extremism

Christian nationalism illustration

The term Christian nationalists brings together a number of radical religious sects seeking to overthrow the democratic republic of the United States and installing a strict theocracy, from dominionists to orthodox Catholics to Evangelicals and many more. Christian nationalist organizations work to increase the influence of religion on politics, under the invented mythology that the largely Deist founders meant to establish a Christian state.

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.

Christian nationalists abstract
Continue reading Christian Nationalist Organizations and Groups
Read more

What’s the difference between conservatives and reactionaries?

In short:

A conservative wants to preserve the status quo (or change it slowly).
A reactionary wants to reverse progress and return to a previous order — often an idealized or mythologized past.

The Core Difference:

ConservativeReactionary
Wants to conserve existing institutions, traditions, and social order.Wants to restore a past order — often rejecting modernity altogether.
Accepts some gradual change if necessary to preserve stability.Sees recent changes (modernization, liberalization) as corruptions that must be undone.
May negotiate with progress or adapt slowly.Opposes progress on principle — progress is the problem.

Historical Example:

Conservative:

→ Edmund Burke opposed the French Revolution, but didn’t want to destroy parliamentary government. He wanted to preserve traditions and institutions to prevent chaos.

Reactionary:

→ Joseph de Maistre welcomed authoritarian monarchy and theocracy after the French Revolution, believing divine right rule was the only cure for societal decay.

In Modern Terms:

  • A conservative in America might say: “We shouldn’t rush into sweeping changes — we need to preserve family values, religious freedom, and limited government.”
  • A reactionary might say: “Modern society is degenerate. We need to abolish democracy, bring back monarchy or biblical law, and return to the way things were before feminism, secularism, or civil rights.”

Where It Gets Tricky:

Many reactionaries call themselves conservatives — especially in American politics — because “reactionary” is usually a pejorative term today.

But ideologically:

  • Conservatives = cautious, incremental, defensive of the present order.
  • Reactionaries = revanchist, nostalgic, hostile to modernity.

In Summary:

All reactionaries are right-wing extremists, but not all conservatives are reactionaries.

Conservatives defend the status quo.
Reactionaries want to roll back history.

Spectrum of Political Attitudes Towards Change

Position Attitude Toward Change View of the Past View of the Future Examples
Radical / Revolutionary Overthrow existing system Irrelevant or oppressive past Build something entirely new Anarchists, Communists, Revolutionaries
Progressive / Liberal Reform existing system Learn from past mistakes Improve society incrementally Social Democrats, Democratic Socialists, Liberals
Conservative Preserve system as-is or allow very slow change Respect traditions Stability is more important than change Traditional Conservatives, Libertarians (sometimes)
Reactionary Undo modern changes, return to past order The past was better / pure Restore lost greatness Christian Nationalists, Monarchists, Theocrats, Fascists
Read more

You’ll hear a common retort on the extreme right that now holds sway in the mainstream Republican Party, in response to protests about the dismantling of democracy in this country — that we’re “a republic, not a democracy.” Right off the bat, a republic is a form of democracy — so they are claiming something akin to having a Toyota and not a car. It makes no logical sense, and is based in simple ignorance of civics and basic political philosophy.

But it manages to get worse — the origins of the bully taunt “a republic, not a democracy” are located in the segregationist movement. Specifically, the concept comes from the pro-segregation book You and Segregation, written in 1955 by future Senator Herman E. Talmadge.

John Birch Society loonies laud “a republic, not a democracy”

The “republic, not a democracy” meme would go on to be featured in the John Birch Society Blue Book — an organization so toxically extremist that even conservative darling William F. Buckley distanced himself from them. They feared the idea that increasing democratization would be a shifting balance of power away from white conservative men, and they spun numerous conspiracy theories to explain this as the result of nefarious undercover plot to overthrow Western Civilization.

In reality, the trend towards greater democracy is something the Founders themselves envisioned — though they likely could not have imagined how it would turn out. They believed fiercely in self-governance, and a clear separation from the tyranny of kings.

They wanted us to amend our Constitution, and to look at them in hindsight not as saintly gods but as mere men — who could govern themselves just as well as any reasonably earnest group of human beings could also do. At the time, arguably, they would have said “group of men” — but they were products of their time, and their worldview was limited to a patriarchal frame. Philosophically speaking, the Declaration of Independence is clear in its lofty goals — if its author was not so clear in his personal behavior regarding the equality of all persons.

