Curtis Yarvin, the Dark Enlightenment, and Project 2025: A Deep-Dive Report

An AI assisted deep dive into the true agenda behind the chaos and why an freedom loving American should resist with everything they have.

Curtis Yarvin (a.k.a. Mencius Moldbug) is an American software developer and far-right blogger best known for founding the neo-reactionary movement often called the Dark Enlightenment​

• Writing under the pen name Mencius Moldbug from 2007 to 2014, Yarvin developed a radical critique of liberal democracy and promoted an alternative vision of government modeled on autocracy or corporate governance. His ideas – once fringe internet musings – have since seeped into influential tech and political spheres​.

• This report provides a deep-dive into Yarvin’s biography and intellectual background, the tenets of the Dark Enlightenment (as articulated by Yarvin and his contemporaries), and the real-world uptake of these ideas, including their apparent influence on contemporary U.S. political projects. In particular, we examine Project 2025, a comprehensive conservative plan for the next presidential administration, exploring its content, current status, and ideological parallels with Yarvin’s neo-reactionary thought. Key figures associated with Yarvin, the Dark Enlightenment, and Project 2025 are profiled – highlighting overlaps and common ideological ground across these spheres.

Curtis Yarvin: Biography and Intellectual Background

Curtis Guy Yarvin (born 1973) is a computer scientist-turned-political theorist who rose to notoriety in the late 2000s for his blog Unqualified Reservations​

• Yarvin earned a B.A. from Brown University and later attended UC Berkeley (though he gained fame outside academia)​

• He launched a personal software project in 2002 that eventually became the Urbit platform – an ambitious decentralized computing system.

• In 2013, Yarvin co-founded Tlon, a company to develop Urbit, and he remained involved until 2019​. However, it was Yarvin’s political writings as “Mencius Moldbug” that made him a pivotal (if controversial) figure in certain intellectual circles.

Intellectual Influences and “Neoreaction”

Yarvin’s ideological evolution was shaped by a mix of historical and libertarian thinkers. He credits the writings of Thomas Carlyle, James Burnham, and Hans-Hermann Hoppe with prompting his rejection of democracy in favor of authoritarian elitism​. (Carlyle, a 19th-century essayist, extolled strong rulers; Burnham’s mid-20th-century works warned of a “managerial elite”; Hoppe, a libertarian anarchist, argued that monarchy is preferable to democracy.) Contemporary events also reinforced Yarvin’s skepticism of liberal democracy: the failures of U.S. nation-building in Iraq/Afghanistan (2000s) and the 2008 financial crisis fed his belief that modern democratic governance was fundamentally dysfunctional​. By 2007, Yarvin began articulating his own political philosophy on Unqualified Reservations, effectively founding what would later be called the neo-reactionary or Dark Enlightenment movement.

Mencius Moldbug’s Writings: On his blog (2007–2014), Yarvin wrote lengthy, provocative essays deconstructing the premises of modern liberal democracy. He famously repurposed the “red pill” metaphor from The Matrix to signify shattering progressive illusions​

Central to Yarvin’s thought is the idea that American democracy is a failed experiment that should be replaced by a form of enlightened autocracy​. He advocates an “accountable monarchy” – essentially a sovereign CEO with absolute power, constrained only by some form of shareholder-like oversight​. This concept, which he terms neo-cameralism, imagines government run as a joint-stock corporation: citizens (or power brokers) are shareholders, and a single executive wields centralized authority with efficient, business-like control​. In Yarvin’s view, divided or representative governance is inefficient and “wasteful”; a unified sovereign (a “CEO-monarch”) could “rule efficiently” without liberal-democratic procedures​. He points to examples like Singapore or Deng Xiaoping’s China as models of successful authoritarian governance blending order and prosperity​.

• “The Cathedral”: Yarvin introduced the now-notorious term “the Cathedral” to describe what he sees as the true power behind the scenes in Western democracies. The Cathedral, according to Yarvin, is an informal nexus of universities, the mainstream press, and influential nonprofits that together shape public ideology and discourse. This liberal intellectual elite (which he analogizes to a “Brahmin” class of priests) preaches egalitarian, progressive values as a kind of secular religion, inculcating them in the masses much as a church would propagate dogma. By setting the boundaries of acceptable opinion, the Cathedral effectively controls real political power, regardless of which party is in office​. Yarvin argues that the Cathedral’s reigning ideology – with its emphasis on equality, social progress, and “justice” – inevitably leads to societal decay and disorder​. Consequently, he concludes that liberal democracy is illegitimate and “decadent,” a system propped up by self-serving elites.

• Opposition to Liberal Democracy: Consistent with these beliefs, Yarvin has called for dramatic action to overturn the existing order. He envisions an American **“monarch” who in the first months of their reign would dissolve elite academic institutions and media outlets – effectively decapitating the Cathedral’s influence​. He often reaches for computer metaphors, contending society needs a “hard reset” or “reboot” rather than incremental reform​. In place of grassroots activism (“voice”), Yarvin urges “passivism” and building alternative systems (“exit”) – i.e. disengaging from futile democratic politics and designing parallel institutions free from progressive control​. This notion of exit (creating new, autonomous communities or technologies) has resonated with some libertarian-minded tech followers.

• Controversial Views: Yarvin’s writings are deliberately provocative and often drift into controversial territory. He has, for instance, defended aspects of slavery (arguing in historical terms that some races may be “naturally” servile in certain conditions) and asserted that racial differences in IQ are real – views that align with the Dark Enlightenment’s rejection of egalitarianism​. He has criticized U.S. civil rights policies and even mused in one essay that the American system’s anti-“dictator phobia” is misplaced​. Such statements have led critics to label him a racist or even fascist, charges Yarvin has half-heartedly denied in the past​. Regardless, this extreme elitism and flirtation with taboo ideas are part of Yarvin’s intellectual persona. As one scholar put it, Yarvin’s vision is “futuristic and libertarian, yet expressed in the language of monarchy and reaction” – a mix of high-tech utopianism with angrily anti-progressive sentiment​. These contradictions, while contentious, have not deterred a niche but growing audience from taking his ideas seriously.

