The shooting in Minneapolis last week of Renee Good, a 37-year-old wife and mom to 3 kids, hit me really hard. It’s not just that she was in a lesbian couple like me, with kids from previous husbands — and that I would be the one in the passenger’s seat. It’s because of the brazenness — pride, even — of the officer who ended her life cavalierly and without remorse.
The smear campaign about this woman nauseates me deeply — it began mere milliseconds after her death when the officer who shot her at point-blank range yelled “fuckin’ bitch!” after her vehicle and escalated extremely quickly to the sitting President, Vice President, and Homeland Security Secretary calling her a “domestic terrorist” despite the physical impossibility of being able to confirm that kind of information so quickly.
It is clear that agent Jonathan Ross escalated the situation himself. He broke DHS policy by putting himself in the path of a moving vehicle. And he should not have had his cellphone out, occupying his other hand, when he drew his weapon — you need the hands to be unobstructed to maximize your ability to handle any situation that may emerge.
He claimed he was afraid for his life — when? Show me on tape at which moment(s) in time this agent appears to behave an a fearful manner, because I do not see it. There are the moments when he’s calmly walking around the entire vehicle recording on his cellphone, moments when he has calmly drawn his gun and is pointing it at Renee Good, and moments where he is shouting and shooting bullets into her head. Where is the fear? He doesn’t run or dive; he doesn’t scream; he doesn’t call for help; he doesn’t show any surprise. He doesn’t seem fearful — he seems in control of the situation at all times, including when he pulls the trigger 3 times to take someone’s life as punishment for being cheeky.
Five years ago today, a violent mob stormed the United States Capitol in an attempt to overturn a free and fair election. The man who incited them has since been re-elected president, which scuppered the investigation into him by Special Counsel Jack Smith. If that whiplash isn’t enough to give you vertigo, consider this: we now have sworn testimony, under oath, from the prosecutor who investigated Trump laying out exactly why his office believed they could convict—and why they were stopped.
Former Special Counsel Jack Smith’s December testimony before the House Judiciary Committee is the closest thing we’ll get to the trial that should have happened. In it, Smith methodically dismantles every defense Trump and his allies have offered, explains how the case was built on testimony from Republicans willing to put country over party, and makes clear that the evidence of Trump’s guilt wasn’t circumstantial—it was direct.
In this post, I’m breaking down the key takeaways from Smith’s testimony, sharing one of my AI#MiniHistory videos marking the anniversary, and giving you a way to interrogate the evidence yourself through an interactive NotebookLM bot. Because if there’s one thing the incoming administration is counting on, it’s that you won’t have time to read 255 pages of testimony. Let’s make sure they’re wrong.
January 6 in 40 seconds
But first, a J6 refresher course — again, for busy folks.
I’ve been into making these little AI #MiniHistory videos with Glif agents, trying to tease out important signposts along our road to dictatorship and other interesting moments in history to highlight. Here’s the one I did for today and the 5th anniversary of January 6, 2021:
Trump has still never been held accountable for his actions that day — the election of 2024 put a boot in the face of any hope for justice prevailing against the Chief Insurrectionist. Nevertheless, Jack Smith replanted a tendril of hope in his mid-December testimony to Congress with a scathingly clear broken record message that Trump was guilty and they had all the receipts they needed to prove it and then some. It lays down new tracks in the Congressional record that will be impossible to expunge, regardless of whatever trash MAGA fairy tale of J6 the right-wing goons decide to slather on the White House website.
Jack Smith testifies to Trump’s guilt “beyond a reasonable doubt”
In eight hours of testimony before the House Judiciary Committee on December 17, 2025, former Special Counsel Jack Smith laid out why his office was prepared to convict Donald Trump on federal charges. Speaking under oath in a closed-door deposition — the Republicans who now hold the gavel had denied his request to testify publicly (after crying decades of crocodile tears over ‘transparency’?? truly?) —Smith called Trump “the most culpable and most responsible person” in the criminal conspiracy to overturn the 2020 election.
There’s something conspicuously absent from American political discourse: actual discussion of values and the morals, ethical choices, and beliefs that go into the creation of good government policy.
Think about the last major political debate you watched, or the last campaign ad that stuck with you. How much of it was about what government should do versus who you should hate? How much was articulating a vision for society versus performing dominance over the out-group?
This isn’t an accident. It’s a strategy.
When your policy positions are wildly unpopular — when majorities oppose you on healthcare, taxation, abortion, climate change, guns, and wages — you don’t engage on the substance. You change the subject. You make politics about identity, grievance, and tribal belonging. You turn every election into a referendum on vibes rather than vision.
The American right has become extraordinarily sophisticated at this evasion. They’ve built an entire media ecosystem designed not to argue for right-wing values, but to ensure those values never have to be argued for at all. And the Trump administration is chock full of people from that media ecosystem.
The Polling Problem
Here’s the uncomfortable reality the modern right has to navigate, and we need to trumpet: their actual policy preferences are not popular.
Exposed to the individual provisions of the Affordable Care Act, majorities supported them — even among Republicans. Majorities support raising taxes on the wealthy, protecting Social Security and Medicare, acting on climate change, keeping abortion legal in most cases, and implementing universal background checks for gun purchases. On issue after issue, when you strip away the partisan framing and ask people what they actually want government to do, the “conservative” position loses.
This creates a strategic problem. You can’t win elections by articulating positions most people reject. So you articulate… something else.
The Retreat from Argument
Meanwhile, the right-wing has indefensible values, which is why they no longer even bother to try to articulate them. Instead, they express them obliquely through “memes” and mores that evince cruelty, bigotry, narcissism, domination, supremacy, greed, selfishness, and contempt for vulnerability — all while maintaining plausible deniability through irony, “just asking questions,” and the ever-ready accusation that anyone who names the pattern is being hysterical or unfair.
This is the function of the perpetual rhetorical shell game: you can’t pin down a position that’s never stated plainly. The cruelty gets expressed through policy and aesthetic, but when challenged, retreats behind procedural objections or “economic anxiety.” The bigotry shows up in who gets mocked and who gets protected, but is never admitted as such — it’s always reframed as “common sense” or “tradition.”
There’s a certain type of political document that doesn’t just argue for change—it manifests the psychological conditions that make change feel inevitable. Thomas Paine’s Common Sense is the template for this genre, and if you’re trying to understand how populist movements gain momentum, how institutional legitimacy crumbles, or how a pamphlet can reshape a nation’s self-concept in under 50 pages, you need to study this text like it’s a masterclass in persuasion engineering. And we’ll help you do just that in this Common Sense Book Review.
Published in January 1776, Common Sense sold an estimated 500,000 copies in a population of 2.5 million. Do the math: that’s a 20% penetration rate in an era when literacy wasn’t universal and distribution meant physical printing presses. In modern terms, Paine achieved what every content creator dreams of—he didn’t just go viral, he became the conversation.
But Paine wasn’t writing for the Continental Congress or the educated elite debating in Philadelphia drawing rooms. He was popularizing revolutionary ideas among ordinary colonists—farmers, tradesmen, shopkeepers—transforming an elite political dispute into a mass movement. This wasn’t theory; it was a manual for collective action that an entire society could rally behind.
The Structural Genius: Four Pillars, One Conclusion
Paine’s architecture is deceptively simple:
Government vs. Society – Establishes the mental model that government is inherently suspect
Monarchy is Absurd – Demolishes hereditary succession through both scripture and reason
The Case for Independence – Makes reconciliation seem more radical than revolution
America’s Material Capability – Provides the practical roadmap
He doesn’t start with independence — he starts by reframing how you think about authority itself. By the time you reach his actual policy proposal, your conceptual framework has been rebuilt from the foundation up. This is first-principles argumentation at its finest.
And the foundation he’s building? It’s the core democratic principle that the law should rule, not hereditary dynasties. Not kings, not aristocrats, not whoever was born into the right family. Paine is arguing for a system where the law governs consenting people who agree to the terms of mutual self-governance—even when they disagree on specific policies. This is the actual American political tradition, and reading Common Sense is the perfect antidote to the current disinformation campaign claiming “the US is a republic, not a democracy!” Paine clearly articulates what the public sentiment actually was at the founding: a forceful rejection of monarchy and inherited power.
Before we dive deeper into the specifics, here’s a video overview:
Mental Model: The Overton Window as Battering Ram
What Paine understood—and what every effective propagandist since has internalized—is that you don’t persuade people by meeting them where they are. You move the window of acceptable discourse so dramatically that your previously extreme position becomes the moderate compromise.
In 1776, most colonists still considered themselves British subjects seeking redress of grievances. Independence wasn’t just radical—it was treasonous. Paine’s innovation was to make continued loyalty to Britain seem like the radical position:
“As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of Britain.”
The Founders knew acutely the pains of centuries of religious warfare in modern Europe and resoundingly did not want that for their new nation. Many of them moreover knew religious persecution intimately — some whose families fled the Church of England for fear of being imprisoned, burned at the stake, or worse. Is America a Christian nation? Although many Christians certainly have come here, in a legal and political sense the nation’s founders wanted precisely the opposite of the “Christian nation” they were breaking with by pursuing independence from the British.
Contrary to the disinformation spread by Christian nationalists today, the people who founded the United States explicitly saw religious zealotry as one of the primary dangers to a democratic republic. They feared demagoguery and the abuse of power that tilts public apparatus towards corrupt private interest. The Founders knew that religion could be a source of strife for the fledgling nation as easily as it could be a strength, and they took great pains to carefully balance the needs of religious expression and secular interests in architecting the country.
