#institute oligarchy

[intelligentchristianlady]

Long Story Short

"The administration's gutting of the government seeks to decimate the modern government that regulates business, provides a basic social safety net, promotes infrastructure, and protects civil rights and to replace it with a government that permits a few wealthy men to rule.

"The CBO score for the Republicans’ omnibus bill projects that if it is enacted, 16 million people will lose access to healthcare insurance over the next decade in what is essentially an assault on the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. The bill also dramatically cuts Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Plan (SNAP) benefits, clean energy credits, aid for student borrowers, benefits for federal workers, and consumer protection services, while requiring the sale of public natural resources." – HCR, June 4, 2025

[phyrenix]

I guess the only good thing about Donald Trump is the planet is definitely fucked and we will reach global meltdowns sooner than later 🤷🏻‍♀️ if you can’t change the masses, you should just speed up the reset.

[sotomato06]

trump going on and on about everything he planned to do on day one. End the war in Ukraine within 24 hours, lower prices, especially the cost of eggs and "make America great again!". wanna know what he actually did? He cut aid to struggling people both within and outside the nation by cutting cancer research funding, USAID funding (which help both overseas people AND Americans), and threatening aid for California wildfire survivors.

In his first month, he instituted tarriff that's are proving to be detrimental to the us economy and the stock market, antagonized all of our allies overseas by threatening them needlessly and has now allied the United States ideologically with oligarchies and authoritarians world wide. To put that into perspective for all those who were unaware, we voted WITH RUSSIA to not condemn the war in Ukraine. What the actual fuck. He also filled the government up with so many rich, corrupt hacks who are destroying the foundations of our governmental process.

but don't worry Republicans, because a body of water is now named after our failing democracy and you can say there's only two genders as everyone in this nation suffers because of the actions of a tangerine terror and his behind the scenes army of Broligarchy Christian nationalist techbro Hitler wannabes. And I don't even care that I just used a bunch of buzzwords because they're correct description words for the scum of the earth, I would rather eat dog shit than be in the same state as any of them, worthless pieces of literal trash that surround the current administration.

I'm embarrassed to be American, but I am and I'm not going to let some shit head, wanna be daughter fucker ruin this beautiful country for the rest of us.

[bimbroad]

a very very very long winded ramble about mel, classism and the poor writing in arcane

Jumping off from my tags in the other post I reblogged, the way arcane ultimately fails to say anything meaningful about classism except “there are bad and good people on both sides :(“ is why I can’t take most “class-conscious” criticism about/hatred towards Mel seriously. Like if this was a show that took classism seriously within its own narrative, a lot of these arguments would have more merit but classism is unintentionally baked into the way the show is written because of the writers’ own inherent biases and poorly rendered viewpoints of systemic and structural oppression.

I’ve seen several critiques aimed at her character about her billionaire status (which is almost exclusively levied at her, and not any of the other characters that were already rich or would’ve realistically profited greatly from Hextech’s commercialization, such as Viktor and Jayce) claiming she should’ve been depicted as some cartoonishly evil villain because of it and the show did a disservice by not expounding on that…and it confuses me because there is such an easy way to show her class makes her a morally gray character without completely rewriting her personality, but like I said before, the writers did not commit to most aspects of depicting classism in a meaningful way.

I know that neoliberal gets thrown around a lot, but I’m defining it by this quote from Stanford:

“Neoliberalism holds that a society’s political and economic institutions should be robustly liberal and capitalist, but supplemented by a constitutionally limited democracy and a modest welfare state. Neoliberals endorse liberal rights and the free-market economy to protect freedom and promote economic prosperity. Neoliberals are broadly democratic, but stress the limitations of democracy as much as its necessity. And while neoliberals typically think government should provide social insurance and public goods, they are skeptical of the regulatory state, extensive government spending, and government-led countercyclical policy.”

As much as I love Mel (as much as I loved every other morally gray character in this story in s1), she is a neoliberal through and through. She is kind, she is smart, she understands politics like the back of her hand, she supports the liberation of Zaun and actively used her position on the council to “change the system from within” to help Zaunites achieve this and was staunchly against the weaponization of Hextech, but as we later see, Piltover’s “liberation” of Zaun hinges on oppressed people never responding to the violence enacted onto them with violence. It’s the veneer of liberation while Piltover maintains the upper hand because of the oppressive systems they created that Zaunites will spend generations trying to free themselves from.

This doesn’t stop Piltover from being a classist, technocratic oligarchy (“The city is governed by the Council, which is made up of members of some of Piltover's most influential Houses or individuals.”). This doesn’t stop the prejudice for Zaun baked into their culture. This doesn’t stop that Piltover is a technologically-advanced, resource rich city with access to the rest of the world while Zaun is not, and must either figure out how to establish their own access to resources, cultivate their own from almost nothing, or go through Piltover to get them. It wouldn’t stop Piltover from having an economy now shaped around Hextech, in which making synthetic crystals produces the Gray that actively disables and kills Zaunites, disregarding the environmental impact entirely. I could go on about how socioeconomically disadvantaged that Zaun would remain if they were “liberated” by the Piltover council, but all of this to say: the solution that would address the class war between Zaun and Piltover is, at its mildest, a complete reconstruction of Piltover’s society from the top down; not, as Mel advocated for, making slight adjustments within a violently oppressive system that will send police dogs to brutalize the oppressed when they get unruly.

Mel is already somebody who sympathizes with Zaunites, but her methods are ineffective in the long run, although I genuinely don’t think the writers understand that how she’s written. Her moral grayness isn’t because she “manipulated” Jayce, it’s because despite her altruism, she systemically contributes to oppression of Zaunites, especially with the hyper-production of Hextech which, even without direct weaponization, furthers the class divide and pollution in Zaun. If the writers were more aware of this, they could’ve easily written Mel as a billionaire philanthropist.

