Talk:Curtis Yarvin

Not a libertarian

Why is Curtis Yarvin listed in the sidebar as a "Libertarian Intellectual"? He's openly authoritarian and is explicitly hostile to libertarianism. For one example, he says at about 00:20:50 in this talk:

"Perhaps some of you in the audience, I hate to utter the word, are Libertarians. And one of the things that I often pose to libertarians is that, as an engineer and a silicon valley person in another life, I have to say that the most effective engineering project of all time was a government project. It was the Manhattan project." Portuni (talk) 19:25, 30 September 2024 (UTC)

Same with anything anarchic, monarchism is the opposite... 92.28.109.169 (talk) 18:44, 1 February 2025 (UTC)

Include mention of advocating for disbanding Academia/the Media?

@Roggenwolf has reverted this mention of Moldbug advocating abolishing existing Academia and media, citing personal knowledge of the subject despite the below quote from a 2022 Vox article:
Shut down elite media and academic institutions: Now, recall that, according to Yarvin’s theories, true power is held by “the Cathedral,” so they have to go, too. The new monarch/dictator should order them dissolved. “You can’t continue to have a Harvard or a New York Times past the start of April,” he told Anton. After that, he says, people should be allowed to form new associations and institutions if they want, but the existing Cathedral power bases must be torn down. Superb Owl (talk) 06:25, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Now that's a bit closer to a reasonable portrayal. I would fully agree to you inserting some version of it in the article.

If you write of "independent institutions", this unduly ignores the antecedent critique of the "cathedral" as the precise opposite. Roggenwolf (talk) 11:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Point well-taken on Yarvin disputing independence of those institutions - I added another version that more closley tracks the language in the source Superb Owl (talk) 17:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

Uncouth accusations

To whomever is concerned,

This article makes Moldbug out to be a dangerous extremist. In reality he has had many different ideas about how to to best realize his ideas and eventually settled on the moderate "Become worthy". He even endorsed Kamala Harris. To selectively cover some of the thousands of deliberate, typically ironic provocations, is very biased. He is no extremist that thinks political violence helps anybody.

Other than that concern, the article should contain some passing mention that NRx considers its politics to be totally mainstream when viewed historically. Monarchy was the historical rule, democracy was always temporary. Similarly, the first few sentences should clearly state that Moldbug considers the background to his ideas to be a "clown world" that is WAY more absurd than anything else. Monárquico1975 (talk) 17:07, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a reference for that "endorsed Kamala Harrris" claim? 92.40.217.186 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the late response. These sources come to mind to defend my assertions:

https://americanmind.org/salvo/the-clear-pill-part-1-of-5-the-four-stroke-regime/

https://graymirror.substack.com/p/bidenharris-2024

And per the “Become worthy, accept power, rule”, I only found one "reliable" source: https://vdoc.pub/documents/key-thinkers-of-the-radical-right-behind-the-new-threat-to-liberal-democracy-141r297l2eq8 Monárquico1975 (talk) 13:32, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

He endorsed Biden/Harris, not Harris vs Trump. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

Curtis Yarvin's philosophy and political leanings

Curtis Yarvin could be described as a neo-nazi and far right figure. The evidence is also clear that he and Land believe in accelerationism and hyper-racism. @FMSky please explain why these were reverted https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Curtis_Yarvin&diff=prev&oldid=1274047226 Summerfell1978 (talk) 14:22, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Please use a descriptive heading, not just his name. That is just the title of this article and tells us nothing about your concerns here. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 17:56, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Thanks! Updated. Summerfell1978 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

No response from anyone? So I will proceed with the change. If there are any objections please revert my edit and contribute to this discussion. Summerfell1978 (talk) 14:09, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

@Summerfell1978: I have an objection. Its against WP:UNDUE, MOS:FIRST, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, among others. And "hyper racist" isnt even a word --FMSky (talk) 14:16, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Irrelevant.

