State of the Discussion

Would ObWi would be better if there were many more threads, like LGM or BJ?

I realize that you weren't asking me. But IMHO anything over 1 per day is way excessive. There might be special cases. But in general there really aren't enough of us commenting here to make it necessary.

A proper Open Thread! Oh frabjous day!

Michael, I did get the pillow, and I can see why it works perfectly for you and many others. And it sometimes works well for me, but not always. I can't really say why. I had to take a fair amount of the hulls out because it was too full and unwieldy to begin with, and since then I use it intermittently. In fact, I alternate between three pillows, changing when the pain starts coming back. It's not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than it was.

On other matters, unfortunately I was too late for the Black Friday Apple TV deal, but I will be keeping my eye on it. I may cancel my Netflix sub after I finally get round to watching The Ballad of Wallis Island, since I normally watch nothing on there from one month to the next, and if I do I'll probably get Apple.

To the degree that the Jewish community was self-governing during Roman occupation, the religious institutions *were* the government.

The Christian nationalists would be ecstatic to implement that model. Even if they reject the bits about caring for the poor.

GftNC, AppleTV is 50% off for Black Friday if you want to do a binge. There are some other shows that are pretty good to binge thru as well.

"Have you read all of them"

I've only seen the series on Apple TV. The books are in my queue.

And yes, Roddie Ho is non-self-aware perfection.

"Simply loving the image of Imperial Rome as an anarchist collective!"

But all the decisions of the emperor must be ratified by a simple majority of the collective for purely internal decisions, but by a two-thirds majority for external decisions.

Might have worked better.

no state and no welfare?

what is the whole "Render unto Caesar" thing about, if not about paying taxes to the state?

and no welfare? they had a whole goddess dedicated to the distribution of grain and they named their welfare system after her.

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).

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.

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.

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.”

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/

“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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.