History

Peter Thiel at Isengaard looking into the Palantir

Peter Thiel has a plan to save the world, and it looks like a nightmare. He’s casting around for scapegoats, but perhaps Peter Thiel and the Antichrist are one and the same.

The PayPal co-founder, Facebook‘s first outside investor, and Silicon Valley‘s most influential political operator has spent years developing a political philosophy so strange that most people assume it can’t be serious. Democracy and freedom are incompatible, he says. Global cooperation is the Antichrist. The only hope for civilization is absolute monarchy modeled on tech startups. And he’s not just theorizing—he’s building it.

Thiel has poured millions into political campaigns, funded think tanks, mentored a generation of “New Right” intellectuals and alt-Right screeders, and cultivated politicians who share his vision. He’s amplified fringe thinkers like Curtis Yarvin (the blogger behind “Neoreaction” who openly advocates abolishing democracy), but Thiel’s worldview is uniquely his own—a bizarre synthesis of Christian eschatology, corporate governance theory, and techno-authoritarianism that’s far more sophisticated and disturbing than anything coming from the intellectual dark web.

This isn’t just eccentric billionaire philosophy. Thiel’s protégés include a sitting Vice President (J.D. Vance) and multiple Republican senators. His ideas circulate through conservative think tanks and Trump‘s inner circle. What sounds like science fiction is increasingly becoming Republican policy doctrine.

The media often portrays Thiel as an enigmatic libertarian or contrarian thinker. But that framing misses what’s actually happening. This is a systematic rejection of 250 years of democratic governance, wrapped in theological language and corporate efficiency rhetoric. And it’s weirder and more methodical than most people realize.

Peter Thiel and the Antichrist in 8 minutes (video)

This NotebookLM video does a great job explaining the background and impact of Thiel’s dangerously apocalyptic rhetoric inspired by a Nazi theorist — and below it you can find a deeper explanation of all major points:

Here are the five interlocking beliefs that form Thiel’s vision—and why each one should terrify you.

1. Democracy Is the Bug, Not the Feature—Replace It With a Tech Startup Dictatorship

Thiel doesn’t just critique democracy—he’s concluded it’s fundamentally incompatible with freedom. In a 2009 essay, he wrote: “I no longer believe that freedom and democracy are compatible.” Not ideal partners; not in tension — but incompatible.

His alternative is coldly corporate: run countries like founders run startups. One CEO. One vision. Absolute authority. No consensus. No debate. No democracy.

Continue reading Peter Thiel and the Antichrist: 5 Weirdo Beliefs Driving the New Tech Right
Read more

The Rise and Fall (and Rise?) of Gazprom: What the World’s Biggest Gas Company Teaches Us About Power, Monopolies, and Strategic Failure

How a $360 Billion Giant Lost 90% of Its Value—and What It Reveals About State Capitalism

In 2008, Gazprom was worth more than $360 billion, making it the third most valuable company on Earth. It was Russia‘s energy monopoly and largest gas company, and one of the largest companies in the world. Today? It’s worth $34 billion—a staggering 90% collapse that tells one of the most fascinating stories in modern business history.

This isn’t just a tale about natural gas and pipelines. It’s a masterclass in how monopoly power, geopolitical weaponization, and strategic overconfidence can destroy even the most seemingly invincible empires. And in an era where AI, tech platforms, and energy systems are being disrupted faster than ever, the lessons from Gazprom’s trajectory are surprisingly relevant.

Let us take you inside the story of Russia’s energy leviathan—and what its dramatic arc teaches us about power, strategy, and the dangerous illusion of permanence.

The Ultimate State-Owned Monopoly

First, let’s grasp the sheer scale we’re talking about:

  • 17% of the world’s proven natural gas reserves
  • 180,600 kilometers of pipelines (the world’s largest network)
  • Production of 414-500 billion cubic meters annually
  • Operations in 20+ countries, supplying 100+ nations

Gazprom didn’t just dominate Russia’s energy sector—it WAS Russia’s energy sector. Born from the Soviet Ministry of Gas Industry in 1989, it became the first state-run private enterprise in Soviet history, even before corporate laws existed in the USSR. That’s how strategically vital it was.

The Russian government maintains 50%+ control through various entities, making Gazprom the textbook example of a “state champion”—a privately structured company that serves as an extension of national power.

Energy as Geopolitical Weapon: The Gazprom Playbook

Here’s where things get interesting from a strategy perspective.

Gazprom wasn’t just selling gas—it was wielding it. The company’s toolkit included:

1. Strategic Supply Disruptions
Cut off countries that didn’t play ball politically. Ukraine, Belarus, and others experienced “technical problems” with their gas supply that mysteriously coincided with diplomatic disagreements.

2. Pricing Manipulation
Friends got sweetheart deals. Adversaries paid premium rates. Simple, effective, brutal.

3. Infrastructure Control
Build the pipelines, control the flow. Europe became dependent on a single supplier for 40% of its natural gas by 2021.

This is the “monopoly network effects” mental model taken to its extreme: Once you control the physical infrastructure, you don’t just have market power—you have geopolitical leverage that can shape foreign policy across an entire continent.

The Nord Stream Strategy

The Nord Stream pipelines perfectly embodied this approach. By routing gas directly to Germany via the Baltic Sea, Gazprom could:

  • Bypass unreliable transit countries (Ukraine)
  • Lock in Germany as a dependent customer
  • Divide European unity on Russia policy

It was strategic brilliance… until it wasn’t.

The Fatal Flaw: Mistaking Leverage for Invincibility

Charlie Munger often warned about “incentive-caused bias“—the tendency to believe your own narrative when you’re winning. Gazprom fell into this trap spectacularly.

The company’s leadership made several critical miscalculations:

1. Weaponizing Your Product Destroys Trust

Using energy as a political weapon worked… until customers decided they’d rather pay more than remain vulnerable. After Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Europe went into overdrive finding alternatives.

Result: Gazprom’s European market share collapsed from 40% to 8% in just one year (2022-2023).

2. Infrastructure Becomes a Liability

That vaunted 180,600 km pipeline network? Much of it now represents stranded assets. You can’t exactly redirect physical pipelines when your largest customers ghost you.

Meanwhile, competitors with LNG terminals can ship to whoever’s buying. Flexibility > fixed infrastructure when geopolitics get messy.

3. The “Too Big to Fail” Illusion

Gazprom assumed its monopoly position was permanent. Major gas fields hit production peaks. Investment in new fields (requiring $50+ billion for Yamal or Shtokman development) was delayed. Technology partnerships with Western firms provided crucial expertise.

When sanctions hit, the company faced:

  • Asset freezes
  • Technology transfer restrictions
  • SWIFT banking isolation
  • Loss of Western expertise and financing

Suddenly, “too big to fail” looked a lot like “too rigid to adapt.”

The Pivot to Asia: Too Little, Too Late?

Facing European abandonment, Gazprom is desperately pivoting eastward:

  • Power of Siberia 1: Operational pipeline to China (38 bcm capacity)
  • Power of Siberia 2: Planned pipeline through Mongolia (50 bcm capacity)
  • Expanded LNG operations: Playing catch-up in a market they largely ignored

But here’s the problem: China knows Gazprom is desperate. Beijing isn’t paying European prices. They’re negotiating from strength while Gazprom negotiates from necessity.

This illustrates the “alternative available” principle—your leverage is only as strong as your customer’s next-best option. Europe had alternatives (LNG from US, Qatar, etc.). Russia? Not so much for customers.

From Profit to Loss to Profit Again: The Volatility of State Champions

The financial swings tell the story:

  • 2021: Record profit of 2.68 trillion rubles (during European energy crisis)
  • 2023: First loss since 1999—629 billion rubles
  • 2024: Back to profit—1.2 trillion rubles

This wild volatility reflects a fundamental truth: When your company serves political objectives first and commercial objectives second, financial performance becomes subservient to state goals. Sometimes that works (2021 energy crisis). Often it doesn’t (sanctions, market loss).

Strategic Lessons for the AI Era

So what can we extract from Gazprom’s saga that applies to today’s rapidly evolving landscape?

1. Network Effects Work Until They Don’t

Gazprom’s pipeline monopoly seemed unassailable—until geopolitical shifts made customers willing to pay the switching costs.

