Men have been led in dark paths, through the providence and dispensation of God. Why, surely it is not to be objected to a man, for who can love to walk in the dark? But providence doth often so dispose.
Weeds and nettles, briars and thorns, have thriven under your shadow, dissettlement and division, discontentment and dissatisfaction, together with real dangers to the whole.
Everything in life is simple, but simplicity is the hardest thing to achieve.
This week, England has seen – has felt – what cannot be denied or dismissed any longer.
The blood and bodies of children.
Modern Life is Rubbish.
Democracy is a hoax.
The question, ultimately, at the end of the day: what is to be done?
Reactionary Future, blogging here, is on point as usual:
...it is clear that Jihadists are the best friends of the western elite and as such the resultant problems which occur, such as an unfortunate bombing on western soil, or their co-ethinic’s predation of little girls/ basic savagery, will be met as problems to be managed, not resolved. This is also amplified by the elites’ electoral immigration requirements as an issue in itself. Those electoral parties and anti-Islam agitators are problems for the elite, the Muslims are not really.
The problem with Islam and by extension immigration is a problem of the elites operating in a deranged political system. The solution being put forward so far of electing anti-Islam parties appears obviously laughable considering the above. Just look at Trump’s about turn on Syria. Such a prescription inherently assumes the political system has no effect on those taking power – this is magical thinking.
A further problem inherent in the common reaction to Islamic terrorism is the inability of those responding to comprehend the principals of the above absolutist model, and this leads to calls for the “people” to wake up. Blaming the “people” only makes sense within an anarchistic model of society, also known as liberalism, as opposed to a non-anarchistic model which accepts that the elite are the keys to any action or cultural development. If you believe liberalism fully, then the joke is on you, because the elite don’t.
So I wonder if a better truth service is what is really needed as opposed to having a coherent political system that is secure and that can adapt and adjust itself according to the information it receives.
I believe that virtually all liberals understand the truth about Islam – and many other things as well – but will not admit this because it risks their power – or just their pension.
I also believe that if a Sovereign was able to operate from a position of security, everything else will flow like water running downhill.
Let’s begin by stating our basic assumptions.
The Sovereign and the Sovereign corporation has an absolute monopoly right to the territory by virtue of its military dominance of that territory.
The second assumption is that the state, of which the Sovereign assumes near absolute authority over, has, as a goal, to be secure, strong and wealthy.
To be secure, you must be strong, and to be strong you must be wealthy.
Thus, instrumentally, the state aims to be wealthy. This does not just mean that it has a vast supply of gold-stocks in its reserves say, but that it has the capacity to produce wealth – which involves the rational management of land, equipment and human capital.
Achieving this means you will be economically strong, or at least as strong as you can be and economic strength is as necessary condition for military strength, of course.
A state that is wealthy and strong will be secure – provided its political structure is rational. That is to say, that structure follows the rules for all organisations: a clear and formalised hierarchy.
A state that is structured rationally, and a sovereign that is secure will come to the conclusion that the goal is to be as wealthy as possible so as to be a strong as possible in order to be as secure as possible.
This is the conclusion that someone that Deng Xiaoping came to following the death of Mao. China needed to be rich in order to be strong in order for the ruling elite to be secure.
The goal of the English Restoration Organisation then is very simple:
To create the conditions for the English Monarchy to receive -or seize – absolute power over the state, the land and the people.
Assuming this position has been attained – and we shortly explain how it can be attained – what next?
A secure sovereign will then hire assistants to assist them in their task of Reform.
We will stipulate three kinds of people that the Sovereign will draw upon with three kinds of talent:
1: Expertise (the Experts.)
2: Experience (the Executives.)
3: Efficiency ( The Efficients).
Firstly, the Sovereign will appoint someone with executive experience to assist them in the task of selecting someone with the necessary executive experience to govern. This executive will bring with him an expert (or a team of experts) to help him in his selection.
Then the re-structuring can begin.
Firstly, the Sovereign selects a Board of Directors.
The goal of the Directors is simple: select the best man for the job, give him the resources he needs and then trust but verify and replace if necessary.
