Voter thread 2024

[Event_Horizon]

Next year Onlyfags will be playing TBC arena. Hype!!

[Event_Horizon]

@mmm

So when you complain about Straight Behavior it's actually because you want to accentuate your Gay Behavior?

Misread this at first but there is still a problem. If you want it to happen then it by definition cannot, because as it is a subconscious process, it's not very effective while you're aware of it.

[big_ass]

@mmm

@big_ass

Watched the whole thing and found it enlightening.

Yarvin, despite being well-spoken, is not actually a good speaker. His points, at this point, essentially make themselves. Institutions are failing. Democracy produces results that are sometimes worse for the majority of people. We live already in a political system which is oligarchical, aristocratic, corrupt, and - most importantly - almost completely dysfunctional.

And yet, somehow over the course of the conversation he comes away looking worse. He speaks at great length about history and political theory and all manner of other interesting things and never manages to actually make these most basic points, which the interviewer keeps trying to bring him back to, instead opting to lead the listener through a labyrinth of discussion only to arrive at a much weaker point which both fails to deliver on the original promise of its labyrinthine premise and fails to reinforce the basic principles that underpin his entire political theory.

I'm paused in the midst of a debate over whether a holocaust-like event occurred before the 20th century in Europe (Yarvin is losing - human history is full of examples of genocidal behavior which he continually shifts the goalposts on in an attempt to reinforce his claim that the holocaust is unique and a result of the rise of democracy in all the countries besides Nazi Germany - itself a bizarre claim) and it occurs to me that neither of these two has anything to gain from this discussion - even if Yarvin was right, it does nothing to reinforce his core points and is completely meaningless to the listener.

In short, he's trapped in his own labyrinth.

Then we move on to the infamous "three quotes" scene which has been making the rounds on twitter.

Yarvin is so "committed to the bit" that he basically takes his own bait, quoted back to him, and dives in head-first to defend statements like "Anders Breivik is morally equivalent to Nelson Mandela" or the claim that the abolition of slavery was bad for the slaves - all using filmsy historical examples which are almost immediately repudiated by the interviewer. He eventually falls back on the more effective values-based arguments like "how do you distinguish between a terrorist and a freedom fighter," but only once he has already been made to look either stupid or dishonest.

Essentially, he gives the NYT interviewer the easiest hack-job interview of his life. Interviewer gets to sit there saying "Actually, I think slavery was bad" and then effortlessly transition from "you're crazy but let's not debate it anymore" to "your ideas have reached actual decision-makers in the incoming Republican administration - that's terrible."

Yarvin comes out of this looking terrible. I genuinely hold him on the level of your average teenage anarchist at this point. Yes, all of our institutions have failed. That's the easiest argument for anyone to make. The mistake is in thinking they should be torn down and replaced with some lunatic system of government which will obviously be worse for everyone involved (anarchy and monarchy - the two political systems most historically proven to lead to horrible violence) rather than reformed or repaired.

In one interview, I'm no longer interested in Yarvin. The Cathedral has won.

Low IQ user above. Here's a protip from a high-iq Yarvin guru -- do a Straussian reading of the NYT interview.

Insufficient and probably illegal to reply to my 5000-word diatribe with a one sentence rebuttal

You are essentially LBJ in this discussion

[BIGMATTHEW]

Just be happy he read that - nobody else did.

[ilmemmerdelui]

Yup.

[mmm]

OK.

@big_ass

That's the easiest argument for anyone to make. The mistake is in thinking they should be torn down and replaced with some lunatic system of government which will obviously be worse for everyone involved (anarchy and monarchy - the two political systems most historically proven to lead to horrible violence) rather than reformed or repaired.

You obviously are not familiar with a particular brand of accelerationism: "outsideness", "exit", etc. -- the idea that Yarvin advocates for any "tearing down" is insane -- a core component of Land's and Yarvin's work is that engaging with the political sphere lends more credence to it and thus makes it stronger; positioning yourself as an "enemy" of the status quo creates energy and allows their soldiers to solidify it.

