Same coin

In 1974 the noble prize in economics was awarded jointly to Friedrich August von Hayek and Gunnar Myrdal.

 

Gunnar Myrdal

“a particularly monumental decision in racially motivated liberal philanthropy arose in the “aftermath of the Harlem riot of 1935, [when the] Carnegie Corporation’s Trustee Newton Baker conceived of the idea of undertaking a broad study of ‘the Negro Problem’ in America”. Shortly thereafter, in 1938, the Carnegie Corporation commissioned sociologist Gunnar Myrdal to carry out what turned out to be the landmark study of black-white relations. The end result of this “lavishly funded” project was Myrdal’s seminal book, An American Dilemma: The Negro Problem and Modern Democracy (Harper and Row, 1944), a study that Sven Eliaeson suggests might “well be the most influential book on Afro-Americans and American civilization in the 20th century.” (3)

In keeping with the elitist nature of liberal philanthropy — briefly outlined in the introduction — Eliaeson notes that Carnegie wanted a writer “who was neither to be considered prejudiced nor imperialist,” thus Myrdal, identifying as a democratic socialist, fitted this position well. Furthermore, Myrdal’s liberal pedigree was already well established, as from 1929 to 1930 he had also served as a Rockefeller Foundation fellow; consequently, it is fitting that Beardsley Ruml of the Rockefeller Foundation played a key role in helping to convince Myrdal to take on the Carnegie project. Yet despite the noble intentions of the Carnegie project, the end result — that is, Myrdal’s book — was considered by many coloured scholars to have “addressed more the conscience of white liberals than the real issues they themselves were confronting.” (4) Indeed, Bernhard J. Stern suggested that while “Myrdal at first took a tough-minded conflict-power approach to the Negro problem [he later] changed it to the ‘softer’ conception in accord with the moral values of the white middle class because of Carnegie Corporation sponsorship.”

 

Hayek

“Rockefeller comfort”

 

Same guys funding both sides? maybe they are not really different sides.

Modern Liberal Individualism

Posting has been pretty light recently as I am working on a number of essays/ articles for a formative journal, but I wanted to wade into to doctrinal issues regarding Moldbug again.

Starting with Anisimov’s medium article from some time back Why the Replacement of Neoreaction with the Alt Right Was a Good Thing. The key quote is this:

“No. Yarvin explicitly billed himself only as a channel to older writers like Carlyle, nothing more. Though he did offer many oddball ideas, so does every outside-the-box thinker, and these can just be ignored if desired. He explicitly qualified his own proscriptions as being experimental. Many of his adherents have trouble swallowing this; they want to believe he left a coherent dogma, but he did not. He just created a small body of rhetoric and assorted ideas. His key ideas were critiques, not anything proscriptive. No matter how often this qualification is repeated, many want to see a coherent framework where there decidedly is none.”

While I have been planning on responding to Anissimov’s post for some time, my response today is however more catalysed by the post Moldbug and Hrx  from Froude Society, especially the following:

“This post is not intended to be fratricidal but a clarification of claims. Carlyleian and De Jouvenalian Rx cannot pretend to be heirs of Moldbug, but neither can NRx. All of us actively dismiss some fraction of his doctrine in favor of a more consistent doctrine for ourselves. Yarvin brings together contradictory ideas that we must parse into something more useful. He is a crypto-whig but has repented by good works. Any divisions this post may cause is for the better, as Reactionaries have always fought one another, for far more trivial reasons. Let there be no enemies to the Right, but plenty of rivals, too”

In short, I find the claim of a lack of coherent framework to be wrong. There is a coherent framework underlying it all, and that is the pursuit of virtue, and it is our duty to continue to pursue virtue through self-cultivation and pursuit of the goods of excellence provided by ethical and moral development. Unfortunately, many, if not most “neoreactionaries” have not grasped this underlying core, and have instead pursued, or been allowed to be distracted by, external goods in the form of popularity, social validation, “success” in democratic political battles and the like. The reason for this is that they have taken numerous aspects of the collection of critiques of modernity presented by Moldbug from numerous writers, and merely tied them to their own little version of modernity for their own petty political platforms, instead of using them to continue pushing towards a total renunciation of the bedrocks of modern thought.

