Wealth vs. Government

Right wing groups in America have long wielded disproportionate influence over political discourse, policy-making, and the judiciary — quietly but effectively steering the country toward a more authoritarian, corporate-driven agenda. Groups like the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation operate as power brokers in the conservative ecosystem, funneling money and influence to shape not just elections, but the ideological future of the nation.

The Federalist Society, for example, has become a judicial kingmaker, successfully installing justices on the Supreme Court who subscribe to its narrow view of constitutional “originalism”—leading to landmark decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson, which rolled back reproductive rights in America. Meanwhile, Heritage’s Project 2025 serves as a blueprint for a far-right authoritarian takeover of federal agencies, ready to gut progressive reforms and install Christian nationalist ideology in their place.

But these are just a few key players in an ever-expanding web of right-wing groups. The National Rifle Association (NRA) remains a force in stoking fears around gun rights to mobilize voters, while Fox News continues to manipulate public discourse with fear-mongering and disinformation to drive its viewers further into a reactionary worldview. Behind the scenes, the Council for National Policy (CNP) operates as a shadowy network of conservative elites pulling the strings, and groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Turning Point USA drive extremist policies at the state and grassroots levels.

Add to that the influence of organizations like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and PragerU, and it becomes clear that right-wing power in America is deeply entrenched, feeding off the fear and division these groups systematically create. The stakes for democracy and the future of civil liberties couldn’t be higher.

One way to address the threat is to become familiar with it. Here is a cheatsheet to some of the most influential and notable right wing groups in operation today.

The Federalist Society

The Federalist Society is a powerful, right-wing legal organization that seeks to reshape the U.S. judiciary by advocating for originalism and textualism—the interpretation of the Constitution based on its supposedly “original” meaning (as interpreted by conservative judges, of course). Founded in 1982, this group has steadily gained influence by grooming conservative legal talent, promoting judges who share their philosophy, and challenging progressive legislation, with many of its members appointed to federal courts, including the Supreme Court.

Their ultimate goal is to roll back decades of civil rights protections, environmental regulations, and reproductive freedoms in favor of limited government (even ultra-limited government) and deregulated markets. Now led by conservative activist Leonard Leo, The Federalist Society’s growing clout can be seen in the success of getting their chosen justices onto the Supreme Court, paving the way for decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade and set back reproductive rights in America by half a century. The organization’s influence has been particularly notable during Republican administrations, especially under former President Donald Trump, who appointed 3 of the Court’s 9 straight from the Federalist list.

A full two thirds of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices have been affiliated with or supported by The Federalist Society. These justices share the Society’s commitment to originalism and textualism, and many were recommended or championed by the organization during the judicial nomination process. The following 6 justices have ties to The Federalist Society:

  1. John Roberts (Chief Justice) – Although not a formal member, Roberts has participated in Federalist Society events and has been described as ideologically aligned with the group’s principles.
  2. Clarence Thomas – An advocate of originalism, Thomas has long been associated with the judicial philosophy promoted by The Federalist Society. He has spoken at their events and is widely seen as one of their intellectual leaders on the bench.
  3. Samuel Alito – Like Roberts, Alito is not a formal member but has participated in Federalist Society activities and shares their conservative judicial outlook.
  4. Neil Gorsuch – A formal member of The Federalist Society before his nomination, Gorsuch was strongly backed by the organization when he was selected to replace Antonin Scalia in 2017.
  5. Brett Kavanaugh – Kavanaugh was supported by The Federalist Society throughout his career, and his nomination to the Supreme Court in 2018 was actively promoted by the group.
  6. Amy Coney Barrett – A former member of The Federalist Society, Barrett was a professor at Notre Dame Law School, where she worked closely with the organization. She was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2020 to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

The Heritage Foundation

The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, has long been a key architect of conservative policy in the United States. The Foundation’s efforts consistently push for policies that prioritize corporate interests, deregulation, and concentrated executive power, even at the expense of democratic institutions and processes.

Over the decades, The Heritage Foundation has become a significant force in shaping Republican legislative agendas, providing policy proposals to GOP lawmakers and conservative administrations since Ronald Reagan. However, this institutional influence has often facilitated the entrenchment of an authoritarian strain of right-wing ideology that has now metasticized into the body politic.

Continue reading Right Wing Groups
Read more

Marc Andreessen, a prominent tech billionaire, co-founder of the venture capital firm Andreessen Horowitz, and one of Twitter (X)’s current investors, holds a complex and often controversial set of beliefs and ideologies. But who is Marc Andreessen, really — as in, what does he believe in? What is he using his wealth and power to achieve?

His perspectives are often polarizing, marrying an unyielding faith in the transformative power of technology with a worldview that is dismissive of societal concerns and hostile to traditional democratic values. Here are some of the key aspects of his views:

1. Techno-Optimism and Elitism

Andreessen is a strong advocate for techno-optimism, believing that technological advancements are the key to solving societal problems and driving progress. However, this optimism is often tied to an elitist worldview, where he sees technologists and wealthy entrepreneurs as the primary drivers of societal advancement.

