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.
In the shadows of Washington’s policy debates, a quiet technological revolution is taking shape—one that could fundamentally alter how the federal government collects, analyzes, and potentially weaponizes data on American citizens. At the heart of this transformation sits Palantir Technologies, the secretive data analytics firm co-founded by tech billionaire Peter Thiel that has become the Trump administration’s go-to contractor for an ambitious plan to merge information across federal agencies into what critics fear could become an unprecedented surveillance apparatus.
The push represents the culmination of Thiel’s decades-long influence campaign within both Silicon Valley and right-wing politics, where he has emerged as the “godfather” of a powerful network of tech billionaires who have shifted dramatically rightward. Once the sole major Silicon Valley figure to back Trump in 2016, Thiel has watched his political philosophy spread throughout the tech elite, with former PayPal colleagues like Elon Musk and proteges like Vice President J.D. Vance now occupying the highest levels of government. This so-called “PayPal Mafia“—a group of billionaires with overlapping business interests and shared anti-regulatory fervor—has become integral to the second Trump administration, with at least three former Palantir employees now working within Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).
Since Trump’s March executive order calling for expanded data sharing across government agencies, Palantir has quietly embedded itself deeper into the federal bureaucracy than ever before. The company has secured over $113 million in new federal contracts and expanded its flagship Foundry platform into at least four major agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and most recently, the Internal Revenue Service. This technological infrastructure could enable the administration to create detailed digital portraits of Americans by combining bank records, medical claims, student debt information, and disability status—all accessible through a single, searchable database.
The expansion reflects Thiel’s long-standing belief that “freedom and democracy are not compatible,” a philosophy that has guided his investments and political activities for over a decade. While Thiel maintains no official government position, he has direct access to the president, vice president, and virtually every tech figure in Trump’s inner circle, recently hosting an inauguration party at his Washington mansion for the “crème de la crème of the tech world.” As one journalist noted during the 2024 Republican National Convention, “It’s Peter Thiel’s party now”—a sentiment validated by the presence of his handpicked protege as vice president and his former colleagues running key government efficiency initiatives.
But the expansion has also triggered alarm bells within Palantir itself, where current and former employees worry about their company becoming the public face of Trump’s political agenda. Thirteen former employees recently signed a public letter urging the company to reconsider its role, while at least one strategist has resigned over the expanded ICE contracts, calling the work a “red line” she won’t cross.
As privacy advocates file lawsuits and Democratic lawmakers sound warnings about potential abuse, Palantir finds itself at the center of a national debate about the balance between government efficiency and civil liberties. To understand how we arrived at this moment—and what it might mean for American privacy—we need to examine the company behind the technology and the controversial figures who built it.
What is Palantir?
And once again I turned to Perplexity Labs to help me tell the story of Palantir in an interactive way. I am a little bit addicted to this new featureset — it is miraculous. It can build incredibly sophisticated things in a very short amount of time. To view the presentation, simply click the image below to launch it in a new Lightbox window:
And once again, the methodology and the full response are below.
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:
Accelerationism Dictionary: A Complete Terminology and Lexicon
AI accelerationism, or “e/acc,” is one of the most radical and controversial ideologies emerging from Silicon Valley today. At its core, it champions the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence, rejecting calls for regulation and safety measures in favor of unchecked innovation. Proponents argue that AI holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges—climate change, poverty, disease—and even envision a post-human future where intelligence transcends biological limits.
With strong libertarian leanings, the movement prioritizes market-driven progress, believing that government intervention would stifle AI’s transformative potential. Tech billionaires like legendary venture capitalist Marc Andreessen have embraced these ideas, elevating what was once a fringe philosophy into a driving force in the AI industry.
However, AI accelerationism faces fierce criticism for its disregard of ethical considerations, social consequences, and potential existential risks. Detractors warn that unregulated AI development could exacerbate inequality, destabilize economies, and lead to dangerous technological outcomes without proper safeguards.
The movement stands in stark opposition to cautious, ethical AI development advocated by groups like the effective altruism community, setting up a high-stakes ideological battle over the future of artificial intelligence. Whether one sees AI accelerationism as a path to utopia or a reckless gamble, its growing influence makes it a defining force in the ongoing debate over technology’s role in shaping humanity’s future.
This accelerationism dictionary should help get anyone up to speed on this emerging and dangerous ideology. We’ll keep adding to it over time as the field continues to evolve at breakneck pace.
Accelerationism Dictionary
A
Accelerate or die: A common slogan in the e/acc movement expressing the belief that technological acceleration is necessary for survival.
Accelerationism: A philosophical and political movement advocating for the acceleration of technological, social, and economic progress. Can exist in left-wing, right-wing, and politically neutral forms.