By 2014, Yarvin ceased regular blogging (declaring his mission “completed”) and turned full-time to software work​. However, he resurfaced with a Gray Mirror Substack newsletter in 2020, where he continued to speculate – even more directly – on how a “fascist coup” in America might be achieved to reboot the regime. In essence, Yarvin evolved from an obscure blogger to a self-styled philosopher of autocracy, repurposing age-old reactionary ideas for the internet age. Together with a handful of like-minded thinkers, he gave birth to what is now called the Dark Enlightenment.

The Dark Enlightenment Movement

The Dark Enlightenment, often abbreviated NRx (neo-reactionary), is a philosophical and political movement co-founded by Yarvin. The term was coined by British philosopher Nick Land, who expanded on Yarvin’s ideas in a 2012 essay titled “The Dark Enlightenment.” At its core, this movement is defined by its opposition to the core values of the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern liberalism. It is explicitly anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian, arguing that equality and popular sovereignty are misguided ideals that undermine civilization​. Instead, Dark Enlightenment thinkers advocate a return to traditional, hierarchical forms of governance – for example, absolute monarchy or other pre-democratic systems of authority​. The very name “Dark Enlightenment” is a play on words: a rebuttal to the “Age of Enlightenment” that emphasizes reason and egalitarianism, suggesting that dark (i.e. contrarian or forbidden) truths underlie human society and favor authoritarian order​.

Key Tenets: Dark Enlightenment adherents reject the Whiggish notion that history is an upward progression toward greater liberty, democracy, and equality​. Instead, they often view modern liberal democracy as a decline or degeneration from more stable past orders. They argue that human societies naturally tend toward hierarchy; attempts to enforce equality (whether political or social) only lead to dysfunction. Many in the movement praise strong, centralized states or leaders. For instance, Nick Land imagines a scenario where “great men” augmented by algorithms and AI govern society – essentially a high-tech aristocracy​. This blending of futurism and reactionary politics (Land’s “cybernetic authoritarianism”) has led some scholars to dub the ideology “reactionary modernism.” Despite its futuristic trappings, the Dark Enlightenment harkens back to ideas from writers like Julius Evola (an Italian ultra-traditionalist) and pre-Enlightenment absolutism, combined with a Silicon Valley-influenced twist.

History and Spread: The neo-reactionary community emerged in the mid-2000s as a loose network of bloggers and commentators. Yarvin (as Moldbug) was a central figure, articulating many of the movement’s core ideas between 2007 and 2009​. His work drew from not only Carlyle and other old reactionaries, but also from modern “dissident right” thinkers (for example, journalist Steve Sailer is often cited as a forerunner who questioned egalitarian orthodoxies in areas like race and IQ​). Yarvin’s blog posts – dense with historical analogy, libertarian economics, and anti-egalitarian reasoning – attracted a small but fervent readership in tech and libertarian circles. Nick Land, formerly an academic, picked up these threads and gave them a theoretical sheen, introducing the Dark Enlightenment label and further developing the philosophy in essays and forum posts​. By the 2010s, the NRx subculture had migrated to dedicated forums (like Social Matter) and influenced newer online communities of the “alt-right” and beyond.

While the Dark Enlightenment overlaps with the broader alt-right in rejecting liberalism, it is distinct in tone and emphasis. NRx followers tend to eschew mass populist tactics; they see themselves as elite intellectuals or visionaries, not street activists. They prefer “passivism” and theorizing about building new systems (charter cities, “patchwork” micro-states, tech networks) rather than engaging in electoral politics. However, there is certainly cross-pollination: the alt-right’s critique of “globalist” liberal elites and the idea of an American decline at the hands of multiculturalism echoes Yarvin’s critique of the Cathedral. Indeed, by the late 2010s, elements of Dark Enlightenment rhetoric (e.g. the term “the Cathedral,” or calls to dismantle the “deep state”) began seeping into more mainstream right-wing discourse.

Anti-Democratic Ethos: Perhaps the clearest unifying theme of the Dark Enlightenment is its open rejection of democracy. Nick Land bluntly advocates “actively anti-democratic” politics, envisioning a future where democratic participation is minimized or eliminated​. Yarvin and Land both propose that enfranchisement and mass participation lead to mediocrity or chaos; instead, competent sovereigns or technocrats should steer the state. This view is nihilistic about modern politics – Land once quipped, “Nothing human makes it out of the near-future,” underscoring a bleak outlook for democratic society​. Dark Enlightenment adherents embrace hierarchy as natural and desirable: as Yarvin wrote, “humans fit into dominance–submission structures” – a stark repudiation of equality​. Where the Enlightenment promised liberty, equality, and fraternity, the Dark Enlightenment unabashedly speaks of “servitude, hierarchy, bondage, and ruthlessness” as the true foundations of order​.

In summary, the Dark Enlightenment is a small but intellectually aggressive movement that repackages old autocratic and reactionary ideas for the 21st century. It found a foothold largely online and in certain tech/philosophy circles, away from traditional academia (indeed, academics long ignored Yarvin & co.)​. Yet by the 2020s, its influence began to surface in surprising places – from billionaire tech boardrooms to Washington power players – as detailed next.

Influence of Yarvin’s Ideas in Tech and Political Spheres

Though Yarvin was once an obscure blogger, his ideas have **“coursed” into high places in tech and politics by the mid-2020s​. Over the past decade, a number of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs and investors, as well as rising conservative political figures, have drawn inspiration from Yarvin’s neo-reactionary worldview.

