The Shape of the Sandwich, or Political Forms and their Functions, Biostalinism Pt. III

Dearest Friends,

Why is the sandwich the way it is? Why is the bread there? Certainly, to hold the ingredients. And while the bread takes different shapes, and is sometimes not bread at all, the idea of sandwich possesses the idea of bread for a reason, and is not arbitrary. What is this? This is materialism.

Let’s talk about the form of the next regime. I’ve held off on doing this for a long time. Part of this is because it is not a relevant question. As I’ve stated in the importance of ripping spines, the most crucial power is taking power, not drafting ideal policy, because policies are shaped by the power discourse and the reality of existing cultural and political traditions anyways. Part of it is because the descriptive is always more interesting and correct than the prescriptive. It is far easier to identify the problem than it is to solve the problem. It’s easy to see something is wrong, and even the simplest of citizens in our great empire now sees there is something rotten in this Denmark. But there are a variety of answers, and scratch long enough – all of them are stupid.

But part of it? Part of it is simply that this is a largely useless thing to do. I will explain.

First, without further ado, what is the shape of the regime I have envisioned? It is simple. I intend to complete the system of the NEP. What is the basic unit of society? It is clear that all communities must do two basic functions. First, to provide for their members. Secondly, to structure their lives and provide social bonds and continuity. Here we have the dual nature of production, and the social relations it engenders – around production, a community of producers is formed. And what we have, then, is a village. The factory is not merely a factory, but a township. The company town is not an aberration, but a reflection of that ancient truth that villages spring up and specialize in tasks. The company town was an echo of that, but itself was overcome by the steady expansion of production towards monopoly-social production. Where you have a factory owned by its workers, collectively, you have a village which is run by its members – and the Comrade-Director is merely a local noble lord – in truth, a Comrade-Baron. But when your lord is local, you can wring his neck. Strikes, protests, and general grumbling is always more effective when your master is next door and only has your local community as their power base. It is a return to the stationary bandit. The Soviet and its expert is merely the village and its lord.

Of course, many have noted that village life and laboring in a well-defined community is less alienating. The trick of it is that village life was *obsoleted* by the material conditions and the social relations of a new form of production. And that’s the snag which often catches budding reactionaries. The first layer of reaction is merely aesthetic – a desire to return to a prior time without grasping the real and material differences. The tradwife who is a whore for you and gives you anal and wears IG model makeup in the woods. RETVRN to TOGA without surrendering your iPhone. The second layer of reaction grasps the form had a function, and that the value of that Chesterton’s fence was lost, and having seen that, tries to put the fence back up. But the fence failed in the first place for a *reason*, a material cause, something which made its timber no longer so sturdy. To walk the left hand path of reaction is to recognize that the progress in history has made the old fence too weak to hold, but also to see the old function can be preserved by crafting a new form which will preserve the old idea. Old wine in new bottles.

The village is dead. Long live the village.

What has destroyed the village? Simply that the village is not compatible with monopoly-social production and the specialization of labor not only on the individual level, but on the industrial firm level. No longer the butcher, the baker, and the brickmaker, but MeatCo, Bakr, and Amazon Prime Presents: House. Why can’t we RETVRN? Because there was a reason why monopoly came about. Monopoly is not just a blight, a wart, on the face of history. Monopoly is necessary because of irreducible complexity, and thus represents a genuine advancement in the productive forces. What is irreducible complexity? It is when a product is so complex that any of the highly specialized constituent parts cannot form an independently viable product. The consumer is only one kind of consumer, the producer therefore faces a monopsony – even if one were to break up the monopoly, all the individual firms face monopsony conditions, thus operate as a de facto monopoly, guided by an invisible hand of market necessity. This is what Yang means when he says monopoly can’t be broken up – the Facebook website cannot be split into smaller Facebooks, even if you can spin out things like IG. It’s irreducibly complex. You *can* attack this by democratizing protocols, but it doesn’t solve the inherent problem of irreducible complexity where it remains – it is trying to kill the category by plugging a single hole. You need a general solution to the problem of monopoly.

