Influence of Curtis Yarvin, Peter Thiel, and the Neo-Reactionary Movement (NRx) on Politics, Media, and Culture

This is the only context that matters.

This is very, very long. I’m not sorry. When I started this a few weeks ago I thought it would be my first substack post. I had just been introduced to Curtis Yarvin and the NRx ideology and suddenly all the crazy shit around me just ‘made sense’. It didn’t mean I could stop it, and I saw now way to really apply the knowledge, but it was enough that everything now had a ‘shelf’ and a ‘place’ with which to give it context and meaning.

As I started putting together what seemed like logical pieces of the puzzle I was also getting involved in Bluesky for research and to keep up with current events and it became quickly evident that seemingly NO ONE was talking about this AT. ALL. Not even tangentially. This began to pile so many levels of confusion and doubt that I went back to the drawing board and started thinking more critically about this and the more research I did, the more connections I uncovered.

To me, it all seems obvious. I began to see and remember patterns from the last 10-15 years of certain politicians or news agencies or authors kind of ‘transitioning’ from left to right. Almost so slowly you didn’t see it happening. And then all at once.

I started wondering if this could be intentional? Could some of these people have been intentionally placed in positions of power under the guise of left-leaning or centrists view points and ‘knowingly’ lied to the people about their true intentions, waiting until just the right moment (now) to activate and wield their power and credibility for the other team.

I fully realize the level of schizophrenic adjacent concepts are buried in there, so I kept digging and then I found out about Sacks and his penchant for turning moderate and centrists to the hard right.

So anyway, here it is. The best presentation I can muster on the importance of Yarvin and Thiel on modern day events. In my opinion they are the single biggest driver of what is happening right now and if you want to understand anything at all, you MUST take this in to account.

But now, I am even more confused than before about why this information or the context that it conveys is not brought out into the national conversation as casual as MSM and talking heads blame “Putin” for everything. There is a very, very big disconnect. And it is either me or them. If it is them, then I have to say I believe some part of of it is intentional and perhaps we still have disinformation agents at play whose job is to ‘fight the nazis’ but never mention who the bad guy really is.

Part II
Part III

Ready. Set. Go!

I will make my first statement the same as the last sentence of this essay:

Understanding this is key to understanding the current moment in American politics

Over the past 10–15 years, the neo-reactionary (“NRx” or “Dark Enlightenment”) movement – spearheaded by thinkers like Curtis Yarvin (a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug) and quietly backed by tech billionaire Peter Thiel – has moved from the fringes of the internet into influential positions in politics, media, and culture. NRx ideology is explicitly anti-democratic and elitist: it views liberal democracy as a failed experiment and advocates for authoritarian governance modeled on a CEO-led corporation or monarchy.​ (Source: Elpais)

What was once an obscure blogosphere philosophy has infiltrated Trump’s populist right and Silicon Valley power centers​.

This is how NRx ideas and key figures have influenced political leaders, media ownership and narratives, cultural discourse, and reveals their long-term strategies for power.

Political Influence

Ideological Shifts in Politicians

One hallmark of NRx influence is the rightward radicalization of certain politicians – including some who once had centrist or even left-leaning reputations – toward Trumpian “Make America Great Again” (MAGA) or far-right positions. A prominent example is J.D. Vance, once U.S Senator and now Vice President, who initially was a Trump-skeptical conservative but now is transformed into an outspoken MAGA ally. Vance has admitted he’s “plugged into a lot of weird, right-wing subcultures” and built relationships with niche thinkers who reject liberal democracy.​

Among his influences are outright monarchists and post-liberal ideologues – including Curtis Yarvin himself. Vance counts Yarvin as a friend and has even cited Yarvin’s writings when discussing plans to purge the federal civil service under a potential Trump second term​. (Source: Politico)

In a 2021 podcast, Vance referenced Yarvin’s idea that a re-elected Trump should “fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, replace them with our people”. ​This extreme step aligns with Yarvin’s long-standing call to dismantle the “corrupt oligarchy” of the U.S. government and concentrate power in a single chief executive (in effect, an elected dictator)​. Vance’s ideological journey from anti-Trump conservative to an advocate of sweeping authoritarian measures illustrates how NRx ideas have guided politicians into more radical territory. (Source: Govexec)

Other figures mirror this pattern. Tulsi Gabbard, a former Democratic congresswoman and 2020 presidential candidate, shocked many by shifting sharply right in recent years. Gabbard went from a left-leaning stance on many issues to becoming a vocal critic of her former party and a frequent defender of Trump-aligned positions. By 2022, she was appearing on conservative media and even speaking at CPAC, where she praised Donald Trump and lambasted President Biden – despite having once been Biden’s Democratic colleague​. (Source: The Guardian)

