Jesus commanded us to love our enemies. The vitriol of our politics — the violent rhetoric, the animosity, the refusal to engage in democratic deliberation — is not loving our enemies. It seems to me that Christian nationalism isn’t very Christian, in word or deed.
Jesus hated fame, loathed fortune, and eschewed power. So many of these fake Christians and Christian nationalist groups fundraising for the profane idol of Trumpism are drunk on all three.
They’ve tied capitalism and Christianity together in a way that is both wholly unsupported by the Bible and wholly antithetical to the foundational idea of growing the size of your market, not shrinking it. Jesus threw the moneylenders out of the temple, condemning the commercialization of religious practice. And yet the commercialization of religious practice is alive and well in the American version of Christian nationalism.
Jesus loved the poor, and frequently warned about the dangers of wealth and greed. He told the parable of the Good Samaritan, who stops to help a total stranger in need, expecting no help in return — and said “go and do likewise.” He was very much an original Social Justice Warrior.
Politics and spirituality are opposites
Jesus also said to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s — indicating that he believed politics and spirituality were not a good mix. God’s realm is not like this one, and he does not care about our petty political trifles. He cares that we love our neighbors as ourselves.
Which is a value I believe in and agree on, even though I’m a Buddhist. There is much wisdom from pretty much all the religious doctrines worth listening to and adopting, even if one does not adopt the symbolism of the identity tropes of a chosen religious practice. Morality does not depend on being a member of the Christian faith or any other particular faith — despite the claims of some in the right-wing. There are moral people everywhere, getting up every day and doing their best to be good humans, good citizens, good neighbors, good parents, friends, volunteers, and so on.
Humans first, tribes second
We have to put our humanity ahead of our group identities if we have a chance of surviving the coming wars — the climate war, the food and water wars, the new cold war, lawfare, and new escalations of the information warfare and psychological warfare around the globe. We are all more alike than we are different — a deep truth that Jesus knew and shared strongly, asking us to live and share that message ourselves, even when it’s sometimes hard.
Conspiracy Theory Dictionary: From QAnon to Gnostics
In half a decade we’ve gone from Jeb Bush making a serious run for president to Marjorie Taylor Greene running unopposed and winning a House seat in Georgia. QAnon came seemingly out of nowhere, but taps into a much deeper and older series of conspiracy theories that have surfaced, resurfaced, and been remixed throughout time.
The spread of the QAnon conspiracy theory greatly benefits from historical memory, getting a generous marketing boost from sheer familiarity. It also benefits from an authoritarian mentality growing louder in America, with a predilection for magical thinking and a susceptibility to conspiratorial thinking.
Tales as old as time
Conspiracy theories have been around much longer even than the Protocols — stretching back about as long as recorded history itself. Why do people believe in conspiracy theories? In an increasingly complex world brimming with real-time communication capabilities, the cognitive appeal of easy answers may simply be stronger than ever before.
Anthropologists believe that conspiracy theory has been around for about as long as human beings have been able to communicate. Historians describe one of the earliest conspiracy theories as originating in ancient Mesopotamia, involving a god named Marduk and a goddess called Tiamat — both figures in Babylonian creation mythology.
According to the myth, Marduk defeated Tiamat in battle and created the world from her body — but some ancient Mesopotamians at the time thought that the story was not actually a mere myth, but a political cover-up of a real-life conspiracy in which the followers of Marduk secretly plotted to overthrow Tiamat to seize power.
This “original conspiracy theory” was likely driven by political tensions between city-states in ancient Mesopotamia, although there are very few written records still around to corroborate the origin of the theory or perception of the story at the time. Nevertheless, the Marduk-Tiamat myth is regarded as one of the earliest known examples of widespread belief in conspiracy theories, and it points to the relative commonality and frequency of false narratives throughout history.
Whether deployed purposefully to deceive a population for political advantage, created to exploit people economically, or invented “naturally” as a simple yet satisfying explanation for otherwise complicated and overwhelming phenomena, conspiracy theories are undoubtedly here to stay in culture more broadly for some time to come. We had best get the lay of the land, and understand the language we might use to describe and talk about them.
Conspiracy Theory Dictionary
4chan
A notorious internet message board with an unruly culture capable of trolling, pranks, and crimes.
8chan
If 4chan wasn’t raw and lawless enough for you, you could try the even more right-wing “free speech”-haven 8chan while it still stood (now 8kun). Described by its founder Frederick Bennan as “if 4chan and reddit had a baby,” the site is notorious for incubating Gamergate, which morphed into PizzaGate, which morphed into QAnon — and for generally being a cesspool of humanity’s worst stuff.
People who believe the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York City in 2001 were either known about ahead of time and allowed to happen, or were intentionally planned by the US government.
alien abduction
People who claim to have been captured by intelligent life from another planet, taken to a spaceship or other plane of existence, and brought back — as well as the folks who believe them.
Antifa is anti-fascism, so the anti-anti-fascists are just fascists wrapped in a double negative. They are the real cancel culture — and a dangerous one (book burning and everything!).
A social justice movement advocating for non-violent civil disobedience in protest against incidents of police brutality and all racially motivated violence against black people.
A false accusation or myth that Jewish people used the blood of Christians, especially children, in religious rituals, historically used to justify persecution of Jews.
child trafficking
The illegal practice of procuring or trading children for the purpose of exploitation, such as forced labor, sexual exploitation, or illegal adoption.
Christian Identity
A religious belief system that asserts that white people of European descent are God’s chosen people, often associated with white supremacist and extremist groups.
