Yarvin vs Hanania: The Case for Storytelling
Democracy vs Monarchy.
To summarize in the briefest terms: Yarvin told a story, Hanania expressed skepticism of that story. But while Hanania had the right to be skeptical, he was not able to capitalize on the opportunity to tell his own story and forcefully oppose Yarvin.
The Crowd
The foyer of the venue was eerily lit with a black-and-purple Halloween aesthetic (an obvious bid to subliminally bias the audience in favor of steampunk futurism). The crowd was multi-ethnic, Gen X and Millennial. A large percentage seemed to be interested in software, with many flying in from San Francisco or even out of state. San Francisco was mentioned frequently in the debate as the symbol of the failure of democracy. Most of the crowd were there for Yarvin. On a personal level, they have genuine affection for what they believe are brilliant, quirky insights. To his fans, he is loveable, avuncular, and more interesting than Hanania. Whether or not anyone there (including Yarvin himself) had genuine support for actual monarchism had nothing to do with the bias of the personality contest.
The Personalities
Yarvin, much like Jordan Peterson, has a gift of talking about almost anything and seeming smart. His Calvinist thesis on the origins of leftism has become a pervasive theory on the right. The attacks on Protestantism as the ultimate origins of leftism have probably contributed to the TradCath and OrthoBro phenomenon (although Yarvin remains an atheist).
Hanania, on the other hand, has focused on a narrower period of history and a narrower vision of leftism, that of Wokism and Civil Rights law. Unlike Yarvin, who has remained a commentator, networker, and wordsmith, Hanania runs a think tank focused on changing policy through challenging affirmative action and reinterpreting civil rights.
Anna, to her credit, had a well-written (if biased toward Yarvin) opening statement. She was witty, funny, and made the ten women in attendance feel a bit better about being dragged there by their boyfriends.
The Similarities
Both Yarvin and Hanania support Israel, although Hanania says it bluntly and honestly (perhaps trollishly on Twitter), and Yarvin has a tendency to prefer intellectual gymnastic displays rather than straightforwardness. Both support the merit based system immigration advocated by Jared Kushner and practiced by the Gulf states. Yarvin got in a joke accusing Hanania’s Gulf-style migration policies as “modern day slavery,” although this seemed to be in good fun, since Yarvin probably supports it.
Both placed a strong focus on economic functionalism — are the streets clean? Do people have jobs? Does society work? Are things efficient? Is crime low? Both held up Nayib Bukele as a shining example of the best leader of our modern times.
The Semantics
Democracy versus monarchy makes a great tweet and a terrible debate. Monarchy is a LARP, but so is Democracy. The idea of pitting two nerds against each other, each defending the indefensible, is the intellectual equivalent of WWE. Yarvin argued for Alexander Hamilton, Abraham Lincoln, and FDR (not monarchy). Hanania refused to defend Democracy, and instead stated that he merely supported the current American elites as pretty good as opposed to the dictatorial elites of the third world, Russia, and China.
The Energy
Yarvin performed at his personal best. He was having a great night, cracking jokes, telling down-to-earth anecdotes about his life as a dad, and his energy was high. He constantly, but politely, stole the thunder from Hanania, asking, “is it alright if I take this one? Is it alright if I butt in? Can I just have 30 seconds? Can I say one more thing?” He dominated the air time and generated the entertainment. His feet were often planted firmly, sitting on the edge of his seat, while at other times, his feet crossed and repositioned excitedly as he told another anecdote about Elizabeth I.
Hanania, on the other hand, meekly smiled and was generally pleasant. He seemed happy to be there, but a bit disheartened that he was forced to defend American mediocrity against Eurasian mediocrity. One gets the sense that Hanania wishes he were writing a bill or talking to someone who might actually influence policy — as opposed to Yarvin, who loves nothing more than writing a poem or giving a speech, as an artistic act, for its own sake. That said, Hanania cautioned against the toxic nihilism that Yarvin proposed as a vehicle for monarchy’s rise. His message was “change the system from within, don’t be a traitor, don’t burn down San Francisco to get the poop off the street.”
