Curtis Yarvin: Why America should become a monarchy

[@shelleyscloud3651]

I suspected that behind Yarvin’s ‘philosophy’ lie some deep rooted personal challenges. I got to 59:10 and there was my answer.

[@sluggy6074]

Its a shame cause his assesssment of the issues of democracy are pretty good. But now instead of building on hus criticism of the enlightenment he's basically gone full circle and become a monarchist so what was the point of any of that to begin with? You're just plain anti-enlightenment and nothings differentiating you from the nobles who caused it in the first place now

[@dapperbunch5029]

@@sluggy6074What you are doing in that end part is just bad faith inevitablism. You are saying that it was inevitable for the fall of monarchy to happen with no evidence on the contrary.

[@sluggy6074]

@@dapperbunch5029 Nick Land does this ideology so much more justice than Yarvin. Trust me, it all goes in a big circle. Once you go so far right you eventually double back around and become far left. The 'monarchy/nobility/oligarchs' whatever you want to call them are the ones responsible for the far left agenda. This ruling class of elites either descended from radical traditionalists or were rad trad in their earlier days. The reason their political agenda flips to the polar opposite is cause nothing restores the monarchy quicker than widespread chaos. Nick Lands observations arent new, theyre just forgotten. This is in all of mankinds written history and mythology. You dont have to believe me, youre about to witness it in real life. Unbeknownst to the progressives theyd been laying the foundation for neoreactionaries. You think without all these issues Trump just wouldve just pulled excalibur out of a stone? Look at these far left women who embrace the 4b movement, theyre now essentially abstinent until marriage. The same thing happens vise-versa. For good material on why these cycles are inevitable see the topic on the four generational turnings.

[@sluggy6074]

@@dapperbunch5029 @dapperbunch5029 N1k L4nd does this ideology so much more justice than Y4rvin. Trust me, it all goes in a big circle. Once you go so f4r -> you eventually double back around and become far

[@mitchellscott1843]

After a watching several interviews with Yarvin this is the the first time I've seen a host intelligently and respectfully push back at Curtis in a meaningful way.

[@jsp3366]

Yes Freddie is doing well.

[@Spurs420]

Its a very good high level non fanboy introduction to Yarvin

[@ConsciousnessExplored]

@@ajs41 you’ve spent your attention on YT. Attention has maybe lead to a subconscious purchase.

[@Bradington]

@@ajs41 how that utility bill going?

[@michigandersea3485]

Tsarist Russia was actually remarkably lax in punishing political prisoners compared to the USSR, as chronicled by Alexander Solzhenitsyn in the Gulag Archipelago. It was far more lenient than the modern USA is to people who break the law for political reasons.

[@assemblyofsilence]

In describing the present US oligarchy Yarvin interestingly sidesteps the fact that the government is to an alarming degree beholden to the corporate interests that lobby it. He seems to think that “business” is merely Silicon Valley.

[@hither8thither]

One of the best Yarvin interviews. Excellent navigation of discussion. You got him to flesh out ideas in a way I haven’t seen him do before. Please have him on again and pick up where you left off.

[@Fuego958]

Sayers is a solid interviewer. One point Yarvin and he did not have time to discuss is that democracy turns the groups of a society against each other, a topic Yarvin has written about. For politicians to be elected, they must divide and conquer, mobilizing various groups to tax or otherwise legislate the behavior of one group at their expense to benefit another group. Politicians become the gatekeepers of privileges and inflame the anger of the populace against its members, along with the media, which loves nothing more than making a buck from conflict.

[@marygard4608]

This is a problem we are more than capable of overcoming. Make as many laws requiring voting as the USA makes against it. Make the offices that are local the most important, with voting choice left to higher offices. I suspect most people will also elect to vote in those elections as well. We need to make the realities of the proletariat in line with the expectations as responsible citizenry.

[@gabbafm]

Social divisions exist in any society. Even in modern day China for instance there are competing power blocs within the CCP that when you read about them, are strangely reminiscent of political parties in the West. These groups battle for power behind the scenes (much of Xi Jinping's anti-corruption campaign had to do with this) and so you've essentially recreated the same dynamic through other means. And of course within China not everyone has the same rights -- poor rural people lack the same education, same social benefits as people in the city, and when they go to work in the city are often exploited like Central American migrant workers in the US, except that these are China's own citizens. So of course nothing is perfect, but how bad is this division you find in liberal democracy compared with the alternative? At least try living in an autocratic society first -- not as one of the privileged but as one of the unprivileged people. Then if you really enjoyed it you can go and write the book about how great authoritarianism is.

[@marygard4608]

@@gabbafm Good points. Corporate capitalism and the profit motive are the cause of working-class suffering. A worker will never be worth more than what he/she can produce. There is no allowance for the humanity involved.

[@dugonman8360]

@@marygard4608 you're solving the manipulation of the populace with the illusion of power via the ballot by incentivizing more of that illusion of power, which would divide the people even moreso due to politicians exacerbating the already contentious ties. Remember, the best slaves are those who think they are free.

[@marygard4608]

@@dugonman8360 You are probably right, but the guillotine must always be kept at the ready.

[@barryonthefly]

Yarvin is a difficult subject to keep on topic, not because he is obtuse, but because his mind is allegorical. Freddie not only kept with him but ever gently kept him on topic. Neither overwhelmed or ego driven, but holistic in a bipartisan wish to convey ideas. Congratulations on a masterclass on the art of the interview

[@alexdavis1541]

Agreed. I have been trying to get to grips with Yarvin for some time now. This interview got me further than anything before

[@dantean]

Nor is it a great help his recommending monarchy as a "solution" where that cannot and will not happen (the U.S. or any other of the first world, liberal democracies), regardless of what anyone thinks of the idea. It wouldn't matter if he expressed himself as clearly, succinctly, and BEAUTIFULLY as the late Christopher Hitchens, if you're recommending monarchism it wouldn't make a difference if you sound like Winston Churchill or say it in Dr. Seuss-like rhyme--it's a non-starter. He's making money, though, I'll say that.

[@alexdavis1541]

@@dantean Maybe he doesn't look at it as a recommendation. Maybe he thinks there is no choice in the long run? You either have "monarchy" (something of a real controlling mind with skin in the game), or a democracy or an oligarchy. But that democracy always degenerates to an oligarchy in the end. I suppose another option is anarchy but that defies human inclinations to find some kind of ruling structure and it would fail at the first hurdle. It has been pointed out that the US presidential system has monarchic elements, albeit that the role of the president has been severely eroded by the oligarchy over more than a century; such that you end up with a figurehead like Biden.