AI supremacy: The belief or fear that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and capabilities, potentially dominating society, economies, and geopolitical power structures. It is often discussed in the context of global competition for technological dominance.
Dave Karpf absolutely shreds Balaji Srinivasan’s book “The Network State” as the ravings of a rich delusional megalomaniac preening to his Silicon Valley peers who fancy themselves in Galt’s Gulch. These guys appear almost completely ignorant about the actual functions of a nation-state. If they want to declare themselves sovereign and secede from the United States, we ought to cut their sewage, water, and electric supply to give them a dose of the factual reality they so disdain.
What happens to these guys’ nerdy little crypto-enclaves when a much larger power (say, Russia…) decides to invade them and take their enormous stores of value they’ve bragged about removing from state protection? Especially after they’ve just ushered in the destruction of the post-WWII global order in which it was generally frowned upon for giant nations to gobble up their neighbors just because they could? 🤔
Moreover, what if that invader nation is simply the United States itself, once an administration comes to power that decides it is tired of dealing with its collection of ornery Confederate enclaves? Some might knuckle under peacefully, but there might also be some Waco events — except this time, with a lethal military strike justified by a president completely immune from prosecution and beyond the power of legislative or judicial oversight.
Please go away
What is stopping these guys from starting their start-up utopias right now? They are squintillionaires and could certainly buy land and start a community organized around whatever value system they want to run up the flagpole (arguably that seems to be the idea behind California Forever). Why isn’t Peter Thiel seasteading already and leaving us the fuck alone? Why does California Forever take Forever to operationalize when the entire premise of these techbro elites for decades has been that government (and specifically democracy) is too slow and they could totally build everything much faster and better if only given the chance?
Understanding AI Accelerationism: Silicon Valley’s Radical Vision for the Future
What is AI accelerationism? AI accelerationism, or “e/acc” as it’s known in tech circles, has emerged as one of Silicon Valley‘s most influential and controversial ideological movements. At its core, it represents a radical optimism about artificial intelligence and its potential to reshape human civilization as we know it.
What is AI Accelerationism?
At its most basic, AI accelerationism advocates for the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence. Unlike those who call for careful regulation and safety measures, accelerationists believe that faster AI development is not just beneficial but crucial for humanity’s future. They reject what they see as excessive caution, often dismissing AI safety advocates as “doomers.”
The Core Beliefs
Technological Solutions to Global Problems
Accelerationists believe that unrestricted technological progress, particularly in AI, holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges. From their perspective, issues like climate change, poverty, and disease are problems that advanced AI could potentially solve if we develop it quickly enough.
Post-Human Future
Perhaps most ambitiously, many e/acc proponents envision a future where the line between human and machine blurs. They embrace the possibility of human-AI integration and the emergence of new forms of consciousness and intelligence.
Market-Driven Innovation
The movement has strong libertarian leanings, advocating for minimal government intervention in AI development. They believe that market forces, not regulation, should guide technological progress.
Disinformation is more than just false information—it’s a calculated effort to deceive. Unlike misinformation, which spreads by accident or ignorance, disinformation is crafted with precision to manipulate public opinion and sow confusion. Its architects in the right-wing media ecosystem and elsewhere often exploit existing divides—political, social, or cultural—using these cracks in the foundation of society to achieve their aims. Whether the goal is political dominance, economic advantage, or simply the unraveling of trust, disinformation thrives in the chaos it creates. And in today’s digital landscape, it spreads like wildfire, fanning the flames of discord faster than ever before.
But disinformation isn’t just about fake news or conspiracy theories. It’s a full-blown strategy, weaponized by those who understand how to pull the levers of media, technology, and emotion to get what they want. It doesn’t need to be entirely false to do damage—sometimes a well-placed half-truth or a twisted fact is all it takes. The aim is to make us question what’s real and undermine our ability to discern truth from fiction. And this is where vigilance and education come in, arming us with the tools to resist these tactics. In the following disinformation dictionary, in addition to the disinformation definition I’ll break down some of the key terms and tactics used to muddy the waters of truth.
Disinformation Dictionary of Psychological Warfare
The cat is well and truly out of the bag in terms of understanding how easily wide swaths of people can be misled into believing total falsehoods and even insane conspiracy theories that have no basis whatsoever in reality. In their passion for this self-righteous series of untruths, they can lose families, jobs, loved ones, respect, and may even be radicalized to commit violence on behalf of an authority figure. It starts with the dissemination of disinformation — a practice with a unique Orwellian lexicon all its own, collated in the below disinformation dictionary.
