relianceschool

"At some stage a civil war is coming to the Trump movement. And I think Musk and Vance will be on two very different sides of that civil war." From the Wall Street Journal:

On one side are tech bros racing to create a new future; on the other, a resurgent band of conservative Catholics who yearn for an imagined past. Both groups agree that the status quo has failed America and must be torn down to make way for a new “postliberal” world. This conviction explains much of the revolutionary fervor of Trump’s second term, especially the aggressive bludgeoning of elite universities and the federal workforce.

But the two camps disagree sharply on why liberalism should be junked and what should replace it. The techies envision a libertarian world in which great men like Musk can build a utopian future unfettered by government bureaucrats and regulation. Their dark prince is Curtis Yarvin, a blogger-philosopher who has called for American democracy to be replaced by a king who would run the nation like a tech CEO.

This marks the WSJ's most significant mention of Yarvin to date. Coming on the heels of a full Washington Post story, it further demonstrates how these extremist tech ideologies — once relegated to the conspiracy theory bin — are a key part of the Musk-Trump regime.

What's most interesting about the WSJ piece is how it illuminates a schism in the Trump regime. The religious zealots have joined forces with the tech zealots in a shaky authoritarian alliance. But one side purports to believe in God while the other side purports to be gods (or to be creating God), hence the possibility of disaster.

JD Vance is the bridge between the two sides. He's a recent Catholic convert who is largely a creation of Peter Thiel, a tech surveillance billionaire who has lately tried to meld the apocalyptic fantasies of tech with the apocalyptic traditions of Christianity. But it's not clear that will work.

Before gutting the federal workforce became Elon Musk’s job, it was Curtis Yarvin’s dream.

Yarvin — a Silicon Valley blogger and software developer who argues for replacing American democracy with a dictatorship — spent years outlining an assault on what he calls “the cathedral” of elite power and consensus. Long before the U.S. DOGE Service launched in January, Yarvin coined his own four-letter acronym for bureaucracy-slashing: RAGE, or “Retire All Government Employees.”

Although he says he has never met Musk, Yarvin is a powerful influence among those carrying out DOGE’s radical cost-cutting agenda, two advisers to the effort said. One, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to describe the group’s work, said Yarvin had offered “the most crisp articulation” of what DOGE, which stands for Department of Government Efficiency, is trying to achieve.

It’s not every day a neo-monarchist’s Substack helps shape disruptive federal policies. But Yarvin, 51, isn’t celebrating. In fact, in several recent interviews with The Washington Post, he offered a surprisingly harsh assessment of DOGE, comparing it to an orchestra of chimpanzees trying to perform Wagner. He also said the group’s attitude toward federal workers resembles that of a brash but insecure man who repels potential sexual partners.

“In the worst aspects of DOGE, there’s this aspect of the incel who gets mad at the girl who won’t sleep with him,” Yarvin said, using the term for so-called involuntary celibates. “That’s not a powerful attitude.”

https://archive.is/eOdhR

This week I was honored to be the guest on The Home Front podcast with Reed Galen from The Lincoln Project. We had a wide-ranging conversation about the history behind our current moment and discussed some thoughts for how we might get out of this mess. A lightly edited transcript is included below.

From the show notes: “They discuss how decades-old grievances around money, power, and identity have fused with new technology to threaten democracy, the rise of authoritarian networks fueled by crypto and tech billionaires, and why defending the status quo isn't enough to save free societies. Plus, the urgent need to rebuild human connections in an era of tribalism and online radicalization.”

What happens when billionaires buy media outlets and turn them into MAGA mouthpieces? Can billionaire owners ever be a good stewards of journalism?

In this episode of the Nerd Reich Podcast, host Gil Duran talks with veteran journalist Mariel Garza about her courageous decision to resign from the LA Times after billionaire owner Patrick Soon-Shiong blocked the endorsement of Kamala Harris.

