A Diplomatic Travesty in the Oval Office: Zelensky, Trump, and JD Vanceβs Foreign Policy Ambush
The Oval Office has seen its share of tense diplomatic moments, but the recent clash between Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and former U.S. President Donald Trumpβjoined by Ohio Senator JD Vanceβmarks a new low in international decorum. What was expected to be a high-stakes discussion on Ukraineβs future and continued U.S. support instead devolved into a heated, profanity-laced exchange, described by German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock as ushering in a βnew era of profanity.β
In a tense and extraordinary meeting in front of the cameras, President Trump and Vice President Vance confronted Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky in what appeared to be a carefully orchestrated diplomatic ambush. With Russian state media present while major American outlets were excluded, Trump and Vance pressured Zelensky to accept terms highly favorable to Russia – including a ceasefire that would effectively cede Ukrainian territory and sign over rights to valuable rare-earth minerals without firm security guarantees in return. Zelensky pointed out that Putin had broken ceasefire agreements 25 times already — so what was his incentive to find this one credible, particularly without any concrete guarantees?
In response to a reporter’s question about the US’s sudden shift away from its staunch Cold War stance to embracing Russia, Trump complained that Zelensky showed “such hate” towards Putin, who — he alleged — has suffered very badly (hatred being more impactful than military invasion, I guess?). When Zelensky remained composed and warned that the United States might “feel problems” due to its shifting alliance toward Russia, Trump grew visibly agitated, repeatedly insisting Americans would “feel very good and very strong” instead, while Vance accused the Ukrainian leader of being ungrateful for American support — as someone insecure and in need of praise would do.
The situation escalated when Zelensky calmly but firmly stated that Trump and Vance would “feel influenced” by Russia, triggering an extended, angry tirade from Trump that veered into his grievances about Russian election interference investigations, criticisms of former Presidents Biden and Obama, and rhetoric that closely mirrored Putin’s talking points and invented conspiracy theories on Ukraine.
The terse portmanteus are blunt and blocky, like a brutalist architecture vocabulary. Their simplicity indicates appeal to the small-minded masses for easily digested pablum.
Table of Contents
What is Newspeak?
Newspeak is a fictional language created by George Orwell for his dystopian novel 1984, published in 1949. The language serves as an essential tool for the oppressive regime, known as The Party, to control and manipulate the population of Oceania. Newspeak is intentionally designed to restrict the range of thought, eliminate words that convey dissent or rebellion, and enforce political orthodoxy. The language accomplishes this by reducing the complexity of Newspeak vocabulary and grammar, condensing words into simplified forms, and eliminating synonyms and antonyms. The Party aims to eliminate the potential for subversive thoughts by ensuring that the language itself lacks the necessary words and expressions to articulate them.
In Orwell’s world, Newspeak works hand in hand with the concept of “doublethink,” which requires individuals to accept contradictory beliefs simultaneously. This manipulation of language and thought is central to maintaining the Party’s power and control over the populace. Newspeak translation is often the exact opposite of the meaning of the words said.
Newspeak’s ultimate goal is to render dissent and rebellion impossible by making the very thoughts of these actions linguistically unexpressable. As a result, Newspeak serves as a chilling representation of how language can be weaponized to restrict personal freedoms, suppress independent thought, and perpetuate an authoritarian regime.
Newspeak Rises Again
Those boots ring out again, from Belarus to Hungary to the United States. There are book burnings and the defunding of libraries in multiple states. From Ron DeSantis to Trumpian anti-intellectualism to the rampant proliferation of conspiracy theories, It’s a good time to brush up on the brutalism still actively struggling to take hold.
The following is a list of all Newspeak words from 1984.
Newspeak 1984 Dictionary
Newspeak term
Definition
ante
The prefix that replaces before
artsem
Artificial insemination
bb
Big Brother
bellyfeel
The blind, enthusiastic acceptance of an idea
blackwhite
To accept whatever one is told, regardless of the facts. In the novel, it is described as “…to say that black is white when [the Party says so]” and “…to believe that black is white, and more, to know that black is white, and to forget that one has ever believed the contrary”.
crimestop
To rid oneself of unorthodox thoughts that go against Ingsoc’s ideology
crimethink
Thoughts and concepts that go against Ingsoc, frequently referred to by the standard English βthoughtcrimeβ, such as liberty, equality, and privacy, and also the criminal act of holding such thoughts
dayorder
Order of the day
dep
Department
doubleplusgood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively good”, such as excellent, fabulous, and fantastic
doubleplusungood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “superlatively bad”, such as terrible and horrible
doublethink
The act of simultaneously believing two, mutually contradictory ideas
duckspeak
Automatic, vocal support of political orthodoxies
facecrime
A facial expression which reveals that one has committed thoughtcrime
Ficdep
The Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
free
The absence and the lack of something. “Intellectually free” and “politically free” have been replaced by crimethinkful.
