The mainstream press finally discovered Curtis Yarvin and added him as another item on the list of Trump disasters. An interview in the New York Times conducted in such a hostile manner that one didn’t actually get any of his ideas, another interview in Politico (which is very interesting), a longer article in the Guardian, and chatter all over the place.
A political philosopher who calls himself a neo-reactionary and subscribes to the “dark enlightenment” school of thought actually fits perfectly into the liberal image of Trump. Especially since Yarvin is additionally quite critical of the current form of democracy and openly calls for a personal dictatorship (he uses the term “monarchist regime”).
But Yarvin is not one of the long line of theorists who criticize democracy on the basis that the majority is supposedly not intelligent enough or not moral enough, cannot judge what is good… and therefore should rather be ruled by a select elite. Yarvin notes something different. The set of institutions that is now called liberal democracy is clearly not conducive to the will of the people being enforced. Even in those cases where there is a clear and long-term majority (e.g. against migration), it does not prevent completely different decisions from being taken. So we are looking for a different model. And Yarvin proposes a society with a director who has a clear mission (to increase welfare, security, the value of national wealth, etc.) and who also has all the necessary powers.
Does this increase the risk of nonsensical policies being enforced or people being punished for disagreeing with the government? It is certainly interesting that this concern is most shared by those who call for the enforcement of nonsensical policies and who call for severe punishments for disagreeing with the government.
