Any political project that relies on noblesse oblige from the elite is doomed to failure. Ditto any project that does not have some support from within elite strata. In practice sordid compromises and modest but realistic goals may work best, at least for the foreseeable future.
I suspect that one way forward is for micro-tribalism at a granular level. Small groups, capable of operating discretely, might function as clients of the least toxic elements within the elites while building cohesion and capacity, especially in terms of material skills necessary for people to thrive in a fast evolving dystopia. These groups would form, re-form, hide and redefine themselves to avoid predation or opposition. Cults, congregations, Masonic lodges, friendly societies, clubs...anything that can fortify social bonds and offer relief to the atomisation and anomie that the regime fosters. Whites need to learn how to organise and mobilise outside the system. We also need to ditch the collective self-pity, which is toxic and demoralising. We need to assure support for the acquisition of vocational, technical and, where possible, professional, skills...economic redundancy accelerates marginalisation. Whites should support other whites travelling to friendly or reliable jurisdictions (like Russia) for technical and higher education in institutions free from regime ideology and DEI agendas. We must actively resist attempts by the regime to pauperise whites, appropriate white-owned assets or reduce whites to a helot class. We need to foster alternative sub-cultures, especially covert or discrete ones, that can provide entertainment, edification and identity outside of the system.
"He seems to worship power for the sake of power rather than valuing the caliber of those with power. Like Richard Spencer, as a Nietzschean, he respects power, and thus bows to the current neoliberal elite."
May I add that relationships should be incorporated into this discussion on caliber of those with power, first of all to include those without power. Philosophers cannot explain why civilizations collapse or why aristocracies also failed. If relationships are added to the discussion, it may solve this conundrum because it incorporates power relationships between those that have it and not. While we are talking about human relationships such as Kierkegaard does where he says truth is subjectivity and subjectivity is truth, the scope can be expanded to relationships with systems and organizations. This has not been tried before, but it certainly opens the way for humans to not only correct their hubristic behaviours, but also their organization's natural tendencies towards hubris - something which was not possible across history, and will allow humans to avoid its always present nemesis.
What an over-educated, arrogant, blind-to-reality tool this Yarvin is.
In his dream world, absolute dictators (or kings or queens) are benevolent and tolerant of their political enemies.
Just skimming the top layer of history, you find example after example of kings and dictators who were corrupt, craven, insane, vindictive, and every other negative trait of humanity.
Stalin, George III, Louis XVI, Vlad the Impaler, Mao, Ceaucescu, Marcos, Pol Pot, Lenin, Nero, Caligula, Charles VI, Henry VI, Erik XIV, Maria I, Ludwig II, several Chinese monarchs, several Japanese monarchs, and many, many more.
Whatever Yarvin is smoking, it'd be best to stay far away from it--and from his delusions of monarchical grandeur!
Yarvin is broadly correct that the private sector is somewhat more competently managed and closer to being monarchical in structure, relative to the public sector, but even CEOs are accountable to secondary power structures like their shareholders and board of directors, and as Robert points out, the most technocratic and mercantile states on earth are Singapore-style IQ Shredders that burn unsustainably through human capital and ultimately drive migration policy toward the left.
It's true that monarchs have historically been far from saints, the question is whether they were greater sinners, on the average, than the commoner on the throne or the voice of the mob would have been. I think reactionary arguments against democracy are relatively weak, although communism is a huge confounder in the data set, but you're not going to settle the argument with cherry-picked examples either way.
No need to cherry pick--just look at the broad overview of history. Monarchs devolve with horrible results for their subjects.
Sorry, you can't just wave away communism as a "confounder in the data set." Communism is a prototypical monarchy, cloaked in benevolent babbling, but a monarchy, with all the trappings--royalty, nepotistic passing of power, etc. And the results are horrific for its subjects.
In addition to nation-state monarchs, look at examples of the civilian equivalents to monarchs--cult leaders.
Cult leaders, monarchs of their own miniature kingdom, some initiated with the best of intentions, tend to devolve into megalomania, narcissistic lifestyles, and whatever insane notion strikes their fancy.
