What is RT.com? If you’ve been following international news in recent years, you’ve likely encountered content from RT β the state-owned Russian news service formerly known as Russia Today. But what exactly is this network, and why does it matter in our global information landscape?
The Birth of a Propaganda Powerhouse
RT didn’t emerge out of nowhere. Back in 2005, the Russian government launched “Russia Today” with a substantial $30 million in state funding. The official mission? To counter what the Kremlin perceived as Western media dominance and improve Russia’s global image.
What’s fascinating is how they approached this mission. Margarita Simonyan, appointed as editor-in-chief at just 25 years old, strategically recruited foreign journalists to give the network an air of international credibility. By 2009, they rebranded to the sleeker “RT” β a deliberate move to distance themselves from their obvious Russian state origins.
While RT initially focused on cultural diplomacy (showcasing Russian culture and perspectives), its mission shifted dramatically after the 2008 Russia-Georgia war. The network increasingly pivoted toward anti-Western narratives β a strategy that continues to this day.
How RT Spreads Disinformation
RT’s playbook is both sophisticated and concerning. The network regularly promotes conspiracy theories about everything from COVID-19 origins to U.S. election fraud. It strategically amplifies divisive issues in Western societies, particularly racial tensions in America.
The coverage of the Ukraine war offers a perfect case study in RT’s propaganda techniques. Their reporting consistently and erroneously:
Frames the invasion as a “special operation” to “denazify” Ukraine (led by a Jewish president)
What makes RT particularly effective is its tailored regional messaging. In Africa, they operate “African Stream,” a covert platform promoting pro-Russian sentiment. In the Balkans, RT Balkan (based in Serbia) helps circumvent EU sanctions while spreading Kremlin-aligned content. Meanwhile, their Spanish-language expansion targets Latin American audiences with anti-Western narratives.
The network reportedly recruits social media influencers under fake accounts to obscure Russian involvement. More alarmingly, RT-associated platforms allegedly supply equipment (including drones, radios, and body armor) to Russian forces in Ukraine, with some materials sourced from China.
According to U.S. intelligence assessments, RT hosts a clandestine unit focused on global influence operations β blurring the line between media and intelligence work.
Money and Organization
As with any major operation, following the money tells an important story. RT’s annual funding has grown exponentially β from $30 million at its founding to $400 million by 2015. For the 2022-2024 period, the Russian government allocated a staggering 82 billion rubles.
The network’s organizational structure is deliberately complex. RT operates under ANO TV-Novosti (a nonprofit founded by RIA Novosti) and Rossiya Segodnya (a state media conglomerate established in 2013). Its subsidiaries include Ruptly (a video agency), Redfish, and Maffick (digital media platforms).
Staying One Step Ahead of Sanctions
Despite being banned in the EU and U.S. following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, RT continues to expand its reach in Africa, Latin America, and Serbia. The network has proven remarkably adaptable at circumventing restrictions β using proxy outlets like “Red” in Germany and RT Balkan in Serbia to bypass sanctions.
The international response has been significant but inconsistent. The U.S. designated RT a foreign agent in 2017, the EU banned it in 2022, and Meta removed RT from its platforms in 2024. The U.S. has also launched campaigns to expose RT’s ties to Russian intelligence and limit its global operations.
Why This Matters
RT exemplifies modern hybrid warfare β blending traditional state media with covert influence operations and intelligence activities to advance Kremlin interests globally. Despite sanctions and increasing awareness of its true nature, RT’s adaptability and substantial funding ensure its continued reach.
For those of us concerned about information integrity and democratic resilience, understanding RT’s operations isn’t just academic β it’s essential for navigating our increasingly complex media landscape.
Logical fallacies are errors in reasoning that occur when arguments are constructed or evaluated. They are deceptive and misleading, often leading to false or weak conclusions. Recognizing and avoiding logical fallacies is essential for critical thinking and effective communication.
These flaws in rhetorical logic can be observed aplenty in modern political and civil discourse. They are among the easiest types of argument to dispel, because their basic type has been discredited and compiled together with other discarded forms of rational persuasion, to make sure that ensuing generations don’t fall for the same tired old unethical ideas.
By understanding and identifying these common logical fallacies, individuals can sharpen their critical thinking skills and engage in more productive, rational discussions. Recognizing fallacies also helps avoid being swayed by deceptive or unsound arguments — which abound in increasing volume thanks to the prevalence of misinformation, disinformation, and disingenuous forms of motivated reasoning.
In an age of information overload, critical thinking has never been more essential. Whether you’re analyzing a news story, debating with friends, or writing a persuasive essay, your ability to recognize and avoid faulty reasoning can be the difference between clarity and confusion, persuasion and propaganda. At the heart of this effort lies this powerful concept of logical fallacies.
Types of logical fallacies
Logical fallacies fall into one of two main clusters:
Formal Fallacies
Formal fallacies occur when there’s a flaw in the logical structure of an argument, rendering the conclusion invalidβeven if the premises are true. Think of formal fallacies as broken logic circuits: they donβt connect, even if the parts look sound.
