That’s a paraphrase. But it’s descriptive — Alexei Navalny skewered Putin’s Russia for its corruption. And paid a price with his life — because that’s what authoritarian regimes demand: your loyalty or your life. Yet a Russian-style mafia state is the end goal of Trump and his cronies.
These two ideologies are battling it out in today’s geopolitical landscape. The rise of nationalist and right-wing parties of all stripes across the globe has been unsettling yet unmistakable over these past number of years. Upset victories and near misses have dotted the landscape, as left-wing parties still are (perhaps rightfully) reeling over the idea that anyone could abandon the conviction that societies thrive best when the laws are applied equally, or that it’s probably a bad thing to concentrate too much power into one person’s hands, or that concentration camps are wrong — to name but a few.
The right-wing moral universe seems to see the vague suggestion that Hunter Biden once tried (and failed) to broker a meeting with his VP dad as an impeachable offense while Trump hawking his own line of egregiously priced perfumes from the White House, or shilling Teslas on the lawn, or inking multi-billion dollar deals with Saudi Arabia while in office is just business as usual. Nothing to see here.
That’s how the system works — they normalize corruption and bad behavior when it’s a Republican doing it, and criminalize it if a Democrat does. Selective enforcement of the law means there really is no law anymore — it’s just the President’s whim that day. Or should I say, the King’s.
Alexei Navalny: Human rights is the goal of politics
This is the stuff they don’t want anybody to see. This is the very basic demands of a civilized society that we ought to expect — ideas so powerful that men like Vladimir Putin have to kill him in a desperate attempt to make the dangerous idea of self-worth more widely known. They really do not want you to have rights — and this is how far they are willing to go:
Who are the Christian nationalists? They are people, groups, and congregations who tend to believe in Strict Father Morality, and Christian nationalist leaders desire to establish some sort of Christian fascist theocratic state in America. Nevermind that religious freedom and the ability to worship as one pleases was precisely one of the major founding ideals of the United States, as we know from the many, many outside writings of the founders at that time — these folks consider that context “irrelevant” to the literal text of the founding documents.
Getting “separation of state” backwards
Prominent Christian nationalist David Barton re-interprets the famous 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists to allege support for a “one-way wall” between church and state. Barton contends that Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation” was intended to protect religious institutions from government interference rather than ensuring the government’s secular nature. By advocating for this one-directional barrier, Barton seeks to justify the integration of religious principles into public policy and government actions — improbably, given the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Barton and his fellow Christian nationalists are either intentionally or unfathomably not taking the logical next step in the chain of power and authority: if the government is informed, infused, or even consumed by religious dogma and doctrine, then is that government not by definition infringing on the rights of any citizens that happens not to believe in that code or creed?
The answer, as we well know from the colonization of America itself, is YES. We left the Church of England in large part to worship of our own accord — and to make money, of course. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Washington were especially concerned about religious liberty and the neutrality of government in religious matters.
Thus, in large part, the ideas of the Christian nationalists are misinterpretations at best, and willful invention at worst. In some it is clearly a naked power grab and not much more — think of Trump holding an upside-down Bible in Lafayette Square. In general, Christian nationalism doesn’t actually seem very Christian at all.
Whether they are True Believers or Opportunistic Cynics, the Christian nationalist organizations and right wing groups on this list — as well as a number of prominent individuals within these organizations — represent a threat to democracy as we know it — especially with Project 2025 so close to coming to fruition in a second Trump administration. Best we get a look at who they are.
Twitter Timeline (aka ‘X’): From Founding to Present
Few platforms have so profoundly shaped the 21st-century media and political landscape as Twitter. Launched in 2006 as a quirky microblogging experiment in Silicon Valley, Twitter rapidly evolved into a global public square β a real-time newswire, activism megaphone, cultural barometer, and political battleground all in one. From the Arab Spring to #BlackLivesMatter, celebrity feuds to presidential declarations, Twitter didnβt just reflect the world β it influenced it.
But in 2022, everything changed.
