Why “Neocameralism” Is Demotism

A great post from Outside In presents the best summary ever of Neocameralism:

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

Under Formalist doctrine (which is a subset of and tangentially related to formalism) the separation between government as self-interested party and government as service is closed, and government essentially follows a “subscription” model. Citizens sign up for the government that offers them the most.

This is what we might call “post-Libertarian” theory, as it flows out of Libertarianism. Its primary aim is to reduce government from being able to operate behind an ideological aegis which allows it to commit parasitism that cannot be criticized because its goal is theoretically noble.

However, Neocameralism has a fatal flaw: it experiences the same problems as current consumerism. Subscriptions are a form of “voting with dollars,” and are left up to individual choice, which succumbs to the same problem as other demotist systems (consult The Bell Curve and The Blank Slate for more detail).

When people vote with their subscriptions, they will flock to that which is more mentally convenient, thus ending up at liberalism. After all, right now people know that voting Leftist results in them paying more taxes and receiving less, and still they do it — why? Answer: because government is not the cause but the effect, and the cause is that under social systems, egalitarianism is the way to advance. Again, the problem is us. Government and decline are the result of human individualism, or hubris a.k.a. exaggerated sense of self-importance, not the other way around.

To all who wish to venture in the world of post-Leftist thought, it is important to remember a golden rule:

The problem is equality

Do you yet see where this goes? The ego demands to be equal so that it cannot be criticized. In groups, that becomes collectivized individualism or “Crowdism,” of which Leftism is but one variety. Until we get rid of the notion of equality, and replace it with culture and hierarchy, we are doomed.

There are no ideological answers. Ideology, like politics itself, tends only toward the Left. It does so because it is inherently based in equality, much like any subscription-purchasing model of government. While I admire and enjoy Mr. Land’s spirited defense of this viewpoint, I must disagree that this presents us with any kind of future.

Tags: , , ,

36 Responses to “Why “Neocameralism” Is Demotism”

  1. Cryptogenic says:

    But, if you can simply exit from such a scheme…

    • Where do I exit from exit?

      In practical terms, the “Berlin 1945 moment” for exit was the fall of the South.

      • Cryptogenic says:

        You stay. But exit is not the negative term in a dialectic to be synthesized. Rather, it is the rejection of dialectics that can’t be recuperated. It constantly slips away — literally, in space. If you want to do loyalty and dialectics within a consensus reality, or pit your reality against others (in a word, politics), you can stay put and do that.

        • But exit is not the negative term in a dialectic to be synthesized.

          No, it’s another statement of the Leftist idea: everyone do what they want without consequences, and is historically proven to fail.

          • Cryptogenic says:

            “[E]veryone do what they want without consequences”

            This is an arrangement to exit from and not permit. At the very least getting away from global and domestic rat-people in space is a better start than almost any I can think of.

            • At the very least getting away from global and domestic rat-people in space is a better start than almost any I can think of.

              Or just disenfranchise them and rebuild civilization. The task has always been obvious.

              • Cryptogenic says:

                I think impasse has been reached. But, I have always found it odd that you of all people scoff at secession and separation in space followed by a regime of ruthless security/deterrence. I just can’t take seriously any reboot or reset, even the most hardcore disenfranchisement and genociding.

                If I understand you correctly (“people are the problem”) I would think that securing against humans would be your first priority. Exit plans (potentially infinite), automation, security.

                Probably I am misunderstanding something somewhere. Must needs ponder further.

                • -A says:

                  Ultimately, exit is based in fantasy and not reality. Sure, we can say that we could just fly off into space and shoot brown and liberal people with lasers if they even look at us crosseyed but, are you sure we can accomplish that? Should we be putting all of our eggs in that basket? Further, why is it that you can’t take seriously a restoration of the West but you can take seriously the idea that we just colonize space? That there are literally infinite exit strategies? What about culture? What about blood and soil? What about analyzing the real problems and preventing them? If you don’t understand why a people corrupt, you can focus all of your defenses to the outside for lightyears and it won’t protect you. We have to work with knowable reality and we have to invest in real plans for reversing liberalism and decline.

            • -A says:

              I would think that it would be obvious that if you leave, if you take to space colonization with the intent of leaving, you will only take your problems with you. If you cannot deal with this now, you will not equip yourself to deal with it in the future.

  2. Still one of the more interesting ideas I’ve come across in a wasteland of leftist-derivative ideology.

    It stirs the cyberpunk nerd in me.

  3. Jpw says:

    I would imagine that cancellation is no easy thing once you subscribe.I

    • If you are a modern person, self-contained in an apartment with your possessions being essentially gadgets and clothing, it might be as easy as moving apartments. But, then we have more of the rootless modern lifestyle that is so destructive.

  4. AntiDem says:

    Formalism is a great analysis tool, but as a blueprint for forming a government, not so much.

    Neoreaction went wrong when it became more about figuring out how to gain power than knowing what to do with it once you have it. That’s not even really a task for them anyway. The philosopher inspires the man of action, and it is the man of action who takes power. They need each other – without the guidance of the philosopher, the man of action is just a mindless brute; without the man of action, the philosopher is a pointless navel-gazer. The world needs *both* Merlin and Arthur.

