原文截图。题图为今年3 月，在俄亥俄州的竞选集会上，当时还未被确认为共和党副总统候选人的JD·万斯(James David Vance)用手指着共和党总统候选人，前总统唐纳德·川普。本文链接： https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/08/01/vance-trump-new-right-republican-election
https://www.npr.org/podcasts/510053/on-point JD Vance and the rise of the 'New Right' Techno libertarians, white nationalists and JD Vance are all linked to a movement known as the 'New Right.' What is this movement and how has it influenced the Republican candidate for vice president?
xiaoxiao178 发表于 2024-08-10 16:01 哈里斯这次会死的很惨 黑人都反对哈里斯，大家可以搜一下BLM对哈里斯态度 甚至穆斯林也开始反对哈里斯，大家可以搜一下Uncommitted National Movement 哈里斯无论怎么打自己种族牌，女性牌，甚至给黑人下跪，甚至选个同样极左的白老头当搭档都没戏，这些少数族裔都开始反对民主党
JD Vance-Peter Thiel-Curtis Yarvin 2024: The Neoreactionary Dream Team From JD Vance to Project 2025, how Peter Thiel and a guy who wants the U.S. to be a monarchy (really!) are driving Trump’s MAGA agenda. by Melissa Ryan | July 22, 2024
This week Melissa Ryan focus on the men ultimately responsible for Vance, Project 2025, and the infusion of Silicon Valley cash to bolster Trump’s campaign – Curtis Yarvin and his billionaire patron Peter Thiel. Whether “rightists” understand this or not (generally, not), the only rational telos of “rightism” is the restoration of a stable, responsible, and accountable monarchy in which the destabilizing energies that create “leftism” do not even exist. In this context, “rightism” and “leftism” both will only remain as academic and historical tropes—like Catharism or Lollardy. -Curtis Yarvin, writing in his newsletter, March 2024 So there’s this guy, Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things… –JD Vance, September 2021 JD Vance, a 39-year-old whose resume makes Sarah Palin seem experienced, is officially on the Trump ticket. The faux-hillbilly turned venture capitalist turned US Senator is now vying to be the next Vice President of the United States. This week, let’s focus on the men ultimately responsible for Vance, Project 2025, and the infusion of Silicon Valley cash to bolster Trump’s campaign – Curtis Yarvin and his billionaire patron Peter Thiel. Project 2025 is linked to “The Statement on Christian Nationalism” manifesto which seeks to implement a Scripture-based system of gov't whereby Christ-ordained “civil magistrates” exercise authority over the American public, Longtime readers will be familiar with Curtis Yarvin, who blogged for years as Mencius Moldbug. Yarvin founded neoreactionism AKA the Dark Enlightenment, a political movement popular among certain tech circles. Neoreactionism calls for the fall of democracies and a return to monarchy and aristocracy. Shockingly, neoreactionaries believe that new aristocracy should come from tech and business. Yarvin’s writing fixates on the power of the so-called “Cathedrals”: media, academia, and government institutions which he and his followers believe shape public opinion and rule America. (It’s worth noting that Yarvin’s parents were government civil servants.) A Vox profile from 2022 explains Yarvin’s deal pretty well: But he stands out among right-wing commentators for being probably the single person who’s spent the most time gaming out how, exactly, the U.S. government could be toppled and replaced — “rebooted” or “reset,” as he likes to say — with a monarch, CEO, or dictator at the helm. Yarvin argues that a creative and visionary leader — a “startup guy,” like, he says, Napoleon or Lenin was — should seize absolute power, dismantle the old regime, and build something new in its place. To Yarvin, incremental reforms and half-measures are necessarily doomed. The only way to achieve what he wants is to assume “absolute power,” and the game is all about getting to a place where you can pull that off. Critics have called his ideas “fascist” — a term he disputes, arguing that centralizing power under one ruler long predates fascism and that his ideal monarch should rule for all rather than fomenting a class war as fascists do. “Autocratic” fits as a descriptor, though his preferred term is “monarchist.” You won’t find many on the right saying they wholly support Yarvin’s program — especially the “monarchy” thing — but his critique of the status quo and some of his ideas for changing it have influenced several increasingly prominent figures. JD Vance’s rhetoric will sound familiar to anyone who read Yarvin’s work. Vance has cited Yarvin as an influence, but the connection runs deeper. Both Yarvin and Vance have the support and backing of Peter Thiel, an early Trump supporter in 2016 who gave a primetime speech at the 2016 convention. If Yarvin informed Vance’s thinking, Thiel fueled his political ambitions by funding a Super PAC for Vance’s 2022 Senate run. Without Thiel’s financial backing, it’s hard to imagine Vance would be in the Senate, much less the Republican nominee for Vice President. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Musk and other reactionaries in tech announced major donations to a pro-Trump Super PAC the same week that Vance was announced. These folks are thrilled to have Vance on the ticket. The cash infusion couldn’t be better for the Trump campaign, especially given the state of the RNC and state Republican parties. Of course we have no way of determining if that figured into Trump’s choosing Vance, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a factor. Project 2025 was crafted by acolytes of neoreactionism. Yarvin is their prophet, Vance is their Moses, and Thiel is more than willing to spend whatever it takes to make this hellish vision of humanity into our reality. Donald Trump might try to distance himself from Project 2025, but he’s always leaned into neoreactionist ideas and imagery. The God Emperor is a monarch who will return America to being a white supremacist nation where men like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk hold power and control over all of us. It’s always interesting to revisit older articles about neoreactionaries from the movement’s days as a niche Silicon Valley fixation. In 2013 a TechCrunch article states “To be clear though, pure neoreaction is an extreme minority position that will probably never catch on beyond a tiny cult following.” The reporter is alarmed but also sure there’s no way this could ever become a mainstream movement. A Baffler article from around the same time better understands neoreactionism’s potential, saying “Neoreactionaries are explicitly courting wealthy elites in the tech sector as the most receptive and influential audience. Why bother with mass appeal when you’re rebuilding the ancien régime?” Courting wealthy elites is key here. Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and their fellow billionaires are more than happy to spend ungodly sums of money to bend the rest of us to their will and worldview. Yarvin simply played to what they already believe about themselves: that they’re smarter than us and actually, they should rule the world. Vance is more than happy to do the same on his own path to power. These folks claim again and again that neoreactionism isn’t racist, but Yarvin is on the record defending slavery and endorsing racist pseudoscience. (Vance is in a mixed-race marriage and has endorsed the same racist pseudo-science.) There’s a direct line from billionaires believing DEI and the existence of trans people are oppressing them to Yarvin and neoreaction. Here’s the good news. As I’ve said time and time again, most Americans don’t want to live in a fascist hellscape. There are more of us than there are of them, and we can beat them just as we have in every election since 2016. I won’t pretend that’s going to be an easy task this time around, but I was heartened at how Project 2025 has broken into the political conversation this summer, so much that Trump falsely claimed it wasn’t his agenda. JD Vance’s nomination gives us a chance to sound the alarm on Project 2025, the folks behind it, and the future MAGA wants from now until Election Day. It’s on all of us to make the most of these next few months to do so. This is an excerpt from Ctrl Alt-Right Delete, a newsletter produced in partnership with COURIER — a civic media company. https://buckscountybeacon.com/2024/07/jd-vance-peter-thiel-curtis-yarvin-2024-the-neoreactionary-dream-team/
Understanding J.D. Vance’s ‘National Conservatism’ Convention Speech “America is not just an idea,” says Trump VP pick. Here’s why that matters. CATHY YOUNG THE MOST COMMON SLAM AT J.D. VANCE, Donald Trump’s running mate and Wednesday night’s big star at the Republican National Convention, is that the 39-year-old junior senator from Ohio is a cynical opportunist, a turncoat who refashioned himself from a “Never Trump” conservative into an ardent Trump loyalist to secure his ascent in the MAGAfied GOP. There is no question that Vance’s transformation has been drastic—and, as some have noted, he hasn’t changed his views on Trump alone: Vance’s current portrayal of America’s struggling working-class communities—such as the one he was born into—as victims of a callous and globalist “ruling class” contrasts sharply with his account in Hillbilly Elegy, which was blunt about the role dysfunctional culture and self-destructive behavior play in these communities’ woes. Is this a fake self-reinvention? Or is it, as Vance-friendly commentators argue, a sincere evolution—a combination of genuine shifts on policy and normal compromise on Trump? Ultimately, no one can say but Vance himself. The rest of us can only judge him by his publicly articulated views—which will likely come under greater scrutiny than ever before, now that he is running for national office. So let’s start with his convention address. Buried amid usual boilerplate—the autobiography, the broadsides against the elites, the critiques of the Biden record—was a passage that goes to the core of Vance’s current political philosophy, one in which Vance challenged the view that America is “an idea”:
You know, one of the things that you hear people say sometimes is that America is an idea. And to be clear, America was indeed founded on brilliant ideas, like the rule of law and religious liberty. Things written into the fabric of our Constitution and our nation. But America is not just an idea. It is a group of people with a shared history and a common future. It is, in short, a nation.
Now, it is part of that tradition, of course, that we welcome newcomers. But when we allow newcomers into our American family, we allow them on our terms. That’s the way we preserve the continuity of this project from 250 years past to hopefully 250 years in the future.