 His “Techno-Optimist Manifesto” outlines a vision where technologists are the leaders of society, unencumbered by social responsibility, trust, safety, and ethics — particularly in the realm of AI, which he believes ought to race ahead to whatever end, risks be damned.

2. Critique of Government and Social Structures

Andreessen criticizes the U.S. government for being strangled by special interests and lobbying, yet his firm has engaged in significant lobbying efforts.

He expresses disdain for centralized systems of government, particularly communism, while advocating for technologists to play a central role in planning and governing society.

Who is Marc Andreessen? A Silicon Valley venture capitalist and tech billionaire with extreme views about society

3. Accelerationism and Right-Wing Influences

 Andreessen embraces “effective accelerationism,” a philosophy that champions technological advancement at any cost. This is influenced by thinkers like Nick Land, known for his anti-democratic and anti-egalitarian ideas.

His manifesto draws from the works of Friedrich Hayek, Milton Friedman, and Ayn Rand, reflecting a strong right-wing libertarian influence.

Continue reading Who is Marc Andreessen?
Read more

who owns twitter elon musk and others

The social network formerly known as Twitter, now known as X, has been through some things — including a rocky change of ownership 2 years ago. At the time, the person who owns Twitter on paper was known to be tech billionaire and then-world’s richest man Elon Musk — but it was not fully known who was included in the full shadowy list of Twitter investors.

Thanks apparently to some terrible lawyering, the full list of Twitter investors via parent company X Corp has been unsealed during discovery for a legal case against Musk relating to non-payment of severance for employees he laid off after buying the company. In addition to the known in 2022 list below, we can now augment the Twitter investors list with more detail:

  • Bill Ackman
  • Marc Andreesen — legendary tech investor and general partner at Andreessen Horowitz, known for his techno-accelerationist views
  • Joe Lonsdale — cofounder of Palantir with shadowy tech billionaire Peter Thiel, the primary financial backer of Trump’s VP pick JD Vance
  • Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal
  • Jack Dorsey — one of the original founders of Twitter
  • Larry Ellison
  • Ross Gerber
  • Doug Leone
  • Michael Moritz
  • Changpeng Zhao

Security analyst and intelligence professional Eric Garland notes that beyond the notable billionaires on the list, the investor sheet can be largely read as “fronts for the dictatorships of Russia, China, Saudi Arabia, and others.” Tech pioneer turned investigative journalist Dave Troy’s take on the Twitter investor list reveal is that it shows “this platform is an instrument of information warfare.”

Continue reading Who owns Twitter (X)? [2024 update]
Read more

This is one of those stats that’s sure to be both repeated and disbelieved, courtesy of Bill Clinton’s speech at the phenomenal DNC 2024 last night: since the end of the Cold War in 1989, the cumulative tally of job creation between the two parties is not even close: 50 to 1. Out of the 51 million jobs that have been created since then, about 50 million of them can be attributed to Democrats (under Clinton, Obama, and Biden who account for 97.4% of the total), and only 1 million to Republicans.

That is a pretty stark objective review of right-wing economic ideology. Which is billed, by the way, as “job creating” policy. Trickle down economics, supply side, Reaganomics, libertarian theory, Mudsill Theory — by whatever name you call it, the policy of giving massive tax cuts to the rich while cutting spending on the middle class is supposed to magically create great prosperity for all. Instead, the numbers show the exact opposite — prosperity is not trickling down. It is in fact being hoovered up.

DNC 2024: Fierce middle class energy

I hope to write more about the overall amazing, vibrant, and joyful atmosphere of the DNC this year — delivering not just the strongest support for Kamala Harris and Tim Walz possible, but bringing back the sense of hope and optimism from the Obama years in the most refreshing and much-needed way. But for now I’ll just say that the Democrats are driving home this economic message that has already been wildly successful under Joe Biden: when we invest in the middle class, the economy truly does grow for everybody.

When the middle class is strong, America is strong. It’s a lesson we learned in the post-war era of the 1950s but have drifted away from since the 1970s when corporate leaders and big business interests mounted a concerted effort to turn the tide against the New Deal value system that lifted us out of the Great Depression and the economic policy that ushered in that broad distribution of wealth in the U.S.

It feels like the fever is finally breaking. The decades of epic gaslighting fomented by the merchants of doubt may have reached the peak disinformation tolerance of the American people. Here’s hoping the real economic stories will now get told — and that Americans will go to the polls this November and cast their ballots accordingly.

Read more

In an age where history is often twisted into a pretzel to fit the political narrative du jour, Heather Cox Richardson stands out as a truth-teller. She’s not just another academic tucked away in an ivory tower; she’s a historian with her boots on the ground (often literally, as she travels the country speaking about what she sees), dissecting the American past with surgical precision and connecting it directly to the chaos we’re living through today. Heather Cox Richardson books are like tours through the deep history behind the seemingly recent developments in US politics.