Silicon Valley and Tech Adopters

Yarvin’s background in software and his savvy use of tech metaphors (e.g. rebooting society) made his work intriguing to some tech elites. Peter Thiel, the billionaire co-founder of PayPal and venture capitalist, is perhaps Yarvin’s most prominent adherent in tech​. Thiel began engaging with Yarvin’s ideas in the late 2000s; in 2009, Thiel wrote “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible,” reflecting a Yarvin-like disenchantment with democracy’s outcomes​. Thiel invited Yarvin to events and became a patron of Yarvin’s ventures – notably, Thiel’s Founders Fund was an early investor in Yarvin’s startup Urbit. According to Yarvin, Thiel is “fully enlightened” (i.e. fully convinced by Yarvin’s ideological coaching)​. Indeed, Yarvin has privately advised Thiel, suggesting the billionaire has thoroughly absorbed the neo-reactionary framework.

Beyond Thiel, Marc Andreessen, another influential tech investor (co-founder of Netscape and Andreessen Horowitz), has openly praised Yarvin. In a 2023 Hoover Institution interview, Andreessen favorably quoted Yarvin and even called him a friend. By early 2025, Andreessen was reportedly acting as a bridge between tech and government, “quietly recruiting candidates” for positions in a new administration aligned with Yarvin’s vision​. This indicates that Yarvin’s influence is not just theoretical – tech moguls are helping translate it into real institutional change.

Elon Musk, the world’s richest man and owner of X/Twitter, has not explicitly cited Yarvin, but he often echoes similar sentiments. Musk once remarked that “government is simply the largest corporation” – a formulation strikingly similar to Yarvin’s corporatist view of the state. During the lead-up to 2025, Musk positioned himself as an advisor to the incoming administration on efficiency and bureaucracy-cutting, reportedly heading an effort nicknamed the Department of Government Efficiency (“DOGE”) to “operationalize” a governmental “hard reboot.” This essentially puts Musk in a role implementing Yarvin-esque ideas (streamlining or gutting the administrative apparatus). While Musk’s motivations stem partly from his libertarian streak, the thematic overlap – a deep distrust of bureaucratic inertia and a preference for CEO-style governance – shows how Yarvin’s techno-authoritarian ethos resonates with real tech leaders.

Yarvin’s reach in tech is further evidenced by various forums and startups influenced by his philosophy. For example, many early crypto enthusiasts and “seasteading” proponents read Moldbug, drawn by the idea of exit (creating new systems outside government control). Yarvin’s emphasis on building new architectures instead of reforming existing ones syncs with tech culture’s disruption mindset​. It is telling that Yarvin was able to cultivate a following among “libertarian-minded kids in the tech industry,” repackaging far-right ideas in a way that appealed to them​. This repackaging – combining Silicon Valley futurism with reactionary politics – is a unique aspect of Yarvin’s legacy.

However, Yarvin’s controversial stances also made him a pariah in parts of the tech world. His invitations to speak at programming conferences were rescinded once his political views became widely known​. For several years he kept a low profile, essentially “semi-officially banished” from polite tech society​. Yet, by 2020 and beyond, the Overton window had shifted: the rise of anti-“woke” sentiment in tech and the contrarian stance of figures like Thiel and Musk created space for Yarvin’s once-taboo ideas. By 2023–2024, we see those ideas moving from niche blogs to actual policy blueprints (as discussed with Project 2025). In short, Yarvin became a kind of “philosopher for tech oligarchs,” helping provide an intellectual justification for their skepticism of democracy​. Tech leaders who feel hindered by government or populist demands found in Yarvin’s work a coherent argument for why a smarter, more centralized authority (perhaps guided by people like themselves) would yield better outcomes.

Political Influence and Adoption

Parallel to his tech influence, Yarvin’s ideas have seeped into American politics, especially on the New Right. A cadre of emerging conservative politicians and strategists have explicitly cited Yarvin or implicitly echoed his themes:

• J.D. Vance, the venture capitalist-turned-politician (author of Hillbilly Elegy and now U.S. Senator from Ohio), is a notable example. Vance is a protégé of Peter Thiel, and through that connection he was exposed to Yarvin’s work. He has spoken admiringly of Yarvin’s influence – in a July 2024 interview, Vance acknowledged the blogger’s impact on his thinking​. In fact, one report noted that “no one online has shaped Vance’s thinking more” than Mencius Moldbug​. By 2025, Vance had risen to national prominence (in hypothetical scenarios, even becoming Vice President) and carried Yarvin’s neo-reactionary ideas into the halls of power​. Vance’s skepticism of the administrative state and his critiques of liberal elites mirror Yarvin’s formulations, suggesting a direct line of intellectual inheritance.

• Steve Bannon, former White House Chief Strategist for Donald Trump, is another high-profile figure who has studied Yarvin’s work. Bannon, who has long advocated “deconstructing the administrative state,” reportedly “has read and admired” Yarvin’s writings​. Bannon’s own ideology – a populist-nationalist hostility to the “globalist” establishment and federal bureaucracy – converges with Yarvin’s call to dismantle the Cathedral. During Trump’s first term, Bannon pursued plans to erode bureaucratic power and was an architect of the notion of a deep state conspiracy, both in line with Yarvin’s themes. Bannon even invited obscure thinkers like Yarvin into conversation; through channels like Breitbart and various DC connections, Yarvin’s memetic terms (like “the Cathedral” or “red pill”) filtered out to broader conservative audiences.

• Michael Anton, a conservative essayist (known for the 2016 “Flight 93 Election” article) and former National Security Council official, became a key transmitter of Yarvin’s ideas into establishment conservative thought. Anton hosted Yarvin for a long-form podcast discussion in May 2021​, under the auspices of the Claremont Institute’s The American Mind publication. In that conversation, they openly pondered strategies for undermining America’s liberal democracy – essentially bringing Yarvin’s “hard reset” ideas to an audience of policy intellectuals. Anton later echoed Yarvin’s analyses: in a 2023 essay, he wrote that Americans are effectively “ruled by a network of unelected bureaucrats… corporate-tech-finance management, ‘experts’ who set acceptable opinion, and media figures who police those boundaries.” This description is almost interchangeable with Yarvin’s “Cathedral” concept. By 2024, Anton was back in government (reportedly appointed as Director of Policy Planning in the State Department)​, now in a position to potentially influence policy with these ideas. The Claremont Institute, once a more traditional conservative think tank, became what the New York Times called the “nerve center” of the American right​, and it has shown sympathy to the neo-reactionary line of thought.