That is what Abraham Lincoln meant by the “better angels” of our nature — that though we are fallible humans who make mistakes and have hubris and repeat the same idiocies again and again, we yet strive to become better than what we currently are. It’s noble, and inspiring, and is the better basis for a nation to unify around than that of hatred, bigotry, and petty revenge that the current Trump 2.0 administration stands for.

Read more

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

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

1. Techno-Optimism and Elitism

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

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

2. Critique of Government and Social Structures

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

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

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

3. Accelerationism and Right-Wing Influences

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

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

Continue reading Who is Marc Andreessen?
Read more

Project 2025 mind map of entities

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

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

Project 2025 plans

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

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

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

Project 2025 goals

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

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

The concept of ego defenses, also known simply as defense mechanisms, is fundamental in the field of psychology, particularly within the psychoanalytic framework established by Sigmund Freud and further developed by his daughter Anna Freud and other psychoanalysts. These mechanisms are subconscious safeguards that protect individuals from anxiety and the awareness of internal or external dangers or stressors.

Understanding ego defense mechanisms

Ego defenses operate at a psychological level to help manage the conflicts between internal impulses and external reality. They often work by distorting, transforming, or somehow denying reality. While these mechanisms can vary widely in terms of their sophistication and the level of distortion they involve, all serve the primary function of reducing emotional distress.

Some common defense mechanisms include:

  • Denial: Refusing to accept reality because it is too painful or difficult to face.
  • Repression: Unconsciously blocking unacceptable thoughts or desires from consciousness.
  • Projection: Attributing one’s own unacceptable thoughts or feelings to others.
  • Rationalization: Creating a seemingly logical reason for behavior that might otherwise be shameful.
  • Displacement: Redirecting emotions from a ‘dangerous’ object to a ‘safe’ one.
  • Regression: Reverting to behavior characteristic of an earlier stage of development when confronted with stress.

These mechanisms aren’t inherently bad; they can be essential for coping with stress and can be adaptive in many circumstances. However, when overused or used inappropriately, they can lead to unhealthy patterns and psychological distress.

Ego defense mechanisms and disinformation

When it comes to disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist ideologies, ego defenses play a crucial role in how individuals process and react to information that conflicts with their existing beliefs or worldviews. This intersection is particularly apparent in the phenomena of denial, projection, and rationalization.

  1. Denial comes into play when individuals refuse to accept verified facts because these facts are uncomfortable or threatening to their pre-existing views or sense of self. For example, someone might deny the impacts of climate change because acknowledging it would necessitate uncomfortable changes in their lifestyle or worldview.
  2. Projection is evident when individuals attribute malicious intent or undesirable traits to others rather than recognizing them in themselves. In the realm of conspiracy theories, this can manifest as accusing various groups or organizations of conspiring for control, thereby projecting one’s own feelings of vulnerability or distrust.
  3. Rationalization allows individuals to justify belief in disinformation or extremist ideologies by providing reasonable but false explanations for these beliefs. This can often involve elaborate justifications for why certain pieces of disinformation fit into their broader understanding of the world, despite clear evidence to the contrary.

The psychological appeal of extremist ideologies

Extremist ideologies often provide a sense of certainty, control, and identity, all of which are deeply appealing on a psychological level, particularly for individuals feeling disconnected or powerless. These ideologies can effectively reduce psychological discomfort by providing simple, albeit inaccurate, explanations for complex social or personal issues.

How ego defenses facilitate belief in extremist ideologies

Ego defenses facilitate adherence to extremist ideologies by allowing individuals to:

  • Avoid cognitive dissonance: Maintaining a consistent belief system, even if it’s flawed, helps avoid the discomfort of conflicting beliefs.
  • Feel part of a group: Aligning with a group that shares one’s defensive strategies can reinforce a sense of belonging and identity.
  • Displace emotions: Directing negative emotions towards ‘out-groups’ or perceived enemies rather than dealing with personal issues or societal complexities.

Ego defenses keep false beliefs “sticky”

Ego defenses are not only fundamental to personal psychological functioning but also play a significant role in how people interact with and are influenced by broader societal narratives. Understanding the role of these mechanisms in the context of disinformation, conspiracy theories, and extremist ideologies is crucial for addressing these issues effectively. This understanding helps illuminate why such beliefs are appealing and resistant to change, highlighting the need for approaches that address underlying psychological needs and defenses.

Knowing the power of ego defenses helps explain why we shouldn’t expect people to part with their strongly-held false beliefs based on simple exposure to actual facts or corrective information — there is often something much deeper going on. In fact, confronting a conspiracy theorist or extremist with contradictory facts or information can often lead to a backfire effect, where the individual comes away more strongly committed to their false beliefs than they were before.

