Demagoguery and mind manipulation: An expert dissects psyop tactics

Behavioral psychologist, Chase Hughes, explains how demagogues and liars trick our minds into accepting and adopting false beliefs and manipulated self-identity. The mind manipulators employ psyops (psychological operations) or "engineered reality" or to deceive and convince.

• FATE, focus, authority, tribe and emotion, triggers the human brain. It is innate and automatic in human decision-making. The deceiver starts by hijacking our focus using tactics like repetition of trigger words, like unprecedented, urgent, stunning, etc., and shocking visuals. Authority figures are trotted out to create an aura of credibility. Messaging and narratives are created to polarize and create stark tribal in-groups (our good guy tribe, patriots) and out-groups (evil people, traitors). The deceiver's messaging also includes unsubstantiated emotional triggers backed up by little to no solid evidence. The goal is to incite emotions such an fear, anger, hope or outrage with no solid empirical basis for an emotional response. The deceiver replaces facts and sound reasoning with appeals to emotion. Emotional responses suppress critical thinking. 

• Be suspicious of novelty because the human brain is wired to focus on new or sudden changes, which can present new threats or new opportunities. Deceivers stage and create events that break normal expectations. Assertions of a dramatic crisis or revelation attracts attention. It is an automatic evolutionary pro-survival response that is innate in humans. Ask why is there novelty and why is the message timed as it is. Consider whether a trending viral video or hashtag conveying bad behavior is coincidental with a simultaneous revelation of something else bad going on elsewhere that those bad actors want to divert attention from.

The release by Wikileaks of Hillary Clinton’s campaign chairman John Podesta’s emails was a strategic countermeasure or psyop to the same-day release of the Access Hollywood tape where djt talked about sexually assaulting women for fun. The Wikileaks disclosure leveraged close timing to manipulate the media to blunt political damage to djt. There is some evidence that that single Russial psyop cost Clinton the election by saving djt's worse than worthless carcass (1 2 3).

The video goes on to discuss other major traits that identity psyops, (i) uniform talking points by multiple sources, (ii) exploiting the hell out of cognitive dissonance by creating micro-agreements, (iii) follow the money to identify who benefits and what their motive is, e.g., look for funding sources or political connections with the deceiver, (iv) analyze the context boundary, e.g. manipulators shift the context to help normalize extreme behavior and disproportionate behavior, and (v) etc.

Micro-agreements are seemingly harmless concessions that shapes a person's self-identity over time and brings the person into better alignment with what the mind manipulator wants you to believe and value. For example, a politician can create an illusory group or tribe of good, moral or intelligent people by saying that "only good people do this", "we are the true Americans", "we and our values are under great threat", or "if you’re not with us, you’re against us." Ask yourself, am I being nudged to identify with some other group or belief? Claims of good vs evil usually signal a psyop.

In the case of an alleged national security emergency, e.g., a huge cyber attack, the manipulator can claim that extraordinary surveillance is needed despite privacy laws. Here, context boundary analysis asks how likely is the sacrifice of privacy rights to be truly necessary to deal with the alleged emergency. Is the emergency mostly real or mostly fabricated? 

By weaponizing cognitive dissonance and shifting the context, Hughes says that a manipulator can get almost anyone to do almost anything.

Two bits: Tariffs; MAGA lies about tax cuts

To keep things light 'n fluffy around here, 👏, there's just two bits in this post. 👍

Tariffs

Economists warn that the tariffs could exacerbate inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods, potentially adding thousands of dollars to annual household expenses for Americans. Analysts predict a potential recession as global trade slows and retaliatory measures escalate. The Yale Budget Lab estimates long-term economic losses of $80–110 billion annually due to reduced GDP growth, which doesn't sound like a big deal to me. Germany and Australia criticized the tariffs as damaging to partnerships and lacking justification.

