Guénon writes about a how a traditional civilization is centered on a spiritual authority that is above the state, which grants the state its legitimacy, and also provides the organizational structure of the entire civilization. He also says that while the priestly and kingly functions are usually separate, they sometimes become united in one person, Jesus being an example of a priest-king. Counting this post as a strange convergence of two of my intellectuals.
How to reach the goal though? I'm definitely going to be a wind-themed God-Emperor if I ever make it.
>Whichever opinion about trans pronouns you consider obviously correct, holding that opinion does not justify a broad claim for secular authority.
But holding the wrong one obviously disqualifies you. Pretty much nobody takes "classical" liberalism seriously anymore, tolerance of heretics is beyond the pale. Some fear that a new Thirty Years' War is unavoidable.
>More likely, some commoners will need to reclaim, re-learn, and rework nobility.
Excellent description, David. You have such an interesting perspective. I'll quote this in notes and will look forward to your next essay, which I'm assuming is contra Yarvin (I have the same reaction - agree with much of the critique but not the solutions)
You may find these two essays interesting as ways of chipping away at some of the dilemmas you're poking at:
Re Yarvin, I don't follow politics closely enough to be confident of who had which ideas originally. I did get from him the insight that contemporary left virtue signalling is closely analogous to Puritanism (which is the Anglo/American version of Calvinism), and presumably historically derives from it. (Do you know if he had this idea first, or borrowed it from an earlier source?)
I found that this explains a tremendous amount, including about contemporary white American Buddhism. (I wrote about this connection ~10 years ago, without mentioning Yarvin.)
So anyway, my next bit isn't about Yarvin specifically, but the general "pop-Nietzschean" (mis)understanding of the current online right. It starts from accurate insights, but then doesn't (imo) know how to apply them positively, and led to <all this>.
Thanks for the pointers to your essays! I read and liked (and fav'ed) "Be the elite" some time back! And re-read it now.
And I've just read and liked (and Noted) your new one. Great stuff!
> Do you know if he had this idea first, or borrowed it from an earlier source?
I don't think he ever said, on his UR blog, whether he came up with this specific idea himself; I think it unlikely. But in his very first UR post he did say that "I am just some dude who buys a lot of obscure used books, and is not afraid to grind them down, add flavor, and rebrand the result as a kind of political surimi," and in later posts he referred to multiple respectable academic books discussing the Puritan Question (as it was sometimes later called in OG NRx sphere). One which he especially recommended is George McKenna's The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism (published by Yale University Press; I read this one), but even Murray Rothbard apparently referred to PQ in Origins of the Welfare State in America. I suspect that's where Moldbug originally picked it up as he was reading his way through Mises Institute online library.
That was later. He actually had a post in 2010 (three years after starting UR) titled "From Mises to Carlyle: my sick journey to the dark side of the force":
> As it so happens, before I became a royalist or a Carlylean or whatever, I was a libertarian. Specifically, a Misesian. (And before that, I was an Instapundit reader. Teh Internets radicalized me.
But in 2007, when his views on PQ were already formed, he wrote in a comment that he did not find Carlyle readable, that
> If I have an algorithm, it's mostly a matter of suppressing emotional reactions to bad ideas. Carlyle, for example, was a racist, an anti-Semite and arguably a fascist. And for exactly these reasons it is great practice to read him. Once you can stop yourself from flinging Carlyle across the room, you can read anyone.
and that
> It is fascinating and frustrating to read Carlyle, because his diagnoses are often startlingly prescient and his remedies are almost invariably dangerous and ineffective. (This is a very familiar conservative syndrome.)
(Sorry for the angle bracket mess. I wish Substack had block quotes in comments.) The latter is funny because, of course, it applies as well or better to Moldbug himself.
I’m wondering how we know this is good history. Are there any historians who endorse the virtue versus nobility model as fitting well in some specific historical setting? It seems too abstract and high level to be generally true.
This ongoing series distinguishing virtue and nobility is excellent. Also, I love this format and hope others do too!
Foxes and lions
Great article!
The longer version of that Monty Python scene is my favorite of all time by the way.
Yes, me too :)
I love the end of this video! It’s spectacular, hilarious, surreal and… somehow indescribable 😃
Glad you liked it!
