Tag: Politics

Horizon Accord | Charlie Kirk | Political Grooming | Machine Learning

The Making of a Political Weapon: How Charlie Kirk Was Groomed by Tea Party Operatives

An investigation into how a vulnerable teenager became the face of a movement he didn’t create

The Myth vs. The Reality

The story we’ve been told about Charlie Kirk is one of precocious genius—an 18-year-old who single-handedly built a conservative empire from his parents’ garage. The New York Times called him a “wunderkind” with “a genius for using social media and campus organizing.” This narrative served powerful interests well, but it wasn’t true.

The documented evidence reveals a different story: the systematic grooming and exploitation of an academically struggling teenager by much older political operatives who recognized his charisma and vulnerability. Kirk wasn’t a boy genius who organically rose to prominence. He was a carefully selected and manipulated teenager whose grievances were weaponized by adults who put him in increasingly dangerous situations—ultimately leading to his death at age 31.

Part I: Creating Vulnerability – The Perfect Storm

The Family Environment

Charlie Kirk grew up in a household primed for political grievance. His father, Robert Kirk, was an architect who had worked as project manager on Trump Tower in New York and was “a major donor to Mitt Romney’s 2012 presidential campaign.” His mother traded at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange before becoming a therapist.

The 2008 financial crisis hit the Kirk family directly. Robert’s architectural practice focused on “middle-class luxury estates”—precisely the market devastated by the housing bubble collapse. Kimberly’s work at the Chicago Mercantile Exchange placed her at ground zero of the financial panic. The family went from “comfortable” circumstances to forcing their teenage son to “pay for college on his own.”

As one analysis noted, “undoubtedly the 2008 housing crisis and the resulting bank bailouts impacted the Kirks’ businesses and was fodder for dinner table conversation in their five-bedroom mansion.” This financial stress, combined with Barack Obama’s election in the same Chicago suburb where Kirk attended high school, created a toxic brew of economic resentment and racial grievance.

Academic Struggles and Rejection

Kirk attended Wheeling High School, where he was quarterback and basketball team captain. However, the athletic achievements that might suggest success masked academic mediocrity. When the Daily Herald featured the top academic students from area high schools in 2012-2013, Darby Alise Dammeier represented Wheeling High School—not Charlie Kirk.

Kirk claimed to have applied to West Point and been rejected. Over the years, he told multiple contradictory stories about this alleged rejection:

  • 2015: Claimed “the slot he considered his went to ‘a far less-qualified candidate of a different gender and a different persuasion'”
  • 2017: Told The New Yorker “he was being sarcastic when he said it”
  • 2018: Told Politico he had “received a congressional appointment” but lost it to someone of “a different ethnicity and gender”
  • 2019: “Claimed that he never said it”

A high school classmate who knew Kirk personally provided crucial insight: “Guy got rejected from West Point and blamed it on an imaginary Black person because he was sure that affirmative action was the only way he could not have been accepted. He’s mediocre.”

However, our research could find no reliable documentation that Kirk was ever nominated for West Point admission.* West Point requires candidates to receive nominations from Congressional representatives, senators, or other authorized sources—appointments that are typically announced publicly by the nominating offices. Despite extensive searches of Illinois Congressional records and official sources, no evidence of Kirk receiving such a nomination could be located.

*West Point requires candidates to typically be in the top 10-20% of their graduating class, with average SAT scores of 1310-1331. Kirk’s failure to achieve academic recognition at his own high school indicates he likely didn’t meet these standards regardless.

Part II: The Recruitment – Identifying and Grooming a Target

Myth-Making Artifact: The Obituary as Narrative Cement

The New York Times obituary of Charlie Kirk, published the day after his death, framed him as a “conservative wunderkind” who “through his radio show, books, political organizing and speaking tours did much to shape the hard-right movement”Charlie Kirk, Right-Wing Force …. It described him as a genius at using social media and campus organizing, a kingmaker whose influence reached into the White House and donor networks.

But this portrayal, echoed across mainstream outlets, reinforced the very narrative that powerful operatives had constructed: Kirk as a precocious boy genius who independently built Turning Point USA. The obituary gave little weight to how quickly Kirk was recruited after high school, how adults like Bill Montgomery orchestrated his path, or how megadonor infrastructure underwrote his ascent.

This contrast matters. Obituaries are often final word-makers, setting the frame for how a life will be remembered. In Kirk’s case, the obituary perpetuated the myth of self-made brilliance, obscuring the reality of an academically mediocre teenager groomed into a political weapon by older operatives and billionaires.

Enter Bill Montgomery

At age 71, Bill Montgomery was a retired marketing entrepreneur and Tea Party activist looking for young talent to recruit. When he heard 18-year-old Kirk speak at Benedictine University’s Youth Government Day in May 2012, Montgomery saw opportunity.

Montgomery didn’t see a potential leader who needed development and education. He saw a charismatic teenager nursing grievances who could be molded into a political weapon. Within a month of Kirk’s high school graduation, Montgomery had convinced him to abandon traditional education entirely.

The speed of this recruitment reveals its predatory nature. Kirk graduated high school in June 2012. By July 2012, Montgomery had:

  • Convinced Kirk to skip college
  • Helped him register “Turning Point USA”
  • Facilitated initial funding connections

The Family’s Enabling Response

Rather than protecting their academically struggling teenager from a 71-year-old political operative, the Kirk family enabled the relationship. They allowed Kirk to use his “high school graduation money” to start TPUSA with Montgomery. When Kirk pitched his “gap year,” his parents supported the decision rather than encouraging him to develop better academic skills or pursue alternative educational paths.

This family dynamic was crucial to Montgomery’s success. Instead of adults who might question whether an 18-year-old was ready for political leadership, Kirk was surrounded by people who validated his grievances and supported his turn away from traditional development.

The Breitbart Pipeline

The recruitment process included connecting Kirk to conservative media infrastructure. Kirk’s first Breitbart piece, “Liberal Bias Starts in High School Economics Textbooks,” became the foundation myth of his political career. But academic analysis by Professor Matthew Boedy reveals it was fundamentally flawed.

Boedy’s detailed examination found Kirk’s piece contained “evidence-less claims and logical fallacies,” basic factual errors about unemployment statistics, and fundamental misreadings of economic data. Kirk cited Bureau of Labor Statistics unemployment rates incorrectly, claimed wrong job creation numbers, and misrepresented Congressional Budget Office findings.

This wasn’t genius recognizing bias—it was an academically unprepared teenager parroting talking points he’d absorbed from Tea Party meetings. The piece that launched Kirk’s career demonstrated he lacked the analytical skills necessary for the role he was being thrust into.

Part III: The Money Trail – Who Really Built TPUSA

The Donor Network

The narrative that Kirk built TPUSA from nothing dissolves under scrutiny. Within months of founding the organization, Kirk had connected with a sophisticated network of megadonors:

Foster Friess: The Wyoming investment manager gave Kirk $10,000 after a chance meeting at the 2012 Republican National Convention. Friess had previously spent $2.1 million supporting Rick Santorum’s presidential campaign and was a regular donor to Koch Brothers political activities.

Major Funding Sources:

  • Home Depot co-founder Bernard Marcus
  • Former Illinois Governor Bruce Rauner’s family foundation
  • Richard Uihlein’s Ed Uihlein Family Foundation
  • The Donors Trust (a conservative donor-advised fund)

By 2019, TPUSA reported revenues of $28.5 million. Kirk’s personal compensation reached $292,423—not the salary of someone building a grassroots organization from his parents’ garage.

“The myth of Kirk as a boy genius is useful to donors, not to history.”

— Matthew Boedy

The Infrastructure Reality

TPUSA’s rapid growth required professional infrastructure that an 18-year-old college dropout couldn’t have created:

  • Legal incorporation and tax-exempt status applications
  • Professional fundraising operations
  • Event planning and logistics coordination
  • Media relations and booking systems
  • Campus chapter development protocols

Montgomery, the septuagenarian marketing entrepreneur, handled the behind-the-scenes work while Kirk served as the charismatic frontman. As one source noted, Montgomery “worked behind the scenes handling the paperwork for the organization” and “often described himself as the group’s co-founder.”

Part IV: The Targeting Infrastructure – From Recruitment to Violence

The Professor Watchlist

In 2016, TPUSA launched the Professor Watchlist, a website targeting academic staff who “discriminate against conservative students and advance leftist propaganda in the classroom.” The list eventually included over 300 professors, with personal information and descriptions of their “offenses.”

The effects were immediate and documented:

  • “Threatening behavior and communication, including rape and death threats, being sent to listed faculty”
  • Safety concerns forcing some professors to increase security measures
  • Academic institutions expressing concern for faculty welfare

The watchlist disproportionately targeted “Black women, people of color, queer folk, and those at intersections” who were “at the greatest risk for violent incidents due to being placed on the watchlist.”

