Tag Archives: politics

Lesser-Known, Under-the-Surface Truths About the Davos 2026 Speeches

Four speeches at Davos 2026, by Larry Fink (BlackRock CEO and WEF interim co-chair), Ursula von der Leyen (European Commission President), Mark Carney (Canadian Prime Minister), and Donald Trump (U.S. President), were publicly framed as forward-looking calls for adaptation in a fractured world.

Mainstream coverage emphasised themes such as dialogue, autonomy, and economic revival, aligning with the WEF’s “Spirit of Dialogue” theme. However, beneath the surface lie truths that challenge the dominant narratives of global cooperation, democratic progress, and equitable capitalism.

These are rarely shared publicly because they expose elite hypocrisy, geopolitical manipulation, and systemic flaws that could erode public trust in institutions such as the WEF, the EU, and national governments.

They remain hidden due to media self-censorship (often tied to corporate sponsors like BlackRock), political expediency (e.g., avoiding backlash from powerful allies), and narrative control (e.g., suppressing views that label leaders as opportunistic rather than visionary).

Below, I outline one or two key under-the-surface truths per speech, substantiated with historical context, real-world examples, and explanations for their obscurity.

1. Larry Fink’s Speech: BlackRock’s “Evolution of Capitalism” Is a Veiled Defence of Cronyism, Not Reform. Fink’s address critiqued globalisation’s wealth concentration and AI’s risks, positioning the WEF as needing to “regain trust” through inclusivity. The under-the-surface truth is that this is a strategic rebranding to protect BlackRock’s role as a de facto global economic controller, profiting from the very inequalities it decries, and to challenge the mainstream view of Fink as a progressive capitalist.

Historical Context: This echoes the “robber barons” of the late 19th-century U.S., like John D. Rockefeller, who amassed fortunes through monopolistic practices (e.g., Standard Oil’s control of 90% of U.S. refining) while publicly advocating “scientific philanthropy” to deflect antitrust scrutiny. Similarly, BlackRock manages over $10 trillion in assets and influences corporate governance through proxy voting on issues such as ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance), which critics argue enforces ideological conformity rather than genuine reform.
Real-World Examples: BlackRock has been accused of exacerbating housing crises by buying up single-family homes post-2008, turning them into rentals and driving up prices—directly contradicting Fink’s call for “broad participation in gains.” In 2023, it faced lawsuits for misleading ESG funds that underperformed while charging premiums. finance.yahoo.com +1 At Davos, Fink hosted anti-globalist figures like Elon Musk, but this “inclusivity” masks BlackRock’s lobbying against regulations that would limit its asset-hoarding power.
Why It Remains Hidden: Exposing this would undermine the WEF’s image as a neutral convener and Fink’s as a benevolent leader, given BlackRock’s media investments (e.g., stakes in major outlets) that soften coverage. It challenges the mainstream “stakeholder capitalism” narrative, which portrays asset managers as societal stewards rather than profit-maximisers, risking backlash from investors and regulators.

A secondary truth: Fink’s push to “decentralise” Davos (e.g., events in Detroit) is less about listening and more about evading protests, as the forum has faced growing anti-elite demonstrations since the 2000s. facebook.com +12. Ursula von der Leyen’s Speech: “European Independence” Masks a Push for Supranational Control Over National Sovereignties.

2. Von der Leyen’s emphasis on EU autonomy (e.g., trade deals, Energy Union) and defiance against US tariffs was hailed as bold leadership. The hidden truth is that this “independence” centralises power in Brussels, eroding member states’ sovereignty and challenging the mainstream portrayal of the EU as a democratic union of equals.

Historical Context: This parallels the Holy Roman Empire’s (800-1806) facade of decentralised authority, where emperors like Charlemagne imposed unity through supranational edicts, often at the expense of local rulers. Post-WWII, the EU’s origins in the 1957 Treaty of Rome were driven by elites like Jean Monnet, who envisioned a “United States of Europe” to prevent nationalism, but critics argue it evolved into a bureaucratic empire, as seen in the 2005 French/Dutch referendums rejecting the EU Constitution amid fears of lost autonomy. politico.eu +1
Real-World Examples: Von der Leyen’s “EU Inc.” proposal for uniform company rules across states echoes the 2020 COVID recovery fund, which tied billions in aid to Brussels’ oversight, leading to accusations of “fiscal federalism” in Hungary and Poland. Her Greenland stance defends Danish sovereignty but ignores EU overreach in Arctic policy, where Brussels has pushed environmental regulations that override national interests (e.g., 2019 fishing bans protested by Greenlanders). weforum.org +2 Ukraine’s €90 billion loan reinforces EU military integration, but hides how it burdens taxpayers in poorer states like Greece.
Why It Remains Hidden: Revealing this would fuel Euroscepticism (e.g., Brexit-like movements), as the EU narrative relies on “unity” to justify expansion. Media, often EU-funded, downplays critiques, and von der Leyen’s family ties to German nobility (descended from aristocrats who centralised power) add a layer of elite continuity that’s politically toxic.

3. Mark Carney’s Speech: “Value-Based Realism” Is a Euphemism for Moral Compromise in Pursuit of Elite Interests. Carney’s call for middle powers to reject “living within the lie” and build coalitions was praised as pragmatic. The under-the-surface truth is that it rationalises deals with authoritarian regimes (e.g., China), prioritising economic leverage over human rights, challenging Canada’s mainstream image as a principled global actor.

Historical Context: This mirrors 1930s appeasement, where Britain’s Neville Chamberlain compromised with Nazi Germany for “peace in our time,” ignoring atrocities for strategic gains—a policy later discredited but hidden initially to avoid public panic. Carney’s banking background echoes the Bank of England’s pre-WWII gold dealings with Nazis, prioritising stability over ethics.
Real-World Examples: Carney’s China/Qatar partnerships overlook Uyghur genocides and labour abuses, as did his 2021 COP26 role, in which he praised China’s “green” efforts despite coal expansion. His “New World Order” slip in a Li Qiang meeting (framed as trade governance) fuels theories of globalist alignment. Canada’s Huawei leniency under Carney echoes this, trading security for economic ties.
Why It Remains Hidden: It undermines Canada’s “moral superpower” brand, which is vital to soft power. Carney’s WEF/Brookfield ties (managing $600 billion) suggest conflicts, suppressed by media to avoid labelling him a “globalist wing nut.”

4. Donald Trump’s Speech: Economic “Miracles” Rely on Distorted Facts and Unsustainable Debt, Masking Long-Term Decline. Trump’s boasts of US revival (e.g., 5.4% growth, deficit cuts) were touted as triumphs. The hidden truth is that these rely on cherry-picked data and ballooning debt, perpetuating a cycle of bubbles, challenging the mainstream MAGA narrative of unassailable American exceptionalism.

Historical Context: Similar to the Roaring Twenties of the 1920s, when Coolidge’s tax cuts fueled growth but masked speculative excesses, leading to the 1929 Crash. Trump’s tariffs echo the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930, which worsened the Depression by sparking trade wars.
Real-World Examples: Trump’s Greenland claims distorted history (US bases were WWII defensive, not ownership); NATO critiques ignored US benefits from alliances. Economic figures exaggerated: Inflation claims overlooked core vs. headline mismatches, and “eight wars” under Biden were false. Wind farm attacks ignored the role of subsidies in US energy jobs.
Why It Remains Hidden: Fact-checks are downplayed in pro-Trump media to sustain the “winner” image; exposing debt reliance (e.g., $35 trillion national debt) risks economic panic. It challenges bipartisan fiscal irresponsibility, hidden to maintain voter confidence.

These truths, if mainstreamed, could dismantle elite facades, but their suppression preserves stability until ruptures force a reckoning.

List of Sources for the Analysis of Lesser-Known Truths in the Davos 2026 Speeches. Below is a compiled list of sources referenced or used to support the claims in the blog post. These are drawn from credible reports, articles, fact-checks, and analyses that align with the historical context, examples, and criticisms discussed. I’ve grouped them by speech for clarity, including titles, publication dates (where available), URLs, and brief descriptions of relevance. Note that some sources were selected for their direct relevance to the “under-the-surface” truths that challenge mainstream narratives. If a source is cited inline in the list, it uses the render component for proper attribution.

