Understanding Neoreaction (NRx): The Dark Enlightenment’s Growing Influence
In the landscape of contemporary political thought, few movements have generated as much intrigue and controversy as Neoreaction (NRx). Emerging from the darkest corners of the internet and gradually infiltrating mainstream discourse, this philosophical movement represents one of the most comprehensive rejections of modern liberal democracy. Here we’ll explore the origins, key figures, core beliefs, and growing influence of Neoreaction in both Silicon Valley and Republican politics.
Origins and Key Figures
Neoreaction emerged in the mid-to-late 2000s as an online philosophical and political movement, primarily through blog posts and forum discussions. The movement’s foundational texts were written by Curtis Yarvin (writing under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug), a software engineer by day and political theorist by night who began publishing his critiques of modern democracy in 2007-2008 through his blog “Unqualified Reservations.”
Yarvin’s verbose, citation-heavy writing style attracted a small but dedicated following of readers who were drawn to his radical critique of contemporary political systems. His work was further developed and popularized by British philosopher Nick Land, who coined the term “Dark Enlightenment” in his 2012 essay of the same name. Land, formerly associated with the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit at Warwick University, added accelerationist elements to Neoreactionary thought, emphasizing the role of capitalism and technology in destabilizing existing political structures.
While Yarvin and Land are considered the primary architects of Neoreactionary thought, the movement draws inspiration from earlier thinkers. These include 19th-century writer Thomas Carlyle, who advocated for authoritarian governance; Julius Evola, an Italian traditionalist philosopher; and American economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, known for his critiques of democracy from a libertarian perspective.
Core Beliefs
At its heart, Neoreaction represents a fundamental rejection of Enlightenment values and the modern liberal democratic order. Its adherents advocate for several interconnected beliefs:
Twitter Timeline (aka ‘X’): From Founding to Present
Few platforms have so profoundly shaped the 21st-century media and political landscape as Twitter. Launched in 2006 as a quirky microblogging experiment in Silicon Valley, Twitter rapidly evolved into a global public square β a real-time newswire, activism megaphone, cultural barometer, and political battleground all in one. From the Arab Spring to #BlackLivesMatter, celebrity feuds to presidential declarations, Twitter didnβt just reflect the world β it influenced it.
But in 2022, everything changed.
The takeover by Elon Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur and self-styled “free speech absolutist,” marked a sharp and chaotic break from Twitterβs legacy. In short order, Musk dismantled key moderation teams, reinstated accounts once banned for extremism or disinformation, and transformed the platform into a private entity under his X Corp umbrella. The iconic blue bird gave way to a stark new identity: X β signaling not just a rebrand, but a fundamental shift in mission, culture, and political alignment.
This timeline chronicles Twitterβs full arc from inception to its present incarnation as X: a detailed account of its business milestones, technological evolution, political influence, and growing alignment with right-wing ideology under Muskβs ownership. Drawing on a wide range of journalistic and academic sources, this narrative highlights how a once-fractious but largely liberal-leaning tech company became a controversial hub for βanti-wokeβ politics, misinformation, and culture war skirmishes β with global implications.
2006 β Birth of a New Platform
March 2006: In a brainstorming at Odeo (a San Francisco podcast startup founded by Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams — the latter of whom would go on to later found the longform writing platform Medium), Jack Dorsey and colleagues conceive a text-message status sharing service. By March 21, Dorsey sends the first-ever tweet β βjust setting up my twttrβ, marking Twitterβs official creation.
July 2006: Twitter (then styled βtwttrβ as was the vowel-less fashion at the time) launches to the public as a microblogging platform allowing 140-character posts. It initially operates under Odeo, but in October the founders form the Obvious Corporation and buy out Odeoβs investors, acquiring Twitterβs intellectual property.
August β September 2006: Early users begin to see Twitterβs potential. In August, tweets about a California earthquake demonstrate Twitterβs value for real-time news by eyewitnesses. In September, twttr is rebranded as Twitter after acquiring the domain, finally graduating into the land of vowels.
2007 β Rapid Growth and Social Buzz
March 2007: Twitter gains international buzz at the SXSW conference Interactive track. Usage explodes when attendees use it for real-time updates, a tipping point that greatly expands Twitterβs userbase.
