Podcast
The Mother of Exiles
Hosted by Her beacon burns brightly, igniting the Counter-Attack. · EN
Each episode of The Mother of Exiles exposes Donald J. Trump’s authoritarian regime and reveals the strategies, ideas, and actions that fuel the Counter-Attack. Learn, defy, and rise against the regime.
robinliberte.substack.com
robinliberte.substack.com
10episodes
Episodes
Newest firstAll episodes
Chronicle 7: The Security State Doesn’t Begin With Force
Jan 2600:14:19Tap to summarizeReading Time: 30 minsTL;DR* Authoritarian systems do not begin with open force; they begin with quiet legal and administrative changes that weaken oversight and normalize expanded authority.* Federal enforcement deployments over the past year functioned as tests, teaching the state how much force it could use without triggering effective democratic restraint.* Minnesota marks the point where those precedents are applied directly, bringing enforcement, resistance, and institutional conflict into everyday civic life.* Democratic backsliding advances through delay and normalization, not sudden rupture, allowing power to operate through existing institutions rather than breaking them.* The United States now sits in an enforcement phase of democratic backsliding, where reversal remains possible but becomes harder as enforcement becomes routine. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robinliberte.substack.com
Transcribe →
Series 04: Order, Authority, and the Promise of Stability
Jan 2200:12:25Tap to summarizeDescriptionThis is Episode 04 of the 10-episode After The In-Between Time series.This episode examines how political systems respond when democratic participation becomes strained, and how promises of order and stability gain force under those conditions. It traces how authority consolidates, how legitimacy is redefined, and how democracy is repositioned rather than removed.By treating fascism as a mode of systemic reconfiguration rather than an ideological exception, the episode shows how continuity is maintained beneath apparent political change, and how the range of available responses narrows once order becomes the governing priority.Runtime: 12:30 minutesReading Time: 10 minutesTL;DR* Democratic fatigue establishes the conditions under which democracy is repositioned within the system.* As participation strains, political legitimacy shifts toward order, stability, and performance as organizing priorities.* Authority consolidates in response to delay, fragmentation, and coordination pressure within existing institutions.* Fascism is analyzed as a systemic reconfiguration of authority and legitimacy within continuity, rather than as an ideological anomaly.* Once order becomes the governing priority, the range of available political responses narrows even as democratic forms remain visible.TranscriptSECTION 1 — Democratic FatigueDemocratic fatigue was fully discussed in Episode 03, Democracy Inside the System, which provides the foundation for this episode.Under a state of democratic fatigue, public participation in democracy continues, but its ability to influence has narrowed. Democratic processes repeat, but outcomes feel limited. The effort required to remain engaged exceeds what engagement can reliably provide.When sustained participation produces limited change, expectations adjust. People remain inside democratic systems, but they lower what they expect those systems to deliver.That adjustment creates the conditions this episode examines. Fatigue does not remove democracy from view. It changes how democracy is positioned within a society and opens space for other forms of authority to claim effectiveness, coherence, and stability. That’s what we’re experiencing with the Trump regime.SECTION 2 — The Promise ShiftsAs democratic participation becomes harder to sustain, the language used to justify political authority changes. Legitimacy becomes associated less with involvement and more with performance. Process gives way to results. Deliberation is retained within constraints set by coordination and execution.Stability becomes a primary political promise. Order is framed as a condition required for systems to function without interruption. Continuity is treated as a public good in itself. These promises respond directly to the strain experienced by citizens. When decision-making appears stalled, speed becomes valuable. When outcomes feel uncertain, predictability becomes reassuring. When participation feels burdensome, authority that reduces complexity appears efficient.Democratic language continues to circulate within the changing system. Elections continue. Institutions remain in place. Legitimacy is still described using familiar terms. What changes is which qualities are treated as essential. Participation becomes conditional. Debate is increasingly procedural. Dissent is tolerated so long as it does not interfere with the system’s operations. Order is treated as a condition that democratic processes must abide by.As this logic settles in, heavy-handed authority is justified as necessary for continuity. Concentrated decision-making is presented as practical and efficient. Limitation is presented as protective. The promise offered is the continuation of existing arrangements with less interruption: fewer delays, fewer visible conflicts, and fewer demands on participation.Because these promises emphasize continuity, they align with existing institutional and economic arrangements. Capital continues to circulate throughout the system. Administrative systems continue to operate. Risk is managed rather than redistributed. At this stage, democracy remains visible while its operational role narrows.SECTION 3 — Authority as SolutionAs order and continuity become governing priorities, authority is reframed as a solution. Concentrated decision-making at the top is treated as a response to accumulated delays, institutional bottlenecks, and systemic failures within democratic systems. The response focuses on decision speed and enforceability: the ability to decide quickly, implement consistently, and maintain alignment across administrative and economic systems. Authority is presented as a way to keep such systems operating under pressure.Legislative processes are described as too slow for the pace of deregulated markets, infrastructure management, and crisis response. Deliberation is framed as incompatible with urgency. Negotiation is recast as an obstacle to execution. Decision-making is centralized within executive offices and insulated institutions. Executives acquire broader discretion as long as their vision and management align with those above them. Regulatory and judicial bodies are encouraged to coordinate with executive direction rather than challenge it. Each shift is described as necessary to maintain continuity.Authority is framed as an administrative response to systemic stress. Its language emphasizes decisiveness, discipline, and command. Control is treated as a requirement for stability, and compliance is framed as necessary.Democracy remains present, but its role in the political process changes. Participation primarily supplies legitimacy after decisions are made. Elections function as mechanisms of selection rather than direction. Accountability is evaluated through output, order, and continuity rather than shared control. This reconfiguration limits where democratic participation can meaningfully affect outcomes. Authority fills the space created by fatigue and delay, promising coherence and continuity. The result is structural. Authority becomes the organizing principle around which democratic forms are repositioned.SECTION 4 — Fascism as Systemic ReconfigurationUnder sustained pressure, some systems reorganize authority more completely. Fascism is one such form of reorganization. It develops through changes in how authority is held, how legitimacy is defined, and how organization is enforced across political, economic, and social institutions.Under fascism, authority is concentrated and unified. Decision-making is centralized. Institutional plurality is reduced in favor of a single commanding center. Legitimacy is tied to performance, order, and national coherence. Stability functions as proof of correctness. Continuity becomes the primary measure of success.Democratic forms may remain visible, while their role is altered. Participation is directed toward affirming unity, and opposition to the system is treated as a source of radicalism. Pluralism is managed as a condition requiring control. This arrangement narrows the range of acceptable outcomes.Economic and social coordination are brought under tighter control. Labor, capital, and institutions are aligned toward centralized objectives. Conflict is handled through discipline and enforcement. This form of reorganization typically follows periods of instability. It presents itself as a restoration of the nation, with command and control of most aspects of life positioned as a way to reduce delay and uncertainty.The defining feature of fascism is the consolidation and insulation of authority. Decision-making becomes durable. Legitimacy is anchored in continuity. Change proceeds only within limits set by centralized power. It functions as a mode of continuity beneath apparent rupture. Structures are rearranged, authority is intensified, and stability within the existing system remains the objective.SECTION 5 — Democracy Deferred or DisplacedAs authority consolidates, democracy changes position within the system. It remains formally present while decision-making moves into insulated institutional settings. Its public-facing role centers on validating outcomes rather than shaping them.Democratic participation is organized around discrete moments. Electoral procedures continue on formal schedules, with their competitive scope and consequences increasingly constrained. Public input is invited after agendas and boundaries have already been set. The public’s ability to shape outcomes shrinks even as democratic forms remain visible.Decisions with the greatest structural impact are developed earlier in the process, within executive offices, security frameworks, and aligned institutions. Participation occurs after those decisions have been narrowed. Under these conditions, democracy functions as confirmation. Participation registers acceptance. Consent follows action. Legitimacy accumulates through acknowledgment rather than authorship.The burden of legitimacy shifts onto the public, even as its capacity to shape outcomes continues to contract. Democracy remains embedded in the structure. Its public-facing role continues to center on registering consent. Power is organized within insulated decision-making centers, and democratic processes record public alignment with decisions made within those centers.SECTION 6 — Structural ContinuityAs authority consolidates and democratic participation is repositioned, continuity...
