Technate of America – The Last Utopians

Posted on January 26, 2026 by greg

Following the crash of 1929 people looked around for a more efficient system to replace the slow movement of capital and to counter the barriers to market projects. One of the solutions that was discussed in the 1930s was a technocracy. Technocracy is a system of government or society where decision-makers are chosen for their technical expertise, such as in science or engineering, rather than political popularity, aiming to solve complex issues with data-driven, expert knowledge instead of public opinion or traditional politics. Essentially, it’s rule by experts (technocrats) who use specialized skills and objective methods for management, contrasting with democracy’s popular vote. While no modern nation is a pure technocracy (rule by technical experts), countries like Singapore, China, and historical examples like the Soviet Union show strong technocratic elements, with leaders having engineering/science backgrounds and prioritizing data-driven efficiency.

A 1930s movement proposed merging Canada, Greenland, Mexico, the US and parts of central America into a single continental unit. This group, the technology movement, proposed a vision that would get rid of waste and make North America highly productive by using technology and science. The Technocrats viewed elected politicians as incompetent. They advocated replacing them with experts in science and engineering, who would “objectively” manage resources for the benefit of society. It drew on a book called Technocracy published in 1921 by an engineer called Walter Henry Smyth, which captured new ideas about management and science. The movement’s ideological foundation was built on the belief that industrial production and distribution should be managed scientifically. Advocates argued that traditional economic systems such as capitalism and socialism were inefficient and prone to corruption, but that a scientifically planned economy could ensure abundance, stability and fairness.

The movement’s ideological foundation was built on the belief that industrial production and distribution should be managed scientifically.  The Technate was to be governed by technocratic principles, rather than by national borders and traditional political divisions.  The movement gained significant attention during the Great Depression, a period of mass unemployment and economic problems lasting from 1929 to 1939. This was a time when widespread economic failures prompted radical ideas for systemic change. Technocracy appealed to those who saw technological advancements as a potential solution to economic inefficiency and inequality. Critics feared that a government run by unelected experts would lead to a form of authoritarian rule, where decisions were made without public input or democratic oversight. In 1940, due to opposition to the Second World War, it was banned in Canada. The ban was lifted in 1943 when it was apparent that “Technocracy Inc.” was committed to the war effort, proposing a program of total conscription.”1

Over 900 pages, Project 2025 details a potential agenda for social and political reform. Participants in the project also assembled lists of thousands of conservatives to be slotted into politically appointed positions throughout the government in the opening days of a Trump administration. While Project 2025 was framed under the guise of personal responsibility and freedom, this blueprint actually supports policies that are punitive and cruel. In 2025, the Trump administration implemented significant policy changes and budget cuts that reduces support for poor individuals and families across several key areas, including housing, food assistance, Social Security, and healthcare. The administration has significantly altered federal homelessness policy, moving funds away from long-term, permanent housing solutions toward short-term, transitional housing programs that often have work and service requirements. Reducing regulations and taxes maintains support for the Trump autocracy from the 10%.

In campaign rallies in summer of 2024, Trump claimed: “Starting on day one, we will end inflation and make America affordable again, to bring down the prices of all goods.” “We will bring our auto-making industry to the record levels of 37 years ago, and we’ll be able to do it very quickly through tariffs and other smart use of certain things that we have that other countries don’t.” We will eliminate regulations that drive up housing costs with the goal of cutting the cost of a new home in half. We think we can do that.” During 2025 Trump used executive orders to drive his agenda: Trump has issued over 225 executive orders, which is the highest first-year executive order total since Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D), who issued 568 executive orders in 1933. They include: revoking previous executive orders, trade and tariffs, immigration, energy and environment, policing and criminal justice, foreign policy, health and education. Several of Trump’s orders have been considered to have ignored or violated federal laws, regulations, and the Constitution.

In 2025 Donald Trump was in the process of normalizing an American autocracy. Efforts were made to craft the illusion that his team are competent, democratic defenders of the nation – protecting it from foreign threats or internal enemies who seek to undermine its culture or steal its wealth. Trump’s tactics, while operating within the U.S. democratic system, resemble those of “informational autocrats” through attacks on the press, defiance of court rulings, and pressure on election officials and other independent institutions. An autocracy is rule by one person with absolute power (like a dictator), focused on centralized authority and control, whereas a technocracy is rule by experts (scientists, engineers) chosen for specialized knowledge, aiming for efficient, data-driven governance, often seen as a way to bypass politics but can lean towards authoritarian control, though it’s not inherently undemocratic. The key difference lies in the source of authority: autocracy’s is power, technocracy’s is expertise, but both can limit democracy, with techno-authoritarianism using tech for control.2

How did Trump get elected? In 2024, his people argued:  Politicians and commercial managers had steered technology towards war, worker exploitation, and the crash of the world economy. There has to be drastic change. This strategy allowed Republicans to control of both chambers of Congress, the House of Representatives and the Senate. Congress has been complicit in the weakening of its authority under Trump. Senate Republicans pushed through the confirmation of Trump’s cabinet nominees with little scrutiny – basically surrounding himself with yes men.  Republicans’ growing vulnerabilities on the economy represent a stark inversion on an issue that has long defined the GOP, and presents an emerging splintering in Trump’s 2024 winning coalition as his party heads into a high-stakes midterm fight. Americans agree that affordability is their top priority, and they hold Trump responsible for addressing it.

Donald Trump is carving out his own brand of capitalism — launching extraordinary federal interventions in the economy through ownership stakes in private companies alongside sweeping tariffs, tax cuts and deregulation. But the way he’s using these tools isn’t really guided by a discernible economic strategy.  During Trump’s inauguration the front row observers were the big tech operators. However, Trump has not set up a technocracy because those in charge of key departments are not engineers or scientists. Trump put yes men in place to ensure he maintained personal control of government decisions. Processes are being implemented to influence main stream media. Trump has sued various media outlets for perceived inaccuracies or biases, and has used his position as president to pressure outlets he dislikes by interfering in their business operations, launching investigations, and threatening to revoke broadcast licenses. His message: don’t believe what you read, see or hear from mainstream media.

The primary “problem of the Epstein files” is the ongoing public and political conflict over the extent and nature of the files’ release. The U.S. Justice Department has struggled to comply with a law mandating full transparency, leading to accusations of illegal redactions, missed deadlines, and a lack of transparency that has fueled conspiracy theories and political infighting. Lingering questions about how Epstein secured a lenient plea deal in 2008, and whether other co-conspirators will ever be charged continue to fuel speculation and mistrust in government institutions. The tension between transparency and protection created a complex redaction challenge – one that required sophisticated tools and careful judgment. Unfortunately, the DOJ’s implementation fell short of these requirements, leading to the failures. This includes: release of only 1% of files to date, extensive redacted sections; inconsistency in what was redacted; partial release and missing files.

AmericaFest exposed deep divisions within the conservative movement as powerful voices accuse each other of being frauds and grifters. Economic promises helped Trump get elected. Now he has an affordability problem. While the prices of some items such as gasoline have fallen on Trump’s watch, the overall cost of living has continued to climb. However, grocery and electricity prices jumped 5% in 2025. Voters say Trump isn’t doing enough, and it’s fracturing his coalition. Economic response is to turn to the tech billionaires to drive the economy in the near term. The Epstein files will not go away. Trump’s advisors have him turning to the Monroe Doctrine. The overall plan is to create a distractions from the Epstein files – which includes testing the limits of the US Constitution through adventures in Venezuela or ICE raids in streets of urban America. The 2026 mid-terms is the opportunity to begin to turn this ship around.

1  https://theconversation.com/a-1930s-movement-wanted-to-merge-the-us-canada-and-greenland-heres-why-it-has-modern-resonances-252587

2  https://www.port.ac.uk/news-events-and-blogs/blogs/academic-expertise/a-1930s-movement-wanted-to-merge-the-us-canada-and-greenland-heres-why-it-has-modern-resonances

Posted in authoritarianism | Leave a comment

A Message on Tariffs From the Past

Posted on December 10, 2025 by greg

“People react to fear, not love,” explained Richard Nixon, a scaremongering maestro whose cries for “law-and-order” were a coded message to white citizens worried about black crime. “They don’t teach that in Sunday school. But it’s true.” Populist economic policy claims to design policies for people who fear losing status in society, and those who believe they have been abandoned by the political establishment. The populist economic agenda focuses on single and salient political issues, over emphasizes negative aspects of international economic exchange and immigration, and/or blames foreigners or international institutions for economic difficulties. And no President has weaponized fear quite like Trump. He is an expert at playing to the public’s phobias. The America rendered in his speeches and tweets is a dystopian hellscape. He shapes public opinion by emphasizing dangers – both real and imaginary – that his policies purport to fix.

Ayn Rand’s philosophy of objectivism argues that the purpose of life is the pursuit of happiness, and that the purpose of government is to aid that pursuit. Laissez-faire capitalism, she argues, is the only system that truly protects individual rights. In Atlas Shrugged, Rand extends this idea to divide humanity into two groups: creators, who should be given free rein to do anything, and consumers, who should be tolerated if possible and crushed if necessary. The core of Rand’s philosophy, Objectivism – which also constitutes the overarching theme of her novels – is that unfettered self-interest is good and altruism is destructive. Ayn Rand was defined by her rage, not her advocacy of a fantasy version of capitalism. Her message of creative aspiration is laced with anger and cruelty, and endowed with idealized and moralized selfishness and greed. These beliefs support the legitimacy of unbridled capitalism of neoliberalism.

Greenspan became one of the members of Rand’s inner circle, the Ayn Rand Collective, who read Atlas Shrugged while it was being written. During the 1950s and 1960s Greenspan was a proponent of Objectivism, writing articles for Objectivist newsletters. Greenspan was nominated by President George W. Bush to serve for an unprecedented fifth term as chairman of the Federal Reserve. He was previously appointed to the post by Presidents Reagan, George H. W. Bush, and Bill Clinton. In 2000, Greenspan raised interest rates several times; these actions were believed by many to have caused the bursting of the dot-com bubble. In October 2008, Greenspan belatedly hinted that he may have finally seen the dark side of Rand. In a speech to Congress, he said he had found a “flaw” in his “ideology” of how the free market worked. He had always hewed to the Randian belief that companies left to their own devices would work in their best long-term interests.

A culture of cruelty highlights both how systemic injustices are lived and experienced, and how iniquitous relations of power turn the “American dream” into a dystopian nightmare in which millions of individuals and families are struggling to merely survive. Limiting the public’s knowledge now becomes a precondition for cruelty.  But the real-estate bubble demonstrated that many companies had actually favored massive short-term profits over long-term sustainability. In the process, they laid the groundwork for the biggest recession in sixty years. Public policy analyst Robert Reich argues that “the theme that united all of Trump’s [budget] initiatives so far is their unnecessary cruelty.” The culture of cruelty has become a primary register of the loss of democracy in the United States. Vast numbers of individuals are now considered disposable and are relegated to zones of social and moral abandonment. Then… the Tea Party emerged.

