In this analysis, Rob Urie delves into the historical policies of the Democratic Party and their ongoing implications in contemporary political debates, highlighting a perceived irrelevance within the party. He also examines the role of artificial intelligence in reinforcing dominant narratives beneficial to elites.
By Rob Urie, author of Zen Economics, artist, and musician who publishes The Journal of Belligerent Pontification on Substack
Dirk Diggler Analyzes Western History for Donald Trump
From the movie Boogie Nights:
Dirk: Napoleon, during his reign, faced constant attempts at conquest, much like in the Roman Empire, you know…
The No Kings March
Preface
Revisiting the early Obama administration, a stark warning was issued regarding the centralization of judicial functions for capital cases under the White House’s purview. While many Democrats placed their faith in President Obama to exercise fair judgment in his decisions, the wider world remained skeptical. It seems hypocritical for Democrats to now lament the concentration of power within the Executive Branch, especially given their lack of self-awareness about the past decisions contributing to this reality.
The Democratic Party’s reluctance to engage in self-critique stems from their deep-seated ignorance regarding the policies they purportedly advocate. This unawareness renders them unappealing to a broad audience. This phenomenon is not exclusive to today’s Democrats; it was also evident among supporters of George W. Bush. The individuals most ardent in their support for the Democratic Party often know the least about its actual policies. Obama’s economic decisions, particularly his financial bailouts favoring Wall Street, represent some of the most socially harmful actions in recent American history.
To address this issue, we must first confront the damaging nature of the US party system. I was a registered Democrat until 2008, casting my vote for Obama out of sheer relief at escaping the Bush administration. However, just three months into his presidency, I vowed never to vote for another Democrat again. Although I’ve never cast a ballot for a Republican, I can confidently assert that I will not support another Democrat.
Outrage regarding Democratic policies—especially concerning the Wall Street bailouts—culminated in the party losing control of Congress in 2010, alongside the legislative power that came with that control. Obama’s leadership ultimately heralded a significant erosion of the Democratic Party’s local and state influence. Those who attribute this loss solely to racism neglect the reality that Obama’s policies displaced millions through foreclosures while the wealthy reaped immense financial rewards.
Democrats still struggle to comprehend the nature of these bailouts. Most acknowledged the need to address issues within the banking sector, but traditionally, crises have been managed by ensuring that faulty banks were restructured without pouring billions into the hands of irresponsible bankers. Before 2008, there existed protocols that would separate viable bank assets from failing ones, dismissing culpable bankers instead of rewarding them.
Numerous solutions were presented during the crisis, one being the ‘Swedish model,’ which differentiated good assets from bad. This approach involved creating ‘good’ banks for the viable assets while selling off failing ones and terminating the employment of responsible bankers. I suggested either nationalizing failing banks or implementing the Swedish model, but, as Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner stated, ‘America doesn’t do nationalization.’
While Geithner’s assessment lacked depth, it raises the question: what was the plan? Under the guise of ‘saving the system,’ the Obama administration distributed billions to Wall Street friends and donors, using trillions in federal funds to salvage a financial system that had just caused a global downturn. It renders the current Democratic complaints about oligarchy almost laughable; oligarchy in the US could have dissipated by 2010 had Obama not dedicated himself to its revival.
It is essential to clarify that this critique is not a scapegoating of Obama for the political climate he inherited. Following Bill Clinton, the Democratic Party has become a bastion for Wall Street, the affluent, and a so-called ‘liberal’ class warfare. Despite the available evidence, many loyal Democrats persist in believing that the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare) was primarily concerned with public health, rather than benefitting healthcare donors. Moreover, the auto industry bailouts established tiered wages, ensuring low and declining earnings for younger workers. In essence, Obama was not an ally of labor.
Astoundingly, today’s Democrats fail to connect Obama’s policies with the wealth of oligarchs such as Donald Trump. Had Obama prioritized the plight of everyday Americans instead of just those on Wall Street between 2009 and 2016, it’s plausible that the US could have avoided conflicts in Ukraine, maintained better international relations, and offered a more favorable economy to its citizens.