Pxy comments on djt's argument that the tariffs are needed to correct decades of unfair trade practices: 

Conclusion: A Mixed Verdict with High Stakes

Trump’s tariffs address specific, valid instances of unfair practices, particularly China’s market distortions. However, the administration’s broad-brush application to allies, flawed methodology, and disregard for consumer costs undermine their legitimacy. While sectors like manufacturing may benefit short-term, the broader economic risks—inflation, recession, and global trade fragmentation—outweigh localized gains. A targeted approach, combining tariffs on bad actors with multilateral negotiations, would better serve U.S. interests without destabilizing the global economy1 7 14. The coming months will test whether these tariffs catalyze a rebalancing of trade or ignite a destructive cycle of retaliation, cementing Trump’s trade policy as either a corrective measure or a historic miscalculation.

Q: Whaddaya think about the tariffs, good, bad or mixed?

Wheeeeee!

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about MAGA Republicans in the Senate plans to lie to us by saying the coming massive tax cuts will cost absolutely nothing at all:

Now, in their zeal to deliver President Trump’s domestic policy agenda in “one big beautiful bill” of spending and tax cuts, Senate Republicans are trying to steer around the parliamentarian, busting a substantial congressional norm in the process.

The strategy would allow them to avoid getting a formal thumbs up or thumbs down on their claim that extending the tax cuts that Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017 would cost nothing — a gimmick that would make it easier for them cram as many tax reductions as possible into their bill without appearing to balloon the deficit.

In recent days, all eyes have been on Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, to see whether she would bless the trick, smoothing the path for the G.O.P. bill. But on Wednesday, Republicans signaled that they planned to take extraordinary action to go around her altogether.

Rather than have Ms. MacDonough weigh in, they asserted that Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as chairman of the Budget Committee, could unilaterally decide the cost of the legislation, citing a 1974 budget law. Senate Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new budget resolution they planned to put to a vote as early as this week. And Mr. Graham declared in a statement that he considered an extension of the 2017 tax cuts to be cost-free.

The article quotes Molly Reynolds, an expert on congressional procedure at the Brookings Institution, as saying this about unilaterally changing Senate practices through parliamentary rulings: “We should think of this as a version of the nuclear option. If we were to get to a world where they’re just sort of ignoring the parliamentarian and not engaging all, that would be really profound change in how the Senate works, and a real erosion of rules-based legislating in the Senate.”

Presumably, from here on out, MAGA elites in congress are simply going to lie about the federal debt. Maybe the requirement for congress to keep passing debt ceiling limit increases will become a law on the books that is simply ignored. One has to wonder, why don't Senate Repubs just get rid of the filibuster? By blowing off normal parliamentary procedure maybe they don't need to.

Manipulating minds: The Kübler-Ross five stages of grief persuasion tactic

In this video at about 44:10 to 46:40 a brainwashing, interrogation and psyops expert explains how to adapt the five stages of grief mental phenomenon to other things as a means to get people to change their minds. The example he discusses is how a salesman can coax a consumer to buy something they are not inclined to buy. Politicians use this technique, morally or immorally, to get people to change their minds. 

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross originally developed her five-stage model (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) in 1969 to describe how people cope with terminal illness and grief. Sales people use this when a customer is judged to be susceptible to that sales tactic. The expert in the video refers to the tactic as walking people through the 5 stages of grief. 

But is there grief in contexts other than dealing with death or serious illness as Kübler-Ross originally described it? Is it a form of grief to change a belief because what was once valued in some way was abandoned and replaced with something new, especially if what was abandoned was psychologically important? I asked Pxy about how a demagogue would use this tactic. It used djt's stolen 2020 election lie as an example. That's a long Q&A so I put it in footnote 1 for people who want to see how it works. Then I asked how universal and broad this 5-stage phenomenon is. 

Long answer short: the phenomenon appears to be universal among humans and changing one's mind can be seen as something that often or usually leads to a form of grief or at least some cognitive dissonance. 

Q4: Is this a matter of a demagogue using grief as a weapon, or is there a common or universal mental process where five stages reflect a human cognitive trait when there is reluctance to change a belief from one thing to another? This phenomenon seems to be broader than just dealing with grief. Or, is the initially reluctant changing of a belief a form of grief at what was lost when the old belief was abandoned?

