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.
Advertisements

“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.