Monday, November 11, 2024

 

Stalking The Nightmare of Control

Stalking The Nightmare of Control by Invecchiare Selvatico

Invecchiare Selvatico Reflects on War of Dreams: A Field Guide to DIY Psy-Ops by Jason Rodgers (Autonomedia 2024)

In my review of Jason Rodger’s first book, Invisible Generation: Rants, Polemics, and Critical Theory Against The Planetary Work Machine (see anarchistnews.org/content/‘cause-i-see-you), I wrote: “As they ponder the banality and degradation of modern life, non-ideological anarcho-primitivism meshed and mashing with anarcho-surrealism, critiques of contemporary and historical philosophical pitfalls and their self-referential trappings, and so much more, Jason emotes provocation. In a time where almost anything remotely interesting or transgressive has been absorbed, reconstituted, and sold back to the anemic herd willing to lap up just about anything served to them and call it “radical”, Jason still finds edges that have not been smoothed down, still pokes, tears, and rips at the silicone and ideological flesh of control, still engages in psychic warfare against civilization…. It is rare in a world of posers, of fakes, of superficial trend surfers, of programed zombies, of reified rebels, of performative soldiers, of plastic identities, and such, to find someone who critically grapples with complexity and nuance and is not afraid to dip toes into the dangerous, a true free-spirit, an anarchist, or at least what that once meant before it all became so safe, so comfortable, so predictable, so non-anarchist. And when I am pleasantly surprised, usually by accident, that my paths come across one of these kindred spirits and their creative little explosions into the world, I am moved to respond. I begin to realize that I am not alone. There are others out there who are still alive, who have not been lobotomized and neutered by this displaced and dispirited post-modern techno-reality. I see you.”

Well, War of Dreams: A Field Guide to DIY Psy-Ops, Jason’s follow-up offering, not only confirms my suspicions, and dare I say hopes, but hits me smack in my wet thinking flesh with even deeper, more expansive, more clever, more biting analysis, and provocatively belly-shaking laughter than I had even imagined. Well done. Read these two books and call me in the morning (on my landline, it is all I got). I am sure there will be no shortage of things to discuss.

As in their previous book, War of Dreams combines Rodger’s dense and provocative collages and flyers with detailed essays and other assorted wordplay on a significant spectrum of subjects and over a decent chunk of time. I am not sure of their process for linking writings with collages (topic, chronology, chaos theory, drunken blind darts, etc), but they fit perfectly together as an unfolding journey of critique. Similar to their first book, and throughout their collage and flyer project, Campaign to Play for Keeps (CtPFKs), Jason seems to have rejected the current trend to oversimplify, reproduce, and dumb things down in analysis and presentation. Jason crams so much content, both visual and in critique, that a highly complex density of meaning is created, what I view as an anti-meme (or a least what memes have come to mean today). The writing and subjects are at times moderately complicated, but Jason manages to express and explain in a way that reads clearly and smoothly, never a chore, and always interesting. The range is phenomenal. Not yer one trick ideological pony here. The only thing you can pin Jason down on is their unabashed heretical digging, prodding, and poking, as well as their insatiable appetite for reading (from actual dead-tree flesh and ink books), in every direction that can be conceived as interesting, an immoral (amoralists are almost as big of cop-outs as atheists) and precise mesh of ideas filtered through a creative, perceptive, and intense person. Although Jason does seem to have some personal favorites, like Walter Benjamin, Jerry Mander, The Situationists, Bob Black, Freddy Perlman, Hakim Bey, Feral Faun, William Burroughs, John Zerzan, Renzo Novatore, Genesis P-Orridge, and a whole lotta old school and hardcore punk, they never get old and they bring them into the analysis in fresh ways, clever angles, and from a place of comprehension, unlike the googled and wikied name-dropping turds who love to puke out phrases and unbaked concepts they haven’t even begun to digest (I can still see the nuts and corn you morons).

The chorus: “Can we clone this mutant?”

No.

“Why Not!” they cry.

Because this is someone who is still very much alive and kicking and unique and breathing, someone who is present in this world with their eyes pried wide open. They engage in living critique, not dead games, not redundant gestures and ptsd ticks. And not online.

One of the many things I love about Jason’s writing is that I continually expand my vocabulary with every page. Who knew a word like “teledildonics” existed and how perfectly it names cybersex? Jason uses this evocative language as they come out swinging at social alienation and the technologies and processes which deepen, expand, and accelerate its control in their opening piece “Alienation Cycles Of The Identity Image”. This essay sets a solid tone for the book, only slightly distracting for me by a subtle attitude towards what feels framed as an almost obligatory, more active refusal over supposedly more passive escape. In this regard, Rodgers has previously called what they perhaps at times perceive as a more dormant, stagnant, self-referential, or even resigned response as “quietism” (which comes up more specifically further in the book). It is a term I think that can be too liberally applied, especially when its really hard to know what people do in their real world, away from print, cameras, and screens, in the middle of nowhere, between each other, underground, anonymously, without report-backs, away from scenes, behind fences and doors, in locked damp basements or dim dusty attics, in minds and hearts, off-the-grid, obscured by costumes and masks, up my nose, in the darkness, away from peeping eyes and measurements of the spectacle that is society. There are lots of ways to be willfully disobedient and to attack. Rejection and refusal can occur in many ways, including what may be termed as certain kinds of escape (either brief and temporary or more extended). I know Jason gets this. It is clear in so much of their writing, but what feels sometimes like a more overt call-to-duty may still go unrecognized by many with touches of lingering revolutionary residue and still a slight smear of social baggage along these lines. This is one of the few places Jason and I seem to meet across the creek a bit, but I actually enjoy the pushing and pulling, tussling and tugging. I find it inspiring, provoking, and challenging. I am all in.

Section One: Media is an analytically-leaning, yet not overly detached, attack on the post-modern cyber-world of global communication and control. Some of it feels like a freshening up and recontextualizing of the Situationists within the current cyber-hell (“Cyberia” as Jason cleverly describes the barren wasteland most have self-banished themselves to), but from a specifically anarchist and anti-civ perspective. In “The Object of Alienation and Reification” Rodgers examines the almost totalizing power of the technologically mass-ified illusion and its all-consuming affects on understanding and meaning. “As the world becomes more and more saturated with images it becomes more difficult to draw conclusions… Everything becomes fake news. The image is objectified into just more discrete components to be reassembled as entertainment.” Again, Jason’s proposal for a disconnection from the tentacles of fiber-optic mass media and their DIY prioritization seems to be the most relevant pushback to this mostly all-invasive and almost all-encompassing force.

Section Two: Anti-Media has a more nuts and bolts, active-oriented approach. This was one of my favorite sections and lets you really get to know what motivates Jason, their DIY attitudes, influences, their love of zines, punk rock aesthetics, deconditioning and decentering activities, and strategy of chaos and Dis Information, which Rodgers explains as “the scattering of the formation, allowing elements to reform in new, unpredictable, and dynamic ways.” This section is not only filled with their usual (unusual) collaged flyers, drawings, and essays, but also very playful and pointed correspondence, letters to editors and zines, stories, reviews, and some really off-the-map and forgotten or only marginally known micro-histories. I specifically appreciated Jason’s shinning the light on Susan Poe and Gerry Reith, two essential, yet virtually forgotten about, figures in the early incubation of a general perspective that became post-Left anarchy.

