Jump to content

Talk:Curtis Yarvin

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Not a philosopher

[edit]

Philosophy is a college educated degree bearing field. Yarvin has no training. This is like referring to RFK as a medical doctor.

Why are you people pretending Yarvin is a philosopher? Is this because Nick Land was made a philosophy teacher, also with no philosophy background, by a C rate british school for two years before he was fired?

"Philosophy" is not a term of respect. He has no philosophy training of any kind. He's not a philosopher and shouldn't be being treated as if he is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:871B:B200:91D0:326F:B8E:9B76 (talk) 14:40, 20 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Written like a real college educated degree bearer 192.253.209.108 (talk) 08:39, 6 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Not a libertarian

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

Include mention of advocating for disbanding Academia/the Media?

[edit]

@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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Uncouth accusations

[edit]

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)[reply]

Do you have a reference for that "endorsed Kamala Harrris" claim? 92.40.217.186 (talk) 13:14, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
He endorsed Biden/Harris, not Harris vs Trump. Doug Weller talk 13:54, 15 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"He is no extremist that thinks political violence helps anybody."
The guy who wants to overthrow democracy and replace it with a tech-bro dictatorship is, in fact, an extremist. Just because he crosses his heart and hopes to die that he isn't doesn't change the fact that he is. It's clear that you have sympathies with him but these are not "uncouth accusations," it's his own words. Billie Lean (talk) 23:07, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Curtis Yarvin's philosophy and political leanings

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Thanks! Updated. Summerfell1978 (talk) 18:14, 5 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
1. I'm not sure why you think being Jewish somehow overrides his blatantly Neo-Nazi rhetoric. 2. Fascist is a label in the same way liberal and conservative are labels. If they are applicable, they should be applied. 3. It seems you really want to make this guy into someone he isn't because he himself openly supports a techno-feudalistic system. Again, these are all his own words. Please stop arguing in bad faith. Billie Lean (talk) 23:14, 18 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Curis Yarvin is quote literally "far-right", "racist", and a "techno-fascist" but that doesn't make him a neo-Nazi. Racists come in many flavors, if that makes sense. The KKK aren't neo-Nazis. But they are racist. Agreed that him being Jewish is somewhat of a red herring, though. People can be "neo-fascist"[1][2] or racist regardless of their religion or ethnicity. 1101 (talk) 05:49, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That's not really a distinction I care to make in the talk section. A white nationalist is a white nationalist, and that's what I put in my original edit. Billie Lean (talk) 20:21, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
and where's your source for that? --FMSky (talk) 20:36, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
just because someone says they're not a white nationalist doesn't mean they aren't. you should read his writings, it's quite evident that he is. He is a racist and I'm not using it as a pejorative. Summerfell1978 (talk) 20:51, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
FIND 👏 A 👏 FUCKING 👏 SOURCE 👏 FOR👏 THAT👏 --FMSky (talk) 23:38, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You ok there buddy? The source that was provided is directly a link to his blog. He's a blogger. How much more of a reliable source do you want than him explicitly writing in his blog that the civil rights movement is a "black rage industry" and a youtube clip of him at a conference explicitly saying Hitler did the actions he did as a result of "self-defense". Lol that's insane. Please let me know. Really. Summerfell1978 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 00:02, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
The neo-fascist and far-right white nationalist parts.--FMSky (talk) 00:05, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
"Hyper-racism" does not mean the same thing as "ultra-racism" or something. Yarvin is also not the same person as Nick Land. These two have, in fact, disagreed about basic matters of policy in the past. Summerfell does not seem to be very familiar with Yarvin's work. Monárquico1975 (talk) 22:05, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
racist quotes
He literally believes in the White genocide anti-Semitic conspiracy theory. But, unfortunately, we can't add that information to Wikipedia until journalists catch up with his coded language. Here's some quotes from him:
In Fjordman’s model, we see two groups: White and Swarthy. White people, or at least some of them, are gripped by some mysterious masochistic urge to self-destruction. If Whites unite, accept even just the slightest touch of White nationalism, and act collectively, they can defeat the anti-White neo-Communist Swarthy jihad that otherwise threatens to devour them all. This is Yarvin's view of white nationalism, and the reason he disavows it—not because he's anti-racist, but because he thinks White nationalism is lacking in analysis and tactics. This also shows that by "groups" or "sides" he means races.
In my model, there are not two sides but five. Three of these sides are white, two are swarthy. And we see no mysterious masochism at all, just the usual hominid struggle for factional dominance. One of the white parties (Brahmin) is ganging up with the two swarthy parties (Dalit, Helot) to apply a good old-fashioned whupping to the other two white parties (Vaisya, Optimate). Just another afternoon of nasty on the History Channel. This is his view, as he states at the beginning of the paragraph. Now, this idea of the race-traitor "Brahmin" corresponds to Jews. He believes in two white races, the Jews and the Aryans. He believes that the "Brahmin" are intellectual, manipulative race-traitors. This is the classic White genocide conspiracy theory.
There is another way to see white nationalism: as a strategy to motivate the OVs to rise up, cast aside their false consciousness, and throw off the Brahmin yoke. He seems to imply an endorsement of white nationalism here.
If it’s possible, this is an even worse idea than the lie-down-with-the-lion plan. What was the Second World War, if not an OV rebellion? Did it work? Even if it had worked, would it have been an improvement? Um… This is where he knows he can't say yes. The WWII mention makes it somewhat clear who the Brahmin are to him.
The hate expressed by BDH or blue-state intellectuals, from Noam Chomsky to Al Sharpton, has a peculiarly smug and contemptuous tone which is instantly familiar to any student of the 20th century, and it leads me—despite my Brahmin upbringing—to side instinctively with the OV faction. Noam Chomsky and the author are both Jewish.
Likewise, animosity, when expressed from higher to lower, appears as contempt. Expressed from lower to higher, it comes out as resentment. No one could possibly mistake these emotions for each other.
Yet Brahmins have a hard time engaging with this comparison. And they also have a hard time seeing that the genocidal outcomes of intercaste animosity tend to spring not from contempt, but from resentment. National Socialism, for example, was driven by the animosity of Mittelstand, Vaisya Germans for cosmopolitan Jews—resentment in a nutshell. The massacre of the Tutsis was pure resentment. And yet Brahmins, as they inveigh against “hate,” and as they root out any traces of Optimate or Vaisya contempt with the wiccaphobic fury of their Puritan progenitors, seem to put an awful lot of energy into cultivating Dalit resentment. Here he opines that Nazism was driven by V against B. V being the side he sympathizes with and B being Jews, cosmopolitans, elites, liberals, Marxists, etc.
1101 (talk) 23:35, 20 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Elon Musk

