No Kings—and No Oligarchs

Even if the Democrats secure a victory in the midterm elections, would-be king Donald’s ultra-rich supporters will continue to find ways to protect their privileged status in society.


Guests including Mark Zuckerberg, Lauren Sanchez, Jeff Bezos, Sundar Pichai, and Elon Musk attend the Inauguration of Donald J. Trump in the US Capitol Rotunda on January 20, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Julia Demaree Nikhinson - Pool/Getty Images)

Jeff Peck
Oct 17, 2026

Common Dreams

Two opposing views from America’s Founding Fathers are particularly relevant to the upcoming No Kings rallies:

“Of more worth is one honest man to society and in the sight of God, than all the crowned ruffians that ever lived.”—Thomas Paine

“There never was, nor ever will be a civilized Society without an Aristocracy.”—Gouverneur Morris

I once played the historic figure of Gouverneur Morris in Paul Foster’s stage play, Tom Paine, about the life of Thomas Paine who, in 1776, wrote a pamphlet called “Common Sense,” which guided and gave form to the American Revolution. Much has been written about how that work has direct relevance to today’s No Kings rallies, making a compelling case for the preservation of a republic and representative democracy over authoritarianism. However, thinking back to Foster’s play, I’m reminded that it’s important to also remember Morris because, as a bitter critic of Paine, he represents a viewpoint diametrically opposed to Paine’s egalitarianism, as represented in the role of oligarchs in society, or the “gentry,” as he called them. Their loyalty and support underpins the power of a king. And 250 years later, this is just as true for today’s oligarchs and their would-be king, Donald J. Trump.

Simply have a look at any image of the 2025 presidential inauguration. The platform behind Trump is crowded with the richest people in the country, among them, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Jeff Bezos, Tim Cook, Sam Altman, Sundar Pichai, and Rupert Murdoch.

Attending the No Kings rallies to express loudly and clearly the views of the 99% is a step in the right direction.

These people are enablers of Donald Trump, but at the same time, as Paine points out, the relationship between oligarchs and an authoritarian ruler is an uneasy one: “The rich are in general slaves to fear, and submit to courtly power with the trembling duplicity of a spaniel.” How else to describe the obsequious fawning over Donald Trump by those same people on the platform?

A wealthy landholder and capitalist, Gouverneur Morris was a member the “1%” of his day. And when resentment against King George III was brewing in the colonies in the 1770s, he and his fellow landowners worried that any change to the status quo could threaten their power and privilege. Suppressing discontent, however, he realized, would not be easy. Referring to popular leaders in the colonies, in a 1774 letter to John Penn, Morris wrote: “These sheep, simple as they are, cannot be gulled as heretofore. In short, there is no ruling them; and now, to leave the metaphor, the heads of the mobility [mob] grow dangerous to the gentry, and how to keep them down is the question.”

Today’s oligarchs have a simple answer: Spend a billion dollars to elect right-wing candidates in this year’s midterm elections. The degree to which that will work any better than Morris’ efforts in the 1770s remains to be seen.

After armed conflict broke out between colonists and British troops in Lexington and Concord in April 1775, most wealthy landholders did not openly side with the king. However, many argued for negotiations to end the hostilities and reconciliation with the Crown. Thomas Paine thought this was madness. Once blood has been shed, he said, reconciliation was impossible: “As well can the lover forgive the ravisher of his mistress, as the continent forgive the murders of Britain.” Indeed, in the end, a peaceful settlement between king and colonists was not to be.

Today, with two years of increasing violence, both rhetorical and physical, on the part of the second Trump administration, that same line has undeniably been crossed.

If in the elections on November 3, Democrats win control of Congress, there will no doubt be calls for toning down the rhetoric, more cooperation across the aisle, and a working relationship between Trump and a Democratic Congress. But, as with Paine’s argument, that may very well not be possible.

At the end of the War of Independence, when the new country’s constitution was being considered, America’s wealthy managed to guarantee their continued privileged position in society. Paine had argued: “The true and only true basis of representative government is equality of rights. Every man has a right to one vote… The rich have no more right to exclude the poor from the right of voting, or of electing and being elected, than the poor have to exclude the rich.” However, at the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Morris made the case that only those who owned property should have the right to vote. “Children do not vote,” he said, “Why? Because they want prudence; because they have no will of their own. The ignorant and the dependent can be as little trusted with the public interest.” James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Adams agreed, and although the Constitution left the right to vote in the hands of the individual states, in most cases that meant that only white male voters with property could vote.

