This essay is written in 1951, but already by 1971 USA was forced to get the dollar off the gold standard. Since then it created trillions of dollars out of thin air in order to keep the system going.
This essay is great description of what might be called consumer-bourgeoisie. It first appeared in the USA and then it was exported to the whole world. Given that this bourgeoisie primarily depends on the ability to create fiat currencies out of thin air, and that we live in a decade in which all or most of those currencies are going to disappear, this might mean the end of this kind of bourgeoisie and maybe even the final end of the bourgeois man in general. He is anti-traditional entity which was artificially created many centuries ago, so maybe now it is time for it to disappear and some semblance of the new traditional order of things to reappear.
The 'bourgeoisie' isn't artificial if you understand them as simply the historical 'merchant class'. The difference is that this merchant class was harnessed to pull a revolution in politics over the finish line. As for 'fiat currency', all currency is - ultimately -fiat. It's a matter of what people accept as money. And the medium of 'money' is irrelevant to this observation. For example, the original Progressives and other rural-based parties wanted to make silver into 'money' for the purposes of 'banking'. That would have resulted in a rapid expansion of 'money' in the system.
To say something is 'anti-traditional' is to reify the past into a party of the dead against the party of the living. Which is a choice, not a principle.
I think a lot of people wish life were not so cutthroat and demanding and that there was more time and space for genuine human relations occurring at a comprehensible speed. Does that really mean they're 'traditional' or is that just a brand-name you want to put on something in order to leverage it for other reasons?
Regarding money, my position is "gold is money and everything else is credit". That's J.P. Morgan's quote from 1913. What's money is not arbitrary.
Regarding the definition of what's traditional, I agree with Evola here. This is a broad subject, but basically every social structure which has super-human elements via the nobility (priests and warriors) can be called traditional. These structures differ in various cycles, but they are basically particular instantiations of the immutable set of principles called Tradition.
Hating peasants is ‘anti-bourgoisie’? No wonder no one is buying what ‘the Right’ is selling.
As for ‘tradition’ being the ‘superhuman’ element, all I see in priests is one group of people profiting from selling vapor-ware to another group of people. If that’s ‘traditional’ then Madison Avenue is the home of True Traditionalism™ par excellence.
What I wrote is my opinion, not of "the Right". But yes, Evola and Dugin are both very anti-bourgeois. Bourgeois man in a sense of a man who lost his identity as a peasant, who rebelled against the nobility (which itself deteriorated), wanting to be "free", etc. What we have today is the ultimate consequence of this process.
As an American who knows something about the treatment of Germans by the American Regency in Germany, I cannot help but feel that Niekisch is applying the same procedures of induced self-loathing that was used against the Germans against the Americans.
Is 'comfortism' really an 'American thing'? When one sees how much of Europe lives, I think not. What could be more 'comforting' than cafe life in the city or the hinterlands?
And what do you think would happen if Macron or some other hater of White Life were to ban cafe's?
So, no, I don't think Americans are uniquely guilty of 'comfortism' and the truth is that most Americans have very little of the 'comforts' in life. They're too busy working themselves to death.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didnt' point out that 'the Right' has been trying to sell 'discomfort' as 'tradition' for over a century with very few takers. 'Tradition-as-discomfort' is a niche product that does not have a sustainable consumer base.
What *is* happening, though, is that White Americans in larger numbers are retiring and as they do so they're looking to 'slow down' and 'downsize' their lives. This is a posture towards consumption that has already been taken up by small numbers of people throughout American history. This time, however, the 'forced austerity' of retirement of a massive demographic cohort may be fertile ground for a slower, more human, way of life for everyone else as well.
However, the American ruling class has decided to import a billion foreigners to make sure that someone will always been there to buy Doritos.
This essay is written in 1951, but already by 1971 USA was forced to get the dollar off the gold standard. Since then it created trillions of dollars out of thin air in order to keep the system going.
