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.
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.”
What is fascism, and what are the signs of fascism? The fascist form of government is a complex and multi-faceted ideology that can manifest in various ways, making it challenging to pin down with a single definition.
Fascism resists simple definition precisely because it’s a syncretic ideology—adaptable to different contexts while maintaining core structural features. Rather than a fixed doctrine, it operates as a political methodology characterized by specific power dynamics, rhetorical strategies, and institutional patterns.
Structural characteristics of fascism
These are the ideological foundations and belief systems that define fascist movements—not merely policy positions but the fundamental orientations toward power, identity, and social organization that shape how fascism understands the world and its place in it.
Authoritarian Consolidation: Fascism centralizes power through the dismantling of horizontal accountability structures, typically concentrating authority in a charismatic executive who positions themselves above institutional constraints.
Ultranationalism as Identity Politics: Goes beyond patriotism to assert inherent civilizational superiority or racial supremacy, often manifesting as collective narcissism where national mythmaking replaces historical accuracy.
Anti-Intellectualism and Epistemic Closure: Systematic devaluation of expertise, academic inquiry, and empirical reasoning in favor of intuition, emotion, and revealed truth. The “coastal elite” or “ivory tower” becomes a rhetorical enemy.
Ethno-Nationalism and Boundary Enforcement: Xenophobia operating through strict in-group/out-group categorization, often targeting immigrants, religious minorities, or racialized “others.”
Reactionary Temporal Orientation: Deployment of a mythologized past as political program—the promise to restore a golden age that never existed, weaponizing nostalgia against pluralism.
Anti-Leftist Mobilization: Positioning communism, socialism, and progressive movements as existential threats, often conflating disparate left ideologies to create a unified enemy.
The Us vs. Them Architecture: In-group/Out-group dynamics as core infrastructure
Fascism doesn’t just exploit social divisions—it requires their constant production and intensification as its primary source of political energy. While most political movements contain some degree of group identity, fascism is structurally dependent on a stark binary between insiders and outsiders, making this dynamic its foundational operating system rather than an incidental feature. The movement coheres not around shared policy goals or governance philosophy, but around the ongoing project of boundary maintenance: defining, defending, and purifying the “us” against an ever-present “them.”
Sometimes our minds play tricks on us. They can convince us that untrue things are true, or vice versa.
Cognitive distortions are bad mental habits. They’re patterns of thinking that tend to be negatively slanted, inaccurate, and often repetitive — the very opposite of healthy, critical thinking.
These unhelpful ways of thinking can limit one’s ability to function and excel in the world. Cognitive distortions are linked to anxiety, depression, addiction, and eating disorders. They reinforce negative thinking loops, which tend to compound and worsen over time.
Irrational thinking: And how to counter it
Every day, our minds take shortcuts to process the overwhelming amount of information we encounter. These shortcuts—cognitive distortions—helped our ancestors survive in environments where quick judgments meant the difference between life and death. But in today’s complex world, where we’re making decisions about careers, relationships, investments, and strategy, these same mental patterns can systematically lead us astray.
Cognitive distortions are systematic patterns of thought that can lead to inaccurate or irrational conclusions. These distortions often serve as mental traps, skewing our perception of reality and affecting our emotional well-being.
The good news? Simply knowing these distortions (as well as other common psychological biases) exist makes you a better thinker. Research in metacognition shows that awareness is the first step toward correction. You can’t debug code you don’t know is buggy, and you can’t fix thinking patterns you can’t see.
Here’s the hard truth: everyone experiences these distortions. The difference between mediocre and exceptional decision-makers isn’t that one group never falls into these traps—it’s that they’ve trained themselves to spot the patterns, pause, and course-correct. They’ve built systems to counteract their brain’s default programming.
Types of cognitive distortion
What types of cognitive distortion should we be aware of? Let’s delve into three common types: emotional reasoning, counterfactual thinking, and catastrophizing.
Emotional Reasoning: This distortion involves using one’s emotions as a barometer for truth. For example, if you feel anxious, you might conclude that something bad is going to happen, even if there’s no objective evidence to support that belief. Emotional reasoning can create a self-perpetuating cycle: your emotions validate your distorted thoughts, which in turn intensify your emotions.
Counterfactual Thinking: This involves imagining alternative scenarios that could have occurred but didn’t. While this can be useful for problem-solving and learning, it becomes a cognitive distortion when it leads to excessive rumination and regret. For instance, thinking “If only I had done X, then Y wouldn’t have happened” can make you stuck in a loop of what-ifs, preventing you from moving forward.