To illustrate his point, Vance acknowledges his wife’s background as a daughter of immigrants and praises her South-Asian immigrant parents (“incredible people . . . who genuinely have enriched this country in so many ways”), then segues into a story about his family’s “cemetery plot on a mountainside in Eastern Kentucky” and explains why place matters:
Now in that cemetery, there are people who were born around the time of the Civil War. And if, as I hope, my wife and I are eventually laid to rest there, and our kids follow us, there will be seven generations just in that small mountain cemetery plot in eastern Kentucky. Seven generations of people who have fought for this country. Who have built this country. Who have made things in this country. And who would fight and die to protect this country if they were asked to.
Now. Now that’s not just an idea, my friends. That’s not just a set of principle[s]. Even though the ideas and the principles are great, that is a homeland. That is our homeland. People will not fight for abstractions, but they will fight for their home. And if this movement of ours is going to succeed, and if this country is going to thrive, our leaders have to remember that America is a nation, and its citizens deserve leaders who put its interests first.
Some of Vance’s claims here are fairly uncontroversial. It’s self-evidently true (so to speak) that America is not just a set of ideas but a “nation”—“a group of people with a shared history and a common future”—living in a “homeland.” Of course any American, whether native-born or immigrant, who loves the “idea” of America must also have an investment in its history and an attachment to its people, culture, and places. Of course we expect people coming to the United States to follow American laws and broadly defined norms. And of course there’s nothing wrong with having a deep attachment to a cemetery where members of your family are buried. But Vance’s reference to his wife’s immigrant family as a lead-in to the image of the cemetery with generations under the ground as a symbol of the American “homeland” has some disturbing overtones. The message seems to be that immigrants and their descendants achieve true Americanness by being admitted to kinship with Americans whose families have been on American soil here for generations—in the language of nationalists, “legacy Americans.” Until they’ve been absorbed into that lineage, his rhetoric implies, immigrants are guests who are here on “our” sufferance. To call this an “Easter egg of white nationalism,” as one MSNBC host put it, certainly goes too far. But it’s also not a simple discussion of wanting to be buried in the family plot, and I think it’s fair to say that this portion of Vance’s speech had overtones of blood-and-soil nationalism. Which brings us to some important facts about Vance’s intellectual and political commitments. Vance’s ideological home, for the past few years, has been among the so-called “national conservatives”; he was a speaker at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference in 2019 (giving a talk titled “Getting Beyond Libertarianism”), a keynote speaker at the 2021 conference, and a featured speaker just this month at the 2024 conference in Washington, D.C. Hostility to the concept of America as an idea-based nation is a key argument in national conservative ideology (as articulated, for instance, by its intellectual father Yoram Hazony). In addition to its nativist leanings, national conservatism also tends to support a muscular state that unabashedly promotes a conservative cultural agenda. That last part is also essential to Vance’s worldview. An outspoken admirer of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Trump’s running mate certainly hasn’t been shy about his interest in using the power of the state to promote conservative goals. As Reason’s Stephanie Slade noted two years ago during Vance’s Senate campaign:
If anything, he has been more willing than most on the New Right to openly declare his intent to use the state in obviously extralegal ways, telling Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, for example, that conservatives should employ the taxation power to “seize” the assets of “woke, leftist” nonprofits such as the Ford Foundation and universities such as Harvard.
