Female sexual preferences

HRE was perhaps TOO decentralized every lord was almost completely sovereign in his own domain with his own army unless the Emperor raised an army to attack him… not ideal. completely different problem from the overcentralized but obscure and diffuse problems of clownworld but still a problem.

A pervasive thought-form in the socialistically inclined – which is to say, the solipsistic – is the notion that ‘regulations’, broadly construed, take effect as like abstract universals operating on a frictionless plane.

It can appear to be a difficult leap of intuition for some, many, that any time a new ordnance, codicil, mandate, or standard is declared… a new office downtown is also conjured into existence, in order to administrate it.

And not just in the ruling body, but in *every single entity the provisio supposedly applies too*, as well. The growth is not linear, but exponential.

Paperwork is a form of life, with demonstrable ability to reproduce, producing more of itself from itself, occupying slices of ontological real-estate. And as with all other forms of life, not necessarily aligned with your own species.

Arrogation of capital by fiat is perhaps the most viscerally obvious expression of socialismus in practice, and hence more ink by long has spilled on this aspect. Though, of course, all lords levy a tithe from their holdings through one means or another, the only real question is indeed, by what means, to what degree, and then sent on what concerns. Which is to say, a basically pragmatic question.

A perhaps far more subversive expression, though, of liberal-socialist modes of thought (and isn’t such an abutment itself a quintessential example of antique 20th century pomo irony), one which may ought merit much more material in examination, one which may rear it’s head in a wide range of contexts, beyond obvious ‘tells’ like big sovereign bureaucracies, is *managerialism*; the micromanaging of particular affairs by alien parties with neither, shared alignment of interests, or responsibilities for failure, or even *information*, with regards to that which they are ostensibly to manage.

America, relative to many european nations in previous decades, did not have such high degrees of explicit redistribution, yet nearly any field of business you might care to name is lined up and down with, nominally, binding legislations, regulations, and bureaucratic overseers – indeed, at times self-imposed even, the fungal growths of inflating bureaucratia ever seeking to grow up and choke down any enterprise of proceeding age and size. So you know, to the managerialist, it is not enough to have a chain of command, but have duplicate shadow chains of command running other chains of command too.

You may have a general officer responsible for what equipment his tenants in lieu may go to war with… and then you might have a department of the ministry of departments, with nominal authority over the same things. Well, if the chief paper pusher was so much more possessed of prescience as to what things would bring a nation victory on the battlefield, then they should be the general instead. Either way, it is the redundancy that gets you.

When one might look at the historical example of the teutonics, you get the sense of a people who, relatively speaking, trust their neighbors to conduct themselves virtuously. Which, if you are living in a society filled with nords, is a fairly well justified faith; probably more justified than just about any other clade on the rock.

There are highly inevitable existential (which is to say, racial) implications to the idea of redistribution – punishing thedes you don’t identify with and enriching thedes you do identify with – such that it can become more or less a refactored expression of politics as a whole down to a kernel (who/whom). Something like managerialism, however, is perhaps more arcane in its implications; less as much about distinguishing rent-seeking between obviously different clades, more so much about distinguishing the rent-seeking of particular phenotypes of men within clades, which also crosses over the particular objects of action, with the mechanics of the actions forthwith.

The growth of managerialism is, in short terms, about stuff simply *not working to the good*; it is the trains not running on time; it is the power flickering and browning out; it is code that is buggy, inelegant, or nonfunctional; it is poor quality control in your manufacturing; it is contamination in your food and water supply; it is people running out of asswipe while a hundred grand square feet of toilet paper sits abandoned in a warehouse somewhere. It is a million things and a million million more, the hardly quantifiable actions, events, and exchanges that take place throughout the whole national organism, be they smaller, or greater. It is the desire to divorce power from responsibility; to launder responsibility, through an ever expanding array of procedures, committees, and approval processes, such that, when anything and everything goes boink, ‘no one’ can be held to blame; and thus, anything and everything does go boink.

