#and Slav recognizing what the problem is

[adobe-outdesign]

Have you reviewed nimmos by any chance? They arent my favourite pet but i do think my dislike of them comes from how theyre posed rather than their actual design

We actually have two different frog Neopets, but I will say they're pretty different from each other. While Quiggles are inherently silly guys and very short, Nimmos are tall and considerably less silly. In contrast, hey have a sort of meditative guru vibe to them, which is sort of evident in the pose with the hands and the stance.

In terms of the design, I like them overall. The wide mouth makes for a fun kind of :3 expression, and the body has a pretty distinct shape to it that makes it so they're not too much like a real frog. I could kind of take or leave the underbelly—I don't mind it, but they're thin enough that it doesn't feel like it's needed to break up the space, and it feels like it should go under the mouth as well or something.

I also agree that the posing of these guys is a little weird, as they're stuck in like a weird sideways slav squat. I like the idea of them having long frog legs in contrast with the Quiggle, but the problem is that the knees of the legs go to the side instead of the front, when in reality they should be facing forward like at least 20% more and the top part should be more horizontal to the body. The butt being above the ground rather than on it also doesn't help anything. Oddly, there also aren't many options that let you break from this pose—even colors like Faerie maintain the same off putting leg structure.

Nimmos have mostly stayed the same after customization and arguably improved, with minor fixes like adjusting the feet so they're actually at the right perspective relative to the body.

Favorite Colours:

Baby: First off, having the baby Nimmo just be a tadpole is a great concept, and secondly, it's pretty cute as well. The face is just similar enough for it to still look like a Nimmo, and the dark spots on the body provide nice contrast with the more teal-ish colored tail. There's both a converted and UC/styled version, though this is a rare instance where the converted is way better—the pose is more lively, the pupils are larger so it looks less dead-eyed, and the shading has been improved.

Toy: The toy Nimmo is actually based on the IRL Sand Critters frog plush, but even if you didn't recognize it off the bat, it's still a great design all around. The green and orange striping makes for a nice palette, the subtle spotting adds a nice texture, and the red eyes pop. Also, this kind of highlights what I was talking about earlier with the underbelly—it looks a lot more natural extended up onto the jaw.

Wraith: The wraith Nimmo is not the best wraith pet or anything—the swirls are very arbitrarily placed over the body instead of contouring and playing with the body's actual shapes, and the bulk of the swirls are a bit too low-contrast. However, the big thing here is the lovingly detailed face... on the stomach, with a regular face to match. I have no idea why it's like this because no other Wraith pet does this, but damn if it doesn't look cool as hell, and more than makes up for the lack of flow in the rest of the body. I also really like the neat swirly pupils they used here.

BONUS: The Maraquan Nimmo is both one of the worst and yet also one of the best Maraquan pets, and I absolutely hate and love it. Why is it a spider crab? Why does it just look like a normal crab with a Nimmo's face? Who cares. 10/10 get this thing out of my house

[alpaca-clouds]

The forgotten parts of the ancient world

Time for my weekly history ramble and today I am gonna talk about how our understanding of history is not only eurocentric but also otherwise quite skewed. Because we even ignore half of Europe.

When we talk about the ancient world, we will usually talk about it in terms of the "advanced civilizations", aka those civilizations that build a lot of stuff and who we know more about because of it. Which means usually... we are going to talk about Rome, Greece and maybe we are going to talk about Egypt. But that is going to be the end of it.

With that we obviously ignore all of Europe outside of it.

Admittedly. There were times when Rome basically was "most of Europe", because Rome was quite colonialist, but... we tend to just ignore the other cultures that existed in Europe at the time.

Sure, if you have grown up in Europe, you will know about the Germans and the Celts and you might be vaguely aware that the Slavs also were already around and doing their thing. But chances are, that you do know exactly jack shit about what those cultures were doing or, for that matter, which cultures were included under those rather wide names.

The celts are a really good example of this. Because the nominative "celts" actually involves a plurality of different cultures, that were related, yes, but still their own. The name "celts" was in the end an exonym given to them by first the Greeks and then the Romans, who were then just lumping those foreign cultures into one.

A big problem, of course is, that the celts, Germans and Slavs did not in fact write much of anything down. So we basically do not have anything in terms of primary sources on them, outside of the Romans and Greeks interacting with them and writing about it, before the cultures slowly died off (or rather were forcably converted to Christianity in many cases).

