The Dark Enlightment
Three Pillars
Dark Enlightenment
It is time to get acquainted with those who laid the foundations for everything that Donald Trump, during his second presidency, carried out with presidential authorization. In two months, he signed more than 100 orders. Highlighting this is important because the role of lawmakers has become formalized; with few exceptions, they implement everything contained in presidential orders. This could be called an extraordinary (extralegal) state, but that is not the subject of the following writing.
1. The Intellectual Background
It is a mistake to think that Trump’s second presidency came out of “nowhere”: it actually offers a solution to perhaps the most severe crisis (economic, financial, and social) in the last century and a half of the United States. Donald Trump’s return is, in essence, the “solution” to this grave crisis. Whether it will be successful remains to be seen in the future.
Everything that Trump is now implementing rests on three pillars. These may seem unrelated, but if we examine the measures taken in the past two months, the result is a coherent, logically unified concept. It is not worthwhile—because it yields no real results—to analyze the implementation of individual executive orders, as the development of this concept dates back years, and in 2024, it was consolidated into a unified plan and action strategy under the government program titled “Project 2025.”
Let us note the name of the coordinator and author of this nearly thousand-page document: Russell Vought, who is currently responsible for fiscal (i.e., budgetary) matters in the government. His background will be discussed later in the second part of this writing.
2. The Three Pillars of the Regime Change
.
The First Pillar: Curtis Yarvin and Techno-Feudalism
Few people know about the radical right-wing historian Curtis Yarvin (b. 1973) and his concept of implementing techno-feudalism in the United States. According to him, “democracy” is dysfunctional, and the current political institutions hinder the economic and social development of America.
His solution is a single ruler (monarch) whose fundamental principle and main driving force is the profit-driven operation of the state. At the head of the state should stand a corporate CEO-type leader, since corporations are not run based on “democratic” principles. This leader, however, views his “subjects” in a patriarchal manner, meaning individuals are committed to him.
(The idea of profit-driven state administration is not new—it dates back to the second half of the 19th century, precisely to the period when many European states were struggling with severe budgetary difficulties and “impoverishment.”)
“Run the State Like a Business”.
Yarvin believes that maintaining a state bureaucracy (i.e., tens of thousands of public servants) is completely unnecessary. Most of their functions should be privatized and made profit-oriented.
The ruler governs on a patriarchal basis (similar to absolute monarchies of the 17th–18th centuries), and his sole important duty is to ensure public welfare, executed by an apparatus in a profitable, cost-saving manner.
A single ruler operating under a profit-driven monarchy would, in Yarvin’s view, make the federal government far more efficient and functional than it is today. He argues that Americans’ aversion to autocratic, single-person rule is outdated and should be eliminated. Since technology makes this possible, societal welfare should be ensured in a way similar to that of the 17th–18th-century Cameralists.
Cameralism, a product of European absolutism, focused on state-led economic management, administrative professionalization, and public welfare. It was particularly influential in Prussia, Austria, Sweden, and Spain, and even inspired 19th-century Japanese modernization efforts. The science used to be named in German, Kameralwissenschaft.
Yarvin envisions a state without politics—the ruler entrusts governance solely to technocratic experts (more on this later) to ensure stability and prosperity. The guiding principle of state affairs is profit and shareholder interests. If a privately owned company operates at a loss, it either shuts down or relocates to a profitable area.
Ultimately, Yarvin asserts that the liberal political system of past decades has resulted in recurring anarchy and severe waste, harming society as a whole. This must be ended as soon as possible.
The Second Pillar: Silicon Valley Technocrats
Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk (owner of X), Peter Thiel (founder of PayPal), and Mark Zuckerberg have played a role in shaping and implementing decisions from the beginning of Trump’s second presidency—not just due to their accumulated wealth, but because of their techno-utopian visions.
Like Yarvin, they aim to dismantle most democratic political institutions. While they modify Yarvin’s ideas slightly, Musk and Bezos, for example, propose extending the corporate, hierarchical leadership model to experimental city-states (such as Bezos’s floating cities concept) or even to space colonization (Musk’s Mars plans).
These powerful technocrats believe that all human problems and conflicts can be solved through modern technology. For instance, Bezos’s Technate vision suggests that America’s expansion (naturally on a profit-driven basis) is feasible. A key element of this is integrating Greenland and Canada into the new American monarchy.
To summarize: the new reactionaries are convinced that the French Revolution destroyed everything that Enlightened Absolutism (as interpreted by Elon Musk and Curtis Yarvin) created as the only rational, efficient form of central governance.Therefore, a return to the “fundamentals” is necessary, as liberal democracy is outdated and dysfunctional.
The Third Pillar
Alongside Curtis Yarvin and the now billionaire technocrats of Silicon Valley, the third pillar of this coherent vision is Christian nationalism. This is not merely an ideology but also a widespread practice across many U.S. states, particularly in educational institutions.
