What do you think?
Rate this book
A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations
This provocative volume contains a concentrated dose of Unqualified Reservations, the ultimate political Red Pill. Are you ready to escape the Matrix? Let’s see how deep the rabbit hole goes…
344 pages, Kindle Edition
First published January 1, 2009
156 people are currently reading
878 people want to read
About the author
Mencius Moldbug
12 books275 followersPen name of American political theorist and software developer Curtis Yarvin.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews
June 27, 2018
My project here is to analyze, in the detail required for all necessary understanding, the thought of Curtis Yarvin, who wrote under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. Yarvin is the most prominent figure of what has been called the Dark Enlightenment, one thread of modern reactionary thought. My short summary is that he offers mediocre analysis with some flashes of insight. Even so, his thought is ultimately mostly worthless, because his program for political change is silly, since it fails to understand both history and human nature, and is ultimately indistinguishable from the program of the Left. Overall I was very disappointed, and this write-up is shorter than I expected when beginning my project, since there is not all that much interesting to talk about.
As I read and write on Reaction, I continue to divide its modern thought into three basic groups, at least as far as its American incarnation. The first is those who endorse the Enlightenment and merely think that the American experiment has gone wrong from its ideal position, either in 1787 or 1866. Generally, this is associated with scholars who follow the late Leo Strauss. The second group, what I call Augustans, take a dim view of democracy and focus on power and its uses; they are ambivalent about or hostile to the Enlightenment. This group has a major sub-group, what I call “civil institutionalists,” who reject the Enlightenment but focus on the revival of society, not the uses of power. The third, who like to call themselves the “Dark Enlightenment,” a name that encapsulates both their objection to the actual Enlightenment and their atheist perspective, is a loose confederation whose most prominent philosopher is probably Yarvin. It is the Dark Enlightenment (also self-called “Neoreaction” or “NRx”) we are examining today, through the prism of Yarvin.
My own purpose in bothering to do this is to, ultimately, offer my own program for Reaction that is achievable, rational, and comports with reality and human nature. My premise is that our current Western structure is in terminal decline—though the decline I see is very different than the decline seen by Yarvin and his allies. Thus, I don’t care about the Dark Enlightenment as such, and am most definitely not going to join the team. I am merely using it as a mirror, to construct my own thoughts. If I were a betting man, I would say my own final program will be Augustan in nature, rejecting much of the Enlightenment and pushing a combination of Christianity and human achievement as a unifying force. Its avatars will be men like Ferdinand Magellan, Robert Gould Shaw, Hernán Cortes and Ignatius Loyola. Still, seeing what the Dark Enlightenment has to offer is actually clarifying for my program, since it shows the blind alleys one can go down.
This may seem like a lot of effort to put into something, the Dark Enlightenment, that is not an important movement, if measured by actual numbers of people who are paying any attention. Certainly, in the ten years that it’s been extant, it has accomplished nothing of its goals and has no political traction. In fact, it seems to mostly be dead or dying, having been overtaken by real events on the right wing of the political spectrum. So, I think of the Dark Enlightenment thinkers as mostly creators of thought experiments. Some of the thinkers are simply useless or bizarre, such as the very significant transhumanist/“accelerationist” contingent. None of them are leaders or have any charisma at all; they aspire to be Rousseau, perhaps, but without the magnetism, social acceptance or lionization. Still, given that our present situation is bad in many ways (though good in others), and it is both unsustainable and increasingly harming, rather than helping, human flourishing, thought experiments may be useful.
This present analysis is the entirety of the time I intend to spend on the Dark Enlightenment, since I have already reached the point of sharply diminishing returns. But to create the present analysis, I have spent quite a bit of effort. It has not been easy or particularly pleasant—not only have I read much of what Yarvin has written on his blog, I have also read various other prominent writers in the Dark Enlightenment, none of whom can actually write (notably Michael Anissimov and Nick Land), as well as writers outside to whom Yarvin points his readers, both modern and older. I have also read criticisms of Yarvin, and of the Dark Enlightenment more generally, ranging from Scott Alexander’s (of Slate Star Codex) semi-famous (in these circles) Anti-Reactionary FAQ to science fiction author David Brin’s rants. As dim a view as I have of the Dark Enlightenment’s program, and much of their analysis, those few on the Left who actually engage with it generally suffer from a complete lack of reasoning or interesting things to say. What they offer is basically a compilation of false and unexamined statements combined with personal insults, usually using what Scott Adams aptly calls “linguistic kill shots.” The sole exception seems to be Scott Alexander’s extended attempted factual takedown of Anissimov, which is not very good, just the best of a bad lot, and of limited value to any overall analysis, since Anissimov is a transhumanist believer in the Singularity, which makes him invincibly stupid and thus an easy target.
Even after this effort, it has not proved easy to engage with the Dark Enlightenment. Yarvin’s writing, which is the best among its thinkers, has numerous debilitating deficiencies. First, the organization is atrocious; while any given paragraph is usually written reasonably well, and the flow of discussion is more or less in one direction, there is no clear organization on argument. It is mostly musings, bordering on conversation, something the blog format tends to encourage. Musings have their place, but they have no point in political manifestos, and the reader suspects obfuscation. I haven’t read any Lenin, yet, but I’m very sure Lenin didn’t muse in his writings. Second, the snarky tone of ironic superiority grates on the reader, both just because it’s a bad tone, and because there is no reason for the reader to believe that Yarvin has earned it. Third, he beats metaphors to death; if I have to hear about the "Matrix"’s “red pill” one more time I’m going to scream. Fourth, and the single worst structural element of Yarvin’s writing, is that he will frequently create a link to refer to a third-party source, but the link will not specify what he is trying to show, and so any point simply hangs there unless the reader goes hunting. Or he will quote something with a link to it, not specifying the author and expecting the reader to go figure it out and then return. This would be bad enough, except that maybe 70% of Yarvin’s links are to Wikipedia, and of the remaining 30%, maybe 80% are dead. So, the reader reading a printout or a Kindle version offline is left mystified at critical points, trying to parse out what Yarvin is trying to say. If he is reading online, any flow of thought is continuously disrupted by the need to click, only to find that, in the case of Wikipedia, Yarvin could have summarized his point and omitted the link, and in the case of dead links, that he is baffled. This is, again, no way to write a political manifesto. Fifth, Yarvin pretty frequently shows that he is not as educated as he likes to think. For example, he repeatedly ascribes to Machiavelli the phrase “if you strike at a king, you must kill him,” though it really comes from Emerson (admittedly, a vastly inferior mind to Machiavelli). And it was not Edmund Burke, but Adam Smith, who said “there is a lot of ruin in a nation.” Such errors, rarely fatal but always irritating and undermining Yarvin’s claim to have a macroscopic view, crop up with metronomic regularity.
All Yarvin’s writings were written as posts on his blog, Unqualified Reservations, which is now dormant. It was active from 2007 until 2016, though the majority of writings took place between 2007 and 2009. The blog itself is wide-ranging, but Yarvin offered four multi-part writings, written as serials, totaling approximately a thousand pages in standard text, that seem to encapsulate most or all of his philosophy. The most talked-about is titled "An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives." The second, which has significant overlaps with the first, is "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations." Both of these I have read, twice, along with at least some reading of most of the (obscure) books he links to within those writings, and those two will be the focus of my analysis. Two other writings are more focused: "How Dawkins Got Pwned," a shorter screed attacking Richard Dawkins for being insufficiently dedicated to actual atheism and true unbiased inquiry, and Moldbug on Carlyle, a set of admiring essays about the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle. The first is unreadable; the second not terribly interesting. For all the attention Yarvin has gotten of late, it is not at all clear to me that any significant number of people have actually read anything Yarvin has written. All his four serial writings are available for the Kindle and have been for years; they have an average of two brief reviews on Amazon, from fans of his. The number of comments on his posts isn’t high—maybe an average of a hundred, with most of those coming from repeated comments from a handful of people. And his personal Blogger profile, prominent on his site, apparently over all time, has 60,509 views—of which ten are from me, since every time you go or hit “Refresh,” another is added. My conclusion is that if the more mainstream press had not occasionally mentioned Yarvin, nobody would ever have heard of him. Which does not show he is wrong, but does suggest delusions of grandeur, which is buttressed by his habit of stating that what he says is, once revealed, self-evident and irrefutable. Yarvin, like all Dark Enlightenment types, regards himself as a genius. It gets tiresome.
But Yarvin does offer a competent and half-original political typology. First, he defines progressives and reactionaries. To him, a reactionary is nothing more than “a believer in order.” Progressives have a more complex definition, because they are self-delusional liars. They “see themselves as the modern heirs of a tradition of change, stretching back to the Enlightenment. They see change as inherently good because they see this history as a history of progress, i.e., improvement. In other words, they believe in Whig history.” Progressivism’s real raison d’etre is being “a way for people who want power, to organize,” while at the same time being able to “rationalize this ruthless, carnivorous activity as a philanthropic cause. The real attraction is the thrill of power and victory—sometimes with a little money thrown in.” And so the core distinction between right and left is that “Right represents peace, order, and security; left represents war, anarchy, and crime. . . . The left is chaos and anarchy, and the more anarchy you have, the more power there is to go around.”
