Understanding Neoreaction (NRx): The Dark Enlightenment’s Growing Influence
In the landscape of contemporary political thought, few movements have generated as much intrigue and controversy as Neoreaction (NRx). Emerging from the darkest corners of the internet and gradually infiltrating mainstream discourse, this philosophical movement represents one of the most comprehensive rejections of modern liberal democracy. Here we’ll explore the origins, key figures, core beliefs, and growing influence of Neoreaction in both Silicon Valley and Republican politics.
Origins and Key Figures
Neoreaction emerged in the mid-to-late 2000s as an online philosophical and political movement, primarily through blog posts and forum discussions. The movement’s foundational texts were written by Curtis Yarvin (writing under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug), a software engineer by day and political theorist by night who began publishing his critiques of modern democracy in 2007-2008 through his blog “Unqualified Reservations.”
Yarvin’s verbose, citation-heavy writing style attracted a small but dedicated following of readers who were drawn to his radical critique of contemporary political systems. His work was further developed and popularized by British philosopher Nick Land, who coined the term “Dark Enlightenment” in his 2012 essay of the same name. Land, formerly associated with the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit at Warwick University, added accelerationist elements to Neoreactionary thought, emphasizing the role of capitalism and technology in destabilizing existing political structures.
While Yarvin and Land are considered the primary architects of Neoreactionary thought, the movement draws inspiration from earlier thinkers. These include 19th-century writer Thomas Carlyle, who advocated for authoritarian governance; Julius Evola, an Italian traditionalist philosopher; and American economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, known for his critiques of democracy from a libertarian perspective.
Core Beliefs
At its heart, Neoreaction represents a fundamental rejection of Enlightenment values and the modern liberal democratic order. Its adherents advocate for several interconnected beliefs:
One of my favorite historians, Professor Richardson is a kind of north star to train your eyes on in making sense of this peculiarly unsettling moment in time. While any Heather Cox Richardson speech is worth your time, this one at Boston’s Old North Church — in commemoration of the anniversary of the lighting of the lanterns there in 1775 — deserves special mention for its sweeping yet intimate detail view of revolutionary sentiment in the colonies under waning British rule.
Professor Richardson has a true gift for both making centuries’-old history seem strikingly relevant today, as well as for analyzing today’s news through the lens of the long-term, clarifying its causes, and tempering it with context. A question we thought settled long ago — whether we are to be ruled by an all-powerful king whose power is unchecked by any force — has disturbingly resurfaced as Donald Trump convincingly play-acts (or perhaps naturally embodies) the role of mad king. Here she weaves the tale of revolutionaries in the late 18th century throwing off the mad king of their time, as an inspiration to those of us inexplicably confronting this same problem again in 2025.
Heather Cox Richardson speech summary
I would encourage everybody to watch or read the speech in full (as well as check out HCR’s other brilliant books) as it’s well worth your time — but for those short on the irreplaceable stuff, here’s a summary:
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.
These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.
By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.
In an age of information overload, critical thinking has never been more essential. Whether you’re analyzing a news story, debating with friends, or writing a persuasive essay, your ability to recognize and avoid faulty reasoning can be the difference between clarity and confusion, persuasion and propaganda. At the heart of this effort lies this powerful concept of logical fallacies.
Types of logical fallacies
Logical fallacies fall into one of two main clusters:
Formal Fallacies
Formal fallacies occur when there’s a flaw in the logical structure of an argument, rendering the conclusion invalid—even if the premises are true. Think of formal fallacies as broken logic circuits: they don’t connect, even if the parts look sound.
Example:
If it’s raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it must be raining. (This is a classic fallacy known as affirming the consequent.)
Informal Fallacies
Informal fallacies, on the other hand, relate to the content of the argument rather than its structure. These occur when the premises don’t adequately support the conclusion, even if the structure appears valid.
These informal logical fallacies are more common in everyday conversation and rhetoric. Informal fallacies usually stem from misused language, assumptions, or appeals to emotion rather than flawed logic alone. They’re trickier to spot because they often feel intuitive or persuasive.
Example:
Everyone’s doing it, so it must be right. (This is the bandwagon fallacy—popular doesn’t mean correct.)
Within each of these two clusters is a number of different logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:
Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.
Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:
Fallacy
Definition
Example
Ad Hominem
Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument
“You can’t trust his economic policy ideas. He’s been divorced three times!”
Appeal to Authority
Using an authority’s opinion as definitive proof without addressing the argument itself
“Dr. Smith has a PhD, so her view on climate change must be correct.”
Appeal to Emotion
Manipulating emotions instead of using valid reasoning
“Think of the children who will suffer if you don’t support this policy!”