[@barryonthefly]

@@dantean Is a corporation a monarchy?

[@nokidhero]

I think it’s the only way forward. I love the idea of a convention of state, changing campaign finance etc but the truth is it’s too far gone

[@JoBlakeLisbon]

He is certainly an interesting thinker - he makes casual observations that are often quite revelatory. His Silicone valley systems based mind breaks down certain issues with great clarity. The best line was - 'we have the smartest people in society making toys' - It's a powerful statement and anyone who has dealt with any level of government knows it to be true.

[@vvvvgggg]

@Ricky bobby The smartest people don't need to be in charge, they need to be employed by people in charge and more importantly need to want to be employed by the people in charge, and currently they don't.

[@JesseP.Watson]

Yes, that section was indeed impactful, and rang very true, on some levels. I suppose, I would say, it rang very true in as much as its blatantly obvious that the majority of politicians are not all that bright when it comes to analysis... Perhaps. Not sure about that analysis either, but they definitely don't look like the kind of people I'd go to for clearly reasoned, unbiased calculating decision making - like that seen in a high level engineer or architect perhaps. At the same time, well, to build systems, yes, silicone valley clearly has incredible expertise... But, there is also a pretty strong feeling there in viewing that crowd that, well, I can't use the word I'm thinking here, but their technical genius appears often to be at the cost of social skills let's say. Within that, as I think appeared at the end of this interview, I get the impression that such intellects often get immersed in creating incredibly efficient systems and do not take into account whether they are life actually enhancing or in fact detrimental to society and/or culture on broader terms. (Though they're far from the only ones guilty of that.) Zuckerberg is a prime example - he's built an incredible system which, in my view, has come close to destroying social interaction altogether - very effectively and efficiently destroying the mental health and faculties of countless millions. So, there's a bit of me left thinking, maybe we'd be better off with a system that can't do anything all that effectively - because though the other could potentially work wonders, it could also very effectively create absolute horrors with incredible efficiency. So perhaps the safest bet is to keep an innept government and just attempt to restrict its power, so it never has all that great an impact either way. ...And that's what we've got in the UK... to me, the symbolic monarchy is part of that - all the absurd pomp and ceremony, to my eye, keeps anything from changing too radically - it just stays at a kind of moderate level of inneptitude, with silly wigs and shiny twiddling sticks, but no Stalins or Hitlers, thank you very much, that is not the done thing! I lived in France for a while, and looking at how radical things got over there, I went fron thinking our monarchy was a joke to feeling it actually quite an important stabilising influence.

[@vvvvgggg]

@@JesseP.Watson Where in the last 100 years have you seen government limited, in whatever frame you see fit?

[@JesseP.Watson]

@@vvvvgggg As I said, government's ability to effectively impose its rule is limited by its own inneptitude. As an example, look at the recent failure of the Disinformation Governance Board (or whatever it was called) in the US - after just 3 weeks. Had there been silicone valley minds behind that, we'd likely not even have gotten to know it was created and it would have very effectively imposed its dictates from behind the scenes (which leads on to a rather worrying thought, but, moving on...).

[@SoBayK80]

Yarvin loves the use of 'silicone' for Silicon, very memetic 😘🤌 This is fun: the infamous cemented LA river ends at a somewhat stinky, pseudo-protected wetlands they've marketed as 'Silicon Beach' 😆

[@nathaniel4334]

Well done Freddy. Interesting talk. You held his ideas to account very well. Whilst I found him interesting, I also found his ideas were full of contradictions. Freddy nailed it in his summaries.

[@fahim-ev8qq]

I think Freddie was moreso the one who was contradicting himself. Kinda misunderstood the function of govt in regards to the monarchy point as well.

[@haraldbredsdorff2699]

@@fahim-ev8qq No, he spoted the wholes in curtis argument. Where he claims his system will be perfect, because it is a one party/monarchy/ceo system where the people check the monarch, but will not be able to vote to check the monarch or use violence. It is a bullshit sandcastle, that have only lasted as long as it did, because people allow curtis to change the definition, whenever he get into problem.

[@alexf7797]

I found many of his viewpoints convincing, but I lost him when China came up. The severe covid repression as a result of a too weak, western-style lockdown? The Uyghur genocide being a "lack of finesse" on the government's part? Total surveillance and a social credit system as something that is not an actual inconvenience? And he even relativized the concept of freedom to muddle these issues. These all seem like pretty indefensible points and it felt like he was squirming a little when Freddie pushed on them. Up until that point I did agree with many of his points. Not in that we should return to monarchy, but that at the very least it is not clear to me that democracy is overall better than monarchy. But this didn't really change my mind on a free, decentralized and voluntary manner of organization being preferable to either of these failed options.

[@gabbafm]

One thing to keep in mind is that the world was a very different place from when monarchs like the ones Yarvin claims as positive examples lived. Technology has completed changed, society has completely changed and in many cases it changed in ways that extend the power of an absolute ruler to control society. None of these projects of the CCP from total surveillance to social credit system to society-wide censorship would have been achievable in remotely the same form in the past.

[@MatthewAzrieliMusic]

A bad king is the worst form of Aristotelian government, but a bad oligarchy isn’t much better. We would be living under just as restrictive a lockdown were Canada or the USA capable of China’s surveillance state (look at Australia, which is only more functional than our own)

[@lucasgrey9794]

There is *no* Uyghur genocide and there aren't even vaccine mandates in China. The social credit system is to prevent corruption and shady business practices.

[@gabbafm]

@@lucasgrey9794 "No Uyghur genocide" What can be misleading about this is that genocide as defined by the UN genocide convention does not only refer to mass killing. It can also include the state mentally or physically harming members of a group, separating children of that group from their parents and reducing birth rates. Because these practices are alleged in Xinjiang, some have called what's happening there "genocide" while others have said we need more evidence. What few have questioned, because the evidence is overwhelming, is that China is carrying out a coercive program of mass surveillance and detention in Xinjiang aimed at Muslim minorities, along with suppressing their culture.

[@lucasgrey9794]

@@gabbafm Uyghur population is *increasing* and they benefit from affirmative action policies. This is the *opposite* of genocide. China's policies in Xinjiang are humane compared to the bombing and black site policies of the U.S. Where are America's vocational schools for Islamic radicals?

[@nmackenziedodds]

That was a great thought-provoking interview, and this is why I tune into UnHerd. Fascinating views whether you agree or not, (most of which I did not) and Freddie's questions were on point.

[@benjaminharrisiv650]

Why do you disagree? Everything he is saying makes sense.

[@misss.o.j.]

