Two bits: Tariffs; MAGA lies about tax cuts

To keep things light 'n fluffy around here, 👏, there's just two bits in this post. 👍

Tariffs

Economists warn that the tariffs could exacerbate inflation by increasing the cost of imported goods, potentially adding thousands of dollars to annual household expenses for Americans. Analysts predict a potential recession as global trade slows and retaliatory measures escalate. The Yale Budget Lab estimates long-term economic losses of $80–110 billion annually due to reduced GDP growth, which doesn't sound like a big deal to me. Germany and Australia criticized the tariffs as damaging to partnerships and lacking justification.

Pxy comments on djt's argument that the tariffs are needed to correct decades of unfair trade practices: 

Conclusion: A Mixed Verdict with High Stakes

Trump’s tariffs address specific, valid instances of unfair practices, particularly China’s market distortions. However, the administration’s broad-brush application to allies, flawed methodology, and disregard for consumer costs undermine their legitimacy. While sectors like manufacturing may benefit short-term, the broader economic risks—inflation, recession, and global trade fragmentation—outweigh localized gains. A targeted approach, combining tariffs on bad actors with multilateral negotiations, would better serve U.S. interests without destabilizing the global economy1 7 14. The coming months will test whether these tariffs catalyze a rebalancing of trade or ignite a destructive cycle of retaliation, cementing Trump’s trade policy as either a corrective measure or a historic miscalculation.

Q: Whaddaya think about the tariffs, good, bad or mixed?

Wheeeeee!

______________________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________________

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about MAGA Republicans in the Senate plans to lie to us by saying the coming massive tax cuts will cost absolutely nothing at all:

Now, in their zeal to deliver President Trump’s domestic policy agenda in “one big beautiful bill” of spending and tax cuts, Senate Republicans are trying to steer around the parliamentarian, busting a substantial congressional norm in the process.

The strategy would allow them to avoid getting a formal thumbs up or thumbs down on their claim that extending the tax cuts that Mr. Trump signed into law in 2017 would cost nothing — a gimmick that would make it easier for them cram as many tax reductions as possible into their bill without appearing to balloon the deficit.

In recent days, all eyes have been on Elizabeth MacDonough, the parliamentarian, to see whether she would bless the trick, smoothing the path for the G.O.P. bill. But on Wednesday, Republicans signaled that they planned to take extraordinary action to go around her altogether.

Rather than have Ms. MacDonough weigh in, they asserted that Senator Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, as chairman of the Budget Committee, could unilaterally decide the cost of the legislation, citing a 1974 budget law. Senate Republicans on Wednesday unveiled a new budget resolution they planned to put to a vote as early as this week. And Mr. Graham declared in a statement that he considered an extension of the 2017 tax cuts to be cost-free.

The article quotes Molly Reynolds, an expert on congressional procedure at the Brookings Institution, as saying this about unilaterally changing Senate practices through parliamentary rulings: “We should think of this as a version of the nuclear option. If we were to get to a world where they’re just sort of ignoring the parliamentarian and not engaging all, that would be really profound change in how the Senate works, and a real erosion of rules-based legislating in the Senate.”

Presumably, from here on out, MAGA elites in congress are simply going to lie about the federal debt. Maybe the requirement for congress to keep passing debt ceiling limit increases will become a law on the books that is simply ignored. One has to wonder, why don't Senate Repubs just get rid of the filibuster? By blowing off normal parliamentary procedure maybe they don't need to.

Manipulating minds: The Kübler-Ross five stages of grief persuasion tactic

In this video at about 44:10 to 46:40 a brainwashing, interrogation and psyops expert explains how to adapt the five stages of grief mental phenomenon to other things as a means to get people to change their minds. The example he discusses is how a salesman can coax a consumer to buy something they are not inclined to buy. Politicians use this technique, morally or immorally, to get people to change their minds. 

Elisabeth Kübler-Ross originally developed her five-stage model (denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance) in 1969 to describe how people cope with terminal illness and grief. Sales people use this when a customer is judged to be susceptible to that sales tactic. The expert in the video refers to the tactic as walking people through the 5 stages of grief. 

But is there grief in contexts other than dealing with death or serious illness as Kübler-Ross originally described it? Is it a form of grief to change a belief because what was once valued in some way was abandoned and replaced with something new, especially if what was abandoned was psychologically important? I asked Pxy about how a demagogue would use this tactic. It used djt's stolen 2020 election lie as an example. That's a long Q&A so I put it in footnote 1 for people who want to see how it works. Then I asked how universal and broad this 5-stage phenomenon is. 

Long answer short: the phenomenon appears to be universal among humans and changing one's mind can be seen as something that often or usually leads to a form of grief or at least some cognitive dissonance. 

Q4: Is this a matter of a demagogue using grief as a weapon, or is there a common or universal mental process where five stages reflect a human cognitive trait when there is reluctance to change a belief from one thing to another? This phenomenon seems to be broader than just dealing with grief. Or, is the initially reluctant changing of a belief a form of grief at what was lost when the old belief was abandoned?

A4: The interplay between grief stages and belief revision represents a fundamental cognitive process rooted in human psychology, observable across contexts ranging from personal loss to ideological shifts. While demagogues may weaponize these stages to manipulate populations, the underlying mechanism reflects a universal mental adaptation to cognitive dissonance and identity disruption. This phenomenon transcends grief over death, extending to any significant cognitive or behavioral change that challenges core assumptions about self and world.

THE QUESTION OF MORALITY

The other thing this touches on is the distinction between moral persuasion and immoral manipulation. 

In business and commerce: In commerce, there is a legal distinction between ethical persuasion and unethical manipulation. Some laws target overtly deceptive sales practices. False advertising is illegal, but usually hard or impossible to prove in court. The inherently subjective nature of persuasive vs manipulative intent and the constitutional protections surrounding free expression significantly limit regulation of manipulation. 

