The Rise and Fall (and Rise?) of Gazprom: What the World’s Biggest Gas Company Teaches Us About Power, Monopolies, and Strategic Failure
How a $360 Billion Giant Lost 90% of Its Value—and What It Reveals About State Capitalism
In 2008, Gazprom was worth more than $360 billion, making it the third most valuable company on Earth. It was Russia‘s energy monopoly and largest gas company, and one of the largest companies in the world. Today? It’s worth $34 billion—a staggering 90% collapse that tells one of the most fascinating stories in modern business history.
This isn’t just a tale about natural gas and pipelines. It’s a masterclass in how monopoly power, geopolitical weaponization, and strategic overconfidence can destroy even the most seemingly invincible empires. And in an era where AI, tech platforms, and energy systems are being disrupted faster than ever, the lessons from Gazprom’s trajectory are surprisingly relevant.
Let us take you inside the story of Russia’s energy leviathan—and what its dramatic arc teaches us about power, strategy, and the dangerous illusion of permanence.
The Ultimate State-Owned Monopoly
First, let’s grasp the sheer scale we’re talking about:
17% of the world’s proven natural gas reserves
180,600 kilometers of pipelines (the world’s largest network)
Production of 414-500 billion cubic meters annually
Operations in 20+ countries, supplying 100+ nations
Gazprom didn’t just dominate Russia’s energy sector—it WAS Russia’s energy sector. Born from the Soviet Ministry of Gas Industry in 1989, it became the first state-run private enterprise in Soviet history, even before corporate laws existed in the USSR. That’s how strategically vital it was.
The Russian government maintains 50%+ control through various entities, making Gazprom the textbook example of a “state champion”—a privately structured company that serves as an extension of national power.
Energy as Geopolitical Weapon: The Gazprom Playbook
Here’s where things get interesting from a strategy perspective.
Gazprom wasn’t just selling gas—it was wielding it. The company’s toolkit included:
1. Strategic Supply Disruptions Cut off countries that didn’t play ball politically. Ukraine, Belarus, and others experienced “technical problems” with their gas supply that mysteriously coincided with diplomatic disagreements.
3. Infrastructure Control Build the pipelines, control the flow. Europe became dependent on a single supplier for 40% of its natural gas by 2021.
This is the “monopoly network effects”mental model taken to its extreme: Once you control the physical infrastructure, you don’t just have market power—you have geopolitical leverage that can shape foreign policy across an entire continent.
The Nord Stream Strategy
The Nord Stream pipelines perfectly embodied this approach. By routing gas directly to Germany via the Baltic Sea, Gazprom could:
Bypass unreliable transit countries (Ukraine)
Lock in Germany as a dependent customer
Divide European unity on Russia policy
It was strategic brilliance… until it wasn’t.
The Fatal Flaw: Mistaking Leverage for Invincibility
Charlie Munger often warned about “incentive-caused bias“—the tendency to believe your own narrative when you’re winning. Gazprom fell into this trap spectacularly.
The company’s leadership made several critical miscalculations:
1. Weaponizing Your Product Destroys Trust
Using energy as a political weapon worked… until customers decided they’d rather pay more than remain vulnerable. After Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, Europe went into overdrive finding alternatives.
Result: Gazprom’s European market share collapsed from 40% to 8% in just one year (2022-2023).
2. Infrastructure Becomes a Liability
That vaunted 180,600 km pipeline network? Much of it now represents stranded assets. You can’t exactly redirect physical pipelines when your largest customers ghost you.
Meanwhile, competitors with LNG terminals can ship to whoever’s buying. Flexibility > fixed infrastructure when geopolitics get messy.
3. The “Too Big to Fail” Illusion
Gazprom assumed its monopoly position was permanent. Major gas fields hit production peaks. Investment in new fields (requiring $50+ billion for Yamal or Shtokman development) was delayed. Technology partnerships with Western firms provided crucial expertise.
When sanctions hit, the company faced:
Asset freezes
Technology transfer restrictions
SWIFT banking isolation
Loss of Western expertise and financing
Suddenly, “too big to fail” looked a lot like “too rigid to adapt.”
The Pivot to Asia: Too Little, Too Late?
Facing European abandonment, Gazprom is desperately pivoting eastward:
Power of Siberia 1: Operational pipeline to China (38 bcm capacity)
Power of Siberia 2: Planned pipeline through Mongolia (50 bcm capacity)
Expanded LNG operations: Playing catch-up in a market they largely ignored
But here’s the problem: China knows Gazprom is desperate. Beijing isn’t paying European prices. They’re negotiating from strength while Gazprom negotiates from necessity.
This illustrates the “alternative available” principle—your leverage is only as strong as your customer’s next-best option. Europe had alternatives (LNG from US, Qatar, etc.). Russia? Not so much for customers.
