Introduction
Part 8 of this series is being written in early June of 2025. All of the topics I’ve discussed in earlier parts of this series have been ongoing. Disrupting ripples in the global economy because of Trump’s trade war, alarming signs that the attacks of science and public health infrastructure caused immediate damage, kidnappings of migrants and refugees by ICE, continued support of Israel during their genocide against Palestinians. All of this and so much more has happened between my writing of parts 7 and 8. I’ll mention one event specifically that happened in May 2025, but otherwise in part 8 I’ll focus less on events that were current to this writing and more on broader and more conceptual ideas.
Shallow Fanatics
I was watching a satirical video biography about Stephen Miller, the pasty bald ghoul behind Trump’s policies that terrorized migrants and turned ICE into even more of a Gestapo like organization than it was before. The short story is that Miller was always a bastard even when he was a kid in high school. In that video biography there was a short quote from Miller writing about his time in school in California, lamenting the fact that students didn’t stand for the pledge of allegiance or respect the American flag. Miller also criticized Americans who didn’t respect the Christian holiday of Christmas (even though Miller himself was born into a Jewish family).
After watching that video something clicked into place in my mind, like a lot of thoughts and observations finally connecting into a complete thought. People like Stephen Miller are the type of fanatic who are obsessed with symbols and rituals, like seizing up, foaming at the mouth, obsessed. Their fanaticism is both violent, yet simultaneously superficial. The reason for their superficiality is obvious, they are superficial themselves. People such as Miller might have a ruthless cunning that helps them achieve their goals, but they are devoid of introspection or critical thinking. This type of fanatic is also the sort of person who projects unimpeachable strength, but they are secretly thinned-skin and weak. They’ve attached a lot of their own ego and sense of value to the symbols they worship (because they have so little confidence in themselves). Therefore any attack on those symbols becomes an attack on them. These “attacks” could also just be a de-emphasis. Christo-fascists in America quaked at the idea of a society where different faiths are respected. The only way they would ever be “satisfied” is if their version of Christianity was not only dominant, but every alternative was actively persecuted.
A persecution complex is also closely related to this shallow fanaticism. Bigots feel that their superiority is ordained by nature, or the supernatural, or by a million other justifications. They feel it is their right to subjugate others without restriction. Hateful people feel victimized when they are forced to coexist in a diverse society. Not being allowed to persecute is seen as persecution. It appears that on a macro as well as micro scale abusers justify their behavior by contorting events until they are the victims.
Another reason I find shallow fanatics so unsettling is how heartless and unconcerned they are about other people. They care more about bolts of cloth on a stick than they do about actual human beings and their suffering. In fact, those who are consumed with defending symbols and rituals are the cause of a significant percentage of suffering inflicted on people. In addition, because shallow fanatics have no powers of critical thinking, they can never recognize how alike they are. Take for example the pledge of allegiance in the United States. In case the reader isn’t living in an insane society, the pledge of allegiance was some nationalist brainwashing shit that they made primary school students recite at the beginning of everyday. By the time I’m writing this a lot of schools across the country had stopped making it mandatory, but it was still required in conservative parts of the country. Which is ironic because in the pledge of allegiance one had to declare support for the republic. Apparently American fascists didn’t hear themselves saying that when they recited the pledge. This is exactly what I mean by shallow fanatic, though. Guys like Steven Miller would tear their clothes, smote their breasts, and weep at the knowledge that not every American cared about the pledge of allegiance. All the while Miller worked to destroy the republic that he supposedly swore allegiance to in the first place.
But I’m digressing. A man like Stephen Miller believes that anyone born within the arbitrary borders of the United States should be sexually excited at the sight of an American flag. To do any less is treason. Ardent nationalism is the only acceptable viewpoint. More specifically, ardent American nationalism is the only acceptable viewpoint. American nationalists fear and loathe, or even fail to recognize the existence of, nationalists in other countries. Religious fundamentalists, xenophobes, nationalists, they all hate one another, while being unable to recognize that they are the exact same kind of close-minded moron. They all have a fervent attachment to their own rituals and symbols without any deep understanding of what the rituals and symbols are supposed to represent.
