India started doing it after it was clear that the world had already overshot the climate boundaries
Yes, it plugs into the idea that Robinson said started the book, which was the observation that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. It is difficult to imagine a profit motive sufficient to move the current titans of industry, though one could imagine a savior complex moving them to do it.
lj - I think that Kim Stanley Robinson had the Indian government doing the sulfur geoengineering (rather than a private entity) is because India started doing it after it was clear that the world had already overshot the climate boundaries. It was part of a hodgepodge approach to solutions that was necessitated by our collective inability to make collective change.
The reasons for private entities to do this are more complicated, and get at wj's thoughts about the profit motive. The tech startups that are working the geoengineering angle are doing so partly for public minded reasons, but that is also mixed with the conviction that whatever we do collectively must not interfere with the economy or their own business interests. They are trying to delay the moment of accountability in order to stretch the bubble for their own fortunes.
It's an informative comparison, and it highlights the difference in priorities between the global north and south.
Well, geoengineering could also be used to actually accelerate global warming since some would directly profit from that (e.g. fossil fuel extraction in the Arctic and ice-free transport lanes for the same).
Btw, this idea can already be found in Jules Verne's 3rd part part of the Gun Club Trilogy (there it is about righting the rotational axis of the earth in order to get the Arctic ice-free to get at assumed large coal deposits).
I guess Robinson has a national effort because it avoids the question of capitalism trying to harness geo-engineering, but it seems to me the latter is much more likely than the former.
For capitalism to harness geo-engineering, there would need to be some way, probably some fairly obvious way, to profit from it. Profit directly, not just from having a better world to live in generally. I'm not really seeing one -- probably lack of imagination on my part.
The actual alternative to a national effort would be a billionaire with an obsession, and a willingness to spend vast ssums of his own in pursuit of it. The example we have before us is SpaceX. Musk is obsessed with going to Mars, and was willing to personally fund a company to develop the technology so he could do that. Sure, it turned out he could sell launch services to NASA etc. But that was really just a happy unintended consequence as the technology developed.
The point about geoengineering startups had me think about Kim Stanley Robinson's book The Ministry for the Future, a science fiction work about climate change. Crooked Timber did a seminar on it if you aren't into reading the fiction, but are interested in some of the ideas. I believe Donald mentioned the book for its horrific description of a heat wave in India, which then has India engage in geoengineering, specifically seeding the upper atmosphere with sulfur dioxide. I guess Robinson has a national effort because it avoids the question of capitalism trying to harness geo-engineering, but it seems to me the latter is much more likely than the former.
Just chased one of the Newsweek links from the anti-weather militia article to see what MTG had to say about her anti-weather-tampering bill.
She is an idiot - I am not suggesting otherwise - but at the same time, I don't think that it's a bad idea to pass laws forbidding unauthorized geoengineering because we are already seeing startups that are attempting to kick start this sort of environmental hacking in the name of combatting climate change:
There is a thought that nous' comment puts in my mind. One thing that I note is how German fascism was underpinned by particular notions of science, while the current American instantiation seems to me to completely ignore science. The Germans had notions that we've pretty much abandoned (though they still float around in the cultural psyche, such as eugenics and biological determinism), but I feel like there was a culture of putting science on a pedestal. The discussion of Heritage Americans, which nous notes is infinitely malleable, is, like other MAGA snipes that are chased down, fundamentally unserious. Another example is something like this
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-government-militia-targets-weather-radars-2097670
I suppose that the MAHA movement has some sort of scientific notions, in the idea that science is being perverted to tout vaccines and other medical interventions, and 'real' science just needs people doing internet research (like putting forward invermectin).
I realize that the US has a strong 'know-nothing' streak, but it's remarkable how easy it has been for Trump supporters to simply reject science and I'm wondering what others think.
"Heritage American" is a bit like "Originalism" in that the term is infinitely Humpty-Dumpty-able. Once you establish that the Founding Fathers were Christian Nationalists (the subject of so many books and church basement visits by "noted Bible-believing historians") then the heritage in question becomes a spiritual heritage, and any American born Christian Nationalist regardless of ethnicity can be provisionally adopted into the family of Heritage Americans.
