A Functioning Patchwork

Spandrell consistently posts some of the most thought provoking content on the internet.  In his most recent post he ties together early soviet communism, modern day cultural Marxism, and the important concept of loyalty tests.  Is rule by a priestly bureaucracy really the best we can do?  In bureaucratic rule, loyalty becomes so important the vows of celibacy are necessary to prove loyalty.  The problem with priestly bureaucracies is that they lose the incentive to innovate, or even have any respect for objective truth.  To understand how a society based upon testimonial truth might be constructed it may be helpful to analyze one small example.

The lobster industry of Maine has been practicing sustainable fishing for years.  The industry has managed to increase the number of lobsters caught to record levels.  This did not happen because of laissez faire capitalism, nor by bureaucratic communism.  The secret to the lobster industry’s success is rule of law—in this case a system of regulations.  Lobsterman must wait years to get a license.  There are no open borders at the entrance of the lobster industry.  Female lobsters with eggs must be marked and returned to the ocean.  Lobsters under or over a certain size must also be returned unharmed.

The laws regarding lobster fishinghave prevented a tragedy of the commons in which each fisherman seeks to maximize his own profit by catching all that he can.  The result of a complete absence of cooperation among lobsterman would be a collapse of the industry due to over-fishing.  Another factor, which probably helps the industry to succeed, is that the lobstermen are all New Englanders.  They follow the rules, and they will snitch on cheaters.  They are a tough bunch and they have their own culture.

The lobster industry should be an example to so called conservatives that a well regulated marketplace does not need to be a totalitarian nightmare.  Each member of the patchwork is a profit seeking entity.  Lobstermen have been developing better traps, more fuel-efficient boats, and methods of harvesting further from shore.  Greed actually is good.  The industry serves as an example to liberals that government ownership of an industry is far from ideal.  The keys to the success of a patchwork are a healthy incentive structure for each patch, and a method of ensuring cooperation between the patches.  The profit motive provides the incentive, while cooperation is always the tricky part.

To govern a healthy society it helps to have:

Rule of law (accountability)

Racial and cultural cohesion

Restricted entry into the society, market, or county

Punishment or exile for those who imperil the commons

Freedom by itself does not produce a health society.  In fact that’s bass ackwards.  Liberty is the fruit of a high trust society under accountable rule of law.

Equality does not happen just because people scream and protest.  Social mobility increases, and class differences decrease when excessive profit is slowly ground away by competition in a marketplace.

Our goal on the new right is to crush both liberalism and conservatism, as most people understand the concepts.


A purpose beyond race and identity

A recent comment over at Zman’s blog seemed to be well liked, so I shall add a few more thoughts.  First the comment:

“The cloud people are all but invisible to some folks out here in flyover land. From a struggling mid sized town in East Kentucky perspective, the cloud people don’t seem important at first. Walmart has done more damage to the community than Mexicans. Highway project after highway project (bypassing the bypass route of the old bypass route), have destroyed more small businesses than Jews. Consolidated schools have destroyed more small towns than blacks. White people are not having children for numerous reasons, but when the community schools are gone, it is just one more pita to deal with.

The ironic thing is that a majority of people in these towns will favor the Wal-Mart (cheap stuff), highway project (muh jobs), and giant mega-school in the middle of nowhere (for the children). Of course the cloud people profit from all of the above. Some in the Alt Right like too say that economics do not matter, but we need a message that resonates with people.”

I have no interest in ranting against Walmart–I shop there too.  I am interested in thinking about the way we live today, and the fact that both left and right are unhappy with the arrangement.  Any criticism of globalism or crony capitalism always meets cry’s of  “muh free markets!” from the right, and “communism now!” from the left.    Neither left nor right are addressing the loss of social trust occurring in the west.

Walmart’s success involves economies of scale, but Walmart has historically engaged in aggressive price discrimination.  Even those rare purchasers who can buy goods in greater quantities than Walmart may not get a price per item as low as Walmart.  Supplier contracts are abused to create supplier monopolies, but the left today has no interest in trust busting.

Much of America is in decline, middle class jobs seem scarce, and boarded up store fronts are prevalent in much of small town America.  People who live in these towns will eagerly support any government initiative that seems like it might offer opportunity.  The little southern Illinois town of Tamms supported a nearby supermax prison a few years back.   The people there probably thought that new stores and restaurant would follow, but all of the development occurred near Interstate 57 several miles away.

A huge percentage of US GDP is government funded indirectly if not directly.   Most of the growth sectors of the economy (health care, education, etc.) involve government funds.  The Reagan era rallying cry of less government and more individualism does not resonate as it once did.  People may not support big governments, but they do not trust big business.  Huge cuts in health and education spending will be needed to prevent insolvency,  but helping the private sector will not necessarily bring back middle America.  The west is lurching toward a plantation economy similar to what is seen in much of South America.   The new right needs to present an alternative.


