Part 5: Accelerating Toward Autocracy: Nick Land's Vision and Its Implementation.
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 4: From Heidegger to Here: The Philosophical Roots of America's Alt Right
In a dimly lit corner of the internet, a philosophy professor's radical ideas are reshaping our political landscape. While most people have never heard his name, Nick Land's dark vision of technological acceleration has escaped the confines of obscure academic journals and fringe forums to infiltrate the highest levels of power. His philosophy doesn't just challenge democracy. It seeks to annihilate it.
Land's accelerationist worldview provides the intellectual framework connecting seemingly disparate elements of today's far-right: Silicon Valley techno-libertarianism, religious nationalism, and neoreactionary politics. His ideas serve as the hidden architecture behind movements that might otherwise appear contradictory, offering a coherent - if terrifying - vision of a post-democratic future. As recent debates over AI regulation and the rise of algorithmic governance systems demonstrate, Land's philosophy has moved from theoretical speculation to practical implementation with alarming speed.
This article examines Land's intellectual journey, his core philosophical concepts, and how these once-fringe ideas have infiltrated mainstream politics and technology. We'll explore how Land's vision is being implemented through specific policies and technological developments and consider potential democratic responses to this sophisticated philosophical challenge.
From Ivory Tower to Digital Underground: Land's Academic Metamorphosis
The transformation of Nick Land from respected academic to intellectual godfather of anti-democratic movements represents one of the most consequential evolutions in contemporary political thought. His journey reveals how radical ideas can migrate from theoretical abstraction to political reality with alarming speed.
In the early 1990s, Land prowled the halls of the University of Warwick as a lecturer in Continental Philosophy, his intense stare and feverish intellect already marking him as different from his colleagues. Students described his lectures as electrifying performances that blurred the boundaries between philosophy, science fiction, and prophecy. His early work engaged with thinkers like Deleuze, Guattari, and Bataille, developing a nihilistic materialism that rejected humanist values in favour of what he termed "libidinal materialism" (Land, 2011, p. 261). This is a philosophy that viewed desire and technological development as autonomous forces beyond human control.
The pivotal moment in Land's intellectual development came with his co-founding of the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit (CCRU) at Warwick. This was an experimental academic collective who operated more like a cyberpunk cult than a university research group (Reynolds, 2018). In the basement rooms of the university, Land and his followers created a hothouse environment where philosophy merged with electronic music, science fiction, occultism, and emerging digital technologies. Visitors described entering a space where conventional academic boundaries dissolved, replaced by a frenetic atmosphere of intellectual experimentation fuelled by sleep deprivation and technological obsession.
It was in this crucible that Land developed key concepts that would later inform his accelerationist philosophy, including "hyperstition:" the idea that fictional ideas can be made real through their circulation and belief. His writing during this period abandoned academic convention for a delirious, prophetic style that mirrored the intensity of his vision.
By the late 1990s, Land's increasingly erratic behaviour and psychological breakdown led to his departure from academia. He later relocated to Shanghai, a city whose hypercapitalist transformation embodied the very acceleration he advocated. There, surrounded by the relentless construction of a new urban landscape, Land's thinking took a decisive turn toward what would become known as "neoreaction" or the "Dark Enlightenment." He abandoned any leftist elements in his earlier work, embracing an explicitly anti-democratic position that celebrated capitalism's creative destruction.
His 2012 essay series ‘The Dark Enlightenment’ emerged from this period, articulating a comprehensive critique of democracy that would provide the blueprint for the neoreactionary movement. In these texts, Land's prose burns with contempt for democratic institutions, which he portrays not as barricades of freedom but as obstacles to technological and economic acceleration. "Democracy," he writes with characteristic bluntness, "is not merely doomed, it is doom itself. Fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative" (Land, 2012).
Accelerationism Unleashed: The Philosophy of Deliberate Destruction
At the centre of Land's philosophy stands accelerationism: a concept with very real consequences for our daily lives. In its simplest form, accelerationism is the belief that technological and economic processes should be intensified rather than controlled or slowed down.
