Face Off: Christopher Rufo vs Curtis Yarvin

Note from the Editors: The following essay is part of our dialogues seriesconducted via written exchanges – which aims to bring together the best minds to analyze and debate controversial issues in-depth. This debate was prompted by a series of critiques from Curtis Yarvin over the past 12 months aimed towards Christopher Rufo and his strategy, the last of which following the recent publication of Rufo’s manifesto “The New Right Activism” contained in our fourth print edition: “Counterrevolution: The Coming Storms“.

Christopher Rufo & Curtis Yarvin debate the American Revolution, Power, Strategy, and more

Yarvin: A conservative is someone who thinks our national story has gone off the rails. The windows are closed, but he feels a terrible bump and clatter under his seat, and a most untrainlike tilt to the passenger carriage. Everything is in slow motion. He cannot avoid the feeling that he is no longer traveling into the future – but plunging, terribly, into some unfathomable ravine.

If you are a conservative, whether you have asked yourself this specific question or not, you must have some idea of (a) when our country went off the rails, (b) how far we are from those rails, and (c) what kind of political force would be required to get us back on track.

Most conservatives’ instinctive answer is probably: (a) maybe 1963 or so, (b) not far, and (c) a conventional railway crane – a Republican President, House and Senate, and a Supreme Court majority. No RINOs or squishes please! With this gear and a good engineering team, free from grifters, cowards, climbers, neocons, etc, we can hoist the locomotive back on track, make Washington work for America again, and keep traveling toward our real destiny.

I am not a conservative. I am a radical – a radical monarchist. I believe there are no rails – and never were any. America has no manifest destiny. Her constitution was not divinely inspired. No special providence was involved in her founding, nor has she discovered any unique principle of human governance. Nor can any theory of historical determinism, whether liberal, Marxist or libertarian, explain, predict or guarantee her future – which, like all future history, is a contingent and unwritten blank page in the hands of men only.

And while she is indeed plunging into a ravine, every realistic way to save her starts with centralizing all sovereign power in a single person – or at most a small team. This historically normal political structure is the appropriate way to terminate a failed experiment in political science, which appeared to work only because it started off with an amazing population in an empty continent on the threshold of an industrial revolution.

Rather, I believe, America is an ordinary country with an ordinary government. Even its form of government – an institutional oligarchy – is historically unusual but is hardly unique. Due to the compounding rise of technology, we are at a unique point in human history – but nothing at all has changed about political science. In fact, Aristotle would understand us better than we understand ourselves.

From this standpoint, let me explain my attitude to you and your political work. I believe you’re doing something useful – but it is not useful in the way you think or seem to think. It is not useful because it is simply disproportional to the problem. It is useless to pass a law that bans discriminating against white people, for instance – we already have such a law. It is called the Civil Rights Act of 1965. In a nation with maybe a million diversity professionals, it is useless to get eleven staffers laid off from the University of Florida, or even to convert a low-grade hippie college into a lower-grade baseball college. (Whose bright idea was that?)

Up close, these must seem like huge and unprecedented achievements – and they are! On the relative scale established by 90 years of increasingly feeble resistance to the real American constitution – the informal personal monarchy of Franklin Roosevelt, changed by his death into a permanent and unaccountable oligarchy – they are a break in the trendline. But on an absolute scale, they are still nothing.

The conservatives, when they feel the bumps under their seats and realize the train is not on rails, feel each bump as a problem to be solved. DEI is a problem to be solved. Mass migration is a problem to be solved. The fentanyl epidemic is a problem to be solved.

Yet not only are the conservatives’ solutions wildly, fantastically disproportionate – by orders of magnitude – to these problems, they are not the real problems. They are only symptoms of the real problem – that our country is lost in history. There are no rails. There never were any. 

But your quixotic, but energetically and even brilliantly conducted, fight against just one of these symptoms, in which even when your sword goes home and sinks to the hilt, you only demonstrate what a pinprick it is to this Brobdignagian monster, serves a different purpose. You are not defeating the enemy. You are only revealing it – showing everyone that the monster is real, and brave and capable men can fight it. Let us learn to fight it well – and let us learn to make it show its face. I complain, but I do not know of – for now – a better way.

Rufo: Let’s begin by clearing up some misconceptions. First, we have different objectives. Your goal seems to be accelerating the cycle of regimes from democracy to monarchy. My goal is to halt and reverse political decomposition and return to the beginnings of the republic — counter-revolution.