From Profit to Loss to Profit Again: The Volatility of State Champions
The financial swings tell the story:
2021: Record profit of 2.68 trillion rubles (during European energy crisis)
2023: First loss since 1999—629 billion rubles
2024: Back to profit—1.2 trillion rubles
This wild volatility reflects a fundamental truth: When your company serves political objectives first and commercial objectives second, financial performance becomes subservient to state goals. Sometimes that works (2021 energy crisis). Often it doesn’t (sanctions, market loss).
Strategic Lessons for the AI Era
So what can we extract from Gazprom’s saga that applies to today’s rapidly evolving landscape?
1. Network Effects Work Until They Don’t
Gazprom’s pipeline monopoly seemed unassailable—until geopolitical shifts made customers willing to pay the switching costs.
AI Parallel: Today’s AI models and platforms building “moats” through data, compute, or user lock-in should remember that trust, reliability, and user sovereignty matter. Abuse your position, and users will fund alternatives.
2. Geopolitical Risk Is Business Risk
Gazprom learned this the hard way. Over-optimizing for one strategic relationship (Europe) without diversification created catastrophic vulnerability.
Content Creator Parallel: Platform dependency is the same risk. Building your entire business on YouTube, or Instagram, or any single platform means you’re one algorithm change or TOS update away from collapse. Diversification isn’t optional.
3. Asset-Heavy Models Lose Flexibility
Physical infrastructure becomes a liability in fast-changing environments. LNG companies with flexible shipping could adapt; Gazprom with fixed pipelines couldn’t.
Digital Business Parallel: Heavy CapEx models and legacy infrastructure become anchors. The future belongs to modular, composable, rapidly adaptable systems—whether that’s in content creation, AI deployment, or business operations.
4. The Innovator’s Dilemma Applies to Nations Too
Gazprom focused on protecting its existing business model (pipeline gas) rather than aggressively pursuing LNG and diversified markets. Classic Innovator’s Dilemma.
When you’re dominant, investing in what might disrupt you feels unnecessary… until it’s too late.
The Future: A Giant at a Crossroads
Gazprom in 2025 faces questions that will determine Russia’s economic future:
Can they truly pivot from European to Asian markets?
Will their aging infrastructure support next-generation needs?
Can they adapt to climate pressures and carbon transition demands?
How do they compete without Western technology and financing?
The company’s 2024 return to profitability might suggest resilience. But structural challenges remain: aging fields, massive investment requirements, geopolitical isolation, and customers who’ve learned not to trust a monopoly supplier.
Final Thoughts: The Illusion of Permanence
Gazprom’s story reminds us that nothing is permanent—not monopolies, not market dominance, not even control over critical resources.
The company went from seemingly invincible to struggling for survival in less than three years. That’s faster than most product cycles in tech. It’s a humbling reminder that in an interconnected, rapidly changing world, strategic rigidity is fatal.
For anyone building in digital media, content creation, or AI-driven businesses today, the lessons are clear:
✅ Diversify your dependencies ✅ Trust and reputation are assets, not tactics ✅ Flexibility beats fixed infrastructure ✅ Geopolitical and platform risks are real business risks ✅ Never mistake current dominance for permanent advantage
The same forces disrupting Gazprom—technological change, strategic competition, trust erosion, and rapid market shifts—are reshaping every industry. The question isn’t whether disruption will come. It’s whether you’ll see it coming and adapt fast enough.
In the age of AI and digital transformation, being the biggest doesn’t guarantee survival. Being the most adaptable just might.
The Founders knew acutely the pains of centuries of religious warfare in modern Europe and resoundingly did not want that for their new nation. Many of them moreover knew religious persecution intimately — some whose families fled the Church of England for fear of being imprisoned, burned at the stake, or worse. Is America a Christian nation? Although many Christians certainly have come here, in a legal and political sense the nation’s founders wanted precisely the opposite of the “Christian nation” they were breaking with by pursuing independence from the British.
Contrary to the disinformation spread by Christian nationalists today, the people who founded the United States explicitly saw religious zealotry as one of the primary dangers to a democratic republic. They feared demagoguery and the abuse of power that tilts public apparatus towards corrupt private interest. The Founders knew that religion could be a source of strife for the fledgling nation as easily as it could be a strength, and they took great pains to carefully balance the needs of religious expression and secular interests in architecting the country.
The main impetus for a large percentage of the early colonists who came to the Americas was the quest for a home where they could enjoy the free exercise of religion. The Protestant Reformation had begun in Europe about a century before the first American colonies were founded, and a number of new religious sects were straining at the bonds of the Catholic Church’s continued hegemony. Puritans, Mennonites, Quakers, Jesuits, Huguenots, Dunkers, Jews, Amish, Lutherans, Moravians, Schwenkfeldians, and more escaped the sometimes deadly persecutions of the churches of Europe to seek a place to worship God in their own chosen ways.
By the late 18th century when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, many religious flowers were blooming within the 13 colonies. He had seen for himself the pitfalls of the experiments in which a unitary control of religion by one church or sect led to conflict, injustice, and violence. Jefferson and the nation’s other founders were staunchly against the idea of establishing a theocracy in America:
The founding fathers made a conscious break from the European tradition of a national state church.
