Outlining the core principles behind my ‘positive vision’.

In the last entry of this series, I talked about my precise views on Wokeism at great length. The price of my support for a political candidate or party is to move ‘closer’ to my stated desired policies on Wokeism, even if they have a softer line, or even a harder line, than I would personally prefer.

In contrast, none of the issues I discuss here are ‘red lines’. I will still be part of the same big tent as individuals who oppose some of them or all of them. I voted Reform last year in Britain, and if I was American I would have voted for Trump, even though there are many issues where I disagree with both.

I may act sectarian on Notes, but in practice, I will mark my ballot on the candidate/party that is ‘closer’ to what I believe. It is why I am so happy to work with the TERFs, despite many people criticising me for it, because I recognise that whilst we might disagree on most issues, on that one particular issue of transgenderism they are absolutely correct and deserve our support.

The purpose of this entry is to define what my personal ‘positive vision’ is, an ideology that goes beyond the baseline anti-Wokeism and articulates a fleshed-out alternative. It may be more appropriate to call it ‘ideologies’ rather than a single ideology, as often these viewpoints on particular issues aren’t inherently connected to one another. However, I think that together, they synthesise nicely into a comprehensive vision of a post-Woke future.

Political coalitions in Latin American nations are often lots of different political parties that have a primary election and then endorse a single candidate for the President. For instance Milei’s coalition in Argentina had numerous different parties that supported his Liberty Advances ticket.

I think this is quite a good system, as one can keep their own political identity and not shy away from the disagreements, trying to build influence within the coalition, but still close ranks on a certain set of policy goals. Our ‘big tent’ includes every faction in ‘Factions of the Rightosphere’, even ones I can’t stand.

By stating my positions and what I believe, I also hope to persuade readers why I think my line on each of these intra-movement disputes is the best.

So, here’s my ideological vision (not including specific policies, aside from a few select areas, with the majority of areas being in later sections).

Neoreaction

One of the biggest influences on my political thought has been the Neoreactionary (NRx) space. Most prominent here is of course

, whose ideas are repeated and parroted by many other commentators like Auron MacIntyre.

The notion of the deep state and the Cathedral, particularly how the latter ‘manufactures consent’ for culturally left-wing viewpoints, is immensely influential on how I interpret public opinion. Funnily enough, even though he supported gay marriage at the time he was writing in the late 2000s, Yarvin used the overturning of Proposition 8 as a textbook example of Cathedral power.

Yarvin’s concept of ‘patchwork’ also appealed to me, something I will talk about more in the subsidiarity part of this entry. I also agree with his neocameralism proposal, and his recognition of the impossibility of democracy.

Neema Parvini/

I have also found very insightful, specifically his concepts of the ‘Boomer Truth Regime’ and his book ‘The Populist Delusion’ which explores the Italian Elite Theory thinkers like Gaetano Mosca, Robert Michels, and Vilfredo Pareto, as well as Carl Schmitt, Bertrand de Jouvenal, James Burnham, Sam Francis, and Paul Gottfried, which form the bedrock of Neoreactionary thought. It is from Parvini that I adopted the label ‘Sensible Centrist’.

Like the Elite Theory and Neoreactionary tradition, I believe that elites and inequality are inevitable in society, and so it is best that hierarchies are clear and formalised as opposed to hidden and cryptic. Today, as the inevitability of elite rule is plastered over by talk of egalitarian ideals, it only serves to make power less accountable, not more.

It is for this reason I am sceptical of democracy, particularly on a large-scale outside very ethnically, religiously, and ideologically homogeneous, small-scale communities. Even there, social dynamics will guarantee there is an elite group that makes the majority of the decisions, though at this level it may be preferable than other forms of government.

Postliberalism

I come from an economically left-wing background, so postliberalism was the easiest bridge towards this space for me. When I was still on the left, I utterly resented, and felt humiliated, by the dominance of Wokeism at the expense of working-class economic leftism.

Patrick Deneen’s ‘Why Liberalism Failed’ explored the connections between ‘right-liberalism’ and ‘left-liberalism’, how they were both built on a false assumption of the individual being the primary unit of society, needing to destroy community bonds through big business and big government to ‘make’ the assumptions true. Most of the ideas of this book I hadn’t considered before.

It also attacked liberalism as being anti-democratic, as proven by the judicial overturning of referendums against gay marriage, which Deneen mentions.

Patrick Deneen’s other book, ‘Regime Change’ also inspired me with the ‘Aristopopulist’ idea, of an elite that works to enlighten the people of their true interests, ‘reverse-indoctrinating’ them from the Cathedral in a sort of economic left/socially conservative version of the Leninist ‘vanguard party’. This is absolutely what the anti-Woke movement needs to do, and arguably, Kevin Roberts brought it into reality by having the ‘Third New Right’ take over the Heritage Foundation and create Project 2025.

Deneen’s work has been a refreshing antidote to the dominance of libertarianism in this intellectual space. I think the notion of the ‘social contract’ is fundamentally flawed, and its premises have led to social corrosion as people think that as somebody ‘consenting’ to such a contract they do not have to adhere to community standards and norms, which cause them to break down.

Aside from Deneen, I also enjoyed reading Maurice Glasman’s ‘Blue Labour: The Politics of the Common Good’, which gave a British perspective and various policy suggestions which I support.

My postliberalism is an opposition to mainstream libertarianism. I do not believe in ‘natural rights’ detached from religion, and recognise that human beings are social creatures and so society should be built on the basis of the community rather than the individual.

We should not entertain false notions of the ‘social contract’ and ‘consent’ of the governed, which leads to ever greater dissolving of common cultural standards. As opposed to ‘contract’, the term ‘covenant’ should be used to describe the relationship between the rulers and the ruled of a nation, a binding agreement that neither can opt out of, and if the rulers do not abide by the covenant, like how if the ruled don’t they are given legal penalties, the rulers should be removed from power.

