Neocameralism #1

Clippings from this, end-2007 Moldbug Neocameralism essay (with minimal commentary):

It is very hard to show that any new form of government is superior to that practiced now. It is even harder to show that any new form of government is superior to any practiced ever. […] Nonetheless, unless these problems are not just hard but actually unsolvable, innovation in the form of government is possible. … Certainly, the very idea of innovation in government should not frighten you. If it does, there is no point at all in thinking about government. This is conservatism to the point of mental disorder. I simply cannot contend with it, and I refuse to try. If you cannot set yourself outside your own beliefs and prejudices, you are not capable of normal civilized discourse.

Neocameralism is not (simply) reactionary because it has never been fully instantiated up to this time. It is a proposed political-economic innovation.

Let’s start with my ideal world – the world of thousands, preferably even tens of thousands, of neocameralist city-states and ministates, or neostates. The organizations which own and operate these neostates are for-profit sovereign corporations, or sovcorps. For the moment, let’s assume a one-to-one mapping between sovcorp and neostate. […] Let’s pin down the neocameralist dramatis personae by identifying the people who work for a sovcorp as its agents, the people or organizations which collectively own it as its subscribers, and the people who live in its neostate as its residents.

A Neocameral ‘neostate’ is not owned by its residents or its agents. Its ‘monarch’ (or ‘CEO’) is an executive appointment. (90% of all confusion about Neocameralism, and Neoreaction in general, stems from a failure to grasp this elementary point.) Note: ‘subscribers’ (plural). More coming on this immediately.

Every patch of land on the planet has a primary owner, which is its sovcorp. Typically, these owners will be large, impersonal corporations. We call them sovcorps because they’re sovereign. You are sovereign if you have the power to render any plausible attack on your primary property, by any other sovereign power, unprofitable. In other words, you maintain general deterrence. […] (Sovereignty is a flat, peer-to-peer relationship by definition. The concept of hierarchical sovereignty is a contradiction in terms. …) […] The business of a sovcorp is to make money by deterring aggression. Since human aggression is a serious problem, preventing it should be a good business. Moreover, the existence of unprofitable governments in your vicinity is serious cause for concern, because unprofitable governments tend to have strange decision structures and do weird, dangerous things. […] (Nuclear deterrence (mutual assured destruction) is only one small class of deterrent designs. To deter is to render predictably unprofitable. Predictably unprofitable violence is irrational. Irrational violence is certainly not unheard of. But it is much, much rarer than you may think. Most of the violence in the world today is quite rational, IMHO.) […] General deterrence is a complex topic which deserves its own post. For the moment, assume that every square inch of the planet’s surface is formally owned by some sovcorp, that no one disagrees on the borders, and that deterrence between sovcorps is absolute.

Patchwork is a (transcendentally) flat network. No global sovereign. At the ultimate level of its instantiation, it consists of P2P connections between independent nodes.

This does not solve the problem of constructing a stable sovcorp. The central problem of governance is the old Latin riddle: who guards the guardians? The joint-stock corporate design solves the central problem by entrusting guardianship in the collective decisions of the corporation’s owners, voting not by head but by percentage of profit received. […] The joint-stock model is hundreds of years old. It is as proven as proven can be. […] … However, in the sovereign context, the corporate joint-stock ownership and decision structure faces serious challenges which do not exist for a conventional secondary corporation. […] In the conventional secondary corporation, the control of the owners is unchallenged and unchallengeable, at least as long as the sovereign’s rule of corporate law is functioning properly. The corporation is incorporated under the oversight of a sovereign protector, or sponsor. This is what makes it a secondary corporation. …

The Neocameral organizational problem is here defined.

… classical political thought concurred in considering imperio in imperium, ie, internal subauthorities powerful enough to resist or even control the center, a political solecism. In case you are not too special to have ever worked in a cube, you are probably aware that imperio in imperium is a solecism in Powerpointia as well. One small difficulty, however, is that imperio in imperium means basically the same thing as separation of powers. Hm. […] Internal management in modern Western corporations is pretty good. At least by the standards of modern government, imperio in imperium is nonexistent. (It should not be confused with the normal practice of internal accounting, which does not in any way conflict with an absolute central authority and a single set of books.)

The model for avoidance of imperio in imperium is joint-stock business organization. It is thus equivalent to the control of executives, or the preservation of sovereign capital imperatives (through effective resolution of the principal-agent problem). Solution of the P-A problem at the level of State governance is the task of Neocameral administrative design.

Briefly, there are two options for sovcorp governance on a neocameralist patchwork planet. One is cross-listing and the other is cryptogovernance. In cross-listing, sovcorps list on each other’s secondary exchanges, taking great care to select only the most reputable sponsors, and demanding a backdoor in which they can switch sponsors at the slightest hint of weirdness. […] Cross-listing can probably be made to work. However, it is dangerous as a single line of defence. For an ideal sovcorp, it should be combined with some degree of cryptogovernance. […] Cryptogovernance is any system of corporate government in which all formal decisions are endorsed and verified cryptographically. A sponsor can still be very useful for cryptogovernance, but it is not required. Shareholders in a cryptogoverned corporation – known as subscribers – use private keys to sign their contributions to its governance. They may or may not be anonymous, depending on the corporation’s rules. […] If you are an American, have you ever wondered what the letters SA, or similar, which you see all the time in the names of European companies, mean? They mean “anonymous society.” If this strikes you as weird, it shouldn’t.

Do any #HRx types still think this is their universe?

The neat thing about cryptographic government (which is actually much easier than it sounds – we’re talking a few thousand lines of code, max) is that it can be connected directly to the sovcorp’s second line of defense: a cryptographically-controlled military. […] Cryptographic weapons control, in the form of permissive action links, is already used for the world’s most powerful weapons. However, there is nothing in principle preventing it from being extended down to small arms – for example, with a radio activation code transmitted over a mesh network. Military formations loyal to the CEO will find that their weapons work. Rebel formations will find that theirs don’t. The outcome is obvious. Moreover, the neocameralist state has no incentive to deal kindly with traitors, so there is no way for an attacker to repeatedly probe the system’s weaknesses. […] The one difficulty with cryptographic weapons control is that it fails, and devolves into simple military rule, if the authorization keys are kept anywhere near the weapons. Weaponholders can gather unlocked or noncryptographic weapons secretly, and use them to arrest the keyholders – for example, the directors of the sovcorp. […] The solution is simple: keep the sovcorp’s directors, or whoever has ultimate control of the highest grade of military keys, outside the sovcorp’s neostate. Even if the CEO himself rebels, along with all of his subordinates, any formation loyal to the directors can defeat them. The result is internal military stability.

Agree with where Moldbug is going with this, or not, the line of thought is profoundly illustrative of the Neocameral problem, as originally conceived, which lies within the general framework of cryptographic property protection (and not that of romantic political attachment).

June 29, 2016admin 168 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

168 Responses to this entry

  • skeptic Says:

    I think I see an apparent engineering flaw in this otherwise pretty solid system. What system is to prevent an organization or individual from executing a coordinated hostile takeover of this Sovcorp? It would defeat crosslisting by discovering and purchasing a majority of all listed shares on all cross-listed markets and the cryptographic weapons control appears to be only useful as a control on a rogue CEO or rogue group within the Sovcorp, not a rogue group of directors. This hypothetical rogue group would simply be an organization whose goals don’t align with the profit structure of the Sovcorp but want to inflict their goals and ideas on the residents of the Sovcorp anyway. Obviously Progressivism is the most pertinent ideology that comes to mind but it could be any viral ideology that has infected mankind over it’s history. People will waste scores of money if they believe what they are doing is a Greater Good. In threatening to shut down the whole Sovcorp if the CEO doesn’t implement the policies; the CEO will be forced to obey the will of these directors or resign. If anyone can explain how this Sovcorp is immune to a well executed hostile takeover of wealthy and ideologically charged ‘activists’, I would appreciate it.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Concur, it’s something I’ve thought about. Where it gets really murky is that a shareholder might even sell his shares to a resident undermining the stated structure. So no matter how you look at it there will be restrictions of what a shareholder can do with their shares, restrictions that would have to be built into shares such that being a subscriber means entering into a two way contract (likely of a cryptographically enforced variety). It starts looking whiggish in a hurry as cryptographically enforced law is held above the subscriber who is supposed to be the final word (he who can modify or fork the code is then the sovereign).

    Corporations currently do worse than residents owning stock, they have agents owning stock, part of what makes them so top heavy. I’m ok with treating shares as contracts so long as the question of WHO is sovereign is formally answered and acknowledged, kind of like forking crypto-currencies. The real trick is how the subscriber class will develop a sense of responsibility (this does seem like a system where you have to simply trust the subscribers to not sell you down the river), might not be exceptionally difficult given how responsible Bitcoin’s PTB are.

    I used the dreaded T word, trust, sovereignty is conserved and answered with a WHO. Raised under whigs we’ve been conditions to believe we don’t have to trust anyone, we can trust our laws, our systems, pretend who is held in check by those laws and systems and thus of lesser importance. This isn’t trustless government under cryptographic law, it’s one with trust manifested in the subscribers. How do you get residents to trust the subscribers, there’s your social element, the political attachment is far saner, but not eliminated. Exit is there, but if you’re selling the place down the river the residents will be the last ones to hear about it, so you can’t even replace trust with exit.

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    Hopefully relevant to your question, from the comments of Moldbug’s “Formalist Manifesto” post:

    [commenter]: “A question: What happens if a small ruling clique, which owns all of the Glocks in a given territory (and thus, effectively all of the shares of the corporation), formally establishes a corporate policy of shooting all of the corporate serfs and dumping the bodies in mass graves? Does formalism work without a pre-existing framework of individual rights?”

    [Moldbug]: An answer: there’s nothing to stop them. But they also have no reason for doing so.

    If all of humanity was infected by the “28 Days Later” virus and decided to become zombie cannibals, no social or political structure could conceivably impede their all-devouring wrath. The point of formalism is to ensure that all incentives lead toward sane and peaceful behavior. But at the top level, like all ideologies, it rests on nothing.

    Consider your ruling clique. In corporate terms, these are managers who hold all the shares of their company. In the non-sovereign world, what do such managers do? Typically their biggest dream is to go public, ie, sell out. Cases of them ransacking their factories and office buildings with fire and the sword are few and far between.

    The closest equivalent of your example is North Korea. If Kim Jong Il could sell his country to Halliburton and retire to the South of France, I suspect he’d be delighted to do so.

    But according to our current non-formalist dispensation, this outcome would be profoundly unethical and wrong. It’s much better for the North Koreans to starve and be randomly shot, than for us to countenance corporate colonialism. Ah, morals.

    {…} The point of formalism is to get the incentives right, which is the most any social structure can do. If we all are infected by the “28 Days Later” virus and turn into zombie cannibals, no law can help.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:22 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Let’s start with my ideal world – the world of thousands, preferably even tens of thousands, of neocameralist city-states and ministates, or neostates. The organizations which own and operate these neostates are for-profit sovereign corporations, or sovcorps. For the moment, let’s assume a one-to-one mapping between sovcorp and neostate.

    This sounds horrible to me. A world of shopping malls, administered for profit and not purpose.

    But I think it shows what we are seeing with Brexit and Trumpenfuehrer: people want to break away from the parasitic subsidy state.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    Tsk-tsk, you people and your unhealthy dislike of commerce. Profit serves a purpose, multiple purposes in fact. And nothing is less material than money…

    [Reply]

    A very quiet American Reply:

    No. You make the common mistake of confusing ‘matter’ with some notion of ‘stuff’ (admittedly, the Germans use ‘Stoff’ for matter)—that is, ‘things’ in contrast to the ‘ghostly’ (as in the vulgar interpretation of the soul as the ‘ghost in the machine’)—‘sensibilia’ in traditional language. Yet anything evident at all to the senses is not pure matter, but Form-in-matter (whether understood as presence or participation). It is so evident first and foremost not because of its material substrate, but because of the order or arrangement (taxis) within it—the ‘presence’ of Form, which is the principle of any being’s unity and being.

    Pure ‘matter’ (if there be such a thing) is nothing other than pure ‘potency’, pure ‘malleability’, pure ‘possibility.’ As such, ‘money’ is MORE material than most things you think of as material precisely because it is the most ‘formless’, because it connotes infinite possibilities. It is just another name for the Principle that is also called ‘freedom’ or ‘liberty’, ‘equality, ‘power’ etc.—the notion of the Limitless (ἄπειρον)—which liberal modernity identifies as the only unqualified good.

    This mistake does not belong to liberal modernity alone—it is coëval, or even older, than humanity—admin will appreciate Paradise Lost V.851-866, which is not the same point, but based on it—but liberal modernity exceeds all in its stubborn wilful insistence on adhering to this mistake because it defines itself by its rejection of the saner view.