• Other Right-Wing Politicos: Yarvin’s influence, direct or indirect, can be seen in a number of other figures. For instance, Blake Masters (Thiel protégé and Arizona Senate candidate) has engaged with the idea of the “Cathedral” and the failings of democracy. Ron DeSantis’ outspoken war on academic and media “elites” in Florida, while not intellectually sourced from Yarvin, operates in the same paradigm of fighting the institutional regime. More concretely, the cadre of “young conservatives” who populated the Trump administration in its later phase and are poised to staff a second term were, as Politico put it, “the revolutionary vanguard” who “grew up reading [Yarvin’s] blogs.” Many of these 20- and 30-something staffers and policy wonks have internalized Yarvin’s core messages and see themselves as agents of a necessary regime change in Washington.

In the Washington, D.C. scene, Yarvin went from relative anonymity to a quiet celebrity status by 2025. During Trump’s inauguration weekend in January 2025, an ultraconservative group hosted a “Coronation Ball” at the Watergate Hotel to celebrate what they viewed as the ascendancy of a new counter-elite. Curtis Yarvin was an “informal guest of honor” at this ball​. The very name “Coronation” nodded to Yarvin’s monarchist vision, and the attendees included many who had been inspired by his neo-reactionary writings. Yarvin exchanged greetings with Vice President J.D. Vance there and met numerous incoming officials who “grew up reading his blogs”​. This marked a remarkable turn of fortunes: the once-banished blogger was now feted as a sage by those about to walk the corridors of power.

From Fringe to Influence: In sum, Yarvin’s formerly fringe ideas have gained an influential following in both Silicon Valley and conservative political circles. Time magazine observed that Yarvin has become “a kind of official philosopher” for certain tech leaders like Thiel and Andreessen​. Meanwhile, the Guardian noted that key figures in the prospective Trump administration were following Yarvin’s playbook for an autocratic takeover of the U.S.​ Policies and rhetoric that emerged in 2024–25 – from legal attacks on media critics, to promises to gut the federal bureaucracy, to mobilizing populist anger against holdout legislators – “closely resemble elements of Yarvin’s strategy for displacing liberal democracy”​. Yarvin’s influence can thus be seen in both the ideological content of New Right thought and the practical strategies being pursued by those in power (or seeking power).

It’s important to note that Yarvin did not single-handedly invent all these ideas – much of it (anti-elitist populism, administrative state criticism) predates him. As researcher Robert Evans points out, Yarvin “emerged into a rightwing media space” that had long been attacking liberal academia and media​. Yarvin’s contribution was to rebrand and repackage old reactionary ideas in a new, provocative philosophical wrapper that appealed to disillusioned tech-libertarians​. The novelty of his presentation – combining erudition, irony, and internet-culture savvy – helped his ideas jump from blog posts to the likes of Thiel’s mansion salons and DC policy discussions. The convergence of Yarvin’s neo-reaction with mainstream conservatism is crystallized in Project 2025, to which we now turn.

Project 2025: A Blueprint for an Autocratic Overhaul

Project 2025 is a sweeping political initiative launched by conservative organizations to prepare for the next Republican presidential administration (as of 2025). Spearheaded by the Heritage Foundation, this project set out a comprehensive plan – a **“policy blueprint” and transition guide – to reshape the federal government of the United States and consolidate executive power in favor of right-wing policies​. Published in April 2023 (well ahead of the 2024 election), the Project 2025 blueprint, titled “Mandate for Leadership: The Conservative Promise,” outlined a government-wide agenda that a future conservative president (widely assumed to be Donald Trump) could implement immediately upon taking office​.

In both its philosophical outlook and its prescriptions, Project 2025 exhibits striking ideological parallels to Yarvin’s neo-reactionary vision – albeit packaged in the language of think-tank policy rather than internet polemic. Below is an overview of Project 2025’s content and goals, followed by an analysis of how it connects to Dark Enlightenment ideas.

Goals and Proposals of Project 2025

Central Philosophy: Project 2025 rests on an expansive view of the Unitary Executive theory – the idea that all executive branch power should be under the direct control of the President​. The authors argue that the modern presidency has been thwarted by an unaccountable bureaucracy and liberal “deep state,” and that a determined president must reclaim total control over the executive branch​. This means curtailing independent agencies, neutralizing resistance within the civil service, and removing checks on executive action. Heritage’s blueprint casts the federal bureaucracy as an illegitimate, mostly liberal power center that must be dismantled​ – an assertion highly reminiscent of Yarvin’s “Cathedral” thesis that unelected networks hold real power.

“Mandate for Leadership” Document: The Project 2025 report spans hundreds of pages, covering every department of government. Key proposals include:

• Purge of the Civil Service: The plan calls for replacing tens of thousands of career civil servants with political loyalists. It explicitly proposes reclassifying federal workers to strip them of civil service protections, making them easier to fire en masse​. In practice, this refers to reviving “Schedule F,” a Trump-era executive order that would categorize a broad swath of federal employees as at-will appointees. Project 2025 strategists (including Russell Vought, Trump’s former budget director) advocated aggressively using Schedule F to oust officials deemed obstructive or ideologically opposed to the President’s agenda​. As Heritage’s Kevin Roberts put it, “People will lose their jobs… Buildings will be shut down”, describing the planned cleansing of federal agencies​. This mirrors Yarvin’s long-standing call to “Retire All Government Employees” (RAGE) and reboot the administrative state​.

• Executive Power to the Maximum: The blueprint recommends dramatically expanding the use of executive orders and administrative actions to implement policy unilaterally. It envisions the President acting immediately to reverse prior policies and push through conservative priorities without waiting for Congress​. One concrete example: Project 2025 suggests rescinding a 1965 executive order that underpins affirmative action in federal contracting; on cue, a newly inaugurated President Trump in 2025 signed an order canceling affirmative action requirements for contractors, directly mirroring the Project 2025 recommendation​. Across the board, early Trump orders in 2025 – from dismantling Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives to loosening environmental rules – “showed clear parallels” with Project 2025’s proposals​.

