“There is no difference between a CEO and a dictator. If Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia.” – Curtis Yarvin, Dark Enlightenment guru.
About 20 years ago I had occasion to be included in a social situation in which a member of the PayPal Mafia was present and I happened to overhear him saying: "There is no denying that Fascism was a much more efficient economic system than what we have today." Coming from that individual, who happened to be Jewish, I found extremely surprising, given the mid-20th century relationship between the Jewish working class and fascism. The subsequent political and economic macro events that have evolved, however, confirmed in my mind that this group of techno-fascists (what you call NRx) was being formed, even at that time.
I wonder if there is a relationship between a fascist inclination and a mind that is predisposed to technical solutions. So the mind becomes more mechanistic in its outlook. A case of: you are what you do repeatedly. Which is why we should always try not be what we are compelled to do in our working lives.
It’s always hazardous to generalize about groups of people. Nevertheless, my own anecdotal experience is that the technical, engineering focused minds seem to have an easy time of ignoring the effects of what they do on large numbers of average working people. Thus, if they see an advantagefor themselves with a fascist political economy their relatively poorly developed moral compass is easily overcome.
In a word, psychopaths. And to link this back to CEOs, I believe they are often chosen via psychometric tests expressly for their psychopathic tendancies as it is better for the financial gain of a company if the boss ignores all concerns of empathy, justice or humanity.
This is it. As I've said before, the System selects for psychopathy. I don't know how to get normies to understand this fundamental reality. They project their own decency onto those at the top of the pyramid and therefore refuse to believe that the crimes committed are not bugs in the system; they're a design feature!
Good review, I also very much rate the work of Iain Davis but I have stalled a bit reading about this accelerationism BS, not just from Iain Davis, also with other writers, and I'm glad you treated it in the way that you did. I agree that it is nothing more than a smoke-screen of unintelligible nonsense to frighten away questions from the many people who probably fear they don't undetrstand it because it's just too damned profound. When it's not. It's BS. Thank-you.
Edit: I was just reading Iain's piece on Unlimited Hangout where he goes into the mechanism of the accelerationist method which involves, basically, the paypal mafiosos investing in and perhaps guiding and controlling, any companies that may be useful in achieving their goals in the construction of the technocratic state.
In my view, what differs from this construction and that of a good old-fashioned police-state is that this construction is by a "private" company and they may just get away with it, whereas the "state" doing it themselves, probably could not, and would have to pretend to care what the people have to say about it. Of course, the money for this construction still comes from the tax-payer via government payments for all and sundry, to types like Musk, Thiel etc.
Thanks John. The model you describe of the state outsourcing to the private sector is now well established. Have edited this as I mixed up in my mind parts 1 and 2!
I agree with Rusere's view, and yours, of accelerationism to the extent that it is afforded a quasi-theoretical underpinning by the neoreactionary technocrats. As such, it does form part of what amounts to "unintelligible nonsense." I think Rusere's reading of it is spot on in that regard. That said, as I stress in the book, "accelerationism," as a venture capitalist strategy, and now a sociopolitical tool, is being applied absolutely everywhere. It does deploy "creative destruction" as a mechanism used transform pretty much everything. Therefore, I do think it is important we wrap our heads around it.
To the extent that it needs to be taken seriously, isn't it just a theory that seeks to justify a form of Disaster Capitalism that specifically benefits the tech industry? In other words, not only do they embrace chaos, they seek to cause or catalyse it on the grounds that chaos and destruction speeds up "de-territorialisation" and "re-territorialisation". Chaos acts as a catalyst for innovation, which in turn speeds up technological progress, which in turn moves them closer to a world in which this technological progress hastens technocratic imprisonment?
No not quite, and perhaps I did not explain this well in the book. Accelerationism is a targeted intervention, often using so-called disruptive technology, that predetermines the "creative destruction" induced chaos to ensure the "reterritorialization" is increased technological and/or centralised control. That is to say, accelerationism is not random destruction for destruction's sake, hoping to pick up the pieces when they fall as they may. It is a deliberate strategy to deterritorialize and then reterritorialize to maximise and centralise control.