Appeal to Nature
Arguing that because something is natural, it is good, valid, or justified
“Herbal supplements are better than medication because they’re natural.”
Appeal to Tradition
Arguing that something is right because it’s been done that way for a long time
“We’ve always had this company policy, so we shouldn’t change it.”
Bandwagon Fallacy
Appealing to popularity as evidence of truth
“Everyone is buying this product, so it must be good.”
Begging the Question
Circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise
“The Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.”
Black-and-White Fallacy
Presenting only two options when more exist
“Either we cut the entire program, or we’ll go bankrupt.”
Cherry Picking
Selectively using data that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence
“Global warming can’t be real because it snowed last winter.”
Correlation vs. Causation
Assuming that because two events occur together, one caused the other
“Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning.”
Equivocation
Using a word with more than one meaning in a misleading way
“Evolution is just a theory, so it shouldn’t be taught as fact.” (Equivocating between scientific theory and casual speculation)
Fallacy of Composition
Inferring that something is true of the whole because it’s true of a part
“This cell is invisible to the naked eye, so the whole animal must be invisible too.”
Fallacy of Division
Inferring that something is true of the parts because it’s true of the whole
“The university has an excellent reputation, so every professor there must be excellent.”
Genetic Fallacy
Evaluating an argument based on its origins rather than its merits
“That idea came from a socialist country, so it must be bad.”
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased
“I had two bad meals at restaurants in Italy, so Italian cuisine is terrible.”
Middle Ground Fallacy
Assuming that a compromise between two extremes must be correct
“Some people say the Earth is flat, others say it’s round. The truth must be that it’s somewhat flat and somewhat round.”
No True Scotsman
Redefining terms to exclude counterexamples
“No true environmentalist would drive an SUV.” When shown an environmentalist who drives an SUV: “Well, they’re not a true environmentalist then.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B
“I wore my lucky socks and we won the game, so my socks caused our victory.”
Red Herring
Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue
“Why worry about environmental problems when there are so many people who can’t find jobs?”
Slippery Slope
Arguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences
“If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry their pets!”
Straw Man
Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack
“Vegetarians say we should eat no meat at all and let farmers go out of business.” (When they actually argue for reduced meat consumption)
Texas Sharpshooter
Cherry-picking data clusters to fit a pattern
“Look at these cancer cases clustered in this neighborhood – it must be caused by the power lines!” (While ignoring similar neighborhoods with power lines but no cancer clusters)
Tu Quoque
Avoiding criticism by turning it back on the accuser
“You say I should quit smoking, but you used to smoke too!”
Burden of Proof
Claiming something is true while putting the burden to disprove it on others
“I believe in ghosts. Prove to me that they don’t exist.”
How to identify logical fallacies
Spotting fallacies takes practice, but these tips can help sharpen your skills:
Slow down and dissect the argument. Look at the premises and conclusion—do they logically connect?
Watch for emotional appeals. If an argument relies more on stirring feelings than presenting evidence, be cautious.
Ask: what’s being left out? Many fallacies omit key context or alternate explanations.
Compare to real-world examples. Would the logic hold up elsewhere?
Everyday example: “If we allow students to redo assignments, next they’ll expect to retake tests, and eventually no deadlines will matter at all.” — This is a slippery slope fallacy. One action doesn’t necessarily lead to an extreme outcome.
Why avoiding logical fallacies matters
Logical fallacies don’t just weaken arguments—they erode trust, obscure truth, and inflame discourse. Here’s why learning to avoid them is critical:
In personal arguments: Fallacies can escalate tension and derail meaningful conversation.
In academic writing: Sound reasoning is the backbone of scholarship; fallacies undermine credibility.
In public discourse and media: Propaganda and misinformation often rely on fallacious reasoning to manipulate opinion. Recognizing these tactics is key to resisting them.
In a world where bad actors exploit fallacies for influence and profit, being fallacy-literate is a form of intellectual self-defense.
Larry Ellison’s Tech Empire and Right-Wing Influence
In the pantheon of tech billionaires who have shaped our digital landscape, Larry Ellison stands as one of the most influential yet enigmatic and controversial figures. While his technological innovations have transformed industries, his growing political influence—particularly within right-wing circles—has increasingly become a focal point of public interest.
From Humble Beginnings to Tech Power Broker
Born in New York City and adopted as an infant, Larry Ellison’s early life gave little indication of the empire he would eventually build. After dropping out of college and working various jobs, Ellison found his calling in the nascent field of database technology. In 1977, he co-founded Software Development Laboratories, which would later become Oracle Corporation—a name now synonymous with enterprise software.
