I hope not. Though, since I am trying to distill it down to what I'm arguing is its ultimate explanation, it would be expected to not necessarily look familiar. But if I've changed it in a way that won't scale-up to more familiar manifestations, that would be a theoretical fail on my part.
Yes, I commented about this on the YT video. It definitely isn't how I usually think about power, but I think as long as the usage is limited to this context, it is useful to understand the concept (at least it was for me).
>There, I was focused on refuting his claim that hierarchies of competence were fundamentally different from hierarchies of power
Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias (https://www.overcomingbias.com/) has written extensively on this topic. He calls the two sides "prestige" and "dominance"
I haven't read Hanson on this, but I think the common take in the human social evolution literature is to treat prestige and dominance as the two primary forms of social status. If that's what Hanson is getting at, I'd say that's correct.
It's more nuanced than that, but yes. One of the things he observes is that people are much more amenable to be grunts in a prestige hierarchy, rather than in a dominance hierarchy. Which leads to interesting games where everybody pretends that people at the top are much more deserving and capable than they really are. [Possibly this is one of the ways in which virtuous and capable elites eventually become sclerotic.]
There is that joke about a rich person who everybody would ask for advice. One day he went bankrupt and suddenly people stopped coming to him for advice. At which point he tells his wife: "I don't understand, I did lose my money, but my extraordinary intellect and insight are still with me!"
Yes, been a rough go lately. I was kidnapped by pigmy pirates, who took me hostage at their hold on Fire Island, from which I had to escape, battling off the prehistoric reptiles they used as guardians, then swam 23.8 miles to finally be pulled out of the shark infested waters by a passing cruise ship. Then I lost all my money playing poker with the captain before we finally arrived in the next port of call. But it's good to be back. ;-)
I just got biological realism in the mail today, and now you share this, what a time to be alive! I have very similar views, but one thing I'm very careful to do, and it is difficult, is keep in mind the difference between the "why" question as it pertains to examining the causal reasons for biological phenomena and "why" referring to subjective meaning and purpose. While as a naturalist I must agree that those genes most adept at power maximization have been selected over the eons, those genes don't have desires, only we do. It isn't that we're more than the sum of our parts, it just very confusing to think of the sum in terms of the parts. Things like love, trust, and integrity were selected in some of us as these trains allow us to, as you would might say, build effective coalitions of conspecifics towards resisting enslavement, rape or plunder by others. This isn't experienced as desire to maximize power, it is experienced as a desire to love and be loved. I won't argue that these are functionally the same things, but this kind of hang up is why almost no traditionally religious people will ever be able to understand these positions. I'm currently having to come to terms with this in relation to my ongoing desire to build a populist coalition that includes traditionally religious folks and atheists like myself under the banner of Americanism. Unfortunately, there is a catch-22 that makes it impossible for orthodox Christians to really trust an atheist. While almost everyone understands the moral imperatives outlined in the bible, how can anyone who believes the theory of evolution by natural selection is just more misguided Scientism be expected to understand the biological constraints that demand what is essentially culturally equivalent behavior from the slow-mating strategy neurotypical atheist?
Thank you for the consistently fascinating content, I do think it is very useful, just challenging to resist the urge to athropomorphisize genetic information as having a will of its own. I look forward to finishing Biological Realism over the weekend and then to whatever you have coming down the pipe next!
Thank you for getting the book, Grant. I hope you find some value in it. These are thought provoking comments. I look forward to what I'm sure will be a fascinating conversation down the road.
Michael: I obviously haven't done the same depth of reading into this subject as you, and I doubt if any of your other readers have either. Having said that, I will still bravely comment on the article.
"Second, quite obviously, though, the will to power, and any psychological gratification associated to it, is hardly the final or defining aspect of human experience. Certainly, other evolved dimensions of our psychology, such as empathy, care and love – the very foundational glue of our remarkable human sociality..."
So you're left with a balancing somewhat of a determinist/materialist will to power (except in psychopaths), an often-times anti-social element of human nature, with the pro-social traits, the civilizational glue, of empathy, care and love.
