"... as displayed in genius moves like refusing to cancel regularly-scheduled airline flights to stop a Holocaust-tier pandemic"
This keeps cropping up too much for you to genuinely believe it. I think at this point you're fully aware that your position on corona is tenuous at best, so you keep shoving it into every post and article out of spite for those who called the bluff last March. "The average age of covid-related death is 82.4, 78% of the victims are overweight, the lockdowns have sacrificed at least 3 life-years for every life-year they've spared - but the 'rona is still super-duper serious, you guys!"
Love your stuff and you're clearly one of the best writers out there, but the cope is getting ridiculous.
I'm no "maskfag" as CY likes to call said group, and I certainly am not interested in getting the vaccine. What you're missing is that the perception at the time called for the strongman to make the decision to shut down the virus and secure power. It was the exact type of monarchical move that would have granted Trump another victory, and could potentially have created breathing room to actually start draining the swamp.
Yes, they would have called him a dictator. Good. Make him look powerful and able to move mountains. Make the corporate press beg for our freedoms. And then, once re-opening, he can say "you're welcome."
But he didn't, he pussed out. And the maskfags won.
These hypotheticals are neither here nor there. Trump had three years to drain the swamp. If he were the kind of person to do it, he would have done it by last January, and no perception management would be required. He is not.
They are quite literally right here. You’re complaining about the guys views on a virus. If Trump had acted in tandem with the seriousness of what CY believes, he would most most certainly still be in power.
You’re opinion of the virus isn’t important, neither is his or mine. It’s about what the corporate press drummed up between the ears of the masses. They blew it out of proportion. The right move would be to steal it and wield its power.
This is a substack about wielding power and political movements. If you think having the right ideas matter, see the above article. The elites create the ideas. The solution is not to complain its to steal it and win.
That’s a political question, but Curtis is clearly attached to the corona issue as an epidemiological question— he thinks the pandemic deserved a far harsher (though more organized) response. And he’s wrong.
My interpretation is that what Yarvin is saying is that "Holocaust-tier" is how the "lockdown now" crowd has presented the virus. And yet they have done basically nothing. Their words and their actions do not match.
The rational responses were a) "complete lockdown" or b) "protect the high risk, let the rest live normally". The west has chosen c) "the usual half-assery."
Even if you like a right wing pundit like Tucker Carlson, it’s difficult to disagree with Curtis’s assessment that he is a grifter just of a higher order.
Forever trapped in the frame of policy gripes. “If we just were able to reduce immigration by 35 percent” “If we were just able to raise tariffs on steel by 20 percent.” Still not being brave enough to tell his listeners how fake and gay politics truly is.
Hmm. I would be very surprised if Curtis has not long-assumed that his readers were already far beyond the allure of Tucker. In reading this I assumed he was writing about people like Michael Malice.
I guess I'll clarify that some people believe that "right" and "right-wing" are different, so I am not sure what thickness of hairs is being split here, but Curtis has told Malice to his face that he believes he is on the right. I am not making any statement myself about Malice; I am just using him as the example of the type of person it seems to me that this article had in mind for the second type of dissident.
Agreed, but Malice isn't arguing for or against a political agenda. He's more a media watcher, bullshit spotter. I think if he had to choose one of those categories he would take shitposter.
Hey Curtis. Wrote this for you after reading The Divorce. Stay strong, man.
Dear Curtis
I like to pretend that, should we ever meet, you will recognize, in some small way, that we are of a kind, a fantasy I've held dear and distant ever since your callous words outlined the cracks in my foundation.
I've watched from afar, looking West for some signal, some ray, to punch out of Sodom, and beckon the faithful to a standard worth raising. I'd missed the opening gambit, too immature and inexperienced to to detect the Darkness' rise.
You're where I started and did not stay, but strange looped back in a poetic way, as time and tide restrained the flame of my own Enlightenment. Having crossed and given over, the hill on which I'll die is one you built, and for this I'll always be thankful.
