I'm not sure Curtis has earned the right to go this hard at weekend grillin' America
The difference between him and the weekend grillers is that he has a bunch of really well thought out justifications for *why* he's politically disengaged and non-confrontational, while the grillers just don't care and are perfectly content to enjoy a cold one with the boys
But if you judge Curtis by his actions instead of his words, you find he has a bunch of hot dog buns on reserve in the freezer just in case the supermarket isn't stocked next week
It's like Yarvin is Paul who had to figure out the Gospel through exposition and Autistically talk it through whereas the grillers are simple children of God who just naturally have the Spirit of the Law written on their hearts. Such a saint may be inclined to envy on such natural beings simply living out with abandon what he suffers to do with willpower and discipline.
there's also something oddly warped about trying to convince a guy who's having a blast that he's taking it up the bum. It's like the libs do with the blacks, or the Marxists with the proletariat. Why won't these peasants hurry up and realize their role in my politics?
There many of those "interviews' now. All of them the same. One or two timid nerds, unable to save Yarvin from his verbosity, his unbearable verbal ticks or his girlie giggling, unable to compel Yarvin to have a coherent thought for longer than a paragraph. Unable to ask any questions that shows that they even read one of his post. Why does he even go on these interviews and why this is so pathetic? I get it, the grift...
You’ve more or less answered all of your own questions… why would anybody on the mainstream ever have Yarvin on? He’s the “father of the alt right” after all… I’ll agree that many of his hosts haven’t seriously read his work, which can be annoying.
But if you’re someone with a generally bad reputation that no one actually knows anything concrete about, a good way to change your image is to go on these things and show yourself as intelligent, funny and harmless. And despite your assertion, most of these hosts aren’t nazi mouthbreathers, they’re comedians, guys with nerdy niche focuses, or small time right-wing writers (Murphy, Buskirk, Malice, Kaschuta, Russell).
Anton is the natural next step as someone who’s respected and well known. Yarvin’s ideas dominated their conversation.
Also— you complain about substantive discussion but assume Rogan would ever read a single UR post? Lol.
Frankly, I would prefer if Yarvin never did anything mainstream at all, as seems to be his strategy. Rogan would ruin everything he’s worked for anyway.
I don't care about main stream or out stream. I would him to speak coherently and express his ideas with clarity without giggling for 15 minutes. Is this too much to ask? I would like a competent person to ask questions that focus on meaning, not snark or erudition for the sake of erudition.
I think it is too much to ask. He does develop his thoughts in conversations and in writing, and sometimes you see how the same idea goes through various attempts at being expressed, and then one day he finds a really good set of metaphors and marshals the arguments in just the right order.
Let me change focus. Yarvin needs someone to manage and focus his conversation (and writing) and go to some podcast, speak for 2-3 hrs with an annoying, nerdy, blank face taking up half a screen, doesn't do service to no one. Least to Yarvin himself.
Yes I know about that interview, it is an exception because Anton can level with Yarvin. The rest seem to be aspie children who sit for two hours and giggle without asking one question. And the astonishing thing is this seem to be what Yarvin wants.
1) What steps would you recommend to fight that cathedral in a way that wouldn’t simply sap our energy.
2) If your movement ever gains a substantial following, do you anticipate a response from the Federal government? How would you handle such a situation?
3) How exactly does the monarchy ascend? Creating a personal guard seems like an obvious step; How would you prevent civil war? Foreign interference? Does regime change in a nuclear power concern you?
Bonus question: how do you specifically ward off the pitfalls of authoritarian abuses?
If you become popular, the media WILL come for you.
The two ends of the spectrum here are Milo representing a fail state, and Jordan Peterson being somewhat successful. Which end of the spectrum will you end up on and why?
common now, this blog is an abstraction, it runs from the acyual world as far it can with an excuse that they transmit truths 200 years before it's time when it might actually be 200 years after, the only original idea here from Thomas Carville.
Do you mean the humane slave-system that Carlyle recommends in a late book whose title I forget? Even if Curtis hasn't explicitly proposed this, it might be on his to-do list for the CEO-dictator. The slaves would be called "clients", and government-inspectors would make sure that they're not miserable.
