I've been waiting for everyone to start talking about Yarvin, aka Mencius Moldbug. Dude is a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic. My brother tried reading some of his stuff a couple of years ago, just to see what it was about, and when he got to the monarchy thing he did whatever the blog version is of hurling a book across the room.
Right? The Founders were pretty fucking explicit on not wanting a monarchy, and the fucking assholes who believe this shit call themselves patriots. Pretty sure you can't be a patriot while simultaneously hating America and everyone who lives here.
Maybe Curtis Yarvin should take a long vacation in North Korea to see how a society ran by a dictatorship actually works. 25 or 30 years might be long enough.
Hey, kids, maybe we should raise some money to buy this creep an airplane ticket to glorious North Korea, there to bask in the delights of a state not run by the American elite. A one way ticket, that is. If he doesn't go willingly, roofie the motherfucker and crate him up and send him as foreign aid or something.
Didn’t see the Maddow, had never heard of this yutz, but he’s like a lot of quasi-fascist mathletes we get in the Valley…it’s sadly a place that encourage weird delusions of grandeur from polecat scented nerds. Mencius Moldbug my ass. Somehow they NEVER learn the expendibility is built in. He’s already obsolete by virtue of being in his icky fifties in the age discrimination capital of the world. Jeez, I still think A Confederacy of Dunces is hilarious, but now I see how unfunny it’d be to have a real life Ignatius Reilly.
When Jefferson said there should be a revolution every generation I don’t think he meant for it to be headed by dictator-tonguing fascist sycophants like Garbage Yarvin et al.
It’s the same lack of understanding that the antivaxxers spew (and there’s lots of crossover) and also; too libertarians. “We’re reaping all these benefits from others who did all this hard work so therefore we shouldn’t have to contribute anything plus let’s end all these programs we don’t like because reasons!” GTFOH with that crap.
We now have people openly espousing ideas that a previous generation of Americans sacrificed mightily to defeat. These people are a horrible combination of ignorant, stupid, and arrogant.
"One host Vance spoke with said it’s time to take “extraconstitutional” actions, to which Vance readily agreed, “Yes, that's exactly right.”"
The Hillbilly is just parroting the Fulvous Flatulence, who has previously -- on several occasions -- said that the Constitution is to restricting of presidential powers and has called for a new Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution to *his* satisfaction.
-----
"You're not assimilating into traditional American culture."
Does he mean "traditional American culture" where immigrants (legal, illegal or already nationalized) were not considered the enemy, and were treated with respect? Maybe the tradition of helping others in need? Could it be where differences of opinion were debated, politely, rather than using violence as a political tool to force one's uneducated opinion on others? (Harlan Ellison said, "You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.") Wait, I know, the principles espoused in the Golden and Silver (don't do to others what you don't want done to you) Rules.
-----
"Yarvin argues that a creative and visionary leader — a “startup guy,” like, he says, Napoleon or Lenin was"
Yarvin thinks that a dictator or one of the founding fathers of Communism would be equally effective in returning America to its past glory. That is so screwed up; in one case he wants all power to reside in a single individual while the other propounded on power belonging to the masses.
-----
"And, finally, you need a CEO. And a national CEO is what's called a dictator. It's the same thing. There's no difference between a CEO and a dictator."
Actually, there are a few differences:
* A CEO does not have free rein to do whatever they want, they have to answer to the Board of Directors, the stock holders (if a publicly trade stock or investors if private), the employees, and most important, to the consumers;
* A dictator answers to no one, they are accountable only to themselves;
* A CEO can be fired, not so with a dictator;
* A CEO cannot rewrite laws to suit them, but that is exactly what a dictator will do;
* A CEO can't imprison or execute their competitors, but a dictator can and does.
* A CEO does not in any way answer to the employees, and they only answer to the consumers if they don't have a monopoly.
* A CEO has in his contract terms that make getting fired almost as good as not getting fired. There is practically no downside to being fired as a CEO.