The Tea Party movement defined taxes as government-imposed costs that were unconstitutional, excessively high, and a threat to small-government principles – advocating for significantly lower taxes and a reduction in government spending to decrease the national debt and deficit. You could relabel just about anything as a tax, and heaven knows the American public hates taxes. This, at its core, was the beginning of the American Tea Party revolt against the power of the government to pay for its programs. They could recruit average citizens from a variety of ideological groups to their cause. They would work side by side with corporate-directed workers and employees, providing real boots on the ground when enough activists weren’t readily available. And no one would be the wiser – or even care – that these “grassroots” anti-tax groups would be jointly created and funded by the largest private oil company and the largest cigarette company in the world.

In the aftermath of a potentially demoralizing 2008 electoral defeat, when the Republican Party seemed widely discredited, the emergence of the Tea Party provided conservative activists with a new identity funded by Republican business elites and reinforced by a network of conservative media sources. By 2010 the Tea Party became a very influential movement in American politics. How does this affect American politics? The Tea Party movement has been absorbed by mainstream GOP. However, one candidate, Donald Trump, is superior to the others in exploiting the narcissism of small differences to recruit the Republican base. His economic policy resonates with the Tea Party adherents who have seen good jobs disappear overseas. His policy has these jobs returning to America. The Tea Party changed American political culture; increasing partisan polarization of American politics. An unfortunate consequence of the Tea Party movement that emerged in 2009 is the increased division and violence seen across America today.

 

By clinging to the superficial commonality of hostility to welfare, tea partiers fail to see (or willfully ignore) something critical: Rand espoused an elitist, oligarchic philosophy that is both anti-American and deeply at odds with the Tea Party’s own “we the people” causes. Tea Party activists in their fervor against the elites, more closely echo the motto of the Russian Bolsheviks, “the cook, if taught will efficiently govern society.” So deep is the Tea Party mistrust of the elite, over-educated Americans that the mediocre academic pedigree of political figures like President Trump and his cabinet seem to be a point of pride. Certainly, the Tea party does praise Ayn Rand-style capitalism, but it also passionately defends universal principles of liberty promulgated in the Declaration of Independence – the voice of the people does matter – restore a government of the people by the people, is a fundamental departure from Rand.

The Tea Party movement connects to Project 2025 primarily through the involvement of key individuals and organizations that emerged from or were influential in the Tea Party era. This connection is rooted in shared ideological principles, particularly fiscal conservatism, limited government, and a populist approach to policy making. The Tea Party movement advocated for reduced government spending, lower taxes, and the repeal of legislation like the Affordable Care Act. These small-government principles and a desire to “clean house” in the federal government resonate with the goals of Project 2025, which proposes a sweeping overhaul of the federal bureaucracy and the elimination of environmental and social regulations. The Heritage Foundation, the think tank leading Project 2025, launched an advocacy arm called Heritage Action in 2010 as the Tea Party was gaining traction. This arm was designed to enforce a populist, conservative agenda among Republican lawmakers, building a foundation for future, more comprehensive efforts like Project 2025.

Project 2025 provides a roadmap for conservative Presidents to downsize the federal government and fundamentally change how it works, including the tax system, immigration enforcement, social welfare programs and energy policy, particularly those designed to address climate change. Within its 900 pages was a plan to use tariffs to correct a perceived imbalance in trade, and to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. Both Trump tariffs and Project 2025 have a foundation in economic nationalism. Project 2025, as implemented, is a ruthless plan to undermine the quality of life of millions of Americans, remove critical protections and dismantle programs for communities across the nation, and prioritize special interests and ideological extremism over people. The change that Project 2025 wants to create is to enable a future anti-democratic presidential administration to take swift, far-right action that would cut wages for working people, dismantle social safety net programs, reverse decades of progress for civil rights, and redefine the way society operates.

For Ayn Rand, truth is the recognition of reality, which is discovered through reason, man’s only means of knowledge. She believed truth is absolute and objective, and that a commitment to it is a supreme moral virtue. This is a core tenet of her philosophy, Objectivism, which emphasizes that individuals must think for themselves and be honest in both thought and action to live an authentic and meaningful life. Truth is the identification of facts as they are, and it is not relative to individual opinion or preference. A proposition is either true or false based on reality, regardless of what a person believes. Believed people can evade reality through self-deception, but they cannot escape the objective consequences of their actions. Ayn Rand believed that objective truth is the reality that exists independently of human consciousness, and it can be known through reason. Objectivism posits that truth is not created by thoughts or feelings but discovered by a mind that correctly adheres to the facts of reality.

Ayn Rand was a staunch opponent of tariffs, viewing them as a form of government intervention that distorts free markets and violates individual rights. She argued that tariffs are an attack on free trade, which she saw as the essence of capitalism and a promoter of international peace. Rand believed that tariffs are a “tax” that is ultimately paid by consumers and that the justifications for them, such as protectionism for favored industries or a trade imbalance, are arbitrary and harmful. A system built over 70 years was left in tatters in less than 70 minutes by President Trump as he launched his global tariff attack. The essence of capitalism’s foreign policy is free trade – i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges – the opening of the world’s trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another. During the nineteenth century, it was free trade that liberated the world, undercutting and wrecking the remnants of feudalism and the statist tyranny of absolute monarchies.1

1 Ayn Rand, The Wreckage of the Consensus,”Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, page 226

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Response to The One Percent

Posted on November 1, 2025 by greg

According to a Congressional Budget Office report, you need at least $787,712 in income per year to make the top 1%, but this varies by where you live. As of 2023, the top 1% of American households owned 30.0% of net worth, or 30 cents of every dollar. The total net worth of the top 1% in 2023 was $43.0 trillion. Nearly 96.1 percent of the 1.2 million households in the top one percent by income were white, a total of about 1,150,000 households. We have to understand how changes in the contemporary political environment make people want to believe negative information about the opposition. In a highly polarized world, where people are divided into competing political tribes, millions of Americans admit they themselves have intentionally spread information they know to be false. If that continues, it will lead to disaster for the country’s politics and governance.

The Watergate scandal exposed a network of secret fundraising and illegal campaign donations. Laws aimed at reducing financial abuses have had little or no effect on big money’s influence on politics. After five men with ties to the Nixon campaign were arrested for breaking into the Democratic National Headquarters at the Watergate Hotel on June 17, 1972, to plant listening devices, investigations revealed that tens of millions of dollars in illegal corporation donations had fueled his victory. Nixon resigned; the donations and the attempts to cover them up led Congress to pass the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1974. But by 1988, corporate money was flowing again – to political parties, which were free to spend the donations in support of party candidates. In 2002, Congress passed the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, which outlawed donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals.1

Citizens United, a PAC, was founded in 1988 by Floyd Brown, a longtime Washington political consultant, with major funding from longtime industrialists the Koch brothers.  The group promoted corporate interests, socially conservative causes and candidates who supported their main goals of limited government and freedom of enterprise. The Watergate campaign finance scandals led to a landmark law designed to limit the influence of money in politics. Decades later, some say the scandal isn’t what’s illegal, it’s what’s legal. Many conservatives said it would make the system fairer, broadening the open market of ideas and creating a new frontier of freedom of expression in politics. Liberals, for the most part, denounced it as a threat to democracy that would cement power in the hands of the few. The 2010 ruling in Citizens United vs. Federal Election Commission certainly changed the way money influences American politics — but largely in ways that were unforeseen at the time.

January 21, 2020 will mark a decade since the Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, a controversial decision that reversed century-old campaign finance restrictions and enabled corporations and other outside groups to spend unlimited funds on elections. n the words of European autocrat Viktor Orbán, “No policy-specific debates are needed now, the alternatives in front of us are obvious…[W]e need to understand that for rebuilding the economy it is not theories that are needed but rather thirty robust lads who start working to implement what we all know needs to be done.” See! Just thirty robust lads and one far-sighted overseer and you’re on the way to a great economy. While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections, that sway has dramatically expanded since the Citizens United decision, with negative repercussions for American democracy and the fight against political corruption.

In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect. With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign.

As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party. The most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.  A Brennan Center report by Daniel I. Weiner pointed out that a very small group of Americans now wield “more power than at any time since Watergate, while many of the rest seem to be disengaging from politics.“ In its decision, the Supreme Court reasoned that unlimited spending by wealthy donors and corporations would not distort the political process, because the public would be able to see who was paying for ads and “give proper weight to different speakers and messages.” But in reality, the voters often cannot know who is actually behind campaign spending.2

“History repeats itself” is often attributed to George Santayana, his actual quote is “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it,” which conveys a similar sentiment about learning from history to avoid making past mistakes. Wealth and the media’s portrayal of it can influence cultural values, fostering materialism and consumerism and creating social stratification. While wealth has always provided power, this has increased in modern times when wealth has become a basic source of influence. “I like free speech and minimal controls,” said William Watson, an economics professor at McGill University in Montreal and a senior fellow of the market-oriented Fraser Institute, which has charitable status in both Canada and the U.S. “But there has to be a borderline to what is speech. There is always going to be a debate about this. It’s a conflict that is not going to go away.”

With increased globalization, the disparity between rich and poor has widened and more and more wealth has passed into corporate control. The logic of globalization is seductive because it is based on a simple premise – free the market of its restrictions and its self-organizing dynamics will bring employment, wealth, and prosperity. Thus, globalization supports diversity, freedom of choice and enhancement of material production. In return, the system is to provide everyone, equally, an opportunity to exercise a full range of choices. Project 2025, the 900-page policy document contained proposals for dramatic reductions in the size of federal government, expanded presidential authority, rigorous immigration enforcement, a nationwide abortion ban and other elements of an ultra-conservative social agenda. Critics argue that tax cuts for the wealthy may not be reinvested in ways that benefit the broader economy, and may instead be used for other purposes.

The term “1%” emphasizes net worth (assets minus debts) over income, as net worth captures long-term wealth accumulation rather than just a single year’s income. The growing wealth gap is a significant economic and social issue, with the top 1% accumulating wealth at a much faster rate than the bottom 99%. The term highlights issues of wealth inequality, where a small portion of the population holds a disproportionate amount of wealth.The 1% aren’t just the biggest climate wreckers, they also greatly influence how the world responds to the crisis. Some critics think that the supergiant tech corporations that have spawned so many modern billionaires operate in ways that resemble feudalism more than capitalism, and, certainly, plenty of billionaires operate like the lords of the Earth while campaigning to protect the economic inequality that made them so rich and makes so many others so poor. They use their power in arbitrary, reckless and often environmentally destructive ways.

