Keep telling yourself that and you'll keep losing. The GOP represents conservatism. Conservatism is a losing position. We will need something new and something powerful to take its place.
TL/DR: You can have a free society, you just have to limit the franchise to those who will wield that power responsibly. In Starship Troopers, the franchise is limited to those who have completed a period of public service (including, but not limited to, military service) under the idea that only those who have invested their own sweat into improving their society can be trusted to vote responsibly.
You can tell that Hollywood considers the book wrongthink from the fact that they’ve done a million other remakes but won’t touch this book with a ten foot pole.
TL/DR: You can have a free society, you just have to limit the franchise to those who will wield that power responsibly. In Starship Troopers, the franchise is limited to those who have completed a period of public service (including, but not limited to, military service) under the idea that only those who have invested their own sweat into improving their society can be trusted to vote responsibly.
That idea is expanded on in the book, basically Heinlein states no-one really knows what makes someone worthy of power. There is a "revolt of the scientists" mentioned in one part and it failed just as badly as everything else.
But what seems to have worked so far is that "Having put something into society and placed the whole over your own welfare" seems to be the best metric for voting well.
In the book Citizens are those that have the vote and Civilians are those that don't. To become a citizen it's a 1 time deal where you enter into a period of federal service that is designed to be arduous and dangerous enough to requite the civilian to ask themselves "Do I really want this" and have to answer in the affirmative.
There is no other criteria apart from complete your term. You might be crippled and your term would be counting the hairs on the back of caterpillar for 2 years. Voting (and the power that comes with it) is only given to those that want it badly enough. It's not necessarily about improving society.
Really that's the only valid criticism one could make that I could see, you don't want to give power to those who crave it. And in Starship Troopers power is given only to those who want it most.
Oh I have it. It was the first book I read of his. I get what you are saying but I do like the idea of service for a vote. I can see the “not everyone should vote” logic.
So you want polyamory, incest, atheism, transgenderism, and feminism to be the religion that "Conservatives" follow. Sounds about right. Well, that is what will happen if people "fight" like a Quaker.
We need actual reactionary or traditionalist parties. Parties that will actually fight to get rid of the "progressive" agenda and reinforce historical institutions and practices.
Getting rid of Mob Rule I can certainly agree with. The question, that I have been asking myself as well, is would it be enough?
We'd still be plagued with feminists, the federal reserve, the two(one)-party system, the military industrial complex, I could go on but honestly I'm a bit of a doomer today.
It'd probably require some sort of cataclysm or revolution. In Starship Troopers, the society that one sees in the book only came about after a civil war and the founders of the then government came to power. I don't think removal of the institutional actors that you mention (particularly the uniparty) would willingly accede to the removal of their power willingly.
I think we were already fucked in the 50's personally. Like way beyond fucked. Our money was fake, the uniparty was real, feminism was a surging tide, it's the same shit as today, it just hadn't rotted yet.
Right now we're taxing and using Fiat currency which is complete bullshit. So long as we're using Fiat it really doesn't matter whether we're taxed or not as we would still be going to pay the ultimate tax that is levied by the Federal Reserve's presses, inflation. As long as the Cathedral can just print money from nothing to further their goals, we're their slaves and playing their game.
No, because America was founded by the Dissenters, which were the Progressives of their time. They dissented against the Crown and the Church, just as our progressives enjoy rebelling against the State and all Churches.
I had the same reaction but overall it's pressed me to re-examine American history and Democracy in a new light and from multiple sources and perspectives.
What progressive ideas since our founding increased liberty? What progressive ideas decreased liberty? If I think progressivism has gone wrong, can I point to moments or thought leaders who took us that way? Is this new progressive wave actually "new" or just history playing itself for another loop?
I don't agree with the answers I've read from the alt-right for all of these questions, but damned if I don't agree with the asking of these questions and their historical perspective.
One could argue that Lincoln and the Civil War started the trend towards tyranny,
but I'd say most of our downfall was indeed a new progressivism inspired by deconstructionist philosophy (and of course Marxism) from Europe in the late 1800s/early 1900s. It's something Americans in the land of opportunity would never need but imported anyway - along with millions of poor immigrants that were easily swayed by its promises.