“My Date With Susan Poe” is Rodgers “fictionalizing an actual meet-up with a marginal” and offers glimpses into a time, place, person, and attitude that is typically only poorly and superficially understood and mimicked these days. Suzy “Crowbar” Poe seemed like a truly an anarchic unique one. She was a co-conspirator with Rodgers on a zine, a cult formation, some general mayhem, and, according to Jason, was a “butt sniffer”, oh, and she also put out Popular Reality, a staple of radical deviants and early post-Left anarchist appetites, with all the usual seemingly compulsory controversies (but more about all that in future Jason Rodgers releases).

Even more enlightening for me was “Gerry Reith’s Terminal Clarity”, a review of a compilation of Reith’s writings put out by Nine Banded Books called Neutron Gun Reloaded: a Gerry Reith Reader. It recalled for me this barely mentioned yet crucial embryonic element who helped facilitate the particular version of anarchy that I would dive into in the late 90s, but someone I knew almost nothing about. After reading Jason’s piece I quickly asked my ol’ pal Staplecide if he had heard of Neutron Gun, of which he had multiple copies of different editions. Reith seems to be an invaluable lost piece in the puzzle for many of my generation of anarchists going forward. In his very short and volatile life (he ended it abruptly at the age of twenty-five with a bullet to his head at his typewriter in 1984), Gerry seemed to have provoked, offended, picked apart, and smashed politics, complicity, collectivism, and society with a cynical “post-right anarchist” individualist OG-edge-lordy transgression that is so desperately needed today as one of many important infusions (Sorry you thin-skinned over-sensitive lil’ neo-emo liberal-lefties, its true, but that’s another story). Unlike many of his contemporaries (and most anarchists today), Reith entered anarchy from a libertarian background, which probably contributed to his very interesting and unique offering. According to Rodgers, “He was a crucial part of the start of a movement towards a new politics, towards a new writing, towards a new form of adversarial media.” Thanks Jason for reminding us, and for passing on the history to those few of us who can still read, and still want to.

Section Three: Politics starts to really cut into the meat of the multifaceted motivations, motions, and maneuvers of control, and some of Rodgers’ proposals for an “insurrectionary guerilla-ontology attack on multiple fronts” to “cause damage that will resonate through the whole totality” as they conclude “Internalized Control (In Hopes of a Short Circuit)”, a concise piece on contemporary forms of systematic power. While “Against Alienated Rationality” offers a sober critique of the “reductive conception of humanity” as well as enthusiastic calls for divergent and resonating infusions of irrationality. Jason accurately sights dada as one historical precedent for the “free sovereign” and “the anarch” to be inspired by in this way. There is so much in this section and the next (Anti-Politics) to keep diving back into again and again, way too much for summing up in review and well worth an in-depth one-on-one investigation. Whether it is work, academia, careers, activism, collectivism, progress, morality, or the misinterpreted, weaponized, or forbidden authors like HL Mencken or Ragnar Redbeard, when Rodgers is dissecting an idea, author, or tendency, they use well-oiled precession tools and maintain the wide-eyed fascination, unconstrained curiosity, and unabashed honesty of a young’n in the basement with a bloated roadkill bunny. That’s how the political is best treated.

Section Four: Anti-Politics follows the biting CtPFKs flyer “Food Not Bombs: Diarrhea for the People!” which asks the politicized culinary questions: “Have you internalized enough guilt to think that you deserve to eat half rotten (but not fermented) produce, handled (but not washed) by junky traveler kids?” and “Do you consider expecting those preparing your food to wash their hands after a bowel movement to be an example of a privilege to be checked?” and responds with the anti-political just dessert: “People are too full of shit. Food Not Bombs can Help! One meal and your system is clear!” Turn the page and Divine’s Invasion Squad takes aim and fires off: “FILTH IS MY POLITICS” as Jason then opens the section with a concise and clarifying distillation: “For every negative about my philosophy and program there is also a positive. You may notice that my positive still contains a negation. I suppose this is an example of a point in which I differ from a nihilist: a nihilist believes in nothing. I, however, believe in negation. Furthermore, this destruction can also be creative. From carrion compost left by negation, imaginal blossoms may bloom.” This is a crucial distinguishing position, one I absolutely resonate with, and Rodgers fleshes it out well in the section that follows. It is a continuation of the previous section’s attack on the political, handled with the same Rodgers’ standard of concision and derision, but from the opposite direction.

The first major piece in this section, “Chaos Is Immanent: Struggle, Ontology, and The Condition Of Freedom” gets to the heart of Jason’s project. It also fleshes out in more detail the subject of minor points of divergence I have had with them over what they term “quietism”. I find their more extended and contextual explanations of this concept more agreeable, nuanced, and useful, yet, in moments, still a bit stuck in the concept of “struggle” for my taste. Although, I think most of the residual divergence to be only partially of substance, and mostly semantical and very close in actual perspective in reference to the goals, inspirations, and tensions concerning the self-willed individual in society. I think this quote from the piece sums up Jason’s admirable motivations quite well: “Hope should be thrown out to begin with, and instead a joy of a life in struggle adopted. Why bother seeking easily attainable goals that are really just more banal miserabilism? Instead I’d like to seek a pataphysical objective, something so wonderful that it has never happened (or at least hasn’t happened since Babylon erected ziggurats). I’d rather lose at the great work than a lifetime of success maintaining a sewer system.” I cannot argue with this at all.

This section contains worlds within worlds of subjects and perspectives, becoming a swirling dervish of ideas connected in very interesting ways. “Feral Magik” is one of these gleaming gems, a spider-webbing pursuit covering vast terrains of the occult, deconditioning, altered states, telepathy, language, rewilding, resistance, and much more with a rigor and enthusiasm deserving of considerable note. In “Consensus Submission Making” Jason aptly critiques the herd mentality and hive mind that most people submit to on a daily basis due mostly, according to Jason, to their internalization of the external authority of society. Rodgers brings their analysis back to the more activist and collectivist of the so-called anarchist milieu who “sit through long-drawn-out-consensus-based meetings with rigid, formalized procedure, easily prone to abuse by politico-pervo authoritarian types drawn to these sort of structures. They join a community of peer pressure and shame, where comrades will pressure them into engaging in behavior they don’t want to engage in, just like they were initially pressured by mass society. They confront the alienation of mass society by submerging themselves into a hive, reduced to a number on a membership roll.” Instead, Rodgers proposes a revolt on every level against the Totality, especially, perhaps, on the micro, in our daily lives, a suggestion I could not agree with more. “Field Studies in Misanthropology”, a subject dear to my little black heart, is a brief and quite personal piece that stems from a very revealing journal entry which includes: “I often find it nearly impossible to relate to people I encounter in my daily life. I can’t relate to anything about them. I find nothing of interest in their interests. When I try to share how I feel, to communicate something about my being, I feel like I might be speaking a foreign language. I speak, but most often I am met by blank stares or mild disgust.” Jason’s response to these very understandable yet potentially crippling misanthropic tendencies in their own and in others’ hearts and minds is a very thoughtful temporary acceptance without an overwhelming submission into despair, and yes, quietness.