The words Bible, Christianity, Jesus, and God do not appear in our founding documents.
The handful of states who who supported “established churches” abandoned the practice by the mid-19th century.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that his Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom was written on behalf of “the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu and the infidel of every denomination.” In the text he responds negatively to VA’s harassment of Baptist preachers — one of many occasions on which he spoke out sharply against the encroachment of religion upon political power.
The Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for holding foreign office.
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There is a right-wing conspiracy theory aiming to discredit the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” by claiming that those exact words aren’t found in the Constitution.
The phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he is describing the thinking of the Founders about the meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which Jefferson contemplates “with sovereign reverence.”
The phrase is echoed by James Madison in an 1803 letter opposing the building of churches on government land: “The purpose of separation of Church and State is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli states in Article 11: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” — President George Washington first ordered the negotiation of a treaty in 1795, and President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in 1797, with this article widely interpreted to mean a reiteration of the purpose of the Establishment Clause to create a secular state, i.e. one that would not ever be going to holy war with Tripoli.
Critical Dates for Religious Freedom in America
From the very beginning the Founders made clear they did not want to repeat the mistakes of Old Europe. They established a secular government that offered religious freedom to many who had felt persecuted in their homelands — for generations to come.
Get a quick overview of some of the most important moments in American history and its founding documents with our interactive timeline below.
The Founders were deists
Moreover, the majority of the prominent Founders were deists — they recognized the long tradition of Judeo-Christian order in society, but consciously broke from it in their creation of the legal entity of the United States, via the Establishment Clause and numerous other devices. The founders were creatures of The Enlightenment, and were very much influenced by the latest developments of their day including statistics, empiricism, numerous scientific advancements, and the pursuit of knowledge and logical decision-making.
What Deism Actually Meant: Deism in the 18th century was a rationalist religious philosophy that accepted the existence of a creator God based on reason and observation of the natural world, but rejected supernatural revelation, miracles, and divine intervention in human affairs. Think of it as “God as clockmaker” — God designed the universe with rational laws, set it in motion, and then stepped back. This was a radical departure from traditional Christianity.
Empiricism over revelation — knowledge comes from observation and reason, not scripture
Natural rights derived from human nature and reason, not divine command
Social contract theory — government legitimacy comes from consent of the governed, not God’s anointing
Scientific method — Newton’s physics showed that the universe operated by discoverable natural laws
This was a revolutionary shift. They were designing a government based on Enlightenment principles in an era when most of the world still operated under divine-right monarchy.
The European Church-State Problem They Rejected:
The Founders had vivid historical examples of why mixing religion and state power was dangerous:
The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) killed roughly 8 million Europeans in religious conflict
The Spanish Inquisition showed what happens when church and state merge
Various European states still had official churches that persecuted religious minorities — prompting many of them to consider a new line in the American colonies
They saw how “established” (government-sponsored) religions inevitably led to:
Paine went even further than most Founders. In “The Age of Reason” (1794), he argued:
All national churches are “human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind”
Revelation is meaningless — “it is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other”
True religion is simply “to do justice, love mercy, and endeavor to make our fellow-creatures happy”
He predicted that as education and reason spread, traditional organized religion would wither
This was considered extremely radical — even scandalous — at the time. Yet Paine was celebrated as a hero of the Revolution and widely read. He once lamented that “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”
The Structural Safeguards They Built:
This wasn’t just philosophy — they built specific mechanisms:
No religious test for office (Article VI)
Establishment Clause — no official national religion
Free Exercise Clause — no prohibition of religious practice
Disestablishment at state level — states gradually abandoned their established churches (Massachusetts was last in 1833)
The framers of our Constitution who established this nation distrusted the concept of divine right of kings that existed in Europe under its historical monarchies. We fought a revolution to leave all that behind for good reason. They were adamantly against the idea of a national church, and were clear and insistent about the necessity of keeping the realms of religion and politics independent of each other.
It is the Christian nationalists who have it backwards — America was never a Christian nation that lost its way. Rather, the United States was founded as a secular nation and has become truer to fulfilling that mission over the centuries. It is the Project 2025 folks who are engaging in revisionist history, inventing a mythical past for the country that simply didn’t exist.
Black and white thinking is the tendency to see things in extremes, viewing the world through a very polarized lens. Even complex moral issues are seen as clearcut, with simple right and wrong answers and no gray areas in between.
Also referred to as all-or-nothing thinking or dichotomous thinking, black and white thinking is a very rigid and binary way of looking at the world. Black and white thinkers tend to categorize things, events, people, and experiences as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuance or shades of gray. This can manifest in various aspects of their lives including relationships, decision-making, and self-evaluation. Black and white thinking can be a defense mechanism, as it provides a sense of certainty and control in situations that are complex, uncertain, or anxiety-provoking.