    NRx has also made the classic Modernist mistake of prioritizing means over ends and inputs over outcomes. Neocameralism is yet another system born of such a mistake. So is patriarchy. Hell, so is monarchism. People who come to support these – or any system – soon forget that a system is a means, not an end. The end is decent, rational laws that both reflect Christian morals and conform to a realistic view of how the world works. That – the end, not the means – is what’s important. This is especially important to remind ourselves on July 4th, a day when millions of people go out and celebrate an emotionally appealing means, no matter how undeniable it is that what it actually produces as far as ends go is irrational, unsustainable, and morally repugnant. As Murray Rothbard correctly noted, there is no such thing as an idea (or a system) that works well in theory but not in practice. If it doesn’t work in practice, then the theory was flawed. The only way not to see this is to believe that reality is not the ultimate arbiter of what is true or false. But only a small percentage of the population understands abstractions like that. For most of them, grabbing another beer and watching the fireworks is what the day is all about.

    Anyhow, yeah, neocameralism is a non-starter. Enough “innovative theories” of government. The ground is still saturated with the blood of all the people who have died over the past two centuries or so in all the attempts to make those theories work as well in practice as they did on paper. Let’s go back to what’s tried and true and works. A few minor adjustments to make accommodation for all of our “gee whiz” tech gadgets, and we’re in business.

    Anyhow, here I am with all the other Merlins waiting for the man of action to show up. I sure hope he doesn’t keep us waiting too much longer.

    • Neoreaction went wrong when it became more about figuring out how to gain power than knowing what to do with it once you have it.

      The gaining of power part seems obvious to me: gain consensus among the few actors in a society, seize power, disenfranchise false elites and the masses that support them.

      To my mind, Neoreaction sensu Moldbug reads as a series of thought experiments in the tradition of The Republic. Taking it as literal may be a bit of a mistake.

      The end is decent, rational laws that both reflect Christian morals and conform to a realistic view of how the world works.

      That is a clear statement, and we should always prize those, as they are rare.

      To my mind, the end is an ascendant civilization, which requires certain principles and institutions to keep running. I identify those in the four pillars. There will be some kind of power structure, so it makes sense to make it military/hierarchical and mellow that through aristocracy. It can then either manage itself via government, or as I prefer, culture, which requires strong — to a degree that would make skinheads pall — nationalism. Then we come to the question of reward system, positive (capitalism) or negative (egalitarian/subsidy). That one is obvious to me, since one option seems to Just Not Work except in nations with excess oil income and then it turns them into wimps. Finally, the question of motivation arises. I prefer a transcendental goal, such as excellence (ascendant civilization) plus a believe that life can be pleasurable in an inner sense, something like a golden goodness that the ancient Aryans had. And so, I present to you my vision of civilization. It has been many years mulling in the cask of mind of heart!

      Anyhow, here I am with all the other Merlins waiting for the man of action to show up.

      Not to sound like a contrarian, but I think right now we need Merlins. The Left presented themselves as genius boffins who could cure all our problems. Well, that failed, and left us with an army of hefty sweaty SJWs who look and act like genetic refuse. We need new sages, scientists and thinkers to unite the active parts of the population and create the cultural shift that the New Right talks about. This is where Neoreaction, the Alternative Right, the New Right and traditional conservatives (Burke, Plato, Kirk, Aurelius) come in: we are the brain subversion that replaces the barriers to cultural shift.

      • Godomar says:

        We have to remember that the reconquest of Iberia by the Spanish took almost 800 years. The West is overextended for now, lands will be lost. To survive, the West will need some sorts of strongholds, to retreat, to regenerate itself, among the best of its breeds. And, eventually, it will be possible to retake lands, by small parts, over the years. When Marc Aurelius came to power in Rome, it was already too late to save it. The rebirth of the West won’t happen in our lifetimes, it is a slow process.

        Trump, Le Pen, Wilders are the last attempts, if they cannot change anything, the Nietzschean “Transvaluation of values” will be mandatory.

      • Dualist says:

        It’s a simple as this: as long as democracy continues we are only going to see INCREASING leftism throughout society.

        The proportion of people who would vote for an even-moderately-conservative candidate, such as Trump, is decreasing, not increasing. Each year, another class of public school graduates – leftists to a man – replaces another year of the wiser, older generation as they inevitably die off. America will be minority-White in 30 years time (and this is according to the US Census Bureau, so the date is likely well before then, considering Illegals). Half of the population are women. If the EU election was held even next year, the result would have been ‘Remain’.

        This all means that after about FIFTEEN years from now it will be impossible for any conservative to get in power, democratically.

        A literal military coup is impossible – even the military are no longer on side, so would crush it when told to do so (and they certainly wouldn’t undertake one themselves.)

        There will be no ‘culture shift’ of the masses – the media and the educationalists will simply not allow it. (A quick check of 100 random Facebook profiles of people under the age of 35 should convince anybody who doubts this.)

        Small-scale communities with strong leaders may sound possible. In practice, they would be isolated places were whoever was the most viscous gang-leader was the one who extracted tribute from the inhabitants. The idea that such communities could produce High Culture is laughable.

