
Mouthbreathing Machiavellis Dream Of A Silicon Reich - steveklabnik
http://thebaffler.com/blog/2014/05/mouthbreathing_machiavellis
======
DiabloD3
Of all the years I have been part of the HN community, I think that this is
the first time something has hit the front page that truly made me go "wtf am
I reading?"

~~~
whnwhnwhn
In my opinion, the article is quick in lumping all kinds of groups together.
Mens Rights Activists are right next to some weird Monarchy believers. As
someone who follows the ideas of the former group more closely, I do not see
them (except for a few fringe ones) jumping to any kind of conclusions a'la
'Monarchy!!'

I do think that what passes 'the so-called left' is in a situation where a
couple of people are becoming very fearful. Because everything regarding
feminism has been WAY overdone. And now actually borders on autocratic
behavior.

Feminism and its very successful movement shows more and more how it is rotten
to its very core. It has become an ideology that:

\- dehumanizes men

\- abuses and twists taboos for political gain of a few

\- created a new power hierarchy that is aptly described by the term
'oppression olympics'

And I think the end of feminism is a major shift that's going to happen very
soon.

If you are not completely closed to reasonable arguments, I would recommend
checking websites such as 'avoiceformen.com'. Again in my opinion, they have
very reasonable positions on a core, if not the core issue of society - the
relation between the male and female gender.

In some sense, I believe that people who go crazy nut rightwing might
overcompensate for an ideology that turns out to be as destructive as their
ideas - feminism.

edit: formatting

~~~
thwest
This is a good case for why MRAs are lumped in there. You're both myopic about
a social dichotomy (men vs women or gifted rulers vs plebs), lack empathy for
the other side of the dichotomy, and go through logical gymnastics to reach a
conclusion that a power struggle must occur to benefit your side of the
dichotomy. The internet is a great venue for this sort of dynamic.

~~~
wpietri
I would add that the MRAs are very much of a piece with the protofascist right
in a number of ways, including hearkening back to a mythical better time,
wanting to "restore" that better time, a fondness for dominance and obedience,
and an extraordinary ability to blame all their problems on "those people".
The main difference seems to be that the MRAs want to blame women and
feminists, whereas the protofacists tend to blame brown people and the left.
In both cases, though, it seems to me to be about pushing for their dominance.

For those interested in the roots of MRA craziness, there's a great book
called, "Why Does He Do That?" It's written by a guy who has run a program for
abusive men for 15 years and is a great examination of the attitudes and
behaviors that underlie abusive behavior. He doesn't mention the Internet in
it at all, but over and over I was struck by the parallels between that and
various aspects of Internet culture, including the MRAs and the anonymous
trolls.

------
fit2rule
When the Snowden/NSA revelations hit, and I realized that I'd been
participating for 30 years in the willing construction of the new Panopticon,
I was mighty depressed. What good the awesome tech of the world if we are
using it to oppress and enslave our fellow man? "You call it entertainment - I
call it a rat in the cage." If the people of the one country most free in the
world can't and factually WON'T do anything about it, then .. we're screwed
and must accept our fate.

But now I see that in fact, it is meant to be this way. In fact, generations
of technologists have been raised to believe that their way is the most
righteous (in the full sense of the word) - simply because it is supported by
technological prowess. A kind of power which governs the willing and the
unwilling equally.

So now I think that technology is not the answer. Social revolution is the
answer, but of course all the good, old tools of social revolution have been
usurped. The new Facebook religion rules us all.

So now I resolve even harder to teach the kids the old ways: freedom, liberty,
equality for all.

------
hughdbrown
I find it kind of weird to construe Justine Tunney's opinions as somehow
related to Ayn Rand. I have no idea what she is really supporting, but there
is no confusing her with an Objectivist. Whatever you might think of Ayn Rand,
at least she never invented a phrase like, "tyranny of the individual."

------
bsder
Crummy article, but the real issue is that California is getting increasingly
fed up with a huge chunk of the US which is simultaneously A) happy to take
California's revenue and B) beat California up about it.

If you're going to ask to borrow money from your neighbor, you should at least
be polite to him.

~~~
thwest
What? How is California's federal tax revenue relevant to the article? If
California secedes these people will still argue that you shouldn't have a
vote and the state should transition to monarchy.

~~~
bsder
These people are getting _traction_ because of all of the grief coming from
the rest of the country.

------
LyndsySimon
The author takes Peter Thiel's statements grossly out of context. My own
reading of his statements and actions place him much closer to "Voluntaryist"
than "Monarchist".

Given that, I can't place much stock in the rest of his assertions.

------
jfasi
Let's face it. Silicon Valley has hit the big time. The sheer size of our
industry coupled with the impact it has on everyday non-technical citizens
means we are a political force to be reckoned with. Monetarily speaking, we're
not quite as powerful as, for instance, oil and defense, but we more than make
up for that in the respect we generally afforded by the population. However,
the industry's rhetoric and attitudes haven't caught up to that fact, hence
these sort of blunt political statements.

~~~
jgalt212
I'd say SA's political influence is diminished by the fact that SA companies
employ less people per unit of output than almost all other industries. Some
may champion this fact as efficiency and strength, but for the most part,
people = votes. So given a tech firm and an old economy firm, the old economy
firm has way more clout b/c its workers have way more votes.

My thesis above is somewhat diminished by today's very loose campaign finance
restrictions.

