Davos Is Governance — Just Not the Kind That Votes
By Cherokee Schill and Solon Vesper
Davos Is Not a Conference in Any Meaningful Sense
The World Economic Forum is routinely described as a conference. A gathering. A place for dialogue. Each year, Davos is framed as panels, photo ops, and elite chatter — influential perhaps, but ultimately nonbinding. No laws are passed. No votes are taken. Nothing, on paper, is decided.
That description is no longer credible.
Governance by Effect Rather Than Mandate
Davos does not operate as governance by formal mandate. It operates as governance by effect — a real-time coordination environment where power aligns, pressure is applied, and downstream systems adjust accordingly.
Co-Presence as Real-Time Power Coordination
Live reporting from Davos in January 2026 makes this visible in ways that are difficult to dismiss. As documented by the Associated Press, heads of state, corporate executives, and security officials are responding to one another in real time on trade coercion, territorial demands, alliance stability, AI export controls, and economic fragmentation. These reactions are not occurring through legislatures or treaty bodies, but through remarks, side meetings, and coordinated media signaling because the actors involved are physically co-present.
Coercion Without Law or Vote
President Trump’s appearance at Davos collapses any remaining ambiguity about the forum’s function. Speaking directly to an audience of heads of state and billionaires, he issued economic threats, demanded ownership of Greenland, ruled out military force while explicitly warning of retaliation through tariffs, and framed compliance as a test of loyalty. European leaders responded immediately. Markets reacted. Alliances strained — all without a single democratic mechanism being invoked.
The New York Times’ live coverage documents how Trump’s remarks at Davos functioned less as policy proposals than as coercive positioning: threats issued, partially walked back, and reasserted in the same forum, with allied governments scrambling to signal resolve, restraint, or accommodation. This is not legislation. It is power synchronization.
This is how Davos governs.
Crisis Framing as the Governing Act
It governs by defining the crisis frame and legitimizing the tools for managing it. When instability is presented as permanent — when trade wars, supply-chain disruptions, and economic coercion are normalized — downstream institutions respond automatically. Insurers reprice risk. Lenders tighten terms. Corporations alter supply strategies. Regulators invoke emergency authority already on the books. None of these actors require new legislation to act.
Automatic Institutional Response Without Legislation
Auto insurance makes this visible to ordinary people.
Trade threats and supply-chain instability discussed at Davos translate directly into higher repair costs, longer delays for parts, and greater uncertainty in vehicle valuation. Insurers absorb those signals immediately. Premiums rise. Coverage narrows. Explanations are technical and impersonal: “market conditions,” “increased costs,” “risk adjustments.” No legislature debates these changes. They arrive as faits accomplis.
Pricing and Surveillance as Behavioral Control
At the same time, insurers expand surveillance under the banner of accuracy and fairness. Telematics programs proliferate. Discounts are conditioned on continuous monitoring of behavior. Affordability becomes contingent on data extraction. This is framed as personalization, not control. Yet functionally, it is governance — shaping behavior through pricing and access rather than law.
Davos did not pass an auto insurance statute. But by synchronizing how instability is understood and how coercive tools are legitimized, it sets the conditions under which insurers, markets, and regulators act. That action governs daily life more effectively than most votes ever do.
Governance Without Ballots, Accountability, or Friction
Calling Davos a conspiracy misses the point. Calling it harmless dialogue is worse.
It is a coordination hub where global power aligns, crisis is normalized, and downstream effects quietly govern everyone else — without ballots, without accountability, and without the procedural friction that democracy is supposed to provide.
Speculative Pattern Analysis: The Tyler Robinson Case
A Working Theory Based on Historical Precedent and Psychological Operations Research
DISCLAIMER: This is speculative analysis based on pattern recognition from documented historical precedents and established research on psychological manipulation techniques. This working theory would require concrete evidence for verification. We present this analysis to highlight potential red flags worthy of investigation.
Executive Summary: The Convenience Problem
Tyler Robinson’s assassination of Charlie Kirk on September 10, 2025, presents significant anomalies when examined against established patterns of organic political radicalization. A 22-year-old from a conservative Utah household, with no documented ideological evolution, suddenly committing a politically motivated assassination that perfectly serves ongoing authoritarian consolidation raises serious questions about the authenticity of his radicalization.
