The Left is threatening a slow and painful suicide by Marxism, rebranded as ESG scores and wokeness. The conditions are indeed ripe for a Caesar figure to emerge and win popular support by promising a return to economic and military strength and domestic tranquility. For all the shrieking the Left has been doing about MAGA being a fascist movement, they are going to be the ones responsible when the populace goes for the real thing, as a reaction to the threat of leftist self-sabotoge. If a Caesar doesn't emerge in time for the 2024 campaign, one will emerge in the aftermath of that election. Sadly, the writing is on the wall for the American republic.
I agree with many of the themes and corollaries you make in the essay above. There are some similarities of ideas made by Ravi Batra of Southern Methodist University in his bestseller the Great Depression of 1990 in that there are inevitabilities we face due to the inequalities inherent in financial capitalism, which lead to political corruption, excesses etc.. Both the elites on the right and the left in politics are embodied in one man--Trump. He pretends to be a man of the people in the mainstream middle class by playing on well worn meme's of always getting a snow job by the main stream media, recalcitrant big government, and various conspiracies that are difficult to disprove or to prove....but play well to the masses...I have studied the writings of a man that stood up for the masses in the late 1800's named William Hope Harvey- campaign manager and strategist for William Jennings Bryan's run for president in 1896.. He took on the big city machines of New York, Boston and Chicago in favor of using silver as a bi-metallic money standard. This is the type of financial populism that we need today. And make no mistake- both the left and the right will fight it tooth and nail....Steve Bannon tried and failed to use the term financial populism, its a very loaded term- but makes perfect sense.
I voted for him twice, but I also know that he along with many other Billionaires are more interested in preserving their own wealth than governance of the whole. And the democrat party sold out a long time ago to the fat cats. Its always going to be a choice between two bad choices. I think DeSantis is a better choice in this instance. South Florida is a haven for tax cheats and money launderers. So Im a bit skeptical that DeSantis will be any better for the country. Just look at the Crypto implosion - and see that S FL is at the center of all that....I wonder why?
I'm working on a sci-fi novel with a setting within a space-faring "Confederate States of America" with a few differentiations.
One main idea I had for this political entity called the "Confederation of Settlements" is that the primary 'branch' of their government is an association called the "Ownership League" (OL). I bring it up because your post reminded me of it.
Membership in the OL, as I conceptualize it, confers the rights and privileges of full Confederate Citizenship. To gain membership you must be a "man-of-holding," a property owner of some kind (land, vessel, station, etc.) AND participate as well as prove advanced understanding of the Leagues workings. Think of the OL as a common etiquette, negotiation and arbitration process, and culture that forms the base of what makes the "Gentry" or "Aristocrats" of the system. Dealings or things done outside the OL are still valid, they just carry the stigma of being 'ad hoc', 'improper' or 'juvenile'. Ideally one could live their whole life with out having to deal at all with the OL and its strictures, though in practice participation can be beneficial, even if interacting with it tangentially.
The trick is that anyone can be in the OL if they desire and can meet the requirements. But to own property you don't have to be a member, a member just has a visible stake (as they are in the OL not because they own things but are actually 'part-owners' of the Confederacy itself) in the system and access to its more complex services. A Settler, shorthand for one who is not in the OL but is a Confederate, can own his immediate property with all the benefits of allodial title, and members of the OL, or other interests cannot infringe without chancing pain of death, likely inflicted by the Settler there on his doorstep, outside of proper etiquette.
I suppose the system tries to blend the benefits of an open public exchange, like the block chain, and the necessities of private ownership and privacy in general that keeps a man and his family safe and provided for. It all hinges on a pioneering mindset, allowed by the 'infinite land' in the sci-fi space setting, and severe consequences for corruption.
I say all that to ponder if such a system could prevent the issues we see brewing today. Where the claims of men to property are not unlimited (i.e. how some Romans could own vast swathes of conquered Europe, as you mention, leaving nothing for their lessers) and the consequences for not 'coming correct' are dire.
Empire stems, in one aspect, from the Yankee/puritan desire to make others live like you do. Sometimes it falls into your lap, as you mention, but having a cultural prophylaxis against parasitical behavior is wise to resist the traps of being the most powerful in a given era.