Without the latter, we have no civilization because we have all exploited and slaughtered one another in a naked battle over power.
So, what determines, in each human mind, how this battle plays out and why?
I don't think of it as a battle within a mind. I'm much more deterministic than that. ;-)
My understanding is that there continues to be debate about the causes of psychopathy: it appears there are both "genetic" and ontogenetic explanations. (As I argue in Biological Realism, that's not as much of a distinction as many people think.) But, while I can't explain it molecularly, and I'm not sure how thoroughly the field can, I expect that if we don't know already, we will eventually understand that psychopathy -- whether directly heritable or developmental in origin (likely both) -- is a manifestation of skewed protein production that retards the electro-chemical processes which generate sensations of empathy or love. As mentioned in the post, retarding the generation of those emotions which would have moderated the processes evolved to optimize power will then of course have computational effects upon gross social behavior.
So, you either have the molecular machinery for processing sensations of empathy and love or you don't. And, yes, I'm aware that people will often have experiences of feeling as though they're struggling with whether to engage in anti-social behavior or not. I suspect though that that sensation is not quite what it feels like, and serves functions of self-serving self-deception. But that leads us down another set of paths, which can't really be addressed here. (Though it is in my books on human social evolution.)
I'm aware that that is not an entirely satisfactory explanation, but it's the best I've got -- or at least can provide in this space. I also realize that all this leads us toward the thorny issues of "free will." I will, of course, down the road, have things to say about topic.
I argue that natural processes have selected a diverse set of traits that correspond to an even more diverse set of social power maximization strategies. In spite of all of this diversity, I believe we can describe everyone as expressing one of two distinct phenotypes: The American, and the anti-American. The battle you speak of is between these groups, and environmental factors can of course result in phenotypic shift.
American strategic advantages include numerical superiority, especially in areas that are culturally western. They are capable of building strong coalitions built on positive emotion such as love. These coalitions, once formed, are very resilient. The main disadvantage of Americans is the ideological requirement to adhere to rules of engagement (no use of tactics that are illegal, immoral, or unethical are available)
anti-American strategic advantage relies largely on being tactically unconstrained by classical liberal values. This allows the deployment of social strategies that functionally serve to prevent the formation of coalitions among neurotypical Americans. Anti-Americans are also able to form coalitions, however these are generally predicated on negative emotion (think blackmail, cancellation, bribery etc.)
Since I believe many neurotypical anti-Americans have the capacity to undergo phenotypic shift given the right environmental factors at play (which perhaps could just be distilled down to effective communication of information that undermines the anti-American assumption that they will all be a part of the ruling class perpetually, which would demonstrate how it is in their interest to defect), and the divisive tactics of the anti-Americans have spawned an arms race of countermeasures i.e. Matt Lohmeier, James Lindsay etc, and that anti-Americans have overplayed their hand in the context of corona exposing their unpopular "ends justify the means" ideology to anyone with common sense that is paying attention, I believe Americans have a fighting chance. At least in America. Our Constitution is only paper by itself, but with a powerful coalition of Americans, I think there is a possibility that it could be used to restore the rule of law and provide guidance for a return to a more stable cultural foundation based on respect for individual liberty.
> I believe we can describe everyone as expressing one of two distinct phenotypes: The American, and the anti-American.
Grant, can you please provide some context here? If you are talking about truly general phenotypes "American" seems to be a misnomer - it cannot apply to France, Brazil, or Russia.
And if you are talking about America in particular, wouldn't it be a bit parochial?