βful
The suffix for forming an adjective
fullwise
The word that replaces words such as fully, completely, and totally
goodthink
A synonym for “political orthodoxy” and “a politically orthodox thought” as defined by the Party
goodsex
Sexual intercourse only for procreation, without any physical pleasure on the part of the woman, and strictly within marriage
goodwise
The word that replaced well as an adverb
Ingsoc
The English Socialist Party (i.e. The Party)
joycamp
Labour camp
malquoted
Inaccurate representations of the words of Big Brother and of the Party
Miniluv
The Ministry of Love, where the secret police interrogate and torture the enemies of Oceania (torture and brainwashing)
Minipax
The Ministry of Peace, who wage war for Oceania
Minitrue
The Ministry of Truth, who manufacture consent by way of lies, propaganda, and distorted historical records, while supplying the proles (proletariat) with synthetic culture and entertainment
Miniplenty
The Ministry of Plenty, who keep the population in continual economic hardship (starvation and rationing)
Oldspeak
Standard English
oldthink
Ideas from the time before the Party’s revolution, such as objectivity and rationalism
ownlife
A person’s anti-social tendency to enjoy solitude and individualism
plusgood
The word that replaced Oldspeak words meaning “very good”, such as great
plusungood
The word that replaced “very bad”
Pornosec
The pornography production section (Porno sector) of the Ministry of Truth’s Fiction Department
prolefeed
Popular culture for entertaining Oceania’s working class
Recdep
The Ministry of Truth’s Records Department, where Winston Smith rewrites historical records so they conform to the Party’s agenda
rectify
The Ministry of Truth’s euphemism for manipulating a historical record
ref
To refer (to someone or something)
sec
Sector
sexcrime
A sexual immorality, such as fornication, adultery, oral sex, and homosexuality; any sex act that deviates from Party directives to use sex only for procreation
speakwrite
A machine that transcribes speech into text
Teledep
The Ministry of Truth’s Telecommunications Department
telescreen
A two-way television set with which the Party spy upon Oceania’s population
thinkpol
The Thought Police, the secret police force of Oceania’s government
unperson
An executed person whose existence is erased from history and memory
upsub
An upwards submission to higher authority
βwise
The only suffix for forming an adverb
Newspeak Dictionary Quiz
Claude Artifacts made this in one prompt. Imagine this power to generate study aids for a wide variety of students at all levels. If I had had this as a kid…
Newspeak Quiz: Test Your Ingsoc Vocabulary
Welcome to the interactive Newspeak quiz! This quiz will help you learn the terminology of Oceania’s official language through fun repetition. Demonstrate your goodthink by mastering these terms – your commitment to linguistic purity will surely be recognized by the Party.
Beginner
Intermediate
Advanced
Term β Definition
Definition β Term
Score: 0/0
Quiz Complete!
Your final score: 0/0
Review Your Answers
Creation of New Words in Newspeak
One of the most fascinating and insidious aspects of Newspeak is the methodical creation of new words. This process is not only about inventing new terms but also about streamlining and simplifying the language to ensure it serves the purposes of the Party. Hereβs how this process works:
1. Compounding Words
In Newspeak, many new words are created by combining existing ones. This technique, known as compounding, helps to streamline communication by reducing longer phrases into single, concise terms. For example:
Goodthink: A compound of “good” and “think,” meaning orthodox thought, or thoughts that align with Party doctrine.
Oldthink: A combination of “old” and “think,” referring to thoughts that are based on outdated, pre-revolutionary beliefs and values.
By merging words in this manner, Newspeak eliminates the need for descriptive phrases, thereby simplifying language and controlling thought.