Ellison’s company went on to develop the first commercial SQL database system, positioning Oracle at the forefront of the database revolution. Under his leadership, Oracle expanded aggressively through both innovation and strategic acquisitions, eventually becoming a dominant force in enterprise software. The company’s successful IPO and subsequent growth catapulted Ellison into the ranks of the world’s wealthiest individuals.
The Billionaire Lifestyle
With a net worth consistently placing him among the top ten richest people globally, Ellison has become known for his lavish lifestyle. His purchases include a Hawaiian island (Lanai), multiple mansions, and record-breaking yachts. Beyond material extravagance, he has also engaged in philanthropy, though often with less public fanfare than contemporaries like Bill Gates.
Ellison’s leadership style—characterized by boldness, competitiveness, and occasional ruthlessness—has been both criticized and admired. These same qualities would eventually manifest in his approach to political involvement.
Larry Ellison’s Evolution of Political Involvement
Early Political Activities: A Bipartisan Approach
Ellison’s initial forays into politics were relatively balanced. Like many business leaders, he made donations to candidates across the political spectrum, seemingly prioritizing business interests over partisan ideology. During this period, both Democratic and Republican candidates received support from the Oracle founder.
Shifting Right: The Conservative Turn
Over time, Ellison’s political leanings began to tilt increasingly rightward. His financial support for Republican candidates and PACs grew substantially, marking a clear shift in his political alignment. By the 2016 presidential election cycle, Ellison had emerged as a significant backer of Marco Rubio’s campaign, signaling his preference for establishment conservative politics.
The 2020 Election Controversy
Perhaps the most controversial chapter in Ellison’s political involvement came after the 2020 presidential election. According to reports, Ellison participated in a post-election strategy call with Trump allies discussing how to challenge the election results — conspiring with right-wing leaders to pretend to believe in election denial. His connections to the organization True the Vote—a group that has promoted unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud—further cemented his alignment with efforts questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election outcome and participation in the Big Lie.
The Tim Scott Connection
Ellison’s political investments reached new heights with his massive $35 million donation to the Opportunity Matters Fund, a super PAC supporting Senator Tim Scott. This relationship transcended mere financial backing—Ellison reportedly served as a mentor to Scott and was preparing to make an even larger eight-figure contribution to Scott’s 2024 presidential campaign before Scott withdrew from the race.
Trump and Beyond
Despite initially backing other candidates, Ellison hasn’t shied away from the Trump orbit. He hosted a fundraiser for Donald Trump and has positioned himself as a significant player in Republican politics. His criticism of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden aligned with conservative national security positions, further illustrating his rightward evolution.
Expanding Influence: Media, Technology, and Politics
Ellison’s political influence extends beyond direct campaign contributions. His investment in Elon Musk‘s acquisition of Twitter (now X) placed him adjacent to one of the most consequential media platform changes in recent years. More directly, his potential control of CBS News through a Paramount Global merger has raised concerns about the independence of mainstream media.
Additionally, Ellison’s involvement in The Stargate Project alongside tech luminaries Sam Altman and Masayoshi Son demonstrates how his technological and political interests increasingly intersect, particularly around data and national security.
The Democratic Process and Billionaire Influence
Ellison’s political activities raise broader questions about the role of billionaire donors in democratic processes. His substantial financial backing of candidates and causes—particularly those aligned with election denial efforts—has drawn criticism from democracy advocates concerned about outsized influence from the ultra-wealthy.
The scale of Ellison’s political giving is remarkable even by billionaire standards. Reports indicate that he has made some of his largest political donations on record in recent election cycles, including substantial funding for election deniers in the midterms. This pattern of increased political investment suggests Ellison sees his financial resources as a means to shape politics beyond just supporting individual candidates.
Legacy and Continuing Influence
As Ellison enters his eighties, his political influence shows no signs of waning. His unexpected “comeback” in the Trump era, focusing on Oracle’s positioning around TikTok, AI, and data centers, demonstrates his continued relevance in both technology and politics.
What distinguishes Ellison from many other tech billionaires is how seamlessly he navigates between technological innovation and political influence. While figures like Musk are more publicly vocal about their political views, Ellison has often exercised his influence more quietly but no less effectively.
Larry Ellison’s Political Future
Larry Ellison’s journey from database pioneer to right-wing political financier represents a fascinating case study in how wealth, power, and ideology intersect in modern America. As his political activity has increased, so too has scrutiny of his role in shaping the political landscape.
Whether funding candidates, backing media acquisitions, or promoting certain technological approaches to national challenges, Ellison has positioned himself as a significant force in right-wing politics. As with his business ventures, his political investments appear strategic, long-term, and designed to maximize impact.
As America navigates increasingly polarized political terrain, figures like Ellison—with virtually unlimited resources and expanding spheres of influence—will likely continue to play outsized roles in shaping the country’s political future, for better or — most likely — for worse.
