Part 4: From Heidegger to Here: The Philosophical Roots of America's Alt Right
Part 1: The Dark Enlightenment Lens: Understanding the Slow Strangulation of Democracy
Part 3: Silicon Valley's Unholy Alliance: How Tech Wealth Powers the New Religious Right
Part 5: Accelerating Toward Autocracy: Nick Land's Vision and Its Implementation
In the tumultuous landscape of contemporary American politics, philosophical undercurrents often remain obscured beneath the surface of daily headlines and partisan battles. Yet these intellectual foundations profoundly shape political movements, providing frameworks that inform rhetoric, policy, and worldviews. Perhaps no philosophical lineage has exerted a more controversial and consequential influence on the American New Right than that of Martin Heidegger, the German philosopher whose complex legacy continues to reverberate through political thought nearly a century after his most significant works were published.
While much attention has focused on the immediate manifestations of right-wing ideology in America, from Christian Nationalism's theological vision to the Dark Enlightenment's techno-authoritarianism, less examined are the deeper philosophical roots that nourish both movements. This article explores how Heidegger's philosophy serves as the intellectual wellspring from which these seemingly disparate currents draw, providing the conceptual framework that enables their critique of liberal democracy and vision of an alternative social order.
This analysis forms the fourth part of a quartet examining the intellectual foundations of America's New Right. It complements ‘The Shadow of Christian Nationalism: J.D. Vance, the Vice Presidency, and the Threat to Pluralism,’ ‘The Dark Enlightenment Lens: Understanding the Slow Strangulation of Democracy,’ and ‘Silicon Valley's Unholy Alliance: How Tech Wealth Powers the New Religious Right’ (all published on Plague Island). Where those pieces examine the theological expressions, techno-authoritarian ideologies, and financial mechanisms of right-wing movements, this article uncovers the shared philosophical DNA that makes these seemingly different manifestations part of a coherent intellectual project.
Heidegger's philosophy, with its critique of modernity, emphasis on authenticity, and rejection of liberal universalism, has found renewed relevance among contemporary right-wing thinkers seeking intellectual ammunition against what they perceive as the failures of liberal democracy. His concepts have been adapted, reinterpreted, and deployed by figures ranging from European traditionalists to American strategists, creating an intellectual bridge that connects early 20th century German philosophy to the corridors of power in 21st century America.
By understanding this philosophical lineage - from Heidegger through European intermediaries to American political operatives like Steve Bannon - we gain crucial insight into the intellectual underpinnings of movements that might otherwise appear disconnected. This article reveals the shared philosophical DNA that makes these movements more complementary than competitive in their challenge to liberal democratic norms and explains why tech billionaires and religious traditionalists have formed what might otherwise seem an unlikely alliance.
Heidegger's Core Philosophy: The Seeds of Anti-Liberal Thought
Martin Heidegger stands as one of the most influential and controversial philosophers of the 20th century. His magnum opus, Being and Time (1927), revolutionized philosophical inquiry by reorienting attention to the question of “Being” (Sein) and introducing the concept of Dasein: human existence characterized by its awareness of its own existence and mortality. Think of Dasein as the uniquely human experience of not just living but knowing we're alive and that we will die; like being simultaneously a character in a movie and the audience watching it. Far from abstract academic concerns, these concepts would later provide the intellectual arsenal for movements seeking to dismantle liberal democracy.
At the heart of Heidegger's philosophy lies a radical critique of modernity. For Heidegger, the modern world represents not progress but decline. This spiritual crisis stems from what he termed the "forgetting of Being." Modern technology, in his view, reduces the world to a "standing reserve" (Bestand) of resources to be exploited, while liberal democracy promotes a levelling conformity that undermines authentic community. As he wrote in his essay ‘The Question Concerning Technology’ (1954), modern technology "enframes" (Gestell) the world, transforming everything - including human beings - into mere resources to be optimized and controlled.
To grasp this concept of "enframing," consider your smartphone. It doesn't just connect you to others; it transforms forests into lumber, minerals into components, and even your attention into a commodity to be harvested by algorithms. Your friends become profile pictures, your experiences become Instagram posts, and your most intimate thoughts become data points for targeted advertising. This is Heidegger's nightmare realized: a world where everything, including human relationships, is reduced to resources awaiting optimization and exploitation.
