Transcendental Anarchy

This, from NBS, is perfect.

Asked (by Garrett Gray): “What reason is there to think there’s an irreducible anarchy between sovereigns?” he responds —

Suppose there is no anarchy between sovereigns. This means there is a law governing sovereigns. Which means there is a sovereign over the sovereigns. Which means that the sovereigns weren’t sovereign. Which is a contradiction. Therefore there IS anarchy between sovereigns.

This insight is already the solid foundation of IRT, but it’s surprising how few seem to clearly get it.

September 15, 2016admin 92 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Political economy

TAGGED WITH : , ,

92 Responses to this entry

  • Dark Reformation Says:

    When I was Uni, a student said to the professor “So Hobbes was a naturalist?”

    Professor: “well he wasn’t a bird watcher.”

    He sure did watch those monkeys though.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2016 at 4:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • Dedicating Ruckus Says:

    Seems “sovereign” vs. “non-sovereign” (similarly “primary” vs. “secondary” property) isn’t quite binary, but a continuum.

    Moldbug pointed out most modern (nominal) states are not fully sovereign, due to being beholden to US Cathedral. But this isn’t binary; rich high-IQ Cathedral-influenced states (Europe, Japan) are “more sovereign” than pure clients (lots in Africa), due to having more local resources to fall back on and thus more options to resist Cathedral pressure. Similarly, there are different domains of sovereignty; a country could have little intellectual sovereignty, in that its information organs and status hierarchies are largely Cathedral-dominated, while still having a powerful locally-controlled military, or vice versa. And of course all these things influence each other.

    So “fundamental anarchy” isn’t really binary either. There’s a “fundamental anarchy” between citizens of the same state in certain contexts — criminal ones, say — in which the nominal law of the state is less than usually applicable for one reason or another. Similarly, the International Community attempts to enforce a law between sovereigns, basically placing itself as their ruler; see e.g. the sanctions applied to Russia re: Ukraine, and every Cathedral organ saying they “illegally” annexed Crimea. Russia is sovereign to precisely the degree they can resist that pressure, and that’s not a pure yes/no question.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >Sovereignty is an index

    Yes. The Great Chain of Being, Plato called it. With Mr. Solipsus Nobody at top, i.e. God.

    Then below him is the most sovereign king.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    You’re muddying the water. Russia is sovereign. China is sovereign. They have nukes and the will to use them if necessary. They can expel agents of the Cathedral. Sure International Community (Harvard) can exert economic pressure, but it is regular war between sovereigns.

    Btw, African shit holes, if anything, have more sovereign-like wiggle room compared to infantilized 1st world vassals. Germany, Sweden, France, Canada are so thoroughly beholden to Cathedral that they’re almost holier than Harvard. These countries couldn’t imagine letting frogs shit-post on FB let alone banning gay marriage. In African shit holes, it’s a national sport to kill gays.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Sovereignty as an index is anything but muddying the water.

    [Reply]

    frank Reply:

    You either decide the exception or not. Indeterminacy is war.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    There´s a certain determinacy sovereignty index positioning.

    War is the state of the world. Or shall we say a spectrum of conflict from almost none in peace to quite aggravated in war.

    Xoth Reply:

    Obviously, indeterminacy can be, and has been, quite useful as a substitute for war.

    Dedicating Ruckus Reply:

    I’d venture compared to first-world nations (not the US), African shitholes have greater intellectual sovereignty, lesser physical sovereignty. Cathedral has invested less effort in taking over their intellectual organs, precisely because on the physical level they don’t really matter. But if it so chooses, USG can overthrow their governments in an afternoon — something not the case of, say, Germany. (If AfD won the elections and began de-Cathedralizing in earnest (however likely this is or isn’t), would USG invade with force to stop them? Doubtful.)

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2016 at 4:59 pm Reply | Quote
  • Brett Stevens Says:

    Suppose there is no anarchy between sovereigns. This means there is a law governing sovereigns.

    Bad logic — there can also be a voluntary contract, a cultural principle or a tacit agreement based on the illogicality of doing otherwise.

    [Reply]

    rxferret Reply:

    Which is still anarchy without repercussion from breaking contracts.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    The law governing sovereigns would be logic. Reminiscent of Divine Command Theory.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Logos.

    admin Reply:

    Yes.