2. Prefixes and Suffixes
Newspeak employs prefixes and suffixes to create new words and alter the meanings of existing ones. This method ensures that language remains efficient and devoid of any unnecessary complexity. Some common prefixes and suffixes include:
Un-: This prefix is used to form the negative of any word, thereby eliminating the need for antonyms. For example, “unhappy” replaces “sad.”
Plus- and Doubleplus-: These prefixes intensify the meaning of words. “Plusgood” means very good, while “doubleplusgood” means excellent or extremely good.
-wise: This suffix is used to form adverbs. For instance, “speedwise” means quickly.
Through these prefixes and suffixes, Newspeak ensures that language remains consistent and simplified, reinforcing the Partyβs control over thought.
3. Simplification of Grammar
The creation of new words in Newspeak is also characterized by the simplification of grammar. Irregular verbs and noun forms are abolished, making all words conform to a delimited list of regular patterns. For example:
Think: In Newspeak, the past tense of “think” would simply be “thinked,” and the past participle would also be “thinked,” eliminating irregular forms like “thought.”
Knife: Plural forms are regularized, so “knife” becomes “knifes” instead of “knives.”
This grammatical regularization reduces the cognitive load required to learn and use the language, further limiting the scope for complex or critical thought.
4. Abolition of Synonyms and Antonyms
Newspeak systematically removes synonyms and antonyms to narrow the range of meaning, engendering black and white thinking. Each concept is reduced to a single, unambiguous word, eliminating nuances and shades of meaning:
Good: The word “good” stands alone without synonyms like “excellent,” “great,” or “superb.” Intensifiers like “plus-” and “doubleplus-” are used instead.
Bad: Instead of having a separate word like “bad,” Newspeak uses “ungood.” This not only simplifies vocabulary but also imposes a binary way of thinking.
By removing synonyms and antonyms, Newspeak reduces the complexity of language, ensuring that only Party-approved ideas can be easily communicated.
5. Creation of Euphemisms
In Newspeak, euphemisms are crafted to mask the true nature of unpleasant or controversial realities, aligning language with Party propaganda. For instance:
Joycamp: A euphemism for forced labor camps, designed to make the concept seem more palatable and less threatening.
Minipax: Short for the Ministry of Peace, which actually oversees war. The euphemistic name helps to disguise its true function.
These euphemisms help to distort reality, making it easier for the Party to maintain control over the populationβs perceptions and beliefs.
Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the βevil of Cluster Bβ), hold significant power.
In today’s complex geopolitical landscape, understanding different systems of governance is crucial for making sense of world events. Among these systems, totalitarianism stands out as one of the most extreme forms of government control. What exactly is totalitarianism, how does it function, and what can history teach us about its impacts — and how to fight back against its oppressive aims?
Defining Totalitarianism
Totalitarianism is a form of government and political system that attempts to assert total control over the lives of its citizens. It shares similarities with both fascism and authoritarianism, but unlike other authoritarian regimes, totalitarian states seek to subordinate all aspects of individual life to the authority of the state. The term itself suggests the extreme “total” nature of this controlβextending beyond purely political spheres into social, economic, cultural, and even private dimensions of human existence.
What distinguishes totalitarianism from other forms of authoritarianism is its ambition to erase the line between government and society entirely. Under totalitarianism, there is no concept of a private life outside the reach of state authority.
Key Characteristics of Totalitarian Regimes
1. Complete State Control of Society
Totalitarian states attempt to control virtually every aspect of social life:
Business and Economy: State-directed economic policies, often involving nationalization or collectivization of industries and resources
Labor: Control over labor unions, work assignments, and employment opportunities
Housing: Allocation and control of housing and living arrangements
Education: Strict control of curriculum and educational institutions to indoctrinate youth
Religion: Suppression or co-option of religious institutions
The Arts: Censorship and direction of artistic expression to serve state purposes
Personal Life: Intrusion into family relationships, leisure activities, and personal decisions
Youth Organizations: Creation of state-sponsored youth groups to foster loyalty from an early age
Hannah Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” is a collection of two seminal essays that explore the complex relationship between truth, lies, and political power. The book, published in 2022, includes “Truth and Politics” (1967) and “Lying in Politics” (1971), along with a new introduction by David Bromwich.
Key Themes of “On Lying and Politics”
The nature of political lies
Arendt argues that the phenomenon of lying in politics is not new, and that truthfulness has never been considered a political virtue. She posits that lies have long been regarded as justifiable tools in political dealings, reflecting a deep-seated tension between truth and politics. However, Arendt also warns that excessive lying by political classes can lead to totalitarianism, where reality becomes entirely fictional.