Heidegger contrasted this modern technological worldview with what he called "authentic" existence. Authenticity (Eigentlichkeit) involves confronting one's mortality and embracing one's particular historical and cultural situation rather than fleeing into the anonymous conformity of modern mass society. This concept of authenticity would later be weaponized by right-wing movements to position themselves as defenders of particular traditions against the homogenising forces of globalization and liberalism.
Crucially, Heidegger rejected the universalism at the heart of liberal democracy. For him, universal principles and rights represented an abstraction that obscured the concrete particularities of human existence. Instead, he emphasized rootedness in specific historical communities and traditions - what he called "dwelling" (Wohnen). This critique of universalism would later provide philosophical ammunition for movements seeking to prioritize particular national, religious, or cultural identities over universal human rights.
Heidegger's philosophy also contained a profound critique of technology that resonates with contemporary anxieties. He argued that modern technology represents not just a set of tools but a way of revealing the world that transforms everything into resources to be optimized and controlled. This critique speaks to current concerns about algorithmic governance, surveillance capitalism, and artificial intelligence. These are concerns that animate both religious traditionalists worried about moral decay and tech elites concerned about existential risk.
These philosophical positions cannot be separated from Heidegger's political commitments. His infamous association with National Socialism (he joined the Nazi Party in 1933 and served as rector of Freiburg University during the early Nazi period) has generated decades of scholarly debate about the relationship between his philosophy and his politics. The publication of his ‘Black Notebooks’ in 2014 revealed the extent of his antisemitism and confirmed for many critics that his philosophical critique of modernity was inseparable from his political embrace of fascism.
As philosopher Richard Wolin argues in Heidegger in Ruins (2022), "Heidegger's critique of modernity, technology, and liberal democracy was not incidentally related to his Nazism but fundamentally intertwined with it" (p. 42). This connection raises profound questions about the contemporary revival of Heideggerian themes in right-wing thought. Are today's Heidegger-influenced movements simply extracting valuable insights from a flawed thinker, or are they reproducing the dangerous political implications of his philosophy?
The answer lies in examining how Heidegger's ideas have been transmitted, transformed, and deployed in contemporary political contexts. By tracing the intellectual lineage from Heidegger through European intermediaries to American political movements, we can better understand both the philosophical foundations of today's New Right and the potential dangers of its Heideggerian inheritance.
The Intellectual Bridge: From Heidegger to the Alt Right
Heidegger's philosophy did not travel directly from 1930s Germany to contemporary America. Rather, it was transmitted through a network of European intellectuals who adapted his ideas for new political contexts. This intellectual bridge helps explain how concepts developed in the specific context of interwar Germany came to inform American political movements nearly a century later.
The most significant early transmitter was Julius Evola, the Italian philosopher whose work Revolt Against the Modern World (1934) synthesized Heideggerian critique with esoteric traditionalism. Evola shared Heidegger's rejection of modernity but framed this rejection in explicitly hierarchical terms, arguing for a return to traditional social orders based on spiritual and racial hierarchies. His work provided a template for transforming Heidegger's abstract philosophical critique into concrete political programs.
Evola's influence extended to postwar European right-wing movements, particularly through the French ‘New Right’ (Nouvelle Droite) led by Alain de Benoist. De Benoist's "metapolitical" strategy - focusing on cultural transformation rather than electoral politics - drew on Heideggerian concepts to develop a sophisticated critique of liberalism, universalism, and globalization. His emphasis on "the right to difference" repackaged Heidegger's critique of universalism in language that could appeal to contemporary concerns about cultural identity.
To understand this transformation, imagine Heidegger's abstract concept of "authenticity" being translated into concrete political positions. Where Heidegger wrote philosophically about the importance of embracing one's particular historical situation, Evola and de Benoist developed specific arguments for maintaining distinct cultural and national identities against the homogenizing forces of globalization. This made Heideggerian concepts accessible to political movements concerned with immigration, national sovereignty, and cultural preservation.
The Russian philosopher Aleksandr Dugin represents another crucial link in this intellectual chain. His Fourth Political Theory (2012) explicitly draws on Heidegger to develop an alternative to liberalism, communism, and fascism. Dugin's work, which has influenced Russian foreign policy and far-right movements globally, transforms Heidegger's critique of technology and modernity into a geopolitical vision that positions Russia as a defender of traditional values against Western liberalism.