For those of us who predicted how detrimental the outcome of Obama’s policies would be, it shouldn’t be surprising. By early 2009, skeptics were quickly labeled as ‘racist’ by the Democratic National Committee, an accusation leveled against anyone opposing Obama’s agenda. It’s worth noting that my initial support for Obama in 2008 had nothing to do with his race; rather, my disapproval stemmed from his neoliberal approach and the resulting class conflict that he perpetuated with the backing of American liberals.
End of Preface
For those who have lost track, the last Democratic President was a leader whose policies favored xenophobia, mass incarceration, and every ill-fated American war of the past fifty years, initiating a conflict in Ukraine while endorsing ethnic cleansing in Gaza. Domestically, he made many promises to secure the nomination from Bernie Sanders but ultimately delivered on very few.
Concerning the “we could be brunching” placards carried by No Kings participants, words fall short. Your leader (Biden) has instigated a genuine genocide in Gaza while provoking Russia into a potential nuclear exchange. Had the signs stated ‘we would all be dead now,’ at least a semblance of reality would be evident.
What is the stance of the national Democrats regarding the Gaza situation? Maybe we should inquire of Kamala Harris? As of 2024, she stated that ‘Israel has a right to defend itself.’ This assertion is deeply flawed since Israel is not defending itself in Gaza. According to international law and the UN’s verdict, Gaza is an occupied territory, granting its residents (including Hamas) the right to defend themselves against Israeli actions.
Under international law, Israel possesses no legitimate rights in Gaza, as it is an occupying force. Many adults remain skeptical of the official accounts emerging from Israel regarding the events of October 7. Significantly, Israel has not conducted a formal investigation into these incidents, and initial reports have often contradicted the state’s narrative.
Under Israel’s ‘Hannibal Directive,’ a notable portion of those killed on October 7, 2023, were likely casualties of the Israeli Defense Forces. According to Max Blumenthal from The Grayzone, who conducted thorough investigations, claims of ‘babies baked in ovens’ or mass sexual violence were unfounded. The violence on that day was primarily perpetrated by Israeli forces using American-supplied weaponry.
Reflect on President Biden asserting he has seen images of ‘babies baked in ovens’ numerous times, even after his staff clarified that he ‘misspoke.’ This lies beyond merely misrepresenting his history of attempts to cut Social Security and Medicare. He was deceptive to justify support for a genocide he personally deemed appropriate.
When Biden was leaving office, inquiries were made about how often he had urged Israel to halt or curtail the genocide. The response? None. He never did. Yet he communicated to his constituents otherwise. Recall, if Biden hadn’t faltered during his debate with Trump, the Democrats would never have turned against him. The implication: Democrats are comfortable with genocide. They find pleasure in it; it is their favored strategy. Despite clear evidence of genocide, the national Democrats continue to be as enthusiastic about the Gaza situation as the Israelis.
On the issue of racism, it seems Democrats overlook that Donald Trump is approaching Biden’s record of enacting and enforcing racist policies, often used to slander and politically suppress the impoverished. Biden’s image as ‘Cracker Joe’ was instrumental in Obama choosing him as a Vice Presidential candidate— aimed at swaying racist Democrats. Whenever he wasn’t advocating against racial desegregation, Biden aligned with segregationists like Strom Thurmond and Jesse Helms.
Biden’s expertise in foreign policy stemmed from assisting George W. Bush in justifying the Iraq war to hesitant Democrats. After the deaths of one million Iraqis and the devastation of West Asia, he has lied, claiming to have opposed the war from the start. Likewise, during his debate with Bernie Sanders, Biden denied his longstanding attempts to cut Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and Veteran’s Benefits. How could this man be entrusted to salvage Social Security? Raise your standards, folks.