Thank you for taking the time to read the book and then write such a fantastic review/commentary on it. I can't wait for part 2.
Where you made them, I think you offered nothing but fair criticisms. In retrospect, I don't think I adequately expressed my contempt for these "mouthbreathing Machiavellis." Like you, I certainly don't think their unhinged ideas constitute any kind of cogent "philosophy." I did make that point in the book, but perhaps not strongly enough.
I feel I must defend "NEONERD."
As I was researching the book I found "myself staring again into a pool of psychological knowledge that is too shallow to accommodate the volume of his madness." [LOL! This is brilliant]. As we know from their conduct in Ukraine and Gaza, these Neoreactionary technocrats are a bunch of soulless ghouls and, though I was at pains to highlight their malevolence, I felt the need to challenge their own self-aggrandising titles, like "TechnoKing," and offer a disparaging sobriquet that diminished them. I didn't want to give them any power at all, hence NEONERD.
Thanks Ian, and thank you for the hard work you did in bringing these people and their execrable ideology to our attention. It couldn't have been easy to see such bad ideas masquerading as 'philosophy'! I can now see what you were doing with the NEONERD moniker. I guess I'm still too angry at them to think straight. As you say, they need deflating, and maybe NEONERD does that?!
I'm currently finalising Part 3 on money matters. That threw up a lot of questions for me in the sense that it forced me to think again about the digital money scam masquerading as currency. The great thing about your book is that, if you take the time to really engage, it forces you to think through some very murky areas. The money bit is the toughest.
It really helped me to solidify my thoughts about the multipolar scam.
“Restoring the feudal order is, in fact, the true and hidden goal of globalism.”
How the British Invented Color Revolutions
As the British Empire shifted from a colonial to a neocolonial system, it had to develop quieter, more discreet methods for removing rebellious vassals
Lord William Rees-Mogg set forth his globalist beliefs in a series of books co-written with U.S. investment writer James Dale Davidson.
In The Sovereign Individual (1997), the authors prophesied that “Western nations” would soon “crack apart in the manner of the former Soviet Union,” to be replaced by tiny jurisdictions “akin to city-states” which would “emerge from the rubble of nations.”15
The authors predicted that, “Some of these new entities, like the Knights Templar and other religious and military orders of the Middle Ages, may control considerable wealth and military power without controlling any fixed territory.”
As in the days of “feudalism,” wrote Rees-Mogg and Davidson, “low-income persons in Western countries” would survive by attaching themselves to “wealthy households as retainers.”16
In other words, the lower classes would return to serfdom.
This was all for the best, the authors wrote, as it would allow the “ablest people” — i.e. the “top five percent” — to live where they liked and do as they liked, free from loyalties or obligations to any particular nation or government.
“As the era of the ‘Sovereign Individual’ takes shape,” the authors concluded, “many of the ablest people will cease to think of themselves as party to a nation, as ‘British’ or ‘American’ or ‘Canadian.’ A new ‘transnational’ or ‘extranational’ understanding of the world and a new way of identifying one’s place in it await discovery in the new millennium.”
George Soros named his network of Open Society Foundations in honor of his London School of Economics (LSE) professor Karl Popper, whose theory of “open society” guides Soros’s activism to this day.
Popper’s 1945 masterwork, The Open Society and Its Enemies, is a philosophical defense of imperialism, specifically of British liberal imperialism, as espoused by LSE’s founders.
The Fabian socialists who founded LSE believed that British expansion was the greatest civilizing force in an otherwise barbarous world.
In his book, Popper expressly defended imperial conquest as a first step in wiping out tribal and national identities, to clear the way for a “Universal Empire of Man.”
