The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia | Hacker News Reader

The New Right-Wing Tech Intelligentsia

bayareacurrent.com

This seems like a reach:

> Print inevitably precipitates a face-to-face community, giving it the capacity to represent and in turn catalyze real-world movements.

I've never gone to a people-who-read-$PERIODICAL party. Ever. Maybe it's common for pro-union zines that the author used to contribute to, but Popular Science, Newsweek, or the like don't have any corresponding community associated with them. There's no Architectural Digest-affiliated underground interior decorating scene.

I think the author far overestimates the importance niche zines like the one they were a part of, or Palladium for that matter, have in the national dialogue.

This reflects an interesting development in Bay Area politics, which has global impact through tech companies.

A few decades ago, tech, science and liberalism were bedfellows in the Bay Area. Apple was famous for its anti-authoritarian "1984" ad, directed by Ridley Scott. Google proclaimed "Don't be evil".

I'm not sure quite what to make of the current trend of the dominant "technocrats", and their employees, from being liberal to supporting division within society.

But it does not seem conducive to a perpetuation of what made the Bay Area such a productive environment, from scientific, cultural and business perspectives.

> "A few decades ago, tech, science and liberalism were bedfellows in the Bay Area."

A few decades ago was before the meteoric internet and mobile web boom and the deluge of non-hackers with CS degrees and MBA types with dollar signs in their eyes that flooded into the tech industry. The hacker ethos turned from "information wants to be free" into "f--- you, pay me" in only a few short years simply because the old guard was diluted away to nothingness by so many newcomers.

> Apple was famous for its anti-authoritarian "1984" ad

Perhaps, but Apple’s corporate culture is (and has always been?) pretty command-and-control.

> A few decades ago, tech, science and liberalism were bedfellows in the Bay Area.

Digital Technology is a powerful tool to create uniformity (scale), force authority (control, predictability, sentiment shaping). Of course it can be used to fight against these, but digital tech leans very much in the direction of centralization and control if you ask me.

In the 1990's to 2010's digital tech was perceived as liberating the masses from government and "business" control of information.

It's quite contrary to the present information environment.

The "1984" ad is from... well duh, 1984. Apple was a small startup in a niche industry back then - fighting against centralization and control by building "a bicycle for the mind" that would push useful computation to the "edge" where it can be controlled by the user.

> The "1984" ad is from... well duh, 1984. Apple was a small startup

Small startup in 1984? Apple IPOd in 1980 and had a market cap in 1984 of $1.6 billion, which is just under $5 billion in today’s dollars.

OK, but... who were they going against? Who were they aiming the ad at? IBM. What was IBM's market cap in 1984?

Here’s an idea. What if instead of left/right wing, you’d sort ideas into useful and useless buckets, given that the context of these labels will change depending on your use case. X is useful for Y, but useless for Z. Ideally, you are tooling around with pro-social ideas for your governance or societal organization frameworks, which is a necessity if you’re optimizing for freedom, morality or ethics.

Sadly, in lieu of understanding larger societal contexts, our roles in them, and reasoning about uncertainty using grounded frameworks or rationale, most people have a tendency towards tribalism, and this is evident for proponents of both left- and right-wing ideologies. What we’re up against is already codified as the seven deadly sins, and despite the centuries of human societal and technological progress, these basic assumptions about anti-social human behavior still hold true.

The problem is when folks lock themselves into positions which they unfortunately convince themselves are beyond reproach. I like the Hegelian approach to ethics and freedom in society, but of course anyone may convince themselves that he’s speaking from their perspective, which I think is great. It shows how similar we all are.

Not sure about usefulness as the metric. How do you account for populations that will be harmed by a policy? “Not useful” doesn’t really capture it.

I usually think of policies as “who gets what, who loses what”, and form my opinion around those outcomes.

I don’t think we need zero-sum framing for a lot of the things we talk about, and the fact that we do is the result of politics, not the policies per se.