Piecing together a bunch of quotes to sum up my thoughts on how they could’ve leaned into this already established aspect of her character:

“Large-scale philanthropy is an exercise of power that is fundamentally undemocratic. Since charitable giving brings tax benefits, large-scale philanthropy can undermine the people’s will in favour of the donor’s own values. In effect, taxpayers subsidise the freedom of the rich to realise their own vision of what is good while simultaneously depriving democratically chosen programmes of valuable public funds.

The structure of philanthropy around the world is increasingly a manifestation of plutocracy – government by the wealthy. Rewarding large-scale philanthropy through tax relief and other subsidies gives the rich even more power than their wealth already provides to create a society that furthers their interests at the expense of others.

In fact, the decline of democracy and the rise of vast wealth disparities produces a looping effect: through funding political campaigns and legislative lobbying along with media management of public opinion, the rich can influence the government to protect the institutions and practices that enable them to accumulate even greater wealth. Wealth begets power and power begets wealth.

However, even if not philanthropy, such arrangements are at risk of fostering academic plutocracy. Corporations contribute millions to labs in order to promote and guide research that improves their product and enhances their likelihood of making a profit. Some would argue that this is an important part of what research universities are for. But it is also clear that this funding model incentivises research on certain topics and not others, promoting certain ends and not others.”

Many Mel fans can agree that despite how cool and bad ass she was once she discovered her powers, most of the political aspect of her character kind of…vanished. Like I mentioned in a previous post, most characters in this story are motivated by or shaped by classism because that is the primary struggle (at least at first) between Piltover and Zaun, but because the writers’ gave up on having a difficult solution to a difficult problem, so much of her (and several others) intrigue went with it.

Season 2 Mel could’ve been filled with internal turmoil between wanting to be a good person and do good things, but ultimately realizing that where she stood in society, as an ultra-rich heiress on a council of bigoted, meandering bureaucrats that only move for violence or wealth, was in direct opposition with this goal. She didn’t even have to come to this conclusion by the end of s2, but the show could’ve easily sown the seeds that this struggle existed within her, but that would necessitate that the writers understood that she is a well-meaning neoliberal trying to put a bandaid over bleeding wound of the Piltover and Zaun class war.

anyway thanks for coming to my ted talk

[gayspacepiratesss]

TL; DR: Saving Minrathous allows Neve to hope.

(Saving Treviso allows Lucanis to forgive, but that's another story for another day.)

***

Every companion in DATV hits a character crux during the game, but Neve's and Lucanis's characters -- being linked to the cities they love -- are especially interesting to me.

In particular I think Neve's character is a brilliant navigation of the issues the devs faced in representing the Tevinter Imperium. In previous games, Tevinter is an ancient shadow empire of blood mages and oligarchy; if Ferelden is roughly medieval Britain and Orlais is roughly medieval France, Tevinter is the remnants of the ancient Roman empire, with a hefty number of Nero-like rulers (sadistic, debauched, unchecked) still in residence.

So: how do you make that a place the player can root for? You write the story of the resistance. The anti-slavery Shadow Dragons make sense as Rook's allies, and their work is important. But Neve is how DATV tells the story of Tevinter's losers: the vast majority of regular people, who aren't mages or oligarchs or magisters, but still have to get by in this violent, corrupt place.

Neve has been manipulated and disappointed by institutions her whole life (like, let's be real, most poc and women and lqgbtq+ folks irl). She has enough privilege to protect herself: she's a mage born in a world that prizes magic. But she's not rich, and she's too fiercely ethical to take the shortcuts that would allow her to accumulate power. If you travel with her long enough, she'll tell you about the relatives who were only kind to her because they wanted to use her status as mage, and the uncle who was different. When she's in Lucanis's family home in Antiva, he complains about decorating, and she tells him her entire Minrathous apartment could fit in one room. Her clothes are well-tailored because she knows that looking good is a kind of power, but she'll explain to Bellara that it's not because she actually HAS rich patrons; she just dresses to look as if she might. She knows how to use the theater of wealth, but at the end of the day she's firmly working class, surviving off street food and bad coffee above a second-rate bookshop.

Neve loves Dock Town, sees how badly Tevinter's institutions have failed her community, and is deeply, fiercely protective of the weak and the vulnerable. If you drop a coin in a beggar's plate, she'll drop one too, and ask if they have shelter for the night. Hal insists he owes her free fish, but notice: every time, she says "Sure, next time, Hal," and pays him anyway. She knows he can't afford to give away business, but she'll never embarrass him by pointing this out. This is the same instinct that makes her so sweet to Bellara back at the Lighthouse: her elvhen fangirl is an open book, completely emotionally vulnerable, and Neve is immediately ready to look after her.

(It's also the instinct, I think that keeps her from confronting Rook about [redacted for spoilers] -- how terrifying would it be to fall for someone with that much of a blind spot?? But she's not going to kick Rook while they're down, and she can't help being drawn to them. Like, her fear is justified. It's not a great start to a relationship.)

But Neve is also a realist: she knows she CAN'T protect everyone, no matter how hard she fights. Over and over she's seen bad actors like Aelia slip through the cracks, and good guys like Brom (who ... maybe she had a thing for? some of her notes, idk) get killed trying to make it right. So when Rook meets Neve, this is the open question for her: CAN you make the world a better place? Can you illuminate the dark corners, and lift up the downtrodden, without compromising your own values? Or is it always already a hopeless proposition?

