What do you think?
Rate this book
Nemesis: The Jouvenelian vs. the Liberal Model of Human Orders
Examining history through the lens of Bertrand de Jouvenel’s high–low vs. middle mechanism, C.A. Bond lays bare the hyper-centralisation of power under liberalism and democracy. He reveals the poverty of liberal accounts of history as a bottom-up process of grassroots change, instead showing history to be driven by patronage and the selection effects of power. In this, we discover the unsettling fact that many ideas so fundamental to modernity—from the “individual” to political science to human rights and beyond—are not the product of reason or progress, but of the demands of structural conflict.
Ranging over such phenomena as Athenian democracy, radical Islam, Black Lives Matter, NGOs, the Enlightenment, the civil rights era, and feminism, Bond offers a secure theoretical basis for the illiberal revolt currently engulfing our world. The publication of this work is an event with which all historians and political observers will need to come to grips.
188 pages, Paperback
Published September 14, 2019
14 people are currently reading
337 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews
Want to read
March 15, 2020Publisher offering e-book vertion of this title for free - https://www.imperiumpress.org/product...
May 17, 2020
Solid work
A very solid look at an obscure but interesting political theory called the Jouvenelian model. The author examines the governments, populations, and western institutions through Jouvenelian lenses. The result is a fresh analysis, both interesting and plausible.
On the flip side, there are some issues with authors analysis of political science. Bond attempts to show that political science, as a discipline, is an extension of the current neo-Liberal order of the west. Essentially, a tool wielded to increase the power of current hegemonic powers. I think this is somewhat of a misunderstanding about what political science is in the big picture. I do not disagree that political science has been put to use by the current powers that be, however this does not discredit the discipline. It simply demonstrates that all disciplines can be used to promote dogma. In fact, this book gives an overview of Jouvenelian “political theory” and the author applies it in the way any other theory would be applied in the discipline of political science. My point being, that Nemesis is itself a work of political science.
Beyond this error, the book is well worth your time and I recommend you read it.
A very solid look at an obscure but interesting political theory called the Jouvenelian model. The author examines the governments, populations, and western institutions through Jouvenelian lenses. The result is a fresh analysis, both interesting and plausible.
On the flip side, there are some issues with authors analysis of political science. Bond attempts to show that political science, as a discipline, is an extension of the current neo-Liberal order of the west. Essentially, a tool wielded to increase the power of current hegemonic powers. I think this is somewhat of a misunderstanding about what political science is in the big picture. I do not disagree that political science has been put to use by the current powers that be, however this does not discredit the discipline. It simply demonstrates that all disciplines can be used to promote dogma. In fact, this book gives an overview of Jouvenelian “political theory” and the author applies it in the way any other theory would be applied in the discipline of political science. My point being, that Nemesis is itself a work of political science.
Beyond this error, the book is well worth your time and I recommend you read it.
March 31, 2020
Quite a brilliant summation of Jouvenel's political thoughts. Easy to read, good examples from history.
