The Right of Exit Does Not Entail the Right of Entry

Reactionaries worry that a patchwork of sovereign corporations that grant their subjects the right of ad libitum exit to the domains of other such corporations would eliminate the borders that bound nations and constrain immigrations of men devoted to other, foreign, and probably lesser cults – or, why would they have been interested in immigration to begin with? – and thus lead to the demolition of righteous, apt, prudent, ergo successful and prosperous nations or peoples.

It is a reasonable worry. It is the sort of thing that we ought to worry about. But we may dismiss it.

Exit is after all impracticable in the absence of a right of entry somewhere else. Where no right of entry is granted to foreigners, their exit from the domains of their former sovereigns can end only in their utter bewilderment in no man’s land – i.e., in death. Unless, of course, they are able to make a successful case for their admission to some other domain of some other sovereign corporation.

And sovereign corporations are likely to regard potential immigrants with a particularly jaundiced eye. Any immigrants after all are bound to dilute the value of shares in the sovereign corporation already outstanding in the hands of its subjects. They are likely to cost electors a fair bit of money. Immigrants who cannot cover that cost, and indeed more than cover it, who cannot when push comes to shove offer current shareholders the likelihood of a substantial marginal increase in the value of their shares, are not likely to find themselves welcome in any polity that is as prosperous as the one they have left. They will rather find that the only sovereign domains where they are welcome are those that are less prosperous than the domains they have left.

There are financial considerations, as well. I sell my shares in the sovereign corporation I would leave for some other; I must then be able to buy into that other, more desirable, and therefore more expensive sovereign corporation. That, only, if the current shareholders of that more desirable corporation will even let me buy. The emigrant is selling low, and buying high. He is in a poor position. He is impoverishing himself, at least at the margin, in order to take a big risk on a wholly new life.

It is a daunting prospect.

Then there is this: who is inclined to trust a man who has abandoned his own native people as much as a brother or cousin who has not? No one. Who is inclined to treat a man as if he were a distant cousin, when that man has betrayed and abandoned his own real cousins? No one.

The immigrant is rightly suspected by everyone of being not quite completely trustworthy. He is viewed with suspicion, correctly. He is like a man already divorced: a poor matrimonial prospect. Leaving his native nation, he has betrayed one extended family already; why admit such a man to another?

Exit is *completely useless* – is, i.e., practically impossible – unless one can find entry somewhere else that is better. So, it is useful only for the more excellent subjects of relatively failed states, who are able to demonstrate their own inherent value to some more successful polity.

I do not even here yet mention the tremendous risk to existing shareholders of a proposed immigrant from some other nation, adherent from his birth to some other, foreign cult, who therefore proposes (in virtue only of the local presence of his person) to import religious, moral and political notions at odds with those of his future countrymen.

Exit, then, is not tantamount to open borders. On the contrary. You can leave your family. Can you then find another?

No.

You cannot.

Leave, then, at your personal peril.

Exit is no problem. Free entry, on the other hand, is cultural and national suicide.

51 thoughts on “The Right of Exit Does Not Entail the Right of Entry

  1. Pingback: The Right of Exit Does Not Entail the Right of Entry | @the_arv

  2. Pingback: The Right of Exit Does Not Entail the Right of Entry | Reaction Times

  3. correct me if I’m wrong, but you’re assuming a person cannot buy stock from other sovereign corporations being outside the territory governed by that corporation, which is absolutely not the case in Moldbug’s Patchwork (that is even proposed as a good way of securing shareholders rights against the corporation’s administration).

    another thing: not everyone (indeed, very few) inside a territory governed by a sovereign corporation will have shares, much less voting rights, in such corporation. so the value of the stock is not likely to vary so directly in relation to the entrance of any immigrant, so long as s/he doesn’t create trouble (in which case deportation arrangements or some specific criminal justice are likely to be in place). places already governed similarly profit a lot from the immigration of high skilled laborers (think HK, Singapore, Dubai, which are all filled with people from many nationalities and cultures).

    there is even a pretty good and simple anonymous protocol for allowing entrance without much fuss, all the while keeping the less productive out: property qualifications. more here: https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/a-sensible-libertarian-immigration-policy/

    also, there’s this: https://antinomiaimediata.wordpress.com/2017/04/19/bit-nations-and-sovereign-services/

    • Yeah, I think it’s a really bad idea to allow foreigners to own voting shares of the sovereign corporation of your dominion. Likewise it’s a bad idea to locate the offices of administrative authority over a sovereign corporation anywhere other than within the dominions and among the people they rule. Proximity of shareholders to the offices of their sovereign is the best way to keep the officers of the sovereign corporation loyal to the interests of the shareholders. It would help if the bylaws of the corporation required that all such officers be shareholders.