April 2007: Spun off as its own company, Twitter, Inc. begins to operate independently from Obvious Corp, the parent company of Odeo. Twitter also closes its first venture funding round in April, raising $5 million led by Union Square Ventures and venture capitalist Fred Wilson, who would become one of Twitter’s most influential backers, at a ~$20 million valuation. Other early investors included Ron Conway, Marc Andreessen, Chris Sacca, Joi Ito, and Dick Costolo (who would later become its CEO).
August 2007: User-driven innovation gives rise to the hashtag. Invented by user Chris Messina to group topics, the β#β hashtag debuts and later becomes an official Twitter feature for trend tracking. This year, Twitterβs growth is so rapid that frequent server crashes occur, introducing the world to the iconic βFail Whaleβ error image created by artist Yiying Lu (a symbol of its early growing pains).
One of my favorite historians, Professor Richardson is a kind of north star to train your eyes on in making sense of this peculiarly unsettling moment in time. While any Heather Cox Richardson speech is worth your time, this one at Boston’s Old North Church — in commemoration of the anniversary of the lighting of the lanterns there in 1775 — deserves special mention for its sweeping yet intimate detail view of revolutionary sentiment in the colonies under waning British rule.
Professor Richardson has a true gift for both making centuries’-old history seem strikingly relevant today, as well as for analyzing today’s news through the lens of the long-term, clarifying its causes, and tempering it with context. A question we thought settled long ago — whether we are to be ruled by an all-powerful king whose power is unchecked by any force — has disturbingly resurfaced as Donald Trump convincingly play-acts (or perhaps naturally embodies) the role of mad king. Here she weaves the tale of revolutionaries in the late 18th century throwing off the mad king of their time, as an inspiration to those of us inexplicably confronting this same problem again in 2025.
Heather Cox Richardson speech summary
I would encourage everybody to watch or read the speech in full (as well as check out HCR’s other brilliant books) as it’s well worth your time — but for those short on the irreplaceable stuff, here’s a summary:
The Thiel Connection: Mentorship and Collaboration
Lonsdale’s career has been deeply intertwined with that of Peter Thiel, the billionaire entrepreneur and right-wing political donor. Their relationship began during Lonsdale’s college years at Stanford University, where he was editor-in-chief of The Stanford Review, a publication Thiel had co-founded years earlier. This shared intellectual foundation would prove formative for their future collaborations.
After graduating from Stanford with a computer science degree in 2004, Lonsdale joined Thiel at Clarium Capital, a global macro hedge fund. As an early executive there, Lonsdale helped grow the fund to $8 billion in assets under management, working closely with Thiel and absorbing his contrarian investment philosophy and political worldview.
The most significant product of their partnership came in 2004, when they co-founded Palantir Technologies along with Alex Karp, Stephen Cohen, and Nathan Gettings. Named after the all-seeing stones from “The Lord of the Rings,” Palantir focused on data analytics with applications in defense, intelligence, and corporate settings. The company received early investment from the CIA‘s venture fund, In-Q-Tel, setting it on a path to become deeply embedded in government and defense workβa connection that would later align with Lonsdale’s political activities.
Building an Empire: From Palantir to 8VC
While Lonsdale left his operational role at Palantir in 2009, he continued as an advisor while launching a series of new ventures. He founded Addepar, a wealth management platform now managing over $4 trillion in assets, and co-founded OpenGov, which provides cloud-based software for government budgeting.
In 2015, Lonsdale founded 8VC, a venture capital firm that now manages over $6 billion in capital. Through 8VC, he has invested in companies like Oculus, Guardant Health, Oscar, Wish, and Flexport, expanding his influence throughout the tech industry. The firm’s name itself reflects Lonsdale’s philosophyβthe number 8 representing infinity when turned sideways, suggesting limitless potential.
Political Activities and Right-Wing Advocacy
Unlike many Silicon Valley elites, Lonsdale has been unabashedly outspoken about his right-wing political views. Following in the footsteps of his mentor Thiel, he has emerged as an active Republican donor and fundraiser, using his considerable wealth and influence to support right-wing candidates and causes.
In 2020, Lonsdale made headlines when he joined the exodus of tech leaders leaving San Francisco for more conservative locales, relocating his family and business to Austin, Texas. He publicly criticized California’s “disrepair,” citing high taxes, regulations, and progressive policies as his reasons for leavingβa move that solidified his status as a vocal critic of liberal governance.
Lonsdale’s political advocacy extends beyond campaign contributions. He co-founded the Cicero Institute, a policy think tank focused on market-oriented solutions to healthcare, housing, and criminal justice reform. The institute promotes conservative approaches to these issues, advocating for reduced regulation and private-sector solutions.
