Yeoman Mannerbund: A New American Nobility?

By "American Nobility," I of course don't mean those people belonging to the Neoliberal Mandarinate (see: 'The Cathedral' a la Mencius Moldbug) who fancy themselves as the legitimate and rightful guiding force of American society. What I've been thinking about is the concept of how a nobility might evolve in a future American society; one that done away with foolish egalitarian fantasies and returned to a natural social order.

This hypothetical future American nobility (after the collapse of the current mess we have) would probably not utilize the sort of fancy hereditary ranks and titles of Medieval Europe's nobility. America's founding cultural ethos absolutely rejects the idea there should be a hereditary parasite-landowner class or really any pompous aristocratic overlord class. Many of the founding fathers, especially Thomas Jefferson, envisioned America as being a nation of independent yeoman farmers. According to this general spirit, civic recognition is earned through hard work, virtuous conduct, patriotic loyalty, and of course the ability to generate wealth. This is really little different than the civic ideals of the Roman Republic. In ancient Rome, a person's (really, their family's) worth was measured by how much agricultural land they owned. This system of course degenerated into abject plutocracy and urban supremacy, as the lower ranks of the Roman nobility were permitted to engage in commercial activities and thus accumulate far more wealth than if they were restricted to just land ownership. The American system succumbed to the same degenerative pattern, but perhaps at a faster rate; as from the beginning of our republic there was never any real distinction between farmer and merchant; in fact, there were usually one and the same.

Right now, the entire Western world is undergoing a rapid collapse of the now 1,000-year-old Faustian culture that originally emerged out of Germany. This collapse will probably have less of a destructive effect here in America (we were never the Faustian epicenter; that would be in Western Europe), though we might see a significant contraction of the hyper-inflated urban economies of the coastal regions. After a period of economic shrinkage and depression, we might see cultural power shift back to the hinterlands; the so-called "Middle America." In those regions there will be a renewed focus on small towns and rural life. Ecologically-destructive and monolithic factory farms will give way to the small family farms of yore. Whatever pieces of high technology of this boom era that can be salvaged and reworked into the new decentralized context will be reintegrated into the new system. The section of the American people who place the most importance and family values and self-sufficiency will be the inheritors of whatever remains of today's technological bonanza. The people who double down on current-era hubris and fail to adapt will become tomorrow's peasant class.

The hypothetical future American nobility will be a new Yeoman Mannerbund. Service guarantees citizenship (see: Starship Troopers). The USA may even break up into independent regions. There may even be "kings" governing these regions; though probably kings in an elective rather than strictly hereditary-monarchical sense. That would simply be quite "un-American," to use an old out-of-style buzzword. The American Spirit tends to reject all-things-pretentious. And let us remember that the archaic Roman "kings" were more elected dictator-magistrates than men who happened to be the great-great-great grandson of someone supremely important at some point in time.

A threefold class structure like this may emerge: (1) Yeoman Nobles, (2) Townsfolk specialists, (3) Workers/Laborers who lack specialized skills and expertise for whatever reasons.

Cultural Marxism: What the Dissident Right identifies it as (COTD#8)

An internet comment from SCM:

Cultural Marxism: An offshoot of Marxism that gave birth to political correctness, multiculturalism and "anti-racism." Unlike traditional Marxism that focuses on economics, Cultural Marxism focuses on culture and maintains that all human behavior is a result of culture (not heredity / race) and thus malleable. Cultural Marxists absurdly deny the biological reality of gender and race and argue that gender and race are “social constructs”.

Nonetheless, Cultural Marxists support the race-based identity politics of non-whites. Cultural Marxists typically support race-based affirmative action, the proposition state (as opposed to a nation rooted in common ancestry), elevating non-Western religions above Western religions, speech codes and censorship, multiculturalism, diversity training, anti-Western education curricula, maladaptive sexual norms and anti-male feminism, the dispossession of white people, and mass Third World immigration into Western countries.

Cultural Marxists have promoted the idea that white people, instead of birthing white babies, should interracially marry or adopt non-white children. Samuel P. Huntington maintained that Cultural Marxism is an anti-white ideology. Critics of Cultural Marxism have maintained that Cultural Marxists intend to commit genocide against white people through mass non-white immigration, assimilation, transracial adoption and miscegenation.

This is a pretty typical summary of "Cultural Marxism" we might expect from a person on the Dissident Right who can coherently string a few paragraphs together. Except that, few if any people actually self-identify as either this label or the above list of criteria in any sort of conscious manner. Rather, it's a laundry list of agenda items which Cultural Leftist aligned institutions have been pushing for the past several decades. The majority of people, regardless of their ideological leanings, do not willingly embrace this entire list. As a clear example, just go back 10 years in time and you'll find that the average self-identified "Progressive" would not admit to signing onto all that stuff. Many would even disavow a number of those items. However, many of the things listed above are indeed what the current crop of intersectional cultists are indeed advocating, but (in my view) more as "NPC" ideological automatons rather than fully-willing agents. How many SJWs today would willingly admit to holding at least 90% of those positions?