Rebutting the Fallacious “Paradox of Tolerance”

So first, let’s define the Paradox itself. I will defer to this excerpt from Wikipedia;

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox in 1945 in The Open Society and Its EnemiesVol. 1.

…Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.


There are several fallacies involved in this argument. Before I dig into them, let’s define a couple terms.

Define Respect:

“[Respect is] an act of giving particular attention.” – Merriam Webster

Define Tolerance:

I did a great deal of research before deciding on which definition to use. If you want to read more about cross-cultural definitions of tolerance, the UN has this great 102 page document which explores that question in depth. I like Neufeld’s definition:

“[Tolerance is] recognizing and respecting other’s beliefs and practices without sharing in them”

Intolerance is logically the inverse or not to recognize and respect the beliefs and practices of others, while not sharing in them.


Let’s transpose the definitions into the original argument.

“…If we recognize and give attention even to those we disagree with who are do not recognize and give attention to those who they disagree with, and if we are not prepared to defend a society which recognizes and gives attention to those it disagrees with against the onslaught of those who do not recognize and give attention to those they disagree with, then those who do recognize and give attention to those they disagree with will be destroyed, and the recognizing and giving of attention to those we disagree with will be destroyed with them.”

This is circular logic.

The user proposes to do the very thing they accuse the other group of doing. This is an argument against cultural tolerance, not an argument to protect it.

America Was Designed For This

Recently, I heard Trump described as a stress test for the American Experiment; two and a half centuries of systems of checks and balances designed specifically to allow people to disagree without losing their right to do so.

The most fundamental precept of the American system is the idea that it is ok, even good, for people to disagree.

For example, some people believe the world is flat, that argument is absurd but it is their right to believe that. We can recognize and give attention to this issue and maybe change their minds. Giving attention and recognition to people we disagree with is literally the definition of cultural tolerance. This argument proposes to be intolerant in order to protect tolerance. That is a clear fallacy.


This argument uses the word “Intolerant” to collectively describe anyone who the user disagrees with. The only distinction between the two groups in the argument is the the refusal of acknowledgement that the enemy group is alleged to be guilty of, and that is the very thing it proposes to deny them.

This flawed argument can be used to justify any action against any group. It is dangerous and irresponsible to use this argument to justify being the very thing it pretends to oppose.


The Big Idea

My point in the conversations leading up this was that if a person who is a bigot assaults someone, their crime is assault, not bigotry. And that it is not ok for people to advocate for violence against bigots because they disagree with bigots, or because some bigots commit crimes.

The right thing to do is to be tolerant, which means to recognize that those people exist and that we do not agree with them, and to give attention to the issue and try to make sound arguments to change their minds.

The wrong thing to do is post pictures of baseball bats or memes advocating for assaulting ambiguous cartoon villains. These are our neighbors and they need our help to understand why they are wrong.

It’s worth pointing out that this argument also applies to Muslims, Mexicans, and any other group who has been demonized because of the alleged crimes of some of its members.

Anyone who commits a crime should be held accountable, but to demonize everyone in a group because of the crimes of some of its members is evil. We should not be worse when we can instead be better.

On “Othering”


Recently, I listened to an interview of Dr Zimbardo of the Stanford Prison Experiment, who has lately been studying what makes people and especially groups of people either evil or heroic under pressure. The number one thing that makes a person or group evil is what he calls “othering.” If instead of disagreeing with someone in some meaningful and articulate way, you say something about “stupid people” or “ignorant people,” you can say and do anything you want without feeling responsible. This is his number one way people become evil under pressure, but there are like 15 of them. Check it out, its a great interview…


Dream: The Participating Observer

Note: This is a very graphic dream I had shortly after leaving a terrible job at a company with a culture that condoned many terrible behaviors in a small group of its people. I awoke in the night and knew I needed to get this down before it faded away. The sun has not yet risen, but it’s hard to remember anything as vivid in the waking world as this reverie I have just experienced, much to my consternation.


I dreamed that I found myself among a group of traveling naturalists visiting a seemingly average and idyllic town in some quaint and rustic countryside.

We visited a number of local shopping centers and apartment buildings and found them all to be quite average with one notable exception. Aligned in front of each was a seething pit filled with its inhabitants. They engaged together in some local tradition which they seemed to find perfectly natural. One to the other, they vomited their excrement into each other’s mouths.