Catastrophizing: This is the tendency to imagine the worst possible outcome in any given situation. It’s like always expecting a minor stumble to turn into a catastrophic fall. This distortion can lead to heightened stress and anxiety, as you’re constantly bracing for disaster.
But there are many more mental pitfalls to watch out for besides just these 3. The table below catalogues some of the most common cognitive distortions that shape (and warp) human thinking. As you read through them, you’ll likely recognize patterns from your own mental habits. That moment of recognition isn’t a weakness—it’s the beginning of cognitive sovereignty. The path to better decisions starts with knowing when your brain is trying to take shortcuts, and choosing to think deliberately instead.
Consider this your debugging toolkit for the most important software you’ll ever run: your own mind.
Cognitive distortions list
Cognitive distortion
Explanation
Example
all-or-nothing thinking
viewing everything in absolute and extremely polarized terms
“nothing good ever happens” or “I’m always behind”
blaming
focusing on other people as source of your negative feelings, & refusing to take responsibility for changing yourself; or conversely, blaming yourself harshly for things that were out of your control
“It’s my boss’s fault I’m always stressed at work, or conversely, “It’s all my fault that the project failed, even though I had no control over the budget cuts.”
catastrophizing
belief that disaster will strike no matter what, and that what will happen will be too awful to bear
If I don’t get this promotion, my life will be ruined and I’ll end up homeless.
counterfactual thinking
A kind of mental bargaining or longing to live in the alternate timeline where one had made a different decision
If only I had studied harder for that exam, I wouldn’t be in this situation now.
dichotomous thinking
viewing events or people in all-or-nothing terms
“If I don’t get a perfect score on this test, then I’m a complete failure.”
discounting positives
claiming that positive things you or others do are trivial, or ignoring good things that have happened to you
“I got a promotion, but it’s not a big deal; anyone could have done it.”
emotional reasoning
letting feelings guide interpretation of reality; a way of judging yourself or your circumstances based on your emotions
“I feel like a failure, so I must be one.”
filtering
mentally “filters out” the positive aspects of a situation while magnifying the negative aspects
Even though I got a promotion and a raise, I can’t stop thinking about the one negative comment my boss made during my performance review.
fortune-telling
predicting the future negatively
I just know I’m going to fail this test, even though I’ve studied for weeks.
framing effects
tendency for decisions to be shaped by inconsequential features of choice problems
Choosing the “90% fat-free” yogurt over the “10% fat” yogurt, even though they are nutritionally identical, because the positive framing sounds healthier.
halo effect
belief that one’s success in a domain automagically qualifies them to have skills and expertise in other areas
Because someone is a successful actor, I assume they must also be a brilliant political commentator.
illusory correlation
tendency to perceive a relationship between two variables when no relation exists
Every time I wash my car, it rains, so I must be causing the rain.
inability to disconfirm
reject any evidence or arguments that might contradict negative thoughts
Despite being shown evidence of her good work, she clung to the belief that she was incompetent.
intuitive heuristics
tendency when faced with a difficult question of answering an easier question instead, typically without noticing the substitution
When asked if they are a happy person, someone might answer if they are happy right now, instead of considering their overall happiness.
just-world hypothesis
belief that good things tend to happen to good people, while bad things tend to happen to bad people
She believes that because she works hard and is a good person, she is guaranteed to win the lottery, while bad things only happen to those who deserve it.
labeling
assigning global negative traits to self & others; making a judgment about yourself or someone else as a person, versus seeing the behavior as something they did that doesn’t define them as an individual
“I’m a complete idiot for making that mistake,” instead of “I made a mistake.”
ludic fallacy
in assessing the potential amount of risk in a system or decision, mistaking the real randomness of life for the well-defined risk of casinos
A gambler believes that since a roulette wheel has landed on red five times in a row, it’s more likely to land on black next, mistaking the independent probability of each spin for a predictable pattern.
a way of imagining you can wish reality into existence through the sheer force of your mind. Part of a child developmental phase that not everyone grows out of.
