Today, Explained - Trump’s dork philosopher

Episode Date: July 15, 2025

Curtis Yarvin began as an anonymous blogger arguing esoteric ideas about how America would be better off as a monarchy. He’s now the Trump administration’s favorite philosopher. This episode was produced by Miles Bryan, edited by Jolie Myers, fact checked by Laura Bullard, engineered by Patrick Boyd, and hosted by Noel King. Further reading: Curtis Yarvin's plot against America; Liberalism's enemies are having second thoughts. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. Transcript at vox.com/today-explained-podcast. Photo by Samuel Corum/Getty Images. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

It's Today Explained. What's going on, my boys and in some cases gals? Recently, one of you emailed us with this request. You've got mail. Hello. I am an avid listener, and I strongly believe you should cover the story of Curtis Yarvin. It's important to explore who he is and how he has influenced the MAGA and the Tech Bros movement. Curtis Yarvin is a very online far-right philosopher whose ideas include the fascinating, the esoteric, the absurd, the racist, and so on.

Six months into the Trump administration, there's evidence that he is influencing the MAGA movement and even President Trump. JD Vance knows him and likes him. Elon consulted him about this third-party idea. Yarvin can take some credit for inspiring Doge. And, as you'll hear ahead, one of Trump's most controversial, doesn't even begin to cover it, ideas may have come from Jarvin or someone who reads his sub stack.

I can almost guarantee you that Trump does not. Everything's computer. That's coming up. Support for this program comes from FM. Established nearly two centuries ago, FM is a leading mutual insurance company whose capital, scientific research capability and engineering expertise are solely dedicated to property risk management and the resilience of property loss is preventable, work with FM to better understand the hazards that can impact their business continuity to make cost-effective risk management decisions combining property loss prevention with insurance protection. At FM, we see what others don't, so we can help protect your business in ways others

can't. Learn more at FM.com and browse Site Unseen, our new microsite with opinion, research, and podcasts about hidden risks facing your business. Avoiding your unfinished home projects because you're not sure where to start? Thumbtack knows homes, so you don't have to. Don't know the difference between matte paint finish and satin, or what that clunking sound from your dryer is. With Thumbtack, you don't have to be a home pro. You just have to hire one.

You can hire top rated pros, see price estimates, and read reviews all on the app. Download today. This is Today Explained. Ava Kaufman, staff writer at The New Yorker, recently spent some time with Curtis Yarvin for her piece titled, Curtis Yarvin's Plot Against America. There was a detail in your profile that I thought was really fascinating. In the spring of 2024, Curtis Yarvin writes on Substack, let's expel Palestinians from

the Gaza Strip and turn it into a luxury resort. Then in February of this year, about a year later, President Trump makes this suggestion aloud. I don't want to be cute. I don't want to be a wise guy. But the Riviera of the Middle East, this could be something that could be so bad. This could be so magnificent.

Trump got all the attention, not surprisingly. but what are we to glean from that? Is Donald Trump reading Curtis Yarvin's Substack? I think Curtis was as surprised as anyone to see his proposal being taken up almost verbatim in this speech that, you know, as Trump's advisors later said, caught them by surprise as well. As far as he understands it, when kind of pressed, his ideas are kind of self-evident. Anyone who kind of sees the world as he does would of course come up with the same idea of kind of, you know, fully taking over a country, dispelling its inhabitants and linking

it to the blockchain and giving people a kind of meme coin. I realize that it seems improbable that we would both have the same crackpot idea. No, it is extremely probable because the president and I inhabit the same reality. We are both looking up and noticing that the sky is blue. Most people live in a crackpot world where the sky is green and our present Middle East policy is sane. Reality has started to seep into this crackpot world and the mixture is remarkable.

And, you know, Trump isn't reading Jarvin directly, but a lot of his advisors, maybe not his top advisors, but young people eager and working in the administration, I think Curtis calls them kind of lone wolves, are. And if you think that might makes right, the idea of a mass expulsion in this way might seem entirely plausible for both Yarvin and for Trump. So why is that? What is the appeal when there are so many guys online writing substacks? Why this one?