Vance’s discussion of America the “idea” vs. America the “nation” and “homeland” has another ironic aspect. Notice that, in conceding that America was founded on “brilliant ideas,” Vance specifically mentions “the rule of law” as something “written into the fabric of our Constitution and our nation.” But this is the same guy who, in a 2021 interview (with far-right podcaster Jack Murphy) suggested that if Trump returns to the White House in 2025, “we should just seize the administrative state for our own purposes,” firing all the civil servants and replacing them with “our people”—and that if the Supreme Court objects, Trump should defy it. (He also cited Andrew Jackson’s apocryphal remark, “The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”) Vance also told Ross Douthat just last month that, had he been vice president in January 2021, he would have declined to certify the election results until alternate, pro-Trump slates of electors were allowed. Sure, it would have caused a constitutional crisis, but “at least we would have had a debate.” Vance also suggested to Douthat that “tech censorship” of the Hunter Biden story was a legitimate reason to contest the 2020 election results. Never mind that the brief attempt to minimize the story’s social media reach ended up getting it more attention (or that, by those standards, Hillary Clinton had every right to cry election fraud four years earlier because of the massive publicity given false claims, generated by Wikileaks with help from Russian hackers, that the Democratic National Committee rigged the primaries in her favor and robbed Bernie Sanders). Vance surely knows that there is absolutely nothing in American election law that would allow the validity of a vote to be challenged on the grounds of alleged media bias. So much for the rule of law. FOR THE JOURNALISTS who will now start digging into Vance’s words and deeds, his record is an embarrassment of riches. Take his 2022 comments mocking the “childless cat ladies” who allegedly run the Democratic party, with two women and a gay man cited as examples. Or his argument in a 2021 talk to a right-wing group that conservatives should defend conspiracy-theory king Alex Jones. (He has certainly come a long way from Hillbilly Elegy, where he deplored hillbilly culture’s “bizarre sexism,” homophobia, and distrust of the mainstream media.) His various statements on Ukraine, which reflect not only a staunch opposition to U.S. assistance for Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression but a tendency to parrot pro-Kremlin, anti-Ukraine spin (for instance, about alleged religious persecution in Ukraine), will get a new look as well. And we should hear more about Vance’s connections to “neoreactionary” pseudointellectual Curtis Yarvin (a.k.a. “Mencius Moldbug”), from whom he got the fire-all-civil-servants idea and whom he cites as an ideologically congenial guru in a recent Tablet magazine interview. (Yarvin is, if nothing else, quite candid about his odious views: He openly argues that political liberty is a failed experiment and scribbles weird fantasies about a new world order in which Vladimir Putin is given a free hand to stamp out liberalism in Europe.) Never mind the charge that Vance is an opportunistic phony. In this case, the scary option is that he is actually sincere in his ideological conversion—and is gearing up to take over as the smarter, more ideas-oriented, less volatile, and more polished leader of Trumpism without Trump. https://www.thebulwark.com/p/understanding-jd-vances-national
xiaoxiao178 发表于 2024-08-10 16:01 哈里斯这次会死的很惨 黑人都反对哈里斯，大家可以搜一下BLM对哈里斯态度 甚至穆斯林也开始反对哈里斯，大家可以搜一下Uncommitted National Movement 哈里斯无论怎么打自己种族牌，女性牌，甚至给黑人下跪，甚至选个同样极左的白老头当搭档都没戏，这些少数族裔都开始反对民主党
BLM反对哈里斯不是因为她是个law and order的共和党吗？沃尔滋一来自选川深红选区的议员，整天共和党联合提名议案的能左到什么地方去？ 这选举真的是，选民必须在一个疯子加种族主义极右搭档，和一个普通共和党加个中间派民主党搭档中选，左派毫无代表，但为了阻止疯子上台必须深呼吸选个law and order共和党，真是太委屈了
是的。这几年我看到的来自liberals的标签，deplorables, grandma killer算是轻的，racist, Islam phobia, misogynist, transphobia算是张口就来的，这几年开始用far-right, MAGA extremists, MAGA facists, Nazist。用上这种词，不用讨论理念政策，隐含但又极端清晰的意思是和liberals意见不同的都是需要被消灭的危险分子，同时自诩他们在恢复捍卫民主。
【前言】
今天的文章根据《焦点》(On Point)播客于2024年7月31日播出的节目录音整理编译。《焦点》是美国全国公共广播电台(NPR)的一个新闻性节目。本期播客讨论JD·万斯，他跟“新右”的关系，特别是硅谷一些新右大佬的互动，以及他们的意识形态。
我们认为，这是一期非常重要，值得特别关注的节目，它提醒公众注意：一种极其危险的意识形态，通过一些拥有数十亿美元资金的野心勃勃的硅谷富豪，正在竭力占领美国。而年轻的共和党副总统候选人万斯正是他们培养推举出来的代表。
他们认为美国民主政体是个威胁，希望借着川普再度执政，从内部削弱美国，接管和重塑美国政府，创建他们自己的独裁政体。
《焦点》节目的嘉宾认为这一威胁与我们在全国范围内打击的任何恐怖组织不相上下，而这种危险目前主流媒体却很少关注到。所以，“信息正义”费了比较大的功夫，将这14000多字的文字稿尽量全面地呈现给华人读者。
以往当我们在美国使用“新右派”（New Right）这个名词的时候，基本上指的是从里根总统以来的新保守主义（neo-conservatism）的那批人，小政府、放任的自由市场，霸权强军，等等。
近8年来，有批反对“古典自由主义”的保守派出现，他们包括倡导“后自由主义”的保守派和“国家保守主义”的保守派，他们的兴起跟川普的兴起有种共生关系。这批新的“新右派”的共性是反民主、反体制、反觉醒、反移民。
如今，每年“国家保守主义大会”（National Conservatism Conference）所网罗的发言者可以说就是“新右”的排名榜，今年7月在华府举行的是第五届。
JD·万斯是“新右”里面年轻人的代表，他的理念反映了“新右”的理念。我们对他“无子女猫女士”的评语所表达的厌女症、歧视单身族的看法，以及他反对“觉醒主义”的立场或许比较熟悉。
