Democratic Insiders Are Sharing A Warning About Curtis Yarvin, Elon Musk & Neoreactionaries

American Republic. It opens with a statement that the brief was quote iteratively and collectively compiled by a broad, bipartisan and decentralized network of experts who wish to remain anonymous due to concerns about being targeted. The full document is here. The table of contents is split into three main areas, One the new shape of threats to the American Republic. Two, understanding recent events and the context of threats to the

American Republic, and three a list of appendices. The title of the actual file when I received it was evidence Brief for journalists, and the introduction describes its aim as quote explaining the nature of the current political crisis to journalists who are attempting to inform the public. However, I spoke with two sources who are members of these groups

and received the document. They told me that, to their knowledge, the document was not mostly spread to journalists, but instead among networks of think tank employees and DNC staffers, people you might refer to broadly as policy wonks. One source I interviewed explained it is a thing for think tanks to frame overviews for laypeople as briefs for journalists or congress see the IPCC reports. Part of me thinks the framing four journalists is just a shortcut for this is

somewhat specialized knowledge broken down. The paper opens by acknowledging the scope of the executive powergrap being perpetuated under President Trump and that destabilization wrought by Elon Musky and his doge team. It then notes the threat is an order of magnitude beyond just a presidential power grab. It states that Musk is tied to a quote broader group of Silicon Valley tech elites, including Peter Teel and Mark Andresen. Curtis Jarvin is labeled as a thought leader in this group.

Quote called the neo reactionaries. Now I'll stop here to note that this summary is accurate enough for mass consumption, but I have some issues with it. Musk probably would not label himself a neo reactionary, and he doesn't have much of a history with Jarvin. Peter Teal does, but

it's more a relationship of patronage than mutual influence. It would be more accurate to say that Teal and Andreas and find Jarvin useful because of his success and spreading to a lot of young techie kids the idea that tech CEOs should run the world. Musk, I feel, has largely jumped on this bandwagon with the neo reactionaries because those tech kids are useful foot soldiers. Jarvins ideas about retiring all government employees and destroying the independent media and

academia are convenient for Musk's own ambitions. This context may be unnecessary for explaining the overall danger of the neo reactionaries and Musk to regular people. But I also think it's a mistake to credit Jarvin with more power than he holds. The document refers to him as the leader of the neo reactionary movement, and I think that gets across kind of the wrong idea about how all of this works. That said, the document does do a pretty good job of summing up the threat that we face quote.

The neo reactionaries have openly stated their aims to destroy the nation state and the constitutional order and replace them with a newly privately owned corporate state to be run by a CEO dictator. Citizens become subjects owned by the state state slaves in Yarvin's terms, because everything rots when it has no owner. Human beings included. That last quote

is also one of Jarvin's. From here, the document argues that Musk and his team are attempting to bring about this dystopia by taking over the quote nervous system of the state another Jarvin quote. These would be the data and communications systems that DOSE is trying to centralize in its unaccountable hands. Next, the authors of this document make

a call to action quote. The most dramatic reversals of democratic breakdown nineteen seventy seven, India twenty twenty two, Brazil twenty twenty three, Poland have been accomplished by radically large, tent cross ideological coalitions with little in common accept a

desire for the continuation of a constitutional order. Evidence suggests that the present threat to American democracy is dire enough that such a broad tent approach focused on Musk and his associates may be required, And I think this is the most interesting and hopeful part of the whole document for me. For one thing, I believe it does accurately state what's needed in the present moment, a popular front

against autocracy and dictatorship. I would add to their list of relevant examples of popular fronts the original, which is France from nineteen thirty four to nineteen thirty eight. So it's heartening to see evidence that this understanding has started to grow within DNC policy circles in the people around them. The source who sent me this document in the first place described themselves as a member of quote A few unofficial networks of climate activists who are high ranking in

the government and policy think tank circles. They noted that these are normally quote very milk toast lib spaces, but quote they're being radicalized rapidly. Both sources I interviewed for this requested anonymity. The second person I talked to with gave an explicit reason. They stated quote I've suspected for a while a lot more things in dn C stuff

was compromised than people were comfortable with. In other words, they believe the Republican Party has spies within the DNC, and people they know have made statements to that effect. They were worried that these quote GOP moles might reveal their identity, but more so, they were worried that these moles might have planted the document itself and put false information inside it with the goal of provoking a reaction from Democrats that would be useful politically to Republicans. I

do think this caveat is worthwhile. It's certainly not impossible, and I think the frank admission that the DNC likely has Republican spies inside it is also really worth stating. But I should note that when it comes to the actual accuracy of this document, I don't really see much to take issue with. I've spent more time than most

people studying Curtis Jarvin and the neo reactionaries. I would not describe myself as a top expert in the matter, but I do have a good base of knowledge here, and nothing that I've read in this document struck me as obviously false or incorrect, nor did the overall tone

seem hysteric or unreasonable. So I asked my sources if over the last month they'd seen more people talking about Jarvin and their daily lives within sort of the circles that they work in and around, because again, they communicate with a lot of DNC staffers and politicians. They said, respectively, No, and quote, that's kind of one of the odd things to be frank, this guy Jarvin is being brought to big events in DC. He's been referenced by Bannon Advance.