Of course that heritage is instantly revocable as well, even for actual Heritage Americans. I have ancestors on my father's side of the family going back at least to 1700, and possibly to Jamestown. I'm pretty sure that my status as a Heritage American was revoked the moment that it became clear to everyone that I was an exvangelical, a feminist, and in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. When my mother passed, the only people who spoke to my wife and I at her funeral were blood relatives or the two Taiwanese converts who were treated as adopted family. The pastor of the church was literally the only other member of my parents' church who spoke to us, and he only did so enough to try to suggest that I read CS Lewis (as if I hadn't already done that during my evangelical days).
"“heritage American” refers to the offspring of the Anglo-Protestant and Scotch-Irish settlers — in other words, the white people — who populated the original colonies before heading west to settle the American frontier."
That's not going to be a very large slice of the US population. It's not even a very large slice of the white population.
Notably, it excludes Trump, whose family history here starts around 1885.
I'm a fan of Meg Hillier, who spoke after Badenoch. Kemi is scary and stupid - makes me long for the days of Theresa May - and as an immigrant married to an immigrant, that is saying something...
Sonehow, when I read that the first time I took it to mean "people who buy the idiocy that the Heritage Foundation is peddling." That it meant something like the DAR didn't occur to me. And if it had, I've always thought the DAR was a bit daft (but mostly harmless). The reality is appalling.
I'm with cleek that "this sounds like every other fascist movement that has ever popped up " Which, considering who is loudly embracing the idea, is unsurprising. Scum.
Like a lot of phrases drawn from internet discourse, the precise definition of “heritage America” can get a bit fuzzy around the edges, and its exact meaning remains the subject of some debate. But in its most basic sense, the phrase refers to present-day Americans who trace their ancestral roots to the colonial period, or shortly thereafter. Depending on whom you ask, the category also includes the offspring of Indigenous Americans and the ADOS, or “American descendants of slavery.” But at its most fundamental, said Engel, “heritage American” refers to the offspring of the Anglo-Protestant and Scotch-Irish settlers — in other words, the white people — who populated the original colonies before heading west to settle the American frontier.
...
“If the media needs a history lesson on the brave men and women who blazed the trails and forged this Republic from the sweat of their brow, we are happy to send them a history textbook,” said DHS spokesperson Tricia McLaughlin in a written response to a question about the posts. “This administration is unapologetically proud of American history and American heritage.”
When Engel saw the first post from DHS, he was blown away. “It’s kind of jarring to see a department of the federal government recognizing and asserting the goodness of heritage America,” he recalled. But after his initial sense of surprise wore off, it was quicky replaced by amazement. “We’re all partaking in the same process, from Vance down to Twitter people,” he said. “It’s delightful.”
that this sounds like every other fascist movement that has ever popped up is purely coincidental.
The term "Heritage Americans" is new to me, it's interesting that it is seems like it is trying to plug into the terminology of heritage varieties (also called Heirloom varieties). You can see how, like anti-vax rhetoric, it pulls people who might have been previous placed on the left over to the right.
the only way to have a unified state is to refine it into a homogenous, elemental society that is not vulnerable to any sort of othering
There is one (and, I would argue, only one) way to achieve a "society" which is not vulnerable to othering: become a hermit on a desert island. Because as soon as you have multiple people involved (which is what a society involves), othering is not only possible but relatively simple.
Doesn't mean it has to happen. But the risk is unavoidable. The most one can do is make othering socially unacceptable.
Since we are on the subject of philosophy here, and the philosophical justifications for one's totalitarian tendencies, I ran across this piece at The Guardian, which highlights the cachet that Carl Schmitt has on the Christian Nationalist right:
Other Schmitt-positive applicants include a Heritage employee who has since landed in the administration. Max Matheu is now an attorney adviser at the State Department, according to his LinkedIn page.
[...]