不过，更关键的，他跟硅谷一批支持川普的科技大佬们间的关系，以及这批亿万富翁的大佬们如何期望重新定义美国的计划，一般读者比较生疏。这批大佬的愿景是什么，他们的理念与JD·万斯的理念如何重叠，他们打算在特朗普执政后干些什么？这个关键问题与美国的走向密切相关，这就是NPR访谈所深入探讨的。尽管川普竞选团队吸引了大批蓝领选民的拥护，骨子里，这个团队所真正关心的正是许多金融和科技大佬的利益。JD·万斯就是这个利益团体所属意的代言人。
【要点】
美国选民现在只有不到100天的时间来了解JD·万斯 —— 可能成为美国副总统 —— 的真正信念以及他将如何付诸实践。
一种来自科技和硅谷的危险意识形态正在企图占领美国。它将民主视为敌人，将独裁视为更可取，并视亿万富翁为人类的救世主。
他们认为：美国民主是一场失败的实验，已经被寡头政治接管，其唯一的救赎方式是一种美国式的君主制。唯一的出路是：一个美国凯撒来将这个失败的腐败体系拉回正轨。
他们提出“网络政府“的设想：美国将会崩溃，应该被划分为更小的政治实体，这些实体基本上是由公司主导的独裁政权。
硅谷的亿万富豪们正在进行这种激进的政治行动，将他们的人、他们的领导人和他们的思想引入地方政府，并最终在全国范围内扩大影响。
他们正在为那个时刻做准备，准备在崩溃发生后夺取权力并建立新型政府。
他们把自己视为社会中的至高人物，将成为人类的拯救者和转型后的领导者。
亿万富豪彼得·蒂尔称：“我不再相信自由和民主是兼容的。”他用十年的时间培养了万斯，并耗巨资助其竞选。
万斯已经成为这一反向革命和反动运动的代言人。
在万斯的帮助下，硅谷富豪的政治行动发展速度远超预期。
万斯建议川普：解雇每一个中层官僚，和行政部门中的每一个公务员，用我们自己的人取而代之。如果法院阻止，就让法制去死。
万斯宣称美国的大学就是敌人，发誓要“诚实且积极地攻击这个国家的大学。”
万斯号召要发起攻击，“必须变得非常非常疯狂，非常激进。”
万斯：“我们需要一种进攻性的保守主义，而不仅仅是阻止左派做我们不喜欢的事情。”
万斯：“现在是时候团结起来、枪弹上膛了。”
原文截图。题图为今年3 月，在俄亥俄州的竞选集会上，当时还未被确认为共和党副总统候选人的JD·万斯(James David Vance)用手指着共和党总统候选人，前总统唐纳德·川普。本文链接： https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/08/01/vance-trump-new-right-republican-election
JD·万斯和“新右”的崛起
本文为非营利调查新闻编辑室“Information Justice（信息正义）”编译作品。已开启快捷转载，欢迎转载、分享、转发。
译：临风 编：新约客
主持人：梅格娜·查克拉巴蒂（Meghna Chakrabarti） 美国全国公共广播电台《焦点》节目主持人。在其带领下，《焦点》先后获得全国爱德华·默罗最佳新闻纪录片奖、格雷西最佳新闻纪录片奖、最佳全国公共事务节目奖、最佳全国广播调查专题节目奖、医疗保健记者协会一等奖等多个奖项。其本人也被评为最佳全国联合非商业主持人、美国广播电视新闻导演协会个人报道奖、亚裔美国记者协会杰出广播/音频奖。
嘉宾 伊恩·沃德(Ian Ward) Politico记者，报道保守派运动和美国右翼。 吉尔·杜兰(Gil Duran) 自由撰稿人，撰写有关科技政治的文章。 迈克尔·马利斯(Michael Malice) 作家，播客，媒体名人。著有《新右派：美国政治边缘之旅》（2019）等多本书籍。
Part Ⅰ
梅格娜·查克拉巴蒂：七月已被证明是美国政治史上最重要的月份之一。随着卡玛拉·哈里斯(Kamala Harris)成为新的民主党总统候选人，以及JD·万斯最近被任命为共和党副总统候选人，美国选民现在有不到100天的时间来了解这两位领导人的真正信念以及他们将如何根据这些原则行事。
昨天，我们讨论了卡玛拉·哈里斯。今天，我们来谈谈JD·万斯。万斯8月2日刚过40岁生日，如果当选，他将成为美国历史上最年轻的副总统之一。因此，他目前的正式政治记录并不长。他只参加过一次竞选，那是在2022年，他赢得了俄亥俄州参议员选举。
万斯在2023年1月宣誓就职，所以他只是任职了一年半的新晋参议员。很难通过如此短的投票记录来辨别他如何实践自己的信仰。但参议员万斯的真实信念是什么？这些信念的来源又是什么？部分答案需要我们进入神秘的硅谷一探究竟。
查克拉巴蒂：2021年11月，在参议员竞选期间，JD·万斯在第二届“全国保守主义会议”上发表了主题演讲。该会议被认为是“新右”的名人聚会，这是一个由美国保守派知识分子和活动家群体组成的松散团体，他们的影响来源各式各样，包括宗教、学术、经济、末世论和技术。
万斯使用的“红丸”一词，当然，起源于1999年的经典电影《黑客帝国》。但这个词通过博客圈和一位名为孟休斯·莫尔德巴格(Mencius Moldbug)的博主的哲学探索进入了保守派政治。
[注]在电影《黑客帝国》中，反叛领袖墨菲斯让主角尼奥在红色药丸和蓝色药丸之间做出选择，要么服用“红色药丸”，摆脱虚拟现实的奴役控制，进入令人不安和充满困难的真实世界；要么服用“蓝色药丸”，回到无知而舒适的幻境之中，享受虚假的满足感。最终尼奥选择了红色药丸。 红色和蓝色药丸的概念后来在美国被广泛用作政治隐喻，“服用红色药丸”意味着意识到社会（包括主流媒体）固有的政治偏见，并最终成为一个独立的思考者；而“服用蓝色药丸”则意味着深信不疑地接受这些所谓的偏见。
查克拉巴蒂：莫尔德巴格是前软件工程师柯蒂斯·雅尔文(Curtis Yarvin)使用的化名。
那是他在2020年12月参加自由意志主义播客《别踩到我》(Don''t Tread on Me）时的发言。雅尔文被称为新右内所谓“新反动运动”(neo reactionary movement)的知识领袖之一。他自称是一名激进的君主主义者。他认为人类历史上只有三种政治操作系统，即民主、寡头政治和君主制。
雅尔文认为美国民主是一场失败的实验，已经被寡头政治接管，其唯一的救赎方式是一种美国式的君主制。
查克拉巴蒂：我们向柯蒂斯·雅尔文提出了采访请求。他没有回应我们的请求。然而，他的思想在一些年轻的保守派中找到了愿意接受的头脑，尤其是JD·万斯那种在硅谷待过的人。以下是万斯在2021年参加播客《杰克·墨菲直播》(Jack Murphy Live)时的发言。
[注]1834 年，尽管最高法院裁定，切诺基印第安人拥有北佐治亚州，不允许被迁移，安德鲁·杰克逊总统还是驱逐了印第安人。据说，杰克逊挑衅说：“首席大法官约翰·马歇尔已经做出了他的裁决，现在让他自己去执行吧”。万斯此话的意思就是，让法制去死吧！
查克拉巴蒂：那是2021年的JD·万斯。现在，万斯从未说过他是雅尔文的死忠追随者。但雅尔文的思想确实有其吸引力。雅尔文还创造了“大教堂”(cathedral)一词，他指的是精英学术和媒体机构，他认为这些机构设定了可接受话语的界限，并通过这样做来扭曲现实以放大自己的权力。雅尔文自己是这样说的：
查克拉巴蒂：再次重申一下，这是2021年的JD·万斯。
2021年，JD·万斯在全国保守主义论坛上进行的题为《大学就是敌人》的演讲中说到：我们必须诚实且积极地攻击这个国家的大学。
查克拉巴蒂：柯蒂斯·雅尔文还被称为“黑暗启蒙运动”的大祭司。他对美国未来的看法确实充满了末世的黑暗。
查克拉巴蒂：雅尔文认为，民主最终会蜕变为支持寡头政治的体系，而这些寡头通过宣称多数人的暴政来维持权力。唯一的出路是什么？一个美国凯撒来将这个失败的腐败体系拉回正轨。
这是JD·万斯的说法，还是在2021年。
查克拉巴蒂：再次强调，那是2021年的JD·万斯。我们联系了JD·万斯的团队请求采访。参议员的团队没有回应我们的请求。
伊恩·沃德现在加入我们的讨论。他是《政治报》和《政治杂志》的记者，报道美国右翼和保守主义。伊恩，欢迎来到《焦点》。
伊恩·沃德：你好，梅格娜。
查克拉巴蒂：我对“新右”的定义是模糊的，我承认这是完全不令人满意的。那么告诉我，它是一个运动吗？它只是一个松散联系的人群吗？“新右”是什么？
沃德：不，我认为一个模糊的定义可能更适合描述一个本质上模糊不清的运动。
不过“新右”是一个由作家、思想家、政治家和活动家组成的团体，他们在川普2016年当选后聚集在一起，探讨美国保守主义的未来。长期以来，美国保守主义被理解为自由市场的自由意志主义者、外交政策鹰派和社会保守派之间的联盟。
当然，川普上台时拒绝了这三大支柱中的两大支柱：外交政策鹰派和经济自由主义。川普当选后，出现了一个巨大的问题：什么会取而代之。“新右”是那些进入川普打开的空间来描绘保守运动未来的人。
查克拉巴蒂：你称那些与“新右”一致的人主要是年轻人，并且在网上极其活跃。
沃德：是的，在网上极其活跃。而且非常封闭，这不是成千上万的人，这是一个一两百人的小团体，他们在华盛顿、硅谷、奥斯汀、纽约、迈阿密等地。
这个圈子相对较小。他们的读者不止于此，但作为“新右”核心成员的人并不多。
查克拉巴蒂：好的，伊恩，我想了解他们在思想和政治上的影响是什么，当然还有资金来源。请花点时间进一步谈谈柯蒂斯·雅尔文，他是谁？以及他在传播“新右”思想基础中扮演的角色是什么？
沃德：是的，雅尔文是“新右”从中汲取灵感的作家之一。由于那个“大教堂”体系，你刚才很恰当地描述过，“新右”在主流机构之外寻找智力资源。
他们主要不是去大学和学院，或主流出版物。雅尔文在21世纪初期作为博客作者崭露头角，在2010年代更为人知。这正是“新右”的知识生态系统。它包括博主、播客主持人、在社交媒体上发帖的人、YouTuber。
现在，“新右”有了更多主流的表现形式，比如一些智库采纳了他们的一些观点，一些知识期刊也在试图将那些从雅尔文所处的另类世界中冒出来的想法推向主流。
但他是这些人所仰赖的众多智力资源之一，他不过是其中特别突出的一位。
查克拉巴蒂：是的。如果只是快速地用谷歌搜索一下，你会发现，比如雅尔文，真的非常公开。这一点，我知道你比我还清楚，伊恩。
不幸的是，他没有答应我们的采访请求，但在大量的采访中，他非常清楚地阐述了他的观点。而且让我感到惊讶的是，他的一些说法与我们过去听到的JD·万斯的言论如此接近。
伊恩，JD·万斯自己有没有说过：我是“新右”的自豪成员？还是他没有明确表态？
沃德：不，他确实认同自己是“新右”的一员。正如你提到的，他引用雅尔文作为他受到的影响。我认为JD·万斯将自己视为并希望成为“新右”的领袖。
查克拉巴蒂：伊恩，即使在阅读了你的报道和其他人的报道后，我仍然不确定对“新右”作为一个运动所声称的立场有一个非常清晰的认识。正如你所说，这绝对是对旧式保守政治的拒绝。但他们会说他们肯定支持什么呢？
沃德：我认为他们没有统一的肯定性纲领。他们主要围绕两大主要思想联合起来。第一个是一种知识或意识形态的观念，就是，自由派（一般意义上的“自由主义者”），即中左和中右人士，所认为的政治进步 —— 经济自由化、技术创新、社会等级制度的扁平化，这些代表了社会的前进 —— 是一种错误。
他们（“新右”）集体拒绝这种努力。他们说这些不仅导致了意想不到的后果，还造成了真正的伤害，并使国家走上了衰退的道路。我们之前听到雅尔文和万斯谈论帝国衰退和共和衰退，他们真的认为自由主义者在进步旗帜下推进的这个政治计划实际上是一种倒退，甚至是衰退。