    [Reply]

    Kwisatz Haderach Reply:

    There is no third party enforcement. The voluntary contract or norm is binding exactly to the degree that each party is able to enforce its clauses. Which is anarchy.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    what supports contracts brett – violence

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    morality trumps violence.

    thus it´s not because of that Caesar has beaten every one of his soldiers in a fistfight that he commands them unto death.

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    no but its not morality either its because he has basically beaten them mentally but if that breaks down the bottom line is and always will be force. you dont have to like it you only have to know it.To ceasar the soldiers are tools to the soldiers ceasare is a tool so yes theres a contract a mutual interest but if the interests diverge or prove not so mutual after all new contracts alliances are made now its not allways actual violence its usually implied potential violence but only a fool would think that matters

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    moral force wins battles. a unit surrenders before it is materially defeated because it doesn´t any more have the will (which is moral) to fight, also known as esprit de corps.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esprit_de_corps_%28disambiguation%29

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    Voluntarism is not a stance you want, it goes against intelligence in favor of Will: God’s Will.

    In the seventeenth century, the voluntaristic position could be seen clearly in Descartes’ claim that there are no truths antecedent to God’s will. Moreover, similar remnants of such a voluntaristic theology were even contained in the otherwise predominantly naturalistic approach to political thought found in Hobbes. Hobbes is most well known for introducing the idea that political legitimacy is founded on the agreement of the will of those ruled, an agreement struck in a kind of “compact” or “social contract”. Nevertheless, underlying Hobbes’s account in Leviathan of political legitimacy as arising out of the agreement of those ruled was the idea that it was the “irresistible power” of God that was the underlying source of his absolute right of dominion—what Hobbes calls, “the right of nature”:

    “The right of nature whereby God reigneth over men, and punisheth those that break his laws, is to be derived, not from his creating them (as if he required obedience, as of gratitude for his benefits), but from his irresistible power. (L: ch. 31, §5)”

    Commenting on this passage, Yves Charles Zarka notes how it shows clearly that “Hobbes belongs to the tradition of theological voluntarism and that his natural and political philosophy depend on it”. Irresistible power, Hobbes thinks, is in fact not found in the political realm—hence the central role there of contract. However, he makes it clear that this is due to contingent features of power in the political realm: were a human to have irresistible power, this would be the ultimate justification of political authority. “Power irresistible justifieth all action really and properly, in whomsoever it is found”.

    Irresistible power = violence, which he found not in politics but in the natural realm, so that in the political realm he went nominalist and contractual and voluntarist in theological notions of sovereignty.

    And, as they point out in their preface to Nick’s Fanged Noumena, (Brassier/Mackay): “Land had always disavowed voluntarism: ‘If there are places to which we are forbidden to go, it is because they can in truth be reached, or because they can reach us. In the end poetry is invasion and not expression’.” Yet, in The Thirst for Annihilation Nick will stipulate another form of Will from Schopenhauer to Bataille, saying,

    “Rather, the terminology of the will (desire) is guided through its first faltering steps towards a notion of increate matter. Schopenhauer reserves the word ‘matter’ [Die Materie] for the fundamental determination of objectivity within representation, which he distinguishes from the will, whereas later thinkers beginning with Nietzsche—and including Freud as well as Bataille—shift the sense of matter towards the substratum of appearances (impersonal, unconscious, and real) that Schopenhauer calls will. Increate matter is a translation of will or noumenon; a designation for the anti-ontology basic to any positively atheistic materialism (‘[t]o say the World was not Created …is to deny there is a God’ writes Hobbes in his Leviathan). Such a thought is at variance with the most prevalent scientific conception of matter only insofar as science has—despite many of its pronouncements— tended to be implicitly agnostic, or even theist, rather than virulently atheistic in tendency. Due to this dominant attitude, first systematized by Kant in his determination of theological ideas as postulates of practical reason, matter has continued to be implicitly conceived as ens creatum, distinguished from a creative being which is determined as an extrinsic spontaneity. Matter as ens creatum is essentially lawful, whilst increate matter is anarchic, even to the extent of evading the adoption of an essence. This is why Schopenhauer considers the principle of sufficient reason or logicality of being to have a merely superficial validity.”