Excellent question, I am very specifically talking about America the idea, not America the country. I was probably inspired to do this after reading the Managerial Class On Trial. I think Michael's postmodernism might be rubbing off on me. The definition of Americanism on Wikipedia does a decent job of succinctly articulated America the idea: "Americanism stresses a collective political identity based on the principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States by the Founding Fathers. Such ideologies include republicanism, freedom, liberty, individualism, constitutionalism, human rights, and the rule of law." I think if you're amenable to these ideas, you are American. If you're the kind of person that obtains power and begins stomping on the individual liberty of others because now you can (might makes right), you're anti-American. I think every American living as a citizen of any western country that has been fully assimilated by the globalist borg should consider immigrating to the U.S. so we can make a stand where the ideology of Americanism has home field advantage. Really I wish every ideological American would make their way here, but I see an opportunity to attract the unvaxxed in countries like Australia, France, Canada, New Zealand etc. I have an idea for how this might be facilitated... more to follow. You're Russian by nationality right? You seem every bit as American as I am, but then again we haven't corresponded a ton. For additional context I'm trying to develop these ideas at another publication I started (since it is a little more politically incorrect and my other one is more closely aligned with what I do professionally) radicalamerican.substack.com if you want to check it out!
I was born in Russia. I emigrated to the US with my parents as a teenager.
>America the idea
The following is going to be a bit ill-organized, since it would take me hours of editing otherwise. Also, it might sound harsh and in places offensive to you. Please do not take it personally. I think that we are more or less on the same side here.
I no longer believe in America as an idea. I think the Constitution is a dead letter. It's no longer relevant. And there is no practical way to make it relevant. The sooner people realize that the better are our chances and the chances of our children for free, dignified, and prosperous lives.
I am a big believer in myth and religion. In the sense that I think people must share common myths to collaborate. I think every state must have an official religion and only people who adhere to that religion may hold state office above certain level. [There is a huge practical problem of finding such a religion, though. The only possible candidate for the US and Europe is Christianity, but it seems to have been giving up the Ghost (pun intended) for the last century if not more.] The idea of state religion is an anathema to people who believe in the American Idea. (Although the Constitution originally only prohibited it on the Federal level, the States were free to establish state religion; also see below.)
I think of the Constitution as a treaty among the States that established the Federal Government, but provided strict limitation on its power. [As an aside, it seems to me that the States - and when we talk about any society we first and foremost mean its elites - wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted a strong state without giving up much of their power to it.] That treaty was violated by the Civil War (aka "the War of the Northern Aggression".) As a result the Constitution was transformed into something entirely opposite from its original intent: the declaration of the supremacy of the Federal Government over the States. In short, the Constitution became a lie. Basing one's life on a lie is hazardous to one's health (or evolutionary fitness ;) )
One of the mainstays of America as an idea is popular sovereignty. You read The Managerial Class on Trial where Michael totally debunks the idea of popular sovereignty. And I am with him on this one.
"Human rights" is a loaded concept. I am definitely for the "negative" rights - the general idea of being left alone as long I leave others alone. I am definitely against positive rights - being coerced into doing something (including paying) for the right of someone else (the "right for medical care" is a good example.) Also, I am not sure if I believe in intrinsic or universal rights. All of the above notwithstanding, I do believe that any human society worthy of the name must uphold in some non-trivial form the values of life, property, and the overall health (physical, mental, and spiritual) of the population.
You seem to believe that America is the last bastion of America as an idea. I do agree. But for the reason articulated by Moldbug: the Universalist / Globalist / Managerial class wing among the American elites had taken over the Federal Government and conquered and subjugated much of the world (what we call now "the Western World") using military and economic power. [As an aside, military coercion may come either in the form of direct aggression/threat, or in the form of protection racket. Such as saving you from Nazism. Or Russia, for that matter.] Using the military against its own people is not an option that can be easily deployed. Thus large parts of American population have not been yet subjugated. But they are clearly working on it.
I do believe that at the end of the day "the might is right". It is a tautology, really. There are different kinds of "might", though. The North Vietnamese were materially weaker than the Americans. But in the end they won.