In politics: Here, the situation is a lot worse. In Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), the USSC established that political speech retains protection unless it directly incites “imminent lawless action”. This creates legal equivalence between ethical and unethical uses of persuasion tactics. Ethical persuasion includes a candidate using the five-stage model to guide voters from climate change denial to acceptance through factual arguments (depression phase: “Coastal communities face displacement”) is protected. Similarly, an example of unethical but legal manipulation is a demagogue weaponizing the same model to fabricate crises (e.g., “immigrant invasions”) and shepherd supporters toward authoritarian acceptance remains protected, provided no explicit call for violence occurs.

The First Amendment’s neutrality toward intent allows manipulators to exploit grief-like stages provided they avoid (1) defamation, false statements made with “actual malice” against public figures, and (2) incitement or provocation of imminent violence.

Qs: If the law can touch on persuasive intent in commerce, e.g., false advertising laws, why not make at least a minimal law that does the same, e.g., by penalizing a politician who makes a provably, empirically false statement and then refuses to retract and correct the false statement? Would such a law in politics impose some form of tyranny? 

Footnote:

1. For the wonks. Example of a demagogue using the 5 stages against us:

Q3: Describe an example of how a demagogue might use this tactic to manipulate people and lead them to a false belief.

A3: The Demagogic Manipulation of Collective Grief: A Case Study in Weaponizing the Kübler-Ross Model

The Kübler-Ross model’s stages of grief—denial, anger, bargaining, depression, and acceptance—have been co-opted by demagogues to engineer false beliefs in populations, particularly during periods of social upheaval or perceived crisis. This process exploits cognitive vulnerabilities by mimicking the natural progression of grief while substituting factual reality with manufactured narratives. A stark example emerges in the politicization of election fraud claims, where demagogues guide supporters through these stages to foster acceptance of baseless conspiracy theories.

Stage 1: Denial – Seeding Doubt Through Manufactured Crisis
Demagogues first create or amplify a false premise that contradicts verifiable reality. For instance, a leader might claim an election was “stolen” despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary 9. This mirrors the denial phase, where supporters initially resist the demagogue’s narrative. However, through repetition and appeals to tribal identity (“Only we see the truth”), the demagogue frames skepticism as righteous vigilance.

“They’re lying to you. The results are fake, but we’ll prove it.”

By invoking existential threats (“Our democracy is at risk”), the demagogue positions themselves as the sole arbiter of truth, leveraging the same projection tactics observed in clinical denial 2. Followers begin questioning objective evidence, priming them for emotional escalation 4.

Stage 2: Anger – Channeling Frustration Toward Scapegoats
Once denial takes root, the demagogue redirects collective frustration toward fabricated culprits. In the election fraud context, this involves blaming marginalized groups (e.g., undocumented voters), rival politicians, or institutions (e.g., courts, media) 9. Anger becomes a unifying force, with the demagogue using inflammatory rhetoric to frame opponents as enemies of the people 4:

“They’re not just wrong—they’re evil. They want to destroy everything you love.”

This phase weaponizes the anger stage by offering simplistic explanations for complex societal issues. Followers, now emotionally activated, seek catharsis through loyalty displays, such as attending rallies or harassing perceived adversaries 9.
Stage 3: Bargaining – Offering False Compromises

The demagogue then introduces illusory solutions that appear conciliatory but deepen dependency on their narrative. Promises to “audit votes” or “restore integrity” simulate the bargaining stage, where followers trade critical thinking for hope of resolution 7. These gestures—often performative and legally baseless—serve two purposes:

Normalizing extraordinary measures (e.g., bypassing electoral protocols)

Reinforcing victimhood (“They’re blocking us from finding the truth”) 9

Supporters invest in these symbolic acts, mistaking procedural theater for legitimate problem-solving.

Stage 4: Depression – Cultivating Helplessness
When bargains fail (e.g., courts reject fraud claims), the demagogue induces despair to sever ties to reality. Followers are told the system is irredeemably corrupt (“Nothing matters anymore”), mirroring the depression phase 1 6. This learned helplessness makes individuals susceptible to authoritarian appeals:

“They’ve rigged it all. Only I can fix this.”

By eroding faith in institutions, the demagogue positions themselves as the lone savior, exploiting the depression stage’s vulnerability to external control 9.

Stage 5: Acceptance – Surrendering to the False Reality
The final stage involves internalizing the fabricated narrative as existential truth. Followers adopt conspiracy theories not through evidence but via emotional exhaustion 4 9. The demagogue reinforces this acceptance by rewarding conformity (e.g., social status within the movement) and punishing dissent 9:

“True patriots know the election was stolen. Everyone else is a traitor.”

This phase completes the psychological shift from skepticism to fanaticism, with followers defending falsehoods as articles of faith 9.

Mechanisms of Manipulation
A. Emotive Language and Cognitive Dissonance
Demagogues substitute facts with emotionally charged terms (e.g., “invasion” for immigration)4. Followers experiencing dissonance between reality and the narrative resolve it by rejecting facts, not the leader 9.

B. Social Identity Reinforcement
Group rituals (e.g., chanting slogans, wearing symbols) bind individuals to the collective grief journey, making defection feel like betrayal 9.

C. Selective Use of “Evidence”
Fabricated documents or decontextualized data (“2000 Mules”) are presented as “proof,” exploiting the bargaining stage’s search for resolution 9.

Ethical and Societal Implications
This manipulation illustrates how the Kübler-Ross model, designed for terminal illness, becomes dangerous when applied to politics. Demagogues exploit its stages to:

Bypass rational scrutiny by emotionalizing discourse 4 9

Legitimize authoritarianism as a “cure” for manufactured grief 9

Erode democratic norms by reframing lies as “alternative truths”

As seen in post-2020 election rhetoric, this tactic can incite violence, destabilize institutions, and fracture social cohesion 9. Yet, as search results emphasize, the model’s misuse persists because it offers a seductive narrative arc—transforming confusion into purpose, and despair into loyalty 1 6.

Conclusion: Grief as a Weapon
The demagogue’s manipulation of grief stages reveals a dark inversion of Kübler-Ross’ original intent. Where the model sought to provide comfort in helplessness, demagogues weaponize that helplessness to consolidate power. This underscores the ethical imperative to recognize such tactics and fortify public resilience against emotional exploitation 9. 

