Mr. Curtis Yarvin, in his latest post, positions himself as a lonely prophet who has finally seen the obvious—the false nature of our modern narrative. While the sentiment that established narratives can be hollow is one I share, Mr. Yarvin’s delivery quickly turns his pronouncement of “truth” into a gated fantasy, accessible only to him and a select few.
The Grandiose Cloak of the Self-Appointed Monk
Yarvin begins by wrapping himself in a cloak of intellectual superiority. To declare a “truth is only available to the most advanced atheists and the most advanced Christians,” or to suggest his critics’ mission is “as far beyond its reach as algebra is beyond a cat,” is not insight—it is simple elitism. It’s the rhetorical posture of the self-appointed enlightened monk, or the ‘heavenly scholar’—a most grandiose pose for a blogger in North Carolina, indeed.
The shift to Biblical language—”The Father of Lies” and “The Lord of Hosts”—is especially telling. It infuses his secular argument with an unwarranted, almost messianic gravity. This isn’t a humble search for clarity; it’s a deliberate effort to establish an intellectual hierarchy where his voice reigns supreme. When he relies on “off the record” testimony, it only underscores that his conviction rests more on faith in his own exceptionalism than on verifiable evidence.
Blind Spots: Billionaire Power vs. Partisan Battles
The intellectual edifice collapses entirely when he addresses the true levers of power. He views global policy trends, such as his thesis on US-Soviet “convergence,” through a narrow partisan lens, declaring them a purely “Democrat purpose.” This demonstrates a mind firmly closed off to the full reality of capital. The notion that organizations like his ‘Ford Foundation’ are primarily driven by one political party is simply naive. The goal of a single-party world, or a structure that ensures continued elite control, is not a Democrat or Republican project; it is a billionaire idea. It is the enduring agenda of the super-rich who desire maximum profit with minimum expenditure on the common people who do the labor.
His defense of the Kochs—that they are “interested in liberty, not power”—is where his political analysis truly fails. Power and the ability to wield it is their liberty. The Kochs, like other oligarchs, want the freedom to accumulate capital and not have to spend it on the people who actually produce the wealth. They seek to limit government so that their economic power is unfettered. Mr. Yarvin, in his hatred of the ‘liberal’ bogeyman, is willingly becoming a useful puppet, blinded to the fact that his strings are being pulled by the very billionaire power he should be exposing.
The Normalization of Extremism and the Lack of Accountability
When Yarvin dismisses the January 6th insurrection as “a normal antigovernment demonstration in a normal country,” he demands that we accept a ridiculous absurdity. January 6th was not normal. It was an assault on the peaceful transfer of power, and the insistence by the MAGA intellectual class to sweep this under the rug speaks to a profound lack of accountability for actions that defy democratic norms.
Furthermore, his constant misinterpretation of empathy is a most tiresome and intellectually lazy form of political combat. If his cohorts were interested in finding common ground or had policies that appealed to a broader majority, they might win votes instead of being forced to constantly fight against the electorate. Respectful debate is how you build a coalition; throwing slurs is how you build a wall.
The Final Hypocrisy: Christ and the Cathedral
The entire trajectory of his argument is revealed in his conclusion. He claims to want to dismantle the institutions—the “Cathedral”—yet he boasts of traveling to Yale, one of its absolute heights. Was the institution so terrible when he was denied a seat at the table years ago, and so now he must rage against what denies him? The image is one of a “doctor listening to the heart of a cancer patient” while standing inside a gated community, far removed from the actual patients in the common ward.
His final line is the straw that breaks the camel’s back: “My brothers in Christ: you cannot even imagine what winning looks like.”
This is the very essence of his obtuse and callow hypocrisy. After pages of intellectual superiority, he uses the language of Christ—a figure who did not help the wealthy and did not serve the mighty—to condescend to his readers. He is the elite intellectual telling the common person they cannot imagine what “winning” looks like, simply because his version of winning involves the wholesale destruction of the institutions that might inconvenience the powerful. Mr. Yarvin does not speak the truth; he speaks a gated fantasy. And like any good builder knows, a foundation built on such a flimsy concept cannot stand. The idea will not flourish, and for the sake of the republic, it is one that must be abandoned.