/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.18175462]

>Let’s start with my ideal world – the world of thousands, preferably even tens of thousands, of neocameralist city-states and ministates, or neostates. The organizations which own and operate these neostates are for-profit sovereign corporations, or sovcorps. For the moment, let’s assume a one-to-one mapping between sovcorp and neostate. […] Let’s pin down the neocameralist dramatis personae by identifying the people who work for a sovcorp as its agents, the people or organizations which collectively own it as its subscribers, and the people who live in its neostate as its residents.

>A Neocameral ‘neostate’ is not owned by its residents or its agents. Its ‘monarch’ (or ‘CEO’) is an executive appointment. (90% of all confusion about Neocameralism, and Neoreaction in general, stems from a failure to grasp this elementary point.) Note: ‘subscribers’ (plural). More coming on this immediately.

>Every patch of land on the planet has a primary owner, which is its sovcorp. Typically, these owners will be large, impersonal corporations. We call them sovcorps because they’re sovereign. You are sovereign if you have the power to render any plausible attack on your primary property, by any other sovereign power, unprofitable. In other words, you maintain general deterrence. […] (Sovereignty is a flat, peer-to-peer relationship by definition. The concept of hierarchical sovereignty is a contradiction in terms. …) […] The business of a sovcorp is to make money by deterring aggression. Since human aggression is a serious problem, preventing it should be a good business. Moreover, the existence of unprofitable governments in your vicinity is serious cause for concern, because unprofitable governments tend to have strange decision structures and do weird, dangerous things. […] (Nuclear deterrence (mutual assured destruction) is only one small class of deterrent designs. To deter is to render predictably unprofitable. Predictably unprofitable violence is irrational. Irrational violence is certainly not unheard of. But it is much, much rarer than you may think. Most of the violence in the world today is quite rational, IMHO.) […] General deterrence is a complex topic which deserves its own post. For the moment, assume that every square inch of the planet’s surface is formally owned by some sovcorp, that no one disagrees on the borders, and that deterrence between sovcorps is absolute.

Let's be honest /lit/ washed up philosophers get shilled here way too much. Who needs Schopenhauer, Plato, Nietzsche or Spinoza when they are so outdated? They have nothing to say about our problems. Only one man remains to do that.
Two if you count Land.

[Anonymous No.18175472]

>>18175462
Three if you count Hoppe

[Anonymous No.18175861]

>>18175472
4 if you count carlyle

[Anonymous No.18175903]

>long form political opinions
Yeah I'm not interested.

[Anonymous No.18175910]

>>18175861
six if you count me

[Anonymous No.18175963]

>>18175910
Are you two persons?

[Anonymous No.18175983]

>>18175462
So basically neo- feudalism?

[Anonymous No.18176131]

>>18175462
This has been tried; they were called "company towns," and predictably enough, they sucked ass. Read Sinclair or Studs Terkel, not some nerd jerking off to cyberpunk comics.

[Anonymous No.18176147]

>>18175462
This guy looks like a joke. Why would I care what he says if that's how he chooses to present himself?

[Anonymous No.18176272]

>>18175963
he's a big guy

[Anonymous No.18176563]

>>18176131
They didn't have Mencey running things.

[Anonymous No.18176617]

> Let's say, hypothetically, that something that will never happen is true.

Democracy... has failed

[Anonymous No.18176680]

Gray mirror has posts detailing an updated vision of his, like patchwork but as a federated structure within the US itself. He identifies disparate groups in the US that need different styles of government, from violent inner city people to the college educated. The vision is to basically implement an expanded reservation system for Mormons, Amish, Blacks etc. that allow disparate theocracies to exist within the same system. The thesis being that the world can be militarily unipolar under American hegemony while politically multipolar. An empire, when we’ll run, can allow different ethnicities to coexist. I do it a disservice in summarizing a few posts like this but his new work serves to expand and refine the themes in his patchwork manifesto

[Anonymous No.18176694]

>>18176147
What do you mean? He obviously took a lot of time to find and maintain plain dress shoes that set off his totally badass studded leather jacket.

[Anonymous No.18176699]

>>18176131
>dude read this communist propagandist to find out why this idea sucked ass lmao

[Anonymous No.18176708]

>>18176680
>shilling his shitty substack
Imagine.

[Anonymous No.18176794]

>>18176272
uu
uu

[Anonymous No.18176824]

>>18176708
I'm not the person you responded to, but you can read all the posts for free, as far as I can tell. I'd hardly call it shilling to suggests reading a free blog.

[Anonymous No.18176831]

edgy

[Anonymous No.18176852]

>>18176824
this board is infested with liberals and woketards who are still butthurt than one of their own (Yarvin) called them out.

[Anonymous No.18176899]

>>18175462
damn he looks cool

[Anonymous No.18177398]

>>18176680
>the world can be militarily unipolar under American hegemony
How is the Supreme Commander of the USA military to be selected then

[Anonymous No.18177455]

>>18176699
nta but yes?

[Anonymous No.18177479]

>>18176680
bro some links please

[Anonymous No.18177495]

>>18176852
Yarvin was already a laughingstock on /lit/ 5 years ago. I like the guy, and I enjoy reading Gray Mirror, but it's mostly just a nice blog to use when you're bored, not some world-shattering redpill. I can find more damning anti-woke rhetoric in the most populars TV news shows in my country.

[Anonymous No.18177578]

>>18177495
Bullshit he was, he's always had mixed but overall good reception here. What TV shows?

[Anonymous No.18177593]

>>18177578
>overall good reception here
How much of that was accfag?

[Anonymous No.18177602]

>>18177593
50%
Moldbug has good rep on /lit/.

[Anonymous No.18177622]

>>18177578
>What TV shows?
Something like Cnews for instance.

>>18177578
He was memed a lot, which is also why he was derided a lot. But there never was any doubt that he was the kind of meme-intellectual blogger than 4chan typically overrates. That's why most people who didn't shamelessly meme him frequently mocked him (you have to admit that pics like the one in the OP don't help).

[Anonymous No.18177624]

>>18177622
Can you stop shamelessly projecting yourself onto "4chan"? Stop posting, retard.

[Anonymous No.18177634]

>>18175462
That's legitimately the stupidest fucking thing I have ever read

[Anonymous No.18177646]

>>18177634
Filtered.

Land agrees with him loser.

[Anonymous No.18177648]

>>18177602
It's literally only one guy who doesn't like Moldbug.

He spams every thread.