Although they will still seek to benefit from their proximity to power in the wake of a Democratic victory in the midterms, like Morris and his fellow gentry, Trump’s ultra-rich supporters will continue to find ways to protect their privileged status in society. With virtually unlimited resources, both financial and technical (including advanced AI models), along with increasing control of the media, the oligarchs will do their best to influence policy, legislation, regulation, and public opinion. This will make them difficult to keep in check. But attending the No Kings rallies to express loudly and clearly the views of the 99% is a step in the right direction.

Before the war, judges in the colonies were appointed and paid by the Crown. This made them natural allies of the king and the wealthy in society. Morris believed that “the principle purpose of the state was protecting private property” and a strong executive and the courts were the instruments to ensure that. In today’s America, this alliance is again in force on the Supreme Court. Trump has nominated 3 of its 9 judges, and 3 others were nominated by Republican presidents, giving the conservatives a supermajority. For this reason, the court has ruled in Trump’s favor in many cases, notably rolling back voting rights and loosening campaign financing laws, both of which entrench the power of the wealthy over the poor. But the court has also afforded Trump king-like immunity from prosecution for all “official acts.”

Thomas Paine had a response to that: “When it is laid down as a maxim, that a King can do no wrong, it places him in a state of similar security with that of idiots and persons insane, and responsibility is out of the question with respect to himself.” I leave it to you to decide if that description applies to our would-be king.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Jeff Peck
Dr. Jeff Peck is a film and television writer and producer and has taught film history at universities in America and Australia.
Full Bio >

Follow the Money: How Billionaire Wealth Became Political Power

Wealth creates political power; political power produces tax and economic policies favorable to wealth; those policies concentrate still more wealth; and some of that wealth is reinvested in politics to keep the cycle going.


Advocates pose as Monopoly men and wealthy DOGE supporters while protesting tax breaks for billionaires and the Republican tax plan, inside and outside the Ways & Means Full Committee Markup to advance the legislation in the Longworth House Office Building on May 13, 2025 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Paul Morigi/Getty Images for Stop Billionaires Tax Cuts Campaign)

Zack Kaldveer
Oct 16, 2026

Common Dreams


In 1971, corporate lawyer Lewis Powell wrote a confidential memo to the US Chamber of Commerce warning that American business was under attack. Among his complaints were politicians and activists who portrayed tax breaks as benefiting “only the rich” and who dared to set the “rich” against the “poor,” and “business against the people.”

Powell’s solution was not subtle. Corporate America needed political power, and that power “must be assiduously cultivated” and, when necessary, “used aggressively and with determination.” Business should organize, influence the media and universities, build political power, and exploit what Powell called the “vast opportunity” presented by the courts.


Heist: Who Stole the American Dream? traces much of what happened next. Powell joined the Supreme Court and later wrote the majority opinion in First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, expanding constitutional protection for corporate spending on ballot measures. Decades later, Citizens United would further expand corporate political spending rights. Meanwhile, Ronald Reagan ushered in enormous tax cuts, deregulation, attacks on organized labor, and an economic philosophy that promised prosperity would trickle down (it never did!).

That brings us to a question I think every politician promising a better future should have to answer: Tell me what you want to do—and tell me who you’re willing to tax to pay for it.

More than half a century after the Powell Memo, we’ve got the receipts.

According to a new Americans for Tax Fairness analysis, America’s 977 billionaires now control a record $9.24 trillion. In just one year, their wealth increased by $2.2 trillion, or 32%, while the overall economy grew by about 6%. The richest 16 Americans alone possess nearly $4 trillion, more wealth than all US billionaires combined had less than six years ago.

But those gains look even more extraordinary when we look at what is happening to everyone else. The bottom half of American households collectively owns just over 2% of the nation’s wealth. Nearly 48 million Americans live in households struggling with food insecurity. And the divide between workers and those at the top of corporate America has exploded: CEOs at the country’s 350 largest firms made 325 times as much as the typical worker in 2025, up from 21 times as much in 1965. Since 1978, CEO compensation has risen 1,316%, while typical worker compensation increased just 28%.

