Something about Musk and Twitter, at Compact. [Edit: sorry, I know this is paywalled. Trying to get it free.] A podcast with Astral Flight and another with Pete Quinones and Auron McIntyre.
The connection between politics and seduction was brilliantly explained, and how that explains why certain tactics on the dissident right actually, namely to try and “win them over” with appeals to logic and exposing the hypocrisy and corruption of their ideology, only weakens their political power and further repulses their target. “When you complain, you are only projecting weakness” - Yarvin. I admit that I fall victim of this trap too often.
Made a Discord server bc I'm interested in talking to some of you guys. This is a place where we may or may not be able to share some off-blog paywalled content. I could also easily make a DAO for us to have mini experiments in governance (could easily make it so there is a vote for a council, where the council elects the Head — similar to what Yarvin's mentioned in several blog posts).
From now on I'll be shilling it in the comments so long as our Grand Vizier doesn't put a stop to it
I'm enjoying the Astral Flight pod, but Lord Yarvin mentions offhand that "some want to split the country as a solution, and that's a stupid idea" (paraphrased). I thought National Divorce (into 2 nations) would've been an option for him, given the proposal in Patchwork, but I guess not? More to the point, in the recent Autocracy and Cultural Peace article, he proposes the pillarization model, which I'm in favor of and also sounds more like his style. But how are pillarization and Patchwork supposed to be accomplished without redrawing governmental jurisdictional lines into the geography? More cultural cohesion in smaller pockets is clearly the answer, or at least the common thread, the monarchy's goal (it seems?) should be to separate the cultures such that neither can impose their way of life on the other. How is this not the National Divorce plan?
I can also understand counter-arguments against split in the sense of poor people won't have the luxury of being able to vote with their feet and move to the region under the regime they would prefer; it's easier to make this argument that not every Red in CA wants to move to UT or SD, and not every Blue in SD can afford to move to NY or MA. But it would certainly be easier with more granular, geographically small monarchies, where people in NYC could move out to Upstate NY without much trouble, where NorCal could stay right where it is and LA-SD-SF can rule SoCal without affecting them.
Regardless, my point is that National Divorce or splitting the country in some form at some granularity seems germane to the rest of his ideas, I can't square that with him calling the idea "stupid" or whatever he referred to it as. Some have suggested he only means government by internet association, or subscription government as it were, but I don't see that being in any way practical or achievable. When a crime is committed IRL, the red, blue, black (NRx), and white (libertarian, other, etc.) security forces don't have time to Google the perp and pull up which gov they fall under before they move in, especially when Blue Cop there was ordered to never pursue a perp in this sort of crime in the first place. You call it by physical territory, each gov governs a contiguous territory, with absolute power in it, and assumes all actors within that range fall under that monarchy's laws, end of story. We're not ready for Blade Runner/Minority Report level shit with police with Google glass visors and all that, with HUDs and RFID to overlay their vision with exactly what this perp's name and political affiliation is in the time it takes for them to hop in a getaway car, or shoot the cop in the head. So how does he not see geographical split as necessary here?
And a side note: Most of the bickering in the Autocracy and Cultural Peace article has to do with revenge on team Blue. While I think they certainly deserve it, I am trying to mellow away from this attitude, because I am seeing what Yarvin has said elsewhere, that a victory is only a strategic victory if it makes future victories easier. Detaching the Blue from power is necessary, imposing Red power on them is just going to fuel a desire for revenge, making future progress toward peace more difficult and precarious. It would indeed be the strategic victory to detach them from power and make that impossible to recover, then leave them be and even flatter them in their governmental impotence, especially by letting them rule themselves in a container as proposed.
Hi Curtis, is there an email I can reach you directly at? Want to extend an invitation to be on the "matt chats" podcast that has featured guests like Milo, Gavin McInnes, Stefan Molyneux, Josh Lekach, Loomer, Jesse Lee Peterson, and more. You have been recommended to me numerous times.
It's very poor form to write paywalled articles that aren't available to people who pay a regular subscription for your work.