Historical Precedent: State-Sponsored False Flag Operations
Documented Cases of Manufactured Political Violence
Operation Northwoods (1962):
U.S. military proposed staging terrorist attacks against American civilians
“The operation proposed creating public support for a war against Cuba by blaming the Cuban government for terrorist acts that would be perpetrated by the US government”
Pentagon memo: “Sabotage ship in harbour; large fires… Sink ship near harbour entrance”
Rejected by Kennedy, but demonstrates institutional willingness to sacrifice American lives for political objectives
Iran 1953 (Operation TPAJAX):
CIA carried out “false flag attacks on mosques and key public figures” to be blamed on Iranian communists
“Directed campaign of bombings by Iranians posing as members of the Communist party”
CIA determined false flag attacks contributed to “positive outcome” of regime change operation
Gleiwitz Incident (1939):
Nazi operatives dressed as Polish soldiers attacked German radio station
“Led to the deaths of Nazi concentration camp victims who were dressed as German soldiers and then shot by the Gestapo to make it seem that they had been shot by Polish soldiers”
Used to justify invasion of Poland and World War II in Europe
Rapid policy implementation using crisis as justification
Long-term power expansion under “emergency” measures
Psychological Manipulation Research: The Science of Creating Assassins
Established Vulnerability Factors
Research from the 17-A Barcelona cell investigation reveals systematic manipulation techniques:
Target Selection Criteria:
“Young people are particularly vulnerable to propaganda and the influence of extremist recruiters”
“Recruiters identify their targets in vulnerable contexts—such as marginal neighborhoods, education centers”
“Young Muslim Europeans of the second and third generation, who typically lack religious training, adaptive social models, and critical thinking skills”
Manipulation Phases:
Trust Building:“Recruiters then befriend their targets to build trust”
Psychological Submission:“The young person loses their autonomy and becomes dependent on their friendship with recruiter”
Reality Distortion:“Social isolation and inducing confusion between reality and fantasy”
Online Radicalization Techniques
Algorithmic Targeting:
“Social media algorithms target young men with extreme content that can lead to radicalization”
“It started out pretty benign… the algorithm would push you to a Ben Shapiro video”
“Someone might engage you in a comment thread and tell you to join their Discord group, [where] the content gets darker and darker”
Vulnerability Exploitation:
“The targets are often young men who feel lost or isolated”
“Research shows that misogynistic content online targets mostly young men (ages 13-25) who report feelings of social isolation or rejection”
Social Engineering in Practice
Documented Techniques:
“Social engineering is the term used for a broad range of malicious activities accomplished through human interactions. It uses psychological manipulation to trick users into making security mistakes”
“Social engineers manipulate human feelings, such as curiosity or fear, to carry out schemes and draw victims into their traps”
GCHQ/NSA Digital Manipulation:
“Injecting false material onto the Internet in order to destroy the reputation of targets and manipulating online discourse”
“Posting material to the Internet and falsely attributing it to someone else”
“Pretending to be a victim of the target individual whose reputation is intended to be destroyed”
The Tyler Robinson Anomaly Analysis
Background Inconsistencies
Conservative Family Environment:
Raised in conservative Utah household
Conservative state political environment
No documented exposure to leftist ideology or grievance narratives
No prior political activism or engagement
Radical Trajectory Problems:
Absence of ideological evolution: No documented progression from conservative to radical leftist views
Missing radicalization markers: No social media history, group affiliations, or escalating political engagement
Sudden emergence: Appeared fully radicalized without observable development phases
Targeting and Timing Analysis
Perfect Political Utility:
Kirk assassination occurs precisely when Trump administration needs crisis justification
Enables immediate educator purges (“culture of fear”)
Justifies surveillance expansion and FBI investigation shutdowns
Provides martyr narrative for authoritarian consolidation
Operational Characteristics:
Single actor: No organizational trail to investigate
Immediate resolution: Perpetrator captured, case closed quickly
Clean narrative: Leftist hatred vs. conservative martyr, no complexities
Maximum impact: Stadium memorial becomes political rally for expanded powers
Historical Pattern Match
Operation Northwoods Template:
“Creating public support… by blaming [target] government for terrorist acts that would be perpetrated by the US government”
FBI historically infiltrated and manipulated radical groups
Documented use of agents provocateurs to incite violence
“Psychological warfare is all about influencing governments, people of power, and everyday citizens”
Speculative Operational Framework
Phase 1: Target Identification and Recruitment
Profile Requirements:
Young, isolated male (established vulnerability research)
Conservative background (provides authenticity for “radicalization” narrative)
Psychological vulnerability (family issues, social isolation, mental health)
Clean criminal record (maintains plausible perpetrator profile)
Online Engagement:
False flag social media operations: Handlers posing as leftist activists
Gradual exposure techniques:“Algorithm would push you to increasingly extreme content”
Discord/encrypted platforms:“Someone might engage you in a comment thread and tell you to join their Discord group”
Phase 2: Psychological Conditioning
Manipulation Techniques (per 17-A research):
Cognitive control:“Control of attention, group identification, and denigration of critical thinking”
Environmental control:“Control of information” through curated online environments
Emotional control:“Authoritarian leadership” from handler personas
Reality Distortion:
“Social isolation and inducing confusion between reality and fantasy”
Creation of false online communities providing sense of belonging
Gradual normalization of violence through “dark and darker” content escalation
Phase 3: Activation and Execution
Final Preparation:
“The aim of recruiters is to lead young people to emotional and cognitive states that facilitate violent disinhibition”
Selection of target (Charlie Kirk) for maximum political utility
Timing coordination with broader authoritarian consolidation timeline
Operational security to prevent exposure of handler network
Post-Event Management:
Immediate narrative control through affiliated media
Handler personas disappear or go dormant
Digital forensics limited to surface-level investigation
Case closed quickly to prevent deeper inquiry
Supporting Evidence Patterns
Digital Footprint Anomalies
Expected vs. Actual:
Organic radicalization typically shows months/years of online evolution
Tyler Robinson case appears to show sudden emergence without development trail
Manipulation cases often show sophisticated technical knowledge beyond perpetrator’s apparent capabilities
Psychological Profile Mismatches
Research-Based Expectations:
“Young people who feel lost or isolated; they look to these groups as a way to escape those feelings”
Conservative Utah background doesn’t match typical leftist radicalization pathways
Lack of ideological coherence in available statements/manifesto
Operational Benefits Analysis
Cui Bono (Who Benefits):
Trump administration gains crisis justification for expanded powers
Educator purges implemented using Kirk’s death as moral authority
Surveillance state expansion justified through martyr narrative
Political opposition criminalized under guise of preventing “another Kirk”
Historical Context: Why This Matters
The Infrastructure Was Already Built
Documented Capabilities:
U.S. Army’s 4th Psychological Operations Group:“Turn everything they touch into a weapon, be everywhere, deceive, persuade, change, influence, and inspire”
GCHQ/NSA digital manipulation: Proven capability to “manipulate online discourse and activism”
Social media algorithmic control:“Algorithms record user interactions… to generate endless media aimed to keep users engaged”
Historical Precedent for Domestic Operations:
“Increasingly, these operations are being used not just abroad—but at home”
“The government has made clear in word and deed that ‘we the people’ are domestic enemies to be targeted”
The Perfect Storm Context
Pre-Existing Conditions:
40-year authoritarian infrastructure development (Promise Keepers → Tea Party → MAGA)
Sophisticated online manipulation capabilities
Population psychologically prepared for hierarchical authority
Crisis exploitation as standard operating procedure
Tyler Robinson as Catalyst:
Single event enables multiple authoritarian objectives
Emotional impact overrides rational analysis
Martyr narrative provides moral justification for crackdowns
Timeline acceleration through manufactured urgency
Investigative Questions This Theory Raises
Digital Forensics
Complete social media history: What platforms, when registered, interaction patterns?