Yet as wealth becomes increasingly concentrated at the top, Washington is moving in precisely the opposite direction for millions of working families: massive tax cuts disproportionately benefiting the wealthy alongside deep cuts to Medicaid, food assistance, and other programs people depend on.

That brings us to a question I think every politician promising a better future should have to answer: Tell me what you want to do—and tell me who you’re willing to tax to pay for it. Want universal healthcare? Affordable housing? Better schools? Modern infrastructure? A serious response to climate change? A stronger safety net? Great. How are you going to pay for it?

After decades in which an extraordinary share of America’s wealth has accumulated at the very top, pretending we can adequately fund those priorities without asking substantially more from those who have accumulated that wealth is not a serious answer.

California’s Proposition 40 puts that question directly before voters.

The measure would impose a one-time 5% tax on billionaire wealth, primarily to help protect healthcare from massive federal cuts. In a letter endorsing the measure, six Nobel Prize-winning economists note that California’s roughly 250 billionaires now possess $2.3 trillion, up from about $700 billion a decade ago. From 2019 through 2025 alone, those billionaires gained $1.4 trillion in wealth, while the state income taxes they paid during that period amounted to just 1.6% of those gains.

The good news is that none of this is inevitable. These rules were created through political choices, and they can be changed through political choices and organized action.

How have some of California’s wealthiest people responded to being asked for a small portion of those enormous gains? By spending an extraordinary amount of money to stop it.

As of October 10, billionaire-backed opposition efforts have reportedly raised approximately $300 million to fight Prop 40, vastly outspending its supporters. The opposition includes Building a Better California, which is also backing Props 41 and 42, competing measures that could potentially block the billionaire tax even if voters approve it.

Think about that for a moment. A small number of extraordinarily wealthy people can spend a quarter-billion dollars influencing an election over whether extraordinarily wealthy people should pay more in taxes.

And California is only one battlefield. American billionaires had already contributed more than $433 million to the 2026 midterms by early this year. Nearly 80% went to Republican candidates and conservative organizations.

This is the feedback loop Powell envisioned, taken to an extreme he might not have imagined: Wealth creates political power; political power produces tax and economic policies favorable to wealth; those policies concentrate still more wealth; and some of that wealth is reinvested in politics to keep the cycle going.

That is why this debate is about more than tax rates. It is about democracy.

It is also why Prop 40 matters beyond California. As the six Nobel economists wrote, passage could help “kickstart a movement” to tax extreme wealth elsewhere. They concluded that this vote could ultimately be remembered as a turning point in the struggle between democracy and oligarchy.

The good news is that none of this is inevitable. These rules were created through political choices, and they can be changed through political choices and organized action.

Vote. Demand that candidates tell us not only what they want to accomplish, but who they are willing to tax to pay for it. Join the No Kings mobilization on October 17. And watch and share Heist: Who Stole the American Dream? to understand how we got here.

Then let’s stop the heist.



Our work is licensed under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-ND 3.0). Feel free to republish and share widely.


Zack Kaldveer
Zack Kaldveer is a communications strategist and public policy advocate with nearly three decades of experience advancing evidence-based solutions in pursuit of justice. His work has spanned labor, environmental, economic, health, consumer rights, and corporate accountability. He leads communications for the Healthy Work Campaign and Prevention Policy Group at the Public Health Institute and serves as a Pacifica National Board director.
Full Bio >

UK

Anti-Immigrant Furor in Thetford

Stephen F. Eisenman

 August 21, 2026

FacebookTwitterRedditBlueskyEmail

Norwich Cathedral and close, August 12, 2026. Photo: The author.

A long, hot, summer

If William Blake were alive today, he’d call his country a “brown and unpleasant land.” English summers used to be short and wet; now they are long and dry. More than 70% of the country is experiencing drought, with hosepipe bans and other water-use restrictions. Norwich, in the county of Norfolk, where I live with my wife Harriet, has experienced its hottest summer ever, with a record temperature of 36C (97F) on June 26, and multiple other days nearly as hot. Yesterday (August 13) it reached 90. Today is expected to be the same.

Having lived in New York, Los Angeles, Chicago and Central Florida, the summer warmth feels to me unexceptional, even welcome, what Nat King Cole serenaded as “those lazy-hazy-crazy days of summer.” But for people here, the excess of sun and heat is punishing. In the age of global warming, Englishmen, contrary to Noel Coward’s Depression-era patter song, avoid the midday sun. I suspect the same is true of mad dogs.