Curtis's money-reform idea might have been original, but I wouldn't know. The idea of an exploding wristwatches military strategy was original, wasn't it? The idea of requiring that all toys be handmade was a great one; that was original.
The video-game-welfare-hotel idea was a variation on the pleasure-coffin thought-experiment that's supposed to push the pleasure-maximizing kind of utilitarianism to its logical conclusion. A nice thing about Curtis's approach here is that people would apparently be able to choose whether to stay in the video-game-hotel or make toys in the handmade-toys factory.
One problem is that the CEO-dictator would have to be persuaded to do all of these things after he's already been installed. Maybe Curtis is presently grooming a promising 22-year-old to be dictator, teaching him economic theory and so forth?
There's supposed to be an "app" that gets this dictator installed. I'm not sure what an app is, but oup-by-app might be an original idea. If I recall correctly, the prospective dictator more or less tweets orders to his followers, and they obey because the app somehow makes them obey; they've chose to install a chip in their heads that makes them obey or something like that. They've chosen to install the chip because Curtis convinced them to on his blog.
why would I list it here? I have emailed him the questions, but he never responds, he prefers to hang with aspie nerds like him who ask no questions and giggle as much as he does.
I get really mad at my son too, so I don't blame you for feeling that way. The little fucker hasn't showered since at least Friday and is still wearing the same T-shirt he arrived in. On the computer all day and evening long with his headset on, ignores me, I'm just his food-bringer. Goddam it.
It was an accurate description of what had been going on in my apartment and head, and I thought that your irritation with Curtis might be comparable to mine with my son, a thought that neutralized my inclination to snarl at you for characterizing someone's laughter in the most insulting possible manner.
Let's find the common ground. It should be obvious that I think the world of Yarvin. These do not mean to be insults, they are desperate frustration in most basic form. May be I should find a better expression but with aspies there is no reason or logic, they do what they do and never change.
When you throw a pebble at someone's hard hat and they respond with indignity at a bruised ego, you do not want to be around them - much less talk to them - afterwards. I don't want to put you down either because I'm sure you are an awesome person, just like the rest of us. If Curtis would never respond that would still be okay because nobody is entitled to results of their efforts. They are only entitled to sow the seeds as often as possible. Perhaps Curtis is still drafting his response. Then again, maybe he never will. Either way, you can still be satisfied.
well, it's possible with this public-ish exposure of the questions you might ask he'd be under more pressure to answer them. especially if we all pile on and wiki-ify them. Gives feedback to the grift. And we being the ones enabling it with our moolah means our say might count for more. It is primarily why you vented your frustration here in the first place, is it not?
Also, the dude's a stud coder. He might end up digging the thought and creating a stack-exchange clone where he can have the final answering authority. He's probably lonely now too and might relish burying himself in work off and on. I assume he's doing his little domestic tour to help his soothe Psyche (and kids'). Now might be the time for such a suggestion.
but to Yarvin. My condolences, man. Trust what traditions you have to get you healthily through your grief. I'm sure you will. My comment is for the benefit of others. Pax
I had an amazing (to me) conversation with a friend where she made that very clear. We were discussing the electoral college and how it at least attempts to give some power to the rural districts vs. the cities. Her view was that the cities, as they depend on the country for food, will necessarily take care of the country interests. Therefore, it’s not necessary to worry about the popular vote making their votes not count for anything. The cities know best!
BTW, I did score a rare point by drawing an analogy between states/counties and independent countries: we generally don't argue (yet/anymore) that large countries know best what the little countries need. There's some expectation of a right to autonomy and self-determination that is not dependent on the size of the member.
Yarvin actually went on many, many "nobody" podcasts. He is persona non grata on real podcasts with reach (Rogan, etc.). Perhaps the reason is that he fumigates with antisemites and nazis and they fumigate around him (Niccolo Soldo. etc.).
Someone has a collection, but they all pretty much the same, mutual giggling, mutual verbal ticks, no serious questions or even attempts to partition the aimless verbosity.
