Mike from Imperium Press is one person whose articles I read without fail: he’s always interesting, seldom wrong, and more often than not I agree with him. You should subscribe to him. However, recently, he wrote a piece with which I disagree, or at least which is at odds with my own recent article on
I don't find it strange that Yarvin doesn't think "the merchants" are in charge, he's a member of the ethnicity that are "the merchants' par excellence
First of all, great points. I have a contention on the topic of the mechanism of historical cycles:
According to Guenon and Evola, the logic of entropy gives rise to a two-step process: first comes "deviation" from tradition to anti-tradition, which is the progressive dissolution of quality into pure quantity. In terms of the metaphysical outlook of society, this is represented by scientific materialism. Socially, laissez fare and individualism, the transformation of "moral imperatives" into mere social conventions". In historical terms, I would argue that the culmination of this process roughly corresponds to the post WW2 period, perhaps even earlier.
All of these features are very clearly things of the past: there is very little scientific substance in contemporary scientism, nor is it very materialistic when superstitions such as "the patriarchy" and "systemic racism" are taken seriously (in terms of informing policy decisions). The modern atheist is deeply superstitious, I would argue that Yarvin undersold the problem (although likely because his analysis is a product of less insane times). Nor is modern society actually individualist or liberal (i agree that ideology is just post-hoc rationalization for power, but it's important to analyze the substance behind these labels), it just replaced adaptive hierarchies with maladaptive ones.
I think this de-liberalization, de-materialization and de-individualization (in an direction that goes counter to tradition) correspond perfectly to what G&E dubbed "subversion". The latter follows "deviation" and is characterized by an imposition of "inverse quality" and introduction of "counter-tradition". The reign of quantity is interrupted by a formative influence, but instead of a "traditional one" we get a "counter-traditional" one. Looking specifically at the troon problem, i would argue that we are past the point of pure quantity in the realm of sex. Pure quantity is embodied by the desexualized man and woman, by the convergence of gender roles, the ideology of 50/50 splits etc. as well as morbidly obese androgynes that converge into amorphous shapes. While we certainly have a fair share of that, contemporary society is more characteristically defined by the imposition of inverse quality: kids must be transed, husband and wife must swap roles etc. A true reign of quantity is permissive and disinterested, our society is anything but.
This is why I would disagree with the prescription that the victory of the fourth estate is imminent, I think we're past the point of pure quantity, in the era of inverse quality. Any populist victory is then a reactionary phenomenon, transition from the fifth estate back to the fourth estate. As such, it doesn't seem like a given that the course of history will inevitably result in a populist victory in the following decades.
Democracy does have an incentive structure that rewards moves toward entropy. Politicians are rewarded by offering increasing enfranchisement to more and more people.
At the end of the day, Trump is a boomer who believes in Democracy. Desantis, Musk, and Tucker seem to be in an alliance of people who have a significantly better understanding of whats going on than Donald Trump, but keep Desantis in Florida!
Any evidence that finance capitalists are still in power? Weren’t they more powerful in the first half of the 20th century than they are now? Domhoff has empirically showed that the ruling class is “corporate rich”, not financiers per se. I do not see dissident rightists discussing his findings a lot.
Why is it that people never associate decline in birth rates with debt? “Standards of living” in many ways has a correlation with the expansion of debt. Debt expansion has allowed everyone to be leveraged on more and more crap. The expansion of “financial” markets and expansion of debt in the 80-90’s, in America at least, allowed the youth to take on more and more debt before even thinking about a family, and usually without any income to justify it.
"4. The current elites in the West, who are totally committed to progressivism, are beyond redemption and must be replaced or else the entire system must collapse."
I am curious where the distinction is between Progressivism and rule by the merchants (liberalism). We accept that woke is simply an ideological tool that is a plaything of power, but what would that mean for how we define progressivism. Does this require a revision, or is Progressivism just a byword for entropy? Is it the particular entropy of the merchant caste or more universal? If it is universal and the plebs do represent further entropy on a historical scale, would it better be said that they are simply totally committed to power, and we must depose them because that can never be commensurate with us being in power?
Sorry if this is overly semantic but it has personally cause me confusion in reconciling the two positions
"One way of understanding Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, general Franco and other such mid-century figures was as a revolt against this rentier class in alliance with manufacturing capitalists and other older disaffected elites from the aristocratic and priestly castes."
But this implies that what the fascists et al were doing was returning to an earlier iteration of liberalism. This is Marxist dogma. I don't think you've thought this through.