Disinformation is meant to confuse, throw off, distract, polarize, and otherwise create conflict within and between target populations. The spreading of falsehoods is a very old strategy — perhaps as old as humankind itself — but its mass dissemination through the media was pioneered in the 20th century by the Bolsheviks in the Soviet Union, the Nazis in Germany, Mussolini‘s Fascists in Italy, and other authoritarian regimes of the early 1900s through the 1940s.
After World War II and the Allies’ defeat of Hitler, the role of disinformation lived on during the Cold War. The Soviet KGB were infamous for their spycraft and covert infiltration of information flows, while the United States experienced waves of anti-Communist paranoia and hysteria fueled by the spread of conspiracist thinking. Psychologists, social scientists, and others did their best to unpack the horrors revealed by the reign of the Nazi regime with a wellspring of research and critical thought about authoritarian personalities and totalitarianism that continues to this day.
The John Birch Society rides again
In some ways, we haven’t really moved on yet from the Cold War — in fact, some appear not to have moved on since the New Deal and are hellbent on rolling its provisions back, almost 100 years later. The dregs of the John Birch Society — an organization famously too koo-koo even for William F. Buckley, who excommunicated them from the conservative wing of the Republican Party — live on today in a reconstituted form known as the CNP, or Council for National Policy.
Founded officially in 1981 after almost a decade down in the political trenches radicalizing the right, the CNP is the shadowy organization pulling the strings of many of the set pieces in puppets in today’s political play. In alliance with other powerful networks including the Koch empire, the NRA, and the Evangelical church, the CNP is the group behind the recent hysteria out of nowhere about Critical Race Theory in public schools (where it is not taught).
They are funneling the money of America’s billionaires into absurdist theatrical displays of performance artists who distract America with bread and circuses while the plutocrats make off with the cash in the form of tax cuts, tax breaks, tax carve outs, tax loopholes, tax policy, and other wealth-building sweetheart deals for themselves and their cronies.
The CNP, in partnership with Charles Koch’s massive database of all American voters (and of course, his money), have managed to brainwash the Evangelical flock and various assorted MAGA groups into believing a raft of nonsense from climate change denial to anti-masking to the Big Lie about the 2020 election and much more.
They have leveraged new political technology in order to recruit and radicalize new cult members quickly and at now digital scale — via QAnon, Fox News, the even more extreme aggressively partisan coverage of Newsmax and OANN, and a fleet of “grassroots” astroturf operations peddling their brand of seditious aspirational theocracy to ruralites like it was going out of style… on accounta it is.
US 2024 elections disinformation
As the U.S. now sees the 2024 elections in the rearview mirror, it’s ever more clear the impact of disinformation campaigns on American politics. These orchestrated fakeries are becoming more sophisticated and widespread, targeting voters across social media, messaging apps, and even AI-generated content. These efforts aim to confuse voters, suppress turnout, smear candidates, and undermine trust in the electoral system. In today’s highly polarized environment, disinformation is not just a tool of foreign interference but also a domestic weapon used to influence election outcomes. Understanding these tactics and how they operate is critical for protecting democracy and ensuring a fair election process.
Here is a guide to the main types of election interference disinformation campaigns in progress, so you can be forewarned and forearmed as much as possible:
Voter Suppression and Confusion False information is often spread about when, where, or how to vote, confusing voters about eligibility or tricking them with fake polling place closures (see: right-wing operative Jacob Wahl convicted for telecommunications fraud for a voter suppression campaign in MI, NY, PA, IL, and OH in 2020).
Candidate Smear Campaigns Bad actors fabricate scandals, use manipulated images or videos (“deepfakes”), and spread false claims about candidates to damage their reputations.
Foreign Interference Nations like Russia, China, and Iran are expected to use fake social media accounts, amplify domestic conspiracy theories, and send targeted messages to influence U.S. elections.
Undermining Election Integrity Disinformation campaigns spread false claims of widespread voter fraud, misrepresent election security, and attempt to delegitimize results with premature victory declarations or “rigged” election claims.
Platforms and Methods
Social Media and Messaging Apps Disinformation spreads rapidly on platforms like Facebook, Twitter (X), TikTok, WhatsApp, and Telegram, where users share and amplify false narratives.
Fake News Websites Some websites pose as legitimate news sources but are created to deceive readers with false stories that push specific agendas.
AI-Generated Content The rise of AI allows for the creation of highly realistic but fake images, videos, and texts, making it harder to distinguish truth from falsehood.
Targeted Communities
Communities of Color Minority communities are often the focus of disinformation, with tactics designed to exploit shared traumas, concerns, and cultural connections. Misinformation is tailored to specific demographics, often in multiple languages.
