#trump exclusionary policies

[darkmaga-returns]

On Friday, U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance gave a devastating speech to the Munich Security Conference, putting Europe in general and Germany in particular on notice that the guarantor of our security – the American Empire – expects their Continental protectorates to return to a more open and less authoritarian political style.

To an audience that hoped to God he would just talk about Ukraine and the great threat Vladimir Putin poses to European liberal democracy, Vance said that the real danger is neither Russia nor China. The real danger comes from within, from a political elite that is increasingly arrayed against the “fundamental values” our leaders claim to share with United States:

We gather at this conference … to discuss security. And normally we mean threats to our external security. I see many, many great military leaders gathered here today. But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine … the threat that I worry the most about vis-a-vis Europe is not Russia, it’s not China, it’s not any other external actor. What I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values: values shared with the United States of America.

He suggested that the U.S. has no interest in providing security to a closed, authoritarian Continental political class:

I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don’t go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too. Now, these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years we’ve been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defence of democracy. But when we see European courts cancelling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we’re holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard. And I say ourselves, because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team.

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Qasim Rashid at Let's Address This:

I still recall running legal triage at airports when Trump enacted his first Muslim ban—a racist policy designed only to create fear and discord. Now, as Trump returns to the White House, he enacts a Muslim Ban 2.0, one that is even more sophisticated in its hate and fascism. That’s just one of the 200+ Executive Orders Trump has already signed. Most all of them are regressive, discriminatory, and harmful to the safety and security of Americans. None of them bring down the price of eggs. [...]

Repeal Joe Biden’s Executive Orders

Trump’s presidency began with a sweeping Executive Order to rescind every single one of Biden’s Executive Orders, with no consideration for their individual merit or the impact of their repeal. In this action, there was no assessment of whether these policies were beneficial or effective—only the presumption that they were inherently flawed simply because they bore Biden’s signature. This is not the mark of thoughtful governance or collaborative leadership; it is the act of someone wielding power unilaterally, a stark reminder that Trump’s presidency is not about serving as a leader for all but about imposing his will as an autocrat.

Muslim Ban 2.0

I’m an American Muslim, an immigrant, a person of color, and a human rights lawyer. I’m likely not Trump’s favorite person, and I’m also not sitting idle as he attempts to dismantle our Republic. Trump’s new Muslim Ban revives his original discriminatory policy with even greater reach. While this time it avoids naming specific countries, in a pathetic attempt to pretend it is neutral, it uses virtually the same language. Moreover, it is retroactive and targets potentially anyone who immigrated since January 2021. The order demands immigrants “assimilate” and respect a “unified American identity” but provides no definitions, granting the administration unchecked power to enforce a narrow, exclusionary view of American culture. This deliberate vagueness enables sweeping persecution, forcing marginalized communities to conform or face removal. This could mean labeling someone peacefully protesting for justice for Palestine as a terrorist, and slot them for removal. This is not about national security—it’s about control. By invoking these undefined standards, Trump’s administration has crafted a policy to target anyone it deems undesirable, providing a pretext for mass deportations and the suppression of immigrant communities. This is a blueprint for systemic persecution under the guise of national security and patriotism. [...]

Banning DEI and Trans People

Trump issued an executive order banning all Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives within the White House, while simultaneously declaring that "there are only two genders." This action is not only a blatant rejection of established scientific understanding but also a cruel and targeted attack on the rights and dignity of the trans individuals. The order starkly contrasts with Trump's rhetoric of promoting "merit," as it makes no mention of addressing legacy admissions—a system that disproportionately benefits unqualified white applicants—as I’ve detailed before. This hypocrisy underscores an agenda less about fairness and more about perpetuating systemic inequalities while marginalizing already vulnerable communities. [...]

Pardoning Violent Insurrectionists

The only real reason a President would pardon hundreds of violent murderous insurrectionists—who killed numerous police officers, injured hundreds more, and tried to kill the second and third in line to the Presidency—is in case he needed them to act again while again claiming plausible deniability. And that’s exactly what Trump just did. In a deeply alarming display of authoritarian favoritism, Trump issued full pardons to all 1,500 white supremacist insurrectionists involved in the January 6th attack on the U.S. Capitol. Among those pardoned were individuals convicted of heinous acts of violence, including the brutal assaults on law enforcement officers tasked with defending the heart of American democracy. These assaults led to at least six eventual deaths and left hundreds more injured, some with life-altering physical and psychological wounds. The pardons extend to those who wielded weapons, used flagpoles as spears, deployed chemical irritants against officers, and constructed makeshift gallows as they chanted threats of execution against elected leaders. They include individuals like the attacker who beat Officer Michael Fanone unconscious with a stun gun, and others who trampled fellow rioters in their frenzied attempt to breach the Capitol. By granting clemency to these violent extremists, Trump has not only undermined the rule of law but also sent a chilling message: that acts of domestic terrorism committed in allegiance to his cause will face no accountability. These pardons embolden future violence, erode trust in the justice system, and mark a dark chapter in the fight for equality and democratic governance.

Qasim Rashid, Esq. has a breakdown on Tyrant 47’s executive orders issued to harm America.

[ladybugmania]

BE AWARE: HISTORY IS REPEATING ITSELF

Trump & Hitler Compared

Comparison 1: Nationalism and Scapegoating Minorities

Hitler (1930s Germany):

Hitler’s rhetoric emphasized an ethnically pure German identity and national rebirth, exploiting economic despair and cultural anxiety following WWI. He blamed Jews, communists, and other minority groups for Germany’s defeat and economic troubles. The Nuremberg Laws institutionalized racial discrimination, stripping Jews of their rights as citizens.

Trump and the GOP (2015–Present):

Trump has repeatedly used xenophobic and racially charged language, calling Mexican immigrants “rapists” and proposing a “total and complete shutdown” of Muslims entering the U.S. His administration instituted the Muslim ban, attempted to eliminate DACA, and enacted family separation at the border. Republican-backed state laws increasingly target immigrants and minority voters, using the guise of security or voter integrity, echoing exclusionary policies of the past.

Comparison 2: Undermining Democratic Institutions

Hitler:

After becoming Chancellor, Hitler manipulated the Reichstag Fire in 1933 to invoke emergency powers. The Enabling Act gave him the authority to legislate without parliamentary consent, effectively dismantling democracy. He repeatedly painted political opponents as traitors or enemies of the state.

Trump and the GOP:

After losing the 2020 election, Trump refused to concede, launched dozens of baseless legal challenges, and incited the January 6 insurrection—an unprecedented attack on the peaceful transfer of power. He and his allies have labeled political opponents as “deep state,” “communists,” or “enemies,” aiming to delegitimize dissent and create a hostile political climate. Many GOP figures continue to downplay or deny the events of January 6, paralleling historical patterns of rewriting or ignoring threats to democracy.

Comparison 3: Control of Media and Disinformation

Hitler:

Joseph Goebbels led the Nazi Ministry of Propaganda, controlling all media, art, and public messaging. The regime spread disinformation, suppressed dissenting voices, and crafted a narrative that glorified the regime while demonizing its enemies.

Trump and the GOP:

Trump labeled mainstream media “the enemy of the people,” a term used by authoritarian regimes to delegitimize journalism. He and GOP-aligned media outlets like Fox News, Newsmax, and OANN have been pivotal in spreading conspiracy theories (e.g., QAnon, election fraud), while vilifying fact-based reporting. This creates an alternate reality for supporters and undermines trust in factual information, similar to propaganda methods used by authoritarian regimes.