* The equivalent for Laws in a business are most definitely writable by the CEO.
* The only reason a CEO cannot imprison or execute their competitors is because government stops them. As long as you have companies with their current structure and culture but no government, then the companies will be able to execute anyone they want. This is why Anarcho-Capitalists are just fascists on a delay timer. You can't have CEOs without governments, the CEOs instantly become dictators with their own governments. It's like having liquid hydrogen at room temperature: It almost instantly turns into hydrogen gas.
* A CEO does respond to the company's employees. In one case the CEO's negotiation team has to respond to union demands (if there is a union). In another, if a CEO doesn't listen to what the workers are saying they risk losing already trained people to a more "understanding" company and the reality of the time and costs to replace that worker. The CEO has to balance the bottom line with employee happiness. As for a monopoly, please list any true monopolies -- not oligopolies -- operating in the US of which you know. Any real monopoly operating in US is broken up by the feds (see: Ma Bell) as soon as possible.
* Yes, many CEOs have a golden parachute. That does not change the actions taken in the C Suite (CFOs, COOs, CIOs... also have golden parachutes). An exec who counts on a soft landing a few times becomes less desirable; the Search Committee would, rightly, place these candidates below those with equal qualifications.
* "The equivalent for Laws in a business are most definitely writable by the CEO[]" is a disingenuous deflection. First, my reference was not to corporate "laws" (actually corporate rules, not laws, that change from business to business) but to laws enacted by a legislative body. Your deflection occurs, IMO, by conflating what a CEO can do to alter corporate culture or bypass existing laws. Certainly a CEO can change internal rules, but they have no direct say in changing laws to fit the needs of the company (that's what lobbyists are for, not that I agree with most corporate lobbyists).
* "The only reason a CEO cannot imprison or execute their competitors is because government stops them. As long as you have companies with their current structure and culture but no government, then the companies will be able to execute anyone they want." Another disingenuous response; you offer a hypothetical as reality. Can you name even one company that is operating in a country that doesn't have some form of government -- democratic, socialist, fascist, theocracy, authoritarian...? I don't deny that there are plutocracies or kleptocracies; should the Sociopathic Marigold Swamp Monster get reelected [turns head and spits three times between index and middle fingers] the US will become the premier kleptocracy.
* Oligopolies are just as valid a critique if price coordination is going on. but sure, have one: HP printer ink for HP printers. That ink costs well over $10 000 per gallon. The amount of profit made there is a clear sign of a monopoly because there is no way that printer ink costs more than $10 per gallon to make.
* The entire existence of a C-suite is offensive and absurd. I see no need to engage on the subject further.
* I'm pointing you back at the real world equivalent within the corporate context, your attempt to restrict it to state-enforced legal framework was a strawman that only applies if you assume government still exists as an independent force, which isn't the end goal of corporations, so your assumptions serve the corporate agenda.
* No I cannot give an example, because companies prefer capturing governments to removing them. After all, that allows them to externalize the costs of infrastructure. My point is that the corporate 'ding an sich' is not meaningfully distinct from a feudal system. It is only the context that makes it pretend otherwise.
"The entire existence of a C-suite is offensive and absurd. I see no need to engage on the subject further."
Whether or not you find C-Suites "offensive and absurd" is immaterial. They exist and are responsible for the continuing viability of a company. But please feel free to deny that they are an entity in almost every medium to large business because you find them "offensive and absurd."
-----
"restrict it to state-enforced legal framework was a strawman that only applies if you assume government still exists as an independent force, which isn't the end goal of corporations"
Speaking of strawman arguments, your statement is right up there. You imply there are some governments whose raison d'être is to do the bidding of their corporate overlords, but c'mon, do you really think this is a thing? Sure, there are countries that are oligarchies, kleptocracies, and plutocracies but these are in the minority to a very large degree. At this point in time there are exceedingly few countries where government is subservient to big businesses. As I said about your not wanting to discuss C-Suites, your opinion about corporate end goals is immaterial since your assertion is so limited in scope.
