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/

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/

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/

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

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.

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

old, but still

https://www.propublica.org/article/us-supreme-court-grants-pass-homelessness

In New Mexico, oil industry representatives met with state regulators and environmentalists to address the issue of over 70,000 unplugged wells, many leaking harmful substances. Despite initial cooperation and months of negotiations, industry opposition to the proposed bill (HB 133) led to its weakening and eventual collapse. The bill aimed to require companies to set aside more money for cleanup, block risky sales, and implement safety buffers, but faced backlash from oil trade groups, which feared the regulations could harm the industry. Similar reform efforts in other states, such as Oklahoma and West Virginia, have also faltered due to industry pressure, weakening laws intended to address the multibillion-dollar shortfall in well cleanup funding. While some states have made progress, the industry’s influence has stymied meaningful reform across the country.

https://www.propublica.org/article/oil-industry-lobbying-unplugged-wells

These entrepreneurs come from a very small number of sectors — and beyond their personal whims, they support the far right because they think it will promote their business interests.

Le Monde has revealed that Pierre-Edouard Stérin, the founder of private equity fund Otium Capital, is a staunch supporter of Marine Le Pen and has backed both her personal and political endeavors. His business partner in Otium Capital, François Durvye, recently paid €2.5 million to the Le Pen family to buy their mansion in western Paris, while allowing the elderly Jean-Marie Le Pen to live there for the rest of his life.

Another example is Charles Gave and his hedge fund Gavekal, a secretive firm based in Hong Kong.

Then comes the energy sector, particularly the fossil fuel industry. The rise of the far right in recent years has been supported by the emergence of the CNews network. Originally called iTele and the French equivalent of CNN, the news channel was bought by Vincent Bolloré, a far-right businessman worth €12 billion. He rebranded it as CNews, fired a large part of the staff, and turned it into a French equivalent of Fox News. Beyond his media holdings, Bolloré made his fortune in the fossil fuel sector, owning a majority of the oil depots in France and many others in Europe; until recently, he also owned transport infrastructure in Africa. He has constantly supported the far right.

Finally, the far right has been supported by figures from the tech sector. French newspaper Libération has reported that the Rassemblement National enjoys the backing of start-up founders like Thomas Fauré, the head of corporate social network Whaller, and Laurent Alexandre, the founder of digital healthcare platform Doctissimo, who has now become a libertarian intellectual.

Nicos Poulantzas showed how the fascist parties of the early twentieth century found fertile ground in the working class and petty bourgeoisie but only rose to power when they managed to attract support from the business elite, too.

Sociologist Félicien Faury has studied Rassemblement National voters in southern France. He has revealed how they are predominantly white owners of property (such as their homes or small businesses) who aim to safeguard their economic, social, and political position by voting for a party that wants to strengthen the current racially segregated order. The Rassemblement National is forging a coalition that includes powerful business interests alongside broader social groups, and racist policies are pivotal to this coalition due to their broad acceptance among both wealthy business owners and other constituents of the party’s base.

The coalition of business groups supporting the Rassemblement National is thus a double-edged sword. It shows that recent votes reflect more than just transient shifts in public opinion. But it is also an indication of what can make the far right fail over the long run: the interests that it defends remain heterogeneous and social movements can contribute to breaking them apart.

https://jacobin.com/2024/07/rassemblement-national-le-pen-billionaires-tech/

The book focuses on what the authors identify as the radical right, distinguishing it from the “extreme right” and fascism. The extreme right, they contend, generally refers to “revolutionary movements that reject liberal democratic institutions and tend to embrace violence,” while the radical right “accepts democracy but is anti-liberal or illiberal in its worldview and transformative ambitions.”

At the core, then, of the different national versions of the radical right is an account of what Abrahamsen and her coauthors call “global managerialism.”

"the essence of contemporary world politics is not the age-old story of realist power politics, the liberal tale of progress through institutions, or the corrosive spread of neoliberal capitalism. It is instead the rise to power of a global liberal managerial elite, the so-called New Class of experts and bureaucrats. Detached and unmoored from their national identities and cultures, the interests of this elite lie in yet further globalization and liberalization, and work against the interests of traditional national values and local communities."

A central feature of these claims is the identification of a class enemy: the New Class, which includes corporate elites, civil servants, journalists, lawyers, engineers, therapists, academics, consultants, and various bureaucrats.

Unlike left-wing commentators who might identify this group as the professional-managerial class (or PMC) or the new petty bourgeoisie, the radical right is much more likely to point to the fact that the New Class’s power derives from its position in global networks and highlight its disconnection from the local, the traditional, and above all, the nation.

Depending on the national context, other concepts — such as focus on tradition, a defense of “Western values,” and opposition to the Enlightenment — may be more prominent.

Abrahamsen et al. also examine some of the leading strategies it deploys to spread its ideas: the promotion of a radical right publishing industry and radical right educational institutions.
Abrahamsen and her coauthors go as far as to call the radical right “the Gramscian Right,” contending that just as Karl Marx looked to turn Hegelian idealism “on its head,” so the radical right has inverted Gramsci.

Central to their reading of Gramsci is the French Nouvelle Droite (New Right), particularly its main ideologue, Alain de Benoist.

Perhaps the most succinct summary of right-wing Gramscianism is Andrew Breitbart’s dictum, influential among the alt-right, that “politics is downstream of culture.”

As Abrahamsen and her coauthors note, it is now the radical right that occupies the terrain of opposition to the status quo.

It is the book’s understanding of the disruptive force of the radical right that makes the World of the Right an illuminating analysis of the historical moment of demoralization and disorientation in which the Left finds itself today. As one of the authors of the book recently framed it, the radical right recognizes that this is its historical moment.

To confront the radical right’s contemporary success requires acknowledging past failures and engaging in self-criticism — exactly the process the French New Right and others were prepared to undertake in the ’60s.

https://jacobin.com/2025/02/new-right-gramsci-managerialism-trump/