I'm never offended by someone taking the time to converse with me in good faith! I've been more or less persuaded by the position you describe in the past. Even to this day I would consider myself a Rothbardian as much as a Misesian or American. I was largely convinced that there is a realist path towards an American populism by listening to Robert Barnes pretty regularly for the last 2 years. The way I see it, either a populist political strategy to return Americanism to prominence within the USG is successful, or the parasites kill the hosts and die of exposure (agorism). Since the latter would be especially painful, and I took an oath to the Constitution, lie or not, I'm putting all of my energy into the former. I have no illusions that success is assured, but failure can only be assured by giving up on ideas that I very much do believe. Individualism, liberty, and as you say negative rights. Positive rights are, of course, anti-American, and always have been, just like slavery. The civil war is complicated, because in large part it was about slavery, just not entirely. For proof of this just look to the constitution of the confederacy, which codified slavery in a way that individual states would be unable to opt out of. Slavery being anti-American and enforcing this anti-American institution at the federal level on the states isn't exactly supportive of states rights (if that was really what it was all about). It would have been interesting to have seen secession initially tested in a way where it was based on purely American reasons, alas we'll never get to see. Anyway, I digress, I'm arguing that the way ahead is leveraging the ideology that I believe is still "popular" (>50%) within the USA's body politic of Americanism. The most straightforward path I see to this is augmenting a Christian coalition that has been effectively politically marginalized with non-Christian Americans. Instituting a state religion just won't be popular, and it will convert power potential allies into enemies. If you think that strategy is stupid and unrealistic, I'm not offended, but I am interested in hearing why as I'm pretty committed to the path and can always use feedback from people such as yourself! It has been successful in the past, after all, Andrew Jackson killed the bank. Will it be a permanent state of affairs? I think not, but given you appreciate myth as I do, I'll just finish my thoughts with this quote:
"Sons of Gondor! Of Rohan! My brothers. I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!"
>Even to this day I would consider myself a Rothbardian
You mean anarcho-capitalism? Quoting E.O. Wilson on Communism, "Great idea, wrong species." Because power.
>The way I see it, either a populist political strategy to return Americanism to prominence within the USG is successful, or the parasites kill the hosts
There are other options. Caesarism / Bonapartism, for example. (By the way, I just realized that I do not know the difference between the two; it must exist.) A lot of neo-reactionaries hoped that Trump would become the Caesar.
Or military rule. At least to clean things up, then transform back to the civilian rule.
Here is the question: who does the populist upheaval install to real power? According to the Italian realists it must be an alternative elite. Who are they? Not a lot of people come to mind. Peter Thiel. There must be people in the army, like Flynn. They must exist, just not very visible due to not being in power.
The whole thing is being complicated by what looks like the decline of American hegemony. And the world not so slowly running out of cheap oil. Climate change is probably also a thing. I have no confidence whatsoever that the current globalist elites are competent to handle the perfect storm. Just look at COVID.
Michael actually opened another can of worms - there are different failure modes, and one of them - the pathocracy - is worse than others. So it's not just binary - success or failure, it's success - failure - catastrophic clusterf***.
One thing I think we won't experience is the anarchy. At least not in the next couple of generations.
>The civil war is complicated
Of course. What adds unnecessarily to the complications is that the winning side has been trying to convince us that it was fighting a 100% Just war.
Also my point was mainly about the Constitution, not trying to justify the Southern States.
>by listening to Robert Barnes
Brilliant mind. Great advocate. But too wedded to his populist ideas. "Direct democracy", spare me please.
One thing that absolutely infuriates me about him is his refusal to seriously treat ideas he disagrees with. He just builds a straw-man and burns it with shallow counter-examples. That's what he did when discussing The Managerial Class on Trial. He liked the idea of the Managerial Class taking over the government, but dismissed all other ideas from the book as not serious.
Here is his brilliant piece of "logic" from that discussion: "Another word for a monarch is a dictator. So when you say you want monarchy you are saying you want a dictatorship." Pure rhetoric - only pathos, no logos.
Am I imagining things, or are you ever-so-slightly redefining the word "power" from its common meaning?
I hope not. Though, since I am trying to distill it down to what I'm arguing is its ultimate explanation, it would be expected to not necessarily look familiar. But if I've changed it in a way that won't scale-up to more familiar manifestations, that would be a theoretical fail on my part.
I think it is very sound and insightful.