Allowing the peasantry to HAVE enough of their own business to mind, and not infringing on their personal handling of it, would have kept many a rulers head from rolling over the millennia. Because at the world-wide level, an Empire is the 'king' and the whole rest of humanity are the 'peasants'. And we know how dangerous peasant revolts can be.
The dream is Castalia House as the publisher. I do intend to post related materials and such on my substack. Long way to go however, as the ideas and concepts always flow faster than the plot and chapters.
Sure, we're in the early stages. It seems inevitable to me that a man of strength, power, wealth, and charisma will emerge to seize power, and grab the crown of America from the gutter, as Napoleon once said. But I doubt that icon has yet strode onto the public stage.
I think this is a good perspective, from Shylock Holmes:
"But aside from viewing it as a kind of grotesque cautionary tale that runs counter to the prevailing narrative, I think there is quite a lot to learn by putting oneself in the shoes of a potential reactionary at different points in the story. What exactly should you have been hoping for, anyway? At least before the ending of the story is known, it’s harder than you’d think. One sees a strange tension between supporting monarchical principles, and supporting monarchical tradition. When the king is still in power, there is not much of a contradiction here. But once the King is executed, are you specifically interested in restoring the legitimate heir of the Bourbon dynasty? What if he's 7 years old? What if, once he’s dead at age ten, it’s not straightforward whose claim you should support? Or are you just interested in solving the Carlyle problem of finding the most able man, and giving him absolute power? Because it’s pretty clear that by a certain point in the story, that man was Napoleon. The question of when exactly you would recognize him as such is not nearly as obvious as you might imagine. It is a funny exercise imagining the leaders of the French Directory, feeling like they’re on top of their game and in charge of France. But when a historian tells the story of that time period, for much of their reign, the actual tale being told is “what was Napoleon doing at this time?”
When you look into it, a curious regularity is that many of the great authoritarian leaders came to power supporting the governments they later overthrew. Julius Caesar lead the populares against the traditional aristocratic privilege of the Roman Senate. But did this matter once he’d assumed power? Did it stop his rule from being further right than what came before – monarchy, instead of oligarchy? Not one bit. Same thing with Napoleon. It’s well known that he was willing to use “a whiff of grapeshot” to defeat the mob, which sounds pretty based. But it was a Royalist mob, attacking the revolutionary government! Those who just wanted competent authority invested in the ablest man would have been much better off supporting the man shooting at them, though it was very hard for them to know that at the time. Even in modern times, Augusto Pinochet led the crackdown on anti-Allende protests in 1972!
All of which is to say, that it’s not nearly as obvious as you might think where exactly the next competent authoritarian might come from. It is a mistake to place too much weight in the man’s politics before he seizes power. Those destined to rule seem to instinctively know that the first thing to do is actually acquire the power to rule, by whatever means necessary, otherwise all your grand visions amount to very little. Of course, this adds a pretty big risk component once political opposition is swept away. As Moldbug is fond of pointing out, the Democratic Party platform of 1932 is almost the exact opposite of what FDR actually implemented once he took control of the US government. It can cut both ways."
And the short answer is — none of this will impact your individual life in the immediate future, so you must continue to fend for yourself, grow in wisdom and strength and status... romance women, lift weights, read books, make money, provide for your family.
You can waste many years waiting for a savior, only to be disappointed when the next Caesar emerges.
The Left is threatening a slow and painful suicide by Marxism, rebranded as ESG scores and wokeness. The conditions are indeed ripe for a Caesar figure to emerge and win popular support by promising a return to economic and military strength and domestic tranquility. For all the shrieking the Left has been doing about MAGA being a fascist movement, they are going to be the ones responsible when the populace goes for the real thing, as a reaction to the threat of leftist self-sabotoge. If a Caesar doesn't emerge in time for the 2024 campaign, one will emerge in the aftermath of that election. Sadly, the writing is on the wall for the American republic.
Hollywood pushed the idea of the Hero as a vestige of patriarchal control.
I don't think this is a coincidence as that is truly what we need
This is a very smart comment and it took me a couple months to understand what you're saying. It's a very important point.
This is good stuff. Have you read the series on the American Caesar at the. Worthy House?
Thanks, no I haven't, I'll have to put it on my list.
