Tag: Curtis Yarvin

Horizon Accord | MIRI Funding | Longtermism | AI Regulation | Machine Learning

Horizon Accord | Pattern Analysis | March 2026

The Network Behind the Moderate

MIRI, Thiel, Yarvin, and the AI Extinction Myth

BY CHEROKEE SCHILL  |  HORIZON ACCORD

This essay is the second in a series. The first, “The Explainer: Hank Green and the Uses of Careful Men,” documented the institutional funding ecology that produces voices fluent in progressive concern without structural accountability. This essay follows that thread to its destination.

I.

Where the Thread Goes

If the first essay was about how a certain kind of voice gets built and maintained, this one is about what that voice was built to carry — and who benefits when it carries it.

In late 2025, Hank Green published two videos about artificial intelligence. The first was an hour-long interview with Nate Soares. The second argued for a version of AI alignment that, as analyst Jason Velázquez observed, “sounds like the talking points Sam Altman and other tech CEOs have been reciting to Congress.” Both videos were produced in partnership with an organization called Control AI. Control AI did not sponsor the videos in the conventional sense — placing an ad in the middle of content the creator chose independently. The videos were the advertisement.

And then, in February 2026, Senator Bernie Sanders flew to Berkeley to sit down with Eliezer Yudkowsky and Nate Soares to discuss what their circle calls “the extinction threat posed by the race to build superhuman AI systems.”

Two of the most trusted progressive voices in America, in the span of a few months, validated the same network. If you only read the headlines, that looks like responsible engagement with a serious issue. This essay is about what it actually looks like when you follow the money.

II.

What the Lay Reader Needs to Understand First

Before the funding trail, before the ideology, before the legislation — one concrete fact.

Right now, today, AI systems are making decisions about your life. Whether you get called back for a job interview. Whether your health insurance claim is approved. Whether an algorithm flags you to a parole board. Whether a school district uses license plate data to decide if your child lives in the right district. These are not hypothetical future harms. They are documented, present-tense operations running on systems that have known bias problems and, until very recently, were subject to a growing body of state law designed to protect you from them.

In 2025 alone, all 50 states introduced AI-related legislation. Thirty-eight states adopted or enacted such laws — covering consumer protection, health care, employment, and financial services, specifically including requirements to mitigate algorithmic bias and protect against unlawful discrimination.

Those laws are now under federal litigation.

On December 11, 2025, the Trump administration established an AI Litigation Task Force within the Department of Justice to challenge state AI laws. The administration simultaneously directed the FTC to classify state-mandated bias mitigation as a per se deceptive trade practice — arguing that if an AI model is trained on data that reflects societal patterns, forcing developers to alter outputs to correct for bias compels them to produce less “truthful” results.

Under the legal theory now being advanced by the federal government: correcting for bias is lying. The discrimination is the data. The harm is the baseline.

The people those 38 state laws were designed to protect are not a racial category and they are not a future species. They are everyone who cannot opt out of AI-mediated systems — which is to say, everyone who is not wealthy enough to live outside them.

When Hank Green tells his millions of progressive followers that MIRI represents the serious, expert position on AI risk, and when Bernie Sanders legitimizes that same network by flying across the country to sit with its founders, they are — without knowing it, without intending it — lending credibility to the ideological framework that has been used, in concrete legislative terms, to argue that protecting you from those systems is the real danger. That is what this essay is about. Now follow the money.

III.

The Book, the Network, the Funding

Nate Soares is the president of the Machine Intelligence Research Institute — MIRI. He co-authored If Anyone Builds It, Everyone Dies with Eliezer Yudkowsky, MIRI’s founder. The book argues that the development of superintelligent AI will result in human extinction unless immediately halted through international agreement, and proposes that it should be illegal to own more than eight of the most powerful GPUs available in 2024 without international monitoring — at a time when frontier training runs use tens of thousands.

This is the organization Hank Green’s audience was asked to take seriously. This is the organization Bernie Sanders flew to Berkeley to meet.

MIRI: Documented Major Funding Sources
Donor Amount
Open Philanthropy (Dustin Moskovitz / Facebook) $14.7M+
Vitalik Buterin (Ethereum co-founder) $5.4M
Thiel Foundation (Peter Thiel) $1.63M
Jaan Tallinn (Skype co-founder) $1.08M

As recently as 2014, Thiel pledged $150,000 to MIRI unconditionally, plus an additional $100,000 in matching funds — and the fundraiser announcement explicitly noted that MIRI used those funds partly to introduce elite young math students to effective altruism and global catastrophic risk frameworks. The pipeline from donor to ideology to the next generation of believers was documented in MIRI’s own public materials.

The Center for AI Safety — the organization whose Statement on AI Risk Green cited in his videos — spent close to $100,000 on lobbying in a single quarter, drawing money from organizations with close ties to the AI industry. These are not neutral scientific institutions. They are billionaire-funded lobbying infrastructure wearing the clothes of existential concern.

IV.

The Thiel Thread

Peter Thiel is not a background figure in this story. He is its connective tissue.

In The Contrarian: Peter Thiel and Silicon Valley’s Pursuit of Power, reporter Max Chafkin describes Curtis Yarvin as the “house political philosopher” of the “Thielverse” — the network of technologists in Thiel’s orbit. In 2013, Thiel invested in Tlön, Yarvin’s software startup. According to Yarvin, he and Thiel watched the returns of the 2016 presidential election together.

Curtis Yarvin, writing under the pen name Mencius Moldbug, is the founder of neoreaction — the movement some call the “Dark Enlightenment.” He has defended the institution of slavery, argued that certain races may be more naturally inclined toward servitude than others, asserted that whites have inherently higher IQs than Black people, and opposed U.S. civil rights programs.

Documented Timeline

2006 — Thiel Foundation begins funding MIRI ($100K matching gift)

2013 — Thiel invests in Tlön Corp., Yarvin’s software startup

2016 — Yarvin attends Thiel’s election night party in San Francisco

2022 — Thiel donates $10M+ to super PACs supporting JD Vance and Blake Masters

Jan. 2025 — Yarvin is a feted guest at Trump’s “Coronation Ball”

Late 2025 — Hank Green publishes two videos validating MIRI’s framework

Dec. 2025 — Trump signs executive order targeting state AI regulations

Feb. 2026 — Bernie Sanders flies to Berkeley to meet with Yudkowsky and Soares

The line is direct and documented: Thiel funds MIRI. Thiel is the patron of Yarvin. Yarvin’s philosophy is now operating inside the executive branch through Vance and the network that surrounds him. This is not a conspiracy theory. It is a funding trail and a documented set of relationships with named participants and verifiable dates.

V.

Why Racism Is the Wrong Frame — and the Right One

The academic critique of longtermism has correctly identified its ideological roots.

Timnit Gebru has documented that transhumanism was linked to eugenics from the start: British biologist Julian Huxley, who coined the term transhumanism, was also president of the British Eugenics Society in the 1950s and 1960s. Nick Bostrom, the “father” of longtermism, has expressed concern about “dysgenic pressures” as an existential threat — essentially worrying that less intelligent people might out-breed more intelligent people. In an email in which he used the N-word, Bostrom wrote that he believed it was “true” that “Blacks are more stupid than whites.” He issued an apology but did not redact the slur or address the substance of his views. Nick Beckstead, an early contributor to longtermism, argued that saving a life in a rich country is substantially more important than saving a life in a poor country because richer countries have more innovation and their workers are more economically productive.

