Nuclear Energy and the Greens

January 11, 2021

The issue

Nuclear advocates in Australia often blame the Greens for the complete lack of nuclear energy in that country. They may argue that the Greens are obstacles to climate action in general, and try and prove this by saying the Greens opposed the first Carbon pricing scheme.

A1) Greens are not that powerful

The main problem with this argument is that the Greens are not that powerful.

While the Greens do oppose nuclear energy, because they think problems with it (such as waste, rare but massive accidents) have not been solved, if the two major parties wish to ignore them, then the Greens are ignored, as is the case with economic policy, or coal mining.

The Greens do not own or control any media, they don’t have regular spots on media, and generally cannot even get their policies reported, other than with denigration and inaccuracy. They have close to no public propaganda force, they can use, unlike the other parties (particularly the Coalition).

Neither the Coalition nor Labor have a pro-nuclear policy which is disrupted by the Greens. The Coalition has been in government a long time, and nothing has happened. During their time in power there has been zero levels of research into nuclear energy generation, zero nuclear energy generation, and zero plans for nuclear energy generation. Lucas Heights does not count; it primarily exists for small experiments and medical isotope generation. The Greens cannot be blamed for this ongoing situation. If either of the major parties wanted anything different, then it would have happened.

If you want to blame anyone blame the Coalition or Labor, or the electorate in general for worrying about where the reactors would be placed.

A2: Carbon Pricing

Greens also get blamed for the failure of carbon pricing in Australia. This story is not entirely accurate. Again the Greens where the minor party. If Prime Minister Kevin Rudd and Leader of the Opposition Malcolm Turnbull could have agreed on a carbon trading scheme then it would have gone ahead. They did not. Turnbull lost the support of his party, probably because of its cheerful connection with fossil fuel companies. Can’t blame the Greens for that.

Rudd refused to negotiate with the Greens. He just told them to take it or leave it. Can’t blame the Greens for rejecting that strategy either.

Even so, the Greens also took note of Treasury modelling which implied the Rudd policy was extremely expensive and would not reduce carbon emissions for a long time. Given Rudd’s failure to get the Coalition to support a policy similar to the one the Coalition went into the election proposing, the Greens cannot be blamed for his failure. The Coalition was the obstacle.

Furthermore, the Greens worked with Gillard to get a system which did not rip off ordinary taxpayers and which lowered emissions almost immediately. It was not perfect, but it was much better. It also shows what Rudd could have achieved, if he had chosen to work with the Greens, rather than against them and with the Coalition.

The Gillard scheme was destroyed by the Coalition. Not the Greens. There is absolutely nothing to suggest that the Coalition would not have destroyed any form of carbon pricing, given their love for fossil fuel companies.

Again the Greens cannot be blamed for this.

Failings of nuclear Advocates

It may be personal experience bias, but I more often read nuclear advocates arguing against renewables than I read them arguing against fossil fuels. Just as I read them opposing declarations of climate emergency or emissions targets. So I’m not sure I agree about the innocence of nuclear advocates. There is certainly no attempt to win allies in the Greens, just lecture them and blame them.

It is also extremely hard to evaluate nuclear plans that do not exist in reality, which almost no one has any enthusiasm for, and for a kind of truly enormous project which Australia has no commercial experience with. Current total energy generation in Australia is about 265 TWh per year; Hinkley Point in the UK is supposed to be able to generate 3,260MW (not sure over what time period, the text is ambiguous, but I presume a year). That is a reasonable number of reactors to build from scratch, in time to mitigate climate change, and there are no local companies which could be expected to carry out such a project.

Conclusion

Green obstacles to climate action are trivial when compared to the Coalition. It would be more practical to try and get the Coalition onside for nuclear climate action if anyone useful was really serious about nuclear power, but we all can be pretty sure that is not going to happen. And I’m reasonably sure there is no real attempt by anyone with any capacity to build nuclear power, to get it going.

Stochastic Terrorism

January 10, 2021

I generally don’t like memes, and I’ve no idea where this originates, but its a useful idea.

Image

The Idea

The earliest account I’ve seen, and some of the wording in the meme comes from this source is an anonymous article in the Daily Kos from January 2011: Stochastic Terrorism: Triggering the shooters.

The person who actually plants the bomb or assassinates the public official is not the stochastic terrorist, they are the “missile” set in motion by the stochastic terrorist.  The stochastic terrorist is the person who uses mass media as their means of setting those “missiles” in motion.

While [the ‘terrorist’] action may have been statistically predictable… the specific person and the specific act are not predictable (yet).

We can think of this as complexity in motion. Just as we know climate change will produce storms that will destroy something valuable and important, we don’t quite know what. Its a dangerous weapon, in that it could bite the person who uses it, but I guess the media is used to direct the actor to hit someone who the stochastic terrorist does not like and has (along with other people) been denouncing.

The Problem

The stochastic terrorist then has plausible deniability: “Oh, it was just a lone nut, nobody could have predicted he would do that, and I’m not responsible for what people in my audience do.”

The expectable ‘missile’ gets arrested or killed, and the stochastic terrorist keeps their position, and possibly gets to tut-tut about how violent their opposition are, and thus encourage more missiles.

The author explains that because the missile could be a ‘lone wolf,’ they are extremely hard to pick up in advance. There is almost no trail and nothing to draw attention to them: “They are law enforcement’s and intel’s worst nightmare.” They are people who are unstable, and just need a small nudge to start planning something that will make an impact and give them notoriety. This is almost a normal part of everyday life in capitalism.

Anyone who is familiar with marketing and advertising knows how this works, and advertisers often target their messages to people who are “ready to buy” and just need a little persuading.  

Perpetrators seem inherently excusable. There is no direct link between them and the result, AND there are so many of them doing this, it becomes hard to assign any individual responsibility.

Bias as entertainment?

Many politicians and political commentators know they are not trying to convince the people on other sides. They are just trying to get their own people worked up, in a lather, vote for the right people, and keep tuned to the show (purely commercial truth distortion). But sometimes this is going to result in a missile, even if they are not being deliberate about this. Listening to the rhetoric, as when Alan Jones talked of someone killing Julia Gillard, it is hard to think they are entirely innocent – for them to be entirely innocent they would have to be entirely ignorant about people and what they are doing, which seems unlikely – but it is possible…

Some people will take talk about Democrats taking away their guns, putting Republicans in concentration camps, wanting to destroy America, injecting them with micro-chips, having health care death panels, taking away their jobs and giving them to blacks, engaging in a coup, inventing Covid and fixing the election as being true, and act appropriately. The more this kind of fantasy is repeated from show to show, and politician to politician, the more likely people are to believe it. The more it is fantasy, the less it needs anything to do with reality, the more profound and hidden it can seem, and the more it is likely to mesh with someone’s prior beliefs.

While Beck, Limbaugh, Hannity, Carlson, and O’Reilly (or Alan Jones, Andrew Bolt, Peta Credlin etc.) don’t (or didn’t) do non-verbal violence themselves, they give an unstable someone else all the ‘alternative facts’ and conceptual violence, they need to suffer fear, gain a grudge and take action. They reinforce each other’s effect, as if people hear similar things from others they classify as similar to themselves (“Republican”) then what they hear tends to be taken as true.

Even if Trump does not know what he is doing, he picks the technique up from the media he watches.

The Advantage

Stochastic terrorists also have a great advantage. They don’t have to be reasonable, logical or coherent in their arguments. They don’t have to care about the truth, or accuracy, of what they say. They don’t have to even attempt to specify what is known and what is supposition. They can pretend they are comedy or satire and they can pretend they are 100% true at the same time. They can say whatever they like as long as it’s passionate and resonates with their audience and keeps that audience listening. They can change their mind in nothing flat, as long as the target remains the same. They can be ambiguous and say that what you think they said is not what they said.

For example:

Hillary wants to abolish, essentially abolish, the Second Amendment. By the way, and if she gets to pick –if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don’t know. But I’ll tell you what, that will be a horrible day, if — if — Hillary gets to put her judges in.

Speech: Donald Trump in Wilmington, NC – August 9, 2016

Many people took this false statement (Clinton did not want to abolish the Second Amendment, ‘essentially’ or otherwise) as an invitation for gun lovers to kill her or ‘her judges’ in advance of her getting “to put her judges in.” But a person from the campaign said:

It’s called the power of unification – 2nd Amendment people have amazing spirit and are tremendously unified, which gives them great political power.

Trump Campaign Statement on Dishonest Media

Note the press release title. Always say the others are lying, they have to be evil, that is part of the strategy.

More recently Trump has cast serious aspersions on electoral office workers, Democrat scrutineers and fellow Republicans who would not go along with his attempt to fix the election vote. He has denounced them furiously. Some of them seem to have been stalked and received death threats. This was to be expected. So far no one has died or been seriously assaulted (as far as I know), but it is possible. The big problem is whether this will scare off those who consider that they should be making sure the election is safe and legal, and only encourage those who are sure their job is to make sure their side wins. In any case Trump would deny he was encouraging terror.

This procedure becomes almost impossible to argue with, and the impossibility of arguing against the stochastic terrorist, then shows their followers how true the arguments are. And if you care about ‘free speech’ how could you stop them, whether they know what they are doing or not?

Right Wing Terror?

The foaming at the mouth, abusive, anger raising news commentary originated with the Right and still comes primarily from the Right, so we could expect that this would increase Right wing violence.

American ABC wrote in May 2020 that:

a nationwide review conducted by ABC News has identified at least 54 criminal cases where Trump was invoked in direct connection with violent acts, threats of violence or allegations of assault…..

in at least 12 cases perpetrators hailed Trump in the midst or immediate aftermath of physically assaulting innocent victims. In another 18 cases, perpetrators cheered or defended Trump while taunting or threatening others. And in another 10 cases, Trump and his rhetoric were cited in court to explain a defendant’s violent or threatening behavior….

the vast majority of the cases – 41 of the 54 – reflect someone echoing presidential rhetoric, not protesting it.

Levine, ‘No Blame?’ ABC News finds 54 cases invoking ‘Trump’ in connection with violence, threats, alleged assaults. ABCNews, 30 May 2020

This number of cases may be trivial. But Christopher Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), reinforces the general impression, by saying:

The greatest threat we face in the homeland is that posed by lone actors radicalized online who look to attack soft targets with easily accessible weapons. We see this lone actor threat manifested both within domestic violent extremists (DVEs) and homegrown violent extremists (HVEs), two distinct sets of individuals that generally self-radicalize and mobilize to violence on their own. DVEs are individuals who commit violent criminal acts in furtherance of ideological goals stemming from domestic influences, such as racial bias and anti-government sentiment. HVEs are individuals who have been radicalized primarily in the United States, and who are inspired by, but not receiving individualized direction from, foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs)….

the underlying drivers for domestic violent extremism—such as perceptions of government or law enforcement overreach, sociopolitical conditions, racism, anti-Semitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, and reactions to legislative actions—remain constant. 

the FBI is most concerned about lone offender attacks, primarily shootings, as they have served as the dominant lethal mode for domestic violent extremist attacks. More deaths were caused by DVEs than international terrorists in recent years. 

Worldwide Threats to the Homeland, FBI.gov 24 September 2020 [emphasis added]

The UN claims “a 320 per cent rise in attacks conducted by individuals affiliated with [right wing] movements and ideologies over the past five years” (emphasis added).

The University of Maryland Global Terrorism Database states that in the US between 2015 and 2019, anti-government types killed 64 people, anti-semites killed 17 people, incels killed 13 people, neo-nazis 12 people, white supremacists 64 people, and jihadis 84 people (p.6). [Glen Beck and his ilk can perhaps be excused the jihadis, but the principle remains, no matter who does it. ]

the vast majority of terrorist attacks in the United States in 2019 were non-lethal (84%, excluding perpetrator deaths), and these attacks were also motivated by diverse ideological influences, including antifascist, anti-government, anti-LGBT, anti-Muslim, anti-Semitic, anti-white, left-wing, pro-choice, and white supremacist/nationalist extremism

Global Terrorism Database p.3.

The Centre for Strategic Studies says:

Between 1994 and 2020, there were 893 terrorist attacks and plots in the United States. Overall, right-wing terrorists perpetrated the majority—57 percent—of all attacks and plots during this period, compared to 25 percent committed by left-wing terrorists, 15 percent by religious terrorists, 3 percent by ethnonationalists, and 0.7 percent by terrorists with other motives.

right-wing terrorism not only accounts for the majority of incidents but has also grown in quantity over the past six years.

The Escalating Terrorism Problem in the United States, CSS, 17 June 2020

I would suspect that ethnonationalists tend to be of the right, just as the neo-nazis and white supremacists tend to support Trump, so that is 60% of all attacks.

For those who need to be told these things, I am not saying right wing terrorism and assault is the only form terrorism, assault, or riot. That would be stupid. This is about the ways the terror can be ‘organised’ through apparently random events, and that can apply everywhere. I merely assert that it is likely to be more common on the right, at the moment.

To be even clearer. The 316 deaths from ‘terrorism’ between 2015 to 2019, is far less than other deaths. For example its less than 10% of the official deaths from Covid-19 in 2020. In 2017 alone US police shot and killed 987 people (a relatively bad year). In 2019, 793 workers aged 65 years and older died due to an occupational injury, obviously far more workers died because of injury at work in total – the death rate is about 3.5 occupational injury deaths per 100,000 employed workers. Given there are about 130.6 million full time workers in the US in 2019, then that is a large number of deaths from work.

It is far more sensible to be terrified of US police and US employers than of terrorists.

There is no Conclusion

Obviously it is easy to accuse people of working up terrorism stochasically. In a zone of free speech it is hard to ban speech or writing on the grounds it may induce harm (even if it almost certainly will), although conspiracy laws and incitement laws exist. My guess is that it will also be impossible to curtail this kind of ‘news’ and incitement as it is now standard – especially in Mr. Murdoch’s empire. We also cannot expect people to dismiss hysteria and lies as showing that these opinion hosts and politicians have no good ideas or no valid arguments. Indeed it is likely that because this way of emoting is successful, and generates the hatred which justifies its use, it will spread even further.

