History

Results from the Kansas experiment with SAVE Act rules -- 99.9% of the voter registrations blocked were US citizens

The Kansas Prophecy: We Already Ran This Experiment and the SAVE Act in Kansas Was a Disaster

When Kansas tried its early version of the SAVE Act, a whopping 31,089 eligible American citizens were blocked from voting. Meanwhile only 39 noncitizens were “caught”… over 19 years. And many of them turned out to be administrative errors.

That’s the final score from Kansas’s proof-of-citizenship experiment — the same core policy the SAVE America Act would impose on all 50 states. Republicans are selling it as “election security.” Kansas already has the receipts on what it actually is.

Been There, Done That

In 2011, Kansas passed a law requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote — a birth certificate, passport, or naturalization papers. It was the brainchild of then-Secretary of State Kris Kobach, who styled himself as America’s foremost crusader against the specter of rampant illegal voting. The law went into effect in 2013 and immediately went sideways.

DMV clerks weren’t allowed to request the new documents — or even tell people the requirement existed. Voter registration drives cratered: one effort at Washburn University collected 400 applications but managed to fully register roughly 75 people. A process that used to take five minutes stretched to an hour. Steven Fish, a warehouse worker born on a now-closed Air Force base in Illinois, couldn’t produce an acceptable birth certificate. Multiple plaintiffs in the lawsuit that followed were military veterans. All were U.S. citizens. None were the noncitizen bogeymen the law was supposed to stop.

The federal courts annihilated it. A 118-page district court ruling struck it down as unconstitutional. The 10th Circuit affirmed. The Supreme Court declined to hear it. The judge sanctioned Kobach personally and ordered him to take remedial legal education — a humiliation nearly without precedent for a sitting state official. Kansas paid $1.9 million in attorneys’ fees to the winning parties. The state’s current Republican Secretary of State, Scott Schwab — who voted for the law as a legislator — delivered the epitaph: “It didn’t work out so well.”

The “Problem” Rounds to Zero

And it’s not just Kansas. Everywhere officials have looked for the noncitizen voting crisis, they’ve found a rounding error:

The Heritage Foundation itself — which advocates for the SAVE Act — found 68 documented cases of noncitizen voting since the 1980s out of over a billion ballots cast; a rate of 0.0000001% (!). Utah reviewed its entire voter list of two million registrants and found one noncitizen registration and zero noncitizen votes. Georgia audited 8.2 million voters and found 20 noncitizens. The Brennan Center found 30 suspected cases across 23.5 million votes. This isn’t a policy responding to a problem. It’s a solution in search of a pretext.

The bill is also set to take effect immediately, which is fairly insane to think about such a radical change to the rules of voting mere months before an election. I’m old enough to remember when supposedly Good Governance dictated that we leave a Supreme Court seat empty for an entire year — allegedly so “The People” could have their say on this important lifetime appointment. If the precedent is supposed to be that no major structural changes happen during an election year, then how does the right wing justify the sudden about face? It’s okay only when a Republican is in office, no doubt.

Kansas at Scale

The SAVE America Act is Kansas’s disaster, federalized and supercharged. In addition to the proof-of-citizenship registration requirements, it would force states to hand voter roll data to DHS with no safeguards on how it’s used, criminalize election workers who register someone without the right paperwork — even if that person is a citizen — and effectively eliminate online registration, mail registration, and automatic voter registration programs used by millions.

It passed the House in February 2026. The Senate opened debate March 17. Prediction markets give it roughly an 11% chance of becoming law. Trump has threatened to block all other legislation — including DHS funding during a partial shutdown — until it passes. A leaked 17-page executive order draft would require all 211 million registered Americans to re-register in person if the Senate doesn’t comply.

SAVE Act Network Graph Explorer

Explore the web of people, organizations, and money behind the push.