If I just wish hard enough, I can make my dream job appear without applying for it.
magnification
exaggerating the importance of flaws and problems while minimizing the impact of desirable qualities and achievements
Even though I successfully completed the complex project, I can’t stop focusing on the minor typo I made in one email.
mind reading
assuming what someone is thinking w/o sufficient evidence; jumping to conclusions
My boss didn’t say good morning, so she must be angry with me.
negative filtering
focusing exclusively on negatives & ignoring positives
Even after receiving a glowing performance review, she could only dwell on the one minor suggestion for improvement.
nominal realism
child development phase where names of objects aren’t just symbols but intrinsic parts of the objects. Sometimes called word realism, and related to magical thinking
A child believing that if you call a dog a “cat,” it will actually become a cat, demonstrates nominal realism.
overgeneralizing
making a rule or predicting globally negative patterns on the basis of single incident
Because I tripped on the sidewalk today, I know it’s going to be a terrible week.
projection
attributing qualities to external actors or forces that one feels within and either a) wishes to promote and have echoed back to onself, or b) eradicate or squelch from oneself by believing that the quality exists elsewhere, in others, but not in oneself
He accused his coworker of being lazy, when in reality, he was struggling with his own motivation.
provincialism
the tendency to see things only from the point of view of those in charge of our immediate in-groups
She couldn’t understand why anyone would disagree with her team’s strategy, assuming their way was the only correct approach because it’s what her superiors believed.
shoulds
a list of ironclad rules one lives and punishes oneself by
“I should always be perfect, and if I’m not, I’m a complete failure.”
teleological fallacy
illusion that you know exactly where you’re going, knew exactly where you were going in the past, & that others have succeeded in the past by knowing where they were going
I always knew I would become a successful entrepreneur because every step I took, even the detours, perfectly led me to this point.
what if?
keep asking series of ?s on prospective events & being unsatisfied with any answers
What if I fail the exam, and what if that means I’ll never get into college, and what if my whole future is ruined because of this one test?
Who are the Christian nationalists? They are people, groups, and congregations who tend to believe in Strict Father Morality, and Christian nationalist leaders desire to establish some sort of Christian fascist theocratic state in America. Nevermind that religious freedom and the ability to worship as one pleases was precisely one of the major founding ideals of the United States, as we know from the many, many outside writings of the founders at that time — these folks consider that context “irrelevant” to the literal text of the founding documents.
Getting “separation of state” backwards
Prominent Christian nationalist David Barton re-interprets the famous 1802 Thomas Jefferson letter to the Danbury Baptists to allege support for a “one-way wall” between church and state. Barton contends that Jefferson’s metaphor of a “wall of separation” was intended to protect religious institutions from government interference rather than ensuring the government’s secular nature. By advocating for this one-directional barrier, Barton seeks to justify the integration of religious principles into public policy and government actions — improbably, given the First Amendment to the Constitution.
Barton and his fellow Christian nationalists are either intentionally or unfathomably not taking the logical next step in the chain of power and authority: if the government is informed, infused, or even consumed by religious dogma and doctrine, then is that government not by definition infringing on the rights of any citizens that happens not to believe in that code or creed?
The answer, as we well know from the colonization of America itself, is YES. We left the Church of England in large part to worship of our own accord — and to make money, of course. Madison, Jefferson, Franklin, Adams, and Washington were especially concerned about religious liberty and the neutrality of government in religious matters.
Thus, in large part, the ideas of the Christian nationalists are misinterpretations at best, and willful invention at worst. In some it is clearly a naked power grab and not much more — think of Trump holding an upside-down Bible in Lafayette Square. In general, Christian nationalism doesn’t actually seem very Christian at all.
Whether they are True Believers or Opportunistic Cynics, the Christian nationalist organizations and right wing groups on this list — as well as a number of prominent individuals within these organizations — represent a threat to democracy as we know it — especially with Project 2025 so close to coming to fruition in a second Trump administration. Best we get a look at who they are.
Understanding Neoreaction (NRx): The Dark Enlightenment’s Growing Influence
In the landscape of contemporary political thought, few movements have generated as much intrigue and controversy as Neoreaction (NRx). Emerging from the darkest corners of the internet and gradually infiltrating mainstream discourse, this philosophical movement represents one of the most comprehensive rejections of modern liberal democracy. Here we’ll explore the origins, key figures, core beliefs, and growing influence of Neoreaction in both Silicon Valley and Republican politics.
Origins and Key Figures
Neoreaction emerged in the mid-to-late 2000s as an online philosophical and political movement, primarily through blog posts and forum discussions. The movement’s foundational texts were written by Curtis Yarvin (writing under the pseudonym Mencius Moldbug), a software engineer by day and political theorist by night who began publishing his critiques of modern democracy in 2007-2008 through his blog “Unqualified Reservations.”