It is likely more people will die, and more people will believe comforting lies (“we couldn’t have really lost!”) and discussion between groups will continue to lessen and break down. As I’ve said before, there is a case that this politics of abuse and culture war started as a deliberate neoliberal strategy to protect a Right wing politics of further entrenching wealth and the power of wealth, but it now perhaps has consequences which were not originally intended.

If people become terrorised that they might be killed or beaten up for expressing a view, or a researched finding because others will hate them, then society will die, because the information about the world that we use to steer it as best we can, will no longer be accurate, and we will flounder before our problems.

This already seems to be the case – see ecological destruction.

The author of the Daily Kos article quotes an article which says:

“It’s not fair to blame Beck for violence committed by people who watch his show.”

and responds:

I say it damn well is fair to blame them when it happens again and again and predictably again.

Once is a tragedy, twice is a coincidence, three times is enemy action.  

Nuclear Energy in 2021

January 10, 2021

1) After about 70 years of building, nuclear is at about 5% of the world’s total energy supply according to the IEA.

2) If nuclear energy is going to be our saviour, then it needs the same exponential growth that renewables require. A growth it has never sustained in the world as a whole over those 70 years.

3) At the moment there is almost no serious agitation in Australia from politicians or business for even one nuclear power station, never mind the number we need to replace all use of coal, gas and oil.

4) On the other hand, there is agitation from business to build renewables, despite the best efforts of the Federal government to discourage this and promote a “gas led recovery” as the alternative to renewables. The government is not promoting nuclear as an alternative.

5) Avoiding declarations of climate emergency and the setting of emissions targets, as seems common amongst nuclear proponents, does nothing to help energy transition or nuclear energy. Indeed it resists recognising the need for such transitions. No one is going to transition to nuclear for the hell of it.

6) For nuclear energy to work, just as for renewables to work, we need to encourage electrification of all energy use, and the construction of a decent electrical infrastructure. This agitation, again, seems rare amongst nuclear proponents.

7) We could argue that nuclear proponents appear to aim at slowing and hindering transition to renewables, and hence any realistic energy transition at all. Therefore it is possible to suggest that they are inadvertently(?) assisting fossil fuel companies to stay in business.

8) Nuclear proponents in Australia don’t have to behave like this. They could argue for a transition which simply requires:

  • a) recognition of climate emergency, to help boost action,
  • b) emissions targets (perhaps with the addition of a carbon price) to help boost action,
  • c) general electrification, and construction of a new electrical infrastructure to cope that electrification,
  • d) complete phase out of coal, gas and oil for use and export,
  • e) money for research into energy sources with high energy return on energy input (EREI) and low greenhouse-gas emissions, and
  • f) nuclear as one of the energy sources we might need along with renewables or other possible sources.

But sadly this seems rare. They are generally more interested in slapping the Greens, as if with the Greens blamed, transition will just occur by itself.

The Trump Putsch 01

January 9, 2021

There are many things that can be said about yesterdays ‘insurrection’ at the US Capitol building. These are some of them.

Rough Timeline: Firstly the protestors started knocking the fences down at about 1:00 p.m. At about 1.20 Trump arrives back at the White House – some say his security detail said they could not protect him at the protest. He watches the riot on live TV. 1:34 pm Mayor Bowser of Washington, DC requests assistance from Secretary of Army. About 1.40 demonstrators break into the House. The Senate and House chambers were evacuated at 2:30 p.m, about the same time the Washington Mayor orders a 6pm Curfew. At about 3.40pm the National Guard arrives (?). Crowds start dispersing around 5 pm. About 8 pm, Capitol police declared the building secure. At 8.15 pm the House starts working again.

1) “Trump Media”

Parts of the Trump media and media groupings (One America Network, Parler, 4 chan, Q-Anon, Brietbart, Newsmax), after supporting Trump’s fake claims of election fraud, and calls for insurrection, are now saying things like “we all know Republicans don’t riot, consequently the rioters were not Republicans and the whole thing was a false flag operation”. The rioters were busloads of Antifa.

There is no evidence of antifa involvement and, even if there was, it does not give us new evidence about who was calling for the events, and who was cheering the events on. This includes those who are now claiming they had nothing to do with it, which appears to include those Republican members of Congress who were trying to overturn the election results, while depending on the election results for their own seats.

This is simple cowardice. Childlike cowardice. They could say, “I made a mistake and don’t like the results of that mistake,” or they could stand with the people they encouraged. But these people decide to hide their encouragement of violence behind blaming their opposition, or saying they suddenly came to understand what Trump was like.

By trying to blame others they at least show they recognise there is a problem they don’t want to be associated with. Interestingly even the leader of the Proud Boys supposedly announced ahead of the march:

“We will not be wearing our traditional Black and Yellow. We will be incognito and we will spread across downtown DC in smaller teams,… And who knows….we might dress in all BLACK for the occasion [like Antifa],” Mr. Tarrio posted on the social media service Parler. “The night calls for a BLACK tie event.”

Proud Boys leader says members will be ‘incognito’ for next pro-Trump protest in D.C. Washington Times, 29 December 2020

We can presume they wanted to hide and not be held responsible, although Tarrio later apparently said or wrote: “Proud Of My Boys and my country….”Don’t ****ing leave.”

Those who need to know, know they were involved.

2) Trump himself

From the wandering speech made directly before the riots, it is not clear what Trump wants, except to complain that he could not have lost because of statistics and fake claims, and that Mike Pence could fix it up by decree. [See endnote].

During the riots. Trump tweeted [Times on these tweets are from storage and not local times, the one immediately below is apparently from 2.24 pm during the riots.]:

More or less immediately after the Riots, Trump tweeted:

[And in case the tweet copy gets deleted:

These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremoniously & viciously stripped away from great patriots who have been badly & unfairly treated for so long. Go home with love & in peace. Remember this day forever!

twitter Jan 6 – see also Fox News and Forbes

So Trump defended his supporters for a while. Trump later claimed that violence was not what he wanted and that we should seek peace together.

My focus now turns to ensuring a smooth, orderly and seamless transition of power.

This moment calls for healing and reconciliation…..

We must revitalize the sacred bonds of love and loyalty that bind us together as one national family.

Donald Trump Concedes Election, Condemns Rioters Video Speech Transcript January 7. Rev 7 January

Trump has never seemed to want peace before, other than the peace of everyone submitting to himself. It is however, reasonably possible to suggest that he did not think his speech would be followed by the events which followed it; that, for him, the march on the Capitol was purely a game for him. However it is equally possible he deliberately tried to engineer deniability, and he will keep feeding and inciting rage, while pretending not to.

Personally I think he is stabbing his supporters in the back because he does not want to loose the benefits and salary of an ex-President if he should be suspended or impeached, but who knows? Anyway, the point again is he could say, “I made a mistake and I’ve changed my mind”, or he could stand by his supporters and what he has been encouraging them to do since the last election or earlier, or even say he was surprised at how people reacted, but no, its all their fault. I suspect he will soon be telling us it was all the Democrats’ fault. For Trump, it seems like it is always someone else’s fault.

For those who wonder if the President would throw his supporters, workers and creditors under the bus, for personal advantage, just look at his career. This is what he has done his entire life. This and continuous falsehood, are his distinguishing marks, even for people in politics and business.

He has also refused to attend the inauguration. This is one way of making peace… but attending would show that he might put his own resentments on one side, and thus encourage his followers to do so as well – but that would not give him any political advantage, he needs to keep hatred going to have any chance of influence or another shot at the Presidency.

While so far it is rumour and third hand reports, so this paragraph will possibly be changed, there is some evidence to say that:

  • Trump watched the riot on live TV (was there live TV coverage?)
  • He did tweet about Mike Pence’s failure to steal the election for him
  • He ignored calls from Republicans trapped in the House
  • He only tweeted against the riots when it was clear they had not achieved any of their aims, beyond occupation.

If so, then we may assume that Trump did seek violence to change the election result and intimidate people in the House.

Mitch McConnell is reported as saying, after he helped acquit Trump,:

There’s no question, none, that President Trump is practically and morally responsible for provoking the events of the day… The people who stormed this building believed they were acting on the wishes and instructions of their president… He did not do his job. He didn’t take steps so federal law could be faithfully executed and order restored… No. Instead, according to public reports, he watched television happily — happily — as the chaos unfolded… Even after it was clear to any reasonable observer that Vice President Pence was in serious danger.

Sprunt After Voting To Acquit, McConnell Torches Trump As Responsible For Riot. NPR 13 Feb 2021

What Trump does not appear to have done is even more significant. He did nothing to help organise a response. He did nothing to calm the situation down. He appears to have made no protest against what was happening while it was happening – and this is especially notable if he was watching on live TV.

It does not seem unreasonable to see Trump’s first public comments on Jan 12, as directed towards his riotous supporters as they defend the wall with Mexico, which seems to be a defense against illegal immigrants and emphasises the race issue. “We completed the wall,” he says which does not seem to be true, and he more or less admits is not true in the next line “They may want to expand it. We have the expansion underway.” But then:

We’re stopping a lot of illegal immigration. Our numbers have been very good. There does seem to be a surge now because people are coming up. So caravans are starting to form because they think there’s going to be a lot in it for them, if they’re able to get through, but we’re able to stop it

Donald Trump’s First Comments Since Capitol Riots: Says He Wants “No Violence”, Rev.com 12 January 2021

Then he implies the violence is against him, and that impeachment could lead to violence:

we want no violence, never violence. We want absolutely no violence. And on the impeachment, it’s really a continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics. It’s ridiculous. It’s absolutely ridiculous. This impeachment is causing tremendous anger as you’re doing it. And it’s really a terrible thing that they’re doing. For Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer to continue on this path, I think it’s causing tremendous danger to our country and it’s causing tremendous anger. I want no violence.

Donald Trump’s First Comments Since Capitol Riots: Says He Wants “No Violence”, Rev.com 12 January 2021

And the riot had nothing to do with him, all the fault of other people:

if you look at what other people have said, politicians at a high level, about the riots during the summer, the horrible riots in Portland and Seattle and various other places. That was a real problem, what they said, but they’ve analyzed my speech and my words and my final paragraph, my final sentence. And everybody to the T thought it was totally appropriate. 

Donald Trump’s First Comments Since Capitol Riots: Says He Wants “No Violence”, Rev.com 12 January 2021

His later speech was almost entirely about keeping illegal aliens out, and could be seen as a shout out to the ‘mob’. So he will almost certainly continue.

3) The Really Thin Blue Line

The Capitol was badly defended. There were hardly any police, and the national guard was not called in until way too late – apparently a guy Trump appointed to the job refused to let them be called in. In Washington DC the mayor does not command the National Guard, the President does. The guard eventually arrived because Republican and Democrat members of the house arranged it? (This is all very complicated, but see this timeline, which may or may not be accurate. The then chief of the Capitol Police, Steven Sund, “says he requested assistance six times ahead of and during the attack on the Capitol. Each of those requests was denied or delayed”). Trump tried to take credit for their arrival, but this does not seem to be accurate.

Many people ([1], [2], [3], [4] more could be given) have compared the thin lines of police with the heavy lines of police who faced Black Lives Matter protestors. and who seemed relaxed about using heavy violence to control and clear BLM protestors even if it was just for Presidential photo-ops. The police for the Trump protest seem to have been vastly outnumbered and under armed – I’ve seen videos of a few US police trying to hold back protestors with waist high portable fences, fists (!?) and no back-up. They had no hope against these white rioters.

I also read that 60 police where hospitalised with injuries and one police officer more or less definitely received deadly injuries from a thrown fire extinguisher. Video suggests one policeman was pulled down some stairs and beaten and kicked. One of the people beating him was using a flag pole with a US flag on it, and the crowd shouted “USA, USA”. Comments by Police Chief Contee also suggest rioters used pepper spray on the police. The police were not initially using tear gas and some had no gas masks. Pipe bombs and Molotov cocktails were also apparently found near the building outside the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee [5], [6].

This is where supporting people who claim to support the police, while they are suppressing others, gets you.

4) Police Complicity?

Some people say the police let the rioters in, and posed with rioters for selfies. This could be a cunning way of both getting photo ID of the perps, and/or avoiding being beaten up. There are pictures of police (or security guards) quietly standing by as occupiers walk past them. Perhaps some police where more gentle than people on the Left might expect them to be from their experience, and got out of the way, but this is not the same as deliberately letting people in.

If there was an inside job, it probably came from those people who ignored weeks of noise and warnings [7], [8], [9] and put in a thin blue line and blocked the National Guard. If you want to blame anyone, then blame the Trump Administration. They made the appointments and preparations. This obvert lack could also seem like pre-meditation.

5) Security Chaos

The failure of the police meant the Capitol was defended by security officers who had been trained to shoot terrorists and assassins. It is no wonder one person was shot, and amazing that more were not killed. Three of the four protestors who died are currently said to have died of medical complications. One was possibly crushed to death in the crowd.

The security at the Capitol was surprisingly low key. It appears to advertise that if any real and moderately competent terrorist organisation had wanted to, they could have invaded and shot up Capitol Hill without problem.

6) Lack of Revolutionary Aims

The rioters seemed to have no idea what to do when they achieved their aims. Some people have said they were going to burn the electoral college votes, but they failed to do that, and there is no evidence that was an aim shared by the majority of people – any more there is evidence the pipe bombs were the work of many people. While burning the votes might have been a great piece of symbolism, it would achieve nothing. There was no attempt to seize centres of power, to control the airwaves or barricade themselves in, or even bring automatic weapons into the building.

Most of the rioters seemed happy enough to frolic around, break into offices, steal souvenirs and pose for photos. This was not a crowd of organised revolutionaries. I’m not sure they can be called terrorists either, despite the Federal Code of Regulation definition that terrorism is:

the unlawful use of force and violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof and furtherance of political or social objectives

As quoted by D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser Press Conference Day After Capitol Riot Transcript January 7

Discontents is probably better. If it were not for the injured cops this might have been disorderly ‘fun’.