A4: The interplay between grief stages and belief revision represents a fundamental cognitive process rooted in human psychology, observable across contexts ranging from personal loss to ideological shifts. While demagogues may weaponize these stages to manipulate populations, the underlying mechanism reflects a universal mental adaptation to cognitive dissonance and identity disruption. This phenomenon transcends grief over death, extending to any significant cognitive or behavioral change that challenges core assumptions about self and world.

THE QUESTION OF MORALITY

The other thing this touches on is the distinction between moral persuasion and immoral manipulation. 

In business and commerce: In commerce, there is a legal distinction between ethical persuasion and unethical manipulation. Some laws target overtly deceptive sales practices. False advertising is illegal, but usually hard or impossible to prove in court. The inherently subjective nature of persuasive vs manipulative intent and the constitutional protections surrounding free expression significantly limit regulation of manipulation. 

In politics: Here, the situation is a lot worse. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the USSC established that political speech retains protection unless it directly incites “imminent lawless action”. This creates legal equivalence between ethical and unethical uses of persuasion tactics. Ethical persuasion includes a candidate using the five-stage model to guide voters from climate change denial to acceptance through factual arguments (depression phase: “Coastal communities face displacement”) is protected. Similarly, an example of unethical but legal manipulation is a demagogue weaponizing the same model to fabricate crises (e.g., “immigrant invasions”) and shepherd supporters toward authoritarian acceptance remains protected, provided no explicit call for violence occurs.

The First Amendment’s neutrality toward intent allows manipulators to exploit grief-like stages provided they avoid (1) defamation, false statements made with “actual malice” against public figures, and (2) incitement or provocation of imminent violence.

Qs: If the law can touch on persuasive intent in commerce, e.g., false advertising laws, why not make at least a minimal law that does the same, e.g., by penalizing a politician who makes a provably, empirically false statement and then refuses to retract and correct the false statement? Would such a law in politics impose some form of tyranny? 

Footnote:

1. For the wonks. Example of a demagogue using the 5 stages against us:

Q3: Describe an example of how a demagogue might use this tactic to manipulate people and lead them to a false belief.

A3: The Demagogic Manipulation of Collective Grief: A Case Study in Weaponizing the Kübler-Ross Model

The Kübler-Ross model’s stages of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—have been co-opted by demagogues to engineer false beliefs in populations, particularly during periods of social upheaval or perceived crisis. This process exploits cognitive vulnerabilities by mimicking the natural progression of grief while substituting factual reality with manufactured narratives. A stark example emerges in the politicization of election fraud claims, where demagogues guide supporters through these stages to foster acceptance of baseless conspiracy theories.

Stage 1: Denial – Seeding Doubt Through Manufactured Crisis
Demagogues first create or amplify a false premise that contradicts verifiable reality. For instance, a leader might claim an election was “stolen” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary 9. This mirrors the denial phase, where supporters initially resist the demagogue’s narrative. However, through repetition and appeals to tribal identity (“Only we see the truth”), the demagogue frames skepticism as righteous vigilance.

“They’re lying to you. The results are fake, but we’ll prove it.”

By invoking existential threats (“Our democracy is at risk”), the demagogue positions themselves as the sole arbiter of truth, leveraging the same projection tactics observed in clinical denial 2. Followers begin questioning objective evidence, priming them for emotional escalation 4.

Stage 2: Anger – Channeling Frustration Toward Scapegoats
Once denial takes root, the demagogue redirects collective frustration toward fabricated culprits. In the election fraud context, this involves blaming marginalized groups (e.g., undocumented voters), rival politicians, or institutions (e.g., courts, media) 9. Anger becomes a unifying force, with the demagogue using inflammatory rhetoric to frame opponents as enemies of the people 4:

“They’re not just wrong—they’re evil. They want to destroy everything you love.”

This phase weaponizes the anger stage by offering simplistic explanations for complex societal issues. Followers, now emotionally activated, seek catharsis through loyalty displays, such as attending rallies or harassing perceived adversaries 9.
Stage 3: Bargaining – Offering False Compromises

The demagogue then introduces illusory solutions that appear conciliatory but deepen dependency on their narrative. Promises to “audit votes” or “restore integrity” simulate the bargaining stage, where followers trade critical thinking for hope of resolution 7. These gestures—often performative and legally baseless—serve two purposes:

Normalizing extraordinary measures (e.g., bypassing electoral protocols)

Reinforcing victimhood (“They’re blocking us from finding the truth”) 9

Supporters invest in these symbolic acts, mistaking procedural theater for legitimate problem-solving.