        If Traditionalists are not in charge by that 15 year point, they never will be, and all we can look forward to will be something increasingly approximating Soviet Russia. People do not NOTICE slow change. There is no limit to how bad things can get, if allowed to degrade slowly.

        So we should not be interested in any idea unless its end is to get ‘us’ elected within 15 years. Every day the Alt-Right talks about anything other than this one, single goal makes reversing the rot less likely.

        Once in power, our very first job would be to replace the heads of the militaries with Traditionalists, over a couple of years (so that the Army would not have a chance of de-railing the subsequent plans but should instead, if anything, support them) and then disenfranchise the leftist media and Academy. Next, we would break the news to the electorate that there are going to be no more elections (in practice we’d say we’ve changed the term of office to 10 years, then go on from there). Only then would we be in a position to really start implementing the ideas that those on the Alt-Right and NRx are so very good at talking about, and which would only start to bear fruit after at least one generation.

        • I agree in that getting into power is most important and slowly moving toward the four pillars can begin only at that time. In addition, I find the “equality –> Communism” formulation to be strikingly true.

        • Corvinus says:

          “It’s a simple as this: as long as democracy continues we are only going to see INCREASING leftism throughout society.”

          Democracy is the people’s choice for a reason. Neoreactionism simply does not whet the appetite of the masses given its propensity for ideological pie in the sky ideas and eggheadish propaganda. Moreover, why on earth would they submit to a new master, that being the yet to be found monarch and aristocracy, with only one form of Christianity to be adhered to, lest they be violently purged.

          “Each year, another class of public school graduates – leftists to a man – replaces another year of the wiser, older generation as they inevitably die off.”

          How elitist of you to state. Listen, let’s assume that Cultural Marxism actually exists in the schools. Is it not the will of the people to promote those ideals? What makes YOU the sole arbiter to demand that they forgo their principles to suit your own narrative? I thought parents know what is best for their children.

          “There will be no ‘culture shift’ of the masses – the media and the educationalists will simply not allow it. (A quick check of 100 random Facebook profiles of people under the age of 35 should convince anybody who doubts this.)”

          So how do you even expect to engage in this massive change for the better?

          “Small-scale communities with strong leaders may sound possible. In practice, they would be isolated places were whoever was the most viscous gang-leader was the one who extracted tribute from the inhabitants. The idea that such communities could produce High Culture is laughable.”

          Assuming that the citizens there would be powerless to stop this situation dead in its tracks.

          “If Traditionalists are not in charge by that 15 year point, they never will be, and all we can look forward to will be something increasingly approximating Soviet Russia. People do not NOTICE slow change. There is no limit to how bad things can get, if allowed to degrade slowly.”

          People do not need traditionalists, they need leaders, who may be traditionalists. Assume these leaders are NOT traditionalists. What would say about their decision?

          “So we should not be interested in any idea unless its end is to get ‘us’ elected within 15 years. Every day the Alt-Right talks about anything other than this one, single goal makes reversing the rot less likely.”

          Exactly! Finally, you are making some sense. It’s all talk. Where is the action?

          “Once in power, our very first job would be to replace the heads of the militaries with Traditionalists, over a couple of years (so that the Army would not have a chance of de-railing the subsequent plans but should instead, if anything, support them) and then disenfranchise the leftist media and Academy.”

          Ok, so HOW do you get into power? Why would the unwashed masses now trust neoreactionaries? Who is THE leader with the moxie and high IQ to pull off this miracle?

          “Next, we would break the news to the electorate that there are going to be no more elections (in practice we’d say we’ve changed the term of office to 10 years, then go on from there).”

          And you don’t expect a violent reprisal? How do you address their “displeasure”?

          “Only then would we be in a position to really start implementing the ideas that those on the Alt-Right and NRx are so very good at talking about, and which would only start to bear fruit after at least one generation.”

          Best wishes in your endeavor.

          • It’s all talk. Where is the action?

            Not this trope again…

            The action is this: unify people who can make decisions, change culture and outlook, renovate the spirit and make it ready to do more than seek convenience, and then seize power through any means necessary, preferably legal.

            Disunified action fails. Do we need to re-live the tedious history of failure that is White Nationalism?

            • Corvinus says:

              “The action is this: unify people who can make decisions, change culture and outlook, renovate the spirit and make it ready to do more than seek convenience, and then seize power through any means necessary, preferably legal.”

              The Alt Right is certainly well within its liberty to undertake action to ensure its agenda becomes a reality.
              Again, best wishes in your endeavor to destroy the “unwashed masses”.

          • Dualist says:

            Democracy may be the people’s choice – hence it is probably not a good choice. You seem to be implying here, and below, that ‘whatever MOST people think we should do – that’s what we should do.’ Sadly, just because an idea is more popular does not make it the best option.

            Let’s say the bottom 75% of society (in BOTH intelligence and morals, assuming a perfect correlation between them, just for simplicity) all support option X. And the top 25% support option Y. Which of those two options is most likely to be the best? Obviously option Y. But in democracy, it is option X that would be implemented.

            More than than half of people are incapable of getting the long-term, non-linear-logical decisions necessary for statecraft correct. Thereby making a situation were bad ideas dominate society an inevitability. This is democracy. In essence, I am saying that MOST people do not know what is good for themselves, certainly not over the long-term. Instead, only the brightest and most moral should be making these decisions; which, ironically, produces the best results for everyone.