If Rook saves Treviso, and lets Minrathous burn, that's Neve's last straw. She stops looking. There's no way to be better than the Archon or the magisters, and so she'll join the Red Threads to beat them at their own game. Unlike Lucanis, she's still romanceable in this state, because ultimately she's still fighting for the things she loves; she just doesn't really believe in the future anymore. There's a pretty sad version of Neve's story in here, especially if you choose her to dismantle the wards in endgame. It's possible for her to lose everything she ever believed in. I've seen a lot of angry people complaining on the internet that her line at the end of her last companion quest -- "This is MY city now" -- is aggressive and cliché, but these people seem mainly to have saved Treviso and to not understand, as a result, how Neve's character is limited by the circumstances they've engineered. The complaint that her voice acting is hard, guarded, or flat is missing the point: her PERSONALITY is hard, guarded, and flat unless and until you help her believe that gentleness can be rewarded.

If you SAVE Minrathous, I think, Neve's character can have the most beautiful arc -- and her romance makes the most sense here, because as she begins to hope that her efforts in Dock Town might actually make a difference, she also begins to let her guard down. Both these things scare her shitless. Being visible (letting the citizens of Dock Town SEE her fight for them, letting Rook show her some risks are worth taking) is really scary. But if you save Minrathous, Neve begins to hope that there's a future for the soft, sweet, and vulnerable creatures of the world -- and that includes herself.

When her voice starts to crack in the later romance scenes, when her brow crinkles with anxiety and her eyes go wide and soft -- that's the reward for saving Minrathous. That's Neve Gallus with a future.

[hrizantemy]

The Night Court is an Authoritarian Oligarchy Draped in the Aesthetic of Freedom

At first glance, the Night Court—especially Velaris—appears to be a shining utopia. It’s diverse, creative, safe, and egalitarian… if you’re one of the lucky few allowed to live there. But when you step back and look at the full structure of the court—not just the Inner Circle, not just Velaris—you see the truth:

The Night Court is a highly centralized, authoritarian oligarchy, built on selective control, fear, and aesthetic curation.

1. Oligarchic Rule by the Inner Circle

• All power rests in the hands of a small, unelected group: Rhysand and his Inner Circle. There is no representative council, no advisory body of commoners, Illyrians, or Hewn City nobility. All decisions are made by the Inner Circle or Rhys himself.

• These individuals are appointed by Rhysand based on loyalty or personal connection. They are competent, yes, but their authority comes from their relationships, not the will of the people.

• Rhysand rules with absolute authority. His friends may argue with him, but he always has the final say. This is not democracy. It’s aristocratic consolidation masquerading as benevolence.

2. Authoritarian Control over Dissent

• The Court of Nightmares is ruled through violence and fear. Keir governs Hewn City with brutality, and Rhys allows it so long as it keeps the nobility contained and subservient.

• When Keir insults Feyre, Rhysand’s response isn’t justice—it’s public bone-breaking. Rhys doesn’t create a better system; he simply asserts himself as the strongest monster in the room.

• This is not reform—it’s coercion. The people in Hewn City don’t obey because they believe in the system. They obey because they’re afraid.

3. Rigid Social Segregation

• Velaris is a gated sanctuary for Rhysand’s chosen few. The rest of his court—Illyrians, Hewn City dwellers—are kept out. Not metaphorically. Literally.

• It’s a city-state within a kingdom, isolated and elite. Citizens of the Night Court cannot just walk into Velaris. Their value to Rhys determines whether they are “worthy” of access.

• This is segregation by merit and favoritism, not unlike an empire where the core is protected and the borders are left to rot.

Why the Night Court Will Never Grow Beyond This System

1. Rhysand’s Power is Personality-Centric

Rhysand’s entire rule is built around himself—his trauma, his judgment, his control. The Inner Circle functions because they love and trust him, not because of any legal structure or enduring institution.

If Rhysand disappeared, the Night Court would collapse into chaos. There’s no succession plan, no democratic structure, no independent judiciary or religious body that tempers his power. He is the court.

That’s not sustainable. And more importantly, it’s not just.

2. There is No Investment in Structural Reform

Rhysand is willing to make progressive gestures—banning Illyrian wing clipping, promoting women, embracing polyglot diplomacy—but he refuses to build institutions to carry those reforms beyond himself.

• The war camps still practice clipping in secret.

• Mor has no real power over the court that nearly killed her.

• The Library priestesses have no political voice.

• Feyre was made High Lady in title only and rarely wields actual governing power.

Everything good in the Night Court hinges on Rhysand’s approval, not on a system that protects the vulnerable. That means when he’s gone, so is the progress.

3. The Narrative Reinforces the Myth of the “Benevolent Ruler”

This is a court—and a book series—that constantly tells us Rhysand is the best leader in Prythian. That everything he does, no matter how cruel, is “for the greater good.” This romanticizes authoritarianism as long as it wears a good suit and says nice things about women.

It’s the same logic that justifies:

• Forgiving Rhys for drugging and branding Feyre because he “meant well.”

• Ignoring how Velaris was protected at the expense of everyone else.

• Praising the Inner Circle’s “freedom” while allowing Keir to abuse his people.

The problem is systemic, but the narrative keeps blaming the individuals on the fringes (Tamlin, Nesta, Keir) while refusing to interrogate the rot at the center.

The Night Court Doesn’t Need a Savior. It Needs a Revolution.

This court isn’t broken because Rhysand is cruel. It’s broken because the system allows one person to decide the fate of thousands—and no one is allowed to question him.

• Illyrians are angry and beaten down.

• Hewn City is treated like a landfill of undesirable nobles.

• Velaris is a bubble of beauty built on exclusion.

• And even Feyre—High Lady—has to obey Rhysand’s will.

That’s not love. That’s not liberation. That’s control.

