The political scene is filled with those who question the liberal foundations of society today. One such current is the self-styled “Dark Enlightenment,” which calls upon its followers to question modernity and the liberal establishment that sustains it. Among its luminaries is Curtis Yarvin.

Yarvin is a curious postmodern figure who deliberately defies classification. The fifty-one-year-old author is a software developer who engages in political commentary, and his Substack musings were relatively unknown until recently.

Much of his work is contained in his now-discontinued blog, Unqualified Reservations, which he wrote under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. He has since written a 2024 book titled Gray Mirror—Fascicle I: Disturbance, in which he tries to explain his illiberal position and vision of the future. The problem is that because he does not recognize more traditional ways of presenting his perspective and goals coherently, the best one can do is to try to untangle his thoughts that seem to thrive on disruption. 

Entrance into Notoriety

With the right’s victory in the November elections, Yarvin gained a sizable following. He counts among his readers and admirers Vice President J. D. Vance as well as venture capitalists Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen. Interviews with establishment media such as The New York Times have given him some notoriety outside the fringe from which he emerged. His thought fits into the rising populist wave found everywhere.

The shaggy commentator has everything to make him popular among the illiberal right. He is brash, sarcastic, skeptical, and cynical. His style is irreverent and vulgar. He cares little for rules and formality. His anti-establishment invectives leave nothing standing. Every certainty must be doubted, every institution distrusted.

In Gray Mirror, Yarvin openly advocates for a regime change in which a single figure guides society like a CEO. While he likens this figure to a monarch, he clearly does not want to be restricted to the traditional customs and limitations associated with a king. His figure would be endowed with all the powers of a monarch/CEO to get things done, but without the trappings or limitations.

He believes that a regime change would put in check the decay of the liberal woke establishment (which he calls the Cathedral) and pave the way for a new world more responsive to society’s needs.

Unreviewable and Nearly Unreadable

Thinkers usually lay out their thoughts in books. Thus, to understand this curious writer, Gray Mirror would be a logical place to start. However, Yarvin’s work fails to deliver. Any reader who expects clarity comes away disappointed. Anyone who wants to review the book is likewise frustrated. It is indeed Dark Enlightenment.

Gray Mirror is unreviewable and nearly unreadable. It is a collection of rambling commentary—part blog, part social media, part Facebook banter—and the worst thing is that it seems intentionally so. A standard review of the book is an exercise of futility since it violently resists such attempts. The author would reject fitting the book into any classical framework.

Moreover, Yarvin provides no path to solutions in this first fascicle but only sows seeds of doubt about the establishment. As a good marketer, he abruptly ends the book, promising an unwritten fourth fascicle called Process that is touted to be a handbook outlining the processes for collective action, regime change, and CEO rule. This first fascicle purposely presents no clue as to what these processes might be.

The subtitle, Disturbance, is the stated aim of the book, and so perhaps the best way to discuss it is to declare it disturbing. Indeed, the book is unnerving not because its content is important. It isn’t. It is unsettling because it represents a chaotic way of dealing with problems, and that bodes ill for the nation. He engages in disruption before discussing processes, which opens the doors for just about anything.

Three disturbances might be noted. The first is its lack of certainty.

As an illiberal figure, Yarvin questions the whole liberal narrative dating back to the Enlightenment. This includes notions of democracy, progress, and historical perspectives. He further criticizes the woke world that has turned everything upside down.

He claims all these things are broken, as evidenced by the crisis inside society. Thus, they must all be doubted. There is also no way to ascertain certainty inside the dark web of the book’s quasi-narrative. The author questions everything. He claims traditional explanations are partial and deceitful. No one is to be trusted—perhaps not even himself.

This distrust is built into the text. The author promises the reader that, after reading the book, “you may not have many answers, but you should have many more questions.” The book’s goal is “to disrupt the sense of where we are. Our historical, political, philosophical narratives are not infallible.”

One cannot rely on past narratives, canons, and religious beliefs, not because they are wrong, but because they are just “not infallible.” They cannot be interpreted in the dark light of the present regime of “unwisdom.”

“We cannot use tradition to guide us into the future,” Yarvin affirms. “It is because we have a fake past. Any real, useful past must be constructed from first principles.” He invites readers to “write it out ourselves.”

