Your prose is so readable--so fun to read and easy to comprehend, without being dumbed-down at all, that I don't even know how much of it I agree with, but since it's such a pleasure to read I'll keep reading it. Thanks.
The dictator's not going to be elected, though, whether openly or sneakily; it's just not going to happen. If the Managerium rigged an election against an innocuous nobody like Trump, then of course they'd rig an election against somebody who looked at all dictatorial.
This is why I think that you ought to regularly gesture in an offhand yet vaguely significant way toward the very slowly yet steadily increasing likelihood of a colonel-led military coup. This will eventually get some young lieutenants thinking; they'll publicly laugh it off, of course, but when they've had a few drinks together they might start discussing the question of who, or what kind of person, would be a good dictator to install in the America of an imaginary world in which this coup occurs.
Speaking of making a plan for the next regime, how about we get back to that? Also maybe make it something more practical than fucking space weapons and shit. I love you Curtis, but I'm just saying...
Meet Joe. Joe's fear of the vaccine is approximately equal to his fear of the virus. He distrusts both the pro- and the anti-vaccination hype. But when the regime firmly places its thumb on one side of the scales (because, according to NPR, during the times of crisis nuance only confuses people, we have to stay on message), Joe decides "f*** you, I am not getting vaccinated". Because Joe is a dissident at heart. (Many such cases.)
Is Joe engaging in political activity according to CY's eloquent definition of politics as "the exercise of collective power against human opposition"? I think the second part of the definition holds - there is definitely strong human opposition to his decision.
But is Joe exercising collective power? I can see the argument going both ways: on the one hand the action seems to be individual. On the other, Joe draws psychological support from knowing that there are many others like him. So to some extent to him the action is collective.
But then wouldn't reading this Substack be a political action? At least for those of us who feel psychological support from knowing that there are others who read and mostly agree with it?
I was particularly entertained by this passage of “The Week” ’s piece:
“Yet it's also true that at no point does Anton offer a substantive critique of Yarvin's arguments and assertions. He merely expresses pragmatic or tactical objections, as if the primary fault in Yarvin's ideas is that they are unrealistic.”
This phenomenon is practically a species trait among progressives debating socialists, or even conservatives attempting to fend off liberals. It is the consistent complaint of those hoping to circumvent an ideological reality deficit by creating an unprincipled exception— Moldbug’s classic example being the newest generation of State Departmentites overthrowing an ancient dictator whose presence was tolerated out of pragmatism by older officials.
Yes, Anton showed this too— it’s good to see his kind come far enough to implicitly accept our premises.
These take downs are great, I enjoy reading them - this guy, Willy W, that other guy, Noah Smith - but I'd really like to see a decent back and forth engagement with other intellectuals - Damon is right about the Anton interview - Anton doesn't really challenge Curtis and certainly there is a counter argument against Curtis's worldview from conservatives, libertarians, whatever Tyler Cowen is, by people who unlike Linker take Curtis's ideas and systems analysis seriously - I think this largely doesn't happen - perhaps the exception being Scotty Alexander - because they don't want to spend the capital to do it - all the hate they'd receive from people accusing them of promoting the ideas of fascism by taking it seriously...its just not worth it for them and I can't blame them - they have other goals and agendas to promote...
"My third hypothesis is that 21st-century America can replace its government and even its regime without any kind of violence or bloodshed. The reconstruction of Germany was a rough business, at least in ‘45 and ‘46; the reconstruction of Japan was far better handled. Yet in neither of these countries, both previously considered the most violent and nationalist of nations, was there serious, violent resistance to denationalization. Unless you understand why this was, do not immediately dismiss the third hypothesis."
Yeah. No violence required to subdue Germany and Japan.
Thanks again to your recommendation of The Ancient City for my new realization that the word “tyrant” has come to possess a negative connotation because it was a concept despised by the oligarchy of the time it was meant to curb. It was probably my favorite part in the book where Fustel de Coulanges runs through all these “tyrants” elected by the people who ended poorly, followed by the champions of the oligarchy who all died peacefully in their beds. LOL
First, I get this impression lately that more than a few mainstream people on the right are aware of your work or its derivatives. Michael Knowles comes to mind, but I also see a lot conversation on Twitter that makes me wonder.
Second, I tried reading Democracy: The God That Failed a little while ago, and I’m impressed you got anything out of that strawmanfest. How does that work?
Linker got his come-ups via Giuliani and First Things. He is a shadier David Frum-David French-Bill Kristol-esque character. Talleyrand in all his zig zags actually had real administrative positions. He had to read paperwork and make decisions. Even when he was the pre-Revolutionary Bishop of Autun & Agent General of the Clergy. These guys are like 1960's and 70's used car salesmen who jump from lot to lot on the main car selling street. Sure they have a purpose but no one is going to buy a Tesla from them. They're too well known for their sleazy tactics selling crappy jalopies and lemons. The next regime won't even have salesmen-pundits in this way and type. Let alone cornballs like Linker et al.
Your prose is so readable--so fun to read and easy to comprehend, without being dumbed-down at all, that I don't even know how much of it I agree with, but since it's such a pleasure to read I'll keep reading it. Thanks.
The dictator's not going to be elected, though, whether openly or sneakily; it's just not going to happen. If the Managerium rigged an election against an innocuous nobody like Trump, then of course they'd rig an election against somebody who looked at all dictatorial.