Unlike traditional political philosophies that view technology as a tool to improve human welfare, Land flips this relationship entirely. In his view, humans don't control technology; rather, technology has its own evolutionary logic that humans should submit to, regardless of social consequences. Think of it as the difference between seeing a car as a vehicle you control versus seeing yourself as merely a temporary passenger in a self-driving system that's evolving toward something that will eventually replace you.
Land's accelerationism comes in two key parts: first, the descriptive claim that capitalism and technology are already fused into a self-reinforcing system accelerating beyond human control, an inevitable process like gravity or evolution. Second, the normative claim that we should remove all barriers to this acceleration, including democratic oversight, environmental regulations, and social safety nets - even if this means massive social disruption.
The ultimate endpoint of this acceleration is what Land terms "techonomic naturalism," a world where technological development follows its own logic regardless of human values, eventually rendering human agency obsolete (Land, 2017). This concept represents the complete inversion of traditional humanism, positioning technology rather than humanity as the protagonist of history.
To understand this in concrete terms, imagine a manufacturing town where automation eliminates most jobs. A traditional response might involve retraining programs, social support, or regulations to slow automation. Land's accelerationism rejects all these approaches, viewing the community's suffering as necessary ‘creative destruction’ that should be intensified rather than mitigated. The faster these communities collapse, the better, as this speeds up technological evolution.
When the Trump administration eliminated two regulations for every new one created during his first term, they tapped into an early alignment with accelerationist principles (Executive Order 13771, 2017). When tech companies deploy AI systems without ethical oversight, they're enacting Land's vision of technology developing according to its own logic rather than human values.
The 2023 OpenAI governance crisis provides another striking example of accelerationism in action. When the company's safety-focused board attempted to slow AI development by removing CEO Sam Altman, they were quickly overruled by market forces and technological momentum. As AI researcher Timnit Gebru observed, "The message was clear: nothing can be allowed to impede technological acceleration, not even concerns about existential risk" (MIT Technology Review, 2024). This episode demonstrated how Land's accelerationist principles have become embedded in the tech industry's operational logic.
As Land writes with chilling clarity: "The question is not whether humanity will be superseded by machine intelligence, but how quickly and under what circumstances" (Land, 2014, p. 512). In this framework, humans aren't the point. We are merely a stepping stone in technological evolution.
Reality Hackers: How Land's "Hyperstition" Weaponizes Fiction
Perhaps Land's most difficult concept to grasp is "hyperstition," a term he coined by combining "hyper" and "superstition" (Land, 2009). While it sounds like science fiction, hyperstition is actually a powerful framework for understanding how ideas transform reality in the digital age.
Hyperstition describes how fictional ideas can become real through their circulation and belief. Unlike regular fiction that remains imaginary, a hyperstition is a fiction that makes itself real by changing how people think and act. The process unfolds in four stages: first, an idea begins as pure fiction. Second, people begin circulating this fiction as if it might be true. Third, the fiction influences real behaviours and decisions. Finally, these real actions transform reality to match the original fiction.
To see hyperstition in action, consider how the concept of ‘deep state’ evolved. What began as a fringe conspiracy theory on internet forums became a talking point on cable news, then a campaign theme, and finally a justification for actual government policies that reshaped federal agencies. The fiction didn't just describe reality - it changed it.
The QAnon movement provides an even more dramatic contemporary example of hyperstition. A 2023 study in the journal ‘Social Media + Society’ described QAnon as "conspiracy fictioning" - a process where entirely fictional narratives about political elites became so widely circulated that they triggered real-world actions, including the January 6th Capitol riot (Sage Journals, 2023, p. 8). What began as anonymous posts on fringe message boards transformed into a movement that reshaped American politics and family relationships. As a Harvard Gazette report from 2024 documented, the movement's hyperstitional nature made it particularly resistant to traditional fact-checking, as believers experienced the act of belief itself as a form of empowerment and identity (Harvard Gazette, 2024).
