Understanding AI Accelerationism: Silicon Valley’s Radical Vision for the Future
What is AI accelerationism? AI accelerationism, or “e/acc” as it’s known in tech circles, has emerged as one of Silicon Valley‘s most influential and controversial ideological movements. At its core, it represents a radical optimism about artificial intelligence and its potential to reshape human civilization as we know it.
What is AI Accelerationism?
At its most basic, AI accelerationism advocates for the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence. Unlike those who call for careful regulation and safety measures, accelerationists believe that faster AI development is not just beneficial but crucial for humanity’s future. They reject what they see as excessive caution, often dismissing AI safety advocates as “doomers.”
The Core Beliefs
Technological Solutions to Global Problems
Accelerationists believe that unrestricted technological progress, particularly in AI, holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges. From their perspective, issues like climate change, poverty, and disease are problems that advanced AI could potentially solve if we develop it quickly enough.
Post-Human Future
Perhaps most ambitiously, many e/acc proponents envision a future where the line between human and machine blurs. They embrace the possibility of human-AI integration and the emergence of new forms of consciousness and intelligence.
Market-Driven Innovation
The movement has strong libertarian leanings, advocating for minimal government intervention in AI development. They believe that market forces, not regulation, should guide technological progress.
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.
History is rife with examples of dualistic thinkingβblack and white, good and evil, light and dark. Few frameworks encapsulate this philosophical dichotomy more vividly than Manichaeism, a religious movement born in 3rd century Persia. At its heart lies the concept of the “Manichaean Struggle,” an eternal cosmic battle that defines existence itself.
Though the religion has long since disappeared, its ideas about duality and morality resonate in ways both subtle and overt, shaping not just theology but how we think about human nature and ethics today. If anything, the modern world is more black and white now than at many times in the past.
Historical Context
Manichaeism was founded in 3rd century CE Persia by a prophet named Mani. Claiming to synthesize the wisdom of previous religious traditionsβZoroastrianism, Buddhism, and ChristianityβMani positioned his teachings as the ultimate revelation. The religion rapidly gained a foothold across diverse regions, from the Roman Empire to the Silk Road, even reaching as far as China.
Yet, despite its initial success, Manichaeism faced relentless persecution from state powers, including the Roman Empire and the Sasanian rulers of Persia, alongside internal schisms. By the 14th century, the faith had all but disappeared, leaving behind traces in historical records and theological debates.
Core Beliefs of Manichaeism
At its core, Manichaeism proposed a dualistic cosmology: the world is a battleground between two primordial forcesβgood, symbolized by light, and evil, represented by darkness. Mani’s teachings divided cosmic history into three stages:
Past Separation: A time when light and darkness existed apart.
Present Mixture: The current era, in which the two forces intermingle, with particles of light trapped within the material world.
Future Resolution: A prophesied time when light will be liberated and returned to its source, restoring cosmic balance.
This worldview emphasized the imprisonment of light particles within physical matter, including within human beings. The struggle to free these fragments of light became the central spiritual endeavor of every adherent.
Alexander Dugin, born on January 7, 1962, in Moscow, is a Russian political philosopher and strategist whose ideas have significantly influenced Russia’s geopolitical stance. His fatherβs ties to military intelligence likely shaped his early interest in geopolitics.
In the 1980s, Dugin was an anti-communist dissident. After the Soviet Union’s collapse, he co-founded the National Bolshevik Party with Eduard Limonov, merging elements of communism and fascism. He later pursued his own ideological path, developing Neo-Eurasianismβa vision positioning Russia as a unique civilization distinct from both Europe and Asia.
Dugin’s anti-US worldview
His 1997 work, “Foundations of Geopolitics,” outlines strategies for Russia to counter U.S. dominance, including fostering instability within the U.S. and annexing Ukraine. This book has reportedly influenced Russian military and foreign policy circles. In 2009, Dugin introduced “The Fourth Political Theory,” proposing a new ideology that integrates elements from liberalism, communism, and fascism while rejecting their negative aspects.
Dugin’s political activities include founding the Eurasia Party in 2002 and the International Eurasian Movement. While he hasn’t held official government positions, he’s been described as an informal advisor to various Russian political figures. His relationship with Vladimir Putin is subject to speculation; some have dubbed him “Putinβs philosopher,” and even “Putin’s Rasputin,” though the extent of his influence remains unclear.
Fascination with fascism
Known for his extreme views, Dugin has called for a Eurasian empire to challenge the U.S.-led world order and supported pro-Russian separatists during the 2014 Ukraine conflict. He has expressed admiration for certain aspects of fascism and Nazism, though he claims to reject their racist elements. Accusations of promoting anti-Semitic and racist ideas have been leveled against him, which he denies.