Open full screen ↗

The Quiet Part Out Loud

Kansas proved that proof-of-citizenship laws don’t catch noncitizen voters. They catch citizens. The 31,000-to-39 ratio isn’t a bug — it’s the feature. And the bill doesn’t need to pass the Senate to serve its real purpose: manufacturing a narrative that “Democrats are blocking election security,” setting the stage for executive overreach, filibuster destruction, or post-election delegitimization.

The Kansas cautionary tale isn’t that the policy is flawed. It’s that it works exactly as intended — just the opposite of the way they’re selling it.

Read more

Alex Pretti just before he died at the hands of federal agents in Minneapolis

There was a weird controversy that set in after the events of the white nationalist Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville, VA in which a neo-Nazi 8chan bottomfeeder killed Heather Heyer by running her over with his car, while injuring 19 others. It was a shocking moment for the nation and all Trump had to say about it was they condemned violence “on many sides, on many sides” — though there were only two sides, and only one of those two sides had killed someone.

A couple of days later he managed to get through a scripted teleprompter statement explicitly condemning white supremacists and neo-Nazis only to walk it back again and then double down on it the following day, saying “The statement I made on Saturday, the first statement, was a fine statement… What I’m saying is this: You had a group on one side and you had a group on the other, and they came at each other with clubs—and it was vicious and it was horrible. You had some very bad people in that group, but you also had people that were very fine people, on both sides.”

First of all, both sides did not have clubs. One side had tiki torches and a car that killed someone while the other side was armed with hymnals and homemade signage. Secondly — where were those “other” fine people? The vagueness allows for almost any interpretation — were some of the people with clubs “very fine” despite beating others about the head? Were some of the people who didn’t have clubs themselves but were cheering on the people with clubs “fine people”? Maybe there was a gathering of small invisible fairies merely caught up in the shuffle and Trump wanted to just make sure that possibility didn’t get overlooked and this innocent group of delicate souls unnecessarily besmirched?

The primary chosen “debunk” that detractors ended up going with from the wet clay of Trump’s stilted statement alleges that the *other* side Trump meant by “both” were simply innocent local townsfolk objecting to the removal of a statue of their beloved hero Robert E. Lee. Besides the fact that the right-wing has failed to this day to produce a shred of evidence that such people were even there, and the inconvenient reality that the rally was openly marketed as a white supremacist event, organized by avowed white nationalist organizations, it doesn’t even matter if they could produce such evidence — because those people are still not very fine! Robert E. Lee was a traitor to the United States and exalting him is not good!

Robert E. Lee Was Not a Fine People

In fact, Robert E. Lee was a terrible human being whose noble cause was maintaining his ownership of other human beings — as well as a shitty general who paid zero attention to the battle after giving a set of static orders and hoping God would sort out the rest. All he had to do was defend the borders of his baby white homeland, but he was an arrogant showboat who couldn’t keep it in his pants and had to go attacking Pennsylvania for no good reason.

He was also a senseless butcher who had the highest casualty rate of the entire war, being so reckless with his soldiers’ lives that he may as well have fed them into a woodchipper. He chewed through his entire army of 100,000 only 14 months into the campaign and by the war’s end had effectively annihilated his original army multiple times over through cumulative losses, as well as obliterating a whopping 30% of the total Confederate forces overall despite leading only one army in one theater.

Continue reading There aren’t plenty of fine people on both sides
Read more

Jack Smith, Special Prosecutor in two federal cases brought against Donald Trump

Five years ago today, a violent mob stormed the United States Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election. The man who incited them has since been re-elected president, which scuppered the investigation into him by Special Counsel Jack Smith. If that whiplash isn’t enough to give you vertigo, consider this: we now have sworn testimony, under oath, from the prosecutor who investigated Trump laying out exactly why his office believed they could convict Trump for breaking the law—and why they were stopped.