I have heard his talking points come from Republican mouths, but he's largely not tracked. That concern comports with some of fears that I had late last year about Jarvin and the neo reactionaries. Namely, I had believed for some time that Jarvin and the people kind of aligned with him largely a lot of these Silicon Valley folks with money had become much more influential among Trump and his

tight inner circle than was widely understood at the time. Ultimately, I wrote and researched two episodes of Behind the Bastards because I thought it was valuable to bring more attention

to the subject. I really had kind of a gut feeling that this was going to become much more relevant very soon, which is why I picked it as the topic for the episode we did with Ed Helms, who's by a pretty good margin, the biggest celebrity we've had on the show so far, and I hope that would help kind of get we were talking about out to

a wider audience, and it did. The episodes did very well between YouTube and our downloads in the podcast were probably at something like a million listens for them at this point. But our listener base is a mix of leftists and progressive liberals right their interests are not representative

of the Democratic Party at large. It is noteworthy and perhaps even important that influential individuals in the policy space with connections to Democratic politicians and the DNC as an organization, have started a grassroots effort to spread the word about Jarvin as a threat, and that's what this document represents. It's even more noteworthy that this document is unsparing about the danger and the fact that a clock is currently

ticking over all of our heads. Here's another quote. If non governmental actors, by which we mean unelected unratified, unvetted, untrained, unco strained, and or unaccountable actors gain access to key digital infrastructure. They could seize control of critical functions of government in ways that will be difficult or impossible to reverse. And speaking of things that can't be reversed, my love

for our sponsors. We're back. So to continue from this document, there's a section next titled national Security, and the focus shifts from Jarvin and his neo reactionaries to Musk, who it claims, quote poses a uniquely significant security risk. This, in its argument, is because Musk and Doge espouse quote anti constitutional ideologies and quote are under the influence of

America's principle foreign adversaries, China and Russia. It goes on at some length about Musk's foreign business interests and how they might compromise him. Now, I don't disagree that Musk is compromised, but I see his actions as very much consistent with those of a man seizing power for himself. I do understand why people speaking to an audience that is largely you know, when it's bipartisan, it's folks who are kind of more on the centrist side of things.

In the policy space and otherwise largely a lot of like Democratic Party employees and politicians. I understand why you focus on the China and Russia of it all with them, but when it comes to both accurately stating the threat and getting a lot of people to care, I really

don't think that's the right strategy to take. I think it's an issue to focus popular messaging around how this all empowers quote America's principle foreign adversaries, because most Americans don't really think that way or particularly care about that. And beyond that, the larger issue is that the primary adversary Musk has empowered is not, in fact the Russian or Chinese governments. It's himself, and he personally, as an individual, is currently a greater threat to every citizen of the

United States than any foreign government. I think that's undeniable, and I think again it's an error not to frame it that way. The next section of the paper lays out the definition of a coup quote in essence, a coup is a number one rapid seizure of state power by unelected actors who acquire that power by two seizing critical government infrastructure, and three weaponizing it to neutralize legitimate

government actors' efforts to stop them. The unelected actors then use this power to four remake the rules of the political game in a way that cannot easily be checked or undone through democratic processes. Now it argues convincingly that

all four of these steps are underway. Now. One thing I found compelling is the way at which this document recognizes the threat that cryptocurrency represents right now, and how it can and will be used by the new regime to cement their power in ways that sidestep the present legal system quote without canceling elections. For example, cryptocurrency can be used to create informal but powerful new levers of

political influence. Politicians can sell personal coins to unknown buyers who vote on public policy on the basis of their shareholder power shielded from public view. I think that's a real thing to be concerned with, and I also think it's very clearly part of the goal of this project. Now, next we have a summary of the neo Reactionary Agenda, which lists some additional names among the Silicon Valley elde currently championing an overthrow of democracy. These include David Sachs,

Blaji Schrinavasan and J. D. Vance. Also name dropped is a political theorist named Nick Land, who is in fact reference twice in this paper. He is quoted directly as having said in his paper The Dark Enlightenment quote for the hardcore neo reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed. It is doom itself fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. Land has had a huge impact on a lot of these guys.