Internationally, Dugin’s ideas have found traction among far-right and far-left groups. In 2014, he was placed under U.S. sanctions due to his role in the Ukraine conflict and has been banned from entering several countries, including Ukraine.
In August 2022, Dugin’s daughter, Darya Dugina, who was also involved in promoting his ideological work, was killed in a car bombing near Moscow. While Dugin himself was believed to be the intended target, the incident brought renewed international attention to him and his ideas.
Understanding Dugin’s philosophy provides insight into certain strains of Russian nationalist and anti-Western thought, even as his more extreme positions remain outside the mainstream.
Curtis Yarvin, born in 1973, is a software developer and political theorist whose controversial neo-reactionary views have rippled through both Silicon Valley and right-wing political circles. Writing under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug, Yarvin gained notoriety for his influential blog “Unqualified Reservations,” where he advanced ideas that challenge the foundations of democracy and equality.
Yarvin wasnβt always a fringe political figure. Raised in a secular, liberal familyβhis paternal grandparents were Jewish American communists, and his father worked for the U.S. Foreign Serviceβhe grew up with a global perspective, spending part of his childhood in Cyprus. But it was after reading figures like Thomas Carlyle and Hans-Hermann Hoppe that Yarvin turned sharply to the right. Disillusioned by libertarianism, he carved out his own niche in far-right ideology, a space he has termed “neo-reaction.”
“The Cathedral” and Neo-Reactionary Thought
At the heart of Yarvinβs philosophy is what he calls βformalismββa system that would replace modern democracy with something akin to monarchy. His ideas reject progressive norms and push for a consolidation of power akin to aligning political authority with property rights. Yarvin coined the term βCathedralβ to describe the intertwined power structures of mainstream media, academia, and the bureaucracy that he believes work together to perpetuate liberal democracy.
Yarvinβs ideologies have found an audience among Silicon Valleyβs elite, where some of his most ardent admirers hold significant clout. Peter Thiel, co-founder of PayPal and noted libertarian-turned-conservative, has supported Yarvinβs work both ideologically and financially. Thielβs venture capital firm, Founders Fund, even backed Yarvinβs tech startup, Tlon, which developed the decentralized computing platform Urbit.
Steve Bannon, the former White House strategist, is also a known reader of Yarvinβs work, while political figures like 2024 Vice Presidential candidate J.D. Vance and failed 2022 AZ Senate candidate Blake Mastersβboth backed financially by Thielβhave cited and promoted Yarvinβs ideas.
Tech Hubris Meets Political Hubris
Yarvinβs Urbit project, launched in 2002, is a decentralized computing platform designed to overhaul the current internet structure, aligning with his broader vision of restructuring power. Though he left Tlon in 2019, he remains involved with Urbit’s development and continues to influence the tech space through his ideas, despite the controversy surrounding them.
Critics have slammed Yarvinβs views as deeply racist and fascistic, pointing to his writings that flirt with dangerous notions about race and slavery. His ideasβthough offensive to manyβseem to thrive in niche spaces where libertarian techno-utopianism meets far-right authoritarianism, making him a key figure in the ongoing discourse about the future of governance, especially in a tech-dominated age.
Here’s Rachel Maddow’s segment highlighting the Vance-Yarvin connection:
Breaking: NEW bombshell JD Vance video by MSNBC & Rachel Maddow. JD Vance wants to shut down American universities & business using extra constitutional powers. He wants to rip them out like a tumor and install political religion. Vance is following the plans of right-wing⦠pic.twitter.com/tDBoaMhydS
Curtis Yarvin represents an ideological fusion thatβs hard to ignore: Silicon Valleyβs boundless ambition meets a longing for autocratic rule. In this strange nexus, heβs helped shape a disturbing vision of the future, one where tech CEOs could potentially wear the crown.
In half a decade weβve gone from Jeb Bush making a serious run for president to Marjorie Taylor Greene running unopposed and winning a House seat in Georgia. QAnon came seemingly out of nowhere, but taps into a much deeper and older series of conspiracy theories that have surfaced, resurfaced, and been remixed throughout time.
Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? In an increasingly complex world of information bombarding us as blinding speed and high volume, the cognitive appeal of easy answers and turnkey “community” may be much stronger than ever before.
List of conspiracy theory books
It’s a deep topic so we’d best get started. If you’ve got an urgent issue with a friend or loved one, start here:
Richard Hofstadter’s Anti-Intellectualism in American Life is a sharp exploration of the recurring tension between intellectualism and populism in the United States. Hofstadter traces the roots of American anti-intellectualism, revealing how a distrust of intellectual elites has been woven into the fabric of American culture, often tied to religious fervor, educational systems, and political movements. He argues that this skepticism towards intellectuals has influenced public policy and shaped national identity, creating a persistent undercurrent that challenges the value of critical thinking and expertise in the public sphere. Through historical analysis, Hofstadter illuminates how this strain of thought has impacted American democracy, often in ways that prioritize emotional appeal over reasoned discourse.