I love this idea and I admire Mr. Yarvin for thinking and talking about it.

[@canteluna]

What idea?

[@michigandersea3485]

Yarvin neglects to mention that Henry VIII executed >70,000 people during his rule, not just people engaged in court politics. Many of them were "able-bodied beggars" executed for their second offense under the Vagabond Act.

[@canteluna]

@@michigandersea3485 Interesting fact. This romanticizing of monarchy should be countered with the types of facts such as you've presented. Seems these egomaniacs with a god complex could use a little more struggling and suffering in their lives to help get get their feet back on the ground so they can learn to empathize with what we mere mortals deal with day in day out.

[@michigandersea3485]

@@canteluna Yeah. Yarvin himself is clearly an intellectual narcissist

[@canteluna]

@@michigandersea3485 Yes. He wants to live under an absolute monarch, let him go to Saudi Arabia.

[@cn240studios5]

A lot of respect for the interviewer, love his line of questioning here.

[@robinolsen7210]

I think it's great that voices like Yarvin advocate a view that might wake people up to the fact that our current system of government is not the only way of doing things, and that solutions predating the 20th century can still be valid. I wasn't that impressed with his arguments, but then if the goal is to get the ball rolling then he's doing a great job.

[@johnc3525]

In these times when a lot of people are embracing authoritarianism, yes, you're right. That's why many are saying we're going backwards. Because we are.

[@sirmount2636]

He doesn’t give the right answers but he asks the right questions.

[@williamcrawford7621]

I'm not so sure it is a bad idea. Everyone knows that all congress does it get things bogged down in endless talks, committees, and the like, even when they aren't outright filabustering. A single ruler is much more efficient. This is plain to all. Again, Yarvin draws the analogy between the private and public sectors. See the case of Obama care, or more recently Elon Musk after taking Twitter private. There can be no dispute on the question of efficiency. There are only two reasons why people don't like autocratic rule: 1) they want power for themselves and 2) they fear all the power falling into the wrong hands, in which case that efficiency can be used to terrible effect, as happened in Germany during the 20th century. The first point can be dismissed as nothing more than selfishness. The second is a more serious matter, but Curtis accounts for this with his system of a board of directors. They provide the accountability that absolutist regimes of the past lacked. In such a system, the CEO monarch could theoretically rule for life, but probably would not just like most CEO's in the real world only last a few years unless they are very good. The question, I suppose, would be who holds the "shares" in this country run like a company. I suppose different regimes would have different answers to that, but the basic structure is certainly something I'd like to see put into practice if only as an experiment to see if theory matches reality.

[@xeganxerxes4319]

I think democracy only works in a peaceful, unified and at least fairly homogeneous society like Ancient Greece (at least for some of its existence).

[@ned272]

Are you fucking stupid ? Have we ever seen a autocracy work ? No, we haven't and Trump wouldn't do right by the people to begin with.

[@Antonocon]

I was fascinated until he said the silicon valley way. Having worked for one of these companies they are simply monopolies. The power structures are overseen by sharks and cliques. The people who fixed the healthcare system were probably random extremely competent low level programmers, maybe even hired from abroad, who might well be tossed out if they become too experienced and costly. When you have a monopoly you can do what you want.Maybe engineering in Apple is super efficient but outside of that department and that company I would have serious reservations about using silicon valley as an example. Also, all the people in these companies are either dangerously left leaning or else Yes people. Most competent people with a soul get the hell out of them eventually. This guy appears delusional and has bought into the illusion created by the billions that they pay on brand maintenance and promotion.

[@climacus7228]

Lol. You should learn a little about monopolies.

[@seanbell4203]

The Silicon Valley way as in the start-up way, not the giant established somewhat bureaucratic company way. If you look back at where the tech industry was in 1977, you can see what that accomplished. If you prefer, go back to the companies that started the second industrial revolution. The organizational structures of the businesses were more or less the same.

[@partyhorse420]

Very good job by the interviewer pushing back and challenging Curtis at the appropriate places.

[@TopShelfTheology]

And on Curtis not to get too rattled by it!

[@WithstandTheStorm]

Idk... I live in New York state and our governor, whomever it may be, sure acts like a king or queen.

[@presterjohn1697]

...more like a servant of Wall Street. None of these political puppets act on their own accord.

[@januarysson5633]

Not an accountable one either.

[@presterjohn1697]

If you vote out your local governor, the system will simply replace him with a governor of equal depravity.

[@taramckinley7585]

It's the same way in Wa State- it's insane how these people believe that's acceptable, and why so many people actually vote for it.

[@bigman489]

Everything he does is written up and taught to him by some NGO or University somewhere, these institutions is where power flows from. Not Cuomo or whoever is the governor.

[@Hugh_de_Mortimer]

To my mind, the two most interesting monarchs in English history are Henry II and Edward I. Edward I because he overturned an oligarchy of the Provisions of Oxford (disregarding the Edict of Expulsion for the moment, but which does demonstrate the dangers of monarchism though this was very much the feelings of the day of English Christians as well), and Henry II for the introduction of the trial by jury and legal reform. Both are superb examples of Monarchs who ruled instead of reigned.

[@ouss]

Don't you think the jews expulsions help England?

[@Hugh_de_Mortimer]

@@ouss no

[@grannyannie2948]

I have been saying for a while we need an emperor. There was no universal suffrage until the twentieth century, and it's been a failed experiment. You mention being judged by your peers, this is now rare, it's now ussually a magistrate.

[@badmen1550]

Omg I love Edward I now

[@Hugh_de_Mortimer]

Can anti-semites stop commenting on my thread. I don’t like you. I also hate Corbyn and the Labour Party. You’re losers.

[@bradpoursartip2940]

I'm actually ok with a monarchy, when things go wrong you know who to hang,as opposed to what we have now where nobody really knows who is controlling things and when things go wrong they just keep blaming each other and no progress is ever made

[@lolcat5303]

^This.

[@steve_beatty]

All the people who fought and died in the Revolutionary War just stood up and gave you a big middle finger..

[@kissmyass682]

@@steve_beatty If the people who fought and died in the Revolutionary War saw modern America they would not have fought and died at all.

[@bradpoursartip2940]

@@steve_beatty the way he defines monarchy is basically what we had under the constitution, watch the video, the constitution is basically an elected monarchy

[@steve_beatty]

@@kissmyass682 No one can be that prescient...you are right though...they are all collectively rolling over in their graves over what guvmint (sic) has become...over reaching..over spending..populated by self serving thieves on both sides of the political spectrum...