Tennessee sues BlackRock over ‘misleading’ ESG strategy – Banking Dive (Dec 19, 2023) – https://www.bankingdive.com/news/tennessee-sues-blackrock-esg-strategy-larry-fink/702949 – Details lawsuits against BlackRock for misleading ESG claims, highlighting politicization and underperformance.
BlackRock Gets Legal Warning Over ESG Funds From Mississippi – Insurance Journal (Mar 28, 2024) – https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/southeast/2024/03/28/766782.htm – Covers warnings and criticisms of Fink’s ESG push as hypocritical amid backlash.
BlackRock hit by suit over ESG from Tennessee attorney general – Pensions & Investments (Dec 18, 2023) – https://www.pionline.com/esg/esg-suit-filed-against-blackrock-tennessee – Reports on legal actions accusing BlackRock of deceptive ESG practices.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink, who faced intense backlash for championing ESG, says he’s ‘ashamed’ the topic has become politicized – Yahoo Finance (Jun 26, 2023) – https://finance.yahoo.com/news/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-championed-185205296.html – Discusses Fink’s retreat from ESG amid criticisms of cronyism.
Court Says Inclusion of ESG Funds Could Breach Duty of Loyalty – PSCA (Jan 13, 2025) – https://www.psca.org/news/psca-news/2025/1/court-says-inclusion-of-esg-funds-could-breach-duty-of-loyalty – Links ESG activism to potential fiduciary breaches.
Blackrock CEO Thinking Twice on Discriminatory ‘ESG’ Strategy? Hardly – NSSF (Jul 5, 2023) – https://www.nssf.org/articles/blackrock-ceo-thinking-twice-on-discriminatory-esg-strategy-hardly – Critiques BlackRock’s ESG as profit-driven despite public reform rhetoric.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink pushed to exit over ESG ‘hypocrisy’ – New York Post (Dec 7, 2022) – https://nypost.com/2022/12/07/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-pushed-to-exit-over-esg-hypocrisy – Highlights calls for Fink’s resignation over perceived ESG hypocrisy.
Mississippi hits BlackRock with cease and desist order over ESG investments – Legal Dive (Mar 28, 2024) – https://www.legaldive.com/news/mississippi-hits-blackrock-with-cease-desist-over-esg-investments-larry-fink/711662 – Legal actions against misleading ESG claims.
BlackRock CEO Larry Fink warned over ESG – The Corporate Governance Institute – https://www.thecorporategovernanceinstitute.com/insights/news-analysis/blackrock-ceo-larry-fink-gets-a-warning-on-esg – Warns of criticisms on both sides of ESG debate.
BlackRock’s Claim of Green Investment Has Always Been a Sham – Jacobin (Dec 19, 2023) – https://jacobin.com/2023/12/blackrock-larry-fink-green-investing-fossil-fuels-cryptocurrency – Accuses BlackRock of greenwashing while investing in fossils.
Facts on BlackRock Buying Houses – BlackRock Official Site – https://www.blackrock.com/corporate/newsroom/setting-the-record-straight/buying-houses-facts – BlackRock’s denial, but contextually linked to criticisms.
BlackRock house-buying conspiracy theory – Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BlackRock_house-buying_conspiracy_theory – Explains criticisms and partial truths behind housing accusations.
Is BlackRock buying single family homes made up or are they lying? – Reddit r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer – https://www.reddit.com/r/FirstTimeHomeBuyer/comments/1ff07fj/is_blackrock_buying_single_family_homes_made_up – Community discussion on indirect involvement via REITs.
No, BlackRock Isn’t Buying All the Houses—Here’s What’s Really Driving Up Your Rent – Rutgers Bloustein (Oct 8, 2025) – https://bloustein.rutgers.edu/no-blackrock-isnt-buying-all-the-houses-heres-whats-really-driving-up-your-rent – Debunks but acknowledges real issues in corporate housing investments.
No, BlackRock Isn’t Buying All the Houses—Here’s What’s Really Driving Up Your Rent – Investopedia (Oct 7, 2025) – https://www.investopedia.com/no-blackrock-isnt-buying-all-the-houses-heres-whats-really-driving-up-your-rent-11811479 – Similar analysis on fractional ownership.

Ursula von der Leyen’s Speech (Focus on Sovereignty Erosion)

Special Address by the President von der Leyen: World Economic Forum – European Commission – https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/da/speech_26_150 – Official transcript, including EU Inc. proposal.
EU Inc: Von der Leyen’s 2026 Plan to Boost European Tech Innovation and Startups – Contextual Solutions (Blog) – https://www.contextualsolutions.de/blog/eu-inc-2026-european-tech-innovation-startups – Analysis of EU Inc. as centralizing tech power.
The European Commission launches EU Inc., the long-awaited ’28th regime’ for startups – Tech.eu (Jan 20, 2026) – https://tech.eu/2026/01/20/the-european-commission-launches-eu-inc-the-long-awaited-28th-regime-for-startups – Details on unified structure’s potential sovereignty impacts.
EU Inc.: Between Competitiveness Rhetoric and Institutional Reality – Central European Lawyers Initiative – https://ceuli.com/eu-inc-between-competitiveness-rhetoric-and-institutional-reality – Critiques EU Inc. as overriding national standards.
Von der Leyen Reveals Three-Point Strategy to Secure Europe’s Global Power – AQ1B (YouTube) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-3uNbQl45Y – Video on centralization implications.
Von der Leyen launches EU-Inc. at Davos as implementation fight looms – EU Perspectives (Jan 2026) – https://euperspectives.eu/2026/01/eu-inc-at-davos – Discusses potential national resistance.
Sovereignty Crisis – Unleashing Europe’s Innovation Power – Bondo Foundation – https://bondo.foundation/sovereignty-crisis – Links competitiveness to sovereignty tensions.
Europe to create “EU Inc” standard company structure – The Stack – https://www.thestack.technology/pan-european-legal-entity-eu-inc-go-ahead – Explains uniform rules’ impact on member states.
EU Inc Unveils Policy Blueprint: Shaping the 28th Regime – Have Your Say! – The Recursive (Dec 4, 2024) – https://therecursive.com/eu-inc-policy-proposal-ecosystem-feedback-andreas-klinger – Pre-Davos proposal on pan-European model.
What is digital sovereignty and how are countries approaching it? – World Economic Forum (Jan 10, 2025) – https://www.weforum.org/stories/2025/01/europe-digital-sovereignty – Broader context on EU sovereignty debates.
Poland joins Hungary in threatening to block EU’s budget and coronavirus recovery package – POLITICO (Sep 18, 2020) – https://www.politico.eu/article/poland-joins-hungary-in-threat-to-block-eus-landmark-budget-and-recovery-package – On recovery fund’s rule-of-law conditions eroding sovereignty.
Hungary, EU at odds over billions of euros of COVID funds – Reuters (Apr 28, 2022) – https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/hungary-says-no-obstacles-signing-agreement-eu-recovery-funds-2022-04-28 – Disputes over fund management and control.
Rule of law-related ‘super milestones’ in the recovery and resilience plans of Hungary and Poland – European Parliament Briefing (2023) – https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/BRIE/2023/741581/IPOL_BRI(2023)741581_EN.pdf – Analysis of conditions as supranational overreach.
Money for nothing? EU institutions’ uneven record of freezing EU funds to enforce EU values – Taylor & Francis (2024) – https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/13501763.2024.2406275 – Critiques uneven enforcement leading to federalism accusations.
ECJ dismisses Hungary and Poland’s complaints over rule-of-law measure – The Guardian (Feb 16, 2022) – https://www.theguardian.com/law/2022/feb/16/ecj-dismisses-hungary-poland-complaints-eu-rule-of-law-measure – Legal battles over fund ties to democracy.
Hungary, Poland, and Access to EU Funding: The EU Charts a New Course Under The Necessity of Legislation, Conditionality – University of Miami (PDF) – https://repository.law.miami.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1400&context=umiclr – Academic paper on rule-of-law backsliding and fund controls.
Hungary, Poland vow to veto EU COVID fund mechanism – DW (Nov 26, 2020) – https://www.dw.com/en/hungary-poland-vow-to-veto-eu-covid-recovery-fund-mechanism/a-55742560 – Veto threats over sovereignty concerns.
100-suspension-Hungary.pdf – Daniel Freund (Jul 2022) – https://danielfreund.eu/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/100-suspension-Hungary.pdf – Report on fund suspensions and university control issues.
EU budget blocked by Hungary and Poland over rule of law issue – BBC (Nov 16, 2020) – https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-54964858 – Blockade due to perceived overreach.
Poland is obligated to investigate the potential misuse of funds from the EU’s Recovery and … – TVP World (Facebook) – https://www.facebook.com/tvpworldcom/posts/poland-is-obligated-to-investigate-the-potential-misuse-of-funds-from-the-eus-re/1364125085716147 – On misuse investigations tied to federalism.

Mark Carney’s Speech (Focus on Moral Compromises and China Ties)