In today’s complex geopolitical landscape, understanding different systems of governance is crucial for making sense of world events. Among these systems, totalitarianism stands out as one of the most extreme forms of government control. What exactly is totalitarianism, how does it function, and what can history teach us about its impacts — and how to fight back against its oppressive aims?
Defining Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It shares similarities with both fascism and authoritarianism, but unlike other authoritarian regimes, totalitarian states seek to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. The term itself suggests the extreme “total” nature of this control—extending beyond purely political spheres into social, economic, cultural, and even private dimensions of human existence.
What distinguishes totalitarianism from other forms of authoritarianism is its ambition to erase the line between government and society entirely. Under totalitarianism, there is no concept of a private life outside the reach of state authority.
Key Characteristics of Totalitarian Regimes
1. Complete State Control of Society
Totalitarian states attempt to control virtually every aspect of social life:
Business and Economy: State-directed economic policies, often involving nationalization or collectivization of industries and resources
Labor: Control over labor unions, work assignments, and employment opportunities
Housing: Allocation and control of housing and living arrangements
Education: Strict control of curriculum and educational institutions to indoctrinate youth
Religion: Suppression or co-option of religious institutions
The Arts: Censorship and direction of artistic expression to serve state purposes
Personal Life: Intrusion into family relationships, leisure activities, and personal decisions
Youth Organizations: Creation of state-sponsored youth groups to foster loyalty from an early age
You’ll hear a common retort on the extreme right that now holds sway in the mainstream Republican Party, in response to protests about the dismantling of democracy in this country — that we’re “a republic, not a democracy.” Right off the bat, a republic is a form of democracy — so they are claiming something akin to having a Toyota and not a car. It makes no logical sense, and is based in simple ignorance of civics and basic political philosophy.
John Birch Society loonies laud “a republic, not a democracy”
The “republic, not a democracy” meme would go on to be featured in the John Birch Society Blue Book — an organization so toxically extremist that even conservative darling William F. Buckley distanced himself from them. They feared the idea that increasing democratization would be a shifting balance of power away from white conservative men, and they spun numerous conspiracy theories to explain this as the result of nefarious undercover plot to overthrow Western Civilization.
In reality, the trend towards greater democracy is something the Founders themselves envisioned — though they likely could not have imagined how it would turn out. They believed fiercely in self-governance, and a clear separation from the tyranny of kings.
They wanted us to amend our Constitution, and to look at them in hindsight not as saintly gods but as mere men — who could govern themselves just as well as any reasonably earnest group of human beings could also do. At the time, arguably, they would have said “group of men” — but they were products of their time, and their worldview was limited to a patriarchal frame. Philosophically speaking, the Declaration of Independence is clear in its lofty goals — if its author was not so clear in his personal behavior regarding the equality of all persons.
That is what Abraham Lincoln meant by the “better angels” of our nature — that though we are fallible humans who make mistakes and have hubris and repeat the same idiocies again and again, we yet strive to become better than what we currently are. It’s noble, and inspiring, and is the better basis for a nation to unify around than that of hatred, bigotry, and petty revenge that the current Trump 2.0 administration stands for.
Hannah Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” is a collection of two seminal essays that explore the complex relationship between truth, lies, and political power. The book, published in 2022, includes “Truth and Politics” (1967) and “Lying in Politics” (1971), along with a new introduction by David Bromwich.
Key Themes of “On Lying and Politics”
The nature of political lies
Arendt argues that the phenomenon of lying in politics is not new, and that truthfulness has never been considered a political virtue. She posits that lies have long been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings, reflecting a deep-seated tension between truth and politics. However, Arendt also warns that excessive lying by political classes can lead to totalitarianism, where reality becomes entirely fictional.
Types of truth
Arendt distinguishes between two types of truth: factual and rational. She argues that factual truth is more vulnerable to political manipulation, as it is not self-evident and can be challenged like opinions. Rational truth, on the other hand, is more resilient as it can be reproduced through logical reasoning. Others can more easily verify on their own whether a rational truth checks out, whereas they cannot as easily go fact-finding — particularly about far-flung things that happen well outside their ken.
The impact of lies on democracy
Arendt explores how organized lying can tear apart our shared sense of reality, replacing it with a fantasy world of manipulated evidence and doctored documents. She argues that in a democracy, honest disclosure is crucial as it is the self-understanding of the people that sustains the government. This aligns with the idea that totalitarian governments can warp even the language itself, a la George Orwell’s Newspeak language in the classic novel 1984.
