State of the Nation address on behalf of the Honesty Party

"My fellow New Zealanders, whether citizens, residents or those just passing through en route to Australian pastures, it gives me little pleasure to deliver this State of the Nation address on behalf of the Honesty Party because the State of the Nation is, to use a variety of technical terms, knackered, stuffed, buggered.

"While I am sure many of you use far more less technical terms, we can all agree, in the spirit of total honesty that this great party proudly stands for and embraces, that the country is not what it was nor indeed what it claims to be – and hasn’t been for decades.

"The Honesty Party recognises that our problems and issues as a country predate Rogernomics and Ruthenasia. Muldoonism was a failed experiment in populist authoritarianism and economics that failed to adjust to a rapidly changing world. What was once the (if briefly) wealthiest country in the world had already begun its decline and fall. The long snooze of the Holyoake years had set the tone of a ‘steady as she goes’ mentality, one that too often has meant the ship of state has steadily gone aground on the rocks of despair and desperation.

"The basis of our economy is one that no other first world nation has decided upon. A primary-production exporting economy to which we have added tourism, an overinflated housing market and high levels of immigration sets us apart, for a reason. New Zealand used to be the social laboratory of the word; today in all honesty we could say New Zealand is the economic laboratory in how to over promise and under deliver."

~ Mike Grimshaw from his post 'State of the Nation Address: The Honesty Party (An exercise in political honesty)'

Iranians: Yearning to breathe free!

In Auckland yesterday we woke to news that Iran's theocratic rulers were dead and dying. 

Within hours, Iranians in Auckland had gathered to celebrate. (Yes, those are Israeli and US flags being waved below, and pictures of a dead Ayatollah being celebrated). 

This was in complete contrast to the hand wringing going on in the homes of (to pick just two people) Helen Clark and Antōnio Guterres, who were quick to bemoan attacks on the regime that had slaughtered at least 35, 000 Iranian innocents -- which they'd ignored.

So too had Iranians in many other parts of the world. Not least in Iran. (Click through for posts and videos.)

It seems the only place these murdering bastards are mourned are in the homes and offices of people with Pro-Palestinian t-shirts in the cupboard and keffiyeh on their hat rack. These people "have no shame," observes Brendan O'Neill. "They said nothing when thousands of Iranians were slaughtered by the theocratic regime. Yet now they’re crying because some regime goons were killed in airstrikes. These people are just apologists for tyranny."

Given the Iranian regime's role in supporting world terrorism, Islamofascism and in trying to destroy western life (in every way possible) -- on raining death and destruction on the world for 47 years -- then if regime change is successful in Iran -- if! -- then it would be the single most momentous geopolitical change for the better since the fall of the Berlin Wall.

But as with Bush II's Iraq War, the question to come is: do they know what the hell they're going to do next. With this administration, that's unlikely (it hasn't even bothered to seek Congressional approval, which is constitutionally required). So it will need every circumstance to go the way of those Iranians celebrating above people. As Eliot Cohen says,  "Something of an exercise in ambivalence here. I would like to see the Iranian regime go down hard -- and am not confident Trump knows what he is doing."

Let's hope with crossed fingers for a lion of freedom to arise from the attacks.

What is "Neoliberalism" anyway?

A viral video by young lawyer Riana Te Ngahue is doing the rounds purporting to explain (for her aunties) something called Neoliberalism.

'A' for effort. 'F' for content. As libertarian Alberto Mingardi observes, very few who use the term have actually taken the time to define it correctly and to trace back its origins. She does take the time, but just like the folk she notes in her video (Tamitha Paul, Chloe Swarbrick, et al) Ms Te Ngahue fails to either define or understand where it came from. 

To be fair, it's not clear. Neoliberalism is like "trickle-down" in economics, or "austerity" in political economy: a term used almost exclusively by critics to characterise and critique a whole ill-defined whole cluster of policies and people, none of whom actually exist. (Take a look at Phil Magness for example explaining 'Why I Am Not a Neoliberal.') "Capitalism" of course was famously one of those words too -- used initially by French socialist Louis Blanc and anarchist Pierre-Joseph Proudhon -- before being taken up by capitalism's supporters. A bit like "queer."

But (apart from Scott Sumner, who thinks it's "awesome") there's no sign of that happening with "neoliberalism."

As Jeffrey Tucker explained way back in 2016, "We need a fix on what this term means. Is there a founding thinker, book, or meeting?" Or, in other words:

What is "Neoliberalism" anyway?

by Jeffrey Tucker

The term “neoliberalism” is being flung around everywhere these days, usually with a haughty sense of “everyone knows what this is.” But do we really? You may think you know, but there’s very little agreement among everyone else.

Is there a founding thinker, book, or meeting? The most common search phrases on Google are these: “definition neoliberalism,” “what is neoliberalism,” and “define neoliberalism.”

The confusion is understandable. Sometimes the term is used approvingly by the mainstream press, as for example to describe France’s Emmanuel Macron. Or Javier Milei. (As if there were much in common between the two.)

More often the term is used as a pejorative by the far left and the alt-right. Here it is said with a sneer to be a synonym for capitalism, globalism, elite rule, ruling-class privilege, and the administrative state.

It's true that there's more doubt around these days about cradle-to-grave government.

What are the reasons for this change?

First, there is the rather obvious fact that government management has failed to live up to its promise. People are far more likely to dread than appreciate any real-world contact with the state. Where would you rather be: the DMV or McDonald’s? The school-district office or a local bar? A military base or a car plant? The courthouse or the shopping mall? Want to deal with a government cop or a private security guard?

Second, private enterprise has turned out to produce far more amazing improvements in our lives; health, prosperity, education, transportation, security, and all the other “commanding heights” of life have been well-served by innovation stemming from entrepreneurship and commercial exchange. Pick your example, but a favourite one is how much transportation alone has improved with ride-sharing technology.

Third, a quiet intellectual revolution has been taking place in the postwar period, with generations of outstanding scholars having rediscovered, then improved, then propagated the insights of classical economics. To be sure, it is now conventional wisdom on the Left that this “neoliberal” intellectual shift is a result of an elite conspiracy dreamed up by billionaires and pushed by well-funded institutions and public intellectuals.

But there is a simpler explanation: the ideas of classical liberalism explain the world better than any alternative. Whether the intellectual change is the prime cause of the shift or incidental to it is unknowable. But this much is true: the shift in ideas is both real and necessary for a change in the paradigm.

Still, a classical liberal is not a neoliberal. We need a firmer fix on what this term "neoliberal" means. Is there a founding thinker, book, or meeting?

Liberalism Needed a Champion

The answer is yes. The thinker is the American journalist Walter Lippmann (1889-1974). He is often called the founder of modern American journalism. Also, if any writer/thinker can be called the founding father of neoliberalism, it is he. His life and times roughly overlap with both Mises and Hayek, the twentieth century’s two most prominent proponents of the classical idea of liberalism. Unlike Lippmann, there was nothing particularly “neo” about either of them. 