Kurt Andersen’s Fantasyland: How America Went Haywire: A 500-Year History offers a sweeping narrative that traces America’s propensity for embracing fantastical thinking from the earliest settlers to the present day. Andersen argues that the American tendency to blur the lines between reality and fantasy has deep historical roots, driven by a unique blend of religious zeal, entrepreneurial spirit, and cultural escapism. He explores how this inclination has shaped everything from politics to entertainment, resulting in a culture where conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and magical thinking thrive. Through sharp analysis and a broad historical lens, Andersen paints a vivid picture of how Americaβs love affair with fantasy has led to the current era of “alternative facts” and widespread distrust of objective truth.
Lee McIntyre’s On Disinformation: How to Fight for Truth and Protect Democracy is a concise yet powerful examination of the threat disinformation poses to truth and democratic values. McIntyre explores the origins and tactics of disinformation campaigns, revealing how they exploit cognitive biases and social media to sow confusion and distrust. He emphasizes that disinformation is not just a byproduct of misinformation but a deliberate weapon used to undermine public discourse and erode the foundations of democracy. The book provides a call to action, urging individuals and institutions to become vigilant defenders of truth through critical thinking, media literacy, and active resistance against the forces of disinformation. With a clear-eyed approach, McIntyre offers practical strategies for combating this growing menace in a time when truth itself is under siege.
Mia Bloom and Sophia Moskalenko’s Pastels and Pedophiles: Inside the Mind of QAnon delves into the disturbing world of QAnon, unraveling the psychological and social dynamics that fuel its growth. The authors explore how this conspiracy theory, with its bizarre blend of pastel aesthetics and lurid allegations of pedophilia, has captivated a diverse array of followers. Bloom and Moskalenko dissect the movement’s appeal, showing how it taps into deep-seated fears, identity politics, and a longing for community in a time of uncertainty. They reveal the real-world consequences of QAnon’s spread, from fractured families to violent extremism, and highlight the challenges of deprogramming those ensnared by its false narratives. Through rigorous analysis and empathetic insight, the book offers a critical look at how conspiracy theories like QAnon thrive in a polarized society and the urgent need to address their dangerous influence.
Anna Merlan’s Republic of Lies: American Conspiracy Theorists and Their Surprising Rise to Power is an incisive exploration of the burgeoning influence of conspiracy theories in American life. Merlan takes readers on a journey through the diverse and often troubling world of conspiracy believers, from UFO enthusiasts to anti-vaxxers, exposing the cultural and political forces that have propelled these fringe ideas into the mainstream. She delves into how conspiracy theories have gained traction across the political spectrum, fueled by distrust in institutions and amplified by the internet’s echo chambers. With a keen eye for detail and a compassionate approach, Merlan uncovers the real-world impact of these theories, from shaping political movements to influencing national discourse. The book serves as a wake-up call to the power of misinformation and the urgent need to understand and counter the spread of dangerous ideologies in an increasingly fractured society.
Rob Brotherton’s Suspicious Minds: Why We Believe Conspiracy Theories delves into the psychology behind why conspiracy theories are so compelling and why they persist in human societies. Brotherton examines the cognitive biases and psychological tendencies that make us prone to seeing patterns, connecting dots, and doubting official narratives, even when evidence is lacking. He explores the historical and cultural contexts that have given rise to various conspiracy theories, showing how they tap into deep-seated fears and uncertainties. By blending psychology with history, Brotherton provides a nuanced understanding of why conspiracy theories are not just fringe beliefs but a fundamental part of human thinking. The book challenges readers to recognize their own susceptibility to conspiratorial thinking and emphasizes the importance of critical thinking in a world where misinformation can easily take root.
Gustave Le Bon’s The Crowd: A Study of the Popular Mind is a pioneering work in social psychology that examines the behavior of crowds and the psychological mechanisms that drive collective action. Le Bon argues that individuals, when part of a crowd, lose their sense of individual responsibility and rationality, becoming susceptible to emotional contagion and impulsive behavior. He explores how crowds can be swayed by charismatic leaders, simplistic ideas, and the power of suggestion, often leading to irrational and sometimes destructive outcomes. Le Bon’s analysis extends to the ways in which crowds influence politics, culture, and social movements, offering insights into the dynamics of mass psychology that remain relevant today. His work lays the foundation for understanding how public opinion can be manipulated and how groupthink can override reason, making it a fascinating text for anyone interested in the psychology of collective behavior.
