Illustration by Elizabeth Owen.

Editors’ note: Opinion articles published by The Watchdog provide perspectives of the writer separate from general Watchdog reporting.

Born in 1973, Curtis Yarvin is a founding thinker of the political and philosophical movement referred to as the Dark Enlightenment. Influenced by several anti-democratic thinkers, Curtis has expressed that democracy and progressivism, or the support for political reform, are wasteful inefficiencies that erode the social order of natural society.

As for important information about Yarvin, he has rejected the Civil Rights Movement, asserting that certain races are more inclined to servitude than others, further reinforcing this belief with expressions of support for authoritarian regimes and historical dictators.

This, however, is the tip of the iceberg of his controversial beliefs.

Operating under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, Yarvin has called for the destruction of America in what he calls a “reboot.” Wealthy shareholders of large corporations would assume control in our country in order to elect a supreme executive, whose job as a singular entity would be to bow to each and every whim of the newly founded oligarchy as both an enforcer and mouthpiece.

He has also alluded to the actions of Adolf Hitler being justified as a means of “self-defense” of the German people. This piece of writing is not meant to be a slander piece. Allow me to show you where exactly these sentiments become directly concerning for the average American.

While he has spoken on the Trump administration as being a failure for its lack of authoritarian takeovers (that’s right, its lack of), Yarvin has been an official guest of the White House. Yarvin has also been cited as an inspiration for Vice President J.D. Vance, who, inspired by Yarvin, exclaimed that he would advise Trump to reinvent or eliminate our executive branch of government.

Vance said specifically, “We should basically eliminate the administrative state. And I’m sympathetic to that project. But another option is that we should just seize the administrative state for our own purposes.”

Looking at the actions of the current administration, it is clear that, at the very least, some of these sentiments have found their way into its rhetoric and conduct. Vance cited former President Andrew Jackson as an example, stating that when facing legal opposition, the chief executive should simply brush them off.

This shows a blatant disrespect for the American concept of checks and balances. When the inspiration for our administration is an authoritarian elitist, there is serious cause for concern.

That’s Curtis, but what about capital?

In this context, capital is a term used to describe assets and purchasing power within the Capitalistic-American economic framework.

The underlying philosophy behind this system is often cited as meritocracy, the idea that individuals are directly rewarded based on the value they produce for society.

While this can intuitively feel like a good idea, it should be noted that those who conflate capitalism and meritocracy are often criticized for failing to recognize systemic inequalities and the inherited advantages a capitalistic framework offers.

Even if one could look past the inconsistencies between the two, it should be noted that Yarvin believes in a type of caste system. In his vision, no matter how hard someone works, they can never escape the status they are born into, while those with the most capital make decisions for the population through their chosen figurehead.

Regardless of the fact that Vance has openly called Yarvin an inspiration of his, the frightening realization is that these inherently anti-American philosophies in the actions of our current administration are quite present.

Trump’s tariffs, specifically those on lumber, steel and other construction materials have already inflated the price of housing. This aligns with the idea of a caste system, making homeownership more difficult, which allows for an increase in the cost of renting. This, of course, benefits those with the wealth to rent out properties.

As the American dream of financial independence meanders further and further out of reach, we, as a social class, become less powerful. The wealthy, by contrast, at the very least remain unaffected by such policies. Where the profits falter, new opportunities open themselves up to capitalize on the misfortunes of the working people.

If you remember, Yarvin also called for the executive branch to disregard checks and balances, instead opting to assume control for the executive leader. This becomes eerily familiar when we consider all of the court rulings directly ignored by the current administration.  

One could also recall that the passed “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” was marketed by the Trump administration as a bill that would provide significant financial relief to working-class Americans. It should be noted that the bill did more than just that. Depending on the search terms used to look into the bill, an official message from the White House will display a text that the bill was not “just” a tax break for the wealthy.

Let us talk about just what exactly it did for the wealthy. The most notable change (among many) is that certain assets, such as private jets, are now tax-deductible in the first year at 100% value. While the fact that this could also apply to the assets of smaller businesses is a good thing, one must ask oneself, did a private jet, fleets of Amazon trucks, parking garages, etc., need the extra incentive of being 100% deductible, or does this disproportionately benefit the wealthy?

Allow me to draw your attention elsewhere for just a moment: philosopher Martin Heidegger once expressed that when technology does not serve human ends, we should be concerned that it may oppose our own.

This was specifically in reference to technology being concerned with efficiency and not the common good of man. We can, however, extend this idea to the capitalist framework in which we live. 

If the founding principle behind our nation is meritocracy, then why are individuals with the most capital always receiving the most benefit, while the working class’ benefits are consistently reduced?

It is because capitalism, as a framework, a technology of man, is not serving the human end of the common good. It is designed to serve those with the most capital.

What does this have to do with Yarvin, or the current administration? The type of wealthy coup that Yarvin advocates for is only possible through two things, a capitalist system and an executive branch willing to betray the people.

This is what we are seeing today, a disobedient billionaire executive, bankrolled by more billionaires to serve the interests of the wealthy and limit the social mobility of the common people, to enforce a new order. I hesitate to say this is a quick change, or even that it is conscious, though I have my suspicions it is.

The issue lies in the underlying ideology of the Trump administration: small, thinly veiled steps to serve the interests of those whose opportunities and luxuries we can never conceive of. We are only able to make these observations now due to the speed and tenacity that these steps are being taken, nakedly evil in opposition to the people.

This is why, when reduced to simple, almost playful terms, I call this unconcealed evil bad candor.