A fascist technocracy is not interesting in the slightest. It’s what basement dwelling teens who idolize John Galt dream about before they are exposed to the complexity of the real world.
I find his writing style wastes a lot of one's time and I disagree with him on nearly everything, but there's no denying that there are many interesting ideas in there.
Well, I hope the rest of the world now will get the memo too, before we'll need a world war to crystallize the lesson.
We've done this, it was called the dark ages and it sucked and we moved past it. Engaging with this pablum in any way is granting it attention and vigor it obviously doesn't deserve.
Well, the "dark ages" is now widely considered a misnomer, and that time is seen as an important era development-wise.
Whereas now many argue it's decline and regression in many areas compared to recent past.
I think people just dismiss him out of hand because he's a political enemy.
I did read a decent amount of his "mencius moldbug" stuff back in the day, and I just wouldn't describe it the way you do in this comment, so I'm wondering what I'm missing.
I think we probably just fundamentally disagree here, because to me, this whole thing seems like drivel. Are there gems in there that I'm just not recognizing?
The symbolic idea of who holds power and who actually holds power in practice are not the same.
There’s also the bit that doge is constrained in ways that make success unlikely (which has now been proved out).
I think the doge thing is silly though. It didn't fail because it was "constrained in ways that make success unlikely", it failed because: 1. There was obviously just arithmetically not enough money in discretionary spending to make more than a tiny dent in spending, and 2. They never made even the most cursory effort to improve efficiency, and just went with this ideological chainsaw approach. Maybe there's some version of the idea that was (and is) a good one, but it was always doomed to fail as conceived and led.