Category: Trumplandia

Stop The Steal! (2026)

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Trump is going to steal the 2026 midterms. And I fear he may even go so far as to use extra-legal means to do it. The question, of course, is what we’re going to do in response once he does it.

I fear we’re either do nothing or we’re going to have a civil war / revolution.

I really would prefer not to have a civil war or revolution — I have a novel to query at a minimum — but…I suppose what will happen is…nothing. People will get really mad but ultimately nothing will happen and Trump will push and push to the point that him running for an illegal third term might be a done deal by the time 2028 rolls around.

When ‘It’ Happens

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Now that Linsey Graham has suddenly died, it makes you think about what happens when “it” happens in regards to Trump. A lot the issue is how it happens. If Trump just shuffles off this mortal coil after a brief illness, I suspect we probably don’t know for a long time, maybe weeks.

The people around Trump are so shifty and untrustworthy that they would spend weeks struggling to figure out how to position themselves in a way that gives them the most power.

The thing I worry about, of course, is a civil war. MAGA is so paranoid that it seems like there would be riots in the streets if Trump leaves us anytime before he has successfully destroy the United States to the fullest extend possible.

Anyway, live long and prosper? At this point, I just be happy if Trump left office on time and if we had free and fair elections.

The Digital Triad: How the Internet Architected Our Three Greatest Modern Crises

The early promise of the internet was one of radical decentralization, a “global village” where information would be free and power would be distributed. Decades later, the reality is starkly different. The underlying architecture of the web—its economic incentives, network structures, and data-hungry nature—has directly facilitated three of the most pressing challenges of the 21st century: the warping of reality via social media, the rise of a new class of global plutocrats, and the looming shadow of a technological Singularity driven by Large Language Models (LLMs). These are not mere side effects; they are the logical conclusions of an internet-enabled world.

I. The Warped Mirror: Social Media and the Erosion of Reality

The internet’s primary commodity is no longer information, but attention. This shift has given rise to the Attention Economy, a system where human focus is algorithmically extracted, packaged, and sold to the highest bidder [1]. Because social media platforms rely on maximizing engagement to drive advertising revenue, they are incentivized to prioritize content that triggers strong emotional responses—fear, outrage, and tribalism—over factual accuracy.

The Mechanics of Distortion

Social media algorithms are not neutral tools; they are “opinions embedded in code” [1]. They function as feedback loops that create Echo Chambers and Filter Bubbles. By analyzing every click, hover, and share, these systems curate a personalized reality for each user, reinforcing existing biases and shielding them from dissenting views. This has led to a fundamental breakdown in shared truth, making collective problem-solving nearly impossible.

MechanismDescriptionImpact on Reality
Algorithmic CurationAI-driven feeds that prioritize engagement over truth.Users are trapped in “filter bubbles” that reinforce biases.
The Outrage CycleProvocative content spreads 17-24% faster than neutral content [1].Public discourse becomes polarized and hostile.
Data MiningConstant surveillance of user behavior to predict and influence choices.Cognitive autonomy is eroded by persuasive design.

“We are in a time where we’ve sort of accepted the unrestricted, unregulated mining of the human consciousness… We are the resource, and it takes its toll.” — Center for Humane Technology [1].

II. Digital Feudalism: The Rise of the New Plutocrats

The internet has fundamentally altered the laws of economics, favoring extreme concentration over competition. The rise of “Big Tech” billionaires—the modern plutocrats—is a direct result of two internet-native phenomena: Network Effects and Zero Marginal Costs [4].

The Winner-Take-All Economy

In the digital realm, the value of a service increases exponentially with the number of users (Network Effects). This creates a “winner-take-all” dynamic where a single platform, such as Google or Meta, can achieve a global monopoly almost overnight. Furthermore, once a digital product is created, the cost of serving an additional user is near zero (Zero Marginal Cost), allowing these firms to scale at a rate that physical-world industries cannot match.