A Tale of Two Essays
“Truth and Politics” (1967)
In this essay, Arendt examines the affinity between lying and politics. She emphasizes that the survival of factual truth depends on credible witnesses and an informed citizenry. The essay explores how organized lying can degrade facts into mere opinions, potentially leading liars to believe their own fabrications in a self-deluding system of circular logic.
“Lying in Politics” (1971)
Written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, this essay applies Arendt’s insights to American policy in Southeast Asia. She argues that the Vietnam War and the official lies used to justify it were primarily exercises in image-making, more concerned with displaying American power than achieving strategic objectives.
Arendt’s perspective on political lying
Arendt views lying as a deliberate denial of factual truth, interconnected with the ability to act and rooted in imagination. She argues that while individual lies might succeed, lying on principle ultimately becomes counterproductive as it forces the audience to disregard the distinction between truth and falsehood.
Contemporary relevance
Arendt’s work remains highly relevant today, perhaps even more so than when it was written. Her analysis of how lies can undermine the public’s sense of reality and the dangers of political self-deception resonates strongly in our current political climate of disinformation, manipulation, and radicalization.
Not to mention, the incredible contribution from Big Tech — whose tech bros have seen to it that political technology, and the study of professional manipulation, is alive and well. It’s been in the zeitgeist for a couple of decades now, and is now being accelerated — by the ascendancy of AI, Elon Musk, and the Silicon Valley branch of the right-wing wealth cult (Biden called it the tech-industrial complex).
“On Lying and Politics” feels fresh today
Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” provides a nuanced exploration — and a long-term view — of the role of truth and lies in political life. While acknowledging that lying has always been part of politics, Arendt warns of the dangers of excessive and systematic lying, particularly in democratic societies.
Her work continues to offer valuable insights into the nature of political deception and its impact on public life and democratic institutions. We would be wise to hear her warnings and reflect deeply on her insights, as someone who lived through the Nazi regime and devoted the remainder of her life’s work to analyzing what had happened and warning others. The similarities to our current times are disturbing and alarming — arm yourself with as much information as you can.
Joe Gebbia: A Silicon Valley Success Story’s Troubling Turn
Joe Gebbia’s journey from innovative designer to billionaire entrepreneur, and his subsequent embrace of authoritarian politics, illustrates how wealth and power can fundamentally reshape values and allegiances.
Origins in Innovation
Born in 1981, Gebbia’s early career showed genuine promise in merging design thinking with social good. His education at the Rhode Island School of Design, combined with business studies at Brown University and MIT, suggested someone who might bridge the gap between creativity and commerce for positive change.
The origin story of Airbnb – born from Gebbia and Brian Chesky’s inability to afford rising rent – once seemed to exemplify Silicon Valley‘s democratic potential. Their solution of renting air mattresses to conference attendees appeared to embody the sharing economy’s promise of democratizing access to travel and income. With technical co-founder Nathan Blecharczyk, they built Airbnb into a platform that transformed travel — though critics would later note its role in driving up housing costs in many cities, and the many regulatory battles that have ensued.
The Price of Success
Their bootstrapping story of selling custom cereal boxes during the 2008 election to raise funds became startup lore. Yet ironically, the economic desperation that inspired Airbnb’s creation stands in stark contrast to Gebbia’s current alignment with policies that often exacerbate income inequality and wealth inequality.
While Gebbia’s commitment to philanthropy through the Giving Pledge appeared commendable, his recent political evolution raises questions about the coherence between his charitable giving and his support for policies that often undermine social safety nets.
A Troubling Political Transformation
Gebbia’s political journey from Democratic donor to Trump supporter represents more than just a change in voting patterns – it reflects a broader pattern of tech billionaires embracing authoritarian politics. After contributing over $200,000 to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden’s campaigns, Gebbia’s sudden shift rightward in the 2024 election coincided with his increasing proximity to power in the form of Elon Musk and the Trump administration.
His public support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and defense of various right-wing positions on social media marked a dramatic departure from his previous support for progressive causes. This transformation mirrors a troubling trend among tech elites who, after accumulating vast wealth, appear to abandon democratic principles in favor of authoritarian solutions.
Accelerationism Dictionary: A Complete Terminology and Lexicon
AI accelerationism, or “e/acc,” is one of the most radical and controversial ideologies emerging from Silicon Valley today. At its core, it champions the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence, rejecting calls for regulation and safety measures in favor of unchecked innovation. Proponents argue that AI holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges—climate change, poverty, disease—and even envision a post-human future where intelligence transcends biological limits.
With strong libertarian leanings, the movement prioritizes market-driven progress, believing that government intervention would stifle AI’s transformative potential. Tech billionaires like legendary venture capitalist Marc Andreessen have embraced these ideas, elevating what was once a fringe philosophy into a driving force in the AI industry.
