What’s the difference between conservatives and reactionaries?
In short:
A conservative wants to preserve the status quo (or change it slowly). A reactionary wants to reverse progress and return to a previous order — often an idealized or mythologized past.
The Core Difference:
Conservative
Reactionary
Wants to conserve existing institutions, traditions, and social order.
Wants to restore a past order — often rejecting modernity altogether.
Accepts some gradual change if necessary to preserve stability.
Sees recent changes (modernization, liberalization) as corruptions that must be undone.
May negotiate with progress or adapt slowly.
Opposes progress on principle — progress is the problem.
Historical Example:
Conservative:
→ Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution, but didn’t want to destroy parliamentary government. He wanted to preserve traditions and institutions to prevent chaos.
Reactionary:
→ Joseph de Maistre welcomedauthoritarian monarchy and theocracy after the French Revolution, believing divine right rule was the only cure for societal decay.
In Modern Terms:
A conservative in America might say: “We shouldn’t rush into sweeping changes — we need to preserve family values, religious freedom, and limited government.”
A reactionary might say: “Modern society is degenerate. We need to abolish democracy, bring back monarchy or biblical law, and return to the way things were before feminism, secularism, or civil rights.”
Where It Gets Tricky:
Many reactionaries call themselves conservatives — especially in American politics — because “reactionary” is usually a pejorative term today.
But ideologically:
Conservatives = cautious, incremental, defensive of the present order.
Reactionaries = revanchist, nostalgic, hostile to modernity.
In Summary:
All reactionaries are right-wing extremists, but not all conservatives are reactionaries.
Conservatives defend the status quo. Reactionaries want to roll back history.
Spectrum of Political Attitudes Towards Change
Position
Attitude Toward Change
View of the Past
View of the Future
Examples
Radical / Revolutionary
Overthrow existing system
Irrelevant or oppressive past
Build something entirely new
Anarchists, Communists, Revolutionaries
Progressive / Liberal
Reform existing system
Learn from past mistakes
Improve society incrementally
Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Liberals
Conservative
Preserve system as-is or allow very slow change
Respect traditions
Stability is more important than change
Traditional Conservatives, Libertarians (sometimes)
Reactionary
Undo modern changes, return to past order
The past was better / pure
Restore lost greatness
Christian Nationalists, Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists
I was lucky enough to be one of the first professional tech bloggers, still work in digital media, and avidly keep up with the technology sector. Back in the proverbial day I covered the rise of social media from the launches and earliest days of Facebook (aka Meta), Twitter (aka X), YouTube, and a host of graveyard denizens from Friendster to MySpace (anyone remember tribe.net?!). I lived and worked in Silicon Valley for a time and became disillusioned with much of the ideology while remaining avidly interested in the pockets still driven by the idea of democratizing access to information.
Now I love tinkering with tools (especially AI, automation, and data analysis) as well as writing personal and experimental stuff on my blog(s). I’m also excited about the rise of decentralized social media projects like Bluesky, Mastodon, and other platforms meant to challenge surveillance capitalism and corporate dominance of the public square.
I’ve also been a political activist since my college years, and especially since 2015 have been pretty intensely into politics — which, among many other things, has led to an ongoing protracted “re-factoring” of what I thought I knew about American history.
An academic by temperament, I research various topics at depth as a “serious amateur.” For the past 9+ years I’ve been studying fascism, authoritarianism, narcissism, cults, disinformation, conspiracy theories, dark money, and Christian nationalism and their tributaries — many of which share intersection points. My love of information management keeps me juggling multiple projects and exploring the connections between topics worth taking a closer look at; I’m an incorrigible generalist in a specialists’ world, while craving meaningful depth into each subject.
Inspiration
I am motivated by some of the old school values of the internet — towards openness, democratization of information, shining light into dark spaces, giving a voice to the people beyond the gatekeepers of major media, and more. It’s lost a fair amount of that spirit now in the corporate scrum to own its vast landscapes, but it can still be found here and there — and I hope to offer another little output on the stormy seas for those who wander and wish to not feel lost.
