"Trump is a negotiator, not a Caesar, and we won’t fix the problem by bargaining it away." Excellent! Trump's '24 acceptance speech said everything. He acknowledged that the society was at its throat without explicitly acknowledging that this contention is racial/ethnic in nature. What was his solution? His solution was economic prosperity. He guaranteed this was the remedy for he himself had done it in his business. At the same time, the oligarchic faction that came to his aid, and found leverage with his being compromised by lawfare, media warfare, and economic troubles, has the exact same outlook. Andreesen, Thiel Musk and those guys think that the solution is more tech. More tech means more efficiency means economic growth means solving all of our problems.
This is Spengler/Evola's plebian Merchant Order. These guys are classic technocrats who are horribly educated. Every time they speak they take some little historical fact or trend and make it an absolute truth that is far from truth and reality. So that is the marriage. We have a terribly un-educated revanchist elite that has formed an alliance with Trump. They share a viewpoint that prosperity is the sole good of a society. So, it follows, that efficiently distributed porn, gambling, garbage ideas, and petty time wasting devices are a net good because, well, it, "produced wealth."
This is a plebian led Merchant Order whose cultural spreading mechanism is an unprecedented low in the civilizational cycle - a sub-plebian order with thugs, animalistic sexuality, pidgin and slang, anti-decorum and all manner of the profane celebrated and exalted.
No economic growth will fix that. We've been governed by the principle of amassing more wealth, (well concentrating it into fewer hands), as the highest and even sole good for well over a century. This oligarchy is incredibly strong. We cannot pretend otherwise. However, this article does point out its weakness - a weakness that could quickly become fatal. Even this oligarchy relies upon a system to create its wealth through IPO leverage and pensions, individuals, debt monetization as its backstop. That system is, ultimately, a fraud and its poster-child is Ramaswamy and even Musk's paper wealth though he does command a traditional and competent organization in the form of Space X. Once one or a set of handsome, high IQ, White men whose spirit is virile and burning hot with the fires of Northern Europe speak openly and act clearly on behalf of their folk, this system is finished and those Men will rule.
In a sense this article is granting the technocratic premise (that the world cashes out to utils) and showing technocrats that folkishness even wins at that game. But when you get to the bottom of folkishness you find that it doesn't care about utils. Which is why, as you point out, it will defeat technocracy sooner or later.
Great article. Sorry for the long post. I think technocracy is ultimately a fraud. It seems to declare problems that aren't problems. It uses that to grant powers to fix the non-problems. Then the fix creates real problems. Technocracy then uses this to justify consuming more resources to keep fixing them. All of those problems were prevented or highly mitigated by our folk and our traditions - both ancient and emergent.
We are at the phase where we can capitulate to hopeless corruption, and watch our civilization become decimated, our ethnos dissolved and our lands transformed into the global south. Or, the folk emerges at two minutes to midnight to assert itself and begin reclamation.
I always enjoy your work. Thank you for putting up with my long winded ways.
Although it will be difficult, we can't rely on a portion of the existing elites changing their views. As the example of Musk shows, there are strong incentives for current elites to keep the system essentially the same, even if they're open to altering aspects of it. After all, they rose to prominence in a fundamentally liberal-democratic system, so why would they want to destroy it? We must aspire to become elites ourselves, building up our own parallel system.
It’s a reasonable thought, but how long do you think we have?
We will probably be minorities in 30-50 years, while the revolution in thought and institution building that would be necessary for us to create a parallel society would take far longer than that.
They won for the precise reason that white men of the time were complacent and not on the lookout for them accumulating a critical mass of internal power. Whatever else they are, our enemies have completely committed themselves to never making that mistake.
We always are the global minority from the start and we kicked everyone's asses when we get serious. We came close to becoming the majority by 1800 as our numbers exploded and settled everywhere, so much that Jefferson and Darwin seriously expected most peoples to become history. But then we started to feel that old guilty complex and began to cure them and to feed them and favor them with handouts. We will start from a smaller base than we should, but the struggle can only add to our future glory. The question is "How do we play this?"
What lesser men termed “post-truth” should be called a more accurate term “post-creed”. All knowledge is provisional due to our inferior position to the bright Gods in understanding. It’s better to look at the world with a child’s eyes and adapt.
One of your best articles to date, bringing many departures from the liberal frame together and putting them plainly. The cracks in this abominable construct made glowing and visible as you invoke the forces from without it.
On an unrelated note, it appears Substack removes whole comment chains for commenters who have you blocked. Angles unwilling to admit it's their Saxon blood to which they owe their success and loyalty do be like that, it seems. Not to re-litigate things here, but I believe it is vital this inescapable contention is resolved in favor of best dealing with the more pressing crisis (the agents of which wouldn't have nearly the power today if not for distinctly Anglo conceits). Rather, my concern is that this modern abomination amounts to the Anglo conceit that they could weaponize liberalism against their brothers without themselves becoming mere tools of it. Or worse, that they'd prefer to become tools of it than recognize their Continental heritage. Trying to reconstruct an Anglicism without addressing this ongoing contention regarding their Continental origin seems needlessly prone to the same folly, as we can see with how American Anglos readily fall prey to the same mistake regarding their European origin.
It's an inescapable law of folkishness that peoples define themselves in contradistinction to others, often even those closest to them—the "narcissism of small differences". The Anglo seems to define himself as "not-European", and the American defines himself as "not-English". This is a shame, but also understandable. The fact is, both are substantially Germanic (also Celtic) and need to pay homage to their deeper Continental heritage. Their European critics have a point about this.