Will the Compact article become available without having to subscribe to Compact?
The connection between politics and seduction was brilliantly explained, and how that explains why certain tactics on the dissident right actually, namely to try and “win them over” with appeals to logic and exposing the hypocrisy and corruption of their ideology, only weakens their political power and further repulses their target. “When you complain, you are only projecting weakness” - Yarvin. I admit that I fall victim of this trap too often.
Made a Discord server bc I'm interested in talking to some of you guys. This is a place where we may or may not be able to share some off-blog paywalled content. I could also easily make a DAO for us to have mini experiments in governance (could easily make it so there is a vote for a council, where the council elects the Head — similar to what Yarvin's mentioned in several blog posts).
From now on I'll be shilling it in the comments so long as our Grand Vizier doesn't put a stop to it
https://discord.gg/6Fn3KtWzwA
I'm enjoying the Astral Flight pod, but Lord Yarvin mentions offhand that "some want to split the country as a solution, and that's a stupid idea" (paraphrased). I thought National Divorce (into 2 nations) would've been an option for him, given the proposal in Patchwork, but I guess not? More to the point, in the recent Autocracy and Cultural Peace article, he proposes the pillarization model, which I'm in favor of and also sounds more like his style. But how are pillarization and Patchwork supposed to be accomplished without redrawing governmental jurisdictional lines into the geography? More cultural cohesion in smaller pockets is clearly the answer, or at least the common thread, the monarchy's goal (it seems?) should be to separate the cultures such that neither can impose their way of life on the other. How is this not the National Divorce plan?
I can also understand counter-arguments against split in the sense of poor people won't have the luxury of being able to vote with their feet and move to the region under the regime they would prefer; it's easier to make this argument that not every Red in CA wants to move to UT or SD, and not every Blue in SD can afford to move to NY or MA. But it would certainly be easier with more granular, geographically small monarchies, where people in NYC could move out to Upstate NY without much trouble, where NorCal could stay right where it is and LA-SD-SF can rule SoCal without affecting them.
Regardless, my point is that National Divorce or splitting the country in some form at some granularity seems germane to the rest of his ideas, I can't square that with him calling the idea "stupid" or whatever he referred to it as. Some have suggested he only means government by internet association, or subscription government as it were, but I don't see that being in any way practical or achievable. When a crime is committed IRL, the red, blue, black (NRx), and white (libertarian, other, etc.) security forces don't have time to Google the perp and pull up which gov they fall under before they move in, especially when Blue Cop there was ordered to never pursue a perp in this sort of crime in the first place. You call it by physical territory, each gov governs a contiguous territory, with absolute power in it, and assumes all actors within that range fall under that monarchy's laws, end of story. We're not ready for Blade Runner/Minority Report level shit with police with Google glass visors and all that, with HUDs and RFID to overlay their vision with exactly what this perp's name and political affiliation is in the time it takes for them to hop in a getaway car, or shoot the cop in the head. So how does he not see geographical split as necessary here?
And a side note: Most of the bickering in the Autocracy and Cultural Peace article has to do with revenge on team Blue. While I think they certainly deserve it, I am trying to mellow away from this attitude, because I am seeing what Yarvin has said elsewhere, that a victory is only a strategic victory if it makes future victories easier. Detaching the Blue from power is necessary, imposing Red power on them is just going to fuel a desire for revenge, making future progress toward peace more difficult and precarious. It would indeed be the strategic victory to detach them from power and make that impossible to recover, then leave them be and even flatter them in their governmental impotence, especially by letting them rule themselves in a container as proposed.
Compliments on getting the Compact article open - well worth the wait. Cheers!
Astral Flight interview was great.
Hi Curtis, is there an email I can reach you directly at? Want to extend an invitation to be on the "matt chats" podcast that has featured guests like Milo, Gavin McInnes, Stefan Molyneux, Josh Lekach, Loomer, Jesse Lee Peterson, and more. You have been recommended to me numerous times.