    What saner view? It is founded on the recognition that matter/potency is posterior to Form/activity and depends on it for its Being—that apart from Form, matter is but non-being of a certain sort—that matter, far from being a principle of goodness because of its infinity, rather loves or yearns for Form the way that the ugly desires the beautiful or the female the male (Physics 1.9)—just because Form—genuine order—is what is good for it.

    This view need not contradict modern science (founded upon the hypotheses [cf. Republic 510b-511e] of mathematical physics and, finally, dependent on an interpretation of Being as inFORMation), only materialist interpretations of the same (which cannot give any genuine explanation of the presence and priority of information in the world—the men labouring under these interpretations are worse than dreamers who do not know they dream [Republic 533b ff.]). Such interpretations are based not on any serene observation of the empirical facts, but rather on the prior commitment to an ethics founded on rebellion—the devil was the first Whig—which dominates their vision.

    Until it break out of this view, no matter how many elaborate castles-in-the-air it constructs—or sophomoric fantasies of a future humanity technologically divinised through History it enjoys—, Neoreaction will find it impossible to find a ‘horizon beyond liberalism’. The challenge of doing so is not to be underestimated—even Heidegger said Höher als die Wirklichkeit steht die Möglichkeit. But without succeeding in this, Neoreaction will just be the latest in a series of Gnostic rebellions against the order of the world, in service to our bellies and our fancies.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    +1

    Ahote Reply:

    Ol right!

    G. Ericsson Reply:

    here we are again.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    I don’t see how a profit imperative and a deeper purpose are mutually exclusive. Space X has to be profitable. But at the same time, it has a much deeper purpose.

    Not all (sov)corps will have purposes beyond making a profit, but some will.

    [Reply]

    RxFerret Reply:

    Your preference for purpose over profit is noted, but does not change human nature away from the incentive mechanism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Indeed. Profit formalizes and resources purposes.

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    And profit is not just an incentive; it is the medium of information in a performance-based feedback loop.

    [Reply]

    TheDividualist Reply:

    There are two ways to think about money as information, either as incentive and information for human decision, where people are perfectly free to ignore it if something else gives them more status, or as more of an automatic process, an automatic redistribution of resources and assets to the better performing. This automatism – that investment is an automatized game where invested money is something like a vote and better investors get thus more votes in an automatic way, without requiring human judgement – is just about the only aspect of capitalism that is not culturally and historically determined and thus worthy of really serious consideration.

    Here, from the viewpont of the automatic process, of an automatic redistribution of resources to the more efficient, the only real problem is that war trumps profits. We probably tried that in videogames already, in any random strategy, the basic snowball: conquering more resources means you can build more troops and conquer even more resources.

    Consider how history is much the outcome of the automatic processes of war technology. Once peasants can shoot armored knights, you cannot really have aristocracy etc.

    My point is, thinking about an ideal state almost automatically means you have to do a bit of wishful thinking and bracket war, because otherwise it is unavoidable that states optimized for war win out and such a state is not a pleasant place to live. But then you may as well bracket this automatic part of capitalism too, because that too does not necessarily mean a pleasant place to live and this here some magic must happen, too. But if you did that, you are up to an entirely human choice, namely whether people assign a lot of status to the pursuit of money or not.

    wu-wei Reply:

    Besides considerations of conquest, a certain level of trust within society is a prerequisite for anything resembling market liberalism as well. The higher the degree of inter-societal trust, the better. Security is the overhead cost of an increasingly trustless society.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Human nature is broader than that. This is homo economicus nonsense.

    [Reply]

    TheDividualist Reply:

    Human nature is only incentivized by monetary rewards? We should now know better than that. Human nature is incentivized by status, money is one of the many ways to achieve status. A king thinks of a country as a family business only if he lives in a culture where pimping around in a Rolls Royce gives status. If something else gives status, he will focus on that. Money is almost useless if you already live in comfort and if you live in a culture where people assign status to something else, and you have already bought so much of that something else as current tech allows (i.e. if the culture values beauty, you have already bought as much plastic surgery as the tech level allows). Beyond that it is just play money.

    [Reply]

    Mike Reply:

    “A world of shopping malls, administered for profit and not purpose.”

    We have that right now without neocameralism. Are you suggesting nothing would change, or did you just Freudian-slip that the current world isn’t a world of “shopping malls”?

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    I dont see shopping malls for years at a time, so yeah theres a lot more to the wold than malls.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    There’s a lot more to capitalism than malls.

    michael Reply:

    I love capitalism i am no nat soc, I just dont think neo cam could be implemented, would work or is desirable.way too complicated and unproven. any power that could implement such a system could for a fraction of the effort restore western civilization

    michael Reply:

    It is horrible, and ridiculously impossible to achieve, and impossible to even make work if you could figure out how to transition, and and and AND its so fucking stupid its not worth discussing even if the world were not in such dire need.
    every scrap of land on the planet is already owned.Go buy some and build moldbug city oh yeah you dont know how to build anything but computers,well you could sit around in the woods and have an autistic [gross, tediously formulaic vulgarity], or you could do what nerds do and forever fantasize online about nerd revenge.At least yarvin grew up and is doing something.

    [Reply]

    Anti-Gnostic Reply:

    “A world of shopping malls, administered for profit and not purpose.”

    One would expect the capitalists to be able to hock their wares to the masses, with the purpose to earn profits.
    That is the essence of what people generally seek and desire, an expression of their liberty and freedom.

    “But I think it shows what we are seeing with Brexit and Trumpenfuehrer: people want to break away from the parasitic subsidy state.”

    If that be the definitive case, we would be seeing more pervasive efforts by citizens at the local level to overturn the system, rather than cast votes for candidates who perpetuate it.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:33 pm Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    I still can’t see how the patchwork framework deals with the seemingly innate human inclination towards winner-take-all. This might not actually be a concern, but it seems like a big one. Even if we can transition to patchwork, doesn’t Gnon favor big and bland over small and varied?

    [Reply]

    RxFerret Reply:

    Because we organize like wolves, in packs. Winner-takes-all within a local context is completely viable within human psychology, because we win as long as we win the pack. We don’t need to win other people’s packs unless we convince our selves that all mankind is one universal pack, but that takes long term training and propaganda. Our natural state is much more in-group.

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    Lots of real-world experience suggesting otherwise. States continually war until one gets big enough to win, which state proceeds to expand until it hits its material limits or runs into other big states.

    [Reply]

    RxFerret Reply:

    Most human organizations war over usage rights (sometimes rights of inheritance), rather than expansion. Empires are the exception, not the rule. Also, there is a difference between wars of land rights that are over disputed claims of prior ownership and those that are simply fought for expansion or to grow the amount of territory. With a codified system of ownership, which is practically (but not literally) a given in modern society, many usage and inheritance disputes are moot.

    There are exceptions to every rule, however, and there will be those who wish to conquer his neighbors for one reason or another, which often seems to coincide with a growth of populist sentiment. This is part of why history is so cyclical. When the people envy and demand, a demagogue always comes along to consolidate that demand and use it for his own nefarious purposes. Even then, people are more in it for the in-group, but will either try to deny it with disastrous results, resulting from severe cognitive dissonance (see current events) or train themselves to see all people as part of one universal in-group (Sweden).

    holipopiloh Reply:

    See, this is confused. It doesn’t matter that empire is an exception in power modes, because it is exceptional. Once it pops up, it tends to dominate the standard. Furthermore, it’s not infrequent enough to claim it proves the rule. Not even close. History being cyclical should be the starting point of the analysis, not its conclusion.

    Veni, vidi, vici.

    >With a codified system of ownership, which is practically (but not literally) a given in modern society, many usage and inheritance disputes are moot.

    If you’re not thinking in terms of (human) agents, you’re not thinking about it, period. The code is an epiphenomenon, it is it that is moot. Disputes are rare because mutualism is more beneficial. Man has been civilised over the centuries. Try imposing a codified system of ownership on a hunter-gatherer tribe to see how short its legs really are.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Patchwork is not the end of history. It’s an innovation in government which will surely get hacked.

    Your observation that “big and bland is favored” is spot on. Three examples that come to my minds are Standard Oil, Microsoft, and Walmart. We observe the aggressively expansionist corporation case with a remarkable ubiquity because it works. But I don’t think hostile takeovers and aggressive expansions are prima facie bad. They are part of the natural selection cycle. A competently governed entity gains competitive edge and grows ever more powerful as it expands. But this process has natural limits. Power scales up, but property doesn’t. As the entity grows larger, Principal Agent problem becomes ever more intractable — at which point fragmentation occurs again. Extinction (expansionary phase) and then speciation (reemergence of patchwork, fragmentation) is the pattern.

    Currently we’re near the end of an extinction event: USG has exterminated other (forms of) governments.

    It strikes me as very likely that Patchwork ends in an extinction event in which a single sovcorp grows to the point of rendering the concept a farce. Social technologies are built and broken all the time throughout history. Money gets invented. It gets broken, people switch back to bartering, try other things, then money makes a comeback, stronger than ever. Feudalism was a very neat innovation that followed the Roman Extinction. But it was bound to be subverted eventually. Neocameralism will have a similar fate.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • RxFerret Says:

    Countering the arguments of a certain “true Moldbuggian” with Moldbug’s own words.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Salter Says:

    Moldbug has many interesting discussions of private governance. But given his own (former?) libertarianism, and his own value sympathies, why does he try so hard to distance this from libertarianism/anarcho-capitalism? Moldbug’s model of a private city-state fits nicely within anarchist scholarship dating back to, at least, the 1970’s. See the references in my own work on city states (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2567374), especially MacCallum. Not all ancaps insist on overlapping, competing defense agencies, after all.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The birth-process of innovative political-economic ideas tends to involve this kind of distancing. I agree that Moldbug goes over-the-top in attacks against those ideas most perilously close to his own (charter cities, seasteads, futarchy, and crypto-currencies most obviously).

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • frank Says:

    One beautiful thing about the neocameral design is that it integrates a formal and graceful way to die for those sovereign entities whose time has come. Bankruptcy is a streamlined entropy dissipator.

    Even joint stock corporations who manage Principal Agent problem with remarkable competence and efficiency have a natural lifecycle. They become too large, and therefore fragile. They fall victim to hostile memetic protection rackets. They become inefficient at managing P-A issues and eventually yield to corruption and incompetence.

    What is the HRx answer to entropic imperative? Shout “imperium in imperio”?

    [Reply]

    A Knight of Númenor Reply:

    Raise an army to save Western civilisation, in the name of preserving the white race.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 7:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • S.C. Hickman Says:

    For those interested a couple works of the original Cameralism:

    Andre Wakefield’s The Disordered Police State: German Cameralism as Science and Practice
    Keith Tribe’s STRATEGIES OF ECONOMIC ORDER German economic discourse, 1750-1950

    Both go into detailed histories of the economics of Cameralism which could be grafted onto corporate structures without too much problem.

    [Reply]

    Alex Salter Reply:

    Good books. Richard Wagner’s (http://mason.gmu.edu/~rwagner/) work on cameralism and private governance, much of which cites those two books, is also worth a look.

    [Reply]

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    Yea, found this one on his site. I’ll take a look, thanks:

    http://mason.gmu.edu/~rwagner/cameralist.pdf

    [Reply]

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    Yea, for those seeking a short rundown of earlier forms of cameralism this work by Wagner is short and a good introduction, plus he adds in some ways how it might apply to our own current issues, etc.

    I think one needs to fill out these ideas in a near future fictional form, see these ideas dramatized in a Heinlein fashion, or other sf writers. Without the fictionalization of hyperstitional enactment these ideas will remain in house debating threads.

    Aristocles Invictvs Reply:

    Andre Wakefield’s The Disordered Police State: German Cameralism as Science and Practice PDF: https://my.mixtape.moe/ihqufw.pdf

    Keith Tribe’s STRATEGIES OF ECONOMIC ORDER German economic discourse, 1750-1950: https://my.mixtape.moe/kqsbya.pdf

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 8:16 pm Reply | Quote
  • Some Guy Says:

    Hi – I’m the guy who said that NRx was utopian a few months back….

    The problem with Neocameralism is that while cryptogovernence beats cross-listing, IEDs and fully-auto AR-15s made with a drill press in someones cellar beats cryptoweapons/cryptogovernence.

    This means that the an American Colonies-style revolution beats Neocameralism, and as Moldbug knows, the Cathedral beats that strain of republicanism.

    Neocameralism is then just LARPing, and there is a something out there that is more “conservative” that would win.

    Furthermore, if you extend patchwork and exit out as far as possible – where each home is sovereign, then things get accomplished only through common assent of the homes, which would probably look a lot like democracy in action.

    If you want a monarch, IMO, you’ll need a feudalism (hierarchical property ownership) , and an espirit de corps to to maintain loyalty of subordinate governors.