Plus, businesses -- small, medium, big, or huge -- are more concerned with their P&L than writing laws; minor ones like traffic laws on up to biggies like extortion or murder.
-----
"because companies prefer capturing governments to removing them"
IOW a corporate coup d'état? Since you are unable to name a company that is operating in a country that doesn't have some form of government maybe you can give examples of where corporations write the laws for the general population to have them rubber stamped by a country's legislative body (see above)?
-----
"My point is that the corporate 'ding an sich' is not meaningfully distinct from a feudal system."
Another straw man argument? Please name a few countries, if any, that still practice feudalism. I'll put my cards on the table showing the opposite:
"Many societies in the Middle Ages were characterized by feudal organizations.... Each of these territories developed feudalism in unique ways, and the way we understand feudalism as a unified concept today is in large part due to critiques *after its dissolution*. [emphasis added] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-westerncivilization/chapter/feudalism/
A lot of the philosophical underpinning for these tech bro libertarian wank fantasies comes from sci-fi. There is a troubling undertone to much sci-fi/speculative fiction of the uselessness of government oversight regulatory regimes that interfere with hotshot innovators who want to go fast and break things. In Stephenson's Snow Crash (an author whom I enjoy, BTW), the president is a comic relief figurehead. With trump, they have the perfect tool to manipulate, with their inside tool, JD Vance keeping an eye on things. Thiel, Musk (immigrants both) are fabulists who, scarily, could succeed in realizing all of their masters of the universe dreams.
The thing to remember about cyberpunk like Snow Crash is that it takes place in a dystopian world. It isn't supposed to be aspirational. Obviously, C-suite or higher types disagree, since they would be the kings in such a world.
Yes. Their idea of government is that it's the instrument helping us toward "the good life" -- the good life, that is, for about ten people on the entire planet. Everybody else is just an inconvenience.
The cognitive dissonance, again, is ASTOUNDING on the right. The entire SELLING POINT of TECHNOLOGY is that it makes things BETTER for the majority of people, right? This right-wing technocracy bullshit is RIDICULOUS. ALSO, I might point out that "J. P. Mandel" there is bought and paid for by Peter Thiel...what was that about childless people having no stake in the future of America, there, you fucking moron? FASCINATING.
Okay, I think it's high grade bullshit, but even if you could make it work, there's always the problem of succession. Traditionally, it was the eldest son, although in some cases it's the most able son--"able" in this case means best at killing his brothers and maybe his father. I wouldn't, for instance, say that Kim Jong Un was the best choice for North Korea. (did I get the name right? Does it matter?)
If these people had ever read history, they would have seen how dynasties always seem to fall when the succession gets to some idiot or buffoon or someone who'd rather hunt than govern.
First you get Augustus Caesar (if you're lucky), and down the road a piece you get, say, Nero, or Caligula, or Elegabalus, or some other bloodthirsty and depraved madman.
Walz should also ask Peter Thiel's shine boy if he believes that Kamala Harris is a demon, as he's recently been sharing a stage with grifting Christofascist (but I repeat myself) Lance Wallnau, who says that she is.
I've been waiting for everyone to start talking about Yarvin, aka Mencius Moldbug. Dude is a foaming-at-the-mouth lunatic. My brother tried reading some of his stuff a couple of years ago, just to see what it was about, and when he got to the monarchy thing he did whatever the blog version is of hurling a book across the room.
I thought the idea of starting this country was to Get Rid Of someone exactly like this.
Right? The Founders were pretty fucking explicit on not wanting a monarchy, and the fucking assholes who believe this shit call themselves patriots. Pretty sure you can't be a patriot while simultaneously hating America and everyone who lives here.
Dues anybody else remember when C+ Augustus passed the casual remark "This would all be a lot easier if I was dictator"?
That's terrifying.
I'm so glad Rachel aired this the night before the debate.
Maybe Curtis Yarvin should take a long vacation in North Korea to see how a society ran by a dictatorship actually works. 25 or 30 years might be long enough.