Transcribe →
Chronicle 06: What Happens When Leaders Seize The Economy
Jan 1900:09:54Tap to summarizePreviewThis 10-minute audio blog examines what happens when economic policies stall growth and political leaders face a choice: change course or find someone else to blame. This Chronicle traces how attacks on the Federal Reserve follow a familiar historical pattern in which leaders seize economic authority to avoid responsibility—and what that choice has produced before.Reading Time: ~9 minutesTL;DR* Trump’s escalating attacks on the Federal Reserve are rooted in economic stagnation and the need to assign blame for policy-driven failures.* Independent economic institutions often become targets when leaders seek control without accepting responsibility.* History shows this pattern clearly in Nazi Germany, military-dictatorship–era Chile, and post-Soviet Russia.* Politicizing economic authority weakens institutions, distorts markets, and deepens long-term instability before collapse is visible.* Naming the pattern and resisting normalization matter while institutional independence still exists.1. What Is Happening NowIn recent weeks, Donald Trump has escalated his public and institutional attacks on Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell. He has accused Powell of incompetence, openly discussed removing him, and allowed a criminal investigation into the Federal Reserve’s headquarters renovation to be framed as mismanagement and dishonesty. At the same time, his administration has intensified its broader campaign against the Federal Reserve’s independence.These events are not isolated. They are happening in the context of a stagnant economy, rising uncertainty, and growing public frustration with the cost of living and economic instability.2. The Pressure to Assign BlameWhen an economy stalls, political power looks for somewhere to place responsibility. In this case, the White House has chosen the Federal Reserve.This episode is about that choice.3. Policy, Consequences, and ScapegoatsThe administration’s economic agenda has relied heavily on tariffs, trade disruption, and aggressive political intervention in markets. Those policies have slowed growth, raised costs, and undermined confidence. Rather than acknowledge those effects, the administration has redirected blame toward the institution responsible for monetary policy.The Federal Reserve is a convenient target because it sits at the intersection of visibility and insulation. It has immense influence over economic conditions, but it is designed to operate independently of day-to-day politics. That independence makes it easy to portray as unaccountable when outcomes disappoint. By attacking the Fed Chair, political leadership can project decisiveness, claim economic control, and redirect public anger away from its own policy choices without formally owning responsibility for the results.4. A Familiar Authoritarian PatternThis tactic is not unique to this regime or this moment. When leaders confront economic stagnation created by their own policies, they often move to subordinate independent economic institutions rather than revise those policies. Central banks, finance institutions, and regulatory bodies become targets because they stand between political authority and economic control. History shows that once those institutions are brought to heel, blame can be reassigned and power can be consolidated, even as underlying economic problems deepen.This is not new, and it has appeared before when leaders facing economic failure sought to bring independent economic institutions under political control.5. Historical Case Study: Nazi GermanyIn Nazi Germany in the early 1930s, severe economic hardship preceded political consolidation. The collapse of the Weimar economy, driven by the Great Depression, mass unemployment, debt crises, and the destabilizing effects of earlier reparations and austerity, produced widespread public discontent and fear. That economic distress created the conditions under which Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime moved to bring the economy under centralized political control. Independent financial institutions were subordinated to the state, monetary and industrial policy were aligned with regime priorities, and economic management became an instrument of political authority. In the long term, this consolidation distorted markets, militarized production, suppressed corrective feedback, and contributed to economic collapse alongside catastrophic human consequences.6. Historical Case Study: Military Dictatorship–Era ChileIn military dictatorship–era Chile, economic hardship and instability were used to justify centralized political control over the economy. Inflation, capital instability, and public fear were framed as existential threats requiring authoritarian intervention. Under Augusto Pinochet, the military regime dismantled democratic oversight and brought economic power under direct state and military control by banning independent unions, suspending collective bargaining, fixing labor conditions by decree, and restructuring the economy through privatization enforced without public consent. Central economic decisions were insulated from accountability and backed by military repression. In the long term, this consolidation produced extreme inequality, entrenched elite control, social repression, and lasting damage to Chile’s democratic and economic resilience.7. Historical Case Study: Post-Soviet RussiaIn post-Soviet Russia, prolonged economic hardship and instability created the conditions for centralized political control over the economy. The economic collapse of the 1990s, marked by hyperinflation, asset stripping, wage arrears, and public insecurity, generated widespread demand for order and stability. Under Vladimir Putin, the state reasserted control over key economic sectors by subordinating the central bank, bringing major energy companies under political authority, and using taxation, regulation, and criminal prosecution to discipline or remove independent economic actors. Markets were reorganized to serve regime priorities, and economic power became inseparable from political loyalty. In the long term, this consolidation produced stagnation, corruption, capital flight, and an economy highly vulnerable to shocks, sanctions, and political miscalculation.8. The Pattern Reappears in the United StatesIn the United States today, economic stagnation and rising public frustration have created pressure on political leadership to explain deteriorating conditions. Trade disruption driven by tariffs, elevated prices, and policy uncertainty has weakened growth and confidence, producing the same kind of public unease seen in earlier cases. Rather than confront the role of those policies, the Trump regime has moved to place economic authority under tighter political control by targeting the independence of the Federal Reserve and its chair. Investigations, threats of removal, and performance-based accusations function to subordinate monetary authority to executive power. The result, already visible, is institutional weakening, loss of credibility, and an economic system increasingly shaped by political loyalty rather than corrective feedback.9. What Changes When Economic Authority Is PoliticizedWhen economic authority is politicized, damage occurs long before any visible collapse. Independent institutions lose credibility, policy signals become unreliable, and decision-making shifts from corrective feedback to loyalty and fear. Markets respond to uncertainty rather than confidence, and households absorb the cost through higher prices, reduced investment, and prolonged instability. Over time, the system becomes less capable of self-correction because dissent and expertise are treated as obstacles rather than safeguards. The result is an economy that appears controlled in the short term while becoming more fragile, more distorted, and harder to repair.10. Drawing