Yarvin calls the “Synopsis” the received wisdom of Progressivism at any point on any particular matter, which wisdom always changes in the direction of being more left-wing. More left-wing means movement towards entropy, toward the opposite of order. Presumably the pursuit of egalitarianism and emancipation, the core values of the Enlightenment Left, aligns with entropy, although Yarvin does not make this argument explicitly (suggesting a failure to understand actual Enlightenment thought). According to Yarvin, this slide toward entropy began with the radical Protestants, Dissenters, which led to the Enlightenment, which has led to nothing good. Finally, Yarvin’s most famous definition, and neologism, which has achieved mainstream use among conservatives, is the “Cathedral”, which is “the set of institutions that produce and propagate the Synopsis—mainstream academia, journalism, and education.” This is a form of spontaneous coordination, “Gleichschaltung without Goebbels.” Effectively, “the press and universities control the State,” through the vehicle of the Cathedral. It is not a coincidence that the term has religious overtones, as we will see below, though Yarvin is a hardcore atheist.
I think this is mostly exactly right about Progressives, and certainly the Cathedral is a compelling and accurate image, although as I have delineated elsewhere, there are multiple types of power that attract, and they should be distinguished. Yarvin notes “The progressive never sees it this way. . . . Usually there is some end which is unequivocally desirable—often even from the reactionary perspective. But if you could somehow design a progressive movement that could achieve its goal without seizing power or smashing its enemies, it would have little energy and find few supporters. What makes these movements so popular is the opportunity for action and the prospect of victory.” “The continued existence of reactionary [i.e., Right] phenomena provides evidence that progressives are struggling against dark forces of titanic and unbounded strength. . . . So it is reality itself that progressivism attacks. Reality is the perfect enemy; it always fights back, it can never be defeated, and infinite energy can be expended in unsuccessfully resisting it.” This explains the unhinged nature of late-stage Progressivism—having successfully overcome the Right on any issue that could plausibly be tied to reality, they have moved on to wholly fantasy political programs waged with increasing shrillness, such as the demand that mentally ill people believing they are really the opposite sex be praised and accommodated, including by surgery for children against the parents’ wishes, or that we pretend a child can have two fathers, one of which bore him. I can hardly wait for their next few crusades, because my guess (not Yarvin’s) is that their reach has exceeded their grasp.
Whether that is true is really the key question for our future. Yarvin correctly identifies that history has moved in a Progressive way for two hundred years (he would say longer, but his grasp of history is poor). To Progressives, of course, this is because they are correct and on the right side of history. More likely, it is because they have a unifying, simple theme attractive to a wide range of people: you can be granted power over others, and, with respect to the natural world, ye shall be as gods. Whatever the reason, this process has accelerated in recent decades, creating a centrifugal force that will, I think, force a fragmentation that will be an opportunity. Needless to say, for Yarvin, democracy is not desirable in the abstract; it was a failure when tried, and now we do not even have democracy; rather, now, “the government implements [the Cathedral’s] scientific public policy in the public interest.”
Back to the analysis. Most progressives are part of the ruling class, what Yarvin calls Brahmins. Opposed to them are Townies. Brahmins are, on average, richer, more fashionable, tied to elite jobs, and viewed as superior. This is basically the red state/blue state distinction; or Joan Williams’s “professional-managerial” elite, or any of the many other variations on classification of Americans that have lately become fashionable. Over time, Progressivism always wins in America, and the Right always retreats. Progressivism, since it is merely the desire for power manifested as the demand for change, is a predatory phenomenon, both inside the country, where Brahmins prey on the Townies, and outside, such as in World War II, where the worldwide Progressive alliance started the war and crushed non-Progressive movements, a process that has continued globally since. Yarvin is continually spitting epithets at Nazis and fascists, the latter poorly defined as “neomilitarism” in the Wilhelmine mold, while admitting that they are reactionary movements opposed to Progressives, which creates what may charitably be called a feeling of dissonance.
So that’s the modern world of Curtis Yarvin. On to normative claims. The core premise of Dark Enlightenment types is that Western society has gotten worse on every relevant objective measure, most especially in personal security against violence, but also on other measures. But this is false. What Steven Pinker gets wrong is not that the world has gotten better on certain measures; it is why it has gotten better. As I have demonstrated at length, the Enlightenment has nothing to do with it, and in fact the Enlightenment project has reached its inevitable end. But that says little or nothing about the future potential for human progress and human flourishing, although to be sure the West will need to be released from the idiot dead end into which the Enlightenment has led it, which is now actively generating the opposite of human progress and human flourishing.
Anyway, Yarvin’s core claim is that the only reason for a government to exist is to ensure peace, order, and security. According to him, all modern governments fail, and fail increasingly, at this. Around the world, from the United States to Naples to Guatemala, peace, order and security a hundred years ago was much greater. It really cannot be overemphasized that all Yarvin cares about is personal security. He does not mean national security (he wants to return to what he incorrectly labels “classic international law,” basically might makes right, in international relations), he means lack of violent crime. He claims that crime in America and England (he never says anything relevant about the history of any other country, other than occasional cherry-picked narrow pieces of data) has exploded over the past century. I am not sure of the truth of this, other than that crime in America has decreased significantly in the past twenty years, and crime in England increased.
Regardless of the statistical truth about crime, this is a pauperized vision of government, ignoring thousands of years of political philosophy on the question of the purpose of government as it relates to human flourishing. It is, however, a vision of government that fits well (though by no means perfectly) with the only pre-nineteenth-century political philosopher Yarvin cares about: Machiavelli. The Dark Enlightenment is all in with Machiavelli—not with the details of his thought, with which they cannot be bothered to engage, but with Machiavelli’s rejection of virtue as having any relevance to governance. Yarvin has no different view of human nature or human teleology than Progressives. For the Dark Enlightenment, it is instrumentalism all the way down, and the sole desired fruit for the populace of that instrumentalism is personal security against non-state violence. As far as I can tell, few of the major Dark Enlightenment figures have any moral vision at all. They don’t even have utilitarian morality, although they generally view the world through a utilitarian lens. This leads some of them into openly endorsing eugenics (which was, of course, a Progressive invention widely implemented once already in the United States), and I suspect all of them would endorse it in practice. I further suspect they’d endorse all sorts of things in practice that would be very unpleasant. There is some truth in the claim that Yarvin makes, which I discuss below . . . .
[More, if you're interested, at my blog, www.theworthyhouse.com]
As I read and write on Reaction, I continue to divide its modern thought into three basic groups, at least as far as its American incarnation. The first is those who endorse the Enlightenment and merely think that the American experiment has gone wrong from its ideal position, either in 1787 or 1866. Generally, this is associated with scholars who follow the late Leo Strauss. The second group, what I call Augustans, take a dim view of democracy and focus on power and its uses; they are ambivalent about or hostile to the Enlightenment. This group has a major sub-group, what I call “civil institutionalists,” who reject the Enlightenment but focus on the revival of society, not the uses of power. The third, who like to call themselves the “Dark Enlightenment,” a name that encapsulates both their objection to the actual Enlightenment and their atheist perspective, is a loose confederation whose most prominent philosopher is probably Yarvin. It is the Dark Enlightenment (also self-called “Neoreaction” or “NRx”) we are examining today, through the prism of Yarvin.
My own purpose in bothering to do this is to, ultimately, offer my own program for Reaction that is achievable, rational, and comports with reality and human nature. My premise is that our current Western structure is in terminal decline—though the decline I see is very different than the decline seen by Yarvin and his allies. Thus, I don’t care about the Dark Enlightenment as such, and am most definitely not going to join the team. I am merely using it as a mirror, to construct my own thoughts. If I were a betting man, I would say my own final program will be Augustan in nature, rejecting much of the Enlightenment and pushing a combination of Christianity and human achievement as a unifying force. Its avatars will be men like Ferdinand Magellan, Robert Gould Shaw, Hernán Cortes and Ignatius Loyola. Still, seeing what the Dark Enlightenment has to offer is actually clarifying for my program, since it shows the blind alleys one can go down.
This may seem like a lot of effort to put into something, the Dark Enlightenment, that is not an important movement, if measured by actual numbers of people who are paying any attention. Certainly, in the ten years that it’s been extant, it has accomplished nothing of its goals and has no political traction. In fact, it seems to mostly be dead or dying, having been overtaken by real events on the right wing of the political spectrum. So, I think of the Dark Enlightenment thinkers as mostly creators of thought experiments. Some of the thinkers are simply useless or bizarre, such as the very significant transhumanist/“accelerationist” contingent. None of them are leaders or have any charisma at all; they aspire to be Rousseau, perhaps, but without the magnetism, social acceptance or lionization. Still, given that our present situation is bad in many ways (though good in others), and it is both unsustainable and increasingly harming, rather than helping, human flourishing, thought experiments may be useful.
