only makes sense within an anarchistic model of society, also known as liberalism, as opposed to a non-anarchistic model which accepts that the elite are the keys to any action or cultural development. If you believe liberalism fully, then the joke is on you, because the elite don’t.

The outlook for Islamic terrorism and further clownish Kafkaesque bullshit that will make the USSR appear amateurish by comparison is about as bleak as it gets. Burma has become a geopolitical hot spot by becoming a transit route for oil that bypasses the China Sea, so expect more Muslim violence and Western elites crying for their pet jihadis’ human rights there. The Philippines as you can see from current news will have a huge increase in their Jihadi problem because of Duterte’s China turn. The Central Asian states supplying land access from China to Europe will be subject to Jihadi upsurges thanks to the West and Saudi Arabia. Syria and the Middle East will continue being an open sore and a ground for the West using Jihadis. The business of jihadism is bright.

That means horrifying behavior will be covered up and not dealt with in the west. Sorry, but that’s just the way it is.

Neoabsolutism and property

A recurring theme in the Unqualified Reservation blog is that of the status of property. This is also a reoccurring theme in all other core texts dealing with the issue of sovereignty, including Filmer, Hobbes, and Locke. Moldbug takes a position on property which he summarises as pimary (or sovereign) property and secondary property (non-sovereign.) The distinction is actually quite simple really. Any property to be labelled sovereign/ primary property must be defendable by the owner in question. This is made clearer by dropping the property label and using the better words of simple possession or sovereignty. So to recap, we then have:

  • Sovereign possession determined by ability to defend the holding in questions.
  • Property granted to subordinates by the sovereign territory holder in the form of recognised rights.

This distinction is very simple, and very logical. It is really the model of property prior to modernity. What happened with modernity is that this definition was challenged. The challenge came from first the Catholic Church, and then Protestant groups. Locke considers property prior to the state and derived from God and our own hands. Hobbes simply make no sense, as he hold the same theoretical position as Locke – that we all agree to a sovereign, but slips in that the property is only possible if a power acknowledges and protects it. It’s incoherent, not profound. These mystical conceptions were inherited by liberalism and the rest of modernity and have been subject to all sorts of wacky theories to support it on a basis other than God just magically giving it to us all. Safe to say, none of them really work because the basic conception is frankly stupid, instead they make even less sense than the God theory.

We can see why this model was challenged by looking at it in direct connection with sovereignty and conflict. A way to undermine the authority of the monarch, who is the sovereign territory holder by virtue of commanding an army which can hold the territory, is to claim that this possession is in some way invalid, hence the call to God given property to undermine the sovereign’s sovereignty. Or the kings themselves engaged in this to undermine the property granted to corporations by transferring the citizens to subjects. The increasing reduction in the security of property rights is symptomatic of modernity, funnily enough standard liberal propaganda claims the opposite. Szabo has some interest posts on this here. Moldbug offered a solution to this lack of clarity of the status of property in accordance with this sovereign/ property distinction which took the name of formalism. If all of these property distributions are formalised in such a way that the de facto ownership of a sovereign area by the sovereign is made clear, then all of this confusion is cleared up.

Nrx which followed from Moldbug didn’t follow this thread at all. Nick Land took the concept of the defensible definition of sovereignty then claimed that this could be reduced down to the individual level; an ingenious attempt at turning this back into liberalism. The massive problem with such an attempt is that it is premised on some agent which is not comparable to humans. Given his lack of care about anthropology in his thinking about governance, this is understandable. This is like studying chemistry whilst declaring the periodic table utterly irrelevant.

At root, all of these discussions then rest on a tri-partite connection of concepts; sovereignty, property and anthropology. They are all intertwined. If you hold liberal conceptions which deny the role of authority in any of these concepts, then you are liberal. A drop of liberalism means liberalism.

Now one of the best ways to avoid opening up this discussion is to try to universalise liberal/modern property theory and in effect capitalism. Again, Nick Land (in line with libertarians on this score) tries to make capitalism into a natural force. This simply ignores the historical development of capitalism and modernity which is tied in with these property changes. Liberalism and capitalism are therefore simply “natural” so the discussion is over, and sovereignty is null and void except on a voluntary basis as per Locke and Hobbes, voila. Ok, but how about we don’t accept this, and instead rip open this argument again, to do so we need to go back to Filmer and earlier and pick our fight here.

Another means to derail this argument from liberals masquerading as something new , and not have to deal with this issue, is to trot out anti-communist capitalist spiel about society collapsing if we don’t allow every single economic transaction to occur without interference; a series of arguments which are trotted out in a selective manner. These Cold War warriors will pull the usual Thatcherite/ Reagonite crap and end up spasmodically convincing themselves into full Adam Smith free market utopia. Sovereignty in effect threatens their market and conception of economics which is an individualistic “science.” Now there are many aspects of economics which make a great deal of sense, but modern economics as a whole doesn’t, this has to do with what gets inputted into economics. Self-interest for one is a weasel concept which forces an anthropology onto you, the market as a solution to everything and not a localised mechanism for trade is another. Concepts such as scarcity on the other hand are perfectly logical, as are corporations and many other central aspects of economics. But if we remove this anarchistic individual from economics, we get something like political economy which is what it was known as prior to the 19th century. Absolutism doesn’t mean communism or rejection of logical aspects of trade, it just doesn’t treat it as some magical force.