Worse this summer than the heat, were the race riots and anti-immigrant furor in London, Tamworth, Glasgow, Bicester, Wethersfield, Belfast and Thetford. They say hot weather increases aggression, but anti-immigrant attacks have been a staple of British politics for generations, and in all seasons. Notorious outrages include the Seaport Riots of 1919, Notting Hill Riots in 1958, Northern Town Riots of 2001, and the upwellings in Southport, Liverpool, Sunderland, Belfast, and Rotherham in summer, 2024.

The most common argument British residents (especially white ones) make against asylum seekers is that they cost the government money that could otherwise be spent on services for them. But this is largely specious. The cost of the asylum system in the U.K. is 0.29 percent of the national budget, and that could be reduced if asylum seekers were allowed to work in jobs or industries where they are most needed. The other major complaint is that newcomers – legal immigrants as well as asylum seekers — undermine traditional British values. I don’t mean to be ungenerous to my new hosts, but apart from beer, chips, football and mistaken pride in a former empire, British values are hard to identify. That’s not because values have broken down, but because Britain has always been a diverse country. And anyway, the taste for curries, kebabs, and pizza has long rivalled if not overtaken that for pasties, baps, and bangers-and-mash.

The arguments against immigration and asylum are familiar and notorious. They are found in Oswald Mosley perorations against London’s immigrant Jews in in the 1930s; and again in 1958 and ’59 against Blacks from the Caribbean. A decade after, Defense Secretary Enoch Powell rehearsed them in his infamous speechgiven at a Conservative Party gathering in Birmingham. Inveighing against a proposed anti-discrimination bill in parliament, he said that the influx of Commonwealth immigrants was straining housing, hospitals, and schools.

Most of all, however, Powell said immigration was polluting the nation, and undermining both social cohesion and national values: “For reasons which [British people] could not comprehend and …[about] which they were never consulted, they found themselves made strangers in their own country.” Claiming that immigrant communities aimed to organize themselves to replace (“overawe and dominate”) native ones, he concluded: “As I look ahead, I am filled with foreboding. Like the Roman [he’s referencing Virgil’s Aeneid], I seem to see ‘the River Tiber foaming with much blood.'”

Former Labor Prime Minister Keith Starmer, to his everlasting shame and regret, echoed Powell’s “River of Blood” speech in an address from June 2025. He said that immigration risked turning the nation into “an island of strangers.” Nigel Farage, leader of the far right, Reform U.K. party, has gone farther, calling it an “invasion” and “national security threat,” and promising if elected Prime Minister, to greatly reduce immigration and ban all foreign nationals from social housing and other public services, no matter how long they’ve been legally settled.

In the U.K. as in the U.S., opposition to immigration and asylum has perverted common sense.  Even if you accepted the idea that mass immigration taxed services, (not a point to be conceded), the current threat is non-existent. The number of U.K. residents who initially came to the country seeking asylum is about 0.6 percent, in other words six in a thousand. The number currently waiting for an asylum decision is 0.2 percent. The annual inflow of immigrants is 0.14 percent of the population, that is, 1.4 out of a thousand. In addition, despite employment of seasonal foreign workers in agriculture, there currently exist significant shortages of workers in that and other sectors, especially healthcare, hospitality, and construction. Economic growth in the U.K. depends upon the very labor pool that most politicians are aiming to restrict. If the new PM, Andy Burnham, wants to light a fire under the U.K. economy, he should start by denouncing racism and embracing immigration. The Royal Navy could escort migrant boats crossing the channel from France to England!

The Thetford riots and Thomas Paine statue

Norwich is only about 30 miles from Thetford (pop. 25,000), so on a hot Sunday afternoon, four days after attacks there against immigrant and non-white families, we decided to visit the town. The rock throwing, housebreaking, window smashing and verbal abuse was over, the injured police had been treated (one was badly bitten a rioter), the threatened residents were relocated, and most of the press had gone. Thetford was buttoned up, and King’s Road, the town’s high street, nearly deserted on the sunny, sabbath afternoon.

As we walked from the car park up the empty asphalt road, we passed on the left a long, flint wall and on the right, some tidy, terraced homes of new brick. Further on, a narrow road at left was lined with Georgian-era, grey brick houses with shuttered shops below: a café, nail salon, and off license (liquor and convenience store). In front of us, up King Street on the left, appeared a golden apparition, a vertical invader standing on a two-step plinth. It was Thomas Paine — born in Thetford in 1737 — all gilt and shiny, like the swags and cartouches in Trump’s Oval Office.