The result is a level of wealth inequality with no historical precedent. Today, the world’s 12 richest individuals possess more wealth than half of the global population [2]. This economic power is increasingly converted into political influence through:

  • Media Ownership: Billionaires now own more than half of the world’s leading media outlets [2].
  • Lobbying: Tech giants spend billions to weaken antitrust regulations and ensure favorable tax structures.
  • Infrastructure Control: Private individuals now control critical global infrastructure, from satellite networks (Starlink) to the foundational models of AI [2].

III. The Ghost in the Machine: LLMs and the Path to Singularity

The third and perhaps most existential problem is the rise of Large Language Models (LLMs) and the potential for a Technological Singularity. This crisis is uniquely internet-dependent: LLMs exist only because the internet provided a near-infinite corpus of human-generated text to serve as training data.

From Generative AI to Intelligence Explosion

The Singularity refers to a point where AI reaches Artificial General Intelligence (AGI) and begins Recursive Self-Improvement—designing better versions of itself at a pace that far outstrips human comprehension [3]. While experts debate the timeline, the “scaling laws” of the internet age suggest that as we feed more compute and data into these models, qualitative leaps in intelligence become inevitable.

ConceptDefinitionThe Internet’s Role
AGIAI that matches or surpasses human intelligence across all domains.Trained on the “Common Crawl” of the entire public internet.
Recursive Self-ImprovementAI using its own intelligence to optimize its code and hardware.Enabled by internet-connected high-performance computing.
The SingularityA point of no return where AI growth becomes uncontrollable.The internet acts as the “nervous system” for this emerging intelligence.

The risk is not just “killer robots,” but a “loss of control of our civilization” [3]. If a superintelligent system’s goals are not perfectly aligned with human values—a task known as the Alignment Problem—the consequences could be catastrophic. The internet, by centralizing the world’s knowledge and connecting all its systems, has created the perfect environment for such an entity to emerge and exert influence.

Conclusion: A Systemic Crisis

These three problems—the erosion of truth, the rise of plutocracy, and the threat of the Singularity—are deeply interconnected. The plutocrats own the social media platforms that warp our reality, and they are the ones currently racing to develop the AI that could trigger the Singularity. The internet, once envisioned as a tool for liberation, has become the scaffolding for a new form of systemic instability.

Addressing these issues requires more than individual digital “detoxes” or minor policy tweaks. It requires a fundamental re-evaluation of the internet’s economic foundations, the breaking of digital monopolies, and a global, precautionary approach to the development of superintelligence.

References

  1. The Attention Economy – Center for Humane Technology
  2. The immense power of the new plutocracy – El País
  3. Are AI existential risks real? – Brookings Institution
  4. Why the Internet Economy Raises Inequality – Columbia Business School

The Confluence of Imperial Lifecycles, Technological Hegemony, and Democratic Erosion: A Contemporary Geopolitical Analysis

Introduction

The trajectory of global power dynamics is increasingly shaped by a complex interplay of historical patterns, evolving political structures, and rapid technological advancements. This analysis explores the potential for significant geopolitical shifts, particularly concerning the future of established nation-states and the emergence of new forms of global governance. Drawing upon theories of imperial lifecycles, contemporary socio-political trends such as democratic backsliding, and the transformative impact of advanced artificial intelligence and technological elites, this essay posits a potential reordering of the international system.

Historical Parallels: The Lifecycle of Empires

The concept of an imperial lifecycle, suggesting a predictable pattern of rise, zenith, and decline, offers a compelling framework for understanding the long-term evolution of dominant powers. A notable proponent of this theory is Sir John Glubb, whose 1976 essay, “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival,” posited that empires typically endure for approximately 250 years 1. Glubb’s extensive study of historical empires, spanning millennia, identified recurring stages—from the Age of Pioneers to the Age of Decadence—culminating in an average lifespan of roughly ten generations 1.

While historical analogies must be applied with caution to contemporary contexts, particularly given the unique characteristics of modern nation-states and global interconnectedness, Glubb’s framework provides a heuristic for examining the potential vulnerabilities and systemic pressures faced by long-standing hegemonic powers. The notion that a dominant state, approaching a quarter-millennium of existence, might be susceptible to internal and external forces leading to a significant redefinition of its role and internal structure warrants serious consideration 3.