I don’t think my system is zero sum! Acknowledging that some population will be harmed is not saying it’s equal and opposite to the benefits. Medicare for all is useful to many, many people. But it does have downsides to some populations: the ownership class loses some amount of power and control, wealthy people with excellent private healthcare are likely to have worse outcomes, the healthcare insurance industry would likely be decimated.

I don’t consider that zero-sum, the benefits far, far outweigh the downsides to me.

These are the practical impacts of implementing a policy. I do not believe in some technocratic ideal where we can logic our way out of resource distribution causing some people to lose things.

How does the ownership class lose benefits under Medicare for All (MFA)? What does ownership class mean? Let’s compare China and U.S., the former has near universal healthcare, but also an unemployment rate of 20%. The U.S. spends more on Medicare than it does for Defense, and the bulk of that money goes to the healthcare industry in all its forms. They don’t touch the healthcare industry function because it’s the largest employment sector in the U.S., and comparably robust for employment even during periods of economic downturn, see the current 4.6% unemployment rate. If we did get MFA in the U.S., you can expect job cuts in the healthcare industry. So the U.S. gets by with paying for Medicare and Defense, and the balance to this is state-based healthcare, and something like ACA subsidies, while ensuring a relatively low unemployment rate.

I also don’t understand how in your example MFA results in lesser healthcare for wealthy people, that hasn’t been the case in any country with universal healthcare programs.

Let’s also examine the geopolitical angle in all this. The U.S. healthcare system is increasingly made a political issue as a way to induce societal pressure to reduce defense spending, and allocate it elsewhere. I am not taking any stance on this, but this point is often ignored for any number of reasons.

The ownership class will 1) have to pay more in taxes and 2) will lose power over their employees who under the current system are pressured to keep their jobs or lose healthcare.

As for lesser outcomes, I’m not sure how it works practically, you’re probably correct. My understanding is the current system trades based on who can pay, and m4a works triage based on need. So given the same healthcare bandwidth, I assumed those who push to the front of the line based on pay would no longer be able to do so.

Medicare is funded by making everyone pay for it. So, I think it follows that Medicare for All could be funded by making everyone pay for it. It’s likely that changing the calculus of the healthcare industry will result in job losses, but I guess it depends on how MFA is implemented. If taxes are increased on all earners to pay for universal healthcare, then the employer burden on providing payments towards health insurance will likely decrease. In this case, maybe there might be increase in hiring because it doesn’t seem healthcare is much impacted by AI. But this is all guesswork.

I also don’t think there’s a strict technical definition for “owner class”, it’s a catch-all political smear term used by Marxist-Leninists to enforce social stratification, and alienate community members from each other.

Who is an owner? The homeowner that could lose everything without a job? The business owner that could be bankrupt in 3-4 quarters? Or is there some arbitrary income threshold? A lot of people are hand to mouth without their jobs, including some earning 500K per year. Even millionaires end up having to work normal jobs if their lifestyle eats up their reserves. Or is it investors? Basically, everyone via their homes or retirement accounts; 65% of Americans are homeowners, and 75% have retirement savings, and 62% invest in stocks. Reasonably, I think unless your family unit has sustained inter-generational wealth (I mean wealth, not high-incomes), you wouldn’t meet the technical definition of this term, if it had a strictly defined one.

“Medicare is funded by making everyone pay for it. So, I think it follows that Medicare for All could be funded by making everyone pay for it“

I’m unsure of your point on this one. Both recent fleshed-out m4a policy proposals (Bernie and Warren’s from 2020) pay for m4a with increased taxes. Are you disputing the point that taxes to pay for m4a will not disproportionately come from the wealthiest Americans? My understanding is lower income Americans would pay a little more in taxes but would make it back (and more) in healthcare savings. Extremely high income Americans would pay a lot more in taxes and would absolutely not make it back in healthcare savings. That is effectively a savings for lower income people and a cost for rich people.

