We are witnessing something new: the convergence of three strains of politics that have never simultaneously been this proximate to power. Those projects come from different but related places: the Wall Street–Silicon Valley nexus of distressed debt and startup culture; anti–New Deal conservative think tanks; and the extremely online world of anarchocapitalism and right-wing accelerationism. Within the new administration, each strain is striving to realize its desired outcome. The first wants a sleek state that narrowly seeks to maximize returns on investment; the second a shackled state unable to promote social justice; and the third, most dramatically, a shattered state that cedes governing authority to competing projects of decentralized private rule. We are watching how well they can collaborate to reinforce one another. The future condition of the government—and by extension the country—depends on how far the dynamo spins.
Data scientists are ringing alarm bells about potentially irreversible damage to federal databases. If the think tankers have their way, the state will no longer be able to collect information and allocate tax dollars to socially desirable goals.
What do they see? Right-wing accelerationists imagine existing sovereignty shattering into what Yarvin, writing under the pen name Mencius Moldbug, calls a “patchwork” of private entities, ideally governed by what one might call technomonarchies. Existing autocratic polities like Dubai serve as rough prototypes for how nations could be dismantled into “a global spiderweb of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of sovereign and independent mini-countries, each governed by its own joint-stock corporation without regard to the residents’ opinions.”v
https://archive.ph/0R22H
Data scientists are ringing alarm bells about potentially irreversible damage to federal databases. If the think tankers have their way, the state will no longer be able to collect information and allocate tax dollars to socially desirable goals.
What do they see? Right-wing accelerationists imagine existing sovereignty shattering into what Yarvin, writing under the pen name Mencius Moldbug, calls a “patchwork” of private entities, ideally governed by what one might call technomonarchies. Existing autocratic polities like Dubai serve as rough prototypes for how nations could be dismantled into “a global spiderweb of tens, even hundreds, of thousands of sovereign and independent mini-countries, each governed by its own joint-stock corporation without regard to the residents’ opinions.”v
https://archive.ph/0R22H
archive.ph
What is DOGE? | Quinn Slobodian | The New York Review of Books
archived 17 Feb 2025 13:51:10 UTC
Trump’s plan to eliminate the Department of Education, apparently on hold for now, turns out to be opposed by majorities of voters in both parties — numbers that are likely to grow as the implications of funding cuts, which will fall hardest on Trump’s own red-state base, begin to sink in. And Trump’s threat to withhold federal funding from schools with vaccine mandates is even more of a political loser. According to a recent survey, just 15 percent of adults identified this as a top priority, while nearly half said that the cuts “should not be done.”
Even the calls for mass deportations, which so thrilled many of his supporters, run afoul of public opinion when it comes to schools. Just 18 percent of voters support arresting undocumented students at schools.
In Kentucky, voters from every single county rejected a change to the Constitution that would have allowed public dollars to fund private religious education, despite a marquee endorsement from Trump. “Kentuckians agree with Donald Trump,” proclaimed one ad, featuring Trump broadcasting his support for school choice. “If you do too, vote yes on [Amendment] 2.
The appeal landed with a thud. The same rural counties that supported Trump most emphatically also rejected the voucher amendment by outsize margins. Voters in Monroe County, which borders Tennessee, supported Trump by nearly 90 percent while rejecting the voucher amendment by 70.5 percent. And in the state’s tiniest county, eight out of ten voters went for Trump, nearly the same margin by which they opposed Amendment 2. In Nebraska, vouchers were defeated by an equally lopsided margin.”
https://jacobin.com/2025/01/trump-education-vouchers-privatization-democrats/
Even the calls for mass deportations, which so thrilled many of his supporters, run afoul of public opinion when it comes to schools. Just 18 percent of voters support arresting undocumented students at schools.
