Curtis Yarvin-Right Wing Terrrorism as 'Folk Activism'

Curtis Yarvin, Anders Breivik, and the Framing of Right-Wing Terrorism as "Folk Activism"

Introduction: The Ideological Landscape of Curtis Yarvin

Curtis Yarvin, better known under his pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, is a polarizing figure in far-right intellectual circles. A software engineer turned political theorist, Yarvin rose to prominence through his blog Unqualified Reservations (2007–2013), where he articulated a reactionary worldview that rejects liberal democracy in favor of authoritarianism, techno-feudalism, and a hierarchical social order. His ideas, collectively termed the "Dark Enlightenment" or "neoreactionary" (NRx) movement, have attracted influential Silicon Valley figures like Peter Thiel and politicians such as J.D. Vance, who has openly cited Yarvin’s influence on his thinking.

Central to Yarvin’s philosophy is the concept of “The Cathedral”—a term he uses to describe the alliance of academia, media, and government institutions that he claims enforces progressive orthodoxy and stifles dissent. This framework underpins his defense of authoritarianism as a corrective to democratic “decadence.” In his 2011 article Right Wing Terrorism As Folk Activism, Yarvin provocatively reframed acts of far-right violence, including Anders Breivik’s 2011 massacre in Norway, as grassroots resistance against The Cathedral’s hegemony. This essay explores Yarvin’s arguments, their ideological roots, and their implications for contemporary far-right movements.

1. Yarvin’s Anti-Democratic Worldview and the “Dark Enlightenment”

Yarvin’s rejection of democracy is rooted in a belief that mass participation in governance leads to instability and moral decay. He advocates for a “neocameralist” system where states operate like corporations, governed by technocratic elites or a monarch-like CEO. This vision aligns with his admiration for historical autocrats such as Augustus, Napoleon, and Lenin, whom he views as effective rulers unburdened by democratic constraints.

Key to his critique is the idea that liberal institutions—universities, media, and bureaucracies—form The Cathedral, a self-perpetuating oligarchy that manipulates public opinion to maintain power. Yarvin argues that The Cathedral’s progressive agenda alienates traditionalists, creating a cultural “cold civil war.” In this context, he positions right-wing violence not as senseless terrorism but as a “folk” response to systemic oppression—a theme central to his 2011 article.

2. Right Wing Terrorism As Folk Activism: A Controversial Thesis

While the full text of Yarvin’s 2011 article is not included in the provided search results, his broader writings and public statements allow us to reconstruct its likely arguments. The title itself suggests a deliberate provocation: by labeling terrorism “folk activism,” Yarvin reframes violent extremism as a legitimate, grassroots challenge to The Cathedral’s authority.

Key Themes in Yarvin’s Argument

• The Cathedral as Oppressor: Yarvin likely posits that institutions like universities and media outlets marginalize conservative voices, leaving violence as the only viable form of resistance. This aligns with his later claims that “ordinary people are too stupid to decide for themselves what to believe” and that elites must seize power to restore order.
• Historical Precedents: Drawing parallels to revolutionary movements, Yarvin might argue that acts like Breivik’s massacre are akin to the American Revolution’s “Sons of Liberty,” using violence to disrupt an illegitimate regime.
• Moral Relativism: By equating Breivik’s actions with state-sanctioned violence (e.g., wars or progressive policies), Yarvin could downplay the ethical gravity of terrorism, framing it as a tactical necessity.

Anders Breivik and the “Folk Hero” Narrative

Anders Breivik’s 2011 attack, which killed 77 people (33 of them Children) in Norway, was motivated by a desire to “save Europe” from multiculturalism and Islam. In his manifesto, Breivik cited far-right bloggers and thinkers who shared Yarvin’s disdain for liberal democracy. While Yarvin has not explicitly endorsed Breivik, he has dismissed calls to condemn him, stating:

“If you ask me to condemn [Breivik], but adore Nelson Mandela, perhaps you have a mother you’d like to fuck”

This rhetorical evasion reflects Yarvin’s broader strategy of moral equivalence, where he contrasts the demonization of right-wing violence with the celebration of left-wing revolutionary figures. By refusing to condemn Breivik, Yarvin implicitly validates the idea that such acts are a rational response to perceived cultural annihilation—a stance consistent with his 2011 article’s thesis.

