On April 14, Americans witnessed something unprecedented yet underreported: a President of the United States defying a unanimous Supreme Court ruling—publicly, gleefully, and without consequence.
In a choreographed Oval Office meeting with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, former President Donald Trump signaled something deeper than diplomatic theater. He made clear that constitutional rulings are now optional, and the executive branch is prepared to treat judicial oversight as an inconvenience, not a mandate.
At the center of the confrontation is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a U.S. resident removed in violation of multiple court orders. But this case is no longer just about one man. It is about a system cracking open at its weakest point: enforcement.
Legal analyst Harry Litman called it a “criminal conspiracy to deprive a man of his rights.” But there’s an even more dangerous precedent: the executive’s casual fabrication of legal authority in front of cameras. In one moment, Stephen Miller claimed that the Supreme Court had ruled “9–0 in our favor.” That’s a demonstrable lie. In the next moment, the administration submitted that video—complete with the lie—as part of a legal filing.
There is no clearer sign that we are entering an era where reality is retrofitted to executive needs, and truth becomes just another political tool.
The administration’s defense? That foreign affairs fall under executive control, and thus, the judiciary has no say. This is not just flawed constitutional logic—it is the rationale of authoritarianism. It allows the President to bypass law under the guise of international discretion. As historian Timothy Snyder has written, autocracies flourish when people are pushed into legal grey zones, rendered stateless or rightless through bureaucratic theater.
What’s chilling is not just the act—it’s the reaction. No resignations. No statements of opposition from within the administration. Instead: laughter.
This was not a misstep. It was a message.
And we must be clear-eyed about what it means: if the executive can ignore a Supreme Court order and suffer no political cost, then the judiciary has been functionally silenced. If citizens can be rendered voiceless through legal fiction, then we are no longer governed by law but by will.
We’ve long discussed a “tipping point” for American democracy. That point is no longer ahead of us—it’s in the rearview mirror. The question is not how close we are to crisis, but how far we are willing to let this drift continue.
A functioning democracy cannot survive when its highest legal authority is dismissed as irrelevant. The erosion of the rule of law doesn’t begin with tanks in the streets. It begins with Oval Office meetings like this one—smiling, rehearsed, and livestreamed.
There are other examples of a President defying the Court - most notable was Lincoln ignoring the Court regarding his suspension of habeaus corpus.
Trump is going to push this to the limit and beyond because the Democrats set the predicate when they unleashed lawfare against him and others for over 8 years. By abusing the legal process in pursuit of their own petty political goals the Democrats have weakened the system.
Let’s clarify something with historical and constitutional precision.
President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during an active civil war, facing an existential crisis in which the Union was threatened with disintegration. Confederate forces were on the move, and Washington, D.C., was encircled. There was no time for legal ambiguity. Lincoln decided not to consolidate power for personal gain but to preserve the Republic—and he knew it was constitutionally controversial.
He acknowledged it publicly in his July 4, 1861 message to Congress, stating that he had acted “under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity,” and welcomed congressional oversight. Congress retroactively authorized his actions. This was not a rogue president acting unilaterally without checks—it was a system under extreme stress attempting to survive using emergency powers that were ultimately subject to legislative review.
Contrast that with Trump.
Trump didn’t act to protect the nation—he has worked consistently to defend himself, using executive power to evade accountability, punish political enemies, and—most dangerously—undermine the judicial system itself by calling its legitimacy into question. That is not Newton’s Third Law. That’s not balance. That’s not even over-correction. It’s an attempt to rewrite the rules of the game mid-match.
The claim that “Democrats started it with lawfare” is a rhetorical sleight of hand. The cases against Trump aren’t some political invention—they are rooted in grand jury indictments, evidentiary hearings, and constitutional law. If the law applies to all citizens, it must also apply to a former president.
If we’re invoking Newton’s Third Law—“for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”—we must also accept that systems can be thrown out of equilibrium when one actor consistently violates constraints. That’s not balance—that’s system destabilization.
Lincoln’s use of power was ultimately conservative in the small-c sense: it was about preserving the Union. Trump’s use of power is the opposite—it is about dismantling the constraints that make that Union governable.
There’s a difference between emergency power wielded under constitutional duress and personal power wielded against constitutional accountability.
Not confusing anything - regardless of the circumstances Lincoln violated the Constitution. Fact. His acknowledgement of this does not ameliorate what he did.