Eric Hoffer’s The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements is a profound exploration of the psychological and social forces that drive individuals to join and commit to mass movements. Hoffer examines the appeal of these movements to the “true believer,” a person often disillusioned with their current life and seeking purpose through collective identity. He argues that mass movements, whether religious, political, or social, provide a sense of belonging and certainty by offering simple, absolute answers to complex problems. Hoffer delves into the dynamics of fanaticism, showing how movements attract followers who are willing to sacrifice their individuality for the cause. His insights into the motivations behind mass movements remain strikingly relevant, shedding light on how charismatic leaders and unifying ideologies can mobilize people, often with profound and sometimes dangerous consequences. The book serves as a timeless analysis of the psychological underpinnings of social movements and the power they wield over the human psyche.
Jeff Sharlet’s The Undertow: Scenes from a Slow Civil War is a haunting and evocative exploration of the deepening political and cultural divides in contemporary America. Through a series of vivid, immersive narratives, Sharlet captures the voices and lives of people across the country who are caught up in the rising tide of polarization, extremism, and unrest. He paints a picture of a nation at a tipping point, where the fractures in society are widening, and the specter of a “slow civil war” looms ever larger. With his keen eye for detail and empathetic storytelling, Sharlet reveals how fear, anger, and a longing for belonging are driving forces behind the growing tensions, offering a powerful and unsettling portrait of a country on the brink.
Jesse Walker’s The United States of Paranoia: A Conspiracy Theory offers a comprehensive and insightful history of conspiracy theories in American culture, showing how they have been a persistent and influential force throughout the nation’s history. Walker categorizes these theories into five archetypesβenemy outside, enemy within, enemy above, enemy below, and the benevolent conspiracyβillustrating how each has manifested in different eras and contexts. He argues that conspiracy thinking is not just a fringe phenomenon but a fundamental part of American political and social life, shaping public discourse and policy. By tracing the evolution of conspiracies from the colonial period to the present, Walker reveals how they reflect deeper anxieties and cultural tensions, often serving as a means for people to make sense of complex and unsettling realities. The book underscores the idea that paranoia is woven into the fabric of American identity, influencing how people perceive power, trust, and truth.
Order on bookshop.org and thumb your nose at Amazon
The initiative seeks to undo over a century of progressive reforms, tracing back to the establishment of a federal administrative framework by Woodrow Wilson, through the New Deal by Roosevelt, to Johnson’s Great Society. It proposes a significant reduction in the federal workforce, which stands at about 2.25 million people.
Project 2025 plans
Essential measures include reducing funding for, or even abolishing, key agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Departments of Education and Commerce. Additionally, Project 2025 intends to bring semi-independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission under closer presidential control.
At its heart, Project 2025 aims to secure a durable conservative dominance within the federal government, aligning it closely with the principles of the MAGA movement and ensuring it operates under the direct oversight of the White House. The project is inspired by the “unitary executive theory” of the Constitution, which argues for sweeping presidential authority over the federal administrative apparatus — in direct contradiction with the delicate system of checks and balances architected by the Founders.
It is also inspired by religious fervor (and the cynical exploitation thereof) — and Project 2025 has brought together a pantheon of Christian nationalist organizations and groups to draft policy that could be implemented with alacrity, select potential appointees for the administration, build networks with GOP at the state and local levels — and with right wing groups and networks around the world.
Project 2025 goals
To realize their extremist, authoritarian goal, Dans is actively recruiting what he terms “conservative warriors” from legal and government networks, including bar associations and offices of state attorneys general. The aim is to embed these individuals in key legal roles throughout the government, thereby embedding the conservative vision deeply within the federal bureaucracy to shape policy and governance for the foreseeable future.
In this post, we dive deep into the heart of American political tradition by presenting a complete collection of first presidential inaugural address speeches that have shaped the United States from its inception to the present day. Each speech, a time capsule of its era, is summarized up front (with a link to the full text) to highlight the core messages, visions, and promises made by the presidents at the dawn of their administrations during their first (or singular) inaugural address.
Accompanying these summaries, we’ve included visual opportunities to get a sense of the inauguration speeches “at a glance,” via word clouds and histograms. These are generated from the text of the speeches themselves, to offer a uniquely infovisual perspective on the recurring themes, values, and priorities that resonate through America’s history.
Understanding our history is not just about recounting events; it’s about connecting with the voices that have guided the nation’s trajectory at each pivotal moment. These speeches are more than formalities; they are declarations of intent, reflections of the societal context, and blueprints for the future, delivered at the crossroads of past achievements and future aspirations.
By exploring these speeches, we not only gain insight into the leadership styles and political climates of each period but also engage with the evolving identity of America itself. We can compare the use of language by different presidents in a way that reflects both shifting trends in culture and geopolitics as well as the character and vision of the leaders themselves.
