History

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 barrierโ€”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 telescopeโ€”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 planeโ€”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 centerโ€”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 massโ€”what we now call dark matterโ€”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)โ€”the highest scientific honor in the United Statesโ€”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

A Comprehensive Timeline of Russian Electoral Interference: From Imperial Russia to the Digital Age

Russian election interference around the globe has a much longer history than most people realize, extending back centuries rather than decades. This interference has evolved alongside Russia‘s own political transformations, from imperial ambitions to Soviet ideology to modern geopolitical objectives under Vladimir Putin. Recent actions, particularly during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, represent not an anomaly but the continuation and evolution of long-established patterns of behavior designed to shape foreign politics to Russian advantage.

The Imperial Russian Roots of Electoral Interference

Russia’s involvement in foreign electoral politics dates back to the early 18th century. Following a period when Poland had been the dominant power that once occupied Moscow, the tables turned as Russia grew in strength. Under Peter the Great and his successors, Russia began systematically meddling in Poland’s electoral politics by bribing Polish nobles to vote against attempts to strengthen the Polish central government and national army. This early form of interference was aimed at keeping a neighboring power weak and malleable to Russian interests.

This pattern culminated at the end of the 18th century when Russia, alongside Austria and Prussia, partitioned the Polish state among themselves, effectively erasing Poland from the map. Poland would remain part of the Russian Empire until World War I when it finally regained independence. This early example established a precedent that would continue in various forms through subsequent Russian regimes.

The Birth of Soviet Electoral Interference

After the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, the Soviet approach to electoral interference took on an ideological dimension. In 1919, Vladimir Lenin founded the Communist International (Comintern), an organization designed to unite communist parties worldwide and foment revolution abroad. The Comintern distributed funding and supported propaganda operations in various countries to help communist parties compete more effectively in elections, with the ultimate goal of having these parties assume power and eventually abolish national borders.

While Lenin’s vision of global communist revolution was not realized, the Comintern’s activities generated significant paranoia in Western democracies like the United States and United Kingdom, where fears of Soviet manipulation of democratic processes took root. This marked the beginning of a more systematic approach to electoral interference that would be refined during the Soviet era.

Post-World War II: Aggressive Soviet Electoral Manipulation

After World War II, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin aggressively interfered in elections across Eastern Europe, particularly in countries like East Germany, Hungary, and Poland. These operations foreshadowed many tactics that would later be employed by Putin’s Russia. The Soviet Union manipulated voter rolls, falsified vote counts, and distributed massive amounts of propaganda through posters, pamphlets, and leaflets to influence public opinion.

These elections were effectively rigged, resulting in communist parties coming to power across Eastern Europe and subsequently ending competitive elections in these nations. This period represents one of the most successful campaigns of electoral interference in modern history, as it resulted in the establishment of Soviet-aligned governments throughout the Eastern Bloc.

Continue reading Russian Election Interference Timeline: 18th century to present
Read more

Fake News, illustrated to accompany Neil Postman's book Amusing Ourselves to Death

Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business

A Summary and Review of Neil Postman’s Prophetic Analysis

Neil Postman’s 1985 masterpiece, “Amusing Ourselves to Death,” stands as one of the most prescient cultural critiques of our time. Though written specifically about television’s impact on American public discourse, its insights have only gained relevance in today’s internet-dominated world. This book offers an essential framework for understanding how entertainment values have infiltrated and transformed our political landscape.

Book Summary

Postman’s Central Argument

At its core, Postman’s thesis is elegantly simple yet profound: the medium through which we communicate fundamentally shapes what we communicate. The form of our discourse defines its content and limits what ideas can be effectively expressed. In Postman’s analysis, televisionโ€”with its emphasis on visual stimulation, fragmentation, and entertainmentโ€”inevitably transforms all content into entertainment, regardless of its significance or purpose.

Postman begins by establishing a crucial distinction between two dystopian visions: George Orwell’s 1984 with its authoritarian Newspeak and Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World. Where Orwell feared those who would ban books and restrict information, Huxley feared that we would become a trivial culture, where there would be no reason to ban books because no one would want to read them. Postman argues that Huxley’s fear, not Orwell’s, was propheticโ€”we are being undone not by oppression but by our appetite for distraction.

The Transition from Typography to Television

A significant portion of the book is devoted to contrasting America’s earlier print-based culture with its television-dominated present. Postman characterizes the 18th and 19th centuries as the “Age of Exposition,” where rational, linear, complex arguments could flourish. By contrast, the late 20th century represented the “Age of Show Business,” where entertainment values reign supreme.

In the typographic age, Postman argues, public discourse was coherent, serious, and rational. He points to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, where audiences would listen attentively to hours of complex argumentation, as emblematic of this era. The written word, by its nature, encourages abstract and critical thinking, logical organization, and sustained attention.

Television, by contrast, communicates primarily through images that appeal to emotions rather than reason. Its content is necessarily fragmented, decontextualized, and designed to entertain rather than inform. Postman coins the phrase “peek-a-boo world” to describe how television presents disconnected snippets of information without context or coherence. The medium’s “Now…This” approach to news presentationโ€”where a serious story about war might be followed immediately by a commercial or light-hearted featureโ€”creates a world where everything is presented with equal weight and significance.

The Consequences for Public Discourse

According to Postman, television’s transformation of discourse into entertainment has profound consequences for how we understand and engage with politics, religion, education, and other serious domains of public life.

In politics, substance gives way to image; complex policy discussions are replaced by personality contests and emotional appeals. Campaigns become marketing exercises rather than forums for substantive debate. Politicians are judged not by their ideas but by their ability to entertain and create compelling visual narratives.

In education, the emphasis shifts from developing critical thinking to making learning “fun” and visually stimulating. Serious engagement with ideas becomes secondary to keeping students entertained and engaged through spectacle.

Even religion, when adapted to television, becomes a form of entertainmentโ€”with telegenic preachers, emotional music, and simplified messaging replacing theological depth and contemplative practice.

Amusing Ourselves to Death looks at how TV turns even serious news into sheer entertainment

Relevance to the Internet Age

Though written before the rise of the internet, social media, and smartphones, Postman’s analysis has proven remarkably applicable to our current media landscape. If anything, the trends he identified have accelerated and intensified in the digital age.