    [Reply]

    michael Reply:

    well thats a thought, its not what i want its what is, but there’s hope violence certainly has an intelligence element. and organized coordinated violence has not only proven itself its inherent. constant violence is not inherent so there’s a stabilizing lean towards intelligently organized violence.but ultimately just as many hands are more lethal than one many minds can be too.well organized violence can be quite profitable if everyones paid justly then its sustainable internally and inteligence need only worry about externally if intelligence gets greedy and doesnt pay the troops then things get shaky

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    There isn´t anarchy between sovereigns except to the degree that there is lack of their recognition of their each own and each other limits and best positioning.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2016 at 5:06 pm Reply | Quote
  • (N) G. Eiríksson Says:

    ▬ Particular churches and sects usurp the gates of heaven, and turn the key against each other; and thus we go to heaven against each others’ wills, conceits, and opinions …
    ― «Religio Medici». 1642.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2016 at 5:30 pm Reply | Quote
  • (N) G. Eiríksson Says:

    Ultimately there is no anarchy anywhere. It´s just a proverbial term.

    There is nothing without archy. Without order. Logos.

    The illusion of chaos is merely the lack of seeing what is at work.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    The most orderful order can be had by admitting there is no solution to the problem of evil. What you are doing is trying to inculcate order in a chaotic context. If there were no chaos there would be no need for you to act in such a way. Likewise, if there weren’t a natural anarchy we wouldn’t be talking about the nature of the beings, “Kings”, who naturally stave it off, (or so the Redpill tells us). And speaking of anarchy between sovereigns–is there an anarchy between Moldbug and Land? *thundercrash*

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2016 at 5:35 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    which is why fernandez argument about Duertes moral equivalency is flawed- whose morals, well obviously fernandez’ legacy neoconish morals where killing Arabs is ok for one groups political purposes but killing poor philippine drug dealers is not ok for Duertes political purposes. dont start my morals are kill em all

    But anarchy is fluid and sovereignty theoretical or vice versa the fact remains property rights come out of the end of a gun, obama may think duerte is one phone call to langly away from non sovereignty and Duerte may know he has already had a phone call with jinping. The cathedral is pretty confident they can kick anybody’s ass but that depends on alot of idaho farm boys cooperating on said ass kicking, so who really is sovereign Obama or Idaho farm boys. well theres certainly a lot of anarchy between those two. meanwhile trumps talking about Peter Thiel for the supreme court, cutting the corporate tax rate to 15% firing most of washcorp, taking china from a trillion a year trade deficit to zero and having Ford hauled back from mexico. And hes winning in all polls as clinton is collapsing so this might actually happen.maybe jim be be appointed head of the dept of education

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >so who really is sovereign Obama or Idaho farm boys. well theres certainly a lot of anarchy between those two.

    Well said. Increase the anarchy, and the structure collapses.

    Push what is falling, big N said.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Jim should be the Goebbels, head of propaganda, specifically sex-ed, as stimulating fertility seems to be his expertise.

    http://blog.jim.com/culture/the-next-official-belief-system/

    (the whole thing is programmatic but scroll to “A proposed sex education video” for the [squealingly hilarious] kernel)

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >should we try to fix Christianity or should we finish it off and move on without it?

    Christianity has to die to be reborn.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    I’m sure there were Ancient Romans who thought that about Paganism. Muh tradition. Muh tradition decayed not because rot was inherent to it but because Satan! Christinanity was sent by God, on the wings of angels, angels who had no unsightly pubic hair, like Jesus Himself.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Roman cultus did die and was reborn as the Roman Christian empire.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    That´s 2.600 years ca. of muh tradition. 🙂

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    The next Religious Reich will last 10.400 years and put Bible-thumping to shame. If brahmins like yourself continue to be sell-outs that religion will revolve around equality rather than hierarchy; alas it’s already too late.

    But where danger is, grows the saving power also.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    I´m not a sell-out, as that would refer to me being paid to forward anti-Germanic interests.

    Also, a Religious Reich could not be about Marxian equality, if those words are more than merely arbitrary.