Hey, kids, maybe we should raise some money to buy this creep an airplane ticket to glorious North Korea, there to bask in the delights of a state not run by the American elite. A one way ticket, that is. If he doesn't go willingly, roofie the motherfucker and crate him up and send him as foreign aid or something.
Didn’t see the Maddow, had never heard of this yutz, but he’s like a lot of quasi-fascist mathletes we get in the Valley…it’s sadly a place that encourage weird delusions of grandeur from polecat scented nerds. Mencius Moldbug my ass. Somehow they NEVER learn the expendibility is built in. He’s already obsolete by virtue of being in his icky fifties in the age discrimination capital of the world. Jeez, I still think A Confederacy of Dunces is hilarious, but now I see how unfunny it’d be to have a real life Ignatius Reilly.
When Jefferson said there should be a revolution every generation I don’t think he meant for it to be headed by dictator-tonguing fascist sycophants like Garbage Yarvin et al.
It’s the same lack of understanding that the antivaxxers spew (and there’s lots of crossover) and also; too libertarians. “We’re reaping all these benefits from others who did all this hard work so therefore we shouldn’t have to contribute anything plus let’s end all these programs we don’t like because reasons!” GTFOH with that crap.
Ta, Dok. I dislike talking about people's appearance, but Yarvin is one of the most unfuckable inches it has ever been my displeasure to see.
We now have people openly espousing ideas that a previous generation of Americans sacrificed mightily to defeat. These people are a horrible combination of ignorant, stupid, and arrogant.
In my experience, you don't generally get arrogant without ignorant and stupid...
They go together so well!
"One host Vance spoke with said it’s time to take “extraconstitutional” actions, to which Vance readily agreed, “Yes, that's exactly right.”"
The Hillbilly is just parroting the Fulvous Flatulence, who has previously -- on several occasions -- said that the Constitution is to restricting of presidential powers and has called for a new Constitutional Convention to rewrite the Constitution to *his* satisfaction.
-----
"You're not assimilating into traditional American culture."
Does he mean "traditional American culture" where immigrants (legal, illegal or already nationalized) were not considered the enemy, and were treated with respect? Maybe the tradition of helping others in need? Could it be where differences of opinion were debated, politely, rather than using violence as a political tool to force one's uneducated opinion on others? (Harlan Ellison said, "You are entitled to your informed opinion. No one is entitled to be ignorant.") Wait, I know, the principles espoused in the Golden and Silver (don't do to others what you don't want done to you) Rules.
-----
"Yarvin argues that a creative and visionary leader — a “startup guy,” like, he says, Napoleon or Lenin was"
Yarvin thinks that a dictator or one of the founding fathers of Communism would be equally effective in returning America to its past glory. That is so screwed up; in one case he wants all power to reside in a single individual while the other propounded on power belonging to the masses.
-----
"And, finally, you need a CEO. And a national CEO is what's called a dictator. It's the same thing. There's no difference between a CEO and a dictator."
Actually, there are a few differences:
* A CEO does not have free rein to do whatever they want, they have to answer to the Board of Directors, the stock holders (if a publicly trade stock or investors if private), the employees, and most important, to the consumers;
* A dictator answers to no one, they are accountable only to themselves;
* A CEO can be fired, not so with a dictator;
* A CEO cannot rewrite laws to suit them, but that is exactly what a dictator will do;
* A CEO can't imprison or execute their competitors, but a dictator can and does.
fnord
* A CEO does not in any way answer to the employees, and they only answer to the consumers if they don't have a monopoly.
* A CEO has in his contract terms that make getting fired almost as good as not getting fired. There is practically no downside to being fired as a CEO.
* The equivalent for Laws in a business are most definitely writable by the CEO.
* The only reason a CEO cannot imprison or execute their competitors is because government stops them. As long as you have companies with their current structure and culture but no government, then the companies will be able to execute anyone they want. This is why Anarcho-Capitalists are just fascists on a delay timer. You can't have CEOs without governments, the CEOs instantly become dictators with their own governments. It's like having liquid hydrogen at room temperature: It almost instantly turns into hydrogen gas.