In fact, Mises himself had already written the definitive book to champion liberalism in the classical form in 1929. But it was published in Austria, in German. Lippman, as a New Yorker, would never have seen it.

Lippmann was not a professor, though he had an elite education and his brilliance was unmistakable. He was one of the most famous public intellectuals of his time, and a paragon of what was called liberalism in the Progressive Era and through the New Deal. As a founding editor of the New Republic, he was a defender of civil liberties, a proponent of peace, and opponent of socialism and fascism. No one would call him a dissident intellectual but he did resist the totalitarian winds of his time.

The Ideological Crisis

In the interwar period, this class of intellectuals had a sincere concern for the preservation of all the gains of liberty in the past, and sought to find a way to protect them in the future. The situation they faced was grim both in the United States and Europe. Two main extremist factions were struggling for control: the communists/socialists and the fascists/Nazis, which, Lippman realised, were two sides of the same authoritarian coin. The New Deal seemed to be borrowing from both while trying to hold on to certain liberal ideals. It was an unstable mix.

Where was the opposition? In Europe, the U.S., and the U.K, there was also a rise of what might be generally called Toryism or conservatism (or, in the American South, agrarianism). This was not a positive program but rather a reactionary or revanchist pose, a longing for the order of days gone by. In Europe, there were waves of nostalgia for the old monarchies and, with it, the desire to roll back the legitimate gains of liberalism in the 19th century. And with this pose comes a series of demands that are absolutely incompatible with modern life and contemporary human aspirations. 

Lippman knew that some form of liberalism had to be the way forward. But not the old liberalism, which he believed had failed (it led to economic depression and social instability, in his view). His goal was a renovated liberalism. He never used the term neoliberalism (that was invented by a colleague), but that is what it came to be called.

The Good Society

Lippmann’s great book – and it truly is a great book and very much worth a read – appeared in 1937: The Good Society. The book celebrated liberalism and thus rejected socialism, fascism, and Toryism. However, it also rejected laissez faire with equal passion, although you have to get pretty deep into the book to discover this. Lippmann had very casually accepted the bulk of the Keynesian criticism of free markets. He tried to thread the needle: opposing statism, loving liberty, but innovating what he regarded as liberal ends through quasi-statist means.

The book made such an impact that it inspired the calling of a hugely important scholarly colloquium held in Paris in August 1938, in the midst of a growing conflict in Europe and the world. Six months later came the German annexation of Austria, and one year before the Nazi invasion of Poland. These were extremely volatile times, and these intellectuals believed they had a responsibility to do something about righting what was going wrong in the world.

The “Walter Lippmann Colloquium” was organized by French liberal philosopher and logical positivist Louis Rougier. It was attended by Lippmann, and included several other leading French intellectuals, including the great monetary theorist Jacques Rueff. Also in attendance Michael Polanyi from the UK, as well as Germans Wilhelm Röpke and Alexander Rüstow. Most notably Friedrich Hayek came from London, and Ludwig von Mises arrived from Geneva where he was then living in sanctuary after having fled the Nazi invasion of Vienna. 

In short, this was a high-powered group, consisting of the world’s most important liberal intellectuals in the year 1938. It was at this event that Alexander Rüstow coined the term "neoliberalism" to label what they favoured. It was intended to apply only to Lippmann’s vision.

Hayek: neither neoliberal, nor conservative

Again, this was a new way of thinking about liberalism. It was democratic, tolerated a wide degree of regulation, plus welfare states, public education, and public provision of healthcare and infrastructure. But it maintained the core competitive processes of the market economy. The hope was to come up with some stable mix of policies that would lead to rising prosperity and bring about a general public contentment with the social order such that the demand for extremist ideologies like fascism and socialism would be kept at bay. The rising progress and demand for new technologies among the public would similarly outcompete revanchist and conservative sentiments in the political marketplace.

That was the hope in any case. I’m not aware of a report of precisely what took place in this Colloquium but one can imagine that both Mises and Hayek were alternatively pleased and unhappy about being pressed to agree with this view.

Hayek was emerging as the main opponent to John Maynard Keynes, while the other participants had made their peace with Keynes. For his part, Mises held the view that any mixture of state management into the market mix only diminishes the individual’s range of choice, slows economic growth, and introduces distortions that cry out for some political fix at a later date. Neither were believers in the great new Lippmann/Rüstow vision.

The Ur Text

To really understand this vision, let’s take a look at Lippmann’s treatise. It is not shabby. In fact, it is an excellent tutorial in the history of liberty. If only it had stuck with that. Still, the rhetoric is powerful and inspiring. You get a flavour from this passage:

Everywhere the movements which bid for men’s allegiance are hostile to the movements in which men struggled to be free. The programmes of reform are everywhere at odds with the liberal tradition. Men are asked to choose between security and liberty. To improve their fortunes they are told that they must renounced their rights. To escape from want they must enter a prison. To regularise their work they must be regimented. To obtain great equality they must have less freedom. To have national solidarity they must oppress the dissenters. To enhance their dignity they must lick the boots of tyrants. To realize the promise of science they must destroy free inquiry. To promote the truth they must not let it be examined. The choices are intolerable. 

Absolutely wonderful! And for the most part, the book continues in this lovely spirit, enough to feed the soul of the most radical libertarian. You have to get pretty far into the book to discover the “neo” part of neoliberalism. He believed that “liberalism must seek to change laws and greatly to modify property and contract” in a way that rejects laissez faire, a term and a system he completely counterposes to his own.

Neoliberalism includes public provision of education, health care, environmental protection, financial regulation, fiscal policy management, monetary control, and more. In fact, “the purpose of liberal reform is to accommodate the social order to the new economy; that end can be achieved only by continual and far-reaching reform of the social order.”

What Lippmann wanted was a new constitution for a “free state.” What he was rejecting was a state that is neutral to social outcomes – the “nightwatchman state” that the old liberals believed in.

Whereas the original liberals wanted law to be stable and general, pursuing only the most limited functions, the neoliberal vision is of a state that is an active part of the guarding, maintaining, and promoting liberty itself, as understood by a particular vision of what should be. It asserted that liberalism is so important that it must be the primary goal of the state to see it realised. 

In practice, there are no limits to how far this can go.

As an example of a state neutral to outcomes, consider the US Constitution. It is a framework for government and law. It specifies what various branches can do and why, and spells out what they cannot do and why. It contains no great aspiration for how society should look (well, perhaps the “general welfare” clause might apply) but mostly sticks to creating a framework and letting the people take it from there.

Neoliberalism instead wants a living state that is not only adaptive but even aspirational. It should take an active role in the lives of people with the expressed purpose of helping them live freer, flourishing, more fulfilling lives. The state must never lord it over the population but rather be the people’s partner in building prosperity and living out the promise of liberalism.