I like to experiment and make new things as constantly as I can, which right now involves a lot of AI tools, including ChatGPT, Midjourney, Perplexity, NotebookLM, Leonardo.ai, Opus Clip, Descript, Replicate, Flux, Ideogram, RunwayML, Sora, minimax, Napkin AI, Suno V4, and others. It feels like the most exciting thing since the dawning of the internet age itself.
Ethics
I don’t take any sponsorship money for this site, because I’m not interested in tailoring my point of view towards whatever maximizes profit. In part because commerce content is my day job, I do monetize (for a pittance) through affiliate links to books — the kind of product I can get behind recommending strongly to people. It also helps me understand what my audience is most interested in, and allows me to track what people find compelling enough to take action on. If you click on my book links and end up ordering something from Amazon or bookshop, it helps me understand how better to interest and serve this audience. So please feel free to do so, but not obligated.
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.
These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.
By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.
In an age of information overload, critical thinking has never been more essential. Whether you’re analyzing a news story, debating with friends, or writing a persuasive essay, your ability to recognize and avoid faulty reasoning can be the difference between clarity and confusion, persuasion and propaganda. At the heart of this effort lies this powerful concept of logical fallacies.
Types of logical fallacies
Logical fallacies fall into one of two main clusters:
Formal Fallacies
Formal fallacies occur when there’s a flaw in the logical structure of an argument, rendering the conclusion invalid—even if the premises are true. Think of formal fallacies as broken logic circuits: they don’t connect, even if the parts look sound.
Example:
If it’s raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it must be raining. (This is a classic fallacy known as affirming the consequent.)
Informal Fallacies
Informal fallacies, on the other hand, relate to the content of the argument rather than its structure. These occur when the premises don’t adequately support the conclusion, even if the structure appears valid.
These informal logical fallacies are more common in everyday conversation and rhetoric. Informal fallacies usually stem from misused language, assumptions, or appeals to emotion rather than flawed logic alone. They’re trickier to spot because they often feel intuitive or persuasive.
Example:
Everyone’s doing it, so it must be right. (This is the bandwagon fallacy—popular doesn’t mean correct.)
Within each of these two clusters is a number of different logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:
Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.
Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:
Fallacy
Definition
Example
Ad Hominem
Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument
“You can’t trust his economic policy ideas. He’s been divorced three times!”
Appeal to Authority
Using an authority’s opinion as definitive proof without addressing the argument itself
“Dr. Smith has a PhD, so her view on climate change must be correct.”
Appeal to Emotion
Manipulating emotions instead of using valid reasoning
“Think of the children who will suffer if you don’t support this policy!”
Appeal to Nature
Arguing that because something is natural, it is good, valid, or justified
“Herbal supplements are better than medication because they’re natural.”
Appeal to Tradition
Arguing that something is right because it’s been done that way for a long time
“We’ve always had this company policy, so we shouldn’t change it.”
Bandwagon Fallacy
Appealing to popularity as evidence of truth
“Everyone is buying this product, so it must be good.”
Begging the Question
Circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise
“The Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.”
Black-and-White Fallacy
Presenting only two options when more exist
“Either we cut the entire program, or we’ll go bankrupt.”
Cherry Picking
Selectively using data that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence
“Global warming can’t be real because it snowed last winter.”
Correlation vs. Causation
Assuming that because two events occur together, one caused the other
“Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning.”
Equivocation
Using a word with more than one meaning in a misleading way
“Evolution is just a theory, so it shouldn’t be taught as fact.” (Equivocating between scientific theory and casual speculation)
Fallacy of Composition
Inferring that something is true of the whole because it’s true of a part
“This cell is invisible to the naked eye, so the whole animal must be invisible too.”
Fallacy of Division
Inferring that something is true of the parts because it’s true of the whole
“The university has an excellent reputation, so every professor there must be excellent.”