By the 1990s, privileged families like Rees-Mogg’s had grown tired of hiding. They yearned for the good old days, when they could live openly in their castles and command their serfs.
Oxford political scientist Hedley Bull played to this crowd when he predicted, in his 1977 book The Anarchical Society, that, “sovereign states might disappear and be replaced not by a world government but by a modern and secular equivalent of… the Middle Ages.”
Bull’s forecast of a new medievalism resonated with British elites.
As the Soviet Union collapsed, Rees-Mogg and others of his class began openly celebrating the end of the nation-state and the rise of a new feudalism.
Restoring the feudal order is, in fact, the true and hidden goal of globalism.
From the British Empire’s machinations to reconquer the USA to the UN-WEF Partnership of 2019
The plot to abolish the USA as an independent sovereign nation, to abolish the U.S. Constitution, and to subordinate Americans, at first back under the British Empire, and now under the dictates of the Globalist’s minions at the UN-WEF, has been in effect ever since Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown.
The modern era of Britain’s machinations to reunite the USA back under British control began in 1902 with the death of Cecil Rhodes and implementation of his Last Wills that resulted in the creation of the Anglo-American Pilgrims Society (1902) and then the British Imperial Press Conference (1909). The British had long ago taken control over the Democratic Party (see August Belmont - Rothschild agent in U.S.), and with the assassination of McKinley, the British took control over the Republican Party through their puppets, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. The British used the Democratic Party to champion socialism and the Republican Party to champion fascism. Trump has broken the British Globalist’s control over the U.S. government with his MAGA Party that champions Nationalism and Capitalism.
1. “…teenagers who have spent the last three years locked up in their bedroom eating five Dominoes pizzas per day, and playing Minecraft to the sound of heavy metal, interspersed with readings of Slavoj Zizek.”
Here you just described the concept of ‘virtualized unproductive human’, which is a real thing. The movie ‘Idiocracy’ was good at it.
2. “Why does technological growth become “self-perpetuating”, and what does that even mean? Can technological growth occur without external agency? I don’t doubt that it can occur rapidly, but technological growth is not some wild animal that’s escaped from a zoo, and multiplying in inaccessible forests beyond our reach. It’s a product of human ingenuity (and sometimes stupidity), so we can intervene, and we can adapt, if we choose to.”
- What you miss here is AI as part of the technology, which is a real, possible threat.
No, we cannot intervene and adapt as we do not control it.
Point 1 - No. I have not described "the concept of the virtualised unproductive human." The definition of virtualise is to convert something to a computer generated simulation of reality. Those teenagers, if they were to live such a life, would be living a real life, albeit one deprived of creative, life-affirming stimuli.
Point 2 - Asserting that we cannot intervene or adapt is a denial of human agency. We intervene in technology all the time. We allocate resources to certain technology and we choose not to allocate resources to other technological innovations. Societies restrict usage by patenting. Only some countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and to enrich uranium for nuclear power. We can argue about the rights and wrongs of the way technology is controlled in some instances and not others, but there is definitely intervention. I agree that there is no way to absolutely control technology, but I find the accelerationist conception that it is completely uncontrollable to be untenable.
Of all the words I might apply to Yarvin, depravity isn’t one.
The post in UR you refer to is called “The Dire Problem “ and it’s clearly an answer to crime, welfare and California.
He’s too Libertarian to want prisons or even executions for crime.
He really is lacking in harm or malice and just wants public safety and order, of course I’ve actually read him. However without Yarvin we’d be voting for Romney and Bush still, and not Trump. We’d lose of course and we’d be either in all out Civil War or in YookAy status… or both. His thinking has evolved years ago to an FDR or Lincoln style reorganization. He was never in favor
The notion of Musk as tyrant is amusing. Even Thiel is entirely too restrained.
The read on NrX is completely wrong, I was around for that… no. NrX was a sharp and reactionary critique of Liberalism and the Enlightenment, not a call for 1984. A call for Frederick The Great or Monarchial restoration, romanticizing the age of Monarchs, but not techno tyranny. Or any tyranny.
