OK. Now what are we gonna do about it? First lesson from Timothy Snyder : Do not obey in advance. The response to these warnings cannot be to stop organizing. We need a strategy. Please write about that next.
I agree we need a strategy, but first readers need to truly understand how a protest on 6/14 will likely be met. That's key — and it will be next Monday's post.
I appreciate the thinking, but that’s not the thread I’m pulling on here. My focus is on mapping the playbook that’s already underway — not on drafting alternatives or hypotheticals. Different project, sorry.
Not at all, Carleton — no apology necessary! Unfortunately, I don’t know who to recommend. I’ve not encountered anyone — other than yourself — focused on this kind of far-sighted approach. Which is, in itself, disconcerting.
It's my turn to apologise, Carleton — last night I was fraught from spending 6 weeks researching and writing this piece, and struggling to absorb your input.
I'm still not the person for a movement manifesto, but I've taken your thoughts to heart, and will tomorrow be putting out a piece with some thoughts on strategic resistance. I hope you find it a useful starting point on which to build.
I completely understand how you’re feeling — researching and writing it was overwhelming for me. It took 7 weeks, and I felt wrung-out and bleak after it. But like you, I recognised that immersion was the problem. And I took a beat.
Now I can see that the effort was worth it, because the result is clarity, which we need if we are to respond effectively. So it’s time to build direction. It’s time to make a plan.
I remain amazed that it is business-as-usual here (U.S), with few exceptions. It is like a stun gun effect—the level of depravity and cruelty is so full-on, in-the-face that it cannot be absorbed. So the first reaction is to desperately reclaim "normal."
The dilemma of the moment shows up in the comments below: understanding v. action. The mind is split: do something!/what do I do?
Meanwhile, the clock ticks on. Which only exacerbates the dilemma.
I believe, as excruciatingly anxiety-producing as it is, that understanding precedes action. (As you point out.)
And the first point of understanding is this: there is no going back to normal. There is only going through to something as-yet-to-be-birthed.
Thank you John, and yes, the stun gun effect really captures the freeze-response so many are stuck in. Not because they don’t care, but because the scale of what’s happening overrides the usual circuits — analysis, action, even emotion.
The pull back toward “normal” isn’t nostalgia, but survival reflex. But you're right — normal is gone, and pretending otherwise just makes us more vulnerable to what’s replacing it.
I'm grateful to you for confirming that understanding has to come first — I don't mean it as an endpoint, but as something to help clear the fog. It’s only from that clarity that action can be meaningful and strategic, rather than frantic or performative.
Tomorrow's post will hopefully help people build stable ground between the understanding and the action. Just enough footing to start from. And I think you’re right that what we’re really navigating is a passage. Not back, but through. Something unformed, yes, but that doesn't mean it's unshapable.
Booker’s 25-hour filibuster speech was just a stunt to break the prior record and a purely performative act of faux-opposition theatre. He isn’t interested in stopping any of this. Like the vast majority of the Democratic Party, he’s content allow this ruination to progress until it’s irreversible, and see the rest of us thrown to the wolves while he and most of of the rest of the Democrats focus on how to politically preserve and perpetuate themselves within a new system of government modeled on organized crime. Quit giving them money. Quit volunteering for their campaigns. Quit participating in this farce. They are openly screwing us over. They are making fools of us every time we participate in any of this pretense.
That reads like the clarity that comes with deep, rightful outrage. And I share a lot of it, especially the refusal to keep pretending that performative opposition is the same thing as resistance.
I’m not defending Booker, or the party. I included that moment deliberately, not as inspiration, but as a warning: even those who posture as brave may fold when it matters most.
What I’m focused on now is strategy. Not loyalty, not belief, but action that matches the terrain. And if that means pulling support from institutions that are complicit, then yes, that’s part of it. What matters most is we move with clear eyes, and don't mistake the stagecraft for substance.
My initial thought is to not attend the upcoming event on June 15. But isn't this what the Trumpists want? If we have no cards to use against their playbook, then what? With oppositional protest there is risk. They can't lock us all up.