The Night Court will never truly evolve because it’s been designed not to. Power cannot decentralize unless the people who hold it choose to let it go. And Rhysand? He loves to say the word “freedom,” but he’s never once risked his control to make it real.

[tzifron]

I’ve been rereading the late anthropologist David Graeber’s Bullshit Jobs, which persuasively makes the case that the corporate world is happy to nurture inefficient or wasteful jobs if they somehow serve the managerial class or flatter elites—while encouraging the public to harbor animosity at those who do rewarding work or work that clearly benefits society. I think we can expect AI to accelerate this phenomenon, and to help generate echelons of new dubious jobs—prompt engineers, product marketers, etc—as it erodes conditions for artists and public servants.

A common refrain about modern AI is that it was supposed to automate the dull jobs so we could all be more creative, but instead, it’s being used to automate the creative jobs. That’s a pretty good articulation of what lies at the heart of the AI jobs crisis. Take the former Duolingo worker who was laid off as part of the company’s pivot to AI.

“So much will be lost,” the writer told me. “I was a content writer, I wrote the questions that learners see in the lessons. I enjoyed being able be creative. We were encouraged to make the exercises fun.” Now, consider what it’s being replace with, per the worker:

“First, the AI output is very boring. And Duolingo was always known for being fun and quirky. Second, it absolutely makes mistakes. Even on things that you would think it could get right. The AI tools that are available for people who pay for Duolingo Max often get things wrong—they have an ‘explain my mistake’ tool that often will suggest something that’s incorrect, sometimes the robot voices are programmed to speak the wrong language.”

This is just a snapshot, too. This is happening, to varying degrees, to artists, journalists, writers, designers, coders—and soon, perhaps already, as Thompson’s story points out, it could be happening to even more jobs and lines of work.

Now, it needs to be underlined once again that generative AI is not yet the one-size-fits-all agent of job replacement its salesmen would like it to be—far from it. A recent SalesForce survey reported on by the Information show that only one-fifth of enterprise AI buyers are seeing good results, and that 61% of respondents report a disappointing return on investment for AI or even none at all.

Generative AI is still best at select tasks that do not require consistent reliability—hence its purveyors taking aim at art and creative industries. But all that’s secondary. The rise of generative AI, linked as it is with the ascent to power of the American tech oligarchy, has given rise to a jobs crisis nonetheless.

We’re left at a crossroads where we must consider nothing less than what kind of jobs we want people to be able to do, what kind of work and which institutions we think are important as a society, and what we’re willing to do to protect them—before the logic of generative AI and the jobs crisis it has begotten guts them to the bone, or devours them altogether.

[crows-are-gathering]

[dreaminginthedeepsouth]

Thank you to the Philadelphia AFL-CIO and the 5,000 people who attended our May Day celebration. In Pennsylvania and all over the world, workers are taking on oligarchy.

* * * *

The resistance is delivering results!

May Day, 2025

Robert B. Hubbell

Resistance to Trump's anti-democratic agenda is succeeding on multiple fronts. May Day 2025 brought major new roadblocks to Trump's efforts to overturn the Constitution. For those asking, “How does this end? What is the path to victory?” May Day reminded us that we must do everything, everywhere, all at once—because Trump is assaulting democracy in every possible way, everywhere, and all at once.

Any objective observer should conclude that those resisting Trump are achieving significant progress that will hasten victory over the long run, even as Trump creates new chaos in the short term. (It is easier to break things than it is to fix them.) So, as we begin the second 100 days of Trump's second term, we have reason to be proud of what we have accomplished and to be hopeful about our path forward.

Let’s take a look at the various ways that those defending democracy held the line on Thursday.

Defenders of Democracy showed up in force on May Day 2025

Defenders of democracy showed up in force at rallies across the nation on May Day, 2025. My inbox is filled with photos taken by readers at protests from California to New Hampshire—and most places in between. Even the hard-to-impress New York Times placed the protests “above the fold” in the center of page A1. See New York Times, Trump Policies Draw Outrage at May Day Protests Across the U.S. (Accessible to all.)

The sub-headline to the Times’ story gets it right:

Labor rallies in large cities swelled with demonstrators focused on immigration, education and worker’s rights. But protesters also rallied at small-town schools and city halls in Trump country.

Notice the phrase “in Trump country” at the end of the Times’ sub-headline. That phrase should send a powerful message to Republicans who are about to vote on a bill that will wreak havoc on all states by decimating Medicaid. Those cuts will hit “Trump country” particularly hard. In response to a reader's suggestion, I am re-posting an article by the Center for American Progress that quantifies the number of constituents in each congressional district that will be affected by the proposed cuts. Check out your congressional district here: The Republican House Budget Resolution's Potential $880 Billion in Medicaid Cuts by Congressional District - Center for American Progress.]

The Times also did justice to the nationwide scale of the protests and the fact that demonstrations are becoming larger and more frequent:

Similar scenes unfolded across the country, as the police closed streets for the crowds in major cities including New York, Chicago, Philadelphia and Washington. But protesters also rallied in small communities that voted overwhelmingly for President Trump, including Norman, Okla.; Sauk City, Wis.; and Hendersonville, N.C. Groups held signs in front of municipal buildings and public schools, and some demonstrators wore red to indicate their support for public education. [I] n recent weeks, demonstrations opposing the president’s agenda, as well as resistance from some of the institutions targeted by Mr. Trump, have increased in size and frequency.

To everyone who helped make the May Day protests a success, thank you! You are heroes of democracy!

[Robert B. Hubbell Newsletter]

[technofeudalism]

"I was so proud of my 88- and 89-year-old parents for wanting to join yesterday's demonstration, and join the well-intentioned movement against oligarchy and fascism. It felt great to be surrounded by such an enormous number and broad range of strangers who all shared the same outrage towards the current administration. The shouts and horn-honking were very heartening. If nothing else, it showed how many of us there are.

