This is well and good, except... Xi Jinping Thought already has conquered Harvard. The American Academy is now at its core an anticurious institution, trading mostly on legacy reputation and endowments. The hard sciences soldier on (as Xi would like), but the humanities have been entirely liquidated into pro-totalitarian antihumanities by the DIE religion.
Why do you think China is better governed? Seems to me one gigantic Potemkin village. In that sense it's actually not that different from the US--except that our private sector isn't entirely dominated by corrupt state actors. But I wouldn't choose what they've got going on over there even knowing what I do about US politics. If anything, the Chinese system seems even more dishonest than ours.
Also, what is this notion that "the CCP would have zero chance of actually imposing Xi Jinping Thought on Harvard Yard." At this point that seems almost fiat accompli. The progs are all basically Maoist already. Even worse, academia is so addicted to Chinese money that the only question university administrators ask when the CCP says "Jump," is "How high?"
" The CCP would have zero chance of actually imposing Xi Jinping Thought on Harvard Yard." Why? Why wouldn't it be like turning the Hagia Sophia into a mosque?
Great piece - a couple of quibbles - Curt states US foriegn policy helping almost exclusively the left - certainly during the cold war that wasn't true - Chile comes to mind as one example and many other examples of governments/movements being supported that at the very least you can't call leftwing...Also Brazil - why aren't we strangling Bolsanaro? Isn't Brazil doing what it wants to do largely? A peasant people party in charge for a bit, at first at least extremely popular, then not so much then Jair B-boy Bolsanaro - before all this military rule, etc. I'm sure the US meddled in this but again seems like Brazil is largely doing its thing and not being strangled by the US/West very much at all...
I'm sorry but moldbug's foreign policy is awful. Our foreign policy sucks because of decay (also because of blatantly criminal kleptocracy btw, not just bureaucratic decay). Consider a monarch for the USG. Either they have they ability to create institutions that respond to monarchical directive and *actually work* rather than becoming self-licking ice cream cones, or they do not. In the case that they do not, then monarchy doesn't transcend the iron law of oligarchy in any meaningful way, and we're back at square 1 because no one is in charge. In the case that they do, then why the fuck aren't they maximizing power and providing global leadership? I thought the point was to be better at governing, not to sit on the throne with your dick in your hands.
And if we're talking about what the dysfunctional oligarchy should do... why are we talking about that again?
Does he REALLY believe the power vacuum left behind by evacuating the "post-war order" won't have substantive impacts on the well being of Americans or the American state? It seems like the obvious solution is not to ditch globalism, but to ditch the current globalist institutions that suck and do globalism better, with a real governance structure that actually works.
I disagree that American hard power decline will have no repercussions on American soft power or that China would leave Harvard as is in a hypothetical invasion but the last section about letting the rest of the world return to its natural stasis will let Americans envision a better alternative domestically is pretty good
Man I love your work and often break down your ideas on my youtube channel pnoid news. I have gained u a few subscribers and been spreading your work far and wide. But with regards to your ideologies: I follow a geo-political strategist named Peter Zeihan he has 3 books well worth a read. His predictions have been spot on. He speaks of a world in turmoil due to the lack of a enemy after the fall of the USSR. That the US has been a security provider for world trade as an agreement to the smaller nations of nato and the world at large in exchange for their backing us and standing up to the Soviets. This system no longer makes any sense and has been dying for the past 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Today with us being energy independent and our industrial base basically depleted and our society in ruins we look upon the mess we created and are wondering if it was all worth it. The truth is most Americans have been sold a load of BS about free trade when in fact it was a Security policy rather then a real economic principle. If you would like to discuss this at some point you can reach me in my discord: https://discord.gg/w3UfMEd8
Curtis, if you’re not going to write anymore of your book and still expect subscribers, you might as well change the blog name to “Gay Mirror of the Nigerian Prince.”
I see Yarvin agrees with the strategy of Singapore re: Yale-NUS! You can’t conquer Yale by owning it anymore than you can conquer hemlock by drinking it (Socrates excepted).
Honestly, I would disagree that China would be looking to capture Harvard. I think the core sentiment of this piece is correct though - if the US can't project power(soft or hard) - there'd be no real point in invading it.
I love how decay is the protagonist of this narrative. Like Mike Hammer in a Mickey Spillane novel, “I, The Jury Duty Evader” “My Gun Is Quick To Be Confiscated” “Vengeance Is Mine If I Feel Like Getting Up Off The Couch”
Now now! 1688, a Dutch Invasion? When I was a British lad I was taught that the last invasion of Britland was in 1066, and don't you forget it.
In fact, apart from the Dutch invading Britain in order to put down the French -- which they did in what I call the Second Hundred Years War that culminated in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 -- there is the curious case of Queen Isabella and her lover invading the Britain ruled by hubby Edward II in 1326. See, Edward II was gay, and Isabella felt miffed that he was ignoring her and gifting manors to his gay lovers. After all, she was the daughter of the King of France.
This is well and good, except... Xi Jinping Thought already has conquered Harvard. The American Academy is now at its core an anticurious institution, trading mostly on legacy reputation and endowments. The hard sciences soldier on (as Xi would like), but the humanities have been entirely liquidated into pro-totalitarian antihumanities by the DIE religion.