Dugin's adaptation of Heidegger is particularly significant because it demonstrates how philosophical concepts can be translated into geopolitical strategy. His argument that Russia represents a distinct civilization that must resist Western universalism draws directly on Heidegger's critique of universalism and emphasis on particular historical destinies. This application of Heideggerian concepts to international relations has influenced not only Russian policy but also American right-wing attitudes toward Russia and the international order.
The European New Right's adaptation of Heidegger created an intellectual framework that could appeal to both religious traditionalists and secular nationalists. By emphasizing cultural particularity over universal values, it provided philosophical justification for movements seeking to preserve specific religious traditions or national identities against the perceived homogenising forces of globalization. This framework would prove particularly attractive to American right-wing intellectuals seeking alternatives to both mainstream conservatism and progressive liberalism.
The transmission of these ideas to America occurred through multiple channels. Academic philosophers like Allan Bloom introduced Heideggerian themes to American conservative thought, while the internet facilitated the spread of European New Right ideas to American audiences. The emergence of the ‘Alt-Right’ in the 2010s represented a significant American adaptation of European New Right concepts, with figures like Richard Spencer explicitly drawing on Heideggerian themes of authenticity and critique of universalism.
But perhaps the most consequential American adaptor of Heideggerian thought has been Steve Bannon, whose role in the Trump administration represented the closest these ideas have come to direct political power in America. Bannon's intellectual journey, from his early interest in René Guénon's traditionalism to his later engagement with European nationalist movements, reflects the same intellectual lineage that connects Heidegger to contemporary right-wing thought.
Bannon's worldview, as expressed in his documentary films and public statements, reveals clear Heideggerian influences. His apocalyptic vision of civilizational crisis echoes Heidegger's critique of modernity as spiritual decline. His emphasis on the Judeo-Christian West as a distinct civilization with a particular historical destiny reflects Heidegger's concept of historical particularity. And his critique of what he calls the "Party of Davos" - global financial and political elites - draws on Heidegger's critique of technological thinking and rootless cosmopolitanism.
In practical terms, Bannon translated these philosophical concepts into political strategy during his time with the Trump administration. His emphasis on economic nationalism over free trade, his scepticism toward international institutions, and his focus on immigration as a cultural rather than economic issue all reflects the application of Heideggerian critique to concrete policy positions. His famous statement that he sought the "deconstruction of the administrative state" (Byron Wolf, 2017) represents a direct application of Heideggerian critique to American governance.
Through Bannon, philosophical concepts that once circulated primarily in obscure academic and far-right European circles found expression in mainstream American politics. His role in the Trump campaign and administration represented the most direct manifestation of Heideggerian influence on American governance, translating abstract critique into concrete policy initiatives aimed at undermining liberal institutions and promoting nationalist alternatives.
The Philosophical Convergence: How Heidegger Informs Both Christian Nationalism and Dark Enlightenment
At first glance, Christian Nationalism and the Dark Enlightenment (or Neoreactionary/Nx movement) might appear fundamentally different. One draws on religious tradition and theological arguments, while the other embraces a techno-futurist vision informed by Silicon Valley rationalism. Yet beneath these surface differences lies a shared philosophical DNA derived from Heideggerian thought, revealing how seemingly disparate right-wing currents actually complement rather than contradict each other in their challenge to liberal democracy.
Both movements share a Heideggerian critique of modernity, though they express this critique through different vocabularies. Christian Nationalism frames modernity as spiritual decay, a falling away from divine order and traditional values. The Dark Enlightenment describes it as systemic failure, the inevitable collapse of democratic institutions under the weight of their internal contradictions. Despite these different framings, both draw on Heidegger's fundamental insight that modernity represents not progress but decline, a "forgetting of Being" that alienates humans from authentic existence.
We can see this convergence in concrete policy positions. Both movements reject international institutions and agreements, from the Paris Climate Accord to the World Health Organization, though they justify this rejection differently. Christian Nationalists frame these institutions as threats to national sovereignty and traditional values, while Neoreactionaries view them as inefficient bureaucracies that impede technological and social optimization. Despite these different justifications, both arrive at the same policy conclusion through a shared Heideggerian mistrust toward universal institutions.
The concept of authenticity itself provides another point of convergence. For Christian Nationalists, authenticity means embracing a particular religious tradition and rejecting secular universalism. For Neoreactionaries, it means accepting ‘uncomfortable truths’ about human inequality and the failures of democratic governance. Both movements position themselves as offering a path to authentic existence against what they perceive as the inauthentic conformity of liberal society. This is a direct application of Heidegger's distinction between authentic Dasein and the inauthentic "they" (das Man).