他们达成共识的第二点，虽然程度较低，但仍然存在，就是川普是反对这些想法的手段。他们可能不会在所有事情上达成一致，但他们都同意，川普所代表的运动可以成为一股强大的力量，推动他们希望在美国政治中看到的反向革命和反动运动。
因此，并不一定有一个积极的计划，对于政策纲领应该是什么，在这个圈子里有各种各样的观点，也有大量建设性的分歧，但他们已经围绕着这些否定性的目标凝聚在一起，即推翻进步的主张，围绕川普的路线重塑共和党。
查克拉巴蒂：他们推翻进步的主张，因为，正如你所强调的，他们根本不认为这是进步。
沃德：是的。他们认为这是一种衰退。万斯之所以在一定程度上成为这些观点的有效代言人，部分原因是他的个人经历和生活故事与他们想要推广的美国愿景相符合。
他在一个后工业化城镇长大，那里面临着毒品成瘾、失业、家庭解体等问题，这就是他们认为所谓的“进步议程”导致的美国图景。所以，通过讲述他的生活故事，他成了他们想要扭转的美国衰退的一个活生生的例子。
查克拉巴蒂：事实上，万斯的成长背景是无可否认的，他确实在困难的环境中长大。这是他一直谈论的事情。他最近在竞选活动中也在谈论这个话题。就在本周，他在明尼苏达州圣克劳德(St. Cloud)的一次集会上发表了演讲。这是他的一些发言。
查克拉巴蒂：听了参议员JD·万斯的发言，伊恩，我很好奇，万斯的生活故事可以提升“新右”运动，他们可以说这是我们想要走的方向。但“新右”中的其他政治领导人是谁，因为我不确定他们是否与万斯有相同的背景。
沃德：万斯是个精英人物，尽管他的背景如此，他上过耶鲁法学院，在硅谷工作过，有一本《纽约时报》畅销书，是一个广受关注的作家和评论员。他的生活故事最终汇聚在这个精英世界中。但我开始关注万斯的原因是，我与许多在华盛顿的年轻保守派交谈，这些人要么自认为属于“新右”，要么与“新右”相邻。
我问他们谁代表了你们的世界观？在国家舞台上谁是你们信仰体系的代表？他们说，没有人比JD·万斯更接近了。是JD·万斯，然后可能还有6000英尺远的，像马可·卢比奥(Marco Rubio)、乔希·霍利(Josh Hawley)或迈克·李(Mike Lee)这些参议员。
他们谈到的另一个代表他们世界观的人是塔克·卡尔森(Tucker Carlson)。塔克和万斯当然关系密切。卡尔森曾提议万斯为副总统。但使万斯有趣和独特的是，他年轻，许多“新右”来自这一代。
他是国家舞台上唯一一个，除了亚利桑那州2022年参议员候选人布莱克·马斯特斯(Blake Masters)，他没有赢得选举。万斯是我听到的唯一一个真正代表这一群体信仰的人。所以我开始关注他，这也取得了成果，因为现在他被推到了票选的顶端。
查克拉巴蒂：好的。那么，这些你交谈过的“新右”年轻成员们，他们是否在乎万斯的硅谷背景？我们马上会谈到彼得·蒂尔(Peter Thiel)，我不知道是否应当称之为科技乌托邦，但“新右”的愿景中似乎包含这种科技至上主义，这很重要吗？
沃德：是的，我认为这很重要，因为他们将硅谷的某些部分视为所谓华盛顿“深层政府”的对抗机构。同样，他们在寻找政治灵感和政治知识时超越了传统机构，并将私营部门，尤其是硅谷的私营部门，视为制度知识、政治知识，以及知识影响力的储存库。因此，我不认为他来自硅谷这一事实对他们是一个障碍，相反，这增加了他的实力。
查克拉巴蒂：好的，所以伊恩·沃德，稍等一下，因为在这一点上我想转向吉尔·杜兰。他是一名自由记者，撰写关于科技和政治的文章。欢迎来到《焦点》。
吉尔·杜兰：感谢邀请。
查克拉巴蒂：好的，那么告诉我你的看法，或者你的报道发现了多少伊恩描述的“新右”思维在硅谷得到支持，而且在加速发展。
杜兰：是的，在我的写作中，我关注的是一种来自科技和硅谷的危险意识形态。它将民主视为敌人，将独裁视为更可取，并视亿万富翁为人类的救世主。
到了2024年，他们与川普领导下的共和党结盟，共和党也在尝试独裁主义、鼓励生育、否认真相。他们想要能够夺取政府并将其转化为他们的工具。
因此，在我的写作中，我关注到一些新兴的类似邪教的信仰，比如一种叫做”网络政府“(network state)的概念，它将国家划分为更小的领土，这些领土基本上由企业独裁统治，而像柯蒂斯·雅尔文、彼得·蒂尔、马克·安德森(Mark Andreessen)、伊隆·马斯克(Elon Musk)这样的人物都是这些思想的核心人物。
我开始报道他们时，是因为他们是旧金山湾区的重要人物。我看到他们正在进行一些激进的政治行动，将他们的人、他们的领导人和他们的思想引入我们的地方政府。我认为最终他们会在全国范围内扩大这种影响力，但在JD·万斯的帮助下，他们在很短的时间内就做到了这一点。他们的理念发展速度远超我的预期。
查克拉巴蒂：好的，那么让我们更多地谈谈彼得·蒂尔，因为他与参议员万斯有直接关系。快速回顾一下蒂尔以及他如何在硅谷赚到数十亿。
杜兰：彼得·蒂尔曾是所谓的“PayPal 黑手党”(PayPal mafia)的一员，这个团队包括埃隆·马斯克和大卫·萨克斯(David Sacks)，他们共同创办了PayPal。这是他们的第一次重大成功。
蒂尔目前是Palantir的所有者，这是一家拥有大量政府合同的大型监控软件公司，已经成为了亿万富翁。
随着他财富的增长，他也成为了一些非常不寻常的右翼思想的高声代言人。我认为他被视为“新右”的教父。他资助智库，资助人们推动这些思想。我认为了解彼得·蒂尔最重要的一点是，他在2009年写道：“我不再相信自由和民主是兼容的。”
所以，他非常公开地表示，一旦发生某种崩溃，就会有某种新型政府、某种新型文明接管政权。许多人认为我们正在朝着某种崩溃的方向前进，他们正在为那个时刻做准备，准备在崩溃发生后夺取权力并建立新型政府。
这类政府形式非常反民主，更像是君主制或独裁制。作为这种信念的一部分，他们把自己视为社会中的至高人物，将成为人类的拯救者和转型后的领导者。
查克拉巴蒂：好的，那么我们明确一下蒂尔和万斯之间的关系，如果我说错了请纠正我，但实际上彼得·蒂尔在大约在2005年前后或稍晚一点把JD·万斯收在自己的门下。万斯甚至在蒂尔的帮助下开始了什么风投公司，对吗？
杜兰：绝对是的。我认为在很大程度上是彼得·蒂尔造就了JD·万斯。万斯第一次见到蒂尔是2011年听他在耶鲁法学院演讲。
他对蒂尔说的内容印象非常深刻，花了几个小时研究他，找到了一个电子邮件地址，给他发了邮件。被邀请去加州的几年后，JD·万斯在旧金山为Mithril Capital工作。彼得·蒂尔（编者注：播客中吉尔·杜兰口误说成了万斯，实际上蒂尔才是该公司的联合创始人）是Mithril Capital的联合创始人。当JD·万斯决定搬回俄亥俄州时，他在马克·安德森和彼得·蒂尔的帮助下创办了自己的公司。
当万斯决定竞选参议员时，彼得·蒂尔向他的竞选投入了前所未有的资金，并为他争取到了川普的背书，尽管万斯之前曾将川普与希特勒相提并论。之后蒂尔在2024年使万斯进入川普的竞选团队的过程中发挥了关键作用。
因此，在过去十年中的每一步，万斯都离不开彼得·蒂尔。看看蒂尔的信念，他谈论的内容，他说话的记录，他所写的东西，都是相当可怕的。而一个可能成为美国副总统的人，竟然如此依赖这个人，以及这个人的财富和信仰。
查克拉巴蒂： 伊恩·沃德，让我把话题转回到你这边。因为彼得·蒂尔资助了JD·万斯在2021-2022年的俄亥俄州参议员竞选，金额超过1000万美元。你对这两个人之间的关系有什么看法？
沃德：是的，如果我可以稍微反驳一下的话，我认为将万斯理解为蒂尔造就出来的，对于理解他的世界观有点狭隘。当然，从政治上讲，蒂尔是万斯的大恩人。正如吉尔所说，蒂尔资助了他的参议院竞选，为他提供了风险投资的职业机会，等等。
但蒂尔只是万斯用来构建世界观的众多影响因素之一。当我们谈论这些对万斯的思想影响时，我们需要记住，他们大多并没有提供具体的政策建议。他们只是提供理论依据。
对于新政权来讲，这些是一个极其抽象的思想领域。因此，我认为万斯在提到像蒂尔这样的思想家时，部分是向某一群体发出信号，表明他了解最新的思想，他是他们中的一员。他了解这些领域的最新趋势，尽管他从这些人那里得到的具体政策描述有多少，我不确定，但他确实在用他们来表明他在“新右”中的成员身份。
此外，这些思想家之间也存在矛盾，蒂尔和雅尔文的思想与克莱蒙特研究所(Claremont Institute)[注]的思想并不总是能够调和。万斯的思想中存在这些矛盾。因此，我认为需要扩展你的框架，以理解万斯思想的复杂性。
[注]克莱蒙特研究所是1979 年成立的一家位于加利福尼亚州阿普兰(Upland, CA)的保守派智库，是唐纳德·川普的早期捍卫者。在乔·拜登赢得2020 年美国总统大选且川普拒绝认输后，克莱蒙特研究所高级研究员约翰·伊斯特曼帮助特朗普推翻选举结果，但未能成功。该研究所的出版物近年来频繁发表另类右翼和极右翼的观点文章。
杜兰：有一个计划，叫做“2025计划”，这就是所有这些事情现在汇聚的地方。这是一个完全控制政府的计划，它要把多达50万名政府官僚统统解雇，把政府变成一个右翼的工具。所以确实有一个计划。
如果你看看，所有这些不同的团体正汇聚在川普的旗帜下，以便实现这些目标。我认为存在分歧。我认为，在有些地方，硅谷的怪异意识形态与传统的基于宗教的保守心态并不相符。
但他们为了走得更远而结成了联盟，他们知道，在川普的领导下，他们能走得更远，而这些在民主党主政下无法达到，因为这些想法在民主党人看来是非常古怪的。
作为一个在从事政治工作多年后才回到新闻界的人，我会说，任何政治人物与一个亿万富翁在一起混了10年，这个亿万富翁基本上就是他的老板。所以我认为我们不能低估彼得·蒂尔对万斯的危险影响。
不仅仅是彼得·蒂尔，柯蒂斯·雅尔文，还有一个名叫巴拉吉·斯里尼瓦桑(Balaji Srinivasan)的人，他也写了很多关于这些思想的文章。他宣称需要从政府中清除民主党人，并将其与伊拉克的去复兴党化(De-Ba'athification，复兴党是萨达姆统治被推翻之前伊拉克的唯一合法执政党)或二战后的去纳粹化进行比较。JD·万斯在几年前的一次播客讲话中也提到了去复兴党化和去纳粹化。双方群体中都有一些非常具体的理念反复出现，并且这些理念在很多方面都体现在”2025计划“中。
查克拉巴蒂：吉尔，既然你提到了”2025计划“，这当然是来自传统基金会(Heritage Foundation)的项目，包括了很多在华盛顿内部和外部的右翼保守圈子的思想家。
现在，传统基金会的负责人凯文·罗伯茨(Kevin Roberts)将在9月出版一本新书，名为《黎明的晨光》(Dawn's Early Light)，这基本上是凯文·罗伯茨对2025计划的版本。参议员JD·万斯为《黎明的晨光》写了前言。就在昨天，《新共和》(New Republic)在他们的网站上发布了这个前言。
在这篇前言中，万斯写道：“我们需要的不仅仅是去除过去不良政策的政治。我们需要重建。我们需要一种进攻性的保守主义，而不仅仅是阻止左派做我们不喜欢的事情。”