[@rebornstillborn]

Are all cases against democracy just "democracy isnt real"? Because it is. Voting changes leaders. Why would I give up that small amount of influence and accept having none?

[@Carroty_Peg]

I used to be a lefty....now I'm coming round the idea of a person who is accountable to the country for the entirety of their life. Think about it - the quality of politician now ducks in and out in 4 / 8 years max, never has to endure living through the terrible decisions they make and they just pop over to the private sector. It's a stepping stone to career advancement. When there's no skin in the game then there will be no Politician who cares about the fate of the country more than they care about themselves.

[@alexgibson2871]

if often thought about this - the careerism that promotes populism etc - i think your point is the strongest part of this idea. skin in the game, a lifelong effort, no cut and run, no pandering to trends. but i guess if things go south, then you're looking at civil war? unless there's a referendum - but then we're back...

[@EchoBravo370]

How you have linked the provision of social programs to politicians who are careerists is beyond me. I still am a lefty on most progressive economics - I mean the US is a cautionary tale about why the freemarket doesn't work as a mechanism for healthcare distribution, especially if you want a healthy workforce AND each of us are only one car accident away from needing the state, and these things do happen - but I am open to right wing social issues.

[@FazeParticles]

Monarchy can be both left wing and right wing. And that would be ideal.

[@mistymoor7114]

Very good description of our current system, short term opportunism.

[@mistymoor7114]

@@EchoBravo370 People seem to make a big thing, big example over Health care in the US. Its not the best example to be used to show whether a free market or more socialist style government works, forget health care ( its important but doesnt have to dictate the style of government) Socialist economies do not work in the long run, they do not serve the country or the people and they always dissolve into corruption , partly, lol, because they think they are all dogooder saints and dont account for human nature !!

[@januarysson5633]

There were things that Curtis said in this interview that Klaus Schwab would have agreed with. Yikes! 😳

[@TopShelfTheology]

He did say, revolutions sometimes look like Germany in 1989, sometimes like Germany in 1933.

[@varvarvarvarvarvar]

This is cheap, you didn't even bother to list them.

[@januarysson5633]

@@varvarvarvarvarvar Really? There are too many to list. Anyone who knows who Klaus Schwab is knows what I’m talking about. I’ll give you a hint though: Technocracy.

[@varvarvarvarvarvar]

​@@januarysson5633 It would be better if you actually listed some examples with pristine clarity. I don't think anyone in the world today self-identify as technocrats.

[@januarysson5633]

@@varvarvarvarvarvar That doesn’t mean they aren’t. Of course they wouldn’t identify that way because it’s cringey to do so. Look at his praise for China and its Covid response.

[@commentorinchief788]

“Political desire is like sexual desire except no one is getting any.” Astute observation

[@haraldwolte3745]

There is a great discussion of that exact point around six minutes into this; kzbin.info/www/bejne/oma1q516rLueapI

[@travtotheworld]

Do you attend caucuses? Do you vote in primaries? Have you volunteered for political campaigns? Door knocked? Phone banked? Joined local organizations or started a PAC? Have you networked with your neighbors and formed club about a cause you believe in? Have you gone to city council or school board meetings? What about county board meetings? Have you been a delegate to a political convention? The reality is people are politically ungratified because they are politically lazy. Voting once every four years and expecting to feel heard is like never asking girls out and then one day proposing marriage to a random woman at a bar. Of course you'll be disappointed with what you get. Of course you'll feel detached from the process. Citizenship is a set of responsibilities not entitlements.

[@commentorinchief788]

@@travtotheworld I agree 100%! At a certain level though even a significant majority cannot make a difference due to the bureaucratic corruption. Half the country thinks the last election was rigged and it probably was. That devastates many people’s desire to get involved because they think it won’t matter.

[@Confucius_76]

@@travtotheworldYou're not wrong, but you can't expect the whole population to be as into politics as you are. Therefore most people are unsatisfied by it. Most people just want a competent government which can get things done

[@travtotheworld]

@@Confucius_76 I can absolutely expect most people to involve themselves. Historically, people were much more involved then they are today. I have zero patience for people who "just want a competent government" but refuse to engage with the basic responsibilities to have one. And monarchy offers no promise of more competent government.

[@mindhunter09]

I don't think the CEO analogy holds. As far as I know, CEOs can be fired by the board. Yarvin is vague on some important themes like checks and balances ACTUALLY being explicit in the creation of the US government and that was important to the founding fathers. Also, it is worth noting that even though its true monarchy has been the most used form of government in history, that does not grant it more quality. That is an appeal to age. Also, if it is the ideal system, why has most of the world abandoned it? Monarchies are inherently elitist, and more prone to become tyrannies than not. Even Aristotle knew this. I think Yarvin is dealing in idealism, just like the communists and socialists do.

[@SL-es5kb]

I keep wanting to add entertainment/Hollywood to the cathedral but maybe they are more analogous to the church then the government. But the church had power over government in legitimizing the authority of the monarch as well as conditioning the population in a particular manner. Really love that Yarvin is taking us out of the haze of idealism to a more pragmatic realist way of looking at our situation.

[@butterflybeatles]

There are two forms of government -- Monarchy and Oligarchy. Democracy doesn't count as it is simply a veil for Oligarchy or, even, Tyranny. Look at what is happening in America, now.

[@lolcat5303]

Agreed.

[@robinolsen7210]

Democracy exists, it's rule by lot like in ancient Athens and in juries. "Democratically elected representatives" have been a scam from the get-go though. Chesterton said that, in case anyone still doubted England is an oligarchy, a sure sign is that the same last names keep filling all the powerful positions generation after generation.

[@grannyannie2948]

Australia is having an election, between two WEF puppets who have used covid to introduce tyranny. Democracy and universal suffrage is a failed experiment. Marx didn't quite get it right it's not religion that's the opiate of the masses. It's the belief in democracy that prevents revolution.

[@mysteryman6918]

Interestingly Yarvin often admits this in his writing; he views democracy as a Force but not a Structure. Democracy can’t run the government because it decays into another form (usually oligarchy), but it can use its power to install a new monarch.

[@haraldbredsdorff2699]

Congratulation, you made the same dumb argument the communist does when they invoke the one party system. "you only have two choices, our or the worse system". Absolut ignorance of the different systems we do have.

[@popthatbeep]

Look in how Malaysia democratic parliamentary monarchy works. They rotate the states monarch as the head of monarch every 5 years. It kept democracy and oligarchs in check. It’s unique

[@mikep2421]

Don't most start-ups fail? Why would you want to run a country like that?