The rejection or dismissal of the scientific consensus that the climate is changing and that human activity is a significant contributing factor. Part of a broader cultural trend of science denialism.
Refers to the Confederate States of America, a group of 11 southern states that seceded from the United States in 1861, leading to the American Civil War, primarily over the issue of slavery.
contamination
The presence of an unwanted substance or impurity in another substance, making it unsafe or unsuitable for use.
cosmopolitanism
Another term for globalist or internationalist, which are all dog whistles for Jewish people (see also: global cabal, blood libel)
Crossing the Rubicon
A phrase that signifies passing a point of no return, derived from Julius Caesar’s irreversible crossing of the Rubicon River in 49 BC, leading to the Roman Civil War.
Anti-semitic conspiracy theory alleging that Jewish intellectuals who fled the Hitler regime were responsible for infecting American culture with their communist takeover plans and that this holy war is the war the right-wing fights each day.
The idea of a body within the government and military that operates independently of elected officials, often believed to manipulate government policy and direction.
DVE
(Domestic Violent Extremism): Refers to violent acts committed within a country’s borders by individuals motivated by domestic political, religious, racial, or social ideologies.
Information that is false or misleading, created and disseminated with the intent to deceive the public or sway public opinion.
GamerGate
A controversy that started in 2014 involving the harassment of women in the video game industry, under the guise of advocating for ethics in gaming journalism.
A Hungarian-American billionaire investor and philanthropist, often the subject of unfounded conspiracy theories alleging he manipulates global politics and economies.
Hollywood
The historic center of the United States film industry, often used to refer broadly to American cinema and its cultural influence.
A term often associated with various conspiracy theories that allege a secret society controlling world affairs, originally referring to the Bavarian Illuminati, an Enlightenment-era secret society.
InfoWars
A controversial far-right media platform known for promoting conspiracy theories, disinformation, and misinformation, hosted by clinical narcissist Alex Jones.
JFK assassination
The assassination of President John F. Kennedy on November 22, 1963, in Dallas, Texas, an event surrounded by numerous conspiracy theories regarding the motives and identities of the assassins.
The QAnon of its day (circa 1960s), this extreme right-wing group was theoretically about anti-communist ideals but espoused a host of conspiracy theories and outlandish beliefs.
lamestream media
Derogatory term for any media that isn’t right-wing media.
leftist apocalypse
A hyperbolic term used by some critics to describe a scenario where leftist or progressive policies lead to societal collapse or significant negative consequences.
Makers and Takers
A right-wing economic dichotomy used to describe individuals or groups who contribute to society or the economy (makers) versus those who are perceived to take from it without contributing (takers). See also: Mudsill Theory, trickle down economics, supply side economics, Reaganomics, Libertarianism
micro-propaganda machine
MPM: Refers to the use of targeted, small-scale dissemination of propaganda, often through social media and other digital platforms, to influence public opinion or behavior.
The cognitive process where individuals form conclusions that are more favorable to their preexisting beliefs or desires, rather than based on objective evidence.
A conspiracy theory that posits a secretly emerging totalitarian world government, often associated with fears of loss of sovereignty and individual freedoms. (see also, OWG, ZOG)
A constitutional “theory” put forth by southern states before the Civil War that they have the power to invalidate any federal laws or judicial decisions they consider unconstitutional. It’s never been upheld by the federal courts.
One World Government
The concept of a single government authority that would govern the entire world, often discussed in the context of global cooperation or, conversely, as a dystopian threat in conspiracy theories. (see also: NWO, ZOG)
A debunked and baseless conspiracy theory alleging the involvement of certain U.S. political figures in a child sex trafficking ring, supposedly operated out of a Washington, D.C., pizzeria.
post-truth
Refers to a cultural and political context in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.
Information, especially of a biased or misleading nature, used to promote a political cause or point of view.
Protocols of the Elders of Zion
Forged anti-semitic document alleging a secret Jewish child murder conspiracy used by Hitler to gin up support for his regime.
PsyOps
Psychological operations: Operations intended to convey selected information and indicators to audiences to influence their emotions, motives, objective reasoning, and ultimately the behavior of governments, organizations, groups, and individuals. Used as part of hybrid warfare and information warfare tactics in geopolitical (and, sadly, domestic) arenas.
A baseless conspiracy theory alleging that a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping pedophiles is running a global child sex-trafficking ring and plotting against former U.S. President Donald Trump.
Q Drops
Messages or “drops” posted on internet forums by “Q,” the anonymous figure at the center of the QAnon conspiracy theory, often cryptic and claiming to reveal secret information about a supposed deep state conspiracy.
reactionary modernism
A term that describes the combination of modern technological development with traditionalist or reactionary political and cultural beliefs, often seen in fascist ideologies.
Reichstag fire
An arson attack on the Reichstag building (home of the German parliament) in Berlin on February 27, 1933, which the Nazi regime used as a pretext to claim that Communists were plotting against the German government.
Rothschilds
A wealthy Jewish family of bankers, often subject to various unfounded conspiracy theories alleging they control global financial systems and world events.
Online identities used for purposes of deception, such as to praise, defend, or support a person or organization while appearing to be an independent party.
Within the context of QAnon, a prophesied event in which members of the supposed deep state cabal will be arrested and punished for their crimes.
WikiLeaks
WikiLeaks is a controversial platform known for publishing classified and secret documents from anonymous sources, gaining international attention for its major leaks. While it has played a significant role in exposing hidden information, its release of selectively edited materials has also contributed to the spread of conspiracy theories related to American and Russian politics.