Much of this largely springs from many people having an abstruse, ‘colourblind’ idea of ‘value’, that is disconnected with any matter in practice, as if ‘value’ is some kind of atemporal floating point outside of eminent existence that can be added too or subtracted from without consequence; that is, while they might see ‘businesses’ creating ‘value’, they don’t see business as *something that is valuable*; as things that are out there doing things, making things happen, effecting processes of civilization, great or small – and thus, likewise, does not see how impacts on these processes are impacts on the creation of value in the first place. The thought that the only way ‘nice things’ happen or could ever be made to happen are if a sovereign apparatchik arbitrates it to be so (the appearance, assumption, and de facto selection-mechanisms producing such men in the first place of course being elided, simply presumed to spring from the aether in state de novo), and so, you need to confiscate other bodies’s capital in order for nice things to happen, and the more you confiscate the more the niceness.

To wit, the role of the ‘governing bureaucrat’ in this dynamic can only be understood properly as something which is more like a psychological totem, an empty cypher into which the whig subject projects his own self. Thus the regressive *identifies* with the apparatus, even it is not he himself personally acting in it’s place (a dynamic that Mr. Orwell intuitively sensed in his own times). And thus then showing a clarified expression of how they ultimately perceive Being, which is that ‘there is nothing that happens unless I make it happen’; which, when inevitably butting into a recalcitrant reality full of things that do so proceed without their personal intervention, produces an intense psychic dissonance, such ill feelings then becoming sublimated into a sentiment of, ‘nothing good happens unless I make it happen’, which is them expressing in other words, ‘there *better not* be anything happening unless I am making it happen’.

The solipsistic narcissist interprets signs of other beings existing and exercising agency as hostility. In their minds, the phenomena of percepted beings not suspending all voluntary behavior and or not submitting to the least of whims in any and all times, is interpreted as if you were trying to do just the same to them, or worse even. They take it as given and granted that the proceedings of the universe conduct themselves in a one-to-one relationship with their unexpressed thoughts about it; and any time events conspire to put this presumption to lie, a formless impulse of irrational anger consumes them – and seeks an outlet for expression.

The congenitally insecure desire power as a means of sublimating this insecurity, the visceral antipathy to the idea that anything – most especially any*one* – could have any bearing over them. But thus such is their ironic hell; for it is the very observation of certain stricture – the divine law of creation – that brings greater power in the first place.

It has long been observed by thoughtful men throughout history that for any given criteria, there will be gaming of that criteria. And hence likewise, the recognition of judgement as transcending any subsidiary proceduralism, which themselves are products of judgement, and the successive accretions of historical evolution in general. The recognition also that not all criteria are created equal; at the limit, ‘continued existence’ is, itself, a criteria.

Now, if the reader will allow a digression for a moment, consider this a truism that one can take for granted, which is that no matter what is going on, even if it’s the end of life as you know it, you can bet that someone, somewhere, somehow, will be trying to figure out a way to make some value through whatever is going on.

And so then, one may see how our marxians take this truism and then turn it into a ‘wet streets cause rain’ tier analysis, where any possible happenstance may always be asserted to be both ’caused by’ and also ‘for the benefit of’ a ‘capitalist class’, regardless of how tenuous the connexions may be, heedless of who is actually involved, and irrespective of it’s ultimate consequences. Until eventually we have rhetorically inflated the tautology for tactical deployment in an ever expanding envelope of contexts, to point where ‘capitalism’ becomes equivocated with the ground of Being itself, and then it turns out our communists were actually gnostics all along. (Barrista drop-outs of the world, unite against the tyranny of the demiurge!)

It’s kinda like, looking at a man driving through a mountain range, seeing that he’s hopelessly lost, can’t read a map right, and ends rolling off a cliff; then looking at this and going, ‘it must have been in his class interest to roll off a cliff; because why would he do it if it was not?’.

Like looking at an airline pilot, and a hijacker holds a gun to his head saying fly us to so-and-so; if your scale of analysis is measured in the space of minutes, you might even say it could be ‘in his interest’ to cooperate; but the end result is still them flying into a building and killing everyone including themselves.

Communism, it can seem, is a very slippery fish. We see its wakes everywhere; yet whenever we go out looking for it, we can find no man who will profess acquaintanceship with it.

When our fascists say fascism is not communism, i am more than willing to discuss the matter with them. I’ve done much the same myself at times. “Fascism, properly understood…”

And certainly, when our friends of the yellow flag say that capitalism is ancient, we can also entertain this notion; one can read the parable of the talents to see what the Holy Ghost has to say about capitalism; one can read Xenophon’s Anabasis to see what the Ionians thought about capitalism. Veritably, ‘true capitalism’ has been tried many times; the most times in fact.

