Religious/ Secular, Civil Society/ Formal Government.

If we accept the Jouvenelian model of high-low versus the middle as an expression of unsecure power, and if we accept that William Cavanaugh and others are correct in identifying the Reformation as a cultural phenomena driven by elites in conflict (Church versus the monarchical state,) then it raises an interesting way of interpreting current events, especially regarding Trump.

To briefly recap, the claim of neoabsolutism is that unsecure power creates conflicts which then produce cultural changes. The division of power between State and Church lead to an all-out conflict played out over centuries, with both sides trying to out high/low the other. From this conflict we get the division of secular and religious which on their own terms make little sense. From the angle of power conflict, however, they make total sense. The state institutions won and proceeded to render the realm of the Church as toothless and harmless as possible. A category of religion as a matter of individual conscious which cannot be compelled (by the Church) was instigated, and total adherence to the state institutions was promoted. It was a matter of power.

Well, given the above, and the fact that we still exist in a divided unsecure system in a state of total conflict, we can ask what the current instantiation of this comprises of. I mean the conflict between Church and State still rumbles on but is not really a hot one any more in the west, maybe it is still in other areas of the world. What we would need to see is two sets of institutions in a state of conflict. Are there any slowly gestating cultural developments which indicate the framework of the current conflict lines? The answer is yes, and is provided by Moldbug in the form of the Cathedral. The name “Cathedral” has been a source of some complaints, and I would agree to a great deal of the criticisms as the name allows for all sorts of lazy assumptions. One of the key ones is that the solution for banishing progressives is to label them as religious and then demand their removal from state machinery. This is an example of assuming that culture drives politics, and is not a post hoc justification for the acts of Power. This is completely wrong. If we leave the name aside for a second, what we can instead do is look at the general contours and then note how it echoes the religion/secular split and the underlying Church/State conflict.

In the current incarnation, it is the state apparatus which has become the party under siege thereby taking on the role of the Church. The new institutions underlying the attack and giving rise to the new cultural trends are non-state institutions. The ruling elite began a migration in earnest in the 20th century from the state institutions to the NGOs, Foundations and other civil society institutions because they offer much greater power. These institutions allows for direct, uncontrolled governance under the umbrella of being civil society. They are merely entities allowing the free acts of private citizens. Government agencies are subject to all manner of checks and balances, foundations for example, are not. They do whatever they want, from promoting gay marriage, to encouraging the movement of women to the workforce to reduce birth rates. These institutions have given rise to a slow cultural drive to etch out a segment of society which has been given the label “civil society” within which (formal) government intervention is deemed inappropriate, oppressive and downright creepy. These institutions have become transnational affairs with space called “civil society” in all countries being increased, strengthened and made into a bastion of power for these institutions. Recall that previously the state building elites did exactly the same with the creation of a secular category of life from which religion (the Church) was expelled.

For a time, these institutions have existed as complementary to the state and as a means to correct the necessary failings of the liberal categories which imply that there are areas of none governance in society. But now a conflict has broken out between them; we see it as nationalists versus globalists. A more accurate split would be to describe it as civil society versus formal governance, or rather, the civil society institutions versus government institutions. While for a great amount of time the formal institutions have been staffed by people willing to act as facilitators of the transfer of power to civil service institutions (to NGOs, foundations, corporations which have been retconned as civil society created “private” entities,) this has changed in a number of places and this transfer of power is being rejected. Eastern Europe in particular has been an area of innovation in curtailing civil society, which is not surprising in some respects as it was a place in which civil society institutions (Ford foundation and the Soros foundation, privatization etc.) ran wild and caused havoc, again under the banner of spontaneous developments. The US is now the epicentre of this conflict in the form of Trump who is currently engaged in constant squabbles with these institutions.

I contend that this all indicates that either there is a great reaction and the entire concept of a civil society space of spontaneous order is rejected entirely and the institutions governing this area fraudulently are dealt with accordingly, or this process will continue in its current absurd direction, and we end up with a new deranged form of governance.