[Anonymous No.18177654]

>>18177624
You've never seen a thread making fun of Moldbug, and you pretend to be some gatekeeper of 4chan's integrity? Just search warosu for 10 mins and you'll see.

[Anonymous No.18177655]

>>18177646
And?

[Anonymous No.18177657]

>>18177654
newfag.

it's literally one guy. look up anti-accfag.

[Anonymous No.18177667]

>>18177654
Yarvin wins the internet.

He literally made billions with Thiel. Cry more loser.

[Anonymous No.18177680]

>>18177667
this. he's literally a genius. he wrote the most important philosophy of the 21st century and is singlehandledly defeating the progressives.

[Anonymous No.18177729]

>>18175462
>You are sovereign if you have the power to render any plausible attack on your primary property, by any other sovereign power, unprofitable.
>Sovereignty is a flat, peer-to-peer relationship by definition. The concept of hierarchical sovereignty is a contradiction in terms.
This is the part that never made sense to me. By this standard an Afghan herdsman with a few guns can be sovereign, since the value of his land is so low. Nations with profitable land and small military budgets would, by contrast, not be sovereign as their land value is high enough to justify an attack. If we apply this standard rigorously, the only sovereign governments on Earth are those of the USA, Russia, China and maybe India, since they are the ones who render attacks on the smaller nations unprofitable.
One could counter this by saying that the great powers need the satellite states for their own profitability, thus incentivising them to uphold the sovereignty of their allies. Now we have hierarchical sovereignty - the very thing Moldbug said is a contradiction in terms. This reminds me of the lords of medieval Europe who often acted like they were sovereign locally, but still bowed to a king at the national level. It is neither profitable for the king to attack his lords nor for the lords to attack their king, so a hierarchy is established.
Moldbug must understand these relationships, given that he is well versed in Hoppe and Carlyle. Hoppe even describes the move from feudal monarchy to absolute monarchy as a degeneration. How can he justify his definition of sovereignty in light of the actual historical development of sovereignty? If any anons are well versed in Moldbug, can you point me to any text where he explains this in more depth?

[Anonymous No.18177748]

>>18177657
I know it's not one guy because I've made fun of Yarvin in the past and I'm not accfag. You're too focused on the meme-celebrities. It's almost never just one guy. Look again at OP's pic and tell me this is not a guy everybody here would have made fun of in 2012.

>newfag.
Boring insult, I've been here since before Yarvin became a meme on /lit/.

>>18177667
>Yarvin wins the internet.
That's just groupie speak, it means nothing.
>He literally made billions with Thiel.
Good for him and I don't care.
>Cry more loser.
I literally said above that I like him and I read his substack. This is not a crusade against your idol, I'm pointing out the very simple and obvious fact that people here have always made fun of him. Stop behaving like caricature, take a break from the internet. Also read a book written by someone born before 1700, I can sense you really need it.

[Anonymous No.18177807]

>>18176131
Company towns only had the profit motive to bind them together, with money being the sole measure of value. Contrast this with the New England Puritans whose towns were both profitable and decent places to live (provided you weren't a hedonist). The pure profit motive ends up undermining itself by accumulation of captial, while the shared metanarrative of religious homesteaders produces sustainable profit.
This is why I can't take any Libertarianism seriously outside of Hoppe. Hoppe is the only one who has grasped the importance of achieving consensus and common narrative.

[Anonymous No.18177834]

>>18175462
guy basically wants neofeudalism total retard

[Anonymous No.18177835]

>>18177729
> By this standard an Afghan herdsman with a few guns can be sovereign
Kinda true, but remember there reasons for attacking someone besides seizing land (like political or strategic profit). Also perhaps that Afghan guy is threatened by rival herdsmen?

>Nations with profitable land and small military budgets would, by contrast, not be sovereign
This is not wrong, although deterrence goes a long way. Most small lands with valuable resources are satellized by bigger neighbors unless they have an even bigger protector.

>If we apply this standard rigorously, the only sovereign governments on Earth are those of the USA, Russia, China and maybe India

Add all country that are too costly to attack, so any country with a credible nuclear arsenal, and any country with a global-level army (say a military on the level of the UK). Alliances are important too, although they make sovereignty much harder to assess in practice.

>Now we have hierarchical sovereignty
This depends perhaps on definition (and perhaps Moldbug would answer definitely than I do), but imo if you need the protection of a bigger power to subsist, you're not really sovereign. If you can defend yourself decently against any credible threat (so that the help of the bigger country is mostly just a plus) then you're sovereign.

>This reminds me of the lords of medieval Europe who often acted like they were sovereign locally, but still bowed to a king at the national level.
A very interesting example. You could perhaps say that the lords and the kings are all sovereign (so in terms of pure sovereign there is no hierarchy, sovereignty is a yes or no question) but there is still a hierarchy in terms of amount of power (not all lords are equally powerful, but the imbalance of power isn't so great that it threatens sovereignty).
In other words you could see sovereignty as a kind of stability of the balance of power: all co-sovereign states are too powerful to be profitably attacked, but not enough to profitably attack any other co-sovereign, so the balance of power between them is relatively stable (of course the possibility of alliance can threaten this stability).

>How can he justify his definition of sovereignty in light of the actual historical development of sovereignty?
I haven't read much Moldbug, my own take would be that the king had to erode the power of the nobility precisely because he couldn't attack them head-on (the foolishness of head-on attack is previsely what sovereignty is about). It's pretty clear in France where Louis XIV had to design an entire court system in order to tame the feudal lords, slowly deprive them of resources, and cut them from their own lands and the practice of power. He couldn't have done it by war alone.

Anyway, your critique is very on point, my take away is that Moldbug is underrating the importance of irrational and foolish violence in politics (and the unpredictability of political action, but that is not something he excludes).

[Anonymous No.18177842]

>>18175462
>here's my gay little autist fantasy
God this shit is so gay I just want to kick his teeth in and it has nothing to do with politics it's just how much of a faggot he is

[Anonymous No.18177848]

>>18176563
Kekked at this. Moldbug has said, though, that he is not good at management. I would also personally prefer not to live under the management of an atheist, for reasons stated here >>18177807. That's not to say atheists can't be good people, but putting them in positions of power over you is probably not wise.

[Anonymous No.18177874]

>>18177835
*differently

[Anonymous No.18177911]

>>18175462
>For the moment, assume that every square inch of the planet’s surface is formally owned by some sovcorp, that no one disagrees on the borders, and that deterrence between sovcorps is absolute.
I know this is bait...but you know what happens when you assume.