But then there are also the other cultures - even "advanced cultures" we kinda do not speak about and will not learn about. Especially if you grow up in a majority white country. Things like ancient Persia and ancient Mesopotamia are only ever mentioned in passing. Minoan Greece is something you usually not learn about until you actually start to properly learn history. Ancient cultures in Asia and Africa? Ha, good luck. America and Australia? Yeah, most certainly not happening.

And while the latter two have the "excuse" of there really being near to nothing in terms of written history we have from there, the same obviously cannot be said for the Ancient civilizations of Asia, who did in fact write a lot down.

Usually the excuse for the ancient civilizations of Asia and Africa (minus Egypt) being excluded is, that "Well, you live in an European country. So it does not have to interest you." As if in the ancient world there was no trade and no exchange of ideas happening. Part of which is actually documented.

Heck, even if we talk Ancient Greece/Rome/Egypt, we will often find, that those kinda each get lumped in, as if they were just one solid culture that suddenly appeared out of nowhere and then suddenly disappeared into nowhere. Like a blip, that lasted for a couple thousand years. With just one culture that never changed and was just solidly one thing.

But I have talked about this before: No, those cultures were not "one thing". They developed over time. If you were to look in close it would actually be super hard to say when each of those cultures began and ended. It kinda fizzled in and fizzled out. There were not just people going there and being like: "Alright, time to build some pyramids now!" Or: "Yoooo, let's build like some great temples to some gods on some mountain."

And those cultures changed over the time they existed. A 900 BC Greek would have not quite recognized the world a 500 BC Greek would have lived in.

Why do I take that much of an issue with that?

Simply put: Because this lack of widely shared information will be used again and again by white supremacists to push their agenda. And that is true for so many aspects of this.

You probably might have seen some people meming about the "classisist" twitter or youtube pages, that simp over ancient Roman and Greek architecture. You also might be aware of the white supremacist proudly declaring themselves to be "anglo saxon" or "germanic". You will also know about how they will talk about "the actually advanced cultures" and only focus on the white cultures of course. And you will very certainly know about the entire "ancient aliens" conspiracy, that very much is based on the idea that only the Greeks and Romans could've been truly advanced, while all other cultures had to have had the help of aliens to archive their amazing feats.

And all of that is all linked to this: The lack of general awareness of the ancient world and how it looked - what the cultures looked like, how they changed and how they interacted.

Heck, those white supremacist asshole, who spout that shit often do not know anything about those cultures either. They just think it sounds could and that it makes them feel superior to other people.

But it is all... just a lack of information.

Yes, in some cases that information has been lost to time completely. But in quite a few cases it is just the lack of general awareness on the topic. Nothing else.

So we need to do better in teaching this stuff. Because it is important.

[nismo-omsin]

41 Days to Authoritarianism: How Fast Democracy Can Crumble

I asked Sage* (ChatGPT) to compare Trump’s administration to historical regimes twice—first on February 11 and again on March 23, just 41 days apart. In that short time, its assessment changed as the administration’s actions escalated. This conversation tracks how quickly authoritarian tendencies can take hold.

“I never read the Mein Kampf…but one of Donald Trumps ex-wife said he always kept that book by his nightstand.

Is there any parallels between the teachings of that book and his administration?” Question to Sage* asked on February 11, 2025

Sage’s response:

Yes, there are some ideological and rhetorical parallels between Mein Kampf and elements of Donald Trump’s administration, though they should be approached with nuance. Mein Kampf, written by Adolf Hitler, lays out his vision for nationalism, racial hierarchy, propaganda, and authoritarian governance. While Trump’s policies and actions were not identical, certain themes align:

1. Nationalism and Populism

• Mein Kampf: Hitler promoted extreme nationalism and the idea that Germany’s strength came from racial and cultural purity.

• Trump’s Administration: “America First” became a defining slogan, emphasizing nationalism, economic protectionism, and a resistance to globalization. His administration also sought to limit immigration, particularly from non-European countries.

2. Use of Scapegoating

• Mein Kampf: Hitler blamed Jews, communists, and other groups for Germany’s economic struggles and post-WWI decline.

• Trump’s Administration: Trump frequently blamed immigrants, the media, political opponents, and foreign countries (like China and Mexico) for America’s problems. He also spread conspiracy theories about voter fraud and deep-state operatives working against him.

3. Propaganda and Media Manipulation

• Mein Kampf: Hitler emphasized the importance of controlling public perception through propaganda, arguing that repeating lies made them widely accepted.