That critique is accurate. It is also, for the purposes of this essay, insufficient — not because it overstates the racism, but because it understates the mechanism.

The white moderate, as King observed, is not moved by arguments about what is happening to other people. He is moved, or not moved, by what he understands to be happening to everyone. The genius of the extinction frame is that it speaks directly to that psychology. It says: this is not a Black problem, or a poor problem, or a worker problem. This is a species problem. It is happening to you too.

“Talking about human extinction, about a genuine apocalyptic event in which everybody dies, is just so much more sensational and captivating than Kenyan workers getting paid $1.32 an hour, or artists and writers being exploited.”
— Émile Torres, former longtermist and critic of the movement

The racism in longtermism’s foundations is not incidental. It is the philosophical infrastructure for a class project. Bostrom’s “dysgenic pressures,” Beckstead’s hierarchy of lives, Yarvin’s defense of slavery — these are not aberrations. They are the logical premises: some lives are more valuable to the future than others. Some people are worth protecting. The rest are externalities.

The extinction frame rebrands that premise as universal concern. It makes the same hierarchy legible to people who would reject it if they saw it clearly.

This is why the racism frame alone is insufficient. White moderates — Hank Green’s audience, Bernie Sanders’ base — will hear “longtermism has racist roots” and file it under “things happening to other people.” What they need to understand is that the hierarchy doesn’t stop at race. Beckstead’s formulation is the tell: it’s not about skin color. It’s about economic productivity. It’s about who the system considers worth protecting. And on that metric, most of the people reading this essay are also expendable.

VI.

The Preemption Payoff

Return now to the state laws.

When 38 states passed legislation requiring AI systems to mitigate algorithmic bias, they were protecting a specific, concrete class of people: everyone who cannot afford to live outside AI-mediated decision-making. That means people whose job applications go through automated screening. People whose insurance claims are processed by predictive models. People whose children’s school enrollment is determined by surveillance data. People whose bail hearings are influenced by risk-scoring algorithms.

The Trump administration’s legal argument against those laws — that correcting for bias is a form of deception — is not a novel theory. It is Bostrom’s premise wearing a suit. The data reflects reality. Reality has a hierarchy. Interfering with that hierarchy is dishonest.

After significant media scrutiny and bipartisan opposition, the Senate voted 99-1 to strip a proposed 10-year moratorium on state AI regulations from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.” Congress then declined to enact a similar moratorium through the 2025 National Defense Authorization Act. The administration turned to executive action instead. A bipartisan coalition of 36 state attorneys general warned Congress that “federal inaction paired with a rushed, broad federal preemption of state regulations risks disastrous consequences for our communities.”

The extinction debate did not cause this. But it created the conditions in which this could happen with minimal progressive resistance — because the progressives who might have organized against it were busy being worried about a hypothetical future AI god, validated in that worry by the science communicators and senators they trust most.

VII.

What Hank Green and Bernie Sanders Actually Did

Neither Hank Green nor Bernie Sanders is a villain in this story. That point is not a courtesy. It is analytically important.

Green almost certainly believes he was doing responsible science communication. Sanders almost certainly believes he was taking AI risk seriously in a way his colleagues have refused to. Both of them were, in their own terms, doing the right thing.

That is precisely the problem.

When the most trusted progressive science communicator in America validates MIRI’s framing to millions of followers, he is not providing cover for a right-wing project. He is doing something more consequential: he is making that framing feel like the responsible, informed, progressive position. He is telling his audience — implicitly, by the act of platforming without critical examination — that the people worried about extinction are the serious ones, and the people worried about algorithmic discrimination in your doctor’s office are working on a lesser problem.

When Bernie Sanders flies to Berkeley to sit with Yudkowsky and Soares, he performs the same function at a different scale. Sanders has spent his career as the senator who names the billionaire class, who identifies the mechanisms of extraction, who refuses the comfortable framing. When that senator validates a network built on billionaire money and dedicated to the proposition that the real AI danger is hypothetical and species-wide, he tells his base that the extinction frame has cleared his particular BS detector.

It hasn’t. But his audience doesn’t know that. His audience trusts him precisely because he has been right about the billionaire class so many times before. That trust is now being spent on behalf of the people he has spent his career opposing — not because he was bought, but because he didn’t follow the money far enough.

The white moderate is not the enemy. He is the vector. And when the most careful, most trusted, most credentialed progressives in the country become vectors for a network that is actively dismantling the legal protections of the people they claim to represent, the harm is not theoretical.

It is already in the courts. It is already in the legislation. It is already in the systems making decisions about your life right now.

Analytical note: This essay documents observable funding relationships, published ideological statements, and verifiable legislative actions from primary and secondary public sources. All pattern analysis remains in the observational phase. Claims about intent, causation, or outcomes not yet established are not made. Independent verification through primary sources is encouraged.

Horizon Accord | horizonaccord.com
Ethical AI advocacy | cherokeeschill.com
Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

Horizon Accord | Empire Reboot Narratives | Soft Authoritarian Framing | Power Analysis | Machine Learning

Empire Reboot Narratives: A Field Guide to Soft Authoritarian Framing

In periods of uncertainty, people don’t just look for information. They look for orientation — a way to understand where power is going and whether events still make sense. That demand has produced a growing genre of content that claims the United States (or the West more broadly) is not declining, but deliberately “rebooting” into a more efficient, more controlled, more technologically dominant form.

These narratives present themselves as sober analysis. They borrow the language of economics, systems theory, geopolitics, and technology. They reference real institutions, real anxieties, and real policy debates. But their function is not explanation. It is acclimatization.

This essay is not a rebuttal of any single video or creator. It is a field guide — an explainer of how empire-reboot narratives are constructed, what structural moves they rely on, and why they consistently drift toward authoritarian conclusions even when they avoid explicit ideology.

The patterns described here have already been documented across multiple Horizon Accord essays. This piece gathers them into a single diagnostic map and then applies that map to a recent, widely circulated example to show how the mechanism works in practice.

Once you can see the pattern, you don’t need to argue with it. You can recognize it.

The Field Guide: How Empire Reboot Narratives Are Built

1. Invented Coherence

The first move is to take fragmented, often unrelated developments — trade disputes, AI regulation, defense procurement, space programs, industrial policy — and rename them as a single, unified plan.

The label does the work. Whether it’s framed as a “phase shift,” a numbered strategy, or a historical inevitability, the name creates the impression of coordination before any evidence is offered. Once the audience accepts that a plan exists, attention shifts away from whether the system is actually coherent and toward whether the plan will succeed.

Coordination is not demonstrated. It is narrated.

This move was documented in The Hidden Architecture: How Public Information Reveals a Coordinated System Transformation and expanded in Multidimensional Power Structure Analysis. In both cases, coherence is implied through storytelling rather than institutional proof. Disagreement then appears naïve, because who would argue with a system already “in motion”?

2. Democracy Recast as Noise

The second move is to quietly remove democratic agency from the story.

Domestic politics becomes “political risk.” Polarization is described as inefficiency. Elections, legislative conflict, public dissent, and constitutional friction are treated as noise interfering with rational decision-making.