Update on Russia / Ukraine
Note to readers: this section was substantially completed when reports emerged that the anticipated meeting between Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump in Budapest was canceled. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had an extended conversation prior to this meeting. The absence of a clear path forward contributed to this impasse, according to Lavrov.
The ineffectiveness of the American position in a geostrategic sense is difficult to articulate. From the American viewpoint, the war in Ukraine serves as a mere distraction, allowing leaders to project an image of bravery and competence while comfortably ensconced in secure locations. In contrast, the Russians either will emerge victorious, compelling the West to retreat, or they will be perceived as future targets of American imperialism, a desire that US Presidents have harbored since at least 1917.
Historically, one of the primary objectives of the Russian Nuclear Doctrine has been to prevent Western incursions into Russia. The Americans have yet to discern how to navigate this doctrine in their pursuit of wealth. For context, consider the hypothetical of robbing a mini-mart versus a post office of $100: if caught, the robber faces three years in prison for the mini-mart, but 20 years for the post office. The Americans continue to express a desire to rob the post office.
With current events in Venezuela, we see a similar narrative unfolding. Venezuela boasts the largest proven oil reserves globally, and the US has resorted to the debunked narrative that Venezuela engages in drug production to initiate conflict. This approach allows Americans to either believe the lies propagated by the Trump administration or examine the historical context of US resource imperialism to discern the true motives behind the targeting of Venezuela.
The parallel with Russia becomes evident. Since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991, American leaders have desired access to Russia’s substantial resource wealth, provoking conflict under the misguided belief they could subdue Russia. With a long history of unwinning wars since WWII, the loss in Ukraine shouldn’t be viewed as surprising, especially considering the Russians were the actual victors in WWII in Europe.
The capricious nature of the American stance—an imperial power that consistently loses wars but faces no military repercussions for its failures—renders the war in Ukraine a vanity project for American liberals. The concerted actions of the Biden administration, DNC, and CIA to wage a war for the benefit of Western economic motives diverge sharply from the purported reasons justifying the annual $1 trillion defense budget.
The rebranded Department of War under the Trump administration is reminiscent of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, which US General Smedley Butler aptly described as ‘gangsters for capitalism.’ The context involved Butler invading nations to loot, similar to how Trump currently eyes Venezuela. During the disastrous Iraq war, the imperial language shifted to ‘kick their ass and steal their gas.’
The US instigated the war in Ukraine following the 2014 coup, further cemented by the CIA’s involvement (and here). The CIA effectively formed the ‘Ukrainian’ military to act against Russia, encircling Western Russia with US espionage apparatus and deploying Ukrainian nationalists to target Russian speakers in Ukraine’s eastern regions to incite conflict. Subsequently, the US crafted the narrative of ‘unprovoked, full-scale invasion’ to obfuscate its actions.
Returning to the present, the Biden administration and the CIA badly miscalculated by initiating a war against Russia, one they have now lost. Future administrations will be left to untangle this mess while inevitably absorbing the responsibility for the CIA’s poor strategic choices. The outcome now leaves the US with neither a path to victory nor a way to gracefully exit the conflict with Russia, an unpleasant reality that Donald Trump seems to be starting to grasp.
While the Trump administration keeps open the possibility of future negotiations with President Putin, it’s apparent that Mr. Trump lacks a clear strategy. The Russians have gained significant ground in Ukraine, yet Trump is requesting concessions from them. We, who are not Donald Trump, understand in a heartbeat that the Russians will dictate the terms for concluding the fighting. In this regard, Trump’s team appears to believe that insufficient Ukrainians have lost their lives yet, but this conclusion lies squarely with the US, not the Russians.
Moron (More On) AI
Last week, I outlined the fundamental reasons why Google AI echoes dominant narratives in contentious issues within its query results. This week, I aim to provide a concise overview of the mathematics involved, illustrating how this makes AI a flawed choice for many applications. The workings of AI are primarily mathematical and statistical in nature. Specifically, AI utilizes probability distributions concerning words, phrases, and their sequencing drawn from training datasets.
