4 ms·

Ironic source. They're upset because their petulant oligarchs don't rule entirely unopposed.

by throwawaylinux 4y ago

sn0w_crash 4y ago
Exactly. They are constantly defending their petulant oligarchs as if they have some moral high ground.
- 082349872349872 4y ago
  OTOH, it is, I think, a valid point that "our" petulant oligarchs are neither petulant aristos nor petulant mobs. (petulant monarchs being right out, and are there even any potential petulant timocrats?) cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis [M Licinius] Crassus Rules Everything Around Me
  - sn0w_crash 4y ago
    I didn’t know HNers read Yarvin
    - 082349872349872 4y ago
      Sorry, that was yoinked from Plato. cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 Is Yarvin better than de Maistre (or at least Ezra Pound)? (the best argument for monarchy I've seen so far is a claim that there were so many glass ceilings when Britannia was Ruling the Waves that the Peter Principle never had a chance to get into play) On the Realpolitik front, the Athenians make a compelling argument for petulant dynarchs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos#The_Melian_Dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos#The_Melian_Dial... > "δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν."
      - sn0w_crash 4y ago
        Yarvin’s take on monarchy is within the context of a post modernist world so it’s probably more relevant The Athenian argument is interesting. Seems they were right, as the loss to Sicily led to more rebellion
        aebtebeten 4y ago
        Having just read A formalist manifesto and Technology, communism and the Brown Scare I can see some points where Yarvin and I start from similar observations and cultural baggage, yet wind up in different locations. A formalist manifesto — (a) the danger of picking a single axis of merit is that you'll wind up deciding the ideal daily intake is 2000 calories worth of squeeze margarine (b) yes, Violence is a big problem in the Old Country, but should Yarvin move elsewhere, he may discover that many elsewheres simultaneously have as much or more democracy while suffering from much less violence. Technology, communism and the Brown Scare — I agree that the Old Country is a workers' paradise, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a side effect of monomaniacal attention to income while ignoring that of which it is a first derivative, namely wealth. And since I'm willing to be contrarian on the former Union (despite having part of my Tradition descended via White Emigration), I find it surprising that Yarvin's figure of merit presumably classifies bolshies and Stalin as "good" communists, while mensheviks and Gorby would be classified as "bad". ==== Finally, "The whole [Western government] thing will be lucky if it lasts another ten years" (The Case Against Democracy; 2007), from the standpoint of 15 years later, has not exactly aged well. I am reminded of: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Page_62 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa... > In the geniuses Lenin and Trotzky, the Bolshevik movement found its leadership. Lenin had no use for democracy as it was known in America. To him it was a sham, a front for the great capitalist trusts, which—even though the capitalists themselves might not know it—were doomed to get bigger on a shrinking market, until international capitalist war, bankruptcy, and working-class revolution was the result. Lenin was as sure that this would happen as he was that the sun would rise the next morning. The only dispute was the matter of timing; a few Bolshevik pessimists thought that the capitalist world might last into the 1920's.

Ironic source. They're upset because their petulant oligarchs don't rule entirely unopposed.

sn0w_crash 4y ago

Exactly. They are constantly defending their petulant oligarchs as if they have some moral high ground.

082349872349872 4y ago
OTOH, it is, I think, a valid point that "our" petulant oligarchs are neither petulant aristos nor petulant mobs. (petulant monarchs being right out, and are there even any potential petulant timocrats?) cf https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anacyclosis [M Licinius] Crassus Rules Everything Around Me
- sn0w_crash 4y ago
  I didn’t know HNers read Yarvin
  - 082349872349872 4y ago
    Sorry, that was yoinked from Plato. cf https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24069572 Is Yarvin better than de Maistre (or at least Ezra Pound)? (the best argument for monarchy I've seen so far is a claim that there were so many glass ceilings when Britannia was Ruling the Waves that the Peter Principle never had a chance to get into play) On the Realpolitik front, the Athenians make a compelling argument for petulant dynarchs in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos#The_Melian_Dialogue https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Melos#The_Melian_Dial... > "δυνατὰ δὲ οἱ προύχοντες πράσσουσι καὶ οἱ ἀσθενεῖς ξυγχωροῦσιν."
    - sn0w_crash 4y ago
      Yarvin’s take on monarchy is within the context of a post modernist world so it’s probably more relevant The Athenian argument is interesting. Seems they were right, as the loss to Sicily led to more rebellion
      - aebtebeten 4y ago
        Having just read A formalist manifesto and Technology, communism and the Brown Scare I can see some points where Yarvin and I start from similar observations and cultural baggage, yet wind up in different locations. A formalist manifesto — (a) the danger of picking a single axis of merit is that you'll wind up deciding the ideal daily intake is 2000 calories worth of squeeze margarine (b) yes, Violence is a big problem in the Old Country, but should Yarvin move elsewhere, he may discover that many elsewheres simultaneously have as much or more democracy while suffering from much less violence. Technology, communism and the Brown Scare — I agree that the Old Country is a workers' paradise, but as far as I'm concerned, that's a side effect of monomaniacal attention to income while ignoring that of which it is a first derivative, namely wealth. And since I'm willing to be contrarian on the former Union (despite having part of my Tradition descended via White Emigration), I find it surprising that Yarvin's figure of merit presumably classifies bolshies and Stalin as "good" communists, while mensheviks and Gorby would be classified as "bad". ==== Finally, "The whole [Western government] thing will be lucky if it lasts another ten years" (The Case Against Democracy; 2007), from the standpoint of 15 years later, has not exactly aged well. I am reminded of: https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Page_62 https://www.gutenberg.org/files/48612/48612-h/48612-h.htm#Pa... > In the geniuses Lenin and Trotzky, the Bolshevik movement found its leadership. Lenin had no use for democracy as it was known in America. To him it was a sham, a front for the great capitalist trusts, which—even though the capitalists themselves might not know it—were doomed to get bigger on a shrinking market, until international capitalist war, bankruptcy, and working-class revolution was the result. Lenin was as sure that this would happen as he was that the sun would rise the next morning. The only dispute was the matter of timing; a few Bolshevik pessimists thought that the capitalist world might last into the 1920's.