His right hand grasped a quill pen, though from a distance it looked like he was hailing a cab. His left held Rights of Man (1791), a book written in defense of the French Revolution. It’s upside down because Paine’s radicalism turned politics upside down. Leaning right but looking left, his torso was torqued, like a tornado. A revolutionary in three countries — Britain, the U.S. and France — the association was apt.

Sir Charles Thomas Wheeler, Thomas Paine, 1964, (outside King’s House, Thetford,) August 9, 2026. On the plinth is written WORLD CITIZEN, ENGLISHMAN BY BIRTH, FRENCH CITIZEN BY DECREE, AMERICAN BY ADOPTION. Photo: the author.

I wondered what the rioters in Thetford would have thought of Paine’s plan for asylum seekers, contained in Rights of Man, Part II:

To receive all who shall come, without enquiring who or what they are. The only condition to be, that for so much, or so many hours’ work, each person shall receive so many meals of wholesome food, and a warm lodging, at least as good as a barrack. That a certain portion of what each person’s work is worth shall be reserved, and given to him or her, on their going away; and that each person shall stay as long or as short a time or come as often as he choose on these conditions.

Thomas Paine, Rights of Man, parts 1 and 2, London: J. S. Jordan, 1791 and 1792. Collection: The author.

Paine added that the recent growth of manufactures in England, no less than basic morality, demanded a plan for generalized asylum:

France and America bid all comers welcome and initiate them into all the rights of citizenship. Policy and interest, therefore, will, but perhaps too late, dictate in England, what reason and justice could not.

If the originalists on the current U.S. Supreme Court were true to their principles, they wouldn’t have decided this year in favor of Trump’s policy of turning back asylum seekers at the border, nor revoked temporary protected status for thousands of foreign nationals. In doing so, they rejected the views of Paine, one of the nation’s founders.

I looked again at Paine’s statue and was impressed. Though modern commemorative sculpture rarely escapes kitsch, this one was livelier and more subtle than most. I wasn’t surprised to learn its author, Sir Charles Thomas Wheeler, was for ten years (1956-66) president of the Royal Academy. His sculpture recalls major works in the European cannon. From the Moses of Michelangelo (1512) and the Statue of Liberty by Bartholdi (1886), Wheeler, borrowed the idea of a figure carrying a massive law book – in Moses’ case, the tablets of the Ten Commandments; in Lady Liberty’s case, a tabula ansata representing the Roman legal system and the rule of law. Inscribed on the latter is the date in Roman numerals, JULY IV MDCCLXXVI“ (July 4, 1776), the date of the Declaration of Independence, of which Paine is now believed to have been an author or editor. With its preamble, list of basic rights, and posting of grievances, the Declaration reads like a bill of indictment founded in 18^th C. English common law. In his pamphlet Common Sense (1776), Paine argued that in a just nation “the law is king.”  Fifteen years later, in Rights of Man, he expanded the idea, saying that people not governments are the ultimate lawgivers, and that everyone is equal under law.

Wheeler was likely also familiar with Ernst Rietschel’s Luther Monument (1861) in Worms, Germany, or the nearly identical work by his student Adolf von Donndorf in Dresden. There too, the figure stands on a stepped base and holds an oversized book in his left hand. Luther’s bible symbolizes the Protestant idea of sola scriptura, meaning worship must be guided by the bible alone – holy law — not the Pope, religious councils, or other authorities.

Jean-Honoré Fragonard, Portrait of Louis-François Prault (formerly titled Inspiration), 1769, Paris, Louvre; Sir Charles Thomas Wheeler, Monument to Thomas Paine, 1964 (detail), Thetford, Norfolk, U.K. Photo: The author.