In Kentucky, voters from every single county rejected a change to the Constitution that would have allowed public dollars to fund private religious education, despite a marquee endorsement from Trump. “Kentuckians agree with Donald Trump,” proclaimed one ad, featuring Trump broadcasting his support for school choice. “If you do too, vote yes on [Amendment] 2.
The appeal landed with a thud. The same rural counties that supported Trump most emphatically also rejected the voucher amendment by outsize margins. Voters in Monroe County, which borders Tennessee, supported Trump by nearly 90 percent while rejecting the voucher amendment by 70.5 percent. And in the state’s tiniest county, eight out of ten voters went for Trump, nearly the same margin by which they opposed Amendment 2. In Nebraska, vouchers were defeated by an equally lopsided margin.”
https://jacobin.com/2025/01/trump-education-vouchers-privatization-democrats/
Jacobin
Trump’s Education Agenda Is a Big Vulnerability
Donald Trump is pushing an elite-driven school privatization project that is deeply unpopular with his base. It offers a golden political opportunity for Democrats, if only they would seize it.
1. Obtain a phone. It doesn’t need to have an active phone number associated with it, and can be either an old phone you have around or a dedicated burner phone.
2. Locate a pay phone.
3. Find the pay phone’s phone number (call 1-800-444-4444 if it’s not written on the phone).
4. Make sure the pay phone can receive incoming calls.
5. Enter the pay phone number into Signal, and use the ‘Call me’ option to receive a verification call (this option shows up only after the SMS timer runs out).
6. Input the confirmation code, set up a PIN and enable Registration Lock in the Signal app.
https://theintercept.com/2024/07/16/signal-app-privacy-phone-number/
2. Locate a pay phone.
3. Find the pay phone’s phone number (call 1-800-444-4444 if it’s not written on the phone).
4. Make sure the pay phone can receive incoming calls.
5. Enter the pay phone number into Signal, and use the ‘Call me’ option to receive a verification call (this option shows up only after the SMS timer runs out).
6. Input the confirmation code, set up a PIN and enable Registration Lock in the Signal app.
https://theintercept.com/2024/07/16/signal-app-privacy-phone-number/
The Intercept
How I Got a Truly Anonymous Signal Account
Yes, you can use Signal without sharing your personal phone number. Here’s how I did it.
Pantopia Reading Nook 📰🚩 pinned «1. Obtain a phone. It doesn’t need to have an active phone number associated with it, and can be either an old phone you have around or a dedicated burner phone. 2. Locate a pay phone. 3. Find the pay phone’s phone number (call 1-800-444-4444 if it’s not…»
Ancora una volta sul prezzo del gas e sugli aumenti in bolletta le cose non stanno come vengono raccontate. A dicembre 2024 il gas è aumentato del 31,84% circa rispetto al dicembre dell’anno precedente, come le bollette, quindi, la crescita sarebbe dovuta al prezzo del gas causato da variabili geopolitiche. Peccato che non sia così.
Le bollette sono aumentate perché il Governo Meloni ha bisogno di far cassa.
https://altreconomia.it/di-quanto-e-aumentata-la-bolletta-del-gas-e-perche-centra-il-governo/
Le bollette sono aumentate perché il Governo Meloni ha bisogno di far cassa.
https://altreconomia.it/di-quanto-e-aumentata-la-bolletta-del-gas-e-perche-centra-il-governo/
Altreconomia
Di quanto è aumentata la bolletta del gas e perché c'entra il governo
Gli aumenti del prezzo del gas non sono la vera ragione dell'incremento dei costi energetici. Ci sono altre componenti che sono schizzate, dagli oneri di sistemi all'Iva. Sono conseguenze di scelte politiche precise da parte dell'attuale esecutivo, che promette…
Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein is not, of course, an example of the imperial gothic but instead a still relevant anti-Enlightenment fable. If a novel ever illustrated how the sleep of reason begets monsters, it is Shelley’s story of how a scientist’s urge to create artificial life leads to utter destruction. However, in Universal Studios’s 1931 Frankenstein, the many pertinent philosophical issues that the original gothic novel explores reshape into thinly veiled imperial gothic through the introduction of a eugenic and highly racialised discourse that changes the monster from a rightfully vengeful and eminently intelligent being into an atavistic criminal. In its Hollywood guise, the monster is not a tragic, lonesome and then understandably vengeful product of unethical science but instead a reincarnation of the degenerate criminal whose brain the monster is provided with in the film. This takes on a peculiarly American dynamics in the movie. As Elizabeth Young suggests in Black Frankenstein: The Making of an American Metaphor (2008), a connection between the monster and the supposedly primitive black American was made as early as during the immediate post-Civil War period when ‘the “hideous progeny” of Shelley’s novel was symbolically reborn in racist parody as the symbol of the miscegenated nation’.
