fractalnavel

[fractalnavel]

"I come from a small, rural town in Wisconsin—the kind of place where the high school mascot is sacred, the churches outnumber the stoplights, and the local diner still offers political commentary with your scrambled eggs, all filtered through a Reagan-era lens of rugged individualism and bootstrap theology. It’s a town that raised me, yes—but also one I outgrew, not out of arrogance, but out of an insatiable curiosity that was simply not compatible with fences and familiar last names.

My childhood was an oddity in that place. While most of my peers stayed anchored in the gravitational pull of local norms and traditions, my parents handed me a passport and pointed outward. Road trips across the US turned into train rides through Eastern Europe. I was the kid who collected fossils and insects instead of baseball cards, who could name capitals but not quarterbacks. Later, I moved abroad. I pursued higher education. I immersed myself in history, science, philosophy, and the relentless pursuit of knowledge and understanding, trying to understand not just the world, but why people move through it the way they do.

And then, like some tragic protagonist in a novel about the perils of nostalgia, I came back.

If distance grants perspective, then returning to the town of my youth was less like coming home and more like stepping into a diorama. The streets hadn’t changed, but I had. What once seemed wholesome now felt performative. The patriotism wasn’t pride—it was ritual. The friendliness wasn’t openness—it was surveillance. And beneath it all ran a silent, suffocating current of fear: fear of change, fear of the other, fear of being left behind.

This divide isn’t just geographical. It’s evolutionary.

For 95% of our species’ existence, we lived in small, kin-based bands where survival was contingent on cohesion, predictability, and suspicion of outsiders. Tribalism wasn’t a flaw—it was a feature. It kept us alive. To be skeptical of the unfamiliar, to prioritize the known over the unknown, was adaptive. But we don’t live on the savannah anymore. The threats we face are no longer predators or rival clans, but climate collapse, income inequality, and information warfare. Still, the reptilian brain lingers. And it does not care about nuance. It cares about belonging.

Rural America, in many ways, remains a living museum of this tribal wiring. In places where diversity is minimal and ideas circulate slowly, identity calcifies. Community becomes echo chamber. It’s not that people don’t think critically—it’s that critical thinking is punished. Conformity is rewarded. Outsiders—literal or ideological—are threats to the fragile cohesion of a community whose worldview has not been tested by difference but merely reinforced by repetition.

This is the root of the urban-rural divide—not intelligence, not morality, but exposure. In cities, survival demands adaptation: to new cultures, new technologies, new ways of seeing. In rural communities, survival demands continuity. And so when the firehose of modernity blasts through cable news and social media, it’s not processed as information—it’s processed as attack.

And the right wing has weaponized this brilliantly.

They’ve learned that fear is easier to manufacture than hope, and far more profitable. That a brain wired for tribal survival will always choose the strong lie over the complicated truth. That it’s easier to sell paranoia than policy. In my town, like so many others, they claim to be patriots who love their country, but they’ll vote for the man who promises to burn it down. They don’t believe in climate change, but their crops are drowning and their wells are poisoned. They don’t want to be ruled, but they’re desperate to be led—by someone who speaks in absolutes, who confirms their suspicions, who reflects their anger back to them like a funhouse mirror.

And this is the part that stings the most: these are not all bad people. They are people trapped in a feedback loop that exploits the very instincts evolution gave them to survive. They have been trained to confuse subjugation with strength, cruelty with conviction. To them, surrendering their rights to a strongman is not cowardice—it is tribal loyalty. It is faith.

So when I walk those old streets of my youth now, it feels less like homecoming and more like fieldwork. I see not just neighbors but a case study in inherited fear. A once-hopeful people turned against themselves by a machine that knows them better than they know themselves. A culture that clings to its myths not out of ignorance, but out of necessity—because without them, the whole house of cards collapses.

And the tragedy is this: the world they’re fighting to preserve no longer exists. The 1950s never really happened—not the way they remember them. What they mourn is not the loss of a country, but the loss of an illusion. And in their desperation to reclaim it, they have become foot soldiers in a war against their own future.