Types of truth
Arendt distinguishes between two types of truth: factual and rational. She argues that factual truth is more vulnerable to political manipulation, as it is not self-evident and can be challenged like opinions. Rational truth, on the other hand, is more resilient as it can be reproduced through logical reasoning. Others can more easily verify on their own whether a rational truth checks out, whereas they cannot as easily go fact-finding — particularly about far-flung things that happen well outside their ken.
The impact of lies on democracy
Arendt explores how organized lying can tear apart our shared sense of reality, replacing it with a fantasy world of manipulated evidence and doctored documents. She argues that in a democracy, honest disclosure is crucial as it is the self-understanding of the people that sustains the government. This aligns with the idea that totalitarian governments can warp even the language itself, a la George Orwell’s Newspeak language in the classic novel 1984.
A Tale of Two Essays
“Truth and Politics” (1967)
In this essay, Arendt examines the affinity between lying and politics. She emphasizes that the survival of factual truth depends on credible witnesses and an informed citizenry. The essay explores how organized lying can degrade facts into mere opinions, potentially leading liars to believe their own fabrications in a self-deluding system of circular logic.
“Lying in Politics” (1971)
Written in response to the release of the Pentagon Papers, this essay applies Arendt’s insights to American policy in Southeast Asia. She argues that the Vietnam War and the official lies used to justify it were primarily exercises in image-making, more concerned with displaying American power than achieving strategic objectives.
Arendt’s perspective on political lying
Arendt views lying as a deliberate denial of factual truth, interconnected with the ability to act and rooted in imagination. She argues that while individual lies might succeed, lying on principle ultimately becomes counterproductive as it forces the audience to disregard the distinction between truth and falsehood.
Contemporary relevance
Arendt’s work remains highly relevant today, perhaps even more so than when it was written. Her analysis of how lies can undermine the public’s sense of reality and the dangers of political self-deception resonates strongly in our current political climate of disinformation, manipulation, and radicalization.
Not to mention, the incredible contribution from Big Tech — whose tech bros have seen to it that political technology, and the study of professional manipulation, is alive and well. It’s been in the zeitgeist for a couple of decades now, and is now being accelerated — by the ascendancy of AI, Elon Musk, and the Silicon Valley branch of the right-wing wealth cult (Biden called it the tech-industrial complex).
“On Lying and Politics” feels fresh today
Arendt’s “On Lying and Politics” provides a nuanced exploration — and a long-term view — of the role of truth and lies in political life. While acknowledging that lying has always been part of politics, Arendt warns of the dangers of excessive and systematic lying, particularly in democratic societies.
Her work continues to offer valuable insights into the nature of political deception and its impact on public life and democratic institutions. We would be wise to hear her warnings and reflect deeply on her insights, as someone who lived through the Nazi regime and devoted the remainder of her life’s work to analyzing what had happened and warning others. The similarities to our current times are disturbing and alarming — arm yourself with as much information as you can.
Accelerationism Dictionary: A Complete Terminology and Lexicon
AI accelerationism, or βe/acc,β is one of the most radical and controversial ideologies emerging from Silicon Valley today. At its core, it champions the rapid and unrestricted development of artificial intelligence, rejecting calls for regulation and safety measures in favor of unchecked innovation. Proponents argue that AI holds the key to solving humanityβs greatest challengesβclimate change, poverty, diseaseβand even envision a post-human future where intelligence transcends biological limits.
With strong libertarian leanings, the movement prioritizes market-driven progress, believing that government intervention would stifle AIβs transformative potential. Tech billionaires like legendary venture capitalist Marc Andreessen have embraced these ideas, elevating what was once a fringe philosophy into a driving force in the AI industry.
However, AI accelerationism faces fierce criticism for its disregard of ethical considerations, social consequences, and potential existential risks. Detractors warn that unregulated AI development could exacerbate inequality, destabilize economies, and lead to dangerous technological outcomes without proper safeguards.
The movement stands in stark opposition to cautious, ethical AI development advocated by groups like the effective altruism community, setting up a high-stakes ideological battle over the future of artificial intelligence. Whether one sees AI accelerationism as a path to utopia or a reckless gamble, its growing influence makes it a defining force in the ongoing debate over technologyβs role in shaping humanityβs future.