            As for your comments on schools, yes, I am an elitist. It’s very kind of you to point that out. I would say it is pretty incontrovertible that 97%+ of the outputs of public schools, certainly the universities, are card-carrying leftists. Like I said, just check out 100 random Facebook profiles (or whatever) if you doubt this. But this is certainly not the will of the people – it has been inflicted from above (and the above discussion shows that even if it WAS their will, this wouldn’t necessarily make it a good thing). A tiny number of academics/writers in the 50’s have indoctrinated the next generation of teachers, who have now done the same to a whole generation.

            But really, the main problem isn’t students’ leftism, it is the pitifully-low standards of education in general. Very, very few people leaving universities are actually above that critical-mass of knowledge required to understand WHY the modern world is like it is, especially historical knowledge. In England, the modern A-level (for 18 year olds) is now of a similar standard to the O-levels (for 16 year olds) of 40 years ago, in all subjects. Check some past papers out if you disbelieve this, and you will see it is an understatement if anything.

            As for getting power, you ask a reasonable question. The first step would involve getting True Conservative political parties (I was using ‘Traditionalist’ as a byword for Alt-Right/Nrx etc. – from now on I will just say ‘us’) going in each nation and, vitally, at least in the back of the whole populations’ consciousnesses. Obviously, the media would utterly vilify us, and you are totally correct, most people would not support us – to begin with.

            Nonetheless, in this shallow, media-driven age I believe having the leaders of the new Party being all young(ish), handsome, masculine men would help to make such ‘vile’ views more palatable to the masses (half of which are women). As mentioned before, I believe they should all ideally have strong academic backgrounds, preferably in science/philosophy (but without any air of the limp-wristed Intellectual) to derail the inevitable attempts to portray members as merely knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, unable to understand ‘Enlightened’ discourse. They would be great speakers, who come across as truthful, but who also have quick-enough wits to produce winning comebacks for that sneering, jeering, sarcastic mockery so beloved of the Left in its ‘discourse’. They would always put forward their policies with an air of pride, never apologetically.

            Still, you are correct – most of the population would not offer their immediate support. But this is only because most people, being supremely self-centred after years of deChristianisation, are concerned chiefly with social status, achieved through virtue-signalling. They feel their futures are secure, and they lack the intelligence to actually see the huge impending iceberg. If you live in a gated community you can pay lip-service to Diversity all you want: its outcomes always effect somebody else. For most people, at this early stage, our party would be offering solutions to seemingly-nonexistent problems.

            This would soon change. I am not going to write the details here, but once the first general election was looming it would be then time for certain ‘activists’ to commence their long-made plans. It would then be time to ‘induce’ such severe, unrelenting social unrest, of such magnitude and duration that the media simply could not ignore it. Obviously, if it was just a ‘one-off’, the media would portray it as the act of crazy, evil neonazis, or whatever. Next day the population would dutifully start the banal ‘hope-not-hate’ twitter memes. Next day it would be forgotten.

            No, I am talking about a coordinated sequence of events, day after day, week after week (though not even involving mass-murder, necessarily, you understand) drawing The Other into action in the process, so to speak (but just below the level were the military would be called in to crush it). The whole point of this is to reach the point were EVERYBODY felt that their futures were no longer secure, even the more-well-off.

            People would instinctively know that the current parties had no solution and they would instead finally vote for the one, single party who had been predicting this scenario and offering remedies all along. When people fear for their future financial security, even future well-being, social pretence would be soon forgotten. We would win by a landslide – just like Hitler did, incidentally.

            So no, we would not be asking the people to submit to a monarch, or aristocrats, initially. But we would then be in a situation were we could START to make the changes necessary for a future were the most intelligent and most moral people were in charge. An aristocracy would then organically grow over generations. I will explain the details of this part more in the future.

            • Corvinus says:

              “Democracy may be the people’s choice – hence it is probably not a good choice. You seem to be implying here, and below, that ‘whatever MOST people think we should do – that’s what we should do.’ Sadly, just because an idea is more popular does not make it the best option.”

              And you seem to be insinuating that you and others know what is best for people, that they lack the intellectual capacity to make decisions they believe is best for them individually and collectively.

              “Let’s say the bottom 75% of society (in BOTH intelligence and morals, assuming a perfect correlation between them, just for simplicity) all support option X. And the top 25% support option Y. Which of those two options is most likely to be the best? Obviously option Y. But in democracy, it is option X that would be implemented.”

              You make the assumption that 75% have low IQ and low morals. Alexander Hamilton also shared that belief. Thomas Jefferson kindly reminded him that the intellectual firepower of the American Revolution came from the shopkeepers and the coopers and the silversmiths, or the “low” class. Moreover, you assume that the 25% of the population will inherently know what is best for everyone else because they allegedly possess superior intellect.

              “More than than half of people are incapable of getting the long-term, non-linear-logical decisions necessary for statecraft correct.”

              Based on what objective metrics? Why should citizens simply give up their liberty to YOU to make unilateral choices for them?

              “Thereby making a situation were bad ideas dominate society an inevitability. This is democracy.”