This all sprung from the early days of the Internet.
You may want to examine the primary source material at UR, The Dark Enlightenment (something has gone wrong with the enlightenment is the meaning) or perhaps blogger. If your source is that book it’s distorted into the opposite of what was said… at length.
About 20 years ago I had occasion to be included in a social situation in which a member of the PayPal Mafia was present and I happened to overhear him saying: "There is no denying that Fascism was a much more efficient economic system than what we have today." Coming from that individual, who happened to be Jewish, I found extremely surprising, given the mid-20th century relationship between the Jewish working class and fascism. The subsequent political and economic macro events that have evolved, however, confirmed in my mind that this group of techno-fascists (what you call NRx) was being formed, even at that time.
I wonder if there is a relationship between a fascist inclination and a mind that is predisposed to technical solutions. So the mind becomes more mechanistic in its outlook. A case of: you are what you do repeatedly. Which is why we should always try not be what we are compelled to do in our working lives.
It’s always hazardous to generalize about groups of people. Nevertheless, my own anecdotal experience is that the technical, engineering focused minds seem to have an easy time of ignoring the effects of what they do on large numbers of average working people. Thus, if they see an advantagefor themselves with a fascist political economy their relatively poorly developed moral compass is easily overcome.
In a word, psychopaths. And to link this back to CEOs, I believe they are often chosen via psychometric tests expressly for their psychopathic tendancies as it is better for the financial gain of a company if the boss ignores all concerns of empathy, justice or humanity.
This is it. As I've said before, the System selects for psychopathy. I don't know how to get normies to understand this fundamental reality. They project their own decency onto those at the top of the pyramid and therefore refuse to believe that the crimes committed are not bugs in the system; they're a design feature!
Good review, I also very much rate the work of Iain Davis but I have stalled a bit reading about this accelerationism BS, not just from Iain Davis, also with other writers, and I'm glad you treated it in the way that you did. I agree that it is nothing more than a smoke-screen of unintelligible nonsense to frighten away questions from the many people who probably fear they don't undetrstand it because it's just too damned profound. When it's not. It's BS. Thank-you.
Edit: I was just reading Iain's piece on Unlimited Hangout where he goes into the mechanism of the accelerationist method which involves, basically, the paypal mafiosos investing in and perhaps guiding and controlling, any companies that may be useful in achieving their goals in the construction of the technocratic state.
In my view, what differs from this construction and that of a good old-fashioned police-state is that this construction is by a "private" company and they may just get away with it, whereas the "state" doing it themselves, probably could not, and would have to pretend to care what the people have to say about it. Of course, the money for this construction still comes from the tax-payer via government payments for all and sundry, to types like Musk, Thiel etc.
Thanks John. The model you describe of the state outsourcing to the private sector is now well established. Have edited this as I mixed up in my mind parts 1 and 2!
I agree with Rusere's view, and yours, of accelerationism to the extent that it is afforded a quasi-theoretical underpinning by the neoreactionary technocrats. As such, it does form part of what amounts to "unintelligible nonsense." I think Rusere's reading of it is spot on in that regard. That said, as I stress in the book, "accelerationism," as a venture capitalist strategy, and now a sociopolitical tool, is being applied absolutely everywhere. It does deploy "creative destruction" as a mechanism used transform pretty much everything. Therefore, I do think it is important we wrap our heads around it.
To the extent that it needs to be taken seriously, isn't it just a theory that seeks to justify a form of Disaster Capitalism that specifically benefits the tech industry? In other words, not only do they embrace chaos, they seek to cause or catalyse it on the grounds that chaos and destruction speeds up "de-territorialisation" and "re-territorialisation". Chaos acts as a catalyst for innovation, which in turn speeds up technological progress, which in turn moves them closer to a world in which this technological progress hastens technocratic imprisonment?
