Comments by "Mark Pawelek" (@mark4asp) on "The Case Against Democracy" video.

  1. Yarvin is a bad role model for dissidents. He makes many good points, but then undermines himself. His criticism seems to be that our current system is one of experts, NGOs, GOs, and IGOs running the world. They take so long to do anything that nothing gets done. For example, there's a new estate being built half a mile from me. 25 years ago they built an access road to the site and 25 years later? That estate is still not done! These criticisms are valid - we can no longer get anything done; because our current system promotes bad ideas. Because authority is separated from accountability and responsibility. The whole trend in governance is one of giving ever more power to expert-GOs and NGOs; and to dis-empower all systems of accountability. But how is "monarchy" the answer? Where's the accountability in monarchy?
    2
  2. I hope you asked him what his alternative to democracy is? Given: we already "abandoned democracy" a while back, I also want to learn: 1. What system are we living under now? 2. Is there an alternative to this current (non-democratic) system we live under?
    2
  3. I don't think "performative dissidents" have a "nihilistic vision". Form my view, its the conformists to authoritarianism who have the "nihilistic vision".
    1
  4. "the anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic philosophical movement known as the Dark Enlightenment or neoreactionary movement (NRx)." -- Triggernometry 1. "Dark Enlightenment" is "anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic"? <- I do not think it can be. The Enlightenment was a movement for rationality, skepticism, and empiricism. It was mostly egalitarian and pro-democratic. All the important Enlightenment thinkers were: egalitarian, pro-democratic, rational, skeptical (of the authorities, and received wisdom), and empiricist. 2. Anti-Enlightenment - has rarely been a thing. For example the NAZIs were an anti-Enlightenment movement but one can only take that so far. 3. "Dark Enlightenment", if such a thing exists, would be a movement which is post-Enlightenment, in the sense that such a Dark Enlightenment movement would build on the lessons of the past. It would want to go past the Enlightenment without making the blunders of the NAZIs (anti-Enlightenment), or Bolsheviks (post-Enlightenment). Because the Bolsheviks failed does not mean every post-Enlightenment must fail. Al lot of the criticisms Yarvin makes of Western Democracies - e.g. "we can't build anything" are not criticisms of Democracy as such. They are criticisms of our tolerance of protesters - which is a feature of diversity and inclusion - not a criticism of democracy.
    1