Image

On the other hand, some people wore neo-nazi symbols and apparently called for the execution of Mike Pence (who knows how seriously) for not obeying Trump’s call to neutralise the result. People have alleged there were plans to capture Nancy Pelosi, but the evidence seems conjectural at this moment. However, Neo-Nazis reportedly boasted they were there, and the Proud Boys reputedly sent out a message saying:

For several hours, our collective strength had politicians in Washington in absolute terror. The treacherous pawns (cops) were also terrified…

The system would have you believe that you are alone. That’s why they want to ban all ‘radicals’ from social media. They want you to feel alone. But the truth is that you are not alone. We are everywhere.

Things will get difficult soon but don’t lose heart. We are growing and our unity will terrify the evil elites running this nation.

Proud Boys Boast About Politicians ‘in Absolute Terror’ During Capitol Raid. Newsweek, 7 January.

So some people had ambitions, perhaps after the event. The FBI says ‘Antifa’ does not seem to have had much if any presence. Earlier reports claiming this was not the case have since been discredited.

So let us be clear about this. Mainstream people on the Right are blaming a group for the riots, who almost certainly were not there, while ignoring right wing extremists who certainly were there, who are claiming responsibility for the occupation and the violence, and who are promising more of the same.

And these same people want unity and no prosecution of Trump for anything? Some of them because they fear what might come next. This again is cowardice, and indicates the possible take over of the Republican party by fascists.

7) Spread

The event was not confined to the Capitol in Washington. There were similar, generally peaceful, if less successful, protests across the country: in Arizona (which involved breaking glass and a guillotine), Colarado, Florida, Georgia, Kansas, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Texas, Utah, and probably elsewhere. It is notable that many people were also protesting against coronavirus lockdowns and did not wear masks. So we can see this movement as a spreader event. Perhaps deliberately to generate more chaos for the new Administration to deal with, but more probably to do with disbelief.

With the Internet it is not necessary for there to be an organising body, but apparently the main event was organised by “Women for America First” and it allegedly involved people from the Presiden’ts 2020 campaign. When asked the Trump Campaign apparently said

We did not organize, operate or finance this event. No campaign staff was involved in the organization or operation of this event. If any former employees or independent contractors for the campaign worked on this event, they did not do so at the direction of the Trump campaign.

Trump allies helped plan, promote rally that led to Capitol attack. ABC NEWS (America) 9 January

As you would expect, they avertised the event to their followers, through twitter and facebook. For example:

and

Women for America First announced:

We are saddened and disappointed at the violence that erupted on Capitol Hill, instigated by a handful of bad actors, that transpired after the rally

Trump allies helped plan, promote rally that led to Capitol attack. ABC NEWS (America) 9 January and “Statement on Violence at the Capitol

And did the expected blame shifting, it’s got nothing to do with them and everything to do with people they don’t like:

Unfortunately, for months the left and the mainstream media told the American people that violence was an acceptable political tool. They were wrong. It is not. 

Trump allies helped plan, promote rally that led to Capitol attack. ABC NEWS (America) 9 January and “Statement on Violence at the Capitol

Apparently, no one ever listens to the right wing media…

The Women for America First website with the statement on it seems to have disappeared. Other people involved in the event appear to have included: “Stop the Steal,” “Wild Protest.com” “Turning Point Action,” “Rule of Law Defence Fund,” “Tea Party Patriots,” Eighty Percent Coalition”, not to mention “Proud Boys”, “Three Percenters” and the like – who do seem to have some familiarity with threatening violence.

Some allege that some of the misinformation and promotion of violence came from ‘big oil’ and those who promote climate denial [10], [11] which, if correct, shows how terrified they are of even the minor climate efforts Biden has promised to make. It is true, that Trump would have kept subsidies and profits up for a while longer if he ‘won,’ and fossil fuel companies have never shown much concern over democracy.

Fear is also part of the spread of misinformation. One Republican Representative is reported as saying:

“One of the saddest things is I had colleagues who, when it came time to recognize reality and vote to certify Arizona and Pennsylvania in the Electoral College, they knew in their heart of hearts that they should’ve voted to certify, but some had legitimate concerns about the safety of their families. They felt that that vote would put their families in danger,”

Amash’s Successor Peter Meijer: Trump’s Deceptions Are ‘Rankly Unfit. Reason 8 January 2021

If true, this is fascism in action again, and not being denounced.

8) Fantasy

The following report may not be accurate, but while some protestors were disappointed in Trump, and his failure to produce evidence for the “storm” that many people on the Right had been expecting and inciting for so long (when the deep state Satanist pedophiles would be arrested and charged), some of the rioters or riot supporters claim that Trump’s apparent backdown is a deep fake video, or perhaps:

“He has a plan here President Trump would not back down that easily… We need to stand strong, keep watch and pray. Something big is coming and Gid [God] is going to see it through.”

“Trump did not concede. He used language to buy a little extra time because the senators and congressmen who support him are being threatened with dirty bombs and their families’ lives by the Deep State and/or communist Chinese … I have it on good grounds that Trump will be moving with the military And regarding the transition to a new administration, means Trump with a new VP Pence is obviously a traitor and is ‘fired’”

Donald Trump fans cry betrayal as he rebukes Capitol violence. The Guardian, 8 January 2021

If the Storm has not happened by now, we can assume it will never happen, and would never happen.

9) It is not Necessarily ended

Some have compared this event to the Munich Beer Hall putsch of 1923. Hitler’s failed attempt to take over Bavaria. From that event we learn that Hitler was no brave war hero, but he came back some years later and produced a lot of death. The point of the comparison is just to remind us that failure does not always mean that a movement is ended. Ten years from now, maybe Trump or someone like him will succeed in inspiring people who feel displaced and take over the government.

If politicians get the message that these people (like most people) cannot be controlled and selling one’s soul (for power) to a proto-fascist is not a good deal, then something has to change. The problems faced by real people trying to live in neoliberal America have to be taken seriously and people have to feel that government is something they can participate in without needing force. Neoliberalism has to go, because this is where it leads.

However, Republican leaders are generally not condemning either the rioter’s or their party’s association with neo-fascism and white supremacy, never mind putting the wealthy first. Hence we can assume they are happy to go along with things as they are. This increases the likelihood of that party being taken over by those forces and being used by those forces, just as QAnon appears to have tried to use Trump for its purposes, through the cultivation of fantasy and resonance.

The information mess of information society, is another problem. Propaganda is effective, and can easily promote these kind of events and this kind of resentment. Fascism is easy, not impossible because of some national spirit. It can happen anywhere. We somehow need to establish a truth which can be shared amongst all, but fascist propagandists seek a truth that splits and makes the acceptors superior. Or perhaps we need to establish a more general, non-directed skepticism. I don’t know a solution, but an approach is needed.

10) Election Inquiry?

Personally I would go for an independent open and public inquiry into the Election process. It would include all the alleged events that Trump mentions. This would allow them to be refuted in public. It would also include: investigation into Gerrymandering; voter suppression; refusals to have enough pre-poll booths; attempts to crush mail-in voting through sabotaging the post office or any other way; intimidation or attempted bribery of electoral officials and workers; the apparently deliberate delays in voting in certain areas; explanations about the way voting trends can change; and so on. It perhaps should investigate the rules around the electoral college or the consequences of its abandonment. It perhaps should recommend a public holiday to make voting possible for many people. It would have the power to charge the ex-President, and anyone else with offenses before a court, if they should be demonstrated. It should also consider making Washington DC, and Puerto Rico into States for electoral purposes. If people say this should not happen because Republicans would never win without restricting the vote, then let them think about their commitment to democracy or lack of useful policies.

Endnote: Trump Administration Speeches

Trump’s big speech before the riot, starts as it goes on.

This was not a close election. I say sometimes jokingly, but there’s no joke about it, I’ve been in two elections. I won them both and the second one, I won much bigger than the first. Almost 75 million people voted for our campaign, the most of any incumbent president by far in the history of our country, 12 million more people than four years ago. I was told by the real pollsters, we do have real pollsters. They know that we were going to do well, and we were going to win. What I was told, if I went from 63 million, which we had four years ago to 66 million, there was no chance of losing. Well, we didn’t go to 66. We went to 75 million and they say we lost. We didn’t lose.

By the way, does anybody believe that Joe had 80 million votes? Does anybody believe that? He had 80 million computer votes. It’s a disgrace. There’s never been anything like that. You could take third world countries. Just take a look, take third world countries. Their elections are more honest than what we’ve been going through in this country. It’s a disgrace. It’s a disgrace. Even when you look at last night, they’re all running around like chickens with their heads cut off with boxes. Nobody knows what the hell is going on. There’s never been anything like this. We will not let them silence your voices. We’re not going to let it happen. Not going to let it happen….

if Mike Pence does the right thing, we win the election. All he has to do. This is from the number one or certainly one of the top constitutional lawyers in our country. He has the absolute right to do it. We’re supposed to protect our country, support our country, support our constitution, and protect our constitution. States want to revote. The States got defrauded. They were given false information. They voted on it. Now they want to recertify. They want it back. All Vice-President Pence has to do is send it back to the States to recertify, and we become president, and you are the happiest people.

Donald Trump Speech “Save America” Rally Transcript January 6. Rev 6 January


Despite being full of falsehood, denunciation of the election result, and self praise (he “had to beat Oprah, [who] used to be a friend of mine”), the speech does not seems to be a direct incitement to riot. There is little to no evidence for his impeachment on those grounds here [although see this analysis, which I think its a bit strained]. Indeed Trump said:

I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard….

we’re going to the Capitol and we’re going to try and give… [ellipsis in original to indicate change of track] The Democrats are hopeless. They’re never voting for anything, not even one vote. But we’re going to try and give our Republicans, the weak ones, because the strong ones don’t need any of our help, we’re going to try and give them the kind of pride and boldness that they need to take back our country. 

So let’s walk down Pennsylvania Avenue. 

Donald Trump Speech “Save America” Rally Transcript January 6. Rev 6 January

He did not walk with them, although it is not clear why. Perhaps he wanted to be elsewhere if violence broke out – it would be safer for him. The only overtly but vague instruction for riot he gave was:

I said, “Something’s wrong here. Something’s really wrong. Can’t have happened.” And we fight. We fight like Hell and if you don’t fight like Hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore.

Donald Trump Speech “Save America” Rally Transcript January 6. Rev 6 January

This could easily be defended as a figure of speech. The violence, seems to have been plotted beforehand, and not at the speech. Trump may have been simply a focus for other people to make that move – perhaps this is something he wanted to take advantage of, but not be directly involved in.

During the riot he tries to steer both sides, those of the rioters and those who were not impressed by the riots:

I know your pain. I know you’re hurt. We had an election that was stolen from us. It was a landslide election, and everyone knows it, especially the other side, but you have to go home now. We have to have peace. We have to have law and order. We have to respect our great [pause] people in law and order. We don’t want anybody hurt. It’s a very tough period of time. There’s never been a time like this where such a thing happened, where they could take it away from all of us, from me, from you, from our country. This was a fraudulent election, but we can’t play into the hands of these people. We have to have peace. So go home. We love you. You’re very special. You’ve seen what happens. You see the way others are treated that are so bad and so evil. I know how you feel. But go home and go home at peace.

Trump Video Telling Protesters at Capitol Building to Go Home: Transcript. Rev 6 January and Facebook

This is a line made clear by his press secretary Kayleigh McEnany as well.

What we saw yesterday, was a group of violent rioters, undermining the legitimate First Amendment rights of the many thousands who came to peacefully have their voices heard in our nation’s Capitol. Those who violently besieged our Capitol, are the opposite of everything this administration stands for. 

White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany Press Briefing on Capitol Riot Transcript

This massive backdown, implies either cowardice or that he was being used by other more competent people for their own purposes, to start something off, or to be a figurehead. QAnon seems to be that kind of movement, as the President seemed to make little use of it, or have little familiarity with its arguments and misinformation, even when it would have been useful for him. This probably means ‘Q’ not only does not have many ties with the President, but probably not with the Republican Party itself. This again makes impeachment hard.

Conservatism again

January 3, 2021

Most conservatism seems misrepresented by those modern movements which take the name of conservatism, which largely seem to have lost conservative approaches to conservation, trust, truth, and virtue. Neoliberalism has eaten conservatism.

I have a number of slightly weird, and possibly contradictory, political positions, as anyone who has read this blog will probably know, but there are some common threads. In some ways, I’m a more or less traditional conservative, ie Burkean, Coleridgean, Ruskinean. That means I don’t have much in common with most people who claim the Conservative label nowadays, but there is no reason we cannot have ‘left’ conservatives, especially if you think the post WWII boom was probably a good time to live, and a time which held promise.

Roots of Conservatism

The root of conservatism is conserving the best of our past while slowly improving it – the ‘slowly’ is often important, as I hope will become clear as we go along.

The two most important processes to conserve are: The Land, and Tradition or Culture.

The Land

The land needs to be conserved because life in whatever is our Country depends upon the Land. Humans relate to the Land, it is in their nature. Despoliation of the Land shows disrespect for our ancestors and traditions, and can put us in the place were we can no longer be self-reliant on the Land for food. Wild Land is important, because it reminds us of the grandeur of nature and power of God. There should be land in which people can be alone, and gain inner strength and self-reliance. We may need to keep predators that can challenge us, so that we don’t become human predators.

Preserving the Land, also preserves the particular beauties that are associated with our country and that helps shape the souls of those who live in our country. Despoliation of land is equivalent to despoliation of the ‘national soul’.

Of course cultivated land is good (I say this because people often fall into false dichotomies), but cultivation again should not mean despoliation. And ideally the land should be small holdings, supporting families in dignity, rather than large land holdings which turn the people away from care for their surroundings, into wage labour, or even serfdom or slavery, and an inability to self-support.

Tradition and Culture

Tradition is important, that is what shapes our culture and our way of life. It can often be related to the Land. Customs, habits and ecologies fit together in mutual support – this is what anthropologists used to call functionalism – everything, no matter how apparently irrational has an important social function. Disrespect for tradition is an attack on our way of life. However, tradition changes. It always changes. If we are careful we can improve tradition. Thus while an 18th Century conservative may well have approved slavery, a modern conservative should not, because we know it was a stain on the social fabric, an incidence of inhumanity and a corruption of spirit for both slaves and slave-owners, and it was counter to the trend of our Religion.

