I don't know what I think of Vance really, it's hard to pierce through all the propaganda right now, and so much seems focused on his personality or background rather than the substance of his history as a politician and what he's likely to do (a lot like Trump, actually), but it's definitely concerning that he falls for an idiot like Yarvin. If you know history, classical literature, ancient languages, read into sciences like evolutionary anthropology, biology, etc, all of which I do—in other words, if you know more than him, especially on any of the subjects whose wells I guess he draws from—his lack of knowledge and intelligence are really apparent in his writing.
He seems excellent at lying by omission and through removing context and adding his own, in particular, although even that skill might be overestimating his capability, since I think a lot of it's just ignorance. He also abuses italics to try to write like Nietzsche or something, since he's a body in desperate need for a brain transplant and wants to imitate his favourite authors.
I have not read much from him, since his writing is frankly boring and he seems to have next to nothing in the way of new ideas, but it is obvious in the little I could tolerate reading that it's all a half-digested vomit spewed up from other authors among whom he picks and chooses his facts to match his pre-existing expectations and ideology; definitely not a sign of intelligence in a writer.
What is the state of the Republic when a jumped up plebeian monarchist passes amongst the powerful like Vance for intelligent, original thought? Actually, that has to be the most remarkable thing about Vance I can take from it: he's ignorant enough to learn anything from reading Yarvin.
The above is more words than I should have ever wasted on him, but the point being what it says about the state of America's ruling class and intellectual discourse which is more interesting. BTW, if one were to have asked the last American aristocrat, Gore Vidal, there already was an American Augustus: Roosevelt. This is the terminal stage of empire, not the beginning when the emperor makes it one.
"Being a latter-day Renaissance man, he has a well-rehearsed line on every subject—and it’s not always an uninteresting line! But all he has is that line. He can only repeat it, whether or not it’s even remotely relevant. The gizzard convulses, the beak snaps open, and out comes this week’s stream of vulture puke."
"They’re waiting for an American Caesar. Currently, their best candidate for Caesar is Donald Trump, a fat man who eats hamburgers. They plan to usher in his imperium by holding dress-up parties in New York. They call themselves ‘dark elves.’ If this is what your political enemies are up to, why on earth would you try to stop them?"
Interesting piece. But I have to take issue with the idea that Noam Chomsky “deeply believes in the ability of ordinary people to reason, deliberate, and govern themselves” after he spent the pandemic saying that unvaccinated people should be sent to live in exile.
All the comments on that YouTube page are against you (or, nearly all).
EDIT: Point being it's too bad — and I still haven't developed the vicarious thick skin necessary to see that kind of commentary from the other side and not get upset.
I don't know what I think of Vance really, it's hard to pierce through all the propaganda right now, and so much seems focused on his personality or background rather than the substance of his history as a politician and what he's likely to do (a lot like Trump, actually), but it's definitely concerning that he falls for an idiot like Yarvin. If you know history, classical literature, ancient languages, read into sciences like evolutionary anthropology, biology, etc, all of which I do—in other words, if you know more than him, especially on any of the subjects whose wells I guess he draws from—his lack of knowledge and intelligence are really apparent in his writing.
He seems excellent at lying by omission and through removing context and adding his own, in particular, although even that skill might be overestimating his capability, since I think a lot of it's just ignorance. He also abuses italics to try to write like Nietzsche or something, since he's a body in desperate need for a brain transplant and wants to imitate his favourite authors.
I have not read much from him, since his writing is frankly boring and he seems to have next to nothing in the way of new ideas, but it is obvious in the little I could tolerate reading that it's all a half-digested vomit spewed up from other authors among whom he picks and chooses his facts to match his pre-existing expectations and ideology; definitely not a sign of intelligence in a writer.
What is the state of the Republic when a jumped up plebeian monarchist passes amongst the powerful like Vance for intelligent, original thought? Actually, that has to be the most remarkable thing about Vance I can take from it: he's ignorant enough to learn anything from reading Yarvin.
The above is more words than I should have ever wasted on him, but the point being what it says about the state of America's ruling class and intellectual discourse which is more interesting. BTW, if one were to have asked the last American aristocrat, Gore Vidal, there already was an American Augustus: Roosevelt. This is the terminal stage of empire, not the beginning when the emperor makes it one.
https://samkriss.substack.com/p/curtis-yarvin-does-not-live-in-reality
"Being a latter-day Renaissance man, he has a well-rehearsed line on every subject—and it’s not always an uninteresting line! But all he has is that line. He can only repeat it, whether or not it’s even remotely relevant. The gizzard convulses, the beak snaps open, and out comes this week’s stream of vulture puke."
"They’re waiting for an American Caesar. Currently, their best candidate for Caesar is Donald Trump, a fat man who eats hamburgers. They plan to usher in his imperium by holding dress-up parties in New York. They call themselves ‘dark elves.’ If this is what your political enemies are up to, why on earth would you try to stop them?"
Interesting piece. But I have to take issue with the idea that Noam Chomsky “deeply believes in the ability of ordinary people to reason, deliberate, and govern themselves” after he spent the pandemic saying that unvaccinated people should be sent to live in exile.
All the comments on that YouTube page are against you (or, nearly all).
EDIT: Point being it's too bad — and I still haven't developed the vicarious thick skin necessary to see that kind of commentary from the other side and not get upset.