That Paine waged his revolution via the written word more than the rifle is also suggested by the flamboyantly poised quill pen in his right hand.  The artist knew many paintings and sculptures of revolutionary figures carrying swords or guns, for example the working man at left with saber and baldric in Eugene Delacroix’s Liberty Leading the People (1830); and Daniel Chester French’s bronze statue of The Minute Man (1874), based upon a gunsmith and militia officer named Isaac Davis. But because Wheeler wanted us to believe the pen is mightier than the sword, his Paine also recalls the famous Portrait of Louis-François Prault in the Louvre, one of a series of “Fantasy Portraits” by Jean-Honoré Fragonard. Paine’s exaggerated features, tousled hair, and flamboyant ruff or jabot, suggest a writer in the throes of creativity. In both works, the subject’s pen is thrust left and head turned right, echoing (in reverse) Cesare Ripa’s figure of “Furor Poetico,” (“poetic inspiration”) from the Iconologia (1603).

Cesare Ripa, “Furor Poetico,”  Iconologia, Rome 1603.

The figure’s gilding, a feature suggested by Wheeler’s patron, the Thomas Paine Historical Association (of the United States), also suggests energy and flamboyance. Napoleon is reputed to have said to Paine in 1797, that he slept every night with a copy of his Rights of Man under his pillow, adding “a statue of gold ought to be erected to him in every city in the universe.”

Paine in Thetford in 1964…

When the Paine monument was first proposed, it was criticized and even condemned by some town residents. News of the controversy spread across the pond. According to a report in The New York Times(June 8, 1964):

A member of the Thetford Town Council, John Mayles resigned in protest against unveiling a statue of a ‘revolutionary,’ a ‘traitor’ and an ‘anarchist.’ Mr. Mayles, an electrical engineer, calls himself ‘a truest blue, died in the wool Tory.’

The article’s tone was bemusement more than scandal. Paine was a New Yorker — he died in Greenwich Village in 1809 — and the Americans enjoyed condescending to the British. But the stakes of the controversy in fact were high. 1964 saw ‘Britain’s Racist Election,’ as it has been called, when the struggle over a single seat in Smethwick near Birmingham galvanized the nation. There, the Tory candidate for parliament, Peter Griffiths, rode a rising tide of racial resentment and took the seat away from its long-time Labor MP.  The unspeakable slogan in the district was “If you want a n—-r [my expurgation] for a neighbor, vote Labor.” When challenged, Griffiths excused the sentence as a legitimate “manifestation of poplar feeling.” Though the general election went to Labor, the pattern of deploying racism to gain attention and political power, was established. It would be used by Enoch Powell four years later, and nearly every Tory since. It remains the bread and butter of Reform, and even Labor has dined off it, as we have seen.

In Thetford in 1964, the placement of a gilded native son on a pedestal was controversial because Paine was chief antagonist to Edmund Burke (veritable founder of British conservatism), abolitionist, anti-monarchist, egalitarian, atheist, and advocate for “the Commons,” as Peter Linebaugh and Jeffrey St. Clairhave written. The commons represented for him the ethic of sharing and the satisfaction of actual needs, even if that mean ending — by force if necessary — the swinish indulgences of the rich and powerful. True sovereignty lies in the common people themselves, and that power must never be alienated, even to elected representatives. He largely shared the view of his friend and fellow revolutionary, John Oswald, that “as a man cannot piss by proxy, neither can he think by proxy.”  That’s why there was resistance among Conservatives in Thetford in 1964 to the raising of a statue in honor of Thomas Paine. He opposed racism, the most conventional yet virulent of ideologies.

…and now

It’s thus a peculiar irony that one of the chief organizations in contemporary Thetford that opposes the housing of immigrants is named the Thoman Paine Independents (TPI). They recently changed their name to Thetford Sovereign Council and then Thetford Council Watch. The new names recall the private Citizen’s Councils and public Sovereignty Commissions that enforced segregation in the U.S. South in the 1950s and’60s. The Thetford TPI and its successors embrace the expected far right postures – opposing immigration and asylum, rejecting the science of climate change, supporting book bans – and a few more unusual ones. At their regular “truther” events in the Bell Pub, according to social media reporting, they discuss the danger of chemtrails, nano-robots in Covid vaccines, traffic crossing lights that mask millimeter-wave weapons designed for mind control, and of course, the “great replacement theory” – the idea that a left-wing cabal has opened national borders to colored people to facilitate the replacement of whites. In Thetford on August 6, at the height of the anti-immigrant attacks, a man was heard shouting “They don’t want the white man anymore, they want to swap us.”