Yarvin’s verbose, citation-heavy writing style attracted a small but dedicated following of readers who were drawn to his radical critique of contemporary political systems. His work was further developed and popularized by British philosopher Nick Land, who coined the term “Dark Enlightenment” in his 2012 essay of the same name. Land, formerly associated with the Cybernetic Culture Research Unit at Warwick University, added accelerationist elements to Neoreactionary thought, emphasizing the role of capitalism and technology in destabilizing existing political structures.
While Yarvin and Land are considered the primary architects of Neoreactionary thought, the movement draws inspiration from earlier thinkers. These include 19th-century writer Thomas Carlyle, who advocated for authoritarian governance; Julius Evola, an Italian traditionalist philosopher; and American economist Hans-Hermann Hoppe, known for his critiques of democracy from a libertarian perspective.
Core Beliefs
At its heart, Neoreaction represents a fundamental rejection of Enlightenment values and the modern liberal democratic order. Its adherents advocate for several interconnected beliefs:
Twitter Timeline (aka ‘X’): From Founding to Present
Few platforms have so profoundly shaped the 21st-century media and political landscape as Twitter. Launched in 2006 as a quirky microblogging experiment in Silicon Valley, Twitter rapidly evolved into a global public square — a real-time newswire, activism megaphone, cultural barometer, and political battleground all in one. From the Arab Spring to #BlackLivesMatter, celebrity feuds to presidential declarations, Twitter didn’t just reflect the world — it influenced it.
But in 2022, everything changed.
The takeover by Elon Musk, the billionaire tech entrepreneur and self-styled “free speech absolutist,” marked a sharp and chaotic break from Twitter’s legacy. In short order, Musk dismantled key moderation teams, reinstated accounts once banned for extremism or disinformation, and transformed the platform into a private entity under his X Corp umbrella. The iconic blue bird gave way to a stark new identity: X — signaling not just a rebrand, but a fundamental shift in mission, culture, and political alignment.
This timeline chronicles Twitter’s full arc from inception to its present incarnation as X: a detailed account of its business milestones, technological evolution, political influence, and growing alignment with right-wing ideology under Musk’s ownership. Drawing on a wide range of journalistic and academic sources, this narrative highlights how a once-fractious but largely liberal-leaning tech company became a controversial hub for “anti-woke” politics, misinformation, and culture war skirmishes — with global implications.
2006 – Birth of a New Platform
March 2006: In a brainstorming at Odeo (a San Francisco podcast startup founded by Noah Glass, Biz Stone, and Evan Williams — the latter of whom would go on to later found the longform writing platform Medium), Jack Dorsey and colleagues conceive a text-message status sharing service. By March 21, Dorsey sends the first-ever tweet – “just setting up my twttr”, marking Twitter’s official creation.
July 2006: Twitter (then styled “twttr” as was the vowel-less fashion at the time) launches to the public as a microblogging platform allowing 140-character posts. It initially operates under Odeo, but in October the founders form the Obvious Corporation and buy out Odeo’s investors, acquiring Twitter’s intellectual property.
August – September 2006: Early users begin to see Twitter’s potential. In August, tweets about a California earthquake demonstrate Twitter’s value for real-time news by eyewitnesses. In September, twttr is rebranded as Twitter after acquiring the domain, finally graduating into the land of vowels.
2007 – Rapid Growth and Social Buzz
March 2007: Twitter gains international buzz at the SXSW conference Interactive track. Usage explodes when attendees use it for real-time updates, a tipping point that greatly expands Twitter’s userbase.
April 2007: Spun off as its own company, Twitter, Inc. begins to operate independently from Obvious Corp, the parent company of Odeo. Twitter also closes its first venture funding round in April, raising $5 million led by Union Square Ventures and venture capitalist Fred Wilson, who would become one of Twitter’s most influential backers, at a ~$20 million valuation. Other early investors included Ron Conway, Marc Andreessen, Chris Sacca, Joi Ito, and Dick Costolo (who would later become its CEO).
August 2007: User-driven innovation gives rise to the hashtag. Invented by user Chris Messina to group topics, the “#” hashtag debuts and later becomes an official Twitter feature for trend tracking. This year, Twitter’s growth is so rapid that frequent server crashes occur, introducing the world to the iconic “Fail Whale” error image created by artist Yiying Lu (a symbol of its early growing pains).
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.
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.
The Former Guy has been continuously proclaiming to know nothing about Project 2025, the plan whose authors include 70% current and former Trump officials. In that he doth protest too much — does Trump support Project 2025? You bet your bippy he does!
