S1E1: The Butterfly Revolution: A Silent Coup?

From Online Forums to MAGA's Policy Papers: The Stealthy Rise of Neoreactionaries.

I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.
-Peter Thiel

Sixteen years have passed since tech-billionaire Thiel published the essay The Education of a Libertarian. Back in 2009, the markets had just crashed to unimaginable lows - the Great Recession, triggered by the burst of the U.S. housing bubble, pushed the Dow Jones even lower than the dot-com crash a decade prior. As an entrepreneur, investor, and vivid financial jongleur, Thiel stood amidst the rubble of capitalism as the world had known it. Change was needed.

Thiel, a talented chess player already as a child, concluded that the broader education of the body politic had become a fool’s errand - a task with no hope of success. Specifically, he believed welfare beneficiaries and […] women - two constituencies that are notoriously tough for libertarians - would refuse to conform to his worldview, effectively blocking his attempts to implement change. His spontaneous dystopian solution involved sacrificing not just the queen, but the entire democratic castle, to pave the way for self-governed, libertarian outposts, initially on the world’s oceans and eventually in outer space. The libertarian New Frontier.

By 2011, however, Thiel concluded that seasteading - the creation of permanent dwellings in international waters meant to grow into ocean nations - was not feasible. While his former business partner and fellow PayPal Mafia member, Elon Musk, ventured out to create his libertarian vision on Mars, Thiel turned his attention to rethinking society within the United States. The answers he arrived at, and the (underground) movement that formed around them, are startup-typical disruptive at best. Yet, they have the potential not just to abandon the above mentioned castle but to tear it down entirely to rebuild a structure out of it ashes meant to serve the interest and ideals of a chosen few.

The neo-reactionary movement (NRx)

The Enlightenment, the 18th-century intellectual movement that emphasized reason, individualism, and skepticism of traditional authority, laid the groundwork for modern democracy, science, and human rights. When monarchies toppled in the late 19th and early 20th century all over Europe, the democratic movements met fierce opposition by the reactionary thinkers like Oswald Spengler, a German historian and philosopher. Among others his ideas deeply influenced reactionary and conservative thought during the Weimar Republic - Germany’s first democracy, which followed over 1,100 years of monarchy. In The Decline of the West, Spengler argued in 1922 that Western civilization was in an inevitable state of decay, critiquing modernity, democracy, and liberalism. The reactionary movement called for a return to authoritarianism and traditional values, which resonated with many disillusioned by the Weimar Republic's perceived instability and cultural decline. This contributed to the failure of Germany's 15-year democratic experiment, allowing Hitler's NSDAP to seize power and establish the Third Reich.

Since the late 2000s a controversial, intellectual movement that has been bubbling under the surface of online discourse. Intellectuals like Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin (who used to write under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug) along with a scattered community of bloggers and forum dwellers, argue once again that the modern world is built on shaky foundations. They claim that democracy is inherently flawed, leading to corruption, short-term thinking, and a bloated bureaucracy. Instead of celebrating progress, they see it as a slow-motion collapse of tradition, hierarchy, and order. Sounds familiar?

While this neo-reactionary movement (or NRx for short) attempts the philosophical equivalent of throwing a wrench into the gears of the Enlightenment, it’s ideas are more forward-thinking and future-oriented than those of their intellectual predecessors a century and more ago. They believe that power should be concentrated in the hands of a capable elite, that is chosen by accomplishments, IQ and merit. Equality? They see it as a myth. Freedom? They argue it’s been distorted by liberal ideals and that there can only be true individual freedom once political choice has been eliminated. For them, stability and efficiency matters most, since a government is nothing more than a company that owns the land it rules over. The solution? A government structured and run like a cooperation abstractly build on the following 5 principles:

1. A CEO, Not a President
   NRx proposes a shift from electoral democracy to a meritocratic system, where a CEO-like leader or executive board, selected for managerial expertise, governs. This model prioritizes efficiency over popular sovereignty, concentrating authority among a select few and excluding broader participation. It reflects an elitist philosophy that posits a small cadre as the optimal decision-makers.

2. Accountability Through Competition
   NRx views electoral processes as inefficient and prone to partisan gridlock. Instead, it advocates for personnel decisions made by experts, aiming to establish accountability through competitive governance. Citizens dissatisfied with the system can exercise their 'exit' option, or rival states can challenge the existing government.