ZOG
ZOG (Zionist Occupation Government): A conspiracy theory claiming that Jewish people secretly control a country, particularly the United States, while the term itself is antisemitic and unfounded.
Microtargeting is a marketing and political strategy that leverages data analytics to deliver customized messages to specific groups within a larger population. This approach has become increasingly prevalent in the realms of digital media and advertising, and its influence on political campaigns has grown significantly.
Understanding microtargeting
Microtargeting begins with the collection and analysis of vast amounts of data about individuals. This data can include demographics (age, gender, income), psychographics (interests, habits, values), and behaviors (purchase history, online activity). By analyzing this data, organizations can identify small, specific groups of people who share common characteristics or interests. The next step involves crafting tailored messages that resonate with these groups, significantly increasing the likelihood of engagement compared to broad, one-size-fits-all communications.
Microtargeting and digital media
Digital media platforms, with their treasure troves of user data, have become the primary arenas for microtargeting. Social media networks, search engines, and websites collect extensive information on user behavior, preferences, and interactions. This data enables advertisers and organizations to identify and segment their audiences with remarkable precision.
Digital platforms offer sophisticated tools that allow for the delivery of customized content directly to individuals or narrowly defined groups, ensuring that the message is relevant and appealing to each recipient. The interactive nature of digital media also provides immediate feedback, allowing for the refinement of targeting strategies in real time.
Application in advertising
In the advertising domain, microtargeting has revolutionized how brands connect with consumers. Rather than casting a wide net with generic advertisements, companies can now send personalized messages that speak directly to the needs and desires of their target audience. This approach can improve the effectiveness of advertising campaigns — but comes with a tradeoff in terms of user data privacy.
Microtargeted ads can appear on social media feeds, as search engine results, within mobile apps, or as personalized email campaigns, making them a versatile tool for marketers. Thanks to growing awareness of the data privacy implications — including the passage of regulations including the GDPR, CCPA, DMA and others — users are beginning to have more control over what data is collected about them and how it is used.
Expanding role in political campaigns
The impact of microtargeting reaches its zenith in the realm of political campaigns. Political parties and candidates use microtargeting to understand voter preferences, concerns, and motivations at an unprecedented level of detail. This intelligence allows campaigns to tailor their communications, focusing on issues that resonate with specific voter segments.
For example, a campaign might send messages about environmental policies to voters identified as being concerned about climate change, while emphasizing tax reform to those worried about economic issues. A campaign might target swing voters with characteristics that match their party’s more consistent voting base, hoping to influence their decision to vote for the “right” candidate.
Microtargeting in politics also extends to voter mobilization efforts. Campaigns can identify individuals who are supportive but historically less likely to vote and target them with messages designed to motivate them to get to the polls. Similarly, microtargeting can help in shaping campaign strategies, determining where to hold rallies, whom to engage for endorsements, and what issues to highlight in speeches.
Ethical considerations and challenges
The rise of microtargeting raises significant ethical and moral questions and challenges. Concerns about privacy, data protection, and the potential for manipulation are at the forefront. The use of personal information for targeting purposes has sparked debates on the need for stricter regulation and transparency. In politics, there’s apprehension that microtargeting might deepen societal divisions by enabling campaigns to exploit sensitive issues or disseminate misleading information — or even disinformation — to susceptible groups.
Furthermore, the effectiveness of microtargeting in influencing consumer behavior and voter decisions has led to calls for more responsible use of data analytics. Critics argue for the development of ethical guidelines that balance the benefits of personalized communication with the imperative to protect individual privacy and maintain democratic integrity.
Microtargeting represents a significant evolution in the way organizations communicate with individuals, driven by advances in data analytics and digital technology. Its application across advertising and, more notably, political campaigns, has demonstrated its power to influence behavior and decision-making.
However, as microtargeting continues to evolve, it will be crucial for society to address the ethical and regulatory challenges it presents. Ensuring transparency, protecting privacy, and promoting responsible use will be essential in harnessing the benefits of microtargeting while mitigating its potential risks. As we move forward, the dialogue between technology, ethics, and regulation will shape the future of microtargeting in our increasingly digital world.
Machiavellianism originates from Machiavelli’s most famous work, “The Prince,” written in 1513. It was a guidebook for new princes and rulers in maintaining power and control. Machiavelli’s central thesis was the separation of politics from ethics and morality. He argued that to maintain power, a ruler might have to engage in amoral or unethical actions for the state’s benefit. His stark realism and advocacy for political pragmatism were groundbreaking at the time.
Machiavelli’s work was revolutionary, providing a secular, pragmatic approach to governance, in contrast to the prevailing moralistic views of the era. His ideas were so radical that “Machiavellian” became synonymous with cunning, scheming, and unscrupulous behavior in politics. This term, however, is a simplification and somewhat misrepresents Machiavelli’s nuanced arguments about power and statecraft.
Throughout history, Machiavellianism has been interpreted in various ways. During the Enlightenment, philosophers like Rousseau criticized Machiavelli for promoting tyranny and despotism. However, in the 20th century, Machiavelli’s ideas were re-evaluated by political scientists who saw value in his separation of politics from morality, highlighting the complexity and real-world challenges of governance.
Machiavellianism in psychology
In psychology, Machiavellianism is defined as a personality trait characterized by a duplicitous interpersonal style, a cynical disregard for morality, and a focus on self-interest and personal gain. This concept was popularized in the 1970s by Richard Christie and Florence L. Geis, who developed the Mach-IV test, a questionnaire that identifies Machiavellian tendencies in individuals. People high in Machiavellian traits tend to be manipulative, deceitful, predatory, and exploitative in their relationships and interactions.
