Thread for discussion of the recent interview of Curtis Yarvin for the New York Times. I thought this was a great interview and am still in awe that the Times published this. Seemed unimaginable 4 years ago. My thoughts will be the first reply. Feel free to share your own.
Saw this the day it came out and immediately read the whole thing. Thought the interview was great, Yarvin did a fine job of laying out the case for monarchy, debunking a few key Cathedral narratives, as well as shred up many common arguments for democracy. The interviewer was actually not terrible, besides asking Yarvin to stop using historical references that he didn’t know himself, and basically dumb down his answers. I feel like his questions were not all loaded, and the ones that were, Yarvin was able to answer eloquently. Notably this one:
>NYT: How invested do you think JD Vance is in democracy?
>CGY: It depends what you mean by democracy. The problem is when people equate democracy with good government. I would say that what JD Vance believes is that governments should serve the common good. I think that people like JD and people in the broader intellectual scene around him would all agree on that principle. Now, 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.
With this response, instead of saying that JD is fine with not following the Constitution, he instead rewords it to be that JD believes the government should serve the common good. Also adding that if democracy is against the common good, it is bad. This snippet is hilarious because especially in recent years, most people feel like the govt. has not been serving the common good, therefore democracy=bad.
On top of feeling vindicated and euphoric that some of my beliefs are posted in the divine halls of the Cathedral, I found it so interesting that the Times published the views of an extremist. Publishing Yarvin is far different that publishing a neonazi/klan member, because they are retarded with no theory or strategy behind their ideas. Curtis on the other hand has been writing, with great skill, about ideas that are so extreme and “dangerous” that it seems not in the interest of liberals/The Left. Giving Yarvin a legitimate platform in 2025, seemingly because people think he is connected to the new administration is pretty nuts to me. Curious as to what others think. My best guess on why they posted/did the interview is because they thought it wouldn’t impact their readers or the general population. And maybe that’s true, but absolute monarchy getting closer to the Overton window is definitely a good thing, same with more people getting their eyes on Yarvin’s ideas. His ability to ‘enlighten’ powerful/rich techbros is quite valuable.
These thoughts are probably a bit scrambled but I showed the interview to a few of my friends over the long weekend on a ski vacation after discussing some of my thoughts on monarchy/democracy and they found it quite interesting. Somewhat unrelated to the article: zoomers will be alright, my friends all go to a top-tier engineering school so they are all quite intelligent w/ high openness so we were able to discuss racism and other extreme things without anyone getting upset. They didn’t agree with everything, but they are definitely sick of immigrants. Not only for taking their jobs, but also for just being everywhere and being kind of annoying/not assimilating.
Let me know what you guys thought about the article, and the current climate that created it.
>>2471 It was a strong interview for Curtis. He behaved himself and restrained himself well. (I mention this because it sharply contrasts with some of his other interview with liberals.)
He came off looking sane, creating a sense of "Why is he so scary again?"
The interviewer, David Marchese, came off looking low-T, small, and hectoring. (Although I agree with OP that he was perhaps as good as could be expected for an NYT/NPR journalist.)
I think the NYT chose to do the interview because they felt the subject could no longer be credibly ignored. The containment wall of attentional control, which they try to curate, had already been breached, and this was their fallback response.
There was some attempt at critique or counterattack, emphasizing the plank "You are against democracy!" which they view as obviously condemnatory. But this is a position of weakness. They are unreflectively clinging to and trying to shore up the post-WW II consensus, even as they choose to ignore how grossly the Biden administration had already departed from anything that could be reasonably be called "democracy."
Big question with the publication of the interview is why? There is a calculus going on here, I just don't know at what level. Has Yarvin and much of sf's crowd burrowed into the Cathedral (i.e. Synagogue)? Just look at its impact on the election. The Palihapitiya-Thiel-Musk wing is setting a new prestige tone for its own interests.
Or, does the NYT believe that the publication will inoculate its readership (and their 2nd and 3rd degrees of separation) against genuine anti-democracy sentiment? Carefully monitored and controlled before being presented point blank by intelligent and competent actors like Yarvin and sympathizers?
Wouldn't be surprised if both are going on to some extent. Lower level true believers getting anxious while management realigns.
Sorry to be cynical here, but I'm starting to get really paranoid about Yarvin's bid for eminence grise. Any realignment that is going on up top does not have the features of what I would consider the victory of my principles.
>>2479 > Sorry to be cynical here, but I'm starting to get really paranoid ... Any realignment that is going on up top does not have the features ...
It's fine to disagree with Curtis. I do, about plenty of things. But that doesn't mean there's some secret 3D chess going on. It just means other people aren't you.
I already said why I think they did the interview, and it's not some spooky calculus:
> I think the NYT chose to do the interview because they felt the subject could no longer be credibly ignored. ...
Some people have a tendency to try to spookify things they don't like. This is a cognitive failure mode we should resist. It suffices that we have enemies in the world who do things that are bad. We should work to defeat them, not read entrails about them.
>>2479 Its the election-related preference cascade. With trump winning as hard as he did, the mercenaries realized they would have to work with trump, the left realized they didn’t know how to oppose the right anymore, and the right realized they wouldn't be opposed by the left, so they hot bolder. The NYT is some mix of mercenary and left, and they are trying to hold on to their authority by reporting on what’s actually happening (at least a bit; they’ve been pretty irrelevant this year).
No need to hypothesize plots when everyone is just openly following their incentives.