The response to Yarvin's nonsense is simply: Look at reality and history, buddy.
Ethnically homogenous republics, with bodies representative of the people, with liberty and freedom, and property rights enshrined as the foundation, are the only form of government that has allowed man to thrive to our utmost potential.
Surrendering rights to the family and cronies of a soon-to-be insane dictator might be Yarvin's dream--but it's reality's nightmare.
I've seen some analyses indicating that the right-wing autocratic regimes of the mid-20th century were at least mildly effective at raising birthrates, though that's also a data point that got completely swamped by the post-war baby boom. That's why I mention communism (which was notoriously bad for TFR almost everywhere) as being a large confounder here.
The argument that Yarvin or NRxers more generally would make isn't that bad monarchs don't stud the pages of history (although many benign examples also exist,) it's that modern liberal democracies have drifted toward belief systems that are functionally insane for systematic reasons inherent to democratic governance. With a King, you might be rolling the dice, but with democracy (so the argument goes), you have a long-term guarantee of slow but steady degeneration.
Like I said, I'm not entirely convinced of this- there seem to be at least a few tentative contemporary examples of democratic or quasi-democratic nations counter-acting the problems of collapsing/dysgenic fertility (Hungary, Sweden, Japan, etc.)- but I do think there's a certain danger in enshrining MAXIMUM FREEEEEDOM as the core and sacred value of your society. In many ways, freedom got us into this mess.
"Communists and cult leaders come to power on the promise of delivering a utopia, and communist regimes are the prototypical anti-monarchies."
If Yarvin is not promising a utopia with his babble about monarchies, what is he promising?
The stated promises of cult leaders and communists are NOT what you should look at. Instead of listening to their words, see what they actually do--the implementation, not the theory.
The implementation of cults and communism (generally speaking) is identical to a monarchy. A hereditary absolute monarchy (see North Korea as one shining example, but there are many others--e.g. China), supported by a hereditary noble class, empowered by functionaries, an expertocracy, and, at the bottom of the monarchical power structure, proletarians. All of them can, and do, lose their heads on the whim of the absolute ruler.
Exactly the structure of a monarchy. Absolute power. With palace intrigues, cut-throat purges, and on and on. No difference from the reality of what the results would be if Yarvin's idiotic pipe-dreams were implemented. Reality, not faux erudite text spewed out on a blog.
Now's not the time or place to expound on alternatives, or solutions, to our current dilemma (and there are potential solutions that are based on individual liberty and freedom). But it is the time to shine the light on the silliness of Yarvin's monarchy babblings.
We need new elites altogether. The current ones are thoroughly treasonous and self-centered with no sense of duty or noblesse oblige to their societies and nations. Privilege and wealth should come with correspondingly high sense of duties and obligations towards all segments of society, including the lower orders.
It was a moronic post. More specifically it was a cargo cult declaration of wanting fruit without the tree. The cargo cultists were a tribe who built shrines that loosely resembled planes because they saw that planes brought supplies. They had no idea what made a plane work and simply prayed at plane-like shrines. In other words, "Hey folks, when we were rich we had green papers in our wallets. So let's stuff our wallets with any old green paper and then we'll be rich!"
The same pathetic argument is seen with libertarian NAP (non aggression principle) and atheist morals. They simply declare that they'll have Christian-like morals for no reason at all because all that fluff about God, Christ, culture, the Church was completely superfluous right? Why not just skip all that nonsense and go straight to having a moral society, I'm a genius!
> This applies to Elon Musk, who has major flaws and has made some terrible decisions. For instance, he amplifies the most obnoxious rightwing grifters on Twitter/X
Any political project that relies on noblesse oblige from the elite is doomed to failure. Ditto any project that does not have some support from within elite strata. In practice sordid compromises and modest but realistic goals may work best, at least for the foreseeable future.