Where Lippmann Goes Wrong

All of this is interesting, but mostly fantasy. In his many chapters on the liberal state, Lippmann lays out all the ways in which his vision of an expansive state does not trend authoritarian. The official and the citizen are just people and there are no royal prerogatives. Bureaucracies aren’t issuing commands such much as behaving like publicly held corporations, always responsive to the public. There are all kind of intermediate institutions between the individual and the state. The public sector is humane, hospitable, adaptive, creative, and why? Because their power comes from the people, not the dictator or king.

All of this is interesting, but it is mostly fantasy.

Lippman, writing in 1938, was blind to important developments that took place in liberal theory, mostly in response to his vision.

The first is that crucial Hayekian point concerning epistemic humility. Lippmann writes as if he knows for sure how to achieve and judge social results that accord with his vision. It is a normal presumption of most intellectuals. Hayek’s innovation was to see that the knowledge necessary for the right ordering society is not accessible in whole to intellectuals and much less to presidents, legislators, or bureaucrats. It is deeply embedded in social processes themselves, and, in turn, in the minds of individuals making the choices that constitute the driving parts of that process.

The second point completely overlooked by Lippmann is that the players within the state itself have their own interests and designs, just as market actors do. They pursue their own interests. They seek to maximise their welfare. They look for more power, more funding, more prerogatives, and those they serve are the interest groups who can bring them more of it.

The idea that a public bureaucracy can be consistently much less permanently directly toward serving the genuine public interest is lacking in evidence. In other words, Lippman was blind to how the truths that would later be associated with the Public Choice school of economics might impact his vision of liberty.

A third problem is the one Mises identified: neoliberalism chooses the wrong means to realise its ends. Legislating higher wages does not actually raise wages; it throws people out of work. Regulating to protect the environment doesn’t end in doing so; it only devalues property which leaves it to be ravaged by irresponsible stewards. Instituting single-payer health care guts the sector of its signaling systems, its incentives for innovation, and its capacity to be rolled out to ever broader sectors of the population. And because intervention doesn’t achieve its stated ends, it becomes the pretext for ever more meddling in the market process.

These problems doom his system to be as much a fantasy as the authoritarian ideologies he opposed.

The Dangers of Neoliberalism

It was in response to Lippmann that both Hayek and Mises crafted many of their arguments over the coming years. Mises never stopped pointing out that laissez faire does not mean “let soulless forces operate,” as Lippmann seems to suggest. It means letting individuals make the choice over what kinds of lives they want to live, and let those choices drive forward the path of social evolution. Mises’s book Human Action was as much a response to Lippmann as it was to Keynes, Marx, and all the other anti-liberals.

Let’s just posit that we have a state that is determined to advance the cause of liberty – not a state neutral to outcomes but one directed at a certain end. Where will this lead us? It could lead to another form of top-down planning. It can result in practices such as social insurance schemes, heavy regulation in zoning and the environment, taxes and redistribution with the aim of bringing more effective liberty to ever more people. In an imperial state, it can lead to the imposition of planning on foreign nations: the IMF, the World Bank, the so-called Washington Consensus, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. 

It can be the excuse for wars for “spreading democracy” and nation building abroad.

You can say that all these policies are well intentioned. In fact, neoliberalism is the very embodiment of good intentions: we shall free all people! In the best case, neoliberalism gives us a post-war German economic miracle. But it could just easily land in Pinochet’s Chile, often cited as a neoliberal state. In foreign policy, neoliberalism can inspire beautiful reform (Japan after the war), or create a destructive terror state that seethes in resentment (see Libya, Iraq, and Afghanistan).

All of which is to say: the neoliberal can quickly become the anti-liberal state. There is no institutional reason why it would not be so. A state with a social mandate is a roaming beast: you might hope for it not to do bad things but you wouldn’t want to be alone with it in a dark alley.

To be sure, the world owes a debt to neoliberalism. It was this formulation that inspired many countries to liberalise their economies, and even been a reason for many of the loosening of controls in the United States. It led to the reforms in Latin America, China, and even Eastern Europe after the collapse of socialism. Neoliberal ideology is partially responsible for the liberation of billions of people from suffering, poverty, and tyranny.

The downside is also present: the continuation of colonialism by other means, the spread of global bureaucracy, the entrenchment of the welfare state, and the rise of deep-state control over culture, society, and the economy. It is also not politically stable. These institutions feed public resentment and fuel populist extremism, which is the very opposite of what Lippmann wanted. 

At the same time, genuine liberals (often called libertarians today) absolutely need to understand: we are not neoliberals. The great part about neoliberalism is the noun not the modifier. Its primary value is not in what it innovated but what it recaptured. To the extent that it diverges from the beautiful system of liberty itself, it can be the source of the opposite.

Neoliberalism Today

That the term is strewn throughout viral videos and public discourse today is a tribute to the power of an idea. This little seed planted in 1938 has grown into a massive global presence, mostly embodied in international bodies, public bureaucracies, political establishments, media voices, and pretexts for every manner of foreign, domestic, and global action. 

And what has been the result? Some good but a vast amount of highly conspicuous bad. Huge public sectors have held back economic growth. Large bureaucracies have compromised human freedom. It gave life to what is called "crony capitalism" today. Global control has bred nationalist blowback, while corporate monopoly has fed socialist longings.

We are again faced with the same problem today that confronted Lippmann in 1938. Everywhere there are ideologies that seek to put men in chains. We do need an alternative to socialism, fascism, and Toryism. We need to get it right this time. Let’s take the neo out of liberalism and accept nothing less than the real thing.

Freedom is not the correct implementation of a public policy plan. It is not the condition of appointing high-minded and intelligent social and economic managers. It is not the result of sound intentions from a fleet of ruling class intellectuals and major economic stakeholders.

Freedom exists when a people, an economy, and a culture, undirected and unmolested by administrative elites with power, are permitted to live and evolve in peace according to the principle of human choice in all areas of life.

* * * * * 

Jeffrey Tucker is the founder and president of the Brownstone Institute, organiser of the Great Barrington Declaration, and a former Director of Content for the Foundation for Economic Education, where his post first appeared. 

"Since then, poverty has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded."

 

"While the share of people in extreme poverty has been falling since the 19th century, the total number didn’t begin to decline [at scale] until the late 20th century, when [communism collapsed and] rapid economic growth spread worldwide.

"Since then, poverty has fallen to the lowest level ever recorded."

~ post by Human Progress

"The fall of the Iranian regime would be the Berlin Wall moment for the Middle East. Needs to happen."

 

"The fall of the Iranian regime would be the Berlin Wall moment for the Middle East.

    "Needs to happen."