Machiavellianism in American politics
In American politics, Machiavellianism can be observed in various strategies and behaviors of politicians and political groups. Here are some ways to identify Machiavellian tendencies:
Exploitation and Manipulation: Politicians exhibiting Machiavellian traits often manipulate public opinion, exploit legal loopholes, or use deceptive tactics to achieve their goals. This might include manipulating media narratives, twisting facts, disseminating disinformation, and/or exploiting populist sentiments.
Realpolitik and Pragmatism: Machiavellianism in politics can also be seen in a focus on realpolitik β a theory that prioritizes practical and pragmatic approaches over moral or ideological considerations. Politicians might adopt policies that are more about maintaining power or achieving pragmatic goals than about adhering to ethical standards.
Power Play and Control: Machiavellian politicians are often characterized by their relentless pursuit of power. They may engage in power plays, such as political patronage, gerrymandering, and/or consolidating power through legislative maneuvers, often at the expense of democratic norms.
Moral Flexibility: A key aspect of Machiavellianism is moral flexibility β the ability to adjust oneβs moral compass based on circumstances. In politics, this might manifest in policy flip-flops or aligning with ideologically diverse groups when it benefits one’s own interests.
Charismatic Leadership: Machiavelli emphasized the importance of a rulerβs charisma and public image. Modern politicians might cultivate a charismatic persona to gain public support, sometimes using this charm to mask more manipulative or self-serving agendas.
Machiavellianism, stemming from the teachings of NiccolΓ² Machiavelli, has evolved over centuries, influencing both political theory and psychology. In contemporary American politics, identifying Machiavellian traits involves looking at actions and policies through the lens of power dynamics, manipulation, moral flexibility, and a pragmatic approach to governance.
While Machiavellian strategies can be effective in achieving political goals, they often raise ethical questions about the nature of power and governance in a democratic society.
The concept of a “honeypot” in the realms of cybersecurity and information warfare is a fascinating and complex one, straddling the line between deception and defense. At its core, a honeypot is a security mechanism designed to mimic systems, data, or resources to attract and detect unauthorized users or attackers, essentially acting as digital bait. By engaging attackers, honeypots serve multiple purposes: they can distract adversaries from more valuable targets, gather intelligence on attack methods, and help in enhancing security measures.
Origins and Usage
The use of honeypots dates back to the early days of computer networks, evolving significantly with the internet‘s expansion. Initially, they were simple traps set to detect anyone probing a network. However, as cyber threats grew more sophisticated, so did honeypots, transforming into complex systems designed to emulate entire networks, applications, or databases to lure in cybercriminals.
Honeypots are used by a variety of entities, including corporate IT departments, cybersecurity firms, government agencies, and even individuals passionate about cybersecurity. Their versatility means they can be deployed in almost any context where digital security is a concern, from protecting corporate data to safeguarding national security.
Types and purposes
There are several types of honeypots, ranging from low-interaction honeypots, which simulate only the services and applications attackers might find interesting, to high-interaction honeypots, which are complex and fully-functional systems designed to engage attackers more deeply. The type chosen depends on the specific goals of the deployment, whether it’s to gather intelligence, study attack patterns, or improve defensive strategies.
In the context of information warfare, honeypots serve as a tool for deception and intelligence gathering. They can be used to mislead adversaries about the capabilities or intentions of a state or organization, capture malware samples, and even identify vulnerabilities in the attacker’s strategies. By analyzing the interactions attackers have with these traps, defenders can gain insights into their techniques, tools, and procedures (TTPs), enabling them to better anticipate and mitigate future threats.
Historical effects
Historically, honeypots have had significant impacts on both cybersecurity and information warfare. They’ve led to the discovery of new malware strains, helped dismantle botnets, and provided critical intelligence about state-sponsored cyber operations. For example, honeypots have been instrumental in tracking the activities of sophisticated hacking groups, leading to a deeper understanding of their targets and methods, which, in turn, has informed national security strategies and cybersecurity policies.
One notable example is the GhostNet investigation, which uncovered a significant cyber espionage network targeting diplomatic and governmental institutions worldwide. Honeypots played a key role in identifying the malware and command-and-control servers used in these attacks, highlighting the effectiveness of these tools in uncovering covert operations.
Ethical and practical considerations
While the benefits of honeypots are clear, their deployment is not without ethical and practical considerations. There’s a fine line between deception for defense and entrapment, raising questions about the legality and morality of certain honeypot operations, especially in international contexts where laws and norms may vary widely.
Moreover, the effectiveness of a honeypot depends on its believability and the skill with which it’s deployed and monitored. Poorly configured honeypots might not only fail to attract attackers but could also become liabilities, offering real vulnerabilities to be exploited.
Cyber attackers and defenders
Honeypots are a critical component of the cybersecurity and information warfare landscapes, providing valuable insights into attacker behaviors and tactics. They reflect the ongoing cat-and-mouse game between cyber attackers and defenders, evolving in response to the increasing sophistication of threats. As digital technologies continue to permeate all aspects of life, the strategic deployment of honeypots will remain a vital tactic in the arsenal of those looking to protect digital assets and information. Their historical impacts demonstrate their value, and ongoing advancements in technology promise even greater potential in understanding and combating cyber threats.
By serving as a mirror to the tactics and techniques of adversaries, honeypots help illuminate the shadowy world of cyber warfare, making them indispensable tools for anyone committed to safeguarding information in an increasingly interconnected world.
