Greater Realities

At its root, Neoreaction is:

The Procedure for The Creation of An Order.

Of course there are extensive ruminations on the basis for successful order as well, but all Neoreaction exists is support of this central process.

• An Order is a set of statutes that form a Greater Reality.
• A Greater Reality is a basis for which empirical evidence is irrelevant.
• Thus a Greater Reality imposes itself upon this world as a irreducible constraint.
• A Greater Reality is thus not subject to Empiricism.

Dictum1: Only by not being subject to Empiricism can an Order persist.

• Statutes of a Greater Reality are adhered to within an Order regardless of cost (though their cost will be noted by those internal to it)  and regardless of logic (though logic will inevitably be developed in its justification by those who exist as part of the Order).
• Statutes may, and in some cases should, exist in paradox forming pairs in order to provide dynamic flexibility to the system.
• If these statutes are changed a new Order has been formed.
• If these statutes cease to be observed, the Order has died.

However persistence is not the full measure of an Order. The measure of an Order must consider its consequence upon people and place.

• An Order can be dyscivic or eucivic. A dyscivic Order can survive by parasitism; without a host it self-destructs upon the consumption of its reserves of civlisation.
• A eucivic Order will survive until it attracts sufficient parasitic loading to become net dyscivic, or until it is out-competed.
• No Eucivic Order will be without costs; the only alternative to parasitism is sacrifice.

Dictum 2: All costs of maintaining and advancing a Civilsation are to be borne internally to the Order which constitutes it.

• Without this constraint, parasitism and the inherently leftist drive associated with it will result in decay.

This requires some consideration of what a Civilisation is, and how it relates to the Order which constitutes it.

• Allow that there are different classes of Order.
• The simplest class of Order is an Insititution.
• An Institution can have no component bodies with distinct statutes. Otherwise, it is a higher class of Order.
• Higher classes of Order may consist of both Institutions and Statutes.
• The highest class of Order is the Civilisation.
• All Orders are subject through hierarchy and only through hierarchy to the statutes of higher class Orders.
• The Procedure is the process used to instantiate any class of Order, just as it is utilised individually.

Considerations

• Considering Neocameralism central to Neoreaction is in error, not because of any fault in Neocameralism, but because it represents merely a single flavour of Order. Instances of this flavour may thrive, or not. Neoreaction is a higher level concept than Neocameralism.
• One Order will not best suit all peoples. Every people, every place, every class of Order provides a vector along which to inspect the Neoreactionary algorithm anew.
• The act of creation of an Order, running The Procedure to this end, requires a degree of duality. Creation of an Order requires consideration of the consequences of the Greater Reality being constructed.
• There is a tension in the process by which one is empirically assessing the construction of a statutes thereafter to be not subject to empiricism. But absent divine revelation, someone has to make the sausages.
• An Order must Become Worthy. An unworthy Order will simply not be adopted. Consideration of the process by which an Order ‘becomes worthy’ is necessary.
• An Order cannot Become Worthy until its component parts have Become Worthy.
• Evidence of worth is and remains the offer of power; acceptance by a group of the statutes involved and their inherent costs.
• Accept Power, and Rule. It is not enough to Accept Power, not enough to be momentarily worthy. These are peoples lives that we have the hubris to create Order for.
• Due care is ever warranted. Installing a new operating system to a civilisation is not something to undertake lightly.

END

 

 

 

Taxation as Relationship

If you don’t believe that wealth and privilege are always justly earned rewards, and poverty a justly deserved punishment, you cannot honestly assert that a consumption tax can be fair.  – John Legge