AI Parallel: Today’s AI models and platforms building “moats” through data, compute, or user lock-in should remember that trust, reliability, and user sovereignty matter. Abuse your position, and users will fund alternatives.

2. Geopolitical Risk Is Business Risk

Gazprom learned this the hard way. Over-optimizing for one strategic relationship (Europe) without diversification created catastrophic vulnerability.

Content Creator Parallel: Platform dependency is the same risk. Building your entire business on YouTube, or Instagram, or any single platform means you’re one algorithm change or TOS update away from collapse. Diversification isn’t optional.

3. Asset-Heavy Models Lose Flexibility

Physical infrastructure becomes a liability in fast-changing environments. LNG companies with flexible shipping could adapt; Gazprom with fixed pipelines couldn’t.

Digital Business Parallel: Heavy CapEx models and legacy infrastructure become anchors. The future belongs to modular, composable, rapidly adaptable systems—whether that’s in content creation, AI deployment, or business operations.

4. The Innovator’s Dilemma Applies to Nations Too

Gazprom focused on protecting its existing business model (pipeline gas) rather than aggressively pursuing LNG and diversified markets. Classic Innovator’s Dilemma.

When you’re dominant, investing in what might disrupt you feels unnecessary… until it’s too late.

The Future: A Giant at a Crossroads

Gazprom in 2025 faces questions that will determine Russia’s economic future:

  • Can they truly pivot from European to Asian markets?
  • Will their aging infrastructure support next-generation needs?
  • Can they adapt to climate pressures and carbon transition demands?
  • How do they compete without Western technology and financing?

The company’s 2024 return to profitability might suggest resilience. But structural challenges remain: aging fields, massive investment requirements, geopolitical isolation, and customers who’ve learned not to trust a monopoly supplier.

Final Thoughts: The Illusion of Permanence

Gazprom’s story reminds us that nothing is permanent—not monopolies, not market dominance, not even control over critical resources.

The company went from seemingly invincible to struggling for survival in less than three years. That’s faster than most product cycles in tech. It’s a humbling reminder that in an interconnected, rapidly changing world, strategic rigidity is fatal.

For anyone building in digital media, content creation, or AI-driven businesses today, the lessons are clear:

✅ Diversify your dependencies
✅ Trust and reputation are assets, not tactics
✅ Flexibility beats fixed infrastructure
✅ Geopolitical and platform risks are real business risks
✅ Never mistake current dominance for permanent advantage

The same forces disrupting Gazprom—technological change, strategic competition, trust erosion, and rapid market shifts—are reshaping every industry. The question isn’t whether disruption will come. It’s whether you’ll see it coming and adapt fast enough.

In the age of AI and digital transformation, being the biggest doesn’t guarantee survival. Being the most adaptable just might.

 

Read more

The Founders knew acutely the pains of centuries of religious warfare in modern Europe and resoundingly did not want that for their new nation. Many of them moreover knew religious persecution intimately — some whose families fled the Church of England for fear of being imprisoned, burned at the stake, or worse. Is America a Christian nation? Although many Christians certainly have come here, in a legal and political sense the nation’s founders wanted precisely the opposite of the “Christian nation” they were breaking with by pursuing independence from the British.

Contrary to the disinformation spread by Christian nationalists today, the people who founded the United States explicitly saw religious zealotry as one of the primary dangers to a democratic republic. They feared demagoguery and the abuse of power that tilts public apparatus towards corrupt private interest. The Founders knew that religion could be a source of strife for the fledgling nation as easily as it could be a strength, and they took great pains to carefully balance the needs of religious expression and secular interests in architecting the country.

James Madison: 1803

Americans sought religious freedom

The main impetus for a large percentage of the early colonists who came to the Americas was the quest for a home where they could enjoy the free exercise of religion. The Protestant Reformation had begun in Europe about a century before the first American colonies were founded, and a number of new religious sects were straining at the bonds of the Catholic Church’s continued hegemony. Puritans, Mennonites, Quakers, Jesuits, Huguenots, Dunkers, Jews, Amish, Lutherans, Moravians, Schwenkfeldians, and more escaped the sometimes deadly persecutions of the churches of Europe to seek a place to worship God in their own chosen ways.

By the late 18th century when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, many religious flowers were blooming within the 13 colonies. He had seen for himself the pitfalls of the experiments in which a unitary control of religion by one church or sect led to conflict, injustice, and violence. Jefferson and the nation’s other founders were staunchly against the idea of establishing a theocracy in America:

  • The founding fathers made a conscious break from the European tradition of a national state church.
  • The words Bible, Christianity, Jesus, and God do not appear in our founding documents.
  • The handful of states who who supported “established churches” abandoned the practice by the mid-19th century.
  • Thomas Jefferson wrote that his Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom was written on behalf of “the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu and the infidel of every denomination.” In the text he responds negatively to VA’s harassment of Baptist preachers — one of many occasions on which he spoke out sharply against the encroachment of religion upon political power.
  • The Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for holding foreign office.
  • The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
  • There is a right-wing conspiracy theory aiming to discredit the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” by claiming that those exact words aren’t found in the Constitution.
    • The phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he is describing the thinking of the Founders about the meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which Jefferson contemplates “with sovereign reverence.”
    • The phrase is echoed by James Madison in an 1803 letter opposing the building of churches on government land: “The purpose of separation of Church and State is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
  • The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli states in Article 11: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” — President George Washington first ordered the negotiation of a treaty in 1795, and President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in 1797, with this article widely interpreted to mean a reiteration of the purpose of the Establishment Clause to create a secular state, i.e. one that would not ever be going to holy war with Tripoli.

Critical Dates for Religious Freedom in America

From the very beginning the Founders made clear they did not want to repeat the mistakes of Old Europe. They established a secular government that offered religious freedom to many who had felt persecuted in their homelands — for generations to come.

Get a quick overview of some of the most important moments in American history and its founding documents with our interactive timeline below.

The Founders were deists

Moreover, the majority of the prominent Founders were deists — they recognized the long tradition of Judeo-Christian order in society, but consciously broke from it in their creation of the legal entity of the United States, via the Establishment Clause and numerous other devices. The founders were creatures of The Enlightenment, and were very much influenced by the latest developments of their day including statistics, empiricism, numerous scientific advancements, and the pursuit of knowledge and logical decision-making.

What Deism Actually Meant: Deism in the 18th century was a rationalist religious philosophy that accepted the existence of a creator God based on reason and observation of the natural world, but rejected supernatural revelation, miracles, and divine intervention in human affairs. Think of it as “God as clockmaker” — God designed the universe with rational laws, set it in motion, and then stepped back. This was a radical departure from traditional Christianity.

The Enlightenment Context:

The Founders were steeped in Enlightenment philosophy — Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Hume. They believed in:

  • Empiricism over revelation — knowledge comes from observation and reason, not scripture
  • Natural rights derived from human nature and reason, not divine command
  • Social contract theory — government legitimacy comes from consent of the governed, not God’s anointing
  • Scientific method — Newton’s physics showed that the universe operated by discoverable natural laws

This was a revolutionary shift. They were designing a government based on Enlightenment principles in an era when most of the world still operated under divine-right monarchy.

The European Church-State Problem They Rejected:

The Founders had vivid historical examples of why mixing religion and state power was dangerous:

  • The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) killed roughly 8 million Europeans in religious conflict
  • The English Civil War was fought partly over church governance
  • The Spanish Inquisition showed what happens when church and state merge
  • Various European states still had official churches that persecuted religious minorities — prompting many of them to consider a new line in the American colonies

They saw how “established” (government-sponsored) religions inevitably led to:

  • Religious tests for public office
  • Tax support for churches people didn’t believe in
  • Legal persecution of dissenters
  • Corruption of both religion and government

Thomas Paine’s Radical Vision:

Paine went even further than most Founders. In “The Age of Reason” (1794), he argued:

  • All national churches are “human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind”
  • Revelation is meaningless — “it is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other”
  • True religion is simply “to do justice, love mercy, and endeavor to make our fellow-creatures happy”
  • He predicted that as education and reason spread, traditional organized religion would wither

This was considered extremely radical — even scandalous — at the time. Yet Paine was celebrated as a hero of the Revolution and widely read. He once lamented that “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”

The Structural Safeguards They Built:

This wasn’t just philosophy — they built specific mechanisms:

  • No religious test for office (Article VI)
  • Establishment Clause — no official national religion
  • Free Exercise Clause — no prohibition of religious practice
  • Disestablishment at state level — states gradually abandoned their established churches (Massachusetts was last in 1833)

The framers of our Constitution who established this nation distrusted the concept of divine right of kings that existed in Europe under its historical monarchies. We fought a revolution to leave all that behind for good reason. They were adamantly against the idea of a national church, and were clear and insistent about the necessity of keeping the realms of religion and politics independent of each other.