What is Project 2025? Think of it as a vast plan, close to the former president, to feverishly establish Christofascism in America starting with Day 1 of a second Trump presidency. It is a 920-page document, and 1000-employee project, to “supercharge” another Trump term with an infusion of Christian nationalism.
More than 100 Christian nationalist organizations and groups are involved in drafting the blueprint for Trump’s next term, should that horrorscape come to pass. One core problem they have, however, is the extreme unpopularity of their ideas. Most Americans are recoiling from the draconian measures Project 2025 wishes to bestow upon the nation, unasked for and unwanted — including banning abortion nationwide, restricting IVF, defunding education, pulling out of NATO, etc.
Who is behind Project 2025?
Project 2025 is so toxic in fact that Donald Trump tried to disavow it on Truth Social:
But despite his pathetic attempt to disclaim knowledge about Project 2025, Trump’s current and former staff make up the majority of the group’s architects. Trump’s name appears 312 times in their document. It’s simply not credible that the GOP presumptive nominee is unaware of his loudest allies and advocates — and even if you take the known liar at his word, it constitutes malpractice for a political candidate to be so uninformed.
So allegedly, Donald Trump doesn’t know anyone behind Project 2025. Let’s have a look at the amazing Venn Diagram between Trump officials and Project 2025, shall we?
Kevin Roberts and Trump on a plane
Heritage Foundation president and leader of the organization behind Project 2025, Kevin Roberts, grins with Trump on a private plane in 2022, on the way to a Heritage conference in which Trump gave a keynote address about the project and its policy proposals.
In April 2024 Roberts told the Washington Post first hand that “I personally have talked to President Trump about Project 2025.” Apparently then, at least one of the two men is lying.
Today, we’re diving into the labyrinthine tale of Gamergate—an episode that unfolded in 2014 but echoes into today’s digital sociology. What was Gamergate? It was a kind of canary in the coalmine — a tale of online intrigue, cultural upheaval, and for some, an awakening to the virulent undercurrents of internet anonymity.
I. Origins and Triggering Events: The Spark That Lit the Fire
In August 2014, an unassuming blog post titled “The Zoe Post” by Eron Gjoni set off a chain reaction that few could have foreseen. Through this post, which detailed his personal grievances against Zoe Quinn, a game developer, the seed of misinformation was sown. The post falsely implicated Quinn in an unethical affair with Nathan Grayson, a gaming journalist, suggesting she had manipulated him for favorable coverage of her game Depression Quest. This unfounded claim was the initial spark that ignited the raging internet inferno of Gamergate.
The allegations quickly spread across forums like 4chan, a breeding ground for anonymity and chaos. Here, the narrative morphed into a menacing campaign that took aim at Quinn and other women in the gaming industry. The escalation was not just rapid—it was coordinated, a harbinger of the kind of internet and meme warfare that has since become all too familiar.
II. Targets of Harassment: The Human Cost of Online Fury
What followed was an onslaught of harassment against women at the heart of the gaming industry. Zoe Quinn wasn’t alone in this; Anita Sarkeesian and Brianna Wu also bore the brunt of this vicious campaign. This wasn’t just trolling or mean tweets—it was a barrage of rape threats, death threats, and doxing attempts, creating a reality where digital assault became a daily occurrence.
Others got caught in the crossfire, too—individuals like Jenn Frank and Mattie Brice, who dared to defend the victims or criticize Gamergate, found themselves subject to the same malevolent noise. Even Phil Fish, a game developer, saw his private data leaked in a cruel display of digital vigilantism.
III. Nature of the Harassment: When Digital Attacks Go Beyond the Screen
Gamergate painted a harrowing picture of the scope and scale of online harassment. Orchestrated attacks didn’t stop at vitriolic tweets; they extended to doxing, where victims’ personal information was broadcast publicly, and “swatting,” a dangerous “prank” that involves making false police reports to provoke a SWAT team response.
Platforms like Twitter, 4chan, and its notorious sibling 8chan were the stages upon which this drama played out. Here, an army of “sockpuppet” accounts created an overwhelming maelstrom, blurring the lines between dissent and digital terrorism.
IV. Motivations and Ideology: Misogyny and Political Underpinnings
At its core, Gamergate was more than just a gamers’ revolt; it was a flashpoint in a broader cultural war, defined by misogyny and anti-feminism. This was a resistance against the shifting dynamics within the gaming world—a refusal to accept the increasing roles women were assuming.
