63 Comments
Apr 25, 2022·edited Apr 25, 2022

You keep saying these people are great even on Tucker Carlson. One example you gave is they eat good food or some other nonsense. By their actions, this class that you hail from is filled with power hungry monsters, now concentrated in NYC, SF, LA, and DC.

They deserve neither respect nor admiration. These monsters have been around since fdr and look at their fellow citizens with contempt, nothing more than cattle to be directed by manipulation. They look at the world as their fiefdom to be bullied and harassed to fly the rainbow flag. Regardless of their defensive position, they should be stripped of power forever by any means necessary. Then maybe they will indulge some idiotic Ethiopian restaurant since they apparently eat the "best food."

Expand full comment

I don't think that was his point.

Expand full comment
Apr 25, 2022·edited Apr 25, 2022

I know his point. A peaceful separation enforced by a stabilizing monarchy. He advocated buying out the evil oligarchy and its sycophants and pushing them to the side on Tucker Carlson.

Where I fundamentally disagree with him is the notion that this class, the professional managerial class, that he descends from, is overall good. They are not. They are power hungry evil monsters, using the feminine punishment of banishment against their enemies both foreign and domestic. They would use concentration camps or their equivalent if they thought they could. They have no moral right to rule and never did. They should be removed by any means necessary.

Expand full comment

But *everyone* eventually becomes a monster when connected to power. And as far as systemic abuses go, this regime is rife with humiliation rituals but it lacks a lot of the bite I presume your more masculine punishments have in mind.

Ultimately you have to weigh your desire for justice against your desire for regime change. I come from this class of people, and they disgust me. They often *are* kind, considerate, intelligent, and generous in private life, and that disgusts me *more*. Because they clearly do have some virtue but never choose to apply it where it matters - to *rule*. They deserve everything that they have done, to be done unto them.

But imposing that on them is an obstacle to rule, and a bloody one. It's the difference between the first French revolution and the accession of Napoleon. It greatly increases the chances of an abortion of a state emerging, some military junta seizing the reins of the revolution instead of the idealistic revolutionaries who hope to govern with sincerity. Power will rot them too, but they have a taller height to fall from.

The question is, does your (admittedly righteous) revenge matter more than increasing your odds of ushering in a safe and prosperous future?

Expand full comment

These people will be kind and generous to you when it increases their status to the 1% scumbag oligarchs in DC or NYC. They will only be "nice" to you to get likes. Otherwise, they are power hungry scheming amoral people. I know them well too.

What stable or prosperous future do we have under their rule anyways? The only thing the know how to do is gangster politics, running the US like a bust out operation so they will have enough to go to Paris three times a year. The only way a prosperous future occurs is if they are removed without any hope of ascension. If that takes a Trump^2 to wage direct conflict on the DC federal bureaucracy than that's what it will take.

Expand full comment
Apr 25, 2022·edited Apr 25, 2022

Most blues are clients, not officials. I don't know any officials, but I do know clients, and I have seen their local influence.

Anyway, isn't what you're saying exactly what Yarvin is arguing for? Detaching them from rule? Yarvin says, in so many words, that he wants to continue nurturing their talents - which, being the white collar party, they indisputably do have. But he has no interest in nurturing their talent for being conniving bastards.

So I don't understand why you think he's arguing that they need to be given dominion. He's arguing that they need to be disconnected from power yet preserved, for reasons of making the transition easier, and exploiting their human capital. While most engineers are red, pretty much all the scientists I know are blue, and we need both.

Expand full comment

Like I said before, I disagree that they are fundamentally good people. I don't believe that at all. By the scientists line, if you're referring to the current crop that infest the cathedral like fauci, good riddance to the lot of them. Their talents are not needed and should be refused so their status will remain in the gutter where they belong. If science was to return to the pursuit of truth instead of grants and status, then and only then will I consider a lefty to be worthy.

Expand full comment

I think that internal to the Gen Xers, and especially the Boomers, the point is correct. The blue side had a monopoly on taste. But among Millennials and younger that's just not true. Compare the 30 year old artisanal barbeque chef in Chattanooga TN with the 30 year old Sociology postdoc in Eugene OR, I guarantee the taste-levels are...basically the same.

Expand full comment
Apr 25, 2022·edited Apr 25, 2022

And I would say it doesn't matter either way. Yarvin was trying to convey how these terrible people are some of the best in America and one of their virtues was their taste in food. That's idiotic. The only thing he does, even in this article, is defend these sycophantic monsters as good people because he descends from them. I contend, by their actions, the purple bloods are not good people, probably not since that scumbag Woodrow Wilson and should be ruined one way or another. Honestly, if being a nazi carried status, those purple and blue blood freaks wouldn't hesitate to join and the evidence is ukraine.

