“ ‘The regime’ sounds really sexy, right?”
Masters said to me.

“It’s a tangible enemy
—if you could just grapple with it in the right way, you can topple it.
And I think it’s actually just a lot less sexy and a lot more bureaucratic,” he said.

“But I’ve read that stuff, and I see what it means.”

I asked him about the term
Thielbucks,
and how true it was that the Thiel Foundation was funding a network of New Right podcasters
and cool-kid cultural figures
as a sort of cultural vanguard.

“It depends if it’s just dissident-right think-tank stuff,”
he told me,
“or if anyone actually does anything.”

“I don’t know how that became a meme,” he said about Thielbucks.

“I think I would know if those kids were getting money.”

“We fund some stuff,” he told me. “But we’re not funding an army of meme posters.”

He told me that he and Thiel had met with Khachiyan, one of the cohosts of Red Scare.

“Which was cool,” he said. “Their podcast is interesting.”

I asked if there was a world in which they might get funding from Thiel.

“Maybe, yeah,” he said.

“We fund some weird stuff with the Thiel Foundation.”

We drove together to a campaign event, talking about everything from how technology is reshaping our brains to environmental policy,
both of us circling from different political directions to an apocalyptic place.

“I do think we’re at a moment of crossroads,” he said.

“And if we play it wrong, it’s the Dark Ages.”

Masters has publicly said he thinks “everybody should read” the #Unabomber’s anti-tech manifesto,
“Industrial Society and Its Future,”
which may sound strange for a young tech executive running to serve in the United States Senate.

But to Masters, #Kaczynski’s critique was a useful analysis of how technology shapes our world
and how “degrading and debasing” it could be to human lives.

A few weeks after NatCon, I drove from California to Tucson to meet Masters,
a very tall, very thin, very fit 35-year-old.

I wanted to see how all this might translate into an actual election campaign,
and I’d been watching a lot of Fox News,

including Yarvin’s streaming interview with Carlson in which he gave a swirling depiction of how the Cathedral produced its groupthink.

“Why do Yale and Harvard always agree on everything?” he asked.

“These organizations are essentially branches of the same thing,” he told a mesmerized Carlson.

“You’re like, ‘Where are the wires?’ ”

He sketched his vision of (as he calls it) a “constitutional” regime change that would take power back from this oligarchy
—so diffuse most people hardly knew it was there.

“That’s what makes it so hard to kill,” he said.

At a coffee shop near the house he’d bought when he moved back home to Tucson from the Bay Area,
Masters and I went through the tenets of his nationalist platform:

on-shoring industrial production,
slashing legal immigration,
regulating big tech companies,
and eventually restructuring the economy so that one salary would be enough to raise a family on.

I mentioned Yarvin and his line of arguing that America’s system had become so sclerotic that it was hopeless to imagine making big systemic changes like these.

“In a system where state capacity is very low…” I started the question.

“Alas,” he said, with a twinkle in his eye.

“Do we need a crisis to get there?” I asked him.

“Maybe, maybe, maybe,” he said.
It wasn’t where his immediate thinking was.

“I’ll have the proverbial machete,” he said. “But yeah, it may take some kind of crisis to get us there.”

He paused. “But we’re already sort of in one, right?”

Masters often says he’s not as black-pilled and pessimistic as some in the New Right spheres.

He seems, unlike many New Righters, to still earnestly believe in the power of electoral politics.

But he does think that the culturally liberal and free-market ideology that has guided America’s politics in recent years
is a hopeless dead end.

“A country is not just an economy,” Masters told the dissident-right outlet
IM—1776
recently.

“You also need a conception of yourself as a nation, as a people, and as a culture.

And that’s what America is increasingly lacking today.”

“It’s true that I’m incredibly hopeful,” he said to me.

“I think it’s really bleak, I think the default is continued stagnation, and maybe you get the crisis in 5 years or maybe it’s 30 years from now.”

He told me that he didn’t like to use terms like the Cathedral and used “the regime” less often than Vance,

although I later noticed that he used this latter phrase frequently with interviewers on the dissident right.

Milius was a sardonic and constant presence,
easy to find smoking as Yarvin stood and talked at warp speed in his unmistakable voice.

She was by far the most strikingly dressed person there,
favoring Gucci and Ralph Lauren and lots of gold jewelry and big sunglasses.