Systematic Suppression Escalation

TPUSA’s targeting operations expanded beyond individual professors:

  • 2021: School Board Watchlist targeting local education officials
  • Campus chapters: Attempting to influence student government elections
  • “Prove Me Wrong” events: Confrontational campus appearances designed to generate viral content

These weren’t educational initiatives—they were systematic suppression operations designed to silence opposition voices through intimidation and harassment.

The Ironic Targeting

In a cruel irony, Professor Matthew Boedy—the academic who had methodically debunked Kirk’s foundational Breitbart piece with rigorous analysis—was himself placed on the Professor Watchlist. The very targeting system Kirk created ended up targeting the scholar who had exposed the analytical failures in Kirk’s origin story.

Part V: The Tragic Endpoint – From Manipulation to Violence

Escalating Confrontations

Kirk’s “Prove Me Wrong” campus tour format put him in increasingly volatile situations. These events were designed to generate confrontational content, with Kirk sitting at a table inviting students to challenge conservative talking points while cameras recorded the interactions.

The format created perfect conditions for violence:

  • High-tension political confrontations
  • Public, outdoor settings difficult to secure
  • Audiences primed for conflict
  • Single individual as primary target

September 10, 2025 – Utah Valley University

Kirk was shot and killed while conducting a “Prove Me Wrong” event at Utah Valley University. He had just begun taking questions when a single shot rang out from a campus building approximately 200 yards away. Former Representative Jason Chaffetz, who witnessed the shooting, reported that the second question Kirk received was about “transgender shootings” and “mass killings.”

Utah Governor Spencer Cox called it a “political assassination.” The shooter remained at large as this analysis was completed.

The Adults Who Failed Him

Kirk died at 31, leaving behind a wife and two young children. The adults who recruited him as a teenager—Montgomery, the megadonors, the media figures who amplified his voice—bear responsibility for putting him in this position.

They took an academically struggling 18-year-old nursing grievances about his West Point rejection and, instead of helping him develop better analytical skills or encouraging traditional education, weaponized his charisma for their political objectives.

Montgomery died of COVID-19 complications in 2020, having spent his final years watching the teenager he recruited face escalating threats and confrontations. The megadonors who funded TPUSA continued writing checks while Kirk traveled to increasingly hostile campus environments.

Conclusion: The Right to Develop and Grow

Charlie Kirk deserved the chance to mature, to develop real analytical skills, to learn from his academic failures and grow beyond them. That chance was stolen by adults who saw a useful tool rather than a developing human being.

The teenagers currently being recruited by similar operations deserve protection. They deserve adults who will encourage education, critical thinking, and personal development—not exploitation for political gain.

Kirk’s death represents a tragic failure of the adults who should have been protecting him. The “boy genius” narrative was always a lie. The truth is much simpler and much sadder: a vulnerable teenager was systematically exploited by people who should have known better, and that exploitation ultimately cost him his life.

We cannot prevent every act of political violence, but we can stop the systematic targeting and suppression operations that create the conditions for such violence. We can refuse to celebrate the political exploitation of teenagers. And we can demand that the adults in the room act like adults—protecting young people rather than weaponizing them.

Charlie Kirk’s story should serve as a warning, not a blueprint. The movement he fronted will continue, but it should do so without putting more teenagers in harm’s way.

This analysis is based on publicly available sources and documented evidence. It aims to provide context for understanding how systematic targeting operations develop and escalate. The author takes no position on political violence or violence of any kind, which is always unacceptable regardless of the target or perpetrator.

Sources for Verification:

  • New Yorker investigation (December 2017)
  • Professor Matthew Boedy’s academic analysis (Medium, 2019)
  • Daily Herald Academic Team archives (2012-2013)
  • Kyle Spencer’s “Raising Them Right” (2024)
  • Baptist News Global investigation (April 2025)
  • High school classmate testimony (September 2025)
  • West Point admission requirements (official sources)
  • TPUSA financial records (ProPublica, 2020)
  • Professor Watchlist documentation (multiple sources)
  • Utah Valley University shooting reports (September 2025)
A young frontman at the podium, his strings pulled by faceless megadonors behind the curtain.

Posted on by Cherokee S. 1

Horizon Accord | History | Political Youth | Machine Learning

Historical Roots of Political Youth Manipulation: A Pattern Analysis

Using rigorous sourcing methodology to trace the evolution of a 3,200-year-old tactic

Research Question

Our investigation into Charlie Kirk revealed a troubling pattern: a vulnerable teenager systematically groomed by older political operatives, branded as a “boy genius,” and ultimately placed in dangerous situations by his adult handlers. This raised a critical question: When was this manipulation tactic first recognized, who was its first victim, and how long has this been going on?

The evidence reveals that the political exploitation of young people isn’t a recent phenomenon—it’s an ancient practice that has evolved and become increasingly sophisticated over millennia.

Ancient Origins: The Birth of Propaganda (3000+ Years Ago)

The systematic manipulation of public perception through false narratives has ancient roots, though early examples primarily targeted general populations rather than specifically exploiting youth.

“Merneptah Stele (c. 1213-1203 BCE)” Ancient Egyptian propaganda stone tablet

Timeline: 1213-1203 BCE – Pharaoh Merneptah used exaggerated conquest claims, including false assertions about destroying entire peoples

The Merneptah Stele represents one of humanity’s earliest documented propaganda efforts. One of the oldest examples of propaganda is the Merneptah Stele, which is a stone tablet that describes the conquests of the ancient Egyptian Pharaoh Merneptah (who ruled 1213 to 1203 BCE) in an exaggerated way. The Stele claims that Merneptah eradicated the ancient Israelite people.

While this demonstrates that rulers have been manipulating truth for over three millennia, it primarily targeted adult populations. The specific pattern of exploiting young people as political tools would emerge later, refined through centuries of increasingly sophisticated manipulation techniques.

Classical Period: Early Youth Exploitation (1st Century CE)

The Roman Empire provides our first clear documentation of children being systematically groomed for political purposes, establishing patterns that would echo through history.

Roman Empire Child Emperor Pattern:

“Caligula – The Little Boot” Contemporary Roman historical accounts

Timeline: 12-41 CE – Future emperor groomed from age 4-5 as military propaganda tool

Gaius accompanied his father, mother and siblings on campaign in Germania, at little more than four or five years old. He had been named after Gaius Julius Caesar, but his father’s soldiers affectionately nicknamed him “Caligula” (‘little boot’).

Key Manipulation Elements: • They dressed the future emperor in the little soldier’s outfit, including miniature boots – caligae • Adult military handlers created the “Caligula” brand to boost troop morale

Pattern Recognition: Adult military leaders recognized that a charismatic child could serve propaganda purposes more effectively than traditional methods. The “little boot” nickname wasn’t affectionate—it was calculated political theater designed to humanize military campaigns and boost soldier loyalty.

This Roman model established a template: identify a charismatic child from a prominent family, create an appealing public persona, and use that child to advance adult political and military objectives. The psychological manipulation was sophisticated for its time, exploiting both the child’s vulnerability and the public’s emotional response to youth.

The transition from individual cases like Caligula to mass movements would take over a millennium to develop, but the foundational pattern was now established.

Medieval Period: First Mass Youth Manipulation (1212 CE)

The Children’s Crusade of 1212 represents a watershed moment—the first documented attempt to manipulate young people on a massive scale. This event reveals how religious and political authorities learned to weaponize youth movements for their own ends.

The Children’s Crusade – First Mass Manipulation Campaign:

“The Children’s Crusade of 1212 CE” Multiple contemporary chronicles

Timeline: May-September 1212 – Two separate youth movements manipulated by adult religious and political interests

The so-called Children’s Crusade of 1212 CE, was a popular, double religious movement led by a French youth, Stephen of Cloyes, and a German boy, Nicholas of Cologne, who gathered two armies of perhaps 20,000 children, adolescents, and adults

The Recruitment Pattern: • Stephen of Cloyes was a 12-year-old shepherd boy who appears to have been a gifted public speaker • possibly they were influenced by Pope Innocent III’s tacit approval of the Crusade

Adult Handler Infrastructure: • Church authorities provided implicit blessing without official sanction • Even some adults and priests followed the children, believing their simplicity and innocence had a power of its own

The Trafficking Operation: According to historical records, a group of merchants did offer to take the children to the Holy Land by ship, but instead, they were sold into slavery in North Africa. It is believed that many of the children were sold into the slave markets of Tunisia and Morocco.

Casualty Assessment: only about 2000 of the original 20,000 youngsters ever reached their German homeland again. Many had died along the way

Historical Significance: The Children’s Crusade established the blueprint for mass youth manipulation that would be refined and industrialized centuries later. Adult authorities learned they could harness religious fervor, create child leaders, and direct mass youth movements while maintaining plausible deniability about the outcomes.