As corporations and neolibrals gain more control over politics and society, they erode the principles and institutions of democracy and human rights. They undermine the rule of law, the separation of powers, the freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the right to education, the right to health care, and other civil liberties. They also promote authoritarianism, nationalism, populism, fascism, and other forms of extremism. Thus, social frustration, originating from socio-political and socio-economic problems, has been channeled by the populist parties, which feed and sharpen social polarization. The new populist GOP exploits discontent stemming from a perceived elites’ failure, and they find fertile ground in times of crisis. Such tendencies increase tribalism among ordinary citizens and the political establishment and originate from social resentment. Therefore, it is essential to understand the political importance of unacknowledged resentment as an explosive force in social relations.

Growing cynicism about politics is also, in part, the product of neoliberal attacks on the state, which depict governments as disconnected from real lives and bent on taking away our money and our freedoms. The past few decades have seen a systematic delegitimization of the idea that the state exists to provide collectively what we cannot provide as individuals. This leads to declining commitment from more and more people to maintaining public services, and increases inequality. Neoliberalism not only undermines the basic elements of democracy by escalating the mutually reinforcing dynamics of economic inequality and political inequality – accentuating the downward spiral of social and economic mobility – it has created conditions that make fascist ideas and principles more attractive. The rise of the populist, a close cousin of fascists, occurs in parallel as the ideas, values and institutions crucial to democracy have withered under a savage neoliberalism.3

What is the best approach to opposing the values of an economic system that subordinates persons to profit. Project 2025 depends on the right winning and keeping power. That can be stopped through high voter turnout, especially at the state and local levels. State legislatures, attorneys general, and governors can sue the federal government, refuse cooperation, and enact state-level protections (as seen with abortion rights, sanctuary cities, and marijuana laws). “No Kings” protests, are a commitment to non violent action, basically progressives pushing back against authoritarian actions of the Trump agenda. In particular, they protest antidemocratic policies, especially in light of tensions surrounding his administration’s crackdown on immigration and the president’s own statements about being a king. The “No Kings” rallies are key to countering the neoliberal governance model of the 1%.

1 https://retroreport.org/video/how-watergate-and-citizens-united-shaped-campaign-finance-law/

2 https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/citizens-united-explained

3 Henry A. Giroux (20 Aug 2018) Neoliberal Fascism and the Echoes of History https://socialistproject.ca/2018/08/neoliberal-fascism-echoes-of-history/

Posted in economic inequality, neoliberalism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Consequences of the Tea Party and the Search for Truth

Posted on October 1, 2025 by greg

Big Oil and Big Tobacco partnered with the Koch brothers to take over the GOP. Charles and David Koch were key figures, using their wealth to fund anti-regulation thinktanks and organizations like Americans for Prosperity to promote the Tea Party’s free-enterprise agenda. Their efforts were a “long and carefully cultivated project” aimed at advancing free-market principles and limiting government influence. The Tea Party movement was an American fiscally conservative political movement within the Republican Party that began in 2007, catapulted into the mainstream by Congressman Ron Paul’s presidential campaign. The Tea Party is aided by conservative media sites. The movement expanded in response to the policies of Democratic President Barack Obama and was a major factor in the 2010 wave election in which Republicans gained 63 House seats and took control of the U.S. House of Representatives.1

The Tea Party Movement has benefitted from millions of dollars from conservative foundations like Americans for Prosperity and Freedom Works. The long rise of the Tea Party movement was orchestrated, well funded, and deliberate. Its aim was to break Washington. It nearly succeeded, as America saw in the debt-ceiling debacle of 2011, prompted by the Republican Party’s demand that the president negotiate over deficit reduction in exchange for an increase in the maximum amount of money the US Treasury is allowed to borrow. There are no mistakes or accidents in the Tea Party movement. Its leadership has made certain of that. Bernard Marcus, a billionaire businessman who co-founded Home Depot, was also a major Republican donor and supported the Tea Party movement and Donald Trump’s presidential campaigns financially. Bill Montgomery, a retired businessman and Tea Party activist, is co-founder of Turning Point USA in 2012.

The Tea Party movement defined taxes as government-imposed costs that were unconstitutional, excessively high, and a threat to small-government principles, advocating for significantly lower taxes and a reduction in government spending to decrease the national debt and deficit. You could relabel just about anything as a tax, and heaven knows the American public hates taxes. This, at its core, was the beginning of the American Tea Party revolt against the power of the government to pay for its programs. They could recruit average citizens from a variety of ideological groups to their cause. They would work side by side with corporate-directed workers and employees, providing real boots on the ground when enough activists weren’t readily available. And no one would be the wiser – or even care – that these “grassroots” anti-tax groups would be jointly created and funded by the largest private oil company and the largest cigarette company in the world.2

A turning point in history is more than just an important event that happened a long time ago. It is an idea, event or action that directly, and sometimes indirectly, caused change. Bill Montgomery co-founded the conservative political organization Turning Point USA with Charlie Kirk; Montgomery became Kirk’s mentor and worked behind the scenes during the organization’s early formation. Montgomery met Kirk when he was 18 and gave him advice to not go to college and instead start an organization after a speech at Benedictine University. “I don’t know you, but you need to start an organization to reach out to young people with your message.” One month after the first meeting, the two got together and launched Turning Point. A backer of Trump during the president’s initial 2016 run, Kirk took Turning Point from one of a constellation of well-funded conservative groups to the center of the right-of-center universe.

The U.S. became an empire despite its founding principles. Key factors include westward expansion and the acquisition of territory, industrial growth, increasing global military and economic influence post-World War II, and the export of American culture and ideals. The US became a leader in industrialization, scientific advancements, and technology, including the digital revolution and space exploration. U.S. imperialism is often driven by economic motives, such as securing resources, creating markets for American goods, and the accumulation of capital. Tea Party set up the foundations for an imperial American Empire. A recent “Tea Party American Empire” critique, however, focuses on the more aggressive, nationalistic wing and presents their policies as a form of new American imperialism. The export of American media, products, and cultural norms can lead to a significant cultural footprint in other countries, which is sometimes described as cultural imperialism.

Roman society basically consisted of a handful of wealthy individuals that made up 0.6% of the population, an army that made up 0.4% of the population, and the poor masses that made up 99% of the populace. Decline of (Western) Roman Empire is attributed to a decline in civic virtue. This refers to the loss of essential qualities in citizens, such as honesty, civility, and public-mindedness, leading to negative consequences like distrust in democracy, political fragmentation, and a weakened society. Higher taxes, combined with unstable money, discouraged commercial transactions. Roman traders and their foreign partners found it difficult to plan ahead across the empire, and uncertainty swirled around governments, thus making long-term investments in Rome increasingly risky. It’s crucial to understand that the fall was not a single event but a centuries-long process of decline. Corruption, civil wars, and a succession crisis weakened the empire’s ability to function effectively.

Current major problems in the U.S. economy include high inflation, impacting consumers and leading to increased credit card delinquency and debt. Other issues include weakening job growth, a growing national debt and concerns about the federal budget, and a widening gap in income inequality. Additionally, ongoing debates about the impact of tariffs, the effects of the shift to AI-powered work, and the overall weakening consumer and production markets also contribute to economic uncertainty. Analysts say the more recent troubles in the job market are partly due to the president’s sweeping changes to tariff and immigration policy, which economists have consistently warned would hurt the economy. The picture is chaotic, with robust headline growth in the world’s largest economy, wild swings in trade, and a remarkable slowdown in the labor market. The national debt and federal budget deficit are considered major problems, raising concerns about long-term economic stability.

The global economy is facing major instability, especially due to the Trump administration’s trade policies, which have permanently disrupted free trade with the U.S. and the global trading system. The Tea Party movement has been absorbed by mainstream GOP. A system built over 70 years was left in tatters in less than 70 minutes by President Trump as he launched his global tariff attack. Trump’s tariffs could push nearly 1 million Americans into poverty, claim some. An analysis published recently by The Budget Lab at Yale finds Trump’s tariff hikes will likely increase the number of Americans living in poverty by 875,000 in 2026. This increase includes an additional 375,000 children in poverty. Tariffs and related price hikes tend to hit low-income families the hardest. Less affluent households typically spend a bigger chunk of their paychecks than high-income families on living expenses, meaning they’re more vulnerable to shifts in prices.

Trump’s attempts to expand executive power the US has slid into some form of authoritarianism. With the erosion of checks and balances, Americans are no longer living in a liberal democracy. Fear of government retribution is now spreading through society. His authoritarian moves include: investigations of his opponents, putting military on home soil, coercion of the media, universities and law firms, ignoring congress, skirting due process and the rule of law on deportations. Trump is in the process of re-writing American history – renaming parks, repositioning Confederate monuments; removing history of slavery. Nazism in Germany and Communism in USSR were predicated on the violation and despoiling of truth, on the knowledge that cynicism and weariness and fear can make people susceptible to the lies and false promises of leaders bent on unconditional power. Today’s Republicans have damaged the country’s ability to discern fact from fiction. Alternative facts can play a significant part in bringing down democracy.