• Taxation is an awkward beast to dissect.  Issues of fairness — the relative effect of any changes — and equity — the moral basis of the system — often pull a discussion in different directions.
• Furthermore, as a taxation system is commonly connect to a welfare system these days, transfers and double handling also come into play, obscuring the effects and intent.
• Fairness is irrelevant to preference for a form of taxation, because it is about change, not about state.  It’s only consequence is upon the rate at which transition from one state to another can occur.
• Thus dismissing fairness, we move to equity. In order to get a sense of the equity of various form of taxation , consider their relational forms.
  • Taxation on income invokes slavery. You get to keep as much of the value of your labour as your Master allows.
  • Taxation on transactions invokes coercion. You get to retain as much of the days takings as your Mafioso allows.
  • Taxation on land invokes serfdom. You are expected to be able to produce a certain amount from the land you are utilising,  and the Baron takes his cut based on that expectation.
  • Taxation on capital invokes pillaging. You worked for and build things over time, only to see them regularly seized by a Raider.
• None of these are particularly friendly depictions, but then, taxation is not a particularly friendly exercise.
• To make an argument regarding having a tax mix biased towards slavery over one biased towards coercion is missing the point; the same can be said for arguing the other direction.
• The question at the heart of this is whether taxation based upon a notion of slavery, upon coercion, upon serfdom, upon scheduled pillaging, can ever be moral. And indeed we find that moralities have been constructed where these are accepted.
• As Harold Lee alludes to in Servants without Masters, the replacement of personal relationships with institutional ones has allowed the West to launder these basic forms into the politically correct forms we see today. Their basic nature has not changed; we have simply exchanged prudential judgement for codification and called this good.
• As I’ve indicated before, my own preference is for serfdom.  Obviously  I normally use less loaded terminology for the practice, but there is no escaping that nature here.
• But then, my preference is also for reinstating prudential judgement; serfdom gains much from prudent implementation. 
• The bonus with re-establishing prudential judgement — regardless of the form of taxation — is that the issues regarding whether wealth and privilege are obtained through parasitism, or whether poverty is found through indolence or misfortune, are far easier to account for, and to address individually. Parasitism in all its forms is to be minimised, for it degrades the human condition in all instances.
• And, as always, getting from here to there is a far more complex matter than discerning where here and there are.

END

Enlightened Idiocy

• Liberty is not the base virtue. It is the crowning flower that appears when virtue is possessed. The drive to the possession of virtue over generations within Western Civilisation resulted in increasing liberty.
• The freedom to do as one chooses — liberty — is only eucivic when one has internalised the principles that impose atrocity as and where necessary.
• Then someone got enlightened and crowned liberty as a virtue itself.  Idiot.
• Through this idiocy the drive to virtue resulting in liberty was replaced with a drive for exercise of liberty, regardless of virtue — egalitarianism.
• As the drive for virtue faded, we persisted virtuously, but upon the momentum built up in our culture and our people. That virtue wasn’t being generated was largely invisible, although men like Carlyle noticed. In his day it evidenced itself as a prevailing lack of realness, of sham echoes of things real.
• Imposing liberty upon those who had not the virtue for it led to increasingly dyscivic action. The institutions that supported the growth of liberty were hollowed out from within, as those institutions required atrocity to function, and men without the self-control necessary for it were given liberty. Liberty and atrocity require greatness for proximity. And thus the required atrocity faded.
• As it faded, the pervading culture of true virtue was lost.
• And so today we are left with this rancid mess we call modernity. Virtue is despised, and must be hidden to grow. Liberty is forced every lower, to people less and less capable of wielding it to the benefit of others, at ever increasing cost to society.
• And in this environment, virtue is being reborn.  Remarkable.

END

Building Fealty

• In any regional or remote community, those with the inherent capacity to lead — organic leaders — are known.
• These people typically/frequently do not occupy places of structural leadership within the larger power structures of their state or nation.
• These power structures inherently act to limit the capacity of organic leadership to build the local power structures — to build local sovereignty — necessary for ordered community growth.
• This restriction, along with legislation and other power structures primarily focussed upon building capacity within urban centres, leads directly to the current situation where the natural challenges of living in a regional or remote community are compounded by imposed structural disadvantage.

Breaking Free

You have a true community that is frustrated by distant, unresponsive rule. You’ve identified local, organic leadership. You want a better future for your children, and theirs to come. You want sovereignty, and instead you receive subsidy. Every structure of the state you are part of seems imposed in order to limit the the growth of local sovereignty.

And yet: you need a path to a better future.

