Every time we refer to history or use words from history books, it gets tricky. On the one hand, we assume that current events are of the same kind as some events in the past and therefore their course will be the same. But on the other hand, we realize that it’s really just a simile. The present has some features in common with the past, but not all.
That’s an introduction to the use of the term “dynasty” that I used a few days ago about the Trump administration (or rather, took from Curtis Yarvin) and that I get questions about. Of course, I don’t mean that America is to be hereditarily ruled by Trump’s sons, grandsons, and great-grandsons. After all, when we refer to the Chinese Communists as a dynasty, we also don’t mean the line of blood descendants of the current emperor.
Dynasty in this context means the transmission of beliefs and patterns of behavior. At the same time, economic changes are made so that to support the stability of the incoming one. Evolutionary biologists generally talk about memes.
Too bad few people have heard Unitas Fraternitas Bishop’s brilliant program Evald Rucki, who at his seminary at Jungmann National at the Jungmann Academy devoted a good deal of time to fatherhood and sonship, not in the sense but of continuity. The younger ones learn from the older ones – they pass on insight, habits, etc. I only know it from the filial side so far, I’m currently having the opportunity to learn from Professor Krejci and it’s great.
So when Curtis Yarvin accuses the Trump revolutionaries of not having the instincts of dynasty founders, he’s referring to permanent change. Creating a stable regime. Although the question is, what does it mean in our time stable. Communist rule in Russia lasted 70 years. The liberal empire 40 years.
When we consider how human life is lengthening, it’s actually, as if someone was born under the Premyslians, outlived the Jagiellonians, and died under Habsburgs.