      … the value of the stock is not likely to vary so directly in relation to the entrance of any immigrant, so long as he doesn’t create trouble …

      Yeah, any one guy is probably no big deal. But you develop policy to deal with types, not individuals; and to limit risk. One guy is no big deal; a million guys are a huge deal. If you let in lots and lots of guys with different folkways than your own, you introduce all sorts of economic friction, vitiate your local cult, and set up factions that would not otherwise have appeared. And that can hurt profitability, systematically and permanently. The hit of such a thing to NPV of the shares could be huge.

      Corporate culture is *important.* Every business knows this. Every new hire poses a risk of corruption of corporate culture.

      If an immigrant is clearly going to be profitable, you let him in, up to a tolerable limit on the number of foreigners. Otherwise, not. That way, the shareholders benefit from immigration. That’s what the shareholders are going to want.

      Unless you are a high quality person, your chances as an emigrant, then, would be poor.

      There is even a pretty good and simple anonymous protocol for allowing entrance without much fuss, all the while keeping the less productive out: property qualifications.

      Yeah, there are a number of ways to do that. One is to require that to get a vote, you must buy a (very expensive) voting share. Another is to charge the highest admission price the market will bear, for entry of any sort – temporary visa, permanent visa, naturalized subjection, whatever. We charge admission to our national and state parks; why shouldn’t we charge admission to our nations?

      • proximity to the administrators is also a very good way to be arrested easily. loyalty only lasts for so long (hence the cryptographic chain of command – or cross-listing, as mentioned). the whole point of patchwork is to be trustless (and thus modern).

      • It’s the only way things have worked so far. It’s the only way they’ve ever worked; the only way they can possibly work. You can’t have social animals without trust.

      • and you can’t have trust with capitalism. unless you have a good plan to coordinate the whole world, crytpgraphic automated systems are the only thing trustworthy.

      • You can’t have trust with capitalism? On the contrary, you can’t have capitalism – or any other social order, for that matter – without trust. Markets operate on trust between counterparties, that each will fulfill his side of each deal, each agreement. No trust, no agreement, no deal.

        Now, people can of course defraud their counterparties. But that’s the exception, not the norm. If it were the norm, then the norm would be that there are no deals done. In that case, there would be no niche for fraudsters, for no one would ever be willing to become a vulnerable counterparty to anyone.

      • markets work on reputation, initially, as commitments get ever more automated. but even reputation doesn’t demand that you trust anyone – liars lose long term either way.

        also, caveat emptor.

      • Well, sure. And caveat vendor. So what? That you must trust a counterparty in order to make a deal with him does not mean that you should trust him imprudently. That’s just common sense; equivalent to patting your pocket before you leave the house to make sure that your wallet is there.

        “Liars lose long term either way.” Exactly correct. Society punishes liars, because they raise the cost of due diligence in extending trust. If trust were not a forecondition of society as such, lying could do no harm, and we wouldn’t punish it.

        In order to do a deal over an automated system, you must trust literally thousands of counterparties and intermediaries, from telephone linemen to programmers to system engineers to other users.

        Trust somehow or other achieved is a sine qua non of any social agreement whatever.

      • One day Kristor, you will see this traditional versus modern as white (S)upremacy versus “radical autonomy.” But more importantly, you will see this contest as a schismatic separation of the white race at the origin of high IQ white male (>140 IQ, to include you).

        Most of the “white brains” in the modern era are in the service of “radical autonomy,” ie., radical liberation.

        I know of no >140 IQ white males using their brains in the service of wS outside of you.

        Yet, you don’t identify as such and so you don’t count.

        You should count.

        Separation > entry/exit…

      • I am not using my brain in service of white supremacy. I am using it – or trying to, anyway – in service of Virtue, Truth, Beauty; of the Living God, and of his Body on Earth, the Church, and of his Kingdom on Earth, Christendom.

        Now, the Good, the True and the Beautiful are indeed of course good for white people, and for the Church, and for Christendom. But then, they are good for everything whatever, so …

        Separation > entry/exit …

        Indeed, entry/exit iff separation. You can’t enter or exit a domain that is not separate from other domains. Judgement is the forecondition of mercy, & discrimination the forecondition of liberality.

      • Kristor…

        You have reiterated exactly what I stated initially.

        Thus, when you say that you put your brains towards,

        [The] service of Virtue, Truth, Beauty; of the Living God, and of his Body on Earth, the Church, and of his Kingdom on Earth, Christendom.

        This is not a matter of intellect, but YOUR will.

        Your brains per se are of secondary consideration.