This shared emphasis on authenticity manifests in the rhetoric of ‘courage’ and ‘truth-telling’ that characterises both movements. When Christian Nationalist figures like Lance Wallnau praise Trump for saying what everyone is thinking but afraid to say, or when Neoreactionary bloggers celebrate speaking forbidden truths about human biodiversity, they're deploying a popularised version of Heideggerian authenticity. The specific ‘truths’ differ, but the framing of authentic truth-telling versus inauthentic conformity remains consistent.
Heidegger's emphasis on rootedness and particularity over universalism informs both movements' rejection of global institutions and cosmopolitan values. Christian Nationalism emphasizes the primacy of particular religious traditions over universal human rights, while the Dark Enlightenment rejects the universal franchise in favour of governance systems that recognize natural hierarchies. Both translate Heidegger's critique of universalism into concrete political positions that privilege particular identities and traditions over universal principles.
Even their different temporal orientations - Christian Nationalism looking backward to an idealised religious past, the Dark Enlightenment looking forward to a post-democratic future - reflect different aspects of Heidegger's thought. His concept of "repetition" (Wiederholung) involved not simply returning to the past but retrieving possibilities from the past to create new futures. This complex temporality allows both backward-looking traditionalism and forward-looking futurism to draw on the same philosophical source.
The convergence becomes particularly evident in figures who bridge these movements. J.D. Vance, extensively analysed in ‘The Shadow of Christian Nationalism’ (Plague Island, 2025), exemplifies this convergence through his simultaneous embrace of Catholic traditionalism and Yarvin-influenced techno-authoritarianism. His intellectual journey, from secular critic of Appalachian culture to Catholic convert influenced by both ‘TheoBros’ and Silicon Valley neoreactionaries, demonstrates how Heideggerian themes can facilitate movement between seemingly different ideological spaces.
This convergence manifests in Vance's concrete policy positions. His criticism of childless women simultaneously appeals to religious traditionalists concerned about declining birth rates and to Neoreactionaries who view demographic decline as civilizational failure. His advocacy for industrial policy that privileges American manufacturing over global supply chains appeals to both Christian nationalists concerned about community stability and to techno-authoritarians seeking national self-sufficiency. These aren't merely tactical positions but expressions of a coherent Heideggerian worldview that prioritizes rootedness and authenticity.
Similarly, Peter Thiel, who is a key figure in the Dark Enlightenment ecosystem examined in ‘The Dark Enlightenment Lens’ (Plague Island, 2025,) combines Christian themes with techno-futurism in ways that reveal their shared philosophical foundations. His famous declaration that "I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible" (Simon, 2025) echoes Heidegger's scepticism toward liberal institutions, while his interest in both Christian thought and transhumanist technology reflects the philosopher's complex critique of modernity.
Thiel's concrete activities demonstrate this convergence. His funding of both Christian nationalist politicians like Josh Hawley and transhumanist research initiatives like anti-aging technology might seem contradictory. Yet both reflect a Heideggerian worldview that seeks authentic existence beyond the constraints of liberal modernity - whether through religious tradition or technological transcendence. His investments in surveillance technology companies like Palantir alongside conservative media ventures like Rumble similarly reflect a coherent philosophical vision rather than mere opportunism.
As detailed in ‘Silicon Valley's Unholy Alliance’ (Plague Island, 2025), Thiel's financial backing of religious nationalist figures represents more than political opportunism: it reflects a deep philosophical alignment. His $10 million investment in Vance's Senate campaign (Everson, 2022), demonstrates how tech wealth is being deployed to advance candidates who embody this philosophical convergence. This financial support operates through multiple channels, with "Thiel-adjacent venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen and David Sacks" funnelling "significant sums to Vance-aligned PACs while maintaining plausible deniability regarding the religious dimensions of his platform" (Plague Island, 2025).
This philosophical convergence helps explain why movements that might seem to have little in common - religious traditionalists and techno-futurists, rural populists and Silicon Valley elites - can find common cause in opposing liberal democracy. By understanding their shared Heideggerian foundations, we can see how these movements function less as competitors than as complementary forces attacking liberal democracy from different angles but with the same philosophical weapons.