This echoes the Chinese ‘Mandate of Heaven’ idea, which is way more realistic than the social contract and has a deep morality behind it.

I will talk more about the specific policy proposals of postliberalism in the next entry when I focus on economics, which are inspired mostly by much older traditions. But I thought it deserved mention in this part as to how its underlying philosophy has influenced me, and makes me very resistant to the philosophical core of libertarianism, which to me has the same genealogical origin as Wokeism with its focus on individual consent and natural rights.

Essentialist Empirical Falsificationism

Essentialist Empirical Falsification is my attempted synthesis of Karl Popper and Imre Lakatos’ ‘Critical Rationalism/Empirical Falsificationism’ with an anchor in Aristotelian Forms, which together with Plato’s Forms, form the ontology of ‘Essentialism’.

Many would see this as contradictory, as Popper was extremely against essentialism and any claims to ‘absolute truth’. However, the scientific method of Karl Popper, as refined by Imre Lakatos to be more ‘long-term’ to cope with the trial and error nature of scientific inquiry with the ‘research programme’, is immensely valuable for telling science from pseudoscience. The most obvious reason why ‘gender medicine’ is not scientific, is that those pushing it will never concede it is wrong even if provided with the evidence, the foundation of empirical falsification.

I oppose Thomas Kuhn’s epistemological relativism outlined in the ‘Structure of Scientific Revolutions’, which is highly vulnerable to being hijacked by bad actors. The acceptance of ‘gender medicine’, despite not meeting the empirical falsification test, arguably was justified on the basis that it represented a ‘paradigm shift’, when in fact all it did was pollute the scientific field with ideology.

However, as

wrote as a response to my since deleted article on Karl Popper (as I have changed my mind on numerous parts of it, in part due to his criticisms) Karl Popper’s falsificationism is an inherently ‘negative’ epistemology, it says to assert anything positively is to the root of totalitarianism.

And that failure can be seen in the post-war period’s failure to stop ‘endless deconstruction’. Whilst the more authoritarian aspects of Wokeism, like being anti-free speech in the name of Herbert Marcuse’s ‘Repressive Tolerance’, can be justified not being tolerated under Popper’s ‘Paradox of Tolerance’, Wokeism ITSELF, not the way it is enforced but the basis of the ideology, would have to be tolerated under Popper’s maxim.

This is because the empirical falsification method was not ‘anchored’ in any interpretation of reality, even the interpretation of reality that one might call ‘common sense’, which in turn led to deconstruction and postmodernism taking over, and eventually making their deconstructions compulsory. Popper’s philosophy therefore eventually undermines itself if nominalism is accepted.

Aristotelian universals are the philosophical bedrock of what we might call ‘common sense’, things that come instinctively to humans unless they are intentionally ‘indoctrinated away’, like they have been in the last 25 years.

By failing to assert normativity, Popper’s notion of the ‘Open Society’ where both philosophies and science could be debated and tested, ended up being dissolved, as non-conformity became imposed against anyone who might hold to traditional, ‘normal’ values and lifestyles, and this also infected the realm of science, when upholding said non-conformity becomes more important than discovering truth.

This is why we need both empirical falsificationism AND essentialism, falsification for the specific manifestations of the forms, but essentialism so that one can assert normality. Science can only progress if theories are allowed to be tested and disproven, but if we lose our ‘anchors’ in the forms, we will have no reference point, and will be vulnerable to deconstruction which will retard scientific understanding and, long-term, end an environment when falsification can be applied (aka Woke hegemony).

A trained philosopher, much more well versed in these subjects than me, needs to develop a new philosophy along these lines. The future of human civilisation requires a revival of the scientific method that harmonises both essentialism and falsificationism.

‘War of Position’

This repeats points I made in my article ‘Anglofuturism is Not Conservative or Reactionary, It Is ‘Progressive’.

The reason why I call myself a ‘progressive’, a ‘futurist’, and a ‘Sensible Centrist’, rather than a conservative, reactionary, traditionalist or ‘right-wing’, is that the former are ‘winner terms’ and the latter are ‘loser terms’

Every positive ideology has their own unique vision of progress and the future, and calling yourself a ‘conservative’ means orientation towards the status quo, which is a purely defensive posture that is irrelevant now because there is hardly anything left conserving. A ‘reactionary’ cannot entirely replicate the past, and a ‘traditionalist’ in times like these can only be a ‘reconstructionist’ as the thread to the past has been severed.

In addition to its pejorative status in elite British circles, ‘right-wing’ is always relative. The very existence of the word indicates the legitimacy of a ‘left-wing’, and the idea that, like yin and yang, they balance each other out.

But of course, because on cultural issues the current consensus is so far left, calling yourself ‘right-wing’ plays into their definition of the Overton Window. I draw a comparison to, on economics, Czech social democrat Vaclav Havel being ‘far-right’ in the context of living in communist Czechslovakia, when he was, objectively speaking, a man of the left.

Overton Windows are not meekly followed by winners, they are created, conjured up in the imagination of intellectuals, like how Tony Blair always called himself a centrist when his ‘progressive neoliberalism’ was in fact radical. We should not buy into an Overton Window the cultural left has created to enshrine their hegemony. What they consider ‘centrist’, somebody like Joe Biden, is by any historical assessment, on cultural issues at least, a fanatical far-left revolutionary, and a fully committed servant of Wokeism.

Whilst the people who say ‘I didn’t leave the left, the left left me’ are typically useless, Obama-era liberals who have no way to stop the boulder rolling down the slippery slope in regards to Wokeism, if we are to think of ‘left’ and ‘right’ as they are often defined by political scientists, the left supporting an ideal of equality and the right supporting an explicit acknowledgement of hierarchy, I am not the most right-wing person looking at it on a broader time frame.

I don’t believe women should be barred from voting, I support some elements of representative democracy and even direct democracy, I don’t believe that people should generally be limited on what they can achieve by circumstances of their birth, though I acknowledge aristocracy has its place, and I oppose slavery. On many issues, that would make me more left-wing than the Jacobins, though counterbalanced with a more realistic assessment of hierarchy and tribalism.

