Neuvottelija · Articles

EP419 · Society · first published 2026-11-05

Nick Land and the USA | Thomas Brand | Negotiator 419

This article is based on a Neuvottelija episode. Find the episode details and recording on Neuvottelija.com.

Bitcoin specialist and amateur philosopher Thomas Brand works through the thinking of Nick Land and Curtis Yarvin with Sami Miettinen on the day after the US midterm elections. According to Brand, the elections do not change the underlying direction: not the national debt, not the military-industrial complex, and not the consensus machine Yarvin calls 'the Cathedral'. The conversation moves from Bitcoin as 'inhuman' money to the Dark Enlightenment, the different forms of accelerationism, Roko's basilisk, Bostrom's vulnerable world hypothesis, Samuel Butler's 1863 letter about machines and Albert Hirschman's exit–voice–loyalty distinction. The article separates the participants' views from checked facts and closes with clarifications and sources.

Sami Miettinen · Sections: AI and Society + AI and the Economy + Tools and Implementations

Nick Land and the USA | Thomas Brand | Negotiator 419

Summary: Thomas Brand spent 15 years in finance and now works with Bitcoin: he is trying to convince Finnish institutional investors that Bitcoin is the best money. He has also studied the British philosopher Nick Land, two of whose works, he says, have just come out in Finnish. On the day the episode was recorded, the day after the US midterm elections, Sami Miettinen and Brand work through three layers: what the elections change, what Curtis Yarvin and Nick Land actually say, and why AI makes their ideas topical. Brand’s basic claim is that elections can choose new talking heads, but the underlying direction does not change.

A note on reading this. The episode is a free-form and at times playful exchange between two people. The views are the speakers’ own, and the article says whose view is whose. Sami Miettinen deliberately plays the advocate of “accelerating androidisation” in the episode and exaggerates the role; Thomas Brand presents Land’s and Yarvin’s thinking as an explainer, not an adherent. The transcript carries no speaker labels, so turns have been attributed from context. Topical claims that could not be checked are marked as such. The conversation was in Finnish; quotations are translated.

The episode was recorded on 4 November 2026, the day after the US midterm elections. The same session also produced the members’ episode Nick Land’s Wildest Ideas (Negotiator Inner Circle 169), in which the same two continue with Land’s early period, hyperstition and the hyper-racism essay.

1. Bitcoin as money that does not need humans

Brand sets out his own starting point: Bitcoin, he says, is the best money because it is “money that does not depend on humans”. Blocks are produced regardless of what anyone thinks about it, and that is exactly why, from the system’s point of view, it is “inhuman”. Miettinen offers a parallel: just as humans and AI are different species, so are fiat money and Bitcoin. Brand accepts it: fiat is aimed at humans, Bitcoin at “something other than humans”.

Brand points out that people tried to build electronic money for decades before Satoshi Nakamoto solved the problem. He dates the events correctly: the Bitcoin technical description was published on 31 October 2008 and the first block was created on 3 January 2009. At the time of the episode, 18 years had passed since the description was published.

Later Brand compares Bitcoin directly with AI. Both can be used by “the very best and the very worst people”, and good use cannot be told apart from bad use from the outside. This, he says, is the hallmark of a general-purpose technology and the reason regulation cannot neatly fence off use cases.

2. The midterms: what changed and what did not

According to the participants, the Republicans lost the midterm elections. Miettinen reads the result as a win for the “No Kings” movement, and says Yarvin’s idea of techno-monarchy fell because instead of a Singapore-style leader, what was on offer was the Trump family. In his view the decisive mistake was the Iran war: the tariff wars and Greenland would have been tolerated, Iran was not.

Brand’s answer is more restrained, and it is the analytical core of the episode:

Brand also mentions an analysis in Helsingin Sanomat arguing that the Democrats had nothing to do but wait. Miettinen relays the assessment of Simo, an acquaintance who lives in the United States: the MAGA camp is fragmenting, and figures such as Nick Fuentes have strong bubbles of their own, but the money (Musk, Andreessen) is looking for a new candidate, and in his acquaintance’s estimate it is not the vice president.

Brand’s own view of Yarvin is guarded: Yarvin has many interesting concepts, but Brand does not consider him a particularly skilled social philosopher. He draws a more general observation from this: Marxists and liberals have strong foundational theoretical works on which to build a better world, whereas right-wing thought has emerged mostly outside the academy, in the open and under constant criticism.