Moreover, Gamergate was entangled with the burgeoning alt-right movement. Figures like Milo Yiannopoulos latched onto the controversy, using platforms like Breitbart News as megaphones for their ideas. Here, Gamergate served as both a symptom and a gateway, introducing many to the alt-right’s narrative of disenchantment and defiance against progressive change.
Gamergate’s Lasting Legacy and the “Great Meme War”
Gamergate wasn’t just a flashpoint in the world of gaming; it was the breeding ground for a new kind of online warfare. The tactics honed during Gamergate—coordinated harassment, the use of memes as cultural weapons, and the manipulation of platforms like Twitter and 4chan—became the playbook for a much larger, more consequential battle: the so-called “Great Meme War” that helped fuel Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign.
The very same troll armies that harassed women in the gaming industry turned their attention toward mainstream politics, using the lessons learned in Gamergate to spread disinformation, amplify division, and create chaos. Memes became more than just jokes; they became political tools wielded with precision, reaching millions and shaping narratives in ways traditional media struggled to keep up with. What began as a seemingly insular controversy in the gaming world would go on to sow the seeds of a far more disruptive force, one that reshaped modern political discourse.
The influence of these tactics is still felt today, as the digital landscape continues to be a battleground where information warfare is waged daily. Gamergate was the first tremor in a cultural earthquake that has redefined how power, politics, and identity are contested in the digital age. As we move forward, understanding its origins and its impact on today’s sociopolitical environment is essential if we hope to navigate—and counter—the dark currents of digital extremism.
In retrospect, Gamergate wasn’t an isolated incident but a prelude, a trial run for the troll armies that would soon storm the gates of political power. Its legacy, while grim, offers critical insights into the fragility and volatility of our online spaces—and the urgent need for vigilance in the face of future campaigns of digital manipulation.
Right wing groups in America have long wielded disproportionate influence over political discourse, policy-making, and the judiciary — quietly but effectively steering the country toward a more authoritarian, corporate-driven agenda. Groups like the Federalist Society and Heritage Foundation operate as power brokers in the conservative ecosystem, funneling money and influence to shape not just elections, but the ideological future of the nation.
The Federalist Society, for example, has become a judicial kingmaker, successfully installing justices on the Supreme Court who subscribe to its narrow view of constitutional “originalism”—leading to landmark decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson, which rolled back reproductive rights in America. Meanwhile, Heritage’s Project 2025 serves as a blueprint for a far-right authoritarian takeover of federal agencies, ready to gut progressive reforms and install Christian nationalist ideology in their place.
But these are just a few key players in an ever-expanding web of right-wing groups. The National Rifle Association (NRA) remains a force in stoking fears around gun rights to mobilize voters, while Fox News continues to manipulate public discourse with fear-mongering and disinformation to drive its viewers further into a reactionary worldview. Behind the scenes, the Council for National Policy (CNP) operates as a shadowy network of conservative elites pulling the strings, and groups like the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) and Turning Point USA drive extremist policies at the state and grassroots levels.
Add to that the influence of organizations like the Family Research Council, Focus on the Family, and PragerU, and it becomes clear that right-wing power in America is deeply entrenched, feeding off the fear and division these groups systematically create. The stakes for democracy and the future of civil liberties couldn’t be higher.
One way to address the threat is to become familiar with it. Here is a cheatsheet to some of the most influential and notable right wing groups in operation today.
The Federalist Society
The Federalist Society is a powerful, right-wing legal organization that seeks to reshape the U.S. judiciary by advocating for originalism and textualism—the interpretation of the Constitution based on its supposedly “original” meaning (as interpreted by conservative judges, of course). Founded in 1982, this group has steadily gained influence by grooming conservative legal talent, promoting judges who share their philosophy, and challenging progressive legislation, with many of its members appointed to federal courts, including the Supreme Court.
Their ultimate goal is to roll back decades of civil rights protections, environmental regulations, and reproductive freedoms in favor of limited government (even ultra-limited government) and deregulated markets. Now led by conservative activist Leonard Leo, The Federalist Society’s growing clout can be seen in the success of getting their chosen justices onto the Supreme Court, paving the way for decisions like Dobbs v. Jackson, which overturned Roe v. Wade and set back reproductive rights in America by half a century. The organization’s influence has been particularly notable during Republican administrations, especially under former President Donald Trump, who appointed 3 of the Court’s 9 straight from the Federalist list.