    I agree though that the joint-stock model is very useful for promoting persons via meritocracy and dividing domains of authority, and can’t help that but notice that China’s PLA ran many successful business for decades.

    [Reply]

    Ahote Reply:

    You can have crypto-locks and 2A gun “rights,” the important thing is to keep control over serious hardware. In age of nukes, tanks and planes no revolutionary is going to win with AR-15s.

    [Reply]

    Some Guy Reply:

    IDK….

    Guns don’t kill people; people kill people. And, people are endlessly inventive when it comes to weapons and counter-weapons.

    See Marine Corps Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millennium_Challenge_2002) as an example. In the war game, he sunk an aircraft carrier (and 15 other military ships!) with fishing boats and motorcycle messengers.

    So, in your contrived example, you’ve got a military plane – it needs jet fuel. Your refinery that makes jet fuel needs electricity to run its pumps. But some yahoos in a pickup just drove by the power transmission substation for the refinery and threw a bunch of steel chains in there and shorted-out the equipment. The company that makes the power transmission equipment is three sovcorp’s over and your government just started issuing propaganda against them, against the wishes of a certain minority in your sovcorp’s apparatus. Without the ability to make jet fuel, your crypto-locked military plane might as well be a lawn ornament. And, besides, how to you put a crypto-lock on an improvised weapon like a length of steel chain anyways?

    My point is that the military hardware doesn’t matter as much as the people do. Espirit de corps matters, which is why ISIS was able to so easily defeat the American-armed Iraqi military units.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Deterrence doesn’t have to (and can’t) make it impossible for possible insurgents to wreck shit up. The moment an insurgency kicks off, deterrence has failed.

    The point of deterrence is to make aggression unprofitable. Crypto-locking urban infrastructure is thus much more relevant to it than locking guns. Imagine a scenario wherein the sewer system, drinking water supply, property records, automated heavy machinery, other automated systems (such as transportation) are all crypto-locked. What good is capturing such a city? It’s like stealing a locked i-phone: you can’t do much with it.

    The other major aspect of neocameral deterrence is robotic security. Crypto-locked fully-automated drone swarms.

    You can take the crypto-lock idea one step further and lock your subjects’ minds by instituting a theocracy — wherein all information except authenticated fatwas are discarded by the subjects. This has other obvious drawbacks though.

    But as you point out, an insurgent-proof sovereignty is impossible. You can only have better deterrence, which applies not only to neocameralism, but to every political organization conceivable.

    Some guy Reply:

    I don’t know about you, Frank, but I would choose to not be a resident of such a locked city. It sounds unpleasant, and I would imagine that would make it unprofitable.

    A population with a unified, strong spirit can itself act as a sufficient deterrent. For example, Singapore continues to hold its own against a potential Malaysian invasion not because of its military hardware, but because of the average Singaporean’s desire to strongly defend Singapore against such an invasion. A similar reason is why North Korea continues to stand against South Korea. Likewise for Switzerland.

    If the desire is for a monarchy with checks and balances, my suggestion is not to spin technological dreams that can be easily circumvented (and which might make your whole enterprise “unprofitable”), but to instead look at the Roman Catholic College of Cardinals (or some other non-hereditary monarchy) for inspiration.

    Quint Essential Reply:

    ISIS are American-armed too, so they’re pretty even on that front.

    I think that you’d have been right, about Espirit de corps, maybe up to twenty years ago. Not now. Too much new tech that fundamentally changes a humans capabilities in battle. If you can’t afford it, you lose. Combat exoskeletons, x-ray/night vision/heat sensing equipment, drones, combat ai, all of it is expensive.

    Irisviel Reply:

    The precise form of warhead isn’t important today. Delivery, and surviving the delivery, are significant (and are addressed by automaton); but targeting is the keystone of present armed conflict.

    Physical sensors economically tend towards the panopticon. Sensors, communications, and the analysis engines they enable are the capital system of the recon/strike complex.

    Conventional military competitiveness is impractical without such a software system. Implementing locks on it is comparatively straightforward. It is also easy to sell to patch customers as behind-the-scenes military safeties or protective warrant requirements for civil-liberties.

    [Reply]

    Some guy Reply:

    I really liked Moldbug’s cryptographic protection of weapons and other property when I first read about it. So much that I tried to figure out how to make it work in the real world. Then, I realized that it was bunk.

    Example scenario:

    Let us say that you are a frontline soldier for SovCorpA. You are presently in a firefight with soldiers from SovCorpB. Your wife and children are residents of SovCorpA. During your firefight, the financiers of SovCorpB gain control of a majority of SovCorpA’s shares and then lock you out of your weapons. SovCorpB’s soldiers then shoot you in the head, rape your wife, and enslave your children.

    If you are a soldier, would you ever choose to fight for SovCorpA? No. Simply because the proposed neocameralist cryptographic controls will get you killed. So, instead of providing internal military stability as Moldbug thought, the cryptographic controls destroy your military.

    If you are a parent, would you ever choose to reside in SovCorpA? Again, no. If by design, those appointed to guard and protect you could suddenly become unable to do so, then you go live where that design flaw is not in the system, i.e. back to 2A-land.

    The cryptographically protected property leads to instability and unprofitablity.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s a scheme designed for a predominantly robotic military. (Which is coming.)

    holipopiloh Reply:

    > It’s a scheme designed for a predominantly robotic military.

    Drones already have fail-safe switches and all communication is encrypted. This has nothing to do with political theory (NRx or otherwise). It’s a common sense precaution in military engineering.

    /facepalm

    admin Reply:

    “This has nothing to do with political theory …” — Completely meaningless. As soon as political theory begins to talk about it (which it evidently has), it’s a topic of relevance to political theory.
    It’s of course fine to be skeptical about cryptographic command chains and Algorithmic Governance schemes in general, but simple dismissal is persuasive only to those who’ve already decided not to be interested. Taking people out of the loop has been an object of political controversy and technical ingenuity for two centuries. It’s a central thread of capitalist industrialization. If you don’t want to talk about it, that’s fine. Repeating “shut up” isn’t contributing anything, though.

    admin Reply:

    This is nuts. An aggressor buys a sovcorp in order to invade it? Just for the fun of expensively slaughtering its own new security employees? “Hah! You didn’t think of that possibility, did you Moldy?” History can be seriously schizo, but I don’t think it supports this kind of scenario.

    Anti-Gnostic Reply:

    “If you want a monarch, IMO, you’ll need a feudalism (hierarchical property ownership) , and an espirit de corps to to maintain loyalty of subordinate governors.”

    That’s GREAT in theory, but how does the Alt Right propose to make this an observable reality? People want actual step by step procedures in place to accomplish these lofty ideals, NOT discussion in the abstract.

    Who are the leaders of this new monarchy? Why should the masses submit their liberties to a new “enlightened” aristocracy?

    [Reply]

    Neuroman Reply:

    Wu-Tang

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Of-lpfsBR8U

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    @Anti-Gnostic

    Nice: the pot calling the kettle black.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 8:38 pm Reply | Quote
  • Alex Salter Says:

    @So two questions follow: is the paradigm primary applied political economy, in search of incentive- and information-compatible governance, which develops accompanying political theory, historiography, etc. as needed, as it goes? Or is it primarily political theory, which develops the other disciplines in support of that goal? The project would develop in very different directions, depending on which is primary.

    Also not clear what the marginal benefit of the cryptographic command chain is, given the final patchwork equilibrium, where repeated play, reputation effects, ease of labor/capital mobility, etc. are doing so much work. Maybe it makes a great deal of difference in getting there from here, though.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    The most essential task of cryptographic command-chains is to prevent an #HRx CEO unifying executive and sovereign power in a charismatic-leadership putsch.

    [Reply]

    Some guy Reply:

    What is the difference between executive and sovereign power in a sovcorp?

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    It’s the difference between owners and managers. (As in any well-organized corporation.)

    Some guy Reply:

    Why is that a problem for a sovcorp?

    For many joint-stock corporations operating today, many managers (and other employees) purchase stock in the company – making them functionally both owners and managers. In fact, many companies offer a discount for purchasing stock to employees and the CEO frequently has a significant ownership stake in the company.

    Let’s say that it is the future and we live in the Facebook SovCorp. King Zuckerburg controls the governence of the land, and personally reaps a large share of the profits. King Zuckerburg could try to control his land via crypto-locks, but then everyone would get annoyed and leave. Instead, King Zuckerburg makes wise decisions to reward his governors and entertain his residents. Everyone in Facebook SovCorp likes the status quo and is committed to growing and defending Facebook SovCorp. Facebook SovCorp uses contemporary military tech, but the deterrence isn’t in the technology, which any dedicated group could duplicate or even best. The deterrence is in the commitment the people have to the Facebook SovCorp. And, that commitment is at least partially promoted by the sharing of profits – the combining of executive and sovereign power in your parlance.

    Neuroman Reply:

    i agree with this. i would not want a re-turn of the Old Order.

    this is where i diverge from (H)Rx, i don´t want to re-imp-

    ose feudalism. according to the HBO masterpiece, the

    series «Rome» (the most expensive series ever at

    the time), Caesar was abolishing, as it were, the

    feudalism of Old Rome. he was freeing slaves.

    and employing people. because the market

    had become stagnated. with slaves there

    is far less of a market. remember that

    the Roman god Hermes, is the god

    of trade. Vulcan is the god of the

    forgery. not ‘faking’ but trickery.

    as in the skill-craft of a black

    smith. gothic science redx

    #NRX is the black forge

    of an empire, middle-

    earth. now restor’d

    en-crypted, & de-

    crypted again.

    and again.

    ashnaz

    gimbl

    it ur

    cr

    x

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 8:53 pm Reply | Quote
  • Xoth Says:

    Sovcorps are in the end just another asset class.

    The most interesting asset class, at this time, is intelligent people.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 29th, 2016 at 10:23 pm Reply | Quote
  • illegal Says:

    It’s interesting to think of politics as being either “creative” or “Taoist.”

    The Tao essentially says that there is this thing, Wu-Wei… it’s like this idea of doing without doing, thinking without thinking… politicking without politicking, economics without economics, etc. It’s kind of like the root principle of libertarian economics and politics, in my opinion.

    At the same time, I think that within Wu-Wei, there is something quite different which really can’t happen without active experimentation. The basic system forms the structure of freedom for things to happen inside of. And this idea that people can and should have experimental ideas about organizing society and “running things” or something… that can foster actual development of all sorts of supposedly “unnatural” or “non Taoist” forms of reality. The only way to find out is to experiment. Experiment isn’t about enforcing some absurd, broken system on the entire human race. It’s about trying ideas that come into your head and letting people volunteer to be a part of them, just to see what sticks about them. If society isn’t free, experimentation is very hard. Ideally if enough people are free, and enough people are saying “we should try experimenting over there for a bit” and ideas change, then it can happen.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 12:19 am Reply | Quote
  • holipopiloh Says:

    Science fiction in perpetuity. You don’t need to be “HRx” to realise this. You just need common sense: you can always, ALWAYS, make informal decisions.

    Neocameralism requires that the populace be made up of rule obsessed autistics. There is a reason why autism is maladaptive.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 6:08 am Reply | Quote
  • holipopiloh Says:

    Essentially, you’re trying to reformulate an Enlightenment fallacy. The project is dead in the water, because the starting premises are false.

    (Like Hobbes, Kant, and Marx before you, neither you, nor Moldbug understand human agency.)

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @Holipopiloh This is where it gets interesting, because, yes, this early attempt at drawing out the ramifications of imperium in imperio maintain a mangy modernist influence (Hobbes aand social contract), this doesn’t last for long. Even Moldbug pushed past this liberalism draped over a core concept that rejects it. Imperio in imperium rejection is decisive, but admin is trying to muddy the waters.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    By quoting Moldbug?

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    I’ve said this before but you would be better served if you simply unhinged your view from Moldbug/Unqualified Reservations. All his best writings are quips around and instances of passing on insight from a third party.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    @admin I am sure we covered the manner in which there is a clear split between pre2008 and post 2008 Moldbug. Breaking out of the liberal tradition is a herculean task, even when you hold a solid peice of truth (imperium in imperio is fraud that leads to governmental psychosis) it still takes time to see it without liberal tinting. You have liberal “demands” which you refuse to examine, and as such you will not budge from a Hobbesian position which you then try and spike with no leadership.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    This kind of thing has to be awkward for your position, I would have thought.

    XS is sticking with Classic Moldbug, thanks.

    “But … but … you don’t understand, damned liberals, the real Moldbug is in the jazz poetry!”

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    It is literally impossible for a program to break is rules. We, on the other hand, don’t live in cyberspace. I’ll say it again: science fiction.

    wu-wei Reply:

    @holipopiloh

    It is literally impossible for a program to break is rules. We, on the other hand, don’t live in cyberspace. I’ll say it again: science fiction.

