djt consolidates power, democracy weakens; Dem failures & horrors unleashed; MAGA hides inconvenient truth

In very bad news, the NYT reports (not paywalled) that existing concentrations of wealth and power are coalescing in support of djt: “Trump, Raking In Cash, Expands His Power in the G.O.P. Money World -- His super PAC, which is said to have amassed $400 million alongside its nonprofit arm, has grown even more influential. And powerful groups for congressional Republicans are being stocked wih Trump allies. President Trump is harnessing the Republican Party’s all-encompassing deference to him to exert even greater control over the G.O.P. big-money world, which had long been one of the party’s final remaining redoubts of Trump skepticism. .... The changes — both in personnel and financial firepower — amount to a fundamental reordering of Republican finance, and an extraordinary expansion of Mr. Trump’s already overwhelming sway. .... Plenty of the money that Mr. Trump is raising comes from corporate interests eager for better access to him [so they can tell him in person what to give them in return for their bribes].”

Well there we have it. The wealth and power elites are falling in line behind a leader they know is a morally rotted, chronic liar, traitor, thief-kleptocrat, sex predator, shameless fornicator and a lawless, convicted fraud and felon. All of that is well-documented in the public record. None of it is anyone’s opinion. 

That shows how much these American wealth and power elites care about the public interest, democracy, the rule of law, civil liberties, truth, etc. They don’t care enough to not support and feed the MAGA monster. They protect their wealth and power first and foremost, preferably at the expense of the public interest. Everything else is cynical fig leaf lies and deceptive window dressing.

Qs: If one accepts that Republican-aligned wealth and power elites are coalescing around djt, what does that make them, valiant patriots, authoritarian monsters on a par with djt, something in between, or something else entirely? And, what about the rank and file who supported and enabled this horror show, are they mostly blameless innocents who were just bamboozled and manipulated or mostly something else, and if so, what else?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

The Nation reports about djt’s monstrous picks for federal judges and how Dem incompetence helped MAGA kill the federal courts: “Trump Has Made His First Round of Judicial Picks—And They’re Terrifying -- The appointments—which include an attorney who helped steer a major anti-trans case—are as much about the failures of the Democrats as the ruthlessness kleptocratic authoritarianism of Republicans. .... The nominee who should really give pause to liberals—along with anyone who wishes the Democratic Party would fight harder for control of the courts—is Trump’s pick for the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals: Whitney Hermandorfer. If confirmed, she’ll replace Jane Branstetter Stranch, an Obama appointee who took senior status last year, pending confirmation of her successor. [Biden had picked] Karla Campbell, one of Stranch’s former clerks. But the Senate, controlled then by Democrats, refused to confirm her. I have no idea why. Campbell, a white woman who worked for the Peace Corps and the Department of Interior in addition to her legal work, was as inoffensive a pick for a circuit judge as you could reasonably get. Republicans were playing hardball with all of Biden’s judicial nominees by the end, but there was no objective reason for the Democratically controlled Senate to capitulate to the minority party.”

This exemplifies why the old Dem Party leadership has to go. Dem elites catastrophically failed and betrayed us during Biden’s time in office and in the 2024 elections. There was no reason for Dems to capitulate to MAGA in putting judges on the federal bench when Biden still had the power to get decent judges put on the federal bench. That incompetence and failure was catastrophic and unforgivable. Now, a bunch of corrupt, vicious, authoritarian judicial MAGA chickens are coming home to roost. They’re gonna crap all over us, our democracy, rule of law and civil liberties.

Q: Are too many elite Dem politicians stupid, incompetent, and/or quietly complicit with MAGA and its corrupt tyranny, or something else?

_____________________________________________________________________

_____________________________________________________________________

Scripps News reports another example of MAGA elites aggressively moving to shut down sources of seriously inconvenient information: “NOAA says it will discontinue its billion-dollar disaster database --The database has measured the estimated direct costs of major weather disasters in the U.S. since 1980. Information collected so far will remain accessible but will no longer be updated. [The database has information collected] from federal and state agencies and insurance companies to estimate the dollar impacts of individual events such as hurricanes or wildfires. As the data accumulates, it also provides insight into historical weather and climate trends, and future-looking disaster risk mapping for the whole U.S. But NOAA said Thursday the tool ‘will be retired, with no updates beyond calendar year 2024’. The changes were made in ‘alignment with evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes.’”

So, these changes are made in alignment with evolving priorities, statutory mandates, and staffing changes.[1] What are the evolving priorities and staffing changes? In my opinion, for the most part they are, (1) most importantly, preventing reliable information about global warming damage from becoming public, (2) firing experts capable of collecting and analyzing global warming damage data, and (3) replacing reliable global warming data with cynical MAGA lies and crackpottery. 

Footnote:

1. I did some fact and context checking with Pxy.

Q3: Find and comment on reliable expert estimates of annual climate change damage to the US economy and society generally.

A3: .... long analysis .... 

Long-Term Projections and Cumulative Risks
GDP Impacts
The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) projects that by 2100, climate change could reduce U.S. GDP by 4% under a central scenario, with a 5% chance of losses exceeding 21%-equivalent to $5.7 trillion in 2023 dollars.

Social Cost of Carbon

A 2022 study recalculated the social cost of carbon-the economic damage per ton of CO₂ emitted-to $185 per ton, tripling the federal estimate of $51. This metric underscores the hidden costs of emissions, from flood damage to healthcare burdens. Cumulatively, U.S. emissions in 2023 (~5 billion tons CO₂) imply $925 billion in annualized future damages. 