Emerging Trends in Disinformation
AI-Generated Content AI tools are making it easier to create convincing but fake media, posing new challenges for detecting and countering disinformation.
Prebunking Efforts Governments and organizations are becoming more proactive, working to debunk false narratives before they spread.
Cross-Platform Coordination Disinformation is coordinated across different platforms, making it harder to detect and stop, as the false narratives hop from one space to another.
Countermeasures
Government Agencies Federal entities are focused on monitoring foreign interference to safeguard elections.
Social Media Content Moderation Platforms are increasingly using algorithms and human moderators to identify and remove disinformation.
Fact-Checking and Public Education Non-profits and independent groups work to fact-check false claims and educate voters on how to critically assess the information they encounter.
Media Literacy Initiatives Public awareness campaigns aim to teach people how to recognize and resist disinformation, helping voters make informed decisions.
Disinformation Definitions Dictionary
This disinformation definition dictionary covers (and uncovers) the terminology and techniques used by disinfo peddlers, hucksters, Zucksters, propagandists, foreign actors, FARA actors, and professional liars of all sorts — including confirmation bias, the bandwagon effect, and other psychological soft points they target, attack, and exploit. From trolling to active measures to “alternative facts,” we dig into the terminology that makes disinformation tick.
This resource will be added to over time as neologisms are coined to keep up with the shifting landscape of fakes, deep fakes, AI disinformation, and alternative timelines in our near and potentially far future.
Right wing groups in America have long wielded disproportionate influence over political discourse, policy-making, and the judiciary — quietly but effectively steering the country toward a more authoritarian, corporate-driven agenda. Groups like the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation operate as power brokers in the conservative ecosystem, funneling money and influence to shape not just elections, but the ideological future of the nation.
The Federalist Society, for example, has become a judicial kingmaker, successfully installing justices on the Supreme Court who subscribe to its narrow view of constitutional “originalism”—leading to landmark decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson, which rolled back reproductive rights in America. Meanwhile, Heritage’s Project 2025 serves as a blueprint for a far-right authoritarian takeover of federal agencies, ready to gut progressive reforms and install Christian nationalist ideology in their place.
But these are just a few key players in an ever-expanding web of right-wing groups. The National Rifle Association (NRA) remains a force in stoking fears around gun rights to mobilize voters, while Fox News continues to manipulate public discourse with fear-mongering and disinformation to drive its viewers further into a reactionary worldview. Behind the scenes, the Council for National Policy (CNP) operates as a shadowy network of conservative elites pulling the strings, and groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Turning Point USA drive extremist policies at the state and grassroots levels.
Add to that the influence of organizations like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and PragerU, and it becomes clear that right-wing power in America is deeply entrenched, feeding off the fear and division these groups systematically create. The stakes for democracy and the future of civil liberties couldn’t be higher.
One way to address the threat is to become familiar with it. Here is a cheatsheet to some of the most influential and notable right wing groups in operation today.
The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society is a powerful, right-wing legal organization that seeks to reshape the U.S. judiciary by advocating for originalism and textualism—the interpretation of the Constitution based on its supposedly “original” meaning (as interpreted by conservative judges, of course). Founded in 1982, this group has steadily gained influence by grooming conservative legal talent, promoting judges who share their philosophy, and challenging progressive legislation, with many of its members appointed to federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Their ultimate goal is to roll back decades of civil rights protections, environmental regulations, and reproductive freedoms in favor of limited government (even ultra-limited government) and deregulated markets. Now led by conservative activist Leonard Leo, The Federalist Society’s growing clout can be seen in the success of getting their chosen justices onto the Supreme Court, paving the way for decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade and set back reproductive rights in America by half a century. The organization’s influence has been particularly notable during Republican administrations, especially under former President Donald Trump, who appointed 3 of the Court’s 9 straight from the Federalist list.
A full two thirds of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices have been affiliated with or supported by The Federalist Society. These justices share the Society’s commitment to originalism and textualism, and many were recommended or championed by the organization during the judicial nomination process. The following 6 justices have ties to The Federalist Society:
John Roberts (Chief Justice) – Although not a formal member, Roberts has participated in Federalist Society events and has been described as ideologically aligned with the group’s principles.
Clarence Thomas – An advocate of originalism, Thomas has long been associated with the judicial philosophy promoted by The Federalist Society. He has spoken at their events and is widely seen as one of their intellectual leaders on the bench.
Samuel Alito – Like Roberts, Alito is not a formal member but has participated in Federalist Society activities and shares their conservative judicial outlook.
Neil Gorsuch – A formal member of The Federalist Society before his nomination, Gorsuch was strongly backed by the organization when he was selected to replace Antonin Scalia in 2017.