This accelerationism dictionary should help get anyone up to speed on this emerging and dangerous ideology. We’ll keep adding to it over time as the field continues to evolve at breakneck pace.
Accelerationism Dictionary
A
Accelerate or die: A common slogan in the e/acc movement expressing the belief that technological acceleration is necessary for survival.
Accelerationism: A philosophical and political movement advocating for the acceleration of technological, social, and economic progress. Can exist in left-wing, right-wing, and politically neutral forms.
AI supremacy: The belief or fear that artificial intelligence will surpass human intelligence and capabilities, potentially dominating society, economies, and geopolitical power structures. It is often discussed in the context of global competition for technological dominance.
Pathocracy is a relatively lesser-known concept in political science and psychology, which refers to a system of government in which individuals with personality disorders, particularly those who exhibit psychopathic, narcissistic, and similar traits (i.e. the “evil of Cluster B“), hold significant power. This term was first introduced by Polish psychiatrist Andrzej Εobaczewski in his work “Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes.”
The crux of pathocracy lies in the rule by a small pathological minority, which imposes a regime that is damaging to the majority of non-pathological people. The key characteristics of pathocratic leadership include a lack of empathy, a disregard for the rule of law, manipulation, authoritarianism, and often, brutal repression. Many who are attracted to pathocratic rule exhibit the Dark Triad trio of malevolent and manipulative personality traits.
Origins and development of the concept of pathocracy
Pathocracy emerges from Εobaczewski’s study of totalitarian regimes, particularly those of Nazi Germany under Adolf Hitler and Communism in the Soviet Union under Joseph Stalin. Born in Poland in 1921, he witnessed the upheaval and transformation of his own country during the horrors of World War II and the chilling effects of the subsequent Communist occupation.
He suffered greatly to arrive at the insights in his work — arrested and tortured by the Polish authorities under Communist rule, he was unable to publish his magnum opus, the book Political Ponerology, until he escaped to the United States during the 1980s. Εobaczewski spent the rest of his life and career trying to unpack what had happened to him, his community, and his nation — having witnessed such brutality over such a shockingly short span of time, and having experienced friends turning against friends in vicious and shocking ways.
Εobaczewski posits that these authoritarian and fascist regimes were not merely politically oppressive, but were also psychologically abnormal. He studied the characteristics of these leaders and their closest supporters, identifying patterns that aligned with known personality disorders. His work also identified a much higher percentage of personality disordered individuals than is still commonly understood, finding that about 7% of the general population could be categorized as severely lacking in empathy and possessing the tendencies — latent or overt — leading to the rise of pathocracy in society.
Characteristics of pathocratic leadership
Psychopathy: Leaders in a pathocracy often display traits synonymous with psychopathy, including a lack of empathy, remorse, and shallow emotions.
Narcissism: Excessive self-love and a strong sense of entitlement often drive pathocratic rulers.
Manipulation: These leaders are adept at manipulation, using deceit and coercion to maintain their power. They also often exhibit other traits and behaviors of emotional predators.
Paranoia: A heightened sense of persecution or conspiracy is common, leading to oppressive and authoritarian measures.
Corruption: Moral depravity, ethical degeneration, and widespread corruption are endemic in a pathocracy, as pathological leaders tend to surround themselves with similarly affected individuals who feel no shame about performing unethical and/or illegal actions either in secret, or in broad daylight with little fear of retaliation.
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 βblatantly unconstitutional,β forcing the administration to backtrack. However, related Executive Orders freezing some payments are said to “still be in order” which is (intentionally) causing confusion around the status of almost everything.
Elon Muskβs Intervention in the Treasury Payment System:
Muskβs people, reportedly a group of young men between 19 and 24 according to Wired, attempted to access a βsecret areaβ within USAID (the agency responsible for U.S. foreign aid). In the process, two top officials were sidelined (put on administrative leave), and Muskβs team gained access, potentially compromising sensitive U.S. intelligence data.
Announced Cuts to Federal Programs:
Following these breaches, Musk (acting as a Trump ally) has claimed on social media that he is βcuttingβ certain federally funded programs, including a human services organization linked to the Lutheran Church. This move threatens funding for critical services such as migrant support, nursing homes, and possibly even affects Social Security and Medicare (though Trump has stated these will not be touched).