This section continues to flow into a very impressive arch through a seemingly unending set of deeply engaging and furthering pieces like “Affinity and Passional Conspiracy”, “The Journey Beyond Anarchism”, “Individuality, Identity, and The Creative Nothing”, “Notes On the Death of the Social”, “Trajectories Against Civilization”, “Uncivilized and Queer: An Anti essentialist Critique of Gender”, “Sodomy and Sigils In the Circle Pit” and much more to sink your ravenous feral fangs into. The section concludes with one of my favorite pieces in the book, “Escapism”. It fleshes out the sometimes touchy subject historically, philosophically, and practically, and comes up with a fairly adjacent assessment to my own, that without an intentional situation to sustain, protect, and nourish us, and without people of deep affinity (yet containing unique and individual difference), our resistance to civilization will not only be limp and fruitless, it will be unsatisfying on so many levels. This terrain is complicated and vast, for sure, fraught with many potential trappings, pitfalls, and leechings, but one worth the dangerous, endless, and satiating lived experimentation. We are not soldiers, we are living beings who need to be filled with a continual vitality to resist civilization and our precious energy needs to be replenished directly and daily in our lives. Surrogate activities and might-sucking distractions magnate all around us as we attempt to be at home in our world.

And finally, Section 5: Schiz/Misc wraps it all up with an assortment of oddities, misfits, and loose ends. Personally, for me this concluding section was slightly less interesting, but I appreciate Jason’s enthusiasm for their endlessly veining-out unconventional interests and it does help dissipate the heaviness of the previous sections into a more dream-like and playful goo, sending us all on our limitless little ways. In this almost afterward-like section we rub elbows with visionary artist Paul Laffoley and their psychotronic art, chomp down some amanitas with a shamanistic and hermetic Santa, and get a few other entertaining conspiratorial tutorials. Most relevant to me was the opening statement to the final section, pulled out in part for the back cover: “I am interested in ideas that don’t fit… The limitations of an alien reality must be smashed. It isn’t important to reach the masses, instead we want a growing lunatic fringe, schizoid anarchs who are uncontrollable and irresistible.” Delightful.

If it were not for the likes of Jason Rodgers and a ragged assortment of other such kindred deviants scattered about I would have left anarchists behind long ago. These rare crackles, sparks, and glimmers lighten my darkening heart, blow out my dusty mind, and rattle my creaking bones. They put a crooked skip in my step and rowdy stomp in my boot. They don’t delude, distract, or soothe with such false balms as hope or lofty philosophical ideals, but instead invigorate with a potent rejection and intoxicating honesty so sorely needed. It hurt so good.

Jason is no mere propagandist, that is a project for politics and power. Rodgers is a provocateur of the highest degree and a psychic warrior of great finesse. In their attempt to corrupt the perceptions and attitudes of individuals, groups, and powers, Jason’s psychological operations have no limits, but don’t expect the played out and obtuse knuckle-headed full-frontal attack! attack! attack! No, Rodgers is like a brilliant little termite, chewing away the rotting structures and shitting out the detritus for dreams to grow in as the mutherfucker crumbles from within. Chew!

“I know life is a game and I intend to play for keeps.
Time to get serious about joking and work at play.
It is time to play hard and play the ultimate game, war games.”
- Campaign to Play for Keeps

————

Jason Rodgers can be reached at:
Campaign to Play for Keeps
PO Box 701 Cobleskill, NY 12043
(no email)
Invisible Generation and War of Dreams
are available from Jason directly
or
autonomedia.org
or
underworldamusements.com

Invecchiare Selvatico
was a primary editor and writer for Green Anarchy magazine
and is the author of Black Blossoms At The End Of The World (LBC)
available from underworldamusements.com
Contact: nazelpickens@gmail.com
PO Box 316 Williams, OR 97544

*Both Jason Rodgers and Invecchiare Selvatico (as well as some other interesting deviants)
can be found writing for the preeminent anti-civilization anarchist publication:
OAK JOURNAL - PO BOX 485, WV 26851 - oakjournal@protonmail.com

Trump’s Win Casts Shadow over US Climate Progress, Global Leadership

He won support with pledges to solve economic woes. But his fossil-fueled solutions and retreat from international cooperation would worsen the climate crisis.

By Marianne Lavelle
November 10, 2024
Source: Inside Climate News





Former president Donald Trump’s victory on Tuesday jeopardizes the hard-fought climate progress of the past four years in the United States and sets back the global effort to curb warming at a time when the overwhelming scientific consensus is that delay will rapidly escalate the hazards for the planet.

Voters decided to return to the White House a president who dismisses the threat of climate change in a year that is on track to be the second consecutive hottest on record, just weeks after Hurricanes Helene and Milton wreaked devastation over six states and unprecedented heat gripped the Southwest.

When they’re written, the annals of the 2024 presidential race could focus on any number of factors—the economic dislocation of the working class, attitudes on race and gender, media fragmentation—but any fair record would have to include this note about climate change: It barely was mentioned during the campaign.

Vice President Kamala Harris chose not to emphasize her administration’s achievement in getting the nation’s first comprehensive climate change legislation through a closely divided Congress—a bill for which she cast the tie-breaking vote in 2022. Her campaign labored not to alienate voters in the middle of the political spectrum who have mixed feelings on climate action, or those in the all-important swing state of Pennsylvania, which has become the nation’s No.2 natural gas producing state due to fracking.

In the end, Trump took Pennsylvania, gaining wider margins in all regions—rural, suburban and urban—than he had garnered in 2020. Pre-election polling indicated that fracking was not a big issue for Pennsylvanians. But the economy clearly weighed heavily on voters’ minds. Two-thirds of the electorate in battleground states said the economy was “not so good or poor,” and 69 percent of those voters chose Trump, according to exit polling by a consortium of news organizations.

The exit polls also showed there never was a large group of undecided moderates for either of the candidates to win over. Nearly 80 percent of voters told pollsters they made their decision before September. Among the 4 percent who said they decided “in the last few days,” Trump had an edge (45 percent to 43 percent), with 13 percent voting for a third-party candidate.

Environmental activists pledged that they would fight to preserve the gains that have been made on climate, and would work—not only in Washington, but at the state, local and tribal government levels—to advance policies to protect public health and the planet.

“As our environment and health are put at risk, we will defend our families and communities from threat,” said Manish Bapna, president of the Natural Resources Defense Council, in an emailed statement. “We’ll work with our partners and allies, the philanthropic community and those in the private sector that grasp the economic opportunity and the moral imperative to confront the climate crisis.

“Our purpose will not be shaken,” he added. “Our voice will not go dim.”
Investing in an Energy Transition vs. Solving Economic Woes

In an election where economic concerns loomed large, voters chose the candidate who offered quicker solutions—those that happen to involve increased production and use of fossil fuel.