[@joevolcano6720]

Mencius Modlbug is becoming more in demand, this is fascinating

[@FazeParticles]

His views are new. Idk if they’re good.

[@bigman489]

@@FazeParticles His views are not new, his current set of views are a more neutered version of his UR days but they’re certainly not new.

[@FazeParticles]

@@bigman489 yeah you're right. this guy has been preaching monarchy for a while now.

[@phonkphonk]

@@bigman489 neutered? Why do you say that? Perhaps more focused and refined?

[@be6926]

That was a fascinating interview. Thanks, Freddie.

[@greenglasful]

Freddie is a midwit

[@Scott-qo1eq]

I’ve been reading Yarvin for years and have always loved him. However, utterly baffled by his position on Covid and endorsing these insane lockdowns the benefits of which are increasingly difficult to discern.

[@mysteryman6918]

Agreed, he’s clearly irrational and emotionally motivated on that one issue.

[@ralphietwoshoes]

My take, based on an article he posted a while back where he pointed out that the best success with tackling COVID was in areas that took either the least or the most measures, and that he personally finds the middle ground to be the most egregious. Not just with COVID, but with most problems in general. So many issues which take the middleground result in a performative nature which doesn’t actually address the issue.

[@iankclark]

He's almost certainly a germophobe. Doesn't he seem kind of OCD to you?

[@Scott-qo1eq]

@@iankclark Yes I think that’s a valid assessment Ian. He does seem a little obsessed about personal safety which does express itself in some of his very extreme right wing positions. That aside his analysis of power and critiques of progressivism are spot on

[@Theodore_Pugin]

Yeah it leaves a globohomo-flavored aftertaste in what is otherwise an excellent treat of perspective.

[@ruthmore8803]

Thank you for the stimulating conversation! 🙏🏼

[@njandrews4105]

The more people can reject and ignore this man the better

[@haraldwolte3745]

One thing which is important to understand about Moldbug/Yarvin is that his general framework is from a purely secular standpoint. His analysis on things like "The Cathedral" is very good but his prescriptions lack a lot of things. His advocation of monarchy misses a HUGE aspect of it: the Monarch is the intermediate for God for his State---the Head of the [regional] church. This means that the Monarch is the spiritual/religious embodiment of the nation/city and the State that rules it. Treating a Monarch as purely a CEO kind of misses the worship aspect which is necessary for understanding why those kind of things work, and just treating it as purely a mechanistic and modernistic organizational approach kind of misses the main reason. There's a reason people will idolize figures such as Elon Musk but not idolize the committee of a big group. (This comment is copied from comments section here: m.kzbin.info/www/bejne/oma1q516rLueapI )

[@kenwatanabe2864]

Japan (pre-modern) is a good example of what you explained here. England is perhaps another. Both of them, especially in the case of Japan, have/had very religious foundations for their monarchy.

[@gryphonennis1002]

and ceo's take all the money and give the actual workers crumbs. oh boy! sounds great! the 1% will spin it until the 99% stupidly buys it. Fk monarchys. our forefathers knew how bad they were.

[@badmen1550]

Exactly. The monarch is almost regarded as a sort of demigod. The divine right of kings. The other point Yarvin misses which is equally important, is the hereditary succession of traditional monarchies. As politically incorrect as it sounds today, having a ruler bound to the fate of his nation by family lineage and blood forms a spiritual bond with his subjects. The people of the nation can direct their will towards the spiritual head of the state, the monarch, who also in a sense is the “blood patriarch” of his people. As in, also fulfilling the role of tribal or clan leader. Of course this wasn’t always exactly the case, as sometimes the monarch was the leader of an elite class of oligarchs who had subjugated another nation, like the Normans after they took England from the Anglo-Saxons.

[@mballer]

1:20 in, America is a republic.

[@cynthiabryson3437]

I have seen through Covid policies how the states have more power over the Federal Government for the first time in my life(I am 49 years old). I would not want a monochy telling me what I may or may not do.For example, SO many people buying or renting from other States to live in Florida. Leaving California for Florida really helped me to understand what it means to live in a free society. I have 50 self governed states, to choose what best fits my needs! As do all other Americans citizens. 🗽 Personally I feel extremely good about being free to leave one state or even another county within states for another ...that holds vastly different veiw points vs. a one size fits all monarchy for all 350+ million Americans. We are and always will be so different culturally in the different regions across the United States. We are a nation of immigrants, our country is so different than any other country on earth. Thousands still flock here from everywhere to live the American Dream, both rich and poor. As long as states have more power, I have learned the the Federal Government and it's Oligarchy is very limited in all reality for We The People.

[@cynthiabryson3437]

@@mballer Hahaha, yeah this guy has zero life force energy in his eyes. I'm not sure, it may be too much Botox?? But his eyes look dead.

[@benl5432]

The reason I watch unheard is because Freddy asks the question that other interviewers don't. There are always questions on the tip of my tongue that interviewers don't ask that really frustrates me. Freddie seems to ask them. I'll continue to watch his interviews, subscribe to his channel, & be a fan of the channel so long as he & his team keep doing this.

[@NPC8474]

Thanks Ben but this is a pretty high bar.

[@barryonthefly]

Thanks!

[@oliverthomas9772]

Excellent interview. Refreshing to hear his ideas challenged in such a precise, but non-adversarial way. Yarvin's diagnosis of the situation is fairly compelling, but I think Freddie Sayers pushed on many of the weak or hazy points of his prescription for it. Also, humour points for the truly horrific crown image you dragged out of some 90s computer graphics library to adorn the video title pic.

[@zootsoot2006]

This guy should live in China for a couple of months instead of pontificating on how the world should work from the safety of his basement. Utterly clueless plonker.

[@tcorourke2007]

It cannot be unseen.

[@pete5108]

This man's view of American political philosophy is so warped.

[@jameslovering9158]

What we have is a ceremonial sideshow, deep down we know the whole political class is controlled but we still allow the charade and comply with the circus of voting and promises at election time.

[@antonyliberopoulos933]

Mr Yarvin is not only a very good public intellectual, he is also a very good comedian.

[@ギャフナーエリック]

Excellent job by Freddie Sayers. So rare to see an interviewer who doesn't spend the whole time interjecting their own opinions as if they're the one who is being interviewed. Instead, Freddie asked clarifying questions, politely played Devil's Advocate, and raised what he thought were the most pertinent questions.

[@nietzscheshorse7713]

Is Curtis mainstream now? I only subscribe to fringe ideas. Please help.

[@waisoshaw3332]

This made me literally lol, thanks!

[@FazeParticles]

Lol

[@zig_ma]

If the U.S. decides the Republic is done I'm not sticking around for a monarch. My ethnic group has a king already.