The far-right TPI or Council Watch group also works hand in glove with local leaders of the Reform Party, including Scott Hussey, Norfolk County Councilor, to oppose the housing of asylum seekers on a retired military base near Thetford. Hussey described the anti-immigrant pogrom last week, during which rioters threw rocks and eggs at asylum resident’s and tried to break into their homes as “peaceful protest” that merely became “spirited.” He said there were “some skirmishes” but saw no violence. Thomas Paine, universal citizen, supporter of the commons, and advocate for free asylum, must be turning over in his grave, wherever it is. (His bones were stolen and then lost.)

Finally, standing in front of the Paine statue in Thetford last Sunday, I noticed a woman to my right fiddling with a cellphone mounted on a tripod. She was well-dressed in professional black (though it was 90 degrees), and paid no attention to me, though I was the only other person on the site. For 20 minutes or so, I walked forward and back and side to side. I also crouched, stood on my toes, and inclined my head to better appreciate the sculpture. I took a dozen or so photos — some from quite close to her — and occasionally muttered “oh,” and “now I see.” She hardly blinked. Only experienced BBC reporters, I thought, are so studiously oblivious to everything around them. I later learned her name – she’s a had a good career with the Beeb– but I won’t mention it here.

After a little while, Ms. X was joined by a colleague and together they walked to the garden beside King’s House. I followed them, knowing something was up. There, while her companion handled the video-camera, she interviewed Thetford Town Councilor Matt Stirrup and the local labor MP, Terry Jermy, elected in 2024 to replace MP and Prime Minister Liz Truss. About ten minutes later, when the BBC was finished and left, I announced my credentials and asked the two men if they minded being detained a few minutes longer. I asked each in turn about the recent “unrest” and their position on the asylum question.

Mr. Stirrup, a former physicians assistant, elected in 2023, told me how saddened he was that “a lovely town like Thetford” should be in the papers and on TV for the actions of a few bad actors. He understood why – “people of color or with accents – not even immigrants” told him they were now scared to go out. Kids are afraid to go to school; parents are afraid for their kids. Then he added:

But the idea of housing up to 1500 migrants at the former RAF Barnham base is a bad idea because the town hasn’t the infrastructure to support them: not enough places in schools, not enough surgeries or dental services or public transportation. Plus, it’s right on the main road and would be dangerous for new residents. And there’s unexploded ordnance on the property too.

After I took a few notes, he continued:

And there’s a marsh beside the base, so it has no room to expand if the population grows. Dover has a base [presumably the shuttered Connaught Barracks] that’s much bigger and better. And besides, it’s right near the area where many arrive by boats. That’s a much better choice than Barnham.

MP Terry Jermy reiterated many of the same points as Stirrup. He added only that it was time for the town to come together and heal, which was the purpose of a meeting that night at St Cuthbert’s Church in the town center led by the Bishop of Thetford.

I thanked the two men for their time and watched as they walked off together. I’m in no position to venture an opinion whether one former military base is better than another to house asylum seekers, but I do wonders what the residents of Dover would say about the subject. What’s unquestionable is that many parts of Thetford are economically deprived, and could use new people, businesses and infrastructure.  Past immigrants to Thetford have helped revitalize a depressed downtown and could again in the future.

Supermarkets on King Street, Thetford, August 9, 2026.  Photo: The author.

But for that to happen, residents and politicians would have to heed the advice of Paine, their native son, to “receive all who shall come, without enquiring who or what they are.” A resettlement plan could then be devised, (with legislation by parliament), to allow asylum seekers to work in exchange for wages, or at least “so many meals of wholesome food, and a warm lodging, at least as good as a barrack.” Some may then choose to save “a certain portion” that could either be invested in the community or be the basis of a nest egg allowing return to their native lands, if conditions permit. “Each person,” Paine wrote, “shall stay as long or as short a time or come as often as he choose on these conditions.”

The prospect of all that coming together seems remote – but then Paine saw the accomplishment of revolution in two countries and profound political changes in a third. Racism and antagonism to immigration remain strong in the U.S., U.K. and elsewhere today. But as Paine wrote: “Policy and interest,” may perhaps dictate, “what reason and justice could not.”

 

Stephen F. Eisenman is emeritus professor at Northwestern University and Honorary Research Fellow at the University of East Anglia. He is the author of a dozen books, the latest of which (with Sue Coe), is titled “The Young Person’s Illustrated Guide to American Fascism,” (OR Books, 2014). He is also co-founder of Anthropocene Alliance. Stephen welcomes comments and replies at s-eisenman@northwestern.edu