I watched as they giggled and laughed with an intense shared glee while imparting or receiving this sacrament of their union, before turning to another and imparting it once more. I mentioned before that in the dream, I was traveling with a group of naturalists who apparently knew to expect this behavior. My companions suddenly all looked like Jeremy Clarkson, and joked dryly together as they narrated the action taking place below in the pits. “And there it goes,” one companion said in a rising tone, observing a particularly enthusiastic transmission between two gleeful subjects below. “And there it’s gone,” he finished with a chuckle.

He seemed, with his joke, to take part as more than just a voyeur of the spectacle. He seemed to approve on some level, if only as a source of amusement. I could not hold back my bile any longer and turned away, collapsing on my knees to vomit on the ground. My nearest companion turned to me, “There it’s gone indeed.” He looked down at me, his eyes peering over spectacles perched on the end of his nose. He puffed out his cheeks and pursed his lips as if to ask if I was up to the challenge of observing the events.

I returned his stare and tried to look incredulous. How could I be expected to participate in observing and condoning this? How had I come to this moment with what seemed like no sign along the way?

I woke up.

I had only to ask myself once out loud to know exactly what this dream was about. It makes me more glad than ever that I refused to drink the cool aid, and chose instead to depart and find other endeavors. I think my subconscious mind wanted me to appreciate what an accomplishment it was that I steadfastly refused to give in or to approve. It’s something I hadn’t really considered until now.

Did China really teleport an object to space?

You may have seen recent stories claiming that China has teleported an object to space. I would like to take a moment to explain what actually happened.


Here is an example that may help explain what they did…

Imagine I put a cat in a box with a radioactive isotope that has a 50% chance of decaying and killing the cat. This is a quantum system. Until I open the box and determine the state of the cat as alive or dead, both outcome states of the system are true. This is called a superposition of states. At the quantum level, the cat is both alive and dead until one of the two states is observed. This example is called Schroedinger’s Cat.

Now, say my name is Wigner, and I have a friend who is helping me do this Schroedinger’s Cat experiment. We set it all up so the cat is going to be in the box for one hour, and then my friend will open the box and measure the state of the cat. But just as we set it up, I go home for the day. My friend waits an hour and opens the box to observe the state of the cat and take it out of superposition. I come back the next day and ask my friend what happened.

During the time I was away, one of two things could be true. My friend may have measured the cat as alive, or dead. My friend was in superposition JUST LIKE THE CAT. Until he tells me what happened, the state of the cat is tied to the state of my friend. OOOR, you might say, the states are entangled. So once I measure the state of my friend, I know the state of the cat.

This is what they did except with the state of a photon.

That’s not even the spooky part.

Typically within the scope of a relativistic universe like ours, nothing can travel faster than light. But that doesn’t necessarily always hold true with quantum states. Specifically, entanglements ignore this rule. The reason they are calling it teleportation is because when states are entangled, and one is measured, the entanglement function collapses instantaneously, not at the speed of light.

So even if two entangled systems are at opposite ends of the universe, collapsing one will collapse the other instantaneously without waiting for the speed of light between them. Teleportation is probably not the best word for this.

Hopefully that desn’t make any sense, because if it did it wouldn’t be quantum mechanics.

See Beyond The Disagreement

This post is not about the controversial side of this photo.

Briefly, this is one of the American President’s children sitting in his place at the 2017 G20 summit in Berlin, as though she had some legitimate role in elected government. In place of this absentee president, some random relative of his is sitting in his seat and representing America on the world stage. Many people rightly cried nepotism and decried the obvious dynastic implications of a president sending a random relative to sit in his place at a meeting of world leaders.

Ivanka Trump at the 2017 G20 Summit

Look Closer

Every table for every world leader has the same four beverages sitting on it, along with an empty glass.

  • Orange Juice
  • Apple Juice
  • Sparkling Water
  • Flat Water

Even in this polarized and divided group of people who represent disparate values and priorities; there is consensus on some fundamental detail, however trivial. It puts it into perspective that the issues we disagree about today are by no means the whole picture.

The vast majority of the developed world has a clear consensus on at least some degree of socialism. We largely agree on free-trade capitalism as a driver of globalism. We agree on some level of democracy, whether direct or indirect, and we agree on orange and apple juice.

Burning Man 2017: The Plan

Last year was my first time at Burning Man. I spent over $3k getting there, getting through it, and getting back.

This year, I plan to spend less than $1k.

My Plan

I will drive my own car and pay for an $80 vehicle pass in addition to the $425 ticket. Notice this is about half my budget.

Next, a new bike. I am unwilling to risk anything used on the playa, so I am budgeting $100 at Walmart for this. This includes accessories like lights.

Food and water will be primarily in the form of Mountain House and I am budgeting $80 for one tub of a dozen of these. Each one is 2.5 meals, so that is plenty of food for one person, but I will also be bringing a pack of Cacao Soylents at $40 and a bottle of caffeine pills at $5.

I found a brand new tent at Walmart for only $40, and I still have the sleeping pad, pillow and sleeping bag from last year, so those I am not budgeting for, but they were whatever was cheapest.

Last and most importantly are beverages. Water is cheap, and I will need one gallon per day for an even dozen. Then alcohol, lots of alcohol, or as much as I can get for around $60.

This takes me to around $900. Plenty of wiggle room while still making it to the playa on less than a third the budget of last time.

How to Start a Business For Free (With Examples)

I gave this speech for a public speaking class. It included a self-evaluation assignment which I share here;


CJ Trowbridge


Sierra College Comms 1

Scott Kirchner

Demonstration Speech Self-Evaluation Assignment

In my speech, I demonstrated how to bootstrap a business. I gave examples from my experience bootstrapping a pizza business in Chico several years ago. I felt like the speech went very well. I shared the video online and received good feedback, and my peers seemed to feel that it went well based on their reactions during the speech and afterwards. (I used a special camera to record the speech which captures the audience as well as the speaker, so I was able to review their reactions.)

When I was composing the outline for the speech and rehearsing it, I tried to make it as relatable as possible. I made sure to include at least a few concrete examples whenever I discussed abstract ideas. I find this generally lacking in most entrepreneurial literature, so I think and hope that I improved on this frustrating trend. I feel like most people can relate to this topic if it is presented properly. For these reasons, I think the content was good.

My last-minute addition of a visual aid was also a really great touch. It was more than just the visual effect, or even the smell; it was visceral. I think it really grabbed attention, and it made the value-proposition of the content become a visceral feeling for the audience. Hunger is a limbic response, a deep emotional thing. It supersedes the prefrontal cortex and the trained analytic mind. This was a major underlying theme in my speech; take the product to the people who don’t know they want it, and make them want it. I demonstrated that without even talking about it. My clincher about how the audience could take the pizza into the quad right now and quadruple the money seemed to leave them with ideas about how they could implement the ideas I had discussed. Several audience members approached me about business ideas they had and how they might bootstrap them like I did. I think this part of the speech was very effective.

In general, I would say I was not very anxious about this speech. I have had a great deal of public speaking experience from a young age, BUT a big part of what little anxiety I did have was timing. I am not used to timed speeches. To alleviate this anxiety, I decided to include several quick stories in my concrete examples for each abstraction. Then, I could expand on the stories as required to get to the correct time. I think concrete examples were a good idea, but I think the stories went too long, and this was the one development opportunity identified by the professor, who said I “Squirrelled,” (or went on tangents or rabbit trails) in his remarks at the end of the speech. This had been a deliberate and strategic effort to fill time, but obviously it distracted from the content. I will try to expand on concrete details next time, or perhaps use a story as one of the major points, rather than trying to incorporate several into sub-points. Also, I should have defined the “unfamiliar” word bootstrap as soon as I first used it.

This implies a different structure would be better. Rather than enumerating abstractions and then providing concrete examples and stories, a better strategy might be to enumerate several abstractions and provide concrete examples only, then finish up with a brief story to tie everything together. This also means timing would be harder, and I will need a better strategy for making sure the time is correct. I think doing some sort of outline for the ending-story and then selectively condensing it would be a better strategy for getting the time correct.

❤️[Podcast] Tim Ferriss Interviews Esther Perel on Maintaining Desire and Rethinking Infidelity

Tim Ferriss is in Kevin Rose’s words, “very private,” despite his very public personality and lifestyle business. We, the audience, see a very detailed and in-depth view of some parts of his life, but with things like love and relationships, he is more reserved.

I have often felt curious about that side of him, and this episode starts to pull back the veil just a bit. They have a very interesting conversation about modern relationships and the implications of too-much honesty in relationships.

Esther Perel is the daughter of two holocaust survivors who is a world-renowned therapist specializing in relationships and adultery. Fluent and working in more than half a dozen languages, she brings a culturally diverse perspective to the conversation. Her wide-ranging therapeutic experience gives her many experiences and examples to draw on. She does an excellent job of articulating and contrasting different ideas of what is normal for different cultures.

They talk about the how American culture’s “traditional” relationship model has evolved from defining monogamy as one person for life, to serial monogamy as the norm. And in both cases, clandestine adultery as a norm.

They discuss polyamory and the importance of considering the cost and burden to partners when considering whether to reveal indiscretions which they seem to argue are inevitable with our culture’s unrealistic ideas of what relationships should be like.

This was a fascinating listen which left me feeling very unsure about how I feel about many of the topics they covered.

Tim also recommends checking out her TED Talk which he describes as being, “on maintaining desire and rethinking infidelity.”

She also talks about several best-selling books she has written on this topic. This one in particular I intend to read…

I will relisten to this episode many times!


Startup 1: Securities Science

This is part of a series on Building 12 Startups in 12 Months.

This is number one: Securities.Science!

What Inspired This Project?

My first startup in the series is Securities.Science. It lets users run queries against historic stock trading data in order to test theories and strategies. All data is public and everyone can see the work that others are doing.

This started with my coworker Luke Leggio and I trying to collaborate on developing strategies for trading leveraged commodity ETFs on RobinHood. I was very frustrated with the few tools and communities that exist for this purpose.

I had tried Openfolio which has since pivoted to a totally different kind of product. At the time, they let you share your trading activity and results with others and compare to how their strategies worked out for them. The problem was that it was terribly buggy and often reported things incorrectly. I wrote to their support people several times, even offering to do the work of fixing their products for them because the problems were so obvious. (Numbers being negative instead of positive when pulled from certain APIs, etc.) Some features like search and viewing the top performers didn’t work at all. They had no interest in making their product work, so I decided to make my own as an alternative.

Securities.Science automatically pulls data from various public APIs and allow users to write SQL queries that implement securities trading strategies. Their queries will pair with simple visualization tools in order to show how each strategy works over time.

First Steps

The site is now live, and the source code is all available on Github. Anyone can sign up for free and start running queries against historic datasets.

I have included lots of different tickers including all of the leveraged commodity ETFs which I follow, along with all the top stocks millennials like according to Business Insider. Adding more is trivially easy, but I didn’t want to just add thousands of tickers because of the maintenance overhead. And because most of them are not particularly interesting.

I wrote this as a plugin for Astria, a simple web application framework I have been developing for almost a decade. The code is very simple and hopefully distilled to the minimum necessary to explain the content. Check it out!

Next Steps

There are a few next steps that jump out at me if this finds adoption.

Expanded Datasets

The page describing available data encourages the user to reach out to me if they want to see any additional data sources. Eventually, users should be able to add data sources for whatever they want with simple tools.

Content Development

Scraping and collating data is one thing, but presenting it in a format which brings in organic traffic is a separate art. Other news and data sources relating to each stock could be integrated so that users can focus on particular industries, commodities, or ETFs and get more information than just trading data.

Execution Integration

There are lots of great APIs which would allow integration with stock brokerages so that users can set up triggers for buying and selling based on their models in the app. It would be fun to add that later.

Machine Learning and Other Advanced Analytics

The first version of the product only features SQL queries for strategy development. This enables lots of interesting and basic strategies to be implemented and tested, but adding machine learning and other advanced analytics features would be another order of magnitude in capability for users.


Essay: Populism

CJ Trowbridge



English 1A Tue/Thu


What do Donald Trump, Theresa May, Marine Le Pen, Geert Wilders, and Adolph Hitler all have in common? There are lots of easy answers, but a harder one might explain the easy ones and more; populism. What is populism and what causes it? According to The Economist, populism is the idea of a political movement made up of the common people rallying together to smash some elite group (Economist).

One thing all these people had in common was mastering the art of riding a mob to power, and this strategy has found new life in recent years across the west. What causes populism? The Harvard Kennedy School’s John F Kennedy School of Government published the paper, “Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism: Economic Have-Nots and Cultural Backlash.” As its name suggests, there are two leading theories for the recent rise of populism; the “economic insecurity perspective” and the “cultural backlash perspective” (Norris). Xenophobia and the evaporation of opportunity have coalesced to cause the vitriolic miasma of isolationism and hate that have taken the reigns of contemporary political discourse.