Amplification of Television’s Effects

The internet has magnified many of television’s problematic aspects. Information is even more fragmented, attention spans shorter, and the line between news and entertainment increasingly blurred. Social media platforms like TikTok, Twitter, Instagram, and Facebook prioritize emotional engagement and entertainment value over informational substance or accuracy.

The smartphone has brought this entertainment-centered approach to communication into every moment of our lives. We now carry the means of constant distraction in our pockets, available at any moment when serious thought or engagement becomes uncomfortable.

New Challenges in the Digital Era

The internet age has also introduced new dimensions that Postman couldn’t have fully anticipated. Unlike television, which created passive consumers of content, social media has transformed us into active “prosumers” who both consume and produce content. This has democratized media creation but also accelerated the spread of disinformation and misinformation and further blurred the line between fact and fiction.

The algorithmic nature of content delivery has created filter bubbles where users primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs. This has contributed to political polarization and the fragmentation of shared reality that Postman warned about.

The constant stream of notifications, updates, and new content has further diminished our capacity for sustained attention and deep engagement with complex ideas. We increasingly consume information in bite-sized chunks optimized for maximum emotional impact rather than intellectual substance.

Political Implications

Nowhere are Postman’s insights more relevant than in the realm of politics. The rise of political figures who excel at entertainment but lack substantive policy knowledge illustrates his core thesis. Political discourse increasingly resembles reality television, with emphasis on conflict, personality, and emotional appeals rather than thoughtful policy debate.

The proliferation of conspiracy theories and misinformation highlights another consequence of entertainment-driven discourse: when emotional resonance matters more than factual accuracy, truth itself becomes relative and subject to entertainment value. We can no longer tell fact from fiction or truth from lying — which is incredibly problematic for a democracy fueled by good decision-making.

Critical Analysis

Strengths of Postman’s Arguments

Postman’s greatest strength lies in his ability to connect the structural properties of media with their cultural effects. Rather than simply lamenting the content of television programming, he demonstrates how the medium itself shapes what can be communicated through it. This media ecology approach provides a powerful framework for understanding not just television but all forms of communication technology.

His recognition that we face a Huxleyan rather than Orwellian threat has proven extraordinarily prescient. The greatest danger to democracy is not censorship but the voluntary surrender of our capacity for critical thinking in exchange for endless entertainment.

Postman’s clear, engaging prose makes complex media theory accessible without sacrificing intellectual rigor. He practices what he preaches by presenting his arguments in a linear, logical fashion that demands and rewards careful reading.

Limitations and Counterarguments

Despite his prescience, Postman occasionally romanticizes the age of print, overlooking the ways in which books and newspapers could also distort or trivialize important issues. The “golden age” of rational discourse he describes had significant limitations in terms of who could participate and what perspectives were represented.

Some critics argue that Postman underestimates people’s ability to engage critically with visual media. Television and internet content are not inherently incapable of conveying complex ideas, though they may make it more difficult.

Postman’s focus on the negative aspects of electronic media also leads him to downplay potential benefits, such as increased access to information, the ability to witness distant events firsthand, and new forms of community building. The digital age has enabled important social movements and given voice to previously marginalized perspectives in ways that merit acknowledgment.

Personal Reflection: The Allure of Political Entertainment

What makes Postman’s analysis so valuable today is its ability to explain the phenomenon of political entertainment. The transformation of politics into a branch of the entertainment industry has profoundly altered how we select and evaluate our leaders.

Political campaigns increasingly resemble reality television competitions, complete with dramatic confrontations, personality-based narratives, and emotionally charged moments designed to go viral. Policy discussions, when they occur at all, are simplified to sound bites and slogans rather than substantive analysis.

The result is a political culture where entertainment value often trumps competence, where the ability to capture attention matters more than the ability to govern effectively. This helps explain why political figures with backgrounds in entertainment have gained prominence, and why traditional politicians increasingly adopt the tactics of entertainers.

Perhaps most concerning is how this entertainment-driven approach to politics has eroded our shared foundation of facts. When politics becomes primarily about emotional engagement rather than problem-solving, truth becomes secondary to narrative appeal. We increasingly select our facts based on their compatibility with our preferred political story rather than evaluating political stories based on their compatibility with facts.

Postman’s analysis helps us recognize these trends not as random developments but as the logical consequences of our media environment. Understanding this connection is the first step toward reclaiming a more substantive approach to political discourse.

Conclusion

“Amusing Ourselves to Death” remains essential reading for anyone seeking to understand the transformation of public discourse in the digital age. Postman’s insights help us recognize how our media shape not just what we think about, but how we think.

The challenge Postman presents is not to abandon new media forms but to approach them with awareness of their biases and limitations. We must develop the media literacy to recognize when we are being entertained rather than informed, and the discipline to seek out forms of communication that encourage deeper engagement with ideas.

In an age where entertainment values increasingly dominate every aspect of public life, Postman’s warning remains urgent: a society that allows its capacity for serious discourse to atrophy may indeed amuse itself to death. The greatest tribute we can pay to Postman’s work is to heed this warning by cultivating forms of communication that nurture our capacity for reason, empathy, and thoughtful civic engagement.

Read more

Meme Wars: How Digital Culture Became a Weapon Against Democracy

In their groundbreaking book “Meme Wars: The Untold Story of the Online Battles Upending Democracy in America,” researchers Joan Donovan, Emily Dreyfuss, and Brian Friedberg offer a chilling examination of how internet culture has been weaponized to undermine democratic institutions. Far from being a distant academic analysis, this book serves as an urgent warning about the very real dangers facing our democracy in the digital age.

When Internet Jokes Become Political Weapons

Remember when memes were just harmless internet jokes? Those days are long gone. “Meme Wars” meticulously documents how these seemingly innocent cultural artifacts have evolved into powerful weapons in a coordinated assault on American democracy — a form of information warfare that tears at our very ability to detect fantasy from reality at all, something that Hannah Arendt once warned of as a key tool of authoritarian regimes.

What makes this transformation particularly insidious is how easy it is to dismiss. After all, how could crudely drawn frogs and joke images possibly be a threat to democracy? Yet the authors convincingly demonstrate that this dismissive attitude is precisely what has allowed far-right operatives to wield memes so effectively.