Strong economic messages of the Keynesian buttressing of the middle class that is Bidenomics were everywhere in evidence at last night’s State of the Union address, Biden’s third since taking office in 2021. In SOTU 2024 he spoke about stabbing trickle-down economics in its gasping heart as a repeated failure to the American people. Instead of giving another $2 trillion tax cuts to billionaires, Biden wants to give back to the people who he says built America: the middle class.
The President delivered strong, sweeping language and vision reminiscent of LBJ’s Great Society and FDR‘s New Deal. He also delivered a heartwarming sense of unity and appeal to put down our bickering and get things done for the American people.
“We all come from somewhere — but we’re all Americans.”
This while lambasting the Republicans for scuttling the deal over the popular bipartisan immigration bill thanks to 11th hour interference from TFG (“my predecessor” as JRB called him). “This bill would save lives!” He is really effective at calling out the GOP‘s hypocrisy on border security with this delivery.
“We can fight about the border or we can fix the border. Send me a bill!”
He is taking full advantage of being the incumbent candidate here. He has the power and the track record to do all these things he is promising, and he’s telling the exact truth about the Republican obstructionism preventing the American people from having their government work for them.
I love that he calls out Trump in this speech, without naming names — almost a kind of Voldemort effect. He who must not be named — because giving him the dignity even of a name is more than he deserves.
He says that Trump and his cabal of anti-democratic political operatives have ancient ideas (hate, revenge, reactionary, etc.) — and that you can’t lead America with ancient ideas. In America, we look towards the future — relentlessly. Americans wants a president who will protect their rights — not take them away.
“I see a future… for all Americans!” he ends with, in a segment reminiscent of the great Martin Luther King’s “I Have a Dream” speech, with its clear vision of power and authority flowing from what is morally right and just, instead of what is corrupt and cronyish. It gave me hope for the future — that Americans will make the right choice, as we seem to have done under pressure, throughout our history. π€π½
The term “hoax” is derived from “hocus,” a term that has been in use since the late 18th century. It originally referred to a trick or deception, often of a playful or harmless nature. The essence of a hoax was its capacity to deceive, typically for entertainment or to prove a point without malicious intent. Over time, the scope and implications of a hoax have broadened significantly. What was once a term denoting jest or trickery has morphed into a label for deliberate falsehoods intended to mislead or manipulate public perception.
From playful deception to malicious misinformation
As society entered the age of mass communication, the potential reach and impact of hoaxes expanded dramatically. The advent of newspapers, radio, television, and eventually the internet and social media platforms, transformed the way informationβand misinformationβcirculated. Hoaxes began to be used not just for amusement but for more nefarious purposes, including political manipulation, financial fraud, and social engineering. The line between a harmless prank and damaging disinformation and misinformation became increasingly blurred.
The political weaponization of “hoax”
In the contemporary political landscape, particularly within the US, the term “hoax” has been co-opted as a tool for disinformation and propaganda. This strategic appropriation has been most visible among certain factions of the right-wing, where it is used to discredit damaging information, undermine factual reporting, and challenge the legitimacy of institutional findings or scientific consensus. This application of “hoax” serves multiple purposes: it seeks to sow doubt, rally political bases, and divert attention from substantive issues.
This tactic involves labeling genuine concerns, credible investigations, and verified facts as “hoaxes” to delegitimize opponents and minimize the impact of damaging revelations. It is a form of gaslighting on a mass scale, where the goal is not just to deny wrongdoing but to erode the very foundations of truth and consensus. By branding something as a “hoax,” these actors attempt to preemptively dismiss any criticism or negative information, regardless of its veracity.
Case Studies: The “Hoax” label in action
High-profile instances of this strategy include the dismissal of climate change data, the denial of election results, and the rejection of public health advice during the COVID-19 pandemic. In each case, the term “hoax” has been employed not as a description of a specific act of deception, but as a blanket term intended to cast doubt on the legitimacy of scientifically or empirically supported conclusions. This usage represents a significant departure from the term’s origins, emphasizing denial and division over dialogue and discovery.
The impact on public discourse and trust
The strategic labeling of inconvenient truths as “hoaxes” has profound implications for public discourse and trust in institutions. It creates an environment where facts are fungible, and truth is contingent on political allegiance rather than empirical evidence. This erosion of shared reality undermines democratic processes, hampers effective governance, and polarizes society.
Moreover, the frequent use of “hoax” in political discourse dilutes the term’s meaning and impact, making it more difficult to identify and respond to genuine instances of deception. When everything can be dismissed as a hoax, the capacity for critical engagement and informed decision-making is significantly compromised.
Moving Forward: Navigating a “post-hoax” landscape
The challenge moving forward is to reclaim the narrative space that has been distorted by the misuse of “hoax” and similar terms. This involves promoting media literacy, encouraging critical thinking, and fostering a public culture that values truth and accountability over partisanship. It also requires the media, educators, and public figures to be vigilant in their language, carefully distinguishing between genuine skepticism and disingenuous dismissal.
The evolution of “hoax” from a term denoting playful deception to a tool for political disinformation reflects broader shifts in how information, truth, and reality are contested in the public sphere. Understanding this transformation is crucial for navigating the complexities of the modern informational landscape and for fostering a more informed, resilient, and cohesive society.
Malware, short for “malicious software,” is any software intentionally designed to cause damage to a computer, server, client, or computer network. This cybersecurity threat encompasses a variety of software types, including viruses, worms, trojan horses, ransomware, spyware, adware, and more. Each type has a different method of infection and damage.
