Speaker 1: Calzon Media.
Speaker 2: Hey, everybody, welcome to it could happen here. This is
Speaker 2: Robert Evans, and I have an episode for you. It's
Speaker 2: also an article I wrote for our substack, Shatter Zone,
Speaker 2: So I'm just going to get into that. Since February fifth,
Speaker 2: twenty twenty five, a document has been circulating among democratic parties, staffers,
Speaker 2: and liberal think tank experts warning about Curtis Jarvin and
Speaker 2: the Silicon Valley led coup to end US democracy. The
Speaker 2: document is titled the Imminent Neo Reactionary Threat to the
Speaker 2: American Republic. It opens with a statement that the brief
Speaker 2: was quote iteratively and collectively compiled by a broad, bipartisan
Speaker 2: and decentralized network of experts who wish to remain anonymous
Speaker 2: due to concerns about being targeted. The full document is here.
Speaker 2: The table of contents is split into three main areas,
Speaker 2: One the new shape of threats to the American Republic. Two,
Speaker 2: understanding recent events and the context of threats to the
Speaker 2: American Republic, and three a list of appendices. The title
Speaker 2: of the actual file when I received it was evidence
Speaker 2: Brief for journalists, and the introduction describes its aim as
Speaker 2: quote explaining the nature of the current political crisis to
Speaker 2: journalists who are attempting to inform the public. However, I
Speaker 2: spoke with two sources who are members of these groups
Speaker 2: and received the document. They told me that, to their knowledge,
Speaker 2: the document was not mostly spread to journalists, but instead
Speaker 2: among networks of think tank employees and DNC staffers, people
Speaker 2: you might refer to broadly as policy wonks. One source
Speaker 2: I interviewed explained it is a thing for think tanks
Speaker 2: to frame overviews for laypeople as briefs for journalists or
Speaker 2: congress see the IPCC reports. Part of me thinks the
Speaker 2: framing four journalists is just a shortcut for this is
Speaker 2: somewhat specialized knowledge broken down. The paper opens by acknowledging
Speaker 2: the scope of the executive powergrap being perpetuated under President
Speaker 2: Trump and that destabilization wrought by Elon Musky and his
Speaker 2: doge team. It then notes the threat is an order
Speaker 2: of magnitude beyond just a presidential power grab. It states
Speaker 2: that Musk is tied to a quote broader group of
Speaker 2: Silicon Valley tech elites, including Peter Teel and Mark Andresen.
Speaker 2: Curtis Jarvin is labeled as a thought leader in this group.
Speaker 2: Quote called the neo reactionaries. Now I'll stop here to
Speaker 2: note that this summary is accurate enough for mass consumption,
Speaker 2: but I have some issues with it. Musk probably would
Speaker 2: not label himself a neo reactionary, and he doesn't have
Speaker 2: much of a history with Jarvin. Peter Teal does, but
Speaker 2: it's more a relationship of patronage than mutual influence. It
Speaker 2: would be more accurate to say that Teal and Andreas
Speaker 2: and find Jarvin useful because of his success and spreading
Speaker 2: to a lot of young techie kids the idea that
Speaker 2: tech CEOs should run the world. Musk, I feel, has
Speaker 2: largely jumped on this bandwagon with the neo reactionaries because
Speaker 2: those tech kids are useful foot soldiers. Jarvins ideas about
Speaker 2: retiring all government employees and destroying the independent media and
Speaker 2: academia are convenient for Musk's own ambitions. This context may
Speaker 2: be unnecessary for explaining the overall danger of the neo
Speaker 2: reactionaries and Musk to regular people. But I also think
Speaker 2: it's a mistake to credit Jarvin with more power than
Speaker 2: he holds. The document refers to him as the leader
Speaker 2: of the neo reactionary movement, and I think that gets
Speaker 2: across kind of the wrong idea about how all of
Speaker 2: this works. That said, the document does do a pretty
Speaker 2: good job of summing up the threat that we face quote.
