I do often wish that the US had a more overt ruling class. The fiction that there is some kind of Democracy is very draining. Not only do I NOT know who is actually running things around here, but I’m told that the problems we face are because We Voted For Them. Blaming the victim. Nobody I know “voted” for any of this. And no matter who we vote for, nothing changes.
I find these essays creatively unique, a bit of actual original thinking, and far from the usual hackneyed bullet points that are chronically vomited up by the usual suspects in the 'divide'. Always something worth thinking about in your work. Thanks for that.
I didn't have any major problems with the previous framing, but this is much clearer.
I agree wholeheartedly with your description of the malignancy of elites. When the notion of elite status was more clearly delineated, and societies didn't pretend hierarchy didn't exist, the liberal tradition brought us the concept of noblesse oblige- this was reinforced by the moral underpinnings of largely Christian tradition- and thus elites, again as you stated sharing ethnic and cultural identities with their social subordinates, had at least some cultural training that caused them to (at least more often) see their subjects as being of kind and that their own great privilege and advantage obliged them spiritually to use at least some of that power to better their society.
When you pretend elites don't exist, so too goes any moral prescription that goes with being elite.
Liberal - let me think about your position statements and consider their ramifications to me and society at large.
Progressive - EVERYTHING before today was wrong, and I will give you what is right, tomorrow, if you're worthy.
Leftism - FUCK YOU ALL, I AM THE ONLY ANSWER, I AM THE ONLY CONCERN, I AM ALWAYS BETTER THAN YOU!!!!!!
Conservative (one if the categories not discussed) - Change for the sake of change is dangerous. The old ways have worked well for the most part, meritocracy rewards effort, and social connections are sometimes a reward of extra effort to gain power, but show me your reasoning for change and we will consider it.
Your final point that elites, in conjunction with the low-ranking members of their alliance, “aim is to appropriate the cultural and political capital that these middle ranks accumulated in the course of the Industrial Revolution and the first half of the twentieth century,” is so spot on. A work in progress over the past 60 years accelerated in the past fifteen. Our assets are being sucked from us more boldly than ever before, and we’re being re-labeled as racist bottom feeders who don’t deserve our place in society, let alone the ill-gotten fruits of our labors.
May 19, 2022·edited May 19, 2022Liked by eugyppius
A most lucid anatomisation. The British historian David Starkey (among others) has also suggested that "social values", like societies themselves, are always a product of time and place, a distinction which implies that ethnicity is fundamental. The major problems arise when people, notably the French Jacobins and their Leftist heirs, insist that their "values" - a worldwide society of (absolute) equals - or 'liberal equalitarianism' - are not only unimpeachably good, but universally applicable to all of humanity simultaneously.
This always leads to two predictable outcomes: when released from the dream-space between the ears of its architects, the idea that the slowly-evolved history and human differentiation of different peoples in different places are gigantic mistakes and must be substituted with a standardised system (Year Zero), the universalist project collides with two obstacles that expose the utter fallacy of its presuppositions.
Firstly, a proportion of the people subject to it fail to become the peacefully co-existing Noble Savages dreamt up by Rousseau, betraying stubborn ties to the order that is being toppled. As the ideas are secular models of perfection, they are above questioning, and therefore "resistors" (like "anti-vaxxers", perhaps) must be either evil or mad - a dehumanising conclusion that leads to escalating coerciveness and ultimately to murderousness.
Secondly, every step towards the new standardised Utopia results in it retreating further from actualisation, an intractable elusiveness that generates paranoia (the failures must be caused by bad actors), continually redoubled efforts, and the public persecution of the Saboteurs of New Eden.
Gulags, labour camps, torture and brutal social abjection, up to and including execution, await these unfortunates.
Just a thought about forced universalism that your excellent little essay evoked
“Progressives believe that the present is better than the past….” & yet they are ALWAYS aping the past by thinking that the worst of socialism / communism / totalitarianism didn’t work out because they’re so much smarter & now in charge. Always w/ the same horrific outcomes in deaths & societal collapse
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the West is very much run on usury, and usury destroys a nation's capacity for magnanimity. Additionally, the disappearance of a FORMAL elite has destroyed the notion of noblesse oblige, which creates a hostile aristocracy not bound by a traditional sense of duty, charity, grace, etc. As BAP says, the elevation of the merchant or the banker to the height of society discredits the very idea of society.