Guénon writes about a how a traditional civilization is centered on a spiritual authority that is above the state, which grants the state its legitimacy, and also provides the organizational structure of the entire civilization. He also says that while the priestly and kingly functions are usually separate, they sometimes become united in one person, Jesus being an example of a priest-king. Counting this post as a strange convergence of two of my intellectuals.
How to reach the goal though? I'm definitely going to be a wind-themed God-Emperor if I ever make it.
>Whichever opinion about trans pronouns you consider obviously correct, holding that opinion does not justify a broad claim for secular authority.
But holding the wrong one obviously disqualifies you. Pretty much nobody takes "classical" liberalism seriously anymore, tolerance of heretics is beyond the pale. Some fear that a new Thirty Years' War is unavoidable.
>More likely, some commoners will need to reclaim, re-learn, and rework nobility.
Yeah, but will it happen soon enough?..
Well, the second-best time to plant a tree is now…
Excellent description, David. You have such an interesting perspective. I'll quote this in notes and will look forward to your next essay, which I'm assuming is contra Yarvin (I have the same reaction - agree with much of the critique but not the solutions)
You may find these two essays interesting as ways of chipping away at some of the dilemmas you're poking at:
1. Be the elite you wish to see: https://jeffgiesea.substack.com/p/be-the-elite-you-wish-to-see
2. How to thrive in the simulacra: https://jeffgiesea.substack.com/p/thrive-in-hyperreality
Thank you!
Re Yarvin, I don't follow politics closely enough to be confident of who had which ideas originally. I did get from him the insight that contemporary left virtue signalling is closely analogous to Puritanism (which is the Anglo/American version of Calvinism), and presumably historically derives from it. (Do you know if he had this idea first, or borrowed it from an earlier source?)
I found that this explains a tremendous amount, including about contemporary white American Buddhism. (I wrote about this connection ~10 years ago, without mentioning Yarvin.)
So anyway, my next bit isn't about Yarvin specifically, but the general "pop-Nietzschean" (mis)understanding of the current online right. It starts from accurate insights, but then doesn't (imo) know how to apply them positively, and led to <all this>.
Thanks for the pointers to your essays! I read and liked (and fav'ed) "Be the elite" some time back! And re-read it now.
And I've just read and liked (and Noted) your new one. Great stuff!
> Do you know if he had this idea first, or borrowed it from an earlier source?
I don't think he ever said, on his UR blog, whether he came up with this specific idea himself; I think it unlikely. But in his very first UR post he did say that "I am just some dude who buys a lot of obscure used books, and is not afraid to grind them down, add flavor, and rebrand the result as a kind of political surimi," and in later posts he referred to multiple respectable academic books discussing the Puritan Question (as it was sometimes later called in OG NRx sphere). One which he especially recommended is George McKenna's The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism (published by Yale University Press; I read this one), but even Murray Rothbard apparently referred to PQ in Origins of the Welfare State in America. I suspect that's where Moldbug originally picked it up as he was reading his way through Mises Institute online library.
Very helpful, thank you!
Thanks! I'm looking forward to your next one. Btw, I'm not a close Yarvin follower, but I believe he was influenced by Carlyle.
That was later. He actually had a post in 2010 (three years after starting UR) titled "From Mises to Carlyle: my sick journey to the dark side of the force":
> As it so happens, before I became a royalist or a Carlylean or whatever, I was a libertarian. Specifically, a Misesian. (And before that, I was an Instapundit reader. Teh Internets radicalized me.
But in 2007, when his views on PQ were already formed, he wrote in a comment that he did not find Carlyle readable, that
> If I have an algorithm, it's mostly a matter of suppressing emotional reactions to bad ideas. Carlyle, for example, was a racist, an anti-Semite and arguably a fascist. And for exactly these reasons it is great practice to read him. Once you can stop yourself from flinging Carlyle across the room, you can read anyone.
and that
> It is fascinating and frustrating to read Carlyle, because his diagnoses are often startlingly prescient and his remedies are almost invariably dangerous and ineffective. (This is a very familiar conservative syndrome.)
(Sorry for the angle bracket mess. I wish Substack had block quotes in comments.) The latter is funny because, of course, it applies as well or better to Moldbug himself.
I’m wondering how we know this is good history. Are there any historians who endorse the virtue versus nobility model as fitting well in some specific historical setting? It seems too abstract and high level to be generally true.