Can a Truth-Based Movement Still Win in a Captured Media & Epistemic Environment?

[Hardkill]

This is a serious question I’ve been wrestling with for months. It’s not just about Democrats, Trump, or 2028—it’s about the long-term viability of truth, rationality, and consciousness-based governance in a society where the information ecosystem may be too far gone.

Leo, you’ve said many things in past posts that opened my eyes to this:

• In 2020, you warned that “half the country is stuck in a right-wing brainwashing alternative media echo chamber that has rotted their minds.”
• After the 2024 election, you cited social media epistemic rot, algorithms, and influencer/podcaster populism group-think as one of the two main reasons Trump won.
• You’ve compared Fox News brainwashing to what you saw growing up under the Soviet regime—and even said it wasn’t much better.

That stuck with me. It helped me understand that what we’re dealing with isn’t just political disagreement—it’s epistemic collapse.

But here’s where I’m now stuck, and where my deep concern comes from:

If reality-based leaders—who oversee a stable economy, restore inflation, and pass progressive policies (like Biden/Harris did)—can still lose to someone like Trump… then how does truth ever win again?

Inflation had been normalized for over a year and a half by late 2024. The economy was strong. Unemployment was low. Wages were up. The policy record was one of the most pro-worker agendas since LBJ, if not since FDR/Truman.

And still—Democrats lost. Not just because of Kamala Harris being a mediocre candidate (which I get now), and not just because of lingering inflation pain.

I believe the deeper problem is this:

We now live in a media and emotional environment where truth, performance, and policy don’t determine public perception—narrative does.

And the right-wing narrative machine is:

• Decades ahead
• Emotionally compelling
• Identity-reinforcing
• Constantly evolving through social media, TikTok, AM radio, influencers, podcasts, and outrage-driven YouTube content

I used to think the growth of progressive- or Democrat-aligned media was a sign of hope. And yes, there has been some encouraging progress—more podcasts, YouTube channels, independent journalists, and cultural figures who are trying to push back against right-wing dominance. But the more I sit with it—and the more I see how many millions still enthusiastically support Trump or live entirely inside right-wing media bubbles—the more I worry that it may already be too late to catch up.

The Left is so far behind in narrative infrastructure, cultural saturation, and emotional media literacy. And it takes years to build trust-based media ecosystems. I’m not sure the timeline of political reality matches the timeline of narrative repair.

You’ve often said you can’t control free speech. That it "finds cracks like water."

But this isn’t censorship. It’s voluntary informational capture. People are being propagandized not by force, but by choice, habit, and emotionally gratifying identity content.

Yes, the Soviet Union was more repressive and top-down and ultimately couldn’t sustain the illusion forever. But what if the American right has created something more durable? More decentralized? More personalized? More emotionally effective?

You also said that "without inflation, Kamala might have won." But I can’t help asking:

• Why did Truman win in 1948 after 20% inflation?
• Why did Reagan win in 1984 after peak 14% inflation?
• Why did Bush and Obama win re-election despite weaker economic conditions than Biden?

In my view, the answer is that voters in the past were not as poisoned by social media outrage cycles and algorithmically distributed misinformation. They didn’t live in fully fractured, closed-loop info ecosystems. They could feel change more clearly.

That’s why I’m so worried about 2028 and beyond.
Not because I’m attached to “Team Blue.”
But because I fear we’ve crossed into a new phase of mass consciousness where truth simply cannot travel, no matter how well someone governs.

So my core question is this:

What does a conscious, reality-based movement do when the population it’s trying to lead is living in a fabricated narrative, immunized against performance, and rewarded for tribal rage?

How can someone like Newsom win the presidency in this rigged media environment?

This feels bigger than politics. It feels existential for truth itself.

I’m not looking for a comforting answer. I’m looking for clarity—on whether there's still a strategic path for reality-based movements in this new environment, or if the rules have changed too radically for truth to win again.

[samijiben]

@Hardkill the world is fucked and always has been, especially if you're the one looking at it. 

And you are slimy and dirty just like the far-right delusional propagandists

So the solution is taking responsibility for the devilry of the MAGa, far right, whatever else — and accepting it as yourself

Definitely not a comforting answer. But the only one.

[BlueOak]

Newsom has a spine, which is a start. Little of this pushback is policy-based, meaning it can change with a few changes in perspective and then some serious investment into the left wing media machine again.

I just watched a democratic senator responsible for the oversight of immigration get thrown to the ground and arrested for asking a question.
When he got to make a speech afterwards, he sounded like he was about to cry. This is weak and it's not what's needed. Like Vaush said, he should have grabbed that podium with both hands.

Part of this temporary pressure cooker we are all sitting in is to make men men again. A behaviour which is being rewarded and the opposite is being punished. While embodying masculinity, you hit Trump on his more feminine and also immature qualities. Its also a reflection of some of the wound that exists in men which tangles things.

Trump's constant need for reassurance about being the best, like a kid needing a pat on the head. For example, you see this in men asking women to show some gratitude for doing a hard days work in red pill communities. *This is something liberals do 'okay' at as its more image-based, but they constantly aggravate this wound rather than heal it.

Trump's need to express emotion outwardly all the time, rather than have it contained and processed internally, to build strength and order within before doing so. This is an hour-by-hour thing with Trump, he is in a reactive mode and mind constantly. *This is about his instability as a leader, a personality, and a man. (The last being critical to the republican base and current moment). - This comes out in everything, every action or decision of his you live through..

The need to blame others for our own internal failings. A lack of responsibility, accountability and discipline. In Trump this is constant and never-ending. It makes a weak man. And this needs to be talked about daily to re-parent a generation or two of lost men who never got taught it.

That's off the top of my head, and its things you can do right now. The perspective shift happens gradually, when you are able to take on their own language fully.

*Please note you don't need to argue traditional or untraditional gender roles with me, this is me speaking outside of my own internal bias. I couldn't care less about it.
 

Edited Friday at 07:51 AM by BlueOak

[Apparition of Jack]

“Three things cannot be long hidden: the sun, the moon, and the truth.” 
- The Buddha

[PurpleTree]

I feel like there was the hippie movement, it was mostly destroyed 

Occupy wallstreet destroyed 

Bernie movement as president destroyed 

 

[DocWatts]

If you're interested, I wrote an entire Substack article on how 21st century authoritarianism isn't just a political crisis - it's also an epistemic one, rooted in how we respond to uncertainty in a complex world.

Substack:

How Broken Ways Of Knowing Feed Modern Tyrants

The authoritarian bargain - from Nazism to Maoism to MAGA - is the emotional comfort of certainty without the burden of truth-seeking. It’s the epistemic version of having your cake and eating it too. Emotional validation without introspection, certainty without responsibility, belonging without accountability - what’s not to like? Too bad, then, that the cake is poisoned and the person selling it knows it. Even worse, most of the people eating it know it too, but have convinced themselves that the poison is an acceptable trade-off for the intoxicating feelings it provides.

[DocWatts]

I'd also recommend 'Nexus' by Yuval Noah Harari, which is a deep dive into human information networks. In it, he goes into why the so-called 'marketplace of ideas' - the notion that the best ideas supposedly win in the end - is dangerously naive.

Edited Friday at 12:37 PM by DocWatts

[Hardkill]

15 hours ago, DocWatts said:

I'd also recommend 'Nexus' by Yuval Noah Harari, which is a deep dive into human information networks. In it, he goes into why the so-called 'marketplace of ideas' - the notion that the best ideas supposedly win in the end - is dangerously naive.

I just read that 7provtruths substack post and it was good, but I am very worried that there's not going to be enough time to effectively enact those bottom-up strategies that the author is suggesting before it's too late.

[Leo Gura]

On 6/12/2025 at 8:40 PM, Hardkill said:

How can someone like Newsom win the presidency in this rigged media environment?

Newsom can win, that doesn't connect with rest of your question. Newsom is just a typical lib politician like Clinton or Biden or Obama.

There doesn't need to be some special truth-movement for a guy like Newsom to win. Eventually people will get sick of MAGA.

The issue is that Newsom won't solve our deep structural problems any more than Biden did.

I see no solution on the horizon for any of our structural problems, regardless of who wins. The problems are too deep for any one guy to fix it.

Edited Saturday at 05:20 AM by Leo Gura

[Deziree]

Liberal politicians will just go with the flow. They won't fix the epistemic rot. Also these problems actually go much deeper. It's how people think. A perspective shift, in this case maybe a paradigm shift takes a hell lot of time. You gotta empower people with resources. Once you have an economic collapse, it doesn't take too long for someone like Hitler to come to power. 

[RendHeaven]

"Can a Truth-Based Movement Still Win in a Captured Media & Epistemic Environment?"

Yes, and furthermore, whatever is TRUE must, by logical necessity, outlive what's false.

Untruth is bound to collapse from self-contradiction back into Truth.

BUT, with regards to the captured epistemic environment, there's no guarantee of a return to truth within your personal human lifetime.

For as long as we live, it could just be a party of devils clinging to their house of cards until the bitter end. This is the scenario I foresee.

[RendHeaven]

On 6/13/2025 at 0:40 PM, Hardkill said:

After the 2024 election, you cited social media epistemic rot, algorithms, and influencer/podcaster populism group-think as one of the two main reasons Trump won.

Don't forget that silicon valley basically purchased Trump (most explicitly, Elon; but Google and Meta and Amazon from the shadows as well)

Trump was plucked and placed onto the throne by forces beyond us. Voters are cogs with so little agency that the idea of democracy is a joke.

[DocWatts]

6 hours ago, Hardkill said:

I just read that 7provtruths substack post and it was good, but I am very worried that there's not going to be enough time to effectively enact those bottom-up strategies that the author is suggesting before it's too late.

The author is me, btw 

And you're right - what I'm suggesting in that article is a long term strategy, and on its own it's not enough.

The epistemic work needs to be done in parallel with civic participation.

In addition to the approach of epistemic attunement I outline in that article, we need to be building a broad-based civil resistance movement to hold the line against fascism - which is why I've been encouraging folks to join pro-democracy groups like Indivisible and attend the No Kings protests.

We also need to be building the infrastructure for the 2026 midterms right now. Neither assuming that Trump is going to cancel the election (ie obeying in advance), nor assuming that an election that's a year and a half away will save us. Taking the House and Senate will be vital in obstructing Trump's authoritarian takeover, but we need to be acting as citizens right now. 

That means attending protests, participating in boycotts, calling your elected officials, knocking on doors, raising money for pro-democracy organizations. Even if midterms are a blowout for the Dems, we need to put in the work right now to make sure that happens and some form of democracy survives until then.

Edited Saturday at 11:04 AM by DocWatts

[Miguel1]

I’m just gonna leave this here. And no, it’s not AI made. These are recorded before AI.

 

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, Miguel1 said:

I’m just gonna leave this here. And no, it’s not AI made. These are recorded before AI.

 

Yeah, so? Obama, the Clintons, Biden, and Bernie were all absolutely right.

I’m fully in favor of increasing legal pathways to citizenship for foreigners in our country; however, we obviously can’t have open borders. In fact, after the truly historic surge in immigration during most of Biden’s presidency—up until the last six months of his term—and the overwhelming strain that it placed on our country’s infrastructure, it’s become clear to me how important it is for the U.S. to have up-to-date, effective border security and to reasonably penalize those who cross the border illegally.

Edited Saturday at 08:43 PM by Hardkill

[nerdspeak]

16 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Newsom can win, that doesn't connect with rest of your question. Newsom is just a typical lib politician like Clinton or Biden or Obama.

There doesn't need to be some special truth-movement for a guy like Newsom to win. Eventually people will get sick of MAGA.

The issue is that Newsom won't solve our deep structural problems any more than Biden did.

I see no solution on the horizon for any of our structural problems, regardless of who wins. The problems are too deep for any one guy to fix it.

Really? I live in Belgium now and it’s the same capitalism except everyone’s basic needs are guaranteed by the state, and magically everyone is way more chill and less violent. 

I think it’s pretty simple, make healthcare and education close to free plus a guaranteed minimum income that is enough to scrape by so people can turn down bad jobs. The only difference is that restaurants and cleaners are more expensive so more people cook at home and clean their own toilets instead of hiring it out to impoverished people…

[Hardkill]

15 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

Newsom can win, that doesn't connect with rest of your question. Newsom is just a typical lib politician like Clinton or Biden or Obama.

There doesn't need to be some special truth-movement for a guy like Newsom to win. Eventually people will get sick of MAGA.

The issue is that Newsom won't solve our deep structural problems any more than Biden did.

I see no solution on the horizon for any of our structural problems, regardless of who wins. The problems are too deep for any one guy to fix it.

Thanks Leo. I see what you’re saying—that Newsom could win and might even govern more progressively than Biden. That’s encouraging to consider.

But my concern is more foundational than just whether a Democrat can win or even be more progressive.

Can a reality-based leader govern effectively in a media environment where performance, reform, and truth don’t matter as much as narrative and identity perception?

Even if Newsom wins and pushes further left than Biden, he’ll still be up against:

• A right-wing media machine that automatically discredits him no matter what he does
• A digital culture that rewards rage, tribalism, and cynicism over facts or policy outcomes
• A fractured country where 40–50% of voters live in an entirely different information universe
• Platforms that algorithmically suppress nuance and amplify outrage
• And a public that no longer believes in the system itself—only 22% of Americans say they trust the federal government to do the right thing “just about always”, according to Pew
• On top of that, trust in career politicians and the establishment is also at an all-time low, cutting across party lines

You’ve said before: “You can’t win on facts. It’s all about perception.”

So my question is:

Even if Newsom is competent and more progressive—how can he lead, persuade, or build trust in a country where perception is fully weaponized against him from day one?

And if our structural problems are too deep for any one person to fix—as you rightly pointed out—then doesn’t that make the epistemic crisis the real barrier to meaningful reform?

This isn’t about left vs right anymore. It’s about whether truth-based governance is still even possible in the age of emotional propaganda, social media brain-rot, and mass distrust.

That’s what I’m trying to figure out.

[Leo Gura]

43 minutes ago, nerdspeak said:

Really? I live in Belgium now and it’s the same capitalism except everyone’s basic needs are guaranteed by the state

Bro, Belgium isn't hijacked by the largest corporations in the world. America is. How do you propose to undo that?

The capitalism in Belgium is like a micro-penis while the capitalism in America is like a mechanically augmented elephant cock soaked in steroids going straight for your rear end.

Edited Saturday at 10:26 PM by Leo Gura

[Apparition of Jack]

27 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

Bro, Belgium isn't hijacked by the largest corporations in the world. America is. How do you propose to undo that?

The capitalism in Belgium is like a micro-penis while the capitalism in America is like a mechanically augmented elephant cock soaked in steroids going straight for your rear end.

Even augmentations fail, Leo  

[Hardkill]

4 hours ago, nerdspeak said:

Really? I live in Belgium now and it’s the same capitalism except everyone’s basic needs are guaranteed by the state, and magically everyone is way more chill and less violent. 

I think it’s pretty simple, make healthcare and education close to free plus a guaranteed minimum income that is enough to scrape by so people can turn down bad jobs. The only difference is that restaurants and cleaners are more expensive so more people cook at home and clean their own toilets instead of hiring it out to impoverished people…

Yes, technically, it is simple and doable in America. The U.S. is undoubtedly the richest and largest economy in the world and has the resources and infrastructure to make it happen. I wish we had the kind of social safety nets and regulatory systems that countries like yours have.

However, there just isn’t enough political will in America to support those changes—largely because of a number of deeply entrenched beliefs that many Americans still hold:

• Radical individualism over solidarity: America was founded on radical individualism and property rights, not social solidarity. Our “origin story” celebrates self-reliance, not the common good. These values dominated in the 1700s, the 1800s (except during the Civil War), again in the 1920s, and were revived in full force after the conservative resurgence of the late 1970s and early 1980s. Reagan’s 1980 election marked a turning point: with his exceptional charisma, he convinced Americans that Democrats had become extreme leftists trying to take away freedoms and destroy traditional values. His messaging emphasized private ownership and painted government intervention as dangerous overreach.
• Lack of a labor-based political tradition: The U.S. never had feudalism or a class-based uprising like Europe did. That means we never developed a strong labor party or a lasting socialist tradition. Instead, we’ve been left with two corporate-aligned parties. Throughout U.S. history, business and political leaders have often violently suppressed labor unions, especially during periods of heightened fear of socialism. Both major parties—especially the Democrats—have absorbed and neutralized anti-elite and working-class movements rather than championing them.
• Race as a wedge issue: America is the most racially diverse developed country in the world, and race has always been used to divide the working class. After the Civil War and into the late 1800s, many—including Republicans—believed they'd done enough for Black Americans. Helping poor people of any race was seen as a threat, because helping the underprivileged meant also helping the newly freed and severely disadvantaged Black population. The 1920s saw another wave of racial and xenophobic backlash. Public support for welfare, housing, and other social programs became deeply racialized starting in the Civil Rights era. Once Jim Crow ended, white resentment—especially in the South—surged. Nixon capitalized on that anger with the Southern Strategy, using “law and order” as a racist dog whistle. Reagan doubled down with coded language like “welfare queens,” fueling racial resentment and cementing the GOP’s shift to the right. Unlike Trump, Reagan even flipped a large number of Democrats into Republicans. Trump then took it further—weaponizing openly racist, xenophobic, and inflammatory rhetoric in ways no U.S. politician had done before.
• Money in politics: Big money dominates our political system more than in any other developed country. Campaigns are privately funded, lobbying is barely regulated, and both parties rely on wealthy donors and corporate PACs. Supreme Court decisions like Buckley v. Valeo (1976) and Citizens United v. FEC (2010) made this worse. The financialization of the economy since the 1970s has concentrated wealth and power in fewer and fewer hands.
• Cultural definitions of fairness: Americans tend to define fairness through opportunity, personal effort, and individual freedom, while many other developed countries view fairness more in terms of equity, shared outcomes, and collective responsibility. That’s why phrases like “handouts,” “personal responsibility,” and “I got mine—you get yours” are so common in American political rhetoric. Even working-class Americans often resist welfare—not because they don’t need help, but because they don’t want others “getting something for nothing.” These beliefs date back to the founding era and reappeared strongly in the 1920s under Harding, Coolidge, and Hoover. They resurfaced again under Reagan, continued into the 1990s and early 2000s, and returned in full force with the rise of the Tea Party and Trumpism in the 2010s.
• Faith in charity over public assistance: Many Americans—especially religious conservatives and moderates—believe that helping the poor should primarily come from private charity, community action, or faith-based groups, not the government. Libertarian and conservative narratives, both secular and religious, reinforce the idea that public social spending is immoral, while private charity is noble.
• Media polarization and propaganda: Since the late 1980s and early 1990s, media polarization—especially the rise of right-wing propaganda—has widened the trust gap. Millions of Americans now view any effort to expand the welfare state as “communism” or “government tyranny.” This has only gotten worse since the 2010s, with the explosion of conspiracy theories and misinformation.
• Gridlock Keeps Big Reforms from Happening: Even when there’s strong public support for ideas like universal healthcare, tuition-free public college, paid family leave, and stronger labor protections, Congress often fails to deliver due to partisan deadlock. This leads to widespread frustration and cynicism, reinforcing the belief that government can’t help you—so you’re better off fending for yourself. It feeds into the “you’re on your own” mindset that’s deeply embedded in American culture, rooted in the idea that no one else is coming. Tragically, the U.S. probably experiences the highest level of political dysfunction among developed countries. This stems largely from the institutional design of our system, which was built to restrain government power through checks and balances and separation of powers. That framework, when combined with extreme political polarization, has made effective governance incredibly difficult. The U.S. is also the only democratic country with both the filibuster and supermajority requirements in its legislature. Our winner-take-all electoral system discourages third parties, while divided government—far more common here than in parliamentary systems—often grinds progress to a halt. On top of that, gerrymandering has allowed politicians to entrench themselves in uncompetitive districts, shielding them from accountability and encouraging more extreme partisanship. Media bubbles and the rise of hyper-partisan outlets have created parallel realities, where Americans no longer share the same set of facts. And our calcified two-party system—propped up by outdated rules and private money—makes it nearly impossible for fresh political movements to gain traction or for consensus-driven leaders to rise through the ranks. Taken together, these forces create a political environment where even popular, broadly supported reforms struggle to survive—and where disillusionment with government only continues to deepen.
• Declining trust in career politicians and the political establishment: This has significantly fueled government dysfunction in the U.S. As more Americans grow cynical about traditional politics, they increasingly elect outsiders and hyper-partisan figures not for their ability to govern, but to “fight the system.” This worsens gridlock, reduces compromise, and leads to repeated crises like government shutdowns and debt ceiling standoffs. Voter disillusionment also lowers turnout, giving more influence to extremist factions and wealthy donors, while further eroding democratic accountability. As populist backlash grows—whether from the right (like Trump) or the left (like Sanders)—anger at the system often leads to deeper polarization rather than meaningful reform. At the same time, declining trust spreads to institutions like Congress, the courts, and even elections, fueling conspiracy theories and authoritarian temptations. Over time, this creates a feedback loop where dysfunction breeds more distrust, making it harder to pass reforms or maintain stable governance, especially in a system like the U.S.’s that already struggles with divided government and built-in checks.
   

So yes, America could and should adopt something closer to the European model—but the political and cultural terrain is far more hostile. Most voters still back either pro-corporate Republicans or moderate Democrats who promise change but are constrained by donors, consultants, and party infrastructure.

You’re 100% right that if we made bad jobs optional—by guaranteeing basic economic security—it would empower workers, raise wages, and make society healthier. But getting there in the U.S. feels like trying to hike uphill through centuries of cultural, racial, and corporate fog.

That said, change has happened before. We ended slavery after the Civil War. We had the Progressive Era in the early 1900s, the New Deal and the liberal golden age in the mid-1900s, the liberal economic policies under Obama, and the progressive ones under Biden. Gradually, over decades, we’ve moved toward greater economic justice. Young Americans today are more pro-union, more open to socialism, and more skeptical of capitalism than older generations.

But we’re still battling deeply embedded narratives about race, merit, and markets. And at this point, the Orwellian media environment—alongside Trumpism—is one of the main things that keeps me up at night.

Edited Sunday at 05:12 AM by Hardkill