You might think those issues are ‘settled’, but this is how the Woke always win, by making their previous victories, radical by any historical metric, the new ‘common sense’ and ‘no debate’. I might be ‘right-wing’ on cultural issues (making that distinction because one can easily be left-wing on some issues and right-wing on others, though philosophically one’s position somewhat levels out the difference), but not particularly so on economics, supporting distributist-corporatism (discussed further on in this essay), which whilst fundamentally hierarchical unlike full-on social democracy, is not cutthroat inegalitarian like Ayn Rand-style Objectivism.

I therefore declare myself a ‘Sensible Centrist’, both as a metapolitical move to make a claim to the Overton Window, but also because, looking at the entire range of political positions from 1789 (left vs right comes from the French Revolution) to the current day, I am at LEAST in the middle, or even on the ‘left-side’ of things, though am cautious enough to not take egalitarian thinking to its logical conclusions which most leftists, regardless of period, have tended to ignore. Human inequality and hierarchy is inevitable, but that does not mean all are equally good or equally bad, a society needs to have methods of accountability and have people ‘equal before the law’ regardless of class or wealth, again in historical terms a very left-wing idea.

Subsidiarity

One of the cornerstones of my political beliefs, how I envision both politics and economics, is the principle of subsidiarity, the idea that every political decision should be made at the smallest possible level, with higher levels only intervening when necessary.

Catholic readers will be familiar with this from encyclicals like the ‘Rerum Novarum’ (1891) by Pope Leo XIII, and Quadragesimo Anno (1931) by Pope Pius XI, but one does not need to be a Catholic, and I am not, to appreciate the subsidiary principle.

By ‘levels’, it means institutions. The nuclear family is the primary unit, followed by the extended family, followed by civil society organisations like churches, co-operatives, mutual aid organisations, etcetera, and then local government of various graduating levels in a federal system, and only at the very highest stage does the federal government intervene.

What this allows is a wide variety of choices for the individual. If they do not like their civil society organisation, they can leave and join another, and likewise, if on the local level there are policies they disagree with strongly, they can move and join another local subdivision with more like minded individuals.

Of course, they would need to be adults to make this choice, as one doesn’t choose their family, and parental authority necessarily needs to be mostly absolute (though higher levels may step in if parents are abusing their children physically or sexually, and the community possesses the tool of ‘moral shaming’ to parents who are seen as being too harsh on their children) but once they are of majority age, they can choose whether to have an active relationship with their parents. Parents will have to treat their children well if they want their children to care for them when they’re old, a covenant which the welfare state and state-funded social care has weakened.

Curtis Yarvin articulated this idea in ‘Patchwork’, where he outlines his ideal system of corporate-monarchy city states akin to the Holy Roman Empire. The ‘free serfs’ in each ‘patch’, if they don’t like local rule, can leave and move to another, and in a world of small states, states would be competing for the most talented and valuable individuals.

However, Yarvinite patchwork strikes me as unrealistic. It would be difficult to defend against a foreign invasion for instance.

Nevertheless, one can replicate many of the advantages with having a federal state which is as decentralised as possible, only things that literally have no choice but to be on the national level should be, like immigration enforcement, customs enforcement, a common currency, a free trade area, co-ordinating the national defense, high-level defense technologies like nuclear weapons, foreign policy, etcetera. This would make this country quite a bit more centralised than the Holy Roman Empire, but about equal to the 1789 to 1860 ‘Second Republic’ United States (though without slavery and adapted to modernity).

Many people consider the Catholic-flavoured idea of subsidiarity to be neo-medieval and archaic to the modern world, but for me I see the complete opposite. The ease of travel and communication today makes it far more likely that people will be able to find like minded people and move to a subdivision that fits with their beliefs, just like various online communities have formed on Reddit and Discord (though censorship has sadly weakened this). Each subdivision would have a set of rules that the person moving there must agree to, and if they do not obey these rules, they are ‘banished’, similar to Hans-Hermann Hoppe’s ‘covenant communities’.

This will make far more people happy than any national level democracy. Even if a country with the population of Britain was to have Swiss-style initiative and referendum at the national level, narrow votes in referendums will make large minorities unhappy, whether 49%, 40%, 30%, or 20%. Of course, on questions like foreign policy votes like these have to be national (though, like Australia and Switzerland, needing a majority of subdivisions as well as an overall majority is important to preserve the subsidiarity principle). But on a question like access to contraception or legality of prostitution, a ‘patchwork’ of different laws subdivision by subdivision is better as it will please more people.

Each subdivision would become a ‘policy laboratory’. Some would have ‘school choice’ through vouchers, whereas others would have school districts, some might have a single-payer healthcare system and others might have more of a Singaporean system.

In order to preserve this (moderate) patchwork, an equal upper chamber of Parliament with equal representation for each subdivision, and preferably each representative voting as instructed by the lower levels, is vital to prevent nation-level majority rule from destroying local autonomy. This should be on more than one level, in America prior to Reynolds vs Sims (1964), the states were likewise their own federations with the upper chamber being ‘one county, one vote’, adding an additional layer of protection for local rule.

It is impossible to have a constitution that mandates only particular federal powers, as I have discussed in my three part series, so an equally powered, equally represented upper chamber is the vital check on subdivision rights. There will need to be federal measures there to enhance the subsidiarity principle, for instance if each subdivision had its own healthcare system, the federal government could facilitate a system where, when moving, one could transfer their contributions from one system to the next.

And whilst one may say that such small subdivisions having such a large amount of responsibility would mean they are overwhelmed and unable to operate effectively, the existence of microstates like Liechtenstein disprove this, in fact Liechtenstein is one of the most well-governed nations on earth, combining NRx monarchism with Swiss-style direct democracy (Prince Hans-Adam II is a personal friend of Hans Hermann Hoppe, a ‘proto-NRx’ intellectual). What I envision is basically a ‘federation of Leichtenstein’s’, which I will discuss further in the designated section.

