Linkage

Nazism is a kind of “authoritarian populism.” Populism is a political ideology that posits that politics is a conflict between two kinds of people: a real people whose concerns and beliefs are legitimate, moral, and true; a corrupt, out-of-touch, illegitimate elite who are parasitic on the real people. Populism is always anti-pluralist: there is only one real people, and they are in perfect agreement about everything. (Muller says populism is “a moralized form of antipluralism” 20).

Populism become authoritarian when the narrative that the real people have become so oppressed by the “elite” that they are in danger of extermination. At that point, there are no constraints on the behavior of populists or their leaders. This rejection of what are called “liberal norms” (not in the American sense of “liberal” but the political theory one) such as fairness, change from within, deliberation, transparent and consistent legal processes is the moment that a populist movement becomes authoritarian (and Machiavellian). 

[…]

Authoritarian populism always has an intriguing mix of victimhood, heroism, strength, and whining. Somehow whining about how oppressed “we are” and what meany-meany-bo-beanies They are is seen as strength. And that is what much of Hitler’s rhetoric was—so very, very much whining.

And that is something else that authoritarian populism promises: a promise of never being held morally accountable, as long as you are a loyal (even fanatical) member of the in-group (the real people).

In authoritarian populism, the morality comes from group membership, and the values the group claims to have—values which might have literally nothing to do with whatever policies they enact or ways they behave. 

Basically, far too many people have seen descriptors like “not fully developed” and taken that to mean it’s like a partially assembled Ikea bookshelf; a work in progress, something that will be able to do it’s job when it’s done, but not until then”.

That’s not how brains work, though. At every stage of development, they’re ‘functional’. Young brains allow us to walk, speak, perceive, connect, deduce, calculate, coordinate, decide, respond, focus, retain, and all the other stuff your standard human brain does all day every day to successfully navigate our increasingly complex world. 

[…]

Why do people insist otherwise? Unclear. But it’s not based on any particular scientific study or claim. At best, it seems to be a corruption/misunderstanding of a few older studies into brain development, ones which mentioned, or only used subjects under the age of, 25. But didn’t make any grand claims about this being some developmental cut-off point, or the moment when your brain dings like a microwave, to let you know that it’s ‘done’.

[…]

Let’s be clear; more often than not, anyone invoking the ‘people under 25 years old don’t have functional brains’ argument, is doing so to support their position or beliefs, whatever they may be.

That’s why someone can be deemed too young to understand the decision to, say, get an abortion, and simultaneously be declared mature enough to have and raise a baby.

Or young men under 25 can be ‘too young’ to be expected to stop themselves from committing crimes like sexual assault, but are definitely old enough to receive the full adult punishment for joining a terrorist organisation, or entering another country by non-legal means. And so on. 

Mr Dutton's incendiary speech — his first major statement of the year — sets up a direct clash and contrast to Anthony Albanese who is campaigning for re-election by celebrating Labor's efforts to expand the nation's "care economy" and boost services to the elderly, families with young children, and people with disabilities.

In addition the opposition leader's promise to dismantle the role of "culture, diversity and inclusion" advisers seeks to mirror Donald Trump's successful political campaign in last year's US presidential race when he took aim at what are known in the US as diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

[…]

Describing the federal bureaucracy's growth under Labor as a "completely unsustainable economic situation", Mr Dutton said he would deploy newly appointed shadow for government efficiency Jacinta Price to help "scale back the Canberra public service in a responsible way".

Senator Price has also vowed to review funding for Welcome to Country ceremonies.

Even if you don’t want to walk, wheel or ride, you should care because less driving helps everyone, including other drivers, who benefit from reduced traffic.

As a result of this over-investment in car road-building, Australia has the smallest number of walking trips of 15 comparable countries across Western Europe and North America.

Cycling rates are equally dismal.

Globally, the United Nations recommends nations spend 20% of their transport budgets on walking and cycling infrastructure.

Countries like France, Scotland, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and the largest cities in China invest between 10% and 20%.

These places were not always known for walking and cycling – it took sustained redirecting of investment from roads to walking and cycling.

Meanwhile, many Australians are dependent on cars because they have no other choice in terms of transport options. 

Mitigating climate change necessitates global cooperation, yet global data on individuals’ willingness to act remain scarce. In this study, we conducted a representative survey across 125 countries, interviewing nearly 130,000 individuals. Our findings reveal widespread support for climate action. Notably, 69% of the global population expresses a willingness to contribute 1% of their personal income, 86% endorse pro-climate social norms and 89% demand intensified political action. Countries facing heightened vulnerability to climate change show a particularly high willingness to contribute. Despite these encouraging statistics, we document that the world is in a state of pluralistic ignorance, wherein individuals around the globe systematically underestimate the willingness of their fellow citizens to act. This perception gap, combined with individuals showing conditionally cooperative behaviour, poses challenges to further climate action. Therefore, raising awareness about the broad global support for climate action becomes critically important in promoting a unified response to climate change.

Around the world, gender-restrictive actors are organising to suppress gender-equality in schools. ALIGN’s review of the latest evidence reveals that anti-gender backlash in education is taking place from contexts as diverse as Afghanistan, Chile, Indonesia, Kenya, Pakistan, South Africa, Uganda, the US.

