This is very good. And unlike anything anyone else is doing. Curtis is in a league of his own, at the top of his game. Even the Scott ghost intrudes merely in a cameo role before being chased away by dogs,
But there remains one problem: there is a soft yolk of utopia inside every one of Curtis' hard boiled eggs. All this business about individuals, even empires, giving up power. Here, our boy's Machiavellianism turns dreamy,his argument (a borrow from Ortega) invertebrate. For who, in the "annals of time" has done any such thing? (Charles V was a late stage, Christ-infected discombobulant---most unlike Xi or Putin)
In fact, Curtis' program of non-resistant truth-telling has a bit of the Christ about it--even a whiff of Ghandi. Meanwhile, the real intoxicant of power--the capacity to crush and extinguish--carries on. (Did Assad worry about Hama the day before? Was he regretful the day after?)
Dictators don't 'go Camus'. Neither do vast, paranoid nations armed to the teeth.
"In our cold civil war we have the curious phenomenon of two sides, both of which are hopelessly addicted to power or its semblance, and each of which is convinced that the purpose of power is to prevent the other side from oppressing it."
By the standards of the modern left, the social policies of 1950's America were horribly oppressive, and 1950's America wasn't even right-wing. If (per impossible) real conservatives ever took real power, they'd undoubtedly do all sorts of things the left would find very oppressive, even if they never set out to specifically target liberals. The left's error is in thinking that such a right-wing coup is possible, not that it'd have results they'd abhor.
Can we do some Glasnost without drinking ourselves to the graveyard? Yeltsin's Russians had a little trouble with that. Throw in fentanyl and it looks worse than some wars.
Or nothing, which is the true desire. Since realistic possibilities are horrid, the author invokes 1989, which leads magically to the Sun King without that pesky Fronde..
“only monarchical energy can create a revolution that sweeps away a bureaucracy;”
Oh dear, no. In fact of all the revolutions since 1776 I can think of that only happening in 1989. In fact 1989 is exclusively 1989. The confluence of forces and men (along with Margaret Thatcher) does not exist now.
The men are all gone, the people are all gone. Those running the extant institutions have turned them against us, the most important being Finance and the Intelligence and Security organs - who are one.
Let us dispense with 1989.
For one thing we don’t want tens of millions dead in American gulags first.
Fangs: To continue...Buddhist Fangs: you forgot Sri Lanka. You’re also overlooking we Volscians keep getting bit, still obey the rules, get bit harder. You overlook that we didn’t start the biting because you know we can finish it. The others cannot. They have the reach of Lenin’s dreams but their grasp is less than Weimar. They are literally restricted to their own buildings, that they fortify and call their democracy- and so it is. Theirs, not ours.
We don’t imagine “ERASE WHITENESS” or “YOU WILL BE REPLACED” we’re being told this- so no us being at odds isn’t a consequence of there being democracy or political parties, its a consequence of ethnic and racial hatred being stoked from a motive of revenge and justifiable fears.
From the white side I must admit the other side now has reason to fear us, insults and injuries done for revenge breed counter-revenge. They should have thought of that.
This is hilarious: Perestroika/Peace“This can only happen if both sides consent to giving up their real or apparent power.”
Hilarious?
WHY? Why do they give it up?
Because the spectacle upsets the author?
The winners of PowerStruggle21 committed mass fraud and treason; hundreds if not thousands forswore their sacred Oaths, committed mayhem and murder then surrounded the capitol with troops and barbed wire to consolidate their ill gotten games. The losers are stunned, have no organization to counter with - WHY do the winners give up? Who do they surrender to? The truth is if you want a national govt they’re the only ones in town.
And they above all else have made it appallingly clear NONE of them will have a Boss.
They are self employed cooperatives and committees that have combined for the purpose of preserving the status quo of generations; no boss, no President, no accountability, no one gets fired, no one goes to jail, but above all else NONE of them lose one iota, one quantum of power.
You are metaphorically asking all the cocaine and crack addicts in America to quit cold turkey and give it up “because its bad for them.” You are also appealing to Hunter Biden to become the monarch and absolute monarch at that.
“The only question is; have you had enough?” WHO?
Who has had enough?
WHO? Who are you talking to?
Who is it you think you see?
Do you have any idea how much money they owe they can’t pay? Even if I told you, you wouldn’t believe me.
Do you know what happens when they stop going to work?