In his Project 2025 application, in response to a question about which books have influenced him, Matheu nominated The Concept of the Political by Carl Schmitt, adding that “The friend/enemy distinction is the cardinal concept that undergirds all politics. The Left has been making the distinction since Gramsci and other cultural marxists captured the media and academic institutions to subvert Heritage Americans and the shared ideals this country once held."
Note here the use of the phrase "Heritage Americans" as a way of othering anyone that does not fit the alt-right mold. It's really interesting that Matheu is accusing "The Left" of being Schmittians. It's particularly ironic because Schmitt was using the friend/enemy distinction to argue why liberalism was doomed to fail because it insisted on universal rights and the humanity of all subjects in the realm of the political - pretty much the opposite of what they accuse "The Left" of doing. Not a surprise, really, when most of these Heritage hangers-on seem unable to hold onto the distinction between liberals and leftists, and treat them as interchangeable.
Since I have mentioned Schmitt so many times before, I should probably quote him here to show the central reason for his popularity in the Christian Nationalist right:
The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy…the distinction of friend and enemy denotes the utmost degree of intensity of a union or separation, an association or dissociation. It can exist theoretically and practically, without having simultaneously to draw upon all those moral, aesthetic, economic, or other distinctions. The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor, and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless, the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflict with him are possible. - The Concept of the Political I.2
So the Christian Nationalist project functions institutionally upon this one basic premise - that the only way to have a unified state is to refine it into a homogenous, elemental society that is not vulnerable to any sort of othering. Any attempt to try to base that essence in a universal humanity is, to their eyes, doomed to lose in the realm of politics.
This is what we are up against. Anyone not actively working for their Christian Nationalist agenda is not a Heritage American, and therefore can be excluded from political existence. Their attempts at gerrymandering are merely the least bloody and turbulent means to make their enemies cease to exist. Failing that, there are other means.
Pro bono, I felt like the last part of the Deputy speaker's admonition was accusing Labour of leaking the OBR report. I've been reading how the budget is supposed to be secret because it could move markets, but it seems like a very anachronistic practice, any government, especially in one in a country that seems to have splintered politically as much as the UK, has to test possible lines. (Another possibility would be to fine media that make misrepresentations about the budget, though I imagine that horse has left the barn)
While the content of Badanoch's reply was unsurprising, the clearly theatrical aspects (changing of voices when inferring Reeve's, the invocation and subsequent dismissal of 'mansplaining') that caught me by surprise.
The Deputy Speakers' reprimand was mostly about the pre-budget briefings the government had been indulging in, and was justified. Precedent, not perfectly observed in recent times, is that the budget is kept as secret as possible until the Chancellor's budget speech.
Badenoch's style is ferociously to oppose anything the government does, without necessarily bothering to offer alternatives. It's not been successful.
Sunak called a general election when he did because he didn't want face the coming budget problems. Unlike the USA, the UK cannot run ever-increasing deficits with impunity.
My recollection is that it's usual for the Shadow Chancellor, not the Leader of the Opposition, to deliver the response to the Chancellor's budget. Few could name him.
The House of Commons is closer to the US House of Representatives than the Senate. And has the House of Commons ever had a MP show off giant pictures of (would the equivalent of the President be the King or the PM?) his son's penis in the House? America First!
I love the Slough house books - they're also hugely scornful about BoJo. But Roddy Ho is my fave.
Our House of Commons has always been more confrontational and rougher than eg the Senate. Badenoch has been doing so badly as leader of the opposition that speculation about her imminent loss of office has been endless. She must be ecstatic to see Starmer and Reeves recently facing the same sort of thing, and about having a hugely problematic budget and its rollout to get her teeth into. I agree it was unpleasant and mocking, but not altogether out of the norm.
I always think of the UK as more civilized than us, but they are human too. I'm burning my way through the Slough House series and there's a definite political subtext throughout about politics as cynical, stupid, and dominated by sociopaths. The author also takes frequent swipes at Trump.
But the important thing is that it's another example of Trump's eagerness or willingness to placate dictators, with (very little or) no regard for the possible victims of their territorial ambitions, no matter what assurances they have previously been given by the US, and with no regard to the global political consequences.
