The Deal

NRx repudiates public politics. Turn that around, and it’s the thesis: Politics happens in private.

Specifically — as a political philosophy — NRx advocates the privatization of government. It makes a public case for that, in the abstract, but only for purposes of informational and theoretical optimization. It is not, ever, doing politics in public, but only thinking about it under conditions of minimal intelligence security. Concrete execution of political strategy occurs through private deals.

The currency of such deals was formalized by Mencius Moldbug, as primary (or fungible sovereign) property. It corresponds to the conversion — whether notional or actual — of hard power into business assets. This conversion is what ‘formalism’ means. It’s an important contribution to political philosophy, and political economy, but it’s also a negotiating position.

Cries for (public) Action! will always be with us, at least until things are radically sorted out. They should be ignored. No public action is serious.

The serious thing is the deal, which substitutes for any semblance of revolution, and also for regime perpetuation. Shadow NRx — which acts outside the sphere of public visibility — is a political vulture fund. This blog does not want to know who, or what, it is. Its deep secrecy is the same as its reality. Our concern is restricted to the way it necessarily acts, in compliance with an absolute principle. We ask only: What does the deal have to be like?

In its essence it is this: Stand down effective capabilities for regime preservation in exchange for primary property stock. The form thus indicates the relevant principals — holders of the keys to hard power. What is on offer for them, as NRx develops in reality (the shadows), is formalization of their implicit social authority, through the emergence of a new — ultimate or ‘transcendental’ — commercial medium. The whole of Neocameral transition is realized through this.
“Turn everything you have into rigorous code, and everything changes. We can help with the technicalities.”
“Why should I do that?”
“It will be worth it.”

That’s the vulture fund aspect. Hard power capability is systematically under-valued under conditions of Cathedral-demotic degeneracy, since it is squandered on the ever-more inefficient preservation of an insane religious establishment — the Atheo-Oecumenic Ecclesiocracy — and compensated accordingly, from the charred scraps of chronic policy disaster. After dysfunctional domestic social programs, election buying, and Jacobin foreign policy crusades have been paid for, what remains to reward competent governance?

Administrative capability is slaved to the Cathedral, which means to a zealous pursuit of impossible objectives, and thus accelerating waste. As a business opportunity (“We can help with the technicalities”), the attraction of defection grows, therefore, in strict proportion to the triumph of progressivism. This is critical, because the threshold risks of transition are immense, and the deal has to cover them.

The Cathedral is the Peoples Temple.

ADDED: The Political Omnivore responds (to the twitter precursor).

January 23, 2016admin 49 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Neoreaction

TAGGED WITH : , ,

49 Responses to this entry

  • Brett Stevens Says:

    At least it’s simpler than the open market for votes. Right now, we pretend votes aren’t bought, and then politicians trot out the promises of bennies to lure the voters.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “So, get real about transition strategy.”
    “OK.”

    How do things get from A to B, assuming that any path involving a collision with loyal state security forces is utterly impractical? Unless hard power agencies defect, nothing is workable. The appendix then: how to incentivize defection persuasively? IMHO, that’s pretty much the whole of what NRx — as concrete political theory — is about. (Already, solidly, with Moldbug.)

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    WNs are offering WMs limited sovereignty back its getting tempting

    [Reply]

    freihals Reply:

    Getting from A to B has always been where the forehead hits the brick wall. I´ve thought about it and conversed with others about it–to do this you must have a path. The straightest line to B is squarely through the state´s apparatus–>¨ assuming that any path involving a collision with loyal state security forces is utterly impractical?¨ It very much is impractical, more probably deadly…at least for now.
    Tools are means and means are not evil. Progressivism effectively used institutionalized education over the last 150 years to make radical agenda change. Education can be a path to tunnel around the rot of the structure. Quiet, decentralized networks of information exchange. We must whisper into the ears of those behind the curtains.
    It should begin with a whisper, unnoticed inoculation is the most effective.

    [Reply]

    Anonymous Reply:

    How exactly does NRx intend to “whisper into the ears of those behind the curtains”? By sending them emails and linking them to excruciatingly verbose Moldbug blog posts?

    admin Reply:

    Because, of course, there’s no way at all for the NSA to find out what NRx is proposing.

    R.J. Moore II Reply:

    I think there is no way the NSA actually cares what NRx is doing. Good lord, we’re like aliens to the Cathedral, they don’t even know what to think of us (when they do, which is rarely).

    Posted on January 23rd, 2016 at 4:12 pm Reply | Quote
  • G. Says:

    ” Hard power capability is squandered on the ever-more inefficient preservation of an insane religious establishment”

    Remembering that productivity is also a form of hard power, this is the modern diagnosis in a nutshell.