But still, I hope. Because if evolution has taught us anything, it’s that adaptation is possible. That fear does not have to rule us. That our tribal instincts, while ancient, are not immutable. That exposure, education, and empathy—slow, hard, and human—can expand the circle of who we call us.

I don’t know if my hometown will ever change. But I know I have. I know that what we choose to do with our understanding—how we wield it, how we share it, how we live it—matters more now than ever.

Because history doesn’t just happen to us. We are it. In every conversation. Every vote. Every time we choose truth over comfort, connection over fear.

That’s the long arc. That’s the work. That’s the hope."

Oliver Kornetzke, May 1, 2025

[fractalnavel]

Interesting...

by Alien Space Bats » Tue Apr 29, 2025 8:34 pm

Finium wrote:Trump was suspected by officers of the state for colluding with insurrectionists, according to our current government, this is adequate grounds for immediate arrest and possible deportation. If you expect more, then I expect you to spend more time defending the people who don't get protections right now and less time defending the guy who got not consequences anyways.

Actually, he should be subjected to a quo warranto suit on 14th Amendment grounds, filed in the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C. (which is the only proper jurisdiction for such a suit to be heard.

Chapter 35. Quo Warranto. Subchapter I. Actions Against Officers of the United States. § 16–3501. Persons against whom issued; civil action.

A quo warranto may be issued from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia in the name of the United States against a person who within the District of Columbia usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises, a franchise conferred by the United States or a public office of the United States, civil or military. The proceedings shall be deemed a civil action.

The charge here would be that Donald John Trump, being in violation of Section 3 of the 14th Amendment, is ineligible to serve as President of the United States, and therefore has "usurp(ed), intrude(d) into, or unlawfully h(e)ld() or exercise(d) ... a public office of the United States, civil or military (in this case, as President [i.e.Chief Executive, Head of State, and Commander-in-Chief, both)"

Amendment XIV Section 3. No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

§ 16–3502. Parties who may institute; ex rel. proceedings.

The Attorney General of the United States or the United States attorney may institute a proceeding pursuant to this subchapter on his own motion or on the relation of a third person. The writ may not be issued on the relation of a third person except by leave of the court, to be applied for by the relator, by a petition duly verified setting forth the grounds of the application, or until the relator files a bond with sufficient surety, to be approved by the clerk of the court, in such penalty as the court prescribes, conditioned on the payment by him of all costs incurred in the prosecution of the writ if costs are not recovered from and paid by the defendant.

Any citizen (or group of citizens) can ask the Attorney General of the United States and/or the United States Attorney for the District of Columbia to issue a writ of quo warranto; all citizens or citizens' groups have standing in the case of a challenge to the legality of a President's service in office, since all citizens are affected by his actions.

Of course, neither Pam Bondi nor Ed Martin would ever issue such a writ, in which case...

§ 16–3503. Refusal of Attorney General or United States attorney to act; procedure.

If the Attorney General or United States attorney refuses to institute a quo warranto proceeding on the request of a person interested, the interested person may apply to the court by certified petition for leave to have the writ issued. When, in the opinion of the court, the reasons set forth in the petition are sufficient in law, the writ shall be allowed to be issued by any attorney, in the name of the United States, on the relation of the interested person on his compliance with the condition prescribed by section 16-3502 as to security for costs.

... The matter gets put before a Federal District Court judge, who then decides - based on the strength of the petition in terms of both the facts and the law - whether or not to issue a writ; and if a writ is issued, the relator(s) (i.e., the citizen(s) or citizens' group applying for the writ of quo warranto) would be free to choose whomever they wish to prosecute the matter in the government's stead.

I would, of course, expect Donald Trump to challenge the right of the relator(s) (and the Federal Courts) to pursue the matter on appeal if a writ were issued, and I would expect that the matter would go all the way up to the Supreme Court. But quo warranto writs are VERY old law, and it would be exceptional for any court (although not necessarily out of character for this Supreme Court) to deny the right to pursue such a writ.

Even against a President of the United States.