【延伸阅读】 现在是时候非常非常害怕了 川普同党2025颠覆美国计划的核心思想：基督教民族主义
Part Ⅲ
查克拉巴蒂：吉尔，我想更详细地了解一下，你提到的那些硅谷亿万富翁的信念，他们认为自己应该在实际的政治领域或不同地理位置上扮演什么样的自然角色。
杜兰：这个想法被称为”网络政府“，有一本关于它的书，可以在线免费阅读。它也反映在柯蒂斯·雅尔文的作品中。他称之为“拼图”。这个想法是：像美国和其他已建立国家这样的民族国家将会崩溃，它们应该被划分为更小的政治实体，这些实体基本上是由公司主导的独裁政权。
因此，每个人都生活在一个小镇上，雅尔文称之为旧金山版本的Fisk Corp。Fisk Corp将由一个公司独裁政权管理，拥有全视角的监控系统以保证公共安全，你需要有小型RFID卡来进出，还必须有一定的收入水平才能居住在Fisk Corp。
因此，这基本上是一个公司独裁政权的想法。听起来相当疯狂，但他们似乎经常谈论这个想法。
现在这个想法已经演变为所谓的”网络政府“，彼得·蒂尔和马克·安德森实际上有一个叫Pronomos的公司，它正在投资创建这些小型“公司政府”（corporate states），在世界各地都有，其中一个在洪都拉斯，叫做Próspera。该公司目前正在起诉洪都拉斯政府，索赔约110亿美元。
他们还计划在地中海建造一座城市，名为”普拉西斯“(Praxis)。因此，这是他们正在努力实现的目标。包括如彼得·蒂尔和马克·安德森这些人，他们都是川普的强有力的支持者。
还有像比特币的布莱恩·阿姆斯特朗(Brian Armstrong)和Angel List的纳瓦尔·拉维坎特(Naval Ravikant)这样的人。这些看似正常的人也在投资这些想法，基本上是为了破坏民主，创造未来的新型政府。如果你查找”网络政府“，你会发现关于这个想法的更多内容。
查克拉巴蒂：吉尔，虽然你和伊恩在某些方面达成了一致，即“新右”的一个激励因素是相信美国民主正在衰退，对吗？一旦民主终结，将需要某种激进的治理变革。
但谈到这些硅谷亿万富翁，他们是否对自己在这个国家民主衰退中的角色进行过自我反思？比如他们财富的集中，他们创造的技术，以及他们对监管这些技术的抵制？
我在想，当我们谈论虚拟国家时，一些公司实际已经在权力上达到了那个状态，即使在纸面上还没有。
杜兰：是的，他们似乎非常奇怪地感到委屈，即使我们中的大多数人会说，他们的成就和获得的财富已经比我们所有人加起来还要多。
他们认为这就是他们在社会中的自然位置，理所当然。我认为这是一种至上主义的意识形态。是技术至上主义，财富至上主义，在许多方面是白人至上主义。
他们相信，只要能保护自己的财富免受公众、民主以及国家机器不公的控制，任何事情都是合理的。
这非常像是带着财富逃离这个系统，他们称之为“退出”，对吧？当你退出一家公司时，就是套现了。他们实际上用这个词来形容民主。我们将带着我们拥有的一切”退出“民主。因此，这不仅仅是关于金钱。还涉及到一种意识形态，即他们应该统治自己领土的有主权的个体(sovereign individuals)，就像封建时代一样。
这并不是我的猜测或者假设他们要写出来的。他们就在播客中谈论这些，非常直言不讳。令我震惊的是，除了少数例外，比如伊恩，主流媒体几乎没有人注意到这一点，我们被引导相信这仅仅是关于降低税收和宽松监管而已。
这些人有一种危险的意识形态。他们想从内部削弱国家，接管政府，创建他们自己的政体。我认为这一威胁与我们在全国范围内打击的任何恐怖组织不相上下，因为这些人有数十亿美元，他们正积极努力在此刻接管我们的政府。
查克拉巴蒂：吉尔刚刚为我们打开了一个非常重要的探讨路线，那就是其他的影响因素。这些影响因素可能会也可能不会流入我们这里所说的“新右”这个无定形的思路中，那就是，白人至上主义是否在其中扮演了一个角色？反犹主义是否在其中起了作用？
为了快速了解这一点，我们采访了一个名叫迈克尔·马利斯(Michael Malice)的人。
他为2019年出版的书《新右翼：美国政治边缘之旅》(The New Right: A Journey to the Fringe of American Politics)深入研究了“新右”的世界。
他参与了白人至上主义者和自称“新反动主义者”的聚会，混迹于在线留言板、信息版，还有Discord社群。他还采访了极右翼人物，如“骄傲男孩”的创始人加文·麦金尼斯(Gavin McInnes)和男性至上主义者迈克·切诺维奇(Mike Cernovich)。
有趣的是，马利斯在写这本书时并不总是感到受欢迎。例如，2017 年 8 月，他曾在弗吉尼亚州夏洛茨维尔(Charlottesville)参加了“团结右翼”(Unite the Right)的集会，在那里，臭名昭著的举着火炬的抗议者高喊着“你们不会取代我们”，和纳粹的“血与土”。
2017年，白人民族主义者在夏洛茨维尔举着火把游行，高喊着”犹太人不能取代我们“，”你们不能取代我们“这些反犹和种族主义口号。
迈克尔·马利斯的真名是迈克尔·克雷希默(Michael Krechmer)。他是犹太人，这是他说的：
查克拉巴蒂：现在，马利斯说，在他的研究和与“新右”成员交谈时，他们实际上对唐纳德·特朗普的第一个任期感到非常失望，主要是因为他们认为未兑现的承诺，特别是在特朗普任内开始的新冠封锁。然而，当我们最近与他交谈时，马利斯说，现在许多“新右”人士有了新希望，因为JD·万斯进入了选票。
查克拉巴蒂：上面是马利斯的讲话。伊恩，关于其他信仰，例如白人至上主义、反犹主义等，在“新右”中是否存在？
沃德：是的，当然，我认为迈克尓描述的世界是“另类右翼”(alt right)，这与“新右”有些不同。我认为两者之间确实有联系。其中一些与鼓励生育有关。这周我们在JD·万斯关于“无子女猫女士”(childless cat lady)的评论中看到这一点。有一部分鼓励生育右翼刺激了优生学右翼，这导致了与另类右翼重叠。
我也认为两者之间存在非常明确的紧张关系。当JD·万斯被考虑作为副总统时，我们看到反对他的声音之一是白人种族主义者和另类右翼的主要人物尼克·富恩特斯(Nick Fuentes)，他实际上反对万斯被选为副总统，因为万斯与南亚移民的孩子结婚，他的孩子是混血儿。
尼克·富恩特斯说，实际上万斯不是我们的一员，因为他有混血孩子。所以另类右翼一部分更加公开的白人种族主义者反对万斯。
查克拉巴蒂：好的。既然你提到了“无子女猫女士”的评论，2021年塔克·卡尔森的那次采访并不是JD·万斯那年唯一一次抨击民主党的言论，他认为民主党的政策对儿童不友好。2021年，在福克斯新闻上，当时参议员候选人万斯再次谈到所谓的“无子女的民主党人”。
查克拉巴蒂：顺便说一句，就在这周，万斯对NBC新闻说，我认为我所说的实质内容实际上是可以辩护的，然后他说他在批评他所看到的美国领导层特别的神经症，导致人们说为了气候变化不应该生孩子诸如此类的话。
万斯周二对NBC新闻说，气候变化可能是个问题，但这不应该是一个让人们不组建家庭的问题。我认为这种态度是非常有害和破坏性的。但吉尔，这个鼓励生育主义的部分，请再次简要说明它如何与来自硅谷的一些思想相关。
杜兰：有趣的是，那些不断尖叫着南部边境移民的人也在尖叫着人们需要更多的孩子。移民确实有孩子，这些孩子成为美国人。所以显然，当他们谈论生孩子时，他们是在谈论白人生白人孩子。
我认为大多数专家会说，地球目前实际上人口过剩，这对我们的资源造成了巨大压力。所以似乎没有人质疑，地球将发生某种人口暴涨，这就引出了埃隆·马斯克特别喜欢的想法。我们必须移民外星，离开地球。担心那些尚未出生的数十亿人，并成为多星球物种。所以我们可能陷入另一个“兔子洞”（意即：难以自拔的情况）。
但基本上，他们说白人需要有孩子。如果你看看共和党的政策，都是关于惩罚那些无法照顾孩子的家庭，因为工薪阶层或贫困家庭没有足够的收入来养家。
这是一个非常隐晦的信息，由于我们需要劳动力，如果我们想增加美国的人口，我们就应该立即采取合理的移民政策，我们需要更多的家庭。这是一种快速的方式，但对种族主义者来说这不是办法。
查克拉巴蒂：关于万斯生活的另一个重要方面，我很想知道它是如何与“新右”的其他方面交织在一起的。当然还有他的宗教信仰，我相信是彼得·蒂尔把万斯带入天主教的，在2021年的“杰克·墨菲现场”(Jack Murphy Live)播客中，他谈到了天主教：
查克拉巴蒂：现在，伊恩，你能否简单谈谈万斯的天主教信仰与“新右”的信仰是否存在某种张力？还是两者之间有某种共通性？
沃德：我认为两者存在交汇点。我们之前讨论的那种自由主义不仅仅是一个政治体系，它还是一种世界观，是人们思考自己生活和驾驭世界的一种方式。你知道，一旦你将其归类为一个合法的哲学框架，我认为“新右”的人们渴望一个不同的框架，一个不是基于个人权利和精英制度的框架。
很多人在天主教中找到了这种替代框架。它提供了一种古老的、自上而下的、等级森严的理解世界的方式。它为家庭和信仰提供了一种精神取向，与保守的世界观不谋而合，“新右”中的很多人都皈依了天主教，或正在皈依天主教。
这是一场始于2010年代的运动，一直延续至今。因此，在“新右”中，万斯绝非唯一。
查克拉巴蒂：我再回到 “2025计划”的领导者，遗产基金会的凯文·罗伯茨的新书，《黎明的晨光》。
JD·万斯在为它写的前言里说到：“旧的保守运动认为，只要不让政府插手，自然力量就会解决问题。如今我们不再处于这种情况，必须采取不同的方法。”
吉尔，我给你的问题基本上只需要答是或否。你是否认为你已经看到了足够的证据表明，我们一直在讨论的这些信念，如果万斯成为美国副总统，他真的会尽其副总统职位的所能付诸行动？
杜兰：是的，绝对是。这是与川普一致的专制计划。
JD Vance and the rise of the 'New Right' Techno libertarians, white nationalists and JD Vance are all linked to a movement known as the 'New Right.' What is this movement and how has it influenced the Republican candidate for vice president?
英文文字稿链接
https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/08/01/vance-trump-new-right-republican-election
过去几年 左派政府 对 Trump 的 打压，已经把双方逼成了 你死我活的状态了。
还玩的是 Elon 这么深入的 参与到政治里面， 打着让人发言的旗帜， 却在煽动全世界范围的左右对抗。
这几天 英国 动乱， X 是煽动者的乐园。这几天 英国警察高层出来 表态 在暗指 Elon…
极右派 听风就是雨， 马上发大， 有时候看着他们的 样子， 就像 这帮人 不面对现实，或者时代的变迁来调整， 却整日想着 靠选个强势煽动者 上台回到过去的荣光， 就是可笑.
