Imagine if a small group of billionaires and political influencers wanted to reshape America by abandoning democracy.

That’s exactly what people like Curtis Yarvin, JD Vance, and Peter Thiel are working toward.

Known as a leader in “neo-reactionary” thought, Curtis Yarvin advocates for a government that looks more like a monarchy or dictatorship—where one person, almost like a CEO, makes all the decisions. This might sound like a far-fetched idea, but with tech billionaires funding political candidates like JD Vance, these views are getting dangerously close to becoming mainstream.

Who Is Curtis Yarvin?

Curtis Yarvin, also known by the pen name “Mencius Moldbug,” is a controversial figure in political philosophy and tech. Recognized as a founder of the “neo-reactionary” (NRx) movement, Yarvin challenges liberal democracy and supports hierarchical, authoritarian governance.

Yarvin believes democracies are outdated and ineffective. His solution? Replace democracy with an authoritarian “monarchy” or corporate structure where the country is ruled more like a business. He sees American institutions like universities and media as “cathedrals” that shape public opinion too much. His controversial ideas have captured the attention of right-wing tech billionaires like Peter Thiel.

Peter Theil’s Role in this Threat to Democracy

Peter Thiel is a billionaire investor and tech entrepreneur who was originally from Germany but is now an American citizen. He’s best known as a co-founder of PayPal and an early investor in Facebook.

Over the years, Thiel has used his wealth to influence American politics, and he’s become a significant supporter of politicians who share his distrust of democracy. His views are rooted in a belief that true freedom means a few powerful people should make decisions instead of relying on a democratic system where people vote and influence the government. Thiel has even said he believes “freedom and democracy are incompatible,” He thinks democracy gets in the way of true freedom, especially for people with wealth and power.

Theil uses his wealth to undermine democracy.

With his significant influence, Thiel has funded politicians like JD Vance, who agree with these ideas. In 2022, Thiel spent $15 million helping Vance win his Senate race in Ohio. Now, with Vance as Donald Trump’s running mate, Thiel’s influence could reach even further if Trump wins.

Thiel’s financial support isn’t limited to Vance; he also backs other politicians who share a vision of America as less democratic and more controlled by a few powerful figures, much like a corporation.

Theil uses his influence to showcase an anarchist.

Thiel has also raised the profile of Curtis Yarvin, a writer with controversial ideas about government. Yarvin argues that democracy is ineffective and supports the idea of a strong leader—like a “CEO of America”—with unchecked power.

Thiel’s network, sometimes called the “Thielverse,” includes influential tech figures like Elon Musk, who also share a skeptical view of democracy. By supporting Yarvin and his projects, Thiel has helped bring these authoritarian ideas out of the shadows and into public conversation.

Theil leans on his friends who share his desire to “rule the world.”

Elon Musk, a billionaire tech mogul originally from South Africa and now a U.S. citizen, plays a key role in amplifying anti-democratic ideas and funding the political push to reduce democratic checks in the U.S.

Musk shares some of the authoritarian-leaning views of Peter Thiel and JD Vance and has recently donated substantially to political groups supporting Trump. Musk’s support aligns him with Thiel’s circle, where a few influential figures back candidates and policies to limit public influence over government in favor of centralized control.

Musk’s influence is particularly powerful because he owns X (formerly Twitter), where he has allowed and promoted voices that align with anti-democratic or authoritarian ideas. By controlling such a large social media platform, Musk has reshaped public conversations on democracy, freedom of speech, and government accountability.

Under his management, X has become a platform for conservative and right-leaning views, making it a tool to reach millions with messaging that questions democratic norms. At the same time, Musk has also been a significant backer of pro-Trump initiatives, committing millions to Trump-aligned Super PACs as the election approaches.

This funding boosts campaigns and initiatives like Project 2025, which aims to restructure the government by firing many public servants and empowering the president with fewer constraints. With Musk’s support, these ideas gain traction and resources, helping them reach a larger audience and potentially influencing policy changes if they take hold.

Thiel’s latest political effort is Project 2025, which decapitates our Federal government.

Project 2025 is a plan to reshape the government by firing many experienced civil servants and giving the president more unchecked power. This project aligns with Yarvin’s “RAGE” idea, which stands for “Retire All Government Employees.”

If Project 2025 happens, it will give leaders more control over the government, making it function more like a company where a single person, like a CEO, makes major decisions. Through his wealth and influence, Thiel is shaping a movement that aims to give more power to a few, reducing the role of the public in deciding the country’s direction.

Why Should Regular, Democracy-Loving Americans Worry?

Yarvin’s ideas, once dismissed as extremist, are now influencing mainstream politics because powerful men like Vance, Theil, and Musk share them. Vance’s proposed “purge” of government workers and disregard for election results show a willingness to abandon democratic principles for power.

The idea of a “late republic” or “end of the republic” means they believe America is in its last days as a democracy. This movement envisions that after democracy collapses, a strong leader will rise to take control. This isn’t just political theory; these actions and ideas could fundamentally alter American society.

Curtis Yarvin’s Anti-Democracy Push – Philosophical Roots and Views

Yarvin started a political movement called “neoreaction” in the late 2000s. This movement is skeptical of democracy and supports the idea of an authoritarian government, where power is centralized under a strong, efficient ruler—similar to a monarch. Yarvin believes traditional values and strong, centralized leadership will lead to a more stable society. Instead of allowing public votes and debates to guide decisions, neoreactionaries argue that an efficient leader should be in charge, making choices for the country without public approval.

Yarvin criticizes democracy, comparing it to a computer that constantly malfunctions. He argues that democratic systems often lead to corruption, waste, and poor decision-making. According to him, democracy is too messy and inefficient, and he believes that a centralized, corporate-style government—run by an executive with total authority—would be more effective. He believes that this structure could avoid the problems he sees in democracy, where public opinion and elected officials can lead to what he considers poor or misguided choices.