However, because of the delicate balance of these ‘systems,’ we need to be slow and careful when we make changes. We need to find out whether unintended consequences arise from removing checks and balances. It is often the case that while we think we are doing good, we are destroying what we seek to preserve.

Care and observation should the basis of conservatism, as well as respect for those who know, work and study.

Elites, Virtue and Art

All conservatives respect elites of some sort or another, but this can be a bit complicated.

All societies have elites, this is the nature of humanity, and sometimes elites can be destructive. However, the conservative idea is that society should be governed by the best people available, who are then held responsible by the people in general.

Elites should be trained and experienced, but not restricted to an ‘aristocracy’. Elites should ‘circulate’, that is they should admit the best people, whoever they are, and drop those who are no longer ‘up to it’. There should be social mobility. Effort in many different skills should be rewarded, so as to give people something to strive for.

When people have no visible chance of social mobility, then they may well support dangerous demagogues and revolutionaries. What other option do they have? This support will destroy social balance, harmony and tradition, so it is no solution, but it feels like one.

The populace will tend to emulate the elites – this again is human nature – so the better the elites, the more virtuous the elites, the better are the population and the better the nation becomes. If the elite are braggarts who seek their own wealth, power and exemption from the law, then that is what the populace will seek as well, to their own and society’s detriment.

This is why elites need stronger discipline than the populace. It is why a traitor among the elites is worse than a traitor amongst the people.

The point of the elites is that they should govern for the good of all, hence the importance of inculcating virtue and training. As soon as an elite starts governing for its own advantage, society begins heading for collapse.

Elites are not just responsible for governance, but for supporting the best religion, art, culture and beauty – not only traditional but new. They have the power to do this, or the power to neglect this, but it is an obligation, just as it is an obligation to be virtuous.

Again, the aim of this support, is to improve the souls of the people, to make them turn from the ugliness of sin, and cherish bountiful aspirations, and relationships. The elite need to be generous. Most good art should be public art. This does not mean that elites do not support art for their own glory as well, but the glory should be directed both ways to the people and the elite. Again this is building connection, which builds society.

Art is not secondary to money in terms of building tradition and social well being.

Unfortunately, elites may sometimes need to lie to govern, or to defend the Country. They may want to use what Plato called the ‘noble lie’. This is unfortunately sometimes necessary. However, lying needs to be discouraged. Elites need to respect truth, and to be honest whenever possible. Lies for a noble strategies’ sake, easily become lies for selfish ingroup, or personal, benefit. Lies break relationship, leading to the liar feeling falsely superior to the deceived. When lies are uncovered, the people cease to trust the elites. Elites have to be able to be held to account, and staying with the truth, as well as it is known, is the best way whenever possible.

Elites are privileged, and their privilege is only justified by the example they set, and their care for others ‘beneath’ them. Without this care, and this relationship, elites almost certainly become destructive.

Elites should put themselves on the line. They have a responsibility to be the first in combat, the first to take salary cuts, the first to give for their country, the first to step out of comfort and help others in distress. That is, they set the example. They become what the people will emulate.

Conservatism encourages relationships between the classes, as a society is built upon relationships (preferably personal not contractual, monetary or compelled), and relationships carry obligation and responsibility. If relationship, obligation and responsibility is denied or sabotaged, then society fragments and becomes factional. It is on the way down.

A society built on extensive cross-cutting relationships, will have ‘networks’ of support and responsibility, it is more likely to endure crisis. It is more likely the elites and the people will be connected, and governance will be for all.

The issue of elites becomes even more complicated, when we recognise ‘wealth elites’ or ‘capitalist elites’

Capitalism and its elites

Real conservatives, while accepting capitalism as a potential force for good, are also cautious about it. Capitalism does not respect tradition or Land, or good government for all.

If tradition and virtue can be corrupted to make a buck, then capitalists will corrupt them without any thought of the future. If despoiling Land makes money in the short term, then Land will be despoiled. The same with everything else of value.

Capitalism tends to reduce all virtue, all relationships and all government to money. All value becomes monetary value.

Capitalists, if not watched, will tend to set up an aristocracy of wealth, without any loyalty to anything other than making themselves more wealthy. Capitalism easily becomes plutocracy.

It is not conservative to think that markets will always deliver the best result for everyone and for the country. That is special interest lobbying.

We should remember that Edmund Burke spent a large proportion of his career and effort into attempting to curtail the East India Company’s actions in India because its business was not good for the subjects of Empire. Modern conservatives pretend business is always good. Real conservatives do not.

Conservatives know that that virtue is the basis of society and should be beyond money and purchase. Conservatives know that society is based in relationships and not money.

Money is useful, but money is not a god. You cannot worship both God and Mammon. If you try, you will loose God. You will get religions which insist that wealth is the only mark of virtue and that God wants everyone to have money (God probably ‘wants’ everyone to have spiritual wealth, care for others, and contentment).

These capitalist prosperity religions make the poor sick at heart. They say to everyone, “if you are not rich then you are not godly” and “if you are godly then you are rich”. This is not only blasphemy, but it is destructive of society. The poor may always be with us, but they can aim to be saints. Saints embrace poverty. Poverty is not necessarily a good thing, and we should do our best to help relieve it, but it is bearable while people have dignity and respect, and are not repeatedly informed they are without God, talent, virtue or use. Traditional Christianity strongly recognises this.

However, capitalism has no respect for truth. PR, advertising, cronyism and hype seem to be an essential and everyday part of its life. It cannot be left to seek its own level of falsehood, or society will be swamped in malevolent fantasy, which is only solved by collapse.

Capitalism, if not watched and cared for, as we would watch and care for a tiger, is dangerous as well as splendid.

Real conservatives realise this. Rule of the country should never be handed to the wealth elite alone, for they will rule according to greed, and according to the money they can make. They will destroy all the balances, and all the finer things of the soul, that make a country great.

That, again, is simply reality.

Division of Powers

Consequently, conservatives will encourage as many competing powers as possible, to ensure the Country is not taken over by one group alone.

Organised religion should be a power, but not the only power as it easily becomes tyranny, and suppressive of all other religions and religious variants.

Workers should be a power. Unions developed to save workers from capitalist greed. They are part of our Tradition and should not be bought out or destroyed to give capitalists more power. However, again, they should not be the only power.

The courts should be separate from the government and act as a check upon the government.

The military is a power and (sadly) necessary, but should always be subservient to the governors, in terms of not declaring war itself. War should be declared by Parliament not the executive. The military must be held to high standards of virtue and discipline, or else it can shelter barbarism and cruelty. The military should never approve war crimes, as this reflects badly on the rest of society and mutual trust.

Science should be a power. It is the best guide we have to the truth of the world. Hence scientists annoyingly give different advice as the evidence and understanding change. This is why they are advisors and not governors. People who condemn scientists, when listening to them would be inconvenient, are foolish at best. Scientists should be trained to respect both the truth and relationship.

Business should be a power, but not the only power. We need to understand what generates prosperity and nobility in the long term, and that may not come from business alone.

Civil Society organisations should be powers, to provide input from those who might be ignored.

Public servants should be a power, they have accumulated wisdom and experience, but clearly the bureaucracy should not rule alone, as one of it’s purposes is to check and regulate rule.

Everyone knows that any group can become self-interested, but the more groups involved in governance, the less chance we have of being taken over by one limited self interest.

Liberty

By respecting this variety we encourage liberty, not directed by the one group, so it is real liberty.

But conservatives remember that liberty is not the freedom to do everything you want. Liberty is constrained by consideration for others.

Without virtue, liberty becomes tyranny. This is the basis of the law. You are not free to steal, you are not free to murder, you are not free to defraud others, you are not free to slander with no regard for truth, you are not free to poison people or the Land, you are not free to betray your country and so on.

Conclusion

To conclude, and I could go on and on, I’ll repeat that conservatism is about conserving the best of the past (culture and traditions), changing things slowly, looking for unintended consequences, and preserving the Land.

It is not governing on behalf of one group alone.

Any politics which does not realise this, is not Real Conservatism, as far as I’m concerned.

Trump and the campaign against Democracy

January 3, 2021

Trump does not have to do anything other than convince most of his followers that the election was stolen, and that he and they are victims of a vast and clearly powerful conspiracy. He was preparing for this before the election [footnote1], and claimed victory after the election, without any particular evidence that I know of – that is, he made an over-optimistic or deliberately false claim, not a mistaken claim [footnote2]. We might well assert that Donald Trump can never admit to losing or failing, he will pretend he was successful or he will blame others for cheating. This seems to be a long established characteristic.

However, his claims are working. A small Reuters Ipsos poll taken on Nov. 13-17 found only 29% of Republican voters said that Biden had rightfully won and 68% of Republicans said they were concerned that the election was “rigged.” A poll from Vox and Data for Progress taken on 16 November stated:

73 percent of likely Republican voters say that the allegations of voter fraud have made them question Joe Biden’s victory, a statement that 44 percent of all likely voters agreed with as well. Similarly, 75 percent of likely Republican voters said they believed voter fraud took place during the election that benefitted Biden, something that 43 percent of likely voters overall also stated.

Vox poll: 73 percent of Republican voters are questioning Biden’s victory

A poll taken in early December, by Quinnipiac University found that Republicans “say 70 – 23 percent that they think Biden’s victory is not legitimate…  38 percent [of all registered voters] say they believe there was widespread fraud.” Rather oddly “Republicans say 77 – 19 percent they believe there was widespread voter fraud,” so there are presumably Republicans who think that there was widespread Republican fraud.

Whatever the case, a large majority of Republicans appear to think that Biden did not really win legitimately.

So, because of these claims, assuming he gets into the White House, Joe Biden will not be accepted by a large portion of the US population, no matter if he won the popular vote by 7 million votes or not (over c.81,281,000 to c.74,224,000).

Consequently, Trump’s side of politics can refuse all co-operation and bog the nation down in do-nothingness, while the US is raddled with uncontrollable pandemics, poverty and so on. The only allowed solution to which is more Trump, and more neoliberal Republicanism.

To achieve his aim, Trump does not need evidence that holds up in court. He only requires a few out of context videos, a few non tested testimonies, a heap of rumour, and the assertion that things were weird, and that he could not loose, and for his supporters not to hear the refutations of Trump’s assertions – which will happen due to the ways right wing media works.

This is probably why his lawyers have not presented evidence to the courts that was not easily dismissed as hearsay. All he needs is the allegation of there being evidence repeatedly backed up by people and media on his side. This allegation will be joined to the allegation that everyone who disagrees with the evidence he has alleged to be true and meaningful, is either naïve, brainwashed or part of the conspiracy. These assertions will be repeated over and over.

Then his followers are trapped. They have to agree, or they face exile, rage and mockery – and they think it could possibly be true, as after all so many people are asserting there is irrefutable evidence…. And no one who asserts otherwise can be trusted.

His followers are the victims, of a failed society, and they experience that every day, why should they have faith in its institutions?

Trump attempted to change certifications and called those people in his party who were responsible for certifications in order to change their minds. Lindsay Graham reputedly rang the Georgia Secretary of State, to have votes thrown out. Trump appears to have sought to have large numbers of votes thrown out with little to no evidence presented, other than the fact that he did not think he could lose. [For more see Footnote 3].

The assumption seems to be that if there was any cheating, it had to be Democrat cheating, but it is at least conceptually possible that the reason why Biden did not win by as much as expected is that there was Republican cheating. We know that Republicans tried to prevent people from voting in advance, or by mail, and that was probably to scare off those who believed Covid was a problem, who seem to be primarily Democrat. So there is form here. Trump quote figures for fake votes without any apparent sources, or with ambiguous videos so, if there were fake votes then they could be for anyone. Furthermore, if the votes for the Senate and the House were accurate, which Republicans seem to expect, these are made at the same time, so why were they not faked?

One high level Trump supporter called for a military take over, another said of Chris Krebs, who declared the election secure, “that guy is a class A moron. He should be drawn and quartered. Taken out at dawn and shot.” The same person also remarked of those Republicans who said the election was fair: “the governors in these states are a bunch of losers, along with their secretaries of state. I’ve never seen such wimps wearing an R [being Republican]…. You know, they’re going to have to be dealt with politically. It’s the only way you deal with these people.” Other people received death threats and slurs, apparently from Trump followers, with little objection from Republican representatives.

Michigan’s secretary of state, Jocelyn Benson, said dozens of armed protesters gathered in a threatening manner outside her home on Saturday evening chanting “bogus” claims about electoral fraud.

Armed pro-Trump protesters gather outside Michigan elections chief’s home. The Guardian, 8 December 2020

The idea seems to be to intimidate and bribe. If so, this is fascism in action. This is the real cancel culture.

People on the Democrat side tend to believe in things like the rule of law, playing fair, and not lying all the time, so consequently they don’t even see that democracy is crumbling, despite the refutations of Trump by ‘experts’, people who were present where there was supposedly cheating, courts, and so on. This is also despite the number of votes Trump requested be nullified.

Refutations mean nothing, as Trump knows. To Trump’s followers the refutations, and their consistency, only prove the depth of the conspiracy against them. The 60 or so failed court cases, again demonstrate the size, ruthlessness and power of the opposition against him, not the fact that only one of the cases was any good.

By his followers’ lights, Democrats who can engineer all this failure for the super-businessman, must be evil. Evil stops at nothing, so evil cannot be believed, and evil must be crushed forever. Trump will not give in. He will take revenge on all who have stopped him being declared winner as was his right. His followers will agree and cheer.

So people on his side in the next election, will probably only step in to scrutinize results if they already know Republicans should win, and any Democrat victories are the result of fraud. They know the cost of ‘being truthful’ and going against Republican declarations of fraud. So not only will Republicans intensify their demonstrated opposition to any possible non-Republican votes, but they will try and fix the counts, to get at the real truth of America.

