Whom of the two, is the correct answer?

based retard

>lets build nukes
>lets hide in the forest
gee, i wonder who wins

Yarvin never figured out how force would actually be handled in his society, he handwaved it away with tech magic. Having said that, he makes a lot more sense than Ted, even given his historical inaccuracies. They both diagnosed the world very accurately.

Attached: 1555195599484.jpg (1992x1982, 683K)

It seems to my like his tech magic is not quite necessary for neocameralism. In theory you might diversify the military and assign guard services for the stockholders. If the US fed gov can exist without it's army threatening a coup I don't see why stockholders couldn't do that. If you don't have the resources to implement these measures you should be small enough to be a family business monarchy anyways

Vietnam

Yeah I don't think it's necessary, the problem is Yarvin communicates both openly and through subtext that he wants an absolutely revolution-proof system. It's also kind of a big deal when he himself declares violence to be the main problem of politics(which by the way many actual political scientists would agree with him on).

You think it's a problem to devise a revolution-proof system?

Yes.

>Second, a reset is not a revolution. A revolution is a criminal conspiracy in which murderous, deranged adventurers capture a state for their arbitrary, and usually sinister, purposes. A reset is a restoration of secure, effective and responsible government. It’s true that both involve regime change, but both sex and rape involve penetration.
t. moldbug
I think Moldbug favors more gentle avenues for political change. The avenue for reactionaries he advocates is peaceful secession. The avenue out of reaction is emigration to democracies I'd say. If the right to exit is maintained they will do much better than their reactionary neighbors if they deserve to, right? Avoiding revolution seems quite worth it to me

has anyone here read ted's most recent book?

Well, yes, I agree. I meant 'problem' as in it's extremely difficult to devise such a system.

is he publishing from prison?
I remember him making some comments on the efficiency of Maoist China in this respect. It doesn't seem like it would be hard, for a small country with little to no political freedom and transparently authoritarian police to do this

retarded, i guess its best to just sit in your room or go to an island with no one there

Yeah I like the Chinese social credit system. We'll see what happens. Revolution may be bad, but we can still pursue balkanization.

Attached: 1553830539289.png (485x443, 33K)

based 09A recruiter

ya, the anti-tech revolution. came out in 2016

This man knows. Kacynzski fags are invariably low IQ, and that bizarrely includes Kacynzski.

yes.

Attached: Anti-Tech Revolution 102.jpg (4944x7416, 3.82M)

yes. Slavic society successfully gone back at least 100 years behind normal ones after they were raped by mongolo-tatar zerg chads. They even forgot how to build stone buildings for some period of time.

is ted a gamer?

Attached: 1551777342962.jpg (1200x678, 112K)

The joker bullshit has got to stop :3

You can’t define any movement as being of a part of a fucking comic book. Comic books are so low and derivative that as a medium they are hopelessly childish and mundane. Even being loosely related to anything revolving around superhero’s or villains reduces the problems to be considered to essentially black and white status. I’m a nice guy so I usually don’t give a fuck but eventually something MUST be said. Stop propagating childish memes :3

you sound like a homo desu

Attached: 1555394881558.jpg (308x308, 26K)

Attached: D45A2988-11A6-4CC4-902B-F00C163EA795.png (1795x1795, 878K)

I hate to break it to yuo

Attached: MV5BNWJkYWJlOWMtY2ZhZi00YWM0LTliZDktYmRiMGYwNzczMTZhXkEyXkFqcGdeQXVyNzU1NzE3NTg@._V1_CR0,45,480,270_ (477x268, 15K)

Why is this pepe so popular nowadays

Land = Some of us may survive as slaves to the AI god, but eventually we all gonna die.
Ted = Let's go back to square 1, keep human population in stasis.

Ted is obviously a humanist position. But it also runs contrary to commonly observed evolutionary pathway: The population in stasis may fight progress all they want, but is eventually outbred by population which can adapt to the new ecology.

Land accelerationism is cybernetic realism. Let's not shun, but cheer all the mutants of new ecology, even if they kill us! All we can merely *hope* for is for whatever inhuman comes out of this retains something of the parental humanity. A bit like how we retain DNA structure of an ancestor common to all biology, yet that ancestor is long dead, and was most likely very different from anything seen around here.

The problem isn't technology, its the essence which we place in technology.