All the exchanges especially NASDAQ go belly up, they cease to exist when the music stops. No, you clearly have no idea who you’re talking to so let me clue you in:
They are not just in danger, they are the danger.
They are both the ones who open the door and get shot, and the ones who knock.
The danger is on both sides of the trade; SKYLER.
Who are you talking to?
Who is it you think you see?
Because there’s no one there.
Who? You spent the last 14 years laying out for all of us the Cathedral doesn’t have a boss.
They just had a coup to make it official.
Reality comes a knocking, but you need to understand your appeal is to offices that are EMPTY. They’re cleaning out the cash registers, Biden won’t notice and didn’t care when he did.
Honestly Yarvin you might as well be trying to call Erich Honecker, or for that matter George Washington.
THERE IS NO DEEP STATE TO TAKE YOUR CALL MR. YARVIN.
Maybe you can call the Commander of the National Guard in California and ask him? Here’s his number.
(916) 854-3000
His name is General Baldwin.
Ask him who’s in charge.
Or call Pindar over at Google.
They own Kamala, perhaps they can explain.
The Deep State should appoint a King! LMAO. They can’t.
The DS doesn’t make Kings or Presidents, they just topple them then catch the last plane out.
Do you have any idea how much money they owe they can’t pay? Even if I told you, you wouldn’t believe me.
Do you know what happens when they stop going to work?
All the exchanges especially NASDAQ go belly up, they cease to exist when the music stops. No, you clearly have no idea who you’re talking to so let me clue you in:
They are not just in danger, they are the danger.
They are both the ones who open the door and get shot, and the ones who knock.
The danger is on both sides of the trade; SKYLER.
Who are you talking to?
Who is it you think you see?
Because there’s no one there.
Who? You spent the last 14 years laying out for all of us the Cathedral doesn’t have a boss.
They just had a coup to make it official.
Reality comes a knocking, but you need to understand your appeal is to offices that are EMPTY. They’re cleaning out the cash registers, Biden won’t notice and didn’t care when he did.
Honestly Yarvin you might as well be trying to call Erich Honecker, or for that matter George Washington.
THERE IS NO DEEP STATE TO TAKE YOUR CALL MR. YARVIN.
Maybe you can call the Commander of the National Guard in California and ask him? Here’s his number.
(916) 854-3000
His name is General Baldwin.
Ask him who’s in charge.
Or call Pindar over at Google.
They own Kamala, perhaps they can explain.
The Deep State should appoint a King! LMAO. They can’t.
The DS doesn’t make Kings or Presidents, they just topple them then catch the last plane out.
Am I missing something here? How is any of this an actual plan? No one is going to actually follow this "there is no such thing as a dangerous Idea" thing in the US. Monarchy has to come FIRST. Otherwise, this is just asking the cathedral to commit suicide, which it probably won't, by which I mean it definitely won't. If only it were so easy.
Convincing the cathedral to destroy itself may be a possibility, but one would have to appeal to something that they actually BELIEVE in (hint, not free speech).
It seems ever clearer that pointing out the hypocrisy of the opposition is only a tactical error when done as a dissident. When done from within the power-structure, as a confessional of ones OWN privilege and moral shortcoming, the tactic is incredibly powerful. So the best way to get to perestroika, and to activate the fifth column, is to seed ideas which undermine the moral legitimacy of the cathedrals influence within their own language and value structure.
Pretending that "we" can run Reagan's anti-soviet strategy on the American media complex is just another LARP.
I’m very pleased that Curtis at least indirectly discusses The Woman Question in a few of his paragraphs, and so I wish to comment on these paragraphs although I understand that this is not the topic that he’s focusing on.
“For example, it is very important to Americans that women be able to vote. You would think the rational justification for this was that the addition of feminine insight would improve the already formidable decision-making capacities of Washington, DC. Mais non—while the argument could be made, nobody actually thinks that way.” – Nobody thinks in this way because it’s not a plausible thought. Everywhere throughout history, feminine insight has been added to the decision-making capacities of any group of leaders through conversations that women have had with their powerful husbands, brothers, sons, fathers, and so forth. The men have exercised direct political power; the women have been indirectly politically powerful.
