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.
I think Curtis is in the position of one who is too intelligent not to vividly foresee the consequences of current pattern while being someone who is temperamentally and culturally I’ll disposed to view in those consequences anything other than horror. It always reminds me of Marx when I think of his ability to brilliantly and originally dissect the patterns of the present and the causalities of the past while to some degree refusing to continue that same clinically pragmatic into many areas of the future. In such cases he falls back to arguing the plausibility of a vaguely defined alternative which always strikes me just a little too inoffensive to command a probabilistic plurality among outcomes.
Yes, but isn't the entire point of this substack to look into the future and imagine what it would look like? I do think he should stop trying to figure out what it is that he needs to say to get more clicks/likes. It's hard to watch
What are you for/against, citizen? (I'm for 1952 America or the Shire or something like that. Or maybe 1912 America. The latter, actually. My plan for restoring 1912 America is to revive the religion of Ancient Greece by means of Druidic magic but without human sacrifices.)
I'm for the truth and for the individual. I realize these values are at odds with other values and with the reality that people need lies and community. I'm OK with that: to each his or her own.
One truth is that I can't romanticize the past. Another truth is that I know that my natural environment is the environment I'm surrounded with right now.
On another note, I have always enjoyed “The Dark Enlightment” by Nick Land due to the fact that it takes Yarvin’s brilliant cosmology of the modern world as its starting point and then subsequently draws out inferences and outcomes latent in that arrangement of entities, ideas, and forces. Land is an expat in Shanghai and it seems to me has far less motivation to carefully avoid the too accurately outlining the real consequences of these ifeas
No, they just get bogged in the shit show of corruption and incompetence. Most sovki (the vast majority of the 50+ population) are still nostalgic about ussr and have no clear answers as to how and why the Soviet Union disappeared
"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?"
How about Lucius Cornelius Sulla or Augusto Pinochet?
"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.
That’s true. Liberals are congenitally afraid of one of mankind’s most central freedoms, and one of Yarvin’s central principles— freedom of association. Were the regime liquidated tomorrow, their reaction would probably be different than the Soviet reaction to seeing a little free enterprise in the ‘90s.
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.
“ 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.”
Yeah, no. Good luck establishing monarchy when you’re still afraid to think for yourself out loud because you believe that ideas are dangerous.
“ Convincing the cathedral to destroy itself”
Cathedral is quite destructive but as long as dissidents prop it up by feeding the dialectic then it will keep consuming and persevering.
“ 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.”
Good luck convincing the cathedral that your interpretation of their own values is more authoritative than their own canonical interpretation.
“ Pretending that "we" can run Reagan's anti-soviet strategy on the American media complex is just another LARP.”
The notion that Reagan had anything to do with the collapse of the ussr is boomer fantasy.
I'm with you on the last point. When I say Reagan, I mean the USG during the Reagan years.
As far as the other points, I don't mean reinterpret their values. Their values are already self-undermining. They just need to be convinced that they are in fact, the serpent that eats its own tail. Constant self-critique is the core of the post modern ethos, and as such they have a predisposition towards critical reexamination of their own moral framework. Their attitude towards the "Townies" is basically "white man's burden" with cosmopolitan clothes. Its only their own parochial bias that keeps them from seeing it. It might just take a nudge, but from a friend, definitely not from HERE.
But why does establishing monarchy in a world hostile to new ideas pose a problem. I'm not sure I understand your point.
"When I say Reagan, I mean the USG during the Reagan years."
same difference. the US didn't cause the USSR to collapse.
"Constant self-critique is the core of the post modern ethos, and as such they have a predisposition towards critical reexamination of their own moral framework. Their attitude towards the "Townies" is basically "white man's burden" with cosmopolitan clothes."
you are believing the advertising. leftists don't believe in truth. ideology is instrumental. they appropriate the grievances of perceived disadvantaged groups in order to justify the main plan, which is capturing the economic value in society.
"Its only their own parochial bias that keeps them from seeing it."
the ones that matter know very well what they are doing. you are following smoke and mirrors when you take their ideological pronouncements at face value, just like the useful idiots who agree with it.
"But why does establishing monarchy in a world hostile to new ideas pose a problem."
respectfully, please go establish your monarchy without ideological preparation and then come back and explain to me how you did it. perhaps I am the one who is wrong here.
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.