We also have a deep disagreement over the nature of history. You argue that there are no rails, no destiny, no divinity, and nothing beyond human contingency. This nihilistic argument creates considerable problems for you because it eliminates all possibility of making normative judgments. What is the ground of your convictions? What is the telos of your political system? And, if America is ordinary, contingent, and accidental, why care about its future at all?

My conviction is that there is a logical structure to human nature and, consequently, a structure of political order. The American founders were not ordinary politicians, but men of extraordinary vision and virtue who solved the core political problem posed by classical political philosophy and thereby created the most secure, free, and virtuous republic in history, with unprecedented innovations in commerce, technology, and the arts. You ridicule the category of “problems to be solved,” but pragmatism is the Anglo-American political spirit.

I see in your pessimism an excuse for inaction. I am grateful that you recognize that my work is valuable in “revealing the enemy” and that “brave and capable men can fight it.” This is enough. I have no illusion that my work alone will topple the regime. But I am doing what I can to contribute to that possibility in the future. Small victories yield new insights and open up new lines of action. Politics is not an abstraction; real-world fights generate greater practical knowledge than idle fantasies.

You sneer about “eleven staffers laid off at the University of Florida,” which I cannot help but find puzzling. In fact, we abolished all public university DEI departments in multiple states, poisoned the concept of DEI in the realm of public opinion, and sent the private DEI industry into contraction, with prominent firms slashing DEI programs to the bone. This is only a beginning, of course, but there will always be a beginning — and it is better to fight, win, and build in small succession than to speculate about some future cataclysm.

American history teaches us that every revolution, or counter-revolution, begins with a “break in the trendline.” Well into the 1770s, Samuel Adams and the Sons of Liberty despaired that the fight with the Crown would never come. But they patiently seeded the ground, disseminated their propaganda, established their small conspiracies, and drew the British into a series of dramatic fights. It was because of that work they were ready when the moment came able to turn a triviality — three hundred crates of spilt tea — into a world-historical event.

You assert that you’re a radical. But who is really the radical here? As we both know, the word “radical” means striking at the roots, which is earthly, tangible, physical work. Your work, while providing valuable concepts and metaphors, is not grounded in experience. It is ethereal, rather than earthly; literature, rather than politics. You are not digging to the roots, but grasping at clouds.

I am a “conservative,” but not in the way you imagine. I use the label as a convenient way to position myself in the political debate, but I am neither conservative by temperament, nor by political ambition: I want to destroy the status quo, rather than preserve it. But I am not so naive as to think that it can, or it should, be destroyed all at once. There are principles and elements deeper in the structure that hold profound truth. And I believe that excavating and reanimating those principles is what we should be doing.

Yarvin: Chris, you were a liberal in your 20s, right? Or at least your teens? There’s no shame in it. If I’m wrong, at least I know you worked for PBS, so you know the mindset.

You realize, I hope, that when you were a liberal, you were lost in the liberal myth. You were just as smart as you are now. But your present history of the world you lived in was just plain nonsense. It was Plato’s cave. 

This narrative, which of course most people like us are still just as trapped in, is one in which it is impossible to think logically. Any real plan made within this false narrative will come to pure disaster, because its calculations will fail – like trying to build a rocket within a physics engine in which 2+2=5.

But somehow, you believe you have a perfectly clear historical picture of – the 1770s? This is like saying that since you successfully walked up Mt. Tamalpais, Everest will be no problem. You are confident enough in your narrative to make it the basis of real-world plans which you are selling seriously to serious people. Let me hit you over the head with just how huge a mistake this is.

If this historical picture is not a picture of reality “as it actually was,” if it is instead a myth, your whole campaign is nothing but a grift. Most grifters are grifters not because this is what they want to be, but because their grift depends on some false assumption that they avoid looking into themselves. They have simply failed to test themselves deeply enough.

Chris, in this conversation, I will give you the historical tools to test your false assumptions. It is up to you whether to use them – and if so, what to do with that.

TLDR: it was a breakthrough for you when you realized that it wasn’t that leftism needed to be fixed, it was that leftism was wrong. Then it was another huge breakthrough for you when you realized that Nelson Mandela was actually just a leftist. Then it was another huge breakthrough for you when you realized that Martin Luther King was actually just a leftist. Notice how you’re exiting from a series of nested Plato’s caves.

But you think you’re done, don’t you? I want to see the expression on your face when you realize that Samuel Adams was actually just a leftist. 

