A few months ago, I told readers of Robin Liberté, The Mother of Exiles that I was stepping away from this work to devote my time to finishing Designing Nature’s Half: An Architecture for Conserving 50% by 2050.

I meant it and the book is making great progress. Although Robin Liberté is not becoming a conservation publication, conservation-minded supporters can follow my work on Substack at:

Designing Nature's Half

I work in conservation at the intersection of ecology, governance, and land use. This Substack supports Designing Nature’s Half, a book in progress on conserving biodiversity at scale.

https://designingnatureshalf.substack.com

I’m returning here briefly, and from time to time, because Designing Nature’s Half is about to reach an important milestone, and because the ideas behind the book have more in common with the work we have done here than might initially be obvious.

Robin Liberté, The Mother of Exiles has spent a great deal of time examining what happens when democratic institutions weaken, power becomes concentrated, and systems that people assumed were durable prove remarkably easy to dismantle.

Designing Nature’s Half asks some of those same questions in conservation.

For more than twenty-five years, I worked professionally in landscape conservation. Again and again, I watched talented people build partnerships, develop good science, and make progress across large landscapes, only to see how vulnerable that progress could become when funding disappeared, political leadership changed, or the institutions supporting the work were dismantled. The Trump regime’s recent attacks on conservation demonstrate that vulnerability.

So, the question Designing Nature’s Half’s asking is:

What would conservation look like if we deliberately designed it to endure?

The book proposes an alternative. A way for people and institutions sharing a landscape to make integrated decisions together. It ultimately explores something even more ambitious: democratic, place-based Ecoregional Cooperatives that could give that work an institutional home capable of persisting across political administrations and over generations.

That is where Robin Liberté, The Mother of Exiles, and Designing Nature’s Half intersect.

Democracy cannot depend entirely on defending institutions after they come under attack. We also have to think seriously about what we should build during “the in-between time”, which is our current reality.

The same is true of conservation.

On September 1, I’m launching a Kickstarter campaign to help bring Designing Nature’s Half into the world. Crowdfunding will help finance publication, but I’m also hoping it will do something more important: begin building a community around these ideas.

If you’ve valued the work I’ve shared through Robin Liberté, I’m asking you to take a look.

You can learn more about the book, the Kickstarter, and why I’m doing this here:

Designing Nature’s Half Is Coming to Kickstarter
https://www.designingnatureshalf.com/blog/designing-natures-half-is-coming-to-kickstarter

The Kickstarter pre-launch page is live now. If you think this is work worth bringing into the world, click “Notify me on launch.”

That one action will help us be ready when the campaign begins September 1.

Thank you for continuing to follow my work—even when the landscape changes.

—Rob(in) Liberte’, The Mother of Exiles

Share

Few people would argue that climate change, pollution, drought, or biodiversity loss are imaginary problems. Public awareness is higher than it was a generation ago. Scientific knowledge is greater. Governments have adopted laws and policies intended to address ecological challenges. Yet ecological crises continue to deepen.

Why has growing awareness not produced commensurate change?

Different people offer different explanations. Some point to political institutions that struggle to address social-ecological issues operating across large landscapes and long time horizons. Others point to economic systems that reward short-term gain over long-term sustainability. Still others argue that social-ecological issues cannot be separated from questions of democracy, justice, ownership, and power.

These debates have produced one of the most important political and ecological conversations of the last several decades: ecosocialism.

In the first article in this series, From the Green New Deal to Ecosocialism: A Growing Discussion within DSA, we explored how ecosocialism has emerged as an increasingly important topic within our organization.

This article asks a different question: What exactly is ecosocialism?

Subscribe now

Share

The answer begins long before the word itself entered political discussion.

Ecosocialism did not emerge from a single thinker, organization, or movement. It developed from several traditions that were grappling with a similar question:

Why do ecological crises persist despite decades of warnings and growing public awareness?

Each tradition illuminated a different aspect of that challenge.

Relationship

One perspective focuses on humanity’s relationship to the natural world.

Long before modern environmental movements emerged, Indigenous peoples around the world developed systems of stewardship rooted in reciprocal relationships between human communities and the lands and waters upon which they depended (Kimmerer, 2013). From this perspective, ecological crises are not simply technical problems to be solved. They are also questions about how human communities understand their place within the natural world.