The old strain of "progressivism", classical liberalism, is fine in small doses. Best left as academic or philosophical thought experiments that entertain curiosity and allow men to look beyond traditional culture for answers when needed. Not as something to completely replace the lessons from our forefathers, but as something to complement them. "When in the course of human events..."
Also what do you mean by "alt-right"? Just curious as I've only seen vague definitions of the term used by leftists as insults. (after it was briefly used by the Tea Party movement, then coopted by white nationalists)
To be honest, I was calling myself alt-right in '16 because I thought the word just made sense to describe an american right-winger outside the GOP/Cathedral. I've given up on that, but it still makes sense to me. Specifically though, I'm talking about Moldbug and his ideas.
I'll start looking for stuff on Lincoln, what I do know of him is mostly propaganda.
We live in a fallen world...quit trying to save it. Fix yourself and your microcosm but don’t try and overextend - be steadfast in the knowing that all ideology is a trap. Always.
But what is "your microcosm?" Your family? Your town? Why can't it be your nation? All of human history is an attempt to create small oases of order and stability in the chaos of the fallen world.
This is my criticism of conservatism from another thread:
Conservatism in and of itself is an empty, nothing philosophy. All it is is support for the status quo, or at most, support for tradition. So because classical liberalism is the traditional philosophy of the U.S., contemporary U.S. conservatives support classical liberalism. But a conservative in 18th century America would have been a monarchist. A conservative in 1980s Soviet Union would have been a command economy socialist. There’s a reason that conservatives are called liberals going the speed limit. As the Overton window shifts, most conservatives eventually adopt the left position once it becomes mainstream. Case in point, a majority of conservatives in the U.S. now support gay marriage, which would have been unthinkable 10 years ago, but is completely predictable when your only philosophical tenets are a support of the status quo.
Maybe I'm naive, but I do think with fixes like severe limits to the franchise and complete bans on incompatible ideologies (namely marxism and islamism), that you can have a functional society based on the principles of Lockean liberalism.
Alternatively, a new right wing ideology needs to be invented.
The issue is really the two-party-system. Actually, the party system entirely. Forbid political parties and associations, and you clear up most of the issues. Force people to explain their own views and how THEY would represent you, PERSONALLY, rather than some monolith that may or may not actually care about the represented parties of any given area. No bribing (sorry, "lobbying") one member of the Democrat party and then the whole party voting in lockstep for returns on investment because your first loyalty must be to your party, not your own constituents.
"What is conservatism?" as a question would not matter, because there is no group claiming ownership of the term. People would just have views, and be voted in based on their views, and their views alone. "I like guns" -So you're a republican? "owned by gay married people" -So you're a weird democrat? "who farm and sell weed," -...Libertarian, maybe? "to fundraise for the government's new prison" -I give up.
People like categories, but persons rarely fit in categories so nicely. As your quote says, "conservative" is an empty philosophy. But so is "progressive" by the same measure. "Progressives" today mock trans-species and trans-race, but they do so in the exact same manner "progressives" 50 years ago would mock trans-sex. And 50 years from now the progressives will denigrate the modern-day ones for ever thinking that Karen couldn't be a literal actual bitch. They are defined not by their aims, but merely seek to breach new ground as fast and as recklessly as possible, regardless of sanity or concequences. Conservative vs Progressive is more accurately "Stability-ist vs Experiment-ist".
So you should be able to ask "what elements of society do I want to keep stable, and which elements would I like some experimenting on?". But instead we have parties that are "CHANGE NOTHING!" and "CHANGE EVERYTHING!", because being forced into the Party ownership means they must follow the Party lead, and not have granular, personal, nuanced opinions.
I think that you make some really god points. I will say that in regard to the two party system, that's an inevitable result of the First Past The Post system that the U.S. uses. We'd have to change that in order to break up the two party system.
Regarding having parties at all, I don't have a good answer for that. Washington railed against it in his farewell address and called it fatal to representative republics. Unfortunately, I think that it is human nature to create these political unions, so I don't know what can be done about it.
Red pill politics + Christianity + owning guns +America first.
Honestly I don't see a democratic solution to the problems we're having since the elections aren't legitimate, the government is controlled by billionaires and foreign entities, and the average voter is too stupid to understand anything other than the size of their welfare check.
I think democracy is failing in the US. It's too big and inclusive and corrupt. Once the US dollar stops being the reserve currency of the world our entire economic system will collapse and it will be chaotic. Out of that chaos will either come socialism or some sort of right wing political system.