The one exception here would, of course, be Wokeism, the permanent ‘outgroup’ ideology. No subdivision would be allowed to implement Woke policies, as the people who voted for it would be considered to have been ‘groomed’ and ‘indoctrinated’. This is necessary because Woke enclaves threaten the subsidiarity principle by deeming certain ‘rights’ as ‘not up for debate’.

The Paradox of Tolerance principle by Popper justifies the exclusion of ideological tendencies that would undermine the system, and Wokeism falls under this by seeing majoritarian democracy and subdivision autonomy as illegitimate (as proven by their overturning of 32 state referendums on gay marriage). In order to be long-term sustainable, subsidiarity must have a red line at Wokeism, it is indeed an issue which warrants being mandated at the national level.

Distributism

The ideal of Distributism is said to have originated with the 1891 Papal Encyclical ‘Rerum Novarum’, written by Pope Leo XIII in consultation with many early sociologists at that time. The term was coined by G.K Chesterton, who along with Hillaire Beloc, made it a comprehensive ideology.

However, the idea is much older. Thomas Jefferson effectively endorsed it with his emphasis on the ‘yeoman farmer’. The United States became such a prosperous society because of the Homestead Acts, which were an example of distributism in action, and ensured large landowners didn’t end up distorting and retarding development like they did in many Latin American countries.

The best way to resist the ‘total state’, the managerial apparatus through which the Woke Cathedral can excerpt its complete dominion over all aspects of life, like it did during the Covid years which run concurrently with the ‘Summer of Floyd’, is through numerous ‘competing spheres of authority’, like the family, the family home, the family business, local communities, co-ops, and guilds.

There should not be one accreditation cartel in the feminised, longhouse (feminine dominated) university system, but rather a far more dispersed accreditation system linked to trades, and in fact degree requirements should be banned unless employers can prove it is essential for the job, as American Compass suggests (I endorse all of American Compass’ policies, even though I’d prefer some of them to be done at lower levels, which I will explain in the next entry).

I believe that property ownership should be widespread. Almost everybody should be able to own their own home, and not have to pay inheritance tax on it when their parents pass away, something which penalises low time preference and long-termism.

Local governments would assist with this perhaps through a system similar to Singapore’s Housing Development Board (HBD) with homes constructed by the state and sold to residents at discount prices, the money entirely put back into social housing as a kind of sustainable, multigenerational version of Margaret Thatcher’s ‘Right to Buy’ (which in reality only benefited a single generation whilst permanently depleting the social housing stock and creating a nation of private renters), which is essentially what Singapore has.

A more subsidiarity alternative might be a Land Value Tax (LVT), which would disincentivise land hoarding and encourage construction of residential properties which would reduce their price due to supply and demand, letting the private sector lead and the local government only building more to create permanent low prices due to excess supply.

For smallholder residents who might be priced out of their areas with the LVT, an equal ‘residents dividend’ could be given to all who reside in the area with the entirety of the tax going towards it, meaning that with the dividend, only very large landowners would carry the risk of being priced out (government and ‘community/co-operative’ owned buildings would be exempt).

Ordinary property holders are ‘stakeholders’ to the city’s value and there is not an incentive towards urban sprawl. LVT would not apply however in rural areas, and farmland and family estates would be exempt from it, so that people aren’t deracinated from their ancestral hometowns.

Family businesses and co-operatives are also vital for a free society, where power is decentralised and distributed, and therefore should receive various benefits in the form of lower taxes and assisted access to credit.

Whilst the Yugoslav policy of ‘market socialism’, aka making all businesses co-operatives, tends to cause mass unemployment due to each worker not wanting to reduce their share of the co-operative pie by taking on more workers, certain co-operatives, like Mondragon Corporation that was founded in Francoist Spain, can become consistently profitable, and it is important that there exists is a policy environment favourable to co-operatives, even if one doesn’t expect them to completely replace normal businesses. Francoist Spain’s period of autarky, whilst much criticised for causing stagnation, did allow the flourishing of co-operatives which could then compete when trade was opened up in 1959.

When something will be as cheap when coming from a local family-owned business or co-operative rather than a regular chain store, it is better for the local family business or the co-operative to be favoured, though larger businesses do have larger efficiency through economy of scale and capital accumulation, and so have their place. Large ordinary businesses would be heavily incentivised by the tax system to have at least 20% of their stock owned by their employees.

Distributism-corporatism is distributism for things that can be, and corporatism for entities that are by necessity larger.

Corporatism

I am a corporatist because I believe that there are different functions in society that need fulfilling, and they should not be in conflict, but be able to work in harmony in organic associations, like what Emile Durkheim theorised as ‘structural functionalism’. It is given a fully developed intellectual basis in the Quadragesimo Anno, which was itself inspired by Heinreich Pesch’s ‘Christian Solidarism’.

Corporatism is the natural state of human affairs, the recognition that society is like the body of an organism, with different organs fulfilling different roles.

A major fallacy of liberalism is the belief that everybody should go to college and pursue a white-collar career, based on its falsely egalitarian assumptions of ‘meritocracy’. But not every organ can be the ‘brain’, the legs, the lungs, the heart, and all the different organs are just as crucial even if they are not the ‘leader’, and what is true for an organism is also true for society.

What this meritocratic, individualistic liberalism has meant is that, with everybody told to ‘go to college’ and get a white-collar job instead of learning a trade, Western nations don’t make anything and it is now all imported from abroad.

With industries dying, community bonds that associations and trade unions that were built around them provided die alongside them. The destruction of ‘competing power centres’ like trade unions has also meant the total dominance of accreditation cartels in the form of the universities, hotbeds of Wokeism, and the ever greater centralisation of society by bureaucrats and regulators, spreading those same Woke values.