Scale

Another perspective focuses on scale.

Beginning in the 1970s, writers such as Peter Berg and Raymond Dasmann observed that ecological systems do not follow political boundaries (Berg & Dasmann, 1977). If ecological systems operate at one scale while political institutions operate at another, how should societies make decisions that reflect ecological realities? From this perspective, ecological crises persist in part because the decision-making systems people use often do not align with the ecological systems they are trying to manage.

Power

A third perspective examines power.

Murray Bookchin argued that ecological crises could not be separated from broader questions of hierarchy, domination, and social organization (Bookchin, 1982). In his view, environmental degradation was connected to how societies organize power and human relationships (Bookchin, 1982; Bookchin, 1990). If power shapes relationships among people, might it also shape how societies relate to the natural world?

Bookchin’s social ecology became one of the most important efforts to connect ecological sustainability with democracy and participatory decision-making (Bookchin, 1990). From this perspective, ecological crises are shaped not only by science and technology but also by the social and political systems through which decisions are made.

Inequality

Another perspective focuses on inequality.

Environmental justice advocates observed that environmental harms are rarely distributed equally across society. These harms often fall disproportionately on marginalized communities (Bullard, 2000). If environmental problems affect communities differently, who benefits from existing social and economic arrangements, and who bears the costs?

Environmental justice highlighted the relationship between ecological sustainability and social justice (Bullard, 2000). From this perspective, ecological crises persist not only because ecosystems are being degraded, but because the costs and benefits of environmental decisions are often distributed unevenly across society.

Decision-Making

A fifth perspective focuses on economic decision-making.

As environmental thinkers examined the ecological consequences of economic activity, many began asking who controls the systems that shape everyday life (Kovel & Löwy, 2001; Löwy, 2018). If economic decisions shape ecological outcomes, who should have a voice in making those decisions?

This question helped generate interest in forms of democratic control over economic institutions (Schweickart, 2002; Wright, 2010; Restakis, 2010). From this perspective, ecological crises persist in part because many decisions with profound environmental consequences remain insulated from democratic participation and accountability (Schweickart, 2002; Wright, 2010).

Bringing The Perspectives Together

Taken together, these traditions illuminated different aspects of the same problem and offered different explanations for why ecological crises persist. They also raised practical questions. If societies are to make decisions differently, how should those decisions actually be made? How can diverse communities work together across landscapes, watersheds, and regions to address shared ecological challenges? How should ecological priorities be identified, debated, and acted upon in democratic ways?

Ecosocialism emerged as one effort to bring many of these perspectives into a common political, economic, ecological, and democratic framework. Rather than treating ecological crises as isolated environmental problems, ecosocialists increasingly argued that sustainability, democracy, justice, stewardship, and economic organization must be considered together.

One of the most influential statements of this effort appeared in 2001 with the publication of An Ecosocialist Manifesto by Joel Kovel and Michael Löwy (Kovel & Löwy, 2001). The manifesto argued that ecological crises are rooted in how societies organize economic activity and relate to the natural world. From this perspective, environmental crises persist because they are embedded within broader social and economic relationships rather than existing as separate environmental issues (Kovel & Löwy, 2001).

The manifesto did not provide a detailed blueprint for a future society. Instead, it helped establish a common framework for understanding ecological sustainability, democracy, social justice, and economic organization as interconnected concerns rather than separate political issues (Kovel & Löwy, 2001). In doing so, it became one of the foundational texts of modern ecosocialism.

Ecosocialism Today

As ecosocialist ideas spread, they increasingly moved beyond academic and activist circles in Europe and North America. The 2009 Belém Ecosocialist Declaration reflected this broader international perspective (International Ecosocialist Network, 2009). Drafted by activists and movements from numerous countries, the Declaration presented ecosocialism as a global response to shared ecological and social challenges (International Ecosocialist Network, 2009).

It emphasized that ecological and social challenges transcend national borders and require international cooperation, democratic participation, and socially just responses (International Ecosocialist Network, 2009). More importantly, the Declaration demonstrated that ecosocialism had become an international political and intellectual current rather than a discussion limited to a handful of writers and organizations.