For example, a person who engages in black and white thinking may view their work performance as either completely successful or a complete failure, without considering any middle ground. They may view themselves as either a “good” or “bad” person, based on a single action or mistake. This type of extreme thinking can lead to feelings of extreme anxiety, depression, and self-doubt, as well as difficulties in personal and professional relationships.
Black and white thinking in political psychology
Black and white thinking can also be seen in political or social contexts, where individuals categorize people or groups as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuances or complexities. This type of thinking can lead to polarizing beliefs, rigid ideologies, and an unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue or compromise.
The origins of black and white thinking are complex and multifaceted, but it can stem from a variety of factors, including childhood experiences, cultural and societal influences, and psychological disorders including personality disorder. For example, individuals who have experienced trauma or abuse may engage in black and white thinking as a way to cope with the complexity and ambiguity of their experiences. Similarly, cultural or societal influences that promote a strict adherence to binary categories can also contribute to black and white thinking.
Psychological disorders such as borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders are also associated with black and white thinking. For example, individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) may see themselves or others as either completely good or completely bad, without any middle ground. This type of thinking can lead to unstable relationships, impulsive behavior, and emotional dysregulation.
Narcissists too, especially malignant narcissists, tend to exhibit black and white thinking, with the frequent framing of any narrative as being primarily about themselves (good/The Hero) and everyone else (bad/The Other).
Black and White Thinking: Understanding binary cognition in the modern era
The Digital Amplification of Binary Thinking
The modern information ecosystem has created unprecedented conditions for black and white thinking to flourish. Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, systematically promote content that evokes strong emotional responses—often content that presents complex issues in oversimplified, polarizing terms.
Algorithmic Reinforcement Mechanisms
Contemporary digital platforms operate on engagement metrics that inadvertently reward binary thinking:
Filter Bubble Formation: Recommendation algorithms create echo chambers where users primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs
Engagement Optimization: Content that provokes outrage or strong agreement receives higher distribution (and ultimately, revenue), marginalizing nuanced perspectives
Attention Economy Dynamics: The competition for limited attention spans incentivizes simplified, emotionally charged messaging over complex analysis — going straight for the jugular of common mental heuristics works
Information Processing Under Cognitive Load
Research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that when individuals experience high cognitive load—a common state in our information-saturated environment—they default to simplified decision-making heuristics. This neurological tendency combines with digital information delivery systems to create systematic biases toward binary categorization.
Contemporary Political Manifestations
Black and white thinking has become increasingly prominent in political discourse, with profound implications for democratic institutions and social cohesion.
Legislative Dynamics: Congressional voting patterns show dramatic increases in party-line voting, with bipartisan legislation becoming increasingly rare. This reflects not just strategic positioning but fundamental shifts in how political actors conceptualize policy problems and solutions.
Media Ecosystem Fragmentation: The proliferation of ideologically aligned media sources enables individuals to construct information diets that reinforce binary worldviews. Traditional journalistic ethics of objectivity and balance in a fundamentally evidentiary role have been challenged by partisan media models that explicitly advocate for particular political perspectives.
Electoral Coalition Building: Political campaigns increasingly rely on mobilizing base supporters through appeals to fundamental differences with opponents, rather than building broad coalitions through compromise and incremental policy development.
Identity-Based Political Cognition
Modern political psychology research reveals how black and white thinking intersects with identity formation:
Social Identity Theory: Individuals derive significant psychological satisfaction from in-group membership and out-group differentiation
Motivated Reasoning: People process political information in ways that protect their group identities and existing belief systems
Moral Foundations: Different political coalitions emphasize different moral frameworks, creating seemingly irreconcilable worldview differences
Systemic Analysis: Institutional Impacts
Black and white thinking creates cascade effects across multiple institutional systems:
Democratic Governance Challenges
Compromise Mechanisms: Effective democratic governance requires negotiation and compromise between competing interests. Binary thinking undermines these processes by framing compromise as betrayal of fundamental principles.
Policy Implementation: Complex policy challenges—from healthcare to climate change to economic inequality—require nuanced, multifaceted solutions. Binary thinking promotes oversimplified policy approaches that often fail to address underlying systemic issues.
Constitutional Design: Democratic institutions assume citizens capable of evaluating competing claims and making informed choices. Black and white thinking can undermine these foundational assumptions necessary to making democracy work.
Economic System Implications
Market Dynamics: Binary thinking in economic contexts can create boom-bust cycles, as investors and consumers oscillate between extreme optimism and pessimism without recognizing gradual trends and mixed signals.
Innovation Ecosystems: Complex technological and business model innovation requires tolerance for ambiguity and iterative development. Binary thinking can stifle innovation by demanding immediate, clear success metrics. It turns out that diversity is good to the bottom line, actually.
Labor Relations: Effective workplace dynamics require ongoing negotiation between competing interests. Binary thinking can transform routine workplace disagreements into fundamental conflicts.
