Curtis Yarvin

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.

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 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.

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

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.

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.

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...

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?

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.

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.