You treat them exactly like communists, i.e. confused human beings who are very convinced of their own confusion. You model the correct behaviors (curiousity, philosophical charity, intellectual honesty, willingness to consider the other person’s perspective, willingness to consider that you might be wrong) and as long as you are having a mutually productive conversation, you’re both winning.
No, he's right and you missed a crucial point. The Nazis are long gone, and the only ones you'll encounter today are costume-Nazis. That's actually (probably) a key point in making these fucks realize they should stop LARPing already and find a worthwhile political endeavor instead.
I have yet to meet a white nationalist or alt-right person. I've shaken hands with Gavin Mcinnis too. I recommended him to read Yarvin in the hopes he'd grow out of the street fight mentality and consider the mission of chill.
That's right -- people might get into "white nationalist" or "alt-right" moods, but those generally last for about twenty minutes. People who are in those moods often post comments on blog-comments-pages while they're in them, which can give people a false impression. It's also fun to get into a familiar groove in the evening; beer helps with that. Other people play computer-games, or do both.
(These remarks are not intended to in any way dismiss or disparage the project of starting a club whose members feel comfortable with one another for whatever reason ["freedom of association"] or even the project of promoting the [peaceful, friendly!] secession of large interior sections of the United States for whatever reason, however that reason might be superficially formulated.)
Maybe it's because I live in New York, near the city. The only actual, "I hate X people" racists I've encountered were hispanics and brazilians, but I don't think they can be called 'white nationalists' can they? Although I think the Left is arguing for that concept lately (white supremacist minorities)
I live in Sunset (Brooklyn), a block from the 45th St. stop in the R line. It's Mexican/Dominican/PR/Arab/Chinese/EastEuropean with some more WestEuros moving in recently. It's kind of funny walking by Judy's between 40th and 41st on 5th Ave because in the outdoor Covidshelter there it's just all WestEuro women. If you want to see unmasked WestEuro women, you have to walk by Judy's. Of course, they won't see you back; they never do.
I was against the chill for a while, but when you fully understand what we're really up against, it's not even close to a winnable battle. It's like being an underground Christian during the Roman Empire. The best we can do is build a better way of life underground, and eventually someone in power will convert (Augustine), and we win. Meanwhile, if you get busted for blasphemey against the Roman gods or social justice, inclusion and equity, you WILL be fed to the lions.
> does anyone know of an actual effective way to de-radicalize white nationalists and the alt-right
I don't think it's possible to de-radicalize "Nazis" without talking frankly about Semitism, and that's just a bridge too far today (I personally wouldn't attempt it).
I _do_ think there are ways to de-radicalize these people if that particular limitation were to ever be lifted in the future. Anyway, I'll sketch the general approach that could be taken, by analogy to global warming:
In the past, as the Earth warmed, CO2 levels rose with it. (Our current 400 ppm has been as high as 8000 ppm in the recent, in geological terms, past.) So, we all agree: CO2 levels are higher when the Earth is warmer, and lower when the Earth is cooler. Millions of years of history confirm this; it's not in dispute.
What we _disagree_ about is the causation. Does increasing CO2 _cause_ the Earth to get warmer? Or does a warmer Earth (say, from the Sun) _cause_ CO2 to increase? We have scientific models for both.
Global warming says CO2 is the main driver, functioning like a global thermostat (thanks to Al Gore, everyone is familiar with this causation model). The other, lesser known, model is this: the oceans store massive amount of CO2 all the time. However, their _ability_ to store CO2 is dependent on their temperature. As the Earth warms (from the Sun), the oceans also warm and release CO2 into the atmosphere. Thus, higher CO2 in the atmosphere does not _cause_ the Earth to warm, but it does _track the warmth_ via this mechanism.
Again, two different models _but_we_all_agree_on_the_underlying_facts_.
To deal with these "Nazis" and their rampant anti-Semitism, you'd have to be able to discuss Semitism (read: the Earth warming) without being immediately cancelled. (That's not possible today, but bear with me.)
Once this hurdle was cleared, I think you could then explain the observable facts we see about the world, where Jews are extraordinarily successful and seem to be supported by power (CO2 is rising), and explain why this is in an alternate—but truthful—way. De-radicalization must cover all of the known facts about Jews and Semitism, and demonstrate how those "true facts" have a completely benign cause (i.e. the oceans release CO2 when the Earth gets warm).
If someone (not me) could do this, I think these alt-right/white nationalist/Nazis could be convinced to get out of (as Moldy put it in a podcast I listed to recently) the "Jew hole" and onto more productive, less toxic things. Maybe even give up on white nationalism altogether.