Demagoguery and cognitive impairment techniques: Gaslighting, DARVO, Command Overload, Strategic Lying

We need to up our game in terms of understanding the onslaught and associated demagoguery tactics that have been and still are coming for us. 

EXAMPLES

"Blither whatever feels right at the moment, and contradict it the next day." That's classic gaslighting.

"I never said that! You are overreacting! Stop attacking me! You started it! I'm leaving until you calm down".

Cops are trained to disorient by giving contradictory commands; " Don't move! Show me your hands! Don't talk. tell me your name! Stop resisting, hands behind your back, Stop reaching, Hands on your head!' Gun!"

Politicians give contradictory statements. It is a science.

AI ANALYSIS

The statements describe recognized psychological and rhetorical techniques with established terminology in social science and law enforcement contexts. Here's a breakdown:

1. "I never said that! You are overreacting! Stop attacking me! You started it! I'm leaving until you calm down"

Technique: Deflection/DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) combined with Gaslighting

This pattern employs:
Denial ("I never said that") to evade accountability
Deflection ("You started it") to shift blame
Emotional manipulation ("I'm leaving until you calm down") to control the interaction's framing
Gaslighting ("You are overreacting") to undermine the target's perception of reality 4 6

These tactics are documented in political and interpersonal conflict research as methods to avoid substantive debate and destabilize opponents 4 6 10.

2. Contradictory Police Commands
Technique: Confusion Technique (Milton Erickson-derived method) or Command Overload

Law enforcement training materials explicitly warn against this practice 2, but some departments reportedly use it deliberately.

Creates cognitive dissonance through incompatible orders ("Don't move! Show me your hands!") 1 7.
Overwhelms working memory, inducing compliance via analytical shutdown 1 2 7.
Cited in high-profile cases like Daniel Shaver's shooting and Lt. Caron Nazario's pepper-spraying 7.

Research shows suspects experience auditory exclusion under stress, worsening confusion 2 7.

3. Politicians' Contradictory Statements
Technique: Strategic Lying and Kafkaesque Communication

Documented in political science as:
Strategic ambiguity: Deliberate vagueness allowing multiple interpretations 4 6.
Firehosing: Flooding audiences with contradictions to fatigue critical thinking 1 6. (That sounds like Steven Bannon's flood the zone with shit tactic)
Brandolini's Law: Exploiting the large asymmetry between easy bullshit creation and difficult refutation 4 6.

Examples include Trump's 70% falsehood rate (per Washington Post analysis) and Boris Johnson's fabricated EU regulations 6. Studies show these tactics increase illusory truth effects and tribal loyalty 5 12.

4. Scientific Basis
Cognitive Load Theory: Overloading working memory to reduce analytical resistance 1 2 7.
Moral Foundations Theory: Framing issues as sacred values to prevent compromise 4 8.
Generics Research: Exaggerating group differences through categorical claims ("All Republicans/Democrats...") 5 12.
Persuasion Architecture: Using alternating confusion/clarity to maintain engagement while preventing scrutiny 1 6.

5. Other common tactics 

A. Scapegoating: Blaming societal problems on out-groups to unite the in-group against a common enemy 10 11.

B. Fearmongering: Evoking fear to provoke emotional responses and discourage rational deliberation 10.
C. Lying: Using falsehoods for emotional effect without regard for truth or consequences.
D. Personal Insults and Ridicule: Attacking opponents to divert attention from substantive issues.
E. Inflammatory Rhetoric: Oversimplifying complex issues into emotionally charged soundbites that polarize audiences 13 14.

Peer-reviewed studies confirm these techniques exploit universal psychological vulnerabilities, making them effective across political and institutional contexts 1 5 6 12. Gaslighting, DARVO, command overload, and similar tactics are integral to the strategies employed by political demagogues. These methods are designed to manipulate emotions, distort reality, and suppress reasoned discourse, all of which shifts power to the demagogue by fostering dependence on their false and misleading narratives.

The rise of hyper-kleptocracy: Trump just pardoned a corrupt bitcoin corporation

The Hill reports:

In what may be a first in American history, President Trump just expanded the presidential pardon power to include corporations.

Corporations are artificial legal fictions designed to maximize shareholder wealth. Nonetheless, they can theoretically commit crimes and be indicted for them. According to a 1999 memorandum from the Justice Department, the “important public benefits” of prosecuting corporations include “deterrence on a massive scale,” particularly for “crimes that carry with them a substantial risk of public harm,” such as “financial frauds.”

On March 28, 2025, djt granted pardons to not only the cryptocurrency exchange BitMEX, he also pardoned its kleptocrat co-founders and a kleptocrat senior employee. The pardon grants were full and unconditional pardons. Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, and Samuel Reed are the co-founders of BitMEX. Gregory Dwyer, a former senior employee was also pardoned.

BitMEX had been charged with violating the Bank Secrecy Act by failing to implement anti-money laundering (AML) and "know your customer" (KYC) protocols between 2015 and 2020. The founders had pleaded guilty in 2022 and faced probation sentences along with significant financial penalties. BitMEX itself was fined $100 million for its noncompliance.

BUT WAIT!! IT GETS A HELL OF A LOT WORSE

The American Prospect writes:

The Crypto Plot Against America’s Gold Reserves

The crypto “industry” was one of the biggest spenders in the 2024 election. It practically single-handedly bought a U.S. Senate seat in Ohio, turfing out labor’s most reliable senator, Sherrod Brown, with $40 million in advertising. And it convinced Donald Trump to make a 180 with a big sack of campaign contributions. Back in 2021, Trump said crypto was a “scam,” but now he has his own coin, his media site is in discussions to buy a crypto exchange, and he’s fully bought into the claims that the industry is overregulated.