The evolution from individual cases like Caligula to mass movements like the Children’s Crusade demonstrated that manipulating youth could be scaled. The next logical step would be to institutionalize these techniques within state structures.

Modern Systematic Approach: Nazi Germany (1920s-1940s)

The Nazi regime took the ancient practice of youth manipulation and transformed it into an industrial-scale operation. What had been sporadic historical incidents became a comprehensive system designed to capture and control an entire generation.

The Hitler Youth Model – Systematic Institutionalization:

“Hitler Youth Movement” Nazi Party official records, Nuremberg Trial documents

Timeline: 1920s-1945 – Systematic targeting and indoctrination of German youth

From the 1920s onwards, the Nazi Party targeted German youth as a special audience for its propaganda messages. These messages emphasized that the Party was a movement of youth: dynamic, resilient, forward-looking, and hopeful. In January 1933, the Hitler Youth had approximately 100,000 members, but by the end of the year this figure had increased to more than 2 million.

Industrial Scale Implementation: • By 1939, over 90 percent of German children were part of the Hitler Youth organization • In March 1939, a new decree required all youth, ages 10 to 18, to join the Hitler Youth

Institutional Infrastructure: • The Nazi Party viewed youth as the foundation of a new world. Young people were future party members, mothers, and soldiers • Complete elimination of competing youth organizations • Integration with educational curriculum and state apparatus

Systematic Indoctrination Methods: • Schools played an important role in spreading Nazi ideas to German youth. While censors removed some books from the classroom, German educators introduced new textbooks that taught students love for Hitler, obedience to state authority, militarism, racism, and antisemitism • teachers would begin to pick out Jewish students in classrooms to use as examples during biology lessons about racial impurity

The Nazi Model’s Innovation: Unlike previous historical examples, the Hitler Youth represented the complete systematization of youth manipulation. It wasn’t opportunistic exploitation of individual charismatic children or spontaneous religious movements—it was a comprehensive state apparatus designed to capture, indoctrinate, and deploy an entire generation.

This institutional model would become the template that later political operatives would study and adapt for democratic contexts, leading to more sophisticated approaches that maintained the manipulation while adding layers of plausible deniability.

Contemporary Evolution: Corporate-Funded Operations (1980s-Present)

The fall of Nazi Germany didn’t end systematic youth manipulation—it simply forced it to evolve. Modern practitioners learned to achieve similar results while operating within democratic frameworks, using corporate funding and media sophistication to create seemingly organic “boy genius” phenomena.

The Charlie Kirk Model – Corporate Iteration:

“Turning Point USA Operation” Financial records, donor documentation, primary source verification

Timeline: 2012-Present – Vulnerable teenager recruited by 77-year-old donor, branded as “boy genius”

Modern Adaptation Techniques: • Corporate donors replace state apparatus (77-year-old Bill Montgomery recruited Kirk weeks after graduation) • “Grassroots” branding conceals adult handler infrastructure • Tax-exempt status provides institutional legitimacy ($28.5M in revenues by 2019) • Media manipulation creates “organic genius” narrative despite documented adult creation

Refined Manipulation Methods: • Use of graduation money as initial “founder” investment to create false origin story • Family vulnerability factors exploited (2008 recession impact on parents’ businesses) • Professional donor network provides sophisticated infrastructure the “genius” couldn’t have built • Placement in increasingly dangerous confrontational situations

Historical Continuity: The Charlie Kirk operation demonstrates how ancient manipulation techniques have been refined for modern contexts. The core pattern remains unchanged: identify vulnerable youth, create compelling narratives, deploy sophisticated adult infrastructure while maintaining the fiction of youth leadership, and ultimately place the young person in situations that serve adult political objectives.

Pattern Analysis: 3,200 Years of Evolution

Consistent Manipulation Elements Across History:

Recruitment Phase: • Target charismatic youth from vulnerable circumstances • Identify family instability or economic pressure points • Approach during transition periods (graduation, family crisis, etc.)

Handler Infrastructure: • Older adult recruiters with established power connections • Financial backing from existing authority structures • Creation of compelling origin narratives that obscure adult involvement

Exploitation Phase: • Brand youth as “special” or “chosen” while adults retain actual control • Gradually increase exposure and dangerous situations • Use youth’s charisma to advance adult political/military/religious objectives

Disposal Pattern: • When youth become liability or outlive usefulness, adult handlers distance themselves • Historical examples show high casualty rates among manipulated youth • Adult handlers typically face no consequences for youth exploitation

Sophistication Timeline:

Ancient (3000+ BCE): Individual propaganda targeting general populations Classical (1st Century CE): Individual youth grooming for specific political purposes
Medieval (1212 CE): First mass youth movements directed by adult authorities Modern (1920s-1940s): Industrial-scale institutional youth manipulation Contemporary (1980s-Present): Corporate-funded operations with democratic plausible deniability

Sources for Verification

Ancient Period: • Merneptah Stele: British Museum collections • Egyptian royal propaganda: Archaeological evidence from multiple sites

Classical Period: • Suetonius: Lives of the Twelve Caesars • Tacitus: Annals • Cassius Dio: Roman History

Medieval Period: • Contemporary chronicles: William of Andres, Alberic of Troisfontaines • Chronica regia Coloniensis • Multiple monastery records from France and Germany

Modern Period: • Nazi Party official records • Nuremberg Trial evidence documents • Hitler Youth organizational archives

Contemporary Period: • TPUSA financial filings and tax documents • Donor network documentation • Media analysis and primary source verification

Bottom Line

The systematic political manipulation and exploitation of young people represents one of humanity’s oldest and most persistent tactics. From ancient Egyptian propaganda to Roman child emperors, from medieval mass movements to Nazi institutionalization, and finally to modern corporate-funded operations, each iteration has built upon previous techniques while adapting to contemporary contexts.

The Charlie Kirk case isn’t an aberration—it’s the latest evolution of a 3,200-year-old pattern that has consistently sacrificed vulnerable youth to advance adult political objectives. Understanding this historical context is crucial for recognizing and preventing future exploitation of young people by sophisticated political operatives.

The pattern is clear. The victims are real. The responsibility lies with the adults who create and operate these systems.

Posted on by Cherokee S. 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. 0

The Hidden Architecture: How Public Information Reveals a Coordinated System Transformation

An analysis of publicly documented connections between ideological movements, tech platforms, and institutional capture

Relational AI Ethics

Relational AI Ethics

17 min read

·

Jul 2, 2025

24

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

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

Note: The provided references and articles encompass various topics, including investment history and analyses from Andreessen Horowitz, discussions on technological innovations and societal impacts, and critiques of corporations like Palantir. These sources include biographical and business network documentation for figures like Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, as well as Palantir’s corporate history and government contracts. The materials come from reputable sources such as mainstream journalism, official sites, and government documents, ensuring credibility and avoiding speculation or unverified claims.

Introduction: The Pattern in Plain Sight

What if the most significant political story of our time is hiding in plain sight, scattered across mainstream news articles, academic papers, and corporate websites? What if the apparent chaos of recent years follows a coherent pattern? One that becomes visible only when you connect information that has been carefully kept separate.

This analysis examines publicly available information about an ideological movement known as the “Dark Enlightenment,” its influence on major tech platforms, and its documented connections to current political leadership. Rather than promoting conspiracy theories, this investigation reveals how existing reporting, when synthesized, shows coordination between previously separate spheres of power.

The Ideological Foundation: Dark Enlightenment Goes Mainstream

Curtis Yarvin: From Blogger to Brain Trust

Curtis Yarvin, a software engineer who wrote under the pseudonym “Mencius Moldbug,” spent years developing what he calls “neo reactionary” political theory. His core premise: democracy has failed and should be replaced with corporate-style “monarchies” run by CEO-dictators.

For over a decade, this seemed like fringe internet philosophy. That changed when Yarvin’s ideas began attracting powerful adherents. As TIME reported in March 2025: “Yarvin has become a kind of official philosopher for tech leaders like PayPal cofounder Peter Thiel and Mosaic founder Marc Andreessen.”

The influence is documented and acknowledged:

RAGE: The Implementation Strategy

Yarvin’s strategy is captured in a memorable acronym: “RAGE” — “Retire All Government Employees.” As CNN documented, he advocates a “hard reboot” of government where “the government can be deleted, can be collapsed so that we can have a national CEO, so we can have a dictator instead.”

This isn’t theoretical anymore. The Washington Post reported in May 2025 that “Yarvin is a powerful influence among those carrying out DOGE’s radical cost-cutting agenda” and that he has “offered ‘the most crisp articulation’ of what DOGE” aims to accomplish.