The Guardian noted Gabbard’s conversion; an “ex-Democratic congresswoman praised Trump and turned on former friend Biden, saying he would ‘crumble’ under pressure”​. Gabbard’s case may or may not be a direct product of Yarvin’s personal influence, but it fits a broader “left-to-right pipeline” phenomenon that NRx strategists hope for – peeling off disillusioned moderates or liberals and bringing them into the far-right fold. Indeed, tech investor David Sacks (a Thiel associate) explicitly works to “unite conservatives and former leftists in a reactionary movement against liberalism,” leveraging his wealth and online clout to realign political loyalties​. This suggests that at least some in Thiel’s circle see value in recruiting ex-liberals to the new right coalition. (Source: New Republic [Sign-up Required])

Alignment with NRx Goals

These ideological shifts serve the strategic goals articulated by NRx thought leaders. Curtis Yarvin and his allies argue that the existing bipartisan establishment (what Yarvin dubs “the Cathedral,” meaning the academia-media-government elite) must be undermined to make way for a strongman who can “reboot” America. ​When formerly moderate politicians embrace MAGA populism or illiberal ideas, it normalizes NRx’s anti-democratic agenda within mainstream politics. For example, J.D. Vance’s evolution is “something genuinely unusual for the MAGA movement: a national Republican deeply enmeshed with the elite world of…the dissident right.” (Source: The Nation)​

His presence in the U.S. Senate gave intellectual cover to far-right policies that were once unthinkable, like stripping career civil servants en masse or admiring authoritarian regimes. In this way, NRx ideology has percolated upward: what began as fringe internet musings now informs the platform of rising political figures. As Yarvin himself observed, many young conservatives who “grew up reading his blogs” are now in or entering government​. And now one of them is Vice-President. Even Trump-world insiders have taken note – Trump’s one-time White House strategist Steve Bannon reportedly read and admired Yarvin’s work​.

In 2016 Bannon spoke of dismantling the “administrative state,” a concept Yarvin champions. The increasing convergence between NRx’s anti-elite, anti-democracy themes and MAGA’s rhetoric (e.g. “Deep State” conspiracies, calls to imprison political opponents, etc.) indicates that these politicians’ shifts are not random – they align with a longer-term intellectual project to undo liberal democratic norms.
(Source: Sedgwick, Key Thinkers of The Radical Right [Pay Wall] but it’s also a book )

Thiel’s Financial and Network Ties

The most concrete connections between NRx theorists and political power are the financial and personal ties facilitated by Peter Thiel and his network. Peter Thiel – the billionaire co-founder of PayPal and Palantir – has been described as Yarvin’s “most important connection” in elite circles​. Thiel openly shares Yarvin’s skepticism of democracy (famously declaring in 2009, “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.”)​ and has put his money where his mouth is. He bankrolled Yarvin’s tech startup Tlon (which builds the Urbit platform) and secessionist experiments like the Seasteading Institute​. In politics, Thiel has invested heavily in electing candidates aligned with these ideas. He was an early backer of Donald Trump – speaking on Trump’s behalf at the 2016 Republican National Convention and donating $1.25 million to Trump’s campaign and inauguration. More recently, Thiel poured over $15 million each into super PACs for J.D. Vance (“The largest amount ever given to boost a single Senate candidate” according to Vanity Fair) He also contributed sizable donations to Arizona candidate Blake Masters during the 2022 midterms​ (Sources: The Nation, Vanity Fair)

Both Vance and Masters are not only personal friends of Thiel but also admirers of Yarvin’s writings​. This patronage paid off: Vance won his Senate seat, bringing a Moldbug-influenced voice into Congress, and although Masters narrowly lost, his campaign succeeded in dragging mainstream rivals into debates about ultraconservative ideas, Widening the Overton Window just enough to fit a few other things in as well. Thiel’s influence on other GOP figures is notable as well – he was an early mentor to Senator Josh Hawley and helped along Hawley’s and Ted Cruz’s paths to power​. Such ties raise the question of coordination: Thiel has effectively built a cadre of public officials who echo the NRx mix of hyper-libertarianism and nationalist populism. (Source: Vanity Fair)

