Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Based's avatar

"I'm a crypto-fascist, but like, literally."

Expand full comment
Nick's avatar

> Yes, McDonald’s (not affiliated with Kevin MacDonald) would face legal consequences if they started drugging their Hebraic guests. Still: is that the main reason they don’t?

Quite probably. Still, many companies do everything in their powers to poison their customers for profit within the confines of the law or grey areas of it (from tobacco companies adding addictive substances, to Sony adding rootkits, all the way to drug companies wining and dining doctors to over-prescribe drugs, modern web "dark patterns", Facebook's "dopamine-binge" engineering and socio-political meddling and so on).

Hell, many companies poison their customers even outside what's legal to make a profit (from the car industry emissions scandal, to construction companies using subpar materials to cut costs, to the tons of scandals in the food industry).

That doesn't even touch the kind of scumbuggery involved in financial and/or white crime, from otherwise "respectable" CEOs of huge multinational and national banks, insurance companies, and so on.

And that's before we get to externalities, which those companies can conveniently ignore, but the monarch/government can't (or shouldn't) - because unlike a company, the domain of the government is the totality.

That is, if Exxon poisons some ecosystem, it's still fine (for Exxon and it's CEO, some damage control aside, iff they are found out, and even if found out, only iff they can't negotiate a good deal to get out of it with the political lackeys they sponsor). Exxon cares for "salus Exxon" alone. If the government does it, it's not OK, because the government is supposed to care for the "salus populi".

I'd also argue that the modern CEO is an example of the decline of corporations and of technological progress in its declining momentum (if not absolute velocity) stage.

Modern companies are mostly good in selling incremental engineering, making money out of pure BS like advertising and selling privacy data, and being middlemen, than from great tech and science advances (the last of which belong to the era of PARC, ARPA, and co., and smaller more nimble companies, owner-run enterprises, and independent research - this article makes the case better than me: https://thebaffler.com/salvos/of-flying-cars-and-the-declining-rate-of-profit ).

And of course, late 20th/early 21-st century companies, are the province of a bureaucracy (not to mention mental conformity) that can put even USSR-era public sector to shame. Dilbert anyone?

Oh, and those CEOs? They can, and frequently do, burn their companies to the ground, and they'll still leave with golden parachutes and bonuses intact.

If a modern CEO-run company is our model of efficiency and governance, we aren't going to go very far.

> I am not a fascist—as a Jew, I cannot support fascism.

Technically speaking that's only true for historical Nazism - which was against the Jews. And even that might not be that absolute (I've read that there was a small "neonazi Jews" movement once in Israel, basically bored teenage Jew punks looking to shock their parents - but I digress).

Still, a Jew would be perfectly capable of supporting fascism in general, if it wasn't called "Nazi" and didn't target Jews. Hell, historically fascism was not about being against Jews (that was a later - German - addition), but a way to organise industry and society in opposition to liberal capitalism and communism - a kind of New Deal for Italy and Germany.

As for the nationalistic and "higher race" aspects of it, nothing would preclude a Jew, or for that matter, any nationality, from subscribing to those, including the US of marching imperialism, popular exceptionalism, and "manifest destiny".

> Each trustee has an NFT, of course. With this token he can do three things: converse anonymously with the other trustees; help them elect a new king, and designate a successor or string of successors.

Unless they also build, inspect, and maintain the infrastructure for this, then they are the mercy of those who do. And their identities can be found as readily as anybody's who thought themselves clever for using Tor or getting paid for black market services through a blockchain.

> The simple answer is that the first king is special. He appoints, as trustees, people he trusts. His goal is to in a sense perpetuate the promise of his initial message; to create a board which, initially stamped with his image, will retain it permanently. But the first king picks the first board and knows who they are—although the initial trustees should probably start their careers by retiring in favor of someone fully hidden.

Yeah, this will end well...

How isn't this just a recipe for a perpetual governance based on the interests of that initial king and his selected palies - and in general of their families/clan/class/party/etc?

Especially since not even an popular or army uprising can shake them, since they alone control those drones and robo-soldiers. Why would they give a fuck about "salus populi"? And if they do, why would their nth ancestor replacements continue to give?

One thing you could do - if you were one of those- would be to secretly contact the king (perhaps even anonymously), and tell him "I'm one of the veto-token holders. I expect others like me will contact you or already have. As you know, atm we don't have any other powers or benefits. But if you agree to give us some, we'll support you - we might even sell our tokens to you, if the reward is big enough. Sleep on it. When you reach a critical mass of us, just let us know".

Expand full comment
70 more comments...

No posts