There is this kind of very simple story that he's offering people and he's part of this tradition of reactionary thought, which is at heart always a kind of simple story. If we can go back to the past, kind of things will be better. Curtis's version of the story kind of things will be better. Curtis's version of the story kind of goes like this. All people are not equal, therefore democracy doesn't work. It's a lie to assume it does. And if real people aren't equal in capability, you know, why should they have political power? The world is kind of run by unelected bureaucrats and cultural elites. Those who believe that our society should be ruled by prestige, by prestigious institutions,

by civil society are very, very against authority. But what you notice is that actually those institutions are quite unaccountable. Nobody elected Anthony Fauci. And if we could kind of replace this system with the systems we see in Silicon Valley that are bringing us things like the iPhone and Tesla cars and the cyber truck, we'd have a much more efficient system and a much more kind of competitive system. You've probably heard of a man

named Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Americans of all stripes basically revere FDR, and FDR ran the New Deal like a startup. And so what we need in contrast to the kind of sclerotic bureaucracy that we've been living under and been oppressed by, especially if we're bright young engineers who want solutions and not deliberation, is this kind of strong CEO leader. Jarvin believes that the United States should be a monarchy. This is like the thing that if you've heard Curtis Jarvin's name, this is what you know about him. He thinks we should have a king. What does he mean by that?

He wants someone who has absolute authority. And sometimes he calls this a king, sometimes he calls it a, you know, CEO monarch. He knows other people don't like the word strong man, but essentially what he's calling for is a strong man. I think you can learn a lot from Napoleon. His military strategy was perhaps a little aggressive, but Napoleon is perhaps the monarch who's most reminiscent of like a 21st century Silicon Valley CEO. In some ways, Napoleon is perhaps the monarch who's most reminiscent of like a 21st century Silicon Valley CEO in some ways. Napoleon is really a startup guy. And this would be someone who could abolish the courts and the rule of law, who could

transform the government into essentially a corporation, he calls it a SOV Corp, short for Sovereign Corporation, and who could get rid of the existing system almost completely. The idea is not to just kind of become the CEO of, you know, America 2.0, but to really kind of fire all civil servants to scrap the universities we already have and replace them with antiversities, to demolish scientific institutions and to restart from scratch. And this is because in Jarvin's view, all of these systems are so unsolvable, so corrupt and so broken, that nothing less than what he says, you know, a total reboot, you know, reboot should be in scare quotes, is adequate.

You know, a lot of conservatives sort of have these illusions that these institutions in some ways can be reformed or salvageable or you're just like, how do we get, you know, the Marxists out of Harvard or something like that, you know, which is basically sort of like, okay, you just invaded Germany. How do we get the Nazis out of the SS? His theory on leadership is more or less clear, even if you don't agree with it, even if you're like, no, we don't need a king in this country. But his theory on subjects is less clear.

Like he's repeatedly said that black people's lives were better under slavery. There's a part in your piece where he talks about how church blacks should rule over ghetto blacks. This is like bizarre stuff. But also there's kind of a, I don't know, there's kind of suggestion that he does have a theory of leadership, but he does not actually care very much about people. I think that's spot on. I found that human subjects and even the idea of a kind of human beings, I guess is actually a better way to put it, were largely absent in his work. It often felt like they were kind of sheep to be herded or idiots to be corrected or marionettes to kind of be controlled.

And when you think about that, that align kind of be controlled. And when you think about that, that aligns well with the theory in which, you know, you think this kind of benevolent strong man will be able to kind of take care of everyone. If you're not really thinking of people as people, perhaps that theory makes a lot more sense. There's a real kind of who is this for baked into this. The whole deal for Americans is the American dream, right? We have an idea of what ordinary Americans, all Americans should be able to achieve. And he's like, I just want to talk about the people who lead us. Which makes it even weirder to me that this somehow crossed over into the political mainstream. What happened? Yarvin has this blog. What he also has is a startup. He starts to commercialize it around

2012, 2013. At that time, he is pitching and meeting with some of the most powerful investors in Silicon Valley, some of whom have been reading his blog, like Peter Thiel, who first reads him, it seems like around 2008, maybe earlier, and they meet up around 2009. Another fan and early reader is Balaji Srinivasan, who goes on to become a general partner at Andreessen Horowitz. There's JD Vance, who, according to one source, was reading Jarvan's blog when he was kind of swimming in the very online soup as an undergraduate. President Trump's been in office for six months.

He's had time to get done a lot of the things that these young people in his orbit and more influential people like JD Vance want him to get done. So how do you think Curtis Yarvin feels about the way that things are going with the second Trump administration? So Yarvin is very quick to emphasize just kind of how disappointed he actually is with Trump. Huh.