The main impetus for a large percentage of the early colonists who came to the Americas was the quest for a home where they could enjoy the free exercise of religion. The Protestant Reformation had begun in Europe about a century before the first American colonies were founded, and a number of new religious sects were straining at the bonds of the Catholic Church’s continued hegemony. Puritans, Mennonites, Quakers, Jesuits, Huguenots, Dunkers, Jews, Amish, Lutherans, Moravians, Schwenkfeldians, and more escaped the sometimes deadly persecutions of the churches of Europe to seek a place to worship God in their own chosen ways.
By the late 18th century when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, many religious flowers were blooming within the 13 colonies. He had seen for himself the pitfalls of the experiments in which a unitary control of religion by one church or sect led to conflict, injustice, and violence. Jefferson and the nation’s other founders were staunchly against the idea of establishing a theocracy in America:
The founding fathers made a conscious break from the European tradition of a national state church.
The words Bible, Christianity, Jesus, and God do not appear in our founding documents.
The handful of states who who supported “established churches” abandoned the practice by the mid-19th century.
Thomas Jefferson wrote that his Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom was written on behalf of “the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu and the infidel of every denomination.” In the text he responds negatively to VA’s harassment of Baptist preachers — one of many occasions on which he spoke out sharply against the encroachment of religion upon political power.
The Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for holding foreign office.
The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
There is a right-wing conspiracy theory aiming to discredit the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” by claiming that those exact words aren’t found in the Constitution.
The phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he is describing the thinking of the Founders about the meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which Jefferson contemplates “with sovereign reverence.”
The phrase is echoed by James Madison in an 1803 letter opposing the building of churches on government land: “The purpose of separation of Church and State is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli states in Article 11: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” — President George Washington first ordered the negotiation of a treaty in 1795, and President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in 1797, with this article widely interpreted to mean a reiteration of the purpose of the Establishment Clause to create a secular state, i.e. one that would not ever be going to holy war with Tripoli.
Critical Dates for Religious Freedom in America
From the very beginning the Founders made clear they did not want to repeat the mistakes of Old Europe. They established a secular government that offered religious freedom to many who had felt persecuted in their homelands — for generations to come.
Get a quick overview of some of the most important moments in American history and its founding documents with our interactive timeline below.
The Founders were deists
Moreover, the majority of the prominent Founders were deists — they recognized the long tradition of Judeo-Christian order in society, but consciously broke from it in their creation of the legal entity of the United States, via the Establishment Clause and numerous other devices. The founders were creatures of The Enlightenment, and were very much influenced by the latest developments of their day including statistics, empiricism, numerous scientific advancements, and the pursuit of knowledge and logical decision-making.
What Deism Actually Meant: Deism in the 18th century was a rationalist religious philosophy that accepted the existence of a creator God based on reason and observation of the natural world, but rejected supernatural revelation, miracles, and divine intervention in human affairs. Think of it as “God as clockmaker” — God designed the universe with rational laws, set it in motion, and then stepped back. This was a radical departure from traditional Christianity.
Empiricism over revelation — knowledge comes from observation and reason, not scripture
Natural rights derived from human nature and reason, not divine command
Social contract theory — government legitimacy comes from consent of the governed, not God’s anointing
Scientific method — Newton’s physics showed that the universe operated by discoverable natural laws
This was a revolutionary shift. They were designing a government based on Enlightenment principles in an era when most of the world still operated under divine-right monarchy.
The European Church-State Problem They Rejected:
The Founders had vivid historical examples of why mixing religion and state power was dangerous:
The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) killed roughly 8 million Europeans in religious conflict
The Spanish Inquisition showed what happens when church and state merge
Various European states still had official churches that persecuted religious minorities — prompting many of them to consider a new line in the American colonies
They saw how “established” (government-sponsored) religions inevitably led to:
Paine went even further than most Founders. In “The Age of Reason” (1794), he argued:
All national churches are “human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind”
Revelation is meaningless — “it is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other”
True religion is simply “to do justice, love mercy, and endeavor to make our fellow-creatures happy”
He predicted that as education and reason spread, traditional organized religion would wither
This was considered extremely radical — even scandalous — at the time. Yet Paine was celebrated as a hero of the Revolution and widely read. He once lamented that “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”
The Structural Safeguards They Built:
This wasn’t just philosophy — they built specific mechanisms:
No religious test for office (Article VI)
Establishment Clause — no official national religion
Free Exercise Clause — no prohibition of religious practice
Disestablishment at state level — states gradually abandoned their established churches (Massachusetts was last in 1833)
The framers of our Constitution who established this nation distrusted the concept of divine right of kings that existed in Europe under its historical monarchies. We fought a revolution to leave all that behind for good reason. They were adamantly against the idea of a national church, and were clear and insistent about the necessity of keeping the realms of religion and politics independent of each other.
It is the Christian nationalists who have it backwards — America was never a Christian nation that lost its way. Rather, the United States was founded as a secular nation and has become truer to fulfilling that mission over the centuries. It is the Project 2025 folks who are engaging in revisionist history, inventing a mythical past for the country that simply didn’t exist.
Black and white thinking is the tendency to see things in extremes, viewing the world through a very polarized lens. Even complex moral issues are seen as clearcut, with simple right and wrong answers and no gray areas in between.
Also referred to as all-or-nothing thinking or dichotomous thinking, black and white thinking is a very rigid and binary way of looking at the world. Black and white thinkers tend to categorize things, events, people, and experiences as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuance or shades of gray. This can manifest in various aspects of their lives including relationships, decision-making, and self-evaluation. Black and white thinking can be a defense mechanism, as it provides a sense of certainty and control in situations that are complex, uncertain, or anxiety-provoking.
For example, a person who engages in black and white thinking may view their work performance as either completely successful or a complete failure, without considering any middle ground. They may view themselves as either a “good” or “bad” person, based on a single action or mistake. This type of extreme thinking can lead to feelings of extreme anxiety, depression, and self-doubt, as well as difficulties in personal and professional relationships.
Black and white thinking in political psychology
Black and white thinking can also be seen in political or social contexts, where individuals categorize people or groups as either completely good or completely bad, without acknowledging any nuances or complexities. This type of thinking can lead to polarizing beliefs, rigid ideologies, and an unwillingness to engage in constructive dialogue or compromise.
The origins of black and white thinking are complex and multifaceted, but it can stem from a variety of factors, including childhood experiences, cultural and societal influences, and psychological disorders including personality disorder. For example, individuals who have experienced trauma or abuse may engage in black and white thinking as a way to cope with the complexity and ambiguity of their experiences. Similarly, cultural or societal influences that promote a strict adherence to binary categories can also contribute to black and white thinking.
Psychological disorders such as borderline personality disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and eating disorders are also associated with black and white thinking. For example, individuals with borderline personality disorder (BPD) may see themselves or others as either completely good or completely bad, without any middle ground. This type of thinking can lead to unstable relationships, impulsive behavior, and emotional dysregulation.
Narcissists too, especially malignant narcissists, tend to exhibit black and white thinking, with the frequent framing of any narrative as being primarily about themselves (good/The Hero) and everyone else (bad/The Other).
Black and White Thinking: Understanding binary cognition in the modern era
The Digital Amplification of Binary Thinking
The modern information ecosystem has created unprecedented conditions for black and white thinking to flourish. Social media algorithms, designed to maximize engagement, systematically promote content that evokes strong emotional responses—often content that presents complex issues in oversimplified, polarizing terms.
Algorithmic Reinforcement Mechanisms
Contemporary digital platforms operate on engagement metrics that inadvertently reward binary thinking:
Filter Bubble Formation: Recommendation algorithms create echo chambers where users primarily encounter information that confirms their existing beliefs
Engagement Optimization: Content that provokes outrage or strong agreement receives higher distribution (and ultimately, revenue), marginalizing nuanced perspectives
Attention Economy Dynamics: The competition for limited attention spans incentivizes simplified, emotionally charged messaging over complex analysis — going straight for the jugular of common mental heuristics works
Information Processing Under Cognitive Load
Research in cognitive psychology demonstrates that when individuals experience high cognitive load—a common state in our information-saturated environment—they default to simplified decision-making heuristics. This neurological tendency combines with digital information delivery systems to create systematic biases toward binary categorization.
Contemporary Political Manifestations
Black and white thinking has become increasingly prominent in political discourse, with profound implications for democratic institutions and social cohesion.
Legislative Dynamics: Congressional voting patterns show dramatic increases in party-line voting, with bipartisan legislation becoming increasingly rare. This reflects not just strategic positioning but fundamental shifts in how political actors conceptualize policy problems and solutions.
Media Ecosystem Fragmentation: The proliferation of ideologically aligned media sources enables individuals to construct information diets that reinforce binary worldviews. Traditional journalistic ethics of objectivity and balance in a fundamentally evidentiary role have been challenged by partisan media models that explicitly advocate for particular political perspectives.
Electoral Coalition Building: Political campaigns increasingly rely on mobilizing base supporters through appeals to fundamental differences with opponents, rather than building broad coalitions through compromise and incremental policy development.
Identity-Based Political Cognition
Modern political psychology research reveals how black and white thinking intersects with identity formation:
Social Identity Theory: Individuals derive significant psychological satisfaction from in-group membership and out-group differentiation
Motivated Reasoning: People process political information in ways that protect their group identities and existing belief systems
Moral Foundations: Different political coalitions emphasize different moral frameworks, creating seemingly irreconcilable worldview differences
Systemic Analysis: Institutional Impacts
Black and white thinking creates cascade effects across multiple institutional systems:
Democratic Governance Challenges
Compromise Mechanisms: Effective democratic governance requires negotiation and compromise between competing interests. Binary thinking undermines these processes by framing compromise as betrayal of fundamental principles.