My recitation of what the Democrats did in abusing the system is also a Fact.
Your defense of what they did is not factual but Democrat talking points to justify what they did. You have allowed their self-serving actions to infect you with myopia.
I am not defending Trump. But the hysteria that surrounds these events energizes Trump and his base and undermines any attempt to build the necessary popular consensus to stand against his abuses.
I appreciate your clarity and conviction, and I agree that any violation of constitutional principles—by Lincoln or anyone else—deserves scrutiny. But treating historical acts in isolation, as if context and complexity are irrelevant, risks misrepresenting the full reality. Lincoln operated in an existential crisis—the nation was on the brink of collapse. His decisions, controversial as they were, must be assessed through the lens of systems preservation, not just individual action.
Likewise, your critique of the Democrats’ tactics raises legitimate concerns. But again, isolating their behavior from the broader system of institutional decay, media fragmentation, and escalating norm violations—on all sides—produces a skewed diagnosis. The system is sick, yes. But blaming one actor while ignoring the feedback loops that brought us here perpetuates polarization and lack of understanding.
I’m not interested in defending parties. I’m interested in revealing power, manipulation, and institutional erosion patterns. Seeing the System means recognizing that none of this is linear, and no one is clean. We are all shaped by—and shaping—a complex system that resists simple labels and easy villains.
To build consensus and resist authoritarian drift, we must go beyond outrage and look at the deeper architecture driving these crises. If you like more of my analysis, please subscribe to “Seeing the System.” An interdisciplinary approach through the lens of system and complex sciences. This one is free, and you can continue a free look at my paperwork. But if you really care about how current events affect your well-being, then a a systems approach is the only way, and your contribution will enable me to reach for even more resources and collaboration in an interdisciplinary manner.
Our democratic system is broken due to the pervasive corruption of the elites, the corruptibility of the feckless mediocrities who serve as elected officials and the failure of the People to own their responsibilities as citizens. As Franklin said “a Republic, if you can keep it”.
Democracy is not a spectator sport and until the People grasp that fact, we will continue to slide towards collapse.
Hard without an educated, free and popularly followed press! Not to mention all the other factors in play in the United States of the twenty- first century! An inadequate understanding of capitalism is probably at the core
of our difficulties, not an idle event that we’ve been couped by idiot idled billionaires!
Let’s clarify something with historical and constitutional precision.
Yes, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus—but he did so during an active civil war, facing an existential crisis in which the Union was threatened with disintegration. Confederate forces were on the move. Washington, D.C., was encircled. There was no time for legal ambiguity. Lincoln decided not to consolidate power for personal gain but to preserve the Republic—and he knew it was constitutionally controversial.
He acknowledged it publicly in his July 4, 1861, message to Congress, stating that he had acted “under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity” and welcomed congressional oversight. Congress retroactively authorized his actions. This was not a rogue president acting unilaterally without checks—it was a system under extreme stress attempting to survive using emergency powers that were ultimately subject to legislative review.
Contrast that with Trump.
Trump didn’t act to protect the nation—he has worked consistently to defend himself, using executive power to evade accountability, punish political enemies, and—most dangerously—undermine the judicial system itself by calling its legitimacy into question. That is not Newton’s Third Law. That’s not balance. That’s not even over-correction. It’s an attempt to rewrite the rules of the game mid-match.
The claim that “Democrats started it with lawfare” is a rhetorical sleight of hand. The cases against Trump aren’t some political invention—they are rooted in grand jury indictments, evidentiary hearings, and constitutional law. If the law applies to all citizens, it must also apply to a former president.
If we’re invoking Newton’s Third Law—“for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”—we must also accept that systems can be thrown out of equilibrium when one actor consistently violates constraints. That’s not balance—that’s system destabilization.
Lincoln’s use of power was ultimately conservative in the small-c sense: it was about preserving the Union. Trump’s use of power is the opposite—it is about dismantling the constraints that make the Union governable.
There’s a difference between emergency power wielded under constitutional duress and personal power wielded against constitutional accountability.
Trump is paying to paying these people to keep the prisoners, he can certainly stop the payments and return these men to the united states prisons for due process to take place. But he knows he us wrong because so many if these men are innocent. Trump us a cruel inhumane sick man.