This present analysis is the entirety of the time I intend to spend on the Dark Enlightenment, since I have already reached the point of sharply diminishing returns. But to create the present analysis, I have spent quite a bit of effort. It has not been easy or particularly pleasant—not only have I read much of what Yarvin has written on his blog, I have also read various other prominent writers in the Dark Enlightenment, none of whom can actually write (notably Michael Anissimov and Nick Land), as well as writers outside to whom Yarvin points his readers, both modern and older. I have also read criticisms of Yarvin, and of the Dark Enlightenment more generally, ranging from Scott Alexander’s (of Slate Star Codex) semi-famous (in these circles) Anti-Reactionary FAQ to science fiction author David Brin’s rants. As dim a view as I have of the Dark Enlightenment’s program, and much of their analysis, those few on the Left who actually engage with it generally suffer from a complete lack of reasoning or interesting things to say. What they offer is basically a compilation of false and unexamined statements combined with personal insults, usually using what Scott Adams aptly calls “linguistic kill shots.” The sole exception seems to be Scott Alexander’s extended attempted factual takedown of Anissimov, which is not very good, just the best of a bad lot, and of limited value to any overall analysis, since Anissimov is a transhumanist believer in the Singularity, which makes him invincibly stupid and thus an easy target.
Even after this effort, it has not proved easy to engage with the Dark Enlightenment. Yarvin’s writing, which is the best among its thinkers, has numerous debilitating deficiencies. First, the organization is atrocious; while any given paragraph is usually written reasonably well, and the flow of discussion is more or less in one direction, there is no clear organization on argument. It is mostly musings, bordering on conversation, something the blog format tends to encourage. Musings have their place, but they have no point in political manifestos, and the reader suspects obfuscation. I haven’t read any Lenin, yet, but I’m very sure Lenin didn’t muse in his writings. Second, the snarky tone of ironic superiority grates on the reader, both just because it’s a bad tone, and because there is no reason for the reader to believe that Yarvin has earned it. Third, he beats metaphors to death; if I have to hear about the "Matrix"’s “red pill” one more time I’m going to scream. Fourth, and the single worst structural element of Yarvin’s writing, is that he will frequently create a link to refer to a third-party source, but the link will not specify what he is trying to show, and so any point simply hangs there unless the reader goes hunting. Or he will quote something with a link to it, not specifying the author and expecting the reader to go figure it out and then return. This would be bad enough, except that maybe 70% of Yarvin’s links are to Wikipedia, and of the remaining 30%, maybe 80% are dead. So, the reader reading a printout or a Kindle version offline is left mystified at critical points, trying to parse out what Yarvin is trying to say. If he is reading online, any flow of thought is continuously disrupted by the need to click, only to find that, in the case of Wikipedia, Yarvin could have summarized his point and omitted the link, and in the case of dead links, that he is baffled. This is, again, no way to write a political manifesto. Fifth, Yarvin pretty frequently shows that he is not as educated as he likes to think. For example, he repeatedly ascribes to Machiavelli the phrase “if you strike at a king, you must kill him,” though it really comes from Emerson (admittedly, a vastly inferior mind to Machiavelli). And it was not Edmund Burke, but Adam Smith, who said “there is a lot of ruin in a nation.” Such errors, rarely fatal but always irritating and undermining Yarvin’s claim to have a macroscopic view, crop up with metronomic regularity.
All Yarvin’s writings were written as posts on his blog, Unqualified Reservations, which is now dormant. It was active from 2007 until 2016, though the majority of writings took place between 2007 and 2009. The blog itself is wide-ranging, but Yarvin offered four multi-part writings, written as serials, totaling approximately a thousand pages in standard text, that seem to encapsulate most or all of his philosophy. The most talked-about is titled "An Open Letter to Open-Minded Progressives." The second, which has significant overlaps with the first, is "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations." Both of these I have read, twice, along with at least some reading of most of the (obscure) books he links to within those writings, and those two will be the focus of my analysis. Two other writings are more focused: "How Dawkins Got Pwned," a shorter screed attacking Richard Dawkins for being insufficiently dedicated to actual atheism and true unbiased inquiry, and Moldbug on Carlyle, a set of admiring essays about the Scottish philosopher Thomas Carlyle. The first is unreadable; the second not terribly interesting. For all the attention Yarvin has gotten of late, it is not at all clear to me that any significant number of people have actually read anything Yarvin has written. All his four serial writings are available for the Kindle and have been for years; they have an average of two brief reviews on Amazon, from fans of his. The number of comments on his posts isn’t high—maybe an average of a hundred, with most of those coming from repeated comments from a handful of people. And his personal Blogger profile, prominent on his site, apparently over all time, has 60,509 views—of which ten are from me, since every time you go or hit “Refresh,” another is added. My conclusion is that if the more mainstream press had not occasionally mentioned Yarvin, nobody would ever have heard of him. Which does not show he is wrong, but does suggest delusions of grandeur, which is buttressed by his habit of stating that what he says is, once revealed, self-evident and irrefutable. Yarvin, like all Dark Enlightenment types, regards himself as a genius. It gets tiresome.
But Yarvin does offer a competent and half-original political typology. First, he defines progressives and reactionaries. To him, a reactionary is nothing more than “a believer in order.” Progressives have a more complex definition, because they are self-delusional liars. They “see themselves as the modern heirs of a tradition of change, stretching back to the Enlightenment. They see change as inherently good because they see this history as a history of progress, i.e., improvement. In other words, they believe in Whig history.” Progressivism’s real raison d’etre is being “a way for people who want power, to organize,” while at the same time being able to “rationalize this ruthless, carnivorous activity as a philanthropic cause. The real attraction is the thrill of power and victory—sometimes with a little money thrown in.” And so the core distinction between right and left is that “Right represents peace, order, and security; left represents war, anarchy, and crime. . . . The left is chaos and anarchy, and the more anarchy you have, the more power there is to go around.”
Yarvin calls the “Synopsis” the received wisdom of Progressivism at any point on any particular matter, which wisdom always changes in the direction of being more left-wing. More left-wing means movement towards entropy, toward the opposite of order. Presumably the pursuit of egalitarianism and emancipation, the core values of the Enlightenment Left, aligns with entropy, although Yarvin does not make this argument explicitly (suggesting a failure to understand actual Enlightenment thought). According to Yarvin, this slide toward entropy began with the radical Protestants, Dissenters, which led to the Enlightenment, which has led to nothing good. Finally, Yarvin’s most famous definition, and neologism, which has achieved mainstream use among conservatives, is the “Cathedral”, which is “the set of institutions that produce and propagate the Synopsis—mainstream academia, journalism, and education.” This is a form of spontaneous coordination, “Gleichschaltung without Goebbels.” Effectively, “the press and universities control the State,” through the vehicle of the Cathedral. It is not a coincidence that the term has religious overtones, as we will see below, though Yarvin is a hardcore atheist.
I think this is mostly exactly right about Progressives, and certainly the Cathedral is a compelling and accurate image, although as I have delineated elsewhere, there are multiple types of power that attract, and they should be distinguished. Yarvin notes “The progressive never sees it this way. . . . Usually there is some end which is unequivocally desirable—often even from the reactionary perspective. But if you could somehow design a progressive movement that could achieve its goal without seizing power or smashing its enemies, it would have little energy and find few supporters. What makes these movements so popular is the opportunity for action and the prospect of victory.” “The continued existence of reactionary [i.e., Right] phenomena provides evidence that progressives are struggling against dark forces of titanic and unbounded strength. . . . So it is reality itself that progressivism attacks. Reality is the perfect enemy; it always fights back, it can never be defeated, and infinite energy can be expended in unsuccessfully resisting it.” This explains the unhinged nature of late-stage Progressivism—having successfully overcome the Right on any issue that could plausibly be tied to reality, they have moved on to wholly fantasy political programs waged with increasing shrillness, such as the demand that mentally ill people believing they are really the opposite sex be praised and accommodated, including by surgery for children against the parents’ wishes, or that we pretend a child can have two fathers, one of which bore him. I can hardly wait for their next few crusades, because my guess (not Yarvin’s) is that their reach has exceeded their grasp.