Canada’s deal with China signals it is serious about shift from US – BBC – https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cm24k6kk1rko – On strategic shift, including human rights “red lines.”
Mark Carney in China positions Canada for ‘the world as it is, not as we wish it’ – The Guardian (Jan 17, 2026) – https://www.theguardian.com/world/2026/jan/17/mark-carney-in-china-positions-canada-for-the-world-as-it-is-not-as-we-wish-it – Critiques pragmatism over principles.
Joe Varner: Praising Beijing’s ‘new world order’ a costly misstep for Carney — and Canada – National Post – https://nationalpost.com/opinion/praising-beijings-new-world-order-a-costly-misstep-for-carney-and-canada – Direct criticism of moral compromises.
Carney asked about human rights after announcing preliminary deal with China – Reddit r/CanadaPolitics – https://www.reddit.com/r/CanadaPolitics/comments/1qeo07e/carney_asked_about_human_rights_after_announcing – Community debate on rights vs. trade.
Carney asked about human rights after announcing preliminary deal with China – CBC (Video) – https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/video/9.7048072 – Interview on human rights concerns.
What’s edging Canada and China close? – Al Jazeera Inside Story (YouTube) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=42lTdHP0G8Y – Analysis of “historic” deals amid criticisms.
Mark Carney Heads to Beijing to Discuss Canada-China Relations as U.S. Outlook Darkens – The New York Times (Jan 14, 2026) – https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/14/world/canada/carney-trip-china-relations-trump.html – Human rights groups’ petitions against compromises.
Mark Carney must explain how he has gone from saying China was Canada’s ‘biggest … – Glen Motz (Facebook) – https://www.facebook.com/GlenMotz/posts/mark-carney-must-explain-how-he-has-gone-from-saying-china-was-canadas-biggest-s/1319642096634181 – Calls out interference and abuses.
Canada-Trump tensions grow after Carney ‘rupture’ speech – The Hill – https://thehill.com/policy/international/5703219-carney-trump-tensions-rise – Links to opposition criticism of China deals.
A moment worth watching. Mark Carney just delivered the kind of clear‑eyed, unapologetically Canadian leadership the world needs – Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTvzhpUkZ59 – Praise but context on human rights in global order.
Canada’s Carney says ‘new world order’ still being determined – Yahoo – https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/canada-carney-says-world-order-191243142.html – On “new world order” reference raising eyebrows.
Canada PM Mark Carney spoke at the World Economic Forum, calling on “middle powers” to … – Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTxrjFrFU-8 – Ties to China partnership and “new world order” slip.
Canada’s PM Carney, China’s Premier Li confirm cooperation on economy, trade – NHK World (Jan 15, 2026) – https://www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/en/news/20260116_02 – Meeting details with Li Qiang.
Canada-China partnership ‘sets us up well for the new world order’, says Mark Carney – Irish Times (Jan 16, 2026) – https://www.irishtimes.com/world/asia-pacific/2026/01/16/canada-china-partnership-sets-us-up-well-for-the-new-world-order-says-mark-carney – Direct quote on “new world order.”
Mark Carney is leaning into a “new world order.” Canada and China struck new trade and energy deals in Beijing as Ottawa adapts to shifting global power dynamics: bloom.bg/4t0ENrF – Bloomberg (Facebook) – https://www.facebook.com/bloombergbusiness/posts/mark-carney-is-leaning-into-a-new-world-order-canada-and-china-struck-new-trade-/1302333451752745 – Meeting with Li Qiang and Xi.
in terms of the way that our relationship has progressed in recent months with china, it is more predictable (than the united states), and you see results coming from that. – Ian Bremmer (Facebook) – https://www.facebook.com/ianbremmer/posts/extraordinary-statement-by-canada-pm-mark-carney-in-beijing-inconceivable-a-year/1434614898029643 – Statement on predictability vs. US.
Canada’s Carney says ‘new world order’ still being determined – NewsNation – https://www.newsnationnow.com/politics/carney-new-world-order-being-determined – Eyebrows raised over phrasing.
Chinese leader Xi Jinping hails ‘turnaround’ in China-Canada ties as Mark Carney visits Beijing – BBC (Jan 15, 2026) – https://www.bbc.com/news/live/c9dvev9230gt – Prior meetings with Li Qiang.
euronews | Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney urged “middle powers” to move beyond nostalgia for the old global order and build new alliances to… – Instagram – https://www.instagram.com/reel/DTxR8ehFORr – Ties to WEF speech and China context.
Carney calls it a new world order, investors see an old question on China risk – Wealth Professional – https://www.wealthprofessional.ca/news/industry-news/carney-calls-it-a-new-world-order-investors-see-an-old-question-on-china-risk/391357 – Investor concerns over phrasing and risks.

Donald Trump’s Speech (Focus on Economic Distortions and Greenland Claims)

Fact-checking Donald Trump’s Davos speech – BBC – https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c301jgd1qj6o – Broad fact-check of claims.
Fact-Checking President Trump’s Davos Speech – The New York Times (Jan 21, 2026) – https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/politics/fact-check-trump-davos-speech.html – Misleading Greenland and NATO history.
Fact check: Trump’s speech at the World Economic Forum – DW – https://www.dw.com/en/fact-check-trumps-speech-at-the-world-economic-forum/a-75601073 – Debunks Greenland, NATO, and China wind claims.
Fact check: Trump’s barrage of false claims in Davos about Greenland and NATO – CNN (Jan 21, 2026) – https://www.cnn.com/2026/01/21/politics/trump-davos-nato-greenland-fact-check – Falsehoods on history and alliances.
Eight wars settled and Chinese windfarms: factchecking Trump’s Davos claims – The Guardian (Jan 21, 2026) – https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2026/jan/21/trump-davos-speech-factcheck – Dubious claims on wars and windfarms.
Fact-checking Donald Trump’s Davos speech on Greenland – DW News (YouTube) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e12yopQGrWk – Greenland and tariffs fact-check.
From Wind Farms to Stolen Elections: Fact-Checking Donald Trump’s Speech at Davos – Time – https://time.com/7355689/trump-davos-fact-check – Wind farms and election claims.
CNN Fact Checker: Trump’s Davos Speech ‘Barrage Of False Claims’ – Forbes (Jan 21, 2026) – https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2026/01/21/cnn-fact-checker-trumps-davos-speech-barrage-of-false-claims – Rigged election and wars falsehoods.
Fact-checking Donald Trump’s Davos speech on Greenland, US economy – PolitiFact (Jan 21, 2026) – https://www.politifact.com/article/2026/jan/21/live-fact-check-trump-davos-speech – Greenland and housing market claims.
FACT FOCUS: Trump highlights familiar false claims as he reviews his first year back in office – AP News – https://apnews.com/article/fact-check-trump-rigged-election-eight-wars-inflation-220f515728383d5205c3748259b2cc0f – Stagflation and inflation distortions.
Fact-Checking President Trump’s Davos Speech – The New York Times (Jan 21, 2026) – https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/21/us/politics/fact-check-trump-davos-speech.html – Greenland history distortions.
President Trump’s Davos remarks on Greenland misrepresented US and Danish history – Poynter (2026) – https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2026/did-greenland-ever-belong-to-usa – WWII bases not ownership.
Fact-checking Trump’s Greenland-focused Davos speech – PBS News – https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/fact-checking-trumps-greenland-focused-davos-speech – Misleading on Denmark/US history.
Trump’s Greenland Envoy Called Out for Embarrassing WWII Mistake – Yahoo (Jan 13, 2026) – https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/trump-greenland-envoy-called-embarrassing-224349874.html – Historical inaccuracies.
Trump’s stated reasons for taking Greenland are wrong – but the tactics fit with the plan to limit China’s economic interests – The Conversation – https://theconversation.com/trumps-stated-reasons-for-taking-greenland-are-wrong-but-the-tactics-fit-with-the-plan-to-limit-chinas-economic-interests-273548 – Coercive diplomacy critiques.
The trouble with maps: Greenland’s allure for Trump is based on an illusion – AFR – https://www.afr.com/world/europe/the-trouble-with-maps-greenland-s-allure-for-trump-is-based-on-an-illusion-20260122-p5nw68 – Map distortions inflating importance.
Greenland Is a Lot Smaller Than You—and Trump—Probably Think. Allow Me to Explain. – Reddit r/TrueReddit – https://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/1qk0jgc/greenland_is_a_lot_smaller_than_youand – Map projection illusions.
Trump’s new ‘gangster’ threats against Greenland, allies, cross line – Responsible Statecraft – https://responsiblestatecraft.org/trump-greenland-tariffs – Aggressive tactics criticism.
Trump’s Greenland Obsession Is Madness. Can’t We Just Say That? – Foreign Policy (Jan 22, 2026) – https://foreignpolicy.com/2026/01/22/trumps-greenland-obsession-media-analysis-sanewashing-cognitive-bias – Media misrepresentation of actions.
WATCH: Scholar Criticizes US Rhetoric on Greenland, Says It Threatens Global Stability – YouTube – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zyk2Obt0h5o – Rhetoric and stability threats.

THE WILHELM DOCTRINE: DISMANTLING THE IMPULSE REGIME

We need to stop flattering the Trump regime with the assumption that they are executing a grand authoritarian design. We are paralysed because we keep looking for the rigid discipline of a fascist rise, when in reality, we are watching the erratic, bombastic, and ultimately self-destructive flailing of a Hollow Regime.

We are trapped in a room, not with a mastermind playing 4D chess, but with a toddler who has found a loaded gun. The regime operates on the “Veruca Salt” algorithm: I want it now. It governs by tantrum, entitlement, and grievance-fueled hissy fits. It demands to dominate every opponent, simultaneously threatening allies, bullying neutrals, and waging war on its own population without any plan for how to sustain the fight.

In doing so, they have committed the classic blunder of Kaiser Wilhelm II, the last German Emperor: Encirclement by Incompetence. They have created a two-front war they cannot sustain, alienating the global economic order while sitting atop a fragile, debt-ridden, and running-on-fumes domestic economy.

Wilhelm’s Germany did not fall because it lacked weapons; it fell because it was blockaded. It ran out of friends, it ran out of credit, and it ran out of food. That is our blueprint. But to execute it, we must first understand the terrifying psychological and biological reality of the man at the helm.

PART I: THE ANATOMY OF A HOLLOW KING

To dismantle the regime, we must strip away the myths of the “Strongman.” Donald Trump is not an ideologue; he is a vessel.

1. The Osmotic Leader (The Louis XV Syndrome)
The “Hidden Truth” is that Trump lacks object permanence in governance. He does not hold positions; he holds conversations. His policy at any given moment is simply the echo of the last person who flattered him. Like the French King who let his mistresses dictate statecraft, Trump is an empty avatar filled by the most aggressive voice in the room. He is easily manipulated because he follows the path of least resistance to praise.

