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:
The GOP just passed their budget reconciliation bill for FY2026 — a squeaker, but over the line and now signed into law. Looking at this staggering compilation of budget line items, we’re witnessing what can only be described as the construction of an unprecedented domestic security apparatus that should alarm anyone who values civil liberties and fiscal responsibility. What’s in the Republican spending bill? A massive financial allocation to create a new branch of the military — essentially a militarized standing army of the type the Founders feared most deeply (for example Hamilton, in Federalist No. 29).
This Republican budget bill represents a breathtaking $300+ billion commitment to militarizing America’s borders and expanding the surveillance state under the guise of “national security.” The numbers tell a chilling story: nearly $57 billion for border walls and barriers, $45 billion for immigrant detention facilities that will rival the size of the entire prison system, and almost $30 billion to supercharge ICE into a paramilitary force with expanded powers to raid communities nationwide.
What we’re seeing here isn’t border security—it’s the systematic transformation of immigration enforcement into a militarized occupation force. The bill allocates billions for “family detention centers” (a euphemism for camps where children will be imprisoned), grants to states for building more walls, and funding for “relocation of unlawfully present aliens” that sounds disturbingly like it will require the use of violent force.
Perhaps most troubling is how this massive expansion of domestic enforcement capabilities comes wrapped in the flag of military spending. Hundreds of billions flow to weapons manufacturers and defense contractors while basic human services are starved of funding. The message is clear: this administration views immigrants not as people seeking opportunity, but as enemy combatants requiring a military response.
The infrastructure being built here—the surveillance technology, detention facilities, militarized personnel, and coordination between local and federal enforcement—creates the scaffolding for authoritarianism that could easily be turned against any group deemed “undesirable” by future administrations. Once you’ve normalized this level of militarized domestic enforcement, the definition of who deserves to be targeted has a way of expanding.
This isn’t about border security—it’s about power, control, and the profits that flow to contractors building America’s emerging police state.
Here is a comprehensive list of all the line items in the bill that add budget to law enforcement, border protection, national security, or military-related functions or agencies, ranked by size descending, drawing directly from the text of the bill:
$46,550,000,000 appropriated to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the Border Infrastructure and Wall System, including construction, installation, or improvement of new or replacement primary, waterborne, and secondary barriers; access roads; barrier system attributes (cameras, lights, sensors, detection technology); and any work necessary to prepare the ground at or near the border to allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct its operations.
$45,000,000,000 appropriated to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for single adult alien detention capacity and family residential center capacity. A “family residential center” is defined as a facility used by the Department of Homeland Security to detain alien family units, including children who are not unaccompanied, encountered or apprehended by the Department.
$29,850,000,000 appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for fiscal year 2025, to remain available through September 30, 2029. These funds are designated for: hiring and training additional ICE personnel (officers, agents, investigators, and support staff), prioritizing and streamlining the hiring of retired ICE personnel; providing performance, retention, and signing bonuses to qualified ICE personnel; facilitating recruitment, hiring, and onboarding of additional ICE personnel (including investing in IT, recruitment, and marketing); transportation costs and related costs for alien departure or removal operations; information technology investments to support enforcement and removal operations (including fee collections); facility upgrades to support enforcement and removal operations; fleet modernization to support enforcement and removal operations; promoting family unity by maintaining care and custody of aliens charged only with a misdemeanor offense who entered with their child under 18 and detaining such an alien with their child; expanding, facilitating, and implementing 287(g) agreements; hiring and training additional staff for the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office and providing nonfinancial assistance to victims of crimes perpetrated by unauthorized aliens; and hiring additional attorneys and support staff within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor to represent DHS in immigration enforcement and removal proceedings.
$10,000,000,000 appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security for the State Border Security Reinforcement Fund. These funds are for grants to eligible States and units of local government for purposes including: construction or installation of a border wall, border fencing, other barriers, or buoys along the southern border of the United States (including planning, procurement of materials, and personnel costs); any work necessary to prepare the ground at or near land borders to allow construction and maintenance of a border wall or other barrier fencing; detection and interdiction of illicit substances and aliens who have unlawfully entered the United States and committed a crime, and their transfer or referral to DHS; and relocation of unlawfully present aliens from small population centers to other domestic locations.
$10,000,000,000 appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for reimbursement of costs incurred in undertaking activities in support of the Department of Homeland Security’s mission to safeguard the borders of the United States.
When Elon Musk assumed his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the second Trump administration, he claimed his goal was to slash wasteful spending and eliminate government fraud. Yet a damning new report from Senator Elizabeth Warren reveals a starkly different reality: Musk’s 130 days in the White House appear to have been very little about serving the public interest and more about engineering one of the most audacious wealth transfers from taxpayers to a single individual in modern American history. Why are people protesting Elon Musk? In short: everybody hates corruption. And during his time with DOGE, Musk’s net worth soared by over $100 billion and his companies secured billions in new federal contracts, regulatory approvals, and policy changes that directly benefited his sprawling business empire.