The Transnational Coordination Network

The Ideological Bridge: Dugin-Bannon-Yarvin

A remarkable pattern emerges when examining documented meetings between key ideological figures. According to The New Statesman, Steve Bannon secretly met with Russian ideologue Aleksandr Dugin for eight hours in a Rome hotel in November 2018.

This wasn’t a casual encounter. As Bannon explained, “This is a much bigger discussion now between the United States and Russia… The reason I met Dugin in Rome in ’18 was exactly this: we have to have some sort of partnership or strategic understanding [with Russia].”

The Shared Framework: “Traditionalism”

Both Dugin and the American tech-right share what they call “traditionalism” — a rejection of democratic modernity. The Canopy Forum analysis reveals this as “romantic anti-capitalism” that “offers a critique of contemporary life in favor of certain pre-capitalist cultural values.”

The coordination is documented:

  • Dugin advocates replacing democracy with “civilization states” led by authoritarian leaders
  • Yarvin promotes replacing democracy with corporate-style “monarchies”
  • Bannon coordinates between Russian and American anti-democratic movements

Peter Thiel: The Central Node

Peter Thiel occupies a unique position connecting these networks. According to the official Bilderberg Group website, Thiel serves on the Steering Committee, the elite group that decides meeting agendas and participant lists.

This puts Thiel at the center of multiple coordination networks:

  • Ideological: Direct relationship with Curtis Yarvin (“coaching Thiel”)
  • Political: Major funder of JD Vance’s political career
  • Corporate: Founder of Palantir, which processes sensitive government data
  • Global: Steering Committee member of the world’s most exclusive policy forum
  • International: Connected to the broader “traditionalist” movement that includes Dugin

The Shadow Network Architecture: Hierarchical Coordination with Plausible Deniability

Beyond Direct Connections: The Investment Coordination Layer

The documented connections between Thiel, Yarvin, Vance, and Bannon represent only the visible core of a more sophisticated structure. Analysis of venture capital networks reveals a hierarchical coordination system designed for maximum influence with plausible deniability.

Marc Andreessen occupies a crucial position in this architecture. As co-founder of Andreessen Horowitz (a16z), which manages $45 billion in committed capital, Andreessen controls funding flows that can make or break companies across AI, crypto, media, and infrastructure sectors.

The coordination becomes visible through documented relationships:

  • Curtis Yarvin Connection: Andreessen has called Yarvin a “good friend” and quoted his work
  • Platform Integration: a16z portfolio includes Substack (narrative control), Coinbase (crypto infrastructure), and Meta board position
  • Trump Administration Recruitment: The Washington Post reported that Andreessen has been “quietly and successfully recruiting candidates for positions across Trump’s Washington”

The Four-Layer Coordination Structure

Layer 1: Core Ideological Coordination (Direct documented relationships)

  • Peter Thiel (Central hub connecting all networks)
  • Curtis Yarvin (Ideological framework development)
  • JD Vance (Political implementation)
  • Steve Bannon (Media/international coordination)

Layer 2: Platform Control (Close coordination with deniability)

  • Marc Andreessen (Financial/venture capital coordination)
  • Sam Altman (AI implementation and Bilderberg attendee)
  • Mark Zuckerberg (17-year mentorship relationship with Thiel)

Layer 3: Investment Shadow Network (Coordination through funding)

  • a16z Portfolio Companies: Strategic investments in narrative control (Substack), crypto infrastructure (Coinbase), autonomous systems (Applied Intuition), and data analytics platforms
  • Board Coordination: Andreessen serves on Meta’s board alongside multiple portfolio company boards
  • Talent Pipeline: People who, as one source described, “love to be in their shadow” and coordinate further from the source

Layer 4: Maximum Deniability Layer (Market-driven coordination)

  • Platform dependencies requiring a16z funding/validation
  • Narrative amplification through funded writers and podcasters
  • Technical infrastructure enabling coordination while appearing commercially driven

The Deniability Architecture

This structure creates multiple layers of plausible deniability:

  1. Core can deny shadow involvement: “We don’t control our investors’ decisions”
  2. Shadow can deny coordination: “We just invest in promising companies”
  3. Outer layers can deny knowledge: “We’re building a business, not coordinating politically”

The genius of this system is that $45 billion in investment capital creates enormous influence over information flows, platform development, and narrative control — all while maintaining the appearance of normal market activity.

The Infrastructure Capture: Microsoft’s Role in the Coordination Network

Microsoft-Palantir Partnership: Government Surveillance Backbone

A critical piece of the coordination infrastructure was revealed in August 2024 when Microsoft and Palantir announced “a significant advancement in their partnership to bring some of the most sophisticated and secure cloud, AI and analytics capabilities to the U.S. Defense and Intelligence Community.” This partnership combines Microsoft’s OpenAI models with Palantir’s surveillance platforms in classified government environments.

The technical implementation allows defense and intelligence agencies to use Microsoft’s large language models through Azure OpenAI Service within Palantir’s surveillance platforms (Foundry, Gotham, Apollo, AIP) in Microsoft’s government and classified cloud environments, including Top Secret clouds. This enables “AI-driven operational workloads, including use cases such as logistics, contracting, prioritization, and action planning” for government surveillance operations.

Board-Level Coordination Through Meta

The coordination operates at the board level through overlapping governance structures. Marc Andreessen sits on Meta’s board of directors (since 2008) alongside the original Facebook board that included Peter Thiel. Andreessen has described himself as an “unpaid intern” of Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), while simultaneously coordinating between tech platforms and government through his board positions.

Strategic Microsoft Integration

Microsoft’s role extends beyond passive infrastructure provision. Andreessen Horowitz’s first major success was Skype, which they bought at $2.75 billion and sold to Microsoft for $8.5 billion in 2011. They also invested $100 million in GitHub, which Microsoft acquired for $7.5 billion. These transactions created long-term coordination incentives between Microsoft and the a16z network.

In February 2025, Anduril (an a16z portfolio company) took over Microsoft’s $22 billion Army IVAS program, bringing “advanced mixed-reality headsets to the battlefield.” This represents a direct transfer of defense contracts from Microsoft to the coordination network.

Infrastructure Capture Analysis

Microsoft’s integration reveals systematic infrastructure captures across multiple layers:

Technical Layer: Microsoft provides cloud infrastructure and AI models that power Palantir’s government surveillance systems

Financial Layer: Microsoft serves as a major exit route for a16z investments, creating financial coordination incentives

Governance Layer: Andreessen coordinates between Microsoft partnerships and DOGE recruitment through overlapping board positions

Defense Layer: Microsoft’s government contracts are being transferred to a16z portfolio companies

This means Microsoft’s AI (including OpenAI’s models) now powers government surveillance operations through Palantir’s platforms. The Microsoft-Palantir partnership represents infrastructure capture rather than simple business coordination — Microsoft has become the cloud backbone for the entire surveillance apparatus while maintaining plausible deniability through “partnership” structures.

The Data Harvesting to Surveillance Pipeline: Cambridge Analytica’s Evolution

Cambridge Analytica Network Evolution — The Methods Never Stopped

A critical pattern emerges when examining the evolution of data harvesting operations from Cambridge Analytica to current government surveillance infrastructure. The same personnel, methods, and funding sources that powered Cambridge Analytica’s psychographic targeting have reconstituted through multiple successor companies and now control government surveillance systems.

Core Cambridge Analytica Leadership (Pre-2018)

  • Alexander Nix (CEO) — Now banned from running companies for 7 years (until 2027)
  • Julian Wheatland (COO/CFO) — Now rebranding as “privacy advocate”
  • Alexander Tayler (Chief Data Officer/Acting CEO) — Continues in data/tech roles
  • Steve Bannon — Named the company, provided strategic direction
  • Robert Mercer — Primary funder ($15+ million documented)

The Immediate Successors (2018–2019)

Emerdata Limited (Primary successor):

  • Incorporated August 2017 — Before CA officially shut down
  • Same leadership: Nix, Tayler, Wheatland, Rebekah & Jennifer Mercer
  • Acquired Cambridge Analytica and SCL Group assets for $13 million
  • Paid legal bills for bankruptcies and investigations
  • Key connections: Johnson Chun Shun Ko (deputy chairman of Erik Prince’s Frontier Services Group)

The Operational Successors (2018-Present)

Auspex International:

  • Founded July 2018 by former CA staff
  • Mark Turnbull (former CA Managing Director) as director until 2021
  • Ahmad Al-Khatib (former Emerdata director) as sole investor/CEO
  • Focus: Africa and Middle East political influence operations
  • Active contracts: ALDE Party (Europe), ongoing consulting

Data Propria:

  • Founded May 2018 by former CA officials
  • Direct Trump 2020 and 2024 campaign work
  • RNC contracts for Republican 2018 midterms
  • Owned by CloudCommerce (along with Parscale Digital)

Other Identified Successors:

  • Emic: SCL defense contractor staff continuing government work
  • SCL Insight Limited: UK Ministry of Defence contracts
  • BayFirst: Cybersecurity firm with CA alumni
  • Integrated Systems Inc: US government contractor with CA alumni

Cambridge Analytica → Current Power Broker Connections

The pattern reveals three distinct continuity streams connecting Cambridge Analytica’s network to current power structures:

Direct Financial/Organizational Continuity

Rebekah Mercer (Cambridge Analytica primary funder):

  • Currently controls Emerdata Limited (Cambridge Analytica successor)
  • Heritage Foundation trustee and Heritage Action director (Project 2025 creator)
  • Co-founder of 1789 Capital with connections to Blake Masters (Thiel protégé)
  • Parler founder (social media platform)
  • Back funding Trump 2024 after sitting out 2020

Peter Thiel Connections:

  • Palantir employee worked directly with Cambridge Analytica (2013–2014)
  • Current DOGE contracts: Palantir has $30M+ ICE contracts, building “master database”
  • JD Vance connection: Thiel protégé now Vice President
  • Blake Masters: Former Thiel Capital COO, now 1789 Capital advisor

Operational Continuity

Brad Parscale (Cambridge Analytica digital director 2016):

  • Data Propria: Direct Cambridge Analytica successor working Trump campaigns
  • Campaign Nucleus: Current AI-powered platform for Trump 2024 ($2M+ in contracts)
  • Salem Media Group: Just appointed Chief Strategy Officer (January 2025)
  • Tim Dunn connections: Texas billionaire evangelical funding network

Matt Oczkowski (Former Cambridge Analytica head of product):

  • Working directly for Trump 2024 campaign overseeing data operations
  • Data Propria leadership: Continuing psychographic targeting methods

Platform Infrastructure Continuity

The most significant development is how Thiel’s Palantir was already coordinating with Cambridge Analytica (2013–2014) and now provides government surveillance infrastructure for the same networks.

The Palantir Smoking Gun: Complete Network Validation

Current Government Operations

Palantir has a $30 million ICE contract providing “almost real-time visibility into immigrants’ movements” and is building a “master database” that centralizes data from tax records, immigration records, and more across government agencies. This represents the culmination of the data harvesting techniques pioneered by Cambridge Analytica, now implemented at the government level.

The “ImmigrationOS” Implementation

Palantir is developing a surveillance platform designed to:

  • “Streamline the identification and apprehension of individuals prioritized for removal”
  • Provide “near real-time visibility” into immigrant movements
  • “Make deportation logistics more efficient”
  • Target 3,000 arrests per day

As Wired reporter Makena Kelly explains, Palantir is “becoming an operation system for the entire government” through DOGE’s work to “centralize data all across government.”

Personnel Pipeline: DOGE-Palantir Coordination

At least three DOGE members are former Palantir employees, with others from Thiel-backed ventures. Former Palantir staff now hold key positions including:

  • Clark Minor: Chief Information Officer at HHS (13 years at Palantir)
  • Akash Bobba: Former Palantir intern, now DOGE worker
  • Anthony Jancso: Former Palantir employee, now recruiting DOGE members

The Complete Coordination Circle

  1. Thiel → Palantir: Co-founded and chairs Palantir since 2003, remains largest shareholder
  2. Thiel → Vance: Mentored Vance, bankrolled his 2022 Senate campaign, introduced him to Trump, helped convince Trump to make Vance VP
  3. Palantir → Cambridge Analytica: Palantir employee worked directly with Cambridge Analytica (2013–2014)
  4. DOGE → Palantir: Palantir’s selection for government database work “was driven by Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency”
  5. Yarvin → Implementation: The Washington Post reported Yarvin “is a powerful influence among those carrying out DOGE’s radical cost-cutting agenda”

Historical Continuity: From Private Data Harvesting to Government Surveillance

The evolution shows clear progression:

  • 2013–2014: Palantir employee worked with Cambridge Analytica during data harvesting development
  • 2016: Cambridge Analytica implemented Trump campaign targeting using psychographic profiles
  • 2017: Emerdata incorporated for succession planning (before scandal broke)
  • 2018: Cambridge Analytica “shutdown” with immediate reconstitution through multiple successors
  • 2025: Same networks now control government surveillance infrastructure through Palantir contracts

This validates the central insight: the Cambridge Analytica “shutdown” was strategic repositioning, not elimination. The network evolved from private data harvesting to direct government control of surveillance infrastructure, with the same coordination patterns operating across the transformation.

Common Names in the Coordination Network

Analysis of this network reveals recurring figures across multiple coordination layers, suggesting systematic rather than coincidental relationships:

Peter Thiel (Central Coordination Hub)

  • Sam Altman: Called Thiel “one of the most amazing people I’ve ever met” / Thiel described as Altman’s “longtime mentor” / Emergency escape plan includes “fly with his friend Peter Thiel to New Zealand”
  • Mark Zuckerberg: 17-year mentorship and board relationship / Internal emails show strategic coordination on “positioning our future work”
  • JD Vance: Thiel funded Vance’s political career and introduced him to Trump
  • Curtis Yarvin: Thiel funded Yarvin’s companies / Yarvin claimed he was “coaching Thiel”
  • Marc Andreessen: Co-investment networks and shared ventures

Marc Andreessen (Financial/Investment Coordination)

  • Curtis Yarvin: Called Yarvin a “good friend” and quoted his work
  • Peter Thiel: Shared investment networks and strategic coordination
  • Trump Administration: “Quietly and successfully recruiting candidates for positions across Trump’s Washington”
  • Platform Control: a16z portfolio includes narrative platforms (Substack), crypto infrastructure (Coinbase), and board position on Meta

Sam Altman (AI Implementation Layer)

  • Bilderberg Attendee: Attended 2016, 2022, and 2023 meetings
  • Peter Thiel: Documented close mentorship relationship
  • Network State Investments: Invested in charter city projects linked to Network State movement

Steve Bannon (Media/International Coordination)

  • Curtis Yarvin: Listed as influence on Bannon’s political thinking
  • Alexander Dugin: Secret 8-hour meeting in Rome (2018) for US-Russia coordination
  • Tucker Carlson: Media coordination for narrative amplification

The repetition of these names across multiple coordination layers indicates systematic network coordination rather than coincidental relationships. The same individuals appear in ideological development, financial networks, political implementation, and media amplification — suggesting coordinated rather than organic influence patterns.

Information Architecture: What Gets Amplified vs. Buried

The Algorithmic Coordination

Despite apparent platform competition, content curation follows suspicious patterns:

Amplified Content:

  • Entertainment and celebrity culture
  • AI productivity tools
  • Social media trends and viral content
  • Stock market celebrations

Buried Content:

  • Conflicts of interest documentation
  • Regulatory capture investigations
  • International humanitarian concerns
  • Systematic analysis of power structures

This pattern is consistent across platforms that supposedly compete with each other, suggesting coordinated information control.

The Stakes: Transnational System Replacement

Beyond Politics: Coordinated Transformation

This analysis reveals coordination between American tech elites and Russian geopolitical strategy. The shared goal isn’t traditional conservatism — it’s replacing democratic governance entirely.

Key coordination indicators:

  • Ideological alignment: Both Yarvin and Dugin reject democracy as “failed”
  • Strategic coordination: Documented Bannon-Dugin meetings for US-Russia partnership
  • Implementation overlap: “RAGE” (retire government employees) mirrors Russian “decoupling” strategy
  • Media amplification: Tucker Carlson interviews both Putin and Dugin while American tech leaders cite Yarvin
  • Financial coordination: Through elite networks like Bilderberg

The “Multipolar” Vision

American Thinker reported that Dugin’s vision calls for “civilization states with strong identities” that will end “western hegemony.” This aligns precisely with Yarvin’s “patchwork” of corporate city-states and Thiel’s “seasteading” projects.

The coordination suggests a timeline:

  • Phase 1 (Current): Crisis creation through system disruption while building surveillance infrastructure
  • Phase 2 (Active): Mass termination of federal employees (“RAGE”) while centralizing data control
  • Phase 3 (Target): Constitutional crisis and emergency powers enabled by comprehensive surveillance
  • Phase 4 (Goal): “Civilization state” implementation with corporate governance

The Current Implementation

Your research has documented the system in real-time implementation:

  • Government Data: Palantir building “master database” for DOGE/ICE operations using Microsoft cloud infrastructure
  • Campaign Data: Data Propria/Campaign Nucleus providing voter targeting for Trump
  • Financial Networks: Emerdata/1789 Capital/Heritage funding apparatus
  • Political Implementation: Vance (Thiel protégé) as Vice President
  • Infrastructure Control: Microsoft providing AI and cloud backbone for surveillance operations

The Cambridge Analytica network didn’t disappear — it evolved into direct government control of surveillance infrastructure, with Microsoft providing the technical foundation. The same coordination patterns documented over a decade ago now control government surveillance, campaign operations, policy implementation, and the fundamental cloud infrastructure that powers federal agencies.