Policy Implementation: Complex policy challenges—from healthcare to climate change to economic inequality—require nuanced, multifaceted solutions. Binary thinking promotes oversimplified policy approaches that often fail to address underlying systemic issues.
Constitutional Design: Democratic institutions assume citizens capable of evaluating competing claims and making informed choices. Black and white thinking can undermine these foundational assumptions necessary to making democracy work.
Economic System Implications
Market Dynamics: Binary thinking in economic contexts can create boom-bust cycles, as investors and consumers oscillate between extreme optimism and pessimism without recognizing gradual trends and mixed signals.
Innovation Ecosystems: Complex technological and business model innovation requires tolerance for ambiguity and iterative development. Binary thinking can stifle innovation by demanding immediate, clear success metrics. It turns out that diversity is good to the bottom line, actually.
Labor Relations: Effective workplace dynamics require ongoing negotiation between competing interests. Binary thinking can transform routine workplace disagreements into fundamental conflicts.
Mental Model Frameworks for Analysis
Understanding black and white thinking requires sophisticated analytical frameworks:
The Cognitive Bias Cascade Model
Black and white thinking rarely operates in isolation but typically forms part of broader cognitive bias patterns:
Confirmation Bias: Seeking information that confirms existing beliefs
Group Attribution Error: Assuming individual group members represent entire groups
Systems Thinking Applications
Effective analysis of black and white thinking requires systems-level perspective:
Feedback Loops: How binary thinking creates self-reinforcing cycles that become increasingly difficult to break
Emergence Properties: How individual cognitive patterns create collective social and political dynamics
Leverage Points: Identifying where interventions might most effectively disrupt binary thinking patterns
Historical Pattern Recognition
Historical analysis reveals recurring patterns in how societies navigate between binary and nuanced thinking:
Crisis Periods: Times of social stress typically increase binary thinking as individuals seek certainty and clear action frameworks
Institutional Adaptation: How democratic institutions evolve mechanisms to manage polarization and maintain governance capacity
Cultural Evolution: How societies develop norms and practices that promote or discourage binary thinking
Contemporary Case Studies
Social Media Discourse Patterns
Analysis of millions of social media posts reveals systematic patterns in how binary thinking spreads:
Viral Content Characteristics: Posts that go viral disproportionately feature binary framing of complex issues
Engagement Metrics: Binary content generates higher levels of shares, comments, and emotional reactions
Network Effects: Binary thinking spreads through social networks more rapidly than nuanced analysis
Political Movement Dynamics
Examination of contemporary political movements reveals how binary thinking shapes organizational development:
Movement Mobilization: Binary framing helps movements build initial coalition support by clarifying friend-enemy distinctions
Strategic Communication: Binary messaging dominates political advertising and fundraising appeals
Coalition Maintenance: Binary thinking can help maintain group cohesion but may limit strategic flexibility
Crisis Response Patterns
Analysis of responses to major crises—from pandemics to economic disruptions to international conflicts—demonstrates how binary thinking affects collective decision-making:
Policy Development: Crisis conditions often promote binary policy choices that may not address underlying complexity
Public Communication: Crisis communication frequently relies on binary framing to motivate public compliance with policy measures
International Relations: Crisis situations can push diplomatic relations toward binary alliance structures
Neurological and Psychological Foundations
Understanding black and white thinking requires examining its neurological and psychological foundations:
Cognitive Processing Systems
System 1 vs System 2 Thinking: Daniel Kahneman’s research demonstrates how automatic, intuitive thinking (System 1) tends toward binary categorization, while deliberative thinking (System 2) enables more nuanced analysis.
Threat Detection Mechanisms: Evolutionary psychology suggests that binary thinking may have adaptive advantages in environments requiring quick threat assessment, but becomes maladaptive in complex modern contexts.
Cognitive Load Theory: When individuals experience high cognitive load, they default to simplified decision-making processes that favor binary categorization.
Identity Formation: Erik Erikson’s work on identity development demonstrates how binary thinking can serve important functions during identity formation periods but may become problematic if it persists into adulthood.
Attachment Theory: Insecure attachment patterns can promote binary thinking about relationships and social situations as defensive mechanisms.
Organizational and Institutional Responses
Educational System Adaptations
Educational institutions increasingly recognize the need to develop students’ capacity for nuanced thinking:
Critical Thinking Curricula: Programs specifically designed to help students recognize and resist binary thinking patterns
Media Literacy: Training students to recognize how information systems promote simplified thinking
Interdisciplinary Approaches: Educational approaches that demonstrate how complex problems require multiple perspectives and methodological approaches
Democratic Institution Reforms
Various proposals aim to reduce the institutional incentives for binary thinking:
Electoral System Design: Ranked-choice voting and other electoral innovations that reward coalition-building over polarization
Deliberative Democracy: Institutional mechanisms that bring citizens together for structured discussion of complex policy issues
Legislative Process Reform: Procedural changes that incentivize negotiation and compromise over partisan positioning
Technology Platform Governance
Growing recognition of how digital platforms shape thinking patterns has led to various reform proposals:
Algorithm Transparency: Requiring platforms to disclose how their algorithms prioritize content
Digital Literacy: Public education initiatives to help users recognize and resist algorithmic manipulation
Constructive Frameworks for Addressing Binary Thinking
Individual-Level Interventions
Mindfulness Practices: Regular mindfulness meditation has been shown to increase tolerance for ambiguity and reduce automatic binary categorization.
Cognitive Behavioral Techniques: Specific therapeutic approaches for identifying and challenging binary thought patterns.
Exposure to Complexity: Deliberately seeking out information sources and experiences that present complex, nuanced perspectives on important issues.
Perspective-Taking Exercises: Structured practices for understanding how situations appear from multiple viewpoints.
Community-Level Initiatives
Dialogue and Deliberation Programs: Community-based initiatives that bring together people with different perspectives for structured conversation about local issues.
Collaborative Problem-Solving: Community projects that require cooperation across different groups and perspectives.
Civic Education: Educational programs that help citizens understand how democratic institutions work and why compromise is essential for effective governance.
Cross-Cutting Social Connections: Initiatives that help people form relationships across traditional dividing lines.
Institutional Design Principles
Procedural Safeguards: Institutional mechanisms that slow down decision-making processes to allow for more deliberative consideration of complex issues.
Stakeholder Inclusion: Decision-making processes that systematically include multiple perspectives and interests.
Transparency and Accountability: Mechanisms that make decision-making processes visible and subject to public scrutiny.
Adaptive Management: Institutional frameworks that allow for policy adjustment based on evidence and changing circumstances.
Implications for Democratic Resilience
The prevalence of black and white thinking poses significant challenges for democratic governance:
Representation and Legitimacy
Electoral Representation: Binary thinking can undermine representative democracy by making it difficult for elected officials to represent diverse constituencies with complex, sometimes conflicting interests.
Institutional Legitimacy: When citizens view political institutions through binary lenses, it becomes difficult to maintain the shared commitment to democratic norms necessary for effective governance.
Minority Rights: Binary thinking can threaten minority rights by reducing complex questions of individual liberty and collective welfare to simple majority-minority power dynamics.
Policy Development and Implementation
Evidence-Based Policy: Effective policy development requires careful consideration of evidence, trade-offs, and unintended consequences—all of which are undermined by binary thinking.
Policy Adaptation: Democratic institutions must be able to adapt policies based on new evidence and changing circumstances, which requires tolerance for complexity and ambiguity.
Cross-Sector Coordination: Modern policy challenges often require coordination across different levels of government and between public and private sectors, which is complicated by binary thinking.
Future Research Directions
Understanding and addressing black and white thinking requires ongoing research across multiple disciplines:
Technology and Cognition
AI and Decision-Making: How artificial intelligence systems might be designed to promote nuanced rather than binary thinking.
Digital Environment Design: Research on how different digital interface designs affect cognitive processing and decision-making.
Virtual Reality and Perspective-Taking: How immersive technologies might be used to help individuals understand complex situations from multiple perspectives.
Political Psychology and Behavior
Motivation and Binary Thinking: Research on what motivates individuals to adopt or resist binary thinking patterns in political contexts.
Group Dynamics: How binary thinking spreads through social networks and political organizations.
Leadership and Framing: How political leaders can effectively communicate about complex issues without resorting to binary framing.
Institutional Design and Reform
Comparative Democratic Systems: Analysis of how different democratic institutions manage polarization and promote constructive political discourse.
Experimental Governance: Small-scale experiments with different institutional designs that might reduce incentives for binary thinking.
Technology Governance: Research on how to regulate digital platforms in ways that promote constructive rather than polarizing discourse.
Toward cognitive complexity
Black and white thinking represents a fundamental challenge to effective individual decision-making, social cooperation, and democratic governance. While binary thinking may have served adaptive functions in simpler environments, the complexity of modern challenges requires more sophisticated cognitive frameworks.
Addressing this challenge requires coordinated efforts across multiple levels—from individual practices that promote cognitive flexibility to institutional reforms that reduce incentives for polarization. The stakes are particularly high for democratic societies, which depend on citizens’ capacity to engage constructively with complexity and difference.
The path forward requires neither naive optimism nor cynical resignation, but rather sustained commitment to developing our collective capacity for nuanced thinking about complex problems. This involves both protecting democratic institutions from the corrosive effects of extreme polarization and actively building new capabilities for constructive engagement across difference — knowing that some will disagree and continuously fight us on reforms.
Understanding black and white thinking is not merely an academic exercise but an urgent practical necessity for navigating the challenges of the 21st century. By developing more sophisticated analytical frameworks and practical interventions, we can work toward societies that are both more thoughtful and more effective at solving complex collective problems.
