"... 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.
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.
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).
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.
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.
"...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.
"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."
"... 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.
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.
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.
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.
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).
Perhaps 1 vote per million dollars of net assets?
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.
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?
> 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.
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.
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."