Right-wing

The Founders knew acutely the pains of centuries of religious warfare in modern Europe and resoundingly did not want that for their new nation. Many of them moreover knew religious persecution intimately — some whose families fled the Church of England for fear of being imprisoned, burned at the stake, or worse. Is America a Christian nation? Although many Christians certainly have come here, in a legal and political sense the nation’s founders wanted precisely the opposite of the “Christian nation” they were breaking with by pursuing independence from the British.

Contrary to the disinformation spread by Christian nationalists today, the people who founded the United States explicitly saw religious zealotry as one of the primary dangers to a democratic republic. They feared demagoguery and the abuse of power that tilts public apparatus towards corrupt private interest. The Founders knew that religion could be a source of strife for the fledgling nation as easily as it could be a strength, and they took great pains to carefully balance the needs of religious expression and secular interests in architecting the country.

James Madison: 1803

Americans sought religious freedom

The main impetus for a large percentage of the early colonists who came to the Americas was the quest for a home where they could enjoy the free exercise of religion. The Protestant Reformation had begun in Europe about a century before the first American colonies were founded, and a number of new religious sects were straining at the bonds of the Catholic Church’s continued hegemony. Puritans, Mennonites, Quakers, Jesuits, Huguenots, Dunkers, Jews, Amish, Lutherans, Moravians, Schwenkfeldians, and more escaped the sometimes deadly persecutions of the churches of Europe to seek a place to worship God in their own chosen ways.

By the late 18th century when Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, many religious flowers were blooming within the 13 colonies. He had seen for himself the pitfalls of the experiments in which a unitary control of religion by one church or sect led to conflict, injustice, and violence. Jefferson and the nation’s other founders were staunchly against the idea of establishing a theocracy in America:

  • The founding fathers made a conscious break from the European tradition of a national state church.
  • The words Bible, Christianity, Jesus, and God do not appear in our founding documents.
  • The handful of states who who supported “established churches” abandoned the practice by the mid-19th century.
  • Thomas Jefferson wrote that his Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom was written on behalf of “the Jew and the gentile, the Christian and the Mahometan, the Hindu and the infidel of every denomination.” In the text he responds negatively to VA’s harassment of Baptist preachers — one of many occasions on which he spoke out sharply against the encroachment of religion upon political power.
  • The Constitution explicitly forbids a religious test for holding foreign office.
  • The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees that “Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
  • There is a right-wing conspiracy theory aiming to discredit the phrase “wall of separation between church and state” by claiming that those exact words aren’t found in the Constitution.
    • The phrase comes from Thomas Jefferson’s 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists, wherein he is describing the thinking of the Founders about the meaning of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause, which Jefferson contemplates “with sovereign reverence.”
    • The phrase is echoed by James Madison in an 1803 letter opposing the building of churches on government land: “The purpose of separation of Church and State is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”
  • The 1796 Treaty of Tripoli states in Article 11: “As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.” — President George Washington first ordered the negotiation of a treaty in 1795, and President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in 1797, with this article widely interpreted to mean a reiteration of the purpose of the Establishment Clause to create a secular state, i.e. one that would not ever be going to holy war with Tripoli.

Critical Dates for Religious Freedom in America

From the very beginning the Founders made clear they did not want to repeat the mistakes of Old Europe. They established a secular government that offered religious freedom to many who had felt persecuted in their homelands — for generations to come.

Get a quick overview of some of the most important moments in American history and its founding documents with our interactive timeline below.

The Founders were deists

Moreover, the majority of the prominent Founders were deists — they recognized the long tradition of Judeo-Christian order in society, but consciously broke from it in their creation of the legal entity of the United States, via the Establishment Clause and numerous other devices. The founders were creatures of The Enlightenment, and were very much influenced by the latest developments of their day including statistics, empiricism, numerous scientific advancements, and the pursuit of knowledge and logical decision-making.

What Deism Actually Meant: Deism in the 18th century was a rationalist religious philosophy that accepted the existence of a creator God based on reason and observation of the natural world, but rejected supernatural revelation, miracles, and divine intervention in human affairs. Think of it as “God as clockmaker” — God designed the universe with rational laws, set it in motion, and then stepped back. This was a radical departure from traditional Christianity.

The Enlightenment Context:

The Founders were steeped in Enlightenment philosophy — Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, Hume. They believed in:

  • Empiricism over revelation — knowledge comes from observation and reason, not scripture
  • Natural rights derived from human nature and reason, not divine command
  • Social contract theory — government legitimacy comes from consent of the governed, not God’s anointing
  • Scientific method — Newton’s physics showed that the universe operated by discoverable natural laws

This was a revolutionary shift. They were designing a government based on Enlightenment principles in an era when most of the world still operated under divine-right monarchy.