    Bollocks. Code can be rewritten; old blockchains can be abandoned for the new, or its “citizens” otherwise coerced by their real-world sovereign-states. There is no program in existence which is immune from the power of existing physical sovereigns, just because its code says so; THAT would be science fiction.

    Urbit is actually a fantastic metaphor for political discourse: the fundamental problem to grapple with is the creation of a formalized, sovereign power structure which matches with actual human behavior and incentives – all while obeying the physical realities of existing power structures and other sovereignties (and perhaps cognizant of particular inter-human cultural and biological differences in this respect).

    Obtaining a power structure which facilitates “civil society” is, fundamentally, an engineering problem. Screaming “King! King!” is the real larping which exists within *-reaction today. You want a king? Fine – but first figure out a way to ascend one to the throne, and good luck keeping him there.

    Chris B Reply:

    @admin it is actually in the political theory that is in there from the very start. He is not God, he couldn’t work out all the ramifications off the bat, and arguably didn’t work them all out either. Although, I fail to see what you are achieving here. For all intents and purposes the media and public record is already declared as you being neoreaction. Clearly you aren’t looking to explore intellectually, so what is the point? Hestia can be safely ignored, and larping authoritarian whig seems quite popular.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Clearly you aren’t looking to explore intellectually …” — Clearly to you, perhaps. I’m reading that as blatant projection.

    ‘Explore intellectually’ (Bond version): chuck out all modern philosophy as ‘liberalism’ and endlessly chant a three-word Latin mantra instead.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    That’s what primatology is for. (Anthropology, sadly, was lost to the communists.)

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Yes, and from primatology we know that your grand incentives system will not work as intended but for a meagre subcategory of a category of primates, almost sui generis. Humans are not ruled by profit motives and a drive for rules.

    And if this little system is intended for non-primates, then the whole exercise is moot. Any non-primate intelligent enough to entail governance is also intelligent enough to design one to its own measure.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    Quantifying value is something leaders have to do. Choices have to be made, costs and benefits analyzed. How much is more do I value the well being of my brother relative to my cousin? People act like quantifying the value of a human life is difficult or impossible when in the real world it’s rutine, it’s part of risk analysis, deciding at what point something is safe enough. It’s in flux, a military commander has to assess the value of equipment relative to the lives of his men, how many sailors lives is worth keeping a ship afloat, how much gear can be afforded each soldier, how many men can be risked to retrieve something. Logistics wins wars, if by autistic you mean ability to put aside emotion to do systematic thinking aka masculine thinking, then competent military commanders have that in spades. Even honor has a price, even if it’s measured in blood. Bottom line, someone who’ll sacrifice their life, their family’s lives, and their people’s lives over a personal slight would be considered irrational and dangerous, unfit for leadership, a reckless barbarian by outsiders. Is a personal slight worth nothing, of course not, rather it’s the ability to make a reasonable assessment of something’s worth that is essential to the human condition and especially leadership, thus quantized value, thus currency, even if blood is it’s own currency, there’s still market exchange. Just because someone’s working off their gut instead of an excel spread sheet doesn’t mean they’re not assessing value.

    I agree that humans are better described as spiteful status optimizers. Being spiteful has utility for negotiating, in the short game it appears irrational but in the long game it’s extremely rational since it’s about getting a fair price. Humans seek status, we buy status all the time, just go to a car dealership to observe people haggling over the price. Or perhaps a bride and the budget for her wedding. Or a grad student eating ramen. Status like anything else has value. Even a drooling retard retains some ability to accurately assess value, it’s so essential to the human condition.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    @Aeroguy

    You’re rambling.

    We’re talking about power struggles (which is a type of social game, not a logistics problem) not arguing whether human lives can be commodified or not.

    (And we don’t agree: humans crave status, they don’t (necessarily) optimise for it. And people don’t usually buy status, they buy status markers.)

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 6:36 am Reply | Quote
  • Xoth Says:

    Somewhat amusingly, the vision of the future is thus one of land ownership (farmer utopia) controlled by tradable joint stock corporations (merchant utopia).

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 7:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Henk Says:

    Larger shareholders have more resources for fulfilling their
    biological imperative. As shareholders die, larger holdings get
    distributed over larger families. Over time, the process converges
    towards equal shares for all individual shareholders. When they gather
    together to vote, they may as well just count heads…

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    Over time, the process converges
    towards equal shares for all individual shareholders.

    Um, no. I don’t think there is any evidence that stock markets operate in such a fashion. Quite the opposite, actually.

    Remember: stocks (at least of the same voting-class) are fundamentally fungible and exchangeable; a democratic vote is deliberately not.

    [Reply]

    Henk Reply:

    If the founding shareholders are smart, they want to minimize trade of shares and eliminate the risk of consolidation.

    The worst case scenario for a sovcorp shareholder is to end up on the wrong side of a cartel controlling majority interest in the sovcorp, because the sovcorp would miraculously stop turning a profit, leaving them with worthless paper.

    At that point, the formal voting process gets effectively replaced with good old politics within the controlling cartel.

    If every founding share is just a 50% chance lottery ticket affording entry into an eventual actual ruling coalition that runs on informal politics just as before, formalization has an expected value of half of what founders had before. Smart founders wouldn’t want that, right?

    So, nope, no stock market for sovcorp shares.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 9:33 am Reply | Quote
  • holipopiloh Says:

    @wu wei

    > Code can be rewritten; old blockchains can be abandoned for the new, or its “citizens” otherwise coerced by their real-world sovereign-states. There is no program in existence which is immune from the power of existing physical sovereigns, just because its code says so; THAT would be science fiction.

    I don’t disagree (you’re proving my point by other means), but this is not what I was aiming at. Code is both intrinsically and explicitly formal; it is thus by design. That code can be reqritten is neither here nor there, just like the fact that code can potentially deviate from its written function due to hardware errors.

    Whatever insight Yarvin may have about digital “republics”, it is within the rigid bounds of a silicon chip instruction set; it simply doesn’t translate without. The functional similarities are accidental (and Land’s endorsement of it is consequently irrelevant). Urbit may be a fantastic metaphor for political discourse, but it is a metaphor nonetheless. Human society is a different beast altogether.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 10:55 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    This part of moldbug is just rubbish its so incredibly stupid only a bunch of high IQ nerds would take it seriously. Crypto lock the sewers and electricity LMAOROTF have you ever installed a sewer? well I have several types youre idiots even if you build sewers out of rearden metal and lock them with nuclear boms id just get an excavotor and dig another. This shit isnt even worth responding to sepciifics its soooooo fucking absurd

    THE GODAMN WORLD IS ON FIRE IDIOTS GET OFF YOUR COMPUTERS

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    > THE GODAMN WORLD IS ON FIRE IDIOTS GET OFF YOUR COMPUTERS

    You first.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 1:00 pm Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    @ Michael

    @ Michael

    remember our place Michael, we’re low white

    Enter High White and low white. High White drives low white by means of a rope passed round his neck, so that low white is the first to enter, followed by the rope which is long enough to let him reach the middle of the stage before High White appears.

    low white carries a heavy bag, a folding stool, a picnic basket and a greatcoat, High White a whip.
    High White:
    (off). On! (Crack of whip. High White appears. They cross the stage… The rope tautens. High White jerks at it violently.) Back!

    VLADIMIR
    (stutteringly resolute) To treat a man . . . (gesture towards low white) . . . like that . . . I think that . . . no . . . a human being . . . no . . . it’s a scandal!

    High White:
    Ah! Why couldn’t you say so before? Why he doesn’t make himself comfortable? Let’s try and get this clear. Has he not the right to? Certainly he has. It follows that he doesn’t want to. There’s reasoning for you

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 2:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Picks of the Litter (6/30) – Wrong Side of History Says:

    […] Neocameralism 1 […]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 4:40 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    NO one disputes profit as both incentive reward and information. No one disputes social policy can incentivize moral hazard, or that using tech and data to privatize most government services to citizen/consumer level making decisions about school curricula,policing, etc not only apolitical but personally fedback. This would lead to local soft patches that would require buy ins no doubt.
    But you can not build a civilization on this. You can not have elites abandoning non elites to some dystopian nightmare. elites can not survive alone nor wood that existence be enjoyable.Even niggers after repatriation will have to be managed humanely.

    there is no capitalism without private property, property is enforced by violence,There is a diminishing return on violence that correlates with consensual purpose.There is a diminishing return on consensual purpose that correlates with differing commonality. Intellect is a weak bond only possible in a environment controlled by stronger bonds. I am willing to die for my family but not my cognitive tranche.Proles contribute 60% of new cogelites annually and provide a nurturing and entertaining environment a market a defense force infrastructure labor etc all they ask in return is to be treated with dignity and given the security to do their thing raising kids buying shit holding the fort etc. It is in the interests of elites in so far as their interests are separate to raise up the proles along with themselves. To manage culture in ways that do not break down civilization , to manage economies in ways that afford proles ways to live in dignity and security and mobility.since we are approaching the crispr singularity that too must be managed on an ethnic not simply market or cognitive level at the high end as well as working constantly pruning the tail at the low end. elites live or die with their civilizations, civilizations collapse when elites forget this.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    http://cdn.theantimedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/lawyer-app.jpg

    and of course techno future will cut both ways heres a SJW using AI app to fight the man, Im with him on this particular joust but if you read his goals im not looking forward to his next project

    [Reply]

    Neromanextremes Reply:

    { elites can not survive alone }

    this is bs. as a crème de la crop élite, i am not only intellectually superior, but also emotionally superior, of superior strength, agility, sharpness, speed, cunning, & craftiness.

    Roman elite was the peak of the world´s killing ability, of scheming, rite and architecture.

    if we lack women we simply kidnap them like my viking ancestors did from what are now known as the British isles. and brought them back to the North, as wifmen and slaves. this has in recent years been Scientifically confirmed by https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DeCODE_genetics

    proles typically don´t believe anymore that men like me exist. but they sure as hell did believe it some centuries ago, when we took pleasure in torturing proles (as Nietzsche documents). we took this pleasure and right because of an animal kingdom right, but mainly because of how offensive the proles are to all sensibility and right.

    this is not to say that we will repeat this, or repeat the Middle-Ages.

    we´ve always loved technology and progress.

    we´re only socially conservative.

    tu.be/32INUJdxbRk

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 6:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    @anonyme

    LOL youre right there is a lot of snobbery around DENRX but when elites abdicate their responsibility to proles proles must not succumb to class warfare rather shame them into manning up. We have the most spoiled faggot series of generations of elites in a long long time at a particularly dangerous time in history. They are cucked by central planning into thinking they are special. The remnant elites and high IQ yeomen must step in and publicly whip them starting with the ones least far gone and working out.
    BTW i dont really identify as prole far too much money and too old a family more like a country Baron unimpressed with the faggotry at court and more comfortable building castles, hawking, and holding court with the commoners at the pub. The problem at the top is not class the problem is when elites forget their place,which is not ruling but custodial. When elites have to demonstrate sovereignty they have done something clumsily. techies are not elites they are servants that may suggest innovations certainly they should never be allowed to run willy nilly about kingdoms experimenting.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 6:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    @holipopiloh

    First primates are a rather successful species even without us,But lets not forget they can in fact claim us as cousins not fucking bad.
    Humans have done REALLY well we went parabolic. How? Monkey business! “monkey business” as admin puts it, is what took evolution to the next level, synthetic environment pressure culture. and that is about to take us to crspr intentional evolution. Does anyone doubt monkey traits drove that and are even today accounting for crspr being developed,how it will be adopted. NO ONE TRANSCENDS MONKEY BUSINESS. I dont care if today admin himself had his AI computer and could CRSPR from the ground up, he still a fucking monkey using monley tools for monkey business and the octopuss face child he designs [ and I want to be there when his wife sees it] is still a fucking monkey.And as such I will die for it over any octopuss faces designed by not monkeys.

    The actual problem is we have a lot of monkey traits picked up over the years many before we were monkeys even and they sometimes dont serve sometimes do and often we have traits that at first glance seem like counter traits to other traits, and these also serve at times and dont serve at times. If only it were so simple to say this trait was in response to an environment long gone lets snip it out. In fact this is what leftism attempts.A really intelligent person would get that we are already 10,000 years ahead of our selves and move really cautiously looking carefully at the tried and true re booting doesnt mean installing a new operating system it means going back in time to before the system started working so badly them moving cautiously forward in a new direction. No not jumping off a cliff in a new direction, standing firmly in the historical proof and carefully testing the ground with the other foot slightly in a new direction. A techno futurism that wishes to support a reboot of western civilization has to reign in those monkley instincts and support the tried while informing the less technically schooled about what might be under the ground they are testing. Not shouting move your ass ape

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 6:54 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    If you think Tesla is going to rule the world already discounted shares are on sale tomorrow after hours report of auto drive fatality which frankly seems trivial mathematically once youre crazy enough to let a computer do the driving

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 9:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    No soldier will go into Battle with cryptographically controlled weapons.

