Below are a set of questions I asked Curtis Yarvin for an aborted interview circa 08/2020, back in the Summer of Fentanyl Floyd, when he was still relatively new to the interview circuit. I’m publishing them now — one sided and unanswered — because they are referenced in an interview I’ve recently given to Astral on Apostate Gallery.
Yarvin, if you’re reading, linear time doesn’t real, so it’s never too late to pwan me in an interview by answering some of the questions > ignoring all of them.
1. I’d like to begin by discussing Neoreaction (NRx), a label which has fallen out of vogue after (ironically) becoming tainted with populist associations and being perceptually — if not ideologically / conceptually — absorbed into the Alt-Right circa it’s expansion (and MSM promulgation) in the lead up to, and immediate aftermath of, the 2016 Presidential election.
While you were largely absent, working down the coding salt mines, Nick Land’s blog, Xenosystems, became perhaps the central hub of NRx discourse. The quality of the commentariat circa the ‘Cambrian Revolution’ of 2013 was very high and your direct input was sorely missed. However, by being an ‘absent father’ you arguably facilitated further innovation outside the gravitational pull of your extended critique and central importance to Reactionary discourse.
I’d like to ask how closely you monitored these developments at the time, and specifically what your thoughts were on how Nick Land utilised and adapted concepts you originated and the critical framework you developed?
[Basically, were you a Xenosystems lurker and what do you think of Nick Land / NRx?]
2. Writing as Mencius Moldbug, you documented your own ‘sick journey’, from libertarianism to absolutism, which was narrativized across several posts on Unqualified Reservations. But this transition was also inscribed into the meta-fabric of the intellectual development of UR — as you became increasingly ‘based’ you took your readers along on that unprecedented Red Pill journey with you.
Meanwhile, working as Curtis Yarvin on Grey Mirror, you’ve recently described your programme as conducting a kind of highly abstract, theoretical systems critique, which is inflammatory in the abstract but very difficult to object to on concrete terms — effectively you appear to be developing a Transcendental political critique.
Can you identify some of the principal updates / patches you’ve installed in your critique since Unqualified Reservations?
[Basically, what are the primary updates in GM vs UR?]
3a. Unqualified Reservations was written pseudonymously and created a pathbreaking critique and theoretical framework through which to understand progressivism. Do you think it is possible to be a pathbreaker in the current, rapidly escalating / deteriorating / censorious, Woke ideological climate writing as a facefag and what intellectual compromises does facefagging entail?
[Basically, what compromises are involved in being a facefag?]
3b. Do you think those of us who remain committed to working anonymously are labouring under a false sense of security — that the Regime knows who we are and is relatively content to allow us to continue to implicate ourselves as thought-criminals, and will inevitably crack down on us when the time comes?
[Basically, are anons all doomed?]
4. Woke Capital is the infiltration and co-option of the corporations by the progressive State religion. It is the next logical stage of Antonio Gramsci’s ‘long march’ through the institutions, effectively bringing corporations into the fold of the State via the backdoor of HR supervision and E&D legislation, while maintaining a relatively high level of efficiency / productivity by not taking the final step of attempting to run them centrally.
The phenomena of Woke Capital – a critical intensification of a symbiotic process already taking place in the interface between Capital and the Cathedral — was named and accelerated while you were on hiatus / down the salt mines at Urbit.
What are your thoughts on Woke Capital — do you regard it as a critical development or phase change and is it behaving in a predictable / path dependant fashion?
[Basically, thoughts on Woke Capital?]
5. Bioleninism is a theory discovered by Spandrell, who was profoundly influenced by your work, which provides a biological deconstruction of Woke identity politics, grounded in a cross-cultural historical analysis. It explores status and loyalty as binding forces in a coalition of the fringes and their client relationship to the ruling elite. It comports to the age-old formula identified by Gaetano Mosca of the High and the Low against the Middle.
What are your thoughts on Bioleninism — do you regard it as an accurate and useful critical theory / optics through which it is possible to gain a greater understanding of the structure of the Regime, or do you find it imprecise / obscures as much as it reveals?
[Basically, thoughts on Bioleninism?]
6. Do you view the Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) as gateway to — or as a gatekeeper of — substantiative right-wing thought? In your opinion, do these platforms / actors provide a useful conduit / pipeline to right-wing analysis / positions or do they primarily serve Power by policing the borders of ‘acceptable’ discourse on the right?
[Basically, thoughts on IDW as friend or enemy?]
7. Among a core group of NRx veterans, Jim’s blog is seen as an important corrective to some of your, dare I say it, comparatively liberal ideas / tendencies. I’d like to ask what you think of Jim’s formulation of Throne, Alter and Freehold with regards to providing a solid, sane, reality-based / compliant ground upon which to (re)build Western civilisation?
Jim argues that we need Throne, because divided Power leads to Anarcho-tyranny, Alter, because Throne is going to have to fight holy wars, and Freehold, because no man rules alone.
What are your thoughts on Throne, Alter and Freehold, and what do you regard as the virtues and limitations of Jim’s perspective in general, such as you understand it?
[Basically, thoughts on Jim?]
8. The Woman Question (WQ) is something you never addressed directly on UR, but arguably the after-effects of the ‘emancipation’ of women, and the resultant disruption to social-fabric, have been every bit as deleterious to the formation and preservation of long-term order as democracy — and of course the phenomena of woman’s liberation and voting Left are closely interrelated.
