Okay, but not great. How can someone who is evidently not well-read in the topics of feudalism and European history claim that liberal democracy is, in the Churchillian mode, the "best of a bad bunch"? Of course, some feudal states were better than others (Pre-Revolutionary France and Russia were particularly awful), but there's a reason symphonies and frescoes were produced back then, while we get pop music and DeviantArt. Now, I also agree that thinkers like Yarvin and Hoppe and Rand fundamentally misconstrue the universe in many ways, and I tend to take issue with the AnCap movement on a purely spiritual level (the modern movement can be attributed to the result of a lot of lonesome autistic people who don't understand human beings trying to reconcile their rejection from mainstream society with a supposed ability to parse reality at a deeper level than normies - Moldbug says as much); but this isn't so much a polemic as it is an offhand dismissal, a "look at these antiquated old dinosaurs and their fuddy-duddy ideas". Sorry, but that line of attack just doesn't hold water anymore.
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond---truly!! I always appreciate when someone engages thoughtfully, even (especially!) when we land in different places. I’m not a political theorist by training, but my background is in economics and economic history, with an interest in the history of economic thought, so I bring a slightly different lens to this discussion. That said, I’ve taken your comment seriously and, after reflecting on it, added further context to the piece to better articulate the political-theoretical underpinnings around liberalism and power.
Let me respond to a few of your points directly:
On the critique of feudalism:
I don't claim to be an expert on medieval governance structures, and I certainly don’t pretend all feudal states were monolithic. But I also don’t think one needs to be a specialist in 14th-century tax law to assert that a system built on serfdom, inherited power, and mass disenfranchisement was unjust for the majority who lived under it. My critique of the gentry fantasy is grounded not in aesthetic judgment, but in material reality: no vote, no voice, no access to power. You can admire the chandeliers and still point out the child labour. Culture is not governance.
On symphonies, frescoes, and DeviantArt:
I say this as a deep lover of the arts: it’s dangerous to equate the production of grand works with the success or morality of the system that produced them. Many of the most celebrated works of aristocratic culture were created in contexts of repression, inequality, and forced patronage. Often, they serve to mask that reality. A fresco on the ceiling doesn’t make a dungeon in the cellar disappear. And let’s not forget: those beautiful estates we reimagine as elegant and noble? No running water. No electricity. No healthcare. Pop music and DeviantArt may lack the polish of Mozart and the Medicis, but they’re also accessible, democratic, and (crucially) voluntary.
On tone and dismissal:
I understand the concern here, and I’d counter that the tone of the piece wasn’t intended as glib dismissal, but rather as a strategic counterpoint. I did engage seriously—with Rawls, with the historical record, and with the mechanics of who benefits from certain visions of society. I could have loaded the piece with data and charts, but that would risk playing the author’s game: overwhelming people with selective “evidence” rather than examining the ideological framing underneath. Sometimes clarity and wit are better tools for calling out the structure of an argument than a spreadsheet. The fact that some readers read that as flippancy might say more about what we expect “serious” political writing to sound like than what it needs to be.
In short, I welcome disagreement. But I think we have to interrogate why certain political ideas feel serious, even when they’re built on historical fantasy, and why others are dismissed as unserious simply because they’re written with rhythm.
Appreciate you engaging, and hope we can keep the discussion going on here or future essays!!
Found this while tumbling down a Reddit rabbit hole and I’ve got to say......worth the detour.
I read the original “Why Liberalism Always Leads to Race Communism” after seeing this, and (if I’m honest) I was nodding along at first. It’s persuasive in that confident, footnote-heavy way tapping into that nagging feeling that something’s gone off in the world (and something deffo has gone off tbf). But this response is what actually made me pause. It doesn’t just argue back, it zooms out and asks the real question: if you didn’t know where you’d land in the pecking order, would you still want to defend a system where the ultra wealthy and people born into positions of power dominate? (deep)
I have to admit this is denser than my usual Reddit fare, but surprisingly easy to sit with. The Rawls thought experiment brought me straight back to A-level philosophy. And the bit about the workhouses…grim but spot on. Really cut through the romanticism and made it clear that “order” back then usually meant punishment for being poor. It reframed the whole original essay as less about stability and more about control!
Did anyone else get halfway through the original thinking “hmm, fair enough”... before realising they were being sold Downton Abbey with a side of authoritarianism?
Mate, this just made my morning. Big thank you for falling down the Reddit rabbit hole and actually climbing out into this corner of the internet, proper glad you found your way here and stuck around long enough to read the whole thing!
And yes (I’ll admit it), I was nodding along during my first read of the original too. It’s got that slick, confident, “I have 86 footnotes and I’m not afraid to use them” vibe that makes you feel like you’re being educated when really, you’re being very gently ushered into a narrative. Took me three reads to start seeing between the lines properly (and I had to lie down afterwards). A lot of effort, right?
But honestly, it reminded me of being back at uni, scrambling on a deadline, chucking in a dozen references to make up for the fact I didn’t really know what I was saying. Academic smoke and mirrors. Bit of bravado behind a lot of hot air. That’s what this felt like----except this time, the stakes aren’t grades, they’re ideology. Because yeah, this kind of writing weaponises nostalgia to amplify discontent and pave the way for a far-right movement that’s built on a very selective, very cosy reading of history...
Apologies if the piece was a bit dense in places, it was drafted when the blood was still simmering. But I’m really chuffed you stuck with it and found it reasonably readable in the end.
Also, that last line of yours? About Downton Abbey with a side of authoritarianism? I saw it first thing when I woke up, grinned like an idiot, and immediately renamed the piece. Absolutely nailed the tone of the whole argument.
Appreciate you. Stick around, yeah? Always up for a good chat in the comments!
