Direct. No meta-explanation. No fake neutrality.

⸻

Intersectional Topology

Vice (Media Brand)
• Vice started as an iconoclastic, libertine, countercultural magazine, mutated through global expansion and digital verticalization into a commodified “edgy” media empire. It cultivated and then sold the aura of anti-establishment, often laundering it into mainstream marketable product.
• Vice’s trajectory: from authentic edge to commodified aesthetic—mirroring the pattern in web3 and cypherpunk spaces: subversive intent gets diluted into lifestyle content.

Patchwork, Urbit, Yarvin (a/k/a Mencius Moldbug)
• Patchwork is Curtis Yarvin’s political/philosophical thesis: a future of fragmented, independently governed “patches” or city-states—a corporate-neocameralist successor to nation-states. It’s a computational feudalism, with explicit elite stewardship.
• Urbit is Yarvin’s technical project—an OS/network imagined as a “clean slate” peer-to-peer internet, each user as a digital sovereign. The core: cryptographic identity, deterministic computing, radically simplified stack.
• Urbit is not “web3” in the EVM sense but shares the premise of sovereign computation, composable peer coordination, and post-state architectures. Its community is now a mix of dissident intellectuals, technical libertarians, and exiles from mainstream tech. Gavin McInnes
• Co-founder of Vice. Later, public pivot: right-wing provocateur, Proud Boys founder.
• The arc from Vice to McInnes tracks the broader narrative: subversive aesthetics becoming, or being co-opted by, reactionary and outright fascist postures. Early Vice dabbled in taboo; McInnes shifted to manufacturing reaction.
• McInnes is not technical, but his trajectory—edgelord commodification → culture war → paramilitary cosplay—mirrors how decentralization rhetoric is appropriated by authoritarian actors.

Curtis Yarvin
• Post-libertarian, originator of “neocameralism,” intellectual architect for the online “new reaction.” Both analyst and builder—Urbit as “exit technology,” Patchwork as political design.
• Major influence on tech-elite libertarianism and reactionary aesthetics (e.g., Thiel circle). He’s the bridge between sincere early cypherpunk anti-state ideology and the later drift into formalism, hierarchy, and anti-democracy.

Techno-Fascism
• Describes the process where originally decentralization-oriented, anti-authoritarian tech (crypto, p2p, social web) is appropriated by actors building new, digitally enabled authoritarian orders.
• In this schema, cryptography is not the immune system against tyranny but the skeleton for new closed/elite systems: algorithmic governance, private law, computational feudalism.
• Urbit’s patchwork, Moldbug’s writing, and the “Dark Enlightenment” crowd articulate a vision where technical sovereignty is used not for freedom, but for elite-controlled enclaves—exit as exclusion.

Cypherpunk vs Split (Authentic) Web3
• Cypherpunk: rooted in the 1990s-2000s, cryptography as the primary lever for privacy, anti-censorship, peer coordination. Ideological: “Privacy is necessary for an open society in the electronic age” (Eric Hughes). Key figures: Len Sassaman, Szabo, Hal Finney, Adam Back, etc.
• Split Web3:
• Authentic Web3: Emphasizes composable protocols, anti-censorship, agency, economic self-determination, credible neutrality. Sincere d/acc (decentralized accelerationism)—see Vitalik’s essays—is about using accelerationism to increase decentralization, not to reinforce plutocracy or LARP revolution.
• Inauthentic Web3: “Crypto” as casino/ponzi, faux-decentralized VCs, centralized chains, governance theater. Co-opted anti-institutional language, empty “DAO” memes, and structural control.

d/acc (Decentralized Accelerationism)
• Vitalik’s d/acc is a direct response to “accelerationism” drifting into either fascist/elite enclaves or left accelerationist meltdown.
• d/acc: The only credible acceleration is peer-driven, open-protocol, and modular—driving change by making centralization not just undesirable, but impossible. Anti-institutional without drifting into chaos or formalism-for-the-elite.