Tariffs and International Implications:
Additionally, Trumpβs administration is imposing tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China, which could inflict economic pain, especially in regions that predominantly support the Republican agenda.
These recent events (the inimitable Heather Cox Richardson covers them in-depth in her Letters from an American column) highlight an aggressive attack on constitutional governance marked by executive overreach and the manipulation of public funds. Actions such as unilateral spending freezesβdisguised (thinly) as efforts to address DEI concernsβand the controversial transfer of control over federal financial systems to private interests like world’s richest man Elon Musk (who apparently still doesn’t have enough money) reveal a dangerous shift in power.
This reckless endangerment jeopardizes not only the integrity of critical public services and security measures but also the core democratic principle of accountability, underscoring an urgent need for citizens to remain vigilant and demand that elected officials uphold the constitutional order. We The People still wield the ultimate power — as AOC is about to so eloquently tell you more about.
Effective Altruism and Longtermism are relatively recent (since the late 2000s) twin philosophical movements making the claim that, as a human species, we ought to prioritize impacting the long-term future of humanity — hundreds, thousands, or millions of years from now — over and above any concerns for actual humans alive today. Largely inspired by utilitarianism, it favors questionable metrics like “lives saved per dollar” in its quest to not just do good, but “do the most good.”
Longtermism is an outgrowth of Effective Altruism (EA), a social movement developed by philosophers Peter Singer and William MacAskill. It emphasizes the moral importance of trying to shape the far future, and adherents argue that the long-term consequences of our actions far outweigh their short-term effects because of the potential of vast numbers of future lives. In other words, future people will outnumber us at such a scale that, by comparison to this imaginary future universe, our current-day lives are not very important at all.
It has numerous and powerful adherents among the Silicon Valley elite including Trump bromance Elon Musk, tech billionaire Peter Thiel (who spoke at the RNC in 2016), indicted and disgraced crypto trader Sam Bankman-Fried, Twitter and Square founder Jack Dorsey (who is good friends with Elon), OpenAI‘s CEO Sam Altman, Ethereum founder (and Thiel fellow) Vitalik Buterin, co-founder of Asana Dustin Moskovitz, and others.
Why longtermism resonates with tech oligarchs
The tech-industrial complex is steeped in the idea of longtermism in part because it aligns so well with so many of their values:
technological optimism / techno-utopianism — the belief that technology is the solution to all of humanity’s greatest challenges
risk-taking mindset — venture capital is famous for its high-risk, high-reward mentality
Greatness Thinking — unwavering devotion to an Ayn Randian worldview in which only two groups exist: a small group of otherworldly titans, and everyone else
atomized world — social groups and historical context don’t matter much, because one’s personal individualized contributions are what make real impact on the world
The dubious ethics of effective altruism
Although it positions itself high, high above the heady clouds of moral superiority, EA is yet another in a long line of elaborate excuses for ignoring urgent problems we actually face, in favor of “reallocating resources” towards some long-distant predictively “better” class of people that do not currently exist and will not exist for thousands, millions, or even billions of years. It’s an elaborate excuse framework for “billionaires behaving badly” — who claim to be akin to saints or even gods who are doing the difficult work of “saving humanity,” but in reality are navel-gazing into their vanity projects and stroking each others’ raging narcissism while completely ignoring large, looming actual dangers in the here and now like climate change, systemic inequality, and geopolitical instabillity to name a few.
Meanwhile the GOP apparently knew the whole thing was made up — because they helped ferry the disinformation from Russian sources to further their political goals. Trump had sent Rudy Giuliani and Lev Parnas on a fishing expedition to “dig up dirt” on the Bidens in Ukraine circa 2018-2019, making them almost eager to be willfully conned by Russian active measures. The Russians of course did not disappoint — first implanting the Burisma disinformation through this channel.
The Lev Parnas story would become the basis of the excellent Rachel Maddow-produced feature-length documentary, “From Russia with Lev”:
Burisma bribes were fake
In other words, both arms of the “Biden bribes” story have been thoroughly debunked — which led House Republicans to drop the Biden impeachment inquiry, but not to drop their disinformation campaign around the alleged corruption. So, GOP lawmakers know the Burisma story is fake, that Russian spies planted it, and “disinformation courier” Smirnov will serve jail time for it — but they continue to push it anyway, in an attempt to create a vague veneer of corruption around sitting President Joe Biden.