Brett Kavanaugh – Kavanaugh was supported by The Federalist Society throughout his career, and his nomination to the Supreme Court in 2018 was actively promoted by the group.
Amy Coney Barrett – A former member of The Federalist Society, Barrett was a professor at Notre Dame Law School, where she worked closely with the organization. She was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2020 to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, has long been a key architect of conservative policy in the United States. The Foundation’s efforts consistently push for policies that prioritize corporate interests, deregulation, and concentrated executive power, even at the expense of democratic institutions and processes.
Over the decades, The Heritage Foundation has become a significant force in shaping Republican legislative agendas, providing policy proposals to GOP lawmakers and conservative administrations since Ronald Reagan. However, this institutional influence has often facilitated the entrenchment of an authoritarian strain of right-wing ideology that has now metasticized into the body politic.
This is one of those stats that’s sure to be both repeated and disbelieved, courtesy of Bill Clinton’s speech at the phenomenal DNC 2024 last night: since the end of the Cold War in 1989, the cumulative tally of job creation between the two parties is not even close: 50 to 1. Out of the 51 million jobs that have been created since then, about 50 million of them can be attributed to Democrats (under Clinton, Obama, and Biden who account for 97.4% of the total), and only 1 million to Republicans.
That is a pretty stark objective review of right-wing economic ideology. Which is billed, by the way, as “job creating” policy. Trickle down economics, supply side, Reaganomics, libertarian theory, Mudsill Theory — by whatever name you call it, the policy of giving massive tax cuts to the rich while cutting spending on the middle class is supposed to magically create great prosperity for all. Instead, the numbers show the exact opposite — prosperity is not trickling down. It is in fact being hoovered up.
Since 1989, the U.S. economy has created 50 million jobs. What's the score?
I hope to write more about the overall amazing, vibrant, and joyful atmosphere of the DNC this year — delivering not just the strongest support for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz possible, but bringing back the sense of hope and optimism from the Obama years in the most refreshing and much-needed way. But for now I’ll just say that the Democrats are driving home this economic message that has already been wildly successful under Joe Biden: when we invest in the middle class, the economy truly does grow for everybody.
When the middle class is strong, America is strong. It’s a lesson we learned in the post-war era of the 1950s but have drifted away from since the 1970s when corporate leaders and big business interests mounted a concerted effort to turn the tide against the New Deal value system that lifted us out of the Great Depression and the economic policy that ushered in that broad distribution of wealth in the U.S.
It feels like the fever is finally breaking. The decades of epic gaslighting fomented by the merchants of doubt may have reached the peak disinformation tolerance of the American people. Here’s hoping the real economic stories will now get told — and that Americans will go to the polls this November and cast their ballots accordingly.
The initiative seeks to undo over a century of progressive reforms, tracing back to the establishment of a federal administrative framework by Woodrow Wilson, through the New Deal by Roosevelt, to Johnson’s Great Society. It proposes a significant reduction in the federal workforce, which stands at about 2.25 million people.
Project 2025 plans
Essential measures include reducing funding for, or even abolishing, key agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Departments of Education and Commerce. Additionally, Project 2025 intends to bring semi-independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission under closer presidential control.
At its heart, Project 2025 aims to secure a durable conservative dominance within the federal government, aligning it closely with the principles of the MAGA movement and ensuring it operates under the direct oversight of the White House. The project is inspired by the “unitary executive theory” of the Constitution, which argues for sweeping presidential authority over the federal administrative apparatus — in direct contradiction with the delicate system of checks and balances architected by the Founders.
It is also inspired by religious fervor (and the cynical exploitation thereof) — and Project 2025 has brought together a pantheon of Christian nationalist organizations and groups to draft policy that could be implemented with alacrity, select potential appointees for the administration, build networks with GOP at the state and local levels — and with right wing groups and networks around the world.
Project 2025 goals
To realize their extremist, authoritarian goal, Dans is actively recruiting what he terms “conservative warriors” from legal and government networks, including bar associations and offices of state attorneys general. The aim is to embed these individuals in key legal roles throughout the government, thereby embedding the conservative vision deeply within the federal bureaucracy to shape policy and governance for the foreseeable future.
A network of exceedingly wealthy individuals and organizations have channeled their vast fortunes into influencing American politics, policy, and public opinion — they’ve formed a wealth cult. And they’ve leveraged that cult and its considerable fortune to influence and in many ways dramatically transform American politics.
The term “dark money” refers to political spending meant to influence the decision-making and critical thinking of the public and lawmakers where the source of the money is not disclosed. This lack of transparency makes it challenging to trace the influence back to its origins, hence the term “dark.”