This entire thread feels like a pedantic tangent to my original point: policy decisions result in benefits to some groups and costs to others. Do you disagree with that? We’re so deep in the weeds I cannot tell your high-level point here.

It’s funny to me that because Sanders and Warren said that’s the way it might be done, then you think that’s the only way it could be done. You’re stuck in a zero-sum way of thinking, or you just want to take from people who’ve aggrieved you. That’s the problem, I think, that instead of reflecting on how you could possibly be biased in your thinking, by using words like owner class, you think me pointing out that bias is a pedantic tangent. There’s not much else to say here then.

Yeah, this is definitely an n-dimensional modeling space. Left/Right wing are only one axis, and as far as I can tell, not even the most definitive in terms of determining if I agree with someone's perspective. I think that would be the authoritarian / anti-authoritarian. Lots of left wing people are still authoritarians, but between those two, you can get a _decent_ feeling of where someone is with regard to the national politics.

Are racism, misogyny, and superstition useful or useless? Now one could argue that those things are not right or left wing. There is no epistemology for what any given ideology -- political or religious -- consists of. An apologist can simply deny that "negative" things are part of their ideology.

> Are racism, misogyny, and superstition useful or useless?

Someone can just call you racist, misogynist, or whatever. Those labels don’t mean anything anymore because they’re used as weapons to shut down anyone who is ideologically opposed to you. Are some people racist or misogynistic, yes. But when you use these labels carelessly for anyone who says something you don’t like, you pave the way for actual racists and misogynists because they can call you unreasonable, inaccurate or unreliable.

And what is an apologist, exactly? If you’re unable to come up with a different way to look at something, that doesn’t make someone else who looks at the same thing in a different way an apologist. These are just political smears of the incurious or browbeaters.

Just because the leftists happen to align themselves with pro-social values that I prefer, like anti-racism or anti-misogyny, doesn’t mean they’re right about everything.

> Are racism, misogyny, and superstition useful or useless?

Obviously, they're useless and counter-productive.

There's no rational reason to think that there is a significant difference between people with different skin/eye/hair colour or between genders, but it's obviously a simplistic tribal belief. What we end up getting is a huge amount of wasted talent because of tribal politics - imagine how many Einstein-like intellects have died in poverty with no access to education.

It seems to me that people use racism and misogyny to help them stockpile wealth which is a big detriment to society - rather than working together, we have people working against other people.

Even the idea of "races" is itself flawed and has no meaningful basis apart from "they look different".

> Even the idea of "races" is itself flawed and has no meaningful basis apart from "they look different".

Agreed. There are genetic differences between families (think: extended blood relatives, but even those differences change after enough generations), but they’re hardly along racial lines.

> What if instead of left/right wing, you’d sort ideas into a useful and useless buckets

But that's just boring, petty bourgeois centrism.

> For the untainted, effective altruism (EA) is a very online social movement popular in tech circles, which was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities

Man this really makes me mad. Why do people love to hate on EA so much? Why is effectiveness a bad things? Is the author really advocating giving money to random charities? Or do they prefer no giving at all? Is it just that EAs make people feel guilty about their own charitable giving? Is there even a reasoned critique here, or is the author just picking up on a vibe against EA and going with it to give an air of smug knowing sophistication? A little wink and nod to the audience, who will of course have heard of EA, I mean who the hell is supposed to be reading this piece?

I stopped reading there. So frustrating.

There's some mention as to why in the article, I don't think it's about being effective but about it becoming a tag and movement and the people associated with it

"EA ... was originally concerned with how to get rich philanthropists to donate to the most “effective” charities but is now just as well known for its booster-doomerism about artificial general intelligence and for having had the convicted crypto fraudster Sam Bankman-Fried as a notorious benefactor"

It's only known for doomerism and SBF because reporters like the FA author chose to focus on this, and not on, say, the hundreds of thousands of lives saved around the world by EA donors and their recipient organizations.