It is the Christian nationalists who have it backwards — America was never a Christian nation that lost its way. Rather, the United States was founded as a secular nation and has become truer to fulfilling that mission over the centuries. It is the Project 2025 folks who are engaging in revisionist history, inventing a mythical past for the country that simply didn’t exist.

Read more

Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. They can convince us that untrue things are true, or vice versa.

Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits. They’re patterns of thinking that tend to be negatively slanted, inaccurate, and often repetitive — the very opposite of healthy, critical thinking.

These unhelpful ways of thinking can limit one’s ability to function and excel in the world. Cognitive distortions are linked to anxiety, depression, addiction, and eating disorders. They reinforce negative thinking loops, which tend to compound and worsen over time.

Irrational thinking: And how to counter it

Every day, our minds take shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information we encounter. These shortcuts—cognitive distortions—helped our ancestors survive in environments where quick judgments meant the difference between life and death. But in today’s complex world, where we’re making decisions about careers, relationships, investments, and strategy, these same mental patterns can systematically lead us astray.

Cognitive distortions are systematic patterns of thought that can lead to inaccurate or irrational conclusions. These distortions often serve as mental traps, skewing our perception of reality and affecting our emotional well-being.

Mental traps, by Midjourney

The good news? Simply knowing these distortions (as well as other common psychological biases) exist makes you a better thinker. Research in metacognition shows that awareness is the first step toward correction. You can’t debug code you don’t know is buggy, and you can’t fix thinking patterns you can’t see.

Here’s the hard truth: everyone experiences these distortions. The difference between mediocre and exceptional decision-makers isn’t that one group never falls into these traps—it’s that they’ve trained themselves to spot the patterns, pause, and course-correct. They’ve built systems to counteract their brain’s default programming.

Types of cognitive distortion

What types of cognitive distortion should we be aware of? Let’s delve into three common types: emotional reasoning, counterfactual thinking, and catastrophizing.

  1. Emotional Reasoning: This distortion involves using one’s emotions as a barometer for truth. For example, if you feel anxious, you might conclude that something bad is going to happen, even if there’s no objective evidence to support that belief. Emotional reasoning can create a self-perpetuating cycle: your emotions validate your distorted thoughts, which in turn intensify your emotions.
  2. Counterfactual Thinking: This involves imagining alternative scenarios that could have occurred but didn’t. While this can be useful for problem-solving and learning, it becomes a cognitive distortion when it leads to excessive rumination and regret. For instance, thinking “If only I had done X, then Y wouldn’t have happened” can make you stuck in a loop of what-ifs, preventing you from moving forward.
  3. Catastrophizing: This is the tendency to imagine the worst possible outcome in any given situation. It’s like always expecting a minor stumble to turn into a catastrophic fall. This distortion can lead to heightened stress and anxiety, as you’re constantly bracing for disaster.

But there are many more mental pitfalls to watch out for besides just these 3. The table below catalogues some of the most common cognitive distortions that shape (and warp) human thinking. As you read through them, you’ll likely recognize patterns from your own mental habits. That moment of recognition isn’t a weakness—it’s the beginning of cognitive sovereignty. The path to better decisions starts with knowing when your brain is trying to take shortcuts, and choosing to think deliberately instead.

Consider this your debugging toolkit for the most important software you’ll ever run: your own mind.

Cognitive distortions list

Cognitive distortionExplanationExample
all-or-nothing thinkingviewing everything in absolute and extremely polarized terms“nothing good ever happens” or “I’m always behind”
blamingfocusing on other people as source of your negative feelings, & refusing to take responsibility for changing yourself; or conversely, blaming yourself harshly for things that were out of your control“It’s my boss’s fault I’m always stressed at work, or conversely, “It’s all my fault that the project failed, even though I had no control over the budget cuts.”
catastrophizingbelief that disaster will strike no matter what, and that what will happen will be too awful to bearIf I don’t get this promotion, my life will be ruined and I’ll end up homeless.
counterfactual thinkingA kind of mental bargaining or longing to live in the alternate timeline where one had made a different decisionIf only I had studied harder for that exam, I wouldn’t be in this situation now.
dichotomous thinkingviewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms“If I don’t get a perfect score on this test, then I’m a complete failure.”
discounting positivesclaiming that positive things you or others do are trivial, or ignoring good things that have happened to you“I got a promotion, but it’s not a big deal; anyone could have done it.”
emotional reasoningletting feelings guide interpretation of reality; a way of judging yourself or your circumstances based on your emotions“I feel like a failure, so I must be one.”
filteringmentally “filters out” the positive aspects of a situation while magnifying the negative aspectsEven though I got a promotion and a raise, I can’t stop thinking about the one negative comment my boss made during my performance review.
fortune-tellingpredicting the future negativelyI just know I’m going to fail this test, even though I’ve studied for weeks.
framing effectstendency for decisions to be shaped by inconsequential features of choice problemsChoosing the “90% fat-free” yogurt over the “10% fat” yogurt, even though they are nutritionally identical, because the positive framing sounds healthier.
halo effectbelief that one’s success in a domain automagically qualifies them to have skills and expertise in other areasBecause someone is a successful actor, I assume they must also be a brilliant political commentator.
illusory correlationtendency to perceive a relationship between two variables when no relation existsEvery time I wash my car, it rains, so I must be causing the rain.
inability to disconfirmreject any evidence or arguments that might contradict negative thoughtsDespite being shown evidence of her good work, she clung to the belief that she was incompetent.
intuitive heuristicstendency when faced with a difficult question of answering an easier question instead, typically without noticing the substitutionWhen asked if they are a happy person, someone might answer if they are happy right now, instead of considering their overall happiness.
just-world hypothesisbelief that good things tend to happen to good people, while bad things tend to happen to bad peopleShe believes that because she works hard and is a good person, she is guaranteed to win the lottery, while bad things only happen to those who deserve it.
labelingassigning global negative traits to self & others; making a judgment about yourself or someone else as a person, versus seeing the behavior as something they did that doesn’t define them as an individual“I’m a complete idiot for making that mistake,” instead of “I made a mistake.”
ludic fallacyin assessing the potential amount of risk in a system or decision, mistaking the real randomness of life for the well-defined risk of casinosA gambler believes that since a roulette wheel has landed on red five times in a row, it’s more likely to land on black next, mistaking the independent probability of each spin for a predictable pattern.
magical thinkinga way of imagining you can wish reality into existence through the sheer force of your mind. Part of a child developmental phase that not everyone grows out of.If I just wish hard enough, I can make my dream job appear without applying for it.
magnificationexaggerating the importance of flaws and problems while minimizing the impact of desirable qualities and achievementsEven though I successfully completed the complex project, I can’t stop focusing on the minor typo I made in one email.
mind readingassuming what someone is thinking w/o sufficient evidence; jumping to conclusionsMy boss didn’t say good morning, so she must be angry with me.
negative filteringfocusing exclusively on negatives & ignoring positivesEven after receiving a glowing performance review, she could only dwell on the one minor suggestion for improvement.
nominal realismchild development phase where names of objects aren’t just symbols but intrinsic parts of the objects. Sometimes called word realism, and related to magical thinkingA child believing that if you call a dog a “cat,” it will actually become a cat, demonstrates nominal realism.
overgeneralizingmaking a rule or predicting globally negative patterns on the basis of single incidentBecause I tripped on the sidewalk today, I know it’s going to be a terrible week.
projectionattributing qualities to external actors or forces that one feels within and either a) wishes to promote and have echoed back to onself, or b) eradicate or squelch from oneself by believing that the quality exists elsewhere, in others, but not in oneselfHe accused his coworker of being lazy, when in reality, he was struggling with his own motivation.
provincialismthe tendency to see things only from the point of view of those in charge of our immediate in-groupsShe couldn’t understand why anyone would disagree with her team’s strategy, assuming their way was the only correct approach because it’s what her superiors believed.
shouldsa list of ironclad rules one lives and punishes oneself by“I should always be perfect, and if I’m not, I’m a complete failure.”
teleological fallacyillusion that you know exactly where you’re going, knew exactly where you were going in the past, & that others have succeeded in the past by knowing where they were goingI always knew I would become a successful entrepreneur because every step I took, even the detours, perfectly led me to this point.
what if?keep asking series of ?s on prospective events & being unsatisfied with any answersWhat if I fail the exam, and what if that means I’ll never get into college, and what if my whole future is ruined because of this one test?