Among contemporary additions to the subject, Michael Löwy’s Why Ecosocialism: For a Red-Green Future provides one of the clearest explanations of ecosocialism for general audiences (Löwy, 2018). Löwy describes ecosocialism as an effort to bring ecological sustainability, democracy, social justice, and collective responsibility into a common framework (Löwy, 2018).

Löwy also highlights a concept that appears throughout contemporary ecosocialist thought: democratic ecological planning. In his view, ecological sustainability cannot be left solely to markets, private corporations, bureaucracies, or technological innovation. Communities should play a meaningful role in determining economic priorities and ecological futures through democratic decision-making (Löwy, 2018; Löwy, 2020).

Exactly how democratic ecological planning should unfold remains a subject of debate. Nevertheless, the idea that ecological decisions should be made democratically rather than left exclusively to markets or centralized authorities has become an important theme within ecosocialist discussions (Löwy, 2018; Löwy, 2020).

This helps explain why ecosocialism can be difficult to define. It is a broad tradition that seeks to understand ecological challenges in relation to economic systems, political power, democratic participation, social justice, and humanity’s relationship with the natural world.

Some contemporary discussions intersect with degrowth perspectives. Writers such as Jason Hickel and Giorgos Kallis question whether endless economic expansion can remain compatible with finite ecological systems (Hickel, 2020; Kallis, 2018). Although not all ecosocialists embrace degrowth, the two traditions engage many of the same questions.

Democratic socialist writers such as Naomi Klein have helped bring related questions into broader public discussion. In This Changes Everything: Capitalism vs. the Climate, Klein argues that climate change must also be understood in relation to economic systems, political power, and social organization (Klein, 2014). Her work has helped popularize many of the same questions that animate ecosocialist discussions.

This diversity of perspectives highlights an important point.

What Comes Next?

Ecosocialism is not a single doctrine. Ecosocialists often debate strategy, institutions, ownership, governance, and implementation. What unites them is a shared effort to address questions of relationship, scale, power, inequality, and democratic decision-making while pursuing ecological sustainability and social justice. Ecosocialism represents one effort to rethink those relationships.

For many DSA members, these questions first emerged through Green New Deal organizing. As discussed in the first article of this series, DSA appears to be moving toward a broader ecosocialist framework and has begun a formal national transition process.

Yet understanding ecosocialism conceptually is only part of the conversation. Ideas become meaningful when they encounter real communities, real economies, and real landscapes.

The questions introduced throughout this article do not exist in the abstract. They arise wherever people must make decisions about water, energy, housing, transportation, land use, economic development, and stewardship of the places they call home. They raise practical questions about who participates in those decisions, how competing needs are balanced, and how communities can pursue both ecological sustainability and social justice.

They also raise questions of scale. Some social-ecological challenges are experienced within counties and local communities. Others unfold across states. Still others emerge across watersheds and broader ecological regions that do not follow political boundaries. Determining the appropriate scale of decisions and how communities can participate in shaping them is itself part of the challenge.

These questions are particularly relevant in New Mexico. Water scarcity, climate change, energy transition, housing affordability, public infrastructure, and economic inequality are experienced locally, influenced by statewide policies, and shaped by ecological systems that extend far beyond any single jurisdiction.

The next article in this series will explore what ecosocialism might mean for Bernalillo County, the state of New Mexico, and the broader ecoregions in which we live, and how these questions of ecology, democracy, scale, and others might inform the work of our local chapter and the communities we serve.

References

Berg, P., & Dasmann, R. (1977). Reinhabiting California. In V. Andruss, C. Plant, J. Plant, & E. Wright (Eds.), Home! A bioregional reader (pp. 35–42). New Society Publishers.

Bookchin, M. (1982). The ecology of freedom: The emergence and dissolution of hierarchy. Cheshire Books.

Bookchin, M. (1990). Remaking society: Pathways to a green future. South End Press.

Bullard, R. D. (2000). Dumping in Dixie: Race, class, and environmental quality (3rd ed.). Westview Press.

Hickel, J. (2020). Less is more: How degrowth will save the world. William Heinemann.

International Ecosocialist Network. (2009). The Belém ecosocialist declaration. Climate & Capitalism. climateandcapitalism.com

Kallis, G. (2018). Degrowth. Agenda Publishing.