The wealth cult has funded disinformation campaigns, the spread of conspiracy theories, created fake social movements through astroturfing, enabled violent extremists to attack their country’s capitol, cruelly deprived vulnerable people (especially immigrants, poor people, and women) of the kind of state aid granted generously throughout the developed world, bribed regulators, rigged elections, crashed economies, and on and on in service of their extremist free market ideology beliefs.
They believe in “makers and takers,” or Mudsill Theory, as it was once called by pedophile and racist Senator and slavery enthusiast James Henry Hammond. Some people were born to serve others, they say. Hierarchies are natural, they claim. Wealthy men should make all the decisions — because that’s what’s best for everyone, they say in paternalistic tones.
Below is a list of the covert gang of folks trying to take down the US government — the anti-government oligarchs who think they run the place. The Koch network of megarich political operatives has been anointing itself the true (shadowy) leaders of American politics for several decades.
Spearheaded by Charles Koch, the billionaire fossil fuel magnate who inherited his father Fred Koch’s oil business, the highly active and secretive Koch network — aka the “Kochtopus” — features a sprawling network of donors, think tanks, non-profits, political operatives, PR hacks, and other fellow travelers who have come to believe that democracy is incompatible with their ability to amass infinite amounts of wealth.
Despite their obvious and profligate success as some of the world’s richest people, they whine that the system of US government is very unfair to them and their ability to do whatever they want to keep making a buck — the environment, the people, and even the whole planet be damned. Part of an ever larger wealth cult of individuals spending unprecedented amounts of cash to kneecap the US government from any ability to regulate business or create a social safety net for those exploited by concentrated (and to a large extent inherited) wealth, the Koch network is the largest and most formidable group within the larger project of US oligarchy.
The Kochtopus
By 2016 the Koch network of private political groups had a paid staff of 1600 people in 35 states — a payroll larger than that of the Republican National Committee (RNC) itself. They managed a pool of funds from about 400 or so of the richest people in the United States, whose goal was to capture the government and run it according to their extremist views of economic and social policy. They found convenient alignment with the GOP, which has been the party of Big Business ever since it succeeded in first being the party of the Common Man in the 1850s and 60s.
Are we to be just a wholly-owned subsidiary of Koch Industries? Who will help stand and fight for our independence from oligarchy?
Philip Anschutz — Founder of Qwest Communications. Colorado oil and entertainment magnate and billionaire dubbed the world’s “greediest executive” by Fortune Magazine in 2002.
American Energy Alliance — Koch-funded tax-exempt nonprofit lobbying for corporate-friendly energy policies
American Enterprise Institute — The American Enterprise Institute (AEI) is a public policy think tank based in Washington, D.C. Established in 1938, it is one of the oldest and most influential think tanks in the United States. AEI is primarily known for its conservative and free-market-oriented policy research and advocacy.
Betsy and Dick DeVos — founders of the Amway MLM empire, and one of the richest families in Michigan
Myron Ebell — Outspoken client change denier picked to head Trump’s EPA transition team who previously worked at the Koch-funded Competitive Enterprise Institute.
Richard Farmer — Chairman of the Cintas Corporation in Cincinnati, the nation’s largest uniform supply company. Legal problems against him included an employee’s gruesome death thanks to violating safety laws.
Freedom Partners — the Koch donor group
Freedom School — the all-white CO private school funded by Charles Koch in the 1960s
FreedomWorks
Richard Gilliam — Head of Virginia coal mining company Cumberland Resources, and Koch network donor.
Harold Hamm — Oklahoma fracking king and charter member of the Koch donors’ circle, Hamm became a billionaire founding the Continental Resources shale-oil company
Diane Hendricks — $3.6 billion building supply company owner and Trump inaugural committee donor, and the wealthiest woman in Wisconsin.
Charles Koch — CEO of Koch Industries and patriarch of the Koch empire following his father and brother’s death, and estrangement from his other younger brother. Former member of the John Birch Society, a group so far to the right that even arch-conservative William F. Buckley excommunicated them from the mainstream party in the 1950s.
The Charles Koch Foundation
(David Koch) — deceased twin brother of Bill Koch and younger brother to Charles who ran a failed campaign in 1980 as the vice presidential nominee of the Libertarian Party — netting 1% of the popular vote. In 2011 he echoed spurious claims from conservative pundit Dinesh D’Souza that Obama got his “radical” political outlook from his African father.
The Leadership Institute
Michael McKenna — president of the lobbying firm MWR Strategies, whose clients include Koch Industries, picked by Trump to serve on the Department of Energy transition team
Rebekah Mercer — daughter of hedge fund billionaire and right-wing Koch donor Robert Mercer, she worked with Steve Bannon on several projects including Breitbart News, Cambridge Analytica, and Gab.