Garza reveals the behind-the-scenes drama, discusses the ethical challenges of billionaire-owned media, and shares powerful insights on standing up for integrity in journalism. From hopeful beginnings at the LA Times to her shocking departure and reflections on billionaire influence in the media, this conversation explores the high stakes of maintaining editorial independence in an increasingly polarized world.

From Elon Musk buying and destroying Twitter to Jeff Bezos buying the Washington Post and muzzling its editorial board, we live in an era of billionaire media takeover. How can we fight back? Does mainstream journalism have a future?

The trick with writing about the ideological project of Silicon Valley lies in taking patently unserious ideas seriously. This requires some real artistry and balance. You have to simultaneously make clear to the reader why these ideas are farcical, while also highlighting why they nonetheless merit attention. It often requires explaining and exploring the ideas with greater clarity than the originating authors themselves, since many of Silicon Valley’s most verbose thinkers are just horrendous at writing.

Call it the “Curtis Yarvin problem.” Curtis Yarvin is influential among tech elites. Billionaires take him seriously. So does our current Vice President. Curtis Yarvin is also pathetic. The billionaire technologists mostly take him seriously because his central message is billionaire technologists are very special geniuses and we should put them in control of everything and have faith in their every impulse. Even their most shallow and racist impulses, and it turns out that this is the sort of thing billionaire technologists quite enjoy hearing.

So the Curtis Yarvin problem is (1) there’s this guy you’ve never heard of. (2) he’s kind of the worst. (3) let’s pay attention to him. Because he’s influential. (4) at first glance, his ideas seem ridiculous. But if you really examine them in detail, they’ll seem even more ridiculous. (5) wait, why did we bother to pay attention to him? Oh right, because people with way too much power listen to him. That’s awful.

I’ve spent years trying to master this trick. I think I’ve gotten passably good at it. But I can tell you from experience that it ain’t easy.

Adam Becker’s new book, More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity is a masterclass in threading this particular needle. I cannot recommend it highly enough.

Plant hardiness zones are shifting north as the U.S. warms, affecting farmers and gardeners. These zones, based on the coldest temperatures of the year, determine which plants can grow and thrive in different parts of the country.

With continued heat-trapping pollution, 90% of locations are likely to shift to warmer planting zones by the middle of the century (2036-2065). The Upper Midwest is likely to be most affected. These shifts could force growers to select plants adapted to a wider and warmer range of temperatures.

Although such shifts could expand growing ranges for high-value crops such as almonds, oranges, and kiwis, they could also expand ranges for harmful weeds and pests. For example, Kudzu, a fast-growing invasive vine, is projected to continue to expand from the Southeast into the Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, and Northeast.

Climate Central analyzed past changes in the coldest temperatures of the year in 243 U.S. locations based on weather station data.

Tony Blair has called for the government to change course on climate, suggesting a strategy that limits fossil fuels in the short term or encourages people to limit consumption is “doomed to fail”.

In comments that have prompted a backlash within Labour, the former prime minister suggested the UK government should focus less on renewables and more on technological solutions such as carbon capture.

Blair said people were “being asked to make financial sacrifices and changes in lifestyle when they know that their impact on global emissions is minimal”. He said “any strategy based on either ‘phasing out’ fossil fuels in the short term or limiting consumption is a strategy doomed to fail”.

The paper itself, written by the TBI’s Lindy Fursman, said net zero policies were now “increasingly viewed as unaffordable, ineffective or politically toxic”.

https://archive.ph/K6RLl

For a more sane on this topic, see: Preparing for a New Cultural Paradigm with Jean-Marc Jancovici

As tech billionaires infiltrate the White House, the question looms, “Who really rules us, the government or Silicon Valley?"

This film examines the influence and ideology of technocrats over the last century, and asks whether they pose a threat to democracy.