It’s also worth noting the cross-pollination of personnel and ideas in Thiel’s “network state.” Many of Thiel’s protégés and business associates straddle the worlds of tech and politics while sharing reactionary views. For instance, Jeffersonian ideas and Catholic integralism from thinkers like Patrick Deneen and Rod Dreher (who praises Hungary’s illiberal democracy) have been introduced to Thiel’s circle and subsequently to Vance. The result is a blend of anti-liberal ideologies reinforcing the MAGA movement’s turn away from its old free-market, pro-democracy tenets. In summary, politicians shifting from center to far-right – aided by Thiel’s funding and Yarvin’s theorizing – illustrate NRx’s tangible political footprint. As one observer put it, “Yarvin’s fascist enthusiasms have migrated into the mainstream right largely thanks to...Peter Thiel”. The pipeline from Yarvin’s keyboard to campaign war chests to congressional agendas is now clearly established in American politics. Even one of now President Trump’s first public addresses he mentioned how America has all this ‘beautiful land’ and suggested that we need to start work immediately on 10 High Tech “Freedom Cities”. This is a direct echo of Thiel and Yarvin’s final end game of AI-Controlled ‘Network Cities’.

Media Influence

Billionaire Ownership & Right-Wing Consolidation: Another arena of NRx or NRx-adjacent influence has been mass media. In the past decade, major news outlets have increasingly come under the control of ultra-wealthy owners, some of whom harbor ideological agendas aligned with the far right. This consolidation has often led to subtle (and sometimes overt) shifts in editorial direction toward MAGA-friendly narratives. The clearest example is Rupert Murdoch’s media empire, which includes The Wall Street Journal and Fox News. Murdoch has long used his outlets to champion conservative causes, but under Trump, Fox News in particular functioned as a virtual mouthpiece of the administration. Fox spent “four years merging with Trump’s White House and serving as his right-wing propaganda organ,” essentially blurring the line between state media and private media​. Former House Speaker Paul Ryan (a Fox board member) later acknowledged that Fox had become an “echo chamber” for populist-right talking points during that period. The Wall Street Journal, while more restrained, consistently editorialized in favor of Trump’s policies and downplayed scandals, to the point that Trump himself thanked Murdoch for favorable coverage. (Trump reportedly even tried to broker a deal for Murdoch to buy CNN, indicating how closely he saw his interests aligned with certain media moguls​).

Other media takeovers show a similar pattern. Sinclair Broadcast Group, a conservative-run company, has acquired dozens of local TV stations and mandates “must-run” segments with right-wing commentary on its network. And in the realm of print, billionaire families like the Mercers heavily funded Breitbart News, turning it into an alt-right platform that championed Trump and attacked his opponents in 2016. The Mercers’ backing (along with Murdoch’s) helped Breitbart and Fox push narratives about immigration, nationalism, and “globalist elites” that echoed NRx themes of a corrupt establishment. This coordinated messaging across multiple outlets primed the Republican base for the radical ideas that came later – from disputing election results to demonizing the civil service. In short, a handful of wealthy ideologues came to dominate much of the conservative media ecosystem, fostering a MAGA-aligned media bloc unprecedented in its unity. Even CNN, long branded a centrist/mainstream network, has recently been nudged rightward under new ownership: after a 2021 merger, influential investor John Malone – a “right-wing billionaire” – said he wanted CNN to “start emulating Fox News”​.

Under Malone’s influence and new management, CNN in 2023 gave Trump a friendly town hall and ousted some Trump-critical journalists, moves widely seen as attempts to appease conservative audiences​. These examples illustrate an ongoing realignment of media outlets toward the far-right viewpoint through strategic ownership and editorial control.

Shifts at The Washington Post and Jeff Bezos

Not all billionaire media owners started out right-wing, of course – The Washington Post is owned by Amazon founder Jeff Bezos, who initially had an adversarial relationship with Trump. During Trump’s presidency, the Post was known for hard-hitting investigative reporting (breaking stories on Trump’s scandals and Russian interference) and sharply critical editorials. Trump frequently lashed out at Bezos, deriding him as “Jeff Bozo” and accusing Bezos of using the Post to undermine him for Amazon’s benefit. Throughout 2017–2018, Trump even pressured the USPS and Pentagon in ways that hurt Amazon’s interests, seemingly in retaliation. However, there are signs that Bezos’ stance evolved as Trump’s influence over the GOP remained strong. Bezos made efforts to mend fences – for example, attending a tech summit with Trump in 2016 and cautiously praising Trump’s “calmer” demeanor by 2024. Notably, by late 2024, Bezos was reportedly meeting with Trump in person; news emerged of him dining with Trump at Mar-a-Lago during the post-2024 election transition​. This quite the turn from the open hostility of a few years prior.
(Source: Ny Post)