June 14, 2024
Nemesis, skriven av C.A. Bond, utgavs 2019 av det helt korrekt orienterade förlaget Imperium Press. Boken bygger vidare på idéer och koncept hämtade från Bertrand De Jouvenel klassiska verk On Power (1945) som handlar om den politiska maktens centraliseringsprocess. För att få ut det mesta från denna bok underlättar det om du har läst On Power och är bekant med High & Low vs. Middle teorin som beskriver hur centraliseringsprocessen går till. C.A. Bond använder, utforskar och expanderar detta koncept men myntar och använder sig av termerna Centre, Subsidiaries och Periphery istället för High, Middle och Low. För att ge en liten överblick av denna process låter vi författaren själv här förklara:
”The result of being able to recognise this dual character of Power is that a key mechanism of Power’s expansion becomes visible, this being the manner in which this central Power naturally makes appeals to the periphery of society as a means to engage in indirect and subversive conflict against its own subsidiaries. This process creates a great deal of confusion in modern political thought as this is counterintuitive. Within this thought, it is assumed that the subsidiaries of an order are in alliance with the central Power, given that they are all elements of the same governance structure ranged against, in modernity, the individual. This is false. While in a general sense the subsidiaries uphold the overall order, in reality these two categories are in a state of constant tension and conflict which merely varies in its intensity. The peripheral element, to which this central Power makes its appeal, is normally the largest element of the model, and represents the section of society identified as existing outside the sphere of the central Power and also outside the subsidiary centres of power. Be this the proletariat, the plebeians, the poor, the people, the masses, or whatever specific form this category takes within a given order. This periphery is always identified as being in some way oppressed and in need of some form of political empowerment by whichever actor is forming an alliance with it. The periphery often becomes a valuable asset to those with an interest in altering a given order due to the fact that it represents a pool of willing and loyal participants in the conflict between centres of power which can be used in efforts to undermine other centres of power. It is notable that the formal reasons cited for such an alliance between a power and a section of the periphery are invariably framed in terms of a breach of the ethical standards of the order in question, and that this breach is inevitably premised on the basis of equality in some sense.”
s.6
Denna förhållandevis korta bok är väl efterforskad och författaren argumenterar på ett övertygande sätt för att den Jouvenelianska dynamiken (mer än De Jouvenel själv föreslog) påverkar / har påverkat bland annat ekonomi, kultur, filosofi och geopolitik. Den nämnda dynamiken har en stark förklaringskraft som Bond påvisar på ett intressant och klargörande sätt. Vi rekommenderar denna bok till alla er som är intresserade av politik och historia.
”The result of being able to recognise this dual character of Power is that a key mechanism of Power’s expansion becomes visible, this being the manner in which this central Power naturally makes appeals to the periphery of society as a means to engage in indirect and subversive conflict against its own subsidiaries. This process creates a great deal of confusion in modern political thought as this is counterintuitive. Within this thought, it is assumed that the subsidiaries of an order are in alliance with the central Power, given that they are all elements of the same governance structure ranged against, in modernity, the individual. This is false. While in a general sense the subsidiaries uphold the overall order, in reality these two categories are in a state of constant tension and conflict which merely varies in its intensity. The peripheral element, to which this central Power makes its appeal, is normally the largest element of the model, and represents the section of society identified as existing outside the sphere of the central Power and also outside the subsidiary centres of power. Be this the proletariat, the plebeians, the poor, the people, the masses, or whatever specific form this category takes within a given order. This periphery is always identified as being in some way oppressed and in need of some form of political empowerment by whichever actor is forming an alliance with it. The periphery often becomes a valuable asset to those with an interest in altering a given order due to the fact that it represents a pool of willing and loyal participants in the conflict between centres of power which can be used in efforts to undermine other centres of power. It is notable that the formal reasons cited for such an alliance between a power and a section of the periphery are invariably framed in terms of a breach of the ethical standards of the order in question, and that this breach is inevitably premised on the basis of equality in some sense.”
s.6
Denna förhållandevis korta bok är väl efterforskad och författaren argumenterar på ett övertygande sätt för att den Jouvenelianska dynamiken (mer än De Jouvenel själv föreslog) påverkar / har påverkat bland annat ekonomi, kultur, filosofi och geopolitik. Den nämnda dynamiken har en stark förklaringskraft som Bond påvisar på ett intressant och klargörande sätt. Vi rekommenderar denna bok till alla er som är intresserade av politik och historia.
June 24, 2020
This is the most important book you will read on political theory. A crystal clear writing on the dynamics behind power relations governing the advancement and propagation of the modern liberal order. This is an exceptionally good book. Read it.
August 6, 2021
For a start, this is a well-written book: good sentence structure, clear argumentation, no typos, no padding. Interesting material all the way through. He seems to be working completely outside academia, so nice job!
How Ever, I think his adherence to his guiding theory - Jouvenel's high+low versus middle - is stretched too far. It's a good frame, it's a powerful frame, but it's not complete, because Feedback. So here's my take on what Bond says, misreadings and all..