Who uses malware and what for
Malware is utilized by a wide range of actors, from amateur hackers to sophisticated cybercriminals, and even nation-states. The motives can vary greatly:
Cybercriminals often deploy malware to steal personal, financial, or business information, which can be used for financial gain through fraud or direct theft.
Hacktivists use malware to disrupt services or bring attention to political or social causes.
Nation-states and state-sponsored actors might deploy sophisticated malware for espionage and intelligence, to gain strategic advantage, sabotage, or influence geopolitical dynamics.
Role in disinformation and geopolitical espionage
Malware plays a significant role in disinformation campaigns and geopolitical espionage. State-sponsored actors might use malware to infiltrate the networks of other nations, steal sensitive information (hacked emails perhaps?), and manipulate or disrupt critical infrastructure. In terms of disinformation, malware can be used to gain unauthorized access to media outlets or social media accounts, spreading false information to influence public opinion or destabilize political situations.
Preventing malware
Preventing malware involves multiple layers of security measures:
Educate Users: The first line of defense is often the users themselves. Educating them about the dangers of phishing emails, not to click on suspicious links, and the importance of not downloading or opening files from unknown sources can significantly reduce the risk of malware infections.
Regular Software Updates: Keeping all software up to date, including operating systems and antivirus programs, can protect against known vulnerabilities that malware exploits.
Use Antivirus Software: A robust antivirus program can detect and remove many types of malware. Regular scans and real-time protection features are crucial.
Firewalls: Both hardware and software firewalls can block unauthorized access to your network, which can help prevent malware from spreading.
Backups: Regularly backing up important data ensures that, in the event of a malware attack, the lost data can be recovered without paying ransoms or losing critical information.
Famous malware incidents in foreign affairs
Several high-profile malware incidents have had significant implications in the realm of foreign affairs:
Stuxnet: Discovered in 2010, Stuxnet was a highly sophisticated worm that targeted supervisory control and data acquisition (SCADA) systems and was believed to be designed to damage Iran’s nuclear program. It is widely thought to be a cyberweapon developed by the United States and Israel, though neither has confirmed involvement.
WannaCry: In May 2017, the WannaCry ransomware attack affected over 200,000 computers across 150 countries, with the UK’s National Health Service, Spain’s TelefΓ³nica, FedEx, and Deutsche Bahn among those impacted. The attack exploited a vulnerability in Microsoft Windows, and North Korea was widely blamed for the attack.
NotPetya: Initially thought to be ransomware, NotPetya emerged in 2017 and caused extensive damage, particularly in Ukraine. It later spread globally, affecting businesses and causing billions of dollars in damages. It is believed to have been a state-sponsored attack originating from Russia, designed as a geopolitical tool under the guise of ransomware.
SolarWinds: Uncovered in December 2020, the SolarWinds hack was a sophisticated supply chain attack that compromised the Orion software suite used by numerous US government agencies and thousands of private companies. It allowed the attackers, believed to be Russian state-sponsored, to spy on the internal communications of affected organizations for months.
In conclusion, malware is a versatile and dangerous tool in the hands of cybercriminals and state actors alike, used for everything from financial theft to sophisticated geopolitical maneuvers. The proliferation of malware in global affairs underscores the need for robust cybersecurity practices at all levels, from individual users to national governments. Awareness, education, and the implementation of comprehensive security measures are key to defending against the threats posed by malware.
The essence of the Soviet term bespredel is the “limitless and total lack of accountability of the elite oligarchs”; lawlessness; anarchy; no presence of the rule of law.
“Bespredel” is a Russian term that has seeped into broader discourse, particularly in discussions about social, political, and cultural behaviors. At its core, “bespredel” translates to “limitlessness” or “without limit,” but its connotations stretch far beyond this literal interpretation.
Bespredel means a society without morals
It evokes a state of lawlessness, anarchy, or the absence of boundaries, where traditional rules and moral codes are disregarded. This concept is often associated with the extreme exertion of power and control, where individuals or groups act with impunity, unconstrained by societal norms or legal frameworks.
The term seems closely related to the concept of pathocracy, in which society’s most personality disordered individuals congregate at the helm of power and wreak their very worst havoc on the rest of the population.
Bespredel operates in multiple contexts
In various contexts, “bespredel” has been used to describe situations ranging from personal relationships to the highest levels of political power. It captures a sense of unchecked aggression, corruption, or exploitation, where the absence of limits leads to extreme and often destructive behavior.
This term is particularly resonant in discussions about the post-Soviet social landscape, where rapid changes and the vacuum of power sometimes led to chaotic conditions and a blurring of moral and legal boundaries as state capture and capital flight remade the country seemingly overnight. In literature and media, “bespredel” is employed to explore themes of nihilism, resistance, and the human condition in the face of overwhelming and unchecked authority.
In it simplest form, active measures incorporates information warfare aimed at undermining the West.
Active measures (“Π°ΠΊΡΠΈΠ²Π½ΡΠ΅ ΠΌΠ΅ΡΠΎΠΏΡΠΈΡΡΠΈΡ” in Russian) refer to a form of political warfare conducted by the Soviet Union and now, by extension, Russia, to influence the course of world events. These measures include a wide range of activities, such as espionage, the dissemination of propaganda, and the establishment of front organizations, all aimed at manipulating the public opinion and decision-making processes in other countries.
The goal is often to destabilize opponents and weaken alliances contrary to the interests of the Soviet Union or Russia, without engaging in much riskier direct military conflict.