------
HaroldMcOwen
I think I had already read most of this article before this version was
composed, because a highly similar hit piece was published at:

[http://www.vocativ.com/culture/uncategorized/dark-
enlightenm...](http://www.vocativ.com/culture/uncategorized/dark-
enlightenment-creepy-internet-movement-youd-better-take-seriously/)

Both the vocativ article and the baffler article are extremely superficial.
Neither highlights the importance of much more serious writers than Moldbug,
e.g. Steve Sailer.

------
jgalt212
> 3\. Appoint [Google executive chairman] Eric Schmidt CEO of America.

F that, I say. Schmidt would be colluding with Merkel, Cameron, and Abe to
keep income taxes high.

[http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/technology/engineers-
alleg...](http://www.nytimes.com/2014/03/01/technology/engineers-allege-
hiring-collusion-in-silicon-valley.html)

~~~
deciplex
Yeah, and we've already got the TPP on the way, to keep wages low and working
conditions poor, anyway.

------
josiahwarren
Phrases in this article that constitute nothing less than absolute blind
misses and lapses in journalistic judgment:

"Welcome to the latest political fashion among the California Confederacy:
total corporate despotism."

Well, we're two paragraphs in and you already went from critical analysis to
full-blown agenda reporting.

"Some are atheists, while others affect obscure orthodox beliefs, but most are
youngish white males embittered by “political correctness.”"

We've moved on to sweeping generalizations.

"As best I can tell, their ideal society best resembles Blade Runner, but
without all those Asian people cluttering up the streets. Neoreactionaries
like to see themselves as the heroes of another sci-fi movie, in fact,
sometimes boasting that they have been “redpilled,” like Keanu Reeves’s
character in The Matrix—a movie Moldbug regards as “genius.”"

And now we're in the territory of implied racism, straw-manning and
caricature.

"By so doing, Moldbug has been able to an attract an audience that welcomes
the usual teeth-gnashing white supremacists who haunt the web while also
leaving room for a more socially acceptable assortment of “men’s rights”
advocates, gun nuts, transhumanist libertarians, disillusioned Occupiers and
well-credentialed Silicon Valley entrepreneurs."

By the time we get here the sweeping generalizations have become the entire
article and it's no longer about the material in question but an excuse for
the author to broadbrush everyone he personally dislikes into a neat little
category. Seems more like he was using 4chan's /pol/ section than Moldbug's
blog. Please note that I'm not a Moldbug fan and I loathe Justine Tunney, for
the record; but this article reeks of other issues and definitely of straw-
manning those who critique mainstream journalism:

"Apart from their reverence for old-timey tyrants, they espouse a belief in
“human biodiversity,” which is basically racism in a lab coat. This
scientific-sounding euphemism invariably refers to supposed differences in
intelligence across races. It is so spurious that the Wikipedia article on
human biodiversity was deleted because, in the words of one editor, it is
“purely an Internet theory.” Censored once again by The Cathedral, alas."

The problem here is again, the broadbrush of 'racism' \- Again, not an HBD
believer - but to instantly use that label is bigoted reporting and
confirmation bias and shows a lack of journalistic ethics.

Furthermore, Wikipedia draws its primary credibility from mainstream news,
which primary draws its stories from small outlets or other large outlets
(Reuters) and reprints them. Essentially; this is a journalist thumbing his
nose and saying 'aha, behold, I'm the man, I am sponsored'.

"“If you ask me to condemn [mass murderer] Anders Breivik, but adore Nelson
Mandela, perhaps you have a mother you’d like to fuck,” Yarvin writes."

Note that the paraphrase adds "mass murderer" to Breivik who killed 77, but
not to Nelson Mandela who killed tens of thousands as part of the MK and their
bombing campaigns.

"Yet the conservative press remains generally dismissive." This is an outright
lie and fabrication; the conservative publications which reviewed Moldbug's
work loved it.

"If the Koch brothers have proved anything, it’s that no matter how crazy your
ideas are, if you put serious money behind those ideas, you can seize key
positions of authority and power and eventually bring large numbers of people
around to your way of thinking. Moreover, the radicalism may intensify with
each generation. Yesterday’s Republicans and Independents are today’s
Libertarians. Today’s Libertarians may be tomorrow’s neoreactionaries, whose
views flatter the prejudices of the new Silicon Valley elite."

And now we've gone to Koch and assumed insanity - this from the supposedly
trustworthy folks over at The Baffler - nothing less than a farce at this
point. For every Koch there is a Soros. The money pool is bipartisan.

"The formulation mirrored Moldbug’s “Cathedral.” Srinivasan’s central theme
was the notion of “exit”—as in, exit from democratic society, and entry into
any number of corporate mini-states whose arrival will leave the world looking
like a patchwork map of feudal Europe."

Now everyone is Moldbug; straw man complete.

This article is a great example of how supposed anti-racism quickly turns into
an equally vapid form of bigotry against skeptics and that 'anti-racism'
includes, like any collective, some of the most bigoted individuals in the
world.

Please note that the author of all these knee-jerk reactions to supposed
'racism' is a well-dressed middle-upper class male in Corey Pein. Do we really
need successful white male journalists to fight racism and hierarchy in print
and label everyone who does not as 'Moldbug' or a potential member of
Stormfront?

I cannot help but mourn the future of journalism as the liberal outlets take
over with massive contributions and yet continually straw man Koch industries
while they receive billions from Soros, Bloomberg, et al.

Why must the supposed opposition be labeled as racist, insane, etc.? Why
aren't the ideas analyzed in an academic, scientific manner? Have we passed
the age of rational discussion in favor of writing those who disagree with us
off as lunatics, 'sympathizers' and 'oppressors' in the age of the oppression
olympics?