However, AI accelerationism faces fierce criticism for its disregard of ethical considerations, social consequences, and potential existential risks. Detractors warn that unregulated AI development could exacerbate inequality, destabilize economies, and lead to dangerous technological outcomes without proper safeguards.
The movement stands in stark opposition to cautious, ethical AI development advocated by groups like the effective altruism community, setting up a high-stakes ideological battle over the future of artificial intelligence. Whether one sees AI accelerationism as a path to utopia or a reckless gamble, its growing influence makes it a defining force in the ongoing debate over technology’s role in shaping humanity’s future.
This accelerationism dictionary should help get anyone up to speed on this emerging and dangerous ideology. We’ll keep adding to it over time as the field continues to evolve at breakneck pace.
Accelerationism Dictionary
A
Accelerate or die: A common slogan in the e/acc movement expressing the belief that technological acceleration is necessary for survival.
Accelerationism: A philosophical and political movement advocating for the acceleration of technological, social, and economic progress. Can exist in left-wing, right-wing, and politically neutral forms.
AI supremacy: The belief or fear that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and capabilities, potentially dominating society, economies, and geopolitical power structures. It is often discussed in the context of global competition for technological dominance.
Dave Karpf absolutely shreds Balaji Srinivasan’s book “The Network State” as the ravings of a rich delusional megalomaniac preening to his Silicon Valley peers who fancy themselves in Galt’s Gulch. These guys appear almost completely ignorant about the actual functions of a nation-state. If they want to declare themselves sovereign and secede from the United States, we ought to cut their sewage, water, and electric supply to give them a dose of the factual reality they so disdain.
What happens to these guys’ nerdy little crypto-enclaves when a much larger power (say, Russia…) decides to invade them and take their enormous stores of value they’ve bragged about removing from state protection? Especially after they’ve just ushered in the destruction of the post-WWII global order in which it was generally frowned upon for giant nations to gobble up their neighbors just because they could? 🤔
Moreover, what if that invader nation is simply the United States itself, once an administration comes to power that decides it is tired of dealing with its collection of ornery Confederate enclaves? Some might knuckle under peacefully, but there might also be some Waco events — except this time, with a lethal military strike justified by a president completely immune from prosecution and beyond the power of legislative or judicial oversight.
Please go away
What is stopping these guys from starting their start-up utopias right now? They are squintillionaires and could certainly buy land and start a community organized around whatever value system they want to run up the flagpole (arguably that seems to be the idea behind California Forever). Why isn’t Peter Thiel seasteading already and leaving us the fuck alone? Why does California Forever take Forever to operationalize when the entire premise of these techbro elites for decades has been that government (and specifically democracy) is too slow and they could totally build everything much faster and better if only given the chance?
Understanding AI Accelerationism: Silicon Valley’s Radical Vision for the Future
What is AI accelerationism? AI accelerationism, or “e/acc” as it’s known in tech circles, has emerged as one of Silicon Valley‘s most influential and controversial ideological movements. At its core, it represents a radical optimism about artificial intelligence and its potential to reshape human civilization as we know it.
What is AI Accelerationism?
At its most basic, AI accelerationism advocates for the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence. Unlike those who call for careful regulation and safety measures, accelerationists believe that faster AI development is not just beneficial but crucial for humanity’s future. They reject what they see as excessive caution, often dismissing AI safety advocates as “doomers.”
The Core Beliefs
Technological Solutions to Global Problems
Accelerationists believe that unrestricted technological progress, particularly in AI, holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges. From their perspective, issues like climate change, poverty, and disease are problems that advanced AI could potentially solve if we develop it quickly enough.
Post-Human Future
Perhaps most ambitiously, many e/acc proponents envision a future where the line between human and machine blurs. They embrace the possibility of human-AI integration and the emergence of new forms of consciousness and intelligence.
Market-Driven Innovation
The movement has strong libertarian leanings, advocating for minimal government intervention in AI development. They believe that market forces, not regulation, should guide technological progress.
It feels odd to have to make these arguments for diversity, again, some centuries after the Enlightenment. And centuries after Darwin, in whose name many fallacious opposite “interpretations” are levied. But apparently we must say it: diversity is good, actually.
The evidence is there for us as it has always been. Diversity isn’t a bad thing — it’s almost universally a good thing. For populations, for economies, for problem solving — for all of us. The more options there are, the higher probability that one of them might be the right match, or the thing that solves the problem, or the best selection for the job at hand.
In economics, Modern Portfolio Theory is based on the formal proof that diverse portfolios are stronger and more resilient to risk without sacrificing returns. So there’s a strict mathematical component to the arguments for diversity, but beyond that many other fields have also weighed in on the utility and pragmatic value of diversity. This assortment is a work in progress I’ll continue to add to over time:
In biology, more diverse populations are more responsive and resilient to a wider variety of changes. This resilience is one of the best arguments for diversity of all.
