Nothing to get excited about

All cultural emanations are mere secondary effects of institutional entities, as such, we can look at the potential effect of Trump, both in what he can create, and what he can destroy, by taking into account what institutional structures he can bring about and what culture will be selected and/ or created by these institutions.

Firstly, despite his reference to draining the swamp, Trump’s potential to make any lasting impression beyond even the most superficial is very limited. Taking the Cathedral analysis into account (actual Cathedral analysis, not the liberal theory infested mockery) we can establish that there is a vast area of governance which Trump (even if he wanted) could not touch.

Starting with NGOs, he won’t touch them. Moving to foundations, he won’t touch them. Moving to the various “private” companies deeply connected with government such as Google, Facebook, Reddit etc. he won’t touch them. Moving swiftly to education, he won’t touch it. Moving on to private wealth which is used to forward left wing agendas (such as the egregious example of Soros) he won’t touch it.

Now let’s move on to actual admitted government, which is merely a sub section of the real government structure. He will have to pull teeth and risk major damage merely to defund a small part of it.

And what about pushing his own culture by shaping his own institutions? I don’t see any real plan, and this is exactly what is wrong with the right wing. They are stupid and believe the same stupid things that the left wing does except they believe them in an even more pure form. The right totally believes that culture is spontaneous, that each person is a sovereign individual and that culture is the amalgamation of these sovereign individuals spontaneously working together. The left meanwhile grabs education, uses media, controls the narrative and creates institutions and funding sources to keep their cultural developments in existence. The left in effect being liberalism of the actual rulers, the right being liberalism of the non-rulers. The right is therefore functionally retarded and useless. Tits on a boar useless.

Instead of rejection of this gibberish the right wing will continue selling each other snake oil about disinter-mediation, sovereign individuals, a new Reformation (the last one gave us the modern state, but hey, don’t let that upset your fantasy of “liberty”) and widespread “don’t tread on me” liberty.

Unless Trump has a solid, extra governmental organisation, with its own security apparatus and ability to operate outside of the scope of the laws of the Republic, and it is actually organised and subject to his judgement and a clear and organised plan, all we will see is lots of screaming and noise, but nothing fundamentally done, because all the institutions are in place, the funding is still there and there is no potential for new institutions (which don’t even have a guiding purpose – what is Trumpism? it seems to be bland protectionism)

Any claim that the Cathedral is finished demonstrates a clear lack of understanding of the thing and a lack of understanding that culture is downstream from power and Trump isn’t power.


The Cathedral – stop using it.

I think everyone using the cathedral concept who does not understand De Jouvenal and who holds to liberal priors should be forced to admit they are either acting in bad faith and dinning out for free on a concept which they could not discover with their beliefs, or should acknowledge they are mistaken and seek to understand it properly. Either way, they shouldn’t be using it.

Unfortunately, we have the Hestia society which is linked to Moldbug that functions as an institution which purposefully keeps the door open on the concept and aggressively acts as a big tent on this. Clearly because they don’t understand it.

I have no idea why Moldbug does not take issue with it.

Entryists enter the cathedral concept

Trump’s victory can be seen as a very obvious mark of confirmation for Moldbug, and a number of people seem to be clicking on. Not only did Trump run against the entire media apparatus, but he also engaged in a right wing game of high-low versus the middle, this time with the low being middle america which is still busily being assaulted through immigration and policies naturally directed at crushing them.

This added interest in the cathedral concept will only become more widespread as the next four years will show that every time Trump so much as makes an innocuous speech about transport policy, the entire academic, civil service and media apparatus will engage in full spectrum attacks.

The danger of this is that instead of understanding how the cathedral concept was formed, and what this entails, people will load it with liberal trash, thereby turning it into some sad sack conspiracy theory. The true power of this concept, and the ramifications will thus be lost because of rank stupidity. Imagine if the developments of Einstein were accepted, but were back filled with a story of goblins or fairies being responsible – it wouldn’t go very far, would it? That is what is happening with the cathedral concept.

The cathedral concept if understood correctly is one of following the ramifications of the first principle that divided power results in society fighting, and splitting into two general groups, which we know as right and left. These groups then engage in proxy warfare, with the dominate group being the left wing – the high in society augmented by every low utilized against the middle. From these you can reason out and conclude that republican governance is a sham, that it is the very cause of the left and right, that more blocks just makes the conflict even more intractable, that the formal governance structure is just a mask at best and a minor inconvenience at worst for this high-low alliance. There are many more ramifications yet to be discovered, but the applicability to governance is profound.

Liberalism is a hallucinogen based on the first principle of the sovereign individual which was a rhetorical device which has not been placed on serious ground. All these liberal entryists using the term wrongly are bringing this system into it. They don’t recognise this because they have their systems such as nationalism which are one, or two, steps removed from this.

It is not your enemies that are a real danger, but really your “friends.”

So whereas this nationalist, or alt-right fueled individual talking about the cathedral will still entertain working within the confines of the republican structure as a means to correct current problems, from a position of not being liberal, this is laughable, and you only have to look at the problems Pinochet encountered to see this. The republican structure is a sham, it has been the source of the left and right, and has been circumvented  the millisecond it was formalised. The formal republican structure is a total sham, and the only way to govern is to engage non-formal structures. But this very thought cannot be entertained because this calls into question the “public/ private” sphere that the right wing so desperately cling to. The right in effect are the true liberals, holding to a liberalism with far less unprincipled exceptions than the left who being in governance have no time for.