The European Church-State Problem They Rejected:

The Founders had vivid historical examples of why mixing religion and state power was dangerous:

  • The Thirty Years’ War (1618-1648) killed roughly 8 million Europeans in religious conflict
  • The English Civil War was fought partly over church governance
  • The Spanish Inquisition showed what happens when church and state merge
  • Various European states still had official churches that persecuted religious minorities — prompting many of them to consider a new line in the American colonies

They saw how “established” (government-sponsored) religions inevitably led to:

  • Religious tests for public office
  • Tax support for churches people didn’t believe in
  • Legal persecution of dissenters
  • Corruption of both religion and government

Thomas Paine’s Radical Vision:

Paine went even further than most Founders. In “The Age of Reason” (1794), he argued:

  • All national churches are “human inventions set up to terrify and enslave mankind”
  • Revelation is meaningless — “it is revelation to the first person only, and hearsay to every other”
  • True religion is simply “to do justice, love mercy, and endeavor to make our fellow-creatures happy”
  • He predicted that as education and reason spread, traditional organized religion would wither

This was considered extremely radical — even scandalous — at the time. Yet Paine was celebrated as a hero of the Revolution and widely read. He once lamented that “Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law.”

The Structural Safeguards They Built:

This wasn’t just philosophy — they built specific mechanisms:

  • No religious test for office (Article VI)
  • Establishment Clause — no official national religion
  • Free Exercise Clause — no prohibition of religious practice
  • Disestablishment at state level — states gradually abandoned their established churches (Massachusetts was last in 1833)

The framers of our Constitution who established this nation distrusted the concept of divine right of kings that existed in Europe under its historical monarchies. We fought a revolution to leave all that behind for good reason. They were adamantly against the idea of a national church, and were clear and insistent about the necessity of keeping the realms of religion and politics independent of each other.

It is the Christian nationalists who have it backwards — America was never a Christian nation that lost its way. Rather, the United States was founded as a secular nation and has become truer to fulfilling that mission over the centuries. It is the Project 2025 folks who are engaging in revisionist history, inventing a mythical past for the country that simply didn’t exist.

Read more

national debt of the united states

In fact, not only are we going further into debt for no good reason, but we’re going further into debt for a bad one — actually, two very bad ones.

The same fiscal hawks that yelled histrionically about refusing to take on debt — even in times of crisis — let the GOP budget bill for FY2026 sail through without a peep despite it adding a debt burden of almost $4 trillion over the next 10 years.

And for what? The first terrible reason is so that a gaggle of wealthy donors can get even wealthier, have more lavish weddings, build ever more elaborate doomsday bunkers, recreate company towns from The Jungle, cavalierly flit off to space, and so on. Never could I have imagined Gilded Age 2.0 would be so dumb.

After screaming bloody murder for literal decades and lecturing Democrats about reckless spending and balanced budgets, the Republicans simply let this gigantic albatross sail right through without so much as a debate. It’s as if the national debt were suddenly the Epstein files — something you should weirdly be ashamed of still caring about after being whipped into a frenzy about it for years (including being cajoled to the Capitol to break the law on behalf of someone who is above the law).

“Reckless spending” is fine when my team does it, seems to be GOP orthodoxy. Future generations be damned — we only think about them under Democratic Presidents. Suddenly, it has become desirable to saddle the nation with more debt for no good reason.

Establishment of a police state

The second terrible rationale for taking the US further into debt is to create a police state in America, with literal concentration camps. Despite campaigning on deporting the alleged set of violent criminals within the undocumented immigrant demographic, Trump and his slavering goon squad have been picking up fathers, landscapers, students who posted things they don’t like on social media, random South Koreans, and anyone Tom Homan thinks looks a little bit too brown. In other words, the government is spending billions and billions of your tax dollars to get rid of hardworking taxpayers — a hateful Dunning-Kruger approach that is toxic both politically and economically.

This GOP tax and spending bill will also empower the federal government to take over Democratic cities — despite the fact that red states have more crime. And to deploy America’s federal law enforcement staff away from national and international crimes like sex trafficking and fraud, and turning them towards’ providing photo ops in DC. Because appearances are all that matter to this particular president and his regime.

All this to create the kind of police state with standing army that the Founders would have laughed out of the room — because they had just fought a bloody war to defeat that kind of autocratic nonsense. With its cash infusion of an eye-popping $171 billion across federal agencies and other new border security and detention facility funding, ICE is poised to become the 4th largest branch of the military — but deployed on home soil, increasingly against Americans.