A full two thirds of the current U.S. Supreme Court justices have been affiliated with or supported by The Federalist Society. These justices share the Society’s commitment to originalism and textualism, and many were recommended or championed by the organization during the judicial nomination process. The following 6 justices have ties to The Federalist Society:
John Roberts (Chief Justice) – Although not a formal member, Roberts has participated in Federalist Society events and has been described as ideologically aligned with the group’s principles.
Clarence Thomas – An advocate of originalism, Thomas has long been associated with the judicial philosophy promoted by The Federalist Society. He has spoken at their events and is widely seen as one of their intellectual leaders on the bench.
Samuel Alito – Like Roberts, Alito is not a formal member but has participated in Federalist Society activities and shares their conservative judicial outlook.
Neil Gorsuch – A formal member of The Federalist Society before his nomination, Gorsuch was strongly backed by the organization when he was selected to replace Antonin Scalia in 2017.
Brett Kavanaugh – Kavanaugh was supported by The Federalist Society throughout his career, and his nomination to the Supreme Court in 2018 was actively promoted by the group.
Amy Coney Barrett – A former member of The Federalist Society, Barrett was a professor at Notre Dame Law School, where she worked closely with the organization. She was nominated to the Supreme Court in 2020 to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
The Heritage Foundation
The Heritage Foundation, founded in 1973, has long been a key architect of conservative policy in the United States. The Foundation’s efforts consistently push for policies that prioritize corporate interests, deregulation, and concentrated executive power, even at the expense of democratic institutions and processes.
Over the decades, The Heritage Foundation has become a significant force in shaping Republican legislative agendas, providing policy proposals to GOP lawmakers and conservative administrations since Ronald Reagan. However, this institutional influence has often facilitated the entrenchment of an authoritarian strain of right-wing ideology that has now metasticized into the body politic.
If we want to know what’s going on today, we need to understand what happened yesterday. This list will give us just a start:
The Federalist Papers — A collection of 85 articles and essays written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay promoting the ratification of the United States Constitution, offering insight into the ideologies that shaped the foundation of American governance.
A People’s History of the United States (Howard Zinn) — An alternative take on American history from the perspective of ordinary people rather than political leaders, focusing on the struggles of workers, women, African Americans, and the indigenous populations.
The Rise and Fall of American Growth (Robert J. Gordon) — An in-depth analysis by economist Robert J. Gordon, which argues that the rapid economic growth experienced by the United States from 1870 to 1970 was a unique period unlikely to be repeated, highlighting how innovation affected living standards.
Black Reconstruction in America (W. E. B. DuBois) — This seminal work challenges the prevailing narrative of the Reconstruction era, arguing that African Americans were active agents in the fight for their rights and the rebuilding of the South following the Civil War.
Fraud of the Century (Jr. Roy Morris) — A detailed account of the 1876 U.S. presidential election between Rutherford B. Hayes and Samuel J. Tilden, focusing on the controversial electoral practices and compromises that ultimately led to Hayes’s presidency.
The Second Coming of the KKK (Linda Gordon) — A historical exploration of the Ku Klux Klan’s resurgence in the early 20th century, detailing how it expanded beyond the South, influencing national politics and American society.
The Robber Barons (Matthew Josephson) — This book provides a critical look at the late 19th-century industrialists and financiers known as the Robber Barons, examining their business practices, wealth accumulation, and impacts on American society and economy.
Thieves of State: Why Corruption Threatens Global Security (Sarah Chayes) — Chayes’ book argues that systemic corruption in government and public institutions is a critical driver of global instability, fueling extremism and conflict. Chayes explores how corrupt practices undermine governance and security, leading to widespread disillusionment and violence.
Plutocracy in America: How Increasing Inequality Destroys the Middle Class and Exploits the Poor (Ronald P. Formisano) — This book examines how growing economic inequality in the United States concentrates wealth and power among a small elite, eroding democracy and undermining the middle class. Formisano argues that this increasing plutocracy exploits the poor and threatens the nation’s social and political stability.
The Lonely Crowd: A Study of the Changing American Character(David Riesman) — This sociological classic explores how shifts in American society have led individuals to become more other-directed, driven by peer approval rather than internal values, reshaping the national character.
Present Shock: When Everything Happens Now (Douglas Rushkoff) — Rushkoff examines how the digital age’s constant immediacy disrupts our sense of time, leading to anxiety, distraction, and a collapse of long-term thinking in modern culture.
Too Big To Know (David Weinberger) — Weinberger explores how the vast, decentralized nature of knowledge in the digital age is transforming expertise, showing that traditional gatekeepers of knowledge are being replaced by more dynamic, networked ways of understanding.