I gotta say, I'm also pretty annoyed at the guilt-by-association with the SBF thing. If word got out that SBF liked puppies, would his enemies forswear dogs? It seems pretty easy to disavow fraud and even crypto in general (I'm not a fan of crypto), while simultaneously embracing taking a giving pledge, figuring out metrics by which to judge philanthropies, and focusing donations on the effective orgs (by whatever metric makes sense to you). It's like our civilization has lost the ability to hold two ideas in mind at a time, or to think beyond "bad people are bad"

That's the risk of it becoming a tag and movement associated with a particular group of people. Millions of people donate to charity in different ways, effectively or not and they're not part of a movement. When it becomes uppercase Effective Altruism with very prominent yet very similar in profile advocates (tech millionaires) it becomes something different and will attract scrutiny.

People can and will continue to donate their time and money regardless of this particular movement.

It’s awfully generous to describe reporting like the aforementioned as “scrutiny.”

Scrutiny implies scrutinizing.

It suggests careful observation. That’s not what FTA is engaged in.

Most people donate $0. Do you agree it might be good and useful to have a, ummm, let's call it a movement, to change that?

Using your time and money to help people is amazing, everyone should be encouraged to do it, of course.

But what does that have to do with EA? The EA movement is associated with tech millionaires arrogantly telling the world they are better at knowing what people need, at the same time some of these people have proven to have a dubious moral compass. So do I want these people as leaders of such a movement, absolutely not. Ultimately why do we need to tribalise the topic? You want to donate to charity in a particular way, then go ahead and encourage people to do so, that's amazing. Maybe we don't agree on the specifics but I think our opinions are actually not that far apart :)

But again, it's only associated with tech millionaires because reporters make the association to helpfully enable their readers to hate stuff! Engaging negative emotions -- you know, the thing modern media does best!

In my mind, EA is associated with Peter Singer and William MacAskill, some of the most powerful voices in contemporary philosophy, people whose work inspired me to think morally about my own choices, and who beyond being academics safe in their ivory towers founded a practical movement which has saved hundreds of thousands of lives.

I am doggedly pursing this thread because it encapsulates everything that's wrong with our modern times. We must regain the ability to organize into movements, otherwise those tech bosses we both dislike will rule us each separately. We must uplift moral courage, standing by convictions, and doing doing good in the world, otherwise the forces of nihilism (such as Trumpism) will destroy all that we hold dear, including the ability to hold things dear. We must make common cause, and not get torn apart by the narcissism of small differences. We must popularize doing good, and I don't see anyone else doing as, ahem, effective a job as EA.

I'm not the one tribalizing the topic! I'm not even a member of any EA club or group! I just want to end the casual hate, like what's exhibited in TFA. Why is it so hard to acknowledge that the movement on the whole has done more good than harm, even if some questionable individuals have used the movement as a cover for bad choices?

Translation: "The EA folks were talking about AI ethics before it was cool."

A lot of people question the "effective" part of effective altruism, and simply saying "we support more effective giving" is not convincing, especially when the most public figurehead of the movement is/was a convicted fraudster.

Effectiveness is to EA what Democracy is to the DPRK. Just part of the name. Amazing how many people get bamboozled by such a simple word trick though.

> Amazing how many people get bamboozled by such a simple word trick though.

That's what makes me uneasy about (the little I know of) EA.

Altruism can and does stand alone as a simple human concept (or meme, expressed in English). 'Effective' has got nothing to do with it. On its own, altruism is binary. You either give a thought to the well-being of your fellow man, or you don't. You either concern yourself with the world, or stay as self-centered as you were when you were screaming for attention from the center of your crib.

Adding the word 'effective' is a dilution and distraction from the original bit, and transforms it into a kind of creeping featurism. It invites analysis paralysis. It exhibits premature optimization.