Here is your first tool: a debate between Samuel Adams and John Adams. (I actually like John, perhaps the only President who was a true statesman.) It’s in English. It’ll take you a half hour to read. Don’t you think it’s worth it? Since you are putting all your chips and everyone else’s on reanimating Sam Adams, Beer Guy, don’t you think it’s worth actually getting to know him directly? Along with another American hero and HBO superstar?

My view is: John, who is obviously on the right side of this argument about the theory of government, totally destroys his distant cousin Sam, who is obviously on the left. Does this text not speak to you? Long S and all? If it does not… I despair.

Moreover, I find it disturbing and deranged that you seem to equate the revolutionary Sons of Liberty left-wing politics, with all the revolutionary terrorist cell stuff you love so much (you see how well larping that worked on January 6th) of the 1770s, with the reactionary Federalist right-wing politics of the 1780s – Sam Adams with John Adams. Um… they were both centered in Boston? What do you think went on there? 

You are so confident of this historical example that all your practical designs for the real world hinge on it – and yet your understanding of the period seems inferior to, say, the average Brazilian’s knowledge of American politics today. In fact, in your 18th-century history, you don’t even seem able to tell left from right

This level of historical understanding is the pole star that is guiding us? That is going to turn back the tide and keep America from becoming the Third World? I say to you, on behalf of all your donors, fans and supporters – what the hell, Chris?

As you must know, America went through two republics in the late 18th century: the Articles of Confederation (1777-1789) and the Constitution (1789-present? 1789-1861? 1789-1933? 1789-1965? Take your pick I guess lol). 

Question: beyond its military leadership, do you know anything about the first American republic, other than that it failed? Who were the political leaders of the Congress of the Confederation? Who was the first President, for instance? Why did it fail? Why do you think this period has been utterly bleached from modern American memory? (My American inspiration for regime change: the reactionary coup that shut down the old Congress and created the Constitution. 1780s politics is not 1770s politics!)

And there is always a Plato’s cave around the Plato’s cave. Do you think John Adams skins his cousin alive? (Bear in mind that this is an older, chastened Sam Adams – think Bill Ayers the education professor, not Bill Ayers the terrorist.)  Try this 1770s debate between John Adams (on the left) and Jonathan Sewall (on the right).  You’ll see Adams gets completely owned himself. 

Try this refutation to the Declaration of Independence (on the left) by Thomas Hutchinson – the greatest American statesman of the 18th century (on the right). And Hutchinson is neither a Jacobite, nor a Catholic! You, a right-winger, have never read a right-wing history of the American Revolution. Try this one by Sydney Fisher, from 1903. Neighbor, you are in for a treat!

You don’t have time? Oh, you have time to use your narrative of the period, which is ancient leftist garbage with a weird Harry Jaffa neocon 20th-century egg-wash, as the leading star of your program. But you don’t have time to look into whether this historical novel has anything to do with reality – or whether you just think your big plans will work because something like them worked in Dune, or Spiderman, or Paw Patrol.

Even everyone’s two favorite American statesmen, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams, cover this territory in their incredible exchange of letters 40 years later. Jefferson asks: “Who can ever tell the story of the American Revolution?” Adams is like: “Nobody.” Why? Because everything public was propaganda! Then as now! What did you think? Do you think Goebbels invented propaganda? Chris, you unbelievably innocent person. You are pretty shrewd in the 21st century, I grant it – but once we turn the time dial back to the 18th, you make Forrest Gump look cynical.

But then Jefferson and Adams both agree that this history, by Carlo Botta, a moderate post-Napoleonic liberal, written in the style of Thucydides, is good. And it is! It’s not Fisher, but can you at least maybe read Botta – before you keep going off on 18th-century history, as if you just completely knew you knew what you were talking about? Remember when you used to think that way about Dr. King? Is it so hard to understand that Sam Adams is just another mythic hero with two left feet of clay? Protip: the American Revolution was basically the Vietnam War in the 18th century – and you’re currently inhabiting the Jane Fonda position. 

This is what I meant by “lost in history.” It’s actually more like stoned on history. When you reread your response above, doesn’t it seem to blossom with a vague and glorious haze, like Obama’s autobiography, wafting from the windows of a broken-down VW Beetle?