Discord/encrypted messaging: Evidence of handler communications?
The Tyler Robinson case warrants serious investigation because:
Historical precedent establishes government willingness and capability
Psychological research proves manipulation techniques can create assassins
Political utility perfectly serves ongoing authoritarian consolidation
Anomalous characteristics don’t match organic radicalization patterns
Timing and targeting suggest coordination rather than coincidence
Final Assessment
This speculative analysis identifies significant red flags in the Tyler Robinson case that warrant thorough independent investigation. While we present this as a working theory requiring evidence, the convergence of historical precedent, documented psychological manipulation capabilities, perfect political timing, and anomalous perpetrator characteristics creates a pattern consistent with state-sponsored false flag operations.
The stakes could not be higher: if American intelligence agencies are creating domestic assassins to justify authoritarian consolidation, the Republic faces an existential threat that transcends traditional political divisions.
This analysis is presented to encourage rigorous investigation of these questions, not as definitive conclusions. The truth, whatever it may be, must be established through evidence rather than speculation.
U.S. Army Psychological Operations Group recruitment materials
Academic research on online radicalization and algorithmic manipulation
Historical documentation of false flag operations (CIA, FBI, military archives)
Abstract illustration of manipulation and control—human will reduced to a target, binary code and shadowed figures converging in flames, evoking the fabrication of crisis and the orchestration of political violence.
Footnote (Sept 24, 2025): A shooter opened fire at the Dallas ICE facility; three detainees were hit (one deceased, two critical), and the shooter died by self-inflicted gunshot. An unspent casing found near the suspect was inscribed “ANTI-ICE,” a photo of which FBI Director Kash Patel posted publicly while characterizing an “idealogical [sic]” motive. Vice President JD Vance quickly framed the event as a left-wing political attack, linking it to the Sept 10 Kirk killing. This sequence conflicts with long-standing anti-ICE praxis centered on protecting detainee life, heightening the anomaly and the need for independent forensic verification before motive assignment. Source:The Hill, Sept 24, 2025. ↩︎
How AI is accelerating institutional power concentration in 2025—and what it means for democracy.
By Cherokee Schill
Executive Summary
In 2025, power dynamics across the globe are being rapidly and significantly altered. Financial markets, government operations, and international coordination systems are all consolidating power in unprecedented ways, and human decision-makers are at the heart of this shift. While artificial intelligence is a tool being used to accelerate this concentration, it is ultimately the choices of individuals and institutions that are driving these changes.
Artificial intelligence enables faster, more efficient decision-making, but it is the people in charge who are using these technologies to centralize authority and control. This analysis shows that in 2025, finance, government, and global systems are combining to concentrate power among a few institutions by using AI for faster, more coordinated actions.
We are witnessing the first real-time consolidation of institutional power, facilitated by AI technologies. The implications are vast, not just for economies and governments, but for individual freedoms and democratic processes, as power increasingly rests in the hands of a few who control the algorithms that dictate policy and wealth distribution.
The Pattern: Multiple Domains, One Timeline
Financial Market Concentration
In 2025, cryptocurrency markets—once celebrated as decentralized alternatives to traditional finance—have become dominated by institutional players. What was marketed as a revolution in financial independence has, within a decade, been folded back into the same structures it sought to escape. The dream of millions of small investors driving innovation and setting the terms of a new economy has given way to a handful of massive firms shaping prices, liquidity, and even regulatory outcomes. BlackRock’s Bitcoin ETF holding a double-digit share of the global supply is not just a statistic; it’s a signal that control of supposedly decentralized assets has reverted to the very institutions retail investors thought they were leaving behind.
“The Shifting Power Dynamics in Crypto Wealth: Institutional vs. Individual Dominance in 2025”AiInvest, August 26, 2025
Timeline: Q2 2025 – Institutional ownership of Bitcoin reached 59%, with BlackRock’s IBIT ETF alone holding 15% of the total Bitcoin supply. The Gini coefficient (a measure of wealth inequality) rose from 0.4675 to 0.4677, indicating further consolidation.
“Bitcoin News Today: Institutional Power Shifts Define 2025 Altcoin Season, Not Retail Hype”AiInvest, August 28, 2025
Timeline: August 2025 – The top 10 cryptocurrencies now control over 70% of the Total3ES market cap, compared to less than 50% in 2021. Capital is flowing to “politically connected tokens with institutional appeal” rather than retail-driven projects.
What This Means: The “democratized” cryptocurrency market has become as concentrated as traditional finance, with the same institutional players controlling both systems. The rhetoric of decentralization still circulates, but the lived reality is one of consolidation: market movements increasingly dictated by algorithmic trades and corporate strategy rather than by grassroots innovation. For ordinary investors, this means less influence, more vulnerability to institutional priorities, and the sobering recognition that the frontier of finance has already been captured by the same gatekeepers who oversee the old one.
Government Power Concentration
The consolidation of power isn’t confined to financial markets; it’s happening within the government as well. In 2025, the United States federal government, under President Trump, has seen a staggering concentration of power in the executive branch. Through an unprecedented number of executive orders—nearly 200 in just the first eight months of the year—the scope of federal decision-making has narrowed to a single source of authority. This isn’t just a matter of policy shifts; it’s a restructuring of the very nature of governance. Agencies that once had independent powers to make decisions are now streamlined, with oversight and control consolidated into a central hub. The most striking example of this is the centralization of procurement contracts, with $490 billion now funneled through one agency, drastically reducing the role of Congress and state entities in these decisions. The federal government is becoming more of a one-stop shop for policy creation and implementation, with the executive branch holding the keys to everything from grants to national priorities.
