How many wealthy techies I know in Silicon Valley who boast they have not read a book "since college." They read trade mags in their discipline but that's it. And yet they make strident opinions on everything going on everywhere. They stoke the fires of narcissism.
I would say it's more ignorance than narcissism, but you confirm what I've seen in my world. Not many read for the intellectual pleasure of learning much less for it as art and a broadening enjoyment of what's inside a piece of work.
Narcissistic people have a great deal of ignorance. It fuels their pathologies. The tech bros think they’re smarter than everyone else because they’re highly paid for their skills, but they might as well have gone to trade school (nothing wrong with that; I graduated from one a long time ago). When things go wrong, it’s the IT department who gets called, and we hang on tinterhooks until the problem is solved and we can get back to business. It’s similar to needing a plumber on a weekend. What they lack is a breadth of knowledge and context needed for actual critical thinking. We’ve elevated them to a vaunted status in society and thus, they get away with all sorts of stuff that won’t make much of a difference for society, but we’re conditioned to believe that it does because they’re wealthy and have a public forum.
Even worse are those that read a few, misunderstood anything and just took their stupid interpretations for granted, believing their advanced technical knowledge or high IQ score translates to their opinion on everything even unrelated to tech being golden.
Musk seems to be the King of this. I work in transportation planning and transit; Musk's ideas for the hyperloop and his Boring Company's work on the Vegas Loop and others are utterly absurd. Many engineers and transportation folk pointed this out over and over, and Musk flipped the bird at them. The operating and under-construction Vegas Loop is a pitiful tunnel full of Teslas, with low capacities and horrid wait times. Exactly as predicted.
Possibly worse is Musk's reading of Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, which you can find on YouTube in many many clips. Essentially we should create many, many, many thinking beings, because that is the way to find out which questions are worth asking.
The arrogance of the whole SV-Effective Altruism axis is breathtaking. Including the weird spinoff cults, like the Zizians. I'm East Coast and closer to the MIT mindset, which is properly skeptical of tech hype, although not cynical. Our attitude is Missouri: show me. I was a student at Stanford (around the same time Ted was around) when SV was NOT like this.
Bankman-Fried is natively very intelligent, but not well educated (in spite of his credentials). While misrepresentation and fraud are fair descriptions of what he did, the other charges are bogus--clear if you Michael Lewis' book about him. Lacking criminal intent, he and his sidekick Caroline Ellison were massively disorganized and had no interest in the mechanics of running an honest business--no org chart, no books or spreadsheets. However, the beneficiaries of the bankruptcy estate of FTX did make out, like well over a dollar on the dollar invested, because of the post-2022 rebound in crypto. The bankruptcy receiver did not understand a thing about what he was managing. Sam intuitively understood it in some brain-scrambled way, but not in a way that would satisfy a sane investor or an auditor.
Sam needs to be kept out of finance, not because he's a crook, but because he hasn't a clue of what he's doing. The most telling scene in Lewis' book is Sam's ignorance of how to put on a business suit--tie a tie, put on a matching belt, and tie the laces on a matching pair of dress shoes--all beyond him.
The Epstein case is just sad, sad, sad. I assume the proximity of the hot Polish and other E. European models helped to turn the heads of various otherworldly academics at those fancy schools in Cambridge (assuming none of them were in on the abuse and trafficking, which I think they weren't). Brilliant, ivory tower academics love nothing more than being listened to and taken seriously, even when they shouldn't be. Epstein was a master at playing this for respectability and insider status. Oy what a shanda! (Yiddish for scandal)
Would any of us care about these people if they weren't rich and powerful? You can't buy an idea. Now that Bezos and Zuckerberg et. al. are wealthy titans, isn’t it amazing that they have nothing to say? They are exceptionally rich, and in the realm of ideas, exceptionally ordinary. You can't throw money at this problem. So Bezos gave up on the Washington Post and pretends he is Notorious BIG cavorting on yachts, while Zuckerberg doubles down on his malevolent pain engine. Nothing else to do.
Look up each pseudo-oligarch Tech Bro\Sis adjacent to Sili Valley and search online their presence in Journalistic reportage in U.S. and beyond, blogs, Reader Comments, podcasts, Zoom Special Event hook-ups in Public Interest with Q&A open to non-membership audiences spanning continents and broadening participation beyond the oligarch or "Member" class and it will show you how far beyond "trade mags in their discipline" they read.
Also, as in the case of Curtis Yarvin of the Dark Enlightenment how far beyond the Greater\Lesser Sili Valley and Hong Kong communities behind Sili Valley is being thoroughly read, not merely referenced for intel points and extra credit with disengaged investors and their Wealth Management Portfolio managers.
You'll have to tune in to some of these online podcasts, read transcripts of community radio confrontations by idealistic (and cynical) indie journalists in among the accredited Corporate-Captured "beat" reporters....
"The Spread of Curtis Yarvin’s Ideology: Who Are the Puppeteers? (2)
Mihaela Raileanu
Apr 23, 2025"
"Yarvin’s ideology is no longer fringe. It’s influencing billionaires, shaping U.S. policy, and redefining what “freedom” means in the 21st century. This second piece explores deep into the mechanics of this takeover, and what it means for all of us."