Here we have the dialectic: the village production system against the result of capitalism advancing until it abolished itself into monopoly-social production (“late Capitalism”). The thesis, the antithesis. The synthesis! The de-alienation of labor and community while preserving the fruits of monopoly-social production and advanced planning of labor. What separates the Soviet from the Village? Both have a council, yes. The difference is that the Soviet, the council of workers, will be refounded around the productive element. By doing so, these productive units can voluntarily self-combine into larger productive combinations, while keeping the elements of worker control: corpo-duchies. What you get is not bourgeois democracy, but industrial democracy. Insofar as there are disputes to be mediated by different opt-in combinations or rules which must be maintained universally, those can be resolved by a central state which maintains, as Lenin wrote, a class of industrial judges, led by a powerful central committee – the monarchy, which protects the interests of the plebians against the powerful aristocratic heads of the various enterprises and even larger industrial combinations.

This may be sounding familiar – and you are right.

What is Gadaffi’s Arab Socialism and its partitioning of society into smaller, autonomous, self-governing units but this? They call it tribalism, but tribes reflect an ancient reality that can’t be ignored.

What is Curtis Yarvin’s latest foray of villages and foundations but this? The only difference is the governing entity he has is cultural, a foundation, while I propose an economic structuring of the villages. Perhaps a distinction without a difference! A good materialist believes culture is downstream of material conditions, and material conditions are downstream of culture.

What is Anarcho-Capitalism and its private security corporations but this? What difference exists between the Megacorp and the Corpo-Duchy? Merely ownership.

What is White Nationalism but this? The communities defined a different way, but fundamentally, the return to free association and the creation of local communities and collectives over the atomized individuals of modernity.

In short – White Nationalism IS Communism IS Anarcho-Capitalism IS Salus Populi IS TradCath Benedictism IS Reaction IS Revolution IS

A revolt against the modern world.

And why? What is the radical?

The radical is a person haunted by specters of futures past and futures present.

It’s merely convergent evolution. What you’re seeing is the common perception of a future present. If Woke Capital, the force of atomizing monopoly-social production, is the problem, then the solution necessarily must be AGAINST atomization, and a RETURN to Dunbar communities. The rest? Ideology, pure ideology. Imperial aesthetics! Ideology is an aesthetic, because the contents of ideology are governed by material conditions, by what the ideology is called into being to fight. All antitheses to a given thesis must have shared characteristics which relate to the negation and opposition of the original thesis.

So now, dear reader, you understand the meaningless of prescription. Because the way an ideology forms, is shaped, and runs downstream is governed by the material conditions of the age. This is a blessing. If I am wrong, then, so long as my successors do not impose my beliefs in a totalitarian manner, reality will correct them. The United States, Nazi Germany, and the USSR had very different ideologies. All thought they were building different futures. But the conditions of reality, the conditions of monopoly-social production, obliged them all to become managerial-planned economies. All these ideologies, these visions of the future, are shaped by a shared vision of what the future must be, but if the future is different? Then they will be different.

I am watching the night die. I am watching the day be born.

I am seeing the rot of ancient institutions. A place, of which I am legacy, but not alumnus – that itself, indicative of something – falling to ruins, shaking itself apart. And despite it all, I am saddened to see it passing. What am I, unworthy barbarian, to be the last to receive an education as old as this country, one that made, groomed, defined the American ruling class? It is one thing to wear a mask which a thousand generations before have worn. It is another to see the snapping of a chain forever. And though one might take a spark from a dying flame, the new flame which grows where it is planted will never be the same one. But I am no passivist. I was born and bred a prince, and this? This is duty. This is my birthright, which is really the same thing. If I fail here, then so what? History shall produce another. And another. And another. So long as the contradictions of the present hold, then their intensifications will result in more and more free energy for the taking, until even a mere child can knock down the whole rotten edifice. The Green New Deal and the Great Reset are not a change, but merely the maximum extent of the logic of managerial-planning, the whole world under the thumb of a handful of apparatchiks, which does not resolve the Information Problem, but only makes it more dire.

One way or another, history comes, not softly through a back door, but magnificently, astride a white charger, as a conquering general.

For better or for worse?

גַּם זֶה יַעֲבֹר.

Your humble scrivener,
Monsieur le Baron