Whether that is true is really the key question for our future. Yarvin correctly identifies that history has moved in a Progressive way for two hundred years (he would say longer, but his grasp of history is poor). To Progressives, of course, this is because they are correct and on the right side of history. More likely, it is because they have a unifying, simple theme attractive to a wide range of people: you can be granted power over others, and, with respect to the natural world, ye shall be as gods. Whatever the reason, this process has accelerated in recent decades, creating a centrifugal force that will, I think, force a fragmentation that will be an opportunity. Needless to say, for Yarvin, democracy is not desirable in the abstract; it was a failure when tried, and now we do not even have democracy; rather, now, “the government implements [the Cathedral’s] scientific public policy in the public interest.”
Back to the analysis. Most progressives are part of the ruling class, what Yarvin calls Brahmins. Opposed to them are Townies. Brahmins are, on average, richer, more fashionable, tied to elite jobs, and viewed as superior. This is basically the red state/blue state distinction; or Joan Williams’s “professional-managerial” elite, or any of the many other variations on classification of Americans that have lately become fashionable. Over time, Progressivism always wins in America, and the Right always retreats. Progressivism, since it is merely the desire for power manifested as the demand for change, is a predatory phenomenon, both inside the country, where Brahmins prey on the Townies, and outside, such as in World War II, where the worldwide Progressive alliance started the war and crushed non-Progressive movements, a process that has continued globally since. Yarvin is continually spitting epithets at Nazis and fascists, the latter poorly defined as “neomilitarism” in the Wilhelmine mold, while admitting that they are reactionary movements opposed to Progressives, which creates what may charitably be called a feeling of dissonance.
So that’s the modern world of Curtis Yarvin. On to normative claims. The core premise of Dark Enlightenment types is that Western society has gotten worse on every relevant objective measure, most especially in personal security against violence, but also on other measures. But this is false. What Steven Pinker gets wrong is not that the world has gotten better on certain measures; it is why it has gotten better. As I have demonstrated at length, the Enlightenment has nothing to do with it, and in fact the Enlightenment project has reached its inevitable end. But that says little or nothing about the future potential for human progress and human flourishing, although to be sure the West will need to be released from the idiot dead end into which the Enlightenment has led it, which is now actively generating the opposite of human progress and human flourishing.
Anyway, Yarvin’s core claim is that the only reason for a government to exist is to ensure peace, order, and security. According to him, all modern governments fail, and fail increasingly, at this. Around the world, from the United States to Naples to Guatemala, peace, order and security a hundred years ago was much greater. It really cannot be overemphasized that all Yarvin cares about is personal security. He does not mean national security (he wants to return to what he incorrectly labels “classic international law,” basically might makes right, in international relations), he means lack of violent crime. He claims that crime in America and England (he never says anything relevant about the history of any other country, other than occasional cherry-picked narrow pieces of data) has exploded over the past century. I am not sure of the truth of this, other than that crime in America has decreased significantly in the past twenty years, and crime in England increased.
Regardless of the statistical truth about crime, this is a pauperized vision of government, ignoring thousands of years of political philosophy on the question of the purpose of government as it relates to human flourishing. It is, however, a vision of government that fits well (though by no means perfectly) with the only pre-nineteenth-century political philosopher Yarvin cares about: Machiavelli. The Dark Enlightenment is all in with Machiavelli—not with the details of his thought, with which they cannot be bothered to engage, but with Machiavelli’s rejection of virtue as having any relevance to governance. Yarvin has no different view of human nature or human teleology than Progressives. For the Dark Enlightenment, it is instrumentalism all the way down, and the sole desired fruit for the populace of that instrumentalism is personal security against non-state violence. As far as I can tell, few of the major Dark Enlightenment figures have any moral vision at all. They don’t even have utilitarian morality, although they generally view the world through a utilitarian lens. This leads some of them into openly endorsing eugenics (which was, of course, a Progressive invention widely implemented once already in the United States), and I suspect all of them would endorse it in practice. I further suspect they’d endorse all sorts of things in practice that would be very unpleasant. There is some truth in the claim that Yarvin makes, which I discuss below . . . .
[More, if you're interested, at my blog, www.theworthyhouse.com]
September 5, 2016
I don't always read extreme right-wing conspiracy theory books, but when I do... "A Gentle Introduction to Unqualified Reservations" is a bit better than I had expected. This book is the basis for the neoreactionary "Dark Enlightenment" that apparently is getting significant uptake among the West Coast tech elite.
It's sort of tricky to define exactly what the neoreactionaries actually stand for. Star Slate Codex (which also has a great takedown piece at http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/...) says:
> Neoreaction is a political ideology supporting a return to traditional ideas of government and society, especially traditional monarchy and an ethno-nationalist state. It sees itself opposed to modern ideas like democracy, human rights, multiculturalism, and secularism.
While it's mostly wildly revisionist history and delusional conspiracy theorizing, it does actually provide an interesting perspective on some aspects of our society. Sometimes a book is so far out in left field that it's actually informative to try to figure out why exactly it's wrong. This is a book like that.
Moldbug (a pseudonym) raised some points that I didn't have good answers to:
* Why aren't there "multiple, divergent, competing schools of thought within the American university system" - particularly outside of the "hard" sciences?
* Does government funding of science distort incentives? Does it create incentives for "alarmist" science?
* To what extent is science funding influenced by ideology?
* Does the lack of falsifiable claims in climate science mean it's not real science?
* How responsive is our government to the will of elected officials? Can they get an entrenched bureaucracy to modify its course?
I was most intrigued by Moldbug's critique of the scientific establishment. He seems to be very pro-science/rationality while being very opposed to the existing scientific establishment. I'm not well-versed enough (yet!) to be able to determine if his critique of climate science is legitimate yet, but it certainly got me thinking.
His chapters on revisionist histories of the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and WWII seemed wildly off-base and his sources thoroughly cherry-picked. His stuff on "Human Neurological Uniformity" seemed straight-up racist. Moldbug's writing style is hyperbolic, snide, and generally hard to follow.
I was also disappointed with his utopian solution - let's just switch over to this system I invented in my armchair... overnight we'll create a perfect government run by angels. Yeah, that sounds about right...
So overall, this book is totally wrong... but in an interesting way.
Full review and highlights at: http://books.max-nova.com/unqualified-reservations
It's sort of tricky to define exactly what the neoreactionaries actually stand for. Star Slate Codex (which also has a great takedown piece at http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/10/20/...) says:
> Neoreaction is a political ideology supporting a return to traditional ideas of government and society, especially traditional monarchy and an ethno-nationalist state. It sees itself opposed to modern ideas like democracy, human rights, multiculturalism, and secularism.
While it's mostly wildly revisionist history and delusional conspiracy theorizing, it does actually provide an interesting perspective on some aspects of our society. Sometimes a book is so far out in left field that it's actually informative to try to figure out why exactly it's wrong. This is a book like that.
Moldbug (a pseudonym) raised some points that I didn't have good answers to:
* Why aren't there "multiple, divergent, competing schools of thought within the American university system" - particularly outside of the "hard" sciences?
* Does government funding of science distort incentives? Does it create incentives for "alarmist" science?
* To what extent is science funding influenced by ideology?
* Does the lack of falsifiable claims in climate science mean it's not real science?
* How responsive is our government to the will of elected officials? Can they get an entrenched bureaucracy to modify its course?
I was most intrigued by Moldbug's critique of the scientific establishment. He seems to be very pro-science/rationality while being very opposed to the existing scientific establishment. I'm not well-versed enough (yet!) to be able to determine if his critique of climate science is legitimate yet, but it certainly got me thinking.
His chapters on revisionist histories of the American Revolution, the American Civil War, and WWII seemed wildly off-base and his sources thoroughly cherry-picked. His stuff on "Human Neurological Uniformity" seemed straight-up racist. Moldbug's writing style is hyperbolic, snide, and generally hard to follow.
I was also disappointed with his utopian solution - let's just switch over to this system I invented in my armchair... overnight we'll create a perfect government run by angels. Yeah, that sounds about right...
So overall, this book is totally wrong... but in an interesting way.
Full review and highlights at: http://books.max-nova.com/unqualified-reservations
February 18, 2019
This book can be considered as an introduction to neoreactionary thought (Dark Enlightenment), which was founded by Curtis Yarvin under the pseudonym "Mencius Moldbug", along with the British philosopher Nick Land. It basically contains a skilful encapsulation of history and politics during the last three centuries and a rigorous analysis of what went wrong and how it could be remedied.
This philosophical thought rejects modernity (in some measure), democracy, and equality in favor of radical solutions to the problems of government, ranging from neocameralism to propertarianism and anarcho-capitalism (to a lesser degree).
I was introduced to the Dark Enlightenment by other means and I had pending the reading of this book, all I can say is that reading this is a great mental redpilling experience for any open minded right-wing intellectual.
It's a canonical reading for anyone who considers himself part of the dissident right.
This philosophical thought rejects modernity (in some measure), democracy, and equality in favor of radical solutions to the problems of government, ranging from neocameralism to propertarianism and anarcho-capitalism (to a lesser degree).
I was introduced to the Dark Enlightenment by other means and I had pending the reading of this book, all I can say is that reading this is a great mental redpilling experience for any open minded right-wing intellectual.
It's a canonical reading for anyone who considers himself part of the dissident right.
August 9, 2016
Inspiring
A deft encapsulation of history and politics - largely in the Anglosphere - over the last 300 years and a rigorous analysis of what went wrong and how it might be remediated.
A deft encapsulation of history and politics - largely in the Anglosphere - over the last 300 years and a rigorous analysis of what went wrong and how it might be remediated.
October 31, 2021
Moldbug has a great, provocative and in my opinion correct read on history and the present. I don't like his style, particularly when mid chapter he sends the reader to read another book and come back. His ideas about the ways to dismantle the current political system do not make much sense to me.
July 14, 2018
Moldy is amazing, though chatty and snarky. It is the veritable Red pill, of legend. Remove the Cambridge parasite from your skull, jump down the rabbit hole, chocks away.
September 4, 2025
*Read for my thesis*
Where do I even start lol. Ok so I think this book gets a lot of hate because people will read one sentence that on its own is completely absurd and questionable and then they think that Yarvin is a terrible person without considering the sentence in the context of the work as a whole and then it makes a lot more sense and is less unreasonable. I don't really think you can gain anything from reading this unless you go into it already sceptical of democracy and of the values we hold to be true, so I don't think it's going to radicalize anyone.
I think a lot of people who criticize Yarvin's political model don't really fully understand his thought, or political theory as a subject at all. There has been a lot of discourse around him lately and how his whole idea of disrupting democracy and implementing a coorporate-like structure that is led by a CEO-like figure is evil and horrible and wrong and we should all persecute him. I think this criticism is slightly invalid because the people who criticize Yarvin's anti-democratic tendencies come at his philosophy assuming that the best kind of government is one that allows the most power to the most people. Yarvin fundamentally disagrees with this, and so of course if you look at his philosophy from that ideological grounding it doesn't make any sense. Yarvin is more interested in the cultivation of an excellent society and rightfully diagnoses that the problem with democracy is its fundamental inclination towards mediocrity. I think, overall, his work is a stark reminder that before we criticize something we must give it a chance. I think his critics would be well-served to actually read his work and listen to what he has to say before dismissing it entirely, but this is a huge problem in America today in general and I think is evidence of widening political polarization.
In reference to my thesis, I think his labeling as a "Nietzschean" is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of this thought. He only accords with Nietzsche on a few points, one of them being that the best should rule. Other than that, they have a lot of disagreements, ESPECIALLY in the way that Yarvin places so much supremacy on "truth" and even argues that we should look to the natural sciences in the university as an example of how the university should be run. I am sceptical that Nietzsche would like that very much. Alas, I think this label primarily stems from the following logic: Nietzsche is bad and hates democracy. Curtis Yarvin is bad and hates democracy. Thus, Nietzsche and Curtis Yarvin must be the same! Sad times we live in.
Where do I even start lol. Ok so I think this book gets a lot of hate because people will read one sentence that on its own is completely absurd and questionable and then they think that Yarvin is a terrible person without considering the sentence in the context of the work as a whole and then it makes a lot more sense and is less unreasonable. I don't really think you can gain anything from reading this unless you go into it already sceptical of democracy and of the values we hold to be true, so I don't think it's going to radicalize anyone.
I think a lot of people who criticize Yarvin's political model don't really fully understand his thought, or political theory as a subject at all. There has been a lot of discourse around him lately and how his whole idea of disrupting democracy and implementing a coorporate-like structure that is led by a CEO-like figure is evil and horrible and wrong and we should all persecute him. I think this criticism is slightly invalid because the people who criticize Yarvin's anti-democratic tendencies come at his philosophy assuming that the best kind of government is one that allows the most power to the most people. Yarvin fundamentally disagrees with this, and so of course if you look at his philosophy from that ideological grounding it doesn't make any sense. Yarvin is more interested in the cultivation of an excellent society and rightfully diagnoses that the problem with democracy is its fundamental inclination towards mediocrity. I think, overall, his work is a stark reminder that before we criticize something we must give it a chance. I think his critics would be well-served to actually read his work and listen to what he has to say before dismissing it entirely, but this is a huge problem in America today in general and I think is evidence of widening political polarization.
In reference to my thesis, I think his labeling as a "Nietzschean" is a result of a fundamental misunderstanding of this thought. He only accords with Nietzsche on a few points, one of them being that the best should rule. Other than that, they have a lot of disagreements, ESPECIALLY in the way that Yarvin places so much supremacy on "truth" and even argues that we should look to the natural sciences in the university as an example of how the university should be run. I am sceptical that Nietzsche would like that very much. Alas, I think this label primarily stems from the following logic: Nietzsche is bad and hates democracy. Curtis Yarvin is bad and hates democracy. Thus, Nietzsche and Curtis Yarvin must be the same! Sad times we live in.
February 16, 2023
There's few theorists in our times which have the clarity of thought, the sharpness in analysis required to truly see through the regime's fog and prescribe the (in my opinion) right antidote.
Curtis Yarvin is one of those writers which I get endless enjoyment out of reading, mostly because he so effortlessly drops the most unexpected takes, things that are so different and far flung from the usual political discourse. It's truly refreshing.
And what strikes one the most about these takes is that they're often right. It might take an entire chapter, or the whole book, to convince you of what he says, but more often than not you'll come around to it as well.
Modern times require modern solutions, and it's clear that democracy's steam is running out. A new vision is required, something which can renew not only politics but also culture as a whole.
I genuinely believe that one of the best arguments against the status quo is simply looking at the moral decay, the utter degeneracy of the social mores. The youth is devoid of emotion, robbed of experiences and vital energy. We are ruled by truly the worst of the worst, government from the sewers. How much longer can civilization hold out in this state?
The bleeding must stop, and Yarvin effectively provides new ideas to counter the societal collapse we are witnessing.
Curtis Yarvin is one of those writers which I get endless enjoyment out of reading, mostly because he so effortlessly drops the most unexpected takes, things that are so different and far flung from the usual political discourse. It's truly refreshing.
And what strikes one the most about these takes is that they're often right. It might take an entire chapter, or the whole book, to convince you of what he says, but more often than not you'll come around to it as well.
Modern times require modern solutions, and it's clear that democracy's steam is running out. A new vision is required, something which can renew not only politics but also culture as a whole.
I genuinely believe that one of the best arguments against the status quo is simply looking at the moral decay, the utter degeneracy of the social mores. The youth is devoid of emotion, robbed of experiences and vital energy. We are ruled by truly the worst of the worst, government from the sewers. How much longer can civilization hold out in this state?
The bleeding must stop, and Yarvin effectively provides new ideas to counter the societal collapse we are witnessing.
July 19, 2025
I began reading Yarvin expecting this to be a slog-pit redundant mess. I left being extremely amused, and slightly horrified that this is probably what the future holds. Yarvin in his own off way is extremely charming, I appreciated him constantly drawing from history and fantasy, it made this a really amusing read. I also think it's funny it took him 300 pages to say he wants Peter Thiel to overthrow democracy and the party system and run the US Gov.
I appreciate Yarvins voice and will be reading more!
I appreciate Yarvins voice and will be reading more!
April 20, 2020
The continuous denunciations of fascism and Nazi Germany got a bit tedious, but it can probably be explained by him saying that his family left Russia because of pogroms.
August 29, 2022
Moldbug gives red pills about history (American Revolution, Civil War, World Wars) and presents a plan for reactionaries to follow
July 27, 2020
I rate books based on how much i enjoy them.
I would give this 5 stars were it not for the disjointed and unbearably verbose way in which Yarvin writes. I would be very surprised to find that he outline or edits his writing outside of grammar.
Not only does he constantly tangent off, but he almost never supports the actual point he intends to make.
“Here’s the conclusion. allow me to support it”
*1000 words of tangents and disparate history facts*
“now that i’ve convinced you, let’s move to the next”
This is moldbug, and this book is no exception.
His only redeeming quality is that the conclusions he comes up with are so interesting and deep on a level that is near impossible to find elsewhere, you tolerate the 1 hour of rambling for that sweet sweet nugget of a new and brilliant idea.
I guess also his history tangents themselves occasionally end up being very useful in ways completely unrelated to the points he is trying to support.
Overall, This book massively changed my position on democracy and my understanding of the US. it could have been done in under 50 rather than 300 pages, but none the less it was worth the read, minus a star for making me work so hard to get it.
I would give this 5 stars were it not for the disjointed and unbearably verbose way in which Yarvin writes. I would be very surprised to find that he outline or edits his writing outside of grammar.
Not only does he constantly tangent off, but he almost never supports the actual point he intends to make.
“Here’s the conclusion. allow me to support it”
*1000 words of tangents and disparate history facts*
“now that i’ve convinced you, let’s move to the next”
This is moldbug, and this book is no exception.