Kimmerer, R. W. (2013). Braiding sweetgrass: Indigenous wisdom, scientific knowledge and the teachings of plants. Milkweed Editions.

Klein, N. (2014). This changes everything: Capitalism vs. the climate. Simon & Schuster.

Kovel, J., & Löwy, M. (2001). An ecosocialist manifesto. Capitalism Nature Socialism, 12(1), 1–13.

Löwy, M. (2018). Why ecosocialism: For a red-green future. Haymarket Books.

Löwy, M. (2020). Ecosocialism: A radical alternative to capitalist catastrophe (2nd ed.). Haymarket Books.

Restakis, J. (2010). Humanizing the economy: Co-operatives in the age of capital. New Society Publishers.

Schweickart, D. (2002). After capitalism. Rowman & Littlefield.

Whyte, K. P. (2017). Indigenous climate change studies: Indigenizing futures, decolonizing the Anthropocene. English Language Notes, 55(1–2), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1215/00138282-55.1-2.153

Wright, E. O. (2010). Envisioning real utopias. Verso.

Subscribe now

Share

Earth Day began as a public response to environmental crisis. This year, it also invites reflection on how we can help build what comes next when existing institutions fall short.

The breakdown of federal environmental governance raises a practical question: how will coordination be organized under accelerating climate change, ecological disruption, and fragmented authority? Climate and ecological change continue regardless of institutional failure, and the need for decisions that respond to those conditions does not disappear when federal leadership weakens. If governance is no longer being reliably carried out from the top down, the question becomes: what kind of institutional architecture can organize it from the ground up? Governance does not reappear on its own. It has to be designed.

Self-directed conservation partnerships have begun to point toward part of an answer, but they also expose a deeper institutional problem. Practitioners know that many ecological processes cross jurisdictions, while decisions affecting those processes are often made separately by different authorities, with different timelines and priorities. One decision may support progress in one part of a landscape while another undermines it somewhere else, or simply fails to connect. Over time, coordination becomes difficult to sustain, and local gains can be hard to carry beyond the places where they originated. If governance is to work at the scale these conditions demand, there has to be a way to connect decisions that are now made separately.

Subscribe now

Share

A Social-Ecological Approach to Conservation

Ecological processes do not follow political boundaries, and many of the conditions conservation seeks to address unfold across large geographic regions (i.e., landscapes), while decision-making is often organized in siloed jurisdictions and authorities. If decisions are to match the scale of ecological conditions, governance has to be organized in ways that align decisions with those processes and connect decisions affecting the same landscape that are currently made separately.

Ecoregional Cooperatives (ECOs)

One idea I have been ruminating on in my book, Designing Nature’s Half, is that of Ecoregional Cooperatives, or ECOs. The idea grows out of two related conditions: the scope and scale of the ecological challenges we face demand a new approach to conservation, and those challenges are unfolding under fragmented authority and weakening federal and, in some cases, state leadership. At their core, ECOs point toward a way of organizing people and knowledge within shared ecological regions so decisions affecting a landscape can be developed as an integrated whole rather than as disconnected parts.

Landscape Conservation Design

Producing decisions at the landscape scale requires a way for stakeholders to develop and compare alternatives together so choices can be formed across a shared ecological region. That is where landscape conservation design (LCD) comes in. In my book, LCD is the process through which inclusive participation, deliberation, and examining alternatives come together to help form integrated decisions at the scale a shared landscape requires.

Who

Who participates in the decision system matters because decisions at the landscape scale require a multi-jurisdictional and multi-sector approach that brings together the authorities, responsibilities, and knowledge needed to address a shared ecological region. But participation is not only about institutions. People living on the land need to be part of conservation and development decision-making and share in the benefits of those decisions. Who is involved shapes what options are considered and which decisions can hold.

Why

Shared purpose helps define how ecological integrity, livelihoods, conservation of ecosystem services, and long-term public benefit are considered together as part of a balanced approach to landscapes. In that sense, the premise behind Designing Nature’s Half is not only about conserving nature, but about relating the needs of nature and people through decisions that can hold over time. Shared purpose gives direction for examining alternatives and forming decisions.