the LineWhat is happening here has a name, and refusing to name it is how it takes hold.When political power damages the economy through its own policies and then moves to seize control of the institutions designed to limit that damage, accountability collapses inward. Authority no longer answers to the public; it answers to itself. That is the boundary that has been crossed, and crossing it turns neutrality into complicity.This moment will not announce itself as a crisis. It will normalize through repetition and fatigue, and it will condition people to accept control as correction and punishment as management. That normalization is the danger.The framing deserves public resistance. Language that disguises blame as oversight and power grabs as accountability deserves refusal. What is being done warrants clear naming, and the reasons for it warrant a clear statement.This conversation belongs in public life and private life alike, among family members, coworkers, and neighbors. It belongs in circulation, repetition, and defense wherever it is pressured into silence. Investigations and threats should not be permitted to launder responsibility for economic failure.This does not end when indicators improve or markets recover. It ends when people refuse to surrender economic authority to political fear.Remain engaged and remain defiant. Do not let this become normal.In defiance and in solidarity, I am, Robin Liberte’, The Mother of Exiles. Activist. Artist. Author.If this piece shook something in you, please subscribe and share, but also talk to your family, friends...
Transcribe →
Series 03: Democracy and the Price of Engagement
Jan 1500:05:22Tap to summarizeDescriptionThis is Episode 03 of the 10-episode After The In-Between Time series.This episode examines how democracy operates inside an existing economic system: how participation is shaped in advance by time, cost, risk, and institutional sequencing.Rather than asking whether democracy exists or should exist, this episode traces how engagement functions under constraint, why outcomes arrive late, and why strain accumulates even when democratic procedures remain intact.Runtime: ~5:30 minutesReading Time: 5 minutesTL;DR* Democracy operates inside an economic system that shapes time, risk, and survival before participation ever begins.* Participation isn’t a single act; it requires sustained involvement that carries uneven and cumulative costs.* Democratic processes move episodically, while economic systems move continuously, causing participation to arrive late.* Outcomes persist across cycles due to institutional buffering, memory, and momentum, not conspiracy or intent.* As strain accumulates, disengagement and volatility emerge as predictable structural responses, not moral failures.TranscriptDemocracy and the Price of EngagementHow participation is shaped by time, cost, and sequencingPeople talk about democracy as if it floats above the economy.As if it exists on its own terms.Democracy operates within an existing system. It lives inside an economic structure that shapes time, risk, attention, and survival long before anyone reaches a ballot. That system does not cancel democracy. It conditions it.Before a single vote is cast, participation has already been shaped: Who has time to show up. Who can afford to lose a day’s wages. Who can take a risk without catastrophic consequences. Who must keep working to stay alive.These conditions function as structural filters on participation. Participation is often imagined as a single act: A vote cast. A meeting attended. A form signed.In practice, participation requires sustained involvement. It asks people to return again and again: to hearings scheduled during work hours, to processes that move slowly, to systems that demand persistence without guaranteeing return.Each encounter carries a cost: Missed income. Administrative risk.Employer scrutiny. Fatigue that accumulates rather than resolves. Those costs are not evenly distributed. For some, participation is inconvenient. For others, it is destabilizing.Participation carries measurable and unequal costs within the system. Over time, those costs shape who remains engagedand who exits, not all at once,but gradually.Democracy promises equal voice. Capitalism distributes unequal capacity. These two realities coexist in lived political practice. This is why participation declines without anyone banning it. Why turnout falls without repression. Why disengagement looks like apathy but functions like exhaustion.When survival depends on private capacity, civic engagement becomes unevenly distributed. And this is where democracy begins to strain.Belief alone does not generate time, security, or leverage.Inside the system, democracy becomes procedural: You can vote. You can speak. You can assemble. But those acts occur on a schedule.Democratic time is segmented. Episodic. Bound by calendars, deadlines, and delayed implementation.Economic time is different. It is continuous. Responsive. Anticipatory.Markets adjust before votes are cast. Institutions adapt before reforms arrive. Decisions are priced in long before participation registers.So democratic input often arrives after trajectories have already been set. Outcomes carry forward through institutional buffering. Capital maintains momentum across cycles. Institutions accumulate memory. Markets absorb shock faster than publics do. Policies move through layers of procedure. Conditions shift underneath them.By the time corrections arrive, effects are already distributed. This lag is structural. The dynamic is driven by timingrather than intent.Democracy operates episodically. Capitalism operates continuously. One responds. The other preconfigures. This is why reform feels real but limited. Why victories arrive narrow and fragile. Why reversals happen quickly.The system proceeds without adjusting its pace to democratic processes. And so democratic ideals mutate. Participation becomes symbolic. Choice becomes constrained. Representation becomes distant. The field of available options is narrowed before participation even occurs.What remains viable is what fits existing incentives, existing constraints, and existing momentum. Choice persists, but its scope contracts.Inside the system, democracy becomes a stress test. It reveals where power actually sits. Who can wait. Who can absorb loss. Who can exit, and who cannot.Strain accumulates quietly. Dissatisfaction grows without rupture. Legitimacy erodes without collapse. Everything appears functional—until it doesn’t.And when democracy fails to deliver material change, disengagement emerges when participation no longer produces intelligible outcomes. Some withdraw. Some radicalize. Some look for authority that promises speed instead of consent.This response follows predictably from structural conditions. Democratic decisions are made inside processes that continue moving without waiting for participation, consent, or legitimacy. That tension never resolves. It only becomes more visible. That visibility is the condition we are now in.If this piece shook something in you, please subscribe and share, but also talk to your family, friends, and neighbors. This fight to save democracy ends when people stop engaging. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robinliberte.substack.com
Transcribe →
Chronicle 05: How Power Is Being Reorganized