Democratic Erosion and the Rise of Ethno-Nationalism

A critical aspect of potential geopolitical transformation involves the internal political evolution of established democracies. The phenomenon of democratic backsliding describes a process wherein democratic institutions, norms, and practices are gradually weakened, often leading to a concentration of executive power, erosion of civil liberties, and compromised electoral integrity 4. This process can manifest through various mechanisms, including the politicization of state institutions, the suppression of dissent, and the undermining of independent media.

Concurrently, the rise of ethno-nationalism presents a significant challenge to pluralistic democratic societies. This ideology emphasizes a national identity rooted in a specific ethnic, racial, or religious group, often leading to the marginalization or exclusion of minority populations. The potential for a democratic republic to transition towards an autocratic ethnostate, characterized by exclusionary policies and authoritarian governance, represents a profound shift from foundational liberal democratic principles 5. Such a trajectory is frequently associated with heightened political polarization and a decline in the rule of law.

The Ascendancy of Technological Elites and Surveillance Capitalism

The contemporary global landscape is increasingly shaped by the unprecedented influence of powerful technological entities and their leaders, often referred to as tech oligarchs. These actors wield immense economic and informational power, frequently operating within a paradigm termed surveillance capitalism, where personal data is systematically collected, analyzed, and monetized on a vast scale 6. This economic model not only generates immense wealth but also confers significant control over information flows, public discourse, and individual behavior.

This concentration of technological and informational power raises critical questions about global governance and accountability. The ambition of these elites to extend their influence beyond national borders, potentially shaping global norms and policies, suggests a redefinition of sovereignty. The emergence of such non-state actors as significant geopolitical forces could lead to new forms of digital colonialism or a global order where technological rather than traditional state power is paramount 7.

Artificial Intelligence and the Prospect of a New Global Order

The rapid advancements in artificial intelligence (AI), particularly the hypothetical development of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), introduce a transformative element into these geopolitical considerations. The potential for an ASI to emerge and, under the guidance of powerful state or corporate actors, to exert unprecedented influence over global systems is a subject of intense speculation and concern. The challenge of AI alignment—ensuring that advanced AI systems operate in accordance with human values and intentions—becomes paramount in this context.

Should ASI be developed and controlled by a limited set of actors, its capabilities could facilitate a rapid and comprehensive reordering of global affairs. Such a development could lead to a “new world order” where decisions are executed with unparalleled efficiency and scope, potentially reshaping human autonomy, global equity, and the very nature of political power 9.

Challenges to the Liberal International Order

The convergence of these macro forces—the potential for imperial decline, the erosion of democratic norms, the growing influence of technological elites, and the transformative power of AI—poses significant challenges to the liberal international order. This order, largely established in the aftermath of World War II, is characterized by multilateral institutions, international law, free trade, and a commitment to democratic principles 10.

However, the current global environment is marked by increasing geopolitical competition, the resurgence of authoritarian tendencies, and a growing skepticism towards multilateral cooperation. The forces outlined herein represent fundamental pressures on the foundational tenets of this order, potentially leading to a more fragmented, multipolar, or even anarchic international system. The long-term stability and efficacy of established global governance structures are thus subject to profound and ongoing reevaluation.

Conclusion

The interplay of historical patterns of imperial decline, the contemporary challenges of democratic erosion and ethno-nationalism, and the accelerating impact of technological hegemony and advanced AI suggests a period of profound geopolitical transformation. While the precise nature and timing of these shifts remain subjects of ongoing debate, the underlying dynamics present significant implications for the future of national sovereignty, global governance, and the liberal international order. Critical engagement with these complex forces is essential for navigating a rapidly evolving global landscape.

An Analysis of Potential Geopolitical Shifts and the Trajectory of the United States

Introduction

The following analysis critically examines the speculative assertions regarding the potential decline of the United States as a global power, drawing parallels with historical theories of imperial lifecycles and exploring contemporary socio-political and technological transformations. The original commentary posits that the United States, having reached approximately 250 years since its founding, may be entering a period of significant decline, transitioning from a democratic republic towards an autocratic ethnostate. This perspective is further complicated by the ascendance of powerful technological entities and the rapid development of artificial intelligence, which together could precipitate a novel global order.