<<In fact, I think one of the greatest defects of modern liberal democracy, is its promotion of an informal elite – people who, for reasons of birth or social standing, wield significant power, but because of liberal democratic principles, are allowed (or compelled) to do so in underhanded, informal, less-than-legible ways.>>
Thank you! I've been screaming this for years, especially when certain Americans I know sneer at the Brits. I'm like, at least they don't hide it and they get some pageantry with it and noblesse oblige. Our (American) aristocrats are becoming increasingly unabashed with their autocratic rule. But we've been sold the idea that if you work hard enough that you too can be an elite. If that was ever the case, it was in a vanishingly short amount of time in our history.
An excellent discussion of modern ideologies. I have only a remark. As we do not know much about the élites, who they are and how they make decisions, it may well be that the current ideologies are not "real", but only tools in order to remove some cultural obstacles. Nothing new, in fact. According to Livy, the first remark of a Roman consul on learning about the Epicurean philosophy by a Greek philosopher was that it would be good to diffuse such ideas among the Samnites.
Thank you for the thinking points. I’ve been struggling with how I’ve always considered myself more liberal than my upbringing suggests, but have been unable to reconcile being “liberal-minded” with the current runaway circus of political ideology.
Youre the only substack I pay for specifically because of articles like these. Also, I suggest reading Disintegration by Andrei Martyanov. The coming collapse of the US and western world order is, at this point, unavoidable. Keep up the excellent work eugyppius.
The end of your article has reminded me of the tale of a very rich Marquis (I knew him personally, and I believe that the tale is false, but it is also very illustrative).
The thing is that the Marquis had an employee, the "Administrador", that managed the Marquis' assets. As it was customary for aristocrats of that time, the Marquis did not want to get involved in business issues, because they were below his high rank. The Administrador took advantage of that situation to profusely steal from the Marquis.
This was well known, and close friends of the Marquis were mystified. But when they asked the Marquis about it, they received this answer:
Of course I know that my Administrador is robbing me. In fact, his father was also the Administrador of the late Marquis, my father, and he also robbed him. But I cannot fire him. He has been stealing from me during the last 30 years, so he is already very rich. Thus, he only steals a little more each year. If I fire him, I will have to hire another Administrador, who will be poor and will have to steal from me very fast, considering my age. It is true that I am still very rich, but I reckon that a new Administrador would wipe out the rest of my fortune. So, I cannot afford to hire a new Administrador.
I have been thinking lately that in the West we fired our old, rich Administrador, and we are now experiencing what the Marquis feared.
I do often wish that the US had a more overt ruling class. The fiction that there is some kind of Democracy is very draining. Not only do I NOT know who is actually running things around here, but I’m told that the problems we face are because We Voted For Them. Blaming the victim. Nobody I know “voted” for any of this. And no matter who we vote for, nothing changes.
I find these essays creatively unique, a bit of actual original thinking, and far from the usual hackneyed bullet points that are chronically vomited up by the usual suspects in the 'divide'. Always something worth thinking about in your work. Thanks for that.
I didn't have any major problems with the previous framing, but this is much clearer.
I agree wholeheartedly with your description of the malignancy of elites. When the notion of elite status was more clearly delineated, and societies didn't pretend hierarchy didn't exist, the liberal tradition brought us the concept of noblesse oblige- this was reinforced by the moral underpinnings of largely Christian tradition- and thus elites, again as you stated sharing ethnic and cultural identities with their social subordinates, had at least some cultural training that caused them to (at least more often) see their subjects as being of kind and that their own great privilege and advantage obliged them spiritually to use at least some of that power to better their society.
When you pretend elites don't exist, so too goes any moral prescription that goes with being elite.
The three-headed hydra. While the right was asleep, the left took over media, entertainment and education. It took decades but here we are.
Shorter definitions, for consideration.
Liberal - let me think about your position statements and consider their ramifications to me and society at large.
Progressive - EVERYTHING before today was wrong, and I will give you what is right, tomorrow, if you're worthy.
Leftism - FUCK YOU ALL, I AM THE ONLY ANSWER, I AM THE ONLY CONCERN, I AM ALWAYS BETTER THAN YOU!!!!!!
Conservative (one if the categories not discussed) - Change for the sake of change is dangerous. The old ways have worked well for the most part, meritocracy rewards effort, and social connections are sometimes a reward of extra effort to gain power, but show me your reasoning for change and we will consider it.
Your final point that elites, in conjunction with the low-ranking members of their alliance, “aim is to appropriate the cultural and political capital that these middle ranks accumulated in the course of the Industrial Revolution and the first half of the twentieth century,” is so spot on. A work in progress over the past 60 years accelerated in the past fifteen. Our assets are being sucked from us more boldly than ever before, and we’re being re-labeled as racist bottom feeders who don’t deserve our place in society, let alone the ill-gotten fruits of our labors.