Richardson isn’t content to let history gather dust in old textbooks. No, she’s dragging it kicking and screaming into the present, showing us that the battles we’re fighting now—over democracy, race, and who gets to call the shots—are just the latest skirmishes in a war that’s been raging since the country’s inception. She doesn’t just recount the past; she wields it like a spotlight, illuminating the dark corners of our current political mess.

Historian Heather Cox Richardson interviews President Joe Biden

Her “Letters from an American” newsletter has become a lifeline for many who feel lost in the swamp of today’s political discourse. With each entry, she lays out the facts, cutting through the noise and reminding us that the problems we face aren’t new—they’re the bitter fruit of seeds planted long ago. But Richardson isn’t just about doom and gloom. She’s also about hope, about understanding the past so we can navigate our way out of the storm.

Why does her work matter so much right now? Because as we teeter on the edge of what sometimes feels like the unraveling of our democracy, Richardson offers us a lifeline: context. She shows us that the currents pulling us under have been swirling for centuries and that understanding them is the first step to changing the tide.

Richardson’s books are more than just historical accounts; they’re roadmaps that guide us through the muck of the present by showing us where we’ve been. Whether she’s unpacking the economic machinations of the Civil War, tracing the GOP’s evolution from Lincoln’s party to today’s fractured entity, or exposing how Southern oligarchy seeped into the national bloodstream, she’s always making one thing clear: history is not a straight line. It’s a loop, and if we’re not careful, we’ll find ourselves back where we started.

In a time when facts are up for debate and democracy is under siege, Heather Cox Richardson’s voice is not just important—it’s essential. She’s not just telling us what happened; she’s showing us what’s at stake. I look forward to immersing myself in the first three, but I’ve read the last 3 and wholeheartedly recommend them to anyone seeking to understand this current political moment and what’s at stake.

1. “The Greatest Nation of the Earth: Republican Economic Policies during the Civil War” (1997)

  • Summary: The book examines how the Republican Party’s economic policies during the Civil War shaped the United States’ economy and political landscape. Richardson argues that these policies, including the establishment of a national banking system and the introduction of a national currency, laid the groundwork for the modern American economy and solidified the Republicans’ control over the national government.

2. “The Death of Reconstruction: Race, Labor, and Politics in the Post-Civil War North, 1865-1901” (2001)

  • Summary: Richardson explores the Northern perspective on the Reconstruction era, focusing on how Northern attitudes toward race, labor, and politics contributed to the failure of Reconstruction. She argues that the North’s retreat from Reconstruction was driven by concerns about class and labor rather than race alone, leading to the abandonment of African Americans in the South.

3. “West from Appomattox: The Reconstruction of America after the Civil War” (2007)

  • Summary: This book extends the traditional narrative of Reconstruction beyond the South, exploring how the Civil War and its aftermath reshaped the entire nation. Richardson connects the experiences of people across the country, showing how the Reconstruction era led to the creation of a new American identity and a modern national government.

4. “To Make Men Free: A History of the Republican Party” (2014)

  • Summary: Richardson provides a comprehensive history of the Republican Party from its founding in the 1850s through the early 21st century. She traces the party’s evolution from a force for emancipation and national unity to its modern incarnation, examining the ideological shifts and internal conflicts that have shaped its trajectory.

5. “How the South Won the Civil War: Oligarchy, Democracy, and the Continuing Fight for the Soul of America” (2020)

  • Summary: In this book, Richardson argues that although the South lost the Civil War militarily, its ideology of oligarchy and white supremacy continued to shape American politics and society. She traces the spread of this Lost Cause ideology from the post-war South to the West and its eventual influence on national politics, culminating in the rise of modern conservative movements.

6. “Democracy Awakening: Notes on the State of America” (2023)

  • Summary: Richardson reflects on the current state of American democracy, drawing on her expertise in history and her popular “Letters from an American” newsletter. She examines the challenges facing the country in the era of Trumpism, including political polarization, disinformation and misinformation, conspiracy theories, and the erosion of democratic norms, while also offering hope and a path forward based on historical lessons.
Read more

Evangelicals in church raising their hands high for Christian nationalism

Christian nationalism, a belief system that intertwines national identity with Christian faith, has been a significant force in American history — and the Christian nationalism timeline may go back further than you think. It erroneously asserts that the United States is fundamentally a Christian nation and should be governed by biblical principles.

This flawed ideology has influenced various aspects of American life, from politics to education, and continues to shape the discourse around national identity and public policy. Understanding the evolution of Christian nationalism provides critical insights into its current manifestations and implications for the future.

In recent years, the resurgence of Christian nationalism has become more visible and influential in American politics. The events of January 6, 2021, and the Big Lie rhetoric surrounding the 2020 presidential election highlighted the power and reach of this movement. With key figures like Russell Vought and organizations like Project 2025 advocating for policies that align with their interpretation of Christian values, it is essential to examine the timeline of Christian nationalism to grasp its roots, growth, and contemporary relevance.

Vote them out, while we still can

Then, get to the polls and take everyone you know with you. Do not allow the right-wing to establish a theocracy in this country — no matter what your faith (or lack thereof), we have common interest in preventing any one faith from informing the US government.