I don't find it strange that Yarvin doesn't think "the merchants" are in charge, he's a member of the ethnicity that are "the merchants' par excellence
First of all, great points. I have a contention on the topic of the mechanism of historical cycles:
According to Guenon and Evola, the logic of entropy gives rise to a two-step process: first comes "deviation" from tradition to anti-tradition, which is the progressive dissolution of quality into pure quantity. In terms of the metaphysical outlook of society, this is represented by scientific materialism. Socially, laissez fare and individualism, the transformation of "moral imperatives" into mere social conventions". In historical terms, I would argue that the culmination of this process roughly corresponds to the post WW2 period, perhaps even earlier.
All of these features are very clearly things of the past: there is very little scientific substance in contemporary scientism, nor is it very materialistic when superstitions such as "the patriarchy" and "systemic racism" are taken seriously (in terms of informing policy decisions). The modern atheist is deeply superstitious, I would argue that Yarvin undersold the problem (although likely because his analysis is a product of less insane times). Nor is modern society actually individualist or liberal (i agree that ideology is just post-hoc rationalization for power, but it's important to analyze the substance behind these labels), it just replaced adaptive hierarchies with maladaptive ones.
I think this de-liberalization, de-materialization and de-individualization (in an direction that goes counter to tradition) correspond perfectly to what G&E dubbed "subversion". The latter follows "deviation" and is characterized by an imposition of "inverse quality" and introduction of "counter-tradition". The reign of quantity is interrupted by a formative influence, but instead of a "traditional one" we get a "counter-traditional" one. Looking specifically at the troon problem, i would argue that we are past the point of pure quantity in the realm of sex. Pure quantity is embodied by the desexualized man and woman, by the convergence of gender roles, the ideology of 50/50 splits etc. as well as morbidly obese androgynes that converge into amorphous shapes. While we certainly have a fair share of that, contemporary society is more characteristically defined by the imposition of inverse quality: kids must be transed, husband and wife must swap roles etc. A true reign of quantity is permissive and disinterested, our society is anything but.
This is why I would disagree with the prescription that the victory of the fourth estate is imminent, I think we're past the point of pure quantity, in the era of inverse quality. Any populist victory is then a reactionary phenomenon, transition from the fifth estate back to the fourth estate. As such, it doesn't seem like a given that the course of history will inevitably result in a populist victory in the following decades.
My only thought on the priests vs merchants - Yarvin is American. And in America I think the question is who has more power - black rock or Hollywood?
Democracy does have an incentive structure that rewards moves toward entropy. Politicians are rewarded by offering increasing enfranchisement to more and more people.
At the end of the day, Trump is a boomer who believes in Democracy. Desantis, Musk, and Tucker seem to be in an alliance of people who have a significantly better understanding of whats going on than Donald Trump, but keep Desantis in Florida!
Fuck me, that was a downer. Hope you're wrong, but you made some good points.
Any evidence that finance capitalists are still in power? Weren’t they more powerful in the first half of the 20th century than they are now? Domhoff has empirically showed that the ruling class is “corporate rich”, not financiers per se. I do not see dissident rightists discussing his findings a lot.
Do you want a revolution against the nature of history? Do you want anything?
Why is it that people never associate decline in birth rates with debt? “Standards of living” in many ways has a correlation with the expansion of debt. Debt expansion has allowed everyone to be leveraged on more and more crap. The expansion of “financial” markets and expansion of debt in the 80-90’s, in America at least, allowed the youth to take on more and more debt before even thinking about a family, and usually without any income to justify it.
From Ten thesis For The Dissident Right:
"4. The current elites in the West, who are totally committed to progressivism, are beyond redemption and must be replaced or else the entire system must collapse."
I am curious where the distinction is between Progressivism and rule by the merchants (liberalism). We accept that woke is simply an ideological tool that is a plaything of power, but what would that mean for how we define progressivism. Does this require a revision, or is Progressivism just a byword for entropy? Is it the particular entropy of the merchant caste or more universal? If it is universal and the plebs do represent further entropy on a historical scale, would it better be said that they are simply totally committed to power, and we must depose them because that can never be commensurate with us being in power?
Sorry if this is overly semantic but it has personally cause me confusion in reconciling the two positions
"One way of understanding Adolf Hitler, Mussolini, general Franco and other such mid-century figures was as a revolt against this rentier class in alliance with manufacturing capitalists and other older disaffected elites from the aristocratic and priestly castes."
But this implies that what the fascists et al were doing was returning to an earlier iteration of liberalism. This is Marxist dogma. I don't think you've thought this through.
always a pleasure to read your insightful analysis.