I think you may be misunderstanding the central argument of my essay. I'm not claiming that Yarvin hides his conclusions or that there's any mystery about what political systems he admires. In fact, I acknowledge that his ultimate goal (essentially advocating for a form of monarchy or corporate governance) is relatively straightforward.
I think you may be misunderstanding the central argument of my essay. I'm not claiming that Yarvin hides his conclusions or that there's any mystery about what political systems he admires. In fact, I acknowledge that his ultimate goal (essentially advocating for a form of monarchy or corporate governance) is relatively straightforward.
My analysis focuses on something different and more subtle: how his rhetorical approach functions as a mechanism of persuasion that's far more sophisticated than simply stating his preferences for Singapore or historical monarchies.
When I describe Yarvin's writing as a "waterfall" that doesn't persuade but drowns, I'm not suggesting he's hiding his views. Rather, I'm examining how the form of his communication—the overwhelming volume, the labyrinthine references, the strategic complexity—serves to erode readers' critical faculties and democratic commitments before they even encounter his explicit conclusions.
The danger isn't in what Yarvin wants (which, as you correctly point out, he states fairly openly in various essays), but in how he makes readers receptive to those anti-democratic ideas. His writing doesn't just present arguments to be evaluated—it creates an immersive experience that gradually dissolves the reader's capacity for democratic thinking itself.
In my earlier work, I've directly addressed Yarvin's neocameralism and his explicit political preferences. But this essay is specifically examining his rhetorical technique as a form of epistemic manipulation—one that doesn't rely on hiding his conclusions but on exhausting the reader's resistance to them through a torrent of references, cynical observations, and apparent erudition.
The sophistication of Yarvin's approach isn't that he conceals his beliefs, but that he understands something profound about persuasion: changing what people think often requires first changing how they think. His writing serves not just to communicate ideas but to reshape the reader's entire epistemological framework in ways that make his anti-democratic conclusions seem inevitable rather than abhorrent.
That's why understanding his rhetorical strategy matters as much as understanding his explicit political positions. It's not about uncovering hidden views; it's about recognizing how certain rhetorical techniques can function as powerful tools for eroding democratic commitments and critical thinking itself.
You really think so? You are saying that his rhetoric is so persuasive that it convinces people to take up ideas they wouldn't otherwise. This doesn't seem right to me. For one thing, his rhetoric is not that great, he's long-winded and self-satisfied. He's more literate than your average wingnut, and can be clever, but really, how many people have the patience to plow through his incredibly long screeds? As an "immersive experience" it's pretty tedious.
No, his appeal is not due to his magical powers of persuasion, it's in the ideas, and their transgressive power. He's offering a radical worldview which shatters all the pieties of liberal, democratic, polite society, and offering his followers a chance to feel superior to all those boring normies. Now, the ideas aren't really all that great or original, and certainly his writing helps sell them, makes them appear fresh, new, powerful. But I would guess that the people who take them up are not being bamboozled, they understand what he is offering.
Take a couple of his most prominent fans: JD Vance and Marc Andreesen. Do we think they have been swept away by Yarvin's magical waterfall of rhetoric, or have they found for themselves an eloquent proponent of ideas that suit their self-images, their interests, their political purposes? Delivered in a package that seems to have intellectual sophistication of course.
Sorry I don't want to argue this into the ground, we are on the same side after all. There's nothing wrong with taking a closer look at Yarvin's rhetorical techniques.
Why can't both/all of these 'spears' of Yarvin's writings be true at the same time, intended for a range of audiences?
His writings get interpretted and re-distributed down the line and up the line. There undoubtedly are those who read them deeply, others who get sent a few carefully chosen articles and quickly become locked in Because Busy Life, and then there's the rest who are fed the re-articulated version underpinning Project 2025, and then there's the mass who get a few carefully chosen P2025 soundbites and think "Yeah!".
As I said, it's a new (well, reinvented for the 21C) ecosystem of thought just as potent as any other more traditional or liberal or classic-Republican, with various levels of complexity that poke the requisite hot-buttons needed for various levels of the intended audience.
Yes I think that’s right. I think Mike Brock and I have similar reactions to Yarvin’s work (alarmed not just by the content but by its sinister appeal) although perhaps to different aspects of it.
Thank you, Mike for clarifying even more your central point. It is how I understand what you wrote. What Yarvin is attempting is insidious mind control. But, if I showed any of this to people I know who are Trump supporters their eyes would glaze over & they would throw up their hands, thinking I’m a radical, extremist left winger. That’s a big part of Trump’s appeal- he makes it all seem so simple & his supporters aren’t required to very hard. Fox & other outlets amplify that feeling of security without effort. But given a personal situation I’m dealing with (and which Trump & Co might negatively impact), & keeping up with the Trump/Vance//Musk train wreck, I don’t think I can handle reading Yarvin. Frankly, they sound like a bunch of bratty young boys with too much money & time on their hands who sit around fantasizing about being Lord of the Flies.