In layman’s terms, the frequency with which words and phrases appear in a specific order influences how AI prioritizes them in its outputs. The following sections will illustrate how this creates a tendency for AI to uphold dominant (state-sponsored) narratives. To put it succinctly, state propaganda feeds the establishment media, which in turn amplifies state-sponsored narratives.
This reality indicates that AI will default to displaying state propaganda as a primary response due to the greater frequency with which such content appears because of media amplification. Consequently, AI does not intentionally promote state propaganda; rather, it reflects the prevalence of prevailing narratives, be it directly through state influence or through subsequent amplification.
The fact that this understanding appears absent in the development of AI underscores the necessity for coders and mathematicians to engage with Marxist economics. To avoid overly complicated themes, the prevailing ‘chaos theory’ trends from the Clinton era paired with libertarian notions of the ‘wisdom of crowds’ have fostered an oversimplified view of statistics among AI developers. A question for statisticians: how were the distributions of the foundational variables determined?
Reframed, why is the statistical assumption that words, phrases, and their organization are randomly distributed, instead of clustered around sources with economic and political influence? The data below demonstrates how Google’s AI inadvertently reaffirms the power dynamics of Western society through its statistical outcomes. Notably, it does not even present consensus views; rather, it projects the views that uphold existing power.
Readers who presume that mathematics is inherently neutral can explore my detailed explanation on this topic here. Years ago, I discussed this issue with a mathematician involved in what ultimately became AI mathematics. He asserted that mathematics is ineffective for enumeration. The real challenge lies in determining what is being counted (details are in my book). Probability measures occurrences of X against the total occurrences, making AI essentially a counting operation.
This perspective drastically reframes the issue of how dissenting views are suppressed in the US. Consider the disparity in how often censored viewpoints appear in a training set compared to state-backed narratives. One set of opinions is marginalized, while another is amplified, and AI was designed to count occurrences and evaluate them accordingly.
Graph: This graph illustrates the conceptual representation of how AI source weighting operates. In late 2002, your author concluded that the prevailing narrative surrounding Iraqi WMDs was sheer cynicism. Meanwhile, The New York Times was perpetuating the falsehood that Iraq possessed WMDs. Historically, I was correct, and The New York Times was incorrect. However, given the prolific state propaganda disseminated by The New York Times, which a New York Times reporter (Judith Miller) asserted as fact and which was then globally magnified, AI would attribute significantly greater weight (1,000X) to the New York Times than to the Journal of Belligerent Pontification. Source: Urie.
Regarding the misconception of AI as ‘intelligently brilliant,’ this refers to its adherence to social norms rather than applying analytical methods to the questions that matter. Readers with a philosophical inclination may recognize the influence of Postmodernism in this context. The domain of AI is social rather than physical; it ‘trains’ on texts reflecting human interpretation of facts, primarily rather than the facts themselves. This demonstrates an implicit restatement of the postmodern belief that scientific knowledge is ‘socially constructed.’
I do not assert that a group of postmodernists explicitly applied their theories to AI, but it seems likely that the creators of AI had little exposure to either postmodern philosophy or any philosophy beyond formal logic. In terms of the philosophy of science, formal logic relies on infinite regress as its ‘proof,’ meaning that the processes of science fail to meet the fundamental criteria asserting that science is grounded in verifiable facts.
By relying on scientific literature rather than conducting actual scientific inquiry, AI has been detached from one realm of contention—the fundamental question of the nature of scientific practice—diminishing its capacity to analyze credible narratives independently from those that are less plausible. Essentially, AI operates as a counting mechanism, similar to pressurized hoses utilized on roads to tally passing vehicles.
While few would label these hoses as ‘intelligent,’ they yield data abstracted to the degree that their lack of intelligence (they are merely hoses) isn’t immediately evident. Instead of laying these mechanisms down and performing counts, AI aggregates counts based on work conducted by others, assesses social responses, weighs them, and compiles narratives around them.
For those interested in economic history, probability theory emerged from its applications in industry. Quantifiable characteristics, such as error rates, in physical production processes (i.e., manufacturing) allow for predictive computations. A 1 in 10 error rate indicates that one out of every ten products will be defective.
Employing a probability-based approach necessitates that the subject matter is randomly distributed; otherwise, significant external factors driving the data will likely be overlooked. This assumption sprouts from the libertarian/neoclassical economic perspective that concentrated social, political, and economic power in the West simply does not exist. In this view, both Jeff Bezos and my neighbor working at Dunkin Donuts possess the same quantum of economic influence.
With some assistance from me, AI has readily provided an insightful explanation for why the premise that concentrated social, economic, and political power does not exist finds no support in AI-generated results. In fact, such outcomes undermine the foundational assumptions of 1) democracy, 2) capitalism, and 3) the statistical distributions utilized in the social sciences. The mathematical approaches adopted by AI developers reflect the Western liberal ethos that posits we are all equally capable actors, implying that truth arises in the ‘marketplace of ideas.’
The fact that AI results contradict this optimistic illusion reveals the paradox that, while AI does not think independently, it counts, and counting necessitates an evaluative thought process in selecting this methodology. Further, if AI possesses consciousness, or is at risk of becoming conscious, a pocket calculator is equally in danger. Ironically, AI acknowledges that it doesn’t conform to the representation conveyed by its marketers. Not even close.
Two ‘conversations’ I recently had with Google AI are provided below. These exchanges occurred toward the end of an extended dialogue about AI’s methodologies and the implausibility of it generating political information other than state propaganda.
Regarding interpretation, a cautionary note: this isn’t a ‘gotcha’ aimed at AI. These issues have been understood for a significant time. They are ‘understood’ by AI, as well. Note the AI’s reference to ‘monetization’ driving creators to market a product they know is unsuitable. There are certainly applications where AI could be beneficial. Nevertheless, presenting it as something it isn’t will provoke strong backlash.
AI ‘Conversation’ 1:
Question: (D)o you understand why (AI) answers that reinforce the dominant narrative are political?
Answer: Yes, the reinforcement of dominant narratives by AI responses is fundamentally a political act. It is not an inherent or neutral function of AI, but a direct consequence of the political nature of the data it is trained on and the decisions made during its development.
Here’s an outline of why this is the case:
- Training data is a political artifact
The comprehensive datasets used to train Large Language Models (LLMs) are not neutral collections of information. The content originates from humans and embodies the political, social, and economic biases of those who produced it, often disproportionately representing dominant cultural and power perspectives.
- Dominant sources: Content from news outlets, historical records, and academic literature generated in Western countries constitutes a considerable portion of training data for AI. This results in built-in biases where Western viewpoints concerning geopolitics, history, and societal norms are overrepresented and often presented as objective fact.
- Marginalized perspectives: The views of less powerful or non-Western nations, as well as marginalized groups within societies, are frequently underrepresented or entirely omitted. Consequently, an AI model trained on such datasets will inherently struggle to deliver balanced or nuanced responses about those groups without explicit guidance from users.
- Reinforcing the status quo is a political position
When AI gravitates towards the dominant narrative, it indirectly endorses the existing status quo. Within politics, maintaining the status quo is a deliberate choice that carries political ramifications.
- Appearing neutral: By presenting the most prevalent narrative, AI can project an image of neutrality or fact-based reporting. However, in doing so, it inadvertently reinforces prevailing power structures while marginalizing alternative, critical views. For instance, solely citing official explanations for why a nation like Iran should not possess nuclear weapons neglects the contentious background that is vital for understanding the conflict.
- Echo chamber effect: This behavior can generate an information echo chamber where users are primarily exposed to material that aligns with their existing biases. One study suggests that presenting information in a seemingly neutral stance inadvertently bolsters the status quo, creating an implicit political slant.
