I like neo-hereditary but I oppose the dehumanizing effects of modern birthing programs (not in a small part because of my catholicism).
I would not want to compromise the dignity of a human person, especially the monarch. However, i think it could work if we set up some sort of Bene-Gesserite breeding program for the royal family. This would be humane and dignified, like creating a prized race horse rather than artificial human soup.
After just a generation or two we would have enough swappable, competent princes, that the monarchy could essentially continue on forever. It also gets more robust as time goes on.
Totally on board for the Neo-hereditary monarchy. Imagine instead of some lame election with octogenarians fumbling over words put in their heads by cringey academics, we have the fucking Thunderdome. Where the ten genetically engineered super humans compete in some insane blood sports cooked up by the ring bearers to 1. test their aptitude to become monarch and 2. entertain the hell out of the peasants. Mandatory day off for everyone, you have until 12 pst to order and consume as many party trays and obnoxiously large sandwiches as possible, then its on.
Curtis, when are you going to tackle the problem of state religion? I'm sure it doesn't escape you that no government can work without a morality that gives the board members a shared vision of what exactly is the public good they should strive for. So the rulers would need to have a cultural mechanism that keeps them all on the same page on the ultimate values.
"In most periods, most peoples are in this condition. Like the Romans of the Empire, they are depoliticized."
Yarvin is using the word "depoliticized" equivocally. Most people throughout history were much more manly and virile than now. Their "depoliticization" consisted in being concerned with the local world around them rather than the world, or even their nation, at large. Today we have exactly the opposite situation.
"The submodern stage—the stage in which a society can latch on to its first simple modern idea with the absolute conviction of a duck imprinting on its mother—lasts at most one generation. Even if the submodern world had somehow managed to avoid setting itself on fire, this flammable world would still be a memory."
The "submodern" stage lasted for two or three centuries in the Anglosphere. Even after two world wars it took a generation to fully end. A more plausible explanation for the decadence of postwar America is one that should come naturally to Yarvin, that we stagnated in the absence of any meaningful opposition.
"It means that enormous changes in political structure are possible, without the risk that the small but inevitable sparks will land on some pile of leaves and burn down the planet again. If this is because the last century already torched it all, we deserve that silver lining. There will never again be a century even remotely like the 20th."
The 20th century was exceptionally violent, but so was the 13th. I'm not aware of the 14th having been more peaceful than any random century, and the 14th didn't have atom bombs.
"Simple: it will agree with the new power in town. Power’s pod-people act as if their brains were controlled by a radio chip tuned to a preset channel. This is not at all the case. The chip just tunes to the strongest transmitter it can hear. If their channel goes off the air, and your channel comes on, they are your pod-people now."
There was a time when the left didn't have power but obtained it. Clearly there is an element missing from this theory.
"Especially appealing is the fact that the incentive of a profitable company is also the incentive of a civilized monarchy: not just to spit out dividends, but to protect and grow the assets. The assets of a monarchy are the land and the people; so the incentive of a monarchy is to preserve and improve the land and the people. Which sounds a lot like protecting and growing the assets."
Investors generally like getting paid. And with a corporation that can't go out of business, there's a lot of room for power dividends.
"The only problem with this science-fiction upbringing is that it seriously challenges the normal idea of family—but that is just another science-fiction problem for tomorrow to solve."
Yarvin seems to think that modern ideas about the fungibility of human nature are true, but only for a small segment of the population ("armigers"). What if, and hear me out here, the idea is wrong in principle? That all human beings are better off living in the ways that have consistently worked across millennia and across civilizations?
I can easily, EASILY imagine a 20th century-level catastrophe occurring in California, and the west in general, amidst all this covid-cuckery. Remember Garcetti's "snitches get rewards"? Following your truck, there is plenty of potential energy for violence to go around. Forests regrow awfully quickly, and you don't need a consistent ideology to light up a tinderbox world. You only need fear and moral grandstanding.
The euphemism (Augustus had several euphemistic titles, of which Imperator was only one, as was Princeps) had several important consequences over time.
one of which was the lack of a formal hereditary line of succession, right down to the end (though the dynastic principle would tend to dominate). People think of the positive aspect of this when they think of the Antonines (who even so adopted all of their successors, for reasons having to do more with inheritance of estates than formal succession to the political offices, something that was still ceremonially granted by the Senate). Until the wisest and best of the Antonines decided it would be wisest and best to adopt his own son as his successor (something that led to modern conspiracy theories such as the film "Gladiator").
