Most people don’t know who Curtis Yarvin is. So why did The New York Times decide to mainline him right into their readers’ veins?
It’s not just progressive Times readers who are unfamiliar; even among the Right, Yarvin is still relatively unknown. He is a tech nerd turned right-wing blogger who built up a small online following in the 2000s. He gained some broader exposure in the Trump era, with a viral allegorical essay on what he calls the “Cathedral“— the decentralized system of progressive rule where elite “elves” run roughshod over our very own American “hobbits” — taking him almost mainstream. However, despite appearances on Tucker Carlson Today and The Charlie Kirk Show and his (reported, but likely exaggerated) influence on JD Vance, Yarvin’s “neoreactionary” theories on “monarchy” and the “Dark Enlightenment” remain relatively obscure.
What these very online buzzwords all amount to is a general hostility toward democracy — in a real way, not what Democrats shriek about Republicans on the campaign trail. Proudly anti-democratic, Yarvin is, in fact, quite radical. Presumably, the progressive editors of The Times would rather see him thrown in a gulag than give him the platform for a long-form interview, complete with an artsy photoshoot. So what gives?
Now, the interview was mostly a hit job; you can read it, but you won’t glean much. It seemingly aims to dissect the general thrust of his beliefs while ensuring he doesn’t get the opportunity to expound on them, and God forbid, change anybody’s minds. But still, it is a mainstream acknowledgment that Yarvin, and more importantly, his beliefs, are out there floating in the intellectual ether.
The best way to deal with a man like Yarvin is to ignore him entirely. That is, until it’s perceived his influence has reached a critical mass. At that point, you must engage, feigning an offense that’s really a defense. So, as the gatekeeper of elite opinion — the Cathedral, in Yarvin’s terms — that’s exactly what The Times did. The interview is an implicit acknowledgment that real change is coming, that it must. Tinkering on the margins is no longer sufficient. There’s too much disillusionment, the status quo is unsustainable. Those institutions invested in it will soon have to fight for their lives.
Change probably won’t come as an elvish monarchy, but The Times is right to feel that their days of lording over the realm are coming to an end.
This article was originally published at dailycaller.com