In business, a diversity of new ideas leads to better decision-making and increased innovation; studies show a diverse workforce, as well as a diverse board, nets better results and outperforms their more conformist cousins. Conversely, too much groupthink and stale ideas lead to worse outcomes and less resilient firms.
Cross-pollination is generative, and the blending of ideas creates new concepts, new opportunities, new industries, and new trends — to name a few.
Range adds resilience — developing a broad range of skills and experiences help you adapt to constant change and grow in your career
Condorcet jury theorem: the more informed people there are making a decision, the more right it will be. Plurality makes better decisions. See also: wisdom of crowds
Law of large numbers: the more data points you have, the more accurate your distribution will be.
A large number of independent transactions helps economies function properly and grow. We speak of the economy “moving” and finding many touchpoints to do business on.
A lack of diversity can lead to poor outcomes, such as in echo chambers where people are not exposed to different points of view, and develop insular views that are self-reinforcing but usually divorced from reality.
Diversity unhinges us because it unmasks our hidden assumption that if we all look the same, we will think the same and thereby avoid conflict.
Deep down, we still secretly hope that we can avoid having to deal with our differences by magically generating conformity.
Our unspoken wish is that, by being identical, we achieve the harmony and collective togetherness we so deeply crave — the collective harmony we mistake for God. In our zeal to commune with god, we instead are far more likely to fall victim to the pitfalls of collective narcissism and all the destructions it wreaks.
Diversity outcompetes monoculture
The opposite of diversity is monoculture… and inbreeding. Monoculture represents sameness, stasis, and stagnation — the system or culture feels fairly dull and stale.
Most people like a certain level of variety in their lives. Some though, have great aversion to difference, change, or both. Authoritarian personalities tend to dislike difference, while individuals with traditional conservative ideology tend to dislike change.
One of the more relatable arguments for diversity stems from the fact that a majority of people enjoy and benefit from diverse points of view, experiences, community members, and beyond. We love to eat different foods, travel to different places, and engage in different pasttimes. And our lives are enriched because of it.
Diversity ought to be celebrated, not denigrated. In many ways it is the very stuff of life — something that helps make life precious and meaningful.
History is rife with examples of dualistic thinking—black and white, good and evil, light and dark. Few frameworks encapsulate this philosophical dichotomy more vividly than Manichaeism, a religious movement born in 3rd century Persia. At its heart lies the concept of the “Manichaean Struggle,” an eternal cosmic battle that defines existence itself.
Though the religion has long since disappeared, its ideas about duality and morality resonate in ways both subtle and overt, shaping not just theology but how we think about human nature and ethics today. If anything, the modern world is more black and white now than at many times in the past.
Historical Context
Manichaeism was founded in 3rd century CE Persia by a prophet named Mani. Claiming to synthesize the wisdom of previous religious traditions—Zoroastrianism, Buddhism, and Christianity—Mani positioned his teachings as the ultimate revelation. The religion rapidly gained a foothold across diverse regions, from the Roman Empire to the Silk Road, even reaching as far as China.
Yet, despite its initial success, Manichaeism faced relentless persecution from state powers, including the Roman Empire and the Sasanian rulers of Persia, alongside internal schisms. By the 14th century, the faith had all but disappeared, leaving behind traces in historical records and theological debates.
Core Beliefs of Manichaeism
At its core, Manichaeism proposed a dualistic cosmology: the world is a battleground between two primordial forces—good, symbolized by light, and evil, represented by darkness. Mani’s teachings divided cosmic history into three stages:
Past Separation: A time when light and darkness existed apart.
Present Mixture: The current era, in which the two forces intermingle, with particles of light trapped within the material world.
Future Resolution: A prophesied time when light will be liberated and returned to its source, restoring cosmic balance.
This worldview emphasized the imprisonment of light particles within physical matter, including within human beings. The struggle to free these fragments of light became the central spiritual endeavor of every adherent.
Alexander Dugin, born on January 7, 1962, in Moscow, is a Russian political philosopher and strategist whose ideas have significantly influenced Russia’s geopolitical stance. His father’s ties to military intelligence likely shaped his early interest in geopolitics.
In the 1980s, Dugin was an anti-communist dissident. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, he co-founded the National Bolshevik Party with Eduard Limonov, merging elements of communism and fascism. He later pursued his own ideological path, developing Neo-Eurasianism—a vision positioning Russia as a unique civilization distinct from both Europe and Asia.