If they did, they would approach the alt right and any other form of political action with absolute disgust. Such a centrality is most succinctly provided by the advice “I. Become worthy.II. Accept power.III. Rule”, this is not empty rhetoric, it is central. To become worthy is to become virtuous, which is to pursue virtue in line with the excellence provided by practical action within a societal context. Moldbug approaches this from a Confucian angle, but the Aristotlean and Thomistic tradition likewise embody this approach (Modernity in contrast is voluntarism secularised.)

The Alt-right is a waste of time. It has no virtue, and for that matter, neither has nationalism, ethno or otherwise, and is built atop what Alaisdair MacIntyre has dubbed “Modern Liberal Individualism” as explained in his entry on the IEP:

“MacIntyre’s use of the term “modern liberal individualism” in philosophy is not equivalent to “liberalism” in contemporary politics. Some readers interpreted MacIntyre’s rejection of “modern liberal individualism” to mean that he is a political conservative (AV, 3rd ed., p. xv), but MacIntyre uses “modern liberal individualism” to name a much broader category that includes both liberals and conservatives in contemporary American political parlance, as well as some Marxists and anarchists (See ASIA, pp. 280-284). Conservatism, liberalism, Marxism, and anarchism all present the autonomous individual as the unit of civil society (see “The Theses on Feuerbach: A Road Not Taken.”); none of these political theories can provide a well-developed conception of the common good; and none of them can adequately explain or justify any shared pursuit of any common good.

The sources of modern liberal individualism—Hobbes, Locke, and Rousseau—assert that human life is solitary by nature and social by habituation and convention. MacIntyre’s Aristotelian tradition holds, on the contrary, that human life is social by nature. Modern liberal individualism seeks to justify the moral authority of various universal, impersonal moral principles to enable autonomous individuals to make morally correct decisions. But modern moral philosophers use those principles to establish the authority of universal moral norms, and modern autonomous individuals set aside the pursuit of their own goods and goals when they obey these principles and norms in order to judge and act morally. MacIntyre rejects this modern project as incoherent. MacIntyre identifies moral excellence with effective human agency, and seeks a political environment that will help to liberate human agents to recognize and seek their own goods, as components of the common goods of their communities, more effectively. For MacIntyre therefore, ethics and politics are bound together.”

The Alt-right is, as Anissimov has correctly observed “just Reaganism with a splash of Pat Buchanan”, but so is Neoreaction. It is still firmly built on top of MLI, and many of its adherents promote Thatcherism and Reaganism as if it is reactionary. Nothing could be further from the truth. Just take Thatcher’s much repeated comments on society not existing:

“I think we have gone through a period when too many children and people have been given to understand “I have a problem, it is the Government’s job to cope with it!” or “I have a problem, I will go and get a grant to cope with it!” “I am homeless, the Government must house me!” and so they are casting their problems on society and who is society? There is no such thing! There are individual men and women and there are families and no government can do anything except through people and people look to themselves first… There is no such thing as society. There is living tapestry of men and women and people and the beauty of that tapestry and the quality of our lives will depend upon how much each of us is prepared to take responsibility for ourselves and each of us prepared to turn round and help by our own efforts those who are unfortunate.’”

If this is reactionary, than I am a monkey’s uncle, but it could pass as neoreactionary. The same goes for Mises, and the rest of the neo-liberal theorists who were funded into the mainstream by the same financial interests that promoted the civil rights era and all the current “one world free trade” psychotic nonsense of the present day.