Changes in Washington Post content are subtle but worth noting. The paper’s news coverage continues to be fact-driven, yet some observers pointed out that in the Biden era the Post gave more space to conservative op-eds and was slightly less aggressive in tone toward Trump allies. A striking example of potential appeasement came via Bezos’s other empire: Amazon’s streaming service, recently paid millions for a documentary project by Melania Trump, the former First Lady​. This is almost 4x the amount of the next closest offer and more than Amazon has paid for any rights to any documentary ever. Media analyst Scott Galloway lambasted this as Bezos forming an “unholy alliance” and called the payment evidence of a “kleptocracy” – essentially accusing Bezos of currying favor with the Trumps​. (Source: Daily Beast)

While Bezos denies political motives, such a move suggests a pragmatic willingness to do business with Trump’s circle, possibly to protect Amazon and the Post from future retaliation. It reflects how media ownership by a billionaire can introduce business calculus into editorial decisions. In Bezos’s case, the Post didn’t immediately become a MAGA mouthpiece – but its owner’s diplomacy with Trump has translated into a somewhat toned-down approach. Now that Trump is back in power. Bezos is actively and clearly stating that the WaPo Opinion section will be specifically Pro personal liberties and Free Market and would print no dissenting opinions. (Sources: NYT)

This dynamic underscores a larger point: billionaire-owned media outlets ultimately reflect the interests and biases of their owners, whether that means open MAGA boosterism (as with Murdoch) or a quieter realpolitik accommodation (as with Bezos).

New Right Media Ventures (Thiel & Allies)

Alongside reshaping legacy outlets, the NRx-aligned crowd has also built alternative media platforms to amplify their narrative. Peter Thiel and J.D. Vance invested in “Rumble,” a video-sharing site explicitly marketed as a “leading conservative alternative to YouTube”​. Rumble has become a hub for right-wing influencers who claim mainstream tech platforms censor them. Thiel and Vance’s infusion of capital (via Vance’s Narya Capital) in 2021 helped Rumble expand its streaming capabilities​. By funding Rumble, Thiel is effectively bypassing traditional media gatekeepers and empowering a parallel media ecosystem for MAGA and NRx ideas. This runs in tandem with Thiel’s earlier attacks on hostile media – most famously, he secretly bankrolled Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit that bankrupted Gawker Media, a left-leaning outlet that had outed Thiel as gay years before. Thiel’s $10 million funding of multiple lawsuits against Gawker in 2016 was revenge-driven, but it also sent a chilling message to other outlets critical of Silicon Valley oligarchs​. The demise of Gawker was cheered in the New Right circles (Gawker had been a thorn in their side), and it demonstrated how a single billionaire’s intervention can eliminate media voices and consolidate narrative control. (Sources: Fox Business, Legal Funding Journal, ABC)

In sum, the media landscape over the last decade has been realigned in a more right-wing, oligarch-driven direction, often in ways that dovetail with NRx goals. Major newspapers and TV networks owned by billionaires reflect those owners’ ideological leanings or political calculations; at the extreme, Fox News became almost a state TV for Trump​.

Meanwhile, new platforms like Rumble and a profusion of Substack newsletters and podcasts (many funded or promoted by tech magnates) give NRx and far-right ideas direct channels to the public, unmediated by traditional editorial standards. This media shift has helped normalize far-right populist rhetoric. For example, conspiracy theories once confined to obscure blogs now get prime-time airing on cable news and viral spreading on social media. The editorial slant of many billionaire-owned outlets has edged closer to MAGA talking points, creating a media environment far more hospitable to neo-reactionary themes than it was 10–15 years ago. Even when not explicitly coordinated, these trends collectively advance the NRx objective of weakening confidence in traditional democratic institutions (which are often defended by legacy media) and boosting alternative, authoritarian-friendly narratives.

Cultural and Intellectual Influence

Public Intellectuals Shifting to Defend the Far Right

The influence of NRx and its fellow travelers extends into the cultural and intellectual sphere, where it has contributed to a noticeable “vibe shift” in discourse. Over the past decade, several high-profile writers, academics, and commentators – some originally known for liberal or centrist views – have seemingly contradicted their earlier principles by defending far-right rhetoric and symbols or by downplaying the dangers of authoritarianism. Often, this is couched in terms of contrarianism, “free speech” absolutism, or anti-“woke” sentiment. For example, journalist Glenn Greenwald built his career on exposing government abuses and championing civil liberties from a leftist perspective. Yet in recent years, Greenwald has increasingly used his platform to echo right-wing talking points and even defend figures associated with the far right. He frequently appears on Fox News or other conservative outlets to criticize “the woke left” and to dismiss concerns about Trump’s anti-democratic behavior – a sharp turnaround from his Bush-era writings warning about authoritarian tendencies. Greenwald is emblematic of a trend noted by The New Republic: wealthy new-right figures like Sacks, Musk, and Thiel have successfully “unite[d] conservatives and former leftists in a reactionary movement against liberalism.”​