Genetic Fallacy
Evaluating an argument based on its origins rather than its merits
“That idea came from a socialist country, so it must be bad.”
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased
“I had two bad meals at restaurants in Italy, so Italian cuisine is terrible.”
Middle Ground Fallacy
Assuming that a compromise between two extremes must be correct
“Some people say the Earth is flat, others say it’s round. The truth must be that it’s somewhat flat and somewhat round.”
No True Scotsman
Redefining terms to exclude counterexamples
“No true environmentalist would drive an SUV.” When shown an environmentalist who drives an SUV: “Well, they’re not a true environmentalist then.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B
“I wore my lucky socks and we won the game, so my socks caused our victory.”
Red Herring
Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue
“Why worry about environmental problems when there are so many people who can’t find jobs?”
Slippery Slope
Arguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences
“If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry their pets!”
Straw Man
Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack
“Vegetarians say we should eat no meat at all and let farmers go out of business.” (When they actually argue for reduced meat consumption)
Texas Sharpshooter
Cherry-picking data clusters to fit a pattern
“Look at these cancer cases clustered in this neighborhood – it must be caused by the power lines!” (While ignoring similar neighborhoods with power lines but no cancer clusters)
Tu Quoque
Avoiding criticism by turning it back on the accuser
“You say I should quit smoking, but you used to smoke too!”
Burden of Proof
Claiming something is true while putting the burden to disprove it on others
“I believe in ghosts. Prove to me that they don’t exist.”
How to identify logical fallacies
Spotting fallacies takes practice, but these tips can help sharpen your skills:
Slow down and dissect the argument. Look at the premises and conclusion—do they logically connect?
Watch for emotional appeals. If an argument relies more on stirring feelings than presenting evidence, be cautious.
Ask: what’s being left out? Many fallacies omit key context or alternate explanations.
Compare to real-world examples. Would the logic hold up elsewhere?
Everyday example: “If we allow students to redo assignments, next they’ll expect to retake tests, and eventually no deadlines will matter at all.” — This is a slippery slope fallacy. One action doesn’t necessarily lead to an extreme outcome.
Why avoiding logical fallacies matters
Logical fallacies don’t just weaken arguments—they erode trust, obscure truth, and inflame discourse. Here’s why learning to avoid them is critical:
In personal arguments: Fallacies can escalate tension and derail meaningful conversation.
In academic writing: Sound reasoning is the backbone of scholarship; fallacies undermine credibility.
In public discourse and media: Propaganda and misinformation often rely on fallacious reasoning to manipulate opinion. Recognizing these tactics is key to resisting them.
In a world where bad actors exploit fallacies for influence and profit, being fallacy-literate is a form of intellectual self-defense.
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.
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, television—with its emphasis on visual stimulation, fragmentation, and entertainment—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 prophetic—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 presentation—where a serious story about war might be followed immediately by a commercial or light-hearted feature—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 entertainment—with telegenic preachers, emotional music, and simplified messaging replacing theological depth and contemplative practice.
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.
The Thiel Connection: Mentorship and Collaboration
Lonsdale’s career has been deeply intertwined with that of Peter Thiel, the billionaire entrepreneur and right-wing political donor. Their relationship began during Lonsdale’s college years at Stanford University, where he was editor-in-chief of The Stanford Review, a publication Thiel had co-founded years earlier. This shared intellectual foundation would prove formative for their future collaborations.
After graduating from Stanford with a computer science degree in 2004, Lonsdale joined Thiel at Clarium Capital, a global macro hedge fund. As an early executive there, Lonsdale helped grow the fund to $8 billion in assets under management, working closely with Thiel and absorbing his contrarian investment philosophy and political worldview.
The most significant product of their partnership came in 2004, when they co-founded Palantir Technologies along with Alex Karp, Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings. Named after the all-seeing stones from “The Lord of the Rings,” Palantir focused on data analytics with applications in defense, intelligence, and corporate settings. The company received early investment from the CIA‘s venture fund, In-Q-Tel, setting it on a path to become deeply embedded in government and defense work—a connection that would later align with Lonsdale’s political activities.