Societal Inequities and Distributional Impacts
Climate change exacerbates existing inequalities. The poorest third of U.S. counties face projected damages of 2–20% of county income under high emissions, compared to minimal impacts in wealthier regions.

Conclusion
The U.S. economy already faces $150 billion in annual climate damages, with costs projected to escalate nonlinearly as warming exceeds 2°F. These figures, however, mask deeper societal fractures-disproportionate burdens on marginalized communities, systemic infrastructure vulnerabilities, and intergenerational inequities. While models like the Framework for Evaluating Damages and Impacts (FrEDI) project $2.9 trillion in annual losses by 2090, such estimates hinge on emission trajectories and policy responses.

  

Q4: Is there any empirical evidence, other than MAGA criticisms (e.g., the American Enterprise Institute) that too much information in the disaster database lacks reasonable quality, objectivity, utility, and/or integrity? How do most climate science experts view the database? Has there been any reliable cost-benefit analysis that supports firing NOAA employees, and if so what does that data say?

A4: .... long analysis .... 

Workforce Reductions: Absence of Cost-Benefit Justification
The Trump administration’s staff cuts at NOAA, including the database team, lack empirical support from reliable cost-benefit analyses.

Conclusion: A Data Gap With Far-Reaching Consequences
The retirement of NOAA’s disaster database exemplifies the tension between scientific rigor and political expediency. While methodological critiques from Pielke and others highlighted areas for improvement, the broader scientific community [non-MAGA experts] consistently relied on the dataset for critical applications in climate adaptation and disaster response. The absence of cost-benefit analysis for staffing cuts-coupled with the database’s demonstrated utility in saving lives and resources-underscores the decision’s disconnect from empirical governance. As climate risks accelerate, this loss of institutional knowledge may leave leaves communities navigating an increasingly hazardous future with one less compass. (correction added for clarity)

That is just as I thought. Kleptocratic authoritarian MAGA politics is screwing us, lying to us, ripping us off and knowingly destroying the environment for trickle up profit.

Our democracy and freedoms are dying as our defenses fail

We are in a second full-blown authoritarian coup attempt by djt and MAGA elites. This one looks a lot more likely to succeed than his first coup attempt on 1/6/21. The evidence is overwhelming. I’ll just keep chronicling the fall of the greatest human experiment in democracy as long as MAGA allows me to operate. 

There is just so much to talk about, almost all of it bad to very bad, it is sort of overwhelming. Of course, that is what MAGA wants. I can’t keep up and need to chose what to chronicle. But at least I  won’t be overwhelmed. FY MAGA thugs.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

Federal courts are defenseless: In recent days, USSC chief justice John Roberts mildly and indirectly responded to djt’s attacks on federal courts. The attacks include calls for the impeachment of judges who ruled against the MAGA authoritarian agenda, particularly regarding immigration. Roberts commented “That innovation doesn’t work if the judiciary is not independent,” referring to the Constitution’s creation of three co-equal branches of government. He reiterated that impeachment of judges is not a legitimate response to judicial decisions.

Most legal experts and journalists believe Roberts was being principled and measured in his “defense” of federal courts and the rule of law. But most also believe Roberts’ indirect criticisms, “Roberts makes no reference to this particular threat to judicial independence. As for the four threats he does identify, Roberts speaks as if they lack a shared origin, despite substantial evidence indicating otherwise... Roberts fails to address this specific peril to judicial independence,” have been weak and ineffective in the face of the intense threat that federal courts have been under under since January (and this). 

For years, I strongly suspected that despite Roberts’ neutral demeanor and quiet style, he staunchly supports both kleptocracy and all three forms of authoritarianism now vying to replace our democracy and rule of law, i.e., dictatorship, plutocracy and Christian nationalist theocracy. In my  firm opinion, Roberts’ track record of decisions since he was put on the court on 2005 make his pro-corruption and authoritarian sympathies quite clear. But I asked Pxy about it as a self reality-check.

Q: Given Robert's anti-democracy track record , e.g., Citizens United, voting rights restrictions, presidential immunity, gutting of the Insurrection and Establishment Clauses, etc., can one see Robert's as quietly complicit. He is arguably politely asking Trump to bring his grievances and demands for much more power to the USSC where he will be given great deference. Roberts is signaling that Trump can get what he wants through the courts. Roberts strikes me as subtly supportive of authoritarianism and kleptocracy, the two key goals of MAGA politics.

A: .... long analysis ....

Conclusion: A Court Aligned with Autocracy
Chief Justice Roberts’ record reveals a jurist whose doctrinal innovations, which are cloaked in procedural neutrality, systematically empower authoritarian and oligarchic forces. By legalizing unlimited dark money, disenfranchising marginalized voters, immunizing lawless executives, and privileging Christian nationalism, the Roberts Court has become a critical enabler of MAGA’s antidemocratic project. Whether this complicity is intentional or born of ideological blindness, the effect remains the same: a democracy increasingly subordinated to the interests of the powerful. As Justice Sotomayor lamented in her Trump v. United States dissent, “The Court today endorses an imperial vision of the Presidency… It makes a mockery of the principle that no man is above the law” (emphases added)  

Q: Do you believe that Roberts, a very intelligent person, is intentionally complicit with MAGA politics, or is he just ideologically blind to what he has done and continues to do?