Readers are deliberately left drifting and unanchored, with their past certainties shaken. In this disturbed state, Yarvin invites them to grab onto the idea of an undefined regime change, which he presents as at least desirable.

The second disturbance contradicts the first. Upon a platform of doubt, Yarvin constructs a framework of semi-certainties. The same person who calls everything into question then asks the reader to seriously consider the radical ideas he throws about, and which he admits may or may not work.

Thus, the author pontificates about his musings, affirming them strongly, without development or deep reflection. However, this strong affirmation takes on airs of authority, as if claiming to know what is going on.

In his jocular style, he insinuates he knows the game of the ruling oligarchy now in power. He exposes its Matrix-like dominion over society. He will write the manual for regime change from scratch to make the world a better place. 

Disturbance becomes the formula for regime change. Without it, nothing will move forward.

The final disturbance involves the book’s prism of cold, hard power. Yarvin’s politics are those of a Caesar-like strong man, who resolves everything efficiently by exercising his power and technique. The author reduces everything to power without considering the vast world of moral, cultural, and other considerations that make the act of governing both human and messy.

There are no references to charity or traditional notions of morality or virtue. There exist no high ideals or social community. As an atheist, Yarvin omits any reference to a loving God Who governs the world through His Providence. 

In a pseudo-monarchical regime that functions like a corporation, everything becomes an exercise of power dynamics. The undefined aim is to make the world a better place to live. However, it is not clear what that means or how it is to be done.

His system does not address the grave moral issues that divide the nation; it suppresses them. The Culture War is a fake war that will be simply declared over with no side allowed victory. He does not propose a moral alternative. It seems that abortion, same-sex marriage, and other permissive lifestyles that so polarize America will be left in place. 

Meanwhile, the deep questions of purpose, meaning, and morals remain untouched at a time when these issues are crying out for solutions.

Pablo Picasso of the Philosophical World

What makes Gray Mirror so disturbing is that such ideas are gaining traction among some conservatives.

In times of political unrest and moral uncertainty, authors who attract shallow souls often emerge. They create some sensation because they affirm their ideas strongly. It becomes trendy to cite them as profound thinkers, if not prophets, who read the signs of the times.

About Gray Mirror, one is reminded of what Encyclopedia Britannica wrote about Martin Heidegger’s 1927 book, Being and Time: “Although almost unreadable, it was immediately felt to be of prime importance.”

Such works are unintelligible to the general public. Few can understand what is meant by Yarvin’s chapter, “The Etiology of Political Toxicity.” However, no one wants to admit that the emperor’s “new clothes” don’t exist. These thinkers are like the Pablo Picassos of the philosophical world, where everyone pretends to find meaning in confused canvases that have none.

Times of Radical Mediocrity

Catholic thinker Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira once commented that convoluted philosophies are the products of mediocre minds. They lack the crystalline logic and élan that should characterize good philosophy. Such thinkers fail to take their ideas to their final consequences.

Instead, they clog their thought with created jargon and complicated reasoning. They become attached and obsessed with their creations and easily become narcissistic. Like Gray Mirror, their works become difficult to read. They are disturbances, not solutions.

Such an evaluation may seem harsh and even uncharitable. However, this is not a personal attack. Works like Gray Mirror reflect much more the present culture than any individual.

Society suffers from radical mediocrity, in which no one wants to address causes or accept the consequences of their actions. Everything must be without effect; no one takes responsibility. By questioning everything, people see themselves as victims of those seeking to deceive them.

Perhaps this questioning is what makes Yarvin’s view attractive to some conservatives. He provides an easy way out: Just walk away from complex problems by claiming they are fake narratives and that everything can be written anew.

He also provides an outlet for those who are tired of disorder and want action without weighing all the consequences. A strong executive power can clean up messy situations. Such “solutions” do not necessarily require individuals to change their own disordered lives and practice virtue.

The radical mediocrity of Curtis Yarvin and those like him consists of an unwillingness to enter into the existential questions that clamor for resolution. This results in the dangerous and paradoxical times of Dark Enlightenment, which are better understood as Rejecting Wisdom.