              This is government, regardless of its form. Absolute monarchies, theocracies, representative democracies, ALL have demonstrated at various points in time significant voids in leadership and highly questionable decisions by the populace.

              In essence, I am saying that MOST people do not know what is good for themselves, certainly not over the long-term.”

              Again, how do YOU instinctively know better?

              “Instead, only the brightest and most moral should be making these decisions; which, ironically, produces the best results for everyone.”

              What makes YOU the brightest and most moral? Why should people merely trust you? Have you run for political office before? Have you held key leadership positions in the corporate or business world? What are YOUR qualifications?

              “As for your comments on schools, yes, I am an elitist. It’s very kind of you to point that out. I would say it is pretty incontrovertible that 97%+ of the outputs of public schools, certainly the universities, are card-carrying leftists.”

              Let’s assume this 97% is also leftist. They are also elitist. Looks like you have a tall order to overcome their brand of elitism.

              Now, of course, it’s NOT incontrovertible that those who attend or graduate “gummint” schools are “leftist”, or even “brainwashed”.

              “A tiny number of academics/writers in the 50’s have indoctrinated the next generation of teachers, who have now done the same to a whole generation.”

              Let us assume that American society has been indoctrinated. It will be observably no different than if the neoreactionaries gained power and put forth their own curriculum to “properly teach” future generations. Some would argue that we are all “brainwashed” in some way, shape, or form.

              “…it is the pitifully-low standards of education in general. Very, very few people leaving universities are actually above that critical-mass of knowledge required to understand WHY the modern world is like it is, especially historical knowledge. In England, the modern A-level (for 18 year olds) is now of a similar standard to the O-levels (for 16 year olds) of 40 years ago, in all subjects. Check some past papers out if you disbelieve this, and you will see it is an understatement if anything.”

              I would have little quibble here with this assessment.

              “As for getting power, you ask a reasonable question. The first step would involve getting True Conservative political parties (I was using ‘Traditionalist’ as a byword for Alt-Right/Nrx etc. – from now on I will just say ‘us’) going in each nation and, vitally, at least in the back of the whole populations’ consciousnesses.”

              Who are these true conservative types? What are their qualifications and backgrounds? What is their “plan of attack”?

              “Nonetheless, in this shallow, media-driven age I believe having the leaders of the new Party being all young(ish), handsome, masculine men would help to make such ‘vile’ views more palatable to the masses (half of which are women).”

              The media, from leftists to conservatives, would expose you as being, in essence, a cult. Moreover, you will need an army of these “studs”. Where do you honestly believe this “saviors” will come from? You have all of these grandiose ideas WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION!

              “As mentioned before, I believe they should all ideally have strong academic backgrounds, preferably in science/philosophy (but without any air of the limp-wristed Intellectual) to derail the inevitable attempts to portray members as merely knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, unable to understand ‘Enlightened’ discourse. They would be great speakers, who come across as truthful, but who also have quick-enough wits to produce winning comebacks for that sneering, jeering, sarcastic mockery so beloved of the Left in its ‘discourse’. They would always put forward their policies with an air of pride, never apologetically.”

              Ideally, yes. How about coming back to Earth and being realistic?

              “Still, you are correct – most of the population would not offer their immediate support. But this is only because most people, being supremely self-centred after years of deChristianisation, are concerned chiefly with social status, achieved through virtue-signalling. They feel their futures are secure, and they lack the intelligence to actually see the huge impending iceberg.”

              People can decide for themselves the lives they will lead and how they will deal, or not deal with, future disasters.

              “This would soon change. I am not going to write the details here, but once the first general election was looming it would be then time for certain ‘activists’ to commence their long-made plans.”

              Just like “Fight Club”, right, Tyler Durden? Are you one of these “activists”? I certainly await your instructions on your bull-horn. Make sure you reveal your Internet handle so I can be amazed by your alphaness.

              “It would then be time to ‘induce’ such severe, unrelenting social unrest, of such magnitude and duration that the media simply could not ignore it.”

              That is ALL neoreactionaries do is talk about when these “tour de force” machinations will reveal itself, but they never materialize!

              I will believe it when I see it. Otherwise, it’s mere bluster.

              “No, I am talking about a coordinated sequence of events, day after day, week after week (though not even involving mass-murder, necessarily, you understand) drawing The Other into action in the process, so to speak (but just below the level were the military would be called in to crush it). The whole point of this is to reach the point were EVERYBODY felt that their futures were no longer secure, even the more-well-off.”

              Yes, how convenient, the end of the world scenario in which you leap into action like a superhero to save the day with your reactionary clap-trap.

              “People would instinctively know that the current parties had no solution and they would instead finally vote for the one, single party who had been predicting this scenario and offering remedies all along. When people fear for their future financial security, even future well-being, social pretence would be soon forgotten. We would win by a landslide – just like Hitler did, incidentally.”

              You will have to contend with several other groups who will arise from the ashes. Given the information age, people are going to be well-informed of Reactionary bullshit. Westerners are NOT giving up their freedoms for a monarchial, strict Christian-based form of government.

              “So no, we would not be asking the people to submit to a monarch, or aristocrats, initially. But we would then be in a situation were we could START to make the changes necessary for a future were the most intelligent and most moral people were in charge. An aristocracy would then organically grow over generations. I will explain the details of this part more in the future.”