An important reference to American Reconstruction history is also the ending of the movie. Instead of escaping to the North Pole, as is the case in Shelley’s novel, the monster is exorcised by what amounts to a lynch mob. In Frankenstein the movie, as in the American South, justice is done by the people on the spot; by ‘lynch law’. The violation of the sanctified space and body of Frankenstein’s fiancée, Elizabeth, as much as the accidental drowning of the little girl, justifies this public rage in the eyes of the movie audience. This is the end that comes to those who dare violate the purity of white women, or oppose the progress of modernity in any form, be they black Americans in the South, Native Americans on the reservations or unruly natives in the Philippines. Like so many lynching victims, Frankenstein dies in flames.
In this way, the discursive conditions that informed the British colonial enterprise as well as the racism that structured black and white relations in the US permeate Frankenstein. The childlike and aggressive monster is an example of the kind of human category that can never ‘possess the intelligence to make a rational choice of political allegiance’, as Lansing put it. In addition to this, the audience is also free to imagine an alternative narrative in which Fritz never drops the jar with the ‘normal’ brain to the floor. It is not science or faith in modernity that Frankenstein fears, it is atavism. The resolution to the crisis that atavism constitutes is the sad but necessary violence of the lynch mob. When the monster has been burned, the movie can end with the happy union of the film’s central white couple
Johan Anders Höglund, The American Imperial Gothic: Popular Culture, Empire, Violence
An important reference to American Reconstruction history is also the ending of the movie. Instead of escaping to the North Pole, as is the case in Shelley’s novel, the monster is exorcised by what amounts to a lynch mob. In Frankenstein the movie, as in the American South, justice is done by the people on the spot; by ‘lynch law’. The violation of the sanctified space and body of Frankenstein’s fiancée, Elizabeth, as much as the accidental drowning of the little girl, justifies this public rage in the eyes of the movie audience. This is the end that comes to those who dare violate the purity of white women, or oppose the progress of modernity in any form, be they black Americans in the South, Native Americans on the reservations or unruly natives in the Philippines. Like so many lynching victims, Frankenstein dies in flames.
In this way, the discursive conditions that informed the British colonial enterprise as well as the racism that structured black and white relations in the US permeate Frankenstein. The childlike and aggressive monster is an example of the kind of human category that can never ‘possess the intelligence to make a rational choice of political allegiance’, as Lansing put it. In addition to this, the audience is also free to imagine an alternative narrative in which Fritz never drops the jar with the ‘normal’ brain to the floor. It is not science or faith in modernity that Frankenstein fears, it is atavism. The resolution to the crisis that atavism constitutes is the sad but necessary violence of the lynch mob. When the monster has been burned, the movie can end with the happy union of the film’s central white couple
Johan Anders Höglund, The American Imperial Gothic: Popular Culture, Empire, Violence
Tumblr
A Matter of the Most Pleasant Fraternal Confidence
Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein is not, of course, an example of the imperial gothic but instead a still relevant anti-Enlightenment fable. If a novel ever illustrated how the sleep of reason…
The Policy Hub was held on December 4, 2024 and featured the insights of eight esteemed professors
who presented on various aspects of EU legislative reform and regulation. The event was followed by an engaging roundtable discussion where key topics were further explored. The focus of the discussions included improving the clarity, effectiveness, and accessibility of EU legislation, with an emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens, enhancing communication, and using technological tools to optimize legislative processes.