Building an Empire: From Palantir to 8VC
While Lonsdale left his operational role at Palantir in 2009, he continued as an advisor while launching a series of new ventures. He founded Addepar, a wealth management platform now managing over $4 trillion in assets, and co-founded OpenGov, which provides cloud-based software for government budgeting.
In 2015, Lonsdale founded 8VC, a venture capital firm that now manages over $6 billion in capital. Through 8VC, he has invested in companies like Oculus, Guardant Health, Oscar, Wish, and Flexport, expanding his influence throughout the tech industry. The firm’s name itself reflects Lonsdale’s philosophy—the number 8 representing infinity when turned sideways, suggesting limitless potential.
Political Activities and Right-Wing Advocacy
Unlike many Silicon Valley elites, Lonsdale has been unabashedly outspoken about his right-wing political views. Following in the footsteps of his mentor Thiel, he has emerged as an active Republican donor and fundraiser, using his considerable wealth and influence to support right-wing candidates and causes.
In 2020, Lonsdale made headlines when he joined the exodus of tech leaders leaving San Francisco for more conservative locales, relocating his family and business to Austin, Texas. He publicly criticized California’s “disrepair,” citing high taxes, regulations, and progressive policies as his reasons for leaving—a move that solidified his status as a vocal critic of liberal governance.
Lonsdale’s political advocacy extends beyond campaign contributions. He co-founded the Cicero Institute, a policy think tank focused on market-oriented solutions to healthcare, housing, and criminal justice reform. The institute promotes conservative approaches to these issues, advocating for reduced regulation and private-sector solutions.
Perhaps his most ambitious political-adjacent project is the University of Austin (UATX), which he co-founded as an alternative to what he sees as the liberal orthodoxy dominating higher education. The university aims to promote so-called “intellectual diversity” and “free speech“, reflecting Lonsdale’s belief that traditional universities have become too politically homogeneous.
The New Right of Silicon Valley
Together with Thiel, Lonsdale represents a new brand of tech-enabled Republicanism. This movement combines traditional Republican values of (in this case extremely) limited government and free markets with a Silicon Valley ethos of disruption and technological optimism. It stands apart from both establishment Republicanism and populist right-wing movements, offering a vision of conservative politics infused with the language and tools of technology.
Lonsdale has used his platform to advocate for American innovation and entrepreneurship, arguing that technological advancement, not government intervention, is the solution to society’s problems. His American Optimist initiative promotes this vision through podcasts and other media, featuring conversations with entrepreneurs, scientists, and policy experts who share his techno-optimistic worldview.
Joe Lonsdale and Elon Musk
Joe Lonsdale and Elon Musk know each other, and have collaborated on various ventures. Lonsdale has been a supporter of Musk’s initiatives both politically and in business. His firm 8VC invested in Musk’s Boring Company during its Series C funding round. He also contributed $1 million to America PAC, a super PAC backing Donald Trump‘s 2024 presidential campaign run by Musk. Their relationship extends to political endeavors, with Lonsdale described as a friend and “political confidant” of Musk.
On a personal level, Lonsdale married Tayler Cox in 2016, and they have five children together. Their family life, now based in Austin, reflects the traditional values that inform his political perspective.
With an estimated net worth of $425 million, Lonsdale uses his wealth not just for political activities but also for philanthropy, often directed toward causes aligned with his conservative values. He and his wife are active donors in various philanthropic pursuits, though these typically reflect his market-oriented approach to solving social problems.
The Future of Right-Wing Tech
At just 42 years old, Lonsdale’s influence in both technology and politics continues to grow. As one of the youngest members ever to appear on Forbes’ Midas List, his investment decisions shape the future of technology, while his political advocacy helps define a new strain of tech right-wing forces.