3. Government as a Service Provider
   NRx envisions the state as a service-oriented entity, akin to a corporation. Rather than focusing on abstract ideals, its primary function is to provide concrete services: security, infrastructure, and stability. Taxes are viewed as subscription fees for these services, with the expectation of a well-managed society.

4. Technocracy Rules
   This technocratic model posits that governance should be grounded in data, expertise, and rational analysis, seeking to eliminate ideological and public opinion influences. The goal is to achieve objective, evidence-based policy outcomes. The public would be controlled by tech enabling a system comparable to China’s Social Credit System.

5. Profit Motive Meets Public Good
   Efficiency is pursued through the reduction of bureaucratic obstacles and the elimination of corruption, with the aim of maximizing tangible outcomes.

Sounds like something out of a dystopian novel, doesn’t it? But it’s not fiction, NRx, also called The Dark Enlightenment after a 2013 book by Nick Land, is very real.

MAGA, NRx and the PayPal Mafia

On September 5th 2016, the pseudonym Publius Decius Mus published an essay beginning with the following paragraph:

2016 is the Flight 93 election: charge the cockpit or you die. You may die anyway. You—or the leader of your party—may make it into the cockpit and not know how to fly or land the plane. There are no guarantees.

Except one: if you don’t try, death is certain. To compound the metaphor: a Hillary Clinton presidency is Russian Roulette with a semi-auto. With Trump, at least you can spin the cylinder and take your chances.

The Flight 93 Election, as later revealed, was published by Michael Anton, who had a background in conservative thought and government service. He previously worked in the George W. Bush administration as a speechwriter and communications director for the National Security Council. He was also known for his writings on political philosophy and his critiques of the Republican establishment. This essay catapulted Anton into the spotlight of the conservative movement, positioning him as an intellectual voice for its populist, nationalist wing. He argued that Trump represented a necessary break from the failures of traditional conservatism.

Framing the 2016 presidential race as a life-or-death moment for America, the essay compared it to the 9/11 hijacking of Flight 93. It argued that libertarianism and neoconservatism were exhausted, leaving conservatives with only one option: to rally behind Donald Trump to stop Hillary Clinton, whom the author portrayed as an existential threat. This sense of urgency resonated with conservatives disillusioned by the Republican establishment, signaling a shift toward a nationalist, populist vision. Anton emphasized issues like immigration, trade, and national identity - key talking points of Trump - urging conservatives to prioritize the nation’s interests over abstract principles and globalist agendas.

In recognition of his support, Anton joined the administration after Trump’s election, serving as a senior national security official. Thiel, one of Trump’s most prominent and influential supporters from the tech industry, was appointed to the President’s Transition Team, where he advised on technology and innovation policy. He also served on the Executive Committee of the President’s Strategic and Policy Forum, a group of business leaders who provided economic and policy advice.

Trump leveraged Thiel’s network, appointing Ken Howery, a Stanford Review and PayPal alum, as the U.S. ambassador to Sweden, and Michael Kratsios, former chief of staff at Thiel Capital, as the White House’s deputy chief technology officer (later becoming CTO in Trump’s second administration). Additionally, Mark Woolway, an early PayPal employee now at Sacks’ Craft Ventures, served on Trump’s 2016 Treasury Department transition team.

In 2021, Peter Thiel introduced JD Vance to Trump at Mar-a-Lago. Fast forward four years, and Vance has entered the White House as Vice President, while the administration is complemented by close Thiel associates: David Sacks, a former PayPal colleague and fellow Stanford Review alum (the student newspaper Thiel founded at Stanford in 1987), was named the White House’s new AI and crypto czar. Meanwhile, Jim O’Neill, former CEO of Thiel’s personal foundation, has been tapped as deputy secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services. And then there’s Elon Musk, whose financial and vocal backing helped propel Trump to victory. Musk, who worked closely with Thiel at PayPal, now leads the newly created Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Thiel’s influence extends further through his venture fund, Founders Fund, which was an early investor in several of Musk’s ventures, including SpaceX, the Boring Company, and Neuralink.