This ALIGN Report focuses on the activities of gender-restrictive actors and organisations who seek to promote a narrow vision of gender relations through the education system. The research shows that their influence is expanding efforts to entrench patriarchal social norms and a binary view of gender, and gaining ground across the globe.

Common aims and tactics include: to remove comprehensive sexuality education from schools, restrict girls access to learning, reinforce patriarchal gender stereotypes in textbooks and reject gender-inclusive policies in school environments. These groups are sustained by deep financial networks which drive effective strategies to amplify misinformation, provoke parental protests, and impose traditional family values.

Trump said at his Thursday news conference that his conclusion that diversity had something to do with the crash was “common sense”.

But common sense tells us he was being racist.

“ ‘It’s probably a black person’s fault this bad thing happened’ as a reflexive explanation is just a racist statement, there’s not a level of substantiation that makes it not racist,” Atlantic staff writer Adam Serwer posted on Bluesky.

“He's not blaming DEI, he's blaming women and non white people,” wrote MSNBC’s Chris Hayes.

“These people are segregationists and their position is that no one who isn’t a white man is qualified to do skilled work of any kind,” New York Times columnist Jamelle Bouie wrote on Bluesky. He then added: "i think it is important to say that the open and explicit racism of the president and the vice president isn’t just uncouth or ‘controversial’ but a direct attack on tens of millions of americans and a dereliction of their duty to represent the entire country."

The world is breaking down under the onslaught of the climate crisis, which is triggering mass migrations, failed states and catastrophic wildfires, hurricanes, storms, flooding and droughts. As global stability unravels, the terrifying machine of industrial violence, which is decimating the Palestinians, will become ubiquitous. These assaults will be committed, as they are in Gaza, in the name of progress, Western civilization and our supposed “virtues” to crush the aspirations of those, mostly poor people of color, who have been dehumanized and dismissed as human animals.

Israel’s annihilation of Gaza marks the death of a global order guided by internationally agreed upon laws and rules, one often violated by the U.S. in its imperial wars in Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, but one that was at least acknowledged as a utopian vision. The U.S. and its Western allies not only supply the weaponry to sustain the genocide, but obstruct the demand by most nations for an adherence to humanitarian law.

The message this sends is clear: You, and the rules that you thought might protect you, do not matter. We have everything. If you try and take it away from us we will kill you.

The militarized drones, helicopter gunships, walls and barriers, checkpoints, coils of concertina wire, watch towers, detention centers, deportations, brutality and torture, denial of entry visas, apartheid existence that comes with being undocumented, loss of individual rights and electronic surveillance are as familiar to the desperate migrants along the Mexican border or attempting to enter Europe as they are to the Palestinians.

You'll need a box of tissues or three.

West’s work at Uber and the Harris campaign illustrates his dedication to the people holding this worldview. He reduced his work in both places to simple games (find returns for Uber investors; raise more cash than the Republicans) where determining the “winner” was a simple matter of counting the money.

In both cases it was critical to complete control of funding and the narratives used to describe the game. No one at Uber had any real-world business accomplishments and no one had any idea how the business model could ever produce sustainable profits, but since they controlled the $13 billion in external funding neither repeated scandals or $32 billion in losses could threaten their control. Anyone who attacked them (or pointed to the huge losses) was denigrated as a unrepentant unionist set on fighting the inevitable tide of technological progress.

Democratic Party insiders fiercely controlled funding even though they no longer had the ability to develop candidates who could win competitive elections or messages and policies with appeal outside elite/PMC circles. Worsening election results were blamed on to Russian interference and the failure of media companies to aggressively censor “misinformation”.

Uber subverted the idea that corporations served the larger economy through risky investments that produced meaningful productivity/efficiency advances whose value was demonstrated in competitive markets. It successfully convinced capital markets to ignore their total lack of competitiveness and profitability, and to only pay attention to their narratives about powerful technological innovation and Amazon-like growth potential.

California Party insiders abandoned the belief that Democrats should serve the concrete interests of a broad range of voters and needed to assemble a broad coalition of interests in order to win elections. The Harris campaign raised a billion dollars from companies and investors who were openly working to capture political processes so they could personally profit from market rigging and directly harm the many Democrats who benefitted from Biden Administration antitrust enforcement.

[…]

The Harris-West decision to ignore elite/non-elite issues and center the campaign on fundraising also helped ensure that it would be impossible for the national Democratic Party to recover from a Trump victory and establish any meaningful opposition to Trump policies. Some billionaire/corporate donors might have had some preference for a Democratic win, believing that (as with Obama) a this would neutralize opposition to pro-oligarchic policies from the left and offered more stability than a Trump victory. But the interest of the donors who contributed $1.1 billion to Harris was always purely transactional and (as events have proven) they rapidly switched their allegiance to Trump. So the national Democrats have absolutely no one that can serve as a plausible opponent to any Trump policies, the Party’s historic pro-working class branding has been destroyed, and the Party totally lacks the money and infrastructure needed to move forward.