"Part Two: Curtis Yarvin: The Philosopher Behind J.D. Vance | BEHIND THE BASTARDS
Robert concludes the story of Curtis Yarvin, and explains to Ed Helms how he went from pseudonymous weirdo with a blog to part of the right-wing power structure.
"What if the U.S. abandoned democratic governance for a CEO-style dictator — someone running the country like a high-performing company?"
"This idea is gaining momentum in some policy circles and is also embraced by high-profile Silicon Valley figures. Championed by Curtis Yarvin, a self-described monarchist and founder of the "Dark Enlightenment," Yarvin is making headlines for his promotion of these beliefs and was even consulted recently by Elon Musk about the formation of his new political party."
"He argues that modern democracy has failed and is too slow to meet today’s challenges. He says American history provides examples of unfettered executive power at work. The Dictator CEO, he proposes, would cut through red tape, challenge existing institutions and deliver unprecedented efficiencies."
"But critics, like economist and democracy advocate E. Glen Weyl, ask, "At what cost?" Consolidating power under a single leader undermines the core values of democracy fundamental to America’s political system. History is also filled with examples of autocratic leadership leading to economic ruin and catastrophic decision-making. American democracy might be messy, but let’s focus on making it better, not abandoning it."
"Should the U.S. embrace the cutthroat efficiency of a dictator CEO, or safeguard its imperfect but resilient democratic system?"
"With this background, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?"
"Arguing Yes: Curtis Yarvin, Anti-democracy theorist and Tech Entrepreneur"
"Arguing No: E. Glen Weyl, Co-Founder of the RadicalxChange Foundation, Plurality Institute, and the Faith, Family and Technology Network"
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
"What if the U.S. abandoned democratic governance for a CEO-style dictator — someone running the country like a high-performing company?"
"This idea is gaining momentum in some policy circles and is also embraced by high-profile Silicon Valley figures. Championed by Curtis Yarvin, a self-described monarchist and founder of the "Dark Enlightenment," Yarvin is making headlines for his promotion of these beliefs and was even consulted recently by Elon Musk about the formation of his new political party."
"He argues that modern democracy has failed and is too slow to meet today’s challenges. He says American history provides examples of unfettered executive power at work. The Dictator CEO, he proposes, would cut through red tape, challenge existing institutions and deliver unprecedented efficiencies."
"But critics, like economist and democracy advocate E. Glen Weyl, ask, "At what cost?" Consolidating power under a single leader undermines the core values of democracy fundamental to America’s political system. History is also filled with examples of autocratic leadership leading to economic ruin and catastrophic decision-making. American democracy might be messy, but let’s focus on making it better, not abandoning it."
"Should the U.S. embrace the cutthroat efficiency of a dictator CEO, or safeguard its imperfect but resilient democratic system?"
"With this background, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?"
"Arguing Yes: Curtis Yarvin, Anti-democracy theorist and Tech Entrepreneur"
"Arguing No: E. Glen Weyl, Co-Founder of the RadicalxChange Foundation, Plurality Institute, and the Faith, Family and Technology Network"
"Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates"
The reactionary blogger’s call for a monarch to rule the country once seemed like a joke. Now the right is ready to bend the knee."
By Ava Kofman
June 2, 2025
A person in front of a curtain. (Photo Image)
When you've steeped yourself in the background only summed up in the feature articles linked above, get back and consider joining the Q&A for sure to come exchanges with well-entrenched INFLUENCERS
(Curtis Yarvin profiled above and below was among the most influential policy and philosophy-behind-policy-Political Economy behind U.S. VP JD Vance well before any majority of the US Presidential electorate could explain who this candidate to be a heartbeat away from US President and Commander In Chief JD Vance was....)
What does Curtis Yarvin have to do with Sili Valley INFLUENTIAL BLOGGER who supports a transformational shift for U.S. Commander In Chief to be drawn from the CEO TECH BROS such as our current US VP JD Vance?
Helping brief those who want to get engaged in the selection of our "choice" of "Leaders."
See under: (Podcasts) Mass Communications, An Analysis of US Policy Options circa
Late 20th Century\First Quarter 21st Century breakthroughs in studies of Deep State with docs noted:
Follow Media Democracy Pod and others on SoundCloud.
"This week Tom and Dan are joined by Professor Christopher Simpson to talk about his 1994 book The Science of Coercion. We explore the drivers of innovation in coercive communication, its origins in the military and the ways in which its techniques and assumptions have bled into academia and business. We go on to talk about the state of the art in modern propaganda and about the communications challenges facing democratic and egalitarian politics."
As they always have failed. And will continue to fail if they survive at all (well ,some will for sure). Humans are fairly recent in the scheme of things. I figure if they are to survive they will need to evolve to continue & possibly lose some of their Beastly traits.
Quite sure some of the people talked about here (Techies & Super successful financial folk ,etc) actually believe they ARE evolved ,but really they have just been successful scamming large number of folks.
Both of them have the same flaw at their core. They both revealed that they are no better than a beauty pageant.
I suspect both will continue to flounder until accountability is incentivized and all the citizens of all these free countries stop needing to protest in order to get the government to act in the free citizens' best interests.