At the same time, there was a strong contingent who enjoyed the camaraderie and performative aspect, but ironically reduced the sense that any real change might result. For example, the Harris "I'm Speaking" t-shirts celebrating her famous dismissal of Democrats warning she would lose the election if she didn't adopt a better policy on genocide and war crime. Or signs celebrating Cory Booker, who has a long history of Trump-like positions on AIPAC and public education. Or signs celebrating Joe Biden, whose climate policy centered around building more Tesla charging stations. To me this contingent lent the demonstration a defeatist undertone.

Two clues that this "anti-oligarchy" demonstration posed no real threat to oligarchy (or capital, militarism, or the police state) were that they were widely advertised and covered by oligarch-owned media, and at least in Tucson, there was zero police presence. Compare this to many demonstrations in recent years that actually have posed a threat to capital, militarism, oligarchy or the police state. Even when they are perfectly peaceful and organized by Jews, they are deemed "terrorist" and "anti-Semitic", met with instant and overwhelming police attacks and arrests, while being ignored by oligarch-owned media.

Democrats seem to be responding to Republican radicalism by attempting to re-frame themselves as the Conservative party, calling for the Republican changes to stop, and for a return to the "normalcy" of last year. This is obviously a losing strategy, supported only by a shrinking white middle class that still benefits from such "normalcy." This strategy proposed to simply recreate the exact conditions that led to mass disillusionment and the election of a Hitler-esque candidate.

Many wondered aloud how there could even still be any Trump supporters, considering the violence he's doing to the people, institutions, and norms of the country and the world. This forgets that in order to support someone, you don't have to agree with everything they do. You only have to be tricked into believing that there are only two possible choices and that your person is better than the alternative.

I remind liberals what they were willing to overlook in order to display Biden or Harris bumper stickers and yard signs last year: record levels of poverty and homelessness, record deportations, record military budget, record fossil fuel profits, record transfer of wealth to billionaires, constant lies, and a literal genocide. All because "we have no other choice and this is better than the alternative." Not so different in mindset from the "incomprehensible" Trump holdouts.

Democrats and Republicans are not identical. But they are two factions of a capitalist/militarist/oligarchic/fascist ideology that stands for mass deportation, mass incarceration, mass poverty, mass transfer of wealth to billionaires, lobbying, ignoring public opinion, privatization of human needs, forever war, arms dealing, nuclear weapons, crime, segregation, apartheid, land theft, genocide, violent crackdowns on dissent, and putting fossil fuel profit above human survival.

It is one thing to oppose this capitalist/militarist/oligarchic/fascist ideology. It is another to say "I'm ok with this ideology, as long as I'm the beneficiary and someone else is the victim." The latter is the mantra of brainwashed American political cheerleaders of both major parties. But you will never stamp out fascism by insisting on no change of course for the defeated opposition party, no third party, no revolution. Stamping out fascism will probably require something more radical and bold, something that would dramatically improve people's worsening material conditions."

— Deerhoof / Greg Saunier

[mostlysignssomeportents]

The Hate Machine

An outline of the institutional shape of this politics is coming in to view as well: there’s rich donor oligarchy on top, in the middle there’s the think tanks, magazines, and podcasts that serve as kind of currency exchanges where the coin of mob grievance is turned into respectable notes, and the concerns of elite politics are translated into terms the mob can understand and use, and then there’s the public platforms where little armies of trolls are mustered for whatever task is required by their political masters. In short, it’s a model of the kind of corporate society they wish to secure and reproduce on a larger scale: big bosses, middle-management, workers, all happily coordinated and cooperating. No unions, no pesky social movements, no restive professional managerial-classes with their moral pretensions, no federal bureaucracy meddling and gumming up the works with regulations. The “cancellers” will themselves be cancelled: subjected to harassment and intimidation by the mob if they get out of line. There will be no epistemic hierarchy: just “freedom,” an informational anarchy that translates into the impossibility of the exchange of real content and any rational deliberation. Just memes, nonsense, idiotic enthusiasms and fads, etc.

-John Ganz, Unpopular Front

[vibratingskull]

Hey, I was wondering if I could get your opinion on something if that's OK?

I was just wondering do you think Thrawn has moments where he REALLY struggles over the empires most despicable acts?

I've been hearing a lot about the Ghorman episode of Andor (not seen Andor, but may have to give a watch cause I've heard nothing but good things about it), which sounds absolutely horrific.

In principle (Canon Zahn) Thrawn is against those types of acts (That is not to say that takes any guilt away from him, at the end of the day he still works for the empire and is still complicit).

Do you think he ever has any "screams into a pillow" moments whenever he hears about things such as this? Maybe a crew member will an involuntary eye twitch when discussing some poor people somewhere who have been killed for no reason?

What do you think?

Maybe not so much a "scream into a pillow" and more a "roll my eyes" or a "long tired sigh" type of moment.

I would like to say Thrawn would disapprove of those acts buuuuuuuuuuut... Would the Ascendancy treat dissidents any better? They are already comfortable enslaving their own girls and view other species as especially intelligent animals instead of equals.

And like... All the Chiss are okay with that, even Thalias, who pushes for better treatment of the girls, is not pushing to find a new way to navigate space to free the girls. Even Thrawn, who is extremely paternal towards the girls and even lost his sister to this institution, is very at peace with the system, like it was something inevitable by fate and not a Chiss-made problem.

Why not use pathfinders like all the other species of the chaos? Nope, we do things our way even if we have to sacrifice our own children!

And they are all pretty okay with that!