President Trump has urged the new Japanese prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, not to provoke China
The idea that Trump, Trump of all people, urging anyone not to be provocative? It simply boggles the mind. Next he'll be adminishing Americans to eat healthy, no doubt.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.
On “The surprising philosophy behind Palantir”
India started doing it after it was clear that the world had already overshot the climate boundaries
Yes, it plugs into the idea that Robinson said started the book, which was the observation that it is easier to imagine the end of the world than the end of capitalism. It is difficult to imagine a profit motive sufficient to move the current titans of industry, though one could imagine a savior complex moving them to do it.
"
lj - I think that Kim Stanley Robinson had the Indian government doing the sulfur geoengineering (rather than a private entity) is because India started doing it after it was clear that the world had already overshot the climate boundaries. It was part of a hodgepodge approach to solutions that was necessitated by our collective inability to make collective change.
The reasons for private entities to do this are more complicated, and get at wj's thoughts about the profit motive. The tech startups that are working the geoengineering angle are doing so partly for public minded reasons, but that is also mixed with the conviction that whatever we do collectively must not interfere with the economy or their own business interests. They are trying to delay the moment of accountability in order to stretch the bubble for their own fortunes.
It's an informative comparison, and it highlights the difference in priorities between the global north and south.
On “uncomfortability?”
assuming it comes from "comfortability" (which has only been a thing for a couple of years)?
On “The surprising philosophy behind Palantir”
Well, geoengineering could also be used to actually accelerate global warming since some would directly profit from that (e.g. fossil fuel extraction in the Arctic and ice-free transport lanes for the same).
Btw, this idea can already be found in Jules Verne's 3rd part part of the Gun Club Trilogy (there it is about righting the rotational axis of the earth in order to get the Arctic ice-free to get at assumed large coal deposits).
"
For capitalism to harness geo-engineering, there would need to be some way, probably some fairly obvious way, to profit from it. Profit directly, not just from having a better world to live in generally. I'm not really seeing one -- probably lack of imagination on my part.
The actual alternative to a national effort would be a billionaire with an obsession, and a willingness to spend vast ssums of his own in pursuit of it. The example we have before us is SpaceX. Musk is obsessed with going to Mars, and was willing to personally fund a company to develop the technology so he could do that. Sure, it turned out he could sell launch services to NASA etc. But that was really just a happy unintended consequence as the technology developed.
"
The point about geoengineering startups had me think about Kim Stanley Robinson's book The Ministry for the Future, a science fiction work about climate change. Crooked Timber did a seminar on it if you aren't into reading the fiction, but are interested in some of the ideas. I believe Donald mentioned the book for its horrific description of a heat wave in India, which then has India engage in geoengineering, specifically seeding the upper atmosphere with sulfur dioxide. I guess Robinson has a national effort because it avoids the question of capitalism trying to harness geo-engineering, but it seems to me the latter is much more likely than the former.
"
Just chased one of the Newsweek links from the anti-weather militia article to see what MTG had to say about her anti-weather-tampering bill.
She is an idiot - I am not suggesting otherwise - but at the same time, I don't think that it's a bad idea to pass laws forbidding unauthorized geoengineering because we are already seeing startups that are attempting to kick start this sort of environmental hacking in the name of combatting climate change:
https://www.technologyreview.com/2022/12/24/1066041/a-startup-says-its-begun-releasing-particles-into-the-atmosphere-in-an-effort-to-tweak-the-climate/
MTG is not the only idiot around, and in this case I'll support one idiot in order to stop other idiots.
"
There is a thought that nous' comment puts in my mind. One thing that I note is how German fascism was underpinned by particular notions of science, while the current American instantiation seems to me to completely ignore science. The Germans had notions that we've pretty much abandoned (though they still float around in the cultural psyche, such as eugenics and biological determinism), but I feel like there was a culture of putting science on a pedestal. The discussion of Heritage Americans, which nous notes is infinitely malleable, is, like other MAGA snipes that are chased down, fundamentally unserious. Another example is something like this
https://www.newsweek.com/anti-government-militia-targets-weather-radars-2097670
I suppose that the MAHA movement has some sort of scientific notions, in the idea that science is being perverted to tout vaccines and other medical interventions, and 'real' science just needs people doing internet research (like putting forward invermectin).