But I haven't tried, won't be trying (see above), so who knows? Anyway, that's _my_ best answer as to how it could be done.
You're right, Erich. (But why not just say "Jewism? It's so much homier and more Tolkien-Dwarfish, and more accurately conveys the family-feeling that's involved. It's a family-feeling, not a team-feeling or a gang-feeling; this is a key point. And keep in mind how angry and resentful family-members can get toward one another.)
A non-socioecopolitical factor that's worth bearing in mind is the prevalence of autistic personality traits, which can make other people feel dissed ("Why can't this guy at least look me in the eye and say hello when I walk into the room?") -- I was trying to explain this to an old guy in the park yesterday (he lives on the edge of Boro Park, where nearly 100% of the population is obviously on the Spectrum) and he shut down the conversation with "It makes me uncomfortable when whole groups are characterized" ... here I was, trying to explain things about my family ...
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.
I think these essays are better understood as various 'gedankenexperiments'. (I was trying to throw in an italicized German word to get into the general spirit, but this interface won't let me italicize.) At this point, I would not expect every essay to absolutely cohere with every other essay into some sort of absolute prescriptive formula. It hardly needs to be said that DIAGNOSIS, even PROGNOSIS, while tricky, seem to come easier than PRESCRIPTION, or any kind of useful course of treatment. That said, the one theme I am noticing is 'at this point there is no prescription except to think and debate, and build the subculture perhaps through this process'. That in itself is an interesting message, 'n'est-ce pas'?
I suspect Curtis' "ideas aren't dangerous" stance is just a function of relative power (he has none). I'm reminded of the Frank Herbert (Children of Dune) quote:
"When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles."
In fact, Curtis _contradicts himself about ideas in this very article_:
> The idea of glasnost is that _no idea is dangerous_. We reject entirely the concept of _harmful thoughts_.
Which is it? Are we "rejecting" ideas, ideas like "the concept of harmful thoughts? Or is the praxis that "no idea is dangerous" just an affectation?
The entire article is riddled with these kinds of contradictions. Nevertheless, it's still probably the sanest course of action to take when _out of power_.
You’re equivocating between “harmful” and “incorrect” and you probably need to read Yarvin more charitably. Try to see what he is saying rather than stuffing your own ideas into every crack.
I agree, the are often points in these pieces where, if you are say, already familiar with an example he puts forward or or have already thought through the logical consequences of a point he brings up, you feel him very deliberately circumscribing a path around certain points which he ostensibly views as too dangerous to include for one reason or another. This piece has given me that impression to a far greater extent than anything on UR or GM thus far. I think it’s curious because, in my imperfect opinion, this essay fell short of his writing’s usual impressive potency and eerie sense of relevance
Ideas didn’t bring him down, ideas bought neither down. Incompetence, bankruptcy, ambition, armies, wars bought them down. That it was ideas was what we learned in school, for we the living know nothing of war or revolution and our teachers know less. They can grasp pop philosophy and Marxist claptrap they must parrot to be teachers, but they know nothing of what they speak. Its a con job.
Well, obviously the ideas didn't grab an axe and cut anyone's head off. But it's silly to think anti-monarchial ideology didn't play a role in their deaths.
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.
I largely agree with this view. In my opinion, many different patterns which have developed and intensified in industrialized humanity in the last two centuries have more or less ensured that we will have a collapse whose causes and effects go far beyond politics or human social life, but are directly related the the biological fitness and continuing viability of humanity of a species. Mutational accumulation, nosediving genetic g and k in all modern populations, evaporated social capital, the genocidal effect of birth control in k selected groups, the simultaneous encouragement and subsidization of demographic explosions in incapable and lifestyle destroying groups by the decadent, childless, and subjugated scions of the world’s economic powerhouses within and across state borders, the squandering of medical resources on individuals whose ability to exist in the absence of the industrial healthcare apparatus is trivial and whose crippling debilities will be transmitted into the next generation in a display of dysgenic propagation the audacity of which is without precedent in the history of multicellular life. A corporate restructuring of the USG would a laudable goal to plant in our country for ourselves and our descendants, however the salt has lost its saltiness, and the soil of America, along with the modern world, after the dead oak currently rotting in place has been cleared one way or another, will for bear for long ages only the dry scrub the whose ignominy reflects the biological state the human beings from whom it draws vitality
If it is correct western elites likely represent phenotypic expressions of spiteful mutations who have an interest in stymieing the social mechanisms evolved to ensure the upkeep of group fitness such as religion, ostracism, in group preference, etc. because those mechanisms represent an existential risk to themselves
I agree. Its less abstractly called “poppy cropping” which is the one thing our schools excel at. Crop the tall poppies to stay in power said the tyrant of Syracuse.