        So when I write that this battle over liberalism is internecine, this memes it is the war between high IQ white Christians (you) and high IQ material atheists (dr. doomX) where an obvious “winner” appears from the eyes an objective observer.

        The point being, your will to (P)erfection cannot be surpassed by any intellect not seeking the exact same aim.

        But you, like most, have been cowed into refraining from publicly expressing your desire and will towards objective (S)upremacy, ie., (P)erfection AS a white man (yet, you are a white Christian, ie., a white (S)upremacist).

        Ergo, before you desire (P)erfection, you wished TO NOT be known as a white (S)upremacist.

        This is an obvious flaw and submission to “liberalism” AS THE MOST FUNDAMENTAL level.

        PS. white (S)upremacist > White (s)upremacy = separation of highly intelligent white men of will.

      • Well, Thordaddy, I’m having a little trouble with your suggestions. On the one hand you say that to be a white Christian *just is* to be a white supremacist. Then also you say that white supremacy is the separation of highly intelligent men of will. By commutation, to be a white Christian is to believe in the separation of highly intelligent men of will. The inference is that the separation of highly intelligent men of will is Christian dogma.

        So far as I know, these notions do not appear anywhere in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium. On the contrary, every bit of what I have read of Scripture, Tradition, and the Magisterium is silent on the topics of white supremacy and the separation of intelligent men of will. Not that I’ve read it all, of course; perhaps I’ve missed them. Can you show me where they appear? If not, I’m not going to be able to credit them.

      • [Thordaddy sent a long reply, which he had obviously worked very hard to produce. I thank him for the effort. Unfortunately, the comment was so riddled with his idiosyncratic usages and terms, and so poorly set out, that I could only guess at the meanings of most of its sentences, or at how one sentence related to the next.

        Nor did Thordaddy produce any citations to sources in the Scriptures, the Tradition, or the Magisterium of the Church – not just the Catholic church, but *any* Christian communion – to support the assertions about what constitutes Christian faith, for which I had asked him to furnish references.

        Thordaddy: you are going to have to move a little bit closer to rhetorical and substantive perfection if you want your work to gain any traction in the world outside your head. Express yourself the way normal writers conventionally do, and use words in the way that everyone else uses them. And support your assertions, either with carefully reasoned arguments, or with authoritative citations. Your work is creative, but it is not disciplined. When a reader as sympathetic as I am to you as a person, and as skilled at English as I, cannot make head or tail of what you have written, your effort is in vain. If you want readers, you’ll have to be readable.

        With respect,

        Kristor]

      • You can’t have trust with capitalism? On the contrary, you can’t have capitalism – or any other social order, for that matter – without trust. Markets operate on trust between counterparties, that each will fulfill his side of each deal, each agreement. No trust, no agreement, no deal.

        True, but we shouldn’t regard capitalism as a good thing. The ideology behind capitalism is just liberalism applied to economics: economic man free to choose his own livelihood, free to set his own price, free to hire and fire at will, free to relocate, free to accumulate as much wealth as he is able. Autonomous from traditional external constraints on his economic activity.

        Capitalism incentivizes efficiency uber alles, consumerism, women working independently from their husbands, impersonal dependency, and the breakdown of local ties and connections that hinder trade. We should reject it.

        In order to do a deal over an automated system, you must trust literally thousands of counterparties and intermediaries, from telephone linemen to programmers to system engineers to other users.

        Yes, but the trust is transformed from a personalized one into a depersonalized one. I don’t regard this trend as a good thing.

      • The ideology behind capitalism is just liberalism applied to economics: economic man free to choose his own livelihood, free to set his own price, free to hire and fire at will, free to relocate, free to accumulate as much wealth as he is able. Autonomous from traditional external constraints on his economic activity.

        There is no such thing as autonomy from traditional external constraints on economic activity. That’s a myth of liberalism, in its attempt to deform culture to its own ends. Liberalism itself imposes its own set of constraints.

        Capitalism long predates liberalism; it’s just exchange, which is basic to the social life of all social mammals; which is the foundation of sacrifice, which is the basis of all liturgy, all sharing, all commensality.

        Contrary to the liberal myth, there is *always* a received set of external constraints (such as the liberal external constraints) and people then make their decisions – i.e., they do capitalism, they allocate capital and other goods – within the space of those constraints. The palmary question before man at this historical moment is whether the traditional constraints are going to continue to be those of liberalism, or whether they will be again those of Traditional Christianity, or those of Islam (the other options are all going to end up subsumed under these three headings – Taoism, Confucianism and Judaism, e.g., are going to be subsumed de facto under the Christian heading, whereas sub-Saharan paganism is going to be subsumed either under Christianity or Islam).