I just wanted to point out that your comments about The First Battle of Bull Run (or First Manassas, thank you very much) are founded in some reality, but ultimately while a march to Washington may well have worked, it was, even in the best case scenario not a sure thing and likely would have failed.
It was widely feared in the Union, among the public and leadership, until a fucking hot air ballon recon mission revealed they had no intentions to. However the battle, while a decisive victory was not a rout. with only ~2,800 casualties for the North, the Union army was still over 30,000 strong. The high casualty counts that were so characteristic of the war were not present.
One could imagine an aggressive invasion by the South, routing the demoralized Army of the Potomac or simply passing around them to siege Washington, but this seems unlikely. Like most sieges in the war it would have surely been a bloody and extended affair, and it likely would have been defended viciously, either by the Army of the Potomac, local militias (for example the Wide Awakes) or both. Maybe the Union commanders knew something we don't, and they were vulnerable but I'm not convinced.
Barring the unlikely premature surrender of the Union, it almost certainly would have failed in my opinion. Your point that this idea was foreign to them, is valid, by the time they realized this and attempted to execute the strategy later they were severely outmanned.
Knowing that CY's leather jacket smells like cat piss in those pictures really helps to round out his dungeons and dragons in real life persona. I especially like the one where he is sitting on two poorly stacked crates of what I can only assume is either club mate or mountain dew code red (patrician's choice).
I listened to the Good Ol' Boys podcast and really enjoyed it. Left me wanting more. Any good discord servers or other groups that offer semi-live interaction and discussion on related topics?
Hey man, saw your email about your appearance in NYC. Would love a chance to meet up, buy you a beer. Saw your suggestion to send an email but can't find one yet. Hope to get in contact!
Why do you never have anything to say about sex(-roles), Curtis? There was one passing reference to men marrying each other and pretending to be women in this interview, and homoism and trannyism are only byproducts of feminism, an issue that you've never addressed as far as I can recall. It's extremely strange that you never discuss sex.
It seems to me that any serious political thinker has to explore this topic -- today, I mean, when it isn't simply taken for granted, as it always was up until about 1975, that the idea of female participation in public and commercial affairs emerges only in jokes.
I don't understand your reply. Sex-marriage-family isn't an issue that "contemporary elite" people argue about; they accept all feministic claims and promote the feministic project. It's proles and losers like me who think that sex-marriage-family is much more important than all other "issues" combined.
Is it better to have someone's grandmother volunteer to come in and read stories to the kids, or to hire a drag queen performance artist to do it? Vehemently stating the latter is a good way to improve your liberal credentials.
I may have misunderstood the main point of your statement! Thanks for clarifying. My point is that there is always a way to twist something a little further or turn it up to eleven:
"Oh, so you accept gay marriage? Well I accept polyamorous queer group marriage ... in space! So there! But only polyandry, not polygamy."
I go back and forth myself: I'm not sure if certain things are
a) the end of our civilization
b) a sign of the end (See Camille Paglia's thoughts on how fading cultures are obsessed with androgyny and being "accepting" while hyper masculine "barbarians" flock around the metaphorical borders), or
c) something that is ultimately self correcting. A traditional family with more children could have a larger impact in a generation than an "extreme liberal". The Amish seem to be doing OK.
Oh, okay, we're on the same team. I think that homoism and trannyism just boil down to homos sarcastically pushing feminism to its logical conclusion. I think that men (including homos) should do man stuff and women should do woman stuff or else everyone will be miserable and life will become meaningless for anyone who isn't a philosopher or mystic. So that a political revolution that doesn't restore natural sex-roles isn't worth caring about. That's why I want Curtis to say something about how a king could and would be likely to make this happen. I notice that Putin and Xi haven't made it happen, so it doesn't seem to be a necessary consequence of kingships.
I hear you. I think it comes down to execution. Also, it may be likely that if the Cathedral is dismantled what you want may come about as natural consequence. Like Jordan Peterson talks about "gender-roles" the Netherlands aligning more to traditions/stereotypes. Freedom means men and women can act how they so feel or choose.