[Anonymous No.18178007]

>>18176131
imagine having a grasp this bad of neocameralism. it's bullshit, but not for this reason.
>>18176147
see picrel
>>18176680
gray mirror makes it more formal but no less stupid. honestly it only works in the systems-theoretic, hardcore liberal worldview. that's what neocameralism always was, liberals trying to be the very best liberals and finding out its ideological errors and contradictions lead them into what ends up being elaborated as neocameralism.
>>18176708
his substack is free, and based.
>>18176852
unironically, yarvin was the first to diagnose liberalism for what it is and they're still injured over it.
>>18177398
leaders aren't selected. leaders just are. the only way you, or anyone, could "select" a leader is by applying and deploying another, more subtle leader.
>>18177495
nah, the main thing he does that causes such harm to shitlibs is his diagnosis of liberalism as a contingent, specific, historical event, instead of being the ideological culmination of an inevitable human nature (something that the marxists and whiggish libs share in their world-images)
>>18177648
you can tell by the writing style, it's true
>>18177667
lole urbit's more complicated than that, but if it's successful (and i imagine it will be) he's gonna be a real renaissance man.
>>18177729
those two things do definitely contradict each other, and you have to pick one. really, he doesn't get away from liberalism, and its atomization-globalization contradiction gets deployed all the time in his worldview.
>>18177834
really high iq take. do you watch vaush?

[Anonymous No.18178090]

>>18175462
>why read four foundational thinkers when you can read a third rate thinker who poorly regurgitates them in modern blogger lingo?

[Anonymous No.18178398]

>>18178007
>leaders aren't selected. leaders just are. the only way you, or anyone, could "select" a leader is by applying and deploying another, more subtle leader.
That's nice but there has to be a strict and clear military chain of command, even if the military's ultimate use is influenced by many competing individuals and groups, subtle or otherwise. In Moldbug's hypothetical, who is at the tippy top of the American military chain of command and how do they get there? Right now it's the Commander in Chief aka POTUS aka Josuke Biden

[Anonymous No.18178444]

>>18177835
>Add all country that are too costly to attack, so any country with a credible nuclear arsenal, and any country with a global-level army (say a military on the level of the UK).
I did consider including all the nuclear states, but actually using their arsenal without the backing of a larger power would be suicide. If the UK or France tried to deter a Russian invasion with nukes, for example, the Russians would know they were bluffing. When the USA does it, they can't be sure if it's a bluff or not, so they have to take it seriously.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o861Ka9TtT4
>You could perhaps say that the lords and the kings are all sovereign (so in terms of pure sovereign there is no hierarchy, sovereignty is a yes or no question) but there is still a hierarchy in terms of amount of power (not all lords are equally powerful, but the imbalance of power isn't so great that it threatens sovereignty).
This is how they behaved internally, but on the international stage they needed a central power to unify them and deter foreign invaders. Each layer of nobility were playing the same game at a different level, rallying behind a more powerful noble for protection. Even kings needed the Pope to provide international law, descending into bloody wars when they could no longer agree on which church was legitimate. (Fedora tippers will reduce this to "religion causes war", but it doesn't matter if the institution is religious or secular. It would be like a split in NATO or the WTO today.)
>In other words you could see sovereignty as a kind of stability of the balance of power: all co-sovereign states are too powerful to be profitably attacked, but not enough to profitably attack any other co-sovereign, so the balance of power between them is relatively stable (of course the possibility of alliance can threaten this stability).
This is how I see it too, except there are definitely layers of co-sovereignty which require backing at a higher level to function. The only real difference from Feudalism is that the modern power structure is more top heavy, having destroyed all co-sovereignty below the national level. Incidentally, a lot of Hoppean Libertarians favour Feudalism precisely because it is more subsidiary, providing more local options to apply exit over voice. This is why I'm always surprised to see Moldbug talk about sovereignty as a flat relationship without layers.
>I haven't read much Moldbug, my own take would be that the king had to erode the power of the nobility precisely because he couldn't attack them head-on (the foolishness of head-on attack is previsely what sovereignty is about).
Moldbug's concept of the Cathedral perfectly describes how this can be done on an international level. Another reason his flat sovereignty is puzzling.

[Anonymous No.18178456]

>>18177495
>I can find more damning anti-woke rhetoric in the most populars TV news shows in my country.
I seriously doubt that. Nobody who goes 'anti woke' in any popular sense goes beyond one or maybe two layers deep.

[Anonymous No.18178512]

>>18178398
no military ever has the kind of "clear" chain of command you'd need, least of all today.
you need a perfect imperative nexus of exchange, localized entirely to the "material" power (which really isn't power at all), in order to do away with actual power as a concept.

[Anonymous No.18178529]

>>18178512
>no military ever has the kind of "clear" chain of command you'd need, least of all today.

[Anonymous No.18178552]

>>18175462
This sounds really shit. I would much prefer futurist ecofascism with Greco-Roman characteristics desu.

[Anonymous No.18178553]

Justbthink. RC Waldum plus Nick Chad Land.

Besy thing fpr lit right now.

[Anonymous No.18178615]

>>18178553
Holy based.

[Anonymous No.18178627]

>>18178553
Eln Must colnize rusdia.

[Anonymous No.18178637]

>>18175462
I'm exactly the kind of person who should by all rights think Moldbug is a moron and a charlatan—and yet the more I read, the more I come to believe he's a genius.

[Anonymous No.18179244]

Yarvin was an important thinker in 2010.

Now he refines the same arguments in a world that has moved on without him, and I suspect that he crafts much of his prose just so people who are aware of this fact can quote him out of frustration.

The "poet" within him is essentially polishing what he did with UR out of a jejune belief that truth is beauty. Therefore, if he makes the same point he's been making for over a decade more beautiful, it will be more important.

It's less relevant by the minute.

Yarvin will continue to observe power as if he has the only pair of They Live sunglasses on the planet. Still he has yet to explain to us how academia, government, and the media are able to coordinate (((their))) focus so seamlessly.

[Anonymous No.18179298]

Does he have a theory of an revolution or some kind of upheaval like marxists do? Because if he doesnt, how does he go about implementing his fantasy world? You cant just ignore the highly tuned and interconnected and nuanced conditions that developed over the time and say fuck it and create a new dreamworld.