And you believe not only that the political narratives of the 18th century were true and worked (and worked as designed, not despite themselves) for them, but that they also will work for us. Jesus! Nurse, I’m going to need the Thorazine, stat – no, the big vials…

Do you have any idea how different the Americans of 2024 are from the Americans of 1774? Don’t you know that the most basic principle of constitutional theory – one thoroughly shared by the Founders themselves – is that no constitution is adequate for all peoples? Or am I wrong? Maybe Haiti could use our Constitution and its principles, too? Golly gee! Why hasn’t someone tried that? Call the Clinton Foundation! You are simply on crack.

It is easy to ask yourself if you are using history appropriately or not. If you are using history appropriately, the people in that history would, if brought to the present time, approve of the way they are being represented. 

I am pretty sure that if you could bring any of the Founders on a tour of 2024, they would agree that the regime they saw had nothing at all to do with the regime they invented – except perhaps inasmuch as it falsified all their theories. Certainly if they had to choose between George III and this, they would go with George III. Shit, they would probably go with Henry III. And you’re taking their names in vain?

As for your achievements, here is a simple way to evaluate them. What would you do if you had absolute power? What percentage of that have you achieved so far? How many orders of magnitude is it from 100%?

Here is another example. You must be aware that “woke” is a synonym for “progressive.” You probably even know that “progressive,” at least after 1930 or so, meant what Leslie Fiedler – dean of the liberals – defined it as in 1953: “communist or sympathizer.” 

And “communist” in American political discourse has a special meaning, a member of the party, which means nothing today or in any other party. No one today could speak of a “fascist or sympathizer,” or even a “Trumpist or sympathizer” – since neither is an existing revolutionary organization. Somehow, we all use the communist meaning of communist. Forget about this pretzel logic, forget the long-defunct history of centralized American communism, and “progressive” just means “communist.”

Therefore, your struggle against “wokeness” is precisely paralleled by Joe McCarthy’s fight against “communism.” Now: compare the achievements of McCarthyism to yours. Compare his situation – here is the full passage from Fiedler (in his essay on the Rosenbergs), describing the “progressive” articles of faith of the 1950s:

“The belief that the state and its courts are always wrong; that the bourgeoisie is always wrong; and especially that the United States, the bastion of capitalism, is always wrong – with the corollaries that no Negro, Jew, or ‘progressive’ (i.e. Communist or sympathizer) can ever be anything but innocent.”

So: McCarthy lost. He was utterly destroyed. And what did McCarthy have on his side? The state. The courts. The FBI. Now, in “progressive” theology, these institutions are always right, because all of them have been completely captured. What is your plan to take them back? You would only get to where McCarthy started out – and McCarthy lost

What we see with these “victories” is that, since they are victories only in name, all they do is make the enemy change its name – like James O’Keefe’s “victory” over ACORN. Question: is there anyone who you got fired who is actually, right now, looking for work? You could check…

I reiterate that it is all in vain, and it will have exactly the same long-term impact as Ward Connerly’s crusade against affirmative action or Anita Bryant’s war on gays. For every faceless drone you fire, you activate and energize the equivalent of ten more. You are just pruning the forest.

Rufo: Brushing aside your insults in search of your argument, I cannot help but notice you make multiple errors of fact and employ a shallow, one-dimensional conceptual framework. For example: the Civil Rights Act was passed in 1964, not 1965; Samuel Adams was a Puritan maltster, not a Marxist brewer; in fact, the concepts of “Left” and “Right” did not emerge until after the French Revolution, so your conceptualization of the American Revolution — which I believe is better described as a counter-revolution — is obviously ahistorical, similar to “reading Shakespeare through a transgender lens,” and no more illuminating.

The main problem is you look at history ideologically. You assess events against a single axis, separating “leftists” from “rightists,” and measuring individual figures against your abstract political formula. I prefer to look at history holistically and critically, across multiple axes, recognizing ambiguities and tensions. In different ways, and for different reasons, I admire Samuel Adams as well as John Adams, Thomas Paine as well as Edmund Burke, Thomas Jefferson as well as Alexander Hamilton. The American Revolution, like all historical events, was a mixture of forces, personalities, and ideas, which, seen as a totality, I believe was a force for good. You seem to disagree.

Your historical method also seems to confuse the nature of victory and defeat. You amuse yourself by condemning the “losers” of history, yet you celebrate George III, who lost the War of Independence, as well as the royalist governor Thomas Hutchinson, who was chased out of his home, humiliated in the colonial press, and finally self-deported back to England. You acclaim Hutchinson’s supposed “refutation of the Declaration of Independence,” but did you notice where he wrote it? London, England. While the American founders were charting a novus ordo seclorum, your man Hutchinson was impotently whining and complaining at home — an archetype for which, I can appreciate, you might feel some kinship.