RECOGNISE THE SCALE OF THE PROBLEM

Recognise this: Every power structure of the state you are part of exists in order to limit the growth of local sovereignty.

Local sovereignty accrues only when people defer decisions to organic leadership rather than imposed structure. This requires a people willing and committed to transferring deference. It requires a leader ready and able to set direction and resolve grievance. Most significantly it requires a people willing to relinquish the right to recourse via the structural authorities in place.

Build fealty

The first act of leadership must be to build fealty.  Fealty is an old concept, but one deeply critical to establishing local sovereignty. Fealty is more than an agreement to work together towards a common goal.  It is a lifelong submission of ones self to the greater goals and vision of another. It is not something that arises overnight, but it has ever been and remains the core of sovereignty. It is deeply intertwined with the concept of Becoming Worthy.

The act of deferring decisions to leadership builds fealty. The act of submission to leadership — of acting as requested rather than as desired — cements it. The reciprocal honour and respect that flows from submission is unique and precious beyond words.

Strive together. Sacrifice for one another. Become worthy. Find your unquestioned and valued place as part of something greater.

Fealty builds to a point where it becomes worthy of Leadership; Leadership builds to a point where it becomes worthy of Fealty. At this point, leadership becomes sovereign.

Sovereign Organic Leadership

As leadership becomes sovereign, it begins to accumulate responsibility. In specific, chosen areas, sovereignty is enacted. Decisions that would normally be referred to the distant state or its gelded local structure are instead directed to the organic leadership. This is not forced, but chosen as an act of fealty. It requires that all parties to the decision be bound by it.  Defection at this point, utilising the power of the state to expose and/or overrule the organic leadership when one party believes it has been dealt with unjustly is devastating to the newly forming sovereignty. The organic leadership has authority, but it has not power on the scale of the state and must remain passively engaged with the state. It must build deference, and avoid defection.

Thus a culture must be built that considers appeal to external authority anathema. No such activity can be tolerated, even in the slightest matter. To allow such puts the local, organic leadership in active conflict with the state, at a point when such would lead to aggressive censure on the state’s behalf.

A gradual, passive build up of local sovereignty is the key to ultimately advancing a local sense of people and place.  

More later.

END

On the need for Exile

My holiday is over.

Borders

• A border to be effective must exclude those outside of it.
• Internal to a border, the leader acts in the interests of those inside the border, as a whole.
• Sometimes this means intentionally acting to allow the entry of new people within those borders, either as members or as guests.
• Sometimes this means intentionally acting to remove specific individuals — either members or guests — from within the border.
• The second act — imposing a temporary or permanent exile — is viewed as by far the more serious act.
• The act is more serious not because the revoking of privilege is more serious than the grant thereof.  It is because the grant of access allows relationships to form — a gradual process — whereas the revocation of access severs relationship, at least to a significant degree, an instantaneous loss of something of value.
• There is also an inherent admission of leadership error that is in play when exile is required.
• Yet viewed in the long term, there is a reasonable argument that both acts are of equal consequence.

The impact of imposing Exile on the Community

• The immediate consequences of the imposition of exile are obvious:
  • Loss of relationship.
  • Loss of contribution.
  • Disruption of existing economic arrangements.
• These are nominally balanced by the removal of a destructive/disruptive/unproductive element.
• Less obvious is the effect on the community in the longer run.
• There is obviously an increased awareness in the community that exile is an option.  I could be next.
• There should be, but won’t necessarily be, an increase in respect for leadership. That needed to be done.
• There should follow an increased focus on those elements that the group holds in common and on the importance of vetting those who are brought into the group. What must I do to ensure this doesn’t happen again?
• Of course, there are always potential downsides.  There is always the chance that those close to the person exiled will turn dark and disruption will increase.
• In this case, exile may have to be applied in a broader context, cutting the community at some natural seam.

Properly Imposed Exile is Based

• Exile is an atrocity.
• It is an alternative to execution, where judgement is made that those being exiled are of value, but not now, not here.
• It imposes costs on an individual in order to provide benefit to the community, or at a minimum, limit losses.
• The reluctance to impose it within modern times is one more reason why we fail to see the growth in civilisation we should.
• Applied to national borders: open borders is dyscivic; closed borders is conservative;  controlled exile is eucivic.

