Politics

George Orwell’s 1984 lexicon is a lingua franca of authoritarianism, fascism, and totalitarianism. Newspeak words have the stamp of boots on pavement, the stench of disinformation, and are most likely to be found in the mouths of Trumpians and the chryons of the OAN Network.

The terse portmanteus are blunt and blocky, like a brutalist architecture vocabulary. Their simplicity indicates appeal to the small-minded masses for easily digested pablum.

What is Newspeak?

Newspeak is a fictional language created by George Orwell for his dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The language serves as an essential tool for the oppressive regime, known as The Party, to control and manipulate the population of Oceania. Newspeak is intentionally designed to restrict the range of thought, eliminate words that convey dissent or rebellion, and enforce political orthodoxy. The language accomplishes this by reducing the complexity of Newspeak vocabulary and grammar, condensing words into simplified forms, and eliminating synonyms and antonyms. The Party aims to eliminate the potential for subversive thoughts by ensuring that the language itself lacks the necessary words and expressions to articulate them.

In Orwell’s world, Newspeak works hand in hand with the concept of “doublethink,” which requires individuals to accept contradictory beliefs simultaneously. This manipulation of language and thought is central to maintaining the Party’s power and control over the populace. Newspeak translation is often the exact opposite of the meaning of the words said.

Newspeak’s ultimate goal is to render dissent and rebellion impossible by making the very thoughts of these actions linguistically unexpressable. As a result, Newspeak serves as a chilling representation of how language can be weaponized to restrict personal freedoms, suppress independent thought, and perpetuate an authoritarian regime.

Newspeak Rises Again

Those boots ring out again, from Belarus to Hungary to the United States. There are book burnings and the defunding of libraries in multiple states. From Ron DeSantis to Trumpian anti-intellectualism to the rampant proliferation of conspiracy theories, It’s a good time to brush up on the brutalism still actively struggling to take hold.

The following is a list of all Newspeak words from 1984.

Newspeak Orwell

Newspeak 1984 Dictionary

Newspeak termDefinition
anteThe prefix that replaces before
artsemArtificial insemination
bbBig Brother
bellyfeelThe blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhiteTo accept whatever one is told, regardless of the facts. In the novel, it is described as “…to say that black is white when [the Party says so]” and “…to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”.
crimestopTo rid oneself of unorthodox thoughts that go against Ingsoc’s ideology
crimethinkThoughts and concepts that go against Ingsoc, frequently referred to by the standard English β€œthoughtcrime”, such as liberty, equality, and privacy, and also the criminal act of holding such thoughts
dayorderOrder of the day
depDepartment
doubleplusgoodThe word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively good”, such as excellent, fabulous, and fantastic
doubleplusungoodThe word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively bad”, such as terrible and horrible
doublethinkThe act of simultaneously believing two, mutually contradictory ideas
duckspeakAutomatic, vocal support of political orthodoxies
facecrimeA facial expression which reveals that one has committed thoughtcrime
FicdepThe Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
freeThe absence and the lack of something. “Intellectually free” and “politically free” have been replaced by crimethinkful.
–fulThe suffix for forming an adjective
fullwiseThe word that replaces words such as fully, completely, and totally
goodthinkA synonym for “political orthodoxy” and “a politically orthodox thought” as defined by the Party
goodsexSexual intercourse only for procreation, without any physical pleasure on the part of the woman, and strictly within marriage
goodwiseThe word that replaced well as an adverb
IngsocThe English Socialist Party (i.e. The Party)
joycampLabour camp
malquotedInaccurate representations of the words of Big Brother and of the Party
MiniluvThe Ministry of Love, where the secret police interrogate and torture the enemies of Oceania (torture and brainwashing)
MinipaxThe Ministry of Peace, who wage war for Oceania
MinitrueThe Ministry of Truth, who manufacture consent by way of lies, propaganda, and distorted historical records, while supplying the proles (proletariat) with synthetic culture and entertainment
MiniplentyThe Ministry of Plenty, who keep the population in continual economic hardship (starvation and rationing)
OldspeakStandard English
oldthinkIdeas from the time before the Party’s revolution, such as objectivity and rationalism
ownlifeA person’s anti-social tendency to enjoy solitude and individualism
plusgoodThe word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “very good”, such as great
plusungoodThe word that replaced “very bad”
PornosecThe pornography production section (Porno sector) of the Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
prolefeedPopular culture for entertaining Oceania’s working class
RecdepThe Ministry of Truth’s Records Department, where Winston Smith rewrites historical records so they conform to the Party’s agenda
rectifyThe Ministry of Truth’s euphemism for manipulating a historical record
refTo refer (to someone or something)
secSector
sexcrimeA sexual immorality, such as fornication, adultery, oral sex, and homosexuality; any sex act that deviates from Party directives to use sex only for procreation
speakwriteA machine that transcribes speech into text
TeledepThe Ministry of Truth’s Telecommunications Department
telescreenA two-way television set with which the Party spy upon Oceania’s population
thinkpolThe Thought Police, the secret police force of Oceania’s government
unpersonAn executed person whose existence is erased from history and memory
upsubAn upwards submission to higher authority
–wiseThe only suffix for forming an adverb