I respect your perspective and agree with the urgency you’re pointing to. But we also have to confront an uncomfortable truth: We put these feckless individuals in office. They didn’t seize power—they were elected, tolerated, enabled, or ignored into existence.
The crisis we’re facing isn’t just the failure of the powerful. It’s also the failure of the People to meet their responsibilities as citizens. As Franklin famously warned: “A Republic—if you can keep it.” That conditional clause was never rhetorical. It was a warning encoded at the nation’s founding.
What we have now is a democracy fraying at its systemic seams—broken by elite corruption, hollowed out by institutional cowardice, and ultimately eroded by civic neglect. We’ve allowed mediocrities to take the helm, not because they were cunning, but because we—collectively—abdicated our duty to remain vigilant, informed, and engaged.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. It is messy, participatory, and demanding. But we’ve treated it like a consumer product, where outrage substitutes for action and tweets replace turnout. In that vacuum, authoritarian impulses have room to grow, unchecked and increasingly normalized.
If we want a government worthy of our professed ideals, we must stop outsourcing our civic power and start owning it. That means organizing, voting in primaries, holding local officials accountable, and rebuilding trust where it's been shattered—not by blind faith but by showing up with facts, compassion, and backbone.
The arc toward collapse is not inevitable. But turning away from it requires more than critique—it requires courage, memory, and sustained civic effort. This is not about left or right anymore. This is about survival—of principle, of structure, of the very idea that the People still matter.
Because if we forget that, or if we continue to wait for someone else to fix it, we won’t just lose the Republic.
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived ...
I for one will not miss the decline or even crushing fall of totalitarian, authoritarian,warmongering regime but I do feel very sorry for American working class they will pay for it dearly ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
I respect your perspective and agree with the urgency you’re pointing to. But we also have to confront an uncomfortable truth: We put these feckless individuals in office. They didn’t seize power—they were elected, tolerated, enabled, or ignored into existence.
The crisis we’re facing isn’t just the failure of the powerful. It’s also the failure of the People to meet their responsibilities as citizens. As Franklin famously warned: “A Republic—if you can keep it.” That conditional clause was never rhetorical. It was a warning encoded at the nation’s founding.
What we have now is a democracy fraying at its systemic seams—broken by elite corruption, hollowed out by institutional cowardice, and ultimately eroded by civic neglect. We’ve allowed mediocrities to take the helm, not because they were cunning, but because we—collectively—abdicated our duty to remain vigilant, informed, and engaged.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. It is messy, participatory, and demanding. But we’ve treated it like a consumer product, where outrage substitutes for action and tweets replace turnout. In that vacuum, authoritarian impulses have room to grow, unchecked and increasingly normalized.
If we want a government worthy of our professed ideals, we must stop outsourcing our civic power and start owning it. That means organizing, voting in primaries, holding local officials accountable, and rebuilding trust where it's been shattered—not by blind faith but by showing up with facts, compassion, and backbone.
The arc toward collapse is not inevitable. But turning away from it requires more than critique—it requires courage, memory, and sustained civic effort. This is not about left or right anymore. This is about survival—of principle, of structure, of the very idea that the People still matter.
Because if we forget that or continue to wait for someone else to fix it, we won’t just lose the Republic.
Fabianism is a radical London-based movement initiated in the 1880s for the purpose of subverting the existing order and establishing a Socialist World Government controlled by its leaders and by the financial interests associated with them.
At the end, Prof Wolff still opines for a return to a steady state. He still has faith in economics, finance, wealth and private property = Ecologically insane. An epic fail, end, himself.
By Ronald J. Botelho
Ph.D. Student, Complex Sciences
On April 14, Americans witnessed something unprecedented yet underreported: a President of the United States defying a unanimous Supreme Court ruling—publicly, gleefully, and without consequence.
In a choreographed Oval Office meeting with El Salvador’s President Nayib Bukele, former President Donald Trump signaled something deeper than diplomatic theater. He made clear that constitutional rulings are now optional, and the executive branch is prepared to treat judicial oversight as an inconvenience, not a mandate.
At the center of the confrontation is the case of Kilmar Abrego Garcia—a U.S. resident removed in violation of multiple court orders. But this case is no longer just about one man. It is about a system cracking open at its weakest point: enforcement.