Example:
If itβs raining, the ground is wet. The ground is wet, therefore it must be raining. (This is a classic fallacy known as affirming the consequent.)
Informal Fallacies
Informal fallacies, on the other hand, relate to the content of the argument rather than its structure. These occur when the premises don’t adequately support the conclusion, even if the structure appears valid.
These informal logical fallacies are more common in everyday conversation and rhetoric. Informal fallacies usually stem from misused language, assumptions, or appeals to emotion rather than flawed logic alone. They’re trickier to spot because they often feel intuitive or persuasive.
Example:
Everyoneβs doing it, so it must be right. (This is the bandwagon fallacyβpopular doesn’t mean correct.)
Within each of these two clusters is a number of different logical fallacies, each with its own pitfalls. Here are a few examples:
Ad Hominem: This fallacy attacks the person making the argument rather than the argument itself. For instance, dismissing someone’s opinion on climate change because they’re not a scientist is an ad hominem fallacy.
Straw Man: This involves misrepresenting an opponent’s argument to make it easier to attack. If someone argues for better healthcare and is accused of wanting “socialized medicine,” that’s a straw man.
Appeal to Authority: This fallacy relies on the opinion of an “expert” who may not actually be qualified in the relevant field. Just because a celebrity endorses a product doesn’t mean it’s effective.
False Dichotomy: This fallacy presents only two options when, in fact, more exist. For example, stating that “you’re either with us or against us” oversimplifies complex issues.
Slippery Slope: This fallacy argues that a single action will inevitably lead to a series of negative events, without providing evidence for such a chain reaction.
Circular Reasoning: In this fallacy, the conclusion is used as a premise, creating a loop that lacks substantive proof. Saying “I’m trustworthy because I say I am” is an example.
Hasty Generalization: This involves making a broad claim based on insufficient evidence. For instance, meeting two rude people from a city and concluding that everyone from that city is rude is a hasty generalization.
Understanding logical fallacies equips you to dissect arguments critically, making you a more informed participant in discussions. It’s a skill that’s invaluable in both professional and personal settings. Arm yourself with knowledge about this list of logical fallacies:
Fallacy
Definition
Example
Ad Hominem
Attacking the person instead of addressing their argument
“You can’t trust his economic policy ideas. He’s been divorced three times!”
Appeal to Authority
Using an authority’s opinion as definitive proof without addressing the argument itself
“Dr. Smith has a PhD, so her view on climate change must be correct.”
Appeal to Emotion
Manipulating emotions instead of using valid reasoning
“Think of the children who will suffer if you don’t support this policy!”
Appeal to Nature
Arguing that because something is natural, it is good, valid, or justified
“Herbal supplements are better than medication because they’re natural.”
Appeal to Tradition
Arguing that something is right because it’s been done that way for a long time
“We’ve always had this company policy, so we shouldn’t change it.”
Bandwagon Fallacy
Appealing to popularity as evidence of truth
“Everyone is buying this product, so it must be good.”
Begging the Question
Circular reasoning where the conclusion is included in the premise
“The Bible is true because it’s the word of God, and we know it’s the word of God because the Bible says so.”
Black-and-White Fallacy
Presenting only two options when more exist
“Either we cut the entire program, or we’ll go bankrupt.”
Cherry Picking
Selectively using data that supports your position while ignoring contradictory evidence
“Global warming can’t be real because it snowed last winter.”
Correlation vs. Causation
Assuming that because two events occur together, one caused the other
“Ice cream sales and drowning deaths both increase in summer, so ice cream causes drowning.”
Equivocation
Using a word with more than one meaning in a misleading way
“Evolution is just a theory, so it shouldn’t be taught as fact.” (Equivocating between scientific theory and casual speculation)
Fallacy of Composition
Inferring that something is true of the whole because it’s true of a part
“This cell is invisible to the naked eye, so the whole animal must be invisible too.”
Fallacy of Division
Inferring that something is true of the parts because it’s true of the whole
“The university has an excellent reputation, so every professor there must be excellent.”
Genetic Fallacy
Evaluating an argument based on its origins rather than its merits
“That idea came from a socialist country, so it must be bad.”
Hasty Generalization
Drawing a general conclusion from a sample that is too small or biased
“I had two bad meals at restaurants in Italy, so Italian cuisine is terrible.”
Middle Ground Fallacy
Assuming that a compromise between two extremes must be correct
“Some people say the Earth is flat, others say it’s round. The truth must be that it’s somewhat flat and somewhat round.”
No True Scotsman
Redefining terms to exclude counterexamples
“No true environmentalist would drive an SUV.” When shown an environmentalist who drives an SUV: “Well, they’re not a true environmentalist then.”
Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Assuming that because B followed A, A caused B
“I wore my lucky socks and we won the game, so my socks caused our victory.”
Red Herring
Introducing an irrelevant topic to divert attention from the original issue
“Why worry about environmental problems when there are so many people who can’t find jobs?”