How

Social-ecological alternatives are examined through a process that allows stakeholders to compare options, understand consequences, and deliberate over choices before decisions are made. But how decisions are made is not only about examining alternatives. It is also about the deliberative, democratic, and participatory processes through which those choices are formed. How decisions are made shapes both their legitimacy and their capacity to hold over time.

What

Decisions provide direction for action and yield benefits that can be recognized across a landscape, including both direct and indirect benefits, as well as tangible and intangible ones. Those benefits include ecological sustainability, community well-being and social cohesion, regenerative economic opportunity, and greater public capacity to steward shared landscapes over time. The decisions made help determine whether governance proves legitimate, practical, and worth sustaining. Those decisions must benefit nature and people.

Ecosocialism as a Guiding Principle

Designing institutions capable of organizing multi-stakeholder decisions at the landscape scale raises questions about how ecological sustainability, community well-being and social cohesion, and regenerative economic opportunity are organized together within shared landscapes. One tradition attracting growing interest in these discussions is ecosocialism. In this context, ecosocialism refers to the proposition that democratic participation and cooperative stewardship can help organize those social-ecological and economic relationships in ways that serve shared public benefit.

Seen in that light, Ecoregional Cooperatives can be understood as one possible democratic, place-based expression of those principles. Organizing decision-making and stewardship at the scale of shared landscapes does not require distant centralized control. It can emerge through cooperative institutions that connect ecological conditions and shared public benefit through democratic participation. In that sense, Earth Day raises the question of the immense environmental conditions we face and how people can organize themselves to address them through cooperation.

This is a single thread in a much larger conversation. Glad you’re a part of it!

Attend the 2026 Ecosocialism Conference, London, London South Bank University, May 30, 2026. Remote attendance available.

Subscribe now

Share

The United States just experienced its second-warmest winter on record. Globally, the last decade has been the hottest ever observed (more here). Conditions are shifting at every scale. The climate system that shaped modern conservation no longer exists. What comes next depends on how we respond—and who shapes that response.

Conservation in a Changing System

Conservation practice in the United States was built around environmental conditions that are no longer stable. Seasonal patterns that once anchored ecological processes—snowpack, runoff timing, freeze–thaw cycles—are shifting, and the systems they support are changing with them. This places conservation in a different position than it has occupied in the past. It is no longer effective at protecting systems within a stable range of variability. It is operating within systems that are actively transitioning.

Conservation Systems Out of Alignment

Taken together, the observed patterns indicate that the baseline itself is changing. The environmental conditions that shaped ecological systems—and the conservation practices built around them—are being replaced by a different set of conditions. This has direct implications for how conservation operates. Approaches developed under assumptions of relative stability are now being applied to systems that are no longer stable, with management strategies, planning frameworks, and institutions functioning under conditions they were not designed for. The issue is ecological change and conservation systems calibrated to a past that no longer exists.

Ecosystems will respond to these changes. The systems responsible for stewarding them must as well—or fail.

Subscribe now

Share

The System Is Being Driven in the Wrong Direction

The trajectory of environmental change is not neutral. It is shaped by political decisions, institutional priorities, and the use of power. In many cases, those systems are actively accelerating the problem. For instance, in the early weeks of the war on Iran, millions of tons of greenhouse gases were released, illustrating how quickly emissions can increase under conditions of conflict (more here).

Policy decisions can also take maladaptive turns, redirecting substantial public resources away from renewable energy development and toward continued fossil fuel investment (more here). These are not accidental outcomes. They reflect deliberate policy choices that reinforce the interests of the oil and gas industry that helped bring the current administration to power.

These dynamics are not abstract. They are being reinforced through political decisions. The current Trump regime represents an effort to hold onto a past set of economic and political arrangements through power and intimidation, even as the environmental conditions that supported those arrangements continue to change.

This is active misdirection.

Institutional Failure and Public Response

At the same time, the institutions responsible for coordinating environmental stewardship are under increasing strain. Political polarization, declining regulatory capacity, and sustained attacks on government institutions have weakened the framework that once organized conservation in the public interest. The environmental system is changing rapidly, while the institutional system responsible for stewarding it is being dismantled.

