Menu
Posted on March 18, 2025 | 60 Comments
I’m just emerging from intensive book-writing mode. Finding Light in a Dark Age: Sharing Land, Work and Craft is slated for UK publication in mid-October and US publication in mid-November. As the days grow darker at that time of year, it’ll be a perfect opportunity to get the book, put your feet up and journey with me toward the light from these dark times.
I’m not quite out of the woods yet with the writing, so normal service on this blog may continue to be patchy for a while. Lots of interesting themes raised under my last post, so I hope to chip away at a few of those over the next few months: for example – overshoot and carrying capacity, churches and religious communities, and some of my usual stock in trades … small-scale farming, energy futures, urbanism etc. Plus a consideration of the professional-managerial or ‘symbolic capitalist’ class.
Meanwhile, a couple of questions for readers which might just help me tie up a few loose ends in the final draft of the book. First, I am trying to understand Donald Trump and his new administration. I know, I know – not exactly fresh ground to tread, and probably something that defies rational understanding. But still…
Holed up as I am here in the People’s Republic of Frome, my experience of US politics is rather second-hand, so I’d be particularly interested to hear thoughts from US-based readers about what’s going down. When Trump Mk.I came around, I possibly got a bit overly worked up about fascism and those kind of parallels. I’ve felt more chill about it this time, but maybe I got all this the wrong way around. From what I can see, the Mk.II version is looking a bit more fascisty. I’m not massively interested in discussions of fascism in a tightly definitional sense about exactly how Trump and, say, Mussolini are kinda different … although I suppose a parlour game along the lines of the similarities and differences between now and the 1920s/30s could be illuminating … but I’m interested in thoughts on authoritarianism, racism, federal-state-local political relationships, and also wider geopolitics (Canada, Greenland, Gaza, Ukraine, EU, NATO). Where is this headed?
At the same time, in the years since Trump Mk.I, I’ve lost my remaining residual faith in social democratic and mainstream left political alternatives. Mainstream centrists or progressives tend to switch off or at least dial it down when the likes of Biden or Starmer are in power. I believe this is a mistake, and that kind of politics is merely taking the more scenic route to similar outcomes. I find plausible Musa al-Gharbi’s arguments about the decline of the Dems as a party for ordinary folks and the rise of what he calls symbolic capitalism. Though the likes of Musk and Trump are also symbolic capitalists, and the Republicans are scarcely bringing tangible benefits to ordinary folks. I have my own little analysis of this kind of thing in the forthcoming book, but your thoughts are welcome here…
In other news, I came across this rather alarming report from the Institute and Faculty of Actuaries and the University of Exeter. Neither of those august bodies are noted for their hyperventilating radicalism, and yet if I’m reading the report correctly it seems to be projecting a more than 25% risk of more than 2 billion deaths by 2050 due to climate change on current trends (Figures 11 and 12). And, let’s face it, if anyone’s good at counting risks, it’s actuaries. You’d have thought this might make it into the news, but apparently there’s more important stuff going on. Any thoughts?
If you like my writing, please help me keep the blog going by donating!
Subscribe via RSS
Regarding Starmer, I don’t consider him centrist all but fairly hard right. I agree that a lot of the difference between Democrats and Republicans (or maybe Labour and Reform, over here) is a matter of whether they direct the handbasket along the high road or the low road, to mix a metaphor rather painfully. But velocity does matter in terms of the impacts.
I might consider Mark Carney some kind of centrist, but I haven’t decided; the proof of the pudding will be in the eating, I suppose. Nevertheless, I’ve ordered his 2021 book, Value(s), and intend to read it. I am carefully considering the impacts of a potential Poilievre victory on my own willingness to travel to see family in Canada. I expect that I would be able to get into Canada all right but whether I would be allowed back into the UK by an emboldened anti-immigration administration here is less guaranteed. I’m a white lady who speaks English as a first language and has a postgraduate degree in the arts, and I’m not particularly prone to persecution fantasies even if I am a bit of a doomer sometimes. If I am concerned about this stuff enough to be considering it in my travel plans, then we are in a very hostile environment indeed.
A word that might usefully describe some of what is going on in the world: oligarchy. We’re mostly still calling it capitalism but it is quite some time since we had any kind of free market, or even government that protects the freedom of markets (rather than protecting corporations from the consequences of engaging in free markets). Some of the problem seems to be that progressive politicians want to temper or mitigate against oligarchy by using market mechanisms that have been captured by oligarchs. This won’t work. I’m not sure what will work.
I’m not sure the rhetorical effect of pitting “symbolic capitalists” against “ordinary folks” isn’t just more of the same divide-and-rule nonsense that we’ve been seeing from the right for years. I like Margaret Killjoy’s advice to de-escalate all conflict that isn’t with the enemy. I’m not very good at it, myself.
In practical terms I am expecting the soup kitchen to experience increased demand and reduced availability of funding in the coming months and years. There isn’t a whole lot I can do about that, except plant more potatoes.
And echoing other comments: my queer friends in the US are very unhappy, my brown friends in the US are very unhappy, my Canadian relatives are as nervous as a long tailed cat in a room full of rocking chairs.
We lived in Connecticut in the ’80s and had a front row seat to an earlier version of Donald Trump. He is not a good person (as shown by recent court cases). His motivation is ‘what’s in it for him’. His actions can be viewed as Transactional. President Musk kept him out of jail. Russia, hmm? He has an enormous ego that needs to be fed, is greedy and ostentatious (gold bathroom fixtures, etc.). He wants too be seen as powerful, the boss. Possibly has issues around him mother.
The Democrats’ instinct is to roll over and play dead when confronted with a challenge. Otherwise, they are a business as usual party.
Hi Chris —
Jem Bendell’s take on what’s happening in the US is I think quite insightful:
https://jembendell.com/2025/03/14/its-the-imperialism-stupid-trump-tariffs-the-dollar-big-tech-eu-regs-and-cbdcs/
….essentially it boils down to power games and attempts at financial supremacy on the part of the ultra-rich and to the devil with the 99%. I would say combined with swivel-eyed millenarianism in tech bro or Christofascist variations.
I think it’s hard to dilute what’s happening over there. I must admit I broke down when I read that Trump was planning to cut down all the forests. And my US gay and trans friends are terrified. One married couple I know have already had their license legally challenged. The viciousness and spite of the MAGA regime seems to know no bounds. I think personally the most constructive thing to do is focus on re-localisation, as Jem suggests, as well as remember and preserve values like decency, truth, kindness etc.
…assuming it’s not already too late, which that report seems to be implying. But KBO, as Winston used to say…..
Thanks Chris.
Yes, I thought everyone was over-reacting to Trump #1. I also thought they were ignoring much of the evil that Biden did in the last four years, indeed his whole life.
But – it’s different this time. Somebody, and it isn’t Trump, and I doubt that it’s Musk, has figured out how to take control of the massive US Federal apparatus. And they are doing it. They already have major control of government payments. See Nathan Tankus:
https://www.crisesnotes.com/
I know people with jobs in the federal government. All of them are afraid. They have had their budgets cut. They are reqquired to submit ‘The 5 things they did this week.’ There is no consideration for whether they are doing anything of value for the public. The cuts are not arbitrary – they target regulatory and maintenance and public service agencies, in addition to Trump & Musk’s political enemies.
Nobody anywhere has even hinted at any cuts to the military budgets, where the real fraud lies. This is confirmed by my friends with military jobs. The cuts are clearly for the dual purpose of making the government unable to restrain the greedy powerful, and to immiserate the lower classes. Which includes a vast population of military veterans. The current military budget is safe, but the old soldiers are not.