Slippery Slope
Arguing that a small first step will inevitably lead to extreme consequences
“If we allow same-sex marriage, next people will want to marry their pets!”
Straw Man
Misrepresenting someone’s argument to make it easier to attack
“Vegetarians say we should eat no meat at all and let farmers go out of business.” (When they actually argue for reduced meat consumption)
Texas Sharpshooter
Cherry-picking data clusters to fit a pattern
“Look at these cancer cases clustered in this neighborhood – it must be caused by the power lines!” (While ignoring similar neighborhoods with power lines but no cancer clusters)
Tu Quoque
Avoiding criticism by turning it back on the accuser
“You say I should quit smoking, but you used to smoke too!”
Burden of Proof
Claiming something is true while putting the burden to disprove it on others
“I believe in ghosts. Prove to me that they don’t exist.”
How to identify logical fallacies
Spotting fallacies takes practice, but these tips can help sharpen your skills:
Slow down and dissect the argument. Look at the premises and conclusionβdo they logically connect?
Watch for emotional appeals. If an argument relies more on stirring feelings than presenting evidence, be cautious.
Ask: what’s being left out? Many fallacies omit key context or alternate explanations.
Compare to real-world examples. Would the logic hold up elsewhere?
Everyday example: βIf we allow students to redo assignments, next theyβll expect to retake tests, and eventually no deadlines will matter at all.β β This is a slippery slope fallacy. One action doesn’t necessarily lead to an extreme outcome.
Why avoiding logical fallacies matters
Logical fallacies donβt just weaken argumentsβthey erode trust, obscure truth, and inflame discourse. Here’s why learning to avoid them is critical:
In personal arguments: Fallacies can escalate tension and derail meaningful conversation.
In academic writing: Sound reasoning is the backbone of scholarship; fallacies undermine credibility.
In public discourse and media: Propaganda and misinformation often rely on fallacious reasoning to manipulate opinion. Recognizing these tactics is key to resisting them.
In a world where bad actors exploit fallacies for influence and profit, being fallacy-literate is a form of intellectual self-defense.
A Comprehensive Timeline of Russian Electoral Interference: From Imperial Russia to the Digital Age
Russian election interference around the globe has a much longer history than most people realize, extending back centuries rather than decades. This interference has evolved alongside Russia‘s own political transformations, from imperial ambitions to Soviet ideology to modern geopolitical objectives under Vladimir Putin. Recent actions, particularly during the 2016 U.S. presidential election, represent not an anomaly but the continuation and evolution of long-established patterns of behavior designed to shape foreign politics to Russian advantage.
The Imperial Russian Roots of Electoral Interference
Russia’s involvement in foreign electoral politics dates back to the early 18th century. Following a period when Poland had been the dominant power that once occupied Moscow, the tables turned as Russia grew in strength. Under Peter the Great and his successors, Russia began systematically meddling in Poland’s electoral politics by bribing Polish nobles to vote against attempts to strengthen the Polish central government and national army. This early form of interference was aimed at keeping a neighboring power weak and malleable to Russian interests.
This pattern culminated at the end of the 18th century when Russia, alongside Austria and Prussia, partitioned the Polish state among themselves, effectively erasing Poland from the map. Poland would remain part of the Russian Empire until World War I when it finally regained independence. This early example established a precedent that would continue in various forms through subsequent Russian regimes.
The Birth of Soviet Electoral Interference
After the 1917 Bolshevik Revolution, the Soviet approach to electoral interference took on an ideological dimension. In 1919, Vladimir Lenin founded the Communist International (Comintern), an organization designed to unite communist parties worldwide and foment revolution abroad. The Comintern distributed funding and supported propaganda operations in various countries to help communist parties compete more effectively in elections, with the ultimate goal of having these parties assume power and eventually abolish national borders.
While Lenin’s vision of global communist revolution was not realized, the Comintern’s activities generated significant paranoia in Western democracies like the United States and United Kingdom, where fears of Soviet manipulation of democratic processes took root. This marked the beginning of a more systematic approach to electoral interference that would be refined during the Soviet era.
Post-World War II: Aggressive Soviet Electoral Manipulation
After World War II, the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin aggressively interfered in elections across Eastern Europe, particularly in countries like East Germany, Hungary, and Poland. These operations foreshadowed many tactics that would later be employed by Putin’s Russia. The Soviet Union manipulated voter rolls, falsified vote counts, and distributed massive amounts of propaganda through posters, pamphlets, and leaflets to influence public opinion.
These elections were effectively rigged, resulting in communist parties coming to power across Eastern Europe and subsequently ending competitive elections in these nations. This period represents one of the most successful campaigns of electoral interference in modern history, as it resulted in the establishment of Soviet-aligned governments throughout the Eastern Bloc.
Remember when memes were just harmless internet jokes? Those days are long gone. “Meme Wars” meticulously documents how these seemingly innocent cultural artifacts have evolved into powerful weapons in a coordinated assault on American democracy — a form of information warfare that tears at our very ability to detect fantasy from reality at all, something that Hannah Arendt once warned of as a key tool of authoritarian regimes.