Unlike propaganda that distorts existing facts, hyperstition creates new 'facts' through narrative circulation. It's like the difference between lying about the current weather versus creating a weather system through collective belief.
Land's concept provides a philosophical framework for post-truth politics that deliberately erodes the shared factual basis necessary for democratic deliberation. When shared reality fragments into competing narrative bubbles, democracy becomes impossible. This is precisely the outcome Land desires.
Dismantling the Cathedral: Land's Blueprint for Institutional Destruction
The "Cathedral" is one of Land's most politically significant concepts, though he borrowed and expanded it from Curtis Yarvin. To understand this concept, think of it as Land's map of power in modern society, his explanation for why democratic systems resist the acceleration he desires.
The Cathedral refers to the network of institutions that shape and control acceptable discourse in society: universities, mainstream media, civil service bureaucracies, and non-governmental organizations. Land argues these institutions function as a unified system, similar to how the Church dominated medieval thought, even without explicit coordination (Land, 2016).
To understand how the Cathedral operates in practice, we can examine a real-world example from Curtis Yarvin's own explanation of the concept. Yarvin, who coined the term that Land later expanded upon, describes the Cathedral's most distinctive feature as its "synoptic" nature: "It has one clear doctrine or perspective. It always agrees with itself. Still more puzzlingly, its doctrine is not static; it evolves; this doctrine has a predictable direction of evolution, and the whole structure moves together" (Yarvin, 2021).
This synoptic quality can be observed in how technological governance evolves across Cathedral institutions. For instance, when concerns about AI ethics emerged in the early 2020s, we witnessed a remarkably co-ordinated response: academic institutions like MIT and Stanford established AI ethics centres, media outlets like The New York Times and The Atlantic published aligned perspectives on the need for ethical AI frameworks, and regulatory agencies like the FTC and NIST developed governance guidelines that reflected these same concerns. Despite having no central co-ordination mechanism, these institutions moved in lockstep to establish a consensus position.
As Yarvin notes, "In 2021, Harvard, Yale, the Times and the Post are on the same page. If there exists any doctrinal difference between any two of these prestigious American institutions, it is too ineffable for anyone but a Yale man to discern" (Yarvin, 2021). This example demonstrates precisely what Land means when he describes the Cathedral as a unified system that works to slow technological acceleration through coordinated institutional responses.
What makes Land's critique more radical than standard conservative complaints about "liberal bias" is his insistence that this coordination is structural rather than conspiratorial: it emerges from shared incentives and selection pressures within these institutions rather than explicit collusion. This structural analysis is what makes Land's Cathedral concept particularly useful for understanding how democratic oversight of technology functions as a system rather than as isolated institutions.
The Cathedral concept operates through three interconnected mechanisms: universities generate ideas supporting democratic governance, media institutions amplify these ideas while marginalizing alternatives, and bureaucracies translate these ideas into policies and regulations.
To see this concept in action, consider how new technologies are typically governed. Universities research ethical implications, media outlets publicize concerns, regulatory agencies develop oversight frameworks, and NGOs advocate for human-centred implementation. For Land, this entire process represents the Cathedral working to slow necessary technological acceleration.
The Cathedral concept transforms legitimate criticism of institutions into a comprehensive rejection of the entire system of democratic knowledge production and governance, creating a vacuum that accelerationist forces can fill.
Corporate City-States: Land's Patchwork Vision in Theory and Practice
Imagine a world where countries no longer exist. Instead, thousands of tiny corporate city-states compete for citizens the way businesses compete for customers. Your rights aren't guaranteed by a constitution but determined by a service contract you sign with your chosen government-provider. If you don't like the policies, you don't vote to change them: you simply move to a competing city-state with a better 'rights package.'