Yarvin really wants to separate himself from what Doge and the Trump administration are doing, which he sees as kind of incomplete and imperfect because it's nothing like a complete radical full takeover of power. It hasn't gone far enough. I think he'd give the administration a kind of C minus and has said things to the extent of yes, it's 1% of a revolution, but 1% of a revolution is worse than no revolution at all because you're just going to provoke backlash if you don't go all the way and you're just going to encourage the resistance and you're

not going to have quash the resistance. And so for him, anything less than this kind of full reboot, to use his word, is inadequate, is disappointing, is something he even kind of holds in contempt. What is the future of this alliance, do you think, if Curtis Yarvin is looking at this and saying, Trump, you haven't gone far enough? Do we get JD Vance in four years going further? I don't know. I'm speculating.

You tell me. That's definitely what Curtis hopes for. I mean, in his initial prediction or wishlist, he actually wanted Biden to win again so that people could see just how broken the system was and then for Vance to take power in 2028 and to kind of rule with his far more, with greater finesse, I guess, than Trump might and that Trump does. I know he's really clear about what he wants and that if anyone else took the time to think about this, if people really said, you know, okay, I've grown up with just assuming democracy

is good, it has all these positive connotations in the way it's talked about. What if democracy is actually bad? They would end up on a similar path than he does. I think a lot of people get on board with his ideas because they find diagnosis, perhaps, to be accurate. If not, the prescriptions, you know, it's another question entirely. The New Yorker's Ava Kaufman coming up. Are you a little bit sick of all the anti-democratic nonsense? What if it's on the w candidate. Indeed says their sponsored jobs help you stand out.

According to data from Indeed, sponsored jobs posted directly on Indeed have 45% more applications than non-sponsored jobs. Plus, with Indeed sponsored jobs, I'm told there are no monthly subscriptions, no long-term contracts and you only pay for results. You might be wondering how fast Indeed is really. Well, according to them, in the minute that I've been talking to you, 23 hires were made on Indeed worldwide.

There's no need to wait any longer. You can speed up your hiring right now with Indeed. Listeners of this show will get a $75 sponsored job credit. To get your job more visibility at indeed.com slash Today Explained, you can go to indeed.com slash Today Explained, you can go to indeed.com slash Today Explained right now and support our show by saying you heard about Indeed on this podcast, indeed.com slash Today Explained.

Terms and conditions do apply. Hiring Indeed is all you need. Support for today's show comes from Vanta. If your mind can be blown by compliance automation, let Vanta blow your mind, says Vanta. Vanta is a trust management platform that says they help businesses automate security and compliance. Demonstrating trust to customers and prospects is critical to closing deal. I wouldn't know that's according to Vanta, but it can also be costly and complicated. Vanta says they help companies of all sizes, large, small, medium, get compliant fast and stay that

way with industry leading AI automation and that continuous monitoring you do know so well. So whether you're a startup tackling your first SOC 2 or ISO 27001 or an enterprise managing vendor risk. Vanta says their trust management platform makes it quicker, easier, and more scalable. Vanta also says they help you complete security questionnaires up to five times faster, which could help you win those bigger deals sooner. You can visit vanta.com slash explain

to sign up for a free demo today. That's vanta.com slash explained. Support for Today Explained comes from Upwork. Upwork believes that building a business comes with a lot of roadblocks, both financial and logistical. I would not know, I've not built a business, but Upwork wants to help you make things easier. Upwork says it is a hiring platform design

for the modern playbook. You can find, you can hire, you can pay expert freelancers on Upwork, and they say they deliver results from day one. It's built for businesses that are on tight budgets and fast timelines. There are no subscriptions, they say, or upfront fees, and you only pay when you hire.

If you've never tried Upwork says Upwork now might be the perfect time because they're giving our listeners a $200 credit after spending $1,000 in the first 30 days. $200 you can put toward hiring and paying your next freelancer. Perhaps you need design help, AI automation, admin support, marketing, whatever, so much more. You can go to Upwork.com. That's Upwork.com. Save to get a $200 credit towards hiring and paying your next freelancer to help grow your business. That's Upwork.com. Save. This offer is only valid June 24th through August 5th, 2025. This is Today Explained.

I'm Noelle King with Vox's Zach Beacham. Zach has been concerned about anti-liberalism for years. And we're not talking about liberalism like left-wing politics. We're talking about liberalism, the political philosophy that centers individual rights and freedoms. That's right. Yeah. In 2019, I wrote an article called the Anti-Liberal Moment.

And the argument here is not that liberalism was in trouble politically. I think that's something that's obvious and doesn't require an extensive discourse to point out. It's that liberalism is also in trouble intellectually. Is that in an area where it had long been dominant, right? There had been a high profile spate of anti-liberal arguments, arguments against liberalism's basic package of rights and freedoms and even democracy that had become increasingly prominent. And the liberals seemed kind of like they were on the back foot Trying to rebut and so I was worrying in 2019 that some of these ideas were going to end up there were anti-liberal

We're going to end up profoundly shaping our politics and even more so in an illiberal direction And I think to a degree that's been born out But and here's the twist the landscape in the intellectual realm is shifting and that's strikingly good news in that these people who seemed like they were setting the terms of the conversation in the world of ideas, right? Specifically here I'm talking about, you know, substacks, podcasts, magazines, the stuff of American public intellectual life, not necessarily the academy, which is its own thing. They're losing the prominence that they once had.

And it's not that people don't know who they are. They do and they take their ideas seriously. It's just that they're coming up with fewer new ones. They're getting less engagement. People are quitting their camps and declaring sort of that they're rediscovering the virtues of liberal democracy. It's this very subtle trend, but once I cottoned on to it, in my reporting it became unmistakable. Now let me give you an example of what this means. It may sound trivial, but it's interesting.

Is that David Brooks, who I think is sort of a bellwether for center-right opinion in the United States, had previously been really interested in the ideas of people like Vance and Patrick Dunneen. Professor of political science at the University of Notre Dame, Indiana, and author of the hugely influential book, Why Liberalism Failed. As the young people like to say, it's time to take the red pill,

we must see this jointly created, invented tradition of America as a fundamentally or solely liberal nation as a recent innovation that is in fact a departure from the actual American tradition. And then this May, he wrote a column about how furious he was at them because their ideas have provided the intellectual backbone to the cruelty of the Trump administration. Trump and Vance aren't just promoting policies. They're trying to degrade America's moral character to a level more closely resembling their own. And I'm not saying as Brooks goes, so goes the nation. I'm saying that if someone like

Brooks is turning away from them, that that's a sign of a broader movement in the ideas world, that ideas that were once sort of like fun to play around with and potentially interesting are starting to feel toxic because the Trump administration is showing what they look like when they're actually implemented. They look like building horrific prisons in Florida that are intentionally and openly cruel or sending people to a Salvadoran concentration camp without any due process. Video taken from inside the facility often shows prisoners tightly packed together with

their head shaved. Reports of mosquitoes the size of elephants, no water to clean yourself, and food that has worms in it. Those stomach-churning details come from an inmate inside the new Florida immigration detention center known as Alligator Alcatraz. These basic violations of core liberal premises are turning mainstream opinion, mainstream intellectual opinion, away from taking these post-liberal ideas as sort of like a fun thing to engage with and more seeing them as kind of harbingers or handmaidens of evil.

And even inside the post-liberal movement, you're seeing a crack up of some of the people inside it. One really striking thing in my reporting was that Sora Mamari, who is the sort of journalistic face of this movement, has abandoned some of its core premises. He wrote an essay last year about how he had decided that American democracy was actually worth fighting for and excoriated Catholics like him, the post-liberal movement's heavily Catholic, who had rejected American democracy's core premises. And when I spoke to him, he told me that he now believed that the current system that

we have is the best that's achievable in his lifetime. And for someone who once wanted to damn the liberal order to hell, his words, paraphrased, because he was so upset about the prospect of a drag queen story hour in Sacramento, that's, I mean, that's a massive turnaround and a sign that something is happening. And when you asked him why, why the turnaround, did he say because Alligator Alcatraz? Like what is, what is he upset about? Saurabh's story was a little bit different than Brooks's, right?

It's not that he's abandoned social conservatism, but he also was somebody who had come to believe, as many post-liberals do, in fact, it's a core part of the movement, that the government also needed to be more interventionist in the economy, redistributing resources away from the wealthy towards the needy, as Catholic social doctrine says you need to. Well, I mean, look at what the Trump administration has done

in that area, right? Look at their big legislative accomplishment, which is like a giant upward redistribution of wealth. Another thing that is really important for him is that you have what he terms the barbarian right, which I believe would include Yarvin and also other people who had said explicitly racist things, you know, people who are obsessed with race and IQ, that kind of thing. And those people are out competing the post-liberal right for the sort of soul of young people. Now in the, in the sort of right wing MAGA movement, now that is in some ways that's bad, right? Like these are really, really horrible ideas

and it's bad that they're gaining influence. But they're also ideas that are intellectually uncompelling to really smart people. Say more, say more. I mean, I don't know. You just did a lengthy segment on Yarvin with a reporter who had done an extraordinary job exposing how shallow his ideas were, how glib and poorly thought out they were.

And that's to say nothing of the sort of obvious cartoonish racism of some of these internet right wingers or someone like Nick Fuentes. When I went to Charlottesville and we said Jews will not replace us, it seems like the message is finally getting out there. So I don't want touch. I want a relationship. You know what I want? Total Aryan victory.

Right. Who's not an intellectual, right? That's too dignifying. He's just a gutter anti-Semite, a neo-Nazi, right? Nobody, nobody like David Brooks is going to be taking Nick Fuentes seriously. Nobody at universities is going to be writing, hmm, a consideration of Nick Fuentes' ideas. We're debating him the way that even Yarvin got a respectful hearing with Daniel Allen, right? And I think even that was too generous. But these are

not ideas that are going to win the future of the American intellectual scene. And so that doesn't mean that like American politics is out of the woods, but it means the American intellectual landscape is looking different. That is to say the most compelling right wing set of ideas, challenging liberalism, post liberalism is on the decline and the things that are replacing it are not intellectually respectable. Is it really on the decline because JD Vance is the vice president. David Brooks may be like, I'm no longer into it in the New York Times, JD Vance is the vice president. David Brooks may be like, I'm no longer into it in the New York Times. JD Vance is the vice president, Zach.

Is that decline? So this is why I want to draw a sharp distinction. I've tried to in this conversation between politics and intellectual life. So I'm talking about a decline in the intellectual realm, not in the political realm. When something's dominant politically, that doesn't mean it's dominant intellectually, right? And I even hesitate to say that the post-liberal movement is dominant politically. Like they have people in positions of power, like fans. What are they accomplishing?

Right? They're not getting their economic doctrine. It's not clear how much they're winning over people's hearts and minds. They have a degree of power and influence at the Trump administration, which is shaping policy in the directions that other forces in the Trump administration also wanted to go for the most part. But having access to power temporarily does not mean winning a durable stranglehold on the Republican Party, let alone the heart of the United States.

And to really get what they want, a wholesale transformation of the political system, you either need to wield so much power in the short run that you can lock in basically an authoritarian transformation of the US state, or you persuade people in the long run. And you know, I don't see it. In fact, I see that path increasingly being denied to them. Through their own actions. In fact, ironically, due to their short-term proximity to power in large part. Because if the Trump administration is as toxically unpopular

as its poll numbers look, and they're looking worse and worse every second I look into it, there's a real chance that this administration ends up discrediting post-liberalism in the way that the second Bush administration discredited neoconservatism. And so, well, that doesn't mean hawkishness is dead, Trump just bombed Iran. Nobody wants to be called a neocon anymore.

It's a slur. It's something that is seen as synonymous with the disastrous war in Iraq. And if the Trump administration ends in disaster or even just severe unpopularity, you can easily see the same thing happening with post-liberalism. Vox's Zach Beecham. You can find his work at vox.com. Miles Bryan produced today's show and Jolie Meyers edited. Patrick Boyd and David Tattaschor are our engineers.

Senior researcher Laura Bullard played the role of listener and checked the facts. I'm Noelle King. It's Today Explained. With LPL Financial, we provide the services to help push you forward. When it comes to your finances, your business, your future, the only question should be, what if you could? Paid advertisement. Anna Kendrick is not a client of LPL Financial LLC and receives compensation to promote LPL. Investing involves risk, including potential loss to principal LPL Financial LLC member

FinRAS IPC. Support comes from service now. We're for people doing the fulfilling work they actually wanna do. That's why this ad was written and read by a real person and not AI. You know what people don't wanna do? Boring, busy work. Now with AI agents built into the ServiceNow platform,

you can automate millions of repetitive tasks in every corner of your business, IT, HR, and more. So your people can focus on the work that they wanna do. That's putting AI agents to work for people. It's your turn. Visit ServiceNow.com.