Spandrell calls it Biolenism.
The other matter to consider is America has not had to fight for America since the Revolution, so Americans are utterly non-competive, worse Christianity makes them too trusting, too generous.
On the bright side, the wreck our civilization is about to have will finally exorcise the Christian pathology from the western character. I just hope the unholy codependence of the insecure on the unwell will at least stop acting like it is the highest form of human endeavor
I'm interested in this Neo-Trotskyist hypothesis. Can you point me to a resource where I can learn more about this in the context of current USG policy?
UR - aka Mencius moldbug aka Yarvin is the best resource on the combine of bureaucracy, NGO's, media and academia - he should add finance - that rules us.
They coordinate through media signaling.
As far as Democracy within the Party being Trotsky, that's just my understanding of Trotsky's putative desired USSR state. > what I am saying is it has happened.
Our vote, we the commons, our vote is null.
The votes that count are within government and said above groups.
In other words 'democracy within the party' - the Ruling govt - and not without.
This isn't new, it was just never in the open. This is why Presidents had to 'build consensus' within their own executive branch for instance the invasion of Iraq.
When does opting out, moving to a derelict oil rig in the North Sea, make sense? Fighting for the rights of those who would be comfortable, desirous, of subservience is suicide.
"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."
Yes. It may indicate that. But we are here trying to build the wisest regime in history. Don’t hang out with us if you’re gonna dismiss goals based on their absence in history, maaan.
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.
All the more reason to give it a go or at least prepare the blueprints?
Thoughts beget thoughts.
Look I don't mean to be a dick, but offering or endorsing false hopes as darkness gathers is the worse course.
We ain't thinking our way out of this.
Ideas are more powerful than bullets.
no, that is nonsense.
I guess you've never seen anyone shot, or anything shot.
No, that's nonsense and it will get you killed ..for nothing.
Ideas and thinking us babbling meant anything was all a grand distraction while they took power and took so much from us.
You've been had, sorry.
“ I guess you've never seen anyone shot, or anything shot.”
Wrong again.
“ No, that's nonsense and it will get you killed ..for nothing.”
Larping in ar500 is a really good way to get killed for nothing actually
“ Ideas and thinking us babbling meant anything was all a grand distraction while they took power and took so much from us.”
You never had power to begin with. You should thank them for taking your illusions.
“ You've been had, sorry.”
So sure of yourself. Well have fun with that. You can’t teach the unteachable.
I don’t want to be taught, thank you.
I do a little more than LARP, I serve.
What I know not, but since the traitors plan is inertia so will be mine.
Am curious though:
Now if you’ve been there why on earth would you believe in ideas?
I am over half a century, multiple trips downrange. but since you want to teach me (ahem, bit presumptuous) well..no.
But do tell me if you’ve been downrange why you would believe ideas are stronger than bullets?
That is curious.
Thoughts beget nonsense.
This comment made me audibly say “nice” while driving home alone from work lmao
Look I don't mean to be a dick, but offering or endorsing false hopes as darkness gathers is the worse course.
We ain't thinking our way out of this. Or talking.
We were talking while weak lunatic genocidal wanna be's [that can't deliver] took over cuz we be talking out dah marketplace of ideas...no, no, no.
Hey man if you’re down you should add me on wickr me or some other secure messaging app, I’d love to talk
No can do amigo, we met on the net.
No offense.
Good luck, and find a war band, or make one ;)
"Empty souls do not ever drink great thoughts to change the world for the better.
They only drink great thoughts to fill their empty souls.
Nothing will ever be done about the misery...
They accuse the tyrant but not the people who make tyrants powerful."
Wilhelm Reich
Yes, such great thoughts, such great souls...
But yet nothing is done.
I think Curtis is in the position of one who is too intelligent not to vividly foresee the consequences of current pattern while being someone who is temperamentally and culturally I’ll disposed to view in those consequences anything other than horror. It always reminds me of Marx when I think of his ability to brilliantly and originally dissect the patterns of the present and the causalities of the past while to some degree refusing to continue that same clinically pragmatic into many areas of the future. In such cases he falls back to arguing the plausibility of a vaguely defined alternative which always strikes me just a little too inoffensive to command a probabilistic plurality among outcomes.