Following Thiel’s playbook but developing his own distinctive voice, Lonsdale represents a generation of tech leaders who are attacking Silicon Valley’s liberal consensus. And with fellow tech titan buddy Elon Musk now Chief Buddy, these energetically right-wing tech oligarchs with enormous power over our daily lives already are unsettlingly close to the White House.
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.
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 enough—a provocative meme shared by a friend, a YouTube video recommended by an algorithm—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 reality—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 virtual—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.
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.
Table of Contents
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 1984 Dictionary
Newspeak term
Definition
ante
The prefix that replaces before
artsem
Artificial insemination
bb
Big Brother
bellyfeel
The blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhite
To 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”.
crimestop
To rid oneself of unorthodox thoughts that go against Ingsoc’s ideology
crimethink
Thoughts and concepts that go against Ingsoc, frequently referred to by the standard English “thoughtcrime”, such as liberty, equality, and privacy, and also the criminal act of holding such thoughts
dayorder
Order of the day
dep
Department
doubleplusgood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively good”, such as excellent, fabulous, and fantastic
doubleplusungood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively bad”, such as terrible and horrible
doublethink
The act of simultaneously believing two, mutually contradictory ideas
duckspeak
Automatic, vocal support of political orthodoxies
facecrime
A facial expression which reveals that one has committed thoughtcrime
Ficdep
The Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
free
The absence and the lack of something. “Intellectually free” and “politically free” have been replaced by crimethinkful.
–ful
The suffix for forming an adjective
fullwise
The word that replaces words such as fully, completely, and totally
goodthink
A synonym for “political orthodoxy” and “a politically orthodox thought” as defined by the Party
goodsex
Sexual intercourse only for procreation, without any physical pleasure on the part of the woman, and strictly within marriage
goodwise
The word that replaced well as an adverb
Ingsoc
The English Socialist Party (i.e. The Party)
joycamp
Labour camp
malquoted
Inaccurate representations of the words of Big Brother and of the Party
Miniluv
The Ministry of Love, where the secret police interrogate and torture the enemies of Oceania (torture and brainwashing)
Minipax
The Ministry of Peace, who wage war for Oceania
Minitrue
The 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
Miniplenty
The Ministry of Plenty, who keep the population in continual economic hardship (starvation and rationing)
Oldspeak
Standard English
oldthink
Ideas from the time before the Party’s revolution, such as objectivity and rationalism
ownlife
A person’s anti-social tendency to enjoy solitude and individualism
plusgood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “very good”, such as great
plusungood
The word that replaced “very bad”
Pornosec
The pornography production section (Porno sector) of the Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
prolefeed
Popular culture for entertaining Oceania’s working class
Recdep
The Ministry of Truth’s Records Department, where Winston Smith rewrites historical records so they conform to the Party’s agenda
rectify
The Ministry of Truth’s euphemism for manipulating a historical record
ref
To refer (to someone or something)
sec
Sector
sexcrime
A sexual immorality, such as fornication, adultery, oral sex, and homosexuality; any sex act that deviates from Party directives to use sex only for procreation
speakwrite
A machine that transcribes speech into text
Teledep
The Ministry of Truth’s Telecommunications Department
telescreen
A two-way television set with which the Party spy upon Oceania’s population
thinkpol
The Thought Police, the secret police force of Oceania’s government
unperson
An executed person whose existence is erased from history and memory
upsub
An upwards submission to higher authority
–wise
The 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 → Definition
Definition → Term
Score: 0/0
Quiz Complete!
Your final 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. Here’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 Party’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 population’s perceptions and beliefs.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
Accelerationism Dictionary: A Complete Terminology and Lexicon
AI accelerationism, or “e/acc,” is one of the most radical and controversial ideologies emerging from Silicon Valley today. At its core, it champions the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence, rejecting calls for regulation and safety measures in favor of unchecked innovation. Proponents argue that AI holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges—climate change, poverty, disease—and even envision a post-human future where intelligence transcends biological limits.