[@WestlehSeyweld]

15:16 this bit about past ridicule of democracy as a failure struck a chord with me

[@turkmusik]

Astral Star Codex has a very thorough debunking of Curtis's views on his Substack.

[@hansmaus2169]

Can you link it?

[@James-l5s7k]

I was told that this is dangerous and not to listen! Thusly so I am listening intently!

[@murraymorison3924]

Amazing interview, Freddie. Thank you for taking the time to have this important (high level philosophical) discussion. It provides a framework to think about our current dystopian polity.

[@duncefunce1513]

'On the unhappy day that she dies, the world will see just how significant she is'. Wow. Spot on, as it turns out.

[@josephjagusah8668]

You all got really sad for a day and now you have to redesign the currency. Not exactly a massive change in government or even the state. Moldbug talks about "ritual" monarchy but he decided he'd already done enough lese majeste and so he used the more polite term "ceremonial"

[@duncefunce1513]

@@josephjagusah8668 you all? I'm Macedonian

[@richardperez109]

Interesting ideas, but I'm confused as to why Yarvin places such emphasis on the power and sway of the "intellectual" or academic class and not on the corporations who keep them on payroll? It would seem to me that the owners of fortune 500 companies have much more sway on what becomes acceptable political policy then anyone at the NYT, WaPo, or any cohort of university professors. Like if tomorrow every intellectual was suddenly in agreement that the wealthy should be taxed at 99% or something, what mechanisms do those people have to get that done? They do not have the resources to fund campaigns or lobbyists, all they can do is sit around writing articles and research papers or go to networking events, but they'll just be ignored because who in the ruling class benefits financially from these ideas? It seems to me that intellectuals are only useful insofar as they work to justify the interests of the capitalist class intellectually, rather than the other way around (because they'll get fat cheques for doing so). Maybe he addresses this in his writings, but in this interview I found his emphasis on the power education and the media to be overstated. Intellectuals don't decide who wins or loser in the economic calculus and political sphere, the companies who manage supply chains do.

[@ludvikludvik3508]

Dear Mr Sayers, you listen, understand and explain your view. You are shaping yourself to a great man. All the best☀🙋

[@shari6063]

A Silicon Valley Monarchy?! I think we are already there! Oh! Freddie just said that. 😂 Lord have mercy.

[@doh917]

Silicon Valley takes orders. It is not a decision maker, it is simply a vehicle of true decision makers as a way to make power concealed. If the pentagon tells FB to do something, FB does not have a private army or agents that can use force to tell the pentagon what to do. The other way is very real. That is the concealed power dynamic

[@januarysson5633]

The last person I would want as a monarch would be anyone within a fifty mile radius of Silicon Valley.

[@karenaenlle8107]

Yes, I agree and it’s not looking all that great🤪

[@kevincrady2831]

@@januarysson5633 Emperor Musk I is in Austin, so... 😜

[@FazeParticles]

@@kevincrady2831 musk is better known for Tesla and spacex than Twitter so musk might be an ok monarch

[@chenriquesiqueira]

The most shocking thing he said is: he have a fiancé. Shocking.

[@Daniel____DiJ]

Now ex-fiancé but they had a kid apparently.

[@nautical1845]

Bring your King and we Americans will bring our guns.

[@kissmyass682]

>Monarchy unacceptable >Ruled by a 1000 royal families of bankers and media conglomerates.

[@johnwright9372]

There have been many people like Curtis Yarvin with political and economic theories. The one thing they have in common is a desire to shape societies after their own image. This is where they all eventually fall down.

[@earthangel2524]

I can't believe a man who shows no affect.

[@benp4877]

Yep

[@Bobble29667]

I’m a fan of Yarvin, and I’ve listened to him countless times. It was a pleasure to watch you put him on the ropes intellectually repeatedly Freddie. It never happens, and anyone who has watched/read him saw him on his back foot for the first time.

[@connorohare229]

I would love to hear Curtis Yarvin on the World Economic Forum and the attempt of the Fourth Industrial Revolution under the Great Reset

[@oddsman01]

“Napoleon’s military strategy was perhaps a little aggressive.” Is Curtis trying to out understate an Englishman? If not, maybe we never put hum in charge of anything.

[@damienwilliams7154]

As a fan of Napoleon, when he said that, I literally laughed. It was genius.

[@pagexx]

Freddie is such a great interviewer. Now I feel like I would like to listen to a conversation with Curtis Yarvin and Balaji Srinivasan.

[@ab7dasker]

One of the problems with autodidacts is that they can go very, very far down the wrong path in the absence of another person's perspective. Yarvin seems to have done exactly that. He totally fails to engage with any substantive and uncontroversial critiques of monarchy such as the most obvious one: "what if the monarch is bad or incompetent?" He makes several downright laughable claims about the US Constitution that I doubt he actually believes. He doesn't seem to understand the concept of capital or the importance of money (and who has it). His statement at around 54:15 is so wildly ignorant of how surveillance works I can only assume he's never read someone like Foucault or even the most basic ideas on the subject. That Yarvin is a supermassive black hole of personal charisma and a complete freak at least suggests that his ideas won't get very far. It's honestly pathetic that this guy is the best intellectual the far right has to offer. Like at least the christian moderates have a theological background and some sense of history.

[@normaodenthal8009]

The assertion that people are not capable of violence is absurd. There is no such thing as a non-violent person. We are all capable of violence, either from being pushed to far, or from having power without boundaries. A system with efficiency as its highest ideal, led by a benign nerd is about as dystopian as it gets.

[@normaodenthal8009]

@Derk guez Couldn’t agree more with your assessment of modern society. You’ve nailed it in a nutshell.

[@normaodenthal8009]

@Derk guez It’s even scarier for me, given that I am quite deficient in efficiency.

[@friedricengravy6646]

Claims the U.S. is an oligarchy & then goes on to defend the most wealthy & powerful corporate entities in the world, Big Tech. 🙄

[@MichaelJohnson-lh7dj]

Really like your interview style.

[@caro1ns]

Fascinating conversation, and seeing Sayers take up his lance in defence of his queen was the icing on the cake.

[@JoBlakeLisbon]

Yeah - he didn't really say anything other than - she's an important symbol - actually Yarvin's point could have been more aptly contested on account of the amount of land that she and the wider aristocracy still own in Britain - which stands at 32%. In fact, the queen and the wider aristocracy wield immense power. The interviewers response was fairly typical of the knee-jerk unreason you see with British monarchists -particularly in the South East - a deeply submissive trait in the English psyche.