Yes, I commented about this on the YT video. It definitely isn't how I usually think about power, but I think as long as the usage is limited to this context, it is useful to understand the concept (at least it was for me).
>There, I was focused on refuting his claim that hierarchies of competence were fundamentally different from hierarchies of power
Robin Hanson at Overcoming Bias (https://www.overcomingbias.com/) has written extensively on this topic. He calls the two sides "prestige" and "dominance"
I haven't read Hanson on this, but I think the common take in the human social evolution literature is to treat prestige and dominance as the two primary forms of social status. If that's what Hanson is getting at, I'd say that's correct.
>two primary forms of social status
It's more nuanced than that, but yes. One of the things he observes is that people are much more amenable to be grunts in a prestige hierarchy, rather than in a dominance hierarchy. Which leads to interesting games where everybody pretends that people at the top are much more deserving and capable than they really are. [Possibly this is one of the ways in which virtuous and capable elites eventually become sclerotic.]
There is that joke about a rich person who everybody would ask for advice. One day he went bankrupt and suddenly people stopped coming to him for advice. At which point he tells his wife: "I don't understand, I did lose my money, but my extraordinary intellect and insight are still with me!"
Good to have you back, Michael!
Thank you!
Yes, been a rough go lately. I was kidnapped by pigmy pirates, who took me hostage at their hold on Fire Island, from which I had to escape, battling off the prehistoric reptiles they used as guardians, then swam 23.8 miles to finally be pulled out of the shark infested waters by a passing cruise ship. Then I lost all my money playing poker with the captain before we finally arrived in the next port of call. But it's good to be back. ;-)
I just got biological realism in the mail today, and now you share this, what a time to be alive! I have very similar views, but one thing I'm very careful to do, and it is difficult, is keep in mind the difference between the "why" question as it pertains to examining the causal reasons for biological phenomena and "why" referring to subjective meaning and purpose. While as a naturalist I must agree that those genes most adept at power maximization have been selected over the eons, those genes don't have desires, only we do. It isn't that we're more than the sum of our parts, it just very confusing to think of the sum in terms of the parts. Things like love, trust, and integrity were selected in some of us as these trains allow us to, as you would might say, build effective coalitions of conspecifics towards resisting enslavement, rape or plunder by others. This isn't experienced as desire to maximize power, it is experienced as a desire to love and be loved. I won't argue that these are functionally the same things, but this kind of hang up is why almost no traditionally religious people will ever be able to understand these positions. I'm currently having to come to terms with this in relation to my ongoing desire to build a populist coalition that includes traditionally religious folks and atheists like myself under the banner of Americanism. Unfortunately, there is a catch-22 that makes it impossible for orthodox Christians to really trust an atheist. While almost everyone understands the moral imperatives outlined in the bible, how can anyone who believes the theory of evolution by natural selection is just more misguided Scientism be expected to understand the biological constraints that demand what is essentially culturally equivalent behavior from the slow-mating strategy neurotypical atheist?
Thank you for the consistently fascinating content, I do think it is very useful, just challenging to resist the urge to athropomorphisize genetic information as having a will of its own. I look forward to finishing Biological Realism over the weekend and then to whatever you have coming down the pipe next!
Thank you for getting the book, Grant. I hope you find some value in it. These are thought provoking comments. I look forward to what I'm sure will be a fascinating conversation down the road.
Michael: I obviously haven't done the same depth of reading into this subject as you, and I doubt if any of your other readers have either. Having said that, I will still bravely comment on the article.
"Second, quite obviously, though, the will to power, and any psychological gratification associated to it, is hardly the final or defining aspect of human experience. Certainly, other evolved dimensions of our psychology, such as empathy, care and love – the very foundational glue of our remarkable human sociality..."
So you're left with a balancing somewhat of a determinist/materialist will to power (except in psychopaths), an often-times anti-social element of human nature, with the pro-social traits, the civilizational glue, of empathy, care and love.
Without the latter, we have no civilization because we have all exploited and slaughtered one another in a naked battle over power.
So, what determines, in each human mind, how this battle plays out and why?