No not quite, and perhaps I did not explain this well in the book. Accelerationism is a targeted intervention, often using so-called disruptive technology, that predetermines the "creative destruction" induced chaos to ensure the "reterritorialization" is increased technological and/or centralised control. That is to say, accelerationism is not random destruction for destruction's sake, hoping to pick up the pieces when they fall as they may. It is a deliberate strategy to deterritorialize and then reterritorialize to maximise and centralise control.
Thank you for taking the time to read the book and then write such a fantastic review/commentary on it. I can't wait for part 2.
Where you made them, I think you offered nothing but fair criticisms. In retrospect, I don't think I adequately expressed my contempt for these "mouthbreathing Machiavellis." Like you, I certainly don't think their unhinged ideas constitute any kind of cogent "philosophy." I did make that point in the book, but perhaps not strongly enough.
I feel I must defend "NEONERD."
As I was researching the book I found "myself staring again into a pool of psychological knowledge that is too shallow to accommodate the volume of his madness." [LOL! This is brilliant]. As we know from their conduct in Ukraine and Gaza, these Neoreactionary technocrats are a bunch of soulless ghouls and, though I was at pains to highlight their malevolence, I felt the need to challenge their own self-aggrandising titles, like "TechnoKing," and offer a disparaging sobriquet that diminished them. I didn't want to give them any power at all, hence NEONERD.
Thanks Ian, and thank you for the hard work you did in bringing these people and their execrable ideology to our attention. It couldn't have been easy to see such bad ideas masquerading as 'philosophy'! I can now see what you were doing with the NEONERD moniker. I guess I'm still too angry at them to think straight. As you say, they need deflating, and maybe NEONERD does that?!
I'm currently finalising Part 3 on money matters. That threw up a lot of questions for me in the sense that it forced me to think again about the digital money scam masquerading as currency. The great thing about your book is that, if you take the time to really engage, it forces you to think through some very murky areas. The money bit is the toughest.
It really helped me to solidify my thoughts about the multipolar scam.
“Restoring the feudal order is, in fact, the true and hidden goal of globalism.”
How the British Invented Color Revolutions
As the British Empire shifted from a colonial to a neocolonial system, it had to develop quieter, more discreet methods for removing rebellious vassals
https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-invented-color-revolutions
How the British Invented George Soros
Puppetmaster or Puppet? Strongman or Frontman? Inside the Soros Psyop
https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-invented-george-soros
EXCERPTS:
Lord William Rees-Mogg set forth his globalist beliefs in a series of books co-written with U.S. investment writer James Dale Davidson.
In The Sovereign Individual (1997), the authors prophesied that “Western nations” would soon “crack apart in the manner of the former Soviet Union,” to be replaced by tiny jurisdictions “akin to city-states” which would “emerge from the rubble of nations.”15
The authors predicted that, “Some of these new entities, like the Knights Templar and other religious and military orders of the Middle Ages, may control considerable wealth and military power without controlling any fixed territory.”
As in the days of “feudalism,” wrote Rees-Mogg and Davidson, “low-income persons in Western countries” would survive by attaching themselves to “wealthy households as retainers.”16
In other words, the lower classes would return to serfdom.
This was all for the best, the authors wrote, as it would allow the “ablest people” — i.e. the “top five percent” — to live where they liked and do as they liked, free from loyalties or obligations to any particular nation or government.
“As the era of the ‘Sovereign Individual’ takes shape,” the authors concluded, “many of the ablest people will cease to think of themselves as party to a nation, as ‘British’ or ‘American’ or ‘Canadian.’ A new ‘transnational’ or ‘extranational’ understanding of the world and a new way of identifying one’s place in it await discovery in the new millennium.”
George Soros named his network of Open Society Foundations in honor of his London School of Economics (LSE) professor Karl Popper, whose theory of “open society” guides Soros’s activism to this day.