The GOP Budget Bill in 7 Minutes

Ask the Bill: An HR1 NotebookLM

But you don’t have to take my word for it — here you can talk directly to the bill in natural language, in NotebookLM:

the HR1 GOP tax and spending budget bill for fiscal year 2026, in an interactive NotebookLM

GOP budget bill winners

See a full table of the winners and the new lay of the land and the immense growth of the administrative state that the GOP claims it is trying to eradicate:

Continue reading The GOP budget bill takes the US further into debt for no good reason
Read more

US Republican Senators cavorting with military personnel, drinking and laughing and celebrating the orgy of money they are rolling in

The GOP just passed their budget reconciliation bill for FY2026 — a squeaker, but over the line and now signed into law. Looking at this staggering compilation of budget line items, we’re witnessing what can only be described as the construction of an unprecedented domestic security apparatus that should alarm anyone who values civil liberties and fiscal responsibility. What’s in the Republican spending bill? A massive financial allocation to create a new branch of the military — essentially a militarized standing army of the type the Founders feared most deeply (for example Hamilton, in Federalist No. 29).

This Republican budget bill represents a breathtaking $300+ billion commitment to militarizing America’s borders and expanding the surveillance state under the guise of “national security.” The numbers tell a chilling story: nearly $57 billion for border walls and barriers, $45 billion for immigrant detention facilities that will rival the size of the entire prison system, and almost $30 billion to supercharge ICE into a paramilitary force with expanded powers to raid communities nationwide.

What we’re seeing here isn’t border security—it’s the systematic transformation of immigration enforcement into a militarized occupation force. The bill allocates billions for “family detention centers” (a euphemism for camps where children will be imprisoned), grants to states for building more walls, and funding for “relocation of unlawfully present aliens” that sounds disturbingly like it will require the use of violent force.

Perhaps most troubling is how this massive expansion of domestic enforcement capabilities comes wrapped in the flag of military spending. Hundreds of billions flow to weapons manufacturers and defense contractors while basic human services are starved of funding. The message is clear: this administration views immigrants not as people seeking opportunity, but as enemy combatants requiring a military response.

The infrastructure being built here—the surveillance technology, detention facilities, militarized personnel, and coordination between local and federal enforcement—creates the scaffolding for authoritarianism that could easily be turned against any group deemed “undesirable” by future administrations. Once you’ve normalized this level of militarized domestic enforcement, the definition of who deserves to be targeted has a way of expanding.

This isn’t about border security—it’s about power, control, and the profits that flow to contractors building America’s emerging police state.

Here is a comprehensive list of all the line items in the bill that add budget to law enforcement, border protection, national security, or military-related functions or agencies, ranked by size descending, drawing directly from the text of the bill:

  • $46,550,000,000 appropriated to the Commissioner of U.S. Customs and Border Protection for the Border Infrastructure and Wall System, including construction, installation, or improvement of new or replacement primary, waterborne, and secondary barriers; access roads; barrier system attributes (cameras, lights, sensors, detection technology); and any work necessary to prepare the ground at or near the border to allow U.S. Customs and Border Protection to conduct its operations.
  • $45,000,000,000 appropriated to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for single adult alien detention capacity and family residential center capacity. A “family residential center” is defined as a facility used by the Department of Homeland Security to detain alien family units, including children who are not unaccompanied, encountered or apprehended by the Department.
  • $29,850,000,000 appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement for fiscal year 2025, to remain available through September 30, 2029. These funds are designated for: hiring and training additional ICE personnel (officers, agents, investigators, and support staff), prioritizing and streamlining the hiring of retired ICE personnel; providing performance, retention, and signing bonuses to qualified ICE personnel; facilitating recruitment, hiring, and onboarding of additional ICE personnel (including investing in IT, recruitment, and marketing); transportation costs and related costs for alien departure or removal operations; information technology investments to support enforcement and removal operations (including fee collections); facility upgrades to support enforcement and removal operations; fleet modernization to support enforcement and removal operations; promoting family unity by maintaining care and custody of aliens charged only with a misdemeanor offense who entered with their child under 18 and detaining such an alien with their child; expanding, facilitating, and implementing 287(g) agreements; hiring and training additional staff for the Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement Office and providing nonfinancial assistance to victims of crimes perpetrated by unauthorized aliens; and hiring additional attorneys and support staff within the Office of the Principal Legal Advisor to represent DHS in immigration enforcement and removal proceedings.
  • $10,000,000,000 appropriated to the Department of Homeland Security for the State Border Security Reinforcement Fund. These funds are for grants to eligible States and units of local government for purposes including: construction or installation of a border wall, border fencing, other barriers, or buoys along the southern border of the United States (including planning, procurement of materials, and personnel costs); any work necessary to prepare the ground at or near land borders to allow construction and maintenance of a border wall or other barrier fencing; detection and interdiction of illicit substances and aliens who have unlawfully entered the United States and committed a crime, and their transfer or referral to DHS; and relocation of unlawfully present aliens from small population centers to other domestic locations.
  • $10,000,000,000 appropriated to the Secretary of Homeland Security for reimbursement of costs incurred in undertaking activities in support of the Department of Homeland Security’s mission to safeguard the borders of the United States.
Continue reading What’s in the massive Republican spending bill?
Read more

Reagonomics as illustrated by Ronald Reagan sitting atop a huge pile of money

Trickle down economics is known by a number of names: supply side economics, Reaganomics, the Laffer Curve, voodoo economics, deregulation, Libertarianism, Mudsill Theory, Two Santa Claus theory, horse and sparrow theory, and the Trump tax cuts, to name a few. It has been espoused by everyone from Ayn Rand to Milton Friedman to Alan Greenspan to Gordon Gecko.