Related concepts and further reading
Cognitive Bias Research: Systematic exploration of how human thinking systematically deviates from logical reasoning
Political Psychology: Interdisciplinary field examining how psychological processes affect political behavior
Systems Thinking: Analytical approaches that focus on relationships and patterns rather than isolated events
Democratic Theory: Normative and empirical research on how democratic institutions work and how they might be improved
Media Ecology: Study of how communication technologies shape human consciousness and social organization
Conflict Resolution: Practical approaches for managing disagreement and building cooperation across difference
Narcissistic Personality Disorder (NPD) is a mental health condition characterized by (as the name implies) narcissism, including a pervasive pattern of grandiosity, a lack of empathy for others, and a need for admiration. People with NPD often have an inflated sense of self-importance and believe they are special or unique in some way. They may be preoccupied with fantasies of power, success, beauty, or ideal love. However, behind their grandiose façade, they often have fragile self-esteem and are highly sensitive to criticism or rejection.
NPD is part of the Cluster B family of personality disorders. People with NPD tend to exhibit odd, sometimes bizarre behaviors — including word salad, emotional abuse, and other tactics of emotional predators — that are offputting to others and tend to have serious effects on the individual’s life.
NPD diagnosis
The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) outlines the following diagnostic criteria for NPD:
A pervasive pattern of grandiosity, characterized by a sense of self-importance and an exaggerated sense of achievements and talents.
Preoccupation with fantasies of unlimited power, success, brilliance, beauty, or ideal love.
Belief that they are special and unique and can only be understood by other high-status people or institutions.
Need for excessive admiration.
Sense of entitlement, expecting to be treated in a special way or given priority.
Lack of empathy, an inability to recognize or care about the feelings and needs of others.
Envy of others or a belief that others are envious of them.
Arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes.
The symptoms of NPD may vary in intensity and presentation, but they are typically stable and longstanding. The condition may start in early adulthood and may be diagnosed only after adolescence, as it is difficult to differentiate between normal developmental narcissism and pathological narcissism in childhood.
A helpful mnemonic to help conceptualize and remember the traits of people with narcissistic personality disorder is “SPECIAL ME”3:
Letter
Trait
S
Sense of self-importance
P
Preoccupation with power, beauty, success
E
Entitled
C
Can only be around special people
I
Interpersonally exploitative
A
Arrogant
L
Lack empathy
M
Must be admired
E
Envious of others
NPD: Lack of empathy
People with NPD may have difficulty in maintaining close relationships because of their lack of empathy and preoccupation with themselves. They may feel entitled to special treatment and have unrealistic expectations of others. They may exploit others for personal gain and may become angry or hostile when their expectations are not met. Additionally, they may struggle with criticism or rejection and may react with narcissistic rage or humiliation.
NPD is often co-occurring with other mental health conditions, such as depression, anxiety, and substance abuse. It may also be comorbid with other personality disorders, particularly Borderline Personality Disorder, as individuals with BPD may exhibit traits of NPD, such as a need for attention and admiration.
Treatment for NPD often involves psychotherapy, particularly psychoanalytic or psychodynamic therapies, which aim to explore the underlying psychological factors contributing to the disorder. Cognitive-behavioral therapy may also be effective in addressing maladaptive beliefs and behaviors associated with NPD. However, individuals with NPD may be resistant to therapy, as they may not recognize the need for treatment or may be unwilling to acknowledge their role in the dysfunction.
Types of Narcissistic Personality Disorder
Grandiose Narcissism: This form is characterized by arrogance, dominance, and a need for admiration. Individuals may appear self-confident and assertive but are often preoccupied with fantasies of success and power. This is the classic version of the narcissist that most people think of when they think of NPD.
Vulnerable Narcissism: Unlike the grandiose type, vulnerable narcissists are sensitive and insecure, often feeling unrecognized and inadequate. They may harbor intense envy and resentment towards others and are prone to feeling victimized.
Malignant Narcissism: Malignant narcissists combine aspects of NPD with antisocial behavior, aggression, and sometimes even sadism. This type can be dangerous, as they lack empathy and remorse and may exploit or manipulate others without concern.
Covert Narcissism: This type manifests as hidden or masked narcissism, where individuals may not outwardly display arrogance but still harbor grandiose fantasies and exhibit a lack of empathy. They often feel misunderstood and neglected, leading to passive-aggressive behavior.
Communal Narcissism: Communal narcissists see themselves as especially caring or altruistic, often emphasizing their contributions to others. However, these acts are driven by a desire for recognition and praise rather than genuine empathy or compassion.
Examples of Public Figures Behaving Narcissistically
Numerous public figures throughout history and in contemporary culture have exhibited behaviors commonly associated with narcissism—such as grandiosity, a need for admiration, lack of empathy, and a sense of entitlement. Below is a list of just some of the notable examples, along with brief descriptions of their narcissistic behaviors.
Historical Figures
Adolf Hitler: Demonstrated extreme grandiosity, cultivated a personality cult, rejected criticism, and showed a complete disregard for the suffering of others. His belief in his own infallibility and ruthless pursuit of power are classic narcissistic traits.
Napoleon Bonaparte: Known for his grandiose self-image, insatiable thirst for power, and willingness to sacrifice countless lives for personal glory.
Joseph Stalin: Exhibited a massive cult of personality, paranoia, and disregard for human suffering, all while glorifying his own image as the nation’s savior.
Alexander the Great: Obsessed with personal glory and his supposed divine lineage, eliminating anyone who opposed him.
Mao Zedong: Built a personality cult, rejected criticism, and sacrificed millions for his vision, showing little empathy or remorse.
King Henry VIII: Ruthless pursuit of power and personal desires, including the execution of wives and rejection of religious authority for personal gain.
Caligula: Roman emperor remembered for self-deification, sadism, and demanding worship.
Jim Jones: Cult leader who manipulated and controlled followers, culminating in the Jonestown mass suicide, reflecting extreme narcissistic exploitation.
Modern and Contemporary Figures
Donald Trump: Frequently cited as a textbook example of narcissistic behavior, including self-promotion, thin-skinned reactions to criticism, need for admiration, and prioritizing personal image over collective goals.
Kanye West (Ye): Known for public outbursts, controversial statements, and self-aggrandizing acts (e.g., comparing himself to Jesus, seeking the spotlight at award shows), as well as a chronic need for validation and attention.
Kim Kardashian: Promotes her wealth and lifestyle, seeks constant attention, and is often involved in controversies that keep her in the public eye.
Madonna: Openly acknowledges her craving for attention and limelight, and has been described as exploitative and demanding in her professional relationships.
Oprah Winfrey: Cited for excessive self-importance and grandiosity, with actions and branding that often center her own persona.
Taylor Swift: Manages her public image with meticulous control, frequently uses her art to highlight her own experiences, and seeks admiration from fans, blending vulnerability with grandiosity.
Jenny McCarthy: Publicly claimed to have scientific proof ignored by authorities, reflecting a sense of special knowledge and self-importance.
Suzanne Somers: Promoted her own health products as miracle cures, despite lacking medical credentials, demonstrating self-aggrandizement and entitlement.
Joan Crawford: Hollywood actress reportedly obsessed with public image, perfectionism, and control, with abusive behavior toward her children as documented in “Mommie Dearest”.
Common Narcissistic Behaviors Observed
Public meltdowns and controversy-seeking actions (e.g., Twitter rants, on-stage interruptions)
Image obsession and status-driven lifestyle choices (luxury displays, curated social media)
Exploitative or transactional relationships (using others for personal gain or status)
Dismissal of criticism and hypersensitivity to perceived slights
These examples illustrate how narcissistic traits can manifest in public life, often amplified by fame and power. While not all of these individuals have a clinical diagnosis of Narcissistic Personality Disorder, their public behaviors align with many of the disorder’s hallmark traits.
Remember when memes were just harmless internet jokes? Those days are long gone. “Meme Wars” meticulously documents how these seemingly innocent cultural artifacts have evolved into powerful weapons in a coordinated assault on American democracy — a form of information warfare that tears at our very ability to detect fantasy from reality at all, something that Hannah Arendt once warned of as a key tool of authoritarian regimes.
What makes this transformation particularly insidious is how easy it is to dismiss. After all, how could crudely drawn frogs and joke images possibly be a threat to democracy? Yet the authors convincingly demonstrate that this dismissive attitude is precisely what has allowed far-right operatives to wield memes so effectively.
The book reveals how figures like Alex Jones, Milo Yiannopoulos, Nick Fuentes, and Roger Stone have mastered the art of meme warfare. These digital provocateurs understand something that traditional political institutions have been slow to grasp: in today’s media environment, viral content can bypass established gatekeepers and directly shape public opinion at scale.
The Digital Radicalization Pipeline
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of “Meme Wars” is its detailed examination of what the authors call the “redpill right” and their techniques for radicalizing ordinary Americans. The process begins innocuously enough—a provocative meme shared by a friend, a YouTube video recommended by an algorithm—but can quickly lead vulnerable individuals down increasingly extreme ideological paths.
This digital radicalization operates through sophisticated emotional manipulation. Content is carefully crafted to trigger outrage, fear, or a sense of belonging to an in-group that possesses hidden truths. Over time, these digital breadcrumbs lead users into alternative information ecosystems that gradually reshape their perception of political reality.
From Online Conspiracy to Capitol Insurrection
“Meme Wars” provides what may be the most comprehensive account to date of how online conspiracy theories materialized into physical violence on January 6th, 2021. The authors trace the evolution of the “Stop the Steal” movement from fringe online forums to mainstream platforms, showing how digital organizing translated into real-world action.