Already in 2013, Peter Thiel invested in Curtis Yarvin’s company, Tlön Corp. Thiel, who has called Yarvin a powerful historian, with whom he has build a close bond over the years. In 2016, Yarvin shared with far-right political commentator Milo Yiannopoulos - who later introduced Elon Musk to Ashley St. Clair, the mother of his child born in 2024 - that he coached Thiel and watched the 2016 election at his house. Thiel’s friend, Marc Andreessen, an influential venture capitalist turned informal adviser to Donald Trump, has approvingly cited Yarvin’s (anti-democratic) thinking on many occasions. Steve Bannon, former chief strategist in the Trump White House, has acknowledged his familiarity with and appreciation for Yarvin's work, aligning himself with those who have expressed skepticism about democracy claiming that he has stopped believing in it. And then there is JD Vance, who has cited Yarvin as an influence multiple times, he stated most prominently said in 2021:

So there's this guy Curtis Yarvin who has written about these things, which included ‘Retire All Government Employees’ (or RAGE, written in 2012). I think what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: Fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it.’

In 2022, Thiel supported Vance’s Ohio Senate campaign with $15 million, helping him - as his by far biggest donor - to win a closely fought GOP primary before going on to capture the seat in the general election. It was just an other stepping stone on his way up. On election night 2024, after Trump and Vance, his running mate, had won, Thiel and other Silicon Valley giants began positioning Vance as the heir to the MAGA crown, aiming for him to run in 2028.

Disclaimer: While the connection of this network is well established, it is also important to underline, that political commentating and Think Tanks are to me important parts of the political culture in the US. They are the idea factories, churning out reports and opinions, provoking thoughts and debates. Brainy hubs, that allow to express political ideas freely, which have the power to shape policies and laws. Some authors whisper in power's ear, others shout in their own echo chambers. While they are all a key part of the political game, I do believe that a healthy dose of skepticism is your best tool.

The current circumstances prompt us to consider if a contentious and self-reinforcing echo chamber is turning into something all consuming that is poised to undermine the achievements of Western civilization over the last quarter millennium. The following will detail the reasons for this apprehension.

Yarvin attended the Coronation Ball on Inauguration Day in D.C. as informal guest of honor. An event hosted by the ultraconservative publishing house Passage Press gathering the new conservative counter-elite that has risen to power on the tide of Trump’s reelection. The movement that considers Yarvin’s work as dominant ingredient of that soup they swim in - which is how he refers to White House staffers who circulate his work within influential circles.

Over nearly twenty years, he's produced a collection of essays, not a unified argument. These often contain extreme, morally nihilistic (claiming there is no good and bad in anything) views, and appear calculated to elicit strong reactions. In a New York Times interview he claims:

“Difficult to argue that the Civil War made anyone’s life more pleasant, including freed slaves”

At a later point he clarified that he meant with anyone not individuals but groups of people just to double down on his argument:

If you look at the living conditions for an African American in the South, they are absolutely at their nadir between 1865 and 1875. They are very bad because basically this economic system has been disrupted.

His perspective necessitates a critical examination of the ethical implications of prioritizing economic stability over human liberation. He exhibits a general pattern of selective historical interpretation, seemingly cherry-picking events to bolster his immediate argument. In A Gentle Introduction, he offers a semi-ironic nod to this practice, acknowledging:

Frankly, Hitler reads a lot like me, if I lost 25 IQ points from drinking lead soda, and also had a nasty case of tertiary syphilis. I may have some of Hitler’s talents - I will be the first to admit it. But I have no intention of applying for his job.

He stated in Moldbug on Carlyle, known as the Founding Father of Fascism and Prophet of the Fascist Regimes post WWI:

I am a Carlylean. I’m a Carlylean more or less the way a Marxist is a Marxist. My worship of Thomas Carlyle, the Victorian Jesus, is no adolescent passion—but the conscious choice of a mature adult. I will always be a Carlylean, just the way a Marxist will always be a Marxist.

The consistent ideological thread, revealed in Yarvin's numerous writings, is similarly found in Land's body of work. They echo Thiel's eureka moment, with which this text begins, underlining the incompatibility and inherent tension between democratic principles and individual liberties.

The Butterfly Revolution

In 2022 Yarvin called for a full reboot of the USG [United States Government], he said, we can only do this by giving absolute sovereignty to a single organization, of which Trump would be the Board Chair and an experienced executive would be CEO.