    [Reply]

    G. Reply:

    We have met the paperclip maximizer, and it is us.

    [Reply]

    G. Reply:

    We are tiling the universe with social justice and ‘the conversation’

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2016 at 4:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • TheOmnivore Says:

    I’m innately suspicious of the deep-state and invisible politics–not because I don’t think politics happens in private–but because I think that when we don’t know what’s happening our innate biases fill in all kinds of untrustworthy things that we can’t correct for (yes, even with less wrong filters).

    That said, I’m still investing in QASM as soon as I get a chance.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    you needn’t be a trusted adviser pre collapse just own a few which is why I keep calling for an intelligence agency to be set up.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2016 at 4:48 pm Reply | Quote
  • Orthodox Says:

    The average soldier is still a white guy from the South. Forcing a Constitutional crisis, where the military must make a binary decision between following the President or the Constitution, seems more likely over time. Obama would not be gutting the military leadership and replacing it with incompetent hacks otherwise.

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    The Constitution is whatever the Supreme Court says it is (because they said so and no one’s challenged them on it), and the Supreme Court is at best (without counting defections which seem to always swim left) just a 25 year rolling average of the POTUS. The US military eats out the hands of their civilian overlords and as a system is physically unable to operate without civilian guidance. Military rank is mere instrumental power, agency is reserved exclusively for civilians. The revolving door to the MIC and associated deep state politics does however touch on the real (thus the purging and mandatory diversity). US military men take the opportunity to exercise real power when they exchange their service dress for a suit.

    Hypothetically if you actually did want to see a US military coup, the first prerequisite would be turning the various service branches purple aka unified into a single joint fighting force under a shared military chain of command with a single military commander in direct command over all. The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs is merely an adviser to the President, he doesn’t have any armies or navies at his direct command (from la wik “he is prohibited by law from having operational command authority over the Armed Forces”).

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2016 at 5:02 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    you know I bet a socialist would buy the code you hang him with. Show him how to free up funds for SJ by outsourcing government into irrelevance and he will give you a contract.As his project make him more desperate for cash he will sell off more of the estate, its already going on only NRX aint buying Goldman is.USG will protect Goldman as long as it still has something to sell them, Goldman expects they can make a deal with the next guys.
    In the meantime Bloomberg says hes running independent if its trump v sanders ballot.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2016 at 6:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    Politics happens in private.

    Specifically — as a political philosophy — NRx advocates the privatization of government.
    —————–
    Isn’t that a form of libertarianism? The question is how much or what should be privatized

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2016 at 7:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • Stirner (@heresiologist) Says:

    If the code you were talking about was actual Ethereum code, this entire post would be far more credible.

    Shadow NRx cutting a deal with the deep state is a hard sell, unless Erik Prince and a few other tech billionaires are secretly NRx bloggers.

    Now if NRx were to begin to actually *formalize* governance by coding the ruleset of a Distributed Autonomous Organization, it would have a credible example of their expertise and demonstrable superiority of their prescriptions. The ownership and decisionmaking processes would be formalized and obvious, and the rules for how the DAO would operate would be hardwired into the blockchain of the organization, only able to be changed by the formal process that is in place.

    None of this “trust us, we are smart and wise” bullshit – instead there would be open code for anyone to examine and know exactly what the rules are, how exactly they are going to be executed.

    Perhaps this DAO starts off small, offering escrow services, or some sort of pooled risk insurance fund to help AltRighters protect from Doxxing attacks. Perhaps develop a digital currency for the AltRight that could help channel financial resources to AltRight institutions without running afoul of USG (and give the people in the AltRight a means of asset preservation and exchange as the West goes all Weimar Republic).

    The nation-state was fuelled by the mass distribution of vernacular languages because of the printing press. Now it is the age of the internet, and the nation-state system is looking entirely less healthy or even sensible.

    Don’t Reboot, instead Disintermediate. Systematically develop and offer superior government-type services in the form of Ethereum type digital services that replace Law and Governance with computer Code.

    Moldbug didn’t try to reboot the internet by cutting a backroom deal with ICANN, instead he went off to go build Urbit and subsume the Internet with a superior solution. Perhaps NRx could take a hint from its founder about how to actually formalize a reboot. Just saying….

    [Reply]

    Aeroguy Reply:

    What epistemic methodology and metaphysical assumptions would the weak AI produced by this sum of code use? You are after all outsourcing judgement to code, so it would need these sorts of things addressed and thus a consensus of users backing it. Or would it merely be yet another Whig attempt at codestitutional separation of powers? The code, it’s whatever the admin says it is, or rather it’s a product of the consensus of the users, maybe it’s the sum synthesis of what the best programmers have come up with to date.