Theories of Imperial Decline: The 250-Year Cycle

The notion that empires typically endure for approximately 250 years before experiencing significant decline is a recurring theme in historical discourse. This concept gained prominence through the work of Sir John Glubb, a British general and historian, who, in his 1976 essay “The Fate of Empires and Search for Survival,” analyzed the lifecycles of numerous empires over 3,000 years 1. Glubb observed a consistent pattern of seven stages—the Age of Pioneers, Age of Conquests, Age of Commerce, Age of Affluence, Age of Intellect, Age of Decadence, and Age of Decline—culminating in an average lifespan of about 250 years for major empires 1.

While Glubb’s theory offers a compelling historical framework, its direct applicability to modern nation-states, particularly one with the unique constitutional and economic structures of the United States, warrants careful consideration. Critics argue that such historical determinism may oversimplify complex geopolitical dynamics and overlook the adaptive capacities of contemporary political systems 3. Nevertheless, the theory serves as a provocative lens through which to examine current societal trends and potential vulnerabilities.

Socio-Political Transformations: Democratic Backsliding and Ethno-Nationalism

The commentary suggests a transition from a “prosperous democratic republic to a declining, autocratic white Christian ethnostate.” This transformation can be formally analyzed through the lens of democratic backsliding and the rise of ethno-nationalism. Democratic backsliding refers to the weakening of democratic institutions, norms, and practices, often characterized by the erosion of free and fair elections, constraints on civil liberties, and the concentration of power within the executive branch 4.

The concept of an “autocratic white Christian ethnostate” points to a potential shift towards an authoritarian regime underpinned by a specific ethno-religious identity. This involves the marginalization of minority groups and the redefinition of national identity along exclusionary lines. Such developments are often associated with populist movements, political polarization, and a decline in institutional checks and balances 5.

The Rise of Tech Oligarchs and Global Governance

The emergence of “tech oligarchs” and their ambition to exert control on a global scale represents a significant contemporary force. These entities, often operating within a framework described as surveillance capitalism, accumulate vast wealth and influence through the collection and monetization of personal data 6. Their power extends beyond economic dominance, impacting political discourse, social structures, and even the very definition of sovereignty. The concentration of information and technological infrastructure in the hands of a few powerful corporations and individuals raises concerns about accountability, privacy, and the potential for unprecedented forms of social control 7.

This phenomenon suggests a potential shift in global governance, where traditional state-centric power structures are increasingly challenged or co-opted by non-state actors with immense technological capabilities. The pursuit of global influence by these tech entities could lead to new forms of digital colonialism or a reordering of international relations based on technological rather than purely territorial power 8.

Artificial Intelligence and a New World Order

The advent of advanced artificial intelligence (AI), particularly the hypothetical development of Artificial Superintelligence (ASI), introduces another layer of complexity to these geopolitical forecasts. The commentary speculates that ASI, guided by the American government and tech oligarchs, could “align” the globe to its will. This raises profound ethical and philosophical questions about AI alignment—the challenge of ensuring that AI systems operate in accordance with human values and intentions.

The potential for ASI to reshape global power dynamics is immense. If such an entity were to emerge under the control of specific national or corporate interests, it could indeed facilitate a “new world order” where decisions are made and enforced with unprecedented efficiency and scope. The implications for human autonomy, global equity, and the future of democratic governance are far-reaching and largely unexplored 9.

Challenges to the Liberal International Order

The confluence of these macro forces—imperial decline, democratic backsliding, the rise of tech oligarchs, and advanced AI—is posited to “run roughshod over the traditional rules-based post-WW2 liberal order.” The liberal international order is characterized by multilateral institutions, international law, free trade, and democratic norms, largely established and maintained by the United States and its allies after World War II. This order has historically promoted stability and cooperation, albeit with its own inherent challenges and criticisms.

However, the current global landscape is marked by increasing geopolitical competition, the resurgence of authoritarianism, and a growing skepticism towards multilateralism. The forces described in the commentary represent significant challenges to the foundational principles of this order, potentially leading to a more fragmented, multipolar, or even anarchic international system 10.