Harris told voters she planned to continue federal investment in clean energy manufacturing so that “the next generation of breakthroughs, from advanced batteries to electric vehicles,” would be made in the U.S. And in her final speeches on the campaign trail, Harris said she saw the “promise of America” in young people who were determined to tackle climate change. But Harris did not include in her final pitch details on how she would seek to fulfill that particular promise, or go beyond what President Joe Biden’s administration had done on climate.

Aru Shiney-Ajay, executive director of the Sunrise Movement, a youth-led climate action group, said the Democrats failed to convey clearly how a Harris administration would provide the change that voters were clearly looking for. Too many voters, she said, felt they were choosing between two bad options and voted for “the meager change our political system could offer.

“The frank truth is our political system is bought and owned by billionaires and vested interests,” she said. “The Democratic Party cannot win office running as Republicans-Lite. To win, we will need to run on our values and govern on our morals.”

Young voters favored Harris by 13 percentage points (55 percent to 42 percent), according to exit polls, significantly less than the 25-point edge that Biden enjoyed in 2020. Also, young people made up less of the electorate this year, casting 14 percent of all ballots, compared to 17 percent in 2020. It’s too early to know what share of registered young voters went to the polls.

Nathaniel Stinnett, executive director of the nonprofit Environmental Voter Project, said the election results should be a “wake-up call.”

“The climate movement urgently needs more political power because the climate crisis is moving infinitely faster than our politics right now,” he said. His group had identified 4.8 million voters in 19 states who were not likely to vote even though they placed a high priority on climate action; by election day, about 13 percent of them had voted early. “That’s good news—but we clearly need more,” Stinnett said.


“The Democratic Party cannot win office running as Republicans-Lite. To win, we will need to run on our values and govern on our morals.”— Aru Shiney-Ajay, Sunrise Movement executive director

Liam Donovan, a senior political strategist with the Washington, D.C. lobbying firm Bracewell, which represents a range of energy businesses and interests, said he believed climate became “an uncomfortable topic to touch on for the Democrats” because Trump and Republicans successfully put them on the defensive.

“It was messaged by Republicans as ‘your gas is costing more, your cost of living is above where it had been before,’” Donovan said. “And there was a recognition on the Democratic side of the danger of putting climate front and center. You ended up with this weird, untenable business where Harris is on the stage in Pennsylvania talking about how she’s not going to ban fracking.”

Trump won Michigan after blanketing the swing state with ads warning that Harris would “end all gas-powered cars,” and he recast the Inflation Reduction Act as the cause of inflation during Biden’s presidency. In fact, consumer prices ran up worldwide as economies recovered from the COVID-19 pandemic. And despite inflation in the United States falling to its lowest level since 2021 in the weeks before the election, a faster recovery than other nations, Trump advanced the argument that the United States was in the grip of economic woes that he could solve “easily.”

“Every citizen, I will fight for you, for your family and your future,” Trump said early Wednesday morning as victory seemed within his grasp. “Every single day I will be fighting for you with every breath in my body. I will not rest until we have delivered the strong, safe and prosperous America that our children deserve and that you deserve.”

Trump’s promised solutions would ramp up carbon emissions, and further secure the U.S.’ place as the largest contributor to the cumulative overload of heat-trapping gas in the atmosphere. The few times during the campaign that Trump responded directly to questions about climate change, he suggested that its effects would be slight and far off. He said sea level is expected to rise one inch every 300 or 400 years, and suggested rising seas would create more oceanfront property, contrary to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s conclusion that damaging impacts already are evident, with sea levels on track to rise 10 inches in the next 30 years.President Joe Biden delivers remarks on the first anniversary of the Inflation Reduction Act in the East Room at the White House on Aug. 16, 2023. Credit: Win McNamee/Getty Images.

Trump has pledged to withdraw or redirect billions of dollars of spending Congress committed to clean energy, putting at risk billions of dollars more of private investment in electric vehicle and battery plants and renewable energy projects. The nonprofit group Environmental Entrepreneurs has tracked 334 new clean energy and vehicles project announcements in 40 states since passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, totaling $125 billion in investment. But Trump disdains wind energy as “too expensive,” and asserts that “it doesn’t work,” in addition to harming birds and whales and causing cancer. Electric vehicles are fine for “a small slice” of the public, but “they don’t go far,” he has said.

As in his first term, when he rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations, Trump has promised to undo rules that the Biden administration put into place to cut carbon pollution from cars, trucks, power plants and oil and gas industry operations. Trump’s deregulatory efforts were slowed and sometimes stymied by the federal courts during his first term, but since then, the Supreme Court has established new precedents that restrain federal regulatory authority. The three appointees Trump named in his first term bolstered the court’s conservative majority.

Trump has voiced a commitment to domestic oil and gas production, which is already at historic levels in the United States. Pumping more of this “liquid gold” into the economy would lower prices, boost manufacturing and jobs and make the nation more secure, Trump has argued. “To keep pace with the world economy that depends on fossil fuels for more than 80 percent of its energy, President Trump will DRILL, BABY, DRILL,” said the Trump campaign’s Agenda 47, the closest thing to an official Republican platform this election. Among the steps his administration could take quickly is to move forward paused natural gas export terminal proposals and rescind steps Biden took to limit drilling in the Arctic.
This story is funded by readers like you.

Our nonprofit newsroom provides award-winning climate coverage free of charge and advertising. We rely on donations from readers like you to keep going. Please donate now to support our work.

Donate Now

Unlike in his first term, when Trump hesitated before exiting the Paris climate agreement due to objections from many of his top advisers and cabinet members, he has made clear he would remove the United States from the 2015 treaty it helped to design. “President Trump will once again exit the horrendously unfair Paris Climate Accords,” reads an excerpt from Agenda 47.

Trump’s victory surely will undercut the credibility of the Biden administration’s negotiating team as it heads to this year’s international climate conference in Azerbaijan, which begins on Monday. Climate finance is high on the agenda, and the U.S. has been pushing for contributions from a broader set of countries—including China—for a new fund designed to help developing nations cope with the impacts of climate change.
Considered Cuts to Existing Programs

The budgets of federal environmental, science and public lands agencies would be in the sights of the new efficiency commission Trump has promised to establish in an effort to cut government waste. Trump mega-donor Elon Musk, who is in line to head up the effort, has declared that he could cut “at least $2 trillion” in federal spending, around 30 percent of the budget, even though it will involve “some temporary hardship.” In that role, Musk, the CEO of Tesla Motors, the largest U.S. electric car company, would have a say over agencies and federal programs that directly impact his own business and those of his competitors.

Some analysts believe Trump will not be able to fully undo Biden climate policy, if only because so much of the federal clean energy spending is benefiting GOP-led states and Congressional districts. Only Congress can fully withdraw the investments it voted to make, and there is sentiment for keeping them in place even if the GOP holds onto the House—a result that won’t be known until California’s votes are counted. A number of Republican members of Congress this summer wrote a letter to Speaker of the House Mike Johnson opposing “prematurely repealing energy tax credits, particularly those which were used to justify investments that already broke ground.”