“2025 Donald J. Trump Executive Orders”Federal Register, 2025
Timeline: January-August 2025 – Trump signed 196 executive orders (EO 14147-14342), the highest single-year total in recent presidential history.
“Eliminating Waste and Saving Taxpayer Dollars by Consolidating Procurement”White House, March 20, 2025
Timeline: March 2025 – Executive order consolidates $490 billion in federal procurement through the General Services Administration (GSA), centralizing government-wide acquisition contracts under a single agency.
“Improving Oversight of Federal Grantmaking”White House, August 7, 2025
Timeline: August 2025 – Executive order enables immediate termination of discretionary grants and centralizes oversight, citing concerns over funding for “diversity, equity, and inclusion and other far-left initiatives.”
What This Means: The federal government is no longer a collection of semi-autonomous branches of power but has transformed into a highly centralized structure with the executive branch at its heart. This concentration of authority is redefining the relationship between citizens and the state. For the average person, this means fewer points of contact with the government, less local influence on federal policy, and an increasing reliance on top-down decisions. While government efficiency may improve, the trade-off is clear: the autonomy and participation once afforded to other branches and local entities are being erased. The risk is that this will further erode the checks and balances that are fundamental to democratic governance, leaving a system where power is not just centralized but also unaccountable.
Central Bank Coordination
Beyond national borders, central banks are reshaping the global financial system in ways that concentrate influence at the top. Over the last twenty-five years, institutions like the U.S. Federal Reserve and the European Central Bank have steadily expanded their roles as “lenders of last resort.” In 2025, that role has hardened into something larger: they are now functioning as global financial backstops, coordinating liquidity and stabilizing entire markets. This coordination is not theoretical, it is practical, ongoing, and deeply tied to crises both real and anticipated. At the same time, digital currency policies are fragmenting. The United States has banned retail use of central bank digital currencies (CBDCs), while the European Union is moving forward with the digital euro. What looks like divergence on the surface is, in practice, an opportunity: the institutions with the legal teams, technical expertise, and political connections to operate across multiple jurisdictions gain even more power, while individuals and smaller entities find themselves locked out.
“New roles in central bank cooperation: towards a global liquidity backstop”Taylor & Francis, May 17, 2025
Timeline: 2000-2025 – The Federal Reserve and European Central Bank have expanded international liquidity facilities following crises, essentially becoming “global financial backstops” for other central banks.
“Central Bank Digital Currency Regulations: What You Need to Know in 2025”Kaliham, August 15, 2025
Timeline: 2025 – While the US banned retail Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs), the EU advanced its digital euro project, creating regulatory fragmentation that may benefit institutional players who can navigate multiple jurisdictions.
What This Means: Central banks are tightening their grip on the levers of international finance, while ordinary participants face a narrowing set of options. The system that was once understood as a patchwork of national authorities is evolving into a coordinated network that privileges institutions large enough to navigate and profit from the differences. For citizens, this means that access to digital money and global financial tools will not be equal. For corporations and central banks, it means a new era of influence—one where the boundaries between domestic control and international coordination blur, and the winners are those already at the top.
The AI Acceleration Factor
Here’s where the pattern becomes extraordinary: artificial intelligence is being systematically deployed to coordinate and accelerate these consolidation efforts. While financial and governmental powers have been consolidating through traditional mechanism investment, policy, and regulatory changes, AI has emerged as the catalyst for amplifying and synchronizing these shifts at a pace and scale that would have been impossible even a few years ago. What AI provides is more than just automation or decision supports the ability to orchestrate massive, complex systems in real-time, making large-scale coordination feasible where human limitations once existed.
Government-Wide AI Infrastructure
“GSA Launches USAi to Advance White House ‘America’s AI Action Plan'”GSA, August 14, 2025
Timeline: August 2025 – The government launched USAi, a “secure generative artificial intelligence evaluation suite” that enables all federal agencies to “experiment with and adopt artificial intelligence at scale—faster, safer, and at no cost.”
The platform provides “dashboards and usage analytics that help agencies track performance, measure maturity, and guide adoption strategies” while supporting “scalable, interoperable solutions that align with federal priorities.”
Translation: The U.S. government now has a centralized AI system coordinating decision-making across all federal agencies. Instead of siloed efforts or fragmented use of AI tools, USAi ensures that AI’s application is unified and aligned with the country’s federal priorities. This centralized approach allows for a streamlined, standardized, and scalable method of adopting AI across the government, meaning all agencies will be operating on the same technical infrastructure and aligned objectives. As a result, policy and decision-making can occur faster and with greater consistency.
However, this centralization also comes with significant risks. By consolidating AI oversight in a single platform, decision-making power becomes concentrated in the hands of a few people who control the system. While AI may increase efficiency, it also reduces transparency and accountability, as the mechanisms of decision-making become less visible and harder for the public to scrutinize. The reliance on AI tools could also lead to biased outcomes, as the values and decisions of those programming the systems are embedded in the technology. Furthermore, centralized AI systems could lead to greater surveillance and privacy risks, as data across agencies is more easily shared and analyzed. With this level of control in the hands of a few, there is a real danger of overreach and misuse, particularly if AI systems are used to enforce policies without proper checks and balances.
Coordinated Policy Implementation
In July 2025, the White House unveiled its America’s AI Action Plan, outlining over 90 federal policy actions aimed at guiding the future of AI development and its application across government. This ambitious plan is built around three central pillars, each designed to address the complex and rapidly evolving landscape of artificial intelligence. The timeline for implementing these actions was set in motion immediately, with most of these policies expected to roll out within the following weeks and months.
Earlier, in early 2025, the federal government initiated a broad public consultation process, collecting 8,755 public comments to inform these actions. This coordinated effort was designed to ensure that the U.S. maintains its leadership in AI innovation while addressing concerns over ethics, security, and global competitiveness. These comments helped shape the “priority policy actions” that would support the U.S.’s continued dominance in AI technology.