So if you followed a right wing reading of the cathedral, you would close down universities, the media, and the civil service and enlarge the private sphere. Pinochet did this to a degree and what happened? the academics merely shifted to “private” institutes funded by “private” foundations like the Ford Foundation. Like they care about the formal institutions beyond their use to them as a power tool. The same thing would happen again because to touch the foundations, or any non-government org would require recognizing the private sphere as understood under liberal theory is a joke, there is no area of life which is not governed, which is to recognize liberalism is a joke, which is to recognize the right wing is a joke.


The need to knock liberal science off its perch

To really get at why political science is so absurd, it really requires knocking Science TM off its perch. To many, it is palpable that they consider science as some abstract point of total truth that can be understood by all irrespective of opinions. This is false.

For everyone to agree on a point requires a base minimum of shared understanding of a given tradition to make that point meaningful. This greater context is always completely ignored in modern philosophy, of which science TM is a mere sub set.

Take the example of chemistry. How many differing models are there to explain molecular structures? How have they developed over time? and will they develop again in the future? The answer is numerous for the first question, greatly for the second, and undoubtably for the third. So if science keeps changing then its popularly accepted claims are without grounds. It is a tradition derived from a greater tradition of philosophy.

You can play this game with any scientific development (discovery is a bad word) and establish what its history was, what precepts had to be in place for this development, and how this development has been altered since. Zippy has some good ones regarding Darwin, but the same can be done with physics, chemistry, math, and every other area of science.

Like with Hobbes and Locke’ s thought experiment, the underlying assumption is that these points of science can be rationaly understood and comprehended by every person abstractly, but this is fraudulent. The whole thing rests on the giant error of these thinkers failing to grasp that this is a fallacy.

Just try it yourself with the strongest case you can, like Newton’s theory of gravity, which has been superceeded by Einstein, and which was a development of earlier theories. Then consider how Newton reasoned in a language and with thought patterns inherited from his society and used mathematical concepts and other concepts only understandable following an education.

If you think you have found an exception, then you haven’t widened your parameters enough, and are taking something as a given, which is not a given. Usually language for example.


It is a difficult to pin neoreaction (Hestia) down to an actual intellectual position, because they refuse to do so except in the most vague terms, and because they have a diversity of people with differing opinions (all liberal.) I have been pointed to their reddit page, and to their official page before, but have remained confused. Now, however, the cat seems to be out of the bag. They are (as I suspected) merely liberals, working from liberal premises as embodied by the social contract theory of modernity.

This article from from Mark Citadel makes it quite clear that the underlying concern for Hestia is the issue of trying to understand why individuals form greater societies. Any readers of my last couple of posts will recognize this from Locke, Hobbes, and all of the thinkers that Filmer opposed.
There is a serious danger here in that these liberal based “reactionary’ ideas act as a kind of blocker. On the surface they purport to support something (like a monarch) but in reality they are merely liberal theories loaded with unprincipled exception that are logically disastrous. Hobbes for example, came to the conclusion of the need for a monarch, so pretty reactionary, no? Not really. In reality he just made a thought experiment based on pure rhetoric. The anthropology is clearly nonsense, and not only he, but also Locke were fully aware of this. This is a key to liberalism, it is based on nothing but rhetoric. There is no way for liberal theorists to justify their position at base, hence Neitzsche and post-modernism.
What is really at stake here is the issue of first principles, and we can see why Hobbes, Locke and Descartes are tied together. They, as is the modern project, reasoned from premises that were abstract and not actually tied into experience, in doing so, they rejected that every first principle can only be determined reasoning from a tradition which is a historically inherited body of thought.
You will note that Descates claimed to reason from the premise of Cogito ergo sum, despite doing this reasoning in French and Latin, and therefore using thought processes which he inherited from his society. This is incoherent. Hobbes also reasons from the mushroom people premise, which has no claimed link to reality and any form of inherited tradition – which is an incoherent project. These people never existed, and again his whole reasoning is done from a specific background, with a specific language, which encodes specific thought patters. He is a 16th century Englishman from a protestant background from which he inherited voluntarist ethics among other things.  So in sum, Hobbes is incoherent. You cannot escape context.
So can we put Hobbes and Filmer together? no, not at all. Hobbes’ monarch is an entity which has been granted power by all of these individuals who have never existed. This is nonsense, not just on the ridiculousness of reasoning from a rhetorical device which rejects the social nature of man, but also from the point of trying to decipher how these people engendered with this power can relinquish it. Filmer on the other hand is deducing first principles from experience, logic and applicable anthropology – it is illogical to claim the sovereign can be bound by a lower authority,  you are born into society and your tradition, you don’t choose it and and we can add that any subsequent adoption of another tradition can only be done following your being provided with the tools of reasoning and rationality provided by your original tradition.
This is chalk and cheese. Which tradition is Sobornost given the above? It is obviously liberal and is obviously working on deducing from abstract principles. Sometimes this is overt, sometimes it is contained in concepts which have it enshrined in it. So when we see the quote we can see the liberal theorizing dripping from it:
“The wholeness of society, combined with the personal independence and the individual diversity of the citizens, which is possible only on the condition of a free subordination of separate persons to absolute values and in their free creativeness founded on love of the whole, love of the Church, love of their nation and State.”
Here we see this is just Hobbes, but with self-interest substituted for…love?! So we export Hobbes’ stupidity to Russia, and they turn it around and export it back to us as this crap? and the constant reference to “organic” unity is clearly referencing ground up societal organisation, which is again just liberalism and does not, and has never, existed. This is accepting liberal lies and then trying to establish anti-liberalism – on liberalism!
Society is ordered (or disordered) by the sovereign, this sovereign can either be formally untied from illogical and fraudulent blocks and therefore aligned with the interests of the people over whom the sovereign has authority, or it can be subject to blocks and divided, in which case all manner of bizarre behavior is engaged in, and society becomes a battle ground.