Thanks for sharing that recommendation. I just started listening to his podcast version of his articles, and they are excellent.
What if Ceasar hath cometh yet?
I agree with many of the themes and corollaries you make in the essay above. There are some similarities of ideas made by Ravi Batra of Southern Methodist University in his bestseller the Great Depression of 1990 in that there are inevitabilities we face due to the inequalities inherent in financial capitalism, which lead to political corruption, excesses etc.. Both the elites on the right and the left in politics are embodied in one man--Trump. He pretends to be a man of the people in the mainstream middle class by playing on well worn meme's of always getting a snow job by the main stream media, recalcitrant big government, and various conspiracies that are difficult to disprove or to prove....but play well to the masses...I have studied the writings of a man that stood up for the masses in the late 1800's named William Hope Harvey- campaign manager and strategist for William Jennings Bryan's run for president in 1896.. He took on the big city machines of New York, Boston and Chicago in favor of using silver as a bi-metallic money standard. This is the type of financial populism that we need today. And make no mistake- both the left and the right will fight it tooth and nail....Steve Bannon tried and failed to use the term financial populism, its a very loaded term- but makes perfect sense.
I like Trump
I voted for him twice, but I also know that he along with many other Billionaires are more interested in preserving their own wealth than governance of the whole. And the democrat party sold out a long time ago to the fat cats. Its always going to be a choice between two bad choices. I think DeSantis is a better choice in this instance. South Florida is a haven for tax cheats and money launderers. So Im a bit skeptical that DeSantis will be any better for the country. Just look at the Crypto implosion - and see that S FL is at the center of all that....I wonder why?
Billionaires interested in wealth and prestige but shunned by deepstae = popplizmus
Great read. Really asks the important, thought-provoking questions
Thank you!
I struggle to see the big picture, all these interconnecting layers, so I try to simplify the process for others.
Saw the bird was mean to you. Hit me up when you find your way back to your frens.
Thanks, will do bro.
I'm working on a sci-fi novel with a setting within a space-faring "Confederate States of America" with a few differentiations.
One main idea I had for this political entity called the "Confederation of Settlements" is that the primary 'branch' of their government is an association called the "Ownership League" (OL). I bring it up because your post reminded me of it.
Membership in the OL, as I conceptualize it, confers the rights and privileges of full Confederate Citizenship. To gain membership you must be a "man-of-holding," a property owner of some kind (land, vessel, station, etc.) AND participate as well as prove advanced understanding of the Leagues workings. Think of the OL as a common etiquette, negotiation and arbitration process, and culture that forms the base of what makes the "Gentry" or "Aristocrats" of the system. Dealings or things done outside the OL are still valid, they just carry the stigma of being 'ad hoc', 'improper' or 'juvenile'. Ideally one could live their whole life with out having to deal at all with the OL and its strictures, though in practice participation can be beneficial, even if interacting with it tangentially.
The trick is that anyone can be in the OL if they desire and can meet the requirements. But to own property you don't have to be a member, a member just has a visible stake (as they are in the OL not because they own things but are actually 'part-owners' of the Confederacy itself) in the system and access to its more complex services. A Settler, shorthand for one who is not in the OL but is a Confederate, can own his immediate property with all the benefits of allodial title, and members of the OL, or other interests cannot infringe without chancing pain of death, likely inflicted by the Settler there on his doorstep, outside of proper etiquette.
I suppose the system tries to blend the benefits of an open public exchange, like the block chain, and the necessities of private ownership and privacy in general that keeps a man and his family safe and provided for. It all hinges on a pioneering mindset, allowed by the 'infinite land' in the sci-fi space setting, and severe consequences for corruption.
I say all that to ponder if such a system could prevent the issues we see brewing today. Where the claims of men to property are not unlimited (i.e. how some Romans could own vast swathes of conquered Europe, as you mention, leaving nothing for their lessers) and the consequences for not 'coming correct' are dire.
Empire stems, in one aspect, from the Yankee/puritan desire to make others live like you do. Sometimes it falls into your lap, as you mention, but having a cultural prophylaxis against parasitical behavior is wise to resist the traps of being the most powerful in a given era.