2. The Paper Tiger (The Nicholas II Complex)
For all the “You’re Fired” bluster, Trump suffers from pathological Conflict Aversion. He is physically terrified of face-to-face friction. He is a keyboard warrior who shrinks when the room goes silent. Like the ineffective Czar Nicholas II, he governs by tweet because he cannot govern by eye contact. He grants concessions to dictators not because he is compromised, but because he fears the awkwardness of saying “no” to a terrifying man.

3. The Boredom of Statecraft (The Edward VIII Factor)
He loves the role of King but despises the job of President. He finds the machinery of government incredibly boring. He destroys institutions not always out of malice, but out of neglect. He is a creature of “Executive Time,” unmoored from the reality of logistics.

PART II: THE BIOLOGICAL REALITY (THE SHIFT)

However, the analysis cannot stop at psychology. We must confront the psychiatric emergency: The Biological Decay.

We are witnessing the collision of Malignant Narcissism with Frontotemporal Disinhibition. The frontal lobes of the brain serve as the “brakes”—they provide empathy, judgment, and inhibition. Clinicians have long noted that when these areas atrophy, the brakes fail, but the engine (the narcissism) keeps revving.

1. The Removal of Guardrails
Previously, Trump’s narcissism was checked by a survival instinct. That instinct is physically eroding. He is no longer calculating the risk of his outbursts; he is simply surrendering to the impulse. This explains the shift from Theatre (2016’s performative bullying) to Reality (today’s raw enforcement). A bully posturing is manageable; a bully who has lost the neurological capacity to distinguish between an intrusive thought and an executive order is an existential threat.

2. The Physiology of Shame
We must also acknowledge the physical decline—the incontinence, the slurred speech, the confusion. For a Narcissist, image is god. To lose control of one’s own body is the ultimate humiliation. This internal shame fuels external rage. He is lashing out at the country because he cannot command his own biology. He is a “Sundowning Caesar,” raging at the dying of the light, but he still holds the nuclear codes.

PART III: OPERATION SUPPLY SHOCK

You cannot negotiate with dementia. You cannot deter a man who has lost the capacity for foresight. Therefore, our strategy is not to fight him, but to starve the regime.

The regime relies on resources it does not own: data, credit, legitimacy, and professional services. We must make the cost of those resources ruinous. The question we force on every enabler is: “Is it now more expensive to comply than it is to resist?”

1. The International Front: Data Sovereignty
The regime runs on “services and data” as much as oil and bombs. The EU, UK, and Japan must weaponise their regulatory power. If US tech giants act as the surveillance arm of a hostile regime, allied nations must threaten IP Nullification. They must say: “If you function as a tool of the Trump regime, your patents are void here. Your data transfer agreements are suspended.” We force the boardrooms of Silicon Valley to choose: The Kaiser or the Global Market?

2. The Financial Front: The Bond Vigilantes
The regime is funding its tantrums on a national credit card. We must shatter the illusion that US Treasuries are a “safe asset.” We organise a divestment campaign that treats US debt under this regime as “Toxic Assets.” If pension funds and sovereign wealth funds stop showing up at the bond auctions, yields spike. Borrowing costs skyrocket. The regime’s ability to buy loyalty evaporates. A tyrant with no money is just a crazy old man shouting at clouds.

3. The Internal Front: Weaponised Boredom
Inside the machinery of the state, we advocate for Malicious Compliance. When the regime appoints a “Caligula’s Horse” to run an agency, the civil servants must not quit. They must become sand in the gears. Demand written clarification for every unethical order. Misunderstand instructions. Slow-walk every approval. Weaponise the President’s short attention span. If a fascist plot takes three weeks of boring meetings to execute, he will lose interest.

4. The Social Front: Reputational Nuclear Winter
We strip the cover of “neutrality.” The lawyers, consultants, and accountants facilitating this regime are the “Good Germans” of the 2020s. We must make them pariahs. If a law firm argues for the regime’s abuses, they lose all its corporate clients. We personalise the cost. We make it so that collaboration with the regime is professional suicide.

THE ENDGAME

The Trump regime is a Golden Goose that demands to be fed. It has no strategy for what to do when the food runs out.

They are counting on us to play by the old rules, to protest in designated zones while they loot the treasury. Instead, we are going to cut the power. We will spike their borrowing costs, blockade their data, gum up their agencies, and shun their enablers.

They want a war of attention. We will give them a war of attrition.
They want it all, and they want it now. We ensure they get nothing but the bill.

Dementing, Despotic, Derranged. What To Do When The President’s Brain Is Missing.

We need to have a serious chat about the tidal wave of noise coming from the other side of the pond because it feels overwhelming. It feels like we are watching a grand, terrifying master plan unfold. Steve Bannon’s flood the zone with shit doctrine is running on steroids. However, I want us to pause, take a deep breath, and look closer at what is actually happening. We are not trapped in a room with a chess grandmaster. We are locked in a supermarket aisle with a toddler who has found a loaded gun and is demanding a chocolate bar.

This is the sceaming Toddler approach to governance. It screams “I want it now” with zero regard for the consequences or the cost. The regime threatens allies, bullies neutrals, and wages war on its own population all at once. It is a display of insatiable greed and grievance. Yet this chaotic flailing reveals a massive fragility. They have committed the classic blunder of Kaiser Wilhelm II by encircling themselves with incompetence. They have started a fight on every front while sitting on a crumbling economy and running on borrowed time.

We can find comfort in understanding the human reality here. The man at the centre is not an ideologue. He is a hollow vessel. Think of Louis XV, whose policy was merely an echo of the last person who flattered him. Trump holds conversations, not positions. He absorbs the energy of the most aggressive voice in the room because agreeing is easier than thinking. He is a paper tiger, terrified of genuine face-to-face conflict, governing by digital shouting because the friction of real human contact is too frightening for him. He loves the role of King but finds the actual job of President terribly boring.

Then we have the biology of it all. We must look at this with a clinician’s eye and a bit of kindness for the human condition, even as we acknowledge the danger. We are watching the collision of malignant narcissism with frontotemporal disinhibition. The frontal lobes are the brain’s braking system. They handle empathy and judgment. When those brakes fail, the engine still revs, but the car has no way to stop. The shift we see now is from theater to reality. The survival instinct that once kept the worst impulses in check is eroding. He is lashing out because he is losing control of his own narrative and perhaps even his own biology. It is the rage of a “Sundowning Caesar.”

So, how do we handle a regime that runs on impulse and borrowed credit? We do not fight the noise. We starve the beast.

We apply a strategy of “Supply Shock.” This regime relies on resources it does not own. It needs data, credit, legitimacy, and professional services to function. We simply make those things too expensive to maintain.

First, we look at the data. The regime runs on digital services. Our friends in the EU and the UK can turn off the tap. We say that if US tech giants want to act as the surveillance arm of a hostile state, their patent protections are void here. We force the shareholders to choose between the regime and the global market.

Next, we look at the money. The tantrums are funded by a national credit card. We need to shatter the illusion that this debt is safe. If pension funds and global investors view these bonds as toxic assets issued by an unstable government, borrowing costs will skyrocket. A tyrant with no money is effectively silenced.

Then we have the internal machinery. We call for a creative kind of friction. We encourage the civil servants and the workers to stay in the room and become the sand in the gears. We use malicious compliance. We demand written clarification for every order that is unclear. We slow-walk the paperwork. We weaponise the boredom. If a dangerous plan takes three weeks of tedious meetings to execute, this President will lose interest and move on to the next shiny object.

Finally, we address the enablers. We strip away the comfort of neutrality. The lawyers and consultants helping this operate need to feel the social cost. We make it clear that facilitating this regime is professional suicide. We decline their dinner invitations. We close our wallets to their firms.

The Trump regime is a Golden Goose demanding endless attention and resources. It has no strategy for when the larder is empty. They are counting on us to play by the old rules. Instead, we are going to cut the power, spike the costs, and block the data. They want everything, and they want it immediately.

We are going to ensure they get nothing but the bill, and you won’t believe the total…

We need to talk critically about Farage and his team of Tory drop-outs.

Farage is attracting dead Tories to him like a body collector during the bubonic plague. We have a tax-avoiding Bond Villain with a penchant for tax avoidance, a nutty bonkbuster writer with a record of nepotism, huge expenses and unparalleled stupidity, and honest Bob, a failed Tory Leadership candidate, who’d rather line the pockets of his mates and confront fair dodgers on the tube in search of clicks than offer any serious political thoughts on how to get out of the situation the Tories and Farage’s Brexit created.

They are not alone; they are part of a parcel of rogues, rats jumping onto the vile vessel ‘Reform’ as an act of political survival, defection and infection in one move. Let’s list them for the sake of completeness:

Lee Anderson, the potty-mouthed ex-chairman of the Tory Party and paid pub bore on GBNews; Jonathan Gullis, the unemployed windbag blaming “woke” witchcraft for his unemployment. David Jones, the expense-swindling bigot who pocketed £81k from a public flat flip while deeming gay parents unfit for kiddie-rearing; Dame Andrea Jenkyns, the bird-flipping banshee who claims Reform bribes lured her in; Danny Kruger, the shadowy scripture-thumper under fire for £55k anti-euthanasia slush funds, peddling “cultural Marxism” paranoia against mercy killings; Lucy Allan, the threat-faking fabulist who doctored videos to smear foes and bullied staff with venomous voicemails till they snapped.