• Agency Restructuring and Abolitions: The plan doesn’t shy away from drastic structural changes. It proposes to abolish entire departments or offices that conservatives have long criticized. For instance, the Department of Education and even the post-9/11 Department of Homeland Security would be either dismantled or radically downsized​. Agencies like the Department of Commerce or Federal Trade Commission would be purged of staff and refocused under loyal appointees​. The Department of Justice and FBI would be firmly brought to heel, with new leadership ensuring no internal dissent. The guiding idea is that no part of the executive branch should operate independently of presidential control, eliminating the semi-autonomous power centers that make up the “administrative state.”

• Policy Agenda – Hard-Right Turn: Substantively, Project 2025 sets out a hard-right policy agenda across domains:

  • Economic Policy: Large tax cuts for corporations, a flat income tax, and cuts to social safety nets like Medicare and Medicaid​.

  • Environmental and Energy: Rollback of environmental regulations, aggressive promotion of fossil fuels, and withdrawal from international climate commitments​.

  • Social Issues: The blueprint incorporates Christian nationalist positions: for example, it advocates criminalizing pornography​, removing protections for LGBTQ individuals (and halting any “diversity, equity, inclusion” programs)​, and prosecuting what it calls “anti-white racism” instead​. It also proposes federal action to ban sending abortion or birth control medications by mail, effectively a nationwide abortion restriction aligned with religious right goals​.

  • Immigration and Law Enforcement: Project 2025 takes an extreme hardline: mass detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants, using the U.S. military for domestic law enforcement if needed at the border​. These measures go beyond Trump’s 2016 agenda, aiming for a near-total crackdown on illegal immigration and an empowered security state to execute it.

  • Government and Media: Though not as explicitly as Yarvin might, the plan does nod to controlling information channels – for instance, it contemplates actions against perceived bias in tech and media, and curbing government funding or support to academic research that doesn’t align with “America First” values​. (One can see a thematic link to Yarvin’s desire to “liquidate” the university system, in the sense of cutting independent expert influence.)

Underpinning all these specifics is a clear through-line: restore a singular authority over the U.S. government and expunge influences seen as “woke,” leftist, or contrary to the administration’s will. In effect, Project 2025 is a blueprint for regime change within the United States government, implemented from the top down, legally (or quasi-legally) and administratively.

Mechanisms and Preparation: Project 2025 isn’t just an essay of ideas; it’s an action plan. It has four main components, often described as four “pillars”:

1. A Policy Agenda/Guide – the Mandate for Leadership volume, detailing proposals for every agency.

2. A Personnel Database – a LinkedIn-style catalogue of thousands of individuals vetted and ready to take government jobs​. This was meant to solve the problem Trump faced in 2017 when he lacked loyalists to fill posts. By late 2024, Project 2025 had recruited and trained (via a “Presidential Administration Academy”) a pool of conservatives to populate the next administration​.

3. Training Modules – educational programs to indoctrinate these prospective appointees in the philosophy and skills needed, ensuring they could “hit the ground running” and implement the agenda swiftly​.

4. A 180-Day Playbook – a detailed schedule of executive actions and priorities for the first 6 months in power​. This includes draft executive orders (like reissuing Schedule F on Day 1, which indeed happened on January 20, 2025)​, and a timeline for reviewing and rolling back prior regulations.

Heritage coordinated with over 100 conservative organizations on this project, forming a broad coalition​. The partner list ranges from mainstream groups to more radical outfits – the Southern Poverty Law Center noted at least seven participating groups it deems extremist or hate-based​. Notably, the Claremont Institute (home to Michael Anton and others) is a partner, as is Russ Vought’s Center for Renewing America (CRA). The CRA, in fact, was heavily involved in drafting ready-to-use executive orders and identifying Christian nationalist priorities for a second Trump term​.

Ideological Connection to Yarvin/NRx: The parallels between Project 2025’s aims and Yarvin’s neo-reactionary ideas are hard to miss:

• Concentration of Power: Yarvin calls for an all-powerful executive (a monarch or CEO) unconstrained by the liberal institutions. Project 2025 explicitly plans to “consolidate executive power” under the president​, pushing the U.S. political system closer to an elected autocracy. The unitary executive principle invoked by Heritage is essentially a lawful guise for what Yarvin openly desires: that the elected leader wield near-absolute authority over government operations. Critics have indeed labeled Project 2025 “authoritarian” and a roadmap to autocracy​.

• Dismantling the “Cathedral”/Administrative State: Yarvin’s primary target, the Cathedral (academia + media + bureaucracy), finds its counterpart in Project 2025’s target: the federal bureaucracy (or “deep state”). Both assert that an unelected class perpetuates liberal policies regardless of who is president, and both seek to purge that class. Project 2025’s civil-service purge and agency abolitions are the practical implementation of “draining the swamp” to an extreme degree – very much in spirit with Yarvin’s call for a “hard reset” of the system​. Indeed, Yarvin’s recommendation that a new regime immediately dissolve universities and media is mirrored in Project 2025 by proposals to defund academic research, bring independent agencies to heel, and possibly defund public media or other sources of opposition. The alignment is thematic: remove the entrenched liberal influencers so that one clear will can govern.

• Anti-Democratic Ethos: While Project 2025 doesn’t openly declare “democracy is a failed experiment” (as Yarvin does), its proposals fundamentally erode democratic norms (e.g. undermining checks and balances, neutering oversight, politicizing the civil service). Legal experts warn that the plan would undermine the rule of law, the separation of powers, and civil liberties​. This is precisely the outcome Yarvin seeks when he says America needs to “get over its dictator phobia.” In effect, Project 2025 endeavors to make the presidency more dictatorial (within a constitutional framework). Both Yarvin and the Heritage planners share a willingness to override popular constraints in order to impose what they see as a more effective order.