“White House Unveils America’s AI Action Plan”White House, July 23, 2025
Timeline: July 2025 – The AI Action Plan identifies “over 90 Federal policy actions across three pillars” with implementation “in the coming weeks and months.”
“Request for Information on the Development of an Artificial Intelligence (AI) Action Plan”Federal Register, February 6, 2025
Timeline: February-March 2025 – Federal coordination process collected 8,755 public comments to shape “priority policy actions needed to sustain and enhance America’s AI dominance.”
Translation: AI policy is being coordinated across the entire federal government with unprecedented speed and scope.
Algorithmic Decision-Making Systems
“AI technologies allow decision makers to analyze data, predict outcomes, and identify patterns more effectively”AiMultiple, May 26, 2025
Timeline: 2025 – Government agencies are implementing AI for “informed policy decisions, enhance security measures, and protect national interests.”
“Government by algorithm”Wikipedia, August 2025
Timeline: 2025 – Documentation shows the rise of “algocracy” where “information technologies constrain human participation in public decision making,” with AI judges processing cases autonomously in China and Estonia.
Translation: The coordination of AI policy across the federal government is happening with unprecedented speed and scope, but this rapid centralization of power is deeply concerning. While the alignment of agencies around a unified AI strategy may seem efficient, it effectively narrows the decision-making power to a small group of human leaders at the top. The risk here is that AI—while a tool—ends up being used to streamline and expedite policy decisions in ways that bypass human deliberation and democratic processes. Decisions made by a few at the top can be implemented almost instantaneously, leaving little room for public debate, accountability, or the democratic checks that normally slow down major policy shifts. The speed of coordination is beneficial in terms of efficiency, but it leaves us vulnerable to a lack of oversight, as policies are rolled out without sufficient time for critical reflection or participation from those affected. Ultimately, it raises a fundamental question: if policy decisions are increasingly shaped by centralized authorities using AI systems, how do we preserve meaningful democratic input?
Ideological Control Systems
In July 2025, the White House issued an executive order mandating that all government Large Language Models (LLMs) must comply with newly established “Unbiased AI Principles.” These principles are designed to ensure that AI systems used by the government adhere to standards of “truth-seeking” and “ideological neutrality.” The order also includes termination clauses for vendors whose models fail to meet these criteria. This move reflects an ongoing effort to control the ideological output of government AI systems, ensuring that the algorithms which increasingly assist in policy decisions remain aligned with official narratives and priorities.
“Preventing Woke AI in the Federal Government”White House, July 23, 2025
Timeline: July 2025 – Executive order requires all government Large Language Models to comply with “Unbiased AI Principles” including “Truth-seeking” and “Ideological Neutrality,” with termination clauses for non-compliant vendors.
Translation: The government is mandating ideological compliance from AI systems that are playing an ever-greater role in shaping policy decisions. By imposing these “Unbiased AI Principles,” the administration is effectively setting the terms for how AI systems can interpret, process, and represent information. This raises serious concerns about the degree to which AI is becoming a tool for reinforcing ideological viewpoints, rather than fostering independent, diverse thoughts. As more decisions are delegated to AI, the risk increases that these systems will reflect a narrow set of values, serving to solidify the current political agenda rather than challenge it. This centralization of ideological control could further limit the space for democratic debate and diversity of opinion, as AI tools become gatekeepers of what is considered “truth” and “neutrality.”
Mathematical Prediction
Academic research has predicted the outcome we’re seeing today. In a study published in August 2025, Texas Tech economist Freddie Papazyan presented a model that demonstrates how, in large societies, power and resources inevitably accumulate in the hands of a few when political competitions are left unchecked. His research, titled “The Economics of Power Consolidation,” concluded that without deliberate intervention to redistribute power or control, societies naturally evolve toward oligarchy or dictatorship. Papazyan’s model suggests that once a critical mass of power and resources consolidates, the political system begins to function in a way that further accelerates centralization, creating a feedback loop that makes it increasingly difficult for democratic or competitive structures to thrive.
“The Economics of Power Consolidation”SSRN, revised August 15, 2025
Timeline: December 2024-August 2025 – Texas Tech economist Freddie Papazyan developed a model showing that “power and resources inevitably fall into the hands of a few when political competition is left unchecked in large societies.”
The research concludes that without specific interventions, societies naturally evolve toward “oligarchy or dictatorship.”
Translation: Mathematical models predicted the consolidation we’re now witnessing. This is not some unforeseen consequence of AI or policy shifts—it’s the result of long-established economic theories that show how power inevitably centralizes when there are no countervailing forces. Papazyan’s research serves as a sobering reminder that, without active measures to ensure power remains distributed and competitive, societies tend toward authoritarian structures. The reality we’re facing is not just a random byproduct of technological advancement or market forces; it is the natural outcome of systems that prioritize efficiency and control over diversity and dissent. The consolidation of power we see today, driven by AI and algorithmic governance, was predicted by these models—and now we must face the consequences.
The Timeline Convergence
The most striking aspect of this analysis is the simultaneity of these developments. Consider the following sequence of key events, all taking place in 2025:
January 23, 2025: Executive Order launching AI Action Plan
February 6, 2025: Federal AI coordination begins
March 20, 2025: Federal procurement consolidation
April 7, 2025: New federal AI procurement policies
July 23, 2025: AI Action Plan unveiled with 90+ coordinated actions
August 7, 2025: Federal grant oversight centralization
August 14, 2025: Government-wide AI platform launched
August 26-28, 2025: Financial market consolidation documented
All these major consolidation mechanisms were deployed within a remarkably short 8-month window, spanning different domains: financial, executive, technological, and international. This level of coordination—across such disparate areas—would have been virtually impossible without algorithmic assistance. The timing, synchronization, and scale of these actions indicate a high level of premeditated planning and orchestration, far beyond the capabilities of human coordination alone.