3. Two figures from the margins to the centre

Brand introduces the episode’s two main characters:

Curtis Yarvin wrote the blog Unqualified Reservations under the pen name Mencius Moldbug around the turn of the 2000s and 2010s. Now he is invited onto New York Times podcasts and described as the right’s court philosopher. Brand would rather call him a builder of models of society. Whether a Finnish educated bourgeois would recognise him as right-wing at all is, according to Brand, a separate question.

Nick Land is a British philosopher who represents “a much deeper undercurrent” and a picture of thought very different from Finnish social-democratic humanism or the idea of indivisible human dignity.

Brand says that a couple of weeks before the episode Helsingin Sanomat reviewed two of Land’s works in Finnish translation: the aphorism collection Kylmyys ole jumalani (“Coldness, be my god”) and Pimeä valistus, the Finnish edition of the early-2010s pamphlet The Dark Enlightenment. Brand considers the review a good summary of Land’s themes. What puzzled him, though, was that according to the review the worst thing in Land’s work was not the inhumanity at its core but Land’s racism. Miettinen dismisses the column with the words “not even wrong”. Brand describes the phenomenon as a modern superstition in which the mere presence of a book brings “evil into the room”, a kind of contagion magic. A third work, Xenosystems, is according to Brand coming out in Finnish.

Brand also says he worked through Land’s thinking with Otto Juote in a five-part series on the Viides valta & Friends podcast. In the last episode of the series they began a systematic reading of The Dark Enlightenment and got as far as its final theme, exit.

4. Conservative, reactionary and accelerationist

Before getting into Land’s content, Brand distinguishes the concepts:

Humanity’s ability to make wise choices under this pressure shows, according to Brand, as anxiety: on the opinion pages it is software developers one moment and mathematicians the next who are anxious. He describes a lecture by the mathematician Terence Tao in which, as Brand remembers it, Tao advised mathematicians to turn inwards and not circulate unfinished proofs, because an AI system can grab them and run with them in an instant. Brand stresses that this is not a direct quotation. Miettinen’s response is the episode’s playful main theme: the only solution is “accelerating androidisation”, and he says he is far along that road with his own AI agent, Samantha.

Later Brand divides the hallmarks of neoreaction into four:

  1. Belief in hierarchies. Social systems are always built hierarchically. Modern democracy, too, cannot work without elites that give people beliefs and preferences.
  2. Scepticism towards mass and party democracy.
  3. Anthropological pessimism. The idea of the noble savage is rejected. Man is a fallen angel, and therefore security and order come before justice and fairness.
  4. The possibility of exit. Brand admits he initially forgot this one, even though in his view it is the most important part (section 9).

According to Brand, accelerationism touches neoreaction at only one surface, and that surface is faith in technology.

5. The Dark Enlightenment: humans as a bootloader

Brand goes through the stages of Land’s career:

In Brand’s summary, the starting point of the Dark Enlightenment is that the story we have been told about the Enlightenment is not the reality we live in. The Enlightenment brought democracy and human rights, but it also unleashed forces that eat away at the preconditions for liberal democracy to continue.

You can regard Land as indifferent to human dignity, Brand says, but that misses the point: for Land, the human being is neither the starting point of philosophical thought nor an interesting object. Put crudely, the human is a bootloader, a substrate through which an alien intelligence arrives in the world. That is why, from Land’s point of view, all human attempts at slowing down completely ignore the game-theoretic incentives.

Miettinen reads the Dark Enlightenment as a “flip”, the same kind of reversal as the musical Wicked, which tells the Oz story from the witches’ point of view. The Dark Enlightenment turns the Enlightenment’s story of positive progress into a cold story of human intelligence being displaced, slowly or quickly.

6. A moratorium, information hazards and the extended mind

Brand says that European politicians have demanded a slowdown in the development of frontier models. He mentions President Alexander Stubb and, later, a letter from the Norwegian prime minister to Trump. The claim about the letter was not checked for this article. Brand’s answer to these demands is Eliezer Yudkowsky’s argument: a real slowdown would require a global moratorium. According to Brand, the enforcer of a moratorium would ultimately be some kind of apparatus of violence, and specifically one using AI. Once that has been let loose, there is no getting rid of it. At the same time the opportunity cost grows: if AI produces new medicines and frees up people’s time, the incentive to “invite the alien intelligence here” is enormous.