Trickle down economics involves focusing the brunt of government effort on helping the wealthy, at the expense of the middle class and the poor. The theory says that the wealthy elites of the country have proven themselves capable patricians for stewarding the lives of the masses through myth and fairytale in the name of patriotic duty. The “supply” in supply side are the rich, who will create companies that sell products to people who didn’t even realize they needed them. If we give enough of our collective tax pool to them, they say, they’ll create jobs and prosperity for everyone else.

The problem for trickle down economics is that that isn’t true at all. It simply doesn’t happen. Time and time again over the past approximately 200 years, the ideology of rewarding the wealthy for being wealthy has proven its premises to be completely false. Deregulation and starving the government don’t produce a prosperous utopia — they produce recessions and depressions. They produce conglomerates too big to fail, that get rewarded for their brazenly irresponsible speculation with Main Street’s money, and flaunt their ability to simply capture government in our collective faces.

Trickle down economics since the 1970s

In its most recent incarnation as trickle-down, supply-side, or Reagonomics, tax cuts are pitched as paying for themselves when they have in actual fact succeeded in blowing up the deficit and the national debt. The work of Arthur Laffer and Jude Wanniski at a fateful meeting with Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld in 1974, trickle-down economic theory was put into practice during the Reagan years and has been failing to produce the promised results of paying down the debt for almost half a century.

Jude Wanniski’s “Two Santa Claus” strategy laid the political groundwork for what would soon be branded as supply-side, or trickle-down, economics. Observing in the 1970s that Democrats played “Santa” by expanding popular social programs, Wanniski warned Republicans that positioning themselves as the party of spending cuts cast them as the “anti-Santa.” His fix was simple but potent: become a second Santa by promising sweeping tax cuts. Republicans, he argued, could shower voters with fiscal “gifts” while leaving beloved programs intact, sidestepping the backlash that traditionally followed austerity talk.

This tactical reframing meshed perfectly with the emerging supply-side creed. By asserting that lower taxes on corporations and high earners spur investment, production, and ultimately broad prosperity, Republicans could claim that their giveaways weren’t merely political theater—they were an economic necessity. The brilliance (and cynicism) of the scheme was its indifference to short-term deficits: ballooning red ink would corner future Democratic administrations into either raising taxes or cutting spending, both politically toxic options.

In practice, the Two Santa Claus playbook flipped classical, demand-driven thinking on its head. Rather than boosting middle-class wages to stoke consumption, it poured resources into the top of the income ladder and trusted prosperity to “trickle down.” The approach reached full throttle in the Reagan era—taxes slashed, spending still high—and its legacy endures: chronic deficits, rising inequality, and an ongoing partisan tug-of-war over who pays the bill.

increasing national debt ratio thanks to trickle down economics scam

The Big, Beautiful, Debt-Ballooning Bill

Look no further than the monstrosity of a bill the Republicans are trying to jam through the reconciliation process. Expected to make the 2017 Trump tax cuts a permanent welfare handout to the wealthiest billionaires on the planet, the so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill” is also slated to add $4 trillion to the national debt.

We can’t keep going on this way.

It’s long past time we undertake the difficult work of educating the population more broadly about this GOP economics scam that’s been running for the past 50 years and running up the till while nurturing a truly nasty partisan political divide as insult to injury.

Trickle down doesn’t work. Tax cuts to billionaires doesn’t work — at least, not for anyone other than the billionaires and political elite class. We need an economic system that works broadly for everyone, otherwise sooner or later it all comes crashing down and we are in for a (literal) world of hurt.

Related concepts:

Read more

Elon Musk wearing a t-shirt that says "Steal Your Data"

When Elon Musk assumed his role as head of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) in the second Trump administration, he claimed his goal was to slash wasteful spending and eliminate government fraud. Yet a damning new report from Senator Elizabeth Warren reveals a starkly different reality: Musk’s 130 days in the White House appear to have been very little about serving the public interest and more about engineering one of the most audacious wealth transfers from taxpayers to a single individual in modern American history. Why are people protesting Elon Musk? In short: everybody hates corruption. And during his time with DOGE, Musk’s net worth soared by over $100 billion and his companies secured billions in new federal contracts, regulatory approvals, and policy changes that directly benefited his sprawling business empire.

