Scott Alexander examines how Curtis Yarvin's current support for Trump-style populism directly contradicts his earlier detailed writings warning against exactly this type of right-wing populist movement. Longer summary

Scott analyzes how Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) has contradicted his own earlier writings by supporting Trump-style right-wing populism. Scott shows how Yarvin's original work specifically warned against populist strongmen and laid out specific requirements for legitimate autocracy, including non-democratic selection, oversight by a board of directors, and cryptographic safeguards. The post details how Yarvin previously called right-wing populism a dangerous failure mode of his philosophy that would lead to disaster, making his current support of Trump particularly hypocritical. Scott quotes extensively from Yarvin's old blog to demonstrate the magnitude of his reversal. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander examines his sudden shift towards conservatism, proposing it may be part of a broader trend of intellectuals differentiating themselves from mainstream leftism. Longer summary

Scott Alexander explores the concept of fashion and political beliefs using a cellular automaton model, then reflects on his sudden shift towards conservatism. He proposes that this shift might be due to a counter-signaling hierarchy, where intellectuals differentiate themselves from mainstream leftism by adopting more conservative or libertarian views. The post discusses various potential explanations for this shift, including stress, exposure to neoreactionary ideas, and a desire to avoid being associated with certain leftist positions. Scott concludes by hoping that this pendulum-like movement between political positions might lead to gradual learning and improvement over time. Shorter summary

Scott Alexander reviews and critiques a polite but underwhelming video debate between Noah Smith and Michael Anissimov on neoreactionary ideas. Longer summary

Scott Alexander reviews a video debate between Noah Smith, an economics professor, and Michael Anissimov, a spokesperson for neoreaction. The debate covered topics such as social isolation, happiness trends, equality, capitalism, democracy, monarchy, organic state theory, aristocracy, and gender roles. Scott found the debate polite but somewhat underwhelming, with both participants making more moderate claims than expected. He provides his own analysis and critiques of the arguments presented, noting areas where he felt important points were missed or inadequately addressed. Shorter summary