In particular, the resurgence of a new wave of populism now dominates much of our public discourse in many parts of the world, eroding trust in institutions and creating a political climate in which demagoguery and relativism thrive under the guise of post-truth. For Arendt, what matters is not truth as an epistemological or ontological concept, but rather the world we build and sustain through the practice of politics. This world, shaped by our collective actions, discourse, and shared reality, is where political life unfolds and where our freedom is exercised. It is this world, rather than abstract notions of truth, that is both endangered and obscured in the age of post-truth. The Tea Party changed American political culture; increasing partisan polarization of American politics. An unfortunate consequence of the Tea Party movement that emerged in 2009 is the increased division and violence seen across America today.3

1  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tea_Party_movement

2 https://time.com/secret-origins-of-the-tea-party/

3  Journal of Philosophy of Education, qhaf046, https://doi.org/10.1093/jopedu/qhaf046

Posted in authoritarianism | Tagged , | Leave a comment

The Danger of Conspiracy Theories

Posted on September 1, 2025 by greg

QAnon emerged in October 2017 from cryptic internet postings purported to originate from a high-level US official. Drawing on almost all previous conspiracy theories, it asserts that Donald Trump is engaged in a secret war with a Satanic pedophile cabal, involving large parts of the liberal Democratic establishment and Hollywood. Soon, according to QAnon believers, “The Storm” is coming: Trump will arrest thousands of cabal members and intern them at Guantanamo Bay, while the US military will stage a coup. To a new generation of “influencers” on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, unregulated and unverified purveyors of marketing and information, it became clear that conspiracy theories make money. Politicians, too, are feeding off the myth. According to the Economist, some 72 QAnon sympathizers have sought nominations for the Republican Party in elections in 2020. Arendt observes: they share in the ideologies of both Nazi Germany and the USSR – to promote irrationalism.1

Hannah Arendt writes of entire populations who “had reached the point where they would, at the same time, believe everything and nothing, think that everything was possible and that nothing was true.” She describes the masses’ escape from reality as ‘a verdict against the world in which they are forced to live and in which they cannot exist.’ She points out that in societies riddled with elite hypocrisy, ‘it seemed revolutionary to admit cruelty, disregard of human values, and general amorality, because this at least destroyed the duplicity upon which the existing society seemed to rest.’ Toward the end of her book, The Origins of Totalitarianism, Arendt maintained that what makes a society vulnerable to takeover by authoritarians and totalitarians is loneliness. She defined loneliness as “the experience of not belonging to the world at all, which is among the most radical and desperate experiences of man (sic).”2

The basic experience underlying totalitarianism, the experience that continues today to make it likely that totalitarianism remains a constant concern, is loneliness, an alienation from political, social, and cultural life. “The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.” Arendt believed that totalitarian rulers crave complete control and use propaganda and rewriting of history to instill fear and loyalty in citizens. When you live in post truth society, you can’t do anything because if there is no truth there can be no coordination and therefore no action. Project 2025 is a plan to shatter democracy’s guardrails, giving presidents almost unlimited power to implement policies that will hurt everyday Americans and strip them of fundamental rights.

What prepares men for totalitarian domination in the non-totalitarian world is the fact that loneliness, once a borderline experience usually suffered in certain marginal social conditions like old age, has become an everyday experience of the ever-growing masses of our century. The most prevalent cause for loneliness is feeling disconnected. Many young adults spoke about being lonely because they felt unable to express themselves, their feelings or talk about their issues. They also talked about being lonely due to feeling they did not matter to others and were not understood. Challenges pertaining to social media and materialism in contemporary culture contribute to loneliness as does pressure associated with work, fitting in and social comparison. Social media play a major role in exacerbating these experiences. Cognitive discrepancy theory suggests that loneliness is a subjective, unpleasant, and distressing phenomenon stemming from a discrepancy between individuals’ desired and achieved levels of social relations.

With President Trump’s political rise in 2016, a movement emerged, entwined with Trump’s Make America Great Again (MAGA) branding. Today’s GOP is the totalitarian force it claims to oppose. The right’s intrusion into private life is exactly the characteristic of modern authoritarianism decried by 20th-century conservatives. The militant blurring of the private and public spheres is a signal characteristic of totalitarianism, as mid-century political thinkers understood it. Whatever else the Trumpian right may be, it is not at all squeamish about the politicization of private life. There’s a heightened sense on the American right that culture is the fulcrum of society and politics – “that you have to intensify the culture wars.” Trump’s own ongoing assault on the electoral structure of democracy is itself a brand of culture warfare, with sinister election workers and voting-machine makers undermining the rightful pride of place accorded to white nationalist rule in the American system.3

Arendt argues that power is communication not coercion and control: power radically differs from control, domination or violence in that it cannot be exercised over someone; it can only be exercised with others through communication and cooperation. You can’t launch a coordination from the top if you’ve got all these distracting little people exercising their thinking and voting, running around talking about pluralism.” Big money has always spoken loudly in American politics. The power elite control what you think through proxies who control information and communication, and through their lobbyists who influence what most of your politicians believe. In November 2024, America rebelled against political elites by again electing a self-proclaimed champion of the people, Donald Trump. Six months into a second mandate, it is now out in the open this government is more deeply in the pockets of lobbyists and billionaires than ever before.

Beyond appealing to the past, power also relies for its continued legitimacy on the rationally binding commitments that arise out of a process of free and undistorted communication. Because of this, power is highly independent of material factors: it is sustained not by economic, bureaucratic or military means, but by the power of common convictions that result from a process of fair and unconstrained deliberation. Power is also not something that can be relied upon at all times or accumulated and stored for future use. Rather, it exists only as a potential which is actualized when actors gather together for political action and public deliberation. It is thus closely connected to the space of appearance, that public space which arises out of the actions and speeches of individuals. Indeed, for Arendt, “power is what keeps the public realm, the potential space of appearance between acting and speaking men, in existence.”4

We do need the narratives, but the real danger is we need them even if they are not real. Applebaum gives the example of people who fall for QAnon conspiracies and their prophet Q because of their desperate need to be part of an ongoing story. They can now belong to a community in which their views are accepted and reinforced, but, even more importantly, they “have access to special and secret information that most Americans don’t have. So you’re a community that has special knowledge. You’ve been gifted with this special access to a different reality.” Authoritarians would have you think that they can do certain things better than their counterparts who have to deal with checks, balances, and public opinion. Authoritarian leaders share conspiracy theories to attack opponents, galvanize followers, shift blame, and undermine democratic institutions. Remember MAGA media’s conspiracy theories put Trump in power.

Epstein’s arrest and death became a central focus for QAnon followers, who saw them as proof of a hidden global elite engaged in child trafficking and protected by powerful institutions. The release – or withholding – of the Epstein files is often cited within QAnon movement circles as evidence of a broader cover-up by the so-called “deep state.” Over time, what started as a baseless conspiracy on obscure platforms has migrated into the mainstream. It has influenced rhetoric and policy debates, and even reshaped the American political landscape. The foundational belief of many of the QAnon followers is that Trump is a heroic figure fighting the elite pedophile ring. Die-hard members of Trump’s MAGA movement have long believed officials are hiding key truths about Epstein’s life and death. Trump is now on the defensive, struggling to close down speculation about deceptive or disproven conspiracy theories he once promoted, leading to speculation of what is actually in the Epstein files.

There has been a surge of media attention on the “loneliness plague” which the Information Age has wrought. The collapse of community perhaps explains the meteoric rise of “social” media. A recent study revealed that people who spent more time on social media were more likely to experience feelings of loneliness, especially if their motive for being on social media was to maintain contact with friends and family. The problem, of course, is that social media seems to be doing more to divide people than unite them – or in Arendt’s words, isolate humans “against each other.” In addition, loneliness may motivate people to adopt conspiracy beliefs in an attempt to gain community and a sense of social identity. Volunteering is a way out of the loneliness epidemic. Volunteering often provides a new perspective on the world. It can introduce us to new ideas, communities, and ways to be grateful for what we already have.

By increasing competition and by reducing people’s sense of connection to others, neoliberalism can increase loneliness and compromise our well-being. The exposure to neoliberal ideology increased loneliness and decreased well-being by reducing people’s sense of connection to others and by increasing perceptions of being in competition with others. Loneliness is feeding authoritarianism. To defend democracy and decency, we must build belonging. Authoritarianism is defeated by offering people a social contract that works again, so they don’t have to flee into the arms of strongmen for a sense of safety and security when societies are collapsing around them. Liberals throughout history have made this mistake again and again. In Nazi Germany, liberals didn’t offer people anything much – it was the Nazis, in fact, who promised them the world. The same was true in Soviet Russia. And unfortunately, it is happening again in America today.

1  https://www.newstatesman.com/world/2020/09/the-qanon-conspiracy-theory-is-absurd-but-dangerous-politicians-must-confront-it

2  https://www.womensordination.org/blog/2022/06/07/loneliness-and-authoritarianism/

3  https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/republican-totalitarianism/

4  https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arendt/#ActiPowe

Posted in authoritarianism, Individualism | Leave a comment

Understanding Trump’s Use of Gaslighting

Posted on August 1, 2025 by greg

Gaslighting behavior has always been present in history, to a degree. It is par for the course whenever a person or entity wants to exert as much control as possible over others. By some accounts, politicians’ lying is a rational response to the expectation that other candidates will engage in deceptive behavior. A gaslighter’s statements and accusations are often based on deliberate falsehoods and calculated marginalization. Davis and Ferrantino theorize that lying is incentivized by the lack of transferrable property rights to political office – it’s easier and faster to return a faulty used car than a faulty politician. Everything Nietzsche calls lies are ways of making something seem real which is not – including the negative case of not wanting to see something. Rather than worry about the fact that everyone lies, we should concern ourselves with the reasons why politicians lie.

One might say that dishonesty in politics is a long-standing tradition – politicians with a greater willingness to lie have a better chance of being re-elected. Plato proposed a justification for politicians’ lying in The Republic: “Then if anyone at all is to have the privilege of lying, the rulers of the State should be the persons; and they, in their dealings either with enemies or with their own citizens, may be allowed to lie for the public good.” As a detractor of democracy, he likely cared little whether the public would be able to detect such deception. While such a “royal lie” would be beneficial to philosopher kings, for actual politicians, the “public good” casts a wide net. Many politicians have clearly benefitted from telling voters what they want to hear or what they want to believe, and history is filled with examples of politicians lying to cover up crime and corruption.1

What happens when a lie hits your brain? The now-standard model was first proposed by Harvard University psychologist Daniel Gilbert more than 20 years ago. Gilbert argues that people see the world in two steps. First, even just briefly, we hold the lie as true: We must accept something in order to understand it. For instance, if someone were to tell us – hypothetically, of course – that there had been serious voter fraud in Georgia during the presidential election, we must for a fraction of a second accept that fraud did, in fact, take place. Only then do we take the second step, either completing the mental certification process (yes, fraud!) or rejecting it (what? no way). Unfortunately, while the first step is a natural part of thinking – it happens automatically and effortlessly – the second step can be easily disrupted. It takes work: We must actively choose to accept or reject each statement we hear.

In certain circumstances, that verification of a lie simply fails to take place. As Gilbert writes, human minds, “when faced with shortages of time, energy, or conclusive evidence, may fail to unaccept the ideas that they involuntarily accept during comprehension.” The narcissist gradually wears down your self-awareness and self-trust, leaving you vulnerable to their manipulations. The most common signs of cognitive dissonance include: Doubting your own memory or recollection of events, conversations, and experiences; second-guessing decisions and choices. Pathological liars can’t stop lying even when it causes psychological distress, puts them in danger, and creates problems with relationships, work, or other aspects of daily life. Those who have followed Trump’s career say his lying isn’t just a tactic, but an ingrained habit. Donald Trump has been a pathological liar all his life, and now he is finally facing some accountability via the court system.2

Cognitive-dissonance is just one of many biases that work in our everyday lives. We don’t like to believe that we may be wrong, so we may limit our intake of new information or thinking about things in ways that don’t fit within our pre-existing beliefs. Psychologists call this “confirmation bias.” People may run into problems with cognitive dissonance because it can be, in its most basic form, a sort of lie to oneself. As with all lies, it depends on the size of the lie and whether it’s more likely to hurt you in some way in the long run. We tell “little white lies” everyday in our social lives (“Oh yes, that’s a great color on you!”) that bring little harm to either side and help smooth over otherwise awkward situations. So, while cognitive dissonance resolves the internal anxiety we face over two opposing beliefs or behaviors, it may also inadvertently reinforce future bad decisions.

