A perfect essay to summarize all of modernity’s false premises. No, you cannot share in your ancestor’s traditions, no you cannot cultivate a family heritage, no, you cannot hand things down to your children- that’s taking away from the common good! This nominalism and nihilism has torn the world apart.
It's also a question of race. White Christians kick out their kids at 18 and tell them to go work for a living, then leave them no inheritance as they boom away their fortune. Compare this attitude to Jewish, Indian, or Asian attitudes where older generations support their offspring through college and then thereafter. This is a significant part why these other groups have made such inroads against white Christians. The latter have a stupid attitude and they need to get with the program, quickly, if they want their children to be competitive in the modern era. There is nothing noble about being a globohomo workpiggie with no job stability and no home ownership, it just sucks.
Yes, this is very true. I decided not to go into it, because the piece was already too long, but Nigella Lawson also mentioned arguing with her then husband, Charles Saatchi (scion of a wealthy Iraqi Jewish family) about whether to give their children their wealth or not. She didn't want to, he did. They ended up divorced.
This could be an interesting follow-up piece. Saatchi was probably influenced by the fact that the Jewish population in Iraq went from 150,000 in 1948 to almost none at present. They were expelled after >2500 years. Most were forced to abandon their assets.
So leaving his estate to the nation-state or one of its functional equivalents would seem risky, even in the UK (perhaps especially in the UK, these days).
That’s not white Christians that’s Anglo Protestants and Italian families have also made in roads in WASP society for this reason. I do feel annoyed when some try monopolizing the Christian European identity. Also I don’t wish to be rude but what you’re describing is a result of the Protestant work ethic. It gave Protestant societies immense short term advantage where they out paced everyone else. But now the failure of that model has come home to roost. As evidenced by Southern European economies in the “PIGS” starting to out pace Northern Europe recently.
White Protestants from the North do this; Southern European Catholics, whose culture depends on extended families, don't. Children stay home until they are married and then move into a portion of the house that was set aside for them by either their parents or grandparents. If they are farm stock, they help with the farm.
Best essay I’ve read in a while. Also one thing you didn’t mention that proves that these people are be terrible parents, is that the financial managerial system they have blind faith in won’t last forever and is showing signs of breaking. American debt is really out of control and debt payments have out paced American defense payments. So the stable modern workaholic environment these parents grew up in will not last and the skills their kids were trained in to work in this modern system will also lose its value when historical eras eventually change. They truly are abandoning their children. And this is terrible because elites who don’t care about their children don’t care about the world they’ll leave behind. And when powerful people don’t care about the world they’ll leave behind and it’s all about THEIR profits that they must make for themselves, then you get unstable parasitic elites willing to screw everyone else over. And what’s worse is that when elites don’t leave anything behind for their child they’re perpetuating this cycle of parasitic behavior among the most educated where no one cares about what will be left for future generations.
Thank you! And yes, agreed about the perilous future of the economy - the housing market in particular makes building meaningful wealth significantly more challenging for younger generations already.
On one hand it's terrible, because they've neglected their noblesse oblige, but on the other hand it's good because their accumulated wealth will be squandered by do-nothing NGOs and deprive them of the legacy of power. The lane is open for those with wealth to completely reject this mode of thinking as low class and create a real aristocracy, wherein their children will inherit wealth and exert power in ways these "artists" never will.
The crown is lying there in the gutter waiting for someone to pick it up.
This is why some normie con stuff like Dave Ramsey and Jordan Peterson is actually REALLY important to the movement; sowing the idea that debt is shameful and something you should avoid at all costs will yield fruits beyond our wildest dreams. Highlighting your worth to your family as the paramount good will also make people of greater use to society on every level.
Think of how much better the world would be if we got rid of institutionalized charity and went back to the old Christian system of helping our immediate neighbor. This post hates on Adam Smith, but he was right when he said -- I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.
Agreed. The actual, physical neighbor should be the locus of charity. This kind of charity is not just an abstraction but a personal virtue, as it expresses itself in human interactions and forces you to go out and to encounter the poor and the vulnerable. It's not just a bank transfer to be forgotten about.
I give almost nothing to charities other than church. I save my money for real need among REAL people. My siblings mean more to me than anon folks half the world away and they always will. This is the proper order of things and anyone who tells you it isn't is either lying or wrong.
Can’t agree more. What these celebrities seem to not be realizing is that all that money that’s being sent away is feeding someone else’s children and government “programs”, people that likely even have the age of said celebrities’ children.
Case in point, if they had given a $ to a homeless man that person in need would get the full dollar. Going through charities or gov program, said people in need get cents on the dollar at most… meaning all the rest got partied away in some bureaucracy chain.
Hard to relate when they prefer to feed that scam of a machine than their own blood or people directly around them.
This reminds me of a thought I’ve been having for some time now. I encourage young people like me to entrench themselves in business with family. Once you do and operate a business with family, responsibility becomes necessary. You are required to be just with family members because the survival of the family unit now depends on good ethical relationship practices. At least for those of us who aren’t psychopaths...
I agree. These can be the simple, traditional model of a single family business, or a network of related and synergistic businesses owned by close and distant families.
Disinheriting is a feature, not a bug, of the world system. “The righteous leave an inheritance to their children’s children,” but the unrighteousness do not. It may be that most of them (i.e., celebrities et al.) cannot leave an inheritance because the wealth they have doesn’t really belong to them. They “took the ticket” from the god of this world and get to play rich and famous for a season. But only for a season. Then, the the piper must be paid. This essay is a good reminder to resist their counterexample and instead build intergenerational foundations of material wealth and spiritual righteousness.
This mindset also absolves one of personal responsibility and disconnects from the emotional reality that children need a loving, regenerative Earth to live on, not a rocket to Mars funded by the "virtue" of space travel.
Space travel is a fantasy for nerds. Musk has promised a manned Mars mission but there are many reasons why he’s not going to succeed. We have plenty of deserts here on earth to practice biosphere building with. If we can get that done maybe we will be ready to build them off planet- if or when space exploration is possible.
I guess it depends on what you mean by space travel and exploration. Yes there are some extraordinarily clear images from spacecraft but so far the only manned missions have been to the moon and earth orbit. This doesn’t put humans in a position to do terraforming anywhere. And if you want to create environments more conducive to human life then the desert would be the most logical place to start. Not Mars or satellites. No atmosphere and being bombarded by radiation is not my idea of a good time. Maybe you could volunteer if Musk ever gets the Mars mission off the ground. I wouldn’t hold my breath 😁
It took me a day to comment because i wanted to get this right. My Grandfather was an exceptional man, and he had three estates, and a booming business. However, like all post war Boomers, he believed in the myth of absolute meritocracy. He not only did not leave his Company to his sons, but he didn't sucessfully educate them into how to be financially sucessful. He had three children. One is dead, the other is a reclusive hippie, and the other is a neurotic woman. One day he confessed to my father that all of his three children were 'unfit'. My farher replied that it was his fault and his fault alone.
Very well. He died some 10 years ago. Before he died he sold his company to a globalist conglomeration, and of the three estates he had, the sons and daughters sold them all. All of his land and assets were sold because not one of his three children knew a thing about managing a pettite empire. I often question this move, and the answer i get is that those estates would be too costly to mantain and that in selling them the family would become "wealthier". Where did the money go? Stocks.
You can already see where i'm going with this. The man made a fortune, didnt teach his offspring how to manage it, sold the legacy to the globalists and no one has any idea what to do with the money from the physical assets they sold.
It infuriates me beyond belief, as if anyone could just meritocratically arrive at his level of wealth (he really did believe that).
So while this story is not about cutting offspring from the wealth entirely, it is about a tragedy of a legacy undone.
Thank you for the post. I could say much more but it would turn into a short book.
My father is quite wealthy, certainly upper-middle class anyway as he's the top of his field and wanting to retire but effectively having money thrown at him given there is nobody to replace him. This most certainty speaks to the competence crisis but that's another topic.
I never made a particular effort to pursue this field because I never really desired to. I grew up with wealth and thus never idealized it to the point of wanting to spend so much of my life and time pursuing it. My "passions" have always been things that cannot realistically translate to a career. Instead I'm pursuing a pretty relaxed lower-middle class career (teaching) that would give me more mobility. Whether this is the right decision, I'm not sure but it's a bit too late to change now. I guess my plan is to find a comfortable and not very time-consuming job so I can focus on building a family and intellectual pursuits outside of my job.
I believe my "dream job" has always been to be a "gentlemen polymath" though I've obviously only recently developed the vocabulary to say so. I say with humility that I've been blessed with a high level of intelligence and creativity but cursed with practically zero "drive" or work ethic. I've been working on developing the latter more lately but I'm still a little confused about where I should be directing these gifts.
My father is a good man and is comparatively generous, paying for my living expenses, education and even offering to help me with housing in the future but he's also made it clear that he wants to pursue the boomer retirement of spending his fortunes on gimmicks and vacations, not making an effort to leave me with much of a fortune. I think it's rather arrogant for me to claim to "deserve" anything but it still upsets me somewhat because I honestly believe I am more suited and could do a lot more in pursuing a modern aristocratic lifestyle, as it were, not to pursue vacuous hedonism but to build an estate and help develop the recently flourishing Catholic community I'm already heavily involved in.
No matter what happens I have faith that I can pursue a meaningful and happy life but in terms of grander ambitions I don't think I have the drive to pursue the career grind but I think I could certainty do a lot in managing and developing already existing wealth if that makes any sense.
I'm genuinely confused about what I should do in this scenario, I've been raised in a secular, liberal family, only recently discovering the world of faith and tradition so I'm lost for wisdom.
I think it's important to try to clarify with him exactly what you will and won't be inheriting, so you can plan accordingly.
If you won't be inheriting a fortune, it's important to live in a way that reflects the reality of the situation, and pursue a career that will sustain a real life, rather than imagine an aristocratic future that could have happened if your father had different beliefs but will never actually materialize.
Once you've clarified the current foundational reality you might try to improve the situation by making specific proposals to him (ie. "I'd like to give you grandchildren within the next decade, and to make sure this is possible, it would be prudent to get on the housing market now..."
I ideally want to communicate with my family that I have ambitions but don't really want to participate in this vacuous modern cycle of every generation building a fortune only to waste it on retirement for the good of the economy and sacred GDP.
I suppose the primary thing to do in the here and now is to man up and show my family that I'm responsible, diligent and have meaningful ambitions with what I have access to now.
I think you have a good attitude and a practical outlook. Presumably your dad knows about your inclination to pursue your low key career path and is okay with that. You don’t owe anyone an explanation as long as you’re living a moral life. Hopefully you’ll have a long time to hang out with your dad and develop your relationship with him. Take care of yourself!
I've mixed feelings on this. I can't fault "Let 'em work, or luck out, for a livin', just like I done did!" too much. Also they earned, or lucked, their money, their choice.
On the other hand building and future offspring maintaining the big house atop the hill, or dads looking across the vast ranch, pea farm or vineyard saying, "Son, someday this will all by yours!" aren't bad things.
On another hand it's hard to build one's children's future on quicksand; property taxes, law's lack'es, zoning groanings, inflation by design, government not benign, byzantine rules one can't define...
Maybe the best inheritances are portable and not necessarily reportable. "Son, when I die be sure you break off the concrete stucco and take those five 7 x 3 5/8 x 1 3/4 inch loose bricks in the NE corner of the house foundation, put then in the back of your pickup before you leave. Be careful carrying them though each one weights 400 troy ounces or 27.4 pounds."
Haha. Agree about all the byzantine estate taxes, which must be mitigated to the best extent possible - I just ask that our people don't lean into them!
Very good, yes! These straw men of fame and fortune are cynically retarding a natural moral instinct in us; I say that it is basically true that every man should work, and even that practically every man should engage in physical or laborsome work, but not that all men should depend upon labour for their support. Any elite or nobility worth its name will instill the stern necessity and the excellence of work in the life of man into its children, and though they may "labour" less we expect their lives to entail more work rather than less, but work of a more privileged stamp. It probably does kings a power of good to do a day or two of work in a garden or a workshop once in a while; to maintain his relation to simple matters and prove regularly that he does not lack the simple capability of lesser men, but to throw your nobility back into the grind of necessity is only to blunt your best tools. Shame that our own elite are already mangled beyond repair, and probably not by the coarseness of necessity; but yours is a healthful message for the elite we hope to cultivate.
Common denominator: all Anglos (well, some mischlings and dagoes but you get the point). Mediaeval manorialism and ‘absolute nuclear family’ takes another huge L as Boomers bear Anglo TRADITION into 21st century...
We currently are GMO factory-farm human swine that are harvested for many things, including the intoxicating loosh.
We send our children into the world at 5 to be raised by strangers. We allow our prized young adults to go off the viper dens like New York and Hollywood as sheep to the slaughter. We ourselves spend 90% of our daily interactions with strangers. This is the meaningless life of swine and goy.
There will arise an army of Saint George, a legion of vampire slayers that will reclaim our humanity and sovereignty through fearless slaying and exorcism of our landscapes. This will be profound, yet impermanent as this is repeating cycle on Dojo Earth.
Leaving wealth to charity is the way to transfer wealth to children while avoiding the estate taxes. If Mick left his wealth to children, it would go mostly to the government. The exemption of $26M per couple gets cut to $13M in 2025, and will likely get cut further in coming years. So he is simply doing proper estate planning while generating RP that he is a "good guy" and to signal to the taxman - don't bother. His children will be appointed to the board of the charities and likely paid for those positions, etc. This is why all billionaires end up running "non-profits".
The celebrities described above are not doing efficient estate planning (giving the entirety of your wealth to a major charity, not a family trust, is not estate planning - it loses the money), they are true believers in giving away wealth.
The ultra wealth certainly do this but what’s worse is that their lackeys a few rungs below them economically don’t see the game and actually do give away their wealth to the very “charities” founded by the ultra wealthy.
This is precisely what is most disgusting about the "effective altruism" movement; what is it effective at other than destroying family legacies and generational wealth? How could someone feel good about giving all of their money away to random people while their children are left to fend for themselves as a consequence? Even Simone de Beauvoir, despite her very left politics, recognized that we have much greater obligations to those near to us -- family, friends, neighbors, countrymen -- than those from whom we are far removed and have no concrete relations.
To the point of what else is lost, it is worth noting that Soren Kierkegaard - who would certainly be canonized as a Saint had he become Catholic as some suspected he might later in life - was only able to dedicate himself to writing on Christianity and philosophy because of the money left to him by his father.
A perfect essay to summarize all of modernity’s false premises. No, you cannot share in your ancestor’s traditions, no you cannot cultivate a family heritage, no, you cannot hand things down to your children- that’s taking away from the common good! This nominalism and nihilism has torn the world apart.
Thank you AF. And yes - quite so.
It's also a question of race. White Christians kick out their kids at 18 and tell them to go work for a living, then leave them no inheritance as they boom away their fortune. Compare this attitude to Jewish, Indian, or Asian attitudes where older generations support their offspring through college and then thereafter. This is a significant part why these other groups have made such inroads against white Christians. The latter have a stupid attitude and they need to get with the program, quickly, if they want their children to be competitive in the modern era. There is nothing noble about being a globohomo workpiggie with no job stability and no home ownership, it just sucks.
Yes, this is very true. I decided not to go into it, because the piece was already too long, but Nigella Lawson also mentioned arguing with her then husband, Charles Saatchi (scion of a wealthy Iraqi Jewish family) about whether to give their children their wealth or not. She didn't want to, he did. They ended up divorced.
This could be an interesting follow-up piece. Saatchi was probably influenced by the fact that the Jewish population in Iraq went from 150,000 in 1948 to almost none at present. They were expelled after >2500 years. Most were forced to abandon their assets.
So leaving his estate to the nation-state or one of its functional equivalents would seem risky, even in the UK (perhaps especially in the UK, these days).
That’s not white Christians that’s Anglo Protestants and Italian families have also made in roads in WASP society for this reason. I do feel annoyed when some try monopolizing the Christian European identity. Also I don’t wish to be rude but what you’re describing is a result of the Protestant work ethic. It gave Protestant societies immense short term advantage where they out paced everyone else. But now the failure of that model has come home to roost. As evidenced by Southern European economies in the “PIGS” starting to out pace Northern Europe recently.
White Protestants from the North do this; Southern European Catholics, whose culture depends on extended families, don't. Children stay home until they are married and then move into a portion of the house that was set aside for them by either their parents or grandparents. If they are farm stock, they help with the farm.
Italians are white christians and are anything than that.So are the Spanish. So are the latin american of spanish heritage.
So "white christian" here means "WASP Christian".
> "White" to a lot of those people means something more specific- Protestant or Catholic Christians from northern Europe only.
Yes that's what I'm pointing too. It's not "white", it's White Anglosaxon Protestant
I wonder if there is a such thing as White people being too White for their own good.
Best essay I’ve read in a while. Also one thing you didn’t mention that proves that these people are be terrible parents, is that the financial managerial system they have blind faith in won’t last forever and is showing signs of breaking. American debt is really out of control and debt payments have out paced American defense payments. So the stable modern workaholic environment these parents grew up in will not last and the skills their kids were trained in to work in this modern system will also lose its value when historical eras eventually change. They truly are abandoning their children. And this is terrible because elites who don’t care about their children don’t care about the world they’ll leave behind. And when powerful people don’t care about the world they’ll leave behind and it’s all about THEIR profits that they must make for themselves, then you get unstable parasitic elites willing to screw everyone else over. And what’s worse is that when elites don’t leave anything behind for their child they’re perpetuating this cycle of parasitic behavior among the most educated where no one cares about what will be left for future generations.
Thank you! And yes, agreed about the perilous future of the economy - the housing market in particular makes building meaningful wealth significantly more challenging for younger generations already.
On one hand it's terrible, because they've neglected their noblesse oblige, but on the other hand it's good because their accumulated wealth will be squandered by do-nothing NGOs and deprive them of the legacy of power. The lane is open for those with wealth to completely reject this mode of thinking as low class and create a real aristocracy, wherein their children will inherit wealth and exert power in ways these "artists" never will.
Yes. There's a real opportunity here for those willing to think and build generationally.
The crown is lying there in the gutter waiting for someone to pick it up.
This is why some normie con stuff like Dave Ramsey and Jordan Peterson is actually REALLY important to the movement; sowing the idea that debt is shameful and something you should avoid at all costs will yield fruits beyond our wildest dreams. Highlighting your worth to your family as the paramount good will also make people of greater use to society on every level.
exactly
Think of how much better the world would be if we got rid of institutionalized charity and went back to the old Christian system of helping our immediate neighbor. This post hates on Adam Smith, but he was right when he said -- I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.
Agreed. The actual, physical neighbor should be the locus of charity. This kind of charity is not just an abstraction but a personal virtue, as it expresses itself in human interactions and forces you to go out and to encounter the poor and the vulnerable. It's not just a bank transfer to be forgotten about.
I give almost nothing to charities other than church. I save my money for real need among REAL people. My siblings mean more to me than anon folks half the world away and they always will. This is the proper order of things and anyone who tells you it isn't is either lying or wrong.
Can’t agree more. What these celebrities seem to not be realizing is that all that money that’s being sent away is feeding someone else’s children and government “programs”, people that likely even have the age of said celebrities’ children.
Case in point, if they had given a $ to a homeless man that person in need would get the full dollar. Going through charities or gov program, said people in need get cents on the dollar at most… meaning all the rest got partied away in some bureaucracy chain.
Hard to relate when they prefer to feed that scam of a machine than their own blood or people directly around them.
Indeed.
This reminds me of a thought I’ve been having for some time now. I encourage young people like me to entrench themselves in business with family. Once you do and operate a business with family, responsibility becomes necessary. You are required to be just with family members because the survival of the family unit now depends on good ethical relationship practices. At least for those of us who aren’t psychopaths...
I agree. These can be the simple, traditional model of a single family business, or a network of related and synergistic businesses owned by close and distant families.
I wrote about how the Gujeratis use the latter to generate tremendous wealth here, if you're interested: https://becomingnoble.substack.com/p/gujarati-gold
There's a reason why the success of the Amish continues unabated.
Disinheriting is a feature, not a bug, of the world system. “The righteous leave an inheritance to their children’s children,” but the unrighteousness do not. It may be that most of them (i.e., celebrities et al.) cannot leave an inheritance because the wealth they have doesn’t really belong to them. They “took the ticket” from the god of this world and get to play rich and famous for a season. But only for a season. Then, the the piper must be paid. This essay is a good reminder to resist their counterexample and instead build intergenerational foundations of material wealth and spiritual righteousness.
Yes, this is an interesting framing. The house of cards cannot hold forever.
This mindset also absolves one of personal responsibility and disconnects from the emotional reality that children need a loving, regenerative Earth to live on, not a rocket to Mars funded by the "virtue" of space travel.
There is far more virtue in pursuing space travel than in perpetuating climatism
Space travel is a fantasy for nerds. Musk has promised a manned Mars mission but there are many reasons why he’s not going to succeed. We have plenty of deserts here on earth to practice biosphere building with. If we can get that done maybe we will be ready to build them off planet- if or when space exploration is possible.
I guess it depends on what you mean by space travel and exploration. Yes there are some extraordinarily clear images from spacecraft but so far the only manned missions have been to the moon and earth orbit. This doesn’t put humans in a position to do terraforming anywhere. And if you want to create environments more conducive to human life then the desert would be the most logical place to start. Not Mars or satellites. No atmosphere and being bombarded by radiation is not my idea of a good time. Maybe you could volunteer if Musk ever gets the Mars mission off the ground. I wouldn’t hold my breath 😁
It took me a day to comment because i wanted to get this right. My Grandfather was an exceptional man, and he had three estates, and a booming business. However, like all post war Boomers, he believed in the myth of absolute meritocracy. He not only did not leave his Company to his sons, but he didn't sucessfully educate them into how to be financially sucessful. He had three children. One is dead, the other is a reclusive hippie, and the other is a neurotic woman. One day he confessed to my father that all of his three children were 'unfit'. My farher replied that it was his fault and his fault alone.
Very well. He died some 10 years ago. Before he died he sold his company to a globalist conglomeration, and of the three estates he had, the sons and daughters sold them all. All of his land and assets were sold because not one of his three children knew a thing about managing a pettite empire. I often question this move, and the answer i get is that those estates would be too costly to mantain and that in selling them the family would become "wealthier". Where did the money go? Stocks.
You can already see where i'm going with this. The man made a fortune, didnt teach his offspring how to manage it, sold the legacy to the globalists and no one has any idea what to do with the money from the physical assets they sold.
It infuriates me beyond belief, as if anyone could just meritocratically arrive at his level of wealth (he really did believe that).
So while this story is not about cutting offspring from the wealth entirely, it is about a tragedy of a legacy undone.
Thank you for the post. I could say much more but it would turn into a short book.
My father is quite wealthy, certainly upper-middle class anyway as he's the top of his field and wanting to retire but effectively having money thrown at him given there is nobody to replace him. This most certainty speaks to the competence crisis but that's another topic.
I never made a particular effort to pursue this field because I never really desired to. I grew up with wealth and thus never idealized it to the point of wanting to spend so much of my life and time pursuing it. My "passions" have always been things that cannot realistically translate to a career. Instead I'm pursuing a pretty relaxed lower-middle class career (teaching) that would give me more mobility. Whether this is the right decision, I'm not sure but it's a bit too late to change now. I guess my plan is to find a comfortable and not very time-consuming job so I can focus on building a family and intellectual pursuits outside of my job.
I believe my "dream job" has always been to be a "gentlemen polymath" though I've obviously only recently developed the vocabulary to say so. I say with humility that I've been blessed with a high level of intelligence and creativity but cursed with practically zero "drive" or work ethic. I've been working on developing the latter more lately but I'm still a little confused about where I should be directing these gifts.
My father is a good man and is comparatively generous, paying for my living expenses, education and even offering to help me with housing in the future but he's also made it clear that he wants to pursue the boomer retirement of spending his fortunes on gimmicks and vacations, not making an effort to leave me with much of a fortune. I think it's rather arrogant for me to claim to "deserve" anything but it still upsets me somewhat because I honestly believe I am more suited and could do a lot more in pursuing a modern aristocratic lifestyle, as it were, not to pursue vacuous hedonism but to build an estate and help develop the recently flourishing Catholic community I'm already heavily involved in.
No matter what happens I have faith that I can pursue a meaningful and happy life but in terms of grander ambitions I don't think I have the drive to pursue the career grind but I think I could certainty do a lot in managing and developing already existing wealth if that makes any sense.
I'm genuinely confused about what I should do in this scenario, I've been raised in a secular, liberal family, only recently discovering the world of faith and tradition so I'm lost for wisdom.
I think it's important to try to clarify with him exactly what you will and won't be inheriting, so you can plan accordingly.
If you won't be inheriting a fortune, it's important to live in a way that reflects the reality of the situation, and pursue a career that will sustain a real life, rather than imagine an aristocratic future that could have happened if your father had different beliefs but will never actually materialize.
Once you've clarified the current foundational reality you might try to improve the situation by making specific proposals to him (ie. "I'd like to give you grandchildren within the next decade, and to make sure this is possible, it would be prudent to get on the housing market now..."
I ideally want to communicate with my family that I have ambitions but don't really want to participate in this vacuous modern cycle of every generation building a fortune only to waste it on retirement for the good of the economy and sacred GDP.
I suppose the primary thing to do in the here and now is to man up and show my family that I'm responsible, diligent and have meaningful ambitions with what I have access to now.
This is a good mindset.
I think you have a good attitude and a practical outlook. Presumably your dad knows about your inclination to pursue your low key career path and is okay with that. You don’t owe anyone an explanation as long as you’re living a moral life. Hopefully you’ll have a long time to hang out with your dad and develop your relationship with him. Take care of yourself!
I've mixed feelings on this. I can't fault "Let 'em work, or luck out, for a livin', just like I done did!" too much. Also they earned, or lucked, their money, their choice.
On the other hand building and future offspring maintaining the big house atop the hill, or dads looking across the vast ranch, pea farm or vineyard saying, "Son, someday this will all by yours!" aren't bad things.
On another hand it's hard to build one's children's future on quicksand; property taxes, law's lack'es, zoning groanings, inflation by design, government not benign, byzantine rules one can't define...
Maybe the best inheritances are portable and not necessarily reportable. "Son, when I die be sure you break off the concrete stucco and take those five 7 x 3 5/8 x 1 3/4 inch loose bricks in the NE corner of the house foundation, put then in the back of your pickup before you leave. Be careful carrying them though each one weights 400 troy ounces or 27.4 pounds."
Haha. Agree about all the byzantine estate taxes, which must be mitigated to the best extent possible - I just ask that our people don't lean into them!