The book reveals how figures like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Nick Fuentes, and Roger Stone have mastered the art of meme warfare. These digital provocateurs understand something that traditional political institutions have been slow to grasp: in today’s media environment, viral content can bypass established gatekeepers and directly shape public opinion at scale.

Meme Wars by Joan Donovan et al

The Digital Radicalization Pipeline

Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of “Meme Wars” is its detailed examination of what the authors call the “redpill right” and their techniques for radicalizing ordinary Americans. The process begins innocuously enoughโ€”a provocative meme shared by a friend, a YouTube video recommended by an algorithmโ€”but can quickly lead vulnerable individuals down increasingly extreme ideological paths.

This digital radicalization operates through sophisticated emotional manipulation. Content is carefully crafted to trigger outrage, fear, or a sense of belonging to an in-group that possesses hidden truths. Over time, these digital breadcrumbs lead users into alternative information ecosystems that gradually reshape their perception of political reality.

From Online Conspiracy to Capitol Insurrection

“Meme Wars” provides what may be the most comprehensive account to date of how online conspiracy theories materialized into physical violence on January 6th, 2021. The authors trace the evolution of the “Stop the Steal” movement from fringe online forums to mainstream platforms, showing how digital organizing translated into real-world action.

The book presents the Capitol insurrection as the logical culmination of years of digital warfare. Participants like “Elizabeth from Knoxville” exemplify this new realityโ€”simultaneously acting as insurrectionists and content creators, live-streaming their participation for online audiences even as they engaged in an attempt to overthrow democratic processes.

This fusion of digital performance and physical violence represents something genuinely new and dangerous in American politics. The insurrectionists weren’t just attacking the Capitol; they were creating content designed to inspire others to join their cause.

Inside the Digital War Rooms

What sets “Meme Wars” apart from other analyses of digital extremism is the unprecedented access the authors gained to the online spaces where anti-establishment actors develop their strategies. These digital war rooms function as laboratories where messaging is crafted, tested, and refined before being deployed more broadly.

The authors document how these spaces identify potential recruits, gradually expose them to increasingly extreme content, and eventually mobilize them toward political action. This sophisticated recruitment pipeline has proven remarkably effective at growing extremist movements and providing them with dedicated foot soldiers.

The Existential Threat to Democracy

At its core, “Meme Wars” is a book about the fundamental challenge digital manipulation poses to democratic governance. By deliberately stirring strong emotions and deepening partisan divides, meme warfare undermines the rational discourse and shared reality necessary for democratic deliberation.

The authors make a compelling case that these tactics represent an existential threat to American democracy. What’s more, the digital warfare techniques developed in American contexts are already being exported globally, representing a worldwide challenge to democratic institutions.

Confronting the Challenge

Perhaps the most important contribution of “Meme Wars” is its insistence that we recognize digital threats as real-world dangers. For too long, online extremism has been dismissed as merely virtualโ€”something separate from “real” politics. The events of January 6th definitively shattered that illusion.

While the book doesn’t offer easy solutions, it makes clear that protecting democracy in the digital age will require new approaches from institutions, platforms, and citizens alike. We need digital literacy that goes beyond spotting fake news to understanding how emotional manipulation operates online. We need platforms that prioritize democratic values over engagement metrics. And we need institutions that can effectively counter extremist narratives without amplifying them.

A Must-Read for Democracy’s Defenders

“Meme Wars” is not just a political thriller, though it certainly reads like one at times. It is a rigorously researched warning about how extremist movements are reshaping American culture and politics through digital means. For anyone concerned with the preservation of democratic institutions, it should be considered essential reading.

The authors — including Joan Donovan, widely known and respected as a foremost scholar on disinformation — have performed a valuable service by illuminating the hidden mechanics of digital manipulation. Now it’s up to all of us to heed their warning and work to build democratic resilience in the digital age. The future of our democracy may depend on it.

Read more

Ukraine President Volodomyr Zelensky is dejected in his Oval Office meeting with Donald Trump

A Diplomatic Travesty in the Oval Office: Zelensky, Trump, and JD Vanceโ€™s Foreign Policy Ambush

The Oval Office has seen its share of tense diplomatic moments, but the recent clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trumpโ€”joined by Ohio Senator JD Vanceโ€”marks a new low in international decorum. What was expected to be a high-stakes discussion on Ukraineโ€™s future and continued U.S. support instead devolved into a heated, profanity-laced exchange, described by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as ushering in a โ€œnew era of profanity.โ€

In a tense and extraordinary meeting in front of the cameras, President Trump and Vice President Vance confronted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated diplomatic ambush. With Russian state media present while major American outlets were excluded, Trump and Vance pressured Zelensky to accept terms highly favorable to Russia – including a ceasefire that would effectively cede Ukrainian territory and sign over rights to valuable rare-earth minerals without firm security guarantees in return. Zelensky pointed out that Putin had broken ceasefire agreements 25 times already — so what was his incentive to find this one credible, particularly without any concrete guarantees?

In response to a reporter’s question about the US’s sudden shift away from its staunch Cold War stance to embracing Russia, Trump complained that Zelensky showed “such hate” towards Putin, who — he alleged — has suffered very badly (hatred being more impactful than military invasion, I guess?). When Zelensky remained composed and warned that the United States might “feel problems” due to its shifting alliance toward Russia, Trump grew visibly agitated, repeatedly insisting Americans would “feel very good and very strong” instead, while Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of being ungrateful for American support — as someone insecure and in need of praise would do.

Ukraine PResident Volodomyr Zelensky is skeptical of Vice President JD Vance in the Oval Office with Trump

The situation escalated when Zelensky calmly but firmly stated that Trump and Vance would “feel influenced” by Russia, triggering an extended, angry tirade from Trump that veered into his grievances about Russian election interference investigations, criticisms of former Presidents Biden and Obama, and rhetoric that closely mirrored Putin’s talking points and invented conspiracy theories on Ukraine.

Continue reading The German Foreign Minister doesn’t mince words following Zelensky-Trump row in the Oval Office
Read more

George Orwell’s 1984 lexicon is a lingua franca of authoritarianism, fascism, and totalitarianism. Newspeak words have the stamp of boots on pavement, the stench of disinformation, and are most likely to be found in the mouths of Trumpians and the chryons of the OAN Network.

