FDR isn’t real monarchy, ok…. But if he was right wing, there would be no hesitation to call him a fascist dictator. He was even responsible for literal concentration camps, remember? Yarvin uses “monarchy” in the original sense, nothing more nor less than the rule of one. Ie any hierarchical command structure that terminates in a single individual at the top. By this definition, as he says, most corporations are monarchies. But that’s not the definition most people are familiar with… Whether that’s rhetorically advisable is debatable…I think it confuses more than clarifies, because people can only conceptualize it as a dude in a wig holding a scepter. He may be too long winded to get around to it in public appearances, but he does lay out specific ideas for how his vision could become a reality. I don’t expect it to actually happen, but I admire him for dreaming big, and honestly I actually think it’s more realistic than Hanania’s approach. And dissolving institutions/a regime and replacing them with new ones isn’t really that fanciful.. It’s happens countless times in human history.
I can't really comment on a debate I didn't attend, but I'm familiar with other their works.
As far as I can tell neither really has any kind of plan for bringing about a better world. Hanania is a little more specific on some issues, but also gets so many big things wrong.
The examples they use, say the Gulf Monarchies, have differing context that make them essentially useless as guidebook for achieving any kind of realistic outcomes in the west.
Hananaia is disastoursly wrong on Open Borders and Foreign Interventionism, but Yarvin got one of the biggest questions of our age (COVID) wrong.
FDR isn’t real monarchy, ok…. But if he was right wing, there would be no hesitation to call him a fascist dictator. He was even responsible for literal concentration camps, remember? Yarvin uses “monarchy” in the original sense, nothing more nor less than the rule of one. Ie any hierarchical command structure that terminates in a single individual at the top. By this definition, as he says, most corporations are monarchies. But that’s not the definition most people are familiar with… Whether that’s rhetorically advisable is debatable…I think it confuses more than clarifies, because people can only conceptualize it as a dude in a wig holding a scepter. He may be too long winded to get around to it in public appearances, but he does lay out specific ideas for how his vision could become a reality. I don’t expect it to actually happen, but I admire him for dreaming big, and honestly I actually think it’s more realistic than Hanania’s approach. And dissolving institutions/a regime and replacing them with new ones isn’t really that fanciful.. It’s happens countless times in human history.
I can't really comment on a debate I didn't attend, but I'm familiar with other their works.
As far as I can tell neither really has any kind of plan for bringing about a better world. Hanania is a little more specific on some issues, but also gets so many big things wrong.
The examples they use, say the Gulf Monarchies, have differing context that make them essentially useless as guidebook for achieving any kind of realistic outcomes in the west.
Hananaia is disastoursly wrong on Open Borders and Foreign Interventionism, but Yarvin got one of the biggest questions of our age (COVID) wrong.
I'm so envious you got to see this! Do you know if it will ever appear online? I heard it was filmed...