We should all be looking into the views of Curtis Yarvin as they may soon have a large impact on the United States and the rest of the world.

Curtis Yarvin’s views on slavery have been a point of significant controversy. While he has not advocated for the reintroduction of slavery, he has made provocative and often criticized remarks about the historical institution, particularly in his blog Unqualified Reservations. Here’s a breakdown of his views and the criticisms they have generated:

1. Historical Relativism and Moral Evaluation

• Yarvin has written about slavery in a historical context, arguing that it should be understood within the norms and economic systems of the times it existed. He often contrasts this with the modern, absolute moral condemnation of slavery.
• In some of his writings, he suggests that slavery, while morally wrong by today’s standards, was a “normal” economic practice in the past. He questions whether historical figures who owned slaves should be judged by contemporary moral standards. This has led critics to accuse him of moral relativism.

2. Defense of Certain Arguments by Pro-Slavery Thinkers

• Yarvin has, at times, analyzed and even shown a degree of intellectual sympathy toward the arguments made by pro-slavery advocates in the 18th and 19th centuries. He argues that these historical figures were acting within the economic and social frameworks of their time and believed they were upholding a stable, hierarchical social order.
• This line of reasoning has been heavily criticized for downplaying the brutality and inhumanity of slavery. Many accuse him of engaging in revisionist history or providing intellectual cover for racist ideas.

3. Critique of Abolition and Civil Rights Movements

• In some of his essays, Yarvin has critiqued the abolitionist movement and aspects of the Civil Rights Movement, suggesting that the rapid changes they brought disrupted existing social orders and led to various unintended consequences.
• For instance, he has argued that the social and political upheaval caused by the abolition of slavery and subsequent civil rights reforms had negative long-term effects, particularly on governance and societal stability. This critique has been seen as overly sympathetic to the antebellum South and dismissive of the profound moral imperative behind the fight against slavery.

4. The “Formalist” View of Power Structures

• Yarvin’s broader political philosophy, formalism, often frames power in stark, transactional terms. He sometimes refers to historical slavery as an example of an explicit power structure that, however brutal, was straightforward in its recognition of authority and hierarchy.
• He contrasts this with modern forms of power, which he views as more hypocritical because they are cloaked in democratic or egalitarian language while still maintaining rigid hierarchies.

5. Allegations of Racism

• Yarvin’s views on slavery, combined with his writings on race realism, have led to allegations of racism. His critics argue that his willingness to intellectually entertain or excuse the institution of slavery, even as a historical analysis, reflects a lack of empathy for its victims and a broader ideological alignment with reactionary and racist thought.
• He has also discussed topics like Haiti’s independence in a manner that has been interpreted as racially insensitive, implying that the overthrow of slavery led to chaos and failure, which critics say dismisses the agency and struggle of enslaved people fighting for freedom.

Public Response and Clarifications

• In response to criticisms, Yarvin has often framed his comments as part of a broader intellectual critique of modern liberal democracy and egalitarian narratives. He argues that he is merely challenging prevailing historical interpretations and questioning the simplistic moral binaries used in modern discourse.
• Nonetheless, these arguments have done little to alleviate the perception among his critics that his views on slavery are problematic and serve to downplay its horrors.

Conclusion

Curtis Yarvin’s discussions of slavery tend to focus on challenging mainstream narratives and exploring power dynamics from a detached, analytical perspective. However, this approach has sparked significant backlash. Critics argue that by focusing on the “normalcy” of slavery in its historical context and critiquing the abolitionist movement, Yarvin is minimizing the profound moral atrocity of the institution. His views on this topic have contributed to his reputation as a controversial and polarizing figure in contemporary political thought.