        Capitalism incentivizes efficiency uber alles, consumerism, women working independently from their husbands, impersonal dependency, and the breakdown of local ties and connections that hinder trade.

        Under the external constraints of the liberal dispensation, that’s what capitalism does, yes. Likewise, under the external constraints of the liberal dispensation, churches support gay marriage and transsexuality. These facts do not make capitalism and churches bad per se. Liberalism corrupts everything it touches; for, it is animated by the spirit of Lucifer’s rebellion. It’s liberalism that’s bad per se, not churches or commerce. We can’t do without churches and commerce. But we can do without liberalism.

        … the trust is transformed from a personalized one into a depersonalized one. I don’t regard this trend as a good thing.

        Me, neither. I much prefer a smile and a handshake, with a view right into a man’s eyes. But, intermediated trust is inescapable for any high technological society. I must trust that the aircraft mechanic I shall never see did his job properly.

      • Kristor…

        To state things more succinctly…

        There is no such thing as a deracinated “Christian.” Said “Christian” is, on account of his deracinated state, a radical liberal.

        Ergo, a true Christian is a racist Christian. A true Christian knows his faith through his father(s).

      • Now, that really *is* succinct, Thordaddy, and most clear. I thank you. Keep that up!

        But here’s the thing: where in Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium of any Christian church do you find support for these notions?

      • Kristor…

        I would say that as far as I know Christianity, The Perfect Man is neither a self-annihilator nor a preacher of anti-racist ideology.

        Furthermore, a racist Christian just is a more particular actualization of Christianity than just a mere Christian. An anti-racist “Christian” being literally nothing particular at all. A deracinated “Christian” is Fatherless per see. The orphan of nonexistence.

      • If you can’t cite to any Scriptural, Traditional or Magisterial sources for these notions, you’ll be forced to conclude that they are your own private theories, that have nothing to do with the Church’s actual understanding of Christianity. Unless, that is, and until, you have studied those sources enough to have found in them authoritative support for your private theories.

      • Yeah. It’s just commerce, howsoever constrained by sovereign authority. The question then is whether the sovereign constraints are sane or not, moral or not, rational or not, and so forth. Some sovereigns are less sane than others. They tend to lose.

      • Kristor,

        You have it exactly backwards.

        Mainstream Christianity — to include the Catholic Church —MUST CITE authoritative sources in order to justify their collective push towards “universal equality?” As of now, a deracinated “Christianity” is a dwindling NORM “supported” entirely by the anti-racist ideology of the liberated rebellion.

        Ergo, a racist Christianity is a given where your race is your father and one’s Christianity is not self-annihilating.

        But alas…

        I’ve realized the need to differentiate between the deracinated “Christian” and the racist Christian, ie., the white (S)upremacist, where both claim a belief in the empirical reality of The Perfect Man and His subsequent falsification of “universal equality,” but one “Christian” is driven towards the self-annihilation of deracination (the lure of “universal equality”) while the other Christian is driven towards a racially-inspired (P)erfection (contra a violently-enforced “universal equality”).

      • No. Wrong. Christianity must cite Christian sources to support *any* novel pronouncement whatsoever. Your novel pronouncements about Christianity are (so far as you have yet been able to show) completely heterodox. They are completely unsupported, not just by the Fathers and Doctors and Saints of the Church, but by anyone other than you. Support them from Scripture, Tradition, or the Magisterium – or else, accept, admit, and proclaim that you are a heretic, and excommunicate: not a Christian at all, but a worshipper at the altar of some vile, base, and lesser idol of your own imagination. Repudiate Christianity, in so doing; and proclaim your own new religion.

        Think, Thordaddy: is that what you really want? I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken. Study the Fathers, and the Saints, the Doctors, and the Councils. Then, come back and tell us what you have learnt.

      • No, Kristor, I have made no novel pronouncements concerning Christianity. I am not espousing a “new religion.” I have called on no one to worship a false idol.

        All I have done is to point out the glaring absurdity of high IQ white Christians giving unrelenting deference to the enemy’s concept of “white (s)upremacy.” A concept whose intimate connection to white Christians and Western traditionalism is a well established fact dating back many, many decades.

        From what I can intepret, you are simply sticking to the modern pronouncement that a good Christian cannot be a racist Christian?

        To which I suggest that a deracinated “Christian” is no Christian at all.

        So the Gedanken Policy test:

        Racist Christian versus deracinated “Christian?”

        Who survives? All else being equal?

      • … I have made no novel pronouncements concerning Christianity.