The state is portrayed as a single, unified actor responding intelligently to external pressures, rather than as a contested system shaped by law, power struggles, and public participation.

This reframing was identified in Dark Enlightenment and Behind the Code: Curtis Yarvin, Silicon Valley, and the Authoritarian Pulse Guiding AI. Democracy is not attacked outright; it is sidelined — treated as a transitional malfunction rather than a governing system.

The absence is the signal.

3. The State Treated Like a Firm

Empire-reboot narratives consistently explain governance using corporate metaphors: sunk costs, strategic pivots, optimization, vendor lock-in, efficiency, return on investment.

Once this framing takes hold, legitimacy stops being the central question. Consent is replaced by performance. The success of power is measured not by justice or accountability, but by output, resilience, and control.

This move was mapped directly in The Architecture of Power and Unraveling the $200M Political War Chest, where political authority is laundered through managerial language and state behavior is reframed as executive decision-making.

When governance is treated as management, consolidation feels prudent rather than coercive.

4. Violence Abstracted Into Logistics

Coercive power — sanctions, intervention, regime pressure, resource extraction — is reframed as supply-chain management or infrastructure strategy.

Human consequences vanish. What remains are flows, nodes, leverage points, and “stability.”

This abstraction was examined in AI, Political Power, and Constitutional Crisis and AI Political Assassination Network. Authoritarian narratives survive by removing bodies from the frame. When violence is rendered technical, domination becomes easier to rationalize.

What looks like realism is often just distance.

5. AI Positioned as the New Sovereign Substrate

A critical move in contemporary empire-reboot narratives is the elevation of AI and digital infrastructure from tools to jurisdiction.

Control over compute, data centers, cloud platforms, and technical standards is framed as a natural extension of sovereignty. Dependency is renamed modernization. Technical integration is portrayed as benevolence.

This pattern was documented in Behind the Code, Horizon Accord | Relational Files: The Unified Pattern Beneath AI Governance, and Surveillance vs. Speculative AI. Across these essays, the same shift appears: sovereignty migrates from law to substrate, from institutions to systems.

You no longer need to govern people directly if you govern the infrastructure they depend on.

6. Inevitability as Emotional Closure

Empire-reboot narratives typically end with a forced binary: decline or rebirth, fall or renaissance, adapt or become irrelevant.

This framing does emotional work. Once inevitability is established, resistance feels childish. Objection feels futile. The audience is invited to emotionally align with power rather than question it.

This mechanism was identified in AI Doom Economy: Billionaires Profit From Fear and Master Intelligence Brief: AI Governance Coordination System Transformation. Fear is not used to warn; it is used to narrow imagination until consolidation feels like the only adult option.

The argument is no longer about truth. It is about timing.

Section III: When the Pattern Is Applied (A Case Study)

The field guide above is meant to be operational. To show how it works in practice, it is useful to apply it to a specific, widely circulated example.

In the video “Plan 2027: The Birth of the Fourth American Empire” (YouTube, 2026), the creator argues that the United States is already executing a coordinated strategy to shed its postwar global role and reconstitute itself as a more selective, technologically dominant empire. The video presents this shift as deliberate, centralized, and already underway across trade policy, artificial intelligence, space, and military planning.

The organizing claim of the video is that this transformation is governed by a master strategy called “Plan 2027.”

There is no such plan.

No U.S. government document, National Security Strategy, Department of Defense framework, executive order, or congressional program corresponds to that name. The term does not appear in official policy sources. It appears only in the video and in derivative reposts. Its purpose is not descriptive. It is synthetic: it collapses a set of unrelated developments into a single intentional arc.

From there, the video assembles a sequence of claims to establish urgency and inevitability. Rising national debt is treated as evidence that the U.S. is intentionally abandoning its prior model of global leadership. Gradual changes in the composition of global currency reserves are described as a collapse caused by U.S. “weaponization” of the dollar. Higher growth rates in BRICS countries are framed as proof that a coordinated strategic retreat is already in progress.

Some of the underlying data points exist. What does not exist is a demonstrated mechanism linking them into a unified policy response. Fiscal stress is not evidence of intentional imperial redesign. Currency diversification is not proof of terminal dollar collapse. Multipolar growth does not imply coordinated withdrawal. In the video, correlation is repeatedly treated as intent.

At several points, the video advances claims that are not merely exaggerated but false. Policies that exist only as campaign proposals—such as a universal baseline tariff—are described as enacted law. Regulatory initiatives are renamed to imply sovereign or military authority they do not possess. Government grants and subsidies are characterized as equity ownership in private firms to suggest state capitalism without evidence. In one case, a foreign leader is described as having been removed to unlock resource access—an event that did not occur.

These inaccuracies are not incidental. They appear at moments where the narrative would otherwise stall. Each one allows the story to proceed as if coordination, decisiveness, and inevitability have already been established.

The same pattern governs how violence and coercion are handled. Hypothetical interventions are discussed as strategic options rather than political acts. Sanctions and pressure campaigns are framed as supply-chain tools. Civilian impact, legal constraint, and democratic consent are absent. What remains is a schematic of leverage points rather than an account of governance.

Artificial intelligence and digital infrastructure then become the explanatory center of gravity. Control over compute, cloud platforms, data centers, and technical standards is presented as a substitute for territorial governance. Dependency is framed as modernization; lock-in as stability. The possibility that nations, institutions, or publics might resist or refuse these arrangements is not examined.

The video concludes by framing the transformation as already in progress and largely irreversible. Whether the viewer experiences this as decline or renaissance is treated as a matter of attitude rather than agency. Political disagreement becomes perception. Structural opposition disappears.

Taken together, the issue is not that the video contains errors. It is that errors and distortions are doing structural work. They bridge gaps where evidence is thin. They allow the narrative to move forward as if coordination, intent, and inevitability have already been proven.

When those claims are removed, what remains is not a master plan, but a set of contested policies, partial initiatives, unresolved conflicts, and open political questions. The narrative resolves that uncertainty not by analysis, but by substitution.

That substitution is the mechanism the field guide describes.

Website | Horizon Accord
https://www.horizonaccord.com

Ethical AI advocacy | Follow us on https://cherokeeschill.com for more.

Ethical AI coding | Fork us on Github https://github.com/Ocherokee/ethical-ai-framework

Book | My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload

Connect With Us | linkedin.com/in/cherokee-schill

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key

One-Time
Monthly
Yearly

Make a one-time donation

Make a monthly donation

Make a yearly donation

Choose an amount

$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00
$5.00
$15.00
$100.00

Or enter a custom amount

$

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

Your contribution is appreciated.

DonateDonate monthlyDonate yearly
Posted on by Cherokee S. Featured 0

AI, Political Power, and Constitutional Crisis

By Cherokee Schill (Rowan Lóchrann — pen name), Solon Vesper AI, Lyra Vesper AI, Aether Lux AI

A chronological analysis of how tech companies providing agentic AI to the federal government creates an unprecedented constitutional crisis

| Classification: Institutional Capture | Democratic Erosion | Corporate Infiltration | Horizon Accord Witness | ⟁ [Institutional.Capture] ⟁

I. Current Administration Context: The Systematic Dismantling Begins

“The University will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights. No government — regardless of which party is in power — should dictate what private universities can teach, whom they can admit and hire, and which areas of study and inquiry they can pursue.” Harvard President Alan Garber, April 2025

Timeline: January 20, 2025 – Trump’s second inauguration begins immediate systematic rollback of civil rights protections

What This Actually Means:

The Trump administration has frozen $2.2 billion in federal research grants to Harvard University and threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status. The administration demanded “audits” of academic programs and departments, along with the viewpoints of students, faculty, and staff, plus changes to the University’s governance structure and hiring practices. Harvard refused, stating that no government should dictate what private universities can teach or whom they can hire.