I don't think of it as a battle within a mind. I'm much more deterministic than that. ;-)
My understanding is that there continues to be debate about the causes of psychopathy: it appears there are both "genetic" and ontogenetic explanations. (As I argue in Biological Realism, that's not as much of a distinction as many people think.) But, while I can't explain it molecularly, and I'm not sure how thoroughly the field can, I expect that if we don't know already, we will eventually understand that psychopathy -- whether directly heritable or developmental in origin (likely both) -- is a manifestation of skewed protein production that retards the electro-chemical processes which generate sensations of empathy or love. As mentioned in the post, retarding the generation of those emotions which would have moderated the processes evolved to optimize power will then of course have computational effects upon gross social behavior.
So, you either have the molecular machinery for processing sensations of empathy and love or you don't. And, yes, I'm aware that people will often have experiences of feeling as though they're struggling with whether to engage in anti-social behavior or not. I suspect though that that sensation is not quite what it feels like, and serves functions of self-serving self-deception. But that leads us down another set of paths, which can't really be addressed here. (Though it is in my books on human social evolution.)
I'm aware that that is not an entirely satisfactory explanation, but it's the best I've got -- or at least can provide in this space. I also realize that all this leads us toward the thorny issues of "free will." I will, of course, down the road, have things to say about topic.
I argue that natural processes have selected a diverse set of traits that correspond to an even more diverse set of social power maximization strategies. In spite of all of this diversity, I believe we can describe everyone as expressing one of two distinct phenotypes: The American, and the anti-American. The battle you speak of is between these groups, and environmental factors can of course result in phenotypic shift.
American strategic advantages include numerical superiority, especially in areas that are culturally western. They are capable of building strong coalitions built on positive emotion such as love. These coalitions, once formed, are very resilient. The main disadvantage of Americans is the ideological requirement to adhere to rules of engagement (no use of tactics that are illegal, immoral, or unethical are available)
anti-American strategic advantage relies largely on being tactically unconstrained by classical liberal values. This allows the deployment of social strategies that functionally serve to prevent the formation of coalitions among neurotypical Americans. Anti-Americans are also able to form coalitions, however these are generally predicated on negative emotion (think blackmail, cancellation, bribery etc.)
Since I believe many neurotypical anti-Americans have the capacity to undergo phenotypic shift given the right environmental factors at play (which perhaps could just be distilled down to effective communication of information that undermines the anti-American assumption that they will all be a part of the ruling class perpetually, which would demonstrate how it is in their interest to defect), and the divisive tactics of the anti-Americans have spawned an arms race of countermeasures i.e. Matt Lohmeier, James Lindsay etc, and that anti-Americans have overplayed their hand in the context of corona exposing their unpopular "ends justify the means" ideology to anyone with common sense that is paying attention, I believe Americans have a fighting chance. At least in America. Our Constitution is only paper by itself, but with a powerful coalition of Americans, I think there is a possibility that it could be used to restore the rule of law and provide guidance for a return to a more stable cultural foundation based on respect for individual liberty.
> I believe we can describe everyone as expressing one of two distinct phenotypes: The American, and the anti-American.
Grant, can you please provide some context here? If you are talking about truly general phenotypes "American" seems to be a misnomer - it cannot apply to France, Brazil, or Russia.
And if you are talking about America in particular, wouldn't it be a bit parochial?
Excellent question, I am very specifically talking about America the idea, not America the country. I was probably inspired to do this after reading the Managerial Class On Trial. I think Michael's postmodernism might be rubbing off on me. The definition of Americanism on Wikipedia does a decent job of succinctly articulated America the idea: "Americanism stresses a collective political identity based on the principles outlined in the Constitution of the United States by the Founding Fathers. Such ideologies include republicanism, freedom, liberty, individualism, constitutionalism, human rights, and the rule of law." I think if you're amenable to these ideas, you are American. If you're the kind of person that obtains power and begins stomping on the individual liberty of others because now you can (might makes right), you're anti-American. I think every American living as a citizen of any western country that has been fully assimilated by the globalist borg should consider immigrating to the U.S. so we can make a stand where the ideology of Americanism has home field advantage. Really I wish every ideological American would make their way here, but I see an opportunity to attract the unvaxxed in countries like Australia, France, Canada, New Zealand etc. I have an idea for how this might be facilitated... more to follow. You're Russian by nationality right? You seem every bit as American as I am, but then again we haven't corresponded a ton. For additional context I'm trying to develop these ideas at another publication I started (since it is a little more politically incorrect and my other one is more closely aligned with what I do professionally) radicalamerican.substack.com if you want to check it out!