The takeover by Elon Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur and self-styled “free speech absolutist,” marked a sharp and chaotic break from Twitterβs legacy. In short order, Musk dismantled key moderation teams, reinstated accounts once banned for extremism or disinformation, and transformed the platform into a private entity under his X Corp umbrella. The iconic blue bird gave way to a stark new identity: X β signaling not just a rebrand, but a fundamental shift in mission, culture, and political alignment.
This timeline chronicles Twitterβs full arc from inception to its present incarnation as X: a detailed account of its business milestones, technological evolution, political influence, and growing alignment with right-wing ideology under Muskβs ownership. Drawing on a wide range of journalistic and academic sources, this narrative highlights how a once-fractious but largely liberal-leaning tech company became a controversial hub for βanti-wokeβ politics, misinformation, and culture war skirmishes β with global implications.
2006 β Birth of a New Platform
March 2006: In a brainstorming at Odeo (a San Francisco podcast startup founded by Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams — the latter of whom would go on to later found the longform writing platform Medium), Jack Dorsey and colleagues conceive a text-message status sharing service. By March 21, Dorsey sends the first-ever tweet β βjust setting up my twttrβ, marking Twitterβs official creation.
July 2006: Twitter (then styled βtwttrβ as was the vowel-less fashion at the time) launches to the public as a microblogging platform allowing 140-character posts. It initially operates under Odeo, but in October the founders form the Obvious Corporation and buy out Odeoβs investors, acquiring Twitterβs intellectual property.
August β September 2006: Early users begin to see Twitterβs potential. In August, tweets about a California earthquake demonstrate Twitterβs value for real-time news by eyewitnesses. In September, twttr is rebranded as Twitter after acquiring the domain, finally graduating into the land of vowels.
2007 β Rapid Growth and Social Buzz
March 2007: Twitter gains international buzz at the SXSW conference Interactive track. Usage explodes when attendees use it for real-time updates, a tipping point that greatly expands Twitterβs userbase.
April 2007: Spun off as its own company, Twitter, Inc. begins to operate independently from Obvious Corp, the parent company of Odeo. Twitter also closes its first venture funding round in April, raising $5 million led by Union Square Ventures and venture capitalist Fred Wilson, who would become one of Twitter’s most influential backers, at a ~$20 million valuation. Other early investors included Ron Conway, Marc Andreessen, Chris Sacca, Joi Ito, and Dick Costolo (who would later become its CEO).
August 2007: User-driven innovation gives rise to the hashtag. Invented by user Chris Messina to group topics, the β#β hashtag debuts and later becomes an official Twitter feature for trend tracking. This year, Twitterβs growth is so rapid that frequent server crashes occur, introducing the world to the iconic βFail Whaleβ error image created by artist Yiying Lu (a symbol of its early growing pains).
What is RT.com? If you’ve been following international news in recent years, you’ve likely encountered content from RT β the state-owned Russian news service formerly known as Russia Today. But what exactly is this network, and why does it matter in our global information landscape?
The Birth of a Propaganda Powerhouse
RT didn’t emerge out of nowhere. Back in 2005, the Russian government launched “Russia Today” with a substantial $30 million in state funding. The official mission? To counter what the Kremlin perceived as Western media dominance and improve Russia’s global image.
What’s fascinating is how they approached this mission. Margarita Simonyan, appointed as editor-in-chief at just 25 years old, strategically recruited foreign journalists to give the network an air of international credibility. By 2009, they rebranded to the sleeker “RT” β a deliberate move to distance themselves from their obvious Russian state origins.
While RT initially focused on cultural diplomacy (showcasing Russian culture and perspectives), its mission shifted dramatically after the 2008 Russia-Georgia war. The network increasingly pivoted toward anti-Western narratives β a strategy that continues to this day.
How RT Spreads Disinformation
RT’s playbook is both sophisticated and concerning. The network regularly promotes conspiracy theories about everything from COVID-19 origins to U.S. election fraud. It strategically amplifies divisive issues in Western societies, particularly racial tensions in America.