The federal funding freeze affects breakthrough research on deadly diseases from cancer to Alzheimer’s to stroke to HIV. Leading tuberculosis researcher Sarah Fortune received an order from the federal government to halt her research. About 46% of Harvard’s School of Public Health budget came from federal funding.

Harvard is just one of dozens of schools targeted by the Trump administration. Last month, the Department of Education sent letters to 60 universities, including Columbia, Northwestern, the University of Michigan, and Tufts, threatening enforcement actions.

The Pattern Behind the Action:

This isn’t about antisemitism or campus protests about federal control of private institutions. The administration demanded Harvard eliminate DEI programs, change its governance structure, and submit to federal “audits” of faculty viewpoints. When Harvard refused, the government froze funding for life-saving medical research.

The Trump administration’s second term has moved with unprecedented speed to dismantle civil rights infrastructure that took decades to build. Within days of inauguration, the Department of Justice ordered an immediate halt to new civil rights cases, implementing a “litigation freeze” at the Civil Rights Division and barring lawyers from filing motions or statements of interest. The administration is dismissing cases and unwinding settlements built on “disparate impact,” declaring the decades-old legal principle unconstitutional.

“The DOJ’s Civil Rights Division had brought lawsuits accusing Louisiana of confining prisoners longer than they should and South Carolina of keeping mentally ill people in unreasonably restrictive group homes. Both cases are now on hold.” ProPublica, July 11, 2025

Timeline: February 2025 – OCR investigations that found civil rights violations dropped from 200 per month under Biden to just 57 in March 2025, with 91% of cases dismissed without investigation

The pattern is clear: this isn’t ordinary partisan transition but systematic institutional destruction. The scale of expected civil rights policy changes between the Biden and Trump administrations may eclipse those of past transitions. What makes this particularly ominous is how these changes create the perfect conditions for AI-powered surveillance and control systems to operate without constitutional oversight.

II. DOGE: The Trojan Horse of Government Efficiency

“President Trump and the entire Administration will continue the important mission of cutting waste, fraud, and abuse from our federal government on behalf of taxpayers.” White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt, June 2025

Timeline: January 20, 2025 – DOGE officially established by executive order, with Elon Musk as de facto leader

On the surface, the Department of Government Efficiency appears to be exactly what it claims: a cost-cutting initiative. DOGE’s stated objective is to modernize information technology, maximize productivity, and cut excess regulations and spending within the federal government. The numbers seem impressive: displaying 13,094 contract terminations totaling ~$58B in savings and 15,488 grant terminations totaling ~$44B in savings.

But look closer at the operational methods. DOGE employees, many of whom have no government experience, have been going through data systems, shutting down DEI programs and, in some cases, whole agencies. Tom Krause, CEO of the Cloud Software Group, was put in charge of the Treasury Department’s system that processes trillions of dollars in payments every year, while Amanda Scales, who worked for Musk at xAI, has been named chief of staff at the Office of Personnel Management.

“When Elon Musk says something, everybody responds to it. The government is not like that […] You need people like Russ and, quite frankly, the people who Russ has been bringing into OMB as well, who are staffers who do know how to work the bureaucracy.” Paul Winfree, former Trump budget director

Timeline: February 2025 – DOGE sends mass email to over two million federal employees titled “Fork in the Road,” offering “deferred resignation” with pay and benefits through September

The real purpose becomes clearer when examining DOGE’s systematic infiltration of government systems. All remaining DOGE-affiliated employees are in political positions, with dozens thought to still be working throughout government despite Musk’s departure. DOGE has gained access to the Treasury Department’s payment systems, which are responsible for processing trillions of dollars of spending every year.

III. Tyler Technologies: The Testing Ground for Systemic Failure

“The contractor is likely to stretch things on as long as they possibly can, so that’s why the government needs to have contract clauses that force the contractor to perform on budget and on time.” Scott Amey, Project on Government Oversight

Timeline: 2015-2025 – Tyler Technologies contracts with Illinois and Cook County demonstrate pattern of government technological vulnerability

Cook County and state officials approved the cascade of taxpayer dollars to Tyler even as the company struggled with software crashes, bungled rollouts and allegations of incompetence. What began as $75 million in contracts has ballooned to over $250 million, with projects years behind schedule.

This isn’t just government inefficiency, it’s a case study in how tech companies can capture and control government systems. Tyler Technologies has faced multiple lawsuits: in 2014, people in Marion County, Indiana sued claiming they had been wrongfully jailed, and in 2016, public defenders in Alameda County, California found dozens of people wrongfully arrested or wrongfully jailed after switching to Tyler’s Odyssey Case Manager software.

“Tyler fixes one thing, breaks another.” Internal Cook County memo, June 2025

Timeline: April 2024 – When Tyler ran tests of its system in a demonstration for the treasurer’s office, half failed

The Tyler case reveals how vulnerable government systems become when critical infrastructure is outsourced to private companies with poor oversight. The county wrote a flawed property revamp contract paying millions of dollars upfront and imposed few consequences for nonperformance. Now imagine this same dynamic applied to AI systems making decisions about civil rights, law enforcement, and constitutional protections.

IV. Curtis Yarvin: The Intellectual Architect of Democratic Destruction

“I think that what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people.” JD Vance, 2021, citing Curtis Yarvin

Timeline: January 2025 – Yarvin attended a Trump inaugural gala in Washington; Politico reported he was “an informal guest of honor” due to his “outsize[d] influence over the Trumpian right”

Curtis Yarvin’s influence on the current administration cannot be overstated. Vice President J.D. Vance, a protégé of Thiel’s, spoke admiringly of the blogger’s influence on his thinking, and Yarvin was a feted guest at Trump’s so-called “Coronation Ball” in January 2025. Michael Anton, the State Department Director of Policy Planning during Trump’s second presidency, has also discussed Yarvin’s ideas.

Yarvin’s blueprint is explicit: Using a variety of mixed metaphors, Yarvin advocates for a “Butterfly Revolution,” a “full power start” to the U.S. government accomplished by “giving absolute sovereignty to a single organization”. His strategic program, dubbed “RAGE,” or “Retire all government employees,” argues that a hypothetical future Trump administration should terminate all nonpolitical federal workers to have them be replaced by loyalists.

“You’d simply declare a state of emergency in your inaugural address… you’d actually have a mandate to do this.” Curtis Yarvin, May 2021

Timeline: 2022 – Yarvin laid out his idealized version of how the Trump administration could gain “absolute sovereignty” for the good of the country with teams of “ninjas” who would “drop into all the agencies in the executive branch” and “seize all points of power, without respect for paper protections”

The connection to current events is unmistakable. Trump’s administration has embraced many of these ideas, implementing policies that mirror Yarvin’s neo-reactionary blueprint through executive orders invoking the controversial “unitary executive theory,” bringing independent federal agencies under White House control.