More related to cognitive distortions:

30 Common psychological biases ↗

These systematic errors in our thinking and logic affect our everyday choices, behaviors, and evaluations of others.

Top Mental Models for Thinkers ↗

Model thinking is an excellent way of improving our cognition and decision making abilities.

24 Logical fallacies list ↗

Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.

Read more

The “lizard people” conspiracy theory is one of the more fantastical narratives that have found a niche within modern conspiracy culture. This theory suggests that shape-shifting reptilian aliens have infiltrated human society to gain power and control. They are often depicted as occupying high positions in government, finance, and industry, manipulating global events to serve their sinister agenda.

Origins and evolution

The roots of the reptilian conspiracy theory can be traced back to a mix of earlier science fiction, mythological tales, and conspiracy theories. However, it was British author David Icke who, in the 1990s, catapulted the idea into the mainstream of conspiracy culture. Icke’s theory combines elements of New Age philosophy, Vedic texts, and a wide array of conspiracy theories, proposing that these reptilian beings are part of a secret brotherhood that has controlled humanity for millennia — a variation on the global cabal conspiracy theory framework that shows up in a lot of places.

The Lizard People conspiracy theory, as illustrated by Midjourney

Icke’s initial ideas were presented in his book “The Biggest Secret” (1999), where he posits that these entities are from the Alpha Draconis star system, now hiding in underground bases and are capable of morphing their appearance to mimic human form. His theories incorporate a broad range of historical, religious, and cultural references, reinterpreting them to fit the narrative of reptilian manipulation.

Persistence and appeal

The persistence of the lizard people conspiracy can be attributed to several factors. First, it offers a simplistic explanation for the complexities and injustices of the world. By attributing the world’s evils to a single identifiable source, it provides a narrative that is emotionally satisfying for some, despite its utter lack of evidence.

Second, the theory thrives on the human tendency to distrust authority and the status quo. In times of social and economic upheaval, conspiracy theories offer a form of counter-narrative that challenges perceived power structures.

The Lizard People are bankers too

Third, the advent of the internet and social media has provided a fertile ground for the spread of such ideas. Online platforms allow for the rapid dissemination of conspiracy theories, connecting individuals across the globe who share these beliefs, thus reinforcing their validity within these communities.

Understanding the Ecosystem: How lizard people theories function in online conspiracy culture

While the origins and cultural impact of David Icke’s reptilian conspiracy theory reveal much about modern conspiracy thinking, a deeper examination of how these ideas actually function within online communities exposes far more complex dynamics than simple belief and propagation. The video below explores the surprising reality of conspiracy forum culture, where the lizard people theory serves not just as a belief system, but as a weapon used by conspiracy theorists themselves to police the boundaries of their own community. Rather than existing in echo chambers of uniform agreement, these spaces operate more like battlegrounds where believers, skeptics, and those who engage purely for intellectual play constantly clash over what constitutes “legitimate” conspiracy thinking.

The 7-minute video below also delves into the science behind combating such misinformation and disinformation, examining cutting-edge research on “inoculation theory” and other evidence-based strategies for building cognitive resistance to false narratives. From David Icke’s dramatic fall from BBC respectability to the sophisticated psychological techniques now being deployed to counter conspiracy thinking, this analysis reveals how the seemingly absurd world of shape-shifting reptilians has become a crucial case study for understanding the broader challenges of truth, belief, and information warfare in the digital age.

Lizard people in modern culture and society

In modern culture, the lizard people conspiracy theory occupies a peculiar niche. On one hand, it is often the subject of satire and parody, seen as an example of the most outlandish fringe beliefs. Shows, memes, and popular media references sometimes use the imagery of reptilian overlords as a humorous nod to the world of conspiracy theories.

On the other hand, the theory has been absorbed into the larger tapestry of global conspiracy culture, intersecting with other narratives about global elites, alien intervention, and secret societies. This blending of theories creates a complex and ever-evolving mythology that can be adapted to fit various personal and political agendas.

Despite its presence in the digital and cultural landscape, the reptilian conspiracy is widely discredited and rejected by mainstream society and experts. It’s critiqued for its lack of credible evidence, its reliance on anti-Semitic tropes (echoing age-old myths about blood libel and other global Jewish conspiracies), and its potential to fuel mistrust and paranoia.

Current status and impact

Today, the reptilian conspiracy theory exists on the fringes of conspiracy communities. While it has been somewhat overshadowed by newer and more politically charged conspiracies, it remains a staple within the conspiracy theory ecosystem. Its endurance can be seen as a testament to the human penchant for storytelling and the need to find meaning in an often chaotic world.

The impact of such theories is a double-edged sword. While they can foster a sense of community among believers, they can also lead to social alienation and the erosion of trust in institutions. The spread of such unfounded theories poses challenges for societies, emphasizing the need for critical thinking and media literacy in navigating the complex landscape of modern information.

The lizard people conspiracy theory is a fascinating study in the power of narrative, belief, and the human desire to make sense of the unseen forces shaping our world. While it holds little sway in academic or scientific circles, its evolution and persistence in popular culture underscore the enduring allure of the mysterious and the unexplained.

Recent pop culture and media references

The lizard people conspiracy theory continues to captivate the public imagination, finding its way into various forms of media and popular culture. Recent years have seen a surge in references to this outlandish theory, demonstrating its persistent influence on contemporary discourse.

Television and streaming

Netflix’s animated series “Inside Job” (2021) prominently features lizard people as part of its satirical take on conspiracy theories. The show depicts various celebrities and political figures, including Taylor Swift, Judge Judy, and even Queen Elizabeth II, revealing their “true” reptilian forms. This humorous approach both mocks and acknowledges the pervasiveness of the lizard people myth in popular consciousness.

Numerous other shows, from People of Earth (2016-17) and Secret Invasion (2023) to parodies and satire in The Simpsons, Rick & Morty, and Gravity Falls have echoed and amplified the conspiracy in media.

Even before Icke’s book, the original NBC miniseries “V” in 1983 portrayed carnivorous reptilians masquerading as human-looking “Visitors,” seeking to dominate the planet. The show was a Cold War allegory that some modern-day conspiracy theorists misquote as “proof.”

Social media trends

TikTok has become a hotbed for conspiracy theory content, including discussions about lizard people. A study analyzing 1.5 million TikTok videos shared in the US over three years found that approximately 0.1% of all videos contained content related to conspiracy theories. While this percentage may seem small, it represents a significant number of videos given TikTok’s massive user base.

Podcasts and online content

The enduring fascination with the lizard people conspiracy is evident in the existence of dedicated podcasts like “Lizard People,” which explores various conspiracy theories, including the reptilian elite. Such content creators often blend humor with pseudo-investigation, further embedding the concept in internet culture.

The Lizard People, young dapper and woke crowd, by Midjourney

Video games and interactive media

While not necessarily directly referencing lizard people, a number of video games have incorporated reptilian humanoids or shape-shifting aliens as antagonists, potentially drawing inspiration from or alluding to the conspiracy theory. Some of the more notable examples include Deus Ex (2000), which includes references to various real-world conspiracy theories, with one of its factions, Majestic 12, connecting to theories about reptilian control.