A most lucid anatomisation. The British historian David Starkey (among others) has also suggested that "social values", like societies themselves, are always a product of time and place, a distinction which implies that ethnicity is fundamental. The major problems arise when people, notably the French Jacobins and their Leftist heirs, insist that their "values" - a worldwide society of (absolute) equals - or 'liberal equalitarianism' - are not only unimpeachably good, but universally applicable to all of humanity simultaneously.
This always leads to two predictable outcomes: when released from the dream-space between the ears of its architects, the idea that the slowly-evolved history and human differentiation of different peoples in different places are gigantic mistakes and must be substituted with a standardised system (Year Zero), the universalist project collides with two obstacles that expose the utter fallacy of its presuppositions.
Firstly, a proportion of the people subject to it fail to become the peacefully co-existing Noble Savages dreamt up by Rousseau, betraying stubborn ties to the order that is being toppled. As the ideas are secular models of perfection, they are above questioning, and therefore "resistors" (like "anti-vaxxers", perhaps) must be either evil or mad - a dehumanising conclusion that leads to escalating coerciveness and ultimately to murderousness.
Secondly, every step towards the new standardised Utopia results in it retreating further from actualisation, an intractable elusiveness that generates paranoia (the failures must be caused by bad actors), continually redoubled efforts, and the public persecution of the Saboteurs of New Eden.
Gulags, labour camps, torture and brutal social abjection, up to and including execution, await these unfortunates.
Just a thought about forced universalism that your excellent little essay evoked
“Progressives believe that the present is better than the past….” & yet they are ALWAYS aping the past by thinking that the worst of socialism / communism / totalitarianism didn’t work out because they’re so much smarter & now in charge. Always w/ the same horrific outcomes in deaths & societal collapse
I think a lot of it has to do with the fact that the West is very much run on usury, and usury destroys a nation's capacity for magnanimity. Additionally, the disappearance of a FORMAL elite has destroyed the notion of noblesse oblige, which creates a hostile aristocracy not bound by a traditional sense of duty, charity, grace, etc. As BAP says, the elevation of the merchant or the banker to the height of society discredits the very idea of society.
<<In fact, I think one of the greatest defects of modern liberal democracy, is its promotion of an informal elite – people who, for reasons of birth or social standing, wield significant power, but because of liberal democratic principles, are allowed (or compelled) to do so in underhanded, informal, less-than-legible ways.>>
Thank you! I've been screaming this for years, especially when certain Americans I know sneer at the Brits. I'm like, at least they don't hide it and they get some pageantry with it and noblesse oblige. Our (American) aristocrats are becoming increasingly unabashed with their autocratic rule. But we've been sold the idea that if you work hard enough that you too can be an elite. If that was ever the case, it was in a vanishingly short amount of time in our history.
An excellent discussion of modern ideologies. I have only a remark. As we do not know much about the élites, who they are and how they make decisions, it may well be that the current ideologies are not "real", but only tools in order to remove some cultural obstacles. Nothing new, in fact. According to Livy, the first remark of a Roman consul on learning about the Epicurean philosophy by a Greek philosopher was that it would be good to diffuse such ideas among the Samnites.
Enlightening and succinct.
Thank you for the thinking points. I’ve been struggling with how I’ve always considered myself more liberal than my upbringing suggests, but have been unable to reconcile being “liberal-minded” with the current runaway circus of political ideology.
I think you'll appreciate this article.
https://www.firstthings.com/article/2020/10/suicide-of-the-liberals
Youre the only substack I pay for specifically because of articles like these. Also, I suggest reading Disintegration by Andrei Martyanov. The coming collapse of the US and western world order is, at this point, unavoidable. Keep up the excellent work eugyppius.
The end of your article has reminded me of the tale of a very rich Marquis (I knew him personally, and I believe that the tale is false, but it is also very illustrative).
The thing is that the Marquis had an employee, the "Administrador", that managed the Marquis' assets. As it was customary for aristocrats of that time, the Marquis did not want to get involved in business issues, because they were below his high rank. The Administrador took advantage of that situation to profusely steal from the Marquis.
This was well known, and close friends of the Marquis were mystified. But when they asked the Marquis about it, they received this answer:
Of course I know that my Administrador is robbing me. In fact, his father was also the Administrador of the late Marquis, my father, and he also robbed him. But I cannot fire him. He has been stealing from me during the last 30 years, so he is already very rich. Thus, he only steals a little more each year. If I fire him, I will have to hire another Administrador, who will be poor and will have to steal from me very fast, considering my age. It is true that I am still very rich, but I reckon that a new Administrador would wipe out the rest of my fortune. So, I cannot afford to hire a new Administrador.
I have been thinking lately that in the West we fired our old, rich Administrador, and we are now experiencing what the Marquis feared.