    Power is conserved, you could build a strong AI and make it your lord and master, or it is in the hands of men. The exercise of real power is exclusively the domain of those with agency, thus power can’t be safely contained in some code, the code is the tool of someone with agency who wields real power. Whigs make power into a commons and produce a tragedy of the commons. To privatize power is to not only make explicitly and formally clear who has power but to establish and most importantly guarantee personal ownership over that power.

    I’m not against code entirely, it can be used to replace the bureaucracy and preserve power in the proper formal institution of sovereign power. Thus obsoleting the clerk and hence the elevation of low to the workings of state. Code can be used to keep track of who’s supposed to have what power, and in a reactionary system that power is privately owned. However code by itself is not enough to guarantee power, power is guaranteed by strength, guile, wisdom, charisma ect (having heaven’s mandate aka being worthy, something for which there are no shortcuts).

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    one of advantage to have the whole concept coded and mathematically modeled in SD is that you can run your model in emulation mode and provide policy consulting or effectiveness evaluation. also it can be used on backuped data sets to demonstrate how more effective NRx solutions can be. many opportunities for running addon services to the core group.

    [Reply]

    R.J. Moore II Reply:

    This sounds like sheer nonsense to me. Read Mises?

    [Reply]

    SVErshov Reply:

    read Forrester, Meadows?

    R.J. Moore II Reply:

    Nope, but there are vast methodological problems with treating historical data as useful for mathematical extrapolation of future events. People have agency, and while I am a determinist, agency involves ratiocination and many other things which are not quantifiable vectors (unless you have a magical supercomputer that can computer the entire Universe).

    foam Reply:

    @Stirner

    In my reading of the post the code is Ethereum, or what is to follow.

    “What is on offer for them, as NRx develops in reality (the shadows), is formalization of their implicit social authority, through the emergence of a new — ultimate or ‘transcendental’ — commercial medium. The whole of Neocameral transition is realized through this.”

    Blockchain and lack of third party is the “transcendental” here.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2016 at 8:09 pm Reply | Quote
  • grey enlightenment Says:

    There seem to be a couple approaches: incrementalism (the one I favor) , subversion (also a good idea and related to the first), or starving the beast/collapse. hestiasociety.org suggests buying out stakeholders, but this would assume NRx is in a financial position to do so, and or gains sufficient power to have upper-hand in bargaining, and that said companies oblige. Doing this would be tantamount to mass socialism many magnitudes worse than 2008 bank bailouts, possibly causing inflation and economic collapse.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2016 at 8:14 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Deal | Reaction Times Says:

    […] Source: Outside In […]

    Posted on January 23rd, 2016 at 9:05 pm Reply | Quote
  • S.C. Hickman Says:

    If the government was incorporated with stocks, instead of bond, with shareholders, rather than congress, and a C.E.O. bound to successful initiatives things might run like clockwork or at least if it fails no one would be there to bail the suckers out. It would be a political economy alright, one that would be run by shareholders demands for efficiency, quantified measurements, and resource depletion. No more tax loop holes, no taxes at all… just investment allocation, marginal shares, trades for highway upkeep, schooling, hospitals run on cost efficiency based on cost analysis and streamlined boards and regents. No more waste in public services, just the incorporation of each state in the union as tributary fife independent and decentered; yet, ruled by computational and functional, stakeholders. No more prisons, no more social ills because each and every citizen would belong to a corporation. You screw up your out. With no guarantees people would be forced to enter the market place intelligently. What of the malformed, the sick, the lame, the disadvantage? You’d have to enforce a secondary system of private trusts, philanthropies, etc. Freedom? If you’ve read the history of moral law freedom comes with a price: education and commitment, once you decide on a course of life your fairly well hooked into deterministic paths of lucrative resilience. No escaping into the wilds of animality, that was nothing more than instinctual slavery at best.

    Let’s face it would you rather live in a society of freedom and open competition, or a society ruled and governed by some external tribunal and normative rules and regulatory elitism of inclusion/exclusion? The only thing equal in life is simply that you were born, everything after is and has always been hierarchical, a ranking system. One can bellyache all day long but nature was never natural, we’re all artificial now and the laws of algorithmic culture of code/decoded are based on intelligent decisioning and good old fashioned luck…

    Would you rather fall into chaos and let the small time grunts and bad assess rule your butts like the street gangs, or take the helm and build a viable corporate global state? There really isn’t any alternative. In the coming age one will have to choose. Even such radicals as myself realize the game is going to intelligence not stupidity, and all the Bernie Sanders of the world will only bring us into dominion and slavery not freedom and integrity. The Cathedral may be cracking in the seams, but what that indicates is their running scared, and when they run scared they’ll stop and nothing to keep their power. Which means they’ll play the snake in the garden as long as they can, promising the moon and giving you the cesspool stench of death. No one wins under that.