The Sovereign, however, will become the Chairman of the Board. Their duty, after setting up the system and appointing the key people, is to sit back, take in information and think – and think some more. To think but not about the present, or the past (so much) but about the future – about what kind of future is desirable for the state (secure, strong and wealthy), and if the current personnel, policies and profits are helping to realise that future.
The other Directors provide the principal information and advice as to whether the Executive needs to be replaced. However, it is the Chairman – the Sovereign – who has the final decision.
The Executive’s duty is to formulate, in partnership with the Board and the Chairman/Sovereign, the state’s Grand Strategy, operating budget and to select the key Cabinet members.
Here, the Executive will have more or less absolute discretion over personnel selection. Since the Executive will be supervised by the Board, they will be have to work closely with the Directors in their choice of personnel.
The most important position after the Executive, is the Chief Operating Officer.
A CEO is responsible for strategy, key personnel, budget and also foreign relations, international trade and, of course, war. A COO then is responsible for domestic governance: law and order, taxes, economic development and, with the advice and consent of the Executive, the appointing of the city Executives and the provincial Executives. So London, Liverpool and Coventry all get their own Executives and Suffolk, Norfolk and Essex get their own Executives as well.
The other key Cabinet positions (I will ignore deputies, assistants etc) are:
1: Minister of Defence or Secretary of Defence.
2: Foreign Secretary or Secretary of State.
3: Chancellor of the Exchequer or Secretary of the Treasury.
4: Attorney General.
Each one of these Cabinet positions should be filled by someone with considerable Executive experience in the relevant area. These Secretaries will be assisted by, on the one hand, the Experts or consultants and Efficients (people with experience in “protocols”, logistics etc. i.e bureaucrats) on the other.
This basic structure can be more or less replicated to the city level without much difficulty – though the details will change, of course.
This is an outline for the new, ruling elite Executive structure.
What is missing is the Managers.
The core of the problem with managers and “manageralism” is that if managers are not subject to strict control, they and their departments tend to expand like weeds and serve their own economic interests and not the company or the states.
The answer to the managers is that the Executives can fire anyone for any reason. Lifetime employment for managers is therefore non-existent.
This does not mean that managers should not be kept on for “life” if it is useful. What it means is that managers cannot simply wait four years for a change in leadership and then carry on as before, or defy the will of the Executive because they cannot be replaced.
The ability to hire and fire then is crucial.
One more thing, the ability to hire outside managers or companies who can do contract work is also vital for good organisational discipline. So, instead of having to make use of public bodies, the state can simply take bids from for-profit or charitable organisations.
This strategy which sees the state as a giant “general contractor” can apply to virtually everything: law and order, tax collection, public utilities, education etc etc.
So, you have a very, very small elite who are very very powerful but who answer, ultimately, to one person – the Chairman/Sovereign; then, you have a bigger, but still quite small and very hard-working middle-management who answer to the Executives.
The next element is also necessary for good governance.
Given that the state has a monopoly over the territory, which we assume has a number of cities, towns and counties (as is the case in England), the rational thing to do is to allow, what the Chinese call, “Special Economic Zones”.
However, these zones need not just be economic, but also have special legal, cultural and religious zones.
Now, having these zones might not be efficient from the point of view of tax-revenue, but they will allow for overall state stability and resilience.
“Command” legal, moral or religious systems fail for much the same reason command economies fail. A free market allows for supply to meet demand and for unimpaired information signals to be exchanged between producer and consumer which makes the production, distribution and supply of goods and services more efficient. In our case, however, it is not just political and economic but legal, moral and religious goods and services.
Of course, the real reason for this – from the point of view of the Sovereign – is wealth, strength and security. A secure, rational Sovereign will only be concerned with what makes him and his territory more secure, strong and wealthy over the long-run. Suppression and distortion of legal, political and security signals makes the state insecure and unstable in the same way command economies do.
In other words, within the state, the citizens – or customers – can “shop-around” for the political, economic, legal, moral and or religious goods and services that best suit them.
Customer choice or revealed preference is clearly an important signal for the city or county in question; and these choices are ultimately revealed in the tax intake, the GDP number and assessments of productivity.