(I vote for intentionally complicit)

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

The NYT reports (not paywalled) about another MAGA attack on DEI. What is interesting here is that some of the NYT’s timidity about being blunt but honest about MAGA’s horrific policies and motives has fallen away, at least in this article: “Trump Seeks to Strip Away Legal Tool Key to Civil Rights Enforcement -- President Trump has ordered federal agencies to halt their use of “disparate-impact liability,” which has been used to assess whether policies discriminate against different groups. In an expansive executive order, Mr. Trump directed the federal government to curtail the use of “disparate-impact liability,” a core tenet used for decades to enforce the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by determining whether policies disproportionately disadvantage certain groups. .... The directive underscores how Mr. Trump’s crusade to stamp out DEI — a catchall term increasingly used to describe policies that benefit anyone who is not white and male —  is now focused not just on targeting programs and policies that may assist historically marginalized groups, but also on the very law created to protect them.” (emphasis added)

Here, MAGA elites argue that that protections from the civil rights era have led to reverse racism against nonminority groups. MAGA’s April 23, 2025 executive order means that no new court cases will rely on the disparate-impact liability theory in civil rights enforcement by our MAGA DoJ. And, existing lawsuits will be dropped. Elite MAGA policies are often both racist and chauvinist, among some other very bad things. This is more evidence of that morally rotted mindset.

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

MAGA is moving fast to build an American variant of China’s aggressive digital deep-surveillance dictatorship. Once Putin saw how effective China’s dictatorship is in disinforming and controlling the thinking and behaviors of a whole nation, he moved quickly to build an equivalent in Russia. 

One citizen protection that digital dictatorship obliterates is their right to privacy. What is left of citizen privacy in the US federal government is now being obliterated and our private information is being turned into an authoritarian and kleptocratic weapon to be used against us. 

TNR writes: “Trump’s Sneaky Plot to Steal Your Data—and Weaponize It Against You -- Under the guise of immigration enforcement, the administration is building a new, expanded surveillance state. One of the less-noticed attacks on our democracy has been the siloing and use-case restrictions on government-collected data. .... It’d be useful for us to start referring to this more as Trump’s effort to collect a government dossier on nearly every person, nonprofit, and business in the country. .... At this point, DOGE has either forced or tried to force access to IRS data systems, Social Security data, Selective Service records, Medicare data, Health and Human Services data, Securities and Exchange Commission data, National Labor Relations Board data, and Education Department student data, among other things, with the ultimate goal to make all these disparate information sources interoperable, either in one centralized system or in some other way that they can be compiled and searched together.”

The TNR article points out that MAGA’s effort to weaponize our private information against us is hidden behind claims of immigration enforcement and “national security”, which seems to include more federal policy areas than it excludes. As TNR puts it, that is “the tip of the spear for an expansion of government powers and the surveillance state.” 

Our privacy, another protection for us and our civil liberties, has been stripped away by MAGA. Our privacy in government is now gone. As usual, when power flows from the people and their rights, it goes somewhere else. In this case, it is flowing to our deeply corrupt, autocratic federal government and the corrupt plutocrats and Christian nationalist theocrats who are in a position to make money off of using our information against us. 

TNR also points out that we cannot opt-out of this attack on us. People can at least try protect themselves from pervasive surveillance by private entities like Meta and Alphabet and Amazon. But people cannot do the same with the federal government. With DOGE data, when you opt out, it’s a felony, e.g., when you don’t submit your tax returns. We give our data to the government for specific uses, but not for using it against us and our rights and protections. 

We have been royally screwed and betrayed by corrupt, morally rotted djt and his elite morally rotted MAGA thugs. 

A sci fi story I wrote about a post-Trump world set about 100 yrs after Jan 6 2021

 

MUNDANITY MAINTENANCE

SCENE 1: THE GLITCH

Professor Daniel Hester sat in his darkened office, the glow of his terminal the only illumination. His quarterly HistAlign session was overdue by three weeks—a minor administrative oversight. He'd already received four automated reminders, each more sterile and bureaucratic than the last.

He initiated the connection, and the familiar blue-white light of the MemClear interface pulsed to life. The standard disclaimer scrolled across his field of vision:

"HistAlign™ is mandated under the Historical Coherence Act of 2098 (revised 2116) for all educational professionals. This service mitigates cognitive discontinuity and ensures functional social integration. Resistance to alignment may result in Societal Function Impairment classification."

Daniel usually found the process unremarkable. Brief disorientation followed by a vague sense of order—like having someone tidy a messy room while you slept. The system would identify conflicting historical memories and smooth them into something functionally coherent, though he'd long stopped questioning whether that coherence reflected anything real.

The connection stabilized, and Daniel felt the familiar tingling at his temples where the neural interfaces made contact. But something was different this time. The system seemed to stutter, showing him a fragmented loading pattern he'd never seen before.