Expand full comment
Apr 28, 2022·edited Apr 28, 2022

> if being a nazi carried status, those purple and blue blood freaks wouldn't hesitate to join and the evidence is ukraine.

Ding ding ding

I don’t doubt Mr. Yarvin would agree with you on that point — in fact, I’m sure he’s made it.

But, in his hypothetical Reset, the question isn’t ‘why shouldn’t we Nuremburg them?’ it is ‘why SHOULD we?’

The simple fact is, only a select few are guilty of crimes against decency that merit any punishment. But none of those individuals will be eligible for civil service in the new regime — and all it would take to accomplish that is excluding Any previous state/federal official, and spooks. That the rest of them have been or would be ‘good little nazis’ is no more damning than it is to heritage/redshirt Americans who probably would have looked the other way if Trump had started helicoptering apparatchiks.

The greater point is that the moral failings of our current blueshirts and even aristocracy are not greater and are no more relevant than yours or mine. They are not the same moral failings as yours or mine, they are not comparable to yours or mine, and therefore they can have no bearing on eligibility for service, citizenship, or legal treatment under the new regime. After all, the Reset predisposes a ruling structure that makes the peccadillos of either it’s subjects or it’s civil servants immaterial. Clear structure, mathematical accountability, effective power.

Expand full comment

If I remember my "Unqualified Reservations" the answer to that would be that "taste travels downhill", so that today's upscale Red has the taste of a "twenty years ago" Blue. Unable to tell, personally.

Perhaps that means that the hicks will be grilling lots of jackfruit in 10 years time, in which case let's just end it all right now! :)

Expand full comment

Blues arent into food anymore they're into masks.

Expand full comment

Heh! :)

But at least they will always have Twi... oh wait!

Expand full comment

I completely get your point. I just feel that I'd be more satisfied with Marius. They deserve Marius, they've earned Marius and I wouldn't feel right with grilling and not thinking about politics until they got Marius.

Perhaps there can't be a Caesar without first getting a Marius?

Expand full comment

Trump was our Marius, or at least one of the Gracchi. Having said that, I would still prefer a Caesar. If we do get a Marius - oh well. Can't make an omelet...

Expand full comment

The left reacted like Trump was Marius, but I think a lot of that was performative. For a person to be Marius, they need to put the real fear of God put in the aristocrats.

I think the Gracchi would be a better example. Trump too was performative, and more interested in reform, though he wasn't sure what form it would take (apparently - since he never attacked the real problem). This ended up being his undoing.

Expand full comment

Marius was also rather old and didn't know when to step aside, also like Trump. While Talern is right generally about Brutality, Trump could be a tough guy: look what he did to Jeff Sessions.

Expand full comment

Given how one sided, vicious, and devastating the left/blue America’s cultural war and economic exploitation of the right/red America and for how it has only escalated over the course of several generations, Curtis’ membership of his group prevents him from perceiving it objectively. It is not a group of aristocrats, it is a group of despots. Sic semper tyrannis.

Expand full comment

I think there may be something to that. Marius figures may be necessary as a historical prerequisite.

They make the threat and desperation of the lower social strata real. And because they fail, they increase the oppression of the upper social strata.

This leaves everyone in a condition of unacceptable fear, and desperate for a solution.

Expand full comment
Apr 25, 2022·edited Apr 25, 2022

That very well could be a possibility.

I only see two ways the confrontation with the left can end.

1. Is purely through a violent bloody

the revolution was sure you get your

revenge, but the death toll will be high

on both sides, and potentially higher on

red states.

2. option two is somewhat like how Yarvin

suggests where you have a Monarch

and his cabinet/inner circle be the

delegates at the high federal level who

are tasked with not only removing t.

hose people from DC, but also tasked

with keeping both societies blue and

red from interacting with each other. If

that means banning CNN or Vox from

red states and vice-versa with blue

states with red-state commentary then

I would be for it.

Edit: another strategy for dealing with news organizations, is where you consolidate all mainstream media organizations under one domain you have control say the executive branch and you start axing the ideological fodder which will become a problem to you as you start clearing away the old processes of these organizations and replace them with new forms of administration and legal processes which governor these organizations.

Expand full comment

You make it sound like it is important not to take revenge on the oligarchy and the aristocrats. Would you at least support the form of revenge “jailing felons“? Because they have done a lot of quite clearly criminal things while oppressing us.