The problem is that the right wing politicians in this country act like a bunch of boy scouts when they need to be ruthless and play the power games (for our side). Trump could do it a little bit, but even he was very timid as far as what he was willing to do. Mainly because other republicans were so timid.
No welfare unless proven to be needed and only for a set amount of time, no females in politics above the mayoral level and repeal the 19th, setup empty islands as dumping grounds for undesirables with the most basic things needed to live like it's 1540, death penalty for habitual offenders and felonies resulting in injury or death, end the fed and go for a precious metals and Bitcoin backed economy and push hard into nuclear energy while dumping nuclear waste into the sun, push hard for space travel and colonize habitable planets, arrest commies and socialists as enemies of the state and foreign agitators and put them on aforementioned islands and teach the actual history of the ideologies in schools then move to a SST Heinlein republic style of government (book not movie) after about a decade of all this being done.
Conservatism isn't a position. It's a dogma. And fortunately it can never expand as all you're doing is playing defence. You can never retake lost ground.
It's a good dogma because what worked previously will probably work in the future. Things that are new and work better do exist, but most "new" ideas are failures.
You need some liberalism to invent new ideas and improve, but I don't think there is a "thing" that will work. All you can hope for is that the costs don't outweigh the benefits, and the unforeseen consequences are dealt with.
I think the best "thing" is that whoever holds the power uses it well and understands it. I'd wager that to do that you'd need this non exhaustive list:
Respect for education (read books)
Knowledge of history
Understanding of power and human folly
Religion because it's always worked
Respect for what's come beforehand
Humility
Realism
Defined principles that are used as a metric for "Is X a good idea"
The last two are constantly in flux. But you need intelligent debate between the two. And for that to occour you need a blend of liberalism and conservatism.
It will probably need to if it's to gain any traction given the baggage such positions carry. I think the core of it is going to need to revolve around a timeless wholesomeness with a focus on community. Everyone deep down has some inkling of what's missing in their lives because it is largely absent in the modern era. More and more we lack cohesive communities that are capable of merriment without abject indulgence in profane vices. It'll take hold again if properly presented and nurtured, I just have no idea how we get there.
It would probably have to support strong extended families and the notion of the extended family as the true source of an individual's "social safety net" and encouraged families to put down roots in their communities. Encourage owner-occupied houses. Discourage large businesses owned by people who live outside the community.
Imagine if each family had its own "government" that had some ability to loan money, insure, and provide charity to and perhaps levy "taxes" from family members. A way for the older generations to provide some access to their wealth to the younger generations starting out, while keeping the accrued wealth in the family and available to successive generations. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would make it easier for families to start building generational wealth.
More advanced versions could take on more attributes of a government such as managing land and property communally owned by the family, enforcing standards of behavior in the family as well as perhaps requirements for marrying into the family.
This would piss both ConInc off (because you would encourage families building wealth instead of it accumulating into large companies) and the left (because you would encourage the family as the source of social safety rather than the state).
Yes there is a component of tribalism. But I think to an extent wealthy/powerful families like the Windsors for example act like their own tribe. I think of it more like "localism taken to its logical conclusion"
Any organization is going to have the problem you describe as people inheriting a birthright will value it less than the person who created it. The hope would be that it would be less likely and take longer to decay than a government institution where people don't have skin in the game.
I would posit that familial generational wealth tends to create progressives though. The 4th generation farm owner is never going to be as as hardened and defensive as the great grandfather who built it all from scratch.
There's an inbuilt solution to that though, a fool and his money are easily parted.
There's very few dynastic families that successfully keep their money. There's probably millions of people that create a fortune for their family, but how many families keep that by the 4th generation?
You’re confusing the cowards in the GOP with conservativism.
Keep telling yourself that and you'll keep losing. The GOP represents conservatism. Conservatism is a losing position. We will need something new and something powerful to take its place.
...careful what you wish for...the weimar republic lead to hitler taking power.
I really don't give a shit anymore about that tbh.
It's worth caring about the fact that it led to them killing a ton of their own people in a pointless war they lost anyways.
At their best, conservatives are conserving the progresssive thought of yesteryear.
If Marx is the new religion of the left, with all the hallmarks of an organized religion, then the right needs to do the same with Heinlein.