The terse portmanteus are blunt and blocky, like a brutalist architecture vocabulary. Their simplicity indicates appeal to the small-minded masses for easily digested pablum.

What is Newspeak?

Newspeak is a fictional language created by George Orwell for his dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The language serves as an essential tool for the oppressive regime, known as The Party, to control and manipulate the population of Oceania. Newspeak is intentionally designed to restrict the range of thought, eliminate words that convey dissent or rebellion, and enforce political orthodoxy. The language accomplishes this by reducing the complexity of Newspeak vocabulary and grammar, condensing words into simplified forms, and eliminating synonyms and antonyms. The Party aims to eliminate the potential for subversive thoughts by ensuring that the language itself lacks the necessary words and expressions to articulate them.

In Orwell’s world, Newspeak works hand in hand with the concept of “doublethink,” which requires individuals to accept contradictory beliefs simultaneously. This manipulation of language and thought is central to maintaining the Party’s power and control over the populace. Newspeak translation is often the exact opposite of the meaning of the words said.

Newspeak’s ultimate goal is to render dissent and rebellion impossible by making the very thoughts of these actions linguistically unexpressable. As a result, Newspeak serves as a chilling representation of how language can be weaponized to restrict personal freedoms, suppress independent thought, and perpetuate an authoritarian regime.

Newspeak Rises Again

Those boots ring out again, from Belarus to Hungary to the United States. There are book burnings and the defunding of libraries in multiple states. From Ron DeSantis to Trumpian anti-intellectualism to the rampant proliferation of conspiracy theories, It’s a good time to brush up on the brutalism still actively struggling to take hold.

The following is a list of all Newspeak words from 1984.

Newspeak Orwell

Newspeak 1984 Dictionary

Newspeak termDefinition
anteThe prefix that replaces before
artsemArtificial insemination
bbBig Brother
bellyfeelThe blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhiteTo accept whatever one is told, regardless of the facts. In the novel, it is described as “…to say that black is white when [the Party says so]” and “…to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”.
crimestopTo rid oneself of unorthodox thoughts that go against Ingsoc’s ideology
crimethinkThoughts and concepts that go against Ingsoc, frequently referred to by the standard English โ€œthoughtcrimeโ€, such as liberty, equality, and privacy, and also the criminal act of holding such thoughts
dayorderOrder of the day
depDepartment
doubleplusgoodThe word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively good”, such as excellent, fabulous, and fantastic
doubleplusungoodThe word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively bad”, such as terrible and horrible
doublethinkThe act of simultaneously believing two, mutually contradictory ideas
duckspeakAutomatic, vocal support of political orthodoxies
facecrimeA facial expression which reveals that one has committed thoughtcrime
FicdepThe Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
freeThe absence and the lack of something. “Intellectually free” and “politically free” have been replaced by crimethinkful.
โ€“fulThe suffix for forming an adjective
fullwiseThe word that replaces words such as fully, completely, and totally
goodthinkA synonym for “political orthodoxy” and “a politically orthodox thought” as defined by the Party
goodsexSexual intercourse only for procreation, without any physical pleasure on the part of the woman, and strictly within marriage
goodwiseThe word that replaced well as an adverb
IngsocThe English Socialist Party (i.e. The Party)
joycampLabour camp
malquotedInaccurate representations of the words of Big Brother and of the Party
MiniluvThe Ministry of Love, where the secret police interrogate and torture the enemies of Oceania (torture and brainwashing)
MinipaxThe Ministry of Peace, who wage war for Oceania
MinitrueThe Ministry of Truth, who manufacture consent by way of lies, propaganda, and distorted historical records, while supplying the proles (proletariat) with synthetic culture and entertainment
MiniplentyThe Ministry of Plenty, who keep the population in continual economic hardship (starvation and rationing)
OldspeakStandard English
oldthinkIdeas from the time before the Party’s revolution, such as objectivity and rationalism
ownlifeA person’s anti-social tendency to enjoy solitude and individualism
plusgoodThe word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “very good”, such as great
plusungoodThe word that replaced “very bad”
PornosecThe pornography production section (Porno sector) of the Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
prolefeedPopular culture for entertaining Oceania’s working class
RecdepThe Ministry of Truth’s Records Department, where Winston Smith rewrites historical records so they conform to the Party’s agenda
rectifyThe Ministry of Truth’s euphemism for manipulating a historical record
refTo refer (to someone or something)
secSector
sexcrimeA sexual immorality, such as fornication, adultery, oral sex, and homosexuality; any sex act that deviates from Party directives to use sex only for procreation
speakwriteA machine that transcribes speech into text
TeledepThe Ministry of Truth’s Telecommunications Department
telescreenA two-way television set with which the Party spy upon Oceania’s population
thinkpolThe Thought Police, the secret police force of Oceania’s government
unpersonAn executed person whose existence is erased from history and memory
upsubAn upwards submission to higher authority
โ€“wiseThe only suffix for forming an adverb

Newspeak Dictionary Quiz

Claude Artifacts made this in one prompt. Imagine this power to generate study aids for a wide variety of students at all levels. If I had had this as a kid…

Newspeak Quiz: Test Your Ingsoc Vocabulary

Welcome to the interactive Newspeak quiz! This quiz will help you learn the terminology of Oceania’s official language through fun repetition. Demonstrate your goodthink by mastering these terms – your commitment to linguistic purity will surely be recognized by the Party.

Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Term โ†’ Definition
Definition โ†’ Term
Score: 0/0

Review Your Answers

Creation of New Words in Newspeak

One of the most fascinating and insidious aspects of Newspeak is the methodical creation of new words. This process is not only about inventing new terms but also about streamlining and simplifying the language to ensure it serves the purposes of the Party. Hereโ€™s how this process works:

1. Compounding Words

In Newspeak, many new words are created by combining existing ones. This technique, known as compounding, helps to streamline communication by reducing longer phrases into single, concise terms. For example:

  • Goodthink: A compound of “good” and “think,” meaning orthodox thought, or thoughts that align with Party doctrine.
  • Oldthink: A combination of “old” and “think,” referring to thoughts that are based on outdated, pre-revolutionary beliefs and values.

