Gray Mirror: Fascicle I: Disturbance

by Curtis Yarvin

Curtis Yarvin and Passage Press proudly present Yarvin’s first original work exclusive to print with Gray Mirror: Fascicle I, Disturbance. Disturbance is the first in a series of four fascicles—novella-length volumes that compose the full book Gray Mirror.

The purpose of Disturbance is to disrupt our sense of where we are. Our historical, political, and philosophical narratives are not infallible, Yarvin tells us, nor are our institutions of public and private power inevitable. Both are the results of contingent historical events. Different stories could be told. Different structures could hold power.

In his trademark style of historical and cultural analysis, Yarvin asks: are these systems working out for us? If not, what can we do about it? How can we start living in the truth?

Genres: Philosophy, Politics, Theory, Nonfiction

220 pages, Paperback

Published January 1, 2024

About the author

Curtis Guy Yarvin is an American political theorist and software developer. He is known for advocating the replacement of democracy with a monarchy headed by a CEO or dictator, often using the pen name Mencius Moldbug.

Reviews

[Alex · Rating 3 out of 5]

A set of monologues in classic Moldbug style about the exact subjects you'd expect him to write about.

If you've consumed a fair amount of his works this book is basically exactly what you think it is; "Radical monarchism" restated in a more modern context ostensibly for people new to his type of thought... Sooo exactly like unqualified reservations but with Trump metaphors instead of Bush ones. I like the tone and the charisma, but I find 20 years of positioning your works as the redpill for 35 year old silicone valley liberals without ever dropping the bit a tad tiring.

Perfectly good and enjoyable as a light refresher but don't expect to be disturbed as Curtis hopes unless this is the first political philosophy book you've ever read.

[Felipe Romero · Rating 5 out of 5]

Una buena introducción apta para todo público a las ideas de Curtis Yarvin, también conocido como Mencius Moldbug. Lo que busca con este libro es perturbar el marco teórico del lector “normie”, cuestionando los fundamentos y la narrativa histórica del régimen político de nuestro tiempo. Con su humor y su escritura caótica. Va de idea en idea sin parar, no hay un plan preconcebido dentro del libro más que ir cuestionando ciertos lugares comunes e ir deslizando la idea de una monarquía radical. Así y todo es fascinante y sugestivo en muchos puntos. Incluso tiendo a coincidir en parte de su propuesta, que me da reminiscencias del peronismo clásico. Hay un diagnóstico claro de agotamiento del orden unipolar estadounidense liberal, compartido ahora casi universalmente, pero su propuesta de solución es un orden multipolar de estados soberanos con monarquías radicales (con aires a lo Duguin, aunque no puede evitar tener un sesgo muy yanqui y centralista). Incluso llega a sugerir que America Latina puede volver a su forma de organización originaria: el caudillismo. Me pareció interesante a u apelación al cierre del libro a una monarquía “morada” (que respete y promueva la coexistencia entre los demócratas y los republicanos, que deje que vivan en comunidades propias en el marco de una gran nación). Es curioso que este tipo que quiere un César sostenga que ese César, provenga de la tribu que provenga, tiene que abrazar a todos.

Quizás el principal sesgo del autor que me genera desconfianza es su obsesión con la idea de la “Catedral” y de un supuesto triunfo de la oligarquía académica-burocrática (la administración pública, el periodismo y la academia) por sobre el resto de los poderes. Comparto el diagnóstico sobre la oligarquización de todo el mundo occidental, pero es claro que Yarvin utiliza esa realidad para apuntar contra sectores que pueden marcar agenda en la costa Este de Estados Unidos y sobre cierta diplomacia global, pero que no son el verdadero poder ni allá ni en el mundo. Habla muy poco del poder financiero y económico y demasiado de un poder cultural mucho más limitado y que siempre fue funcional a ese poder mayor. Como escriba de ciertos intereses financieros, es claro por qué aprovecha para pegarle a sus rivales.

Sacando eso (que no es poco igual), no me parece ni tan subversivo ni tan revolucionario, pasa que los yanquis están muy mal jaja. Es un libro inteligente, atrapante y que hace pensar y entender en qué andan pensando Vance y ciertos sectores de las élites yanquis.

[Mike · Rating 3 out of 5]

To start, I found the book very engaging. I legitimately enjoyed reading it through. That being said, it also felt self-indulgent. Yarvin certainly abuses the italics in his writing, and there were entire chapters that felt unnecessary as they were in the realm of overexplaining things that were already explained well enough.

The book starts with the simple premise that it isn't going to provide an answer; rather, it is going to provide you with questions and lead you on a journey. It certainly leads you on a journey, but it also provides you with an answer--Yarvin's personal answer of an accountable monarch. I'm not trying to write a refutation of the book's premise, but you certainly have to buy into a lot of Yarvin's assumptions and leaps in logic to come to the same conclusion. As a thought experiment, it's effective. Are some outcomes inevitable? Is all change progress, or is all progress change? The book clearly suggests that if all of today follows yesterday, then all of tomorrow will follow as well, implying that outcome and inevitability are inextricable.

I am minimizing, but I found the thesis better in its diagnosis than in its prescription. As with most political philosophies or any diagnostic practices, I found the breakdown of what went wrong more interesting than the "how it should be" portion of the analysis. As anyone who invests their time in a video game can attest, many people are capable of identifying what makes them feel bad, but few can come up with an intuitive response to that feeling.

Yavin provides an interesting diagnosis. I'm not so sure his solution is as interesting or novel as he seems to believe it is.

[Alec Piergiorgi · Rating 5 out of 5]

I've been a fan of Curtis Yarvin for a while (since he was going by Mencius Moldbug), so this book feels like something old and new at the same time. Old because it's like a working manual of a lot of the ideas I've seen from him before but new because it's been combined into a cohesive and fun format. The same rule goes for a lot of the ideas that Yarvin discusses; he admits that a good portion of these have been discussed before (Aristotle, Plato, Machiavelli, and others) but what's new is that's putting them together in a syncretic fashion and directly attuned to our current era.

I also greatly appreciate his honesty that he's not looking to convince you about his ideas or prove that they are correct beyond the shadow of a doubt. He states at the beginning and reiterates at the end that he only sought to place a crack, to slightly disrupt, that way you think about current society and politics. That how you approach our larger issues and history might be wrong, or at the least not appropriate for what our situation actually is. He does through repetitive prose that spends a decent amount of time discussing whatever new idea he just established, then you'll see this perspective repeated or expounded upon in the subsequent chapters.

I just had loads of fun reading this too. The chapters just flow into one another seamlessly and it's like separating them into chapters was more of an after-the-fact process. It's not exactly a dialogue but it has the vibe of one, like you're sitting in the den with your fringe uncle as he continually blows your mind on things that you otherwise took as irrefutable. That makes it exciting and I think Yarvin knows this, so never really lets up on the gas until there are specific moments when acknowledges that he's gone over a lot.

My favorite chapters include: Essentials of any transition, From partisan to universal, The structure of the next regime, Political physics, Effective regime change, The 20th century totalitarian dictators and their legacy, The bad guys, The problem of 20th century monarchy, Aristotle 101, and Integration. Most of these chapters come from the second half of the book when Yarvin really spends time laying out the core issues of our regime and what should come next, but I outlined portions throughout most chapters.

[Tyler · Rating 4 out of 5]

The core thesis of this book is that an "accountable monarchy" (e.g. a corporation like Apple, with a single CEO, accountable to a board of directors) can achieve better governance outcomes than a process-driven oligarchy (e.g. the administrative state). It is the same case Yarvin has been making for decades in blog posts; his writing is tighter and more cohesive in book form. His ideas are easy to disagree with, but they have gained attention and influence over time, likely because his writing tends to be unique even when one disagrees with his point of view. A quote from the book that summarizes its critique of existing organizational structures: "We keep getting back to the core problem with oligarchical sovereignty: that it is fundamentally unaccountable. Accountability can only exist within organizational structures in which personal responsibility is aligned, at every level of the structure, with personal authority. The system of governance by experts was supposed to be a self-watching watchdog. But over time, it seems, all such dogs go bad. They get Alzheimer's, or even rabies. The same disease befalls the belief that our society should be ruled by the ideas of its most educated, productive and creative classes—the top 10% of society. The result of this design was to afflict the best people in the country with the worst ideas in history. Instead of the aristocracy cleansing the state, the state corrupted the aristocracy. No other outcome was possible. This is progressivism in a nutshell."