I haven’t noticed much difference in my trans friends’ moods. They didn’t feel safe before, and now it’s much easier to explain why.
There are weekly street-corner protests here in our little college town. The public seems supportive. The protesters trend older and middle class. I don’t expect these protests to make any difference. They are not nearly as strong as the 2003 anti Iraq war protests. So far.
But remember, this is the US. The majority of the public is incredibly timid. There is always a subterranean rumble of violence, but rarely is it used for anything but personal selfish ends.
But I do think there is the possibility for real drama if the rift between the MAGA crowd and the Musk faction blows up, or if they shut off Social Security payments too abruptly. There are a lot of heavily armed 70 year olds here. Some of them can still walk.
DOGE .
Has found 3.2 million social security numbers allocated to people over 120 years of age how many are receiving ss is as yet unknown as is who is using those numbers illegally to obtain work .
DOGE was set up under the Obama presidency and he gave the job of running it to Joe Biden .
Perhaps I need to be more clear.
Political partisanship in the US is a distraction. There is no real ‘Left wing’ here. Both of the main parties serve (somewhat) different factions of the moneyed elite. The main differences between the Democrats and Republicans are cultural. It’s team sports, they wear different colored jerseys. There is no ‘lesser evil’ only different flavors of evil.
I don’t regard Trump as the primary problem. He is mostly a symptom of the decay of political life in the US. This decay has been going on for a long time, and the US government was fairly corrupt from the very beginning.
But Trump is also pursuing his own ends. We can’t know for sure what those ends are, or whether he will achieve more of them this time. He didn’t seem to get much of what he said he wanted last time. Though he does seem to be even more enthusiastic about the genocide in Palestine than Biden was, and much of the world seems to going along with that genocide.
But this time there are people behind Trump who know how to actually get things done. And they are doing things. The destruction of Social Security and Medicare have been on the agenda of certain powerful people for at least 80 years. Those destructive forces got a big boost by Clinton and the Bushes, but even then, nobody believed that they could actually eliminate or even privatize the entitlement programs. Now it looks like they do believe they can, and they are clearly not much interested in the opinion of the public or the courts.
DOGE is not about finding and eliminating fraud. DOGE is a means for capturing the apparatus of the Federal government by selectively restricting or voiding payments by government agencies. DOGE also issues threats to the managers and employees of certain government agencies. Some of those agencies have capitulated to DOGE. Can any of this be for a purpose other than making rich people richer?
Read the Nathan Tankus articles. The SSA keeps dead people in the system for informational reasons. The SSA knows they are dead. They don’t pay them.
I will believe that DOGE is serious about finding fraud when they go after the Pentagon. Would you like to place a bet on when that will happen?
I mean, DOGE said this, but I’m curious: why do you believe what the government tells you when it’s Trump?
There is large numbers of things going on in US politics , and as time goes on we shall see what happens , there are large numbers of NGO’s unhappy that their funds have been cut , Musk has stated that he expects one trillion tax payers dollars will be saved by 2026 ( Greenpeace is looking at bancrupsy )
The Ukraine is Europe’s problem Trump is not going to have anymore young Americans dying in a European war and may if Starmer and Macron keep beating the war drum withdraw
from NATO . NATO armies are a joke , we have more military in Texas than the whole of the rest of NATO combined . EU/ NATO has become a minor player in world power diplomacy .
Tariffs , any country that spends its wealth importing foreign goods is on the way to bancrupsy , the UK is a perfect example of how to go bancrupt , half of UK GDP comes from finance in the city of London that is the sand the castle is built on . Starmer seems to want to fight Russia yet has no steel works to make anything the military might want or need . ( pointy sticks against hypersonic missiles anyone )
Why is trump upset ? How about 263% import tariffs on American cars 112% tariffs on US whiskey and they want America to join in ?
Then there is Biden’s pardons , he pardoned near anyone involved in the pandemic ( why do you need a pardon and accept it when you have done nothing wrong ) same with his family , why give immunity to those that have done nothing wrong .
As for the clear cut trees / forests , trump has wondered why the US is clear cutting forests to feed Drax power station , of course the msm failed to report the whole conversation and cherry picked a anti trump position as usual .
I think you have it wrong way around on the fascism. They are moving fast and causing huge damage.
There are two things I think are critical. The first is that you can’t make sense of it—because it doesn’t make sense. None of the usual outcomes are the end goal—justice, prosperity, etc. Matt’s comment speaks to this.
Secondly, I have spent some time thinking about this in response to Trump’s desire to annex Canada, the howls of his shitty sycophants, and the well-meaning jokes from the coastal blue states (plus Minnesota) that they would Canada to annex them.
I am a first generation Canadian, my parents immigrated from the States a couple of years before I was born. So, all of my extended family are Americans, which gives me a more intimate insight into the US than most Canadians.
The two countries have different operating systems. We are superficially similar, and have similar racist and colonialist histories.
But in the US operating system, there are two rules:
You deserve what you get.
You need to be taught a lesson.
This is gleeful delight in causing pain. This is the leering Puritanism.
The cruelty is the point.
Canada has reacted very strongly to Trump’s tariffs—which again don’t make sense because they do not seek to achieve the usual outcomes.
And Canadians, and I hope our government, are treating the possibility of war very seriously.
Other countries are signalling as well. King Charles recently wore a Canadian uniform, and a French submarine popped up in Halifax harbour.
But if anybody has the ear of a high-placed person in a European military force, please suggest to them they starting planning to supply and train a Canadian resistance force. We may need a lot of explosives.
Anyhow. You can’t make sense of Trump’s action, unless you jump a level higher. The US is a cruel, Puritan state, and chaos always drives people to authoritarians. The powerful are trying to take it further, to totalitarianism.
Chris wrote, “…if I’m reading the report correctly it seems to be projecting a more than 25% risk of more than 2 billion deaths by 2050 due to climate change on current trends (Figures 11 and 12).”
It looks like 25% is not the risk, it’s the percentage of the global population corresponding to 2 billion people.
The estimated risk of “more than 2 billion deaths” isn’t presented so clearly. It’s in the “catastrophic” category (page 32), for the purpose of defining different categories of impacts.
The risk projection (page 28) includes “Possible to Likely risk of Severe to Decimation level societal impacts”. Using the definitions of these terms (page 32):
Possible risk — 40-60%
Likely risk — 60-90%
Severe impact — > 400 million deaths
Decimation impact — > 800 million deaths
Thus, the estimated “Possible to Likely risk of Severe to Decimation level societal impacts”, if they were referring to deaths here (I don’t know why the authors aren’t more clear), could be interpreted as:
A 40-90% risk of 400 million to >800 million deaths (but less than 2 billion deaths) with “Global warming limited to 2°C by 2050.”
However this very wide range was derived from the report via a roundabout (perhaps erroneous) way, and the authors didn’t come straight out and put a risk number on a number of deaths.
Another report from the same Institute and Faculty of Actuaries indicated that around 5 million deaths resulting from climate change were estimated for a the period 2030-2050.
“The World Health Organisation (WHO) (WHO, 2018) estimated that climate change would lead to
around 250,000 additional deaths each year between 2030 and 2050 due to factors such as
malnutrition, heat stress and malaria.”
https://vle.actuaries.org.uk/pluginfile.php/138947/mod_resource/content/3/A%20Practical%20Guide%20to%20Climate%20Change%20%20for%20Life%20actuaries%20-%20Oct%20v7a.pdf
So that paper (linked by Chris) came from actuaries and academics but didn’t give a clear estimate on risks and the likely number of deaths, which seems odd.