A line of diverse and young-looking voters forms at the polling place -- the right-wing's worst nightmare

Just because they say the words “Christian nation” does not alter the actual history in which the founders were deists who were adamant about keeping the political and religious spheres separate — having seen the ills it can cause to entwine them. Is America a Christian nation? No. We rejected the divine right of kings, very consciously and loudly so at the time. It is easy to pick up this sentiment in the writings of the founders both inside and outside of the founding documents.

Christian nationalism timeline

  • 1607 — The Jamestown Colony is established in Virginia. Early settlers bring a mix of Christian beliefs that will influence American culture.
  • 1620 — The Pilgrims arrive on the Mayflower, establishing the Plymouth Colony. They seek religious freedom after being persecuted for their lack of conformity to the Anglican church in England, and establish a community based on their Puritan beliefs.
  • 1630 — John Winthrop delivers his sermon “A Model of Christian Charity,” articulating the vision of America as a “city upon a hill,” influencing the concept of a Christian nation.
  • 1730-1740s — The First Great Awakening, a series of religious revivals, sweeps through the American colonies, strengthening evangelicalism.
  • 1776 — The Declaration of Independence is signed. The Founding Fathers, while influenced primarily by Enlightenment ideas, also incorporate some Christian principles.
  • 1787 — The U.S. Constitution is drafted, establishing a secular government with the First Amendment guaranteeing freedom of religion.
Continue reading Christian Nationalism Timeline
Read more

Project 2025 mind map of entities

Project 2025, led by former Trump official Paul Dans and key conservative figures within The Heritage Foundation, sets forth an ambitious conservative and Christian nationalist vision aimed at fundamentally transforming the role of the federal government. Leonard Leo, a prominent conservative known for his influence on the U.S. Supreme Court‘s composition, is among the project’s leading fundraisers.

The initiative seeks to undo over a century of progressive reforms, tracing back to the establishment of a federal administrative framework by Woodrow Wilson, through the New Deal by Roosevelt, to Johnson’s Great Society. It proposes a significant reduction in the federal workforce, which stands at about 2.25 million people.

Project 2025 plans

Essential measures include reducing funding for, or even abolishing, key agencies such as the Department of Justice, the FBI, the Department of Homeland Security, and the Departments of Education and Commerce. Additionally, Project 2025 intends to bring semi-independent agencies like the Federal Communications Commission under closer presidential control.

At its heart, Project 2025 aims to secure a durable conservative dominance within the federal government, aligning it closely with the principles of the MAGA movement and ensuring it operates under the direct oversight of the White House. The project is inspired by the “unitary executive theory” of the Constitution, which argues for sweeping presidential authority over the federal administrative apparatus — in direct contradiction with the delicate system of checks and balances architected by the Founders.

It is also inspired by religious fervor (and the cynical exploitation thereof) — and Project 2025 has brought together a pantheon of Christian nationalist organizations and groups to draft policy that could be implemented with alacrity, select potential appointees for the administration, build networks with GOP at the state and local levels — and with right wing groups and networks around the world.

Project 2025 goals

To realize their extremist, authoritarian goal, Dans is actively recruiting what he terms “conservative warriors” from legal and government networks, including bar associations and offices of state attorneys general. The aim is to embed these individuals in key legal roles throughout the government, thereby embedding the conservative vision deeply within the federal bureaucracy to shape policy and governance for the foreseeable future.

Continue reading What is Project 2025: The GOP’s plan for taking power
Read more

Jesus healing the sick as a foil to Christian nationalism

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.

Jesus with a group of poor children, as a foil to the Christian nationalist movement

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.

Continue reading Christian nationalism isn’t very Christian
Read more

banned books burning books

Expecting this banned books list will be ongoing, unfortunately…

Book bans represent a significant threat to the First Amendment by restricting access to diverse ideas and viewpoints, which are essential to a free and democratic society. These bans orchestrated by right wing groups often target literature that addresses complex and sometimes controversial themes such as race, sexuality, and political ideologies, under the guise of protecting young readers.

However, this form of censorship undermines intellectual freedom and the right to read, leading to a homogenized culture that stifles critical thinking and open dialogue. The American Library Association (ALA) and PEN America have documented thousands of instances where books have been removed from school and public libraries, reflecting a concerted effort by certain groups to impose their moral or political standards on the wider community, thus eroding the foundational principles of free expression enshrined in the First Amendment​.