[Anonymous No.18179352]

>>18177729
>If we apply this standard rigorously, the only sovereign governments on Earth are those of the USA, Russia, China and maybe India, since they are the ones who render attacks on the smaller nations unprofitable.
Yes. Also known as the Great Powers, which used to be a self-evident notion since like at least 300 years ago. Who in their sane mind would imagine Slovakia or Colombia or Botswana telling someone like the US or Russia to fuck off (without being backed up by another Great Power, thus merely a proxy for it)?

[Anonymous No.18179364]

Ancaps really think that the manorial feudal age is a golden age of reason and property rights.

This is why nobody in either political science or economics takes you retards seriously.

Also sage

[Anonymous No.18179377]

Imagine Judaism but on the blockchain

[Anonymous No.18179412]

>>18175462
So this is what happens when you watch blade runner at 12 and play EUIV as an adult

[Anonymous No.18179422]

>>18178444
>I did consider including all the nuclear states, but actually using their arsenal without the backing of a larger power would be suicide.
Yes but it would also cost the attacker way too much to be worth it.
Haven't really have any objections at your other point in that post.

[Anonymous No.18179431]

>>18178456
Members of the government of my country have accused leftist academia to be indirectly responsible for a beheading recently (and on national TV to boot). They've also more than hinted that they consider the leftist academic community to be an almost separatist movement that should be monitored for their role inspiring terrorism. I'd like to see Moldbug try to top that.

[Anonymous No.18179436]

>>18178456
Also forgot to say here >>18179431 but they are fond of portraying wokism as an attack on the local culture and a consequence of american imperialism (what's funny is that woke analysis draws -or used to draw- heavily from thinkers from my country).

[Anonymous No.18179476]

>>18179352
None of this stops them being sovereign internally though. They still elect their own officials to make their own laws and enforce them with institutions staffed by their own people. This is why I don't agree with Moldbug's analysis of sovereignty, as it doesn't map to the real world.
>>18179422
Only if the defender actually presses the button, which they never would. The video I posted explains how this works.

[Anonymous No.18179542]

>>18179244
>Still he has yet to explain to us how academia, government, and the media are able to coordinate (((their))) focus so seamlessly.
he has, haven't you read him?

[Anonymous No.18179607]

>>18175462
What is the difference between having such a vision and me wanting everyone in the world to be forced to wear yellow hats?

[Anonymous No.18179665]

>>18176852
People always say Yarvin is a liberal and I never understand why. It's all either people who believe 'socialism' is distinct from 'capitalism'(leftists), people who wan't to live under a cathedral with a religious aesthetic(Traditionalists). Or people who think history has somehow ended(liberals).

[Anonymous No.18179702]

Basada

[Anonymous No.18179772]

>>18179431
>They've also more than hinted that they consider the leftist academic community to be an almost separatist movement that should be monitored for their role inspiring terrorism.
This is factually correct, but to understand how it works you have to see how the academic community interacts with business, media and government to set agendas. This is what Moldbug is good at explaining, in his own rambling autistic way.
>>18179665
In a very roundabout way they are right. If you take enlightenment liberal values to their ultimate conclusion, they end up negating themselves. Hence the most hardcore libertarian thinkers actually end up advocating pre-modern forms of government. Even a relatively wet liberal can be persuaded of this if they approach it with an open mind, as it all follows from their own principles. Vid related.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J34aUlfSZVU

[Anonymous No.18180302]

>>18178007
Where did you get this image of him from

[Anonymous No.18180333]

>>18175462
Why would anyone want that?

[Anonymous No.18180478]

>>18178007
Cringe

[Anonymous No.18180887]

Holy. Why isn't he posted more here? This is genius.

[Anonymous No.18180923]

>>18179772
I guess we're all liberals then but that would make calling others liberal redundant so it's useless.

[Anonymous No.18180925]

>>18179244
Yarvin is a membert of (((them))), I wouldn't expect any analysis from him

[Anonymous No.18182106]

Holy where do I start?

[Anonymous No.18182235]

>>18180923
>I guess we're all liberals then
I wouldn't apply that statement here, since 4chan has plenty of unironic commies and fascists. Most people in the western world today are liberal though. Even if they are anti-modern, their anti-modernism starts from liberal principles.
>but that would make calling others liberal redundant so it's useless.
That's a good point. It's probably more accurate to think of liberalism as a phase of western history, rather than applying it to individuals.

[Anonymous No.18182262]

>>18175462
>dude stop reading Plato because his antiquated ideas are incompatible with the modern world
>instead you should totally read and talk about muh autistic Prussiaboo whose ideas are equally incompatible with the modern world
Yeah this makes sense

[Anonymous No.18182283]

>>18179298
He does, but it's not exactly upheaval.

[Anonymous No.18182319]

>>18180925
He is following in the footsteps of Albert Hirschman and teaching (((their))) survival strategy to you. If you actually believe all of (((them))) are working against you, then you should thank him for handing you the playbook.

[discret bump No.18182376]

>>18175462
>Two if you count Land.
Land is owned by sovcorp.
>Three if you count Hoppe.
Abandon Hoppe all ye who enter here.

[Anonymous No.18182384]

>>18179244
>Still he has yet to explain to us how academia, government, and the media are able to coordinate (((their))) focus so seamlessly.
It only looks seamless when you spend your day in a hyperactive hurtbox that does nothing but show you the highlight reel of your impending doom. In reality it's not seamless at all, it's clunky and awkward, it's just straightforward and simple enough to be reliable nonetheless. Academia sets the standards just far enough to the left of the status quo as new people with new aspirations for power and influence replace the old, the media follows these new standards to wrestle for relevancy amidst a changing primary demographic and subsequently reinforces these standards among said demographic, then the government plays off these standards to legitimize and increase their power while giving kickbacks to the academics to perpetuate the cycle.

Stability is safety, safety is comfort, comfort is hard to take away from people. Keep people from getting too comfortable by constantly shifting societal goals towards a greater state of disorder and force them to rely on you to restore order. Everything is fine, then academics decide X is a problem and you need to listen to them about solving it, then the media starts raving about X to get you to pay attention to them and suddenly X is even scarier and your world might collapse if you don't solve it, then the government steps in and says "give us more power to solve X" and you do.

Maybe, if they're lucky, they can get you to blame the whole problem on one single, easy to understand scapegoat, like jews, immigrants, muslims, white people, men, women, straight people, gay people, etc. so you never notice the process that is taking advantage of you. You think you're redpilled because you read Culture of Critique or something and so you never notice everything that goes on without the jews, for instance. It's basic sleight of hand that you're falling for.

