Aren’t Biden and, to a lesser extent, Obama more recent examples of dictatorial impulse at the head of the executive branch? The orders emanating from both administrations were arguably unprecedented, undemocratic, unpopular and, at times, unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
And explain how they are different from any of the orders from any other President. I guarantee each one, going back to Washington, has issued orders that would fit that criteria.
Thanks, Steve. I had previously barely heard of Yarvin. Now, I've listened to that whole NYT interview, and thought about your reaction. He provides much to think about. I'm wondering if he & Adrien Vermule intersect in places. But I'm not at all confident I can even say why I wonder that. It's just that V seems to prefer a mandated first-principle of social morality... sort of top- down moral management. I'm probably way off base. I struggled when I read a V essay!
The temptation to see and applaud the explosion of an NYT head is powerful and compelling. But the seduction should not persuade us to bend our knee to the absolute rule of aristocratic or elitist expert “betters”.
What little you shared of Yarvin’s thoughts betray the sense that he embraces rule by the administrative state and perhaps would encourage its growth and penetration into all walks of society and life.
Yarvin’s message suggests that he would prefer a Justin Trudeau style of leader, one who expresses a preference for the style of governance exercised by CCP’s Xi, than a constitutional government that imposes checks and balances on the usurpation of absolute power by a single person or class.
In a world where malevolence is absent—a world that does not exist—a society, a nation, might benefit from and thrive under the yoke of a truly benevolent dictator. God knows that most aspects of life would be more efficient.
But in this very real world where good and evil grapple every day, there is no guaranty that the ruler you get will be good or evil. Would Yarvin really want to risk the ascension of a despot to throne?
At best, Yarvin may be described as a Hamiltonian, thoroughly distrustful of the people and their uneducated, base instincts. That he would rather place our collective future in the hands of elites who, potentially, lack ultimate wisdom or a moral compass, renders his views suspect.
I like Yarvin, however I find his meandering chatterbox schtick a bit aggravating. If he could just get to the point. I’ll also just say that any government “system” can conceivably work well for most people, as long as the people running the show are reasonably moral and responsible, or if not, there are mechanisms to hold them accountable. If not, no system can “work”.
He part of the huuuge change in vocal, rhetorical, & articulative speech making and conversation. Thank God Yarvin not employ creaky voice or up- tone endings. It's almost as though whole English speaking world chose a basically feminine style of showing embarrassment about one's ideas & words and thus require hiding or deflecting them.
Marchese's experience is just further proof that our journalists are not among our best and brightest. Not even close. They may be smarter than career politicians, but probably not. Their recent failures indicate that they lack the cockroach-like survival powers of the average career politician.
You seriously think anything Yarvin says is interesting or insightful? He comes off as a 3rd rate bullshit artist. All of his “historical” facts are shallow or flat out wrong.
The first two sentences of the paragraph from the unpublished article each have an example of the same grammatical error: making the verbs agree with whatever noun comes immediately before them instead of following the rule of subject-verb agreement. So, in the first sentence the verb should be Have, not Has, because the subject is the plural noun Achievements, not the singular noun Personality. And in the second sentence the verb should be Think, not Thinks, because the subject is the plural noun Observers.
Off-topic question: Where might I find out more about alleged wrongdoing by Judge Sirica and committee staff on the Watergate committee? You mentioned this during a recent Three Whiskey podcast.
"'cherry-picking' his historical illumination, but what is clear is that Marchese doesn’t even have a minimal background to contest Yarvin on either the facts or how they should be interpreted. Marchese is a museum-quality example of glib liberal ignorance."
He *is* cherry-picking. It's all he does - he speaks in broad word clouds about industry, corporations, democracy, and populism. He is simply interpreting history and crafting a narrative to justify coercive and oppressive social control. He even admits it himself. "I'm doing a Putin," with the tone of a child caught with their hand in a cookie jar, as if it's endearing to be seen playing some semantic game in obfuscating what is simply eugenic and white supremacist logic to justify coercive control, centralized power, and violence.
He makes few to no absolute statements, and whichever ones he does make are founded on cloudy, interpretive logic with the only absolutes being white-supremacist ideology and brute eugenic lines of thinking - the philosophical laziness of which could be pointed out by a 16-year-old who just learned about Nazi pseudo-science.
The truth is we aren't brutes, and succumbing to brute tendencies is a choice these kinds of people make for the sake of gratifying feelings of hatred and violence, but because, again, they aren’t brutes, they just want to be permitted, without being ostracized, to act in ways that are only acceptable if you believe some line of brute logic, they scramble to piece together an alternative narrative to seem intellectually superior to others, to give themselves the appearance of authority and demand to be taken seriously despite their baseline violent tendencies - they are incapable of giving any of that energy over to thinking about how to make cooperative society a reality not because they're dumb, or lack historical prowess, but because they don't value cooperative society. They value the continued structures of society that benefit them and allow them to continue to steal from, oppress, kill, and imprison all people who refuse to fall in line with their narrow vision of a society constructed to benefit them and their base impulses.