This collection serves as a vital resource for anyone looking to grasp the essence of American political evolution and the enduring principles that continue to inform its path forward.
George Washington inaugural address (1789)
Washington speech summary
George Washington’s inaugural speech, delivered in New York City on April 30, 1789, reflects his reluctance and humility in accepting the presidency. He expresses deep gratitude for the trust placed in him by his fellow citizens and acknowledges his own perceived inadequacies for the monumental task ahead.
Fundamentalism starves the mind. It reduces and narrows a universe of dazzlingly fascinating complexity available for infinite exploration — and deprives millions of people throughout the ages of the limitless gifts of curiosity.
The faux finality of fundamentalism is a kind of death wish — a closing off of pathways to possibility that are lost to those human minds forever. It’s a closing of the doors of perception and a welding shut of the very openings that give life its deepest meaning.
It is tragic — a truly heartbreaking process of grooming and indoctrination into a poisonous worldview; the trapping of untold minds in airless, sunless rooms of inert stagnation for an eternity. What’s worse — those claustrophobic minds aim to drag others in with them — perhaps to ease the unbearable loneliness of being surrounded only by similitude.
They are threatened by the appearance of others outside the totalist system that entraps them — and cannot countenance the evidence of roiling change that everywhere acts as a foil to their mass-induced delusions of finality. It gnaws at the edges of the certainty that functions to prop them up against a miraculous yet sometimes terrifying world of ultimate unknowability.
Machiavellianism originates from Machiavelli’s most famous work, “The Prince,” written in 1513. It was a guidebook for new princes and rulers in maintaining power and control. Machiavelli’s central thesis was the separation of politics from ethics and morality. He argued that to maintain power, a ruler might have to engage in amoral or unethical actions for the state’s benefit. His stark realism and advocacy for political pragmatism were groundbreaking at the time.
Machiavelli’s work was revolutionary, providing a secular, pragmatic approach to governance, in contrast to the prevailing moralistic views of the era. His ideas were so radical that “Machiavellian” became synonymous with cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous behavior in politics. This term, however, is a simplification and somewhat misrepresents Machiavelli’s nuanced arguments about power and statecraft.
Throughout history, Machiavellianism has been interpreted in various ways. During the Enlightenment, philosophers like Rousseau criticized Machiavelli for promoting tyranny and despotism. However, in the 20th century, Machiavelli’s ideas were re-evaluated by political scientists who saw value in his separation of politics from morality, highlighting the complexity and real-world challenges of governance.
Machiavellianism in psychology
In psychology, Machiavellianism is defined as a personality trait characterized by a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and personal gain. This concept was popularized in the 1970s by Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis, who developed the Mach-IV test, a questionnaire that identifies Machiavellian tendencies in individuals. People high in Machiavellian traits tend to be manipulative, deceitful, predatory, and exploitative in their relationships and interactions.
Machiavellianism in American politics
In American politics, Machiavellianism can be observed in various strategies and behaviors of politicians and political groups. Here are some ways to identify Machiavellian tendencies:
Exploitation and Manipulation: Politicians exhibiting Machiavellian traits often manipulate public opinion, exploit legal loopholes, or use deceptive tactics to achieve their goals. This might include manipulating media narratives, twisting facts, disseminating disinformation, and/or exploiting populist sentiments.
Realpolitik and Pragmatism: Machiavellianism in politics can also be seen in a focus on realpolitik β a theory that prioritizes practical and pragmatic approaches over moral or ideological considerations. Politicians might adopt policies that are more about maintaining power or achieving pragmatic goals than about adhering to ethical standards.
Power Play and Control: Machiavellian politicians are often characterized by their relentless pursuit of power. They may engage in power plays, such as political patronage, gerrymandering, and/or consolidating power through legislative maneuvers, often at the expense of democratic norms.
Moral Flexibility: A key aspect of Machiavellianism is moral flexibility β the ability to adjust oneβs moral compass based on circumstances. In politics, this might manifest in policy flip-flops or aligning with ideologically diverse groups when it benefits one’s own interests.
Charismatic Leadership: Machiavelli emphasized the importance of a rulerβs charisma and public image. Modern politicians might cultivate a charismatic persona to gain public support, sometimes using this charm to mask more manipulative or self-serving agendas.
Machiavellianism, stemming from the teachings of NiccolΓ² Machiavelli, has evolved over centuries, influencing both political theory and psychology. In contemporary American politics, identifying Machiavellian traits involves looking at actions and policies through the lens of power dynamics, manipulation, moral flexibility, and a pragmatic approach to governance.
While Machiavellian strategies can be effective in achieving political goals, they often raise ethical questions about the nature of power and governance in a democratic society.