Now let us transport ourselves forward to the twentieth century. With enough italics to make one seasick, you say that Joseph McCarthy lost; he was utterly destroyed. But McCarthy won. He sacrificed himself for the republic, yes, but if we look at the twentieth century as a whole, America was still the last “asylum for mankind.” McCarthy, Nixon, Burnham, and others held back the movement of communism in America, which could have easily turned out differently. You denigrate the historical American regime and express a desire for a true sovereign who rules with an iron fist. So, which twentieth-century state earns your ideological favor? Germany? Russia? Some tribal monarch in the heart of Africa?

I have never believed that the principles of our Constitution can be realized by all people, at all times — and neither did the American founders. But I do believe that the principles of 1776, reinterpreted in the light of history and reanimated in the public spirit, can still guide us, the people who established them, into the future. You would have us believe that America today has no continuity with the America of the past. You pose as a grand historian, a sage in a leather jacket, but you foolishly assume that 250 years is a long period of historical time and cannot bear a continuity. I think that is shortsighted and defeatist.

It seems to me that your attempts to prove your cleverness betrays a lack of wisdom — the higher virtue. Always, incessantly, you claim to care about power, about absolute power. Yet you speak mostly of debate, in a highly rhetorical, even juvenile, way. You write that John Adams destroyed Samuel Adams, that Thomas Hutchinson refuted Thomas Jefferson, and that Jonathan Sewall completely owned John Adams, as if political history was a bad YouTube playlist. Is this the way you think it works?

Let’s be real. You claim to have immense ambitions — although you don’t seem inclined to elaborate on them — but what are your practical accomplishments? My record is well-documented. If you permit me a moment of immodesty, my work has mobilized public opinion, launched a grassroots movement, inspired a presidential order, ousted the president of Harvard, recruited a cohort of billionaire defectors, pushed the DEI complex into contraction, and changed the law in every red state, some of which have restricted left-wing race and gender theories in schools, abolished DEI in universities, and instituted universal school choice statewide. This work is admittedly tentative and incomplete, but it has initiated a real shift in culture, law, and governance that might, with continued effort, provide a pathway for a “return to the beginnings of the republic.”

What about you? What is your practical politics and what have you done toward achieving it? If your ideas have thus far been unable to win and govern a local school board, why should we assume that they can govern a complex nation?

Forgive me, but I cannot help but suspect that your manic combination of grandiosity and fatalism is an excuse for inaction. You are waiting for the cataclysm, rather than patiently building the conditions for concrete political action. You have set up a series of false dilemmas, and then praise yourself for not falling into the trap. For example, you accuse me of not having fired any DEI bureaucrats and then, in your very next sentence, argue that my having fired DEI bureaucrats will simply spawn more. Here is the logical conclusion of your philosophy: “If you fight your enemies, they win.” Is that a fair description?

I hope in your closing, you will come back down to Earth. What is it you want and how will you accomplish it?

Yarvin: Where did you read me as condemning history’s losers? My history is a loser’s history. I like to be right. History’s losers are usually in the right. And they always think they are. Why else would anyone fight a war they could reasonably expect to lose? Why, for that matter, are you a conservative? Do you know the name “Sam Francis?”

Your abuse of history continues. You attribute the outbreak of the Cold War, a 1940s phenomenon, to McCarthyism, a 1950s phenomenon! You “prefer to look at history holistically and critically, across multiple axes, recognizing ambiguities and tensions.” GPT-4 much? As far as I can tell, you do not know anything about these periods, you have never read any full books from them, and you probably never will. Maybe Claremont fed you a few excerpts? 

The revolutionary nature of the Revolutionary War is not subtle, complex, or in dispute. If you prefer a 20th-century treatment, try Gordon Wood’s Radicalism of the American Revolution. I’m sure Harry Jaffa was a wonderful philosopher. He was no historian, and it shows. Don’t even start me on his Civil War.

Yes: I am saying that fighting for fighting’s sake is retarded. The only reason to fight is to win. Don’t compare your victories to nothing, Chris! That’s the grifter way. Compare them to winning

If you have no picture of winning, you are a grifter. If you do have a picture of winning – what percent of that picture have you achieved? Another good test of impact: if I didn’t read any media at all, would your actions have changed my direct experience of the world? Any impact below this level is not felt but can only be measured. In other words, it is negligible.