Perhaps his most ambitious political-adjacent project is the University of Austin (UATX), which he co-founded as an alternative to what he sees as the liberal orthodoxy dominating higher education. The university aims to promote so-called “intellectual diversity” and “free speech“, reflecting Lonsdale’s belief that traditional universities have become too politically homogeneous.
The New Right of Silicon Valley
Together with Thiel, Lonsdale represents a new brand of tech-enabled Republicanism. This movement combines traditional Republican values of (in this case extremely) limited government and free markets with a Silicon Valley ethos of disruption and technological optimism. It stands apart from both establishment Republicanism and populist right-wing movements, offering a vision of conservative politics infused with the language and tools of technology.
Lonsdale has used his platform to advocate for American innovation and entrepreneurship, arguing that technological advancement, not government intervention, is the solution to society’s problems. His American Optimist initiative promotes this vision through podcasts and other media, featuring conversations with entrepreneurs, scientists, and policy experts who share his techno-optimistic worldview.
Joe Lonsdale and Elon Musk
Joe Lonsdale and Elon Musk know each other, and have collaborated on various ventures. Lonsdale has been a supporter of Musk’s initiatives both politically and in business. His firm 8VC invested in Musk’s Boring Company during its Series C funding round. He also contributed $1 million to America PAC, a super PAC backing Donald Trump‘s 2024 presidential campaign run by Musk. Their relationship extends to political endeavors, with Lonsdale described as a friend and “political confidant” of Musk. β
On a personal level, Lonsdale married Tayler Cox in 2016, and they have five children together. Their family life, now based in Austin, reflects the traditional values that inform his political perspective.
With an estimated net worth of $425 million, Lonsdale uses his wealth not just for political activities but also for philanthropy, often directed toward causes aligned with his conservative values. He and his wife are active donors in various philanthropic pursuits, though these typically reflect his market-oriented approach to solving social problems.
The Future of Right-Wing Tech
At just 42 years old, Lonsdale’s influence in both technology and politics continues to grow. As one of the youngest members ever to appear on Forbes’ Midas List, his investment decisions shape the future of technology, while his political advocacy helps define a new strain of tech right-wing forces.
Following Thiel’s playbook but developing his own distinctive voice, Lonsdale represents a generation of tech leaders who are attacking Silicon Valley’s liberal consensus. And with fellow tech titan buddy Elon Musk now Chief Buddy, these energetically right-wing tech oligarchs with enormous power over our daily lives already are unsettlingly close to the White House.
You’ll hear a common retort on the extreme right that now holds sway in the mainstream Republican Party, in response to protests about the dismantling of democracy in this country — that we’re “a republic, not a democracy.” Right off the bat, a republic is a form of democracy — so they are claiming something akin to having a Toyota and not a car. It makes no logical sense, and is based in simple ignorance of civics and basic political philosophy.
John Birch Society loonies laud “a republic, not a democracy”
The “republic, not a democracy” meme would go on to be featured in the John Birch Society Blue Book — an organization so toxically extremist that even conservative darling William F. Buckley distanced himself from them. They feared the idea that increasing democratization would be a shifting balance of power away from white conservative men, and they spun numerous conspiracy theories to explain this as the result of nefarious undercover plot to overthrow Western Civilization.
In reality, the trend towards greater democracy is something the Founders themselves envisioned — though they likely could not have imagined how it would turn out. They believed fiercely in self-governance, and a clear separation from the tyranny of kings.
They wanted us to amend our Constitution, and to look at them in hindsight not as saintly gods but as mere men — who could govern themselves just as well as any reasonably earnest group of human beings could also do. At the time, arguably, they would have said “group of men” — but they were products of their time, and their worldview was limited to a patriarchal frame. Philosophically speaking, the Declaration of Independence is clear in its lofty goals — if its author was not so clear in his personal behavior regarding the equality of all persons.
That is what Abraham Lincoln meant by the “better angels” of our nature — that though we are fallible humans who make mistakes and have hubris and repeat the same idiocies again and again, we yet strive to become better than what we currently are. It’s noble, and inspiring, and is the better basis for a nation to unify around than that of hatred, bigotry, and petty revenge that the current Trump 2.0 administration stands for.
Joe Gebbia: A Silicon Valley Success Story’s Troubling Turn
Joe Gebbia’s journey from innovative designer to billionaire entrepreneur, and his subsequent embrace of authoritarian politics, illustrates how wealth and power can fundamentally reshape values and allegiances.