With strong libertarian leanings, the movement prioritizes market-driven progress, believing that government intervention would stifle AI’s transformative potential. Tech billionaires like legendary venture capitalist Marc Andreessen have embraced these ideas, elevating what was once a fringe philosophy into a driving force in the AI industry.
However, AI accelerationism faces fierce criticism for its disregard of ethical considerations, social consequences, and potential existential risks. Detractors warn that unregulated AI development could exacerbate inequality, destabilize economies, and lead to dangerous technological outcomes without proper safeguards.
The movement stands in stark opposition to cautious, ethical AI development advocated by groups like the effective altruism community, setting up a high-stakes ideological battle over the future of artificial intelligence. Whether one sees AI accelerationism as a path to utopia or a reckless gamble, its growing influence makes it a defining force in the ongoing debate over technology’s role in shaping humanity’s future.
This accelerationism dictionary should help get anyone up to speed on this emerging and dangerous ideology. We’ll keep adding to it over time as the field continues to evolve at breakneck pace.
Accelerationism Dictionary
A
Accelerate or die: A common slogan in the e/acc movement expressing the belief that technological acceleration is necessary for survival.
Accelerationism: A philosophical and political movement advocating for the acceleration of technological, social, and economic progress. Can exist in left-wing, right-wing, and politically neutral forms.
AI supremacy: The belief or fear that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and capabilities, potentially dominating society, economies, and geopolitical power structures. It is often discussed in the context of global competition for technological dominance.
It feels odd to have to make these arguments for diversity, again, some centuries after the Enlightenment. And centuries after Darwin, in whose name many fallacious opposite “interpretations” are levied. But apparently we must say it: diversity is good, actually.
The evidence is there for us as it has always been. Diversity isn’t a bad thing — it’s almost universally a good thing. For populations, for economies, for problem solving — for all of us. The more options there are, the higher probability that one of them might be the right match, or the thing that solves the problem, or the best selection for the job at hand.
In economics, Modern Portfolio Theory is based on the formal proof that diverse portfolios are stronger and more resilient to risk without sacrificing returns. So there’s a strict mathematical component to the arguments for diversity, but beyond that many other fields have also weighed in on the utility and pragmatic value of diversity. This assortment is a work in progress I’ll continue to add to over time:
In biology, more diverse populations are more responsive and resilient to a wider variety of changes. This resilience is one of the best arguments for diversity of all.
In business, a diversity of new ideas leads to better decision-making and increased innovation; studies show a diverse workforce, as well as a diverse board, nets better results and outperforms their more conformist cousins. Conversely, too much groupthink and stale ideas lead to worse outcomes and less resilient firms.
Cross-pollination is generative, and the blending of ideas creates new concepts, new opportunities, new industries, and new trends — to name a few.
Range adds resilience — developing a broad range of skills and experiences help you adapt to constant change and grow in your career
Condorcet jury theorem: the more informed people there are making a decision, the more right it will be. Plurality makes better decisions. See also: wisdom of crowds
Law of large numbers: the more data points you have, the more accurate your distribution will be.
A large number of independent transactions helps economies function properly and grow. We speak of the economy “moving” and finding many touchpoints to do business on.
A lack of diversity can lead to poor outcomes, such as in echo chambers where people are not exposed to different points of view, and develop insular views that are self-reinforcing but usually divorced from reality.
Diversity unhinges us because it unmasks our hidden assumption that if we all look the same, we will think the same and thereby avoid conflict.
Deep down, we still secretly hope that we can avoid having to deal with our differences by magically generating conformity.
Our unspoken wish is that, by being identical, we achieve the harmony and collective togetherness we so deeply crave — the collective harmony we mistake for God. In our zeal to commune with god, we instead are far more likely to fall victim to the pitfalls of collective narcissism and all the destructions it wreaks.
Diversity outcompetes monoculture
The opposite of diversity is monoculture… and inbreeding. Monoculture represents sameness, stasis, and stagnation — the system or culture feels fairly dull and stale.