回到Elon， 他今年押错了宝了， 大选后还是 蓝色政府， 他的 X 和 Tesla会吃不了 兜着走
我一直不懂为什么商人非要插手政治，Elon这样做对Tesla的股东们负责么。是不是一个人成功到一定程度就会膨胀到觉得自己天下第一？前有马云，郭台铭，后有Trump和Elon。权利就是春药，是因为生活的太没有挑战了么？
这种想法 一看就是墙内思维
美国是资本主义社会，资本参与政治是体制。美国政府里的议员们背后没有金主吗？万斯后面来自华尔街的金主，要不然Trump也不会选他。马斯克就是大嘴巴，自恋狂。其他资本都是闷声发大财的。
川粉？
美国是资本控制的政府，金主的存在就是商人参与其中的，还有说客也是为商人行贿存在的，商人插手政治无非是为了自己利益更大化
是我知道，资本参与政治，我的意思就是别人不会那么明显站队啊，生意人就是要周旋在每个不同的势力中获得利益最大化，他非得自己跳出来哔哔哔这是要干啥。。。
同样在传统共和党人中，他也很难找到合适的位置，所以JD Vance是他完美的代理人。
这些人天天要干掉deep state, 就是要自己取而代之，新旧交替过程中必然会带来社会动荡。我们华人要想明白了，自己应该做什么选择。
by Melissa Ryan | July 22, 2024
This week Melissa Ryan focus on the men ultimately responsible for Vance, Project 2025, and the infusion of Silicon Valley cash to bolster Trump’s campaign – Curtis Yarvin and his billionaire patron Peter Thiel.
Whether “rightists” understand this or not (generally, not), the only rational telos of “rightism” is the restoration of a stable, responsible, and accountable monarchy in which the destabilizing energies that create “leftism” do not even exist. In this context, “rightism” and “leftism” both will only remain as academic and historical tropes—like Catharism or Lollardy. -Curtis Yarvin, writing in his newsletter, March 2024
So there’s this guy, Curtis Yarvin, who has written about some of these things… –JD Vance, September 2021
JD Vance, a 39-year-old whose resume makes Sarah Palin seem experienced, is officially on the Trump ticket. The faux-hillbilly turned venture capitalist turned US Senator is now vying to be the next Vice President of the United States. This week, let’s focus on the men ultimately responsible for Vance, Project 2025, and the infusion of Silicon Valley cash to bolster Trump’s campaign – Curtis Yarvin and his billionaire patron Peter Thiel.
Project 2025 is linked to “The Statement on Christian Nationalism” manifesto which seeks to implement a Scripture-based system of gov't whereby Christ-ordained “civil magistrates” exercise authority over the American public,
Longtime readers will be familiar with Curtis Yarvin, who blogged for years as Mencius Moldbug. Yarvin founded neoreactionism AKA the Dark Enlightenment, a political movement popular among certain tech circles. Neoreactionism calls for the fall of democracies and a return to monarchy and aristocracy. Shockingly, neoreactionaries believe that new aristocracy should come from tech and business. Yarvin’s writing fixates on the power of the so-called “Cathedrals”: media, academia, and government institutions which he and his followers believe shape public opinion and rule America. (It’s worth noting that Yarvin’s parents were government civil servants.)
A Vox profile from 2022 explains Yarvin’s deal pretty well:
But he stands out among right-wing commentators for being probably the single person who’s spent the most time gaming out how, exactly, the U.S. government could be toppled and replaced — “rebooted” or “reset,” as he likes to say — with a monarch, CEO, or dictator at the helm. Yarvin argues that a creative and visionary leader — a “startup guy,” like, he says, Napoleon or Lenin was — should seize absolute power, dismantle the old regime, and build something new in its place.
To Yarvin, incremental reforms and half-measures are necessarily doomed. The only way to achieve what he wants is to assume “absolute power,” and the game is all about getting to a place where you can pull that off. Critics have called his ideas “fascist” — a term he disputes, arguing that centralizing power under one ruler long predates fascism and that his ideal monarch should rule for all rather than fomenting a class war as fascists do. “Autocratic” fits as a descriptor, though his preferred term is “monarchist.” You won’t find many on the right saying they wholly support Yarvin’s program — especially the “monarchy” thing — but his critique of the status quo and some of his ideas for changing it have influenced several increasingly prominent figures.
JD Vance’s rhetoric will sound familiar to anyone who read Yarvin’s work. Vance has cited Yarvin as an influence, but the connection runs deeper. Both Yarvin and Vance have the support and backing of Peter Thiel, an early Trump supporter in 2016 who gave a primetime speech at the 2016 convention. If Yarvin informed Vance’s thinking, Thiel fueled his political ambitions by funding a Super PAC for Vance’s 2022 Senate run. Without Thiel’s financial backing, it’s hard to imagine Vance would be in the Senate, much less the Republican nominee for Vice President.
I don’t think it’s a coincidence that Musk and other reactionaries in tech announced major donations to a pro-Trump Super PAC the same week that Vance was announced. These folks are thrilled to have Vance on the ticket. The cash infusion couldn’t be better for the Trump campaign, especially given the state of the RNC and state Republican parties. Of course we have no way of determining if that figured into Trump’s choosing Vance, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a factor.
Project 2025 was crafted by acolytes of neoreactionism. Yarvin is their prophet, Vance is their Moses, and Thiel is more than willing to spend whatever it takes to make this hellish vision of humanity into our reality. Donald Trump might try to distance himself from Project 2025, but he’s always leaned into neoreactionist ideas and imagery. The God Emperor is a monarch who will return America to being a white supremacist nation where men like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk hold power and control over all of us.
It’s always interesting to revisit older articles about neoreactionaries from the movement’s days as a niche Silicon Valley fixation. In 2013 a TechCrunch article states “To be clear though, pure neoreaction is an extreme minority position that will probably never catch on beyond a tiny cult following.” The reporter is alarmed but also sure there’s no way this could ever become a mainstream movement.
A Baffler article from around the same time better understands neoreactionism’s potential, saying “Neoreactionaries are explicitly courting wealthy elites in the tech sector as the most receptive and influential audience. Why bother with mass appeal when you’re rebuilding the ancien régime?”
Courting wealthy elites is key here. Peter Thiel, Elon Musk and their fellow billionaires are more than happy to spend ungodly sums of money to bend the rest of us to their will and worldview. Yarvin simply played to what they already believe about themselves: that they’re smarter than us and actually, they should rule the world. Vance is more than happy to do the same on his own path to power.
These folks claim again and again that neoreactionism isn’t racist, but Yarvin is on the record defending slavery and endorsing racist pseudoscience. (Vance is in a mixed-race marriage and has endorsed the same racist pseudo-science.) There’s a direct line from billionaires believing DEI and the existence of trans people are oppressing them to Yarvin and neoreaction.
Here’s the good news. As I’ve said time and time again, most Americans don’t want to live in a fascist hellscape. There are more of us than there are of them, and we can beat them just as we have in every election since 2016. I won’t pretend that’s going to be an easy task this time around, but I was heartened at how Project 2025 has broken into the political conversation this summer, so much that Trump falsely claimed it wasn’t his agenda. JD Vance’s nomination gives us a chance to sound the alarm on Project 2025, the folks behind it, and the future MAGA wants from now until Election Day. It’s on all of us to make the most of these next few months to do so.
This is an excerpt from Ctrl Alt-Right Delete, a newsletter produced in partnership with COURIER — a civic media company.
https://buckscountybeacon.com/2024/07/jd-vance-peter-thiel-curtis-yarvin-2024-the-neoreactionary-dream-team/
取代之后呢？再来一个什么党派？
CATHY YOUNG
THE MOST COMMON SLAM AT J.D. VANCE, Donald Trump’s running mate and Wednesday night’s big star at the Republican National Convention, is that the 39-year-old junior senator from Ohio is a cynical opportunist, a turncoat who refashioned himself from a “Never Trump” conservative into an ardent Trump loyalist to secure his ascent in the MAGAfied GOP. There is no question that Vance’s transformation has been drastic—and, as some have noted, he hasn’t changed his views on Trump alone: Vance’s current portrayal of America’s struggling working-class communities—such as the one he was born into—as victims of a callous and globalist “ruling class” contrasts sharply with his account in Hillbilly Elegy, which was blunt about the role dysfunctional culture and self-destructive behavior play in these communities’ woes.
Is this a fake self-reinvention? Or is it, as Vance-friendly commentators argue, a sincere evolution—a combination of genuine shifts on policy and normal compromise on Trump? Ultimately, no one can say but Vance himself. The rest of us can only judge him by his publicly articulated views—which will likely come under greater scrutiny than ever before, now that he is running for national office.