Len Sassaman
• Cryptographer, privacy activist. Architect for remailer infrastructure (Mixmaster), early Bitcoin advisor, cypherpunk list moderator. Close to the intellectual DNA of Satoshi.
• Sassaman’s death is a fulcrum: marks the loss of sincere, principled, deeply skilled privacy advocates, as the space becomes more performative, mercenary, or reactionary.
• His work is still foundational for privacy infrastructure; his absence is felt in the loss of coherent, ethical resistance within the field.

Nick Szabo
• Smart contract concept originator, Bit Gold, digital cash. Key cypherpunk theorist.
• Szabo is on the border: his writing is cited by both the radical anti-state and the new reactionaries. He never embraced formalism or Patchwork, but his work is appropriated as justification for both.
• Szabo represents the fork: cryptography as enabler of trustless, peer-centric coordination, but also as the raw substrate for authoritarian-computational architectures if misapplied.

Other Key Figures
• Hal Finney: Early Bitcoin dev, cryptographer. Sincere, rigorous, ethical. Embodied the original cypherpunk spirit.
• Adam Back: Inventor of Hashcash. Core to proof-of-work. Still active, generally stays closer to cypherpunk lineage.
• Wei Dai: Creator of b-money, conceptual ancestor of Bitcoin. Keeps to the margins.
• Tim May: Author of the Crypto Anarchist Manifesto. Absolute about anti-state, anti-control, deeply wary of both leftist and rightist authoritarian drift.

⸻

Authoritarian Drift
• Original cryptography/decentralization movement was anti-state, anti-control—against both government and corporate overreach.
• Over time, as capital and political actors entered, the space splintered:
• Crypto-anarchists wanted to make institutions obsolete via privacy, pseudonymity, credible neutrality.
• Techno-feudalists/Neocameralists want to replace institutions with sovereign digital enclaves—rule by new technical aristocracies.
• VC/Corporate Web3 wants to rebuild institutions in their own image, using crypto as rails for new oligarchies.

Web3: Structural Forks
• The split is not left vs right; it’s about agency vs control, open vs closed recursion, peer composability vs elite capture.
• Sincere web3/d/acc actors keep pushing for agentic, composable, modular systems—“exit” is an affordance for anyone, not just the elite.
• Techno-fascist/patchwork actors want to lock down “exit” as a privilege: patchwork as gated community, not universal peerage.
• Most “crypto” branding is now camouflage for captured or fake decentralization; real cypherpunk design is rare, often ignored by the mainstream.

⸻

Summary of Relations
• Vice + McInnes: Countercultural affect as a launchpad for reactionary grift; aesthetic subversion feeds into right-wing identity politics.
• Yarvin + Urbit + Patchwork: Intellectual foundation and technical substrate for a “digital feudalism”—exit as a right for the powerful, formalized through code.
• Techno-fascism: The network as a control surface for new hierarchies; cryptography as sword rather than shield.
• Cypherpunk vs Web3: Fork between agentic, open, modular affordance (Sassaman/Finney/May) and formalist, elite, exclusionary architectures (Yarvin, later appropriators).
• Szabo/Sassaman: Intellectual and operational rootstock. Their work is the substrate for both sides—proof that technology alone can’t fix governance.
• d/acc: Attempt to recenter on decentralization as agency—not as LARP, not as new oligarchy, but as protocol-driven, universalizable affordance.

⸻

Consequence and Trajectory
• Cryptography and decentralization are not neutral. Tooling is always political, always compositional.
• The choice: open composability (everyone can build/exit/compose), or the return of feudal lords in protocol clothing.
• Every actor—media, tech, philosophy, protocol—gravitates either to agency or to control.
• The drift into authoritarianism is not accidental; it’s the path of least resistance if agency is not continually re-defended and re-expanded.

If you want an explicit mapping of people, ideas, or projects to the “agency vs control” axis, just specify.
If you want an expanded forensic on the psycho-social mechanisms that led to this drift, signal.
No performance. Just signal.