The coverage of the Ukraine war offers a perfect case study in RT’s propaganda techniques. Their reporting consistently and erroneously:
Frames the invasion as a “special operation” to “denazify” Ukraine (led by a Jewish president)
What makes RT particularly effective is its tailored regional messaging. In Africa, they operate “African Stream,” a covert platform promoting pro-Russian sentiment. In the Balkans, RT Balkan (based in Serbia) helps circumvent EU sanctions while spreading Kremlin-aligned content. Meanwhile, their Spanish-language expansion targets Latin American audiences with anti-Western narratives.
The network reportedly recruits social media influencers under fake accounts to obscure Russian involvement. More alarmingly, RT-associated platforms allegedly supply equipment (including drones, radios, and body armor) to Russian forces in Ukraine, with some materials sourced from China.
According to U.S. intelligence assessments, RT hosts a clandestine unit focused on global influence operations β blurring the line between media and intelligence work.
Money and Organization
As with any major operation, following the money tells an important story. RT’s annual funding has grown exponentially β from $30 million at its founding to $400 million by 2015. For the 2022-2024 period, the Russian government allocated a staggering 82 billion rubles.
The network’s organizational structure is deliberately complex. RT operates under ANO TV-Novosti (a nonprofit founded by RIA Novosti) and Rossiya Segodnya (a state media conglomerate established in 2013). Its subsidiaries include Ruptly (a video agency), Redfish, and Maffick (digital media platforms).
Staying One Step Ahead of Sanctions
Despite being banned in the EU and U.S. following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, RT continues to expand its reach in Africa, Latin America, and Serbia. The network has proven remarkably adaptable at circumventing restrictions β using proxy outlets like “Red” in Germany and RT Balkan in Serbia to bypass sanctions.
The international response has been significant but inconsistent. The U.S. designated RT a foreign agent in 2017, the EU banned it in 2022, and Meta removed RT from its platforms in 2024. The U.S. has also launched campaigns to expose RT’s ties to Russian intelligence and limit its global operations.
Why This Matters
RT exemplifies modern hybrid warfare β blending traditional state media with covert influence operations and intelligence activities to advance Kremlin interests globally. Despite sanctions and increasing awareness of its true nature, RT’s adaptability and substantial funding ensure its continued reach.
For those of us concerned about information integrity and democratic resilience, understanding RT’s operations isn’t just academic β it’s essential for navigating our increasingly complex media landscape.
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 β 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 β 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 β progress is the problem.
Historical Example:
Conservative:
β Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution, but didnβt want to destroy parliamentary government. He wanted to preserve traditions and institutions to prevent chaos.
Reactionary:
β 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 shouldnβt rush into sweeping changes β 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 β especially in American politics β because βreactionaryβ 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
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.
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 enoughβa provocative meme shared by a friend, a YouTube video recommended by an algorithmβbut 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 realityβsimultaneously 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 virtualβsomething 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.
Larry Ellison’s Tech Empire and Right-Wing Influence
In the pantheon of tech billionaires who have shaped our digital landscape, Larry Ellison stands as one of the most influential yet enigmatic and controversial figures. While his technological innovations have transformed industries, his growing political influenceβparticularly within right-wing circlesβhas increasingly become a focal point of public interest.
From Humble Beginnings to Tech Power Broker
Born in New York City and adopted as an infant, Larry Ellison’s early life gave little indication of the empire he would eventually build. After dropping out of college and working various jobs, Ellison found his calling in the nascent field of database technology. In 1977, he co-founded Software Development Laboratories, which would later become Oracle Corporationβa name now synonymous with enterprise software.
Ellison’s company went on to develop the first commercial SQL database system, positioning Oracle at the forefront of the database revolution. Under his leadership, Oracle expanded aggressively through both innovation and strategic acquisitions, eventually becoming a dominant force in enterprise software. The company’s successful IPO and subsequent growth catapulted Ellison into the ranks of the world’s wealthiest individuals.
The Billionaire Lifestyle
With a net worth consistently placing him among the top ten richest people globally, Ellison has become known for his lavish lifestyle. His purchases include a Hawaiian island (Lanai), multiple mansions, and record-breaking yachts. Beyond material extravagance, he has also engaged in philanthropy, though often with less public fanfare than contemporaries like Bill Gates.
Ellison’s leadership styleβcharacterized by boldness, competitiveness, and occasional ruthlessnessβhas been both criticized and admired. These same qualities would eventually manifest in his approach to political involvement.