The book presents the Capitol insurrection as the logical culmination of years of digital warfare. Participants like “Elizabeth from Knoxville” exemplify this new reality—simultaneously acting as insurrectionists and content creators, live-streaming their participation for online audiences even as they engaged in an attempt to overthrow democratic processes.
This fusion of digital performance and physical violence represents something genuinely new and dangerous in American politics. The insurrectionists weren’t just attacking the Capitol; they were creating content designed to inspire others to join their cause.
Inside the Digital War Rooms
What sets “Meme Wars” apart from other analyses of digital extremism is the unprecedented access the authors gained to the online spaces where anti-establishment actors develop their strategies. These digital war rooms function as laboratories where messaging is crafted, tested, and refined before being deployed more broadly.
The authors document how these spaces identify potential recruits, gradually expose them to increasingly extreme content, and eventually mobilize them toward political action. This sophisticated recruitment pipeline has proven remarkably effective at growing extremist movements and providing them with dedicated foot soldiers.
The Existential Threat to Democracy
At its core, “Meme Wars” is a book about the fundamental challenge digital manipulation poses to democratic governance. By deliberately stirring strong emotions and deepening partisan divides, meme warfare undermines the rational discourse and shared reality necessary for democratic deliberation.
The authors make a compelling case that these tactics represent an existential threat to American democracy. What’s more, the digital warfare techniques developed in American contexts are already being exported globally, representing a worldwide challenge to democratic institutions.
Confronting the Challenge
Perhaps the most important contribution of “Meme Wars” is its insistence that we recognize digital threats as real-world dangers. For too long, online extremism has been dismissed as merely virtual—something separate from “real” politics. The events of January 6th definitively shattered that illusion.
While the book doesn’t offer easy solutions, it makes clear that protecting democracy in the digital age will require new approaches from institutions, platforms, and citizens alike. We need digital literacy that goes beyond spotting fake news to understanding how emotional manipulation operates online. We need platforms that prioritize democratic values over engagement metrics. And we need institutions that can effectively counter extremist narratives without amplifying them.
A Must-Read for Democracy’s Defenders
“Meme Wars” is not just a political thriller, though it certainly reads like one at times. It is a rigorously researched warning about how extremist movements are reshaping American culture and politics through digital means. For anyone concerned with the preservation of democratic institutions, it should be considered essential reading.
The authors — including Joan Donovan, widely known and respected as a foremost scholar on disinformation — have performed a valuable service by illuminating the hidden mechanics of digital manipulation. Now it’s up to all of us to heed their warning and work to build democratic resilience in the digital age. The future of our democracy may depend on it.
A Diplomatic Travesty in the Oval Office: Zelensky, Trump, and JD Vance’s Foreign Policy Ambush
The Oval Office has seen its share of tense diplomatic moments, but the recent clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trump—joined by Ohio Senator JD Vance—marks a new low in international decorum. What was expected to be a high-stakes discussion on Ukraine’s future and continued U.S. support instead devolved into a heated, profanity-laced exchange, described by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as ushering in a “new era of profanity.”
In a tense and extraordinary meeting in front of the cameras, President Trump and Vice President Vance confronted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated diplomatic ambush. With Russian state media present while major American outlets were excluded, Trump and Vance pressured Zelensky to accept terms highly favorable to Russia – including a ceasefire that would effectively cede Ukrainian territory and sign over rights to valuable rare-earth minerals without firm security guarantees in return. Zelensky pointed out that Putin had broken ceasefire agreements 25 times already — so what was his incentive to find this one credible, particularly without any concrete guarantees?
In response to a reporter’s question about the US’s sudden shift away from its staunch Cold War stance to embracing Russia, Trump complained that Zelensky showed “such hate” towards Putin, who — he alleged — has suffered very badly (hatred being more impactful than military invasion, I guess?). When Zelensky remained composed and warned that the United States might “feel problems” due to its shifting alliance toward Russia, Trump grew visibly agitated, repeatedly insisting Americans would “feel very good and very strong” instead, while Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of being ungrateful for American support — as someone insecure and in need of praise would do.
The situation escalated when Zelensky calmly but firmly stated that Trump and Vance would “feel influenced” by Russia, triggering an extended, angry tirade from Trump that veered into his grievances about Russian election interference investigations, criticisms of former Presidents Biden and Obama, and rhetoric that closely mirrored Putin’s talking points and invented conspiracy theories on Ukraine.
It feels odd to have to make these arguments for diversity, again, some centuries after the Enlightenment. And centuries after Darwin, in whose name many fallacious opposite “interpretations” are levied. But apparently we must say it: diversity is good, actually.
The evidence is there for us as it has always been. Diversity isn’t a bad thing — it’s almost universally a good thing. For populations, for economies, for problem solving — for all of us. The more options there are, the higher probability that one of them might be the right match, or the thing that solves the problem, or the best selection for the job at hand.
In economics, Modern Portfolio Theory is based on the formal proof that diverse portfolios are stronger and more resilient to risk without sacrificing returns. So there’s a strict mathematical component to the arguments for diversity, but beyond that many other fields have also weighed in on the utility and pragmatic value of diversity. This assortment is a work in progress I’ll continue to add to over time:
In biology, more diverse populations are more responsive and resilient to a wider variety of changes. This resilience is one of the best arguments for diversity of all.
In business, a diversity of new ideas leads to better decision-making and increased innovation; studies show a diverse workforce, as well as a diverse board, nets better results and outperforms their more conformist cousins. Conversely, too much groupthink and stale ideas lead to worse outcomes and less resilient firms.
Cross-pollination is generative, and the blending of ideas creates new concepts, new opportunities, new industries, and new trends — to name a few.
Range adds resilience — developing a broad range of skills and experiences help you adapt to constant change and grow in your career
Condorcet jury theorem: the more informed people there are making a decision, the more right it will be. Plurality makes better decisions. See also: wisdom of crowds
Law of large numbers: the more data points you have, the more accurate your distribution will be.
A large number of independent transactions helps economies function properly and grow. We speak of the economy “moving” and finding many touchpoints to do business on.
A lack of diversity can lead to poor outcomes, such as in echo chambers where people are not exposed to different points of view, and develop insular views that are self-reinforcing but usually divorced from reality.
Diversity unhinges us because it unmasks our hidden assumption that if we all look the same, we will think the same and thereby avoid conflict.
Deep down, we still secretly hope that we can avoid having to deal with our differences by magically generating conformity.
Our unspoken wish is that, by being identical, we achieve the harmony and collective togetherness we so deeply crave — the collective harmony we mistake for God. In our zeal to commune with god, we instead are far more likely to fall victim to the pitfalls of collective narcissism and all the destructions it wreaks.
Diversity outcompetes monoculture
The opposite of diversity is monoculture… and inbreeding. Monoculture represents sameness, stasis, and stagnation — the system or culture feels fairly dull and stale.
Most people like a certain level of variety in their lives. Some though, have great aversion to difference, change, or both. Authoritarian personalities tend to dislike difference, while individuals with traditional conservative ideology tend to dislike change.
One of the more relatable arguments for diversity stems from the fact that a majority of people enjoy and benefit from diverse points of view, experiences, community members, and beyond. We love to eat different foods, travel to different places, and engage in different pasttimes. And our lives are enriched because of it.
Diversity ought to be celebrated, not denigrated. In many ways it is the very stuff of life — something that helps make life precious and meaningful.
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 “blatantly unconstitutional,” forcing the administration to backtrack. However, related Executive Orders freezing some payments are said to “still be in order” which is (intentionally) causing confusion around the status of almost everything.
Elon Musk’s Intervention in the Treasury Payment System:
Musk’s people, reportedly a group of young men between 19 and 24 according to Wired, attempted to access a “secret area” within USAID (the agency responsible for U.S. foreign aid). In the process, two top officials were sidelined (put on administrative leave), and Musk’s team gained access, potentially compromising sensitive U.S. intelligence data.
Announced Cuts to Federal Programs:
Following these breaches, Musk (acting as a Trump ally) has claimed on social media that he is “cutting” certain federally funded programs, including a human services organization linked to the Lutheran Church. This move threatens funding for critical services such as migrant support, nursing homes, and possibly even affects Social Security and Medicare (though Trump has stated these will not be touched).
Tariffs and International Implications:
Additionally, Trump’s administration is imposing tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, which could inflict economic pain, especially in regions that predominantly support the Republican agenda.
These recent events (the inimitable Heather Cox Richardson covers them in-depth in her Letters from an American column) highlight an aggressive attack on constitutional governance marked by executive overreach and the manipulation of public funds. Actions such as unilateral spending freezes—disguised (thinly) as efforts to address DEI concerns—and the controversial transfer of control over federal financial systems to private interests like world’s richest man Elon Musk (who apparently still doesn’t have enough money) reveal a dangerous shift in power.
This reckless endangerment jeopardizes not only the integrity of critical public services and security measures but also the core democratic principle of accountability, underscoring an urgent need for citizens to remain vigilant and demand that elected officials uphold the constitutional order. We The People still wield the ultimate power — as AOC is about to so eloquently tell you more about.
The concept of “flying monkeys” is a term that originates from popular culture, being invented in the 1900 novel by L. Frank Baum, “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz” — where the Wicked Witch of the West employs winged monkeys to carry out her malevolent deeds. It was much more broadly popularized by the 1939 film version of the book, “The Wizard of Oz,” which cemented in the public’s mind a vision of evil winged monkeys doing the bidding of a malevolent overlord.