Former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s December testimony before the House Judiciary Committee is the closest thing we’ll get to the trial that should have happened. In it, Smith methodically dismantles every defense Trump and his allies have offered, explains how the case was built on testimony from Republicans willing to put country over party, and makes clear that the evidence of Trump’s guilt wasn’t circumstantial—it was direct.

In this post, I’m breaking down the key takeaways from Smith’s testimony, sharing one of my AI #MiniHistory videos marking the anniversary, and giving you a way to interrogate the evidence yourself through an interactive NotebookLM bot. Because if there’s one thing the incoming administration is counting on, it’s that you won’t have time to read 255 pages of testimony. Let’s make sure they’re wrong.

January 6 in 40 seconds

But first, a J6 refresher course — again, for busy folks.

I’ve been into making these little AI #MiniHistory videos with Glif agents, trying to tease out important signposts along our road to dictatorship and other interesting moments in history to highlight. Here’s the one I did for today and the 5th anniversary of January 6, 2021:

Continue reading Remembering January 6: Here’s how Jack Smith saw it
Read more

Liberal Tears illustrates the sneering cynicism of the right wing who refuse to articulate political values

There’s something conspicuously absent from American political discourse: actual discussion of values and the morals, ethical choices, and beliefs that go into the creation of good government policy.

Think about the last major political debate you watched, or the last campaign ad that stuck with you. How much of it was about what government should do versus who you should hate? How much was articulating a vision for society versus performing dominance over the out-group?

This isn’t an accident. It’s a strategy.

When your policy positions are wildly unpopular — when majorities oppose you on healthcare, taxation, abortion, climate change, guns, and wages — you don’t engage on the substance. You change the subject. You make politics about identity, grievance, and tribal belonging. You turn every election into a referendum on vibes rather than vision.

The American right has become extraordinarily sophisticated at this evasion. They’ve built an entire media ecosystem designed not to argue for right-wing values, but to ensure those values never have to be argued for at all. And the Trump administration is chock full of people from that media ecosystem.

The Polling Problem

Here’s the uncomfortable reality the modern right has to navigate, and we need to trumpet: their actual policy preferences are not popular.

Exposed to the individual provisions of the Affordable Care Act, majorities supported them — even among Republicans. Majorities support raising taxes on the wealthy, protecting Social Security and Medicare, acting on climate change, keeping abortion legal in most cases, and implementing universal background checks for gun purchases. On issue after issue, when you strip away the partisan framing and ask people what they actually want government to do, the “conservative” position loses.

This creates a strategic problem. You can’t win elections by articulating positions most people reject. So you articulate… something else.

The Retreat from Argument

Meanwhile, the right-wing has indefensible values, which is why they no longer even bother to try to articulate them. Instead, they express them obliquely through “memes” and mores that evince cruelty, bigotry, narcissism, domination, supremacy, greed, selfishness, and contempt for vulnerability — all while maintaining plausible deniability through irony, “just asking questions,” and the ever-ready accusation that anyone who names the pattern is being hysterical or unfair.

This is the function of the perpetual rhetorical shell game: you can’t pin down a position that’s never stated plainly. The cruelty gets expressed through policy and aesthetic, but when challenged, retreats behind procedural objections or “economic anxiety.” The bigotry shows up in who gets mocked and who gets protected, but is never admitted as such — it’s always reframed as “common sense” or “tradition.”

Continue reading The Quiet Part Loud: Why the right stopped talking about values
Read more

Wealth Cult -- rich men behaving badly, by Midjourney

A network of exceedingly wealthy individuals and organizations have channeled their vast fortunes into influencing American politics, policy, and public opinion — they’ve formed a wealth cult. And they’ve leveraged that cult and its considerable fortune to influence and in many ways dramatically transform American politics.

The most succinct way I have come up with to explain American politics is that the wealthy are dividing us over race and religion. Today far more openly than in the past, where much oligarch shadow influence was delivered via dark money kept intentionally untraceable back to its origins.