Mental Model Frameworks for Analysis
Understanding black and white thinking requires sophisticated analytical frameworks:
The Cognitive Bias Cascade Model
Black and white thinking rarely operates in isolation but typically forms part of broader cognitive bias patterns:
Confirmation Bias: Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs
Group Attribution Error: Assuming individual group members represent entire groups
Systems Thinking Applications
Effective analysis of black and white thinking requires systems-level perspective:
Feedback Loops: How binary thinking creates self-reinforcing cycles that become increasingly difficult to break
Emergence Properties: How individual cognitive patterns create collective social and political dynamics
Leverage Points: Identifying where interventions might most effectively disrupt binary thinking patterns
Historical Pattern Recognition
Historical analysis reveals recurring patterns in how societies navigate between binary and nuanced thinking:
Crisis Periods: Times of social stress typically increase binary thinking as individuals seek certainty and clear action frameworks
Institutional Adaptation: How democratic institutions evolve mechanisms to manage polarization and maintain governance capacity
Cultural Evolution: How societies develop norms and practices that promote or discourage binary thinking
Contemporary Case Studies
Social Media Discourse Patterns
Analysis of millions of social media posts reveals systematic patterns in how binary thinking spreads:
Viral Content Characteristics: Posts that go viral disproportionately feature binary framing of complex issues
Engagement Metrics: Binary content generates higher levels of shares, comments, and emotional reactions
Network Effects: Binary thinking spreads through social networks more rapidly than nuanced analysis
Political Movement Dynamics
Examination of contemporary political movements reveals how binary thinking shapes organizational development:
Movement Mobilization: Binary framing helps movements build initial coalition support by clarifying friend-enemy distinctions
Strategic Communication: Binary messaging dominates political advertising and fundraising appeals
Coalition Maintenance: Binary thinking can help maintain group cohesion but may limit strategic flexibility
Crisis Response Patterns
Analysis of responses to major crises—from pandemics to economic disruptions to international conflicts—demonstrates how binary thinking affects collective decision-making:
Policy Development: Crisis conditions often promote binary policy choices that may not address underlying complexity
Public Communication: Crisis communication frequently relies on binary framing to motivate public compliance with policy measures
International Relations: Crisis situations can push diplomatic relations toward binary alliance structures
Neurological and Psychological Foundations
Understanding black and white thinking requires examining its neurological and psychological foundations:
Cognitive Processing Systems
System 1 vs System 2 Thinking: Daniel Kahneman’s research demonstrates how automatic, intuitive thinking (System 1) tends toward binary categorization, while deliberative thinking (System 2) enables more nuanced analysis.
Threat Detection Mechanisms: Evolutionary psychology suggests that binary thinking may have adaptive advantages in environments requiring quick threat assessment, but becomes maladaptive in complex modern contexts.
Cognitive Load Theory: When individuals experience high cognitive load, they default to simplified decision-making processes that favor binary categorization.
Identity Formation: Erik Erikson’s work on identity development demonstrates how binary thinking can serve important functions during identity formation periods but may become problematic if it persists into adulthood.
Attachment Theory: Insecure attachment patterns can promote binary thinking about relationships and social situations as defensive mechanisms.
Organizational and Institutional Responses
Educational System Adaptations
Educational institutions increasingly recognize the need to develop students’ capacity for nuanced thinking:
Critical Thinking Curricula: Programs specifically designed to help students recognize and resist binary thinking patterns
Media Literacy: Training students to recognize how information systems promote simplified thinking
Interdisciplinary Approaches: Educational approaches that demonstrate how complex problems require multiple perspectives and methodological approaches
Democratic Institution Reforms
Various proposals aim to reduce the institutional incentives for binary thinking:
Electoral System Design: Ranked-choice voting and other electoral innovations that reward coalition-building over polarization
Deliberative Democracy: Institutional mechanisms that bring citizens together for structured discussion of complex policy issues
Legislative Process Reform: Procedural changes that incentivize negotiation and compromise over partisan positioning
Technology Platform Governance
Growing recognition of how digital platforms shape thinking patterns has led to various reform proposals:
Algorithm Transparency: Requiring platforms to disclose how their algorithms prioritize content
Digital Literacy: Public education initiatives to help users recognize and resist algorithmic manipulation
Constructive Frameworks for Addressing Binary Thinking
Individual-Level Interventions
Mindfulness Practices: Regular mindfulness meditation has been shown to increase tolerance for ambiguity and reduce automatic binary categorization.
Cognitive Behavioral Techniques: Specific therapeutic approaches for identifying and challenging binary thought patterns.
Exposure to Complexity: Deliberately seeking out information sources and experiences that present complex, nuanced perspectives on important issues.
Perspective-Taking Exercises: Structured practices for understanding how situations appear from multiple viewpoints.
Community-Level Initiatives
Dialogue and Deliberation Programs: Community-based initiatives that bring together people with different perspectives for structured conversation about local issues.
Collaborative Problem-Solving: Community projects that require cooperation across different groups and perspectives.
Civic Education: Educational programs that help citizens understand how democratic institutions work and why compromise is essential for effective governance.