Read more

Stochastic terrorism is a term that has emerged in the lexicon of political and social analysis to describe a method of inciting violence indirectly through the use of mass communication. This concept is predicated on the principle that while not everyone in an audience will act on violent rhetoric, a small percentage might.

The term “stochastic” refers to a process that is randomly determined; it implies that the specific outcomes are unpredictable, yet the overall distribution of these outcomes follows a pattern that can be statistically analyzed. In the context of stochastic terrorism, it means that while it is uncertain who will act on incendiary messages and violent political rhetoric, it is almost certain that someone will.

The nature of stochastic terrorism

Stochastic terrorism involves the dissemination of public statements, whether through speeches, social media, or traditional media, that incite violence. The individuals or entities spreading such rhetoric may not directly call for political violence. Instead, they create an atmosphere charged with tension and hostility, suggesting that action must be taken against a perceived threat or enemy. This indirect incitement provides plausible deniability, as those who broadcast the messages can claim they never explicitly advocated for violence.

Prominent stochastic terrorism examples

The following are just a few notable illustrative examples of stochastic terrorism:

  1. The Oklahoma City Bombing (1995): Timothy McVeigh, influenced by extremist anti-government rhetoric, the 1992 Ruby Ridge standoff, and the 1993 siege at Waco, Texas, detonated a truck bomb outside the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building, killing 168 people. This act was fueled by ideologies that demonized the federal government, highlighting how extremism and extremist propaganda can inspire individuals to commit acts of terror.
  2. The Oslo and Utøya Attacks (2011): Anders Behring Breivik, driven by anti-Muslim and anti-immigrant beliefs, bombed government buildings in Oslo, Norway, then shot and killed 69 people at a youth camp on the island of Utøya. Breivik’s manifesto cited many sources that painted Islam and multiculturalism as existential threats to Europe, showing the deadly impact of extremist online echo chambers and the pathology of right-wing ideologies such as Great Replacement Theory.
  3. The Pittsburgh Synagogue Shooting (2018): Robert Bowers, influenced by white supremacist ideologies and conspiracy theories about migrant caravans, killed 11 worshippers in a synagogue. His actions were preceded by social media posts that echoed hate speech and conspiracy theories rampant in certain online communities, demonstrating the lethal consequences of unmoderated hateful rhetoric.
  4. The El Paso Shooting (2019): Patrick Crusius targeted a Walmart in El Paso, Texas, killing 23 people, motivated by anti-immigrant sentiment and rhetoric about a “Hispanic invasion” of Texas. His manifesto mirrored language used in certain media and political discourse, underscoring the danger of using dehumanizing language against minority groups.
  5. Christchurch Mosque Shootings (2019): Brenton Tarrant live-streamed his attack on two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, killing 51 people, influenced by white supremacist beliefs and online forums that amplified Islamophobic rhetoric. The attacker’s manifesto and online activity were steeped in extremist content, illustrating the role of internet subcultures in radicalizing individuals.

Stochastic terrorism in right-wing politics in the US

In the United States, the concept of stochastic terrorism has become increasingly relevant in analyzing the tactics employed by certain right-wing entities and individuals. While the phenomenon is not exclusive to any single political spectrum, recent years have seen notable instances where right-wing rhetoric has been linked to acts of violence.

The January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol serves as a stark example of stochastic terrorism. The event was preceded by months of unfounded claims of electoral fraud and calls to “stop the steal,” amplified by right-wing media outlets and figures — including then-President Trump who had extraordinary motivation to portray his 2020 election loss as a victory in order to stay in power. This rhetoric created a charged environment, leading some individuals to believe that violent action was a justified response to defend democracy.

The role of media and technology

Right-wing media platforms have played a significant role in amplifying messages that could potentially incite stochastic terrorism. Through the strategic use of incendiary language, disinformation, misinformation, and conspiracy theories, these platforms have the power to reach vast audiences and influence susceptible individuals to commit acts of violence.

The advent of social media has further complicated the landscape, enabling the rapid spread of extremist rhetoric. The decentralized nature of these platforms allows for the creation of echo chambers where inflammatory messages are not only amplified but also go unchallenged, increasing the risk of radicalization.

Challenges and implications

Stochastic terrorism presents significant legal and societal challenges. The indirect nature of incitement complicates efforts to hold individuals accountable for the violence that their rhetoric may inspire. Moreover, the phenomenon raises critical questions about the balance between free speech and the prevention of violence, challenging societies to find ways to protect democratic values while preventing harm.

