The author of the antinomia imediata blog has written a post in defence of the Landian/ liberal neoreaction reading of neocameralism, and Anomoly UK has written further thoughts on the concept as a result here. Personally I don’t find the neocameralist model from the 2007 thought experiment all that enthralling, and neither does Moldbug by the apparent total lack of reference to it post 2009. It would seem to me that this was a logical development by Moldbug considering his main concern with this thought experiment was exploring the dynamics of divided and undivided power within society. I am sure I have quoted this before, but it is worth repeating:
“ Filmer deftly points out that this is an engineering error, the ancient political solecism of imperium in imperio– which is now, in a typical democratic propaganda maneuver, lauded as that bogus political panacea, “separation of powers”:
Thirdly, [Bellarmine] concludes that, if there be a lawful cause, the multitude may change the kingdom. Here I would fain know who shall judge of this lawful cause? If the multitude — for I see nobody else can — then this is a pestilent and dangerous conclusion.
Filmer, writing for an educated audience, does not bother to remind them of the basic premise of Roman law: nemo iudex in causa sua. Meaning: “no man can be a judge in his own case.” And no multitude, either. Pestilent indeed!
These political three-card monte tricks, in which sovereign authority is in some way divided, “limited” (obviously, no sovereign can limit itself), or otherwise weakened, in all cases for the purported purpose of securing liberty, have no more place in a Patchwork realm than they do at, say, Apple. They are spurious artifacts of the Interregnum. Their effect on both a realm and its residents is purely counterproductive. Begone with them.”
You will find many references to imperium in imperio, because Moldbug has been working on the insights of De Jouvenel. Insights which the liberal neoreaction development has either ignored on purpose out of bad faith, or remains ignorant of. This makes much discussion plainly worthless, because it remains a case of liberal neoreaction using the cover of a Hobbesian techno state design (not interesting really) as a cover to push liberalism.
Liberal neoreaction is just a collection of disordered, confused concepts and provides a rich source of confusion and subversion – because it is liberal. Antinomia imediata in the post in question is playing the role of a liberal subversive quite well by trying to muddy the concept of imperium in imperio. I will again provide a quote I am sure I have drawn attention to before (and will remind my readers to have De Jouvenel’s insights in mind when reading it):
“My favorite analogy for official authority is the stellar cycle. If the authority of government is the temperature of the star, and the size of government is the size of the star, Washington is easily identifiable as a red giant, like Betelgeuse – enormous and cool.
For former libertarians, such as myself, this inverse relationship is critical. The paradox is that weakening government makes it larger. At least, to a libertarian, this seems like a paradox. Once it seems quite natural, you may no longer be a libertarian.
Perhaps the most significant fallacious principle in the Anglo-American democratic mind is the principle of division of authority – immortalized by Montesquieu as the separation of powers. Montesquieu, of course, was an Anglophile, and he was head-over-heels in love with the supposed balance of powers created by the “Glorious” Revolution of 1688. To refute this principle, it should be sufficient to note that in the Britain of 2009, only one – at most – of Montesquieu’s three powers still has any power at all.
The division of authority is simply the destruction of order. The Romans knew it as the political solecism of imperium in imperio, and Harvard Business School dreads it no less. There is no conceivable balance between competing authorities; they will fight until one kills the others, and even when they collaborate it is in the fashion of partners in crime.
Of course, divided authority tends to be quite popular among those who divide the authority. Power is fun, and power shared three ways creates more total fun than power held by one. Note also the entropic quality of division: it is much easier to divide than to reunify. The stellar cycle is entropic, of course, as well.”
The idea behind the neocameralist model was that the stockholders were not bound by anyone, or anything but consequences. I have my issue with this due to it being theorising with those abstract dummies/ mushrooms, but for now we will not get distracted. The shareholders delegates responsibility to a subordinate – the dictator, receiver, whatever. The dictator then delegates down to subordinates, who then delegate down to subordinates. At no point in this chain is this flow of authority reversed, tied in knots or made into a circle. It is not a complicated concept.
Antinomia imediata again acts as a subversive by applying non-Moldbug analysis in the form of this:
“that the French Revolution stemmed first and foremost from the increasing centralization of power undertaken by the french monarchy. the failure to recognize and bring the power of the estates together in a balanced system is at the core of the demotic nightmare that followed.”
Tocqueville and De Jouvenel both responded to this observation the same way – more balance of powers. Moldbug went the opposite way. The first route is just liberalism, the second route is absolutistism neoreaction. So why should we care what Tocqueville and De Jouvenel’s prescriptions were?
Liberal neoreaction connection to the discourse brought forward by Moldbug is about as tenuous as possible. It is tedious in its insistence on refusing to engage with arguments, instead there is just a re-assertion of liberalisms core ideas, but at least antinomia imediata admits this by being openly left wing.