The next logical move then, is that the sovereign begins to liquidate some of their monopoly power into shares. The Sovereign starts with 100% shares and can then auction off some of these shares, but nothing less than 51%, to key, essential and trusted people and companies.
One trusted and influential group would be the military, another would be the banks, a third would be the energy companies, then other key industries and key religious organisations.
The next step, logically then, is for the Sovereign to sell off some of their shares in the cities and counties in the same way, but retaining 51% overall control. This control allows the Sovereign, or one of their delegates or outside consultants, to help select the City-level Board of Directors. However, the people or organisations who also own some of the shares must also have a vote (as a proportion of their shares) in selecting the Directors.
Let’s look at how we can formalise the role of the customer.
To enter, work in or live in a state, you must commit to a written, legal contract with stipulated rights and obligations, penalties and dispute resolution procedures (perhaps using a private legal firm and private courts).
When you conceive of the state as a complex adaptive system which requires a system of efficient processing of signals (information), how does this system work?
Customers influence the state by imparting important information in two ways: the first is to managers via purchase of goods and services and by providing feedback via the use of customer satisfaction surveys; the second way is by influencing shareholders who, in addition to the first set of signals, examine the state’s profits and the current stock-price.
Managers influence Executives by imparting information up the chain of command. Executives are then influenced both by profits and the stock-price but also by feedback from the shareholders. Finally, the Chief Executive Officers are influenced by the Board of Directors
The Chairman, of course, is able to take in all this information and can then influence both the Board but also the Chief Executive and his other key Cabinet officers.
Crucially, however, is the power of the Sovereign. In normal times, the Sovereign may be content to simply drink in information, ask questions and let others make decisions. Yet, if and when necessary, the Sovereign can make sweeping changes such as replacing the entire Board, the Executive, the Cabinet and the City and provincial Executives; indeed, the Sovereign could eliminate entire departments of State and re-design, outsource or in-source functions or begin new, necessary projects in response to a crisis.
The key design terms in the system are the following:
1: Purpose. (Peace, security, law and liberty; State security, strength and profitability).
2: Hierarchy. (Sovereign; Board of Directors; Chief Executive Officer; the Cabinet; the Provincial and Urban Executives; the Management.)
3: Incentives. (Profit but also power, status and wealth for the elite. If everything can be formalised, then everything can be monetised which means that everything that happens or does not happen serves, via feedback, to provide incentives for the state to provide good government.)
4: Feedback. (Multiple and independent streams of feedback. Profits and losses; stock-price; customer satisfaction surveys; management reports; shareholder reports; Board of Director assessments; external reports from Experts.)
5: Resilience. (Knock out a manager, and one can replace him. Knock out a City Executive and his COO can replace him. Knock out a Cabinet Officer and his subordinate or an outside person can replace him etc etc. The structure itself (hierarchy) is resilient because it is a synthesis of three designs that have proved constant in human nature and human social organisation: the Monarchy, the Markets and the Joint-Stock Corporation.)
6: Stability. (Power is secure. Clear, formalised ranks and responsibilities exist. No democratic elections, no mobs and no public fights for power.)
7: Efficiency. ( The state is very small, but also very powerful. The state has a clear, formalised purpose, and it can quickly and easily take whatever actions it needs to achieve it.)
8: Adaptability. (Even if the Sovereign, or the Chief Executive is not exactly stellar or all that competent, there is a system in place with is greater than the sum of any one part and can survive the failing of any one part of the system.)
However, this system still retains the human element – human judgement. Perhaps, above all, the most important requirement for a Sovereign in judging involves hiring and firing. Thus, at each level of the system, the respective judge – from Customer to Manager to Executive to Director to Sovereign – has the power and authority (or the right) to hire “select” the person or the goods and services in question. These selections, naturally, have consequences, and those consequences are reflected firstly in the profit margins, then the stock price, but also in assessments of economic and military strength. Finally, all of this information allows the Sovereign to decide if their state is as well-run as it could be or if changes must be made.
So how does this apply to England?
Well, As Reactionary Future points out, re-structuring of the system is the only thing worth doing:
Theoretically, the only real goal for an absolutist political party to aim towards is that of securing power and removing conflictual institutions within society.