If the matter were allowed to go forward - and I honestly see no reason why it should not - then a civil trial would be conducted under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 38 stipulates that this would be a jury trial (unless the President waived his right to such a thing). Rule 48 stipulates a jury size of between 6 and 12 jurors, selected from within the adult residents of the District of Columbia. I am not certain if the Federal District Court in D.C. stipulates a jury of 6 or 12 jurors.

This would not be a criminal trial. That makes it different from what people expect in two important ways:

Witnesses cannot refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds. This means that Donald Trump himself could be compelled to testify, although in deference to his position as President, his testimony would almost certainly be taken in a videotaped deposition.

Anyone involved in the January 6th riot could also be called upon to testify, including all of those who were pardoned. They would also be denied the right to refuse to testify on Fifth Amendment grounds, both due to the fact that this would be a civil proceeding, and the fact that (having already received a full Presidental pardon) each and every one of them are already immune from any criminal prosecution for their involvement in that day's events (including any preparations made for the protests in the days and weeks preceding January 6th).

The immunity from testimony extended to officers of the Executive Branch in Trump v. United States, 603 U.S. 593 (2024) would not apply here, as that immunity only applies to criminal matters (as opposed to civil matters, as per the reference to Clinton v. Jones cited below).

The minimum standard of proof required for a verdict of guilt is a "preponderance of evidence" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt."

Given the gravity of the case, it is likely that the standard of proof in this matter would be raised to "clear and convincing evidence;" this is still less that the criminal standard.

Evidentiary Standards in Civil Cases Once the plaintiff has met the burden of production, they must meet the burden of persuasion. This burden involves the standard of proof the plaintiff must meet in presenting evidence to the judge or jury. A standard of proof determines the amount of evidence that the plaintiff or defendant needs to provide in order for the jury to reach a particular result. In most civil cases, the standard of proof is “a preponderance of the evidence.” This standard requires the jury to return a judgment in favor of the plaintiff if the plaintiff is able to show that a particular fact or event was more likely than not to have occurred. In some civil cases, the standard of proof is elevated to a higher standard called “clear and convincing evidence.” This standard of proof requires the plaintiff to prove that a particular fact is substantially more likely than not to be true. Some courts have described this standard as requiring the plaintiff to prove that there is a high probability that a particular fact is true. This standard sets a higher threshold than the preponderance of the evidence standard, but it does not quite rise to the widely recognized standard used in criminal cases, known as “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

Unlike some civil matters in some jurisdictions, the jury would be required to arrive at a unanimous verdict.

What would the trial entail?

Basically, the plaintiffs would endeavor to show that Donald John Trump, through his actions both before and on January 6th, 2021, encouraged and incited a riot aimed at interrupting, delaying, preventing, or even making impossible the Congressional certification of the 2020 Presidential Election, for the purpose of remaining in office in spite of the apparent outcome. As part of this effort, the plaintiffs would need to show direct and deliberate involvement by then President Trump in the whole affair, and that the actions contemplated and carried out did indeed meet the legal definition of an "insurrection or rebellion against ... the Constitution of the United States," and that his involvement was active enough to constitute the act of "engagement" in the same.

In the course of pursuing this matter, the plaintiffs would no doubt attempt to cite the testimony given and the findings arrived at by the Colorado District Court for the City and County of Denver in Anderson v. Griswold, 543 P.3d 283 (Colo. 2023) (sorry for the PDF link, but it's all I could find that's not behind a paywall). As the Colorado Supreme Court noted in its opinion on this matter...

The trial began, as scheduled, on October 30. The evidentiary portion lasted five days, with closing arguments almost two weeks later, on November 15. During those two weeks, the Electors, the Secretary, President Trump, and CRSCC submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The court issued its written final order on November 17, finding, by clear and convincing evidence, that the events of January 6 constituted an insurrection and President Trump engaged in that insurrection.

Curiously enough, the defendant's attorneys never challenged this factual finding on appeal, either before the Colorado Supreme Court, or before SCOTUS in the Federal appeal that followed (Trump v. Anderson, 601 U.S. 100 [2024]). Of course, the admissibility of the testimony and findings in that case could be challenged; but then again, the Colorado case would serve as a roadmap for use by the plaintiffs insofar as the could simply repeat everything introduced in that case here (and then some).