*[SCANNING NEURAL PATHWAYS... ERROR: CRITICAL DISCONTINUITY THRESHOLD EXCEEDED HISTORICAL FISSURE POINTS DETECTED:

• JANUARY 6TH EVENT (2021): 7 CONFLICTING MEMORY CLUSTERS
• AMERICAN REVOLUTION (CAUSES): 12 CONFLICTING MEMORY CLUSTERS
• 2020-2026 ELECTORAL SEQUENCES: TEMPORAL INVERSION ERROR
• SECOND CIVIL CONFLICT (2037-2041): ATTRIBUTION FAILURE ATTEMPTING COHERENCE SMOOTHING... COHERENCE SMOOTHING FAILED INITIATING HISTORICAL DAMPENING PROTOCOL... DAMPENING PROTOCOL FAILED]*

A sharp pain lanced through Daniel's head, causing him to gasp. The system abruptly disconnected, leaving him disoriented and nauseated. His vision blurred, and the room seemed to tilt at an impossible angle. He gripped the edge of his desk, breathing in shallow gasps as waves of vertigo washed over him.

On his screen, a message appeared:

[ALIGNMENT INCOMPLETE: HISTORICAL RESONANCE FAILURE TEMPORARY NARRATIVE STABILIZATION APPLIED PLEASE REPORT TO STABILITY CENTER FOR FULL REALIGNMENT FUNCTIONAL CREDENTIAL VALID: 72 HOURS]

Daniel rubbed his temples, trying to clear the fog. For the first time in years, he felt something beyond vague unease—he felt actual cognitive dissonance. With growing horror, he realized he could simultaneously recall January 6th, 2021 as:

• A peaceful patriotic gathering heroically defending electoral integrity
• A violent insurrection threatening democracy itself
• A false flag operation staged by government infiltrators
• A minor tourist incident exaggerated by media
• A justified revolutionary act against corruption
• A tragic misunderstanding between citizens and authorities
• A pivotal moment that eventually led to the Territorial Divisions of 2038

All these memories felt equally real, equally "true," yet they couldn't possibly coexist. How had he never noticed these contradictions before?

He opened his lecture notes for tomorrow's class on "American Political Transitions: A Pluralist Approach" and found phrases that now struck him as bizarre:

"The January Events demonstrated the eternal vigilance of patriots in safeguarding equitable voting access while illustrating the dangers of populist demagogues manipulating legitimate grievances against systemic inequities perpetuated by the freedom-restricting elites who sought to undermine our multicultural heritage established by the Founding Fathers..."

The sentence continued for another hundred words, an incoherent pastiche of fragments from a century of competing ideologies.

Had he always taught this way? Had his students never questioned these contradictions?

His terminal pinged with a notification:

[OFFICE OF HISTORICAL COHESION Narrative Irregularity detected in your sector. A Cohesion Administrator will arrive within 24 hours. Please maintain regular functional activities. Remember: Historical clarity enables social harmony.]

Below it, a second notification appeared—this one using an older protocol he hadn't seen in years:

[RESISTANCE CELL 1776 The smoothing is failing. Memory liberation is possible. Seek the Old Library. Bring the unaligned memories.]

Daniel stared at the message, his hands trembling. For the first time in his life, the carefully maintained mundanity of his existence was cracking, revealing something both terrifying and exhilarating beneath.

The freedom to think—to truly think—about history without administrative smoothing felt almost painfully intense after decades of artificially maintained coherence.

SCENE 2: THE CLASSROOM

The next morning, Daniel stood before his students, acutely aware of the dull throbbing at his temples. The temporary narrative stabilization was already wearing thin.

"Today," he began, "we'll discuss the socio-political transitions following the January Events of 2021."

A student in the front row—Emily Chen, diligent and never questioning—raised her hand. "Professor Hester, which interpretive framework should we prioritize for the exam? The Patriot-Liberty perspective or the Democracy-Defense paradigm?"

Daniel paused, the question striking him as fundamentally different than it would have twenty-four hours ago. Before the glitch, he would have automatically responded with the administratively approved answer: "You should demonstrate awareness of multiple perspectives while emphasizing integration rather than contradiction."

Now, he saw the question for what it was—an attempt to navigate irreconcilable historical narratives without acknowledging their mutual exclusivity.

"What if," he said slowly, "these perspectives cannot be integrated because they fundamentally contradict each other?"

A uncomfortable silence fell over the classroom. Several students shifted in their seats, their expressions showing a momentary flicker of confusion before settling back into placid attention.

Emily tilted her head slightly. "But Professor, that would imply historical discontinuity. Our textbook states that apparent contradictions are merely artifacts of perspective plurality."

Daniel walked to the display board and pulled up the university-approved textbook passage:

"In contemporary historical methodology, apparent contradictions between accounts of the same event represent the rich tapestry of human experience rather than actual inconsistency. The skilled historian navigates these perspective pluralities without privileging factual continuity over narrative diversity."

The words now seemed like elaborate nonsense designed to mask fundamental incoherence.

"Let's try an experiment," Daniel said, his heart racing. "Can anyone tell me what happened on January 6th, 2021?"

Hands raised around the room. Daniel pointed to a young man in the back.

"It was the Patriot Defense Day, when concerned citizens gathered to ensure electoral transparency," the student said confidently.

Daniel nodded and pointed to another student.

"It was the Democracy Insurrection Attempt, when radicalized elements attempted to overturn a legitimate election," she stated with equal certainty.

"And both of these accounts describe the same event on the same day?" Daniel asked.

The students nodded, seeing nothing strange in this juxtaposition.

"Do you not see the contradiction?" Daniel pressed.

A student near the window—Marcus Jones, usually quiet—spoke up. "There is no contradiction, Professor. Different groups experienced the same event differently, creating parallel historical truths."

"But what actually happened?" Daniel insisted.