Expand full comment

Arguably no, because they more or less did it under a system of law under which it was de facto legal.

Expand full comment

The “it” you are thinking of is not the “it” I am thinking of.

Expand full comment

While it's true I can't read your mind, the "it" I am thinking of includes any misdeed that can be expected to go unpunished today, from jaywalking to large scale atrocities, and those things in between. So your "it" is probably included, unless you're referring to blaspheming the Holy Ghost or something like that.

Expand full comment

I am talking about acts that would very surely be punished if a Republican did them now, for which Democrats only enjoy impunity, which are nonetheless clear felonies that the legal system would currently be capable of convicting a Republican of.

Expand full comment

Loud echo of above sentiment from Fghj.

Where are all these really wonderful people, these amazing extremely talented folks? What have they produced of genuine and lasting value which attests to their innate nobility of character? Buildings? Lol. Art? Lmfao. Peace amongst the peoples over whom they viciously and contemptuously rule? Roflmfao.

It’s a rotten slough and you lack the courage to characterize it properly, not sure why. Does political theory not offer a handy solution to the problem of a thoroughly morally filthy and yet overwhelmingly powerful oligarchy where no replacement exists and where the populace that constitutes the only possible source of power to elevate a decent Caesar is also pretty damn flabby and corrupt? Sincere question.

Maybe you refer to the millions of blue souls who are not necessarily directly oligarchs themselves but just need to place the yard signs wherever they effing go in order to stifle dissent and sow their ridiculous cheap garbage ideology into every neighborhood and association before a word can be freely spoken between citizens. I don’t know.

Expand full comment

Well, look at someone like Scott Alexander. Clearly from the Blue Tribe as he would put it and clearly one of the most important contemporary intellectuals. That's what Curtis means (I think).

Expand full comment
Apr 25, 2022·edited Apr 25, 2022

The crux of long thread from my original comment is I, like you, disagree with the premise that bad systems made good people bad. Nope, they were drawn to the systems and were bad to begin with and attracted to be virtue signaling and status seeking awful people. There is nothing good about them other than their knack to show how much better they are than you while robbing you of your dignity and resources. Any new executive or monarchy would do well to remove these awful people, our so called blue aristocracy.

Expand full comment

I found this article quite interesting and a little troubling.

The problem as I see it is that religious people are currently, and are likely to increasingly become, hostile to Blue State treatment of children. Blue State reckless abandon of any mores, sexual or otherwise, increasingly seems to have begun encompassing even basic decency.

Blue Stater's pathological need to infect young folks with their ideas stems from the sterility of their ideas and worldview. The Left should be a self-solving problem, and it would be, if it weren't for activist educators and sexual abusers/groomers. (Please forgive my use of the demotic term.) As a responsible parent, I could not simply allow the problem of intergenerational grooming to continue as it eventually would impact a child of mine or someone I know.

Perhaps there are structural things you have in mind for a new Monarchy that would address this problem.

There are just some types people and ideas that are absolutely intolerable and must be actively protected at all times in order to survive publicly.

Expand full comment

A suggestion... read the f***ing Constitution and Federalist papers. I’ve had a hard time understanding your position on monarchy as the solution to our current state of affairs. Actually I've found it silly and unsophisticated given the history of monarchy, for example the Plantagenet's of England and the Islamic Caliphate of the Ottoman empire. Until, that is, the recent piece in Vanity Fair. If I am correct , you advocate simply for a strong Presidency. Per the Constitution ours is a Federation not a nation, a Republic not a democracy. It started falling apart with the advent of the progressive era in the late 1800's when they realized that it is easier to influence the 500 people in the congress and nationalize everything than the 50,000 in the several state legislators.

It is obvious that our ship of state is dead in the water because it needs its hull scraped to remove the barnacles, rust, and rot. I submit that the basic structure (the Constitution and Bill of Rights as written) is sound. It is arguably the finest work of political science devised since humans learned to walk (see also 'A Very Short Introduction to the Magna Carta' https://www.veryshortintroductions.com/). I have no confidence that we can improve it. It has suffered injury almost from day one from judicial misconduct of the Supreme Court . Plessey Vs Ferguson is but one example from the early Progressive era. The 1927 decision in Buck vs Bell on forced sterilization neatly sums up the lawerly thinking that has started corroding the hull and attracted barnacles. To quote Justice Oliver Wendel Holms “...The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting Fallopian tubes.”