In the realm of psychology and interpersonal relationships, the term has been appropriated to describe individuals who act on behalf of a narcissist or emotional predator, often without full awareness that they are being used to harm others.
Psychological underpinnings of flying monkeys
Flying monkeys serve as extensions of the narcissist’s inflated ego and domineering will. They are often manipulated into believing that the narcissist’s cause is just, and they may even think they are helping to protect or defend someone they care about. This is achieved through a range of manipulative tactics such as gaslighting, projection, and triangulation.
Gaslighting is a hallmark of narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) and emotional abuse that involves making someone doubt their own perceptions and memories, while projection shifts the narcissist’s negative traits onto the victim. Triangulation pits people against each other, creating a web of confusion and mistrust.
Usage by narcissists
Narcissists employ flying monkeys to extend their sphere of influence and control. These enablers can be friends, family members, or even colleagues who are manipulated into carrying out various tasks for the narcissist. These tasks can range from spreading rumors and gossip to more overt acts like harassment or stalking. The flying monkeys often believe they are acting out of loyalty or love, not realizing that they are pawns in a larger scheme.
The narcissist’s relationship with their flying monkeys is transactional. There’s an unspoken quid pro quo: the flying monkeys get to bask in the narcissist’s approval, and in return, they carry out the narcissist’s bidding. This dynamic allows the narcissist to maintain a clean image via plausible deniability, as they can always distance themselves from the actions of their flying monkeys.
Usage by cult leaders
In the context of cults, the concept takes on an even darker hue. Cult leaders often employ a cadre of devoted followers to enforce their will and isolate potential recruits from outside influences. These flying monkeys serve as a buffer between the leader and the outside world, allowing the leader to maintain an aura of mystique and unapproachability. They carry out tasks ranging from recruitment to punishment of dissenting members, all while believing that they are part of a grand, noble cause.
Ethical and social implications
The use of flying monkeys raises significant ethical and social concerns. It disrupts the social fabric, eroding trust within communities and families. Victims often find themselves isolated, as they cannot easily prove the manipulation at play. This isolation can lead to severe emotional and sometimes physical harm.
Flying monkeys and manipulation
Understanding the concept of flying monkeys is crucial for recognizing and combating manipulative behaviors in both personal and broader social contexts, and as an essential cult warning sign. Whether deployed by narcissists in interpersonal relationships or by cult leaders to maintain their power structures (or, often, both), flying monkeys serve as tools of manipulation, coercion, and control. Awareness of these dynamics is the first step in breaking the cycle and fostering healthier, more authentic relationships and societies.
Flying monkeys as a cultural reference
The concept of “flying monkeys” has permeated popular culture ever since its introduction in Baum’s book. Here’s an exhaustive list of cultural references to flying monkeys:
Literature and Film
The Wizard of Oz
In Baum’s original novel, flying monkeys are described as jungle monkeys with bird-like feathered wings.
The 1939 film adaptation popularized the visual image of flying monkeys, though they had a smaller role and didn’t speak.
Other Oz Adaptations
The 1964 animated TV special “Return to Oz” featured clumsy flying monkeys.
In the film version of “The Wiz,” flying monkeys are reimagined as a motorcycle gang.
The TV miniseries “Tin Man” depicts bat-winged monkeys called “Mobats”.
Flying monkeys appear in the 2013 animated film “Legends of Oz: Dorothy’s Return”.
Other Films
“Jumanji” (1995) features a scene where monkeys imitate the flying monkeys from “The Wizard of Oz”.
“Once Upon a Time” featured a storyline involving flying monkeys in its third season.
“Dorothy and the Wizard of Oz” animated series includes flying monkeys as recurring characters.
Comics and Animation
In the comic series “Fables,” a winged monkey named Bufkin is a librarian in Fabletown.
Various animated adaptations of “The Wizard of Oz” have featured flying monkeys.
Music and Music Videos
The band Protest The Hero’s music video for “Heretics and Killers” features the band in winged monkey suits.
Video Games
Flying monkeys have appeared in various video games, often as enemies or obstacles.
Cultural Impact
The phrase “flying monkeys” has entered common usage to describe people who act on behalf of a manipulative individual, particularly in discussions of narcissism and manipulation.
The image of flying monkeys is often used in art, merchandise, and popular culture as a symbol of both whimsy and menace.
Misquotations and Misconceptions
The phrase “Fly, my pretties, fly!” is often misattributed to the Wicked Witch in “The Wizard of Oz,” but it doesn’t appear in the film.
This misquotation has been perpetuated through various media references, including “The Simpsons”.
Other Cultural References
There’s a false belief that Chinese mythology describes creatures called “Hsigo,” described as flying monkeys with human faces and dog tails. This is actually a modern fabrication with no basis in traditional Chinese folklore.
Symbolic Use
Flying monkeys are sometimes used as metaphors for unquestioning obedience or malicious compliance in social and organizational contexts.
The symbol of the flying monkey has had an enduring impact on literature, film, television, and popular imagination since its introduction in 1900. It is now an almost universally-recognized metaphor for a henchman or underling doing the bidding of someone evil, as well as a clinically useful term that can help identify potential emotional predators in our midst.
The Psychology of Sadism: Understanding the Dark Side of Human Nature
In the pantheon of human psychological traits, few are as unsettling – yet fascinating – as sadism. While the term often conjures images of extreme criminal behavior or medieval torture chambers, the reality is both more nuanced and more pervasive than most people realize. Let’s dive deep into the psychological architecture of sadism and explore what modern science tells us about this disturbing aspect of human nature.
The Spectrum of Sadistic Behavior
At its core, sadism represents the capacity to derive pleasure from others’ suffering. But like many psychological phenomena, it exists on a spectrum rather than as a binary trait. On one end, we find what researchers call “everyday sadism” – those small cruel behaviors that pepper ordinary life, like enjoying watching fail videos or taking pleasure in office politics gone wrong. On the other end lies clinical sadism, the domain of true predators and those who commit acts of serious violence.
This spectrum theory helps explain why perfectly “normal” people might engage in behaviors like internet trolling or workplace bullying. These acts represent subclinical manifestations of sadistic tendencies that, while concerning, fall well short of criminal behavior.
The Dark Tetrad: A Family of Malevolent Traits
Sadism doesn’t exist in isolation. It’s part of what psychologists call the Dark Tetrad – a cluster of interconnected traits including narcissism, Machiavellianism, and psychopathy (it’s the newest band member of the artist formerly known as the Dark Triad). Think of these as the four horsemen of malevolent personality, each bringing its own flavor of interpersonal toxicity to the table.
What makes sadism unique within this dark constellation? Unlike its siblings, sadism involves a willingness to incur personal costs just to harm others. A narcissist might hurt you to get ahead, but a sadist will hurt you simply because it feels good – even if it means sacrificing their own resources or social standing in the process.
The Anatomy of a Sadistic Personality
Modern psychological research has identified three key components of sadistic personality:
Physical violence isn’t just tolerated – it’s enjoyed. Whether participating in or merely witnessing violent acts, sadistic individuals experience positive emotions where others would feel revulsion.
Verbal sadism manifests as a love of cruel humor, cutting remarks, and psychological warfare. These individuals don’t just win arguments; they savor their opponent’s emotional pain.
Violent media consumption goes beyond normal entertainment preferences. Sadistic individuals actively seek out graphic content and experience genuine pleasure from witnessing violence, even in fictional contexts.
The Neuroscience of Cruelty
Recent neurobiological research has begun to unlock the physical basis of sadistic behavior. Studies show that sadistic individuals often display blunted startle responses similar to those seen in psychopaths. This suggests a fundamental difference in how their brains process threats and emotional stimuli.
Even more intriguingly, brain imaging studies have revealed potential alterations in regions associated with empathy and emotion processing. It’s as if the neural machinery normally responsible for sharing others’ pain has been rewired to experience it as pleasure instead.
Measuring the Unmeasurable
How do you quantify something as complex as sadistic tendencies? Researchers have developed several innovative approaches:
The Comprehensive Assessment of Sadistic Tendencies (CAST) provides a standardized way to measure sadistic traits across populations.
Behavioral experiments, including the infamous “bug-grinding study,” create controlled environments where sadistic tendencies can be observed in action.
Advanced neuroimaging techniques allow researchers to watch the sadistic brain in real-time, offering unprecedented insights into the neural correlates of cruel behavior.
Why This Matters
Understanding sadism isn’t just an academic exercise. It has profound implications for:
Improving workplace dynamics by recognizing and addressing subtle forms of sadistic behavior
Looking Forward
As our understanding of sadism continues to evolve, we’re faced with uncomfortable questions about human nature. Is the capacity for sadistic pleasure a bug or a feature of our psychological makeup? Can we develop effective interventions to curb sadistic tendencies? How do we balance the need to understand sadism with the risk of normalizing it?
These questions don’t have easy answers, but they’re crucial to address as we work toward creating a society that can recognize, understand, and ultimately minimize the expression of sadistic behavior.
The study of sadism reminds us that the darker aspects of human nature deserve neither glorification nor denial, but rather careful, clear-eyed examination. Only by understanding the psychology of cruelty can we hope to build a world with less of it.
For a deeper dive into related topics in psychology and human behavior (and more), explore more articles here on Doctor Paradox.
As the 2024 election season heats up, Kamala Harris’s policy platform has begun to shape a forward-thinking blueprint for what she calls an “Opportunity Economy” and a “New Way Forward.” With an approach that blends economic pragmatism and social investment, her policy outline aims to strengthen the middle class while addressing the core issues faced by millions of Americans today. Kamala Harris policies zero in on economic stability, healthcare affordability, and supporting American families through accessible resources, tax cuts, and an intentional focus on civil and reproductive rights.