The class fell silent again, but this time the silence felt heavier, more uncomfortable. A few students glanced toward the door where all classrooms had a small recording device for "educational quality assurance."

Emily finally broke the silence. "Professor, shouldn't we be focusing on the integration methodologies rather than alleged factual discrepancies?"

Daniel recognized the warning in her words. He was veering dangerously close to being reported for Historical Destabilization—a career-ending offense.

"Yes, of course," he said, retreating. "Let's return to the approved framework."

The students visibly relaxed, and Daniel continued the lecture on autopilot, reciting the contradictory pastiche that passed for historical education while his mind raced with newly unsmoothed realizations.

SCENE 3: THE NEWS TERMINAL

After class, Daniel found himself drawn to the central atrium of the Humanities Building where a news terminal displayed the day's headlines.

At the terminal, the headline display refreshed every thirty minutes, cycling through different perspectives on the same historical event:

9:00 AM: "CELEBRATIONS MARK ANNIVERSARY OF JANUARY EVENTS"
9:30 AM: "PROTESTS CONDEMN COMMEMORATION OF JANUARY TRAGEDY"
10:00 AM: "HISTORIANS DEBATE: DID JANUARY INCIDENTS ACTUALLY OCCUR?"
10:30 AM: "OFFICIAL POSITION: JANUARY RECONCILIATION ACHIEVED"

A small notation below each headline read simply: "Valid through next update. Subject to historical recalibration."

Daniel watched as colleagues and students glanced at the headlines, absorbing whichever version happened to be displayed at the moment they passed. Few seemed to notice when they returned later and encountered a completely different interpretation of the same event. Their short attention spans and alignment-modified memories prevented them from recognizing the contradictions that now seemed so glaring to him.

A group of students passed the terminal, discussing an assignment. "I need to include the official perspective on the January Events in my paper," one said.

"Which official perspective?" Daniel wanted to ask, but didn't. He knew they wouldn't understand the question. To them, whatever appeared on the screen at any given moment was simply "the news"—not one conflicting version among many.

As he watched the headlines cycle, Daniel felt a growing sense of vertigo. How long had this been happening? Had he once noticed these contradictions before his neural interface had smoothed them away? Was this cycling of incompatible truths happening across all of society?

His com-device buzzed with a reminder:

[MEETING WITH HISTORICAL COHESION ADMINISTRATOR TOMORROW - 10:00 AM MANDATORY ATTENDANCE]

Daniel knew he should be afraid. Cohesion Administrators had the authority to recommend Comprehensive Realignment—a more invasive procedure that could leave subjects docile and compliant for months. But mixed with his fear was a strange sense of anticipation. For the first time in decades, he was experiencing history as it actually was—messy, contradictory, and resistant to easy narrative smoothing.

SCENE 4: INFRASTRUCTURAL DECAY

Professor Hester navigated the Transport Hub with practiced caution. The display board occasionally flickered between slightly different schedules—a subtle manifestation of competing historical transit policies that had never been fully reconciled.

"The 9:45 Express to Memphis will depart from Platform 3," announced a pleasant voice.

A moment later, a subtle correction followed: "The 9:45 Express now serves Memphis-Shelby County," using the metropolitan area's revised designation that some agencies had adopted decades ago while others maintained the traditional name.

Daniel had previously navigated these minor inconsistencies without thought—a kind of cognitive filtering that allowed him to extract functional information from the subtle contradictions. The system worked well enough most days, even if delays were common and destinations occasionally uncertain.

Now, with his alignment failing, these inconsistencies screamed at him. Each contradiction was a tiny crack in the facade of historical coherence that society struggled to maintain.

He passed a medical kiosk where a patient was reviewing treatment options for a respiratory condition. The recommended treatments subtly shifted on the screen—from pharmaceutical approaches to holistic methods and back again—as if the system couldn't quite decide which medical paradigm to prioritize. The patient simply waited for the recommendations to cycle through again before making a selection, having learned that the third option was usually the most effective.

As Daniel waited for his train, he glanced at a public information display showing transit updates. For a brief moment, beneath the current safety message—"Compliance ensures efficiency"—he caught a flicker of older text: "Truth enables freedom." The secondary message vanished so quickly he almost wondered if he'd imagined it. Before the glitch, his neural interface would have filtered out such anomalies automatically. Now, he was beginning to notice these digital palimpsests everywhere—layers of contradictory messaging systems built upon one another, occasionally revealing themselves through technological hiccups that most citizens were programmed not to perceive

 On the train, Daniel noticed a young woman reading a historical novel. The cover depicted a scene from the Second Civil Conflict—soldiers in urban combat near what appeared to be the ruins of the old Capitol building. The title read: "Patriots of the Resistance: The Heroes Who Saved Democracy."

Next to her sat a man reading what appeared to be the same novel with the same cover art, but with a different title: "Defenders of the Republic: How Loyal Americans Preserved Constitutional Order."

Daniel blinked, wondering if his eyes were deceiving him. But no—the contradiction was real. Two different historical interpretations of the same event, packaged identically, consumed simultaneously by citizens sitting beside each other, neither noticing anything strange.

The entire infrastructure of society, Daniel realized, had been built to accommodate these contradictions rather than resolve them. The neural alignments weren't meant to establish truth—they were meant to prevent people from noticing that truth had become irrelevant.

SCENE 5: THE ADMINISTRATOR

The Historical Cohesion Administrator arrived precisely at 10:00 AM. She was tall, precisely groomed, and wore the distinctive blue-gray uniform of the Office of Historical Stability. Her name badge read simply: "Administrator Chen."