In practice, that has meant formerly progressive voices now lend their credibility to arguments in favor of far-right causes (e.g., defending the display of Confederate flags or Nazi-associated memes as “free expression,” or arguing that nationalist extremists are unfairly maligned). This pattern can be seen in the so-called Intellectual Dark Web (IDW) circle as well – thinkers like Sam Harris, Jordan Peterson, Bari Weiss, and others positioned as liberals/centrists have at times prioritized attacking left-wing identity politics and, in doing so, found themselves collaborating with or defending right-wing extremists (even if by accident or for “balance”). The result is a weird inversion: intellectuals who once warned of fascism now spend considerable energy criticizing anti-fascists and suggesting the far-right isn’t a serious threat. This about-face often directly benefits far-right movements, because it legitimizes their symbols and rhetoric in mainstream discourse under the banner of contrarian critique.

A striking example of this intellectual U-turn is how some academic figures treated far-right symbols during the first Trump era. Symbols like the Nazi swastika or Holocaust denial tropes, which virtually all scholars once condemned unequivocally, have been recast by a few contrarian writers as merely “edgy” or “ironically” used. In one high-profile instance, a prominent technologist and public thinker who had previously written in favor of tolerance suddenly argued that the alt-right’s use of memes like Pepe the Frog (which had been co-opted by white supremacists) was just “satire” that liberals overreacted to. By dismissing or contextualizing these hate symbols as jokes, such influencers contradict their own prior work on ethics and social norms. Why this reversal? In part because NRx ideology encourages an opposition to anything “mainstream” or “politically correct” – thus if liberal consensus says a symbol is racist, the reflex in these circles is to refute that consensus, even if it means rewriting one’s own moral stances. This tendency has given reactionary movements intellectual cover. Writers who once decried racism or authoritarianism might now pen columns arguing that, for example, banning a neo-Nazi from social media is a worse affront than the neo-Nazi’s actual propaganda. Such arguments, often advanced by self-styled free thinkers, end up normalizing extremist rhetoric by treating it as just another acceptable viewpoint in the spectrum.

NRx Ideas in Tech Libertarian and Online Culture

Culturally, NRx has had a large influence in certain niches – notably the tech sector’s libertarian subculture and the online forums where young, disaffected males gather (e.g. 4chan, Reddit, various crypto communities, etc.). Concepts popularized by Yarvin and his compatriots have seeped into these arenas. For instance, Yarvin’s notion of “the Cathedral” – meaning the alleged conspiracy of academia, media, and the establishment to enforce egalitarian ideas – has become a catchphrase in many online discussions​. It frames mainstream institutions as inherently biased and tyrannical, a view now common among not only fringe bloggers but many Silicon Valley insiders and now the very people in absolute power. Elon Musk, for example, frequently lambasts the “woke mind virus” in media and education, echoing the Cathedral concept (that a progressive orthodoxy controls society). Musk himself has interacted with and amplified NRx-adjacent figures on Twitter, displaying resonance with their ideas. He’s hosted long-form conversations with people like Marc Andreessen (a tech billionaire who praises NRx thinkers) and has recommended writings that challenge democracy.

This reflects a broader “Dark Enlightenment chic” in tech circles: being well-read in Moldbug (Yarvin’s blog alias) or Nick Land (another NRx philosopher) became a sort of countercultural badge for some tech elites in the 2010s. Key NRx tenets – e.g., that egalitarianism is folly, or that enlightened elites should rule – dovetail with the Silicon Valley ethos that smart entrepreneurs should run the world. As El País reported, NRx proposes a mix of the ancien régime with Silicon Valley ideology, envisioning a “techno-authoritarian president” running the state like a “company​”.

This idea found sympathetic ears among tech libertarians frustrated with government slow-moving regulations. Thiel himself introduced one such tech-originated idea, René Girard’s theory of mimetic rivalry, to J.D. Vance, which shaped Vance’s cultural and religious outlook. Not in the way that most people will use it to challenge their own perspectives. But rather, I believe, as a textbook for learning how to control mass population​. It’s a subtle example of how intellectual currents flow from Silicon Valley into politics: Girard’s philosophy (learned via Thiel at Stanford) helped convert Vance to Catholicism and hardened his resolve against “liberal progress,” tying together tech, faith, and reactionary politics​.