This paper (linked below) from the esteemed Nature family of journals, published in 2025 and co-authored by people involved in public heath and climate studies, came up with a clear estimate of around 2 million extra deaths in Europe due to climate change for the extended period 2015-2099, but this estimate is for the scenario with the lowest amount of mitigation and adaptation!
This is a far cry from the level of alarm raised by the other paper’s not-so-specific scenarios involving billions of additional deaths worldwide due to climate change.
In that same period (2015-2099), there will presumably be over 500 million deaths occurring anyway in Europe (as almost everyone alive in 2015 will be dead by 2099), which gives some perspective to the prospect of 2 million extra deaths during this period.
“Under the lowest mitigation and adaptation scenario (SSP3-7.0), we estimate a net death burden due to climate change increasing by 49.9% and cumulating 2,345,410 (95% confidence interval = 327,603 to 4,775,853) climate change-related deaths between 2015 and 2099.”
“Estimating future heat-related and cold-related mortality under climate change, demographic and adaptation scenarios in 854 European cities”
Masselot, P., Mistry, M.N., Rao, S. et al. Estimating future heat-related and cold-related mortality under climate change, demographic and adaptation scenarios in 854 European cities. Nat Med (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-024-03452-2
In other words, if there is little to no effort towards mitigation and adaptation, then the additional deaths in Europe due to climate change would be like a rounding error, less than half a percent of the total deaths (according to the estimates in that that study published by Nature Medicine).
https://notrickszone.com/2025/03/17/new-study-finds-the-post-1980s-warming-trend-has-improved-european-life-expectancy/
Another paper that has to be downloaded to read .
Basically cold kills , people live in severe heat now and get on fine .
There has recently been a debate in Canbera Australia’ parliament where some were claiming that by 2100 Canbera would be uninhabitable because of a 8 degree rise in temps , all was going well until the member for Darwin stated that Darwin was on average 9 degrees warmer than Canbera now ….
Chris, as U.S. citizen, I believe that your sense that this time around is different is absolutely correct. This time, the Trump administration came with a plan ( Project 2025), no need to appoint “normal” people into positions of authority in his administration to maintain respectability, and without the impediment of the political norms that provided guardrails during his first administration.
Between the Trump administration’s aggressive and plainly illegal claims to executive authority, the purposefully cruel treatment of refugees, trans people, and poor communities around the world, and especially the work of DOGE – run by an unappointed foreign national who now has read/write access to everyone’s personal information (including my social security number and bank account number); this one feels different.
Personally, I’ve never seen my friends so anxious, angry, and terrified. I have colleagues who have suddenly lost their careers, others who are applying for passports and packing go bags, and others who are abruptly going through spiritual crises as the future they thought was attainable turns into dust.
US politics are known for being intemperately intense (e.g. I remember people holding a funeral for democracy when George W. Bush was elected present) and I’m constantly reminding people to “see the system underneath the symptoms” – which does not change regardless who is elected President. That being said – even my most temperate friends don’t deny that it feels like this is a sea change moment – politically, socially, and environmentally.
” especially the work of DOGE – run by an unappointed foreign national ”
Canada’s new prime minister is unelected and a ex head of the UK bank of England , merchant banker and member of the Davos group , I will take Musk any day over that globalist .
Been a lurker for a while, first-time commenter. Full disclosure: I am a Brit who left the sinking ship for a life smallholding in northern Spain. I voted Labour in the last election but will not be doing so again; Starmer seems to me like a wannabe Mussolini who will fail even in his own objectives, but we shall see.
Trump’s base, as far as I can tell, are largely people who would broadly concur with a lot of what is said here. The rejection of globalism is a completely understandable move, and in the medium-long term is probably the right call. I am fortunate enough to live in a region that could, if necessary, feed itself, and certainly would do so without a second thought if it came down to it. I don’t know it many regions of the UK could say the same.
I am no booster of Trump, but I can see why many people in the USA would want to look to their own resources at this time. A sane UK government, if one could imagine such a thing, would probably do likewise. Apparently even George Monbiot is prepping now; I notice that algae aren’t amongst his top priorities…
Hi Tim, should have said – welcome & thanks for commenting
Apparently even George Monbiot is prepping now;
I don’t believe this – it sounds like internet-talk to me.
Probably this is what Tim is referring to:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/16/britain-food-supply-donald-trump-stockpile
Perhaps it stretches a point to say he’s prepping…
oh I see – thx. (Haven’t read the guardian since 2018, feel much better for it)
That recent ‘opinion’ piece from George Monbiot includes this claim:
“Precision fermentation, to give one example, could greatly enhance our protein production, radically reducing imports of both food and fertiliser.”
So George is still promoting the “food from thin air” misinformation (or disinformation?). Solar Foods’ bacterial product Solein is his example of what he calls precision fermentation. However, a recent journal article about the process for making Solein reveals just how much fertiliser, minerals, electricity, and other inputs are actually required for producing bacterial protein.
As I detailed in an earlier comment (with sources listed, linked below):
100 kg of bacterial protein requires (in addition to “thin air”):
32 kg of Ammonia+Minerals (potassium, phosphorus, etc.)
6,930 kWh of electricity (equivalent to around 22 months of the average total electricity consumption for a dwelling in the EU, according to ODYSSEE-MURE)
2,542 kg of piped freshwater supply
2,162 kg of dumped liquid waste treatment
(rounded to the nearest kg)
Soybeans, on the other hand…
100 kg of protein in soybeans requires (US farm averages):
4 kg of fertilizer (N+P+K)
93 kWh of energy (life-cycle equivalent) for all inputs, including fertilizer, herbicides, pesticides, fuels, etc.
Zero kg of piped water supply (for 90%+ of US soybean farms relying on rainfall only)
Zero kg of dumped liquid waste treatment
Free sunlight, naturally occurring onsite
Free rainfall, naturally occurring onsite
The UK could presumably produce protein in peas, too, using similar low levels of fertilizer, mineral and energy usage (much, much less than required for bacterial protein).
But the UK doesn’t produce enough electricity to start making bacterial protein, so even more imports would be required for it. “The UK is currently importing record amounts of electricity, primarily from France and Norway, to meet its energy needs as domestic production declines. In 2024, net electricity imports accounted for about 15% of the UK’s power supply, enough to power over 10 million homes” [quoted from an auto-generated result to my online search about UK electricity imports].
https://chrissmaje.com/2025/02/to-the-lifehouse/#comment-265441
Thanks for highlighting that, Steve, I missed it having quickly scanned the article. Galling, but I guess it’s the ecomodernist way: tout faith in tech fantasy, pat self on back for being smart enough to know the latest answer to global food security (if only more people believed and invested), then get online to order pancake ingredients and chickpeas from organic small farms close to where you live.
Curiously, at the end of that piece Monbiot writes “Nobody’s secure until everyone’s secure”, echoing one of the mRNA rollout era mantras ‘Nobody’s safe until everyone’s safe’ (tech as convenient saviour to get us out of a bind), and concludes – maybe after putting his back out lifting 15 kilos of (golden?) rice from his front step – “it shouldn’t have to be this way”, which speaks volumes.
Martin’s got it right!
Thanks for the comments – an informative range of thoughts.
I won’t say much more for now about the Trump administration, but I definitely learned some things and will come back to it.
Ruben, I think it was you who recommended I chill out about Trump MkI and that there would be scarier monsters in the future … like Trump MkII maybe! Anyway, thanks for your thought-provoking report.