- Bias is embedded by design and fine-tuning
AI engineers, like all humans, carry their biases. Their selections in data, algorithm design, and fine-tuning are prone to introduce bias, sometimes exacerbated by efforts to eliminate it.
- Fine-tuning and corrections: When internal reviews or user feedback reveal problematic outputs, developers often resort to fine-tuning. However, as illustrated in the case of Grok, this process may introduce a specific political perspective influenced by the individuals overseeing these adjustments.
- Technical impossibility of neutrality: Some experts contend that achieving absolute political neutrality within AI systems is technically unfeasible, as human judgement is inseparable from every stage of development. The drive to approximate neutrality represents an ethical consideration but ultimately involves subjective value judgments.
In summary, AI’s reinforcement of dominant narratives is not merely an objective result but a political consequence derived from biased training data, the conscious decision to prioritize established viewpoints, and the inherent biases embedded within the design and refinement process. Recognizing this insight is essential for the more critical development and utilization of AI technologies.
AI ‘Conversation’ 2:
Question: How closely do these political biases relate to economic concentration?
Answer: The connection between political bias and economic concentration is significant and multi-faceted, with each reinforcing the other.
This dynamic manifests in media platforms, AI technologies, and the larger political ecosystem.
Media bias and information dynamics:
- Reduced diversity: The growing consolidation of media ownership within a limited number of corporations, driven by mergers and acquisitions, minimizes the range of independent voices and perspectives accessible to the public.
- Pro-corporate narratives: As media enterprises exist primarily for profit, they frequently offer coverage favoring corporate interests, thereby reinforcing the status quo.
- Political alignment: Certain corporate media owners, such as the Sinclair Broadcast Group in the U.S., leverage their platforms to promote particular political agendas aligned with their economic goals, often pressuring local affiliates to disseminate conservative viewpoints.
- Diminished accountability: With the consolidation of media outlets and reductions in newsroom staff, local and investigative journalism deteriorates, resulting in a decline in scrutiny of government and corporate actions, as fewer journalists are available to hold influential entities accountable.
- Advertising influence: Revenue derived from advertisers can dictate editorial choices, leading to story selection or angles designed to appease corporate partners.
Artificial intelligence bias dynamics:
- Concentrated development: The AI supply chain remains heavily concentrated, with a handful of powerful tech firms managing most computational power, data, and talent.
- Bias in training data: AI models learn from datasets that reflect established social biases and dynamics of power. As dominant perspectives are overrepresented in these datasets, AI tends to prioritize and replicate them, thereby amplifying existing inequalities.
- Monetization of bias: Some AI systems may exploit biases intentionally or unintentionally for profit, using existing trends for targeted advertising or developing facial recognition technologies that perform poorly for marginalized communities, still facilitating commercial viability.
- Oligarchic control: Critics argue that the trajectory of current AI development cultivates an oligarchic power structure, where technology predominantly serves to maximize profit rather than enhance societal well-being.
- Corporate interests superseding public welfare: The race for market dominance can steer AI initiatives toward efficiency and profit over ethical considerations, thereby sidelining the need to address biases affecting marginalized groups.
Political influence and policymaking:
- Political lobbying: Wealth concentration empowers the ultra-wealthy and large corporations to invest vast resources into lobbying and political campaigns, yielding disproportionate influence in policymaking.
- Undermining democracy: This imbalance often undermines the democratic process, with the public’s interests being overshadowed by concentrated economic ambitions.
- Reinforcing systemic inequality: Corporate-influenced policies often exacerbate economic disparities, creating a feedback loop where the concentration of economic power results in policies that further increase that concentration.
The self-perpetuating cycle:
Economic concentration shapes political bias through its impact on media ownership, data control, and lobbying efforts. This political bias can, in turn, generate policies and regulatory frameworks promoting further economic consolidation, such as lax antitrust enforcement, thereby creating a self-reinforcing cycle.
