Tuesday, March 18, 2014

Monarchy, SovCorp + Legitimacy

Note: This post was intendedto be right after Oddblots SovCorp post, but I had to finish the NW European Outbreeding work because it fits into this.

Spengler would look at us and see our current predicament as the late stage of democracy before order restoring Caesarism rises from the ruinous remains of voters voting themselves goodies, forgetting what truly created order, security and safety. Is not NRx a symptom of this awareness that democracy is garbage and trying to determine the best way to configure the coming Caesarism? There are many assets to strip to support the current regime and many lies that need to be continued before a social and cultural crack up can occur. We do have some time. What comes next or what could come next? As Foseti writes, the bureaucracy will always exist but how is it controlled. Whether it is reading too much Neal Stephenson, my AnCap leanings, or living in different areas of America that are completely different nations, ethnically, culturally and politically, I am a fan of pan-secession and the ability of different regions to form whatever governments they determine is best for them. Exit and competition amongst the states will help. With my writing on Irvine, I am a fan of trying neocameralism, for profit government or the SovCorp idea.

Monarch as sovereign sounds pretty straightforward and has a long history of working for different people. "Bah criticism always uses 400 year old examples!" or "Illiterate barbarians warriors figured it out" (to switch to kingship), "Where's my Paxil!" or "Live under a man who's goal is earning coin >snort< morons", to paraphrase what I see on Twitter. I will not go back 400 years. If the monarch is sovereign and the right to rule transfers to the first born (reading these tweets, a first born son), could we easily find problems after the revolutions of 1848? Yes. How does one train the next monarch? Who makes that call? If the monarch is sovereign, cannot he overrule the training program of his successor? It is his power is as father first and then as fully sovereign monarch second? Do we codify that or is that an admission to a faulty system since constitutions are garbage? Did not Alexander III run into this problem with Nicholas II? Alexander brushed off calls to get Nicholas involved in the machinery of the state and concepts of ruling. Who could argue with the monarch? He is the tsar. It did not go so well for Nicholas, his line or Russia. Nicholas played passive man as his stronger wife (read biographies, dragon lady) brought Rasputin into the elite clique with disastrous results (in Heartiste terms, Tsar Cuck). A member of the extended family but with a different problem, Kaiser Wilhelm II became kaiser as eldest son. Awesome selection process there. He was born three years before Prince Henry. Anyone read a biography on Wilhelm II and wonder exactly how mentally off he was under the pressure of being the next in line with his wrecked arm and odd personality? They forced handicapped Wilhelm to learn to ride a horse with his messed up arm bawling his eyes out as a toddler. He is like the Rex Ryan of monarchs where the media caricature is unfair, but only because its degree of exaggeration not inaccuracy. He was a Sonny, not a Fredo, but Henry strikes me as a possible Michael (Godfather references). Might German history go a bit different with Henry running the show rather than Wilhelm? We cannot know because rules are rules, order of birth, get over it.

This is being a bit pedantic, but that does not stop others from refusing to take a step back and think rather than just attempt to score points. Technology makes monarchy a more stable thing now. IVF, gene therapy and a set training program could help design a good sovereign as well as secure succession (heir and a spare). This is all workable from a mechanics standpoint, but what will give these guys legitimacy? As I wrote yesterday, those illiterate barbarians made the transition from warlord to king by using a gigantic network and sociopolitical infrastructure known as the Catholic Church. Coronations imbued them with the Holy Spirit as sacred figures who were defenders of the faith as well as sovereigns of their people. Are you going to bring back the Church in full Middle Ages glory? By Church, not just the ritual and forms of the Church, but its true strength, the believing parishioners. I'm asking because throwaway statements about the ease illiterates had making the transition are childish and downplay the centuries of work put into that status change and the use of a gigantic "other power" to make that transition. One possible way is to rally around and base legitimacy and identity on blood, which a certain German tried last century. King Obama? Progressives might deal with Obama for a third term, but I doubt it, and it is just Winter of 2014. Imagine them dealing with him for 25 more years. No way. I do think he could be a king though, but white progressives would not buy into it. I doubt king is working with white progs, but give them their own area to come up with Progtopia.