“Instead, Americans think that women need the vote to defend themselves in the cold war of the sexes.” – This is part of what’s going in the minds of people who think that women should vote, yes. The other part of what’s going on is whatever may be involved in the thought that it would be “unfair” if women couldn’t vote or in the related thought that it would be “disrespectful” to women to not let them vote. Anyway, people are being silly when they think that “women need the vote to defend themselves,” because men like women; men are fond of women and want them to be cheerful.
(Ethnic groups or social classes, on the other hand, are not naturally fond of one another; in other words, someone from any given ethnic group or social class won’t naturally have fond feelings toward another ethnic group or social class as such – as an aggregate of individual human beings – so that there’s no natural similarity between sex-relations and ethnic- or class-relations.)
“… For anyone who has internalized this perspective, taking the battle of the sexes as a real thing becomes a straightforward transformation. Yet it is one of many features of the present that most historical periods would regard as straight-up bonkers.” – An erotic/romantic, as opposed to political, “battle” (really, a struggle) of the sexes is recognized by Ovid, though: on the one hand you’ve got men chasing down women (in order to sex-cuddle with them) who run away from them; on the other hand you’ve got women who want to defy (male-imposed) social rules in order to be sex-cuddled by men who aren’t supposed to sex-cuddle them … and I’ve been reading the Kalevala (Finnish mythical stuff that seems to mingle extremely old, maybe Neolithic, material with largely extraneous late-Medieval elements; it’s available online through Gutenberg), where again and again men court women who have no interest in progressing from nubile desirability into maternal competence.
“Yet in a world in which everything you see on TV, even if it is a physically real event, is designed to affect your opinions in a predictable way, we can be sure that exactly the same media channels could give you exactly the opposite beliefs. If the TV wanted you to believe that women should be about ‘children, kitchen, church,’ it would show you a nonstop diet of career girls and other hussies who came to a shocking, sordid end.” – It might show you this, because most TV shows are either written by stupid people (or by people in a stupid frame of mind) or for stupid people, or both by and for stupid people, but a truthful, more insightful presentation of the badness of career-girlism would show you that they’re unhappy, not that they come to shocking, sordid ends. These shows would also have to explore the unhappiness of married mothers, of course (the necessary unhappiness of all men and women being an undeniable fact) – and then the two kind of unhappiness would be interestingly compared, and conclusions about the depth and richness of one unhappy life as compared to another might then be drawn.
Probably not relevant to Moldy's article (haven't read it yet) but does anyone know of an actual effective way to de-radicalize white nationalists and the alt-right and bring them into a more politically detached framework? I know this isn't a prole movement so it's not as significant for us to be doing this as, say, a bunch of commies looking to recruit, but... if only to take the heat of the rest of us who aren't actively anti-racist, pro-choice, and all the other virtue signaling monikers of the modern left? Nazis seem too stupid to realize that there really is no victory condition for them, while in the meantime their antics are just making it harder for the rest of us to live until the great beast is defeated.
I've been having a hard time keeping track of exactly what it is you are in favor of, but I'm gonna try to piece it together. This isn't a steelman, because I don't understand your positions well enough to do that, and can't hold my nose long enough to pretend that I respect some of them, both of which are my own weaknesses, so others in the comments can correct me where I'm wrong.
You want an elected monarch from the left wing of uber-urbane, Silicon Valley technocrats who is so intelligent it would just knock my socks off, but it doesn't really matter what kind of beliefs this person holds (they may even be a commie transsexual; though that's probably a joke, I'm too busy Googling italicized Latin/German/Russian/French phrases to keep my bearings while reading these anymore), because he will inevitably learn on the job that the right wing is really where it's at (except for the culture, the art, the religion, and the politics, all of which are disgusting, dangerous, and/or useless to varying degrees), and will then be able to calm a troubled nation and convince cold-warring factions to set aside their differences by admitting that in reality we all just want the same things after all.
He will then retire with a full pension (and replace completely in a new regime) millions of members of a previously unaccountable civil service who will ride off into the sunset to tend their lawns having been soothed by the massive healing potential of this leader's promise to build back better and create "an effective and accountable government that treats all groups and classes fairly" (LOL, emphasis on the L).
This monarch will then create a global hyperpower from within the new definitely-right-wing-in-some-way People's Republic of the United States that will serve as the precursor to a "layered order" in which a now-deliberately unaccountable total power with complete technological dominance disarms the entire globe to assert it's own sovereignty from orbit, but, you know, in a limited fashion that still allows the peoples of the planet to govern themselves in whatever way they see fit as long as they only kill each other really inefficiently and don't shoot their bows at the satellites.
