This being a pivotal moment in world history, I think it's worth reflecting on why otherwise normal, average citizens vote the way they do -- that is to say, against their interests. I come back, over and over again, to the manipulation of attitudes, values, and beliefs.

Not a profound insight. We've always known that powerful minorities, when they cannot use a bludgeon to control what the masses do, often turn to indoctrination and propaganda of various kinds: apologetics, sophistry, appeals to emotions or prejudices, misinformation -- or otherwise sowing fear, doubt, and confusion in some way. Various religions have served this purpose for long periods of time.

The scale increases the more free and democratic a nation is. Right now, in the United States, thanks in large part to sophisticated and ubiquitous propaganda, a large minority of the population is ready to vote enthusiastically for a man who in the next four years will essentially take us over the edge of the cliff in terms of the looming environmental disaster, claiming it's a hoax. Any outside observer would wonder how this could be the case, and the answer -- I believe -- is found largely in the propaganda model.

I mentioned "otherwise normal citizens," and I believe that: they're generally friendly, peaceful, good people. People who are appropriately critical of bizarre assertions and who demand extraordinary evidence for extraordinary claims. People who want to live good lives, get a decent job, fall in love, raise families, maybe buy a house. People who see friends, have BBQs, watch sports, love TV and movies, go out to restaurants and bars, music concerts, etc. etc.

However, get them thinking and talking about politics and, for a significant fraction of those interested, what comes out is truly shocking: outlandish conspiracy theories, attempts to inappropriately undermine credible sources, denial of facts and evidence, rejection of expertise (if it contradicts their beliefs), hostility towards intellectuals, disdain for education, and complete distrust for government and media (except the ones they identify with).

I'm seeing this on "both sides," but I refuse to pretend that both sides are equally extreme. They aren't. Here the case of climate change is especially relevant. This is not an issue about abortion, guns, or immigration -- this is an issue that is settled. It's an issue that is now being seen all around us, and can be understood by anyone who can read a graph. What does the political "right" currently say about this existential threat? The leader of the party, Donald Trump, says it's a "Chinese hoax," or else says that the scientists "don't really know." But they do know, and the evidence is overwhelming.

So why would anyone deny something like this is happening, especially something so important? It would be like astronomers saying that an asteroid is coming towards Earth, and will destroy all living things in 50 or so years, and half the population of the world saying that they're completely wrong. Who should we believe? Even if the scientists were only 20% sure, wouldn't all of us start taking drastic action right now to avoid the potential catastrophe? In a rational world, I would say "Yes," of course all but the most pathologically insane people would agree to do something.

We face a very similar threat right now, and what we do, as the most powerful nation in the world, matters more than anything else. Especially by the end of this decade.

So why are so many still convinced that nothing is happening, that Donald Trump is more trustworthy than scientists, that trickle-down economics works, that even more power should be given to the corporate sector, etc?

The manufacturing of consent -- the power of propaganda. We see it now more than ever thanks to social media, which is a accelerating the spread of misinformation, and confining people to information "echo chambers" where preferred information is encouraged and anything else is algorithmically excluded.

Thus, the question is: how do we get out of this?