[anthony]

Yarvin and Banania talked, kind of forgot about that. From what I hear it wasn't actually that exciting. Not actually that surprising when you consider that Banania mostly believes the same things as Moldbug. 'Monarchy vs Democracy', but Monarchy is when Silicon Valley rules the world and Democracy is when Silicon Valley rules the world.

Would still be interested in hearing how they played off of each other if that ever gets released.

What did you think of the talk with Rufo? It was quite similar to his talk with that libertarian comedian imo

I read that, if you mean this piece.

https://im1776.com/2024/04/11/rufo-vs-yarvin/

These guys have real disagreements, in what needs doing at least. And I really think Rufo doesn't have answers to Yarvin's key charge. Leftism has metastised. It's everywhere. Leveraging extraordinary force to superficially purge one institution at a time does nothing. These people get re-hired on the spot and exercise just as much power. You need to get them all at once everywhere. Complete cut them off and shut them out. You don't do that by complaining until a university jettisons its designated woke scapegoat.

Rufo says:

you say that Joseph McCarthy lost; he was utterly destroyed. But McCarthy won. He sacrificed himself for the republic, yes, but if we look at the twentieth century as a whole, America was still the last “asylum for mankind.” McCarthy, Nixon, Burnham, and others held back the movement of communism in America, which could have easily turned out differently. You denigrate the historical American regime and express a desire for a true sovereign who rules with an iron fist. So, which twentieth-century state earns your ideological favor? Germany? Russia? Some tribal monarch in the heart of Africa?

"McCarthy won". Not very compelling.

Forgive me, but I cannot help but suspect that your manic combination of grandiosity and fatalism is an excuse for inaction. You are waiting for the cataclysm, rather than patiently building the conditions for concrete political action. You have set up a series of false dilemmas, and then praise yourself for not falling into the trap. For example, you accuse me of not having fired any DEI bureaucrats and then, in your very next sentence, argue that my having fired DEI bureaucrats will simply spawn more. Here is the logical conclusion of your philosophy: “If you fight your enemies, they win.” Is that a fair description?

Marginally better for a moment, then he gets off track and misses the fundamental charges against him (or acts as though he does).

Yarvin's answers I find far more compelling all through the piece.

Yes: I am saying that fighting for fighting’s sake is retarded. The only reason to fight is to win. Don’t compare your victories to nothing, Chris! That’s the grifter way. Compare them to winning. 

If you have no picture of winning, you are a grifter. If you do have a picture of winning – what percent of that picture have you achieved? Another good test of impact: if I didn’t read any media at all, would your actions have changed my direct experience of the world? Any impact below this level is not felt but can only be measured. In other words, it is negligible.

The charge that Rufo is another Anita Bryant seems very strong.

The idea of a creeping victory against libtardism seems absurd in the face of their constantly generating powerbase and capacity for regeneration against attacks, relative to "our" own. I would like to see a longer form discussion here, but Rufo would probably just be left flailing. I do like the idea of a dedicated back and forth in longer form text (why I run a forum). Something we don't get much. When "talking" things get stupid in too many ways. You can do a lot more writing back and forth. I think the main reason this isn't a spectator sport is because so few people capable of standing up to the scrutiny exist. A retard like Destiny can maintain an audience long-term even if he's constantly humiliating himself in talks, imagine if this guy was forced to write to someone.

[Barager]

The idea of a creeping victory against libtardism seems absurd in the face of their constantly generating powerbase and capacity for regeneration against attacks, relative to "our" own. I would like to see a longer form discussion here, but Rufo would probably just be left flailing. I do like the idea of a dedicated back and forth in longer form text (why I run a forum). Something we don't get much. When "talking" things get stupid in too many ways. You can do a lot more writing back and forth. I think the main reason this isn't a spectator sport is because so few people capable of standing up to the scrutiny exist. A retard like Destiny can maintain an audience long-term even if he's constantly humiliating himself in talks, imagine if this guy was forced to write to someone.

Destiny seems to be maintaining his audience for the same reasons other degenerate libtards (like h3h3) do, which is that their audience can fundamentally relate to them. They're argumentative self-hating losers, but the fact that they don't stop whining is oddly inspiring to their audience. Another reason, I think, is that they have no contemporary high-brow intellectuals on their side. It all seems to me that a lot of what is driving their conviction is emotional and psychological. These libtard influencers are like priests to them. But when have priests ever preached natural truths instead of so-called "mooral" truths?

[anthony]

Destiny seems to be maintaining his audience for the same reasons other degenerate libtards (like h3h3) do, which is that their audience can fundamentally relate to them. They're argumentative self-hating losers, but the fact that they don't stop whining is oddly inspiring to their audience. Another reason, I think, is that they have no contemporary high-brow intellectuals on their side. It all seems to me that a lot of what is driving their conviction is emotional and psychological. These libtard influencers are like priests to them. But when have priests ever preached natural truths instead of so-called "mooral" truths?

Very much a problem, that you can win people over so easily and through so much speaking as a face on a screen. It's a force multiplier. And one which Yarvin didn't use. He does speak in person a bit now. He's even sometimes good at it. But building himself up in writing was clearly much harder. And I think that if you succeed in that test facefagging is easy.

And yes, there's no high-brow on their side. But of course high-brows don't go looking for answers in these retarded streams. At least I hope they don't. And I'd imagine if they're actually earnest and intelligent they'll recognise the real thing when they inevitably come across it sooner or later. The argument against these guys is more an argument against democracy than against particular media. Destiny is an authentic man of the people. The people like screens, relatable faces, and degenerate retardation.

Contra Hanania, conservatives might watch tv, and liberals might read (shitjourno rags), but the progressive vanguard (us) reads seriously.

[Barager]

Very much a problem, that you can win people over so easily and through so much speaking as a face on a screen. It's a force multiplier. And one which Yarvin didn't use. He does speak in person a bit now. He's even sometimes good at it. But building himself up in writing was clearly much harder. And I think that if you succeed in that test facefagging is easy.

And yes, there's no high-brow on their side. But of course high-brows don't go looking for answers in these retarded streams. At least I hope they don't. And I'd imagine if they're actually earnest and intelligent they'll recognise the real thing when they inevitably come across it sooner or later. The argument against these guys is more an argument against democracy than against particular media. Destiny is an authentic man of the people. The people like screens, relatable faces, and degenerate retardation.

Contra Hanania, conservatives might watch tv, and liberals might read (shitjourno rags), but the progressive vanguard (us) reads seriously.

What I'm trying to argue is that the audiences of these streamers aren't actually 'won over' as much as they're simply relating to them. 
It's like people that inform themselves politically by listening to Rogan, except he isn't trying to persuade anyone of anything. 
But people that relate to Rogan (in terms of interests and lifestyle), will vaguely support whatever Rogan's position is, even though they don't realise it's not coherent (because Rogan also doesn't write on these topics). 
It's a very passive way of engaging with these ideas and, like you said, this isn't a spectator sport.