The theory is this: in the beginning, various power centres have come into being, some due to might, some to superstition, whatever. There’s a power-spectrum between ruler and ruled: the periphery the most-ruled, the centre the most-ruling. The centre has natural power-multiplying advantages with things like issuing coinage and law codes. But all power centres make appeals, using whatever method works best, to the immediate underlings of rival power centres, promising relief from some sort of domination. The aim always is to relatively diminish those rivals, to disintermediate, which means to centralise, to turn a pyramid of power centres into a pillar, an uninterrupted panopticon. Maximise the inward flow of tribute. The ability of the powerless to challenge their immediate oppressor, whether by moral or violent pressure, is not a feature of this system, because such movements axiomatically fizzle without organisational or financial support from a yet higher power centre for which that oppressor is a rival. Pull the funding, and these movements die. Therefore all circulating ideologies that have traction, whatever their stated goals, must be serving the centralisation of power. Clearly, not every time.
However, as generations pass, the ideas that are used in the political game, ideas once more or less instrumentally calculated to appeal to the powerless, seep (so it seems to me) into the souls of the powerful. The hermetic seal between powerful and powerless is leaky. The original value system or prejudices of the powerful - religious, elitist, tribal and martial - becomes infected with values of the powerless (or the ideas promoted to them) - equality, universality, human rights - and so the powerful cannot resist their own replacement by people from the periphery that have those original power-values, but who mouth the egalitarian ones - all of your racist race-hucksters, millionaire socialists etc etc. And the Long Marchers. And the Chinese.
Where are we now? Are our national leaders allowing unlimited mass migration because they are cynically squashing rival power centres? They overdo it! Are they uncynically replacing themselves? I think so. Are they the rival power centres being squashed? If so, what is the central power? It can't be the supranational EU, because it too promotes open borders. Yet there's no world government as such. Part of this whole theory is that the central power effaces itself, to maintain the illusion (including to itself) that it means what it says and that grassroots movements are not all astroturfed, so perhaps we ought to expect the world power to be invisible. Yet if power means anything, it must mean long-term security for those who wield it, and I don't see security for anybody. What is happening is just chaotic, and the elites, with their ludicrous escape plans into bunkers or islands or space, know it.
So if the Jouvenelian model explained things once, it's not working now. If it was to work for all time, then you would need mass-human nature to be pure putty (though not pure individuals, which Bond suggests was just a persuasion tactic in the 17th century power struggle), and a separate race of steely-eyed demigods that make history happen, that never smoke their own supply of appealing ideas. Such people exist though! Many such cases! John Podesta get a mention as an arch astroturfer. But they can't predict how their monsters will turn on them and eat their children, as Wahhabism, Feminism, Socialism, Individualism have all done in their own ways.
How Ever, I think his adherence to his guiding theory - Jouvenel's high+low versus middle - is stretched too far. It's a good frame, it's a powerful frame, but it's not complete, because Feedback. So here's my take on what Bond says, misreadings and all..
The theory is this: in the beginning, various power centres have come into being, some due to might, some to superstition, whatever. There’s a power-spectrum between ruler and ruled: the periphery the most-ruled, the centre the most-ruling. The centre has natural power-multiplying advantages with things like issuing coinage and law codes. But all power centres make appeals, using whatever method works best, to the immediate underlings of rival power centres, promising relief from some sort of domination. The aim always is to relatively diminish those rivals, to disintermediate, which means to centralise, to turn a pyramid of power centres into a pillar, an uninterrupted panopticon. Maximise the inward flow of tribute. The ability of the powerless to challenge their immediate oppressor, whether by moral or violent pressure, is not a feature of this system, because such movements axiomatically fizzle without organisational or financial support from a yet higher power centre for which that oppressor is a rival. Pull the funding, and these movements die. Therefore all circulating ideologies that have traction, whatever their stated goals, must be serving the centralisation of power. Clearly, not every time.