Conclusion

The original commentary presents a stark and somewhat pessimistic outlook on the future trajectory of the United States and the global order. While the specific timeline and outcomes remain speculative, the underlying concerns—regarding imperial lifecycles, democratic erosion, the unchecked power of technological elites, and the transformative potential of AI—are subjects of serious academic and policy debate. The notion that these macro forces are inexorable and beyond intervention underscores a sense of urgency for critical engagement with these complex challenges. The future of liberal democracy in the United States, and indeed the global political landscape, appears to be at a critical juncture, facing pressures that could fundamentally alter its established structures and norms.

‘250 Years’

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

The general consensus is empires last about 250 years before they begin to seriously decline. And I think the US is no different than any other empire. We’ve reached 250 years and this is the year that we will transition from a prosperous democratic republic to a declining, autocratic white Christian ethnostate.

All of this will be happening in the context of the rise of tech oligarchs that aim to control not just the United States but the globe. And add to this the rise of AI and there’s a chance that some form of new world order will come into being a lot sooner than you might think.

It’s possible the long predicted ASI might pop out and it will, under the guidance of the American government and tech oligarchs, “align” the globe to its will in ways that none of us would prefer.

And at the moment, there doesn’t seem to be any way to stop it. These are macro forces at work that will run roughshod over the traditional rules based post-WW2 liberal order that we’ve grown so accustomed to.

It’s seriously going to suck. When all of this might actually happen, I don’t know. But we have to wave goodbye to the liberal democracy of the USA I fear.

The Mysterious Endgame Of Trumplandia

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

The thing about what’s going on with the USA that I don’t understand is what the endgame is. I know that Trump is probably the most meaningful American president sense at least FDR, and, yet who are we going to be once we come out the other side of this revolution?

And it is a revolution. Trump has greatly accelerated America’s drift towards autocracy and white nationalism in ways that none of us could have possibly predicted. And, yet, here we are.

I suppose what is going to happen is whomever is Trump’s Republican successor will consolidate power like some sort of Augustus Caesar and that will be that. We will be a managed democracy with Russian-like oligarchs that continue to make the rich richer and the poor poorer (and sicker.)

Lulz?

It’s been a real struggle to accept that I no longer live in a traditional liberal democracy. And, yet, here we are. That’s exactly what’s going on. I wish I could sell my novel, make a lot of money and get the hell out of this country, never to be seen again.

But, alas, I fear that’s just not to happen. I’m stuck here. And I think it’s inevitable that I’m going to run afoul of Trump’s goons one way or another. It’s just a matter of time before I get “vanished.”

Wish me luck.

Everything Is So Dumb: I Worry The SAVE Act Will Pass, Somehow

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

I’m really worried that somehow, some way, the fucking SAVE Act is going to pass and we’re going to become a true managed democracy like they have in Russia. I don’t know how it might happen since at the moment Republicans don’t have the votes…but they are known to cheat.

So, I could totally see some cheating going on, like suspending the filibuster long enough in the Senate to pass it.

I have to just accept that this fall’s elections will NOT be free-and-fair under the strictest definition of the term and so, lulz, Republicans will just run the country for the rest of my life.

Ugh.

There’s A Disturbance In The Force, It Feels Like

by Shelt Garner
@sheltgarner

Something feels off at the moment. I can’t quite figure out what it is, but it feels like something just isn’t doing what it should out there in the aether and it’s making a weird noise.

I hope it’s not some terrorists plotting a big attack or something. That’s what Trump and MAGA want, of course. They want a big terrorist attack so they can seize control in a big way — by probably canceling the 2026 midterms.

Uh.

Anyway, hopefully this will pass and it won’t mean anything.

The Security Dilemma: The Strategic Logic for Restricting Open-Source AI

The rapid evolution of Large Language Models (LLMs) has sparked a fundamental debate in Washington: is the “open-source” ethos that built the modern internet a national security liability in the age of artificial intelligence? While the technology community has long championed open weights as a catalyst for innovation and transparency, a growing consensus within the U.S. government—culminating in the policy shifts of 2025 and 2026—suggests that the risks of “unrestricted” AI may outweigh its benefits.

This post explores the core logic driving the U.S. government’s increasingly restrictive stance on open-source foundation models.