              This event is ENTIRELY predicated on a gloom and doom scenario, with the masses completely buying into your fantasy. Vox Day would certainly do you favors in hiring you for his stable of science fiction writers.

            • Corvinus says:

              “Democracy may be the people’s choice – hence it is probably not a good choice. You seem to be implying here, and below, that ‘whatever MOST people think we should do – that’s what we should do.’ Sadly, just because an idea is more popular does not make it the best option.”

              And you seem to be insinuating that you and others know what is best for people, that they lack the intellectual capacity to make decisions they believe is best for them individually and collectively.

              “Let’s say the bottom 75% of society (in BOTH intelligence and morals, assuming a perfect correlation between them, just for simplicity) all support option X. And the top 25% support option Y. Which of those two options is most likely to be the best? Obviously option Y. But in democracy, it is option X that would be implemented.”

              You make the assumption that 75% have low IQ and low morals. Alexander Hamilton also shared that belief. Thomas Jefferson kindly reminded him that the intellectual firepower of the American Revolution came from the shopkeepers and the coopers and the silversmiths, or the “low” class. Moreover, you assume that the 25% of the population will inherently know what is best for everyone else because they allegedly possess superior intellect.

              “More than than half of people are incapable of getting the long-term, non-linear-logical decisions necessary for statecraft correct.”

              Based on what objective metrics? Why should citizens simply give up their liberty to YOU to make unilateral choices for them?

              “Thereby making a situation were bad ideas dominate society an inevitability. This is democracy.”

              This is government, regardless of its form. Absolute monarchies, theocracies, representative democracies, ALL have demonstrated at various points in time significant voids in leadership and highly questionable decisions by the populace.

              “In essence, I am saying that MOST people do not know what is good for themselves, certainly not over the long-term.”

              Again, how do YOU instinctively know better?

              “Instead, only the brightest and most moral should be making these decisions; which, ironically, produces the best results for everyone.”

              What makes YOU the brightest and most moral? Why should people merely trust you? Have you run for political office before? Have you held key leadership positions in the corporate or business world? What are YOUR qualifications?

              “As for your comments on schools, yes, I am an elitist. It’s very kind of you to point that out. I would say it is pretty incontrovertible that 97%+ of the outputs of public schools, certainly the universities, are card-carrying leftists.”

              Let’s assume this 97% is also leftist. They are also elitist. Looks like you have a tall order to overcome their brand of elitism.

              Now, of course, it’s NOT incontrovertible that those who attend or graduate “gummint” schools are “leftist”, or even “brainwashed”.

              “A tiny number of academics/writers in the 50’s have indoctrinated the next generation of teachers, who have now done the same to a whole generation.”

              Let us assume that American society has been indoctrinated. It will be observably no different than if the neoreactionaries gained power and put forth their own curriculum to “properly teach” future generations. Some would argue that we are all “brainwashed” in some way, shape, or form.

              “…it is the pitifully-low standards of education in general. Very, very few people leaving universities are actually above that critical-mass of knowledge required to understand WHY the modern world is like it is, especially historical knowledge. In England, the modern A-level (for 18 year olds) is now of a similar standard to the O-levels (for 16 year olds) of 40 years ago, in all subjects. Check some past papers out if you disbelieve this, and you will see it is an understatement if anything.”

              I would have little quibble here with this assessment.

              “As for getting power, you ask a reasonable question. The first step would involve getting True Conservative political parties (I was using ‘Traditionalist’ as a byword for Alt-Right/Nrx etc. – from now on I will just say ‘us’) going in each nation and, vitally, at least in the back of the whole populations’ consciousnesses.”

              Who are these true conservative types? What are their qualifications and backgrounds? What is their “plan of attack”?

              “Nonetheless, in this shallow, media-driven age I believe having the leaders of the new Party being all young(ish), handsome, masculine men would help to make such ‘vile’ views more palatable to the masses (half of which are women).”

              The media, from leftists to conservatives, would expose you as being, in essence, a cult. Moreover, you will need an army of these “studs”. Where do you honestly believe this “saviors” will come from? You have all of these grandiose ideas WITHOUT ANY ACTUAL IMPLEMENTATION!

              “As mentioned before, I believe they should all ideally have strong academic backgrounds, preferably in science/philosophy (but without any air of the limp-wristed Intellectual) to derail the inevitable attempts to portray members as merely knuckle-dragging Neanderthals, unable to understand ‘Enlightened’ discourse. They would be great speakers, who come across as truthful, but who also have quick-enough wits to produce winning comebacks for that sneering, jeering, sarcastic mockery so beloved of the Left in its ‘discourse’. They would always put forward their policies with an air of pride, never apologetically.”

              Ideally, yes. How about coming back to Earth and being realistic?

              “Still, you are correct – most of the population would not offer their immediate support. But this is only because most people, being supremely self-centred after years of deChristianisation, are concerned chiefly with social status, achieved through virtue-signalling. They feel their futures are secure, and they lack the intelligence to actually see the huge impending iceberg.”

              People can decide for themselves the lives they will lead and how they will deal, or not deal with, future disasters.