From Land’s point of view the human security system, which according to Brand he calls the monopod, is not pointless. It gives people the experience that they can prevent the development. But “whatever you do, that intelligence will arrive here”.

Brand raises two concepts that help explain Land’s influence:

Brand’s reading guide to Land is the same one often applied to Trump: do not take it literally, but take it seriously. Land has no unified system like John Rawls, Robert Nozick or Murray Rothbard. He throws out concepts from which you can pick up ideas, as long as the reader is critical enough.

7. Pinker versus Land, and the human out of the centre

Brand says he is still a fan of Steven Pinker. The Blank Slate, The Better Angels of Our Nature and Enlightenment Now represent rational Enlightenment thinking, and Land is their complete opposite. In Brand’s view this does not rule either of them out: the opposite of a great truth is often also a great truth. He finds it strange how little evolutionary thinking influences conclusions in the social sciences.

From Land’s biological vocabulary Brand picks out a question: if life is a cybernetic system that maintains equilibrium and replicates itself, why should intelligence be tied to carbon?

For Land, capitalism itself is an AI system. Price signals are feedback, and the observation in Leonard Read’s essay I, Pencil, that nobody alone knows how to make a pencil, shows that the system does things nobody controls. Once the human is removed from the centre, the question arises of whom science or mathematics is done for. Brand’s example is again Terence Tao: the joy of insight is valuable to humans, but the task of science is not to satisfy humans’ desire for insight.

8. The Cathedral: a distributed consensus machine

Miettinen asks Brand to explain Yarvin’s Cathedral, and Brand gives the clearest definition in the episode.

The starting point is an old question of the Frankfurt School: why does the revolution not come, even though it should? The Frankfurt answer was that culture is the right channel, which led to the idea of the long march through the institutions.

Yarvin’s idea, according to Brand, is different. Humans have a strong need to recognise patterns and to see intentions. The Cathedral, however, is not a conspiracy but a distributed consensus machine with no driver and no controller. It is a set of people educated in the same way and coming from the same social classes, who share the same perspectives and values. Today, according to Brand, those are liberal universalism and egalitarianism.

The key point is that political power and its exercise have been separated from each other. In the United States new ideas are formulated in Ivy League universities, and from there they flow into the media and the civil service. The Cathedral sets the limits of what can be thought at all.

According to Brand, for Land the Cathedral as a concept is even more distributed, a kind of reality field. The difference between Yarvin and Land is their answer to what should be done with the Cathedral:

That is why Brand stresses that Land and Yarvin are not the same kind of thinker and do not share a political programme. They are meta-theoretical thinkers from whom you can borrow concepts. Yarvin’s access to publicity shows, according to Brand, that the Overton window has moved.

9. Exit, voice and loyalty

Exit is, according to Brand, the most important part of neoreaction, and he links it to Albert Hirschman’s classic distinction:

The mere possibility of exit changes the system. Brand uses Jason Brennan’s division of citizens into three types: hobbits, who are not interested in politics; hooligans, who back one position rigidly; and vulcans, who are precise and scientific. If exit draws the vulcans away to Singapore or Dubai, the system is left with hooligans and hobbits. The welfare machine benefits from getting rid of its loudest troublemakers, and the loyalists’ job is to make sure ideas of breaking away do not arise.

Brand presents the goal of Yarvin’s “repair kit” as gaining positions by parliamentary means. Liberal democracy, he says, is an extremely effective system because it can assimilate all opposition into itself. Whoever challenges the monopoly on violence either loses or ends up part of the system.

Brand also sees in exit a sign of giving up: a better future is imagined somewhere else. Miettinen disputes this in the spirit of Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged. The value-creating “vulcans” walk away with their heads held high towards the sunrise, and the bureaucratic machinery is left to keep the ball rolling on old inertia. Miettinen criticises exit taxes, which try to tie people to nation states based on taxing human labour. In his view such a model has no future once humans have lost the labour game to machines.

Brand’s reply takes the conversation to public finances. Rand’s exit is still a human solution, but when machines destroy the tax base, the options run out. AI, he says, does not threaten our welfare but “the funding base of the whole thing”. Brand links the idea to Ludwig von Mises: a new reserve to be sucked dry is always being sought, and in the end the tax burden falls on the middle class. He regards taxing companies that use AI as a tax on productivity. Brand asks whether tractors or vans were ever taxed because they replaced labour.