Legal analyst Harry Litman called it a “criminal conspiracy to deprive a man of his rights.” But there’s an even more dangerous precedent: the executive’s casual fabrication of legal authority in front of cameras. In one moment, Stephen Miller claimed that the Supreme Court had ruled “9–0 in our favor.” That’s a demonstrable lie. In the next moment, the administration submitted that video—complete with the lie—as part of a legal filing.
There is no clearer sign that we are entering an era where reality is retrofitted to executive needs, and truth becomes just another political tool.
The administration’s defense? That foreign affairs fall under executive control, and thus, the judiciary has no say. This is not just flawed constitutional logic—it is the rationale of authoritarianism. It allows the President to bypass law under the guise of international discretion. As historian Timothy Snyder has written, autocracies flourish when people are pushed into legal grey zones, rendered stateless or rightless through bureaucratic theater.
What’s chilling is not just the act—it’s the reaction. No resignations. No statements of opposition from within the administration. Instead: laughter.
This was not a misstep. It was a message.
And we must be clear-eyed about what it means: if the executive can ignore a Supreme Court order and suffer no political cost, then the judiciary has been functionally silenced. If citizens can be rendered voiceless through legal fiction, then we are no longer governed by law but by will.
We’ve long discussed a “tipping point” for American democracy. That point is no longer ahead of us—it’s in the rearview mirror. The question is not how close we are to crisis, but how far we are willing to let this drift continue.
A functioning democracy cannot survive when its highest legal authority is dismissed as irrelevant. The erosion of the rule of law doesn’t begin with tanks in the streets. It begins with Oval Office meetings like this one—smiling, rehearsed, and livestreamed.
Now is not the time for silence.
There are other examples of a President defying the Court - most notable was Lincoln ignoring the Court regarding his suspension of habeaus corpus.
Trump is going to push this to the limit and beyond because the Democrats set the predicate when they unleashed lawfare against him and others for over 8 years. By abusing the legal process in pursuit of their own petty political goals the Democrats have weakened the system.
Newtons 3rd Law in action.
Dan,
Let’s clarify something with historical and constitutional precision.
President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus during an active civil war, facing an existential crisis in which the Union was threatened with disintegration. Confederate forces were on the move, and Washington, D.C., was encircled. There was no time for legal ambiguity. Lincoln decided not to consolidate power for personal gain but to preserve the Republic—and he knew it was constitutionally controversial.
He acknowledged it publicly in his July 4, 1861 message to Congress, stating that he had acted “under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity,” and welcomed congressional oversight. Congress retroactively authorized his actions. This was not a rogue president acting unilaterally without checks—it was a system under extreme stress attempting to survive using emergency powers that were ultimately subject to legislative review.
Contrast that with Trump.
Trump didn’t act to protect the nation—he has worked consistently to defend himself, using executive power to evade accountability, punish political enemies, and—most dangerously—undermine the judicial system itself by calling its legitimacy into question. That is not Newton’s Third Law. That’s not balance. That’s not even over-correction. It’s an attempt to rewrite the rules of the game mid-match.
The claim that “Democrats started it with lawfare” is a rhetorical sleight of hand. The cases against Trump aren’t some political invention—they are rooted in grand jury indictments, evidentiary hearings, and constitutional law. If the law applies to all citizens, it must also apply to a former president.
If we’re invoking Newton’s Third Law—“for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”—we must also accept that systems can be thrown out of equilibrium when one actor consistently violates constraints. That’s not balance—that’s system destabilization.
Lincoln’s use of power was ultimately conservative in the small-c sense: it was about preserving the Union. Trump’s use of power is the opposite—it is about dismantling the constraints that make that Union governable.
There’s a difference between emergency power wielded under constitutional duress and personal power wielded against constitutional accountability.
Let’s not confuse the two.
Not confusing anything - regardless of the circumstances Lincoln violated the Constitution. Fact. His acknowledgement of this does not ameliorate what he did.
My recitation of what the Democrats did in abusing the system is also a Fact.
Your defense of what they did is not factual but Democrat talking points to justify what they did. You have allowed their self-serving actions to infect you with myopia.
I am not defending Trump. But the hysteria that surrounds these events energizes Trump and his base and undermines any attempt to build the necessary popular consensus to stand against his abuses.
I appreciate your clarity and conviction, and I agree that any violation of constitutional principles—by Lincoln or anyone else—deserves scrutiny. But treating historical acts in isolation, as if context and complexity are irrelevant, risks misrepresenting the full reality. Lincoln operated in an existential crisis—the nation was on the brink of collapse. His decisions, controversial as they were, must be assessed through the lens of systems preservation, not just individual action.
Likewise, your critique of the Democrats’ tactics raises legitimate concerns. But again, isolating their behavior from the broader system of institutional decay, media fragmentation, and escalating norm violations—on all sides—produces a skewed diagnosis. The system is sick, yes. But blaming one actor while ignoring the feedback loops that brought us here perpetuates polarization and lack of understanding.
I’m not interested in defending parties. I’m interested in revealing power, manipulation, and institutional erosion patterns. Seeing the System means recognizing that none of this is linear, and no one is clean. We are all shaped by—and shaping—a complex system that resists simple labels and easy villains.
To build consensus and resist authoritarian drift, we must go beyond outrage and look at the deeper architecture driving these crises. If you like more of my analysis, please subscribe to “Seeing the System.” An interdisciplinary approach through the lens of system and complex sciences. This one is free, and you can continue a free look at my paperwork. But if you really care about how current events affect your well-being, then a a systems approach is the only way, and your contribution will enable me to reach for even more resources and collaboration in an interdisciplinary manner.
Our democratic system is broken due to the pervasive corruption of the elites, the corruptibility of the feckless mediocrities who serve as elected officials and the failure of the People to own their responsibilities as citizens. As Franklin said “a Republic, if you can keep it”.
Democracy is not a spectator sport and until the People grasp that fact, we will continue to slide towards collapse.
Hard without an educated, free and popularly followed press! Not to mention all the other factors in play in the United States of the twenty- first century! An inadequate understanding of capitalism is probably at the core
of our difficulties, not an idle event that we’ve been couped by idiot idled billionaires!
Let’s clarify something with historical and constitutional precision.
Yes, President Lincoln suspended habeas corpus—but he did so during an active civil war, facing an existential crisis in which the Union was threatened with disintegration. Confederate forces were on the move. Washington, D.C., was encircled. There was no time for legal ambiguity. Lincoln decided not to consolidate power for personal gain but to preserve the Republic—and he knew it was constitutionally controversial.
He acknowledged it publicly in his July 4, 1861, message to Congress, stating that he had acted “under what appeared to be a popular demand and a public necessity” and welcomed congressional oversight. Congress retroactively authorized his actions. This was not a rogue president acting unilaterally without checks—it was a system under extreme stress attempting to survive using emergency powers that were ultimately subject to legislative review.
Contrast that with Trump.
Trump didn’t act to protect the nation—he has worked consistently to defend himself, using executive power to evade accountability, punish political enemies, and—most dangerously—undermine the judicial system itself by calling its legitimacy into question. That is not Newton’s Third Law. That’s not balance. That’s not even over-correction. It’s an attempt to rewrite the rules of the game mid-match.
The claim that “Democrats started it with lawfare” is a rhetorical sleight of hand. The cases against Trump aren’t some political invention—they are rooted in grand jury indictments, evidentiary hearings, and constitutional law. If the law applies to all citizens, it must also apply to a former president.
If we’re invoking Newton’s Third Law—“for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction”—we must also accept that systems can be thrown out of equilibrium when one actor consistently violates constraints. That’s not balance—that’s system destabilization.
Lincoln’s use of power was ultimately conservative in the small-c sense: it was about preserving the Union. Trump’s use of power is the opposite—it is about dismantling the constraints that make the Union governable.
There’s a difference between emergency power wielded under constitutional duress and personal power wielded against constitutional accountability.
Let’s not confuse the two.
Trump is paying to paying these people to keep the prisoners, he can certainly stop the payments and return these men to the united states prisons for due process to take place. But he knows he us wrong because so many if these men are innocent. Trump us a cruel inhumane sick man.
Dan,
I respect your perspective and agree with the urgency you’re pointing to. But we also have to confront an uncomfortable truth: We put these feckless individuals in office. They didn’t seize power—they were elected, tolerated, enabled, or ignored into existence.
The crisis we’re facing isn’t just the failure of the powerful. It’s also the failure of the People to meet their responsibilities as citizens. As Franklin famously warned: “A Republic—if you can keep it.” That conditional clause was never rhetorical. It was a warning encoded at the nation’s founding.
