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...
When I saw Glenn Greenwald retweeting a gray mirror post the other day my first though was... "I wonder if he will also retweet the one about the space beehives".
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...
Got any links? Because Meadowcroft's "response" seemed a textbook example of either "missing the point" or the old "stick your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you." And Dreher's recent take, filtered through Linker--who for some inexplicable reason Dreher seems to think is an honest broker--was both clearly and admittedly based on Linker's article rather than listening to the podcast(s) in question. If there's anyone out there who both takes Yarvin seriously and disagrees, I very much want to hear about them.
Curtis's essays don't invite opposing arguments because they themselves aren't presented in clear argumentative form. There's so much sarcastic humor, there are so many illustrative comparisons to movie-themes, so many linked references-in-passing that one must click on to order to know what he's talking about, that I'm often left with the impression that his main goal is to affirm a group-consensus that was achieved elsewhere, whether through argumentative persuasion or otherwise. His implicit arguments have to be laboriously extracted from scattered hints, or else one has to guess at what kinds of arguments he might present if he wanted to present arguments. So, opponents don't see arguments whose premises or validity they can challenge, and instead resort to name-calling -- but of course Curtis is much better at name-calling than they are.
Taking CY's online spats aside. You really describe his prose very well. CY's references a links often take the path away from the argument at hand. Makes reading so laborious that it looses the element of fun, enjoyments in the process. Moreover, besides the fun it often intentionally doesn't want to make a point or switches in the other direction when you think he is about to make a point.
There are a lot of references to pop culture and history in GM. But how can you say there is no argument being made? It is the same argument made in basically every post... Over and over:
1) Your democracy is an illusion which hides the reality of a prestige based oligarchical regime that has controlled the world defacto since the end of WWII, but has its origins roughly in the intellectual movements of the 1850s-1890s... and arguably earlier.
2) Participating in any political action which isn't specifically designed to undo this system is counterproductive.
3) Since all regimes end, what would a better regime look like?
Nobody argues about 1) because nobody disagrees. Almost everyone disagrees with 2) and they say so... and 3) is the point of gray mirror.
Points 1 and 2 are conclusions. Shouldn't point 3 be the conclusion "There should be a dictator"? And a point 4 (another conclusion) has been hinted at -- that the ascent of a dictator can be hastened in way X.
Point 1 can be demonstrated by means of very clear evidence-supported description of how the alleged oligarchical regime actually functions today. Point 2 can be demonstrated through (A) clear recent-historical description of a number of cases of attempts to adjust rather than undo the System, showing that all of these attempts failed to make things better, and (B) an account, supported by arguments from political-scientific premises, of why such attempts necessarily fail.
Points 3 and 4, that there should be a dictator and that the ascent of this dictator can be hastened in such-and-such a way, can be demonstrated by combinations of (A) historical examples of how the rise of actual dictators made things better and (B) arguments from political-scientific premises.
He means this, from the essay that we’re commenting on:
“My first hypothesis is that … the only choice of any latent power which conceives itself sovereign over this system … is to keep the system more or less as it is, or delete and replace it completely. ...
“My second hypothesis is that the only way for the American people to replace the regime is to elect a chief executive who dismantles the unconstitutional legislative branch and the theocratic oligarchy behind it, replacing both with a new executive branch. This can only be done by electing a President with a popular mandate for absolute power—or one who, like FDR, just takes it anyway. ...
“My third hypothesis is that 21st-century America can replace its government and even its regime without any kind of violence or bloodshed. ...”
I understand this. I wasn't sure what hypothesis AJ referred to , may be the term in your comments. BTW worth reading the article in The Week, good summary of the theory or hypothesis, whatever you call it.
Hypotheses are conclusions that people may be persuaded to accept in various ways, argumentation being one of these ways.
I don't think that Curtis is doing anything wrong. I like what he does. Perhaps every fifth essay, though, could take the form of rigorous argumentation, both in defense of his own positive theses and in response to anticipated objections.
I also acknowledge that I may well have forgotten examples of rigorous argumentation in his work, or may have failed to discern arguments that were somewhat vaguely and/or obscurely presented (floating beneath surfaces of allusion and illustration).
Scott on SSC has several other essays and posts that heavily feature Curtis and NRx - one in particular I liked a lot more than the essay above but I can't find at the moment.
"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.
Both occupations featured show trials and executions for officials of the prior regime. Also, the military humiliation of the old regime was itself a point in favor of the new one. It's not clear that a regime established by a bloodless coup would enjoy the same compliance from its defeated enemies.
The trials weren’t necessary for the extermination of the Nazi regime (except maybe the big three, including Hitler had he lived). Their actual purpose was to fellate the Allies’ ego and establish the propaganda floor necessary for a liberal world order.