The Mass Effect series includes the Salarians, a reptilian race highly influential in galactic politics. And in 2013’s Saints Row IV, there’s a direct satirical nod to the lizard people conspiracy theory in one of its mission plot lines that involves fighting against shape-shifting aliens infiltrating the government.

Public figure mentions

Although direct endorsements of the lizard people theory by mainstream public figures are rare, occasional references or jokes about the concept by celebrities or politicians can reignite public interest and discussion. However, it’s crucial to approach such mentions critically and verify their context and intent.

The persistence of the lizard people conspiracy in various media forms underscores its role as a cultural touchstone. Whether treated as satire, serious speculation, or a subject of mockery, the theory continues to evolve and adapt to new platforms and audiences — reflecting broader societal anxieties and the enduring human fascination with and craving for the unknown and the extraordinary.

key milestones in the lizard people conspiracy theory

Books about conspiracy theories

Conspiracy Theory Books

More conspiracy theories

Global cabal
Deep state
What is QAnon?
PizzaGate
9/11 conspiracy theories
The Illuminati
Read more

national debt of the united states

In fact, not only are we going further into debt for no good reason, but we’re going further into debt for a bad one — actually, two very bad ones.

The same fiscal hawks that yelled histrionically about refusing to take on debt — even in times of crisis — let the GOP budget bill for FY2026 sail through without a peep despite it adding a debt burden of almost $4 trillion over the next 10 years.

And for what? The first terrible reason is so that a gaggle of wealthy donors can get even wealthier, have more lavish weddings, build ever more elaborate doomsday bunkers, recreate company towns from The Jungle, cavalierly flit off to space, and so on. Never could I have imagined Gilded Age 2.0 would be so dumb.

After screaming bloody murder for literal decades and lecturing Democrats about reckless spending and balanced budgets, the Republicans simply let this gigantic albatross sail right through without so much as a debate. It’s as if the national debt were suddenly the Epstein files — something you should weirdly be ashamed of still caring about after being whipped into a frenzy about it for years (including being cajoled to the Capitol to break the law on behalf of someone who is above the law).

“Reckless spending” is fine when my team does it, seems to be GOP orthodoxy. Future generations be damned — we only think about them under Democratic Presidents. Suddenly, it has become desirable to saddle the nation with more debt for no good reason.

Establishment of a police state

The second terrible rationale for taking the US further into debt is to create a police state in America, with literal concentration camps. Despite campaigning on deporting the alleged set of violent criminals within the undocumented immigrant demographic, Trump and his slavering goon squad have been picking up fathers, landscapers, students who posted things they don’t like on social media, random South Koreans, and anyone Tom Homan thinks looks a little bit too brown. In other words, the government is spending billions and billions of your tax dollars to get rid of hardworking taxpayers — a hateful Dunning-Kruger approach that is toxic both politically and economically.

This GOP tax and spending bill will also empower the federal government to take over Democratic cities — despite the fact that red states have more crime. And to deploy America’s federal law enforcement staff away from national and international crimes like sex trafficking and fraud, and turning them towards’ providing photo ops in DC. Because appearances are all that matter to this particular president and his regime.

All this to create the kind of police state with standing army that the Founders would have laughed out of the room — because they had just fought a bloody war to defeat that kind of autocratic nonsense. With its cash infusion of an eye-popping $171 billion across federal agencies and other new border security and detention facility funding, ICE is poised to become the 4th largest branch of the military — but deployed on home soil, increasingly against Americans.

The GOP Budget Bill in 7 Minutes

Ask the Bill: An HR1 NotebookLM

But you don’t have to take my word for it — here you can talk directly to the bill in natural language, in NotebookLM:

the HR1 GOP tax and spending budget bill for fiscal year 2026, in an interactive NotebookLM

GOP budget bill winners

See a full table of the winners and the new lay of the land and the immense growth of the administrative state that the GOP claims it is trying to eradicate:

Continue reading The GOP budget bill takes the US further into debt for no good reason
Read more

Alexei Navalny, anti-corruption crusader in Russia against Vladimir PUtin

That’s a paraphrase. But it’s descriptive — Alexei Navalny skewered Putin’s Russia for its corruption. And paid a price with his life — because that’s what authoritarian regimes demand: your loyalty or your life. Yet a Russian-style mafia state is the end goal of Trump and his cronies.

Navalny — like the U.S. Founding Fathers did before him — believed in human rights and the dignity of all souls equally before God and rational thought. But Putin — like the Confederates and Nazis before him — believed that some men were better than others, and that people like him should rule over all the rest. They wanted a return to essentially monarchy — but with the modern power and technology of the state of the 21st century, making it an authoritarian political philosophy.

These two ideologies are battling it out in today’s geopolitical landscape. The rise of nationalist and right-wing parties of all stripes across the globe has been unsettling yet unmistakable over these past number of years. Upset victories and near misses have dotted the landscape, as left-wing parties still are (perhaps rightfully) reeling over the idea that anyone could abandon the conviction that societies thrive best when the laws are applied equally, or that it’s probably a bad thing to concentrate too much power into one person’s hands, or that concentration camps are wrong — to name but a few.

Alexei Navalny, anti-corruption crusader in Russia against Vladimir

The right-wing moral universe seems to see the vague suggestion that Hunter Biden once tried (and failed) to broker a meeting with his VP dad as an impeachable offense while Trump hawking his own line of egregiously priced perfumes from the White House, or shilling Teslas on the lawn, or inking multi-billion dollar deals with Saudi Arabia while in office is just business as usual. Nothing to see here.

That’s how the system works — they normalize corruption and bad behavior when it’s a Republican doing it, and criminalize it if a Democrat does. Selective enforcement of the law means there really is no law anymore — it’s just the President’s whim that day. Or should I say, the King’s.

Alexei Navalny: Human rights is the goal of politics

This is the stuff they don’t want anybody to see. This is the very basic demands of a civilized society that we ought to expect — ideas so powerful that men like Vladimir Putin have to kill him in a desperate attempt to make the dangerous idea of self-worth more widely known. They really do not want you to have rights — and this is how far they are willing to go:

Read more

Reagonomics as illustrated by Ronald Reagan sitting atop a huge pile of money

Trickle down economics is known by a number of names: supply side economics, Reaganomics, the Laffer Curve, voodoo economics, deregulation, Libertarianism, Mudsill Theory, Two Santa Claus theory, horse and sparrow theory, and the Trump tax cuts, to name a few. It has been espoused by everyone from Ayn Rand to Milton Friedman to Alan Greenspan to Gordon Gecko.

Trickle down economics involves focusing the brunt of government effort on helping the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class and the poor. The theory says that the wealthy elites of the country have proven themselves capable patricians for stewarding the lives of the masses through myth and fairytale in the name of patriotic duty. The “supply” in supply side are the rich, who will create companies that sell products to people who didn’t even realize they needed them. If we give enough of our collective tax pool to them, they say, they’ll create jobs and prosperity for everyone else.

The problem for trickle down economics is that that isn’t true at all. It simply doesn’t happen. Time and time again over the past approximately 200 years, the ideology of rewarding the wealthy for being wealthy has proven its premises to be completely false. Deregulation and starving the government don’t produce a prosperous utopia — they produce recessions and depressions. They produce conglomerates too big to fail, that get rewarded for their brazenly irresponsible speculation with Main Street’s money, and flaunt their ability to simply capture government in our collective faces.

Trickle down economics since the 1970s

In its most recent incarnation as trickle-down, supply-side, or Reagonomics, tax cuts are pitched as paying for themselves when they have in actual fact succeeded in blowing up the deficit and the national debt. The work of Arthur Laffer and Jude Wanniski at a fateful meeting with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in 1974, trickle-down economic theory was put into practice during the Reagan years and has been failing to produce the promised results of paying down the debt for almost half a century.

Jude Wanniski’s “Two Santa Claus” strategy laid the political groundwork for what would soon be branded as supply-side, or trickle-down, economics. Observing in the 1970s that Democrats played “Santa” by expanding popular social programs, Wanniski warned Republicans that positioning themselves as the party of spending cuts cast them as the “anti-Santa.” His fix was simple but potent: become a second Santa by promising sweeping tax cuts. Republicans, he argued, could shower voters with fiscal “gifts” while leaving beloved programs intact, sidestepping the backlash that traditionally followed austerity talk.