This is "patchwork," Nick Land's radical vision for what should replace democracy after its collapse. The term itself comes from the visual image Land evokes: a patchwork quilt of tiny sovereign territories, each operating under different rules, rather than the uniform blanket of national governance we know today.
Land describes his ideal: "The optimal patchwork is one in which sovereignty has been sub-divided to the point where it becomes perfectly liquid," creating what he calls a "market for governance" (Land, 2014). This is a complete reimagining of the relationship between people and government.
In practical terms, patchwork would transform citizenship from a birthright with universal guarantees into a consumer product with tiered access. Wealthy individuals could purchase premium citizenship in luxury city-states offering favourable tax rates, minimal regulations, and extensive services. Those with fewer resources would be limited to budget options with fewer protections and services.
We already see embryonic versions of this model emerging. When billionaires create private islands with their own rules, they're experimenting with patchwork. When special economic zones operate under different regulations than surrounding areas, they're implementing patchwork principles. When wealthy communities establish private governments through homeowners' associations with their own security forces, they're building proto-patchworks.
The most disturbing aspect of Land's patchwork vision is how it transforms universal rights into luxury commodities. Democracy is built on the principle that all citizens deserve equal protection and representation regardless of wealth or status. Patchwork explicitly rejects this, replacing citizenship with consumption and rights with services available only to those who can afford them.
As Land scholar Amy Ireland notes, "Patchwork isn't just a different way to organize society - it's the complete abandonment of the social contract itself" (Ireland, 2019, p. 283). In Land's vision, there is no common good, only market competition between sovereign entities with no obligation to those who cannot afford their services.
Technology theorist Benjamin Bratton describes patchwork as "the political equivalent of the app store,” a marketplace of governance options with no underlying guarantees (Bratton, 2021, p. 87). This analogy captures both the consumer choice aspect and the fundamental instability of a system where rights depend entirely on market forces.
The March 18, 2025 Executive Order on "Efficiency Through State and Local Preparedness" provides a striking real-world example of Land's patchwork governance concept in action. The order shifts disaster response responsibility from federal to state and local governments, creating exactly the type of fragmented governance Land advocates (The Guardian, 2025). The practical consequence, that disaster victims in wealthy states will receive different levels of support than those in poorer states, exemplifies Land's vision of replacing universal rights with market-based service provision.
Mother Jones' analysis found that "The restructuring creates a natural experiment in patchwork governance, with citizens' safety dependent on their state's wealth rather than their rights as Americans" (Mother Jones, 2025). This implementation of patchwork principles demonstrates how Land's abstract philosophy translates into concrete policy with immediate consequences for democratic rights.
Dangerous Connections: How Land's Ideas Infiltrated Power
What makes Land dangerous is his unique ability to bridge disparate intellectual traditions. His work connects academic philosophy to Silicon Valley techno-libertarianism, esoteric theory to internet subcultures, and philosophical abstraction to concrete political strategy. This intellectual bridge-building has created unlikely alliances united by a shared hostility to democratic governance. These alliances now wielding significant political and economic power.
Land's ideas have found their way into the highest levels of American politics through a crucial intermediary: Curtis Yarvin, a software engineer who blogged under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug. Yarvin translated Land's abstract accelerationist philosophy into more accessible political strategies. His concept of "the Cathedral," which Land expanded upon, positions universities, media, and civil service as a unified system that must be dismantled rather than reformed.
This intellectual pipeline from Land to Yarvin to political implementation is most clearly demonstrated in Vance's explicit endorsement of Yarvin's "RAGE" proposal (Retire All Government Employees). In an October 2024 investigation, The Verge documented how Vance's 2021 statement about firing bureaucrats directly echoed Yarvin's proposal: "I think what Trump should do, if I was giving him one piece of advice: fire every single midlevel bureaucrat, every civil servant in the administrative state, and replace them with our people. And when the courts stop you, stand before the country and say, 'The chief justice has made his ruling. Now let him enforce it'" (The Verge, 2024).