Yarvin is a farce, no doubt. I've read a few of his political musing. They're not even superficial. While Thiel is certainly a sharp investor and business type, once he's outside that scope of competence, he's confused at best--better than Yarvin, but not by much.
The essential mistake these neo-reactionaries all make is thinking that democracy is failing now and needs rescue by autocracy. In fact, democracy has been slowly throttled over the last 25 years by incompetent and self-dealing neoliberal technocracy, and it is *that* which is failing. The people who voted, in desperation, for Trump voted thus for such reasons, not because they wanted a dictator.
At the moment, it seems the twin metrics of money ($) and popularity (followers) are treated too seriously; a culture of status, not substance. Take Nicholas Carr, who called the alarm on social media during a time when it was virtual sacrilege to do so. He doesn't nearly get the respect he deserves for being so farsighted.
Nicholas Carr is great! His book The Shallows was one of the first books that shaped my views on what's going on with us and the digital media. He totally deserves all our respect
I'm so sick of seeing "news" stories that note that so-and-so has however many thousands of "followers" on whatever social media platform. And people are so desperate, or so bored, that they'll click on pictures of food.
Actually, great actors do tend to be very intelligent people, I’ve worked with many of them. But ability in one area can come at the expense of others.
Plus, intelligent people fool themselves in to thinking they know more than they do.
Haha. But seriously people do underestimate how bright actors are, thinking there a dumb people who just pretend to be other people. But they have great observation skills, memorisation skills and tend to be better read than you might imagine, the greatest ones are steeped in Shakespeare. Plus they are amazing thinking on their feet. So it fits more with Nassim Taleb, point about educated people lacking wisdom.
What got people wealthy was some deep but earlier insight. Often that insight runs out. And the insight, while powerful, is usually narrow and often doesn't translate into anything else. A wealthy person who does hit home runs again and again, like Warren Buffett, stands as an exception to the typical.
Here are some I listen to: Neil deGrasse Tyson, The four Moonshot intellectuals, Mo Gawdat, Ray Kurzweil, Charles Stross, David Sinclair, Heather Cox Richardson, and many more on this level. Most are wealthy because of their intellect, and Ted!
I live in Oxford, UK and what is striking is the number of recently built university buildings named after billionaires, some of whom had no prior connection to the university until their "philanthrophy". Leonard Blavatnik, Ratan Tata, the Reuben brothers, Stephen A. Schwarzman, Wafic Said... none of these could be considered intellectuals in the traditional sense, just very wealthy benefactor with controversial associations.
Admittedly this is not a recent development, as Cecil Rhodes (who did a single term at Oxford and did not complete his education) also infamously paid with his illgotten fortune to have his name associated with a scholarship and building at Somerville College with his statue.
I suppose Harvard should be glad they never opened a Jeffrey Epstein Center or established an Epstein Trust.
The Harvard Kennedy School has a building called the Taubman Center. Alfred Taubman was Les Wexner's mentor and Wexner was Jeffrey Epstein's mentor. Wexner gave more than $42 million to the Kennedy School, a nice chunk to establish and fund its Center for Public Leadership.
I’m not sure we can have another author like Eric Hoffer, a longshoreman, who could write a book on his observations of cult behavior without PhD or millionaire status.
Philip Adams is a public intellectual. Anand Giridharadas is a public intellectual. Melvyn Bragg is a public intellectual. Three examples from three countries and very different social backgrounds. Men who have dedicated their life and work to learning and questioning and discussion, instead of pontificating and being a pompous pain in the arse. None of the billionaire wannabe “I’ll comment on everything coz I’m rich” gits fit that bill, frankly.
Re: Howard Hughes; the man had OCD at a time when it was considered untreatable. He locked himself away and didn’t bathe because (not rationally) he feared germs from outside rather than his own filth. He had the money to live out his compulsions to the extreme, and he’s why the OCD stereotype in our culture is germs/cleanliness rather than, say, someone who obsessively reads the state law code online to make sure they haven’t accidentally committed an obscure misdemeanor, even if their rational mind tells them they shouldn’t be so viscerally anxious.
I just think that would be an important caveat to include before making comments about his reclusiveness/personal hygiene.
And to my fellow OCD patients: there’s help, but it’s not in regular talk therapy (which makes it worse). It’s ERP )and possibly Rx)
Most likely Hughes was so messed up not because of his money but the crashes he endured during his aviation career, especially the last one, presumably giving him what we now call "traumatic brain Injury" and possibly the OCD. He actually was an aviation pioneer.
While we're talking aviation, that expert pilot Charles Lindbergh didn't cover himself with glory for his sage evaluation of the Third Reich. The public noticed, too.
Small world department: my first boss's roommate at Cornell was Clifford Irving, author of the book which aroused Hughes.
A close friend of mine has OCD and definitely has a germ phobia, and that whole hand washing thing. You do not want to have OCD. The root emotion is fear.
Very interesting. I know several people who work or have worked for intellectuals producing “their” intellectual products for them. It seems today that a public intellectual is at most like a TV news host.
What's so puzzling to me is how much credence the public attributes to these rich faux intellectuals and their opinions or half-baked stances, when often the source of their immense wealth is mostly luck, or worse, nefarious means(Epstein being one, but SBF comes to mind as well). Nevermind the rich celebrities who seem to think their opinions on the world matter and are correct simply because they are rich and famous, but Ricky Gervais did a wonderful job discussing that.