Popper’s 1945 masterwork, The Open Society and Its Enemies, is a philosophical defense of imperialism, specifically of British liberal imperialism, as espoused by LSE’s founders.
The Fabian socialists who founded LSE believed that British expansion was the greatest civilizing force in an otherwise barbarous world.
In his book, Popper expressly defended imperial conquest as a first step in wiping out tribal and national identities, to clear the way for a “Universal Empire of Man.”
By the 1990s, privileged families like Rees-Mogg’s had grown tired of hiding. They yearned for the good old days, when they could live openly in their castles and command their serfs.
Oxford political scientist Hedley Bull played to this crowd when he predicted, in his 1977 book The Anarchical Society, that, “sovereign states might disappear and be replaced not by a world government but by a modern and secular equivalent of… the Middle Ages.”
Bull’s forecast of a new medievalism resonated with British elites.
As the Soviet Union collapsed, Rees-Mogg and others of his class began openly celebrating the end of the nation-state and the rise of a new feudalism.
Restoring the feudal order is, in fact, the true and hidden goal of globalism.
Compelling thesis in light of where we are right now!
THE EVOLUTION OF GLOBALISM:
From the British Empire’s machinations to reconquer the USA to the UN-WEF Partnership of 2019
The plot to abolish the USA as an independent sovereign nation, to abolish the U.S. Constitution, and to subordinate Americans, at first back under the British Empire, and now under the dictates of the Globalist’s minions at the UN-WEF, has been in effect ever since Cornwallis surrendered to Washington at Yorktown.
The modern era of Britain’s machinations to reunite the USA back under British control began in 1902 with the death of Cecil Rhodes and implementation of his Last Wills that resulted in the creation of the Anglo-American Pilgrims Society (1902) and then the British Imperial Press Conference (1909). The British had long ago taken control over the Democratic Party (see August Belmont - Rothschild agent in U.S.), and with the assassination of McKinley, the British took control over the Republican Party through their puppets, Teddy Roosevelt and Woodrow Wilson. The British used the Democratic Party to champion socialism and the Republican Party to champion fascism. Trump has broken the British Globalist’s control over the U.S. government with his MAGA Party that champions Nationalism and Capitalism.
Why the British Kill American Presidents
https://blog.algora.com/2019/05/04/why-the-british-kill-american-presidents-2
JFK Vs. The Empire
https://patriot-project.weebly.com/anton-chaitkin.html#.Y5ZZjeROklR
Treason in America
by Anton Chaitkin
https://a.co/d/0aYkYBVl
How Andrew Jackson Destroyed the United States
https://william3n4z2.substack.com/p/how-andrew-jackson-destroyed-the?utm_source=direct&r=1kb28q&utm_campaign=post-expanded-share&utm_medium=post%20viewer
How the British Caused the American Civil War
Britain's Scheme to Partition and Recolonize America in the 1860s
https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-caused-the-american
How the British Invented Globalism
Modern globalism was born in Victorian England. The plan was to merge the British Empire and the United States into a single superstate.