The Republican flavor of whataboutism that tries lamely to stand up an entirely fake, intentionally fabricated story about $5 million bribes to the Bidens against the unprecedented scale of openly naked corruption as Trump brazenly seeks to profit from his public service is a morally reprehensible ethical stain that I hope follows them into history as a legacy of abject greed and lust for power that thoroughly characterizes the Republican Party in this era. To the extent the GOP stands for anything, it is corruption.
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.
Kamala Harris should be proud of the race she ran, an almost flawless sprint through the tape at a scant 108 days’ worth of time to make her pitch to the American voters — many of whom complained that they did not know her very well as a candidate.
Disinformation continued relentlessly throughout the race — even doubling down when called out.
Not a Mandate
Trump’s lead keeps dropping as California and other western states finish counting their ballots after what seems like an eternity — mostly due to CA accepting ballots postmarked by election day, adding 7 days to the final count no matter what.
He dropped below 50% and never recovered — meaning that more people voted against him than voted for him.
As of the final count, his margin dropped below 1.5% — the 4th largest margin in any popular vote win in the past 100 years.
Vote Predictors
Education
Media Sources
Urban vs. Rural
I haven’t had the energy to give to this piece and I just learned about this feature of Google’s NotebookLM that can generate a podcast between 2 hosts, from your uploaded assets. I tested it out with a combined corpus of some of my own thoughts and some of the resources I found insightful.
What NotebookLM came up with was uncannily compelling. It would be something I would consider useful, particularly as a tool for initiating some of those folks less steeped in politics as I am. So I’m posting it here, in part as a signpost regarding where we’re heading — whether we like it or not.
History is rife with examples of dualistic thinkingβblack and white, good and evil, light and dark. Few frameworks encapsulate this philosophical dichotomy more vividly than Manichaeism, a religious movement born in 3rd century Persia. At its heart lies the concept of the “Manichaean Struggle,” an eternal cosmic battle that defines existence itself.
Though the religion has long since disappeared, its ideas about duality and morality resonate in ways both subtle and overt, shaping not just theology but how we think about human nature and ethics today. If anything, the modern world is more black and white now than at many times in the past.
Historical Context
Manichaeism was founded in 3rd century CE Persia by a prophet named Mani. Claiming to synthesize the wisdom of previous religious traditionsβZoroastrianism, Buddhism, and ChristianityβMani positioned his teachings as the ultimate revelation. The religion rapidly gained a foothold across diverse regions, from the Roman Empire to the Silk Road, even reaching as far as China.
Yet, despite its initial success, Manichaeism faced relentless persecution from state powers, including the Roman Empire and the Sasanian rulers of Persia, alongside internal schisms. By the 14th century, the faith had all but disappeared, leaving behind traces in historical records and theological debates.
Core Beliefs of Manichaeism
At its core, Manichaeism proposed a dualistic cosmology: the world is a battleground between two primordial forcesβgood, symbolized by light, and evil, represented by darkness. Mani’s teachings divided cosmic history into three stages:
Past Separation: A time when light and darkness existed apart.
Present Mixture: The current era, in which the two forces intermingle, with particles of light trapped within the material world.
Future Resolution: A prophesied time when light will be liberated and returned to its source, restoring cosmic balance.
This worldview emphasized the imprisonment of light particles within physical matter, including within human beings. The struggle to free these fragments of light became the central spiritual endeavor of every adherent.
What is a dictator, and what drives the allure of absolute power? How do dictators reshape the political and social landscapes they dominate? This post explores the intricate systems of control underpinning authoritarian governance, tracing its evolution from historical precedents to modern manifestations, and examining the far-reaching consequences for societies caught in its grip.
Dictators: Unraveling the Complexity of Authoritarian Governance
Political power represents a profound and intricate spectrum of human organizational capability, with dictatorships emerging as one of its most complex and destructive manifestations. The journey of understanding dictatorships requires a nuanced exploration that transcends simple categorizations, delving deep into the historical, sociological, and psychological landscapes that enable and sustain authoritarian control.
The Essence of Dictatorial Power
At its core, a dictator represents far more than a mere political leader. These individuals — often demagogues — are architects of comprehensive systems of control, systematically dismantling institutional safeguards and reconstructing societal frameworks to serve their singular vision of governance. Unlike democratically elected leaders constrained by robust institutional checks and balances, a dictatorship operates through a sophisticated network of power consolidation that penetrates every aspect of social and political life.