I would say they do. Oprah mentions a book or diet, it does crazy numbers. Trump drives people crazy in different directions, on both sides, despite the emperor having no clothes. Hell, look at the streamer Emiru and all the hate she got for not stating her stance on ICE when first asked. Sure, I think MSM plays a huge role, but the overall public has a lot to do with it too.
Let's include Dr. Benjamin Spock, the baby doctor, who after becoming rich and famous, pontificated on every subject, most of which was bunk. Much of this comes from ignoring the 10th Commandment, "Thou shall not covet." Inequality, TV and the Internet has enabled us to identify the 1% and seek their advice on path replication. They offer advice on everything. We need to reduce inequality which would help the 1% be more humble, and the rest of us less covetous.
Linus Pauling (Nobel Prize winner in chemistry) went down a crazy rabbit hole with mega dosing vitamins. Which was at least somewhat related to his obvious expertise in chemistry and bio-chemistry. Still - not even relevant or adjacent expertise is always a sure-fire thing.
There are people out here that are dealing in the real world. No fanfare. No glitz. No crypto named after us. Yet, attempting to help others through this Wonderland.
All of it is just public relations and marketing. Pretty faces, and people who fit the part are always going to be profitable. Put them on TV and people will buy their books, and their bullshit.
I recall this quote because I'm writing an article about it. Kelsey Piper, a journalist writing for Vox said: "This is only the most recent example of a visible trend—books by prestigious and well-regarded researchers go to print with glaring errors, which are only discovered when an expert in the field, or someone on Twitter, gets a glance at them."
Even people getting published are only getting published because their is a profit motive, not because their claims are accurate or useful.
We used to have public intellectuals in the UK but that was mostly before my time. I’m 67. They weren’t typically from the self-educated working class as far as I know. For example, there was a radio show in the 1940s and 50s called “The Brains Trust” where a panel of academics (and some entertainers) would answer questions sent in by listeners.
In the 1960s and 70s we had TV series such as Kenneth Clarke’s “Civilisation” and Jacob Bronowski’s “Ascent of Man”. The equivalent TV series today are very lightweight by comparison and presented by people who may be academics but are selected more for being telegenic.
I think the problem is that today there is an inverted snobbery about being clever. Too many people wear their ignorance as a badge of honour and the media pander to this rather than challenging it.
"I think the problem is that today there is an inverted snobbery about being clever. Too many people wear their ignorance as a badge of honour and the media pander to this rather than challenging it."
I believe that is such a good statement and SO true.
How many wealthy techies I know in Silicon Valley who boast they have not read a book "since college." They read trade mags in their discipline but that's it. And yet they make strident opinions on everything going on everywhere. They stoke the fires of narcissism.
I would say it's more ignorance than narcissism, but you confirm what I've seen in my world. Not many read for the intellectual pleasure of learning much less for it as art and a broadening enjoyment of what's inside a piece of work.
Narcissistic people have a great deal of ignorance. It fuels their pathologies. The tech bros think they’re smarter than everyone else because they’re highly paid for their skills, but they might as well have gone to trade school (nothing wrong with that; I graduated from one a long time ago). When things go wrong, it’s the IT department who gets called, and we hang on tinterhooks until the problem is solved and we can get back to business. It’s similar to needing a plumber on a weekend. What they lack is a breadth of knowledge and context needed for actual critical thinking. We’ve elevated them to a vaunted status in society and thus, they get away with all sorts of stuff that won’t make much of a difference for society, but we’re conditioned to believe that it does because they’re wealthy and have a public forum.
"What they lack is a breadth of knowledge and context needed for actual critical thinking. We’ve elevated them to a vaunted status in society ..."
This and this and this.
Even worse are those that read a few, misunderstood anything and just took their stupid interpretations for granted, believing their advanced technical knowledge or high IQ score translates to their opinion on everything even unrelated to tech being golden.
Yes knowledge and expertise in one area means nothing in an other. I
The curse of the so-called autodidact.
Yeah, though it can affect even worse those with official education in a domain.
Somehow they think their PhD in X gives them full authority on Y and Z just as well...
Yes and yes! It’s loud and obnoxious.
Musk seems to be the King of this. I work in transportation planning and transit; Musk's ideas for the hyperloop and his Boring Company's work on the Vegas Loop and others are utterly absurd. Many engineers and transportation folk pointed this out over and over, and Musk flipped the bird at them. The operating and under-construction Vegas Loop is a pitiful tunnel full of Teslas, with low capacities and horrid wait times. Exactly as predicted.
Possibly worse is Musk's reading of Hitchhikers' Guide to the Galaxy, which you can find on YouTube in many many clips. Essentially we should create many, many, many thinking beings, because that is the way to find out which questions are worth asking.
The arrogance of the whole SV-Effective Altruism axis is breathtaking. Including the weird spinoff cults, like the Zizians. I'm East Coast and closer to the MIT mindset, which is properly skeptical of tech hype, although not cynical. Our attitude is Missouri: show me. I was a student at Stanford (around the same time Ted was around) when SV was NOT like this.