You think you have a picture of winning. On any close inspection, it dissolves into myths and absurdities. Your future is the same cheap vinyl as your Paw Patrol history. My future is dirty and expensive and came off the back of a cow. Try it when you’re tired of getting wet.

Do you want to repeal the Civil Rights Act of (yes lol!) 1964? To end anti-white discrimination? Great. You’ll find it already bans anti-white discrimination! Now that’s winning! But to win even more – why not a “Simon says I mean it” law? What is it with those liberal judges, anyway? Maybe the Internet can convince them to come to their senses?

An even better historical test for your real-world achievements: measure them next to Anita Bryant’s anti-gay crusade from the late 70s. You don’t think Anita Bryant drove legislation? You don’t think she had dinners with billionaires? That she even got people (gay teachers!!! Gays! In our schools! Doing the gay!) fired? The result, 50 years later: a Wikipedia page.

What is real power? Who decides? Who decided that now people can’t say “homeless,” it has to be “unhoused?” (Say the E out loud, like an Elizabethan. “My lord, thou art unhoused.”) Was it a person? A committee? Who knows? How close are you to this power? 

Given your resume as a PBS producer, maybe closer than me – but at least I am the reason people say “pilled.” I also think we are seeing the first literally kinetic impact of the outer right on reality in the new Republican isolationism and its effect on the Ukraine war (hopefully shortening it). I think this is because of young Hill staffers who are clued in. (I think people understate the relevance of my modified Austrian monetary theory to Bitcoin – especially since Nick Szabo was on the blogroll. And to some I am still mainly a computer scientist.)

My picture of winning is very clear. You probably think it is impossible. It would be neat if you could admit that the only reason it is impossible is that everyone thinks it is impossible. They do. They are too busy believing in your picture. Which they saw on Paw Patrol. 

At least your direct-mail market of literally-demented boomer patriots knows one big thing: how to donate. Unfortunately, it seems impossible to lead these people without also being led by them – leaving you, as a 40-year-old Norwood 1, in this historical second childhood. Please consider the possibility that you are just too good for your own scene.

Rufo: Over the course of this dialogue, I have asked you a series of basic questions, which you have systematically ignored. Your contribution has consisted instead, for the most part, of childish insults, bouts of paranoia, heavy italics, pointless digressions, competitive bibliography, and allusions to cartoons. It’s disturbing to realize that this is how your mind works now. I don’t think it was always this way, but here we are.

What seems characteristic about your current position is that your rhetoric is constantly working to prove that you’re smarter than anyone else, but when one tries to locate what it is that you actually think, he cannot help but discover that there really isn’t much substance there. Ultimately, you are a sophist: your writing might create a small magnetic field, but underneath it, there is nothing.

You write, astonishingly, that your “picture of winning is very clear.” But what you have actually written here amounts to vague, half-baked gestures about “absolute power.” When asked to define it, you offer us Paw Patrol. 

I will concede that you have a knack for entertaining metaphors: “pilled,” “dark elves,” “red hobbits.” But this only underscores the point that you are doing literature, rather than politics. Lifting metaphors from action films and fantasy novels is not a substitute for the practical work of governance, or even the practical work of serious thought.
You’re too clever not to know this, but you are also too arrogant to fully accept it. In your opening statement, you admit: “I complain, but I do not know of — for now — a better way.” This is the most honest thing you’ve said here, and a summary self-indictment. Instead of meeting the challenge and hardship of responsibility, you comfort yourself with the dictum that “history’s losers are usually in the right,” like a sullen teenager who insists that everything is pointless, because he doesn’t want to make an effort.
I have a different attitude. Some things are rotten in our republic, yes, but there is always nobility in constructive action. My work has not only shifted perceptions, but shifted the “direct experience of the world” for many people – and I am committed to making sure it continues to do so. I don’t know what you’re committed to, and, sadly, I don’t think you do either. 

Ultimately, we offer two paths. Our readers must decide: step into the opium den with Curtis Yarvin, or into the arena with other men.

Curtis Yarvin is an American blogger. He writes on graymirror.substack.com.

Christopher Rufo is an American activist and the author of “America’s Cultural Revolution: How the Radical Left Conquered Everything“.

Scroll to top