We aren’t our enemies. We don’t need totalitarian propaganda because our ideas our self-evidently true (not that this precludes the monopoly of force). Fortunately, as an oligarchy the GAE has no big three—Joe, Kamala and Sulzberger/Krugman/Cuomo don’t cut it.
I tend to agree that there will have to be a very serious crisis that will humiliate the elites. That humiliation is a must. It does not necessarily have to be bloody, though. I read CY, in part, as trying to figure out ways how to increase the chances of that crisis being less bloody.
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
I'm on page 56. I don't understand the ancestor-worship system he's describing -- how non-first-son ancestors fit into the picture, for example. He's claiming that marriage and private property is based on ancestor-worship so I'm guessing he's a free-love commie?
The style is a little bit annoying in that throughout the book, he keeps repeating the same things over and over, gradually adding a little bit more detail. If I'm not mistaken, he later (after describing the system a few times) gets into the second and third sons in quite a bit of detail.
At the point where primogeniture is described, I couldn't help but think of post-Meiji Japan where the same rule was codified (even though it wasn't traditionally followed by the farmers). The end result was that all the sons except for the firstborn had to find something else to do, and a lot of them ended up staffing the ranks of the Japanese military (especially relevant in the runup to WWII).
It's quite different, though, if the only person who has any rights (or is even considered a citizen) is the male head of the household. Everyone else in his family is basically a minor.
Another observation is that the marriage ceremony is basically unchanged to this day in many places. White dress for the bride, the father severing her from his ancestral cult (in a way), even the tradition of carrying the bride over the threshold, taking care that her feet don't touch it. I just googled that last one: "Even earlier times believed that family demons followed the bride to her new home. To keep them from entering the home, the groom would carry her across the threshold the first time she entered the home. After that demons could not come in and the bride was free to come and go as she pleased." Family demons.
I've just finished this book. I have various vague thoughts about it, but a Curtis-thread doesn't seem to be the right place to convey them. Anyway, thanks again.
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...
When I saw Glenn Greenwald retweeting a gray mirror post the other day my first though was... "I wonder if he will also retweet the one about the space beehives".
Maybe he was trolling with that one? Lol
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...
Got any links? Because Meadowcroft's "response" seemed a textbook example of either "missing the point" or the old "stick your fingers in your ears and go la-la-la-I-can't-hear-you." And Dreher's recent take, filtered through Linker--who for some inexplicable reason Dreher seems to think is an honest broker--was both clearly and admittedly based on Linker's article rather than listening to the podcast(s) in question. If there's anyone out there who both takes Yarvin seriously and disagrees, I very much want to hear about them.
Curtis's essays don't invite opposing arguments because they themselves aren't presented in clear argumentative form. There's so much sarcastic humor, there are so many illustrative comparisons to movie-themes, so many linked references-in-passing that one must click on to order to know what he's talking about, that I'm often left with the impression that his main goal is to affirm a group-consensus that was achieved elsewhere, whether through argumentative persuasion or otherwise. His implicit arguments have to be laboriously extracted from scattered hints, or else one has to guess at what kinds of arguments he might present if he wanted to present arguments. So, opponents don't see arguments whose premises or validity they can challenge, and instead resort to name-calling -- but of course Curtis is much better at name-calling than they are.
Taking CY's online spats aside. You really describe his prose very well. CY's references a links often take the path away from the argument at hand. Makes reading so laborious that it looses the element of fun, enjoyments in the process. Moreover, besides the fun it often intentionally doesn't want to make a point or switches in the other direction when you think he is about to make a point.
There are a lot of references to pop culture and history in GM. But how can you say there is no argument being made? It is the same argument made in basically every post... Over and over:
1) Your democracy is an illusion which hides the reality of a prestige based oligarchical regime that has controlled the world defacto since the end of WWII, but has its origins roughly in the intellectual movements of the 1850s-1890s... and arguably earlier.
2) Participating in any political action which isn't specifically designed to undo this system is counterproductive.
3) Since all regimes end, what would a better regime look like?
Nobody argues about 1) because nobody disagrees. Almost everyone disagrees with 2) and they say so... and 3) is the point of gray mirror.
good summary but obviously there are many more points in between, even these main arguments are often obfuscated
Points 1 and 2 are conclusions. Shouldn't point 3 be the conclusion "There should be a dictator"? And a point 4 (another conclusion) has been hinted at -- that the ascent of a dictator can be hastened in way X.
Point 1 can be demonstrated by means of very clear evidence-supported description of how the alleged oligarchical regime actually functions today. Point 2 can be demonstrated through (A) clear recent-historical description of a number of cases of attempts to adjust rather than undo the System, showing that all of these attempts failed to make things better, and (B) an account, supported by arguments from political-scientific premises, of why such attempts necessarily fail.
Points 3 and 4, that there should be a dictator and that the ascent of this dictator can be hastened in such-and-such a way, can be demonstrated by combinations of (A) historical examples of how the rise of actual dictators made things better and (B) arguments from political-scientific premises.