Yesterday marked the end of the third national election in recent memory where one of the major contenders was a staunch and unrepentant populist. Just like the two who followed closely behind her, Marine Le Pen campaigned on a platform of unbridled xenophobia and on the idea that her constituents could somehow reclaim the jobs lost in the collapse of the archaic and obsolete industries of the past. Globalism, in her view, was not an empowering force driving innovation, lower prices, and expanding opportunity, but a menace to the misunderstood and delicate domestic industries which she sought to preserve. The key according to Le Pen, was not to develop new ways to compete on the global stage, but to build economic walls to shut out foreign competition and protect failing domestic industries from the dangers of competition. While she was at it, she would also need to get rid of the pesky foreigners who didn’t belong in France, and to take France out of the European Union. (Nossiter)

Following closely behind this whirlwind election, the Dutch faced a similar choice. Geert Wilders promised to build the same economic walls, kick out the same unwelcome foreigners, and bring back the same obsolete industries which could not afford to survive in the modern age in Holland. The same chords resonated with some portion of the base, which came out in xenophobic droves to vote for this savior who promised to bring back the forgotten halcyon before the European Union. (Langfitt)

Does anyone remember what the world, and especially Europe, was like in that halcyon? Adolph Hitler had risen to power on the same arguments of nationalism and economic protectionism. In fact, those terms in German are abbreviated and combined into the name of his political party, the “na-zi” or “nazi” party. He started a world war for those ideas, and took around a hundred million people with him to the grave before he was done. Don’t forget the rallying cry was the same devotion to destroying a particular group of people. This group of his enemies gradually expanded to include most of humanity, and just like Le Pen and Widers, it was baseless and random from start to finish. (Pope Francis)

The reason that all the countries in Europe decided to form the European Union was two-fold. It was partly to unify the political and cultural establishments and better arbitrate conflicts in Europe, but also to strengthen Europe’s collective economic interests and trading power on the world stage. You will notice, I am sure, that both of these are directly opposed to the ideas which drive populism. Ironically, the effect of populism is in reality contrary to its own motivations. Protectionism reduces economic opportunity, and cultural backlash can only grow and worsen. There is no normative effect in either case, least of all when they accomplish their goals. (European Union)

The biggest recent election involving populism came just before the Dutch elections, when to the astonishment of the world; Donald Trump won the American presidency. He did this despite running perhaps the most disgraceful campaign in history, with popular comments like “I can’t help it, I just grab [women] by the pussy” and who can forget, “Mexicans are rapists” (Levin). This man made the same hollow promises of bringing back coal mining jobs in a country that has moved on to building solar panels and wind farms, and getting rid of the undesirable immigrants who he frequently accused en masse of every crime under the sun. His win came as an utter shock to markets like the Dow Futures, which crashed by over a thousand points that night, and to former trading partners from France to Holland which have publically denounced him and his populist policies, despite his victory.

The arc of the world’s recent downward spiral can be argued to have started with another major vote just before the American elections, when Britain shocked the world by voting in a referendum to leave the European Union. Britain’s currency lost much of its value overnight. Instantly, everything the people need to buy became much more expensive, and their future became less certain. The idea of building economic walls and isolating themselves from their former trading partners had been the bullet which the British fired into their own feet from the gun of populism. Once again, the cause of populism had achieved its goals, and drastically worsened the position of the people as a result. Theresa May was inducted as new prime minister, effectively crowned king of the ashes of the economy and nation she had fought so hard to destroy for its own supposed good. Figure 1 shows the sudden abrupt collapse of the British currency, and its long-term decline afterwards. (Bowler)

Figure 1

In the case of each of these recent elections and the referendum in Britain, the person on the soap box at the head of the mob argued the two same flawed positions; the job market ain’t what it used to be, and it’s the fault of the people who aren’t like us. Harvard Kennedy Business School elaborates on the causes of populism within the cultural backlash perspective,

“…increased tolerance among the younger cohorts and the college educated living in Western societies for the expression of diverse forms of sexuality, LGBT rights, same-sex marriage and varied family units, and more fluid gender identities; more secular values, habits, and ethical norms; open-mindedness towards migrants, refugees, foreigners, and multicultural diversity … In affluent countries, cultures have gradually been transformed by growing support for progressive post-materialist values through successive processes of generational replacement (Norris).”