But, to be painfully honest, you were never going to be the rock on which we stood, rather the one we'd carry forever, we cursed few who found you. Though I missed the Moment, I still made it in before the way became shut. I'll admit, I was at first a zealot, assuming your pen had a companion sword. But as always, the truth is far heavier than the legend, for it is simple and dense and dull.
But I submit, for your and our and all's consideration, that we warlike scholars, while unencumbered by armor, carry with us the weight of reasons. It is up to us to explain, in punishing detail, why the fight is worth waiting for. Why the end is not the goal, rather it is the Restoration we make along the way.
Rome, like your marriage, wasn't destroyed in a day. Neither did it take a lifetime to build. Only in their completion can we calculate their cause and cost, and what they risked and lost.
And as I prepare to hide from another day, retracing every path that brought me this way, preparing to do nothing in an attempt to build something, I'll be proud that you posted and, for once, I was First.
You have to understand, most of these pundits are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.
All of your examples of desirable monarchies seem to be of corporations. It seems like a false analogy— the number of monarchs running countries that are as admirable as the average corporation is pretty short. Maybe Lee of Singapore? a few others, no doubt, but I would hesitate to name any of the ones on my personal list, since they would no doubt be controversial with either the left or right.
On the other hand, there are scads of plutocracies, to coin a designator, that were widely seem as superior to the average kingdom in their time periods— the list is long : during the middle ages and Renaissance— The Republic of Venice, the Republic of Florence, indeed, all of the early Italian Republics, the states of the low countries, the Hanseatic League… In ancient times, the Phoenician cities of Tyre, Sidon and Carthage ; many of the Greek city states as well. What all of these city states had in common were their economic basis— they were engaged in high value manufacturing and long distance trade ; they all had ease of exist — if badly governed the wealthy manufacturer and, a fortiori, the wealthy shipowner could up sticks and move to a less oppressive or less confiscatory location. Their second common feature was, they were all governed by rich elites— merchants and traders in the main. There was democracy, in the sense that a large portion of the wealthy were citizens and could vote, but the franchise was limited to the wealthy. A large portion of the cities in western Europe during the middle ages had the same political structure— they were governed by their craft guilds, which in effect meant being governed by the masters of the guilds, all wealthy and prosperous. England between 1688 (the ‘glorious revolution’) and 1832 (the ‘first reform bill’) was, arguably the same sort of polity, except that the franchise was limited to large landowners rather than rich merchants and manufacturers.
All of these states were widely regarded, in their own times, as desirable locations to live and work, partly of course because they were highly prosperous. No doubt part of the reason why they were highly prosperous is because people with capital were willing to invest in them— not much risk of confiscation of assets, as the governments were controlled by the people with the maximum incentive to not set precedents of wealth confiscation.
Thus we have a form of government with many examples of success, and success extending successively over hundreds of years in each polity. No need to worry about the vagrancies of nature throwing up kings that are fools, fanatics, madmen, or infants, no need to worry about succession crises, psychopaths, or war mongers. Just a lot of boring old rich people running things for their own advantage. All of the cases I’m aware of had a council/mayor type administration, with various rules on election how council members and the mayor were elected. But, voter rolls were always extremely limited— to maybe 5% of the population or so, and the voter rolls tended not to be kept current, so the new rich were excluded, while families that had been rich 3 generations ago tended to still be included.
I’m not saying it was an ideal form of government, and I expect that a useful study could be made comparing the details of the rules for selection/election to the councils/mayor positions vs how stable and prosperous, and long lived the polities were. But, I am saying that basic form of government evolved over and over again, as a stable, long lived polities that were extremely prosperous and (comparatively) well government. Thus I would suggest that that model of government would be a better template for what you are considering than a monarchy.
It is easy to imagine the US lapsing into monarchy/dictatorship from where we are now— and perhaps it would even be superior to what we have now— but I wouldn’t suggest that a monarchy is what Grey Mirror should be aiming at as the replacement polity. A far better objective, in my opinion would be aiming at a country perhaps still with a legislature and a President, but but with voter rolls restricted to members of the wealthy elite (the Vaishyas, in your typology).