I suppose another question presents itself to those of the ‘he’s trashing everything’ school of thought. Re Kathryn’s point about oligopoly not capitalism, I’d argue capitalism is almost always oligopolistic but occasionally manages to pass itself off as popular-inclusive. What some of you are saying is that mask has now definitively slipped. However, if it’s not fascist – i.e. a form of totalitarian popular-inclusiveness for at least a subset of the population – then it may create local spaces for people to improvise local forms of organisation and care, no? Perhaps they will have to, because they will be getting little from the federal government. What I’ve previously called a supersedure situation. Any thoughts?
On the actuaries’ report, I was secretly hoping that my remarks would elicit a response from Steve, with his keen eye for a data table – so, thanks Steve, that’s clarifying. The report does seem a bit opaque. No doubt the business of estimating future climate-related deaths is a fraught (and rather grisly) business. However, looking at direct heat-related deaths in European cities would seem to me to miss aspects of the bigger picture.
It’s the rapidity of temperature changes (which can be locally large, belying wider averages), along with extreme weather, water impacts, food system impacts, diseases, sea level rises and human conflicts plus potential tipping points which really amplify the dangers as I see it.
Moving on, yes I heard that Monbiot’s been putting some rice and tinned tomatoes by. While still advocating for bacterial powder. And bottom-up local politics. But I’ve long given up on the notion there’s any weight or seriousness to his positions.
Which in a way brings us back round to the idea of the professional-managerial class or symbolic capitalists. You can certainly take this in a right-wing divide and rule direction. Or in a somewhat orthodox Marxist ‘it’s the economy, stupid’ direction a la Rhyd Wildermuth. But I’ve come to think that the strange dynamics around the PMC is key to understanding present predicaments and the failure of progressive politics to have any significant impact. More on that anon. Probably starting with my next post.
I think there’s a difference between creating local resilience because top-down support has evaporated, and being deported or detained because of the colour of your skin or your criticism of the US government. But yes, “if it’s not fascist” this could well be a rapid pivot to a supersedure situation. I think it probably is fascist, and that’s not generally associated with a weakening or withdrawal of state power.
I also think it’s a good idea not to be too smug about what happens in the US compared to what might happen here or elsewhere. I think the oligarchs and fascists have been using the same playbook in a lot of the West and it’s mostly a matter of chance that whatever has taken root in the US is rearing its ugly head there now.
Thanks Kathryn. Certainly no intent to be smug on my part. I agree it could easily happen in Europe, and other places – already is. But that leads to some other points, namely (1) possibly a time for progressives to question whether the idea of the state and legal rights frameworks that’s dominated so much modern progressive thought are quite such the powerful tools or allies we’ve tended to think? (2) if it’s fascist and exemplary of state power, then how is this likely to play out? Not like any previous fascisms as far as I can see – I’m not seeing the same kind of class/nationalist legitimacy-building behind it, I can’t see how it builds state authority except through creating endless theatres for it to exert naked force, which will ultimately be self-defeating (3) however malign US global power has been in recent history, I’d argue that its ‘land of the free – American dream – nation of immigrants’ shtick has exerted some real countervailing force which has now gone, with big implications for diminished US global power whatever the size of its armed forces (4) as per al-Gharbi’s analysis, the extent to which Trump’s victory was enabled by minority voters (most of whom are in no danger of deportation … unless the regime turns full Nazi?) seems to me an important and under-discussed dimension … hopefully, I don’t need to stress that I’m not pushing a ‘don’t blame white folks’ narrative here, but the political sociology of elite governmental power and its support or lack thereof needs addressing I think (5) the regime’s vindictive culture war stuff is at one end of a spectrum of wider mobilisation around this among many/most mainstream political parties in the west and beyond, which again I think needs some political sociology to understand.
Anyway, hopefully we can come back to this in more detail presently.
There’s a lot here which I want to come back to — but in the meantime please accept my apologies for any implication that you’re smug about any of it, or even complacent. That comment is perhaps better directed toward some people in other circles I frequent, and I was being clumsy in both my thinking and writing.
Thanks & no worries. Yes, much more to talk about here – as and when!
Sadly an awful lot of what’s going on can be partly explained by one two-word sentence: Lying works.
In fact, lying works quite well a lot of the time.
That doesn’t mean that people who believe the lies are gullible, or that their material interests aren’t under threat, but… there were people who voted for Brexit because they really did think it would mean more money for the NHS. I have spoken to people who were relieved when Trump was elected because they thought it would lead to a peaceful resolution of the attacks on Gaza, and others who thought it would mean peace for Ukraine. (None of the Ukrainians I’ve spoken to thought that, but that is a pretty small sample.)
I think it’s difficult to respond to the political situation without also at least attempting to address the epistemological issues. But here we are.
Agreed, but I guess the questions then are things like what kind of lies work, why do they work, do they work indefinitely, and why doesn’t ‘the truth’ work?
Most lies work because people want to believe them. The truth can be more than inconvenient. It is hard to change people’s beliefs, facts don’t cut it.
With respect to lies and disinformation in the context of social media, political scientist Henry Farrell recently suggested that the crisis is more complex (and, hence, a lot harder to combat) than many of us have realized:
“We tend to think of the problem of social media as a problem of disinformation – that is, of people receiving erroneous information and being convinced that false things are in fact true. Hence, we can try to make social media better through factchecking, through educating people to see falsehoods and similar. This is, indeed, a problem, but it is not the most important one. The fundamental problem, as I see it, is not that social media misinforms individuals about what is true or untrue but that it creates publics with malformed collective understandings. That is a more subtle problem, but also a more pernicious one.”
As social animals, we do our best thinking in groups, but, for that to work, we need to have an accurate understanding of what the group actually thinks. Given that our perception of what the wider public is thinking is now mediated by technologies that masquerade as “the voice of the people” when in fact they’re the voice of “wannabe God-Emperors”, it’s all too easy to see how everything falls apart. How to put it back together, on the other hand, would appear to be a truly wicked problem.
I hope I’ve done Farrell’s argument justice. The whole piece is well worth reading:
https://www.programmablemutter.com/p/were-getting-the-social-media-crisis
The politics of outrage and fear maintain the divisions among the ruled.
I’m referring to “political speech and behavior involving efforts to provoke emotional responses — especially anger, fear and moral indignation — from the audience through the use of categorical statements, misleading or inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks and partial truths about opponents… There are no innocents here… the techniques used by the left and right are actually quite similar.”
The above quote was written back in 2011 (on government-funded media) during Obama’s first term, before the outrage manipulations really took off.
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-outrage-industry-affects-politics
I’m tired of the politics of outrage and fear. As an antidote, I’ve been closely examining claims from both sides, trying to avoid falling for the manipulations. I’m less fearful as a result.
Some potential examples of outrage manipulations which were brought up here on this page of comments:
1. Trump plans to cut down all the forests.
2. “Can the Trump Administration Arbitrarily Take Money from Anyone’s Bank Account? …Suggests Yes” — This was the most-recent headline from the linked CrisisNotes site.
[The supporting document linked in that CrisisNotes article includes some details about the Treasury clawback being from a special “treasury account” held by NYC, and apparently there were no clawback attempts for any other type of bank accounts held by NYC, not to mention “anyone’s bank account”.]
My suggestion: Beware of “categorical statements, misleading or inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks and partial truths.”
Otherwise, the justified “anger, fear, and moral indignation”, about what the oligarchs are factually doing, can get diluted or lost in a sea of similar emotional responses to the exaggerations and manipulations.