Yes, but isn't the entire point of this substack to look into the future and imagine what it would look like? I do think he should stop trying to figure out what it is that he needs to say to get more clicks/likes. It's hard to watch
What are you for/against, citizen? (I'm for 1952 America or the Shire or something like that. Or maybe 1912 America. The latter, actually. My plan for restoring 1912 America is to revive the religion of Ancient Greece by means of Druidic magic but without human sacrifices.)
I'm for the truth and for the individual. I realize these values are at odds with other values and with the reality that people need lies and community. I'm OK with that: to each his or her own.
One truth is that I can't romanticize the past. Another truth is that I know that my natural environment is the environment I'm surrounded with right now.
I'm *for* wanting what you have.
"Lies" seems kind of harsh. How about "stories" or "games"?
"...Just a little too inoffensive" is at the heart of it.
On another note, I have always enjoyed “The Dark Enlightment” by Nick Land due to the fact that it takes Yarvin’s brilliant cosmology of the modern world as its starting point and then subsequently draws out inferences and outcomes latent in that arrangement of entities, ideas, and forces. Land is an expat in Shanghai and it seems to me has far less motivation to carefully avoid the too accurately outlining the real consequences of these ifeas
No, they just get bogged in the shit show of corruption and incompetence. Most sovki (the vast majority of the 50+ population) are still nostalgic about ussr and have no clear answers as to how and why the Soviet Union disappeared
"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?"
How about Lucius Cornelius Sulla or Augusto Pinochet?
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.
That’s true. Liberals are congenitally afraid of one of mankind’s most central freedoms, and one of Yarvin’s central principles— freedom of association. Were the regime liquidated tomorrow, their reaction would probably be different than the Soviet reaction to seeing a little free enterprise in the ‘90s.
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.
“ 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.”
Yeah, no. Good luck establishing monarchy when you’re still afraid to think for yourself out loud because you believe that ideas are dangerous.
“ Convincing the cathedral to destroy itself”
Cathedral is quite destructive but as long as dissidents prop it up by feeding the dialectic then it will keep consuming and persevering.
“ 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.”
Good luck convincing the cathedral that your interpretation of their own values is more authoritative than their own canonical interpretation.
“ Pretending that "we" can run Reagan's anti-soviet strategy on the American media complex is just another LARP.”
The notion that Reagan had anything to do with the collapse of the ussr is boomer fantasy.
I'm with you on the last point. When I say Reagan, I mean the USG during the Reagan years.
As far as the other points, I don't mean reinterpret their values. Their values are already self-undermining. They just need to be convinced that they are in fact, the serpent that eats its own tail. Constant self-critique is the core of the post modern ethos, and as such they have a predisposition towards critical reexamination of their own moral framework. Their attitude towards the "Townies" is basically "white man's burden" with cosmopolitan clothes. Its only their own parochial bias that keeps them from seeing it. It might just take a nudge, but from a friend, definitely not from HERE.
But why does establishing monarchy in a world hostile to new ideas pose a problem. I'm not sure I understand your point.
"When I say Reagan, I mean the USG during the Reagan years."
same difference. the US didn't cause the USSR to collapse.
"Constant self-critique is the core of the post modern ethos, and as such they have a predisposition towards critical reexamination of their own moral framework. Their attitude towards the "Townies" is basically "white man's burden" with cosmopolitan clothes."
you are believing the advertising. leftists don't believe in truth. ideology is instrumental. they appropriate the grievances of perceived disadvantaged groups in order to justify the main plan, which is capturing the economic value in society.
"Its only their own parochial bias that keeps them from seeing it."
the ones that matter know very well what they are doing. you are following smoke and mirrors when you take their ideological pronouncements at face value, just like the useful idiots who agree with it.
"But why does establishing monarchy in a world hostile to new ideas pose a problem."
respectfully, please go establish your monarchy without ideological preparation and then come back and explain to me how you did it. perhaps I am the one who is wrong here.
I agree, this post seems oddly rudderless and unconnected to ideas that have been developed previously
I think he just tries different things in each post to see what gets a reaction.
Of course its a LARP.
It has been all along.
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.
This is cringe.
I'm sure you're very pretty and intelligent and say many interesting things. Please have babies.
I have babies, how about you?
I'm glad to hear it. I have one teenage son. What does "Grazhdanka" mean?