His only redeeming quality is that the conclusions he comes up with are so interesting and deep on a level that is near impossible to find elsewhere, you tolerate the 1 hour of rambling for that sweet sweet nugget of a new and brilliant idea.
I guess also his history tangents themselves occasionally end up being very useful in ways completely unrelated to the points he is trying to support.
Overall, This book massively changed my position on democracy and my understanding of the US. it could have been done in under 50 rather than 300 pages, but none the less it was worth the read, minus a star for making me work so hard to get it.
October 5, 2015
Interesting political take, definitely different from most of the regular propoganda we encounter. Worth a read if only to expose yourself to a different perspective.
April 28, 2024
Mencius is, first and foremost, a good source for historical documents written by authors from outside of the orthodox Liberal tradition. As someone who finds novel analytic perspectives enriching, I found him worth reading, even if mostly as a historical survey paper. His critiques of the Modern Structure seemed very reasonable and his Cathedral metaphor captures the religious nature of institutional Science and the US doctrine of intervention.
Reflect upon the fact that public opinion is divine/sacral up until it deviates from the Progressive program, at which point it becomes vulgar populism.
Note that this is a classic Tragedy of the Commons scenario.
His critique of Conservatism comes down to it being merely watered down ("contaminated by reality") revolutionary doctrine, with all of the appeal that 'watered down' implies.
Unfortunately, Moldbug's Reaction (i.e. passive revolution) is pure silliness. In essence, the Reaction plan is to build the exact same structures that currently exist, rename them (University -> Antiversity , Democratic/Republican Party -> Plinth), but insist that they stay true/pure/virtuous. He concedes that most of the details will be handled by the brains at the Antiversity, but his system fails to even provide some mechanism to prevent power capture by the Antiversity! And this in a book fundamentally premised on the author being more able to understand/engineer political institutions, being a diplomat's 'gifted' kid himself.
Unorthodox Period Pieces
1. The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism
2. Strictures Upon The Declaration Of The Congress At Philadelphia
3. Peter Oliver's Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View
4. Life and Liberty in America
5. The West Indies As They Are; Or, A Real Picture Of Slavery - But More Particulary As It Exists In The Island Of Jamaica
6. The Abolition Crusade and Its Consequences Four Periods of American History
7. The Open Conspiracy: What Are We To Do With Our Lives?
8. How Diplomats Make War
9. Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944
10. European Jungle
The Progressive political program and perspective is, or is at least descended from, the program of ecumenical mainline Protestantism, which happens to be the direct, linear descendant of 17th century Massachusetts Bay colony Puritanism. [American Malvern](https://content.time.com/time/subscri...#). We don’t just live in something vaguely like a Puritan theocracy; we live in an actual, genuine, functioning 21st-century Puritan theocracy. You have no more reason to trust any of its institutions than you have to trust, say, the Vatican.
Reflect upon the fact that public opinion is divine/sacral up until it deviates from the Progressive program, at which point it becomes vulgar populism.
As you make the structure of authority in an organization more complex (e.g. by eliminating the hierarchical execution structures under which one individual decides and is responsible for the result, and replacing them with highly fragmented/consensual/process-oriented structures) you increase the amount of power, status, patronage, and employment that can be distributed (albeit at the expense of the product).
Note that this is a classic Tragedy of the Commons scenario.
His critique of Conservatism comes down to it being merely watered down ("contaminated by reality") revolutionary doctrine, with all of the appeal that 'watered down' implies.
Unfortunately, Moldbug's Reaction (i.e. passive revolution) is pure silliness. In essence, the Reaction plan is to build the exact same structures that currently exist, rename them (University -> Antiversity , Democratic/Republican Party -> Plinth), but insist that they stay true/pure/virtuous. He concedes that most of the details will be handled by the brains at the Antiversity, but his system fails to even provide some mechanism to prevent power capture by the Antiversity! And this in a book fundamentally premised on the author being more able to understand/engineer political institutions, being a diplomat's 'gifted' kid himself.
Unorthodox Period Pieces
1. The Puritan Origins of American Patriotism
2. Strictures Upon The Declaration Of The Congress At Philadelphia
3. Peter Oliver's Origin and Progress of the American Rebellion: A Tory View
4. Life and Liberty in America
5. The West Indies As They Are; Or, A Real Picture Of Slavery - But More Particulary As It Exists In The Island Of Jamaica
6. The Abolition Crusade and Its Consequences Four Periods of American History
7. The Open Conspiracy: What Are We To Do With Our Lives?
8. How Diplomats Make War
9. Hitler's Table Talk, 1941-1944
10. European Jungle
April 13, 2022
***I believe Elon Musk has read this book***
the US is nothing but a corporation. That is, it is a formal structure by which a group of individuals agree to act collectively to achieve some result.
The modern distinction between “private” corporations and “governments” is actually a rather recent development.
The disasters of fascism and communism demonstrate the importance of representative democracy.
If you believe in God, obviously you have to believe in religion. Religion is an important category because your religion is true, and all other religions are false. (As Sam Harris puts it
Why do we believe in “religion?” One obvious answer is that we have to share the planet with a lot of religious people. If you are an atheist, there is no getting around it: religion, as per Dawkins, is a delusion. Deluded people do crazy things and are often dangerous. We need to have a category for these people, just as we have a category for “large, man-eating carnivores.” Certainly, religious violence has killed a lot more people lately than lions, tigers, or bears.
Why not forget about the details of metaphysical doctrine, which pertain to an ethereal plane that doesn’t even exist, and concentrate our attention on beliefs about reality?
Many writers, including Eric Voegelin, Eric Hoffer, Victor Klemperer, Michael Burleigh, etc., etc., have described the similarities between Nazism and religions. But Nazism does not fit our definition of religion above—no paranormal entities. This is the definition most people use, so most people don’t think of Nazism as a religion.
This is why the concept of “religion” is harmful. If trivial changes to hypothetical history convert reasonable policies into monstrous injustices, or vice versa, your perception of reality cannot be correct. You have been infected by a toxic meme.
I suggested that “religion” is a useful concept only if you’re interested in theology, which I’m not.
“religion” is the study of the thoughts or actions of paranormal entities. If paranormal entities were observable, they wouldn’t be paranormal. Beliefs about paranormal entities (“Baal hates Jews”) are only relevant to the observable world inasmuch as they imply beliefs about the observable world (“To please Baal, we must burn the Jews”), and thus motivate actions in the observable world (burning the Jews).
So why do we categorize other’s beliefs first and foremost by their positions on the paranormal? Why not focus on beliefs about the real world, which are what actually affect us?
Since good is the opposite of evil, as chaos is the opposite of law, this answer also says that good is identical with law. Thus, “lawful good” and “chaotic evil” are tautological.
Evil is not the same thing as malevolence. Nor is good the same thing as benevolence. Evil and good are results, not volitions.
In our planarist society, every kind of human action has become shrouded in a vast cloud of something called “ethics,” which no one can define, but no one is allowed to question.
I simply do not consider popularity a reliable indicator of accuracy. In fact, it is often a counterindicator. As Orwell noted, the hardest part of thinking clearly is recognizing false assumptions that are universally shared.
Finally, to finish off this terminology-fest
in the American South from the 1830s to the 1860s, the idea developed that enslaving Africans was compatible with Christianity. (Slavery is mentioned in the Bible)
All hominids crave status and will exchange almost anything for it, but different castes assign status in very different ways—as we’ll see.
In the Dalit caste, status among men is defined by power, wealth and sexual success, among women by attractiveness and popularity.
A good way to find the most powerful people in the US is to find the most responsible people. No one in the US is scheming for power. A lot of them seem to be working for change. No one in the US is brainwashing the masses. A lot of them seem to be educating the public. No one in the US is ruling the world. A lot of them seem to be making global policies.
a government is an organization of men (and women). It is a group of individuals acting together to achieve a common purpose.
It reports to its CEO, who reports to its board, who reports to its shareholders.
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, have informed us that religion is, basically, evil. That is, that the optimal level of religion in society is like the optimal level of mercury in your milk: zero.
chasing the tail and ignoring the dog.
I am not a Christian. I have no faith. I simply don’t see any reason to believe in the paranormal.
Okay. I’ll admit that this is not a desirable result (unless I get to be the evil dictator, in which case I at least need to start working on my mustache).
Other than this Fnargl has no other feelings. He’s concerned with humans about the way you and I are concerned with bacteria.
the US is nothing but a corporation. That is, it is a formal structure by which a group of individuals agree to act collectively to achieve some result.
The modern distinction between “private” corporations and “governments” is actually a rather recent development.
The disasters of fascism and communism demonstrate the importance of representative democracy.