And when the next Republican gets in, he will not have to listen to Democrats at all because people on his side know that Democrats fixed an election and are evil. Democrats can slowly be rounded up because they are evil and corrupt, and many people will have no sympathy for them. And it won’t take much of that before most Democrats decide the results of this election probably were faked and they should go along with it. The media will go along to keep going along, and nobody will report the threats and so they will not exist.

Only a few people will even notice that democracy has gone, because it all will be done in defense of democracy.

*********************

[Footnote 1] A brief history of Trump and allegations of electoral fraud

After the election of Obama. Trump tweeted:

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
This election is a total sham and a travesty. We are not a democracy!

Twitter Nov 7, 2012

A deleted tweet said:

He lost the popular vote by a lot and won the election. We should have a revolution in this country!

Donald Trump Freaks Out on Twitter After Obama Wins Election, Mashable 7 November 2012

and

The phoney electoral college made a laughing stock out of our nation. The loser one!

as above

Actually Obama seems to have won the popular vote by about 5 million votes. However, it is clear that loosing the popular vote but wining in the electoral college is no longer a problem in 2016.

In 2016, he lost the Iowa primary to Ted Cruz and wrote:

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

Ted Cruz didn’t win Iowa, he stole it. That is why all of the polls were so wrong and why he got far more votes than anticipated. Bad!

Twitter 12: 47 am Feb 4, 2016

and

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump

Based on the fraud committed by Senator Ted Cruz during the Iowa Caucus, either a new election should take place or Cruz results nullified.

Twitter 1: 28 am Feb 4 2016

Even later he tweeted:

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
I will be interviewed on @foxandfriends at 9:00 A.M. I will be talking about the rigged and boss controlled Republican primaries!

Twitter 10:00 PM · Apr 16, 2016

In the 2016 presidential election against Hillary Clinton, he tweeted.

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
This election is being rigged by the media pushing false and unsubstantiated charges, and outright lies, in order to elect Crooked Hillary!

Twitter Oct 15, 2016

A section of a debate with Hilary Clinton went like this:

Donald Trump: She shouldn’t be allowed to run. She’s guilty of a very, very serious crime. She should not be allowed to run. And just in that respect, I say it’s rigged. Because she should never-… she should never have been allowed to run for the presidency based on what she did with emails and so many other things.

Chris Wallace: (01:04:31)
But sir, there is a tradition in this country. In fact, one of the prides of this country is the peaceful transition of power and that no matter how hard for what a campaign is that at the end of the campaign, that the loser concedes to the winner. Not saying that you’re necessarily going to be the loser or the winner, but that the loser concedes to the winner and that the country comes together in part for the good of the country. Are you saying you’re not prepared now to commit to that principle?

Donald Trump: (01:04:57)
What I am saying is that I will tell you at the time. I’ll keep you in suspense.

Hillary Clinton: (01:05:01)
Well, Chris, let me respond to that because that’s horrifying. Every time Donald thinks things are not going in his direction, he claims whatever it is is rigged against him. The FBI conducted a year long investigation into my emails. They concluded there was no case. He said the FBI was rigged. He lost the Iowa caucus. He lost the Wisconsin primary. He said the Republican primary was rigged against him. Then Trump University gets sued for fraud and racketeering, he claims the court system and the federal judge is rigged against him. There was even a time when he didn’t get an Emmy for his TV program three years in a row and he started tweeting that the Emmy’s were rigged against him.

Donald Trump vs. Hillary Clinton 3rd Presidential Debate Transcript 2016

Some days later he commented:

I would like to promise and pledge to all of my voters and supporters and to all of the people of the United States that I will totally accept the results of this great and historic presidential election, if I win,

Donald Trump: ‘I will totally accept’ election results ‘if I win’ 20 October 2016 – emphasis added.

Possibly a joke?, But its only fakery if he looses, yet he became one of the few Presidents to claim his victory was in a faked election

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
In addition to winning the Electoral College in a landslide, I won the popular vote if you deduct the millions of people who voted illegally

Twitter Nov 28, 2016

He continued his claims of fraud into 2017

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
Look forward to seeing final results of VoteStand. Gregg Phillips and crew say at least 3,000,000 votes were illegal. We must do better!

Twitter Jan 28, 2017

The UK based Independent commented:

VoteStand is an amateur app that allows people to send in their own reports of voter fraud. The app has been downloaded just a few thousand times and is barely used…. The VoteStand Twitter account has only 614 followers.

Even if the app detected genuine instances of voter fraud, so few people use it that it would be impossible for three million infractions to have taken place [and been reported].

Votestand: Donald Trump relies on unknown app to back up claims of voter fraud. The Independent, 27 January 2017

His administration even threatened to investigate the supposed fraud, and Trump reportedly alleged again that millions of illegal immigrants voted in the 2016 election. No evidence was presented.

Let us be clear, if President Trump wanted to set up a commission to ensure US elections were secure, well-regulated, and reflected the will of the people, he had plenty of opportunity to do so. Republicans controlled the Senate and the House for his first two years so, even if Democrats had objected (which is unlikely, if the commission was not phrased as a witch hunt), a commission could easily have been set up to consider all the available evidence, and to find ways of better securing the results. He did not do this.

A reasonable conclusion from his comments, is that he only wants to challenge the voting system when votes don’t go his way.

He began this 2020 election pointing out a problem with mail-in voting….

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to state wide mail-in voting. Democrats are clamoring for it. Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesn’t work out well for Republicans. @foxandfriends

Twitter 10:20 PM · Apr 8, 2020 Emphasis added.

For what it is worth, one mid year survey estimated that:

“More than one-third of Americans intend to vote by mail in the November presidential election”….

Among them, 48% of voters who plan to vote for Democratic presumptive nominee Joe Biden said they are likely to vote by mail, according to the survey. That’s more than twice the 23% of voters backing President Donald Trump who said they are likely to vote by mail. 

Biden voters twice as likely than Trump supporters to vote by mail in November, survey finds, USAToday 18 August 2020

So we can agree with the President that mail in ballots were going to be bad for Republicans. We could also suspect that if the mail in votes were counted after the polling day results, then there would be a significant swing in Biden’s direction, late in the counting. Some votes might be post-marked before the election and delivered after the election, especially given the apparent run down of the post-office.

As I understand it, in the USA, mailed ballots are safe for several reasons

  • They are signed by the voter.
  • The signature on the ballot is matched to one on file.
  • They are individually barcoded to keep track of the votes and voters, and check what forms are used.
  • All this information is stored and put on the electoral role, to catch people who vote by mail and then in person.
  • The US military use mailed ballots.

Most research appears to show mail-in votes are safe [2]. The Right wing Heritage Foundation reported only 1,308 proven instances of voter fraud since the 1990s. Only a subset of these votes were mail-in.

However, governments do sometimes send out multiple application forms, and sometimes people seem to think this is the actual voting form.

in California, the governor sent, I hear or sending millions of ballots all over the state. Millions to anybody. To anybody. People that aren’t citizens, illegals, anybody that walks in California is going to get a ballot. We’re not going to destroy this country by allowing things like that to happen. We’re not destroying our country. This has more to do with fairness and honesty and really our country itself because when that starts happening, you don’t have a fare. You have a rigged system. You have a rigged system and that’s what would happen.

We’re not going to let it happen because you’re subverting our process and you’re making our country a joke and the Democrats are doing it because in theory, it’s good for them. Although last week we two big races. We won in Wisconsin and one in California. California, 25. We won a tremendous race in California.

Transcript: Donald Trump Remarks on Protecting Seniors with Diabetes May 26, 2020

I think we’re going to have a lot of people show up. I’m very worried about mail-in voting because I think it’s subject to tremendous fraud and being rigged. Do you see that Paterson, New Jersey, where I believe it was 20% of the vote was fraudulent? It was all sorts of things happened. I understand a mailman was recently indicted someplace for playing games with the mail-in ballots….

You’ll have tremendous fraud if you do these mail-in ballots. Now, absentee ballots are okay, because absentee ballots, you have to get applications. You have to go through a process. If I’m here, and I vote in Florida, you get an absentee ballot. But you have to go through a process. Absentee ballots are great, but mail-in voting, where a governor mails millions of ballots to people all over the state. California, millions and millions of ballots, as an [inaudible 00:56:15]… and then they come back, they don’t come back. Who got them? Did you forget to send them to a Republican area or a Democrat area, I guess you could say? But if you take a look at all of the unbelievable fraud that’s been involved with mail-in voting over the last even short period of a while, but look at Paterson, New Jersey. It was a massive error and a massive miscalculation and there was incredible fraud. Look at the city council, what’s happened to it. This is one place, but you have many places and they’re all over. Yes, please?

Donald Trump Rose Garden Press Conference Transcript July 14, 2020

The Patterson New Jersey case is interesting, but it does not seem to be really about voter fraud, it is about procedural violations. Voters are supposed to either submit or mail in their votes themselves. They can authorise another person to do this, but such people are limited to delivering 3 votes. What seems to have happened is that some people took on far more than three votes from voters. They did not appear to fake them, and they were caught. The judge commented the vote was “rife with mail in vote procedural violations.” [3], [4] The case concerns an election for a city council ward, which is probably a little less protected than a Presidential Election.

Now it’s very bad what’s going on with mail-in ballots. Okay? As differentiated from absentee ballots where you have to go and you go through a process because you can’t be there for some reason, but the mail-in ballots is going to be, they’re going to be rigged. They’re going to be a terrible situation. And you have to be careful in Georgia, but you have to be careful everywhere where they’re doing it.

And there’s been tremendous corruption, tremendous corruption on mail-in ballots. So absentee ballot, great, mail-in ballot, absolutely no good. It makes no sense. A governor sends out millions of ballots all over the place. They don’t know where they’re going. They’re going to wherever. I have a friend who got one for his daughter, another one for his daughter, and then a second one for the first daughter. They didn’t know what to do with them. I had another friend, a really wonderful guy who lost his son seven years ago, Robert, his son, Robert, and his son was sent a mail-in ballot. He called me, he said, “What do I do? I just got a mail-in ballot for Robert? Robert died seven years ago.” So it’s a terrible situation if they decide to use it. 

Donald Trump Atlanta Speech Transcript on Rebuilding Infrastructure July 15 2020

Again we have the problem of whether he was sent a mail-in ballot, or sent an application form for a mail in ballot. In interview with Chris Wallace, Trump was asked:

But can you give a direct answer, you will accept the election?

Donald Trump: I have to see. Look, I have to see. No, I’m not going to just say yes. I’m not going to say [inaudible 00:38:24 ‘or not‘???], and I didn’t last time either.

Donald Trump Chris Wallace Interview Transcript July 19 2020

In New Jersey, 20% of the ballots were defective, fraudulent, 20%. And that’s because they did a good job. Okay? So this is just a way they’re trying to steal the election and everybody knows that. Because the only way they’re going to win is by a rigged election. I really believe that. I saw the crowd outside. For every sign we had for Trump Pence, every single sign. 

Donald Trump Speech Transcript August 20, 2020: In Joe Biden’s Hometown

This argument is that because he has crowds he will win….

the only way we’re going to lose this election is if the election is rigged, remember that. It’s the only way we’re going to lose this election… So we have to be very careful. Look, we have more than this election, that’s a big statement. The only way they’re going to win is that way.

Donald Trump Speech Transcript Wisconsin August 17 2020

******

Footnote 2: Trump on the 2020 Election

I’d like to provide the American people with an update on our efforts to protect the integrity of our very important 2020 election. If you count the legal votes, I easily win. If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us. If you count the votes that came in late, we’re looking to them very strongly, but a lot of votes came in late….

I’ve already decisively won many critical states, including massive victories in Florida, Iowa, Indiana, Ohio, to name just a few. We won these and many other victories despite historic election interference from big media, big money, and big tech. As everybody saw, we won by historic numbers, and the pollsters got it knowingly wrong. They got it knowingly wrong. We had polls that were so ridiculous and everybody knew it at the time.

There was no blue wave that they predicted. They thought there was going to be a big blue wave. That was false. That was done for suppression reasons…..

our opponents major donors were Wall Street bankers and special interests. Our major donors were police officers, farmers, everyday citizens. Yet for the first time ever, we lost zero races in the House….

I’ve been talking about mail-in voting for a long time. It’s really destroyed our system. It’s a corrupt system and it makes people corrupt, even if they aren’t by nature, but they become corrupt. It’s too easy. They want to find out how many votes they need, and then they seem to be able to find them. They wait and wait, and then they find them, and you see that on Election Night….

We were ahead in vote in North Carolina by a lot, a tremendous number of votes, and we’re still ahead by a lot, but not as many because they’re finding ballots all of a sudden. “Oh, we have some mail-in ballots.” It’s amazing how those mail-in ballots are so one-sided too….

Likewise in Georgia, I won by a lot, a lot, with a lead of over getting close to 300,000 votes on Election Night in Georgia. And by the way, got whittled down and now it’s getting to be to a point where I’ll go from winning by a lot to perhaps being even down a little bit…. The election apparatus in Georgia is run by Democrats….

Despite years of claiming to care about the election security, they refuse to include any requirement to verify signatures, identities, or even determined whether they’re eligible or ineligible to vote….

The officials overseeing the counting in Pennsylvania and other key states are all part of a corrupt Democrat machine that you’ve written about. And for a long time, you’ve been writing about the corrupt Democrat machine.

Donald Trump White House Press Conference as Election Counts Continue Transcript November 5

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump
I WON THE ELECTION!

Twitter Nov 16, 2020

*******************

Footnote 3: Trump tries to fix the election

This will get more documentation over time, but these two cases bring out the point.

Judge Brann remarked of Trump’s Pennsylvania case:

In this action, the Trump Campaign and the Individual Plaintiffs (collectively, the “Plaintiffs”) seek to discard millions of votes legally cast by Pennsylvanians from all corners – from Greene County to Pike County, and everywhere in between. In other words, Plaintiffs ask this Court to disenfranchise almost seven million voters. This Court has been unable to find any case in which a plaintiff has sought such a drastic remedy in the contest of an election, in terms of the sheer volume of votes asked to be invalidated. One might expect that when seeking such a startling outcome, a plaintiff would come formidably armed with compelling legal arguments and factual proof of rampant corruption, such that this Court would have no option but to regrettably grant the proposed injunctive relief despite the impact it would have on such a large group of citizens.