[@truth585]

@@JoBlakeLisbon That still doesn't prove she has any governing power. That was Yarvin's point.

[@wizzydq1]

Was that edited?

[@jsp3366]

@@JoBlakeLisbon I think most of us would rather hear the case made for constitutional monarchy against Yarvin's case for absolutism, rather than "my Elizabeth is more powerful than your Elizabeth". That, to me at least, would be the response smacking of kneejerk unreason.

[@superdeluxesmell]

Seems like I often ended up talking to a version of this guy at $hit house parties when I was in my 20s. Nice.

[@jacksmith9869]

It's the same guy...he's still saying the same thing.

[@marygard4608]

Great thought-provoking interview. Thanks to Freddy Sayers.

[@nahumhabte6210]

Pro monarchy here.

[@Btn1136]

Former tech CEO and he’s holding a shure microphone. Love it.

[@maxwellbliss]

I’m sorry Curtis, we cannot remove human desire. The problem is what human’s are supposed to desire, which is a more existential, metaphysical question - which is what religion is for and why those questions should be given precedent. That’s why his idea of an intelligencia who “knows what they are doing” is absurd. If the intellengia’s desires are off then the people’s will be, and we will be in no better place.

[@bigman489]

The people’s desires very rarely matter. Your belief is grounded in the notion that bottom up change is possible. Spoiler alert, it is not.

[@maxwellbliss]

@@bigman489 fair enough but that doesn't refute my argument. A techno-monarchy may be better than what we have now, but it also may not. For example if Curtis, the man who has thought all this up, was in charge during COVID the US would look similar to Shanghai right now, and how terrible would that be? So first and foremost metaphysical spirituality must be confronted ie what does it mean to be human and how do we relate with one another and this earth? Whatever route is pursued this confrontation should be meshed in with principle and policy, otherwise we will always have to deal with the moral question of who is in power.

[@DavidRemington]

Was looking for a comment like this. The whole argument seems ridiculous, that you could run a nation like a company or start-up when the purposes are completely different. A company cares about profit and startups are trying to make a good product. Aristotle said that the purpose of the state is the "good life". Which means that it serves human ascent according to a traditional model of reality and human being. These are not the same at all, unless you see statecraft exclusively as economy or making an effective computer chip out of a population.

[@maxwellbliss]

@@DavidRemington Exactly! And how often do we discuss what the "good life" actually is? It is more or less taken as a given that that means maximizing your comfort at any given moment. Not a great recipe for posterity.

[@meshgraphics]

OMG! When I saw Freddie and Yarvin? I said Yes! I'm in for this. Turned out pretty good

[@jaycleckler1152]

It is worth deeply contemplating the comment (paraphrase): "I agree with Curtis' description of a fundamental problem (the Cathedral), but not his prescriptions (the Chief Executive)." What someone with such a gut-reaction really means is: "I agree there is a huge problem, but I so desire a simple and more palatable solution." Problems this big are seldom solved simply and palatably. This is a hard hill to get over, but the hill is there. It's like "I know my spouse keeps cheating on me, but certainly the marriage can still work." Now I don't fully agree with Yarvin, but I am at the point were I see that deeper, fundamental (and peacefully obtained) solutions are required. This is the squeamish territory that must be traversed.

[@mysteryman6918]

Perfect summary. I’m going to have to use that line. There is nothing more annoying than listening to lazy conservatives and libertarians whine on about the very real problems our societies face while admitting they are too cowardly to solve them. That’s why they are permanent losers.

[@metalheadhippie8738]

True

[@haraldbredsdorff2699]

But, the great Cathedral is not a new consenpt. Curtis is just copying what other peoples have written about in the past. Nothing in Curties description is new. And his solution is small nations, with Stalinism. It does not work and would be even worse than our current system, because this is what the Cathedral is already aiming at. I do not see any reason why Curtis have and followers, because he is just another marxist, claiming to want a free society, just like the Wef members.

[@Rolfwar]

one of the most bizzarre series of elucubrations I have ever set through. That does take away from the bunch of interesting points that were brought up

[@gregorymoats4007]

Well put

[@TomerBenDavid]

Well this is unherd of!

[@fraserbailey6347]

Curtis is right about the oligarchy, and the fact that the politicians are more or less meaningless. But some of his solutions seem to be truly frightening.

[@kenlawson554]

The dude thinks Elizabethan times were marvelous. Yeah, she burned fewer Catholics than her sister or Charles I.

[@flacjacket]

The truth is often frightening.

[@mysteryman6918]

Ignore what he says about COVID, he’s personally motivated. Other than that, his solutions are actually remarkably libertarian in result, if not doctrine.

[@jacksonmcdonald5443]

@@mysteryman6918 In the video he literally says he is not a libertarian, and that governance is foundational to society, and that in his view, good governance is only achieved with a form of CEO Monarch who bends the mechanisms of the government bureaucracy to their will. If that is "remarkably libertarian" then I feel we are operating with two different definitions of the word.

[@mysteryman6918]

@@jacksonmcdonald5443 “in result, if not doctrine”

[@pennyparkin]

No matter what this guy says, there is no light in his eyes

[@333robsta]

sanpaku eyes

[@cynthiabryson3437]

I'm not sure if it's too much forehead Botox or serious lack of overall Life Force Energy?

[@wolfandbhaktapeyerl2733]

You're right, his eyes seem quite dark and dead - no sparkle or light in them at all. I wonder who he really is??? His words ring true, but which side is he on?? Just asking......????

[@presterjohn1697]

sociopathic westerner eyes. devoid of emotion. cold

[@kissmyass682]

he just looks tired

[@Rootsman417]

57:50 freedom is the right to matter? Not for me. To me freedom means to not be suppressed! And yes to have power over ones own life. But I'm not shure he is referring to that kind of power.

[@yvanguez2077]

Nothing new under the sun. In "the Republic" Plato had already formulated all these ideas.

[@searose6192]

The thing is, who is the monarch? Monarchy only works because there is a deeply paternalistic relationship between the monarch and the people. The monarch views the people as his children and is pushed towards doing what is in the interest of his "children" while the people uphold the monarchy as they would upholds the authority of their parent over themselves; through respect and gratefulness. There is not a single American I can think of who would have this caring duty bound view of absolute power. Could Europe return to monarchies? Yes, perhaps. But America has no legacy to rely on. It is impossible, regardless of whether it is desirable or not.

[@tommyanomaly6193]

We've already turned the presidency into a defacto monarchy

[@searose6192]

@@tommyanomaly6193 No, we haven't. Not even close. Unless of course you mean a costume monarchy.