The story of The Illuminati begins in 1776 with the formation of the Bavarian Illuminati, a secret society founded by Adam Weishaupt, a German law professor. Weishaupt, disillusioned with the limitations of conventional education and the power wielded by the church, sought to create an organization that promoted Enlightenment ideals: reason, secularism, and rationality.
The Illuminati initially attracted intellectuals, freethinkers, and progressive politicians. They discussed controversial ideas like secularism, civil rights, and rational thought, which were radical during a period dominated by religious and monarchical power.
Spread and suppression
The society grew quickly but covertly. By the 1780s, it had infiltrated various influential circles, including Masonic lodges. However, their secrecy and progressive ideas alarmed conservative and religious authorities.
In 1785, Charles Theodore, Elector of Bavaria, banned all secret societies, including the Illuminati, and vigorously pursued its members. This suppression led to the disbandment and scattering of its adherents.
Conspiracy theories begin
Despite its dissolution, the Illuminati’s legacy persisted, giving birth to numerous conspiracy theories. The French Revolution (1789-1799) was a significant catalyst.
Some conservative European authors speculated that the Illuminati survived and masterminded the revolution as part of a grand scheme to overthrow monarchies and religions across Europe. In this way, The Illuminati were already outliving themselves in the mind of the public.
The 19th and 20th centuries: Spread of theories
Throughout the 19th and 20th centuries, the myth of the Illuminati persisted. Anti-Semitic propagandists in the 19th century, including the authors of the notorious “Protocols of the Elders of Zion,” falsely claimed that Jews and Freemasons (often conflated with the Illuminati) were plotting global domination. This pernicious myth found a receptive audience in various parts of the world, notably influencing Adolf Hitler and the Nazi ideology.
The Modern Era
In the 20th century, especially during the Cold War, conspiracy theories about the Illuminati evolved and spread. They were often used as political tools to instigate fear about perceived enemies, both internal and external.
In recent decades, the Illuminati has been a staple in popular culture, appearing in books, movies, and music. This omnipresence in media has played a significant role in keeping the conspiracy theory alive in the public imagination.
Psychological and sociological perspectives
The staying power of the Illuminati conspiracy theory can be attributed to various psychological and sociological factors:
Human Nature and Mystery: Humans are naturally drawn to mystery and the allure of secret societies. The idea of a hidden group controlling world events is both frightening and fascinating.
Simplification of Complex Issues: Conspiracy theories provide simple explanations for complex world events. Blaming a single, shadowy organization for significant historical and current events is easier than understanding the multifaceted nature of these occurrences.
Powerlessness and Control: In times of uncertainty or powerlessness, conspiracy theories offer a sense of understanding and control. Believing in the Illuminati can make the world seem more predictable and manageable.
Political and Ideological Utility: Various groups have used the Illuminati conspiracy theory to advance their political or ideological agendas, often as a tool to discredit opponents or rally support against a perceived common enemy.
The Illuminati conspiracy theory is a fascinating case study in the power of ideas and myths. From its inception as a small secret society advocating Enlightenment ideals to its current status as a symbol of covert global domination, the Illuminati myth reflects deeper human needs and fears.
Its stickiness highlights our enduring fascination with the unknown and our propensity to find patterns and meanings, sometimes where none exist. As society continues to evolve, the myth of the Illuminati is likely to persist, morphing to fit the anxieties and questions of each new generation.
When someone has skin in the game, they have some stake in the outcome of their opinion or decision. They are incentivized to act in their own best interest, naturally aligning them with the best outcome. It mitigates effects like moral hazard, which misaligns incentives of the parties in an interaction based on an asymmetry of knowledge, power, and/or other factors.
The metaphor of skin in the game also relates to a number of core concepts in moral philosophy:
The term “skin in the game” is said to have originated from gambling, where it denotes having a personal stake or investment in an endeavor. In a broader sense, it implies that individuals or entities have something of personal value at risk in the outcome of a situation, typically financial or reputational.
Ethical implications
Accountability and Responsibility: When an individual or entity has “skin in the game,” they are more likely to act responsibly and ethically. This stems from the direct impact their actions will have on their own welfare. For example, a business owner with a substantial personal investment in their company is more likely to make decisions that ensure long-term sustainability over quick, risky profits that could jeopardize the business.
Trust and Credibility: In contexts like financial advising or political leadership, having “skin in the game” builds trust. Stakeholders are more likely to trust someone who shares in the risks and rewards. It demonstrates a commitment to shared outcomes, which can be a strong ethical foundation.
Moral Hazard Reduction: The concept helps mitigate moral hazardsβsituations where one party takes risks because another party bears the cost of those risks. For instance, if a CEO’s compensation is tied to the company’s performance, they have a vested interest in the companyβs success, reducing the likelihood of risky behavior that could harm the company while benefiting themselves personally.