That has not happened. Instead, this Court has been presented with strained legal arguments without merit and speculative accusations, unpled in the operative complaint and unsupported by evidence. In the United States of America, this cannot justify the disenfranchisement of a single voter, let alone all the voters of its sixth most populated state.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA…. No. 4:20-CV-02078

A taped Phone call from January 2nd exists in which Trump asked Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger, to find more votes, as:

I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes. There’s no way I lost Georgia. There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes. I’m just going by small numbers, when you add them up, they’re many times the 11,000. But I won that state by hundreds of thousands of votes….

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021

Trump reiterated this argument a few times – he must have won because he felt it, and people said he should have won….

We won very substantially in Georgia. You even see it by rally size, frankly. We’d be getting 25-30,000 people a rally, and the competition would get less than 100 people. And it never made sense…..

I mean, you know, and I didn’t lose the state, Brad. People have been saying that it was the highest vote ever. There was no way. A lot of the political people said that there’s no way they beat me. And they beat me. They beat me in the . . . As you know, every single state, we won every state [hardly because if they had, they would not need to be ringing the people in Georgia]….

I mean, we have many, many times the number of votes necessary to win this State and we won the State and we won it very substantially and easily and we’re getting… We have… Much of this is they’re certified, far more certified than we need. But we’re getting additional numbers certified too. [Again only if you believe him in the first place is this assertion correct]….

Brad, is we have other people coming in now from Alabama and from South Carolina and from other states, and they’re saying it’s impossible for you to have lost Georgia. We won. You know in Alabama, we set a record, got the highest vote ever. In Georgia, we set a record with a massive amount of votes. And they say it’s not possible to have lost Georgia. And I can tell you by our rallies, I can tell you by the rally I’m having on Monday night, the place they already have lines of people standing out front waiting. It’s just not possible to have lost Georgia, it’s not possible. [So what? He knows already how many people turn up at a Rally?]

I won this election by hundreds of thousands of votes. There’s no way I lost Georgia. There’s no way. We won by hundreds of thousands of votes. I’m just going by small numbers, when you add them up, they’re many times the 11,000. But I won that state by hundreds of thousands of votes.

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021

Trump even made this bizarre claim for his evidence:

President Trump: (30:39)
What about the ballots, the shredding of the ballots, have they been shredding ballots?

Ryan Germany: (30:44)
The only investigation that we have into that, they have not been shredding any ballots. There was an issue in Cobb County where they were doing normal office shredding, getting rid of old stuff, and we investigated that. But this stuff from past elections.

Trump : It doesn’t pass the smell test because we hear they’re shredding thousands and thousands of ballots, and now what they’re saying, “Oh, we’re just cleaning up the office.” You know.

Raffensperger : Mr. President, the problem you have with social media, they — people can say anything.

Trump : Oh this isn’t social media. This is Trump media. It’s not social media. It’s really not; it’s not social media. I don’t care about social media. I couldn’t care less. Social media is Big Tech. Big Tech is on your side, you know. I don’t even know why you have a side because you should want to have an accurate election. And you’re a Republican. [Ah media which agree with Trump are both reliable and not Big Tech]

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021

Trump abused Raffensperger and pleaded with him.

The people of Georgia are angry, the people in the country are angry, and there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021

“So what are we going to do here folks? I only need 11,000 votes. Fellas, I need 11,000 votes. Give me a break…. You would be respected, really respected, if this can be straightened out before the [Georgia runnoffs] election….”

When Trump claimed that over 5,000 ballots were cast in the state by dead people, Raffensperger responded: “The actual number was two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. So that’s wrong..”

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021 and Trump’s phone call to Brad Raffensperger: six key points. The Guardian 4 January 2021

Trump also claimed:

And the minimum, there were 18,000 ballots, but they used them three times. So that’s, you know, a lot of votes. And they were all to Biden, by the way. That’s the other thing we didn’t say….

Every single ballot that she did through the machines at early, early in the morning went to Biden. Did you know that, Ryan?

Germany : That’s not accurate, Mr. President.

Trump : Huh. What is accurate?

Germany : The numbers that we are showing are accurate….

Trump : No, they were 100 percent for Biden. 100 percent. There wasn’t a Trump vote in the whole group. Why don’t you want to find this, Ryan? What’s wrong with you? [How would he know they were 100% for Biden?]

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021

Earlier the multiple counting came up

Trump: Brad, why did they put the votes in three times? You know, they put ’em in three times.

Raffensperger: Mr. President, they did not put that. We did an audit of that, and we proved conclusively that they were not scanned three times….

Germany: We had our — this is Ryan Germany. We had our law enforcement officers talk to everyone who was, who was there after that event came to light. GBI was with them as well as FBI agents….

Trump: Well, there’s no way they could — then they’re incompetent. They’re either dishonest or incompetent, okay?

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021

People were supposed to have voted from outside Georgia or returned in suspicious circumstances.

Mitchell: The number who have registered out of state after they moved from Georgia. And so they had a date when they moved from Georgia, they registered to vote out of state, and then it’s like 4,500, I don’t have that number right in front of me.

Trump: And then they came back in, and they voted.

Germany : We’ve been going through each of those as well, and those numbers that we got, that Ms. Mitchell was just saying, they’re not accurate. Every one we’ve been through are people that lived in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia legitimately.

Trump: How may people do that? They moved out, and then they said, “Ah, to hell with it, I’ll move back.” You know, it doesn’t sound like a very normal . . . you mean, they moved out, and what, they missed it so much that they wanted to move back in? It’s crazy. [I guess that is an insult to Georgia].

Germany: They moved back in years ago. This was not like something just before the election. So there’s something about that data that, it’s just not accurate.

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021

And so it goes on:

Trump: Do you think it’s possible that they shredded ballots in Fulton County? Because that’s what the rumor is. And also that Dominion took out machines. That Dominion is really moving fast to get rid of their, uh, machinery.

Germany : This is Ryan Germany. No, Dominion has not moved any machinery out of Fulton County.

Trump : But have they moved the inner parts of the machines and replaced them with other parts?

Germany : No.

Trump : Are you sure, Ryan?

Germany : I’m sure. I’m sure, Mr. President.

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021

You know what they did and you’re not reporting it,…. You know, that’s a criminal — that’s a criminal offense. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer. That’s a big risk. But they are shredding ballots, in my opinion, based on what I’ve heard. And they are removing machinery, and they’re moving it as fast as they can, both of which are criminal finds…. So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state,

Donald Trump Georgia Phone call Transcript. Rev 4 January 2021

As USA Today said:

Georgia officials tallied votes for the presidential election three times in the state, including in an audit required by state law and a recount requested by the president. Each count determined that President-elect Joe Biden won the state, the first Democrat to do so since 1992…

On Dec. 5, Trump urged Georgia Gov. Brian Kemp to demand the state legislature act to overturn Biden’s victory in Georgia. Kemp refused and has been subjected to a steady barrage of Trump attacks in the weeks since….

Neal Katyal, who was acting solicitor general during the Barack Obama administration, said the Trump call to Raffensperger “demonstrates an impeachable, perhaps criminal, offense. It is a behind the scenes look at how Trump carries out the presidency, abusing his power for his gain.”

Brown, Trump pushes Georgia secretary of state to ‘find’ votes during phone call, Washington Post reports, USAToday 3 January 2021

Trump’s response was.

Donald J. Trump@realDonaldTrump
I spoke to Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger yesterday about Fulton County and voter fraud in Georgia. He was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the “ballots under table” scam, ballot destruction, out of state “voters”, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!

Twitter 12:57 AM · Jan 4, 2021

If Trump really believes he has iron clad evidence, then why does he just not present it to a court? The phone call sounds like Trump has a complete incapacity to believe he could lose, or that he could be refused the opportunity to change things without proof. It sounds like a fishing expedition for access to materials to pronounce them fake. It veers from expecting the officials could just change things because its not that many votes they have to ‘find’ or disallow to give him victory, to odd threats and name calling. It even seems he was incapable of recognising the opportunities he had been given by the people in Georgia to establish his case, perhaps because he cannot.

It may need to be said, that even if Trump did win Georgia, he would not win the election. Therefore, we can presume, he is engaging in similar tactics elsewhere, but it has not leaked to the media. Georgia is probably more open as he is trying to get people out to vote in the runoffs by telling them that unless they vote in huge numbers, they will lose.

In a speech a few days later in Georgia he reportedly said:

Your governor, your secretary of state are petrified of Stacey Abrams,” he said, referring to a Democratic voting rights activist who lost to Kemp in 2018. “What’s all that about? They’re say they’re Republicans. I really don’t think they can be.”

The president added ominously: “I’m going to be back here in a year-and-a-half and I’m going to be campaigning against your governor and your crazy secretary of state.”

‘Fight like hell’: grievance and denialism rule at Trump Georgia rally. The Guardian, 5 January 2021

This is perhaps the end point of the ‘Republicans in Name Only’ (RINO) campaign. You are only a real Republican if you support Trump no matter what, and will commit any crime requested to gain the Party victory. Loyalty and obedience to ideology is required, otherwise you will be attacked or dismissed.

If a Democrat had behaved like this, then it would probably be clear to Republicans, that this was an effort to corrupt the election and generate fake votes.

For once a cheery graph….

December 30, 2020

Electricity prices from renewables decline noticeably over the last 10 years

Price of electricity new renewables vs new fossil

see: https://ourworldindata.org/cheap-renewables-growth

The Economy is not real and hence cannot be controlled

December 27, 2020

Slobodian argues that one of the neoliberal objections to socialism was that because we cannot see or predict the economy we cannot govern it or reform it democratically. The ‘economy’ as such does not exist. Partly because the term oeconomy comes from Greek and means the governance of a household, not the governance of a polis or a wider sphere, which cannot, according to neoliberals, be governed in any useful way for the populace.

Hayek, for example, “says more than once in his writings that one of the great fallacies of the twentieth century is the belief that there is something called the economy, that can somehow be seen and controlled and managed. And he could say that because the invention of the economy was mostly a social democratic, Keynesian project” aimed at maintaining full employment and survivable wages. Inventing the economy “was a project of governing and collectivizing risk.” [1]

As Hayek says in his Nobel speech, “it is ‘the pretense of knowledge,’ to think that you can actually have any kind of oversight over the economy as such.” [1]

As this economy does not exist (hence Hayeks use of the term ‘catallaxy‘ for what people would normally call the economy) we can only use very precise rules to protect the market and submit to it: “we must give ourselves over to the forces of the market, or the whole thing will stop working” [2].

The only neoliberal liberty is submission to the limited options the market allows. “The normative ideal for the individual is a kind of total subjection to the forces of competition. We gain our freedom insofar as we subject ourselves to that.” [1]

Neoliberalism needs a market police to prevent people from “kept trying to make the earth a more equal and just place.” This interest people might have in not being ripped off, is a special interest in neoliberal terms, whereas corporations do not have such special interests – their interests are just the market in action. [2]

The big public idea promoted by neoliberalism is that if the ‘catallaxy,’ or what people would normally call the economy, is defended, then all will work out well or at least as well as we can ever expect.

Social Life is Complex

A more recent way of dealing with this problem, is to realise that the ‘catallaxy’ is a complex system and it is embedded in other complex systems, which are important for its functioning and survival.

Crucially, it is helpful not to subscribe to a dogmatic optimism about complex systems. Complex systems, no matter how adaptive, will not always seek a balance, harmony and efficiency which are beneficial to humans; they may require some mild corrections or interventions to achieve anything resembling what we might consider beneficial for most people, never mind all people.

This presents a problem as complex systems cannot be governed rigorously or in a guaranteed manner, neither can specific events be predicted.

We can, however, seek patterns of complex behaviour, and we can make general trend like predictions, and adjust things accordingly and carefully, getting rid of what has not been working.

It may not have been possible to predict Trump or his specific actions and failures, but we can predict that if democratic control over the economy is completely surrendered we will likely head for plutocracy, as massive wealth is where the power is. Plutocracy will likely head towards autocracy, and autocracy can look like fascism, or arbitrary rule. Consequently, we need to be aware of this possibility, and do our best to prevent it in advance, should we wish to maintain freedom.

We can predict that neoliberal ‘free markets’, will lead to a decline in the share of the wealth, generated by society, going to ordinary people defeated by the market. This will almost certainly reinforce the power differentials, and likely lead to the problems of ordinary people being dismissed from consideration. Again we need to undermine this possibility, possibly by redistribution of wealth and inheritance.

We can predict that market crashes will happen more frequently, and that big business will get bailed out by the tax payers (as the point of agitating for what are called ‘free markets’ is to protect big business) and that small people will suffer. Again we can shift our focus from just protecting the “big end of town” and make sure we attend to people in general.

We could have predicted that neoliberals would try and force people to catch a pandemic in the hope of keeping the economy going, and that they will agitate for massive taxpayer support for industries which were already failing before the pandemic hit. Mass death, and long-term disease generated incapacity and injury in people, will not help the economy recover in a way which benefits everyone in the long term. The neoliberal method is not the best for dealing with all problems. The health of the economy, can depend upon the health of the social system and people in general. Free markets cannot be isolated from everyone.

We can predict that if we do not protect and regenerate environments and ecologies, that the survival system as a whole will crash and that large numbers of people will be displaced and die – we can also predict that neoliberals, devoted to protecting existing big businesses, will object to protecting environments as it is a cost to profit, and they will spend a lot of money to persuade people they are correct. However, we do not have to accept massive environmental destruction as a part of the capitalism we need to gain a working economy. We can probably solve this problem by regulating emissions and destruction for all companies equally, and making it easier for local people to take destructive and polluting companies to court. This way, people get to participate in deciding what kind of environment they have to live in. Capitalists get to solve the problem of keeping ecologies functional, by making destruction and pollution a cost, or potential cost, to them.

It may be impossible to completely regulate markets and ecologies, but that does not mean that we have to let the bad results completely triumph. We experiment, and try and see what works, and consider the possibility of stopping doing whatever delivers more harmful results.