The fundamental idea of Christian nationalism is that America was originally a Christian nation and must therefore return to one of (if not the) most important value systems of true American traditions. (Although this contradicts the religious diversity of the population that emigrated to America from all over the world, this is considered an insignificant detail in this context.) The movement began in the second half of the 1970s, but the past decade has demonstrated that Christian nationalism is an excellent “neutralizer” of the fact that the majority of the American population is no longer Caucasian (white).
The rapid spread of Christian nationalism in America began in the 1970s. At first glance, Christian nationalism seems to contradict the profit-oriented principle of a state run as a corporation, but this is not the case. The patriotic Christian citizen sees it as a religious duty to manage the resources entrusted to them efficiently because they believe that God has assigned them this responsibility. Wastefulness is to be avoided for religious reasons, and profit is seen as the well-earned reward of believers. Since the 1990s, this religious movement has advocated shifting responsibilities traditionally handled by the state (education, healthcare, welfare) to religious organizations and individual accountability. Faith is the foundation of everything, and this should be reflected not only in schools but also in individuals’ moral imperatives and actions. Finally, it cannot be a coincidence that Russel Voight (earlier mentioned) is also a Christian nationalist.
Yarvin’s and the technocrats’ vision does not contradict this, as it is well known that all Christian religious organizations operate based on strict hierarchical structures—just like Yarvin’s and the technocrats’ vision for the society of the near future. Social peace and order can only be established by Christian leaders. Christian nationalism preaches self-reliance rather than reliance on state institutions; a devout Christian should always be accountable for their actions and failures.
The movement’s leaders argue that the liberal state’s separation from religious organizations has led to the expansion of the so-called “deep state” in America, which they see as highly destructive. Bureaucracy is considered part of this deep state and must be dismantled. These organizations uniformly oppose unrestricted (gender) freedom, abortion rights, the LGBTQ movement, and the rights of its members. The expansion of freedom is only acceptable in business.
According to Christian nationalists, the free market operates within moral constraints and should not be interfered with by the state, just as the state should not interfere with religious organizations. Churches and other religious organizations mobilize voters during elections, which contradicts the principle of secularism (separation of church and state), but Christian nationalists argue that this is merely a return to true American traditions. Moral commands are religious commands, and these must be implemented throughout the educational system. The movement opposes state-run educational institutions because its members believe that a patriotic Christian citizen must raise their children in a truly religious and Christian moral framework. This responsibility falls on religious families, and thus the recently “dismantled” Department of Education has shifted the burden of religious education and moral teaching to individuals.
The “Moral Majority” movement, present in almost every U.S. state for the past three decades, has significantly contributed to the spread of anti-abortion movements and the transformation of educational curricula and institutions. It was during this period that Christian summer camps spread across America. Although some documentaries have captured the “education” taking place in these camps, no one suspected (or did they?) that this movement would soon become one of the main supporters of the current regime change.
The enforcement of Christian nationalism is carried out by the “Family-Centered” movement, the Family Research Council, and the Alliance Defending Freedom. Indirectly, the Heritage Foundation is also associated with this movement, maintaining excellent relations with Viktor Orbán and some of his experts. This foundation played a significant role in preparing and financing Project 2025. It has been present for decades in university departments and research centers, particularly in law schools, promoting the principle that the most important laws originate from God. Incidentally, two-thirds of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices pursued their legal studies thanks to the direct or indirect support of the Heritage Foundation. The movement also possesses a vast media network and lobbyists within Congress.
Who financially supports the Christian nationalist movement?
David and Charles Koch have contributed $100 million, while Tim Dunn and Farris Wilks (both from Texas) directly support right-wing Christian politicians. The Mercer family is also a significant donor. (Anyone seeking more information about them can find everything on the internet.) The largest donor to the movement is Sheldon Adelson, who has contributed over $400 million since 2016 to support the Christian nationalist wing of the Republican Party. The owners of Pizza Hut and Domino’s, as well as Amway Co., all oppose state “intervention” and therefore donate to Christian nationalist organizations and politicians.
Thus, there is no contradiction or conflict between Yarvin’s monarchy model, the profit-oriented state of the techno-oligarchs, and the ideas of Christian nationalism. There are far more commonalities between the representatives of these three pillars than differences. At most, the method of implementation may vary, though this remains uncertain for now.
Regarding my sources: I must first mention Iain Davis’s fantastic analyses, as he was the first to describe the intellectual and financial background of the Trump administration in an impressive study—The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate — Part 1 and The Dark MAGA Gov-Corp Technate — Part 2. I have also greatly benefited from the analyses of Aaron Maté and Chris Hedges. Finally, more than a decade earlier, I co-authored with Mark Metzler (University of Washington, Seattle) a book proposal on Cameralism in Europe and in Japan, thus I can offer any time an in depth analytical framework on Yarvin`s neocameralist vision.
Katalin Ferber
Berlin