Newspeak Dictionary Quiz

Claude Artifacts made this in one prompt. Imagine this power to generate study aids for a wide variety of students at all levels. If I had had this as a kid…

Newspeak Quiz: Test Your Ingsoc Vocabulary

Welcome to the interactive Newspeak quiz! This quiz will help you learn the terminology of Oceania’s official language through fun repetition. Demonstrate your goodthink by mastering these terms – your commitment to linguistic purity will surely be recognized by the Party.

Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Term β†’ Definition
Definition β†’ Term
Score: 0/0

Review Your Answers

Creation of New Words in Newspeak

One of the most fascinating and insidious aspects of Newspeak is the methodical creation of new words. This process is not only about inventing new terms but also about streamlining and simplifying the language to ensure it serves the purposes of the Party. Here’s how this process works:

1. Compounding Words

In Newspeak, many new words are created by combining existing ones. This technique, known as compounding, helps to streamline communication by reducing longer phrases into single, concise terms. For example:

  • Goodthink: A compound of “good” and “think,” meaning orthodox thought, or thoughts that align with Party doctrine.
  • Oldthink: A combination of “old” and “think,” referring to thoughts that are based on outdated, pre-revolutionary beliefs and values.

By merging words in this manner, Newspeak eliminates the need for descriptive phrases, thereby simplifying language and controlling thought.

2. Prefixes and Suffixes

Newspeak employs prefixes and suffixes to create new words and alter the meanings of existing ones. This method ensures that language remains efficient and devoid of any unnecessary complexity. Some common prefixes and suffixes include:

  • Un-: This prefix is used to form the negative of any word, thereby eliminating the need for antonyms. For example, “unhappy” replaces “sad.”
  • Plus- and Doubleplus-: These prefixes intensify the meaning of words. “Plusgood” means very good, while “doubleplusgood” means excellent or extremely good.
  • -wise: This suffix is used to form adverbs. For instance, “speedwise” means quickly.

Through these prefixes and suffixes, Newspeak ensures that language remains consistent and simplified, reinforcing the Party’s control over thought.

3. Simplification of Grammar

The creation of new words in Newspeak is also characterized by the simplification of grammar. Irregular verbs and noun forms are abolished, making all words conform to a delimited list of regular patterns. For example:

  • Think: In Newspeak, the past tense of “think” would simply be “thinked,” and the past participle would also be “thinked,” eliminating irregular forms like “thought.”
  • Knife: Plural forms are regularized, so “knife” becomes “knifes” instead of “knives.”

This grammatical regularization reduces the cognitive load required to learn and use the language, further limiting the scope for complex or critical thought.