The CEO Trump picks will run the executive branch without any interference from the Congress or courts, probably also taking over state and local governments. […] America needs a unitary executive […] so much more powerful than the present office, [such] that the President considers both the judicial and legislative branches purely ceremonial and advisory.

he added in his work The Trials of Trump:

In a world where voters elect Trump with a mandate to just take over the government - as completely as the Allies took over the government of Germany in 1945 - he will probably screw it up, anyway. Yet he doesn’t have to screw it up. The only way to not screw it up, for Donald Trump, is to be the chairman of the board, and delegate to a single executive ready to be the plenary CEO of America.

In 2022’s essay The Butterfly Revolution, Yarvin characterized the Trump campaign as a regime in internal exile, charting its course back to power.:

While in exile, this regime will be a larva - a harmless caterpillar. Once duly elected, in office it will not just caper in front of the cameras (in fact, it will not talk at all to the legacy press) - it will spread its wings, and become a beautiful governing butterfly.

Trump himself will not be the brain of this butterfly. He will not be the CEO. He will be the chairman of the board—he will select the CEO (an experienced executive). This process, which obviously has to be televised, will be complete by his inauguration—at which the transition to the next regime will start immediately.

Accompanying the Project 2025 outcry, a list with seven goals, derived from NRx ideals, began circulating on the internet:

1. Trump runs on a platform pledging to apply his business acumen to streamline government, cutting bureaucratic red tape and eliminating inefficiencies that hinder economic growth and national progress.

2. Purge the bureaucracy

3. Ignore the courts, if necessary by declaring states of emergency

4. Co-opt Congress

5. Centralize the police (federalize the national guard, create a national police force that absorbs local ones)

6. Shut down the elites most influential to the nation’s sovereignty of interpretation specifically the media and universities

7. Encourage widespread public mobilization to express dissent against perceived government overreach and demand accountability when ever the movement faces obstruction by a government agency

It's crucial to acknowledge the robust and interconnected system of checks and balances inherent in U.S. democracy. Furthermore, this list should not be interpreted as a linear plan, but as seven concurrent strategic objectives essential for the creation of a potential transformative scenario. Yet, Yarvin’s brainchild - a tentative outline of the process and organization of a larval new regime - takes that into account and states:

You need a CEO. And a national CEO is what's called a dictator. There's no difference between a CEO and a dictator. If Americans want to change their government, they are going to have to get over their dictator phobia.

RAGE is what it takes to make way for this CEO/dictator. It's as simple as that.

Yarvin first publicly explained his acronym RAGE - Retire All Government Employees - at a 2012 conference, and subsequently elaborated upon it in The Butterfly Revolution, saying:

The new regime must seize all points of power, without respect for paper protections. Anything can be nationalized—so long as the new regime has the staff, the prize crew as it were, to nationalize it.

The regime must have the capacity to govern every institution it does not dismantle. […] the new regime must perform the real functions of the old, and ideally perform them much better.

Many institutions which are necessary organs of society will have to be destroyed. These organs will have to be replaced. If they have not already been replaced in the larval stage, or even if they have, to scale—these replacements will need staff. Etc. […]

What is there, in this executive branch? What does it do? One thing is certain—the Trump regime will not be thinking about what parts of the executive branch must be systematically dismantled. It will be thinking about what parts can be safely preserved.

The parallels between this blueprint and the actions of Elon Musk's DOGE project are undeniable... coincidently so?

Provided this remains just be one element within a broader seven-goal strategy, I would agree, particularly given the inherent difficulty in opposing bureaucratic streamlining. But there is more, way more, that has unfolded in parallel suggesting that all principles are enacted in parallel. Yarvin said for instance about the role of the judiciary branch:

The CEO he picks will run the executive branch without any interference from the Congress or courts, probably also taking over state and local governments. […] Congress may pass any bill it likes. The courts may have any opinion they like. It is the job of the executive branch, as a coequal branch of government, to respect these bills and opinions. But respecting the legislative and judicial branches is not the executive’s only job; nor does the Constitution say it is. If the voters feel that the President they elected has done a poor job, let them vote him out. He is accountable to them, and no one else. We call this “representative democracy.”

On March 6th 2025 the White House published a fact sheet in which Trump labeled judges activists attacking the judiciary branch as follows:

STOPPING JUDICIAL OVERREACH AND FRIVOLOUS LAWSUITS: By issuing this memorandum, President Trump is ensuring the democratic process remains intact by curbing activist judges and holding litigants accountable.