Allowing the peasantry to HAVE enough of their own business to mind, and not infringing on their personal handling of it, would have kept many a rulers head from rolling over the millennia. Because at the world-wide level, an Empire is the 'king' and the whole rest of humanity are the 'peasants'. And we know how dangerous peasant revolts can be.
Are you going to publish this on Substack, Amazon, an indie publisher, one of the Big Four? Or somewhere else?
The dream is Castalia House as the publisher. I do intend to post related materials and such on my substack. Long way to go however, as the ideas and concepts always flow faster than the plot and chapters.
Sure, we're in the early stages. It seems inevitable to me that a man of strength, power, wealth, and charisma will emerge to seize power, and grab the crown of America from the gutter, as Napoleon once said. But I doubt that icon has yet strode onto the public stage.
I think this is a good perspective, from Shylock Holmes:
"But aside from viewing it as a kind of grotesque cautionary tale that runs counter to the prevailing narrative, I think there is quite a lot to learn by putting oneself in the shoes of a potential reactionary at different points in the story. What exactly should you have been hoping for, anyway? At least before the ending of the story is known, it’s harder than you’d think. One sees a strange tension between supporting monarchical principles, and supporting monarchical tradition. When the king is still in power, there is not much of a contradiction here. But once the King is executed, are you specifically interested in restoring the legitimate heir of the Bourbon dynasty? What if he's 7 years old? What if, once he’s dead at age ten, it’s not straightforward whose claim you should support? Or are you just interested in solving the Carlyle problem of finding the most able man, and giving him absolute power? Because it’s pretty clear that by a certain point in the story, that man was Napoleon. The question of when exactly you would recognize him as such is not nearly as obvious as you might imagine. It is a funny exercise imagining the leaders of the French Directory, feeling like they’re on top of their game and in charge of France. But when a historian tells the story of that time period, for much of their reign, the actual tale being told is “what was Napoleon doing at this time?”
When you look into it, a curious regularity is that many of the great authoritarian leaders came to power supporting the governments they later overthrew. Julius Caesar lead the populares against the traditional aristocratic privilege of the Roman Senate. But did this matter once he’d assumed power? Did it stop his rule from being further right than what came before – monarchy, instead of oligarchy? Not one bit. Same thing with Napoleon. It’s well known that he was willing to use “a whiff of grapeshot” to defeat the mob, which sounds pretty based. But it was a Royalist mob, attacking the revolutionary government! Those who just wanted competent authority invested in the ablest man would have been much better off supporting the man shooting at them, though it was very hard for them to know that at the time. Even in modern times, Augusto Pinochet led the crackdown on anti-Allende protests in 1972!
All of which is to say, that it’s not nearly as obvious as you might think where exactly the next competent authoritarian might come from. It is a mistake to place too much weight in the man’s politics before he seizes power. Those destined to rule seem to instinctively know that the first thing to do is actually acquire the power to rule, by whatever means necessary, otherwise all your grand visions amount to very little. Of course, this adds a pretty big risk component once political opposition is swept away. As Moldbug is fond of pointing out, the Democratic Party platform of 1932 is almost the exact opposite of what FDR actually implemented once he took control of the US government. It can cut both ways."
https://shylockholmes.blogspot.com/2023/02/the-french-revolution-and-inertia-of.html
Likewise, Bronze Age Pervert wrote in his book Bronze Age Mindset:
"Women will love you if you are a warrior. And they will help,
through the entirely retarded mechanism of democracy, to elect men of glamor
and charisma who are our only immediate hope against the machine that runs
our garbage world. Trump, for all his hesitations, is only the beginning. He has
shown the path insofar as woman is concerned. The mob also is a woman. Now
imagine a man of Trump’s charisma, but who is not merely beholden to the
generals, but one of them, and able to rule and intimidate them as well as seduce
the many. So far we have only had Gracchi …but Caesars and Napoleons are
sure to follow."
So, it's a mystery.
And the short answer is — none of this will impact your individual life in the immediate future, so you must continue to fend for yourself, grow in wisdom and strength and status... romance women, lift weights, read books, make money, provide for your family.
You can waste many years waiting for a savior, only to be disappointed when the next Caesar emerges.
No worries bro! Definitely this is not an emergency, I just think this is the sort of content you will enjoy.