Locke versus Filmer, or why you are all communists.

Moldbug quite memorably makes the observation that America is a communist country, and then goes further and makes it obvious that all of the world is America now, so all of the world is communist. He also traces this communism back through American history to America’s founding and then even further back and places this founding as the continuation of an English political conflict between Tories, and Whigs.

We can get under the engine of this broad claim and start to get at the mechanism behind this conflict and the roots of this communism. For a start, we can look at the claim of communism. Moldbug clearly used this for rhetorical effect, and it works to a degree, but we don’t need to retain this for analysis purposes. Instead we can concentrate on the status of the origin of property in the various strains of thought which is what defines this communism.

In the first instance we have the Tory conception which was expressed by Filmer. Now Filmer’s concept of property has been dismissed ad nauseum for being based on biblical grounds unlike Locke’s which were based on…biblical grounds, but there is a difference in that Locke’s ideas were developed in service to the Whig’s position in society and they won, so there is that. Why were Locke’s positions popular with the Whigs, whilst Filmer’s were popular with the Tory loyalists? Locke’s position was one supportive of rebellion, anarchism and oligarchy – which is what the Whigs were about. We can really consider this a case of two power centers forming two distinct cultures based on their specific interests – the monarchy versus parliament. Parliament won

History shows that the Whigs won so effectively that they purged Filmer Tories from every effective position of power in England following the failed Jacobite Rebellion. From this point on, every Tory position would be based on the grounds of Locke and we see the conservative is born. Every single incarnation of Toryism (and there have been many of that pathetic shadow) would forever be reborn on some new absurd position trying to justify a position built upon the ever shifting basis of anarchic property tied in with the individual coming before society, or communism if you will. We have had Burkean conservatism, Peelite conservatism, modern American conservatism, compassionate conservatism and now the alt-right – it is the never ending joke.

Now, when we read Locke and his refutation of Filmer, it is worthwile comparing the means of persuasion employed by both writers, and to observe their differing tones. For example, here is Filmer offering a logical, well thought out, appropriately historically supported positions on the nature of kings:

“Whereas many out of an imaginary Fear pretend the Power of the People to be necessary for the repressing of the Insolencies of Tyrants; wherein they propound a Remedy far worse than the Disease, neither is the Disease indeed so frequent as they would have us think. Let us be judged by the History even of our own Nation: We have enjoyed a Succession of Kings from the Conquest now for above 600 years (a time far longer than ever yet any Popular State could continue) we reckon to the Number of twenty six of these Princes since the Norman Race, and yet not one of these is taxed by our Historians for Tyrannical Government. It is true, two of these Kings have been Deposed by the People, and barbarously Murthered, but neither of them for Tyranny” ?”[sic] Chapter II, XVIII, paragraph 1

And now we can turn to Locke who tells you that IF WE DON’T HAVE FREEDOM, AND LIBERTY MEN WILL SODOMISE AND EAT THEIR OWN BABIES!!!!!!

“But if the example of what hath been done, be the rule of what ought to be, history would have furnished our author with instances of this absolute fatherly power in its height and perfection, and he might have shewed us in Peru, people that begot children on purpose to fatten and eat them. The story is so remarkable, that I cannot but set it down in the author’s words. “In some provinces, says he, they were so liquorish after man’s flesh, that they would not have the patience to stay till the breath was out of the body, but would suck the blood as it ran from the wounds of the dying man; they had public shambles of man’s flesh, and their madness herein was to that degree, that they spared not their own children, which they had begot on strangers taken in war: for they made their captives their mistresses, and choicely nourished the children they had by them, till about thirteen years old they butchered and eat them; and they served the mothers after the same fashion, when they grew past child bearing, and ceased to bring them any more roasters,” Garcilasso de la Vega hist. des Yncas de Peru, l. i. c. 12” [sis] Two Treatises of Government, Chapter VI, S57

“Be it then, as Sir Robert says, that anciently it was usual for men to sell and castrate their children, Observations, 155. Let it be, that they exposed them; add to it, if you please, for this is still greater power, that they begat them for their tables, to fat and eat them: if this proves a right to do so, we may, by the same argument, justify adultery, incest and sodomy, for there are examples of these too, both ancient and modern; sins, which I suppose have their principal aggravation from this, that they cross the main intention of nature, which willeth the increase of mankind, and the continuation of the species in the highest perfection, and the distinction of families, with the security of the marriage bed, as necessary thereunto.” [sis] Two Treatises of Government, Chapter VI, S59

No very flattering and demonstrates the weakness of Locke’s position, which is why I think he concentrated as pedantically as possible on Filmer’s claim of descent from Adam. It is the weakest part of Filmer’s arguments and frankly we can do without it and cut straight to the reasoning behind both author’s positions.