This tactical reframing meshed perfectly with the emerging supply-side creed. By asserting that lower taxes on corporations and high earners spur investment, production, and ultimately broad prosperity, Republicans could claim that their giveaways weren’t merely political theater—they were an economic necessity. The brilliance (and cynicism) of the scheme was its indifference to short-term deficits: ballooning red ink would corner future Democratic administrations into either raising taxes or cutting spending, both politically toxic options.

In practice, the Two Santa Claus playbook flipped classical, demand-driven thinking on its head. Rather than boosting middle-class wages to stoke consumption, it poured resources into the top of the income ladder and trusted prosperity to “trickle down.” The approach reached full throttle in the Reagan era—taxes slashed, spending still high—and its legacy endures: chronic deficits, rising inequality, and an ongoing partisan tug-of-war over who pays the bill.

increasing national debt ratio thanks to trickle down economics scam

The Big, Beautiful, Debt-Ballooning Bill

Look no further than the monstrosity of a bill the Republicans are trying to jam through the reconciliation process. Expected to make the 2017 Trump tax cuts a permanent welfare handout to the wealthiest billionaires on the planet, the so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” is also slated to add $4 trillion to the national debt.

We can’t keep going on this way.

It’s long past time we undertake the difficult work of educating the population more broadly about this GOP economics scam that’s been running for the past 50 years and running up the till while nurturing a truly nasty partisan political divide as insult to injury.

Trickle down doesn’t work. Tax cuts to billionaires doesn’t work — at least, not for anyone other than the billionaires and political elite class. We need an economic system that works broadly for everyone, otherwise sooner or later it all comes crashing down and we are in for a (literal) world of hurt.

Related concepts:

Read more

Christian nationalism illustration

The term Christian nationalists brings together a number of radical religious sects seeking to overthrow the democratic republic of the United States and installing a strict theocracy, from dominionists to orthodox Catholics to Evangelicals and many more. Christian nationalist organizations work to increase the influence of religion on politics, under the invented mythology that the largely Deist founders meant to establish a Christian state.

Who are the Christian nationalists? They are people, groups, and congregations who tend to believe in Strict Father Morality, and Christian nationalist leaders desire to establish some sort of Christian fascist theocratic state in America. Nevermind that religious freedom and the ability to worship as one pleases was precisely one of the major founding ideals of the United States, as we know from the many, many outside writings of the founders at that time — these folks consider that context “irrelevant” to the literal text of the founding documents.

Getting “separation of state” backwards

Prominent Christian nationalist David Barton re-interprets the famous 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists to allege support for a “one-way wall” between church and state. Barton contends that Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation” was intended to protect religious institutions from government interference rather than ensuring the government’s secular nature. By advocating for this one-directional barrier, Barton seeks to justify the integration of religious principles into public policy and government actions — improbably, given the First Amendment to the Constitution.

Barton and his fellow Christian nationalists are either intentionally or unfathomably not taking the logical next step in the chain of power and authority: if the government is informed, infused, or even consumed by religious dogma and doctrine, then is that government not by definition infringing on the rights of any citizens that happens not to believe in that code or creed?

The answer, as we well know from the colonization of America itself, is YES. We left the Church of England in large part to worship of our own accord — and to make money, of course. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Washington were especially concerned about religious liberty and the neutrality of government in religious matters.

Thus, in large part, the ideas of the Christian nationalists are misinterpretations at best, and willful invention at worst. In some it is clearly a naked power grab and not much more — think of Trump holding an upside-down Bible in Lafayette Square. In general, Christian nationalism doesn’t actually seem very Christian at all.

Whether they are True Believers or Opportunistic Cynics, the Christian nationalist organizations and right wing groups on this list — as well as a number of prominent individuals within these organizations — represent a threat to democracy as we know it — especially with Project 2025 so close to coming to fruition in a second Trump administration. Best we get a look at who they are.

Christian nationalists abstract
Continue reading Christian Nationalist Organizations and Groups
Read more

What is RT.com? If you’ve been following international news in recent years, you’ve likely encountered content from RT — the state-owned Russian news service formerly known as Russia Today. But what exactly is this network, and why does it matter in our global information landscape?

The Birth of a Propaganda Powerhouse

RT didn’t emerge out of nowhere. Back in 2005, the Russian government launched “Russia Today” with a substantial $30 million in state funding. The official mission? To counter what the Kremlin perceived as Western media dominance and improve Russia’s global image.

What’s fascinating is how they approached this mission. Margarita Simonyan, appointed as editor-in-chief at just 25 years old, strategically recruited foreign journalists to give the network an air of international credibility. By 2009, they rebranded to the sleeker “RT” — a deliberate move to distance themselves from their obvious Russian state origins.

While RT initially focused on cultural diplomacy (showcasing Russian culture and perspectives), its mission shifted dramatically after the 2008 Russia-Georgia war. The network increasingly pivoted toward anti-Western narratives — a strategy that continues to this day.

How RT Spreads Disinformation

RT’s playbook is both sophisticated and concerning. The network regularly promotes conspiracy theories about everything from COVID-19 origins to U.S. election fraud. It strategically amplifies divisive issues in Western societies, particularly racial tensions in America.

The coverage of the Ukraine war offers a perfect case study in RT’s propaganda techniques. Their reporting consistently and erroneously:

  • Blames NATO for the conflict
  • Denies Russian war crimes (despite Hague warrant for Putin’s arrest)
  • Frames the invasion as a “special operation” to “denazify” Ukraine (led by a Jewish president)

What makes RT particularly effective is its tailored regional messaging. In Africa, they operate “African Stream,” a covert platform promoting pro-Russian sentiment. In the Balkans, RT Balkan (based in Serbia) helps circumvent EU sanctions while spreading Kremlin-aligned content. Meanwhile, their Spanish-language expansion targets Latin American audiences with anti-Western narratives.

Beyond Media: Covert Operations

Perhaps most concerning is evidence suggesting RT extends far beyond conventional media operations. U.S. officials have alleged that RT funneled $10 million to pro-Trump influencers ahead of the 2024 election, leading to Department of Justice indictments of RT staff.

The network reportedly recruits social media influencers under fake accounts to obscure Russian involvement. More alarmingly, RT-associated platforms allegedly supply equipment (including drones, radios, and body armor) to Russian forces in Ukraine, with some materials sourced from China.

According to U.S. intelligence assessments, RT hosts a clandestine unit focused on global influence operations — blurring the line between media and intelligence work.

Money and Organization

As with any major operation, following the money tells an important story. RT’s annual funding has grown exponentially — from $30 million at its founding to $400 million by 2015. For the 2022-2024 period, the Russian government allocated a staggering 82 billion rubles.

The network’s organizational structure is deliberately complex. RT operates under ANO TV-Novosti (a nonprofit founded by RIA Novosti) and Rossiya Segodnya (a state media conglomerate established in 2013). Its subsidiaries include Ruptly (a video agency), Redfish, and Maffick (digital media platforms).

Staying One Step Ahead of Sanctions

Despite being banned in the EU and U.S. following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, RT continues to expand its reach in Africa, Latin America, and Serbia. The network has proven remarkably adaptable at circumventing restrictions — using proxy outlets like “Red” in Germany and RT Balkan in Serbia to bypass sanctions.

The international response has been significant but inconsistent. The U.S. designated RT a foreign agent in 2017, the EU banned it in 2022, and Meta removed RT from its platforms in 2024. The U.S. has also launched campaigns to expose RT’s ties to Russian intelligence and limit its global operations.

Why This Matters

RT exemplifies modern hybrid warfare — blending traditional state media with covert influence operations and intelligence activities to advance Kremlin interests globally. Despite sanctions and increasing awareness of its true nature, RT’s adaptability and substantial funding ensure its continued reach.

For those of us concerned about information integrity and democratic resilience, understanding RT’s operations isn’t just academic — it’s essential for navigating our increasingly complex media landscape.

Read more

Historian Heather Cox Richardson speaks at Boston's Old North Church on the 250th anniversary of the lighting of the lanterns

One of my favorite historians, Professor Richardson is a kind of north star to train your eyes on in making sense of this peculiarly unsettling moment in time. While any Heather Cox Richardson speech is worth your time, this one at Boston’s Old North Church — in commemoration of the anniversary of the lighting of the lanterns there in 1775 — deserves special mention for its sweeping yet intimate detail view of revolutionary sentiment in the colonies under waning British rule.