What makes this transformation particularly insidious is how easy it is to dismiss. After all, how could crudely drawn frogs and joke images possibly be a threat to democracy? Yet the authors convincingly demonstrate that this dismissive attitude is precisely what has allowed far-right operatives to wield memes so effectively.
The book reveals how figures like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Nick Fuentes, and Roger Stone have mastered the art of meme warfare. These digital provocateurs understand something that traditional political institutions have been slow to grasp: in today’s media environment, viral content can bypass established gatekeepers and directly shape public opinion at scale.
The Digital Radicalization Pipeline
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of “Meme Wars” is its detailed examination of what the authors call the “redpill right” and their techniques for radicalizing ordinary Americans. The process begins innocuously enoughβa provocative meme shared by a friend, a YouTube video recommended by an algorithmβbut can quickly lead vulnerable individuals down increasingly extreme ideological paths.
This digital radicalization operates through sophisticated emotional manipulation. Content is carefully crafted to trigger outrage, fear, or a sense of belonging to an in-group that possesses hidden truths. Over time, these digital breadcrumbs lead users into alternative information ecosystems that gradually reshape their perception of political reality.
From Online Conspiracy to Capitol Insurrection
“Meme Wars” provides what may be the most comprehensive account to date of how online conspiracy theories materialized into physical violence on January 6th, 2021. The authors trace the evolution of the “Stop the Steal” movement from fringe online forums to mainstream platforms, showing how digital organizing translated into real-world action.
The book presents the Capitol insurrection as the logical culmination of years of digital warfare. Participants like “Elizabeth from Knoxville” exemplify this new realityβsimultaneously acting as insurrectionists and content creators, live-streaming their participation for online audiences even as they engaged in an attempt to overthrow democratic processes.
This fusion of digital performance and physical violence represents something genuinely new and dangerous in American politics. The insurrectionists weren’t just attacking the Capitol; they were creating content designed to inspire others to join their cause.
Inside the Digital War Rooms
What sets “Meme Wars” apart from other analyses of digital extremism is the unprecedented access the authors gained to the online spaces where anti-establishment actors develop their strategies. These digital war rooms function as laboratories where messaging is crafted, tested, and refined before being deployed more broadly.
The authors document how these spaces identify potential recruits, gradually expose them to increasingly extreme content, and eventually mobilize them toward political action. This sophisticated recruitment pipeline has proven remarkably effective at growing extremist movements and providing them with dedicated foot soldiers.
The Existential Threat to Democracy
At its core, “Meme Wars” is a book about the fundamental challenge digital manipulation poses to democratic governance. By deliberately stirring strong emotions and deepening partisan divides, meme warfare undermines the rational discourse and shared reality necessary for democratic deliberation.
The authors make a compelling case that these tactics represent an existential threat to American democracy. What’s more, the digital warfare techniques developed in American contexts are already being exported globally, representing a worldwide challenge to democratic institutions.
Confronting the Challenge
Perhaps the most important contribution of “Meme Wars” is its insistence that we recognize digital threats as real-world dangers. For too long, online extremism has been dismissed as merely virtualβsomething separate from “real” politics. The events of January 6th definitively shattered that illusion.
While the book doesn’t offer easy solutions, it makes clear that protecting democracy in the digital age will require new approaches from institutions, platforms, and citizens alike. We need digital literacy that goes beyond spotting fake news to understanding how emotional manipulation operates online. We need platforms that prioritize democratic values over engagement metrics. And we need institutions that can effectively counter extremist narratives without amplifying them.
A Must-Read for Democracy’s Defenders
“Meme Wars” is not just a political thriller, though it certainly reads like one at times. It is a rigorously researched warning about how extremist movements are reshaping American culture and politics through digital means. For anyone concerned with the preservation of democratic institutions, it should be considered essential reading.
The authors — including Joan Donovan, widely known and respected as a foremost scholar on disinformation — have performed a valuable service by illuminating the hidden mechanics of digital manipulation. Now it’s up to all of us to heed their warning and work to build democratic resilience in the digital age. The future of our democracy may depend on it.
A Diplomatic Travesty in the Oval Office: Zelensky, Trump, and JD Vanceβs Foreign Policy Ambush
The Oval Office has seen its share of tense diplomatic moments, but the recent clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trumpβjoined by Ohio Senator JD Vanceβmarks a new low in international decorum. What was expected to be a high-stakes discussion on Ukraineβs future and continued U.S. support instead devolved into a heated, profanity-laced exchange, described by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as ushering in a βnew era of profanity.β
In a tense and extraordinary meeting in front of the cameras, President Trump and Vice President Vance confronted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated diplomatic ambush. With Russian state media present while major American outlets were excluded, Trump and Vance pressured Zelensky to accept terms highly favorable to Russia – including a ceasefire that would effectively cede Ukrainian territory and sign over rights to valuable rare-earth minerals without firm security guarantees in return. Zelensky pointed out that Putin had broken ceasefire agreements 25 times already — so what was his incentive to find this one credible, particularly without any concrete guarantees?