The best part is that once you're so committed to your already present targeting systems you're incapable of recalibrating. In other words, I or someone else could explain this all to you, and you'll still say it's all ((([fill in the blank]'s))) fault and clearly I'm one of them looking to distract you from the real truth and this is evidence of it.

[Anonymous No.18182423]

>>18177655
and Land is the smartest and he is from the future
unironically
got it?

[Anonymous No.18182443]

holy where can I sign up for this

[Anonymous No.18182468]

>>18182384
Based answer. The fact that wignats hate Moldbug despite the fact that he has basically done everything short of toppling the fucking regime himself is infuriating.

[Anonymous No.18182477]

>>18175462
I can’t trust a man who doesn’t have a chin to contribute anything of value to the world.

[Anonymous No.18182519]

>>18179298
IIRC his goal is something like the Czechoslovakian Velvet Revolution. I'm personally not convinced that this is possible in the USA or any major western power, but anything remotely close to it would be preferable to the alternatives. It's a good goal to strive for.

[Anonymous No.18182691]

>>18182477
He does have a small chin. He just aged badly and his skin buried it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6aa2UJX_EpQ
In any case, ugly people often provide a good outsider perspective.

[Anonymous No.18182708]

I don't get how he can stay so chipper all things considered.

[Anonymous No.18182752]

>its another code monkeys think that they are more intelligent that they really are episode

[Anonymous No.18182761]

>>18182752
Curtis is a special case even among code monkies.

[Anonymous No.18183570]

>>18182384
>Maybe, if they're lucky, they can get you to blame the whole problem on one single, easy to understand scapegoat, like jews, immigrants, muslims, white people, men, women, straight people, gay people, etc. so you never notice the process that is taking advantage of you. You think you're redpilled because you read Culture of Critique or something and so you never notice everything that goes on without the jews, for instance. It's basic sleight of hand that you're falling for.


Yes, every time someone cracks open Mein Kampf, everyone in the establishment high five each other and have a pizza party.


It is only seamless only if you adopt a model of power that behaves like a rational self-interested person. It is much easier to say that “x is being promoted because power has taken an interest to it” than to admit that groups are empowered through various alliances and competition based on things like race, region or economic background. And certainly no one here believes in such a callow view of power.

Things like the rise of CRT belies Yarvin's model. He writes imbuing the law with sjw racial whimsy is a benefit to power, as it gives it an excuse to go into realms where it was once restrained. What it actually has done is destabilize power itself and it will likely destroy the regime. What Yarvin sees as an empowerment of regime driven to tyranny is actually a suicide note. Yarvin cannot see this because his model must needs ignore racial and cultural identity.

Ultimately his entire notion of government as arbitrary appendage to power is incorrect, his whole scheme to overthrow the regime by treating with them requires a steadfast belief in their immutable power.

I would argue that the Yarvin corpus gives much more comfort to the current regime than a rigorous discussion of race.

[Anonymous No.18183608]

>>18176680
Yeah he literally said he's pro-reservation and certain groups need them, but it has to be done on an extremely high level, very meticulous.

[Anonymous No.18183705]

>>18179244
>another retarded /pol/ tourist who tries to dunk on Yarvin
>this time it's accusing him of being "behind the times"
>this is coming from the people who still believe in the caveman-tier thinking of a centralized evil powerbase

I hope posts like this never stop being made. I laugh at these the hardest.

[Anonymous No.18183719]

>>18183705
I don't get Malice. He says he's an anarchist but he's clearly not an ancap.

[Anonymous No.18183726]

>>18175462
Land is literally just a racist boomer now and Moldbug has always been a shill for cyberpunk corporate dystopia. I'll stick with based apolitical pessimist Schopy instead.

[Anonymous No.18183744]

>>18183726
Haha Land and Moldbug run circles around that pseud.

[Anonymous No.18183745]

>>18183570
>Yes, every time someone cracks open Mein Kampf, everyone in the establishment high five each other and have a pizza party.
Genuinely yes. Nazis are treated worse than birthday pinatas, of course it would be in your best interest for dissidents to undermine their credibility with the public in such a strong way. Imagine if you were debating with someone perfectly, and then they just admit they love stomping babies for fun, then still try to sway the public to their side.

You're conflating a big powerful government with the big powerful people within that government. The government as an entity seeking power stems from the people within it seeking power. The people within the government are seeking their own personal power, and it necessarily comes from the engorging of the particular state tumor they happen to have set up camp on. What is good for Mr. Fagballs, director of the Bureau of Just Fucking My Shit Up, is not at all correlated with what is good for the government as a whole entity. "Destabilizing power" and contributing to what will eventually "destroy the regime" is good for those seeking power at the expense of whatever the regime is supposed to be.

Stop thinking formally. Morals are bullshit. The only people that genuinely buy "whitey bad because muh colonialism and muh slaves" are 20 year old white girls, everyone else is doing it for leverage and it's fucking obvious. Any attempt at a "rigorous discussion of race" is going to get you shut down effortlessly, and the "regime" will just laugh at you for trying. The US gov't took back that whole "all men are created equal" thing after living with blacks for a while, they had that discussion on race you seem to want, and it got shouted over and nothing came of it, and it's only going to get shouted over even louder now.

[Anonymous No.18183789]

>>18183719
capitalism isn't an ideology, that's a leftist boogeyman

[Anonymous No.18183803]

>>18183789
>capitalism isn't an ideology
No it isn’t, but ancap-ism is an ideology, unless you just want to consider it a subset of radical liberal ideology.
> that's a leftist boogeyman
Never seen a single leftist over the age of 18 call capitalism an ideology.

[Anonymous No.18183812]

>>18183803
anarchocapitalism is just anarchoegoism after everyone's shaken hands with eachother

[Anonymous No.18183819]

>>18183812
>anarchoegoism
Thank you for letting me know that you are retarded in such a succinct manner.

[Anonymous No.18183821]

>>18183803
ancap is a specific system tailored to a specific society

all it it's ever been

[Anonymous No.18183893]

>>18183726
>Land is literally just a racist boomer now
*hyper-racist
https://affirmativeright.blogspot.com/2014/10/hyper-racism.html

[Anonymous No.18183904]

>>18183726
Moldbug's analysis of our current power structure is second to none. You're missing out.

[Anonymous No.18183909]

>>18183893
Cringe

[Anonymous No.18183919]

>>18178007
Hegel's rotting burr

[Anonymous No.18183923]

>18183893
>18183904

[Anonymous No.18183941]

>>18183803
Ancap is what happens when autistic people take liberalism seriously.