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Not Marxian, Christian. And were it oxymoronic there would be no “Cathedral” to speak of, and yet here we are, crouched in a hidden tunnel underneath its basement, drawing up plans while you weave and squeak below like a rat.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    There´s a certain ‘Cathedral’ in every civilization so far as that means an institution that guarantees equity and parity.

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    The difference between equity and equality is equity is equity OF equity, fair fairness, while equality is equality of equality, equality all the way down, equality uber – at the price of – fairness.
    Spengler:
    “The Prussian style of living … has produced a profound and vigorous rank-consciousness, a feeling of unity based on an ethos of work, not of leisure. It unites the members of each professional group—military, civil service, and labor—by infusing them with a pride of vocation, and dedicates them to activity that benefits all others, the totality, the state. Such a feeling of solidarity within each group finds symbolic expression in words: at the top level there are Kamaraden, in the middle Kollegen, and at the bottom, but with the same sense of pride, Genossen. The bond of unity at all levels is a supreme ethos of dedication, not of success. The distinguishing feature of membership is rank, not wealth.”

    Real equity is–what is that line that all the feminists adore?–knowing your place. (Alternatively, Justice in the Republic is “minding one’s own business”). The gradient of rank between master and slave goes a lonnnnng way up and a lonnnnng way down…
    Montaigne:
    http://67.media.tumblr.com/569b16dccd279e132651d8ba07fe7ed7/tumblr_o0nq3k6yJT1rjwablo1_500.png

    The Marxist axiom from each according to his ability to each according to his needs–which heh is a blatantly *sexist* statement–needs to be inflected by Nietzsche’s doctrine of master/slave perspectivalism, which is basically rank-consciousness.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Quite correct, but what Spengler describes: the German/Prussian State, it lost. It´s easy to blame the Jews. The good-willed Germans were too trusting and were led into a trap by da Jooz, who also had softened them with newspapers and cinema.

    Ohhhhhhh nein.

    There´s something to be said for Liberalism here.

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Just because I am not in active denial about Jews possibly using their powers for evil doesn’t mean I blame the Jews. They didn’t help things *whatsoever*–nor do they today, is my point. Don’t help one bit; just the opposite in fact.

    Germany lost on the ground, not in the sky. Their ideals will triumph eternally.

    Holiness does not live or die with the men that die.
    Whether they live or die, it cannot perish.

    Hercules in Sophocles’s Philoctetes

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >Just because I am not in active denial about Jews possibly using their powers for evil

    Hyperbole. No one here is in denial over the genocidal effects of many Jews.

    However; if the Germans are ‘superior’ — then why did they lose??

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    They only lost a battle, the real war is yet to cease. Indeed, to commence.

    You’re really going to be changing your tune once Iceland grabs her giggly ankles for an endless congo line of tear-lubed sand and jungle phalli. This is all abstract book-learnin’ til your own country starts getting ploughed. Then you’ll shuck HBD for real, old-fashioned racism, or in other words the instinct for nobility of the White race.

    Coming soon, to a Real-Life near you:

    https://goodbyeamericainaphoto.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/blendtogether.jpg?w=737&h=415

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Talking out of your ass once again. I´ve been in multiple continents, lived with brown people, and within Europe I´ve been in a variety of situations.

    You avoided the question, as you so frequently do. The Germans didn´t just lose a battle, they lost two World Wars.

    If they are superior, why did they lose two world wars?

    Typically it would bee the Jooz to blame, so are you going for that or maybe they just aren´t superior to the Anglos?

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Evidently Anglos have been militarily superior but it would be crude to say that because they won the first two of many world battles they are superior overall. If Admin’s foolhardy accelerationist plot goes according to plan Hillary’s Reign will lead to such unfathomable, rock-bottom depravity an Ubertrump will crash out of the woodwork and lead us to ascension.–Though if we consider this cyclically from a bird’s-eye-view, one step forward is a step back – the Ubertrump will reach the heights but then it’s back down again to God Zillary, so the sooner to Ubertrump the sooner to God Zillary.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Have you been to Germany? The Germans are not superior. Far from it. People get left behind in evolution. The same culture & race that got left behind the Anglos is still there. It got left behind in the 1800´s, it fucked up amazingly in the 1900´s, and since the Nazis got defeated Germany has been quite kitsch.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Okay, that´s a hyperbole. Since there is not much to compare to Germans still have a certain superiority, but it´s not over other western white nations.