The practical implications of this convergence are significant. It enables coalition-building across traditional political divides, allowing figures like Vance to appeal simultaneously to religious conservatives and tech-oriented libertarians. It facilitates the flow of ideas, funding, and personnel between different right-wing spaces, creating a more cohesive and effective opposition to liberal institutions than would otherwise be possible. And it complicates efforts to counter these movements, as strategies effective against one manifestation may miss the shared philosophical core that enables adaptation and evolution.
The technological amplification of this convergence, as documented in ‘Silicon Valley's Unholy Alliance,’ represents a particularly dangerous development. When Elon Musk implemented "specific policy changes that demonstrably benefited religious nationalist content" (Plague Island, 2025) after acquiring Twitter (now X), he was not simply making business decisions but advancing a philosophical agenda. Research showing that "hate speech on the platform increased by 50% between Musk's acquisition and June 2023, with hate messages receiving 70% more likes during that period" (Colome, 2025) demonstrates how tech platforms can serve as amplification mechanisms for movements grounded in Heideggerian critique of liberal universalism.
This technological amplification has created the conditions for these philosophical ideas to move beyond intellectual circles and into mainstream political power. Nowhere is this transition from philosophy to governance more evident than in the administration of Donald Trump, whose presidency represents the most significant manifestation of Heideggerian influence on American governance to date.
Trump's Presidency Through a Heideggerian Lens
Donald Trump's presidency, now in its second term with J.D. Vance serving as vice president, represents the most significant manifestation of Heideggerian influence on American governance to date. While Trump himself shows little interest in philosophy, his administration, particularly during Bannon's tenure in the first term and now with Vance's influence in the second, has implemented policies that reflect key Heideggerian themes. Understanding these connections helps explain both the intellectual coherence behind seemingly chaotic actions and the enduring appeal of Trumpism to disparate constituencies.
Trump's inaugural addresses, both in 2017 and 2025, with their dark vision of "American carnage" and promise to restore national greatness, echoed Heidegger's narrative of decline and potential renewal. The speeches' emphasis on forgotten Americans and "rusted out factories scattered like tombstones across the landscape" (White House Archives, 2017) evoked Heidegger's concern with rootedness and authentic community against the abstract forces of globalization. This framing positioned Trump not as a conventional politician but as a figure promising national redemption through a return to authenticity.
The administration's policy agenda across both terms has reflected key Heideggerian themes. Its cynicism toward international institutions, from NATO to the Paris Climate Accord, embodied Heidegger's critique of universalism in favour of particular national destinies. Its emphasis on border security and immigration restriction reflected the Heideggerian concern with maintaining distinct communities against homogenizing global forces. And its economic nationalism, with the slogan "America First," translated Heidegger's emphasis on particularity into concrete trade and industrial policy.
Even the administration's hostility toward expertise and administrative institutions reflected Heideggerian themes. Bannon's call for the "deconstruction of the administrative state" (Byron Wolf, 2017) during the first term echoed Heidegger's critique of technological thinking and bureaucratic rationality. The elevation of "alternative facts" over expert consensus reflected a Heideggerian mistrust toward claims of objective truth in favour of authentic commitment to particular worldviews. These weren't simply tactical positions but expressions of a coherent philosophical critique of liberal institutions.
The Trump administration's approach to technology policy similarly reflected Heideggerian influences. Despite Trump's personal embrace of social media, his administration expressed scepticism toward tech giants and global digital governance. This apparent contradiction makes sense through a Heideggerian lens: technology itself isn't the problem, but rather the universalizing, homogenising forces it often represents. Technology deployed in service of national particularity, such as using social media to bypass traditional gatekeepers and speak directly to supporters, aligns with Heideggerian emphasis on authentic communication.
This Heideggerian influence helps explain the Trump administration's appeal to seemingly disparate constituencies. Religious conservatives responded to its emphasis on traditional values and national particularity. Economic nationalists embraced its critique of globalization and promise of industrial renewal. And anti-establishment voters of various stripes resonated with its rejection of expert authority and administrative governance. What united these groups wasn't simply tactical alliance but a shared, if often unarticulated, philosophical critique of liberal modernity.
The administration's approach to the COVID-19 pandemic during the first term particularly revealed its Heideggerian underpinnings. Its suspicion toward global health institutions, resistance to expert guidance, and emphasis on national solutions over international cooperation all reflected Heidegger's critique of universal, technical approaches to human problems. The elevation of particular national interests over global health cooperation represented a direct application of Heideggerian particularism to pandemic response.