Moving forward

Addressing stochastic terrorism requires a multifaceted approach. This includes promoting responsible speech among public figures, enhancing critical thinking and media literacy among the public, and developing legal and regulatory frameworks that can effectively address the unique challenges posed by this form of terrorism. Ultimately, combating stochastic terrorism is not just about preventing violence; it’s about preserving the integrity of democratic societies and ensuring that public discourse does not become a catalyst for harm.

Understanding and mitigating the effects of stochastic terrorism is crucial in today’s increasingly polarized world. By recognizing the patterns and mechanisms through which violence is indirectly incited, societies can work towards more cohesive and peaceful discourse, ensuring that democracy is protected from the forces that seek to undermine it through fear and division.

Read more

The GOP is 3 cults in a trench coat

One of two major parties in our American first-past-the-post voting system of dual-party reality, the Republican Party, has evolved (or devolved…) into a full-throated authoritarian movement seeking to overthrow our democracy, The Constitution, and the rule of law in order to establish a fascist regime in the United States. It’s been a not-so-secret fever dream on the right for decades and even centuries — and the old guard reflexively senses their time is coming to an end.

The demographic changes underway in America are inexorable — by the 2024 election cycle 8 million new young voters who have turned 18 since the 2022 mid-terms, and 5 million seniors aged 65 and up will have died. The first group will vote overwhelmingly Democratic, while the second group represents the ever-dwindling base of the Republican Party. Although historically older voters have participated at much higher rates than the youth voting percentage, the rate of increase for the 18-24 group is much higher.

Faced with these realities and the census projection of a majority minority population in the United States by the year 2045, the Republican right-wing is struggling to keep piecing together a voting base that can achieve victories in electoral politics. The GOP is now 3 cults in a trenchcoat, having been hollowed out and twisted to the point of trying desperately to hold increasingly extreme factions together for another election cycle in which they can try to capture power forever through gerrymandering and other anti-democratic election engineering — or at least long enough to erase the evidence of their criminal behavior during the Trump years culminating in a coup attempt on January 6, 2021.

The 3 Republican cult factions

  1. The Wealth Cult — A business lobby led by Charles Koch and a collection of dark money groups including Leonard Leo‘s Federalist Society and the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), this group emerged out of the 1970s business backlash to the civil rights movement — while piggybacking on the still-simmering resentments of the anti-New Deal and pro-fascist America Firsters of the 1930s and the searing anti-Communism of the 1950s McCarthyism era turned, improbably, Russophilia in modern days.
  2. The Christian Nationalist Cult — Started by Jerry Falwell Sr. with the Moral Majority circa 1979, the politicized Evangelical movement is inexplicably led today by “sudden believers” Mike Pence, Mike Flynn, and others under the umbrella of the Council for National Policy (CNP), the New Apostolic Reformation (NAR), and other religious organizations involved in politics in large part as a backlash to the Broad v. Board of Education ruling and the federal mandate to end school segregation. Masquerading as so-called “originalists,” this coalition are rather radical reactionaries participating in a long-running backlash against civil rights and the women’s rights movements of the 1960s, including the Roe v. Wade ruling by the Supreme Court that legalized abortion — overturned in 2022 based on efforts by this group.
  3. The White Nationalist Cult — With roots in the 1980s white power movement stretching all the way back to the Civil War and the Lost Cause mythology that followed and long outlasted Reconstruction, today the white identity movement is led by Steve Bannon and Roger Stone, with a parallel intertwined branch led by Peter Thiel and the Dark Enlightenment neo-Reactionaries of Silicon Valley. This group includes dominant private militia groups involved in the January 6 insurrection including the Proud Boys and Oath Keepers (both of whose leaders have been convicted of seditious conspiracy for their roles in the coup attempt — with the Oath Keepers’ leader Stewart Rhodes sentenced to 18 years for his actions).

The Wealth Cult

Led by Charles Koch et al, the mostly aging, Boomer crowd who controls much of the US government either directly or indirectly as a donor or operative is starting to panic for one reason or another: the fear of death looming, existential worries about thwarted or unmet ambition, economic turn of the wheel starting to leave their fortunes in decline (with inflation as a common boogie man since the Wall Street Putsch of the 1930s). Much of this crowd inherited the free market ideological zeal of the Austrian School of economics (later, trickle down economics) from their fathers along with their trust fund fortunes that some have squandered (Trump), tread water with (Coors, Scaife), or grown (Koch, DeVos).