The Substance
The debate was, ostensibly, between monarchy and democracy. While Hanania admitted that he did not want “true democracy” (in the sense of pure popular rule), and Yarvin admitted that he did not want “true monarchy” (in the sense that he was perfectly fine with a modern day FDR), a more substantive debate would have been “monarchy versus republicanism.”
Why did the Republics of Venice and Genoa found the first European banks? Why did these entities call themselves Republics, rather than fiefdoms, kingdoms, principalities, or duchies? Why is that these Republican states founded the Renaissance? When asked, Yarvin replied that these were merely “good oligarchies.” So, why can’t we have good oligarchies?
Who Won?
Yarvin won the hearts of the crowd for monarchy, described as a “red button” which would simultaneously fulfill the nihilistic fantasies of school shooters, and unite them with the biggest Fauci fans, while at the same time being capitalistic and practical, like if Tim Cook ran America. Hanania, according to the crowd, seemed to perform “better than expected.” Hanania was not trolling, and seemed very genuine and heartfelt. His message was that America isn’t all that bad, and, paraphrasing Churchill, it sucks, but all other systems suck worse.
Tips and Tricks
Yarvin had a great night spinning yarn. Hanania, on the other hand, was less confident and forceful in his presentation. Although faking confidence can be cringe, and there is something charming about a bashful nerd, there are a couple of things Hanania could have done to raise the energy level and make the debate more of a… debate.
Stand up. Hanania, in contrast to Yarvin, looked like “The Thinker,” with his hand often touching his face, his long legs awkwardly perched on the rungs of the stool, and his back hunched over. I’m not suggesting that Hanania go full Trump, and stand behind Yarvin in an intimidating fashion as he speaks, but at least during the opening statement, stand up straight. Walk around a little. Project body language into the crowd. Use your hands (activate your ancestral blood memory, Mediterranean man). A bold move, but if the purpose of the debate is to entertain, why not?
Tell a story. Yarvin had stories about Elizabeth I, Tim Cook, and a small town in Kansas. People like stories. Tell a story about the Puritans and the Congregationalists. Tell a story about the Freemasons. Tell a story about how the Black Legend is actually true, and how monarchical Spain created a bland backwater of favelas, while the more democratic frontiersmen and the free soil movement created a world empire. Tell a story about how Franco’s monarchism was a big fail. Tell stories of how Russia sucks, China sucks, and Venezuela sucks. Don’t just give one liners or rhetorical questions. Flesh it out. Give details. Make up imaginary friends who come from these countries and relate their experiences in vivid colors. If you prefer statistics, start firing them off. Peter Zeihan is great at this. Binge watch Peter Zeihan videos.
Press your opponent. When you say, “what about China?” and his 10 minute response does not include the word China, ask him why he can’t answer the question, and get specific. “What about selection bias?” When your opponent says, “sure, we can talk about selection bias,” but then never addresses selection bias, call him out. Say, “Is the reason you just avoided my question about selection bias and spit out non-sequitor for 10 minutes because you don’t actually have an argument? Why are you afraid to address the question?”
Conclusion
The debate was a sexy girl wearing a bikini. The product being sold was a networking event for edgy libertarians. People in general were extremely friendly and looking to exchange contact information. While the debate itself may have been lacking substance, that was never the point and the organizers achieved their aims. Public speaking remains one of the most difficult skills, and as with most things in life, 99% is just showing up.
Intellectually, it was frustrating to see no serious challenge offered against Yarvin and his neo-reactionary ideas. Yarvin won by being the most confident, energetic storyteller on the stage, not by having good arguments. A genuine investigation of the tripartite structure of democracy, its antithesis in fascism, and the Renaissance clash between republics and monarchies would have been much more stimulating, and maybe even educational. Instead, it sounded like a conversations two e-celebs had in their car while driving to the event. And by the logic of democracy, that was just fine.
I'm so envious you got to see this! Do you know if it will ever appear online? I heard it was filmed...