• Unelected district judges have issued sweeping injunctions beyond their authority, inserting themselves into executive policymaking and stalling policies voters supported.

• Activist groups file meritless suits for fundraising and political gain, facing no consequences when they lose, while taxpayers bear the costs and delays.

• The Justice Department is forced to divert resources from public safety to fight these frivolous cases, weakening effective governance.

• Enforcing Rule 65(c) deters such litigation by holding plaintiffs accountable for costs and damages if their injunctions are baseless, protecting taxpayer funds and judicial integrity.

Vance articulated his perspective on the separation of powers via a post on X, stating:

If a judge tried to tell a general how to conduct a military operation, that would be illegal. If a judge tried to command the attorney general in how to use her discretion as a prosecutor, that’s also illegal. Judges aren’t allowed to control the executive’s legitimate power.

On Feb 27th 2025 the former Secretary of Defense William J. Perry (1994-1997), Leon E. Panetta (2011-2013), Chuck Hagel (2013-2015), James N. Mattis (2017-2019) and Lloyd J. Austin III (2021-2025) shared a bipartisan appeal to Congress in response to what was framed as the beginning of a purge by many media outlets, stating:

We are deeply alarmed by President Trump’s recent dismissals of several senior U.S. military leaders. […]

Mr. Trump’s dismissals raise troubling questions about the administration’s desire to politicize the military and to remove legal constraints on the President’s power. We, like many Americans -- including many troops -- are therefore left to conclude that these leaders are being fired for purely partisan reasons. As former Secretaries of Defense, we call on both the House and the Senate to hold immediate hearings to
assess the national security implications of Mr. Trump’s dismissals. The House and Senate should demand that the administration justify each firing and fully explain why it violated Congress’ legislative intent that the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff complete a four-year term in office.

Among other controversial personell decisions by Defense Secretary Hegseth this letter was triggered by firing the three judge advocates general - known as JAGs - Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer and Rear Adm. Lia M. Reynolds in February which sent shockwaves through the Pentagon and legal community. In The War on Warriors released in 2024, Pete Hegseth asserts that military lawyers’ imposition of restrictive rules of engagement repeatedly allowed adversaries to gain tactical advantages against frontline forces. In his book, he also expresses repeated frustration with the international laws put in place after World War II to govern armed conflict stating

What do you do if your enemy does not honor the Geneva Conventions?

Rosa Brooks, a professor at Georgetown Law, wrote on X regarding what seems to his answer:

It’s what you do when you’re planning to break the law: you get rid of any lawyers who might try to slow you down.

It is Congress"‘ constitutional duty as coequal branch of government to control the actions of the executive. Historically, lawmakers from both parties have vigorously defended their institutional authority, resisting presidential attempts to infringe upon congressional prerogatives. Members of Congress viewed their position in Article I of the Constitution as indicative of their branch's paramount importance within the system of checks and balances, perceiving the executive branch as primarily responsible for implementing their legislative directives. They often emphasized the enduring nature of Congress compared to the transient nature of the presidency.

Describing their partnership with Trump as the Super Bowl, Speaker Mike Johnson conveyed to Fox News that Congress is poised to reshape government functions. He expressed:

This is the moment we’ve all been waiting for our entire careers, and finally, the stars have aligned so we can do that better.

A New York Times article summarized the way Congress subordinates itself to the executive branch as follows:

But Mr. Trump, Mr. Musk and other top administration officials have already made it clear that they have little regard for Congress’s authority, […] Conservative House G.O.P. lawmakers who typically oppose appropriations bills backed this week’s short-term spending bill precisely because it would hand Mr. Trump much of the authority for funding decisions that Congress would usually reserve for itself. […] Congressional Republicans have also relinquished some of their power on economic issues. On Tuesday they gave up any possibility of holding a House vote this year to overturn tariffs enacted by the president. The power to impose such levies was originally vested with the legislative branch, but lawmakers over time have increasingly delegated it to the executive. Still, under current law, Congress can vote to undo tariffs imposed by the president.

Under language that G.O.P. leaders tucked into a procedural measure this week, that law would effectively be nullified.

They said they were reversing themselves in part because the Trump administration had already demonstrated it would disregard congressional instructions to allocate money for programs lawmakers voted to fund.