              “This would soon change. I am not going to write the details here, but once the first general election was looming it would be then time for certain ‘activists’ to commence their long-made plans.”

              Just like “Fight Club”, right, Tyler Durden? Are you one of these “activists”? I certainly await your instructions on your bull-horn. Make sure you reveal your Internet handle so I can be amazed by your alphaness.

              “It would then be time to ‘induce’ such severe, unrelenting social unrest, of such magnitude and duration that the media simply could not ignore it.”

              That is ALL neoreactionaries do is talk about when these “tour de force” machinations will reveal itself, but they never materialize!

              I will believe it when I see it. Otherwise, it’s mere bluster.

              “No, I am talking about a coordinated sequence of events, day after day, week after week (though not even involving mass-murder, necessarily, you understand) drawing The Other into action in the process, so to speak (but just below the level were the military would be called in to crush it). The whole point of this is to reach the point were EVERYBODY felt that their futures were no longer secure, even the more-well-off.”

              Yes, how convenient, the end of the world scenario in which you leap into action like a superhero to save the day with your reactionary clap-trap.

              “People would instinctively know that the current parties had no solution and they would instead finally vote for the one, single party who had been predicting this scenario and offering remedies all along. When people fear for their future financial security, even future well-being, social pretence would be soon forgotten. We would win by a landslide – just like Hitler did, incidentally.”

              You will have to contend with several other groups who will arise from the ashes. Given the information age, people are going to be well-informed of Reactionary bullshit. Westerners are NOT giving up their freedoms for a monarchial, strict Christian-based form of government.

              “So no, we would not be asking the people to submit to a monarch, or aristocrats, initially. But we would then be in a situation were we could START to make the changes necessary for a future were the most intelligent and most moral people were in charge. An aristocracy would then organically grow over generations. I will explain the details of this part more in the future.”

              This event is ENTIRELY predicated on a gloom and doom scenario, with the masses completely buying into your fantasy. Vox Day would certainly do you favors in hiring you for his stable of science fiction writers.

              • And you seem to be insinuating that you and others know what is best for people, that they lack the intellectual capacity to make decisions they believe is best for them individually and collectively.

                History has conclusively proved that group decision-making ends civilizations. Whether that is from lack of intellectual capacity or not is up for debate. Further, in-depth observation shows that most people make terrible decisions, and even good people screw a lot up, so guidance is not just an imposition but an aid. Civilization is a condition in which no man is an island, but everyone wants to pretend he can be one.

              • Dualist says:

                Answering your first paragraph (excluding quotes from my comment): yes, I am.

                Things go downhill in your second paragraph. You’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying. If a hypothetical idea is only held by the cleverest 25% of society (ie. the furthest-right section of the Gaussian curve for IQ, say) and all of those of lesser intelligence hold a different opinion, which of these 2 groups is MOST LIKELY to be correct: that’s all I asked. The percentages were completely arbitrary. As long as I picked a number over 51%, the idea is the same.

                I understand this is a contrived situation but it was just to quickly demonstrate how bad ideas are likely to win out over good ones in any democratic system. It’s lucky I didn’t use a more complex, realistic one to illustrate my point, given that you’ve incorrectly parsed at least two sentences of mine from this paragraph alone.

                As for the rest of your comment, once again, you haven’t quite got what I was implying. This is more understandable this time, however, because I was very sketchy on the details. I hope you understand why. But please do not doubt for one second that they haven’t been worked out in great detail.

                You are correct: the whole plan IS predicated on a ‘doom and gloom’ scenario. I obviously cannot go into more details but YES, it would be ‘US’ that ‘induced’ this situation. Yes, I myself would be personally involved in this. Yes, the plan has been finalised, it is only a question of the timing. The specific social and demographic situation in the UK makes what we intend to do the very, very easy part. A few tweaks would make it work in America, too.

                The difficult part was the process preceding it: getting a national party together and with most of the electorate aware of its existence. Though I’m not sure why you find the existence of a few conservative guys who happen to be telegenic and who also have good rhetorical skills to be unbelievable to the point of fantasy. Anybody in my circle of ‘friends’ would fit the bill, for one, and I’m sure many other fellas on the Alt-Right are of this description.

                We would need to be in a position similar to the ‘far-right’ UKIP during the last general election, who was given a place in the pre-election debates even by the leftist BBC. So that when the ‘situation’ occurred just before an election, the people would vote for the only party who had been predicting just such a ‘situation’ occuring and offering solutions to pre-emptively fix it.

                So no, once such a Party is up and running in the UK, we won’t be ‘relying’ on anything to happen. We’ll make it happen.

                Now that’s democracy!

                • The difficult part was the process preceding it: getting a national party together and with most of the electorate aware of its existence. Though I’m not sure why you find the existence of a few conservative guys who happen to be telegenic and who also have good rhetorical skills to be unbelievable to the point of fantasy. Anybody in my circle of ‘friends’ would fit the bill, for one, and I’m sure many other fellas on the Alt-Right are of this description.

                  Exactly.

                  The task ahead and the methods required to achieve it are not rocket science.

                  It just takes doing.

                • Corvinus says:

                  “Answering your first paragraph (excluding quotes from my comment): yes, I am.”