What we have now is a democracy fraying at its systemic seams—broken by elite corruption, hollowed out by institutional cowardice, and ultimately eroded by civic neglect. We’ve allowed mediocrities to take the helm, not because they were cunning, but because we—collectively—abdicated our duty to remain vigilant, informed, and engaged.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. It is messy, participatory, and demanding. But we’ve treated it like a consumer product, where outrage substitutes for action and tweets replace turnout. In that vacuum, authoritarian impulses have room to grow, unchecked and increasingly normalized.
If we want a government worthy of our professed ideals, we must stop outsourcing our civic power and start owning it. That means organizing, voting in primaries, holding local officials accountable, and rebuilding trust where it's been shattered—not by blind faith but by showing up with facts, compassion, and backbone.
The arc toward collapse is not inevitable. But turning away from it requires more than critique—it requires courage, memory, and sustained civic effort. This is not about left or right anymore. This is about survival—of principle, of structure, of the very idea that the People still matter.
Because if we forget that, or if we continue to wait for someone else to fix it, we won’t just lose the Republic.
We’ll have to let it go willingly.
Fascism is idolatry of the state. You keep usng that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means
“A nation, as expressed in the State, is a living, ethical entity only in so far as it is progressive.”
https://sjsu.edu/faculty/wooda/2B-HUM/Readings/The-Doctrine-of-Fascism.pdf
Fascism (/ˈfæʃɪzəm/ FASH-iz-əm) is a far-right, authoritarian, and ultranationalist political ideology and movement, characterized by a dictatorial leader, centralized autocracy, militarism, forcible suppression of opposition, belief in a natural social hierarchy, subordination of individual interests for the perceived ...
https://en.wikipedia.org
That's not in The Doctrine of Fascism. That describes an generic tyrant
The “doctrine”? Well sorry bro. That's what I'm going with.
I for one will not miss the decline or even crushing fall of totalitarian, authoritarian,warmongering regime but I do feel very sorry for American working class they will pay for it dearly ☠️☠️☠️☠️☠️
Possibly.
I full well know that I CHOOSE to have hope that we can get thru this without a second civil war or a new national government.
I might be wrong in this. Even then there is hope. Please try my snarky open letter on the matter:
https://open.substack.com/pub/noelkeith/p/tranquil-piece-of-mind-vol-2-no-2?r=4c7psw&utm_medium=ios
Dan,
I respect your perspective and agree with the urgency you’re pointing to. But we also have to confront an uncomfortable truth: We put these feckless individuals in office. They didn’t seize power—they were elected, tolerated, enabled, or ignored into existence.
The crisis we’re facing isn’t just the failure of the powerful. It’s also the failure of the People to meet their responsibilities as citizens. As Franklin famously warned: “A Republic—if you can keep it.” That conditional clause was never rhetorical. It was a warning encoded at the nation’s founding.
What we have now is a democracy fraying at its systemic seams—broken by elite corruption, hollowed out by institutional cowardice, and ultimately eroded by civic neglect. We’ve allowed mediocrities to take the helm, not because they were cunning, but because we—collectively—abdicated our duty to remain vigilant, informed, and engaged.
Democracy is not a spectator sport. It is messy, participatory, and demanding. But we’ve treated it like a consumer product, where outrage substitutes for action and tweets replace turnout. In that vacuum, authoritarian impulses have room to grow, unchecked and increasingly normalized.
If we want a government worthy of our professed ideals, we must stop outsourcing our civic power and start owning it. That means organizing, voting in primaries, holding local officials accountable, and rebuilding trust where it's been shattered—not by blind faith but by showing up with facts, compassion, and backbone.
The arc toward collapse is not inevitable. But turning away from it requires more than critique—it requires courage, memory, and sustained civic effort. This is not about left or right anymore. This is about survival—of principle, of structure, of the very idea that the People still matter.
Because if we forget that or continue to wait for someone else to fix it, we won’t just lose the Republic.
We’ll have to let it go willingly.
If you're listening to Wolfe you don't care about facts.
Fabianism is a radical London-based movement initiated in the 1880s for the purpose of subverting the existing order and establishing a Socialist World Government controlled by its leaders and by the financial interests associated with them.
https://daddydragon.co.uk/2020/05/24/the-fabian-society-the-masters-of-subversion-unmasked/
At the end, Prof Wolff still opines for a return to a steady state. He still has faith in economics, finance, wealth and private property = Ecologically insane. An epic fail, end, himself.