Speaker 2: The neo reactionaries have openly stated their aims to destroy
Speaker 2: the nation state and the constitutional order and replace them
Speaker 2: with a newly privately owned corporate state to be run
Speaker 2: by a CEO dictator. Citizens become subjects owned by the
Speaker 2: state state slaves in Yarvin's terms, because everything rots when
Speaker 2: it has no owner. Human beings included. That last quote
Speaker 2: is also one of Jarvin's. From here, the document argues
Speaker 2: that Musk and his team are attempting to bring about
Speaker 2: this dystopia by taking over the quote nervous system of
Speaker 2: the state another Jarvin quote. These would be the data
Speaker 2: and communications systems that DOSE is trying to centralize in
Speaker 2: its unaccountable hands. Next, the authors of this document make
Speaker 2: a call to action quote. The most dramatic reversals of
Speaker 2: democratic breakdown nineteen seventy seven, India twenty twenty two, Brazil
Speaker 2: twenty twenty three, Poland have been accomplished by radically large,
Speaker 2: tent cross ideological coalitions with little in common accept a
Speaker 2: desire for the continuation of a constitutional order. Evidence suggests
Speaker 2: that the present threat to American democracy is dire enough
Speaker 2: that such a broad tent approach focused on Musk and
Speaker 2: his associates may be required, And I think this is
Speaker 2: the most interesting and hopeful part of the whole document
Speaker 2: for me. For one thing, I believe it does accurately
Speaker 2: state what's needed in the present moment, a popular front
Speaker 2: against autocracy and dictatorship. I would add to their list
Speaker 2: of relevant examples of popular fronts the original, which is
Speaker 2: France from nineteen thirty four to nineteen thirty eight. So
Speaker 2: it's heartening to see evidence that this understanding has started
Speaker 2: to grow within DNC policy circles in the people around them.
Speaker 2: The source who sent me this document in the first
Speaker 2: place described themselves as a member of quote A few
Speaker 2: unofficial networks of climate activists who are high ranking in
Speaker 2: the government and policy think tank circles. They noted that
Speaker 2: these are normally quote very milk toast lib spaces, but
Speaker 2: quote they're being radicalized rapidly. Both sources I interviewed for
Speaker 2: this requested anonymity. The second person I talked to with
Speaker 2: gave an explicit reason. They stated quote I've suspected for
Speaker 2: a while a lot more things in dn C stuff
Speaker 2: was compromised than people were comfortable with. In other words,
Speaker 2: they believe the Republican Party has spies within the DNC,
Speaker 2: and people they know have made statements to that effect.
Speaker 2: They were worried that these quote GOP moles might reveal
Speaker 2: their identity, but more so, they were worried that these
Speaker 2: moles might have planted the document itself and put false
Speaker 2: information inside it with the goal of provoking a reaction
Speaker 2: from Democrats that would be useful politically to Republicans. I
Speaker 2: do think this caveat is worthwhile. It's certainly not impossible,
Speaker 2: and I think the frank admission that the DNC likely
Speaker 2: has Republican spies inside it is also really worth stating.
Speaker 2: But I should note that when it comes to the
Speaker 2: actual accuracy of this document, I don't really see much
Speaker 2: to take issue with. I've spent more time than most
Speaker 2: people studying Curtis Jarvin and the neo reactionaries. I would
Speaker 2: not describe myself as a top expert in the matter,
Speaker 2: but I do have a good base of knowledge here,
Speaker 2: and nothing that I've read in this document struck me
Speaker 2: as obviously false or incorrect, nor did the overall tone
Speaker 2: seem hysteric or unreasonable. So I asked my sources if
Speaker 2: over the last month they'd seen more people talking about
Speaker 2: Jarvin and their daily lives within sort of the circles
Speaker 2: that they work in and around, because again, they communicate
Speaker 2: with a lot of DNC staffers and politicians. They said, respectively, No,
Speaker 2: and quote, that's kind of one of the odd things
Speaker 2: to be frank, this guy Jarvin is being brought to
Speaker 2: big events in DC. He's been referenced by Bannon Advance.