Professor Richardson has a true gift for both making centuries’-old history seem strikingly relevant today, as well as for analyzing today’s news through the lens of the long-term, clarifying its causes, and tempering it with context. A question we thought settled long ago — whether we are to be ruled by an all-powerful king whose power is unchecked by any force — has disturbingly resurfaced as Donald Trump convincingly play-acts (or perhaps naturally embodies) the role of mad king. Here she weaves the tale of revolutionaries in the late 18th century throwing off the mad king of their time, as an inspiration to those of us inexplicably confronting this same problem again in 2025.

Heather Cox Richardson speech summary

I would encourage everybody to watch or read the speech in full (as well as check out HCR’s other brilliant books) as it’s well worth your time — but for those short on the irreplaceable stuff, here’s a summary:

Continue reading One if by land, two if by sea: this Heather Cox Richardson speech reminds us of revolutionary people power
Read more

What’s the difference between conservatives and reactionaries?

In short:

A conservative wants to preserve the status quo (or change it slowly).
A reactionary wants to reverse progress and return to a previous order — often an idealized or mythologized past.

The Core Difference:

ConservativeReactionary
Wants to conserve existing institutions, traditions, and social order.Wants to restore a past order — often rejecting modernity altogether.
Accepts some gradual change if necessary to preserve stability.Sees recent changes (modernization, liberalization) as corruptions that must be undone.
May negotiate with progress or adapt slowly.Opposes progress on principle — progress is the problem.

Historical Example:

Conservative:

→ Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution, but didn’t want to destroy parliamentary government. He wanted to preserve traditions and institutions to prevent chaos.

Reactionary:

→ Joseph de Maistre welcomed authoritarian monarchy and theocracy after the French Revolution, believing divine right rule was the only cure for societal decay.

In Modern Terms:

  • A conservative in America might say: “We shouldn’t rush into sweeping changes — we need to preserve family values, religious freedom, and limited government.”
  • A reactionary might say: “Modern society is degenerate. We need to abolish democracy, bring back monarchy or biblical law, and return to the way things were before feminism, secularism, or civil rights.”

Where It Gets Tricky:

Many reactionaries call themselves conservatives — especially in American politics — because “reactionary” is usually a pejorative term today.

But ideologically:

  • Conservatives = cautious, incremental, defensive of the present order.
  • Reactionaries = revanchist, nostalgic, hostile to modernity.

In Summary:

All reactionaries are right-wing extremists, but not all conservatives are reactionaries.

Conservatives defend the status quo.
Reactionaries want to roll back history.

Spectrum of Political Attitudes Towards Change

Position Attitude Toward Change View of the Past View of the Future Examples
Radical / Revolutionary Overthrow existing system Irrelevant or oppressive past Build something entirely new Anarchists, Communists, Revolutionaries
Progressive / Liberal Reform existing system Learn from past mistakes Improve society incrementally Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Liberals
Conservative Preserve system as-is or allow very slow change Respect traditions Stability is more important than change Traditional Conservatives, Libertarians (sometimes)
Reactionary Undo modern changes, return to past order The past was better / pure Restore lost greatness Christian Nationalists, Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists
Read more

From history’s heroes to today’s cartoonish villains, it’s important to understand who is behind the events we revere or revile. Although I don’t subscribe to the Great Man Theory — the idea that only exceptional people largely shape the course of events — I do believe in celebrating (or vilifying!) the individuals who are known for doing important things in the world.

Right-Wing Players

I also have a growing body of research on the interconnections and networks amongst key figures in the right-wing ecosystem, but in present day and decades past. Explore the people and connections in my Kumu mind map.

my Kumu mind map of right-wing people and connections
Read more

Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.

These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.

By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.

In an age of information overload, critical thinking has never been more essential. Whether you’re analyzing a news story, debating with friends, or writing a persuasive essay, your ability to recognize and avoid faulty reasoning can be the difference between clarity and confusion, persuasion and propaganda. At the heart of this effort lies this powerful concept of logical fallacies.

Types of logical fallacies

Logical fallacies fall into one of two main clusters:

Formal Fallacies

Formal fallacies occur when there’s a flaw in the logical structure of an argument, rendering the conclusion invalid—even if the premises are true. Think of formal fallacies as broken logic circuits: they don’t connect, even if the parts look sound.

Example:

If it’s raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it must be raining.
(This is a classic fallacy known as affirming the consequent.)

Informal Fallacies

Informal fallacies, on the other hand, relate to the content of the argument rather than its structure. These occur when the premises don’t adequately support the conclusion, even if the structure appears valid.

These informal logical fallacies are more common in everyday conversation and rhetoric. Informal fallacies usually stem from misused language, assumptions, or appeals to emotion rather than flawed logic alone. They’re trickier to spot because they often feel intuitive or persuasive.

Example:

  • Everyone’s doing it, so it must be right.
    (This is the bandwagon fallacy—popular doesn’t mean correct.)

Within each of these two clusters is a number of different logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:

The Straw Man argument, illustrated
  1. Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
  2. Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
  3. Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
  4. False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
  5. Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
  6. Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
  7. Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.

Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:

FallacyDefinitionExample
Ad HominemAttacking the person instead of addressing their argument“You can’t trust his economic policy ideas. He’s been divorced three times!”
Appeal to AuthorityUsing an authority’s opinion as definitive proof without addressing the argument itself“Dr. Smith has a PhD, so her view on climate change must be correct.”
Appeal to EmotionManipulating emotions instead of using valid reasoning“Think of the children who will suffer if you don’t support this policy!”
Appeal to NatureArguing that because something is natural, it is good, valid, or justified“Herbal supplements are better than medication because they’re natural.”
Appeal to TraditionArguing that something is right because it’s been done that way for a long time“We’ve always had this company policy, so we shouldn’t change it.”
Bandwagon FallacyAppealing to popularity as evidence of truth“Everyone is buying this product, so it must be good.”
Begging the QuestionCircular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise“The Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.”
Black-and-White FallacyPresenting only two options when more exist“Either we cut the entire program, or we’ll go bankrupt.”
Cherry PickingSelectively using data that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence“Global warming can’t be real because it snowed last winter.”
Correlation vs. CausationAssuming that because two events occur together, one caused the other“Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning.”
EquivocationUsing a word with more than one meaning in a misleading way“Evolution is just a theory, so it shouldn’t be taught as fact.” (Equivocating between scientific theory and casual speculation)
Fallacy of CompositionInferring that something is true of the whole because it’s true of a part“This cell is invisible to the naked eye, so the whole animal must be invisible too.”
Fallacy of DivisionInferring that something is true of the parts because it’s true of the whole“The university has an excellent reputation, so every professor there must be excellent.”
Genetic FallacyEvaluating an argument based on its origins rather than its merits“That idea came from a socialist country, so it must be bad.”
Hasty GeneralizationDrawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased“I had two bad meals at restaurants in Italy, so Italian cuisine is terrible.”
Middle Ground FallacyAssuming that a compromise between two extremes must be correct“Some people say the Earth is flat, others say it’s round. The truth must be that it’s somewhat flat and somewhat round.”
No True ScotsmanRedefining terms to exclude counterexamples“No true environmentalist would drive an SUV.” When shown an environmentalist who drives an SUV: “Well, they’re not a true environmentalist then.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter HocAssuming that because B followed A, A caused B“I wore my lucky socks and we won the game, so my socks caused our victory.”
Red HerringIntroducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue“Why worry about environmental problems when there are so many people who can’t find jobs?”
Slippery SlopeArguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences“If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry their pets!”
Straw ManMisrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack“Vegetarians say we should eat no meat at all and let farmers go out of business.” (When they actually argue for reduced meat consumption)
Texas SharpshooterCherry-picking data clusters to fit a pattern“Look at these cancer cases clustered in this neighborhood – it must be caused by the power lines!” (While ignoring similar neighborhoods with power lines but no cancer clusters)
Tu QuoqueAvoiding criticism by turning it back on the accuser“You say I should quit smoking, but you used to smoke too!”
Burden of ProofClaiming something is true while putting the burden to disprove it on others“I believe in ghosts. Prove to me that they don’t exist.”

How to identify logical fallacies

Spotting fallacies takes practice, but these tips can help sharpen your skills:

  • Slow down and dissect the argument. Look at the premises and conclusion—do they logically connect?
  • Watch for emotional appeals. If an argument relies more on stirring feelings than presenting evidence, be cautious.
  • Ask: what’s being left out? Many fallacies omit key context or alternate explanations.
  • Compare to real-world examples. Would the logic hold up elsewhere?

Everyday example:
“If we allow students to redo assignments, next they’ll expect to retake tests, and eventually no deadlines will matter at all.”
— This is a slippery slope fallacy. One action doesn’t necessarily lead to an extreme outcome.

Why avoiding logical fallacies matters

Logical fallacies don’t just weaken arguments—they erode trust, obscure truth, and inflame discourse. Here’s why learning to avoid them is critical:

  • In personal arguments: Fallacies can escalate tension and derail meaningful conversation.
  • In academic writing: Sound reasoning is the backbone of scholarship; fallacies undermine credibility.
  • In public discourse and media: Propaganda and misinformation often rely on fallacious reasoning to manipulate opinion. Recognizing these tactics is key to resisting them.

In a world where bad actors exploit fallacies for influence and profit, being fallacy-literate is a form of intellectual self-defense.

Logical fallacies quiz

Want to see if you know your logical fallacies? Just take our handy quiz and get them on lock as part of your foundational knowledge and model thinking library.

Logical Fallacies Quiz
Logical Fallacies Quiz

Test your knowledge of logical fallacies! Choose a quiz mode:

Score: 0/0
Definitions Mode
Return to Menu
Definition:
Which logical fallacy is this?
(Currently showing: Definition)
Example:
Which logical fallacy is demonstrated in this example?
(Currently showing: Example)

Read more related to logical fallacies:

30 Common Psychological Biases ↗

These systematic errors in our thinking and logic affect our everyday choices, behaviors, and evaluations of others.

28 Cognitive Distortions ↗

Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits. They’re patterns of thinking that tend to be negatively slanted, inaccurate, and often repetitive.

Think Better with Mental Models ↗

Mental models are a kind of strategic building blocks we can use to make sense of the world around us.

Read more

Vera Rubin, astronomer, smiling in her lab

Vera Rubin: The Woman Who Proved Dark Matter Exists

In the pantheon of revolutionary astronomers who fundamentally changed our understanding of the universe, Vera Rubin stands as a towering figure whose work revealed that the cosmos is vastly different than we had imagined. Her meticulous observations and brilliant analysis led to one of the most profound discoveries in modern astronomy: the existence of dark matter. This invisible substance, which makes up approximately 85% of all matter in the universe, has reshaped our understanding of cosmology and continues to be one of science‘s greatest mysteries.

Early Life and Education

Born on July 23, 1928, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Vera Florence Cooper showed an early fascination with the night sky. As a young girl, she would watch the stars from her bedroom window, tracking their movements and developing a passion that would guide her life’s work. Her father, an electrical engineer, encouraged her scientific curiosity and helped her build a simple telescope when she was just a teenager.

Despite societal expectations that often steered women away from science in the mid-20th century, Vera pursued her astronomical dreams with determination. In 1948, she graduated from Vassar College as the only astronomy major in her class. Her academic journey continued at Cornell University, where she earned her master’s degree in 1951 while studying under renowned physicists, including quantum mechanics pioneer Hans Bethe.

When applying to Princeton for doctoral studies, Rubin faced her first significant barrier—the university didn’t accept women into its astronomy program at that time. Undeterred, she enrolled at Georgetown University, balancing her studies with raising children and commuting long distances. In 1954, she completed her Ph.D. with a dissertation on galaxy motions that challenged existing theories about how galaxies are distributed in space.

Early Career and Challenges

The road for female scientists in the 1950s and 1960s was fraught with obstacles. When Rubin presented her research at scientific meetings, she often faced skepticism not because of her data or methods, but because of her gender. At one astronomical conference, she was forced to present her paper in her husband’s name. On another occasion, after giving a talk at the prestigious Palomar Observatory, she was informed that women weren’t allowed to use the facility’s telescope—there wasn’t even a women’s restroom in the building.

Despite these challenges and the deep-seated sexism of her day, Rubin’s scientific acumen couldn’t be denied. While at Cornell, she conducted important research on galaxy motions and proposed the existence of a supergalactic plane—a concept that was initially dismissed but later confirmed. After a stint teaching at Georgetown, she joined the Carnegie Institution’s Department of Terrestrial Magnetism in 1965, beginning what would become her most productive scientific period.

Groundbreaking Work on Dark Matter

At Carnegie, Rubin began a fruitful collaboration with instrument maker Kent Ford, whose spectrograph allowed for precise measurements of galactic rotation. Their partnership would lead to one of astronomy’s most significant discoveries.

In 1968, Rubin and Ford turned their attention to the Andromeda Galaxy (M31), the nearest major galaxy to our own Milky Way. According to established Newtonian physics and what astronomers understood about gravity, stars at the outer edges of spiral galaxies should orbit more slowly than those near the center—just as planets farther from the sun move more slowly in their orbits. But what Rubin and Ford observed defied these expectations.

Their measurements revealed something astonishing: stars in the outer regions of Andromeda were rotating at the same speed as those near the galactic center. This “flat rotation curve” was a profound anomaly that couldn’t be explained by the visible matter in the galaxy. To account for this unexpected motion, Rubin concluded that galaxies must contain vast amounts of invisible mass—what we now call dark matter—extending far beyond their visible boundaries.

Further studies of dozens, and eventually hundreds, of spiral galaxies confirmed this pattern wasn’t unique to Andromeda. Rubin’s calculations suggested that over 90% of galaxy mass must be composed of this invisible substance. The universe, it seemed, was primarily made of something we couldn’t see.

Impact and Recognition

Rubin’s discovery provided the first convincing observational evidence for dark matter, a concept that had been theoretically proposed but never definitively observed. This revelation fundamentally changed our understanding of the cosmos, forcing astronomers to reckon with the fact that the vast majority of the universe’s mass is composed of something entirely different from the stars, planets, and galaxies we can see.

For her groundbreaking work, Rubin received numerous accolades, including the National Medal of Science (1993)—the highest scientific honor in the United States—and the Royal Astronomical Society’s Gold Medal (1996), an award previously given to Einstein and Hawking. However, despite her revolutionary contributions, she was never awarded the Nobel Prize, an omission many in the scientific community consider one of the prize committee’s greatest oversights.

Astronomer Vera Rubin who discovered dark matter

Legacy

Beyond her scientific achievements, Vera Rubin was a passionate advocate for women in science. Throughout her career, she mentored aspiring female astronomers and fought against the gender discrimination she had faced. She once wrote, “I live and work with three basic assumptions: 1) There is no problem in science that can be solved by a man that cannot be solved by a woman; 2) Worldwide, half of all brains are in women; 3) We all need permission to do science, but, for reasons that are deeply ingrained in history, this permission is more often given to men than to women.”

Her advocacy bore fruit; by the time of her later career, she had helped pave the way for a new generation of female astronomers who faced fewer barriers than she had.

Rubin continued her research until late in life, publishing her last scientific paper at age 88, just months before her death on December 25, 2016. Her legacy lives on not only in her scientific discoveries but also in the institutions and projects that bear her name. Most notably, the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, currently under construction in Chile and set to begin observations in 2025, will conduct an unprecedented survey of the universe, continuing her work of unraveling cosmic mysteries.

The story of Vera Rubin is one of scientific brilliance, perseverance, and the courage to challenge established thinking. Her work revealed that our understanding of the universe was fundamentally incomplete, opening new frontiers in cosmology that scientists continue to explore today. The dark matter she discovered remains one of science’s great unsolved mysteries, ensuring that her influence on astronomy will endure for generations to come.

As she once said, “Science progresses best when observations force us to alter our preconceptions.” Few scientists have altered our preconceptions as profoundly as Vera Rubin.

Read more