Like, where are the political opponents to the current system? Everyone is incredibly comfortable with the current system of family oligarchy, and everyone is okay with that.

Where are the Chiss punks? Where are the Chiss socialists? Where are the Chiss anarchists? Where are the Chiss deserters?

Like, the only true """"""opposing"""" voice is Thrawn's, and while we know it is a premeditated plan with Bakif and Ar'alani, the official public accessible version is that he gets exiled on an isolated planet to ultimately die of starvation for treason.

And he is a decorated officer. What do you think they would do to simple civilians?

Am I looking too much into it? Idk, but the Ascendancy is very much akin to the Empire when you take a step back, and Thrawn spent his entire life uplifting and protecting this entire system.

Maybe Thrawn is more accustomed to those practices than we know of.

Like he would try to prevent getting to resort those extreme actions, but if he judges they must happen for the "greater good" then I feel he would make his peace with them.

Idk, tell me what you all think.

[mystical-shadows]

During a recent philosophical discussion, a friend accused me—perhaps only half in jest—of advocating anarchism and abandoning the foundations of organized society. It was a surprising charge, not because it was entirely unfounded, but because I had never consciously embraced anarchism as a legitimate political or philosophical framework.

Throughout my life, I have often lived in a manner that could be described as anarchistic—feral, self-determined, and skeptical of authority. Yet, I never afforded anarchism serious consideration. Like many, I had been conditioned by the prevailing system to fear the term. The dominant narrative taught me that a society governed by anarchist principles would inevitably collapse into dystopian chaos—a Mad Max-like world of lawlessness and despair.

As a result, I dismissed the ideological leanings of my anarchist-leaning friends as little more than eccentricity.

However, now that I am older and possess both the time and intellectual curiosity to explore the subject with greater depth, I find myself re-evaluating my assumptions. What I have discovered is startling: for most of my adult life, I have, in practice and belief, aligned with anarchist principles—without consciously realizing it.

This revelation has compelled me to scrutinize the systems of governance humanity has implemented throughout history. Whether it be chiefdoms, monarchies grounded in divine right, feudal hierarchies, parliamentary democracies, communist regimes, socialist structures, oligarchies, fascist states, or theocratic rule, they all share a fundamental characteristic: a concentration of power in the hands of a self-appointed elite who govern from the top down.

And what of democracy? Its idealistic promise has too often been undermined by manipulation and propaganda. The most recent electoral outcomes serve as a grim reminder: a large portion of the electorate, influenced by misinformation, chose to empower individuals whose actions reveal blatant corruption and disregard for the public good—effectively looting the nation without meaningful resistance.

When we examine history objectively, we find that only two governance models have ever truly provided stable, sustainable, and life-affirming structures for human societies—often enduring for thousands of years:

1. Egalitarian Tribalism, characterized by communal decision-making, shared resources, and horizontal social structures;

2. Individualist, Freedom-Centered Anarchism, which emphasizes autonomy, mutual aid, and voluntary association, free from coercive authority.

And so, yes—I am an anarchist. Perhaps I always have been, though I lacked the vocabulary and historical context to claim the title.

This raises an essential question: What is anarchism, really? And why is it viewed as such a profound threat to the status quo—a status quo that overwhelmingly serves the narrow interests of a self-perpetuating elite perched at the apex of society’s hierarchical pyramid?

Let me explain.

The Philosophy Behind the Anarchy Movement: A Vision of Freedom Beyond the State

Anarchy, in the philosophical sense, is one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented movements in modern political thought. Too often associated with chaos, violence, or lawlessness, its deeper philosophical roots tell a different story—one of radical freedom, ethical responsibility, and a belief in the innate potential of human beings to self-organize without domination. At its heart, the anarchy movement seeks not the destruction of order, but the dismantling of imposed hierarchies and coercive institutions, particularly the state, in favor of a more voluntary, cooperative, and egalitarian society.

The Core Philosophical Tenets

The anarchy movement is grounded in a fundamental distrust of centralized power. This stems from a philosophical commitment to autonomy—the belief that individuals have the right to govern themselves. Anarchists argue that when individuals are subjected to the authority of the state or any dominating structure (including corporations, religious hierarchies, or patriarchal systems), their freedom is diminished. Anarchy thus does not reject order but seeks a form of order that arises organically from the bottom up, rather than being imposed from the top down.

This anti-authoritarian stance is complemented by a commitment to mutual aid and voluntary association, concepts popularized by thinkers like Peter Kropotkin. Contrary to the Hobbesian idea of a brutish state of nature, anarchists view human beings as inherently capable of cooperation and empathy when freed from oppressive structures. Anarchy therefore is not synonymous with selfish individualism but rather envisions communities based on reciprocity, shared responsibility, and collective well-being.

Historical and Intellectual Foundations

The roots of anarchist philosophy run deep. From Laozi's Taoist rejection of rigid state structures to the early Christian communities’ communal living and rejection of Roman authority, the seed of anti-hierarchical thought has long been present. In the 18th and 19th centuries, as Enlightenment ideas began to challenge monarchic rule, figures like William Godwin, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, and later Emma Goldman, Mikhail Bakunin, and Kropotkin began articulating an explicit anarchist philosophy.

Proudhon’s assertion that “property is theft” was not merely an economic claim but a moral one, questioning the legitimacy of institutions that concentrate power and wealth. Bakunin extended this critique to the state, famously warning that even well-meaning revolutionaries could become tyrants if given the reins of power. Goldman infused anarchist thought with a deep sense of personal liberty, advocating for women's rights, freedom of expression, and the right to pleasure and individuality.

Anarchy and Ethics

At its core, anarchism is a deeply ethical philosophy. It asks: How should we treat one another? For many anarchists, the answer lies in the rejection of domination in all its forms. The philosopher Noam Chomsky describes anarchism as a “tendency that is skeptical of authority and seeks to challenge it.” Yet anarchists do not seek a world without organization; they envision a society where organization exists, but without rulers—horizontal rather than vertical, participatory rather than imposed.

Anarchist ethics reject utilitarian calculations that sacrifice the individual for the so-called “greater good.” Instead, they emphasize dignity, agency, and consent. This lends the philosophy a poetic, almost spiritual quality—an idealism that believes another world is possible if we dare to dream beyond the structures we have inherited.

Modern Expressions and Misconceptions

Contemporary anarchy movements often take the form of direct action, protest, and community-building. From the Zapatistas in Chiapas to anarchist mutual aid networks in the wake of natural disasters or social collapse, the movement lives in practice as well as theory. Yet it remains plagued by misconceptions. The image of the black-clad rioter smashing windows has overshadowed the patient work of organizing free schools, community kitchens, and consensus-based assemblies.

Indeed, there are many branches within anarchist philosophy—anarcho-communism, anarcho-syndicalism, individualist anarchism, green anarchism, and more. Each branch shares the same root rejection of coercive power but diverges in its vision of the ideal society. This diversity is a strength, not a weakness; it reflects the movement’s refusal to impose a single ideology or blueprint.

Conclusion: A Flame That Refuses to Be Extinguished

The philosophy behind the anarchy movement is ultimately a yearning for a society where individuals and communities can flourish free from oppression. It is a vision of radical democracy, ethical integrity, and unshackled creativity. While critics dismiss it as utopian, its power lies in its refusal to compromise with systems of domination. Anarchy is not the absence of all structure, but the presence of just ones—formed by consent, driven by compassion, and evolving in harmony with human dignity.

Like a wildflower that grows between the cracks in concrete, the anarchist spirit endures—fragile, beautiful, and irrepressibly alive.

[misfitwashere]

The American oligarchy is back, and it’s out of control

It’s the third time in the nation’s history that a small group of hyper-wealthy people have gained political power over the rest of us. Here’s what we must do. 

ROBERT REICH

DEC 20

Friends,

Today we don’t know if the United States government will shut down tomorrow because, first, Elon Musk followed by his co-president Donald Trump, persuaded House Republicans to vote against a compromise bill, and then, last night, Republicans couldn’t summon enough votes for a stripped-down continuing resolution because Trump insisted that it contain a measure lifting the debt ceiling. 

This is not governing. Trump and the Republicans are not a governing party.

What’s the back story to all this? It’s the oligarchy that put Trump into the presidency.

A half-century ago, when America had a large and growing middle class, those on the “left” wanted stronger social safety nets and more public investment in schools, roads, and research. Those on the “right” sought greater reliance on the free market. 

But as power and wealth have moved to the top, everyone else — whether on the old right or the old left — has become disempowered and less secure. 

Today the great divide is not between left and right. It’s between democracy and oligarchy.

The word “oligarchy” comes from the Greek words meaning rule (arche) by the few (oligos). It refers to a government of and by a few exceedingly rich people or families who control the major institutions of society — and therefore have most power over other peoples’ lives. 

So far, Trump has picked 13 billionaires for his administration. It’s the wealthiest in history, including the richest person in the world. They and Trump are part of the American oligarchy, even though Trump campaigned on being the “voice” of the working class. 

America’s two previous oligarchies

America has experienced oligarchy twice before. Many of the men who founded America were slaveholding white oligarchs. At that time, the new nation did not have much of a middle class. Most white people were farmers, indentured servants, farm hands, traders, day laborers, and artisans. A fifth of the American population was Black, almost all of them enslaved.

A century later a new American oligarchy emerged comprised of men who amassed fortunes through their railroad, steel, oil, and financial empires — men such as J. Pierpont Morgan, John D. Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, Cornelius Vanderbilt, and Andrew Mellon. It was called the Gilded Age. 

They ushered the nation into an industrial revolution that vastly expanded economic output. But they also corrupted government, brutally suppressed wages, generated unprecedented levels of inequality and urban poverty, pillaged rivals, shut down competitors, and made out like bandits — which is why they earned the sobriquet “robber barons.”

World War I and the Great Depression of the 1930s eroded most of the robber barons’ wealth, and much of their power was eliminated with the elections of Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1932 and Democratic majorities in the House and Senate. 

America demanded fundamental reforms — a progressive income tax, corporate taxes, estate taxes, limits on the political power of large corporations, antitrust laws, laws enabling workers to form unions and requiring that employers negotiate with them, Social Security, the forty-hour workweek, unemployment insurance, civil rights and voting rights, and Medicare. 

For the next half-century, the gains from growth were more widely shared and democracy became more responsive to the needs and aspirations of average Americans. During these years America created the largest middle class the world had ever seen. 

There was still much to do: wider economic opportunities for Black people, Latinos, and women, protection of the environment. Yet by almost every measure the nation was making progress.

America’s current oligarchy

Starting around 1980, a third American oligarchy emerged. 

Since then, the median wage of the bottom 90 percent has stagnated. The share of the nation’s wealth owned by the richest 400 Americans has quadrupled (from less than 1 percent to 3.5 percent) while the share owned by the entire bottom half of America has dropped to 1.3 percent, according to an analysis by my Berkeley colleagues Emmanuel Saez and Gabriel Zucman. 

The richest 1 percent of Americans now has more wealth than the bottom 90 percent combined.

The only other country with similarly high levels of wealth concentration is Russia, another oligarchy. 

All this has been accompanied by a dramatic increase in the political power of the super-wealthy and an equally dramatic decline in the political influence of everyone else. 