Very good, yes! These straw men of fame and fortune are cynically retarding a natural moral instinct in us; I say that it is basically true that every man should work, and even that practically every man should engage in physical or laborsome work, but not that all men should depend upon labour for their support. Any elite or nobility worth its name will instill the stern necessity and the excellence of work in the life of man into its children, and though they may "labour" less we expect their lives to entail more work rather than less, but work of a more privileged stamp. It probably does kings a power of good to do a day or two of work in a garden or a workshop once in a while; to maintain his relation to simple matters and prove regularly that he does not lack the simple capability of lesser men, but to throw your nobility back into the grind of necessity is only to blunt your best tools. Shame that our own elite are already mangled beyond repair, and probably not by the coarseness of necessity; but yours is a healthful message for the elite we hope to cultivate.
"to throw your nobility back into the grind of necessity is only to blunt your best tools" - this is a beautiful way to put it Levi
Yes indeed
Common denominator: all Anglos (well, some mischlings and dagoes but you get the point). Mediaeval manorialism and ‘absolute nuclear family’ takes another huge L as Boomers bear Anglo TRADITION into 21st century...
Yeah - I wanted to avoid this being another condemnation of Der Boomer but it was hard to avoid
We currently are GMO factory-farm human swine that are harvested for many things, including the intoxicating loosh.
We send our children into the world at 5 to be raised by strangers. We allow our prized young adults to go off the viper dens like New York and Hollywood as sheep to the slaughter. We ourselves spend 90% of our daily interactions with strangers. This is the meaningless life of swine and goy.
There will arise an army of Saint George, a legion of vampire slayers that will reclaim our humanity and sovereignty through fearless slaying and exorcism of our landscapes. This will be profound, yet impermanent as this is repeating cycle on Dojo Earth.
Many send their children off younger than five!
I was going to say that each of the people you listed are rabid communists, but that speaks for itself.
Leaving wealth to charity is the way to transfer wealth to children while avoiding the estate taxes. If Mick left his wealth to children, it would go mostly to the government. The exemption of $26M per couple gets cut to $13M in 2025, and will likely get cut further in coming years. So he is simply doing proper estate planning while generating RP that he is a "good guy" and to signal to the taxman - don't bother. His children will be appointed to the board of the charities and likely paid for those positions, etc. This is why all billionaires end up running "non-profits".
I disagree. Respectfully, you're blurring two different things together and erasing an important phenomenon in the process.
What you are describing takes a very particular form, which is different to what is described in my essay. An example of the precise mechanics of what you are describing (the use of 'trusts' to avoid personal inheritance taxes) can be found here: https://www.theguardian.com/money/2016/aug/11/inheritance-tax-why-the-new-duke-of-westminster-will-not-pay-billions
The celebrities described above are not doing efficient estate planning (giving the entirety of your wealth to a major charity, not a family trust, is not estate planning - it loses the money), they are true believers in giving away wealth.
The ultra wealth certainly do this but what’s worse is that their lackeys a few rungs below them economically don’t see the game and actually do give away their wealth to the very “charities” founded by the ultra wealthy.
Bingo! It’s sad the author could not take the time to think about this just a little bit harder and see this obvious fact.
See my comment here: https://becomingnoble.substack.com/p/the-rich-should-leave-their-wealth/comment/54293497
This is precisely what is most disgusting about the "effective altruism" movement; what is it effective at other than destroying family legacies and generational wealth? How could someone feel good about giving all of their money away to random people while their children are left to fend for themselves as a consequence? Even Simone de Beauvoir, despite her very left politics, recognized that we have much greater obligations to those near to us -- family, friends, neighbors, countrymen -- than those from whom we are far removed and have no concrete relations.
To the point of what else is lost, it is worth noting that Soren Kierkegaard - who would certainly be canonized as a Saint had he become Catholic as some suspected he might later in life - was only able to dedicate himself to writing on Christianity and philosophy because of the money left to him by his father.
Precisely!