The only way that your Monarchist ideas could work is to follow the constitution - a very limited central government and internally autonomous states. Progressives could rule their states and conservatives rule theirs with the Federal government playing referee in interstate disputes and conducting foreign affairs. No national police (FBI), no national bank (The Fed), with the 10th amendment tattooed on the forehead of all federal employees and officials. As other commentators have pointed out the proclivities of the progressives among us make that un-likely.

Expand full comment

The current state of affairs is evidence AGAINST the Constitution, not for it. The entire ideal behind government-by-paper is what got us here in the first place. Government cannot be outsourced. When you look at the first century of our country's existence and credit a scrap of paper for its success, you're really seeing the achievements of an educated, motivated, aristocratic elite and an energized populace (conditioned, of course, by five hundred years of prudent monarchy). Where are they now? And the Constitution remains the same...

Lots of stuff in the Bill of Rights is nice to have (some, like freedom of the press, are just plain stupid). Turning back the clock 150 years is a nice way to find ourselves in the exact same spot we are now, though.

Expand full comment

So what do you propose? That 'scrap of paper' is the 2nd attempt at the rule of law (three if you count the articles of Confederation). It a crappy way to govern except foe any other method.

Expand full comment

The same form of government used in every business and most states throughout history.

Monarchy. It's not nearly as bad as you think, and can be leagues better than even the most functional republic. Look at the five good emperor's, the enlightened monarchies of the modern era, and so on.

You should read A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations. It's relevant to the arguments you're making.

Expand full comment

As you suggested, I read 'A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations'. Took me a while. I found it to be ...obtuse at best. Almost stream on consciousness. His historical references were very good and quite interesting as was his has analysis of Anthropogenic Global Warming, Keynes/Fisher Macro economics (He, like most people, misinterpret Keynes' 'Theory of Money' rather as they do Machiavelli, but I'll leave that to another day), and Human Neurological Uniformity. He never developed the implementation of a Monarchy beyond saying it's better because some were successful.

His latest post 'Principles of collective delegation' on 4.28 substantially supports my critique posted earlier. To quote 'Taking the Constitution seriously means taking it literally. Taking the Constitution literally means literally making the President the CEO of the executive branch'. I couldn't agree more. Check out his latest post and see if you agree.

Expand full comment

It's definitely something. Yarvin never edited his work - he'd write and post. If I recall correctly, he felt it was against the spirit of blogging.

And I agree with your assessment. Yarvin has some of the best analysis. But his solutions aren't as fleshed out. What I find most compelling is his analysis of our little discussed systemic issues, and his examples of more functional regimes.

The political engineering that can see similar regimes implemented in the modern era - I don't think he's solved that, though he's made some good strides since starting Gray Mirror. The political amplifier actually provides a fairly achievable means of capturing a state in present times; it's good political engineering.

I'll check out his latest post.

And congratulations for having the patience to not just read what others recommend, but to read that giant essay. It's a rare quality these days.

Expand full comment

Don't know that corporate governance and civil governance are interchangeable or even comparable, but I will the book you recommend. My initial thought is that most corporations fail just like most monarchies Those that don't are the tip of a very large ice berg.

Expand full comment

Power is power. They're comparable because they're human decision making structures. The board of directors are comparable to nobles that function as kingmakers, and the CEO of course to king, and the various officers beneath him as princes that may inherit his throne.

All states fail. It's just a matter of how long they last before failing. Republics seldom last over 300 years, and become obnoxious quickly.

I think that the second biggest "red pill," after Yarvin's insight into the influence of sovereignty on public policy/academia, is the affirmation of the ancient observation that government moves in cycles. The form of government is less important than the virtue of the staff. Like crop rotation, the rotation of elites is important for ensuring a healthy and stable government.

The place you're most likely to find virtue is the furthest from power. So you would want to pull your new elite from whatever political movements are unsuccessful - because the sociopaths haven't been as drawn to them, and power hasn't had the opportunity to rot the virtue of sincere ideologues. In present day society, the least popular political movement is monarchy.

Hereditary monarchies are often bad. Monarchies that can select for leadership ability tend to outlast the useful lifespan of Republics, which is only about 2 generations before things start getting incrementally worse.

I embrace monarchy less as a sincere belief and more as an avenue to rotation of the elites. It's just playing a part in a historical epicycle.

A Brief Explanation of the Cathedral is a a post on this blog which goes into greater detail about this.

Expand full comment

If I'm going, to be honest with you man. On history as well as the law you got your head in the clouds if you think the Constitution is going to do anything.