The Warren report exposes how Musk’s anti-fraud rhetoric served as convenient cover for systematically dismantling the very agencies responsible for investigating his companies’ workplace safety violations, environmental damage, and discriminatory practices. Under the guise of “efficiency,” DOGE targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would regulate his planned X Money venture, gutted OSHA while it investigated Tesla’s worker safety record, and fired inspectors general who had been scrutinizing his companies. Meanwhile, agencies that provide essential services to working families—from the Department of Labor to social safety net programs—faced devastating cuts that threaten to leave the most vulnerable Americans without crucial protections. What emerges is a troubling pattern: Musk’s government role functioned less as public service and more as a strategic position to eliminate oversight of his businesses while redirecting taxpayer resources into his own coffers.
The Massachusetts Senator and champion of the CFPB kept an eagle eye on Musk as he burrowed his way through the federal government with his 20-somethings alt-right goon squad. She compiled this exhaustive report on Elon Musk’s corrupt dealings during his time in the White House — and these are just the ones we know about thanks to intrepid investigative journalists, whistleblowers, and other patriotic informants. A full accounting of the heist will likely not be known for some time, if at all — given the Trump administration’s power (and proclivity) to memory hole theoretically anything they wish.
Maybe not the best rendering… blame Musk’s Grok!
The report, “Special Interests Over the Public Interest: Elon Musk’s 130 Days in the Trump Administration (PDF),” details numerous instances where the tech megabillionaire and richest man on earth, serving as a “Special Government Employee” while leading DOGE, engaged in actions that allegedly benefited his private financial interests. On top of a net worth increase of $100 billion+ since Election Day, his companies (Tesla, SpaceX, X and xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink) had extensive financial conflicts of interest that were completely disregarded.
Here are the highlights from the report, followed by a timeline and cast of characters.
List of Elon Musk’s corrupt activities inside the White House
This is a comprehensive list of examples from the report illustrating how Musk allegedly used his power to further his personal interests, as of June 2025:
1. Government Resources to Promote Musk’s Businesses
Trump and Musk turned the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom.
Commerce Secretary Lutnick, reportedly “close to Elon Musk,” appeared on Fox News telling viewers to “buy Tesla”.
The Commerce Department changed terms of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program to allow Starlink to apply, despite warnings of inferior service and higher costs.
The White House called for 13% more spending for the Department of Defense (DoD), and SpaceX is considered likely to be the top recipient of new Pentagon funding.
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.
Social Security stands at a crossroads. With the trust fund set to run dry by 2033, millions of Americans face the prospect of automatic 21% benefit cuts unless Congress acts decisively. Yet while politicians debate painful across-the-board sacrifices, a targeted solution sits in plain sight: we could easily save social security by lifting the salary cap that currently shields high earners from paying Social Security taxes on income above $176,100.
By requiring wealthy Americans to pay the same tax rate on their entire income that middle-class families already do, we could generate hundreds of billions in new revenue and close up to 80% of the program’s funding gap—without touching benefits or raising taxes on 98% of workers. The math is clear, the solution is fair, and the time for action is now.
I’ve been playing with the new Perplexity Labs features — just one example of May’s action-packed AI announcement extravaganza — and asked it to come up with a “persuasive presentation” for illustrating how easily Social Security could be funded if we raise the salary cap for paying into it, allowing high-earning individuals to pay their fair share. I was incredibly impressed with what it came up with. I’ve embedded it below — just click on the image to launch the presentation in lightbox mode:
Here’s the prompt:
can you create a persuasive presentation that shows how social security could be kept solvent if we raise the salary cap at which people stop paying in to the system? dig in to all the financials of the current system, and explain how it is funded, to illustrate this
David Sacks: Silicon Valley’s Political Power Player
At the intersection of technology, venture capital, and right-wing politics, the star of tech mogul David Sacks has risen prominently in recent years. From PayPal executive to Trump’s AI & Crypto Czar, Sacks represents a new breed of tech tycoon whose influence extends far beyond Silicon Valley boardrooms into the corridors of political power.
From South Africa to Silicon Valley
Born on May 25, 1972, in Cape Town, South Africa, Sacks followed a path that would eventually lead him to become one of the most influential entrepreneurs in American tech. After immigrating to the United States, he received his education at the University of Chicago Law School, graduating in 1998.
His Silicon Valley journey began in earnest when he joined PayPal in 1999 as Chief Operating Officer. At PayPal, Sacks was instrumental in building key teams and oversaw product management, sales, and marketing functions. This early chapter placed him squarely within what would later be known as the “PayPal Mafia” – a legendary group of executives including Peter Thiel and Elon Musk who went on to found and fund numerous successful tech ventures.