1. The Proliferation and “Point of No Return” Problem

The primary concern cited by national security officials is the irreversibility of open-weight distribution. Unlike “closed” models, such as those provided by OpenAI or Anthropic, which are accessed via a controlled Application Programming Interface (API), an open-source model allows the user to download the entire “brain” of the AI. Once model weights are public, the developer loses all ability to monitor usage, revoke access, or enforce safety rails [1].

“In a world of digital proliferation, model weights are the new enriched uranium. Once they are out, they cannot be put back in the silo.” — General Policy Sentiment, 2025 National Security AI Briefing

Once weights are downloaded, users can “fine-tune” the models to remove safety filters, a process often referred to as “jailbreaking” the weights. This creates a permanent, unmonitored capability that can be used by any actor, regardless of their intent or geographic location.

2. Geopolitical Rivalry and the “AI Arms Race”

The rise of high-performance models from geopolitical rivals, most notably China’s DeepSeek, has shifted the logic from “innovation” to “supremacy.” The U.S. government views AI as a dual-use technology with significant military applications. The logic for restriction is summarized in the following table:

Argument CategoryLogic for Restriction
Adversarial GainReleasing open weights allows rivals to study U.S. architectures, find vulnerabilities, or “leapfrog” development costs by building on top of American breakthroughs [2].
State ControlModels like DeepSeek are viewed as “state-subsidized” or “state-controlled,” posing risks of data harvesting or embedded propaganda [3].
Export ControlThe Department of Commerce has increasingly treated model weights as “technical data” subject to export licenses, similar to advanced semiconductor manufacturing equipment [4].

3. The Dual-Use Risk: Cyber and Bio-Security

The logic for a ban often centers on the “marginal risk” of AI in sensitive domains. While a search engine can provide general information on biology, an uncensored LLM can provide step-by-step instructions for synthesizing pathogens or identifying “zero-day” vulnerabilities in critical infrastructure.

The 2025 Interim Final Rule from the Department of Commerce established that the most advanced models—those exceeding certain computational thresholds—require global licensing because their “dual-use” potential for mass-casualty events or systemic cyber-warfare is too high to be left to the open market [4]. This regulatory framework treats AI model weights as a form of “critical technology” that must be guarded with the same intensity as nuclear or missile technology.

4. Economic Protectionism and the “Stargate” Vision

Under the current administration, there is a clear move toward a “National AI Industrial Policy.” Projects like the Stargate initiative—a multi-billion dollar joint venture between the government and private sector—prioritize massive, centralized U.S. infrastructure [5]. The logic here is that by restricting open-source competition, the U.S. ensures that the “frontier” of AI remains within a few highly regulated, American-controlled companies. This allows the government to:

  • Directly oversee safety protocols and ensure compliance with national security directives.
  • Prevent “cheap” open-source alternatives from undermining the massive capital investments required for U.S. AI supremacy.
  • Maintain a “moat” that prevents foreign adversaries from easily replicating American AI capabilities through open-source channels.

5. Summary of Recent Policy Actions (2025–2026)

The following table summarizes the key milestones that have defined the current restrictive landscape:

DateActionImpact
January 2025Executive Order 14179Revoked earlier “open-by-default” directives; prioritized “security-first” AI development [6].
January 2025Commerce Dept. LicensingImposed global licensing requirements on the weights of “frontier” AI models [4].
January 2025U.S. Navy DeepSeek BanProhibited all personnel from using state-controlled Chinese AI models due to security concerns [3].
March 2025OpenAI Policy ProposalFormally recommended the U.S. government ban “state-subsidized” models from adversarial nations [2].

Conclusion

The logic for banning or strictly regulating open-source LLMs is rooted in a fundamental shift from a commercial innovation mindset to a national security mindset. Proponents of these restrictions argue that while open source was ideal for operating systems and web browsers, the “existential” or “systemic” risks posed by highly capable AI require a “closed-loop” system where the government and a few trusted partners hold the keys. While critics argue this stifles competition and transparency, the prevailing logic in Washington is that in the race for AI supremacy, “openness” is a luxury the U.S. can no longer afford.

References