Perhaps it's worth pointing out that there are important libertarian strains on the populist side, mostly, so far as I can tell, involving fantasies of private or community violence and family or small community autarky. I think it leads to the fantasy notion that a working-class man with a gun and somebody like Elon Musk are two of a kind.
Yarvin himself and the 'Dark Enlightenment' represents some kind of inchoate and not really coherent fusionism here--he might be a fan of Rothbard's in some respects, but, unless he's 'evolved' away from it, he's also a staunch anti-liberal and avowed monarchist. Frankly, the twerp hasn't been bullied nearly enough.
He’s so absurd. His ‘thought’ is an example of complete abstraction from any historical reality typical of US movements seeking to overcome US C18th enlightenment. He’s a fucking joke. He’d be a joke in Europe. In the US he’s simply another idiot substituting aesthetics for politics.
Trust me I know. Along with buddy-boy Darryl aka MartyrMade—a much more straightforward ‘paleocon with Nazi characteristics’—I wish I haven’t been aware of these jerks since they were on the margin’s margin over a decade ago. Now, here we are
By the mysteries of synchronicity I just emailed a friend earlier today with a copy of Jan-Werner Müller's "Populism (Against Democracy)" (freely available online, legitimately from the publisher - just google the name and title combo). I specifically extracted the following quote on "right-wing populism" for discussion:
"Populists pit the pure, innocent, always hard-working people against a corrupt elite who do not really work (other than to further their self-interest), and, in right-wing populism, also against the very bottom of society (those who also do not really work and live off others). Right-wing populists typically construe an “unhealthy coalition” between both an elite and marginal groups that do not really belong."
Now I see that the Sam Francis quote you included is almost certainly the original source for this idea. The idea of a conspiracy between privileged elites and a menacing underclass as a core ideological trope for a strain of right-wing populism, is certainly persuasive
Your suggestion here is an interesting re-take on the older Fusionism--but I wonder where Trump's heavy support from certain sectors of Christian America fit into the scheme. Would you put them in the MAGA national populism category (they don't seem to belong in the paleolibertarianism/Tech-Bro category)? I would think that the Christian contingent may overlap with the MAGA-ites in part but may have distinctions of their own which may call for yet another category(s) in the new Fusionism schema--and to complicate matters more, there are different Christian groups in current national ascendency: the so-called Post-Liberals, who are largely Catholics like Patrick Deneen, Adrian Meule, The Claremont Institute, Federalist Society, and many of the current Supreme Court justices (https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-highbrow-conspiracism-of-the-new-intellectual-right-a-sampling-from-the-trump-years/ ), who analyst Laura Fields calls "Reocons" (https://www.niskanencenter.org/meet-the-reocons/ ). This versus certain Evangelicals (https://www.salon.com/2024/01/02/meet-the-new-apostolic-reformation-cutting-edge-of-the-christian-right/ ). The former don't seem to have the craziness often found with hard-core MAGA-ites and the latter seem to have a whole divine scheme in their reckoning that may be missing from some of Trump's adoring crowd.
I believe I have some insight on this matter. The Christian Right has strong ties to an older form of libertarianism that predates modern secular libertarianism and was once anarcho-socialist before concluding that socialism required a strong, dictatorial government. I haven't yet identified for certain when that transition took place, but the key failures happened in the 1860s to 1880s, when utopian socialist movements in the US collapsed for no clear reason. Some were secular, but others, like the Oneida colony, had ties to churches that are now fundamentalist.
In essence, by the time these evangelical churches re-entered politics, they were already pre-fused with the business right by way of a form of libertarianism. They came to support the militarist right by abandoning pacifism during WWII. Unlike classical anti-fascists, they loathed socialism just as much and wanted to turn on the USSR after Japan's defeat on the grounds that it was just as dictatorial as the Axis powers. (The Jehovah's Witnesses are a relic from the old pacifist tradition.)