The term “dark money” refers to political spending meant to influence the decision-making and critical thinking of the public and lawmakers where the source of the money is not disclosed. This lack of transparency makes it challenging to trace the influence back to its origins, hence the term “dark.”

And, it is dark indeed.

Wealth cult anchors the trench coat

The Wealth Cult is one of 3 primary groups or clusters supporting the right-wing and generally, the Republican Party. It anchors the trench coat by funding the 2 cults above it: the Christian Cult, and the White Cult.

Its story is stealthy and significant.

A bunch of billionaires toast themselves to themselves, by Midjourney

The wealth cult has funded disinformation campaigns, the spread of conspiracy theories, created fake social movements through astroturfing, enabled violent extremists to attack their country’s capitol, aided and abetted a convicted felon, cruelly deprived vulnerable people (especially immigrants, poor people, and women) of the kind of state aid granted generously throughout the developed world, bribed regulators, rigged elections, crashed economies, and on and on in service of their extremist free market ideology beliefs (which, by the way, have resulted in catastrophic market crashes every single time).

They believe in “makers and takers,” or Mudsill Theory, as it was once called by pedophile and racist Senator and slavery enthusiast James Henry Hammond. Some people were born to serve others, they say. Hierarchies are natural, they claim. Wealthy men should make all the decisions — because that’s what’s best for everyone, they say in paternalistic tones.

I don’t buy it. I believe all men are created equal. So did a certain Founder of our country.

Continue reading Wealth Cult: The oligarchs influencing American politics from the shadows
Read more

Slavery was the central question leading to the Civil War according to Abraham Lincoln, depicted here in a mini history video

But you don’t have to take our word for it — just ask the Vice President of the Confederacy what his reasons were in the infamous Cornerstone Speech of 1861, just a few weeks before the Confederates fired on Fort Sumter:

“The new [Confederate] constitution has put at rest, forever, all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institution — African slavery as it exists amongst us — the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution . . . The prevailing ideas entertained by . . . most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old constitution, were that the enslavement of the African was violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally, and politically. . . Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of . . . the equality of races. This was an error . . .

Our new government is founded upon exactly the opposite idea; its foundations are laid, its corner–stone rests upon the great truth, that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery — subordination to the superior race — is his natural and normal condition.”

— Alexander H. Stephens, March 21, 1861, reported in the Savannah Republican, emphasis in the original

The “States’ Rights” Contradiction

One of the clearest ways to prove the war was about slavery—and not abstract “states’ rights”—is to look at how the Confederacy treated the rights of Northern states.

  • The Fugitive Slave Act Paradox: Southern leaders explicitly opposed “states’ rights” when Northern states attempted to exercise them. When Northern states passed “Personal Liberty Laws” (exercising their sovereign right to not enforce federal slave-catching laws), Southern states demanded the Federal Government override these state laws.​
  • South Carolina’s Declaration: In its “Declaration of Causes,” South Carolina specifically lists the failure of Northern states to enforce the federal Fugitive Slave Act as a primary grievance. They were not fighting for the right of states to choose their own laws; they were fighting for the federal government to enforce slavery across all states

The Rejection of the “Forever” Amendment (Corwin Amendment)

Perhaps the most damning evidence is the South’s rejection of the Corwin Amendment.

  • The Offer: In a last-ditch effort to prevent war, the Northern-controlled Congress actually passed a Constitutional Amendment (the original 13th Amendment) in early 1861. It would have protected slavery forever in the states where it already existed, guaranteeing the federal government could never abolish it.​
  • The Rejection: If the South were seceding simply to “protect their property” or “defend against Northern aggression,” they would have accepted this victory. Instead, they rejected it. Why? Because the amendment only protected slavery where it was, but did not guarantee its expansion into new western territories. The South seceded not just to keep slavery, but to ensure it could grow into a continental empire
Continue reading Was the Civil War about slavery? Yes.
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’s a rhetorical trick, in which people who fully know better are hacking the simple ignorance of civics and basic political philosophy of the right-wing political base.