3. The Intellectual Lineage of Yarvin’s Argument

Yarvin’s defense of right-wing violence draws from three reactionary traditions:

a. Reactionary Modernism

Yarvin’s blend of techno-utopianism and authoritarianism mirrors early 20th-century fascist thinkers like Filippo Tommaso Marinetti, who praised violence as a tool for societal renewal. Both figures reject democratic pluralism in favor of a hierarchical order led by visionary elites.

b. The “Propaganda of the Deed”

The 19th-century anarchist concept of “propaganda of the deed”—using violence to inspire mass uprising—resurfaces in Yarvin’s framing of terrorism as performative resistance. While anarchists targeted state institutions, Yarvin redirects this logic against The Cathedral, portraying Breivik-style attacks as catalysts for a broader counter-revolution.

c. Conspiracy Theories and the “Cultural Marxism” Myth

Yarvin’s portrayal of The Cathedral echoes the far-right conspiracy theory of “cultural Marxism,” which falsely claims that progressive academics and media elites are orchestrating societal collapse. This narrative, propagated by Breivik and other far-right terrorists, provides ideological justification for violence.

4. Critiques and Counterarguments

Yarvin’s arguments have faced intense criticism from scholars and journalists:

• Historical Illiteracy: Critics note that Yarvin selectively interprets history to fit his narrative. For example, his comparison of Breivik to revolutionary heroes ignores the latter’s explicit white supremacist goals.
• Ethical Bankruptcy: By refusing to condemn terrorism, Yarvin undermines his claim to moral seriousness. His both-sides rhetoric (“condemn Breivik but adore Mandela”) obscures the fundamental difference between anti-apartheid activism and ethnonationalist violence.
• Institutional Hypocrisy: Yarvin’s claim that The Cathedral suppresses dissent is contradicted by the mainstreaming of far-right ideas in politics and media. Figures like J.D. Vance and Steve Bannon have successfully weaponized Yarvin’s rhetoric while operating within democratic systems.

5. Yarvin’s Legacy and the Mainstreaming of Neo-Reactionary Thought

Despite his fringe status, Yarvin’s ideas have permeated mainstream conservative discourse:

• Political Influence: J.D. Vance’s call for a “de-woke-ification program” mirrors Yarvin’s demand to dismantle universities and media. Peter Thiel, a key Yarvin patron, has funded politicians who advocate for authoritarian reforms.
• Tech Industry Synergy: Yarvin’s vision of a corporate-run state aligns with Silicon Valley’s preference for deregulation and centralized control. Elon Musk’s description of government as “the largest corporation” reflects this ethos.
• Global Far-Right Networks: Yarvin’s writings are cited by European far-right groups, including Hungary’s Fidesz party, which has implemented anti-democratic reforms under Viktor Orbán.

Conclusion: The Dangerous Allure of “Folk Activism”

Curtis Yarvin’s defense of right-wing terrorism as “folk activism” exemplifies the moral and intellectual rot at the heart of the neoreactionary movement. By sanitizing violence as a legitimate response to imagined oppression, Yarvin provides ideological cover for extremists like Breivik while normalizing authoritarianism in mainstream politics. His influence on figures like Vance and Thiel underscores the urgent need to confront the Dark Enlightenment’s corrosive impact on democracy.

As historian Robert Evans warns, Yarvin’s ideas are not novel but a “rebranding of old reactionary tropes” for the digital age. Combating this threat requires not only dismantling his flawed arguments but also addressing the systemic inequalities and cultural anxieties that make his vision appealing to disaffected elites. The stakes could not be higher: in a world where democracy is increasingly under siege, Yarvin’s “folk activism” offers a blueprint for its destruction.

Sources Cited: [1][2][3][4][5][6][8]

Further Reading: For deeper analysis of Yarvin’s ties to Silicon Valley and the far right, see The Reactionary Prophet of Silicon Valley and What We Must Understand About the Dark Enlightenment Movement.