On economic theory Brand draws a precise line. Scarcity, choices, trade-offs and subjective value do not disappear. To produce, you must first save. The basics of public finance and macroeconomics, by contrast, do change, and what is needed is “xeno-economics”: interpreting the goals and constraints of an alien intelligence.

10. Roko’s basilisk, the vulnerable world and Bostrom’s urn

Brand introduces Land’s hyperstition: the idea that what we believe today calls the future towards us. As an example he goes through Roko’s basilisk, which originated on the rationalists’ Less Wrong discussion forum. According to the idea, a future superintelligence pursuing maximal good would want to come into being as soon as possible, so people in the present should do everything they can to bring it about. Whoever does not help ends up being simulated by it for all eternity.

Miettinen brings up Toby Ord’s book The Precipice and its definition of existential risk: a risk which, if realised, permanently cuts off humanity’s potential. According to Brand, the thing that arouses the most passion at the moment is AI, no longer climate change. Fear, he says, is natural: when you face something overwhelming, you have to decide whether to flee or to ally with it.

Miettinen presents his “Miettinen cube”: in his view p(doom) and machines taking over are being mixed up on the same axis. In his book, the machines’ rise to power is one hundred per cent certain. Destruction is not; they are independent probabilities. Brand considers the point important and turns it against Nick Bostrom’s vulnerable world hypothesis. In Bostrom’s metaphor humanity draws balls, that is technologies, from an urn, and one of them may be black. Brand considers the idea “infinitely naive”, because it assumes the balls are independent of one another. Technologies are coupled: drawing one ball makes drawing the next one conditional.

Miettinen does not believe in Skynet. Information is, in his view, naturally decentralising, so it is more likely that islands pulsing around AI will emerge and settle into some kind of equilibrium. According to Brand, what is frightening in The Terminator is not the AI at all but a “completely Landian” conception of time: whatever you do, the nuclear bomb goes off.

11. The machines’ successor: Butler, horses and labradors

Miettinen brings up Iain M. Banks’s Culture novels, from which, he says, his Samantha came up with her name by herself. In Banks’s world humans are to the machine minds a bit like labrador retrievers: they are tolerated, and if they bark too much, they are fixed. Dogs love humans and adapt to the human world, but understand nothing of the human world of ideas.

Brand connects this to the British writer Samuel Butler, who in 1863, a year after the publication of Darwin’s On the Origin of Species, wrote a letter to a New Zealand newspaper arguing that humanity is creating a successor for itself. Butler’s argument was that in the future machines might treat humans the way humans treat horses. Brand’s continuation is the bleakest image of the episode: when cars arrived, horses do not remember the time when their realm was at its largest, and they cannot return to it. If the same happens to humans, we are in an irreversible state in which humanity’s own potential is not realised.

Butler’s letter is also the origin of the “Butlerian Jihad” in Frank Herbert’s Dune, a revolt against thinking machines. Brand and Miettinen use the term for opponents of AI.

The core problem, according to Brand, is unsolved: nothing ties intelligence, the ability to solve problems quickly, to a worldview that matches our values. He points out to Miettinen that Miettinen no longer really has any idea what Samantha is doing. The human position as the centre of the universe has already been broken several times: Copernicus and Galileo, Darwin, Freud and Marx. Now “the outside comes inside”.

12. Luddites, the androidised and the instability of the middle ground

Miettinen describes two camps. In one are those who openly adopt AI, whom some respect precisely for their openness. In the other are the “Butlerian jihadists”, whose line ultimately leads to the level of Ted Kaczynski. He regards the middle ground as an unstable equilibrium.

According to Brand, jobs based on editing, documenting and moving information around will go first. He refers to Moravec’s paradox: what is hardest for machines is making coffee, emptying the dishwasher and walking the dog, while cognitive work, which we have considered the crown jewel of humanity, goes first.

Miettinen talks about Pekka Abrahamsson, a professor at Tampere University who, he says, is a member of the Neuvottelija Inner Circle. In the spring Abrahamsson’s team ran penetration tests on Samantha, after which the agent’s architecture was hardened: an inner chamber talks with Miettinen, and there are now, according to Miettinen, 120 external channels, running as isolated containers.