By merging words in this manner, Newspeak eliminates the need for descriptive phrases, thereby simplifying language and controlling thought.

2. Prefixes and Suffixes

Newspeak employs prefixes and suffixes to create new words and alter the meanings of existing ones. This method ensures that language remains efficient and devoid of any unnecessary complexity. Some common prefixes and suffixes include:

  • Un-: This prefix is used to form the negative of any word, thereby eliminating the need for antonyms. For example, “unhappy” replaces “sad.”
  • Plus- and Doubleplus-: These prefixes intensify the meaning of words. “Plusgood” means very good, while “doubleplusgood” means excellent or extremely good.
  • -wise: This suffix is used to form adverbs. For instance, “speedwise” means quickly.

Through these prefixes and suffixes, Newspeak ensures that language remains consistent and simplified, reinforcing the Partyโ€™s control over thought.

3. Simplification of Grammar

The creation of new words in Newspeak is also characterized by the simplification of grammar. Irregular verbs and noun forms are abolished, making all words conform to a delimited list of regular patterns. For example:

  • Think: In Newspeak, the past tense of “think” would simply be “thinked,” and the past participle would also be “thinked,” eliminating irregular forms like “thought.”
  • Knife: Plural forms are regularized, so “knife” becomes “knifes” instead of “knives.”

This grammatical regularization reduces the cognitive load required to learn and use the language, further limiting the scope for complex or critical thought.

4. Abolition of Synonyms and Antonyms

Newspeak systematically removes synonyms and antonyms to narrow the range of meaning, engendering black and white thinking. Each concept is reduced to a single, unambiguous word, eliminating nuances and shades of meaning:

  • Good: The word “good” stands alone without synonyms like “excellent,” “great,” or “superb.” Intensifiers like “plus-” and “doubleplus-” are used instead.
  • Bad: Instead of having a separate word like “bad,” Newspeak uses “ungood.” This not only simplifies vocabulary but also imposes a binary way of thinking.

By removing synonyms and antonyms, Newspeak reduces the complexity of language, ensuring that only Party-approved ideas can be easily communicated.

5. Creation of Euphemisms

In Newspeak, euphemisms are crafted to mask the true nature of unpleasant or controversial realities, aligning language with Party propaganda. For instance:

  • Joycamp: A euphemism for forced labor camps, designed to make the concept seem more palatable and less threatening.
  • Minipax: Short for the Ministry of Peace, which actually oversees war. The euphemistic name helps to disguise its true function.

These euphemisms help to distort reality, making it easier for the Party to maintain control over the populationโ€™s perceptions and beliefs.

Disinformation Dictionary โ†—

Disinformation is a practice with a unique Orwellian lexicon all its own, collated in this disinformation dictionary.

disinformation

Essential thinkers on authoritarian personality theory โ†—

The authoritarian personality is characterized by excessive strictness and a propensity to exhibit oppressive behavior towards perceived subordinates.

How did they get this way? Are people born with authoritarian personalities, or is the authoritarian โ€œmadeโ€ predominately by circumstance?

authoritarians gather for a witch hunt

Pathocracy Definition: Are we in one? โ†—

Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the โ€œevil of Cluster Bโ€œ), hold significant power.

Donald Trump pathocracy, by Midjourney
Read more

totalitarianism as a mindless form of hero worship

What Is Totalitarianism? A Comprehensive Guide

In today’s complex geopolitical landscape, understanding different systems of governance is crucial for making sense of world events. Among these systems, totalitarianism stands out as one of the most extreme forms of government control. What exactly is totalitarianism, how does it function, and what can history teach us about its impacts — and how to fight back against its oppressive aims?

Defining Totalitarianism

Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It shares similarities with both fascism and authoritarianism, but unlike other authoritarian regimes, totalitarian states seek to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. The term itself suggests the extreme “total” nature of this controlโ€”extending beyond purely political spheres into social, economic, cultural, and even private dimensions of human existence.

What distinguishes totalitarianism from other forms of authoritarianism is its ambition to erase the line between government and society entirely. Under totalitarianism, there is no concept of a private life outside the reach of state authority.

Key Characteristics of Totalitarian Regimes

1. Complete State Control of Society

Totalitarian states attempt to control virtually every aspect of social life:

  • Business and Economy: State-directed economic policies, often involving nationalization or collectivization of industries and resources
  • Labor: Control over labor unions, work assignments, and employment opportunities
  • Housing: Allocation and control of housing and living arrangements
  • Education: Strict control of curriculum and educational institutions to indoctrinate youth
  • Religion: Suppression or co-option of religious institutions
  • The Arts: Censorship and direction of artistic expression to serve state purposes
  • Personal Life: Intrusion into family relationships, leisure activities, and personal decisions
  • Youth Organizations: Creation of state-sponsored youth groups to foster loyalty from an early age

2. Dynamic Leader

Totalitarian systems typically center around a charismatic, authoritarian leader who:

  • Serves as the unifying symbol of the government
  • Builds a personality cult around themselves
  • Claims to embody the will of the people or nation
  • Encourages popular support through a combination of charisma and coercion
  • Is often portrayed as infallible or possessing extraordinary abilities
Continue reading What is totalitarianism?
Read more

You’ll hear a common retort on the extreme right that now holds sway in the mainstream Republican Party, in response to protests about the dismantling of democracy in this country — that we’re “a republic, not a democracy.” Right off the bat, a republic is a form of democracy — so they are claiming something akin to having a Toyota and not a car. It makes no logical sense, and is based in simple ignorance of civics and basic political philosophy.

But it manages to get worse — the origins of the bully taunt “a republic, not a democracy” are located in the segregationist movement. Specifically, the concept comes from the pro-segregation book You and Segregation, written in 1955 by future Senator Herman E. Talmadge.

John Birch Society loonies laud “a republic, not a democracy”

The “republic, not a democracy” meme would go on to be featured in the John Birch Society Blue Book — an organization so toxically extremist that even conservative darling William F. Buckley distanced himself from them. They feared the idea that increasing democratization would be a shifting balance of power away from white conservative men, and they spun numerous conspiracy theories to explain this as the result of nefarious undercover plot to overthrow Western Civilization.