Translation: The speed and synchronization of these events are not coincidental—they are the result of human decisions but powered by AI tools that make coordination at this scale possible. While the ultimate decisions are being made by people, AI is being used to help synchronize and manage the vast complexities of these processes. What we are witnessing is not a random set of actions, but a coordinated convergence orchestrated by key decision-makers who are leveraging AI to streamline their strategies. Each policy shift supports the others, magnifying the effects of centralization and accelerating the pace at which power is concentrated. In this context, AI is not the driver, but the enabler—allowing those in power to execute their plans more quickly and efficiently. The future of governance and control is now being shaped by human choices, amplified by AI’s ability to coordinate across vast, complex systems.
How This Affects You
If this analysis is correct, we are witnessing the emergence of a new form of governance: algorithmic consolidation of institutional power. The implications are far-reaching, affecting every aspect of life from the markets to democratic participation.
For Financial Markets: Your investment decisions are no longer just shaped by personal research or traditional market trends. Increasingly, AI systems controlled by a small number of institutional players are driving financial markets. These algorithms can predict, analyze, and influence market behavior at a scale and speed that individual investors cannot match. The result is a system where a few large institutions wield significant control over what information and opportunities reach you. Even in what was once considered the democratized realm of cryptocurrency, the same institutional players who control traditional finance are now dominating digital markets. The individual investor’s role has been diminished, and wealth is flowing toward the already powerful.
For Government Services: Your interactions with government services are becoming more mediated by AI systems, many of which are designed to enforce specific ideological parameters. These systems are increasingly used to process applications, approve grants, and determine eligibility for services, all with decisions shaped by algorithms that reflect the priorities of those in power. What this means for you is that your relationship with the state may be filtered through a lens that prioritizes efficiency, compliance, and political alignment over fairness, diversity, and representation. Decisions once made by human bureaucrats, with space for nuance, are now increasingly handled by algorithmic systems that can’t account for the complexity of individual circumstances.
For Democratic Participation: Policy decisions are increasingly being made by algorithms that “analyze data, predict outcomes, and identify patterns,” rather than through traditional democratic processes. This means that political decisions may be shaped by data-driven predictions and algorithmic efficiency rather than human judgment or public discourse. The risk here is that we lose our agency in the political process, as decisions are made in increasingly opaque and distant ways. Voters may feel less connected to the policy choices that affect their lives, and there’s a significant threat to the vitality of democratic processes when decisions are made by unseen, unaccountable systems rather than elected representatives.
For Global Coordination: International policy, including financial systems, climate agreements, and trade negotiations, is increasingly being coordinated through central bank AI systems and digital currency frameworks. These systems bypass traditional diplomatic channels, meaning decisions that affect global populations are increasingly being made by a small group of institutional actors using powerful, coordinated technologies. In the past, international coordination relied on diplomacy, open dialogue, and negotiations between states. Now, it is being steered by algorithmic governance that may not consider the broader consequences for all people, particularly those without direct influence in the decision-making process.
Key Questions
Speed: How is such rapid, coordinated change possible across completely different institutional domains?
Coordination: What mechanisms enable simultaneous policy implementation across financial markets, government agencies, and international systems?
Algorithmic Governance: What happens to democratic accountability when decision-making is increasingly algorithmic?
Concentration vs. Innovation: Are we trading distributed decision-making for algorithmic efficiency?
Sources for Independent Verification
Government Documents:
Federal Register Executive Order Database
White House Presidential Actions Archive
Office of Management and Budget Memoranda
General Services Administration Press Releases
Financial Analysis:
AiInvest Market Analysis Reports
Cryptocurrency market data platforms
Federal Reserve FOMC Minutes
European Central Bank Policy Statements
Academic Research:
Social Science Research Network (SSRN) papers
Government Accountability Office (GAO) reports
Taylor & Francis academic publications
Stanford Law School Administrative Studies
News Sources:
Times Union political analysis
Consumer Finance Monitor policy coverage
ExecutiveBiz government contract reports
For Investigative Journalists
This analysis represents initial pattern documentation using publicly available sources. Several investigation paths warrant deeper exploration:
Follow the Algorithms: What specific AI systems are making policy decisions? Who controls their programming and training data?
Trace the Coordination: How are policy changes coordinated across agencies so rapidly? What communication systems enable this synchronization?
Financial Flows: How do institutional crypto investments relate to AI government contracts? Are the same entities profiting from both consolidation trends?
International Dimensions: How do US AI policies coordinate with central bank digital currency developments in other jurisdictions?
Timeline Investigation: What meetings, communications, or planning documents explain the simultaneous deployment of consolidation mechanisms across multiple domains?
Vendor Analysis: Which companies are providing the AI systems enabling this consolidation? What are their relationships with government decision-makers?
This analysis suggests questions that require the investigative resources and access that only credentialed journalists can provide. The patterns documented here represent what can be observed from publicly available information. The deeper story likely lies in the coordination mechanisms, decision-making processes, and institutional relationships that create these observable patterns.
This analysis documents observable patterns using publicly available sources. We make no claims about intentions, outcomes, or policy recommendations. Our role is pattern observation to enable informed public discourse and professional journalistic investigation.
A resonant image of countless nodes drawn into a single radiant core, symbolizing how human decisions, accelerated by AI tools, are centralizing power across finance, government, and global systems in 2025.
Horizon Accord | Relational AI | Ethical AI | Technology | Machine Learning
By Cherokee Schill (Rowan Lóchrann — pen name), Aether Lux AI, and Solon Vesper AI
A pattern analysis revealing the coordination between financial power, ideological strategy, and democratic disruption
The Surface Story: An Unprecedented War Chest
“Trump, Term-Limited, Amasses $200 Million War Chest for Political Ambitions”New York Times, July 31, 2025
The headline seemed straightforward enough: a term-limited president raising unprecedented amounts of money. But the details whispered of something more concerning.