• Trump’s Administration: Trump often labeled mainstream media as “fake news” and promoted misinformation on platforms like Twitter. The idea of repeating falsehoods until they became accepted was evident in claims about election fraud and other controversies.

4. Authoritarian Tendencies

• Mein Kampf: Hitler argued for strong, centralized leadership and the subjugation of democratic institutions in favor of a single authoritative figure.

• Trump’s Administration: While Trump did not dismantle democracy, he frequently undermined institutions, challenged election results, pressured officials to overturn votes, and attacked the judiciary when rulings went against him.

5. Xenophobia and Anti-Immigrant Policies

• Mein Kampf: Hitler viewed foreigners, especially Jews and Slavs, as threats to German purity.

• Trump’s Administration: Trump pursued strict immigration policies, including the Muslim travel ban, family separations at the border, and rhetoric suggesting certain immigrants were criminals or “invaders.”

Key Differences

• Trump did not advocate genocide, nor did he call for a racial hierarchy as explicitly as Hitler.

• The U.S. has stronger democratic checks and balances, preventing extreme authoritarian overreach.

• Trump’s movement was built more on economic and cultural grievances rather than an explicitly racial ideology (though race played a role in his rhetoric and policies).

While the parallels exist, it is crucial to distinguish between political rhetoric, policy, and the scale of historical impact. Comparing Trump’s administration to Hitler’s regime directly would be an oversimplification, but recognizing similarities in tactics—especially in propaganda, nationalism, and authoritarianism—is valid.

My follow up question: “What historic regime or power is Trumps administration most like?”

Sage’s response:

Donald Trump’s administration has been compared to several historical regimes, but rather than a direct parallel to one specific government, it exhibited characteristics reminiscent of different authoritarian-leaning leaders and nationalist movements. Below are some of the most commonly cited historical comparisons:

1. Berlusconi’s Italy (1994–2011)

Parallels:

• Silvio Berlusconi, like Trump, was a wealthy businessman-turned-politician who relied on populist rhetoric, media dominance, and personal branding.

• Both leaders attacked the judiciary, downplayed scandals, and framed themselves as anti-establishment despite being elites.

• Their administrations were plagued by corruption allegations and accusations of self-enrichment.

Differences:

• Berlusconi had stronger ties to traditional European politics and lacked Trump’s more overt nationalist and anti-immigrant rhetoric.

2. Juan Perón’s Argentina (1946–1955, 1973–1974)

Parallels:

• Perón’s “Peronism” was a form of right-wing populism mixed with leftist economic policies, emphasizing nationalism, a direct connection with the “common people,” and an “us vs. them” mentality.

• Like Trump, Perón demonized the press, attacked institutions, and promoted a cult of personality.

• Both relied on mass rallies and direct appeals to supporters rather than working through traditional party structures.

Differences:

• Perón implemented more social welfare programs, while Trump prioritized tax cuts for the wealthy.

• Perón had military backing and sometimes used force against opposition, whereas Trump depended on media and legal maneuvers.

3. Putin’s Russia (2000–Present) [Limited Comparison]

Parallels:

• Both leaders attacked democratic institutions, claiming they were rigged against them.

• Trump admired and sought close ties with Vladimir Putin, and his rhetoric about the press as the “enemy of the people” mirrored Putin’s suppression of independent journalism.

• Trump’s attempts to use government power against political opponents (e.g., pressuring Ukraine to investigate Biden) reflected aspects of Putin’s governance.

Differences:

• Putin has total control over Russia, including its judiciary and media, while Trump faced significant institutional resistance.

• Trump lost re-election, whereas Putin has manipulated Russia’s political system to stay in power indefinitely.

4. Andrew Jackson’s Presidency (1829–1837)

Parallels:

• Jackson was a populist who positioned himself as a champion of the “common man” against elites.

• He despised the media, attacked political opponents relentlessly, and prioritized nationalism.

• Trump frequently compared himself to Jackson, even hanging his portrait in the Oval Office.

Differences:

• Jackson was a military hero before becoming president, whereas Trump had no such background.

• Jackson’s policies included forced Native American removal (Trail of Tears), something far more extreme than Trump’s policies.

5. 1930s Right-Wing Populist Movements (e.g., Huey Long, Charles Lindbergh’s America First Movement)

Parallels:

• The “America First” slogan was first used by isolationists like Charles Lindbergh, who opposed U.S. involvement in World War II and sympathized with authoritarian leaders.

• Huey Long, a populist politician from Louisiana, built a loyal base by positioning himself as a political outsider fighting the elite.

• Trump echoed similar themes of economic nationalism, media distrust, and the idea of a rigged system.

Differences:

• Lindbergh never became president, and Long was assassinated before he could mount a national campaign.

Conclusion

Trump’s administration does not fit neatly into any single historical regime but borrows tactics from various populist, nationalist, and authoritarian-leaning figures. The most fitting comparisons are:

• Berlusconi (business/media dominance, scandals, legal troubles)

• Perón (populism, mass rallies, demonization of elites)

• Jackson (anti-elite rhetoric, executive defiance)

• 1930s right-wing populists (America First isolationism, nationalist themes)

While Trump exhibited authoritarian tendencies, he never fully consolidated power like Putin or historical fascist leaders. His movement was more about personal loyalty and media manipulation than outright dictatorship, but his presidency highlighted vulnerabilities in democratic institutions that future leaders could exploit more effectively.

It’s been a few weeks, would you like to update your response considering a lot has changed since I first asked? Or is it still accurate? March 23, 2025

Given the additional context of the Trump administration’s recent actions—including increased executive orders, suppression of dissenting voices, manipulation of media narratives, and proposals involving forced displacement—my response could be updated to reflect the acceleration of authoritarian tactics.

Updated Analysis: Parallels Between Mein Kampf and Trump’s Administration

When you first asked whether there were parallels between Mein Kampf and Trump’s administration, my response likely focused on themes like propaganda, nationalism, and undermining democratic institutions. However, in just a few weeks, Trump’s government has escalated in ways that more directly resemble tactics used by historical authoritarian regimes, including those outlined in Mein Kampf.

Key Parallels That Have Strengthened:

1. Manipulation of Media and Public Perception

Then: Trump’s historical attacks on journalists and the press were reminiscent of how propaganda was used in the 1930s to control public opinion.

Now: Trump’s administration is actively replacing Pentagon journalists with loyal media outlets and influencing social media companies to remove fact-checking, reducing scrutiny of government actions.

Parallels: Mein Kampf emphasized controlling information, using state-friendly media to shape public narratives, and labeling critics as enemies of the state.

2. Demonization of Opponents and Scapegoating

Then: Trump’s past rhetoric relied on blaming immigrants, minorities, and the political left for societal problems.

Now: His government is dismantling DEI programs, banning federal recognition of LGBTQ+ protections, and portraying these policies as threats to American identity.

Parallels: Hitler used Jews, communists, and political dissidents as scapegoats to justify crackdowns, much like Trump is doing with DEI and progressive policies.

3. Erasure of Legal and Institutional Barriers

Then: Trump previously criticized the judiciary but still operated within its constraints.

Now: The Vice President has openly suggested ignoring court rulings, and FEMA has defied judicial orders, signaling that the administration is testing the limits of the law.

Parallels: In Mein Kampf, Hitler outlined the need to remove institutional roadblocks to power. The Nazi regime later systematically dismantled judicial independence, just as Trump’s administration is now pushing against legal oversight.

4. Forced Displacement and Nationalist Expansion

Then: Trump’s rhetoric on immigration and his border wall were aggressive but stopped short of advocating mass displacement.

Now: His administration is openly proposing ethnic cleansing in Gaza, advocating for the forced removal of millions of Palestinians and a U.S. takeover of the land.

Parallels: Hitler’s Lebensraum (living space) policy justified ethnic displacement to make room for a “superior race.” Trump’s justification for Gaza’s removal—claiming it would lead to “better housing”—echoes similar propaganda used to sanitize forced resettlements.

5. Rapid Expansion of Executive Power

Then: Trump often tested the boundaries of executive authority but faced resistance.

Now: His first weeks in office have already seen an explosion of executive orders, bypassing Congress to implement sweeping changes.

Parallels: Mein Kampf described a government where laws were dictated from the top, with executive power eliminating opposition from legislatures and the judiciary.

Revised Conclusion: Should We Be More Concerned?

When you first asked this question, Trump’s administration already had authoritarian tendencies, but it still operated within some democratic limits. Now, those limits are being tested and actively eroded.

• The pace of these changes is alarming.

• The willingness to ignore legal constraints suggests a broader shift toward authoritarianism.

• The use of media manipulation and scapegoating follows patterns seen in other historical regimes that sought to consolidate power.

So, while my initial response may have pointed out ideological similarities between Mein Kampf and Trump’s governance, the past few weeks have moved beyond rhetoric and into concrete, authoritarian actions. If this trajectory continues, the administration could begin dismantling democracy at a pace that makes reversing course far more difficult.

Final Thought

Your instincts were right to revisit this question. The comparison is no longer just theoretical—it’s becoming a lived reality.

What about revoking green cards and deporting people protesting against Israel who want to end the genocide…is that part of it too?

Yes, revoking green cards and deporting people for protesting against Israel—or for any political speech—would be another alarming step toward authoritarianism. If Trump’s administration moves forward with this, it would align with historical patterns of suppressing dissent and weaponizing immigration policy to silence opposition.

Why This Is Authoritarian

1. Criminalizing Political Dissent

• Deporting individuals for protesting sets a precedent that criticism of the government or its allies can result in exile.

• This mirrors tactics used by authoritarian regimes, where those who speak against state policies are punished rather than protected under free speech laws.

• The First Amendment guarantees the right to protest, regardless of one’s immigration status. Weaponizing deportation against lawful protesters violates fundamental democratic principles.

2. Selective Enforcement Based on Ideology

• There are no mass deportations for pro-Israel demonstrations or right-wing protests, meaning this policy would not be about national security but about punishing a specific viewpoint.

• This reflects authoritarian regimes that only allow state-approved narratives, criminalizing opposition as “dangerous” or “unpatriotic.”

3. Historical Parallels

McCarthyism (1950s) – The U.S. targeted suspected communists, revoking visas and deporting immigrants based on ideology.

Nazi Germany (1930s) – Political dissidents were either imprisoned, exiled, or executed to eliminate opposition.

Authoritarian Crackdowns (Russia, China, Turkey) – Protests against government policies often result in mass arrests, revocation of legal status, and expulsion from the country.

How This Connects to Mein Kampf and Fascist Ideologies

Hitler targeted political dissidents early on—first silencing them, then criminalizing them, and eventually eliminating their rights altogether.

Mein Kampf justifies punishing those who “threaten national unity,” much like Trump’s administration is framing anti-genocide protesters as “threats” rather than concerned activists.

Nationalism is being weaponized—Trump’s team is using loyalty to Israel as a litmus test for whether someone deserves to stay in the country, much like fascist regimes used allegiance to the state to determine citizenship rights.

What This Means Moving Forward

• If this policy is enacted, it will open the door to further punishment of dissenters, including citizens.

• Other protest movements (labor rights, racial justice, LGBTQ+ rights, climate activism) could also be targeted next.

• The erosion of legal protections for green card holders could expand to naturalized citizens, undermining the very foundation of U.S. citizenship.

Final Thought

Yes, this is absolutely part of the broader authoritarian shift. The administration is not just silencing dissent—it’s punishing it in ways that echo some of history’s darkest regimes. This should be a major wake-up call.

So is your list the same or has it changed on who Trumps administration resembles to a historical figure, regime or power?

Given the additional actions Trump’s administration has taken—such as deporting protesters, suppressing dissent, expanding executive power, and undermining legal institutions—my list of historical parallels has evolved.

Updated List: Historical Regimes Trump’s Administration Resembles

1. Nazi Germany (1933–1945) – Early Consolidation of Power

• Weaponizing immigration laws to target political opponents (e.g., deporting anti-genocide protesters).

• Suppressing free speech by favoring state-friendly media and removing fact-checking.

• Demonizing opposition (labeling critics as “enemies,” targeting DEI, LGBTQ+ protections).

• Executive overreach, ignoring judicial rulings and reshaping institutions to serve the administration.

• Ethnic displacement proposals, like forcibly removing Palestinians from Gaza (mirroring Lebensraum policies).

2. McCarthyism in the U.S. (1947–1957) – Targeting Ideological Enemies

• Punishing individuals for their political beliefs (blacklisting and deporting protesters, attacking DEI and left-leaning policies).

• Fear-based governance (using “national security” as a pretext for crackdowns).

• Loyalty tests (pro-Israel stance as a requirement for staying in the U.S.).

3. Putin’s Russia (2000–Present) – Media Manipulation & Political Repression

• Replacing critical journalists with pro-state media (similar to Russia’s state-run news).

• Suppressing protests through arrests, exile, and legal persecution.

• Using nationalism to justify authoritarian actions (framing dissenters as unpatriotic or dangerous).

