I would benefit from this. I don't doubt that Curtis's views are probably offensive, but I haven't seen a clear description of them to conclude that for myself. I tried reading some of his writing, but it seemed so abstract and obfuscated that I gave up before understanding what he was trying to get across. I've seen one-sentence descriptions of his beliefs and they sound horrible, but I've also seen enough tweet-length mischaracterizations of others' beliefs to take those as accurate.

Is there like an intermediate-level overview of Curtis's offensive beliefs, with a glossary and index? I'd be surprised if nobody's assembled one; it could make the ad hominems so much more effective.

The closest thing I know of is Scott Alexander's Reactionary Philosophy in an Enormous, Planet-Sized Nutshell [1]. It's more of an essay/argument than an impartial overview, but (besides being a good read by one of the smartest and most interesting bloggers on earth) I think it's the most even-handed, neutral and informative thing you're likely to read about Yarvin's beliefs.

(NB - the article refers to Yarvin as "Mencius Moldbug", his nom de plume for political ranting)

[1] - http://slatestarcodex.com/2013/03/03/reactionary-philosophy-...

> "I also reserve the right to edit comments that don’t quite reach that point but are noticeably in need of rephrasing."

Wow, really? I'd consider that worse than removing comments.

Great! I love Scott Alexander's writing, so I'll definitely check this out. Thanks for the pointer.