        Yes, you have. You said that to credit the Christian faith is to believe in the separation of highly intelligent men of will. Nowhere in any of the creeds do I find any mention of the separation of highly intelligent men of will. Nor have I found mention of it anywhere in Scripture, Magisterium, or Tradition. Unless you have found it there, and can show us where it is set forth as doctrine, it can’t be accepted as a true statement about the faith. It must be treated as a heretical innovation.

        From what I can interpret, you are simply sticking to the modern pronouncement that a good Christian cannot be a racist Christian?

        No, I’m sticking to the ancient Scriptural, Magisterial and Traditional definitions of the faith. So should you.

      • Kristor…

        You should at least let the Orthosphere know that I have responded to your accusations of anti-Christianity (aiding and abetting the zeitgeist) and denied said charges by showing your fallacious (C)apitalization scheme (you equate “white (s)upremacy” to white (S)upremacy).

        If Christianity is not in harmony with the white man’s natural survival instinct then Christianity is false.

        Christianity is not false.

        Ergo, white man’s survival instinct (his racism) is not at odds with Christianity.

        Thus, a racist Christian is a good Christian.

        And unless you will state, emphatically, that a racist Christian is not a good Christian thereby necessitating the Scriptural substantiation of anti-racist “Christianity” then you must relent in your immaterial objections and hyperbolic labels.

        I only call you a white (S)upremacist… A good, racist Christian.

      • Thordaddy, one of the clauses of our comments policy runs as follows:

        … we may also delete comments on grounds such as libel, obscenity, incoherence or stupidity, or abuse of English grammar, syntax, or diction.

        The comments you submitted to this thread over the last few days tortured English grammar and syntax. They were simply unintelligible. I could not make head or tail of them. So I deleted them. This most recent comment just barely skates by – well, really it doesn’t, but I’m feeling generous. You’ve been a loyal reader and contributor, and that’s worth something. For what it’s worth, you should know that you are not the only frequent commenter who has suffered the editorial axe.

        Think of it this way: if your unintelligible comments had passed under my axe unscathed, and readers had then tried and failed to figure out what the heck you were trying to say, the frustrating exercise would have trained them to dismiss your future comments out of hand, so that they never even bothered to look at them.

        I repeat: if you want readers, it behooves you to be readable.

  4. I guess it depends on the shareholders with dominant power (you are assuming all shareholders have equal votes). If the dominant shareholders perceive they can increase their power – e.g., allow admittance in exchange for giving the shareholder a proxy vote – then the dominant shareholders do have incentive to allow entry to less desirables – indeed, the less desirable, perhaps the better.

    • Actually, I don’t assume all shareholders have equal votes. I’m still thrashing this out, but it seems clear to me that there should be at least two classes of shares: the Subject class or S shares, and the Citizen class or C shares. Both pay dividends, but only the C shares can vote or be transferred to other natural persons. So, every subject of a dominion is issued an inalienable S share at birth (or buys it from the Treasury of the sovereign corporation at naturalization), that expires at death (or is redeemed – bought by the Treasury of the sovereign corporation – at emigration), and is also issued a C share at birth or sold a C share at naturalization, which expires 100 years later, and which may be sold or given to other natural persons (or redeemed at emigration). Because C shares can be bought, they can be accumulated. The improvident would sell their C shares to the prudent and prosperous, and that would quickly engender an aristocracy of citizen electors who exerted control of the sovereign corporation.

      Only natural or naturalized denizens of the sovereign corporation’s dominion could hold S or C shares.

      Thus political power would already be vested in only a relative few, and they could increase their share of that power by simply buying more C shares. No monkeying with the immigration system would be needed for that purpose; nor would any other sort of corruption, for that matter. It could all be above board, straightforward, and honest. Everyone would know who owned how many C shares, and that they had for them paid a fair and free price; so resentment would be minimal.

      Once you own even one C or S share, and no matter how many you accumulate, your interest is in maximizing the NPV of your dividends. And that’s done by good policy. Including sensible immigration policy. What sensible immigration policy is, exactly, would presumably vary from one dominion to another. But every shareholder of any such dominion would be motivated to set up immigration policy so that the immigration it permitted definitely helped the dominion prosper (so that it generated bigger profits of the sovereign corporation, ergo bigger dividends). Determination of that policy would certainly involve the question of cultural and national dilution, and the problems – the frictional costs – introduced by immigrants from alien cultures.

  5. One thing missing from this analysis is: the right of conquest.

    Your post makes several assumptions: First is that the exiters/entryists do so at their own behest and not as agents of their home country. Contemporary Rightists would quickly point to China as the example/boogeyman du jour but in truth, the colonies that eventually became the United States serve as an example. Many of the colonies began as outposts of the British and some still do (i.e. Canada) Ignore it all you want, but birth of this nation was at the expense of those who previously occupied it, and now the shoe is on the other foot.

