Linguistic barriers are barriers to memetic spread. It’s unlikely that Modern English could be removed entirely, but if there’s a properly thedish language that isn’t English, English-language memes are marked as elthedish. This is already intuitively understood in the case of dialects: Bush adopted a Texas accent for a reason.

Imagine that populace A happily lived in high-end real-estate (nice weather, ample water, nice infrastructure) region A under authority A. Most of this group was happy with the policies; those unhappy (enough) left for some other region. Imagine that Authority A converted to bizarro ideology B and began enacting policies not in line with populace A’s interest. In the situation, populace A could abandon the high-end real-estate region or remove authority A. The removal could be justified on the grounds of a loss of heavenly mandate (in which case authority A is seen as an employee of heaven but evaluated by the people) or poor stewardship (in which case authority A is seen as a direct employee of populace A). Now, you would that populace A, or the majority thereof, simply abandon region A — despite doing so not being in this populace’s interest. From the perspective of power: “why?”

One might reply: “Granting the power logic of collective coercion, grants the logic of full blown collective egalitarianism” — as if the former teleports us onto a run away logical freight car headed into oblivion. To me this is all too Western: philosophical fanaticism (taking an idea either/or and then to its logical extreme). Nonsense — principles are instincts, the compromises between them; the rules are subject to continual evaluation reevaluation, situation depending. Democracy can represent an interesting compromise between the individually powerful and the individually weak made powerful via collective action. It can also represent a great stupidity, when it is taken for something other than what it is. With neocameralism, as seemingly formulated, you are just dancing from one insanity to another, driven by the underlying madness of philosophical fanaticism, more specifically a rationalist model of moral meta-philosophy. (Why even want to eliminate moral-political argument, viewed as power struggle and negotiation?) Democracy, properly understood, is a truce. In light of current events (within the last century), a renegotiation should be demanded (– but by whom?) Neocameralism is not that, though it’s an idea to work with. Before discussions can even proceed, though, a realism about moral-political philosophical, akin to a political realism, is needed. If the realization of this realization is not a part of the dark enlightenment, then an even darker one must be had.

I don’t understand where you’re going with this. How would it be to my advantage to become fluent in German?

(A revival of German in America would be a step toward patchwork. Or, hell, Latin. Anglish isn’t as effective, but it’s easier. Slightly. It could be made useful through extensive calquing of German. But at that point, why not just revive Old English? At least it has case.)

—-

Maniġreordodnisforþende Hwiggas (heh) ne cnǣwþ hwæt hiē dōþ. {Hwænne ēac|ġif ænliġ}* þā Pennsylvanisc ond Texanisc sprecen** ġiet*** Þēodsc…

* I prefer to fill in the gaps in the grammar with German calques (that is, whatever dict.cc spits out, since my German has gone to shit), but it’s also possible to borrow structures from Modern English.
** Past in ModE, but present subjunctive in OE. I think.
*** Not sure about this, but it seems to be the least bad option.

One day for lunch his buddy Sam and he go for chicken, take the usual route they’ve taken for years, but this time something happens. Their in a wreck. It’s like slow motion for Charley, like he is turning in a vortex, moving without moving, the truck their in tumbling out of control as a semi ran a stop light and slams into them. In the midst of this something happens, Charley seems to phase shift, to suddenly feel like he’s in a slow motion movie moving backward not knowing what’s going on. Then he blanks out. The next thing he does is wake up in the hospital. The people around him are not his family but strangers he’s never met before, who seem to know him and call him by name as if on familiar terms. Charley asks about his friend Sam, but the people look at him and each other not knowing what to say except: “Sam, who’s Sam?”

It goes on like this with Charley perplexed that he’s among strangers, that they have no clue about his friend, that the Doctors are treating him for a sickness not a car wreck, etc. He’s basically lost in another realm without knowing it. It’s as if it is his world but just a little different and he can’t figure just what is different. He asks to see his family and is told that he has none, no wife, no kids, no living relatives, He begins to rage, cry out in anger, etc. They give me a tranq to calm him down, He falls asleep. When he awakens he grabs his clothes and sneaks out into the world. He notices right off the bat he’s not in Texas anymore.

on it goes… sf – political allegory – modern urban myth – you name it I’m feeding the horse everything along the way…

“One point that has to be emphasized with renewed fervor is the absolute priority of territorial fragmentation to any line of NRx discussion which begins to imagine itself ‘political’”

The NRx is not quite yet beyond the political. It is a step outside of the overton window into politics that would be considered thought crime. There is something else hiding in the ether. Something represented by those 3 letter NRx far more than the phrase neoreaction. There is a phase shift but first one has to accept the heritage and the fulcrum from which is the old thing in new flesh is standing on.

“Universalist models of the good society are entirely inconsistent with NRx at its foundations, and to turn such differences into political argument is to have wandered hopelessly off script”

Wandered? The NRx’s foundations are indeed apolitical, but also purely political in its study of power, as they extend past the normal limits of such conversations. The discovery of this started as politics incarnate though. One would do well to not forget this.

“The whole point of neoreactionary social arrangements is to eliminate political argument, replacing it with practical problems of micro-migration.”

Not particularly. This is the goal of patchwork enthusiasts. You will never eliminate the political argument. For power will always be the prime factor of human relations. You may shift the leftist abomination of modern political discourse, but there is no eliminating political argument and there is certainly nothing practical in ignoring them.

“Facilitating homelands for one’s antagonists is even more important than designing them for one’s friends.”

Not really. One has to judge. Order in chaos. However doing ones best to force the enemy to live within his bosom is a titanic mistake that r-types wish to harness for a form of cultural suicide.