The right's half-in, half-out, and frankly heretical relationship with christianity is an obstacle.
I'd rather the eye-for-an-eye heretics simply stop calling themselves christians and start calling themselves Heinleinists.
Which Heinlein book do we follow most?
Starship Troopers, his actual book and not the stupid movie. Sargon has an excellent breakdown of Heinlein's themes and political ideas in the book.
TL/DR: You can have a free society, you just have to limit the franchise to those who will wield that power responsibly. In Starship Troopers, the franchise is limited to those who have completed a period of public service (including, but not limited to, military service) under the idea that only those who have invested their own sweat into improving their society can be trusted to vote responsibly.
Every time the franchise has been expanded, it has damaged the United States. Amendments 15, 17, 19, 23, and 26 were all mistakes.
He is one of my favorite authors and in Starship Troopers I really love the idea of earning the right to vote. I’d love a proper adaptation.
You can tell that Hollywood considers the book wrongthink from the fact that they’ve done a million other remakes but won’t touch this book with a ten foot pole.
Just to expand on what elleand202 posted:
That idea is expanded on in the book, basically Heinlein states no-one really knows what makes someone worthy of power. There is a "revolt of the scientists" mentioned in one part and it failed just as badly as everything else. But what seems to have worked so far is that "Having put something into society and placed the whole over your own welfare" seems to be the best metric for voting well. In the book Citizens are those that have the vote and Civilians are those that don't. To become a citizen it's a 1 time deal where you enter into a period of federal service that is designed to be arduous and dangerous enough to requite the civilian to ask themselves "Do I really want this" and have to answer in the affirmative.
There is no other criteria apart from complete your term. You might be crippled and your term would be counting the hairs on the back of caterpillar for 2 years. Voting (and the power that comes with it) is only given to those that want it badly enough. It's not necessarily about improving society.
Really that's the only valid criticism one could make that I could see, you don't want to give power to those who crave it. And in Starship Troopers power is given only to those who want it most.
I really recommend you buy the book immediately.
Oh I have it. It was the first book I read of his. I get what you are saying but I do like the idea of service for a vote. I can see the “not everyone should vote” logic.
So you want polyamory, incest, atheism, transgenderism, and feminism to be the religion that "Conservatives" follow. Sounds about right. Well, that is what will happen if people "fight" like a Quaker.
New religion of the left? It always has been. Every single tenet of leftism is based on Marxism.
We need actual reactionary or traditionalist parties. Parties that will actually fight to get rid of the "progressive" agenda and reinforce historical institutions and practices.
But where do we stop rolling back progressivism? Was the progressivism of the 1900's okay? The 1800's? The 1700's?
That's the thing, is that the story of the success of America is the story of the success of progressives.
Beginning of the 19th century when property rewuirements were removed for voting.
That doomed the republic into a kleptocracy death spiral.
Getting rid of Mob Rule I can certainly agree with. The question, that I have been asking myself as well, is would it be enough?
We'd still be plagued with feminists, the federal reserve, the two(one)-party system, the military industrial complex, I could go on but honestly I'm a bit of a doomer today.
It'd probably require some sort of cataclysm or revolution. In Starship Troopers, the society that one sees in the book only came about after a civil war and the founders of the then government came to power. I don't think removal of the institutional actors that you mention (particularly the uniparty) would willingly accede to the removal of their power willingly.
I think we were already fucked in the 50's personally. Like way beyond fucked. Our money was fake, the uniparty was real, feminism was a surging tide, it's the same shit as today, it just hadn't rotted yet.
Sadly, consider me not convinced at all. I'd rather you be right for what it's worth.
McCarthy was already post-FDR when we became a full blown socialist nation :|
Removal of the IRS and income tax which funds the beast.
I agree, but I don't think that's enough.
Right now we're taxing and using Fiat currency which is complete bullshit. So long as we're using Fiat it really doesn't matter whether we're taxed or not as we would still be going to pay the ultimate tax that is levied by the Federal Reserve's presses, inflation. As long as the Cathedral can just print money from nothing to further their goals, we're their slaves and playing their game.
No, because America was founded by the Dissenters, which were the Progressives of their time. They dissented against the Crown and the Church, just as our progressives enjoy rebelling against the State and all Churches.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_Dissenters
This could be incorrect, but after reading Moldbug I am fairly convinced by his arguments and analysis of American history.