These conditions are not unfolding without response. Across the country, millions of people have taken to the streets in large-scale protests and demonstrations (more here). Participation has expanded, drawing in people who had not previously engaged in civic action. The scale and geographic reach of these events reflect a broadening recognition that existing systems are not adequately addressing the challenges now unfolding.

Protest and boycott are necessary, appropriate, and just. They are an exercise of constitutional rights—freedom of expression, assembly, and dissent—particularly at a moment when the very institutions are challenging the rights they are meant to uphold. They are also a signal. A signal that the public is not disengaged, and that the legitimacy of existing arrangements is being questioned in ways that extend beyond any single issue or event.

Democratic Expression and the Work Ahead

Democratic expression gives voice to public concern, builds solidarity, and can shift political pressure. But it does not, on its own, produce coordinated action across the landscapes and institutions that shape ecological systems.

The challenges now unfolding—climate change, ecological transition, and institutional instability—operate at scales that require organization, planning, and sustained coordination over time. Responding to those challenges means structuring collective action beyond institutions that have historically aligned such work, but are now being weakened or dismantled by the regime.

This is not a shift away from our constitutional or democratic rights, but an expansion of them. It is an expansion of what democratic participation must include within the conservation realm. We must exercise our rights—and we must build the systems through which those rights are translated into decisions, coordination, and long-term stewardship.

The In-Between Time as Design Space

We are living in a period between systems. The environmental and institutional conditions that shaped the past century are breaking down. The systems that will define the future have not yet taken form. The result is a period of instability, uncertainty, and transition.

This is the in-between time. A period of instability, uncertainty, and transition. Existing structures are weakening, and new ones have not yet been fully established. The direction of change is not predetermined. The trajectory is now being shaped by political decisions, institutional dynamics, and public action.

The current Trump regime represents an effort to hold onto the past through power and intimidation, even as the environmental conditions that supported that past continue to erode. It is an attempt to maintain systems that no longer align with a changing planet. But this moment is not defined only by what is being resisted. It is also defined by what can be created.

We must take advantage of this in-between time to design and build an alternative social-ecological system—one capable of functioning within, and despite, the uncertain future we now face. The conservation and sustainable use of ecosystem services must form the foundation of that system. These are the processes that sustain life, structure ecosystems, and support human communities. Any viable future must be organized around its long-term stewardship.

Future generations depend on our success.

The Required Response

What is needed is not simply reform, but transformation to a different kind of system entirely.

Within the conservation realm, that system must operate at the scales where ecological processes actually function: landscapes. It must extend across jurisdictions, connecting federal, state, tribal, and local authorities with multiple sectors—agriculture, forestry, energy, water, transportation, and housing—and stakeholders, including private landowners and communities whose decisions shape the same landscapes. It must be collaborative, participatory, and deliberative, grounded in democratic processes that allow diverse interests to be represented and negotiated over time.

These requirements are not theoretical. They reflect the conditions under which conservation already operates—across fragmented jurisdictions, competing land uses, and interconnected systems that cannot be addressed in isolation.

Most importantly, this system must be designed.

It will not emerge from existing arrangements or incremental adjustments to institutions built under conditions that no longer exist. It must be intentionally constructed as a social-ecological system—one that designs sustainable landscapes for both people and nature. One that supports communities ecologically, economically, and democratically within and across landscapes. This requires forms of organization capable of coordinating action within and across landscapes, enabling participation, deliberation, and shared decision-making beyond existing institutional constraints.

This is the work ahead for the conservation community if it intends to remain relevant and effective amid global change.

A Political Foundation

The system described here does not emerge without a political foundation. Ecosocialism (also spelled eco-socialism) provides that foundation.

Eco-socialism begins from a simple premise: ecological systems set the conditions for human life, and economic activity must operate within those limits. It rejects an economic model built on extraction, accumulation, and endless growth, and instead centers democratic control over the systems that shape land, energy, and resources.

This has direct implications for conservation.

Conservation cannot function as a separate domain while the broader economic system continues to degrade the conditions it depends on. It must be integrated into how societies organize land use, production, infrastructure, and resource allocation across entire landscapes. This requires democratic governance at scale.