[Anonymous No.18183968]

>>18183819
i try to be efficient

[Anonymous No.18184040]

>>18183745
Haven't you heard?

Race-based storytelling is now the law of the land


https://www.msnbc.com/deadline-white-house/watch/prosecution-george-floyd-was-dead-because-chauvin-s-heart-was-too-small-110476357941

[Anonymous No.18184055]

The US sounds like hell these days 2bh.

[Anonymous No.18184097]

>>18184040
I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Yes, everyone's trying to be the one to hold hands the hardest and sing kumbayah the loudest. And?

[Anonymous No.18184185]

>>18175462
>For the moment, assume that every square inch of the planet’s surface is formally owned by some sovcorp, that no one disagrees on the borders, and that deterrence between sovcorps is absolute.

why would i assume that?

[Anonymous No.18184353]

>>18184185
because he asked you to

[Anonymous No.18184369]

>>18184185
It's a thought exercise, m8. Are you okay?

[Anonymous No.18184380]

>>18184185
Yeah you're right. Why entertain any ideas at all?

What the fuck man

[Anonymous No.18184381]

>>18184185
You can do it anon, it's only for a moment

[Anonymous No.18184397]

>>18184185
Based.
>>18184353
>>18184369
>>18184380
>>18184381
Very cringe.

[Anonymous No.18184411]

>omg just assume the heckin premise!

[Anonymous No.18184414]

>>18184397
visibly bluepilled

[Anonymous No.18185460]

If you disagree with Yarvin, you are wrong and not smart enough to understand him.

When reality itself disagrees with Yarvin, it is wrong and not smart enough to understand him.

[Anonymous No.18185484]

>>18178529
the formal structure of power alignment doesn't line up with actual power that troops/generals &c. understand. you'd need them to be in perfect alignment, AND to have perfectly centered ordinality.

[Anonymous No.18185494]

>>18179665
no, i'm not a retarded lefty or marxoid, i think yarvin is a liberal because his past went cleanly from libertarianism into the contradictions of liberalism, which arrived him at a minor resolution (neocameralism, which is insane)

[Anonymous No.18185567]

>>18180302
it's from a podcast
>>18180478
sneethe nigger
>>18182519
if he thinks this is possible, he's way more naïve than he lets on. but a consequent equivalent of the velvet revolution transposed onto the modern structures of power is realistic and based. hope that happens.
>>18183570
>He writes imbuing the law with sjw racial whimsy is a benefit to power, as it gives it an excuse to go into realms where it was once restrained.
i'd take it even further, the left wing IS centralized post-puritan power in the US. that's why you see the ford foundation/rockefeller brother's fund/rockefeller foundation/CIA all aligning on the sorts of issues that are most significant/sacred to the US left.
>Yarvin cannot see this because his model must needs ignore racial and cultural identity
it has to be merely-social, which makes it weaker than something like GA, which grows out of moldbug's neoreaction. but it's on the right path.
>>18183719
i don't think malice would appreciate the term ancap, i think he just likes anarchist per se.
>>18183726
>just a racist boomer now
so? that's one of the ways to express this philosophy. doesn't mean there isn't grounding to it.
>a shill for cyberpunk corporate dystopia
lolwat? are you one of these negros who thinks we're living in the world yarvin wants? you need to read his work from start to finish, because his ideology really BEGINS with analyzing the fact that pre-liberal-revolutionary societies were, in virtually every perceptible way, freer than we are now. that's something you have to bargain with.
>based apolitical pessimist Schopy instead
how are these two contradictory?
>>18183744
>Haha Land and Moldbug run circles around that pseud.
schopenhauer is a genius, i don't see why his philosophy can't be integrated with moldbug. Eric Orvoll does this.
>>18183789
>capitalism isn't an ideology, that's a leftist boogeyman
liberalism, and mass-democratic-ideology, those both are definite reifications of the kind of worldview that sustains capitalism. but i agree with your general sentiment, that "capitalism" isn't real. it's just an alias for "the way things are," identified with the specific insecurities and anxieties that leftoids have.
>>18183904
>second to none
second to generative anthropology. check out Anthropomorphics by Adam Katz (psd. Dennis Bouvard)
>>18183919
>Hegel's rotting burr
i'm an anti-hegelian in most ways, do i come across as a hegelian?
>>18185460
lole

[Anonymous No.18185575]

>>18185494
>neocameralism, which is insane
It's completely sane if you start from liberal presuppositions.

[Anonymous No.18185637]

>>18185567
Cringe
Go back

[Anonymous No.18185654]

>>18185575
liberal presuppositions arrive you at contradictions (like atomization + globalization). elaborating those contradictions is what led him to neocameralism. so why not take it all the way? why not let the contradictions dialogue into denying the bases?

>>18185637
picrel

[Anonymous No.18185752]

>>18185575
What do you mean by liberal presuppositions

[Anonymous No.18185916]

>>18185752
atomization + globalization

[Anonymous No.18186070]

>>18185654
>why not let the contradictions dialogue into denying the bases?
Because most modern people won't accept the premodern bases. They won't literally believe that God appointed a monarch to rule over them in a great chain of being, for example.
>>18185752
Individual rights and responsibilities. Equality before the law. All authority must be accountable. Just to name a few.

[Anonymous No.18186129]

>>18186070
>Because most modern people won't accept the premodern bases
the contradictions in liberalism can lead you to postmodern or premodern conclusions

[Anonymous No.18186130]

>>18185460
Yes

[Anonymous No.18186276]

>>18186129
Yes, but that's not the same as accepting their premises.

[Anonymous No.18186277]

>>18186276
it's the same as accepting their worldview

[Anonymous No.18186320]

>>18175462
>Marx: gentile kibbutzes
>Insectspore: gentile shtetls

[Anonymous No.18186511]

>>18182235
I've seen commies call fascists liberal and vice versa

[Anonymous No.18187463]

>>18175462
Can anyone best him?

[Anonymous No.18187469]

>>18186277
worldview =/= premises

[Anonymous No.18187481]

>>18186511
Commies can't think and fascists can't read. Of course they don't understand the history of the words they are using.

[Anonymous No.18189005]

Moldbug is smart, but I think he runs into a lot of the same problems Foucault runs into, for many of the same reasons.

Notice that he constantly harps on about how his opponents don't think clearly because their minds are attracted towards power. This is fine, and true in some cases, but what he has not told us is why in the world we should expect him to be free from this seductive draw. Why shouldn't we view him as just as corrupted, but drawn to a different potential power source: sp that he is jokeyng for the role of being grand-vizier in his new monarchy.