Attached: heidegger.jpg (217x300, 9K)

look how fucking mad this tranny is

Attached: 1540564868234.png (333x355, 202K)

You can't turn back time and go back to the stone ages. The ideal only moves forwards

>You can't turn back time and go back to the stone ages. The ideal only moves forwards
holy brainlet

Don't post if you parrot historical materialism but don't even understand historical materialism kek

not an argument

Does Yarvin ever address globalization and the destruction of communities? I feel that a hyper capitalistic world that Yarvin proposes entails the destruction of the community and local autonomy. Ted's proposal would save that with the expense of health care and advancement.

Both aren't religious which leads to a materialistic anti natalist worldview. They both are flawed deeply, I wonder what molded them to such views.

I don't think Yarvin is a hypercapitalist, in one of his pieces he discusses the merits of banning all Chinese imports to promote employment among the masses, iirc. The Sovcorp idea is probably the only way an American audience operating under libertarianism or progressivism could understand what he was trying to get at without crying "Nazi!". Not that that stopped anyone.

>Does Yarvin ever address globalization and the destruction of communities? I feel that a hyper capitalistic world that Yarvin proposes entails the destruction of the community and local autonomy.

well he proposes the idea of city-states or small states like the ones that existed in the holy roman empire/italic city states of the renaissance

>I wonder what molded them to such views.

for molbug it was because his parents/grandparents were the usual progressive/leftist types and i heard that one of his uncles worked for the federal government, he lives in SF after all

for ted it was the sense of alienation he felt towards society itself, he was a sperg after all, that doesn´t mean his arguments aren´t valid tho

I think the primary driving force of globalism is the deteritorialization as driven by technology's shrinking of travel distance. Humans need a certain ammount of travel distance between them to diverge and maintain local differences. Moldbug wants to maximize local autonomy which could help maintain these differences a lot but there is nothing we can do to end commercial airlines and trains and such. It's saddening but i do not think the languages, cultures and traditions of old will survive the near future. Nationalism cannot solve this either, not in the long run anyway. Patchwork is probably the best we can hope for
I think some of his grandparents were literal Marxists. What a fine young comrade they raised, lol

Yeah I still don't get how he can live there unless it's some gated community. Even despite his snarky writing style you can tell that he's *really* pissed.

I guess he just sits on his ass reading books all day.

Nonsense, autogynephilic transsexuals are all high IQ as a rule

>Since we provide the genuine article, UR is pretty much the anti-Chomsky. (As a broad generalization, UR’s stance in any controversy will be the opposite of Chomsky’s.) Take one of our red pills—heck, split one in half—and you’ll be in a completely different world.

Its great that he provided the enough information to know that he is a pseud

>chomsky fag calling anyone a pseud

Are you serious?

False dichotomy, and you know it, baitmaster general, modern mega-troll in Ibsen's sense of the term. Technology is like sex or free money: If you can, you will. There is no choice in the matter, when it makes all the difference between a long and prosperous life and a short and mind-numbingly impoverished and brutal one. That our abuses of its powers will also hasten the extinction of our species is its longer-term consequence, is something that isn't easy to accept, and idiotic to deny. I certainly don't regret having lived in times better than any that came before, even though I am convinced it will all end badly, in almost inconceivably hideous, sweeping tragedy, in less time than has passed since the Renaissance. Not that Yea Forums is the board for discourse about any of this. Most of you don't even know the age of the Earth to within the nearest 6 orders of magnitude, and are otherwise useless for conversation about events on the natural history scale of time. Seated on their toilets, the average /sci/tard could piss on this board from a comparatively great height. Even Lucretius could, and he came before Christ, for chrissake. ARE THERE NO POLYMATHS LEFT IN THE WORLD?

>ted
>humanist
>itt: people who've never read ted and just know his shit through memes

Attached: ted.png (500x359, 63K)

>HEGELIAN DETECTED

Attached: vO7lRZ7.png (621x702, 56K)

Technology or freedom are mutually exclusive. Any increase in one limits the other. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

Attached: television.jpg (220x347, 18K)

>Jerry Mander

Attached: Booger physical.gif (220x199, 215K)

>there is no choice in the matter, when it makes all the difference between a long and prosperous life and a short and mind-numbingly impoverished and brutal one
Better to reign in hell than serve in heaven.

Attached: milton.jpg (525x700, 118K)

>Jerry Mander
heh

Freedom is an oversimplification.

Attached: 554CDFB0-5416-4ED3-A08E-3F0F14C7D8C1.jpg (728x964, 303K)

Every time I see this guy I think of Darril from the Kids of the Hall.

>Calling "Kacynzski" (sic) low IQ
Why advertise the fact that you're a brainlet?