We can understand the difficulty here though; terms like ‘capitalism’, or ‘communism’, or ‘fascism’, or so many ‘isms’ in general, are highly propagandized; by this we mean there have been, over the intervening decades and centuries, untold legions of ideological sorcerers, memetic wizards, and rhetorical warlocks, all attempting to conjure their own magic spells using the words to get people to do their particular bidding, such that at this point practically everyone in our most current of years becomes possessed of their own idiosyncratic sense of what they might mean, and even ostensible fellow travelers will find it difficult to communicate with each other using them.

The mattoid cannot pin the sense of fnords (‘sexism’, ‘racism’, ‘privilege’, ‘socialism’, ‘capitalism’, and so on) down to a form, because their utility as tactical weapons for social domination depend on that very formlessness, inertial retention of old connotations with rapidly shifting denotations, to be shoehorned as needed from one contingency to the next, irrespective of formal agreement or contradiction between different contingencies.

The analysis of terms that are synonymous, but lack the same exosemantic baggage (or have different exosemantic baggage), can be useful in such situations. Like ‘market economy’, or ‘propertarianism’, or ‘freehold’.

Freehold is a good word to explore in this context. For example, Elon Musk has freehold over SpaceX, while noone has freehold over NASA. We can speak of something like ‘Elon’ as having a ‘SpaceX’; on the other hand, there is no such figure for NASA that can come to mind. You’d need to use a search engine to even come close to finding someone with executive authority – and whoever they may be doesn’t have a final and sufficient say over anything anyways. Which is not a coincidence. As it happens, SpaceX puts rockets into space; meanwhile, NASA sucks up millions to not put any rockets into space.

If we can think of any simple way of expressing what communism in practice is, it is simply this; abnegation of freehold.

An absolutist who wishes to usurp for themselves all possible powers within their own central person, will find that he cannot in fact wield all possible powers. He will find that in the attempt to divest all freeholders in his land of their fiefdoms, and wield for himself all possible powers, the business of rulership over this and that thing has instead merely passed from the hands of formal owners, and into the hands of informal owners, in the form of a growing flock of ‘administrative’ servants around him, because the world is very big and has a lot of stuff to do in it. So in the end what has happened is the replacement of select elites… with another set of select elites. Only much more fake and gay.

The hack of feudalism in the sense of information theory is that, instead of a situation where everyone has to know everyone, you have a situation where any one particular member of society in any particular position in society, only needs to know a rough dunbar’s number of people; owners below him in hierarchy, owners above him in hierarchy, and peers in adjacent spaces.

Consider a classic expression of organizational sclerosis in effect, plea-bargaining. Plea-bargaining has over the years spread to becoming the de facto default for handing cases, since of course this is a hack around the fact that the ‘official’ pathways for the judicial process have undergone so much mutation via partisan subversions of merely written procedures for accomplishment of tactical goals over the years that the system ‘on the books’ is totally unusable by anyone for any purpose. In essence, a lawyer has failed if his case actually goes through the legal system.

Wherever it may be product of instinctual maladaption, or epistemological blindness, or intentional malfeasance, or combinations thereof, presently regnant underlords are in any case of course not displeased by this state of affairs, with their ‘processes’ being catastrophically ‘broken’, kafkaesque hells of fractal wrongness, since it means they can use the process itself as punishment. ‘Allegations’, ‘under investigation’, ‘claims’, ‘is accused of’, these arise like clouds of bloodsucking flies out of the swamp, which a scientific observer might curiously note how native swamp-creatures are passed by as if they were invisible, while they swarm like biblical plagues around any creatures of red-blooded vitality that dare step foot into the morass.

In practice of course there is nothing that ever gets done except by personal connection like this between overlapping dunbar’s numbers of cadre, in any case, only whether it is explicit, or occulted. This is no less true in 9th century feudalism as it is in 20th century managerialism; and in many ways perhaps, even more so.

Indeed, making sure things *don’t* happen could be said to be the effective purpose of bureaucratic inflation; a mandelbrot set of layers of checkreigns, overseeing bodies, steering committees, verification processes, and validating criteria, all to ensure that ‘nothing bad happens’; which of course, serves to ensure nothing at all happens, tout court. The only people thinking ‘the process’ is how you are supposed to get things done are the marks who don’t get the joke.

We love women. Also boobs.

Truth so timeless it brings a tear to my eye.