• Elitism and Order: The ideological common ground extends to an attitude that a strong, enlightened elite should enforce order against the prevailing egalitarian chaos. Yarvin, with his admiration for an elite sovereign and disdain for mass politics, finds a parallel in how Project 2025 empowers a small cadre of loyalists to reshape policy for millions of people, irrespective of those millions’ preferences. Heritage’s Kevin Roberts even framed the effort in grand, epochal terms: “we are in the process of the second American Revolution”, one which will be peaceful “if the left allows it.” Such rhetoric is a polite way of saying: we intend to upend the current order – a sentiment Yarvin would wholeheartedly endorse (minus perhaps Roberts’ religious-right inflection). The apocalyptic/revolutionary mindset is common to both Yarvin’s writings and Project 2025’s architects, who see the status quo as so corrupt that only radical measures can save the nation.

In conclusion, Project 2025 can be viewed as a mainstream policy incarnation of many Dark Enlightenment principles. It’s as if the ideas from Yarvin’s blog were translated into a Washington policy playbook. To be clear, Heritage and its allies did not credit Yarvin, and they come from a conservative tradition that predates him. But the convergence is evident and has been commented on by observers. Even Donald Trump – hardly a reader of Moldbug – instinctively aligned with many recommendations, though for political reasons he kept some distance during the campaign (famously saying he “had no idea who is behind” Project 2025, and calling parts “absolutely ridiculous” under pressure)​. Once in office, however, Trump’s team eagerly embraced these ideas, suggesting that the Yarvin-esque worldview had already permeated the ranks of his policy advisors and appointees.

Implementation Status and Reception (2024–2025)

With the 2024 election resulting in a conservative victory, Project 2025 moved from blueprint to reality. The transition effort swung into action even before inauguration. Institutional support for the plan was massive on the right: by early 2025, Heritage’s coalition boasted over 100 partner organizations and a talent pool of perhaps 5,000 vetted individuals ready to serve​. Many senior figures in the new administration were themselves contributors to the Project 2025 blueprint, ensuring a seamless translation of plan to policy. Axios noted that “Several of Trump’s Cabinet and agency picks… wrote parts of Project 2025.” For example, Russ Vought (CRA) and Brendan Carr (former FCC commissioner) helped craft sections of the agenda​, and were tapped for roles in the administration. Others like Tom Homan (former ICE) and John Ratcliffe (former DNI) were listed as contributors to the plan and indeed took on roles or influence in the new government​. This revolving door of authors-turned-officials greatly eased implementation.

Early Actions: On January 20, 2025 (Inauguration Day), President Trump signed a flurry of executive orders that essentially put Project 2025 into motion from day one. One of the first orders reinstated Schedule F, targeting tens of thousands of civil servants for reclassification (and eventual removal)​. Almost immediately, federal public employee unions filed lawsuits and sought injunctions to block the purge​. Nonetheless, the administration began identifying officials deemed disloyal or “deep state,” preparing termination lists. Concurrently, executive orders were issued to roll back a host of Biden-era policies: e.g., cancelling DEI programs, reversing climate regulations, halting DEI training in agencies, and disbanding advisory groups. Within the first week, the Office of Management and Budget (now led by a Project 2025 stalwart) ordered all agencies to report plans for drastic personnel cuts and reorganization in line with the Mandate for Leadership.

By design, Project 2025 provided a 180-day checklist, and early evidence suggested the administration was hewing closely to it​. For instance, when Trump in the first days withdrew the U.S. from certain international agreements and proposed new rules to outlaw “critical race theory” training, these moves directly corresponded to items in the Heritage playbook. The influence was so clear that media outlets tracked the one-to-one correspondence between the Project’s recommendations and government actions​. Axios pointed out that what had been a “campaign-trail headache” for Trump (Democrats had attacked him over Project 2025) was now effectively guiding his governance, whether or not he publicly acknowledged it​. Institutionalization: Inside the White House, a special Office of Presidential Personnel – stocked with Heritage and Claremont-affiliated staff – began aggressively vetting and placing loyalists in key positions. Reports indicated the administration was utilizing the Project 2025 personnel database to make hundreds of appointments within the first few months​. John McEntee, a former Trump aide who had joined Project 2025’s advisory board, stated that the groundwork laid by the project was proving invaluable in staffing up with ideologically committed people​. By March 2025, observers noted that the federal government was undergoing a quiet “purge and pack” operation: career officials were being sidelined or fired, while an influx of young conservative operatives took their places. This is precisely what Yarvin’s acolytes envisioned – a revolutionary changing of the guard, executed administratively.

Public Reception & Reactions: Project 2025 and its implementation have been met with deep polarization:

• Supporters’ View: The conservative base and right-wing media have lauded Project 2025 as a long-overdue corrective. Heritage and allies tout it as fulfilling promises to “drain the swamp” and restore governance *“by the people’s elected leader” rather than by unaccountable elites. Kevin Roberts’s “second American Revolution” framing resonated with many on the right who see the current moment as existential​. Proponents argue the administrative state has thwarted voters’ will, and thus these reforms are necessary to re-align government with popular (conservative) mandate. There is also enthusiasm that, this time, a conservative president will have a plan to actually execute policy goals swiftly, avoiding the fumbling of 2017. The extensive preparation (the academy trainings, etc.) is praised as evidence that the right is serious about governance, not just rhetoric.

• Critics’ View: Democrats and liberal watchdog groups have sounded alarms that Project 2025 represents an authoritarian takeover in the making. During the 2024 campaign, President Biden and VP Harris explicitly warned voters about Project 2025, painting it as a preview of extremism if Trump were re-elected​. The ACLU and others published explainers highlighting how the plan would eviscerate checks and balances and civil rights​. After the election, these warnings intensified. The Center for American Progress labeled Project 2025 a scheme that “would destroy the U.S. system of checks and balances,” empowering an almost unlimited presidency​. Establishment media editorials described it as a road to democratic backsliding or even a form of “creeping coup.” Comparisons were made to authoritarian regimes where legal facades mask one-man rule. The fact that Trump himself tried to distance from it during the campaign (calling some proposals “abysmal”​) was used by critics to suggest even Trump knew how radical it was.