King Obama would work perfect with a black state. If you have any black acquaintances on Faceborg, check to see if they've already wistfully posted wishing Obama could run for a third term. I've seen those posts. They are church going and could easily be sold on a king. How many black public figures have cracked a smile and said "He goin' go black on they ass in his 2nd term!" Forever disappointed. Sub-Saharan African nations have found a post-colonialism groove of Big Man tribal politics that becomes one man, one vote, one time, leading to lifelong despots. Similar genetics at play, and looking at how Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton worked for decades as unofficial Presidents of Black America, this is not much of a change. Historical tendencies of absentee fathers, LBJ's welfare state, the crack wars and dysgenic breeding have created a huge vacuum for any large public figure to fill in the lives of a majority of blacks. Carve out the black belt down south, and give it to the blacks. In no time, the talented tenth aristocracy would set up a nice King Obama with accompanying myth (my guess is a true descendant of slaves, ex-military/police guy). The Bos-Wash corridor Progtopia would end up funding that state through white guilt third world aid. Hell, if I were in charge of the Bos-Wash corridor, I'd set up filmed, fake assassinations every decade of his evil advisors that keep preventing King Obama from doing what the loyal subjects keep waiting for him to do if only they'd get out of the way while simultaneously stripping the natural resources of the area. The English had rebellions multiple times not directly at the king but at his wicked advisors who were manipulating him. Blacks already believe this about Obama. Set up a kingdom, and you could repeat the cycle with faked television executions of bad advisors every five to seven years. Watching Obama, sometimes it appears he thought the presidency would be like being king with his only requirement being speeches and ceremonies.

Religion is key, and who knows what will come with the looming conflict. In Vico's analysis, the men who restore order from the prior chaos and conflict are the ones who hold legitimacy to set up the rules for the new order. Take a step outside your safe middle to upper class bubble and visit places like Anderson, Indiana. Anderson was once a mid-sized manufacturing town with a university located there full of middle class families. Now it is a rundown meth village of government dependents surrounding the university. Across America, we will probably have to hang meth heads, drug dealers and corrupt officials by the thousands, maybe millions, within 25 years. It is possible that security and safety becomes such an issue through tribal conflict that security minded warlords become leaders who could start dynasties. Yes, but we're dealing with 21st century human beings. Maybe heartland traditionalists could rally around a king because they are true believers, so the concept that the Holy Spirit is guiding the king can work with them. King of Texas, Archon of Dixie, King of Midwestopia... I can see that. The Mormons would gladly make Mitt Romney Archon of Deseret (admit it, he'd be the perfect administrator). Are middle class, irreligious types going to do so? Not likely. Are the strivers or davos man wannabe types going to? No. It would take amazing cultural and social engineering. As an aside that ties into this, it is incredibly interesting to me that a group of people who believe in nature over nurture and/or human biodiversity think that because churches changed people stopped coming and not the other way around. Yes, some churches changed in ridiculous ways and people left (Episcopalian Church), but people changed. Northeastern Boomer Catholics are the biggest offenders. The media did not help, but the people changed. An evangelical megachurch I know has scrapped their traditional service for the contemporary "Rock Concert with Jesus" service. It used to be the traditional srvice had the huge crowd and the rock concert had a small crowd. It flipped, and now the traditional service is gone. They pack them in. There is a similar type of government but cloaked in modern terms that could be sold to the irreligious and the types who would not go for the ceremony or pageantry of kingship yet act the same: SovCorp/neocameralism.

Oddblots had a great post on this hypothetical style of government, and I envision the Irvine the set up, but another way I like to describe it avoids Irvine. Stock company might be the wrong for profit comparison because of the modern stock market casino connotations. If you think you can train the irreligious to accept a king, I definitely can teach them about corporate structures removed from FIRE era bubble economy machinations. Consider for profit government like a privately held mutual insurance company. That company serves its customers directly with payout dividends and its employees, but the mission statement is always directed at the dividend receiving customers. I conceive a man in an executive position like Mayor Giuliani or Bloomberg but with the power to fire teachers and public employees. Think of what they did to restore law and order but then allow them sovereignty over the entire administration and disbursement of public funds (if any). Bloomberg reformed the schools, but he only ever fired one teacher from the rubber rooms. They cleaned up the city but could not design a fire fighter exam that met media and social justice warrior approval. The left, and black agitation groups, can call them dictators or say they were running a plantation, but in reality, they just ran a tough police force. Like Giulinai and Bloomberg (mayors with a wide metro effect), I see this as an issue of scale and push for pan-secession to set up Orange County sized domains or possibly US state sized domains. I can dream for a replica of 1980s Maine for my grandchildren to enjoy.