I think you may be misunderstanding the central argument of my essay. I'm not claiming that Yarvin hides his conclusions or that there's any mystery about what political systems he admires. In fact, I acknowledge that his ultimate goal (essentially advocating for a form of monarchy or corporate governance) is relatively straightforward.
My analysis focuses on something different and more subtle: how his rhetorical approach functions as a mechanism of persuasion that's far more sophisticated than simply stating his preferences for Singapore or historical monarchies.
When I describe Yarvin's writing as a "waterfall" that doesn't persuade but drowns, I'm not suggesting he's hiding his views. Rather, I'm examining how the form of his communication—the overwhelming volume, the labyrinthine references, the strategic complexity—serves to erode readers' critical faculties and democratic commitments before they even encounter his explicit conclusions.
The danger isn't in what Yarvin wants (which, as you correctly point out, he states fairly openly in various essays), but in how he makes readers receptive to those anti-democratic ideas. His writing doesn't just present arguments to be evaluated—it creates an immersive experience that gradually dissolves the reader's capacity for democratic thinking itself.
In my earlier work, I've directly addressed Yarvin's neocameralism and his explicit political preferences. But this essay is specifically examining his rhetorical technique as a form of epistemic manipulation—one that doesn't rely on hiding his conclusions but on exhausting the reader's resistance to them through a torrent of references, cynical observations, and apparent erudition.
The sophistication of Yarvin's approach isn't that he conceals his beliefs, but that he understands something profound about persuasion: changing what people think often requires first changing how they think. His writing serves not just to communicate ideas but to reshape the reader's entire epistemological framework in ways that make his anti-democratic conclusions seem inevitable rather than abhorrent.
That's why understanding his rhetorical strategy matters as much as understanding his explicit political positions. It's not about uncovering hidden views; it's about recognizing how certain rhetorical techniques can function as powerful tools for eroding democratic commitments and critical thinking itself.
You really think so? You are saying that his rhetoric is so persuasive that it convinces people to take up ideas they wouldn't otherwise. This doesn't seem right to me. For one thing, his rhetoric is not that great, he's long-winded and self-satisfied. He's more literate than your average wingnut, and can be clever, but really, how many people have the patience to plow through his incredibly long screeds? As an "immersive experience" it's pretty tedious.
No, his appeal is not due to his magical powers of persuasion, it's in the ideas, and their transgressive power. He's offering a radical worldview which shatters all the pieties of liberal, democratic, polite society, and offering his followers a chance to feel superior to all those boring normies. Now, the ideas aren't really all that great or original, and certainly his writing helps sell them, makes them appear fresh, new, powerful. But I would guess that the people who take them up are not being bamboozled, they understand what he is offering.
Take a couple of his most prominent fans: JD Vance and Marc Andreesen. Do we think they have been swept away by Yarvin's magical waterfall of rhetoric, or have they found for themselves an eloquent proponent of ideas that suit their self-images, their interests, their political purposes? Delivered in a package that seems to have intellectual sophistication of course.
Sorry I don't want to argue this into the ground, we are on the same side after all. There's nothing wrong with taking a closer look at Yarvin's rhetorical techniques.
Why can't both/all of these 'spears' of Yarvin's writings be true at the same time, intended for a range of audiences?
His writings get interpretted and re-distributed down the line and up the line. There undoubtedly are those who read them deeply, others who get sent a few carefully chosen articles and quickly become locked in Because Busy Life, and then there's the rest who are fed the re-articulated version underpinning Project 2025, and then there's the mass who get a few carefully chosen P2025 soundbites and think "Yeah!".
As I said, it's a new (well, reinvented for the 21C) ecosystem of thought just as potent as any other more traditional or liberal or classic-Republican, with various levels of complexity that poke the requisite hot-buttons needed for various levels of the intended audience.
Yes I think that’s right. I think Mike Brock and I have similar reactions to Yarvin’s work (alarmed not just by the content but by its sinister appeal) although perhaps to different aspects of it.
Thank you, Mike for clarifying even more your central point. It is how I understand what you wrote. What Yarvin is attempting is insidious mind control. But, if I showed any of this to people I know who are Trump supporters their eyes would glaze over & they would throw up their hands, thinking I’m a radical, extremist left winger. That’s a big part of Trump’s appeal- he makes it all seem so simple & his supporters aren’t required to very hard. Fox & other outlets amplify that feeling of security without effort. But given a personal situation I’m dealing with (and which Trump & Co might negatively impact), & keeping up with the Trump/Vance//Musk train wreck, I don’t think I can handle reading Yarvin. Frankly, they sound like a bunch of bratty young boys with too much money & time on their hands who sit around fantasizing about being Lord of the Flies.