I get the context now, thank you.
>You're Russian by nationality right?
I was born in Russia. I emigrated to the US with my parents as a teenager.
>America the idea
The following is going to be a bit ill-organized, since it would take me hours of editing otherwise. Also, it might sound harsh and in places offensive to you. Please do not take it personally. I think that we are more or less on the same side here.
I no longer believe in America as an idea. I think the Constitution is a dead letter. It's no longer relevant. And there is no practical way to make it relevant. The sooner people realize that the better are our chances and the chances of our children for free, dignified, and prosperous lives.
I am a big believer in myth and religion. In the sense that I think people must share common myths to collaborate. I think every state must have an official religion and only people who adhere to that religion may hold state office above certain level. [There is a huge practical problem of finding such a religion, though. The only possible candidate for the US and Europe is Christianity, but it seems to have been giving up the Ghost (pun intended) for the last century if not more.] The idea of state religion is an anathema to people who believe in the American Idea. (Although the Constitution originally only prohibited it on the Federal level, the States were free to establish state religion; also see below.)
I think of the Constitution as a treaty among the States that established the Federal Government, but provided strict limitation on its power. [As an aside, it seems to me that the States - and when we talk about any society we first and foremost mean its elites - wanted to have their cake and eat it, too. They wanted a strong state without giving up much of their power to it.] That treaty was violated by the Civil War (aka "the War of the Northern Aggression".) As a result the Constitution was transformed into something entirely opposite from its original intent: the declaration of the supremacy of the Federal Government over the States. In short, the Constitution became a lie. Basing one's life on a lie is hazardous to one's health (or evolutionary fitness ;) )
One of the mainstays of America as an idea is popular sovereignty. You read The Managerial Class on Trial where Michael totally debunks the idea of popular sovereignty. And I am with him on this one.
"Human rights" is a loaded concept. I am definitely for the "negative" rights - the general idea of being left alone as long I leave others alone. I am definitely against positive rights - being coerced into doing something (including paying) for the right of someone else (the "right for medical care" is a good example.) Also, I am not sure if I believe in intrinsic or universal rights. All of the above notwithstanding, I do believe that any human society worthy of the name must uphold in some non-trivial form the values of life, property, and the overall health (physical, mental, and spiritual) of the population.
You seem to believe that America is the last bastion of America as an idea. I do agree. But for the reason articulated by Moldbug: the Universalist / Globalist / Managerial class wing among the American elites had taken over the Federal Government and conquered and subjugated much of the world (what we call now "the Western World") using military and economic power. [As an aside, military coercion may come either in the form of direct aggression/threat, or in the form of protection racket. Such as saving you from Nazism. Or Russia, for that matter.] Using the military against its own people is not an option that can be easily deployed. Thus large parts of American population have not been yet subjugated. But they are clearly working on it.
I do believe that at the end of the day "the might is right". It is a tautology, really. There are different kinds of "might", though. The North Vietnamese were materially weaker than the Americans. But in the end they won.