The Warren report exposes how Musk’s anti-fraud rhetoric served as convenient cover for systematically dismantling the very agencies responsible for investigating his companies’ workplace safety violations, environmental damage, and discriminatory practices. Under the guise of “efficiency,” DOGE targeted the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that would regulate his planned X Money venture, gutted OSHA while it investigated Tesla’s worker safety record, and fired inspectors general who had been scrutinizing his companies. Meanwhile, agencies that provide essential services to working families—from the Department of Labor to social safety net programs—faced devastating cuts that threaten to leave the most vulnerable Americans without crucial protections. What emerges is a troubling pattern: Musk’s government role functioned less as public service and more as a strategic position to eliminate oversight of his businesses while redirecting taxpayer resources into his own coffers.

The Massachusetts Senator and champion of the CFPB kept an eagle eye on Musk as he burrowed his way through the federal government with his 20-somethings alt-right goon squad. She compiled this exhaustive report on Elon Musk’s corrupt dealings during his time in the White House — and these are just the ones we know about thanks to intrepid investigative journalists, whistleblowers, and other patriotic informants. A full accounting of the heist will likely not be known for some time, if at all — given the Trump administration’s power (and proclivity) to memory hole theoretically anything they wish.

Grok's rendition of a boxing match between Senator Elizabeth Warren and tech billionaire Elon Musk
Maybe not the best rendering… blame Musk’s Grok!

The report, “Special Interests Over the Public Interest: Elon Musk’s 130 Days in the Trump Administration (PDF),” details numerous instances where the tech megabillionaire and richest man on earth, serving as a “Special Government Employee” while leading DOGE, engaged in actions that allegedly benefited his private financial interests. On top of a net worth increase of $100 billion+ since Election Day, his companies (Tesla, SpaceX, X and xAI, the Boring Company, and Neuralink) had extensive financial conflicts of interest that were completely disregarded.

Here are the highlights from the report, followed by a timeline and cast of characters.

List of Elon Musk’s corrupt activities inside the White House

This is a comprehensive list of examples from the report illustrating how Musk allegedly used his power to further his personal interests, as of June 2025:

1. Government Resources to Promote Musk’s Businesses

  • Trump and Musk turned the White House lawn into a Tesla showroom.
  • Commerce Secretary Lutnick, reportedly “close to Elon Musk,” appeared on Fox News telling viewers to “buy Tesla”.

2. Federal Contracts for Musk’s Businesses

  • Customs and Border Protection (CBP) explored a contract to use Starlink technology in surveillance towers to monitor the border.
  • The Commerce Department changed terms of the Broadband Equity Access and Deployment (BEAD) Program to allow Starlink to apply, despite warnings of inferior service and higher costs.
  • The White House called for 13% more spending for the Department of Defense (DoD), and SpaceX is considered likely to be the top recipient of new Pentagon funding.
  • Reports show SpaceX became a frontrunner for the Golden Dome missile shield.
  • DOGE sought changes to DoD contracts, a clear conflict of interest given SpaceX has made over $7 billion in DoD contracts.
Continue reading DOGE Days: Why are people protesting Elon Musk?
Read more

Trump corruption with a devil shadow

For years, Republican lawmakers and right-wing media outlets frothed at the mouth over Hunter Biden’s laptop and fabricated tales of Burisma “corruption” — stories so thoroughly debunked that the FBI informant who invented them, Alexander Smirnov, is now serving six years in prison for his lies. The GOP knew the Burisma bribes were fake Russian disinformation from the start, yet they weaponized these fabrications to launch impeachment proceedings and relentlessly smear the Biden family. Meanwhile, they’ve maintained a deafening silence about the brazen, documented, and ongoing Trump corruption stench emanating from the convicted fraudster‘s second presidency.

The hypocrisy is breathtaking in its audacity. While Republicans manufactured outrage over phantom millions supposedly flowing to the Bidens — money that never existed, deals that never happened, corruption that was entirely fictional — they’ve turned a blind eye to the very real, very documented flood of cash pouring into Trump’s coffers from foreign governments, cryptocurrency schemes, and pay-to-play access deals that would make a banana republic dictator blush. Maryland Representative and House Judiciary ranking member Jamie Raskin called it a “gangster state” in a recent interview with MSNBC‘s Chris Hayes.

What follows is not speculation, not innuendo, not the fever dreams of political opponents. This is a meticulously documented catalog of corruption so vast and shameless that it dwarfs anything previously seen in American presidential history. From $346 million in inaugural slush funds to $5.5 billion foreign real estate deals, from cryptocurrency pump-and-dump schemes netting nearly a billion dollars to a $400 million plane gift from Qatar — the Trump administration has transformed the presidency into a personal ATM with all the subtlety of a smash-and-grab robbery.

