I think Yarvin and Parvini when they were at a conference together called the cathedral/chest a chicken and egg conundrum. However Yavini's cathedral looked so pathetic in the US election.
However there is no denying social status and ideology will influence money.
The pervasive and persistent nature of leftist projects coincidentally allow big business to thrive, if we look at the example provided, especially vis a vis black labour and unions. This potentially offers room for certain synthesis between two theses - the Cathedral beliefs at given time were a convenient tool to lean on for the parties in the Chest, so both fed off each other's goals and opportunities provided. This is highly contingent of the time and place, as emphasised by the article, so perhaps this comparison warrants testing on another case. The question really is about whether you are dealing with opportunistic followers or ardent believers when examining the Cathedral.
We are entirely agreed. And I have been considering another test case for just this reason.
Though my hunch is that regardless of how much self-interest motivates the elite, the field of play, so to speak, is determined by ideology/socially acceptable belief. If reinstituting Jim Crow laws across the nation were advantageous to the Big Banks, I) this would not occur to them because it’s taboo and II) even if it did, they couldn’t make it happen. There would be too much resistance from true-believers in muh-diversity.
Whose model is better at predicting? I don't really follow Yarvin that closely, and AA doesn't do predictions anymore. But AA did call the Trump win (using his model) as well as the total smackdown on college activist types who were making too much noise about Palestine. Doesn't necessarily mean he's right but it's something.
Agreed. The way that AA predicted the regime's change of heart re: Trump was paying attention to the statements made by the regime's most powerful men, like Jamie Dimon, Elon Musk, etc. He listened to the mood music of the regime, so to speak.
There is much to learn from both Moldbug and AA. Anyone interested in power politics should be familiar with both.
There’s a whole category of Right Wing kitsch. “Blah, blah, friend/enemy distinction, blah, blah, power likes to reveal itself, no hide itself, no it flows top-down, no there’s circulation, blah, blah, Spengler, blah.”
Yours is a reasonable position, and one that I flirt with in the article. Part of my answer to the contrary, though, hinges on the meaning of “control” or, as I put it in the article, what constitutes a “decision.”
A proper decision (as opposed to a mere reflex) requires, among other things, an aim. Ideology often supplies the aims of political actors. If the Chest is moving all the pieces on the board, why do they move them here and not there? What they are aiming for, what they believe, determines that. Who decided what they believe? The Cathedral.
The Chest may be in control, but the phantom-sovereignty of the Cathedral remains.
I do not deny that geo-politics influenced the decisions of this era. You give a nice summary of the process. And I point out in the article that the MIC was behind Brown to a certain extent.
But the whole idea of the Octopus and Cathedral is that power in complex systems like the US is not located in one industry. The banks have their interests, the MIC it’s own, the spy agencies, racial, ethnic and religious groups yet another, and so forth.
The self-interest that caused the whole apparatus of power to converge on integration is different for each node of power. But one thing that came to unite all those nodes, was a certain kind of progressive (socialist/communist) orthodoxy.
The line between self-interest and ideology is grey. But not every powerful agent in the story of Brown was acting based on the Red Scare because half of them were reds!
My historiography requires nothing, it simply looks at what happened and offers explanations. Without a decades long plan funded by Commies and Jews Ike would have had no Supreme Court decision to enforce using the military.
And in any event, your claim—that the US concerns over appearances in the third world forced decision makers to integrate—proves my point. The U.S.’s anti-Soviet ideology caused them to act as they did. That ideology did not have to be what it was. Especially in light of the wartime alliance between the US and USSR.
When the plan of integration was laid out in the late 1930’s, there was no Cold War and no fight over the third world between the US and USSR. But the decision was taken BEFORE WWII to ethnically cleanse the Catholic ethnics from the northern cities and import cheap and pliable black labor to shore up WASP political control of northern cities and ensure victory over fascism.
Jim Crows’ fate was sealed when WWII began because that’s when integration became official deep state policy.
I’d be interested to see a more complete account supporting your position. I think we’ve reached the point where only a more fulsome presentation of your position would be fully satisfactory, given the breadth of the claims.
People seriously underestimate the resilience of Yarvins ideas since when put under scrutiny they always reveal thenselves as right.
Most criticisms of him amount to ad hominem attacks or else focus on straw men of his arguments.
Parvini makes an honest attempt to provide an alternative theory—which is indeed competitive as a theory. But Yarvin takes the W in the end.