Jan 1200:07:42Tap to summarizeThis 7-3/4 minutes audio blog examines how three separate developments: elite ideological shifts, withdrawal from international institutions, and the normalization of unilateral pressure, fit together as part of a broader reorganization of power in U.S. governance. Rather than treating these moves as isolated or routine, it traces the structure they form when read side by side and places that structure in historical context. The focus is not prediction or prescription, but clarity: how power is being exercised in the United States now, and what becomes visible when the pattern is seen as a whole.Reading Time: 7 minutesTL;DR* Three recent developments: elite anti-democratic ideology, withdrawal from international institutions, and unilateral pressure on other states, form a coherent pattern when read together.* Ideas associated with the Dark Enlightenment gained influence among political and technological elites, narrowing how legitimacy and accountability are defined.* The United States withdrew from sixty-six long-standing international agreements, reducing external constraint and shared obligation.* Pressure toward other countries increasingly emphasized resources, strategic position, and hemispheric dominance rather than cooperation.* Read structurally and historically, these moves reveal how power is being reorganized in U.S. governance without spectacle or crisis framing.Chronicle 05: How Power Is Being ReorganizedDemocratic rejection, institutional withdrawal, and the use of unilateral force in U.S. governancePart 1: Present Signals A pattern emerged last week: three developments reported separately pointed in the same direction. An ideology that rejects democratic legitimacy circulated among political and technological elites. Often referred to as the Dark Enlightenment, it treats democracy as a failure rather than a value. Popular participation in it is framed as noise. Elections are treated as destabilizing rather than legitimizing. Governance is recast as an engineering problem, best handled by insulated decision-makers, technical expertise, and concentrated authority. Order, speed, and hierarchy are elevated as virtues. Accountability narrows to performance rather than public consent, and legitimacy is measured by output rather than representation. At the same time, the United States formally withdrew from 66 international organizations and agreements it had participated in for decades. The administration announced exits from United Nations affiliated bodies and international climate institutions through executive action. The decisions were implemented quickly, without extended legislative process or multilateral consultation. Membership was terminated. Funding was halted. Participation in shared decision-making structures ended. The result was immediate and concrete. Fewer binding commitments, fewer venues for coordination, and fewer external constraints on U.S. policy.Alongside those withdrawals, the language of the U.S. toward other countries hardened. The administration publicly signaled willingness to use force beyond Venezuela with Greenland, Colombia and Mexico repeatedly appearing in a similar threatening way. The posture was framed inside a revived Monroe Doctrine, branded as “The Donroe Doctrine.” It aligned with the 2025 National Security Strategy’s stated intent to reassert U.S. political and economic interests, and protect access to key geographies and strategically vital assets. Venezuela’s oil and Greenland’s strategic location were treated as key assets to secure, and Mexico and Canada, where border security, trade leverage and geography were framed in terms of pressure and dominance.Taken individually, each of these actions could be treated as routine. Read together, they reveal a shift in how power is being exercised. Long-standing anti-democratic ideas gained institutional relevance within the regime. What matters is not any single decision it’s made, but how these moves fit together while still being described as ordinary. Part 2. Historical ExamplesThe alignment of theory, policy, and action is not unprecedented. In fact, it’s the standard operating principle for how government should work, until government works against the better interests of its people and their neighbors.In the early 1930s, Nazi Germany rejected liberal democracy as illegitimate and destabilizing. Authority was centralized, and legitimacy shifted toward order and national performance. In 1933, the country withdrew from the League of Nations, casting international oversight as incompatible with national renewal. Expansion followed. Germany annexed Austria and dismantled Czechoslovakia through pressure and threat, securing industrial capacity, labor, and strategic depth.During the same period, Imperial Japan elevated hierarchy and national unity over democratic participation as military elites gained influence. After criticism of its occupation of Manchuria, Japan withdrew from the League of Nations. Expansion across East Asia followed. Access to oil, rubber and raw materials was treated as essential to economic stability and military readiness. Territorial control was pursued as a necessity tied to survival.Fascist Italy pursued a parallel sequence. Liberal democracy was rejected in favor of centralized authority and national hierarchy. When international institutions condemned Italy’s invasion of Ethiopia, sanctions were dismissed as illegitimate interference. Expansion pursued territory, resources and prestige through open military force and disregard for international norms.Taken together, these cases reveal a shared structure rather than a shared ideology. Governing ideas hostile to democratic constraint gained authority first. International systems were exited or rejected next, removing shared rules and external scrutiny. Pressure followed outward, focused on territory, resources, and strategic position.These regimes did not coordinate their actions but the sequence aligned and reshaped how power was exercised while each step was still presented as reasonable and limited. Part 3: The Present DifferenceHistory clarifies structure rather than outcome. It shows how the alignment of governing ideas withdrawal from international institutions and pressure on foreign countries has reshaped systems before without dictating how it must unfold again. What distinguishes the present moment is the distribution of power.The United States now operates from a position of global economic, military, and institutional dominance. Its capacity to shape markets, project force, and set terms extends across regions and systems limiting other nations’ ability to constrain it.In the 1930s, Germany, Japan and Italy acted in a multipolar world. Withdrawal from international institutions increased friction. Expansion into other sovereign nations provoked resistance. Power was contested. Pressure escalated into confrontation because no single country could enforce its will without consequence.The present day operates differently. Withdrawal from international institutions does not generate an immediate response, particularly if it’s the United States withdrawing. Pressure can be applied through tariffs, sanctions, security threats, and unilateral policy changes without producing immediate military confrontation. These tools allow strategic objectives to be pursued incrementally, through leverage and procedure, but who is willing and able to take such action against the U.S.?Today, power is enforced through unilateral action, but international rules are followed when they align with US interests and ignored when they do not. International bodies are used to legitimize decisions already made or bypassed entirely, leaving outcomes to be determined by those who can impose economic, political, or military costs, not by who has agreed to them.What is happening now does not arrive as a crisis. It’s unfolding slowly through institutional withdrawals, policy decisions, and public threats that appear manageable, if not reasonable, when viewed as separate stories. Read together, they show how power is being organized and exercised at the global scale, a new world order unfolding before our very eyes. In defiance, and in solidarity, I am, Robin Liberté, The Mother of Exiles. Activist. Artist. Author.If this piece shook something in you, please subscribe and share, but also talk to your family, friends, and neighbors. This fight to save democracy ends when people stop engaging. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robinliberte.substack.com