    The second, which is closely linked to the first, is to assume that any departure from home territory constitutes your maximalist definition of exit. It does not. See again the right of conquest.

    It seems to me that the anti-American right are salty right now because (in their mind) they gave up their dominion of the world without a fight. That’s not exactly true; there was a fight and the fight was among themselves. Even at the apex of European power in the 19th century, the various powers didn’t see see fit to consolidate their gains and opted instead to make sure that their sister nations don’t get overly large a slice of pie (*ahem*britainandrussia*ahem*).

    If I were an Eastern European, I would resent the Westerners looking to us to save them from the problems they created for themselves especially when they spent the past three centuries treating us like dung.

    • No blog post can cover everything that deserves to be covered.

      I did not assume anything one way or the other about whether immigrants immigrate as commissioned agents of their home nations. Some do, some don’t. Whether or not they do, they are in their very persons effectual salients of their home cultures, and in great enough numbers will naturally try to replicate that culture in their new environs. That’s just human nature. In so doing, they will introduce cultural diversity – which is a euphemism for cultural disagreement, eventuating unless it is somehow stopped in cultural disaggregation and dissolution.

      Nor did I assume that the entry or exit of a particular number of people was maximal.

      There is obviously a tipping point at which immigrants become numerous enough relative to their host population to constitute an invasion. A healthy nation would keep immigration below that threshold – far, far below. It would, indeed, view all immigrants with tremendous suspicion. Xenophobia is salutary. It is a sign of cultural integrity and self-confidence – indeed, a sign of love and respect for one’s familiar nationals – to look down upon other nations, and to discriminate against them; to say and to feel, as the Britons once did, “The wogs begin at Calais,” or something like it.

      • Xenophobia is salutary. It is a sign of cultural integrity and self-confidence – indeed, a sign of love and respect for one’s familiar nationals – to look down upon other nations, and to discriminate against them…

        Xenophobia is a sign of health in a host nation? Kristor, you dog! Lol.

        I would agree with you if you were using a term that properly describes a *rational* fear and distrust of the other and his influence on the host society.

      • Xenophobia is misnamed. It is actually closer to disgust than it is to fear. And it is quite rational, even though not generally produced by the intellect. The body, too, is rational, in its ways; the immune system, the endocrine system, the metabolic system and the gut are all incredibly complex computational systems, operating with algorithms refined over millions of years.

        As a body that does not feel revulsion at the sight of rotted meat is at greater risk of infection, so is a nation that does not feel at least some slight twinge of revulsion at foreigners and their odd ways.

        A cosmopolitan sophisticate who evaluates a foreign custom as superior to its domestic counterpart ipso facto repudiates his own patrimony. As a man who lusts after a woman other than his wife is already in some sense an adulterer, so a man who does not find his own people superior to all others is already in some sense a traitor to his own house.

      • I did not assume anything one way or the other about whether immigrants immigrate as commissioned agents of their home nations. Some do, some don’t. Whether or not they do, they are in their very persons effectual salients of their home cultures, and in great enough numbers will naturally try to replicate that culture in their new environs. That’s just human nature. In so doing, they will introduce cultural diversity – which is a euphemism for cultural disagreement, eventuating unless it is somehow stopped in cultural disaggregation and dissolution.

        Again, absolutely everything you said can (and did) apply to the European (and ultimately English) colonizers of the Western Hemisphere. But I guess it’s not wrong when they do it.

      • I didn’t say that any particular episode of emigration, immigration, or conquest was either right or wrong. The post wasn’t about that. I have some opinions on that topic – e.g., I think the Aztec civilization was peculiarly evil, and cried to heaven for its annihilation at the hands of Cortés and his allies, the victims and enemies of the Aztecs. But that’s a whole different topic.

        Again: no post can cover everything that deserves to be discussed.

  6. Well, we should also reject the idea that there is a right to exit. The sovereign might elect to permit it, but he is under no general obligation to do so.

    ***

    Then there is this: who is inclined to trust a man who has abandoned his own native people as much as a brother or cousin who has not? No one. Who is inclined to treat a man as if he were a distant cousin, when that man has betrayed and abandoned his own real cousins? No one.

    This is a great point.

    ***

    I’m not so sure about conceptualizing the nation as a ‘sovereign corporation’ with subjects holding shares in the nation: this would only serve to desacralize the nation further. Better I think to envision the nation as a macrocosm of the family. And it would be perverse to have children’s stake in the family tied to holding shares that they can sell or transfer to others. Likewise with the nation.