But it manages to get worse — the origins of the bully taunt “a republic, not a democracy” go way back — they’re actually 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.

Continue reading “A republic, not a democracy” came from segregationists
Read more

progressive capitalism as articulated by Ro Khanna as interviewed by Heather Cox Richardson

After last night’s solid trouncing of the entire GOP steez by the Democrats in elections coast to coast (p.s. don’t miss Zohran Mamdani’s victory speech — it’s a banger), the time is ripe for articulating a new vision of the American Dream. And the vision of progressive capitalism is sounding like the right tone for a nation state that wishes to remain the leader of the free world.

I believe there is pent-up energy in the Democratic reservoir — with a deep bench of political talent of people who actually seem to care about other people. And who actually understand and exalt the real promise of America — as a beacon of hope for a new experiment in self-governance — if we can keep it.

One of those politicians is Ro Khanna, who represents the bulk of Silicon Valley in his California district. He recently sat down with my favorite historian of all time, Heather Cox Richardson, to talk about the vision of progressive capitalism for lifting us out of this moment of reactionary pessimism and “nostalgia populism” — a promise he says is fake in the age of AI because it won’t generate real opportunity (I agree). The following video is a great introduction to this promising vision for a way out of the quagmire we feel ourselves in.

What is progressive capitalism?

Progressive capitalism summary

1. What Khanna means by “progressive capitalism”

  • Khanna argues that place matters: for decades, US policy has let capital go wherever it wants and told people in hollowed-out towns, “move if you want opportunity.”
  • His version of progressive capitalism says:
    • Markets and free enterprise are valuable for freedom and innovation, but
    • Government must intentionally invest in people’s health, education, and communities so they can actually develop their capabilities where they live.
  • He calls for a national economic development strategy — a kind of “Marshall Plan for the United States” — tailored to each region:
    • Advanced manufacturing in some places
    • Trade schools and tech institutes (AI, data, cyber) so people don’t have to leave small towns
    • Jobs in healthcare, education, childcare, and elder care

2. Care economy and tech economy, not either/or

  • Heather Cox Richardson pushes him on care work (childcare, elder care, education), noting it’s already present in every community, dominated by women and immigrants, and chronically underinvested in.
Continue reading Progressive Capitalism: A vision for the future
Read more

Common Sense pamphlet by Thomas Paine that changed the world

Common Sense Review: The Original Viral Manifesto and What It Teaches Us About Revolutionary Rhetoric

A reading guide for the disinformation age

There’s a certain type of political document that doesn’t just argue for change—it manifests the psychological conditions that make change feel inevitable. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense is the template for this genre, and if you’re trying to understand how populist movements gain momentum, how institutional legitimacy crumbles, or how a pamphlet can reshape a nation’s self-concept in under 50 pages, you need to study this text like it’s a masterclass in persuasion engineering. And we’ll help you do just that in this Common Sense Book Review.

Published in January 1776, Common Sense sold an estimated 500,000 copies in a population of 2.5 million. Do the math: that’s a 20% penetration rate in an era when literacy wasn’t universal and distribution meant physical printing presses. In modern terms, Paine achieved what every content creator dreams of—he didn’t just go viral, he became the conversation.

But Paine wasn’t writing for the Continental Congress or the educated elite debating in Philadelphia drawing rooms. He was popularizing revolutionary ideas among ordinary colonists—farmers, tradesmen, shopkeepers—transforming an elite political dispute into a mass movement. This wasn’t theory; it was a manual for collective action that an entire society could rally behind.

The Structural Genius: Four Pillars, One Conclusion

Paine’s architecture is deceptively simple:

  1. Government vs. Society – Establishes the mental model that government is inherently suspect
  2. Monarchy is Absurd – Demolishes hereditary succession through both scripture and reason
  3. The Case for Independence – Makes reconciliation seem more radical than revolution
  4. America’s Material Capability – Provides the practical roadmap

He doesn’t start with independence — he starts by reframing how you think about authority itself. By the time you reach his actual policy proposal, your conceptual framework has been rebuilt from the foundation up. This is first-principles argumentation at its finest.