The Teapot Dome Scandal of the 1920s served as the quintessential symbol of government corruption for decades — over a mere $7 million worth of bribes to Interior Secretary Albert Fall. It was eclipsed and replaced by Watergate, shortly preceded by the resignation of Vice President Spiro Agnew over the discovery of his $300,000 operation that funneled cash stuffed into plain envelopes by bag men into the White House. Trump’s corruption represents a quantum leap beyond even these watershed moments in terms of sheer orders of magnitude, as well as the brazen manner in which the heists are being conducted in broad daylight.

The same party that spent years screaming about imaginary Ukrainian energy company bribes and fantasy Chinese business deals has remained conspicuously silent as their standard-bearer openly auctions off American foreign policy, drops federal investigations for donors, and literally sells dinner invitations for millions of dollars. The cognitive dissonance would be comical if it weren’t so dangerous to our democracy.

What is an example of political corruption in the United States? You cannot find a bigger collection of brazen examples. This is the story they don’t want you to focus on — the real corruption, the documented grift, the unprecedented monetization of the American presidency happening right before our eyes. I’ll be aiming to keep this list updated with the inevitable additions to come.

Financial Gains from Inaugural Funds and Campaign Donations

Continue reading Trump corruption tracker
Read more

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

Peter Thiel at Isengaard looking into the Palantir

In the shadows of Washington’s policy debates, a quiet technological revolution is taking shape—one that could fundamentally alter how the federal government collects, analyzes, and potentially weaponizes data on American citizens. At the heart of this transformation sits Palantir Technologies, the secretive data analytics firm co-founded by tech billionaire Peter Thiel that has become the Trump administration’s go-to contractor for an ambitious plan to merge information across federal agencies into what critics fear could become an unprecedented surveillance apparatus.

The push represents the culmination of Thiel’s decades-long influence campaign within both Silicon Valley and right-wing politics, where he has emerged as the “godfather” of a powerful network of tech billionaires who have shifted dramatically rightward. Once the sole major Silicon Valley figure to back Trump in 2016, Thiel has watched his political philosophy spread throughout the tech elite, with former PayPal colleagues like Elon Musk and proteges like Vice President J.D. Vance now occupying the highest levels of government. This so-called “PayPal Mafia“—a group of billionaires with overlapping business interests and shared anti-regulatory fervor—has become integral to the second Trump administration, with at least three former Palantir employees now working within Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE).

Since Trump’s March executive order calling for expanded data sharing across government agencies, Palantir has quietly embedded itself deeper into the federal bureaucracy than ever before. The company has secured over $113 million in new federal contracts and expanded its flagship Foundry platform into at least four major agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security, Health and Human Services, and most recently, the Internal Revenue Service. This technological infrastructure could enable the administration to create detailed digital portraits of Americans by combining bank records, medical claims, student debt information, and disability status—all accessible through a single, searchable database.

The expansion reflects Thiel’s long-standing belief that “freedom and democracy are not compatible,” a philosophy that has guided his investments and political activities for over a decade. While Thiel maintains no official government position, he has direct access to the president, vice president, and virtually every tech figure in Trump’s inner circle, recently hosting an inauguration party at his Washington mansion for the “crème de la crème of the tech world.” As one journalist noted during the 2024 Republican National Convention, “It’s Peter Thiel’s party now”—a sentiment validated by the presence of his handpicked protege as vice president and his former colleagues running key government efficiency initiatives.

But the expansion has also triggered alarm bells within Palantir itself, where current and former employees worry about their company becoming the public face of Trump’s political agenda. Thirteen former employees recently signed a public letter urging the company to reconsider its role, while at least one strategist has resigned over the expanded ICE contracts, calling the work a “red line” she won’t cross.

As privacy advocates file lawsuits and Democratic lawmakers sound warnings about potential abuse, Palantir finds itself at the center of a national debate about the balance between government efficiency and civil liberties. To understand how we arrived at this moment—and what it might mean for American privacy—we need to examine the company behind the technology and the controversial figures who built it.

What is Palantir?

And once again I turned to Perplexity Labs to help me tell the story of Palantir in an interactive way. I am a little bit addicted to this new featureset — it is miraculous. It can build incredibly sophisticated things in a very short amount of time. To view the presentation, simply click the image below to launch it in a new Lightbox window:

And once again, the methodology and the full response are below.

Continue reading What is Palantir, and why are they building a database about you?
Read more

Russian cosmism ideology still alive in Silicon Valley

What is cosmism: The Russian Philosophy Secretly Driving Silicon Valley’s Wildest Dreams

When Elon Musk talks about making humanity a “multiplanetary species” or when tech billionaires pour millions into defeating death itself, they’re not just indulging sci-fi fantasies. They’re channeling a century-old Russian philosophy that once inspired Soviet cosmonauts—and now quietly shapes Silicon Valley‘s most ambitious projects.

From Orthodox Monks to Space Dreams

The story begins in 1890s Russia with Nikolai Fyodorov, an Orthodox Christian librarian with an audacious idea: humanity’s ultimate purpose was to use science to resurrect every person who had ever died and then expand into the cosmos. This wasn’t just philosophical speculation—Fyodorov believed technology could literally overcome death and fulfill what he called humanity’s “Common Task.”