    • It is a mistake to think that the sacred political orders of the past were not legally and financially formalized. They all were. One of the reasons writing and arithmetic were invented was to keep track of the king’s fisc. The vast majority of the cuneiform we have consists of inventories, bills of lading, purchase orders, invoices, receipts, and ledgers.

      The Vatican has a bank. It must.

      It is a mistake to think that money cannot be endowed with numinous significance. What happens to the money you put in the offering basket? It becomes the financial substance of the Body of God. No exaggeration.

      Legal and financial formalization of sacred realities nowise necessarily vitiates their sacred character. It can, certainly; but that’s not automatic.

      Finally, as to shares in families: as an investment advisor for more than 30 years, I can tell you that people feel very strongly indeed about their shares in the family fortune, and that the better those shares are clearly spelled out, and the sooner, the happier they can be, as at something that is just settled. It is when the shares are not formalized, and settled upon the heirs, that families tend to explode in bitter recriminations. The formalization does not vitiate familiar love, but saves it.

      • Ok, I buy that financial formalization of sacred realities does not vitiate their sacred character.

        So maybe my objection in part is more an issue of emphasis. For instance, when discussing what contributes to the unity and integrity of the family in some hypothetical traditionalist society, it would seem that to start speaking of family inheritance laws is rather to miss what’s fundamental.

        But another objection is to approaching society as if it were an engineering problem to be optimized. This is one of the banes of modernism. To speak of different classes of shares in the sovereign corporation, how shares can be transferred and sold, when shares will expire, etc., is to put the cart before the horse. Society is too organic for that: it can’t be designed the way an op-amp would be. If reactionaries are some day in a position to reorder society toward the good, it won’t be by imposing an abstract, general and comprehensive system of formalisms developed ahead of time. Rather, it will be by looking to our inherited and particular traditions, and developing them and drawing out their implications by adapting them to new circumstances, e.g., by making them more precise and clarifying them. It will be messy. Of course, adopting formalisms will be part of this process, but I don’t think they can be designed in such a disembodied, rationalist, and a priori manner.

      • But another objection is to approaching society as if it were an engineering problem to be optimized. This is one of the banes of modernism. To speak of different classes of shares in the sovereign corporation, how shares can be transferred and sold, when shares will expire, etc., is to put the cart before the horse. Society is too organic for that: it can’t be designed the way an op-amp would be. If reactionaries are some day in a position to reorder society toward the good, it won’t be by imposing an abstract, general and comprehensive system of formalisms developed ahead of time. Rather, it will be by looking to our inherited and particular traditions, and developing them and drawing out their implications by adapting them to new circumstances, e.g., by making them more precise and clarifying them. It will be messy. Of course, adopting formalisms will be part of this process, but I don’t think they can be designed in such a disembodied, rationalist, and a priori manner.

        Ian, this is an altogether gorgeous statement. My heart sings agreement. And my head expects quite coldly and rationally that, as patchwork arrives, it will manifest all sorts of variations as different polities figure out organically, messily, how they ought best to be governed. Not all patches of the work will end up as sovereign corporations with shares widely owned by a class of aristoi, such as I have at the Orthosphere limned. Some will be utterly different. And that is just fine; is just. There is in this procedure no question of imposition from on high, but rather only of prolegomenal exploration by all hands of a formal solution space. We kick ideas around; some survive the kicking, and happen. The best of those survive, and propagate.

        Nevertheless, this: society *is* after all an engineering problem to be optimized. There is nothing in human life that is not an engineering problem to be solved, from diapers to doughnuts to dollars. It’s just that, in practice, the process of optimization whereby such problems are solved (for the nonce, at least) is of the messy, organic sort that you hail. That does not entail that the solutions most often and generally settled upon by men of our own ilk are not likely to converge toward the same general form.

        I feel rather confident that, with respect to government, the sovereign corporation is in one form or another destined to be the formal expression of that more basic, factual, familiar, indeed sacral reality toward which they mostly converge.

        *All* the sacred kingdoms were sovereign corporations – were, that is to say, formalized as business enterprises. That most were corporations sole, owned by a particular man with a particular body, is just happenstance. They might have been; they often were; often were they otherwise, as with the free cities and the great monastic estates. Nevertheless, they all owned lands and estates, often quite distant, that their lords could devolve legally to the ownership of their vassals, heirs, or allies. Which is to say, business partners.

        What is more, aye and much more: *all governments whatever,* regardless of the nature of the sacred character to which they did or did not ostensibly presume, were in effect businesses, with books, accounts, treasuries, bills, assets, income, debts, and so forth. This has *always* been true; it is true today. It is true of the Vatican. It was true even of the USSR.