Start by expending a little bit of spiritual energy towards actually becoming altruistic, then we can maybe graduate to an advanced degree in pursuit of effectiveness.

Because a cynical (experienced) person might suspect that the stipulated quest for effectiveness is a semi-conscious avoidance, a delaying tactic meant to push away the pain of subsuming the Self in favor of (undeserving? incoherent? ineffective?) Other.

Harsh thought, yeah, but you'd be amazed what human beings will do to avoid actual spiritual growth.

It seems to me to be a worthy goal for a human, to be altruistic. Like becoming mindful or developing empathy or meditating on the meaning of life. The pain of being ineffective is the baptism of fire. As soon as you consider the needs of others, you realize how powerless you are, in the face of all that need out there. But still you stretch for the goal.

What if I told you that the best and most proven way to effectuate some altruistic goal was to get down on your knees and pray?

No?

Alright, then, how about I send you to Pema Chödrön[0] and invite you to become a bhodisatva, contemplating all beings and sending them love and well-wishes through simple meditative practice?

Believe it or not, both of those practices can be very effective, but their effect will be on you, as you leave the crib behind and expand and extend your ability to consider the well-being of others.

Don't worry about being effective. Just be altruistic. Anybody who invites you to be effective first is just diverting you away from your altruism.

[0] https://www.shambhala.com/pema-chodron/

If you're implying that my engagement with EA is so shallow as to stop at the name -- you're incorrect. Sorry if I'm unfairly reading this as an ad hominem, but that's how it's coming off.

On the merits, I think you're also wrong. Even beyond the money channeled by the movement, I think the philosophical discourse around how best to help people, what your obligations are to other people, and how to measure effectiveness has been useful and important.

I'm not sure if you are or aren't making a clear distinction between "Effective Altruism" and the premise of trying to be effective with your altruism. Everybody who is altruistic tries or at least hopes to be effective with their altruism, and what exactly that means depends on their personal set of values and perspective. An animal lover who donates only to no-kill shelters for love of animals is trying to be effective with their altruism, according to their personal values and priorities. A member of the "Effective Altruism" community however would likely say that person is being ineffective because kill shelters are a unfortunate necessity to make the numbers on pet adoption work out, and anyway they shouldn't be donating to animal welfare in the first place because the most effective way to be altruistic is to buy mosquito nets for poor tropic countries, to maximize the global population because that increases the chance of another Albert Einstein being born who will make some new breakthrough which will doubtlessly have enormous benifit to society, so really the animal lover is being a selfish idiot. Most EA community members will jump off this train of logic at some point before getting to the end, then proceed to argue with each other about it. "Effective Altruism" isn't the mere premise of being effective with altruism, that's the propaganda implication of the name but in reality it's an ideology associated with an online community, with all sorts of baggage.

This is almost completely backwards, there are many effective altruists who are quite highly committed to animal welfare.

> A member of the "Effective Altruism" community however would likely say that person is being ineffective because kill shelters are a unfortunate necessity to make the numbers on pet adoption work out, and anyway they shouldn't be donating to animal welfare in the first place because the most effective way to be altruistic is to buy mosquito nets for poor tropic countries

It's convenient that statements like this always come out just a few sentences into a critique of EA to helpfully reveal a complete ignorance of EA.

You've evidently been exposed to a lot more contrarian handwringing about EA than to actual EA thought.

This is like someone confidently criticizing Mormons' tradition of visiting Mecca. It just makes zero sense.

Do you consider yourself a contrarian?

I agree with most people about most things, just like most people. I think maybe you ask that because I'm not shy about disagreeing with people, when it happens that I do. I don't feel any internal pressure or desire to please the crowd.

My main problem with EA is that it's used as a pseudo-alternative to proper public services and redistribution under the pretense that if we let rich people do what they want to - they will be "more effective" at it than the evil inefficient government.

What actually happens is they cut random shit, pocket the billions they save on taxes, spend a few millions here and there to feel good about themselves, and leave the chaos for someone else to sort out.