But more often than not this indeterminacy led to problems & strife without necessarily avoiding the pitfall of worthless heirs (who the office did not educate). Something to keep in mind since we have the same hangups about Kings. Unless they are kangs n sheet. Kang Kunta Shaka Tupac Amaru Oswald Bates, anyone? The office will edumicate him.
Yarvin alternates between being very aware that the current Chinese government has most of the characteristics he is looking for, and ignoring it completely in nationalistic hope that the future will be ''American'' in some way.
As a fundamentally lazy man, the idea of an easy, peaceful, top-down solution is powerfully appealing.
I don't think it will work, though. Unfortunately, what's needed is trench warfare. Showing up for soil and water commission meetings, zoning board meetings, church councils, etc. Start small, get experience, build out. Think Switzerland, or maybe Venice.
Another 2 cup morning reading Curtis and its almost 1pm...best case for monarchy from him or others I've read and *sigh* my non-fiction TBR grows yet again...
The red line of Jesus popularity could be explained by the growing acceptance of Jesus as a slang word. It has lost its curse word status and is now just an exclamation. In the past a taboo filter limited it to mostly sincere mentions.
This is great but you can't write the manuals as if religion doesn't matter or is not part of all these movements, please take a look at the graph No 2 again!
I highly recommend people watch Adam Curtis' new doc series "Can't Get You Out of My Head" despite his leftism he goes into how ghosts of the past rule the political present and the social political stagnation it has caused, he also talks alot about the atomisation of the individual via individualism, global monitoring etc, good for those that want different perspectives.
The accurate, insightful description of Hitler as a bright uneducated misfit similar to some people whom one might encounter on blog-comments-pages isn't compatible with the "Hitler was gay" theme, which is based on a book by some psychoanalyst sort of person who thought that it was weird that Hitler's relationship with a certain male friend meant a lot to him. It seems unkind to misfits who might have an unusually intense need to establish deep relationships with other men to put this in the same box as a desire to have sex with other men. He had intense feelings about that niece of his, too -- he went vegetarian in penance after she killed herself -- so shouldn't this be taken as at least equally convincing evidence that he was "straight"?
Where did my morning just go? Best 10 bucks I've ever spent, better to say invested.
A Gray Mirror University would be welcome.
Nothing more to add but the Iranian revolution is a revolution you don't ever seen to reference. Although I'm working through your back catalogue.
I like neo-hereditary but I oppose the dehumanizing effects of modern birthing programs (not in a small part because of my catholicism).
I would not want to compromise the dignity of a human person, especially the monarch. However, i think it could work if we set up some sort of Bene-Gesserite breeding program for the royal family. This would be humane and dignified, like creating a prized race horse rather than artificial human soup.
After just a generation or two we would have enough swappable, competent princes, that the monarchy could essentially continue on forever. It also gets more robust as time goes on.
Totally on board for the Neo-hereditary monarchy. Imagine instead of some lame election with octogenarians fumbling over words put in their heads by cringey academics, we have the fucking Thunderdome. Where the ten genetically engineered super humans compete in some insane blood sports cooked up by the ring bearers to 1. test their aptitude to become monarch and 2. entertain the hell out of the peasants. Mandatory day off for everyone, you have until 12 pst to order and consume as many party trays and obnoxiously large sandwiches as possible, then its on.
Curtis, when are you going to tackle the problem of state religion? I'm sure it doesn't escape you that no government can work without a morality that gives the board members a shared vision of what exactly is the public good they should strive for. So the rulers would need to have a cultural mechanism that keeps them all on the same page on the ultimate values.
"In most periods, most peoples are in this condition. Like the Romans of the Empire, they are depoliticized."
Yarvin is using the word "depoliticized" equivocally. Most people throughout history were much more manly and virile than now. Their "depoliticization" consisted in being concerned with the local world around them rather than the world, or even their nation, at large. Today we have exactly the opposite situation.
"The submodern stage—the stage in which a society can latch on to its first simple modern idea with the absolute conviction of a duck imprinting on its mother—lasts at most one generation. Even if the submodern world had somehow managed to avoid setting itself on fire, this flammable world would still be a memory."
The "submodern" stage lasted for two or three centuries in the Anglosphere. Even after two world wars it took a generation to fully end. A more plausible explanation for the decadence of postwar America is one that should come naturally to Yarvin, that we stagnated in the absence of any meaningful opposition.
"It means that enormous changes in political structure are possible, without the risk that the small but inevitable sparks will land on some pile of leaves and burn down the planet again. If this is because the last century already torched it all, we deserve that silver lining. There will never again be a century even remotely like the 20th."
The 20th century was exceptionally violent, but so was the 13th. I'm not aware of the 14th having been more peaceful than any random century, and the 14th didn't have atom bombs.