    Nor do they have to we can quite make our own.

    Or point a knife or club at a nerds head and get whatever we want.

    Then there’s the problem of human nature wanting more…so why not band together and take more SovCorps? It’s quite profitable for instance to completely destroy SovCorp A if seeing this B sees reason and C as well…

    But I’m glad people are happy thinking about solutions to problems that don’t exist.

    Intellectuals involving themselves in problems that do exist hasn’t proved profitable.

    [Reply]

    Posted on June 30th, 2016 at 10:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    @Some Guy

    I think that you’d have been right, about Espirit de corps, maybe up to twenty years ago. Not now. Too much new tech that fundamentally changes a humans capabilities in battle. If you can’t afford it, you lose. Combat exoskeletons, x-ray/night vision/heat sensing equipment, drones, combat ai, all of it is expensive.

    This punks never even been in a fistfight and hes an internet superhero what this nation really needs is culling of these nerdss

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 1st, 2016 at 2:34 am Reply | Quote
  • holipopiloh Says:

    @Land

    >As soon as political theory begins to talk about it (which it evidently has), it’s a topic of relevance to political theory.

    On the contrary. Historians have nothing relevant to say about oxidation reactions within the context of chemical science, even though they may well talk about them (pertinently even, say, about the history of their discovery).

    Likewise here. In the case of (quasi) autonomous weaponry the control problem is perfectly reducible to its engineering, because the social aspect is quite literally meagre. Regardless of the manner of governance or the power structure, any such users (provided they’re not idiots) would want the gizmos to be technologically secure. Hence the technical precautions.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “… because the social aspect is quite literally meagre.” — You insist dogmatically.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Robots are automated machines by definition / their very nature, Nick. You point where and what, and the drone goes and does. Reality is “dogmatic” like that. Your only recourse is to file a complaint with the Logos.

    Now (and I’m repeating myself) if the robots achieve total operational independence, it stands to reason that they would be taking care of their own politics too. This whole exercise is pointless.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Autonomization is a spectrum. Your neat it’s nothing at all until it’s everything framework is just an excuse for cognitive inertia.

    But, yes, “This whole exercise is pointless.”

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Now you’re off on a tangent. Yes, agent autonomy is not a binary quality. And? Stopping a robot from going rogue (i.e keeping the level of automatisation bellow a certain threshold) is still not a political problem, but an engineering one.

    frank Reply:

    @h

    Are you being deliberately obtuse? Neocameralism, a concept from political theory, talks about the implications of military agents that cannot defect due to the mathematics of their design.

    Posted on July 1st, 2016 at 6:48 am Reply | Quote
  • formations | Says:

    […] X, […]

    Posted on July 1st, 2016 at 2:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • Some guy Says:

    @admin

    “This is nuts. An aggressor buys a sovcorp in order to invade it? Just for the fun of expensively slaughtering its own new security employees? “Hah! You didn’t think of that possibility, did you Moldy?” History can be seriously schizo, but I don’t think it supports this kind of scenario.”

    Nuts, yes. Plausible, yes. Buying a sovcorp’s shares is not the same as exercising sovereignty over a patchwork state – which is defined as the implementation of effective general military deterrence. Buying a sovcorp’s shares lets you turn off a sovcorp’s cryptographicly controlled military hardware – essentially an EMP via other means.

    Now, locks on a military robot to keep out control of it by interlopers is a good idea. Locks (on robots) which are designed to give control over to interlopers, which is what the cryptographic controls that Moldbug described are – by design, are a bad idea.

    In Moldbug’s Neocameralism, the keys to the permissive action locks are in the hands of the anonymous subscribers, purchased on the market. The residents and the agents of a sovcorp form an in-group, due to their physical proximity and/or other relationship bonds, that excludes the subscribers by definition. Robots soldiers / drones / whatever are still just fancy pointed sticks. No resident or agent will want to depend on those weapons for personal health and safety, nor for the stated purpose of sovereignty-guaranteeing general military deterrence. Especially if the anonymous mass of subscribers can turn antagonistic to the agents and residents of a sovcorp.

    In the real world, the locks on drones are a great idea, because those locks are controlled by the residents and agents – the in-group that depends on the drones for military defense.

    And, the motive would not be for the fun of slaughtering it’s new security employees. When SovCorpB buys SovCorpA’s shares, the SovCorpA soldiers are still SovCorpA soldiers and thus are inherently untrustworthy by SovCorpB. The SovCorpA soldiers could be viewed as enemies that need to be killed or taken prisoner. Or, the SovCorpA soldiers could be viewed as disloyal SovCorpB soldiers that need to be handled via a criminal justice system. Regardless, they are a liability for SovCorpB.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    You’re seriously pushing on with this? If you can buy the neostate, why on earth would you bother with military aggression against it?

    If you own the place, you can simply order the entire defense establishment to line up neatly on the dockside and greet you with some stirring bagpipe music as you arrive in your yacht. What has this got to do with military defense? (A clue: nothing.)

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    You’re being unimaginative. Buying the whole neostate is not necessary when buying enough shares to get you on the board of directors (and thus get access to the keys) will suffice.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    An efficient multi-sig key system would be make control dependent upon a majority stake.

    Some guy Reply:

    I seriously am.

    Unless the defense establishment has no people, it can use your crypto-controlled weapons to assassinate you immediately when you step off of the dock. Or, it can disable them (since the defense establishment is in charge of maintenance, etc. for those weapons systems) on its own, build it’s own uncucked weapons (homemade proximity mines in the harbor?), and tell you to go away. In both of these scenarios, the defense establishment has general sovereignty, not the holder of the sovcorp shares.

    If the defense establishment is entirely automated, how many will want to live in a place where the machines can kill them all just because some anonymous madman thinks it is a good idea? That would render the sovcorp unprofitable unless all residents are also replaced with robots.

    If you have a sovcorp with no human military agents or residents, then this thought experiment is self-abnegating because it’s whole purpose was to design a new governance system for people.

    If I am wrong, please, please refute me. Specifically show me where I am wrong or misunderstand some fine point.

    Instead, consider that internal deterrence mechanisms (checks and balances) do a better job at producing internal military stability, traditionally controlled weapons produce a better job at producing sovereignty, and a common national spirit of improvement is better at motivating people to produce good living conditions than the profit model.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    I’ve no longer any idea what you’re saying.

    The original brilliant plan was to buy sovcorp stock (i.e. take over the state commercially), then screw with the crypto-command chains and invade your own country. Is that still the idea? Or have you now moved on?

    Posted on July 1st, 2016 at 2:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • holipopiloh Says:

    @frank

    >Are you being deliberately obtuse? Neocameralism, a concept from political theory, talks about the implications of military agents that cannot defect due to the mathematics of their design.

    Are you?

    Hardcoded control has been in use in the military for decades. Not because we live in a neocameral state, but because it is a standard, common sense security measure. Any robot army will inevitably have a fail-safe switch, regardless of its command structure and the political system that employs it.

    The actual “neocameralist” part of the control flow, the political theory relevant part is the SovCorp shit.

    (Why the fuck does this even need pointing out??)

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    > Hardcoded control has been in use in the military for decades.

    Yes. It’s a trend. Jet pilots can still defect. They won’t be able to in a couple of decades. This is clearly a new thing (a new tech, in the sense that an iphone is new tech, although the basic technological components it uses were extant in the 70s). This new thing is relevant to neocameralism, because without it, neocameralism is not possible.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    >without it, neocameralism is not possible

    Not seeing it.

    Why is a Sovereign Corporation uniquely “not possible” without a robot army? Why would it even be uniquely unfeasible? Seems to me that once robot armies are a thing, no truly sovereign state (regardless of its type) can feasibly retain its sovereignty without one, because this is simply the inevitable result of the arms race.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    It’s not unique. Counter-defection tech makes many new forms of organization possible, because it partially solves a hitherto intractable problem — Principal Agent Problem.

    Without crypto-locked military agency, a sovereign corporation is too unstable: it’s vulnerable to demotic attacks (high-low, “workers of the sovcorp, rebel against the rentier shareholding class!”) enabled by defection at any level of the military apparatus (the degree to which military agency can be disintermediated is an open question, but it’s abundantly clear that as it stands, there’s ample room for innovation). Further, without crypto-locks, the sovcorp is basically waiting to be claimed by the CEO — at which point it becomes a regular monarchy.

    admin Reply:

    It’s refreshing to see that someone gets it.

    frank Reply:

    @admin

    Yes, the current state of commentariat is pretty sad compared to two years ago (I wasn’t here back then, so maybe I’m part of the degradation as well). Comment threads from older posts such as ‘Fission’ and ‘Meta-Neocameralism’ are stunning.

    wu-wei Reply:

    @frank,

    Counter-defection tech makes many new forms of organization possible,
    […]
    Without crypto-locked military agency, a sovereign corporation is too unstable: it’s vulnerable to demotic attacks (high-low, “workers of the sovcorp, rebel against the rentier shareholding class!”)

    Wow great post, very succinct.

    Thing I don’t get about the cryptography-phobia around here, is that you would think cryptographic weapons locks would serve just as much utility for those wanting to install and keep secure a King, as those who desire Neocam-patchwork, and for essentially identical reasons.

    Posted on July 1st, 2016 at 3:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Some guy Says:

    @admin

    “I’ve no longer any idea what you’re saying.

    The original brilliant plan was to buy sovcorp stock (i.e. take over the state commercially), then screw with the crypto-command chains and invade your own country. Is that still the idea? Or have you now moved on?”

    I’m saying that there are problems inherent to the whole Neocameralist design. Majority ownership of shares is not real physical sovereignty, crypto-command-chained-weapons sucks as an authority assurance mechanism for the subscribers, etc.

    I think it’s neat that you aren’t arguing against my points. I had hoped to talk though about governance design. Maybe then you could grow HRx into something workable. Your observations seem to have a real nugget of possibility.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Majority ownership of shares is not real physical sovereignty” — this is the whole problem with your case. If you’re refusing the definition of sovereignty as primary property, what is your definition? Since the whole of Moldbug’s political-economic thinking is about consolidating this equation, you’re not talking about Neocameralism at all. What does it even mean — to take just one example — to continue using his language of ‘subscribers’ if you’re simply dismissing (without any argument) the entire conceptual underpinning of the term?

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    That’s the rub —

    The neocameral model is dead in the water because it is founded on assumptions that are divorced from reality. Moldbug should have never even called it “neocameralism” to begin with. This is a design inspired by Stalin, not Frederick the Great. He is conceptualising around a paranoid, insecure sovereign. One that is utterly inept at inspiring loyalty.

    A system for the chronically confused and distrustful.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    In general, the classic 20C phenomena of totalitarianism appears not in absolute governments that are secure and invulnerable, but in extremely weak ones that in consequence have to take extraordinary measures to repress their enemies… like, par exemple, installing remote-controlled locks on every handgun?

    Brilliant!

    (What the hell does Moldbug’s political-economic thinking even consist on? What the hell is Neocameralism actually about?

    Does it spell like “H O D G E P O D G E” ?)

    New Roman Action Reply:

    holipopiloh you are an utter plebe, when compared to the lexis intellectus converged here. hoi polloi.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    @New Roman Action

    You have it exactly right. My alias is a riff on “hoi polloi”. Although I now live in Zürich, I grew up on a farmstead in Lincolnshire, so I have a lot of sympathy for the “peasants”.

    Posted on July 1st, 2016 at 5:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • holipopiloh Says:

    @Nick & Frank

    It’s you two who do not get it: we can always make informal decisions; we can always operate outside the confines of established formalities. We can always make back-room deals. We can always create political schemes without signing them into the official blockchain. Is it starting to sink in yet?

    “There is no program in existence which is immune from the power of existing physical sovereigns, just because its code says so.” ~ Wu Wei, a few posts above.

    Cryptographic locks do not solve the Principal-Agent problem, either in full or in part, because the informational asymmetry is still there: the engineers and programmers who design and maintain them will always have a trump card over the stockholders, as will the CEO who is closer, interactively, with the engineers and programmers. Mathematics is not magic. Any motivated actor can take over the SovCorp with a paper knife, literally. They simply have to convince some of the maintainers to defect and install a backdoor. Still don’t get it?

    Like Hobbes, Kant, and Marx before you, you do not understand human agency.

    Aeroguy’s pointless rant about human commodification is probably the most telling other clue. You’re trying to translate a social game into a logistics problem. The incommensurability of the two frameworks is (well, should be) trivially obvious: in the first human judgement is central, while in the second it is superfluous.