Most people like a certain level of variety in their lives. Some though, have great aversion to difference, change, or both. Authoritarian personalities tend to dislike difference, while individuals with traditional conservative ideology tend to dislike change.
One of the more relatable arguments for diversity stems from the fact that a majority of people enjoy and benefit from diverse points of view, experiences, community members, and beyond. We love to eat different foods, travel to different places, and engage in different pasttimes. And our lives are enriched because of it.
Diversity ought to be celebrated, not denigrated. In many ways it is the very stuff of life — something that helps make life precious and meaningful.
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 — and that’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 we’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 didn’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. We’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 — 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. That’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. It’s working, creating jobs and industries of the future. Now we have proven we don’t have to choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. We’re doing both. But powerful forces want to wield their unchecked influence to eliminate the steps we’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, “The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Six days — six decades later, I’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:
Since Donald Trump’s election in 2016, a lot of people believe that new technologies—and how foreign actors manipulate them—played a big role in his win and are fueling our “post-truth” world, where disinformation and propaganda seem to thrive.
Network Propaganda flips that idea on its head. The book dives into an incredibly detailed study of American media coverage from the start of the 2016 election in April 2015 to Trump’s first year in office. By analyzing millions of news stories, social media shares on Facebook and Twitter, TV broadcasts, and YouTube content, it paints a full picture of how political communication in the U.S. really works. The authors dig into big topics like immigration, Clinton-related scandals, and the Trump-Russia investigation and reveal that right-wing media doesn’t play by the same rules as other outlets.
Their big takeaway? The conservative media ecosystem functions in a totally unique way, shaped by decades of political, cultural, and institutional shifts since the 1970s. This has created a kind of propaganda loop that’s pushed center-right media to the sidelines, radicalized the right, and made it more vulnerable to both domestic and foreign propaganda. Thus Russia’s involvement was more like pouring gasoline onto an existing fire — a conflagration which was raging prior to Putin’s arrival on the scene.
For readers both inside and outside the U.S., Network Propaganda offers fresh insights and practical ways to understand—and maybe even fix—the broader democratic challenges we’re seeing around the world.
Network Propaganda podcast book summary
I have been getting a kick out of NotebookLM‘s renditions of podcasts about the source materials uploaded to the Notebook. They are really quite good, and I can see them being useful for a number of purposes. Here’s an AI-generated discussion about Network Propaganda, taken from a PDF of the book as the source of the Notebook.
The concept of “flying monkeys” is a term that originates from popular culture, being invented in the 1900 novel by L. Frank Baum, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” — where the Wicked Witch of the West employs winged monkeys to carry out her malevolent deeds. It was much more broadly popularized by the 1939 film version of the book, “The Wizard of Oz,” which cemented in the public’s mind a vision of evil winged monkeys doing the bidding of a malevolent overlord.
In the realm of psychology and interpersonal relationships, the term has been appropriated to describe individuals who act on behalf of a narcissist or emotional predator, often without full awareness that they are being used to harm others.
Psychological underpinnings of flying monkeys
Flying monkeys serve as extensions of the narcissist’s inflated ego and domineering will. They are often manipulated into believing that the narcissist’s cause is just, and they may even think they are helping to protect or defend someone they care about. This is achieved through a range of manipulative tactics such as gaslighting, projection, and triangulation.
Gaslighting is a hallmark of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) and emotional abuse that involves making someone doubt their own perceptions and memories, while projection shifts the narcissist’s negative traits onto the victim. Triangulation pits people against each other, creating a web of confusion and mistrust.
Usage by narcissists
Narcissists employ flying monkeys to extend their sphere of influence and control. These enablers can be friends, family members, or even colleagues who are manipulated into carrying out various tasks for the narcissist. These tasks can range from spreading rumors and gossip to more overt acts like harassment or stalking. The flying monkeys often believe they are acting out of loyalty or love, not realizing that they are pawns in a larger scheme.