I suspect that one way forward is for micro-tribalism at a granular level. Small groups, capable of operating discretely, might function as clients of the least toxic elements within the elites while building cohesion and capacity, especially in terms of material skills necessary for people to thrive in a fast evolving dystopia. These groups would form, re-form, hide and redefine themselves to avoid predation or opposition. Cults, congregations, Masonic lodges, friendly societies, clubs...anything that can fortify social bonds and offer relief to the atomisation and anomie that the regime fosters. Whites need to learn how to organise and mobilise outside the system. We also need to ditch the collective self-pity, which is toxic and demoralising. We need to assure support for the acquisition of vocational, technical and, where possible, professional, skills...economic redundancy accelerates marginalisation. Whites should support other whites travelling to friendly or reliable jurisdictions (like Russia) for technical and higher education in institutions free from regime ideology and DEI agendas. We must actively resist attempts by the regime to pauperise whites, appropriate white-owned assets or reduce whites to a helot class. We need to foster alternative sub-cultures, especially covert or discrete ones, that can provide entertainment, edification and identity outside of the system.
"He seems to worship power for the sake of power rather than valuing the caliber of those with power. Like Richard Spencer, as a Nietzschean, he respects power, and thus bows to the current neoliberal elite."
May I add that relationships should be incorporated into this discussion on caliber of those with power, first of all to include those without power. Philosophers cannot explain why civilizations collapse or why aristocracies also failed. If relationships are added to the discussion, it may solve this conundrum because it incorporates power relationships between those that have it and not. While we are talking about human relationships such as Kierkegaard does where he says truth is subjectivity and subjectivity is truth, the scope can be expanded to relationships with systems and organizations. This has not been tried before, but it certainly opens the way for humans to not only correct their hubristic behaviours, but also their organization's natural tendencies towards hubris - something which was not possible across history, and will allow humans to avoid its always present nemesis.
What an over-educated, arrogant, blind-to-reality tool this Yarvin is.
In his dream world, absolute dictators (or kings or queens) are benevolent and tolerant of their political enemies.
Just skimming the top layer of history, you find example after example of kings and dictators who were corrupt, craven, insane, vindictive, and every other negative trait of humanity.
Stalin, George III, Louis XVI, Vlad the Impaler, Mao, Ceaucescu, Marcos, Pol Pot, Lenin, Nero, Caligula, Charles VI, Henry VI, Erik XIV, Maria I, Ludwig II, several Chinese monarchs, several Japanese monarchs, and many, many more.
Whatever Yarvin is smoking, it'd be best to stay far away from it--and from his delusions of monarchical grandeur!
Yarvin is broadly correct that the private sector is somewhat more competently managed and closer to being monarchical in structure, relative to the public sector, but even CEOs are accountable to secondary power structures like their shareholders and board of directors, and as Robert points out, the most technocratic and mercantile states on earth are Singapore-style IQ Shredders that burn unsustainably through human capital and ultimately drive migration policy toward the left.
It's true that monarchs have historically been far from saints, the question is whether they were greater sinners, on the average, than the commoner on the throne or the voice of the mob would have been. I think reactionary arguments against democracy are relatively weak, although communism is a huge confounder in the data set, but you're not going to settle the argument with cherry-picked examples either way.
Ok.
No need to cherry pick--just look at the broad overview of history. Monarchs devolve with horrible results for their subjects.
Sorry, you can't just wave away communism as a "confounder in the data set." Communism is a prototypical monarchy, cloaked in benevolent babbling, but a monarchy, with all the trappings--royalty, nepotistic passing of power, etc. And the results are horrific for its subjects.
In addition to nation-state monarchs, look at examples of the civilian equivalents to monarchs--cult leaders.
Cult leaders, monarchs of their own miniature kingdom, some initiated with the best of intentions, tend to devolve into megalomania, narcissistic lifestyles, and whatever insane notion strikes their fancy.
The response to Yarvin's nonsense is simply: Look at reality and history, buddy.
Ethnically homogenous republics, with bodies representative of the people, with liberty and freedom, and property rights enshrined as the foundation, are the only form of government that has allowed man to thrive to our utmost potential.