I know that, despite being a happily married man, you are familiar both with PUA in general and Heartise in particular. I understand that you can identify some truth in his take on the sexual marketplace, which is of course based on an object level analysis of the unmediated desire profile of (unowned) women.
What are your thoughts on the idea, popular on the Right, that women — or more specifically, feral female sexual desire — needs to be ‘put back in the box’ if order (monogamy, marriage, family formation, population replacement level reproduction) is to be restored?
[Basically, thoughts on WQ?]
9. I’d like to discuss your idea that when the Progressives secure a one-party State — and have finally neutralized all possible opposition — they will relax and stop being so aggressive and crazy, and instead become dedicated to neutralising many of the ideological demons they have summoned. That they will instantiate a halfway-sane Regime, focused on civilisational goals such as security and prosperity and effectively become ‘rational’ again. This happened in China, so it’s not impossible — but China is mostly Chinese.
However, I’d contend that it has become impossible for the US, and will remain so until the US likewise goes through purging fires of some extremely bad times…
California is a good example of the Democrats securing a One-Party state — further along demographically in terms of Brazilification than the rest of the country — with an ideological chock-hold on the local political apparatus. But California has not gone sane at the State level, at all.
Of course, it’s possible to explain this away by saying that it’s only total domination at a national level the Cathedral is interested in. So even ‘local’ post-white, One Party states, even California, as big and rich and influential as it is, can’t revert to sanity until the national conflict has been settled once and for all. But the counterargument is that, unless Progressives are miraculously stopped — a Stalin tier intervention — the less radical parts of the Inner Party will simply become the new Outer Party, and the power struggle will continue along the path of anti-white hatred / racial antagonism and escalating Woke-jihad until the US reaches the extremely bad times…
What makes you so sure that your proposed final consolidation of Power in progressive hands wouldn’t culminate in a Left Singularity?
[Basically, thoughts on Left Singularity?]
10. Your definition of Progressivism as a nontheistic Christian sect, which has risen to dominance over all other Christian sects, has been described as the key tenant of Neoreaction. Arguably, all other reactionary ideas, including the informal merger of Church and State to form the Cathedral, flow from this understanding of Progressivism.
This has led many reactionaries, including Spandrell and Jim, to argue the need for a New Religion (not just an engineering solution) to fight in a Holy War.
Whether this would constitute a reboot of Catholicism, adoption of Islam, some entirely novel invention, or accelerating / subverting Progressivism, is less agreed upon — what are your thoughts on the need to bring a gun to a gunfight, and a religion to a Holy War? Does the Right need a New Religion?
[Basically, thoughts on need for a New Religion?]
11. Do you believe the technological / cryptographic means now exist to ensure the ownership and control of a Neocameral regime? Obviously, while secondary-property corporations are proven to work, it doesn’t necessarily follow that primary property corporations would work, so their security systems presumably need to be thoroughly tested and rigorously implemented.
Further to this point, do you still feel enthusiastic about secession / fragmentation and the possibility of Patchwork coming into existence? And if it did, what would curtail the incentives for one patch to predate upon another patch and Power to violently flow back together like a shattered Terminator 1000?
[Basically, current thoughts on Neocameralism / Patchwork?]
12. Bronze Age Pervert strongly disagrees with your position on voting for Biden to take the wind out of the Progressives sails — especially its BLM and ANTIFA activist factions — with the hope of restoring relative calm and sanity to the system / political landscape.
Instead, BAP believes that election victory for the Democrats will only serve to further embolden them and accelerate towards an ever-increasing number of violent partisan confrontations — essentially unravelling in a low-level Civil War, similar to the paramilitary action undertaken in Venezuela or Ireland in the 1970s.
In his opinion, a Trump win is vitally important because it gives people the time and opportunity to organise at the local level — i.e. local governmental and policing services are important and need to be occupied by sympathetic (not ideologically crazy) personnel — in order to protect themselves, their families and their communities against the potential for political violence on the horizon.
Obviously, you are a passivist in internal exile, and have no interest in violence other than preventing it. But what would your non-interventionist / non-activist and anti-political organisation response be to BAP — who also wants to avoid violence, but like Jim sees violence as a likely outcome of current political arrangements / trajectories, which can’t be defused through pure, one-sided disengagement?
[Basically, thoughts on BAP, Trump vs Biden and future political violence?]
13. Finally, I’d like to ask you about the role of aesthetics as a force multiplier and potential attack vector in the realm of the symbolic. The Deep Right constitutes a territory, a multi-dimensional idea-space, which extends far beyond the myopic spaciotemporal limits of the Progressive thought-reservation and this is the source of its power.
Do you think that superior aesthetics (“mogging”) can be leveraged to build a parallel creative status economy, subvert elites and create the conditions for a preference cascade, which would unplug a significant number of relatively openminded young people from the Woke Matrix?
If so, would you agree that this is a staged process, and that a period of iconoclasm necessarily precedes a transition from a state of idolatry — ie that the Deep Right needs to challenge, route-around and undermine the Woke shibboleths in order to create the conditions to visibly transcend them?
[Basically, thoughts on aesthetics as a zone of operation for the Deep Right]
One thought on “Questions from an aborted interview with Curtis Yarvin circa 08/2020”