So, no, there is a coherent core to Moldbug even with the development from 2007 onwards, in that he pursues virtue in the intellectualist tradition which is as reactionary as you can get (one could argue his adherence to Misean Praxeology appears to be the escape route – rejecting determinism usually is.)  Because he approached it from the libertarian angle is no excuse for the ridiculous claims of it being libertarianism+ or anarch-capitalism with a manchesterised state.

As for no enemies to the right, sure there is. All of them. The right has forsaken virtue by being a part of the democratic structure. If you want to argue their ultimate goal is to end the structure, then maybe there is a discussion there, but I don’t see much issue with the structure on the right, it seems to me the structure is taken as neutral.

Neoreaction trike

I agree that this is an accurate assessment:

“Neoreaction, for me and some others, flows from a bunch of people who were enamored by deontological libertarianism and became disillusioned by some of its more impractical aspects. If Republicans are just Democrats who have been mugged by reality, neoreactionaries tend to be anarcho-capitalists mugged by history.

Neoreaction has three areas of focus: capitalist in economics, traditionalist in its view of religion, and more nationalist/Darwinian in its view of race.”

(http://www.amerika.org/politics/interview-with-henry-dampier/)

That this takes a vast amount of anthropology, philosophy and political theory that is fundamentally liberal and skeptic for granted as basically correct. This makes it a subset of the alt-right. This is fine, and it should be formalised and boundries drawn.

A proposal

I feel the need to make it evidently clear that I am not a neoractionary again, just to ensure any confusion is not allowed to develop. I really don’t think what passes as neoreaction is in anyway seriously linked to Moldbug.

I am highly critical of Hestia, Land, and now I might as well make it crystal clear I am also critical of Doolittle and the Propertarians, Jim, and almost everything linked on the neoreaction aggregator. I find almost all of it to be confused, wrong or just plain raving liberalism. Everyone is welcome to maintain their position, I have no concern with converting or convincing them, and merely want to stake out the boundries clearly.

I find the claim that neoreaction is intellectually derived from Moldbug to be laughable at this point. As best I can tell, the general consensus of neoreaction is that Moldbug catalysed a Dark Enlightenment of race realism and anti-democratism.  Whatever. I don’t care. Passing raving liberalism off as reoreactionary and derived from Moldbug is parasitic, but I have no control over the term, so it is what it is.

I do have a solution though, keep the name and make it absolutely clear Moldbug was nothing more than an intellectual catalyst whose ideas are no longer taken seriously – don’t try and warp them to create a fraudulent appeal to authority. This frees neoreaction to take the route which all of the main protagonists want – some sort of manchesterised techno state based on empirical philosophy.

Doesn’t this sound like a great compromise? It does to me.

Reactionary Restoration Organisation (RRO) blueprint

Following the interesting events in Turkey, here is a general blueprint for the ascension of a Reactionary Restoration Organisation (RRO):