The Wealth Cult, by Midjourney
Continue reading The GOP is 3 Cults in a Trenchcoat
Read more

Words, words, and more words.

In a world of increasing disinformation, it’s more important than ever to be armed with actual information. And being curious about the meaning, nature, and origins of things is a rewarding journey in and of itself.

Think of these dictionaries as tools for your mind — they can help you make connections between concepts, understand the terminology being used in the media and all around you, and feel less lost in a sea of dizzying complexity and rapid change. A fantastic vocabulary also helps you connect with people near and far — as well as get outside your comfort zone and learn something new.

Dictionaries List

This section includes dictionaries and definitions of important terms in important realms — and is continually being built out. Stay tuned!

Terms and Concepts

Authoritarianism and American Fascism

Authoritarianism is a political system where a single leader or a small group holds significant power, often without the consent of the governed. Decisions are made by authorities without public input, and individual freedoms and democratic principles are usually suppressed. The government may control various aspects of life, including media and the economy, without checks and balances. This leads to a concentration of power that can foster corruption and human rights abuses. In an authoritarian regime, obedience to the authorities is often emphasized over personal liberties and democratic participation.

Psychology

Definitions and terms relating to the study of the mind, including ideas from social psychology, political psychology, positive psychology, and Buddhist psychology.

Read more

speak, sistah!

see also: Shoshanna Zuboff (who wrote the seminal work on surveillance capitalism), Don Norman, Dystopia vs. Utopia Book List: A Fight to the Finish, surveillance capitalism dictionary

Some takeaways:

  • surveillance won’t be obvious and overt like in Orwell’s classic totalitarian novel 1984 — it’ll be covert and subtle (“more like a spider’s web”)
  • social networks use persuasion architecture — the same cloying design aesthetic that puts gum at the eye level of children in the grocery aisle

Example:

AI modeling of potential Las Vegas ticket buyers

The machine learning algorithms can classify people into two buckets, “likely to buy tickets to Vegas” and “unlikely to” based on exposure to lots and lots of data patterns. Problem being, it’s a black box and no one — not even the computer scientists — know how it works or what it’s doing exactly.

So the AI may have discovered that bipolar individuals just about to go into mania are more susceptible to buying tickets to Vegas — and that is the segment of the population they are targeting: a vulnerable set of people prone to overspending and gambling addictions. The ethical implications of unleashing this on the world — and routinely using and optimizing it relentlessly — are staggering.

Profiting from extremism

“You’re never hardcore enough for YouTube” — YouTube gives you content recommendations that are increasingly polarized and polarizing, because it turns out that preying on your reptilian brain makes you keep clicking around in the YouTube hamster wheel.

The amorality of AI — “algorithms don’t care if they’re selling shoes, or politics.” Our social, political, and cultural flows are being organized by these persuasion architectures — organized for profit; not for the collective good, not for public interests, not subject to our political will anymore. These powerful surveillance capitalism tools are running mostly unchecked, with little oversight and with few people minding the ethics of the stores of essentially a cadre of Silicon Valley billionaires.

Intent doesn’t matter — good intentions aren’t enough; it’s the structure and business models that matter. Facebook isn’t a half trillion dollar con: its value is in its highly effective persuasion power, which is highly troubling and concerning in a supposedly democratic society. Mark Zuckerberg may even ultimately mean well (…debatable), but it doesn’t excuse the railroading over numerous obviously negative externalities resulting from the unchecked power of Facebook in not only the U.S., but in countries around the world including highly volatile domains.

Extremism benefits demagogues — Oppressive regimes both come to power by and benefit from political extremism; from whipping up citizens into a frenzy, often against each other as much as against perceived external or internal enemies. Our data and attention are now for sale to the highest bidding authoritarians and demagogues around the world — enabling them to use AI against us in election after election and PR campaign after PR campaign. We gave foreign dictators even greater powers to influence and persuade us in ways that benefit them at the expense of our own self-interest.

Read more

… some pure, holy, unchanging thing. A perfect, Platonic form.

But there is nothing unchanging. And religion is overall fading — except at the edges; the extremes.

We want desperately to believe in something. This can make us vulnerable to hucksters, tricksters, deceivers, and all kinds of charms and fakery. The modern life condition exacerbates this, with its fractious social isolationism, vapid consumerism, and erosion of community.

May I suggest that we could find solace by cultivating belief in ourselves, and in each other? Be critical when warranted, but beat back this terrible cynicism that engulfs public discourse, filling it with day to day ennui. We don’t have to be at each other’s throats.

Read more