Locke’s reasoning is without basis in my opinion as it works from a state of nature which has never existed. So why are we still taking his writing as a serious and respectable body of work? Why do I need to argue past this point? His claims of the independence of the individual and the labor theory of property are obscenely wrong.  Everything about his thinking is disastrously wrong but given it was a rejection of absolutism it was useful, and anything pushing individualism has been warmly received by the modern state for its destructive value. The advocate of individualism is the foot soldier of a centralised state. Now, some may have trouble with this concept because on the face of it the contradictory nature is hard to get past, but it is only a contradiction if you don’t think it through and realise the destruction of individualism is aimed at everything and everyone except the centralising power, which in this case was democratic governance seated in parliament.

Filmer on the other hand has many serious points to make which don’t rest on biblical exegesis at all, and instead rest on logic. Take for example his issue with the idea of law bounding the king:

“The Father of a Family governs by no other Law than by his own Will; not by the Laws and Wills of his Sons or Servants. There is no Nation that allows Children any Action or Remedy for being unjustly Governed; and yet for all this, every Father is bound by the Law of Nature to do his best for the preservation of his Family; but much more is a King always tyed by the same Law of Nature to keep this general Ground, That the safety of the Kingdom be his Chief Law: He must remember, That the Profit of every Man in particular, and of all together in general, is not always one and the same; and that the Publick is to be preferred before the Private; And that the force of Laws must not be so great as natural Equity it self, which cannot fully be comprised in any Laws whatsoever, but is to be left to the Religious Atchievement of those who know how to manage the Affairs of State, and wisely to Ballance the particular Profit with the Counterpoize of the Publick, according to the infinite variety of Times, Places, Persons; a Proof unanswerable, for the superiority of Princes above Laws, is this, That there were Kings long before there were any Laws: For a long time the Word of a King was the only Law; and if Practice (as saith Sir Walter Raleigh) declare the Greatness of Authority, even the best Kings of Judah and Israel were not tied to any Law; but they did whatsoever they pleased in the greatest Matters.”[sic] Chapter III, I, paragraph 2

It is clear what he is saying here is that A) those lower on the rung of authority cannot bind those higher as this make no sense, and B) the sovereign is bound by consequences. Further to this, he notes the following regarding law:

“Whereas being subject to the Higher Powers, some have strained these Words to signifie the Laws of the Land, or else to mean the Highest Power, as well Aristocratical and Democratical, as Regal: It seems St. Paul looked for such Interpretation, and therefore thought fit to be his own Expositor, and to let it be known, that by Power he understood a Monarch that carried a Sword: Wilt thou not be afraid of the Power? that is, the Ruler that carrieth the Sword, for he is the Minister of God to thee —— for he beareth not the Sword in vain. It is not the Law that is the Minister of God, or that carries the Sword, but the Ruler or Magistrate; so they that say the Law governs the Kingdom, may as well say that the Carpenters Rule builds an House, and not the Carpenter; for the Law is but the Rule or Instrument of the Ruler.”[sic]  Chapter III, II, paragraph 4

Here he is saying rule of law is nonsensical. Law is merely a tool in the hands of someone. Were he alive today, he would no doubt be amazed at the manner in which modern conservatives look at the law and the constitution in particular as some form of magic document that rules.

On other issues, Filmer is no less logically robust, whilst Locke rests on assertions and not arguments. Anything based on the state of nature is not an argument and shouldn’t be accepted as one, it is an assertion based on a point of faith (that we are born free and equal.) One such robust position is in the underlying logic behind the patriarchical model put forward by Filmer. While we can merely set aside the whole issue of progeny from Adam, we can nonetheless maintain Filmer’s conclusion that governance does indeed mirror a paternal relationship, and that authority can only flow down from those with authority to those with less. Take for example Filmer’s questioning of Bellarmine’s assertion of the people being able to chose their king:

“Had the Patriarchs their Power given them by their own Children? Bellarmine does not say it, but the Contrary: If then the Fatherhood enjoyed this Authority for so many Ages by the Law of Nature, when was it lost, or when forfeited, or how is it devolved to the Liberty of the Multitude?”[sic] Chapter II, I, paragraph 2

If we concentrate on the theology and not the logic, we are doing a great disservice. What is at stake here is simply this – can those with less authority bind those with more? The logic is obscene. Filmer makes the point even more strongly in reference to law:

“What though the Government of the People be a thing not to be endured, much less defended, yet many men please themselves with an Opinion, that though the People may not Govern; yet they may partake and joyn with a King in the Government, and so make a State mixed of Popular and Regal Power, which they take to be the best tempered and equallest Form of Government. But the Vanity of this Fancy is too evident, it is a meer Impossibility or Contradiction, for if a King but once admit the People to be his Companions, he leaves to be a King, and the State becomes a Democracy; at least, he is but a Titular and no Real King, that hath not the Sovereignty to Himself; for the having of this alone, and nothing but this makes a King to be a King. As for that Shew of Popularity which is found in such Kingdoms as have General Assemblies for Consultation about making Publick Laws: It must be remembred that such Meetings do not share or divide the Sovereignty with the Prince: but do only deliberate and advise their Supreme Head, who still reserves the Absolute Power in himself; for if in such Assemblies, the King, the Nobility, and People have equal Shares in the Sovereignty, then the King hath but one Voice, the Nobility likewise one, and the People one, and then any two of these Voices should have Power to over-rule the third; thus the Nobility and Commons together should have Power to make a Law to bind the King, which was never yet seen in any Kingdom, but if it could, the State must needs be Popular and not Regal.”[sic] Chapter II, XVI, paragraph 1

In effect, Filmer is making it absolutely clear that those arguing in favour of constitutional monarchy are violating logic, and they are. From our 21st century perch, we should be in an excellent place to judge just who is right on this point – Locke or Filmer? There is where it gets interesting. It is obviously clear from conventional history and practically all conventional political theory that Locke was completely correct but seeing as this history and theory is based on Locke, there is a serious problem here. If we start out with the assertion that X is true, will always be true, and is not to even be questioned, then what will this say about our results if X is false. Garbage in, garbage out.