Larry Ellison’s Evolution of Political Involvement
Early Political Activities: A Bipartisan Approach
Ellison’s initial forays into politics were relatively balanced. Like many business leaders, he made donations to candidates across the political spectrum, seemingly prioritizing business interests over partisan ideology. During this period, both Democratic and Republican candidates received support from the Oracle founder.
Shifting Right: The Conservative Turn
Over time, Ellison’s political leanings began to tilt increasingly rightward. His financial support for Republican candidates and PACs grew substantially, marking a clear shift in his political alignment. By the 2016 presidential election cycle, Ellison had emerged as a significant backer of Marco Rubio’s campaign, signaling his preference for establishment conservative politics.
The 2020 Election Controversy
Perhaps the most controversial chapter in Ellison’s political involvement came after the 2020 presidential election. According to reports, Ellison participated in a post-election strategy call with Trump allies discussing how to challenge the election results — conspiring with right-wing leaders to pretend to believe in election denial. His connections to the organization True the Voteβa group that has promoted unsubstantiated claims of voter fraudβfurther cemented his alignment with efforts questioning the legitimacy of the 2020 election outcome and participation in the Big Lie.
The Tim Scott Connection
Ellison’s political investments reached new heights with his massive $35 million donation to the Opportunity Matters Fund, a super PAC supporting Senator Tim Scott. This relationship transcended mere financial backingβEllison reportedly served as a mentor to Scott and was preparing to make an even larger eight-figure contribution to Scott’s 2024 presidential campaign before Scott withdrew from the race.
Trump and Beyond
Despite initially backing other candidates, Ellison hasn’t shied away from the Trump orbit. He hosted a fundraiser for Donald Trump and has positioned himself as a significant player in Republican politics. His criticism of NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden aligned with conservative national security positions, further illustrating his rightward evolution.
Expanding Influence: Media, Technology, and Politics
Ellison’s political influence extends beyond direct campaign contributions. His investment in Elon Musk‘s acquisition of Twitter (now X) placed him adjacent to one of the most consequential media platform changes in recent years. More directly, his potential control of CBS News through a Paramount Global merger has raised concerns about the independence of mainstream media.
Additionally, Ellison’s involvement in The Stargate Project alongside tech luminaries Sam Altman and Masayoshi Son demonstrates how his technological and political interests increasingly intersect, particularly around data and national security.
The Democratic Process and Billionaire Influence
Ellison’s political activities raise broader questions about the role of billionaire donors in democratic processes. His substantial financial backing of candidates and causesβparticularly those aligned with election denial effortsβhas drawn criticism from democracy advocates concerned about outsized influence from the ultra-wealthy.
The scale of Ellison’s political giving is remarkable even by billionaire standards. Reports indicate that he has made some of his largest political donations on record in recent election cycles, including substantial funding for election deniers in the midterms. This pattern of increased political investment suggests Ellison sees his financial resources as a means to shape politics beyond just supporting individual candidates.
Legacy and Continuing Influence
As Ellison enters his eighties, his political influence shows no signs of waning. His unexpected “comeback” in the Trump era, focusing on Oracle’s positioning around TikTok, AI, and data centers, demonstrates his continued relevance in both technology and politics.
What distinguishes Ellison from many other tech billionaires is how seamlessly he navigates between technological innovation and political influence. While figures like Musk are more publicly vocal about their political views, Ellison has often exercised his influence more quietly but no less effectively.
Larry Ellison’s Political Future
Larry Ellison’s journey from database pioneer to right-wing political financier represents a fascinating case study in how wealth, power, and ideology intersect in modern America. As his political activity has increased, so too has scrutiny of his role in shaping the political landscape.
Whether funding candidates, backing media acquisitions, or promoting certain technological approaches to national challenges, Ellison has positioned himself as a significant force in right-wing politics. As with his business ventures, his political investments appear strategic, long-term, and designed to maximize impact.
As America navigates increasingly polarized political terrain, figures like Ellisonβwith virtually unlimited resources and expanding spheres of influenceβwill likely continue to play outsized roles in shaping the country’s political future, for better or — most likely — for worse.