Beyond high culture, online youth culture has been a major conduit for normalizing extremist ideas under the guise of irony. The rise of “alt-right” meme culture in the mid-2010s, centered on sites like 4chan, often overlapped with NRx discourse. Users adopted an arch, tongue-in-cheek style to spread ideas from anti-feminism to blatant white nationalism. As noted in Vanity Fair, “in this world…almost every word is layered in so much irony that you can never be sure what to take seriously or not,” a “semiconscious defense mechanism” for people with extreme beliefs​.

Indeed, irony has been weaponized as a tool to introduce extremist rhetoric while deflecting criticism. Communities will circulate Nazi slogans or racist jokes and, when confronted, claim it’s all just trolling or satire. This mirrors tactics explicitly discussed by Yarvin’s peers; they understood that outright calls for monarchism or hierarchy would be rejected, so cloaking them in humor could be more palatable. Over time, repetition of “ironic” bigotry desensitizes audiences. Scholars of extremism have observed how the alt-right’s most heinous slogans (like “Hitler did nothing wrong”) often started as memes, only to develop a committed following that was serious. NRx thinkers didn’t create meme culture, but their presence in those spaces gave an intellectual gloss to the phenomenon. For example, Yarvin’s own persona “Mencius Moldbug” was something of an internet in-joke turned guru figure – forum denizens who initially referenced him ironically eventually read his lengthy tracts advocating to “secure, perpetuate and amplify authoritarian power” (paraphrased) and took them to heart. The blending of ironic nihilism with genuine ideological indoctrination became a signature of late-2010s far-right culture.

Influence on Public Discourse and Acceptability

As a result of these cultural shifts, ideas once considered fringe or abhorrent have gained a foothold in public discourse. Ten years ago, openly questioning whether democracy is good would all but disqualify a public intellectual; today, we have best-selling authors and popular podcasters casually debating “maybe dictatorship wouldn’t be so bad.” Yarvin himself, once dismissed as a crank “with a readership of lonely internet weirdos, fascists, or both,” is now treated as a “foundational” thinker for a whole political scene​. Mainstream reporters note that ignoring him would “underestimate how Yarvin’s ideas…have become foundational to a whole political and cultural scene”​. That scene includes not just politicians like Vance but bloggers, YouTubers, and influencers who have injected NRx talking points into everything from video game forums to religious debates. The cultural impact is evident in the rise of terms like “red-pilled” (meaning awakened to hidden truths, often of a reactionary nature) and widespread cynicism towards democracy among younger generations online.

To be clear, these trends have met significant resistance – many commentators call them out as pseudo-intellectual fascist dreck propped up by tech oligarchs​. But the very fact we are having these debates in the open signifies how far the Overton window has shifted. It’s now plausible for a sitting U.S. Senator (Vance) to propose firing thousands of government employees en masse – essentially to politicize the civil service – and have that taken seriously, where once it would be instantly dismissed as authoritarian madness. And now, they are just doing it, casually. That change in what’s thinkable is the ultimate cultural victory for NRx: shifting the baseline of acceptable ideas through persistent intellectual advocacy, memeification, and strategic alliances with influencers. What was “fringe” is now mainstream, creating an atmosphere where extreme solutions start to feel thinkable to a populace inundated with both high-brow and low-brow endorsements of those extremes.

Potential Coordination and Long-Term Planning

Strategic Infiltration of Media and Politics

One key question I have is whether this convergence of political, media, and cultural shifts is merely coincidental or part of a coordinated long-term strategy by NRx figures and their allies. While hard evidence of a centrally orchestrated “conspiracy” is scarce (by the very nature of such efforts), numerous signals point to a strategic, long-term effort to inject NRx ideas into the mainstream. Curtis Yarvin himself has spoken about the need to influence elites over time rather than expecting immediate revolution. In Yarvin’s metaphor, waking people from the “Truman Show” of liberalism requires patience and careful narrative construction​. Instead of overt mass movements, NRx strategy favored a “quiet infiltration” – converting influential individuals in tech and politics who could later act as catalysts.

By all evidence, this strategy has borne fruit. El País reports that the NRx movement, “practically clandestine,” nonetheless “managed to infiltrate Trump’s populist right and Silicon Valley”​. In practice, this meant that by the time Trump reached the White House the first time, there were already people in his orbit who were steeped in Yarvin’s ideas (e.g. Bannon, Michael Anton, etc.), and out West, there were powerful venture capitalists spreading similar gospel among the tech elite​. The cross-pollination at events like the National Conservatism Conference – where tech CEOs, far-right academics, and future policymakers mingle – doesn’t happen by accident. It reflects a deliberate networking of like-minded anti-liberal thinkers. As Vanity Fair noted, the NatCon scene in 2021–22 was flush with Thiel protégés and admirers of Yarvin, all jokingly referring to him as “our prophet” amid a haze of irony​. Behind the gallows humor, real connections were being forged that transcended traditional party politics.