This essay is great description of what might be called consumer-bourgeoisie. It first appeared in the USA and then it was exported to the whole world. Given that this bourgeoisie primarily depends on the ability to create fiat currencies out of thin air, and that we live in a decade in which all or most of those currencies are going to disappear, this might mean the end of this kind of bourgeoisie and maybe even the final end of the bourgeois man in general. He is anti-traditional entity which was artificially created many centuries ago, so maybe now it is time for it to disappear and some semblance of the new traditional order of things to reappear.
The 'bourgeoisie' isn't artificial if you understand them as simply the historical 'merchant class'. The difference is that this merchant class was harnessed to pull a revolution in politics over the finish line. As for 'fiat currency', all currency is - ultimately -fiat. It's a matter of what people accept as money. And the medium of 'money' is irrelevant to this observation. For example, the original Progressives and other rural-based parties wanted to make silver into 'money' for the purposes of 'banking'. That would have resulted in a rapid expansion of 'money' in the system.
To say something is 'anti-traditional' is to reify the past into a party of the dead against the party of the living. Which is a choice, not a principle.
I think a lot of people wish life were not so cutthroat and demanding and that there was more time and space for genuine human relations occurring at a comprehensible speed. Does that really mean they're 'traditional' or is that just a brand-name you want to put on something in order to leverage it for other reasons?
Regarding bourgeoisie being artificial class, this comes from Dugin's Noomachia: https://paideuma.tv/en/video/noomachia-serbia-2018-lecture-8-noological-analysis-modernity#/?playlistId=0&videoId=0. Basically, most of bourgeoisie came from lazy or cowardly peasants. I agree with Dugin here, which does not mean that merchants did not exist in traditional Europe.
Regarding money, my position is "gold is money and everything else is credit". That's J.P. Morgan's quote from 1913. What's money is not arbitrary.
Regarding the definition of what's traditional, I agree with Evola here. This is a broad subject, but basically every social structure which has super-human elements via the nobility (priests and warriors) can be called traditional. These structures differ in various cycles, but they are basically particular instantiations of the immutable set of principles called Tradition.
Hating peasants is ‘anti-bourgoisie’? No wonder no one is buying what ‘the Right’ is selling.
As for ‘tradition’ being the ‘superhuman’ element, all I see in priests is one group of people profiting from selling vapor-ware to another group of people. If that’s ‘traditional’ then Madison Avenue is the home of True Traditionalism™ par excellence.
What I wrote is my opinion, not of "the Right". But yes, Evola and Dugin are both very anti-bourgeois. Bourgeois man in a sense of a man who lost his identity as a peasant, who rebelled against the nobility (which itself deteriorated), wanting to be "free", etc. What we have today is the ultimate consequence of this process.
This is superb
As an American who knows something about the treatment of Germans by the American Regency in Germany, I cannot help but feel that Niekisch is applying the same procedures of induced self-loathing that was used against the Germans against the Americans.
Is 'comfortism' really an 'American thing'? When one sees how much of Europe lives, I think not. What could be more 'comforting' than cafe life in the city or the hinterlands?
And what do you think would happen if Macron or some other hater of White Life were to ban cafe's?
So, no, I don't think Americans are uniquely guilty of 'comfortism' and the truth is that most Americans have very little of the 'comforts' in life. They're too busy working themselves to death.
Lastly, I would be remiss if I didnt' point out that 'the Right' has been trying to sell 'discomfort' as 'tradition' for over a century with very few takers. 'Tradition-as-discomfort' is a niche product that does not have a sustainable consumer base.
What *is* happening, though, is that White Americans in larger numbers are retiring and as they do so they're looking to 'slow down' and 'downsize' their lives. This is a posture towards consumption that has already been taken up by small numbers of people throughout American history. This time, however, the 'forced austerity' of retirement of a massive demographic cohort may be fertile ground for a slower, more human, way of life for everyone else as well.
However, the American ruling class has decided to import a billion foreigners to make sure that someone will always been there to buy Doritos.