Bankman-Fried is natively very intelligent, but not well educated (in spite of his credentials). While misrepresentation and fraud are fair descriptions of what he did, the other charges are bogus--clear if you Michael Lewis' book about him. Lacking criminal intent, he and his sidekick Caroline Ellison were massively disorganized and had no interest in the mechanics of running an honest business--no org chart, no books or spreadsheets. However, the beneficiaries of the bankruptcy estate of FTX did make out, like well over a dollar on the dollar invested, because of the post-2022 rebound in crypto. The bankruptcy receiver did not understand a thing about what he was managing. Sam intuitively understood it in some brain-scrambled way, but not in a way that would satisfy a sane investor or an auditor.
Sam needs to be kept out of finance, not because he's a crook, but because he hasn't a clue of what he's doing. The most telling scene in Lewis' book is Sam's ignorance of how to put on a business suit--tie a tie, put on a matching belt, and tie the laces on a matching pair of dress shoes--all beyond him.
The Epstein case is just sad, sad, sad. I assume the proximity of the hot Polish and other E. European models helped to turn the heads of various otherworldly academics at those fancy schools in Cambridge (assuming none of them were in on the abuse and trafficking, which I think they weren't). Brilliant, ivory tower academics love nothing more than being listened to and taken seriously, even when they shouldn't be. Epstein was a master at playing this for respectability and insider status. Oy what a shanda! (Yiddish for scandal)
Would any of us care about these people if they weren't rich and powerful? You can't buy an idea. Now that Bezos and Zuckerberg et. al. are wealthy titans, isn’t it amazing that they have nothing to say? They are exceptionally rich, and in the realm of ideas, exceptionally ordinary. You can't throw money at this problem. So Bezos gave up on the Washington Post and pretends he is Notorious BIG cavorting on yachts, while Zuckerberg doubles down on his malevolent pain engine. Nothing else to do.
Look up each pseudo-oligarch Tech Bro\Sis adjacent to Sili Valley and search online their presence in Journalistic reportage in U.S. and beyond, blogs, Reader Comments, podcasts, Zoom Special Event hook-ups in Public Interest with Q&A open to non-membership audiences spanning continents and broadening participation beyond the oligarch or "Member" class and it will show you how far beyond "trade mags in their discipline" they read.
Also, as in the case of Curtis Yarvin of the Dark Enlightenment how far beyond the Greater\Lesser Sili Valley and Hong Kong communities behind Sili Valley is being thoroughly read, not merely referenced for intel points and extra credit with disengaged investors and their Wealth Management Portfolio managers.
You'll have to tune in to some of these online podcasts, read transcripts of community radio confrontations by idealistic (and cynical) indie journalists in among the accredited Corporate-Captured "beat" reporters....
https://www.cbc.ca/radio/ideas/the-dark-enlightenment-movement-big-tech-curtis-yarvin-9.7032441
"Ideas"
"The movement to ditch democracy in favour of start-up cities run by CEOs
Dark Enlightenment founder Curtis Yarvin says equating democracy with 'good government' is wrong"
"Tom Jokinen · CBC Radio · Posted: Jan 05, 2026 3:24 PM PST | Last Updated: January 8"
https://mihaelaraileanu.substack.com/p/the-spread-of-curtis-yarvins-ideology
"The Spread of Curtis Yarvin’s Ideology: Who Are the Puppeteers? (2)
Mihaela Raileanu
Apr 23, 2025"
"Yarvin’s ideology is no longer fringe. It’s influencing billionaires, shaping U.S. policy, and redefining what “freedom” means in the 21st century. This second piece explores deep into the mechanics of this takeover, and what it means for all of us."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/curtis-yarvin-profile
"Profiles
Curtis Yarvin’s Plot Against America
The reactionary blogger’s call for a monarch to rule the country once seemed like a joke. Now the right is ready to bend the knee.
By Ava Kofman
June 2, 2025"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rpEg4LS3CT0&t=369s
"Part Two: Curtis Yarvin: The Philosopher Behind J.D. Vance | BEHIND THE BASTARDS
Behind the Bastards
172K subscribers
4.6K
Share
158,538 views Sep 20, 2024 Behind the Bastards
🛎 If You're New Subscribe ► https://bit.ly/BtBSubscribe
"Part Two: Curtis Yarvin: The Philosopher Behind J.D. Vance | BEHIND THE BASTARDS
Robert concludes the story of Curtis Yarvin, and explains to Ed Helms how he went from pseudonymous weirdo with a blog to part of the right-wing power structure.
Original Air Date: September 19, 2024"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irc6creOFGs
Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator? Curtis Yarvin debates E. Glen Weyl
Open to Debate
280K subscribers
Subscribe
1.5K
Share
67,193 views Sep 5, 2025 #democracy #debate #dictatorship
"What if the U.S. abandoned democratic governance for a CEO-style dictator — someone running the country like a high-performing company?"
"This idea is gaining momentum in some policy circles and is also embraced by high-profile Silicon Valley figures. Championed by Curtis Yarvin, a self-described monarchist and founder of the "Dark Enlightenment," Yarvin is making headlines for his promotion of these beliefs and was even consulted recently by Elon Musk about the formation of his new political party."