So what is to be done?
The creation of a English Restoration Organisation or RO.
Firstly, the organisation would need to start off extremely small. Maybe half-dozen to a dozen or so people at the start all on the exact same page theoretically, and with a tight and organised visionary plan of action that is open to some adaptability in the face of practical problems. This is where it gets immediately difficult. These people would have to be driven extremists. The character of these initial party leaders would have to be excellent. They will need a goal to work towards, and they will need access to funds to make it happen.
A small group with resources could do it.
Here is my own set of suggestions.
Firstly, RO requires a charismatic leader. A fearless, tireless, ambitious, outgoing, intelligent, charming persuader. Someone who is excellent at oratory and whipping up crowds at rallies and also in skewering opponents in debates, and doing good television interviews.
This person needs, beyond these talents, money for living – it need not be substantial. What is crucial, financially speaking, is the ability to hire or create bodyguards and lawyers for the inevitable violent and legal attacks.
The most likely candidate for this job is a man of considerable wealth and Executive experience – either from the Corporate world or from the Military.
Next, this person will need a campaign staff. Modern democratic campaign organisations can provide all the information one needs here, so there is little more to add, but I will highlight a few things.
Beyond the usual speechwriters, researchers and media managers, RO needs a small team of intellectuals to craft the political formula and to do battle with the regime’s court intellectuals.
RO needs at least three to four key intellectuals:
1: A historian for the “reactionary theory of history.”
2: A political theorist for the “reactionary theory of government” and to criticise all other forms of government.
(Naturally, these intellectuals will have to have at least one book, and a few academic style papers, a journal, and a media presence.)
Beyond that, you need an economist, a military adviser and a legal philosopher or jurist to help with the formulation of the inevitable legal reforms.
These people will, of course, need protection and a small staff of assistants.
The purpose of the Restoration, at least for England, is to hand absolute and supreme power back to the Monarchy, which, at the moment, is represented by Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.
Realistically, it will be Charles who will receive power, or maybe William.
Why the Royal Family?
I offer only one reason, and it is strategic. Restoring the English Monarchy is the best possible Schelling point for England. America has no Monarchy, so this will not apply to America, something else will be needed.
The inevitable fear and envy that such a charismatic figure will cause, and the consternation that such an organisation will provoke, can be offset by the fact that the goal of the organisation is to hand power back to the Monarchy.
The Monarch can, of course, if he becomes an absolute ruler, do whatever he likes with their new-found power. However, one must really understand the web of incentives that constrain the Sovereign’s behaviour. The plan outlined above is not only a sound model for a state, it also allows for RO to build a base of support than can provide the necessary incentives and support for the Sovereign. Furthermore, RO would, of course, at the start of any Restoration, exert popular pressure on the Monarch to enact the reforms just outlined.
The fundamental issue, really, is to fix the structure and make the Monarch secure. Beyond that, it is to design the system in such as way that all incentives point towards the goal of providing good governance; profit is the best proxy for good governance.
The core of the Dark Reformation – my intuition even before I read Moldbug – is that in the event of either regime failure in England or if the regime becomes ungovernable due to democratic sclerosis, power will revert back to the Monarchy by default. The Monarchy obtains power via democratic default – helped along via the Armed Forces and other key personnel.
The RO will, using the same reasoning as the Doctrine of Double Effect, make the state ungovernable thus leaving only one possible conclusion.
Critically, RO can advise and assist this back-up English Deep-State. They can provide not only practical solutions, but also formulas of legitimacy.
The charismatic leader, and the RO needs to then focus on a few key themes, reduce problems to a few simple slogans and easy to digest arguments for as broad an audience as possible.
However, RO is also capable of producing or drawing upon a corpus of more or less dense, academic, and provocative theory. Plenty then for the young, the intelligent and the ambitious.
In terms of key people and groups that must be persuaded, here are the following key constituents.
1: The Royal Family.
This is obvious. What is not obvious, however, is that either Charles or William or the extended family would consider this to be in their self-interest. No doubt, any serious Restoration would put their lives in danger; and for what? They have all the pomp and privilege they need (though it is a sham pomp).