    This simply brings us to the starting point. The white people are spiritually devoid.

    Thus I point to 2.600 years of Roman tradition.

    Heck, we´re using a Roman alphabet.

    40% of words in English are Grecoroman.

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    There is a major hole in traditionalism:
    “[Cephalus] possesses the dignity peculiar to old age and thus presents the order which is based on reverence for the old, the older order as opposed to the present decay. We can easily believe that the old order is superior even to any restoration. Although he is a lover of speeches, Cephalus leaves the conversation about justice when it has barely begun in order to perform an act of piety, and he never returns: his justice is not in need of speeches or reasons. After he has left, Socrates occupies the center. However lofty Cephalus’ justice may be, it is animated by the traditional notion of justice, and that notion is radically deficient (366d-e). The old order is deficient, for it is the origin of the present disorder…”

    Leo Strauss, “On Plato’s Republic”

    Those 2600 years led us here to begin with. We need to synthesize the reliable old with the refined new for an order that won’t putter out after a measly 2600 years.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    As is anything but rare, you use history when it suits you but totally discard it when the historical facts do not seem to suit you.

    Firstly, to say that ‘2.600’ years are measly for a tradition to survive is ahistorical. It is absurd. Nothing compares to that awesome time (it´s actually ~2.800 years). For you to make such a judgement you must resort to fantasy, not intelligent judgement. Its a teardown, such as what a Commie does when he says that capitalism is bad for the worker when nothing has been better for the worker.

    Secondly, I am not a traditionalist in the way that it is described above. In the options that your post offers I am rather a syncreticist, or a restorator.

    To believe that “that the old order is superior even to any restoration” would be absurd. No first grade intellectual does that.

    To synthesize the reliable old with the refined new is exactly my viewpoint.

    ▬ “The old order is deficient, for it is the origin of the present disorder”

    The prisca sapientia cannot be the origin of a disorder.

    It is a lack of vigil that is the origin of disorder.

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    One can just as easily say it was a lack of vigil that led to the downfall of paganism and the enthronement of the Abrahamic God.

    What is 2.600 years compared to the 200.000 humans have been around? It sounds like 2.600 is one of those “lucky” numbers to you, those non-secularly lucky numbers that creationists use, drawing an arbitrarily simplified line to reduce the anxiety of complexity.

    “The prisca sapientia cannot be the origin of a disorder.”

    Yes it can, hence there is disorder. If not from the prisca sapientia whence cometh?

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Lucky number? I stated 2.800 in the previous post. That´s the time ca. since the founding of the Roman tradition. Almost 3.000 actual real historical years. for an actual historical entity.

    Posted on September 15th, 2016 at 5:47 pm Reply | Quote
  • scientism Says:

    Or there can be only one sovereign at any given time and the rest are mere contenders.

    That was essentially the foreign policy of Imperial China. The Son of Heaven rules over All-under-Heaven, everyone else is subordinate and pays tribute. It worked pretty well.

    The US empire is similar. Everyone is subordinate to the ‘international community’, which happens to want whatever the American ruling class wants.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    A completely accurate comment. The mandate of heaven theory is eternal.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Look what thousands of years of Oriental Despotism got China: Zero Great Philosophers for Thousands of Years. A civilization is justified by the great minds it produces. Confucius was too conservative for his people’s good. And Lao Tzu, the “liberal” of the two, was apparently an insufficient impetus for creativity, philosophic, scientific, and otherwise.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Your historicism gets the better of you.

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    I was in Shanghai earlier this Summer, the Chinese are pathetic, they have their yaps clasped around the Western udder like awkward baby calves. Their tradition of government is to blame for having to “catch up” with the West today.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Are you an anglophile now?

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    Speaking of world-class DUMPS that have produced ZERO great philosophers: ICELAND.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    The Chinese have had to catch up with Britain. You´ve praised German thinkers a lot, and Germany had to catch up with Britain. So I asked if you were an anglophile now.