In response to a reporter’s question about the US’s sudden shift away from its staunch Cold War stance to embracing Russia, Trump complained that Zelensky showed “such hate” towards Putin, who — he alleged — has suffered very badly (hatred being more impactful than military invasion, I guess?). When Zelensky remained composed and warned that the United States might “feel problems” due to its shifting alliance toward Russia, Trump grew visibly agitated, repeatedly insisting Americans would “feel very good and very strong” instead, while Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of being ungrateful for American support — as someone insecure and in need of praise would do.
The situation escalated when Zelensky calmly but firmly stated that Trump and Vance would “feel influenced” by Russia, triggering an extended, angry tirade from Trump that veered into his grievances about Russian election interference investigations, criticisms of former Presidents Biden and Obama, and rhetoric that closely mirrored Putin’s talking points and invented conspiracy theories on Ukraine.
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.
Table of Contents
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 1984 Dictionary
Newspeak term
Definition
ante
The prefix that replaces before
artsem
Artificial insemination
bb
Big Brother
bellyfeel
The blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhite
To 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”.
crimestop
To rid oneself of unorthodox thoughts that go against Ingsoc’s ideology
crimethink
Thoughts and concepts that go against Ingsoc, frequently referred to by the standard English βthoughtcrimeβ, such as liberty, equality, and privacy, and also the criminal act of holding such thoughts
dayorder
Order of the day
dep
Department
doubleplusgood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively good”, such as excellent, fabulous, and fantastic
doubleplusungood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively bad”, such as terrible and horrible
doublethink
The act of simultaneously believing two, mutually contradictory ideas
duckspeak
Automatic, vocal support of political orthodoxies
facecrime
A facial expression which reveals that one has committed thoughtcrime
Ficdep
The Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
free
The absence and the lack of something. “Intellectually free” and “politically free” have been replaced by crimethinkful.
βful
The suffix for forming an adjective
fullwise
The word that replaces words such as fully, completely, and totally
goodthink
A synonym for “political orthodoxy” and “a politically orthodox thought” as defined by the Party
goodsex
Sexual intercourse only for procreation, without any physical pleasure on the part of the woman, and strictly within marriage
goodwise
The word that replaced well as an adverb
Ingsoc
The English Socialist Party (i.e. The Party)
joycamp
Labour camp
malquoted
Inaccurate representations of the words of Big Brother and of the Party
Miniluv
The Ministry of Love, where the secret police interrogate and torture the enemies of Oceania (torture and brainwashing)
Minipax
The Ministry of Peace, who wage war for Oceania
Minitrue
The 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
Miniplenty
The Ministry of Plenty, who keep the population in continual economic hardship (starvation and rationing)
Oldspeak
Standard English
oldthink
Ideas from the time before the Party’s revolution, such as objectivity and rationalism
ownlife
A person’s anti-social tendency to enjoy solitude and individualism
plusgood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “very good”, such as great
plusungood
The word that replaced “very bad”
Pornosec
The pornography production section (Porno sector) of the Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
prolefeed
Popular culture for entertaining Oceania’s working class
Recdep
The Ministry of Truth’s Records Department, where Winston Smith rewrites historical records so they conform to the Party’s agenda
rectify
The Ministry of Truth’s euphemism for manipulating a historical record
ref
To refer (to someone or something)
sec
Sector
sexcrime
A sexual immorality, such as fornication, adultery, oral sex, and homosexuality; any sex act that deviates from Party directives to use sex only for procreation
speakwrite
A machine that transcribes speech into text
Teledep
The Ministry of Truth’s Telecommunications Department
telescreen
A two-way television set with which the Party spy upon Oceania’s population
thinkpol
The Thought Police, the secret police force of Oceania’s government
unperson
An executed person whose existence is erased from history and memory
upsub
An upwards submission to higher authority
βwise
The 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
Quiz Complete!
Your final 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. Hereβs 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 Partyβs 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 populationβs perceptions and beliefs.
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 βevil of Cluster Bβ), hold significant power.
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 controlβextending 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
Hannah Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” is a collection of two seminal essays that explore the complex relationship between truth, lies, and political power. The book, published in 2022, includes “Truth and Politics” (1967) and “Lying in Politics” (1971), along with a new introduction by David Bromwich.
Key Themes of “On Lying and Politics”
The nature of political lies
Arendt argues that the phenomenon of lying in politics is not new, and that truthfulness has never been considered a political virtue. She posits that lies have long been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings, reflecting a deep-seated tension between truth and politics. However, Arendt also warns that excessive lying by political classes can lead to totalitarianism, where reality becomes entirely fictional.
Types of truth
Arendt distinguishes between two types of truth: factual and rational. She argues that factual truth is more vulnerable to political manipulation, as it is not self-evident and can be challenged like opinions. Rational truth, on the other hand, is more resilient as it can be reproduced through logical reasoning. Others can more easily verify on their own whether a rational truth checks out, whereas they cannot as easily go fact-finding — particularly about far-flung things that happen well outside their ken.