Origins in Innovation
Born in 1981, Gebbia’s early career showed genuine promise in merging design thinking with social good. His education at the Rhode Island School of Design, combined with business studies at Brown University and MIT, suggested someone who might bridge the gap between creativity and commerce for positive change.
The origin story of Airbnb – born from Gebbia and Brian Chesky’s inability to afford rising rent – once seemed to exemplify Silicon Valley‘s democratic potential. Their solution of renting air mattresses to conference attendees appeared to embody the sharing economy’s promise of democratizing access to travel and income. With technical co-founder Nathan Blecharczyk, they built Airbnb into a platform that transformed travel — though critics would later note its role in driving up housing costs in many cities, and the many regulatory battles that have ensued.
The Price of Success
Their bootstrapping story of selling custom cereal boxes during the 2008 election to raise funds became startup lore. Yet ironically, the economic desperation that inspired Airbnb’s creation stands in stark contrast to Gebbia’s current alignment with policies that often exacerbate income inequality and wealth inequality.
While Gebbia’s commitment to philanthropy through the Giving Pledge appeared commendable, his recent political evolution raises questions about the coherence between his charitable giving and his support for policies that often undermine social safety nets.
A Troubling Political Transformation
Gebbia’s political journey from Democratic donor to Trump supporter represents more than just a change in voting patterns – it reflects a broader pattern of tech billionaires embracing authoritarian politics. After contributing over $200,000 to Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden’s campaigns, Gebbia’s sudden shift rightward in the 2024 election coincided with his increasing proximity to power in the form of Elon Musk and the Trump administration.
His public support for Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and defense of various right-wing positions on social media marked a dramatic departure from his previous support for progressive causes. This transformation mirrors a troubling trend among tech elites who, after accumulating vast wealth, appear to abandon democratic principles in favor of authoritarian solutions.
Accelerationism Dictionary: A Complete Terminology and Lexicon
AI accelerationism, or βe/acc,β is one of the most radical and controversial ideologies emerging from Silicon Valley today. At its core, it champions the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence, rejecting calls for regulation and safety measures in favor of unchecked innovation. Proponents argue that AI holds the key to solving humanityβs greatest challengesβclimate change, poverty, diseaseβand even envision a post-human future where intelligence transcends biological limits.
With strong libertarian leanings, the movement prioritizes market-driven progress, believing that government intervention would stifle AIβs transformative potential. Tech billionaires like legendary venture capitalist Marc Andreessen have embraced these ideas, elevating what was once a fringe philosophy into a driving force in the AI industry.
However, AI accelerationism faces fierce criticism for its disregard of ethical considerations, social consequences, and potential existential risks. Detractors warn that unregulated AI development could exacerbate inequality, destabilize economies, and lead to dangerous technological outcomes without proper safeguards.
The movement stands in stark opposition to cautious, ethical AI development advocated by groups like the effective altruism community, setting up a high-stakes ideological battle over the future of artificial intelligence. Whether one sees AI accelerationism as a path to utopia or a reckless gamble, its growing influence makes it a defining force in the ongoing debate over technologyβs role in shaping humanityβs future.
This accelerationism dictionary should help get anyone up to speed on this emerging and dangerous ideology. We’ll keep adding to it over time as the field continues to evolve at breakneck pace.
Accelerationism Dictionary
A
Accelerate or die: A common slogan in the e/acc movement expressing the belief that technological acceleration is necessary for survival.
Accelerationism: A philosophical and political movement advocating for the acceleration of technological, social, and economic progress. Can exist in left-wing, right-wing, and politically neutral forms.
AI supremacy: The belief or fear that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and capabilities, potentially dominating society, economies, and geopolitical power structures. It is often discussed in the context of global competition for technological dominance.
Understanding AI Accelerationism: Silicon Valley’s Radical Vision for the Future
What is AI accelerationism? AI accelerationism, or “e/acc” as it’s known in tech circles, has emerged as one of Silicon Valley‘s most influential and controversial ideological movements. At its core, it represents a radical optimism about artificial intelligence and its potential to reshape human civilization as we know it.
What is AI Accelerationism?
At its most basic, AI accelerationism advocates for the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence. Unlike those who call for careful regulation and safety measures, accelerationists believe that faster AI development is not just beneficial but crucial for humanity’s future. They reject what they see as excessive caution, often dismissing AI safety advocates as “doomers.”