Robert Mercer — billionaire NY hedge fund manager and next largest donor after the Kochs themselves, sometimes even surpassing them. Funded the “Clinton Cash” hit job on the Clintons.
MWR Strategies — lobbying firm for the energy industry whose clients include Koch Industries, whose president Michael McKenna served on the Trump energy transition team
John M. Olin — chemical and munitions magnate and Koch donor
George Pearson — Former head of the Koch Foundation
Mike Pence — Charles Koch’s number one pick for president in 2012.
Mike Pompeo — former Republican Kansas Congressman who got picked first to lead the CIA, then later as Secretary of State under Trump. He was the single largest recipient of Koch money in Congress as of 2017. The Kochs had been investors and partners in Pompeo’s business ventures before he got into politics.
David Schnare — self-described “free-market environmentalist” on Trump’s EPA transition team
Marc Short — ran the Kochs’ secretive donor club, Freedom Partners, before becoming a senior advisor to vice president Mike Pence during the Trump transition
This mind map shows the intersections between the Koch network and the larger network of GOP donors, reactionaries, and evil billionaires who feel entitled to control American politics via the fortunes they’ve made or acquired.
Science denialism has a complex and multifaceted history, notably marked by a significant event in 1953 that set a precedent for the tactics of disinformation widely observed in various spheres today, including politics.
The 1953 meeting and the birth of the disinformation playbook
The origins of modern science denial can be traced back to a pivotal meeting in December 1953, involving the heads of the four largest American tobacco companies. This meeting was a response to emerging scientific research linking smoking to lung cancer — a serious existenstial threat to their business model.
Concerned about the potential impact on their business, these industry leaders collaborated with a public relations firm, Hill & Knowlton, to craft a strategy. This strategy was designed not only to dispute the growing evidence about the health risks of smoking, but also to manipulate public perception by creating doubt about the science itself. They created the Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC) as an organization to cast doubt on the established science, and prevent the public from knowing about the lethal dangers of smoking.
And it worked — for over 40 years. The public never formed a consensus on the lethality and addictiveness of nicotine until well into the 1990s, when the jig was finally up and Big Tobacco had to pay a record-breaking $200 billion settlement over their 4 decades of mercilessly lying to the American people following the Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) of 1998.
Strategies of the disinformation playbook
This approach laid the groundwork for what is often referred to as the “disinformation playbook.” The key elements of this playbook include creating doubt about scientific consensus, funding research that could contradict or cloud scientific understanding, using think tanks or other organizations to promote these alternative narratives, and influencing media and public opinion to maintain policy and regulatory environments favorable to their interests — whether profit, power, or both.
Over the next 7 decades — up to the present day — this disinformation playbook has been used by powerful special interests to cast doubt, despite scientific consensus, on acid rain, depletion of the ozone layer, the viability of Ronald Reagan‘s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), and perhaps most notably: the man-made causes of climate change.
Adoption and adaptation in various industries
The tobacco industry’s tactics were alarmingly successful for decades, delaying effective regulation and public awareness of smoking’s health risks. These strategies were later adopted and adapted by various industries and groups facing similar scientific challenges to their products or ideologies. For instance, the fossil fuel industry used similar tactics to cast doubt on global warming — leading to the phenomenon of climate change denialism. Chemical manufacturers have disputed science on the harmful effects of certain chemicals like DDT and BPA.
What began as a PR exercise by Big Tobacco to preserve their fantastic profits once science discovered the deleterious health effects of smoking eventually evolved into a strategy of fomenting science denialism more broadly. Why discredit one single finding of the scientific community when you could cast doubt on the entire process of science itself — as a way of future-proofing any government regulation that might curtail your business interests?
Science denial in modern politics
In recent years, the tactics of science denial have become increasingly prevalent in politics. Political actors, often influenced by corporate interests or ideological agendas, have employed these strategies to challenge scientific findings that are politically inconvenient — despite strong and often overwhelming evidence. This is evident in manufactured “debates” on climate change, vaccine safety, and COVID-19, where scientific consensus is often contested not based on new scientific evidence but through disinformation strategies aimed at sowing doubt and confusion.
The role of digital media and politicization
The rise of social media has accelerated the spread of science denial. The digital landscape allows for rapid dissemination of misinformation and the formation of echo chambers, where groups can reinforce shared beliefs or skepticism, often insulated from corrective or opposing information. Additionally, the politicization of science, where scientific findings are viewed through the lens of political allegiance rather than objective evidence, has further entrenched science denial in modern discourse — as just one aspect of the seeming politicization of absolutely everything in modern life and culture.