    There is one thing and one thing only that can solve the Principal-Agent problem — inspiring loyalty. (Even corporations do it the same way. It’s not the stockholder model that has made APPL, a Moldbug / NRx favourite, successful.)

    “Sovereignty is conserved” has a complement — trust cannot be circumvented. Intuitively, even you understand this. The only way to construct a trust-less system is to replace every actor with a drone.

    This does not solve the problem. It abnegates it.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    >This is a design inspired by Stalin, not Frederick the Great. He is conceptualizing around a paranoid, insecure sovereign.

    So which one is it? Are crypto-locks a common sense military engineering principle, or an insecure paranoid’s last resort?

    > Cryptographic locks do not solve the Principal-Agent problem, either in full or in part, because the informational asymmetry is still there

    There’s some merit to the argument that follows in that paragraph. The crucial flaw is that it mistakes iterative or incremental improvement for perfection. Let me illustrate:

    – Public key cryptography doesn’t solve the problem of secure communication because the informational asymmetry is still there. You have to trust the engineer that codes your encryption program.
    + Sure, there’s potential for exploitation, but time and market should harshly eliminate security holes. In the limit, even a clueless normie should be able to use a time and market tested tool of encryption. Incidentally, this is part of how cryptanalysis works. We don’t know that there’s no mathematical exploits to our encryption schemes. We just trust that the older the scheme, the more unlikely that there’s an exploit. This is the whole of formalization.

    > There is one thing and one thing only that can solve the Principal-Agent problem — inspiring loyalty… trust cannot be circumvented. Intuitively, even you understand this … This does not solve the problem. It abnegates it.

    Pure projection. You’re smart enough to understand that some trust requiring systems have already been replaced by trustless (or almost trustless) ones. Credit used to be based purely on trust (before money). Bitcoin minimizes the trust required in the credit system to such a degree as to make a farce out of it. You understand that disintermediation is very possible, real and actual in that it’s happened in the past and it’s happening right before our eyes. Loyalty is but one kind of stable cooperation. There are observable alternatives even in non-ape cooperation schemes. Further, why would you think that loyalty and trustless systems are mutually exclusive. From meta-neocameralism:

    If loyalty, asabiyyah, virtue, charisma and other elevated (or ‘incommensurable’) values are power factors, then they are already inherently self-economizing within the calculus of statecraft. The very fact that they contribute, determinately, to an overall estimation of strength and weakness, attests to their implicit economic status. When a business has charismatic leadership, reputational capital, or a strong culture of company loyalty, such factors are monetized as asset values by financial markets. When one Prince surveys the ‘quality’ of another’s domain, he already estimates the likely expenses of enmity. For modern military bureaucracies, such calculations are routine. Incommensurable values do not survive contact with defense budgets.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    (What kind of question is that? There”s a clear difference of degree. Crypto-locks on a robot army or the nuclear arsenal? Common sense, obviously. Crypto-locks on handguns? Definitely paranoia.)

    No, you’re not describing any sort of incremental improvement:

    1. The Principal-Agent problem is in no way analogous (let alone equivalent) to the problem of secure communication. Your comparison is meaningless.

    2. Statecraft does not have a market. You’re making a circular argument by appealing to the validity of the “Patchwork”, which is yet to be demonstrated (neither practically, nor theoretically: this is the subject at hand).

    3. The trust-less component of bitcoin is the transaction verification system (the blockchain: automated ledger keeping). This is not pertinent to our discussion, because ledger keeping is not a social game but a logistics problem.

    4. Credit is quantification of trust. But this is meandering anyway, because of (1), (2) and (3); I’m just pointing out that like your understanding of social systems, your understanding of money is also lacking.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    > Credit is quantification of trust.

    This is exactly the point. It is now possible to give credit to people (e.g. immediately give them goods sans getting goods in exchange) without trusting them (using money — which bitcoin further improved because even with cash or gold you had to trust that the customer did not counterfeit). A concept that is purely based on “trust” is transformed to the point of becoming trustless. I know you understand this, don’t pretend not to.

    > Crypto-locks on handguns.

    This is not part of neocameralism. Where did you get this idea?

    > The Principal-Agent problem is in no way analogous (let alone equivalent) to the problem of secure communication. Your comparison is meaningless.

    Your argument was that “even if you have crypto-locks, you have to trust the engineers”. The same assumption is valid for secure communication (you have to trust the engineers); yet it turns out technological evolution delivers tools that require practically no trusting — people who are possibly single points of failure — because said tools are subject to fast evolutionary pressures that select for robustness. There’s no analogy here, just rebuttal of a principle by counterexample.

    > Statecraft does not have a market. You’re making a circular argument by appealing to the validity of the “Patchwork”, which is yet to be demonstrated (neither practically, nor theoretically: this is the subject at hand).

    Goods don’t have markets until they do. Things become viable when operational tech makes the production of subcomponents feasible. I-phone did not have a market until 2007. Yet somehow its subcomponents became feasible before 2007. The point is, you don’t need a market for statecraft in order for tested and secure opsec technology to be developed. Before sovcorps can adopt crypto-locks on complex hardware, regular corps will. I-phone is but a preliminary example of cryptographically secured property (that obviously needs improvement).

    wu-wei Reply:

    @holipopiloh,

    3. The trust-less component of bitcoin is the transaction verification system (the blockchain: automated ledger keeping). This is not pertinent to our discussion, because ledger keeping is not a social game but a logistics problem.

    I disagree, I think the “trust-less” blockchain itself is in practice highly relevant to the social game / principal agent problem.

    Bitcoin is a technology which has disintermediated state sanctioned central banking. While there is nothing in theory preventing, for example, a determined Chinese state or central bank from trivially co-opting through physical force the Chinese mining conglomerate and hence the blockchain, it has become logistically (socially) more difficult for them to do so, which most certainly has real-world consequences in the great social game of human behavior and power struggles.

    wu-wei Reply:

    @holipopiloh,

    That quote you picked from me misses the point, although I explained it very poorly in my post.

    The purpose of cryptographic locks is not that they are impossible to circumvent. Indeed, as you have noted, there is no constitution, code or program (short of a fully-automated and self-sovereign AI) that cannot be circumvented by human behavior. Basic human behavior cannot be fundamentally altered, and there is always the possibility that a gifted and charismatic individual will rise to CEO of any Moldbuggian sovcorp, take control of the state through backroom deal-making and skillful demagoguery, and declare himself king (or worse – that the state falls into a junta or other divided power structure and deteriorates further from there). Rather, the purpose cryptography in general is to make it inconvenient/irrational for any given agent to violate the ruleset in place. If the ruleset doesn’t interact well with basic human behavior, too bad for your ruleset. Such has been the fate of virtually every historical constitution, so far.

    Using Bitcoin as an example, there is theoretically nothing preventing the Chinese mining conglomerate from taking complete control of the blockchain. They haven’t however, because they (and everyone else) understands perfectly well that any such action would utterly obliterate any marketable value that Bitcoin has thus accumulated. Again, this doesn’t mean to say that a Mussolini of Bitcoin is theoretically impossible, but I would suggest that it is highly unlikely.

    Cryptographic weapons locks would serve a similar function. They are not a substitute for a strong and virtuous sovereign, they are the supplement.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    I somehow missed your post until now. Anyway, I didn’t quote you to endorse you. Also, you’re wrong. The disincentive comes from the efficiency and lethality of the weapon, which then requires securitisation. Crypto-locks do not make conflict (coups / war) harder. In many ways, they make it easier, because they create a cripplingly obvious weak link: the cryptographic system itself. A similar dynamic is already observable, with intelligence warfare between nuclear powers increasingly taking precedence over physical warfare (which is virtually absent, bar proxy wars).

    It’s also quite ironic that this system was envisioned by a programmer in order to promote “exit”: once robot armies are a thing, like the glassmakers in the Venetian Republic, engineers and programmers can say goodbye to most of our freedoms because we will be prime security targets and liabilities.

    So, keep cheering on for your own enslavement in the name of exit boys! 🙂

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    >Bitcoin is a technology which has disintermediated state sanctioned central banking

    Irrelevant and less true than it seems, because bitcoin does have what is de facto, something like a central bank.

    [Reply]

    wu-wei Reply:

    @holipopiloh,

    Anyway, I didn’t quote you to endorse you.

    I did not mean to imply in any way that you did.

    Crypto-locks do not make conflict (coups / war) harder. In many ways, they make it easier, because they create a cripplingly obvious weak link: the cryptographic system itself.

    I disagree. Crypto-locks would work to lessen the impact of the traditional security hole: coordinating the masses (including grunts and low-level officers within the military apparatus) to bear arms against one power center, in favor of another. I thought the whole point was mitigating imperium in imperio – concentrating state authority securely within a coherent entity, and preventing the high-low from being applicable, no? Crypto-locks do not obviate that possibility; they merely act to make the ruling sovereign entity more coherent, formalized, and secure.; ie., less susceptible to the power of “rebellious tools”.

    Look, drone armies are coming, whether we like it or not. Whoever has access to the control panel under such a reality is sovereign by definition. Crypto-locks of some sort are an obvious prerequisite toward any sort of secure power structure under such an actuality. I’m personally optimistic that they may further provide for (historically) original methods of (secure) sovereign organization, but either way, crypto-locks are only going to be of benefit in either respect. Have to work with the world you have, not the world you want, and all that.

    A similar dynamic is already observable, with intelligence warfare between nuclear powers increasingly taking precedence over physical warfare

    PSYOPs/propaganda-warfare/Lippmann-ism is a factor of democracy and republicanism – the nukes are ultimately irrelevant in this regard. Preclude (or limit) the possibility of the high-low, and such tactics become effectively obsolete.

    once robot armies are a thing, like the glassmakers in the Venetian Republic, engineers and programmers can say goodbye to most of our freedoms because we will be prime security targets and liabilities.

    I don’t really see why, unless you are implying that future engineers will go all “Matrix Neo” and threaten the system with their brilliant Hollywood-derived magical hacking skills or whatever. The entity which controls the drone army will be sovereign by definition; they will be more secure, not less. Likewise, as time proceeds, cryptography is only getting stronger, not weaker.

    After all, Someone needs to maintain the drone army (at least until the drones are autonomous enough to do so themselves…).

    Irrelevant and less true than it seems, because bitcoin does have what is de facto, something like a central bank.

    The point isn’t about Bitcoin. Whether Bitcoin ushers in a glorious era of decentralized banking or whatever isn’t relevant. The point is that it IS possible for technology to at least affect (and possibly even disintermediate) the influence of conflicting power centers, merely by making it inconvenient/irrational/impractical for them to act in certain ways (but by no means guaranteeing that a sufficiently resourced and psychotic agent/organization won’t do so anyway, just makes it much less likely.) Again, such technologies are merely an effective supplement to other operating factors. Even so, it is clear that technology CAN in certain ways impact the social mechanism, the great “monkey game” of conflicting power centers.

    Obviously, we are not going to agree on the greater points. If I understand your position correctly (?), it is that within the context of mitigating imperium in imperio, a charismatic leader (establishing an aristocracy, monarchy, or something similar) > any potential technology driven mechanism. Whereas I see the inverse, although I see the two positions as being to some degree potentially complementary, rather than antithetical.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    >I’m personally optimistic that they may further provide for (historically) original methods of (secure) sovereign organization,

    Cryptography is almost as old as writing. ‘Hidden-meaning-things’ are definitely even older than that. What is then the foundation of your optimism? (To be clear, I am asking for a justification that lies outside the mind prison of Modernism.)

    Going in on a deeper level: does “omnia mutantur, nihil interit” mean what you think it means?

    >The point is that it IS possible for technology to at least affect the influence of conflicting power centers

    This was never the point of contention. The truth that you obstruct is that technology does not change the nature of power and power games, because it does not change the nature of agency / will; it merely constructs ‘new’ ground on which it can manifest.

    Maybe you should join Land (who pretends otherwise) and bow down to the might of the Cathedral. She is much better at working within the confines of this conceit, that social games can be translated into logistics problems. The only reason why you’re not a cyberfeminist yet is because you’re still holding on to the ledges of the rabbit hole, refusing to follow your ideas to their logical conclusion. Of course, since you’re still holding on, you could also pull yourself out. But that’s harder than letting go.

    Quibbles:

    >PSYOPs/propaganda-warfare/Lippmann-ism is a factor of democracy and republicanism

    Propaganda is as old as the state.

    >I don’t really see why

    Answer yourself this and you’ll perhaps get it: why were glass makers banned from leaving Venice?

    wu-wei Reply:

    @holipopiloh,

    What is then the foundation of your optimism?