Stage 4: Depression – Cultivating Helplessness
When bargains fail (e.g., courts reject fraud claims), the demagogue induces despair to sever ties to reality. Followers are told the system is irredeemably corrupt (“Nothing matters anymore”), mirroring the depression phase 1 6. This learned helplessness makes individuals susceptible to authoritarian appeals:

“They’ve rigged it all. Only I can fix this.”

By eroding faith in institutions, the demagogue positions themselves as the lone savior, exploiting the depression stage’s vulnerability to external control 9.

Stage 5: Acceptance – Surrendering to the False Reality
The final stage involves internalizing the fabricated narrative as existential truth. Followers adopt conspiracy theories not through evidence but via emotional exhaustion 4 9. The demagogue reinforces this acceptance by rewarding conformity (e.g., social status within the movement) and punishing dissent 9:

“True patriots know the election was stolen. Everyone else is a traitor.”

This phase completes the psychological shift from skepticism to fanaticism, with followers defending falsehoods as articles of faith 9.

Mechanisms of Manipulation
A. Emotive Language and Cognitive Dissonance
Demagogues substitute facts with emotionally charged terms (e.g., “invasion” for immigration)4. Followers experiencing dissonance between reality and the narrative resolve it by rejecting facts, not the leader 9.

B. Social Identity Reinforcement
Group rituals (e.g., chanting slogans, wearing symbols) bind individuals to the collective grief journey, making defection feel like betrayal 9.

C. Selective Use of “Evidence”
Fabricated documents or decontextualized data (“2000 Mules”) are presented as “proof,” exploiting the bargaining stage’s search for resolution 9.

Ethical and Societal Implications
This manipulation illustrates how the Kübler-Ross model, designed for terminal illness, becomes dangerous when applied to politics. Demagogues exploit its stages to:

Bypass rational scrutiny by emotionalizing discourse 4 9

Legitimize authoritarianism as a “cure” for manufactured grief 9

Erode democratic norms by reframing lies as “alternative truths”

As seen in post-2020 election rhetoric, this tactic can incite violence, destabilize institutions, and fracture social cohesion 9. Yet, as search results emphasize, the model’s misuse persists because it offers a seductive narrative arc—transforming confusion into purpose, and despair into loyalty 1 6.

Conclusion: Grief as a Weapon
The demagogue’s manipulation of grief stages reveals a dark inversion of Kübler-Ross’ original intent. Where the model sought to provide comfort in helplessness, demagogues weaponize that helplessness to consolidate power. This underscores the ethical imperative to recognize such tactics and fortify public resilience against emotional exploitation 9. 

Demagoguery and cognitive impairment techniques: Gaslighting, DARVO, Command Overload, Strategic Lying

We need to up our game in terms of understanding the onslaught and associated demagoguery tactics that have been and still are coming for us. 

EXAMPLES

"Blither whatever feels right at the moment, and contradict it the next day." That's classic gaslighting.

"I never said that! You are overreacting! Stop attacking me! You started it! I'm leaving until you calm down".

Cops are trained to disorient by giving contradictory commands; " Don't move! Show me your hands! Don't talk. tell me your name! Stop resisting, hands behind your back, Stop reaching, Hands on your head!' Gun!"

Politicians give contradictory statements. It is a science.

AI ANALYSIS

The statements describe recognized psychological and rhetorical techniques with established terminology in social science and law enforcement contexts. Here's a breakdown:

1. "I never said that! You are overreacting! Stop attacking me! You started it! I'm leaving until you calm down"

Technique: Deflection/DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) combined with Gaslighting

This pattern employs:
Denial ("I never said that") to evade accountability
Deflection ("You started it") to shift blame
Emotional manipulation ("I'm leaving until you calm down") to control the interaction's framing
Gaslighting ("You are overreacting") to undermine the target's perception of reality 4 6

These tactics are documented in political and interpersonal conflict research as methods to avoid substantive debate and destabilize opponents 4 6 10.