I suspect when the father-figure passes some over-bearing threshold it has a reverse effect. Putin and Xi are strongmen. While it could be useful to have a strongman in the US I think with Putin and Xi we are seeing there are limits in how much they can do to get boys to be men which also seems to be a good catalyst in getting girls to be women.
Females appear to be 'reactionary' (not used in political sense) in that they would respond in kind (polarity) if real men suddenly appeared. In fact there are examples in biology that females need a male presence to even begin puberty/first ovulation as it is triggered by pheromones. Scientists can reliably delay onset of adulthood by preventing exposure to males. A similar example in internet culture would be the phenomenon of "Lesbian Bed Death" - no one to initiate means no one to respond to.
Probably those Dutch or Scandinavian (I think that it was the latter that he referred to in 12 Rules) sex-differentiated job-choices that Peterson was referring to involved women choosing client / customer-interaction jobs such as social services bureaucrat / agent, teacher, nurse, or even cop, while men choose technical jobs such as electrician and computer programmer. But to see it as in any way natural that girls would be taught to aspire to take care of people to whom they're not related instead of taking care of their own children is already horrifying.
I think that Putin and Xi promoting "Be manly!" TV or internet ads is just an empty gesture. Being manly entails supporting a family, including a wife who takes care of your children, shops, cleans, cooks, etc. So that if Putin and Xi were serious they'd do whatever they could to make it almost impossible for women to have "careers".
Your last paragraph is interesting, and I agree that women would immediately respond to whatever they believed that the men whom they recognize as the bosses of their societies (their spiritual husbands) really want them to do. Or something along those lines.
A note on Jordan Peterson: what annoyed me most about 12 Rules was the fact that Peterson assumed that he could advise men and women in the same way at the same time. Now, we all know that the great majority of therapy-patients are female. And we also know that the great majority of Peterson's readers are male. So Peterson envisioned his male readers as his female patients; thus the book was emasculating from start to finish.
"Like Jordan Peterson talks about "gender-roles" the Netherlands aligning more to traditions/stereotypes. Freedom means men and women can act how they so feel or choose."
Yes, very interesting. I think the extreme case of "all biology" was in the "most equal" countries in Scandinavia?
I likely agree with you both here, Ezra and KW. I suspect Yarvin is likely limiting his scope as a good programmer so as to not dilute or distract from his primary message/endeavor. He may also be more careful since his slavery comments of years past detracted from his goals and instead became obstacles.
I wouldn't call this self-censorship exactly, just choosing the sniper rifle for the task
You're probably right. It would be nice if he said so, though. I was thinking that maybe he has female friends whom he doesn't want to upset (understandably; it's really unbearable when women are mad at you) and that he hopes to attract a lot of Scott Alexandrines, who see all human beings as interchangeable pleasure-containers and think that the tech for producing babies in jars and robotically caring for children is right around the corner.
Comments section: increasingly stupid
Young audience: secured
Yeah, I've noticed some of the comments here generate an unusual amount of heat compared to the other substacks I frequent. However, they're rare.
Brothers and friends, I see no reason why we can't remain civil while discussing ways to overthrow the US government.
Overthrow? Sir, you are confused.
The idea is of course to reboot USG.
But that’s beside the point.
Most people are here for the poems.
I agree 100% with “reboot”. Curtis should go full meme lord and start referring to it as the great reset.
I'm not sure Curtis has earned the right to go this hard at weekend grillin' America
The difference between him and the weekend grillers is that he has a bunch of really well thought out justifications for *why* he's politically disengaged and non-confrontational, while the grillers just don't care and are perfectly content to enjoy a cold one with the boys
But if you judge Curtis by his actions instead of his words, you find he has a bunch of hot dog buns on reserve in the freezer just in case the supermarket isn't stocked next week
It's like Yarvin is Paul who had to figure out the Gospel through exposition and Autistically talk it through whereas the grillers are simple children of God who just naturally have the Spirit of the Law written on their hearts. Such a saint may be inclined to envy on such natural beings simply living out with abandon what he suffers to do with willpower and discipline.
ha, you said it better.
there's also something oddly warped about trying to convince a guy who's having a blast that he's taking it up the bum. It's like the libs do with the blacks, or the Marxists with the proletariat. Why won't these peasants hurry up and realize their role in my politics?