https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-invented-globalism
How the British Sold Globalism to America
The Secret History of the Council on Foreign Relations and the Anglo-American Empire
https://richardpoe.substack.com/p/how-the-british-sold-globalism-to
How Cecil Rhodes Fathered the Modern Globalist Movement: a Timeline
https://stovouno.org/2019/02/21/how-cecil-rhodes-fathered-the-modern-globalist-movement-timeline/
The Anglo-American Pilgrims Society (1902):
https://isgp-studies.com/pilgrims-society-us-uk
https://aim4truth.org/2019/08/07/the-pilgrims-society-enemy-of-humanity/
https://watch.pairsite.com/pilgrim.html
http://www.truedemocracy.net/hj31/37.html
The British Imperial Press Conference (1909):
https://aim4truth.org/2019/09/13/origins-of-fake-news/
https://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2019/09/the-secret-plot-in-1909-by-anglo.html
https://americans4innovation.blogspot.com/2022/07/lillian-scott-troy-1882-1964-unsung.html
https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/1912-02-17-The-24-step-Pilgrims-Society-Corp-Imperial-Fed-Strat-to-Return-America-to-British-Rule-by-Lillian-Scott-Troy-by-Hon-J-Thorkelson-MN-1940-SF-Leader-GPO-George-Mason-Feb-17-24-1912.pdf
https://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/library/1940-08-19-GPO-CRECB-1940-pt-17-v86-1-Steps-Toward-British-Union-a-World-State-and-International-Strife-PTS-I-IX-Remarks-of-Hon-J-Thorkelson-MN-House-of-Reps-Gov-Printing-Off-Aug-19-1940.pdf#page=15
August Belmont
Flamboyant Banker Influenced Business and Politics in Gilded Age New York
https://www.thoughtco.com/august-belmont-1774024
Scroll down thru Comments
https://substack.com/@william3n4z2/note/c-228681601?r=1kb28q&utm_medium=ios&utm_source=notes-share-action
1. “…teenagers who have spent the last three years locked up in their bedroom eating five Dominoes pizzas per day, and playing Minecraft to the sound of heavy metal, interspersed with readings of Slavoj Zizek.”
Here you just described the concept of ‘virtualized unproductive human’, which is a real thing. The movie ‘Idiocracy’ was good at it.
2. “Why does technological growth become “self-perpetuating”, and what does that even mean? Can technological growth occur without external agency? I don’t doubt that it can occur rapidly, but technological growth is not some wild animal that’s escaped from a zoo, and multiplying in inaccessible forests beyond our reach. It’s a product of human ingenuity (and sometimes stupidity), so we can intervene, and we can adapt, if we choose to.”
- What you miss here is AI as part of the technology, which is a real, possible threat.
No, we cannot intervene and adapt as we do not control it.
Point 1 - No. I have not described "the concept of the virtualised unproductive human." The definition of virtualise is to convert something to a computer generated simulation of reality. Those teenagers, if they were to live such a life, would be living a real life, albeit one deprived of creative, life-affirming stimuli.
Point 2 - Asserting that we cannot intervene or adapt is a denial of human agency. We intervene in technology all the time. We allocate resources to certain technology and we choose not to allocate resources to other technological innovations. Societies restrict usage by patenting. Only some countries are allowed to have nuclear weapons, and to enrich uranium for nuclear power. We can argue about the rights and wrongs of the way technology is controlled in some instances and not others, but there is definitely intervention. I agree that there is no way to absolutely control technology, but I find the accelerationist conception that it is completely uncontrollable to be untenable.
Both sides lead to Neo Feudalism.
Of all the words I might apply to Yarvin, depravity isn’t one.
The post in UR you refer to is called “The Dire Problem “ and it’s clearly an answer to crime, welfare and California.
He’s too Libertarian to want prisons or even executions for crime.
He really is lacking in harm or malice and just wants public safety and order, of course I’ve actually read him. However without Yarvin we’d be voting for Romney and Bush still, and not Trump. We’d lose of course and we’d be either in all out Civil War or in YookAy status… or both. His thinking has evolved years ago to an FDR or Lincoln style reorganization. He was never in favor
The notion of Musk as tyrant is amusing. Even Thiel is entirely too restrained.
The read on NrX is completely wrong, I was around for that… no. NrX was a sharp and reactionary critique of Liberalism and the Enlightenment, not a call for 1984. A call for Frederick The Great or Monarchial restoration, romanticizing the age of Monarchs, but not techno tyranny. Or any tyranny.
This all sprung from the early days of the Internet.
You may want to examine the primary source material at UR, The Dark Enlightenment (something has gone wrong with the enlightenment is the meaning) or perhaps blogger. If your source is that book it’s distorted into the opposite of what was said… at length.