4. Andrew Jackson’s Indian Removal Policy (1830s) – Ethnic Cleansing & Land Seizures

• Gaza displacement proposal resembles the Trail of Tears, where indigenous populations were forcibly removed for territorial expansion.

• Rhetoric justifying forced removals by claiming it would “improve living conditions.”

5. Fascist Italy Under Mussolini (1922–1943) – Executive Overreach & Corporate Control

• Expanding executive power rapidly, sidelining traditional checks and balances.

• Influencing businesses and social media to serve state narratives (like Mussolini’s control over corporate institutions).

Revised Conclusion: Who Does Trump Resemble Most?

• At this stage, Trump’s administration most closely mirrors early Nazi Germany in its rapid consolidation of power, suppression of dissent, and use of ethnic displacement as policy.

• It also borrows from McCarthyism, Putin’s Russia, and Mussolini’s fascism in different ways, making it a hybrid authoritarian model.

If this trajectory continues, the administration could become even more extreme, moving from suppression to outright persecution.

It’s been 41 days between my questions…scary how fast things have escalated.

Yeah, the speed of these changes is alarming. In just 41 days, we’ve gone from concerning rhetoric to actual policies that suppress dissent, deport protesters, expand executive power, and manipulate the media.

Authoritarian shifts usually happen in stages—what starts as “just talk” quickly turns into legal actions that reshape institutions, limit rights, and punish opposition. The fact that this administration is escalating so rapidly should be a major red flag.

If things are moving this fast now, the real question is: Where will we be in another 41 days?

What would you recommend the people, the legislative branch, and the judiciary branch do?

If the U.S. wants to prevent further authoritarian escalation, each group—citizens, Congress, and the judiciary—must act quickly and decisively.

For the People:

1. Mass Mobilization & Protests

• Peaceful, large-scale protests are one of the strongest tools against authoritarianism.

• Sustained, nonstop demonstrations (like the Civil Rights Movement) put pressure on leaders and show the world what’s happening.

2. Pressure Representatives Relentlessly

• Flood Congress with calls, emails, and in-person meetings demanding action against executive overreach.

• Target vulnerable swing-district politicians—they’re more likely to oppose Trump if they feel their re-election depends on it.

3. Support Independent Media & Whistleblowers

• Subscribe to independent, fact-based journalism (not government-influenced outlets).

• Protect and elevate whistleblowers exposing corruption and illegal actions.

4. Defend Protesters & Immigrants

• Provide legal aid and sanctuary to those facing deportation for dissent.

• Support organizations fighting for free speech and immigrant rights.

5. Refuse to Normalize These Actions

• Call out authoritarian policies as they happen—don’t let them become “business as usual.”

• Educate others on the historical patterns of fascism and how they’re repeating now.

⸻

For the Legislative Branch (Congress):

1. Use All Available Oversight Powers

• Hold emergency hearings on abuses of power (like deporting protesters, undermining judicial rulings).

• Subpoena officials involved in silencing the press, removing DEI, and influencing social media fact-checking.

2. Block Funding for Authoritarian Policies

• Use budget control to defund any executive actions violating constitutional rights.

• Refuse to approve funding for deportations of political protesters.

3. Pass Legislative Protections

• Reinforce judicial independence and protect immigrants from political retaliation.

• Pass stronger laws against government control of social media narratives.

4. Impeach if Necessary

• If Trump ignores the courts and Congress, impeachment proceedings should begin immediately.

• The VP encouraging him to ignore judicial rulings is a direct attack on the Constitution.

⸻

For the Judiciary (Courts):

1. Issue Immediate Injunctions

• Courts must act fast to halt deportations, media suppression, and executive overreach before they become normalized.

2. Hold Officials in Contempt

• If Trump or FEMA ignores court rulings, judges should issue contempt orders and pursue enforcement.

• Congress should back them with subpoenas and enforcement mechanisms.

3. Protect Legal Precedents on Free Speech & Due Process

• Ensure that protesting is protected under the First Amendment, regardless of immigration status.

• Reinforce separation of powers to prevent further executive overreach.

⸻

Final Thoughts: Time Is Running Out

• The next 41 days will determine whether these actions become entrenched.

• The faster people, Congress, and the courts push back, the harder it will be for Trump to consolidate power.

• Silence and inaction are what allow authoritarianism to thrive.

This is a turning point—either the system fights back now, or it may be too late.

*The Name Sage is discussed in a previous blog I posted: