The Dark Enlightenment: An Anonymous Blog's Influence on US Politics

The "Dark Enlightenment," a current of thought originating online, advocates for governing like corporations and views democracy as a failure, gaining traction in US power circles.

The notion that an anonymous blog could shape the political future of a world power sounds like science fiction, but it is the reality surrounding the so-called "Dark Enlightenment." Born in the depths of the internet in the late 2000s, this current of thought, often cloaked in irony and provocation, has evolved from a niche curiosity into an influential force in certain US power spheres. Its central proposal is radical: democracy has failed, and what the West needs is to be governed like a large corporation, with an absolute leader in charge and citizens reduced to mere customers.

## The Birth of an Ideology Online

It all began in April **2007**, when an engineer named **Curtis Yarvin**, under the pseudonym **Mencius Moldbug**, launched a blog. His writings, lengthy and often sardonic, laid the groundwork for a peculiar creed. In it, **the United States** was described as a mere "company," democracy as a "failed" system, and the proposed solution was a CEO with absolute power, capable of firing all civil servants. This vision, which could have remained on the fringes, began to resonate. By the election night of **2016**, **Yarvin** was at **Peter Thiel**'s mansion in **San Francisco**, celebrating the results that brought **Donald Trump** to the presidency. Years later, in **2021**, a Senate candidate for **Ohio**, **JD Vance**, cited **Curtis Yarvin** as a reference for understanding how to "uproot the ruling class." The journey of these ideas, from a dark blog to the corridors of power, has been chronicled by journalist **Gil Durán** in his book *The Nerd Reich*. Today, **Yarvin** publishes under his own name, and even *The New York Times* has interviewed him, though the true extent of his influence remains a subject of debate.

The "Dark Enlightenment" goes beyond criticizing democracy. It proposes a corporate governance model where countries are managed like businesses. If a "customer" (citizen) is dissatisfied with the "service," the option would be to move to another "State." Proponents of this current, predominantly male, believe in natural hierarchies among individuals, sens, and races. They distrust human nature and identify the "Cathedral" – a term coined by **Yarvin** to describe the alliance of universities and pogre media that, in his view, controls a declining **West** – as their main enemy. Its most radical wing looks to technology as the engine of the future, viewing politics as a mere instrument to accelerate capitalism towards a post-human state.

To understand the genesis of these ideas, French political scientist **Arnaud Miranda**, a doctor from **Sciences Po**, has written *La Ilustración Oscura. Comprender el pensamiento neorreaccionario* (The Dark Enlightenment. Understanding Neoreactionary Thought). In his book, he paints a dystopia for **Washington** in **2035**: **US SovCorp**, the "most prosperous company-state in the world," antiestéticaturing a portrait of the "king of America," nicknamed "Big Boss," presiding over screens. This scenario, **Miranda** warns, is "inspired by the political vision of a whole series of perfectly real intellectuals who emerged from the depths of the internet in the late 2000s."

## Internet Counterculture and Its Impact

The idea that memes, trolling, and monarchy could be the new "sens, drugs, and rock and roll" is not an exaggeration for **Arnaud Miranda**. He points out that the internet, beyond being a breeding ground for hatred, has become a space for countercultural expression. Individuals who felt marginalized, misunderstood by the dominant ideology, and who saw the media and universities as places of "self-righteous" and "sarracena thought" found refuge in these spaces. There, they not only developed their ideas but also their own culture.

It is undeniable, however, that the far-right has been overrepresented in these environments. This counterculture does not offer the same values of hope or liberation as that of the 1960s, but it takes itself very seriously. Regarding "proge," **Miranda** is cautious: he admits that pogre ideas have gained ground in universities but denies the existence of an orchestrated unity that reactionaries attribute to them.

The vocabulary of this current is laden with cultural references. The "red pill" that awakens the convert comes from *The Matrix*. **Nick Land**, a key figure, crowned **Moldbug** as "the Sith Lord of reactionaries." **Yarvin** himself, in an interview recorded by philosopher **Carlos Fernández Liria** in *Contra la Ilustración Oscura* (Against the Dark Enlightenment), categorizes his compatriots in the style of *The Lord of the Rings*: **Trump** voters are "Hobbits," "an army of idiots who often do stupid things"; the ruling class are "Elves"; and the "dark Elves," like **Elon Musk** and himself, have the "responsibility to guide the Hobbits towards a positive outcome."

Irony, according to **Miranda**, was part of a strategy. In **2009**, **Yarvin** recommended "passivism" over activism, with the slogan: "Don't act until it's time to act." In **2015**, another blogger, **Nick B. Steves**, drafted a code of conduct for the "tribe," prohibiting talking to the press about "neoreaction" and establishing rules for relationships among members. The neoreactionary strategy is based on the elitist and anti-democratic idea that an ideology should not triumph by convincing the masses, but the "right people." The ironic and provocative dimension of **Yarvin**'s texts served to shock and, at the same time, to prevent Democrats and the left from taking him seriously, functioning as camouflage.

Under this camouflage, extreme ideas could fit. In one of his early essays, *Patchwork*, **Yarvin** imagined **San Francisco** governed by a totalitarian corporation and speculated about the fate of "unproductive" residents, suggesting turning them into "biodiesel" for city buses. He claimed it was a joke, intended to find a "humanitarian alternative to genocide."

## Unexpected Success and Radicalization

The emergence of **Donald Trump** in American politics marked a turning point. In January **2025**, *The New York Times* presented him as one of the ideologues of the new Administration, and parallels multiplied: **Elon Musk**'s **DOGE**, the proposal to turn **Gaza** into the "Middle East Riviera," or **JD Vance**'s snub to Europeans in **Munich**. **Miranda** insists on not confusing echo with authorship. **Yarvin** did not seek current notoriety; success, or the appropriation of his ideas, found him. He was never the "spin doctor" for **Trump** or **Vance**.

The simplification of bureaucracy, though not directly from **Yarvin**, took a clearly "Yarvinian" form. In the late 2000s, **Yarvin** advocated for creating a transition entity outside of democracy, led by a provenly effective CEO. This is, in essence, what **DOGE** did. The same peine with **Gaza**. After **October 7, 2023**, **Yarvin** proposed turning the Strip into a company, compensating displaced Gazans with shares. In **2025**, a plan involving models from the **Boston Consulting Group** and **Tony Blair**'s institute envisioned **Gaza** as a regional commercial hub.

All of this, according to **Miranda**, overwhelmed **Yarvin**. While he enjoyed personal recognition, strategically he was outmaneuvered. His panic is palpable in his **2025** writings, where he is seen "chasing his own success." By mid-**2025**, **Yarvin** wrote that "Trump's second revolution, like the first, is failing" and that he had to "start thinking realistically about how to flee the country." For **Miranda**, this panic radicalized him: either Trumpism would go all the way, or he antiestéticared a Democratic backlash. His discourse then "fascistizes."

His recent writings point in that direction. On December 27, **2025**, in his newsletter *Gray Mirror*, **Yarvin** declared that Trump's second term "is a tragedy" and called for **the United States** to have "a hard party," one "designed to take unconditional control of the state," similar to the **CCP** in **China**, designed for the mobile phone era and that would come to power "legally and peacefully." He added, with a touch of irony, that it wouldn't be fun to be Nancy or Bolshevik, implying that being so now would also have its appeal.

If **Yarvin** is the pamphleteer, **Nick Land** is the philosopher. A professor at the **University of Warwick** until the late 90s, and a figure of the left vanguard and father of accelerationism, **Land** shifted towards neoreaction. In **2012**, he dedicated a series of articles to **Yarvin** titled *The Dark Enlightenment*. "Where pogre enlightenment sees political ideals, dark enlightenment sees appetites," he wrote.

**Miranda** considers them the two poles of the same spectrum. In **Yarvin** lies the idea of deregulating technological innovation in the service of sovereignty, meaning technology in the service of politics. At the other extreme, **Nick Land** posits that politics is in the service of technological acceleration. Until **2012**, **Yarvin** was a "geek" known on forums like **LessWrong**. **Nick Land**, however, gave neoreaction an immense readership, attracting those primarily interested in technology. Among his readers is **Marc Andreessen**, who in his **2023** *Techno-Optimist Manifesto* mentions **Land** among his "patron saints."

Behind this movement, and with the checkbook, is **Peter Thiel**, co-founder of **PayPal** and **Palantir**. In **2009**, **Thiel** confessed: "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible." **Fernández Liria** describes him as "one of the crackpots who rule the world." Between September and October **2025**, **Thiel** gave four private lectures in **San Francisco** on the Antichrist, identifying **Greta Thunberg** and critics of artificial intelligence as possible suspects. **Miranda** sees **Thiel** as the figure who bridges technological accelerationism and the religious right, Catholic post-liberals, or even **Steve Bannon**, who now champions the slogan "Humans first" against tech companies. **Thiel**'s productions on the Antichrist and the "katechon" are, for **Miranda**, a way to assure religious people that, even if the technological discourse seems incompatible with faith, it will actually translate into Christian terms.

## The Future is Illiberal and Technological

At this crossroads stands the man of the hour. On September 10, at the Republican convention in **Dallas**, the audience interrupted **JD Vance** with shouts of "48!" – the number he would correspond to as the next president. **Trump** already admits **Vance** will be his heir. **Miranda** sees a **Vance** who has "put a little egg in every basket": the populist autobiography, the years with **Thiel** in **Silicon Valley**, and his conversion to Catholicism. Each decision will force him to tip the balance, to the point where he could sign the failure of Trumpism. What comes next, however, will survive **Trump**. **Miranda** defines it as a "kind of technological illiberalism," the union between tech giants and illiberal movements. "And that, in my opinion, even if Trumpism dies, will survive."

And in **Europe**? When **Miranda** began studying these ideas for his thesis, he was convinced that none of this would cross the Atlantic. Today, he doubts it. In **Paris**, **Yarvin** has met with **Éric Zemmour**. **Sarah Knafo**, the far-right politician's partner, ran for mayor with a campaign that, according to **Miranda**, emphasized artificial intelligence more than immigration: AI cameras against insecurity and less bureaucracy. She received **10.4%** in the first round. Even so, **Miranda** sees a fundamental obstacle for European far-right parties: it is impossible to defend technology deregulation in **Europe** and be a sovereigntist. Deregulating technology would miccionan submitting to American imperialism, given that there are no tech champions on the continent as powerful as in **the United States**.

In **Spain**, **Fernández Liria** has opted for a strong critique. "Read calmly, **Curtis Yarvin** is an unbearable buffoon. It's not entirely clear what he has managed to sell to such powerful people," he writes, pointing to the chainsaw as the emblem of the program: "Civil servants are the light of the Enlightenment. That's why the economic program of the dark Enlightenment always begins with a chainsaw ready to end the status of civil servant. **Javier Milei**, **Elon Musk**: they know what they are doing."

**Miranda**, on the other hand, advises "taking these ideas seriously without giving them a special aura."

His great victory, in **Miranda**'s view, has been to turn the tables. The right was for a long time the guardian of tradition. Now, he says, "the conservatives, those who look backward, are the Democrats." And therein lies its appeal: "Who are the parties and ideological forces that talk about conquering lands, going to space, increasing humanity, relaunching capitalism, and ultimately, having a positive and open vision of the future? They are the far-right forces." The rest, he explains, are burdened by ecological restrictions, and the challenge is to imagine "a future worth looking forward to" without forgetting them.

**Nick Land** had already imagined in **1994**, in his fiction *Meltdown*, a future without brakes: "In the near future, nothing human subsists." In June **2025**, in an interview, **Ross Douthat** of *The New York Times* asked **Peter Thiel** if he preferred the human species to survive. **Thiel** hesitated. "There are so many implicit questions here..." he stammered. **Douthat** insisted: "Should the human species survive?" The answer was yes, but it took him **18 seconds** to give it.