I realize that the US has a strong 'know-nothing' streak, but it's remarkable how easy it has been for Trump supporters to simply reject science and I'm wondering what others think.
"
"Heritage American" is a bit like "Originalism" in that the term is infinitely Humpty-Dumpty-able. Once you establish that the Founding Fathers were Christian Nationalists (the subject of so many books and church basement visits by "noted Bible-believing historians") then the heritage in question becomes a spiritual heritage, and any American born Christian Nationalist regardless of ethnicity can be provisionally adopted into the family of Heritage Americans.
Of course that heritage is instantly revocable as well, even for actual Heritage Americans. I have ancestors on my father's side of the family going back at least to 1700, and possibly to Jamestown. I'm pretty sure that my status as a Heritage American was revoked the moment that it became clear to everyone that I was an exvangelical, a feminist, and in favor of LGBTQ+ rights. When my mother passed, the only people who spoke to my wife and I at her funeral were blood relatives or the two Taiwanese converts who were treated as adopted family. The pastor of the church was literally the only other member of my parents' church who spoke to us, and he only did so enough to try to suggest that I read CS Lewis (as if I hadn't already done that during my evangelical days).
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
RIP Tom Stoppard. And, relevant to current US politics and democracy worldwide:
“It’s not the voting that’s democracy,” a character says in “Rock ’n’ Roll.” “It’s the counting.”
On “The surprising philosophy behind Palantir”
"“heritage American” refers to the offspring of the Anglo-Protestant and Scotch-Irish settlers — in other words, the white people — who populated the original colonies before heading west to settle the American frontier."
That's not going to be a very large slice of the US population. It's not even a very large slice of the white population.
Notably, it excludes Trump, whose family history here starts around 1885.
On “Am I missing something?”
Badenoch really is a character: apparently the welfare state is "unchristian" because, wait for it:
In early Christian times, there was no state or welfare, so I think that you can argue that, actually.
https://www.cityam.com/rachel-reeves-benefit-handouts-are-unchristian-badenoch-says/
"
I'm a fan of Meg Hillier, who spoke after Badenoch. Kemi is scary and stupid - makes me long for the days of Theresa May - and as an immigrant married to an immigrant, that is saying something...
On “The surprising philosophy behind Palantir”
“Heritage Americans”
Sonehow, when I read that the first time I took it to mean "people who buy the idiocy that the Heritage Foundation is peddling." That it meant something like the DAR didn't occur to me. And if it had, I've always thought the DAR was a bit daft (but mostly harmless). The reality is appalling.
I'm with cleek that "this sounds like every other fascist movement that has ever popped up " Which, considering who is loudly embracing the idea, is unsurprising. Scum.
"
"Heritage Americans".. blech.
linked from nous' Guardian article, but worth calling out here:
https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2025/07/31/heritage-american-jd-vance-online-right-phrase-00481724
that this sounds like every other fascist movement that has ever popped up is purely coincidental.
"
The term "Heritage Americans" is new to me, it's interesting that it is seems like it is trying to plug into the terminology of heritage varieties (also called Heirloom varieties). You can see how, like anti-vax rhetoric, it pulls people who might have been previous placed on the left over to the right.
"
the only way to have a unified state is to refine it into a homogenous, elemental society that is not vulnerable to any sort of othering
There is one (and, I would argue, only one) way to achieve a "society" which is not vulnerable to othering: become a hermit on a desert island. Because as soon as you have multiple people involved (which is what a society involves), othering is not only possible but relatively simple.
Doesn't mean it has to happen. But the risk is unavoidable. The most one can do is make othering socially unacceptable.