So let’s start with his convention address. Buried amid usual boilerplate—the autobiography, the broadsides against the elites, the critiques of the Biden record—was a passage that goes to the core of Vance’s current political philosophy, one in which Vance challenged the view that America is “an idea”: To illustrate his point, Vance acknowledges his wife’s background as a daughter of immigrants and praises her South-Asian immigrant parents (“incredible people . . . who genuinely have enriched this country in so many ways”), then segues into a story about his family’s “cemetery plot on a mountainside in Eastern Kentucky” and explains why place matters: Some of Vance’s claims here are fairly uncontroversial. It’s self-evidently true (so to speak) that America is not just a set of ideas but a “nation”—“a group of people with a shared history and a common future”—living in a “homeland.” Of course any American, whether native-born or immigrant, who loves the “idea” of America must also have an investment in its history and an attachment to its people, culture, and places. Of course we expect people coming to the United States to follow American laws and broadly defined norms. And of course there’s nothing wrong with having a deep attachment to a cemetery where members of your family are buried.
But Vance’s reference to his wife’s immigrant family as a lead-in to the image of the cemetery with generations under the ground as a symbol of the American “homeland” has some disturbing overtones. The message seems to be that immigrants and their descendants achieve true Americanness by being admitted to kinship with Americans whose families have been on American soil here for generations—in the language of nationalists, “legacy Americans.” Until they’ve been absorbed into that lineage, his rhetoric implies, immigrants are guests who are here on “our” sufferance.
To call this an “Easter egg of white nationalism,” as one MSNBC host put it, certainly goes too far. But it’s also not a simple discussion of wanting to be buried in the family plot, and I think it’s fair to say that this portion of Vance’s speech had overtones of blood-and-soil nationalism. Which brings us to some important facts about Vance’s intellectual and political commitments.
Vance’s ideological home, for the past few years, has been among the so-called “national conservatives”; he was a speaker at the inaugural National Conservatism Conference in 2019 (giving a talk titled “Getting Beyond Libertarianism”), a keynote speaker at the 2021 conference, and a featured speaker just this month at the 2024 conference in Washington, D.C. Hostility to the concept of America as an idea-based nation is a key argument in national conservative ideology (as articulated, for instance, by its intellectual father Yoram Hazony). In addition to its nativist leanings, national conservatism also tends to support a muscular state that unabashedly promotes a conservative cultural agenda.
That last part is also essential to Vance’s worldview. An outspoken admirer of Hungary’s Viktor Orbán, Trump’s running mate certainly hasn’t been shy about his interest in using the power of the state to promote conservative goals. As Reason’s Stephanie Slade noted two years ago during Vance’s Senate campaign: Vance’s discussion of America the “idea” vs. America the “nation” and “homeland” has another ironic aspect. Notice that, in conceding that America was founded on “brilliant ideas,” Vance specifically mentions “the rule of law” as something “written into the fabric of our Constitution and our nation.” But this is the same guy who, in a 2021 interview (with far-right podcaster Jack Murphy) suggested that if Trump returns to the White House in 2025, “we should just seize the administrative state for our own purposes,” firing all the civil servants and replacing them with “our people”—and that if the Supreme Court objects, Trump should defy it. (He also cited Andrew Jackson’s apocryphal remark, “The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.”) Vance also told Ross Douthat just last month that, had he been vice president in January 2021, he would have declined to certify the election results until alternate, pro-Trump slates of electors were allowed. Sure, it would have caused a constitutional crisis, but “at least we would have had a debate.”
Vance also suggested to Douthat that “tech censorship” of the Hunter Biden story was a legitimate reason to contest the 2020 election results. Never mind that the brief attempt to minimize the story’s social media reach ended up getting it more attention (or that, by those standards, Hillary Clinton had every right to cry election fraud four years earlier because of the massive publicity given false claims, generated by Wikileaks with help from Russian hackers, that the Democratic National Committee rigged the primaries in her favor and robbed Bernie Sanders). Vance surely knows that there is absolutely nothing in American election law that would allow the validity of a vote to be challenged on the grounds of alleged media bias.
So much for the rule of law.
FOR THE JOURNALISTS who will now start digging into Vance’s words and deeds, his record is an embarrassment of riches. Take his 2022 comments mocking the “childless cat ladies” who allegedly run the Democratic party, with two women and a gay man cited as examples. Or his argument in a 2021 talk to a right-wing group that conservatives should defend conspiracy-theory king Alex Jones. (He has certainly come a long way from Hillbilly Elegy, where he deplored hillbilly culture’s “bizarre sexism,” homophobia, and distrust of the mainstream media.) His various statements on Ukraine, which reflect not only a staunch opposition to U.S. assistance for Ukraine’s defense against Russian aggression but a tendency to parrot pro-Kremlin, anti-Ukraine spin (for instance, about alleged religious persecution in Ukraine), will get a new look as well. And we should hear more about Vance’s connections to “neoreactionary” pseudointellectual Curtis Yarvin (a.k.a. “Mencius Moldbug”), from whom he got the fire-all-civil-servants idea and whom he cites as an ideologically congenial guru in a recent Tablet magazine interview. (Yarvin is, if nothing else, quite candid about his odious views: He openly argues that political liberty is a failed experiment and scribbles weird fantasies about a new world order in which Vladimir Putin is given a free hand to stamp out liberalism in Europe.)
Never mind the charge that Vance is an opportunistic phony. In this case, the scary option is that he is actually sincere in his ideological conversion—and is gearing up to take over as the smarter, more ideas-oriented, less volatile, and more polished leader of Trumpism without Trump.
https://www.thebulwark.com/p/understanding-jd-vances-national
他们现在就是利用MAGA 绑架共和党，不会另起一个党派，那样的话要从头做起，短期内不可能达到执政的目的。
这次选举也是共和党的生死之战，如果Trump/Vance选上，共和党就彻底蜕变成MAGA党。如果选不上的话，共和党建制派还有一线机会。
太扭曲
所以说真正的保守派反而是最激烈反对MAGA和Vance这个木马的
比如我这个之前支持McCain和罗姆尼的，中间偏右派，trump上台后就变成激烈的反对MAGA。anyone but weirdos
看他的表现，可能过两天就被trump给踢出局了
BLM反对哈里斯不是因为她是个law and order的共和党吗？沃尔滋一来自选川深红选区的议员，整天共和党联合提名议案的能左到什么地方去？
这选举真的是，选民必须在一个疯子加种族主义极右搭档，和一个普通共和党加个中间派民主党搭档中选，左派毫无代表，但为了阻止疯子上台必须深呼吸选个law and order共和党，真是太委屈了
是的。这几年我看到的来自liberals的标签，deplorables, grandma killer算是轻的，racist, Islam phobia, misogynist, transphobia算是张口就来的，这几年开始用far-right, MAGA extremists, MAGA facists, Nazist。用上这种词，不用讨论理念政策，隐含但又极端清晰的意思是和liberals意见不同的都是需要被消灭的危险分子，同时自诩他们在恢复捍卫民主。
嗯对对对，不像MAGA党，根本不带隐含的，一切都摆到桌面之上了
要说name calling, 起外号贴标签，谁能比得上Trump？
就事论事，楼主贴的这篇文章都是直接引用JD Vance和其他人的采访等等公开言论，有什么谬误你给指出来就好。
危险不危险，结论是每个读者自己下的，不需要贴标签。
赞同这个。
另外，“新右”的人们渴望一个不同的框架，一个不是基于个人权利和精英制度的框架。 很多人在天主教中找到了这种替代框架。它提供了一种古老的、自上而下的、等级森严的理解世界的方式。它为家庭和信仰提供了一种精神取向，与保守的世界观不谋而合，要求女人多生育。像极了“使女的故事”！ “新右”中的很多人都皈依了天主教，或正在皈依天主教。 埃伦.马斯克去意大利见极右派总理，梵蒂冈教皇，确实有这个倾向。
商人在财富达到一定程度后必然渴望权利和荣誉，参见人的欲望需求金字塔。
让男的掌管女人的子宫就是传统价值观，男的获利当然舍不得毁掉这所谓的传统价值观，对女人来说这种价值观早点烂掉吧
这些学者和哲学家通过现象看到本质，通过历史教训提醒我们普通人警觉，完全不是批斗和贴标签。
确实，希望未来不要发展成像“使女的故事”那样的世界
Re. 实话实说，楼主贴的都是直接引用的当事人的原话。很客观，赞。读者可以自行思考。
教皇心里也不鸟马斯克家这个娃吧，非婚生孩子一堆，他以为他是上帝可以随便下种？ 而且教皇在美国右派眼里估计也是极左，居然对LGBTQ这么宽容
其实很多他法学院的同学朋友对他的评价都还不错的，说他是一个decent person，对女性和少数族裔的态度都不差。
没想到毕业几年，完全变了一个人，不知道他是法学院掩饰得好呢，还是为了权力不惜让自己变成一个坏人
NPR很难得不受财团金主影响的媒体了，巴以冲突，NPR是为数不多的一直报道加沙惨状的媒体
他是2020年开始在twitter发表极端言论的，之前骨子里一直非常保守但是对朋友什么都不错，是个decent的人。他这个朋友是lesbian，他表达过虽然他们之间政治理念不和但是他作为朋友依然爱她，并且Vance和老婆都参加了这个朋友的婚礼。他朋友说在法学院的时候Vance就反对堕胎，他的grandma跟他说过你永远不知道女人处于什么样的困境而做出这样的选择，所以曾经他心里也是矛盾的。估计2020年左右发生了什么，他才真正走上极端保守的道路。
可能没有发生了什么，就是钱和权太诱人了
很有可能