While the Biden administration sought to realign America with its ideals, it did not and could not accomplish nearly enough. Trump’s lies and demagoguery exploited the anger and frustration of much of America — creating the false impression he was a tribune of the working class and an anti-establishment hero — thereby allowing the oligarchy to triumph. 

In 2022, Elon Musk spent $44 billion to buy Twitter and turn it into his own personal political megaphone. Then, in 2024, he spent $277 million to get Trump elected, also using Twitter (now X) to amplify pro-Trump, anti-Harris messages. 

These were good investments for Musk. Since Election Day, Musk’s fortune has increased by $170 billion. That’s because investors in Tesla and SpaceX have pushed their value into the stratosphere. 

Trump has put Musk (and another billionaire, Vivek Ramaswamy) in charge of gutting government services in the name of “efficiency.” Musk’s investors assume that Musk will eliminate the health, safety, labor, and environmental regulations that have limited the profits of Musk-owned corporations, and that Trump will put more government money into SpaceX and xAI (Musk’s artificial intelligence company). 

Unlike income or wealth, power is a zero-sum game. The more of it at the top, the less of it anywhere else.

The power shift across America is related to a tsunami of big money into politics. Corporate lobbying has soared. The voices of average people have been drowned out. 

The American oligarchy is back, with a vengeance. 

Not all wealthy people are culpable, of course. The abuse is occurring at the nexus of wealth and power, where those with great wealth use it to gain power and then utilize that power to accumulate more wealth. Today’s robber barons include Elon Musk, Jeff Bezos, Peter Thiel, David Sacks, Charles Koch, Jeff Yass, Ken Griffin, and Rupert Murdoch. 

What the new oligarchy wants

This is how oligarchy destroys democracy. As oligarchs fill the coffers of political candidates and deploy platoons of lobbyists and public relations flaks, they buy off democracy. Oligarchs know that politicians won’t bite the hands that feed them. 

As long as they control the purse strings, there will be no meaningful response to the failure of most people’s paychecks to rise, nor to climate change, nor racism, nor the soaring costs of health insurance, pharmaceuticals, college, and housing, because those are not the main concerns of the oligarchy.

The oligarchs want lower taxes, which is what Trump, Musk, and other oligarchs are planning — an extension of the 2017 Trump tax cut, with an estimated price tag of at least $5 trillion. 

They want no antitrust enforcement to puncture the power of their giant corporations. Instead, their corporations will grow larger, able to charge consumers even more. Trump is replacing Lina Khan, the trustbusting chair of the Federal Trade Commission, with a Trump crony. 

There will be no meaningful constraint on Wall Street’s dangerous gambling addiction. The gambling will only increase. 

Wall Street is already celebrating Trump’s victory. The stock market has reached new heights. But the stock market is inconsequential for most people, because the richest 1 percent own over half of all shares of stock owned by Americans while the richest 10 percent own over 90 percent. 

There will be no limits to CEO pay. Wall Street hedge fund and private equity managers will also rake in billions more. Government will dole out even more corporate subsidies, bailouts, and loan guarantees while eliminating protections for consumers, workers, and the environment. 

It will become a government for, of, and by the oligarchy.

The biggest divide in America today is not between “right” and “left,” or between Republicans and Democrats. It’s between democracy and oligarchy. The old labels — “right” and “left” — prevent most people from noticing they’re being shafted.

The propagandists and demagogues who protect the oligarchy stoke racial and ethnic resentments — describing human beings as illegal aliens, fueling hatred of immigrants, and spreading fears of communists and socialists. 

This strategy gives the oligarchy freer rein: It distracts Americans from how the oligarchy is looting the nation, buying off politicians, and silencing critics. It causes Americans to hate each other so we don’t look upward and see where the wealth and power have really gone. 

The necessary agenda

The way to overcome oligarchy is for the rest of us to join together and win America back, as we did in response to the oligarchy that dominated America’s last Gilded Age. 

This will require a multiracial, multiethnic coalition of working-class, poor, and middle-class Americans fighting for democracy and against concentrated power and privilege. 

It will require that the Democratic Party, or a new third party, tell the truth to the American people: that the major reason most peoples’ wages have gone nowhere and their jobs are less secure, why most families have to live paycheck to paycheck, why CEO pay has soared to 300 times the pay of the typical worker, and why billionaires are about to run our government, is because the market has been rigged against average working people by the oligarchy. 

The agenda ahead is simply stated but it will not be easy to implement: We must get big money out of our politics. End corporate welfare and crony capitalism. Bust up monopolies. Stop voter suppression. 

We must strengthen labor unions, give workers a stronger voice in their workplaces, create more employee-owned corporations, encourage worker cooperatives, fund and grow more state and local public banks, and develop other institutions of economic democracy.

This agenda is neither “right” nor “left.” It is the bedrock for everything else America must do.

It may seem an odd time in our history to suggest such reforms, but this is the best time. Trump and his oligarchy will inevitably overreach. The lesson from the last Gilded Age is that when the corruption and ensuing hardship become so blatant that they offend the values of the majority of Americans, the majority will rise up and demand real, systemic change.

It’s only a matter of time. A government shutdown that hurts average people, engineered by the richest person in the world, might just hasten it. 

[reading-writing-revolution]

It is crucial that everyone opposed to just lying down and being oppressed by the oligarchy clown show step forward and say words that are clear, concise and full of meaning to oppose every action, appointment and act of violence against American citizens.

You don't have to be awful. You don't have to cuss, although I do. You can simply let everyone in earshot understand that the worst human beings paraded out by Trump as his political and ideological leaders are not the kinds of humans one could or should trust running the country or leading an institution or major government organization.

We expect highly qualified, intelligent, responsible adults to lead our nation. We demand decency and competence, and we will not tolerate anything less.