Though some complain about not knowing what her policies are, she speaks of them in every speech, interview, or discussion and has them freely available on her website. Mainstream media in particular ought to be doing more of their own research vs. entertaining spurious claims that she has outlined no 2024 policy proposals. It’s also a quintessential example of the way women are forced to thread a needle in a way that men simply aren’t — I’m old enough to remember when Hillary Clinton was once famously derided for being too wonky and having too many policy proposals. You really can’t win.
Meanwhile, Harris has a robust economic plan for the middle class as well as fighting staunchly for civil rights, voting rights, reproductive freedom, and democracy in an increasingly multipolar world. Harris’s economic policy combines key strategies designed to lower costs for middle-class families—fighting inflation, tackling price gouging, and expanding Medicare to help the “Sandwich Generation” juggling care for both children and aging parents.
Her policies also encourage entrepreneurship through substantial tax deductions for small businesses and foster a fairer housing market by promoting affordable housing initiatives and cracking down on price fixing. Harris’s vision is one of a sustainable, inclusive future where both family support and economic growth converge to drive lasting change.
Beyond economic reform, her platform emphasizes national security, comprehensive immigration reform, civil rights protections, and an ambitious climate policy. Together, these components create a multifaceted approach intended to protect American values while boosting prosperity. Harris’s policy platform offers voters an actionable vision for a stronger, more equitable America built on accessible opportunities and resilient middle-class foundations.
Kamala Harris economic policy
Kamala Harris has been promoting her economic policy agenda since mid-August — which was a mere 2 weeks since becoming the new top of the ticket suddenly and unexpectedly when Joe Biden decided to withdraw from and race and pass the torch. Her “New Way Forward” for the economy is rooted in a central goal of strengthening the middle class through practical, targeted policies. Aiming to create an “Opportunity Economy,” her platform emphasizes lowering costs for families, capping drug prices, tackling price gouging, and expanding Medicare to better support those juggling elder and child care responsibilities (aka “the Sandwich Generation”).
The Echo Chamber of Deceit: Right-Wing Media Outlets, Disinformation, and the Conspiracy Industrial Complex
In an era where truth is increasingly under siege, disinformation has become a weapon of mass confusion—and no faction wields it with more fervor than the vast right-wing media machine. From fringe conspiracy theorists lurking in dark corners of the internet to mainstream outlets that once feigned journalistic credibility, these media entities have mastered the art of crafting narratives that distort, divide, and deceive.
But the effects of this disinformation aren’t limited to a few misguided souls. These conspiracy-laden outlets drive real-world consequences, spreading chaos and undermining democratic institutions with each clickbait headline and manufactured outrage. Whether fueling distrust in elections, amplifying extremist ideologies, or fostering a sense of victimhood among their audiences, these outlets play a pivotal role in shaping the political landscape—and not for the better.
In this post, we’ll dive into some of the most notorious right-wing media outlets pushing disinformation and conspiracy theories, exploring how they have built empires of falsehoods and what it means for a society increasingly untethered from reality (for the antidote to this list, please see our set of curated trusted expert sources on political and historical topics).
Building Empires of Falsehoods
These right-wing media outlets have built empires of falsehoods by capitalizing on two critical factors: the erosion of trust in traditional media and the increasing polarization of political discourse. As public faith in mainstream journalism wanes, largely due to relentless attacks branding them as “fake news” or “liberal bias,” alternative outlets step into the vacuum. They promise their audiences “unfiltered truth” but deliver carefully curated content designed to inflame rather than inform. The business model thrives on sensationalism—conspiracy theories and emotionally charged stories that draw clicks, shares, and ad revenue. Whether it’s the undermining of election results, promoting COVID-19 misinformation, or fostering anti-government sentiment, these outlets operate in an ecosystem where outrage is profitable, and facts are malleable.
For a society increasingly untethered from reality, the implications are grave. When large swaths of the public are consistently exposed to a parallel universe of disinformation, the ability to engage in reasoned discourse or even agree on basic facts erodes. This creates a fertile ground for extremism, where misinformation is weaponized to radicalize, isolate, and enrage. Civic institutions that rely on trust and shared reality—elections, the judiciary, and public health—are undermined, weakening the very foundation of democracy. In a world where conspiracy theories and falsehoods become the currency of political influence, society drifts ever closer to a reality in which truth is irrelevant, and power is achieved through manipulation and division.
Let’s take a look at some of the most egregious offenders on the right, who routinely eschew any interest in journalistic integrity or independent verification of facts or sources and instead have a tendency to, well, make shit up (or enable bad shit to happen on their platforms).
Right-Wing Media Outlets
Outlet or Individual
Description
4chan
Since its launch in 2003, 4chan has become a key platform in shaping internet subculture, particularly through its creation and dissemination of memes. The site operates as an anonymous imageboard, with users posting on a wide range of topics, from anime to politics. With over 22 million unique monthly visitors, 4chan remains one of the most influential and controversial online communities, often cited for both its creative output and its association with extremist content.
8chan
Known for its alt-right extremism and ties to mass shootings, 8chan was crucial in spreading conspiracy theories like QAnon. Banned and later rebranded as 8kun, the platform gained notoriety during the Gamergate controversy, attracting users banned from other platforms.
Founder of InfoWars, a prominent conspiracy theorist known for promoting various false claims and conspiracy theories.
Alexander Marlow
Editor-in-chief of Breitbart News, known for maintaining the site’s far-right editorial stance.
American News
American News is a conservative news outlet that focuses on pro-Republican content. With a significant online presence, it engages a large conservative audience, contributing to the polarization of political discourse in the U.S. through its right-leaning coverage.
Online news site known for its right-wing perspectives. Former chairman Steve Bannon; funded by Robert Mercer.
Cassandra Fairbanks
Cassandra Fairbanks is a political activist and journalist best known for her support of Donald Trump. Previously a Bernie Sanders supporter, she has worked for outlets like the Russian Sputnik News and The Gateway Pundit.
Chanel Rion
Chief White House correspondent for OANN, known for her conservative reporting and support of Trump.
Charles Hurt
Opinion editor of The Washington Times, known for his conservative political commentary.
Christopher Ruddy
CEO of Newsmax and significant figure in operational and editorial direction.
Daily Stormer
White supremacist, neo-Nazi website founded by Andrew Anglin in reaction to Obama’s election.
Dan Bongino
Dan Bongino is a prominent American conservative commentator, radio host, and author. His background includes serving as an NYPD officer from 1995 to 1999, followed by a distinguished career as a US Secret Service agent, where he worked on the Presidential Protective Division under both the Bush and Obama administrations. Bongino is highly educated, with a BS and MS from Queens College and an MBA from Penn State. His popular show, “The Dan Bongino Show,” attracted about 8.5 million listeners as of October 2021, ranking second among those vying to succeed Rush Limbaugh. He has authored several New York Times bestsellers, including Spygate: The Attempted Sabotage of Donald J. Trump, and hosted “Unfiltered with Dan Bongino” on Fox News until April 2023
Drudge Report
The Drudge Report is a U.S.-based news aggregation website founded by Matt Drudge, known for breaking the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal. The site consists primarily of links to stories from other news outlets and was once considered conservative, though its political leanings have been questioned since 2019.
EndingtheFed
Popularized by Ron Paul, Ending the Fed advocates for eliminating the Federal Reserve, criticizing it for contributing to inflation and financial crises. The platform is closely aligned with Tea Party movements from 2008 to 2012.
Epoch Times
A multi-language outlet founded by Chinese Americans associated with Falun Gong, known for its critical stance on the Chinese Communist Party, staunch support for Trump, and echoing of the Big Lie about Election 2020.
Fox News
Major cable news network known for its right-wing slant and influential conservative commentary. Fox News was found liable in a defamation lawsuit brought by Dominion Voting Systems, resulting in a settlement of nearly $1 billion after the network repeatedly aired false claims that Dominion’s voting machines were used to rig the 2020 presidential election.
Free Beacon
Founded in 2012, The Washington Free Beacon is a conservative news website known for its investigative reporting. Although aligned with conservative viewpoints, it has been criticized for publishing potentially misleading content.
Gateway Pundit
The Gateway Pundit is a far-right website founded in 2004, notorious for publishing falsehoods and hoaxes. In 2021, it was demonetized by Google. The site expanded significantly during the 2016 election and has faced multiple defamation lawsuits, leading to a Chapter 11 filing.
Gavin McInnes
Co-founder of Vice Media in 1994 and the Proud Boys in 2016
Greg Kelly
Notable host on Newsmax, known for his conservative views and support of Donald Trump.
InfoWars
Founded in 1999 by Alex Jones, InfoWars is notorious for promoting conspiracy theories like the New World Order and the Sandy Hook shooting “hoax,” for which it was ordered to pay $1.5 billion in damages. In 2024, InfoWars is scheduled to auction its assets as part of bankruptcy proceedings.
Jared Taylor
Jared Taylor is an American white supremacist and the editor of American Renaissance magazine. He founded the New Century Foundation to promote racial advocacy and hosts the annual American Renaissance Conference. Taylor has been widely accused of promoting racist ideologies.
Jordan Peterson
Jordan Peterson is a Canadian clinical psychologist, professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, and bestselling author who has gained widespread recognition for both his work in psychology and his often controversial views on cultural and political issues. His book 12 Rules for Life: An Antidote to Chaos became an international bestseller, selling over 5 million copies and being translated into more than 45 languages, propelling him to global fame as a public intellectual. Peterson has built a substantial online following, with over 7 million subscribers on his YouTube channel, where he shares lectures and discussions on psychology, philosophy, and culture. He gained notoriety for his opposition to Canada’s Bill C-16, which added gender identity and expression as protected categories, a stance that sparked both support and criticism.