I think Yarvin and Parvini when they were at a conference together called the cathedral/chest a chicken and egg conundrum. However Yavini's cathedral looked so pathetic in the US election.
However there is no denying social status and ideology will influence money.
The pervasive and persistent nature of leftist projects coincidentally allow big business to thrive, if we look at the example provided, especially vis a vis black labour and unions. This potentially offers room for certain synthesis between two theses - the Cathedral beliefs at given time were a convenient tool to lean on for the parties in the Chest, so both fed off each other's goals and opportunities provided. This is highly contingent of the time and place, as emphasised by the article, so perhaps this comparison warrants testing on another case. The question really is about whether you are dealing with opportunistic followers or ardent believers when examining the Cathedral.
We are entirely agreed. And I have been considering another test case for just this reason.
Though my hunch is that regardless of how much self-interest motivates the elite, the field of play, so to speak, is determined by ideology/socially acceptable belief. If reinstituting Jim Crow laws across the nation were advantageous to the Big Banks, I) this would not occur to them because it’s taboo and II) even if it did, they couldn’t make it happen. There would be too much resistance from true-believers in muh-diversity.
Whose model is better at predicting? I don't really follow Yarvin that closely, and AA doesn't do predictions anymore. But AA did call the Trump win (using his model) as well as the total smackdown on college activist types who were making too much noise about Palestine. Doesn't necessarily mean he's right but it's something.
Agreed. The way that AA predicted the regime's change of heart re: Trump was paying attention to the statements made by the regime's most powerful men, like Jamie Dimon, Elon Musk, etc. He listened to the mood music of the regime, so to speak.
There is much to learn from both Moldbug and AA. Anyone interested in power politics should be familiar with both.
Lots to sit with here, I always liked Catherine Austin Fitts concept of “Mr Global”
Seems like to AA octopus just means yahud at this point.
There’s a whole category of Right Wing kitsch. “Blah, blah, friend/enemy distinction, blah, blah, power likes to reveal itself, no hide itself, no it flows top-down, no there’s circulation, blah, blah, Spengler, blah.”
Yours is a reasonable position, and one that I flirt with in the article. Part of my answer to the contrary, though, hinges on the meaning of “control” or, as I put it in the article, what constitutes a “decision.”
A proper decision (as opposed to a mere reflex) requires, among other things, an aim. Ideology often supplies the aims of political actors. If the Chest is moving all the pieces on the board, why do they move them here and not there? What they are aiming for, what they believe, determines that. Who decided what they believe? The Cathedral.
The Chest may be in control, but the phantom-sovereignty of the Cathedral remains.
In a word, I am making a point that goes beyond Yarvin’s and Parvini’s schemata.
I do not deny that geo-politics influenced the decisions of this era. You give a nice summary of the process. And I point out in the article that the MIC was behind Brown to a certain extent.
But the whole idea of the Octopus and Cathedral is that power in complex systems like the US is not located in one industry. The banks have their interests, the MIC it’s own, the spy agencies, racial, ethnic and religious groups yet another, and so forth.
The self-interest that caused the whole apparatus of power to converge on integration is different for each node of power. But one thing that came to unite all those nodes, was a certain kind of progressive (socialist/communist) orthodoxy.
The line between self-interest and ideology is grey. But not every powerful agent in the story of Brown was acting based on the Red Scare because half of them were reds!
My historiography requires nothing, it simply looks at what happened and offers explanations. Without a decades long plan funded by Commies and Jews Ike would have had no Supreme Court decision to enforce using the military.
And in any event, your claim—that the US concerns over appearances in the third world forced decision makers to integrate—proves my point. The U.S.’s anti-Soviet ideology caused them to act as they did. That ideology did not have to be what it was. Especially in light of the wartime alliance between the US and USSR.
When the plan of integration was laid out in the late 1930’s, there was no Cold War and no fight over the third world between the US and USSR. But the decision was taken BEFORE WWII to ethnically cleanse the Catholic ethnics from the northern cities and import cheap and pliable black labor to shore up WASP political control of northern cities and ensure victory over fascism.
Jim Crows’ fate was sealed when WWII began because that’s when integration became official deep state policy.
I’d be interested to see a more complete account supporting your position. I think we’ve reached the point where only a more fulsome presentation of your position would be fully satisfactory, given the breadth of the claims.