Citizen
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.
You treat them exactly like communists, i.e. confused human beings who are very convinced of their own confusion. You model the correct behaviors (curiousity, philosophical charity, intellectual honesty, willingness to consider the other person’s perspective, willingness to consider that you might be wrong) and as long as you are having a mutually productive conversation, you’re both winning.
What if they’re not at all confused?
The Communists aren’t confused. The Nazis weren’t either.
The Nazis are long gone BTW.
Confused people?
Sure, plenty.
But people embracing a genocidal program of conquest aren’t confused, and while the Nazis have been gone 75 years the Communists persist.
"What if they’re not at all confused?"
They are, so your counterfactual is moot.
"The Nazis are long gone BTW."
you need to get out more
No, he's right and you missed a crucial point. The Nazis are long gone, and the only ones you'll encounter today are costume-Nazis. That's actually (probably) a key point in making these fucks realize they should stop LARPing already and find a worthwhile political endeavor instead.
I have yet to meet a white nationalist or alt-right person. I've shaken hands with Gavin Mcinnis too. I recommended him to read Yarvin in the hopes he'd grow out of the street fight mentality and consider the mission of chill.
That's right -- people might get into "white nationalist" or "alt-right" moods, but those generally last for about twenty minutes. People who are in those moods often post comments on blog-comments-pages while they're in them, which can give people a false impression. It's also fun to get into a familiar groove in the evening; beer helps with that. Other people play computer-games, or do both.
(These remarks are not intended to in any way dismiss or disparage the project of starting a club whose members feel comfortable with one another for whatever reason ["freedom of association"] or even the project of promoting the [peaceful, friendly!] secession of large interior sections of the United States for whatever reason, however that reason might be superficially formulated.)
Maybe it's because I live in New York, near the city. The only actual, "I hate X people" racists I've encountered were hispanics and brazilians, but I don't think they can be called 'white nationalists' can they? Although I think the Left is arguing for that concept lately (white supremacist minorities)
I live in Sunset (Brooklyn), a block from the 45th St. stop in the R line. It's Mexican/Dominican/PR/Arab/Chinese/EastEuropean with some more WestEuros moving in recently. It's kind of funny walking by Judy's between 40th and 41st on 5th Ave because in the outdoor Covidshelter there it's just all WestEuro women. If you want to see unmasked WestEuro women, you have to walk by Judy's. Of course, they won't see you back; they never do.
What did chill for over 50 years get us?
Yarvin has his own reasons for wanting us to chill.
Let's preach Yarvin to the Left, to the Dems. let them chill.
They need it a lot more than us.
I was against the chill for a while, but when you fully understand what we're really up against, it's not even close to a winnable battle. It's like being an underground Christian during the Roman Empire. The best we can do is build a better way of life underground, and eventually someone in power will convert (Augustine), and we win. Meanwhile, if you get busted for blasphemey against the Roman gods or social justice, inclusion and equity, you WILL be fed to the lions.
What Nazis?
If you mean non-compliant whites, you can offer them a path to dignity and survival. You can now only offer talk.
This post was babble.
Wishing the CIA could anoint a King OMG LOL
> does anyone know of an actual effective way to de-radicalize white nationalists and the alt-right
I don't think it's possible to de-radicalize "Nazis" without talking frankly about Semitism, and that's just a bridge too far today (I personally wouldn't attempt it).
I _do_ think there are ways to de-radicalize these people if that particular limitation were to ever be lifted in the future. Anyway, I'll sketch the general approach that could be taken, by analogy to global warming:
In the past, as the Earth warmed, CO2 levels rose with it. (Our current 400 ppm has been as high as 8000 ppm in the recent, in geological terms, past.) So, we all agree: CO2 levels are higher when the Earth is warmer, and lower when the Earth is cooler. Millions of years of history confirm this; it's not in dispute.
What we _disagree_ about is the causation. Does increasing CO2 _cause_ the Earth to get warmer? Or does a warmer Earth (say, from the Sun) _cause_ CO2 to increase? We have scientific models for both.
Global warming says CO2 is the main driver, functioning like a global thermostat (thanks to Al Gore, everyone is familiar with this causation model). The other, lesser known, model is this: the oceans store massive amount of CO2 all the time. However, their _ability_ to store CO2 is dependent on their temperature. As the Earth warms (from the Sun), the oceans also warm and release CO2 into the atmosphere. Thus, higher CO2 in the atmosphere does not _cause_ the Earth to warm, but it does _track the warmth_ via this mechanism.