Cross-Cutting Social Connections: Initiatives that help people form relationships across traditional dividing lines.
Institutional Design Principles
Procedural Safeguards: Institutional mechanisms that slow down decision-making processes to allow for more deliberative consideration of complex issues.
Stakeholder Inclusion: Decision-making processes that systematically include multiple perspectives and interests.
Transparency and Accountability: Mechanisms that make decision-making processes visible and subject to public scrutiny.
Adaptive Management: Institutional frameworks that allow for policy adjustment based on evidence and changing circumstances.
Implications for Democratic Resilience
The prevalence of black and white thinking poses significant challenges for democratic governance:
Representation and Legitimacy
Electoral Representation: Binary thinking can undermine representative democracy by making it difficult for elected officials to represent diverse constituencies with complex, sometimes conflicting interests.
Institutional Legitimacy: When citizens view political institutions through binary lenses, it becomes difficult to maintain the shared commitment to democratic norms necessary for effective governance.
Minority Rights: Binary thinking can threaten minority rights by reducing complex questions of individual liberty and collective welfare to simple majority-minority power dynamics.
Policy Development and Implementation
Evidence-Based Policy: Effective policy development requires careful consideration of evidence, trade-offs, and unintended consequences—all of which are undermined by binary thinking.
Policy Adaptation: Democratic institutions must be able to adapt policies based on new evidence and changing circumstances, which requires tolerance for complexity and ambiguity.
Cross-Sector Coordination: Modern policy challenges often require coordination across different levels of government and between public and private sectors, which is complicated by binary thinking.
Future Research Directions
Understanding and addressing black and white thinking requires ongoing research across multiple disciplines:
Technology and Cognition
AI and Decision-Making: How artificial intelligence systems might be designed to promote nuanced rather than binary thinking.
Digital Environment Design: Research on how different digital interface designs affect cognitive processing and decision-making.
Virtual Reality and Perspective-Taking: How immersive technologies might be used to help individuals understand complex situations from multiple perspectives.
Political Psychology and Behavior
Motivation and Binary Thinking: Research on what motivates individuals to adopt or resist binary thinking patterns in political contexts.
Group Dynamics: How binary thinking spreads through social networks and political organizations.
Leadership and Framing: How political leaders can effectively communicate about complex issues without resorting to binary framing.
Institutional Design and Reform
Comparative Democratic Systems: Analysis of how different democratic institutions manage polarization and promote constructive political discourse.
Experimental Governance: Small-scale experiments with different institutional designs that might reduce incentives for binary thinking.
Technology Governance: Research on how to regulate digital platforms in ways that promote constructive rather than polarizing discourse.
Toward cognitive complexity
Black and white thinking represents a fundamental challenge to effective individual decision-making, social cooperation, and democratic governance. While binary thinking may have served adaptive functions in simpler environments, the complexity of modern challenges requires more sophisticated cognitive frameworks.
Addressing this challenge requires coordinated efforts across multiple levels—from individual practices that promote cognitive flexibility to institutional reforms that reduce incentives for polarization. The stakes are particularly high for democratic societies, which depend on citizens’ capacity to engage constructively with complexity and difference.
The path forward requires neither naive optimism nor cynical resignation, but rather sustained commitment to developing our collective capacity for nuanced thinking about complex problems. This involves both protecting democratic institutions from the corrosive effects of extreme polarization and actively building new capabilities for constructive engagement across difference — knowing that some will disagree and continuously fight us on reforms.
Understanding black and white thinking is not merely an academic exercise but an urgent practical necessity for navigating the challenges of the 21st century. By developing more sophisticated analytical frameworks and practical interventions, we can work toward societies that are both more thoughtful and more effective at solving complex collective problems.
Related concepts and further reading
Cognitive Bias Research: Systematic exploration of how human thinking systematically deviates from logical reasoning
Political Psychology: Interdisciplinary field examining how psychological processes affect political behavior
Systems Thinking: Analytical approaches that focus on relationships and patterns rather than isolated events
Democratic Theory: Normative and empirical research on how democratic institutions work and how they might be improved
Media Ecology: Study of how communication technologies shape human consciousness and social organization
Conflict Resolution: Practical approaches for managing disagreement and building cooperation across difference
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:
Trickle down economics is known by a number of names: supply side economics, Reaganomics, the Laffer Curve, voodoo economics, deregulation, Libertarianism, Mudsill Theory, Two Santa Claus theory, horse and sparrow theory, and the Trump tax cuts, to name a few. It has been espoused by everyone from Ayn Rand to Milton Friedman to Alan Greenspan to Gordon Gecko.
Trickle down economics involves focusing the brunt of government effort on helping the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class and the poor. The theory says that the wealthy elites of the country have proven themselves capable patricians for stewarding the lives of the masses through myth and fairytale in the name of patriotic duty. The “supply” in supply side are the rich, who will create companies that sell products to people who didn’t even realize they needed them. If we give enough of our collective tax pool to them, they say, they’ll create jobs and prosperity for everyone else.