Aligned incentives
The notion of “skin in the game” is closely linked to the alignment of incentives, which is crucial for effective and ethical decision-making.
Mutual Interests: When all parties involved in a decision or project have something at stake, their interests become more aligned. This alignment leads to decisions that are more likely to benefit all involved, rather than favoring one party at the expense of others.
Long-term Planning: Aligned incentives encourage long-term thinking. When decision-makers share in the long-term risks and rewards, they are incentivized to plan for sustainable growth and stability.
Risk Sharing: It also implies a fair distribution of risks. In a well-aligned system, no single party bears an undue burden of risk, which fosters a more equitable and ethical environment.
Buckle up, we’re in for a wild ride. Many of the serious scholars of political history and authoritarian regimes are sounding the alarm bells that, although it is a very very good thing that we got the Trump crime family out of the Oval Office, it is still a very very bad thing for America to have so rapidly tilted towards authoritarianism. How did we get here?! How has hyper partisanship escalated to the point of an attempted coup by 126 sitting Republican House Representatives? How has political polarization gotten this bad?
These are some of the resources that have helped me continue grappling with that question, and with the rapidly shifting landscape of information warfare. How can we understand this era of polarization, this age of tribalism? This outline is a work in progress, and I’m planning to keep adding to this list as the tape keeps rolling.
America has had flavors of authoritarianism since its founding, and when fascism came along the right-wing authoritarians ate it up — and deeply wanted the United States to be a part of it. Only after they became social pariahs did they change position to support American involvement in World War II — and some persisted even after the attack of Pearl Harbor.
With Project 2025, Trump now openly threatens fascism on America — and sadly, some are eager for it. The psychology behind both authoritarian leaders and followers is fascinating, overlooked, and misunderstood.
Scholars of authoritarianism
Karen Stenner — Australian political psychologist Karen Stenner found that approximately 1/3 of populations are authoritarian, have an authoritarian personality, or have authoritarian tendencies.
Derrida — the logic of the unconscious; performativity in the act of lying
ketman — Ketman is the psychological concept of concealing one’s true aims, akin to doublethink in Orwell’s 1984, that served as a central theme to Polish dissident CzesΕaw MiΕosz‘s book The Captive Mind about intellectual life under totalitarianism during the Communist post-WWII occupation.
Erich Fromm — coined the term “malignant narcissism” to describe the psychological character of the Nazis. He also wrote extensively about the mindset of the authoritarian follower in his seminal work, Escape from Freedom.
Eric Hoffer — his book The True Believers explores the mind of the authoritarian follower, and the appeal of losing oneself in a totalist movement
Fascism — elevation of the id as the source of truth; enthusiasm for political violence
double highs — social dominators who can “switch” to become followers in certain circumstances
Loyalty; hero worship
Freud = deeply distrustful of hero worship and worried that it indulged people’s needs for vertical authority. He found the archetype of the authoritarian primal father very troubling.
Strict Father Morality is a term coined by cognitive linguist George Lakoff to describe a type of moral worldview that centers on the values of authority, discipline, and individual responsibility. This worldview is often associated with conservative political and social positions, and is often contrasted with a more nurturing and empathetic worldview that Lakoff refers to as the “Nurturant Parent” model — more closely aligned to a liberal and progressive worldview.
At the core of the Strict Father Morality worldview is the belief that the world is a fundamentally dangerous and competitive place, and that individuals must be prepared to compete and succeed in order to survive and thrive. In this worldview, the father is seen as the ultimate authority figure, responsible for providing for and protecting his family, and for instilling the discipline and self-control necessary for success in life.
This patriarchal worldview is rooted in a traditional understanding of gender roles, where men are seen as the primary breadwinners and protectors, while women are seen as nurturing caregivers. This gendered division of labor is seen as necessary for the survival and flourishing of the family unit, and deviations from traditional gender roles are often viewed with suspicion or even hostility.
Christianity and Strict Father Morality
Central to the Strict Father Morality worldview is the idea that success is the result of hard work, self-discipline, and personal responsibility. Those who succeed in life are seen as having earned their success through their own efforts, while those who struggle or fail are seen as having brought it upon themselves through a lack of discipline or effort. This ideology is a derivative of the Protestant work ethic identified by sociologist Max Weber as one of the core animating worldviews behind fervent belief in capitalism.
Emerging out of Calvinism, the Protestant work ethic extends the idea that constant economic activity can show evidence of one’s eternal salvation. The emphasis on self-blame for one’s low economic condition is often used to justify policies that limit government intervention in areas such as healthcare, education, and social welfare.