With Trump's return to the White House and J.D. Vance as vice president, these Heideggerian influences have become even more pronounced. The "Project 2025" agenda, now being implemented, with its emphasis on expanding executive power, limiting administrative governance, and prioritising national sovereignty over international cooperation, represents a more systematic application of Heideggerian critique to American governance. Its vision of presidential authority unconstrained by bureaucratic expertise or international norms reflects Heidegger's scepticism toward technical rationality and universal principles.
Vice President Vance's influence has brought an even more explicit Heideggerian dimension to the administration. His public statements frequently echo Heideggerian themes of rootedness, authenticity, and critique of technological modernity. His criticism of childless women and advocacy for traditional family structures reflects Heidegger's emphasis on authentic community against modern individualism. His uncertainty toward Silicon Valley despite his own background in venture capital embodies the Heideggerian critique of technology as a mode of revealing rather than simply a set of tools.
The financial backing for this agenda from tech billionaires like Peter Thiel, as documented in ‘Silicon Valley's Unholy Alliance’ (Plague Island, 2025), demonstrates how the philosophical convergence between religious nationalism and techno-authoritarianism is being operationalized through concrete political support. Thiel's strategic investments in both political campaigns and alternative media platforms create what the article describes as "digital megaphones that amplified Vance's messaging while circumventing traditional media gatekeepers" (Plague Island, 2025). This technological amplification system represents a sophisticated application of Heideggerian critique to modern political communication.
Understanding these Heideggerian influences provides crucial insight into both the Trump administration's actions and the broader movement it represents. Far from a chaotic departure from political norms, Trumpism represents a coherent, if often implicit, application of Heideggerian critique to American governance. This philosophical foundation helps explain its resilience in the face of conventional political challenges and its ability to unite constituencies that might otherwise have little in common.
Conclusion: The Future of Heideggerian Influence in American Politics
As we witness the unfolding of Trump's second term, understanding the Heideggerian foundations of contemporary right-wing movements becomes increasingly crucial. These philosophical underpinnings help explain not only current political configurations but also potential future developments as these movements evolve and adapt to new challenges.
The philosophical convergence between Christian Nationalism and techno-authoritarianism, grounded in shared Heideggerian themes, suggests that these movements will continue to find common cause despite their surface differences. Rather than competing for dominance within the right, they are likely to develop increasingly sophisticated forms of cooperation and mutual reinforcement. This convergence creates a more formidable challenge to liberal democracy than either movement could present alone.
The financial mechanisms supporting this convergence, as detailed in ‘Silicon Valley's Unholy Alliance’ (Plague Island, 2025), represent a particularly significant development. When tech billionaires like Peter Thiel and Elon Musk deploy their wealth to support religious nationalist figures and create technological amplification systems for their messaging, they're not simply making political investments but advancing a coherent philosophical project. This alliance between tech wealth and religious nationalism, far from contradictory, reflects their shared Heideggerian critique of liberal universalism.
For those concerned about the future of liberal democracy, understanding these philosophical foundations is essential for developing effective responses. Conventional political strategies that treat these movements as separate phenomena or as mere expressions of economic anxiety or cultural resentment will miss the deeper philosophical coherence that gives them resilience and adaptability. Effective counterstrategies must address not just the symptoms but the underlying philosophical critique that animates these movements.
This requires engaging seriously with the legitimate concerns that Heideggerian critique identifies: the alienation produced by technological modernity, the loss of community in globalized economies, the spiritual emptiness of consumer capitalism. It also means simultaneously rejecting the authoritarian solutions these movements propose. Liberal democracy must demonstrate its capacity to address these concerns without abandoning its core commitment to universal human dignity and rights.
The quartet of analyses - examining Christian Nationalism, the Dark Enlightenment, the Silicon Valley-Religious Right alliance, and their shared philosophical foundations - provides a comprehensive framework for understanding these challenges. Where ‘The Shadow of Christian Nationalism’ explores the theological manifestations of these philosophical currents, ‘The Dark Enlightenment Lens’ examines their techno-authoritarian expressions, and ‘Silicon Valley's Unholy Alliance’ (Plague Island, 2025) reveals the financial mechanisms and technological systems that operationalize this convergence, this article has uncovered the shared philosophical DNA that makes these seemingly different movements part of a coherent intellectual project.