There is no ideal form of government, just like there's no ideal tool. What's better, a hammer or a screwdriver? Depends on what you're trying to fix. What's better, monarchy or democracy? Depends on who you're trying to rule.
Monarchy is needed because our population is tired, and lacks virtue. It needs an author with a vision, someone with the same power over govt as Roosevelt. You could revoke every suffrage law post 1800s, and our new aristocratic voter base would still vote in the same doomed economic policies that got us here.
I think Curtis himself discusses this as an option in UR - rule by board of directors essentially. As far as I understand, it wouldn't actually contradict his idea of Formalism. I don't know why he's so focused on monarchy right now, maybe because it's easier to use as an example.
Actually if we work under the assumption that shifting power to the economic elites is desirable, that already gives us a decent strategy - it's certainly something to think about.
Moldbug talked about restricted voting a few times on Unqualified Reservations. His response was that they always degrade over time. The franchise always increases. Until you get to the present day where the current political momentum is to allow everyone in the entire world to vote in US elections. Because expanding sufferage is always an easy way for one group of elites to grab away power from another, making political alliances with the new voters.
There's also no path from here to there. You can distantly imagine the US, or any democracy, electing a strongman. It's happened many times in history. It's much harder to imagine them voting to remove their own votes. Has that ever happened anywhere?. Entropy only goes in one direction.
OK. So the current three layer theory is nobles, commoners and clients. I recently complemented my Creatives, Responsibles, and Subordinates with a spicier Snobs, Schmucks, and Scum. But maybe the Scum should be Serfs. All good stuff.
My question is whether the Trump experience, as a failed attempt at monarchy, has taught the oligarchy how to stop monarchies for the next 50 years, or whether they are too dumb to learn from experience. Or whether Trump has taught a few would-be-monarchs how to play the game.
To Tocqueville weren't power leaks supposed to be America's greatest strength? Thinking of Scott Alexander's writeup on Calvin Coolige: when there was a gap in societal response, say famine after WWI, or disease in the city's water supply, Coolidge was organizing donors and coordinating a pragmatic can-do response team.
Back in the old days, power leaks were everywhere: having trouble with your old lady? 1900's Gigachad: You should try talking to her. Maybe use a mediator from your faith. 2000's Wojack: No, you can't just bypass family court and make your own custody agreement, you need to hire a lawyer and receive a CPS consultation.
These leaks were more prevalent but were more more quickly and efficiently attracted a response - San Francisco in 1849 probably had a better response to homelessness than San Francisco in 2009 - and yet whatever that response was, it did not poison the alpine lake. Curious. Three hypotheses:
A.) Men like Coolidge no longer exist? Shoeshine orphan to CEO to president, I can't think of anyone like that today other than Jack Ma. But if you look, and yes you have to look beyond A1 you'll see quiet people taking steady sincere swings at solving legit problems, e.g. Delancey Street. Suburbicon grillers is of course the only role ever portrayed on a sitcom, but a strawman of our people as a whole.
B.) FDR changed things forever with a pre and post war consolidation? There is now a moat to entry for plugging a power leak, e.g. your school needs to be accredited.
C.) It really is an elite-eat-elite world out there? Anyone attempting to plug a leak, without offering up the power carcass to "the pack" is run off by the organized pack and prohibited from hunting in the territory ever again.
In short, with far smaller and more hands off state in the past, why weren't there more leaks of power attracting subversion?
Were all our "Monarchs" progressive? CY has mentioned the 3 monarchs in American history: GW, Lincoln, & FDR. Weren't these all progressive figures? The fight against the Crown, Slavery, and Capitalism all appear to be progressive.
In America? Power doesn't care about ideologies, but ideologies care about power. So we've had a few presidents who, during their reign, subsumed the state into themselves during their tenure but then relinquished control back to the previous government or let the state devolve by choosing a successor that lacked the same principles.
In other words, Americans have had a few Cincinatus's in our time, but what we really need now is an Augustus. Somebody who takes control of the state but makes plans to let that control outlive him.
It may even be a gray mirror. But more about the "dream" of Orbital Base Davos ruled by Grand Receiver-Autocrat Melinda Gatesoros and her court of Zirs another time, perhaps.
