From: jimruttshow8596
This article analyzes the perceptions and realities of the COVID-19 pandemic response, drawing heavily from Curtis Yarvin’s essay “2020: The Year of Everything Fake” and his discussion with Jim Rutt [00:11:09]. The discussion explores themes of governmental competence, societal self-perception, and the underlying incentives driving institutional behavior during a crisis.
Inability to Take the World Seriously: A Historical Lens
Curtis Yarvin suggests that societies often fail to “take periods in the past seriously” [00:01:57], noting that while all historical periods deserve respect, not all are intellectually equal [00:02:54]. He compares the modern perception of society to the Italian Renaissance, while suggesting it might resemble Late Antiquity, a period characterized by intellectual decline and a lack of touch with reality [00:03:32].
He highlights “temporal chauvinism,” or presentism, which is the assumption that the current world is entirely real and deserving of immense respect [00:07:20]. This contrasts with scholars of the late Roman Empire, who, despite their empire’s decline, believed everything was “perfectly fine” [00:07:46]. These late Roman intellectuals focused on flattery and connections rather than addressing critical issues like the empire’s fall [00:08:25]. Yarvin argues that the United States’ “complete incompetence” in dealing with COVID-19, both domestically and compared to other countries (especially Confucian nations), indicates a similar disconnect from reality [00:09:55].
The Political Formula and Institutional Incentives
Jim Rutt introduces the concept of “mythos” – a series of beliefs that most people in a society hold as right and good [00:10:33]. Yarvin expands on this with Gaetano Mosca’s concept of the “political formula” from James Burnham’s “The Machiavellians” [00:11:57]. This formula makes people believe that the government and its power are “good and right” [00:12:06]. Modern political formulas often make individuals feel “powerful and important” by supporting the government [00:12:33].
A major shock of the pandemic was the revelation of “complete incompetence” [00:09:55], leading many to realize “the emperor is wearing no clothes” [00:14:56]. This revealed a system where neither political leadership (e.g., Trump) nor the “deep state” exhibited competence [00:13:42]. Yarvin suggests that the fundamental issue might be that “it’s all [garbage]” [00:14:40], challenging the belief that at least one side or force must possess competence [00:14:10].
The “Stupidity Quotient” (SQ) Lens
Yarvin introduces the “Stupidity Quotient” (SQ) as a “literary gesture” to reframe thinking about complex problems [00:18:26]. It involves analyzing events through the mindset of a child [00:19:11].
- Initial Response: A six-year-old asked about stopping airplanes from China to prevent disease spread would instinctively say “no, make the airplanes turn around” [00:19:36]. The US government, however, chose not to disrupt travel and trade, demonstrating an inability to “think as well as a six-year-old” [00:19:57]. This decision was made despite potential human-to-human transmission being evident in early January [00:19:52].
- Bureaucratic Optimization: Instead of prioritizing problem-solving, institutions focus on “bolstering the institutional reputations and strengths” of their factions [00:20:57]. In bureaucracy, where “there’s no accountability for sort of results whatsoever” [00:21:50], loyalty shifts to the “little bureaucratic mafia” and the institution itself, often causing its real goals to diverge from nominal ones [00:22:00].
- Mancur Olson’s work, particularly “The Rise and Decline of Nations” and “The Logic of Collective Action,” is cited for its analysis of how self-serving internal bureaucracies and small, intense groups can capture decision-making, undermining societal interests [00:24:00].
- Theories of Virus Origin: The theory that the pandemic originated from a lab leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology is discussed, citing an article by Nicholson Baker in New York Magazine [00:25:19]. This theory suggests that funding for gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses, lifted in 2017, contributed to the pandemic [00:26:44]. Peter Daszak and the EcoHealth Alliance are mentioned as key players in this research [00:27:09]. Dr. Fauci was also involved in this research [00:35:19]. It is noted that Daszak was appointed to lead the committee investigating the epidemic’s origin, which is described as a “master stroke” of the system [00:35:36]. An anecdotal theory from a source in Wuhan suggests the virus vector was a janitor illegally selling dead lab animals at the market [00:29:59].
- Vaccine Approval and the Hippocratic Oath: The slow approval process for COVID-19 vaccines in the US, despite rapid development, is attributed to bureaucratic self-preservation [00:31:33]. Yarvin compares the situation to the 1976 Swine Flu panic, where a rushed vaccine led to adverse effects (Guillain-Barré disease) in a few hundred people, despite the flu itself not being a significant threat [00:36:32]. This historical event created a strong incentive for the FDA to prioritize avoiding harm (negative mistake) over rapid action that might save lives (positive mistake) [00:38:40].
- This reflects a “conflict of interest” within these institutions: their primary interest is “retaining their prestige” [00:39:25]. Losing prestige from vaccine side effects weighs more heavily than the public dying from inaction, even if hundreds of thousands of lives are at stake [00:39:30]. This perspective is linked to the Hippocratic Oath, which, in its original context, also served the physician’s self-preservation by prioritizing “doing no harm” over potentially risky but beneficial interventions for powerful patients [00:41:19]. The Hippocratic Oath, in this interpretation, becomes a “mythos” that cannot be questioned [00:43:06].