W.J. — I just wanted to apologise for my response last night. I was fraught from researching and writing these two pieces, and my response (now deleted) reflected that. But a night of sleep has worked wonders, and today I'm back at the helm.
These comments have given me a lot to think about. The tension you name — between stepping back for safety and showing up in defiance — is exactly the pressure point this moment is designed to create. And you’re right: they want people to feel like those are the only two options. But I don’t think they are.
I'm working on finishing my next piece on protest, and publishing it tomorrow. It will lay out some strategic alternatives — ways to resist without walking straight into the narrative frame that's been built. It’s not a solution, but it’s a place to start thinking differently about what resistance can look like when the usual forms are being weaponised against us. I hope you find it useful.
And thank you — as ever — for taking the time to reflect out loud.
I appreciate your thoughts on this. A lot of uncertainty about what's next is draining my brain. But, whatever protest actions that occur must remain peaceful. I don't even want to get think about the very real possibility of covert agitators!
I completely understand that kind of mental fatigue W.J.. It’s hard to think clearly when the terrain keeps shifting underfoot, especially when the stakes are this high.
I’m with you entirely on the need for nonviolence. When protest is being framed as extremism, discipline isn’t just a principle, it’s protection. I share your concern about agitators, too — that’s part of why strategy matters so much right now. Knowing the risks doesn’t mean we retreat. It means we adapt.
I’m glad you’re in this conversation. And I hope tomorrow’s piece offers a little clarity, or at least a steadier place to stand.
Carleton, thank you. That means a great deal. I’m very glad to have your presence here, and your encouragement is more valuable than you might realise. It’s a strange thing to write into the dark, especially in times like these. Knowing someone’s reading — and thinking this far ahead — makes the work feel less lonely.
OK. Now what are we gonna do about it? First lesson from Timothy Snyder : Do not obey in advance. The response to these warnings cannot be to stop organizing. We need a strategy. Please write about that next.
I agree we need a strategy, but first readers need to truly understand how a protest on 6/14 will likely be met. That's key — and it will be next Monday's post.
I appreciate the thinking, but that’s not the thread I’m pulling on here. My focus is on mapping the playbook that’s already underway — not on drafting alternatives or hypotheticals. Different project, sorry.
Not at all, Carleton — no apology necessary! Unfortunately, I don’t know who to recommend. I’ve not encountered anyone — other than yourself — focused on this kind of far-sighted approach. Which is, in itself, disconcerting.
It's my turn to apologise, Carleton — last night I was fraught from spending 6 weeks researching and writing this piece, and struggling to absorb your input.
I'm still not the person for a movement manifesto, but I've taken your thoughts to heart, and will tomorrow be putting out a piece with some thoughts on strategic resistance. I hope you find it a useful starting point on which to build.
Sorry Lani Kai, you're absolutely right, and this won't wait until next Monday. I'll have a post with a strategy ready for you tomorrow.
Thank you for your writing. Reading it it is hard not to feel a bit hopeless, which is mostly a sign I have been over consuming the news cycle.
I look forward to your next post on ways we can move forward.
You’re welcome Christopher.
I completely understand how you’re feeling — researching and writing it was overwhelming for me. It took 7 weeks, and I felt wrung-out and bleak after it. But like you, I recognised that immersion was the problem. And I took a beat.
Now I can see that the effort was worth it, because the result is clarity, which we need if we are to respond effectively. So it’s time to build direction. It’s time to make a plan.
Another great, well-researched piece, Lori.
I remain amazed that it is business-as-usual here (U.S), with few exceptions. It is like a stun gun effect—the level of depravity and cruelty is so full-on, in-the-face that it cannot be absorbed. So the first reaction is to desperately reclaim "normal."
The dilemma of the moment shows up in the comments below: understanding v. action. The mind is split: do something!/what do I do?
Meanwhile, the clock ticks on. Which only exacerbates the dilemma.
I believe, as excruciatingly anxiety-producing as it is, that understanding precedes action. (As you point out.)
And the first point of understanding is this: there is no going back to normal. There is only going through to something as-yet-to-be-birthed.
Thank you John, and yes, the stun gun effect really captures the freeze-response so many are stuck in. Not because they don’t care, but because the scale of what’s happening overrides the usual circuits — analysis, action, even emotion.