This statement wasn't merely similar to Yarvin's ideas, it was an almost verbatim endorsement of Yarvin's RAGE concept, which he described in a 2012 speech as a way to "reboot" the government under an all-powerful executive. The RAGE proposal exemplifies how Land's accelerationist philosophy of "accelerative dismantling" of democratic institutions gets translated by Yarvin into specific political strategies, which are then advocated by figures like Vance who have direct access to political power.
The implementation mechanism for this philosophy has already been developed in the form of Schedule F, a Trump administration initiative that would strip employment protections from tens of thousands of federal employees. As The Verge reported, "Schedule F is among the dozens of policy proposals buried in the 2025 version of the Heritage Foundation's nearly 1,000-page Mandate for Leadership" (The Verge, 2024). This demonstrates how the Land-Yarvin-Vance pipeline doesn't just exist in theory but has already produced specific policy proposals ready for implementation.
Silicon Valley has proven especially receptive to Land's accelerationist vision. Tech leaders like Peter Thiel, Sam Altman, and Elon Musk have embraced elements of Land's philosophy, particularly his technological determinism and anti-democratic stance. As a 2023 Vanity Fair investigation revealed, these figures have created an "alternate autocratic reality" that positions technological acceleration as inevitable and democracy as an impediment (Vanity Fair, 2023).
Thiel's investments in ‘seasteading’ projects (floating cities with their own governance) directly implement Land's patchwork vision. Musk's public statements about AI development echo Land's accelerationism, particularly his insistence that AI development cannot and should not be slowed by ethical concerns. Altman's approach during the OpenAI governance crisis demonstrated the primacy of technological acceleration over democratic oversight (Fortune, 2024).
The tech industry's embrace of Land's ideas has created a means for these concepts to reach policy implementation. The convergence of Land's philosophy with technological capabilities and political opportunities creates unprecedented conditions for democratic erosion. What makes Land's ideas particularly dangerous is how they've migrated from abstract philosophy to concrete policy implementation with remarkable speed.
Unleashing the Machine: AI Deregulation and Technological Determinism
The administration's approach to artificial intelligence governance further demonstrates Land's influence. On January 23, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order on "Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence," which explicitly revokes previous AI safety and ethics frameworks (AP News, 2025).
The removal of these frameworks positions democratic oversight not as necessary protection but as an impediment to technological evolution - precisely the view Land advocates in his accelerationist philosophy. The White House's own announcement states that the order "revokes certain existing AI policies and directives that act as barriers to American AI innovation, clearing a path for the United States to act decisively to maintain its global leadership in artificial intelligence" (White House, 2025).
The National Law Review described the order as reflecting "a fundamental shift in US AI policy, prioritizing deregulation and free market innovation while reducing oversight and ethical safeguards" (National Law Review, 2025). This approach embodies Land's technological determinism by removing human values and ethical constraints from technological development.
Conclusion: Democracy's Existential Challenge
As we've traced Nick Land's dark philosophy from academic obscurity to the corridors of power, a disturbing reality emerges: what once seemed like fringe intellectual provocation has become concrete policy. It is happening now, in real time, reshaping our institutions while most citizens remain unaware of the philosophical blueprint guiding these changes.
The evidence is alarming. When education departments dismantle diversity initiatives, when disaster response becomes fragmented along state wealth lines, when AI development sheds ethical constraints - these aren't isolated policy shifts. They form a coherent pattern, a systematic implementation of Land's vision for accelerating beyond democratic governance.
What should concern us most isn't just that Land's ideas are being implemented, but how seamlessly they've infiltrated mainstream discourse. The language of ‘innovation without barriers,’ ‘government efficiency,’ and ‘market-based solutions’ now masks a deeper agenda: the deliberate erosion of democratic oversight. We're witnessing philosophy weaponised against democracy itself.