Disinformation in active measures
Historically, active measures have included complex operations, such as spreading disinformation, orchestrating smear campaigns, and using psychological warfare to sow discord and confusion among the target population. For example, during the Cold War, the KGB engaged in active measures to spread false information about the United States, aiming to weaken its credibility and influence on the global stage.
These operations were meticulously planned and could span years or even decades, employing a variety of tactics from leaking altered documents to fostering relationships with sympathetic or unknowing individuals within influential positions.
In the digital age, the concept of active measures has evolved with technology. Social media platforms and the internet have become fertile grounds for such operations, allowing for the rapid spread of disinformation and the manipulation of public opinion on a scale previously unimaginable.
These modern active measures can involve cyber attacks, the use of trolls and bots to amplify divisive content, and the strategic release of hacked information to influence political outcomes, as seen in various elections around the world (the Wikileaks email dumps that helped Trump eke out the presidency in 2016, e.g.). The adaptability and covert nature of active measures make them a persistent challenge for governments and societies trying to safeguard democratic processes and maintain national security.
Sockpuppets are fake social media accounts used by trolls for deceptive and covert actions, avoiding culpability for abuse, aggression, death threats, doxxing, and other criminal acts against targets.
In the digital age, the battleground for political influence has extended beyond traditional media to the vast, interconnected realm of social media. Central to this new frontier are “sockpuppet” accounts – fake online personas created for deceptive purposes. These shadowy figures have become tools in the hands of authoritarian regimes, perhaps most notably Russia, to manipulate public opinion and infiltrate the political systems of countries like the UK, Ukraine, and the US.
What are sockpuppet accounts?
A sockpuppet account is a fake online identity used for purposes of deception. Unlike simple trolls or spam accounts, sockpuppets are more sophisticated. They mimic real users, often stealing photos and personal data to appear authentic. These accounts engage in activities ranging from posting comments to spreading disinformation, all designed to manipulate public opinion.
The Strategic Use of Sockpuppets
Sockpuppet accounts are a cog in the larger machinery of cyber warfare. They play a critical role in shaping narratives and influencing public discourse. In countries like Russia, where the state exerts considerable control over media, these accounts are often state-sponsored or affiliated with groups that align with government interests.
Case Studies: Russia’s global reach
The United Kingdom: Investigations have revealed Russian interference in the Brexit referendum. Sockpuppet accounts spread divisive content to influence public opinion and exacerbate social tensions. Their goal was to weaken the European Union by supporting the UK’s departure.
Ukraine: Russia’s geopolitical interests in Ukraine have been furthered through a barrage of sockpuppet accounts. These accounts disseminate pro-Russian propaganda and misinformation to destabilize Ukraine’s political landscape, particularly during times of crisis, elections, or — most notably — during its own current war of aggression against its neighbor nation.
The United States: The 2016 US Presidential elections saw an unprecedented level of interference. Russian sockpuppets spread divisive content, fake news, and even organized real-life events, creating an environment of distrust and chaos. Their goal was to sow discord and undermine the democratic process.
How sockpuppets operate
Sockpuppets often work in networks, creating an echo chamber effect. They amplify messages, create false trends, and give the illusion of widespread support for a particular viewpoint. Advanced tactics include deepfakes and AI-generated text, making it increasingly difficult to distinguish between real and fake content.
Detection and countermeasures
Detecting sockpuppets is challenging due to their evolving sophistication. Social media platforms are employing AI-based algorithms to identify and remove these accounts. However, the arms race between detection methods and evasion techniques continues. Governments and independent watchdogs also play a crucial role in exposing such operations.
Implications for democracy
The use of sockpuppet accounts by authoritarian regimes like Russia poses a significant threat to democratic processes. By influencing public opinion and political outcomes in other countries, they undermine the very essence of democracy β the informed consent of the governed. This digital interference erodes trust in democratic institutions and fuels political polarization.
As we continue to navigate the complex landscape of digital information, the challenge posed by sockpuppet accounts remains significant. Awareness and vigilance are key. Social media platforms, governments, and individuals must collaborate to safeguard the integrity of our political systems. As citizens, staying informed and critically evaluating online information is our first line of defense against this invisible but potent threat.
The Snow Revolution was a series of popular protests beginning in Moscow in 2011, demanding the reinstatement of free elections, the ability to form opposition parties, and the end of massive state corruption. The protests were sparked by claims of electoral fraud in the 2011 Russian parliamentary elections and were further fueled by Vladimir Putin‘s announcement that he would seek a third presidential term.
Tens of thousands of Russians took to the streets in Moscow and other cities, marking the largest public demonstrations since the fall of the Soviet Union. Hundreds if not thousands of protestors were detained on the first day of action (Dec 5), continuing over the next 2 years as punishments grew increasingly harsh and more activists were sent to penal colonies.
The role of social media in the Snow Revolution
The protests were notable for their use of technology and social media, which played a crucial role in organizing and spreading awareness. This was a new phenomenon in Russian political activism, reflecting the influence of the digital age on political movements.
One of the leaders of the Snow Revolution, Alexei Navalny, emerged as a serious rival to Putin’s rule. In 2020 the Russian dictator had the popular blogger-turned-political leader poisoned with the powerful nerve agent novichok. He was treated in Germany and managed to survive, only to voluntarily return and be thrown into prison indefinitely by the Russian state.
Aftermath of the Snow Revolution
The Russian government responded with a mix of concessions and repressions. While some dialogue was opened with opposition figures, and a few electoral reforms were promised, there was also a significant crackdown on protesters, opposition leaders, and non-governmental organizations, especially those receiving foreign funding.