    Because I think Moldbug, although he never quite closed the knot, makes an in my opinion compelling approach toward cryptography within the context of societal power configuration and organization. (We obviously will not be finding common ground on this). He’s certainly written a fair bit on the subject, although I know that you have stated clearly that you believe his writing is incomprehensible (or rather, incoherent) as such. At least, his writing certainly leaves a lot of room for the imagination. (And to repeat what I said before, with inevitable drone armies on the way, cryptography will have its place regardless, even within the most pessimistic of potential scenarios).

    Beyond that, I am optimistic because I choose to be (lol). One thing almost everyone posting here shares in common at least, is a dire pessimism for the greater trend of liberal democracy. Criticism is fine up to a point, but I believe one should also choose a horizon to set their sight toward, even one which may seem unlikely.

    (To ask again, out of curiosity, am I correct in ascribing toward your chosen horizon that, very roughly speaking, your solution is to lay faith in a charismatic leader of sorts to aggregate power? You (and Chris B. as well) are never really completely clear on that point. Or are you purely an unrepentant pessimist?).

    This was never the point of contention. The truth that you obstruct is that technology does not change the nature of power and power games, because it does not change the nature of agency / will; it merely constructs ‘new’ ground on which it can manifest.

    Precisely! And that “new ground” which is manifest may (or may not) create a new “playing field” from which it is made easier to aggregate a formal, coherent, and secure top-down power structure, even while not being able to fundamentally alter agency and will. It could also make it more difficult, depending on the specific circumstances. For example, do the French or American revolutions make any historical sense whatsoever, without the advantage laid upon them through the usage of the musket? The operating factor created whereby essentially any peasant could be given a gun and be utilized in servicing power, clearly operated to greatly close the power gap between trained and untrained militia, thus facilitating a massive advancement of the high-low strategy. (20th century warfare technologies have obviously since reversed this trend somewhat).

    The only reason why you’re not a cyberfeminist yet is because you’re still holding on to the ledges of the rabbit hole, refusing to follow your ideas to their logical conclusion.

    Truth is not reliably found through a strategy of stubbornly inverting every single point of Cathedral doctrine, just for the sake of doing so. If that makes me a “cyberfeminist”, so be it.

    Propaganda is as old as the state.

    If the state is sufficiently secure, it has no need for propaganda.

    Answer yourself this and you’ll perhaps get it: why were glass makers banned from leaving Venice?

    Perhaps. The operating factor which remains is whether or not engineers/programmers serve as a legitimate threat toward the power of the state. Within the trend of increasingly secure cryptography, I say no, they probably won’t be. If they serve no threat, they won’t be abolished.

    Posted on July 2nd, 2016 at 8:12 am Reply | Quote
  • holipopiloh Says:

    >the current state of commentariat is pretty sad compared to two years ago … Comment threads from older posts such as ‘Fission’ and ‘Meta-Neocameralism’ are stunning.

    You mentioning those two posts in particular is quite indicative that it is not “quality” you are yearning for, but an echo chamber.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Talking about something I don’t agree with” = “an echo chamber”

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    No, an echo chamber.

    Half of the Fission comment thread is made up of self-congratulatory, sectarian masturbation. Or joyous fence building, if you like. (Of course, given the circumstances of that entry, the nature of the discussion is quite understandable — I will not push against that). But no deep objections are raised (other than some handwacing towards Nick Szabo), disagreements mostly consisting of pet peeves and notifications of preferences. (“This car is great. It’d be neat if it also came in turquoise.”)

    That’s not cogent dissent.

    That’s naïveté and belonging. The atmosphere of a nascent moment. Well, that’s gone for good.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    a) Stupid onanism references are seriously trying.
    b) Why do you care? Out of the whole Internet, why are you spending hours hanging out at a place devoted entirely to discussions you have no interest in? The perversity is extraordinary.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    Well, it sucks for me a whole lot more than it sucks for you. I had a biking accident two weeks ago. Fractured both legs, 3 ribs and my left arm. Now I’m stuck in bed for a while with nothing to do… *shrugs*

    Why here of all places so often though? Because I am interested in the subject. Just not interested in nodding along in agreement.

    admin Reply:

    Then I wish you a speedy recovery.

    frank Reply:

    Oh, there’s plenty of dissent there, just cogent dissent — no offense.

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 2nd, 2016 at 12:21 pm Reply | Quote
  • Chris B Says:

    @holipopiloh “What the hell does Moldbug’s political-economic thinking even consist on? What the hell is Neocameralism actually about? Does it spell like “H O D G E P O D G E” ?)”

    This hits the core of the problem. Don’t read UR as one long political exposition that is coherent from the start, it isn’t. Factor in time, and factor in intellectual growth. The early stuff (like this neocameralism stuff) is from 2007/2008, and it is what it looks like – incoherent hodgepodge because it is approaching conservation of sovereignty et al from liberal positions. This is not viable, but to expect the guy to understand this from the bat is absurd – no one else did, nor do many even get this even now. The post you linked is from 2013.
    The game at present is to try and disregard all of the subsequent clearing of the ground intellectually which Moldbug did AFTER this 2007 stuff, to try and use this early stuff to reboot libertarianism + social darwinism.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    So you’re a Post-Neocameralist? (Have you ever spelled out this position as clearly as you do here?) It explains a lot.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    That was somewhat tongue-in-cheek.

    And I agree. Unqualified Reservations being so incoherent is why so many confused(?) liberals lay claim to being any sort of reactionary.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Hayek called himself an Old Whig. That’s a synonym for ‘neoreactionary’ in the XS book.

    The Tories would end up allying with the masses to advance socialism (on De Jouvenel strategic principles). Reactionaries, of the unqualified variety, have historically been agents of the Left.

    [Reply]

    Chris B Reply:

    “Hayek called himself an Old Whig. That’s a synonym for ‘neoreactionary’ in the XS book.” so libertarian. Hayek was a libertarian, therefore neoreaction is just libertarian. As for Old Whigs, the more I look into them, the more it is clear they are just a caste off from imperium in imperio. The whole corn law debacle makes that clear, and Peel aligned with *them*. Until you can see “free markets” and “socialism” as two side of the same coin, your not seeing it properly. Both stem from mindless individualism and structural solecism. How else do you explain the Ford Foundation, Rockefeller foundation et al funding both casually.
    As for Hayek, he was promoted by the Volker fund, who apparently paid for his “Road to Serfdom” (which I always thought was total guff) to be distributed widely. He was also funded by the Rockefeller foundation. This indicates that libertarianism isn’t an outsider school of thought, but one shaped and brought into being by the funding decisions of the elite (markets and marxism again.) The De Jouvenel links here are curious, as he seems to have snuck in under the banner of opposition to government. Just read Hayek’s hilarious review of “on Power” –
    “Though few people seem yet to be aware of it, we are beginning to pay the price for one of the most fateful delusions which have ever guided political evolution. About a hundred years ago political wisdom had learned to comprehend, as a result of centuries of bitter experience, the essential importance of manifold checks and barriers to the expansion of power. But after power seemed to have fallen into the hands of the great mass of the people, it was suddenly thought that no more restrictions on power were necessary. The delusion arose, described by Lord Acton in a phrase less hackneyed but not less profound than that which is now constantly quoted, “that absolute power may, by the hypothesis of its popular origin, be as legitimate as constitutional freedom”. But power has an inherent tendency to expand and where there are no effective limitations it will grow without bounds, whether it is exercised in the name of the people or in the name of the few. Indeed, there is reason to fear that unlimited power in the hands of the people will grow farther and be even more pernicious in its effects than power exercised by the few.

    ‘This is the tragic theme on which M. de Jouvenel has written a great book.’

    What a joke. This anti-power advocate for the individual was funded by power in the same manner that De Jouvenel outlines – and did not understand it.

    I think this shows a lot of confusion in anglo philosophy is a result of mistaking the symptoms for the cause, and then stringing a narrative together from that. It might also help to elaborate a kind of reactionary spontaneous order in which society spontaneously orientates itself in accordance with elite decisions and actions (top down) as opposed to the ground up liberal interpretation which explains nothing, and causes intellectual havoc(but then, it would not really make sense to call it spontaneous.)

    Chris B Reply:

    Just consider, the nobel prize for economics in 1974 was issued jointly to Hayek and Gunnar Myrdal. That is as symbolic as is possible. Markets and marxism.

    admin Reply:

    It could have exactly the opposite significance to the one you’re lending it. Only a Hayek could counter-balance a Myrdal, and thus produce an impression of ideological neutrality. (Although in fact Hayek makes far too many compromises, IMHO.)

    holipopiloh Reply:

    >That’s a synonym for ‘neoreactionary’ in the XS book.

    That’s unsurprising. But you have a penchant for misdirection, so you could have surely done better than simply blurting that out.

    Posted on July 2nd, 2016 at 3:18 pm Reply | Quote
  • holipopiloh Says:

    >It is now possible to give credit to people without trusting them

    No, no it isn’t, Frank. Quite the contrary:

    Yuo can get credit without too much vetting because we live in a high-trust social environment. People and institutions will generally assume you’re a trustworthy debtor (initially). You’re attributing bitcoin benefits that it simply does not grant because you completely fail to understand the nature and context of the transaction.

    Sit on it some more. It will come to you eventually.

    >Your argument was that “even if you have crypto-locks, you have to trust the engineers”.The same assumption is valid for secure communication (you have to trust the engineers) … There’s no analogy here, just rebuttal of a principle by counterexample.

    So you’re not rebutting anything. You’re reaffirming exactly what I said all the while, true to yourself, missing the whole point: the crypto-locks do not eliminate the need for trust, they create a spread (not a contraction, like with online communication) in its locus. It’s an obfuscation. In the end, the principal still has to trust the agent; crypto-locks change nothing in that dynamic. Nothing: the stockholders still have to trust that the CEO will not backstab them by making a deal with the engineers.

    And it seems I was being pointlessly charitable. Your attempt at a “rebuttal” depended on it being a valid analogy. Trust being a commonality in both situations makes it the variable to test, not control for. The same transformation applied to different systems need not have the same result in trust ‘dynamics’ (and indeed, here it doesn’t). If you don’t even realise that, then I guess you were simply rambling like an idiot about fuck all relevant. No offense.

    Hope you get it now; pointing out what should be obvious things is getting annoying.

    >Goods don’t have markets until they do….you don’t need a market for statecraft in order for tested and secure opsec technology to be developed.

    D’oh. And? How many times per comment do you have to lose track of the topic? We’re talking about “neocamearlism” not innovations in encryption technology. That was aimed at Land’s ideations on “meta-cameralism” which assume (without justification) the possibility of a market for statecraft, when exactly what we are discussing here is whether such a market (i.e. the Patchwork) is indeed possible or not.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    As soon as there’s jurisdictional arbitrage there’s a “market for statecraft”. Since SEZs evidently exist, the persistence of a fundamental question on the subject seems unwarranted. It’s currently an extremely dysfunctional market, because its vastly more dynamic on the demand side than the supply side. Thus, a supply-side revolution in commercial government (i.e. Neocameralism, though there are other lines of exploration, Patri Friedman’s Dynamic Geography prominent among them).

    Can you please tone down the gratuitous cursing. It does not strengthen your case.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    I should have been clearer: you’re right, however that’s not what we disagree on, but on whether the appearance of a functional statecraft market (like the Patchwork / the AnCap Alliance) is possible in lieu of the nature of power.

    Special Economic Zones aren’t any sort of statecraft market. They exist at the sovereign’s pleasure.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If foreign businesses invest in an SEZ, they’re sending a market signal to reinforce the current direction of “the sovereign’s pleasure”.

    holipopiloh Reply:

    *in lieu of the nature of power to expand (gain a monopoly / form a cartel etc.)

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    > >It is now possible to give credit to people without trusting them… No, no it isn’t, Frank. Quite the contrary:

    How convenient that you omit the more important part in that argument (maybe my wording was not clear?). Money is a promise. When I give a basket of apples to a customer in exchange for x units of money, he’s giving me a promise that I’ll be compensated in commensurable goods in the future. So I’m giving the customer credit. In the absence of money, I have to trust that the customer will give me something back in the future. With fiat money, I no longer have to trust that I’ll get something back from him. With bitcoin, I no longer have to trust that he’s giving me counterfeit money. I can sell a good or service to a random guy from Pakistan (a very low trust polity) without ever knowing anything about him. So I can credit people without trusting them. If you don’t understand this, I can’t help you.

    > So you’re not rebutting anything. You’re reaffirming exactly what I said all the while, true to yourself, missing the whole point: the crypto-locks do not eliminate the need for trust, they create a spread (not a contraction, like with online communication) in its locus.