Again, two different models _but_we_all_agree_on_the_underlying_facts_.
To deal with these "Nazis" and their rampant anti-Semitism, you'd have to be able to discuss Semitism (read: the Earth warming) without being immediately cancelled. (That's not possible today, but bear with me.)
Once this hurdle was cleared, I think you could then explain the observable facts we see about the world, where Jews are extraordinarily successful and seem to be supported by power (CO2 is rising), and explain why this is in an alternate—but truthful—way. De-radicalization must cover all of the known facts about Jews and Semitism, and demonstrate how those "true facts" have a completely benign cause (i.e. the oceans release CO2 when the Earth gets warm).
If someone (not me) could do this, I think these alt-right/white nationalist/Nazis could be convinced to get out of (as Moldy put it in a podcast I listed to recently) the "Jew hole" and onto more productive, less toxic things. Maybe even give up on white nationalism altogether.
But I haven't tried, won't be trying (see above), so who knows? Anyway, that's _my_ best answer as to how it could be done.
You're right, Erich. (But why not just say "Jewism? It's so much homier and more Tolkien-Dwarfish, and more accurately conveys the family-feeling that's involved. It's a family-feeling, not a team-feeling or a gang-feeling; this is a key point. And keep in mind how angry and resentful family-members can get toward one another.)
A non-socioecopolitical factor that's worth bearing in mind is the prevalence of autistic personality traits, which can make other people feel dissed ("Why can't this guy at least look me in the eye and say hello when I walk into the room?") -- I was trying to explain this to an old guy in the park yesterday (he lives on the edge of Boro Park, where nearly 100% of the population is obviously on the Spectrum) and he shut down the conversation with "It makes me uncomfortable when whole groups are characterized" ... here I was, trying to explain things about my family ...
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.
I think these essays are better understood as various 'gedankenexperiments'. (I was trying to throw in an italicized German word to get into the general spirit, but this interface won't let me italicize.) At this point, I would not expect every essay to absolutely cohere with every other essay into some sort of absolute prescriptive formula. It hardly needs to be said that DIAGNOSIS, even PROGNOSIS, while tricky, seem to come easier than PRESCRIPTION, or any kind of useful course of treatment. That said, the one theme I am noticing is 'at this point there is no prescription except to think and debate, and build the subculture perhaps through this process'. That in itself is an interesting message, 'n'est-ce pas'?
Fair enough. My own thoughts don't cohere all that well. It is certainly interesting, which is why I am still subbed.
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.
I suspect Curtis' "ideas aren't dangerous" stance is just a function of relative power (he has none). I'm reminded of the Frank Herbert (Children of Dune) quote:
"When I am Weaker Than You, I ask you for Freedom because that is according to your principles; when I am Stronger than you, I take away your Freedom Because that is according to my principles."
In fact, Curtis _contradicts himself about ideas in this very article_:
> The idea of glasnost is that _no idea is dangerous_. We reject entirely the concept of _harmful thoughts_.
Which is it? Are we "rejecting" ideas, ideas like "the concept of harmful thoughts? Or is the praxis that "no idea is dangerous" just an affectation?
The entire article is riddled with these kinds of contradictions. Nevertheless, it's still probably the sanest course of action to take when _out of power_.
You’re equivocating between “harmful” and “incorrect” and you probably need to read Yarvin more charitably. Try to see what he is saying rather than stuffing your own ideas into every crack.
I agree, the are often points in these pieces where, if you are say, already familiar with an example he puts forward or or have already thought through the logical consequences of a point he brings up, you feel him very deliberately circumscribing a path around certain points which he ostensibly views as too dangerous to include for one reason or another. This piece has given me that impression to a far greater extent than anything on UR or GM thus far. I think it’s curious because, in my imperfect opinion, this essay fell short of his writing’s usual impressive potency and eerie sense of relevance
He wants to survive no matter who wins.
Ideas didn’t bring him down, ideas bought neither down. Incompetence, bankruptcy, ambition, armies, wars bought them down. That it was ideas was what we learned in school, for we the living know nothing of war or revolution and our teachers know less. They can grasp pop philosophy and Marxist claptrap they must parrot to be teachers, but they know nothing of what they speak. Its a con job.
Well, obviously the ideas didn't grab an axe and cut anyone's head off. But it's silly to think anti-monarchial ideology didn't play a role in their deaths.