For the record, I would argue that modern American "conservatism" isn't, and that there hasn't been anything that could even be described as conservatism I'm America since before the Civil War. After all, the meme of "conservatives" conserving the ground hard fought for by last generations liberals is very not fake and very not gay.
Left/Right politics was decidedly a product of the French Revolution, and as such is an Enlightenment phenomenon. Thus to call any explicitly "Right wing" a "conservative" force is very misleading. Conserve must imply that some sort of.natural order is being respected and preserved. Enlightenment thinking rejects the notion of natural orders, or giving any respect to them, in favor of our own imposed orders. Both Hitler and Lenin, after all, had their own visions of an "end-of-history" style world, reshaped in their own mind's interpretation of perfection.
Honestly the last real conservative leader was King James I. That guy was an ABSOLUTE Monarch. Not a coincidence we still read the bible and plays (Shakespeare) from his reign, and proves Curtis's point about free speech requiring the ruling class to be confident in their ability and authority to rule. He also wrote Basilikon Doron, a kind of mirror for princes for his own kids. If King Charles I had actually did what it told him to do (marry someone in your own religion and eat a shit load of meat) he may not have turned out to be such a low-T headless failure.
"If King Charles I had actually did what it told him to do (marry someone in your own religion and eat a shit load of meat) he may not have turned out to be such a low-T headless failure."
"...it is much easier to police your own thoughts than your own words. When choosing between two ideas, the temptation to prefer the safer one is almost irresistible. ... your objective function is that of Chaim Rumkowski, the Lodz Ghetto’s “King of the Jews.” You exist to convince your own followers that they neither can nor should do anything effective."
Is CY "blinking T-O-R-T-U-R-E with Morse code?" Because, sadly, despite his insistence "Out here in group (c)..." the descriptions of "(b)" appear, imho, to be a detailed and scathing self-portrait.
he says he dgaf, but preaches a speech code and never fighting in a jesus way. Ya thats based since the crowd wants barabbas, but in many ways its also the safe decision he criticizes b) for. The shrug is tactical Atleast
"The arc of [whatever] bends towards [whatever]," "Cthulhu swims left," but the freaks are still freaks and nature (I say for you atheists) gets a vote. Yes, elites tend to win, but the current collection isn't very good and can be beaten. Like a great American populist once said, "Be sure you are right, then go ahead."
The deep state is a hydra. Even the most militant presidents can only lop off a few heads for 8 years and then they grow back. See Reagan.
Trump just said that immigration and globalization probably arent so good, and he got some of the most intense vitriol in American history, Washington was foaming at the mouth. Even Republicans got on the fuck trump bandwagon because they knew he'd eventually leave and they'd be left to pick up the pieces. Could you imagine if Trump 2 tries to invoke the constitution and dissolve every executive agency and blacklist their employees? the shitfight would be biblical. the careers ended and reforms enacted would be so devastating that we would effectively have a new government, even if the constitution is still in its glass case.
"... as displayed in genius moves like refusing to cancel regularly-scheduled airline flights to stop a Holocaust-tier pandemic"
This keeps cropping up too much for you to genuinely believe it. I think at this point you're fully aware that your position on corona is tenuous at best, so you keep shoving it into every post and article out of spite for those who called the bluff last March. "The average age of covid-related death is 82.4, 78% of the victims are overweight, the lockdowns have sacrificed at least 3 life-years for every life-year they've spared - but the 'rona is still super-duper serious, you guys!"
Love your stuff and you're clearly one of the best writers out there, but the cope is getting ridiculous.
I'm no "maskfag" as CY likes to call said group, and I certainly am not interested in getting the vaccine. What you're missing is that the perception at the time called for the strongman to make the decision to shut down the virus and secure power. It was the exact type of monarchical move that would have granted Trump another victory, and could potentially have created breathing room to actually start draining the swamp.
Yes, they would have called him a dictator. Good. Make him look powerful and able to move mountains. Make the corporate press beg for our freedoms. And then, once re-opening, he can say "you're welcome."
But he didn't, he pussed out. And the maskfags won.
These hypotheticals are neither here nor there. Trump had three years to drain the swamp. If he were the kind of person to do it, he would have done it by last January, and no perception management would be required. He is not.
They are quite literally right here. You’re complaining about the guys views on a virus. If Trump had acted in tandem with the seriousness of what CY believes, he would most most certainly still be in power.
You’re opinion of the virus isn’t important, neither is his or mine. It’s about what the corporate press drummed up between the ears of the masses. They blew it out of proportion. The right move would be to steal it and wield its power.
This is a substack about wielding power and political movements. If you think having the right ideas matter, see the above article. The elites create the ideas. The solution is not to complain its to steal it and win.
That’s a political question, but Curtis is clearly attached to the corona issue as an epidemiological question— he thinks the pandemic deserved a far harsher (though more organized) response. And he’s wrong.
My interpretation is that what Yarvin is saying is that "Holocaust-tier" is how the "lockdown now" crowd has presented the virus. And yet they have done basically nothing. Their words and their actions do not match.
The rational responses were a) "complete lockdown" or b) "protect the high risk, let the rest live normally". The west has chosen c) "the usual half-assery."
Even if you like a right wing pundit like Tucker Carlson, it’s difficult to disagree with Curtis’s assessment that he is a grifter just of a higher order.
Forever trapped in the frame of policy gripes. “If we just were able to reduce immigration by 35 percent” “If we were just able to raise tariffs on steel by 20 percent.” Still not being brave enough to tell his listeners how fake and gay politics truly is.
Hmm. I would be very surprised if Curtis has not long-assumed that his readers were already far beyond the allure of Tucker. In reading this I assumed he was writing about people like Michael Malice.
I think Malice would be a little put out to be considered a right wing pundit.
Curtis did not specify that the type of pundit he is talking about is right-wing. All he wrote was: "(b) pundits who still care what people think."
I guess I'll clarify that some people believe that "right" and "right-wing" are different, so I am not sure what thickness of hairs is being split here, but Curtis has told Malice to his face that he believes he is on the right. I am not making any statement myself about Malice; I am just using him as the example of the type of person it seems to me that this article had in mind for the second type of dissident.
Agreed, but Malice isn't arguing for or against a political agenda. He's more a media watcher, bullshit spotter. I think if he had to choose one of those categories he would take shitposter.
Malice's and Yarvin's advice still aligns - no, you don't vote your way out of this shitstorm, what you have to do is thrive and do your own sjit
there are no hands to show
no one, not even Yarvin knows the way out.
Hey Curtis. Wrote this for you after reading The Divorce. Stay strong, man.
Dear Curtis
I like to pretend that, should we ever meet, you will recognize, in some small way, that we are of a kind, a fantasy I've held dear and distant ever since your callous words outlined the cracks in my foundation.
I've watched from afar, looking West for some signal, some ray, to punch out of Sodom, and beckon the faithful to a standard worth raising. I'd missed the opening gambit, too immature and inexperienced to to detect the Darkness' rise.
You're where I started and did not stay, but strange looped back in a poetic way, as time and tide restrained the flame of my own Enlightenment. Having crossed and given over, the hill on which I'll die is one you built, and for this I'll always be thankful.
But, to be painfully honest, you were never going to be the rock on which we stood, rather the one we'd carry forever, we cursed few who found you. Though I missed the Moment, I still made it in before the way became shut. I'll admit, I was at first a zealot, assuming your pen had a companion sword. But as always, the truth is far heavier than the legend, for it is simple and dense and dull.
But I submit, for your and our and all's consideration, that we warlike scholars, while unencumbered by armor, carry with us the weight of reasons. It is up to us to explain, in punishing detail, why the fight is worth waiting for. Why the end is not the goal, rather it is the Restoration we make along the way.
Rome, like your marriage, wasn't destroyed in a day. Neither did it take a lifetime to build. Only in their completion can we calculate their cause and cost, and what they risked and lost.
And as I prepare to hide from another day, retracing every path that brought me this way, preparing to do nothing in an attempt to build something, I'll be proud that you posted and, for once, I was First.
First cringe
Hi Curtis!
I know you don't read the comments, but I wanted nevertheless to express my sincerest condolences for your loss.
I also know that you are not religious, but I pray to the Lord that he gives you the all the strength to be the father your children need.
Long may you run.
My condolences too, for the author and his family.
You have to understand, most of these pundits are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inert, so hopelessly dependent on the system that they will fight to protect it.
Tucker was run out of DC by violent mobs and threatened to be doxxed by the NYT and he’s still not fully red pilled yet.
they will understand. we will make them understand.
I think he is fully redpilled. He's just doing what Curtis said - saying what he can not what he needs to
All of your examples of desirable monarchies seem to be of corporations. It seems like a false analogy— the number of monarchs running countries that are as admirable as the average corporation is pretty short. Maybe Lee of Singapore? a few others, no doubt, but I would hesitate to name any of the ones on my personal list, since they would no doubt be controversial with either the left or right.
On the other hand, there are scads of plutocracies, to coin a designator, that were widely seem as superior to the average kingdom in their time periods— the list is long : during the middle ages and Renaissance— The Republic of Venice, the Republic of Florence, indeed, all of the early Italian Republics, the states of the low countries, the Hanseatic League… In ancient times, the Phoenician cities of Tyre, Sidon and Carthage ; many of the Greek city states as well. What all of these city states had in common were their economic basis— they were engaged in high value manufacturing and long distance trade ; they all had ease of exist — if badly governed the wealthy manufacturer and, a fortiori, the wealthy shipowner could up sticks and move to a less oppressive or less confiscatory location. Their second common feature was, they were all governed by rich elites— merchants and traders in the main. There was democracy, in the sense that a large portion of the wealthy were citizens and could vote, but the franchise was limited to the wealthy. A large portion of the cities in western Europe during the middle ages had the same political structure— they were governed by their craft guilds, which in effect meant being governed by the masters of the guilds, all wealthy and prosperous. England between 1688 (the ‘glorious revolution’) and 1832 (the ‘first reform bill’) was, arguably the same sort of polity, except that the franchise was limited to large landowners rather than rich merchants and manufacturers.
All of these states were widely regarded, in their own times, as desirable locations to live and work, partly of course because they were highly prosperous. No doubt part of the reason why they were highly prosperous is because people with capital were willing to invest in them— not much risk of confiscation of assets, as the governments were controlled by the people with the maximum incentive to not set precedents of wealth confiscation.
Thus we have a form of government with many examples of success, and success extending successively over hundreds of years in each polity. No need to worry about the vagrancies of nature throwing up kings that are fools, fanatics, madmen, or infants, no need to worry about succession crises, psychopaths, or war mongers. Just a lot of boring old rich people running things for their own advantage. All of the cases I’m aware of had a council/mayor type administration, with various rules on election how council members and the mayor were elected. But, voter rolls were always extremely limited— to maybe 5% of the population or so, and the voter rolls tended not to be kept current, so the new rich were excluded, while families that had been rich 3 generations ago tended to still be included.
I’m not saying it was an ideal form of government, and I expect that a useful study could be made comparing the details of the rules for selection/election to the councils/mayor positions vs how stable and prosperous, and long lived the polities were. But, I am saying that basic form of government evolved over and over again, as a stable, long lived polities that were extremely prosperous and (comparatively) well government. Thus I would suggest that that model of government would be a better template for what you are considering than a monarchy.
It is easy to imagine the US lapsing into monarchy/dictatorship from where we are now— and perhaps it would even be superior to what we have now— but I wouldn’t suggest that a monarchy is what Grey Mirror should be aiming at as the replacement polity. A far better objective, in my opinion would be aiming at a country perhaps still with a legislature and a President, but but with voter rolls restricted to members of the wealthy elite (the Vaishyas, in your typology).
Perhaps 1 vote per million dollars of net assets?
There is no ideal form of government, just like there's no ideal tool. What's better, a hammer or a screwdriver? Depends on what you're trying to fix. What's better, monarchy or democracy? Depends on who you're trying to rule.
Monarchy is needed because our population is tired, and lacks virtue. It needs an author with a vision, someone with the same power over govt as Roosevelt. You could revoke every suffrage law post 1800s, and our new aristocratic voter base would still vote in the same doomed economic policies that got us here.
I think Curtis himself discusses this as an option in UR - rule by board of directors essentially. As far as I understand, it wouldn't actually contradict his idea of Formalism. I don't know why he's so focused on monarchy right now, maybe because it's easier to use as an example.
Actually if we work under the assumption that shifting power to the economic elites is desirable, that already gives us a decent strategy - it's certainly something to think about.
Moldbug talked about restricted voting a few times on Unqualified Reservations. His response was that they always degrade over time. The franchise always increases. Until you get to the present day where the current political momentum is to allow everyone in the entire world to vote in US elections. Because expanding sufferage is always an easy way for one group of elites to grab away power from another, making political alliances with the new voters.
There's also no path from here to there. You can distantly imagine the US, or any democracy, electing a strongman. It's happened many times in history. It's much harder to imagine them voting to remove their own votes. Has that ever happened anywhere?. Entropy only goes in one direction.
OK. So the current three layer theory is nobles, commoners and clients. I recently complemented my Creatives, Responsibles, and Subordinates with a spicier Snobs, Schmucks, and Scum. But maybe the Scum should be Serfs. All good stuff.
My question is whether the Trump experience, as a failed attempt at monarchy, has taught the oligarchy how to stop monarchies for the next 50 years, or whether they are too dumb to learn from experience. Or whether Trump has taught a few would-be-monarchs how to play the game.
RIP Jen Kollmer and best to the kids.
To Tocqueville weren't power leaks supposed to be America's greatest strength? Thinking of Scott Alexander's writeup on Calvin Coolige: when there was a gap in societal response, say famine after WWI, or disease in the city's water supply, Coolidge was organizing donors and coordinating a pragmatic can-do response team.
Back in the old days, power leaks were everywhere: having trouble with your old lady? 1900's Gigachad: You should try talking to her. Maybe use a mediator from your faith. 2000's Wojack: No, you can't just bypass family court and make your own custody agreement, you need to hire a lawyer and receive a CPS consultation.
These leaks were more prevalent but were more more quickly and efficiently attracted a response - San Francisco in 1849 probably had a better response to homelessness than San Francisco in 2009 - and yet whatever that response was, it did not poison the alpine lake. Curious. Three hypotheses:
A.) Men like Coolidge no longer exist? Shoeshine orphan to CEO to president, I can't think of anyone like that today other than Jack Ma. But if you look, and yes you have to look beyond A1 you'll see quiet people taking steady sincere swings at solving legit problems, e.g. Delancey Street. Suburbicon grillers is of course the only role ever portrayed on a sitcom, but a strawman of our people as a whole.
B.) FDR changed things forever with a pre and post war consolidation? There is now a moat to entry for plugging a power leak, e.g. your school needs to be accredited.
C.) It really is an elite-eat-elite world out there? Anyone attempting to plug a leak, without offering up the power carcass to "the pack" is run off by the organized pack and prohibited from hunting in the territory ever again.
In short, with far smaller and more hands off state in the past, why weren't there more leaks of power attracting subversion?
You're a grifter of the highest order, and have earned my subscription. I'm ready to sign up for your Seldon plan.
wish lol was an option
Were all our "Monarchs" progressive? CY has mentioned the 3 monarchs in American history: GW, Lincoln, & FDR. Weren't these all progressive figures? The fight against the Crown, Slavery, and Capitalism all appear to be progressive.
Am I just using the wrong lens?
In America? Power doesn't care about ideologies, but ideologies care about power. So we've had a few presidents who, during their reign, subsumed the state into themselves during their tenure but then relinquished control back to the previous government or let the state devolve by choosing a successor that lacked the same principles.
In other words, Americans have had a few Cincinatus's in our time, but what we really need now is an Augustus. Somebody who takes control of the state but makes plans to let that control outlive him.
> To Narcissus, everything is a mirror
It may even be a gray mirror. But more about the "dream" of Orbital Base Davos ruled by Grand Receiver-Autocrat Melinda Gatesoros and her court of Zirs another time, perhaps.
Premature comments are obnoxious, but f*ck it: I'm only 1/10th along and it's already dynamite. Looking forward to the rest.
Also, I'm terribly sorry for your loss. Thoughts / prayers.
For the record, I would argue that modern American "conservatism" isn't, and that there hasn't been anything that could even be described as conservatism I'm America since before the Civil War. After all, the meme of "conservatives" conserving the ground hard fought for by last generations liberals is very not fake and very not gay.
Left/Right politics was decidedly a product of the French Revolution, and as such is an Enlightenment phenomenon. Thus to call any explicitly "Right wing" a "conservative" force is very misleading. Conserve must imply that some sort of.natural order is being respected and preserved. Enlightenment thinking rejects the notion of natural orders, or giving any respect to them, in favor of our own imposed orders. Both Hitler and Lenin, after all, had their own visions of an "end-of-history" style world, reshaped in their own mind's interpretation of perfection.
Honestly the last real conservative leader was King James I. That guy was an ABSOLUTE Monarch. Not a coincidence we still read the bible and plays (Shakespeare) from his reign, and proves Curtis's point about free speech requiring the ruling class to be confident in their ability and authority to rule. He also wrote Basilikon Doron, a kind of mirror for princes for his own kids. If King Charles I had actually did what it told him to do (marry someone in your own religion and eat a shit load of meat) he may not have turned out to be such a low-T headless failure.
"If King Charles I had actually did what it told him to do (marry someone in your own religion and eat a shit load of meat) he may not have turned out to be such a low-T headless failure."
holy mother of based
The thought occurs that if Alexander didn't exist, one would need to invent him.
"...it is much easier to police your own thoughts than your own words. When choosing between two ideas, the temptation to prefer the safer one is almost irresistible. ... your objective function is that of Chaim Rumkowski, the Lodz Ghetto’s “King of the Jews.” You exist to convince your own followers that they neither can nor should do anything effective."
Is CY "blinking T-O-R-T-U-R-E with Morse code?" Because, sadly, despite his insistence "Out here in group (c)..." the descriptions of "(b)" appear, imho, to be a detailed and scathing self-portrait.
he says he dgaf, but preaches a speech code and never fighting in a jesus way. Ya thats based since the crowd wants barabbas, but in many ways its also the safe decision he criticizes b) for. The shrug is tactical Atleast
Mr. Yarvin's anatomy and taxonomy of our ruling classes is, as always, excellent.
He's wrong that they can't be beaten within the current political framework.
Donald Trump got elected in 2016, in the teeth of elite disdain and opposition. He almost got re-elected facing the same, now enraged, opponents.
In Trump's years in the White House, immigration dropped. About a million fewer people came in than would have otherwise (see: https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2019/12/net-international-migration-projected-to-fall-lowest-levels-this-decade.html ). Given the booming pre-covid economy, this was entirely due to Trump and his team. A million here and a million there, and pretty soon it starts to matter.
"The arc of [whatever] bends towards [whatever]," "Cthulhu swims left," but the freaks are still freaks and nature (I say for you atheists) gets a vote. Yes, elites tend to win, but the current collection isn't very good and can be beaten. Like a great American populist once said, "Be sure you are right, then go ahead."
The deep state is a hydra. Even the most militant presidents can only lop off a few heads for 8 years and then they grow back. See Reagan.
Trump just said that immigration and globalization probably arent so good, and he got some of the most intense vitriol in American history, Washington was foaming at the mouth. Even Republicans got on the fuck trump bandwagon because they knew he'd eventually leave and they'd be left to pick up the pieces. Could you imagine if Trump 2 tries to invoke the constitution and dissolve every executive agency and blacklist their employees? the shitfight would be biblical. the careers ended and reforms enacted would be so devastating that we would effectively have a new government, even if the constitution is still in its glass case.