Entrepreneurial Success
Following PayPal’s $1.5 billion acquisition by eBay in 2002, Sacks embarked on a remarkable entrepreneurial journey:
He briefly ventured into Hollywood, producing the critically acclaimed film “Thank You for Smoking” and later “Dalíland”
In 2008, he founded Yammer, an enterprise social networking service that was acquired by Microsoft for $1.2 billion just four years later
As an angel investor, he made early bets on Facebook, Uber, SpaceX, and Airbnb, cementing his reputation for identifying transformative companies
In 2017, Sacks co-founded Craft Ventures, a venture capital firm focused on SaaS and marketplace models that has become a significant player in tech investing
His entrepreneurial success positioned him as a respected voice in Silicon Valley, with insights that extended from product development to company building and investment strategy.
Understanding Neoreaction (NRx): The Dark Enlightenment’s Growing Influence
In the landscape of contemporary political thought, few movements have generated as much intrigue and controversy as Neoreaction (NRx). Emerging from the darkest corners of the internet and gradually infiltrating mainstream discourse, this philosophical movement represents one of the most comprehensive rejections of modern liberal democracy. Here we’ll explore the origins, key figures, core beliefs, and growing influence of Neoreaction in both Silicon Valley and Republican politics.
Origins and Key Figures
Neoreaction emerged in the mid-to-late 2000s as an online philosophical and political movement, primarily through blog posts and forum discussions. The movement’s foundational texts were written by Curtis Yarvin (writing under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug), a software engineer by day and political theorist by night who began publishing his critiques of modern democracy in 2007-2008 through his blog “Unqualified Reservations.”
Yarvin’s verbose, citation-heavy writing style attracted a small but dedicated following of readers who were drawn to his radical critique of contemporary political systems. His work was further developed and popularized by British philosopher Nick Land, who coined the term “Dark Enlightenment” in his 2012 essay of the same name. Land, formerly associated with the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit at Warwick University, added accelerationist elements to Neoreactionary thought, emphasizing the role of capitalism and technology in destabilizing existing political structures.
While Yarvin and Land are considered the primary architects of Neoreactionary thought, the movement draws inspiration from earlier thinkers. These include 19th-century writer Thomas Carlyle, who advocated for authoritarian governance; Julius Evola, an Italian traditionalist philosopher; and American economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, known for his critiques of democracy from a libertarian perspective.
Core Beliefs
At its heart, Neoreaction represents a fundamental rejection of Enlightenment values and the modern liberal democratic order. Its adherents advocate for several interconnected beliefs:
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).
One of my favorite historians, Professor Richardson is a kind of north star to train your eyes on in making sense of this peculiarly unsettling moment in time. While any Heather Cox Richardson speech is worth your time, this one at Boston’s Old North Church — in commemoration of the anniversary of the lighting of the lanterns there in 1775 — deserves special mention for its sweeping yet intimate detail view of revolutionary sentiment in the colonies under waning British rule.
Professor Richardson has a true gift for both making centuries’-old history seem strikingly relevant today, as well as for analyzing today’s news through the lens of the long-term, clarifying its causes, and tempering it with context. A question we thought settled long ago — whether we are to be ruled by an all-powerful king whose power is unchecked by any force — has disturbingly resurfaced as Donald Trump convincingly play-acts (or perhaps naturally embodies) the role of mad king. Here she weaves the tale of revolutionaries in the late 18th century throwing off the mad king of their time, as an inspiration to those of us inexplicably confronting this same problem again in 2025.
Heather Cox Richardson speech summary
I would encourage everybody to watch or read the speech in full (as well as check out HCR’s other brilliant books) as it’s well worth your time — but for those short on the irreplaceable stuff, here’s a summary:
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.
In today’s complex geopolitical landscape, understanding different systems of governance is crucial for making sense of world events. Among these systems, totalitarianism stands out as one of the most extreme forms of government control. What exactly is totalitarianism, how does it function, and what can history teach us about its impacts — and how to fight back against its oppressive aims?
Defining Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It shares similarities with both fascism and authoritarianism, but unlike other authoritarian regimes, totalitarian states seek to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. The term itself suggests the extreme “total” nature of this control—extending beyond purely political spheres into social, economic, cultural, and even private dimensions of human existence.
What distinguishes totalitarianism from other forms of authoritarianism is its ambition to erase the line between government and society entirely. Under totalitarianism, there is no concept of a private life outside the reach of state authority.
Key Characteristics of Totalitarian Regimes
1. Complete State Control of Society
Totalitarian states attempt to control virtually every aspect of social life:
Business and Economy: State-directed economic policies, often involving nationalization or collectivization of industries and resources
Labor: Control over labor unions, work assignments, and employment opportunities
Housing: Allocation and control of housing and living arrangements
Education: Strict control of curriculum and educational institutions to indoctrinate youth
Religion: Suppression or co-option of religious institutions
The Arts: Censorship and direction of artistic expression to serve state purposes
Personal Life: Intrusion into family relationships, leisure activities, and personal decisions
Youth Organizations: Creation of state-sponsored youth groups to foster loyalty from an early age
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.