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.
Joe Gebbia: A Silicon Valley Success Story’s Troubling Turn
Joe Gebbia’s journey from innovative designer to billionaire entrepreneur, and his subsequent embrace of authoritarian politics, illustrates how wealth and power can fundamentally reshape values and allegiances.
Origins in Innovation
Born in 1981, Gebbia’s early career showed genuine promise in merging design thinking with social good. His education at the Rhode Island School of Design, combined with business studies at Brown University and MIT, suggested someone who might bridge the gap between creativity and commerce for positive change.
The origin story of Airbnb – born from Gebbia and Brian Chesky’s inability to afford rising rent – once seemed to exemplify Silicon Valley‘s democratic potential. Their solution of renting air mattresses to conference attendees appeared to embody the sharing economy’s promise of democratizing access to travel and income. With technical co-founder Nathan Blecharczyk, they built Airbnb into a platform that transformed travel — though critics would later note its role in driving up housing costs in many cities, and the many regulatory battles that have ensued.
The Price of Success
Their bootstrapping story of selling custom cereal boxes during the 2008 election to raise funds became startup lore. Yet ironically, the economic desperation that inspired Airbnb’s creation stands in stark contrast to Gebbia’s current alignment with policies that often exacerbate income inequality and wealth inequality.
While Gebbia’s commitment to philanthropy through the Giving Pledge appeared commendable, his recent political evolution raises questions about the coherence between his charitable giving and his support for policies that often undermine social safety nets.
A Troubling Political Transformation
Gebbia’s political journey from Democratic donor to Trump supporter represents more than just a change in voting patterns – it reflects a broader pattern of tech billionaires embracing authoritarian politics. After contributing over $200,000 to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden’s campaigns, Gebbia’s sudden shift rightward in the 2024 election coincided with his increasing proximity to power in the form of Elon Musk and the Trump administration.
His public support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and defense of various right-wing positions on social media marked a dramatic departure from his previous support for progressive causes. This transformation mirrors a troubling trend among tech elites who, after accumulating vast wealth, appear to abandon democratic principles in favor of authoritarian solutions.
Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the “evil of Cluster B“), hold significant power. This term was first introduced by Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Εobaczewski in his work “Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.”
The crux of pathocracy lies in the rule by a small pathological minority, which imposes a regime that is damaging to the majority of non-pathological people. The key characteristics of pathocratic leadership include a lack of empathy, a disregard for the rule of law, emotional manipulation, authoritarianism, and often, brutal repression. Many who are attracted to pathocratic rule exhibit the Dark Triad trio of malevolent and manipulative personality traits.
Origins and development of the concept of pathocracy
Pathocracy emerges from Εobaczewski’s study of totalitarian regimes, particularly those of two of which he lived through: Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler, and Communism in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Born in Poland in 1921, he witnessed the upheaval and transformation of his own country during the horrors of World War II and the chilling effects of the subsequent Communist occupation.
He suffered greatly to arrive at the insights in his work — arrested and tortured by the Polish authorities under Communist rule, he was unable to publish his magnum opus, the book Political Ponerology, until he escaped to the United States during the 1980s. Εobaczewski spent the rest of his life and career trying to unpack what had happened to him, his community, and his nation — having witnessed such brutality over such a shockingly short span of time, and having experienced friends turning against friends in vicious and shocking ways.
Εobaczewski posits that these authoritarian and fascist regimes were not merely politically oppressive, but were also psychologically abnormal. He studied the characteristics of these leaders and their closest supporters, identifying patterns that aligned with known personality disorders. His work also identified a much higher percentage of personality disordered individuals than is still commonly understood, finding that about 7% of the general population could be categorized as severely lacking in empathy and possessing the tendencies — latent or overt — leading to the rise of pathocracy in society.
Characteristics of pathocratic leadership
Psychopathy: Leaders in a pathocracy often display traits synonymous with psychopathy, including a lack of empathy, remorse, and shallow emotions.
Narcissism: Excessive self-love and a strong sense of entitlement often drive pathocratic rulers.