The impact of lies on democracy
Arendt explores how organized lying can tear apart our shared sense of reality, replacing it with a fantasy world of manipulated evidence and doctored documents. She argues that in a democracy, honest disclosure is crucial as it is the self-understanding of the people that sustains the government. This aligns with the idea that totalitarian governments can warp even the language itself, a la George Orwell’s Newspeak language in the classic novel 1984.
A Tale of Two Essays
“Truth and Politics” (1967)
In this essay, Arendt examines the affinity between lying and politics. She emphasizes that the survival of factual truth depends on credible witnesses and an informed citizenry. The essay explores how organized lying can degrade facts into mere opinions, potentially leading liars to believe their own fabrications in a self-deluding system of circular logic.
“Lying in Politics” (1971)
Written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, this essay applies Arendt’s insights to American policy in Southeast Asia. She argues that the Vietnam War and the official lies used to justify it were primarily exercises in image-making, more concerned with displaying American power than achieving strategic objectives.
Arendt’s perspective on political lying
Arendt views lying as a deliberate denial of factual truth, interconnected with the ability to act and rooted in imagination. She argues that while individual lies might succeed, lying on principle ultimately becomes counterproductive as it forces the audience to disregard the distinction between truth and falsehood.
Contemporary relevance
Arendt’s work remains highly relevant today, perhaps even more so than when it was written. Her analysis of how lies can undermine the public’s sense of reality and the dangers of political self-deception resonates strongly in our current political climate of disinformation, manipulation, and radicalization.
Not to mention, the incredible contribution from Big Tech — whose tech bros have seen to it that political technology, and the study of professional manipulation, is alive and well. It’s been in the zeitgeist for a couple of decades now, and is now being accelerated — by the ascendancy of AI, Elon Musk, and the Silicon Valley branch of the right-wing wealth cult (Biden called it the tech-industrial complex).
“On Lying and Politics” feels fresh today
Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” provides a nuanced exploration — and a long-term view — of the role of truth and lies in political life. While acknowledging that lying has always been part of politics, Arendt warns of the dangers of excessive and systematic lying, particularly in democratic societies.
Her work continues to offer valuable insights into the nature of political deception and its impact on public life and democratic institutions. We would be wise to hear her warnings and reflect deeply on her insights, as someone who lived through the Nazi regime and devoted the remainder of her life’s work to analyzing what had happened and warning others. The similarities to our current times are disturbing and alarming — arm yourself with as much information as you can.
Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the “evil of Cluster B“), hold significant power. This term was first introduced by Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Εobaczewski in his work “Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.”
The crux of pathocracy lies in the rule by a small pathological minority, which imposes a regime that is damaging to the majority of non-pathological people. The key characteristics of pathocratic leadership include a lack of empathy, a disregard for the rule of law, manipulation, authoritarianism, and often, brutal repression. Many who are attracted to pathocratic rule exhibit the Dark Triad trio of malevolent and manipulative personality traits.
Origins and development of the concept of pathocracy
Pathocracy emerges from Εobaczewski’s study of totalitarian regimes, particularly those of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and Communism in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Born in Poland in 1921, he witnessed the upheaval and transformation of his own country during the horrors of World War II and the chilling effects of the subsequent Communist occupation.
He suffered greatly to arrive at the insights in his work — arrested and tortured by the Polish authorities under Communist rule, he was unable to publish his magnum opus, the book Political Ponerology, until he escaped to the United States during the 1980s. Εobaczewski spent the rest of his life and career trying to unpack what had happened to him, his community, and his nation — having witnessed such brutality over such a shockingly short span of time, and having experienced friends turning against friends in vicious and shocking ways.
Εobaczewski posits that these authoritarian and fascist regimes were not merely politically oppressive, but were also psychologically abnormal. He studied the characteristics of these leaders and their closest supporters, identifying patterns that aligned with known personality disorders. His work also identified a much higher percentage of personality disordered individuals than is still commonly understood, finding that about 7% of the general population could be categorized as severely lacking in empathy and possessing the tendencies — latent or overt — leading to the rise of pathocracy in society.
Characteristics of pathocratic leadership
Psychopathy: Leaders in a pathocracy often display traits synonymous with psychopathy, including a lack of empathy, remorse, and shallow emotions.
Narcissism: Excessive self-love and a strong sense of entitlement often drive pathocratic rulers.
Manipulation: These leaders are adept at manipulation, using deceit and coercion to maintain their power. They also often exhibit other traits and behaviors of emotional predators.
Paranoia: A heightened sense of persecution or conspiracy is common, leading to oppressive and authoritarian measures.
Corruption: Moral depravity, ethical degeneration, and widespread corruption are endemic in a pathocracy, as pathological leaders tend to surround themselves with similarly affected individuals who feel no shame about performing unethical and/or illegal actions either in secret, or in broad daylight with little fear of retaliation.
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.
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 thatβs 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 weβve seen it before.
