A lot of otherwise very respectable people keep making references to Curtis Yarvin's apparently immensely fashionablei blogspotii. Few do it as advanced trolling, knowing full well what the issues are, most do it simply out of naivete, which naivete then obliges, which obligation has me stuck in the complex hell of explaining in plain language that may be readily digested by the preopinent what exactly is wrong and what exactly is right in the proposed construction, and how to generally tell these apart.
I confess I am not ready to approach the later task in a general perspective, but the former is something I should have probably done a few years ago to spare myself the fumbling attendant extemporaneous attempts. Better late than never, I guess, and so I will dedicate a few articles going forward to this very task : separating the intoxicating mold from the usable chaff and the menciusiii from all of it. The effort is further justified by my impression of the author's personalityiv, which in any reasonable estimation is just as likely to result in a "I've deleted all my articles in the hopes you'll elevate me to godhood dear reader" as anything. At least if previous experience with similar Romanian twerpsv is any guide, this is how these affairs usually go.
You will find a list of links below, for ease of reference.
- Contrary to what you might think, the definition of fashionable isn't "that which every housewife knows about" or "that which is on TV every single day multiple times" or "that which can be perpetually observed everywhere". Instead, the definition of fashionable properly is "that which unique-in-their-own-mind people do to make themselves feel unique". Thus rock&roll was very fashionable in 1955 and couldn't be less fashionable in 1985 if it tried, even if in 1955 you couldn't swing your hips just so on TV and by 1985 you couldn't find a non-rock station on the whole dial. Racism was fashionable in the days of the Declaration of Independence (not in spite of Jefferson failing to include a few choice paragraphs about how niggers are subhuman ; quite on the contrary, that he didn't feel any need to so state the obvious if "secret" agreement of his time like some sort of lamer is indicative) but it was the height of unfashionable by the time Southern belles were discussing "their peculiar institution". And so it goes. [↩]
- I find it the height of marauding socialism to be publishing your articles on that junky platform. For instance, the first line on the page as seen through lynx eyes reads "Creaţi blog Autentificare", which proposes no less than the heretical idea that I, the reader, should create a blog, with the implication that it'd probably be just as good if not better than the blog I'm reading. This intolerable effrontery belies some very confused notions about the relative places of people in the world. [↩]
- I am sorely tempted to find this a very latin link towards mendax, mentior rather than any sort of Chinese Confucianism. [↩]
- Basically, your typical narcissist juvenile, complete with an inability to confront his own failures or learn from them and a vast propensity to reframe them into alternative ego-proppping interpretations. He does have the good fortune of a very sharp intellect, which he has disorganisedly cultivated (more in a quest of avoiding subjective pain than in a quest to obtain a better tool, as self-education usually goes) and which leads him to astute observations. He doesn't have the discipline to do much with them, especially not much that hurts. [↩]
- A, B, C etc. [↩]