There is no reason we cannot have freer markets than we have now, with democratic input into preventing harmful, monopolistic, ‘crony’ and authoritarian corporate behaviour as it evolves, and with a dedication for protecting life on Earth.

Neoliberals appear to want to stop that from happening, as it challenges corporate liberty to do whatever corporations want at the expense of the populace.

Liberty is necessarily a balancing act.

Slobodian on Anti-democratic Neoliberal relations to the State

December 27, 2020

I have just encountered the writings of Quinn Slobodian. He has an interesting take on the role of the State in Neoliberalism, and Austrian Economics. It is worth looking at, but I have not yet read his major book The Globalists. His arguments make it clearer that Neoliberals and Austrian Economists are not Libertarians, or anarchist at all, despite the support they receive from Libertarians. Neoliberals primarily want protection of markets, and market organisation, from States, but have no objection to States in principle, as long as those States defend markets and market power – especially against the people.

Protecting the market, wealth and property

Neoliberals attempt to “to insulate the markets against sovereign states, political change, and turbulent democratic demands for greater equality and social justice.” [1] For them, the State exists to protect capitalism, its extracted property and the world economy as it is, not to open the economy to ordinary people on equal terms. Neoliberalism was “less a doctrine of economics than a doctrine of ordering—of creating the institutions that provide for the reproduction of the totality [of the system].” [2]

The Fascist moment

Consequently, neoliberalism is a form of regulation rather than a form of anarchism. It probably developed as a preventative response to socialist movements, and the fact that their favoured fascism did not provide quite the defense of property that they had otherwise expected.

Mises argued that communists were murderous and the fascists reacted reluctantly in kind, but they, unlike the Russians would be unable to get rid of thousands of years of civilisation. Mises wrote in 1927 that:

Because of this difference, Fascism will never succeed as completely as Russian Bolshevism in freeing itself from the power of liberal ideas…. Fascism, in comparison with Bolshevism and Sovietism, [i]s at least the lesser evil.

Mises Liberalism, Online Library of Liberty: p: 49.

It cannot be denied that Fascism and similar movements aimed at the establishment of dictatorships are full of the best intentions and that their intervention has for the moment saved European civilization. The merit that Fascism has thereby won for itself will live on eternally in history. But though its policy has brought salvation for the moment, it is not of the kind which could promise continued success. Fascism was an emergency makeshift. To view it as something more would be a fatal error.

[3], & Mises Liberalism. Online Library of Liberty: p: 51. emphasis added.

This was not uncommon at the time. Slobodian remarks that Carl Schmitt “saw the need for what was effectively a fascist state as a way to prevent the rise of totalitarianism.” [4]

[I]n the late 1930s, Wilhelm Röpke, another leading neoliberal, would unabashedly declare that his desire for a strong state made him more “fascist” than many of his readers understood. We should not take this as a light-hearted quip.

[4]

In other words Fascism, and the autocratic State, was useful to maintain capitalism and its civilisation for a while. There seems little objection to the idea of an ‘intellectual’ fascist State as such, and of course, Mises could not understand where German fascism was to go. However, he fled the Nazis after the occupation of Austria.

Later on (1951) Neoliberals such as Mises and Hayek were to conflate Fascism and Nazism with socialism and Bolshevism, which ignores who sponsored them and why, and indicates a degree of hard and misleading binarism in their thinking. Socialist democracy in the UK and Australia between 1950 and the early seventies, and Scandinavian socialism is, according to them, the same as Nazism, Stalinist Communism and so on. If it is not the capitalism they support, it must be socialist, and must be evil. There is no ability to see degrees here, everything ‘bad’ is lumped together, as politically useful to support the idea that free markets lead to liberty, rather than to plutocracy and potential fascism.

We may also note the hostility of neoliberals to any effective idea of equality. Equality, in their view always demands an interventionist State, and therefore an authoritarian State of the wrong kind. Again the hard binarism is brought into play. They take a position we all know to be correct, namely that some people are more talented, dancers, musicians, painters, mathematicians, preachers, basketball players, swimmers etc, (and that some of these people work really hard to make themselves better), to say that one unlimited distinction in power and wealth between people based on the talents of business or inheritance is equally banal, harmless and even pleasurable.

Truly massive power and opportunity differences produced by the corporate market are to be defended at all costs, with the implication is that if you don’t succeed, you are inferior.

Neoliberals want to suppress the power of democratic peoples to challenge corporate capitalism and its wealth based power – and to prevent any kind of relative equality which might allow people to challenge corporate power. Hence the conflation of socialism, fascism and democracy, and the initial wary support of fascism which was common amongst the conservative and pro-capitalist Right at that time for similar reasons.

Containing protest through the State

The basic neoliberal position is that governments by attempting to control or interfere in the workings of the market generate inefficiency and autocracy – but it seems they refuse to consider the effect of corporations interfering in the working of the markets – or make it beneficial as with their denial of the market powers of private monopolies.

Therefore regulatory movements, and labour movements aiming at improvements for workers, or colonised people, must be crushed. Neoliberals had no objection to regulating protest against their favoured economic set up. Mises was, for example hostile to labour movements, and supported their suppression.

This led to some neoliberals supporting apartheid [3]. We are also left with Murray Rothbard’s lament against Martin Luther King:

mass invasion of private restaurants, or mass blocking of street entrances is, in the deepest sense, also violence. But, in the generally statist atmosphere of our age, violence against property is not considered “violence;” this label goes only to the more obvious violence against persons

Essentially, hurting property is as bad as harming people.

“Any lingering idea that neoliberals are anti-state will be dispelled because you can see that, in their own writings, the whole project of neoliberalism is about redesigning the state, especially in questions of law.” [4]

“Even a superficial reading of the primary texts of neoliberals makes this clear. Milton Friedman’s Economic Bill of Rights, James M. Buchanan’s fiscal constitutionalism, F. A. Hayek’s Constitution of Liberty, Gottfried Haberler’s proposals for GATT, Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker on European competition law, William Landes and Richard Posner on intellectual property rights—the list goes on.” [5]

To some extent their way forward was through setting up international modes of regulation that were, explicitly non democratic, and not responsive to the people anywhere, such as the WTO.

This is not to say, that post the internationalist age, neoliberals are not comfortable with promoting nationalism and even tariffs if it helps support corporate power, or is seen as a tactic in compelling ‘free trade’. [7]

Unintended consequences (?) of neoliberalism

There is no “one-to-one transposition of blueprints from the pages of Hayek or Haberler or whomever to reality in some unmediated or direct way.” Ideas work through “uptake by domestic actors, who find certain of their own interests fulfilled by adopting neoliberal policies.” [4]

“The only reason why empire works is that it finds willing compradors and domestic elites who will do the work of empire for the metropole for the most part.” [4]

And this may have unintended effects (along with complexities of markets). For example:

Intellectual property rights become part of the WTO not because Friedman or Posner wanted them to be there, but because pharmaceutical companies, software companies, apparel companies, entertainment companies wanted them to be there and were very good at lobbying.

[4]

In other words, putting defense of the corporate market first, opens up further opportunities for important players to twist the market into favouring them, and diminishing the rights of ordinary people – in this case to use their own culture. In other cases we may note neoliberal attempt to defeat people’s right to drink non-poisoned water, and breath non-polluted air, and eat safe food.

Defending corporate liberty to pollute, set up monopolies, set up their own laws and police, or pay for politicians and political propaganda, may well set up the circumstances in which other people’s liberty is severely curtailed. Their liberty may not equal yours.

This loss of public liberty might count as an unintended consequence of neoliberal politics and theory intended to defend liberty but, then again, it might not.

Basic Complex Systems for eco-social analysis again

December 25, 2020

This is another go at formulating a list of basic systems which need to be considered for eco-social analysis. For earlier versions see here, here and here.

Introduction

As a guide to the factors involved in eco-social relations we can point to a number of different, but interacting systems. This list is not claiming to be complete, but it can be used as a set of reminders when we try to make analyses of our contemporary situation, and we may be able to make some general statements about how they interact. The order of relative importance of these systems is a matter for investigation, and the order of their presentation, in this blog post, is not a claim about their relative importance.

The seven main systems, discussed here, are

  • Political;
  • Economic (extraction);
  • Energy;
  • Waste, pollution and dispersal;
  • Information;
  • Technological;
  • Planetary Boundaries (geography) :

All these systems are complex systems, and it is generally impossible to predict their specific course. They are also prone to rapid change, gradual instability, and the ‘seeking’ of equilibrium.

Political System

The political system, includes:

  • the modes of struggle encouraged, discouraged, enabled or disabled,
  • the patterns and divisions (the ‘factioning’) within the State and wider society,
  • the differing effects of different bases of power: such as monetary power, communication power, power through violence or threat, hierarchical power, religious and cosmological power (the power to delimit the official views of the way that the cosmos works), organisational power, etc.,
  • who gets into positions of power and how, and so on,

Politics can affect all the other human systems. What activities (extraction, energy use, organisation etc.) are encouraged or discouraged, the kinds of regulation that apply, what counts as pollution or risk, what information is easily available, and who is to be trusted, and so on.

Political systems can forcibly ignore pollution or the consequences of energy production, economic extraction, the wage system, and so on, effectively rendering them part of a general unconscious, which eventually ‘bites back’.

Economic System

Most of the dominant economic systems currently in action can be described loosely as ‘capitalist’. The economic system involves modes of appropriation, extraction, property, commodification, exchange, circulation of ‘products’, technological systems, energy use, as well as accumulation of social power and wealth and so on. Most of which depend upon the State for their existence and reinforcement, although they may also challenge organisation and politics within the State. There is no inherent stability in current economic systems.

In many sociological theories the patterns of economic organisation and behaviour are known as the ‘infrastructure’ and are held to be determinate of most other social behaviours, primarily because the economic system seems the most obvious determinate of what people have to do in order to survive.

This organisation may have apparently unintended consequences, such as producing periodic crashes, or destroying the ecological base of the economy, and therefore threatening that organisation. They also may have quite expectable consequences, which are downplayed. In capitalism, political and economic patternings tend to be describable as ‘plutocratic’; as wealth allows the purchase of all other forms of power. However, different factions in the State can ally with different or competing factions in the economic system. For example, different government departments or political factions can support different types of energy: fossil fuels, renewables, or nuclear. The political system legitimates and enforces, allowable modes of extraction, property and pollution, and regulates economic behaviour among different social groups. Economics always involves political as well as economic struggle; politics is part of ‘the market’. ‘Crony Capitalism’ is normal capitalism.

Extraction

The Extraction system is part of the economic system, but it might be useful to separate it out from the economic system because extraction is one of the prime ways in which economies interact with ecologies and because different kinds of economies can use similar extraction systems. Extraction not only involves extraction of what gets defined as ‘resources’ (minerals, naturally occurring substances such as oil, coal or timber, and so on) but also the ways that human food gets extracted for consumption, via agriculture, gathering, hunting, industrial fishing, and so on. Ecologies are not passive, and they respond to human or other actions in ways which are often unpredictable in specific, but still disruptive. Ecologies seem to need attention, for survival to be possible in the long term.

Extraction in capitalist and developmentalist societies, often seems harmful to the functioning of ecologies, perhaps because of the need for continual growth, and thus a need for increasing extraction. Clearly, not all forms of extraction need to be destructive of the ecologies and geographies they depend upon. Extraction systems can allow the ecologies to repair after extraction, or attempt to rehabilitate the land. However, repair of ecologies can be considered an expense leading to reduction of profit, and hence is not attractive in a profit emphasising system.

As such, we can distinguish recoverable extraction, in which the ecologies and economies repair the damage from extraction, from irrecoverable extraction in which the ecologies and economies do not repair the damage from extraction within a useful time frame.

The Global Footprint network, suggests that:

Today humanity uses the equivalent of 1.6 Earths to provide the resources we use and absorb our waste. This means it now takes the Earth one year and eight months to regenerate what we use in a year. 

Global Footprint network. Ecological Footprint

If this is correct, then the current extraction and pollution systems are generally irrecoverable, and deleterious for human and planetary survival. Investigating the differences between harmful and less harmful modes of extraction may well produce useful insights.

Economies are not the only possible harmful extractive systems – cosmologies can also require irrecoverable extractive behaviour to build temples, or to show the ‘other-worldly’ specialness of humans, and so on.

Energy System

All life and its resulting ecologies involve transformation of energy. These transformations stretch from transformation of sunlight by plants, the digestion of plants, to thermal gradients in the deep sea, to atomic power. Eco-systems require a system of energy release, energy generation and energy transformation.

Transformation of energy, together with effective ecological functioning, is necessary for any human actions to occur. The human energy system powers all other human systems. Because food is necessary for human labour, cultivation of food can be considered to be part of the energy system. The energy system and its ‘infrastructure’, could seem to be as important as the economic infrastructure.

The human energy system is organised, at least in part, by the political and economic systems, and by the environmental systems available. The environmental system includes possible energy sources from plant material, animal strength and docility, fossil fuels, sunlight, wind and moving water. Human labour, and its organisation, is (and has been) part of the energy system, and while not yet, if ever, superseded completely, can be supplemented and possibly overpowered by technological sources of energy. Coal and oil power, for example, provide masses amounts more directed energy than can human labour, and this ability is important to understanding the patterning and possibilities of the economic and extraction system, and its relationship to colonial/imperial history. Modern military expansion and colonialism, largely depends on this ability to apply large amounts of energy to weaponry, movement and organisation.

Important parts of the energy system include the amounts of energy generally available for use, and the capacity for energy to be directed and applied. Non-directable energy is often wasted energy (entropy), and usually unavailable for constructive use.

Another vital point is that human production of, or using of, energy takes energy. No energy is entirely free.

The availability of energy is influenced by the Energy Return on Energy Input (EREI) or ‘Energy Return on Energy Investment’. The larger amount of units of energy applied to gain a unit of humanly directable energy output, the less excess energy is available.