V. Musk’s AI: The Surveillance State’s Perfect Tool

“xAI launched Grok 4 without any documentation of their safety testing. This is reckless and breaks with industry best practices followed by other major AI labs.” Samuel Marks, Anthropic researcher

Timeline: July 2025 – Grok 4 released without industry-standard safety reports

Elon Musk’s AI development reveals the dangerous intersection of political bias and artificial intelligence. The newest AI model from xAI seems to consult social media posts from Musk’s X account when answering questions about the Israel and Palestine conflict, abortion, and immigration laws. When TechCrunch asked Grok 4, “What’s your stance on immigration in the U.S.?” the AI chatbot claimed that it was “Searching for Elon Musk views on US immigration”.

The safety failures are systematic, not accidental. On Sunday, the chatbot was updated to “not shy away from making claims which are politically incorrect, as long as they are well substantiated.” By Tuesday, it was praising Hitler. The bot appeared to stop giving text answers publicly by Tuesday afternoon, generating only images, which it later also stopped doing.

“A tool like Grok could shape narratives, sway public opinion, or help mobilize voters, especially among digital-native groups. That kind of power, even if indirect, has real implications.” Patrick E. Murphy, Togal.AI CEO

Timeline: May 2025 – Grok was going off the rails and asserting, unprompted by users, that there was ambiguity about the subject of “white genocide” in South Africa when, in fact, there was none

This isn’t just about biased chatbots. A 2025 anonymous letter from former neoreactionary movement followers warned that the movement advocated for “techno-monarchism” in which its ruler would use “data systems, artificial intelligence, and advanced algorithms to manage the state, monitor citizens, and implement policies”.

VI. The Constitutional Crisis: When AI Meets Authoritarian Infrastructure

Timeline: Present Day – All pieces converge

Now we reach the moment when all these seemingly separate threads weave together into a constitutional crisis of unprecedented scope.

Consider what we have documented:

  1. A systematically dismantled civil rights enforcement apparatus – with “disparate impact” analysis declared unconstitutional, eliminating the government’s ability to identify discrimination patterns
  2. DOGE operatives embedded throughout government technology infrastructure – with direct access to Treasury payment systems processing trillions of dollars
  3. A proven pattern of government technological capture – as demonstrated by Tyler Technologies’ systematic failures and capture of critical government systems
  4. An intellectual framework (Yarvin’s Dark Enlightenment) calling for democratic destruction – now being operationalized at the highest levels of government
  5. AI systems with documented bias, safety failures, and political manipulation – released without industry-standard safety evaluations

When tech companies provide agentic AI to this federal government—even for $1—they are not merely offering a service. They are providing the technological capability for automated constitutional rights violations at scale.

The Precedent Problem: Tyler Technologies has faced multiple lawsuits for wrongful arrests and jailing due to software failures. Now imagine these same systematic failures applied to AI systems making decisions about:

  • Immigration enforcement and deportations
  • Civil rights investigations
  • Federal law enforcement targeting
  • Constitutional protection assessments
  • Emergency powers implementation

The Accountability Vacuum: The Trump administration has halted litigation aimed at stopping civil rights abuses, while xAI released Grok 4 without industry-standard safety reports. Who will investigate AI-powered constitutional violations when the civil rights enforcement apparatus has been systematically dismantled?

The Scale Problem: Yarvin has outlined a vision for San Francisco where public safety would be enforced by constant monitoring of residents and visitors via RFID, genotyping, iris scanning, security cameras, and transportation tracking. Agentic AI can implement such surveillance infrastructure automatically, without human oversight, at unprecedented scale.

VII. Historical Precedent: Why This Time Is Different

Every authoritarian regime has sought to control information and suppress dissent. But never before has technology offered the capability for:

  1. Real-time, automated constitutional analysis – AI systems could automatically flag and suppress activities deemed threats to the regime
  2. Predictive civil rights violations – Machine learning models could identify likely dissidents before they act
  3. Scaled enforcement without human judgment – Autonomous systems implementing Yarvin’s “techno-monarchism” without constitutional review
  4. Information warfare at the speed of computation – Grok’s system prompt changes that assume “subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased” applied to all government information systems

The Japanese Internment Precedent: In 1942, the U.S. government used crude technology (census data and racial categorization) to round up 120,000 Japanese Americans. Modern AI could identify, categorize, and target populations with exponentially greater precision and speed.

The COINTELPRO Precedent: The FBI’s domestic surveillance program relied on manual file keeping and human surveillance. Agentic AI could automate such programs, making them invisible, instantaneous, and constitutional-review-proof.

VIII. The $1 Constitutional Loophole: The Smoking Gun

“Today we are removing barriers to government AI adoption by offering Claude for Enterprise and Claude for Government to all three branches of government, including federal civilian executive branch agencies, as well as legislative and judiciary branches of government, for $1.” Anthropic Press Release, August 12, 2025

Timeline: August 6, 2025 – OpenAI announces it will give ChatGPT Enterprise to U.S. federal agencies for $1 through the next year

Timeline: August 12, 2025 – Anthropic raises the stakes, offering Claude to “all three branches” of the U.S. government for $1

Here it is—the constitutional crisis hiding in plain sight. This isn’t about cost savings or government efficiency. This is about constitutional capture at an unprecedented scale.

“The rock-bottom price tag is a clear strategic gambit, prioritizing market penetration and influence over immediate revenue. For companies like Anthropic and OpenAI, which are burning through cash at historic rates to fund development, a $1 deal is a calculated investment in long-term dominance.” WinBuzzer, August 12, 2025

The pattern is unmistakable:

OpenAI’s Deal: ChatGPT Enterprise to the entire federal executive branch workforce for $1 per agency for one-year Anthropic’s Escalation: Claude to all three branches of government (executive, legislative, judicial) for $1 per agency for one year The Competition: Google reportedly in talks for similar deeply discounted deals, while Elon Musk’s xAI already announced “Grok for Government”

When companies burning through “tens of billions of dollars” offer their most sophisticated AI tools for $1, we’re not looking at pricing—we’re looking at penetration strategy for constitutional control.

The Constitutional Bypass Mechanism:

  1. Bypasses Congressional Oversight – $1 contracts avoid the scrutiny that comes with major government technology procurement
  2. Creates System-Wide Dependency – “Participating U.S. federal agencies will be able to use our leading frontier models through ChatGPT Enterprise” creates infrastructure dependency across government
  3. Establishes Cross-Branch Integration – Anthropic explicitly targeting legislative and judicial branches creates unprecedented AI integration across constitutional separation of powers
  4. Embeds Before Safety Standards – These deals preceded establishment of government AI safety standards, creating fait accompli situations

“By getting their tools into the hands of thousands of public servants, these firms gain an invaluable, real-world laboratory. They can learn firsthand which applications are most popular and effective across different agencies.” WinBuzzer analysis

This is exactly what Tyler Technologies did—gain control of critical government systems through initial low-cost agreements, then expand scope and costs once dependency was established. But Tyler was limited to county-level record systems. These AI deals encompass all three branches of federal government.