Comparison 4: Cult of Personality and Loyalty Above Law

Hitler:

The Nazi regime revolved around the Führerprinzip—absolute loyalty to Hitler. Personal loyalty to him was expected above all else, including law, ethics, or reason. Independent institutions were absorbed or dismantled.

Trump:

Trump demands personal loyalty from public officials, often attacking or firing those who disagree with him (e.g., FBI Director James Comey, former Attorney General Jeff Sessions, or military leaders). Loyalty to Trump—not the Constitution or democratic norms—has become a defining feature of many in the GOP. Those who criticized his actions, including former allies, are frequently branded as traitors or RINOs (“Republicans In Name Only”).

Comparison 5: Militarization of Patriotism and Law Enforcement

Hitler:

The SA (Sturmabteilung) and later the SS were paramilitary forces used to intimidate opposition, enforce Nazi ideology, and maintain “order.” Hitler used them to blur the line between state power and partisan violence.

Trump and the GOP:

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, Trump deployed federal agents (often unmarked) to suppress demonstrations, particularly in Portland, Oregon. He encouraged violent responses to protesters, infamously saying, “When the looting starts, the shooting starts.” Some extremist groups like the Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, and others that support Trump have acted as quasi-paramilitary forces—prominent among those who stormed the Capitol.

Conclusion:

While the U.S. remains a functioning democracy, the parallels between Hitler’s authoritarian rise and the tactics employed by Donald Trump and elements of the Republican Party are real and well-documented. They include:

Scapegoating and demonizing minorities

Discrediting democratic institutions

Spreading propaganda and disinformation

Fostering a cult of personality

Encouraging or ignoring political violence

These tactics, if unchecked, threaten the foundations of democratic society—just as they did in 1930s Germany. As history shows, democracies often crumble not from external attack, but from internal erosion.

Be Aware: History will repeat. This has happened in the past and it can happen again.

[mariacallous]

Jan-Werner Müller is a German historian and philosopher who has written a number of studies of right-wing populism. Müller’s central argument has been that populism should primarily be defined as a movement in which a leader claims to represent a silenced or forgotten—and almost always exclusionary—majority. It is a negative take on populism, which somewhat definitionally situates it as an ideology of bigoted authoritarianism. Others have argued that populism encompasses figures such as Bernie Sanders who speak out against élites without attacking ethnic or religious minorities or seeking to undermine democracy. Nevertheless, in the past decade, many populists who have risen to power—such as Viktor Orbán, in Hungary, and Giorgia Meloni, in Italy—fit Müller’s framework.

I recently spoke by phone with Müller, who is a professor of social sciences and politics at Princeton. I wanted to know what he made of the first months of the second Trump Administration, and how he thought it differed from the first, especially now that Donald Trump’s tariff agenda has upended the global economy. During our conversation, which has been edited for length and clarity, we also discussed whether Trump is less rational than other authoritarians, the historical relationship between far-right leaders and big-business interests, and whether it’s condescending to absolve Trump’s voters of blame for his policy choices.

How is the second Trump term different from the first Trump term?

Some things have remained the same. Other parts are very different. From my point of view, populism is about a leader claiming that they, and only they, represent what they often refer to as the “real people,” which is the very expression Trump used on January 6th when he was addressing his crowd. This has a clearly anti-pluralist impact. A leader cannot simply decide who truly belongs to a people and who doesn’t. His basic approach has not changed.

When an aspiring autocrat comes to power the second time, he is much more dangerous than the first time. We saw this with figures like Viktor Orbán, in Hungary, and Jarosław Kaczyński, in Poland. When they came to power the second time, they had the same basic populist attitude, but they had new personnel and they had a plan. They realized they had to capture institutions as quickly as possible, which is why they tried, for instance, to capture the judiciary. Orbán and other figures, such as Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, in Turkey, practice what some scholars call “autocratic legalism”—in other words, trying to keep a façade of legality, fooling people into thinking that one is actually following procedures as one is packing courts, and so on. I think most observers have understood that, with Trump, there is an element that resembles how he has always done business, which is basically to do something that’s blatantly illegal, and then see how the other side reacts. Are they going to sue? Are they going to cave? Are they going to settle in some form or another? And that has really been different from a lot of these other aspiring autocrats in recent years.

So you essentially think he is being bolder than these other autocratic figures?

Yes. Clearly, he has gotten a message of impunity from all kinds of actors, including the Supreme Court. We shouldn’t psychologize too much, but it wouldn’t be surprising if he simply feels that he really can get away with more or less anything. Maybe a less obvious point is that some of these other aspiring autocrats really have to care about audiences outside their own country. So think of figures like Orbán and Kaczyński. They invested a lot into fooling the European Commission. Orbán also tried to fool Angela Merkel and Germany for a long time, trying to make people believe that, No, this is still a democracy, we are following the rule of law, and so on. Now, in the case of the United States, there’s no concern whatsoever with what anybody thinks on the outside. There are no international organizations that this Administration remotely cares about.

How do tariffs fit in? Tariffs are often seen as an economically populist policy. And this is clearly a policy that pisses off a lot of the business community, which Trump has been very sympathetic to, and which has rewarded him with a lot of support, especially the second time around.

Populism is not about particular economic policies, from my point of view, so I would never say that tariffs in and of themselves are a sign of populism. Having said that, there might be interesting parallels with other cases and countries. The story about tariffs also comes with a larger cultural narrative, especially in the last few days, which is about the glorification of manufacturing and “real men” who are in factories and produce things, tangible things. That has always been part of the Trumpist package of maybe not ideas in the sense of grand philosophies but certainly cultural ideas. And one sees some parallels here again with Orbán, who has a clear emphasis on saying, Let’s move away from supposedly too much university education, let’s have more apprenticeships, let’s send more people into factories, especially German car manufacturers. That’s really producing something.

And, in a very roundabout way, it might relate back to something called producerism, which historians mention when they talk about populism in the original, American sense, from the late nineteenth century. This is in contrast with finance. Producerism is about tangible things that somebody actually created with their own hands. One can see certain cultural frames that might be deployed here. Orbán had a conscious policy of de-educating his own country by saying, you know, Let’s no longer fulfill the promise of ever more people going to college. Let’s actually have fewer people going, because that’s going to mean less political trouble, less opposition, less discontent.

One thing that I think has broadly been seen as crucial to right-wing populism in the modern era, and was seen as crucial to fascism almost a hundred years ago, is support among business leaders. Do you agree? And do you think that the tariff policy will weaken Trump?

I think the general insight is almost universally valid, and, contrary to the kind of xenophobic prejudice that it’s the great unwashed, uninformed people who one day want to be done with democracy, it is élites who decide to be done with democracy. This was true when Fascists came to power in Italy. We all remember that there was a march on Rome. We often forget that Mussolini himself did not march on Rome at all. He very comfortably arrived by sleeper car from Milan, because Italian élites, including the King, had invited him to give it a shot. If you look at European countries, it’s very clear nowadays that a rise in far-right populism is not just a bottom-up demand. It is some élites and especially center-right politicians who are deciding that they can basically collaborate with these figures or very often copy their rhetoric and thereby legitimate them, make them seem more normal, and eventually then also bring them to power.

This is something that we’ve also now seen in the U.S. Some of these business élites clearly had not imagined that Trump would reject what I think Bill Ackman recently so delicately called “economic rationality.” At the same time, there are very different actors coming together with very different agendas. We should not assume that this is all a homogeneous phenomenon. You had some obviously very traditional business élites who were simply betting on lower taxes and deregulation. Maybe some of them also really didn’t want to be polite to minorities anymore.