The Core Beliefs
Technological Solutions to Global Problems
Accelerationists believe that unrestricted technological progress, particularly in AI, holds the key to solving humanity’s greatest challenges. From their perspective, issues like climate change, poverty, and disease are problems that advanced AI could potentially solve if we develop it quickly enough.
Post-Human Future
Perhaps most ambitiously, many e/acc proponents envision a future where the line between human and machine blurs. They embrace the possibility of human-AI integration and the emergence of new forms of consciousness and intelligence.
Market-Driven Innovation
The movement has strong libertarian leanings, advocating for minimal government intervention in AI development. They believe that market forces, not regulation, should guide technological progress.
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.
The situation is, as they say in the military, FUBAR’d. We are under a full-on authoritarian attack to democracy in progress in broad daylight, being carried out by the (unfortunately) legitimate president and his illegitimate best buddy Elon Musk. What can we do — the situation seems so bleak, you say. I hear you and I feel you. But AOC and HCR (two of my favorite acronyms) are here to break it down about how we should not go quietly — and how to do it.
First up: what are we facing? Among other things, what is most probably the biggest data breach of all time — perpetrated by Elon’s Musk’s fake department DOGE. Former Republican strategist Stuart Stevens called Musk’s land grab of the federal till and all its payment information about citizens “the most significant data leak in cyber history.” On top of that, the conflicts of interest inherent in this unlawful caper are so staggering they’re well out of scope of this single blog post.
Beyond that, Trump waited for Congress to go out of session before beginning the blitzkrieg of illegal Executive Orders and maneuvers designed to attack America and throw its citizens off balance. Here’s a list of the main actions we need to be pressing our Congresspeople to get answers for:
Events of the authoritarian push
Impoundment Attempt and Judicial Reversal:
Early in the Trump administration, an Office of Management and Budget memo attempted to freeze federal spending pending a review for alleged “DEI contamination”. A federal judge quickly ruled this action βblatantly unconstitutional,β forcing the administration to backtrack. However, related Executive Orders freezing some payments are said to “still be in order” which is (intentionally) causing confusion around the status of almost everything.
Elon Muskβs Intervention in the Treasury Payment System:
Muskβs people, reportedly a group of young men between 19 and 24 according to Wired, attempted to access a βsecret areaβ within USAID (the agency responsible for U.S. foreign aid). In the process, two top officials were sidelined (put on administrative leave), and Muskβs team gained access, potentially compromising sensitive U.S. intelligence data.
Announced Cuts to Federal Programs:
Following these breaches, Musk (acting as a Trump ally) has claimed on social media that he is βcuttingβ certain federally funded programs, including a human services organization linked to the Lutheran Church. This move threatens funding for critical services such as migrant support, nursing homes, and possibly even affects Social Security and Medicare (though Trump has stated these will not be touched).
Tariffs and International Implications:
Additionally, Trumpβs administration is imposing tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, which could inflict economic pain, especially in regions that predominantly support the Republican agenda.
These recent events (the inimitable Heather Cox Richardson covers them in-depth in her Letters from an American column) highlight an aggressive attack on constitutional governance marked by executive overreach and the manipulation of public funds. Actions such as unilateral spending freezesβdisguised (thinly) as efforts to address DEI concernsβand the controversial transfer of control over federal financial systems to private interests like world’s richest man Elon Musk (who apparently still doesn’t have enough money) reveal a dangerous shift in power.
This reckless endangerment jeopardizes not only the integrity of critical public services and security measures but also the core democratic principle of accountability, underscoring an urgent need for citizens to remain vigilant and demand that elected officials uphold the constitutional order. We The People still wield the ultimate power — as AOC is about to so eloquently tell you more about.
Apparently a spur of the moment decision without much thought behind it, Trump hoped to get the specter of the January 6 coup behind him — only to Streisand Effect himself into a wave of negative attention. Meanwhile, after months (and years) of slander against immigrants and supposedly violent criminal immigrants rampaging across the country, it is in fact Donald Trump himself who unleashed hundreds of convicted violent offenders back onto the streets — where they are already actively plotting revenge.
I’m old enough to remember when the GOP was supposedly the “party of law and order,” and now they are a brazenly and recklessly lawless bunch. One of few upsides is that a wave of discontent is brewing.
