What if the next great threat to American democracy doesn’t come in jackboots—but in a Patagonia vest, armed with a pitch deck? In this essay, I explore the quiet rise of Curtis Yarvin, the software developer turned anti-democracy theorist whose ideas are no longer fringe—they’re policy. Project 2025, the SAVE Act, and the slow death of civic liberty. Freedom is no longer in your inbox. Check your spam folder.
And I’m genuinely honored by that—thank you. If it struck a nerve, then I think it’s doing what it’s meant to do. Chilling, yes—but hopefully clarifying too. The more we expose the machinery behind this moment, the harder it becomes to run it in silence.
Exactly. That’s the trap: once participation is contingent on paperwork, the gatekeeping becomes not just logistical, but discretionary. If the state controls the definition of “authentic,” it controls the electorate. You don’t need to ban votes if you can simply invalidate them on demand.
It’s voter suppression by way of Kafka—where the test is always changing, and the burden of proof is always yours.
Exactly. And let’s not forget the push for gold-backed assets as a supposed ‘solution’—it’s all part of the same post-default fantasy economy they’re selling.
All I can say is, keep writing! This is an incredible piece.... your legit understanding and concern for what's happening in real-time is so important to share 🙏
That truly means a lot—thank you. I’m just trying to put words to what so many of us are feeling in real-time, before the language gets rewritten and the damage gets normalized. I’ll keep writing if you’ll keep reading. ❤️
Really appreciated your piece. It’s powerfully written and captures so much of what I’ve been observing. I’ve been following the broader ideological pipeline behind this movement since before the 2024 election. One way I’ve come to think about Yarvin’s role is less as an architect and more as a philosopher. He helps shape the worldview, while others translate it into real world systems, policy, and infrastructure. His influence is there, but he’s not the one drawing the blueprints.
Thank you for reading—and for such a thoughtful response. I think you’re absolutely right to frame Yarvin more as a philosopher than a tactician. He’s not sketching policy memos or drafting legal frameworks; he’s furnishing the intellectual oxygen for others to do so. But that’s precisely why I find his role so chilling: he provides the metaphysical justification—the permission structure—for dismantling democratic norms under the banner of “efficiency.” The blueprint may not be in his hand, but the architecture reflects his aesthetic.
In some ways, that makes his influence more dangerous, not less. The philosopher gets to hover above the chaos he inspires—unburdened by implementation, unscathed by consequence. It’s the old story: Plato dreams of philosopher-kings, and someone else builds the guillotine.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. That last line was beautifully put. It really stuck with me. You expanded the framing in a way that added something important. That distance between the thinker and the outcome is exactly what makes it so slippery. I’ve been quietly tracing that path for a while now, leaving brutal breadcrumbs and hoping to cut through the noise.
Excellent article! Thank you!
And thank you for reading and engaging. 🙏
This is the most incredible piece of journalism I’ve EVER read. Chilling isn’t an adequate description.
And I’m genuinely honored by that—thank you. If it struck a nerve, then I think it’s doing what it’s meant to do. Chilling, yes—but hopefully clarifying too. The more we expose the machinery behind this moment, the harder it becomes to run it in silence.
Great piece- real eye opener!
Thank you—really glad it landed that way. That was the goal: to pull back the curtain on what’s unfolding in plain sight.
Can you imagine the checking of the paperwork at the voting place? What’s to stop them from declaring the papers inauthentic.
Exactly. That’s the trap: once participation is contingent on paperwork, the gatekeeping becomes not just logistical, but discretionary. If the state controls the definition of “authentic,” it controls the electorate. You don’t need to ban votes if you can simply invalidate them on demand.
It’s voter suppression by way of Kafka—where the test is always changing, and the burden of proof is always yours.
They come with promises of cryptocurrency after a debt default.
Exactly. And let’s not forget the push for gold-backed assets as a supposed ‘solution’—it’s all part of the same post-default fantasy economy they’re selling.
All I can say is, keep writing! This is an incredible piece.... your legit understanding and concern for what's happening in real-time is so important to share 🙏
That truly means a lot—thank you. I’m just trying to put words to what so many of us are feeling in real-time, before the language gets rewritten and the damage gets normalized. I’ll keep writing if you’ll keep reading. ❤️
Really appreciated your piece. It’s powerfully written and captures so much of what I’ve been observing. I’ve been following the broader ideological pipeline behind this movement since before the 2024 election. One way I’ve come to think about Yarvin’s role is less as an architect and more as a philosopher. He helps shape the worldview, while others translate it into real world systems, policy, and infrastructure. His influence is there, but he’s not the one drawing the blueprints.
Thank you for reading—and for such a thoughtful response. I think you’re absolutely right to frame Yarvin more as a philosopher than a tactician. He’s not sketching policy memos or drafting legal frameworks; he’s furnishing the intellectual oxygen for others to do so. But that’s precisely why I find his role so chilling: he provides the metaphysical justification—the permission structure—for dismantling democratic norms under the banner of “efficiency.” The blueprint may not be in his hand, but the architecture reflects his aesthetic.
In some ways, that makes his influence more dangerous, not less. The philosopher gets to hover above the chaos he inspires—unburdened by implementation, unscathed by consequence. It’s the old story: Plato dreams of philosopher-kings, and someone else builds the guillotine.
Thank you for the thoughtful response. That last line was beautifully put. It really stuck with me. You expanded the framing in a way that added something important. That distance between the thinker and the outcome is exactly what makes it so slippery. I’ve been quietly tracing that path for a while now, leaving brutal breadcrumbs and hoping to cut through the noise.