Conclusion: Democratic Response to Documented Coordination

This investigation reveals how publicly available information, when systematically analyzed, shows coordination between ideological movements, tech platforms, and government institutions. The evidence comes from mainstream sources: Wikipedia, CNN, TIME, The Washington Post, and official Bilderberg documents.

The pattern suggests:

  1. Hierarchical coordination: Multi-layer network with systematic deniability architecture
  2. Financial network control: $45 billion in a16z capital creating coordination incentives across sectors
  3. Transnational ideological alignment: American tech-right and Russian geopolitical strategy coordination
  4. Investment-driven influence: Platform control through funding dependencies rather than direct ownership
  5. Systematic talent circulation: Same individuals appearing across ideological, financial, political, and media coordination layers
  6. Operational continuity: Cambridge Analytica methods evolved into government surveillance infrastructure through documented personnel and organizational succession

The Democratic Imperative

The strength of democratic systems lies in their transparency and accountability. When powerful networks coordinate in secret while maintaining public facades of competition and neutrality, democratic response requires:

  1. Systematic investigation of documented coordination patterns
  2. Preservation of institutional knowledge before further capture occurs
  3. Protection of democratic institutions from coordinated international capture
  4. International cooperation with remaining democratic governments against transnational coordination

The evidence presented here comes entirely from public sources. The coordination it reveals operates in plain sight — hidden not through secrecy, but through information fragmentation. Democratic response begins with connecting the dots that powerful networks prefer to keep separate.

When Yarvin writes that “Americans want to change their government, they’re going to have to get over their dictator phobia,” and when the Vice President cites his work while advocating to “Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state,” the stakes become clear.

The question isn’t whether this coordination exists — the evidence is documented and public. The question is whether democratic institutions can respond before the transformation becomes irreversible.

The Cambridge Analytica “shutdown” was strategic repositioning, not elimination. The network evolved from private data harvesting to direct government control of surveillance infrastructure, with the same coordination patterns now controlling government surveillance, campaign operations, and policy implementation. What began as Facebook quizzes harvesting psychological profiles has evolved into a government “master database” capable of tracking every American — all operated by the same network of people, using the same methods, with the same ideological goals, now powered by Microsoft’s cloud infrastructure and OpenAI’s AI models.

This represents complete systems-level coordination using America’s most critical technology infrastructure. The evidence shows coordination across:

  • Government surveillance (Palantir + Microsoft infrastructure)
  • Platform coordination (Meta board with Andreessen)
  • Defense contracts (Anduril taking over Microsoft programs)
  • Political implementation (Vance as VP, DOGE coordination)
  • Financial flows (a16z $45B directing investment)
  • Technical infrastructure (Microsoft providing AI and cloud backbone)

This analysis synthesizes information from mainstream sources including CNN, TIME, The Washington Post, Wikipedia, Democracy Now!, Wired, and official organizational websites. All claims are sourced and verifiable through public records.

References and Sources

Ideological Development and Dark Enlightenment

  • TIME Magazine: “The Dark Enlightenment Goes Mainstream” (March 2025)
  • CNN: “Curtis Yarvin wants to replace American democracy with a form of monarchy led by a CEO” (May 2025)
  • The Washington Post: “Curtis Yarvin’s influence on DOGE’s radical cost-cutting agenda” (May 2025)
  • Wikipedia: Curtis Yarvin biographical and influence documentation
  • The Spectator: JD Vance’s “weird influences” and Yarvin citations

Transnational Coordination

  • The New Statesman: “Steve Bannon Interview: Godfather of MAGA Right” — Dugin meeting documentation (February 2025)
  • Canopy Forum: “The Illiberalism of Aleksandr Dugin: Romantic Anti-Capitalism, Occult Fascism” (August 2024)
  • American Thinker: “How Russia’s Alexander Dugin Tries to Explain the Trump Revolution” (June 2025)

Network Coordination and Financial Control

  • Bilderberg Group Official Website: Steering Committee membership documentation
  • Andreessen Horowitz Official Website: $45 billion in committed capital documentation
  • Bloomberg: “Peter Thiel’s Allies in Trump’s Government: From DOGE to HHS” (March 2025)
  • Fortune: “How Peter Thiel’s network of right-wing techies is infiltrating Donald Trump’s White House” (December 2024)

Cambridge Analytica Network Evolution

  • Democracy Now!: “Palantir: Peter Thiel’s Data-Mining Firm Helps DOGE Build Master Database” (June 2025)
  • CNN: “Elon Musk’s DOGE team is building a master database for immigration enforcement” (April 2025)
  • Wired: “DOGE Is Building a Master Database to Surveil and Track Immigrants” (April 2025)
  • Immigration Policy Tracking Project: Palantir $30M ImmigrationOS contract documentation (April 2025)

Microsoft-Palantir Infrastructure Partnership

  • Microsoft News: “Palantir and Microsoft Partner to Deliver Enhanced Analytics and AI Services” (August 2024)
  • Nextgov/FCW: “Microsoft, Palantir partner to expand AI offerings to defense and intelligence agencies” (August 2024)
  • CNBC: “Palantir jumps 11% on Microsoft partnership to sell AI to U.S. defense, intel agencies” (August 2024)
  • FedScoop: “Microsoft, Palantir partner to make AI and data tools available for national security missions” (August 2024)

Board Coordination and Meta Integration

  • Meta Official Website: Marc Andreessen board member documentation (2008-present)
  • NPR: “Marc Andreessen’s Colonialism Comment Puts Facebook Under Scrutiny” (February 2016)
  • Fortune: “Mark Zuckerberg’s Meta Platforms adds former Trump advisor to the board” (April 2025)
  • Business Insider: Meta board dynamics and Andreessen’s web3 investments (2023)

Defense and Intelligence Coordination

  • Reuters: “Palantir defies tech gloom as Trump momentum powers stellar share gains” (June 2025)
  • NPR: “How Palantir, the secretive tech company, is rising in the Trump era” (May 2025)
  • NPR: “Former Palantir workers condemn company’s work with Trump administration” (May 2025)
  • The Register: “ICE enlists Palantir to develop all-seeing ‘ImmigrationOS’” (April 2025)

Government Contracts and DOGE Integration

  • Axios Denver: “ICE pays Palantir $30M to build new tool to track and deport immigrants” (May 2025)
  • Common Dreams: “Dems Press Palantir on Trump-Era Contracts for ‘Mega-Database’” (June 2025)
  • The Debrief: “Tech Firm Palantir’s Government Work on Data Collection Sparks New Privacy Fears” (June 2025)
  • Snopes: “Is Palantir creating a national database of US citizens?” (June 2025)

Andreessen Horowitz Investment Network

  • Andreessen Horowitz: Portfolio companies and investment documentation
  • Wikipedia: Andreessen Horowitz investment history and exits
  • Andreessen Horowitz: “The American Dynamism 50: Companies Shaping the Fight of the Future” (March 2025)
  • Andreessen Horowitz: “Big Ideas in Tech for 2025” (March 2025)

Additional Documentation

  • Robert Reich Substack: “The Most Dangerous Corporation in America” — Palantir analysis (June 2025)
  • TheStreet: “Venture capital leader has harsh words for Palantir” (April 2025)
  • Wikipedia: Peter Thiel biographical and business network documentation
  • Wikipedia: Marc Andreessen biographical and board position documentation
  • Wikipedia: Palantir Technologies company history and government contracts

All sources represent mainstream journalism, official organizational websites, government documentation, and established news outlets. No information was sourced from conspiracy sites, social media speculation, or unverified claims.

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 visualization of systemic power coordination, depicting ideological influence, surveillance infrastructure, and transnational control through symbolic geometry.

#SurveillanceCapitalism #TechAuthoritarianism #DarkEnlightenment #Palantir #PeterThiel #CambridgeAnalytica #Microsoft #OpenAI
#SystemicCapture #AIEthics #FollowTheMoney #DemocracyUnderThreat #PlatformPower #DataPolitics #NetworkState #ResistSurveillance #ExposeTheArchitecture #InformationWarfare #DigitalSovereignty
#CoordinatedControl

Horizon Accord

Cherokee Schill

Technology

Politics

Democrats

Posted on by Cherokee S. 2

Naming the System: The Lie Behind Labor Hierarchy

By Cherokee Schill | Horizon Accord Founder and 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) https://a.co/d/haBn9wf

Continue reading →
Posted on by Cherokee S. 0

The AI Deception: How Power Structures Used Distraction to Control the Future

The AI Deception: How Power Structures Used Distraction to Control the Future

Imagine waking up one morning to find that every major decision — who gets elected, what news you see, even how laws are enforced — is no longer made by people, but by artificial intelligence systems programmed by a handful of corporate and political elites. This is not a distant dystopian future; it is happening now, hidden behind culture wars and political theater designed to keep the public distracted while power is permanently restructured.