The reader might be wondering how this subsection relates to the thesis of this series, that being how the Trump regime put the final nails in the coffin of America’s unchallenged global supremacy that began at the end of the cold war and ushered fascism to the shores of the United States. I think that shallow fanaticism is one of the many reasons empires fall. I’d characterize this phenomenon like Newton’s third law of motion, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction, almost like empires create their own fatal flaws or weaknesses. How do they do that?
When you strip away the many layers, all empires (and states in general) exist primarily to enrich and empower a ruling elite. Below the ruling elite there are varying levels of exploitation in different classes of society. That exploitation is ensured through coercive force. That’s a tough concept to sell to everyone that’s being exploited. A mythos needs to be created, something that masks the reality and convinces enough exploited people to support the system that oppresses them. Empires can take advantage of the desperation and dissatisfaction that they help create. People who are desperate, lonely, looking for community and identity, who lack critical thinking skills are ripe targets for imperial propaganda. As I said above, these desperate and uncritical people can become so devoted to the myths and symbols of their chosen identity that they see any attack on those symbols as a personal insult. So where does the fatal flaw come in? Isn’t it a good thing for an empire when the people being exploited worship the system that exploits them? Yes it is a good thing (for the empire). However, what if members of the ruling elite start to believe in those myths? What happens when those in power focus more on the myths and symbols of an empire rather than the actual function and maintenance of that empire? That’s how people can be claiming to save a system that they’re actually destroying. What they’re “saving” isn’t anything tangible or rational like a government bureaucracy, it’s intangible and irrational ideas. The myths that an empire creates to justify itself can unwittingly help destroy it.
Danger of Irrationality Part 3
Just because someone has power or influence that does not mean they possess the knowledge or the wisdom to wield that power responsibly or effectively. Isn’t that obvious? One might imagine that to be the case, but apparently only when the issue is hypothetical. Ever since I was old enough to pay attention to politics I have been astounded at the blithe naivete and optimism displayed by people who should know better. This will be discussed more in the subsection below, but the amount of Americans in politics, journalism, business and finance who refused to grapple with the reality of the Trump regime was maddening. It’s almost like there are those in every society who have a mental block that prevents them from seeing the obvious. I’m not entirely sure why either. It could just be stupidity. Or maybe the idea that those with power over us being insane or ideological zealots is so frightening that building a wall of delusion becomes a common coping mechanism.
In the paragraphs below I’ll talk about the danger of political leaders being irrational, but anyone who builds that wall of delusion is endangering society as well. In the United States there were endless examples of such people. Democratic politicians who just went about their business as usual like an old meme of a dog sitting in a burning building saying “this is fine.” Or reporters supporting fascism in their futile quest to be “neutral.” Or business leaders and financial analysts saying that Trump’s tariffs were a negotiating tactic or temporary, because Trump would never destroy the global financial system that the US benefits from. That kind of irrationality is a pernicious threat. Believing in fantasies like that is another form of complicity. Tyranny can’t be stopped by pretending it doesn’t exist, it can only be stopped by constant large scale resistance.
This has been repeated an infinite number of times in human history, and so far no one has learned the lesson, people in power are dangerous. That is especially true when whoever wields authority is insane, or deluded, or strongly committed to an ideology. Obsession with an ideological project is another way that reality can be warped in a person’s mind. Everything has to be understood and explained through the ideological framework. Decisions are made and events are processed through a mental funnel. What might seem crazy to an outsider makes perfect sense to the committed zealot. If the reader ever looks at decisions being made by those in power and says: “That’s crazy, or it doesn’t make sense. This will cause a lot of harm and gain nothing for anybody.” When has that ever stopped anybody? Why do you still hold onto lies told in your childhood about humanity being kind or decent? How often has power been thoughtful or just?