Lying can significantly increase the chances of creating false memories as the most persuasive lies often combine elements of both truth and falsehoods. For instance, a criminal offender may provide a false alibi for an event by including elements of a true experience that did not occur during the time in question. As a result, while the event itself may have happened, it did not take place during the time the crime was committed. This combining and later remembering of details about both the true and false versions of events requires considerable cognitive effort on the part of the liar but is necessary to maintain the deception. To decrease this cognitive load, the brain subconsciously starts to think of the fabricated information as the truth, eliminating the need for the liar to keep track of conflicting storylines (Otgaar & Baker, 2018). Thus, the creation of false memories is demonstrated as a subconscious process that decreases the cognitive load typically associated with telling a lie.3

Of course, many of Trump’s lies are conventional lies similar to those that politicians often tell to look good or avoid blame. But the number of these types of lies by Trump vastly exceed the number of lies by previous presidents. Our brains are particularly ill-equipped to deal with lies when they come not singly but in a constant stream, and Trump, we know, lies constantly, about matters as serious as the election results and as trivial as the tiles at Mar-a-Lago. When we are overwhelmed with false, or potentially false, statements, our brains pretty quickly become so overworked that we stop trying to sift through everything. It’s called cognitive load – our limited cognitive resources are overburdened. It doesn’t matter how implausible the statements are; throw out enough of them, and people will inevitably absorb some. Eventually, without quite realizing it, our brains just give up trying to figure out what is true. These efforts are key response to a culture of lying in elections.

Thus, if Trump has a particular untruth he wants to propagate – not just an undifferentiated barrage – he simply states it, over and over. As it turns out, sheer repetition of the same lie can eventually mark it as true in many of our heads. It’s an effect known as illusory truth, first discovered in the ’70s and most recently demonstrated with the rise of fake news. In its original demonstration, a group of psychologists had people rate statements as true or false on three different occasions over a two-week period. Some of the statements appeared only once, while others were repeated. The repeated statements were far more likely to be judged as true the second and third time they appeared – regardless of their actual validity. Keep repeating that there was serious voter fraud, and the idea begins to seep into people’s heads. Thus, Trump’s lies corrode democracy.

People lie to have control over you. People lie to manipulate you. People lie because they are afraid they’re desires will not be met. In 2018 Bernie Saunders called Donald Trump a “pathological liar” who “works night and day on behalf of his fellow billionaires”. Trump is a successful liar because he refuses to remember. When Trump is facing a potentially very bad news cycle his move is to: distract, divert, repeat – to move the problem out of the public eye. Lies can be used to get others to form false beliefs and garner their support. It is well known that false information can influence people’s thinking even after they come to realize the information is false. Narcissism is often intertwined with a distorted sense of reality and a reliance on false beliefs. Research suggests that narcissism is linked to a greater belief in conspiracy theories. The cure for the present epidemic of narcissism is for us to stop lying to ourselves about what we think we know.

Trump won the nomination as the candidate who lied the most, won the presidency as someone known to lie; has an unshakable base despite ongoing lies. Cognitive biases reflect mental patterns that can lead people to form beliefs or make decisions that do not reflect an objective and thorough assessment of the facts. For instance, people tend to seek out information that confirms pre-existing beliefs and reject information that challenges those beliefs. This bias is the tendency in all of us to believe stories that reinforce our convictions – and the stronger the convictions, the more powerfully the person feels the pull of the confirmation bias. The problem is exacerbated by voters’ strong incentive to be “rationally ignorant” of politics. Widespread voter ignorance also incentivizes another common type of political deception: lying about the nature of your policies in order to overstate benefits and conceal possible downsides. An ignorant electorate cannot achieve true democratic control over public policy.

Truth, much like knowledge, is bound to power and similarly operates amidst the individuals and institutions that generate and sustain it. The economic elite do not hesitate to present their ideology as interpretation of truth. The “truth” the market reveals is never in actuality some eternal, given fact. The market is never a neutral arbiter of truth, so the “truth” it reveals about government practice has always required interpretation. Nietzsche believed, one should be conscious of the illusory nature of what is considered truth, thus opening up the possibility of the creation of new values. It is necessary to create the social environment or milieu to support good governance to control cognitive dissonance and the consequent balancing of perception that leads to misperception. The truth is that capitalism creates enormous wealth, but it concentrates into oligopolies and monopolies, to the extent the economic elite creates and normalizes a culture of lying to itself leading to its inherent instability.

Fox News tells viewers they are the only reliable source of political information – re-enforcing the alt-right propaganda in social media. This opens the door to gaslighting – a form of psychological manipulation that seeks to sow seeds of doubt in a targeted individual or in members of a targeted group, making them question their own memory, perception, and sanity.  In post-truth politics social media assists political actors who mobilize voters through a crude blend of outlandish conspiracy theories and suggestive half-truths, barely concealed hate-speech, as well as outright lies. Autocrats want you to thinks everyone is lying. Consider Trump’s statement: “What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not happening.” It makes victims question their reality, becoming even more dependent on the gaslighter as the only source of true information.

Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) claimed there are no facts only interpretations. In his view there was no objective fact about what has value in itself – culture consisted of beliefs developed to perpetuate a particular power structure. The system, if followed by the majority of the people, supports the interests of the dominant class. Basically, the status of Trump’s lies determined the outcome of the 2024 election in America. To respond to this culture of lying: The tech platforms must get more aggressive about policing content; put in place robust cybersecurity and infrastructure security arm; maintain a central authority to report false and misleading information; a system to manage “rumour control” during election day to address questions on conspiracy theories circulating in the community; resources to combat false information on line (review the effect of layoffs in tech industry); counter the ongoing weaponized criticism of research on misinformation (i.e. Jim Jordan’s efforts).4

“Liberty” is the usual principle behind democracy, observes Aristotle, and what is typically meant by this is that people take turns being the ruler and being the ruled. The majority makes the decisions, and people are generally left alone to live as they please. Why do we lie? Lying allows a person to establish perceived control over a situation by manipulating it. It’s a defence mechanism that (seemingly) prevents them from being vulnerable, that is, to not open up and reveal their true self to another person. Trump adopts psychological warfare, the planned use of propaganda, threats, and other non-combat techniques to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, and behavior of any percieved enemy or other target group 5.  Truth is at the heart of liberal democracy. No amount of gaslighting should divert us from that. Liberal democracy helps in the improvement of the standard of decision-making for the sake of its people.

1  https://www.afscme.org/blog/more-white-house-gaslighting-about-project-2025-we-wont-be-fooled

2 https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/01/donald-trump-lies-liar-effect-brain-214658/

3 https://www.psychologyinaction.org/lying-can-reconstruct-memory-how-we-come-to-believe-our-own-lies/

4 https://www.npr.org/2023/11/10/1211929764/election-false-claims-social-media-cisa-trump

 5 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8378529/

Posted in Individualism, neoliberalism | Tagged | Leave a comment

A Call for Change, Alfred, Lord Tennyson (1809-1892)

Posted on July 1, 2025 by greg

Alfred Tennyson, 1st Baron Tennyson FRS was an English poet. He was the Poet Laureate during much of Queen Victoria’s reign. Lord Tennyson became the Poet Laureate in 1850, succeeding William Wordsworth after his death and after Samuel Rogers declined the position. He held the position until his death in 1892, the longest tenure of any laureate. Why is Tennyson called Lord? In 1883 Tennyson reluctantly accepted a barony offered by Prime Minister William Gladstone, and he assumed the title lord. He was the first English writer to win so high a title for his work alone. He became the most famous poet of the Victorian era, renowned for his dramatically powerful subjects and highly-wrought melodious style. Among his most celebrated works are ‘The Lady of Shalott’ (1842), ‘Ulysses’ (1842), In Memoriam A.H.H.

In 1850, with the publication of In Memoriam, Tennyson became one of Britain’s most popular poets. Tennyson wrote “In Memoriam” after he learned that his beloved friend Arthur Henry Hallam had died suddenly and unexpectedly. Hallam and Tennyson met at Cambridge in 1829. They both were members of the exclusive Cambridge Apostles, a debating society whose members over the years have included the major figures of Britain’s nineteenth and twentieth century history. After learning of Hallam’s sudden death in 1833, at the age of twenty-two years, Tennyson was overwhelmed with doubts about the meaning of life and the significance of man’s existence. He composed the short poems that comprise “In Memoriam” over the course of seventeen years (1833-1849) with no intention of weaving them together, though he ultimately published them as a single lengthy poem in 1850.

In Memoriam (Ring Out, Wild Bells) is said to have been inspired by the ‘wild bells’ of Waltham Abbey in Essex, United Kingdom. Lord Tennyson, staying in the vicinity, threw open his window on New Year’s Eve to hear the peal bells ringing out the old year and ringing in the new. For the next 17 years, Lord Tennyson composed and edited a sprawling elegy to his dear friend. In this elegy for his sister’s fiancé, who died of cerebral haemorrhage in Vienna, Tennyson wrote the line, “’Tis better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all.” Ring Out, Loud Bells was published anonymously in 1850 forms part of “In Memoriam A.H.H.” It is an active invocation to purge societal ills – greed, strife, and the feuds that divide humanity. The ringing bells become a clarion call for purity, truth, and a collective love of goodness that Tennyson yearns to see flourish in the hearts of mankind.

‘Ring Out, Wild Bells’, uses the imagery of bells ringing out the old year and ringing in the new as a metaphor for letting go of grief and negative aspects of life while embracing hope and positive change. It depicts the poet overcoming his grief and regaining his optimism to the sounds of the church bells, ringing in the new year. As such it has come to symbolize hope for the future. There is a call for Truth in this poem – a doing away once and for all with falsehood and embracing the dignity and purity of truth. The phrase, “ring out the old, ring in the new”, and twists it in order to “ring out” all the negative he sees in the world and “ring in” more positive things. It is about the new year and all the ways the world could change for the better.

In Memoriam [Ring out, Wild Bells]

Ring out, wild bells, to the wild sky,
   The flying cloud, the frosty light:
   The year is dying in the night;
Ring out, wild bells, and let him die.

Ring out the old, ring in the new,
   Ring, happy bells, across the snow:
   The year is going, let him go;
Ring out the false, ring in the true.

Ring out the grief that saps the mind
   For those that here we see no more;
   Ring out the feud of rich and poor,
Ring in redress to all mankind.

Ring out a slowly dying cause,
   And ancient forms of party strife;
   Ring in the nobler modes of life,
With sweeter manners, purer laws.

Ring out the want, the care, the sin,
   The faithless coldness of the times;
   Ring out, ring out my mournful rhymes
But ring the fuller minstrel in.

Ring out false pride in place and blood,
   The civic slander and the spite;
   Ring in the love of truth and right,
Ring in the common love of good.

Ring out old shapes of foul disease;
   Ring out the narrowing lust of gold;
   Ring out the thousand wars of old,
Ring in the thousand years of peace.

Ring in the valiant man and free,
   The larger heart, the kindlier hand;
   Ring out the darkness of the land,
Ring in the Christ that is to be.

At its core, “Ring Out, Wild Bells” is an energetic cry for human beings to dispense with destructive ideologies and beliefs that lead to destructive actions across the board, as pertains to the human experience. The poem is a discourse on new beginnings – a fresh start for mankind as a whole, and individuals in particular. A spiritual renewal must first take place within the mind of human beings.  Only then can other types of renewal take place, including the physical renewal of the earth from the destructive effects of war and other harmful events. Tennyson calls for an end to grief for those who have died. They are at rest; we who remain must move on and live. He also calls for an end to class strife, desiring rich and poor (and all classes in between) to live in harmony with one another.

The renewal that Tennyson calls for is one where the old order and way of thinking and doing things is banished for good. The poet desires an end to political strife. He wants the proper rule of law, in tandem with good manners – people treating others with respect as they all work for the common good in society. Tennyson also desires a renewal in health, both physically and in the inner man. He speaks of mankind ringing out the “old shapes of foul disease” as well as ringing out greed. The renewal he talks about will rejuvenate man, society and the earth. In the end, Tennyson knows all of the above listed here is a tall order for human beings to accomplish. Therefore, he calls on the One whom he believes will accomplish complete Renewal for mankind: Ring in the Christ that is to be.

In summary, the ringing of the wild bells represents a call for change and a call to leave behind the grief, the feud, and the want that has sapped our minds and held us back. In addition, we are called to leave behind old shapes of foul disease, the narrowing lust for gold, and the thousand wars of old and, instead, ring in the thousand years of peace. As representatives of humanity, we must work toward a better world, a world of love and kindness, a world where the valiant and free can thrive and where the darkness is replaced by the Christ that is to be. However, 19th-century Evangelicalism required belief in literal interpretations of The Holy Bible against the theory of human evolution; thus, in Canto CXXIX, Tennyson alludes to “the truths that never can be proved” – the Victorian belief that reason and intellect would reconcile science with religion.1

Trump’s election has become a dark night for America’s soul as he turns the United States into an authoritarian regime. The key to taking effective action in a Trump world is to avoid perpetuating the autocrat’s goals of fear, isolation, exhaustion and disorientation.2 It’s an ugly, disordered world of raw power, brute force, selfish arrogance, dodgy deals and brazen lies. Trump’s minions attack or subvert the agencies of government, the judiciary and free press, terrorizing and intimidating those whose loyalty they impugn. Trump’s big beautiful bill, the tax and spending bill, will provide tax breaks for the wealthy and reduce social services for the middle class, while significantly increasing the national debt. It is a gift to the billionaire class while causing massive pain for working families – increasing income inequality in America. The response: Nonviolent civil resistance is far more successful increasing broad-based change than violent campaigns are.

Project 2025 calls for establishing a government that would be imbued with “biblical principles” and run by a president who holds sweeping executive powers.  The MAGA ideology neofascist movement, which, like all movements within the fascist genus, is rooted in a tenuous alliance between sections of the monopoly-capitalist ruling class at the top of society and a mobilized army of lower-middle class adherents far below. The latter see as their chief enemies, not the upper echelons of the capitalist class, but the upper-middle class professionals immediately above them and the working class below. The plan is authoritarian and Christian nationalist and threatens separation of powers (as created by the U.S. Constitution), separation of church and state (created by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights) and civil liberties.3 The main goal of Project 2025 is to destroy the system of checks and balances and create a system that would strip the ordinary citizen of their fundamental rights while supporting the grift of the wealthy.

The Serenity Prayer is used as a source of strength and guidance when facing difficult circumstances: “God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change, the courage to change the things I can and the wisdom to know the difference.” Notably, that prayer is attributed to theologian Reinhold Niebuhr as he was watching the rise of Nazis in Germany.  We need to grieve over all the things that have been lost under Trump’s watch. In this manner we can find hope. The world can be and often is a dark and harsh place, one where sorrow and loss are often compounded again and again, where we seem to lose no matter what we do. As the now Internet famous quote goes, “It is possible to commit no mistakes and still lose. That is not a weakness. That is life.”4 By integrating the Serenity Prayer into daily life, we not only enhance our ability to deal with personal and professional challenges but also cultivate a more peaceful and purposeful existence.

Tennyson insisted that we hold fast to our faith in a higher power in spite of our inability to prove God’s existence: “Believing where we cannot prove.” He reflects early evolutionary theories in his faith that man, through a process lasting millions of years, is developing into something greater. In the end, Tennyson replaces the doctrine of the immortality of the soul with the immortality of mankind through evolution, thereby achieving a synthesis between his profound religious faith and the new scientific ideas of his day. Today, citizens need to assemble in the street to protest the dark messages from authoritarian governance. Remember Occupy Wall Street put inequality on the political agenda.5 The ‘No Kings’ protests were a nod against authoritarian governance, the roots of the protests stemming from President Trump’s immigration crackdowns. Tennyson didn’t explicitly champion radical social change, his works highlighted the limitations imposed by societal structures and the human cost of inequality. 

1  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_Memoriam_A.H.H.

2  https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/mar/03/donald-trump-world-leaders-democracy

3  https://questioningandskepticism.com/connecting-project-2025-and-scopes-monkey-trial/

4  https://wagingnonviolence.org/2024/11/10-things-to-do-if-trump-wins/

5  https://questioningandskepticism.com/occupy-wall-street-success/

Posted in authoritarianism, economic inequality | Tagged | Leave a comment

Response to the Failure of Trickle-Down Economics

Posted on June 1, 2025 by greg

Tax cuts for the wealthy tend to widen the gap between the rich and the poor, as the wealthy benefit disproportionately from tax cuts while lower-income earners may not experience any significant changes in their financial situation. Thomas Sowell disagrees with the characterization of supply-side economics as trickle-down, saying that the economic theory of reducing marginal tax rates works in precisely the opposite direction: “Workers are always paid first and then profits flow upward later – if at all. In a 2020 research paper, economists David Hope and Julian Limberg analyzed data spanning 50 years from 18 countries, and found that tax cuts for the rich increased inequality in the short and medium term, and had no significant effect on real GDP per capita or employment in the short and medium term. According to the study, this shows that the tax cuts for the upper class did not trickle down to the broader economy.1

The term “trickle down economics” was actually coined by social commentator Will Rogers several decades earlier to mock to President Hoover’s policies during the Great Depression. The term became more widely associated with the economic policies of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, which were often referred to as “trickle-down economics” or “supply-side economics – during rise of reaganomics. One of the commonly invoked elements of trickle-down economics is tax benefits for corporations and high net worth individuals, who are expected to invest the money that they save from taxes in entrepreneurial activities, which are, in turn, expected to boost production and create jobs. The theory of “trickle down” of wealth to the poor is often invoked to support the government’s neoliberal policies. In reality, such policies as tax cuts and other financial incentives for the private sector have not been successful in bridging economic inequalities.

The Trump administration’s primary economic policy was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which significantly reduced corporate and individual income taxes. Critics argue that this was a classic example of trickle-down economics, as the majority of tax cuts went to high-income earners and corporations. The 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was passed with grandiose promises that it would bring broad prosperity through trickle-down economics, but it delivered nothing of the sort. With the wealthiest 10 percent owning over 90 percent of all stocks, there is simply no credible argument that this tax cut did anything to actually help the vast majority of Americans economically. Beware – republicans are preparing to enact substantial reductions to Medicare benefits, to add restrictions on Medicaid eligibility, eliminate healthcare subsidies that help working families afford coverage, and cut food assistance programs that serve as vital lifelines for struggling Americans.2

The trickle-down economic theory was rebranded in the 1970s to an ideology – supply side economics – the doctrine that tax cuts could be had for free (incentive effects would generate new activity hence more revenue) without causing budget deficits. Its creators never believed supply side economics worked – it was an ideology that was created to unite the right. However, anyone who challenges that this thinking contributes greatly to economic inequality is declared a dangerous heretic, and a threat to freedom and prosperity of the free market system. The most dangerous impact of neoliberalism is not the economic crises it has caused, but the political crisis. As the domain of the state is reduced, our ability to change the course of our lives through voting also contracts. Apologists explain away the failure of neoliberalism by the existence of a vast left-wing conspiracy.

Thus, ‘elimination’ of poverty became ‘reduction’ of poverty and, over the last few years the concept of extreme poverty appeared, associated with hunger. These, it was declared, must gradually be eliminated, while poverty must be mitigated. The economic elite use social media to create confusion and advance a neoliberal agenda. We are indebted to Donald Trump for bursting the informational neoliberal bubble. Trump has focused us on the real issue of the day – increasing economic inequality. He is teaching us all about the power of dissemination of (mis)information. Trump and his surrogates have signaled that they intend to counter the media’s version of truth with their own alternative facts, the “truth” from their perspective. The purpose of neoliberal dogma is to protect the rich from the poor. Trump’s election unmasked that the real game – cutting taxes on businesses and the wealthy, then use the resulting deficits as a pretext to cut social programs that benefit the poor and the middle class.

Today younger people will have poorer health as adults, which will affect their economic status as they will earn lower wages as an adult, and this in turn, will affect the next generation of children who will thus be born into a poorer family. The link from family household income and poorer social and health outcomes is well documented – the growing income inequality in Canada and the US associated with globalization poses a significant threat to the health of many. The economic and social conditions under which people live, rather than the biomedical risk conditions and lifestyles choices are the factors determining whether one develops chronic conditions like cardiovascular disease, which develop primarily from material deprivation (of poverty), excessive psychological stress and the adoption of unhealthy coping behaviors. The top-down system of trickle-down economics ensures the next generation in the workplace can not only expect to earn less than their parents, but are on track to enjoy poorer health.3

Together with the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts enacted under President Bush (most of which were made permanent in 2012), the 2017 Trump tax law has severely eroded the US revenue base. Revenue as a share of GDP has fallen from about 19.5% in the years immediately preceding the Bush tax cuts to just 16.3% in the years immediately following the Trump tax cuts, with revenues expected to rise to an annual average of 16.9 percent of GDP in 2018-2026 (excluding pandemic years), according to CBO. This is simply not enough revenue given the nation’s investment needs and existing commitments to Social Security and health coverage. Administration officials claimed their centerpiece corporate tax rate cut would “very conservatively” lead to a $4,000 boost in household income. New research shows that workers who earned less than about $114,000 on average in 2016 saw “no change in earnings” from the corporate tax rate cut, while top executive salaries increased sharply.4

Trump was re-elected in 2024 with the promises to cut your taxes, end inflation, slash your prices, raise your wages, and bring thousands of factories back to America. In first 100 days he has turned to Project 2025, a product of the Heritage Foundation, one of Washington’s most prominent right-wing think tanks. The 900 page document sets out four main policy aims: restore the family as the centrepiece of American life; dismantle the administrative state; defend the nation’s sovereignty and borders; and secure God-given individual rights to live freely. The dismantling of government agencies can be traced back to the document. In the back ground MAGA folks need significant cuts to social programs in order to extend the 2017 tax cuts to the oligarchs. These plans raise red flags that the government efficiency cuts are a ruse to secure funds to support tax cuts for the wealthy.

As Trump surpassed 100 days in office, a period filled with slashing and burning of the federal government and democratic norms, many are becoming angry. The 90%  now have a good reason to be angry. However, recognize anger is power. It’s red. It’s heat. Anger is movement and sound. Anger is a force for change, a force of strength. Since Reagan years, the social contract has always been broken. Governments have largely failed to uphold their end of the social contract: to guarantee safety, offer protection, uphold rights, fight inequality and act in the best interest of all people. There is a need to channel this anger for positive change. Instead of being a destructive state, anger can be a potent force of nature that can move us forward and fuel optimism, problem-solving, and creative brainstorming. In other words, if we want to make a change, we can tap the powerful motivational push that anger can provide.

As a consequence of globalization, the business class is no longer under pressure to accommodate citizens (workers). The government default position is that international competition is at stake – increasingly lower taxes, less support for labour and deregulation – creating socio-economic status related inequalities at the same time as budget cuts erode social assets and population capacities that might have buffered the effects of the health inequalities.  We need to adopt policies that have science behind them. The trickle-down economic ideology is political rhetoric of white-washing the “socialism for the rich.”  An ideology is a set of ideas proposed by the dominant class of a society to all members of this society (that is normative or based on what is considered the normal or correct way of doing something). Trickle-down economics in the 21st century is a fraud – the majority of people are not benefiting – in fact, the gap between the rich and the rest of society is increasing.

Power is best seen as an invisible force linking individuals and actors, in a state of constant flux and renegotiation. There is a small group who have been made very wealthy by the existing system. Change is a threat to them. It is this group that loves its status quo so much that it sees its own change as an underhanded attack on its way of life. The debate is no longer how fast the ocean is rising, rather how fast will we rise to the occasion to introduce change. This is about introducing equality, justice and fairness so that it not just a perception, but a reality, that the system is no longer gamed for those at the top. To create change we must seek out ideas that make a difference. It is urgent to save globalization from the authoritarian neoliberal mindset because globalization is reversible. Our outlook must have a sense of urgency as things never stop moving, and we must be optimistic as there is always opportunity.

The increasing socioeconomic inequality, drives the need for change. Often, we have to acknowledge that change is sometimes difficult or close to impossible. Empowerment happens when individuals and organized groups are able to imagine their world differently and to realize that vision by changing the relations of power that have kept them in poverty, and restricted their voice and deprived them of their autonomy. While none of us can actually “see” the future, we can practice looking into the future and seeing what might be. The path forward is urgent optimism – a mindset that includes mental flexibility, realistic hope, and future power. Hope-reward feedback loop creates a vision of the future we can become. As we practice seeing many different crazy futures, we become more comfortable with the reality of continuous change, and we start to find hope in the possibilities that exist alongside the difficulties.6

 1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics#:~:text=These%20critics%20reject%20the%20notion%20that%20spending,eventually%20benefit%20the%20economy%20as%20a%20whole.&text=Nobel%20laureate%20Paul%20Krugman%20states%20that%20despite,earners%20has%20failed%20to%20change%20very%20much

 2 https://thehill.com/opinion/finance/5220282-trump-tax-cuts-trickle-down/

3  https://questioningandskepticism.com/part-2-of-2-creating-opportunities-a-comparison-of-top-down-and-bottom-up-systems/

4  https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-tax/the-2017-trump-tax-law-was-skewed-to-the-rich-expensive-and-failed-to-deliver

5  https://questioningandskepticism.com/angry-people-on-the-road-to-anarchy/

6  https://questioningandskepticism.com/act-immediately-to-tackle-an-obstacle/

Posted in economic inequality, Global Economy, neoliberalism | Tagged | Leave a comment

Responding to the Cult of Fear in Politics

Posted on May 1, 2025 by greg

A cult is a group of people who organize around a strong authority figure. Cults, like many other groups, attempt to expand their influence for the purposes of power or money. No one joins a cult; they are recruited by systematic social influence processes. However, to achieve these ends, destructive cults employ a potent mixture of influence techniques and deception to attain psychological control over members and new recruits. This fundamental level of control is known alternatively as ‘brainwashing,’ ‘thought reform,’ or ‘mind control.’ A successful induction by a destructive cult displaces a person’s former identity and replaces it with a new one. That new identity may not be one that the person would have freely chosen under her own volition. Cult leaders are typically malignant narcissists and want people who will be obedient to them.

In Cults in Our Midst (1996), Margaret Singer described six conditions of cultic control among which were control of the environment; a system of rewards and punishments; creating a sense of powerlessness, fear and dependency; and reforming the follower’s behaviour and attitudes, all within a closed system of logic. All cult leaders want utter control over others. Money, sex, free labour or loyal combatants are all fringe benefits, and certainly most leaders take advantage of these, some in a big way. But absolute control over their relationships is the key. Arendt describes the innermost part of the structure in powerful terms: ‘In the centre of the movement, as the motor that swings it into motion, sits the Leader. He is separated from the elite formation by an inner circle of the initiated who spread around him an aura of impenetrable mystery.’  This mystery adds to the feeling that the leader is everywhere and sees everything.

Meanwhile, the leader keeps the inner circle off-balance by sowing distrust, and promoting and demoting personnel seemingly at random. People in totalist organisations are pressed so tightly together that their individuality is erased – as are any trusting interactions among them. Everyone is a ‘friend’ but true friendship is suppressed as a diversion from, and a threat to, attachment to the cause, the leader and the group. In fact, far from finding true comradeship or companionship, followers face a triple isolation: from the outside world, from each other within the closed system, and from their own internal dialogue, where clear thinking about the group might arise. The third element of totalism is the total ideology, or, as Newman called it: ‘A historical totality that has no beginning, middle or end’. The exclusive belief system is controlled entirely by the leader, empowering him or her through the creation of a fictional world of secrets and lies.1

Know your place – poetry after the Black Death reflected fear of social change. Contemporary moralists complained about those who rose above their allotted station in life and so in 1363 a law was passed that specified the food and dress that were appropriate for each social class. In line with such attitudes, Langland railed against the presumption of laborers who disdained day-old vegetables, bacon and cheap ale and instead demanded fresh meat, fish and fine ale. The Black Death altered the fundamental paradigm of European life that included socio-economic and religious belief and practice, unleashing the forces that made the Renaissance possible. During the 14th century, a cultural movement called humanism began to gain momentum in Italy. Beliefs of humanism included belief that reason, scepticism and the scientific method are the only appropriate instruments for discovering truth and structuring the human community.

Among its many principles, humanism promoted the idea that man was the center of his own universe, and people should embrace human achievements in education, classical arts, literature and science. In 1450, the invention of the Gutenberg printing press allowed for improved communication throughout Europe and for ideas to spread more quickly. As a result of this advance in communication, little-known texts from early humanist authors such as those by Francesco Petrarch and Giovanni Boccaccio, which promoted the renewal of traditional Greek and Roman culture and values, were printed and distributed to the masses. The humanists believed that the Greek and Latin classics contained both all the lessons one needed to lead a moral and effective life. The Renaissance yielded scholars the ability to read the scriptures in their original languages, and this in part stimulated the Protestant Reformation. The 16th century reformers considered the root of corruptions to be doctrinal rather than simply a matter of moral weakness or lack of ecclesiastical discipline.

Niccolò Machiavelli was a political theorist from the Renaissance period. In his most notable work, The Prince, he writes, “It is better to be feared than to be loved, if one cannot be both.” He argues that fear is a better motivator than love, which is why it is the more effective tool for leaders. He explored the complexities of power and leadership, suggesting that while it’s ideal to be both loved and feared, in practice, being feared is often a more reliable foundation for a ruler’s stability. He argues that love is based on fleeting bonds of obligation, while fear is based on the consistent dread of punishment, which is more enduring. Machiavelli took a calculated approach. Machiavelli’s concept of fear is not about promoting cruelty for its own sake. It’s a calculated approach to maintain order and ensure the ruler’s stability in a world where human nature is often viewed as unreliable. Machiavelli also stresses the need for prudence.

For a totalist system to wield complete control, the leader must tap fear – this is an important element of totalism. The process of brainwashing that totalist systems engage in is one of psychological, coercive manipulation where the leader or group alternates terror with ‘love’.  The fiction starts slowly, of course, with mere propaganda intended for the public and the wider world. After propaganda comes indoctrination, the state where the totalist system consolidates control, via what Arendt calls ‘the power to drop iron curtains to prevent anyone’s disturbing, by the slightest reality, the gruesome quiet of an entirely imaginary world’. A cult is an example of a totalist system. After the iron curtain of the total ideology has dropped, no questions or doubts are allowed. In today’s world, it is imperative for us to understand the workings of charismatic and authoritarian leaders and the organisations they lead.2

Sometimes, people’s thinking can kick back into gear when they experience repeated, counter-examples that challenge the ideology – such as receiving kindness from the ‘enemy’ or seeing apocalyptic predictions fail time after time after time. In 1952, Asch wrote: ‘The greater man’s ignorance of the principles of his social surroundings, the more subject is he to their control; and the greater his knowledge of their operations and of their necessary consequences, the freer he can become with regard to them.’ In a time of rapid change, such as Trump’s flooding the zone with garbage creates a general sense of instability, people are naturally going to seek security and stability. Cults and totalist regimes thrive in these conditions. Given the right circumstances, almost anyone is vulnerable to the psychological and situational pressures. Asch calls this “distortion of perception”. The influence of the group is such that it modifies the perception of the individual, who is then persuaded that the group is right.