In reality, the trend towards greater democracy is something the Founders themselves envisioned — though they likely could not have imagined how it would turn out. They believed fiercely in self-governance, and a clear separation from the tyranny of kings.

They wanted us to amend our Constitution, and to look at them in hindsight not as saintly gods but as mere men — who could govern themselves just as well as any reasonably earnest group of human beings could also do. At the time, arguably, they would have said “group of men” — but they were products of their time, and their worldview was limited to a patriarchal frame. Philosophically speaking, the Declaration of Independence is clear in its lofty goals — if its author was not so clear in his personal behavior regarding the equality of all persons.

That is what Abraham Lincoln meant by the “better angels” of our nature — that though we are fallible humans who make mistakes and have hubris and repeat the same idiocies again and again, we yet strive to become better than what we currently are. It’s noble, and inspiring, and is the better basis for a nation to unify around than that of hatred, bigotry, and petty revenge that the current Trump 2.0 administration stands for.

Read more

The sharing economy is a socio-economic system that enables consumers to share in the creation, production, distribution, trade, and consumption of goods and services through digital platforms. It leverages information technology, particularly the Internet, to facilitate the distribution, sharing, and reuse of excess capacity in goods and services.

History

The concept of sharing resources for mutual benefit has roots in early human civilization, with barter systems being one of the earliest examples. However, the modern sharing economy emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the impersonal nature and waste associated with mass production and consumption. The term “sharing economy” gained prominence around the time of the Great Recession of 2008-09, driven by social technologies, global population growth concerns, and resource depletion.

Key milestones in the sharing economy’s history include:

  • 1978: Marcus Felson and Joe L. Spaeth coin the term “economy of sharing” in an academic article.
  • 2008: Lawrence Lessig possibly first uses the term “sharing economy”.
  • 2010s: Rapid growth of sharing economy platforms like Airbnb and Uber.

Major Players

The sharing economy encompasses various sectors, including transportation, accommodation, professional services, and personal space. Some of the leading companies include:

  1. Airbnb: Founded in 2008 by Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia (now a controversial member of Elon Musk‘s DOGE power grab), Airbnb is a global online marketplace for lodging and tourism experiences. It operates in nearly every country and region worldwide, with a significant presence in large geographies.
  2. Uber: Launched in 2010, Uber is a comprehensive logistics and mobility leader, offering ride-sharing, food delivery, and freight services. It operates in approximately 70 countries and 15,000 cities worldwide.
  3. Lyft: Founded in 2012, Lyft is the second-largest ride-sharing company in the United States, offering ride-hailing services, motorized scooters, bicycle-sharing systems, and rental cars.
  4. Fiverr: Established in 2010, Fiverr is an online marketplace for freelance services, connecting freelancers with businesses and individuals seeking various digital services.
  5. Lime: Founded in 2017, Lime offers electric bikes and scooters for rent in urban areas, providing an alternative to traditional transportation methods.
  6. BlaBlaCar: Launched in 2006, BlaBlaCar is a long-distance carpooling platform that connects drivers with empty seats to passengers heading in the same direction.
  7. Zipcar: Founded in 2000, Zipcar is a car-sharing company that provides vehicle reservations to its members, billable by the minute, hour, or day.
  8. JustPark: Established in 2006, JustPark is an online platform for peer-to-peer driveway rental, enabling the renting out of parking and electric vehicle charging spaces.

These companies have significantly contributed to the growth of the sharing economy, which is estimated to expand from $14 billion in 2014 to $335 billion by 2025.

Read more

Hannah Arendt, author of "On Lying and Politics"

Hannah Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” is a collection of two seminal essays that explore the complex relationship between truth, lies, and political power. The book, published in 2022, includes “Truth and Politics” (1967) and “Lying in Politics” (1971), along with a new introduction by David Bromwich.

Key Themes of “On Lying and Politics”

The nature of political lies

Arendt argues that the phenomenon of lying in politics is not new, and that truthfulness has never been considered a political virtue. She posits that lies have long been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings, reflecting a deep-seated tension between truth and politics. However, Arendt also warns that excessive lying by political classes can lead to totalitarianism, where reality becomes entirely fictional.

Types of truth

Arendt distinguishes between two types of truth: factual and rational. She argues that factual truth is more vulnerable to political manipulation, as it is not self-evident and can be challenged like opinions. Rational truth, on the other hand, is more resilient as it can be reproduced through logical reasoning. Others can more easily verify on their own whether a rational truth checks out, whereas they cannot as easily go fact-finding — particularly about far-flung things that happen well outside their ken.

The impact of lies on democracy

Arendt explores how organized lying can tear apart our shared sense of reality, replacing it with a fantasy world of manipulated evidence and doctored documents. She argues that in a democracy, honest disclosure is crucial as it is the self-understanding of the people that sustains the government. This aligns with the idea that totalitarian governments can warp even the language itself, a la George Orwell’s Newspeak language in the classic novel 1984.

a scary world of disinformation, analyzed by the great Hannah Arendt

A Tale of Two Essays

“Truth and Politics” (1967)

In this essay, Arendt examines the affinity between lying and politics. She emphasizes that the survival of factual truth depends on credible witnesses and an informed citizenry. The essay explores how organized lying can degrade facts into mere opinions, potentially leading liars to believe their own fabrications in a self-deluding system of circular logic.

“Lying in Politics” (1971)

Written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, this essay applies Arendt’s insights to American policy in Southeast Asia. She argues that the Vietnam War and the official lies used to justify it were primarily exercises in image-making, more concerned with displaying American power than achieving strategic objectives.

Arendt’s perspective on political lying

Arendt views lying as a deliberate denial of factual truth, interconnected with the ability to act and rooted in imagination. She argues that while individual lies might succeed, lying on principle ultimately becomes counterproductive as it forces the audience to disregard the distinction between truth and falsehood.

Contemporary relevance

Arendt’s work remains highly relevant today, perhaps even more so than when it was written. Her analysis of how lies can undermine the public’s sense of reality and the dangers of political self-deception resonates strongly in our current political climate of disinformation, manipulation, and radicalization.

Today, even natural disasters are politicized — spawning dangerous conspiracy theories that do actual harm by discouraging people from getting help, among other tragedies of ignorance. And the right-wing is almost zealous about retconning the history trail and shoving things down the memory hole, including “rebranding” the J6 insurrection as a “day of love” and imagining away Donald Trump’s 34 felony counts.

Not to mention, the incredible contribution from Big Tech — whose tech bros have seen to it that political technology, and the study of professional manipulation, is alive and well. It’s been in the zeitgeist for a couple of decades now, and is now being accelerated — by the ascendancy of AI, Elon Musk, and the Silicon Valley branch of the right-wing wealth cult (Biden called it the tech-industrial complex).

“On Lying and Politics” feels fresh today

Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” provides a nuanced exploration — and a long-term view — of the role of truth and lies in political life. While acknowledging that lying has always been part of politics, Arendt warns of the dangers of excessive and systematic lying, particularly in democratic societies.

Her work continues to offer valuable insights into the nature of political deception and its impact on public life and democratic institutions. We would be wise to hear her warnings and reflect deeply on her insights, as someone who lived through the Nazi regime and devoted the remainder of her life’s work to analyzing what had happened and warning others. The similarities to our current times are disturbing and alarming — arm yourself with as much information as you can.

Read more

Tech bros at Trump's inauguration

Dave Karpf absolutely shreds Balaji Srinivasan’s book “The Network State” as the ravings of a rich delusional megalomaniac preening to his Silicon Valley peers who fancy themselves in Galt’s Gulch. These guys appear almost completely ignorant about the actual functions of a nation-state. If they want to declare themselves sovereign and secede from the United States, we ought to cut their sewage, water, and electric supply to give them a dose of the factual reality they so disdain.

What happens to these guys’ nerdy little crypto-enclaves when a much larger power (say, Russiaโ€ฆ) decides to invade them and take their enormous stores of value they’ve bragged about removing from state protection? Especially after they’ve just ushered in the destruction of the post-WWII global order in which it was generally frowned upon for giant nations to gobble up their neighbors just because they could? ๐Ÿค”

Moreover, what if that invader nation is simply the United States itself, once an administration comes to power that decides it is tired of dealing with its collection of ornery Confederate enclaves? Some might knuckle under peacefully, but there might also be some Waco events — except this time, with a lethal military strike justified by a president completely immune from prosecution and beyond the power of legislative or judicial oversight.

Please go away

What is stopping these guys from starting their start-up utopias right now? They are squintillionaires and could certainly buy land and start a community organized around whatever value system they want to run up the flagpole (arguably that seems to be the idea behind California Forever). Why isn’t Peter Thiel seasteading already and leaving us the fuck alone? Why does California Forever take Forever to operationalize when the entire premise of these techbro elites for decades has been that government (and specifically democracy) is too slow and they could totally build everything much faster and better if only given the chance?

Continue reading The tech bros have no clothes
Read more

Donald Trump pathocracy, by Midjourney

Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the “evil of Cluster B“), hold significant power. This term was first introduced by Polish psychiatrist Andrzej ลobaczewski in his work “Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.”

The crux of pathocracy lies in the rule by a small pathological minority, which imposes a regime that is damaging to the majority of non-pathological people. The key characteristics of pathocratic leadership include a lack of empathy, a disregard for the rule of law, manipulation, authoritarianism, and often, brutal repression. Many who are attracted to pathocratic rule exhibit the Dark Triad trio of malevolent and manipulative personality traits.

Origins and development of the concept of pathocracy

Pathocracy emerges from ลobaczewski’s study of totalitarian regimes, particularly those of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and Communism in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Born in Poland in 1921, he witnessed the upheaval and transformation of his own country during the horrors of World War II and the chilling effects of the subsequent Communist occupation.

He suffered greatly to arrive at the insights in his work — arrested and tortured by the Polish authorities under Communist rule, he was unable to publish his magnum opus, the book Political Ponerology, until he escaped to the United States during the 1980s. ลobaczewski spent the rest of his life and career trying to unpack what had happened to him, his community, and his nation — having witnessed such brutality over such a shockingly short span of time, and having experienced friends turning against friends in vicious and shocking ways.

ลobaczewski posits that these authoritarian and fascist regimes were not merely politically oppressive, but were also psychologically abnormal. He studied the characteristics of these leaders and their closest supporters, identifying patterns that aligned with known personality disorders. His work also identified a much higher percentage of personality disordered individuals than is still commonly understood, finding that about 7% of the general population could be categorized as severely lacking in empathy and possessing the tendencies — latent or overt — leading to the rise of pathocracy in society.

Characteristics of pathocratic leadership

  • Psychopathy: Leaders in a pathocracy often display traits synonymous with psychopathy, including a lack of empathy, remorse, and shallow emotions.
  • Narcissism: Excessive self-love and a strong sense of entitlement often drive pathocratic rulers.
  • Manipulation: These leaders are adept at manipulation, using deceit and coercion to maintain their power. They also often exhibit other traits and behaviors of emotional predators.
  • Paranoia: A heightened sense of persecution or conspiracy is common, leading to oppressive and authoritarian measures.
  • Corruption: Moral depravity, ethical degeneration, and widespread corruption are endemic in a pathocracy, as pathological leaders tend to surround themselves with similarly affected individuals who feel no shame about performing unethical and/or illegal actions either in secret, or in broad daylight with little fear of retaliation.
Continue reading Pathocracy Definition: Are we in one?
Read more

January 6 pardons

Of all the flurry of Trumpian executive orders in week 1 — many of them blatantly unconstitutional, like attempting to end birthright citizenship established in 1868 — one of the more controversial has been the issue of blanket pardons for about 1600 convicted January 6 offenders. The January 6 pardons have raised the ire of federal judges, the Fraternal Order of Police, the DC Police Union, right-wing paper The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, numerous officials, and the public at large — to name a few.

Apparently a spur of the moment decision without much thought behind it, Trump hoped to get the specter of the January 6 coup behind him — only to Streisand Effect himself into a wave of negative attention. Meanwhile, after months (and years) of slander against immigrants and supposedly violent criminal immigrants rampaging across the country, it is in fact Donald Trump himself who unleashed hundreds of convicted violent offenders back onto the streets — where they are already actively plotting revenge.

I’m old enough to remember when the GOP was supposedly the “party of law and order,” and now they are a brazenly and recklessly lawless bunch. One of few upsides is that a wave of discontent is brewing.