• Legal and Bureaucratic Pushback: The implementation has sparked legal battles. As mentioned, unions like the National Treasury Employees Union sued over Schedule F reinstatement, arguing it violates established civil service laws​. Courts have yet to decide, but there is significant resistance within the bureaucracy as well – a risk that Project 2025 anticipated by advocating swift firings. Some dismissed officials have become whistleblowers, leaking documents about the extent of the purge, fueling media scrutiny. Additionally, blue-state governors and attorneys general formed a coalition to challenge federal moves that might overstep (for example, using the military internally or pre-empting state policies on issues like education or policing).

• Public Opinion: Polling on the specific ideas in Project 2025 has shown a split. Certain measures (like terminations of “deep state” employees or abolishing the Department of Education) are unpopular with the general public, but quite popular among GOP voters. The notion of a president being able to fire thousands at will, for instance, is viewed favorably by those who believe the government is rife with “deep state” operatives, but it raises concerns among moderates and independents who fear loss of institutional stability. By spring 2025, congressional hearings were being called by Democrats to spotlight the more extreme elements of the plan (though with GOP controlling the House, these were mostly in the Senate or public forums).

In essence, Project 2025 has become a flashpoint in the battle over American governance. To its champions, it’s the vehicle to restore what they see as the true constitutional order (with a powerful executive) and national greatness. To its opponents, it’s an anti-democratic blueprint drawn from the fringes of reactionary thought, now perilously close to being fully realized. The overlap with Yarvin’s Dark Enlightenment ideas has not gone unnoticed – commentators point out that what was once an online fringe philosophy now reads like a government’s policy agenda. This leads us to a closer look at the key players who straddle these worlds.

Key Players and Overlapping Influences

The convergence of Curtis Yarvin’s neo-reactionary circle, the broader Dark Enlightenment movement, and the Project 2025 initiative is personified by several notable individuals. Below is a profile of key players associated with these spheres, highlighting their roles and the common ideological threads:

NameRole/AffiliationConnection to Yarvin/Dark EnlightenmentConnection to Project 2025 / PoliticsCurtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug)Neo-reactionary blogger; software engineer (Urbit founder).Founder of the Dark Enlightenment/NRx movement; advocates replacing democracy with CEO-style monarchy​. His writings (2007–2014) introduced concepts like the Cathedral and influenced a generation of dissident thinkers.Intellectual inspiration for many New Right policymakers. By 2024, treated as a sage by elements of the incoming administration​. Attended Trump’s 2025 inaugural events as an “informal guest of honor” due to his outsized influence on the Trumpian right​.

• Nick Land - British philosopher; co-founder of NRx; ex-Warwick University academic.Coined the term “Dark Enlightenment” and expanded on Yarvin’s theories​. Actively anti-democratic, envisioning rule by technocratic elites guided by algorithms​. Land’s writings combine futurism with authoritarianism (termed “cybernetic authoritarianism” by observers)​.No direct role in Project 2025, but his anti-democracy philosophy underpins the ideological mood. His concept of reactionary modernism (high-tech autocracy) parallels Project 2025’s blend of modern executive power with ancient authoritarian impulse. He influenced many online rightists who later championed Trumpist policies.

• Peter Thiel - Tech billionaire investor (PayPal co-founder, Palantir); GOP donor.Yarvin’s “most important connection” in Silicon Valley​. Thiel has read Yarvin’s work and shares his skepticism of democracy (Thiel: “I no longer believe freedom and democracy are compatible”). Funded Yarvin’s startup Urbit​ and has been described as “fully enlightened” by Yarvin (implying full agreement)​. Major financier of New Right politicians (e.g. backed J.D. Vance and Blake Masters, who echo Yarvinian ideas). Though not officially part of Project 2025, Thiel’s network provided personnel and support for the agenda. His calls for aggressive government overhaul and support for Trump align with the Project’s goals.

• J.D. Vance - U.S. Vice President by 2025.Protégé of Thiel; became an open admirer of Yarvin’s ideas. A 2024 interview had Vance praising Yarvin’s influence on his political philosophy​. The Verge noted “no one online has shaped Vance’s thinking more” than Yarvin​. Vance’s populist-nationalist rhetoric conceals a neo-reactionary bent derived from Moldbug’s critiques.As a prominent officeholder (and VP in the Trump 2025 administration), Vance is positioned to push Yarvin-influenced policies. He embodies the Dark Enlightenment goes to Washington phenomenon, advocating the dismantling of the “administrative state” and wielding power with minimal restraint – very much in line with Project 2025’s ethos.

• Marc AndreessenVenture capitalist (Netscape co-founder; Andreessen Horowitz GP).Friend and public supporter of Yarvin​. Andreessen has echoed Yarvin’s critiques of democratic mediocrity and quoted Yarvin in interviews. Part of the tech elite circle influenced by NRx ideas.While unofficial, Andreessen reportedly played a behind-the-scenes role in staffing the new Trump administration, using his influence to place like-minded tech talent in government​. This complements Project 2025’s goal of inserting competent loyalists into power. His advocacy for “effective altruistic” autocracy in tech forums parallels the Project’s centralized power approach.

• Steve BannonPolitical strategist; former White House Chief Strategist (2017).Avid consumer of Yarvin’s writings​. Bannon’s worldview (deconstruct the administrative state, revolt against elites) is highly consonant with Dark Enlightenment ideas. He reportedly found intellectual justification in Yarvin’s work for his instinct to smash bureaucratic power.Though ousted from the White House in 2017, Bannon remained an influential voice on the right. He championed ideas that became central to Project 2025 – e.g. Schedule F and purging the bureaucracy (Bannon set up a 2020 initiative to do just that). In media, he heralded Project 2025-type plans as key to a second Trump term. Essentially, Bannon was an early evangelist for what became Project 2025.