1) The sovereignty of the nation is paramount, and overrides all other considerations. Martial law will be in effect until necessary. All acts of criminality will be met with zero tolerance. The military will be engaged in domestic pacification of areas that have descended into savagery, and areas that have been colonized will be cleared. There is no liberty without order, and martial law must be implement to allow liberty. Full discretion will be supplied to local police forces and the military to deal with criminal elements free from liberal communist interference
2) The state is the ethical embodiment of the people within the state. All must be aligned with the state and the greater good of all that are descendants of the state. This does not include colonizer populations imported by the liberal regimes to maintain their power.
3) All property upon the ascension of the Reactionary Restoration Organisation (RRO) is formalised as the sovereign property it always was. All property is the property of the sovereign organisation. All subsequent delegated usage does not alienate this property.
4) All businesses which refuse to operate under the RRO will be free to sell at the full market price to the RRO and leave the nation. This option will only be offered once.
5) No power centers spreading liberalism, communism or any such rejections of sovereign property will be permitted. Individuals spreading communist liberal filth will be allowed to do so freely to demonstrate their impotence. They have no power without finance behind them. Power is above culture, and liberalism has risen by violence and fraud, not truth.
6) Democracy and all other forms of government are annulled. Sole control will be held by the RRO pending development into an absolute monarchy. Irresponsible and traitorous governance by influence through education, the civil service, corporations, philanthropic institutions, NGOs, foundations and the media will be utterly removed. All assets held by these institutions forming the democratic governance structure will be nationalized and liquidized.
7) Any foreign agents clearly working in line with the liberal governance structure of the international community, either directly, or in para-alliance, will be imprisoned or expelled at their choosing.
8) All civil servants, NGO staff, etc. will be retired will full benefits and barred from any position of influence on further matters.
9) All relations with the International Community will be conducted through a single point of communication directly with Washington. The charade of independent states will not be maintained.
10) All populations imported by the liberal regimes to entrench their rule will be subject to re-application for citizenship, and upon failure, will be subject to deportation or interned if the International Community will not allow their movement. The imported tools by which the liberal regime has colonized and terrorized the populations they originally governed to stay in power will not be allowed to remain and act as sources of power.
11) All actions conducted by the liberal regimes, including architecture, communist liberal education, and all filth parading as art and culture promoted by the liberal foundations will be treated with the disgust and disdain it deserves. The restoration will leave no area untouched.
12) A full audit of the records of the liberal communist international regime will be conducted to expose the lies and mechanisms by which it has operated.

*    a note on point 7 and 8, if your aim is to implement a manchesterised liberal state, then please don’t bother at all. Go home and don’t waste peoples time and lives. One only has to look at the events in Chile and Argentina in which the civil/ private distinction remained allowing for all of the subversives and left wing academics and lunatics who just happened to all be Ford Foundation et al grantees to be employed in the private sphere, rendering the whole enterprise a waste of time.

Fascism and Manchester Liberalism

Italian fascism is very interesting. It was exceptionally intelligent, largely due to it being an elite movement. Mussolini was a very intelligent man, and so were the rest of them including Gentile, Spirito and Pannunzio. The movement was a fluid one involving the intellectual center that was Mussolini shifting from socialism proper, to advocating Manchester Liberalism, to finally totalitarianism, which is a termed coined by themselves and not perceived as a slur. The whole totalitarianism as a term of opprobrium is cold war thing funded into being no doubt by the foundations as everything pro-“liberty” was. Of course, I could be wrong and the likes of George Orwell and Hannah Arendt weren’t funded by the liberal elite…yeah, about that… but wait a second, didn’t I just write “Manchester Liberalism” in that sentence? Yes I did.

James Gregor’s books on Fascism are really a must read, and his claims that Mussolini embraced Manchester Liberalism, and as such, so did the National Fascist Party (NPF) between 1921 and 1925 just screamed out for confirmation, and he is not wrong. I am unable to find a scan of a primary source as such, and have to contend with a shaky internet translation, but, ladies and gentlemen, here is the section from the 1921 platform that proves it:

The State should be reduced to its essential functions of political and legal order.”

This is to be compared to the 1919 manifesto which is clearly socialist.

By 1925 though, Mussolini had dumped all of this and taken on a conception of fascism that was infused with a rejection of empiricism and a rejection of the concept of the empirical self being paramount embodied in the Doctrine of Fascism from 1932.

EU and Islam

Timely reminder given recent political events:

“There is nothing European about the EU, except that its offices are in Europe and most of its employees were born on that continent. As a matter of political tradition, not place of birth, you know who’s European? Metternich is European. You know who’s not European?George Ball is not European. Reimporting this invasive weed, and calling it a reboot, is like injecting yourself with your own leukemia and calling it a bone-marrow transplant.

Oh, no. There are no extant alien political traditions. In 2009, all is American, with occasional mutations and introgressions. For instance, the ideology of al-Qaeda is the ideology of Third World revolutionary nationalism, with a light Koranic glaze. The ideology of Third World revolutionary nationalism is the ideology of James P. Warburg, with a bandanna. And the image ofJohn Brown is also easily recognized in the men with the box cutters. One could perhaps quarrel over the mullahs of Qom – but do we need to?”