I'm never offended by someone taking the time to converse with me in good faith! I've been more or less persuaded by the position you describe in the past. Even to this day I would consider myself a Rothbardian as much as a Misesian or American. I was largely convinced that there is a realist path towards an American populism by listening to Robert Barnes pretty regularly for the last 2 years. The way I see it, either a populist political strategy to return Americanism to prominence within the USG is successful, or the parasites kill the hosts and die of exposure (agorism). Since the latter would be especially painful, and I took an oath to the Constitution, lie or not, I'm putting all of my energy into the former. I have no illusions that success is assured, but failure can only be assured by giving up on ideas that I very much do believe. Individualism, liberty, and as you say negative rights. Positive rights are, of course, anti-American, and always have been, just like slavery. The civil war is complicated, because in large part it was about slavery, just not entirely. For proof of this just look to the constitution of the confederacy, which codified slavery in a way that individual states would be unable to opt out of. Slavery being anti-American and enforcing this anti-American institution at the federal level on the states isn't exactly supportive of states rights (if that was really what it was all about). It would have been interesting to have seen secession initially tested in a way where it was based on purely American reasons, alas we'll never get to see. Anyway, I digress, I'm arguing that the way ahead is leveraging the ideology that I believe is still "popular" (>50%) within the USA's body politic of Americanism. The most straightforward path I see to this is augmenting a Christian coalition that has been effectively politically marginalized with non-Christian Americans. Instituting a state religion just won't be popular, and it will convert power potential allies into enemies. If you think that strategy is stupid and unrealistic, I'm not offended, but I am interested in hearing why as I'm pretty committed to the path and can always use feedback from people such as yourself! It has been successful in the past, after all, Andrew Jackson killed the bank. Will it be a permanent state of affairs? I think not, but given you appreciate myth as I do, I'll just finish my thoughts with this quote:
"Sons of Gondor! Of Rohan! My brothers. I see in your eyes the same fear that would take the heart of me. A day may come when the courage of Men fails, when we forsake our friends and break all bonds of fellowship, but it is not this day. An hour of wolves and shattered shields when the Age of Men comes crashing down, but it is not this day! This day we fight! By all that you hold dear on this good earth, I bid you stand, Men of the West!"
>Even to this day I would consider myself a Rothbardian
You mean anarcho-capitalism? Quoting E.O. Wilson on Communism, "Great idea, wrong species." Because power.
>The way I see it, either a populist political strategy to return Americanism to prominence within the USG is successful, or the parasites kill the hosts
There are other options. Caesarism / Bonapartism, for example. (By the way, I just realized that I do not know the difference between the two; it must exist.) A lot of neo-reactionaries hoped that Trump would become the Caesar.
Or military rule. At least to clean things up, then transform back to the civilian rule.
Here is the question: who does the populist upheaval install to real power? According to the Italian realists it must be an alternative elite. Who are they? Not a lot of people come to mind. Peter Thiel. There must be people in the army, like Flynn. They must exist, just not very visible due to not being in power.
The whole thing is being complicated by what looks like the decline of American hegemony. And the world not so slowly running out of cheap oil. Climate change is probably also a thing. I have no confidence whatsoever that the current globalist elites are competent to handle the perfect storm. Just look at COVID.
Michael actually opened another can of worms - there are different failure modes, and one of them - the pathocracy - is worse than others. So it's not just binary - success or failure, it's success - failure - catastrophic clusterf***.
One thing I think we won't experience is the anarchy. At least not in the next couple of generations.
>The civil war is complicated
Of course. What adds unnecessarily to the complications is that the winning side has been trying to convince us that it was fighting a 100% Just war.
Also my point was mainly about the Constitution, not trying to justify the Southern States.
>by listening to Robert Barnes
Brilliant mind. Great advocate. But too wedded to his populist ideas. "Direct democracy", spare me please.
One thing that absolutely infuriates me about him is his refusal to seriously treat ideas he disagrees with. He just builds a straw-man and burns it with shallow counter-examples. That's what he did when discussing The Managerial Class on Trial. He liked the idea of the Managerial Class taking over the government, but dismissed all other ideas from the book as not serious.
Here is his brilliant piece of "logic" from that discussion: "Another word for a monarch is a dictator. So when you say you want monarchy you are saying you want a dictatorship." Pure rhetoric - only pathos, no logos.
> ""Sons of Gondor! Of Rohan! My brothers <...>"
Yeah, lies, damn lies, and poetry
[just trolling]