~ Neil Stone

"[P]eople with empty hands took to the street chanting for freedom, dignity. They want to have a normal life and they are being killed by IRGC, the Revolutionary Guards. 

    "I think this is the Berlin Wall moment in Iran—if the international community gets united the same way when they were all united to help East Germany to bring down the Wall. Now Iranian people are trying to bring the wall of dictatorship down. We need to see action from Europeans [and from the] free world, otherwise ... they will kill more innocent people."

~ Masih Alinejad on the nationwide protests

"Iran’s Islamic Republic is no ordinary autocracy—it’s a theocratic prison-state exporting death while devouring its citizens."

"As of January 12, 2026, Iran stands at a historic precipice. What began as scattered demonstrations in late December 2025 over skyrocketing inflation, currency collapse, and economic despair has exploded into the largest nationwide uprising since the 1979 Islamic Revolution—and arguably the most serious challenge to the Islamic Republic in its 47-year history. ...

"Chants of 'Death to the Dictator' (targeting Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei) echo alongside calls for the return of the Pahlavi monarchy, symbolised by the pre-1979 lion-and-sun flag. Strikes cripple markets, universities burn with student fury, and reports from human rights groups document thousands arrested, hundreds (possibly thousands) killed by security forces using live ammunition, and hospitals overwhelmed by gunshot wounds.

"The regime’s response has been savage ...

"This is not merely an 'economic protest' or reform movement. At its core, Iranians are rebelling against the suffocating fusion of clerical theocracy and state socialism that has crushed liberty, prosperity, and dignity for generations. ...

"Iran’s Islamic Republic is no ordinary autocracy—it’s a theocratic prison-state exporting death while devouring its citizens. ...

"The regime’s foreign aggression compounds the horror. Tehran bankrolls terrorist proxies that slaughter innocents and wage war on liberty [across the Middle East: Shi-ite fighters in Syria; PMF forces in Iraq;] Hamas’s October 7, 2023, atrocities in Israel; Hezbollah’s rocket barrages on civilians; the Houthis’ attacks on global shipping. These groups—armed, trained, and funded by Iran—hide behind human shields, commit rape and torture, and pursue jihadist domination. Israel’s repeated defeats of these proxies (through precision strikes and resilience) have humiliated Tehran, shattering illusions of regional hegemony.

"Defeated abroad, the mullahs now unleash fury at home. The current uprising—sparked by economic collapse but fuelled by decades of repression—has seen security forces open fire on unarmed crowds, including families and the elderly. ...

"Iran’s savagery stems from Islam itself—not as a personal faith, but as a totalising political-religious doctrine demanding submission. ... Islam’s core texts call for jihad, infidel subjugation, and harsh punishments. From stonings to apostasy executions, these elements inspire terror waves: 9/11, Bataclan, ISIS caliphate horrors. ...

"Iran’s theocracy exemplifies this incompatibility with modernity: liberty is criminalised, women enslaved under veils, economy strangled by ideology. The uprising’s core demand—rejecting clerical rule—strikes at Islam’s fusion of mosque and state. ...

"Iran’s uprising is humanity’s cry against tyranny: clerical fascism fused with state socialism, fuelled by Islam’s dogmatic conquest ethos, shielded by Western leftist cowardice. The regime funds terror abroad while slaughtering at home; proxies fall, so oppression intensifies. ...

"The free world cannot afford denial. Iran’s people fight for what we take for granted—liberty. Ignoring them betrays them and ourselves. The time for harsh truths is now. The regime teeters; history will judge who stood for freedom and who looked away."

~ Roberto Rachewsky from his post 'The Axis of Oppression: Iran, Islam, and the Postmodern Left’s Betrayal of Freedom'

Checking in on human progress

 The start of a year is a good time to do a stocktake. An update. A check-in on how well we're all getting on. Energy maven Alex Epstein offers an important data point...

Anti-growth (and anti-energy) catastrophists like Paul Ehrlich and the Club of Rome were wrong. Today's humans are the best-fed humans in history.

And things will keep improving—unless we fall for new catastrophist propaganda like civilisation-crippling “net zero” plans.

 

The (man-made) world really is getting greyer.”

"It’s not just in our imagination—the “world really is getting greyer.” A researcher recently studied photos of household items going back two centuries. An analysis of the pixels showed a scary collapse in colour. 

"Even the Victorians—often considered as conformists—lived a more color-filled life. We have almost completely abandoned red and yellow and other bright hues in favor a boring black-and-white spectrum.

"But what’s most striking is how this descent into grayness has accelerated during the last few years. The most popular color is now charcoal—and at the current rate it will soon account for half of the marketplace.

"This runs counter the mantra of marketing experts [sic], who claim that products need to make a statement and capture the public’s attention.. They say that, but then turn around and launch another grey product into the look-alike marketplace.

"In an attempt to counter this, Pantone announced recently that the colour of the year in 2026 should be white. Some people complained. Others merely yawned. The shift from grey to white is one more measure of the tedium imposed by today’s tastemakers.

"Not long ago, popular colours were striking and changed with regularity. There was a time when avocado was the preferred shade for kitchen appliances. Orange and red had their day. When Monsanto designed a house of the future for Disneyland back in 1957, the kitchen looked like this.

 

"But the real problem isn’t our home decor—it’s the avoidance of risk-taking and the embrace of conformity in our behaviour. And even in our inner lives...."

~ Ted Gioia from his post 'The Return of the Weirdo'

"Capitalism created Poland's miracle, and socialism created Venezuela's catastrophe."

"Capitalism created Poland's miracle, and socialism created Venezuela's catastrophe."

~ Young Americans for Liberty [chart from the Our World in Data website]

For once, Trump was decisive when needed [UPDATED]

[UPDATE: Facts have been revealed since Trump's statement revealing that whatever trust was place in him, it was once gain misplaced. See below...]

THE GOOD (OR MOSTLY)

For once, Trump was decisive when needed. And almost as authoritative in his statement afterwards as required. Almost.

A short time ago [he said], the U.S. military carried out massive, precision strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime. Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. Everybody heard those names for years as they built this horribly destructive enterprise.
    Our objective was the destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment capacity and a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror.

Clearly stated. The identification of Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism is crucial. 

[UPDATE: The identification of Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism is still crucial. Putting a stop to the nuclear threat posed by the world’s number one state sponsor of terror remains important. .And the U.S. military did carry out strikes on the three key nuclear facilities in the Iranian regime, Fordo, Natanz and Esfahan. All else is conjecture.]

Tonight, I can report to the world that the strikes were a spectacular military success. Iran’s key nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated. Iran, the bully of the Middle East, must now make peace. If they do not. Future attacks would be far greater and a lot easier. 

[UPDATE: No evidence has been tendered since as to the success of the primary objective. Evidence exists that 400kg of the nuclear material targeted was removed from the facility at least two days before the mission. Evidence about which Vance and Trump are thoroughly evasive. Vance admits he has no clue. Trump has no idea, and less interest, in the level of destruction.]