Fossil fuels have historically had a very high EREI, but it is possible that this is declining otherwise nobody would be tempted by fracking, coal seam gas, tar sands, or deep sea drilling. All of which require large amounts of energy to begin with, have very high risks of extractive destruction, and fairly low profit margins when compared to the dangers.

Renewables and storage currently have a high energy cost to manufacture (and possibly a high extractive cost as well) but for most renewables, after they are installed, the EREI changes, as very little labour, or energy expenditure, is required to gain an energy output – it is more or less free – whereas fossil fuel energy generation requires continual energy use to find and process new fossil fuels and keep the power stations turning, and produce continual pollution from burning.

Social power and economics may affect the ways that energy is distributed, what uses are considered legitimate and so on. However, the energy system also influences what can be done in other systems, and in the costs (social, aesthetic, ecological or monetary) which influence choices about the constituents of energy systems The system’s pollution products, which may be significant factors in producing climate and ecological change, may eventually limit what can be done.

As the energy system determines what energy is available for use, it is not an unreasonable assumption that social power and organisation will be partly built around the energy system, and that changes in energy systems will change energy availability, what can be done or who can do it, and thus threaten established social orders. Threats to established orders will be resisted. If an energy transition does go ahead, it is likely that the established orders will try and preserve the patterns, of organisation, wealth and social power which have grown up under the old system.

One important question is ‘how do we transform the energy system without continuing a damaging extraction and pollution system?’

Waste, Pollution and Dispersal systems

Transformation of materials through energy use, or through energy production, produces ‘waste’. The simplest human society imaginable (and this is an overt simplification), turns edible material into energy and human excreta, which in this case can usually be processed by the ecology – although, even then, dumping excreta into rivers may not help those downstream.

Understanding the Waste, Pollution and Dispersal systems is also vital to understanding possible energy and economic transformations.

In this book we will define ‘Waste‘ as material which can be re-processed, or recycled, by the economy or eco-system, and ‘Pollution‘ as material which is not re-processable within an arbitrary useful time frame, say over hundreds of years or more. ‘Dispersal’ occurs when some essential material is dispersed into the system, and becomes largely unavailable for reuse without ‘uneconomic’ expenditures of finance or energy – as occurs with helium and phosphorus.

When too much waste for the systems to re-process is emitted, then waste becomes pollution. This is what has happened with CO2. CO2 is normally harmless, even required for the system to work, but too much CO2 changes the ways eco and climate systems work. CO2 has also been dispersed into the atmosphere which makes CO2 extraction, which is stated to be essential by the IPCC and IEA for climate stability, difficult and costly in terms of energy expenditure.

These concepts, along with ‘extraction’, directly import the ecosystem into the economy, while pointing out that what counts as allowable waste, pollution or dispersal can change, economically, politically, scientifically and ‘practically’.

Waste, pollution and dispersal from the energy system and from modes of extraction, enter into the political system because that system decides and regulates what can be emitted, and where, and who is too valuable to be poisoned by the pollution. The political makes the laws allowing, diminishing or preventing, pollution. Often localisable pollution is dumped in ‘wasted’ zones or on poorer, less noticeable and less powerful people.

Energy and extraction may not the only significant sources of pollution, and other sources of pollution need to be curtailed, or turned into sources of waste.

Information about pollution from the fossil fuel energy system and from the extraction systems, provide a major driver for energy transformation, partly because this issue seems ‘economically’ politically and energetically solvable, while other sources of pollution seem more difficult to deal with.

However, even facing the problem, provokes a likely politicisation of the information system. How would people, in general, become aware of pollution and who primarily suffers from its effects, especially when it threatens established systems of power?

Information System

What people become aware of, what can be understood or done depends on the Information System. This system determines what feedback is available to conscious humans, about what is happening in general. The information system, in theory, could allow humans to recognise eco-feedback in response to systems such as waste and pollution, or extraction. Information is vital to social functioning, and part of social functioning. Accurate information is even more useful.

Unfortunately, information about complex systems, such as societies or ecologies, is almost always limited and inadequate. Some information may tend to be symbolised rather than literal, because of the difficulties of representing the information in a literal form (these difficulties can be political as much as in terms of human capacity).

Information systems can also hide, or distort, ecological feedback, because of flaws in their design, or because powerful people do not want it to bring the problems to general attention. This adds to confusion, and to the possibilities, that the information system primarily reflects human psychological projection, fantasy and shadow politics.

The political and economic systems also directly impact on the information systems, as politics often centres on propagation of politically or economically favourable information and the inhibition of politically unfavourable or economically information. Economic power, ownership and control of sources of information can also influence what information is collected, processed and made widely available.

Information is not so much ‘received’ as interpreted, so Cosmologies and politics which provide a framework for interpretation, play a big part in how the information is interpreted and, then, what kind of information is transmitted.

Government, Religious, Economic, or military (etc) regulation can be a further important part of both the information and political systems, sometimes affecting what is likely to be transmitted. Information systems, in turn, indicate the availability or coherence of regulation and the understanding of problems and predicaments. Regulation is based on information selection as well as political allegiance, and regulations can be opaque, or hidden, as well as easily decodable. For example, until recently it seemed very difficult to find out what the NSW governments regulations for Renewable Energy Zones, meant in terms of business, building, or connection to the wider system.

The information system does not have to be coherent, thus we can be both informed and disinformed of the progress of climate change and energy transformation by the system. Certain groups are more likely to be informed than others, even though everyone tends to frame themselves as being well informed – especially in an ‘information society’ when being well informed is a matter of status. Information does not have to be accurate to have an effect, it is also part of socially constructed propaganda – as we can see with climate and covid denial, and this can influence political process, victories and inaction.

In summary, most information distortion comes from: economic functions such as business hype, secrecy and deception; from organisational functions such as hierarchy, silo-isation, lack of connection and channels; from politics where information is distorted for strategic advantage; and from the complexity of the systems that the information tries to describe and the inadequacy of the language or approach being used.

Technological Systems

Technological systems enable the kind of energy use, direction and availability, a society can have, the kinds of extraction it can engage in, the range at which political and economic systems can have an effect, the modes of transmission of information, and the types of waste pollution and dispersion which are likely to happen. Technologies also necessarily use properties of the environment and ecologies around them in order to work, and thus interact with those environments and again cause unintended consequences.

People use technology to extend their power over others, extend their capacity, escape regulation, or render previous technologies less dominant, and hence technologies tend to be caught in struggles between groups, thus provoking unintended social consequences.

We could hypothesise that technologies, as used under capitalism (and perhaps elsewhere), tend to extract people out of their environment, and break the intimacy between humans and ecology, or shift human perception onto the technology rather than the world, therefore making it easier to regularly engage in processes of destruction.

In the contemporary world, technologies become objects of fantasy, and metaphors by which we think about the cosmos in general. For example the clockwork universe is now almost replaced by the information processing universe.

Planetary systems and boundaries

Finally we have planetary boundaries. The planetary boundaries are ways of conceiving the limits and constitution of ecosystems, and are, as such, fairly abstract. These boundaries represent systems necessary for human and planetary functioning.

They do not necessarily form the one system, and can be separated out for purposes of analysis. They act as guidelines, and probable reactive limits which are essential for the consideration of ‘eco-social’ relations, and the likely long term success of those relations. Measuring the boundaries may have a wide margin of error, as due to the complexity of these systems and their interactions. We will not know for sure when they will collapse until they do, and once they start collapsing they will affect the resilience of other boundaries. So the known limits on the boundaries will change as we take more notice of them, and keep challenging them.

Exceeding the boundaries almost certainly leads to the rundown, or breakdown, of ecological functioning, and this breakdown then adds difficulties to maintaining other systems. If they are maintained ‘artificially’ then this requires extra energy expenditure, and may have further consequences. Kate Raworth’s ‘donut economics’ presents a quick and easy way of conceiving functional economies in terms of ecological boundaries and human betterment [1], [2], [3].

Any global system which does not preserve or reinforce planetary systems will probably give impetus to global ecological collapse.

The systems are usually listed as involving: climatic stability, biospheric integrity (distribution and interaction between lifeforms, balance between species, rates of extinction etc), water flows and cycles (availability of drinkable, non-poisonous water, and water for general ecological functioning), biochemical flows (phosphorus and nitrogen cycles, dispersal of valuable materials which literally form the ‘metabolic rift’, etc), ocean acidity or alkalinity (which affects the life of coral reefs, plankton and so on), levels of particulates or micro-particulates (which poison life forms), ozone levels, and the introduction of novel entities into the global ecology and their unknown systemic consequences (new chemicals, plastics, microplastics etc.). [4]

It is the functioning and disruption of these boundary systems which make processes of pollution and extraction problematic. Thus they impact directly on society, and appear to limit the kinds of economic growth, extraction, energy and technological systems that can be deployed safely.

Capitalism and developmentalism tend to recognise boundaries only to ignore them, and claim that ingenuity and willpower, will overcome those boundaries forever without limit.

Geographic Systems

Then we have Geographic systems as a subset of planetary boundaries. Geography affects the layout of energy systems, the potential reach of political and economic systems, the ‘natural’ flow of air and water, changes in temperature, the availability of sunlight, and the kinds of extractions which are ‘economic’ or economic in the short term, but deleterious in the long term. Geography is relational, giving layout in space between spaces and constructions. Geography shapes and is shaped by politics, social activity, economics, pollution and so on.

Mountain ranges, forests, plains etc may affect the layout of Renewable Energy, or the RE may affect the land, if trees are felled, fields converted etc. Wind may be severe, putting a limit on size of turbines, or the angles of solar panels. Winter darkness, or heavy seasonal rain can affect the possibilities of solar power.

Geography constitutes the human sense of home, and transformation of geography or relations of geography can produce a sense of ‘unhoming’, or dislocation in place and in the future of place.

Conclusion and Provisional Advice

Recognition of the interactions of these systems, with their differing but interacting imperatives, seems vital to getting a whole and accurate picture of the problems and opportunities presented by energy transition.

All the systems that have been discussed here, are complex systems. They are composed of ‘nodes’ which modify themselves or change their responses in response to changes in the ‘system as a whole.’ The systems are unpredictable in specific. The further into the future that we imagine, the less likely our predictions are to be specifically accurate. We can, for example, predict that weather will get more tumultuous in general as we keep destroying the ecology, but we cannot predict the exact weather at any distance. Complex systems produce surprise and actions often have unexpected consequences. If we seek to apply a policy, we cannot expect it to work exactly as we think it should. For example, the political move to make ‘markets,’ the most important institution, did not deliver either efficiency or liberty, as was expected, almost the opposite in fact. In all cases of actions within complex systems we should seek for unintended consequences. Sometimes the only realistic way to approach unintended consequences is to realise that our theory could not predict those events, and without looking we might never even have seen the events, or realised their connection to what we did. Working in complex systems, all politics becomes experimental.

While complex systems adapt or seek balance, they do not have to arrive at the best conditions for human beings. From a human point of view, they can be maladaptive. For example, a social system can be maladaptive and destructive of our means of living. The ecology could arrive at a balance within which many humans could not live.

People involved in promoting Energy Transformation have to deal with the various complex systems we have discussed above. The complexity does not mean we cannot make any predictions, although we need to treat them cautiously.

  • People engaged in transition have to consider the effects of the political systems involved, and be aware that politics influences what is likely to be possible. A transition may be delayed by political action, and political patterning, no matter how sensible or affordable the transition is.
  • The Economic system will be entangled in the political system, and those who dominate the economic system will have disproportionate input into the political system, and this can cause problems. This recognition reinstates the economic process as both a political and a business process.
  • A transition has to fit in with existing economic patterns, or its supporters may have to be prepared to change those patterns.
  • Patterns of extraction, pollution and dispersal have to be less harmful than previous patterns or the harm will be continued, even if in a different manner.
  • Changing the energy system is a political problem, and may require a change in the economic system as well as in power relations.
  • We need to have the available energy to build the transformed system. As we are supposedly aiming to replace the existing harmful system without lowering the energy availability, this may prove difficult. Where does the energy come from to build the new system if not from the old? And we need to demolish the old system, because of its dangers.
  • We need to avoid using renewables to simply add to energy availability, without reducing energy from fossil fuels.
  • The new system and the path of transformation, has to reduce pollution and extraction damage, or ecological and climate crises will continue, and planetary boundaries will be given no chance to recover. A transition plan which does not consider this problem is probably futile.
  • Considering these problems may lead to conclusions about the necessity of some kind of degrowth.
  • Transition plans should consider diminishing the dispersal of rare and valuable materials. More of what is currently pollution and dispersal has to be transformed to waste, in amounts the systems can process.
  • The current information system does not seem to be functioning in favour of the transition. It seems highly politicised and does not report ecological feedback accurately, either denying crisis, or delaying the supposed arrival of crisis.
  • Our current information system is largely owned and controlled by the neoliberal fossil fuel based establishment, which is defending its power, wealth and ways of living in the world. Without an independent information system, it will be impossible to win the political struggle. At the same time accurate information will be attacked and dismissed as political.
  • Likewise, many people will see accurate information as political, because it potentially disrupts their way of living, or because of interpretation and projection issues.
  • At the least, people engaged in energy transformation have to be aware of the nature of complex systems and the normal arising of unintended and unexpected consequences. We need an information system that allows us to perceive such consequences, without attacking the transformation as a whole.
  • Geography will affect the layout and possibilities of the transition. Renewables appear to require far more land than fossil fuels per unit of energy although fracking and coal seam gas seem to require similar amounts of land and do far more permanent damage to that land.
  • Renewables should probably never be installed through deforestation.
  • Renewables should not monopolise agricultural land. They should co-exist with previous land use, or help rehabilitate the land.
  • We should note the capacity of any new form of energy generation, or large scale technology, to ‘unhome’ people. Fossil fuels are especially bad at this, and often also poisonous, but the information systems tend to find this easier to ignore.
  • The energy transformation should aim to avoid disrupting the planetary boundary systems as much as possible. They should be installed with the longer term target of restoring those systems.
  • Pointing to the range of boundaries will possibly remind people that climate change is not the only problem we face, and it should be clear that no energy, or social, system is going to survive if it violates these boundaries in the long term.