        There is no way to be without owning ontological assets, or owing causal debts. Every entity that transacts can be characterised as an enterprise: a “grasp among;” or, in other words, a nexus of agreements, of handshakes. To be at all is to be engaged.

        The sovereign corporation is not a new thing. It is the only way that governments have ever done business.

        So, then: society *just is* an engineering project. It must be set up as well as possible, and that calls for careful thought, for forethought, for design, reiterated again and again as things change and people learn what works. That does not at all mean that it is not a thing of beauty, or a project of love, or an organic production. On the contrary. Consider the SR 71 Blackbird. It is the product of an engineering project involving thousands of minds relentlessly hammering abstract theoretical considerations. Is it not beautiful? Is it not fit to its purposes?

        The order of society developed through messy, contentious, organic means is the product of a million distributed procedures of formal political design. Men contend with each other about which design features to adopt in the ordering of their society, reach some agreement good enough for the time being, and then they do it all over again. The organic, evolutionary process of design that you and I both admire is *entirely constituted* of various formal design initiatives such as I or Marx or Moldbug or countless other theoreticians have undertaken. Theoretical proposals are the matter of the organic evolution of social order.

        The challenge for any theoretician is to devise a formal model that makes meet obeisance to the essentially sacral realities it would meet. The danger for any theoretician is that he will become so besotted with his precious model that he forgets the vast looming ineluctable thing he set out to adequate. That’s what happened to the Marxists. Of all sorts of such political theoreticians, the neo-reactionaries are it seems to me least likely to repeat that mistake – for precisely such reasons as you adduce.

        Of all men, reactionaries of any sort are most alive to the value and beauty of the deliverances of the past, of tradition, of the inheritance of ages. Of all men are they most suspicious of brave new proposals for brave new worlds. Of all men, they most love what is old, and comprehend it. Of all men, then, ought such as they to be entrusted with the design of the new.

    • Ian, this is an altogether gorgeous statement.

      Thank you.

      You’ve given me a lot to chew on in your latest comment, so I’m going to have to digest it before determining whether I agree or disagree, and if the latter, how to clarify my thoughts to myself to pinpoint the precise point of disagreement. Thanks.

      • You are welcome. Indulge me now in a post scriptum; you write:

        [Reactionaries will] reorder society toward the [good by] looking to our inherited and particular traditions, and developing them and drawing out their implications by adapting them to new circumstances, e.g., by making them more precise and clarifying them.

        Exactly. In my deliberations over proper policy, I always look back to history for guidance, and try to understand what policies would tend to fit, and thus to engender, the sorts of relations that people naturally have with each other, that work, and that they tend to prefer. As a formal specification, the formalism might sound pretty dry and dusty: appearing rather as the letter that kills than as the spirit who gives life.

        But I have approached the cut of the formalist clothing by draping fabric on the natural, organic body politic, the form of which keeps cropping up again and again through history. It is the form of the traditional strange attractor of human society typical of the higher latitudes – this being the strange attractor that is bound to be most attractive to the men of the West, and best fitted to their usual biogeographical predicaments.

        That social strange attractor has always clothed itself somehow in the formal vestments of some sort of sovereign corporation. As there is always an established religion, so is there always for any body politic a formal sovereign corporation. The only questions then are whether the form, substance and intentions of that body politic are just, and whether the cut of its formal clothing in a sovereign corporation is fitting, meet to its purposes, and righteous in its effects.

      • But I have approached the cut of the formalist clothing by draping fabric on the natural, organic body politic, the form of which keeps cropping up again and again through history.

        This is a great image.

  7. Leaving shithole countries to find a better life in a better place, one that possibly,more often than not, lets you develop your not-shithole-mentality makes you a “bad marriage prospect”?

    Interesting.

    • What I actually wrote:

      He is like a man already divorced: a poor matrimonial prospect.

      It’s an analogy. What I probably should have written, so as to make that even more abundantly clear:

      As a man who has never divorced is likely to be a better matrimonial prospect than one who has, ceteris paribus, so is a natural countryman likely to be a better compatriot than an emigrant.

      There may of course be many good reasons to let an emigrant immigrate, that outweigh the risk that, having already forsworn his patriotic loyalty to his homeland and his people, he may not ever form a strong patriotic loyalty to any other; or that his patriotic loyalties will be ever divided.

      • Metodex might be amongst the *exceptions to the rule*, and bless him if he is; back in reality land, good policy is *never* based on the occasional exception to the rule. Although it is always granted.

  8. Pingback: This Week In Reaction (2018/01/21) - Social Matter

Comment

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s