The claim that nuclear enrichment facilities have been completely and totally obliterated is as yet unproven, and must be taken on trust. (Something in which this Administration is in short supply, unfortunately). Even with fourteen of 14 Massive Ordnance Penetrator bombs of the kind used on the underground facilities, doubt still remains that they would have had the capacity to fully succeed. Independent corroboration will hopefully follow, however (fingers crossed), and all being well will put an end to the kind of destruction a nuclear-powered state sponsor of terrorism could do.

And however ironic it might seem to talk about peace after a substantial (though surgical) military attack, the removal of Iran's nuclear threat—coupled with the destruction by Israel of Iran's proxies, should at least put the idea in any rational mind still left in the Iranian regime that peace would be a good thing going forward. 

For 40 years, Iran has been saying. Death to America, death to Israel. They have been killing our people, blowing off their arms, blowing off their legs, with roadside bombs. That was their specialty. We lost over 1,000 people and hundreds of thousands throughout the Middle East, and around the world have died as a direct result of their hate in particular. [UPDATE: This remains true.] So many were killed by their general, Qassim Soleimani. I decided a long time ago that I would not let this happen. It will not continue.

[UPDATE: The New York Times suggests a stronger motivation for Trump's decision to go was simple FOMO.]

A good reminder that, no matter the US's own desires for the last forty years, Iran has been at war with their "Great Satan" since 1979. So this response is not wholly either unprovoked, nor without justification. 

With all of that being said, this cannot continue. There will be either peace, or there will be tragedy for Iran, far greater than we have witnessed over the last eight days. Remember, there are many targets left. Tonight’s was the most difficult of them all, by far, and perhaps the most lethal. But if peace does not come quickly, we will go after those other targets with precision, speed and skill. Most of them can be taken out in a matter of minutes. There’s no military in the world that could have done what we did tonight. Not even close. There has never been a military that could do what took place just a little while ago. 

This is all very probably true.

Tomorrow, General Caine, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth will have a press conference at 8 a.m. at the Pentagon. 

No further corroboration of nuclear enrichment et al was given. Simply operational details.

[UPDATE; Nor has any been given since.]

And I want to just thank everybody. And, in particular, God. I want to just say, we love you, God, and we love our great military. Protect them. God bless the Middle East. God bless Israel and God bless America. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Boilerplate. But ("I want to just say, we love you, God") very strange boilerplate. Even at his most serious, Trump can't help but misfire.

The most important thing said here is that the world's number on state sponsor of terrorism has had its nuclear rug pulled out from under it. We hope. 

That this follows the defanging by Israel of Iran and its regime and its proxies around the Middle East.

That this followed telegraphed red lines that, for once, came with real consequences.

[O]ne thing that follows is that threats and deadlines from the Trump administration, unlike those from the Obama and Biden administrations, will be taken seriously in the future. Obama’s “red line” was bluster; Trump’s was not. He gave the Iranians a deadline and when they failed to comply, he destroyed [we hope] their nuclear capability.

[UPDATE: His unilateral announcement of ceasefires since, his flip-flopping from "Unconditional Surrender" to "God bless Iran," his childish tantrums over his grandstanding being ignored, have all overturned whatever gains were made.]

The unspoken topic not touched upon here is what happens now to the regime itself.

[UPDATE:  Trump and Vance could not care less.]

"After 46 years of this regime’s hollow bluster, we’re seeing the first light of victory,” a 45-year-old lawyer from a suburb of Tehran told The Free Press. “I feel the same way the French felt on D-Day.” Not a universal feeling, but neither is he alone.

Iranian regime change has to be on Iranians themselves. "Thanks to the benevolence and heroism of the Israelis, [they] now have an unprecedented opportunity to liberate [them]selves from the ideas and institutions that have enslaved [them] for nearly half a century." The best the west could and should do from here on is help make the argument on their behalf that it is necessary, and make the external conditions possible for them to succeed. 

[UPDATE: "Incredibly, a growing body of evidence indicates that a solid majority of Iranians have, in the last two or three years, come to reject their regime. I was shocked but delighted to learn that atheism is now an accepted position for Iranians. ... Ordinary Iranians no longer accept the theocracy’s legitimacy."]

THE BAD

"And here is our evidence that Iran's nuclear programme is an objective threat," said nobody. Nobody in the Administration even attempted to make the cogent case. 

That is a complete failure.

[UPDATE: And remains so.]

The only attempt made was Trump's curt dismissal of his own security advice that it was no threat. "Trust me, bro" seems the only argument tendered. [UPDATE: And remains so.] Yet Trump is far from the credible source on which anyone would want to rely in coming to judgement, let alone his chosen Defence Secretary.

Was the Iranian nuclear programme an objective threat? Probably. Did the Administration attempt to make the case? They didn't bother. [UPDATE: And still haven't.]

That's bad.

So too, probably, is the quiet suspicion that we might be watching a late sequel to Wag the Dog. After all, who's now talking about those Epstein files ...

THE UGLY

The Administration didn't bother making the case for there being an objective threat, as they should have ... and instead, earlier in the week, Trump's own handpicked National Security Advisor spoke to Congress in direct contradiction to the Trump case. "We have no evidence that Iran is building a nuke" said Tulsi Gabbard echoing direct Russian talking points, and suggesting her briefing came from somewhere further away than just down the Potomac.

And you'll remember that this president, like every other, swore an oath to preserve and defend the US Constitution—a Constitution demanding that only Congress can authorise going to war. Even under the War Powers Resolution of 1973. the president's strikes against Iran are "completely and unambiguously unlawful." [UPDATE: And remains so.] So there's that. 

The identification of Iran as the leading state sponsor of terrorism is crucial. One could only wish in other news to hear a similar condemnation of Russia as the leading sponsor of global disruption, nihilism, and European war. But one thing at a time, I guess. [UPDATE: Meanwhile, Ukraine waits...]

Ant expert on socialism: "Good idea. Wrong species."

Ant expert E.O. Wilson was once asked his view on socialism/communism. "Good idea," he quipped. "Wrong species."

More relevant evidence ...

[Hat tips Steve Stewart-Willams, Stephen Hicks]

Boredom at the End of History, Part I

"Experience suggests that if men cannot struggle on behalf of a just cause because that just cause was victorious in an earlier generation, then they will struggle against the just cause. They will struggle for the sake of struggle. They will struggle, in other words, out of a certain boredom: for they cannot imagine living in a world without struggle. And if the greater part of the world in which they live is characterised by peaceful and prosperous liberal democracy, they then will struggle against that peace and prosperity, and against democracy."