If you believe in God, obviously you have to believe in religion. Religion is an important category because your religion is true, and all other religions are false. (As Sam Harris puts it
Why do we believe in “religion?” One obvious answer is that we have to share the planet with a lot of religious people. If you are an atheist, there is no getting around it: religion, as per Dawkins, is a delusion. Deluded people do crazy things and are often dangerous. We need to have a category for these people, just as we have a category for “large, man-eating carnivores.” Certainly, religious violence has killed a lot more people lately than lions, tigers, or bears.
Why not forget about the details of metaphysical doctrine, which pertain to an ethereal plane that doesn’t even exist, and concentrate our attention on beliefs about reality?
Many writers, including Eric Voegelin, Eric Hoffer, Victor Klemperer, Michael Burleigh, etc., etc., have described the similarities between Nazism and religions. But Nazism does not fit our definition of religion above—no paranormal entities. This is the definition most people use, so most people don’t think of Nazism as a religion.
This is why the concept of “religion” is harmful. If trivial changes to hypothetical history convert reasonable policies into monstrous injustices, or vice versa, your perception of reality cannot be correct. You have been infected by a toxic meme.
I suggested that “religion” is a useful concept only if you’re interested in theology, which I’m not.
“religion” is the study of the thoughts or actions of paranormal entities. If paranormal entities were observable, they wouldn’t be paranormal. Beliefs about paranormal entities (“Baal hates Jews”) are only relevant to the observable world inasmuch as they imply beliefs about the observable world (“To please Baal, we must burn the Jews”), and thus motivate actions in the observable world (burning the Jews).
So why do we categorize other’s beliefs first and foremost by their positions on the paranormal? Why not focus on beliefs about the real world, which are what actually affect us?
Since good is the opposite of evil, as chaos is the opposite of law, this answer also says that good is identical with law. Thus, “lawful good” and “chaotic evil” are tautological.
Evil is not the same thing as malevolence. Nor is good the same thing as benevolence. Evil and good are results, not volitions.
In our planarist society, every kind of human action has become shrouded in a vast cloud of something called “ethics,” which no one can define, but no one is allowed to question.
I simply do not consider popularity a reliable indicator of accuracy. In fact, it is often a counterindicator. As Orwell noted, the hardest part of thinking clearly is recognizing false assumptions that are universally shared.
Finally, to finish off this terminology-fest
in the American South from the 1830s to the 1860s, the idea developed that enslaving Africans was compatible with Christianity. (Slavery is mentioned in the Bible)
All hominids crave status and will exchange almost anything for it, but different castes assign status in very different ways—as we’ll see.
In the Dalit caste, status among men is defined by power, wealth and sexual success, among women by attractiveness and popularity.
A good way to find the most powerful people in the US is to find the most responsible people. No one in the US is scheming for power. A lot of them seem to be working for change. No one in the US is brainwashing the masses. A lot of them seem to be educating the public. No one in the US is ruling the world. A lot of them seem to be making global policies.
a government is an organization of men (and women). It is a group of individuals acting together to achieve a common purpose.
It reports to its CEO, who reports to its board, who reports to its shareholders.
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens and Daniel Dennett, have informed us that religion is, basically, evil. That is, that the optimal level of religion in society is like the optimal level of mercury in your milk: zero.
chasing the tail and ignoring the dog.
I am not a Christian. I have no faith. I simply don’t see any reason to believe in the paranormal.
Okay. I’ll admit that this is not a desirable result (unless I get to be the evil dictator, in which case I at least need to start working on my mustache).
Other than this Fnargl has no other feelings. He’s concerned with humans about the way you and I are concerned with bacteria.
April 10, 2023
Prescient in retrospect, although it's hard to believe the guy who wrote this about global warming subsequently argued in favor of forced vaccinations for a similarly-contrived crisis.
As 2cb has pointed out, Moldbug often flips between contradictory views in the same piece; I don't find this super annoying or unusual (the critique applies to many), but I don't think anyone should walk away from this feeling like he's acquired anything more than pills (red and black, with apologies to Stendhal).
As he admits, much of the work here is just an updated/vulgarized Carlyle; I think this is fine: Carlyle isn't widely read in any circle I'm aware of and truly "new" ideas are overrated (and/or impossible). The analogies (Cathedral etc.) feel appropriate if self-interested (IYKYK).
At one point Moldbug says certain authors make him feel like he should take a shower after; I had this feeling myself after his extremely glib approach to solutions for the banking system (which are themselves beyond the generally-understood meaning of "utopian"). I'm also not convinced by the "let's examine one period author from each side" hermeneutic for judging whether historical events/factions are good or bad (nor do I think that aim particularly enlightening anyway), although I don't doubt that some of these readings of obscure Google Books do surface some interesting information that's slipped through the cracks of consensus narratives.
Overall, this is a good primer to a fairly-specific POV that comes out in a more focused and direct way that the man's latter-day podcast interviews (and more recent blog posts). Also likely a good source of recommendations for obscure Google Books-type content, if that's something you're into.
As 2cb has pointed out, Moldbug often flips between contradictory views in the same piece; I don't find this super annoying or unusual (the critique applies to many), but I don't think anyone should walk away from this feeling like he's acquired anything more than pills (red and black, with apologies to Stendhal).
As he admits, much of the work here is just an updated/vulgarized Carlyle; I think this is fine: Carlyle isn't widely read in any circle I'm aware of and truly "new" ideas are overrated (and/or impossible). The analogies (Cathedral etc.) feel appropriate if self-interested (IYKYK).
At one point Moldbug says certain authors make him feel like he should take a shower after; I had this feeling myself after his extremely glib approach to solutions for the banking system (which are themselves beyond the generally-understood meaning of "utopian"). I'm also not convinced by the "let's examine one period author from each side" hermeneutic for judging whether historical events/factions are good or bad (nor do I think that aim particularly enlightening anyway), although I don't doubt that some of these readings of obscure Google Books do surface some interesting information that's slipped through the cracks of consensus narratives.
Overall, this is a good primer to a fairly-specific POV that comes out in a more focused and direct way that the man's latter-day podcast interviews (and more recent blog posts). Also likely a good source of recommendations for obscure Google Books-type content, if that's something you're into.
September 16, 2020
As Bruce Wayne once said... “You wanna get nuts? Let’s get nuts!”
This book was nuts, but mostly in a good way. It’s a welcome break from the same two-party discourse you find across the board. Even if I agreed with a rather small percentage of what was said, it’s just fun to see someone think so far outside the box. Where else can you find a (decent, historically-based) argument that the American revolution was a mistake and that democracy should be rejected universally?
It was way too long and the writing style was a slog, but the ideas were nothing of not interesting. It’s the kind of book that most people won’t ever read or even hear of, but will be strongly influenced by nonetheless. You can already see the influence coming through as the terms “red pill” and “Cathedral” begin to hit the mainstream.
I’ve also found his case for passivism (not pacifism) toward politics of particular interest, as I’ve reached a similar conclusion and even used similar arguments despite coming from totally different angles of the issue (Christian for me, practical for him).
All in all a strange, slow book that’s greatest value is in showing what it looks like to think outside the box.
This book was nuts, but mostly in a good way. It’s a welcome break from the same two-party discourse you find across the board. Even if I agreed with a rather small percentage of what was said, it’s just fun to see someone think so far outside the box. Where else can you find a (decent, historically-based) argument that the American revolution was a mistake and that democracy should be rejected universally?
It was way too long and the writing style was a slog, but the ideas were nothing of not interesting. It’s the kind of book that most people won’t ever read or even hear of, but will be strongly influenced by nonetheless. You can already see the influence coming through as the terms “red pill” and “Cathedral” begin to hit the mainstream.
I’ve also found his case for passivism (not pacifism) toward politics of particular interest, as I’ve reached a similar conclusion and even used similar arguments despite coming from totally different angles of the issue (Christian for me, practical for him).
All in all a strange, slow book that’s greatest value is in showing what it looks like to think outside the box.
February 25, 2021
Every single thing in this book could turn out to be entirely incorrect and it would still be 5 stars. The other reviewers calling this a conspiracy theory book are way off-base and (ironically?) the type of shallow-thinking state apparatus sycophants that are pegged by the book as one of the fundamental problems with USG and its appendages. So, at least in that regard, the author is not wrong.
Regardless, to call it conspiracy is to either miss the point or to attempt to purposefully slander that which frightens you. Declaring that every journalist in America coordinates via messenger pigeon to infiltrate the societal psyche to garner support for their evil master plan is a conspiracy theory. To point out that there is something going on in journalism and academia that a) doesn't seem to be very effective at what those institutions are supposed to be doing (truth seeking), and b) acts against the best interests of those it is supposed to serve (me and you), is not a conspiracy theory.
At its absolute worst, this book will fortify your thought processes. At its best it will open your eyes to something that I have expected was true all along...
