He needs to resume writing the book. Aside from Covid-panic and some back-and-forth with other writers, it was his only line of thought that wasn't just a rehash of UR.
He needs to resume writing the book. Aside from Covid-panic and some back-and-forth with other writers, it was his only line of thought that wasn't just a rehash of UR.
Really though, what does he have left to say? And I don't mean that in a rude way - he's been talking about this subject for over a decade now. You can tweak the wording and learn how to communicate key ideas more effectively, but this isn't some sort of science where you can devise experiments and expand what you know. This is philosophy of state. This is ancient and well understood.
Didn't he say in some post moons ago that he's still writing the book, but has chosen to stop writing it in public? I'll be honest - while I love Curtis' analysis, I don't see any realistic way of achieving his goals. Brilliant Pebbles wasn't implemented for a reason, and good luck developing any sort of spaceborne government that won't become a nightmare state.
There is a lot to be said on what is actually to be done. While the whole reboot the USA with a CEO emperor makes a wonderful story...I think succession of a group of states is much more practical, medium term and effective. And we are talking existential crisis here. IQs dropping, forgetting technology, hoards of low IQ uncivillized 3rd world masses converging on the developed world, and a mediocre low innovative state (china) surpassing the US. Endgame of this is all-world third-world. I'd rather have a secure state in food producing territory established where some people have to work as robots, than pontificate about what the perfect state of man would be (as craftsmen etc etc) and never have any security against the colossal tide of decay.
My question is whether or not secession is more practical. I suspect it is less practical.
The capture of the state by a political machine which subsequently reinvented the state has happened successfully three times in our history - with the ratification of the Constitution, with Lincoln, and with FDR. Secession was attempted twice (Confederacy and Whiskey rebellion) and both failed. One common thread is that these three new regimes emerged during crises, of which we have no shortage. It's a fertile time for transformative change.
Compared to capturing a regime and dismantling it, founding a separatist regime requires a substantial amount of courage from politicians, some sort of reasonably popular cultural identity distinct from the mainstream, and soldiers willing to die to defend it. It also requires the coalition of secessionists to develop a new state as they part with the old one. Divorce at the national level, much like the personal level, is a legal and bureaucratic nightmare, though with much higher stakes.
Ultimately I'm a monarchist not because I believe it is good or better, but because I see it as almost inevitable. It seems to me that monarchy is the most likely outcome because it is the path of least resistance, as evidenced by history. I want the gears of history to resume turning and the elites to be rotated. This is not for any idealistic vision on my part - the system is less important than the people who occupy it, and the only solution to our mismanagement is to install worthy leaders and award them the power to dismantle the previous regime. I just want competent government, not some grandiose narrative of things as they ought to be.
If I believed secession was more likely to deliver, I'd be a secessionist. But there are so many obstacles to initiating it, so many hurdles to overcome once you've started it, and so many ways it can go wrong. You might get a state sooner, but would it be able to deal with the problems you outlined? If you can't resolve it amicably, you'll have war, and war is fundamentally dysgenic - as well as hell on border security.
All fair points. I think founding a separatist regime is cleaner, but it could be done through capturing the political mechanisms as you mention. I think the current political mechanism should be captured and used to break up the united states. Why go through the trouble of trying to rule Californians/ Blue states. Let THEM rule themselves. Why should worthy leaders rule over those that dont want their rule (for cultish ideological reasons)?
Yes, have worthy rulers, but give them worthy subjects. Capture the political system, break the USA up into the black states of america, Republican states of america, Democratic states of america, and maybe a european ethno-state (white israel), maybe a libertarian state aswell. Give people 5 years to move about with state assistance, withdraw travel rights between states as appropriate. I think this is going to be a lot easier than trying to rule over a cult of self humiliation and cultural destruction. And would a "governmental CEO" rather rule over the fertile lands of the north USA/ rust belt etc...or california. I know which i'd pick.
The soviety Union successfully disintegrated, it was messy because it wasn't planned. A planned disintegration would have been better. Lets do that.
Basically, the reason is to avoid war and the security nightmare that is having multiple countries in north America.
If there is an incomplete transfer of power, and the blue regime is permitted to survive, you can be certain it will be vindictive. There's the matter of our foreign clients as well. I suspect they would side with whoever promises to continue security guarantees and provide technology - with red being isolationist and tech mostly in blue coastal states, that's a problem. The question I'm really worried about is weather starving out the coastal strongholds is as easy as a lot of populists seem to believe. Those are port cities. They can ship in grain.
And I'm one to hate on California too, but I wouldn't underestimate my enemy. California has some of the most productive agricultural land, and it's the cradle of tech companies that service the entire globe. The rust belt still needs to be rebuilt - California needs to get its shit together. To any sort of monarch, California would seem extremely enticing. Of course, the agricultural productivity of California is driven by water taken from further inland, which only creates another seed of conflict.
A planned disintegration is much more likely to work than unilaterally declaring independence but you're still going to have to make compromises to avoid war and becoming collectively weaker, and I would still recommend some sort of alliance/union to try and keep foreign interference off the continent. This will mean years of negotiations and swallowing some pride, and you have to be prepared for that.
This is true and the certain results of separation are wars of Reunification and foreign entanglements of foreigners here, the geography will not allow any nation here in North America less than Atlantic to Pacific.
He needs to resume writing the book. Aside from Covid-panic and some back-and-forth with other writers, it was his only line of thought that wasn't just a rehash of UR.
Really though, what does he have left to say? And I don't mean that in a rude way - he's been talking about this subject for over a decade now. You can tweak the wording and learn how to communicate key ideas more effectively, but this isn't some sort of science where you can devise experiments and expand what you know. This is philosophy of state. This is ancient and well understood.
Didn't he say in some post moons ago that he's still writing the book, but has chosen to stop writing it in public? I'll be honest - while I love Curtis' analysis, I don't see any realistic way of achieving his goals. Brilliant Pebbles wasn't implemented for a reason, and good luck developing any sort of spaceborne government that won't become a nightmare state.
There is a lot to be said on what is actually to be done. While the whole reboot the USA with a CEO emperor makes a wonderful story...I think succession of a group of states is much more practical, medium term and effective. And we are talking existential crisis here. IQs dropping, forgetting technology, hoards of low IQ uncivillized 3rd world masses converging on the developed world, and a mediocre low innovative state (china) surpassing the US. Endgame of this is all-world third-world. I'd rather have a secure state in food producing territory established where some people have to work as robots, than pontificate about what the perfect state of man would be (as craftsmen etc etc) and never have any security against the colossal tide of decay.
My question is whether or not secession is more practical. I suspect it is less practical.
The capture of the state by a political machine which subsequently reinvented the state has happened successfully three times in our history - with the ratification of the Constitution, with Lincoln, and with FDR. Secession was attempted twice (Confederacy and Whiskey rebellion) and both failed. One common thread is that these three new regimes emerged during crises, of which we have no shortage. It's a fertile time for transformative change.
Compared to capturing a regime and dismantling it, founding a separatist regime requires a substantial amount of courage from politicians, some sort of reasonably popular cultural identity distinct from the mainstream, and soldiers willing to die to defend it. It also requires the coalition of secessionists to develop a new state as they part with the old one. Divorce at the national level, much like the personal level, is a legal and bureaucratic nightmare, though with much higher stakes.
Ultimately I'm a monarchist not because I believe it is good or better, but because I see it as almost inevitable. It seems to me that monarchy is the most likely outcome because it is the path of least resistance, as evidenced by history. I want the gears of history to resume turning and the elites to be rotated. This is not for any idealistic vision on my part - the system is less important than the people who occupy it, and the only solution to our mismanagement is to install worthy leaders and award them the power to dismantle the previous regime. I just want competent government, not some grandiose narrative of things as they ought to be.
If I believed secession was more likely to deliver, I'd be a secessionist. But there are so many obstacles to initiating it, so many hurdles to overcome once you've started it, and so many ways it can go wrong. You might get a state sooner, but would it be able to deal with the problems you outlined? If you can't resolve it amicably, you'll have war, and war is fundamentally dysgenic - as well as hell on border security.
All fair points. I think founding a separatist regime is cleaner, but it could be done through capturing the political mechanisms as you mention. I think the current political mechanism should be captured and used to break up the united states. Why go through the trouble of trying to rule Californians/ Blue states. Let THEM rule themselves. Why should worthy leaders rule over those that dont want their rule (for cultish ideological reasons)?
Yes, have worthy rulers, but give them worthy subjects. Capture the political system, break the USA up into the black states of america, Republican states of america, Democratic states of america, and maybe a european ethno-state (white israel), maybe a libertarian state aswell. Give people 5 years to move about with state assistance, withdraw travel rights between states as appropriate. I think this is going to be a lot easier than trying to rule over a cult of self humiliation and cultural destruction. And would a "governmental CEO" rather rule over the fertile lands of the north USA/ rust belt etc...or california. I know which i'd pick.
The soviety Union successfully disintegrated, it was messy because it wasn't planned. A planned disintegration would have been better. Lets do that.
Basically, the reason is to avoid war and the security nightmare that is having multiple countries in north America.
If there is an incomplete transfer of power, and the blue regime is permitted to survive, you can be certain it will be vindictive. There's the matter of our foreign clients as well. I suspect they would side with whoever promises to continue security guarantees and provide technology - with red being isolationist and tech mostly in blue coastal states, that's a problem. The question I'm really worried about is weather starving out the coastal strongholds is as easy as a lot of populists seem to believe. Those are port cities. They can ship in grain.
And I'm one to hate on California too, but I wouldn't underestimate my enemy. California has some of the most productive agricultural land, and it's the cradle of tech companies that service the entire globe. The rust belt still needs to be rebuilt - California needs to get its shit together. To any sort of monarch, California would seem extremely enticing. Of course, the agricultural productivity of California is driven by water taken from further inland, which only creates another seed of conflict.
A planned disintegration is much more likely to work than unilaterally declaring independence but you're still going to have to make compromises to avoid war and becoming collectively weaker, and I would still recommend some sort of alliance/union to try and keep foreign interference off the continent. This will mean years of negotiations and swallowing some pride, and you have to be prepared for that.
This is true and the certain results of separation are wars of Reunification and foreign entanglements of foreigners here, the geography will not allow any nation here in North America less than Atlantic to Pacific.
I always took Gray Mirror (the book) as being sort of like the Republic, more a thought experiment than a practical prescription.
I don't remember him saying that, if that's the case it would be nice to get some sort of update . . .
I always thought that the whole point was to be a practical guide to rule, like the mirrors of old.
It was quite some time ago. I agree that at this point an update is warranted.