Land's accelerationism is an existential challenge to the very concept of human-centred governance. If we fail to recognize and counter this philosophical assault, we risk sleepwalking into a post-democratic reality where human needs are subordinated to technological acceleration and market forces.
Most troubling is the closing window for democratic response. Each institutional dismantling, each regulatory rollback, each fragmentation of governance makes coordinated democratic action more difficult. The very mechanisms we would use to respond are precisely what Land's philosophy targets first.
We stand at a critical juncture. Will we surrender to the seductive narrative of inevitable technological acceleration, accepting the replacement of democratic deliberation with algorithmic governance and market competition? Or will we reclaim technology as a tool for democratic flourishing, insisting that technological development serve human values rather than replace them?
The answer depends on our capacity to recognize the philosophical foundations of contemporary anti-democratic movements and articulate a compelling alternative vision. Democracy's survival requires not just defending existing institutions but reimagining them for a technological age: creating governance frameworks sophisticated enough to harness technological capabilities while preserving human agency and collective decision-making.
As Land's ideas continue their migration from obscure academic texts to government policy, the window for democratic response narrows daily. We face a stark choice: accelerate toward technological feudalism or reclaim our collective future from those who would sacrifice democracy on the altar of technological acceleration. The time for concerned democratic response isn't coming. It’s now.
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
AP News (2025) 'Trump signs executive order on developing artificial intelligence 'free from ideological bias'', 23 January. Available at: https://apnews.com/article/trump-ai-artificial-intelligence-executive-order-eef1e5b9bec861eaf9b36217d547929c [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Bratton, B. (2021) The Revenge of the Real: Politics for a Post-Pandemic World. London: Verso.
Brown, W. (2019) In the Ruins of Neoliberalism: The Rise of Antidemocratic Politics in the West. New York: Columbia University Press.
CBS News (2025) 'Where Trump policies and Project 2025 proposals match up', 3 February. Available at: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-project-2025-playbook/ [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Crawford, K. (2021) Atlas of AI: Power, Politics, and the Planetary Costs of Artificial Intelligence. New Haven: Yale University Press.
DiResta, R. (2018) 'Computational Propaganda: If You Make It Trend, You Make It True', The Yale Review, 106 (4), pp. 12-29.
Executive Order 13771 (2017) 'Reducing Regulation and Controlling Regulatory Costs', Federal Register, 82(22), pp. 9339-9341.
Forbes (2025) 'Here's How Trump's Executive Orders Align With Project 2025 - As He Touts Agenda in Speech to Congress', 5 March. Available at: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alisondurkee/2025/03/05/heres-how-trumps-executive-orders-align-with-project-2025-as-he-touts-agenda-in-speech-to-congress/ [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Fortune (2024) 'How Elon Musk, Sam Altman, and the Silicon Valley elite manipulate public discourse', 17 September. Available at: https://fortune.com/2024/09/17/elon-musk-sam-altman-silicon-valley-elite-manipulate-public/ [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Harvard Gazette (2024) 'QAnon and the Mechanics of Belief', 14 March. Available at: https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2024/03/qanon-and-the-mechanics-of-belief/ [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Ireland, A. (2019) 'Anastrophic Modernism', in Collapse Vol. VIII: Casino Real. Falmouth: Urbanomic, pp. 257-308.
Land, N. (2009) 'Hyperstition: An Introduction', Hyperstition [Blog]. Available at: http://hyperstition.abstractdynamics.org/archives/003345.html [Accessed: 5 April 2023]
Land, N. (2011) 'Making it with Death: Remarks on Thanatos and Desiring-Production', in Fanged Noumena: Collected Writings 1987-2007. Falmouth: Urbanomic, pp. 261-287.