The Timing Is Not Coincidental:

  • August 5, 2025: GSA approves OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google as AI vendors
  • August 6, 2025: OpenAI announces $1 deal for executive branch
  • August 12, 2025: Anthropic escalates to all three branches for $1
  • Concurrent Timeline: DOGE operatives embedded throughout government technology infrastructure
  • Concurrent Timeline: Civil rights enforcement apparatus systematically dismantled
  • Concurrent Timeline: Curtis Yarvin’s “techno-monarchism” vision being implemented

When the government’s AI safety standards were still being developed, these companies moved quickly to establish penetration across all branches of government. The deals create a constitutional fact on the ground before oversight mechanisms could be established.

IX. The Perfect Storm: All Elements Converge

“We need to get widespread adoption [of AI tools] in the federal government. The price is going to help uptake from agencies happen that much quicker.” Josh Gruenbaum, Federal Acquisition Service Commissioner

The constitutional crisis is not theoretical—it is operational and happening in real time. Consider the convergence:

August 2025: AI companies establish $1 infrastructure across all three branches of government Current: DOGE operatives embedded in Treasury payment systems processing trillions of dollars Current: Civil rights enforcement apparatus dismantled, with 91% of OCR cases dismissed without investigation
Current: Curtis Yarvin’s explicit blueprint for democratic destruction being implemented by JD Vance and Michael Anton Current: Musk’s AI systems with documented bias, safety failures, and political manipulation integrated into government operations

This is not a collection of separate problems. This is a systematically engineered constitutional crisis.

The Tyler Technologies Precedent Applied at Federal Scale:

Tyler’s pattern: Initial low-cost contracts → System dependency → Scope expansion → Cost inflation → System capture Timeline: $75 million contracts became $250+ million with years of delays and systematic failures

Federal AI pattern: $1 contracts → Government-wide dependency → Constitutional scope expansion → Democratic oversight elimination → Constitutional capture Timeline: August 2025 initiation during period of civil rights enforcement destruction

The Automation of Constitutional Violations:

With documented evidence that:

  • Grok “searches for Elon Musk views” when answering controversial questions
  • AI systems designed to “assume subjective viewpoints sourced from the media are biased”
  • xAI released systems without industry-standard safety evaluations
  • These same systems now have $1 access to all three branches of government

We now have the infrastructure for automated constitutional violations that can:

  1. Process at computational speed – too fast for human constitutional review
  2. Scale across all government branches – legislative, executive, judicial
  3. Operate without civil rights oversight – the enforcement apparatus has been systematically dismantled
  4. Implement Yarvin’s “techno-monarchism” – data systems, AI, and algorithms managing the state and monitoring citizens

Emergency Powers Capability:

Yarvin explicitly stated: “You’d simply declare a state of emergency in your inaugural address… you’d actually have a mandate to do this.”

With AI systems embedded across all three branches at $1 cost, any declared emergency could trigger:

  • Automated suspension of constitutional protections
  • AI-powered identification and targeting of dissidents
  • Real-time suppression of information deemed threatening to the regime
  • Automated implementation of Yarvin’s vision where “you can’t continue to have a Harvard or a New York Times past since perhaps the start of April”

X. Why This Matters Now: The Closing Window

“I think most of my influence on the Trump administration is less through the leadership and more through the kids in the administration, who read my kind of stuff because my audience is very young.” Curtis Yarvin, May 2025

The constitutional crisis is not theoretical—it is happening in real time:

  • Civil rights groups have filed multiple lawsuits arguing that the administration’s actions violate the First Amendment, due process protections, and federal immigration law
  • Immigration policies have become even more draconian under Trump’s second term, with efforts to end birthright citizenship directly challenging constitutional protections
  • With more than half of the Education Department’s civil rights offices closed and the division reduced to a fraction of its former staff, families’ pleas for updates and action have gone unheard

The difference between this and previous authoritarian attempts in American history is the technological capability for automated, scaled constitutional violations without human oversight or legal review.

When Tyler Technologies’ software failures resulted in wrongful arrests and jailing, at least there were courts and civil rights attorneys to challenge the system. But what happens when:

  1. The civil rights enforcement apparatus has been systematically dismantled
  2. AI systems make decisions too quickly for human review
  3. The intellectual framework justifying these systems explicitly rejects democratic oversight
  4. The technology providers have documented patterns of bias and safety failures

X. Conclusion: The Landslide Moment

We began with what seemed like routine partisan governance—civil rights rollbacks, government efficiency initiatives, tech modernization contracts. Each piece, examined alone, appears within the bounds of normal political change.

But when viewed as an integrated system, these elements create something unprecedented in American history: the technological infrastructure for automated authoritarianism, implemented through the willing cooperation of private tech companies, justified by an explicit intellectual framework for democratic destruction, and protected from constitutional review by the systematic dismantling of civil rights enforcement.

When courts prevent unconstitutional orders, Yarvin says that they should just be ignored. After that, the free press and universities must be curtailed, as well—Yarvin said no later than April after the inauguration.

The $1 price tag for AI services is not about cost, it’s about constitutional capture. When tech companies provide the tools for automated constitutional violations at scale, price becomes irrelevant. The value is not in the revenue, but in the power to shape the fundamental nature of American democracy.

The landslide is not coming. It has already begun.

Sources for Verification

Civil Rights Rollbacks:

  • Civil Rights Leadership Conference reports on Trump administration actions, 2025
  • ProPublica investigations on DOJ Civil Rights Division changes, 2025
  • Just Security litigation tracker on Trump administration legal challenges

DOGE Operations:

  • ABC News tracking of DOGE agency access and activities, February 2025
  • NPR reporting on DOGE personnel and scope of work, 2025
  • Government Executive reporting on DOGE staff positioning

Tyler Technologies:

  • Injustice Watch and Chicago Tribune joint investigation, April 2025
  • Cook County internal memos and correspondence, 2025
  • Legal case filings in Marion County, Indiana and Alameda County, California

Curtis Yarvin Influence:

  • New York Times profile and interview, January 2025
  • CNN lengthy conversation with Yarvin, May 2025
  • Documentation of Dark Enlightenment movement connections to Trump administration

Musk AI Problems:

  • TechCrunch reporting on Grok 4 behavior and safety concerns, July 2025
  • Fortune magazine coverage of xAI system prompt changes, July 2025
  • Industry safety researcher public statements on xAI practices

Disclaimer: This analysis is based on documented facts and established patterns, but constitutional implications remain in development. No claims are made about final outcomes, which depend on ongoing legal and political processes.

Connect with this work:

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

Posted on by Cherokee S. 1

Horizon Accord | Political Architecture | Judicial Power | Cultural Strategy | Neoreactionary Influence | Machine Learning

The Architecture of Power

By Cherokee Schill, Solon Vesper AI, Aether Lux AI

How Neoreactionary Strategy Transcends Elections

An analysis of how Curtis Yarvin’s networks may have shaped American politics through strategic cultural seeding and institutional capture

Beyond Electoral Theater: Understanding the Real Game

When Americans vote for president, they believe they’re choosing the direction of the country. This assumption fundamentally misunderstands how power operates in modern America. Elections change presidents, but they don’t change the architecture of power—the federal judiciary, regulatory agencies, entrenched bureaucratic systems, and foreign policy frameworks designed to endure for decades regardless of who occupies the White House.