The pull back toward “normal” isn’t nostalgia, but survival reflex. But you're right — normal is gone, and pretending otherwise just makes us more vulnerable to what’s replacing it.
I'm grateful to you for confirming that understanding has to come first — I don't mean it as an endpoint, but as something to help clear the fog. It’s only from that clarity that action can be meaningful and strategic, rather than frantic or performative.
Tomorrow's post will hopefully help people build stable ground between the understanding and the action. Just enough footing to start from. And I think you’re right that what we’re really navigating is a passage. Not back, but through. Something unformed, yes, but that doesn't mean it's unshapable.
Except Mahmoud Khalil is being held in a prison in Louisiana, USA, and his case is being actively argued; he’s not in El Salvador.
My thanks Charles, you're absolutely right.
?
Booker’s 25-hour filibuster speech was just a stunt to break the prior record and a purely performative act of faux-opposition theatre. He isn’t interested in stopping any of this. Like the vast majority of the Democratic Party, he’s content allow this ruination to progress until it’s irreversible, and see the rest of us thrown to the wolves while he and most of of the rest of the Democrats focus on how to politically preserve and perpetuate themselves within a new system of government modeled on organized crime. Quit giving them money. Quit volunteering for their campaigns. Quit participating in this farce. They are openly screwing us over. They are making fools of us every time we participate in any of this pretense.
That reads like the clarity that comes with deep, rightful outrage. And I share a lot of it, especially the refusal to keep pretending that performative opposition is the same thing as resistance.
I’m not defending Booker, or the party. I included that moment deliberately, not as inspiration, but as a warning: even those who posture as brave may fold when it matters most.
What I’m focused on now is strategy. Not loyalty, not belief, but action that matches the terrain. And if that means pulling support from institutions that are complicit, then yes, that’s part of it. What matters most is we move with clear eyes, and don't mistake the stagecraft for substance.
Thanks for saying it plainly.
My initial thought is to not attend the upcoming event on June 15. But isn't this what the Trumpists want? If we have no cards to use against their playbook, then what? With oppositional protest there is risk. They can't lock us all up.
W.J. — I just wanted to apologise for my response last night. I was fraught from researching and writing these two pieces, and my response (now deleted) reflected that. But a night of sleep has worked wonders, and today I'm back at the helm.
These comments have given me a lot to think about. The tension you name — between stepping back for safety and showing up in defiance — is exactly the pressure point this moment is designed to create. And you’re right: they want people to feel like those are the only two options. But I don’t think they are.
I'm working on finishing my next piece on protest, and publishing it tomorrow. It will lay out some strategic alternatives — ways to resist without walking straight into the narrative frame that's been built. It’s not a solution, but it’s a place to start thinking differently about what resistance can look like when the usual forms are being weaponised against us. I hope you find it useful.
And thank you — as ever — for taking the time to reflect out loud.
I appreciate your thoughts on this. A lot of uncertainty about what's next is draining my brain. But, whatever protest actions that occur must remain peaceful. I don't even want to get think about the very real possibility of covert agitators!
I completely understand that kind of mental fatigue W.J.. It’s hard to think clearly when the terrain keeps shifting underfoot, especially when the stakes are this high.
I’m with you entirely on the need for nonviolence. When protest is being framed as extremism, discipline isn’t just a principle, it’s protection. I share your concern about agitators, too — that’s part of why strategy matters so much right now. Knowing the risks doesn’t mean we retreat. It means we adapt.
I’m glad you’re in this conversation. And I hope tomorrow’s piece offers a little clarity, or at least a steadier place to stand.
I'm so glad I signed up with you. A real person/intellect to bounce things off of.
I'm equally glad you're here, for the same reason. 🙏
I hear you. That’s not where I’m coming from, but I understand why you feel that way, and I appreciate you speaking your mind.
Carleton, thank you. That means a great deal. I’m very glad to have your presence here, and your encouragement is more valuable than you might realise. It’s a strange thing to write into the dark, especially in times like these. Knowing someone’s reading — and thinking this far ahead — makes the work feel less lonely.