[@rabidchinchilla5701]

🐭🎈🌼 🌴THANX FREDDIE! I've alwaze wondered what GILLIGAN's been up to since he left the ISLAND...🏝️🌻🕊️🦋

[@jasonscholl2945]

🤣

[@richardaylward70]

I don’t even think Moldbug thinks that we think that he thinks that he knows what he’s talking about most of the time.

[@jamesturner8625]

Holy shit, didn’t think I’d ever see the cathedral master himself on UnHerd

[@jamesburke4941]

Once again Freddie demonstrates that he is the most impartial, sharpest interviewer on the Internet. 👏

[@SL-es5kb]

And super based as well.

[@Portekberm]

Constantly baiting.. is your ideal like Russia? LoL 38:00

[@davidpaz9389]

Here in the US we do have a court jester installed on the throne.

[@aqua8833]

That was tRump.

[@bigman489]

We’ve had one since Nixon. Maybe Jimmy Carter if you want to push it.

[@NzakM]

I'm still listening, it's interesting. The wrongness of oligarchy is clear monarchy being better then democracy is not clear There are a few differences between CEO and a king in: 1) the monopoly on violence king can apply violence and a CEO can't. 2) the concent of the participants workers are there concentually and they can leave vs surfs that can't. 3) the peaceful transfer of power

[@elgatofabio]

“Intellectuals ruin everything.” Thomas Sowell

[@holyworrier]

LOL. What an overrated thinker. Regarding political correctness, he objects to the term “the homeless”, preferring the term “bums”. Wetlands should be called ‘swamps’, which should be drained because they’re full of mosquitoes and snakes and smell bad. This is his version of what is politically correct.

[@elgatofabio]

@@holyworrier I don’t always agree with his statements, but I think many labels are not always accurate either. Many “homeless” people are in fact bums, let’s face it. And that is not a judgemental definition in my opinion. Anyone can become homeless or a bum, it just depends on the circumstances.

[@holyworrier]

@@elgatofabio You're splitting hairs.

[@Mathesonguy]

@@holyworrier You probably like the euphemism "Collateral Damage" as well. Why call it straight when there is the greater good and people's feelings to consider.

[@user-dg7sy8cz3b]

“If they can make you believe absurdities, they can make you commit atrocities” Voltaire He’s promoting totalitarianism. F No.

[@kissmyass682]

95% of regimes throughout human history were monarchies. Almost none of them were totalitarian.

[@555Trout]

America is a totalitarian regimes. Open your eyes .

[@user-dg7sy8cz3b]

@@kissmyass682 Do your username for me OK? You prove it with such an absurd statement. It’s not a valid argument but a statement of dubious “fact”. You have absolutely no way to assert your claim. Even if you did, we evolved to believe that individual liberty was actually more important. Move to Venezuela, or Belarus, but get the F away from America.

[@mairmatt]

As a German, I kinda know that this dude is flirting with disaster. Ask me how I know ... When I lived and worked in Silicon Valley I found out that it is a hotbed for wacky - to put it mildly - ideas. This dude is toxic.

[@555Trout]

@@mairmatt Hitler was elected.

[@nunya5027]

Yarvin is great but at this point needs to take an L on his China covid take

[@harryzarry13]

Beautiful interview.

[@SpindicateAudio]

He completely misunderstands the structure of American government. The US is a great country BECAUSE it has ineffective government. This allows the free people to act, thousands of iterations of idea generation and implementation resulting in hundreds of years of world class technological innovation and culture dissemination. Monarchs have no robust error correction mechanism. The people and businesses of democratic societies have debated, dissected, refined process and / or course corrected a hundred times over while monarchs are still denying and face-saving all the way to their inevitable collapse.

[@bubstacrini8851]

Yarvin seems to have no understanding of natural systems and how inefficiency create robust niche ecologies . His metrics are high school text book.

[@brettmatthews8061]

Silicon Valley: "Let's invent the greatest technologies for advancing consultation with humans in history, so we can make democracy meaningful!" Curtis Yarvin: "Now that we are building a global town square and simultaneous global translation, let's return to the oldest form of government on Earth!"

[@albionicamerican8806]

In other words, _Dune's_ vision of a technologically competent future society might actually make more sense than _Star Trek's._

[@mysteryman6918]

Star Trek’s ridiculous utopia was specifically curated by Hollywood communists.

[@svenofthejungle]

Dune always made more sense than Star Trek. Human nature doesn't change that quickly, and feudalism is a far more stable configuration than democratic federalism.

[@crobbie1984]

One question I'd have for Curtis is why make America, as it stands today in terms of national boundaries and size, anything at all? Why is a centralized monarchy over the former United States better than a series of city-states or a confederation of smaller states?

[@josephjagusah8668]

Probably because anarchy is even worse than a strictly pro forma government that rubber stamps every fair accompli it's presented with.

[@padraigadhastair4783]

Hi Freddie, glad to hear from this guy. Interesting and innovative ideas.

[@GamersAreAtFault]

i'm for monarchy if i'm the King.

[@gravitaslost]

Great discussion. He's completely wrong about China, and New Zealand for that matter.

[@mysteryman6918]

Agreed. This is about the only major issue I disagree with Curtis on and where he seems to be ignoring reason/ motivated by personal feeling.

[@haraldwolte3745]

I didn't really understand his point about New Zealand. He seemed to say that NZ had a sensible approach because of their hard lockdowns and border control. But then he seemed to suggest that they didn't implement it well and ended up failing? What is his point?

[@Steve-eu5rv]

I'll keep my constitution thanks

[@TSBoncompte]

soooo... countries ought be governed like corporations? sounds like cyberpunk dystopia.

[@sylviam6535]

It would be just like now, just more efficient.

[@TSBoncompte]

@@sylviam6535 i mean.... efficient at what tho

[@sylviam6535]

@@TSBoncompte - At whatever they decided to do, including oppression.

[@mysteryman6918]

The funny thing is that you live in a dystopia that is getting worse right now, while cyberpunk dystopia are fictional.

[@dylanl2258]

I can see how this guy would be really popular in Silicone Valley.

[@ericbourgie2584]

This is guy is so confused and his only experience of the world is the one he has found in books and built in his mind. A beautiful aestheticism that holds only in fiction, but is practically garbage. First he redefine the words from their modern usage so that what he says isn't what it means. Then build a system based on a million of "well no, not like it actually is, but how I would like it to be".

[@lemon4grss]

Ahahahah that was good 👍

[@jakeshockley2735]

Atleast in a monarchy people know who to revolt against.