Land, N. (2012) 'The Dark Enlightenment', The Dark Enlightenment [Blog]. Available at: http://www.thedarkenlightenment.com/the-dark-enlightenment-by-nick-land/ [Accessed: 5 April 2023]
Land, N. (2014) 'Patchwork Series', Outside In [Blog]. Available at: http://www.xenosystems.net/patchwork-series/[Accessed: 5 April 2023]
Land, N. (2014) 'Teleoplexy: Notes on Acceleration', in ‘Accelerate: The Accelerationist Reader.’ Falmouth: Urbanomic, pp. 509-520.
Land, N. (2016) 'The Cathedral and the Bazaar', Outside In [Blog], 3 June. Available at: http://www.xenosystems.net/the-cathedral-and-the-bazaar/ [Accessed: 5 April 2023]
Land, N. (2017) 'A Quick-and-Dirty Introduction to Accelerationism', Jacobite, 25 May.
Marketplace (2025) 'AI accelerationists want superhuman intelligence to arrive ASAP', 11 February. Available at: https://www.marketplace.org/2025/02/11/ai-accelerationists-big-tech-guardrails-regulation-artificial-intelligence-policy-musk-openai/ [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
MIT Technology Review (2024) 'The OpenAI Crisis One Year Later: How Safety Lost', 22 November. Available at:https://www.technologyreview.com/2024/11/22/openai-crisis-one-year-later/ [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Mother Jones (2025) 'Trump Wants to Shutter FEMA. Can States Fill Its Shoes?', 31 March. Available at: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2025/03/trump-wants-to-shutter-fema-can-states-fill-its-shoes/ [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
National Law Review (2025) 'Trump's AI Executive Order: A Shift Toward Deregulation', 10 February. Available at: https://natlawreview.com/article/key-insights-president-trumps-new-ai-executive-order-and-policy-regulatory [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Newsweek (2025) 'Who Is Curtis Yarvin? Conservative Linked to JD Vance Wants "Monarchy"', 18 January. Available at: https://www.newsweek.com/who-curtis-yarvin-conservative-linked-jd-vance-wants-monarchy-2017221 [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
NPR (2025) 'Trump wants states to handle disasters. States aren't prepared', 21 March. Available at: https://www.npr.org/2025/03/21/nx-s1-5327595/trump-order-fema-states-disaster-response [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
PBS News (2025) 'The Project 2025 policies the Trump administration is already implementing', 22 February. Available at: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/the-project-2025-policies-the-trump-administration-is-already-implementing[Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Reynolds, S. (2018) 'Renegade Academia: The Cybernetic Culture Research Unit', Medium, 3 November.
Sage Journals (2023) 'Conspiracy Fictioning: QAnon and the Power of Narrative Circulation', Social Media + Society, 9(2), pp. 1-15. Available at: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/20563051231168355 [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
The Guardian (2025) 'Trump signs order to shift disaster preparations from Fema to state and local governments', 18 March. Available at: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/mar/18/trump-executive-order-fema-disaster-preparation [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
The Verge (2024) 'JD Vance thinks monarchists have some good ideas', 16 October. Available at: https://www.theverge.com/2024/10/16/24266512/jd-vance-curtis-yarvin-influence-rage-project-2025 [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
U.S. Department of Education (2025) 'U.S. Department of Education Takes Action to Eliminate DEI', 23 January. Available at: https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-education-takes-action-eliminate-dei[Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Vanity Fair (2023) 'How Musk, Thiel, Zuckerberg, and Andreessen - Four Billionaire Horsemen - Are Pushing an Alternate Autocratic Reality', 22 August. Available at: https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2023/08/musk-thiel-zuckerberg-andreessen-alternate-autocratic-reality [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
WBUR (2025) 'JD Vance and the rise of the 'New Right'', On Point, 5 April. Available at: https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2025/04/05/jd-vance-new-right-curtis-yarvin [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
White House (2025) 'Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence', 23 January. Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/removing-barriers-to-american-leadership-in-artificial-intelligence/ [Accessed: 15 April 2025]
Yarvin, C. (2021) 'A brief explanation of the cathedral', Gray Mirror, 20 January. Available at: