An Even Deeper State and the “Dark Enlightenment”

by Alexander Dugin

Alexander Dugin argues that Trump’s rise represents a deeper, tech-driven ideological shift aimed at accelerating humanity towards the singularity by dismantling liberal globalism through a powerful alliance between populist and tech-right forces.

Analyzing how Donald Trump managed to rise to power in the United States and initiate a genuine revolution against the decades-long course of liberal globalism raises many serious questions, especially when considering the factor of the deep state. Indeed, Trumpists have declared outright war against this deep state, launched it, and already achieved several significant victories — such as the closure of USAID alone.

Trumpists have a very clear definition of the “deep state.” It is a ruling elite adhering to liberal-democratic ideology (both left-wing and neoconservative), deeply entrenched within the U.S. government and supported by financial, military, and high-tech oligarchies, with its networks permeating intelligence agencies. This elite has tied the fate of America and the entire West to globalism, unipolarity, and the planetary spread of woke ideology, which includes legalizing perversions, forced ethnic mixing through promoted mass migration, and weakening sovereign nation-states.

Trump put forward a diametrically opposed ideology — the MAGA ideology. It rests on fundamentally opposite principles: traditional values, a normal understanding of gender distribution (there are only men and women), protecting peoples from mass migration, especially illegal immigration, strengthening sovereignty, preserving nation-states, and recognizing a multipolar world (which Trump refers to as the “Great Power Order”).

What we see is an ideological and even geopolitical revolution, given the consequences such a paradigm shift has for international politics. It involves a complete reshuffling of cards and a redefinition of friend and foe roles both within U.S. domestic politics and internationally. Trump outlined all this clearly during his electoral campaign (fully in line with “Project 2025,” from which he formally distanced himself, but which, as we observe, is rapidly coming into effect). Immediately after his inauguration, he began implementing these plans by appointing committed supporters to key positions within his new administration, granting them extraordinary powers (JD Vance, Elon Musk, Pete Hegseth, Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, Robert Kennedy Jr., Pam Bondi, Karoline Leavitt, and others). Finally, in his address to both chambers of the U.S. Congress on March 3, Trump crystallized his program, summarizing all core theses into a single document, now serving as the roadmap for his Conservative Revolution.

In essence, the deep state has been targeted for complete destruction. Trump has set a course aimed explicitly at its elimination.

However, even earlier, while analyzing the phenomenon of Trump’s revolution — a topic to which I dedicated my latest book — I proposed the hypothesis that Trump would never have been able to implement such radical changes or even get elected and survive until inauguration if he had not received exceptional support from powerful entities within the deep state itself. Over decades of uncontested power, globalists achieved such extensive influence in the United States and worldwide that they exercised total control over politics, economics, media, diplomacy, culture, and the arts. Trump’s ambitious initiative to end all of this at once — despite significant support from the American masses horrified by the liberal globalists’ policies that transformed the U.S. into a bizarre spectacle and ruins — could not have succeeded unless a fundamental and abrupt decision had been made at some deeper level.

Yet here arises a paradox. How could the deep state possibly greenlight its own destruction? Of course, if there were a split within its structure, with one faction choosing to support Trump while the other retained its previous ideological stance — as I previously hypothesized — this contradiction would be resolved. But then, logically, upon taking power, Trump and his supporters would have ceased referring to the deep state altogether and would no longer advocate its elimination. Such calls might have remained mere electoral slogans; purges would occur without much fanfare, and a revised deep state would operate under new guidelines.

However, something entirely different occurred. Trumpists and the MAGA movement continue explicitly dismantling — not merely taking control of — the deep state.

This paradox demands a different resolution. It is somewhat naive to believe that support from populist forces and so-called ordinary Americans, who indeed form Trump’s core electorate, would alone suffice to grant him a mandate for such radical reforms and the dismantling of the deep state. But it also seems peculiar to assume that the deep state itself consciously decided on self-liquidation.

Hence, my hypothesis emerges: there is not just one deep state but two. There is a “deep state,” and there is an “even deeper state.” The “deep state” is an American and global international network of liberal globalists — a kind of “Liberal International.” This is exactly how Trumpists themselves interpret and define it. This entity certainly did not give Trump any mandate to govern but fought against him to the bitter end. If it had not existed, it would have needed to be invented or created. Support from ordinary American “rednecks” from the Rust Belt and the American Heartland alone would be insufficient for such a large-scale revolution. There must certainly be something else. What could it be?

To better understand this mysterious phenomenon of an even deeper state, it is worth comparing Trump’s first term as the 45th President of the United States — Trump 1.0 — and Trump as the 47th President — Trump 2.0. During his first term, popular support from ordinary Americans was also relatively high, uniting conservative forces, particularly paleoconservatives, around Trump 1.0. However, his administration was mainly composed of representatives from that same deep state — globalist neocons and ambiguous Republicans, whom today’s Trumpists derogatively label as RINOs (Republican In Name Only), humorously reminiscent of the term “rhino.” The ideology of Trump 1.0 was hastily assembled from various conspiracy theories — some insightful but mostly absurd. This culminated in the QAnon movement, named after an anonymous blogger, Q, who propagated these strange theories, actively supported Trump, and even predicted his 2016 election victory. Back then, Trump was a charismatic and successful populist who stormed into the White House against all odds, riding a wave of popular disillusionment with globalists and liberals. But he had no real ideology — just a rough imitation of one.

By his second term, however, a coherent ideology emerged. Its core remained populist and libertarian. Similar elements existed before: shrinking government, reducing social spending, rejecting gender politics and liberal censorship, combating illegal immigration, and so forth. This ideological pole was most consistently represented by Steve Bannon, who served as Trump’s national security advisor during his first term. But now, this system of conservative-populist and notably nationalist views was clearly articulated, exemplified by the “Project 2025” document. Still, these positions could hardly represent the genuine stance of what we call the deep state, let alone the second, even deeper state. Rather, they represented the same American values and attitudes, merely reflecting an earlier phase. This could not be an authentic alternative vision for the future, even remotely comparable to the ideology of liberal globalists embodied by the deep state. Until a certain point, the deep state in the U.S. considered the alternation between Democratic and Republican administrations as mere facade changes within the same system. It is improbable that something genuinely deeper would suddenly favor returning to an earlier American era, with its conditions and priorities, over a more “progressive” and advanced alternative. Thus, clues to the even deeper state must be sought elsewhere.

This is where something fundamentally new — previously absent from early Trumpism — becomes helpful. In the 2024 election, Trump received support from key Silicon Valley figures — oligarchs and technocrats traditionally associated exclusively with the Democratic Party. This group is entirely devoted to accelerating the pace of time, a process that gave rise to a particular term and corresponding philosophy — accelerationism. Accelerationists believe existence is concentrated solely within time, and by accelerating time, rapidly advancing technological progress, especially in social media and artificial intelligence, humanity can reach a qualitatively new level. In essence, this represents a leap towards post-humanity, or super-humanity.

At some point, however, Silicon Valley accelerationists split into two currents — left accelerationists and right accelerationists. The former believed technological progress naturally aligned with a left-liberal agenda and strongly opposed conservatism and populism. The latter, however, had proposed several decades ago the paradoxical thesis that technological progress and accelerationism do not depend at all on the ideology prevailing in society. More radically, they argued that liberal ideology — with its unwavering dogmas, gender politics, woke culture, DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion), cancel culture, censorship, erasure of borders, and uncontrolled migration — currently obstructs development, not only failing to accelerate time but actively slowing it down. Intellectual leaders of this movement, such as Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land, formulated the theory of the “Dark Enlightenment,” asserting that to enter the future, humanity must discard the prejudices of humanism and the classical Enlightenment. Instead, a return to traditional institutions like monarchy, class-based society, castes, and closed systems would significantly foster technological progress.