I’ve studied the FR, show me.
Are you saying republican ideology had nothing to do with the end of the monarchy?
I’m saying it has as much to do with it as the flag. Cloth.
Power, interests, money and a weak king did it.
Politics is power, and ideas are not cannon.
Ideas give legitimacy. Legitimacy gives power. It isn't always one to one but it is a pathway.
Look up The Mountain.
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.
I largely agree with this view. In my opinion, many different patterns which have developed and intensified in industrialized humanity in the last two centuries have more or less ensured that we will have a collapse whose causes and effects go far beyond politics or human social life, but are directly related the the biological fitness and continuing viability of humanity of a species. Mutational accumulation, nosediving genetic g and k in all modern populations, evaporated social capital, the genocidal effect of birth control in k selected groups, the simultaneous encouragement and subsidization of demographic explosions in incapable and lifestyle destroying groups by the decadent, childless, and subjugated scions of the world’s economic powerhouses within and across state borders, the squandering of medical resources on individuals whose ability to exist in the absence of the industrial healthcare apparatus is trivial and whose crippling debilities will be transmitted into the next generation in a display of dysgenic propagation the audacity of which is without precedent in the history of multicellular life. A corporate restructuring of the USG would a laudable goal to plant in our country for ourselves and our descendants, however the salt has lost its saltiness, and the soil of America, along with the modern world, after the dead oak currently rotting in place has been cleared one way or another, will for bear for long ages only the dry scrub the whose ignominy reflects the biological state the human beings from whom it draws vitality
Nah, lets just bang it out and the deadwood gets cleared out along the way.
Just happens, no focus needed.
We have plenty enough vigorous men to do the job.
They just need to stop waiting on intellectuals to give them permission, lol.
Now this won't, can't be peaceful.
Nor should it be as that would be an offense to nature, dignity and justice.
Also the current elites as people do not admit of peaceful solutions, expulsion is the most peaceful possible solution.
I mean read the post, he wants someone in the Deep State to become Dictator.
It isn't possible, unless you mean the dictator of the District of Columbia.
The Federated Political system doesn't permit it, the situation of America does not permit centralization.
Also no one up there has anywhere near the sand or skill to even become the dictator of Beltway land.
He invokes not only the spirit of 1989 but it's literal ghosts: those men are DEAD.
You need to check out this concept https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-030-32984-6_7
If it is correct western elites likely represent phenotypic expressions of spiteful mutations who have an interest in stymieing the social mechanisms evolved to ensure the upkeep of group fitness such as religion, ostracism, in group preference, etc. because those mechanisms represent an existential risk to themselves
I agree. Its less abstractly called “poppy cropping” which is the one thing our schools excel at. Crop the tall poppies to stay in power said the tyrant of Syracuse.
Spandrell calls it Biolenism.
The other matter to consider is America has not had to fight for America since the Revolution, so Americans are utterly non-competive, worse Christianity makes them too trusting, too generous.
But yes weak men make hard times.
On the bright side, the wreck our civilization is about to have will finally exorcise the Christian pathology from the western character. I just hope the unholy codependence of the insecure on the unwell will at least stop acting like it is the highest form of human endeavor
Its time has passed. It became too feminine.
Great achievements and a great fall.
I'm interested in this Neo-Trotskyist hypothesis. Can you point me to a resource where I can learn more about this in the context of current USG policy?
I'm just looking at them.
UR - aka Mencius moldbug aka Yarvin is the best resource on the combine of bureaucracy, NGO's, media and academia - he should add finance - that rules us.
They coordinate through media signaling.
As far as Democracy within the Party being Trotsky, that's just my understanding of Trotsky's putative desired USSR state. > what I am saying is it has happened.
Our vote, we the commons, our vote is null.
The votes that count are within government and said above groups.
In other words 'democracy within the party' - the Ruling govt - and not without.
This isn't new, it was just never in the open. This is why Presidents had to 'build consensus' within their own executive branch for instance the invasion of Iraq.
When does opting out, moving to a derelict oil rig in the North Sea, make sense? Fighting for the rights of those who would be comfortable, desirous, of subservience is suicide.
"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?
“Glasnost is a praxis. It happens because we do it.”
If something has never happened in history, that may indicate it isn't possible and therefore isn't a fruitful goal.
Yes. It may indicate that. But we are here trying to build the wisest regime in history. Don’t hang out with us if you’re gonna dismiss goals based on their absence in history, maaan.