* A CEO does respond to the company's employees. In one case the CEO's negotiation team has to respond to union demands (if there is a union). In another, if a CEO doesn't listen to what the workers are saying they risk losing already trained people to a more "understanding" company and the reality of the time and costs to replace that worker. The CEO has to balance the bottom line with employee happiness. As for a monopoly, please list any true monopolies -- not oligopolies -- operating in the US of which you know. Any real monopoly operating in US is broken up by the feds (see: Ma Bell) as soon as possible.
* Yes, many CEOs have a golden parachute. That does not change the actions taken in the C Suite (CFOs, COOs, CIOs... also have golden parachutes). An exec who counts on a soft landing a few times becomes less desirable; the Search Committee would, rightly, place these candidates below those with equal qualifications.
* "The equivalent for Laws in a business are most definitely writable by the CEO[]" is a disingenuous deflection. First, my reference was not to corporate "laws" (actually corporate rules, not laws, that change from business to business) but to laws enacted by a legislative body. Your deflection occurs, IMO, by conflating what a CEO can do to alter corporate culture or bypass existing laws. Certainly a CEO can change internal rules, but they have no direct say in changing laws to fit the needs of the company (that's what lobbyists are for, not that I agree with most corporate lobbyists).
* "The only reason a CEO cannot imprison or execute their competitors is because government stops them. As long as you have companies with their current structure and culture but no government, then the companies will be able to execute anyone they want." Another disingenuous response; you offer a hypothetical as reality. Can you name even one company that is operating in a country that doesn't have some form of government -- democratic, socialist, fascist, theocracy, authoritarian...? I don't deny that there are plutocracies or kleptocracies; should the Sociopathic Marigold Swamp Monster get reelected [turns head and spits three times between index and middle fingers] the US will become the premier kleptocracy.
fnord
* Oligopolies are just as valid a critique if price coordination is going on. but sure, have one: HP printer ink for HP printers. That ink costs well over $10 000 per gallon. The amount of profit made there is a clear sign of a monopoly because there is no way that printer ink costs more than $10 per gallon to make.
* The entire existence of a C-suite is offensive and absurd. I see no need to engage on the subject further.
* I'm pointing you back at the real world equivalent within the corporate context, your attempt to restrict it to state-enforced legal framework was a strawman that only applies if you assume government still exists as an independent force, which isn't the end goal of corporations, so your assumptions serve the corporate agenda.
* No I cannot give an example, because companies prefer capturing governments to removing them. After all, that allows them to externalize the costs of infrastructure. My point is that the corporate 'ding an sich' is not meaningfully distinct from a feudal system. It is only the context that makes it pretend otherwise.
"Oligopolies are just as valid a critique if price coordination is going on. but sure, have one: HP printer ink for HP printers."
Sorry but your example is incorrect. One can buy generic ink cartridges for HP printers (or any other printer). See: https://www.amazon.com/hp-compatible-ink-cartridges/s?k=hp+compatible+ink+cartridges
-----
"The entire existence of a C-suite is offensive and absurd. I see no need to engage on the subject further."
Whether or not you find C-Suites "offensive and absurd" is immaterial. They exist and are responsible for the continuing viability of a company. But please feel free to deny that they are an entity in almost every medium to large business because you find them "offensive and absurd."
-----
"restrict it to state-enforced legal framework was a strawman that only applies if you assume government still exists as an independent force, which isn't the end goal of corporations"
Speaking of strawman arguments, your statement is right up there. You imply there are some governments whose raison d'être is to do the bidding of their corporate overlords, but c'mon, do you really think this is a thing? Sure, there are countries that are oligarchies, kleptocracies, and plutocracies but these are in the minority to a very large degree. At this point in time there are exceedingly few countries where government is subservient to big businesses. As I said about your not wanting to discuss C-Suites, your opinion about corporate end goals is immaterial since your assertion is so limited in scope.
Plus, businesses -- small, medium, big, or huge -- are more concerned with their P&L than writing laws; minor ones like traffic laws on up to biggies like extortion or murder.
-----
"because companies prefer capturing governments to removing them"
IOW a corporate coup d'état? Since you are unable to name a company that is operating in a country that doesn't have some form of government maybe you can give examples of where corporations write the laws for the general population to have them rubber stamped by a country's legislative body (see above)?
-----
"My point is that the corporate 'ding an sich' is not meaningfully distinct from a feudal system."
Another straw man argument? Please name a few countries, if any, that still practice feudalism. I'll put my cards on the table showing the opposite:
"Many societies in the Middle Ages were characterized by feudal organizations.... Each of these territories developed feudalism in unique ways, and the way we understand feudalism as a unified concept today is in large part due to critiques *after its dissolution*. [emphasis added] https://courses.lumenlearning.com/atd-herkimer-westerncivilization/chapter/feudalism/
-or-
"Some towns in England and Scotland still use feudal-type farming, but these are very small cases. A form of feudalism still exists in the criminal underworld of human trafficking" https://homework.study.com/explanation/does-feudalism-exist-today.html [behind paywall]
Thanks for playing, Regret, please do try again.
fnord
A lot of the philosophical underpinning for these tech bro libertarian wank fantasies comes from sci-fi. There is a troubling undertone to much sci-fi/speculative fiction of the uselessness of government oversight regulatory regimes that interfere with hotshot innovators who want to go fast and break things. In Stephenson's Snow Crash (an author whom I enjoy, BTW), the president is a comic relief figurehead. With trump, they have the perfect tool to manipulate, with their inside tool, JD Vance keeping an eye on things. Thiel, Musk (immigrants both) are fabulists who, scarily, could succeed in realizing all of their masters of the universe dreams.
The thing to remember about cyberpunk like Snow Crash is that it takes place in a dystopian world. It isn't supposed to be aspirational. Obviously, C-suite or higher types disagree, since they would be the kings in such a world.
Yes. Their idea of government is that it's the instrument helping us toward "the good life" -- the good life, that is, for about ten people on the entire planet. Everybody else is just an inconvenience.
The cognitive dissonance, again, is ASTOUNDING on the right. The entire SELLING POINT of TECHNOLOGY is that it makes things BETTER for the majority of people, right? This right-wing technocracy bullshit is RIDICULOUS. ALSO, I might point out that "J. P. Mandel" there is bought and paid for by Peter Thiel...what was that about childless people having no stake in the future of America, there, you fucking moron? FASCINATING.
Okay, I think it's high grade bullshit, but even if you could make it work, there's always the problem of succession. Traditionally, it was the eldest son, although in some cases it's the most able son--"able" in this case means best at killing his brothers and maybe his father. I wouldn't, for instance, say that Kim Jong Un was the best choice for North Korea. (did I get the name right? Does it matter?)
If these people had ever read history, they would have seen how dynasties always seem to fall when the succession gets to some idiot or buffoon or someone who'd rather hunt than govern.
Yep, that's one of the biggest flaws with having a benevolent dictator: The power structure that gets created doesn't go away when the dictator dies.
First you get Augustus Caesar (if you're lucky), and down the road a piece you get, say, Nero, or Caligula, or Elegabalus, or some other bloodthirsty and depraved madman.
Let us not forget Tiberius, the second Emperor, who foisted Caligula on an unsuspecting Rome to make himself not look quite so bad.
Ol' Tibs was a real peach, that's for certain.
They don't care.
Walz should also ask Peter Thiel's shine boy if he believes that Kamala Harris is a demon, as he's recently been sharing a stage with grifting Christofascist (but I repeat myself) Lance Wallnau, who says that she is.
Oh I forgot to say "KITTEH!!!. Thanks as always Dok. Nobody needs to see that couch fucker's face ever.