This is why I think that you ought to regularly gesture in an offhand yet vaguely significant way toward the very slowly yet steadily increasing likelihood of a colonel-led military coup. This will eventually get some young lieutenants thinking; they'll publicly laugh it off, of course, but when they've had a few drinks together they might start discussing the question of who, or what kind of person, would be a good dictator to install in the America of an imaginary world in which this coup occurs.
Speaking of making a plan for the next regime, how about we get back to that? Also maybe make it something more practical than fucking space weapons and shit. I love you Curtis, but I'm just saying...
Curtis just want to point out that Texas High School football stadiums hold up to 20K Grill Americans. Your reach is large. As a proud red blooded GA, I have been to 6 on this list. https://www.wideopencountry.com/10-biggest-high-school-football-stadiums-texas/
Say what you will about the tenets of writing disgruntled manifestos from a shack in the woods, at least it's an ethos.
"I eschew any kind of political action"
Meet Joe. Joe's fear of the vaccine is approximately equal to his fear of the virus. He distrusts both the pro- and the anti-vaccination hype. But when the regime firmly places its thumb on one side of the scales (because, according to NPR, during the times of crisis nuance only confuses people, we have to stay on message), Joe decides "f*** you, I am not getting vaccinated". Because Joe is a dissident at heart. (Many such cases.)
Is Joe engaging in political activity according to CY's eloquent definition of politics as "the exercise of collective power against human opposition"? I think the second part of the definition holds - there is definitely strong human opposition to his decision.
But is Joe exercising collective power? I can see the argument going both ways: on the one hand the action seems to be individual. On the other, Joe draws psychological support from knowing that there are many others like him. So to some extent to him the action is collective.
But then wouldn't reading this Substack be a political action? At least for those of us who feel psychological support from knowing that there are others who read and mostly agree with it?
"Bob Dole, who at only 98 somehow manages to be retired." Lines like this are why I support your grift, Curtis. Back to reading the rest of it.
I was particularly entertained by this passage of “The Week” ’s piece:
“Yet it's also true that at no point does Anton offer a substantive critique of Yarvin's arguments and assertions. He merely expresses pragmatic or tactical objections, as if the primary fault in Yarvin's ideas is that they are unrealistic.”
This phenomenon is practically a species trait among progressives debating socialists, or even conservatives attempting to fend off liberals. It is the consistent complaint of those hoping to circumvent an ideological reality deficit by creating an unprincipled exception— Moldbug’s classic example being the newest generation of State Departmentites overthrowing an ancient dictator whose presence was tolerated out of pragmatism by older officials.
Yes, Anton showed this too— it’s good to see his kind come far enough to implicitly accept our premises.
I feel like Palladium Magazine is producing hq absolute public policy. Which I like.
These take downs are great, I enjoy reading them - this guy, Willy W, that other guy, Noah Smith - but I'd really like to see a decent back and forth engagement with other intellectuals - Damon is right about the Anton interview - Anton doesn't really challenge Curtis and certainly there is a counter argument against Curtis's worldview from conservatives, libertarians, whatever Tyler Cowen is, by people who unlike Linker take Curtis's ideas and systems analysis seriously - I think this largely doesn't happen - perhaps the exception being Scotty Alexander - because they don't want to spend the capital to do it - all the hate they'd receive from people accusing them of promoting the ideas of fascism by taking it seriously...its just not worth it for them and I can't blame them - they have other goals and agendas to promote...
Of course Fate would have it that someone worrying about you and Anton speaking would have the name Der Linke.
We'll be seeing the midwest he said . . .
We'll be in Missouri he said . . .
"My third hypothesis is that 21st-century America can replace its government and even its regime without any kind of violence or bloodshed. The reconstruction of Germany was a rough business, at least in ‘45 and ‘46; the reconstruction of Japan was far better handled. Yet in neither of these countries, both previously considered the most violent and nationalist of nations, was there serious, violent resistance to denationalization. Unless you understand why this was, do not immediately dismiss the third hypothesis."
Yeah. No violence required to subdue Germany and Japan.
Thanks again to your recommendation of The Ancient City for my new realization that the word “tyrant” has come to possess a negative connotation because it was a concept despised by the oligarchy of the time it was meant to curb. It was probably my favorite part in the book where Fustel de Coulanges runs through all these “tyrants” elected by the people who ended poorly, followed by the champions of the oligarchy who all died peacefully in their beds. LOL
Two quick notes:
First, I get this impression lately that more than a few mainstream people on the right are aware of your work or its derivatives. Michael Knowles comes to mind, but I also see a lot conversation on Twitter that makes me wonder.
Second, I tried reading Democracy: The God That Failed a little while ago, and I’m impressed you got anything out of that strawmanfest. How does that work?
Anyway, back to reading the rest of this post…
My post-regime-change yard sign would say:
#PleaseBelieve:
Other Lives Matter
Government is War Plus Loot and Plunder
No Dog is Illegal
Love is Blind
Because Science
CO2 is Plant Food
Deplorable Rights are Human Rights
Everything is Everything
Please believe that nice liberal ladies could do this! After the regime change.
Linker got his come-ups via Giuliani and First Things. He is a shadier David Frum-David French-Bill Kristol-esque character. Talleyrand in all his zig zags actually had real administrative positions. He had to read paperwork and make decisions. Even when he was the pre-Revolutionary Bishop of Autun & Agent General of the Clergy. These guys are like 1960's and 70's used car salesmen who jump from lot to lot on the main car selling street. Sure they have a purpose but no one is going to buy a Tesla from them. They're too well known for their sleazy tactics selling crappy jalopies and lemons. The next regime won't even have salesmen-pundits in this way and type. Let alone cornballs like Linker et al.