Exclusion is the Price of Survival

• Preliminary reading : r/K Theory
• In times of critical resource shortage — where there is not sufficient resource for all the members of some bounded group to survive — conflict over supply of sufficient resource for survival will necessarily occur.
• In these times, the future survival of the group is necessarily determined by the subset of the original group that survives the throttle.
• As a result, group interests override individual interests. If the group is to survive, triage must occur.
• Triage — the intelligent distribution of critically scarce resource — is the only alternative to anarchy.  Anarchy produces a fitness of its own, but not necessarily the optimum fitness for future survival of the group.  Rather, it produces a fitness derived from near term survival of the individual or company.
• Triage then is the intentional, deliberate direction of resource to those individuals most needed for the survival of the group as a whole.
• Clearly, triage requires an individual or leadership group making judgements as to the future needs of the group.
• That judgement may be sound or it may be poor.  Either way, it requires power to implement. Anarchy provides the reference point that must be exceeded.
• Judgement thus inherently requires decision upon the basis both on who will be included, and who will be excluded.
• To outperform anarchy, individuals will be — must be — cast out so that the group may survive.  Under conditions of resource shortage, exclusion is the price of survival.

Intermission.

• If it is acknowledged that under conditions of resource shortage, exclusion is the price of survival, then it can be extrapolated that at all times, knowing that a resource shortage will occur in the future, exclusion remains the price of survival.
• If exclusion will be the price of survival at some point in the future, that cost — that atrocity — will earn interest if paid early.
• Consider that at some point in the future, a critical resource shortage will occur.
• Knowing such, in order to achieve the best possible outcome on the other side of the resource shortage, it is necessary to achieve three primary goals.
• First, the distribution of the population should be such that the maximum number of people can pass through that throttle.  This requires a high quality population at some arbitrary percentile.
• Second, the capacity of the leadership of the population to make solid judgements as to the specific individuals to be excluded and retained must be raised as high as possible.
• Finally, the capacity of the leadership to exert sufficient power must exist.
• Every single one of these prerequisites requires that action is taken early and often. Exclusion, at all times, is the price of survival.

END

Rightward Ho!

• There is no singular right.
• There is a singular left.
• Right is ordered. More right is more ordered. But there are an infinite number of ways in which order can be shaped.
• All of those are ordered. Some orders will out compete other orders.
• Even the Cathedral itself is ordered, though ordered in such a manner to consume all order.
• Throughout history, an immense number of Orders have been successful, for a time. No two were the same.
• Becoming More Right is not a matter of demanding conformity, but of demanding more order within each Order, of becoming more of what you are, of making the most of your differences.
• Left is disorder. There is only a singular state of disorder, in which all order has been consumed.
• This, again, is why ‘No Enemies to the Right‘ is a far more complex and less intuitive statement than No Enemies to the Left.
• No Enemies to the Right requires judgement on whether order is being created or destroyed, and the degree to which that has already occurred. Given that Orders are different, this can be difficult.
• No Enemies to the Right is simple only within an Order.  Within an Order, values and expectations are known.
• No Enemies to the Right does not mean ‘no enemies along our Order’s chosen vector‘.
• If it is to be a useful guide, it means No enemies amongst:
  • Eucivic Orders;
  • that are Becoming Worthy.
• At this time, it may — at the judgement of each — also mean extending grace to Dyscivic Orders that prey solely upon the Order of the Cathedral itself, while recognising that Orders of this nature will and must perish with the Cathedral.

 

 

No Enemies to the Right

• Much consternation has arisen regarding the ‘worthiness’ of various popular personalities across the alt-right.
• Some basic principles are in order. Same principles as usual, different application.
• Become Worthy:
  • Firstly, be the process of becoming worthy yourself.
  • Second, exhort all others onward in the process of becoming worthy.
  • Understand that, in terms of acceptance, how much worth anyone possesses now is irrelevant compared to whether or not they are in the process of Becoming Worthy.
• Accept Power:
  • Power offered is evidence that others believe you have Become (sufficiently) Worthy.
  • Corollary — do not offer power to someone you do not perceive to have Become (sufficiently) Worthy.
• Rule:
  • Accept power that is offered.
  • Rule that which is in front of you. Just because you have been offered power in one instance, does not mean that your power extends to other Hierarchies.
  • Demand sufficient worthiness and continuing increase from those you serve in leadership. Only where there is relationship is there scope for correction.
• No enemies to the right, no friends to the left is a simple inversion of leftist principle, and my observation is that it fails to translate well to the right. We are not a holiness spiral.

• Finally, in the words of the old book:

Therefore, now, there is not even one bit of condemnation to those who are in Christ Jesus

Romans 8:1

• We are in this, sometimes loosely, but together.
• Exhort rather than condemn.
• Withhold any offer of Power until such time as Worthiness is achieved.
• Correct only within relationship.

END

Elements of Production

• Under a Feudal system, the local Lord benefited largely in accordance with the performance of his entire community.  If you didn’t work, you didn’t eat.  No Lord could afford to countenance more than a marginal amount of cronyism, because all cronyism occurred at a cost to the Lord himself. Historically, degenerates were executed early and often.
• This leads to a forcing on across the system whereby real production is increased and parasitic load is decreased, across all sectors.
• Social status is gained by acts of in-group altruism — self sacrifice to the benefit of the community.  This is measured in absolute terms, and the drivers for this are internal rather than external. This leads to a gradual increase in the nobility of the entire group.
• Importantly — a single place, a single people, led by someone who’s advancement and success depended upon the performance of the whole.

• Under a well established democratic system, each democratic region inherently subdivides itself into competing groups that support political parties.  Across much of the Anglo-west, this division occurred along the lines of the elements of production.  Aristocracy is either eliminated or denatured.  Freedom is forced upon all regardless of their capacity to benefit from that freedom.  Representation is extended to all with minimal to no consideration as to their suitability to exercise good judgement.
• Political parties require funding. Political parties only gain a minimal reward from the function of the system as a whole. Their gain is much higher from any increase in their voting block.  Thus it becomes valuable to construct nexuses where productive elements fund a government, and rent-seeking elements fund the political party.  The political party when in power then diverts government funding to the rent-seekers, and the rent seekers return funding to the political party so that the party can pay for propaganda to win votes and thus be returned to power in the future.
• This leads to a forcing over time whereby real production is sacrificed and parasitic load is increased, limited over time only by the productive capacity and stored wealth of the nation.
• Status under a democracy also changes over generations to reward out-group altruism rather than in-group. This is relative in nature, and the drivers are external (for show) rather than internal.  This is an unbounded self-reinforcing practice, leading to ever greater acts of in-group betrayal.
• It is impossible to completely reorganise a democracy away from this basic nature, as democracy requires a split people to function.  As soon as you have a divided people, the interests of the whole no longer align with the interests of the elite.
• Consider the changes – unbounded places, inherently divided peoples, led by a succession of people who’s advancement and success depends upon the outcomes of a fraction of the people, and upon the fraction of the people that can be retained as rent-seekers.

We can do better.  We don’t have to go back to what we were, but looking back can give insight for moving forward in a better direction.

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