She is the daughter of the conservative director John Milius,
who cowrote Apocalypse Now and directed Red Dawn.

She grew up in Los Angeles, and it turned out that we’d both gone to the same tiny liberal arts college in Manhattan,

so, like pretty much all the people there, she was used to living in social spaces where conservative views were considered strange if not downright evil.

She thought something had radically changed since 2015,

after she went to film school at USC and started working in Hollywood,

before she suddenly dropped everything to work for Trump’s campaign in Nevada,

eventually landing a job in his State Department.

“What this is,” she said, “is a new thought movement.

So it’s very hard to put your finger on and articulate what it is outside of Trumpism.

Because it really is separate from the man himself, it has nothing to do with that.”

She argued that the New Right, or whatever you wanted to call it,
was, paradoxically, much less authoritarian than the ideology that now presented itself as mainstream.

“I get the feeling, and I could be wrong,” she said, “that the right actually at this point is like almost in this live-and-let-live place

where the left used to be at.”

What she meant specifically:

“The idea that you can’t raise your kids in a traditional, somewhat religious household without having them educated at school that their parents are Nazis.”

This apparent laissez-faire obscures somewhat the intense focus that some people in this world have on trans issues
—or what they might say is the media’s intense focus on trans issues,
one of a suite of “mimetic viruses,” as Kaschuta, the podcaster, put it,
that spread a highly individualistic liberal culture that is destructive to traditional ways of life.

But the laissez-faire has helped win unlikely converts.

Milius brought up "Red Scare",
a podcast that has become the premier example of this attraction
—she’d actually cast one of the hosts, #Dasha #Nekrasova, in the film she made as her senior thesis in directing school at USC.

By the time TechCrunch publicized Yarvin’s identity, in 2013,

he had become influential in a small circle of the disaffected elite.

In 2014, The Baffler published a lengthy look at his influence, titled “Mouthbreathing Machiavellis Dream of a Silicon Reich.”

The piece warned that Yarvin’s ideas were spreading among prominent figures like #Thiel and #Balaji #Srinivasan, formerly the CTO of #Coinbase,

and that it was possible for an intellectual fringe to
“seize key positions of authority and power”
and “eventually bring large numbers of people around,”
just as the #Koch brothers once had with their pro-business libertarianism,
a position that Thiel was quickly moving away from.

In 2017, BuzzFeed News published an email exchange between Yarvin and #Milo #Yiannopoulis in which Yarvin said that he’d watched the 2016 election returns with Thiel.

“He’s fully enlightened,” Yarvin wrote.

“Just plays it very carefully.”

Masters soon had an office in Trump Tower.

He and Thiel worked,
generally without success,
to install figures like Srinivasan,
whom they proposed to head the FDA,
and who himself often talked about the
“paper belt,”
in an echo of Yarvin’s Cathedral concept,

and made common cause with figures like #Steve #Bannon, who wanted to pick apart the administrative state,
an idea that at least had a hint of Yarvin’s RAGE proposal.

Yarvin eventually stopped working as a programmer and left the Bay Area,
moving with his wife and two children to Nevada.

His wife died in April 2021, and he seems to have been devastated,

publishing searching poems about her.

But last September, a month before we spoke, he posted a dating call,
inviting women who were “reasonably pretty and pretty smart,” as he put it,

and “have read my work and like it,” and who thought that “the purpose of dating is to get married and have kids,”

to email him so they could set up a Zoom date.

“His writing doesn’t really represent who he is,” Laurenson told me.

“So I answered this email and I was just like,
‘Hi, I’m a liberal, but I have a high IQ. And I want kids, and I’m actually just really curious to talk to you.’ ”

The two are now engaged.

Laurenson told me she’d had a gradual awakening that accelerated during the upheavals of the early pandemic
and the protests of the summer of 2020.

“I started really getting drawn to #NRx ideas,” she said,
using a common online abbreviation for the
neo-reactionary fringe,

“because I was tracking the riots,” by which she meant the violence that erupted amid some of the Black Lives Matter protests.

“I have a background in social justice,” she said.

But she was “horrified” by “how the mainstream media covered the riots.… It was just such a violation of all of my values.”

She’d had a strange realization after she and Yarvin started dating,
discovering that some of her friends had been reading him for years.

“I found out that all these people had been reading NRx stuff just like me.

They just never told anyone about it,” she said.