                  You only think you know what is best for others. Essentially, you are stating you have the liberty to do what you want for me and to me without my say in the matter at hand. You don’t own me or my brethren. You would no different than the “elites” that you claim are “enslaving me”.

                  “Things go downhill in your second paragraph. You’ve completely misunderstood what I was saying. If a hypothetical idea is only held by the cleverest 25% of society (ie. the furthest-right section of the Gaussian curve for IQ, say) and all of those of lesser intelligence hold a different opinion, which of these 2 groups is MOST LIKELY to be correct: that’s all I asked. The percentages were completely arbitrary. As long as I picked a number over 51%, the idea is the same.”

                  You are doggedly backtracking. as I completely understood what you were stating and picked it apart.

                  “I understand this is a contrived situation but it was just to quickly demonstrate how bad ideas are likely to win out over good ones in any democratic system.”

                  That is not for you to exclusively determine what is a “good” or “bad” idea, considering your intent to utterly manipulate my freedom for your own designs.

                  “This is more understandable this time, however, because I was very sketchy on the details. I hope you understand why. But please do not doubt for one second that they haven’t been worked out in great detail.”

                  I’m certain the “elites” have fail safe measures in place, a “break the glass in an emergency” contingency plan. Undoubtedly, they are already know the details of your course of action, of your moves and countermoves. Why do you think, for example, that the same families in Italy that helped to spur the Renaissance are still prominent and powerful and wealthy today?

                  “You are correct: the whole plan IS predicated on a ‘doom and gloom’ scenario. I obviously cannot go into more details but YES, it would be ‘US’ that ‘induced’ this situation. Yes, I myself would be personally involved in this. Yes, the plan has been finalised, it is only a question of the timing.”

                  Yes, the timing. Always about the timing. Except the day of implementation is somehow pushed back. Over and over.

                  “The difficult part was the process preceding it: getting a national party together and with most of the electorate aware of its existence.”

                  You have yet to accomplish anything of this magnitude.

                  “Though I’m not sure why you find the existence of a few conservative guys who happen to be telegenic and who also have good rhetorical skills to be unbelievable to the point of fantasy. Anybody in my circle of ‘friends’ would fit the bill, for one, and I’m sure many other fellas on the Alt-Right are of this description.”

                  Anyone can make these grandiose plans on a blog. Anyone can claim they have the guile to sweep the electorate off their feet with a “new” government. I will wait until the time when it all unfolds and you and your ilk come from behind the shadows and show your faces. Something tells me I’ll be waiting a long, long, time.

  5. Alice Teller says:

    Neocameralism holds no appeal for me, patchwork does. Not only are we not all equal, we differ in many ways. The assumption that there ought to be a one size fits all system is a form of universalism. If you want a beautiful garden you must be willing to weed. Some prefer the convenience of a paved patio. Let us all search for a system that best suits us.

    • Not only are we not all equal, we differ in many ways. The assumption that there ought to be a one size fits all system is a form of universalism.

      We have to be careful that we do not fall into rationalization, which involves the finding of a good/bad and using it as a category with which to attack what we dislike.

      Univeralism is the idea not just of a one-size-fits-all solution, but one based in the equality of individuals, not the idea that a civilization can choose a solution that works for itself.

      The grim fact is that civilizations are biological entities which need people of many different stripes, but we are not all the same, and so our choices on a personal level do not matter. What works is what matters. For this reason, what we prefer takes a secondary role to what is necessary.

      Addressing your (interesting) metaphor about beautiful gardens and paved patios, I have to defer to Plato. Civilizations run in cycles based on their choice of leadership model. We either head toward the beautiful garden, or we are heading toward the patch of generalist weeds with no organization.

      Within the model that I suggest, you will have the ability to lead your life as you choose, without your civilization collapsing because it did not banish the demon. We either cast out the bad thinking, both in idea and in deed, or it gradually gains on us.

      The past 200 years of American history seem to bear this out.

    • -A says:

      Patchwork is much easier to blow up in your face. This is why I would only work with Jack Donovan in an actual apocalypse scenario and even then, only until I could amicably leave. Patchwork would always devolve into what we have now only with accepted and open war between groups that just plain don’t like each other. The reality is, there would be no neutral territory, only yours and theirs. There would be zero accounting for all of the radically different groups looking to pursue their own radically different interests and no one group would likely have the time to focus on their needs for excelling. Something like Patchwork, but with either a light Imperial force or a light federation of Aristocrats, both of which would give full respect to Ethno-locales, would be necessary to maintain peace. Even if these two things were not necessary, within the patchwork system, everyone would have to be the same race with the same general baseline values. The patchwork would be in name only (de jure) but the light Empire would be in silent practice (de facto) and that would be fine so long as it was not an opening for emotional manipulation of “inclusivity” and such nonsense.

  6. […] https://theanti-puritan.blogspot.ca/2016/07/neocameral-future-preface-and.html. “Why I am not a Neocameralist.” “When men vote you get the free market, when women vote you get […]

  7. pythias says:

    “Until we get rid of the notion of equality, and replace it with culture and hierarchy, we are doomed. There are no ideological answers.” So, the notion of a hierarchical culture is not at all ideological?

  8. […] and be included equally. It is basically social pacifism, designed for individuals who then form collectives to enforce […]

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>