Second, and a much more important problem: for Moldbug's criticism to be a valid one, it needs to refer on an ethical standard. Now he is quite critical of the contemporary ethical standards of Universalism, which he describes as being inculcated in a non-rational way. But what he hasn't given us is an ethics that is not merely the result of indoctrination (he does gesture at "darwinian good" and "misesian good"--but these are obviously pretty useless for coming up with a general account).. He needs to give us an objective account of ethics by which we can criticize the current regime: he can't keep relying on his "health of england" argument, because it obviously begs the question.

Until he does this, his political philosophy is incomplete and foolish.

[Anonymous No.18189220]

>>18189005
>sp that he is jokeyng for the role of being grand-vizier in his new monarchy
Part of me wants it to happen, just to see the autistic kingdom management system he would devise.
>for Moldbug's criticism to be a valid one, it needs to refer on an ethical standard
>he can't keep relying on his "health of england" argument, because it obviously begs the question
The problem here is that you're dealing with complex systems, which cannot be reduced to a set of ethical principles. It's a bit like trying to reduce resource distribution to an algorithm; you could come up with something that looks good on paper, but a free market will produce better results in reality. If you want an objective critique of liberal democracy, it would rest precisely on the fact that it tries to produce top-down ethics instead of letting them grow organically. Patchwork and exit over voice would be the polar opposite of this, allowing ethics to develop from the ground up and adapt to human needs.

[Anonymous No.18189314]

>>18189005
But what’s cool about Moldbug is that despite his incredible autism, he’s precisely NOT autistic about ethics. His idea of the “good” is totally common sensical and non-schematic: material wealth, minimal violent crime, good art, the freedom to think what you want and say what you think, etc.

Sometimes he does talk about how truth itself is an ethical or aesthetic good, so that a regime founded on lies is inherently evil. But I take this to be a descriptive rather than a normative claim.

[Anonymous No.18189331]

Play me a song Curtis Mold, Curtis Mold

I got some blogging money, tune up your old prose.

People say he's useless, but them people are a fool.

'Cause Curtis Mold is the finest grifter to never name the Jew..

[Anonymous No.18189599]

It's impossible for any american to contribute an iota to any intellectual endeavor whatsoever.

[Anonymous No.18189615]

>>18175462
> monarch’ (or ‘CEO’)
>imagine thinking Monarch and CEO is in anyway similar
Molkike should kys already

[Anonymous No.18189627]

>>18189615
CEO = monarch
board = elector counts
simple as

[Anonymous No.18189676]

>>18189627
Legitimately kys
A Monarch is always a Warrior king like Charlemagne. It’s is about as further away from the the shekel merchant CEO as you can get

How can Molshit can himself a disciple of Carlyle when himself was a advocated Militant rule. It really is a kikes understanding

[Anonymous No.18189750]

>>18189331
>the finest grifter to never name the Jew..
Moldbug has always been open to discussing the JQ. He's pretty frank about it if you bother to read his work.
https://www.unqualified-reservations.org/2007/06/why-i-am-not-anti-semite/

[Anonymous No.18189785]

>>18189676
The founder of a dynasty is a warrior by necessity. That doesn't mean his descendants will primarily devote themselves to war. If all goes well, their duties will be mostly administrative.

[Anonymous No.18189809]

>>18189615
whats your favorite flavor of glue

[Anonymous No.18189820]

>>18189676
>bruh how can he be a heckin kingerino if he's not in a kings and generals video? ummm, pretty cringe if you ask me

[Anonymous No.18190020]

>>18189750

>there is no JQ because Curtis doesn't see any Jewish influence in academia

>There is no collective action...only individual action

>Sure the Torah is all about the collective action of the Jews...but things change you know

>Jews have collectively benefited society

>Jews collectively crave money and power..but everyone does

>Jews have collectively assimilated

>Calvinists are the collective you're looking for

Oh and it has always been unfashionable cant to be antisemetic.and it always has been.


Strong arguments.

[Anonymous No.18190096]

>>18189750
https://www.theoccidentalobserver.net/2020/10/17/jews-in-the-cathedral-a-response-to-curtis-yarvin/

>don’t really believe hehe
he literally crying on borzoi’s pod about muhshoah lmao

[Anonymous No.18190376]

>>18187469
no, that's my point

[Anonymous No.18190403]

>>18190020
>there is no JQ because Curtis doesn't see any Jewish influence in academia
>Calvinists are the collective you're looking for
"I think there is a Jewish influence in ultracalvinism. But I think it is exactly the opposite of what MacDonald’s theory suggests. What we’re seeing is not syncretism—it is assimilation." - Moldbug, Why I Am Not An Antisemite
>There is no collective action...only individual action
There are 3 paragraphs discussing the necessary conditions for group action.
>Sure the Torah is all about the collective action of the Jews...but things change you know
Things change for some groups of Jews and not others. Again, Moldbug deals with this.
>Jews have collectively benefited society
>Jews have collectively assimilated
Jews have collectively benefited the caste they assimilated into, not the society at large. Yet again, Moldbug deals with this.
>Jews collectively crave money and power..but everyone does
Yes, people want money and power. Shocking isn't it?
>Oh and it has always been unfashionable cant to be antisemetic.and it always has been.
A thing cannot be unfashionable and cant at the same time. A cant is an in-group language, so it must be fashionable among a given group to exist. Moldbug used the term correctly by describing Antisemitism as cant in Tehran, but unfashionable in California.
>Strong arguments.
They are if you bother to read the article.

[Anonymous No.18190843]

>>18190096
Thanks anon, that's a very good article. Much better criticism than just complaining that he "won't name the Jew".

[Anonymous No.18190883]

>>18190843
No problem bro
Dr Andrew Joyce research and work on the JQ is excellent

https://odysee.. com/@gtk:4/protocols:2
Sorry to shill but this is where I found him. It’s an excellent podcast on the Protocols of the Elders

[Anonymous No.18191078]

>>18190376
That's why you can't start from non-modern premises, at least with most people. As Bowden once explained, if you read Evola and accept him outright you are not living in the modern world (more precisely you are in it, but not of it). Most people will have to go through Nietzsche first.