I'm almost certainly a frittata supreme, but as far as I can tell that's a slightly dismissive but otherwise accurate portrayal of the gist of the thing. I think this story you're writing would make an excellent feature-length film, but I'd have trouble suspending my disbelief for any runtime longer than 90 minutes. I don't believe that any of the things you seem to want are even remotely possible, save for the inevitable rise of an unaccountable global power ruling the planet from space, but they aren't going to be hands off about it, and certainly won't treat all groups and classes fairly, whatever that even means.
"But it doesn’t really feel like the moment for another experiment, does it?" No, it doesn't.
Sir Yarvin, I am a peasant and unworthy to subscribe to this blog, being literate, yet unsophisticated. I subscribe by the grace of Substack, and find that this is the finest blog in all the land. Please accept my shillings graciously.
We live in the Cathedral’s jungle. Actually we are governed by Trotsky’s vision of democracy within the Party.
Committees coordinate responses through the Press.
This Trot Gondor has no King, it will have no King.
Won’t have a steward either.
It has Committees.
At the last moment when all hope seemed lost (for peace ahem) Kermit Roosevelt IV great grand nephew of FDR took up his fathers sword and...
NO MAN. Ain’t happening.
Oh don’t worry. Someone will knock them off. But then we’re into warlordism and who’s the strongest, and all we have now are warriors. THAT we have plenty of, but someone’s got to rise and claw their way to the top of the pile.
Just forget about peace.
The best chance for peace is we find a way to endure 2020 for a long time, but that ends in tears as well.
"The best thing about glasnost is that glasnost is boolean. The idea of glasnost is that no idea is dangerous. We reject entirely the concept of harmful thoughts."
This is very good. And unlike anything anyone else is doing. Curtis is in a league of his own, at the top of his game. Even the Scott ghost intrudes merely in a cameo role before being chased away by dogs,
But there remains one problem: there is a soft yolk of utopia inside every one of Curtis' hard boiled eggs. All this business about individuals, even empires, giving up power. Here, our boy's Machiavellianism turns dreamy,his argument (a borrow from Ortega) invertebrate. For who, in the "annals of time" has done any such thing? (Charles V was a late stage, Christ-infected discombobulant---most unlike Xi or Putin)
In fact, Curtis' program of non-resistant truth-telling has a bit of the Christ about it--even a whiff of Ghandi. Meanwhile, the real intoxicant of power--the capacity to crush and extinguish--carries on. (Did Assad worry about Hama the day before? Was he regretful the day after?)
Dictators don't 'go Camus'. Neither do vast, paranoid nations armed to the teeth.
This won't suprise anyone, but searching for Curtis Yarvins podcast appearances on podcast addict no longer gives results. Glasnost.
"In our cold civil war we have the curious phenomenon of two sides, both of which are hopelessly addicted to power or its semblance, and each of which is convinced that the purpose of power is to prevent the other side from oppressing it."
By the standards of the modern left, the social policies of 1950's America were horribly oppressive, and 1950's America wasn't even right-wing. If (per impossible) real conservatives ever took real power, they'd undoubtedly do all sorts of things the left would find very oppressive, even if they never set out to specifically target liberals. The left's error is in thinking that such a right-wing coup is possible, not that it'd have results they'd abhor.
Can we do some Glasnost without drinking ourselves to the graveyard? Yeltsin's Russians had a little trouble with that. Throw in fentanyl and it looks worse than some wars.
1789 not 1989
Or nothing, which is the true desire. Since realistic possibilities are horrid, the author invokes 1989, which leads magically to the Sun King without that pesky Fronde..
“only monarchical energy can create a revolution that sweeps away a bureaucracy;”
Oh dear, no. In fact of all the revolutions since 1776 I can think of that only happening in 1989. In fact 1989 is exclusively 1989. The confluence of forces and men (along with Margaret Thatcher) does not exist now.
The men are all gone, the people are all gone. Those running the extant institutions have turned them against us, the most important being Finance and the Intelligence and Security organs - who are one.
Let us dispense with 1989.
For one thing we don’t want tens of millions dead in American gulags first.