Paradoxically, I want to emphasise that fear because if any serious possibility emerges for a Restoration, then the potential Sovereign Monarch will then have to engage in serious reflection and calculation.
As the pressure for Restoration grows, so will the pressure for Revolution. Insecure power in a democracy leads to the ultimate political struggle and it will either be the Restoration or the Revolution that triumphs.
If it is the Revolution, then the Royal Family and their key constituents, will lose everything.
Furthermore, even conservative and other “sober” people will fear the RO and its charismatic leader. But if the leader publicly and repeatedly swears to help transfer power to the Sovereign, then given the fears that everyone else has, the English King will be forced to accept his duty.
Notice how this avoids a Hitler situation. Germany had no fail-safe, no fall back position. Suppose, at some point, a German King had simply abolished democracy with the help of the Prussian military and a few key people from the entire political spectrum and then went on to crush any violent opposition from either Fascists or Communists.
England, even with a sham-Monarchy, can avoid this fate.
What other key constituencies exist?
2: The Armed Forces.
The British Armed Forces, even today, do not swear an oath to either the Prime Minister or some piece of parchment but to the Monarch alone.
The RO will bid for the support of the Armed Forces, not only using pay, but prestige and not just prestige but with power. More than that, the RO will appeal to their sense of loyalty, service, honour and history. The RO’s pitch is that the Armed Forces have been betrayed by the political class, that the nation is in danger, and that we call upon them to help restore order, justice and liberty to England. For the RO, there is much to learn from the Americans in their Civil-Military relationships. (The tight connection between the Military, the Churches and the Republican Party).
Finally, given that many of the men and women of the Armed Force come from the working classes – who have also been betrayed by the political class – they will be receptive to our message. As for the Officer class, given that the RO aims to restore the Monarchy and the traditional English liberties, they will have no ideological or moral objection. And if they do, money and medals will likely smooth things over.
Again, for the Armed Forces, as for the Monarchy, it is not just Restoration in itself – it a choice between either Restoration or Revolution.
The next group to bid for is the Money.
3: The Money.
While the RO does not always and everywhere advocate free-market economics, it does not shy away from wealth or the pursuit of wealth.
In short, property and wealth will be protected. Crucially, early adopters will have a very good chance to, as the English say, “make-a-killing.”
So, we are looking for a small group of financial backers: the arms industry, key banks and the energy sector say.
On the subject of property, no one and no other group will support the protection of property better than the RO. This will be necessary not only to ensure the support of the financial elites, but also of the middle-class property owners – the people of “middle England.”
4: The Proletarian Class.
The next group to get on side is the Proletarian class.
Here, their rational and understandable antipathy towards Muslim and Muslim immigration will form a key part of the platform.
All the injustices will be highlighted: the rape, torture and murder of children. The emotions of burning rage and fear will be maximised using any and all available means.
However, more material incentives can be offered.
One plan is to nationalise English Soccer (football). While ticket prices should be subject to market mechanisms, other things can be done.
For example, the World Cup, European Cup, the Football Association “FA” Cup etc will become national holidays. Furthermore, free transport for supporters, free alcohol and free food can be provided.
Furthermore, a national strategy for England to win the World Cup and the European Cup can be developed.
This will involve developing a program of nation-wide training for English youths to become the soccer stars of the next generation. Think of this as developing “human capital”. So, the building of soccer parks, gyms, the training of coaches and the creation of soccer academies can form part of the platform. (Needless to say, this is not compulsory, it would be entirely optional.)
Football, for the English, is the national religion. It is, if you will, the modern equivalent of the Roman games. It is a way of not only pleasing the broad masses and providing them with material benefits but also offering meaning and purpose and glory. (If the snobs don’t like this, I would ask them if it would it be better that we find glory in war instead?)
Speaking of religion, the RO seeks to restore all the traditional English religious freedoms.
One important group to gain support from is the Jews. (There will be no Antisemitism in the English Restoration Party.)
The pitch to the Jews (religious Jews) is quite simple: their lives and their children’s lives are in danger; moreover, Israel is in danger. They are in danger from Islam but also from the Revolutionaries. The RO will seek to defend their lives, liberty and property from violence.