See Elon's crusade against American institutions.

I don't know of any public EAs who endorsed Elon's crusade against American institutions -- can you name some?

Re: pseudo-alternative to proper public service -- 80,000 hours is product of the EA movement, which aims to steer people to be effective with their career. It was transformative for me at the right moment, and helped me choice between going deeper into FAANG vs devoting my career to causes that matter (though, checking the website now, almost 10 years later, I do wish they were less AI-risk focused).

Re: redistribution -- I think this is an orthogonal concern to EA, and it's unfair to expect a movement focused on altruism and philosophy to also focus on redistribution. FWIW, I am in favor of both EA and redistribution, I don't believe there's any tension between these.

I think the crux of your criticism is, "some people who are bad or whom I don't like endorse EA, or perhaps use EA to justify thair baditude". I think this is a bad argument. For every position you hold, I could find a bad person who endorses it. For instance, you seem to be in favor of redistribution. You know who else was in favor of redistribution? Stalin! And he killed millions of people. This way of thinking is good for one thing and one thing only -- shutting down thought.

short answer: EA is a smokescreen for regressive tax policies and privatization that allows small groups to make large decisions that affect many people without allowing their input, involvement or consent.

I think the world would be a better place if more people donated to charities, especially effective charities. I also, separately, believe in effective government that takes care of it's people, progressive tax rates, and democracy/input. I don't think these beliefs are in conflict.

Also I'm pretty sure that EA as a movement is only concerned with the former mission, and does not advocate for any of the bad policies you're worried about

The EA forums that I'm aware of have spun off towards longtermism and other bizarre reframings.

GiveWell and CharityNavigator still exist. Charities like GiveDirectly still exist. But, at least where I've seen it, conversation online about these things by people who'd consider themselves part of a community has shifted.

Longtermism is sexy and gets a lot of attention, but the bulk of EA donations by a huge proportion still goes to run-of-the-mill poverty relief. The most controversial EA cause that still moves significant amounts of money turns out to be animal welfare.

My question is "what is the EA movement?"

If somebody gives to a charity rated highly on GiveWell but doesn't talk about it as EA, is that a part of the EA movement?

A pretty key component of a charity being effective is doing things their beneficiaries actually value.

Who deserves to receive help (and, by contrast, who is undeserving of even basic decency) should never, ever be the decision of a few ploutocrats. The state should decide on such matters, and be the upholder of equality. Else, misery becomes a contest for who can be the most compelling, most attractive miserable to the elites.

I think the whole point of EA is to avoid the misery contest and funnel philanthropy dollars in the most effective way, though there's a lot of disagreement inside the movement on what constitutes effectiveness.

On the radical statism -- I guess maybe? At least the in the US right now, we certainly don't have a government that's good at directing money to the most needy. See e.g. the while USAID fiasco. Even if we had a government willing to fund international aid, I still think there is room in the world for people donating to causes they care about. If nothing else, this is how new causes rise to prominence, to be recognized by the official channels.

There's no such thing as "the state" except as a societal arrangement. When you argue that "the state" should decide on who gets what, what you're really saying is that this should be the decision of a few power-crazed career bureaucrats, with no accountability whatsoever or any "skin in the game". At least the plutocrat is paying for the aid out of pocket: he will care somewhat that the money is not outright misused. Why should a random government bureaucrat be trusted to make good decisions?

> power-crazed career bureaucrats

Choosen by elected officials. Consistently underpaid.

As opposed to famously power-awerse and accountable middle management in corporations :)

> Why should a random government bureaucrat be trusted to make good decisions?

Think of state like a corporation in which every worker is in the board and has voting rights. Maybe then you'll get it.

There's no such thing as "society" except for societal arrangement. And societies of any decent size for the past several thousand years have arranged for governments who decide all sorts of things. Why would state aid be decided by a few "power-crazed" career bureaucrats in representative democracies? This sounds like a libertarian screed against the state doing anything but the minimal.