Fangs: To continue...Buddhist Fangs: you forgot Sri Lanka. You’re also overlooking we Volscians keep getting bit, still obey the rules, get bit harder. You overlook that we didn’t start the biting because you know we can finish it. The others cannot. They have the reach of Lenin’s dreams but their grasp is less than Weimar. They are literally restricted to their own buildings, that they fortify and call their democracy- and so it is. Theirs, not ours.
We don’t imagine “ERASE WHITENESS” or “YOU WILL BE REPLACED” we’re being told this- so no us being at odds isn’t a consequence of there being democracy or political parties, its a consequence of ethnic and racial hatred being stoked from a motive of revenge and justifiable fears.
From the white side I must admit the other side now has reason to fear us, insults and injuries done for revenge breed counter-revenge. They should have thought of that.
This is hilarious: Perestroika/Peace“This can only happen if both sides consent to giving up their real or apparent power.”
Hilarious?
WHY? Why do they give it up?
Because the spectacle upsets the author?
The winners of PowerStruggle21 committed mass fraud and treason; hundreds if not thousands forswore their sacred Oaths, committed mayhem and murder then surrounded the capitol with troops and barbed wire to consolidate their ill gotten games. The losers are stunned, have no organization to counter with - WHY do the winners give up? Who do they surrender to? The truth is if you want a national govt they’re the only ones in town.
And they above all else have made it appallingly clear NONE of them will have a Boss.
They are self employed cooperatives and committees that have combined for the purpose of preserving the status quo of generations; no boss, no President, no accountability, no one gets fired, no one goes to jail, but above all else NONE of them lose one iota, one quantum of power.
You are metaphorically asking all the cocaine and crack addicts in America to quit cold turkey and give it up “because its bad for them.” You are also appealing to Hunter Biden to become the monarch and absolute monarch at that.
“The only question is; have you had enough?” WHO?
Who has had enough?
WHO? Who are you talking to?
Who is it you think you see?
Do you have any idea how much money they owe they can’t pay? Even if I told you, you wouldn’t believe me.
Do you know what happens when they stop going to work?
All the exchanges especially NASDAQ go belly up, they cease to exist when the music stops. No, you clearly have no idea who you’re talking to so let me clue you in:
They are not just in danger, they are the danger.
They are both the ones who open the door and get shot, and the ones who knock.
The danger is on both sides of the trade; SKYLER.
Who are you talking to?
Who is it you think you see?
Because there’s no one there.
Who? You spent the last 14 years laying out for all of us the Cathedral doesn’t have a boss.
They just had a coup to make it official.
Reality comes a knocking, but you need to understand your appeal is to offices that are EMPTY. They’re cleaning out the cash registers, Biden won’t notice and didn’t care when he did.
Honestly Yarvin you might as well be trying to call Erich Honecker, or for that matter George Washington.
THERE IS NO DEEP STATE TO TAKE YOUR CALL MR. YARVIN.
Maybe you can call the Commander of the National Guard in California and ask him? Here’s his number.
(916) 854-3000
His name is General Baldwin.
Ask him who’s in charge.
Or call Pindar over at Google.
They own Kamala, perhaps they can explain.
The Deep State should appoint a King! LMAO. They can’t.
The DS doesn’t make Kings or Presidents, they just topple them then catch the last plane out.
"There's an element of truth in every idea that lasts long enough to be called corny. [songwriter Irving Berlin (1888-1989), in a 1962 interview]"
WHO? Who are you talking to?
The only question is; have you had enough?” WHO?
Who has had enough?
WHO? Who are you talking to?
Who is it you think you see?
Do you have any idea how much money they owe they can’t pay? Even if I told you, you wouldn’t believe me.
Do you know what happens when they stop going to work?
All the exchanges especially NASDAQ go belly up, they cease to exist when the music stops. No, you clearly have no idea who you’re talking to so let me clue you in:
They are not just in danger, they are the danger.
They are both the ones who open the door and get shot, and the ones who knock.
The danger is on both sides of the trade; SKYLER.
Who are you talking to?
Who is it you think you see?
Because there’s no one there.
Who? You spent the last 14 years laying out for all of us the Cathedral doesn’t have a boss.
They just had a coup to make it official.
Reality comes a knocking, but you need to understand your appeal is to offices that are EMPTY. They’re cleaning out the cash registers, Biden won’t notice and didn’t care when he did.
Honestly Yarvin you might as well be trying to call Erich Honecker, or for that matter George Washington.