The executive's assault on its coequal branches of government is clear. As to why Congress is yielding and the judiciary is being outmaneuvered, The Butterfly Revolution provides this explanation:

Once elected President, he should present the legislative, judicial and administrative states with a choice: either they acknowledge his manifest democratic mandate to Constitutional executive authority and allow him to serve as a Constitutional chief executive; or, he leaves the White House, and calls his people into the street. He will return only on their backs—to serve as a revolutionary chief executive. […]

Naturally, if there is a bloc of Trump ninjas in the legislature, it is much easier to make the revolution as legal as possible.

In parallel the Trump administration has also cracked down on universities limiting their Free Speech, not just regarding DEI but their curriculums in a broader way. Attorney General Mr. Martin, in an initial letter sent on February 17th and again on March 3rd, threatened for instance to block Georgetown Law alumni from fellowships, internships, and employment at the U.S. Attorney's Office for Washington unless the school responded satisfactorily to two inquiries about its DEI programs. He claimed, without evidentiary support, that Georgetown Law 'continues to teach and promote DEI.

The Trump administration also significantly impacted Columbia University by rescinding $400 million in federal grants and contracts, citing the institution's alleged insufficient response to antisemitism. This action, described by Columbia's interim president as affecting nearly every corner of the university, was considered highly unusual.

Trump personally insisted that universities curtail students' First Amendment rights, specifically their right to gather and express opinions through protest. Mahmoud Khalil, a legal U.S. resident and former Columbia graduate student, was detained by federal immigration agents in New York on Saturday and subsequently transferred to an immigration detention facility in Louisiana. Trump stated publicly that he would be the first of many.

Jelani Cobb, the journalism school’s dean advised his students at a gathering in Pulitzer Hall:

If you have a social media page, make sure it is not filled with commentary on the Middle East

In response to a Palestinian student's pointed criticism, he got more direct:

Nobody can protect you. These are dangerous times.

Given Trump's well-documented disdain for the mainstream media, or Fake News, I feel like I don’t have to take up any additional time of yours to make that point. Within the NRx Movement those opinion elites are framed as The Cathedral, a topic worth an own essay, which has to be dismantled for a new system to take shape.

Considering the evidence above, it increasingly appears that Yarvin's ideas have transitioned from online forums to White House policies.

Are they proof for facilitating a shift towards a post-democratic order though?

United States of America Inc.

A video from March 2023 resurfaced in which Trump openly spoke about using protected federal lands to build Freedom Cities. Trump said in the video:

Past generations of Americans pursued big dreams and daring projects that once seemed absolutely impossible. They pushed across an unsettled continent and built new cities in the wild frontier. […] we will build new cities in this country again, these Freedom Cities will re-open the frontier, reignite American imagination, and give hundreds of thousands of young people and other people a new shot at home ownership and, in fact, the American dream.

Trey Goff, chief of staff for Próspera, reports to WIRED that he and representatives from the Freedom Cities Coalition have been engaging with the Trump administration recently regarding their proposals. He states that the administration has responded favorably. These new zones are supposed to allow for the testing of new technologies, including new nuclear reactors, free from government oversight.

The Freedom Cities Coalition was established by NeWay Capital LLC, the entity holding numerous trademarks for Próspera. Próspera, located on the Honduran island of Roatán since 2020, attracts tech professionals and startups with promises of low taxes, minimal regulations, and a customer-centric governance model. Its financial backers include Pronomos Capital, supported by Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, and Coinbase.

Coinbase, under it’s CEOs Armstrong's leadership, is the primary corporate funder of Fairshake, contributing nearly a quarter of its total funds. Fairshake, the largest corporate-backed super PAC in this election cycle (and second-largest overall), has expended $120 million on U.S. House and Senate races this year, as reported by Sludge.

At the annual Network State Conference in Singapore, Armstrong explicitly stated his belief in exit, referring to the process by which individuals leave existing nations to join Network States. He advocated for developing those backup options. He shares a clear vision how to establish MVPs - tech-speech for Minimal Viable Product for Thiel's utopian vision. Not on the oceans or in outer space, but soon already in your neighborhood?

The text invites you to apply your own critical analysis and evaluate the extent to which the seven-goal strategy are already underway, or if the presented connections are purely coincidental.

Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.
There never was a democracy, yet, that did not commit suicide.
-John Adams