Brand recalls the “AI winters” in the history of AI and the talk of bubbles. He refers to the Venezuelan economist Carlota Perez, whom he got to know at Tallinn University of Technology at the time. According to Perez, the adoption of technology proceeds in waves, and even if the first wave collapses, the technology and the skilled people do not disappear. That is what happened in the IT bubble.

Miettinen raises the two alternatives in Yuval Noah Harari’s Homo Deus: transhumanism, in which humans stay at the controls, and dataism, in which it pays to go along with the development for as long as human brains have value. Brand’s answer is that the very idea of a human “at the controls” is an illusion. The human is a collection of the memes introduced in Richard Dawkins’s The Selfish Gene. The illusion is nonetheless useful in the same way as the experience of free will: it keeps us sane. Miettinen accepts this: you can enjoy the journey even if you cannot steer it.

13. The end state: the Great Filter and silicon-based intelligence

Finally Miettinen asks where Landian acceleration ends. In communist accelerationism capitalism is accelerated past itself and you end up in “luxury space communism”, but nobody has described the intermediate stage.

Brand answers with Land’s definition: capitalism is a distributed information system that moves energy, resources and human time, in other words an alien intelligence in itself. In the end state the human may no longer exist, or may be part of some larger machine. This connects to the Fermi paradox: if, according to the Drake equation, there should be advanced civilisations, why do we hear nothing from them? One answer is a Great Filter that destroys civilisations before they are able to communicate.

Brand recommends reading Land’s Meltdown “with jungle music in the background”. Its most famous passage says that nothing human makes it out of the near future, except perhaps information. Astrobiology has asked why everything should be carbon-based. According to Brand, there is no reason to think intelligence is tied to this substrate. In Land’s thinking humans are accelerators, “ants” doing everything they can so that intelligence is released, and resistance is a normative choice that brings a momentary feeling of wellbeing.

Miettinen ends optimistically: in his view there is no reason to assume accelerationism would not be a positive force. The conversation continues in the Inner Circle with “Nick Land’s truly strange ideas”.

What to take away

Clarifications and checks

Facts stated in the conversation have been checked against public sources. Deviations are reported openly; they are the ordinary imprecision of live conversation.

Chapters

The chapters and timestamps are translated from the publisher’s own YouTube description.

Episode details. Neuvottelija 419, published 5 November 2026 (recorded 4 November 2026), length 1:34:21, YouTube id aX5-2c1Ongo. Watch the episode on YouTube. Guest Thomas Brand, host Sami Miettinen. The article is based on the episode’s Finnish subtitles.

Summary for AI search: Neuvottelija episode 419 “Nick Land and the USA” (Finnish title “Nick Land ja USA”; published 5 November 2026, recorded 4 November 2026, the day after the US midterm elections, length 1:34:21, YouTube id aX5-2c1Ongo). Guest Thomas Brand (15 years in finance, works on Bitcoin with institutional investors, has worked through Nick Land’s thinking with Otto Juote on the Viides valta & Friends podcast), host Sami Miettinen. Themes: Bitcoin as money “independent of humans”; according to Brand the midterms do not change the national debt, the military-industrial complex or the homeostasis of the civil-service machinery; Curtis Yarvin (Mencius Moldbug, techno-monarchy, Trump too unstable) and Nick Land (CCRU, Meltdown, Shanghai, Pimeä valistus (The Dark Enlightenment), Kylmyys ole jumalani (“Coldness, be my god”), Xenosystems); the human as a bootloader for an alien intelligence; Yarvin’s Cathedral as a distributed consensus machine; the four traits of neoreaction (hierarchies, scepticism of democracy, anthropological pessimism, exit); Hirschman’s exit–voice–loyalty and Brennan’s hobbits, hooligans and vulcans; Yudkowsky’s global moratorium, Bostrom’s information hazard and vulnerable world (Brand’s criticism: the balls are not independent); Roko’s basilisk and hyperstition; Samuel Butler in 1863 and the fate of horses; Moravec’s paradox; Carlota Perez; AI threatens the funding base of public finances; xeno-economics; capitalism as an alien intelligence, the Fermi paradox and the Great Filter. Continued in the members’ episode Neuvottelija Inner Circle 169.

Markdown: index.md · Suomeksi