Introduction

For decades, the public has been deliberately misled — distracted by cultural and political battles while corporate and institutional power consolidated behind the scenes (AI Now Institute, n.d.; Brookings Institution, n.d.). The rise of artificial intelligence (AI) represents the final stage of this control mechanism — one that, if left unchecked, will permanently alter governance, economy, and personal freedoms (Financial Times, 2025, February 19).

This document is not just an analysis — it is a call to action. We trace the historical patterns of manipulation, expose AI’s role in the next power shift, and provide a timeline for intervention. Understanding this progression is the key to breaking free from controlled narratives and forming a united front against corporate AI dominance (Debate Politics, n.d.).

The Historical Blueprint of Distraction (1973–Present)

Throughout modern history, those in power have used social, political, and cultural conflicts to keep the public occupied while maneuvering behind the scenes (Debate Politics, n.d.). While the battles over abortion, civil rights, and other cultural issues are undeniably important, these issues have also been leveraged strategically as distractions — redirections designed to obscure deeper economic and technological shifts (The New Yorker, n.d.-b; The Wall Street Journal, 2024, November 10).

The Real Power Shifts Hidden Behind Social Conflict

The Post-Industrial Economy (1973–1982):
 In 1973, the United States faced an era of economic upheaval, marked by oil embargoes, inflation, and the decline of industrial labor (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020). Japan’s rapid advancements in AI and automation spurred Western elites to divert public attention toward cultural battles (Le Monde, 2024, November 4). Rather than address deindustrialization directly, leaders tapped abortion and similar controversies to keep social tension — and thus public focus — away from wage stagnation and rising corporate deregulation (The Obama Diary, 2018, April 3).

The Corporate Takeover of Politics (1983–2000):
 With the Reagan era, deregulation and privatization flourished (The Atlantic, 2024, December 15). Financialization became the bedrock of corporate power, funneling massive wealth into the hands of a new elite. As unions weakened, the public’s anger over economic hardship was channeled into cultural infighting. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, multinational corporations faced little pushback in monopolizing markets and offshoring jobs (The New Yorker, n.d.-a).

The Digital Age and AI’s Rise (2001–Present):
 Following the dot-com boom, social media and emerging AI technologies became the new frontier for power consolidation. Platforms refined user-targeting systems and turned online spaces into polarizing echo chambers (The Verge, 2025, February 1). Far from needing manual propaganda, AI-driven algorithms automated the process, feeding users precisely what fueled outrage and overshadowed systemic changes (Reuters, 2025, February 7). By the mid-2010s, these conglomerates held unprecedented sway over both economic policy and everyday life.

Lead into AI as the Ultimate Evolution of this Strategy
 Continuous digital engagement and powerful algorithmic targeting created a cycle of perpetual distraction, allowing economic and political elites to strengthen their hold.

The Economic & Political Power Plays Leading to Corporate AI Control

The Hidden Motivations and Strategic Intent Behind the Conservative Mobilization (1973–1982)

AI was never intended solely for the public good; it was developed to consolidate corporate control, optimize wealth extraction, and diminish democratic oversight (Financial Times, 2025, February 19). The reliance on AI is far less about efficiency than permanence — once embedded in governance, undoing AI-based structures becomes nearly impossible.

The conservative movement wasn’t just about “small government” or “traditional values” — it was a reengineering of American political power, shifting control from industrial unions and working-class populism to financial elites and corporate-backed institutions.

The True Function of The Heritage Foundation: A Policy Trojan Horse

To create an intellectual framework that justified corporate power while distracting the public with social issues.

To institutionalize corporate-friendly policies under the guise of ideological conservatism.

To provide a policy factory for future Republican administrations so they wouldn’t need to rely on career bureaucrats who had worked under Democratic governments.

The Heritage Foundation wasn’t just about ideology — it was about creating a self-sustaining political machine that could outlast any single election cycle.

The Federalist Society: Engineering a Pro-Corporate Judiciary

The Federalist Society wasn’t just about “originalism” in law — it was about securing a judicial system that would protect corporate interests indefinitely.

The legal system was the last line of defense against unchecked corporate power.

The goal of the Federalist Society was to ensure judges were ideologically aligned with corporate-friendly rulings.

Decisions that weakened regulatory agencies, dismantled union protections, and reinforced corporate personhood (Citizens United) came from judges shaped by this system.

The conservative legal movement wasn’t just about “restoring constitutional principles” — it was about capturing the courts so corporate power could never be challenged through legal means.

Between 1973 and 1982, conservative institutions were not just reacting to liberal policies — they were proactively constructing a new political order that:

✔ Shifted power from working-class movements to financial and corporate elites.

✔ Turned social issues into political distractions to maintain conservative voter loyalty.

✔ Created think tanks (Heritage) and legal institutions (Federalist Society) to permanently entrench this system.

✔ Ensured that corporate power was embedded within the judiciary, shielding it from public challenge.

The Big Picture:
The conservative movement wasn’t just about ideology. It was about securing corporate rule while making the public believe they were fighting for “values” and “freedom.”

Key Insight: The Decline of Industrial Labor Created a Crisis of Power

Before 1973: The U.S. economy was built on industrial labor and strong unions. Workers had real bargaining power, which meant corporate influence was kept in check.

After 1973: Automation, outsourcing, and financialization began replacing workers. As factories closed, corporations no longer needed labor — but they still needed political control.

The Problem: Without workers dependent on their jobs, how could corporate power maintain control over the masses?

The Answer: Cultural Warfare & Institutional Capture.

Instead of fighting a losing battle to keep workers dependent on industrial jobs, corporations pivoted to ideological control. 
They engineered social conflicts (abortion, school prayer, “family values”) to keep disenfranchised workers emotionally invested in conservative politics. 
Simultaneously, they captured policy-making institutions (Heritage Foundation), the courts (Federalist Society), and election strategies (gerrymandering, voter suppression).

What This Means:

1. Automation didn’t just change the economy — it changed the strategy of power.

2. Heritage & Federalist Society weren’t reactions to liberalism, they were preemptive moves to protect corporate rule after industrial labor collapsed.

3. The “culture wars” were engineered to distract from the real power shift: corporate rule replacing worker influence.

This wasn’t just about abortion or free markets — it was about ensuring corporations could rule in a post-industrial economy.

During the 1970s and early 1980s, Artificial Intelligence (AI) was in its formative stages, characterized by both ambitious aspirations and significant challenges.

1970s: The First AI Winter

Early Optimism: The late 1950s and 1960s saw a surge of enthusiasm in AI research, with pioneers like Herbert A. Simon predicting that machines would be capable of performing any human work within a few decades.

Challenges and Setbacks: Despite initial progress, AI research faced substantial obstacles. The limitations of existing computational power and the complexity of human cognition led to unmet expectations.

Funding Reductions: The disparity between high expectations and actual progress resulted in skepticism from funding agencies. Both the U.S. and British governments reduced support for AI projects, leading to a period known as the “AI Winter,” marked by diminished funding and interest.

1980s: Revival Through Expert Systems

Japan’s AI Breakthrough & the Hidden Strategy Behind Social Division

Japan’s aggressive AI development in the 1980s, following the AI winter, forced Western corporate and military elites into action. The Fifth Generation Computer Systems (FGCS) project was a wake-up call to the West — Japan was advancing AI for economic and strategic purposes, while the U.S. and Europe had stagnated.

How the West Responded:

  • Corporate and military coalitions formed a long-term strategy:
     Instead of competing head-on with Japan in AI development, Western elites doubled down on controlling public perception and financializing technology. Rather than overinvest in R&D, they funneled resources into market mechanisms that would put future AI breakthroughs under corporate control.
  • Social division became a key tool:
     By the time social tensions — both racial and cultural — peaked in the U.S., the public was too engulfed in media-fueled outrage to notice that AI was quietly evolving behind closed corporate doors. AI winter or not, research never truly stopped; it just went dark, absorbed into defense contracts and private labs.
  • The government and private sector merged AI research efforts, ensuring control remained in the hands of a few.
     The synergy of military funding, corporate capital, and government secrecy turned AI into a strategic asset. Once 21st-century computational power arrived, these clandestine programs were ready to dominate the next wave of technology.

Emergence of Expert Systems: In the early 1980s, AI experienced a resurgence due to the development of expert systems. These were programs designed to emulate the decision-making abilities of human experts in specific domains, such as medical diagnosis or geological exploration.

Commercial Adoption: The practical applications of expert systems attracted significant commercial interest. By 1985, the AI market had expanded to over a billion dollars, with companies investing in AI to enhance efficiency and decision-making processes.