It'd be fair to say that Yarvin advocates for doing nothing and then erecting something once the entire thing collapses. There can be no "reform" or "replacement" -- the end goal is something akin to the fall of the USSR. It'd be a farce to try to restore the Great Soviet Proletariat State after the collapse; at that point, you'd erect whatever you thought was fine. Yarvin's pet personal beliefs are monarchism, but I doubt he's truly tied to it because he styles himself as a f*ggot Machiavelli type.

It's basically the same idea the communists believed would result in the global communist society or whatever.

[mmm]

You see, the whole plan is a combination of entryism and then sitting and waiting for the entire thing to collapse. There's no "political theory" to advocate for the populace or whatever. There's going to be no big battle. The stated goal is to wait 200 years for it to become dust.

Now there's a bigger Straussian type reading to do in regards to Yarvin himself appearing in the NYT and what that means. That's far more interesting than whatever the NYT or Yarvin himself presents as his "ideas".

[mmm]

You really need a better basis of like Exit, Outsideness, and accelerationism to really capture what's going on here. I don't even know the correct terminology would be because Land is now into accelerating AI into the race war, but before that it was all capitalism (which is basically what Yarvin advocates for with his CEO talk).

[BIGMATTHEW]

You guys are crazy people

[mmm]

@big_ass

I'm paused in the midst of a debate over whether a holocaust-like event occurred before the 20th century in Europe (Yarvin is losing - human history is full of examples of genocidal behavior which he continually shifts the goalposts on in an attempt to reinforce his claim that the holocaust is unique and a result of the rise of democracy in all the countries besides Nazi Germany - itself a bizarre claim) and it occurs to me that neither of these two has anything to gain from this discussion - even if Yarvin was right, it does nothing to reinforce his core points and is completely meaningless to the listener.

See the point here is two things.

1. Yarvin wants to do his 100,000 word historical "I'm smarter than you" shtick
2. Create some sense of cognitive dissonance, showcase a contradiction, which leads back to 1.

The holocaust is anointed as a new type of evil by popular liberal culture. Yarvin agrees, states that it arose out of democracy. Libtard spends 5 minutes listing genocides and implicitly points out that the holocaust isn't special. Libtard loses either way.

See if you're not familiar with this being the entire point of the interaction, you're going to miss it.

[ilmemmerdelui]

Authentic platforms?

[ilmemmerdelui]

We don't even have that on NAMafia.com.

[big_ass]

@mmm

OK.

@big_ass

That's the easiest argument for anyone to make. The mistake is in thinking they should be torn down and replaced with some lunatic system of government which will obviously be worse for everyone involved (anarchy and monarchy - the two political systems most historically proven to lead to horrible violence) rather than reformed or repaired.

You obviously are not familiar with a particular brand of accelerationism: "outsideness", "exit", etc. -- the idea that Yarvin advocates for any "tearing down" is insane -- a core component of Land's and Yarvin's work is that engaging with the political sphere lends more credence to it and thus makes it stronger; positioning yourself as an "enemy" of the status quo creates energy and allows their soldiers to solidify it.

This is actually a Chomsky idea - that the "opposition" within a dogmatic media environment like this one in fact reinforces that dogma, functioning as a sort of outer limit on the acceptable bounds of thought and speech while also giving the mainstream propagandist the opportunity to refute that opposition and paint it as insane, dangerous, or just stupid. I fail to see how Yarvin did anything but exactly this - hence my criticism. He fails to make any of the basic, easy points and instead makes himself look crazy and dishonest, playing perfectly into the NYT narrative of crazy conservatives secretly trying to take over the government. I don't think there's any deep "Straussian reading" here - he is simply a narcissist who couldn't resist the opportunity to be accepted into the very institutions he critiques and he was outsmarted and outmaneuvered at every turn. Truly a sad caricature of a conservative.

@mmm

It'd be fair that Yarvin advocates for doing nothing and then erecting something once the entire thing collapses. There can be no "reform" or "replacement" -- the end goal is something akin to the fall of the USSR. It'd be a farce to try to restore the Great Soviet Proletariat State after the collapse; at that point, you'd erect whatever you thought was fine. Yarvin's pet personal beliefs are monarchism, but I doubt he's truly tied to it because he styles himself as a f*ggot Machiavelli type.