If you read the cited links you would know that hyper-racism is the ideology they promote. A significant chunk of Yarvin and Land's philosophy revolves around their term of hyper-racism. Whether you think it's a real word or not is irrelevant. If it's WP:UNDUE, please explain why it is undue. These are valid sources. Summerfell1978 (talk) 14:17, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

MOS:FIRST, WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, among others. And its not even mentioned anywhere in the whole article. New ideas go into the body of the article, not in the lead --FMSky (talk) 14:18, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

No problem! There are views on race in the body. I will expand on this and introduce it in the lead. Thanks for your support FMSky. Summerfell1978 (talk) 14:22, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

That still does not mean it should be in the lead. Did you even read any of the guidelines I linked --FMSky (talk) 14:23, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

The fact that a significant portion of his ideology revolves around race and right-wing authoritarianism, and a large chunk of the body is written about his ideologies, I would argue that yes, this is something important enough to add to the lead. Summerfell1978 (talk) 14:26, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

You also didn't explain why you don't want the literature on hyper-racism to be posted. You said it's not a "real word". Hyper-racism is a big component of his philosophy with Nick Land, they discuss the meaning of hyper-racism and their goals with advocating for hyper-racism. Summerfell1978 (talk) 14:27, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Put the new stuff in the appropriate sections in the body of the article and then we can see if it makes sense to put it in the lead FMSky (talk) 14:30, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I will add it to the body per your recommendation. But my edit in the lead is something new that I haven't edited before. The lead edits are a summary of his views on race, which are directly from the body. Summerfell1978 (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

considering your WP:NPOV claim on why I shouldn't post it, I won't add the citations and literature on hyper-racism. I will let people discuss it here first since you and I seem to have the only opinions so far. It wouldn't be fair, you're right. Summerfell1978 (talk) 14:46, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

I think calling this man a Nazi is clearly biased. He is ethnically Jewish, and, yes, that does matter here. Fascist is another label that is, quite frankly, just not productive. There are people who call him "techno-feudalist" and that's a derogatory term which at least describes his political thought a wee bit. Come on. Monárquico1975 (talk) 13:26, 15 February 2025 (UTC)

For clarity sake, can someone please quote all the text that is being currently debated in this subsection? I can't tell exactly what people want to include or exclude. Remember (talk) 17:31, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Originally, the problems began when I changed the intro to the following on February 2, 2025: "Curtis Guy Yarvin (born 1973), also known by the pen name Mencius Moldbug, is an American blogger, neo-fascist, and far-right white nationalist. He is known, along with hyper-racist Nick Land, for founding the anti-egalitarian and anti-democratic philosophical movement known as the Dark Enlightenment or neo-reactionary movement (NRx)." (the edit was what's bolded)

I added neo-fascist not as a perojative, as it is commonly thrown around to insult someone for being authoritarian, but various sources have stated that he indeed is a neo-fascist. His entire ideology is built off of original fascist writings. Hyper-racist is also not a term I created, this is a term that Nick Land has used profusely and is a large element in his philosophy. Yarvin could be viewed as a racist, the information listed on his wikipedia page is evident, however I don't think FMSky objects to it as I think we settled on something that neither of us find a problem with. I am perfectly fine with the intro being as it is now, we don't have to add neo-fascist or far-right white nationalist, even though there are strong tendencies and elements of both ideologies being heavily discussed and promoted in his writings. But I think we should discuss it further in the body, as it's obvious his ideology isn't dandy as simply a monarchist or feudalist, there are definitely sinister ideas that he has been criticized for, and I imagine due to his recent popularity a a result of youtube videos investigating him, people around the world are coming to Wikipedia to see what this individual is all about. Summerfell1978 (talk) 18:14, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

So the information that you want to add in the body is that he is: (1) "neo-fascist"; and (2) "far-right white nationalist". Is that correct? or did you just want a more thorough discussion around those issues in the main body now? Remember (talk) 20:42, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Elon Musk

Shouldn't Elon Musk be mentioned in this article? 96.28.65.49 (talk) 23:37, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

I see no evidence of any connection between the men soibangla (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)