Reactionary property

Trying to review the overall history of property is proving instructive, as almost all ready at hand resources start the discussion at Locke, Hobbes or Smith. This is telling. Further to this, when reading theory on property, the entire issue is framed as a moral discussion right across the spectrum.

Excavating with a pickaxe and not a trowel here, I am going to assert some hypothesis’s. The first of which is that during the period of monarchy (actual non-sham monarchy) property, all property, was the kings. To see how this works, consider the invasion of England by William the Conqueror who held allodial title to the whole country by virtue of conquest. He then dispersed this property (but retained ownership proper) to supporters and those who professed loyalty. This process is exceptionally simple. The king owned all of the land, and then dispersed (not alienated) the property as he deemed fit and profitable. Sovereign property and secondary property.

With the collapse of monarchy into popular sovereignty, which was largely the fault of the monarchy itself, the sovereign property category was annulled. All land was ultimately held in common if no one person or corporation held it. Of course, no one quite saw it like this, and even Hume and Smith apparently held that the state could requisition property and use it all as it saw fit in times of emergency, but who cares what they said. They were basically communists.

Wikipedia informs me that:

In order to legitimise the notion of the Crown’s paramount lordship, a legal fiction – that all land titles were held by the King’s subjects as a result of a royal grant – was adopted.”

But it would, wouldn’t it? Wikipedia, like everyone and everything in the western world is basically communist. No one maintains that property is ultimately owned by a sovereign organisation, and that subsequent ownership is not “yours” but only secondary, because this thought was banished long ago, any modern realizations of this tend to get shut down. Once the monarchy was removed, the question shifted to one of how to share and utilize all of this secondary property which was each person’s rightful property. So we get Locke’s labor theory of property continued throughout the modern economic tradition, and we get Hume and Smith’s economics in which MacIntyre notes in comparison to Aristotle:

The individual envisaged by Aristotle engages in practical reasoning not just qua individual, but qua citizen, of a polis; the individual as envisaged by Hume engages in practical reasoning qua member of a type of society in which rank, property, and pride structure social exchanges.” (MacIntyre 1988, 298)”

Or, in other words, the development of economic and (ethical) theory which is based on the category of sovereign property being null and void, which is basically communism. So following this, all economic theory has no coherent end point, so it is all communist theory regarding how best to divvy up the communal proceeds of secondary property.

It is striking how much this complete collapse of any common sense completely tracks the total collapse of ethics during this same period, and we find the same culprits issuing this communist crap each time. Of course, given that I hold that power is above culture, I don’t think these individuals are the root cause, instead you need to look at what those in power were doing, which is my second hypothesis. So, what exactly were they doing? Well firstly the main culprits responsible for abolishing feudalism were the crowns themselves. The Great Contract and then the Tenures Abolition Act 1660 preceded Hume et al by some time.  We also see in the Quo Warranto campaigns that the kings court engaged the public good as a means to annul franchises. I will link this Szabo essay again, because it is excellent and covers the ground well. Take this footnote for example:

“In one thirteenth century quo warranto case, John of Warenne reportedly “held up in court his old rusty 18 sword and said, ‘Here my lords, is my warrant! My ancestors came with William the Bastard and conquered the lands with the sword, and I shall defend them with the sword against anyone who tries to usurp them. The king did not conquer and subject the land by himself, but our forefathers were partners and co-workers with him.’” Sutherland at 82, (quoting H. Rothwell ed., The Chronicle of Guisborough 216, (Royal Society, Camden Series, v. 89).” P9

Well was he right? He has a point, but could he defend the property by himself? And was it sovereign? No.