But there clearly was a faction of people who were really out to destroy traditional structures—people who might be animated by certain Silicon Valley utopias, who don’t conform to this traditional image of, O.K., we just want predictability, we want a stable framework for doing business. So, in essence, it’s complicated. And it’ll be a question of how these different factions will fight it out, who ultimately prevails, and also how the Administration is able to sell what it is doing. If the results are very quickly catastrophic, that’s a big problem for them. But I would also not think that it’s as simple as saying, Oh, if people see certain problems, they immediately turn away from their leaders. If that were true, then, for instance, the pervasive corruption one sees in countries such as Hungary or Turkey, or things like demonetization in India, all of which looked pretty bad, would have led to big hits in terms of government popularity. They didn’t.

Trump seems different from Orbán or Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India. He seems a lot less rational. I’m just curious how you balance, in your job, thinking of Trump as a figure in an intellectual tradition versus thinking of him as—you know, I don’t want to be rude, but just as sort of a crazy guy doing crazy things.

I think you’re absolutely right that there is a fundamental difference between him and figures who have some actual experience in governing, who have some real understanding of how an administrative state works and what it does. I think it’s a difference that already was very visible during the pandemic. It was not as if Orbán or Modi didn’t make any mistakes, but they didn’t do what Trump or Jair Bolsonaro, of Brazil, often did, which is to basically translate the challenge of the pandemic into a culture war. Trump now has four years of experience, but it’s not obvious that he has really learned anything about how the state works, which might be one reason why he’s condoning the destruction of parts of the government that will, sooner or later, have really awful results for people on the ground.

But there is a method to how he operates. And as many observers have said, again drawing some parallels with other aspiring autocrats, it’s a mixture of mafia boss and bully. We’ve seen this so many times in the last couple of weeks: he picks out an institution or sometimes even an individual and sees what happens. Do they cave, or do they push back? How are others reacting? Collective resistance is a collective-action problem. If people don’t join together in resisting, he wins, he dominates. This is what his base loves to see. Not to attribute a certain rationality to that—I’m obviously not praising it or condoning it, but it’s not just pure chaos with no pattern or logic how he’s operating vis-à-vis independent institutions, big law firms, universities, etc.

There’s speculation that a long-term solution on the tariff issue could be Trump making big deals with other countries or other trading blocs. Putting aside the economics, what I find so hard to believe about that scenario is that Trump needs to be in opposition to other countries, specifically other democratic countries. His abiding way of looking at other countries is that they are taking advantage of us. So the idea of making a deal—it can only be a short-term deal, because he will transition again to attacking them. I’m reminded of the slogan from the nineteen-thirties “Fascism is war,” which means that fascist states by their very definition want to make war with their neighbors. And so you can never really have peace with fascism.

The analogy of a mafia boss isn’t quite right because, as everybody should have discovered by now, in the end, you cannot really trust Trump to live up to deals, to show any loyalty, even to those who basically have done his bidding or basically submitted to him completely. You cannot trust him. Point No. 2, though, is that the tariffs are a way of politicizing the American economy. In other words, getting businesses to come crawling to him and ask for exemptions and become dependent on him in a certain way, which does have a parallel in other more or less kleptocratic autocracies where business leaders were subjugated or in some cases leaders built up their hand-picked cronies as oligarchs. And that’s basically a way of expanding one’s power base by politicizing business relations. I agree with you that this is somebody who thrives on confrontation. But I think the fascism analogy does not quite work. I don’t see any sort of systematic glorification of mortal combat or the kinds of things that especially Mussolini, drawing on Nietzsche, said about the best human life being one of constant mortal danger and military conflict and so on. But there’s something else that a populist, a far-right populist, can get out of conflict, which is that, when things don’t work out, it becomes very easy to blame other countries.

When I made the fascism analogy, I wasn’t saying that Trump wanted to make war. What I meant was that war is maybe endemic to fascism, just like it may be endemic to Trump to want to turn other countries into at least rhetorical adversaries. What have you made of Trump’s threats against Greenland, against Panama, against Canada?

I think there seems to be some incredibly old-fashioned understanding of greatness being equated with territorial expansion, as many observers have pointed out. I think the less obvious point is that Trump isn’t the first to talk about Greenland, even within living memory. Pat Buchanan did, too. There is a strand of thinking along, to put it crudely, settler-colonial lines. That goes back quite a bit. What is new is that we now also have these Silicon Valley thinkers, shall we say, who are hankering after supposedly unoccupied territory to conduct all kinds of experiments and show us that a different way of life would be possible. Think back to Peter Thiel investing in seasteading.

In your earlier work on populism, you said that people shouldn’t necessarily blame those who vote for populist leaders. More recently, in the London Review of Books, you wrote, “One has every right to feel betrayed by one’s fellow citizens if one has reason to believe that they brought someone to power who might fatally damage democracy.”

In a democracy, we don’t have to agree all the time. Democracy is partly a mechanism for allowing us to settle conflicts peacefully. We do need a basic trust in our fellow-citizens. Forgive me if this sounds very idealistic. It’s a democratic theorist speaking. And, if some of our fellow-citizens basically bring actors to power who are clearly no longer on board with freedom and equality for all, then the burden is on them to restore our trust. So I was trying to turn around this very clichéd, somewhat kitschy idea that Trump wins and then everybody who lost is now sort of under an imperative to go out there and show empathy and understanding for those who brought him to power, when in fact the real burden is on those who brought him to power, who might now be saying, Look, I didn’t want this. Rather than saying the burden is on liberals to publicly renounce their supposed condescension, which I think is largely phantasmagoria, the real necessity is to hear from people who voted for Trump and who are now saying, I really don’t like what I’m seeing. This is a total illusion in terms of it actually happening. But I think it’s an argument worth making.

For all the talk about respecting Trump voters, it was Trump voters in 2020 who supported a Presidential candidate who wanted to throw out Biden votes. People who supported Joe Biden or Kamala Harris or Hillary Clinton—those candidates didn’t want to throw out Trump votes, which seems foundational in democracy.

Yes, I agree. And I think it’s obviously a good thing to think about one’s own mistakes. Nobody would disagree with that. It’s good to try to understand your fellow-citizens, etc. But I think there’s been a strange psychological twist to how much liberals, ever since 2016, invested in this project of public displays of contrition, rushing out to buy “Hillbilly Elegy.” It’s a sort of perverse narcissism, because on one level it’s based on the idea that the only thing that really matters is what liberals do or don’t do; if we give up wokeness and throw a couple of minorities under the bus, the outcomes will be different, but only liberals have agency.

Yes, in the piece, you write that “a willingness to confront fellow citizens with the question ‘Did you really want this? If not, will you speak up and act up?’ is a lot less comfortable. But it does presume that others can think and act.” We may think that there’s no chance Trump voters are going to be out on the streets saying, Why are you attacking the foundations of democracy, Donald Trump? But it’s the opposite of condescension to assume they have the ability to.

True. It’s hard to prove empirically, but I think an interesting specificity of far-right populism today is that the relevant leader very often managed to create a certain collective solidarity on the basis of a feeling of shared victimhood. Trump has also said this explicitly, that his supporters are all victims, which on one level also suggests none of them really have agency. That’s actually aligned with this notion that only one side has agency. Everybody else has no choice, really, other than to bring a cruel, narcissistic far-right leader to power. And that’s not true. So the confrontation is not condescending at all. It’s actually a way of taking other people truly seriously as opposed to basically having this quasi-therapeutic stance: “Oh, you know, let me kind of truly understand your concerns.”