~ Francis Fukuyama: the unread part from his book The End of History, i.e., his forecast of what would happen after the Cold War was won [hat tip Scott Sumner]

Two architectural geniuses on screen

Built just four years after the First World War, this was probably the world's first modernist house.

Designed and built in Los Angeles by Austrian emigre Rudolph Schindler for two families to share on site, almost every architect since has knowing or unknowingly borrowed from this seminal work of genius.

And yet architect Rudolph Schindler, a certified genius (and one of my own architectural heroes)  is almost unknown!

A new documentary Schindler: Space Architect, showing this week and next (and later at some venues) at local Architecture Film Festivals is hoping to put that right.

If you have any interest in architecture at all, and you live in either Auckland, Wellington, Nelson, Christchurch, Hawkes Bay, Blenheim, Whangarei, New Plymouth, Palmerston North, Hamilton, or Dunedin (all the places the film-fest is being hosted) then I insist you get along.

But be quick!

Here are your dates and times.

And here's a wee teaser:

As one long-term owner says,

It's really hard to be a pessimist when you're living in such beauty actually that beauty is all around all of us all the time but Schindler knew how to read it and how to bring it in so it was part of your life. That was his genius.

See it on the big screen while you can.

PS: And since everyone and his sister has been arguing recently about who's-the-biggest-feminist, I also insist you also see the film on another hero(ine) of mine: Eileen Gray, her beautiful house in the south of France, and how that pig of a man Le Corbusier vandalised what he could never have created it. Trailer here:

"Tariffs Aren’t Liberating": Your Tuesday Tariffs Ramble [UPDATED]

UPDATE: Some more great links here curated by Don Boudreaux, to help you put this calamity on context.

Since it's the topic of the day a historic turning point in human affairs, the least I can do is offer readers a ramble around the topic of tariffs and the destruction of tariff wars — basically, around the many writers reciting the multiplicity of ways in which the Trump Administration has fucked us.

"“Liberation Day”: That is what US President Donald Trump has called Wednesday, April 2, the day he announced huge swaths of taxes on imports worldwide. Despite the label, it was far from a day of liberation. By making imports to the US more expensive, the government is actively increasing the cost of living for American consumers.
    "The Trump administration has fallen for one of the most common misconceptions about trade—that it only benefits a country when it is the exporter. This could not be further from the truth. One of the greatest benefits of free trade lies with the importing country, where consumers gain access to a huge range of goods, crucially, at lower prices.
    "Whether it’s clothes, food, medical supplies, or mobile phones, access to the global market reduces the cost of living and increases consumer choice, often alleviating poverty in the process.
    "It comes down to a very simple principle. No one person could produce everything he or she consumes. No family or household could do so either. No city, town, or province could produce absolutely everything they consume. Equally, no country can produce everything it consumes, nor should it. Attempts to achieve autarky are acts of economic self-harm. Freedom to exchange across borders is win-win: it allows consumers to access a plethora of goods and services, improving welfare overall."

Tariffs Aren’t Liberating - Reem Ibrahim, FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION

"Tariffs are irrational both morally and practically.
    "Morally, tariffs are rights violations - they restrain or prohibit individuals from trading freely and voluntarily in their own self-interest with whomever - no matter where they reside geographically. ...
    "Practically, tariffs punish the individuals in the country which implements them. Trump even acknowledges the pain. But he mystically thinks this pain will be good and lead us to prosperity.
    "Tariffs raise prices, cause shortages, and decrease productivity. They destroy wealth, businesses, income, and jobs. This is well known in theory and practice. See the Smoot-Hawley Act and its role in making the Great Depression even worse.
    "Trump’s foreign policy is morally and practically irrational.
    "What is the moral and practical foreign policy solution?
    "Free trade."

          ~ Andy Clarkson

"The essence of capitalism's foreign policy is free trade—i.e., the abolition of trade barriers, of protective tariffs, of special privileges—the opening of the world's trade routes to free international exchange and competition among the private citizens of all countries dealing directly with one another."

The Roots of War - Ayn Rand, ARI CAMPUS

"Fundamental to the argument for high tariffs has been the argument that trade deficits reflect America being "exploited" or "taken advantage of." In this article of mine on, "Why Trade Deficits Don't Matter -- Unless Caused by Government," I explain the misguided economic reasoning behind this claim, and why the far better policy is free trade."
Trade Deficits Don’t Matter – Unless Caused by Government - Richard Ebeling, FUTURE OF FREEEDOM FOUNDATION

"Donald Trump is fond of saying that trade wars are easy to win. Among the litany of patently false Trumpisms, this may well prove one of the most disastrous. ...
    "Protective tariffs risk triggering a cycle of escalation that ends well for no one."

No One Wins a Trade War - William Bernstein, THE ATLANTIC

"America can’t be outcompeted because America does not produce or trade anything.
     "Nations do not compete with nations. Individual firms compete with individual firms abroad. Ford competes with Toyota. America does not compete with Japan. Nations are trading partners, not competitors."

Why America can't be outcompeted - Harry Binswanger, HARRY'S SUBSTACK

"“We are seeing a combination of true-believing mercantilism, shocking ignorance about how the global economy works, and shocking incompetence in the planning and execution of economic policy,” says Michael Strain."
Trump's aggressive push to roll back globalisation -FINANCIAL TIMES (paywall0

"Like the post-1945 British Labour governments, he wants to shelter domestic manufacturing and the working class behind tariffs while reducing overseas commitments. But the net result will be both economically damaging and geopolitically weakening. Americans will come to miss globalism and policing the world. They will belatedly realise that there is no portal through which the United States can return to the 1950s, much less the 1900s. And the principal beneficiary of Project Minecraft will not be Russia, but China. Call it Project Manchuria. ... 

"The president stands as much chance of reindustrialising the U.S. as you do of getting your frozen laptop to work by smashing the motherboard with a Minecraft hammer."

Trump’s Tariffs and the End of American Empire - Niall Ferguson, THE FREE PRESS

"So think of it as a world wide Brexit like the U.S. leaving the global economy.
    "A trade lawyer at a global law firm here in London told me their clients see Trump’s tariffs as “worse than Brexit” as they’re dealing with rapidly changing trade rules on a massive scale. It’s not just the tariffs that Trump has imposed, but the retaliation it will provoke."

‘How Ugly Is This Going to Be?’ - Graham Lanktree, POLITICO

"You will go to work in a hot, noisy, dirty factory for low wages. And you will like it. 

The quality of life your grandfather had is more than good enough for you!"

"It sounds so sensible: why not use protection and industrial policy to preserve manufacturing capacity “just in case” of, say, a war or a pandemic? And, to be sure, this is a better argument for some limited government intervention on trade and investment flows than wanting to tax imported bananas or revive manufacturing.
    "But even then it’s not the slam dunk some people imagine. Below is my chapter on this issue from Economics In One Virus, published in 2021. It’s just as true and relevant today."