Transcribe →
Chronicle 04: Warehouses
Jan 800:07:50Tap to summarizeLast week, the United States began laying the groundwork to hold tens of thousands of people in warehouse-style detention facilities.Not as an emergency measure. Not as a temporary overflow. As infrastructure.This episode is not about a single policy announcement or a spike in arrests. It is about a historical sequence — one that repeats across regimes and decades — in which detention expands faster than resolution, and containment becomes an acceptable substitute for decision.History does not repeat itself exactly. It repeats its order of operations.This 8-minute audio blog examines that pattern — in Germany, in the United States, in France — and asks what it means to recognize it while construction is still underway.Listen closely. Pay attention to what is being built, and do not mistake this phase for something procedural.(Photo Credit: Public Domain: WWII: Concentration Camp Victims, 1945 (HD-SN-99-02762 DOD/NARA)" by pingnews.com is marked with Public Domain Mark 1.0.)Reading Time: 7 minutesTL;DR* The U.S. is expanding detention capacity to hold tens of thousands of people in warehouse-style facilities, signaling a shift from deportation toward long-term containment.* This pattern is not new: historically, states build detention infrastructure before they decide what to do with the people inside it.* In Nazi Germany, camps and ghettos normalized containment long before extermination was formalized.* In the United States, Japanese American incarceration showed how legality can replace evidence, allowing detention to persist even as justifications collapse.* In France’s Algerian War, a modern democracy detained millions under “security” logic, proving mass detention can become normal governance without ending democracy outright.Chronicle: Warehouses - The Quiet Normalization of Mass DetentionThere are weeks when history moves quietly, and then there are weeks when it begins laying foundation for what’s to come.This is one of those weeks, and the good people of the United States must go into it with eyes wide open. Do not look away from this moment in history.The federal government is preparing to hold up to eighty thousand human beings in warehouse-style detention facilities.Not tents. Not overflow shelters. Warehouses. Structures designed for storage, not care. For duration, not passage.That number is not incidental. It is declarative. You do not build space for eighty thousand people unless you are preparing for something that does not resolve quickly.And that is the first truth of this moment: detention is moving faster than deportation, faster than law, faster than justification.Arrests are rising. Deportations are not.People are being pulled into custody at a rate the system cannot complete, cannot process, and cannot conclude.So the system does the thing states always do when resolution fails: it holds.This is not chaos. This is not incompetence. This is the emergence of a new normal, and we have seen this before. Not in detail, in sequence.When people think about Nazi Germany, they usually start at the end: the extermination camps. But that is not how it began.It began in 1933, when the regime did not yet know what it would ultimately do with the people it labeled dangerous. What it wanted first was control, removal from public life.So it created protective custody: detention without trial, without charges, without timelines. Political opponents, labor organizers, dissidents, and Jews, were taken out of circulation and held in improvised camps.Detention came before decisions about fate.That mattered, because it taught the public something new: that holding people indefinitely could be normal governance, not an emergency.Then the regime expanded. After 1939, Nazi Germany controlled millions of Jews. Camps alone could not manage entire populations. So ghettos were created — sealed districts inside cities — justified as security, order, disease control.Camps removed individuals. Ghettos contained populations.Both were framed as temporary. Both were administrative. And both were built before the regime decided what it would ultimately do with the people inside.The catastrophe did not begin when killing started. It began when containment itself became acceptable. That is the pattern. You can see it again when the language shifts from people to capacity.The story being told today is still about enforcement: removal, borders, law. But the infrastructure being built tells a different story. A colder one. A more honest one.Warehouses are not built for quick outcomes; they are built for waiting. And waiting, in fascist systems like this, is never neutral.The United States learned this the hard way.In 1942, after Pearl Harbor, the U.S. government ordered the incarceration of more than 120,000 Japanese Americans, most of them citizens. There was no evidence of mass espionage. Intelligence agencies said so. Military leaders said so.But the absence of evidence did not stop the policy. The problem was reframed. This was no longer about guilt or innocence. It was about risk. People were not being punished; they were being relocated. Temporarily. For security.The mechanism was legal. Executive orders were issued. Courts deferred. Bureaucracy took over.Families were given days to leave their homes and businesses. They were first held in racetracks and fairgrounds, then transferred to more permanent camps.Here is the critical point: the camps were built before the government knew how long people would be held, or what would justify their release.When that question became unavoidable, the state improvised. Loyalty questionnaires appeared after incarceration had already begun. Temporary became indefinite. And because every step followed legal process, detention no longer needed evidence to sustain itself.That is the lesson: legality can stabilize injustice, especially when fear replaces proof.The same logic appears when detention is framed as management rather than punishment. France demonstrated this within living memory.During the Algerian War in the 1950s, the French state faced an insurgency it could not easily separate from civilian life. The challenge was not identifying perpetrators after attacks.It was controlling populations before violence could be proven.So France turned to administrative internment. Under emergency powers, authorities forcibly relocated and detained more than two million Algerian civilians, nearly a quarter of the population, into camps and regroupment centers.These people were not convicted of crimes. They were classified as security risks. Courts still existed. Elections still happened. Democracy formally remained intact. Internment was framed as temporary. Preventative. Necessary. The mechanism was bureaucratic. Police assessments replaced evidence. Suspicion replaced charges. Administrators, not judges, signed detention orders. Camps expanded while officials debated how long the emergency would last.Internment did not resolve the conflict, it managed it. And because it was legal, because it operated inside a democratic framework, it became normal.Millions were held not because it worked, but because it was easier than deciding what came next. That is the throughline.Containment first. Justification later. Normalization always.Which brings us back to now. We are not watching deportations accelerate. We are watching detention normalize. We are watching a country decide — quietly, administratively — that holding tens of thousands of people without resolution is acceptable.That decision is being made now. Not later. Not after the facilities are full. Now.History will not ask whether this was meant to be temporary. It will ask why the warehouses were allowed to go up without resistance.And it will ask who recognized the moment when containment stopped being a step and became the outcome.Pay attention to what is being built. Say what it means. Do not pretend this is procedural. This is history entering its construction phase.In defiance, and in solidarity, I am, Robin Liberte, The Mother of Exiles. Activist. Artist. Author.If this piece shook something in you, please subscribe and share, but also talk to your family, friends, and neighbors. This fight to save democracy ends when people stop engaging. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robinliberte.substack.com
