The Neoreactionary

What an odd thing to say

Elon Musk Consulted Curtis Yarvin, Right-Wing Thinker, on Third Party

Elon Musk has finally revealed the game. He is getting desperate and sloppy.

Elon Musk consults Curtis Yarvin about the America Party being the party of monarch rule over America.

“It is yet another enemy of the Enlightenment who have arisen to oppose this movement of conscience and knowledge. I think of ideologies of hate that want to separate people in reason of their origin, their gender, their religion, who in doing so attack the pillars of Republican reason and thought.”

“To the liberty of men, the Dark Enlightenment opposes the force of reality. To equality of birth, the hierarchy of status. To universal brotherhood, the reign of war and predation. This ideological project is real, and through men and women, it intends to rule.”

“Nowadays, there is a new project, born in the United States, but which will, I don’t doubt it, plant seeds here in France and Europe—the explicit project of the Dark Enlightenment. These want to erase the legacy of three centuries at least of human progress.”

“There is a current zeitgeist where hatred expresses itself, with antisemitic rage and the furor of algorithms. Through the Freemasonry, it is, at bottom, the project of revolution and emancipation of which you are, with others, the guardians, that is targeted.”

Élysée on X: "EN DIRECT | Discours du Président @EmmanuelMacron à la Grande Loge de France. https://t.co/NrNNB20QZF" / X EN DIRECT | Discours du Président @EmmanuelMacron à la Grande Loge de France. https://t.co/NrNNB20QZF

In a speech to the Masonic Great Lodge of France, Emmanuel Macron calls out "the Dark Enlightenment" as an enemy.

Opinion | ‘This Is What We Were Always Scared of’: DOGE Is Building a Surveillance State

Until DOGE is reformed, Elon is not gone, even if he’s not physically present in the US Government

Nihilistic narcissism*

Moderator: “All right, perhaps we can get into closing statements. I think they've allotted five to 10. Perhaps it was eight minutes. Mr. Yarvin, if you'd like to start your closing remarks.”

A: “Again, those things are mutually supportive of each other, and it is possible both to stand up for and defend values of academic freedom, intellectual freedom, and also to put yourself on a path of reform and renewal, we can defend by renovating. And that is, I believe, the path that we're on.”

A: “And the answer to that question is yes, and the reason for that answer is because we are very clear about core values. Those are values of Veritas. They are also values of pluralism.”

A: “But I think the important question here more broadly, to bring us back to our original resolution is whether or not this university in particular, is in a place where it can do work that is for the good of our society.”

A: “Yes, should science take a look at itself and consider how it's doing its work? Yes, I think all those things are the case, but sciences generally have established very high standards for their work and maintain a commitment to testing and evaluating what they're doing.”

A: “Scientists do work according to a set of norms for inquiry that they that are high standard is short of it, and they hold each other to very high standard. They do put each other under intense competitive pressures. Is it possible that bureaucratic pressures also affect the how science unfolds?”

Allen: “There's a lot there. I'm not going to respond to the whole picture. I think that's not what our resolution is about. But I will say a few things. I mean, for starters, science is a hard enterprise, and science is also a bureaucratic enterprise. Both of those things are true simultaneously.”

Moderator, to Allen: “Sure your thoughts Professor Allen, whether or not what he said is factually or historically correct if there's something structurally wrong which is producing what he claims to be the case about professors and academic elites of that sort.”

Y: “It's involving the most powerful ideas, and in a way, the most pernicious ideas. And I can't help but relate that to professors Allen's belief that positive liberty, in other words, power, is an essential goal of human nature.”

Y: “And I look at the basically Professor Allen was talking about the legacy of devastation that these policies have left over the last 50 years. They were all approved by the best social scientists of the time. I see the same effect where the system is not evolving the best and truest ideas.”

Y: “You know, who benefits from expansion of NATO to the east? Well, I don't know who benefits, but I know a lot of people have died. How's that working out for you? Ukraine? You know, when I look at the social policies and of the 1960s which were supported by almost all academics.”

Y: “Peter Dazsak is like, Fine. We'll shut it down. We'll start a new org, different name should be fine. Actually, these people seem profoundly unaccountable. And if you look at the processes that gave them power, and really the power to create COVID, they seem very corrupt, and I see many things.”

Y: “You know, the people who really, honestly, right now, should be in jail for what they do, and instead, they have suffered little or no harm. Equa Health Alliance, which basically ran, you know, the research program. Or Peter dazak was disbarred, or, you know, they can't get grants anymore.”

Y: “to be a good scientist today, to be an effective pi in the system, you have to be an empire builder. It's not me, right? Right? And so what we have is this generation of very effective bureaucrats. The Fauci is the route barracks, you know, Peter Daszak.”

Y: “direction of, if you'll excuse my Latin, you know, monotas and like, and that money is not, it's not corporate, you know, bribery or whatever. It's just the fact that everyone in science, and this is, by the way, the reason that I personally dropped out of science is that…”

Y: “Basically, world, what I see is the gain of function. Research, like so many other research programs, has a built in bureaucratic advantage, because it generates funding. And there are so many directions and research and public policy where it is not the direction of Veritas that wins is…”

Y: “recreated the 1918 flu, which hasn't gotten out and hurt us yet, but very well might. And so, you know, when I look at this, I'm like, wow, you know, if the professors aren't in charge, even electing Donald Trump doesn't seem to stop the gain of function.”

Y: “So let's go and reinvent the 1918 flu. Actually, I forget the name that something very disturbing happened in the supposedly anti academic Trump administration, which is, I think the deputy head of NIAID on the infectious diseases Institute is actually the gain of function guy who…”

Y: “You were not a team player. You were trying to deny grants to all of your friends. You were saying, don't work on this. And they're basically saying, look, but I have this beautiful research that I'm doing, and it's explained by this idea that sort of the 1918 flu should be a problem.”

Y: “Now, what did you learn? Anything? No, you didn't, right? And actually, what you find is that what you're evolving for in the basically the system of grant funded science is science that gets more grants and so gain of function. Imagine being a biologist who's against gain of function research.”

Y: “There was actually nothing to be gained from gain of function research, we found that actually nothing was gained at all from this research when COVID was created. You know, they're like, we're going to predict these emergencies of viruses. Okay, you predicted it. It happened.”