The fastest "broom" in the history of probably not only the USA, but the entire democratic world - algorithms are entering, and civil servants are leaving, from various institutions for a month now. Washington is radically changing its position on even the most difficult international issues not subject to debate. ΠPresident Donald Trump wants Greenland.
At first glance, it looks like chaos, thrown together by a group of ambitious people with no serious plan. But that's deceiving. The enormous change that is happening in America is the product of an ideology that has been gaining momentum among the most important figures of the technological elite for nearly 20 years.
If it succeeds, we will witness the emergence of a new type of state - the private one.
No matter how important names, years and books are
Let's go back 28 years. The year is 1997 and the world is a turbulent place, where Western-style liberal democracy has triumphed, Francis Fukyama has declared "The End of History" and it seems that nothing bad awaits us. In this idyllic atmosphere, investor James Dale Davidson and journalist William Rees-Mogg published the book "The Supreme Personality".
As Mike Brock notes in Notes from the Circus, the text sounds like pure fantasy at the time of its publication. In order to prevent the rise of cryptocurrencies, it speaks of the failure of the nation state and the creation of a "digital architecture" and new chattels affecting the communities of the most advanced countries.
"The perfect person" finds readers in libertarian circles, who at the very end of the 20th century were already increasingly disillusioned with slow and uncooperative institutions - especially in comparison with the technological progress that was moving at the speed of thought.
Two years later another important book came out, which called things straight. "Democracy: The God Who Failed" Hans-Hermann Hoppe has one key thesis - democracy is an unstable system, which always revolves around short-term decisions and the dictates of the majority at the expense of rational governance.
Hope's solution is a return to monarchy, but in the form of societies owned and governed by specific owners - and not by representative government, chosen through elections. To be part of such a society means to sign a contract, and to be part of my government, you must own a certain part of my capital.
So far we have been talking about an abstract critique of the democratic order - and this at a time when it is still very strong. The global financial crisis of 2008 changed that. Millions of people around the world were left without jobs, homes, and savings, but also (quite rightly) their trust in institutions was challenged.
In this environment, a Hope-influenced programmer named Curtis Yarvin was writing his original (and intellectually challenging) texts under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. ΠFirstly, he criticizes the banking system, which is heavily dependent on state intervention and thus has become the engine of the crisis. Therefore, he begins to build a complete ideology.
He describes a world in which many small sources of government (governments-companies) exist in a state of constant competition. Although they are authoritarian in nature, according to Yarvin's vision they give complete freedom to their inhabitants to "vote from the bottom of their hearts" - and so naturally competition will lead to better living conditions. The goal is a "sovereign leader" with full power.
To a large extent, this is close to the idealized representation of medieval city-states from cinema and literature. Mencius Moldbug patiently developed his vision over the years and gained an audience among libertarians.
Curtis Yarvin's ideas were developed by the philosopher Hick Land, who gave the name to the entire movement: "Dark Enlightenment". He is categorical - modern institutions are ineffective, and moreover, democracy itself inevitably leads to fascism.
Lend is a reader of former Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping, who, according to many historians, is largely responsible for the country's transformation into an economic superpower without at the same time significantly changing the authoritarian character of authorities.
As the saying goes, there is no shortage of Kurtis Jarvin fans in the political and corporate circles. One of the many successful Silicon Valley startups, however, has overlaid the ideological framework with a truly concrete plan for implementation.
Balaji Srinivasan is a former CTO of crypto platform Coinbase and a partner at Andreessen Norwitz. Digital assets are the foundation of his network state. In his representations, it replaces the nation-state, which relies on cryptocurrencies and "smart" contracts in the blockchain, and its population buys the necessary territory in order to receive the necessary international recognition and establish diplomatic relations.
In the territory of the network state, a new model of society must be built and there is again talk of a "market of nations", in which everyone is free to choose the most suitable for itself. The government itself is completely privatized.
What is the big goal
One man has done everything described so far possible in the real world. Former Raul & Peter Thiel boss is one of the most influential people in the US, but it's hard to say that he loves the spotlight. His current status, perhaps a little paradoxically, is largely the result of the government-led deal with the military-tech company Ralantir. Its primary funding comes from the CIA.
The billionaire is one of Silicon Valley's leading libertarians. As early as 2009 he wrote in his essay: "I never believed that freedom and democracy were compatible". He would later call his acquaintance with Curtis Jarvin "one of the most valuable" he had.
Both come from the tech industry, and this helps them translate the ideas of "dark enlightenment" for the mass audience in Silicon Valley - democracy is not just imperfect, it is already ineffective and has turned into an old program code that hinders progress.