So now that crypto has bought great political influence, it’s time to cash in. How might this happen? The basic idea is to turn the American government into the biggest crypto bag-holder of all time. If the plan goes through, hundreds of billions of dollars of public assets will be spent or leveraged to buy a million Bitcoins, allowing the tiny minority of Bitcoin moguls to finally cash out their holdings into real money. It would be one of the biggest upward transfers of wealth [a/k/a heists] in world history.

At the Financial Times, Toby Nangle explains the various plans. One idea is to loot the Exchange Stabilization Fund, which is largely under the president’s control, and has about $41 billion in net value. A much larger plan has been formally introduced by crypto shill Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY). It’s called the (sigh) Boosting Innovation, Technology, and Competitiveness Through Optimized Investment Nationwide (BITCOIN) Act, and it identifies several public assets that might be drained. One idea is to reduce the capital reserve requirements at the Federal Reserve from $6.8 billion to $2.4 billion; another is to skim off the Fed’s $6 billion in annual money-printing profits.

The article goes on to point out that the biggest part of MAGA's heist scheme is to revalue America’s gold reserves, which amounts to a stockpile of about 261 million troy ounces of gold. That’s about 8,133 metric tons. That gold is valued by statute at $42.22 per ounce, or $11 billion in total. But the market price of gold at time of writing is $2,631 per ounce. That’s more than 55 times as much, or a total of $688 billion. The scammer Lummis proposes the Treasury issue new gold certificates based on the market price, and then using the resulting $677 billion in cash to buy Bitcoins. Her kleptocrat bill requires the government to buy up 200,000 Bitcoins a year for five years, until a “strategic reserve” of a million is accumulated.

A “strategic reserve” of fake money bough for about $700 billion in real money? WTF?? Economists have condemned the reserve plan as a “crypto bailout” for wealthy speculators. Bitcoin’s volatility and lack of intrinsic value make it unfit for national reserves. Paul Krugman argues the scheme is a “rug-pull scam,” comparing it to Argentina’s $Libra token collapse. At present, evidence of explicit theft is circumstantial. However, djt’s actions and track record of criminality align with historical patterns of actual kleptocracy. djt and MAGA elites have weakened oversight by firing inspector generals and directing state resources to allies. That is corruption incarnate. The USSC has gone a long way toward legalizing government corruption in the 2010 Citizens United decision, the 2024 US v Snyder decision and other pro-corruption decisions. 

The USSC cynically calls corruption “free speech.” The court has formally rejected all protections against “the appearance of corruption” and “generalized influence” over policymaking. Those decisions staring with Citizens United in 2010 have enabled (1) a vast expansion of dark money, mostly secret spending by nonprofits and shell companies, reaching $1.1 billion in 2024 elections, (2) dominance in politics of a wealthy donor-class dominance where the top 0.01% of donors now account for 42% of federal campaign contributions, and (3) legalized self-enrichment for politicians like Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX) who leveraged federal court rulings to repay $545,000 in personal campaign loans using post-election donor funds. Collectively, those federal court decisions reflect a broad trend of insulating politicians and donors from accountability while equating money with protected political speech.

Q: Is it hyperbolic or irrational to use the term hyper-kleptocracy or even just kleptocracy to describe djt and his corrupt, authoritarian MAGA wealth and power movement? Or, was government about equally corrupt before djt came on the scene in 2016?

NRx: America's favorite brand of authoritarianism for the young 'uns

INTRODUCTION

This post is about some origins history and ideology of a political movement I just found out about earlier this morning. It can be called NRx (neoreactionary authoritarianism) or the Dark Enlightenment. That or things like "neo-monarchism" or "CEO-monarchism", is what the two key founders of this toxic ideology advocate. Those folks are hard core ideologues with rock solid beliefs in their own irrational fantasies. They hold a false belief that what they are arguing for will address all the grievances young people have about government and their lives. 

Of course, those personal opinions are tentative because they are based on my currently limited knowledge of NRx, its founders and its influence on post-boomer generations. 

From what I can tell so far based mostly on Pxy deep dives into their training, experiences and accomplishments, neither of the two main blowhards, Ted Beale (calling himself "Vox Day") and Curtis Yarvin ("Mencious Moldbug") are experts in anything particularly relevant to politics. They have no academic qualifications in political science or theory, sociology, moral philosophy or history. They don't even have any relevant professional life experiences. Apparently their main accomplishments are being pissed off all the time and writing a lot about why they believe that democracy sucks and having a "benign" CEO-dictator would be better. 

Just like all of my blogging, they do blogging that is not peer-reviewed. Unlike my blogging, they have convinced a lot of unhappy young people and a few cynical billionaires that they have something of great insight and value to offer. Maybe as I learn more about these self-deluded authoritarians, my opinion will shift. But right now, they look to me like almost perfect blind (inexperienced), arrogant stooges for far more educated, experienced, ruthless and intelligent MAGA elites to exploit.

A BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF NRx

To avoid TL/DR syndrome I'll offer a couple of bullet points and leave it at that for now.

• Origins: Old-time conservatives believe the US Constitution was good and worth fighting for. NRx rejects that belief. NRx blowhards argue that the US Constitution has been destroyed by corruption, liberalism and moral decay. Apparently that has significant appeal to pre-baby boomer generations, the young 'uns. The NRx claims are hyperbolic and not fact-based. Yarvin and Beale’s solution of authoritarian governance, and rejection of Enlightenment values ignore democratic resilience and historical precedent. Their contempt for progressives and institutionalists reflects an enraged, naïve nostalgia for imagined hierarchies. What they propose is not a coherent vision for governance in the public interest. They propose what MAGA wants, a kleptocratic dictatorship in the elites' interest. Although the NRx Poo-Bahs believe their CEO-dictator will be nice and work for us, cognitive biology, social behavior and history all say otherwise. Facts and rationality are no on the side of NRx ideologues.

• Attacking old-fashioned conservatism: The Constitution’s Enlightenment emphasis on reason, individual rights, and limited government has underpinned democratic stability globally so far. NRx offers no viable alternative to liberal or pluralist democracy. Instead, it offers irrationally romanticized feudalism and corporate autocracy. NRx and its young 'un followers have no loyalty to the US Constitution. Yarvin and Beale, reject neoconservative figures, e.g., William F. Buckley, as outdated. They accuse old-style conservatives of selling out the Constitution and “worshiping the corpse” of a broken system.