If found guilty (and if this finding were upheld upon appeal), the President would be removed from office and the Vice President sworn in to take his place.

Because the matter would be purely a civil action, and because the only thing at stake would be Donald Trump's ability to continue to serve as President, no criminal liability would stem from any guilty verdict returned. At most, the President might be compelled to return any salary he received while unlawfully President - but it's highly unlikely that any further penalty could or would be assessed beyond that possibility.

Have fun chewing on that, NSG.

P.S. Presidential immunity - as established in Trump v. United States (cited above) - would not protect the President from removal in this fashion; in Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681 (1997), SCOTUS affirmed that sitting Presidents can be sued in civil matters.

That said, the question of whether or not quo warranto actions can be brought against a sitting President has never been reviewed by the High Court.

P.P.S. In case it isn't clear from the foregoing, a quo warranto action is a challenge to an individual's right to hold, enjoy, and exercise the authority granted by a public office. It doesn't just apply to political offices (or even governmental appointments), but also applies to positions within public corporations, charities, not-foir-profit entities, or any other public institution chartered under the law (at either the State or Federal level).

-----

"These states are just saying 'Yes, I used to beat my girlfriend, but I haven't since the restraining order, so we don't need it anymore.'" — Stephen Colbert, Comedian, on Shelby County v. Holder

"Do you see how policing blacks by the presumption of guilt and policing whites by the presumption of innocence is a self-reinforcing mechanism?" — Touré Neblett, MSNBC Commentator and Social Critic

"You knew damn well I was a snake before you took me in." — Songwriter Oscar Brown in 1963, foretelling the election of Donald J. Trump

President Donald J. Trump: Working Tirelessly to Make Russia Great Again

[fractalnavel]

"the whole rationale behind automation has always been to replace labour with capital.

if you're a 19th century garment manufacturer, instead of hiring 6 women to manually process cotton into textiles, you can fire 5 of them and have one work a spinning jenny and be just as productive, if not much more so. textile workers who manually processed cotton into textiles were skilled workers that had to be trained to process cotton quickly and without making mistakes. they could take those skills with them, and bargain with their employers based on that skill - if they were treated poorly they could leave and set up their own little cottage firm, and replacing them with less skilled workers would lead to a loss of profits.

you can train a worker to operate a spinny jenny much more easily, and your workers much less bargaining power: they need a spinning jenny to match your productivity, which is beyond an individual worker's ability to access. it transforms skilled labour into unskilled labour, and ties labour to machines that are owned and controlled by capital. you're not making a table with your own hands and with tools you own as part of an artisanal practice, you're operating a machine lathe owned by your boss and only know how to use it to make chair legs - a skill that you can't easily take anywhere else or use for yourself.

the history of the 19th and 20th centuries has been structured by the march of this process of abstraction, as capital seeks to automate more and more parts of the production process and cut out more labour. you can only do so much however. eventually after enough kids get mangled in the power looms, labour does annoying things like form unions and invent communism to deal with the immiseration caused by people being cleared out of the countryside with the death of artisanal labour and into the cities to work at your new factories.

the wars of the early 20th century and the Great Depression lead to a broad truce between labour and capital, and the social welfare state and the legalization/legitimization of unions emerged to tamp down on class conflict.

the flipside to automation and technological advancement is simultaneous leaps in production capacity, which creates a paradox for capital: the more you develop your firm technologically and automate production, driving down wages, the less you're able to charge for each individual product. this is made worse when your product isn't a consumable, and there's only so much demand for it, like washing machines. exports became the solution to this paradox in the US, and afterwards other Western countries: developing countries became major consumer markets because they couldn't make the products on their own.

the rub of course is that eventually developing economies develop, and they start developing their own production capacity, decreasing their demand for your washing machines. hence a big part of the crisis of the 70s - industrial economies that were already experiencing declines in profitability hit an oil shock that ground everything to a halt.

the crisis was resolved in the 80s and 90s by Reagan, Thatcher et al stripping away the postwar compact between labour and capital, allowing production to be offshored to countries like China. production in the West would be wound down and replaced by 'services', where workers would in essence be the clerical-managerial-knowledge-development class to production that happened elsewhere, and would instead become the consumers of that industrial production. thus was the modern treats-based economy born: wages in the West could stagnate, but cheap consumer goods would keep profit margins high and cost of living stable.

the spectre of overproduction kept looming though, because the paradox of capital needing to drive down wages and abstract more labour by automation continued though until today, and developing countries continued to develop, until they grew their own 'service' economies, which could compete with Western ones.

This is where the modern fantasy of 'AI' and technological innovation comes in, because the information revolution brought the dream of every capitalist since the 19th century closer than ever to fruition: the invention of labour that never tired, never unionized, never made mistakes, didn't demand a wage and was owned by the company - 'AI'. You could finally use AI to abstract way the last bits of production still being done by human hands and have the perfect, rational, totally-in-house production pipeline, and do away with all that messy grumbling about deindustrialization and stagnating standards of living once and for all.

the problem becomes not where 'labour' comes from - it's done by machines - but who exactly is consuming all this production. you still need people to buy your washing machines, even if the factory - and all factories - don't employ people anymore.

this is where it becomes really wishy washy. some billionaire AI fantasists talk about a 'universal basic income' paid out by the state to keep everyone paid and consuming, other people talk about this ushering in 'fully automated luxury communism', since at that point money arguably ceases to matter all that much.

if you look what those billionaires actually *do* while talking about the AI utopia, though, they're building bunkers in New Zealand and talking about the apocalypse: automated Palantir drone swarms to guard production facilities and the houses of the wealthy. the plan, evidently, is for them to introduce AI, emulsify the last remaining segments of the economy and essentially hunker down in their fortified drone-patrolled enclaves and ride out the collapse of civilization, a la the movie Elysium.

unfortunately for the billionaires, they've turned out to be a bunch of morons who talked themselves into thinking a hastily thrown-together text generator that requires gigantic amounts of computational power and electrical power is the precursor to the 'real deal' actual AIs of their fantasies, and are about to run headlong off a cliff when these models stop producing any meaningful improvements despite billions and billions of dollars being thrown at them."

[fractalnavel]

"The history of violent rebellion against authority is not a pleasant one. Few violent revolutions ever produce more liberty when the dust clears; more often than not, they just trade in one group of tyrants for another. I mean, how many revolutions have led to more freedom rather than less? And how many have failed to live up to expectations and just produced misery instead.

We were lucky once. We shouldn't count on being lucky again.

Then, too there's this practical problem: Violence alienates most bystanders. When people take up arms, the impulse most people have is not to choose sides, but to run for cover - and then declare a pox on both houses.

That leaves you with an unpopular rebellion against an unpopular government. At best, the result is a long and bitter civil war the rebels win; but it could just as easily lead to a long and bitter civil war the rebels lose, too.

The better approach is to refrain from violence. Confront the government, but with mass protests instead of large mobs of armed men.

But what if the government answers such protests with force, you ask?

Then the government suffers a huge hit in support, not the protesters. They experience a huge groundswell of support from sympathetic citizens still on the sidelines.

In which case the right move for the protesters is to take to the streets again. And again. And again. And again.

Then, each time the government lashes out, it provokes more hatred. Soon, nobody likes the government and its hateful tactics. The protests continue to grow until they reach the tipping point, and the tyrants flee as their government falls.

This is the pattern that has worked again and again - successfully - for the last 40 years. It has worked in country after country, irrespective of culture or local politics. Its success rate is much, MUCH higher than that of armed revolution - and it usually produces better results in the aftermath as well.

By all means, keep your guns; use them to defend your home when the pro-government irregulars turn up to try and kill you in the middle of the night. People understand and approve of home defense.

But fighting in the streets? That just scares them, and they don't like whoever starts or participates in it.

[fractalnavel]

lessons from elsewhere

It's nice that I'm not the only one who thinks that until the government turns into an indestructible monument to authoritarianism like Russia's, it's necessary to protest, showing with protest that "the people are not afraid of yours, the people remain true to the idea that "the government should be afraid of the people", and not the other way around. A number of democratic representatives are talking about this, the most prominent of which is Bernie Sanders, Obama, who personally attended the rally. It's nice that the people have not fallen into apathy, but are showing resistance. But, the time has come for me to tell where the dog is buried (as they say in Russia, what does it mean, what's the catch)

Firstly, such rallies are good for promoting your ideas, and are good as a tool for grassroots self-government (veche in Russian)

MEDIA COMPONENT OF THE PROTEST A rally is not a means of changing power or even a way to improve it. It is a way of agitating ideas. When one is confused with the other, rallies lead to disappointment that no matter how many rallies you hold, nothing changes anyway (unless, of course, the media and publicity have ceased to have an influence on decision-making). At a rally, we show that we come not just to express resentment towards the government, but to declare that we have reasonable concerns or hopes, and a way to propose a program of action. If there is freedom of the media, then the public puts pressure on the adoption of certain decisions, if there is not, then... as a rule, a rally is easy to localize and suppress RALLY VERTICAL CONTROL 1917 in Russia is the time of rallies. At them, political forces gave the people the opportunity to develop resolutions on plans for events and reforms, which were subsequently mandatory for implementation, otherwise there would be a blow to ratings. These rallies also do not have the goal of overthrowing and improving the government, and they are ineffective under authoritarian systems, because the constant adoption of resolutions will sooner or later become a comedy, the goal will disappear. Therefore, eternal rallies are not the best way out.

March of Millions - this phrase flashed here - this is what the protest actions in Russia in 2012 were called, the phrase itself was invented by the then well-known in Russia leftist activist Sergei Udaltsov, now politically repressed. They, too, like yours, were "weekend rallies", or holiday rallies. It all ended with Bolotnaya Square, with such a harsh dispersal of the protest that after that many police officers resigned and never returned to the police service. This is an anti-example of how to use a mobilized electorate. By the way, the scandalous politician of nationalist convictions Eduard Limonov proposed a protest at the Kremlin. Now I will move from criticism to proposals.

The first protests for Mount Kushtau were ordinary rallies and flash mobs that had no effect under the conditions of an authoritarian oligarchic dictatorship, until I appeared. I immediately suggested setting up a "watch post" (a permanent monitoring camp where civil activists from all over the country would gather at the first call), declaring an eco-strike. And at first this initiative was declared "too radical" and I was called "a person with a keen sense of youthful maximalism". Okay, that's how it all started. I then warned that the city administration could move all the construction equipment within 5 hours and when the development of the shikhan (a limestone mountain) began, it would be too late to protest. As a result, just before the start of the development, they listened to my advice and set up a camp, which was attacked by "titushki" (people who were paid to disperse the protest so that the police would not dirty their hands), and then people from neighboring regions went to defend Kushtau, and I was able to bring publicity to the protest. That's not all, the Left Ecological Platform, responsible for the protest, was joined by a district police officer from Ishimbay and a whole detachment of Airborne Forces veterans, the latter of whom became the vanguard of the protest in the city, the protesters occupied the city for two days and planned a march to Ufa, with the goal of blocking the building

Now to the proposal. It is necessary to block administrative institutions in large cities of the states with tent watch camps, and as soon as there is an attack or attempt to disperse, immediately spread everything through the media, mobilizing as many protesters as possible. The territory of the camp should be declared "free from Trump's plutocracy territory", attract the police to your side, so that they will know what technologies are used to disperse the protest and accordingly prepare the protesters for possible defense, inundate all government agencies of the Trump apparatus with individual letters, tying their hands, for every Trump document 10 documents from the protesters, prepare to seize power and transfer power to the "People's Delegates of America". This is a real protest that can either scare Trump, so that he will at least consider the issue of negotiations with the protesters (respectively, improving the government), or put the protesters in a more advantageous position if it is necessary to seize power.

In Russia it was possible in the 2010s, but if the opposition was bolder and more numerous, now, thanks to the war and the repressive mechanism, it is not possible. In America, for now, this method can work. So, I congratulate the Americans on the first step in liberating America, the first stage of the second war of independence, this time from oligarchy and kleptocracy.