If the secular/ religious split is anything to go by, it will probably take the form of creating a category with the name politics that consists of extremely limited power. It will probably end up as some kind of opt in governance which is not really government. Like choice between having a different company supply day to day documentation. Do you want a UK passport, or a German passport? You choose, it’s your internal right by conscious decision that cannot be forced on you and it makes no difference – there are no borders bigot. On the other hand, you must submit to being a member of civil society as an individual and if you don’t great punishment will be visited upon you. You will be added to a list, your human rights score will be reduced, you will be no platformed, you will be unemployable, you will be made example of, you will go to prison. Note the legal system will be more tied up with these new institutions than with the formal governance structure on the basis of it being apolitical and part of civil society and not governance. The legal system will complete its journey from being a delegation of the monarch to being a “independent” and “impartial” judiciary.

Is this going to be a stable state of affairs? either way it portends a world governance under the absurd category of civil society in the international community.

Advertisements

The Anti-Civilisationism of Liberalism

The second volume of the American Affairs Journal has come out and it is even better than the first volume. Whereas the first volume seemed promising, the second volume is simply excellent. Of special interest is the paper titled The Corporate Contradictions of Neoliberalism by David Ciepley. This paper is especially interesting if read in conjunction with a further more substantial paper by Ciepley titled Beyond Public and Private: Toward a Political Theory of the Corporation. It is well within the framework of absolutism.

The papers in question, whilst still holding to the undefendable concept of the sovereignty of the people, take aim at the neoliberal conception of the corporation as being the creation of shareholders. Ciepley makes the point which is evident to anyone reading the liberal oeuvre carefully that liberals are really agrarian primitivists totally at odds with advanced industrial civilization. What is remarkable about them though is that despite holding agrarian primitivism in all areas, they then are able to turn around and claim credit for developments which they opposed based on classical liberalism. Just think of all those libertarians and classical liberals lauding Hong Kong, Singapore and South Korea, to name only a few examples, as the exemplars of classical liberalism and (this is where it gets hilarious) capitalism. Ciepley makes it evidently clear that the corporation is not liberal, is opposed to liberalism, and has been subject to disastrous liberalisation which has rendered them deranged institutions that have begun simply cannibalizing society.

The papers make it clear that the corporation is in effect a delegate of the sovereign. Furthermore, logically it is obvious that a company cannot be the result of shareholders as shareholders are made by the board, not the other way around. Neoliberals including Milton Freedman turned this on its head by claiming the shareholders are the owners and the board are their employees. This is nonsense of the highest order. Worse, what he was doing was bringing Lockean state of nature idiocy into the world of the corporation. This article from Forbes is much more scathing of the concept than Ciepley, and rightly so. Friedman violates the very concept of the corporation as an entity and makes it a sort of pooling of individual partners in the form of state of nature shareholders. Pure gibberish from (and I can’t believe this now) one of the most influential economists of the 20th century- he simply did not know how a company works. As Ciepley takes pain to note, this violates the concept of the corporation from every conceivable angle. Not only does it negate capital shielding that allows the corporation to own the property and not be subject to shareholders withdrawing funds (and property) in the way a partner may in a partnership, but it also negates the limited liability of the corporate structure. If the property of the company was indeed the shareholders’, then there is no limited liability. Worse than this, by removing the corporation as the legal owner of the property (the very function of its status as a company) it requires an individual contractualism in which the corporation becomes a kind of metaphysical fraud hiding the true nature of the situation as a giant contractual web of individuals. This is reminiscent of Hayek’s/ Mise’s methodological individualism. The corporation in this bizarre Lockean retconning is effectively a giant partnership of individuals (the corporate layer is fraud) like a giant Leviathon, or Lockean state, in a kind of social contract thingy. Ciepley amusingly considers this seriously and is dismissive on the basis that this would require all individual shareholders to engage in individual contracts with all that deal with the corporation (employees, customers, debtors, lenders,) and other shareholders, an absurd state of affairs…is anyone getting déjà vu from liberal political theory and the complaints of Filmer here?

