In Ancient Greece, an “idiot” was someone who did not actively participate in public and political life. Today, such people have found themselves in power in the U.S.—tech billionaires who made their fortunes through technology but lack political experience or a broad worldview. In essence, they are parvenus with money but without culture.  

The Illusion of Uniqueness and the Path to the “Dark Enlightenment”.

Great wealth creates the illusion of personal exceptionalism. At first, a person indulges in extravagance, but soon they begin to seek intellectual justifications for their uniqueness, turning to closed communities and niche ideologies. In the past, such clubs were Masonic lodges, but today, the new intellectual playground for the elite is the Dark Enlightenment—a political-philosophical movement that opposes democracy and liberalism.  

“Dark Enlightenment”: Anti-Democracy for the Tech Elite.

The founder of the Dark Enlightenment is Curtis Yarvin (a blogger under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug), who in his writings advocated abandoning democracy in favor of corporate governance or monarchy. His ideas were later supported by British philosopher Nick Land, who expanded them into a vision of technocratic authoritarianism, based on the following principles:  

Rejection of democracy – democratic institutions are seen as inefficient, populist, and corrupt.  
Elitism and meritocracy – power should belong not to elected politicians but to the most competent technocrats.  
Technocratic governance – decisions should be made by specialists, not by elected representatives.  
Critique of equality – equality is considered an illusion; instead, society should function based on natural hierarchies.  
Reactionary politics – adherence to traditionalism, autocracy, and even monarchy.  

These ideas took hold in Silicon Valley in the 2020s, attracting high-profile followers such as Elon Musk, Peter Thiel, and Marc Andreessen.  

Neoreactionaries and Global Political Struggles.

The Dark Enlightenment became the ideological foundation of the neoreactionary movement (NRx), which envisions a future of authoritarian corporate states, where governance is controlled by technocrats and society is ruled by algorithms.  

By supporting Donald Trump, neoreactionaries actively pushed their agenda into politics, targeting two primary enemies:  

- The U.S. government system – seeking to dismantle democratic governance.  
- Democracy in Europe – supporting far-right movements.  

At the same time, neoreactionaries do not oppose Russia or China, as they find authoritarian regimes ideologically compatible and strategically useful.  

The “Neopeace” for Ukraine.

Neoreactionaries proclaim peace. “The main problem of humanity is violence. The goal is to create a way for people to interact without violence,” Curtis Yarvin writes in his blog. Elon Musk retweets: “Make kids, not war.” 

This mirrors the pacifist rhetoric of American hippies in the late 1960s, who, by protesting against the Vietnam War, ultimately contributed to its end. However, this led to the establishment of a communist regime and the deaths of over half a million people.  

Yet, unlike naive hippies, neoreactionaries use peace slogans to conceal their ideological alignment with authoritarian Russia and their desire to sow chaos in democratic Europe, which will inevitably unfold if Ukraine falls.  

The Future: Three Global Spheres.  

With their vast resources and growing influence, neoreactionaries could reshape the geopolitical landscape of the 21st century, dividing the world into three major blocs:  

1. Democracies – Western nations striving to preserve traditional democratic institutions.  
2. Autocracies – Russia, China, Iran, and other states that have already abandoned democracy.  
3. Neoreactionaries – Technocratic elites seeking to transform democracies into authoritarian corporations where power belongs not to voters but to tech oligarchs.  

Autocracies and neoreactionaries will likely form temporary alliances in their struggle against a common enemy—democracy.