The hallmark of dictatorial governance lies not just in the concentration of power, but in the systematic elimination of alternative power structures. These leaders do not simply rule; they fundamentally reshape the entire landscape of political possibility, creating environments where opposition becomes not just difficult, but potentially life-threatening.
Douglas Rushkoff’s “Survival of the Richest: Escape Fantasies of the Tech Billionaires” delves into the unsettling strategies of the ultra-wealthy broligarchs as they prepare for global catastrophes of their own making. Drawing from personal encounters with tech magnates, Rushkoff unveils a mindset fixated on personal survival over collective well-being running rampant in Silicon Valley.
The Mindset
At the heart of Rushkoff’s critique is “The Mindset,” a belief system among tech billionaires from Peter Thiel to Elon Musk and beyond characterized by:
Extreme Wealth and Privilege: Leveraging vast resources to insulate themselves from societal collapse.
Escape Over Prevention: Prioritizing personal exit strategies rather than addressing systemic issues.
Technological Transcendence: Aiming to surpass human limitations through advanced technologies.
This worldview drives investments in elaborate escape plans, sidelining efforts to resolve the crises they anticipate. It is almost as if they are in a low-key doomsday cult, albeit one that lacks a singular leader and isn’t holed up in a compound (…yet).
The Event
The term “The Event” encapsulates potential disasters such as environmental collapse — particularly from climate change, social unrest, pandemics, and cyberattacks. They believe we should expect more bitter divisiveness, more covid-19s, and more hostile hacking in our future. The elite perceive these scenarios as unavoidable, focusing on personal survival rather than prevention.
Escape Strategies
Rushkoff examines the lengths to which the ultra-rich go to secure their futures, including:
Luxury Bunkers: Constructing fortified shelters to withstand various apocalyptic events.
These measures reflect a desire to detach from societal responsibilities and the broader human community.
The Insulation Equation
Rushkoff introduces the “insulation equation,” illustrating how billionaires calculate the wealth required to shield themselves from the fallout of their own actions. This cycle perpetuates reckless behavior and further wealth accumulation, exacerbating the very problems they seek to escape.
Critique of Capitalism and Technology
The book critiques the symbiotic relationship between capitalism and technology, highlighting:
Exponential Growth Pursuit: An obsession with endless expansion at any cost.
Shareholder Primacy: Prioritizing investor returns over societal or environmental considerations.
Erosion of Empathy: A growing disconnect between the wealthy and the rest of society.
Resource Exploitation: Reducing nature and human complexity to mere commodities.
Rushkoff argues that this dynamic fosters a dystopian future dominated by private technologies and monopolistic control — a very authoritarian direction.
Historical Context
Positioning today’s tech elites within a historical framework, Rushkoff contends they are not pioneers but continuations of past power structures that enriched themselves at others’ expense. Their perceived uniqueness is, in reality, a repetition of historical patterns, including colonialism.
Proposed Solutions
While primarily a critique, Rushkoff offers some ideas for pathways to counteract “The Mindset”:
Rejecting Doom’s Inevitability: Embracing proactive solutions over fatalistic resignation.
Supporting Local Economies: Fostering community resilience through localized commerce.
Advocating Anti-Monopoly Laws: Challenging corporate dominance to promote fair competition.
Redefining Identity: Moving beyond algorithmic categorizations to embrace human complexity.
Some critics argue these suggestions may not fully address the scale of the issues presented — but it’s much easier to be a critic than to come up with these solutions. We may not know all the answers yet as to how to curb these alarming trends, but I think Rushkoff’s point is well taken that we ought to involve ourselves in at least starting to work out the solutions with some urgency.
Ultimately, “Survival of the Richest” serves as a stark examination of the escapist fantasies of the tech elite, and an eye-opening look behind the curtains of the Great Oz’s who dot our landscape today. These wealthy tech elites have promised the moon (or Mars) without knowing whether they could really deliver — and all the while planning a Plan B in case their hare-brained schemes went belly-up. They are okay with sacrificing the vast majority of the people on the planet, as long as their underground bunkers (or better yet, private islands) are there for them.
By exposing their self-serving strategies, Rushkoff urges a shift from individualistic survivalism to collective action in tackling the many global challenges that face us today. We would be wise to heed the call and gather our tribes early and often.
