I could probably spend a few posts on this one, but basically I don’t think there is a coherent ideology here. But of course, when it comes to politics, that doesn’t really matter. What matters much more is who is motivated by a set of loosely related, sometimes contradictory semi-ideas, how powerful the motivated people are, and what actions they choose to take. And as you may see if I really get into it, some of the people potentially motivated by this mess of ideas include Elon Musk and J.D. Vance.

Let’s start with Curtis Yarvin, aka “Mencius Moldbug”. Here is how a July 2024 Politico article describes him:

Yarvin doesn’t hold any official title or office — he is an ex-computer programmer turned blogger, having first risen to prominence on the online right in the 2010s while blogging under the pseudonym “Mencius Moldbug.” But he’s often cited as the “house philosopher” of the New Right, chiefly for his promotion of the “neo-reactionary” (or “NRx”) movement…

Like Deneen, Yarvin and his NRx followers reject the quest for “progress” as the core of political life. As Yarvin told Vanity Fair in 2022, “The fundamental premise of liberalism is that there is this inexorable march toward progress. I disagree with that premise.” Instead, Yarvin believes that American democracy has denigrated into a corrupt oligarchy, run by elites who strive to consolidate their power rather than serve the public interest. The solution, Yarvin argues, is for the American oligarchy to give way to a monarchical leader styled after a start-up CEO — a “national CEO,” [or] what’s called a dictator,” as Yarvin has put it — who can de-bug the American political order like a computer programmer de-bugging some bad code…

Vance has said he considers Yarvin a friend and has cited his writings in connection with his plan to fire a significant number of civil servants during a potential second Trump administration.

But get into the Wikipedia entry on Yarvin and there is some darker stuff.

Yarvin has been described as a “neo-reactionary”, “neo-monarchist” and “neo-feudalist” who “sees liberalism as creating a Matrix-like totalitarian system, and who wants to replace American democracy with a sort of techno-monarchy”.^{[11][12][13][14]} He has defended the institution of slavery, and has suggested that certain races may be more naturally inclined toward servitude than others.^[3][15] He has claimed that whites have higher IQs than black people, and opposes US civil rights programs.

Yarvin has influenced some prominent Silicon Valley investors and Republican politicians, with venture capitalist Peter Thiel described as his “most important connection”.^[16] Political strategist Steve Bannon has read and admired his work.^[17] U.S. Vice President JD Vance “has cited Yarvin as an influence himself”.^[18][19][20] Michael Anton, the State Department Director of Policy Planning during Trump’s second presidency, has also discussed Yarvin’s ideas.^[2] In January 2025, Yarvin attended a Trump inaugural gala in Washington; Politico reported he was “an informal guest of honor” due to his “outsize[d] influence over the Trumpian right”.,,^[21]

Yarvin argues for a “neo-cameralist” philosophy based on Frederick the Great of Prussia’s cameralism.^[43] In Yarvin’s view, democratic governments are inefficient and wasteful and should be replaced with sovereign joint-stock corporations whose “shareholders” (large owners) elect an executive with total power, but who must serve at their pleasure.^[40] The executive, unencumbered by liberal-democratic procedures, could rule efficiently much like a CEO-monarch.^[40] Yarvin admires Chinese leader Deng Xiaoping for his pragmatic and market-oriented authoritarianism, and the city-state of Singapore as an example of a successful authoritarian regime. He sees the US as soft on crime, dominated by economic and democratic delusions.^[39]

The guy doesn’t seem like a nice guy to me, but I will at least say on his behalf that he has publicly renounced racism and anti-Semitism.

It’s not too hard to imagine the so-called “tech bros” thinking that an artificial intelligence could serve as a benevolent dictator. But even if we had a robot dictator, some human or group of humans would have to initially decide the ground rules for “benevolence”.