“Trump’s highest performing states benefit the most from the massive investments and millions of jobs from the Inflation Reduction Act, so he’d be a fool to reverse course.”— Kaniela Ing, Green New Deal Network national director

Advocates for a clean energy transition expressed determination. “No matter what Trump may say, the shift to clean energy is unstoppable and our country is not turning back,” said Gina McCarthy, who served as White House National Climate Advisor under Biden, in an emailed statement. “Our coalition is bigger, more bipartisan, better organized, and fully prepared to deliver climate solutions, boost local economies, and drive climate ambition. We cannot and will not let Trump stand in the way of giving our kids and grandkids the freedom to grow up in safer and healthier communities.”

Kaniela Ing, national director of the Green New Deal Network, called the election “a heavy loss,” but said that Trump can’t change the fact the majority of Americans prefer affordable clean energy over fossil fuels.

“Solar and wind are already cheaper than oil and generate more power than coal,” Ing said. “Trump’s highest performing states benefit the most from the massive investments and millions of jobs from the Inflation Reduction Act, so he’d be a fool to reverse course.”

Trump’s second term sets the stage for conflict between those regions of the country that wish to maintain federal support for their new clean energy projects and the forces that wish to eliminate the effort, either for ideological reasons, like the former advisers who authored the conservative policy roadmap Project 2025, or for commercial reasons, like the oil and gas executives who helped support his campaign.

The oil and gas magnates who gathered at Trump’s Mar-a-Lago compound last spring never brought in the $1 billion that the former president asked them to raise for his re-election effort. But the industry did pour more money into the 2024 election than to any other U.S. election on record: $208.5 million, with 88 percent of it going to Republicans, led by Trump, according to the watchdog group Open Secrets.

The president-elect has laid out an agenda that would remove for at least the next four years one of the greatest threats to business as usual for those donors: a federal government that is determined to act on climate change, and to lead other nations to follow suit.
The World According to Trump
 – The Chris Hedges Report
November 10, 2024
Source: The Chris Hedges Report

Joining host Chris Hedges on this episode of The Chris Hedges Report is Lawrence Wilkerson, a retired Army colonel and former chief of staff to Secretary of State Colin Powell. With his extensive insights and expertise into the Middle East and American foreign policy, Wilkerson provides a valuable understanding into what a Trump presidency may look like outside of the borders of America.


 

November 11 Was Originally Armistice Day, a Peace Holiday

November 11, declared Armistice Day at the end of World War I, is celebrated in the U.S. as Veterans Day. Understanding why requires us to recall World War I and its aftermath.

World War I was an international conflict, 1914-18, that embroiled most of the nations of Europe, along with Russia, the United States, the Middle East, and other regions.  The war pitted the “Central Powers” – mainly Germany, Austria-Hungary and Turkey – against the “Allies” – mainly France, Great Britain, Russia, Italy and (from 1917) the United States. The war was unprecedented in the slaughter, carnage, and destruction it caused. Over 15 million people were killed – both soldiers and civilians, and over 25 million were wounded.

The First World War ended in November 1918 when an armistice was declared at the “eleventh hour of the eleventh day of the eleventh month,” marking a moment of hope and the promise of peace. It was also a moment of great sadness and a sense of great tragedy. Many people prayed this would be “the war to end all wars,” and that Armistice Day would serve as an eternal warning never to repeat the past.  But then came World War II.

After the end of World War II and the Korean War in 1945, veterans’ organizations pushed the Congress to switch the holiday’s name to Veterans Day, a day to honor those who fight in war. Could it be that – having emerged from World War II unscathed and more powerful than ever, the United States was not ready to abandon militarism? Whatever the intention, the holiday’s meaning was turned on its head – a day for war instead of a day for peace.

The national organization Veterans For Peace has been working to Reclaim Armistice Day as  a day that is dedicated to ending war once and for all. Veterans lead Armistice Day activities around the country, many incorporating the ringing of bells at the “11th hour of the 11th day of the 11th month.” Now the veterans group is also calling for Peace in the Middle East.

The looming threats of climate catastrophe and nuclear annihilation have been overshadowed this year by Israel’s horrific ongoing genocide of Palestinian civilians in Gaza – up to 50,000 killed, 70% of whom are women and children. For thirteen months straight, unspeakable atrocities have filled our screens and haunted our consciences. We can see clearly that the US government is complicit in Israel’s merciless ethnic cleansing. The bombs that Israel drops on Palestinian children are made in the USA and delivered by the US government. US-backed Israeli wars have now expanded to the Palestine’s West Bank, to Lebanon and to Iran, risking a wider war, possibly even a global war that could “go nuclear.”

According to Wikipedia: Scholars trying to understand the cause of World War I “look at political, territorial and economic competition; militarism, a complex web of alliances and alignments; imperialism, the growth of nationalism; and the power vacuum created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire.” One hundred and six years after the end of World War I, another such deadly concoction is brewing. War is permanent. Genocide is on TV.  A desperate empire is pushing human civilization toward a tragic end.

NO MORE US BOMBS TO ISRAEL

This year, Veterans For Peace is calling for an Armistice – a permanent Ceasefire in Palestine, Lebanon and throughout the Middle East, and for an end to US arms shipments to Israel.

“When US bombs stop dropping on Palestinian children, the genocide will end” said VFP Vice President Joshua Shurley.

The 39-year-old veterans’ organization, with chapters in over 100 US cities, recently issued a statement in support of Israeli and US soldiers who refuse to take part genocide, illegal wars and war crimes.

Gerry Condon is Vietnam-era veteran and war resister who is a past president and a current Board member of Veterans For Peace.

Visions of an Asian NATO

The Musings of Shigeru Ishiba


Japan’s new prime minister, Shigeru Ishiba, is stirring the pot – notably on regional security matters.  He has proposed something that has done more than raise a few eyebrows in the foreign and defence ministries of several countries.  An Asian version of NATO, he has suggested, was an idea worth considering, notably given China’s ambitions in the region.  “The creation of an Asian version of NATO is essential to deter China by its Western allies,” he revealed to the Washington-based Hudson Institute in September.

During his campaign for office, Ishiba had mooted changes to the deployment arrangements of the Japan Self-Defence Forces and the need to move beyond the purely bilateral approach to regional security anchored by US agreements with various countries, be it with Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and others.

Ishiba’s suggested changes to Japan’s self-defence posture builds on a cabinet decision made during the Abe administration to reinterpret the country’s constitution to permit exercising the right of collective self-defence.  It was a problematic move, given the pacifist nature of a text that renounces the use of force in the resolution of international disputes.

In September 2015, then Prime Minister Shinzo Abe convinced the Diet to pass a package of security bills known as the Legislation for Peace and Security, thereby allowing Japan to participate in limited forms of collective self-defence.  Opponents warned, understandably, that the legislation paved the way for Japan to attack a country in concert with another on the premise of collective self-defence, despite not itself being directly attacked.  They have every reason to be even more worried given Ishiba’s recent meditations.

The intention to broaden the remit of how Japan’s armed forces are deployed is also a reminder to the United States that Tokyo is no longer interested in playing a subordinate role in its alliance with Washington. “The current Japan-US security treaty,” complains Ishiba, “is structured so that the US is obligated to ‘defend’ Japan, and Japan is obligated to ‘provide bases’ to the US.”  He suggests “expanding the scope of joint management of US bases in Japan”, a move that would reduce Washington’s burden, and revising the Japan-US Security Treaty and Status of Forces Agreement to permit the stationing of Japanese forces on Guam.

What makes his suggestions disconcerting is not merely the establishment of a power bloc bound by the glue of collective self-defence – an arrangement that has much to do with defence as a growling provocation.  Ishiba is intent on being even more provocative in suggesting that any such “Asian version of NATO must also specifically consider America’s sharing of nuclear weapons or the introduction of nuclear weapons into the region.”

Were such a move taken, it would, at least from a Japanese perspective, fly in the face of a doctrine in place since December 1967, when Prime Minister Eisaku Sato articulated the three non-nuclear principles of “not possessing, not producing and not permitting the introduction of nuclear weapons, in line with Japan’s Peace Constitution.”

As with so many in the business of preaching about international security, false paradigms and analysis are offered from the pulpit.  The Japanese PM, much like neoconservative hawks in Washington and Canberra, prove incapable of seeing conflict in generic, transferrable terms. “Ukraine today is Asia tomorrow,” he falsely reasons. “Replacing Russia with China and Ukraine and Taiwan, the absence of a collective self-defense system like NATO in Asia means that wars are likely to break out because there is no obligation for mutual defense.” Ergo, he reasons, the need for an Asian version of NATO.

Ishiba’s suggestions have yet to gather momentum. Daniel Kritenbrink, US assistant secretary of state for East Asia and the Pacific, told a forum on Indo-Pacific security at the Stimson Center in September that he preferred the current “latticework” approach to US regional alliances featuring, for instance, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue involving Japan, India and Australia, and AUKUS, featuring Australia and the UK. “It’s too early to talk about collective security in that context, and [the creation of] more formal institutions.” It was far better to focus on “investing in the region’s existing formal architecture and continuing to build this network of formal and information relationships.”

Kritenbrink’s analysis hardly gets away from the suspicion that the “latticework” theory of US security in the Indo-Pacific is but a form of NATO in embryo. As Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi said with tartness in 2022, “The real goal for the [US] Indo-Pacific strategy is to establish an Indo-Pacific version of NATO. These perverse actions run counter to common aspirations of the region and are doomed to fail.”

From New Delhi, the view towards such an alliance is not a glowing one.  On October 1, at an event held by Washington’s Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar proved dismissive of any NATO replication in Asia. “We don’t have that kind of strategic architecture in mind.” India had “a different history and different way of approaching” its security considerations.

With the return of Donald Trump to the White House, the collective defence hawks so keen on adding kindling to conflict will have their teeth chattering.  Ishiba’s ideas may well have to be put back into cold storage – at least in the interim.  And as luck would have it, his own prime ministerial tenure already looks threatened.

Binoy Kampmark was a Commonwealth Scholar at Selwyn College, Cambridge. He lectures at RMIT University, Melbourne. Email: bkampmark@gmail.comRead other articles by Binoy.
Trump didn't win — disinformation did

Sabrina Haake
November 10, 2024 

Tesla CEO and X owner Elon Musk speaks as Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. president Donald Trump reacts during a rally at the site of the July assassination attempt against Trump, in Butler, Pennsylvania, U.S., October 5, 2024. 
REUTERS/Carlos Barria

America has made a terrible mistake. Despite everything we’ve seen from the right, voters have nonetheless moved toward it.

Rather than the mandate Trump/Musk/Christo nationalists are claiming from the election, however, US voters merely reflected the same pattern emerging from around the globe, almost universally: Incumbent leaders and parties worldwide have been defeated, or their majorities reduced, in a global ‘radicalizing effect’ still lingering from the Covid economy. Across the political spectrum, voters have punished incumbent parties in Japan, South Africa, Italy, Austria, the UK, France, Sweden, Finland, New Zealand, Belgium, Portugal and the Netherlands. As Matthew Yglesias wrote for the NYT, “everywhere you look in the world of affluent democracies, the exact same thing is happening: The incumbent party is losing and often losing quite badly.”

As a healing balm, this may feel thin. After all, other countries don’t have a Trump equivalent (except perhaps Netanyahu, whose war is keeping him in office, and Putin, whose elections are a joke). Americans have seemingly embraced a known monster, someone who sells political violence and hatred, who tried to overthrow the last election. But it’s more complicated than that. Trump supporters in the US consume right-wing propaganda far more than the rest of the country, which means they were either not informed about Trump’s sinister plans, or Fox and Musk succeeded in scaring them with a firehose of Harris disinformation.

First Amendment law needs to catch up with an altered media landscape


While it may feel better to think of Trump supporters as misinformed rather than hateful, the downside is that an uninformed public cannot sustain a freely elected democracy. This is exactly what Musk, Murdoch, Putin, and destabilizing forces from around the world are banking on. Like a snake gorging on its own tail, domestic disrupters are weaponizing America’s First Amendment to get rid of it so that the oligarchs funding them can drill, shoot, pollute, and defraud American consumers with impunity.

I’ve been a trial lawyer for decades, and I’ve had the misfortune of litigating arcane aspects of First Amendment law. Fox and Musk have gotten away with spreading disinformation because of a self-serving misapprehension of the political speech doctrine: The First Amendment protects ‘core political speech’ above all other forms of expression. But Musk purchasing the world’s town square only to weaponize it to support his own agenda, and Fox admittedly lying to viewers nonstop to promote Trump, isn’t political speech presumptively entitled to legal protection.


Weaponized disinformation will ultimately kill the First Amendment, which the Supreme Court recognized back in 1969 when it approved the Fairness Doctrine and required accuracy in the media. Even in politics, the foundational role of protecting free speech is the promotion of free ideas, not to protect a nefarious publisher’s monopoly.

Musk, Fox and Putin spread rampant election disinformation


Elon Musk is a disinformation superspreader who weaponized Twitter/X to amplify blatant anti-Harris lies to his 200 million followers. Fox is an admitted network of lies, one with nationwide reach close to that of Musk’s. Russia also disseminated false information to benefit Trump, spreading fake videos and election-related press releases across multiple social media platforms, including a hoax impersonating FBI officials to scare people away from the polls.



US courts need to carefully consider the political speech doctrine before it does us in, if it hasn’t already. Under the theory that only more speech can cure bad ideas, the right to speak one’s mind politically has been and must remain sacrosanct: “(T)he remedy to be applied (to expose falsehoods and fallacies) is more speech, not enforced silence.”Rampant disinformation from the 2024 election reveals the limitations of that approach: monopolized conversations ultimately become one-sided.

The bottom line is that speech is no longer the same because we don’t consume media the same way we did when the First Amendment was written.We don’t even consume media the same way we did more recently, when the Fairness Doctrine was embraced by SCOTUS.

We aren’t hateful.We’re just misinformed.



As I see it, Trump didn’t win this election. Disinformation did, demonstrating that the world’s richest men, funding disinformation, will stop at nothing to end government regulations and taxes, or to defeat democracy itself.

We aren’t a hateful nation; we’re a nation that’s been lied to. By Fox, by Russia, by Elon Musk.We have the strongest economy in the world, we recovered post-Covid better than any other advanced economy, unemployment is low, and the Biden stock market hit more records than Trump’s, yet Fox, Musk and Russia convinced half the country that we’re in economic peril. According to AP VoteCast’s sweeping survey and other network exit polls, most voters were focused on a ‘crumbling’ economy, and they broke hard for Trump.

While it’s true that Biden’s $1.9 trillion rescue plan temporarily exacerbated inflation by up to 3 percentage points, it also powered the US’ stunning comeback from Covid. Economists have observed that the gap between voters’ positive perceptions of their own financial health, compared to their negative perceptions of the country’s economic health, is mainly explained by what they are being told by the media.



The richest men in the world bought the election

In the final weeks before the election, Elon Musk hosted town halls throughout battleground states and promoted a fraudulent “lottery” that wasn’t really a lottery at all, giving away $1 million a day to promote Trump. Musk, the richest man in the world, says he and his America PAC, funded with $118 million of his own money, will “keep going after this election, and prepare for the midterms and any intermediate elections.” We shall see.

His and Fox’s willingness to skirt the law shows the fruits of an intimidation campaign by Republican attorneys general and legislators designed to force social media to platform falsehoods and hate speech. These same nefarious forces will oppose any efforts to impose fairness in the media’s coverage of politics, because, for now, they benefit politically from the lies.

But there will come a day when their goals run counter to Trump's/Musks', and even they, educated by federal courts, will see the value in protecting truth.

Sabrina Haake is a columnist and 25 year litigator specializing in 1st and 14th Amendment defense. She writes the SubstackThe Haake Take.

What Trump's win really means for America

Thom Hartmann
November 9, 2024 


Stephen Miller, Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner listen as Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump speaks onstage following early results from the 2024 U.S. presidential election in Palm Beach County Convention Center, in West Palm Beach, Florida, U.S., November 6, 2024. REUTERS/Carlos Barria


We just elected a guy who’s fine with the planet melting down, kids getting shot in school, insurance companies going back to denying coverage for preexisting conditions, and wanting to weaponize the federal government in a way dictators do.

What happened?

Democrats thought the 2024 election would be all about Donald Trump’s embrace of fascism and the future of our democracy. And abortion.

Pretty much all of us thought that. As did most of the news media and pundits.

But now that the exit polls and research are largely in, we’re finding, instead, that the election was all about who’d be best able to “blow up the system.”

By “the system,” voters didn’t mean democracy (although we may get the end of that); they meant the neoliberal system that Ronald Reagan introduced to replace FDR’s New Deal policies in 1981, which was subsequently embraced by Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama.


In other words, they said, “We want the jobs like we had before Reagan’s neoliberalism, when one person could support a household.”

If that word intimidates or confuses you (as it does most Americans), here it is broken down: Neoliberalism (as I lay out in The Hidden History of Neoliberalism: How Reaganism Gutted America) combines free trade, low taxes, and an end to the power of unions. Neoliberals typically also embrace open borders, as in the world’s most complete neoliberal experiment that’s called the European Union (which is also in trouble now).

The result of Reagan’s version of neoliberalism has been that good jobs (over 20 million of them) and even entire factories (over 15,000 of them) moved to low-wage countries, unions were destroyed, and wealth exploded at the top while the middle class shrank into near poverty.


In the 2016 primaries, Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders were the first two candidates for either of the two major parties to call for an end to neoliberalism. Americans were enchanted by both.

It’s why people from Joe Rogan to Howard Stern were endorsing Bernie Sanders, and blue-collar workers across the country were taking Trump seriously.

Bernie’s call to end neoliberalism was complete: End the offshoring and bring jobs back, pass Card Check to reinvigorate unions, and raise taxes on the morbidly rich and profitable corporations.


Trump’s call was only partial; while he embraced bringing our jobs and factories back to America, he wanted to keep the neoliberal “reforms” of low taxes on billionaires and an end to union representation. (He went so far as to publicly congratulate Elon Musk on his union-busting/union-preventing activities.)

Sadly, the elders of the Democratic Party had already decided that Hillary Clinton was going to inherit her husband’s neoliberal dynasty so, when voters were confronted with Clinton’s defense of neoliberalism versus Trump’s partial attack on it, they chose the latter. Something’s better than nothing, they seemed to think.

And Trump gave it a shot during his first term, throwing up tariffs in such an incoherent and uninformed way that he provoked an unnecessary trade war with China that cost America hundreds of billions. But at least, voters thought this year, he gave it a shot. Maybe he’ll do better this time around.


Working class people of all races (particularly men) know that neoliberalism sent our jobs overseas, made rich people fantastically rich, and destroyed our unions. Few associate it with Reagan, though, as those policies didn’t really start to bite until the Clinton years.

Still, even not knowing when or where it all started, they hated it. And, we just learned with the outcome of this presidential election, it turns out that voters will tolerate the chance that their kids will get shot, their insurance companies will rip them off, and their government will imprison dissenters in exchange for the promise of the well-paying jobs that come with ending neoliberalism.

Back in 2010, I published a book to guide Democrats through policies that could win the 2012 election. Rebooting The American Dream was a book about how to end neoliberalism (although I never used that wonky word) that Bernie Sanders famously read on the floor of the Senate during his eight-hour filibuster of the Bush tax cuts, and got me an invitation to discuss economics in the Obama White House.


The first two chapters are titled Bring My Job Home and Roll Back the Reagan Tax Cuts, followed by calls for an end to corporate union-busting, free college, Medicare for All, reversing Citizens United, immediate action to stop global warming, an end to predatory foreign policy (Iraq, etc.), genuine immigration reform, an end to corporate personhood, and more widespread employee-owned companies.

Bernie had been a guest on my radio program for an hour every Friday, taking and answering questions from listeners, for a full six years at that time (he ended up doing it for eleven years) and we shared a public disgust for Reagan’s — and then Clinton’s and Bush’s — embrace of neoliberalism.

For the 21 years that I’ve been doing my daily radio program I’ve been arguing that illegal immigration hurts working class people (just ask anybody in the construction industry); that we should bring our factories back home and the fastest way to do that is to return to a gradual and rational tariff-based system; and that we need to raise taxes on the morbidly rich and corporations above 50 percent like other developed nations to cap great wealth and incentivize companies to invest in R&D and their employees.


That call has been largely ignored until the last four years.

In a true American political tragedy, Clinton and Obama were so enthralled by neoliberalism they couldn’t even get around to passing Card Check to bring back unions (although both promised to), much less ending job offshoring or meaningfully raising taxes on the morbidly rich.

Those steps would have taken us back to the era when the majority of American workers could buy a home and a car, take an annual vacation, put their kids through school, and retire with dignity on a single paycheck. The era, in other words, that Trump constantly points to, only this time we’d be able to do it without the racial segregation and gay-bashing.

The great irony here is that Joe Biden has been the first president since Jimmy Carter to reject neoliberalism and embrace Bernie’s and FDR’s New Deal system of government and Keynesian economics:
— He’s kept most of Trump’s tariffs in place and added a bunch of his own.
— He raised taxes on corporations and billionaires significantly.
— He tightened up the border and wanted to sign a major reform of our immigration system.
— He was the first president in history to walk a picket line.


President Biden, in other words, made a real and sincere effort to roll back neoliberalism, and would have done a lot more had Republicans not seized the House two years ago.

He is the true anti-establishment guy, taking an axe to Reagan’s, Bush’s, Clinton’s, Bush’s, and Obama’s embrace of the policies that have impoverished much of the American middle class.

The problem was that nobody knew Biden had so explicitly repudiated neoliberalism and taken such extraordinary and successful steps forward that, even in the face of a massive interest rate increase by the Fed, we did not have a recession. Our economy is doing better than any president’s economy since John Kennedy's.


If Biden had just stepped out of the White House every day to let the press know what he was doing — like Trump did for four years (but with lies and BS) — and Kamala Harris had explicitly confirmed that she, too, wanted to end neoliberalism, the exit polls tell us today she would have won in a sweep.

But Harris and her team assumed that the message of rescuing democracy from fascism — an abstraction that most American voters don’t even understand — and protecting the right to abortion would beat Trump.

And they ridiculed Trump’s push for tariffs — even though Biden has embraced them — as a “middle class sales tax” when most people living in the Rust Belt know exactly what tariffs are and how they work to bring factories back home. Hell, we studied them in fifth grade civics when I was in elementary school growing up in Michigan.


As a result, voters went to the polls and voted to rescind abortion bans while simultaneously filling in the circle for Trump, thinking he’d bring back the prosperity that neoliberal economic policies stole from them.

As Damon Linker noted at his Notes from the MiddlegroundSubstack (reprinted in today’s New York Times), commenting on how Harris’ embrace of Liz Cheney was a dud:
“Reaganism is now well and truly dead, with no substantial base in either party.”

Similarly, Financial Times US National Editor Ed Luce wrote this morning after quoting Bernie Sanders’ comment that Democrats had lost the working class and citing Trump’s most successful ad that says “Kamala is for they/them, President Trump is for you”:
“Tuesday night strongly reaffirmed that Democrats are no longer the party of the working class. … It would be a big error for Democrats to write off America’s working classes as hidebound know-nothings. Nor should they dismiss the tens of millions of lower income households that voted for Trump as economically illiterate.”

This decisive vote for Trump tells us this is truly one of those “hinge points” of history that I’ve written about over the years.

And the double irony today is that the billionaires who support Trump want more neoliberalism; they want to keep the tax cuts, deregulation, and to keep the unions out of their companies while retaining their offshore manufacturing facilities. But nobody ever told the American public in a way they could hear that that’s what most of Trump‘s billionaire supporters are all about.

Instead, Trump ran on faux populism, saying he’d use tariffs to bring jobs home while cutting taxes on tips and Social Security. To paraphrase James Carville, Trump’s pitch was, “It’s the economy, stupid.”

This is why two days ago Bernie came right out and said it:
“It should come as no great surprise that a Democratic Party which has abandoned working class people would find that the working class has abandoned them. While the Democratic leadership defends the status quo, the American people are angry and want change. And they’re right.”

DNC Chair Jaime Harrison (also a regular guest on my program) reacted with outrage, tweeting on Xitter:
“This is straight up BS… Biden was the most-pro worker President of my life time- saved Union pensions, created millions of good paying jobs and even marched in a picket line and some of MVP’s plans would have fundamentally transformed the quality of life and closed the racial wealth gap for working people across this country. From the child tax credits, to 25k for a down payment for a house to Medicare covering the cost of senior health care in their homes. There are a lot of post election takes and this one ain’t a good one.”

Sadly, Harrison’s message that Biden repudiated neoliberalism isn’t shared by all Democrats, and was barely even mentioned by the Harris campaign. Even significant numbers of Black and Hispanic men were willing to embrace a demagogue who openly hates them in the hope of getting good manufacturing employment that beats inflation.

It’s not enough to just do a good job at governing; you must make sure everybody knows about it. Deep down in their bones. Every day. Month after month, year after year. In that, Biden, Harris, and Harrison all failed, while Trump performed like an Olympic athlete.

If Democrats want a chance to return to power in America, they must — like President Joe Biden largely did — completely repudiate neoliberalism and openly re-embrace FDR’s system, promising to bring our jobs back home, limit illegal immigration, reestablish union power, and raise taxes on the rich.

And make damn sure everybody in America knows it!

Only then can Democrats regain enough of a base across working-class America to credibly campaign on more “esoteric” issues like protecting democracy, tackling climate change, expanding healthcare and education, boosting housing support, and embracing equal opportunity for all.

Democrats must recognize how the winds have changed in America, do the work, spread the word, and let America know what they stand for. If they do, it could be a new day for this country.

 War Room host: MAGA 'shock troops on the streets' will enable Trump's mass deportations

David Edwards
November 10, 2024 
RAW STORY

Real America's Voice/screen grab

Right-wing hosts Natalie Winters and Steve Bannon discussed how MAGA loyalists would be "the shock troops on the streets" to enable President-elect Donald Trump's plan for mass deportations.

During a weekend edition of the War Room podcast, Winters asked Bannon what the show's audience could do to enable the plan to remove millions of undocumented immigrants from the country.

"But I think when you get into the issues of personnel and staffing, I think that it's going to be another battle where the power of this audience is really going to need to be on full display and in full force, right?" the host remarked. "You're already sort of starting to see the divergence of different camps on how they want to handle what will, I think, be essentially the first flashpoint of the Trump administration, which is, of course, the mass deportations."



Winters called mass deportations "crucial to the MAGA agenda" but worried that some Republicans wanted to focus on "the gang members, the violent criminals" instead of "a broader systemic removal of sort of an invasion of people."

"And I think that right there gives us this audience, this show, to sort of stand in the breach," she continued. "So we're not just removing criminals, we're removing a monolith, a group of people who really are the antithesis of the populist agenda that undergirds the MAGA movement."

Winters wondered how the audience "can sort of be the counter-resistance to the resistance, not just in the form of the shock troops on the streets, but particularly sort of the embeds within the Trump administration."





Bannon said he had been in touch with Trump's transition team and called Winters' assessment "brilliant." He argued that Trump should begin by focusing on "11 million to 15 million" migrants that allegedly entered the country during Joe Biden's presidency.

"That's the universe we're talking about," he explained. "As I said, and [Trump spokesperson] Karoline Leavitt and others said, all 15 may have to go home."

"But you must — we must focus on what Biden and Harris and the progressive left and the corporations that the Wall Street barons, the big corporations did under Biden's regime to unwind with Trump," he added.