2. Contradictory Police Commands
Technique: Confusion Technique (Milton Erickson-derived method) or Command Overload

Law enforcement training materials explicitly warn against this practice 2, but some departments reportedly use it deliberately.

Creates cognitive dissonance through incompatible orders ("Don't move! Show me your hands!") 1 7.
Overwhelms working memory, inducing compliance via analytical shutdown 1 2 7.
Cited in high-profile cases like Daniel Shaver's shooting and Lt. Caron Nazario's pepper-spraying 7.

Research shows suspects experience auditory exclusion under stress, worsening confusion 2 7.

3. Politicians' Contradictory Statements
Technique: Strategic Lying and Kafkaesque Communication

Documented in political science as:
Strategic ambiguity: Deliberate vagueness allowing multiple interpretations 4 6.
Firehosing: Flooding audiences with contradictions to fatigue critical thinking 1 6. (That sounds like Steven Bannon's flood the zone with shit tactic)
Brandolini's Law: Exploiting the large asymmetry between easy bullshit creation and difficult refutation 4 6.

Examples include Trump's 70% falsehood rate (per Washington Post analysis) and Boris Johnson's fabricated EU regulations 6. Studies show these tactics increase illusory truth effects and tribal loyalty 5 12.

4. Scientific Basis
Cognitive Load Theory: Overloading working memory to reduce analytical resistance 1 2 7.
Moral Foundations Theory: Framing issues as sacred values to prevent compromise 4 8.
Generics Research: Exaggerating group differences through categorical claims ("All Republicans/Democrats...") 5 12.
Persuasion Architecture: Using alternating confusion/clarity to maintain engagement while preventing scrutiny 1 6.

5. Other common tactics 

A. Scapegoating: Blaming societal problems on out-groups to unite the in-group against a common enemy 10 11.

B. Fearmongering: Evoking fear to provoke emotional responses and discourage rational deliberation 10.
C. Lying: Using falsehoods for emotional effect without regard for truth or consequences.
D. Personal Insults and Ridicule: Attacking opponents to divert attention from substantive issues.
E. Inflammatory Rhetoric: Oversimplifying complex issues into emotionally charged soundbites that polarize audiences 13 14.

Peer-reviewed studies confirm these techniques exploit universal psychological vulnerabilities, making them effective across political and institutional contexts 1 5 6 12. Gaslighting, DARVO, command overload, and similar tactics are integral to the strategies employed by political demagogues. These methods are designed to manipulate emotions, distort reality, and suppress reasoned discourse, all of which shifts power to the demagogue by fostering dependence on their false and misleading narratives.

The rise of hyper-kleptocracy: Trump just pardoned a corrupt bitcoin corporation

The Hill reports:

In what may be a first in American history, President Trump just expanded the presidential pardon power to include corporations.

Corporations are artificial legal fictions designed to maximize shareholder wealth. Nonetheless, they can theoretically commit crimes and be indicted for them. According to a 1999 memorandum from the Justice Department, the “important public benefits” of prosecuting corporations include “deterrence on a massive scale,” particularly for “crimes that carry with them a substantial risk of public harm,” such as “financial frauds.”

On March 28, 2025, djt granted pardons to not only the cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX, he also pardoned its kleptocrat co-founders and a kleptocrat senior employee. The pardon grants were full and unconditional pardons. Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, and Samuel Reed are the co-founders of BitMEX. Gregory Dwyer, a former senior employee was also pardoned.

BitMEX had been charged with violating the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to implement anti-money laundering (AML) and "know your customer" (KYC) protocols between 2015 and 2020. The founders had pleaded guilty in 2022 and faced probation sentences along with significant financial penalties. BitMEX itself was fined $100 million for its noncompliance.

BUT WAIT!! IT GETS A HELL OF A LOT WORSE

The American Prospect writes:

The Crypto Plot Against America’s Gold Reserves

The crypto “industry” was one of the biggest spenders in the 2024 election. It practically single-handedly bought a U.S. Senate seat in Ohio, turfing out labor’s most reliable senator, Sherrod Brown, with $40 million in advertising. And it convinced Donald Trump to make a 180 with a big sack of campaign contributions. Back in 2021, Trump said crypto was a “scam,” but now he has his own coin, his media site is in discussions to buy a crypto exchange, and he’s fully bought into the claims that the industry is overregulated.