I had the same reaction but overall it's pressed me to re-examine American history and Democracy in a new light and from multiple sources and perspectives.
What progressive ideas since our founding increased liberty? What progressive ideas decreased liberty? If I think progressivism has gone wrong, can I point to moments or thought leaders who took us that way? Is this new progressive wave actually "new" or just history playing itself for another loop?
I don't agree with the answers I've read from the alt-right for all of these questions, but damned if I don't agree with the asking of these questions and their historical perspective.
One could argue that Lincoln and the Civil War started the trend towards tyranny, but I'd say most of our downfall was indeed a new progressivism inspired by deconstructionist philosophy (and of course Marxism) from Europe in the late 1800s/early 1900s. It's something Americans in the land of opportunity would never need but imported anyway - along with millions of poor immigrants that were easily swayed by its promises.
The old strain of "progressivism", classical liberalism, is fine in small doses. Best left as academic or philosophical thought experiments that entertain curiosity and allow men to look beyond traditional culture for answers when needed. Not as something to completely replace the lessons from our forefathers, but as something to complement them. "When in the course of human events..."
Also what do you mean by "alt-right"? Just curious as I've only seen vague definitions of the term used by leftists as insults. (after it was briefly used by the Tea Party movement, then coopted by white nationalists)
To be honest, I was calling myself alt-right in '16 because I thought the word just made sense to describe an american right-winger outside the GOP/Cathedral. I've given up on that, but it still makes sense to me. Specifically though, I'm talking about Moldbug and his ideas.
I'll start looking for stuff on Lincoln, what I do know of him is mostly propaganda.
We live in a fallen world...quit trying to save it. Fix yourself and your microcosm but don’t try and overextend - be steadfast in the knowing that all ideology is a trap. Always.
But what is "your microcosm?" Your family? Your town? Why can't it be your nation? All of human history is an attempt to create small oases of order and stability in the chaos of the fallen world.
“All of human history is an attempt to create small oases of order and stability in the chaos of the fallen world.“ - EXACTLY!
“It’s is more difficult to rule yourself than to rule a city” - Dr. Jordan Peterson
This is my criticism of conservatism from another thread:
Here is another criticism of conservatism.
Maybe I'm naive, but I do think with fixes like severe limits to the franchise and complete bans on incompatible ideologies (namely marxism and islamism), that you can have a functional society based on the principles of Lockean liberalism.
Alternatively, a new right wing ideology needs to be invented.
The issue is really the two-party-system. Actually, the party system entirely. Forbid political parties and associations, and you clear up most of the issues. Force people to explain their own views and how THEY would represent you, PERSONALLY, rather than some monolith that may or may not actually care about the represented parties of any given area. No bribing (sorry, "lobbying") one member of the Democrat party and then the whole party voting in lockstep for returns on investment because your first loyalty must be to your party, not your own constituents.
"What is conservatism?" as a question would not matter, because there is no group claiming ownership of the term. People would just have views, and be voted in based on their views, and their views alone. "I like guns" -So you're a republican? "owned by gay married people" -So you're a weird democrat? "who farm and sell weed," -...Libertarian, maybe? "to fundraise for the government's new prison" -I give up.
People like categories, but persons rarely fit in categories so nicely. As your quote says, "conservative" is an empty philosophy. But so is "progressive" by the same measure. "Progressives" today mock trans-species and trans-race, but they do so in the exact same manner "progressives" 50 years ago would mock trans-sex. And 50 years from now the progressives will denigrate the modern-day ones for ever thinking that Karen couldn't be a literal actual bitch. They are defined not by their aims, but merely seek to breach new ground as fast and as recklessly as possible, regardless of sanity or concequences. Conservative vs Progressive is more accurately "Stability-ist vs Experiment-ist".
So you should be able to ask "what elements of society do I want to keep stable, and which elements would I like some experimenting on?". But instead we have parties that are "CHANGE NOTHING!" and "CHANGE EVERYTHING!", because being forced into the Party ownership means they must follow the Party lead, and not have granular, personal, nuanced opinions.
I think that you make some really god points. I will say that in regard to the two party system, that's an inevitable result of the First Past The Post system that the U.S. uses. We'd have to change that in order to break up the two party system.
Regarding having parties at all, I don't have a good answer for that. Washington railed against it in his farewell address and called it fatal to representative republics. Unfortunately, I think that it is human nature to create these political unions, so I don't know what can be done about it.