Good Ol Boys - reaction:
There many of those "interviews' now. All of them the same. One or two timid nerds, unable to save Yarvin from his verbosity, his unbearable verbal ticks or his girlie giggling, unable to compel Yarvin to have a coherent thought for longer than a paragraph. Unable to ask any questions that shows that they even read one of his post. Why does he even go on these interviews and why this is so pathetic? I get it, the grift...
Truly disappointing and aesthetically ugly.
Good for him to get critical feedback.
I disagree though, I find Yarvin talking quite fun, entertaining and thought provoking.
My favorite is Yarvin at Based deleuze.
I wouldn't change a thing, but that's just me.
You’ve more or less answered all of your own questions… why would anybody on the mainstream ever have Yarvin on? He’s the “father of the alt right” after all… I’ll agree that many of his hosts haven’t seriously read his work, which can be annoying.
But if you’re someone with a generally bad reputation that no one actually knows anything concrete about, a good way to change your image is to go on these things and show yourself as intelligent, funny and harmless. And despite your assertion, most of these hosts aren’t nazi mouthbreathers, they’re comedians, guys with nerdy niche focuses, or small time right-wing writers (Murphy, Buskirk, Malice, Kaschuta, Russell).
Anton is the natural next step as someone who’s respected and well known. Yarvin’s ideas dominated their conversation.
Also— you complain about substantive discussion but assume Rogan would ever read a single UR post? Lol.
Frankly, I would prefer if Yarvin never did anything mainstream at all, as seems to be his strategy. Rogan would ruin everything he’s worked for anyway.
I don't care about main stream or out stream. I would him to speak coherently and express his ideas with clarity without giggling for 15 minutes. Is this too much to ask? I would like a competent person to ask questions that focus on meaning, not snark or erudition for the sake of erudition.
I think it is too much to ask. He does develop his thoughts in conversations and in writing, and sometimes you see how the same idea goes through various attempts at being expressed, and then one day he finds a really good set of metaphors and marshals the arguments in just the right order.
Part of Yarvin's value is that he has read every important book ever written.
why everyone assumes only nerds here?
I don’t assume anything about you. I only know that there ARE nerds here, and that I’m one of them
Rogan reads?
“father of the alt right” what this even means?
Nothing, but it’s on his Wikipedia page.
Let me change focus. Yarvin needs someone to manage and focus his conversation (and writing) and go to some podcast, speak for 2-3 hrs with an annoying, nerdy, blank face taking up half a screen, doesn't do service to no one. Least to Yarvin himself.
I'd like to see Lex Fridman pick his brain.
Watch the Michael Anton interview on the American Mind Podcast
Yes I know about that interview, it is an exception because Anton can level with Yarvin. The rest seem to be aspie children who sit for two hours and giggle without asking one question. And the astonishing thing is this seem to be what Yarvin wants.
Please list three questions that you would ask him.
I would ask:
1) What steps would you recommend to fight that cathedral in a way that wouldn’t simply sap our energy.
2) If your movement ever gains a substantial following, do you anticipate a response from the Federal government? How would you handle such a situation?
3) How exactly does the monarchy ascend? Creating a personal guard seems like an obvious step; How would you prevent civil war? Foreign interference? Does regime change in a nuclear power concern you?
Bonus question: how do you specifically ward off the pitfalls of authoritarian abuses?
Also question 2a:
If you become popular, the media WILL come for you.
The two ends of the spectrum here are Milo representing a fail state, and Jordan Peterson being somewhat successful. Which end of the spectrum will you end up on and why?
common now, this blog is an abstraction, it runs from the acyual world as far it can with an excuse that they transmit truths 200 years before it's time when it might actually be 200 years after, the only original idea here from Thomas Carville.
Do you mean the humane slave-system that Carlyle recommends in a late book whose title I forget? Even if Curtis hasn't explicitly proposed this, it might be on his to-do list for the CEO-dictator. The slaves would be called "clients", and government-inspectors would make sure that they're not miserable.
Curtis's money-reform idea might have been original, but I wouldn't know. The idea of an exploding wristwatches military strategy was original, wasn't it? The idea of requiring that all toys be handmade was a great one; that was original.
The video-game-welfare-hotel idea was a variation on the pleasure-coffin thought-experiment that's supposed to push the pleasure-maximizing kind of utilitarianism to its logical conclusion. A nice thing about Curtis's approach here is that people would apparently be able to choose whether to stay in the video-game-hotel or make toys in the handmade-toys factory.
One problem is that the CEO-dictator would have to be persuaded to do all of these things after he's already been installed. Maybe Curtis is presently grooming a promising 22-year-old to be dictator, teaching him economic theory and so forth?
There's supposed to be an "app" that gets this dictator installed. I'm not sure what an app is, but oup-by-app might be an original idea. If I recall correctly, the prospective dictator more or less tweets orders to his followers, and they obey because the app somehow makes them obey; they've chose to install a chip in their heads that makes them obey or something like that. They've chosen to install the chip because Curtis convinced them to on his blog.
I don't know where irony ends a joke begins.
1) Don't do anything.
2) Stop doing stuff
3) Monarchy comes when you vote for one
He should at least be doing interviews with people that actually read him
A lot of the joy in podcastsis conversation, not just straight up questions
why would I list it here? I have emailed him the questions, but he never responds, he prefers to hang with aspie nerds like him who ask no questions and giggle as much as he does.
I get really mad at my son too, so I don't blame you for feeling that way. The little fucker hasn't showered since at least Friday and is still wearing the same T-shirt he arrived in. On the computer all day and evening long with his headset on, ignores me, I'm just his food-bringer. Goddam it.
fyi, this is not funny or clever.
It was an accurate description of what had been going on in my apartment and head, and I thought that your irritation with Curtis might be comparable to mine with my son, a thought that neutralized my inclination to snarl at you for characterizing someone's laughter in the most insulting possible manner.
Let's find the common ground. It should be obvious that I think the world of Yarvin. These do not mean to be insults, they are desperate frustration in most basic form. May be I should find a better expression but with aspies there is no reason or logic, they do what they do and never change.
When you throw a pebble at someone's hard hat and they respond with indignity at a bruised ego, you do not want to be around them - much less talk to them - afterwards. I don't want to put you down either because I'm sure you are an awesome person, just like the rest of us. If Curtis would never respond that would still be okay because nobody is entitled to results of their efforts. They are only entitled to sow the seeds as often as possible. Perhaps Curtis is still drafting his response. Then again, maybe he never will. Either way, you can still be satisfied.
well, it's possible with this public-ish exposure of the questions you might ask he'd be under more pressure to answer them. especially if we all pile on and wiki-ify them. Gives feedback to the grift. And we being the ones enabling it with our moolah means our say might count for more. It is primarily why you vented your frustration here in the first place, is it not?
Also, the dude's a stud coder. He might end up digging the thought and creating a stack-exchange clone where he can have the final answering authority. He's probably lonely now too and might relish burying himself in work off and on. I assume he's doing his little domestic tour to help his soothe Psyche (and kids'). Now might be the time for such a suggestion.
but to Yarvin. My condolences, man. Trust what traditions you have to get you healthily through your grief. I'm sure you will. My comment is for the benefit of others. Pax
Get a hobby
the written interview is better. No insufferable giggling and verbal ticks, but at least a semblance of back and forth.
> That's certainly how libs feel about cons!
I had an amazing (to me) conversation with a friend where she made that very clear. We were discussing the electoral college and how it at least attempts to give some power to the rural districts vs. the cities. Her view was that the cities, as they depend on the country for food, will necessarily take care of the country interests. Therefore, it’s not necessary to worry about the popular vote making their votes not count for anything. The cities know best!
Odd take, for sure. My experience is that human beings grow to resent those that they rely on.
BTW, I did score a rare point by drawing an analogy between states/counties and independent countries: we generally don't argue (yet/anymore) that large countries know best what the little countries need. There's some expectation of a right to autonomy and self-determination that is not dependent on the size of the member.
Yarvin actually went on many, many "nobody" podcasts. He is persona non grata on real podcasts with reach (Rogan, etc.). Perhaps the reason is that he fumigates with antisemites and nazis and they fumigate around him (Niccolo Soldo. etc.).
Someone has a collection, but they all pretty much the same, mutual giggling, mutual verbal ticks, no serious questions or even attempts to partition the aimless verbosity.
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL9f87RjrabeV3DjW-p16uQCYOPz7ujEDs
Thats my playlist
thanks for adding my channel
thank you!
Great job, sir.
I just wanted to point out that your comments about The First Battle of Bull Run (or First Manassas, thank you very much) are founded in some reality, but ultimately while a march to Washington may well have worked, it was, even in the best case scenario not a sure thing and likely would have failed.
It was widely feared in the Union, among the public and leadership, until a fucking hot air ballon recon mission revealed they had no intentions to. However the battle, while a decisive victory was not a rout. with only ~2,800 casualties for the North, the Union army was still over 30,000 strong. The high casualty counts that were so characteristic of the war were not present.
One could imagine an aggressive invasion by the South, routing the demoralized Army of the Potomac or simply passing around them to siege Washington, but this seems unlikely. Like most sieges in the war it would have surely been a bloody and extended affair, and it likely would have been defended viciously, either by the Army of the Potomac, local militias (for example the Wide Awakes) or both. Maybe the Union commanders knew something we don't, and they were vulnerable but I'm not convinced.
Barring the unlikely premature surrender of the Union, it almost certainly would have failed in my opinion. Your point that this idea was foreign to them, is valid, by the time they realized this and attempted to execute the strategy later they were severely outmanned.
Knowing that CY's leather jacket smells like cat piss in those pictures really helps to round out his dungeons and dragons in real life persona. I especially like the one where he is sitting on two poorly stacked crates of what I can only assume is either club mate or mountain dew code red (patrician's choice).
Dig the "Bitchin' Biden" (Trans-am Biden) impression Yarvin is doing in that first pic
https://niccolo.substack.com/p/the-agrigento-interviews-curtis-moldbug
This alone justifies my subscription fee, thanks for updates.
I listened to the Good Ol' Boys podcast and really enjoyed it. Left me wanting more. Any good discord servers or other groups that offer semi-live interaction and discussion on related topics?
Hey man, saw your email about your appearance in NYC. Would love a chance to meet up, buy you a beer. Saw your suggestion to send an email but can't find one yet. Hope to get in contact!
Best regards
Curtis,
Big ups for posting these. Keep layin' on the audio and the tenner's yours. We love you man.
Is there anyway I can download the podcast?
subscribe to the podcast in the podcast app/download
Why do you never have anything to say about sex(-roles), Curtis? There was one passing reference to men marrying each other and pretending to be women in this interview, and homoism and trannyism are only byproducts of feminism, an issue that you've never addressed as far as I can recall. It's extremely strange that you never discuss sex.
It seems to me that any serious political thinker has to explore this topic -- today, I mean, when it isn't simply taken for granted, as it always was up until about 1975, that the idea of female participation in public and commercial affairs emerges only in jokes.
"It's extremely strange that you never discuss [insert any issue the contemporary elite use in a scrap for relative status]."
I don't understand your reply. Sex-marriage-family isn't an issue that "contemporary elite" people argue about; they accept all feministic claims and promote the feministic project. It's proles and losers like me who think that sex-marriage-family is much more important than all other "issues" combined.
Is it better to have someone's grandmother volunteer to come in and read stories to the kids, or to hire a drag queen performance artist to do it? Vehemently stating the latter is a good way to improve your liberal credentials.
I may have misunderstood the main point of your statement! Thanks for clarifying. My point is that there is always a way to twist something a little further or turn it up to eleven:
"Oh, so you accept gay marriage? Well I accept polyamorous queer group marriage ... in space! So there! But only polyandry, not polygamy."
I go back and forth myself: I'm not sure if certain things are
a) the end of our civilization
b) a sign of the end (See Camille Paglia's thoughts on how fading cultures are obsessed with androgyny and being "accepting" while hyper masculine "barbarians" flock around the metaphorical borders), or
c) something that is ultimately self correcting. A traditional family with more children could have a larger impact in a generation than an "extreme liberal". The Amish seem to be doing OK.
Oh, okay, we're on the same team. I think that homoism and trannyism just boil down to homos sarcastically pushing feminism to its logical conclusion. I think that men (including homos) should do man stuff and women should do woman stuff or else everyone will be miserable and life will become meaningless for anyone who isn't a philosopher or mystic. So that a political revolution that doesn't restore natural sex-roles isn't worth caring about. That's why I want Curtis to say something about how a king could and would be likely to make this happen. I notice that Putin and Xi haven't made it happen, so it doesn't seem to be a necessary consequence of kingships.
I hear you. I think it comes down to execution. Also, it may be likely that if the Cathedral is dismantled what you want may come about as natural consequence. Like Jordan Peterson talks about "gender-roles" the Netherlands aligning more to traditions/stereotypes. Freedom means men and women can act how they so feel or choose.
I suspect when the father-figure passes some over-bearing threshold it has a reverse effect. Putin and Xi are strongmen. While it could be useful to have a strongman in the US I think with Putin and Xi we are seeing there are limits in how much they can do to get boys to be men which also seems to be a good catalyst in getting girls to be women.
Females appear to be 'reactionary' (not used in political sense) in that they would respond in kind (polarity) if real men suddenly appeared. In fact there are examples in biology that females need a male presence to even begin puberty/first ovulation as it is triggered by pheromones. Scientists can reliably delay onset of adulthood by preventing exposure to males. A similar example in internet culture would be the phenomenon of "Lesbian Bed Death" - no one to initiate means no one to respond to.
Probably those Dutch or Scandinavian (I think that it was the latter that he referred to in 12 Rules) sex-differentiated job-choices that Peterson was referring to involved women choosing client / customer-interaction jobs such as social services bureaucrat / agent, teacher, nurse, or even cop, while men choose technical jobs such as electrician and computer programmer. But to see it as in any way natural that girls would be taught to aspire to take care of people to whom they're not related instead of taking care of their own children is already horrifying.
I think that Putin and Xi promoting "Be manly!" TV or internet ads is just an empty gesture. Being manly entails supporting a family, including a wife who takes care of your children, shops, cleans, cooks, etc. So that if Putin and Xi were serious they'd do whatever they could to make it almost impossible for women to have "careers".
Your last paragraph is interesting, and I agree that women would immediately respond to whatever they believed that the men whom they recognize as the bosses of their societies (their spiritual husbands) really want them to do. Or something along those lines.
A note on Jordan Peterson: what annoyed me most about 12 Rules was the fact that Peterson assumed that he could advise men and women in the same way at the same time. Now, we all know that the great majority of therapy-patients are female. And we also know that the great majority of Peterson's readers are male. So Peterson envisioned his male readers as his female patients; thus the book was emasculating from start to finish.
"Like Jordan Peterson talks about "gender-roles" the Netherlands aligning more to traditions/stereotypes. Freedom means men and women can act how they so feel or choose."
Yes, very interesting. I think the extreme case of "all biology" was in the "most equal" countries in Scandinavia?
"I think that men (including homos) should do man stuff "
This! Is! Sparta!
Sorry, any excuse to use that! :)
I likely agree with you both here, Ezra and KW. I suspect Yarvin is likely limiting his scope as a good programmer so as to not dilute or distract from his primary message/endeavor. He may also be more careful since his slavery comments of years past detracted from his goals and instead became obstacles.
I wouldn't call this self-censorship exactly, just choosing the sniper rifle for the task
You're probably right. It would be nice if he said so, though. I was thinking that maybe he has female friends whom he doesn't want to upset (understandably; it's really unbearable when women are mad at you) and that he hopes to attract a lot of Scott Alexandrines, who see all human beings as interchangeable pleasure-containers and think that the tech for producing babies in jars and robotically caring for children is right around the corner.