Because career bureaucrats are the only way of running a large organizational arrangement that can even reach a semblance of "deciding all sorts of things". A few hundred representatives can't go at it alone. You get career bureaucrats in private enterprise too, of course, but the idea is that they should at least be kept on a short leash to whatever extent is feasible. That fails completely when you're dealing with an actual government at any scale bigger than a small village or HOA.

Corporations have way worse track records than countries, tho.

Compare colonies run by countries to colonies run by corporations for one example.

The difference is that in corporations you don't get to vote on who is the CEO.

And your country can't usually remove your citizenship without a REALLY good reason.

it's because you're confusing "effective altruism" as a concept, with "effective altruism" as a movement

EA today is about as "altruistic" as the CCP is "communist"

> Samo assures me, he counts Karl Marx among his personal influences, and says Palladium has in fact published a Marxist. What he doesn’t mention is that they prefer to publish monarchists and white supremacists.

Genuine monarchists are pretty rare in America. Not nonexistent but.. Can these claims be substantiated or am I reading breathless hyperbole?

Rated as centrist: https://www.allsides.com/news-source/palladium-magazine-medi...

Rated as right-center: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/palladium-magazine-bias-and-c...

(No idea if either of those are credible; they're just what DDG gave me. I did skim the headlines on Palladium's website and it looks like center-right pretentious slop to me.)

>Genuine monarchists are pretty rare in America.

That was true once. Today Yarvin is massively influential. (I'm not explaining it, just reporting it.)

I think you're massively overselling "Moldbug"'s influence. Most on the right today dismiss him for being jewish. Older right-leaning people are mostly stuck on the Facebook/Fox News reservation and don't read essays or blogs, ever, and probably aren't even literate enough to understand Yarvin let alone get talking into monarchism by him.

I will grant that he has influence, but definitely not "massive". Maybe he has traction with tech business elite as some say, I don't have a read on the pulse of that ultra-niche demographic.

“He has no influence… except perhaps among a small group of the most ideologically extreme, politically active, industrially dominant, and financially resourced people on the planet”

No one thinks Yarvin is popular. They think (know) he’s influential among the very specific small group that you disclaim any knowledge of.

I said monarchists are rare. I maintain that they are, even if rich people rank among their numbers. About the only people from whom you could expect an affinity for monarchism, in America, are rich people who consider themselves aristocrats already (who although powerful, are very few in number) and weird greasy kids in highschools.

Incidentally, I did stumble across the existence of a group of genuine monarchists in America a few years back. They're a sort of Catholic... [Association? Cult let's say] who think the French revolution is the root of all modern evil and instead all government should be subservient to the Catholic church. But their group dates back to some guy in Brazil in the 20th century. These guys are genuine though, not internet larpers or people being edgy for lulz. They're also very obscure and extremely fringe. Almost like the Catholic version of the Westboro Baptist people.

Eh, I've met at least one "monarchist" (blurry boundary between that and fascist, per his own words) who doesn't fit that description at all. There are people out there who just want to be dom'd by some old man in DC.

And yes, you did say they are rare. Then you said they're not influential while carving out the one major source of alleged influence.

I don't take any issue with the rarity claim, but it's at this point dangerously naive to act like Yarvin's incredibly unimpressive and juvenile ideas aren't literally shaping our daily lives as we speak.

Having influence over tech billionaires running some of the most influential companies in the world seems like a lot of influence.

> Most on the right today

"Most" on the right will play dumb when you bring up Project 2025 too, which he architected, and which is getting played out in front of our very own eyes, day in and day out.

"Fascism doesn’t just exist in the marketplace of ideas, but in actual persons living in our cities, funding and constructing their visions for our collective future." said the man in the brownshirt, unaware of his own uniform

Throwaway accounts should be expunged from this site.