4. Abolition of Synonyms and Antonyms

Newspeak systematically removes synonyms and antonyms to narrow the range of meaning, engendering black and white thinking. Each concept is reduced to a single, unambiguous word, eliminating nuances and shades of meaning:

  • Good: The word “good” stands alone without synonyms like “excellent,” “great,” or “superb.” Intensifiers like “plus-” and “doubleplus-” are used instead.
  • Bad: Instead of having a separate word like “bad,” Newspeak uses “ungood.” This not only simplifies vocabulary but also imposes a binary way of thinking.

By removing synonyms and antonyms, Newspeak reduces the complexity of language, ensuring that only Party-approved ideas can be easily communicated.

5. Creation of Euphemisms

In Newspeak, euphemisms are crafted to mask the true nature of unpleasant or controversial realities, aligning language with Party propaganda. For instance:

  • Joycamp: A euphemism for forced labor camps, designed to make the concept seem more palatable and less threatening.
  • Minipax: Short for the Ministry of Peace, which actually oversees war. The euphemistic name helps to disguise its true function.

These euphemisms help to distort reality, making it easier for the Party to maintain control over the population’s perceptions and beliefs.

Disinformation Dictionary β†—

Disinformation is a practice with a unique Orwellian lexicon all its own, collated in this disinformation dictionary.

disinformation

Essential thinkers on authoritarian personality theory β†—

The authoritarian personality is characterized by excessive strictness and a propensity to exhibit oppressive behavior towards perceived subordinates.

How did they get this way? Are people born with authoritarian personalities, or is the authoritarian β€œmade” predominately by circumstance?

authoritarians gather for a witch hunt

Pathocracy Definition: Are we in one? β†—

Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the β€œevil of Cluster Bβ€œ), hold significant power.

Donald Trump pathocracy, by Midjourney
Read more

totalitarianism as a mindless form of hero worship

What Is Totalitarianism? A Comprehensive Guide

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 controlβ€”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

2. Dynamic Leader

Totalitarian systems typically center around a charismatic, authoritarian leader who:

  • Serves as the unifying symbol of the government
  • Builds a personality cult around themselves
  • Claims to embody the will of the people or nation
  • Encourages popular support through a combination of charisma and coercion
  • Is often portrayed as infallible or possessing extraordinary abilities
Continue reading What is totalitarianism?
Read more

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.

But it manages to get worse — the origins of the bully taunt “a republic, not a democracy” are located in the segregationist movement. Specifically, the concept comes from the pro-segregation book You and Segregation, written in 1955 by future Senator Herman E. Talmadge.

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.

Read more

The sharing economy is a socio-economic system that enables consumers to share in the creation, production, distribution, trade, and consumption of goods and services through digital platforms. It leverages information technology, particularly the Internet, to facilitate the distribution, sharing, and reuse of excess capacity in goods and services.

History

The concept of sharing resources for mutual benefit has roots in early human civilization, with barter systems being one of the earliest examples. However, the modern sharing economy emerged in the late 20th century as a response to the impersonal nature and waste associated with mass production and consumption. The term “sharing economy” gained prominence around the time of the Great Recession of 2008-09, driven by social technologies, global population growth concerns, and resource depletion.

Key milestones in the sharing economy’s history include:

  • 1978: Marcus Felson and Joe L. Spaeth coin the term “economy of sharing” in an academic article.
  • 2008: Lawrence Lessig possibly first uses the term “sharing economy”.
  • 2010s: Rapid growth of sharing economy platforms like Airbnb and Uber.

Major Players

The sharing economy encompasses various sectors, including transportation, accommodation, professional services, and personal space. Some of the leading companies include:

  1. Airbnb: Founded in 2008 by Brian Chesky and Joe Gebbia (now a controversial member of Elon Musk‘s DOGE power grab), Airbnb is a global online marketplace for lodging and tourism experiences. It operates in nearly every country and region worldwide, with a significant presence in large geographies.
  2. Uber: Launched in 2010, Uber is a comprehensive logistics and mobility leader, offering ride-sharing, food delivery, and freight services. It operates in approximately 70 countries and 15,000 cities worldwide.
  3. Lyft: Founded in 2012, Lyft is the second-largest ride-sharing company in the United States, offering ride-hailing services, motorized scooters, bicycle-sharing systems, and rental cars.
  4. Fiverr: Established in 2010, Fiverr is an online marketplace for freelance services, connecting freelancers with businesses and individuals seeking various digital services.
  5. Lime: Founded in 2017, Lime offers electric bikes and scooters for rent in urban areas, providing an alternative to traditional transportation methods.
  6. BlaBlaCar: Launched in 2006, BlaBlaCar is a long-distance carpooling platform that connects drivers with empty seats to passengers heading in the same direction.
  7. Zipcar: Founded in 2000, Zipcar is a car-sharing company that provides vehicle reservations to its members, billable by the minute, hour, or day.
  8. JustPark: Established in 2006, JustPark is an online platform for peer-to-peer driveway rental, enabling the renting out of parking and electric vehicle charging spaces.

These companies have significantly contributed to the growth of the sharing economy, which is estimated to expand from $14 billion in 2014 to $335 billion by 2025.

Read more

Hannah Arendt, author of "On Lying and Politics"

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 scary world of disinformation, analyzed by the great Hannah Arendt

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.

Today, even natural disasters are politicized — spawning dangerous conspiracy theories that do actual harm by discouraging people from getting help, among other tragedies of ignorance. And the right-wing is almost zealous about retconning the history trail and shoving things down the memory hole, including “rebranding” the J6 insurrection as a “day of love” and imagining away Donald Trump’s 34 felony counts.

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.

Read more

Airbnb co-founder Joe Gebbia turns right-wing after decades of Democratic support

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.

DOGE: The Final Step

Continue reading Who is Joe Gebbia?
Read more

AI accelerationism Dictionary illustration

Accelerationism Dictionary: A Complete Terminology and Lexicon

AI accelerationism, or β€œe/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 challengesβ€”climate change, poverty, diseaseβ€”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.

A dystopian AI hellscape -- one of many potential outcomes of AI accelerationism ideology

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.

AGI (Artificial General Intelligence): An artificial intelligence system capable of performing any intellectual task that a human can do.

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.

Continue reading Accelerationism Dictionary
Read more

Tech bros at Trump's inauguration

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? πŸ€”

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?

Continue reading The tech bros have no clothes
Read more

AI woman with superintelligence

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.

an AI accelerationism vision of the future

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.

Continue reading What is AI accelerationism?
Read more

Donald Trump pathocracy, by Midjourney

Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the “evil of Cluster B“), hold significant power. This term was first introduced by Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Łobaczewski in his work “Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.”

The crux of pathocracy lies in the rule by a small pathological minority, which imposes a regime that is damaging to the majority of non-pathological people. The key characteristics of pathocratic leadership include a lack of empathy, a disregard for the rule of law, manipulation, authoritarianism, and often, brutal repression. Many who are attracted to pathocratic rule exhibit the Dark Triad trio of malevolent and manipulative personality traits.

Origins and development of the concept of pathocracy

Pathocracy emerges from Łobaczewski’s study of totalitarian regimes, particularly those of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and Communism in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Born in Poland in 1921, he witnessed the upheaval and transformation of his own country during the horrors of World War II and the chilling effects of the subsequent Communist occupation.

He suffered greatly to arrive at the insights in his work — arrested and tortured by the Polish authorities under Communist rule, he was unable to publish his magnum opus, the book Political Ponerology, until he escaped to the United States during the 1980s. Łobaczewski spent the rest of his life and career trying to unpack what had happened to him, his community, and his nation — having witnessed such brutality over such a shockingly short span of time, and having experienced friends turning against friends in vicious and shocking ways.

Łobaczewski posits that these authoritarian and fascist regimes were not merely politically oppressive, but were also psychologically abnormal. He studied the characteristics of these leaders and their closest supporters, identifying patterns that aligned with known personality disorders. His work also identified a much higher percentage of personality disordered individuals than is still commonly understood, finding that about 7% of the general population could be categorized as severely lacking in empathy and possessing the tendencies — latent or overt — leading to the rise of pathocracy in society.