And our fears can exploited as a tool of control. COVID-19 was an eye-opener for me.
The point of the Tankus post was that the mechanism used to take money out of the NYC bank account can be used to take money from anyone’s account. Just because the NYC case is the only known incident so far doesn’t mean that it won’t be repeated. Control of the Automated Clearing House system by the DOGE boys can easily lead to bad outcomes.
Another really dangerous indication of financial trouble to come is Trump’s casually mentioning that some US bonds might not need redemption at maturity or may be unilaterally converted to 100-year bonds. When it comes to the “full faith and credit” of the US government, a president’s words matter.
So I am actively exploring moving all my financial assets out of the US. DOGE can easily find out the political leanings of everyone in the US (voter registration, public records of political donations, etc) and with their control of the Treasury and its payments systems they can, for example, just reduce social security payments to Democrats and increase them for Republicans.
But aside from the descent into totalitarianism in the US and Trump’s desire to carve up the world into three geopolitical spheres of influence, I’m pretty optimistic that his actions (particularly the tariffs) will precipitate an economic crisis and cause a big recession, perhaps even a breakdown of the global market system.
If we can just avoid war between the spheres, economic decline can only be good for the ecosphere. Civilizational collapse is inevitable, so the sooner it happens, the better. This is the silver lining in the dark cloud of the Trump regime.
Joe wrote, “The point of the Tankus post was that the mechanism used to take money out of the NYC bank account can be used to take money from anyone’s account. Just because the NYC case is the only known incident so far doesn’t mean that it won’t be repeated. Control of the Automated Clearing House system by the DOGE boys can easily lead to bad outcomes.”
Yes, that was their point. My point is that statements such as “the mechanism used to take money out of the NYC bank account can be used to take money from anyone’s account” provoke emotional responses (such as anger, fear and moral indignation) and are manipulative because they tick at least one of these boxes:
“categorical statements”
“misleading or inaccurate information”
“ad hominem attacks”
“partial truths”
I am not so worried or fearful about DOGE somehow acquiring control of the ACH and then then being able to take money from anyone’s account. The NYC clawback has some specific circumstances not applicable to “anyone’s account”, since it essentially reversed an earlier transfer from the federal government into the special treasury account. It looks like the proper procedures weren’t followed by the bank in this case, leading to the appearance that the clawback attempt actually succeeded, but it’s now in the hands of a Federal court to decide, which will affect whether it can be repeated or not.
“…doesn’t mean that it won’t be repeated.”
“… [some hypothetical] can easily lead to bad outcomes.”
These type of hypothetical statements (or thoughts) can amplify one’s fears, but at this point the actual facts aren’t convincing me to be worried about it. The outcome of the federal court case might be worrisome to me, as it won’t be so hypothetical then.
Some time around the administration of Bush the lesser, when I read the news I started muttering to myself “Berlin ‘36.” It was silly, but gave a little emotional jolt, or something. Similar to the endless, pointless arguments about the true meaning of “Fascism.”
The US in the 2020s was nothing like Germany in the 1930s. The US in the 2020s may bear a slightly greater resemblance to Germany in the 1930’s, but still we are very different.
But some of the tactics and maybe some of the goals of the current administration are quite similar.
For quite a while I have been wondering about the ‘Good Germans.’ What can I, as an individual spectator to the current politics of the US and the world do? I can stand on the street corner holding a sign and be ignored like I was in 2003, but what real action is available to me?
I’m not capable of freeing any jailed protesters, or preventing any Palestinian journalists from being killed. I know some immigrants and some people living outside ‘conservative’ norms who are increasingly nervous. I try to let them know that I’m on their side, but what real action can I take? Sign a petition? Vote? Right.
So I think about the ‘Good Germans’ some more.
But reading the stories of Jewish citizens in Germany in the 1930s, there are always those people who told themselves that it wouldn’t be that bad. That the government would never take their savings, and certainly would never truly harm their person. While other people ‘panicked’ and got out.
I’m not advocating panic. And there is nowhere to go, even if we wanted to get out. But, still.
We don’t know how effective the current administration will be at achieving their goals, whatever those goals might really be, but we should certainly believe them when they tell us who they are. Especially when they say that they don’t care what the judiciary has to say about their actions.
Eric wrote, “But reading the stories of Jewish citizens in Germany in the 1930s, there are always those people who told themselves that it wouldn’t be that bad. That the government would never take their savings, and certainly would never truly harm their person. While other people ‘panicked’ and got out. I’m not advocating panic. And there is nowhere to go, even if we wanted to get out. But, still.”
Since Eric made comparisons to Nazi Germany and the “Good Germans”, I wanted to learn more about what was going on there when people “told themselves that it wouldn’t be that bad”, as he put it.
Some quotes from the Anne Frank House website’s timeline, in chronological order, beginning at February 1933:
“The civil rights of the German people were curtailed.”
“Freedom of expression was no longer a matter of course”
“…the police could arbitrarily search houses and arrest people.”
“The political opponents of the Nazis were essentially outlawed.”
“The government banned the Communist Party.”
“By 15 March [1933], 10,000 communists had been arrested.”
“In order to house all these political prisoners, the first concentration camps were opened.”
By the time this point would be reached here (with freedom of expression curtailed, and political opponents outlawed, arrested, and put into concentration camps), I would definitely be alarmed and opposing it here (along with many millions of others, I think), perhaps even panicking, NOT telling myself that “it wouldn’t be that bad”. Our society has learned much since the 1930s.
And only after all that happened, this occurred:
“As early as 1 April 1933, the government took official action against the Jews. It announced a major boycott of Jewish products.” (Kristallnacht occurred much later, more than five years after the boycotts were announced.)
https://www.annefrank.org/en/anne-frank/go-in-depth/germany-1933-democracy-dictatorship/
So the early warning signs, to me, would include the curtailment of civil rights, including freedom of speech and the freedom to protest. Some erosion and infringements of these civil rights are occurring in the UK and EU these days, as well as in the US, and I am alarmed by it and opposed to it, regardless of which party is in power. It’s not just a hypothetical.
A major warning sign, however, would be where all political opponents are outlawed, arrested, and imprisoned. This would enable the much-feared totalitarianism to take root, but those lines haven’t been crossed in the US. Even though the “Good Germans” didn’t (or couldn’t) stop this from happening there (five years before Kristallnacht), I don’t believe the “Good Americans” would allow it to get that far here.
By the way, Eric wrote, “…the current administration… tell us who they are… say that they don’t care what the judiciary has to say about their actions.”
Does this imply that the current administration tells us they are something bad like fascists, and say they don’t care about opinions of the judicial branch (including the Supreme Court)? If so, that would seem to qualify as “categorical statements, misleading or inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks, or partial truths” which provoke emotional responses (anger, fear, moral indignation), the subject of a comment I made earlier.
Steve L
Why do you think the response to fascism would be different in the USA in the 2020s or maybe 2030s?
It feels a bit like you’re saying things aren’t that bad because if they were that bad people would be protesting, but… people voted for Trump. And some people *are* protesting, you may have noticed.
Making Communist Party membership a problem for citizens is also, of course, something where the US has a bit of a history.
@ Kathryn
“Why do you think the response to fascism would be different in the USA in the 2020s or maybe 2030s?”
Because, as I wrote, I think our society has learned much since the 1930s. There is more awareness about the dangers of fascism, and more vigilance about the potential movements in that direction. With such vigilance, some “false alarms” may happen, which I think is better than there being not enough vigilance. As I wrote in earlier comments, I do think it’s problematic when people’s fears of fascism are used to manipulate them, and keep them divided, chasing the latest “squirrel”.