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    “Maybe those 4 Marxists were right about Ubik being subversive to capitalist society. […] I am tearing down time, space, causality, world—this would be subversive to capitalism, to the bourgeois mind which is intimately connected with 18th century Anglo-Saxon rationalism (Newton, Locke, Bentham, etc.). I am systematically undermining the philosophers and philosophy on which capitalism is based, and going back to a hermetic, Gnostic neoplatonism. And a vitalism replacing mechanism—I deal a lethal blow to anglo-saxon thought, to its vaunted pragmatism.”

    Brits are hellbound, calculative arseholes, while the holy, meditative Germans dine in Valhalla (on yer girl).

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    He didn´t do those things. This is literary fantasy.

    michael Reply:

    true in a way but remember voice exit war. war is not always fought to win sometimes only for better surrender terms, or a right to exit, sometimes for a death with dignity, sometimes for fun, sometimes for spite.The point is there is not as much violence as there might be because outcomes are hard to predict, its realized that if the entire empire fought it out emperor has better than average chance but also very poor odds things end just the same for emperor. however not the same means i might die. so things go on without violence for long times but we have politics.and art religion rhetoric business etc etc

    Obama is supreme emperor only in the sense thats there is not a large enough coalition willing to defeat him at this moment and there is a large enough one to defend him it seems-we sense. but theoretically we know he can not defeat all possible coalitions he can not even guarantee his own coalition under all conditions. He can guarantee it will be expensive to find out how tough he is.

    there are still enough white men to wipe the planet free of non whites there is still enough of a mechanism to unite them and deploy them in time to be unstopable, so despite their odd behavior the world is wary of the gay black mulatto muslim marxist they have said represents them- its some sort of white devilish trick they suspect and ignore the bait.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2016 at 5:50 pm Reply | Quote
  • NRK Says:

    On the one hand, this is political philosophy 101, and contrasted with pipe dreams of world peace, its truth is undeniable.
    On the other, the very concept of souvereignty seems too entrenched in the humanist frame of reference to make it out of the near future.

    [Reply]

    S.C. Hickman Reply:

    You’re only seeing it within the Law, but there is a form of grotesque sovereignty as well. The grotesque is one of the essential processes of arbitrary sovereignty. But you know also that the grotesque is a process inherent to assiduous bureaucracy. Since the nineteenth century, an essential feature of big Western bureaucracies has been that the administrative machine, with its unavoidable effects of power, works by using the mediocre, useless, imbecilic, superficial, ridiculous, worn-out, poor, and powerless functionary. Almost everywhere is this grotesque sovereignty of the faceless bureaucrat, the impotent and cowardly official who serves the master, but also secretly wields a form of fluid power that usually goes unnoticed in most political arguments on sovereignty. Look at the EU – the whole divorce of politics from economics that was carefully designed by its founders leaves each of the member countries at the mercy of this form of grotesque sovereignty. Here in the States its the duopoly, the sense that both parties are in cahoots behind the scenes, no matter what they spout through the media; that in truth grotesque power, the fluid power of economics itself and the Cathedral of institutions pervaded by academics, think tanks, etc. rule outside the dictates of Law by way of their own agendas, etc.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Brilliantly phrased. I´ve observed what you describe ever since I started school as mandated by the state.

    Tell the truth to power. I.e. formalize. Nietzsche recommended as much.

    Curt Doolittle says his Propertarianism will be a thing in 250 years. It should be discussed more here. It´s really the extension of the 3.000 year-documented aryan tradition of private property.

    The Commie state (which is pretty much every state now) doesn´t allow private property de facto: it´s not private (your own) if you have to pay rent to the state like a serf (real estate tax).

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    Wait, what did I miss? Your next post doesn’t explain, just tell me.

    Still, you’re doing my work by describing the way in which the notion of souvereignty arises from the convenient fiction of human cinsciousness being in charge of things: free will, automomy, all that stuff, what do you think will happen to souvereignty once it flies out of the window?

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    sovereignty is a spectrum, it doesn´t fly out the window.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    unless you mean that the entity ceases to exist. it dissolves. that´s anarchy.

    NRK Reply:

    To the degree that human autonomy dissolves, the “entity” doesn’t merely suffer the same fate, but worse: it becomes a pathetic impossibility.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    over-come with will-to-autonomy.