It's basically the same idea the communists believed would result in the global communist society or whatever.

@mmm

The stated goal is to wait 200 years for it to become dust.

I couldn't imagine a more impotent political theory. It's essentially teenage anarchism without balls - the same criticisms apply (that what comes out of the collapse would not necessarily be better - it would probably be worse) but the plan of action is "let's just wait and see."

You morons will be waiting your whole life for Some Big Event - it's essentially QAnon for people who can read above a 6th grade level.

Seriously. "Things are not working well, the system has issues. I am going to sit here and wait for it to fall apart." The political thinking of a worm. Almost as if it was designed for NEETs. Sit in your room, do nothing, you are protesting the flawed system! You are part of a movement! Soon, Big Things Will Happen!

Again - functionally this is controlled opposition, whether that is the intention or not. You've somehow landed on a political theory which is exactly consistent with what you are already doing in life, which is doing nothing.

[mmm]

@big_ass

This is actually a Chomsky idea - that the "opposition" within a dogmatic media environment like this one in fact reinforces that dogma, functioning as a sort of outer limit on the acceptable bounds of thought and speech while also giving the mainstream propagandist the opportunity to refute that opposition and paint it as insane, dangerous, or just stupid.

Ok, so if we're following this logic, it's best to have your "political viewpoints" completely refuted by the NYT regime media. If you were to appear coherent, logical, whatever, you'd make yourself a target for the regime; you'd only place the Eye of Sauron onto you.

@big_ass

I fail to see how Yarvin did anything but exactly this - hence my criticism. He fails to make any of the basic, easy points and instead makes himself look crazy and dishonest, playing perfectly into the NYT narrative of crazy conservatives secretly trying to take over the government.

So you're saying that Yarvin was completely refuted by the NYT regime media and looked like an innocous r*tard. You've described him as:

@big_ass

Yarvin comes out of this looking terrible. I genuinely hold him on the level of your average teenage anarchist at this point.

So he's refuted.

@big_ass

I don't think there's any deep "Straussian reading" here - he is simply a narcissist who couldn't resist the opportunity to be accepted into the very institutions he critiques and he was outsmarted and outmaneuvered at every turn. Truly a sad caricature of a conservative.

The "deep Straussian reading" here is a wink-wink nudge-nudge to everyone in this sphere: "lol I made it into the NYT". The end of the interview is literally Yarvin talking about trolling.

[mmm]

Like are you aware that Yarvin endorsed Biden in the 2024 election?

[big_ass]

Ah. So it was a good thing that he looked like an idiot. He was playing them by looking like an idiot.

[big_ass]

He outsmarted the NYT by going on their show, failing to make any points, and looking like an idiot.

This is astronomical levels of cope right now. Is this the New Right?

[mmm]

@big_ass

I couldn't imagine a more impotent political theory. It's essentially teenage anarchism without balls - the same criticisms apply (that what comes out of the collapse would not necessarily be better - it would probably be worse) but the plan of action is "let's just wait and see."

You morons will be waiting your whole life for Some Big Event - it's essentially QAnon for people who can read above a 6th grade level.

Seriously. "Things are not working well, the system has issues. I am going to sit here and wait for it to fall apart." The political thinking of a worm. Almost as if it was designed for NEETs. Sit in your room, do nothing, you are protesting the flawed system! You are part of a movement! Soon, Big Things Will Happen!

Again - functionally this is controlled opposition, whether that is the intention or not. You've somehow landed on a political theory which is exactly consistent with what you are already doing in life, which is doing nothing.

Please explain to me how the Soviet Union, one of the most repressive regimes in history, came to its demise?

[mmm]

I'm not saying it's not r*tarded. I'm just saying you literally have no idea what is actually going on here.

[big_ass]

This is hilarious.

The entire point of Yarvin political theory is to accomplish nothing, so if he achieves nothing, he is succeeding.

The debate strategy was to go on and lose, so if he appears to be an idiot who can't make the most simple points in defense of his ideas, he has actually outsmarted them.