Speaker 2: I have heard his talking points come from Republican mouths,
Speaker 2: but he's largely not tracked. That concern comports with some
Speaker 2: of fears that I had late last year about Jarvin
Speaker 2: and the neo reactionaries. Namely, I had believed for some
Speaker 2: time that Jarvin and the people kind of aligned with
Speaker 2: him largely a lot of these Silicon Valley folks with
Speaker 2: money had become much more influential among Trump and his
Speaker 2: tight inner circle than was widely understood at the time. Ultimately,
Speaker 2: I wrote and researched two episodes of Behind the Bastards
Speaker 2: because I thought it was valuable to bring more attention
Speaker 2: to the subject. I really had kind of a gut
Speaker 2: feeling that this was going to become much more relevant
Speaker 2: very soon, which is why I picked it as the
Speaker 2: topic for the episode we did with Ed Helms, who's
Speaker 2: by a pretty good margin, the biggest celebrity we've had
Speaker 2: on the show so far, and I hope that would
Speaker 2: help kind of get we were talking about out to
Speaker 2: a wider audience, and it did. The episodes did very
Speaker 2: well between YouTube and our downloads in the podcast were
Speaker 2: probably at something like a million listens for them at
Speaker 2: this point. But our listener base is a mix of
Speaker 2: leftists and progressive liberals right their interests are not representative
Speaker 2: of the Democratic Party at large. It is noteworthy and
Speaker 2: perhaps even important that influential individuals in the policy space
Speaker 2: with connections to Democratic politicians and the DNC as an organization,
Speaker 2: have started a grassroots effort to spread the word about
Speaker 2: Jarvin as a threat, and that's what this document represents.
Speaker 2: It's even more noteworthy that this document is unsparing about
Speaker 2: the danger and the fact that a clock is currently
Speaker 2: ticking over all of our heads. Here's another quote. If
Speaker 2: non governmental actors, by which we mean unelected unratified, unvetted, untrained,
Speaker 2: unco strained, and or unaccountable actors gain access to key
Speaker 2: digital infrastructure. They could seize control of critical functions of
Speaker 2: government in ways that will be difficult or impossible to reverse.
Speaker 2: And speaking of things that can't be reversed, my love
Speaker 2: for our sponsors. We're back. So to continue from this document,
Speaker 2: there's a section next titled national Security, and the focus
Speaker 2: shifts from Jarvin and his neo reactionaries to Musk, who
Speaker 2: it claims, quote poses a uniquely significant security risk. This,
Speaker 2: in its argument, is because Musk and Doge espouse quote
Speaker 2: anti constitutional ideologies and quote are under the influence of
Speaker 2: America's principle foreign adversaries, China and Russia. It goes on
Speaker 2: at some length about Musk's foreign business interests and how
Speaker 2: they might compromise him. Now, I don't disagree that Musk
Speaker 2: is compromised, but I see his actions as very much
Speaker 2: consistent with those of a man seizing power for himself.
Speaker 2: I do understand why people speaking to an audience that
Speaker 2: is largely you know, when it's bipartisan, it's folks who
Speaker 2: are kind of more on the centrist side of things.
Speaker 2: In the policy space and otherwise largely a lot of
Speaker 2: like Democratic Party employees and politicians. I understand why you
Speaker 2: focus on the China and Russia of it all with them,
Speaker 2: but when it comes to both accurately stating the threat
Speaker 2: and getting a lot of people to care, I really
Speaker 2: don't think that's the right strategy to take. I think
Speaker 2: it's an issue to focus popular messaging around how this
Speaker 2: all empowers quote America's principle foreign adversaries, because most Americans
Speaker 2: don't really think that way or particularly care about that.