"
Since we are on the subject of philosophy here, and the philosophical justifications for one's totalitarian tendencies, I ran across this piece at The Guardian, which highlights the cachet that Carl Schmitt has on the Christian Nationalist right:
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025/nov/28/project-2025-heritage-foundation-hack
Note here the use of the phrase "Heritage Americans" as a way of othering anyone that does not fit the alt-right mold. It's really interesting that Matheu is accusing "The Left" of being Schmittians. It's particularly ironic because Schmitt was using the friend/enemy distinction to argue why liberalism was doomed to fail because it insisted on universal rights and the humanity of all subjects in the realm of the political - pretty much the opposite of what they accuse "The Left" of doing. Not a surprise, really, when most of these Heritage hangers-on seem unable to hold onto the distinction between liberals and leftists, and treat them as interchangeable.
Since I have mentioned Schmitt so many times before, I should probably quote him here to show the central reason for his popularity in the Christian Nationalist right:
So the Christian Nationalist project functions institutionally upon this one basic premise - that the only way to have a unified state is to refine it into a homogenous, elemental society that is not vulnerable to any sort of othering. Any attempt to try to base that essence in a universal humanity is, to their eyes, doomed to lose in the realm of politics.
This is what we are up against. Anyone not actively working for their Christian Nationalist agenda is not a Heritage American, and therefore can be excluded from political existence. Their attempts at gerrymandering are merely the least bloody and turbulent means to make their enemies cease to exist. Failing that, there are other means.
On “Am I missing something?”
Pro bono, I felt like the last part of the Deputy speaker's admonition was accusing Labour of leaking the OBR report. I've been reading how the budget is supposed to be secret because it could move markets, but it seems like a very anachronistic practice, any government, especially in one in a country that seems to have splintered politically as much as the UK, has to test possible lines. (Another possibility would be to fine media that make misrepresentations about the budget, though I imagine that horse has left the barn)
While the content of Badanoch's reply was unsurprising, the clearly theatrical aspects (changing of voices when inferring Reeve's, the invocation and subsequent dismissal of 'mansplaining') that caught me by surprise.
"
The Deputy Speakers' reprimand was mostly about the pre-budget briefings the government had been indulging in, and was justified. Precedent, not perfectly observed in recent times, is that the budget is kept as secret as possible until the Chancellor's budget speech.
Badenoch's style is ferociously to oppose anything the government does, without necessarily bothering to offer alternatives. It's not been successful.
Sunak called a general election when he did because he didn't want face the coming budget problems. Unlike the USA, the UK cannot run ever-increasing deficits with impunity.
My recollection is that it's usual for the Shadow Chancellor, not the Leader of the Opposition, to deliver the response to the Chancellor's budget. Few could name him.
"
The House of Commons is closer to the US House of Representatives than the Senate. And has the House of Commons ever had a MP show off giant pictures of (would the equivalent of the President be the King or the PM?) his son's penis in the House? America First!
"
I love the Slough house books - they're also hugely scornful about BoJo. But Roddy Ho is my fave.
Our House of Commons has always been more confrontational and rougher than eg the Senate. Badenoch has been doing so badly as leader of the opposition that speculation about her imminent loss of office has been endless. She must be ecstatic to see Starmer and Reeves recently facing the same sort of thing, and about having a hugely problematic budget and its rollout to get her teeth into. I agree it was unpleasant and mocking, but not altogether out of the norm.
"
I always think of the UK as more civilized than us, but they are human too. I'm burning my way through the Slough House series and there's a definite political subtext throughout about politics as cynical, stupid, and dominated by sociopaths. The author also takes frequent swipes at Trump.
On “An openish thread featuring the comedy stylings of Steve Witkoff”
But the important thing is that it's another example of Trump's eagerness or willingness to placate dictators, with (very little or) no regard for the possible victims of their territorial ambitions, no matter what assurances they have previously been given by the US, and with no regard to the global political consequences.
"
President Trump has urged the new Japanese prime minister, Sanae Takaichi, not to provoke China
The idea that Trump, Trump of all people, urging anyone not to be provocative? It simply boggles the mind. Next he'll be adminishing Americans to eat healthy, no doubt.
*Comment archive for non-registered commenters assembled by email address as provided.