"He argues that modern democracy has failed and is too slow to meet today’s challenges. He says American history provides examples of unfettered executive power at work. The Dictator CEO, he proposes, would cut through red tape, challenge existing institutions and deliver unprecedented efficiencies."
"But critics, like economist and democracy advocate E. Glen Weyl, ask, "At what cost?" Consolidating power under a single leader undermines the core values of democracy fundamental to America’s political system. History is also filled with examples of autocratic leadership leading to economic ruin and catastrophic decision-making. American democracy might be messy, but let’s focus on making it better, not abandoning it."
"Should the U.S. embrace the cutthroat efficiency of a dictator CEO, or safeguard its imperfect but resilient democratic system?"
"With this background, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?"
"Arguing Yes: Curtis Yarvin, Anti-democracy theorist and Tech Entrepreneur"
"Arguing No: E. Glen Weyl, Co-Founder of the RadicalxChange Foundation, Plurality Institute, and the Faith, Family and Technology Network"
Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates
Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates.
Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives.
"Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator? Curtis Yarvin debates E. Glen Weyl"
Open to Debate
280K subscribers
Subscribe
1.5K
Share
67,193 views Sep 5, 2025 #democracy #debate #dictatorship
"What if the U.S. abandoned democratic governance for a CEO-style dictator — someone running the country like a high-performing company?"
"This idea is gaining momentum in some policy circles and is also embraced by high-profile Silicon Valley figures. Championed by Curtis Yarvin, a self-described monarchist and founder of the "Dark Enlightenment," Yarvin is making headlines for his promotion of these beliefs and was even consulted recently by Elon Musk about the formation of his new political party."
"He argues that modern democracy has failed and is too slow to meet today’s challenges. He says American history provides examples of unfettered executive power at work. The Dictator CEO, he proposes, would cut through red tape, challenge existing institutions and deliver unprecedented efficiencies."
"But critics, like economist and democracy advocate E. Glen Weyl, ask, "At what cost?" Consolidating power under a single leader undermines the core values of democracy fundamental to America’s political system. History is also filled with examples of autocratic leadership leading to economic ruin and catastrophic decision-making. American democracy might be messy, but let’s focus on making it better, not abandoning it."
"Should the U.S. embrace the cutthroat efficiency of a dictator CEO, or safeguard its imperfect but resilient democratic system?"
"With this background, we debate the question: Should the U.S. Be Ruled by a CEO Dictator?"
"Arguing Yes: Curtis Yarvin, Anti-democracy theorist and Tech Entrepreneur"
"Arguing No: E. Glen Weyl, Co-Founder of the RadicalxChange Foundation, Plurality Institute, and the Faith, Family and Technology Network"
"Emmy award-winning journalist John Donvan moderates"
"Visit OpentoDebate.org to watch more insightful debates."
"Subscribe to our newsletter to stay informed on our curated weekly debates, dynamic live events, and educational initiatives."
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2025/06/09/curtis-yarvin-profile
The New Yorker
Newsletter
Profiles
"Curtis Yarvin’s Plot Against America
The reactionary blogger’s call for a monarch to rule the country once seemed like a joke. Now the right is ready to bend the knee."
By Ava Kofman
June 2, 2025
A person in front of a curtain. (Photo Image)
When you've steeped yourself in the background only summed up in the feature articles linked above, get back and consider joining the Q&A for sure to come exchanges with well-entrenched INFLUENCERS
(Curtis Yarvin profiled above and below was among the most influential policy and philosophy-behind-policy-Political Economy behind U.S. VP JD Vance well before any majority of the US Presidential electorate could explain who this candidate to be a heartbeat away from US President and Commander In Chief JD Vance was....)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curtis_Yarvin
What does Curtis Yarvin have to do with Sili Valley INFLUENTIAL BLOGGER who supports a transformational shift for U.S. Commander In Chief to be drawn from the CEO TECH BROS such as our current US VP JD Vance?
Helping brief those who want to get engaged in the selection of our "choice" of "Leaders."
See under: (Podcasts) Mass Communications, An Analysis of US Policy Options circa
Late 20th Century\First Quarter 21st Century breakthroughs in studies of Deep State with docs noted:
https://soundcloud.com/media-democracy-pod/26-coercive-communications-a-conversation-with-christopher-simpson
Follow Media Democracy Pod and others on SoundCloud.
"This week Tom and Dan are joined by Professor Christopher Simpson to talk about his 1994 book The Science of Coercion. We explore the drivers of innovation in coercive communication, its origins in the military and the ways in which its techniques and assumptions have bled into academia and business. We go on to talk about the state of the art in modern propaganda and about the communications challenges facing democratic and egalitarian politics."
Music by Makaih Beats.
https://soundcloud.com/media-democracy-pod/26-coercive-communications-a-conversation-with-christopher-simpson
Via
Mitch Ritter
Paradigm Sifters, Code Shifters, PsalmSong Chasers
Lay-Low Studios, Ore-Wa (Refuge of A-Tone-ment Seekers)
Media Discussion List\Looksee
Capitalism and Democracy didn’t fail. Humans did.
As they always have failed. And will continue to fail if they survive at all (well ,some will for sure). Humans are fairly recent in the scheme of things. I figure if they are to survive they will need to evolve to continue & possibly lose some of their Beastly traits.