His followers, known as cosmists, took these ideas in fascinating directions. Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, a schoolteacher who became the father of astronautics, famously declared that “Earth is the cradle of humanity, but one cannot remain in the cradle forever.” Meanwhile, geochemist Vladimir Vernadsky envisioned human intelligence merging with technology to create a planetary “sphere of mind”—a concept that would later influence everything from Soviet planning to modern AI development.

What made cosmism unique was its blend of mystical spirituality and hardcore science. These weren’t just dreamers; they were serious researchers who saw technological progress as a path to spiritual transcendence.

The Soviet Space Race’s Secret Sauce

When the Bolsheviks took power, cosmist ideas found an unexpected home in communist ideology. Both movements shared a belief in radically remaking humanity and conquering natural limitations. The results were striking:

Lenin’s Mummy: When Vladimir Lenin died in 1924, the decision to preserve his body wasn’t just political theater. Leonid Krasin, who oversaw the mummification, was deeply influenced by Fyodorov’s resurrection theories. Lenin’s tomb became a symbol of faith that socialist science would eventually conquer death itself.

Continue reading What is cosmism ideology?
Read more

The 2025 Republican budget bill will add $4.6 trillion to the deficit

There’s a lot of noise out there drowning out an important signal most Americans should probably know about (yes, even MAGA! Perhaps especially MAGA given the disproportionate effects this Republican budget bill is likely to have on their red state communities). That is by design — retired entrepreneur Bill Southworth refers to it as “narrative warfare” in the Russian tradition; Steve Bannon calls it “flooding the zone with shit;” and psychologists simply call it narcissistic personality disorder. By whatever name, today’s political information ecosystem is being manipulated to obscure the actual business of government, because the culture wars are staggeringly popular while the actual GOP agenda goes over like a lead balloon in terms of popular opinion.

So much so that the House Rules Committee plans to take up the “big, beautiful bill” for consideration, recently passed out of the Budget Committee on late Sunday night, at 1:00am in the morning. Nothing says pride like a dead of night hearing!

The Medicaid cuts that are in the Republican budget bill are especially toxic to the GOP — reportedly 75% of Americans on both sides of the aisle oppose the deep cuts to critical services that the right-wing seems hell-bent on enacting despite better ways to extract savings, like preventing private insurers from “upcoding” care to make it more expensive.

The reckless cuts to public services are meant to offset the cost of what Republicans and their billionaire donors want on the other side of the ledger: the extension of Trump’s 2017 tax cuts for their corporate donors and wealthiest Americans. Nevermind, apparently, that these tax cuts are primarily responsible (along with the George W. Bush tax cuts of the early 2000s) for the increasing debt ratio that the GOP falls all over themselves to theatrically complain about — while single-handedly and relentlessly continuing to make it worse.

America's increasing debt ratio under a mound of IOUs
Continue reading The “Big, Beautiful Bill” that Republicans don’t want you to see
Read more

David Sacks in a Bitcoin suit

David Sacks: Silicon Valley’s Political Power Player

At the intersection of technology, venture capital, and right-wing politics, the star of tech mogul David Sacks has risen prominently in recent years. From PayPal executive to Trump’s AI & Crypto Czar, Sacks represents a new breed of tech tycoon whose influence extends far beyond Silicon Valley boardrooms into the corridors of political power.

From South Africa to Silicon Valley

Born on May 25, 1972, in Cape Town, South Africa, Sacks followed a path that would eventually lead him to become one of the most influential entrepreneurs in American tech. After immigrating to the United States, he received his education at the University of Chicago Law School, graduating in 1998.

His Silicon Valley journey began in earnest when he joined PayPal in 1999 as Chief Operating Officer. At PayPal, Sacks was instrumental in building key teams and oversaw product management, sales, and marketing functions. This early chapter placed him squarely within what would later be known as the “PayPal Mafia” – a legendary group of executives including Peter Thiel and Elon Musk who went on to found and fund numerous successful tech ventures.

Entrepreneurial Success

Following PayPal’s $1.5 billion acquisition by eBay in 2002, Sacks embarked on a remarkable entrepreneurial journey:

  • He briefly ventured into Hollywood, producing the critically acclaimed film “Thank You for Smoking” and later “Dalíland”
  • In 2008, he founded Yammer, an enterprise social networking service that was acquired by Microsoft for $1.2 billion just four years later
  • As an angel investor, he made early bets on Facebook, Uber, SpaceX, and Airbnb, cementing his reputation for identifying transformative companies
  • In 2017, Sacks co-founded Craft Ventures, a venture capital firm focused on SaaS and marketplace models that has become a significant player in tech investing

His entrepreneurial success positioned him as a respected voice in Silicon Valley, with insights that extended from product development to company building and investment strategy.