Sir Jake Berry, the out-of-touch oracle advising broke Brits to “earn more” or slash heating amid his party’s economic apocalypse; Anne Marie Morris, the serial whip-loser who casually dropped the N-word in Brexit babble like it was afternoon tea chit-chat; Marco Longhi, the sly divider bolding Indian surnames in letters to Pakistani voters to stir ethnic pots under a unity facade; Ross Thomson, the grabby ghost cleared of barroom gropes but forever stained by sleazy accusations.

It goes on, there’s Chris Green, the tinfoil tweeter sharing Rothschild rants and New World Order nonsense while decrying lockdowns as dictatorial drivel; Lia Nici, the flag-fetish fanatic spotting Brexit sabotage in every shadow, telling unpatriotic plebs to sod off while delivering deranged Boris defenses like a loyal loon; and Ben Bradley, the eugenics-teasing snob pushing vasectomies for the jobless, linking free lunches to crack dens and brothels, and fabricating Corbyn spy yarns for cheap headlines.

It has never been about Farage, not for one second. Farage is just the lightning rod. The real story is the people who finally saw themselves in him and feel validated by what they see. I believe most of them will blow away, like yesterday’s newspapers, when the cult collapses, like embarrassed fans of a one-hit wonder.

Many of them will swear they were never really into him. The Reform amnesia is going to be epic. I used to wonder how it was possible that Farage could have surged in 2016 and again in 2024, taking votes, flipping seats and shaking the establishment, given how emotionally toxic, morally vacant, and clumsily psychologically manipulative he is. I don’t wonder anymore. I think he is successful for that exact reason. He isn’t just a party leader; he is a dark mirror that shows and appeals to our worst instincts in a time of engineered economic and geopolitical crisis.

If you are a xenophobe, he’s your man.

If you are a racist, he’s your man.

If you are a Eurosceptic, he’s your man.

If you mock multiculturalism, he’s your man.

If you hated intellectual elites, he’s your man.

If you are a climate sceptic, he’s your man.

If you enjoy stirring up anti-immigrant sentiment, he’s your man.

If you’d done absolutely nothing to confront your personal issues, he’s your man.

If you are a serial party-hopper, he’s your man.

If you stiff political allies, he’s your man.

If you are a conman, he’s your man.

If you mock people’s backgrounds, he’s your man.

If you long for a toxic Daddy, he’s your man.

If you are dissociated and disembodied, he’s your man.

If you are unconscionable in every economic dealing, he’s your man.

If you lie as naturally as breathing, he’s your man.

If you can’t embrace a diverse Britain, he’s your man.

If you are a Little Englander, he’s your man.

If your ego runs riot and replaces logic with oily charm, he’s your man

If you are a sociopath who cares not one iota about other humans, he’s your man.

If you think the NHS needs radical change, he’s your man.

If you believe the 2024 general election was fundamentally an “immigration election”, he’s your man.

If you claim to have done more than anyone else to drive the far-right out of British politics, even as your party faced ridicule for it, he’s your man.

If you are Nathan Gill, he’s your man.

If you are Putin, he’s your man.

If you are Trump, he’s your man.

If you can pay him, he’s your man.

If he had only two of these traits, he could never win; but because he had hundreds of them and millions of people recognised themselves in at least one, he might. This has never been about Farage. It has always been about the people whose worst instincts were finally validated.

Farage didn’t create the cruelty; he licensed it. He handed out permission slips for hate. He is merely a symptom of a far deeper disease: collective toxicity. If there is one sentence that explains Farage’s power, it is this:

“He says the things I’m thinking.”

That’s the part that should chill the spine.

Who knew that millions of Britons were harbouring such unconscionable thoughts? A country seething with resentment over immigration and diversity, ready to undermine democracy and institutions, fueled by far-right polarisation, Russian ties, poll manipulation, and media corruption, to desperate to reclaim a sense of control, agency and identity?

Perhaps we were living in a fool’s paradise. We aren’t anymore.

They used to call the Tories the ‘Nasty Party’, but that was in the good old days. Reform has raised the bar and lowered the price of admission.

We live in far more interesting times.

The New American Empire Is Here. And It Hates You

Fortress America: The White House’s Terrifying Plan to Partition the World

Government white papers are usually excellent cures for insomnia. They are typically filled with bureaucratic grey noise, polite diplomatic fictions, and the sort of tentative language that allows civil servants to sleep at night. You expect them to be dull. This document, the newly published “National Security Strategy of the United States,” is far from dull. It reads like a manifesto blending a victory speech, an ideological tract, and a corporate hostile takeover bid for the planet written by a dementing Darth Vader screaming ‘I want’ 47 times throughout the US ultimatum to the world.

We need to talk about the sheer psychological force radiating from these pages. The opening letter sounds like a rally. Written with a cadence of superlatives and moral binaries, it presents a “President of Peace” who has single-handedly resolved eight global conflicts in eight months from Gaza to the Congo while obliterating drug cartels now designated as terrorists. It is a form of myth-making that borders on confabulation. It uses the proper nouns of diplomacy to create an impression of global reach while demanding total suspension of disbelief. The message is clear. Institutions failed you. Elites betrayed you. Only the Great Man can save you.

This narrative of betrayal is the engine driving the entire strategy. The text paints a vivid picture of a “Grievance Narrative” where the American people have been sold down the river by post-Cold War elites. These elites, the document argues, pursued an impossible dream of global domination through “transnationalism” that only served to hollow out the American heartland. It is a diagnosis that will resonate with populists from the Rust Belt to the Red Wall. The proposed cure is a regression to a hierarchical empire. The United States is defending the nation-state. But it is doing so by ruthlessly asserting its own sovereignty while treating the sovereignty of others as a conditional privilege.

Nowhere is this double standard more glaring than in the “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine. This new corollary goes far beyond the gunboat diplomacy of the past. It declares a total economic exclusion zone. The document explicitly targets Chinese-owned ports and Russian investment as “hostile foreign incursions” that must be uprooted. It threatens to rip up the commercial fabric of Latin America to deny competitors a foothold. It is a demand that the entire hemisphere disconnect from the global economy and plug solely into the American grid. The hypocrisy is staggering. The United States demands an “open door” in Asia while slamming the door shut in the Americas. It treats the people of the Global South not as partners with agency, but as inventory in a warehouse owned by Washington. By carving out this exclusive zone, the White House is effectively telling Beijing and Moscow that the world is being partitioned. It is an invitation for every great power to ring-fence their own neighbourhood.

We must catch the signal amidst the noise here. For the first time in living memory, an American security strategy ranks the Western Hemisphere as the absolute top regional priority. It sits above the Indo-Pacific. It sits well above Europe. This is the blueprint for “Fortress America” where the drawbridge is permanently up. The strategy outlines a plan to “enlist and expand” local deputies to do the heavy lifting of border security. It treats the entire continent south of the Rio Grande as a defensive buffer zone against migration and narcotics. By focusing so intently on its own backyard, Washington is implicitly telling its allies in Europe and Asia that the lease is up. They are seceding from the global order they built, taking the keys to the economy with them.

Then we reach the section that should send a chill through the chancelleries of Europe. The document explicitly links national security to demographics in a way that is profoundly disturbing. It frames migration as an “invasion” and a primary threat to the state. It warns of “civilizational erasure” in Europe and openly questions the future loyalty of NATO allies whose populations might become “majority non-European.” This is the “Great Replacement” theory codified into superpower statecraft. It explicitly racialises the Atlantic Alliance, suggesting that a diverse Europe is a weak Europe. It signals to London, Paris, and Berlin that Washington no longer views them as partners in democracy. It views them as racial traitors to a shared “civilizational” project.

The strategy brings the American culture wars directly into the situation room. “Radical gender ideology” and “woke lunacy” are identified as threats on par with ballistic missiles. It vows to root out “DEI” initiatives as anti-meritocratic dangers to military readiness. Most dangerously, it dismisses climate change as an “ideology” that subsidises adversaries, pivoting back to fossil fuels with aggressive enthusiasm. This is the weaponisation of resentment. By attaching physical danger to cultural grievances, the administration creates a permission structure for purges within the military and the civil service. They are walling themselves in while the planet burns.

For the United Kingdom and Europe, the bill for this new worldview has arrived. The “Hague Commitment” demands that NATO allies spend 5 per cent of GDP on defence. It is a figure designed to break the back of the European welfare state. But the financial cost is secondary to the political threat. The strategy explicitly states a preference for working with “patriotic parties” over the current EU establishment, which it views as illegitimate. It is a divide-and-conquer approach. The goal is to strengthen NATO’s military utility for American ends while weakening the European political project.

We must also notice the pivot on democracy. The document abandons the “hectoring” of authoritarian regimes. It signals a willingness to accept Gulf monarchies and regional strongmen as they are, provided they align with U.S. interests. Stability has replaced liberty as the currency of the realm. It is a transactional realism that strips away the veneer of American moral leadership to reveal the raw power dynamics underneath.