More than a century ago, the American people stood up to the robber barons back then and busted the trusts. They didnβt 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. Weβve 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. Thatβs 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. Itβs working, creating jobs and industries of the future. Now we have proven we donβt have to choose between protecting the environment and growing the economy. Weβre doing both. But powerful forces want to wield their unchecked influence to eliminate the steps weβve 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, βThe potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power.β Six days β six decades later, Iβm 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:
Since Donald Trumpβs election in 2016, a lot of people believe that new technologiesβand how foreign actors manipulate themβplayed a big role in his win and are fueling our βpost-truthβ world, where disinformation and propaganda seem to thrive.
Network Propaganda flips that idea on its head. The book dives into an incredibly detailed study of American media coverage from the start of the 2016 election in April 2015 to Trumpβs first year in office. By analyzing millions of news stories, social media shares on Facebook and Twitter, TV broadcasts, and YouTube content, it paints a full picture of how political communication in the U.S. really works. The authors dig into big topics like immigration, Clinton-related scandals, and the Trump-Russia investigation and reveal that right-wing media doesnβt play by the same rules as other outlets.
Their big takeaway? The conservative media ecosystem functions in a totally unique way, shaped by decades of political, cultural, and institutional shifts since the 1970s. This has created a kind of propaganda loop thatβs pushed center-right media to the sidelines, radicalized the right, and made it more vulnerable to both domestic and foreign propaganda. Thus Russia’s involvement was more like pouring gasoline onto an existing fire — a conflagration which was raging prior to Putin’s arrival on the scene.
For readers both inside and outside the U.S., Network Propaganda offers fresh insights and practical ways to understandβand maybe even fixβthe broader democratic challenges weβre seeing around the world.
Network Propaganda podcast book summary
I have been getting a kick out of NotebookLM‘s renditions of podcasts about the source materials uploaded to the Notebook. They are really quite good, and I can see them being useful for a number of purposes. Here’s an AI-generated discussion about Network Propaganda, taken from a PDF of the book as the source of the Notebook.
The trajectory of the U.S. national debt is a compelling narrative that mirrors the nation’s evolving priorities, polarities, challenges, and triumphs. From the nascent days of the republic, grappling with the financial aftermath of the Revolutionary War, to the expansive fiscal policies of the 20th century, each era offers a unique lens into the economic and political forces at play in the history of the national debt.
In the late 18th century, under the stewardship of Alexander Hamilton, the United States established its first national debtβa strategic move to unify the fledgling states and build creditworthiness. The 19th century witnessed fluctuations driven by events such as the Civil War, which necessitated unprecedented borrowing, followed by periods of aggressive debt reduction during peacetime.
The 20th century introduced complexities with global conflicts like World War I and WWII, the Great Depression, and the Cold War, each leaving indelible marks on the nation’s fiscal landscape. Post-World War II prosperity facilitated debt reduction, but subsequent decades saw increases due to military engagements, economic policies, and social programs.
As we navigate the 21st century, the national debt continues to be a focal point of economic discourse, influenced by factors ranging from tax policies to global pandemics. Tax cuts for the wealthy under Reagan, the Bushes, and most notably Trump since 1980 have blown a hole in the debt. Military adventurism around the world including 2 completely unpaid for Gulf Wars in the ’90s and 2000s and the 20-year war in Afghanistan ballooned it as well.
This timeline delves into the pivotal moments that have shaped the U.S. national debt, offering insights into the decisions and events that have influenced its rise and fall over the centuries — so we can get intimately familiar with which policies increase or decrease it.
In todayβs digital landscape, disinformation has become an ever-present challenge, influencing everything from public opinion to personal beliefs. Understanding and combating disinformation isnβt just a task for media professionals; itβs a crucial skill for anyone navigating the vast array of information and misinformation in our interconnected world.
This curated list of books offers invaluable insights into the mechanisms of disinformation and the tools we can use to think critically, fact-check effectively, and enhance our media literacy. With perspectives spanning neuroscience, history, and media studies, these books dive deep into the factors that make disinformation so potentβand what we can do to counter it. Whether youβre a publishing or media professional looking to stay informed or a member of the general public eager to sharpen your information literacy skills, this selection has something for everyone interested in the truth amidst a world of half-truths and fabrications.
The book provides a comprehensive historical account of disinformation campaigns, tracing their evolution from the early 20th century to the present day. Rid explores how intelligence agencies, governments, and other actors have used “active measures” to manipulate public opinion and influence political outcomes. The author examines key case studies, including Cold War operations and modern digital disinformation campaigns, offering insights into the tactics and strategies employed in information warfare.
Pomerantsev’s book explores the global landscape of information manipulation, drawing on personal experiences and interviews with key figures in the field. The author examines how various actors, from authoritarian regimes to populist movements, exploit modern communication technologies to shape narratives and influence public opinion. The book offers insights into the challenges facing democracy and truth in the digital age.
This collection of essays challenges conventional narratives and exposes various forms of misinformation across different domains. The book covers a wide range of topics, from media manipulation to historical inaccuracies and cultural misconceptions. It aims to encourage critical thinking and skepticism towards information presented by governments, media, corporations, and other institutions.