Manipulation: These leaders are adept at manipulation, using deceit and coercion to maintain their power. They also often exhibit other traits and behaviors of emotional predators.
Paranoia: A heightened sense of persecution or conspiracy is common, leading to oppressive and authoritarian measures.
Corruption: Moral depravity, ethical degeneration, and widespread corruption are endemic in a pathocracy, as pathological leaders tend to surround themselves with similarly affected individuals who feel no shame about performing unethical and/or illegal actions either in secret, or in broad daylight with little fear of retaliation. The Trump corruption is unparalleled.
Apparently a spur of the moment decision without much thought behind it, Trump hoped to get the specter of the January 6 coup behind him — only to Streisand Effect himself into a wave of negative attention. Meanwhile, after months (and years) of slander against immigrants and supposedly violent criminal immigrants rampaging across the country, it is in fact Donald Trump himself who unleashed hundreds of convicted violent offenders back onto the streets — where they are already actively plotting revenge.
I’m old enough to remember when the GOP was supposedly the “party of law and order,” and now they are a brazenly and recklessly lawless bunch. One of few upsides is that a wave of discontent is brewing.
Federal judges slam January 6 pardons
Several federal judges who presided over multiple criminal trials of the January 6 rioters weighed in on the official record about the judiciary’s outrage over the January 6 pardons, including Tanya Chutkan, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Amy Berman Jackson, and Beryl Howell.
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had scathing words about the pardons:
βDismissal of charges, pardons after convictions, and commutations of sentences will not change the truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. What occurred that day is preserved for the future through thousands of contemporaneous videos, transcripts of trials, jury verdicts, and judicial opinions analyzing and recounting the evidence through a neutral lens. Those records are immutable and represent the truth, no matter how the events of January 6 are described by those charged or their allies.β
Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed that nothing could wipe away the truth about the events of that terrible day:
“No stroke of a pen and no proclamation can alter the facts of what took place on January 6, 2021.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan had strong words as well, as she dismissed without prejudice a pending case still before her:
“The dismissal of this case cannot undo the ‘rampage [that] left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage.”
Original Sources: Judges clap back to January 6 pardons
I’ve been wanting to do more of a consistent focus on going back to the original sources of the news beyond just the media coverage or commentary about them. This experiment with NotebookLM‘s curiously compelling audio generation feature provides the best of both worlds: audio commentary on the original court filings referenced by the PBS story about strident judicial warnings attached to the January 6 pardons. Let me know what you think in the YouTube comments — I’m really still just experimenting with the channel.
Meanwhile the GOP apparently knew the whole thing was made up — because they helped ferry the disinformation from Russian sources to further their political goals. Trump had sent Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas on a fishing expedition to “dig up dirt” on the Bidens in Ukraine circa 2018-2019, making them almost eager to be willfully conned by Russian active measures. The Russians of course did not disappoint — first implanting the Burisma disinformation through this channel.
The Lev Parnas story would become the basis of the excellent Rachel Maddow-produced feature-length documentary, “From Russia with Lev”:
Burisma bribes were fake
In other words, both arms of the “Biden bribes” story have been thoroughly debunked — which led House Republicans to drop the Biden impeachment inquiry, but not to drop their disinformation campaign around the alleged corruption. So, GOP lawmakers know the Burisma story is fake, that Russian spies planted it, and “disinformation courier” Smirnov will serve jail time for it — but they continue to push it anyway, in an attempt to create a vague veneer of corruption around sitting President Joe Biden.
The Republican flavor of whataboutism that tries lamely to stand up an entirely fake, intentionally fabricated story about $5 million bribes to the Bidens against the unprecedented scale of openly naked corruption as Trump brazenly seeks to profit from his public service is a morally reprehensible ethical stain that I hope follows them into history as a legacy of abject greed and lust for power that thoroughly characterizes the Republican Party in this era. To the extent the GOP stands for anything, it is corruption.
Since Donald Trumpβs election in 2016, a lot of people believe that new technologiesβand how foreign actors manipulate themβplayed a big role in his win and are fueling our βpost-truthβ 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 Trumpβs 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 doesnβt 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 thatβs 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 understandβand maybe even fixβthe broader democratic challenges weβre 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.