• MAGA's insinuation into NRx: JD Vance and Blake Masters have cited Yarvin’s “RAGE” (Retire All Government Employees) strategy, advocating mass firings of civil servants to dismantle the “deep state”. In terms of ideological alignment with MAGA, Yarvin’s 2025 New York Times interview (not paywalled) shows his growing influence among Silicon Valley elites, e.g., Peter Thiel, and djt-aligned politicians seeking to centralize power and kill democracy.

This guy thinks he's hot stuff, but he's

just grumpy, arrogant, self-deluded and dangerous

• Pragmatism or arrogant, blowhard bullshit: NRx is framed as offering pragmatic solutions to modern complexities and legitimate criticisms of democracy and the Constitution. The generational shift within conservatism, from constitutional reverence to authoritarian, NRx-aligned anti-constitutionalism underscores the ongoing ideological shift on America's political right. As older institutionalists and conservatives fade away, battles will center on whether political and social accountability can be had in a system of governance based on secrecy and alleged "corporate efficiency" vs messy democracy and the rule of law. Authoritarianism does not operate on the basis of transparency, equity or empathy. In a real democracy there is at least some of that. One commentator observed that "the snarky tone of ironic superiority grates on the reader, both just because it’s a bad tone, and because there is no reason for the reader to believe that Yarvin has earned it."

What happened to the young 'uns? I think their brains got trapped in and poisoned by social media with its copious amounts of pseudo-science, pseudo-intellectualism and care-free but opinionated ignorance and arrogance.

Arrogant Blowhard Syndrome

is strong with this one

MAGA bits: Privatizing the entire federal government; djt's 'compassion'; Reducing court power

The WaPo reports (not paywalled) about MAGA's efforts to  privatize all of the federal government:

DOGE wants businesses to run government services ‘as much as possible’

Mail delivery. Real estate. Foreign aid grants. The Trump administration is moving to privatize a sweeping number of government functions and assets — a long-standing Republican goal that’s being catalyzed by billionaire Elon Musk.

The slash-and-burn approach of Musk’s U.S. DOGE Service is paving the way for a new shift to the private sector, reducing the size and power of the federal bureaucracy in a real-world test of the conservative theory — a version of which is also widely popular in Silicon Valley — that companies are better than government at saving money and responding to people’s needs.

At the DOGE-allied General Services Administration, officials are quietly moving ahead with a push to sell hundreds of publicly owned buildings to private companies — which can then lease them back to the government, theoretically saving maintenance and upkeep costs for taxpayers, according to two people briefed on internal deliberations who spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss them publicly.

A Wall Street investor nominated to run the International Development Finance Corporation, a little-known foreign investment agency that works to align the private sector with U.S. foreign policy goals, has suggested redirecting a large portion of the $40 billion budget of the shuttered U.S. Agency for International Development to investors, start-ups and companies that work in developing countries.

The possibilities for corruption on a scale unparalleled in human history are opening up to MAGA elites. The market for running government functions is worth a few trillion per year in sales and who knows what in profits. 

Q: Do you believe the Silicon Valley assertion that companies, especially after MAGA deregulation, are better than government at saving money and responding to people’s needs?

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

The BBC reports: Trump says he 'couldn't care less' about higher car prices -- But the US president told NBC News on Saturday that he hoped foreign carmakers will raise prices as it meant "people are gonna buy American-made cars - we have plenty". .... 25% tariffs on cars and car parts entering the US to begin on 2 April. Charges on businesses importing vehicles are expected on 3 April, and taxes on parts are set to start in May or later. When asked about what his message was to car bosses, he said: "The message is congratulations. If you make your car in the United States, you're going to make a lot of money."

Guess what happens when imported product prices increase due to tariffs? This is what happens: Domestic producers have an opportunity to raise their prices without losing competitive position, so that is what they do. The evidence on this point is clear and consistent. Domestic producers raise their prices to match or approach the higher prices of their foreign competitors. That ripples through consumer prices beyond just the imported products to include competing domestic products. djt and MAGA have just imposed a gigantic price hike on consumers and I don't see much public complaining about it, yet. 

___________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________

The House is mulling over a proposed law to seriously reduce federal trial court power. The proposed law, the No Rogue Rulings Act of 2025, limits the power of federal courts to issue nationwide injunctions. What prompted this is MAGA's blatant unconstitutionality in its policies and actions. MAGA elites and djt are furious that the courts are stopping their illegal acts by issuing injunctions. If passed into law, this would take power from the courts and give it to djt. Apparently congressional MAGA authoritarians really do support the "unitary executive" concept where djt gets close to true dictator power. The bill is scheduled for a floor vote in the House today.

Presumably the bill would fail in the Senate, unless those authoritarian MAGA elites vote to get rid of the filibuster. The urge to get rid of the filibuster must be intense. MAGA elites really do want to steamroll everything that djt wants to do. As far as I can tell, the filibuster is the last big thing standing in djt's way in congress. If that falls, I think that djt and MAGA will be unstoppable.

MAGA chunks: Energy sector gets payoff, consumers get shafted; Deporting foreign students

Utility Dive reports:

DOE withdraws, postpones multiple appliance energy efficiency rules

“We are returning freedom of choice to the American people,” Secretary of Energy Chris Wright said in a statement

DOE has “officially withdrawn four conservation standards, including standards on electric motors, ceiling fans, dehumidifiers, and external power supplies,” the agency said in a statement. “This continued commitment to the American people will slash unnecessary red tape and regulations that raise prices, reduce consumer choice, and frustrate the American people.”

The natural gas sector hailed the announcement as a win for consumer choice, while efficiency advocates warn the decision could add billions to utility bills.

While delaying or not finalizing rule updates begun under the previous administration isn’t particularly noteworthy, deLaski said DOE’s decision on electric motors is different. That rule was signed by a DOE official and put out to the public, but was not published in the Federal Register.