    NRK Reply:

    Gnon laughs, and for once, I laugh with her.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >nihilism

    NRK Reply:

    >humanism

    Great, now we’re back to using meme arrows, like cybercavemen.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Will-to-autonomy is another way of saying wille-zur-macht, i.e. to Overcome the dissolution (or relatively unsolved state) of all transhedonistic values.

    NRK Reply:

    I know what it means. All I’m saying is, good luck with that.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    Thank you. It is exactly what I´m doing.

    NRK Reply:

    It’s hard to see how what you’re describing here is anything but the dissolution of souvereignty.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    The spectrum of sovereignty, nearing dissolution towards bottom, formalized towards top.

    NRK Reply:

    At present, the top doesn’t seem particularly formalized, it’s clowns all the way up. Not that the rule by lawless shadow elites you describe could be called formalized even if they had any idea what they’re doing.

    @Eirikson
    Are you saying that true private property can only exist under conditions of anarchy?

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    No, the true private property can only exist under the condition of autarchy.

    Originally the aryan greeks and the aryan romans were composed of free men, each with their own autonomous homestead. This is the same configuration as the one in the upper half of europe. This is also how america started. This is the 5.000+ year old configuration of white people, before the relative societies decline into fiefdoms or democracies.

    free meant that you were honorable, as in not being made a slave or exiled for being caught as a liar or a breaker of contracts.

    there wasn´t a government over you but you as a free man composed the government with other free men.

    there wasn´t a religious institution over you either, as every free man was the priest of his family.

    The polis was grounded in nomos, the rule of law, which meant that no man—no matter who he might be—was master, and all men were subject to the same rules. Any leader who set himself above the law was reckoned to be a tyrannos—a tyrant. It was also grounded in the notion of citizenship—the idea that every man born from the blood of the community has a share in power and responsibility. This notion that … the proper way for us to live is as citizens in communities under the rule of law … is an idea originated by the Greeks and bequeathed by them as their greatest contribution to the rest of mankind and history. It meant that Greeks were willing to live, fight, and die for their [autonomy]…
    — Robert L. Dise, Jr. (2009).

    Lose your autonomy and someone is ruling over you. Taxing you for alien purposes. Even taking your land or your house from you. While in greece and rome the homestead could not be taken from your family. if you could not pay a debt you were made into a slave, having broken a contract. but your family was safe, living free on the land for generations. an actual property. autonomous.

    extreme non-communism.

    freedom.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    + everyone had a wife since sluttery was virtually impossible.

    no need to hit the gym, you make your own food off the land or trade. then you fuck the waifu, make babies, train them to fight, and be a good father.

    also if alien peoples are invading, the message is spread and the free men meet up, and drive the invader away, or even conquer his territory (and then you got an empire).

    it isn´t until middle-men bureaucracies form which kings start taxing regular citizens and otherwise bossing over them (the opportunity for corruption is created).

    but that author is wrong to say the greeks started this. it predates them. the proper greeks are Dorians and Acheans, which invaded from the north. i.e. aryans.

    this freedom from government persisted in northern territories until just recently. only a 100 years ago my great grandfather was a free germanic farmer, and the government was a lot smaller with far less power. incidentally, i am writing this from his (my) land.

    NRK Reply:

    no man—no matter who he might be—was master

    So, yes, Anarchy. Was that so hard?

    and all men were subject to the same rules.

    Now hold up, as NBS, paraphrasing Hobbes, has demonstrated, this is not possible: if you’re subject to a law, you are subject to a souvereign, i.e. you are not yourself a souvereign. And if your private property depends on your adherence to such laws, then according to your own reasoning it cannot truly be yours.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    you´re missing something. forget it.

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    >Are you saying that true private property can only exist under conditions of anarchy?

    i don´t like the term ‘anarchy’ by itself as a term for a supposed political state of things (heh).

    i don´t believe in “no government”, there´s government in everything. even your brain, as it were, governs your body. if you have a black market little shop on a corner which you move around in a cart, the business is still:
    late 13c., “to rule with authority,” from Old French governer “steer, be at the helm of; govern, rule, command, direct” (11c., Modern French gouverner), from Latin gubernare “to direct, rule, guide, govern”

    it´s not an-archy. i.e. without archy.

    however, we can also call the autarchy anarcho-capitalism as that doesn´t mean the same thing as merely anarchy.

    Xoth Reply:

    Very good.

