5 ms·

I really enjoy listening to Thiel. I think I've watched every interview with him I could find on Youtube. He's actually very deep into the metaphysical stuff,

I really enjoy listening to Thiel. I think I've watched every interview with him I could find on Youtube. He's actually very deep into the metaphysical stuff, in particular he has a deep understanding of Christianity. This is my favorite interview with him: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO_00POR-Po https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SO_00POR-Po Yarvin is a much deeper thinker than what those quotes would suggest. He's very much focused on the nature of power and he's extremely well-read. Every time I watch a new interview with him I end up buying another book or two. I recently finished The Machiavellians by James Burnham which is the book he always recommends people read. Yarvin actually invented the terms "redpill" and "bluepill" interestingly. As far as Nick Land goes, I will check him out. I see that he tends to be associated with Yarvin so I am surprised I've never heard of him. I tend to view "scientific racism" (and when I use that term I assign no moral weight to it) as a trap. On a purely rational level I can understand the logic behind the ideas but when you introduce the irrational dimension (e.g. the Imago Dei for starters) it becomes a lot harder to defend. Thomas Sowell actually does a good job delegitimizing many aspects of that approach on a rational level in his studies that compare wealth and income within racial groups but across cultures (e.g. Chinese within China vs Chinese in Southeast Asia or even American blacks in the 1940s vs American blacks today). Nassim Taleb has argued very forcefully that the idea of IQ is complete pseudoscience. But yes, any person that the Cathedral (a term from Yarvin) goes after is someone at least worth looking into.

mistermann 6y ago
I'm reading this now, I think it's from a book he's working on now: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/4-principles-of-any-next-regime https://graymirror.substack.com/p/4-principles-of-any-next-r... Compared to what passes for intellectualism nowadays (especially from those running the show, or at least advertised as doing so), this guy seems like he's not just on a different level, but from a completely different dimension. I don't agree with the final conclusions he draws, or at least my take on what they are, but he sure understands how the current system works. Putting these ideas into a form the average Joe could understand (and be persuaded by) might be a tall order though, I imagine he's considered that but I'll have to hunt around to see if he's ever written anything on it.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  > but from a completely different dimension Yes, these are the people I look for. These are people that give you entirely new dimensions of analysis with which to understand the world. I'm also not sold on all his conclusions but that's pretty common for me when it comes to truly great thinkers. For example with Nietzsche that for me has been the single greatest argument for the significance and value of Judeo-Christian morality yet his program was to destroy that. > I imagine he's considered that If you get deeper into his stuff you'll see that he's not at all, in fact quite the opposite. I highly recommend watching his interviews on YouTube. There's only like 7 or 8 of them but you get different perspectives given the particular background of the interviewer.
  - mistermann 6y ago
    > If you get deeper into his stuff you'll see that he's not at all, in fact quite the opposite. Meaning, he has no plan for simplification, and maybe even not only that, but he doesn't believe the common man can understand these ideas? (If so, I'm curious how he plans to launch his new world order scheme.) I was watching this Michael Malice fellow on Lex Fridman the other day - very intelligent guy, knows his stuff (that which is in his bubble) very well, and he is very strongly of the opinion that not only can the common man not think currently, but that they are incapable of it at all. Now, it is possible that this is the case of course, but forming strong conclusions about something for which there is literally no data (teaching thinking has not been attempted in any serious way) demonstrates a significant gap in one's intelligence. Although, about 90%+ of the population suffers from this (take the HN hivemind on political topics for example), so I guess one shouldn't be too hard on him.
    - googthrowaway42 6y ago
      I actually watched that Michael Malice interview the other day too. I disagree with him on that particular idea that people are divided so permanently into these classes of people. I definitely used to be a normie liberal/progressive with many of those associated pathologies but I've always been very independent minded. This is a very common idea though, closely associated with the idea of the importance of heredity. It's such a common idea (think of the emphasis on genealogies in the Bible) that I can't fully discount it.

mistermann 6y ago

I'm reading this now, I think it's from a book he's working on now: https://graymirror.substack.com/p/4-principles-of-any-next-regime https://graymirror.substack.com/p/4-principles-of-any-next-r... Compared to what passes for intellectualism nowadays (especially from those running the show, or at least advertised as doing so), this guy seems like he's not just on a different level, but from a completely different dimension. I don't agree with the final conclusions he draws, or at least my take on what they are, but he sure understands how the current system works. Putting these ideas into a form the average Joe could understand (and be persuaded by) might be a tall order though, I imagine he's considered that but I'll have to hunt around to see if he's ever written anything on it.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
> but from a completely different dimension Yes, these are the people I look for. These are people that give you entirely new dimensions of analysis with which to understand the world. I'm also not sold on all his conclusions but that's pretty common for me when it comes to truly great thinkers. For example with Nietzsche that for me has been the single greatest argument for the significance and value of Judeo-Christian morality yet his program was to destroy that. > I imagine he's considered that If you get deeper into his stuff you'll see that he's not at all, in fact quite the opposite. I highly recommend watching his interviews on YouTube. There's only like 7 or 8 of them but you get different perspectives given the particular background of the interviewer.
- mistermann 6y ago
  > If you get deeper into his stuff you'll see that he's not at all, in fact quite the opposite. Meaning, he has no plan for simplification, and maybe even not only that, but he doesn't believe the common man can understand these ideas? (If so, I'm curious how he plans to launch his new world order scheme.) I was watching this Michael Malice fellow on Lex Fridman the other day - very intelligent guy, knows his stuff (that which is in his bubble) very well, and he is very strongly of the opinion that not only can the common man not think currently, but that they are incapable of it at all. Now, it is possible that this is the case of course, but forming strong conclusions about something for which there is literally no data (teaching thinking has not been attempted in any serious way) demonstrates a significant gap in one's intelligence. Although, about 90%+ of the population suffers from this (take the HN hivemind on political topics for example), so I guess one shouldn't be too hard on him.
  - googthrowaway42 6y ago
    I actually watched that Michael Malice interview the other day too. I disagree with him on that particular idea that people are divided so permanently into these classes of people. I definitely used to be a normie liberal/progressive with many of those associated pathologies but I've always been very independent minded. This is a very common idea though, closely associated with the idea of the importance of heredity. It's such a common idea (think of the emphasis on genealogies in the Bible) that I can't fully discount it.