Speaker 2: And beyond that, the larger issue is that the primary
Speaker 2: adversary Musk has empowered is not, in fact the Russian
Speaker 2: or Chinese governments. It's himself, and he personally, as an individual,
Speaker 2: is currently a greater threat to every citizen of the
Speaker 2: United States than any foreign government. I think that's undeniable,
Speaker 2: and I think again it's an error not to frame
Speaker 2: it that way. The next section of the paper lays
Speaker 2: out the definition of a coup quote in essence, a
Speaker 2: coup is a number one rapid seizure of state power
Speaker 2: by unelected actors who acquire that power by two seizing
Speaker 2: critical government infrastructure, and three weaponizing it to neutralize legitimate
Speaker 2: government actors' efforts to stop them. The unelected actors then
Speaker 2: use this power to four remake the rules of the
Speaker 2: political game in a way that cannot easily be checked
Speaker 2: or undone through democratic processes. Now it argues convincingly that
Speaker 2: all four of these steps are underway. Now. One thing
Speaker 2: I found compelling is the way at which this document
Speaker 2: recognizes the threat that cryptocurrency represents right now, and how
Speaker 2: it can and will be used by the new regime
Speaker 2: to cement their power in ways that sidestep the present
Speaker 2: legal system quote without canceling elections. For example, cryptocurrency can
Speaker 2: be used to create informal but powerful new levers of
Speaker 2: political influence. Politicians can sell personal coins to unknown buyers
Speaker 2: who vote on public policy on the basis of their
Speaker 2: shareholder power shielded from public view. I think that's a
Speaker 2: real thing to be concerned with, and I also think
Speaker 2: it's very clearly part of the goal of this project. Now,
Speaker 2: next we have a summary of the neo Reactionary Agenda,
Speaker 2: which lists some additional names among the Silicon Valley elde
Speaker 2: currently championing an overthrow of democracy. These include David Sachs,
Speaker 2: Blaji Schrinavasan and J. D. Vance. Also name dropped is
Speaker 2: a political theorist named Nick Land, who is in fact
Speaker 2: reference twice in this paper. He is quoted directly as
Speaker 2: having said in his paper The Dark Enlightenment quote for
Speaker 2: the hardcore neo reactionaries, democracy is not merely doomed. It
Speaker 2: is doom itself fleeing it approaches an ultimate imperative. Land
Speaker 2: has had a huge impact on a lot of these guys.
Speaker 2: Although he's not really a Jarvin life figure, is in
Speaker 2: He's not this kind of guy who sees himself as
Speaker 2: or I think, really wants to be a shadowy puppet
Speaker 2: master orchestrating the overthrow of democracy from behind the scenes.
Speaker 2: He's really someone stating what he believes to be kind
Speaker 2: of inevitable concepts and realities about our present historical moment
Speaker 2: that happened to comport with a lot of the things
Speaker 2: that these guys believe now. The author's next layout Jarvin's
Speaker 2: concept of the Butterfly Revolution, which is based on an
Speaker 2: essay he wrote in twenty twenty two in which he
Speaker 2: laid out how a full reboot of the US government
Speaker 2: could be accomplished. Quote Yarvin's seven part Butterfly Revolution has
Speaker 2: been roughly summarized as follows. Number one, have Trump run
Speaker 2: for president on the platform of getting rid of an
Speaker 2: efficient system. Number two, once he wins, purge the bureaucracy, rage,
Speaker 2: retire all government employees. Number three, ignore the courts through
Speaker 2: declaring states of emergency. Number four, co opt Congress. Number five.
Speaker 2: Centralized the police, federalized the National Guard, freed a national
Speaker 2: police force that absorbs local ones. Number six. Shut down
Speaker 2: the elites, the media and the universities who make up
Speaker 2: the cathedral. Number seven. Get people on the streets whenever
Speaker 2: there is any obstruction by a government agency. And obviously
Speaker 2: all of that we've seen Trump and his people make
Speaker 2: moves towards in the last couple of weeks, right, And
Speaker 2: that's in fact what the next chunk of the document is.
Speaker 2: Subsequent pages summarize the first days of the Trump administration
Speaker 2: and DOJE activity, and they show how it comports with
Speaker 2: the Butterfly Revolution blueprint. Now, we've all lived that in
Speaker 2: real time, so I'm not going to summarize their arguments here.