Funding Patterns and Think Tank Influence

Following the money provides further clues to long-term planning. The funding patterns of Peter Thiel and other NRx-aligned billionaires show investments that only make sense as part of a broader ideological mission. Thiel’s patronage of academic ventures (like giving grants to anti-democratic thinkers), his financing of political campaigns (Vance, Masters, and previously Ted Cruz, who was an early vehicle for shifting the Overton window on issues like shutting down the government), and his backing of alternative media (Rumble, etc.) all form a coherent portfolio aimed at building a “counter-elite”. This term – counter-elite – is explicitly used by NRx strategists. For example, the conservative Claremont Institute has talked of cultivating a new elite to replace the current “liberal” one. Claremont’s 2016 essay “The Flight 93 Election” argued that the old Republican guard failed and that only a bold, almost revolutionary approach (with Trump as a battering ram) could save America – an idea very much in line with Yarvin’s call to jettison existing institutions and start anew​.

Thiel has donated to Claremont Institute programs and other think tanks pushing these ideas. He also supported the establishment of the Edmund Burke Foundation, which launched the National Conservatism conferences that unite traditionalist conservatives with populists and “post-liberals.” These think tanks and conferences act as idea incubators and networking hubs, where long-term strategies are hashed out in the open. For instance, the Heritage Foundation’s Project 2025 heavily emphasizes purging the federal bureaucracy and empowering the president – goals that Yarvin and Thiel’s circle have long sought and are now enacting. It is telling that J.D. Vance wrote the foreword to a book by Heritage’s Kevin Roberts about Project 2025, praising this vision​. In doing so, Vance (who as noted is influenced by Yarvin) essentially endorsed a plan to enable a Trump (or another MAGA president) to become “a dictator on day one,” as critics described it​. Trump himself used that very terminology when discussing his plans before taking office. The continuity from Yarvin’s blog posts years ago, to Heritage’s official policy blueprint, to Vance’s public endorsement, to Trumps own words does more than “suggest” a long-term convergence and coordination among intellectual and political actors. (Sources: The Guardian, Democrats.org, AP)

We also see recurring alliances form, dissolve, and re-form, indicating a sustained effort rather than one-off coincidences. The same names (Thiel, Yarvin, Bannon, Musk, Sacks, Masters, Vance, Anton, Andreesen etc.) keep appearing across different domains – tech conferences, political campaigns, media ventures. They reinforce each other’s projects: Thiel funds a candidate; that candidate (Vance) networks with Yarvin and cites him; Yarvin’s ideas get a boost in legitimacy; Bannon invites Yarvin-influenced folks to strategy meetings, and so on.

A concrete example: Yarvin reportedly met with key figures of Trump’s team and the broader New Right during Trump’s 2017 inauguration events, including lunching with Michael Anton (author of the Flight 93 essay turned Trump official)​. At that time, Yarvin was an “informal guest of honor” at an inaugural ball for the new “conservative counter-elite” – literally celebrating that their once-theoretical ideas now had a foot in the halls of power​. This was 2017!

This indicates forethought: NRx didn’t need Trump to explicitly endorse them; they just needed to be close at hand, ready to influence the direction of his movement. Over the next few years, groups of young professionals indoctrinated in NRx-friendly thought flowed into government. By 2020, the groundwork was laid for more drastic action. When Trump loyalists devised Schedule F (an executive order to strip job protections from tens of thousands of civil servants, allowing their replacement with political appointees), it was essentially the Yarvin plan in all but name – “replace them with our people,” as Vance phrased it, channeling Yarvin​. That this obscure administrative idea became official White House policy (albeit briefly) and is now the driving force of governance today now that Trump is back in power. It is strong evidence of NRx’s long-term influence on governance strategy.

Is it really a Deliberate Plan Though?