Dugin’s anti-US worldview
His 1997 work, “Foundations of Geopolitics,” outlines strategies for Russia to counter U.S. dominance, including fostering instability within the U.S. and annexing Ukraine. This book has reportedly influenced Russian military and foreign policy circles. In 2009, Dugin introduced “The Fourth Political Theory,” proposing a new ideology that integrates elements from liberalism, communism, and fascism while rejecting their negative aspects.
Dugin’s political activities include founding the Eurasia Party in 2002 and the International Eurasian Movement. While he hasn’t held official government positions, he’s been described as an informal advisor to various Russian political figures. His relationship with Vladimir Putin is subject to speculation; some have dubbed him “Putin’s philosopher,” and even “Putin’s Rasputin,” though the extent of his influence remains unclear.
Fascination with fascism
Known for his extreme views, Dugin has called for a Eurasian empire to challenge the U.S.-led world order and supported pro-Russian separatists during the 2014 Ukraine conflict. He has expressed admiration for certain aspects of fascism and Nazism, though he claims to reject their racist elements. Accusations of promoting anti-Semitic and racist ideas have been leveled against him, which he denies.
Internationally, Dugin’s ideas have found traction among far-right and far-left groups. In 2014, he was placed under U.S. sanctions due to his role in the Ukraine conflict and has been banned from entering several countries, including Ukraine.
In August 2022, Dugin’s daughter, Darya Dugina, who was also involved in promoting his ideological work, was killed in a car bombing near Moscow. While Dugin himself was believed to be the intended target, the incident brought renewed international attention to him and his ideas.
Understanding Dugin’s philosophy provides insight into certain strains of Russian nationalist and anti-Western thought, even as his more extreme positions remain outside the mainstream.
Curtis Yarvin, born in 1973, is a software developer and political theorist whose controversial neo-reactionary views have rippled through both Silicon Valley and right-wing political circles. Writing under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, Yarvin gained notoriety for his influential blog “Unqualified Reservations,” where he advanced ideas that challenge the foundations of democracy and equality.
Yarvin wasn’t always a fringe political figure. Raised in a secular, liberal family—his paternal grandparents were Jewish American communists, and his father worked for the U.S. Foreign Service—he grew up with a global perspective, spending part of his childhood in Cyprus. But it was after reading figures like Thomas Carlyle and Hans-Hermann Hoppe that Yarvin turned sharply to the right. Disillusioned by libertarianism, he carved out his own niche in far-right ideology, a space he has termed “neo-reaction.”
“The Cathedral” and Neo-Reactionary Thought
At the heart of Yarvin’s philosophy is what he calls “formalism”—a system that would replace modern democracy with something akin to monarchy. His ideas reject progressive norms and push for a consolidation of power akin to aligning political authority with property rights. Yarvin coined the term “Cathedral” to describe the intertwined power structures of mainstream media, academia, and the bureaucracy that he believes work together to perpetuate liberal democracy.
Yarvin’s ideologies have found an audience among Silicon Valley’s elite, where some of his most ardent admirers hold significant clout. Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and noted libertarian-turned-conservative, has supported Yarvin’s work both ideologically and financially. Thiel’s venture capital firm, Founders Fund, even backed Yarvin’s tech startup, Tlon, which developed the decentralized computing platform Urbit.
Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist, is also a known reader of Yarvin’s work, while political figures like 2024 Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance and failed 2022 AZ Senate candidate Blake Masters—both backed financially by Thiel—have cited and promoted Yarvin’s ideas.
Tech Hubris Meets Political Hubris
Yarvin’s Urbit project, launched in 2002, is a decentralized computing platform designed to overhaul the current internet structure, aligning with his broader vision of restructuring power. Though he left Tlon in 2019, he remains involved with Urbit’s development and continues to influence the tech space through his ideas, despite the controversy surrounding them.
Critics have slammed Yarvin’s views as deeply racist and fascistic, pointing to his writings that flirt with dangerous notions about race and slavery. His ideas—though offensive to many—seem to thrive in niche spaces where libertarian techno-utopianism meets far-right authoritarianism, making him a key figure in the ongoing discourse about the future of governance, especially in a tech-dominated age.
Here’s Rachel Maddow’s segment highlighting the Vance-Yarvin connection:
Breaking: NEW bombshell JD Vance video by MSNBC & Rachel Maddow. JD Vance wants to shut down American universities & business using extra constitutional powers. He wants to rip them out like a tumor and install political religion. Vance is following the plans of right-wing… pic.twitter.com/tDBoaMhydS
Curtis Yarvin represents an ideological fusion that’s hard to ignore: Silicon Valley’s boundless ambition meets a longing for autocratic rule. In this strange nexus, he’s helped shape a disturbing vision of the future, one where tech CEOs could potentially wear the crown.