• Michael Anton - Claremont Institute senior fellow; ex-NSC official (Trump term 1 & 2).Engaged Yarvin in deep discussions about regime change and the failings of liberal democracy​. Anton’s writings lament “unelected bureaucrats” and a managed democracy, directly reflecting Yarvin’s Cathedral concept​. He serves as a bridge: an establishment intellectual who introduced neo-reactionary ideas to more traditional conservatives.Contributed to the Project 2025 milieu via Claremont’s partnership. In Trump’s second term, Anton was appointed Director of Policy Planning at State​, where he can try to implement his (and by extension Yarvin’s) vision of foreign policy and ideology. As an intellectual architect, Anton pushes the narrative that America needs radical course-correction – a narrative that justifies Project 2025’s drastic measures.

• Russell Vought - President of Center for Renewing America; former OMB Director.Not a direct Yarvin associate, but a fellow traveler ideologically. Vought has crusaded against the “woke” bureaucracy and advocated strong executive action – themes very much aligned with Yarvin’s agenda of crushing the Cathedral (Vought calls it rooting out the “deep state”).A key leader of Project 2025: Vought’s CRA helped draft many of its policies and even ready-to-sign executive orders​. He joined Heritage’s advisory board and was named to the GOP platform committee to integrate Project 2025 ideas​. Vought explicitly identified Christian nationalism and Schedule F purges as priorities, and he claimed Trump privately blessed these plans​. Now, in 2025, Vought is reportedly overseeing budget-slashing and reorganization efforts as part of the administration, effectively executing Yarvin-esque objectives (whether or not he cites Yarvin).

• Kevin Roberts - President of The Heritage Foundation.Traditional conservative leader, not an NRx thinker himself. However, Roberts’s rhetoric during Project 2025’s rollout – proclaiming a “second American Revolution” – mirrors the apocalyptic, transformational language common in Dark Enlightenment circles​. By implying the left might provoke a non-bloodless outcome, he tapped into the authoritarian undercurrent (a sentiment that fundamental change must happen, by force if necessary).Principal organizer of Project 2025. Under Roberts, Heritage committed fully to an overhaul of government along reactionary lines. He coordinated the 4000-page Mandate for Leadership and marshaled the 100+ partner organizations​. His leadership helped mainstream what were once fringe ideas, giving them institutional heft. In sum, Roberts functioned as the establishment legitimizer of a radical plan – aligning Heritage (and thereby much of the conservative establishment) with an agenda that would have pleased Yarvin.

• Elon Musk - CEO of Tesla & SpaceX; owner of X(Twitter); unofficial Trump advisor.No direct tie to Yarvin, but Musk’s worldview has converged with anti-establishment, anti-“woke” ideas akin to Dark Enlightenment themes. Musk has mused about government as corporation​ and frequently rails against the “woke mind virus” undermining civilization – a framing not far from Yarvin’s attacks on progressive ruling orthodoxy.Musk emerged as an influential outside advisor in Trump’s orbit. He was given an informal role in consulting on government tech and efficiency (reportedly jokingly heading “Department of Government Efficiency”)​. In this capacity, Musk pushes for slashing regulations and reorganizing agencies for efficiency – goals shared with Project 2025. His drastic moves at Twitter (firing thousands, upending governance) serve as a real-life parallel to what Project 2025 aspires to do in government. Musk’s endorsement or participation lends popular credibility and a tech veneer to the project’s ideological aims.

Conclusion

What began as Curtis Yarvin’s fringe thought experiment in autocratic government has, over roughly fifteen years, filtered into the mainstream of American political strategy. Yarvin’s biography – from a Brown-educated programmer to the pseudonymous prophet of the Dark Enlightenment – is an unlikely story of influence. His writings under Mencius Moldbug challenged the legitimacy of democracy and sowed the seeds for a new reactionary ideology that found receptive audiences among discontented tech magnates and right-wing intellectuals. That ideology, dismissive of mass equality and yearning for “a form of one-man rule,” has contributed to a climate where projects like Project 2025 can emerge from major institutions​.

Project 2025 itself stands as a testament to the cross-pollination of radical theory and political practice. It translates many themes of the Dark Enlightenment – the consolidation of power, the purging of old elites, the rollback of liberal norms – into a concrete governmental agenda. With substantial institutional backing, it underscores how far the Overton window has shifted: ideas that might once have been dismissed as authoritarian fantasy are now blueprints debated on Capitol Hill.

As of early 2025, the United States finds itself at a crossroads. On one path is the continuation of liberal-democratic governance with its messy checks and balances; on the other is a turn towards an unapologetically authoritarian executive regime, albeit one justified by a promise of efficiency and reclaimed greatness. The influence of Curtis Yarvin and the Dark Enlightenment on this moment is palpable – from the vocabulary used (talk of “elites” and “administrative state” echoes the Cathedral​) to the people in power (several of whom have been mentored, directly or indirectly, by Yarvin’s writings​).

Whether Project 2025 succeeds fully or encounters insurmountable resistance remains to be seen. Its ideological connection to Yarvin’s work serves as a reminder that ideas have consequences. The blog posts of an obscure thinker can, over time, help inspire a movement that reshapes a major political party’s platform. In profiling the key players – from Yarvin and Nick Land to Thiel, Vance, and the architects of Project 2025 – we observe a network of shared conviction: that the old liberal order must be overturned, and a new hierarchy put in its place. This is the common ground that links the Dark Enlightenment to the heritage of Heritage.

In closing, Curtis Yarvin’s journey from internet blogger to influential philosopher of the new right illustrates the power of a “deep dive” – not just our deep dive into his world, but his into the dark corners of political theory, dredging up ideas many thought consigned to history. Those ideas are now animating real policy with real impacts on American governance​. As the United States navigates this precarious period, understanding figures like Yarvin and initiatives like Project 2025 is essential to grasp the currents beneath the surface of our politics – currents pulling liberal democracy toward its potential reboot or demise.