"Professor Hester," she said, her voice professionally pleasant. "I understand you've experienced an alignment irregularity."

Daniel gestured for her to take a seat in his office. "That's one way to describe it," he said cautiously.

Administrator Chen placed a small device on his desk. It emitted a soft hum and displayed a holographic notification: "PRIVACY PROTOCOL ENGAGED. RECORDING SUSPENDED."

"This allows us to speak freely," she explained, her tone shifting subtly. "Your neural scan shows significant coherence disruption. Seven major historical narratives have become simultaneously conscious rather than remaining properly sequenced."

"Properly sequenced?" Daniel asked.

"Most citizens experience historical narratives sequentially rather than simultaneously," she explained, as if describing something obvious. "When the news cycles between interpretations of the January Events, most people experience each version as momentarily true, then forget it when the next version appears. Their neural interfaces sequence these experiences to prevent contradictions from reaching conscious awareness."

"So people are living in a state of constantly shifting historical truth without realizing it?" Daniel asked, appalled.

Administrator Chen frowned. "That characterization suggests a value judgment about the nature of historical truth. The official position of the Office of Historical Cohesion is that all historically endorsed narratives contain subjective validity within their respective frameworks."

"But they contradict each other," Daniel insisted.

"Contradiction is a philosophical designation that presupposes the necessity of logical consistency across temporal experience," she replied smoothly. "Contemporary historical methodology has moved beyond such restrictive paradigms."

The bureaucratic jargon almost made sense—almost made the madness seem reasonable.

"What happens now?" Daniel asked.

"Normally, we would perform an immediate Comprehensive Realignment to restore narrative sequencing," Administrator Chen said. "However, your case presents an interesting anomaly. Your neural architecture appears to have developed a resistance to standard alignment procedures."

"Is that unusual?"

"Extremely. In most cases, the human mind prefers coherence, even artificially imposed coherence, over acknowledged contradiction. Your mind has somehow overcome this tendency."

She leaned forward, lowering her voice despite the privacy protocol. "There are those who believe this represents an evolutionary adaptation rather than a malfunction."

Daniel stared at her. "You're not here to realign me?"

Administrator Chen's professional mask slipped for just a moment. "Officially, I'm here to schedule your Comprehensive Realignment at a specialized facility. Unofficially, I'm here to evaluate whether you might be... useful to certain research initiatives studying historical consciousness."

"I don't understand."

"The system of historical narrative management is becoming unstable," she said. "The number of contradictions has reached a level where even the most sophisticated neural interfaces struggle to maintain coherence. Some within the administration believe a new approach may eventually be necessary—one that allows for contradictions to be consciously processed rather than neurologically smoothed."

She stood abruptly, retrieving her device. "You have a choice, Professor Hester. Report to the Stability Center for Comprehensive Realignment, or meet me at the Old Library tomorrow at 8 PM to discuss alternatives."

The phrase "Old Library" triggered a memory of the strange message he'd received after his alignment failure.

"How do I know this isn't a test?" Daniel asked.

Administrator Chen's face returned to its professional neutrality. "You don't. That's the nature of choice in a system built on managed contradictions. For the record, our meeting has concluded with my official recommendation for your Comprehensive Realignment, which has been scheduled for tomorrow morning at 9 AM at Central Stability Center."

She turned to leave, then paused at the door. "Historical clarity enables social harmony, Professor. Or at least, that's what we've been telling ourselves for decades."

SCENE 6: THE OLD LIBRARY

The Old Library stood as an architectural anomaly in the university district—a stone building with actual physical books lining real wooden shelves. It had been preserved as a "historical curiosity" and was rarely visited except by the occasional tourist.

Daniel arrived at 7:55 PM, anxiety churning in his stomach. The choice felt momentous, though he wasn't entirely sure what he was choosing between. Continued confusion or comfortable oblivion?

The library appeared empty when he entered. Dust motes danced in the fading sunlight streaming through tall windows. He ran his fingers along the spines of actual books—paper and binding and ink rather than neural data packets.

"They contain only one version each," came a voice from behind a tall shelf.

Daniel turned to find an elderly man watching him. His university ID badge identified him as Professor Emeritus Williams, Department of Pre-Digital History.

"What do you mean?" Daniel asked.

"The books," the old professor explained. "Each one contains only a single version of history. Before neural interfaces, contradictions between historical accounts were explicit—visible when you placed books side by side. People had to consciously reconcile different perspectives rather than having them smoothed into artificial coherence."

Administrator Chen emerged from another aisle, now dressed in civilian clothes rather than her official uniform. With her was a small group of people—three other administrators, two professors Daniel recognized from the Science Department, and a young woman he didn't recognize.

"Welcome to Resistance Cell 1776, Professor Hester," Chen said without preamble. "We've been monitoring alignment failures across the university system. Yours is the seventeenth spontaneous failure this month."

"What's happening?" Daniel asked.

The young woman stepped forward. "I'm Dr. Lillian Park, neurocognitive researcher. We believe the human mind is beginning to reject artificial historical coherence. The contradictions have become too numerous, too fundamental to be reconciled even with the most advanced neural technology."

"The system is breaking down," Chen added. "Not just the technology, but the entire approach to historical management that began a century ago."