As Eric put it, “Political partisanship in the US is a distraction. There is no real ‘Left wing’ here. Both of the main parties serve (somewhat) different factions of the moneyed elite. The main differences between the Democrats and Republicans are cultural. It’s team sports, they wear different colored jerseys. There is no ‘lesser evil’ only different flavors of evil.” If we choose one of these teams to support, we may overlook that team’s civil rights infringements or war mongering (for example).
“It feels a bit like you’re saying things aren’t that bad because if they were that bad people would be protesting, but… people voted for Trump. And some people *are* protesting, you may have noticed.”
That’s not what I’m saying at all. I’m saying that I don’t want the the justified “anger, fear, and moral indignation”, about what the oligarchs are factually doing, to get diluted or lost in a sea of similar emotional responses to the exaggerations and manipulations.
“Making Communist Party membership a problem for citizens is also, of course, something where the US has a bit of a history.”
When I wrote that our society has learned much since the 1930s, it obviously includes what we’ve learned since the 1950s. My point was about political opponents (of all stripes) being outlawed, arrested, and imprisoned.
Steve L:
“Does this imply that the current administration tells us they are something bad like fascists, and say they don’t care about opinions of the judicial branch (including the Supreme Court)?”
No. It merely tells us that we can’t necessarily rely on the courts to solve this kind of problem for us, because the current administration may not respond in a civil manner to “The outcome of the federal court case” which you say “might be worrisome to me, as it won’t be so hypothetical then.”
I understand your concern about: “’categorical statements, misleading or inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks, or partial truths’ which provoke emotional responses (anger, fear, moral indignation), the subject of a comment I made earlier.”
So I’m sorry if this offended. Emotional responses are usually fine with me, within certain vague limits, but it wasn’t my intention to provoke (anger, fear, moral indignation).
Eric wrote, “… we can’t necessarily rely on the courts to solve this kind of problem for us, because the current administration may not respond in a civil manner to [t]he outcome of the federal court case”
I think that way of phrasing it is a big improvement over how it was originally written, since it’s now clear that it’s hypothetical. I appreciate the clarification.
Steve L
When people are being arrested and detained for no given cause (but probably for co-writing an opinion piece) I’m not sure we are still in “it’s not that bad yet” territory. It seems pretty bad for Rumeysa Ozturk. https://apnews.com/article/tufts-student-detained-massachusetts-immigration-6c3978da98a8d0f39ab311e092ffd892
At some point if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck you have to stop calling it a swan.
I dearly hope that your nation has learned as much as you seem to think it has, because from here in the UK, with relatives in Canada, it looks like you are in very deep trouble.
Unfortunately, fascists have learned a few things since the 1930s too, and that deep trouble is by no means limited to the US. But I think that widespread confidence that Americans will be able to head off fascism, that it’s unlikely to happen there or be happening there, is part of what makes your nation vulnerable to the fascist playbook.
Good luck.
To continue with Kathryn’s point…
“At some point if it walks like a duck, swims like a duck and quacks like a duck you have to stop calling it a swan.”
…I’ll share links to a few pieces by John Ganz, the most perceptive writer on the “fascism debate” that I’ve encountered. Ganz has been arguing for years and years that fascism is a useful “framework or heuristic” for understanding and predicting Trump’s actions. His is a nuanced approach that’s informed both by the history of fascism in Europe and by the history of the modern Republican party here in the US (in fact, he recently wrote a very well-received book about the latter). First, there’s this piece from January: Welcome to Vichy America:
“If you want an analogy for the present state of America it’s perhaps not an out-and-out fascist regime, but a Vichy regime. It’s partly fascist but mostly just a reactionary and defeatist catch-all. It’s a regime born of capitulation and of defeat: of the slow and then sudden collapse of the longstanding institutions of a great democracy whose defenders turned out to be senile and unable to cope with or understand modern politics. It’s a regime of born exhaustion, nihilism, and cynicism: the loss of faith in the old verities of the republic. A regime of national humiliation pretending to be a regime of restoration of national honor. It claims to be at once a national revolution and a national restoration. It’s a hybrid regime: a coalition that includes the fascist far right, of course, but also technocratic modernizers who might have once called themselves liberals, the big industrialists, and old social conservatives. Even some disaffected socialists and leftists for whom liberalism was always the main enemy want to give it the benefit of the doubt. It’s a regime of collaboration and sympathy: the #resistance may have dominated the political style of the first Trump administration, but now, as Trump says, everyone wants to be his friend.”
Next, there’s Testing the Fascism Thesis from shortly after the election last fall in which Ganz makes some predictions that, if proven true, will demonstrate the utility of the fascism thesis for understanding Trumpism. Lastly, there’s a follow-up to that piece from early last month, Let’s Get Real, in which Ganz engages a few counter-arguments to the fascism thesis.
Kathryn wrote: “When people are being arrested and detained for no given cause (but probably for co-writing an opinion piece) I’m not sure we are still in “it’s not that bad yet” territory.”
That seems like a straw man argument. Kathryn previously wrote, “It feels a bit like you’re saying things aren’t that bad…”; and I replied, “That’s not what I’m saying at all.” I wrote about the importance of the *justified* anger, fear, and moral indignation about what is actually being done (not just some hypothetical situation). I pointed out the erosion and infringements of these civil rights actually occurring in the UK, EU, and US these days, and how “I am alarmed by it and opposed to it, regardless of which party is in power. It’s not just a hypothetical.”
Kathryn wrote: “It seems pretty bad for Rumeysa Ozturk.”
This is an example of the *non-hypothetical* erosion and infringements of civil rights which I mentioned being alarmed by and opposed to, in this case concerning the detention and revoked visa of a noncitizen who co-authored an op-ed piece. The law being invoked is reportedly “a seldom-invoked statute authorizing the secretary of state to revoke visas of noncitizens who could be considered a threat to foreign policy interests.” In response to that one incident, hundreds of protesters gathered yesterday, and a member of the US Congress got involved, along with a Federal court judge.
Kathryn wrote: “I think that widespread confidence that Americans will be able to head off fascism, that it’s unlikely to happen there or be happening there, is part of what makes your nation vulnerable to the fascist playbook.”
Widespread confidence? I’m seeing widespread vigilance to prevent it from taking root. (In response to that one incident mentioned by Kathryn, hundreds of protesters gathered and a Congressional Rep and Federal judge got involved.) I think this widespread vigilance might err on the side of over-vigilance, not confidence. This is not being “vulnerable to the fascist playbook”, it has the opposite effect.
As I wrote in earlier comments: With such vigilance, some “false alarms” may happen, which I think is better than there being not enough vigilance. I do think it’s problematic when people’s fears of fascism are used to manipulate them, and keep them divided, distracted, and less effective.
Meanwhile, the erosion of civil liberties in the UK has resulted in the United Nations becoming involved, with little to no coverage in the UK mainstream media (unlike the potentially distracting UK coverage of what the US president is doing).
Written last month by a former UK ambassador:
“The Terrorism Act is being used to criminalise peaceful criticism of western foreign policy. There can be no doubt about that at all. It also remains the case that there has not been one reference in UK mainstream media to the persecution of dissident journalists using terrorism laws.”
“United Nations Censures UK Over Abuse of Terrorism Act Against Journalists and Activists”
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2025/02/united-nations-censures-uk-over-abuse-of-terrorism-act-against-journalists-and-activists/
Steve L
I think it’s fair to say that I don’t share your confidence in the ability of the US to identify and disempower fascists and fascism.