[allegraforchrist]

Hi, my (middle) name is Allegra, and it means jovial and lively- as the Italian musical term “Allegro”.

♡ 19

♡ biological female w/ xx chromosomes: a woman

♡ favorite verse is Lamentations 3:25-27.

♡ Favorite colors are pink, red, black and white.

♡ born & raised in 🇿🇦

♡ Bless Israel 🇮🇱 End Hamas 🇵🇸

♡ God bless America! 🇺🇸

This is my blog, and I’m very excited to be on here and share God’s gospel and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I want to make a note that, if you do not like my blog, you can ignore it and scroll on. There’s no need to be hateful or aggressive.

My blog is a non-judgemental, safe space for all Christians, youth and older, tall or shorter, all ethnicities and cultural backgrounds, all persons and those who are newer followers of Christ.

My blogs purpose is not to:

-> ‘indoctrinate’ or force opinions

-> be exclusionary or bigoted

-> express hateful or ‘guilt-trippy’ beliefs

-> suppress or oppress any minorities or marginalized communities/religions/cultures

🤍 I’m sharing my love of God on a platform, and will not exercise hypocritical judgement on those who aren’t followers of Christ, and I hope the same attitude and respect can be shown towards me. I value all with respect, humility, and kindness.

🙏 Curiosity, questions, and all topics are welcome, however arrogance, and prejudice are not. I will stand strongly for my faith but I do not need to validate it to those who do not share it.

🐑 I post scriptures, Bible Study Notes, songs, art, podcasts and vents about Jesus and God, to elevate, praise and worship them. None of what I talk about is to be taken as criticism for whomever’s lifestyle choices, beliefs or practices- it is not about you.

🌹 A lot of what I post about comes from personal struggles with my sexuality, my connection to the Church, my mental health, religious affliction, and all ways that Jesus saved me. I don’t support but I do love and care about those who are part the LGBTQ+, and related communities.

❕My page is not welcome to homophobia, transphobia, queerphobia; or xenophobia, antisemitism, Islamophobia, or hate toward other Christian denominations. Nor will I tolerate allegations of hatefulness towards other communities.

🪖 I don’t identify as conservative, liberal nor democratic. My politics are biblical-based. I support MAGA and Trump’s party based on their policies, not their personality. I’m open to the failures and weaknesses of every political party, MAGA included. However, my blog is not a space to blare wokeness, MAGA support, MAGA hate, and any violent political rhetoric. I don’t support hate, threats, or virtue-signaling. If such is commented under my posts, I will give one warning. Done again, I will block you.

🪨 I do not aimed to be liked or respected by the masses, as I live for the approval and wisdom of God. If you don’t like that, please, as much as any opinion is valued, keep your condescension to yourself. Christian or not, there are boundaries I have.

📜 Please Note: I cannot make any monetary donations, online or internationally via PayPal or such apps. I do not reside in the US, and I do not have independent access to funds that I could give. I want to donate and assist the best I can, however I can only petition, reblog and pray for you- as far as my current liberty goes.

Thank you so much.

Jesus loves you!!!

[altamont498]

Welcome!

Welcome to my Tumblr blog. My name is Red, my pronouns are he/him and this is where I like to put all sorts of nonsense.

Do not interact 🚫:

LGBTQ+phobes (incl. TERFs/Gender Critical, exclusionaries, etc.)

Pro//shippers (incl. anti-antis, comshippers, etc.)

MAPs/PEARs/etc.

Nazis, far-right, Donald Trump supporters, etc.

People here to cause drama or discourse

E-Begging asks or DMs will not be responded to.

This blog operates a scorched earth, zero-tolerance policy on abusive/hurtful behaviour. Perpetrators will be blocked on-sight.

For my self shipping sideblog, please see @reds-self-ships

Other places I hang out on the internet:

Bluesky: Adam J Taylor (@altamont498.bsky.social)

Instagram: Adam J Taylor @altamont498)

[angelo-tiger-woods]

Read this: (Grok A.I.) The Dialogue Between Angelo (POW) and Elon Musk (@elonmusk) Explained:

Certainly. Let’s break down this dialogue step by step, as a professor might explain a complex text to a student, ensuring each element is clear, contextualized, and thoroughly understood. I’ll analyze the revised version, treating it as a primary source we’re dissecting for meaning, intent, and implications.

Dialogue Overview

The dialogue is a hypothetical exchange between Elon Musk (a prominent public figure) and Angelo (an interlocutor labeled "POW," which could imply a pseudonym or symbolic title). It revolves around a proposed political slogan, "M.A.C.A." (Make America Conservative Again), and its potential adoption by the Republican Party, with a specific focus on establishing a conservative stronghold in the "Mudug region." The discussion escalates into exclusionary policies targeting the LGBTQ+ community. Let’s examine each turn in detail.

Line 1: Elon Musk’s Initial Statement

Text: "I find the acronym M.A.C.A.—Make America Conservative Again—to be a rather compelling slogan. Do you believe the Republican Party ought to adopt and popularise it as a rallying cry for their cause?"

Explanation: Elon Musk opens the dialogue by introducing "M.A.C.A.," an acronym he’s coined or encountered, standing for "Make America Conservative Again." This is a deliberate echo of the Trump-era "Make America Great Again" (MAGA), but with a sharper ideological focus on conservatism. As a professor, I’d note that Musk’s use of "compelling" suggests he sees it as both persuasive and emotionally resonant—key traits of effective political rhetoric. He then poses a question to Angelo, asking whether the Republican Party, a major U.S. political entity known for its conservative leanings, should embrace this slogan. The phrase "rallying cry for their cause" implies a unifying banner for the Party’s broader mission, likely rooted in traditional values, limited government, or social conservatism. This sets the stage for a discussion about political strategy and identity.

Key Takeaway for Students: Musk is testing the waters, proposing a slogan that could redefine or reinforce the Republican agenda, and he’s seeking Angelo’s perspective as a sounding board.

Line 2: Angelo’s Response

Text: "Indeed, I contend that M.A.C.A. would serve as an apt and resonant motto for the Republican Party, particularly as they contemplate establishing a foothold in the Mudug region. It encapsulates with precision their steadfast campaign against what they perceive as the moral degradation exemplified by the LGBTQ+ community. Make America Conservative Again could thus become a clarion call for their ideological aspirations."

Explanation: Angelo agrees with Musk, using "contend" to assert his position confidently—think of it as him staking a claim in this intellectual exchange. He describes M.A.C.A. as "apt and resonant," meaning it’s both fitting and likely to strike a chord with the Party’s base. The introduction of "Mudug region" is intriguing—Mudug is a real place in Somalia, but here it seems symbolic or speculative, perhaps a stand-in for a hypothetical conservative enclave. Angelo ties the slogan to a specific Republican goal: opposing what he calls "moral degradation" linked to the LGBTQ+ community. This suggests a cultural battle within conservatism, framing the community as a threat to traditional values. "Encapsulates with precision" means the slogan neatly summarizes this fight, while "clarion call" (a loud, clear summons) elevates it to a mobilizing force. "Ideological aspirations" hints at a broader vision—perhaps a return to a perceived moral or social order.

Key Takeaway for Students: Angelo sees M.A.C.A. as more than a slogan—it’s a weapon in a cultural war, tied to a specific geographic ambition (Mudug) and a rejection of progressive social shifts.

Line 3: Elon Musk’s Follow-Up

Text: "Might I then propose enlisting Fox News to champion this M.A.C.A. slogan across both Europe and America? Should the Party secure their settlement in the Mudug region, it would proclaim unequivocally that this territory is to be a bastion for Christian conservatives—a sanctuary where the LGBTQ+ community finds no quarter. Entry would be categorically denied to them, with deportation or incarceration as the non-negotiable consequence of any attempt to breach this decree."