Expand full comment

The poast says over and over what's wrong with its conclusion. The blues cannot function if they arent in domination mode. If they aren't in domination mode they bleed their *non*-fragile talent over to the reds. So it wouldnt be much of a "jewel in the crown." They'd be mad; scheming constantly.

Expand full comment

Without their institutions they are nothing. Just as lazy as the reds.

Expand full comment

Just one question - how do we prevent Hitler, or Caligula, becoming “king”? Quis custodiet and all that

Expand full comment

Would love to see an answer for this one 🙏

Expand full comment

Butterfly revolution?

Expand full comment

The China example is interesting when you consider a lot of their current leadership including xi lived through the cultural Revolution (xi got sent to do labor in the country side and his sister killed herself). This is explains why absolute order and stability have been their priority. While I wouldn’t personally want to live there I recognize that the stability of the regime ever since deng has made life for most people better, I don’t think an American monarch would have to be as heavy handed or controlling as the Chinese though as Americans and Chinese have different cultural values around order and conformity. Americans value a more libertarian streak on the personal level which I don’t think has to be antithetical to strong rule at the top

Expand full comment

All I know is: I exist within a national and global madhouse and Senor Yarvin draws clever regime sketches with pencil. Am not sure what any of this is about anymore.

Expand full comment

Whoa whoa whoa, what's with the driveby on gamers?

Expand full comment

"Here is a question for red minds. Are you content with keeping X from applying to children of red parents? Or do you also want to impose your values on blue parents, preventing them by government power from “mutilating” their children in this way?

You should know that winning the second victory is much harder than the first."

No it isn't.

For nearly everyone, the relevant question is whether child mutilation is good or evil. Only disaffected liberals could see it as a matter of moral indifference capable of a stable live-and-let-live solution.

Expand full comment

The modern Taliban takes pains to present itself as the regime of all Afghan Muslims. They don't care sect or ethnicity you belong to, as long as it's within the limits of what they can morally tolerate. I don't agree with their religion but the approach seems right in concept for a multiethnic, plural society.

The basic problem with Curtis's view is that he's a cultural relativist, who sees what are really matters of good and evil as mere questions of taste. In reality, some cultures are morally depraved and need to die out; if the members of such a culture are really such great people they can be great after assimilating into healthy ones.

Expand full comment
Apr 25, 2022·edited Apr 25, 2022

I would agree with the sentiment that any CW related legislation should be presented in as mundane a matter as possible. Especially at the national level there's no value in making other people mad. Owning the libs is a self own even if you have total control.

The problem is that it's very hard to present a regime as neutral that effectively involves depriving one side of huge amounts of power and the other of hardly any power a all (since they have hardly any to take).

If you have a war where one side is advancing rapidly and taking one town after another, the other in rapid retreat, having a powerful third party force a peace or even a truce is going to be rightly perceived as siding with the weaker party. The act of arresting that kind of cultural momentum rather than concealing it or slowing it down (the current realistic political options) is blood red even if the regime doesn't present it as such.

Our own current regime gets conniptions about when foreign states operate outside of their own cultural control. These states are illegitimate, sovereignty notwistanding. The language of rights doesn't concern itself with what side of a fence a person falls on and doesn't regard itself as co-equal or subordinate to any other set of norms or circumstances. In the context of operation X, Children have the right to express their gender and gender affirmative care and what state they live in or what their parents.

But my disagreement is mostly rhetorical. I don't see what's being proposed as a deviation from 'victory before peace', the only difference is that progressives cannot be relied upon to ever* be satisfied with a particular state of affairs, progress is viewed as a continuous process and so victory (and thus peace) is never achieved.

On Vitalism

An Islamist, insofar as they might participate in a culture war, have views that are not relative to progressives but relative to the Koran. Islamism, if it was imposed on a western population beyond ethnic enclaves would be seen as more anti-progressive than anti-traditional. Similarly I imagine vitalism in the modern day being seen as ultra-far-right, as in the hitler variety. They might abandon this hyper inferiority complex when out of power but I'm unsure.

Expand full comment

Interesting. Heard of you for the first time a few days ago via James Pogue’s recent article. Paid subscriber 👏

Expand full comment

Remember the Catholic vs Protestant wars during the 1500s and 1600s? Monarchies were not "purple" (neutral) in those wars. Neither would an American caesar be neutral. The way to avoid scaring the hell out of the blue states and inspiring them to fight back is to split the USA in half. Let them have their territory so we don't waste blood and treasure ruling them, and so that they are willing to accept the partition of the USA in the first place.

Expand full comment

Or we could just do Switzerland instead. They do different tribes in what is probably the most democratic democracy ever.

Expand full comment