Silicon Valley was never liberal. It was always pro libertarian, wrapped in some kind of social progress branding. What changed is that the mask slipped...

The same people, who preached openness and democracy, now pivot overnight to nationalism and strong state fantasies when regulation or taxes appear, like for example Marc Andreessen recent disgusting ideological flip-flops.

Calling this an intelligentsia is too kind, when its more wealthy tech bros with PhDs rediscovering pre 1910s reactionary ideas and mistaking contrarianism for depth. When Peter Thiel bankrolls figures like Eric Weinstein, it is just money confusing confidence for intelligence.

The latest is [1] Palantir co-founder Joe Lonsdale openly calling for public hangings to show “masculine leadership”, what just proves how unserious this crowd is. They do enterprise software but want medieval justice systems. They are deeply dumb, but in a very well funded way... :-)

[1] - https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/palantir-j...

> The same people, who preached openness and democracy, now pivot overnight to nationalism

Nationalism isn't necessarily incompatible with open democracies. People in a democracy can vote for nationalistic policies without there being any contradiction.

> nationalism

Nationalism isn’t inherently immoral. Nationalism is the belief that people with a shared history, culture, language, or identity, ought to have political self-determination and a special loyalty to their own nation.

Where nationalism can go wrong is when it becomes exclusionary (eg defines nation as ethnic, racial, or religious), when it claims moral superiority, suppresses internal dissent, escalates into zero-sum thinking (success defined in terms of other nations losing).

In my experience, even the benign kind of nationalism inevitably metastasizes.

it's not inherently immoral but it's inherently dangerous because it can be so easily weaponized

almost all wars are fueled by nationalism

> almost all wars are fueled by nationalism

Many wars, especially modern ones, are fueled in part by nationalism, but almost none are caused by nationalism alone or mostly caused by nationalism alone.

Instead, they're driven primarily by other factos: power & security, economic interests, religion or ideology, contorl and authority. Nationalism is often a tool rather than the root cause.

I didn't say "caused". I said "fueled".

Problem is they help get people elected who enable if not outright embrace these sorts of ideas.

Part of this is just class interests. We now have a bunch of billionaires who--shock, horror--align with billionaire interests. The days of the maverick operating out of their garage are long over.

But another part of this is transhumanism, which is a weirdly popular movement in tech circles.

The core tenet is transhumanism is that humans will eventually transcend their current form and becomes who knows what exactly? Some view this as the singularity, which in part explains the AI hype.

But part of this is the latest incarnation of the prosperity gospel, an early (and now pervasive) idea that wealth is a demonstration that you are favored by God. Another version of this is the myth of meritocracy under capitalism. So if you're wealthy, it's because you're better than all "the poors", by definition.

How does this relate to transhumanism? Well, if you're better than everyone else, you think your genes should be passed on to this ultimate transhumanist future by, say, having a ton of children. Even if you're a completely absent father, it doesn't matter. You believe in the supremacy of your genetic heritage.

Another way to put all this is simply eugenics.

Hypergamy is eugenics but socially acceptable. The left is trying to embrace its own "prosperity gospel" with "abundance theory", quite a bit before that it was it was "dialectical/historical materialism" with its inevitable contradictions which would eventually lead to a boom/bust cycle too large for capitalists to overcome it, guaranteeing the transition to a socialist state.

I don't see them clearly trying to go transhuman, I see them clearly trying to build AGI. Closer to "I have no mouth and I must scream" than any other particular dystopia IMHO.

> But part of this is the latest incarnation of the prosperity gospel, an early (and now pervasive) idea that wealth is a demonstration that you are favored by God. Another version of this is the myth of meritocracy under capitalism. So if you're wealthy, it's because you're better than all "the poors", by definition.

There is a whole industry that caters to ultra wealthy and one of their core tenets is that customer is always right. This is problematic because negative feedback is an important mechanism of personal growth and self development. Thus we end up with ultra wealthy people being mostly disconnected from the society.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com