"Let me say this unequivocally: Yarvin chose to produce this controversy. This is not an accident. He is not a pitiable figure who is persecuted for his beliefs. He is not simply an eccentric functional programmer who, like you or me, happens to hold a couple of beliefs out of the mainstream. Nope. Yarvin’s hobby is writing hateful things, publishing them, and cultivating a movement of hateful people working toward hateful ends. This controversy serves those ends. He knew when he submitted his proposal that, if accepted, he could count on at least a brief flurry of interest in his ponderous, indulgent treatises."

This is a really twisted view. Yarvin has been working on Urbit for many years and it is his life now. He signed up for the conference to promote it. His political blog has been dead for over two years. I don't see any reason why he would want this controversy, and he claims himself he signed up for the conference to talk about Urbit -- https://medium.com/@curtis.yarvin/how-to-respond-to-hostile-...

I also think it's a major stretch to call his blog "hateful." (And what does that even mean, OP is pretty hateful toward Yarvin, should OP be banned too?) Yeah, his Moldbug character was an edgelord, writing in the style of 18th century pamphleteer. So what. The supposedly terrible quotes were taken out of context and misunderstood or distorted (again, see link above). Much of the blog is quite fascinating history and political analysis, written in ironical style. I'd hate to see the next interesting, edgy blog scared to start writing, even under a pseudonym, for fear someday people would try to ruin their careers.