Although he's not really a Jarvin life figure, is in He's not this kind of guy who sees himself as or I think, really wants to be a shadowy puppet master orchestrating the overthrow of democracy from behind the scenes. He's really someone stating what he believes to be kind of inevitable concepts and realities about our present historical moment that happened to comport with a lot of the things

that these guys believe now. The author's next layout Jarvin's concept of the Butterfly Revolution, which is based on an essay he wrote in twenty twenty two in which he laid out how a full reboot of the US government could be accomplished. Quote Yarvin's seven part Butterfly Revolution has been roughly summarized as follows. Number one, have Trump run for president on the platform of getting rid of an efficient system. Number two, once he wins, purge the bureaucracy, rage,

retire all government employees. Number three, ignore the courts through declaring states of emergency. Number four, co opt Congress. Number five. Centralized the police, federalized the National Guard, freed a national police force that absorbs local ones. Number six. Shut down the elites, the media and the universities who make up the cathedral. Number seven. Get people on the streets whenever

there is any obstruction by a government agency. And obviously all of that we've seen Trump and his people make moves towards in the last couple of weeks, right, And that's in fact what the next chunk of the document is. Subsequent pages summarize the first days of the Trump administration and DOJE activity, and they show how it comports with the Butterfly Revolution blueprint. Now, we've all lived that in real time, so I'm not going to summarize their arguments here.

So the document ends with a section on actions and rhetoric to watch. Those are listed as quote government contracts which fund many of Musk's companies at present, and the next is Greenland and Mars. Quote. A core tenet of neo reactionary ideology is the replacement of nation states with

network states, but states require territory. Technocracy, Inc, a predecessor to the neo reactionary movement, whose one time director was Elon Musk's grandfather, proposed a North American technatee where the entire continent of North America would be united under one technocratic super state. There is currently a peterteelbacked network state project called Praxis in Greenland. Musk's public statements about colonizing

Mars can also be read as part of a territorial project. Lastly, it lists crypto, which the authors primarily seem to fear, as a method of deniably bribing Trump. Now, I think most of this is pretty credible, Although I feel differently about musk talk about colonizing Mars. I think that's been more about pr than anything. I do think there's a good chance he's just delusional enough to think that that's something feasible on any kind of close end time frame,

that we start building persistent colonies on Mars. I think the science suggests that if that ever happens, it won't be anytime soon, and I think he knows that. I think he's largely understands hype well and how to use it, and Mars has been an easy way for him to do that over the years. Overall, I'd say the document is fairly thorough in its layout of the neo reactionary ecosystem and the actual plan currently being acted to end

US democracy. It includes a section that lists several of the earliest known DOGE employees, and it quotes extensively from Jarvin and somewhat less extensively from Land. The paper's ultimate conclusion is that Musk is using this moment to turn himself into the kind of unitary, all powerful executive that Jarvin longs for. This is an executive who rules alongside a largely ceremonial president, as well as courts and a

legislative system that are equally ceremonial. After laying out the bulk of the actual threat, the article promises that quote Section three articulates what Congress and other actors can do in order to stop this threat. However, the document in its present form does not include any Section three or any comprehensive list of solutions Congress and other actors might carry out in order to stop the present assault on democracy. And perhaps there's a later version of the document that

I don't have access to that includes that. Perhaps this is just a statement that wasn't edited out, I have to say, and heartening as I find the way in which this document talks about the threat that we're facing, and the fact that I think it's overall good that people in positions of influence and around the DNC are talking about this stuff. It's also kind of perfect that at the end they're like, hey, you know, don't worry, We've included some tips on how to defeat these guys,

and then they just don't. You know, if the situation weren't so dire, it would be a lot funnier, but unfortunately it is pretty dire. Now. If you want to take a look at the full document itself, it's quite a bit longer than what I've read to you now, but it is really worth reading, especially if you have been hearing about this Curtis Yarvin guy or the NIE reactionaries and you kind of want to know how this all fits together with what Musk is doing and more

detail if you go to my substack at Shatterzone. The most recent article is the text of this and I include a couple of different points links to the full document which I have uploaded to scribed, and you can read the whole thing if you want. It has not been altered since I have received it. And again, yeah, I think it's worth getting out there and spreading to more people. So that's the episode. We will be back tomorrow with something else. Until then, folks, I don't know,

keep an eye on this shit. Bye.