    [Reply]

    Dick Wagner Reply:

    NRK I think you were on to something when you mentioned that sovereignty is entrenched in the humanist frame of reference. For theists this whole debacle would be a non-issue – they would say of course there’s no anarchy, both sovereigns are God’s chosen sons. What subtilizes this conception is first, the question of how sovereigns of different religious backgrounds avoid having anarchy between them, and second, how any frame of reference besides the humanist one isn’t a mere laughable fantasy in our current parlous epoch. The only way to avoid anarchy between sovereigns is to postulate a Perennialism whereby a common ground between not only Christians and Muslims, but Secularists as well, is brought to light. With Christians and Muslims it seems easier to show “See, we agree on X and Y” so the question is is there a parallel between the Highest Things of the Theists and the Secularists. Is an appeal to Freedom, say, adequately analogous to an appeal to God’s Will, say? If not there is anarchy between the Christian sovereign and Muslim Sovereign on the one hand and the Secular sovereign on the other. Though we could zoom out from there and found an alliance in Piety. Piety toward God’s Will, Piety toward Freedom–that is, if the Secularist would have no quarrel with that. It seems like a shift of jargon may result in the conflation of one side with the other, leaving one side in disagreement and thus there would be… anarchy between sovereigns.

    [Reply]

    NRK Reply:

    Agreement on keeping the peace, for whatever reason, is certainly compatible with there being anarchy, it’s just that there is no reason to believe that the agreement, and therefore the peace, will last. Also, neither Christianity, nor Islam, nor Secularism are able to guarantee peace within their sphere of hegemony, much less between each other.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    anarchy is relative to what it is not. war is the father of all things, and war is not mere chaos, but generations of orderings.

    there are five generations of war.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 15th, 2016 at 9:46 pm Reply | Quote
  • reactionaryfuture Says:

    “This insight is already the solid foundation of IRT, but it’s surprising how few seem to clearly get it.” Funny you should mention this. I have been researching this, and have come to the conclusion that IRT is totally foundation created nonsense. In fact, a surprising amount of academics in the area seem to agree on this point as well. This book has a great intro on the matter, noting that you can learn more about IR history from the garbled discussion of the Rockefeller created meeting, then you can from reading the canon!
    https://books.google.com.hk/books?id=u7DAITQttbEC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=history+of+Ir+and++rockefeller&source=bl&ots=8Sw34Nmyyp&sig=qwYKoy4im4xVtX2fycq6XpDklmA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwip1cmK7pLPAhUFipQKHbnUAHIQ6AEIMTAJ#v=snippet&q=Garbled&f=false

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    fascinating. any excerpts that you find particularly of value would be welcomed.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 16th, 2016 at 2:46 am Reply | Quote
  • Cryptogenic Says:

    To not presuppose this is psychotic in the literal sense of the word.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 16th, 2016 at 1:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • michael Says:

    @ kudos for plowing through a book like that after skimming a few pages with my meagre ability I guess its an evolution of thought about international relations from co operative to authoritative that basically once we realize we dont have to be diplomatic we decide why bother , from recent history im guessing they realized there was no point in being obvious about it and needlessly antagonizing an counter alliance and also that the pretext of consensus by the international cumumity was even useful cover. but ultimately wtf can they do about it .

    This to me is a no brainer when force is possible it will be used, actually if need be,implied usually. until it is possible other means will be used to maneuver into a position where superior force will again be obvious.

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 16th, 2016 at 1:25 pm Reply | Quote
  • August Hurtel Says:

    In Europe, various royal families inter-married, creating something that certainly wasn’t anarchy, but wasn’t necessarily good either. As the sovereigns began to be regarded by the people as foreign to them, the opportunity for subversion increased. Additionally, various lords running around trying to maintain claims to too many places was a horrible waste of resources.

    I think this seems similar to some libertarian thought; replace sovereign with individual. It contains some truth, but becomes less and less useful as you try to think about how it will progress through time, through families, mediated through human relationships.

    [Reply]

    (N) G. Eiríksson Reply:

    anarchy is a specter.
    and a spectre.

    super pinnaculum terrae est.

    Revelation 12:7 — And there was war in heaven

    [Reply]

    Posted on September 16th, 2016 at 3:31 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment