Interview is debatable. I’ve watched the first twenty minutes of the hour plus show so far and it is very entertaining. I don’t know how much longer it’ll be up on YouTube so take a look soon if you’re interested.
Interview is debatable. I’ve watched the first twenty minutes of the hour plus show so far and it is very entertaining. I don’t know how much longer it’ll be up on YouTube so take a look soon if you’re interested.
Yarvin isn’t thinking about the strategy that brought us to Afghanistan and kept us there for twenty years. He’s thinking of what it means to have a Deep State that would prefer to stay there forever because they want to endlessly expand their influence and scope to include the whole world. Yarvin’s take on what could be done about this boils down to the American people providing the President and his party with a mandate to take a wrecking ball to the executive branch and reconstitute it at a much, much smaller scope.
And who disagrees with that on our side? But how exactly do we get a majority of honest men in the Congress? It seems impossible. I think the only way it happens is if a President declares a state of emergency and using extralegal action fires the whole executive branch and uses the military to keep the government functioning while he rebuilt the government on a sane basis.
It’s nice to talk about draining the swamp but to do it would require an army and a general without fear. Mr. Yarvin needs to provide the plan for how to do something that we all agree needs to be done.
I’m a non-paying reader of Curtis Yarvin’s substack page Gray Mirror. His latest article was a response to a journalist named Damon Linker at the The Week becoming upset at the content of a discussion between Yarvin and Michael Anton in an American Mind podcast. Apparently, the idea of these two men discussing the idea of a monarchical government for the United States is so beyond the pale that Mr. Linker started getting the vapors. Meanwhile, roving mobs of masked thugs burning down police stations and private businesses is just good old democratic horse trading to him I suppose.
Yarvin uses Linker’s outrage as a jumping off point to go into his hypotheses about what will and won’t work at reforming American government.
I’ll paraphrase these:
I recommend reading Yarvin’s essay. It is worth thinking about. The present oligarchic regime is extremely powerful and has figured out all the angles for rigging our elections and even ignoring the leaders we do manage to get elected. Yarvin may be right about the need for a total reset. The part about it being violence free is the thing I have my doubts about. Read it for yourself and tell me what you think.
I follow Curtis Yarvin’s blog posts on his substack called firstname.lastname@example.org. Yarvin is a neo-reactionary. What that means is he believes democracy will be replaced by some kind of monarchy. But the monarchy he imagines is more like a corporate state where the king is like a CEO.
Yarvin’s posts are enormously long and convoluted. But he started his latest post with a short discussion of what he says are the three kinds of dissidents.
“There are three kinds of dissidents: (a) anons, (b) pundits who still care what people think, and (c) outsiders who DGAF. All these groups are great; real greatness can be achieved in any of them; and good friends I have in each. But each has its problems.
The problem with (c) is that it’s too hard. It takes a lot of luck to get there and stay there. It’s quite inconsistent with doing anything else with your life—and this under conditions of very mild repression, historically speaking. And the more you succeed, the more dangerous your position becomes. I would recommend the outside way to only one kind of young person: le trustafarian. And it has to really be your calling.
The problem with (a) is that it’s too easy—nothing binds you to reality. The dissident anons create the best art, yet never without some slight sense of playing tennis without the net. Yet this complete, even excessive, artistic freedom is balanced by challenges in opsec that compare only to general aviation. If you are not meticulous enough to fly a Cessna, you are not meticulous enough to shitpost.
The problem with (b) is that you are always policing yourself. Not only do your readers never really know what you really believe—you never really know yourself. In practice, 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. This is a source of cognitive distortion which the anons and outsiders do not experience. (Though anons do suffer something of the opposite, a reflex to provoke.)”
I found this discussion of the problems with the various types of dissidents very helpful. And it goes a long way to explaining why mainstream pundits are so careful. There is so much fear of being canceled that they’d rather stand a hundred yards away from the edge of the Overton Window than risk being called a racist. Surprisingly Tucker Carlson has been an exception. He comes remarkably close to sounding like someone from the Dissident Right.
What this brings out is the fact that the pundits are aware of these lies. They know the truth but are afraid to say it out loud. Which is why as soon as the Overton Window shifts, as it did when Donald Trump spoke out against illegal immigration, these pundits will eventually move forward to somewhere slightly behind the edge. And that is a cause for hope. When a time comes when a man who is not afraid to speak the truth gets a platform that the Left can’t dynamite, we will see if the American people are ready to be led in a new direction.
Another interesting thing that Yarvin discusses is what it would take to beat the Deep State at its own game. Being a monarchist Yarvin sees the solution as the appearance of a strongman. He hedges a little about what that would look like. But the names he mentions as historical examples are Cromwell, Caesar and Charlemagne. Well, none of those names were peaceful characters who worked within the system and made small changes around the edges. So, he’s talking revolution. That’s bold talk. But he says anything less will fail because the Left isn’t kidding around. That’s something to think about. His proof is what happened to Donald Trump. Trump had popular support. So, the Deep State worked around that support and used a combination of fraud and propaganda to retake the government. It does show that it will take more than popular support to eliminate the Deep State. It will take force. To purge the intelligence agency will take force. To purge the armed forces will take force. Not violence but power politics. You will have to buy off powerful people and then get rid of those powerful people next. Machiavelli will be the rule book for an operation like this and plenty of people will end up in prison even if things go well.
So, do I think it will take a strongman? Yeah, I guess I do. Do I think it would require the end of the republic? Currently I’m not sure. I hope not, but I’m not sure. If a leader arises to displace the Left, would he feel safe only leading for eight years? Wouldn’t he fear revenge once he left office. Is it too late for republicanism? That’s the question.
Recently I watched a discussion on the Jack Murphy Live show that featured Michael Anton and Curtis Yarvin. If you are unfamiliar with either one of them, I’ll say a few words about them.
Michael Anton was a former senior national security official in the Trump administration but is best known for writing the “The Flight 93 Election” back in March 2016 under the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus. He received graduate education at Claremont Graduate University where he learned from faculty that followed in the tradition of noted academic Leo Strauss. Anton is a social conservative and a pretty pessimistic critic of the current state of American politics. With the failure of the 2020 election Anton does not believe the Republicans will ever win the presidency again.
Curtis Yarvin is a computer scientist who also has become known for his political beliefs which some have called “neo-reactionary.” Yarvin believes that government should be almost like the management of a publicly owned corporation with the CEO taking the place of the “king” and the citizens as stockholders. He also had a pseudonym under which he wrote his thoughts, Mencius Moldbug. Yarvin is extremely unenthusiastic about democracy in general and doesn’t hold out much hope for the American form at this point in its evolution.
Anton and Yarvin are both very smart guys. They’re both academics in a sense. Both of them would be part of the elite if they happened to follow left-wing ideologies. Because of what they do believe they are pariahs in our present political climate. I think listening to them in the discussion both of them are extremely pessimistic about the United States escaping from the control of the progressive corporate, bureaucratic, academic complex.
So why listen to these guys talk? Well, that’s a good question. Neither of them has an action plan to reverse the damage and move things back to a normal country. There isn’t a website where I can join the underground and fight for the day when we take back the country. I think I read them so I can feel like I shouldn’t just give up. As long as I know that there are other intelligent people who don’t accept the idea that there is no use resisting the woke state, I feel like I can figure out a way to hold onto the good things that used to be the basis of our way of life.
I can think of one line that Yarvin made pretty close to the end of the video. When asked what he thought people should do he said no one should try to use force to stand up to the feds alone. That would be suicide and it would accomplish the opposite of what you intended. That would be sort of what happened on January 6th. The government would destroy you and use it as a propaganda argument for destroying everyone else they didn’t like. Instead, he said we need to say no!
In other words, we have to figure out a way to reject their program. We need to build up organizations, businesses, groups that don’t depend on their approval. There’s nothing new about that message. That’s the old “build your own platforms” line. But what he is saying is that it’s the only way. And we need everyone on our side, all 70 or 100 million of us to form a single organization to say no to what is going on. And that’s the only encouragement I take from all this. If two guys like Anton and Yarvin sort of agree about where we are and what we must do then basically the whole gamut of people who aren’t leftists agree. We have to stop trying to do everything at once and take concrete steps one at a time. First order of business, we pool our resources and identify one important thing we can get done and do it. Maybe we decide that the most important possible thing is crushing Amazon. And maybe we buy the votes of Democrat senators and congressmen to make it happen. But we move heaven and earth and we get it done. That alone would be an enormous shot in the arm for our country. Suddenly a million small stores all over the country would find business that had been strangled out of existence by Jeff Bezos.
But whatever it is we decide to do; rein in the social media companies or re-establish freedom of religion or outlaw child transgender mutilation; we need to win a battle and win it decisively. Donald Trump and Peter Thiel are renegade members of the elite. They are the ones with the resources to organize new platforms. Anton and Yarvin are members of the intellectual class who would disseminate the ideas and help implement the actions we want to see happen. We are to some extent their customers.
We want to hear more and soon about any real plan to get something new started. Anyone who has the ambition to lead a movement has a once in a lifetime opportunity right now. We’re ready to be led. There is a nation looking for a savior. We could make this a great country again. If that doesn’t happen soon then we need to leave.
Michael Anton and Curtis Yarvin are sort of the polar opposites of the intellectual world that opposes the Woke establishment. If you are interested in what the intellectuals think about our current mess these two men will sort of cover the territory and listening to them disagree about what it means and where it is going might clarify your own thinking. But if you don’t like that sort of thing don’t touch it. I think it’s about two hours long and I’ve only gotten through the first thirty minutes.
My sentiments are with Anton’s point of view. But Yarvin’s cynicism and pessimism is something that I hesitate to ignore. I read his substack and it by turns, angers, depresses and sometimes makes me think. Yarvin is a renegade elitist. But he is at least honest about it. But so is Anton in the sense that he is an academic and a government apparatchik. But Anton’s sympathies are with us. Yarvin doesn’t really have any sympathies. Mostly he is full of scorn. I’m going to watch the whole thing and then I might write a post about it.
Today was a work day. I’ve been neglecting my writing so today I paid my dues and knocked off a few thousand words of story telling. I’m in a quiet interval in the story and those are harder to write for me than the action sequences. Those seem to write themselves.
So the Democrats are paying the blue states a few trillion dollars to let them pay their union buddies off. Seems about as expected. And from what I remember there’s a bill circulating to codify election stealing into national law. I wonder if the Republicans will put up any fight at all. Probably not. I’m very interested to see if the Red States start putting together state measures to keep the fraudsters out of their states. And of course I’m waiting for the conflict that those two opposed actions will lead to. I think at this point that there are some states that will take their fates into their own hands and begin the battle for freedom.
I’ve been following Curtis Yarvin’s Gray Mirror newsletter on my e-mail account. I haven’t taken out a paid subscription yet so I only read the free section but that may be enough. Yarvin likes to write voluminously so his free section is at least several thousand words. per piece. He’s a strange cat. He considers himself a monarchist. He has no belief in the democratic form of government. He’s not a conservative per se. I think the correct term is neo-reactionary but he does have a lot of interesting ideas. The only thing I’m not sure about is whether the world he wants is the one I want. If you’re interested in an intellectual’s take on the solution to the Woke Culture you might check it out.
I went back to some of the photography websites I used to follow and it seems they’ve fallen on hard times. Web traffic is way down and interest has shifted to phone cameras and Pinterest. Oh well. Since a lot of these sites censored conservative commenters in a biased way compared to their progressive commenters I can’t say that I’m sad to see them suffering. Maybe if they’d been more even handed I might have cared. Well anyway I’ve got my own place to put my bug pictures up so I’m good.
My ongoing experiment with a rower (Concept 2) has been going okay. I’m loving the experience as is Camera Girl. It’s actually very relaxing and good for clearing my mind. But as Maddmedic warned it is tough on the back. So I’m doing back stretches and have stopped sitting on my uber-soft couch and now use a stiff wood backed chair. So far so good.
I enjoyed the Biden parody post. I’ve got to see if I can do more of those. He really deserves all the abuse we can heap on him.
Well, that’s enough for now. Enjoy your Sunday night.
Last night I clicked on the American Mind website and saw that Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) had a new post up. The title was “The Deep State vs The Deep Right.” I find Yarvin’s ideas interesting but at the same time in some ways obscure. In this new essay he states that the only way to overthrow a regime you live under is to undermine its authority with a more attractive idea. He puts this in terms of aesthetics. His case in point is the Czar. According to Yarvin the Russians overthrew their government by first convincing everyone including the Czar that they needed to adopt the British outlook on life. And since socialism was the religion of the British elites at that time what better way to emulate them than by taking their ideal and turning it up to eleven via Marx’s writings. Yarvin’s point is that art (in this case the 19th century Russian novelists) had prepared the Russians for the replacement of the monarchy long before the Bolsheviks came on the scene.
Yarvin’s idea is that what is needed to overthrow the current neo-liberal order is an aesthetic to replace the aesthetic our current elites espouse. This is the confusing part. When he talks of aesthetics and art he’s talking about books and music and movies. You are probably asking yourself how does this get Nancy Pelosi off of the Speaker’s podium? And that’s a fair question. As much as I’d love to write the ultimate science fiction novel that shifts the balance of power from the Left to us, I don’t see how that happens. Yarvin points to Bronze Age Mindset as a sort of first attempt at moving the aesthetic in our direction. And maybe it is. Apparently, it was very popular with younger men and showed there is a market for dissident ideas out in the real world.
Okay, so why should I care about any of this? Well, because I kinda know what he’s saying. The people who want to tell us what to do, say and think aren’t going to believe us when we say their ideas are wrong. They think that what we believe and who we are is stupid. They are convinced that what they believe and who they are is smart. We are going to have to make our case in the court of public opinion. We are going to have to show them that our ideas are better and stronger than theirs.
From the point of reason, it shouldn’t be too hard to convince people that things like screwing up the hormones of an eight-year-old boy and then castrating him is not sane. But remember, we don’t have the microphone so we don’t get to tell the story on tv. We’ll have to work on back channels like blogs and self-published books and podcasts.
But of course, that isn’t enough. What I’m hearing from Yarvin is we’ll need to convince and recruit the intelligentsia in order to get the microphone we want and need. That’s a pretty tall order but I think Yarvin’s got something there. We have to get people who speak their language, academics and artists to make the case that our world view is sane and theirs is crazy. Specifically, we’ll need some medical doctors and psychiatrists and ethicists to expose the nightmare logic at work. We’ll need documentary and dramatic filmmakers to sway public opinion. But first we’ll need judges and lawyers and cops and even politicians to have the courage to confront these lunatics who defend these practices and hold them accountable.
So, there’s the pipe dream we need to dream. We have to turn the world upside down, or right side up if you look at it from our point of view. And the first step is to identify the weakest points of the current system and attack them. And to attack them we have to show the world what we would put in its place. I would say that the beginning of such an enterprise requires a lawfare approach. We’ll need a Circuit Court with jurisdiction over a blue state that has adopted the most flagrantly perverse law and have a lawyer challenge that behavior at the Circuit Court level and have it struck down. That would trigger a storm that would catch the attention of national press and allow public opinion to hear our side of the story from the judges and the plaintiffs. After the dust settles it will make a good book, an interesting documentary and maybe even a decent movie although we probably wouldn’t be able to get any A-listers involved. But it’ll be a good start.
This idea highlights why it is such an important thing to have President Trump appointing judges to the Circuit and supreme Court in the numbers he is doing. He is close to flipping the Ninth Circuit and that court rules over California and the rest of the Left Coast. That is a place where a lot of wonderful damage can be done. I think I see what Yarvin is talking about.
Now what do you think? If you agree or sort of agree or even strenuously disagree, I’d like to hear from you. This site is to allow me to have my say but also to here what everybody else thinks. Leave a comment in the section below and get to have your two cents.
Here Mencius is continuing on his theme that the only way to overthrow the current order is to change the aesthetic we live by. And the only way to change the aesthetic is to live the one you believe in and prove that it is stronger. Always thought provoking. See what you think.
Without a doubt Yarvin must have a dizzying intellect. Reading his narrative is like taking a graduate course in sociology from Einstein. I feel like I’ll need to read it three more times to make sure I followed all his points. Basically he’s explaining why Progressives believe the nonsense they believe. He used climate science as an example and it is interesting. Support for the Progressive worldview allows Leftists to feel good about themselves by believing that the warming narrative makes sense. It’s a dense read but if you liked Part 1, you’ll have to continue down the rabbit hole..