Curtis Yarvin
speaker
700 appearances
4 recordings
4 series
first heard Jan 2025
last heard 14 Jan
Curtis Yarvin’s voice in public audio — every appearance, attributed to the second.
Trend
recordings per month · last 12 monthsRecordings per month over the last 12 months — 2 in all, peaking in Jan 2026 with 2.
Appearances
And so the thing is, when you understand the perspective of the new regime with respect to the American aristocracy, their perspective has can't be this sort of anti aristocratic thing of like, we're going to like bayonet all the professors and like, you know, throw them in ditches or whatever.
Their perspective has to be that, like, you were a normal person serving a regime that did this, like, really weird and crazy stuff.
It depends what you mean by democracy. I mean, I think that the problem is basically when people equate democracy with good government, when you use that word, you're using a very tricky word. I would say that what someone like I'm on very safe ground, despite not knowing him well at all, that someone like J.D. Vance believes essentially in the common good.
And, you know, the idea that government should serve the common good. And I think that people like J.D. and people in the sort of the broader intellectual scene around him, which is very varied intellectual scene, would all agree on that principle. Now, if that principle, I don't know what you mean by democracy in this context.
What I do know is that if democracy is against the common good, it's bad. And if it's for the common good, it's good.
What would fully enlightened for me generally means fully disenchanted. When I look at basically what the kinds of people that I know not really that well in Silicon Valley think, I'm basically like, you know, have people like this been exposed to my ideas? Yes. Do they agree that America should be a monarchy? I doubt it, but I have no idea.
But what they agree on is not a belief, but a disbelief. So I think that when a person who lives their life within the kind of, you know, sort of progressive bubble, liberal bubble, use whatever term you like, of, you know, the current year, looks at
the right or even the new right or whatever, you know, you want to call it, I think what's hardest to see is that what's really shared is not a positive belief, but an absence of belief. Basically, we don't worship these same gods.
We do not sort of see, you know, the New York Times and Harvard as like divinely inspired in any sense, or we do not see their procedures as ones that sort of always lead to to truth and wisdom. We do not think that the way the U.S. government works, you know, really works well or seems to be perfect in any respect.
Yes. Okay. It's a disenchantment from, like, believing in these old systems. And the right thing that should replace that disenchantment is not, oh, we need to go do things Curtis's way, and is basically...
just a greater openness of mind and a greater ability to look around and say, you know, like, we just assume that our political science is superior to Aristotle's political science because our physics is superior to Aristotle's physics. What if that isn't so?
Exactly.
Can you answer that question? Number one, I think that having an effective government and an efficient government is better for people's lives. And I think that, you know, the best answer when I ask people to answer that question, I sort of ask them to look around the room and basically point out everything in the room that was made by a monarchy.
Because these things that, you know, these things that we call companies are actually little monarchies. Okay. And then you're looking around yourself and you see, for example, a laptop. And that laptop was made by Apple, which is a monarchy. And it has a little thing on it that says designed in California and made in China.
Whereas if your MacBook Pro was made by the California Department of Computing, you can only imagine it. I'm sorry, I'm here in this building and I keep forgetting to make my best argument for monarchy, which is that people trust the New York Times more than any other source in the world. And how is the New York Times managed? It is a fifth generation hereditary absolute monarchy.
And so we've basically taken, you know, we've taken in some ways, like, and this was very much the vision of the early progressives, by the way. The early progressives, even like the pre-World War I progressives, you know, you go back to, you know, a book like, you know, Drift and Mastery, you know, are very— How can I change that?
Fine, I'll try.
I would say that the incoming Trump administration, you know, with all due respect, and there's a lot of great people there and people who are working extremely hard, Unfortunately, I would say that they're essentially finding themselves in a position where they're trying to untangle the Gordian knot. Meaning what? Meaning that they're basically trying to, let's take just NASA in specific.
So, for example, if you compare NASA to SpaceX, you know, that's a fine example of actually all of the principles that I've been describing because NASA was once as efficient as SpaceX ever. So if you basically say, okay, at a very abstract level, forget the rest of the government. Elon, go and fix NASA. The goal of NASA is to give us cool space shit.
We feel like we're not getting enough cool space shit. You have $25 billion a year. Go and do cool space shit. I think you would get a lot more cool space shit under that principle. But one of the basic principles of kind of the California startup way of thinking is just to realize it's way easier to create a new NASA than it is to fix the old NASA.
Showing 621–640 of 700 · page 32 of 35
← Previous
Next →