Speaker 2: So the document ends with a section on actions and
Speaker 2: rhetoric to watch. Those are listed as quote government contracts
Speaker 2: which fund many of Musk's companies at present, and the
Speaker 2: next is Greenland and Mars. Quote. A core tenet of
Speaker 2: neo reactionary ideology is the replacement of nation states with
Speaker 2: network states, but states require territory. Technocracy, Inc, a predecessor
Speaker 2: to the neo reactionary movement, whose one time director was
Speaker 2: Elon Musk's grandfather, proposed a North American technatee where the
Speaker 2: entire continent of North America would be united under one
Speaker 2: technocratic super state. There is currently a peterteelbacked network state
Speaker 2: project called Praxis in Greenland. Musk's public statements about colonizing
Speaker 2: Mars can also be read as part of a territorial project. Lastly,
Speaker 2: it lists crypto, which the authors primarily seem to fear,
Speaker 2: as a method of deniably bribing Trump. Now, I think
Speaker 2: most of this is pretty credible, Although I feel differently
Speaker 2: about musk talk about colonizing Mars. I think that's been
Speaker 2: more about pr than anything. I do think there's a
Speaker 2: good chance he's just delusional enough to think that that's
Speaker 2: something feasible on any kind of close end time frame,
Speaker 2: that we start building persistent colonies on Mars. I think
Speaker 2: the science suggests that if that ever happens, it won't
Speaker 2: be anytime soon, and I think he knows that. I
Speaker 2: think he's largely understands hype well and how to use it,
Speaker 2: and Mars has been an easy way for him to
Speaker 2: do that over the years. Overall, I'd say the document
Speaker 2: is fairly thorough in its layout of the neo reactionary
Speaker 2: ecosystem and the actual plan currently being acted to end
Speaker 2: US democracy. It includes a section that lists several of
Speaker 2: the earliest known DOGE employees, and it quotes extensively from
Speaker 2: Jarvin and somewhat less extensively from Land. The paper's ultimate
Speaker 2: conclusion is that Musk is using this moment to turn
Speaker 2: himself into the kind of unitary, all powerful executive that
Speaker 2: Jarvin longs for. This is an executive who rules alongside
Speaker 2: a largely ceremonial president, as well as courts and a
Speaker 2: legislative system that are equally ceremonial. After laying out the
Speaker 2: bulk of the actual threat, the article promises that quote
Speaker 2: Section three articulates what Congress and other actors can do
Speaker 2: in order to stop this threat. However, the document in
Speaker 2: its present form does not include any Section three or
Speaker 2: any comprehensive list of solutions Congress and other actors might
Speaker 2: carry out in order to stop the present assault on democracy.
Speaker 2: And perhaps there's a later version of the document that
Speaker 2: I don't have access to that includes that. Perhaps this
Speaker 2: is just a statement that wasn't edited out, I have
Speaker 2: to say, and heartening as I find the way in
Speaker 2: which this document talks about the threat that we're facing,
Speaker 2: and the fact that I think it's overall good that
Speaker 2: people in positions of influence and around the DNC are
Speaker 2: talking about this stuff. It's also kind of perfect that
Speaker 2: at the end they're like, hey, you know, don't worry,
Speaker 2: We've included some tips on how to defeat these guys,
Speaker 2: and then they just don't. You know, if the situation
Speaker 2: weren't so dire, it would be a lot funnier, but
Speaker 2: unfortunately it is pretty dire. Now. If you want to
Speaker 2: take a look at the full document itself, it's quite
Speaker 2: a bit longer than what I've read to you now,
Speaker 2: but it is really worth reading, especially if you have
Speaker 2: been hearing about this Curtis Yarvin guy or the NIE
Speaker 2: reactionaries and you kind of want to know how this
Speaker 2: all fits together with what Musk is doing and more
Speaker 2: detail if you go to my substack at Shatterzone. The
Speaker 2: most recent article is the text of this and I
Speaker 2: include a couple of different points links to the full
Speaker 2: document which I have uploaded to scribed, and you can
Speaker 2: read the whole thing if you want. It has not
Speaker 2: been altered since I have received it. And again, yeah,
Speaker 2: I think it's worth getting out there and spreading to
Speaker 2: more people. So that's the episode. We will be back
Speaker 2: tomorrow with something else. Until then, folks, I don't know,
Speaker 2: keep an eye on this shit. Bye.
Speaker 1: It Could Happen Here is a production of cool Zone Media.
Speaker 1: For more podcasts from cool Zone Media, visit our website
Speaker 1: Coolzonemedia dot com, or check us out on the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to podcasts. You can
Speaker 1: now find sources for it Could Happen here, listed directly
Speaker 1: in episode descriptions. Thanks for listening.