“And that’s a big rule … a massive amount of energy consumed in industry and commercial buildings is in electric motors,” deLaski said. The rule was supported by manufacturers and utilities, he added, leading to the fundamental question: “When is a rule final?”

The now-withdrawn rule for electric motors was expected to save American businesses up to $56 billion on utility bills and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by 156 million metric tons over 30 years of sales, ASAP said in January, pointing to DOE estimates.

When I hear anything that any MAGA elite says is good for us, I disbelieve it and assume the opposite is closer to the truth. In this case, by fact checking led to a finding that even before the DOE got captured and poisoned by djt and MAGA, it apparently was captured and poisoned by the carbon energy sector and/or manufacturers. 

Research from the Appliance Standards Awareness Project and the American Council for an Energy-Efficient Economy found that the DOE historically overestimated the price impacts of efficiency standards. Across nine regulation cases they studied, the DOE projected an average price increase of $148 per appliance, but the actual average change was a $12 decrease in manufacturer's selling price. This directly contradicts the MAGA lie that increased efficiency standards automatically raise consumer prices. A typical household saves about $320 per year due to current standards. That is projected to increase to about $460 annually by 2030. Over the lifetime of efficient appliances, these energy bill savings typically outweigh any initial cost increases by a ratio of 4 to 1.

Also, contrary to claims that regulations reduce consumer choice, evidence suggests that efficiency standards have historically driven innovation and expanded options. For example, modern refrigerators use 75% less energy than 1973 models but afford 20% more storage capacity. Modern clothes washers use 70% less energy than in 1990 with 50% more tub capacity. Those are significant.

Peanut: America is governed with scientific ignorance, religious bigotry, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia and racism, and you expect them to get electric motors right? So much for "choice", which ranks right up there with "waste, fraud, and abuse" as things that don't mean what they say.

So once again, not surprisingly, corrupt MAGA elites are lying to us about what is good for us. They shamelessly tell us that something actually bad for us and the environment is good for both. I agree with Peanut. 

______________________________________________________________

______________________________________________________________

The Times of India reports about targeted foreign students being asked by MAGA to self-deport:

Hundreds of international students wake up to an email 

asking them to self deport for campus activism

Hundreds of international students in the US are getting an email from the US Department of State (DOS) asking them to self-deport owing to campus activism. Immigration attorneys’ contacted by TOI affirmed this development and added a few Indian students may also be at the receiving end of such emails – for something as innocuous as sharing a social media post. It is not just international students who physically participated in campus activism but also those who shared or liked ‘anti-national’ posts that are the target of these emails, said an immigration attorney.

.... new student applications be it for an F (academic study visa), M (vocational study visa) or J (exchange visa) will also come under such social media scrutiny. Applicants will be denied the opportunity to study in the US.

Marco Rubio, Secretary of State, has launched an AI-fuelled ‘Catch and Revoke’ effort to cancel the visas of foreign nationals who appear to support Hamas or other designated terror groups. Axios further reports that more than 300 foreign students have had their student visas revoked in the three weeks that ‘Catch and Revoke’ has been in operation ....

[The DOS email includes these comments:] "Remaining in the United States without a lawful immigration status can result in fines, detention, and/or deportation. It may also make you ineligible for a future U.S. visa. Please note that deportation can take place at a time that does not allow the person being deported to secure possessions or conclude affairs in the United States. Persons being deported may be sent to countries other than their countries of origin."

"Given the gravity of this situation, individuals whose visa was revoked may wish to demonstrate their intent to depart the United States using the CBP Home App."

"As soon as you depart the United States, you must personally present your passport to the U.S. embassy or consulate which issued your visa so your visa can be physically cancelled. You must not attempt to use your visa as it has been revoked. If you intend to travel to the United States in the future, you must apply for another U.S. visa and a determination on your eligibility for a visa will be made at that time."

They may be sent to countries other than their countries of origin? Given the gravity of this situation? WTF is going on here? What is MAGA blithering about? Other than MAGA constantly lying to us and killing our democracy, civil liberties and rule of law, there is no grave situation. This looks like MAGA racism and bigotry. That's the only explanation that makes at least some sense to me. I wonder if this is legal. It seems to violate due process law and procedural steps in deportations, such as a hearing notification at least 14 days before proceedings, and an opportunity to contest grounds of deportability.

 

To MAGA, the rule of law is crap to be ignored if it gets in the way, or distorted and weaponized if it is useful. What an effing mess.

The history of US involvement in the Ukraine war: The killing machine

The NYT describes its investigation (not paywalled) of the US-Ukraine alliance in a very long and detailed history of US involvement. The investigation shows a deep, secretive partnership, centered at a US Army base in Wiesbaden, Germany. Key points:

• For nearly three years before President Trump's return to power, the US and Ukraine were in a clandestine collaboration involving intelligence, strategy, planning, and technology. This partnership was largely unknown to most American and allied officials.

• The U.S. established an operation called Task Force Dragon to assist Ukraine in using advanced weaponry effectively. This task force was pivotal in providing targeting information to Ukrainian forces.

• American and coalition intelligence analysts at Wiesbaden would daily prioritize targets, identifying Russian military units, equipment, or infrastructure. They used satellite data, radio signals, and intercepted communications to locate Russian forces, then transmitted the coordinates to Ukraine.

• There were tensions due to differing strategic views. Ukrainian leaders were sometimes seen as overly ambitious, while US officials were considered too cautious. This led to disagreements, particularly during Ukraine's counteroffensive in the summer of 2023.

• Ukraine's ability to strike significant Russian targets, like the cruiser Moskva, without prior US knowledge, caused surprise and anger among US officials. This highlighted a gap in expectations and communication between the two nations.

• NATO established a new command in Wiesbaden to coordinate training and equipment donations to Ukraine, aiming to increase interoperability between Ukrainian forces and NATO.

• Despite the change in US administration, NATO and European allies have pledged long-term security assistance to Ukraine, with significant financial commitments to support Ukraine's defense efforts.