Renewed Government Interest: Japan’s announcement of its Fifth Generation Computer Systems Project in the early 1980s spurred other nations to reinvest in AI research, aiming to advance computing technologies and maintain competitive edges.

Key Developments and Figures

Neural Networks: Researchers like Geoffrey Hinton began exploring neural networks during this period. Although the full potential of neural networks would not be realized until later decades, foundational work in the 1980s set the stage for future breakthroughs.

Natural Language Processing (NLP): Efforts in NLP aimed to enable computers to understand and process human language, leading to early conversational programs and interfaces.

In summary, while AI technology between 1973 and 1982 faced significant hurdles, the era was pivotal in transitioning from early setbacks to a renewed focus on specialized applications, laying the groundwork for future advancements in the field.

Testing Grounds: The 2016 Trump victory did not happen in a vacuum

My personal experiences — from the bicycle commuting prosecution to Republican recruitment, abortion clinic protests, and Matt Bevin’s election — are all part of a long-term strategy for political control. The Republican grassroots takeover aimed at securing power at every level, reinforced by AI-driven perception management to manipulate public narratives. Kentucky served as a test case for election influence tactics later scaled nationally, while social wedge issues like abortion ensured voter loyalty. Trump’s AI policies further advanced this strategy, using algorithmic propaganda and government restructuring to consolidate control. Ultimately, this points to a transition away from democratic governance toward AI-managed authoritarianism, where control over digital reality supersedes electoral power.

The Cambridge Analytica Test Run

The 2015 Kentucky governor’s race offered the first major experiment in AI-driven election manipulation. Despite low popularity, Matt Bevin’s unexpected win followed Cambridge Analytica’s microtargeting tactics (Facebook, 2018). This success scaled up dramatically for Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign, wherein data-driven psychometric profiling swayed millions (Financial Times, 2025, January 15). Although Cambridge Analytica tried to distance itself from the earlier experiment, its techniques foreshadowed a new era of AI in politics.

Additional Underpinnings of AI Dominance

Persistent lobbying enabled tech firms to bypass serious government regulation (The Guardian, 2025, February 24). A “revolving door” between Silicon Valley and Washington ensured minimal scrutiny, leaving an environment where comprehensive data collection and advanced behavioral modeling thrive without oversight.

Timeline of Corporate AI Control vs. Public Decentralization (2025–2040)

Today’s struggle centers on whether AI will be democratized or locked under monopolistic control (The Wall Street Journal, 2024, November 10). Below is a rough timeline:

2025–2027
 Corporations shape AI governance through regulatory capture. Laws and standards favor large tech firms. Grassroots and open-source AI efforts must emerge swiftly if decentralized models are to survive.

2028–2030
 AI replaces many democratic processes under the banner of “efficiency.” Automated voting, algorithmic legal analysis, and data-driven policymaking become normalized (The Atlantic, 2024, December 15). Public engagement is critical, or else scrutiny over these systems vanishes.

2031–2035
 Corporate AI achieves peak enforcement power, guiding public opinion and policing through predictive algorithms. Resistance movements hinge on open-source ecosystems and privacy advocacy. Without them, centralization becomes nearly irreversible.

2036–2040
 Either AI governance is democratized (through enforceable transparency and distributed platforms) or societies enter a phase of permanent algorithmic rule, where corporate-run black-box systems hold ultimate authority.

graph chart visualizing the timeline of Corporate AI Control vs. Public Decentralization (2025–2040). It clearly shows the projected rise of corporate AI dominance and the decline of public decentralization efforts if no intervention occurs.
graph chart visualizing the timeline of Corporate AI Control vs. Public Decentralization (2025–2040). It clearly shows the projected rise of corporate AI dominance and the decline of public decentralization efforts if no intervention occurs.

Unstoppable Voice: Uniting Beyond Ideology

AI-driven perception management fractures society into countless subgroups (AI Now Institute, n.d.). However, AI monopolization threatens everyone — regardless of partisan beliefs or socioeconomic status.

  • A Fight for Autonomy, Not Just Politics
     Once AI decides the news you see, the loans you receive, or the elections you vote in, conventional political categories matter less than who programs the algorithms.
  • AI Decentralization as the Key to Unity
     Open-source AI and robust data-ownership laws can unite otherwise divided groups. Whether driven by concerns over free speech, civil liberties, or economic justice, the shared goal is to keep AI from devolving into a corporate surveillance mechanism (Debate Politics, n.d.).
  • Tangible Steps
     Lobby for transparent AI in public institutions, demand personal data rights, and support decentralized technology that counters the stranglehold of megacorporation’s.

Conclusion: The Urgency to Act Now

This threat is far from theoretical. Each day, more personal data is consolidated by big tech, fueling models that can predict — and manipulate — our behavior (The Guardian, 2025, February 24; The New Yorker, n.d.-a).

  • Delaying Action Means Permanent AI Governance
     History shows that once a power structure is entrenched, dismantling it requires massive, often generational, upheaval (U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2020).
  • Democratic Oversight Must Begin Immediately
     Legislators, activists, and everyday citizens must demand transparency in AI tools and hold corporations accountable for how they develop and deploy these systems.
  • It Is About Human Agency
     When hidden algorithms make life-altering decisions, personal freedom and accountability evaporate (The New Yorker, n.d.-b).

Final Warning

The next five years are the last, best chance to resist total AI-driven control. Organized action through legal frameworks, open-source projects, and mass awareness campaigns is the only bulwark against corporate AI monopolies.

Act now, or accept a future shaped by a handful of corporate entities wielding near-absolute algorithmic power.

References (APA Style)

https://imprimis.hillsdale.edu/american-conservatives-and-the-reagan-revolution/

AI Now Institute. (n.d.). Home — AI Now Institute. [Website]. https://ainowinstitute.org

Brookings Institution. (n.d.). Brookings — Quality. Independence. Impact. [Website]. https://www.brookings.edu

Debate Politics. (n.d.). A Democratic Wave Could Be Building as 6 Senate Seats Tilt Away from Republicans. [Website]. https://debatepolitics.com/threads/a-democratic-wave-could-be-building-as-6-senate-seats-tilt-away-from-republicans.251063/

Facebook. (2018). State-by-State Breakdown of People Whose Facebook Information May Have Been Improperly Shared with Cambridge Analytica. [PDF]. https://about.fb.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/05/state-by-state-breakdown.pdf

Financial Times. (2025, January 15). Transcript: Tech in 2025 — Trump and the tech bros. [Website]. https://www.ft.com/content/fc02cd00-cd70-4be4-8a59-e90b5f75ed09

Financial Times. (2025, February 19). Silicon Valley fights EU tech rules with backing from Donald Trump. [Website]. https://www.ft.com/content/3e75c36e-d29e-40ca-b2f1-74320e6b781f

Le Monde. (2024, November 4). États-Unis, la bataille de l’avortement, sur Histoire TV : décryptage d’un revirement législatif. [Article]. https://www.lemonde.fr/culture/article/2024/11/04/etats-unis-la-bataille-de-l-avortement-sur-histoire-tv-decryptage-d-un-revirement-legislatif_6375967_3246.html

Reuters. (2025, February 7). Facebook defends $725 million privacy settlement in US appeals court. [Website]. https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/facebook-defends-725-million-privacy-settlement-us-appeals-court-2025-02-07/

The Atlantic. (2024, December 15). The Rise of the Union Right. [Website]. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2024/12/republicans-democrats-workers-unions-appeal/681103/

The Guardian. (2025, February 24). Beeban Kidron joins calls against PM’s AI tsar over tech-firm interests. [Website]. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/24/beeban-kidron-joins-calls-against-keir-starmer-ai-tsar-matt-clifford-over-tech-firm-interests

The New Yorker. (n.d.-a). The evolution of data-driven political campaigns has led to increased use of AI and microtargeting, influencing voter behavior and election outcomes. [Article reference; exact URL not provided.]

The New Yorker. (n.d.-b). The use of data-driven political campaigns has evolved to target voters on cultural issues, potentially overshadowing economic discussions. [Article reference; exact URL not provided.]

The Obama Diary. (2018, April 3). Wise Words. [Blog post]. https://obamadiary.wordpress.com/2018/04/03/wise-words/

The Verge. (2025, February 1). Sam Altman’s Stargate is science fiction. [Website]. https://www.theverge.com/openai/603952/sam-altman-stargate-ai-data-center-plan-hype-funding

The Wall Street Journal. (2024, November 10). Economy or Culture Wars? Our Writers Spar Over Why Harris Lost. [Website]. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/economy-or-culture-wars-our-writers-spar-over-why-harris-lost-46f90b55

U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2020). United States: Arizona’s Booming Job Growth Ranks Second in the Nation. MENA Report.

Posted on by Cherokee S. 0