“It has been very striking to me,” she said, “how cool this world is becoming.”

"No one directs this system,
and hardly anyone who participates in it believes that it’s a system at all.

Someone like me who has made a career of writing about militias and extremist groups might go about my work thinking that all I do is try to tell important stories
and honestly describe political upheaval.

But within "the Cathedral", the best way for me to get big assignments and win attention is to identify and attack what seem like threats against the established order,

which includes nationalists,
antigovernment types,
or people who refuse to obey the opinions of the Cathedral’s experts
on issues like vaccine mandates,
in as alarming a way as I possibly can.

This cycle becomes self-reinforcing and has been sent into hyperdrive by Twitter and Facebook,

because the stuff that compels people to click on articles or share clips of a professor
tends to affirm their worldview, or frighten them, or both at the same time.

The more attention you gain in the Cathedral system, the more you can influence opinion and government policy.

Journalists and academics and thinkers of any kind now live in a desperate race for attention
—and in Yarvin’s view,
this is all really a never-ending bid for influence,
serving the interests of our oligarchical regime.

So I may think I write for a living. But to Yarvin, what I actually do is more like a weird combination of intelligence-gathering and propagandizing.

Which is why no one I was talking to at NatCon really thought it would be possible for me to write a fair piece about them.

You won’t hear people use the "Cathedral" term a lot in public,
although right-wing Twitter lit up with delight when Yarvin sketched the concept on Tucker Carlson’s Fox Nation show last September.

People who’ve opened their eyes to this system of control have taken the red pill,
a term Yarvin started using back in 2007,
long before it got watered down to generally mean supporting Trump.

To truly be red-pilled, you have to understand the workings of the Cathedral.

And the way conservatives can actually win in America, he has argued,
is for a Caesar-like figure to take power back from this devolved oligarchy

and replace it with a monarchical regime run like a start-up.

As early as 2012, he proposed the acronym #RAGE
—Retire All Government Employees
—as a shorthand for a first step in the overthrow of the American “regime.”

What we needed, Yarvin thought, was a
“national CEO, [or] what’s called a dictator.”

Yarvin now shies away from the word "dictator" and seems to be trying to promote a friendlier face of #authoritarianism as the solution to our political warfare:

“If you’re going to have a #monarchy, it has to be a monarchy of everyone,” he said.

As Moldbug,
Yarvin wrote about race-based IQ differences,
and in an early post, titled
“Why I Am Not a White Nationalist,”
he defended reading and linking to white nationalist writing.

He told me he’d pursued those early writings in a spirit of “open inquiry,”
though Yarvin also openly acknowledged in the post that some of his readers seemed to be white nationalists.

Some of Yarvin’s writing from then is so radically right wing that it almost has to be read to be believed,
like the time he critiqued the attacks by the Norwegian far-right terrorist Anders Behring Breivik
—who killed 77 people, including dozens of children at a youth camp
—not on the grounds that terrorism is wrong

but because the killings wouldn’t do anything effective to overthrow what Yarvin called
Norway’s “communist” government.

He argued that Nelson Mandela,
once head of the military wing of the African National Congress,
had endorsed terror tactics and political murder against opponents,
and said anyone who claimed
“St. Mandela” was more innocent than Breivik might have
“a mother you’d like to fuck.”

He’s tempered himself in middle age
—he now says he has a rule never to
“say anything unnecessarily controversial,
or go out of my way to be provocative for no reason.”

Many liberals who hear him talk would probably question how strictly he follows this rule,

but even in his Moldbug days, most of his controversial writings were couched in thickets of irony and metaphor,

a mode of speech that younger podcasters and Twitter personalities on the highly online right have adopted
—a way to avoid getting kicked off tech platforms or having their words quoted by liberal journalists.

He considers himself a reactionary, not just a conservative
—he thinks it is impossible for an Ivy League–educated person to really be a conservative.

He has consistently argued that conservatives waste their time and political energy on fights over issues like gay marriage or critical race theory,

because liberal ideology holds sway in the important institutions of prestige media and academia
—an intertwined nexus he calls
“the Cathedral.”

He developed a theory to explain the fact that America has lost its so-called state capacity,
his explanation for why it so often seems that it is not actually capable of governing anymore:

The power of the executive branch has slowly devolved to an oligarchy of the educated
who care more about competing for status within the system than they do about America’s national interest.