Most Banned Books (2023-2024)

  1. “Gender Queer” by Maia Kobabe
  2. “All Boys Aren’t Blue” by George M. Johnson
  3. “The Bluest Eye” by Toni Morrison
  4. “Out of Darkness” by Ashley Hope Pérez
  5. “The Hate U Give” by Angie Thomas
  6. “Beyond Magenta” by Susan Kuklin
  7. “The Absolutely True Diary of a Part-Time Indian” by Sherman Alexie
  8. “Melissa” (previously published as “George”) by Alex Gino
  9. “Stamped: Racism, Antiracism, and You” by Jason Reynolds and Ibram X. Kendi
  10. “Drama” by Raina Telgemeier
Continue reading Banned Books List: What the right-wing considers dangerous literature
Read more

Trump tax cuts right-wing economics

At least, not according to what Republicans promised when they passed them. The Trump tax cuts didn’t work to grow the economy, increase revenues, alleviate the debt, or benefit ordinary Americans as alleged.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (TCJA) was introduced by then-Speaker of the House (and fiscal hawk) Paul Ryan and signed into law by then-President Donald Trump on December 22, 2017. It permanently reduced the corporate tax rate from 35% to 21%, and lowered the overall tax for all brackets — seems fair, right? Except the wealthy walked away with 50 times the amount of tax benefit as the lower brackets.

Trump tax cuts add $1.5 trillion to the deficit

Not only did the tax cuts not raise revenue as promised — they became a liability on the balance sheet when almost immediately going into the red. The Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) estimated the TCJA would add approximately $1.5 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years, after accounting for any temporary growth effects. The national debt will rise to accommodate as we borrow money to make up the shortfall between earnings and expenditures.

The Trump tax cuts reduced federal tax revenue, with significant declines in corporate tax receipts (surprise, surprise!). They did the exact opposite of what they promised to do — leaving our economy in a more precarious position even before the pandemic hit.

Who benefited from Trump’s tax cuts?

Conservatives and right-wing economists claim that tax cuts will help ordinary people by raising wages. In reality, however, corporations instead used their tax windfalls to do other things: stock buybacks, dividends, and executive pay. In fact, this happens over and over again each cycle of empty promises from so-called “fiscal conservatives” who in large part know exactly what they do.

Billionaires love Trump tax cuts!

They seem to believe they are entitled to the lion’s share of America’s money (as they have been since at least Mudsill Theory in 1858 and even before) and by gum, nothing is going to stop them — not democracy, not a sense of decency, not a sense of institutional preservation as used to be the very core pillar of Conservatism. No longer. Now it’s a will to power and to plunder. It’s not so much trickle down as it is hoover up.

Reaganomics, Trickle down, Laffer curve, Supply-side economics — it’s all the same

The magical revenue-generating power of tax cuts has been long promised and never delivered by right-wing Republicans. Since the 1980s edition, Reaganomics — the economic “theory” drafted on the back of a cocktail napkin dubbed the Laffer Curve for the slightly drunken man who scribbled it — has moved immense amounts of wealth upwards into the hands and coffers of the 1% and 0.1% at the expense of the masses.

The argument is that rich people will take the extra billions in returned tax money and use it to innovate and grow the economy — except that never happens. And why would they? They don’t have to earn revenue the old-fashioned way, through free market competition — they can just sit back on their laurels, buy a Senator or two, and rake in a huge windfall every few years that a GOP officeholder is in the White House. It is rock solid orthodoxy for the right-wing now, that tax cuts are almost the only policy initiative they care about — along with a side of deregulation and the slashing of the social safety net.

We’ve seen this movie before. The rich guys take the money and run — in many ways literally, into the arms of tax-free havens like the Cayman Islands or Seychelles. They do not return it to the American economy — although they do inject it into American politics, to skew the playing field even further in their favor despite already extracting extraordinary privileges and benefits to themselves from all aspects of their coziness with the political elite and their direct capture of various institutions.

As LBJ once said:

“If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

President Lyndon Baines Johnson, 1960

The economic elites are dividing us over race and religion, in order to pick our pockets. This is why we can’t have nice things. We should boot them out and have nice things.

Related Reading:

Trickle Down Economics
Dark money
The GOP is 3 Cults in a Trenchcoat
Property vs. People, all the way down
Oligarchy and the Creep of Fascism
Read more

A historic day on Thursday, May 30, 2024 as the first former President in US history became a convicted felon. Found guilty on all 34 counts, Donald Trump finally faces the music for the first of his election-related criminal trials. Already the Trump trial disinformation machine is spinning up on the right, making wild claims about a politicized process.

The investigation into Trump’s fraudulent payments to Stormy Daniels actually began with Michael Cohen on July 18, 2017, when his bank First Republic Bank tipped off the FBI to some suspicious activity from the Trump’s fixer’s accounts. That investigation led to a 3-year sentence for Cohen for the same exact crime. Way back in 2018, we knew that “Co-conspirator 1” was Donald Trump — and now he has been convicted of that crime.

The federal case inspired an investigation into Cohen’s finances by the state of New York, where both he and the business were located. Manhattan DA Alvin Bragg inherited the case from former prosecutor Cy Vance, who began investigating Trump way back in 2018 after Cohen’s guilty plea, when Cohen admitted in court to making the hush money payments to adult film actress Stormy Daniels during Trump’s 2016 campaign. Vance ultimately declined to make a decision on the case before leaving office in 2021, leaving it open for his successor Alvin Bragg.

