Yarvin's analysis of a situation is often interesting and poignant, and occasionally quite fun to read, due to his erudition and irony.
His positive program though is underwhelming at best, and hostile at worst, literally against several key points of the US oath of allegiance, for instance. His idea of a benevolent head of a "sovcorp" ("sovereign corporation") is not even some virtuous king Elessar; someone like president Putin, capable, determined, and with very long horizon of planning, but sufficiently cynical, would fit the bill. For last 3 yeas we have a painful demonstration of how well that works.
The fact that Yarvin can publish and promote his views in a society that's formally built on ideas opposite to his speaks good about our society, its freedom of thought and speech. It also adds to its durability. Every authoritarian ruler knows how dangerous are subversive ideas that propagate covertly, while everyone pretends to be aligned to the official values.
I disagree that Putin has a long horizon of planning. He is very much medium term, waiting for opportunities to occur. He also has enough resources that if a bet does not work out, he can still double down a few times till he wins.
That is not a bad strategy unless someone figures it out and plans to bankrupt you.
Putin was sold (by some) to the West as a long-term planner, not beholden to the need to be re-elected, and with rather solid levels of economic growth and popular support. Moldbug's original point, typical for many monarchists, is that a good king cares to leave a country in a good shape to his progeny. This proved wrong many times; "apres moi, la deluge" could be made the slogan of monarchy (aka "authoritarianism") as institution.
I think he has an extremely long horizon. What we are seeing in the US today, the accelerated pace of institutional destruction (science and technology funding crushed, regulatory bodies hollowed out, constant division qnd threats of civil war) is precisely what occurred in Russia after the collapse of the USSR. These go a lot further than just carrying out the fantasies of American conservatives. They are about destroying the very pillars of American power, something Putin has wanted ever he saw the damage wrought by the overnight transition of Russia into a democracy and market economy, which happened at the behest of western economists and business interests. And just like in Russia, these events always result in one outcome: dictatorship.
His positive program though is underwhelming at best, and hostile at worst, literally against several key points of the US oath of allegiance, for instance. His idea of a benevolent head of a "sovcorp" ("sovereign corporation") is not even some virtuous king Elessar; someone like president Putin, capable, determined, and with very long horizon of planning, but sufficiently cynical, would fit the bill. For last 3 yeas we have a painful demonstration of how well that works.
The fact that Yarvin can publish and promote his views in a society that's formally built on ideas opposite to his speaks good about our society, its freedom of thought and speech. It also adds to its durability. Every authoritarian ruler knows how dangerous are subversive ideas that propagate covertly, while everyone pretends to be aligned to the official values.