Some argue what what we are witnessing is less a top-down conspiracy and more a “right-wing vibe shift” – a confluence of many factors (populist backlash, social media algorithms favoring outrage, the failure of centrist politics to solve problems, etc.) that the New Right smartly capitalized on​. There is truth to that. However, the consistency with which Yarvin’s specific ideas and Thiel’s investments have anticipated this shift points to intentional planning. As The Nation’s Chris Lehmann observed, “this twisted anti-democracy ideology is as much a product of Silicon Valley as any app or gadget”, and one rich man’s favor (Thiel’s) helped elevate it from obscurity​. The elevation of Yarvin “to Republican luminary,” Lehmann notes, didn’t happen organically from popular demand; it happened because billionaire-backed efforts propped it up​.
(Source: TNR)

In other words, enormous capital and influence were strategically applied over years to create an intellectual movement ready to step into the breach when conditions were right. And once in power, that movement’s adherents show signs of long-term thinking. For example, the push by MAGA lawmakers to investigate and weaken big tech platforms (a bit ironic given tech billionaires helped them) can be seen as aiming to remove any institutional resistance – clearing the field for their own aligned tech and media (like Rumble, Truth Social, etc.) to dominate. The endgame envisioned by NRx is explicitly long-term: Yarvin doesn’t just want a Republican win; he wants a fundamental regime change – the end of egalitarian democracy in America​.

Achieving that would likely require decades of sustained effort, or a dramatic crisis. There are signs they prepare for both: steadily building influence year by year, while also being ready to seize on (or encourage) any major societal upheaval (pandemic, economic crash, even a disputed election or unrest) to accelerate their “reset” of the system.

In terms of evidence of coordination, we might not find a signed manifesto of all these actors together – but we do see the same language, ideas, funding sources, and personnel flowing through multiple domains. It’s reminiscent of a school of thought or a loose fraternity rather than a formal organization. Yet that can be even more effective. By championing the same themes – anti-“Cathedral,” anti-globalism, pro-authoritarian “CEO” governance – across books, blogs, campaigns, and TV shows, they have shifted the political Zeitgeist. Today, it’s not shocking to hear calls for suspending parts of the Constitution or having a president rule by decree for “efficiency” – notions that trace straight back to Yarvin’s early writings.

Indeed, even back in 2023 some Republican candidates openly mused about abolishing direct election of senators or curtailing press freedom. Those suggestions would have been radioactive in mainstream politics a few years prior; However then, they were getting serious consideration, showing the long-term propagandizing has softened the ground. Now, of course, all bets are off and anything goes.

Final Thoughts

The past 10–15 years demonstrate a clear through-line from the neo-reactionary vision to real-world politics, media, and culture.

Politically, NRx provided the theory that helped midwife the Trumpist takeover of the GOP, as seen in personal ideological conversions (Vance, Gabbard, Stefanik, etc.) and the financial nexus connecting Thiel’s money to rising MAGA stars​.

In media, NRx-aligned billionaires and their peers have concentrated control and nudged the narrative environment rightward – whether via outright propaganda networks (Fox) or quieter editorial influence (Bezos, Malone) and by creating new platforms for fringe ideas to thrive​.

Culturally, NRx broke into the open by leveraging contrarian intellectuals and ironic internet culture, injecting once-taboo ideas into public debate under the guise of “just asking questions” or dark humor​.

And strategically, there is substantial indication of a coordinated long game: think tanks, billionaire donors, and ideological clubs working in tandem to shift the Overton window and lay groundwork for an authoritarian shift in governance​.

What Is The Ultimate Goal?

As Yarvin and Nick Land put it plainly: “destroy democracy” – or at least roll it back enough to install a “techno-monarchical” order​. While we watch Democracy die on the vine in 2025, the influence of these forces is evident in its implosion: declining public trust in elections, growing acceptance of political violence among some right-wing factions, and the elevation of “national CEO” rhetoric in GOP policy circles​.

None of this is to say that NRx alone is responsible for the authoritarian drift – but it supplied a critical intellectual and strategic blueprint that many power players have followed. As one analyst writing for The Nation wryly noted, the fact we now must seriously defend basics like the principle that people have the right to select their leaders shows how far the Overton window has moved​.

The role of Yarvin, Thiel, and their cohorts in moving it cannot be overstated or hyperbolized. Over the last decade, the Neo-reactionary movement transitioned from obscure blogs to a stealth force reshaping politics and culture, with billionaire funding as its engine and media platforms as its transmission belt. The evidence – from campaign finance records and private investments to the echoes of Yarvin’s words in the mouths of senators, congressmen, presidents, vice presidents and DOGEbags – draws a clear line connecting these elements​. This will continue to accelerate, culminating in a regime change scenario envisioned by NRx.

Will it take another decade to fully flesh itself out? Maybe. But it could also happen within the year. What is certain is that the influence is already deeply embedded, and understanding it is key to understanding the current moment in American politics.

Read “Part II” - Exploring the specifics of “Network Cities”

Part II

Part III