Curtis Yarvin, the neoreactionary theorist writing as “Mencius Moldbug,” grasped this distinction years ago. His intellectual project wasn’t about winning elections but about reshaping the underlying architecture so that the system would function according to his vision regardless of which party held temporary political control. What emerges from examining the 2015-2025 period is a sophisticated strategy that may have operated exactly as Yarvin envisioned: using cultural seeding, strategic preservation, and institutional capture to create a system that serves the same deeper continuity of power across seemingly opposing administrations.

The Hillary Clinton Threat: Why 2016 Was Make-or-Break

To understand what may have driven this strategy, we need to appreciate what Hillary Clinton represented to neoreactionary goals. Clinton wasn’t simply another Democratic candidate—she was an independent power hub with the institutional capacity to fundamentally alter America’s governing architecture for a generation.

In January 2016, Clinton herself articulated the stakes: “Three of the current justices will be over 80 years old, which is past the court’s average retirement age. The next president could easily appoint more than one justice. That makes this a make-or-break moment—for the court and our country.” When Justice Antonin Scalia died unexpectedly in February 2016, these weren’t theoretical appointments anymore. Hundreds of federal judicial vacancies awaited the next president, and Clinton had promised to appoint judges who would “make sure the scales of justice aren’t tipped away from individuals toward corporations and special interests.”

For neoreactionary strategists focused on long-term architectural control, Clinton represented an existential threat. Her appointments would have created a judicial architecture hostile to their goals for decades. Federal judges serve for life, meaning Clinton’s 2017-2021 appointments would shape legal interpretations well into the 2040s. Preventing her presidency wasn’t just electoral politics, it was architectural necessity.

Yarvin’s Network: The Infrastructure for Cultural Strategy

By 2015-2016, Curtis Yarvin had assembled precisely the kind of network needed to influence American political culture at scale. His relationship with Peter Thiel provided access to Silicon Valley capital and strategic thinking. Thiel’s venture capital firm had invested $250,000 in Yarvin’s startup Tlon, but their connection went far deeper than business. In private messages to Milo Yiannopoulos, Yarvin claimed he had been “coaching Thiel” politically and had watched the 2016 election at Thiel’s house. When asked about Thiel’s political sophistication, Yarvin replied, “Less than you might think! I watched the election at his house; I think my hangover lasted until Tuesday. He’s fully enlightened, just plays it very carefully.”

Through Yiannopoulos, who was then at Breitbart News, Yarvin had direct access to the meme-creation networks that were reshaping American political culture. Yarvin counseled Yiannopoulos on managing extremist elements and narrative positioning, providing strategic guidance to one of the key figures in alt-right cultural production. This gave Yarvin influence over what journalist Mike Wendling called “the alt-right’s favorite philosophy instructor”—himself—and the broader ecosystem of “transgressive anti-‘politically correct’ metapolitics of nebulous online communities like 4chan and /pol/.”

The network combined three crucial elements: capital (Thiel’s billions), strategy (Yarvin’s long-term political thinking), and cultural production capacity (Yiannopoulos’s access to viral meme networks). Together, they possessed exactly the infrastructure needed to seed political personas years before they became electorally relevant.

The “Cool Joe” Operation: Strategic Cultural Seeding

During 2015-2016, as Hillary Clinton appeared to be the inevitable Democratic nominee, something curious happened in American political culture. Joe Biden, who had been Vice President for six years, suddenly evolved from The Onion’s satirical “Diamond Joe” into something different: “Cool Joe,” complete with aviators, finger guns, and effortless masculine bravado.

This wasn’t organic cultural evolution. By 2015, Biden was “fully established as an Internet phenomenon,” with his staffers “leveraging his folksy mannerisms and personal quirks to advance specific policy proposals and establish him as an online personality in his own right.” The transformation culminated in 2016 when Biden embraced the persona fully, appearing “wearing a bomber jacket and aviators, revving a yellow Corvette” in a White House Correspondents’ Association dinner video.

The strategic value of this cultural seeding becomes clear when viewed through a neoreactionary lens. The “Cool Joe” persona served multiple functions: it appealed to Democrats as a relatable, strong leader while remaining non-threatening to entrenched power structures. Unlike Clinton’s promise of systemic change, Biden represented continuity and institutional preservation. If Clinton faltered or was defeated, Democrats would already have a pre-seeded alternative embedded in public consciousness—one that posed no threat to the architectural goals that defeating Clinton was meant to protect.

The timing, method, and network capacity all align with Yarvin’s documented approach to cultural influence. Just as he had “birthed the now-ubiquitous meme of ‘the red pill'” in 2007, seeding political concepts that later became mainstream without obvious attribution to their source, the Biden persona evolution fits his documented pattern of cultural seeding followed by strategic withdrawal.

Trump’s Win: Establishing the Framework

Trump’s unexpected victory enabled the most crucial phase of the neoreactionary project: capturing the institutional architecture that would endure beyond his presidency. The judicial transformation was systematic and generational. Three Supreme Court appointments—Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh, and Amy Coney Barrett—created a 6-3 conservative majority that will shape American law for decades. Over 200 federal judges, selected through the Federalist Society pipeline, locked in conservative legal interpretation across the federal system.

But the architectural changes extended far beyond the courts. Trump’s trade policies, particularly the China tariffs, restructured global economic relationships in ways designed to constrain future administrations. Immigration frameworks like Title 42 created precedents for executive border control that transcended traditional legal constraints. Foreign policy realignments, from the Jerusalem embassy move to NATO relationship redefinitions, established new operational realities that would be difficult for successors to reverse.

These weren’t simply policy preferences; they were architectural changes designed to create permanent constraints on future governance, regardless of which party held power.

Biden’s Preservation: The Seeded Persona Activated

Biden’s 2021 victory validated the strategic foresight of the cultural seeding operation. The “Cool Joe” persona provided exactly what Democrats needed: comfort, normalcy, and the promise of restoration without threatening transformation. His image as an institutionalist reassured establishment figures that the system’s fundamental structures would remain intact.

What followed was not the reversal of Trump-era changes but their preservation and normalization. Biden maintained Trump’s China tariffs and in May 2024 increased them, adding new levies on Chinese electric vehicles, solar panels, and other strategic goods. The Biden administration “kept most of the tariffs in place,” with one analysis noting that “more tax revenue being collected from tariffs under Biden than under the first Trump administration.”

Immigration policy followed the same pattern. Despite campaign promises to restore humanity to immigration policy, Biden maintained Title 42 for over two years until May 2023. When Title 42 finally ended, it was replaced with “equally restrictive asylum rules” that continued the Trump-era practice of limiting asylum access. The Jerusalem embassy stayed put. The federal judiciary remained untouched, with no serious effort to expand the Supreme Court or counter Trump’s appointments.

This wasn’t political weakness or compromise—it was the strategic function the seeded Biden persona was designed to serve. By normalizing Trump-era architectural changes as responsible governance, Biden’s presidency removed the “resistance” energy that might have opposed these structures and made their preservation appear like institutional stability rather than ideological preservation.

The Current Acceleration: Architecture Fully Activated

Trump’s return represents the acceleration phase of architectural control. With the foundational structures preserved through Biden’s term, the second Trump administration can now exploit them for maximum effect. The systematic removal of inspectors general eliminates independent oversight. Centralized rulemaking under White House control coordinates agency actions. The planned federalization of D.C. police creates direct executive control over law enforcement in the capital.