In a corporatist society, all should have an awareness of their place in the national machine and have security in that, even if there are higher and lower orders. This is opposed to the rootless individualism that liberal society promotes, which preaches meritocracy and ‘equality of opportunity’, despite those two things being impossible to completely fulfil in practice, (at least without the totalitarian separation of all children from their parents and their raising them in state-run boarding schools), whilst obscuring and denying the inevitability of elites.

Whilst elites are inevitable however, successful societies have a ‘diversity of elites’. This is not like the ‘diversity’ of today which is based on Woke identity groups (who in actual fact go to the same accreditation institutions and have the same Woke worldview), but different pathways of gaining elite status.

Michael Lind, who I am critical of in many ways (most notably his dismissing of the culture war), pointed out the dominance of one type of elite in the neoliberal age, the university-educated elite, as opposed to the more diverse elite structures of the New Deal-era, which included a ‘union elite’ that came from working-class backgrounds.

Guilds should exist for trades, and these guilds should operate trade and vocational colleges for their specific trade. They should also, in mediation with regulators (based on the subsidiarity principle, at the smallest level of government possible), enforce standards, which will reduce the need for bureaucratic regulation.

When there are industries with a few employers and many employees, different forms of trades guilds should be set up to serve as sectoral wage bargaining and standard-setting boards, with numerous unions in the same industry and one single employers association forming the ‘guild’, being mediated by the state in a ‘tripartite’ model.

All recognised unions should be obliged to participate in the sectoral bargaining of their sector. Like in France, there could be multiple competing unions depending on their unique member allegiances, such as Catholic unions and ‘Old Left’ communist unions (Woke unions would be banned nationwide), but all of them in the guild sectoral bargaining process would serve as a single entity.

The ‘tripartite’ sectoral bargaining system is the method of unionism they have in countries like Austria, Denmark, and the Netherlands, as well as Francoist Spain with the ‘Sindicato Vertical’. It ensures any particular business isn’t at a competitive disadvantage for unionising like you see in enterprise-level bargaining countries like the United States.

In the US, if a company unionises, higher wages will mean their products are more expensive when compared to un-unionised competitors.

But with sectoral bargaining, there is a standardised and binding floor of wages and conditions negotiated by unions and employers across the sector, corresponding to aggregate productivity in that sector. This incentivises innovation at the enterprise level, because only technological improvements in productivity above their average competitors will increase profits for businesses, as wages and standards cannot be cut without tripartite negotiations across the whole sector.

It is superior to a minimum wage, as it provides a shield for all professions as opposed to just those at the very bottom of the income distribution, and allows stakeholders (unions, employers, and the state) to be consulted. If wages are too high as to be limiting employment, the state may intervene to limit wage growth so that businesses may use their excess profits to hire more workers, and likewise if rising inflation poses a problem, wage growth can also be limited, with unions forbidden from striking once the pay agreements have been negotiated (and neither can employers do ‘lockouts’). It allows a flexibility that a blanket minimum wage does not allow, and is faster to respond to changing conditions.

American Compass has proposed sectoral bargaining for this reason, as a conservative alternative to the Democratic PRO Act proposal, which maintains the system of enterprise-level bargaining with all the disadvantages that entails, and which seems designed to encourage, rather than eliminate the need for, strike action.

These sectoral bargaining guilds should exist on the city and county level, to ensure that the wages are compatible with the living costs of that area, which would put downward pressure on house prices.

Federal-level governments would likely mandate sectoral bargaining to prevent a ‘race to the bottom’, but it would be local businesses and union branches, mediated by local officials, that mediate the negotiations. In my proposed system, each city, an each county not including cities in that county, would have their own sectoral bargaining boards.

In addition to these more centralised mechanisms, large businesses should have ‘works councils’ in a co-determination system, of which representatives from different trade-specific unions (again, with the exception of Woke unions that would be banned) would compete, which largely take the place of HR departments with a more masculine, populist alternative. Following American Compass’ proposal, degree requirements should also be banned unless employers can prove they are necessary for the job, to neuter Woke power.

Another part of corporatism I am in favour of is the Danish ‘Ghent system’ (called A-Kasse) and ‘flexicurity’, which mutually reinforce each other, providing both flexible labour markets and a social safety net.

The Ghent system is one where it is unions, instead of the state, which are responsible for managing unemployment insurance, subject to having paid into the system, another example of subsidiarity.

‘Flexicurity’ is a benefit of the Ghent system, hiring and firing workers for employers is extremely easy, yet it does not cause economic insecurity for the working-class, as the worker has 90% of their previous jobs wages for a number of years so they may find future employment.

Union membership, and their associated funds, should be compulsory like German healthcare funds, in order to pool-risk and make them financially stable, as a subsidiaritist alternative to paying higher taxes.

Representation in legislatures, like in Slovenia’s National Council, the Irish vocational panels, and in the abolished Senate of Bavaria, for sectoral interests and professions would be advisable, but unlike national-level proposals of this, it should be the local level with corporate representation, in order to replicate the medieval guild, whereas national-level upper chambers should have their subdivisions equally represented. This is not essential, but it is an added bonus.

I will discuss more details about my economic system in the next entry.

Classical Republicanism

Classical republicanism, different from modern republicanism that simply means lack of a monarchy that calls themself a monarch, believes in civic virtue and mixed government. It was the ideology of Aristotle, Polybius, and Cicero.

Aristotle in his ‘Politics’ talked about the cycles of forms of government, their good forms and bad forms, monarchy becomes despotism, aristocracy becomes oligarchy, democracy becomes mob rule, and the cycle continues. He believed a synthesis between aristocracy and democracy was the best form of government.

Polybius, a Roman historian and philosopher, commended the Roman Republic for being the perfect form of government, a synthesis between the three ‘good’ forms of government, monarchy, aristocracy, and democracy, with each part mitigating the flaws of each.