Characteristics of pathocratic leadership

  • Psychopathy: Leaders in a pathocracy often display traits synonymous with psychopathy, including a lack of empathy, remorse, and shallow emotions.
  • Narcissism: Excessive self-love and a strong sense of entitlement often drive pathocratic rulers.
  • Manipulation: These leaders are adept at manipulation, using deceit and coercion to maintain their power. They also often exhibit other traits and behaviors of emotional predators.
  • Paranoia: A heightened sense of persecution or conspiracy is common, leading to oppressive and authoritarian measures.
  • Corruption: Moral depravity, ethical degeneration, and widespread corruption are endemic in a pathocracy, as pathological leaders tend to surround themselves with similarly affected individuals who feel no shame about performing unethical and/or illegal actions either in secret, or in broad daylight with little fear of retaliation.
Continue reading Pathocracy Definition: Are we in one?
Read more

illustrated animal taxonomy

It feels odd to have to make these arguments for diversity, again, some centuries after the Enlightenment. And centuries after Darwin, in whose name many fallacious opposite “interpretations” are levied. But apparently we must say it: diversity is good, actually.

The evidence is there for us as it has always been. Diversity isn’t a bad thing — it’s almost universally a good thing. For populations, for economies, for problem solving — for all of us. The more options there are, the higher probability that one of them might be the right match, or the thing that solves the problem, or the best selection for the job at hand.

In economics, Modern Portfolio Theory is based on the formal proof that diverse portfolios are stronger and more resilient to risk without sacrificing returns. So there’s a strict mathematical component to the arguments for diversity, but beyond that many other fields have also weighed in on the utility and pragmatic value of diversity. This assortment is a work in progress I’ll continue to add to over time:

a diverse menagerie of animals
  • In biology, more diverse populations are more responsive and resilient to a wider variety of changes. This resilience is one of the best arguments for diversity of all.
  • The best investment portfolio is the one that is most diversified. Harry Markowitz developed a mathematical proof to discover this now near-universal paradigmatic approach (MPT) in the 1950s.
  • In business, a diversity of new ideas leads to better decision-making and increased innovation; studies show a diverse workforce, as well as a diverse board, nets better results and outperforms their more conformist cousins. Conversely, too much groupthink and stale ideas lead to worse outcomes and less resilient firms.
  • Cross-pollination is generative, and the blending of ideas creates new concepts, new opportunities, new industries, and new trends — to name a few.
  • Range adds resilience — developing a broad range of skills and experiences help you adapt to constant change and grow in your career
  • Condorcet jury theorem: the more informed people there are making a decision, the more right it will be. Plurality makes better decisions. See also: wisdom of crowds
  • Law of large numbers: the more data points you have, the more accurate your distribution will be.
  • A large number of independent transactions helps economies function properly and grow. We speak of the economy “moving” and finding many touchpoints to do business on.
  • A lack of diversity can lead to poor outcomes, such as in echo chambers where people are not exposed to different points of view, and develop insular views that are self-reinforcing but usually divorced from reality.
  • Freedom produces diversity, by its very nature — and we do love our freedoms now, don’t we?

Diversity unhinges us because it unmasks our hidden assumption that if we all look the same, we will think the same and thereby avoid conflict.

Deep down, we still secretly hope that we can avoid having to deal with our differences by magically generating conformity.

Our unspoken wish is that, by being identical, we achieve the harmony and collective togetherness we so deeply crave — the collective harmony we mistake for God. In our zeal to commune with god, we instead are far more likely to fall victim to the pitfalls of collective narcissism and all the destructions it wreaks.

Diversity outcompetes monoculture

The opposite of diversity is monoculture… and inbreeding. Monoculture represents sameness, stasis, and stagnation — the system or culture feels fairly dull and stale.

Most people like a certain level of variety in their lives. Some though, have great aversion to difference, change, or both. Authoritarian personalities tend to dislike difference, while individuals with traditional conservative ideology tend to dislike change.

food from around the world

One of the more relatable arguments for diversity stems from the fact that a majority of people enjoy and benefit from diverse points of view, experiences, community members, and beyond. We love to eat different foods, travel to different places, and engage in different pasttimes. And our lives are enriched because of it.

Diversity ought to be celebrated, not denigrated. In many ways it is the very stuff of life — something that helps make life precious and meaningful.

Related to diversity

Condorcet Jury Theorem
Bigotry is Poor Thinking

In opposition to diversity

Black and White Thinking
White Nationalism
Global Right-Wing Authoritarianism
Christian Nationalist Organizations and Groups
Christian Nationalism Dictionary
Christian Nationalism Books
Dominionism
Authoritarianism Dictionary
American Fascists & the Global Right 😈
Read more

AOC Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

The situation is, as they say in the military, FUBAR’d. We are under a full-on authoritarian attack to democracy in progress in broad daylight, being carried out by the (unfortunately) legitimate president and his illegitimate best buddy Elon Musk. What can we do — the situation seems so bleak, you say. I hear you and I feel you. But AOC and HCR (two of my favorite acronyms) are here to break it down about how we should not go quietly — and how to do it.

First up: what are we facing? Among other things, what is most probably the biggest data breach of all time — perpetrated by Elon’s Musk’s fake department DOGE. Former Republican strategist Stuart Stevens called Musk’s land grab of the federal till and all its payment information about citizens “the most significant data leak in cyber history.” On top of that, the conflicts of interest inherent in this unlawful caper are so staggering they’re well out of scope of this single blog post.

Elon Musk's head (poorly) stitched on to Miley Cyrus's body in the Wrecking Ball music video

Beyond that, Trump waited for Congress to go out of session before beginning the blitzkrieg of illegal Executive Orders and maneuvers designed to attack America and throw its citizens off balance. Here’s a list of the main actions we need to be pressing our Congresspeople to get answers for:

Events of the authoritarian push

Impoundment Attempt and Judicial Reversal:

  • Early in the Trump administration, an Office of Management and Budget memo attempted to freeze federal spending pending a review for alleged “DEI contamination”. A federal judge quickly ruled this action β€œblatantly unconstitutional,” forcing the administration to backtrack. However, related Executive Orders freezing some payments are said to “still be in order” which is (intentionally) causing confusion around the status of almost everything.

Elon Musk’s Intervention in the Treasury Payment System:

Breach of USAID’s Secure Systems:

  • Musk’s people, reportedly a group of young men between 19 and 24 according to Wired, attempted to access a β€œsecret area” within USAID (the agency responsible for U.S. foreign aid). In the process, two top officials were sidelined (put on administrative leave), and Musk’s team gained access, potentially compromising sensitive U.S. intelligence data.

Announced Cuts to Federal Programs:

  • Following these breaches, Musk (acting as a Trump ally) has claimed on social media that he is β€œcutting” certain federally funded programs, including a human services organization linked to the Lutheran Church. This move threatens funding for critical services such as migrant support, nursing homes, and possibly even affects Social Security and Medicare (though Trump has stated these will not be touched).

Tariffs and International Implications:

  • Additionally, Trump’s administration is imposing tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, which could inflict economic pain, especially in regions that predominantly support the Republican agenda.

These recent events (the inimitable Heather Cox Richardson covers them in-depth in her Letters from an American column) highlight an aggressive attack on constitutional governance marked by executive overreach and the manipulation of public funds. Actions such as unilateral spending freezesβ€”disguised (thinly) as efforts to address DEI concernsβ€”and the controversial transfer of control over federal financial systems to private interests like world’s richest man Elon Musk (who apparently still doesn’t have enough money) reveal a dangerous shift in power.

This reckless endangerment jeopardizes not only the integrity of critical public services and security measures but also the core democratic principle of accountability, underscoring an urgent need for citizens to remain vigilant and demand that elected officials uphold the constitutional order. We The People still wield the ultimate power — as AOC is about to so eloquently tell you more about.

AOC on what we can do: Do not comply in advance.