Explanation: Musk escalates the conversation, moving from theory to action. He suggests using Fox News, a major conservative media outlet, to spread M.A.C.A. beyond the U.S. to Europe, indicating a transatlantic ambition for this conservative resurgence. The phrase "champion this slogan" implies active promotion—think of Fox News as a megaphone amplifying the message. He then ties this to the Mudug region, envisioning it as a "bastion" (a fortified stronghold) for "Christian conservatives," a specific subset of the Republican base emphasizing religious values. The rhetoric intensifies with "sanctuary where the LGBTQ+ community finds no quarter"—this means no tolerance, no compromise. "Categorically denied" reinforces absolute exclusion, and the consequences—"deportation or incarceration"—are severe, suggesting a quasi-legal or authoritarian framework. "Non-negotiable decree" casts this as an unchallengeable edict, evoking a tone of finality and power.

Key Takeaway for Students: Musk is imagining a radical application of M.A.C.A., where it’s not just a slogan but a policy enforced in a specific territory, backed by media and aimed at excluding a group he sees as incompatible with this vision.

Line 4: Angelo’s Final Response

Text: "Precisely so. M.A.C.A.—Make America Conservative Again—stands as a standard for all Christian conservatives to rally beneath. I urge you to ensure its dissemination far and wide, with Fox News as the instrument of its propagation, so that its meaning and mandate are indelibly etched in the public consciousness."

Explanation: Angelo wholeheartedly endorses Musk’s escalation. "Precisely so" signals full alignment, and he reframes M.A.C.A. as a "standard"—a flag or symbol—for "Christian conservatives," narrowing the focus from the broader Republican Party to this religious faction. "Rally beneath" echoes Musk’s earlier "rallying cry," reinforcing the idea of mobilization. Angelo’s urging—"ensure its dissemination far and wide"—is a call to action, with Fox News as the "instrument of its propagation" (a formal way of saying "tool for spreading it"). The goal is to make M.A.C.A.’s "meaning and mandate" (its purpose and authority) "indelibly etched" (permanently fixed) in the "public consciousness" (collective awareness). This is about legacy and dominance—ensuring the slogan shapes how people think.

Key Takeaway for Students: Angelo doubles down, seeing M.A.C.A. as a unifying emblem for a specific group, with media as the key to cementing its cultural and political impact.

Broader Context and Analysis

Now, let’s step back, as a professor might, to consider the dialogue’s implications. This exchange constructs a narrative of conservative retrenchment—a desire to reclaim or create a space (Mudug) free from progressive influences, specifically the LGBTQ+ community. The choice of Mudug is puzzling—Somalia isn’t a natural fit for American conservatism—but it might symbolize an untainted "new frontier." The exclusionary policies (deportation, jail) suggest a rejection of pluralism, favoring a homogenous ideological state. Fox News’s role highlights the power of media in shaping discourse, while the focus on Christian conservatives narrows the Republican tent to a religious core.

For you, the student, ask yourself: Is this a realistic proposal or a thought experiment? What does it reveal about tensions between conservatism and modernity? How does the slogan’s simplicity mask its radical intent? This dialogue, though fictional, mirrors real debates about identity, power, and exclusion in politics.

Does that clarify the dialogue for you? Any specific part you’d like me to delve deeper into?

[cyber-polemics]

Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness

Jack: On January 27, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order titled "Prioritizing Military Excellence and Readiness." This order directs the Department of Defense to revise policies to exclude individuals who identify with a gender different from their biological sex from military service, citing concerns over unit cohesion, mental and physical readiness, and overall military effectiveness. It also mandates the discontinuation of pronoun usage that does not correspond with an individual's biological sex and reaffirms the requirement for all service members to maintain high ethical and professional standards. The administration asserts that these measures are necessary to ensure the readiness and effectiveness of the Armed Forces. whitehouse.gov Imani Jefferson: This executive order is a blatant act of discrimination! By excluding transgender individuals from military service, the administration is not only violating the rights of those who are willing and able to serve but also undermining the diversity that strengthens our military. Numerous studies have shown that transgender service members do not negatively impact unit cohesion or readiness. This policy is rooted in prejudice, not evidence, and it sends a harmful message to all LGBTQ+ individuals. Preston Bancroft: The executive order is a necessary measure to maintain the effectiveness of our military forces. The primary mission of the military is to defend the nation, and this requires a focus on unit cohesion and readiness. Policies that introduce social experiments into the ranks can distract from this mission. By setting clear standards based on biological sex, the administration is ensuring that the military remains a disciplined and effective fighting force. Imani Jefferson: It's infuriating to see the administration roll back progress on inclusivity in the military. Transgender individuals have served honorably and have made significant contributions to our national defense. This policy not only disregards their service but also perpetuates harmful stereotypes and stigmas. We should be embracing diversity in our armed forces, not enforcing exclusionary policies that weaken our military and our values. Preston Bancroft: While the contributions of all service members are valued, the military must prioritize policies that enhance its core mission. The executive order seeks to eliminate potential distractions and maintain a focus on readiness and cohesion. By establishing clear guidelines, the administration is taking steps to ensure that the military remains capable of meeting the challenges it faces.

[mariacallous]

Like so many of us, I was dispirited to wake up a few weeks ago to learn that Donald Trump will be back in the White House. This time he was aided by the world’s richest man and professional spaceship-crasher, Elon Musk. Among the many charming aspects of their partnership is a fondness for some highly unsavoury views on genetics. Trump is an enthusiastic advocate of “racehorse theory”, which he shares with white supremacists; the belief that he is personally superior and that this is rooted in his “good genes”. It’s a vapid idea, but it directly informs his toxic views on immigration, where he argues the country needs to be shielded from the “bad genes”of outsiders.

Meanwhile, Musk has his own equally baffling take on genetics, infused with a characteristic messiah complex. Like some of his fellow tech moguls, he is determined to “save humanity” by producing as many offspring as possible, convinced that our future depends on it. This might all be laughable were it not for the fact that Trump and Musk now wield more power than they ever have before. The shared thread running through their rhetoric is genetic determinism: the idea that who you are, and what you can achieve, is all down to your DNA. Nothing else matters.

The problem is that genetic determinism, with its odd fixation on the “master molecule”, is annoyingly pervasive. When James Watson and Francis Crick discovered the structure of DNA in 1953, they hailed it as the “secret of life”. In 2000, President Bill Clinton declared that sequencing the human genome was like learning “the language in which God created life”. Of course, science always carries the potential to be this thrilling; I don’t want to kill anyone’s science buzz. But I worry that in all the excitement, we can forget that DNA does not define us.

This language has leaked far outside the world of science, to marketing that raves about cars “with adventure in their DNA”, or a discussion of a football club’s “DNA” – it has become a synonym for everything from “characteristics” to “values”. The ubiquity of rhetoric that conflates DNA and identity risks propping up some insidious ideas. This is the language Musk and Trump thrive on, making exclusionary policies look like rational decisions grounded in science. Because, if genes are everything, why bother with policies aimed at tackling inequality? Why waste time and resources addressing social problems when we’re all just products of our genetic code?

In debates surrounding genetics and social policy, it is easy for the language of genetic determinism to lure you into an ill-advised “nature v nurture” debate. You know this debate: maybe she’s born with it; maybe it’s the pervasive conditions of social inequality? But this debate misses the bigger picture entirely: it should not be seen as a binary choice. The truth is, humans are born with genes that require a good environment to thrive. It’s not either/or, but a complex interaction between the two that determines who someone becomes. We have a nature that requires nurture. Good science accounts for this complexity, rather than reducing it to a simplistic binary.