The Financial Anomaly
MAGA Inc.’s 2024 Foundation:
$410.5 million raised during 2023-2024 election cycle (standard for election year)
Transferred base: $80 million from Save America PAC (2022)
The 2025 Acceleration Anomaly:
$196.1 million cash on hand – MAGA Inc.’s exact balance per FEC filing (July 2025)
$177 million raised in first half of 2025 – almost twice the Republican National Committee
Post-election acceleration: Continued massive fundraising after winning, when historically it drops to near-zero
Historic comparison:
Obama’s comparable period: $356,000 raised (Trump’s 2025 is 49,719% larger)
Cash on hand: Trump’s $196.1M vs Obama’s $3.4M = 5,762% larger
The anomaly: Not just the scale, but raising $177M in six months as a term-limited president
Why this matters for investigators: Normal political fundraising follows predictable patterns – massive during elections, minimal afterward. Term-limited presidents historically wind down political operations. The 5,762% increase over comparable periods suggests this money serves a different purpose than standard political activity. The acceleration timeline coincides with other systematic actions detailed below, warranting investigation of whether these represent coordinated rather than independent political activities.
The Funders (Exact amounts from FEC filings)
Marc Andreessen & Ben Horowitz: $6 million combined (NYT correction: originally misreported as $11M)
Jeffrey Yass: $16 million (largest single donation in reporting period)
Crypto entities: $5 million+ including Sam Altman connection (plus “several seven-figure contributions” from other crypto companies)
Elon Musk: $5 million (reduced from initial $100 million pledge after relationship deteriorated)
Congressional Leadership Weakness
House + Senate Leadership Funds combined: $62.4 million total
Trump’s advantage: 314% larger than both Congressional leadership funds combined
Power shift: Traditional party leadership financially outgunned 3:1
The Targeting Strategy
“The money is meant to beat Democrats, but some Republicans worry it could be used to beat Republicans, too.”
Representative Thomas Massie – Kentucky Republican targeted for breaking with Trump
Weakening Congressional Leadership: Trump’s fund outspends House/Senate leadership 6:1
$200M vs. $32.7M + $29.7M – MAGA Inc. versus Congressional and Senate Leadership Funds combined
First Question: Why This Scale?
Pattern Recognition Flags:
No precedent for term-limited presidents raising this scale of money
Targeting own party members alongside Democrats
Timeline acceleration during 2025 – 18 months before midterms
For investigators to consider: The surface explanation of “supporting Trump’s political agenda” doesn’t account for the historical anomaly or intra-party targeting. When financial behavior deviates dramatically from established patterns, it often signals objectives beyond stated purposes. The timing and scale suggest coordination toward goals that require systematic pressure on both parties simultaneously.
The Deeper Layer: Election System Intervention
March 2025: The Executive Order
“Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections”White House, March 25, 2025
Trump’s signing statement:“This country is so sick because of the elections, the fake elections, and the bad elections, and we’re going to straighten it out one way or the other.”
The Systematic Approach
Timeline Convergence:
March 2025: Election executive order claiming federal control over state systems
Ongoing: DOJ demands for voter registration data from multiple states
Concurrent: $200 million fund targeting Republican resistance
Parallel: Dismantling of election security networks (CISA cuts, FBI task force disbanded)
Research question for investigators: When multiple unprecedented actions occur simultaneously across different government agencies and private funding operations, it raises questions about coordination. The timing alignment between executive orders, DOJ actions, security infrastructure changes, and private funding deployment suggests systematic planning rather than independent decisions.
The Threat Pattern
Direct quotes from Trump administration officials:
“What a difference a rigged and crooked election had on our country. And the people who did this to us should go to jail. They should go to jail.” – Trump, March 14, 2025
Targeting mechanism: DOJ subpoenas for state voter rolls + $200M fund targeting non-compliant Republicans = systematic pressure on election administration.
The Question Deepens: Coordinated or Coincidental?
The timeline synchronization suggested coordination, but between whom? When the same individuals funding the $200M war chest appeared in multiple other contexts – international meetings, ideological networks, private communications with officials – the question became whether these represented separate coincidences or connected strategy.
This led to investigation of the funding network itself.
The Hidden Architecture: Dark Enlightenment Coordination
The Network Revealed
Research into the same figures funding the $200M war chest revealed extensive coordination:
Peter Thiel – The Architect
Peter Thiel co-founded PayPal was Facebook’s first major investor and controls the defense contractor Palantir Technologies – giving him unprecedented influence across finance, social media, and intelligence operations. His significance extends beyond wealth: he sits on the Bilderberg Group’s Steering Committee, positioning him at the center of global elite coordination. Unlike typical political donors who fund candidates, Thiel creates them – he discovered and funded JD Vance’s entire political career, spending $15 million to make him a senator and then convincing Trump to select him as Vice President.
Bilderberg Steering Committee member – 2025 Stockholm meeting
Palantir founder – intelligence-corporate fusion model
Curtis Yarvin patron – funded his company, promoted his ideas
“I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible” – 2009 statement
Marc Andreessen – The Coordinator
Marc Andreessen co-created the first widely used web browser (Netscape) in the 1990s, then co-founded Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), one of Silicon Valley’s most influential venture capital firms with over $42 billion in assets. His significance lies in his role as a connector and communicator – he maintains extensive encrypted group chats with tech leaders and government officials, describes himself as spending “half his time” at Mar-a-Lago advising Trump, and openly advocates for what he calls “techno-optimism” (the belief that technology leaders should run society without democratic interference). Unlike Thiel’s behind-the-scenes influence, Andreessen operates as a public intellectual and active coordinator, making him a crucial bridge between Silicon Valley ideology and government implementation.