Their relationship to post-liberalism is unclear to me, but they are only reluctantly allied with tradcaths; their churches are set up to mimic the Radical Reformation and still object to the priestly hierarchy as authoritarian.
Again I think John Ganz has hit the right path, including Sam Francis who is new to me—a wonderful example of this very common American way of thinking about class division (if you don’t think it’s un-American to think about class division).
You advert to the "'right-wing' industries" that are the darling of MAGA national populism. The industries you mention have a common thread: masculinism. Francis and Rothbard didn't have to take feminism seriously, because the feminism of their time was not a serious threat to their conception of the good. Today it is, and MAGA ideology must adapt.
The major threat of feminism, as I see it, comes from the "two-spheres" theory that underlies so much conservative thought. Incels aside, they realize that they still have to share the planet with women, and the two-spheres theory is a way of keeping women on tap, but not on top. This was coherent when the feminine sphere excluded wage work, and thus excluded most female power. But little work these days is gendered masculine--generally work entailing danger or violence. (Think Village People.) Since not every guy can become a cop, fireman, roughneck or soldier, the masculinists must glorify manufacturing. But alas! manufacturing requires fewer and fewer workers, and less and less brawn.
But that's okay in the short run. When reality does not work out, myth will serve for a while.
There is a somewhat contradictory belief in unbridled capitalism and traditional morality that I think is reconciled by your discussion of bossism, or as I like to call it, Big Time Small Time Dicks.
The roided out cop, the mom and pop shop tyrant, the local car dealer/county councilor, etc all want freedom for themselves and trad morality for others. Its petite bourgeoisie bread and butter. The "best" rise to the top and if they aren't at the top, well it's because the (((rootless elites))). It's why the oligarchical class's lamentations about the educated (((managerial class))) is so commonplace while utterly absurd.
Perhaps it's worth pointing out that there are important libertarian strains on the populist side, mostly, so far as I can tell, involving fantasies of private or community violence and family or small community autarky. I think it leads to the fantasy notion that a working-class man with a gun and somebody like Elon Musk are two of a kind.
yeah good point
Yarvin himself and the 'Dark Enlightenment' represents some kind of inchoate and not really coherent fusionism here--he might be a fan of Rothbard's in some respects, but, unless he's 'evolved' away from it, he's also a staunch anti-liberal and avowed monarchist. Frankly, the twerp hasn't been bullied nearly enough.
He’s so absurd. His ‘thought’ is an example of complete abstraction from any historical reality typical of US movements seeking to overcome US C18th enlightenment. He’s a fucking joke. He’d be a joke in Europe. In the US he’s simply another idiot substituting aesthetics for politics.
Trust me I know. Along with buddy-boy Darryl aka MartyrMade—a much more straightforward ‘paleocon with Nazi characteristics’—I wish I haven’t been aware of these jerks since they were on the margin’s margin over a decade ago. Now, here we are
By the mysteries of synchronicity I just emailed a friend earlier today with a copy of Jan-Werner Müller's "Populism (Against Democracy)" (freely available online, legitimately from the publisher - just google the name and title combo). I specifically extracted the following quote on "right-wing populism" for discussion:
"Populists pit the pure, innocent, always hard-working people against a corrupt elite who do not really work (other than to further their self-interest), and, in right-wing populism, also against the very bottom of society (those who also do not really work and live off others). Right-wing populists typically construe an “unhealthy coalition” between both an elite and marginal groups that do not really belong."
Now I see that the Sam Francis quote you included is almost certainly the original source for this idea. The idea of a conspiracy between privileged elites and a menacing underclass as a core ideological trope for a strain of right-wing populism, is certainly persuasive
That's rothbard but he says more or less the same
Which text is that from? I'd like to look into it a bit more
Or was the quote from Rothbard, actually?