END

Order Force

Spontaneous order, also known as freedom, is the highest level of a political pyramid of needs. These needs are: peace, security, law, and freedom. To advance order, always work for the next step – without skipping steps. In a state of war, advance toward peace; in a state of insecurity, advance toward security; in a state of security, advance toward law; in a state of law, advance toward freedom.

[…]

the assumption that all security problems, in all cases, can be resolved by the use of rights-preserving judicial procedures, is entirely unwarranted.

 Source: Uncommon Reservations

• One characteristic of modern societal structure that has been teasing at the edge of my mind for a while is the poor match of our legal violence to the above hierarchy of needs.
• Nation states today have an army, for resolving issues of war. The also have a police force, for resolving issues of law-breaking.
• Neither of these forces is intended to function to resolve or resist breakdown in societal order.
• Moreover, application of either force to the maintenance of societal order is an entrenched taboo. One direction takes you to a police state, the other a military regime — both anathema to the Cathedral governed state.
• That such a force does not exist within a Cathedral state implies that such a force cannot coexist with a Cathedral state.
• Were such a force to emerge organically, it would shortly be assaulted by the internal forces of the Cathedral state; first the police, then the army.
• Were such a force to emerge at the instigation of an Outer party — even the notion of such a force — it would shortly be assaulted by the Cathedral directly.
• Were either to be victorious internally, I cannot see but that international sanctions and then war would result.
• The inverse of such forces should, and do, emerge organically due to the function of the Cathedral. Their empowerment, at the instigation of the Inner Party, accelerates the approach of the singularity.

The Order Force

• In non-Cathedral nations — in both time and place — forces that utilise legal violence to reinforce the existing order are and were present.
• Even in Cathedral nations, one doesn’t have to step too far back in history to discover these.
• In states without separation of powers, these forces were sometimes located under the auspices of the church, other times under the state directly, other times as times existing as mid-level powers outside of the sovereign’s direct control.
• Residual portions of these have been actively eliminated by the Cathedral.
• Any order force implicitly imposes atrocity; more so that is its primary function.
• An order force imposes community standards.  This can step up from implicit pressure to conform, to explicit instruction to do so, to exemplary violence — neither condoned by nor hindered by the state, to state imposed violence, to exile or death.
• An order force actively resists any attempts to establish alternative orders. They are the response to both organised crime, and organised revolution.

The paradox

• Any community wishing to establish a basis that is non-Cathedral requires an order force.
• Any community wishing to co-exist with the Cathedral may not posses an order force.

End

Be thou my vision

Now faith is the title deed of things hoped for; the proof of things which are not yet seen

• At a certain point, the creation of a preferred future in ones mind becomes more than a hope. It becomes a vision of substance.
• The point this occurs is not fixed. Yet it is a point that always exists past the time where you start to invest yourself in it.
• It develops a pathway. It develops milestones. At at that point of transition, it develops the capacity to host faith.
• People do not follow a man of visions. They follow a man of faith, a man who possesses a title deed to the future they describe.
• That faith itself exists as a proof of things yet to come is utterly remarkable; we see that men follow faith. Men contribute wealth to see faith brought about.  At times, they even contribute blood.
• Thus today, as western civilisation continues to be hollowed out to the point of collapse, people are searching for faith in the heart of men. We are returning to the time of great men. Men of quiet determination, driven by a heart that holds to something real.
• Be those men.
• Allow a vision to take root in your heart, to the point it blossoms into faith.
• Sow into the visions of others around you. Detail them, refine them, exhort those who host them to greater hope.
• The time of ease has passed, and is yet passing. And yet as hardship comes, so also arises the capacity to thrive, to achieve more than could possibly be achieved in times of surfeit.
• I look around me and take great heart from what I see. Fires burning in the hearts of many, blazing trails in scant trod ground. When the second wave falls, the path will have been prepared.
• Not today for a life of ease, but a life of great hope, in faith of a future that is yet to be seen.

End