Transcribe →
After The In-Between Time: Ep 01 & 02
Jan 700:12:26Tap to summarizeListening Time: 12:30 minutesSeries NoteThis is After The In-Between Time, a 10-episode spoken series examining the system we already inhabit and what becomes visible once it is named.These first two episodes are presented together as an opening. The first names the system. The second looks at what that system does to participation, power, and outcomes.New series episodes will follow on a weekly cadence.Episode 01: The System We’re Already InThis episode marks the beginning of the series proper.After returning to earlier audio blogs that named the moment we are in and revealed the structure beneath it, the series now steps back to examine the system shaping modern political life.Episode 01 focuses on capitalism as the baseline environment we all live inside—how it organizes ownership, power, and expectation before political arguments begin. The episode treats capitalism as a background system that shapes what feels normal, realistic, or inevitable, often without announcing itself as a system at all.This is a spoken episode designed for close listening. Its purpose is orientation. By making the terrain visible, it prepares the ground for understanding the responses explored in later episodes.Episode 02 — Democracy Under ConstraintIn the first episode of After The In-Between Time, the system we already inhabit is named.This episode stays inside that environment and looks at what it does to democracy.Rather than asking whether democracy exists or matters, Episode 02 examines how democratic participation actually operates under capitalism. It traces the conditions that shape who can participate, how influence moves through institutions, and why outcomes often feel smaller than the effort that produced them.The episode follows participation as it encounters cost, procedure, economic leverage, and durability. Decisions are made. Outcomes are produced. But they are filtered, bounded, and compressed by systems designed to stabilize continuity over time.This is not an argument against democracy, and it is not a search for alternatives or solutions. It is a diagnostic episode, focused on recognition rather than prescription.Episode 02 concludes by naming the gap many people experience between participation and outcome, and by surfacing the time-based question that emerges when constrained systems are asked, repeatedly, to absorb pressure without changing shape. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robinliberte.substack.com
Transcribe →
After The In-Between Time: A New Series for 2026
Jan 700:03:57Tap to summarizePreview text: A new audio series on the system we inhabit, and what comes after it.Over the past year, this Substack has been a place to sit with uncertainty, to name what I called the in-between time: a moment when the old story no longer holds, the next one hasn’t fully arrived, and the ground beneath us feels unstable. Much of that work, whether demonstrated as photomontage or performance art, video or slideshows, or audio and written blogs, has been developed from inside the moment itself, as events accelerated and familiar explanations stopped keeping pace. As a new year begins under a fascist regime, that uncertainty has sharpened, shaped by events that are no longer abstract, no longer distant, and no longer deniable. We are witnessing the consolidation of authoritarian power even as unexpected political ruptures emerge within it. Some developments escalate visibly. Others challenge what has long been treated as unchangeable.One such rupture arrived quietly: the swearing-in of Zohran Mamdani, a Muslim-American democratic socialist, as Mayor of New York City. In another political moment, this might have been read as a local story. In this case, it serves as a signal: pressure within a system that has been insisting that no alternatives exist.Together, these conditions raise a question that no longer feels abstract: what system are we actually living inside, and more importantly, given this moment, what comes after it?After The In-Between Time is an audio series that grows directly out of that question.The series steps back from the pace of daily events to examine the economic and political system we already inhabit; its strengths, its failures, and the subtle ways it shapes what feels normal, inevitable, or beyond challenge. The work here is clarity. Making these structures visible allows us to recognize where they no longer hold and where new possibilities begin to emerge.The series opens by returning to two earlier audio blogs: The In-Between Time and The Architecture of Fascism. These pieces were written as part of this Substack’s ongoing chronicle, and together they mark a threshold. One names the moment we are in. The other reveals the structure beneath it. They form the ground from which the series proceeds.From there, After The In-Between Time moves forward deliberately. New series episodes examine capitalism as the baseline system shaping modern political life and explore other political traditions as responses to the tensions produced by that system. These traditions are approached through the questions they ask about power, ownership, authority, and social organization. Each episode builds on the last. Understanding accumulates rather than resets.This is a spoken series designed for close listening. It moves slowly by design. The aim is recognition, staying with patterns long enough to see how they repeat, how they normalize, and how they train expectations over time.Some pieces on this Substack respond directly to events as they unfold. They are a chronicle of fascism unfolding in the United States. Other pieces step back to examine the system producing those events. Both are part of the same project.Once certain patterns are seen clearly, they tend not to disappear.For readers looking for recent chronicle context, check out:Warehouses — The Quiet Normalization of Mass DetentionIn defiance and in solidarity, I am, Robin Liberte’, The Mother of Exiles. Activist. Artist. Author.If this piece shook something in you, please subscribe and share, but also talk to your family, friends, and neighbors. This fight to save democracy ends when people stop engaging. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit robinliberte.substack.com
Transcribe →
Chronicle 03: The Undeclared War - The First Enforcement of the Trump Corollary