The problem for trickle down economics is that that isn’t true at all. It simply doesn’t happen. Time and time again over the past approximately 200 years, the ideology of rewarding the wealthy for being wealthy has proven its premises to be completely false. Deregulation and starving the government don’t produce a prosperous utopia — they produce recessions and depressions. They produce conglomerates too big to fail, that get rewarded for their brazenly irresponsible speculation with Main Street’s money, and flaunt their ability to simply capture government in our collective faces.
Trickle down economics since the 1970s
In its most recent incarnation as trickle-down, supply-side, or Reagonomics, tax cuts are pitched as paying for themselves when they have in actual fact succeeded in blowing up the deficit and the national debt. The work of Arthur Laffer and Jude Wanniski at a fateful meeting with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in 1974, trickle-down economic theory was put into practice during the Reagan years and has been failing to produce the promised results of paying down the debt for almost half a century.
Jude Wanniski’s “Two Santa Claus” strategy laid the political groundwork for what would soon be branded as supply-side, or trickle-down, economics. Observing in the 1970s that Democrats played “Santa” by expanding popular social programs, Wanniski warned Republicans that positioning themselves as the party of spending cuts cast them as the “anti-Santa.” His fix was simple but potent: become a second Santa by promising sweeping tax cuts. Republicans, he argued, could shower voters with fiscal “gifts” while leaving beloved programs intact, sidestepping the backlash that traditionally followed austerity talk.
This tactical reframing meshed perfectly with the emerging supply-side creed. By asserting that lower taxes on corporations and high earners spur investment, production, and ultimately broad prosperity, Republicans could claim that their giveaways weren’t merely political theater—they were an economic necessity. The brilliance (and cynicism) of the scheme was its indifference to short-term deficits: ballooning red ink would corner future Democratic administrations into either raising taxes or cutting spending, both politically toxic options.
In practice, the Two Santa Claus playbook flipped classical, demand-driven thinking on its head. Rather than boosting middle-class wages to stoke consumption, it poured resources into the top of the income ladder and trusted prosperity to “trickle down.” The approach reached full throttle in the Reagan era—taxes slashed, spending still high—and its legacy endures: chronic deficits, rising inequality, and an ongoing partisan tug-of-war over who pays the bill.
The Big, Beautiful, Debt-Ballooning Bill
Look no further than the monstrosity of a bill the Republicans are trying to jam through the reconciliation process. Expected to make the 2017 Trump tax cuts a permanent welfare handout to the wealthiest billionaires on the planet, the so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” is also slated to add $4 trillion to the national debt.
We can’t keep going on this way.
It’s long past time we undertake the difficult work of educating the population more broadly about this GOP economics scam that’s been running for the past 50 years and running up the till while nurturing a truly nasty partisan political divide as insult to injury.
Trickle down doesn’t work. Tax cuts to billionaires doesn’t work — at least, not for anyone other than the billionaires and political elite class. We need an economic system that works broadly for everyone, otherwise sooner or later it all comes crashing down and we are in for a (literal) world of hurt.
Fierce realness on the destructive effects of Republican trickle down economics policy/conspiracy theory over the past decades. https://t.co/Y7E9Lp4Ldn
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 — 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 didn’t just reflect the world — 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 Twitter’s 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 — signaling not just a rebrand, but a fundamental shift in mission, culture, and political alignment.
This timeline chronicles Twitter’s 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 Musk’s 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 “anti-woke” politics, misinformation, and culture war skirmishes — with global implications.
2006 – 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 – “just setting up my twttr”, marking Twitter’s official creation.
July 2006: Twitter (then styled “twttr” 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 Odeo’s investors, acquiring Twitter’s intellectual property.
August – September 2006: Early users begin to see Twitter’s potential. In August, tweets about a California earthquake demonstrate Twitter’s 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 – 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 Twitter’s 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 “#” hashtag debuts and later becomes an official Twitter feature for trend tracking. This year, Twitter’s growth is so rapid that frequent server crashes occur, introducing the world to the iconic “Fail Whale” 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 — 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” — 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 — 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 — 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 — 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 — 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 — 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 — 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 — often an idealized or mythologized past.
The Core Difference:
Conservative
Reactionary
Wants to conserve existing institutions, traditions, and social order.
Wants to restore a past order — often rejecting modernity altogether.
Accepts some gradual change if necessary to preserve stability.
Sees recent changes (modernization, liberalization) as corruptions that must be undone.
May negotiate with progress or adapt slowly.
Opposes progress on principle — progress is the problem.
Historical Example:
Conservative:
→ Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution, but didn’t want to destroy parliamentary government. He wanted to preserve traditions and institutions to prevent chaos.
Reactionary:
→ Joseph de Maistre welcomedauthoritarian monarchy and theocracy after the French Revolution, believing divine right rule was the only cure for societal decay.
In Modern Terms:
A conservative in America might say: “We shouldn’t rush into sweeping changes — we need to preserve family values, religious freedom, and limited government.”