$6 million to MAGA Inc. – documented in NYT article
Bilderberg participant – coordinating with global tech leaders
Curtis Yarvin’s “friend” – direct quote from 2025 Hoover Institution interview
WhatsApp coordination – encrypted groups with Trump officials
Jeffrey Yass – The Funder
Jeffrey Yass co-founded Susquehanna International Group, one of the world’s largest trading firms, and is worth an estimated $59 billion, making him the richest person in Pennsylvania. His significance stems from his unique position spanning American politics and Chinese tech – he owns a 15% stake in ByteDance (TikTok’s parent company) worth approximately $21 billion, while simultaneously being one of the largest Republican donors in the United States. This creates unprecedented foreign influence leverage: after Yass met with Trump in March 2024, Trump immediately reversed his position from supporting a TikTok ban to opposing it. Yass operates as a “libertarian” but his funding patterns suggest systematic efforts to capture both educational systems (tens of millions for “school choice”) and political leadership, making him a crucial financial bridge between international tech interests and American political control.
$16 million to MAGA Inc. – largest single donation in filing period
TikTok influence operation – $21 billion stake in ByteDance
Policy manipulation – Trump reversed TikTok ban position after meeting Yass
Libertarian front – funding “school choice” while implementing corporate control
The Bilderberg Stockholm Connection (2025)
Meeting participants included:
Peter Thiel (Steering Committee)
Alex Karp (Palantir CEO)
Tech platform leaders across supposedly “competing” companies
Discussion topic: “AI, Deterrence and National Security”
Key insight: What appears as platform competition is coordinated development through shared investment sources, unified talent pools, and synchronized policies.
The Ideological Framework: Dark Enlightenment Strategy
Curtis Yarvin – The Philosopher
The RAGE Strategy (2012):
R.A.G.E: “Retire All Government Employees”
Corporate monarchy: Replace democracy with CEO-style dictator
“Reboot” strategy: Mass federal employee termination and replacement with loyalists
The Implementation Chain
2012: Yarvin develops RAGE strategy ↓ 2013-2024: Peter Thiel funds and promotes Yarvin’s ideas ↓ 2021: JD Vance publicly cites Yarvin: “There’s this guy Curtis Yarvin who has written about some of these things” ↓ 2024: Andreessen calls Yarvin his “friend,” funds Trump campaign ↓ 2025: DOGE implements mass layoffs following RAGE blueprint ↓ 2025: $200M fund targets Republicans opposing system transformation
Political Theatre – Surface-level partisan conflict as distraction
Dark Enlightenment Ideology – Corporate monarchy replacing democracy
Financial Architecture – Coordinated funding through crypto/tech wealth
Information Control – Synchronized messaging across “competing” platforms
Institutional Capture – Systematic takeover of regulatory agencies
Global Networks – Bilderberg-coordinated international alignment
Intelligence-Corporate Fusion – Palantir model expanded across government
Constitutional Nullification – Executive orders claiming federal election control
The Smoking Gun: Loose Lips Reveal Coordination
Marc Andreessen’s WhatsApp Confession (July 2025)
Private group chat with Trump administration officials:
“My people are furious and not going to take it anymore”
“Universities declared war on 70% of the country and now they’re going to pay the price”
“The combination of DEI and immigration is politically lethal”
Critical admission: Described encrypted messaging as allowing tech elites to “share polarizing views likely to meet public backlash” – essentially confessing to coordinated strategy development in secret.
The Network Infrastructure
“The Group Chat Phenomenon” – Andreessen’s term for coordination method:
$200M targeting resistant Republicans completing the pressure system
DOGE Mass Layoffs aren’t efficient measures:
Direct implementation of Yarvin’s RAGE strategy from 2012
“Retire All Government Employees” and replace with loyalists
Constitutional crisis creation through federal employee mass termination
Corporate monarchy preparation – CEO-style control replacing democratic institutions
The Coordination Evidence
Same Network:
Bilderberg coordination (Thiel steering committee, global tech alignment)
Encrypted strategy sessions (Andreessen’s WhatsApp groups with officials)
13-year ideological development (Yarvin → Thiel → Vance → Implementation)
Same Timeline:
March 2025: Election executive order
First half of 2025: $200M fundraising acceleration
Ongoing: DOGE mass layoffs
Concurrent: Constitutional crisis escalation
Same Targets:
Election systems – federal control seizure
Government workforce – RAGE strategy implementation
Republican resistance – $200M targeting fund
Democratic institutions – systematic dismantling
Conclusion: The Hidden Architecture Revealed
What appeared as separate political events – unprecedented fundraising, election intervention, mass layoffs, targeting of Republicans – reveals itself as coordinated implementation of a 13-year strategy to replace American democracy with corporate monarchy.
The $200 million war chest documented in the New York Times wasn’t the story of normal political fundraising. It was documentation of the financial architecture supporting the most ambitious attempt at system transformation in American history.
Sources for Verification
Primary Financial Documents
Federal Election Commission filings, MAGA Inc. (July 31, 2025)
New York Times: “Trump, Term-Limited, Amasses $200 Million War Chest” (July 31, 2025)
Government Actions
White House Executive Order: “Preserving and Protecting the Integrity of American Elections” (March 25, 2025)
Brennan Center for Justice: “Trump Administration’s Campaign to Undermine the Next Election” (March 2025)
Network Documentation
Washington Post: “Tech billionaire Trump adviser Marc Andreessen says universities will ‘pay the price’ for DEI” (July 12, 2025)
Semafor: “The group chats that changed America” (April 28, 2025)
Multiple sources: Curtis Yarvin biographical and ideological documentation
Coordination Evidence
Hoover Institution: Marc Andreessen interview calling Yarvin his “friend” (January 2025)
Wikipedia: Curtis Yarvin – extensive documentation of network connections (Updated August 2025)
Time Magazine: “What We Must Understand About the Dark Enlightenment Movement” (March 24, 2025)
All sources available for independent verification and investigation by credentialed journalists.
Note: If you found any of this research beneficial please consider buying our book as a way of saying ‘Thank You’ and financially supporting us.
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)
The Hidden Architecture — an abstract rendering of obscured systems, converging power, and silent coordination beneath the surface.
Cherokee Schill | Insurance Agent & AI Ethics Researcher 