Okay, but not great. How can someone who is evidently not well-read in the topics of feudalism and European history claim that liberal democracy is, in the Churchillian mode, the "best of a bad bunch"? Of course, some feudal states were better than others (Pre-Revolutionary France and Russia were particularly awful), but there's a reason symphonies and frescoes were produced back then, while we get pop music and DeviantArt. Now, I also agree that thinkers like Yarvin and Hoppe and Rand fundamentally misconstrue the universe in many ways, and I tend to take issue with the AnCap movement on a purely spiritual level (the modern movement can be attributed to the result of a lot of lonesome autistic people who don't understand human beings trying to reconcile their rejection from mainstream society with a supposed ability to parse reality at a deeper level than normies - Moldbug says as much); but this isn't so much a polemic as it is an offhand dismissal, a "look at these antiquated old dinosaurs and their fuddy-duddy ideas". Sorry, but that line of attack just doesn't hold water anymore.
Thanks for taking the time to read and respond---truly!! I always appreciate when someone engages thoughtfully, even (especially!) when we land in different places. I’m not a political theorist by training, but my background is in economics and economic history, with an interest in the history of economic thought, so I bring a slightly different lens to this discussion. That said, I’ve taken your comment seriously and, after reflecting on it, added further context to the piece to better articulate the political-theoretical underpinnings around liberalism and power.
Let me respond to a few of your points directly:
On the critique of feudalism:
I don't claim to be an expert on medieval governance structures, and I certainly don’t pretend all feudal states were monolithic. But I also don’t think one needs to be a specialist in 14th-century tax law to assert that a system built on serfdom, inherited power, and mass disenfranchisement was unjust for the majority who lived under it. My critique of the gentry fantasy is grounded not in aesthetic judgment, but in material reality: no vote, no voice, no access to power. You can admire the chandeliers and still point out the child labour. Culture is not governance.
On symphonies, frescoes, and DeviantArt:
I say this as a deep lover of the arts: it’s dangerous to equate the production of grand works with the success or morality of the system that produced them. Many of the most celebrated works of aristocratic culture were created in contexts of repression, inequality, and forced patronage. Often, they serve to mask that reality. A fresco on the ceiling doesn’t make a dungeon in the cellar disappear. And let’s not forget: those beautiful estates we reimagine as elegant and noble? No running water. No electricity. No healthcare. Pop music and DeviantArt may lack the polish of Mozart and the Medicis, but they’re also accessible, democratic, and (crucially) voluntary.
On tone and dismissal:
I understand the concern here, and I’d counter that the tone of the piece wasn’t intended as glib dismissal, but rather as a strategic counterpoint. I did engage seriously—with Rawls, with the historical record, and with the mechanics of who benefits from certain visions of society. I could have loaded the piece with data and charts, but that would risk playing the author’s game: overwhelming people with selective “evidence” rather than examining the ideological framing underneath. Sometimes clarity and wit are better tools for calling out the structure of an argument than a spreadsheet. The fact that some readers read that as flippancy might say more about what we expect “serious” political writing to sound like than what it needs to be.
In short, I welcome disagreement. But I think we have to interrogate why certain political ideas feel serious, even when they’re built on historical fantasy, and why others are dismissed as unserious simply because they’re written with rhythm.
Appreciate you engaging, and hope we can keep the discussion going on here or future essays!!
Found this while tumbling down a Reddit rabbit hole and I’ve got to say......worth the detour.
I read the original “Why Liberalism Always Leads to Race Communism” after seeing this, and (if I’m honest) I was nodding along at first. It’s persuasive in that confident, footnote-heavy way tapping into that nagging feeling that something’s gone off in the world (and something deffo has gone off tbf). But this response is what actually made me pause. It doesn’t just argue back, it zooms out and asks the real question: if you didn’t know where you’d land in the pecking order, would you still want to defend a system where the ultra wealthy and people born into positions of power dominate? (deep)
I have to admit this is denser than my usual Reddit fare, but surprisingly easy to sit with. The Rawls thought experiment brought me straight back to A-level philosophy. And the bit about the workhouses…grim but spot on. Really cut through the romanticism and made it clear that “order” back then usually meant punishment for being poor. It reframed the whole original essay as less about stability and more about control!
Did anyone else get halfway through the original thinking “hmm, fair enough”... before realising they were being sold Downton Abbey with a side of authoritarianism?
Mate, this just made my morning. Big thank you for falling down the Reddit rabbit hole and actually climbing out into this corner of the internet, proper glad you found your way here and stuck around long enough to read the whole thing!
And yes (I’ll admit it), I was nodding along during my first read of the original too. It’s got that slick, confident, “I have 86 footnotes and I’m not afraid to use them” vibe that makes you feel like you’re being educated when really, you’re being very gently ushered into a narrative. Took me three reads to start seeing between the lines properly (and I had to lie down afterwards). A lot of effort, right?
But honestly, it reminded me of being back at uni, scrambling on a deadline, chucking in a dozen references to make up for the fact I didn’t really know what I was saying. Academic smoke and mirrors. Bit of bravado behind a lot of hot air. That’s what this felt like----except this time, the stakes aren’t grades, they’re ideology. Because yeah, this kind of writing weaponises nostalgia to amplify discontent and pave the way for a far-right movement that’s built on a very selective, very cosy reading of history...
Apologies if the piece was a bit dense in places, it was drafted when the blood was still simmering. But I’m really chuffed you stuck with it and found it reasonably readable in the end.
Also, that last line of yours? About Downton Abbey with a side of authoritarianism? I saw it first thing when I woke up, grinned like an idiot, and immediately renamed the piece. Absolutely nailed the tone of the whole argument.
Appreciate you. Stick around, yeah? Always up for a good chat in the comments!