The Asch effect: when being in a group can lead to bad decisions. The fear of social rejection, ridicule, or seeming different led many to conform to the incorrect opinions of the majority, even when the correct answer was obvious. This demonstrates the power of normative social influence, where individuals conform to gain social approval and avoid disapproval. Asch found that people were willing to ignore reality and give an incorrect answer in order to conform to the rest of the group. Irving Janis’s groupthink theory posits that in highly cohesive groups, the desire for consensus can override a realistic appraisal of alternatives, leading to poor decision-making. This phenomenon, also known as groupthink, occurs when members prioritize unanimity over critical evaluation, often stifling dissent and leading to flawed outcomes. Groupthink can lead to decisions that are irrational, inefficient, or even dangerous.3

Trump has acknowledged that fear is central to his authority. In Trump’s political style: authoritarian populism – there’s the virtuous in-group and the outright evil out-group. This out-group would then be scapegoated for societal problems. Typically, the in-group suppress political opposition, spread disinformation, fuel political violence and turn historically independent institutions into political actors that will help achieve their agenda. They use coercion to achieve these goals rather than by mustering popular support. The Trump administration regularly manipulates data to support its anti-immigrant agenda. Trump stokes fears about migrants driving up crime rate. Trump has frozen or threatened to withhold billions of dollars from universities across the U.S. unless they took steps to stamp out progressive ideology that his administration feels has run amok on college campuses and stifled conservative viewpoints. These series of threats – and subsequent pauses in funding have become an unprecedented tool for the Trump administration to exert influence on college campuses and the community.4

Fear is created not by the world around us, but in the mind, by what we think is going to happen, observes Elizabeth Gawain. The Republicans need a distraction, and turn to fear of undocumented immigrants: with messaging on urban disorder and migrant crime wave. We realize we have become disillusioned not because our expectations failed, but because they were false. Our goal is to create a more just and equitable society by ensuring fair access to shared resources and benefits for all members. We must promote new values for society to create the necessary change in culture to address the increasing economic inequality. In this manner new processes appear to replace the old. With enough people marching in a new direction of more accountability, the politicians will adapt in order to position themselves to the front of the crowd so they can assure us they are in control.

1  https://aeon.co/essays/how-cult-leaders-brainwash-followers-for-total-control

   2  https://questioningandskepticism.com/in-response-to-the-fear-of-change/

 3  https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=ASch+effect

  4   https://news.berkeley.edu/2025/01/21/theres-a-term-for-trumps-political-style-authoritarian-populism/

Posted in authoritarianism, economic inequality, Enlightenment | Leave a comment

Project 2025: a Blueprint for Corporate Dystopia

Posted on April 15, 2025 by greg

At its core, dystopian fiction is a warning against complacency. By depicting societies where individuality is suppressed, knowledge is controlled, and human rights are disregarded, these stories compel readers to evaluate the fragility of the freedoms we often take for granted. Characteristics of a dystopian society: information, independent thought, and freedom are restricted/censored. A figurehead or concept is worshiped by the citizens of the society. Citizens are perceived to be under constant surveillance. Citizens have a fear of the outside world. A corporate dystopia is very similar to that of a government dystopia except that the controlling power is often a private organization. Corporate dystopia is a future or alternate history where corporate power has lead to an oppressive society, a society that fails to meet at least some peoples needs, or otherwise fits the typical definitions of a dystopia.

The US billionaire Warren Buffett once observed that “there’s class warfare, all right, but it’s my class, the rich class, that’s making war, and we’re winning.” This remains key to understanding everything happening today: the capitalist class is on the offensive, and it is as determined to exploit today’s crisis of capitalism to its advantage as it was when ripping up the postwar consensus in the 1970s. Trump administration’s hobbling of CFPB raising concern because it’s a political risk to hobble a watchdog of financial institutions that has sought to limit overdraft fees and junk fees. President Trump has fired heads of offices and agencies tasked, since Watergate, with protecting federal workers and whistleblowers. This includes Internet watchdogs that fight disinformation. The aim is unfettered corporate power, capitalism unchecked by democracy. Elon Musk, leading the assault on the middle and working class, is orchestrating full-on class warfare.1

The concept of sustainable development is named after the Brundtland report, which reported sustainable consumption in developed countries: “Sustainable development is based on three fundamental pillars: social, economic and environmental.” One extremely strong pillar will not hold a building, but three mildly strong pillars will. The social pillar is crucial because it focuses on the well-being and fairness of people within a community. The economic or governance pillar refers to maintaining honest and transparent accounting practices and regulatory compliance. The environmental pillar includes organisations that prioritise the environment will have a focus on minimising waste and pollution.  The “economic pillar” of sustainability refers to the aspect of sustainability that focuses on maintaining a healthy and growing economy while considering environmental and social factors, ensuring long-term economic prosperity without compromising future generations’ ability to meet their needs; essentially, achieving economic growth in a responsible way that doesn’t harm the environment or society at large.

Similarly, democratic governments are built on three pillars that when kept in balance with each other ensure the sustainability of the government, the liberties and basic human rights of society as well as the survivability of our society in general: economic, social and environment. The social pillar encompasses policies that relate to our liveability and equality within society. Things like health, education and homelessness all fall under the social pillar. The economic pillar contains everything to do with the economy, business and corporations. Small business, stock markets and in short anything related to the economy. The final pillar is the environmental pillar and deals with the outside environment, nature and animals. While it can deal with the human-built environment, it mainly focuses on the natural environment around us. Together these three pillars build the foundation for a great society and the magnitudes of benefits that come with it.

However, if one pillar is ignored or given greater attention for a prolonged period, then society becomes unbalanced, inefficient and unsustainable for the future. By making these pillars unbalanced, a government will bring either: instability to their community or some form of a totalitarian state, where freedoms and liberties are infringed upon. Nonetheless, there will be times when one is given preferences over the others for the greater good of society, but one must be careful that they are quick to revert to an equilibrium of the pillars as soon as possible, else they will incur drastic and devastating implications in the long run. Therefore, a government must be extremely careful and precise so that they do little to disrupt this balance. Leaders must be mindful of behaving properly. They must not be on a quest to fulfill an agenda or let their high ambitions for control and power cloud their judgement.2

But today, the pillars – state, market, and community – of society are in imbalance. And we need to recalibrate them to get the right balance. Whenever we go through technological progress or are shaken by a collapsing economy, depression or recession, the balance is disturbed until society finds a new equilibrium. In recent decades, two pillars have grown at the expense of the community, which has caused the community to languish. Today, we can solve many of the problems that we are plagued with by reviving the community. Communities have also been at the forefront of movements against corruption and cronyism, and these movements have kept away the state from getting into an implicit understanding with the big businesses. A strong community is important to preserve the vibrant market democracies and is probably one of the reasons why authoritarian movements crush community consciousness and try to instill nationalist and proletarian consciousness.

Society gains the most when its three pillars are in balance. The state provides security, it always has, and the state also tries to ensure equity in economic outcomes through policies like affirmative action, housing for the less privileged, etc. The goal behind the policies is to create a level playing field so that people are equally placed to participate in the market. The competitive market ensures that those who succeed use resources effectively and efficiently, and the successful since they are independent of the state, have some ability to stand up against arbitrary action of the state. Active communities, which are organized politically and socially, act as a check to keep the states and markets separate. If the states and the market aren’t separate, the economy will become a crony and authoritarian one. Russia is a good example of what happens when the state and market get too comfortable with one another.3

The Social Contract is the most fundamental source of all that is good and that which we depend upon to live well. Our choice is either to abide by the terms of the contract, or return to the State of Nature, which Hobbes argues no reasonable person could possibly prefer.  The Social Contract – that in the US was centered around social mobility and in Europe around economic security – looks increasingly broken and the gap between the highly skilled and everyone else is growing. These technological and economic transformations have reshaped the relationships between education, work, opportunities and welfare, rendering the previous social contract outdated, and making it necessary to establish a new one that benefits everyone. There is a need for social contact renewal – to address the corporate dystopia. If people’s expressed needs are not addressed over a significant amount of time, it can risk the government legitimacy.

The government and tech have created a massive surveillance state: “big bother is watching you.” George Orwell wrote “1984”, his dystopian masterpiece, to teach people a lesson about the negative things that could happen if they allowed their government to exercise total control. The novel explores themes of totalitarianism, the individual versus the collective, and the dangers of unaccountable governments. One of Orwell’s most important messages in 1984 is that language is of central importance to human thought because it structures and limits the ideas that individuals are capable of formulating and expressing. Donald Trump is trying to create a dystopian society/government that works: this includes rampant capitalism, corporate corruption, suppressing ethical judgement by media, conspiracy theories, chronic racial and class division. Corporate money now controls the outcome of US elections, and the legislation that is passed by those who have been elected.

A dystopian world is on the horizon: the aim is unfettered corporate power, capitalism unrestrained by democracy. America First is actually code for Big Business First – a system that will only create wealth for the few. In dystopian story world, you need to realize that any dystopian society/government can be made to work if the primary values of that society/government are held in high enough esteem and if sufficient compromises are made. Revolutions happen when sufficient numbers of people in a society decide some compromises are no longer worth making, societal values of right and wrong start to shift, or sufficient numbers of people imagine a new paradigm where less or more acceptable compromises are required. We must become better communicators and champion democracy. Early in the election cycle, determine who your supporters are, then focus on the message that will turn them out to vote.

As corporations and oligarchs gain more control over politics and society, they erode the principles and institutions of democracy and human rights. They undermine the rule of law, the separation of powers, the freedom of expression, the right to privacy, the right to education, the right to health care, and other civil liberties. They also promote extremism, such as, authoritarianism, nationalism, populism, fascism. A fundamental element of the social contract is more equitable prosperity with fair and equitable distribution of income, satisfying people’s need for security and opportunity while also addressing the challenges that affect society as a whole. Culture plays an essential role in the journey towards sustainable development. Boasting both social and economic development aspects, culture can provide immense support to the three pillars required for sustainable development. A social contract along these lines helps create a sense of social cohesion and cooperation, which is necessary for the functioning of any society. This process stops the radical agenda of Project 2025 and counters the accompanying corporate dystopia.4

1  https://www.yahoo.com/news/fact-check-yes-warren-buffett-225700758.html

 2 https://medium.com/@brikzcentral/the-three-key-pillars-to-a-sustainable-society-and-government-b5a38a2820c3

3  https://medium.com/illumination/the-three-pillars-of-society-de156eaa6db3

4  https://questioningandskepticism.com/rousseau-and-freedom-a-renewed-social-contract/

Posted in authoritarianism, economic inequality, neoliberalism | Tagged | Leave a comment