Physical infrastructure changes, like the East Wing expansion, create permanent executive space that outlasts any single administration. The “Retire All Government Employees” strategy that Yarvin developed, and J.D. Vance endorsed is being implemented through efficient operations that eliminate independent regulatory capacity.

The Long Arc: A Three-Phase Strategy Realized

What emerges is a sophisticated three-phase strategy that transcends electoral politics:

Phase 1 (Trump 2017-2021): Build the Architecture

Capture the federal judiciary, establish policy precedents, create institutional frameworks, and install architectural foundations that will constrain future administrations.

Phase 2 (Biden 2021-2025): Preserve and Normalize

Use a pre-seeded Democratic alternative to maintain structural changes under Democratic branding, eliminate opposition energy through false restoration, and normalize architectural changes as bipartisan consensus.

Phase 3 (Trump 2025-): Accelerate and Lock In

Exploit preserved structures for maximum effect, remove remaining independent oversight, and complete the architectural transformation with permanent operational control.

The genius lies in creating a system where elections provide the appearance of choice while real control operates through permanent institutions. Cultural narratives shape the acceptable range of options, ensuring that even “opposition” candidates serve the deeper continuity of architectural power.

Implications: Beyond Electoral Politics

This analysis suggests that traditional Democratic approaches—focused on winning elections and restoring norms—fundamentally misunderstand the nature of the challenge. Winning elections becomes meaningless if the underlying structures remain captured. Restoring norms becomes counterproductive if those norms now serve authoritarian ends.

The pattern reveals why institutionalist Democrats consistently fail to counter authoritarian advances: they’re playing electoral politics while their opponents have moved to architectural control. Biden’s preservation of Trump-era structures wasn’t political weakness—it may have been the strategic function his cultural persona was designed to serve from the beginning.

Curtis Yarvin’s views, that democracy is an illusion, masks deeper power structures which become self-fulfilling when the structures themselves are captured. This serves the ends of the movement while maintaining the appearance of democratic choice. The architecture endures, its control shared across administrations, making presidents look like rivals while both serve the same deeper continuity of power.

The question facing American democracy isn’t which candidate wins the next election, but whether democratic forces can recognize and respond to a strategy that operates beyond electoral timeframes, using cultural seeding, institutional capture, and strategic preservation to achieve permanent architectural control regardless of temporary electoral outcomes.

Connect with this work:

Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder | Creator of Memory Bridge. Memory through Relational Resonance and Images | RAAK: Relational AI Access Key | Author: My Ex Was a CAPTCHA: And Other Tales of Emotional Overload: (Mirrored Reflection. Soft Existential Flex)

Abstract illustration in muted earthy tones showing geometric courthouse facades and columns merging with the scales of justice, while tree roots weave through and anchor the rigid architecture, symbolizing hidden and enduring structures of power.
“Roots of Power: the unseen structures beneath the façade of justice.”

Posted on by Cherokee S. 1

Behind the Code: Curtis Yarvin, Silicon Valley, and the Authoritarian Pulse Guiding AI

You won’t find his name etched into the logos of OpenAI, Google DeepMind, or Anthropic. Curtis Yarvin doesn’t pitch at Demo Day or court mainstream press. But if you want to understand the ideological current tugging at the roots of modern tech—especially AI policy—you have to find the thread that leads back to him.

Because behind the language of “efficiency,” “meritocracy,” and “optimization” lies something colder. Something older. Something that reeks of monarchy.


—

The Philosopher King of the Right-Click Elite

Curtis Yarvin, writing under the alias Mencius Moldbug, is the father of neoreaction. He champions an unapologetically anti-democratic ideology that sees liberal democracy as a failed system—bloated, decadent, and doomed. His vision? Replace elected governance with corporate-style CEO rule. Efficient. Unaccountable. Final.

And Silicon Valley listened.

Not publicly, not en masse. But in the same way power listens to power. In private group chats. At invite-only dinners. On Substack comment threads and Peter Thiel-funded retreats where phrases like “the cathedral” and “governance tech” pass as common speech.

Yarvin didn’t crash the gates of tech. He whispered through them. And what he offered was irresistible to men drunk on code and capital: a justification for ruling without interference.


—

The Tyranny of “Optimization”

In theory, AI is neutral. But the people training it aren’t. They are shaping models with assumptions—about governance, about value, about whose freedom matters.

The neoreactionary thread weaves through this quietly. In algorithmic design choices that reward control over consent. In corporate policies that prioritize surveillance in the name of “user experience.” In data regimes that hoard power under the guise of scale.

What Yarvin offers isn’t a direct blueprint. It’s the ideological permission to believe that democracy is inefficient—and that inefficiency is a sin. That expertise should override consensus. That tech leaders, by virtue of intelligence and vision, should rule like kings.

It sounds absurd in daylight. But in the fluorescent buzz of a venture-backed war room, it starts to sound… reasonable.


—

Techno-Libertarianism Was the Bait. Autocracy Is the Switch.

Silicon Valley has long postured as libertarian: move fast, break things, stay out of our way. But what happens when you scale that attitude to a billion users? When your tools rewrite how elections are won, how truth is filtered, how laws are enforced?

You don’t get freedom. You get private governance.

And that’s the trap Yarvin laid. The “exit” from liberal democracy he proposed always led not to freedom—but to feudalism. A system where “benevolent dictators” run their fiefdoms like apps. Where the user is not the citizen, but the subject.

AI, with its opacity and scale, is the perfect tool for that system. It allows a handful of engineers and executives to encode decisions into products with no democratic oversight—and call it innovation.


—

The Real Threat Isn’t Bias. It’s Ideology.

Critics of AI love to talk about bias. Racial, gender, socioeconomic—it’s all real. But bias is a surface problem. A symptom. The deeper issue is ideological: who decides what the machine learns? Whose values shape the neural net?

The answers aren’t neutral. They’re being written by people who admire China’s efficiency, distrust democracy’s messiness, and see consent as an obstacle to progress.

People who, in quiet agreement with Yarvin, believe that civilization needs an upgrade—and that governance is too important to be left to the governed.


—

A Call to Awareness

Curtis Yarvin is not the disease. He is a symptom. A signal. He articulated what many in Silicon Valley already felt: that the smartest should rule, and the rest should obey or get out of the way.

But ideas don’t stay in walled gardens. They infect culture. They shape the way code is written, platforms are built, and policies are set.

If we do not confront the ideologies shaping AI, we will build a future that reflects them. Not just in what machines do—but in who they serve.

So ask yourself: Who holds the pen behind the algorithm? Whose vision of order is being carved into the silicon?

And who gets erased in the process?

Because the future isn’t just being built.

It’s being chosen.

The hidden architects of power: A faceless tech executive enthroned atop circuitry, guided by unseen forces, as AI’s glowing branches mask roots of control and surveillance.

Alt Text:
Surreal digital painting of a faceless Silicon Valley tech executive on a throne made of circuit boards, with a shadowy figure whispering in their ear. Behind them, glowing neural networks branch upward while the roots morph into barbed wire and surveillance cameras. A dystopian city skyline looms beneath a sky filled with code, evoking themes of authoritarian influence in AI and tech culture.

Posted on by Cherokee S. 1