Judicial Watch
A conservative watchdog group founded in 1994, Judicial Watch is known for its FOIA lawsuits targeting Democratic administrations. Under president Tom Fitton, it has been labeled by the SPLC as an anti-government extremist group, despite its significant influence in conservative circles.
Kathryn Limbaugh
Kathryn over some responsibilities for managing his media empire following her husband Rush Limbaugh’s death.
Larry Beasley
President and CEO of The Washington Times, overseeing the newspaper’s conservative editorial direction.
Laura Ingraham
Prime-time opinion host on Fox News, known for her conservative viewpoints and outspoken criticism of liberal policies.
Mike Cernovich
Mike Cernovich is an American right-wing social media personality and conspiracy theorist known for his involvement in #Gamergate and his segments on ‘The Alex Jones Show.’ He initially associated with the alt-right but now identifies with the new right, frequently promoting controversial views on free speech and engaging in inflammatory rhetoric.
Neil Patel
Co-founder and publisher of The Daily Caller, focusing on conservative news and commentary.
Newsmax
Newsmax is a conservative news and opinion media company founded in 1998. In 2014, it launched a cable television channel that reaches approximately 75 million households. The network is known for its right-wing and far-right leanings as well as its staunch pro-Trump coverage.
One America News Network (OANN)
OANN (One America News Network) is a far-right, pro-Trump cable news channel founded on July 4, 2013. Based in San Diego, it reaches an audience of 150,000 to 500,000 viewers and heavily relies on AT&T networks for revenue. The channel is known for promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation.
Parler
Parler, launched in 2018, is a social media platform promoting free speech, attracting predominantly right-wing users and Trump supporters. It saw a user surge during and after the 2020 U.S. presidential election amid accusations of censorship by mainstream platforms. The platform was removed from app stores following its role in organizing the January 6th Capitol riot but plans a relaunch in 2024.
RedState
RedState, founded in 2004 and owned by Salem Media Group, is a leading conservative blog known for its political activism and organizing events. The site has undergone staffing changes, notably during Trump’s presidency when critics of Trump were dismissed.
RedState Watcher
Founded in 2004, RedState Watcher is a conservative blog operated by Townhall Media, known for its right-wing bias and opinion pieces. It has a strong alignment with the Salem Media Group’s conservative perspectives.
Richard Spencer
Former Editor of the racist rag Taki’s Magazine and an early figure in the alt-right.
Right Wing Tribune
Right Wing Tribune is known for its right-wing propaganda and election season misinformation. It has been criticized for amplifying conspiracy theories and sensationalist stories that align with extreme conservative narratives.
Robert Herring, Sr.
Founder and CEO of One America News Network (OANN), known for its conservative, pro-Trump coverage.
Rumble
Rumble is a video-sharing platform launched in 2013 that positions itself as an alternative to YouTube, particularly for creators who feel they are censored or deplatformed by mainstream platforms. Rumble gained popularity among conservative, right-leaning, and libertarian creators, though it markets itself as a platform that champions “free speech” and content that may not fit with the guidelines of other social media giants.
Rupert Murdoch
Australian media mogul and founder of Fox and key influencer in the Fox News network’s overall direction.
Rush Limbaugh (deceased)
Original host and pioneering figure in conservative talk radio, known for his influential and controversial views. One of the first in a wave of political right-wing “shock jocks.”
Sean Hannity
Fox News host known for his strong conservative viewpoints, significant influence in right-wing media, and close relationship with Trump.
Steve Bannon
Former executive chairman of Brietbart News and a key figure in shaping the outlet’s editorial stance.
Stormfront
Founded by former KKK leader Don Black in 1996, Stormfront was the first major online hate site, centered on white nationalism. It has attracted over 300,000 registered users, with the site repeatedly taken down for violating hate speech policies.
Suzanne Scott
CEO of Fox News Media, overseeing all aspects of the network’s operations and editorial direction.
Taki’s Magazine
Taki’s Magazine, founded on February 5, 2007 by Taki Theodoracopulos, is known for its extreme right-wing political stance. The publication has drawn criticism for its racially controversial content and its backing of individuals associated with white nationalism, while continuing to publish provocative material critical of political correctness.
Tenet Media
Tenet Media is a far-right media organization implicated in Russian influence campaigns in the United States. It has been linked to the promotion of disinformation, especially around political elections and controversial social issues. The platform is currently under investigation by the DOJ for its involvement in spreading foreign-backed propaganda. Operating primarily through social media and online outlets, Tenet Media targets conservative audiences with sensationalized content that aligns with extreme right-wing views.
The Babylon Bee
The Babylon Bee is a conservative Christian satirical website that publishes parody news stories with a right-wing perspective, often targeting liberal politics, secular culture, and progressive social movements. While its content is intentionally fictional, it has frequently been mistaken for real news due to its style and tone (not unlike a The Onion for the right-wing).
The Daily Caller
The Daily Caller, founded in 2010 by Tucker Carlson and Neil Patel with funding from conservative businessman Foster Friess, was launched as a right-leaning alternative to The Huffington Post. It aims to provide news and opinion content from a conservative perspective. Alongside its for-profit media site, The Daily Caller also operates a non-profit arm, The Daily Caller News Foundation, which has raised concerns about potential conflicts of interest and tax issues. Despite early claims of ideological independence, the outlet has been criticized for publishing misleading stories and engaging in partisan reporting. In 2020, Tucker Carlson sold his ownership stake, leaving Neil Patel as the majority owner.
The Daily Wire
The Daily Wire, an American conservative media company founded in 2015 by Ben Shapiro and Jeremy Boreing, has rapidly grown into a major player in digital media. By 2019, it ranked as the sixth-leading English-language publisher on Facebook, drawing massive engagement. The company surpassed $100 million in annual revenue in early 2022 and employed 150 people. Expanding its reach, The Daily Wire launched DailyWire+ in June 2022, offering video on demand for its popular content, including podcasts and video productions. Notably, “The Ben Shapiro Show” became the second most listened-to podcast in the U.S. by March 2019.
The Right Stuff
Largest white nationalist podcast network in the US.
The Rush Limbaugh Show
Long considered a staple of conservative talk radio, influential in shaping right-wing discourse.
The Sean Hannity Show
Radio show mixing news and conservative commentary, hosted by Sean Hannity.
The Washington Examiner
A conservative news outlet founded in Washington, D.C., the Washington Examiner transitioned from a daily newspaper to a weekly magazine in 2013. Owned by oil magnate Philip Anschutz, it is known for its right-leaning coverage and is often rated as having a “Lean Right” bias.
The Washington Times
Newspaper known for its conservative editorial content and often conspiratorial perspectives.
Tim Pool
Tim Pool is an independent journalist and political commentator who gained initial fame for his on-the-ground reporting during the Occupy Wall Street protests in 2011. Over time, Pool has shifted to a right-leaning stance, often criticized for promoting conspiracy theories and misinformation, particularly surrounding elections and COVID-19. He runs a popular YouTube channel where he discusses current events, frequently framing issues in a way that appeals to conservative and libertarian audiences. Though he claims to be politically independent, his content often aligns with right-wing perspectives, leading to accusations of bias.
True Pundit
True Pundit is a far-right fake news website known for promoting baseless conspiracy theories, especially regarding mass shootings and political figures. Operating with a “well-known modus operandi” of publishing unverified stories, the site ceased publishing new content in 2021.
Truthfeed
Truthfeed is a far-right news outlet notorious for publishing conspiracy theories and misinformation. Known for its strong right-wing bias, the platform has been criticized for aligning with conservative political agendas and contributing to a controversial media landscape dominated by conspiracy-driven narratives.
Truth Social
Truth Social is a social media platform launched by President Donald Trump as an alternative to mainstream networks, positioning itself as a “free speech” haven for conservatives. It has become a hub for right-wing users, featuring political content that often echoes Trump’s messaging and grievances against perceived censorship.
Co-founder of The Daily Caller, no longer actively involved but was instrumental in the site’s creation. Went on to have a career as a Fox pundit before being abruptly terminated following the January 6 coup attempt and Dominion lawsuit.
VDARE
Founded in 1999 by Peter Brimelow, VDARE is a far-right website that advocates for strict immigration policies and is widely associated with white nationalism and white supremacy. The site has long been a platform for anti-immigration rhetoric, often intertwined with racist ideologies. Despite its influence in far-right circles, VDARE announced a suspension of its operations in July 2024, marking a potential end to its two-decade presence in the online white nationalist movement.
WikiLeaks
Launched by Julian Assange in 2006, WikiLeaks is renowned for leaking classified documents, including U.S. diplomatic cables and military logs, sparking debates on government transparency. It gained prominence for releasing DNC emails obtained from Russian hackers during the 2016 election, with Assange expressing a controversial preference for a GOP victory over Hillary Clinton.
YourNewsWire
Founded in 2014, YourNewsWire is a clickbait website infamous for promoting conspiracy theories and fake news, including some of the most shared hoaxes on social media. Despite being debunked over 80 times, the site remains a significant source of misinformation.
Zero Hedge
Zero Hedge is a far-right libertarian financial blog known for its bearish investment outlook and promotion of Austrian School economics. In addition to financial news, the site expanded into political content, often promoting conspiracy theories. Zero Hedge has been accused of spreading Russian propaganda and misinformation, especially regarding the coronavirus pandemic. It was banned from Google Ads in 2020 but was later reinstated.