And the foundation he’s building? It’s the core democratic principle that the law should rule, not hereditary dynasties. Not kings, not aristocrats, not whoever was born into the right family. Paine is arguing for a system where the law governs consenting people who agree to the terms of mutual self-governance—even when they disagree on specific policies. This is the actual American political tradition, and reading Common Sense is the perfect antidote to the current disinformation campaign claiming “the US is a republic, not a democracy!” Paine clearly articulates what the public sentiment actually was at the founding: a forceful rejection of monarchy and inherited power.

Before we dive deeper into the specifics, here’s a video overview:

Mental Model: The Overton Window as Battering Ram

What Paine understood—and what every effective propagandist since has internalized—is that you don’t persuade people by meeting them where they are. You move the window of acceptable discourse so dramatically that your previously extreme position becomes the moderate compromise.

In 1776, most colonists still considered themselves British subjects seeking redress of grievances. Independence wasn’t just radical—it was treasonous. Paine’s innovation was to make continued loyalty to Britain seem like the radical position:

“As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of Britain.”

Continue reading Common Sense Review
Read more

What is fascism, and what are the signs of fascism? The fascist form of government is a complex and multi-faceted ideology that can manifest in various ways, making it challenging to pin down with a single definition.

Fascism resists simple definition precisely because it’s a syncretic ideology—adaptable to different contexts while maintaining core structural features. Rather than a fixed doctrine, it operates as a political methodology characterized by specific power dynamics, rhetorical strategies, and institutional patterns.

Structural characteristics of fascism

These are the ideological foundations and belief systems that define fascist movements—not merely policy positions but the fundamental orientations toward power, identity, and social organization that shape how fascism understands the world and its place in it.

  1. Authoritarian Consolidation: Fascism centralizes power through the dismantling of horizontal accountability structures, typically concentrating authority in a charismatic executive who positions themselves above institutional constraints.
  2. Ultranationalism as Identity Politics: Goes beyond patriotism to assert inherent civilizational superiority or racial supremacy, often manifesting as collective narcissism where national mythmaking replaces historical accuracy.
  3. Militarized Social Order: Valorization of martial virtues, hierarchical discipline, and violence as political tools. Fascist movements frequently draw from veteran communities and paramilitary traditions.
  4. Anti-Intellectualism and Epistemic Closure: Systematic devaluation of expertise, academic inquiry, and empirical reasoning in favor of intuition, emotion, and revealed truth. The “coastal elite” or “ivory tower” becomes a rhetorical enemy.
  5. Ethno-Nationalism and Boundary Enforcement: Xenophobia operating through strict in-group/out-group categorization, often targeting immigrants, religious minorities, or racialized “others.”
  6. Reactionary Temporal Orientation: Deployment of a mythologized past as political program—the promise to restore a golden age that never existed, weaponizing nostalgia against pluralism.
  7. Anti-Leftist Mobilization: Positioning communism, socialism, and progressive movements as existential threats, often conflating disparate left ideologies to create a unified enemy.

The Us vs. Them Architecture: In-group/Out-group dynamics as core infrastructure

Fascism doesn’t just exploit social divisions—it requires their constant production and intensification as its primary source of political energy. While most political movements contain some degree of group identity, fascism is structurally dependent on a stark binary between insiders and outsiders, making this dynamic its foundational operating system rather than an incidental feature. The movement coheres not around shared policy goals or governance philosophy, but around the ongoing project of boundary maintenance: defining, defending, and purifying the “us” against an ever-present “them.”

Continue reading Warning Signs of Fascism
Read more

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 Nazi theorist Carl Schmitt — 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