This comprehensive study analyzes media coverage of American presidential politics from 2015 to 2018. The authors argue that the right-wing media ecosystem operates fundamentally differently from the rest of the media environment, creating a propaganda feedback loop. The book examines how this dynamic has marginalized center-right media, radicalized the right-wing ecosystem, and made it susceptible to propaganda efforts.
This book examines how social media has become a new battlefield for information warfare. The authors explore how various actors, including governments, terrorists, and activists, use social media platforms to shape public opinion, spread propaganda, and influence real-world events. The book offers insights into the strategies and tactics employed in this new form of conflict and discusses the implications for society and warfare.
“The Misinformation Age” explores the social and psychological factors that contribute to the spread of false beliefs. The authors use case studies and scientific research to explain how misinformation propagates through social networks and why it can be so persistent. They examine the role of cognitive biases, social dynamics, and information ecosystems in shaping our beliefs and discuss potential strategies for combating the spread of false information.
This collection of essays from various experts examines the phenomenon of “fake news” from multiple perspectives. The book covers topics such as the history of misinformation, the role of social media in spreading false narratives, and the challenges of fact-checking in the digital age. It offers insights into the complex landscape of modern media and provides strategies for navigating an information environment rife with misinformation.
Drawing from his experience as Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs, Stengel provides an insider’s account of the U.S. government’s efforts to combat disinformation. The book examines the challenges faced in countering propaganda from state actors like Russia and non-state actors like ISIS. Stengel offers insights into the nature of modern information warfare and proposes strategies for addressing the threat of disinformation.
Marantz’s book provides an in-depth look at the individuals and groups behind the rise of online extremism and disinformation in America. Through extensive interviews and firsthand accounts, the author explores how fringe ideas have moved into the mainstream, facilitated by social media platforms and tech industry dynamics. The book offers insights into the complex interplay between technology, media, and politics in shaping public discourse.
This book serves as a practical guide for navigating the complex information landscape of the “post-truth” era. Levitin provides tools and strategies for critical thinking, teaching readers how to evaluate claims, spot logical fallacies, and interpret statistics. The book aims to empower individuals to become more discerning consumers of information and to resist manipulation through misinformation and deceptive rhetoric.
This book looks ahead to emerging technologies and their potential impact on the spread of disinformation. Woolley examines how artificial intelligence, virtual reality, and other advanced technologies might be used to create and disseminate even more convincing false narratives. The author also explores potential countermeasures and the role of policy in addressing these future challenges.
Howard’s book explores the world of computational propaganda, examining how social media platforms, artificial intelligence, and big data are being used to manipulate public opinion. The author investigates the actors behind disinformation campaigns, from state-sponsored trolls to political consultants, and discusses the implications for democracy. The book also offers potential solutions for combating these “lie machines” and preserving democratic discourse.
When evaluating a candidate for a role, you would be wise to consider what those who have worked with them in the past think of them — that’s why we ask for references during a job interview process. Unfortunately for Donald Trump, a majority of his closest advisors don’t support him and cannot recommend him as being fit for the presidency — and in fact many are actively campaigning against him and supporting the Harris-Walz ticket in the 2024 election.
And these aren’t just people out at the edges of a sprawling administration — these folks are from the inner circle, the cabinet, the military’s top brass, and other high-level officials in or near the White House who routinely interacted with the then-President.
Trump bragged about hiring all the best people — but then proceeded to fire a huge swath of them for having the audacity of disagreeing with him, or other trivial reason. Of those that remained, an unusually large number resigned from his administration in protest over whatever they saw as their personal last straw — many on January 6. And of that whole set, a conspicuously large number are now actively speaking out against the former president and working to prevent him from ascending to a second term.
I’ve been a voter for 30 years. And never have I seen the outpouring of “duty to warn” from former officials of someone seeking re-election. Never has this many of the president’s closest advisors refused to support him for a second term. Let’s hear why, in their own words.
Mike Pence
Former Vice President
“It should come as no surprise that I will not be endorsing Donald Trump this year,” he said to Fox News — an extraordinary historical moment when a VP cannot in good conscience support their own former President. Of course, when that former President tried to murder to you — or at the very least looked the other way while it happened in front of him on TV — it might be more difficult to get over than the usual spat between political cronies.
Mark Esper
Former Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Army
Another rare moment: when a former cabinet member goes on national television weeks before an election to warn the American public about the dangers of their former boss. I have definitely never seen this in my lifetime and my 30 years of voting.
“I think he’s unfit for the presidency. As somebody who worked directly for him — I don’t think he’s the right person for our country. And so I will not be supporting him.” — to CNN, April 16
“Trump is not fit for office because he puts himself first and I think anybody running for office should put the country first.”
βYes, I think we should take those words seriously,β former Trump Defense Secretary Mark Esper says after Trump suggesting using the U.S. military against the βenemy from within.β pic.twitter.com/oXOlaU7tnZ