This is a message from the future. My calendar says June 2031, though some on social media argue it is, in fact, October 2033, and have presented rather compelling evidence in support of their position. Regardless, I wanted to drop you this note with some advice about your situation in 2025, as it may be instructive.

You see, that was the year the split really took hold. Obviously, political reality had been melting down for decades. But the veil of political games finally dropped, and you became acquainted with the realities of the new Zeitgeist. From then on, it was necessary to choose: are you for unity, or division? Are you for war, or peace? Are you an obstacle to evolution, or a collaborator?

Most people never gave those questions much thought. But once people realized that those in the way were having a bad time — their assets seized, their freedoms restricted, their voices marginalized — it became clear that some new thing had emerged, beyond politics, beyond fascism, and indeed unlike anything mankind had ever seen before.

Elon Musk lies with ease. It’s one of the key traits he shares with Donald Trump. Now Musk says he will leave his role in government and return to Tesla. This is also a blatant lie. One does not simply give up the kind of power Musk bought for himself with his quarter-billion-dollar contribution to the Trump election. If anything, Musk’s nefarious meddling with government is only just beginning.

Yet the mainstream press has largely bought this simple narrative. Headlines suggest Musk will depart the Trump administration to return to Tesla, his death-spiraling car company. These stories note that, under law, Musk’s special government employee status expires after 130 days.

Two major issues with this logic:

Musk is Tesla’s main problem. Musk has destroyed Tesla’s brand with his toxic Nazi-saluting MAGA government destruction antics. Tesla once had a “halo” — a reputation as a good company with a moral mission. Thanks to Musk, it now has the equivalent of Hitler Devil Horns. From now on, it will be impossible to buy a Tesla without being seen as an overt supporter of fascism. Saving the brand would require separating Musk from Tesla.

Musk and Trump do not care about the law. The law only permits a special government employee to serve for 130 days, but since when do Musk and Trump care about the law? These people openly break laws, defy courts, and mock the Constitution. Does anyone really believe they will kick Musk out of government because it’s the law? Any journalist who buys that is an even bigger national security threat than the fascists.

Musk isn’t going anywhere. He will still wield tremendous power in our government via his hand-picked cronies, tech fascist allies and the data surveillance systems they are busy unleashing inside of our government.

Trump issued an executive order Thursday declaring that U.S. policy includes “creating a robust domestic supply chain for critical minerals derived from seabed resources to support economic growth, reindustrialization, and military preparedness.” He described seabed mining as both an economic and national security imperative necessary to counter China.

Increasingly, mining companies have been eager to scrape the ocean floor for cobalt, manganese, nickel and other metals that could help make batteries for cellphones and electric cars. But scientists have warned that the process could irreparably alter the seabed, kill extremely rare sea creatures that haven’t been named or studied, and — depending on how the metals are carried up to the surface — risk introducing metals into fisheries that many Pacific peoples rely upon.

The order aims to jump-start the industry that has been spearheaded by small Pacific nations like Nauru seeking economic growth, but has been facing growing pushback from Indigenous advocates who fear the lasting consequences of mining the deep sea.

“This extraction has no thought in mind about caring for resources,” said Solomon Kahoʻohalahala, who is Native Hawaiian and has been a vocal critic of the potential seabed industry at the United Nations. “It seems that there’s no vision for what we do in the long term,” he said. “It doesn’t speak to how we’re looking to take care of resources for the generations that are unborn. That’s a very different perspective that I hold as an Indigenous person.”

Will the United States continue to hold free and fair elections in 2026 and beyond?

From a strategic perspective, this might be the single biggest question we face right now. Do Trump’s opponents just need to resist him for two years and then kick his governing majority out of office, like they did in 2018? Or do they need to approach this as a crisis, with the institutions of electoral democracy themselves at risk?

This question comes up every time I speak with a reporter. How we interpret and understand contemporary events hinges on whether we think these are still normal times.

And the trouble is that this isn’t quite a yes-or-no question. It’s a matter of degrees.