In which manner, in this theories, do you measure the performance of the « dictator »/CEO/president? Is it based on objective KPIs decided ahead of time? or are the KPIs supposed to be evaluated by the consumers/electors/ people?
And what consequences can those KPIs have, if considered to be poor? Can we fire the dictator?
If no KPIs allow to maintain the system stable, as a feedback loop, then welcome to USSR where everything is fake, and the « government » governs itself until complete failure.
Money = Power.
Power = Business.
In the current world gigacorps, moving fast and breaking shit is good business
Democracies are NOT about moving fast and breaking shit.
Its hardly surprising that the gigacorp crowd want to replace Democracy with something they feel is doing so well.
I have been told this guy is an irascible reactionary genius for like 15 years - he says so himself: "No. I’m an outsider, man. I’m an intellectual." Yet once again I see somebody with the sophistication of a teenager:
If you look at the administration of Washington, what is established looks a lot like a start-up. It looks so much like a start-up that this guy Alexander Hamilton, who was recognizably a start-up bro, is running the whole government — he is basically the Larry Page of this republic.
[...]
Understanding why Hitler was so bad, why Stalin was so bad, is essential to the riddle of the 20th century. But I think it’s important to note that we don’t see for the rest of European and world history a Holocaust. You can pull the camera way back and basically say, Wow, since the establishment of European civilization, we didn’t have this kind of chaos and violence.
It’s basically just a greater openness of mind and a greater ability to look around and say: We just assume that our political science is superior to Aristotle’s political science because our physics is superior to Aristotle’s physics. What if that isn’t so?
When I look at the status of women in, say, a Jane Austen novel, which is well before Enfranchisement, it actually seems kind of OK.I belong to the same X-gen group as Marc Andreessen, Curtis Yarvin, Elon Musk,Peter Thiel, and others. I have a background in computers and am financially independent.
While I strongly disagree with them, I feel an affinity and familiarity with their thinking. I have read the same books, seen the same news, and lived in the same era. I understand how they arrived where they are now.
The Neo-reactionary movement seems exactly like what my generation comes up from the right. Dark Psychology of Dark Enlightenment is a cyberpunk sci-fi world as a fantasy. To live with societal collapse, dystopia and decay with low-life and high-tech. Always framing oneself as an independent outsider and a rebel. Sarcasm as a reflex. These guys see themself living in William Gibson's Neuromancer world.
Yarvin is only another horribly damaged person, squealing in pain in a pseudointellectual vocabulary. He has neither knowledge nor insight, but a gift for miming these things. The questions are, first, how might we stop so many children from being psychically tortured so that their minds become piles of bloody shred like this, and then second, why does anybody take it at face value when, rarely, one of them learns to scream in sounds that mimic high discourse?
lol yarvin is an idiot, rarely insightful with a heavy dose of racism and dictator worship.
Move fast and break the United States of America
yarvin has been saying this since like 2012? it's just his thing you can ignore him. richard hanania has more of an impact, if you want to worry.
A bunch of people who got ahead by breaking things—often the law—to prosper are just looking for new things to break so they can drink more milkshakes. And we just sit there crying, 'Don't bully us.'. What they think of us and civil society:
Yarvin comes across as not very articulate in this conversation. One has to doubt his bona fides. Karl Marx was no statesman, but his ideas were the banner to slaughter millions. Yarvin is no remarkable thinker whose ideas surfaced on their merits. This stuff is 6th form debating society take on politics. He's been dug up as justification for people who want to seize power and need acceptable words to flatter their plans. Ambitious thugs in any epoch can find "genius" writer from the unhinged fringe and hold them aloft. So Yarvin suddenly feels bathed in light, but he's just being used and is too giddy with attention to see that.
Confronted with the deaths of millions under Hitler and Stalin, his response is: "you can’t separate Hitler and Stalin from the global democratic revolution that they’re a part of". So the rise of democracy is to blame for the 100s of millions of deaths under Stalin and Hitler, not the autocracies of Stalin and Hitler.
Now I get how people can argue that Ukraine got invaded by the USSR because they wanted to join NATO. You just go back in the causal tree until you hit the thing you don't like and blame it.
This guy.. :(
Honestly he is a danger, with his pseudo-intellectual mumbojumbo.
I'm not even going to beyond the intro. I have an idea:
Regicide as a sport.
> It’s not even that democracy is bad; it’s just that it’s very weak. And the fact that it’s very weak is easily seen by the fact that very unpopular policies [...] persist despite strong majorities being against them.
Is this a sign democracy is weak? Or is it a sign that the political process has to choose between mutually exclusive popular policies?
In my country, the average voter wants their trash hauled away, but don't want any dumps or incinerators built. They want responsive public services, but they don't want tax increases, cuts to other services, or a deficit. They want good care for the elderly, but they don't want to spend more on care workers, or to give the jobs to poorly paid immigrants.
The US political system has a bunch of problems (deadlock and corruption for example) but when voters want to have their cake and eat it too, which is impossible, no political system is going to make it possible.