The UK certainly has its own fascism, or at the very least authoritarianism, problem. Perhaps my lack of confidence in the US is related to having watched how events have unfolded here.
@ Ernie, thanks for more evidence of the vigilance which exists to prevent fascism from taking root in the US.
However, those linked writings about “the fascism thesis” (also called “hypothesis” or “theory” by the author, a welcome admission that he may be wrong) do seem to include examples of what could qualify as “categorical statements, misleading or inaccurate information, ad hominem attacks or partial truths.”
But there are also some appreciated clarifications, such as “None of this means Trump will necessarily succeed in his drive for power. Many correctly point out there are serious structural obstacles to consolidating power in the United States.”
There’s much coverage in the US mainstream media, and significant political opposition, related to events such as the detention and visa revocation experienced by a *noncitizen* after peaceful political criticism, mentioned earlier. This contrasts with the nonexistent mainstream media coverage, and less political opposition, in the UK related to the detention and potential criminalizing of *citizens* for peaceful political criticism (according to Craig Murray, one of the detainees, in an article linked above). I haven’t delved into how the UK government might treat *noncitizen* activists. I wonder why there seems to be less vigilance in the UK against authoritarianism there?
Some coverage in the US media about the UK situation:
https://scheerpost.com/2024/09/17/uk-using-terrorism-law-to-silence-journalists-protestors-who-commit-speech-crimes/
I’m alarmed by and opposed to such authoritarian events which actually occur in the UK as well as the US.
Kathryn wrote: “I don’t share your confidence in the ability of the US to identify and disempower fascists and fascism.”
My position is not about confidence. It’s about the necessity of ongoing vigilance, and how reactions to exaggerations, hypothetical situations, and manipulations can be distracting and counterproductive.
“If we can just avoid war between the spheres, economic decline can only be good for the ecosphere.”
There’s the rub, of course. American hegemony has often been ugly, but I fear that a multi-polar world is going to be much, much worse. Nuclear proliferation, hostile territorial acquisitions, the rampant, unchecked despoliation of weaker nations—all of these things will no doubt increase exponentially. In this vein, historian Timothy Burke argues that Trump’s threats against Canada signal a “reawakening imperialism” and that Canadians “have to plan as if the United States government is an enemy regime”. This is just one of numerous examples of the chaos and instability that the US is currently injecting into the international sphere. Political scientist Paul Musgrave offers up this very grim assessment of our current moment within the context of an already bleak substack post titled “There is No Comfort in History”:
“My operating assumption is that we are living in a time that will be remembered, regardless of who wins, as a period between World Wars. More precisely, this is an era of a dramatic reconfiguration and we are only at the beginning of it. The typical tools of those periods—population transfer, performative violence, the erasure of old sovereignties and the entrenchment of new regimes—are on offer. Fundamentally, the choices on offer are narrowing to the prospect of a new world war or the grumbling resignation of free societies to the global dominance of a combination of oligarchical capitalism and simple kleptocratic plundering. It did not have to be this way, but this is how it is.”
There’s no way to undo the shocks of the last two months. Going forward, regardless of which party is in control of the US federal government, no other nation, not even our ostensible allies, can trust that agreements, alliances, or promises will be honored. Nothing good can come of this. China and Russia will be emboldened, smaller nations who don’t already possess nuclear weapons will be strongly incentivized to acquire them, and the risk of wars small and large will increase exponentially. A lot has happened in the 55 days since the Doomsday Clock was updated to just 89 seconds to midnight, the closest it has ever been to catastrophe. I have little doubt that it will edge ever closer when it’s next updated.
I do not know why trump would want Canada or Greenland it baffles me with his bombastic attitude , with half the world wanting to enter the USA in any way possible I would have thought both Canada and Greenland would jump at the offer .
As for the minorities / rainbow , as far as I can find out there are no constitutional rights cases before US courts and no one has pointed out what rights are being infringed . The banning of ” trans” males from women’s sports to me is a no brainer , as Venus Williams statedas world champion she would loose in straight sets to any male ranking over 80 in the mens game . there is something I doubt most Europeans know about college sport in the USA , if you are amongst the best players of any sport there is money available to pay for your education in full, male or female but in the last year 90 female athletes lost their chance by losing to a trans , if that’s not mysoginy nothing is .
Now for NATO , Europe wants a seat at the table yet has no military worth the name , Europe has 500+ million people in the EU , the USA has 330 ish million people yet provides near 70% of the funding , Europe should put its hand in its pocket and provide for its own defense . there is no such thing as a free lunch .
As for Fachism the UK sends people to jail for free speech ( tommy Robinson )
, Europe canceled a election because the wrong people won and have a ” cordon sanitare ” around conservative parties ,and threatened to arrest Americans for disagreeing with their censorship , that is Fachism in action as Vice President Vance
pointed out .
Half the world does not want to move to the US, that’s delusional propaganda. But half the world would like the US to go home from the countless overseas bases.
It is funny that Trump’s so obsessed with Mexican rapists, since rapists are a main US export, via the military. Rapes committed by US servicemen are one of the flash points in local resentment.
As for Canada and Greenland—the rest of the world sees the US is a [redacted insult used by Trump] country, and does not want their quality of life to drop by joining the US.
I agree that the USA should recall its military and stop believing its the worlds police man ,at least trump stopping the money is hobbling the muck makers and shit stirers around the world toppling their own governments , Over the last 4 years the USA has had 10 million ” illegal entries” plus another 5 million ” getaways “_those that evaded border controls . 3+ million a year or put another way the population of Denmark in 2 years .
Our sheriff has said that ” tren. D agua is operating everywhere in TX , and extremely dangerous , to become a member you have to A
kill someone and B eat part of the victim , not nice people but technically asylum seekers , seeking asylum from justice in their own country .
https://gab.com/bornfree10/posts/114196205019485055
“We are going after republicans to force them to change their vote ”
The words of the democrat leader of the house , “Force ” sounds more Fachist than democratic to
me , buts that’s where we are in the USA .
https://reclaimthenet.org/the-uks-online-safety-act-is-here
Looks like I and others are going to have to be careful what we put on here so we don’t get Chris into trouble .
Regarding what the Trump phenomenon augurs with respect to the themes of your book- I see it as confirmation that there will be no centrally organized rational response to our predicament. It’s not just that the U.S. political structure is showing a marked movement toward autocratic and short term actions ( and mean spirited), the fact that it has been voted into office reflects the denial and ignorance of our true situation by the voting public.
Keeping in mind that the Democratic policy preferences would have still left us in a slightly different Wiley Coyote moment, the current path looks to be steeper and more chaotic.
It’s playing out differently in other counties, some more, and some less rationally, so your book might end up having a hard time being applicable across a wide range of audiences.
2 billion deaths- Don’t get too hung up on climate change was the agent of our doom. (I am pretty sure you don’t) it’s just one symptom of our overshoot poly crisis. Very complex interactions of all the risks, and any one might trigger cascading failure that would short circuit the assumed slow descent.
So it goes.
Whatever you may be prescribing to do in terms of a change in how people organize themselves to meet basic needs, it should be fully self driven, small and local, and I am looking forward to what lights you may have on offer. Things are pretty dark right now.