Whilst Britain is a constitutional monarchy, and not a republic in the modern sense, in the 18th century many foreign onlookers saw Britain as the archetypical republic and ‘mixed government’. Montesquieu highlighted that Britain had a monarchy, an aristocratic element (House of Lords), and a democratic element (House of Commons, though from our perspective more oligarchic), and called it a ‘republic disguised as a monarchy’. As I mentioned in a previous article, this ‘crowned republic’ model was eroded by the 1911 Parliament Act, which made it a pure representative democracy.

Republicanism also translates to politics as the ‘public affair’, which necessitates a collective sense of civic virtue and common good, which is different from the liberal conception of the state which is rooted on individual rights and the social contract. Instead of the individualistic ‘contract’, a republic is founded on a ‘national covenant’ between the rulers and the ruled, with revolution permissible if the covenant is broken, a similar concept to the Chinese Mandate of Heaven.

As

highlights, various philosophers believed the ideal republic needed to be small, which connects to the idea of subsidiarity. Both Aristotle and Carl Schmitt said that a democracy could only work on a homogenous (local) level. On the very smallest, parish level, in an ethnically, religiously, and ideologically homogeneous community which all moving there would have to sign a ‘covenant’, the ‘representative town hall meeting’, a form of ‘analogue liquid democracy’, is the ideal system.

However, in more diverse and cosmopolitan cities, Curtis Yarvin envisions numerous competing ‘local monarchies’, but in fact, the Neocameral ‘anonymous shareholder vote’ to remove the monarch adds a ‘republican’ element of accountability.

As cities have less of a sense of ‘rootedness’, they are best if they are operated like corporations instead of as democracies. In fact, in Britain, prior to the passage of universal suffrage, cities were called ‘municipal corporations’, which has its last remaining remnant in the City of London Corporation today. Joseph Chamberlain as mayor of Birmingham in some ways operated like Yarvin’s archetypal ‘CEO-Monarch’ in a ‘patchwork’ of local governments.

The structure of a corporation, particularly a publicly traded one, is much more that of a ‘republican monarchy’ than an absolute monarchy, as the CEO is accountable to the shareholders. Yarvin’s Neocameralist vision therefore is compatible with a classical notion of republicanism, and the idea that the rulers should have accountability to those that they rule.

‘Mixed government’, aka republicanism, can be a pie chart. Some polities may be mostly monarchies, but have elements of aristocracy and democracy (the neocameralist model), and some democracies would have elements of monarchy, etcetera. But different mixes are required for different situations and levels. The ‘iron law of oligarchy’ makes true democracy impossible, and that becomes more and more true the higher and more diverse the level is.

Here is my ideal political system, based on Britain, but my ideal system applied anywhere:

Political System

• This political system is based on the pre-1911 British constitution, with the following changes.

Counties and House of Lords

• In a British application, the Historic Counties are the primary administrative units, although Greater London, Birmingham, and Bristol become their own counties, with Greater London absorbing Middlesex.

• Each county has one Lord, and the House of Lords consists of the County Lords and the Bishops of the State Church (who do not vote). The Lord may send a proxy to vote in the House of Lords as instructed, but they are recallable at any point, and the Lord may ‘correct’ a vote if their proxy voted wrong.

• The Lord of the County governs it akin to the Prince of Liechtenstein, with the ability of voters to sign initiatives which go to referendum, though the Lord may overturn a referendum once it has been voted in favour, like the Prince of Liechtenstein. The Lord may be subjected to a recall vote, and if it is successful, the county legislature will elect somebody else from the titled peerage as a replacement.

• County legislatures are bicameral, the lower chamber (county assembly) elected by all who pay taxes, have served in the military in a combat or auxiliary role, own taxable property, or are parents (with each minor dependent child constituting an extra vote through Demeny Voting.)

• The electoral system used for the county assembly is a first round of Single Non-Transferable Vote (SNTV) and a second round of interactive representation (as many votes in the assembly as they received from voters in the second round). The district magnitude would be between 3 and 6.

• Unlike U’Ren’s proposal in Progressive Era Oregon, there would not be the option to vote anywhere in the ‘interactive representation’, but only in the ward where the voter resides.

• The number of delegates in each county assembly depends on the population, with a desire to create a representative to voter ratio of close to ‘dunbar’s number’ (around 150), though variable ward magnitudes and vote weighting of each delegate in the assembly will ensure natural boundaries can exist with fair representation. The wards for the county council will be the same as either wards of lower councils or whole parishes, depending on the population.

• If a county had 1 million voters, the county assembly would consist of around 1500 delegates, with variable numbers of votes. This is based on Patrick Deneen’s proposal to expand the size of the US House of Representatives in ‘Regime Change’, though I believe it is better for this principle to be applied on the subnational level.

• The counties are divided into cities/county boroughs or ‘hundreds’.

• The upper chamber, the County Council, equally represents every city (when included in votes that affect them), town, and hundred, with Mayor’s (and council leaders in the case of hundreds) appointing the representatives.

• Each county, through an electoral college utilising degressive proportionality for the subdivisions, elects a ‘Sheriff’ (joint police commissioner and tax collector), a ‘Lord-Lieutenant’ (leader of the county militia, a part of the military), ‘Justice of the Peace’ (equivalent to the American District Attorney, though the original British role was slightly different), and ‘Quarter Sessions’ (county judges). All are elected by the college using the ‘exhaustive ballot’.

• County legislatures (assemblies and councils, minus city delegates that elect their own) elect MPs to the House of Commons in a ‘two-round bloc vote’, being allocated as many MPs as proportional to the county’s population. They are called by their traditional name, ‘Knights of the Shire’.

Cities

• The cities collect their own taxes and elect their own MPs. However, they are subject to the county’s jurisdiction (unless a city-county like Greater London, Birmingham, or Bristol, which have their own unique systems). They are included in the county legislature (assembly and council) on issues which affect them, of which they elect councillors.