THERE IS NO DEEP STATE TO TAKE YOUR CALL MR. YARVIN.
Maybe you can call the Commander of the National Guard in California and ask him? Here’s his number.
(916) 854-3000
His name is General Baldwin.
Ask him who’s in charge.
Or call Pindar over at Google.
They own Kamala, perhaps they can explain.
The Deep State should appoint a King! LMAO. They can’t.
The DS doesn’t make Kings or Presidents, they just topple them then catch the last plane out.
Am I missing something here? How is any of this an actual plan? No one is going to actually follow this "there is no such thing as a dangerous Idea" thing in the US. Monarchy has to come FIRST. Otherwise, this is just asking the cathedral to commit suicide, which it probably won't, by which I mean it definitely won't. If only it were so easy.
Convincing the cathedral to destroy itself may be a possibility, but one would have to appeal to something that they actually BELIEVE in (hint, not free speech).
It seems ever clearer that pointing out the hypocrisy of the opposition is only a tactical error when done as a dissident. When done from within the power-structure, as a confessional of ones OWN privilege and moral shortcoming, the tactic is incredibly powerful. So the best way to get to perestroika, and to activate the fifth column, is to seed ideas which undermine the moral legitimacy of the cathedrals influence within their own language and value structure.
Pretending that "we" can run Reagan's anti-soviet strategy on the American media complex is just another LARP.
I’m very pleased that Curtis at least indirectly discusses The Woman Question in a few of his paragraphs, and so I wish to comment on these paragraphs although I understand that this is not the topic that he’s focusing on.
“For example, it is very important to Americans that women be able to vote. You would think the rational justification for this was that the addition of feminine insight would improve the already formidable decision-making capacities of Washington, DC. Mais non—while the argument could be made, nobody actually thinks that way.” – Nobody thinks in this way because it’s not a plausible thought. Everywhere throughout history, feminine insight has been added to the decision-making capacities of any group of leaders through conversations that women have had with their powerful husbands, brothers, sons, fathers, and so forth. The men have exercised direct political power; the women have been indirectly politically powerful.
“Instead, Americans think that women need the vote to defend themselves in the cold war of the sexes.” – This is part of what’s going in the minds of people who think that women should vote, yes. The other part of what’s going on is whatever may be involved in the thought that it would be “unfair” if women couldn’t vote or in the related thought that it would be “disrespectful” to women to not let them vote. Anyway, people are being silly when they think that “women need the vote to defend themselves,” because men like women; men are fond of women and want them to be cheerful.
(Ethnic groups or social classes, on the other hand, are not naturally fond of one another; in other words, someone from any given ethnic group or social class won’t naturally have fond feelings toward another ethnic group or social class as such – as an aggregate of individual human beings – so that there’s no natural similarity between sex-relations and ethnic- or class-relations.)
“… For anyone who has internalized this perspective, taking the battle of the sexes as a real thing becomes a straightforward transformation. Yet it is one of many features of the present that most historical periods would regard as straight-up bonkers.” – An erotic/romantic, as opposed to political, “battle” (really, a struggle) of the sexes is recognized by Ovid, though: on the one hand you’ve got men chasing down women (in order to sex-cuddle with them) who run away from them; on the other hand you’ve got women who want to defy (male-imposed) social rules in order to be sex-cuddled by men who aren’t supposed to sex-cuddle them … and I’ve been reading the Kalevala (Finnish mythical stuff that seems to mingle extremely old, maybe Neolithic, material with largely extraneous late-Medieval elements; it’s available online through Gutenberg), where again and again men court women who have no interest in progressing from nubile desirability into maternal competence.
“Yet in a world in which everything you see on TV, even if it is a physically real event, is designed to affect your opinions in a predictable way, we can be sure that exactly the same media channels could give you exactly the opposite beliefs. If the TV wanted you to believe that women should be about ‘children, kitchen, church,’ it would show you a nonstop diet of career girls and other hussies who came to a shocking, sordid end.” – It might show you this, because most TV shows are either written by stupid people (or by people in a stupid frame of mind) or for stupid people, or both by and for stupid people, but a truthful, more insightful presentation of the badness of career-girlism would show you that they’re unhappy, not that they come to shocking, sordid ends. These shows would also have to explore the unhappiness of married mothers, of course (the necessary unhappiness of all men and women being an undeniable fact) – and then the two kind of unhappiness would be interestingly compared, and conclusions about the depth and richness of one unhappy life as compared to another might then be drawn.