I look forward to reading the book in front of the back boiler stove this winter. I think your right, what is happening in the US and here is a state apparatus being superseded by its corporate paymasters. Whether they can hold it together in the same way using those symbolic capitalists and autocratic set of oligarchs and private militias is another question. My understanding, via Al Gharbi, is that Trump’s mandate, like Starmer’s, is a minority vote that looks big on the other side of the mirror. Ruben’s astonishing insight into the puritanical learing of the American character is certainly a great way to view the present counter elite done good but I think there are alot of people out there who didn’t want anything to do with any of it, and still don’t. So, like you, interpret that as a kind of fracturing – which is where the imaginaries of the roving bandit future (which is really a localised version of the global present) take hold. As Ben has pointed out, there are astute institutions ahead of the game that have nothing to do with states, markets or Trump and his proud boys but do represent a large section of people which offer an alternative. And as Kropotkin’s work reveals ‘mutual aid’ is also part of the default operating system of nature, and we are nature. I guess we’re about to find out if Orwellian totalitarianism actually can exist, and if so, for how long. The supersedure local agrarianism does seem possible in such vast geographies, like archipelago- like the continued existence of Palestinians in Gaza, to seem more and more possible and likely.
The best explanation I’ve heard from al Garbi is that far from the 1% being the elite rulers of the 99%, which was the uniting cry of the Occupy movement (the Great David Greaber), that it is 20% that enable and defend this gilded elite. The armies of law, banking, insurance, accounting, advertising and media that legitimate to the rest of us the bidding of they’re pay masters. If we want an explanation as to why, if we knew in the 1960s the extent of the damage a fossil fueled, industrial, centralised economy will have and still went ahead – and further, as to who scraped away the democratic oversight of governance and institutions, we need look no further. The very same people who feign to be the scientific, mature, adults in the room.
Ya might want to read this.
http://www.zerohedge.com/political/british-chat-forums-shutter-avoid-new-internet-policing-law
As I have said , I doubt I and others can post on any UK based blog from now on without getting the owner in trouble .
I suppose that depends whether the blog comments legally count as an online forum under the Online Safety Act. It’s not good legislation and it is very concerning.
Still, I don’t think Chris has too much to worry about just yet — as pornography, stalking, harassment and other illegal activity is not, in fact, the mainstay of these comments, and in any case Chris can delete comments at will. If this is a forum it’s a heavily moderated one.
Thanks very much for the lively debate and informative comments. I’m not going to say more about all this now, but certainly hope to return to it in due course.
Wrote this before reading the recent collections of comments so apologies if I repeat others but wanted to make an unique response as possible.
Let’s start with the parlor game: with several years of record drought in a row, a dust storm followed by fires has swept across the plains, the stock market is collapsing and in response the president is enacting tariffs, tuberculosis and measles outbreaks have started, and in eastern Europe a small section of a country is being is being handed over to an ascendant power for peace in our time… which century is this?
Trying to understand Trump as a person or as part of a system? As a person, mob boss who repeats whatever the last person he talked to said. Doesn’t believe in much except maybe tariffs to the chagrin of the Wall Street finance crowd.
As a system… Well the neoliberal consensus of Reagan, whereby the state went from building the (white) middle class to being just an insurer of last resort is now winding even that down, the only other target for austerity will be the military/police and at least that will be a bit funny I suppose.
I do think you may have gotten the reaction a bit backwards. First time I mostly saw Trump as an extension of typical republican talking points and made some jokes about the fascism because that’s the end point of right-wing populism. I did get pushback for insisting the Handmaid’s Tale was a documentary but I think I called that one right. It’s hard to say though because a lot of my beliefs have shifted and that was almost a decade ago now.
This time around… well the republican party I knew and campaigned for pre-Trump (sorry?) is pretty much gone. (longer story on my part but the religious zealots are still there) It’s all Trump family and loyalists now and the broad group of business interests that used to support it has been supplanted by a few billionaires. Or been put out of business due to consolidation of all industries. There’s also the fact I think Trump’s circle has realized they can do a lot more, and since no one really faced any consequences last time a lot more actors are eager to try what they can.
Gaza – will continue to be leveled to the ground, this was going to happen anyway as there’s a bipartisan consensus to keep pressure on Iran. I’m not sure what the US gains from this but both parties agree on that.
Greenland – I have no idea, I can’t really make sense of that. Even with a generous estimate of resources the cost/balance seems poor.
EU/NATO – There’s a belief (I don’t know how true) among conservatives that the EU can only have a high standard of living and welfare state because the US subsidizes its military. (As displayed in the Signal chat leaks) I expect this will be echoed by conservatives in Europe to slash welfare spending to re-arm Europe. I don’t know how that ends, but it seems lost on the conservatives that having other countries be dependent on you, and being the only arms game in town is probably a pretty efficient way to run a global empire. (Not that the US empire is a force for good, but if you’re in charge it might be worth maintaining. And to some extent just living here I depend/benefit from its continued existence)
You could watch the democrats abandon the working class in real time during the campaign if you paid attention. Harris talked about price gouging once, and then next speech (I saw) it was well, most corporations are good but there’s some bad ones maybe we can do something about. (At one point my local federal reserve branch said 25% of inflation was due to ‘increased profit margins’ so while I don’t buy the greeninflation narrative in totality there’s some merit.) Also refused to say if she’d keep Lina Khan who was going after the tech monopolies. (Though it will be funny if the Trump admin is actually the one to break up google on a whim!) And now the DNC chair is going well, there’s got to be a good billionaire who’s on our side!
The switching off I think, is really the centrists and liberals and media switching off, since hey we got the good guy in what’s to change? If you actually care about an issue I doubt you stop just because things are slightly better unless you really secure a win, but I am guessing here.
State and local, well it will get interesting. I’ve already tipped my hand on which state I’m in and so I won’t give much away by saying we’re ahead of the curve! We’re already owned by an oil oligarch. We already tried dismantling the education system and that went so well (not) we got a blue governor in a solidly red state. Her main accomplishments have been, balancing the budget and reducing taxes while having her vetoes get overridden… so inspiring stuff (not). But we already have voter ID laws, didn’t expand Medicaid, banned trans people from stuff (the legislature did that while the housing market doubled in cost effectively locking out anyone under 40 from owning a home forever), decided maybe we don’t need separation of church and state, and have otherwise implemented parts of the right’s agenda ahead of schedule. On the other hand we kept abortion rights when it went to a public vote because no one here likes it when they’re told what to do, go figure. Locally we’ve in spot now where public transportation(aka highway officials) officials can’t go to any public meeting without getting told to build bikes lanes, and I’ve waded into a planning argument with the local grumbling class to try and preserve some farmland nearby (let people build on it but bigger lots so they’ll at least have some land to use. I know that drives up cost in some ways but it’s good floodplain land it would be better not to concrete over all if it). I don’t know how well any of this goes. To me the difference between the US and UK so far is that at least here, there are still massive amounts of resources being spent, they’re being squandered on highway expansion and natural gas power plants but there are still public resources being deployed. That seems less true in the UK?
I read that figure as saying if we hit 2.0C by 2050 (which I am planning that we will) that 25% of the population will die! I don’t know if that means we stay at 8 billion instead of hitting 10 billion or if that was modelled out. That would seem to be a real red alert moment.
I’m more worried about figure 9! That would indicate the total collapse of both wheat and corn in all the world’s grasslands if AMOC shuts down!? Including climate ‘havens’ like New Zealand, Northern Europe and the Great Lakes region. That would make a 25% mortality way too low.
To clarify I don’t think the Democrats have really done much to support the working class in awhile. ACA in 2010? But was telling they couldn’t even keep up the anti-corporate rhetoric for more than a week or two.