Together, these four analyses reveal the full scope of the challenge facing liberal democracy, a challenge that operates at once at philosophical, theological, technological, and financial levels. By understanding these multiple dimensions, we can better comprehend both the nature of the threat and the potential responses that might preserve and renew democratic governance in the face of its most sophisticated critics.
The legacy of Martin Heidegger thus continues to shape American politics nearly a century after his most significant works were published. His critique of modernity, emphasis on authenticity, and rejection of universalism have found new relevance in contemporary movements seeking alternatives to liberal democracy. Understanding this philosophical lineage doesn't excuse the troubling aspects of these movements, but it does help explain their coherence, appeal, and resilience in the face of conventional political challenges.
As we navigate the complex political landscape of contemporary America under Trump 2.0, this philosophical understanding becomes not just academically interesting but practically essential. The future of American democracy may well depend on our ability to comprehend and effectively respond to the Heideggerian critique that animates its most determined opponents.
Notes From Plague Island is quickly becoming a full-time venture. We want to grow our output and dedicate more time to writing, but it takes support! If you enjoy our work and can help, please support us on ‘Buy Me a Coffee.’ Every coffee helps, in many ways. Thank-you - we appreciate you!
https://buymeacoffee.com/notesfromplagueisland
References
Barrie, C. (2023). Engagement patterns on Twitter following Musk's acquisition. Harvard Kennedy School Misinformation Review, 4(2), 1-15.
Byron Wolf, Z. (2017) ‘Steve Bannon outlines his plan to ‘deconstruct’ Washington.’ CNN, 24 February. Available at: https://edition.cnn.com/2017/02/23/politics/steve-bannon-world-view/index.html [Accessed 6 April 2025]
Colomé, J.P. (2025) ‘Hate speech soared on Twitter after Elon Musk’s acquisition and it’s impact is deeper than expected’ El País, 13 February. Available at: https://english.elpais.com/technology/2025-02-13/hate-speech-soared-on-twitter-after-elon-musks-acquisition-and-its-impact-is-deeper-than-expected.html [Accessed 7 April 2025]
Dugin, A. (2012). The Fourth Political Theory. London: Arktos Media Ltd.
Everson, Z. (2022). ‘Thiel Was Good For $10 Million, But J.D. Vance’s Other Billionaire Backers Were Good for Nothing.’ Forbes, 6 May. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/zacheverson/2022/05/06/thiel-was-good-for-10-million-but-jd-vances-other-billionaire-backers-were-good-for-nothing/
Heidegger, M. (1927). Being and Time (Translated from the German by Macquarrie, J & Robinson, E.) New York City: Harper & Row.
Heidegger, M. (1954). ‘The Question Concerning Technology.’ In The Question Concerning Technology and Other Essays (Translated from the German by Lovitt, W.) New York City: Harper & Row.
Kopps, M. (2024). ‘Content moderation changes at X: Implications for online discourse.’ Journal of Digital Media Studies, 12(3), 45-67.
Noble, S. (2018). Algorithms of Oppression: How Search Engines Reinforce Racism. New York: NYU Press.
Plague Island. (2025). ‘The Dark Enlightenment Lens: Understanding the Slow Strangulation of Democracy.’ Notes from Plague Island. 28 March. Notes From Plague Island. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/the-dark-enlightenment-lens-understanding [Accessed 7 April 2025]
Plague Island. (2025). ‘The Shadow of Christian Nationalism: J.D. Vance, the Vice Presidency, and the Threat to Pluralism’. Notes From Plague Island, 1 April. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/the-shadow-of-christian-nationalism [Accessed 7 April 2025]
Plague Island. (2025). ‘Silicon Valley's Unholy Alliance: How Tech Wealth Powers the New Religious Right.’ Notes from Plague Island, 4 March. Available at: https://www.plagueisland.com/p/silicon-valleys-unholy-alliance-how [Accessed 7 April 2025]
Simon, E. (2025). ‘What We Must Understand About the Dark Enlightenment Movement.’ Time, 24 March. Available at: https://time.com/7269166/dark-enlightenment-history-essay/. (Accessed 27 March 2025)
Tarnoff, B. (2022). Internet for the People: The Fight for Our Digital Future. London: Verso Books.
White House Archives. (2017) ‘The Inaugural Address.’ January 20. Available at: https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/the-inaugural-address/ (Accessed 7 April 2025)
Wolin, R. (2022). Heidegger in Ruins: Between Philosophy and Ideology. New Haven: Yale University Press.