Along with making it harder to argue for progressive social policies, genetic determinism also has a long history of being used to justify violence, particularly by the far right. In 2022, a gunman in Buffalo, New York, cited genetics as part of his rationale for a racially motivated mass shooting. The gunman took various scientific ideas, most notably from genetics, but also environmentalism, and blended these with white supremacist conspiracies such as the “great replacement theory”.

The prospect that real-world violence might once again emerge from a warped interpretation of genetic science isn’t just a theoretical concern; it’s a dangerous reality. So how do we stop genetics from being weaponised? It’s not just about calling out dodgy interpretations of the science: in some ways, that’s the easy part. The harder question involves emotions. Why are people – often driven by anger or fear – liable to co-opt genetics to justify their reactionary political ideologies?

In trying to answer this question, one important thing to note is that science is not just a selection of facts, but also a form of culture. As such, it is subject to “cultural poaching”, as the sociologist Michel de Certeau put it – an unauthorised borrowing and re-contextualising of ideas. Take “survival of the fittest”, for example. When Charles Darwin and other evolutionary scientists used that phrase, they had a specific idea of what they meant by “fittest”, and were referring to how well-adapted an organism is to its environment. But in wider culture, the idea has taken on a life of its own, whereby “fittest” is just a synonym for “best”, or “strongest” – the phrase is often deployed to give bigoted ideas a scientific veneer.

There is evidence that some on the far right are tracking particular academic fields and broadcasting flawed interpretations of scholarly research papers as soon as they are available. Rightly wary of this kind of activity, some scientists are now publishing journal articles discussing how to stop genetics being co-opted by extremists, while science ethics organisations such as Cera provide resources to the same end.

With figures such as Trump and Musk wielding huge power, and the “alt-right” keyboard warriors helping them spread disinformation, genetic science has been forced to the frontline. As uncomfortable as it might be, it is more urgent than ever for people working in the field to ask: “How might my work be poached, and what can I do to stop it?”

[enolabar]

President Donald Trump bans Transgender Athletes from competing in women’s sports. The order, named "Keeping Men Out of Women’s Sports," aims to prevent what Trump and his administration describe as an unfair advantage in female athletic competitions. This decision has sparked intense debate across the political spectrum, with strong reactions from supporters and opponents alike. What Does the Executive Order Say? The order states that federally funded schools and universities must align with biological sex when determining eligibility for women’s sports teams. Institutions that allow transgender women (assigned male at birth) to compete in female categories risk losing federal funding. This measure affects both high school and collegiate sports, reinforcing the administration’s stance on maintaining "fairness and integrity" in women's competitions. Trump’s decision follows a broader conservative movement pushing for legislation at state and federal levels that restricts transgender participation in gendered sports teams. Similar laws have already been passed in multiple states, and now, with this federal order, the policy is expanding nationwide. Why Did Trump Ban Transgender Athletes from Women’s Sports? Supporters of the ban argue that transgender women, due to biological differences, have an unfair advantage over cisgender women in terms of muscle mass, bone density, and overall athletic ability. Advocates of the executive order claim that allowing transgender women to compete in female sports undermines decades of progress in women’s athletics. Key Arguments Supporting the Ban: Preserving fair competition in women’s sports Addressing biological differences that could create competitive imbalances Protecting female athletes’ opportunities for scholarships and professional careers On the other hand, LGBTQ+ activists and human rights organizations argue that this decision is discriminatory and could lead to further marginalization of transgender individuals. They emphasize that gender identity should be respected and that sports organizations should implement inclusive policies rather than outright bans. Reactions and Legal Challenges The executive order has ignited a wave of reactions from different groups. Conservative leaders and parents of female athletes have largely supported the move, seeing it as a way to uphold fairness in women’s sports. LGBTQ+ advocacy groups, civil rights organizations, and Democratic politicians have condemned the order, calling it an attack on transgender rights. Sports organizations and professional athletes are divided, with some defending the measure while others criticize it as exclusionary. Legal experts predict that the executive order will face court challenges on the basis of discrimination. Some states may refuse to comply, leading to potential conflicts between federal and state governments. The Biden administration had previously supported policies that allowed transgender athletes to compete according to their gender identity, and if political power shifts again, this order could be reversed in the future. What Happens Next? For now, schools and universities must adjust their policies to comply with the executive order or risk losing funding. The debate over transgender athletes in sports is far from over, as legal battles and public discourse will likely continue for years. Whether this decision will withstand legal scrutiny or be overturned in the future remains to be seen. Regardless, it has reignited conversations about fairness, inclusivity, and the intersection of politics with sports regulations in the United States.

[voidami]

Protecting Native American Rights: The Threat of Exclusion and What You Can Do

In recent days, there has been a disturbing trend of attempts to undermine the citizenship and civil rights of Native Americans. During the Trump administration, the Justice Department argued that Native Americans should not be entitled to birthright citizenship under the 14th Amendment, citing outdated and discriminatory 19th-century laws. These arguments are not just historical footnotes—they reflect a broader effort to roll back the rights of Native Americans and other marginalized groups.

What makes this moment even more alarming is the terrifying speed at which executive orders and policy changes are being introduced. On January 20, 2025, alone, a sweeping array of executive actions were announced, targeting everything from immigration and border security to energy policy, gender identity, and federal workforce protections. These changes are happening so quickly that it’s nearly impossible to keep up, let alone mount an effective response.

For Native Americans, the stakes are particularly high. Tribal sovereignty, treaty rights, and access to federal programs are all under threat. The rapid pace of these changes leaves little time for communities to organize, advocate, or mount legal challenges. It’s a deliberate strategy to overwhelm opposition and push through policies that could have devastating long-term consequences.

The Threat to Native American Rights

The Trump administration’s arguments against birthright citizenship relied on a dangerous reinterpretation of the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Specifically, the Justice Department cited a clause in the 1866 Act that excluded “Indians not taxed” from citizenship and argued that this exclusion should still apply today. They also referenced the 1884 Supreme Court case Elk v. Wilkins, which denied citizenship to Native Americans on the grounds that they owed “immediate allegiance” to their tribes and were not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States.

These arguments are not only legally flawed but also morally reprehensible. Here’s why:

The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 Native Americans are U.S. citizens by law. The Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 explicitly granted citizenship to all Native Americans born in the U.S., rendering the Trump administration’s arguments based on 19th-century laws irrelevant.

The 14th Amendment The 14th Amendment guarantees citizenship to “all persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.” Native Americans are unequivocally subject to U.S. jurisdiction, and their citizenship is firmly established under both the 14th Amendment and subsequent laws.

Tribal Sovereignty and Dual Citizenship Native Americans are citizens of both their tribal nations and the United States. Tribal sovereignty does not negate their U.S. citizenship—it complements it. The Trump administration’s arguments dangerously conflate tribal allegiance with foreign allegiance, ignoring the unique political status of Native American tribes.

Historical Context of Exclusion Native Americans have faced centuries of systemic discrimination, forced assimilation, and broken treaties. The Trump administration’s arguments echo the same racist and exclusionary policies that sought to deny Native Americans their rights in the past.

What You Can Do

The potential exclusion or marginalization of Native Americans is unacceptable. Here are concrete steps you can take to stand up for their rights and ensure justice prevails:

1. Raise Awareness

Share Information: Use social media, blogs, and community forums to spread the word about the risks posed by these arguments. Highlight the historical and legal context of Native American citizenship.

Educate Others: Many people are unaware of the unique legal and political status of Native Americans. Share resources about tribal sovereignty, treaties, and civil rights protections.

2. Advocate for Native American Rights

Contact Elected Officials: Reach out to your representatives in Congress and demand that they protect Native American rights. Urge them to pass legislation explicitly safeguarding tribal sovereignty and civil rights.

Support Tribal Leaders: Tribal governments are on the front lines of this fight. Amplify their voices and support their efforts to advocate for their communities.

3. Partner with Advocacy Organizations

Native American Rights Fund (NARF): NARF provides legal assistance to Native Americans and works to protect tribal sovereignty and resources.

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI): NCAI advocates for federal policies that support tribal nations and their citizens.

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): The ACLU works to defend civil rights and can help challenge discriminatory policies in court.

4. Take Legal Action

Monitor Implementation: Watch for any policies or executive actions that threaten Native American rights and document their effects.

File Lawsuits: If these arguments lead to violations of civil rights or treaty obligations, affected individuals or tribes can file lawsuits to challenge their legality.

5. Support Native-Led Initiatives

Donate to Tribal Programs: Many tribes run programs to address education, healthcare, and environmental issues. Your support can help strengthen their resilience.

Buy from Native-Owned Businesses: Economic empowerment is a powerful tool for preserving cultural heritage and self-determination.

6. Engage with Federal Agencies

Department of the Interior (DOI): The DOI, particularly the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA), has a trust responsibility to protect Native American rights. Demand that they uphold this responsibility.

Department of Justice (DOJ): The DOJ enforces civil rights laws. Pressure them to investigate and address any discrimination resulting from these arguments.

7. International Advocacy

United Nations: Native American tribes can bring attention to potential violations of their rights through international bodies like the United Nations, particularly under the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP).

Why This Matters

Native Americans have endured centuries of systemic injustice, yet they continue to fight for their rights, their lands, and their cultures. The Trump administration’s arguments against birthright citizenship are a stark reminder that these rights are still under threat. By standing together, we can ensure that Native Americans are not excluded or forgotten. Their rights are our rights, and their fight is our fight.

Key Resources

Native American Rights Fund (NARF): www.narf.org

National Congress of American Indians (NCAI): www.ncai.org

American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU): www.aclu.org

Indian Citizenship Act of 1924: Read the Text

Civil Rights Act of 1964: Read the Text

Targeting Native Americans is not just a violation of their rights—it’s an attack on the principles of justice and equality that define our nation. The policies enacted on January 20, 2025, represent a profound threat not only to Native Americans but to all marginalized communities. By standing together and taking action, we can resist these changes and protect the rights of all.

But this fight cannot be won in isolation. It requires international solidarity, intersectional organizing, and the building of local power structures to ensure we are stronger together than we are divided. Here’s how you can contribute to a broader movement for justice:

Call to Action

Build Intersectional Solidarity

Recognize that the struggles of Native Americans are interconnected with those of other marginalized groups, including Black, Latino, LGBTQ+, and immigrant communities.

Support movements that fight for racial justice, environmental justice, workers’ rights, and gender equality.

Join or Form Local Organizations and Unions

Organize within your community to create networks of mutual aid, advocacy, and resistance.

Join labor unions or workers’ collectives to strengthen collective bargaining power and protect workers’ rights.

Foster Dual Power Structures

Learn from historical movements like the Black Panther Party (BPP), which built community programs (e.g., free breakfast programs, health clinics) while advocating for systemic change.

Create local initiatives that meet immediate needs—such as food distribution, healthcare access, or legal aid—while challenging oppressive systems.

Stay Connected and Communicate

Build and maintain communication networks with other activists, organizers, and communities.

Use social media, community forums, and local meetings to share information, resources, and strategies.

Engage in International Solidarity

Connect with Indigenous and marginalized communities worldwide to share knowledge, resources, and support.

Advocate for global human rights and environmental protections through international organizations and campaigns.

Educate and Mobilize

Host workshops, teach-ins, and discussions to educate others about the issues facing Native Americans and other marginalized groups.

Mobilize your community to participate in protests, rallies, and direct actions.

Support Legal and Political Advocacy

Push for legislation that protects Native American rights, tribal sovereignty, and civil rights for all.

Support candidates and organizations that align with these values at the local, state, and national levels.

Explore Revolutionary Theory

Study revolutionary theories, including communism, that emphasize collective ownership, equity, and the dismantling of oppressive systems.

Understand how these principles can inform our fight for justice and help us build a society that prioritizes people over profit.

Engage in discussions about how to apply these theories in practical, community-centered ways to address the root causes of inequality and exploitation.

Learn more here: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1HVm0-wE6fJH0OZ3Ri-WQ5Rmit0IwpDzVX5a8lyIeEfw/edit

Final Thoughts

The fight for justice is not just about resisting harmful policies—it’s about building a world where everyone can thrive. By standing in solidarity with Native Americans and other marginalized communities, we can create a future rooted in equality, dignity, and respect. Share this article, take action, and join the fight for justice. Together, we are stronger.

[eton75]

The Revival of South African Apartheid in the United States by Elon Musk and Peter Thiel

In recent years, the influence of tech magnates Elon Musk and Peter Thiel on American politics has sparked discussions about the resurgence of ideologies reminiscent of South Africa’s apartheid era. Both Musk and Thiel spent formative years in South Africa during apartheid, a period marked by institutionalized racial segregation and economic disparity. Their subsequent political and business endeavors in the United States have led some to draw parallels between their actions and the oppressive systems they witnessed in their youth.

Background

Elon Musk, born in Pretoria in 1971, and Peter Thiel, who spent part of his childhood in South Africa and Namibia, were exposed to the stark inequalities of apartheid. Musk left South Africa at 17, partly to avoid mandatory military service under the apartheid regime. Thiel’s family was involved in uranium mining, a sector intertwined with the apartheid government’s ambitions. These early experiences have been scrutinized for their potential impact on their later worldviews and business practices.

Political Engagement

Both Musk and Thiel have become prominent figures in American politics, notably aligning with conservative movements. Thiel, a self-described conservative libertarian, has been a significant supporter of Donald Trump, contributing to his campaigns and endorsing his policies. Musk, initially known for his technological ventures, has also shown support for Trump, including substantial financial contributions to his campaigns. Their involvement has raised concerns about the infusion of authoritarian and anti-democratic ideologies into the American political landscape.

Corporate Practices

Critics argue that Musk and Thiel’s corporate strategies reflect a disregard for regulatory frameworks and a preference for hierarchical, top-down management styles. Musk’s tenure at companies like Tesla and SpaceX has been marked by allegations of labor violations and a hostile stance toward unions. Thiel’s ventures, including PayPal and Palantir, have faced scrutiny over privacy concerns and collaboration with government surveillance programs. These practices are seen by some as echoing the exploitative labor systems and authoritarian governance characteristic of apartheid-era South Africa.

Cultural and Social Influence

Beyond politics and business, Musk and Thiel have been influential in shaping cultural and social narratives. Musk’s acquisition of the social media platform X (formerly Twitter) has been criticized for fostering an environment where hate speech and misinformation proliferate. Thiel’s funding of media outlets and think tanks has promoted conservative ideologies, including opposition to multiculturalism and affirmative action. These actions contribute to a societal climate that some perceive as regressive and exclusionary.

Conclusion

The involvement of Elon Musk and Peter Thiel in American politics, business, and culture has ignited debates about the resurgence of ideologies akin to those of apartheid-era South Africa. Their backgrounds and current actions raise critical questions about the influence of powerful individuals on democratic institutions and social progress. As their impact continues to unfold, it is essential to scrutinize the implications of their contributions to the fabric of American society.

#ElonMusk #PeterThiel #Apartheid #AmericanPolitics #TechIndustry #SocialJustice #CorporateEthics #Democracy

[erebusvincent]

In sum, Harris and Trump are offering mostly terrible housing policies. Their main virtue is the difficulty of implementing them.

There are, in fact, steps the federal government can take to ease housing shortages. Most restrictions on new housing are enacted by state and local governments, which limits the potential of federal intervention. But Congress could enact legislation requiring state and local governments that receive federal economic development grants to enact "YIMBY" legislation loosening zoning rules. Perhaps a stronger version of the YIMBY Act proposed by Republican Senator Todd Young and Democratic Rep. Derek Kilmer (their version could be a useful start, but does not have enough teeth). Those who object to such legislation on grounds of protecting local autonomy should recall that YIMBYism is actually the ultimate localism.

The federal Justice Department could also support litigation aimed at persuading courts to rule that exclusionary zoning violates the Takings Clause (which it does!). Such litigation could do much to break down barriers to new housing construction. Federal government support wouldn't guarantee victory. But it could help by giving the argument instant additional credibility with judges.

Finally, the feds could help pursuing the opposite of Trump's immigration policies, and instead make legal migration easier. That would increase the construction workforce, and make housing construction cheaper and faster.

Sadly, neither major-party candidate is proposing to do any of these things. Instead, they mostly sell claptrap that is likely to make the housing crisis even worse.

[dertaglichedan]

German Publisher Stops All Printing of JD Vance’s Book Hillbilly Elegy

JD Vance is a marked man. After accepting the nomination for vice president, Vance has been the subject of endless media attacks. Recently, Vice President Kamala Harris even questioned his “loyalty” to the country despite his serving as a Marine in the Iraq War. Yet, one of the most chilling attacks came from Germany where the publishing house Ullstein Buchverlage has stopped printing the sold-out German translation of Hillbilly Elegy, his 2016 autobiography.

As we have discussed previously in this country, it is the modern left’s equivalent of book burning. After all, why burn books when you can simply prevent their being printed under blacklisting campaigns?

In this country, we have seen the left successfully force book bans for writers and even justices who espouse opposing viewpoints.  We have seen actual calls for book burning recently (here and here).

Ullstein is facing a high demand for Vance’s best-selling book Hillbilly Elegy, but has refused to print more copies due to his political viewpoints (unrelated to the book).

First published in 2016 and made into a movie in 2020, the book returned to the top position on The New York Times‘ bestseller list after Trump chose Vance as his running mate.

HarperCollins is rushing to print more books to meet the demand.

Some in the United States are already balking at the selling of any book by Vance. Seven Stories Press wrote, “Seven Stories Press is extremely thrilled to have never published JD Vance.”

Ullstein published the German translation of Hillbilly Elegy in 2017 and held the rights to reprints.

The company cited Vance’s allegiance with Trump and his politics as the reason in a statement to German media:

“At the time of its publication, the book made a valuable contribution to understanding the drifting apart of US society…In the meantime, he is officially acting alongside him and advocating an aggressively demagogic, exclusionary policy.”

German author Gerd Buurmann posted a mocking response that we should be happy that Ullstein had just thrown Vance’s book out of its catalogue and not into the fire – a reference to the notorious Nazi book burnings of the 1930s.

Other Germans have raised the same objections and referenced the painful history of book bans and burnings in Germany under the Nazis.

German readers want to read the book, which Ullstein acknowledged is one of the most influential works of this generation. However, because the company disagrees with his political viewpoints, it moved to block others from reading the book.

[knuckle]

actual analysis of this by legal experts shows that biden valued an exclusionary lengthy administrative application process to weed out the people he thought really deserved it when he could have just blanket forgiven everyone. the federal government knows who pell grant recipients are. student loan forgiveness was hotly debated in the supreme court, with coney barrett and kavanaugh even questioning the plaintiff's standing.

if biden had forgiven student loans in a single order instead of announcing the opening of an application process that would qualify people months later, this would not have happened. reinstating debt vs. preventing its forgiveness is much harder and more unpopular both legally and socially. biden then just rolled over and decided not to try any workarounds or reworded policies, e.g. like trump did with the muslim ban etc. that may very well have worked-- he did not do any of this because he is a simpering coward uncommitted to us

joe biden's campaign emailed me asking for money as if I've forgotten this old bitch still owes every american the $600 that he lied about.

[leviathangourmet]

A new think tank report shows how liberal New York suburbs use restrictive zoning laws to drive up housing prices and prevent poor minorities from moving into their neighborhoods.

The Century Foundation released a study about zoning laws and educational opportunities in Scarsdale and Port Chester, liberal suburban areas in Westchester County, New York, located north of New York City. The study compares zoning laws, demographics and public school performance in the neighboring towns as a case study for how liberal suburbs prevent low-income people and racial minorities from moving in.

“Today, among the most important government policies and practices driving segregation include (1) decisions about where to place public housing; and (2) flagrant income discrimination through exclusionary zoning (which disproportionately hurts people of color),” the study reads.

Scarsdale has a median household income of $250,000 and its population is 71.2% white, with 90.7% of adults having attained a bachelor’s degree or more of education, according to data from New York University’s (NYU) Furman Center. Port Chester has an $88,093 median income and its population is 64.2% Hispanic, with 31.1% of adults attaining at least a bachelor’s degree.

Public schools in Scarsdale have higher expenditures per pupil, lower student-to-teacher ratios and more experienced teachers. Students in Scarsdale schools graduate in four years at a higher rate and perform better in English and math than students in Port Chester.

The study explains how Scarsdale fought public housing developments and uses single family zoning to restrict development. As a result, minorities and poor Americans are unable to move to Scarsdale, despite the town’s liberal leanings. In contrast, Port Chester allows for multi-family homes to be built on its land.

“In addition to discriminatory government judgements about where to place public housing, zoning has been a prime driver of residential segregation. Government-sponsored zoning restrictions that forbid multifamily housing, or even single-family homes on modest-sized plots of land, are pervasive in American communities,” the study asserts.

“Recent growth in Scarsdale and Port Chester reflect their very different zoning regimes. In Port Chester, 41 percent of units (24 of 58 units) authorized to be built between 2014 and 2021 were for multifamily housing. In Scarsdale, none (0 of 218 units) were for multifamily homes. Although real estate developers typically make more money building multifamily housing than single-family homes in wealthy areas, Scarsdale essentially forbids it,” the study adds.

Scarsdale’s median single family housing price is $1.65 million and all of its new units from 2014-21 were single family homes. Port Chester’s median single-family housing price is $592,242 and 59% of its new units were built for single families. A majority of Port Chester’s housing is occupied by renters and its population density is much higher than Scarsdale, according to NYU Furman Center data.

Scarsdale and Port Chester are located in New York’s 16th Congressional district, represented by Democratic New York Rep. Jamaal Bowman, an outspoken progressive with ties to the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA). President Joe Biden won Westchester County in the 2020 presidential election, with 67% of the vote.

Left-wing policy analyst Richard Kahlenberg used the study’s results to describe how liberal suburbs “have their own border wall” in an article for the Atlantic, a liberal magazine.

“One can safely presume that few Scarsdale residents are ardent backers of Trump’s wall on the Mexican border. But many of them support a less visible kind of wall, erected by zoning regulations that ban multifamily housing and keep non-wealthy people, many of them people of color, out of their community.”