This just perfectly outlines the platforms of all of these populist candidates. They seem to say, “The world is changing and you don’t have a place in it.” All of these candidates use hatred against immigrants as fuel for their mobs, and most of them also target other minority groups that don’t fit into the traditional mold.

The second half of the fundamental driving force for populism, the economic opportunity perspective, is a bit more nuanced, and it feeds on the fear of outsiders outlined above, “…economic vulnerability is conducive to in-group solidarity, conformity to group norms, and rejection of outsiders. When threatened, groups are thought to seek strong, authoritarian leaders to protect them from what are perceived as dangerous outsiders seen as threatening jobs and benefits” (Norris). Can you see how these two major driving forces of populism coalesce and feed one another?

The basic formula is not very complicated, there are people out there who are different from us, and it is their fault that the world is not what it could be. The problem is that in every case, these ideas lead to a worse outcome than where they started. Protectionism drives up costs, and xenophobia only begets more xenophobia. Hitler started with a list of a few of what Trump might call “Bad dudes,” but he ended up putting basically all of humanity on that list. The German economy started out very strong, but he underestimated the importance of trading partners, and he wasn’t able to fight the whole world by himself. In both the cultural and economic arenas, his efforts to strengthen his position through populism led to a weaker position. In the same way, Trump’s plans to put heavy taxes on imports will hurt Americans far more than they will hurt our trading partners. If gas prices and Walmart prices and car prices go up, all the coal mining jobs in the world won’t save us from the collapse of our economic future.

Some argue that these waves of populism are just rational self-interest on behalf of the parties involved. People like Trump supporter David Duke or Marine Le Pen’s father Jean-Marie Le Pen make passionate cases for national and racial identity and the need to segregate ethnic groups by national borders in order to preserve separate identities and cultures. This argument is very widespread in populist movements, and strikes me as a poorly concealed admission of bigotry as a driving force for xenophobia.

There is perhaps a rational self-interest argument to be made for the economic opportunity perspective of wanting to limit immigration. If unemployment were high, especially among unskilled jobs, it would make more sense. But the fact is that Americans do not want to be migrant farm workers. The modern American agricultural industry would not be sustainable without exploiting immigrants who come here seeking better lives and willing to work unbelievably hard for it.

There is another argument which I have heard articulated more than once which says that these movements are really just being orchestrated by master manipulators who hold secret control over the masses. People like Donald Trump and Peter Thiel are supposed to be exerting subtle control over the world by sewing just the right amount of chaos in which to accomplish their goals. This does not seem even remotely rational to me, as a casual glance at the content of Trump’s speeches and constant stream of tweets is very challenging to see as anything other than the ramblings of insanity. It is very difficult to picture his public statements as even slightly deliberate, much less the product of some master manipulator.

The fact is that Britain today is facing a harsh and unforgiving world. The European Union has voted unanimously to make Brexit expensive and painful for Britain in order to dissuade other member states from leaving. Some early estimates say Britain may have to pay over a-hundred-billion euro for the right to leave. This combined with the loss of much of the value of their currency puts them in a terrible financial position. They will be paying for this choice for generations. Their future would have been much brighter if they had tried to work with their former trading partners to resolve differences together, rather than shooting themselves in the foot with the all-too-common mistake that is populism.




Works Cited

Bowler, Tim. How has the economy fared since the Brexit vote? Ed. 2017. 28 Mar 2017. 13 May 2017 <>.

Economist. “What is Populism?” 19th Dec 2016. The Economist. <>.

European Union. 14 May 2017. 13 May 2017 <>.

Francis, Pope. Al Jazeera. 22 Jan 2017. 13 May 2017 <>.

Langfitt, Frank. The Populist, Nativist Appeal Of Dutch Politician Geert Wilders. 8 Mar 2017. 13 May 2017 <>.

Levin, Bess. Vanity Fair. 27 Mar 2017. 13 May 2017 <>.

Norris, Ronald Inglehart and Pippa. “Trump, Brexit, and the Rise of Populism:.” August 2016. Harvard Kennedy School John F Kennedy School of Government. <>.

Nossiter, Adam. Marine Le Pen Echoes Trump’s Bleak Populism in French Campaign Kickoff. 5 Feb 2017. 13 May 2017 <>.