Surrendering rights to the family and cronies of a soon-to-be insane dictator might be Yarvin's dream--but it's reality's nightmare.
I've seen some analyses indicating that the right-wing autocratic regimes of the mid-20th century were at least mildly effective at raising birthrates, though that's also a data point that got completely swamped by the post-war baby boom. That's why I mention communism (which was notoriously bad for TFR almost everywhere) as being a large confounder here.
The argument that Yarvin or NRxers more generally would make isn't that bad monarchs don't stud the pages of history (although many benign examples also exist,) it's that modern liberal democracies have drifted toward belief systems that are functionally insane for systematic reasons inherent to democratic governance. With a King, you might be rolling the dice, but with democracy (so the argument goes), you have a long-term guarantee of slow but steady degeneration.
Like I said, I'm not entirely convinced of this- there seem to be at least a few tentative contemporary examples of democratic or quasi-democratic nations counter-acting the problems of collapsing/dysgenic fertility (Hungary, Sweden, Japan, etc.)- but I do think there's a certain danger in enshrining MAXIMUM FREEEEEDOM as the core and sacred value of your society. In many ways, freedom got us into this mess.
"Communists and cult leaders come to power on the promise of delivering a utopia, and communist regimes are the prototypical anti-monarchies."
If Yarvin is not promising a utopia with his babble about monarchies, what is he promising?
The stated promises of cult leaders and communists are NOT what you should look at. Instead of listening to their words, see what they actually do--the implementation, not the theory.
The implementation of cults and communism (generally speaking) is identical to a monarchy. A hereditary absolute monarchy (see North Korea as one shining example, but there are many others--e.g. China), supported by a hereditary noble class, empowered by functionaries, an expertocracy, and, at the bottom of the monarchical power structure, proletarians. All of them can, and do, lose their heads on the whim of the absolute ruler.
Exactly the structure of a monarchy. Absolute power. With palace intrigues, cut-throat purges, and on and on. No difference from the reality of what the results would be if Yarvin's idiotic pipe-dreams were implemented. Reality, not faux erudite text spewed out on a blog.
Now's not the time or place to expound on alternatives, or solutions, to our current dilemma (and there are potential solutions that are based on individual liberty and freedom). But it is the time to shine the light on the silliness of Yarvin's monarchy babblings.
We need new elites altogether. The current ones are thoroughly treasonous and self-centered with no sense of duty or noblesse oblige to their societies and nations. Privilege and wealth should come with correspondingly high sense of duties and obligations towards all segments of society, including the lower orders.
It was a moronic post. More specifically it was a cargo cult declaration of wanting fruit without the tree. The cargo cultists were a tribe who built shrines that loosely resembled planes because they saw that planes brought supplies. They had no idea what made a plane work and simply prayed at plane-like shrines. In other words, "Hey folks, when we were rich we had green papers in our wallets. So let's stuff our wallets with any old green paper and then we'll be rich!"
The same pathetic argument is seen with libertarian NAP (non aggression principle) and atheist morals. They simply declare that they'll have Christian-like morals for no reason at all because all that fluff about God, Christ, culture, the Church was completely superfluous right? Why not just skip all that nonsense and go straight to having a moral society, I'm a genius!
The most obvious counter point to yarvins idea of monarchal self moderation is to ask: was Mao Zedong a radical monarchist?
> This applies to Elon Musk, who has major flaws and has made some terrible decisions. For instance, he amplifies the most obnoxious rightwing grifters on Twitter/X
Obnoxious rightwing grifters like this guy:
https://odysee.com/@Fascist-Freddy:1/Jacob-Hersant-Democracy-means-rule-by-wealthy-Jews-against-the-interest-of-Whites:d
https://odysee.com/@Fascist-Freddy:1/Jacob-Hersant-The-system%E2%80%99s-corruption-makes-revolution-necessary:1
https://odysee.com/@Fascist-Freddy:1/Access-to-White-people-is-not-a-human-right.-Go-home.:a
Pithy message, and straight to the point in these attention-deficit times, but maybe he glows