"Simple: it will agree with the new power in town. Power’s pod-people act as if their brains were controlled by a radio chip tuned to a preset channel. This is not at all the case. The chip just tunes to the strongest transmitter it can hear. If their channel goes off the air, and your channel comes on, they are your pod-people now."
There was a time when the left didn't have power but obtained it. Clearly there is an element missing from this theory.
"Especially appealing is the fact that the incentive of a profitable company is also the incentive of a civilized monarchy: not just to spit out dividends, but to protect and grow the assets. The assets of a monarchy are the land and the people; so the incentive of a monarchy is to preserve and improve the land and the people. Which sounds a lot like protecting and growing the assets."
Investors generally like getting paid. And with a corporation that can't go out of business, there's a lot of room for power dividends.
"The only problem with this science-fiction upbringing is that it seriously challenges the normal idea of family—but that is just another science-fiction problem for tomorrow to solve."
Yarvin seems to think that modern ideas about the fungibility of human nature are true, but only for a small segment of the population ("armigers"). What if, and hear me out here, the idea is wrong in principle? That all human beings are better off living in the ways that have consistently worked across millennia and across civilizations?
> there are no panzer divisions of 4chan nerds.
Panzer vor!
Which "Girls und Panzer" girl is the consensus 4chan "Girls und Panzer" wafu?
What are the odds the consensus pick would be the same for the Gray Mirror readership.
I can easily, EASILY imagine a 20th century-level catastrophe occurring in California, and the west in general, amidst all this covid-cuckery. Remember Garcetti's "snitches get rewards"? Following your truck, there is plenty of potential energy for violence to go around. Forests regrow awfully quickly, and you don't need a consistent ideology to light up a tinderbox world. You only need fear and moral grandstanding.
The euphemism (Augustus had several euphemistic titles, of which Imperator was only one, as was Princeps) had several important consequences over time.
one of which was the lack of a formal hereditary line of succession, right down to the end (though the dynastic principle would tend to dominate). People think of the positive aspect of this when they think of the Antonines (who even so adopted all of their successors, for reasons having to do more with inheritance of estates than formal succession to the political offices, something that was still ceremonially granted by the Senate). Until the wisest and best of the Antonines decided it would be wisest and best to adopt his own son as his successor (something that led to modern conspiracy theories such as the film "Gladiator").
But more often than not this indeterminacy led to problems & strife without necessarily avoiding the pitfall of worthless heirs (who the office did not educate). Something to keep in mind since we have the same hangups about Kings. Unless they are kangs n sheet. Kang Kunta Shaka Tupac Amaru Oswald Bates, anyone? The office will edumicate him.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7dPprbzNSc
Genetically engineered race of Jewish Elite Kings?
Yarvin alternates between being very aware that the current Chinese government has most of the characteristics he is looking for, and ignoring it completely in nationalistic hope that the future will be ''American'' in some way.
As a fundamentally lazy man, the idea of an easy, peaceful, top-down solution is powerfully appealing.
I don't think it will work, though. Unfortunately, what's needed is trench warfare. Showing up for soil and water commission meetings, zoning board meetings, church councils, etc. Start small, get experience, build out. Think Switzerland, or maybe Venice.
Another 2 cup morning reading Curtis and its almost 1pm...best case for monarchy from him or others I've read and *sigh* my non-fiction TBR grows yet again...
The red line of Jesus popularity could be explained by the growing acceptance of Jesus as a slang word. It has lost its curse word status and is now just an exclamation. In the past a taboo filter limited it to mostly sincere mentions.
This is great but you can't write the manuals as if religion doesn't matter or is not part of all these movements, please take a look at the graph No 2 again!
I highly recommend people watch Adam Curtis' new doc series "Can't Get You Out of My Head" despite his leftism he goes into how ghosts of the past rule the political present and the social political stagnation it has caused, he also talks alot about the atomisation of the individual via individualism, global monitoring etc, good for those that want different perspectives.
The accurate, insightful description of Hitler as a bright uneducated misfit similar to some people whom one might encounter on blog-comments-pages isn't compatible with the "Hitler was gay" theme, which is based on a book by some psychoanalyst sort of person who thought that it was weird that Hitler's relationship with a certain male friend meant a lot to him. It seems unkind to misfits who might have an unusually intense need to establish deep relationships with other men to put this in the same box as a desire to have sex with other men. He had intense feelings about that niece of his, too -- he went vegetarian in penance after she killed herself -- so shouldn't this be taken as at least equally convincing evidence that he was "straight"?