Quite sure some of the people talked about here (Techies & Super successful financial folk ,etc) actually believe they ARE evolved ,but really they have just been successful scamming large number of folks.
Nah. Both Capitalism and Democracy failed.
Both of them have the same flaw at their core. They both revealed that they are no better than a beauty pageant.
I suspect both will continue to flounder until accountability is incentivized and all the citizens of all these free countries stop needing to protest in order to get the government to act in the free citizens' best interests.
Yarvin is a farce, no doubt. I've read a few of his political musing. They're not even superficial. While Thiel is certainly a sharp investor and business type, once he's outside that scope of competence, he's confused at best--better than Yarvin, but not by much.
The essential mistake these neo-reactionaries all make is thinking that democracy is failing now and needs rescue by autocracy. In fact, democracy has been slowly throttled over the last 25 years by incompetent and self-dealing neoliberal technocracy, and it is *that* which is failing. The people who voted, in desperation, for Trump voted thus for such reasons, not because they wanted a dictator.
At the risk of sounding like a typical Reddit "contributor":
"Epstein was given a keycard and passcode access to the facility for Harvard’s Program for Evolutionary Dynamics."
PED? Oh...
You can't make this stuff up.
and to its extended library of digital files, the "PED files"
He was also contributing to historical research related to swimwear, studying the so called "Speedo files".
🤣 yeah, I know, PED ... you can't make this stuff up. Epstein wanted extra credit for, shall we say, off-curriculum homework ....
At the moment, it seems the twin metrics of money ($) and popularity (followers) are treated too seriously; a culture of status, not substance. Take Nicholas Carr, who called the alarm on social media during a time when it was virtual sacrilege to do so. He doesn't nearly get the respect he deserves for being so farsighted.
Nicholas Carr is great! His book The Shallows was one of the first books that shaped my views on what's going on with us and the digital media. He totally deserves all our respect
I'm so sick of seeing "news" stories that note that so-and-so has however many thousands of "followers" on whatever social media platform. And people are so desperate, or so bored, that they'll click on pictures of food.
What a world.
Thanks for the Nicholas Carr rec. First I'm hearing of him.
I'm so glad the comment introduced you to his writing. I hope you enjoy.
His publication on Substack is called New Cartographies.
Time to dispel the myth that wealth always equals intelligence. That one failed us massively as a society.
And what makes anyone think that Hollywood celebrities are the smart ones?
Who said that, except people with the mental development of teenage fans?
Some of them are smart but most just Lucky or fortunate
Many are excellent actors. But that doesn't make them intelligent.
Actually, great actors do tend to be very intelligent people, I’ve worked with many of them. But ability in one area can come at the expense of others.
Plus, intelligent people fool themselves in to thinking they know more than they do.
In other words,, not so smart.
Haha. But seriously people do underestimate how bright actors are, thinking there a dumb people who just pretend to be other people. But they have great observation skills, memorisation skills and tend to be better read than you might imagine, the greatest ones are steeped in Shakespeare. Plus they are amazing thinking on their feet. So it fits more with Nassim Taleb, point about educated people lacking wisdom.
Idol worship. Just like with Trump/Musk.
What got people wealthy was some deep but earlier insight. Often that insight runs out. And the insight, while powerful, is usually narrow and often doesn't translate into anything else. A wealthy person who does hit home runs again and again, like Warren Buffett, stands as an exception to the typical.
We’re ready for a ‘Ted’s top 10 Substack intellectuals’ post!
Here are some I listen to: Neil deGrasse Tyson, The four Moonshot intellectuals, Mo Gawdat, Ray Kurzweil, Charles Stross, David Sinclair, Heather Cox Richardson, and many more on this level. Most are wealthy because of their intellect, and Ted!
Subscribe!
I live in Oxford, UK and what is striking is the number of recently built university buildings named after billionaires, some of whom had no prior connection to the university until their "philanthrophy". Leonard Blavatnik, Ratan Tata, the Reuben brothers, Stephen A. Schwarzman, Wafic Said... none of these could be considered intellectuals in the traditional sense, just very wealthy benefactor with controversial associations.
Admittedly this is not a recent development, as Cecil Rhodes (who did a single term at Oxford and did not complete his education) also infamously paid with his illgotten fortune to have his name associated with a scholarship and building at Somerville College with his statue.
I suppose Harvard should be glad they never opened a Jeffrey Epstein Center or established an Epstein Trust.
Oxford should at least have the building names pronounced with confusing phonetic additions and deletions i.e. Magdalen.
The Harvard Kennedy School has a building called the Taubman Center. Alfred Taubman was Les Wexner's mentor and Wexner was Jeffrey Epstein's mentor. Wexner gave more than $42 million to the Kennedy School, a nice chunk to establish and fund its Center for Public Leadership.
You should interview Heather Cox Richardson
Definitely and enthusiastically agree!
I’m not sure we can have another author like Eric Hoffer, a longshoreman, who could write a book on his observations of cult behavior without PhD or millionaire status.
Love Hoffer. I’m doing a book club for “The True Believer” next month.
Philip Adams is a public intellectual. Anand Giridharadas is a public intellectual. Melvyn Bragg is a public intellectual. Three examples from three countries and very different social backgrounds. Men who have dedicated their life and work to learning and questioning and discussion, instead of pontificating and being a pompous pain in the arse. None of the billionaire wannabe “I’ll comment on everything coz I’m rich” gits fit that bill, frankly.
Bragg deserves so much more recognition! I have so much respect for him.
Re: Howard Hughes; the man had OCD at a time when it was considered untreatable. He locked himself away and didn’t bathe because (not rationally) he feared germs from outside rather than his own filth. He had the money to live out his compulsions to the extreme, and he’s why the OCD stereotype in our culture is germs/cleanliness rather than, say, someone who obsessively reads the state law code online to make sure they haven’t accidentally committed an obscure misdemeanor, even if their rational mind tells them they shouldn’t be so viscerally anxious.
I just think that would be an important caveat to include before making comments about his reclusiveness/personal hygiene.
And to my fellow OCD patients: there’s help, but it’s not in regular talk therapy (which makes it worse). It’s ERP )and possibly Rx)
thanks for a thoughtful response.
Most likely Hughes was so messed up not because of his money but the crashes he endured during his aviation career, especially the last one, presumably giving him what we now call "traumatic brain Injury" and possibly the OCD. He actually was an aviation pioneer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Hughes
Something similar happened to Ernest Hemingway:
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/hemingway-and-his-wife-survived-two-plane-crashes-just-one-day-apart-180982884/
While we're talking aviation, that expert pilot Charles Lindbergh didn't cover himself with glory for his sage evaluation of the Third Reich. The public noticed, too.
Small world department: my first boss's roommate at Cornell was Clifford Irving, author of the book which aroused Hughes.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clifford_Irving
A close friend of mine has OCD and definitely has a germ phobia, and that whole hand washing thing. You do not want to have OCD. The root emotion is fear.
Very interesting. I know several people who work or have worked for intellectuals producing “their” intellectual products for them. It seems today that a public intellectual is at most like a TV news host.
Facts. 💯
What's so puzzling to me is how much credence the public attributes to these rich faux intellectuals and their opinions or half-baked stances, when often the source of their immense wealth is mostly luck, or worse, nefarious means(Epstein being one, but SBF comes to mind as well). Nevermind the rich celebrities who seem to think their opinions on the world matter and are correct simply because they are rich and famous, but Ricky Gervais did a wonderful job discussing that.
Does the public really care about what they have to say? Or it's just complicit "prestige" media making it appear so?
I would say they do. Oprah mentions a book or diet, it does crazy numbers. Trump drives people crazy in different directions, on both sides, despite the emperor having no clothes. Hell, look at the streamer Emiru and all the hate she got for not stating her stance on ICE when first asked. Sure, I think MSM plays a huge role, but the overall public has a lot to do with it too.
Part of the problem is most people overestimate their intelligence.
As a consequence they tend to overestimate the intelligence of the people who agree with them.
Let's include Dr. Benjamin Spock, the baby doctor, who after becoming rich and famous, pontificated on every subject, most of which was bunk. Much of this comes from ignoring the 10th Commandment, "Thou shall not covet." Inequality, TV and the Internet has enabled us to identify the 1% and seek their advice on path replication. They offer advice on everything. We need to reduce inequality which would help the 1% be more humble, and the rest of us less covetous.
Linus Pauling (Nobel Prize winner in chemistry) went down a crazy rabbit hole with mega dosing vitamins. Which was at least somewhat related to his obvious expertise in chemistry and bio-chemistry. Still - not even relevant or adjacent expertise is always a sure-fire thing.
Facts. 💯
There are people out here that are dealing in the real world. No fanfare. No glitz. No crypto named after us. Yet, attempting to help others through this Wonderland.
Now do one about TED Talks.
Or the 40 under 40.
It's everywhere.
All of it is just public relations and marketing. Pretty faces, and people who fit the part are always going to be profitable. Put them on TV and people will buy their books, and their bullshit.
I recall this quote because I'm writing an article about it. Kelsey Piper, a journalist writing for Vox said: "This is only the most recent example of a visible trend—books by prestigious and well-regarded researchers go to print with glaring errors, which are only discovered when an expert in the field, or someone on Twitter, gets a glance at them."
Even people getting published are only getting published because their is a profit motive, not because their claims are accurate or useful.
We used to have public intellectuals in the UK but that was mostly before my time. I’m 67. They weren’t typically from the self-educated working class as far as I know. For example, there was a radio show in the 1940s and 50s called “The Brains Trust” where a panel of academics (and some entertainers) would answer questions sent in by listeners.
In the 1960s and 70s we had TV series such as Kenneth Clarke’s “Civilisation” and Jacob Bronowski’s “Ascent of Man”. The equivalent TV series today are very lightweight by comparison and presented by people who may be academics but are selected more for being telegenic.
I think the problem is that today there is an inverted snobbery about being clever. Too many people wear their ignorance as a badge of honour and the media pander to this rather than challenging it.
"I think the problem is that today there is an inverted snobbery about being clever. Too many people wear their ignorance as a badge of honour and the media pander to this rather than challenging it."
I believe that is such a good statement and SO true.