Importantly, this idea gained active support from influential oligarchs, notably Peter Thiel — the creator of PayPal, Palantir, and other successful ventures — and Elon Musk. These tech giants deeply penetrated the American establishment, controlling critically important surveillance, network, and electronic intelligence technologies. They also advanced significantly in engineering, exemplified by Musk’s achievements in space exploration. This environment in Silicon Valley gave rise to a distinct movement sometimes called “Thielism,” named after Peter Thiel. Right accelerationists formed a cohesive group of powerful oligarchs who eventually felt strong enough to implement the ideas of the “Dark Enlightenment” within American politics.

My hypothesis is that this shadow phenomenon became the foundation of an even deeper state. These individuals were less traditional right-wing conservatives and more ideological opponents of left-liberalism and globalism. Moreover, according to their theory, successful technological advancement and a decisive leap towards new technologies and new forms of existence are achievable only within relatively closed sociopolitical and cultural systems that replicate feudal-monarchic forms of social organization at a new evolutionary stage.

Thiel himself aligned early with Trump, creating an inner circle that included Trump’s family members and several promising Republican politicians, notably JD Vance. Palantir systems became integral to the daily operations of the CIA and other American intelligence agencies, where the “Dark Enlightenment” gradually recruited supporters. Populism and nationalism were consciously chosen as mass cover for their avant-garde and somewhat sinister ideas.

While an electoral core was necessary, it alone was insufficient for victory. Thus, “right accelerationists” decided to leverage social media, as demonstrated by Elon Musk’s acquisition of Twitter (X). Musk became a symbol of this second pole of Trumpism, dubbed “tech right,” in contrast to populists labeled “trad right” (traditional right). The active participation of tech right, alongside youth engagement through social media and other high-tech influence tools, secured Trump’s victory. “Project 2025” itself emerged from this environment. Thielists and their selected candidates occupied high positions in the new administration. Figures like Vance and Musk are prominent, but they represent just the tip of the iceberg. Numerous individuals from this group took key roles across various levels of government. For example, Russell Vought, who introduced “Project 2025,” became Director of the Office of Management and Budget.

Right accelerationism embarked on a path to dismantle the liberal and globalist deep state, not through conventional conservative voters but through infiltration into the system itself. From Trump’s first term onward, throughout his struggle for re-election, an immense invisible effort was underway, the results of which only became apparent during the elections. Trump emerged armed with a powerful and systematic ideology, with traditional right figures (such as Steve Bannon and Jack Posobiec) driving populism, and tech right figures (including Peter Thiel, Elon Musk, Vivek Ramaswamy, Marc Andreessen, David Sacks, and others) drawing the American tech sector to his side. The right accelerationists promote cryptocurrency, Mars exploration, and even propose transforming Greenland into a vast laboratory for bold and radical experiments.

While the tech right remains a minority within the broader populist Trumpism, they represent the voice of what we have conditionally termed the “even deeper state.” Essentially, this ideology prioritizes pure technology and accelerating humanity’s global transition to a new level — towards AGI, powerful AI, and the singularity. Recently, Elon Musk wrote on his X account: “We are at the event horizon of the singularity.” In the eyes of technocrats, the obstacle to this transition is the (in their view, idiotic) liberal ideology, which they are successfully dismantling in the U.S. alongside the deep state in which it had become entrenched.

If this interpretation is correct, many things become clearer. Primarily, we understand precisely which force, and for what far-reaching purposes, allowed Trump to win (examples of how elections can be prevented include the 2020 U.S. election and current European politics). Secondly, it explains why resistance from the deep state was relatively easy to overcome: one segment of it (the high-tech sector and certain factions within the security and intelligence communities) had already been ideologically reformed according to the principles of the “Dark Enlightenment.” Finally, it clarifies why Trump is acting so decisively: it is not simply a matter of temperament but a global plan to accelerate the progression of time itself. This transcends mere populism; it is philosophy, strategy, and even metaphysics.

Order Alexander Dugin’s The Trump Revolution here.