Strong commitment to an ideology is even more dangerous in an authoritarian system. Finding someone in a position of authority that is humble enough to admit when they make mistakes is rare in any system. Politicians notoriously have huge egos. Authoritarians are on an entirely different level when it comes to avoiding blame. When a system glorifies the state, and especially a singular leader at the top, it projects an image of infallibility and immense strength. Tyrannical governments are strong in the amount of force they can marshal against their own people. That need to appear infallible is necessary to win people over to the state or leader, but it also presents a potential weakness. If an authoritarian leader is so committed to an ideology that they become irrational and make decisions that don’t make sense, it creates a dilemma. Publicly admitting fault is unacceptable. The leader’s ego, their beliefs, and the basis for their power would be threatened. I’m not exaggerating when I say that tyrants will resort to genocidal levels of violence before they admit that they fucked up.
This process is so reliable I could write a generalized template for past and future events. Some “strong leader” comes to power in the country of Zero. The leader has a simple plan to bring prosperity to Zero. The plan is actually too simplistic, and the reality of the situation is actually far more complicated and nuanced. That doesn’t matter to the leader though, and they begin to implement their simple plan. It doesn’t work out like the leader promised and people start to suffer more than they were before. Was the plan wrong? Did the leader make a mistake? Of course not, the problem is people weren’t adopting the plan with enough gusto. Orders go out to the entire bureaucracy to implement the plan by force if necessary. It doesn’t work. The situation has gotten even worse than before. What’s going on? The leader is perfection personified, and the plan is the greatest thing ever conceived by human thought. As always, the leader has an answer. Sabotage. There are internal enemies, people not committed enough to Zero, to the leader, to the plan. Paradise would have arrived already, if it weren’t for the enemies all around. All those who would disrupt the plan need to be found and purged, no matter how flimsy the pretext for their guilt, no matter how much torture it takes to elicit a confession. Yet no matter how many saboteurs are liquidated, the plan never lives up to the hype. This template could have several endings. Maybe the leader is overthrown, maybe the repression fizzles out after the leader and the state move onto new projects. Maybe the regime claims a magnificent victory atop the corpses of everyone they killed to get there. No matter the specifics, the end result is that a lot of people suffered and died horrible deaths because killing shitloads of people was easier than saying “We were wrong.” Yay us.
I have two final points to make about the dangers of irrationality. There were far too many assumptions in 2025 that “Trump and his cabinet won’t do this,” or “They can’t do that.” The assumption behind those assumptions is that Trump and his creatures were at least basically competent. They wouldn’t destroy the United States as a great power because only fools would do that. I’ve already mentioned the dangers of ideological zealots doing things that only make sense in the context of their ideology. Assuming competence is misguided for another reason, though. In a fascist system, the quality that matters above all others is unquestioning loyalty. Being good at an assigned job is not nearly as important as following orders. In fact, being given nonsensical orders can become a test of loyalty. Being both competent and loyal is a nice bonus, but not a requirement.
Finally, people in power enjoy wealth and privilege. They might never be aware of the consequences of their decisions. Or they are so insulated from hardship that they don’t care how their actions affect other people. Most people are close minded and selfish. Attaining wealth and status only enhance those negative qualities. No one should be surprised when governmental leaders make decisions that hurt people beneath them. “As long as it’s not happening to me;” that’s the mantra civilization is built on.
Opposed to Opposition: Democrats and Legacy Media
I wanted to open this section with a couple of paragraphs from Martin Luther King Junior’s letter from a Birmingham Jail, written in August 1963. I first read this letter while in the process of writing this piece, and I recommend the entire letter to readers. It’s extremely good but also depressing. King’s words have lost none of their relevance in the intervening decades, and if the specific references in the letter were changed it could just have easily been written in 2025 as 1963. I’m quoting King here for two reasons. 1. King was a more eloquent writer than I am. And 2. The attitudes of the white “moderates” MLK writes about have not changed with time either.
“First, I must confess that over the last few years I have been gravely disappointed with the white moderate. I have almost reached the regrettable conclusion that the Negro’s great stumbling block in the stride toward freedom is not the White Citizens Councillor or the Ku Klux Klanner but the white moderate who is more devoted to order than to justice; who prefers a negative peace which is the absence of tension to a positive peace which is the presence of justice; who constantly says, “I agree with you in the goal you seek, but I can’t agree with your methods of direct action”; who paternalistically feels that he can set the timetable for another man’s freedom; who lives by the myth of time; and who constantly advises the Negro to wait until a “more convenient season.” Shallow understanding from people of good will is more frustrating than absolute misunderstanding from people of ill will. Lukewarm acceptance is much more bewildering than outright rejection.”
“I had also hoped that the white moderate would reject the myth of time. I received a letter this morning from a white brother in Texas which said, “All Christians know that the colored people will receive equal rights eventually, but is it possible that you are in too great of a religious hurry? It has taken Christianity almost 2000 years to accomplish what it has. The teachings of Christ take time to come to earth.” All that is said here grows out of a tragic misconception of time. It is the strangely irrational notion that there is something in the very flow of time that will inevitably cure all ills. Actually, time is neutral. It can be used either destructively or constructively. I am coming to feel that the people of ill will have used time much more effectively than the people of good will. We will have to repent in this generation not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people. We must come to see that human progress never rolls in on wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and persistent work of men willing to be coworkers with God, and without this hard work time itself becomes an ally of the forces of social stagnation.”
The study of American nationalism is an exercise in masochism. The songs, slogans, speeches, plaques, statues, pamphlets and books proclaiming the virtues of American freedom are nauseating. Why? To start with is the undeniable hypocrisy. Celebrating the values of universal liberty and freedom while perpetuating white supremacy would be hilarious if it weren’t so bleak. In addition, it’s easy to make flowery speeches about American liberty and to say “live free or die,” when there is no chance of death. How many speeches were given in America about the importance of defending liberty? How many of them were given with the assumption that the day to defend liberty would never come, or it would be someone else’s problem? When the day finally did arrive to defend liberty we learned (for about the billionth time in history) that there is an overabundance of idiots and cowards in the universe who are unwilling to stand up for anything.
There are a lot of reasons the Democratic party failed to adequately defend liberty in the first half of 2025 (maybe that will change in the future but I doubt it). Wherever wealth and status can be attained, corruption inevitably follows. The power of wealthy individuals and corporate donors over Democratic party leadership was substantial, and it skewed their doctrine and worldview towards capitalist business interest. Contrary to fascist propaganda the Democratic party was not an extreme left wing group. As a whole, the party skewed right of center, and there were some in their ranks who were even more conservative. There were many Democrats who didn’t resist Trump’s authoritarian takeover because they agreed with or were sympathetic to many of his views. Even those who didn’t like or agree with Trump might not have resisted him for another reason. Some in the ruling elite will always endorse slow and gradual reform because it’s sensible, and will also help cement their power. People can be subjugated for centuries, but an archaic or poorly run government increases the chance for revolt or unrest. On the other hand, the ruling elite will always jealousy defend their power and privileges. Any reform that would threaten their position at the top of the food chain will not be tolerated. As a result of these attitudes, you end with someone “who is more devoted to order than to justice.”
Finally, there were probably a lot of Democrats who were afraid to take a stand. They either ignored the destruction of the American republic or pretended that everything was still business as usual. Some of them might have been trying to claim normalcy because it meant they wouldn’t have to rise to the occasion. I don’t blame people for being afraid, that’s understandable. To an extent, I also don’t blame people for not having the right qualities to resist fascism either. It’s hard to know how you’d react in a situation until it actually happens. While fear is understandable, stupidity is not. The best chance of defeating fascism’s rise and avoiding personal risk is to take a stand early. In American fascism’s most recent iteration that would have meant back in the early to mid 2010s. The democratic “resistance” failed utterly to do so in a coherent or effective way.