The results of this absurdity are noted by Ciepley in the collapse of the American corporation from being a capitalist entity in the sense of accumulating capital and investing in expansion and development of new products, to one which doesn’t. Corporate boards were encouraged to become shareholders to align the principal-agent problem based on the error- astonishing error- of shareholders being the owner of the company’s property. The pay of CEOs then went from being wages and no shares in 1984, to being 66% share options in 2001.  The results are simply astounding. In 1950 60% of Corporation profits in the US were retained for expansion and R&D. In 2003 this was just 3% (in China it is apparently 50%.) The Liberals in effect created a nominalist dream world in which the corporation was just metaphysics to the concrete liberal individual who had to be tied into the role of being subject to consequences by being made a shareholder; an absurdity. Liberal capitalism is a contradiction in terms, the essence of liberalism is anarcho anti-civilisationalism. The idea of society as a network of contractual individuals is literally opposed to the legal construct of the corporation which gains its legal personhood from the sovereign.

Liberalism, liberal “capitalists” and classical liberals fundamentally theoretically oppose the concept of an agglomeration of capital having a separate existence in law from the individuals that comprise it. They are parasitic primitivists and it is only through an absolutist lense that this can be seen in stark clarity. As Ciepley quotes Smith (anti-corporation) as making clear:

“The directors of such companies … being the managers rather of other people’s money … it cannot well be expected, that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which the partners in a private copartnery frequently watch over their own…. Negligence and profusion, therefore, must always prevail, more or less, in the management of the affairs of such a company. (Smith
[1776] 1976, II, 264–65)”

 

High-low versus the middle.

Basically, society is comprised of three parts when it is in a state of unsecure power. It is still so in a state of secure power, but the management of this state of affairs is at least tolerable under the second circumstance. The value of holding this understanding is that it enlightens us on events, as well as a whole plethora of theories.

Under current theories of society, such things as capitalism, communism, anarchism and liberalism are seriously considered thought systems. None of them are actually serious though, they are all deeply flawed. The key to all of them is that they only consider two parts of society and embrace the concealment of the third. They all accept the existence of the low in society, and the middle in society; they all studiously refuse the existence of the high in society.

Looking at capitalism first, we can skip the various definitions and go straight to the underlying premise linking all of them, this being that wealth accumulation by independent individuals acting in a non-coordinated manner overall is a thing. This gives rise to all sorts of varying theories, and to counter theories, which complain of the victimisation of those not benefiting proportionately from the resultant relationships. So in effect we have the middle (the capitalists) and we have the low (the exploited.) Except this is wrong from every conceivable angle. Businesses, for example, are incorporated within law, they operate within infrastructure laid down by government, they operate in financial systems created by governance and are in effect merely extensions of governance. It requires a great deal of creativity, and frankly willful ignorance, to maintain a framework in which governance is claimed to be superfluous. You literally have to declare recorded history inadmissible.

Communism likewise is premised on assumptions taken from political economy which works on this refusal to countenance anything other than the existence of a middle and a low in society. The middle are always framed as the dominating group. Communism and Marxism then frame society as in a perpetual conflict between these groups.

Anarchism meanwhile takes these categories and work along the same lines. You have some left anarchists who take the side of the low, and you have “conservative” anarchists who provide the anarchist framework in a defence of the middle. You get all sorts of weird combinations such as Ayn Rand and Rothbard from this. It is all still working on this middle and low (though Rothbard seems to have caught on a little that this is all wrong.)

Liberalism meanwhile is a pure form of refusing to admit of a high. It just forms the default non-thinking form of this system. Its advocates don’t consider any intellectual ramifications of liberal premises, as they are too busy being apologist for power and staying within the popular and successful mishmash of syrupy nonsense that benefits power.

All of these thought system then share the same underlying premise – there is the middle in society, which oppresses/ justifiably exists above the oppressed/ the unworthy. Right versus Left. Except this picture is missing a serious ingredient. The left is composed of two factions, not one. The left is the high within society aligned with the low in society to destroy the middle in society.

This system, this recognition, changes the status of capitalism, anarchism, communism and liberalism from being justifiable means of viewing events, into unsecure power apologetics that serve no purpose other than to confuse. All of these thought systems are perfectly designed to camouflage the role of power in society. That this did not occur on purpose seems obvious. That this occurred quite naturally as a result of the logic of the power system appears clear to me.

The recognition of the existence, which is a constant, of this high in society gives us a brand new framework for viewing society. Where everyone else sees a two way conflict between the right (middle) and the left (low) we can see that the conflict is a three way tussle in which the left is centralising power; a centralising power which doesn’t advertise its actions but covers it with claims of emancipation and freedom.

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.