What is referred to as globalism has historic roots, which go back at least as far as the English civil wars of the 1600’s.  Globalism today has certain characteristics:

American hegemony

Petro-dollar/fiat currency

The desire to spread democracy

Globalism has passed through four phases in the last 100 years or so:

Pre-globalism           (From the end of the Spanish-American War to the end of WWII.)

Globalism 1.0          Post WWII to 1972

Globalism 2.0          1972 to 1996

Globalism 3.0          1996 to the present

William Jennings Bryan figures prominently as the most important ideological figure in early Globalism.  Bryan opposed imperialism, yet he had favored America’s entry into the Spanish American War.  Bryan believed in spreading democracy to the world, yet he railed against American empire.

Bryan is regarded as one of the most brilliant orators of his time.  His candidacies for US president coincided with a period of history in which the US was transitioning from an agrarian frontier nation to an industrial power with considerable military might.  In his cross of gold speech, Bryan asserted that European powers should  not, and in fact could not influence the US currency.

“If they say bimetallism is good, but that we cannot have it until other nations help us, we reply, that instead of having a gold standard because England has, we will restore bimetallism, and then let England have bimetallism because the United States has it. If they dare to come out in the open field and defend the gold standard as a good thing, we will fight them to the uttermost.”

William Jennings Bryan was a populist, but his ideology parted ways with the earlier populism of Andrew Jackson.  Bryan’s focus was on trying to find a world leadership role for the increasingly powerful USA which fit his morals.  Bryan’s speeches and writings foreshadowed the early globalist ideology expressed in the famous Time Magazine article American Malvern.

Bryan lost his bids for the presidency.  William McKinley’s pragmatism won out and the Philippines became a US territory.  The US simply did not yet have the military or economic power to implement Bryan’s agenda in 1900.  His ideas remain some of the most important for those of us interested in the history of globalism.  This blog post will be revised.

Chip Board Boxes


The California wildfires have given the conspiracy minded folks something to talk about.  Images like the one above show houses burned to a crisp while nearby pine trees survived.  Since pine trees are flammable, what happened?  Did an alien microwave death ray smite the houses while leaving the trees?

A more likely explanation is that modern houses are made out of flammable crap.  A typical house today consists of OSB walls covered with vinyl siding under an asphalt roof.   In other words wood chips covered by petrochemicals–what could possibly go wrong?

A more interesting question is what kind of society would choose to build houses like this?  There was a time when the more affluent would build houses out of brick or stone.  Horrific fires in the mid 1800’s nearly leveled cities like St. Louis and Chicago.  A trend toward building  housing which would potentially last for hundreds of years existed, and then this trend was abandoned.

Of course we live in a consumer society in which people think short term.  Preaching that we should think of our posterity seems pointless.  A more useful inquiry is an analysis of the incentives which have brought about such a consumer society.

The loss of community is a primary source of the problem.  An individual who buys a house in suburban Atlanta may enjoy twenty years of appreciation on that property before diversity threatens the property value.   There is no point in buying a house which is built to last 300 years when the neighborhood is gone in thirty.  You will not be leaving your house to your heirs.

The FIRE (Finance, Insurance, Real Estate) drives much of the political system in the USA.  A creditor does not care about the house once the loan is paid, and a typical house mortgage lasts thirty years.  All of the political and business incentives are to build and destroy everything about every thirty to forty years.



A Cleaner Shirt–Passivism revisited

Moldbug’s concept of passivism is one of his least understood.   Passivism means that a simple procedure is required to gain power.


  1. Become worthy
  2. Accept power
  3. Rule

At first glance, the procedure seems absurdly simplistic.  Are you saying that all I need to do is sit around and blog post in order to rule a country?  Passivism also means that one who desires authority must reject any claims to authority.  This assertion rubs many folks on the Alt Right the wrong way since it would seem to mean that all public activism is pointless.  Moldbug observed that the demonstrations of the 1960’s were actually a victory lap for the left.  The political left had already assumed power (De Facto), by gaining control of almost all of the institutions that matter.  (Courts, Media, Universities)  The ability to stage unruly public demonstrations simply formalized the fact that they were assuming power.  (De Jure)  The few remaining nominally right wing institutions (police, military) failed to prevent lawlessness in the streets.

Let us consider these two objections in order.  Of course, we must do more than internet activity to rule a country.  A more detailed procedure might read:

  1. Become worthy

1a. Be seen as worthy by people that matter.