Regardless, to call it conspiracy is to either miss the point or to attempt to purposefully slander that which frightens you. Declaring that every journalist in America coordinates via messenger pigeon to infiltrate the societal psyche to garner support for their evil master plan is a conspiracy theory. To point out that there is something going on in journalism and academia that a) doesn't seem to be very effective at what those institutions are supposed to be doing (truth seeking), and b) acts against the best interests of those it is supposed to serve (me and you), is not a conspiracy theory.
At its absolute worst, this book will fortify your thought processes. At its best it will open your eyes to something that I have expected was true all along...
February 18, 2023
As a whole, the entire book was radical right leaning nonsense. It proposes that we replace our universities with “antiversities” that only speak “the truth”. The reason for this is through democratic corruption and the cycle of thoughts through university to government. I do agree that many ideas throughout university do make there way into power, but I don’t necessarily think this is a bad thing because educated people should be in power. The specific section about the weaknesses of democracy were rather interesting because I recognized and understood the fish example (as funny as this sounds). However, this does not mean that I believe democracy never works it was just something to think about. The book also went into details about climate change and racism but these chapters were so ridiculous they are not even worth a review. Furthermore, I wanted to say a lot of the history in the civil war section was very interesting to read. However, as a whole, I think most of the ideas in this book were just too extreme to be considered and the authors reasoning behind things was lacking in evidence.
October 31, 2022
A little throat-clearing from me about how this isn't a book, it's a collection of blog entries from 2009, which a fan or a friend compiled and (minimally) annotated as a Kindle book.
I had my own doubts about just how 'far right' I wanted go when delving into self-published e-books. "Mencius Moldbug" is nowhere near my rightward limit, as it turns out.
He says here somewhere that "here at UR (Unqualified Reservations) we like to skate to where the puck will be," and it is pretty amazing how far ahead of everyone else Moldbug turned out to be.
As an autodidact and a blogger, MM has the annoying habit at times of laying an obscure hyperlink to a hyper-obscure Google book, then saying, in effect, "I rest my case." As in, get back to me when YOU've read this 400 pp. pamphlet calling the American rebels Jacobites, (or is it a Jacobite pamphlet calling the American rebels ultra-Whigs?). He does this a number of times, and it's never impressive.
There are other sections so abstract I had flashbacks to Rousseau's volonté générale and contrat social.
I had my own doubts about just how 'far right' I wanted go when delving into self-published e-books. "Mencius Moldbug" is nowhere near my rightward limit, as it turns out.
He says here somewhere that "here at UR (Unqualified Reservations) we like to skate to where the puck will be," and it is pretty amazing how far ahead of everyone else Moldbug turned out to be.
As an autodidact and a blogger, MM has the annoying habit at times of laying an obscure hyperlink to a hyper-obscure Google book, then saying, in effect, "I rest my case." As in, get back to me when YOU've read this 400 pp. pamphlet calling the American rebels Jacobites, (or is it a Jacobite pamphlet calling the American rebels ultra-Whigs?). He does this a number of times, and it's never impressive.
There are other sections so abstract I had flashbacks to Rousseau's volonté générale and contrat social.
June 2, 2020
A food for the thought, not a call for the action. I liked the deconstruction of America and modern leftist "ethernal truths", the fairly unbiased analysis of the history as it is packaged by the West for the last hundred years and an interesting outlook of the way the Cathedral works. The culmination of the book is, unfortunately, underwhelming. "Whats" are here, but without "hows" they are barren and grey. The new political structure turns out to be a pretty deliberate anti-left political building which isn't shown superior in any way to the existing structure neither in prevention of the self-degenration nor in encouragement of people's progress. Neoreaction seems nice to get your thinking, but isn't really an end point of the journey. Like a loose cannon, it seems to be unloaded on purpose.
January 6, 2023
It was better then an open letter to open minded progressives, even though Yarvin recommends both of them equally if you want to get a 101, this is the better of two books. I think he disagrees with some ideas expressed in this book nowadays in his blog 'graymirror of the nihilist prince'. The last section of the book might be the part that changed most, in recent years he has diverted much more attention to how can an individual draw up a coup in concrete steps rather then waiting for gradual rise up of reactionary movement which was already an oxymoron with his 'cthulhu always swim left'. It is more plausible to think Charles III would pull a syncretic 21st century neoreactionary putsch then to think GOP could elect an *abolish the government in favour of Camaralist reactionary corporation state* canditate if only society had enough grassroots reactionary action.
May 21, 2020
I thoroughly enjoyed this book. It is (mostly) well written, very informative, and obviously extensively researched. Though I disagree with him at times, this man throws down red pills like no other I've encountered before, and he brings receipts to boot!
I'm reminded of Michael Malice's (I was inspired to read Moldbug after reading about him in MM's "The New Right") comment regarding Ayn Rand. Something to the effect that "She [Rand] doesn't have all of the right answers but she asks the right questions." That's how I feel about this book, he laid out the problems with today's government/society/culture brilliantly, but I wasn't entirely sold on his solutions.
Highly recommended reading for anyone who considers themselves "red-pilled"
I'm reminded of Michael Malice's (I was inspired to read Moldbug after reading about him in MM's "The New Right") comment regarding Ayn Rand. Something to the effect that "She [Rand] doesn't have all of the right answers but she asks the right questions." That's how I feel about this book, he laid out the problems with today's government/society/culture brilliantly, but I wasn't entirely sold on his solutions.
Highly recommended reading for anyone who considers themselves "red-pilled"
May 23, 2021
A fantastic piece of wrongthink that draws on lesser-known historical sources to make it's point.
I don't think I'm a fully converted neoreactionary, but he definitely gave me a lot to think about.
This, along with Democracy: The God That Failed both gave me a lot of interesting doubts about the viability of modern representative democracy itself.
Given that the "goodness" of this governmental form, as opposed to others, is generally considered axiomatically true by most westerners, one should at least be aware of some strong arguments against it if one is to defend it.
I don't think I'm a fully converted neoreactionary, but he definitely gave me a lot to think about.
This, along with Democracy: The God That Failed both gave me a lot of interesting doubts about the viability of modern representative democracy itself.
Given that the "goodness" of this governmental form, as opposed to others, is generally considered axiomatically true by most westerners, one should at least be aware of some strong arguments against it if one is to defend it.
May 21, 2023
I first heard of Moldbug via Michael Malice, as the inventor of the concept of the "cathedral" which is spot on. This book is a collection of blog posts originally from the author's blog Unqualified Reservations and an introduction to his thought. Similar to Hans Hermann Hoppe's "Democracy The God that Failed" this is an anti-democratic book but it advocates for reactionary loyalist Tory means instead of anarcho-capitalistic ones. The prose feels like an internet meme, filled with pop culture and internet humor references. This seem aesthetically strange juxtaposed to long quoting from primary sources. Everything good Moldbug says is better put my Malice, and Malice's humor hits much better.
July 9, 2020
Moldbug's in fine fettle in this book. His writing is witty, persuasive, and eloquent and his transgressive perspective on recent history is well argued and frankly, highly enjoyable. The more one learns about the current state of affairs, the easier it gets to become more despondent. The current structure rewards power-hungry psycopaths who defend their position by any means necessary. It's not clear how things can get better. Moldbug's ideas offer a refreshing change from the black pill of western politics, highlighting a difficult but fun road to a brighter tomorrow. If you dive into this book with an open mind, you will not be disappointed.
June 2, 2024
Have you ever wondered why our society moves politically left and left and then more left? Why it's more socially acceptable to say something a looong way out in that direction than to admit that you vote for a certain large, established, mainstream political party? How a whole group of people just end up agreeing on a whole swath of non-obvious issues?
"Moldbug" attempts to answer these questions.
And he does. Sort of. I wouldn't say this book was quite the "red pill" that he hopes for, but there are certainly interesting arguments, which, coupled with a jovial tone and distinct style, make this book a worthwhile read.
"Moldbug" attempts to answer these questions.
And he does. Sort of. I wouldn't say this book was quite the "red pill" that he hopes for, but there are certainly interesting arguments, which, coupled with a jovial tone and distinct style, make this book a worthwhile read.
June 7, 2025
I chose to read this instead of the open letter because I saw all of Charlemagne's videos on the open letter, and didn't feel like reading so many pages of something I'd already hear. A gentle introduction is anything but. It shakes dogma on the American revolution, Civil War, and world war II as well as expounding briefly how the left works, what the cathedral is, "Cthulhu swims only left" etc. Overall, it was a decent read.
January 20, 2021
To paraphrase Curtis Yarvin "It burnes like a ball of thermonuclear fire, utterly immolates your whole professional life and probably three-quarters of your personal life". Only for the brave, for once you see that the sky is made out of canvas there is no going back and the stars are not what they used to be.
Read
February 16, 2023This book delivers what it promises- a rabbit hole to crawl down. Kind of embarrassed that I am only now coming across these arguments. Makes me want to read more history with this point of view in mind.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 51 reviews