The Trump investigation: Multiple convictions

Vance did end up charging former Trump Organization CFO Alan Weisselberg with tax fraud, conspiracy, grand larceny, and falsifying business records. He pled guilty in 2022 and testified against the Trump Org, resulting in a conviction of criminal tax fraud against the company and a fine of $1.6 million.

Vance also worked with the Southern District of New York to prosecute the Michael Cohen case and 3-year sentence.

From hush money to election corruption

When new DA Bragg inherited the case that later came to be known as the “hush money” case in 2021, he was reportedly reluctant to make charges, causing 2 longtime prosecutors to leave. He did however end up charging Donald Trump in April 2023, on 34 counts of felony falsification of business records.

Bragg, a graduate of Harvard Law School, focused on fraud and money laundering cases during his tenure as a prosecutor at the Southern District of New York. He also led the team at the NY Attorney General’s office that secured a $2 million judgment and the dissolution of the Trump Foundation in 2019 for misuse of Trump’s charitable foundation. After looking at the facts of the hush money case, he ultimately decided that it was much bigger than simply paying off a porn star: “it’s about conspiring to corrupt a presidential election.”

Continue reading Trump Trial Disinformation: How the right is trying to discredit the felony conviction
Read more

A con artist, also known as a confidence trickster, is someone who deceives others by misrepresenting themselves or lying about their intentions to gain something valuable, often money or personal information. These individuals employ psychological manipulation and emotionally prey on the trust and confidence of their victims.

There are various forms of con artistry, ranging from financial fraud to the spread of disinformation. Each type requires distinct strategies for identification and prevention.

Characteristics of con artists

  1. Charming and Persuasive: Con artists are typically very charismatic. They use their charm to persuade and manipulate others, making their deceit seem believable.
  2. Manipulation of Emotions: They play on emotions to elicit sympathy or create urgency, pushing their targets into making hasty decisions that they might not make under normal circumstances.
  3. Appearing Credible: They often pose as authority figures or experts, sometimes forging documents or creating fake identities to appear legitimate and trustworthy.
  4. Information Gatherers: They are adept at extracting personal information from their victims, either to use directly in fraud or to tailor their schemes more effectively.
  5. Adaptability: Con artists are quick to change tactics if confronted or if their current strategy fails. They are versatile and can shift their stories and methods depending on their target’s responses.

Types of con artists: Disinformation peddlers and financial fraudsters

  1. Disinformation Peddlers: These con artists specialize in the deliberate spread of false or misleading information. They often target vulnerable groups or capitalize on current events to sow confusion and mistrust. Their tactics may include creating fake news websites, using social media to amplify false narratives, or impersonating credible sources to disseminate false information widely.
  2. Financial Fraudsters: These individuals focus on directly or indirectly extracting financial resources from their victims. Common schemes include investment frauds, such as Ponzi schemes and pyramid schemes; advanced-fee scams, where victims are persuaded to pay money upfront for services or benefits that never materialize; and identity theft, where the con artist uses someone else’s personal information for financial gain.

Identifying con artists

  • Too Good to Be True: If an offer or claim sounds too good to be true, it likely is. High returns with no risk, urgent offers, and requests for secrecy are red flags.
  • Request for Personal Information: Be cautious of unsolicited requests for personal or financial information. Legitimate organizations do not typically request sensitive information through insecure channels.
  • Lack of Verification: Check the credibility of the source. Verify the legitimacy of websites, companies, and individuals through independent reviews and official registries.
  • Pressure Tactics: Be wary of any attempt to rush you into a decision. High-pressure tactics are a hallmark of many scams.
  • Unusual Payment Requests: Scammers often ask for payments through unconventional methods, such as wire transfers, gift cards, or cryptocurrencies, which are difficult to trace and recover.

What society can do to stop them

  1. Education and Awareness: Regular public education campaigns can raise awareness about common scams and the importance of skepticism when dealing with unsolicited contacts.
  2. Stronger Regulations: Implementing and enforcing stricter regulations on financial transactions and digital communications can reduce the opportunities for con artists to operate.
  3. Improved Verification Processes: Organizations can adopt more rigorous verification processes to prevent impersonation and reduce the risk of fraud.
  4. Community Vigilance: Encouraging community reporting of suspicious activities and promoting neighborhood watch programs can help catch and deter con artists.
  5. Support for Victims: Providing support and resources for victims of scams can help them recover and reduce the stigma of having been deceived, encouraging more people to come forward and report these crimes.

Con artists are a persistent threat in society, but through a combination of vigilance, education, and regulatory enforcement, we can reduce their impact and protect vulnerable individuals from falling victim to their schemes. Understanding the characteristics and tactics of these fraudsters is the first step in combatting their dark, Machiavellian influence.

Read more

The Heartland Institute is a conservative and libertarian public policy think tank that was founded in 1984. Based in Arlington Heights, Illinois, its stated mission is to discover, develop, and promote free-market solutions to social and economic problems. However, it is perhaps most widely known for its controversial stance on climate change and its efforts to question the scientific consensus on the matter.