As for Christians, their lives, liberty and property will also be protected, of course. So cake-makers will not be forced to bake “gay wedding cakes” because freedom of contract and association will be restored.
(Other groups, such as the Hindus, will also be protected.)
So, the RO bids for the Royal Family, the Armed Forces, the Wealthy, the Proletarian class, the Middle-class, the Jews, Christians and Indians.
Well, the RO will try to steal away some of the clients of the Left.
Libertarians will be receive bids because the state will be supportive of liberty (because it is profitable and stable); freedom of thought, consumption, medicine and lifestyle will all be part of the package – at least in one or two cities. (A city where all drugs are legalised, along with prostitution, gambling and other trivial pursuits.)
Environmentalists will receive bids, because the RO will also incorporate promises to protect the beauty of the English countryside and its wild-life.
Students, or rather former students saddled with debt, will receive bids because the RO will promise to cancel student debt because it was offered under false pretences (the Cathedral).
Finally, what I mean by by promising etc is that come the Restoration, the Monarchy and the key elites will need to formalise many rights and privileges and grand-father in some benefits for people in order to obtain support.
I could go on, but you get the point.
Is this coalition not too broad? Who are the opponents?
The flip-side of the strategy is to create enemies, and not just enemies but scapegoats. Scapegoating is useful. The reason is emotional. The practice of scapegoating allows for social catharsis.
The enemies are, firstly, politicians and the political parties.
The second group of enemies and scapegoats are journalists, academics, lawyers and judges.
The third group of enemies and scapegoats (or rather targets of popular ire) are celebrities.
Naturally, the civil service itself is an enemy, but focusing on this institution and these people are not likely to provoke the necessary public anger.
The strategy then is to whip up pure white rage against all of the above; however, one should also seek to recruit and then make good use of defectors from these groups. This is a “scarce resource” though. Thus, there will be pressure to be “early adopters”.
As for the rest, they will have to face what in England is called a Royal Inquiry (this time it will really be a Royal Inquiry).
Some of the worst of the miscreants may end up in jail, or made to perform community service; the rest may be dismissed in disgrace and some, depending on their cooperation (such as telling the truth about their criminal associates), will receive stipends and pensions but will no longer play any role in public life.
Finally, it must be stressed that the RO is the PARTY of LAW and ORDER.
Which, to be clear, means no violence and no criminality (speaking the truth is no crime).
Never forget, the English RO is not a political party attempting to seize power (though the threat of such a seizure always exists – but this is just a stratagem). The charismatic leader and his key staff are not going to rule.
What is their reward, then?
Beyond whatever moral or religious reasons they may have – or reasons of ego – the best way to reward them -if one is the Sovereign – is to reward them with a Knighthood, stock-options and a pension. For the intellectuals, a position in a think-tank, book deals and teaching positions.
And that is THAT.
Crime will no longer be tolerated.
Terrorism will no longer be tolerated.
Corruption and political criminals will no longer be tolerated.
Good will no longer tolerate evil, Good will eliminate Evil completely.
Politics will no longer be tolerated in the New Order. At least, nothing like democratic politics.
The politics that will exist, will involve the elites attempting to attain – via energy and creativity and good governance – power and status.
The chief opponent to the English Restoration, beyond the domestic, will be none other than the American Vampire itself – that Republican monstrosity.
Needless to say, the Restoration can be a world-wide movement. A new Global Order with a Chinese Emperor, a Russian Tzar, an Islamic Caliph, an African King, a Roman Pope and a Indian Raj.
So, what about America?
The Americans can still be be exceptional: they can call their Sovereign the Chief Executive Officer.
So, to flip Lord (“Iron Duke”) Wellington’s quip: to begin reform is to begin, not Revolution, but Restoration.
To begin reform, to strive with energy and ambition for Restoration will naturally brings forth the spectre and later the very real possibility of Revolution. The conflict will escalate until there can be only one possibility: Yes or No; Light or Dark; Order or Chaos; Truth or Lies.
We all know what has to be done.
Nearly a year ago, I began this blog. It is now time to end it.
You have been sat to long here for any good you have been doing. Depart, i say, and let us have done with you. In the name of god, go!.