However, as generations pass, the ideas that are used in the political game, ideas once more or less instrumentally calculated to appeal to the powerless, seep (so it seems to me) into the souls of the powerful. The hermetic seal between powerful and powerless is leaky. The original value system or prejudices of the powerful - religious, elitist, tribal and martial - becomes infected with values of the powerless (or the ideas promoted to them) - equality, universality, human rights - and so the powerful cannot resist their own replacement by people from the periphery that have those original power-values, but who mouth the egalitarian ones - all of your racist race-hucksters, millionaire socialists etc etc. And the Long Marchers. And the Chinese.
Where are we now? Are our national leaders allowing unlimited mass migration because they are cynically squashing rival power centres? They overdo it! Are they uncynically replacing themselves? I think so. Are they the rival power centres being squashed? If so, what is the central power? It can't be the supranational EU, because it too promotes open borders. Yet there's no world government as such. Part of this whole theory is that the central power effaces itself, to maintain the illusion (including to itself) that it means what it says and that grassroots movements are not all astroturfed, so perhaps we ought to expect the world power to be invisible. Yet if power means anything, it must mean long-term security for those who wield it, and I don't see security for anybody. What is happening is just chaotic, and the elites, with their ludicrous escape plans into bunkers or islands or space, know it.
So if the Jouvenelian model explained things once, it's not working now. If it was to work for all time, then you would need mass-human nature to be pure putty (though not pure individuals, which Bond suggests was just a persuasion tactic in the 17th century power struggle), and a separate race of steely-eyed demigods that make history happen, that never smoke their own supply of appealing ideas. Such people exist though! Many such cases! John Podesta get a mention as an arch astroturfer. But they can't predict how their monsters will turn on them and eat their children, as Wahhabism, Feminism, Socialism, Individualism have all done in their own ways.
December 18, 2022
Chris Bond’s Nemesis is mostly an exposition, and to some extent an expansion, of Bertrand de Jouvenel’s political philosophy put forward in his book ‘On Power’. Though I must admit I have yet to read the original material, I have already been exposed to a lot of these ideas in the works of Hoppe and Moldbug, both of whom can rightfully be called disciples of Jouvenel and the latter being a huge influence on Bond.(And Hoppe himself being a huge influence on Moldbug)
It seems to me that Jouvenel has become a sort of a Marx for the post-war, postmodern reactionary right in the scope of influence that his theory of Power has had and the way it’s become something that all (serious)fractions of the (real)Right have been influenced by. But also, there’s some similarities between Jouvenel’s theory and Marx’s dialectical materialism in the immensity and scope of the theories put forward which essentially claim to provide a meta-narrative that can explain and describe all social/political changes in any society at any point in time..
For Jouvenel, Power can be seen as a perennial historical phenomenon in a rather ‘finite’ composition, for which there’s an inescapable engine for expansion of political influence throughout all human history through a very strange, but also plain obvious dynamic.
The thesis of Power put forward in Nemesis views epistemology, ethics, theology, science and all other aspects of philosophy as both subjects and driving actors of political change in nodes of influence which find themselves in an eternal struggle for power. These subjects of Power, from the Socratics in Ancient Greece, through the Medieval Christians to Enlightenment liberals(and their descendants today) comprise political forms which we can view as the material base of human societies and who develop the ideological superstructures that veil the inner workings of this power struggle of these same forms.
The theory reduced to a single proposition holds that in all human societies there has been a centre of Power occupied by a particular node(be it a monarch, pope or parliament) which utilizes a powerless periphery(plebeians, voters, proles) to wrestle a middle(aristocracy, bourgeois) in order to expand its sphere of influence. This is, of course, a very simplistic reduction which takes away a lot of the theory itself.
If my understanding is correct, Chris diverges from Jouvenel(and Moldbug) under the influence of Alasdair Macintyre’s view on ethics and Tradition and, more importantly, the thesis of Generative Anthropology put forward by Eric Gans and Adam Katz which claims to explain social and linguistic developments stemming from a primordial, originary, sacral centre where Power was first conceived.