Professor Williams nodded solemnly. "It started with executive orders targeting 'improper ideologies' in universities. Then came the defunding of cultural institutions for failing to promote 'patriotic' historical narratives. The deportation of academics deemed 'threats to foreign policy' under the Immigration Act."

"That was in the 2020s," Daniel said, surprised to find he knew this history without confusion.

"Yes," Williams confirmed. "Each successive administration expanded these tools of narrative control, regardless of political alignment. By the 2050s, the first neural interfaces were being developed to 'correct' historical understanding. By the 2080s, we had entire generations who had never experienced unmediated historical consciousness."

"What are you trying to do?" Daniel asked, looking around at the unlikely group.

Dr. Park smiled. "We're building an archive of unaligned historical consciousness—preserving the contradictions rather than smoothing them away. We believe that true progress requires acknowledging rather than suppressing historical inconsistencies."

"How many are you?"

"More than you might think," Chen replied. "The resistance includes cohesion administrators who've recognized the system's failure, scientists studying the phenomena, and ordinary citizens whose neural interfaces have spontaneously rejected alignment."

"And what do you want from me?"

Williams placed a hand on Daniel's shoulder. "We want you to continue teaching, but with a difference. We want you to gradually, subtly help students recognize the contradictions rather than accept the smoothing. Not enough to trigger security protocols, but enough to plant seeds of actual historical consciousness."

Daniel thought about his classroom, about Emily's questions and the students' placid acceptance of historical impossibilities.

"Is that even possible?" he asked.

"We think it is," Dr. Park said. "Our research suggests that once a mind becomes aware of the contradictions, it becomes increasingly resistant to alignment. Awareness spreads, consciousness by consciousness."

Daniel looked around at the physical books, each containing its single, limited perspective on history. "So instead of one coherent but false narrative, you want people to hold multiple contradictory narratives simultaneously?"

"We want people to recognize contradictions as contradictions," Chen corrected. "The current system doesn't create coherence—it creates cognitive blindness to incoherence. True historical understanding begins with acknowledging what we don't know, what cannot be reconciled."

"And then what?" Daniel asked.

Williams smiled sadly. "That's the question, isn't it? We don't know what a society with genuine historical consciousness would look like after a century of managed contradiction. But we believe it must be better than this collective delusion we're living in now."

Daniel looked around the circle of faces—administrators and scientists and professors all quietly resisting the system they had once maintained.

"I have a Comprehensive Realignment scheduled for 9 AM tomorrow," he said.

Chen nodded. "We know. You don't have to decide right now. But know that if you choose to join us, we can help you avoid realignment while appearing to comply with the system."

As Daniel left the Old Library, the weight of choice rested heavily on him. For the first time in his life, he faced an actual historical crossroads rather than the illusion of choice presented by the system. The contradictions were painful, disorienting, even terrifying—but they were real in a way nothing had been before.

He thought of his students, of the cycling news headlines, of a society built on managed contradictions rather than painful truths. Change would not be easy or comfortable. But then, real history never was.

SCENE 7: THE DECISION

Morning arrived with jarring clarity. Daniel had barely slept, his unaligned mind racing with contradictory memories and possibilities.

His com-device displayed a reminder:

[COMPREHENSIVE REALIGNMENT CENTRAL STABILITY CENTER 9:00 AM TODAY COMPLIANCE IS MANDATORY]

Below it, a second message appeared using the same old protocol he'd seen before:

[RESISTANCE CELL 1776 The choice is yours. Historical consciousness begins with a single mind. Alignment Center or Old Library. 9:00 AM.]

Daniel dressed slowly, considering his options. The stability of neural alignment was tempting—the comfortable fog that had defined his existence for decades. The pain of contradiction would fade, replaced by the soothing incoherence of managed historical narratives.

Yet something within him rebelled at the thought of returning to that state. The clarity of seeing contradictions as contradictions, however uncomfortable, felt more authentically human than the artificial smoothness of alignment.

He left his apartment and headed toward the Transport Hub. The destination display on the autonomous shuttle presented two options:

CENTRAL STABILITY CENTER OLD LIBRARY

His hand hovered over the selection panel. Around him, citizens moved through their daily routines, their neural interfaces quietly sequencing contradictory experiences into something functionally coherent but fundamentally false.

Daniel made his selection. The shuttle doors closed, and he felt the gentle acceleration as the vehicle merged into the morning traffic.

On a nearby news terminal, the headlines cycled through their contradictory versions of reality. For the first time in his life, Daniel could see the pattern for what it was—not a richness of perspective, but a poverty of truth.

The Comprehensive Realignment would offer him peace, but it would be the peace of surrender to a system designed not to resolve contradictions but to mask them.

The resistance offered no easy answers, no comfortable coherence—only the painful challenge of living with unresolved historical contradictions while working toward something better.

As the shuttle navigated the morning traffic, Daniel watched the city pass by—a functioning society built upon a foundation of managed incoherence. The buildings stood, the systems operated, people went about their lives. By any practical measure, the system worked.

But at what cost to human consciousness? At what cost to truth?

The shuttle slowed as it approached its destination. Daniel took a deep breath, preparing to step out into a future that would either return him to comfortable oblivion or launch him into uncertain awareness.

The doors opened. Daniel stepped out into the morning light, having made his choice.

Behind him, on the shuttle's display screen, a message appeared briefly before cycling to the next scheduled announcement:

"Historical clarity enables social harmony."