[edit]

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

I see no evidence of any connection between the men soibangla (talk) 00:34, 14 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be very safe that Yarvis' writing has influenced Musk. For example Musk has talked about red pills, a term Yarvin brought to the political discourse.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/27020752 Tpheiska (talk) 15:07, 23 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I see a very clear connection between DOGE (Department of Government Efficiency) and RAGE (Retire All Government Employees) 1101 (talk) 05:08, 5 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Probably not, although there an ideological connection between them [8]. My very best wishes (talk) 01:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 26 February 2025

[edit]

Add three children to official bio Fromfairest (talk) 07:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added to infobox. Children are sourced in body. Schazjmd (talk) 15:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

[edit]

@FMSky has been reverting sentences with valid sources, regarding Yarvin's statements such as Hitler did what he did as "self-defense" and that the civil rights movement is a "black rage industry", from a Youtube video of him explicitly saying it, and a directly link to his blog, respectively. She claims they are not valid sources. But the evidence can't be better than directly showing evidence of Yarvin explicitly saying those quotes. It is difficult to edit this page when she keeps reverting everything that she doesn't like. I just wanted to ask other users what your solution is to this, or what we can do to make everyone happy. She also wrote "FIND 👏 A 👏 FUCKING 👏 SOURCE 👏 FOR👏 THAT👏" above in the Talk, which I found to be odd, considering the sources are literally Yarvin making those statements.

The most current edit, undoing it for no reason. https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Curtis_Yarvin&diff=prev&oldid=1281532732 Summerfell1978 (talk) 00:08, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the comment including profanity from FMSky was somewhat inflammatory, but FMSky is a longtime contributor and I think it's best to tone down the rhetoric because I believe you both have good intentions. I've made a list of adjectives we might be able to use instead:
And I don't think FMSky is wrong to ask for citation, if a bit hasty in removing content rather than simply changing the adjectives or adding the citation needed template. Now is the time for sourcing and deëscalation. 1101 (talk) 00:23, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Another thing to note is you can include quotes in citations, and consider moving quotes from the lead to the body in order to avoid undue emphasis. 1101 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
anti-democratic, right-wing, pseudo-fascist, pro-authoritarian I can agree on because Yarvin is all of these things. If someone opposes please reply, otherwise I will proceed with adding it. I will wait for all responses because I don't want an edit war. Summerfell1978 (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We would need a reliable source to confirm these contentious claims, like stated 37 times already --FMSky (talk) 00:28, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And then we would need to see how he is most commonly referred to in reliable sources --FMSky (talk) 00:53, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

@Talib1101: I dont think labels like far-right should be just thrown into the lead when its mentioned nowhere else in the article (WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY) and especially when only a single source refers to him as that. --FMSky (talk) 02:14, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we should use the adjective "far-right" more frequently in the body of the article. Thank you for bringing that to my attention. Here are the sources that should help us make that improvement:
1101 (talk) 02:29, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I just saw the alt-right section, which is basically the same as far-right, so its probably a due descriptor for the lead --FMSky (talk) 02:35, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No worries — I think it actually motivated me to revise the article more than I otherwise would've. The edits you reverted did have some issues; I'm glad I was able to fix them before reädding some of that content back to appropriate parts of the article. Thank you, both of you, for bringing this potential dispute to my attention and I'm glad I was able to aid in preventing it via sourcing/reworking the more contentious epithets into scholarly descriptors frequently used by reliable sources. 1101 (talk) 02:49, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I'm happy we came to an agreement. But User 76.78.141.99 undid all of your recent contributions @Talib1101 Summerfell1978 (talk) 07:15, 21 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure who is supposed to have come to an agreememt here. I, for one, strongly disagree with Sumerfell. There seems to be an almost desperate push to add maximally negative labels to Yarvin's article. Neither helpful nor accurate. Monárquico1975 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Curtis_Yarvin&oldid=1282514904"