Early years and focus areas

Initially, the Heartland Institute focused on a broad range of issues, including education reform, health care, tax policy, and environmental regulation. It positioned itself as a proponent of free-market policies, arguing that such policies lead to more efficient and effective solutions than those proposed by government intervention. Later, it would begin to pivot towards advocacy around a singular issue: climate change denialism.

Climate change and environmental policy

The Heartland Institute’s engagement with climate change began to intensify in the late 1990s and early 2000s. During this period, the Institute increasingly questioned the prevailing scientific consensus on climate change, which holds that global warming is largely driven by human activities, such as the burning of fossil fuels and deforestation.

The Institute has been accused of being a key player in the campaign to spread doubt about climate change science — following the disinformation playbook first established by Big Tobacco in the 1950s to fight against public awareness of the lethal dangers of smoking. Critics argue that Heartland has worked to undermine public understanding and acceptance of global warming through various means, including:

  1. Publication of Skeptical Research and Reports: Heartland has funded and published reports and papers that challenge mainstream climate science. Notably, it has produced and promoted its own reports, such as the “NIPCC” (Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change) reports, which purport to review the same scientific evidence as the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) but often arrive at starkly different conclusions.
  2. Conferences and Workshops: The Institute has organized and hosted numerous conferences that have brought together climate change skeptics, scientists, and policymakers. These events have served as platforms for presenting and discussing views that are at odds with the mainstream scientific understanding of climate change.
  3. Public Relations and Media Campaigns: Through press releases, op-eds, and social media, the Heartland Institute has actively worked to disseminate its views on climate change to the wider public. It has also attempted to influence policymakers and educators, at times by distributing educational materials that question the consensus on global warming.

Funding and controversy

The funding sources of the Heartland Institute have been a subject of controversy. The organization has received financial support from various foundations, individuals, and corporations, including those with interests in fossil fuels — including the Koch network and the Joseph Coors Foundation. Critics argue that this funding may influence the Institute’s stance on climate change and its efforts to challenge the scientific consensus.

In 2012, the Heartland Institute faced significant backlash following the leak of internal documents that revealed details about its funding and strategy for challenging climate change science. These documents shed light on the Institute’s plans to develop a K-12 curriculum that would cast doubt on climate science, among other strategies aimed at influencing public opinion and education.

Lies, Incorporated

The Heartland Institute’s role in the climate change debate is a highly polarizing one. Proponents view it as a bastion of free speech and skepticism, vital for challenging what they (ironically) claim to see as the politicization of science. Critics, however, argue that its activities have contributed to misinformation, public confusion, and policy paralysis on one of the most pressing issues facing humanity — as well as playing a role in fomenting a broader shift towards science denialism in American culture.

By questioning the scientific consensus on climate change and promoting “alternative facts,” the Heartland Institute has played a significant role in shaping the public discourse on global warming. Its actions and the broader debate around climate science underscore the complex interplay between science, policy, and public opinion in addressing environmental challenges.

Read more

The Tobacco Industry Research Committee (TIRC), which later became the Council for Tobacco Research (CTR), plays a pivotal role in the history of the tobacco industry, particularly in its efforts to counteract emerging scientific evidence linking smoking to serious health risks.

Established in December 1953, the TIRC was a key component of the tobacco industry’s coordinated response to increasing public concern and scientific research showing the adverse health effects of smoking. In the long run, the TIRC’s strategy would become a playbook for other industries that wanted to cast doubt on established science, from acid rain to the ozone layer to climate change denial — and beyond.

cigarettes in an ashtray, by Midjourney

Formation and purpose

The formation of the TIRC was a strategic move by major American tobacco companies in response to a series of scientific studies in the early 1950s that demonstrated a link between smoking and lung cancer. This period marked a significant turning point as the public began to question the safety of smoking. In 1952, Reader’s Digest, one of the most widely read magazines at the time, published an article titled “Cancer by the Carton,” which contributed to a sharp decline in cigarette sales.

Facing a potential crisis, executives from major tobacco companies convened at the Plaza Hotel in New York City. This meeting led to the creation of the TIRC. Officially, the council aimed to promote and fund scientific research into the effects of tobacco use. However, its unstated, primary goal was to cast doubt on the growing evidence linking smoking to health problems, thereby protecting the industry’s interests.

Big Tobacco executives gather at the Plaza Hotel in New York City in 1953 to kick off the science denialism craze to deny the adverse effects of smoking on health

Activities and strategies

The TIRC, and later the CTR, engaged in several key activities aimed at controlling the narrative around smoking and health:

  1. Funding Research: It provided grants for scientific studies in various fields, ostensibly to understand better whether and how smoking posed health risks. However, this research was biased in direction and often focused on alternative explanations for the causes of diseases like lung cancer, suggesting they could be due to factors other than smoking.
  2. Public Relations Campaigns: The TIRC orchestrated extensive public relations campaigns to reassure the public of the safety of smoking. It emphasized that there was no definitive proof linking smoking to cancer, suggesting that more research was needed. This strategy effectively used scientific uncertainty to maintain public trust in tobacco products.
  3. Influencing Scientific Discourse: The TIRC/CTR often attempted to influence the scientific discourse by publishing articles and reviews that questioned the link between smoking and disease. They also organized conferences and meetings where they could promote their narrative.
  4. Legal and Regulatory Influence: The organization worked to influence legislation and regulation related to tobacco use. By casting doubt on the science linking smoking to health risks, they aimed to forestall or weaken public health measures against smoking.