It is easy to recoil from the brutality of this text. It is a mirror that exposes Western hypocrisy, revealing an imperialism that was often masked as a “rules-based order.” It diagnoses real failures in the hubris of the last thirty years. Yet the solution it offers is a retreat into a fossil-fueled, ethno-nationalist fortress.

We have a choice. We can panic, or we can look at this landscape with clear eyes. This document forces us to grow up. We can no longer rely on a benevolent protector. We must rediscover a European project that stands for something more than trans-Atlantic subservience. If America is retreating behind its walls, we cannot simply wait outside the gates. We must build a new coalition of the willing. We need an architecture based not on shared heritage, but on the shared reality that climate change and inequality care little for borders, even ones guarded by a Golden Dome. America has stated clearly what it wants. Now we must decide what we are willing to build to replace it.

Read it and weep https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/12/2025-National-Security-Strategy.pdf

The Great Unraveling: Living in Gramsci’s Global Interregnum

We are living in the parenthesis between epochs. Writing from a Fascist prison cell, Antonio Gramsci described this liminal space with chilling foresight: “The crisis consists precisely in the fact that the old is dying and the new cannot be born; in this interregnum a great variety of morbid symptoms appear.”

Nearly a century later, his observation feels unnervingly prescient. The world is suspended in what can be understood as a global interregnum—an extended, unsettled transition in which familiar structures of governance, economics and social order are crumbling, while coherent replacements remain only partially formed, visible more as glimpses than blueprints.

The Morbid Symptoms of Our Time

Look around. The symptoms emerge not as isolated crises, but as overlapping polycrises—a chorus of systemic failures. The neoliberal order that defined the late 20th century stutters and stalls, its promise of endless growth colliding with planetary limits and deepening inequality. In its weakening, we witness the rise of what Gramsci might have called our era’s “monsters”: authoritarianism in democratic clothing, xenophobic populism feeding on economic anxiety, and technological shifts that pledge liberation while threatening new forms of control.

Geopolitically, the world operates with multiplying centres of gravity. The post-war liberal international order—once the sun around which global politics revolved—now loses its pull. We see this in the fraying of long-standing alliances, the return of great-power tensions many thought were historical relics, and conflicts from Ukraine to Gaza that expose the limits of existing diplomatic mechanisms. The world is not yet multipolar, but it is increasingly nonpolar—a dangerous limbo where old rules no longer hold and new ones remain unwritten.

New Powers and the Vacuum They Fill

Into this vacuum step unlikely actors. Technology titans—today’s equivalent of mercenary captains—wield influence comparable to nation-states, shaping policy and public discourse with little accountability. Their platforms become our public squares; their algorithms, the invisible hands guiding economies and elections. This shift in power echoes historical interregnums, where economic forces redraw political maps long before new structures take shape.

At the same time, the environmental foundations of our civilisation show alarming fractures. Climate change embodies the ultimate polycrisis—ecological, economic, political and existential all at once. It acts as both consequence and accelerator of our interregnum, revealing how the old growth model now feeds on its own collapse.

The Spectrum of Possible Futures

Where does this lead? Several paths branch from our present uncertainty:

The Authoritarian Resolution: Democratic norms erode further, replaced by digital surveillance states and corporate-backed strongmen offering stability in exchange for freedom.
The Progressive Transformation: A deliberate, difficult turn toward regenerative economics, participatory democracy and global cooperation centred on sustainability and equity.
The Chaotic Fragmentation: Current trends deepen into systemic failure—more collapsed states, global trade splintered into hostile blocs, climate displacement triggering unprecedented crises.
The Techno-Oligarchic Horizon: Power consolidates not in nations but in corporate entities controlling essential technologies, from AI to bioengineering, creating a digital feudalism.

Navigating the In-Between

What the idea of interregnum emphasises is agency. This is not just something happening to us; it is a space we inhabit and can shape. The “morbid symptoms” are warnings, not inevitabilities.

Meaningful response means acting on multiple levels at once:

Politically, we must reinvent multilateralism for a fragmented world—creating spaces for dialogue that recognise new power realities without abandoning human rights.

Economically, we need to build resilience—localising essential supplies while sustaining global cooperation, testing post-growth models that do not equate progress with extraction.

Technologically, we must set ethical boundaries before capability outruns governance, especially with artificial general intelligence approaching as either a vital tool or an existential risk.

Ecologically, the task is a just transition—moving rapidly beyond fossil fuels while supporting communities disrupted by both climate impacts and economic change.

Labour Pains of What Comes Next

Perhaps the hardest part of living through an interregnum is psychological. We are conditioned to expect linear progress or cyclical return, not this prolonged disorientation. The temptation is to retreat into nostalgia for a simpler past or to surrender to despair.

And yet history suggests these between-times, however painful, are also spaces of remarkable creativity. The Renaissance emerged from medieval crisis. The modern international system was born from world war’s ashes. The old must decay enough to make room for the new.

Our task, then, is not to wish the interregnum away, but to move through it with clear sight and steady will. To help birth the “new” waiting to emerge—systems centred on ecological renewal rather than extraction, on fair distribution rather than accumulation, on shared governance rather than concentrated power.

The parenthesis will close. What follows depends profoundly on what we choose to nurture in this uncertain, fertile and dangerous in-between. The interregnum is not our destination, but our crucible. What emerges from it will be shaped by what we value, whom we stand with and the courage we find in this twilight of an old world.

How The Greens Win The Next General Election

That grinding sense of exhaustion after every election in the UK has to change; we’ve had enough of two-party politics and first-past-the-post and the failed two-party system. Nobody wants to vote as a damage limitation exercise. Holding your nose, ticking a box for the least bad option, and hoping for the best, only to find the ‘best’ felt suspiciously like a slower, slightly more polite version of the same old austere managed decline. That feeling isn’t an accident. It’s the managed despair that keeps a broken two-party system on life support.

But what if that exhaustion is the signal that the game itself is changing? The 2024 election gave Labour a government, but it didn’t provide them with the courage to act on their mandate for real hope. With public support already fraying, a vacuum is opening up on the Left. And it is into this vacuum that the Green Party is stepping, powered not just by a sharp new strategy but by a tidal wave fuelled by hope. With membership surging past 124,000—making them the third-largest party and closing in on the Conservatives—this is no longer just a protest vote. It’s a movement gathering unstoppable force.

This movement is being channelled into a patient, four-phase plan to build a new politics from the ground up.

Phase One: Lay the Foundations in Our Communities. This is where the new energy is most visible. The strategy has already started not in Westminster, but in your town hall, and it’s being executed by a rapidly growing army of activists. The Greens’ 859 councillors are the tip of the spear, but the shaft is the thousands of new members turning up to canvass, deliver leaflets, and stand for election themselves. Every pothole fixed, every local renewable energy scheme approved becomes a proof of concept, building an infrastructure of trust that is powered by sheer people-power.

Phase Two: Inspire a National Conversation. With those local foundations secured by a legion of volunteers, the next step is to take the vision national. This means doubling down on a message of hope that resonates because it’s authentic. The membership surge isn’t happening in a vacuum; it’s a direct response to policies that offer a stark, positive choice: a wealth tax on billionaires to fund public services; bringing energy and rail back into public hands; rent controls to tackle the housing crisis. The strategy is to link these bold ideas to people’s daily lives, framing environmentalism not as a sacrifice, but as the essential toolkit for a fairer, more secure society—a message now amplified by over a hundred thousand voices.

Phase Three: Offer a Clear Choice in the Heartland. This is where the plan becomes truly focused, and where the new-found scale of the party becomes a powerful force for change. The aim is to methodically concentrate on over 100 constituencies where disillusionment with the old parties is highest. An ambition like that would have been a fantasy a few years ago. Now, funded by membership fees and powered by thousands of activists with the enthusiasm the major parties can only dream of, it becomes a credible alternative. This is how you create a green breakthrough: by having the boots on the ground to give voters a genuine choice, converting apathy into engagement and winning a formidable bloc of Green MPs.

Which brings us to Phase Four: Reshape the System for Good. This is the ultimate goal. The most realistic path to power isn’t winning 326 seats outright, but winning enough—perhaps 40, perhaps 60—to hold the balance of power. A strong bloc of Green MPs, backed by the largest and most engaged activist base in the country, would enter a hung parliament not merely as junior partners, but as architects of a new democracy with a non-negotiable mandate: electoral reform. With nearly 70% of the public supporting Proportional Representation, this is the moment you translate people-power into permanent, systemic change.

So, what does this mean for you, nursing that feeling of political burnout? It means recognising that the cage has no bars, and that you are not alone. The first step is internal: stop seeing politics as something done to you. But the most vital step is external. The energy fuelling this entire strategy isn’t coming from focus groups; it’s coming from people like you. When you join this movement, you aren’t just adding your name to a list. You are the fuel. You are the hands that help lay the foundations in Phase One, the voice that inspires the conversation in Phase Two, and the engine for the breakthrough that will make the old politics obsolete.

The Politics of Hope & The Economics of Care: A Radical New Vision For Britain

It is time for change, and it’s happening now. Real green shoots, new progressive ideas, are breaking through the manufactured concrete consensus that the only direction is right and then far-right.

People are resonating with that deep ache for something fundamentally different, a yearning for a world not defined by the relentless pursuit of profit or the cynical machinations of power, but by genuine human connection and collective well-being. We’ve had enough of the politics of despair, the economics of extraction. What we desperately need now is a politics of hope and an economics of care.