Federal judges slam January 6 pardons
Several federal judges who presided over multiple criminal trials of the January 6 rioters weighed in on the official record about the judiciary’s outrage over the January 6 pardons, including Tanya Chutkan, Colleen Kollar-Kotelly, Amy Berman Jackson, and Beryl Howell.
US District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly had scathing words about the pardons:
βDismissal of charges, pardons after convictions, and commutations of sentences will not change the truth of what happened on January 6, 2021. What occurred that day is preserved for the future through thousands of contemporaneous videos, transcripts of trials, jury verdicts, and judicial opinions analyzing and recounting the evidence through a neutral lens. Those records are immutable and represent the truth, no matter how the events of January 6 are described by those charged or their allies.β
Judge Amy Berman Jackson agreed that nothing could wipe away the truth about the events of that terrible day:
“No stroke of a pen and no proclamation can alter the facts of what took place on January 6, 2021.”
Judge Tanya Chutkan had strong words as well, as she dismissed without prejudice a pending case still before her:
“The dismissal of this case cannot undo the ‘rampage [that] left multiple people dead, injured more than 140 people, and inflicted millions of dollars in damage.”
Original Sources: Judges clap back to January 6 pardons
I’ve been wanting to do more of a consistent focus on going back to the original sources of the news beyond just the media coverage or commentary about them. This experiment with NotebookLM‘s curiously compelling audio generation feature provides the best of both worlds: audio commentary on the original court filings referenced by the PBS story about strident judicial warnings attached to the January 6 pardons. Let me know what you think in the YouTube comments — I’m really still just experimenting with the channel.
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.
Kamala Harris should be proud of the race she ran, an almost flawless sprint through the tape at a scant 108 days’ worth of time to make her pitch to the American voters — many of whom complained that they did not know her very well as a candidate.
Disinformation continued relentlessly throughout the race — even doubling down when called out.
Not a Mandate
Trump’s lead keeps dropping as California and other western states finish counting their ballots after what seems like an eternity — mostly due to CA accepting ballots postmarked by election day, adding 7 days to the final count no matter what.
He dropped below 50% and never recovered — meaning that more people voted against him than voted for him.
As of the final count, his margin dropped below 1.5% — the 4th largest margin in any popular vote win in the past 100 years.
Vote Predictors
Education
Media Sources
Urban vs. Rural
I haven’t had the energy to give to this piece and I just learned about this feature of Google’s NotebookLM that can generate a podcast between 2 hosts, from your uploaded assets. I tested it out with a combined corpus of some of my own thoughts and some of the resources I found insightful.
What NotebookLM came up with was uncannily compelling. It would be something I would consider useful, particularly as a tool for initiating some of those folks less steeped in politics as I am. So I’m posting it here, in part as a signpost regarding where we’re heading — whether we like it or not.
History is rife with examples of dualistic thinkingβblack and white, good and evil, light and dark. Few frameworks encapsulate this philosophical dichotomy more vividly than Manichaeism, a religious movement born in 3rd century Persia. At its heart lies the concept of the “Manichaean Struggle,” an eternal cosmic battle that defines existence itself.
Though the religion has long since disappeared, its ideas about duality and morality resonate in ways both subtle and overt, shaping not just theology but how we think about human nature and ethics today. If anything, the modern world is more black and white now than at many times in the past.
Historical Context
Manichaeism was founded in 3rd century CE Persia by a prophet named Mani. Claiming to synthesize the wisdom of previous religious traditionsβZoroastrianism, Buddhism, and ChristianityβMani positioned his teachings as the ultimate revelation. The religion rapidly gained a foothold across diverse regions, from the Roman Empire to the Silk Road, even reaching as far as China.
Yet, despite its initial success, Manichaeism faced relentless persecution from state powers, including the Roman Empire and the Sasanian rulers of Persia, alongside internal schisms. By the 14th century, the faith had all but disappeared, leaving behind traces in historical records and theological debates.
Core Beliefs of Manichaeism
At its core, Manichaeism proposed a dualistic cosmology: the world is a battleground between two primordial forcesβgood, symbolized by light, and evil, represented by darkness. Mani’s teachings divided cosmic history into three stages:
Past Separation: A time when light and darkness existed apart.
Present Mixture: The current era, in which the two forces intermingle, with particles of light trapped within the material world.
Future Resolution: A prophesied time when light will be liberated and returned to its source, restoring cosmic balance.
This worldview emphasized the imprisonment of light particles within physical matter, including within human beings. The struggle to free these fragments of light became the central spiritual endeavor of every adherent.