It's honestly boring how shodily put together it is considering how much harm it causes. It's literally just fascism. And it's much easier to throw a hammer at something fragile than it is to nurture something patiently so it might grow strong and self-sustaining. Of course, destruction is in! It's easy! And it makes people feel strong. It's just lazy.
I've finally come to a conclusion. Fascism is when you have a pragmatic rightist system. It doesn't matter the specific policies, fascism is a hierarchical system which uses power politics to achieve its ends. That's what you mean by fascism.
Conversely this covers why Yarvin would call the united states a communist nation. Because when he says communist he just means pragmatic leftist. Leftism which uses power politics to win.
Although unlike yarvin, american leftists are more powered by historical circumstance (a society that makes people more leftist over time, remember marx said capitalism would lead to socialism so it doesn't matter if its a capitalist system) than leninist strategy. Which is how he was able to outflank the left. Claim the enemy is there which feeds the feedback loop which causes the enemy to materialize. Clearly the left has failed to be sufficiently antifascist and leninist. But also too antifascist to keep the white boys complacent.
So you're more accurate to say curtis is a fascist than for him to say the united states is communist. Even if we can increasingly see the rise of "communism" (by the definition of pragmatic leftism) in europe, with people being thrown in jail for making unacceptable political comments. Even though I still think the EU is a left-neoliberal project as it stands. They haven't caught up.
Expect increasing political pragmatism. The fascists copied the communist's political strategy afterall. The fear of communism and fascism that was once silly in the 90s has bloomed into both sides producing the communists and fascists they fear. Every extreme movement needs an equally extreme enemy.
I watched Tucker's interview with Yarvin a couple years back and should probably go back to TCN archives and try to find and watch it again. Just to compare the two. I suspect I got a much better understanding of Yarvin and his views from the Tucker interview. Considering that progressives and conservatives could agree on the/a common good seems a stretch to me. First lets interpret 'common good.' Seems progressives want their common good to be my common good and I can assure it's not.
Not from what I've heard, read, seen and experienced, certainly over the last 4 years. But thanks for providing this interview nevertheless. Very interesting though frustrating for me at times. Not sure I yet know Yarvin's bottom line, if he has one. I do like his temperament, and suspect he would be easy, even for me, to talk to.
Aren’t Biden and, to a lesser extent, Obama more recent examples of dictatorial impulse at the head of the executive branch? The orders emanating from both administrations were arguably unprecedented, undemocratic, unpopular and, at times, unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
Which orders? Be specific.
And explain how they are different from any of the orders from any other President. I guarantee each one, going back to Washington, has issued orders that would fit that criteria.
Thanks, Steve. I had previously barely heard of Yarvin. Now, I've listened to that whole NYT interview, and thought about your reaction. He provides much to think about. I'm wondering if he & Adrien Vermule intersect in places. But I'm not at all confident I can even say why I wonder that. It's just that V seems to prefer a mandated first-principle of social morality... sort of top- down moral management. I'm probably way off base. I struggled when I read a V essay!
The temptation to see and applaud the explosion of an NYT head is powerful and compelling. But the seduction should not persuade us to bend our knee to the absolute rule of aristocratic or elitist expert “betters”.
What little you shared of Yarvin’s thoughts betray the sense that he embraces rule by the administrative state and perhaps would encourage its growth and penetration into all walks of society and life.
Yarvin’s message suggests that he would prefer a Justin Trudeau style of leader, one who expresses a preference for the style of governance exercised by CCP’s Xi, than a constitutional government that imposes checks and balances on the usurpation of absolute power by a single person or class.
In a world where malevolence is absent—a world that does not exist—a society, a nation, might benefit from and thrive under the yoke of a truly benevolent dictator. God knows that most aspects of life would be more efficient.
But in this very real world where good and evil grapple every day, there is no guaranty that the ruler you get will be good or evil. Would Yarvin really want to risk the ascension of a despot to throne?
At best, Yarvin may be described as a Hamiltonian, thoroughly distrustful of the people and their uneducated, base instincts. That he would rather place our collective future in the hands of elites who, potentially, lack ultimate wisdom or a moral compass, renders his views suspect.
Hound dog--you need to get back to work!
I like Yarvin, however I find his meandering chatterbox schtick a bit aggravating. If he could just get to the point. I’ll also just say that any government “system” can conceivably work well for most people, as long as the people running the show are reasonably moral and responsible, or if not, there are mechanisms to hold them accountable. If not, no system can “work”.
He part of the huuuge change in vocal, rhetorical, & articulative speech making and conversation. Thank God Yarvin not employ creaky voice or up- tone endings. It's almost as though whole English speaking world chose a basically feminine style of showing embarrassment about one's ideas & words and thus require hiding or deflecting them.
Marchese's experience is just further proof that our journalists are not among our best and brightest. Not even close. They may be smarter than career politicians, but probably not. Their recent failures indicate that they lack the cockroach-like survival powers of the average career politician.
"Video Unavailable" ..... You can find it on YouTube
I'm finding videos provided at this site do not display well on my browser's setup. So yes I watch them at YouTube.
You seriously think anything Yarvin says is interesting or insightful? He comes off as a 3rd rate bullshit artist. All of his “historical” facts are shallow or flat out wrong.
This is what passes for intellectual rigor?
Some of us hated FDR when AND before it was just a tact to *tu quoque* the American left by conservatives.
The first two sentences of the paragraph from the unpublished article each have an example of the same grammatical error: making the verbs agree with whatever noun comes immediately before them instead of following the rule of subject-verb agreement. So, in the first sentence the verb should be Have, not Has, because the subject is the plural noun Achievements, not the singular noun Personality. And in the second sentence the verb should be Think, not Thinks, because the subject is the plural noun Observers.
Off-topic question: Where might I find out more about alleged wrongdoing by Judge Sirica and committee staff on the Watergate committee? You mentioned this during a recent Three Whiskey podcast.
Look up any of the various recent books by Geoff Shepard.
"'cherry-picking' his historical illumination, but what is clear is that Marchese doesn’t even have a minimal background to contest Yarvin on either the facts or how they should be interpreted. Marchese is a museum-quality example of glib liberal ignorance."
He *is* cherry-picking. It's all he does - he speaks in broad word clouds about industry, corporations, democracy, and populism. He is simply interpreting history and crafting a narrative to justify coercive and oppressive social control. He even admits it himself. "I'm doing a Putin," with the tone of a child caught with their hand in a cookie jar, as if it's endearing to be seen playing some semantic game in obfuscating what is simply eugenic and white supremacist logic to justify coercive control, centralized power, and violence.
He makes few to no absolute statements, and whichever ones he does make are founded on cloudy, interpretive logic with the only absolutes being white-supremacist ideology and brute eugenic lines of thinking - the philosophical laziness of which could be pointed out by a 16-year-old who just learned about Nazi pseudo-science.
The truth is we aren't brutes, and succumbing to brute tendencies is a choice these kinds of people make for the sake of gratifying feelings of hatred and violence, but because, again, they aren’t brutes, they just want to be permitted, without being ostracized, to act in ways that are only acceptable if you believe some line of brute logic, they scramble to piece together an alternative narrative to seem intellectually superior to others, to give themselves the appearance of authority and demand to be taken seriously despite their baseline violent tendencies - they are incapable of giving any of that energy over to thinking about how to make cooperative society a reality not because they're dumb, or lack historical prowess, but because they don't value cooperative society. They value the continued structures of society that benefit them and allow them to continue to steal from, oppress, kill, and imprison all people who refuse to fall in line with their narrow vision of a society constructed to benefit them and their base impulses.
It's honestly boring how shodily put together it is considering how much harm it causes. It's literally just fascism. And it's much easier to throw a hammer at something fragile than it is to nurture something patiently so it might grow strong and self-sustaining. Of course, destruction is in! It's easy! And it makes people feel strong. It's just lazy.
I've finally come to a conclusion. Fascism is when you have a pragmatic rightist system. It doesn't matter the specific policies, fascism is a hierarchical system which uses power politics to achieve its ends. That's what you mean by fascism.
Conversely this covers why Yarvin would call the united states a communist nation. Because when he says communist he just means pragmatic leftist. Leftism which uses power politics to win.
Although unlike yarvin, american leftists are more powered by historical circumstance (a society that makes people more leftist over time, remember marx said capitalism would lead to socialism so it doesn't matter if its a capitalist system) than leninist strategy. Which is how he was able to outflank the left. Claim the enemy is there which feeds the feedback loop which causes the enemy to materialize. Clearly the left has failed to be sufficiently antifascist and leninist. But also too antifascist to keep the white boys complacent.
So you're more accurate to say curtis is a fascist than for him to say the united states is communist. Even if we can increasingly see the rise of "communism" (by the definition of pragmatic leftism) in europe, with people being thrown in jail for making unacceptable political comments. Even though I still think the EU is a left-neoliberal project as it stands. They haven't caught up.
Expect increasing political pragmatism. The fascists copied the communist's political strategy afterall. The fear of communism and fascism that was once silly in the 90s has bloomed into both sides producing the communists and fascists they fear. Every extreme movement needs an equally extreme enemy.
Sound arguments? That the system is broken, sure. The answer, though, is a fallacy, a misunderstanding of history--and of Tolkien.
https://open.substack.com/pub/heyslick/p/the-dark-elves-fallacy-neoreactionaries?r=4t921l&utm_medium=ios
He truly is anarcho capitalist karl marx. Explain the problems, fail to provide a proper solution
I watched Tucker's interview with Yarvin a couple years back and should probably go back to TCN archives and try to find and watch it again. Just to compare the two. I suspect I got a much better understanding of Yarvin and his views from the Tucker interview. Considering that progressives and conservatives could agree on the/a common good seems a stretch to me. First lets interpret 'common good.' Seems progressives want their common good to be my common good and I can assure it's not.
Not from what I've heard, read, seen and experienced, certainly over the last 4 years. But thanks for providing this interview nevertheless. Very interesting though frustrating for me at times. Not sure I yet know Yarvin's bottom line, if he has one. I do like his temperament, and suspect he would be easy, even for me, to talk to.
"Video Unavailable" .....
I was stuck in a nine hour mediation, 98% of which was down time coupled with a need for immediate readiness without advance notice!