Caste: The Origins of Our Discontents (Isabel Wilkerson) — Explores the unspoken social hierarchy in America, comparing it to the caste systems in India and Nazi Germany. Wilkerson argues that this deeply ingrained caste system shapes every aspect of American life, perpetuating racial inequality and injustice.
Stamped from the Beginning: The Definitive History of Racist Ideas in America (Ibram X. Kendi) — The book traces the origins and evolution of racist ideas throughout American history. Kendi argues that these ideas were deliberately crafted to justify and maintain racial inequality, shaping policies and social norms that continue to impact the nation today.
And the Band Played on: Politics, People, and the AIDS Epidemic (Randy Shilts) — Chronicles the early years of the AIDS epidemic, highlighting how political indifference, prejudice, and bureaucratic failures allowed the disease to spread unchecked. Shilts argues that these systemic failures contributed to the unnecessary loss of thousands of lives and shaped the public health response to the crisis.
Support independent booksellers
Support indie bookshops by buying the following 99 titles on Bookshop:
Kamala Harris is poised to break that glass ceiling that Hillary Clinton cracked and I am so here for it. She was my Senator when I lived in California and I appreciated her energy back then — and I would be thrilled for her service as the first woman president.
And I’m by no means the only one — from White Dudes for Harris to Republicans for Harris to Mormons for Harris, to Democratic groups up and down the spectrum, there is renewed energy in this election and momentum has been building even since Biden’s decision to step down from the race.
The selection of Tim Walz as her running mate adds yet another layer of awesomeness — with his folksy small town dad appeal, military service, midwestern charm, and zingy comebacks and catchy takedowns of Trump and Vance as “weird,” he seems to be bringing a hefty punching up vibe to the campaign.
Meanwhile, all the Orange Man and emo beardo seem able to do is sling racist and sexist insults at Kamala, or attempt a cheap knockoff of the swiftboating of John Kerry with Walz’s military service that’s been swiftly and resoundingly debunked. People aren’t falling for it.
Imagine if the momentum carries us all the way to a blue wave, and a Democratic Congress… we could perhaps have nice things! Time to put shoulders to the wheel. Give whatever time and money you can, if you can.
Christian nationalism, a belief system that intertwines national identity with Christian faith, has been a significant force in American history — and the Christian nationalism timeline may go back further than you think. It erroneously asserts that the United States is fundamentally a Christian nation and should be governed by biblical principles.
This flawed ideology has influenced various aspects of American life, from politics to education, and continues to shape the discourse around national identity and public policy. Understanding the evolution of Christian nationalism provides critical insights into its current manifestations and implications for the future.
In recent years, the resurgence of Christian nationalism has become more visible and influential in American politics. The events of January 6, 2021, and the Big Lie rhetoric surrounding the 2020 presidential election highlighted the power and reach of this movement. With key figures like Russell Vought and organizations like Project 2025 advocating for policies that align with their interpretation of Christian values, it is essential to examine the timeline of Christian nationalism to grasp its roots, growth, and contemporary relevance.
Vote them out, while we still can
Then, get to the polls and take everyone you know with you. Do not allow the right-wing to establish a theocracy in this country — no matter what your faith (or lack thereof), we have common interest in preventing any one faith from informing the US government.
Just because they say the words “Christian nation” does not alter the actual history in which the founders were deists who were adamant about keeping the political and religious spheres separate — having seen the ills it can cause to entwine them. Is America a Christian nation? No. We rejected the divine right of kings, very consciously and loudly so at the time. It is easy to pick up this sentiment in the writings of the founders both inside and outside of the founding documents.
Christian nationalism timeline
1607 — The Jamestown Colony is established in Virginia. Early settlers bring a mix of Christian beliefs that will influence American culture.
1620 — The Pilgrims arrive on the Mayflower, establishing the Plymouth Colony. They seek religious freedom after being persecuted for their lack of conformity to the Anglican church in England, and establish a community based on their Puritan beliefs.
1630 — John Winthrop delivers his sermon “A Model of Christian Charity,” articulating the vision of America as a “city upon a hill,” influencing the concept of a Christian nation.
1730-1740s — The First Great Awakening, a series of religious revivals, sweeps through the American colonies, strengthening evangelicalism.
1776 — The Declaration of Independence is signed. The Founding Fathers, while influenced primarily by Enlightenment ideas, also incorporate some Christian principles.