[Random User]

The purpose of this book is to disrupt your historical and philosophical framework. In that sense, it was never really written for me—I already agreed with most of Yarvin’s arguments (with the exception of the closing chapters, though that likely stems from not being American). Because of this, I don’t feel I can fairly assign it a rating.

That said, I can’t help but feel some resentment toward it. This book directly cost me the equivalent of a 4.0 GPA after I lent it to one of my professors. She despised it and told me, verbatim: “I’m disappointed you hold him in such high regard.”

Setting that aside, I’ll simply share the page numbers of the chapters I enjoyed most, so as not to spoil the content. (It may look like a long list, but keep in mind the book spans 76 chapters in total). I’m looking forward to the next fascicle and only hope that the surge in publicity won’t diminish the quality.

Favourite chapters:
P.33
P.36
P.39
P.46
P.58
P.68
P.75
P.84
P.91
P.93
P.99
P.109
P.116
P.125
P.145
P.151
P.156
P.167
P.184
P.190
P.200
P.202
P.204
P.209
P.219

[Alden Spitzer · Rating 2 out of 5]

Really terrible. I was hoping to have a distillation of his thought into something professional and readable. Unfortunately, Fascicle I is in desperate need of an editor.

Every paragraph is littered with the most obnoxious and unnecessary italicization imaginable. (Even worse than his blog, which is, at least, just a blog...) There are typos everywhere. Some paragraphs are so awkwardly phrased that it makes me think he used speech to text and only did minimal cleanup afterwards.

The ideas themselves are somehow less coherently organized than Yarvin's off the cuff interview tangents, and Yarvin offers shockingly little in the way of empirical evidence for his claims, which should bother even sympathetic readers.

I will continue to support Passage Press, though I seriously hope for more in the future.

[Dave Martin · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm torn between how to review the book. Yarvin's goal is to establish the fact that most of our understanding of history is through a thin veil (and what we are taught is often tweaked for a narrative) & that a regime change is possible (and potentially for the better). This book's real value is in what Yarvin defines as "The Regime" and understanding the layers/components that compose it. My gripe (why I want to give it 4 stars) is that some of his claims I wish were cited (although he cites many). When you are to argue that something is contrary to the public understanding, I'd expect better proofing; however, I believe he said Fascicle II will have a focus on history and direct sources (mixed with his interpretation), so it seems some of my questions may get addressed.

[Philip Lavery · Rating 5 out of 5]

Fascicle I was a great book I learned a lots d I also had some good laughs. Curtis Yarvin is a fun person to read and listen to he doesn’t come off as arrogant or dogmatic but rather is trying to get people to think about things differently. It is a nice break from the normal left vs right arguing that usually goes on in politics.

[Noah Worth · Rating 5 out of 5]

The most important book in years. Witty, complex, disturbing.

[Captain Mason · Rating 3 out of 5]

Curtis Yarvin is annoying but it was a decent read and I laughed a couple times.

[Patrick Briatico-Kirwin · Rating 4 out of 5]

I am already familiar with Yarvin's worldview, so this was not as novel as it would be to the target audience of this book, but it was still filled with interesting historical tidbits, good book recommendations, and lots of qr codes I have to go back and revisit.

An aside on the actual physical book quality: Passage Press makes excellent quality books. Their pages are so thick and they are a joy to read.

[Matt Tyler · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve haven’t read or really engaging with Yarvin prior to Trump’s victory, despite having been familiar with Moldbug since my college libertarian days. Since I believe it’s important to read and understand influential thinkers, whether I like them or not, I thought I’d see what the hype is about. (He is too authoritarian and atheistic for my taste.)

And I don’t see why there is hype. I’ll have to read his Substack or older work to try and get why he is so popular on the New/Dissident Right, but other than his concept of the The Cathedral, there isn’t really anything new or particularly brilliant/interesting here.


I think the aforementioned idea is valuable, and while he is a fun, breezy read by political philosophy standards, this the equivalent of having a 3 a.m. conversation while drunk and stoned with your friend who dropped out of his PhD program and is tending bar at the neighborhood dive. The book’s assumption that you’re following and believing in his regime change ideas and why it’s necessary is humorous.

It’s a good introduction into a controversial thinker, but if there is brilliance to be found in his work, it’s elsewhere.