The Twitter Chapter: Musk’s Right-Hand Man

One of the most notable recent chapters in Sacks’ career has been his involvement with Twitter (now X) during and after Elon Musk’s controversial acquisition of the platform in 2022. As part of Musk’s inner circle, Sacks played a pivotal role in advising on the company’s transition.

Continue reading Who is David Sacks?
Read more

The Cathedral concept of Curtis Yarvin, controversial right-wing philosopher

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:

Continue reading What is Neoreaction (NRx) ideology?
Read more

Elon Musk wearing a t-shirt that says "Occupy Your Data"

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).
Yiying Lu, artist who created Twitter's iconic Fail Whale
Continue reading Twitter Timeline: From Public Square to X, a Right-Wing Cesspool
Read more

What is RT.com? If you’ve been following international news in recent years, you’ve likely encountered content from RT — the state-owned Russian news service formerly known as Russia Today. But what exactly is this network, and why does it matter in our global information landscape?

The Birth of a Propaganda Powerhouse

RT didn’t emerge out of nowhere. Back in 2005, the Russian government launched “Russia Today” with a substantial $30 million in state funding. The official mission? To counter what the Kremlin perceived as Western media dominance and improve Russia’s global image.

What’s fascinating is how they approached this mission. Margarita Simonyan, appointed as editor-in-chief at just 25 years old, strategically recruited foreign journalists to give the network an air of international credibility. By 2009, they rebranded to the sleeker “RT” — a deliberate move to distance themselves from their obvious Russian state origins.

While RT initially focused on cultural diplomacy (showcasing Russian culture and perspectives), its mission shifted dramatically after the 2008 Russia-Georgia war. The network increasingly pivoted toward anti-Western narratives — a strategy that continues to this day.

How RT Spreads Disinformation

RT’s playbook is both sophisticated and concerning. The network regularly promotes conspiracy theories about everything from COVID-19 origins to U.S. election fraud. It strategically amplifies divisive issues in Western societies, particularly racial tensions in America.

The coverage of the Ukraine war offers a perfect case study in RT’s propaganda techniques. Their reporting consistently and erroneously:

  • Blames NATO for the conflict
  • Denies Russian war crimes (despite Hague warrant for Putin’s arrest)
  • Frames the invasion as a “special operation” to “denazify” Ukraine (led by a Jewish president)

What makes RT particularly effective is its tailored regional messaging. In Africa, they operate “African Stream,” a covert platform promoting pro-Russian sentiment. In the Balkans, RT Balkan (based in Serbia) helps circumvent EU sanctions while spreading Kremlin-aligned content. Meanwhile, their Spanish-language expansion targets Latin American audiences with anti-Western narratives.

Beyond Media: Covert Operations

Perhaps most concerning is evidence suggesting RT extends far beyond conventional media operations. U.S. officials have alleged that RT funneled $10 million to pro-Trump influencers ahead of the 2024 election, leading to Department of Justice indictments of RT staff.

The network reportedly recruits social media influencers under fake accounts to obscure Russian involvement. More alarmingly, RT-associated platforms allegedly supply equipment (including drones, radios, and body armor) to Russian forces in Ukraine, with some materials sourced from China.

According to U.S. intelligence assessments, RT hosts a clandestine unit focused on global influence operations — blurring the line between media and intelligence work.

Money and Organization

As with any major operation, following the money tells an important story. RT’s annual funding has grown exponentially — from $30 million at its founding to $400 million by 2015. For the 2022-2024 period, the Russian government allocated a staggering 82 billion rubles.

The network’s organizational structure is deliberately complex. RT operates under ANO TV-Novosti (a nonprofit founded by RIA Novosti) and Rossiya Segodnya (a state media conglomerate established in 2013). Its subsidiaries include Ruptly (a video agency), Redfish, and Maffick (digital media platforms).

Staying One Step Ahead of Sanctions

Despite being banned in the EU and U.S. following Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine, RT continues to expand its reach in Africa, Latin America, and Serbia. The network has proven remarkably adaptable at circumventing restrictions — using proxy outlets like “Red” in Germany and RT Balkan in Serbia to bypass sanctions.

The international response has been significant but inconsistent. The U.S. designated RT a foreign agent in 2017, the EU banned it in 2022, and Meta removed RT from its platforms in 2024. The U.S. has also launched campaigns to expose RT’s ties to Russian intelligence and limit its global operations.

Why This Matters

RT exemplifies modern hybrid warfare — blending traditional state media with covert influence operations and intelligence activities to advance Kremlin interests globally. Despite sanctions and increasing awareness of its true nature, RT’s adaptability and substantial funding ensure its continued reach.

For those of us concerned about information integrity and democratic resilience, understanding RT’s operations isn’t just academic — it’s essential for navigating our increasingly complex media landscape.

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