Your suggestion here is an interesting re-take on the older Fusionism--but I wonder where Trump's heavy support from certain sectors of Christian America fit into the scheme. Would you put them in the MAGA national populism category (they don't seem to belong in the paleolibertarianism/Tech-Bro category)? I would think that the Christian contingent may overlap with the MAGA-ites in part but may have distinctions of their own which may call for yet another category(s) in the new Fusionism schema--and to complicate matters more, there are different Christian groups in current national ascendency: the so-called Post-Liberals, who are largely Catholics like Patrick Deneen, Adrian Meule, The Claremont Institute, Federalist Society, and many of the current Supreme Court justices (https://www.niskanencenter.org/the-highbrow-conspiracism-of-the-new-intellectual-right-a-sampling-from-the-trump-years/ ), who analyst Laura Fields calls "Reocons" (https://www.niskanencenter.org/meet-the-reocons/ ). This versus certain Evangelicals (https://www.salon.com/2024/01/02/meet-the-new-apostolic-reformation-cutting-edge-of-the-christian-right/ ). The former don't seem to have the craziness often found with hard-core MAGA-ites and the latter seem to have a whole divine scheme in their reckoning that may be missing from some of Trump's adoring crowd.
I believe I have some insight on this matter. The Christian Right has strong ties to an older form of libertarianism that predates modern secular libertarianism and was once anarcho-socialist before concluding that socialism required a strong, dictatorial government. I haven't yet identified for certain when that transition took place, but the key failures happened in the 1860s to 1880s, when utopian socialist movements in the US collapsed for no clear reason. Some were secular, but others, like the Oneida colony, had ties to churches that are now fundamentalist.
In essence, by the time these evangelical churches re-entered politics, they were already pre-fused with the business right by way of a form of libertarianism. They came to support the militarist right by abandoning pacifism during WWII. Unlike classical anti-fascists, they loathed socialism just as much and wanted to turn on the USSR after Japan's defeat on the grounds that it was just as dictatorial as the Axis powers. (The Jehovah's Witnesses are a relic from the old pacifist tradition.)
Their relationship to post-liberalism is unclear to me, but they are only reluctantly allied with tradcaths; their churches are set up to mimic the Radical Reformation and still object to the priestly hierarchy as authoritarian.
This resonates.
Again I think John Ganz has hit the right path, including Sam Francis who is new to me—a wonderful example of this very common American way of thinking about class division (if you don’t think it’s un-American to think about class division).
You advert to the "'right-wing' industries" that are the darling of MAGA national populism. The industries you mention have a common thread: masculinism. Francis and Rothbard didn't have to take feminism seriously, because the feminism of their time was not a serious threat to their conception of the good. Today it is, and MAGA ideology must adapt.
The major threat of feminism, as I see it, comes from the "two-spheres" theory that underlies so much conservative thought. Incels aside, they realize that they still have to share the planet with women, and the two-spheres theory is a way of keeping women on tap, but not on top. This was coherent when the feminine sphere excluded wage work, and thus excluded most female power. But little work these days is gendered masculine--generally work entailing danger or violence. (Think Village People.) Since not every guy can become a cop, fireman, roughneck or soldier, the masculinists must glorify manufacturing. But alas! manufacturing requires fewer and fewer workers, and less and less brawn.
But that's okay in the short run. When reality does not work out, myth will serve for a while.
There is a somewhat contradictory belief in unbridled capitalism and traditional morality that I think is reconciled by your discussion of bossism, or as I like to call it, Big Time Small Time Dicks.
The roided out cop, the mom and pop shop tyrant, the local car dealer/county councilor, etc all want freedom for themselves and trad morality for others. Its petite bourgeoisie bread and butter. The "best" rise to the top and if they aren't at the top, well it's because the (((rootless elites))). It's why the oligarchical class's lamentations about the educated (((managerial class))) is so commonplace while utterly absurd.
This reads like an account of US Poujadism. I wonder if there is any evidence that Samuel Francis was familiar with that movement.
Well, this essay explains a lot:
https://read.dukeupress.edu/boundary-2/article/46/1/1/137342/Hell-Is-Truth-Seen-Too-Late
We're dealing with something more like the mafia, as you know. So somehow we have to get that to factor in.