Continue reading Do Not Comply In Advance: What can we do?
Read more

January 6 pardons

Of all the flurry of Trumpian executive orders in week 1 — many of them blatantly unconstitutional, like attempting to end birthright citizenship established in 1868 — one of the more controversial has been the issue of blanket pardons for about 1600 convicted January 6 offenders. The January 6 pardons have raised the ire of federal judges, the Fraternal Order of Police, the DC Police Union, right-wing paper The Wall Street Journal’s editorial board, numerous officials, and the public at large — to name a few.

Apparently a spur of the moment decision without much thought behind it, Trump hoped to get the specter of the January 6 coup behind him — only to Streisand Effect himself into a wave of negative attention. Meanwhile, after months (and years) of slander against immigrants and supposedly violent criminal immigrants rampaging across the country, it is in fact Donald Trump himself who unleashed hundreds of convicted violent offenders back onto the streets — where they are already actively plotting revenge.

I’m old enough to remember when the GOP was supposedly the “party of law and order,” and now they are a brazenly and recklessly lawless bunch. One of few upsides is that a wave of discontent is brewing.

Federal judges slam January 6 pardons

Several federal judges who presided over multiple criminal trials of the January 6 rioters weighed in on the official record about the judiciary’s outrage over the January 6 pardons, including Tanya Chutkan, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Amy Berman Jackson, and Beryl Howell.

US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had scathing words about the pardons:

β€œDismissal of charges, pardons after convictions, and commutations of sentences will not change the truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. What occurred that day is preserved for the future through thousands of contemporaneous videos, transcripts of trials, jury verdicts, and judicial opinions analyzing and recounting the evidence through a neutral lens. Those records are immutable and represent the truth, no matter how the events of January 6 are described by those charged or their allies.”

Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed that nothing could wipe away the truth about the events of that terrible day:

“No stroke of a pen and no proclamation can alter the facts of what took place on January 6, 2021.”

Judge Tanya Chutkan had strong words as well, as she dismissed without prejudice a pending case still before her:

“The dismissal of this case cannot undo the ‘rampage [that] left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage.”

Original Sources: Judges clap back to January 6 pardons

I’ve been wanting to do more of a consistent focus on going back to the original sources of the news beyond just the media coverage or commentary about them. This experiment with NotebookLM‘s curiously compelling audio generation feature provides the best of both worlds: audio commentary on the original court filings referenced by the PBS story about strident judicial warnings attached to the January 6 pardons. Let me know what you think in the YouTube comments — I’m really still just experimenting with the channel.

January 6 pardons aftermath

Continue reading January 6 Pardons: Trump unleashes convicted violent criminals onto the streets
Read more

Elon Musk as a clown

Effective Altruism and Longtermism are relatively recent (since the late 2000s) twin philosophical movements making the claim that, as a human species, we ought to prioritize impacting the long-term future of humanity — hundreds, thousands, or millions of years from now — over and above any concerns for actual humans alive today. Largely inspired by utilitarianism, it favors questionable metrics like “lives saved per dollar” in its quest to not just do good, but “do the most good.”

Longtermism is an outgrowth of Effective Altruism (EA), a social movement developed by philosophers Peter Singer and William MacAskill. It emphasizes the moral importance of trying to shape the far future, and adherents argue that the long-term consequences of our actions far outweigh their short-term effects because of the potential of vast numbers of future lives. In other words, future people will outnumber us at such a scale that, by comparison to this imaginary future universe, our current-day lives are not very important at all.

It has numerous and powerful adherents among the Silicon Valley elite including Trump bromance Elon Musk, tech billionaire Peter Thiel (who spoke at the RNC in 2016), indicted and disgraced crypto trader Sam Bankman-Fried, Twitter and Square founder Jack Dorsey (who is good friends with Elon), OpenAI‘s CEO Sam Altman, Ethereum founder (and Thiel fellow) Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Asana Dustin Moskovitz, and others.