Jan 500:10:56Tap to summarizeListening Time: 11 minutesPreview: The United States has carried out an undeclared act of war by seizing the leader of Venezuela, marking the first enforcement of the Trump administration’s revived Monroe Doctrine. This audio chronicle places the action in historical context, tracing how undeclared force has been used by authoritarian regimes to consolidate regional power. Venezuela is not an isolated case, it is the opening test of a broader hemispheric strategy.Reading Time: 11 minutesTL;DR* The United States has carried out an undeclared act of war by seizing the sitting leader of a sovereign nation without extradition, declaration, or multilateral authorization.* This action is the first visible enforcement of the 2025 National Security Strategy’s revived Monroe Doctrine, rebranded as the “Trump Corollary,” which asserts U.S. dominance over the Western Hemisphere.* History shows that authoritarian regimes repeatedly use undeclared external force to consolidate regional control and stabilize power at home before formal wars are announced.* Comparable strategies appear in Nazi Germany’s prewar expansions, Argentina’s military junta, Russia’s annexation of Crimea, and U.S. interventions in Central America, such as El Salvador.* Venezuela is not an isolated case: if this doctrine is applied consistently, similar actions should be expected across the region as enforcement, not exception.Chronicle: The Undeclared War - The First Enforcement of the “Trump Corollary” and the U.S.’s Return to Hemispheric Rule1. A Line CrossedThis episode is about a line that has now been crossed.Not rhetorically. Not symbolically. Operationally.Late last week, the United States carried out a military operation inside a sovereign nation. It seized that nation’s sitting head of state, and it transported him to U.S. custody.There was no declaration of war. No extradition process. No multilateral authorization.That action did not emerge from nowhere.2. The Trump Corollary DoctrineIn December 2025, the Trump regime published its National Security Strategy, a formal, public document outlining how it intends to wield American power.At the center of that document is a clear claim: The Western Hemisphere is to be treated as a strategic domain in which U.S. preeminence must be restored and enforced. The strategy explicitly invokes a modernized Monroe Doctrine, rebranded as the “Trump Corollary.”This is not rhetorical nostalgia.The document defines foreign infrastructure projects, military partnerships, and economic influence in Latin America as strategic encroachments. Rival presence is not framed as competition. It is framed as a threat. One that must be removed. In effect, the hemisphere is redefined as a managed sphere of influence, not a community of sovereign equals.That matters.Because doctrines are not descriptive, they are operational. They exist to justify action in advance. So when a state publishes a doctrine asserting regional dominance, the real question is never whether it will be enforced. The question is where enforcement will begin.3. Enforcement: VenezuelaThe seizure of Venezuela’s president answers that question.It is not an aberration. It is not an improvisation. It is the first visible enforcement of that doctrine.I lived in Venezuela during the years leading up to the Chávez revolution. My daughter was born there. Members of my extended family still live in the country. I watched the nationalization of oil framed inside Venezuela as sovereignty, and outside it as a strategic threat. That was in the mid-1990s.What is happening now did not start with Maduro, or even with Chávez. It began when control over Venezuela’s oil shifted away from foreign interests. The current operation is not one authoritarian intervening against another. It is the reassertion of hemispheric control over a strategic resource, now carried out under the language of doctrine rather than diplomacy. And it was carried out in a very specific way.There was no extradition request. No international arrest warrant. No appeal to multilateral institutions. No regional consensus process. Force came first. Explanation followed. That sequence matters more than any press statement, because it marks a shift: away from process, and toward administrative violence.Power exercised without declaration. Without debate. Without reciprocal obligation.4. Pattern: How Undeclared War FunctionsThis episode is about what that kind of move has meant historically and what it is usually for.When states abandon declarations and treaties in favor of direct seizure, they are not improvising. They are following a pattern.History gives us repeated examples of authoritarian regimes using undeclared external violence to secure regional control and domestic authority at the same time. The logic is consistent, even when the ideologies differ.The following four historical cases show how undeclared force has been used before, and why it matters now.Case Study: Nazi Germany, 1936–1938Before Europe was formally at war, Adolf Hitler tested the limits of international restraint. In 1936, German troops marched into the Rhineland, in direct violation of the Treaty of Versailles. In 1938, Germany annexed Austria through coercion backed by military threat, framed as reunification rather than invasion.In neither case was war declared. In neither case was international law enforced.These actions were justified as historical correction and regional stabilization, but their function was strategic. Externally, they dismantled postwar constraints on German expansion. Internally, they demonstrated that the regime could reshape borders and defy norms without consequence.Each success lowered the cost of the next move. By the time war was declared, undeclared force had already been normalized. The lesson here is not ideology. It is threshold testing.Authoritarian regimes probe limits not to provoke immediate war, but to discover how much can be done without one.Case Study: Argentina’s Military Dictatorship, late 1970s–1982Argentina’s military dictatorship used the same logic.Throughout the late 1970s, the junta engaged in cross-border intimidation and covert operations, justified as hemispheric security. That logic culminated in 1982 with the invasion of the Falkland Islands. The operation was not primarily about territory. It was about legitimacy.Facing economic collapse and mass dissent, the regime used foreign conflict to rally nationalism, suppress opposition, and recast itself as defender rather than oppressor.Even though the war ended in defeat, the strategy followed a familiar authoritarian logic: foreign force used to consolidate domestic authority.Case Study: Russia’s Centralized, Personalistic Dictatorship, 2014–TodayModern Russia offers the clearest contemporary parallel.In 2014, Russian forces entered Crimea without a declaration of war. The operation combined military presence, legal ambiguity, and political theater. The annexation was justified as protection, reunification, and security.The objective was dual. Externally, it reasserted regional dominance and blocked rival influence. Internally, it reinforced regime authority through decisiveness and defiance of constraint.Subsequent operations followed the same model. Undeclared force. Legal ambiguity. Normalization through repetition. Each step made the next easier. Aggression was reframed as administration.Case Study: The United States Neoconservative Democracy, 1980sThe United States has its own history with this pattern.In El Salvador in the 1980s, the U.S. did not declare war. Instead, it provided military aid, training, intelligence support, and political cover to a regime engaged in mass repression. The justification was hemispheric security: the prevention of foreign influence.This was framed as stabilization. The outcome was catastrophic. More than seventy-five thousand people were killed. Death squads operated with impunity. Civilian massacres were minimized or denied.Domestically, this policy normalized secrecy, executive discretion, and the outsourcing of violence, while insulating leadership from accountability.El Salvador was not an anomaly. It was a template. Undeclared force. Indirect control. Hemispheric justification.5. Where We Are Now: The Enforcement PhaseWhich brings us back to now.The 2025 National Security Strategy makes its intentions explicit. It revives hemispheric dominance as policy. It frames Latin America as a zone to be secured. It identifies foreign presence as a threat to be removed. The seizure of Venezuela’s president fits that doctrine precisely.It bypassed international law. It bypassed regional process. It relied on force first, and justification later. And it signals something else just as important. This was not about Venezuela alone. If this doctrine is enforced consistently, Venezuela will not be the last test case. That is how doctrines work. They are not explanations of what has already happened. They are blueprints for repetition.6. The Precedent Is SetThe question is not whether this action will be defended. It already has bee...