We can see this being played out over the issue of spontaneous order which is thoroughly Lockean. Using Hayek as are sparing partner, we can approach the “spontaneous development” of common  law as based on Locke. For Hayek, common law derives from custom which is spontaneous and developed independent of authority. The Lockean nature of this is pretty obvious. For Filmer this is a fiction:

“If the Nature of Laws be advisedly weighed, the Necessity of the Princes being above them may more manifest it self; we all know that a Law in General is the command of a Superior Power. Laws are divided (as Bellarmine divides the Word of God) into written and unwritten, not for that it is not written at all, but because it was not written by the first Devisers or Makers of it. The Common Law (as the Lord Chancellor Egerton teacheth us) is the Common Custom of the Realm. Now concerning Customs, this must be considered, that for every Custom there was a time when it was no Custom; and the first President we now have, had no President when it began; when every Custom began, there was something else than Custom that made it lawful, or else the beginning of all Customs were unlawful. Customs at first became Lawful only by some Superiour, which did either Command or Consent unto their beginning. And the first Power which we find (as it is confessed by all men) is the Kingly Power, which was both in this and in all other Nations of the World, long before any Laws, or any other kind of Government was thought of; from whence we must necessarily inser, that the Common Law it self, or Common Customs of this I and, were Originally the Laws and Commands of Kings at first unwritten

Nor must we think the Common Customs (which are the Principles of the Common Law, and are but few) to be such, or so many, as are able to give special Rules to determine every particular Cause. Diversity of Cases are infinite, and impossible to be regulated by any Law; and therefore we find, even in the Divine Laws which are delivered by Moses, there be only certain Principal Laws, which did not determine, but only direct the High-priest or Magistrate, whose Judgment in special Cases did determine, what the General Law intended. It is so with the Common Law, for when there is no perfect Rule, Judges do resort to those Principles, or Common Law Axiomes, whereupon former Judgments, in Cases somewhat like, have been delivered by former Judges, who all receive Authority from the King, in his Right and Name to give Sentence according to the Rules and Presidents of Antient Times: And where Presidents have failed, the Judges have resorted to the General Law of Reason, and accordingly given Judgment, without any Common Law to direct them. Nay, many times, where there have been Presidents to direct, they, upon better Reason only, have changed the Law, both in Causes Criminal and Civil, and have not insisted so much on the Examples of former Judges, as examined and corrected their Reasons; thence it is that some Laws are now obsolete and out of use, and the Practice quite contrary to what it was in Former Times, as the Lord Chancellour Egerton proves, by several Instances.” [sic] Chapter III, IX -X, paragraph 1

What Filmer is implying here is explosive. He is making the point that laws don’t come into being by themselves, but are authorised by a higher power in all cases. Common law was not made irrespective of the sovereign but was, and is, determined by agents acting on his behalf, and transmitting his will either directly or in accordance with the presumed wishes of the sovereign. The sovereign obviously being unable to sit in court for all cases and talk with every judge must delegate, and as such has a judiciary working in accordance with his will. In this instance, we can see that authority is the determiner of all action within the area of common law, and this holds true across society as a whole if this logic is maintained. All action that occurs within the authority of the sovereign is by default either within the sovereign’s will and therefore acceptable, or it is not, and it is illegal and/or a threat. Any other definition nullifies the entire concept of sovereignty as a meaningful term. There is no spontaneous action independent of authority but all of our means of formally viewing the world (political theory, political science, politically acceptable history) are premised on the concept that there is. Notably, in areas with more practical usage (such as property law) this premise is quietly and (I am sure quite innocently) ignored.

Approaching the matter from a non-lockean perspective, and using, say for example, Filmer’s refusal to accept the sovereign can be bound by lower powers, or that authority can be reversed, we get Moldbug’s history. In this history, revolutions are led by elites in a position of authority, the entire concept of democracy is rendered a sham by following the trail and determining which institution is sovereign, and the republican governance structure comes into view as the mere surface camouflage that it is. In short, we go from Lockean consensus history based on a giant lie, to a realistic history based on a giant uncomfortable truth regarding authority.

We can even see Filmer acknowledging the determining factor of power on theory, thus presaging his own banishment from polite discourse on page 7:

“SInce the time that School-Divinity began to flourish, there hath been a common Opinion maintained, as well by Divines, as by divers other learned Men, which affirms,

Mankind is naturally endowed and born with Freedom from all Subjection, and at liberty to chose what Form of Government it please: And that the Power which any one Man hath over others, was at first bestowed according to the discretion of the Multitude. (1)

This Tenent was first hatched in the Schools, and hath been fostered by all succeeding Papists for good Divinity. The Divines also of the Reformed Churches have entertained it, and the Common People every where tenderly embrace it, as being most plausible to Flesh and blood, for that it prodigally destributes a Portion of Liberty to the meanest of the Multitude, who magnifie Liberty, as if the height of Humane Felicity were only to be found in it, never remembring That the desire of Liberty was the first Cause of the Fall of Adam.