Impact and legacy

The legacy of the TIRC/CTR is marked by its success in delaying public acknowledgment of the health risks of smoking. For decades, the tobacco industry managed to sow doubt about the scientific consensus, affecting public health policies and contributing to continued tobacco use worldwide. This strategy of manufacturing doubt has been emulated by other industries facing similar challenges — leading to a wider cultural practice of science denialism.

In the late 1990s and early 2000s, internal documents from the tobacco industry, including those related to the TIRC/CTR, were finally made public through litigation. These documents revealed the extent to which the industry was aware of the health risks associated with smoking, and its extensive, decades-long efforts to conceal this knowledge from the public.

Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement (1998)

The Tobacco Master Settlement Agreement of 1998, a landmark legal settlement between the major tobacco companies and 46 states, led to significant changes in how tobacco products are marketed and sold in the United States. It also resulted in the dissolution of the CTR and established the American Legacy Foundation (now known as the Truth Initiative), aimed at preventing tobacco use and encouraging cessation.

The TIRC/CTR’s history is a critical chapter in understanding how corporate interests can influence scientific research and public health policy. It serves as a cautionary tale about the importance of transparency, integrity in scientific research, and the potential consequences of allowing economic interests to overshadow public health concerns.

Read more

The concept of cherry-picking refers to the practice of selectively choosing data or facts that support one’s argument while ignoring those that may contradict it. This method is widely recognized not just as a logical fallacy but also as a technique commonly employed in the dissemination of disinformation. Cherry-picking can significantly impact the way information is understood and can influence political ideology, public opinion, and policy making.

Cherry-picking and disinformation

Disinformation, broadly defined, is false or misleading information that is spread deliberately, often to deceive or mislead the public. Cherry-picking plays a crucial role in the creation and propagation of disinformation.

By focusing only on certain pieces of evidence while excluding others, individuals or entities can create a skewed or entirely false narrative. This manipulation of facts is particularly effective because the information presented can be entirely true in isolation, making the deceit harder to detect. In the realm of disinformation, cherry-picking is a tool to shape perceptions, create false equivalencies, and undermine credible sources of information.

The role of cherry-picking in political ideology

Political ideologies are comprehensive sets of ethical ideals, principles, doctrines, myths, or symbols of a social movement, institution, class, or large group that explains how society should work. Cherry-picking can significantly influence political ideologies by providing a biased view of facts that aligns with specific beliefs or policies.

This biased information can reinforce existing beliefs, creating echo chambers where individuals are exposed only to viewpoints similar to their own. The practice can deepen political divisions, making it more challenging for individuals with differing viewpoints to find common ground or engage in constructive dialogue.

Counteracting cherry-picking

Identifying and countering cherry-picking requires a critical approach to information consumption and sharing. Here are several strategies:

  1. Diversify Information Sources: One of the most effective ways to recognize cherry-picking is by consuming information from a wide range of sources. This diversity of trustworthy sources helps in comparing different viewpoints and identifying when certain facts are being omitted or overly emphasized.
  2. Fact-Checking and Research: Before accepting or sharing information, it’s essential to verify the facts. Use reputable fact-checking organizations and consult multiple sources to get a fuller picture of the issue at hand.
  3. Critical Thinking: Develop the habit of critically assessing the information you come across. Ask yourself whether the evidence supports the conclusion, what might be missing, and whether the sources are credible.
  4. Educate About Logical Fallacies: Understanding and educating others about logical fallacies, like cherry-picking, can help people recognize when they’re being manipulated. This knowledge can foster healthier public discourse and empower individuals to demand more from their information sources.
  5. Promote Media Literacy: Advocating for media literacy education can equip people with the skills needed to critically evaluate information sources, understand media messages, and recognize bias and manipulation, including cherry-picking.
  6. Encourage Open Dialogue: Encouraging open, respectful dialogue between individuals with differing viewpoints can help combat the effects of cherry-picking. By engaging in conversations that consider multiple perspectives, individuals can bridge the gap between divergent ideologies and find common ground.
  7. Support Transparent Reporting: Advocating for and supporting media outlets that prioritize transparency, accountability, and comprehensive reporting can help reduce the impact of cherry-picking. Encourage media consumers to support organizations that make their sources and methodologies clear.

Cherry-picking is a powerful tool in the dissemination of disinformation and in shaping political ideologies. Its ability to subtly manipulate perceptions makes it a significant challenge to open, informed public discourse.

By promoting critical thinking, media literacy, and the consumption of a diverse range of information, individuals can become more adept at identifying and countering cherry-picked information. The fight against disinformation and the promotion of a well-informed public require vigilance, education, and a commitment to truth and transparency.

Read more