This isn’t just a nice idea; it’s an urgent necessity in a UK landscape dominated by a uni-party consensus that offers little more than managed decline, all while the far-right seeks to deepen the chasms between us. The ‘Friendly fascism’ and centrist authoritarianism we see here thrives on a profound lack of hope, on the exhaustion wrought by a system that consistently prioritises abstract market forces over the tangible needs of people. The hypernormalisation of austerity, the dehumanising rhetoric aimed at anyone struggling to survive, the relentless information overload – it’s all designed to drain our will to fight for something better.

So, what do we actually do? We plant the seeds of that hope, and we cultivate that care, refusing to let the cynicism of others define our future. For me, and for a growing chorus of voices, that means actively building a political movement that embodies these very principles – and that’s precisely what we’re doing with the Green Party. While others offer more of the same, praying at the altar of Neo-liberalism and allowing big money and foreign influence to dictate their every move, we are forging an alternative rooted in genuine compassion and a vision for a just future.

A politics of hope means daring to imagine a country where everyone has a safe, warm home, where our NHS is not just protected but properly funded, where our communities are vibrant and resilient, and where our planet is not sacrificed for short-term gain. It means challenging the insidious lie that there is no alternative to the current trajectory. And an economics of care means fundamentally reorienting our priorities: away from endless growth and towards meeting the needs of all, ensuring dignity for workers, protecting our precious natural resources, and fostering genuine well-being over corporate spreadsheets. It means valuing the essential work of caring for each other, for our children, for our elders, and for our environment, not just the financial transactions that boost GDP.

The culture war, stoked by the far-right and amplified by a complicit media, is a deliberate distraction from this fundamental shift. It’s designed to keep us from uniting around shared values of hope and care. We must see through it and expose it for what it is: a cynical ploy to protect the interests of the powerful by fragmenting the rest of us. When they scream about ‘woke’ ideology, we talk about universal basic income, robust public services, and truly affordable housing – the bedrock of an economics of care.

Fascists thrive on scarcity and fear. A politics of hope and an economics of care counters this directly by affirming abundance and mutual aid. We refuse to let them redefine who is ‘deserving’ of care; we insist that every life has intrinsic value. And when it comes to the Labour and Conservative uni-party, beholden as they are to big money, we expose their rhetoric for what it is: a thinly veiled defence of the status quo, offering managed decline instead of genuine transformation. Austerity instead of abundance.

My own journey has shown me that breaking through these entrenched narratives requires persistent, empathetic communication. We need to reach those who feel disillusioned, those who have been let down by decades of Neo-liberal consensus, and show them that hope isn’t naive – it’s a powerful engine for change. The Green Party’s rapid growth isn’t just about environmentalism; it’s about a fundamental commitment to a politics of hope and an economics of care, a vision that resonates deeply with people who are tired of being told there’s no alternative.

Paulo Freire’s call for critical consciousness is absolutely paramount here. We must question the very foundations of an economic system that prioritises profit over people, and a political system that claims to be democratic while being controlled by external forces. We must empower ourselves, and our communities, to imagine and build an entirely new way of organising society – one based on collaboration, compassion, and true sustainability.

Yes, the fight is monumental. The forces of cynicism and greed are deeply entrenched. But we cannot surrender. We must protect our humanity, our empathy, and our capacity for hope, because these are our most potent weapons. Join your local Green Party. Get involved. Speak truth to power. Demand a politics of hope and an economics of care, not just as abstract ideals, but as the foundational principles of a society truly fit for the 21st century. The most anti-fascist act any of us can make, in the face of managed decline and manufactured misery, is to stubbornly, defiantly, hold onto that vision and work every single day to bring it into vibrant, caring reality.

Why the ‘Common Sense’ Bloke Down the Pub is Britain’s Most Dangerous Con

We need to talk about Nigel. It’s the cognitive dissonance that gets you first. The charming common sense everyman voice, the pint in hand, the easy confidence of someone who sounds both posh and plausible. And then come the words. Bitter, divisive words, spouting the worst kind of rhetoric, but delivered as if he’s just commenting on the weather. As if it’s perfectly normal, perfectly acceptable, to speak of your neighbours and fellow citizens with such casual contempt. The truth is, it isn’t. And that gap—between the slick presentation and the toxic substance, is the most dangerous political space in Britain today.

This performance is not an accident. It’s a finely-tuned political instrument designed to do one thing: to make the unthinkable seem reasonable. The charm is the anaesthetic before the surgery. It lowers your defences, making you receptive to the simple, satisfying diagnosis for that low, persistent hum of anxiety we all feel. It takes your legitimate anger about a broken system and, with a friendly wink, points it towards a simple enemy. It’s a strategy, and it works by making prejudice sound like common sense.

Once you’ve accepted the premise, the policies write themselves. Look at the plans for immigration. They are the logical conclusion of this normalised division. Abolishing the right of people who have lived and worked here for years to call this country home? It stops sounding cruel and starts sounding like ‘management’ when you’ve been told they are a burden. Tearing up international human rights laws? It’s no longer a shocking breach of our values, but a ‘necessary step’ to deal with an invasion. Each policy is another brick in a wall built to divide us, turning the complex failings of the state into a simple story of ‘us versus them’.

Then comes the second front of the attack, aimed not at our borders but at the very heart of our communities. The war on “woke.” The crusade to scrap diversity and equality initiatives. This is the mission to purify the ‘us’ group. It’s a direct assault on the messy, complex, brilliant reality of modern Britain. It sends a clear message that fairness has gone “too far,” that protecting minorities is an attack on the majority. It is a project designed to dismantle empathy, to label tolerance as a weakness, and to give bigotry a political permission slip.

And here is the raw truth we must confront: none of this is about fixing the problems that keep you up at night. Your council tax, the state of the NHS, the price of the weekly shop—these are just the emotional kindling for their fire. The goal isn’t to solve anything. The goal is to keep you angry. It is a political model that thrives on our exhaustion and profits from our division. It is a poison that paralyses our ability to look at our real problems and work together to solve them.

So, what on earth do we do? The first act of resistance is to break the spell. It is to see the performance for what it is: a con. It means actively refusing to swallow the daily diet of rage being served up. Practise ‘informational hygiene’. Guard your own resilience as if it were armour, because that’s exactly what it is. To stay calm and clear-headed in a storm of manufactured hysteria is a radical act.

But personal resilience is just the start. The real antidote to this division is connection. This is the unglamorous, vital, and urgent work ahead. It means rebuilding the bonds they are trying to sever, one conversation at a time. Talk to your actual neighbours. Have the quiet courage to challenge the divisive rhetoric when you hear it from a friend, not with aggression, but with a firm refusal to let it stand. And yes, get involved. Join the most boring-sounding local committee you can find. Be part of the levy that shores up the flood defences of our shared civic decency.

Because that is precisely what is at stake. They are selling a story of a broken Britain that can only be saved by breaking it apart even further. Our job is to tell a better story—and not just to tell it, but to live it. A story built not on fear and suspicion, but on the quiet, stubborn, and profoundly British belief that we are, and always will be, better than this.

In more detail with links

London, UK – A range of policies proposed by Reform UK, particularly concerning immigration, multiculturalism, and equality, have faced widespread criticism for being racist, divisive, and detrimental to social cohesion, according to analyses from political opponents, media reports, and think tanks. While Reform UK asserts its platform addresses legitimate public concerns, critics argue that many of their proposals target minority groups, fuel anti-immigrant sentiment, and could erode community harmony.

Immigration Policies at the Forefront of Controversy

Reform UK’s stringent immigration policies have drawn the most significant condemnation. Proposals to freeze non-essential immigration, leave the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), and implement offshore processing for asylum seekers have been labeled as “racist” and “immoral” by opponents.[1] Critics, including Labour leader Keir Starmer, argue that such measures scapegoat immigrants for broader societal problems and normalize state-sanctioned racism.[1][2]

One of the most contentious proposals is the plan to abolish Indefinite Leave to Remain (ILR), a move that could affect hundreds of thousands of legal residents. Starmer has vehemently opposed this, stating it would “rip this country apart” by targeting neighbors and contributors to the economy.[1][3] In response, Reform UK’s head of policy, Zia Yusuf, accused Labour of telling the electorate to “pay hundreds of billions for foreign nationals to live off the state forever, or we’ll call you racist!”[1]

Further proposals, such as a 20% National Insurance surcharge on employers hiring foreign workers and restrictions on international students bringing dependents, have also been criticized as discriminatory and echoing past anti-immigration rhetoric.

