Winning the popular vote by 1.5% is hardly a mandate for anything. Moreover, threatening Canada, Denmark/Greenland and Panama were not the issues that got him elected. There is clearly no “mandate” or even broad support for bullying Allies and friendly nations on the international stage.
Now it all makes sense. The POTUS is merely a sock puppet of his benefactors. They want a corporate theocratic and nativist monarchy poised to leverage emerging technology. Techno-Libertarianism asserts that democracy is inefficient and obsolete. This is what we're seeing in the assumptions and actions of the POTUS, Musk, Ramaswamy and DOGE. - kaf
I’d like to share this piece that I wrote with you—it breaks down how Elon Musk has moved beyond influence and is now actively reshaping the U.S. government from the inside. It unpacks how his control over federal payments and the dismantling of USAID were just the beginning—and why what comes next is even more alarming
Would love to hear your thoughts when you have a minute.
Now it all makes sense. They want a corporate monarchy poised to leverage emerging technology. Techno-Libertarianism asserts that democracy is inefficient and obsolete. This is what we're seeing in the assumptions and actions of Musk, Ramaswamy and DOGE. - kaf
Recently started watching Sally Paine’s lectures on YouTube. Wondering if my favorite economists have seen her work. This is for you Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Ian Bremmer…
32,115 views Feb 26, 2025
This Issues in National Security Lecture took place on January 28, 2025. The views presented by the faculty or other guest speakers do not reflect official positions of the Naval War College, DON or DOD. Synopsis: This lecture starts with the geopolitical cards dealt to the United States, Russia, and China. While the United States and its partners and allies are attempting to maintain a maritime global order to foster trade, China and Russia are great continental powers increasingly fixated on dominating territory. These differences have precipitated a Second Cold War. The second section will examine the views of those on both sides, who oversaw the end of the last Cold War, to explain how the democracies won without fighting a hot war. The final section will suggest some possible ways forward based on the geopolitical hand that the United States holds, the potential strategies that such a hand can support, and the strategies that proved most fruitful the last time around. Speaker bio: Sarah C.M. Paine, the College's William S. Sims University Professor of History and Grand Strategy, has published Wars for Asia, 1911-1949, Japanese Empire, and with Bruce A. Elleman, Modern China: Continuity and Change 1644 to the Present and five co-edited books on naval operations. The Economist just featured her in its annual special issue, “The World Ahead 2025.”
Stop talking about Signal. It’s the signal it’s giving us. We have a serious national security emergency. Fix it. Our security and safety is the issue. If you want national security change these people. .
Ian, as my friends and readers tell me, words are not enough. This is not a presidency it is an anti-liberal government takeover by corporatists. All the civil and military enforcement machinery has been disabled, or co-opted. Some of the Courts may have moral authority, but they are or will be ignored if they don’t do as the hunta wants. Bashing a few Teslas won’t do it. We lack a guerrilla force, no general strikes, sabotage, or calls for more than protests. We need a call to arms, but from what I see we seem to precious to risk physical action and have zero strategic leadership.
Wonderful breakdown of the global. Attached I begin a launch into the deep dive interface of Donald’s narcissism and his geopolitical opportunities - a la 🇷🇺
II hope and pray that you are wrong. A return to great power politics will be a return to war. A return to war will ineluctably lead to nuclear war. The future is grim.
Mr Bremmer, I first saw you speak at the Naval War College many years ago and was extremely impressed. However, I must confess that I find your analysis Democratic conventional and, I think, just plain wrong. No matter how many institutions have been created to get away from the law of the jungle--see, Woodrow Wilson, for example--that law has always ruled and almost certainly will always rule the relations among nations. When one nation like the US is so much stronger than everyone else, the everyone elses fall in line. But with the rise of China, nuclear weapons in so many hands, cyber risks, etc., it only becomes more obvious as to what the real rules are. I have no particular brief for Mr Trump but his focus on national security in the fact of bellicose adversaries--such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and probably others--is a welcome change from the wishful thinking of the past, such as the fantasy hope that admitting China to various international institutions would make it evolve toward western values. I only hope that our military and our methods to counter the efforts of those adversaries become strong enough to deter a violent conflict or to win it if it cannot be deterred.
He got less than 50% of the vote and most people didn’t bother to vote. How is that a mandate ?
Winning the popular vote by 1.5% is hardly a mandate for anything. Moreover, threatening Canada, Denmark/Greenland and Panama were not the issues that got him elected. There is clearly no “mandate” or even broad support for bullying Allies and friendly nations on the international stage.
Now it all makes sense. The POTUS is merely a sock puppet of his benefactors. They want a corporate theocratic and nativist monarchy poised to leverage emerging technology. Techno-Libertarianism asserts that democracy is inefficient and obsolete. This is what we're seeing in the assumptions and actions of the POTUS, Musk, Ramaswamy and DOGE. - kaf
https://open.substack.com/pub/mikebrock/p/the-plot-against-america?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=r93ta
I’d like to share this piece that I wrote with you—it breaks down how Elon Musk has moved beyond influence and is now actively reshaping the U.S. government from the inside. It unpacks how his control over federal payments and the dismantling of USAID were just the beginning—and why what comes next is even more alarming
Would love to hear your thoughts when you have a minute.
https://open.substack.com/pub/jasonegenberg/p/elon-musks-global-power-grab-the?r=3nm35j&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
Now it all makes sense. They want a corporate monarchy poised to leverage emerging technology. Techno-Libertarianism asserts that democracy is inefficient and obsolete. This is what we're seeing in the assumptions and actions of Musk, Ramaswamy and DOGE. - kaf
https://open.substack.com/pub/mikebrock/p/the-plot-against-america?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android&r=r93ta
Recently started watching Sally Paine’s lectures on YouTube. Wondering if my favorite economists have seen her work. This is for you Robert Reich, Paul Krugman and Ian Bremmer…
32,115 views Feb 26, 2025
This Issues in National Security Lecture took place on January 28, 2025. The views presented by the faculty or other guest speakers do not reflect official positions of the Naval War College, DON or DOD. Synopsis: This lecture starts with the geopolitical cards dealt to the United States, Russia, and China. While the United States and its partners and allies are attempting to maintain a maritime global order to foster trade, China and Russia are great continental powers increasingly fixated on dominating territory. These differences have precipitated a Second Cold War. The second section will examine the views of those on both sides, who oversaw the end of the last Cold War, to explain how the democracies won without fighting a hot war. The final section will suggest some possible ways forward based on the geopolitical hand that the United States holds, the potential strategies that such a hand can support, and the strategies that proved most fruitful the last time around. Speaker bio: Sarah C.M. Paine, the College's William S. Sims University Professor of History and Grand Strategy, has published Wars for Asia, 1911-1949, Japanese Empire, and with Bruce A. Elleman, Modern China: Continuity and Change 1644 to the Present and five co-edited books on naval operations. The Economist just featured her in its annual special issue, “The World Ahead 2025.”
https://youtu.be/TaZdN2QTfGE
Piece of shit fatass blowhard
Never again?
Paul Revere, spread the word.
Signalgate is the signal that we are not safe.
it’s Securitygate.
Stop talking about Signal. It’s the signal it’s giving us. We have a serious national security emergency. Fix it. Our security and safety is the issue. If you want national security change these people. .
Well, if I’m to be lunch meat, I’ll make myself as toxic and unhealthy as possible. At least give the aggro chimps some mfing indigestion.
Ian, as my friends and readers tell me, words are not enough. This is not a presidency it is an anti-liberal government takeover by corporatists. All the civil and military enforcement machinery has been disabled, or co-opted. Some of the Courts may have moral authority, but they are or will be ignored if they don’t do as the hunta wants. Bashing a few Teslas won’t do it. We lack a guerrilla force, no general strikes, sabotage, or calls for more than protests. We need a call to arms, but from what I see we seem to precious to risk physical action and have zero strategic leadership.
Wonderful breakdown of the global. Attached I begin a launch into the deep dive interface of Donald’s narcissism and his geopolitical opportunities - a la 🇷🇺
https://open.substack.com/pub/darcymcneil/p/canadas-rage?r=14ah5q&utm_medium=ios
II hope and pray that you are wrong. A return to great power politics will be a return to war. A return to war will ineluctably lead to nuclear war. The future is grim.
Mr Bremmer, I first saw you speak at the Naval War College many years ago and was extremely impressed. However, I must confess that I find your analysis Democratic conventional and, I think, just plain wrong. No matter how many institutions have been created to get away from the law of the jungle--see, Woodrow Wilson, for example--that law has always ruled and almost certainly will always rule the relations among nations. When one nation like the US is so much stronger than everyone else, the everyone elses fall in line. But with the rise of China, nuclear weapons in so many hands, cyber risks, etc., it only becomes more obvious as to what the real rules are. I have no particular brief for Mr Trump but his focus on national security in the fact of bellicose adversaries--such as China, Russia, Iran, North Korea, and probably others--is a welcome change from the wishful thinking of the past, such as the fantasy hope that admitting China to various international institutions would make it evolve toward western values. I only hope that our military and our methods to counter the efforts of those adversaries become strong enough to deter a violent conflict or to win it if it cannot be deterred.
Robert W. Berliner, Jr.
rberliner@berlinergroup.com