• The cities have a neocameralist system of government. Half of the ‘City Congress’ is made up of ratepayer representatives, the other half vocational representatives like Hong Kong’s functional constituencies. They are elected every two-years and elect Aldermen (akin to Board of Directors) who then elect a Mayor (akin to CEO) for an infinitely renewable 6-year term.

• The Mayor has total power day to day, only able to be removed by the Aldermen or Congress by majority vote, not having their decrees rejected. There is also a recall provision if 10% of city residents sign a petition, and if the recall referendum is successful a new Mayor must be appointed, though the new Mayor is not directly elected but elected by the Aldermen.

• The City Congress has the power to debate, analyse, and scrutinise the Mayor’s policies, and propose and develop policies of their own which the Mayor may accept or reject, akin to the Prussian Estates. It does not however have any formal legislative power, except the power to remove the Mayor.

• The people may sign petitions, and the Aldermen may hold referendums if the petition gets a certain number of signatures to make public consensus known, but it is the Mayor whose decision is always final. The Mayor as a person may only be accepted or rejected as an absolute ruler, and not have individual policies scrutinised, which in practice only empowers hidden power structures that are less accountable.

• City residents eligible to vote (taxpayers, property owners, veterans, and parents) also elect the city’s county assembly representatives through the same system as the towns and hundreds (only joining in votes that affect them, similar to English Votes for English Laws whereby the non-city parts of the county are equivalent to England), which elect the city MPs separate from the rest of the county, which are called ‘burgesses’, their traditional name.

Hundreds

• The hundreds are a restoration of the sub-county units that existed since the Norman invasion into the middle of the 19th century, and are equivalent to the post-1974 ‘borough’, especially ones in rural counties which are split into ‘parish’ and ‘town’ councils.

• The hundreds share tax raising power with the county.

• Hundreds are split into numerous towns and parishes.

• The parishes all have a ‘representative town meeting’ system of government of all ratepayers with similar interactive representation.

• The towns have a council elected by proportional representation and a Mayor elected by the two-round system by all ratepayers. The town/municipal borough is also its own school district, which charges its own taxes.

• There is a bicameral ‘hundred council’ with all parishes and towns equally represented in the upper chamber.

• The role of the hundreds are similar to the 1894 – 1972 British rural districts, split into numerous parishes, though they also include towns. The territory of the hundreds also includes the school district for the rural areas, like the town school districts charging its own taxes.

House of Commons, Prime Minister, and Monarchy

• The county legislatures (assembly and council together), and the city county-assembly delegates, can recall their MPs, and they must vote as instructed.

• At the national level, the Prime Minister is more akin to a President, with a greater degree of powers, such as power to pardon, issue decrees, and control all government spending, of which there is a Jacksonian spoils system. However, they can be removed by a simple majority of both chambers, and are also still either MPs or Lords. To stay in power, they would have to mediate between the different county and city bloc MPs (burgesses) and the county lords (Knights of the Shire), creating a common spiritness similar to that which Patrick Deneen proposes in Regime Change.

• Following Walter Bagehot in ‘The English Constitution’, the Monarch still exists as a ‘dignified’ government and the House of Commons/Prime Minister is the ‘efficient’ government. This means that power is centralised in a single individual, as per the Neocameralist system, but there is one figure that serves as a symbol of the nation and above politics (the Monarch), and another figure who has the actual power but is the subject of political criticism (Prime Minister, aka the Yarvinite Monarch).

• With a majoritarian electoral system in the House of Commons, the Prime Minister effectively becomes the ‘Monarch of the Efficient Government’ so long as they can balance out regional interests. However, the Monarch holds the ceremonial power and status, which the Prime Minister must pay deference to.

• Like the British constitution, particularly prior to 1997, Parliament is Sovereign. There is no judicial review of Acts of Parliament, as if the bill has passed both houses of parliament, it is considered the highest law of the land, which the courts may only interpret, not strike down, and with the ‘Law Lords’ in the House of Lords the highest court of appeal.

Suffrage

When it comes to the county assembly level, of whom, along with councillors, will elect MPs for the rural county, the Knights of the Shire, and separately for the cities, the burgesses, voters should need to have a ‘stake’ in the system: with paying taxes, serving in the military/militia or in an auxiliary role, owning taxable property, or being a parent (for which Demeny voting should be applied for married couples, each dependent underage child counts as an extra vote, and if both the man and woman are eligible to vote as individuals, their two votes are combined into three votes) being a minimum requirement for both men and women.

In order to vote directly in most referendums, and not simply vote for representatives, voters should also need to pass a civic test, at least being able to read and understand very basic policies.

The county assembly will operate on a ‘liquid democracy’ basis, where each councillor gets as many votes in the council as they received in the second round by voters, and one who has passed their civic test may withdraw their vote from their representative in order to vote themselves, each council vote being akin to a referendum amongst the interactive representation, though this will require them to forego ballot secrecy and place their details on their ballot as proof.

However, certain questions, like on taxes, will be determined by referendum even amongst those who did not pass their civic test, but are eligible to vote for representatives, as this is an issue where they ‘have the knowledge of experience’.

This has some similarities to Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers, in which ‘service guarantees citizenship’. However, as military juntas are almost never prosperous, this demonstrates that a functional state requires more than just violence to operate effectively.

In addition, it is not only frontline infantry that are needed for national defence but also stuff like nurses and engineers in the auxiliaries, stuff like paying taxes which contributes to the treasury, and being a parent which increases the population. This should be recognised as a ‘contribution’ and should get people the vote, which Starship Troopers does also have, even though it undermines its message of ‘violence is the supreme authority from which all authority is derived’ message..

The biggest change in my system compared to Starship Troopers is the fact that in Starship Troopers it is only a minority of people who do federal service. This risks the ‘citizens’ (veterans) becoming a corrupt ruling class that increasingly make themselves less meritocratic. The Cossack Hetmante started out very similar to the Terran Federation in Starship Troopers, but eventually became a military dictatorship controlled by a small group of officer corps. Therefore, I would make some kind of military service, whether frontline or auxiliary, compulsory, and all eligible to vote are required to vote, to ensure that all are represented and not just the politically engaged.