    As Land’s said repeatedly the machine is on runaway acceleration, but the train is being guided by zombies rather than anyone who knows how to fuel the future…

    [Reply]

    R.J. Moore II Reply:

    One problem you face are large numbers of substandard people who are incapable of adapting to modern society, at least in a way that allows them a competitive social standing and comparable standard of living to their neighbors (i.e. Lothrop Stoddard); as well entire swaths of the human race(s) may fall into this category, often delianated by obvious ethnic and racial markers. This amounts to a de facto caste system and the typical agitation of losers against their betters. I mention this because any transition into privatized, discriminatory government is going to have to deal with many people who are currently allowed to live wherever they like and who will never find a place in that system. For this to be sustainable you need a populace that is vastly more Faustian. Of course, well run corporate states have little to fear from dumbass hordes, but it’s the hybrid nations that will Hiroshima you if you gain too much traction (even if you get a successful SovCorp running).

    [Reply]

    Xoth Reply:

    Perhaps one can spin off nonperforming assets?

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    Exactly correct. Or they can sell the NPA to a holding company under their parent’s umbrella.

    R.J. Moore II Reply:

    From a corporate management perspective it presents no problem, but once empathy and the military/physical power of large numbers of semi-civilized people is brought into the equation things change. Africa may be no threat to Singapore, but Malaysia is, and the empathy/envy governments of crypto-castes (like Mexico) are capable of sending over hordes of expendable nobodies armed with weapons that vastly more intelligent elites invented. Modern population growth was the main problem to the old Rx and also to NRx, not just that there are so many people but that such a huge ratio are really terrible people.

    Grotesque Body Reply:

    @RJ Moore

    My information predicts that Malaysia would get quite thoroughly shish kabobed in the event of any military confrontation with Singapore, hordes of brown people and hypothetical Battle for Helm’s Deep situations notwithstanding. We’re not there yet, although we’re on our way.

    R.J. Moore II Reply:

    I’d agree if we were talking N. Korea v. S. Korea, but Singapore is so tiny that you could literally replace the entire population and destroy every military emplacement with a few artillery strikes. Sing. has a vastly superior military, which unfortunately is all concentrated in tiny little areas that can be easily destroyed with large numbers of Vietnam-war era artillery barrages. Now if Singapore were the size of Indonesia, or even Thailand, they could probably stop the whole ChiCom army and air force on their own. The problem is getting a critical mass of super-par human beings who are not from completely hostile cultures (which, in America, would mean at least 1/2 of whites would have to be excluded, ie Red v. Blue tribalism) not to mention the various imported types. And, of course, even a lot of really terrible countries (legally or human stock) have an elite who are way further to the right of the bell curve and can lead/equip these apelings with some competence.

    Different T Reply:

    If the government was incorporated with stocks, instead of bond, with shareholders, rather than congress, and a C.E.O. bound to successful initiatives things might run like clockwork or at least if it fails no one would be there to bail the suckers out.

    These assertions are not necessary. If Gov is run like a corporation, you would be better served looking at how corporations behave today. Corps get “bailed out” by other corps quite often (and Govs bail out other Govs for a variety of reasons, some of which would probably still qualify for your SovCorps).

    No more prisons, no more social ills because each and every citizen would belong to a corporation. You screw up your out.

    You bring up an important point. Ownership of people. In a certain sense, the USA already owns its citizens. But would a SovCorp make this far more explicit? And if so, what happens to Exit? This is the big question about Patchwork that has not been addressed. Especially when proponents of Patchwork are also proponents of genetic engineering. Monsanto has shown what IP law can be applied to thus far.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    “Ownership of people.” — The Capitalist tendency is exactly the opposite, towards outsourcing and replacement of management with product / service contracts. Traditionalist criticism (aimed at the dissolution of organic sociality) strike me as far more plausible than this kind of anti-corporate paranoia.

    [Reply]

    Different T Reply:

    “The Capitalist tendency is exactly the opposite, towards outsourcing and replacement of management with product / service contracts.”

    Based on what observations or theory? That may be how Capital behaves towards humans within the current legal framework, but why would this be the case in a different framework (which is what you want). Monsanto patents its genetic modifications to make a profit. Parents have rights over their children.

    “more plausible than this kind of anti-corporate paranoia.”