Prof. Dr Helen Xanthaki indicated that European legislation in its current form is no longer fit for
purpose. The expert discussed the importance of measurable, specific objectives in EU legislation and
the need for clearer legislative drafting. She proposed a new approach to drafting that includes
measurable outcomes, facilitating easier implementation and transposition of EU laws into national
legal systems.
Prof. Dr. Mauro Zamboni emphasized the need for a shift towards participatory democracy in the
EU, urging greater citizen involvement throughout the legislative process. He proposed strategies
like facilitating early engagement, using clear language in drafts, adopting citizen-centric legislative
models, and creating guidelines and feedback mechanisms. Zamboni called for a more inclusive and
transparent approach to law-making, aligning with the principles of Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty to
ensure citizens play an active role in shaping laws that affect them.
Prof. Dr. Constantin Stefanou discussed the importance of legislation as a communication tool,
emphasizing that current EU laws are often inaccessible to citizens. He highlighted the need for strategic improvements, including better training for those drafting legislation to ensure clarity and
effectiveness. Stefanou argued that while the legislative process currently caters mainly to professionals, small steps can be taken to make laws more understandable and engaging for the public. This approach would help bridge the gap between legal texts and citizens' needs.
Prof. Dr. Maria Mousmouti discussed the importance of making EU legislation more effective by
clarifying its purpose and objectives. She emphasized that legislation should be specific, measurable,
and targeted, rather than vague or descriptive. By aligning legislative content with clear objectives,
communication is improved, and integration with national laws becomes easier. Mousmouti also
highlighted the value of review clauses tied to measurable outcomes, transforming them from
bureaucratic tools into instruments for assessing the impact and effectiveness of legislation. This
approach promotes transparency, better implementation, and clearer understanding for both
citizens and legislators.
Prof. Dr Giulia Adrianna Pennisi highlighted the issue of ineffective communication in EU legislation,
emphasizing that technical, complex texts hinder citizen engagement. She proposed a new drafting
style aimed at improving clarity and accessibility, particularly for younger readers and other target
audiences. She emphasized the need for tools to assess the communicative effectiveness of legislative
texts, focusing on reducing syntactic complexity, information overload, and excessive use of
nominalizations. By implementing these linguistic and structural improvements, the EU can foster a
more participatory legal framework.
who presented on various aspects of EU legislative reform and regulation. The event was followed by an engaging roundtable discussion where key topics were further explored. The focus of the discussions included improving the clarity, effectiveness, and accessibility of EU legislation, with an emphasis on reducing regulatory burdens, enhancing communication, and using technological tools to optimize legislative processes.
Prof. Dr Helen Xanthaki indicated that European legislation in its current form is no longer fit for
purpose. The expert discussed the importance of measurable, specific objectives in EU legislation and
the need for clearer legislative drafting. She proposed a new approach to drafting that includes
measurable outcomes, facilitating easier implementation and transposition of EU laws into national
legal systems.
Prof. Dr. Mauro Zamboni emphasized the need for a shift towards participatory democracy in the
EU, urging greater citizen involvement throughout the legislative process. He proposed strategies
like facilitating early engagement, using clear language in drafts, adopting citizen-centric legislative
models, and creating guidelines and feedback mechanisms. Zamboni called for a more inclusive and
transparent approach to law-making, aligning with the principles of Article 11 of the Lisbon Treaty to
ensure citizens play an active role in shaping laws that affect them.