Through his blog “Unqualified Reservations,” Yarvin has shared his criticism of “contemporary liberalism.” He argues that this form of liberalism has become almost like a religion, guiding and controlling public opinion in the West. Using historical examples, Yarvin tries to show what he believes are the failures and dangers of democracy and liberal values. His ideas have attracted attention from those who feel that traditional democratic systems no longer work effectively, and they have influenced certain circles within the tech industry and beyond.

Curtis Yarvin’s Anti-Democracy Push – Influence and Notoriety

Yarvin’s ideas, though extreme, have gained surprising attention in Silicon Valley. Some tech figures, including influential investors like Peter Thiel, have shown interest in his views. Yarvin’s arguments align with certain tech-libertarian beliefs, which often criticize government regulations and suggest that technology-driven governance models could be more efficient. This connection has helped Yarvin’s ideas find a foothold among tech leaders open to questioning traditional political structures.

Yarvin is also linked to a broader online movement called the “Dark Enlightenment.” This movement promotes a return to a traditional hierarchy, arguing that society functions better when led by elites rather than by egalitarian democratic processes. Through his writing and influence, Yarvin has become a central figure rallying people skeptical of progressive values and feeling that democratic systems may not best fit modern society.

Curtis Yarvin’s Anti-Democracy Push – Controversies and Criticism

Yarvin has faced considerable criticism for promoting views that many consider both racist and undemocratic. His advocacy for a society structured in strict hierarchies, with clear divisions between social classes and races, has led some to accuse him of endorsing white supremacy and social inequality.

In his blog Unqualified Reservations, Yarvin discussed race in ways that reinforced stereotypes, including claims about racial differences in intelligence. These comments have sparked backlash, with critics arguing that his work undermines the principles of equality and justice.

Mainstream media coverage of Yarvin’s ideas has generally been negative, reflecting his controversial and polarizing views. While he has developed a niche following online, many consider his theories extreme and out of touch with contemporary social norms around race, equality, and democratic governance. As a result, Yarvin remains a fringe intellectual whose ideas are largely rejected by the broader public, even as they attract interest within certain circles of tech and libertarian thought.

Curtis Yarvin’s Recent Developments and Projects

Yarvin has kept his ideas in circulation as a political commentator, especially during political crises or intense divisions. He argues that chaotic events, like the Capitol riots, reveal the weaknesses of democratic governance and the need for a more stable, centralized form of leadership. By interpreting these moments as proof of democracy’s flaws, Yarvin tries to make a case for his alternative vision of government.

Through his blog and his recent platform, Gray Mirror (his Substack), Yarvin continues connecting with followers who are open to questioning mainstream political beliefs. These platforms allow him to advocate for his anti-democratic and hierarchical ideas, creating a community of readers who are curious about alternatives to liberal democracy and who share a skepticism toward the current political system.

Yarvin’s presence is highly polarizing, yet his influence has grown within certain tech and internet circles, where some find his critique of democracy intriguing. Despite remaining a fringe figure, his ideas appeal to those who question the efficiency and stability of modern liberal democracy, adding to his relevance in these niche communities.

JD Vance Activates the Yarvin Agenda with a Peter Theil Assist

JD Vance, backed by Thiel’s millions, is not just any politician. Thiel and other influential tech figures see him as a leader who could transform America into the authoritarian state Yarvin imagines.

JD Vance has become one of the most vocal proponents of ideas that could drastically alter the structure of American democracy, openly supporting plans to purge the federal government of long-term civil servants and replace them with loyalists.

He likens this to “de-Baathification,” a program once used in Iraq to remove Saddam Hussein’s party members from government, intending to create a government staffed only by those aligned with his political ideology. For Vance, this approach is seen as a way to uproot what he describes as a deeply ingrained “establishment” within the federal system, which he and his allies believe opposes their vision for the country.

Vance’s endorsement of Project 2025 takes this agenda even further.

This radical plan, crafted by conservative think tanks and backed by figures like Peter Thiel, proposes a sweeping restructuring of the federal government if Trump is re-elected.

Project 2025 would involve firing thousands of career government employees and overhauling agencies to remove protections that ensure non-partisan work within the civil service.

Watch the Facebook video of Vance on Project 2025.

Supporters of Project 2025 view it as a way to permanently transform the government’s structure, reducing regulatory power and concentrating authority in the hands of loyalists who align with their agenda. Critics warn that implementing such a plan would be a direct step toward authoritarianism, undermining the principles of neutrality and accountability within federal agencies and leaving the government vulnerable to partisanship and corruption.

Vance’s alignment signals his commitment to fundamentally reshaping American democracy.

By endorsing ideas that centralize power and dismiss career government employees, Vance is positioning himself as a leading figure in a movement that wants to dismantle traditional democratic safeguards.

This shift could make the government less accountable to the people and more susceptible to authoritarian rule, with fewer checks and balances to prevent misuse of power.

How Can We Protect Democracy?

1. Stay Informed
Understand who these people are and why their ideas harm democracy. Sharing knowledge can prevent these ideas from gaining unchallenged support.

2. Support Institutions That Safeguard Democracy
Institutions like fair media, independent courts, and civil rights organizations protect democratic norms. Advocating for their integrity is essential.

3. Promote Voting and Election Integrity
Voting is one of the most vital ways to uphold democracy, but knowing the truth about election processes is equally critical to counteract misinformation.

Recognizing and understanding the intentions of these influential figures can help us guard democracy, ensuring that authoritarianism doesn’t quietly slip in through the back door.