A Public CEO is head of SovCorp the entity. Public CEO is picked from the SovCorp entity. There would be a lifetime of work to evaluate. Stop thinking of modern CEO hatchet men with the short term compensation packages that executive recruiters draft up for labor agreements. Public CEO is not paid in stock options but in a share of receipts from the region's profits. What are the profits but the excess of taxation vs. expenditures. Suddenly, the Public CEO has to run a state that is stable enough security wise and enticing enough financially to pull in businesses and citizens. How are cities designed and run now? To maximize the political power of the progressives in charge using dysfunctional and degenerate residents. Why else would they fight gentrification? Imagine the cities having to compete to pull in businesses and productive citizens to contribute to the excess in revenues. Those cities would also not want long commutes so they could reduce the cost of participating in said city for its residents that they screen. How hard is it to build a Hong Kong or Singapore in America? We do not know, but I'll drive through 30 blocks of unlivable areas with nightly gunfire on my way home tonight. Transform those blocks into areas of productive citizens again, because the goal will not be voting power, ghost voter registrations for national elections and creating new ways to spend government revenues to secure more political power, and watch a Singapore take shape (with slightly higher crime and lower math scores).

These are all hypotheticals and dreams, but I like the Public CEO option better because removing a poor performing or corrupt Public CEO sounds easier mentally than a corrupt king, especially when there is the pomp and circumstance of kingship granting him legitimacy. The mechanics still need to be worked out. Having witnessed transition between CEOs at publicly traded and private firms, transition can be smooth. I understand why Hoppe cites insurance companies in his work (long tiem horizons, hold mortgage debt, mutual company formation). How cheapened does the ceremony of the king's coronation become if rotation in and out occurs? Not all historians follow Gibbon's line that Christianity sunk Rome, but that complexity killed it or instability of the emperor role hurt the greater society. Irvine California keeps teasing me, and I know it is a special situation due to the geographic location, but it seems close to that neocameral concept. These dreams may never reach fruition. The coming conflict might be so horrible that tribal leaders will have to fight and viciously enforce security setting up dictatorships that morph into kingdoms. Sometimes South Korea's military junta-dictatorship sounds good or even a timocracy. We do have time, and the time may never come anyway, so let's hash everything out and leave every door open to explore.


Anonymous said...

What's NRx? (I did read the previous post, but I don't recall mention of it there.)

River Cocytus said...

heck, dude, kings even could lay hands on people and heal them, or so they said. Look up 'the King's Ill' - fasci-frickin-nating overall

Son of Brock Landers said...

NRx = neoreaction

Thanks for commenting RC. Kings had plenty of powers which would never fly today.

nickbsteves said...

I agree that getting legitimacy for a Monarch and his (however chosen) heirs is a deep row to hoe in America; but some things have changed to make it more likely achievable, and this is the very apparatus that secures legitimacy for USG today. The vast majority of people will go along peacefully today so long as their (Maslov) basic needs are met. In fact, the American people may be more docile than ever, not that this goes much to their credit. They are almost infinitely more docile than the generation that through off George III, who was (by today's standards) guilty of only the most trifling aggressions.

Foolish Pride said...

This idea that American democracy is counter-productive has no real basis. Our standard of living is the highest it has ever been, even with the recession in mind. Sure, inequality and the welfare rolls are about as high as they've ever been, but NRx does not have the solution to those problems. In the case of the massive, destabilizing gap between rich and poor, NRx would only increase it, it wouldn't decrease it. Sovcorps and monarchies with real power are pie in the sky pipe dreams with no real possibility of occurring.