This essay revisits the structure of modern elite power through the lens of cybernetics. Beginning with the role of financial standards and institutional architecture, it examines how control over the categories through which a system measures reality can produce influence without direct command. But the attempt to approach comprehensive regulation contains a paradox of its own: a system that seeks to model and control an increasingly complex reality may also generate forms of unpredictability that exceed its models. The essay therefore moves from the architecture of contemporary power toward the limits imposed upon any attempt at total regulation.

https://livingopposites.substack.com/p/the-requisite-variety-of-power-for

So many communists on here who legitimately think they have power. This one seems to think they're stalin reincarnated.

I just found this place today and wanted to say every single thing I see is more crazy than the last one, thank ya'll.

This comment section might be fascinating.

I am not saying this in the sense that I am calling you all fascists. But I mean many of the users here openly admit to being fascists.

I am a libertarian socialist and not a n*o-fe*d*list

"Nature, through the variety of means and mutual needs, forms various social relations between men. In each of these relations, by necessity she gives rule to the strongest, dependence or servitude to the weak, that is to say, those most in need. The use of this lordship, this superior power, has a natural law of justice and charity as its rule, the very same law imposed upon all men. Finally, nature furnishes ample means of safeguarding against the violation of this law, against the abuse of force, but without ever making it absolutely impossible. This is what we have demonstrated in the preceding chapters, and in general has yet to be falsified."

"Her sweet and benevolent force created the reciprocal love of one sex for the other, and through the conjugal bond, the birth of children, etc., social relations of headship for the one and dependence for the other. In the first and greatest of powers (paternal power), she engraved sentiments of love the most deeply; she surrounds the most helpless of the weak, the newborn infant, with a protective and benevolent power. She has furthermore imparted, even to grown men, forces and capabilities diversified to infinity, in order that they help each other out with everything and mutually make their lives pleasant. This inequality produces, by turns, differences in acquired means, wealth and property, all the fruit of innate talents. However, nobody here on Earth can do without others. Even those in full manhood can’t survive on their own."

I do remember the original neofeudalism subreddit back when Derpballz' account was still intact, and despite being a fierce defender of feudalism, I don't quite remember him being a particularly religious person. Personally I find this incoherent because many of the benefits of the Middle Ages were direct products of it being intertwined with the Catholic corporate social order reigning at the time. I am an adherent to the Doctrine of the Two Swords; the Church holds jurisdiction over all souls, but the monarchy handles temporal affairs, while the Church handles spiritual guidance and is the centre of civil society and morality in general. Even here, 'temporal authority' actually rules on behalf of the Social Kingship of Christ. Indeed, even kings rule on God's behalf. Ruling on his behalf, they have a direct obligation towards God to rule with piety and wisely. A good king, before he governs others, first governs himself. For a great example, here's an actual medieval source on this viewpoint:

As soon as a Christian ruler has received the royal scepter and the govern ment of the kingdom, it is fitting that he first return acts of thanksgiving and suitable honors to God and to the holy church. In fact, from the very beginning the state is most gloriously consecrated when royal solicitude and sacred devotion are aroused with both holy fear and love of the heavenly King and when care is taken for the glorious benefit of the church by prudent counsel, so that he whom royal purple and other symbols of royal authority adorn externally will also be adorned internally by praiseworthy vows to God and to his holy church. For indeed, a king is notably raised to the summit of temporal rule when he devotes himself with pious zeal to the almighty King’s glory and honor. And so, let the pious ruler fervently strive to obey the will and holy commands of the supreme master of all things by whose divine will and ordination he does not doubt himself to have risen to the summit of authority. For, what are the rulers of the Christian people unless ministers of the Almighty? Moreover, he is a faithful and proper servant who has done with sincere devotion what* ever his lord and master has commanded to him. Accordingly, the most upright and glorious princes rejoice more that they are appointed to be ministers and servants of the most High than lords or kings of men.

Even the modern Catholic faith is a fierce defender of conservative and anti-interventionist principles such as subsidarity, communitarianism, and charity. Not as fierce as it should be by ancap standards, but certainly radical even compared to modern liberals. A private law society, atleast in the West, should be based on Catholicism and principles of Catholic social order.

There is actually a direct correlate between political theology and actual practice of the state. The old antique kings believed they were literal Gods on Earth and although they were gladly cosmologically limited they believed that they therefore had a divine right to rule over all without compromise. After the reformation a similar doctrine was revived with kings also actively working against Catholics. Just as social contract ideology can not co exist with a private property order for long neither can this strange pagan royalolatry. It's intrinsically socialist (literally, look at da fuckin Incas communism and Egyptian socialism), anti-feudal and anti-Christian. In a international neofeudal order, many religions dearest to the heart of entire nations will have to co-exist within healthy boundaries and separation, but some religions are almost certainly more welcome to a private property order than others. We should return to the art of Christian kingship in the construction of the new order. Without a proper grounding in the Faith and Natural Law, anything can collapse.

That is just my opinion though. I am sort of curious on other people's thoughts on what a neo-feudal society's religion would look at. I have seen satanic neo-feudalists because but I would argue the faiths are incompatible. I've seen pagan neo-feudalists who seem to have an anti-civilization bent, which actually makes sense if you remember the elective monarchist traditions of many European nations before the rise of Romanism.

"The private property order will be both an eternal reaction and an eternal future. In short, it will be an eternal present. Monarchical reactionarism will be the norm and creative destruction will be a constant.

Such a return cannot possibly represent an 'end of history' but destruction of all that suffocates nature."