Even better is this section:

On the other extreme, Romanist scholars such as Bracton, Fleta, and Britton read to varying degrees an imperial hierarchy of delegation from the king (as emperor) into the Anglo-Norman hierarchy of property grants. Bracton argued that jurisdiction over the “king’s peace” could not be granted, only delegated, and thus could be revoked at will. Fleta extended this argument to apply to all franchises. Britton argued that the 22 23 king can revoke at will franchises granted by his predecessors, and that they should be revoked unless they served “to hold the people’s affections and speed justice.” P9-10

The key points to take from this quote are that this line of thinking is long dead, and that one can see the thing that killed it (or should we call it suicide?) The suicide is here:”they should be revoked unless they served “to hold the people’s affections and speed justice.”

Szabo goes on to note:

During the reign of Henry III, the university-trained legal scholar Bracton, following the legal texts of the totalitarian Roman Empire, argued against franchise  jurisdiction generally and prescriptive franchise jurisdiction in particular. Following the Roman model, he argued that all jurisdiction originated in the king. While exercisers of franchise jurisdiction argued that, like other kinds of property, franchise jurisdiction could come to be held by long use (what we call prescriptive rights), Bracton argued that jurisdiction must be strictly granted and that exercisers of jurisdiction must prove this by producing a written charter or lose their jurisdiction. He believed that long use, rather than justifying jurisdiction, aggravated the offense” p10-11

If there is no king, then where does jurisdiction and property originate from? The people? labor?

Of course, this process was completed by Coke as Szabo notes:

Coke thereby achieved what royal attorneys had often vainly tried to achieve during the quo warranto campaign of Edward I, namely a very strict (and in practice often ruinous) interpretation of franchise grants, but under the rationale of protecting the rights of subjects rather than of protecting the rights of the king.”p34

The upshot of all of this, is that Communism, classical liberalism, modern liberalism et al are essentially anti-propetarian (as Moldbug noted a long time ago) and are functionally within the same group of concepts. That they all derive from the same sources should tell you that, but we still seem to have a problem processing this.

Absolute monarchy – the future

The concept of primary and secondary property in Moldbug’s thinking intrinsically makes the assertion that secondary property is still the property of the primary property’s holder. In short, this is an assertion that “private property” in the sense that one would find in libertarianism or even in mainstream conception of property are false, confused and utopian even. All property is neither open-access, public property, common property nor private property, instead it is primary property which has been chartered to individuals or groups within society. One only has to look at medieval Europe to see how this functions. Royal Charters were granted (which did not alienate the property), and in theory all land was owned by the monarchy, with subsequent holders (secondary) owning it in the sense of tenure.

Of course, monarchy was overthrown, and democracy was instituted in which no one held primary property rights, it is all secondary property. I think this is what we call capitalism. That capitalism has a hardcore centre of “utopia world without borders” smell to it is therefore explainable from this angle. This may also be used to explain a number of other oddities of capitalism.

But instead of letting liberal modernity take the initiative, and trying to critique its mess, it may be better to take the initiative ourselves here, and make some assertions.

Firstly, sovereignty is conserved, and all property within the sovereign’s domain is primarily theirs, with secondary holders enjoying usage of various aspects at their ( the primary holder’s) discretion. If the sovereign entity is a deluded organisation asserting that it is not the primary property owner, this does not invalidate this.

Secondly, primary property is a function of society in total. The sovereign cannot exist without the society in which it functions, and neither can their property rights. Humans are social animals that exist as a result of society and as a part of society at all times. There is no state of nature, this is a disgustingly stupid concept.

Thirdly, the only possible route to any sort of sanity in political organisation is for the re-establishment of a political order which acknowledges primary property. We need to establish monarchy. Not republican monarchy, not any other sort of figure head monarchy, but an actually monarchy, because a neo-cameralist corporation model state lacks the ability and authority to implement ethical necessities, because ethics are a sub set of politics, which is another example of an area of thought that has been rendered mentally incoherent by the rejection of primary property.