  1. Accept power
  2. Rule

Who matters?  The common people like me do not matter much.  A reactionary does not seek a peasant’s revolt.  Occasionally a charismatic individual or group is able to gather enough popular support to motivate torches and pitchforks.  The problem with a peasant’s revolt against the problems caused by leftism is that the peasants will demand even more leftism as the fix.  We are hungry.  We want better health care!  Give us stuff!

If commoners do not matter then perhaps, the military is the solution.  All power comes out of the barrel of a gun after all, but military organizations are highly hierarchical.  The subject of why soldiers obey orders at all, and how they choose whom to obey is one on which a great deal of ink has been spilled.  It is unlikely that a successful military coup would occur unless at least a few higher officers were involved.

People that matter are only those who have the ability to grant the transfer of power, or facilitate others to transfer power.  In some societies, the only people that matter are those who command the guns—North Korea comes to mind.  Fear, coercion, or intimidation is powerful motivation.  In the west, power is usually a bit more subtle.  Good governments are those that provide transparency and consistency.  The west is a lower trust society than it was in 1960; however, the west is still a better place to do business than most of the world.

I need to buy a new bar for my chainsaw.  I may choose to buy it online from either Wal-Mart site to store, Amazon, or Ebay.  If I chose to buy the bar from any of those three, I am actually purchasing the bar from a vendor, who has been granted the privilege of selling in that online space.  Even Wal-Mart is not really the seller—I just get the bar through Wally’s website and distribution network.  Wal-Mart, Ebay, or Amazon is actually selling governance.  These online giants have created a set of rules for participating in a marketplace, and a means for redressing grievances if transactions do not go as expected.  Ebay in a sense is doing a better job governing than most of the US court system.  I will choose to get my chain saw parts through the governing body that seems to offer the lowest total transaction cost.  (Time, money, hassle)

Global capital functions in a similar manner.  No sane billionaire invests billions in Zimbabwe. The cost of labor and land in Zimbabwe may be low, but the overall cost there is high.  Governments such as the EU or USG offer a better overall deal.  The US dollar has often been referred to as the cleanest dirty shirt in the drawer.  Global crony capitalism has many flaws, but still offers a good return on investment.  Moneyed and powerful people will not support an alternative to globalism until the alternative is seen as being a lower cost option.  This could be done by creating a system, which offers transactions that are more truthful.  Stamping out corruption, creating a better court system, and using stable fiscal and monetary policy, are all means of increasing transparency.  The other option is less appealing—raise the cost of the status quo.  (As the IRA did in Ireland)

The second objection, that passivism means abstaining from all public activism, is in the process of resolving itself.  A major Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA did not go as well as the organizers had hoped.  Most of the key figures in the Alt Right have taken on a slightly different tone post C-Ville.  Public events will still take place, but certain of the more inflammatory symbols are discouraged.  Participants are told to obey all state and local laws to the letter.  Protests are geared toward raising awareness of the threat to heritage, hearth, and home.  Unlike the militia movement of the 1970’s, who ran about with guns, and even robbed a bank on one occasion, today’s Alt Right is trying to appear worthy.  Critics may say that the Alt Right does not have all the answers, but remember that no governing body needs to be perfect.  We just need to be slightly cleaner dirty shirt than USG.

Who’s WE Sucka?

I enjoy picking on cuckservatives because it is so easy to wrap them up in logical contradictions.  When discussing politics with a cuck I often hear responses like, “All we need to do is follow the constitution.” Perhaps the cuck will say, “We should have a free market for health care.”  Statements like this ignore the simple political reality that there must be some WE which agrees with this point of view.

When discussing Hans Herman Hoppe’s work on the Daily Shoa, Curt Doolittle mentioned that a fundamental question of ethics is, “Why don’t I kill you and take your stuff?”  Such a statement might seem silly at first, but consider the origins of law.  A law proceeds from a gentleman’s agreement, and law is enforced with various physical punishment.  When two cave men met a few thousand years ago, you can bet that each of them thought, “I can kill this guy and take his stuff.”   At some point, they learned not to kill each other and law was born.

A high trust society is possible because of a system in which no one, not even the King, is above the law.  Cucks simply take this high trust framework for granted.  Visiting rural Baja California is an interesting experience.  Far from major towns enterprising fellows sell gasoline in plastic milk jugs.  What a great free market system!  What octane rating is it?  Has it been diluted with wood alcohol?  The transaction takes place far from the law, and it is buyer beware.  Much of the world economy consists of this style of bazaar economics in which haggling is expected, quality is questionable, and transparency is completely absent.

Transparency in politics is damaged when one side refuses to play by the rules.  Conservatives tolerated the gay marriage initiative because they thought, “Live and let live.”  A conservative could justify a pro-gay marriage position based upon libertarian principles.  Such a cuck should not be too surprised then when the other side, which proclaimed a desire to live and let live, then asserts a right to be married at the cuck’s church.  The situation is analogous to the buyer who agrees to buy a quart of milk only to discover that it is diluted with cat piss.