Flaws in the "Just In Case," Self-Sufficiency Case for Protectionism - Ryan Bourne, WAR ON PRICES

"The populist story of the death of U.S. manufacturing is nonsense. Mr. Vance and his cohort maintain that increased free trade with countries such as China in 2000 or Mexico in 1994 killed American jobs. It’s true that the number of manufacturing jobs is lower than it was in 1970. But that’s because we can make so much more with fewer people. Blame technology, not trade.
    "Real hourly output per manufacturing employee has been on an upward trend since 1959. Real U.S. manufacturing value-added—the sector’s contribution to gross domestic product—reached its highest recorded level in 2022. Manufacturing output was close to its all-time high in 2022, and the U.S. remained the global leader in manufacturing value-added per worker.
    "Steel is one example. In 1980, one steelworker could produce 0.083 tons of steel in one hour. By 2018, one steelworker could produce 1.67 tons in an hour. This is a good thing. Wage and income data in the U.S. show the rising tide is lifting all boats—especially the smallest.
    "Americans don’t want their children to have to work punishing jobs in a steel mill, and it’s evident they don’t have to. Manufacturing jobs, as a share of total employment, have been on a downward trend since 1943—falling from 39% to under 25% by the end of 1970 and hitting 20% in 1980. This decline started long before Ronald Reagan ran for office, before China received Most Favored Nation status for outsourcing manufacturing, before Bill Clinton signed the North American Free Trade Agreement and before the World Trade Organization was created. The trends even started five years before the U.S. joined the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade."
Free Trade Didn’t Kill the Middle Class - Norbert J. Michel, WALL STREET JOURNAL

“The philosophy of protectionism is a philosophy of war.”
          ~ Ludwig von Mises

"“When it comes to steel, it’s fantastic for our industry,” said Jack Maskil [president of the United Steelworkers Local 2227 in Pittsburgh’s Mon Valley], “but what about everything else?” ...

    "On the one hand, they are thrilled that their industry will be a key beneficiary of the 25 percent tariff imposed on steel imports to the U.S. ...
    "But while the steelworkers are also hoping that tariffs will bring about a revival of manufacturing jobs, they also worry about their effect on the economy, and on their own purchasing power."

What Do American Steelworkers Think About Trump’s Tariffs? - Ethan Dodd, THE FREE PRESS

"President Trump’s ‘Liberation Day’ tariffs risk domino effect across the globe as Chinese goods look for new markets."

The Rest of the World Is Bracing for a Flood of Cheap Chinese Goods - WALL STREET JOURNAL

"The proponents of protectionism say, “Free trade is fine in theory but it must be reciprocal. We cannot open our markets to foreign products if foreigners close their markets to us.” China, they argue, to use their favorite whipping boy, “keeps her vast internal market for the private domain of Chinese industry but then pushes her products into the U.S. market and complains when we try to prevent this unfair tactic.”
    "The argument sounds reasonable. It is, in fact, utter nonsense. Exports are the cost of trade, imports the return from trade, not the other way around."

In 1970, Milton Friedman Advocating Moving Unilaterally Toward Free Trade Rather Than Retaliating. We Still Haven’t Learned That Simple Lesson -Mark Perry, AEI

"This idea that Donald Trump is just playing hardball to negotiate tariff rates down on US exports is absolutely ridiculous. The % of tariffs applied to US-produced goods has declined consistently since WW2 and was nearly nothing...
    "UNTIL! Donald's first term, and now his second.
    "And yet I keep seeing so many MAGA supporters saying: 'We're already seeing countries backing down from their tariffs!'
    "You're literally winning a battle and losing the war at the same time ..."

~  Landon Walsh

"Then there’s Trump’s fascination with tariffs. The damage Trump has caused Ukraine and Nato pales by comparison to what his tariffs will do to America’s economy and the entire international economic system. If Trump had acted on April 1 instead of 2, he could quickly have said it was all an April Fool’s Day joke, thereby saving the global economy trillions of dollars of damage when markets started heading south. Unfortunately however, Trump is totally serious, a fact evident long before “Liberation Day.”
    "Here too, “experts” and anxious businesspeople steadfastly ignored Trump labelling “tariff” the dictionary’s most beautiful word. Tariffs, they said, will be targeted, carefully calibrated, and he’ll do deals quickly. It’s all a bargaining tactic, Treasury Secretary Bessent said in October, 2024: “escalate to de-escalate”. Even as global stock markets drop like rocks, experts are still rationalising what his “strategy” is.
    "Wrong again. Trump is more likely to win the Nobel Prize for literature than for peace."

I worked for Donald Trump. This is the key to understanding him: It’s not about America, and there’s no connection to the real world - John Bolton, TELEGRAPH (UK)

"Reminder: This policy was spearheaded and implemented by a man who thinks nobody says the word “groceries” these days because “it’s an old-fashioned word” and he somehow brought it back into the limelight.
    "Donald Trump is a motherfucking moron. Those who knew this and voted for him anyway because he gave them explicit license to be assholes deserve every last bit of pain his policies will cause them."

          ~ Stephen T. Stone

"In times of upheaval, those closest to power often find ways to turn disruption into wealth. Trump’s erratic tariff wars, billed as economic nationalism, upended markets, collapsed sectors, and triggered retaliatory shocks. But while farmers went bankrupt and consumers paid more, the market opened space for those with foresight—or insider access—to buy low and consolidate.
    "Geographer David Harvey calls this accumulation by dispossession: crisis used not to correct the system, but to extract from it. Devalue public assets. Destabilise protections. Create just enough chaos to buy cheap what others are forced to abandon. It’s not just policy failure—it’s extraction dressed as populism.
    "The con isn’t just psychological. It’s material. It’s not just about being lied to—it’s about being looted.
    "And that’s what makes this moment different—and more dangerous. The scam isn’t happening outside the system. It’s running through it."

The Confidence Game: How Trump’s Con Threatens More Than the Truth - James Greenberg, JAMES'S SUBSTACK

"The latest rumor, when I started drafting this column, was that President Trump will suspend the tariffs for a 90-day period, with the exception of those on China. Markets started going back up again.
    "But “the very latest information” doesn’t stay current for long these days. The new report—but don’t count on it—is that the 90-day pause is not real after all. That revision came out before this draft was finished. And markets again whipsawed.
    "The Trump administration has created a new monster—one of unpredictability and erratic behavior. We simply cannot predict with any degree of accuracy what will happen next. By the time you are reading this article, there will probably be some newer report about the tariffs or threat of tariffs, and then another report after that.
    "Even if the White House winds up instituting a pause on the proposed tariffs—or ultimately adopts much better economic policies—this seesawing may plunge the American and perhaps also the global economy into recession."