    Have you studied the origins of “legal ownership?” If you had, you would see why the question of reproduction is the central origin. Yet, you assume the same structures can remain in place when this central issue is decided differently.

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Fine. Outsource Shanghai then.

    BTW outsourcing is 90s forward and is NAFTA and GATT.

    Posted on January 24th, 2016 at 2:23 am Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    the average prole doesn’t even want democracy unless someones egging him on hes wants to raise his family with dignity and security. 1775-76 take your pick was pretty good white male property owner over 25 made the decisions. and made pretty good ones cause it was their property.OK so democracy got expanded and that didnt work out we know the problem now and thanks to the cathedral we know how to control everyone. the only real problem is our elites have lost their minds everyone else knows this and no one would care if they strung hillary and merkle up and rolled everything back to 1776 as long as they got good govt and dignity and security. ok maybe we would have to string a few others up but that sort of message get received real quick.

    [Reply]

    low income low status low brow juvenile reader Reply:

    as a modestly above-average prole, i agree completely with this

    [Reply]

    vxxc2014 Reply:

    Go mike.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 24th, 2016 at 3:12 am Reply | Quote
  • R.J. Moore II Says:

    Reminds me of what my friends and I call our idea for an anarcho-fascist paramilitary LARP – the League of Shadows. Basically, if it’s overboard private ownership you get Batman, Inc. If it’s parastate, it’s League of Shadows.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 24th, 2016 at 7:41 am Reply | Quote
  • R.J. Moore II Says:

    I’m not sure how it would have worked in their particular situation, but if the old Juden HAD latched on as strongly to ultra-nationalism or civic libertarianism as they did to Commie-Homosexualism there probably would be a lot less of the Anti-Semitus lobby. Also, history would have been a lot different.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 24th, 2016 at 7:44 am Reply | Quote
  • Jefferson Says:

    NRx: “your religion is destroying civilization.”
    Levers of power: “burn heretics!”

    MM begins with a critique of the modern order as being a religion with maladaptive holiness vectors. NRx dies offering an engineering fix. If you want to implement your engineering fix, it needs to be in the form of a religious conversion. See: Torah, new testament, etc.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    Curt Doolittle disagrees. I’m not sure whether he’s solved an age old problem or if he’s doubling down on founders’ mistakes though.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 24th, 2016 at 3:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • Warg Franklin Says:

    Yeah this is basically the plan. Esoteric NRx is happening. You don’t want to hear about it, and it doesn’t want to be heard about yet. Exoteric NRx though, in my humble opinion, ought to focus on building the “sales” team. In other words, build some of the ideological, human, intellectual, social, and organizational capital that will have to be utilized to pay the transaction cost. And further, NRx should focus on building the intellectual foundations of how exactly you “help them with the technicalities”.

    In theory, it’s as simple as presenting a better deal to the right people. In practice, that deal has to be articulated and ready to go, those people need to be educated of the correct way of thinking about these things, and the deal has to be pushed through the Byzantine processes of old-system decision making. Possibly with a bit of a forceful push.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 24th, 2016 at 10:36 pm Reply | Quote
  • vxxc2014 Says:

    Skynet as Hedge Fund?

    The Deal is we’ll code your fortunes and society so the entire world and everything in it along with everyone is shares in a giant hedge fund. Now they may get some psychopaths to toss them some money. But it’s no path to power, it doesn’t even get you in the lobby of power.

    Power over people requires people. Whether by arms or votes.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 24th, 2016 at 11:29 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anonymous Says:

    @Brett Stevens

    @admin in that case, the logic becomes quite fuzzy.

    Why exactly would the NSA need “help with the technicalities” and make a deal with shadow NRX?

    Hard power seems quite technical.

    For example the U.S. Navy invented tor.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 25th, 2016 at 8:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Anonymous Says:

    @
    Do you honestly believe NSA employees, having become aware of NRx through their domestic surveillance activities are going to start discussing blog post from xenosystems around the water cooler? Intelligence agencies don’t strike me as terribly ideological or meta-political environments.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    Why would the NSA discussing Xenosystems posts be any part of this? You think I’m imagining being involved in the deal? Give me a break. This is about political philosophy, not idiotic pretensions to activist significance.

    Not only do I not want to be involved, I don’t even want to read about it in the media. It’s for the shadows to sort out.

    [Reply]

    Posted on January 26th, 2016 at 3:51 pm Reply | Quote
  • The Hydra of Doubt – ossipago Says:

    […] of proof here?  Some transcendental lawmaker?  The Royal Society?  Richard Dawkins?  The Atheo-Oecumenic Ecclesiocracy?  The […]

    Posted on August 19th, 2016 at 5:46 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment