I do not hide the fact that I consider Curtis Yarvin the best contemporary analyst of political power — perhaps even the best in the past century.
However, that does not mean that everything he writes can be considered relevant to our own situation, and there are several reasons for this:
-
Curtis Yarvin clearly cannot imagine the situation of a small nation.
-
Yarvin’s model entirely excludes the possibility of outside interference in domestic politics. In the United States, such interference is unthinkable, and he shows little interest in other countries — or, where he does, his knowledge is extremely superficial.
-
Yarvin appears completely unaware of the existence of Soviet-style regimes — that is, conservative nationalist regimes with state-controlled economies. In his worldview, every form of socialism is inherently progressive.
-
As a result, he is unable to conceive of a conservative left. He rightly recognizes that the American combination of populist rebellion and free-market fanaticism is destructive, but he offers no alternative.
-
Yarvin is apparently unaware of Hungary as an example of how the power of a liberal oligarchy can be broken — Hungary being often cited as a model of so-called illiberal democracy, a term popularized by Prime Minister Viktor Orbán to describe a political system that combines democratic procedures with a strong nationalist and culturally conservative agenda.
-
And the one major weakness in his thinking is a tendency to carry every idea and principle to its ultimate logical conclusion. In real life, however, many things play out only halfway.
All of this means that Europeans — especially those living in small nations — must adapt Yarvin’s ideas and insights to their own environment. This does not, however, diminish their brilliance.