Red pill politics + Christianity + owning guns +America first.
Honestly I don't see a democratic solution to the problems we're having since the elections aren't legitimate, the government is controlled by billionaires and foreign entities, and the average voter is too stupid to understand anything other than the size of their welfare check.
I think democracy is failing in the US. It's too big and inclusive and corrupt. Once the US dollar stops being the reserve currency of the world our entire economic system will collapse and it will be chaotic. Out of that chaos will either come socialism or some sort of right wing political system.
The problem is that the right wing politicians in this country act like a bunch of boy scouts when they need to be ruthless and play the power games (for our side). Trump could do it a little bit, but even he was very timid as far as what he was willing to do. Mainly because other republicans were so timid.
No welfare unless proven to be needed and only for a set amount of time, no females in politics above the mayoral level and repeal the 19th, setup empty islands as dumping grounds for undesirables with the most basic things needed to live like it's 1540, death penalty for habitual offenders and felonies resulting in injury or death, end the fed and go for a precious metals and Bitcoin backed economy and push hard into nuclear energy while dumping nuclear waste into the sun, push hard for space travel and colonize habitable planets, arrest commies and socialists as enemies of the state and foreign agitators and put them on aforementioned islands and teach the actual history of the ideologies in schools then move to a SST Heinlein republic style of government (book not movie) after about a decade of all this being done.
It is easier to shoot nuclear waste out of solar system them it is to shoot it into the sun.
Decentralization and removing the power structures that leftists can usurp and hold over people.
Being reactionary is a defensive position. We need to be proactive to take and hold ground.
Conservatism isn't a position. It's a dogma. And fortunately it can never expand as all you're doing is playing defence. You can never retake lost ground. It's a good dogma because what worked previously will probably work in the future. Things that are new and work better do exist, but most "new" ideas are failures.
You need some liberalism to invent new ideas and improve, but I don't think there is a "thing" that will work. All you can hope for is that the costs don't outweigh the benefits, and the unforeseen consequences are dealt with.
I think the best "thing" is that whoever holds the power uses it well and understands it. I'd wager that to do that you'd need this non exhaustive list:
Respect for education (read books)
Knowledge of history
Understanding of power and human folly
Religion because it's always worked
Respect for what's come beforehand
Humility
Realism
Defined principles that are used as a metric for "Is X a good idea"
The last two are constantly in flux. But you need intelligent debate between the two. And for that to occour you need a blend of liberalism and conservatism.
It will probably need to if it's to gain any traction given the baggage such positions carry. I think the core of it is going to need to revolve around a timeless wholesomeness with a focus on community. Everyone deep down has some inkling of what's missing in their lives because it is largely absent in the modern era. More and more we lack cohesive communities that are capable of merriment without abject indulgence in profane vices. It'll take hold again if properly presented and nurtured, I just have no idea how we get there.
It would probably have to support strong extended families and the notion of the extended family as the true source of an individual's "social safety net" and encouraged families to put down roots in their communities. Encourage owner-occupied houses. Discourage large businesses owned by people who live outside the community.
Imagine if each family had its own "government" that had some ability to loan money, insure, and provide charity to and perhaps levy "taxes" from family members. A way for the older generations to provide some access to their wealth to the younger generations starting out, while keeping the accrued wealth in the family and available to successive generations. It wouldn't be perfect, but it would make it easier for families to start building generational wealth.
More advanced versions could take on more attributes of a government such as managing land and property communally owned by the family, enforcing standards of behavior in the family as well as perhaps requirements for marrying into the family.
This would piss both ConInc off (because you would encourage families building wealth instead of it accumulating into large companies) and the left (because you would encourage the family as the source of social safety rather than the state).
Yes there is a component of tribalism. But I think to an extent wealthy/powerful families like the Windsors for example act like their own tribe. I think of it more like "localism taken to its logical conclusion"
Any organization is going to have the problem you describe as people inheriting a birthright will value it less than the person who created it. The hope would be that it would be less likely and take longer to decay than a government institution where people don't have skin in the game.
There's an inbuilt solution to that though, a fool and his money are easily parted.
There's very few dynastic families that successfully keep their money. There's probably millions of people that create a fortune for their family, but how many families keep that by the 4th generation?