"Trump is a negotiator, not a Caesar, and we won’t fix the problem by bargaining it away." Excellent! Trump's '24 acceptance speech said everything. He acknowledged that the society was at its throat without explicitly acknowledging that this contention is racial/ethnic in nature. What was his solution? His solution was economic prosperity. He guaranteed this was the remedy for he himself had done it in his business. At the same time, the oligarchic faction that came to his aid, and found leverage with his being compromised by lawfare, media warfare, and economic troubles, has the exact same outlook. Andreesen, Thiel Musk and those guys think that the solution is more tech. More tech means more efficiency means economic growth means solving all of our problems.
This is Spengler/Evola's plebian Merchant Order. These guys are classic technocrats who are horribly educated. Every time they speak they take some little historical fact or trend and make it an absolute truth that is far from truth and reality. So that is the marriage. We have a terribly un-educated revanchist elite that has formed an alliance with Trump. They share a viewpoint that prosperity is the sole good of a society. So, it follows, that efficiently distributed porn, gambling, garbage ideas, and petty time wasting devices are a net good because, well, it, "produced wealth."
This is a plebian led Merchant Order whose cultural spreading mechanism is an unprecedented low in the civilizational cycle - a sub-plebian order with thugs, animalistic sexuality, pidgin and slang, anti-decorum and all manner of the profane celebrated and exalted.
No economic growth will fix that. We've been governed by the principle of amassing more wealth, (well concentrating it into fewer hands), as the highest and even sole good for well over a century. This oligarchy is incredibly strong. We cannot pretend otherwise. However, this article does point out its weakness - a weakness that could quickly become fatal. Even this oligarchy relies upon a system to create its wealth through IPO leverage and pensions, individuals, debt monetization as its backstop. That system is, ultimately, a fraud and its poster-child is Ramaswamy and even Musk's paper wealth though he does command a traditional and competent organization in the form of Space X. Once one or a set of handsome, high IQ, White men whose spirit is virile and burning hot with the fires of Northern Europe speak openly and act clearly on behalf of their folk, this system is finished and those Men will rule.
In a sense this article is granting the technocratic premise (that the world cashes out to utils) and showing technocrats that folkishness even wins at that game. But when you get to the bottom of folkishness you find that it doesn't care about utils. Which is why, as you point out, it will defeat technocracy sooner or later.
Great article. Sorry for the long post. I think technocracy is ultimately a fraud. It seems to declare problems that aren't problems. It uses that to grant powers to fix the non-problems. Then the fix creates real problems. Technocracy then uses this to justify consuming more resources to keep fixing them. All of those problems were prevented or highly mitigated by our folk and our traditions - both ancient and emergent.
We are at the phase where we can capitulate to hopeless corruption, and watch our civilization become decimated, our ethnos dissolved and our lands transformed into the global south. Or, the folk emerges at two minutes to midnight to assert itself and begin reclamation.
I always enjoy your work. Thank you for putting up with my long winded ways.
Although it will be difficult, we can't rely on a portion of the existing elites changing their views. As the example of Musk shows, there are strong incentives for current elites to keep the system essentially the same, even if they're open to altering aspects of it. After all, they rose to prominence in a fundamentally liberal-democratic system, so why would they want to destroy it? We must aspire to become elites ourselves, building up our own parallel system.
It’s a reasonable thought, but how long do you think we have?
We will probably be minorities in 30-50 years, while the revolution in thought and institution building that would be necessary for us to create a parallel society would take far longer than that.
Being a minority has not stopped our enemies from winning. Surely it will not stop us.
They won for the precise reason that white men of the time were complacent and not on the lookout for them accumulating a critical mass of internal power. Whatever else they are, our enemies have completely committed themselves to never making that mistake.
We always are the global minority from the start and we kicked everyone's asses when we get serious. We came close to becoming the majority by 1800 as our numbers exploded and settled everywhere, so much that Jefferson and Darwin seriously expected most peoples to become history. But then we started to feel that old guilty complex and began to cure them and to feed them and favor them with handouts. We will start from a smaller base than we should, but the struggle can only add to our future glory. The question is "How do we play this?"
What lesser men termed “post-truth” should be called a more accurate term “post-creed”. All knowledge is provisional due to our inferior position to the bright Gods in understanding. It’s better to look at the world with a child’s eyes and adapt.
One of your best articles to date, bringing many departures from the liberal frame together and putting them plainly. The cracks in this abominable construct made glowing and visible as you invoke the forces from without it.
On an unrelated note, it appears Substack removes whole comment chains for commenters who have you blocked. Angles unwilling to admit it's their Saxon blood to which they owe their success and loyalty do be like that, it seems. Not to re-litigate things here, but I believe it is vital this inescapable contention is resolved in favor of best dealing with the more pressing crisis (the agents of which wouldn't have nearly the power today if not for distinctly Anglo conceits). Rather, my concern is that this modern abomination amounts to the Anglo conceit that they could weaponize liberalism against their brothers without themselves becoming mere tools of it. Or worse, that they'd prefer to become tools of it than recognize their Continental heritage. Trying to reconstruct an Anglicism without addressing this ongoing contention regarding their Continental origin seems needlessly prone to the same folly, as we can see with how American Anglos readily fall prey to the same mistake regarding their European origin.
It's an inescapable law of folkishness that peoples define themselves in contradistinction to others, often even those closest to them—the "narcissism of small differences". The Anglo seems to define himself as "not-European", and the American defines himself as "not-English". This is a shame, but also understandable. The fact is, both are substantially Germanic (also Celtic) and need to pay homage to their deeper Continental heritage. Their European critics have a point about this.