The Snow Revolution did not lead to immediate substantial political change in Russia. Putin was re-elected in 2012, and the United Russia party maintained its dominance. However, the movement had a lasting impact on the Russian political landscape. It exposed the growing divide between the government and a significant segment of the population, particularly among the urban, educated middle class. It also demonstrated a rising discontent with authoritarian governance and a growing awareness and engagement in political processes among the Russian public.
The Snow Revolution marked a significant moment in modern Russian history, highlighting the power and limitations of protest movements in challenging entrenched political systems.
Buckle up, we’re in for a wild ride. Many of the serious scholars of political history and authoritarian regimes are sounding the alarm bells that, although it is a very very good thing that we got the Trump crime family out of the Oval Office, it is still a very very bad thing for America to have so rapidly tilted towards authoritarianism. How did we get here?! How has hyper partisanship escalated to the point of an attempted coup by 126 sitting Republican House Representatives? How has political polarization gotten this bad?
These are some of the resources that have helped me continue grappling with that question, and with the rapidly shifting landscape of information warfare. How can we understand this era of polarization, this age of tribalism? This outline is a work in progress, and I’m planning to keep adding to this list as the tape keeps rolling.
America has had flavors of authoritarianism since its founding, and when fascism came along the right-wing authoritarians ate it up — and deeply wanted the United States to be a part of it. Only after they became social pariahs did they change position to support American involvement in World War II — and some persisted even after the attack of Pearl Harbor.
With Project 2025, Trump now openly threatens fascism on America — and sadly, some are eager for it. The psychology behind both authoritarian leaders and followers is fascinating, overlooked, and misunderstood.
Scholars of authoritarianism
Karen Stenner — Australian political psychologist Karen Stenner found that approximately 1/3 of populations are authoritarian, have an authoritarian personality, or have authoritarian tendencies.
Derrida — the logic of the unconscious; performativity in the act of lying
ketman — Ketman is the psychological concept of concealing one’s true aims, akin to doublethink in Orwell’s 1984, that served as a central theme to Polish dissident CzesΕaw MiΕosz‘s book The Captive Mind about intellectual life under totalitarianism during the Communist post-WWII occupation.
Erich Fromm — coined the term “malignant narcissism” to describe the psychological character of the Nazis. He also wrote extensively about the mindset of the authoritarian follower in his seminal work, Escape from Freedom.
Eric Hoffer — his book The True Believers explores the mind of the authoritarian follower, and the appeal of losing oneself in a totalist movement
Fascism — elevation of the id as the source of truth; enthusiasm for political violence
double highs — social dominators who can “switch” to become followers in certain circumstances
Loyalty; hero worship
Freud = deeply distrustful of hero worship and worried that it indulged people’s needs for vertical authority. He found the archetype of the authoritarian primal father very troubling.
In a world of increasing disinformation, it’s more important than ever to be armed with actual information. And being curious about the meaning, nature, and origins of things is a rewarding journey in and of itself.
Think of these dictionaries as tools for your mind — they can help you make connections between concepts, understand the terminology being used in the media and all around you, and feel less lost in a sea of dizzying complexity and rapid change. A fantastic vocabulary also helps you connect with people near and far — as well as get outside your comfort zone and learn something new.
Dictionaries List
This section includes dictionaries and definitions of important terms in important realms — and is continually being built out. Stay tuned!
Authoritarianism is a political system where a single leader or a small group holds significant power, often without the consent of the governed. Decisions are made by authorities without public input, and individual freedoms and democratic principles are usually suppressed. The government may control various aspects of life, including media and the economy, without checks and balances. This leads to a concentration of power that can foster corruption and human rights abuses. In an authoritarian regime, obedience to the authorities is often emphasized over personal liberties and democratic participation.
Definitions and terms relating to the study of the mind, including ideas from social psychology, political psychology, positive psychology, and Buddhist psychology.
Legal statute requiring those persons lobbying on behalf of a foreign government or other entity to register such with the U.S. government.
Folks like Mike Flynn and Jared Kushner ran afoul of this law during their time in the US government.
History of FARA
The Foreign Agents Registration Act, often abbreviated as FARA, is a United States law passed in 1938. The purpose of FARA is to ensure that the U.S. government and the people of the United States are informed about the source of information (propaganda) and the identity of people trying to influence U.S. public opinion, policy, and laws on behalf of foreign principals.
The Act requires every person who acts as an agent of foreign principals in a political or quasi-political capacity to make periodic public disclosure of their relationship with the foreign principal. This includes activities, receipts, and disbursements in support of those activities. Disclosure of the required information facilitates evaluation by the government and the American people of the statements and activities of such persons.
The Act is administered and enforced by the FARA Unit of the National Security Division (NSD) of the United States Department of Justice.
FARA does not restrict publishing of materials or viewpoints; rather, it requires agents representing the interests of foreign powers to disclose their relationship with the foreign government and information about related activities and finances.
Originally, FARA was passed in 1938 in response to concerns about German propaganda agents in the United States in the years leading up to World War II, but its usage has evolved over time. The Act has been amended several times, most significantly in 1966 when its scope was narrowed to focus more specifically on agents working in a political context.
Non-compliance with FARA has become a more prominent issue in recent times, with several high-profile investigations and prosecutions related to the Act. The Act received significant media attention during and after the 2016 U.S. Presidential election, when it was invoked in investigations related to foreign interference in the election — particularly Russian election interference.