Lockdown and State Capacity
The discussion contrasts the Chinese “true lockdown” – aggressive testing, proactive contact tracing, and mandatory quarantine facilities – with the Western approach [00:45:36]. The World Health Organization’s initial stance against travel bans, influenced by the hospitality industry, is highlighted as an “obvious lie” [00:46:08].
The US response was influenced by an overestimation of the “state capacity” of American institutions [00:47:45]. The idea of “test, trace, and isolate” from essays like “The Hammer and the Dance” was presented as a rational strategy [00:48:09]. However, this advice was effectively given to a “75-year-old heart patient to run a marathon” [00:49:57]. The US government is portrayed as a “digital shambles” that cannot even accurately count its population, let alone implement sophisticated tracing [00:51:14]. The concept of “seeing like a state” from James C. Scott’s book is invoked, noting that the American system has an inherent “anarchy built into them where they don’t want to be seen as a state” [00:51:47], limiting its ability to control disease [00:52:23].
This impedance mismatch between the theoretical “hammer and the dance” and the actual capability led to a “permanent war mentality” where the goal shifted from eradication or herd immunity to merely “controlling” the virus [00:54:07], similar to an “Afghanistan mindset” of perpetual fighting without winning [00:54:14].
Historical Comparison of Government Effectiveness
The discussion contrasts the modern US government’s ineffective response with historical successes like the Manhattan Project during World War II [00:55:16]. The Manhattan Project is described as operating “like a startup” with “two-in-a-box leadership” (technical supervisor Oppenheimer and General Groves) and a “top-down pyramid” structure [00:59:07]. This structure allowed top researchers to be “ordered” what to work on, contrasting with today’s “fundamentally oligarchical” system where scientists’ independence is paramount [00:59:47].
Yarvin points out that the Manhattan Project’s successor, the Department of Energy, is now “notoriously one of the most incompetent departments in Washington” [01:01:06]. This deterioration is attributed to a systemic shift from a “de facto monarchy” under Franklin D. Roosevelt in the 1930s, who could “create and destroy agencies” and “tell anyone to do anything” [01:01:48], to the current oligarchical system.
[01:05:42] If I read the temper of our people correctly, we now realize as we have never realized before our interdependence on each other; that we cannot merely take but we must give as well. That if we are to go forward, we must move as a trained and loyal army willing to sacrifice for the good of a common discipline. Because without such discipline no progress is made, no leadership becomes effective. We are, I know, ready and willing to submit our lives and property to such discipline because it makes possible a leadership which aims at a larger good. This I propose to offer pledging that the larger purposes will bind upon us all as a sacred obligation with a unity of duty either to evoke only in time of war. With this pledge taken, I assume unhesitatingly the leadership of this great army of our people dedicated to a disciplined attack upon our common problems action. In this image and to this end is feasible under the form of government which we have inherited from our ancestors. Our constitution is so simple and practical that it is possible always to meet extraordinary needs by changes in emphasis and arrangement without loss of essential form. That is why our constitutional system has proved itself the most superbly enduring political mechanism the modern world has produced. It has met every stress a vast expansion of territory of foreign wars of bitter internal strife of world relations. It is to be hoped that the normal balance of executive and legislative authority may be wholly adequate to meet the unprecedented task before us. But it may be that an unprecedented demand and need for undelayed action may call for temporary departure from that normal balance of public procedure. I am prepared under my constitutional duty to recommend the measures that a stricken nation in the midst of a stricken world may require. These measures, or such other measures as the Congress may build out of experience and wisdom, I shall seek within my constitutional authority to bring to speedy adoption. But in the event that the Congress shall fail to take one of these two courses, and in the event that the national emergency is still critical, I shall not obey the clear course of duty that will then confront me. I shall ask the Congress for the one remaining instrument to meet the crisis: broad executive power to wage a war against the emergency as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign enemy. For the trust proposed in me I will return the courage and the devotion that befit the time. I can do no less. We face the arduous days that lie before us in the warm courage of the national unity with the clear consciousness of seeking old and precious moral values, with the clean satisfaction that comes from the stern performance of duty by old and young alike. We aim at the assurance of a rounded and permanent national life. We do not distrust the future of essential democracy. The people of the United States have not failed in their need. They have registered a mandate that they want direct, vigorous action. They have asked for discipline and direction under leadership. They have made me the present instrument of their wishes. In the spirit of the gift I take it. In this dedication of a nation we humbly ask the blessing of God. May he protect each and every one of us. May he guide me in the days to come.
This excerpt from FDR’s 1933 inaugural address illustrates a rhetoric of direct, unified action, and the assertion of broad executive power “as great as the power that would be given to me if we were in fact invaded by a foreign enemy” [01:08:49]. This contrasts sharply with the political rhetoric and fragmented authority of today [01:10:14].
Political Shifts During the Pandemic
An interesting political shift occurred in March 2020: initially, skepticism about the coronavirus was considered a “right-wing conspiracy theory,” with the advice to avoid masks [01:11:06]. This stance reversed when then-President Trump “instinctively took the other side,” leading the establishment to adopt the “full lockdown theory,” despite their inability to effectively perform it [01:11:51].