Strategies for combatting science denial
The ongoing impact of science denial is profound. It undermines public understanding of science, hampers informed decision-making, and delays action on critical issues like climate change, public health, and environmental protection. The spread of misinformation about vaccines, for instance, has led to a decrease in vaccination rates and a resurgence of diseases like measles.
To combat science denial, experts suggest several strategies. Promoting scientific literacy and critical thinking skills among the general public is crucial. This involves not just understanding scientific facts, but also developing an understanding of the scientific method and how scientific knowledge is developed and validated. Engaging in open, transparent communication about science, including the discussion of uncertainties and limitations of current knowledge, can also help build public trust in science.
Science denial, rooted in the strategies developed by the tobacco industry in the 1950s, has evolved into a significant challenge in contemporary society, impacting not just public health and environmental policy but also the very nature of public discourse and trust in science. Addressing this issue requires a multifaceted approach, including education, transparent communication, and collaborative efforts to uphold the integrity of scientific information.
Climate Change Denial: From Big Tobacco Tactics to Today’s Global Challenge
In the complex narrative of global climate change, one pervasive thread is the phenomenon of climate change denial. This denial isn’t just a refusal to accept the scientific findings around climate change; it is a systematic effort to discredit and cast doubt on environmental realities and the need for urgent action.
Remarkably, the roots of this denial can be traced back to the strategies used by the tobacco industry in the mid-20th century to obfuscate the link between smoking and lung cancer. This companies conspired to create a disinformation campaign against the growing scientific consensus on the manmade nature of climate change, to cast doubt about the link between the burning of fossil fuels and the destruction of the planet’s natural ecosystems — and they succeeded, for over half a century, beginning in 1953.
Origins in big tobacco’s playbook
The origins of climate change denial lie in a well-oiled, public relations machine initially designed by the tobacco industry. When scientific studies began linking smoking to lung cancer in the 1950s, tobacco companies launched an extensive campaign to challenge these findings. Their strategy was not to disprove the science outright but to sow seeds of doubt, suggesting that the research was not conclusive and that more studies were needed. This strategy of manufacturing doubt proved effective in delaying regulatory and public action against tobacco products, for more than 5 decades.
Adoption by climate change deniers
This playbook was later adopted by those seeking to undermine climate science. In the late 20th century, as scientific consensus grew around the human impact on global warming, industries and political groups with a vested interest in maintaining the status quo began to employ similar tactics around lying at scale. They funded research to challenge or undermine climate science, supported think tanks and lobbyists to influence public opinion and policy, and used media outlets to spread a narrative of uncertainty and skepticism.
Political consequences
The political consequences of climate change denial have been profound. In the United States and other countries, it has polarized the political debate over environmental policy, turning what is fundamentally a scientific issue into a partisan one. This politicization has hindered comprehensive national and global policies to combat climate change, as legislative efforts are often stalled by ideological conflicts.
Denial campaigns have also influenced public opinion, creating a significant segment of the population that is skeptical of climate science years after overwhelming scientific consensus has been reached, which further complicates efforts to implement wide-ranging environmental reforms.
Current stakes and global impact
Today, the stakes of climate change denial could not be higher. As the world faces increasingly severe consequences of global warming — including extreme weather events, rising sea levels, and disruptions to ecosystems — the need for decisive action becomes more urgent. Yet, climate change denial continues to impede progress. By casting doubt on scientific consensus, it hampers efforts to build the broad public support necessary for bold environmental policies that may help thwart or mitigate some of the worst disasters.
Moreover, climate change denial poses a significant risk to developing countries, which are often the most vulnerable to climate impacts but the least equipped to adapt. Denialism in wealthier nations can lead to a lack of global cooperation and support needed to address these challenges comprehensively.
Moving forward: acknowledging the science and embracing action
To effectively combat climate change, it is crucial to recognize the roots and ramifications of climate change denial. Understanding its origins in the Big Tobacco disinformation strategy helps demystify the tactics used to undermine environmental science. It’s equally important to acknowledge the role of political and economic interests in perpetuating this denial — oil tycoon Charles Koch alone spends almost $1 billion per election cycle, heavily to climate deniers.
However, there is a growing global movement acknowledging the reality of climate change and the need for urgent action. From international agreements like the Paris Accord to grassroots activism pushing for change, there is a mounting push against the tide of denial.
Climate change denial, with its roots in the Big Tobacco playbook, poses a significant obstacle to global efforts to address environmental challenges. Its political ramifications have stalled critical policy initiatives, and its ongoing impact threatens global cooperation. As we face the increasing urgency of climate change, acknowledging and countering this denial is crucial for paving the way towards a more sustainable and resilient future.