Federal judges slam January 6 pardons

Several federal judges who presided over multiple criminal trials of the January 6 rioters weighed in on the official record about the judiciary’s outrage over the January 6 pardons, including Tanya Chutkan, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Amy Berman Jackson, and Beryl Howell.

US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had scathing words about the pardons:

โ€œDismissal of charges, pardons after convictions, and commutations of sentences will not change the truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. What occurred that day is preserved for the future through thousands of contemporaneous videos, transcripts of trials, jury verdicts, and judicial opinions analyzing and recounting the evidence through a neutral lens. Those records are immutable and represent the truth, no matter how the events of January 6 are described by those charged or their allies.โ€

Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed that nothing could wipe away the truth about the events of that terrible day:

“No stroke of a pen and no proclamation can alter the facts of what took place on January 6, 2021.”

Judge Tanya Chutkan had strong words as well, as she dismissed without prejudice a pending case still before her:

“The dismissal of this case cannot undo the ‘rampage [that] left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage.”

Original Sources: Judges clap back to January 6 pardons

I’ve been wanting to do more of a consistent focus on going back to the original sources of the news beyond just the media coverage or commentary about them. This experiment with NotebookLM‘s curiously compelling audio generation feature provides the best of both worlds: audio commentary on the original court filings referenced by the PBS story about strident judicial warnings attached to the January 6 pardons. Let me know what you think in the YouTube comments — I’m really still just experimenting with the channel.

January 6 pardons aftermath

Continue reading January 6 Pardons: Trump unleashes convicted violent criminals onto the streets
Read more

Elon Musk as a clown

Effective Altruism and Longtermism are relatively recent (since the late 2000s) twin philosophical movements making the claim that, as a human species, we ought to prioritize impacting the long-term future of humanity — hundreds, thousands, or millions of years from now — over and above any concerns for actual humans alive today. Largely inspired by utilitarianism, it favors questionable metrics like “lives saved per dollar” in its quest to not just do good, but “do the most good.”

Longtermism is an outgrowth of Effective Altruism (EA), a social movement developed by philosophers Peter Singer and William MacAskill. It emphasizes the moral importance of trying to shape the far future, and adherents argue that the long-term consequences of our actions far outweigh their short-term effects because of the potential of vast numbers of future lives. In other words, future people will outnumber us at such a scale that, by comparison to this imaginary future universe, our current-day lives are not very important at all.

It has numerous and powerful adherents among the Silicon Valley elite including Trump bromance Elon Musk, tech billionaire Peter Thiel (who spoke at the RNC in 2016), indicted and disgraced crypto trader Sam Bankman-Fried, Twitter and Square founder Jack Dorsey (who is good friends with Elon), OpenAI‘s CEO Sam Altman, Ethereum founder (and Thiel fellow) Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Asana Dustin Moskovitz, and others.

Why longtermism resonates with tech oligarchs

The tech-industrial complex is steeped in the idea of longtermism in part because it aligns so well with so many of their values:

  • technological optimism / techno-utopianism — the belief that technology is the solution to all of humanity’s greatest challenges
  • risk-taking mindset — venture capital is famous for its high-risk, high-reward mentality
  • Greatness Thinking — unwavering devotion to an Ayn Randian worldview in which only two groups exist: a small group of otherworldly titans, and everyone else
  • atomized world — social groups and historical context don’t matter much, because one’s personal individualized contributions are what make real impact on the world

The dubious ethics of effective altruism

Although it positions itself high, high above the heady clouds of moral superiority, EA is yet another in a long line of elaborate excuses for ignoring urgent problems we actually face, in favor of “reallocating resources” towards some long-distant predictively “better” class of people that do not currently exist and will not exist for thousands, millions, or even billions of years. It’s an elaborate excuse framework for “billionaires behaving badly” — who claim to be akin to saints or even gods who are doing the difficult work of “saving humanity,” but in reality are navel-gazing into their vanity projects and stroking each others’ raging narcissism while completely ignoring large, looming actual dangers in the here and now like climate change, systemic inequality, and geopolitical instabillity to name a few.

Continue reading Effective Altruism and Longtermism: Twin ideologies driving tech billionaires
Read more

President Joe Biden's farewell speech warning of a tech-industrial complex forming

In President Joe Biden’s farewell speech (already memory holed by the Trump administration — and archived on my GitHub) he delivered a parting shot to the tech oligarchs currently falling over themselves to bend the knee and kiss the ring. With no fucks left to give, the remarkably Keynesian 46th US President gave a strikingly woke warning about the class struggle rarely revealed so openly by either party — warning of a tech-industrial complex slavering to abuse power even more brazenly:

I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is a dangerous โ€” and thatโ€™s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultrawealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America. And weโ€™ve seen it before.

More than a century ago, the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts. They didnโ€™t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy play by the rules everybody else had. Workers want rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class, the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen. Weโ€™ve got to do that again.

The last four years, that is exactly what we have done. People should be able to make as much as they can, but pay โ€” play by the same rules, pay their fair share in taxes. So much is at stake. Right now, the existential threat of climate change has never been clearer. Just look across the country, from California to North Carolina. Thatโ€™s why I signed the most significant climate and clean energy law ever, ever in the history of the world.

And the rest of the world is trying to model it now. Itโ€™s working, creating jobs and industries of the future. Now we have proven we donโ€™t have to choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. Weโ€™re doing both. But powerful forces want to wield their unchecked influence to eliminate the steps weโ€™ve taken to tackle the climate crisis, to serve their own interests for power and profit. We must not be bullied into sacrificing the future, the future of our children and our grandchildren. We must keep pushing forward, and push faster. There is no time to waste. It is also clear that American leadership in technology is unparalleled, an unparalleled source of innovation that can transform lives. We see the same dangers in the concentration of technology, power and wealth.

You know, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He warned us that about, and I quote, โ€œThe potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.โ€ Six days โ€” six decades later, Iโ€™m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.

Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit. We must hold the social platforms accountable to protect our children, our families and our very democracy from the abuse of power. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our time, perhaps of all time.

Biden farewell speech video

Despite the Trumpian regime’s attempt to erase history, there are many copies of the speech available for posterity. You can watch one of them here:

Read more