Probably not relevant to Moldy's article (haven't read it yet) but does anyone know of an actual effective way to de-radicalize white nationalists and the alt-right and bring them into a more politically detached framework? I know this isn't a prole movement so it's not as significant for us to be doing this as, say, a bunch of commies looking to recruit, but... if only to take the heat of the rest of us who aren't actively anti-racist, pro-choice, and all the other virtue signaling monikers of the modern left? Nazis seem too stupid to realize that there really is no victory condition for them, while in the meantime their antics are just making it harder for the rest of us to live until the great beast is defeated.
I've been having a hard time keeping track of exactly what it is you are in favor of, but I'm gonna try to piece it together. This isn't a steelman, because I don't understand your positions well enough to do that, and can't hold my nose long enough to pretend that I respect some of them, both of which are my own weaknesses, so others in the comments can correct me where I'm wrong.
You want an elected monarch from the left wing of uber-urbane, Silicon Valley technocrats who is so intelligent it would just knock my socks off, but it doesn't really matter what kind of beliefs this person holds (they may even be a commie transsexual; though that's probably a joke, I'm too busy Googling italicized Latin/German/Russian/French phrases to keep my bearings while reading these anymore), because he will inevitably learn on the job that the right wing is really where it's at (except for the culture, the art, the religion, and the politics, all of which are disgusting, dangerous, and/or useless to varying degrees), and will then be able to calm a troubled nation and convince cold-warring factions to set aside their differences by admitting that in reality we all just want the same things after all.
He will then retire with a full pension (and replace completely in a new regime) millions of members of a previously unaccountable civil service who will ride off into the sunset to tend their lawns having been soothed by the massive healing potential of this leader's promise to build back better and create "an effective and accountable government that treats all groups and classes fairly" (LOL, emphasis on the L).
This monarch will then create a global hyperpower from within the new definitely-right-wing-in-some-way People's Republic of the United States that will serve as the precursor to a "layered order" in which a now-deliberately unaccountable total power with complete technological dominance disarms the entire globe to assert it's own sovereignty from orbit, but, you know, in a limited fashion that still allows the peoples of the planet to govern themselves in whatever way they see fit as long as they only kill each other really inefficiently and don't shoot their bows at the satellites.
I'm almost certainly a frittata supreme, but as far as I can tell that's a slightly dismissive but otherwise accurate portrayal of the gist of the thing. I think this story you're writing would make an excellent feature-length film, but I'd have trouble suspending my disbelief for any runtime longer than 90 minutes. I don't believe that any of the things you seem to want are even remotely possible, save for the inevitable rise of an unaccountable global power ruling the planet from space, but they aren't going to be hands off about it, and certainly won't treat all groups and classes fairly, whatever that even means.
"But it doesn’t really feel like the moment for another experiment, does it?" No, it doesn't.
The issue is that ideas can be dangerous, because they can motivate action. Even in a saner monarchial system. Just ask Louis XVI or Charles I.
Sir Yarvin, I am a peasant and unworthy to subscribe to this blog, being literate, yet unsophisticated. I subscribe by the grace of Substack, and find that this is the finest blog in all the land. Please accept my shillings graciously.
Here is Stalin's obituary from the New York times in 1953.
It includes a quick bio.
You will notice that he really didn't have any ideas, he just knew what he was doing.
http://www.martin-van-creveld.com/an-obituary/
We live in the Cathedral’s jungle. Actually we are governed by Trotsky’s vision of democracy within the Party.
Committees coordinate responses through the Press.
This Trot Gondor has no King, it will have no King.
Won’t have a steward either.
It has Committees.
At the last moment when all hope seemed lost (for peace ahem) Kermit Roosevelt IV great grand nephew of FDR took up his fathers sword and...
NO MAN. Ain’t happening.
Oh don’t worry. Someone will knock them off. But then we’re into warlordism and who’s the strongest, and all we have now are warriors. THAT we have plenty of, but someone’s got to rise and claw their way to the top of the pile.
Just forget about peace.
The best chance for peace is we find a way to endure 2020 for a long time, but that ends in tears as well.
"The best thing about glasnost is that glasnost is boolean. The idea of glasnost is that no idea is dangerous. We reject entirely the concept of harmful thoughts."
Again, has this ever happened? Ever?