What is interesting is that, while in this view Power is seen in a very fatal light, almost as an inescapable destructive force, it’s also seen as a very social phenomenon, a starting point which has made human civilization possible in the first place.
I am not sure if I would agree entirely with Bond’s view, but I can safely say that this has been one of the most interesting works I’ve read that have come out of the neoreactionary scene. It has definitely put Jouvenel’s ‘On Power’ much higher on my to-read list!
It seems to me that Jouvenel has become a sort of a Marx for the post-war, postmodern reactionary right in the scope of influence that his theory of Power has had and the way it’s become something that all (serious)fractions of the (real)Right have been influenced by. But also, there’s some similarities between Jouvenel’s theory and Marx’s dialectical materialism in the immensity and scope of the theories put forward which essentially claim to provide a meta-narrative that can explain and describe all social/political changes in any society at any point in time..
For Jouvenel, Power can be seen as a perennial historical phenomenon in a rather ‘finite’ composition, for which there’s an inescapable engine for expansion of political influence throughout all human history through a very strange, but also plain obvious dynamic.
The thesis of Power put forward in Nemesis views epistemology, ethics, theology, science and all other aspects of philosophy as both subjects and driving actors of political change in nodes of influence which find themselves in an eternal struggle for power. These subjects of Power, from the Socratics in Ancient Greece, through the Medieval Christians to Enlightenment liberals(and their descendants today) comprise political forms which we can view as the material base of human societies and who develop the ideological superstructures that veil the inner workings of this power struggle of these same forms.
The theory reduced to a single proposition holds that in all human societies there has been a centre of Power occupied by a particular node(be it a monarch, pope or parliament) which utilizes a powerless periphery(plebeians, voters, proles) to wrestle a middle(aristocracy, bourgeois) in order to expand its sphere of influence. This is, of course, a very simplistic reduction which takes away a lot of the theory itself.
If my understanding is correct, Chris diverges from Jouvenel(and Moldbug) under the influence of Alasdair Macintyre’s view on ethics and Tradition and, more importantly, the thesis of Generative Anthropology put forward by Eric Gans and Adam Katz which claims to explain social and linguistic developments stemming from a primordial, originary, sacral centre where Power was first conceived.
What is interesting is that, while in this view Power is seen in a very fatal light, almost as an inescapable destructive force, it’s also seen as a very social phenomenon, a starting point which has made human civilization possible in the first place.
I am not sure if I would agree entirely with Bond’s view, but I can safely say that this has been one of the most interesting works I’ve read that have come out of the neoreactionary scene. It has definitely put Jouvenel’s ‘On Power’ much higher on my to-read list!
October 3, 2020
A sophisticated alternative historical method than liberalism of how powerful empires, cities, ideologies and political actors rise and fall. The High-Low vs Middle mechanism is extremely interesting and will be a future model I will use myself as I read history. My only doubt would be my own lack of knowledge in history, making me unable to truly verify how common the High-Low vs Middle mechanism is in power struggles. All in all, it was refreshing and it has given me a taste for some of the works cited.
November 28, 2022
Author expects reader to be quite knowledgeable and does not waste time explaining context, theory and terminology he's using in his texts which can be confusing at times if you're unfamiliar with it which means the book quite dense and in it's entirety relevant to the matter at hand- which is fine by my standards but could be perplexing at times.
June 13, 2021
A great application of Jouvenial thought to the analysis of a plethora of political movements: nothing is spontaneous.
Read
November 17, 2021Very very very very convoluted. Couldn't make it.
July 4, 2025
This is an outstanding book which made me change my views on politics. "Nemesis" is a perfect summary and update on Jouvenel's political theory. The part about the global liberal order is particularly interesting, though not necessarily 100% correct. The sources are also of very high quality.
Displaying 1 - 13 of 13 reviews