A reactionary might say: “Modern society is degenerate. We need to abolish democracy, bring back monarchy or biblical law, and return to the way things were before feminism, secularism, or civil rights.”
Where It Gets Tricky:
Many reactionaries call themselves conservatives — especially in American politics — because “reactionary” is usually a pejorative term today.
But ideologically:
Conservatives = cautious, incremental, defensive of the present order.
Reactionaries = revanchist, nostalgic, hostile to modernity.
In Summary:
All reactionaries are right-wing extremists, but not all conservatives are reactionaries.
Conservatives defend the status quo. Reactionaries want to roll back history.
Spectrum of Political Attitudes Towards Change
Position
Attitude Toward Change
View of the Past
View of the Future
Examples
Radical / Revolutionary
Overthrow existing system
Irrelevant or oppressive past
Build something entirely new
Anarchists, Communists, Revolutionaries
Progressive / Liberal
Reform existing system
Learn from past mistakes
Improve society incrementally
Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Liberals
Conservative
Preserve system as-is or allow very slow change
Respect traditions
Stability is more important than change
Traditional Conservatives, Libertarians (sometimes)
Reactionary
Undo modern changes, return to past order
The past was better / pure
Restore lost greatness
Christian Nationalists, Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists
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 enough—a provocative meme shared by a friend, a YouTube video recommended by an algorithm—but can quickly lead vulnerable individuals down increasingly extreme ideological paths.
This digital radicalization operates through sophisticated emotional manipulation. Content is carefully crafted to trigger outrage, fear, or a sense of belonging to an in-group that possesses hidden truths. Over time, these digital breadcrumbs lead users into alternative information ecosystems that gradually reshape their perception of political reality.
From Online Conspiracy to Capitol Insurrection
“Meme Wars” provides what may be the most comprehensive account to date of how online conspiracy theories materialized into physical violence on January 6th, 2021. The authors trace the evolution of the “Stop the Steal” movement from fringe online forums to mainstream platforms, showing how digital organizing translated into real-world action.
The book presents the Capitol insurrection as the logical culmination of years of digital warfare. Participants like “Elizabeth from Knoxville” exemplify this new reality—simultaneously acting as insurrectionists and content creators, live-streaming their participation for online audiences even as they engaged in an attempt to overthrow democratic processes.
This fusion of digital performance and physical violence represents something genuinely new and dangerous in American politics. The insurrectionists weren’t just attacking the Capitol; they were creating content designed to inspire others to join their cause.
Inside the Digital War Rooms
What sets “Meme Wars” apart from other analyses of digital extremism is the unprecedented access the authors gained to the online spaces where anti-establishment actors develop their strategies. These digital war rooms function as laboratories where messaging is crafted, tested, and refined before being deployed more broadly.
The authors document how these spaces identify potential recruits, gradually expose them to increasingly extreme content, and eventually mobilize them toward political action. This sophisticated recruitment pipeline has proven remarkably effective at growing extremist movements and providing them with dedicated foot soldiers.
The Existential Threat to Democracy
At its core, “Meme Wars” is a book about the fundamental challenge digital manipulation poses to democratic governance. By deliberately stirring strong emotions and deepening partisan divides, meme warfare undermines the rational discourse and shared reality necessary for democratic deliberation.
The authors make a compelling case that these tactics represent an existential threat to American democracy. What’s more, the digital warfare techniques developed in American contexts are already being exported globally, representing a worldwide challenge to democratic institutions.
Confronting the Challenge
Perhaps the most important contribution of “Meme Wars” is its insistence that we recognize digital threats as real-world dangers. For too long, online extremism has been dismissed as merely virtual—something separate from “real” politics. The events of January 6th definitively shattered that illusion.
While the book doesn’t offer easy solutions, it makes clear that protecting democracy in the digital age will require new approaches from institutions, platforms, and citizens alike. We need digital literacy that goes beyond spotting fake news to understanding how emotional manipulation operates online. We need platforms that prioritize democratic values over engagement metrics. And we need institutions that can effectively counter extremist narratives without amplifying them.
A Must-Read for Democracy’s Defenders
“Meme Wars” is not just a political thriller, though it certainly reads like one at times. It is a rigorously researched warning about how extremist movements are reshaping American culture and politics through digital means. For anyone concerned with the preservation of democratic institutions, it should be considered essential reading.
The authors — including Joan Donovan, widely known and respected as a foremost scholar on disinformation — have performed a valuable service by illuminating the hidden mechanics of digital manipulation. Now it’s up to all of us to heed their warning and work to build democratic resilience in the digital age. The future of our democracy may depend on it.
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 influence—particularly within right-wing circles—has 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 Corporation—a 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 style—characterized by boldness, competitiveness, and occasional ruthlessness—has 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 Vote—a group that has promoted unsubstantiated claims of voter fraud—further 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 backing—Ellison 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 causes—particularly those aligned with election denial efforts—has 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 Ellison—with virtually unlimited resources and expanding spheres of influence—will 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.