Another pillar of “resistance” that failed in its duty was the media. I’m now convinced that people who received journalism degrees in the US also got special lobotomies that prevented them from seeing or stating the obvious. If that isn’t the case, then the entire culture of journalism was broken. Journalism could be one of the few checks on the greed and rapacity of the powerful. Constant public interrogation and shaming is one of the few tools the exploited have against their exploiters. Rather than taking up that gauntlet, legacy media decided that the job of a journalist was to be a stenographer, a cipher, a pen without a brain. They regurgitated the lies of the wealthy and the powerful instead of fighting them. Rather than guarding the walls of free expression against a fascist siege, legacy media opened the gates and allowed the besiegers in without resistance.
An example of what I mean is exemplified in an event that took place in May 2025. At that time, the Qatari royal family, in their boundless generosity, decided to “gift” Trump a super-luxury jumbo jet for his personal use, that he would keep after he left office (if he ever leaves office). I specifically remember one headline saying this exchange “strained the bounds of propriety.” No shit. That would be like a true crime reporter saying: “Mr. Smith was found in an alleyway missing his head. His heart was also removed from his chest. Mr. Smith was straining the bounds of aliveness.” Bounds of propriety, really? How can anyone write this way? The headline should have: “Most Obvious Bribe in US Presidential History, So Far.” The corruption of the Trump regime was so overt that they were daring, no, begging the media to call them out for it. Instead, the media balked. They strained the bounds of language to avoid making a strong statement.
Language is immensely powerful. But language, like time, is neutral. It can be used constructively or destructively. That’s why good journalism is so important, and why bad journalism is so harmful. In politics, good journalism can help to expose the crimes of the state and hold the state accountable. Bad political journalism can provide cover for the state to commit crimes. In part 7 of this series I wrote a section about state terrorism. Specifically I said: “When non-state actors do terrorism we call it…terrorism. In the 20th and 21st century when state actors did terrorism they called it “law and order.”” We can see this in the way state terror is described. Imagine there is a violent clash in a major city between protesters and police. In journalistic coverage of the events a pattern emerges with shocking regularity. Any action protesters (non-state actors) take are described like this: “Protesters threw rocks, Protesters lit cars on fire, Protesters vandalized buildings.” When the police (state actors) do something, it’s described like this: “Rubber bullets were fired, Tear gas was thrown, People were beaten.” This is destructive language, this is the written and spoken word deployed to condemn one group and absolve another. In these examples, the protesters are held responsible for their actions, while the police are made blameless. The protesters threw rocks, while rubber bullets just emerged out of the ether of their own accord. In part 6 I talked about how this nebulous concept of “the state” becomes a sprawling inhuman leviathan. It’s comforting to think of vast atrocities being committed by a monstrous force beyond anyone’s control. The more frightening reality is that violence carried out by individual people adds up to vast atrocities. Language like “rubber bullets were fired” is how the state becomes the leviathan. By hiding the violence of individuals behind obtuse language, we forget the human face of evil.
Conclusion
If by some miracle an effective resistance against Trump’s regime leads to American democracy being resurrected, then American society needs to be rebuilt on a revolutionary scale. Anyone who wants to go back to the way things were is a fool, because the way things were led to fascism. Addressing systemic inequality is key to the rebuilding project. More specifically, if America wants to survive for even a little while longer, white supremacy needs to be destroyed. The United States from its founding has tried to compromise with white supremacists, or to pretend like the US was a place of equality and liberty for all. Ignoring reality and embracing a soothing fantasy will always lead to ruin.
There also needs to be a legal reckoning for thousands of people in the regime. All the way from Trump and his cabinet at the top and down to ICE agents kidnapping people in the streets. They all need to be held accountable for their actions. There can’t be another repeat of the US Civil War, when we let the Confederates off without even a slap on the wrist so they could re entrench white supremacy for the next 150 plus years and counting.
Once again in this generation and maybe every generation we will have to repent “not merely for the vitriolic words and actions of the bad people but for the appalling silence of the good people.”