Why longtermism resonates with tech oligarchs

The tech-industrial complex is steeped in the idea of longtermism in part because it aligns so well with so many of their values:

  • technological optimism / techno-utopianism — the belief that technology is the solution to all of humanity’s greatest challenges
  • risk-taking mindset — venture capital is famous for its high-risk, high-reward mentality
  • Greatness Thinking — unwavering devotion to an Ayn Randian worldview in which only two groups exist: a small group of otherworldly titans, and everyone else
  • atomized world — social groups and historical context don’t matter much, because one’s personal individualized contributions are what make real impact on the world

The dubious ethics of effective altruism

Although it positions itself high, high above the heady clouds of moral superiority, EA is yet another in a long line of elaborate excuses for ignoring urgent problems we actually face, in favor of “reallocating resources” towards some long-distant predictively “better” class of people that do not currently exist and will not exist for thousands, millions, or even billions of years. It’s an elaborate excuse framework for “billionaires behaving badly” — who claim to be akin to saints or even gods who are doing the difficult work of “saving humanity,” but in reality are navel-gazing into their vanity projects and stroking each others’ raging narcissism while completely ignoring large, looming actual dangers in the here and now like climate change, systemic inequality, and geopolitical instabillity to name a few.

Continue reading Effective Altruism and Longtermism: Twin ideologies driving tech billionaires
Read more

President Joe Biden's farewell speech warning of a tech-industrial complex forming

In President Joe Biden’s farewell speech (already memory holed by the Trump administration — and archived on my GitHub) he delivered a parting shot to the tech oligarchs currently falling over themselves to bend the knee and kiss the ring. With no fucks left to give, the remarkably Keynesian 46th US President gave a strikingly woke warning about the class struggle rarely revealed so openly by either party — warning of a tech-industrial complex slavering to abuse power even more brazenly:

I want to warn the country of some things that give me great concern. And this is a dangerous β€” and that’s the dangerous concentration of power in the hands of a very few ultrawealthy people, and the dangerous consequences if their abuse of power is left unchecked. Today, an oligarchy is taking shape in America of extreme wealth, power and influence that literally threatens our entire democracy, our basic rights and freedoms and a fair shot for everyone to get ahead. We see the consequences all across America. And we’ve seen it before.

More than a century ago, the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts. They didn’t punish the wealthy. They just made the wealthy play by the rules everybody else had. Workers want rights to earn their fair share. You know, they were dealt into the deal, and it helped put us on the path to building the largest middle class, the most prosperous century any nation the world has ever seen. We’ve got to do that again.

The last four years, that is exactly what we have done. People should be able to make as much as they can, but pay β€” play by the same rules, pay their fair share in taxes. So much is at stake. Right now, the existential threat of climate change has never been clearer. Just look across the country, from California to North Carolina. That’s why I signed the most significant climate and clean energy law ever, ever in the history of the world.

And the rest of the world is trying to model it now. It’s working, creating jobs and industries of the future. Now we have proven we don’t have to choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. We’re doing both. But powerful forces want to wield their unchecked influence to eliminate the steps we’ve taken to tackle the climate crisis, to serve their own interests for power and profit. We must not be bullied into sacrificing the future, the future of our children and our grandchildren. We must keep pushing forward, and push faster. There is no time to waste. It is also clear that American leadership in technology is unparalleled, an unparalleled source of innovation that can transform lives. We see the same dangers in the concentration of technology, power and wealth.

You know, in his farewell address, President Eisenhower spoke of the dangers of the military-industrial complex. He warned us that about, and I quote, β€œThe potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.” Six days β€” six decades later, I’m equally concerned about the potential rise of a tech-industrial complex that could pose real dangers for our country as well.

Americans are being buried under an avalanche of misinformation and disinformation enabling the abuse of power. The free press is crumbling. Editors are disappearing. Social media is giving up on fact-checking. The truth is smothered by lies told for power and for profit. We must hold the social platforms accountable to protect our children, our families and our very democracy from the abuse of power. Meanwhile, artificial intelligence is the most consequential technology of our time, perhaps of all time.

Biden farewell speech video

Despite the Trumpian regime’s attempt to erase history, there are many copies of the speech available for posterity. You can watch one of them here:

Read more