The most “blackpilling” thing about internet weirdo commentary from fringe philosophers & mystics etc— is that so much of it is aesthetic escapism & subjective irrationalism in response to alienation from the very boring, banal, & labyrinthine bureaucracy that wields power.

It’s easy to get wrapped up in a mythographic historiography which refashions (post)modernity in pre-historical terms of epic oral myth than it is to do the serious work of studying the history of jurisprudence & statecraft that lead us, precedent by precedent, to now.

It’s really easy to say “human rights are a liberal myth”— it’s not so easy to suggest any practical alternative when it comes to this self-admitted legal fiction— Law is theater (shakespeare knew this)— it’s all about Custom & Fashion— the “human” is an antifragile custom.

There is a great difference between the people who believe that Rights are Revealed Social Contracts given by God & those who see “Rights” as legal fictions that we perform to attain certain ends. The former never realize when the play of “rights” fails to attain those ends.

The real issue is less with the notion of right in itself, but with the mass-perspective on rights being something one is “born with” & not something one asserts through corporeal action. “Right” only exists *in its performance* not in some abstract mystical noetic realm.

If someone steals from you, & you do not DEPLOY your right to take it back by means of the state (etc) — then you do not have a right to it in actuality, only in possibility, & the only thing that actualizes this possibility is action.

The only sense in which you’re born with Rights is the sense of Possibility— you *possibly* have Rights in America (under contingent circumstance like sanity age health criminality etc)— it’s only shown to be the case when these Rights are actualized in practice.

That’s why, heuristically, this set of precedents made during contingent debate over Right— is what Kojeve considers the engine of *real* history— if “cthulhu swims left”— it’s really more that “right proliferates” — to the point that eventually *gasp* everyone has Rights.

When we say “the end of history”— it means a situation in which legal precedent recognizes all people as subjects endowed with possible right, which will be further actualized through continued precedents in contingent juridicial circumstances.

I don’t see the inertia of this historical process somehow halting barring apocalyptic collapse of technology to pre-modern conditions— in which case, if say, we return to warbands & slave markets, then we will merely retrace the circle of Right through millennia again.

The thing people don’t get about the revolutions of modernity (the revolutions of christianity, the alphabet, on & on into prehistory etc) is that they were baked into their contingent circumstance as *possibilities* afforded by the very same environment. This is what’s Hegelian.

Kojeve is not a determinist, but rather, a theorist of Meta-History in which any imaginable branching path conforms ultimately to the same telos. For Kojeve, the particulars are incidental compared to the total effect of Right expanding— & there is no escape from Right as concept

Thus— for Kojeve, the tyrant or world-historical person (antichrist) is whoever makes use of Right as a means of Recognition for himself— this is how one cultivates power most effectively, by championing the expansion of Right to an aggrieved slave/underclass.

So for Kojeve, the differences between America the EU the Soviet Union & China (etc) are only particular contingencies in the ultimate development of Right globally. He stakes his bets on whichever regime is capable of receiving the most recognition of Authority.

Fundamentally, nothing can change drastically from this arc for too long— Nazi germany, for instance, was unstable due to its inability to recognize the rights of all of its subjects. This meant they had a perpetual “jewish problem” which could never be solved.

If your system comes hardbaked with an insolvable problem— it’s not going to work for very long. Lack of recognition of right, in the long term, is fatal— because every order is eventually subsumed by its opposition. The meek shall inherit the earth said one genius.

So— in America we face a crisis of legitimacy for neoliberalism & the world order created during the Cold War. The attempts to stick to this paradigm are ultimately doomed— because the “next order” can only be that which recognizes Right more effectively than this system allows.

This is what Decadence really is— the moribund boomer world order trying to become Eternal. The Conservatives (neolibs on either side of the party line) are the real decadents. No one has been able to challenge this so far as I’ve experienced. They just call this a “blackpill.”

I’m not going to tell you that you can be an epic warrior from premodernity or a medieval prince or a cavalier or a caveman tribe hero— because you can’t. Those circumstances are no longer *possible* nevermind *actualizable*— you can just Yourself

“This is what they stole from you”

This: A possible actualization of a supposed Right (to aristocratic performances of master-equality)

They: Every non-aristocratic person through Historical struggle for Recognition of Right