NRx is a valid correction in many respects but I've only gotten the impression that while liberalism legitimized merchant power, NRx just wants merchant power without mythology of liberalism and its consequences. But merchant power is the main problem.
The vegetarians are Nazis trope is getting really old. There is a degree of tribalism past which one is essentially shouting from the mountains to be refuted, not as a truth seeking act but as a way of finding and dismissing the Others.
It is hard to properly summarize, analyze, or refute Yarvin however because he is so long-winded and purple in his literary style. I've read enough Yarvin to know that your analysis is correct, but it is a generous one that assumes good faith. Some Yarvin critics have stumped him on basic questions, but only in interviews. Some people are much less persuasive in person than in writing.
I have an old series I called "Correcting the record on Yarvin" I wrote a while back you might enjoy.
Part 1: https://sternshiplog.substack.com/p/correcting-the-record-on-yarvin-short?r=2o7ml4
Part 2: https://sternshiplog.substack.com/p/chasing-up-guru-decoders-and-correcting?r=2o7ml4
Part 3: https://sternshiplog.substack.com/p/correcting-the-record-on-yarvin-part?r=2o7ml4
Appendix: https://sternshiplog.substack.com/p/a-quick-note-on-why-i-dispassionately?r=2o7ml4
Very interesting angles i never looked at before on this topic. Im not as well read about this stuff although ive looked and wrote about it
NRx is a valid correction in many respects but I've only gotten the impression that while liberalism legitimized merchant power, NRx just wants merchant power without mythology of liberalism and its consequences. But merchant power is the main problem.
The vegetarians are Nazis trope is getting really old. There is a degree of tribalism past which one is essentially shouting from the mountains to be refuted, not as a truth seeking act but as a way of finding and dismissing the Others.
It is hard to properly summarize, analyze, or refute Yarvin however because he is so long-winded and purple in his literary style. I've read enough Yarvin to know that your analysis is correct, but it is a generous one that assumes good faith. Some Yarvin critics have stumped him on basic questions, but only in interviews. Some people are much less persuasive in person than in writing.