Transcribe →
Chronicle 02: The Architecture of Fascism
Dec 2900:18:23Tap to summarizeListening Time: 18:30 minutesReading Time: 14 minutesTL;DR—* Dictators don’t just seize power; they reshape everyday space: maps, buildings, names, and symbols; until the nation itself reflects them.* From Stalin to Mao to Mussolini to Trujillo, cults of personality turned cities and landscapes into tools of loyalty and permanence.* These monuments aren’t vanity; they are strategies to outlive accountability and make removal feel unnatural.* Trump’s first year follows the same pattern: banners on federal buildings, the White House altered, institutions renamed, his face on the parks pass, and a battleship class bearing his name.* This is fascism taking form in real time, and it demands refusal, not patience.I. When Dictators Try to Become the NationThere is a moment in the life of a country when the symbols begin to shift. It doesn’t arrive with tanks or decrees. It comes quietly, in names, in portraits, in banners and buildings. The dictator’s face appears where a flag once was. His name replaces a place that used to belong to everyone. At first, it feels like vanity. Then it starts to feel like something much more.History shows us this moment clearly.It is the moment when a man stops wanting simply to govern a nation and begins trying to stand in for it. When his image, his name, his presence start to substitute for the country’s own symbols, institutions, and story.I have been thinking about that moment a lot lately, because I have watched it arrive here, in the world’s oldest continuous democracy, and it’s weighed heavily upon me.In the summer of 2025, standing as my street performance character, The Mother of Exiles, I stared in disbelief at the Department of Labor and the massive banner of Donald Trump’s face hanging from its façade. A federal building meant to represent workers and public service had become, at least for a time, another surface for a single man’s image. The photograph of that moment, captured by Geoff Livingston, still captures what it felt like: something shared amongst the American people being quietly overwritten.At the time, it might have been dismissed as branding. A provocation. A spectacle.Six months later, that same man was announcing a new class of battleships to bear his name.This is how it begins. Not all at once, but step by step.The question is not whether any single act is unprecedented. The question is what it means when they start to form a pattern, one that history has taught us how to recognize.II. The Old Pattern: Power That Demands a FaceLong before banners and buildings, before maps and monuments, there is a simpler instinct at work. Power wants to be seen. It resists remaining abstract. It wants a face.Across history, when dictators slide from governing into self-myth, they do not just issue orders. They insert themselves into the world people can see: onto walls and gates, coins and posters, plazas and street names. The state stops being an idea and starts being a person.Historians have a name for this: the cult of personality. Hannah Arendt warned that such regimes seek not only obedience, but emotional identification: a bond in which the dictator comes to stand in for the meaning of the state itself.What unites these cases is not just vanity, but a strategy of legitimacy. When authority begins to wobble, dictators respond not by strengthening institutions, but by making themselves unavoidable.This is the ground self-monument grows from, before statues rise, before cities are renamed, before the country is carved into a mirror. Here’s seven quick examples from history.Stalin: Writing Himself Onto the MapAfter Lenin’s death, Joseph Stalin (b: 1878; d: 1953) rewrote the Soviet Union’s geography in his own image.In 1925, Tsaritsyn became Stalingrad, and it was only the beginning. Cities, streets, factories, and entire regions across the USSR took his name, turning the map itself into a ledger of loyalty.Portraits and statues filled offices, schools, and public squares. His face followed citizens through daily life, fixed in stone and paint.By attaching himself to places people lived and worked, Stalin made his rule feel rooted in the land itself. The revolution was taught to look like one man.Long before terror consumed millions, the country had already been trained to see him as part of its landscape.Mao: The Face on the WallIn China, Mao Zedong (b: 1893; d: 1976) carried his image into the most intimate spaces of life.His portrait hung in classrooms, factories, village halls, and private homes. In Tiananmen Square, his face loomed over the political heart of the nation.Power moved into kitchens and classrooms, into places where daily life was supposed to be private.Children recited his quotations. Families were expected to display his image as proof of loyalty.The revolution became presence. To doubt Mao meant doubting the world you lived in.By the time the Cultural Revolution tore through society, Mao’s face had already been woven into homes and habits across China.The Kim Dynasty: The Capital as ShrineIn North Korea, under Kim Il-sung (b: 1912; d: 1994) and his successors, Pyongyang was rebuilt into a shrine to the ruling family.Wide boulevards and vast plazas organized the city around monuments to the Kims. At the Mansudae Grand Monument, citizens bowed before towering bronze statues.Mandatory portraits hung in every home. Inspectors ensured they were clean and displayed.The city was designed to direct how people moved, gathered, and looked.Parades and mass games turned human bodies into choreography for the regime.To live in the capital was to move through a landscape that taught permanence, training citizens to see the Kim family as inseparable from the nation itself.Saddam: Writing Himself into AntiquityIn Iraq, Saddam Hussein (b: 1937; d: 2006) tied his rule to the country’s ancient past.At the ruins of Babylon, he rebuilt walls stamped with inscriptions bearing his name, pressing a modern dictator into stone thousands of years old.Palaces rose above Baghdad, dominating skylines and sightlines.Murals cast him as a warrior and heir to ancient kings.Saddam recruited history into his rule, framing himself as the continuation of Iraq’s story.By the time war hollowed out the state, his image had already fused modern streets with ancient stone.Mussolini: Remaking RomeIn Italy, Benito Mussolini (b: 1883; d: 1945) reshaped Rome to claim imperial inheritance.Medieval neighborhoods were demolished to frame the Colosseum and Roman Forum as backdrops for fascist spectacle.The Via dei Fori Imperiali cut a parade route through the city, binding marches to imperial ruins.New marble districts like EUR projected order and destiny.Power embedded itself in streets and movement.Rome was forced to tell a story in which fascism appeared as the return of empire.Trujillo: Renaming a CapitalIn the Dominican Republic, Rafael Trujillo (b: 1891; d: 1961) turned the nation’s capital into his monument.In 1936, Santo Domingo became Ciudad Trujillo.Street signs, maps, documents, and passports carried his name. Saying where you lived meant repeating it.Portraits filled public buildings. Schools taught loyalty to the man whose name marked the city.Power replaced space itself.For twenty-five years, the country’s political heart beat under his name.Napoleon: When a Republic Crowns a ManIn France, Napoleon Bonaparte (b: 1769; d: 1821) rose from revolution through popular acclaim.He presented himself as defender of the republic, won plebiscites confirming his authority, and promised stability after chaos.Only later did he crown himself emperor.Triumphal arches, columns, coins, and portraits reshaped Paris into a monument to his victories.The rituals of empire followed the rituals of consent.Napoleon absorbed the revolution into himself, presenting personal rule as its fulfillment.He showed how easily a people who overthrow kings can still be taught to accept one.III. Turning HomeI used to read about these places and feel the comfort of distance.That was there. That was then.I told myself those stories belonged to other countries, other histories, warnings meant to be studied, not relived.Then I watched the White House itself begin to come apart.Trump came promising to “drain the swamp.” He cast himself as a right-wing populist; the man who would tear down a corrupt order and return the country to its people. Like Napoleon, he did not present himself as the enemy of the system, but as its savior.It began with a promise of renewal and rescue.Instead of dismantling power, he rebuilt it in his own image, binding his rise not to institutions, but to private loyalty and oligarch money.That recognition settled in when the East Wing was torn down to make way for a ballroom built to his taste.It marked a commitment to remaking the seat of government in his own image.The distance collapsed.It stopped feeling like history.It started feeling like home.IV. The Pattern</...
Transcribe →