But howsoever this Vulgar Opinion hath of late obtained a great Reputation, yet it is not to be found in the Ancient Fathers and Doctors of the Primitive Church: It contradicts the Doctrine and History of the Holy Scriptures, the constant Practice of all Ancient Monarchies, and the very Principles of the Law of Nature. It is hard to say whether it be more erroneous in Divinity, or dangerous in Policy.

Yet upon the ground of this Doctrine both Jesuites, and some other zealous favourers of the Geneva Discipline, have built a perillous Conclusion, which is, That the People or Multitude have Power to punish, or deprive the Prince, if he transgress the Laws of the Kingdom; witness Parsons and Buchanan: the first under the name of Dolman, in the Third Chapter of his First Book labours to prove, that Kings have been lawfully chastised by their Commonwealths: The latter in his Book De jure Regni apud Scotos, maintains A Liberty of the People to depose their Prince. Cardinal Bellarmine and Calvin, both look asquint this way.” [sic] Chapter I, I, paragraph 1

By acknowledging that Catholic and Calvinists have the issue of being able to depose the king as the basis of their opinions, Filmer is observing that interest and the actor’s particular role in the power system underpin theology and theory. Power in effect being above culture. Both the Jesuits, and the Calvinists being the theologians of the Papacy and the oligarchic (parliamentary) sections of society respectively, were developing justifications for undermining monarchy. All actors playing high-low versus the middle in effect in a three way battle.

The resultant winner was the Calvinists faction pushing what Moldbug identifies as communism which is a conception of property which renders authority optional.

Everyone is a communist now.

[Edit: The quote in paragraph 20 was a duplicate of another quote, this has been corrected.]

Summary of Locke and Filmer in as short a way as possible

Patriarcha, or the Natural Power of Kings: Popular government violates logic at every turn. Here is my cogent reasoned argument which has numerous historical examples.

Two Treatsies of Government: Wow, just wow. Its the current year. That Filmer is like a racist or something. What do you mean evidence? are you racist? Wow, just wow.

In all seriousness, Locke is a social justice warrior and nothing he puts forward has evidence or has ever been vindicated. So let’s look at the genealogy from these two:

Locke -> everyone.

Filmer-> no one.

De Jouvenal can tell you why this is the state of affairs using logic, and the picture isn’t pretty and logic is racist or something and this is the current year, so wow, just wow. Libertarians, Conservative, Marxists, the alt -right and everyone else can also tell you using magical thinking because they are all social justice warriors at base.


What Marx got right.

In a broad sense, Marx was right. On the other hand, he was very wrong. Culture is grounded and determined by the economic sphere as the economic basis of a society must by necessity form an ultimate barrier regarding acceptable discourse. The financialised nature of western society and the effect this has on what intellectual discourse is funded and allowed to proliferate is a perfect example. Classical Marxism and any thinking which so much as questions the consumerist joke we have just doesn’t go anywhere. Just look at the freedom they have, and just look at what economics get promoted.

Unfortunately, whilst having this key understanding, as well as the keen understanding that circumstances and relationships form what culture develops, he was wrong by virtue of remaining on the modern path of anarchism. His understanding of property in particular is merely Lockean. This seems to have led to him making all sorts of errors.

If we broaden this premise and accept that all think from specific circumstances, rooted in specific places, with a specific stock of inherited beliefs, then the idea of a free thinking superman who can reason from some abstract point of ahistorical reality can be set aside for the childish thing it is. But the claim that it is class that is at base is wrong, De Jouvenal has pointed the way, and it must be accepted that it is the actions of power, and conflicts between power centers that is the actual base to the superstructure of society.

A society built with internal conflict is one which has a base which is designed to promote total degeneracy. As this internal conflict deepens and degrades, a very specific culture is produced without any planning. Each of the centers of power will engage in subversive leveling until one is supreme, but this power center must then alter to solidify its position, or continue churning away at society with the same mechanisms that brought it into being. This solidification can only be done by some actor who manages to wrest control such as Cromwell or Stalin. Failure by an actor to do so will leave only the prospect of total collapse.

With this understanding of the true base of society, the issue of Jews becomes clear – it isn’t some genetic interest or some such patently absurd idea, but instead a matter of their position in society and relations in the power system. This goes the same for SWPL, and for the black population, and the muslim population and for the rest of society. Things don’t build from the ground up – that idea is itself a product of people from within specific points in their respective power structures and therefore possessing specific motivations at specific points in history.




Some rules for political science

The first rule of political science is to take political science as an ahistorical and neutral thing.

The second rule of political science is to under no circumstances provide explanation or clarification of the terms of discourse, but just assume they are understood as ahistorical concepts (capitalism, democracy etc.)

The third rule of political science is to take society as scientificly observable.(do not question what science is!) If you cannot explain something, merely retreat to the following defences:

  • “It is just too complicated to explain or understand fully, so take my scientific word for it”
  • “Esoterism”
  • “Zeitgeist”
  • “Progress”
  • “March of history”
  • “Current year”
  • “Providence”
  • “Just hasn’t been discover/explained yet, so take my scientific word for it”
  • Conduct a new survey that will finally prove it.
  • Conduct another survey.
  • Conduct anouther survey with new leading questions.
  • Conduct anouther survey which ignores that opinions are not intrinsic, but socially formed.
  • Conduct anouther survey to prove what you want by fixing the sample, use leading questions and ignore that opinions are not intrinsic.
  • Conduct more surveys.
  • “End of history”

And the final rule: do not ever, ever, under any circumstances open the book on the issue of democracy being historically contingent and not a scientific and neutral state of mankind, because to do so renders political science a contingent thing born of democratic society and not ahistorical or “scientific” by its own measures.

What political scientist is going to admit that their university education and career was based on bullshit dreamt up to further democracy by the Progressive elites in the early 20 century? None.


Two models of goverance

Staying on the topic of property is likely to prove a very productive one and towards this end, I would like to provide two broad models of property distribution which I believe nicely illustrate the gulf between liberals and non-liberals.

The first model of property is one in which property is conflated with possession. Each individual, or corporation, in society owns property which was produced from some process irrespective of governance. Marxism, political liberalism, anarcho-capitalism they all hold this conception of the origin of property. In this conception of property, the state is obviously secondary.

The second model is one in which possession and property are different things. Possession is mere holding of something, whilst property is the legally recognized right to usage, possession, enjoyment etc. No political theory really deals in this area. There is a reason for this.

Beginning with the first model, we can make a point that I think follows from this conception of property, and that is that governance in this conception is merely an organisation among corporations and individuals. The primary organisation for sure, but still merely an organisation among society. To draw this out further, we can note that this is the underpinning of social contract theory. All in society do not need governance, or rather, the sovereign to exist per se, but they wish to have governance to ensure organisation is kept. This is taken to logical extremes by anarchist of all flavours, and anarcho-capitalists are great examples. This is not new of course, and this forms the very basis of Hobbe’s theorising. The solution is that all must enter a covenant and surrender rights that they hold by not being under governance, in exchange for the security provided by collectively submitting to a government (of course this gets weakened for a more Utopian conception as we shall see.)

Now, I have taken some criticism for my claim in a previous post that Moldbug’s theories regarding sovcorp are the anti-thesis of Hobbes, but I hold that it is clear that the covenant theory of governance is fundamentally an anarchist concept of society. What is striking is that Hobbe’s theorising leads to a necessary conclusion of government as being a mere organisation among others which don’t need it. He manages this by working on first principles (the state of nature) which willfully ignores historical record which undermines it. He even cites his ideas regarding property which directly refutes his theorising on covenants (social contracts):

All Private Estates Of Land Proceed Originally

From The Arbitrary Distribution Of The Soveraign

In this Distribution, the First Law, is for Division of the Land it selfe: wherein the Soveraign assigneth to every man a portion, according as he, and not according as any Subject, or any number of them, shall judge agreeable to Equity, and the Common Good. The Children of Israel, were a Common-wealth in the Wildernesse; but wanted the commodities of the Earth, till they were masters of the Land of Promise; which afterward was divided amongst them, not by their own discretion, but by the discretion of Eleazar the Priest, and Joshua their Generall: who when there were twelve Tribes, making them thirteen by subdivision of the Tribe of Joseph; made neverthelesse but twelve portions of the Land; and ordained for the Tribe of Levi no land; but assigned them the Tenth part of the whole fruits; which division was therefore Arbitrary. And though a People comming into possession of a land by warre, do not alwaies exterminate the antient Inhabitants, (as did the Jewes,) but leave to many, or most, or all of them their Estates; yet it is manifest they hold them afterwards, as of the Victors distribution; as the people of England held all theirs of William the Conquerour.”

This is historically accurate, and based on record (especially in the case of England) and would no doubt have been considered common sense at the time of Hobbes. He then puts forward his celebrated covenant theory as shown in his famous passage:

“Nature hath made men so equall, in the faculties of body, and mind; as that though there bee found one man sometimes manifestly stronger in body, or of quicker mind then another; yet when all is reckoned together, the difference between man, and man, is not so considerable, as that one man can thereupon claim to himselfe any benefit, to which another may not pretend, as well as he. For as to the strength of body, the weakest has strength enough to kill the strongest, either by secret machination, or by confederacy with others, that are in the same danger with himselfe.

And as to the faculties of the mind, (setting aside the arts grounded upon words, and especially that skill of proceeding upon generall, and infallible rules, called Science; which very few have, and but in few things; as being not a native faculty, born with us; nor attained, (as Prudence,) while we look after somewhat els,) I find yet a greater equality amongst men, than that of strength. For Prudence, is but Experience; which equall time, equally bestowes on all men, in those things they equally apply themselves unto. That which may perhaps make such equality incredible, is but a vain conceipt of ones owne wisdome, which almost all men think they have in a greater degree, than the Vulgar; that is, than all men but themselves, and a few others, whom by Fame, or for concurring with themselves, they approve. For such is the nature of men, that howsoever they may acknowledge many others to be more witty, or more eloquent, or more learned; Yet they will hardly believe there be many so wise as themselves: For they see their own wit at hand, and other mens at a distance. But this proveth rather that men are in that point equall, than unequall. For there is not ordinarily a greater signe of the equall distribution of any thing, than that every man is contented with his share.”

Followed by:

In Such A Warre, Nothing Is Unjust

To this warre of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be Unjust. The notions of Right and Wrong, Justice and Injustice have there no place. Where there is no common Power, there is no Law: where no Law, no Injustice. Force, and Fraud, are in warre the two Cardinall vertues. Justice, and Injustice are none of the Faculties neither of the Body, nor Mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his Senses, and Passions. They are Qualities, that relate to men in Society, not in Solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition, that there be no Propriety, no Dominion, no Mine and Thine distinct; but onely that to be every mans that he can get; and for so long, as he can keep it. And thus much for the ill condition, which man by meer Nature is actually placed in; though with a possibility to come out of it, consisting partly in the Passions, partly in his Reason.

Now the problem you have with these passages is that Hobbes isn’t making any sense. The first passage makes sense, as does Hobbe’s acknowledgement of the difference between possession and property (he specifically acknowledges property is granted by the sovereign) but the covenant theory then undermines this because it makes government an optional state of affairs and places this possession as an individual matter. These individuals who all have possessions individually secured (or not very secure, but still on the scale of existing) could just as easily have bilateral contracts recognising property as put forward by anarcho-capitalists, or set up a constitution to which they all referred to…you get the point – why do they need to agree to a sovereign like a king? So it is not surprising given this that no one pays attention to Hobbe’s theories on property at all and only care about his covenant. His ideas on property as stated in the first passage don’t fit his covenant theory. Instead, Locke is taken as the guiding star and he took Hobbes incoherence on this matter and pushed it to full (and vastly more coherent regarding the covernant) crazyness because Hobbes was maintaining an incoherent unprincipled exception in asserting property comes from the sovereign whilst putting forward the anarchist covenant theory – how can the state grant something which it doesn’t possess in the first place? It is an organisation among organisations. To do so it must be granted this possession (from all these individual actors who possess everything collectively) to then disperse, which is what Hobbes drives at when he says:

Attributing Of Absolute Propriety To The Subjects

A Fifth doctrine, that tendeth to the Dissolution of a Common-wealth, is, “That every private man has an absolute Propriety in his Goods; such, as excludeth the Right of the Soveraign.” Every man has indeed a Propriety that excludes the Right of every other Subject: And he has it onely from the Soveraign Power; without the protection whereof, every other man should have equall Right to the same. But if the Right of the Soveraign also be excluded, he cannot performe the office they have put him into; which is, to defend them both from forraign enemies, and from the injuries of one another; and consequently there is no longer a Common-wealth.

And if the Propriety of Subjects, exclude not the Right of the Soveraign Representative to their Goods; much lesse to their offices of Judicature, or Execution, in which they Represent the Soveraign himselfe.”

In effect, we should act and allow the sovereign total control (even though we don’t really have to) so that we can have a “commonwealth.”

I am unable to conclude that Hobbes is doing anything more than running himself in a circles. He has set up an elaborate piece of fabrication based on first principles which are easily debunked. Has there ever existed a society of individuals each able to individually maintain possession, who then pool this possession with a sovereign and abide by all of their rules? Why are we even reasoning from this point? What are we talking about here?At this point, we need to place Hobbes and Locke in their time and place to get a footing. Wiki of all places does this for me, and if I can get the mainstream discourse to make my point against it, then all the better for me. The passage is from Locke’s entry on the state of nature page:

John Locke considers the state of nature in his Second Treatise on Civil Government written around the time of the Exclusion Crisis in England during the 1680s. For Locke, in the state of nature all men are free “to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons, as they think fit, within the bounds of the law of nature.” (2nd Tr., §4). “The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it”, and that law is reason. Locke believes that reason teaches that “no one ought to harm another in his life, liberty, and or property” (2nd Tr., §6) ; and that transgressions of this may be punished. This view of the state of nature is partly deduced from Christian belief (unlike Hobbes, whose philosophy is not dependent upon any prior theology).

Although it may be natural to assume that Locke was responding to Hobbes, Locke never refers to Hobbes by name, and may instead have been responding to other writers of the day, like Robert Filmer.[4] In fact, Locke’s First Treatise is entirely a response to Filmer’s Patriarcha, and takes a step by step method to refuting Filmer’s theory set out in Patriarcha. The conservative party at the time had rallied behind Filmer’s Patriarcha, whereas the Whigs, scared of another prosecution of Anglicans and Protestants, rallied behind the theory set out by Locke in his Two Treatises of Government as it gave a clear theory as to why the people would be justified in overthrowing a monarchy which abuses the trust they had placed in it”

So we see, both Locke and Hobbes with their state of nature theorising place possession (Hobbes) and then possession and property (Locke) as being anterior to the state and they are working in a period of time in which certain sections of society became sufficiently powerful to push this conception because it suited them, not because it was right, or makes sense when placed under scrutiny. Which is why it is understandable why Marx would put forward his base and superstructure concept, and why the modern state is tied in with the bourgeois – it has a giant lump of truth in it. As England was collapsing into outright oligarchy with sham monarchs as figureheads, conceptions of society formation based on anarchistic foundations (liberalism) took form.

So if we take the action of dismissing both Hobbes and Locke as being confused nonsense that only succeeded because of historical contingency (the collapse of England into oligarchy and the usefulness of this theorizing along with this) then we have two tasks. One is to rework the first model I outlined in which the sovereign is one amongst many, and who is tasked with specific roles and given specific rights as part of a social contract. The first task is to justify the necessary status of the individual as pre-societal in the face of overwhelming, crushing evidence to the contrary. The second is to then develop an explanation why these individuals (which requires rejection of biological and anthropological evidence by the way) engage in societal behaviour. The third task is to then ask yourself why you are doing this given task one and two make no sense.

The other option is to have a look at model two again. What if both possession and property are a function of the sovereign and that this is not only observable in historical records, but resolves a great deal of conceptional confusion around the area of property in political thought?