The first three words of the constitution are “We the People.”   What happens when there is no longer a we?  Judicial activism is a glaring example of this.  A law may clearly state that freed men of color may be citizens, but a judge comes to power and simply declares that this means that any baby born on US soil is a citizen.  There is no longer a we in most of the west.  A high trust society no longer exists when various factions decide that they are above the law and act to work around the law with any bit of power that they can acquire.

Black’s will vote for more social programs by a 90% margin.  There is no argument based upon law that will convince them otherwise.  A black person who gains power, whether in business or government, will typically act in his own interest and act to subvert the law.  Waves of immigrants are flooding to the west at this moment.  These people do not consider themselves to be part of the we.  The immigrants will often be from parts of the world where the low trust bazaar economy is typical.  The end result will be a low trust political system.

A question often debated in white nationalist circles is, “Are Jewish people white?”  The question seems absurd when asked about European Jews since they are from Europe.  The real question which should be asked of any person, or any ethnicity is, “Are you part of the we?”  In the case of Jews, a large percentage consider themselves to be a minority apart from the rest of society.  These Jews caused a disruption to the system of law and trust in the west as they gained power in the 1950’ and 1960’s.  Liberals have always been around in the west.  The American Board of Massachusetts was a religious organization which sought to school the Indians and otherwise improve their quality of life in the early 1800’s.   The abolitionist movement was certainly one of the left wing movements of its time, but the abolitionists sought to make changes to the law.  The temperance movement of the twentieth century also came from a Puritan background, but they also sought changes in law.  The temperance movement, and the female suffrage movement, were both successful in making legal changes to the constitution.

What has changed since the 1960’s is that the left learned that they can gain power through media, academia, and the arts.  This power is then used to subvert the law rather than change it.  No constitutional changes were made to allow tranny bathrooms.  A system has been put in place where political goods are offered for sale in the marketplace.  (Propaganda in the media)  Few of these goods are advertised truthfully.   The cucks need to get it through their thick skulls that the constitution and law in general do not matter.  Law is based upon the agreement to honor it.  When one side agrees to honor the law while another side’s mentality is, “I want to take your stuff”, the law is rendered impotent.

Considering all of the above it is possible to answer the question, “Are Jews white?”  The answer is maybe.  A Jew is white if he chooses to think of himself as white.  Does he consider himself part of the we?  For many Jews the answer may be no.

Moldbug and Wood Stoves

Cuckservatives have an amazing ability to tell themselves pretty white lies.  The conservative movement has long claimed to favor the rule of law, while simultaneously claiming to be against regulations.  Which is it?  A regulation is simply a rule—in other words a law for all practical purposes.   In the case of many regulations the congress simply empowers an agency to create all the regulatory details of a law.

A specific example may serve to illustrate the point.  A few years ago, my wife, a dedicated Glen Beck listener, informed me with horror that the EPA was creating new regulations which would outlaw all wood burning stoves.  Whether this is a bad thing or not is beside the point—I like clean air as much as the next guy.  She and Glen were more or less correct.  The EPA enacted new regulations in 2015.  These will be phased in over a five-year period and will dramatically reduce the amount of particulate (smoke) that a wood stove may legally emit.  These new rules probably will force a few companies to close their doors for good.

Consider the situation from the point of view of a small wood stove manufacturer.  Perhaps you do not like the new rules.  Whom should you approach with your concerns?  The EPA is not going to be very receptive.  You may choose to call or write your congressman, but congress no longer control the little details of law.  Your congressman is not going to be able to take regulatory power from the EPA once it is granted.  Perhaps you contact the media and try to raise awareness of your plight.  Well done sir!  You are petitioning the King.  As Mencious Moldbug pointed out, you could always petition the King even before all this freedumb and democracy stuff started.

When conservatives say they want to end regulations, but they want the rule of law they sound silly.  What conservatives should state is that they want rule of law that is accountable.  For law to be accountable some hierarchy must exist.   The present system in the USA is rule of think tanks, universities, bureaucracies, and media.  This system is not very hierarchical or accountable.  Conservatives are complaining about rule by Moldbug’s cathedral, but they do not recognize the nature of their complaint.

Conservative always lose because freedumb is their highest value.  A society governed by whomever is most successful at manipulating the masses is not likely to be a society governed by rational analysis of the problems.  I the case of wood stoves it might seem reasonable to ban them outright in Los Angeles, while permitting use in rural Montana.  This solution is not possible in a system where demotism means that a crisis must always be created, and then a blanket solution applied to fix it.