• This partnership was instrumental in Ukraine's military operations against Russia, providing not just material support but also strategic and intelligence assistance.

• By US count, the killing machine has killed or wounded more than 700,000 Russian soldiers. Ukraine puts its casualty toll at 435,000.

• In his last weeks in office, Biden made moves to support the Ukraine. He crossed his own final red line by expanding the ops box to allow ATACMS and British Storm Shadow strikes into Russia. That was prompted by North Korea sending thousands of troops to help the Russians dislodge the Ukrainians from Kursk.

• Growing distrust between the US and Ukraine poisoned the collaboration, and djt eventually made it worse. 

With the djt and MAGA elites now openly supporting Russia and backing away from supporting the Ukraine, and with NATO and the EU unable to get their act together, it looks like the Ukraine is toast. The question is, how horrendous will the end be?

MAGA builds an American totalitarian state

In a 2019 post I wrote about how Hannah Arendt describes totalitarianism, Adam made two detailed comments. Adam is intimately familiar with Arendt's 1951 book, The Origins of Totalitarianism. I copied both comments and fed them to Pxy to summarize. I then asked Pxy if what djt and MAGA elites are doing fits at least reasonably well with the structure an power flow of totalitarianism. Pxy said yes, it fits.

Apparently, the unease and sense of dread I started feeling rather acutely in the last few weeks may be due to a more more malicious and cruel vision of what MAGA elites are planning, whether djt is aware of it or not. I thought they were intent on building a somewhat benign kleptocratic dictatorship tinged with kleptocratic plutocracy for the elites and bigoted kleptocratic theocracy for the Christian nationalists. 

I now think our situation is a lot worse than barely tolerable lust for wealth and power. I now see MAGA as forcing a vicious, cruel, intolerable wealth and power state. In essence, djt is setting himself up as an American variant of Hitler or Stalin. I suspect he does not know it yet and probably never will. I still think he is too stupid and self-centered to see this. In my opinion, that's in large part because his arrogance and narcissism blinds him to what MAGA elites really want. They see djt as expendable.

Here is part of Adam's 1st comment:

Probably the best example of this, if you were looking at the Trump Administration, is how someone like Elon Musk is considered over someone like Linda McMahon. Ms. McMahon's office gives her far more formal power than Elon Musk. And yet, it seems clear that Elon Musk is far more on the "inside" than Linda McMahon, who seems very much on the "outside" of power. Marco Rubio has a lot of formal power accorded to him by the Constitution. But he strikes me as very much outside of power compared to someone like Tom Homan, who technically works under Rubio. I could be completely wrong about these relationships, because it is in the nature of totalitarianism to be rather opaque about its internal structure when seen from the outside. And by "outside," this is the relative outside, compared to the next layer of the "inside" you are adjacent to.

At the heart of this structure is, as rightly described, the Leader. But I think it is important to understand that the Leader, for Arendt, is both the most important figure of the totalitarian regime and the least important. He can be replaced at any time. In fact, it almost becomes necessary at some point that he be replaced. Because when the contradictions mount up, and the reality becomes too intolerable, the best way to keep everything moving is to install a new leader, and blame the problems on the old leader.

Here is the Pxy analysis:

PERPLEXITY

Q1: Summarize Adam's comments, copied from the blog post. (Too long to post both comments here)

A1: Understanding Arendt's Totalitarian Structure: A Summary of Commentary on Chapters 10-11 of "The Origins of Totalitarianism"

The commentary [Adam's comments] provides an insightful analysis of Hannah Arendt's conceptualization of totalitarian structure and propaganda as described in chapters 10 and 11 of "The Origins of Totalitarianism." This summary examines the key elements of this interpretation and connects them to Arendt's theoretical framework.

The Spherical Structure of Totalitarianism

The commentator emphasizes that understanding Arendt's description of totalitarian structure in Chapter 10 is essential before grasping her analysis of propaganda in Chapter 11. Unlike traditional political systems with hierarchical pyramidal structures, Arendt conceptualizes totalitarianism as spherical, with power flowing from inside to outside rather than top to bottom^[1][2]. This organizational model resembles an onion with multiple layers rather than a flowchart, where one's proximity to the center determines real power regardless of formal position.

In this spherical model, a cabinet secretary might hold high formal office but remain on the "outside" of actual power. The commentator illustrates this with contemporary examples, suggesting how figures like Elon Musk might be closer to the "inside" of power than officials with greater constitutional authority like Linda McMahon or Marco Rubio.

The Leader's Paradoxical Position

At the center of this spherical structure sits the Leader, whom the commentator describes as simultaneously the most and least important figure. While the Leader projects an aura of infallibility while in power, they can be replaced when "contradictions mount up" with the new leader often blaming all problems on the predecessor^[2]. The example of Stalin illustrates this dynamic—revered during his lifetime but denounced by Khrushchev immediately after his death.

Propaganda and Front Organizations

The commentary clarifies a significant aspect of Arendt's theory: propaganda in totalitarian systems operates unidirectionally from inside to outside^[2]. It targets "the nontotalitarian strata of the population at home or the nontotalitarian countries at home." Rather than providing internal coherence as Orwell suggested, propaganda primarily serves to communicate with external audiences.

Totalitarianism creates demarcations between "in" and "out" groups, starting with the distinction between party members and sympathizers. The commentator explains how front organizations function as protective layers, each insulating the one inside from external scrutiny while normalizing it to the layer outside^[3].

The Dual Dynamic: Propaganda and Terror

The commentary identifies the dual mechanisms that maintain totalitarian control:

1. Propaganda flow: Moving from inside to outside, propaganda makes each layer appear normal to those in the outer rings

2. Terror dynamic: Operating in the opposite direction, terror keeps each layer in line through fear of those in the inner circles^[2][4]

The Nazi Example

To illustrate this structure, the commentator provides a detailed example using Nazi Germany, tracing relationships from Karl (a German-American in Chicago) to Fritz (a Nazi party member) to Otto (an SA member) to Konrad (an SS officer). Each layer protects those inside it while being controlled by them through terror. The example demonstrates how the front organizations work—each layer insulates the inner core while making it seem normal to those outside, creating a system where propaganda flows outward while terror flows inward.