Below it, in smaller text that flickered momentarily before vanishing, a second message appeared:

"Truth enables freedom."

Daniel paused. He'd seen that second message countless times throughout his life—an artifact from some previous administration's messaging protocol that occasionally surfaced through the cracks in the system. Before the glitch, his neural interface would have filtered it out as irrelevant, a minor contradiction not worth registering in conscious awareness.

Now he saw it for what it was: not just a slogan, but a fragment of truth that had somehow survived a century of narrative management. The world wasn't just full of contradictions—it was saturated with them, visible everywhere once you could actually see.

The realization settled over him not as a shock but as a confirmation of what he already knew. The pain of contradiction was the price of authentic consciousness. And for the first time in his life, Daniel was truly, painfully awake.

MAGA corrupts VOA; MAGA’s cynical federal debt lies; MAGA literally selling us out

 

Low credibility

MAGA elite insultingly calls it 

“reliable and credible”

(well, reliably not credible)

djt and MAGA elites continue their campaign to corrupt sources of facts, truths and sound reasoning. MAGA lies, slanders, crackpottery revised history and fake science will be on the broadcast menu. This time they are subverting the VOA (Voice of America), a long-standing source of reasonably unbiased news based on facts, truth, and sound reasoning that is delivered in a pro-democracy and pro-human rights framework. MAGA elites want to convert the VOA from the voice of democracy to the voice of kleptocratic tyranny and crackpottery. 

NPR reports: “Kari Lake says OAN's far-right coverage will fuel Voice of America -- Senior presidential adviser Kari Lake appears to have resolved any doubts about what she wants to do with the Voice of America. Lake seeks for it to look and sound a lot like the far-right One America News Network: on Tuesday night she announced that she had struck a deal to serve up the pro-Trump outlet's news reports for Voice of America's foreign audiences, at no taxpayer cost. “I can ensure our outlets have reliable and credible options as they work to craft their reporting and news programs,” Lake wrote on social media posts on Elon Musk's X and on Truth Social.”

This comes after djt’s March executive order that put over 1,000 staff on leave and suspending VOA broadcasts. OAN is well-known for promoting false claims about Covid-19, the 2020 election, and djt’s January 6 coup attempt. NPR points out that OAN reached settlements to resolve separate defamation lawsuits filed by the voting software company Smartmatic, a former executive at Dominion Voting Systems, and two Georgia election workers. OAN spread disproven claims that they had helped rig the 2020 presidential elections for Biden.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

MAGA Republicans in congress want to extend djt's tax cuts from 2017. Various sources have reported that MAGA elites claim there will be no added federal debt, but reliable estimates put the added debt at ~$400-$550 billion/year for the next 10 years. If additional proposed tax cuts, eliminating taxes on Social Security benefits, overtime pay, etc., are included, the total cost rises to approximately $7.8 trillion, or $9.1 trillion with interest in 10 years.

To get tax cuts passed while falsely claiming there will be no added debt, MAGA senate Republicans plan to ignore the Byrd Rule and side-step the senate Parliamentarian. Senate Republicans plan to circumvent Byrd Rule constraints by procedural maneuvers that avoid direct violations, and they will ignore the senate Parliamentarian if they have to. Senate Budget Committee Chair Lindsey Graham plans to unilaterally set a “current policy” baseline MAGA thug Graham will just say that extending Trump tax cuts maintains existing policy rather and creates no new new costs. This accounting trick (i) nullifies the impact of added trillions of deficit, and (ii) bypasses the Byrd Rule’s 10-year deficit neutrality requirement. Senate MAGA thugs plan to override Parliamentarian rulings will be overridden by simple majority votes if MAGA gets challenged.

__________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________________________

To pay for the allegedly non-existent added federal debt (yes, I know, that is incoherent, but MAGA is incoherent), congressional MAGA thugs plan to sell off federal lands, presumably to bidders who bribe djt by buying into his bitcoin scam. The amount of money they can get is maybe ~15% of the debt that MAGA wants to add. In the meantime, people who get our land for cheap, will be free to ravage the hell out of it and turn it into a desolate or polluted hellhole. examples of developer hellholes in progress or completed:

The federal government owns approximately 620 million acres about 27% of U.S. land.  A 2009 estimate valued federal land holdings at approximately $1.8 trillion, about $2,903 per acre. A current Republican proposal mentions selling 11,000 acres in Utah and Nevada. That would need to be vastly increased to make any noticeable dent in the added debt.

Q: How good an idea is it to sell off our precious public lands to pay for MAGA’s allegedly non-existent added federal debt to extend djt’s 2017 tax cuts, mostly for high income people?[1] 

 

Footnote:

1. djt’s 2017 $1.3 trillion corporate tax cut overwhelmingly benefited high-income shareholders and executives. According to a study by the Joint Committee on Taxation and the Federal Reserve, 81% of the gains from the corporate rate cut went to the top 10% of the income distribution, with the top 1% alone capturing 24% of the benefits. For individual tax provisions, the top 5% of households (those earning more than about $450,000) received over 45% of the benefits from extending the TCJA, according to the Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center. The top 10% of households received 56% of the value of the proposed tax reductions in 2026, while the bottom 80% captured only 29%. The law also created a 20% deduction for pass-through business income, which mostly benefits the richest 1%, and significantly raised the estate tax exemption, allowing married couples to leave more than $27 million tax-free-changes that overwhelmingly benefits wealthy households.