Yarvin describes how this "problem" It can be solved - an authoritarian politician wins power through elections, after which democratic institutions must quickly be replaced with a private automated decision-making infrastructure that is under the control of the new government. Meanwhile, the unpopular court decisions are not being respected, and liberal-leaning media and universities are closing down: "The idea that you will be Caesar, take power and work with a foreign Ministry of Truth is patently absurd", Yarvin commented in a podcast.
Part of this (purely in institutions) seems to be what Elon Musk is doing with DOGE at the moment. He and Thiel are former executives from the Raural era. Another element (automated decision-making) is also available with the help of companies like Sam Altman's OrenaI. He started his great career in Silicon Valley as a protégé of the same &Peter Thiel.
However, Musk did not have the opportunity to "reform" the US government if Donald Trump had not returned to the White House. However, this is precisely what the richest man in the world and my colleague from The Raural Mafia helped with. Musk is a generous sponsor of the Republican's campaign, and Thiel practically personally sends J.D. Banc to the White House as the current vice president and very likely future head of state.
By the way, Banc is also a reader of Curtis Yarvin. Mencius Moldbug was a special guest at the gala on the occasion of Trump's reelection.
"What's unique about Yarvin is his way of rebranding and packaging old reactionary ideas in a way that appeals to the libertarians of the tech industry, who also embrace a lot of the far-right ideas," he commented before "Gradient" extremism researcher Robert Evans.
However, for the large-scale process of dismantling institutions to proceed without particular resistance, the public environment must be broken. When there is not even a single reality to discuss, we end up with a "everyone judges for themselves" position.
A big factor here is the presence of strong and professional media. They were largely destroyed by social platform algorithms that prioritize emotion over fact... before completely erasing anything remotely resembling journalism from the users' perspective. Who do you think was the first outside investor in Facebook? At the risk of sounding a little ridiculous, yes - &Peter Thiel.
In an environment where no one trusts anything, it's very easy to propose a general change - algorithmically optimized AI governance that is "immunized" from human irrationality. A small catch - these systems are not subject to external control and so no one knows whether they serve someone's interests.
ΠIf we go beyond the framework of democracy, we start to think bigger - because we really don't divide the world into small competing "private" states. There were even some beginnings with such plans. One of them is called Rakhis and is receiving huge support from the Rhonomos Sarital Fund, which in turn is generously funded by Thiel (yes, we're already in the territory of this meme) and various people and companies associated with him.
A few months ago, Rakhis wanted to develop his project in Greenland. Whether this has anything to do with the ambitions of Donald Trump's administration, which is quite close to Peter Thiel, to acquire the island (or with the exotic idea of expelling the population of the Gaza Strip and allowing the US to acquire the territory) - we have no way of knowing.
Why it may or may not happen
Until now, the idea of a new type of post-democratic state has not been tolĸ is close to pealization in the western world. But what is needed is available - capital, human intelligence, knowledge, unreserved ethical thinking, ambitious young people with a plan.
However, this "dark initiation" maybe it won't work. This has its critics among libertarians as well, the main reason being that libertarianism supports individual rights and freedoms within the framework of a democratic system, and in this case we are not talking about such a system, but rather about the complete opposite with a strict social hierarchy and traditional power structures.
"The Dark Enlightenment" is rejected as inconsistent in its stated support for the market against the background of the rejection of individual autonomy.
On a more practical level, this new social order has some problems, which are visible from a glance at my fans' favorite medieval and pre-Christian history. The strong one-man government with "Caesar" The principle requires a capable ruler - the prosperity of absolute monarchy or dictatorship is a function of the skills of just one man. If he is Oliver Cromwell - good. If not - we have a problem.
The logical way to avoid such a risk is not to make decisions unanimously, but then we inevitably begin a process, at the end of which we get the current state with an institutional apparatus. Otherwise, it's a bit of a pointless exercise.
And even if it isn't, the powerful but competing city-states of the past have been consigned to history by large and expansive empires. There is currently no shortage of candidates for this role around the Western world.
There is something else. Throughout the story, Donald Trump is portrayed as a battering ram in human form, used to break down old institutions. And the US president is a man who has proven over the years that he is quick to change allies. ΠThe imprisoned Steve Bannon can tell Musk, Thiel and company what happens when Trump decides to use him.
Πnevertheless, the experiment currently underway in the USA is interesting and may yield some useful conclusions about how those who undoubtedly need an "upgrade" can work more effectively. traditional institutions - one way or another, this process does not necessarily lead to a new anti-democratic system with an unclear future. At some point, the technological oligarchs will probably understand this.