Why do you think China is better governed? Seems to me one gigantic Potemkin village. In that sense it's actually not that different from the US--except that our private sector isn't entirely dominated by corrupt state actors. But I wouldn't choose what they've got going on over there even knowing what I do about US politics. If anything, the Chinese system seems even more dishonest than ours.
Also, what is this notion that "the CCP would have zero chance of actually imposing Xi Jinping Thought on Harvard Yard." At this point that seems almost fiat accompli. The progs are all basically Maoist already. Even worse, academia is so addicted to Chinese money that the only question university administrators ask when the CCP says "Jump," is "How high?"
" The CCP would have zero chance of actually imposing Xi Jinping Thought on Harvard Yard." Why? Why wouldn't it be like turning the Hagia Sophia into a mosque?
I only read for the LOTR references
Great piece - a couple of quibbles - Curt states US foriegn policy helping almost exclusively the left - certainly during the cold war that wasn't true - Chile comes to mind as one example and many other examples of governments/movements being supported that at the very least you can't call leftwing...Also Brazil - why aren't we strangling Bolsanaro? Isn't Brazil doing what it wants to do largely? A peasant people party in charge for a bit, at first at least extremely popular, then not so much then Jair B-boy Bolsanaro - before all this military rule, etc. I'm sure the US meddled in this but again seems like Brazil is largely doing its thing and not being strangled by the US/West very much at all...
This comment section is a boomercon’s paradise. Curtis, if you secretly read these I am truly sorry for this one.
I'm sorry but moldbug's foreign policy is awful. Our foreign policy sucks because of decay (also because of blatantly criminal kleptocracy btw, not just bureaucratic decay). Consider a monarch for the USG. Either they have they ability to create institutions that respond to monarchical directive and *actually work* rather than becoming self-licking ice cream cones, or they do not. In the case that they do not, then monarchy doesn't transcend the iron law of oligarchy in any meaningful way, and we're back at square 1 because no one is in charge. In the case that they do, then why the fuck aren't they maximizing power and providing global leadership? I thought the point was to be better at governing, not to sit on the throne with your dick in your hands.
And if we're talking about what the dysfunctional oligarchy should do... why are we talking about that again?
Does he REALLY believe the power vacuum left behind by evacuating the "post-war order" won't have substantive impacts on the well being of Americans or the American state? It seems like the obvious solution is not to ditch globalism, but to ditch the current globalist institutions that suck and do globalism better, with a real governance structure that actually works.
I disagree that American hard power decline will have no repercussions on American soft power or that China would leave Harvard as is in a hypothetical invasion but the last section about letting the rest of the world return to its natural stasis will let Americans envision a better alternative domestically is pretty good
I'm imagining all the boomers zooming past the subtle baneposting and it makes me smile.
Man I love your work and often break down your ideas on my youtube channel pnoid news. I have gained u a few subscribers and been spreading your work far and wide. But with regards to your ideologies: I follow a geo-political strategist named Peter Zeihan he has 3 books well worth a read. His predictions have been spot on. He speaks of a world in turmoil due to the lack of a enemy after the fall of the USSR. That the US has been a security provider for world trade as an agreement to the smaller nations of nato and the world at large in exchange for their backing us and standing up to the Soviets. This system no longer makes any sense and has been dying for the past 30 years after the fall of the Berlin Wall. Today with us being energy independent and our industrial base basically depleted and our society in ruins we look upon the mess we created and are wondering if it was all worth it. The truth is most Americans have been sold a load of BS about free trade when in fact it was a Security policy rather then a real economic principle. If you would like to discuss this at some point you can reach me in my discord: https://discord.gg/w3UfMEd8
Curtis, if you’re not going to write anymore of your book and still expect subscribers, you might as well change the blog name to “Gay Mirror of the Nigerian Prince.”
“China loves Harvard“
Yeah, China loves Hong Kong too. See how that’s working out?
I see Yarvin agrees with the strategy of Singapore re: Yale-NUS! You can’t conquer Yale by owning it anymore than you can conquer hemlock by drinking it (Socrates excepted).
Honestly, I would disagree that China would be looking to capture Harvard. I think the core sentiment of this piece is correct though - if the US can't project power(soft or hard) - there'd be no real point in invading it.
I love how decay is the protagonist of this narrative. Like Mike Hammer in a Mickey Spillane novel, “I, The Jury Duty Evader” “My Gun Is Quick To Be Confiscated” “Vengeance Is Mine If I Feel Like Getting Up Off The Couch”
Now now! 1688, a Dutch Invasion? When I was a British lad I was taught that the last invasion of Britland was in 1066, and don't you forget it.
In fact, apart from the Dutch invading Britain in order to put down the French -- which they did in what I call the Second Hundred Years War that culminated in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815 -- there is the curious case of Queen Isabella and her lover invading the Britain ruled by hubby Edward II in 1326. See, Edward II was gay, and Isabella felt miffed that he was ignoring her and gifting manors to his gay lovers. After all, she was the daughter of the King of France.