So now that crypto has bought great political influence, it’s time to cash in. How might this happen? The basic idea is to turn the American government into the biggest crypto bag-holder of all time. If the plan goes through, hundreds of billions of dollars of public assets will be spent or leveraged to buy a million Bitcoins, allowing the tiny minority of Bitcoin moguls to finally cash out their holdings into real money. It would be one of the biggest upward transfers of wealth [a/k/a heists] in world history.

At the Financial Times, Toby Nangle explains the various plans. One idea is to loot the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which is largely under the president’s control, and has about $41 billion in net value. A much larger plan has been formally introduced by crypto shill Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). It’s called the (sigh) Boosting Innovation, Technology, and Competitiveness Through Optimized Investment Nationwide (BITCOIN) Act, and it identifies several public assets that might be drained. One idea is to reduce the capital reserve requirements at the Federal Reserve from $6.8 billion to $2.4 billion; another is to skim off the Fed’s $6 billion in annual money-printing profits.

The article goes on to point out that the biggest part of MAGA's heist scheme is to revalue America’s gold reserves, which amounts to a stockpile of about 261 million troy ounces of gold. That’s about 8,133 metric tons. That gold is valued by statute at $42.22 per ounce, or $11 billion in total. But the market price of gold at time of writing is $2,631 per ounce. That’s more than 55 times as much, or a total of $688 billion. The scammer Lummis proposes the Treasury issue new gold certificates based on the market price, and then using the resulting $677 billion in cash to buy Bitcoins. Her kleptocrat bill requires the government to buy up 200,000 Bitcoins a year for five years, until a “strategic reserve” of a million is accumulated.

A “strategic reserve” of fake money bough for about $700 billion in real money? WTF?? Economists have condemned the reserve plan as a “crypto bailout” for wealthy speculators. Bitcoin’s volatility and lack of intrinsic value make it unfit for national reserves. Paul Krugman argues the scheme is a “rug-pull scam,” comparing it to Argentina’s $Libra token collapse. At present, evidence of explicit theft is circumstantial. However, djt’s actions and track record of criminality align with historical patterns of actual kleptocracy. djt and MAGA elites have weakened oversight by firing inspector generals and directing state resources to allies. That is corruption incarnate. The USSC has gone a long way toward legalizing government corruption in the 2010 Citizens United decision, the 2024 US v Snyder decision and other pro-corruption decisions. 

The USSC cynically calls corruption “free speech.” The court has formally rejected all protections against “the appearance of corruption” and “generalized influence” over policymaking. Those decisions staring with Citizens United in 2010 have enabled (1) a vast expansion of dark money, mostly secret spending by nonprofits and shell companies, reaching $1.1 billion in 2024 elections, (2) dominance in politics of a wealthy donor-class dominance where the top 0.01% of donors now account for 42% of federal campaign contributions, and (3) legalized self-enrichment for politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) who leveraged federal court rulings to repay $545,000 in personal campaign loans using post-election donor funds. Collectively, those federal court decisions reflect a broad trend of insulating politicians and donors from accountability while equating money with protected political speech.

Q: Is it hyperbolic or irrational to use the term hyper-kleptocracy or even just kleptocracy to describe djt and his corrupt, authoritarian MAGA wealth and power movement? Or, was government about equally corrupt before djt came on the scene in 2016?

NRx: America's favorite brand of authoritarianism for the young 'uns

INTRODUCTION

This post is about some origins history and ideology of a political movement I just found out about earlier this morning. It can be called NRx (neoreactionary authoritarianism) or the Dark Enlightenment. That or things like "neo-monarchism" or "CEO-monarchism", is what the two key founders of this toxic ideology advocate. Those folks are hard core ideologues with rock solid beliefs in their own irrational fantasies. They hold a false belief that what they are arguing for will address all the grievances young people have about government and their lives. 