[Anonymous No.18191413]

post refutations to yarvin all i see is people sperging saying he is racist and sexist

[Anonymous No.18191444]

>>18179377
But everyone gets to be the Jew

[Anonymous No.18191577]

>>18179377
>>18191444
This is unironically a good thing. Moldbug has very skillfully distilled the Jewish survival strategy into a form that anyone can learn and practice. Clearpill, exit over voice, think of yourself as an outsider, treat journalists as predators and develop camouflage against them, etc. This is all the same stuff that Jews have been doing for thousands of years, but Moldbug is teaching it to all manner of dissidents. He's levelling the playing field.

[Anonymous No.18192099]

>>18191078
damn i thought bowden was always an inane faggot, that's good stuff.

[Anonymous No.18192435]

>>18191577
Exactly. Well put.

[Anonymous No.18192460]

>>18175462
>this picture
proof that "cyberpunks" are retarded larping dweebs

[Anonymous No.18192470]

>>18191577
this is unironically a thing Glenn Greenwald and Matt Taibi do. Moldberg simps are so fucking pathetic to keep suckling his little "cyberpunk" teets

[Anonymous No.18192471]

>>18192099
Bowden had /lit/ IQ with /pol/ energy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wqGIz6cCRJc

[Anonymous No.18192474]

>>18191413
Can't refute the truth

[Anonymous No.18192482]

>>18192460
>>18192470
>cyberpunk
Where's the cyberpunk? Being a programmer doesn't inherently make you cyberpunk, it just means you know how to program.

[Anonymous No.18192525]

>>18182384
excellent post

[Anonymous No.18192585]

To the point of Moldbug's ideal tabletop game world:

>The business of a sovcorp is to make money

Wouldn't you need a single global bank for this? If so...wouldn't that bank necessarily be thousands of times more powerful than any sovcorp?

[Anonymous No.18192601]

>>18192585
The sovcorp could mint their own currency just like any state. They would also have a much better incentive not to devalue it.

[Anonymous No.18193463]

>>18192474
cringe

[Anonymous No.18193974]

>>18192482
Neither of those guys knew who Yarvin was until that shitty Keith Woods video

[Anonymous No.18193991]

>>18193974
You may be right. It's a shame people don't read any of his work before making judgements. Especially now that he has the new blog format which is incredibly easy to read.

[Anonymous No.18194890]

We need more Nick Land and Mencius Moldbug threads.

[Anonymous No.18194898]

>>18194890
We need to contrive some IRL situation to get Land and Moldbug in the same room.

[Anonymous No.18194908]

>>18175462
>For the moment, assume that every square inch of the planet’s surface is formally owned by some sovcorp, that no one disagrees on the borders, and that deterrence between sovcorps is absolute.

lol

[Anonymous No.18195152]

>>18192601

How would corps trade with other corps then? A barter system where one corp in the Western Hemisphere had to buy rare earth elements from the East with cotton doesn't seem tenable.

[Anonymous No.18195177]

Where the fuck does he even get his readings from? In his writings he quotes some travel memoirs by Literally O'Who from Grand Duchy of Shithole.

[Anonymous No.18195418]

>>18193974
>shitty Keith Woods
no clue what that is. i found out about Yarvin through some twitter leftists

>>18192482
look at his manor of dress, it's total dweeb core. i'm surprised he's not wearing the Drive jacket.

[Anonymous No.18195447]

His world existed between 1200BC and 800BC, ended by Assyria.
Then again in the dark ages, ended by the Franks.

[Anonymous No.18195451]

>>18176272
for you

[Anonymous No.18195466]

>>18195418

>not wearing a drive jacket


At let everyone know he writes whilst playing Nightcall? That would be too glaring.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MV_3Dpw-BRY

[Anonymous No.18195571]

>>18195466
>he gives you a night call
>to tell you, why leftists suck

[Anonymous No.18196070]

>>18195571
Kek

[Anonymous No.18196442]

>>18193974
lole kerl mercks

[Anonymous No.18196732]

>>18175462
Charles > Yarvin

[Anonymous No.18197041]

>>18196732
Charles I I assume?

[Anonymous No.18197064]

>>18197041
Charles of The Worthy House

[Anonymous No.18197065]

Nick Land doesn't like Yarvin anymore....

[Anonymous No.18197200]

>>18197064
seems like a nice site

[Anonymous No.18197214]

>>18197065
Nick Land only likes what is fittest to accelerate the escape from capital, or rather the escape from us. If he deems something to not be fittest he rejects it.

[Anonymous No.18197699]

>>18175462
based.

[Anonymous No.18198547]

>>18175462
What the fuck is he taking about.

[Anonymous No.18198670]

>>18197065
did this guy not grasp that monarchy is just a stepping stone to neocameralism or something?

Moldbug isn't a schizo so I can see why being realistic is so uninteresting to this guy

[Anonymous No.18198753]

>>18197065
>neochina bans gene editing and is no longer arriving from the future
>drumpf fizzles out and disappears
>yarvin turns into a biden voting defeatist
>all you have left are g/acc trannies who hate you for being a fat reactionary slob
Must suck to be Nick right now.

[Anonymous No.18198784]

>>18198753
Nick is g/acc

[Anonymous No.18198818]

>>18175462
wouldn't work.
KEK SOLVE YOUR LIFE PROBLEMS FIRST.

[Anonymous No.18198820]

>>18197065

[Anonymous No.18198849]

>>18198670
And neocameralism is a step to what? Bug fags are so close yet so far

[Anonymous No.18198861]

>>18198784
Nick is all the accs, but nothing is accing and all the people he though were accpilled were actually not other than the trannies who want to acc their estrogen.

[Anonymous No.18198863]

>>18175462
I thought the guy the picture was maradonna

[Anonymous No.18198875]

>>18198861

[Anonymous No.18199020]

>>18197065
Moldbug > Yarvin. He is much less based since becoming a public rather than anonymous figure.

[Anonymous No.18199119]

>>18197065
I am confused. On Gray Mirror Yarvin has advocated for the similar type of CEO/stockholder setup as he did on UR, does he not?

[Anonymous No.18199176]

>>18195152
You can use private banks to trade your currency. You can trade precious metals to back transactions. You could even have a currency backed by precious metals and do both.

[Anonymous No.18199242]

We must imagine the LARP boring.

[Anonymous No.18199410]

>>18199119
He mentions it again in this post
https://graymirror.substack.com/p/killing-the-ghosts
regarding neocameralism:
>A blindingly perfect equation—in theory. Of course, the 20th century taught us a lot about blindingly perfect equations. If you try it, kids—don’t fuck it up. People will blame me, when they should be blaming you.

[Anonymous No.18200359]

>>18199020
Meh, I think he's quite likeable. Also the practical advice he gives is IMO very on point.