AJ, what do you mean?
He means this, from the essay that we’re commenting on:
“My first hypothesis is that … the only choice of any latent power which conceives itself sovereign over this system … is to keep the system more or less as it is, or delete and replace it completely. ...
“My second hypothesis is that the only way for the American people to replace the regime is to elect a chief executive who dismantles the unconstitutional legislative branch and the theocratic oligarchy behind it, replacing both with a new executive branch. This can only be done by electing a President with a popular mandate for absolute power—or one who, like FDR, just takes it anyway. ...
“My third hypothesis is that 21st-century America can replace its government and even its regime without any kind of violence or bloodshed. ...”
I understand this. I wasn't sure what hypothesis AJ referred to , may be the term in your comments. BTW worth reading the article in The Week, good summary of the theory or hypothesis, whatever you call it.
Hypotheses are conclusions that people may be persuaded to accept in various ways, argumentation being one of these ways.
I don't think that Curtis is doing anything wrong. I like what he does. Perhaps every fifth essay, though, could take the form of rigorous argumentation, both in defense of his own positive theses and in response to anticipated objections.
I also acknowledge that I may well have forgotten examples of rigorous argumentation in his work, or may have failed to discern arguments that were somewhat vaguely and/or obscurely presented (floating beneath surfaces of allusion and illustration).
Robby Hanson debate: https://www.reddit.com/r/slatestarcodex/comments/9xljk1/robin_hanson_and_mencius_moldbug_debate_futarchy/
Slate Star Codex: https://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/the-anti-reactionary-faq/
Scott on SSC has several other essays and posts that heavily feature Curtis and NRx - one in particular I liked a lot more than the essay above but I can't find at the moment.
I was specifically thinking about conservative responses. Alexander doesn't really count there. Still worth a look though.
I have not seen anyone challenge CY intellectually, Anton as far as this thing goes. Most of his podcasts are with people below light weight.
why do people assume everyone is newbie here, why? I saw this in real time but I do not care for SA's prose.
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.
Violence was only required to destroy their regimes, not to reforge the identities of their subjects (not in Japan, barely at all in Germany).
We don’t have a fascist regime.
Both occupations featured show trials and executions for officials of the prior regime. Also, the military humiliation of the old regime was itself a point in favor of the new one. It's not clear that a regime established by a bloodless coup would enjoy the same compliance from its defeated enemies.
The trials weren’t necessary for the extermination of the Nazi regime (except maybe the big three, including Hitler had he lived). Their actual purpose was to fellate the Allies’ ego and establish the propaganda floor necessary for a liberal world order.
We aren’t our enemies. We don’t need totalitarian propaganda because our ideas our self-evidently true (not that this precludes the monopoly of force). Fortunately, as an oligarchy the GAE has no big three—Joe, Kamala and Sulzberger/Krugman/Cuomo don’t cut it.
The trials themselves were for propaganda purposes, but that doesn't mean the executions were unnecessary. Even Augustus used proscription.
That GAE lacks a central command structure capable of officially surrendering will make it harder to extinguish, not easier.
What country once destroyed is not agreeable to change?
I tend to agree that there will have to be a very serious crisis that will humiliate the elites. That humiliation is a must. It does not necessarily have to be bloody, though. I read CY, in part, as trying to figure out ways how to increase the chances of that crisis being less bloody.
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
Thank YOU for recommending this. I've just found the PDF online.
I'm on page 56. I don't understand the ancestor-worship system he's describing -- how non-first-son ancestors fit into the picture, for example. He's claiming that marriage and private property is based on ancestor-worship so I'm guessing he's a free-love commie?
The style is a little bit annoying in that throughout the book, he keeps repeating the same things over and over, gradually adding a little bit more detail. If I'm not mistaken, he later (after describing the system a few times) gets into the second and third sons in quite a bit of detail.
At the point where primogeniture is described, I couldn't help but think of post-Meiji Japan where the same rule was codified (even though it wasn't traditionally followed by the farmers). The end result was that all the sons except for the firstborn had to find something else to do, and a lot of them ended up staffing the ranks of the Japanese military (especially relevant in the runup to WWII).
It's quite different, though, if the only person who has any rights (or is even considered a citizen) is the male head of the household. Everyone else in his family is basically a minor.
Another observation is that the marriage ceremony is basically unchanged to this day in many places. White dress for the bride, the father severing her from his ancestral cult (in a way), even the tradition of carrying the bride over the threshold, taking care that her feet don't touch it. I just googled that last one: "Even earlier times believed that family demons followed the bride to her new home. To keep them from entering the home, the groom would carry her across the threshold the first time she entered the home. After that demons could not come in and the bride was free to come and go as she pleased." Family demons.
I've just finished this book. I have various vague thoughts about it, but a Curtis-thread doesn't seem to be the right place to convey them. Anyway, thanks again.
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.