Prof. Dr. Constantin Stefanou discussed the importance of legislation as a communication tool,
emphasizing that current EU laws are often inaccessible to citizens. He highlighted the need for strategic improvements, including better training for those drafting legislation to ensure clarity and
effectiveness. Stefanou argued that while the legislative process currently caters mainly to professionals, small steps can be taken to make laws more understandable and engaging for the public. This approach would help bridge the gap between legal texts and citizens' needs.
Prof. Dr. Maria Mousmouti discussed the importance of making EU legislation more effective by
clarifying its purpose and objectives. She emphasized that legislation should be specific, measurable,
and targeted, rather than vague or descriptive. By aligning legislative content with clear objectives,
communication is improved, and integration with national laws becomes easier. Mousmouti also
highlighted the value of review clauses tied to measurable outcomes, transforming them from
bureaucratic tools into instruments for assessing the impact and effectiveness of legislation. This
approach promotes transparency, better implementation, and clearer understanding for both
citizens and legislators.
Prof. Dr Giulia Adrianna Pennisi highlighted the issue of ineffective communication in EU legislation,
emphasizing that technical, complex texts hinder citizen engagement. She proposed a new drafting
style aimed at improving clarity and accessibility, particularly for younger readers and other target
audiences. She emphasized the need for tools to assess the communicative effectiveness of legislative
texts, focusing on reducing syntactic complexity, information overload, and excessive use of
nominalizations. By implementing these linguistic and structural improvements, the EU can foster a
more participatory legal framework.
The Policy Hub on December 4, 2024, brought together eight experts to discuss EU legislative reform, focusing on clarity, accessibility, and efficiency.
- Prof. Helen Xanthaki criticized the lack of measurable objectives in EU laws and called for clearer drafting to ease implementation.
- Prof. Mauro Zamboni advocated for participatory democracy, urging early citizen involvement and transparent law-making.
- Prof. Constantin Stefanou highlighted the need to improve legislation as a communication tool, making laws more accessible.
- Prof. Maria Mousmouti stressed the importance of measurable legislative goals and review clauses to assess effectiveness.
- Prof. Giulia Pennisi focused on simplifying legal language, reducing complexity, and enhancing communication, especially for younger readers.
- Prof. Henri de Waele proposed stronger scrutiny in the European Parliament to prevent legal challenges and ensure better drafting.
- Prof. Scott Markus addressed regulatory overload, advocating for improved impact assessments and competitiveness evaluations.
- Prof. Giovanni Sartor explored AI’s potential in law-making, emphasizing benefits for drafting and impact analysis but warning about privacy risks.
The roundtable discussion reinforced the need for simplified legal language, transparency, and better communication of legislative benefits. Experts called for impact assessments and technological integration to enhance governance, build trust, and create a more citizen-friendly EU legislative framework.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2025/770445/IUST_IDA(2025)770445_EN.pdf
- Prof. Helen Xanthaki criticized the lack of measurable objectives in EU laws and called for clearer drafting to ease implementation.
- Prof. Mauro Zamboni advocated for participatory democracy, urging early citizen involvement and transparent law-making.
- Prof. Constantin Stefanou highlighted the need to improve legislation as a communication tool, making laws more accessible.
- Prof. Maria Mousmouti stressed the importance of measurable legislative goals and review clauses to assess effectiveness.
- Prof. Giulia Pennisi focused on simplifying legal language, reducing complexity, and enhancing communication, especially for younger readers.
- Prof. Henri de Waele proposed stronger scrutiny in the European Parliament to prevent legal challenges and ensure better drafting.
- Prof. Scott Markus addressed regulatory overload, advocating for improved impact assessments and competitiveness evaluations.
- Prof. Giovanni Sartor explored AI’s potential in law-making, emphasizing benefits for drafting and impact analysis but warning about privacy risks.
The roundtable discussion reinforced the need for simplified legal language, transparency, and better communication of legislative benefits. Experts called for impact assessments and technological integration to enhance governance, build trust, and create a more citizen-friendly EU legislative framework.
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/IDAN/2025/770445/IUST_IDA(2025)770445_EN.pdf