A Contagion of Uncertainty - Tyler Cowen, THE FREE PRESS

[WATCH] Singapore must be clear-eyed about dangers ahead: Singapore's Prime Minister Wong on implications of US tariffs:

"Donald Trump has demonstrated his profound misunderstanding of the basic economic principles of international trade for several years now, and perhaps reached a pinnacle when he told the New York Daily News in an interview last August that “we’re getting hosed by the Chinese — and that we’ve done it with our eyes wide shut.” ...
    "[Trump adviser] Peter Navarro, in his Wall Street Journal opinion piece earlier this week (see related post here) demonstrated his fundamental misunderstanding of international trade when he opened his op-ed with the following question: “Do trade deficits matter?” Just to ask the question is to admit one’s ignorance of trade theory, which has been pretty settled on this topic since Adam Smith taught us in 1776 that “Nothing…can be more absurd than this whole doctrine of the balance of trade. ..."

Trade Deficits Don’t Matter; Understanding Deficits Do: Protectionists' idea of a trade balance is completely backward -Mark Perry, FOUNDATION FOR ECONOMIC EDUCATION

Tariffs are a suicide bomb":

Trump's team said they based their "reciprocal tariff" calculation for each country based on the tariffs and impediments put on American imports by those countries. But no. It's even more irrational: "[Trump's chart] features an estimate of 'Tariffs Charged to the USA' by other countries that nobody could figure out, until a financial journalist realised it was just how much we export to that country, minus how much we import, divided by how much we import."

"Under a system of perfectly free commerce, each country naturally devotes its capital and labour to such employments as are most beneficial to each. This pursuit of individual advantage is admirably connected with the universal good of the whole. By stimulating industry, by regarding ingenuity, and by using most efficaciously the peculiar powers bestowed by nature, it distributes labour most effectively and most economically: while, by increasing the general mass of productions, it diffuses general benefit, and binds together by one common tie of interest and intercourse, the universal society of nations throughout the civilised world."
        ~ David Ricardo (1817)

"Why is today’s Trump so different from the Trump of his first term? .. ". Turns out, the answer is very simple" Back then he had people, and a Congress who would say "No." But now the yes men are in power.

What happened to Trump? Why has be become so pro-Russian? - Roman Sheremata, UKRAINE TODAY

Trump's tariffs policy came from his economic advisor Peter Navarro, who invented a fake expert in his books to justify it. "Peter Navarro liked to quote a guy named Ron Vara in his books. Those books are largely what led to Navarro becoming a top adviser to President Trump and helping to shape U.S. policy on China. Here’s the thing about Ron Vara, though: He doesn’t exist. ...

"Ron Vara is an anagram of Navarro."

Trump's China Muse Has an Imaginary Friend - Tom Bartlett, CHRONICLE OF HIGHER EDUCATION

 

Second-term Trump is who Trump always was. This is Trump without many adults in the room stopping him getting his way. This is Trump surronded by Yes Men in a cult. This is Trump. A freedom-hating, dictator-loving, trade-despising child who wants the power of a tryant. Someone who has no regard for facts and who will utter any lie he wishes - no matter how ridicolous it is. And his believers are expected to believe it. Under fear of discommunication from the cult.
This is what you asked for when you voted for Trump. This is what you got. I hope you are happy....

          ~ Dwayne Davies

"An often forgotten truth is that it is not just military warfare that can cause injury to innocent bystanders, the same inescapably happens in economic warfare initiated by governments, as well. But in the latter case the human “collateral damage” is a targetted victim. ...
    "Tariffs and counter-tariffs are tools of economic warfare that are said to be targeting the “aggressor” country. But the very nature of how tariffs and counter-tariffs work, results in the main targets being innocent bystanders in the countries concerned.
    "Once we disaggregate “nations” into their, respective, individual buyers and sellers, producers and consumers, we see that the most damage falls on the economic “non-combatants,” of whatever the original “dispute” may be about ..."

Trump’s Economic Warfare Targets Innocent Bystanders - Richard Ebeling, FUTURE OF FREEDOM FOUNDATION

"TikTok is a major bargaining chip in a grave geopolitical struggle. Given the data users have always sent to Beijing, it’s been a bargaining chip ever since it arrived on America’s digital shores. For Trump, though, it’s not exactly his chip to bargain with: Congress already determined the American course of action. The mystery is why nobody seems to mind Trump delaying its execution — or at least, why nobody is complaining publicly....

    "Trump’s motives here are not difficult to parse, and the bill in question is legitimately problematic. He’s popular on TikTok, and close to one of the company’s major investors. ...
    "As fallout continued from his tariff bombshell — including the legitimacy of his emergency authority to implement the new rates — barely anyone batted an eye at TikTok getting another dubious bailout."

Why Trump keeps saving TikTok - Emily Jashinsky, UNHERD

"Since my last essay on the crisis of democracy, the assaults on democratic checks and balances have escalated. Without agreement from Congress, Trump’s DOGE shut down the U.S. Agency for International Development with stunning speed. Although a federal court blocked further implementation, ruling that the action “likely violated the Constitution,” by then the agency had already been gutted and largely dismantled along with many other agenices. Then, in an alarming politicisation of the military high command, Trump fired the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the Chief of Naval Operations, the Air Force Vice Chief of Staff, and the judge advocates general (the highest-ranking legal authorities) for the Army, Navy, and Air Force.
    "Pressing his claim to imperial power, Trump has moved to assert absolute control over all federal regulatory bodies, including the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Federal Communications Commission. This not only hobbles their capacity to act independently in the public interest but opens the door to massive corruption. As DOGE seizes control of more and more of the government’s most sensitive and highly centralised stores of data, the conflicts of interest proliferate for its chief 'overseer,' Elon Musk, who over the years has received 'at least $38 billion in government contracts, loans, subsidies and tax credits.' And Just Security has documented an 'alarming' pattern of 'politicisation and weaponisation of the Department of Justice since Trump has retaken office.
    "The United States now faces the grave and imminent danger of its democracy decaying into a 'competitive authoritarianism'.”

How to Undo Trump’s Growing Dictatorship and the Damage it Is Inflicting - Larry Diamond, THE UNPOPULIST

"We have to realise that Trump is not joking about any of this. He’s not joking about invading Greenland, and he’s not joking about running for a third term. He’s as serious about all of this as he was about the tariffs. The evidence indicates that he will do it all, whatever he can get away with. ...
"While we prepare a mass movement—and Donald Trump crashing the economy with the world’s stupidest tariffs will help us a great deal—we need to fight everything. What that will specifically mean is that we have to fight a lot of losing battles. ...
"There are five reasons to fight early and often, no matter the odds of winning any one fight.
    1. It lays down a marker. ....
    2. It mobilises others to fight. ....
    3. It delays and exhausts the strongman. ...
    4. Sometimes you win. ...
    5. You find out what works and who fights. ...."

How to Fight Back - Robert Tracinski, TRACINSKI LETTER