The narcissist’s relationship with their flying monkeys is transactional. There’s an unspoken quid pro quo: the flying monkeys get to bask in the narcissist’s approval, and in return, they carry out the narcissist’s bidding. This dynamic allows the narcissist to maintain a clean image via plausible deniability, as they can always distance themselves from the actions of their flying monkeys.
Usage by cult leaders
In the context of cults, the concept takes on an even darker hue. Cult leaders often employ a cadre of devoted followers to enforce their will and isolate potential recruits from outside influences. These flying monkeys serve as a buffer between the leader and the outside world, allowing the leader to maintain an aura of mystique and unapproachability. They carry out tasks ranging from recruitment to punishment of dissenting members, all while believing that they are part of a grand, noble cause.
Ethical and social implications
The use of flying monkeys raises significant ethical and social concerns. It disrupts the social fabric, eroding trust within communities and families. Victims often find themselves isolated, as they cannot easily prove the manipulation at play. This isolation can lead to severe emotional and sometimes physical harm.
Flying monkeys and manipulation
Understanding the concept of flying monkeys is crucial for recognizing and combating manipulative behaviors in both personal and broader social contexts, and as an essential cult warning sign. Whether deployed by narcissists in interpersonal relationships or by cult leaders to maintain their power structures (or, often, both), flying monkeys serve as tools of manipulation, coercion, and control. Awareness of these dynamics is the first step in breaking the cycle and fostering healthier, more authentic relationships and societies.
Flying monkeys as a cultural reference
The concept of “flying monkeys” has permeated popular culture ever since its introduction in Baum’s book. Here’s an exhaustive list of cultural references to flying monkeys:
Literature and Film
The Wizard of Oz
In Baum’s original novel, flying monkeys are described as jungle monkeys with bird-like feathered wings.
The 1939 film adaptation popularized the visual image of flying monkeys, though they had a smaller role and didn’t speak.
Other Oz Adaptations
The 1964 animated TV special “Return to Oz” featured clumsy flying monkeys.
In the film version of “The Wiz,” flying monkeys are reimagined as a motorcycle gang.
The TV miniseries “Tin Man” depicts bat-winged monkeys called “Mobats”.
Flying monkeys appear in the 2013 animated film “Legends of Oz: Dorothy’s Return”.
Other Films
“Jumanji” (1995) features a scene where monkeys imitate the flying monkeys from “The Wizard of Oz”.
“Once Upon a Time” featured a storyline involving flying monkeys in its third season.
“Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz” animated series includes flying monkeys as recurring characters.
Comics and Animation
In the comic series “Fables,” a winged monkey named Bufkin is a librarian in Fabletown.
Various animated adaptations of “The Wizard of Oz” have featured flying monkeys.
Music and Music Videos
The band Protest The Hero’s music video for “Heretics and Killers” features the band in winged monkey suits.
Video Games
Flying monkeys have appeared in various video games, often as enemies or obstacles.
Cultural Impact
The phrase “flying monkeys” has entered common usage to describe people who act on behalf of a manipulative individual, particularly in discussions of narcissism and manipulation.
The image of flying monkeys is often used in art, merchandise, and popular culture as a symbol of both whimsy and menace.
Misquotations and Misconceptions
The phrase “Fly, my pretties, fly!” is often misattributed to the Wicked Witch in “The Wizard of Oz,” but it doesn’t appear in the film.
This misquotation has been perpetuated through various media references, including “The Simpsons”.
Other Cultural References
There’s a false belief that Chinese mythology describes creatures called “Hsigo,” described as flying monkeys with human faces and dog tails. This is actually a modern fabrication with no basis in traditional Chinese folklore.
Symbolic Use
Flying monkeys are sometimes used as metaphors for unquestioning obedience or malicious compliance in social and organizational contexts.
The symbol of the flying monkey has had an enduring impact on literature, film, television, and popular imagination since its introduction in 1900. It is now an almost universally-recognized metaphor for a henchman or underling doing the bidding of someone evil, as well as a clinically useful term that can help identify potential emotional predators in our midst.