Of course, those personal opinions are tentative because they are based on my currently limited knowledge of NRx, its founders and its influence on post-boomer generations. 

From what I can tell so far based mostly on Pxy deep dives into their training, experiences and accomplishments, neither of the two main blowhards, Ted Beale (calling himself "Vox Day") and Curtis Yarvin ("Mencious Moldbug") are experts in anything particularly relevant to politics. They have no academic qualifications in political science or theory, sociology, moral philosophy or history. They don't even have any relevant professional life experiences. Apparently their main accomplishments are being pissed off all the time and writing a lot about why they believe that democracy sucks and having a "benign" CEO-dictator would be better. 

Just like all of my blogging, they do blogging that is not peer-reviewed. Unlike my blogging, they have convinced a lot of unhappy young people and a few cynical billionaires that they have something of great insight and value to offer. Maybe as I learn more about these self-deluded authoritarians, my opinion will shift. But right now, they look to me like almost perfect blind (inexperienced), arrogant stooges for far more educated, experienced, ruthless and intelligent MAGA elites to exploit.

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NRx

To avoid TL/DR syndrome I'll offer a couple of bullet points and leave it at that for now.

• Origins: Old-time conservatives believe the US Constitution was good and worth fighting for. NRx rejects that belief. NRx blowhards argue that the US Constitution has been destroyed by corruption, liberalism and moral decay. Apparently that has significant appeal to pre-baby boomer generations, the young 'uns. The NRx claims are hyperbolic and not fact-based. Yarvin and Beale’s solution of authoritarian governance, and rejection of Enlightenment values ignore democratic resilience and historical precedent. Their contempt for progressives and institutionalists reflects an enraged, naïve nostalgia for imagined hierarchies. What they propose is not a coherent vision for governance in the public interest. They propose what MAGA wants, a kleptocratic dictatorship in the elites' interest. Although the NRx Poo-Bahs believe their CEO-dictator will be nice and work for us, cognitive biology, social behavior and history all say otherwise. Facts and rationality are no on the side of NRx ideologues.

• Attacking old-fashioned conservatism: The Constitution’s Enlightenment emphasis on reason, individual rights, and limited government has underpinned democratic stability globally so far. NRx offers no viable alternative to liberal or pluralist democracy. Instead, it offers irrationally romanticized feudalism and corporate autocracy. NRx and its young 'un followers have no loyalty to the US Constitution. Yarvin and Beale, reject neoconservative figures, e.g., William F. Buckley, as outdated. They accuse old-style conservatives of selling out the Constitution and “worshiping the corpse” of a broken system.

• MAGA's insinuation into NRx: JD Vance and Blake Masters have cited Yarvin’s “RAGE” (Retire All Government Employees) strategy, advocating mass firings of civil servants to dismantle the “deep state”. In terms of ideological alignment with MAGA, Yarvin’s 2025 New York Times interview (not paywalled) shows his growing influence among Silicon Valley elites, e.g., Peter Thiel, and djt-aligned politicians seeking to centralize power and kill democracy.

This guy thinks he's hot stuff, but he's

just grumpy, arrogant, self-deluded and dangerous

• Pragmatism or arrogant, blowhard bullshit: NRx is framed as offering pragmatic solutions to modern complexities and legitimate criticisms of democracy and the Constitution. The generational shift within conservatism, from constitutional reverence to authoritarian, NRx-aligned anti-constitutionalism underscores the ongoing ideological shift on America's political right. As older institutionalists and conservatives fade away, battles will center on whether political and social accountability can be had in a system of governance based on secrecy and alleged "corporate efficiency" vs messy democracy and the rule of law. Authoritarianism does not operate on the basis of transparency, equity or empathy. In a real democracy there is at least some of that. One commentator observed that "the snarky tone of ironic superiority grates on the reader, both just because it’s a bad tone, and because there is no reason for the reader to believe that Yarvin has earned it."

What happened to the young 'uns? I think their brains got trapped in and poisoned by social media with its copious amounts of pseudo-science, pseudo-intellectualism and care-free but opinionated ignorance and arrogance.

Arrogant Blowhard Syndrome

is strong with this one