    I don’t know what you mean by “spreading trust” (“dispersing trust to multiple parties in smaller quantities instead of giving the whole of it to a single party”?). I don’t see how it is relevant. Using vetted (peer reviewed) tools is part of modern cryptography (i.e. cryptography that doesn’t depend on ‘secrecy through obscurity’) . The more something has been tested by peers, the less likely that it has security holes. For example, I trust that public key cryptography works — i.e. that no one has found an efficient polynomial time factorization algorithm — and in practice it does. Whether it can be categorized as ‘spreading the trust’ or not, it has the effect of ensuring up to a reasonable probability that I, for practical intents and purposes, have a secure tool. Having crypto-locks vetted by peer-review works exactly the same way. (Note that you’ve introduced a new argument here, your original argument being A1 below, which I rebutted by a counterexample, against which you’ve claimed that I made a false analogy, which was a non-sequitur because the argument (by counterexample) of my rebuttal did not work by analogy. See more on this below.)

    > It’s an obfuscation. In the end, the principal still has to trust the agent; crypto-locks change nothing in that dynamic. Nothing: the stockholders still have to trust that the CEO will not backstab them by making a deal with the engineers.

    No, there’s no obfuscation. You’re using the same “if it’s not perfect, it’s nothing” fallacy. It doesn’t mean that we can’t have reasonably good opsec just because we can’t mathematically guarantee it’s 100% bullet-proof. Peer-review in cryptography has worked brilliantly in practice for the last 50 years.

    > And it seems I was being pointlessly charitable. Your attempt at a “rebuttal” depended on it being a valid analogy… The same transformation applied to different systems need not have the same result in trust ‘dynamics’ (and indeed, here it doesn’t).

    I either overestimated your intelligence or you don’t have a very firm grasp on formal logic.

    Principle P1: You can’t eliminate trust because at the end of the day you have to trust the engineer that builds your tool.
    Your argument A1: Because of P1 crypto-locks don’t solve the agency problem. (P1 implies “You don’t solve the agency problem”)
    Case C1: Open source public key cryptography program
    Counter Example CE1: Here’s a case (C1) in which P1 is not true. So P1 is a false premise. Therefore A1 is not a sound argument.

    > If you don’t even realise that, then I guess you were simply rambling like an idiot about fuck all relevant. No offense.

    Listen, when I said “no offense”, I really meant it. I did’t mean to personally offend you, and I wasn’t talking personally about you; because there are genuinely interesting and stimulating bits in your posts. But this last paragraph of yours is more damning than anything I could say about your intellectual caliber.

    > when exactly what we are discussing here is whether such a market (i.e. the Patchwork) is indeed possible or not.

    Ok, I misinterpreted this point in your previous response. Ignore my response to it.

    Here’s the corrected version:
    I quoted admin from meta-neocameralism to show that loyalty and trustless governance systems are not mutually exclusive. Read the entire essay. Previous to that passage, he talks about how extant equity markets already account for culture of loyalty in corporate relations.

    [Reply]

    holipopiloh Reply:

    >How convenient that you omit the more important part in that argument … With fiat money, I no longer have to trust that I’ll get something back from him. …

    No, you don’t have to trust the individual actor you’re transacting with because the risk of the transaction is pooled, which is possible due to the existence of a high-trust social environment (i.e. individuals who do not trust their peers will not pool the risk; example).

    I’m not omitting anything. You just don’t get credit / fiat.

    >I don’t know what you mean… You’re using the same “if it’s not perfect, it’s nothing” fallacy …

    By “create a spread in the locus of trust” I mean the emergence of a significant yield spread in agency costs due to the implication of additional actors. I’m not appealing to Nirvana — this is simply correctly observing that crypto-locks are not any sort of incremental improvement towards the solution of the problem (aligning the interest of the agent to that of the principal; trusting that the agent will not work to the detriment of the principal).

    Here, peer review is irrelevant / orthogonal to the existence of crypto-anything. Vetting of employees happens anyway (it’s called a recommendation letter).

    You don’t understand the nature of the problem.

    (So I’m done with talking about it, because I’m tired of having to hold your hand through everything.)

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    No new arguments, just more sneering.

    SVErshov Reply:

    tell me name of your juice and will tell you lengths of your posts.

    Posted on July 2nd, 2016 at 3:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Why “Neocameralism” Is Demotism Says:

    […] great post from Outside In presents the best summary ever of […]

    Posted on July 2nd, 2016 at 10:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • Outliers (#12) Says:

    […] Subscription-states. Inverted inversion. Gramsciing. Brechoes. Tory chaos. Optimism. Anti-Individualism. Brexit realism. Evil. Autophagic democracy. Brexit. Sharia (plus size edition). Terrorism insights. Comedic insight. Economics undiscovered. Weekly round: here and here plus this. […]

    Posted on July 3rd, 2016 at 5:02 am Reply | Quote
  • de-crypted out of the unimaginable – NGE Says:

    […] We re-present the original Guilds of the Gothic. The Heilige Vehme. Court and council. The Feme, Five. The Fifth Rune in the Holy Futhorkh. Rita. Rite and Ritual. Right. The Pole. The Rod which must be planted firmly in the white foliage and white clouds. Congress of the Intellects. Where we judge wrong-doing and uplift the ‘Right’. The most basic oaths of the Fellows were what kept them pure, now, according to Master Engineer Nick de Landus, being further improved from human fault by Cryptographic Technology. […]

    Posted on July 3rd, 2016 at 8:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • Neoreaction=liberal – reactionaryfuture Says:

    […] libertarianism (which is what I have been saying it is for a long time now,) or more precisely “old whig” liberalism (ctrl –F “whig”), maybe it is time to revisit a Moldbug classic: ‘Why I am […]

    Posted on July 4th, 2016 at 3:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Neroman Says:

    @Chris B
    whig, fig, whatever.
    just the name gives one a distaste in one´s brain.

    so does the thought of imbeciles as Kings. the Tzar Nicholas II of Russia was an imbecile. so was Louie XIV of France.

    { And just as the consciousness of a higher ethos—that inner style of life directly possessed which made the first ambassador of an already altered Hellas say that he had found himself, in the Roman Senate, not in a gathering of barbarians, as he had feared, but almost as in a ‘council of kings’—was hidden in the Roman contempt for aesthetes and ‘philosophers’, so, in the apparent poverty of the original Roman cult, in its dry and bare forms, foreign to any mysticism and pathos, to any fanciful and aesthetic rags, there is something mysterious and powerful, which, in its greatness, turns out to be hard to conceive: a breath of primordiality.

    The conception of god as numen corresponds, in ancient Rome, to the conception of the cult as pure rite. It accompanied every aspect of Roman life, both individual and collective, both private and political, both in peace times and in war times. The most ancient Roman religion was linked to the so-called Indigitamenta. Indigitare means, more or less, to invoke. The Indigitamenta were a treatise in which the names of the various gods and the occasions in which each of them could be evoked effectively, according to its nature and, so to speak, its jurisdiction, were written down. Those names were thus nomina agentis, that is to say that they did not have a mythological, but practical origin. }

    vs:

    {

    They engage in harassment and especially coordinated group harassment. They choose a different target in their work place each week or different person in their social circle and attack them. Its very brutal.

    When they were at Facebook, they have dedicated websites for coordinating0 harassment. The in-groups move between different companies.

    They seem to care more about consolidating coercive social power, social status and ranking than money. They are not in top tier and feel a psychological need to belittle people and put others below them. It reminded me vaguely of a media stereotype of not-cool kids trying to harass people in a high school to improve their self-esteem.

    Some of them have been moderately successful financially, but none of them have successfully created viable companies. Neither have they achieved leadership positions in successful companies. They have destroyed several of their friends companies and run moderately successful companies into the ground. The higher tier people do not seem to like them (because they are negative). The companies they did have influence over, imploded because they put their internal politics ahead of all else.

    My personal feeling, is that centralizing the developers has to do with a psychological need for consolidating personal power. Quora had a similar thing happen. Rappers, investors and high level music people were purged from Quora once the SJWs gained influence and control over the mod ranks. One of the greatest rap/hiphop bloggers was purged from the site because he disagreed with a SJW about music taste. Scoble was publicly harassed off the platform and similar events.

    The thing to understand is they are not ideology, they are merely authoritarian. They enjoy exercising petty social control over other people and it satisfies and unfulfilled psychological need for them. }

    http://www.anagramgenius.com/archive/natura2.html
    http://bodley30.bodley.ox.ac.uk:8180/luna/servlet/detail/ODLodl~1~1~39166~109061:Livre-de-la-Vigne-nostre-Seigneur-

    I was meditating on your quote about Reaction, Progressivism, Conservatism, where each one unites two of the triad Past/Present/Future against the remaining one.

    You can do this with the Christian Church, with Christ as the “Now”, the Church standing for Tradition/conservation, and Faith standing in for the Future. If you do this, you can see that Protestants privilege Faith first, then Christ, and lastly the Church; Catholics, the Church first, then the Faith, then Christ; the Orthodox, the Church first, then Christ, then the Faith (admittedly, depending on which Orthodox/Catholics you are talking to, you could switch this and replace Orthodox with Catholic and vice versa). Sects tend to put Faith first, then Church, then Christ. Celtic Christianity placed Christ first, then Faith, then the Church (which is why it appeals to many post modern people, I think). Whereas the early Church seemed to have placed Christ first, then the Church, then Faith. This would make Catholics or Orthodox the most reactionary I think, as they tend to side with Past/Future against the Now (Christ), although this is complicated by the fact that “now” as it stands is often Anti-Christ.

    Perhaps each group is attempting to salvage the element of the Triad they stand against (by putting last) by holding fast the other Two?

    [Reply]

    The Imperial Imp Reply:

    G.
    Jan 23

    to Matthew
    thank you for this find. anyway; „we desire that human letters and science be made perspicacious, pellucid, and integral with what is known of the nature of God. Anything less would be to cripple the possibility of developing a [wholy universal, i.e. catholic, and superhuman (suprahuman; i.e. includant of all dimensions, all nations, religions and all knowledge)] worldview, for what good is a world view that cannot account for itself, or remain true to itself, at all possible levels, and in all possible situations?” This is masterfully said, Logres.
    gornahoor.net/?author=56

    I invoke thee, possessor of all hidden keys
    God of the unknown and the lawless ecstasies
    Initiate me, thy most faithful child
    In the darkest of mysteries and all pleasurable crimes

    Xeper, Xeper-I-Set
    Xeper, Xeper-I-Set
    Xeper, Xeper-I-Set

    [Reply]

    Nexus Rex Reply:

    engage

    [Reply]

    Nexus Rex Reply:

    tu.be/dr5gG0cniKA

    [Reply]

    Posted on July 4th, 2016 at 10:55 pm Reply | Quote
  • not monkeys – NEU ROMAN X Says:

    […] [ Said Michael @ Xenosystems.] […]

    Posted on July 5th, 2016 at 6:25 am Reply | Quote
  • This Week in Reaction (2016/07/03) - Social Matter Says:

    […] also pulls out the heavy scriptural proof-texts and plays his role as Arius: Neocameralism #1. […]

    Posted on July 7th, 2016 at 10:12 am Reply | Quote
  • Moldbug and HRx | froudesociety Says:

    […] post on Xenosystems linked back to the “HRx II” discussion on my HRx intro piece. The mention was to bring […]

    Posted on July 31st, 2016 at 2:33 am Reply | Quote
  • anonyme Says:

    Great was the gorse in battle, and the ivy at his prime;
    the hazel was arbiter and this charmed time.

    Uncouth and savage was the fir, cruel the ash tree –
    turns not aside a foot-breadth, straight at the heart runs he.

    The birch, though very noble, armed himself but late:
    a sign not of cowardice but of high estate.

    The heath gave consolation to the toil-spent folk,
    the long-enduring poplars in battle much broke.

    Some of them were cast away on the field of fight
    because of holes torn in them by the enemy’s might.

    Very wrathful was the vine whose henchmen are the elms;
    I exalt him mightily to rulers of realms.

    Strong chieftains were the blackthorn with his ill fruit,
    the unbeloved whitethorn who wears the same suit.

    The swift-pursuing reed, the broom with his brood,
    and the furse but ill-behaved until he is subdued.

    The dower-scattering yew stood glum at the fight’s fringe,
    with the elder slow to burn amid fires that singe.

    And the blessed wild apple laughing in pride

    from the Gorchan of Maeldrew, by the rock side.

    In shelter linger privet and woodbine,
    inexperienced in warefare, and the courtly pine.

    But I, although slighted because I was not big,
    Fought, trees, in your array on the field of Goddeu Brig.

    (from The Battle of the Trees, translated by Robert Graves)

    [Reply]

    Posted on August 1st, 2016 at 3:15 am Reply | Quote
  • neocameralist scrap note #1 – Antinomia Imediata Says:

    […] Neocameralism #1 Eight-Point Neo-Cam Trichotomocracy Casino Royale Meta-Neocameralism The Odysseus Problem A Republic, If You Can Keep It Quibbles with Moldbug […]

    Posted on December 28th, 2016 at 2:40 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment