3 ms·

So? Let him want it. Personally, I couldn't care less what Curtis Yarvin wants, nor what he thinks is wise or a good idea. I oppose any attempt in that direc

So? Let him want it. Personally, I couldn't care less what Curtis Yarvin wants, nor what he thinks is wise or a good idea. I oppose any attempt in that direction. I think I have more who agree with me than who agree with Yarvin, so Yarvin can take his funny ideas and get lost.

chillingeffect 1y ago
I know. It's not even an imaginative idea. So many more creative people are out there with more interesting desires. I wish ppl who get confused into thinking yarvin's ideas are compelling enough to strive for would divert their energy into 1. Scifi and 2. Existing efforts to make the world good.
krapp 1y ago
The problem isn't simply that he wants it, the problem is that over the decades he's convinced a lot very influential people with a lot of money and a lot of political power to want it as well, and they're actively trying to remake the American government and society in their image. Unfortunately he isn't as fringe as you think.
- bediger4000 1y ago
  Just a few years ago, conservatives made a point of calling themselves "constitutional". Has that gone away, or is this another faction?
  - krapp 1y ago
    Trumpism swept away the old guard conservatives for the most part, and they would still call themselves "constitutional," just with a radically different interpretation of the constitution. I think the techno-feudalists are trying to parasitize the Trump movement the way the Trumpists themselves did the conservative movement through Musk, DOGE and Palantir.
    - jfengel 1y ago
      "Constitutional" always meant "my specific interpretation of the Constitution". That's part of what made it so easy for the old guards to be swept out and replaced by people with an even more self-serving interpretation.
  - Jtsummers 1y ago
    A bit of both. The ones who said it and meant it were always a minority, the rest who said it were saying it because it let them fit in. Once power shifted, they switched their message because their position has always been about obtaining and retaining power, not about taking a stance. The power in a political party (in the US) is never really held by a principled faction of the party, it's bolstered by the unprincipled majority that see public support leaning one way or the other and choose a (somewhat) principled faction to throw themselves behind.

chillingeffect 1y ago

I know. It's not even an imaginative idea. So many more creative people are out there with more interesting desires. I wish ppl who get confused into thinking yarvin's ideas are compelling enough to strive for would divert their energy into 1. Scifi and 2. Existing efforts to make the world good.

krapp 1y ago

The problem isn't simply that he wants it, the problem is that over the decades he's convinced a lot very influential people with a lot of money and a lot of political power to want it as well, and they're actively trying to remake the American government and society in their image. Unfortunately he isn't as fringe as you think.

bediger4000 1y ago
Just a few years ago, conservatives made a point of calling themselves "constitutional". Has that gone away, or is this another faction?
- krapp 1y ago
  Trumpism swept away the old guard conservatives for the most part, and they would still call themselves "constitutional," just with a radically different interpretation of the constitution. I think the techno-feudalists are trying to parasitize the Trump movement the way the Trumpists themselves did the conservative movement through Musk, DOGE and Palantir.
  - jfengel 1y ago
    "Constitutional" always meant "my specific interpretation of the Constitution". That's part of what made it so easy for the old guards to be swept out and replaced by people with an even more self-serving interpretation.
- Jtsummers 1y ago
  A bit of both. The ones who said it and meant it were always a minority, the rest who said it were saying it because it let them fit in. Once power shifted, they switched their message because their position has always been about obtaining and retaining power, not about taking a stance. The power in a political party (in the US) is never really held by a principled faction of the party, it's bolstered by the unprincipled majority that see public support leaning one way or the other and choose a (somewhat) principled faction to throw themselves behind.