Conclusion

This commentary offers valuable insight into Arendt's conception of totalitarian structure and its mechanisms of control. By emphasizing the spherical rather than hierarchical nature of totalitarianism, it helps explain how such regimes maintain power through the dual dynamics of propaganda and terror^[2][3]. The analysis highlights why traditional understanding of political hierarchy fails to capture the true nature of totalitarian power and provides a framework for recognizing similar patterns in contemporary political contexts.

⁂

Q2: Is what Trump and MAGA elites are doing in conformance with building a totalitarian state more or less in accord with how Arendt describes totalitarianism? Is it possible that Project 2025 and the 180 Day Transition Plan are a roadmap to a modern American totalitarianism?

A2: The alignment between Trump/MAGA initiatives and Hannah Arendt's analysis of totalitarianism reveals significant parallels in structure and methodology, though important distinctions remain. Drawing from Arendt's framework and current developments:

Structural Parallels with Totalitarian Systems

1. Spherical Power Structure
Project 2025's plan to replace up to 50,000 nonpartisan civil servants with political loyalists^[5][6][7] mirrors Arendt's concept of concentric power circles. This creates an "onion-like" structure where proximity to the leader—not formal titles—determines influence, insulating decision-making from institutional accountability.

2. Propaganda Dynamics
The Trump administration's reliance on disinformation (e.g., election fraud claims)^[8][9] and MAGA's media ecosystem exemplify Arendt's observation that totalitarian propaganda flows outward to non-core supporters. This external-facing narrative management aims to normalize radical policies to broader audiences while maintaining ideological purity within inner circles.

3. Terror Mechanisms
Plans to weaponize the DOJ against political opponents^[5][7] and deploy the Insurrection Act against dissent^[5][9] align with Arendt's "terror dynamic," where fear of inner-circle retribution enforces loyalty. The proposed "Election Crimes Branch"^[7] could institutionalize this terror by criminalizing routine political activity.

Key Components of Project 2025 as Totalitarian Roadmap

Arendtian Feature	Project 2025 Implementation	Source
Leader-centric hierarchy	Unitary executive theory expansion	[5][10]
Institutional capture	Replacement of 50,000 civil servants	[5][7]
Legal system subversion	DOJ politicization plans	[5][6]
Paramilitary integration	Insurrection Act deployment proposals	[5][9]
Reality distortion	Preemptive election fraud narratives	[8][9]

Critical Divergences from Classical Totalitarianism

1. Institutional Resilience: While seeking to dismantle checks and balances^[5][10], U.S. institutions like an independent judiciary and free press still exist—for now. Arendt emphasized totalitarianism's requirement to destroy all mediating institutions.

2. Ideological Coherence: MAGA's mix of Christian nationalism, corporatism, and personal loyalty to Trump^[11][12][13] lacks the unified worldview Arendt identified in Nazi or Soviet ideologies. However, the Heritage Foundation's systematization through Project 2025^[6][14] suggests movement toward doctrinal consolidation.

3. Violence Scale: Current paramilitary collaboration (e.g., Proud Boys)^[8][9] remains less institutionalized than Hitler's SA or Stalin's NKVD, though the 180-Day Plan's security proposals^[6][7] indicate escalatory intent.

Modern Totalitarian Trajectory

The 920-page Mandate for Leadership and 180-Day Transition Playbook^[5][6] constitute a blueprint for what Arendt called "the substitution of the real will of the leader for the will of the people." Key risk factors include:

• Bureaucratic Inversion: Converting civil service into a patronage system^[5][7], mirroring Nazi Gleichschaltung (coordination)

• Legal Nullification: Proposed Schedule F executive order^[6] would enable rule-by-decree tendencies

• Information Control: Plans to weaken independent media^[5] align with totalitarianism's requirement for reality domination

While full totalitarianism remains unrealized, the project's architects explicitly reference authoritarian models like Orban's Hungary and Erdogan's Turkey^[5][12]—regimes exhibiting what Arendt termed "totalitarian elements within non-totalitarian systems." The combination of spherical power structures, propagandistic reality-building, and institutional demolition creates conditions matching Arendt's warning: "The most important qualification of a mass leader has become unending infallibility; he can never admit an error."^[8][9]

In conclusion, Project 2025 operationalizes several core Arendtian totalitarian mechanisms through modern governance tools. While lacking the explicit mass violence of 20th-century regimes, its systemic dismantling of constitutional safeguards and institutional capture strategies follow the pattern Arendt identified—transforming democracy through gradual "coordination" rather than sudden revolution^[8][5][10]. Whether this constitutes full totalitarianism depends on implementation rigor, but the structural parallels and stated intentions suggest it represents the most comprehensive attempt at authoritarian transformation in modern U.S. history.

⁂

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Origins_of_Totalitarianism

2. https://rozenbergquarterly.com/hannah-arendts-theory-of-totalitarianism-part-two/

3. https://philpapers.org/archive/TSATTP.pdf

4. https://www.nypl.org/sites/default/files/arendt_originsoftotalitarianism.pdf

5. https://www.americanprogress.org/article/project-2025-would-destroy-the-u-s-system-of-checks-and-balances-and-create-an-imperial-presidency/

6. https://www.thenation.com/article/society/project-2025-trump-heritage-foundation-maga/

7. https://www.commoncause.org/actions/stop-trumps-anti-democracy-project-2025-agenda-2/

8. https://undsoc.org/2020/12/30/trumpism-and-hannah-arendts-reflections-on-totalitarianism/

9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Donald_Trump_and_fascism

10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trumpism

11. https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/21521958/what-is-fascism-signs-donald-trump

12. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/project-2025-agenda-47

13. https://convergencemag.com/articles/maga-authoritarian-rule-or-third-reconstruction/

14. https://www.aft.org/column/project-2025-institutionalizing-trumpism