Black and white thinking and Strict Father Morality
Another important aspect of Strict Father Morality is the belief in moral absolutes and the importance of maintaining a strong moral code. This includes a belief in the importance of law and order, and the need to punish those who break the law. In this worldview, moral relativism is seen as a dangerous threat to the stability and order of society, and the preservation of traditional values is seen as essential to maintaining social cohesion and stability.
Critics of Strict Father Morality argue that it is overly simplistic and ignores the complexity of human experience. They argue that the overemphasis on blaming individuals for their circumstances is a form of victim blaming, and can encourage a lack of empathy for those who face systemic barriers to success. They note the similarity of the entire ideology to a type of black and white thinking, and also argue that the traditional gender roles and emphasis on hierarchy and authority can lead to authoritarianism and intolerance.
Strict Father Morality is also seen as being aligned with sexism, racism, and bigotry in general. It’s associated with ideas long ago debunked, dispelled, or defeated as poor ways of viewing and interacting with the world — due to basic inaccuracy.
In summary, Strict Father Morality is a moral worldview that emphasizes the values of authority, hierarchy, discipline, and limited government involvement, and is rooted in a traditional understanding of gender roles and moral absolutes. While this worldview can provide a sense of security and stability, it has been criticized for its oversimplification of human experience and its potential to usher in authoritarianism and glorify intolerance.
Christian nationalism is the belief in, and attempt to bring about, Christianity as the state religion in America — including the imposition of Biblical Law.
The Stanford Prison Experiment is a seminal study in the field of social psychology, offering profound insights into the dynamics of power, authority, and human behavior. Conducted in 1971 by psychologist Philip Zimbardo, the experiment aimed to investigate the psychological effects of perceived power and authority within a simulated prison environment. Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment set the stage for deeper explorations of the ways in which individualist doctrines of western nations tend to overweight the role of the individual (dispensational attribution) while underweighting the role in the situation and social milieu of the setting.
The Experiment Setup
Zimbardo and his team transformed the basement of Stanford University’s psychology building into a mock prison. Participants, who were college students, were randomly assigned roles as either “guards” or “prisoners.” The guards were given uniforms, sunglasses to prevent eye contact, and batons, while the prisoners were stripped of personal identity, referred to by numbers, and subjected to various forms of psychological manipulation and humiliation designed to dehumanize them in the eyes of their faux captors.
The Unfolding
The Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment was initially planned to last two weeks but had to be terminated after just six days due to the extreme and disturbing behavior exhibited by the participants. The guards became increasingly sadistic, employing psychological torture techniques, and the prisoners showed signs of extreme stress, depression, and helplessness. The environment became so toxic that some prisoners had to be released early due to emotional breakdowns.
Ethical Concerns
The study has been widely criticized for its ethical shortcomings. Zimbardo himself acted as the “prison superintendent,” and his failure to intervene has been seen as a significant ethical lapse (he shares this sentiment, and has been vocal about examining his own role in the profoundly disturbing results of his experiment). The lack of informed consent and the emotional and psychological harm caused to the participants have also been points of contention in the academic community.
Before this study, though, I think it was counterintuitive to assume that otherwise decent, law-abiding good people could be turned into snarling sadists so quickly, in the right circumstances. And the reality of that truth disturbs us and the field of social psychology to this day.
Social Psychological Learnings
Despite its ethical issues, the Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment offers invaluable insights into human behavior and social psychology:
Deindividuation: The guards’ uniforms and sunglasses served to deindividuate them, making it easier for them to engage in cruel behavior without feeling personally responsible.
Social Roles and Conformity: Both guards and prisoners conformed to their assigned roles to a disturbing extent, highlighting the power of social roles in shaping behavior.
Authority and Obedience: The experiment showed how ordinary people could commit atrocious acts when they perceive themselves to be following authoritative commands.
Situational vs. Dispositional Factors: The study emphasized the influence of situational factors over dispositional ones in determining behavior. It argued that the environment could significantly impact how individuals act, as opposed to inherent personality traits.
Ethical Considerations in Research: The study serves as a cautionary tale for ethical considerations in psychological experiments, leading to stricter guidelines and review boards for research involving human subjects.
Implications and Legacy
The Zimbardo Stanford Prison Experiment has had a lasting impact on psychology, ethics, and our understanding of human behavior. It has been cited in various contexts, from understanding the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison to corporate misconduct a la Enron, et al. While the study’s ethical lapses have led to ongoing debates, its findings remain a crucial part of social psychology curricula and continue to inform our understanding of the human psyche.
Zimbardo’s Stanford Prison Experiment serves as both a revealing exploration of the dark corners of human behavior and a cautionary tale for ethical conduct in scientific research. It provides a complex, multifaceted look into the social psychological mechanisms that can lead ordinary people to commit extraordinary acts of cruelty or submission.
