I'm not as familiar with Yarvin as I am with partisan media narratives. My problem with these kinds of insinuations, is that one quote or citation of Yarvin is easily spun into the conclusion that the incoming administration is following all of Yarvin's writings, no matter how obscure.
Partisan journalists are incentivized to selectively quote Yarvin's works to scare their partisan audience. The wildest and most fearful conclusions gain the most clicks and views.
We are living in the parallel universe where Curtis Yarvin is being interviewed by the NYT, which is politely asking him to give his thoughts on the pros and cons of slavery in the US. I wish it were true that Curtis Yarvin was obscure and that his friends in the government were unfamiliar with most of his odious ideas. Unfortunately, that’s not the live scenario.
Partisan journalists are incentivized to selectively quote Yarvin's works to scare their partisan audience. The wildest and most fearful conclusions gain the most clicks and views.