[fractalnavel]

"Companies like CoreCivic and GEO Group receive government funding based on the number of people they detain, which is why they lobby for stricter immigration policies. It’s a lucrative business: CoreCivic made over $560m from Ice contracts in a single year. In 2024, GEO Group made more than $763m from Ice contracts."

[fractalnavel]

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men — not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate and to defend causes that were, for the moment, unpopular.”

[fractalnavel]

an underrated part of this whole crisis I think is the growing schism between the billionaire class and the corporations that are, increasingly, below them.

like, compare and contrast Satya Nadella - a lifer Microsoft guy and appointee of a publicly traded corporation - and Musk. if Nadella tanks Microsoft's stock or botches some major enterprise of theirs, he'll just get fired. he serves at the pleasure of Microsoft, the institution. if Musk releases the Model 1488 tomorrow and tanks Tesla's stock, there's a limited amount anyone can do about it because he has so much personal control over Tesla.

it feels increasingly like the billionaire class is a sort of cancer that incubates in the heart of capital if it's allowed to grow uncontrollably, as it did post-Reagan's deregulations. all the oceans of low interest money flowing into corporate coffers started overflowing into a small class of people who were mostly by chance alone placed to be in the splash zone when the Katy Perry Kid's Choice Awards slime cannon of cash got sprayed at their various startups or corporations.

as the power and influence of those corporations grew, so too did the personal power of this small executive class. but as that executive class grew in power their interests started to diverge from the corporations that spawned them, and the reality-warping power of having megacorporation-scale wealth in the hands of individual people frankly drove them all a little insane. particularly the tech guys, since they were all grubby antisocial nerds before the great golden index finger of capital reached down out of the clouds and tapped them on the forehead.

now they think they're all Nietzchean supermen who have the power to shape reality more or less at their wills, and have deluded themselves into thinking that they have an existence independent of the corporations, capital and even governments that spawned them. I think that delusion is likely to keep Musk in place basically indefinitely, until some personal exogenous shock knocks him off his feet (assassination attempt, Trump getting tired of him and purging him, Grimes getting custody, who knows) and given his fragile mental state, does something very drastic.

[fractalnavel]

There’s an old story/quote attributed to Kurt Vonnegut that this reminds me of. I cannot post the photo so I will give the text of it:

Kurt Vonnegut tells his wife he's going out to buy an envelope:

"Oh, she says, well, you're not a poor man. You know, why don't you go online and buy a hundred envelopes and put them in the closet?

And so I pretend not to hear her. And go out to get an envelope because I'm going to have a hell of a good time in the process of buying one envelope.

I meet a lot of people. And see some great looking babies. And a fire engine goes by. And I give them the thumbs up. And I'll ask a woman what kind of dog that is. And, and I don't know. The moral of the story is - we're here on Earth to fart around.

And, of course, the computers will do us out of that.

And what the computer people don't realize, or they don't care, is we're dancing animals. You know, we love to move around. And it's like we're not supposed to dance at all anymore."

---

ed.: ah, so that's the context of the "we're here fart around" quote.

[fractalnavel]

We, the American people and also the world and life on it beyond the human, are hostage to a small cadre of emotionally stunted and intellectually deranged men driven by hatred underwritten by stupidity (and manipulated by Vladimir Putin). But you already knew that.

[fractalnavel]

“Now that Trump has captured the intelligence services, the Justice Department, and the FBI,” military specialist Tom Nichols wrote in The Atlantic, “the military is the last piece he needs to establish the foundations for authoritarian control of the U.S. government.”

[fractalnavel]

“In an ever-changing, incomprehensible world the masses 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. ... Mass propaganda discovered that its audience was ready at all times to believe the worst, no matter how absurd, and did not particularly object to being deceived because it held every statement to be a lie anyhow. The totalitarian mass leaders based their propaganda on the correct psychological assumption that, under such conditions, one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness.”

― Hannah Arendt, The Origins of Totalitarianism