Pan-Anglicism

This is the specifically ‘Anglo’ aspect of my thought, with the term ‘futurist’ in ‘Anglofuturist’ mostly being a work of metapolitics, which you can read in my articles ‘How Anglofuturism Can Become a Movement’ and ‘Anglofuturism is not Conservative or Reactionary, It is ‘Progressive’.

Taking inspiration from books like Albion’s Seed by David Hackett Fisher, as well as the late Victorian historian John Robert Seeley’s ‘The Expansion of England’, I believe the nations of the ‘Anglosphere’, that is White, English-speaking countries that were founded by settlers coming from the British Isles, namely Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United States, as well as Britain itself (open invitation to Ireland if they accept, which they won’t) have a common political, social, and cultural destiny.

This does not always mean advocating for formal political integration, though I do support that, but also recognising the community of the ‘Anglosphere’ which already exists, particularly online. Our common language has allowed a mass diffusion of political movements across the online space. Whilst, as the largest and most powerful Anglophone nation, what happens in the United States has downstream effects for the rest of us, I do believe that distinctions between these nations in time will become less and less pronounced.

Some British people bemoan that ‘Americanisation’, but I do not, as I see America as our kin, the Rome to our Ancient Greece. America is Britain’s greatest achievement, the means by which our civilisation could go beyond the limited reach of this small island.

Pan-Anglicism also has a racial aspect, it is predicated on Whiteness, and maintains that only Whites can be truly of the ‘Anglo’ culture. However, other White ethnicities that come to these Anglo-founded nations, like the Ellis Islanders, have, whilst bringing their unique contributions, assimilated into an Anglo culture. English identity was never strictly ethnic even in the motherland, with French Huguenots able to become English. Likewise, the Ellis Islanders, whilst not of course denouncing their other European heritage, also in a very real sense ‘become Englishmen’, so the fact America is not predominantly of founding stock today does not necessarily matter. To me, a White, culturally Christian native English-speaker is an ‘Anglo’.

However, Third World immigration must be opposed, illegal immigrants deported and legal immigrants phased out, and Anglo nations should seek to be at least 90% White (in Britain ideally 95% White). In the United States, part of that would include classifying Hispanics as part of the ‘White’ camp, as they mostly desire to be seen as only to be thwarted by civil rights classification, and are essentially quite similar to the waves of Italian and German immigrants. As I mentioned in my previous entry, my beliefs on this are essentially similar to

’s ‘Castizo Futurism’.

However, other groups can never be considered White, like Indians, Africans, Muslim, and Asians, and further immigration from these nations must be halted and reversed as much as possible, though a few of the best and brightest should be allowed to remain (much more than just H-1B).

Futurism

A final part of my ideology is futurism. I believe technological progress is more-a-less inevitable, so we should harness it to both improve our lives and expand the human frontier through space travel.

I embrace electric vehicles, mRNA vaccines, and cultured meat, even though they have become ‘Woke-coded’ with the ‘if the liberals are for it, we’re against it’ mindset many on our side have.

Anti-Wokeism needs to be separated from causes which have absolutely nothing to do with Wokeism, and simply are added on due to bribes from specific lobbies like the fossil fuel industry

I believe that climate change is real, caused by humans, and serious. But unlike left-wing environmentalists, the solution is not purposely limiting our fossil fuel consumption but rather embracing new technology, particularly new nuclear, to make fossil fuels redundant.

There needs to be a regulatory environment where new technologies, whether they be small modular reactors or cultured meat, can be allowed to develop and thrive. This is impeded by both the left, and increasingly, the ‘chud right’ and ‘conspiratards’ who think that just because well-educated people are for something, they must be against it, even if it has nothing to do with Wokeism .

I want humanity to become an interplanetary species, and to develop the technologies needed to colonise other planets like Mars. It is the next logical step in the telos of mankind.

I am highly excited about Elon Musk’s Starship, and when it has completed its tests it will be a game changer as it will be a fully reusable space vehicle. Elon Musk has the potential to be the Christopher Columbus of the ‘Second Space Age’, having brought the United States out of its half-century long stagnation when it comes to space capabilities. Finally, this ‘stop/start’ dynamic when it comes to space can end, and we can see a ‘space boom’ like the computer boom in the 1990s and the AI boom in the 2020s.

I’m not uncritical of technological progress. I am suspicious of transhumanism, seeing a heavy intersection with transgenderism in terms of its funding, and also think that technology needs to be harnessed in a particular way so that it enhances human freedom rather than impedes it. One saw the dark side of technology during Covid, where the internet allowed the economy to be shut down and people to work from home, and the waves of Big Tech censorship. A national digital currency likewise is also a huge concern.

This is where my support for distributism and subsidiarity come in. Whilst this techno-optimist vision is often a competitor to the more traditionalist vision of distributism, corporatism, and subsidiarity, I feel that they can be complimentary, with each strengthening the other. I already discussed the analogy of subsidiarity and localism as akin to subreddits and Discord servers.

But technology needs to be channelled in the right way, bringing back that sense of liberation from the late 1990s and early 2000s, before the Woke NGOs and bureaucrats destroyed the promise of online free speech and free association. It cannot be used to empower centralised governments and administrative states, but serve as a counter to it. This is where distributism and subsidiarity come in.

The ‘solarpunk’ vision needs to be reclaimed from the Woke, just like vaporwave was. We should not let them get to dictate what an optimistic future looks like, and instead demonstrate how technology can compliment our political vision, our concept of the good and of liberty, instead of theirs, which is nothing less than managerial, longhouse tyranny that will replace space colonisation with DEI programmes.

Conclusion

Recommend The Anglofuturist to your readers

A magazine promoting ‘Sensible Centrism’ across the Anglosphere. Discusses aesthetics, media, philosophy, history, politics, and living.