Challenges to Multiculturalism and Equality

Reform UK’s stance on multiculturalism and its pledge to scrap Diversity, Equality, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives have intensified accusations of divisiveness. The party’s manifesto states it would replace the Equality Act, which it claims “requires discrimination in the name of ‘positive action'”.[4] Party leader Nigel Farage has been a vocal critic of DEI, and following success in local elections, has vowed to dismantle what he terms the “DEI industry” in councils under Reform control.[5][6]

Legal experts have warned that abolishing DEI roles could breach the Public Sector Equality Duty, a legal requirement for public bodies to eliminate discrimination and promote equality.[5] Critics argue these policies threaten years of progress on workplace equality and could embolden prejudice.[6] The Good Law Project has accused Reform UK of using women’s safety as a “cover for racism” by linking migration to sexual assault without credible evidence.[7][8]

Divisive Rhetoric and the Impact on Social Cohesion

Commentators suggest that Reform UK’s policies and rhetoric are tapping into a sense of public disillusionment and despair, refracting class anger through a racist lens.[9] The party’s success is seen by some as being built on exploiting fears about immigration and a loss of national identity.[9][10] The rhetoric used by some associated with the party has also come under fire. An undercover investigation revealed a Reform UK canvasser using a racial slur against Prime Minister Rishi Sunak and suggesting migrants crossing the Channel should be shot.[11]

While Keir Starmer has labeled some of Reform’s policies as racist, he has been careful to state that he does not believe all Reform voters are racist, acknowledging their frustration with the political status quo.[2][12][13] However, critics maintain that the party’s platform risks normalizing extremist views and undermining the social fabric of the UK.[9][10] A poll by British Future found that four in ten people believe Reform is a racist party, a perception more pronounced than that of UKIP in 2015.[14]

Reform UK defends its policies as necessary for border security and preserving British culture and values.[15] The party’s rise in popularity, particularly its strong performance in the 2024 general election and its significant presence on social media, indicates that its message resonates with a substantial portion of the electorate.[16][17] Nevertheless, the divisive nature of its platform continues to be a central point of contention in British politics.

Austerity on Steroids, Reform UK’s Plan is a Blueprint for Misery.

An election manifesto is a promise, a plan, a road map to a better world. The seductive whisper that everything can be fixed, and simply. That a broken Britain can be made whole again with a dose of “common sense.” Reform UK has mastered this promise, presenting a vision of slashed taxes and booming growth. But when you pull back the curtain on the grand pronouncements, you don’t find a politics of hope. You find the ghost of failed ideas, a familiar, punishing script of austerity and trickle-down economics designed to benefit the few at the devastating expense of the many.

So, let’s talk about the price tag on this promise. To fund their carnival of tax cuts, Reform plans to find £150 billion in annual savings. A key part of this involves slashing £50 billion from what they call government “waste.” It sounds painless, like trimming the hedges. But the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS), a group not known for hyperbole, warns this would “almost certainly require substantial cuts to the quantity or quality of public services.” This isn’t trimming fat; it’s amputating limbs. It’s the sound of your local library closing, the GP appointment you can’t get, the pothole that never gets filled. This is the quiet, grinding misery of austerity, and they are planning it on a scale that would make George Osborne blush.

But where is all that money going? While our public services are starved, Reform intends to cut corporation tax and practically abolish inheritance tax for all but the wealthiest estates. This is the tired, old magic trick of trickle-down economics: the belief that if you shower money on the richest, some of it will eventually splash down onto the rest of us. Yet we’ve seen this show before, and we know how it ends. The IPPR think tank crunched the numbers and found the wealthiest households would gain enormously, while the poorest gain next to nothing. It’s not a rising tide lifting all boats; it’s ordering another bottle of champagne for the super-yacht while puncturing the life rafts.

Frankly, this isn’t just a cruel vision for Britain; it’s fantasy economics. The architects of this plan are building a house on foundations of pure wishful thinking. The IFS has stated bluntly that “the sums in this manifesto do not add up,” labelling the entire package “problematic.” They calculate that the proposed tax cuts would cost tens of billions more than Reform claims, while the savings are wildly optimistic. This isn’t a serious plan for government. It’s a fiscal implosion waiting to happen, a reckless gamble where the chips are our public services and the futures of millions.

To see this plan for what it is—a politics of exploitation masquerading as hope—is the first act of defence. But understanding the deception isn’t enough. The most powerful response isn’t to despair, but to build. The true antidote to a politics that seeks to divide and dismantle is the patient, unglamorous work of shoring up our communities. It means looking up from our screens, talking to our neighbours, and strengthening the bonds that this ideology needs us to forget we have.

So, what’s the path forward? It begins with reclaiming your own agency. Start by practicing some informational hygiene; read past the headlines and question the easy promises. But then, take that awareness outside. Find the most boring-sounding local committee you can and join it. A library support group, a park watch, a tenants’ association. This is the real work. It’s the levy that shores up the flood defences. Because when they come with their politics of misery, they will find that the fabric of our communities is far stronger, more resilient, and more hopeful than their cynical calculations could ever imagine.

And for those of you who like facts here’s the data:

Reform UK’s Economic Blueprint: A Politics of Misery Masked as Hope

Central Premise: Reform UK’s economic proposals, centred on sweeping tax cuts and contentious spending reductions, represent not a politics of hope, but a thinly veiled return to austerity and trickle-down economics that favours the wealthy at the expense of public services and the vulnerable.

In the contemporary British political landscape, Reform UK has positioned itself as a radical alternative, promising to slash waste, cut taxes, and unlock economic growth.[1] However, a closer examination of their 2024 manifesto and subsequent policy announcements reveals a framework built on familiar, and many argue failed, economic ideologies. The party’s platform, which proposes massive tax cuts funded by equally large spending reductions, has been flagged by economic experts as “financially unrealistic” and reliant on “extremely optimistic assumptions.”[2][3][4] This analysis suggests that behind the rhetoric of hope lies a program of deep austerity and trickle-down economics, threatening the very fabric of public services and social support systems.

The Austerity Agenda: Deep and Unspecified Cuts

Reform UK’s fiscal plan is predicated on achieving £150 billion in annual savings to fund nearly £90 billion in tax cuts and £50 billion in spending increases.[5] A significant portion of these savings, £50 billion to be exact, is expected to come from cutting “wasteful” spending across government departments.[5][6] However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) has warned that saving such a substantial sum would “almost certainly require substantial cuts to the quantity or quality of public services” and go far beyond a simple crackdown on waste.[5][7]

This approach is characteristic of austerity, where broad, often unspecified, cuts to public expenditure are implemented to reduce the budget deficit, frequently impacting frontline services. The IFS has stated that Reform UK is proposing a “very different vision for the role of government,” one that involves “much lower taxes, paid for with large, unspecified cuts to public services.”[7] This raises serious concerns about the future of essential services that citizens rely on.

Further austerity-aligned policies include the proposed £30 billion annual saving from scrapping net-zero commitments and green energy subsidies.[8] While presented as a measure to reduce household bills, this move would dismantle long-term environmental strategies and could have far-reaching economic and environmental consequences. Similarly, a planned £15 billion cut to the welfare bill is aimed at getting people “back to work,” a common refrain in austerity narratives that often overlooks the complex reasons for unemployment and economic inactivity.

Trickle-Down Economics: Benefiting the Few, Not the Many

At the heart of Reform UK’s economic strategy is a series of tax cuts that disproportionately benefit businesses and high earners, a hallmark of trickle-down economics. The theory posits that reducing the tax burden on the wealthy and corporations will stimulate investment, create jobs, and ultimately benefit everyone. However, historical evidence and economic studies have repeatedly challenged this notion, showing that such policies often exacerbate income inequality without delivering significant economic growth.[9][10]

Key proposals from Reform UK include reducing the main corporation tax rate from 25% to 15% and abolishing inheritance tax for estates under £2 million.[11][12] The IFS has noted that the costing for the corporation tax cut is less than half of what official estimates suggest the long-run cost would be.[5] These measures, along with plans to raise the income tax personal allowance to £20,000, would indeed leave more money in some pockets.[11] However, analysis from the IPPR think tank indicates that the wealthiest fifth of households would gain significantly more from these changes than the poorest 20%.[13]

This approach has been criticized as a “right-wing, free-market libertarian playbook” that would do little to help the working-class families Reform claims to champion, while providing a substantial boost to the super-rich.[13] Critics argue that this focus on top-end tax cuts ignores the immediate needs of a population grappling with a cost of living crisis and struggling public services.[14]

Unrealistic Projections and a “Problematic” Package

The feasibility of Reform UK’s entire economic plan has been called into question by leading economic analysts. The IFS has bluntly stated that “the sums in this manifesto do not add up,” describing the package as “problematic.”[3][5] They project that the proposed tax cuts would cost “tens of billions of pounds a year more” than Reform anticipates, while the spending reductions would save less than stated.[3][5]

This significant fiscal gap suggests that, if implemented, Reform UK’s policies would either lead to a massive increase in government borrowing, a move that could destabilize the economy, or necessitate even deeper cuts to public services than currently admitted. The party’s rejection of criticism, with leader Nigel Farage describing the proposals as “outside the box,” does little to inspire confidence in their fiscal credibility.[3]

The Politics of Misery

By cloaking austerity and trickle-down economics in the language of “common sense” and “hope,” Reform UK presents a vision that, upon closer inspection, threatens to entrench inequality and dismantle the public sphere. Their proposals rely on unrealistic savings to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, a formula that has historically led to underfunded public services and a fraying social safety net.[15]

This is not a politics of hope for the average worker, the pensioner, or the family reliant on the NHS. It is a politics of exploitation and misery, where the burden of fiscal adjustment falls on the shoulders of the many, while the benefits flow to the few. The promise of a revitalized Britain, freed from the shackles of high taxes and “wasteful” spending, is a seductive one. However, the reality of Reform UK’s economic agenda is a future of diminished public services and widened social divisions.

Quentin Budworth

Lens-based artist, writer and musician.