Eco-socialism calls for collective control over land, water, energy, and ecosystems—not as commodities, but as shared systems to be stewarded over time. It emphasizes participation, deliberation, and accountability in the management of those systems, particularly for the communities whose lives are directly tied to them. These principles are visible in movements calling for public ownership of energy systems, just transitions for workers, and the protection of common resources. But they must extend further.

They must extend to landscape design.

Ecological systems do not operate within political boundaries or sectoral silos. They function across regions, connecting watersheds, habitats, economies, and communities. Managing those systems requires institutions capable of coordinating across those realities, not within fragmented jurisdictions or isolated sectors. This is where eco-socialism must move from principle to structure. That structure does not yet exist at the scale required, but it can be built.

From Expression to Construction

We are not short on awareness. People understand that something is wrong and are acting on that understanding—organizing, protesting, boycotting, and demanding change. These actions are necessary, appropriate, and just. They are an expression of democratic rights at a moment when those rights are under pressure.

But expression is not construction.

The systems that shape landscapes, economies, and ecological futures are not replaced through opposition alone. They are replaced by building something that can function in their place. That is the work in front of us.

We are living in a moment where the old system is being defended through power, even as it fails to align with the conditions of a changing planet. The Trump regime is not an anomaly in that sense. It is an attempt to preserve an economic and political order that no longer fits the ecological reality on which it depends. What comes next is not predetermined.

It will be shaped by what is built during this in-between time—by whether democratic energy is translated into institutions capable of organizing collective action at the required scale. That means moving from protest to governance.

It means grounding conservation in systems that operate across landscapes, coordinate across sectors, and persist over time. It means aligning ecological reality with institutional capacity. It means building a social-ecological system that can sustain both people and nature under unstable conditions.

The public is engaged. The moment is open.

What comes next depends on what we build—together, for all.

Check out these links for more information on eco-socialism and the Democratic Socialists of America.

If this work resonates with you, subscribe at

https://designingnatureshalf.com

to receive new essays as they are published.

This is part of a much larger conversation that continues in public.

Share

Subscribe now

A couple of weeks ago, I mentioned that I was stepping back to focus my time on a new writing project. I wanted to close that loop more clearly.

I’m now devoting my attention to Designing Nature’s Half — a book-centered project focused on conservation decisions that are actually made at large landscape scales, under real-world pressure. It’s grounded in the same way of thinking many of you have followed here on Robin Liberte’s Substack, but applied directly to the climate and biodiversity crisis: structure, governance, legitimacy, and the limits of systems that were never designed for what we’re now asking them to do.

To support that work, I’ve started a new “author” Substack. If you were here for how I think — not just the specific subject matter of Robin Liberté — you may find this next chapter worth following.

A good place to start is this short orientation piece:

Why This Work Exists (and How I’m Sharing It)

Designing Nature's Half

Why This Work Exists (and How I’m Sharing It)

This Substack exists because a lot of conservation conversations never quite connect…

Read more

7 months ago · 4 likes · Designing Nature's Half

There are a few other pieces there now if you want to look around.

There’s no obligation here; this is simply an invitation. I’m grateful for the attention, conversations, and trust you’ve shared here, and I wanted to make sure anyone interested knew where the work has moved.

Thank you for reading,

—Robert (aka Robin Liberte’ | The Mother of Exiles)

Friends,

Yesterday, the Trump regime formally withdrew the United States from the Paris Agreement, another escalation in a broader campaign to dismantle climate responsibility, entrench oligarchic power, and trade long-term planetary stability for short-term political and corporate gain.

This is not an isolated act. It follows a clear pattern: weakening democratic accountability, sidelining scientific governance, consolidating elite control, and treating ecological collapse as expendable.

Robin Liberte exists to confront power: to name it, challenge it, and resist the normalization of authoritarianism, corporate capture, and political decay. This community has grown to more than 500 subscribers, and I don’t take that collective attention lightly.

But I’ve reached a hard strategic limit.

I began developing a major book project in 2023 — Designing Nature’s Half: A Practical Guide to Conserving 50% by 2050 — with a long-horizon strategy eyed toward the 2024 election and the expectation that a Harris/Walz administration would create a more workable political environment for climate, biodiversity, and conservation progress.

That political context did not materialize. In fact, the complete opposite did, and the socio-ecological stakes for our country and the world have intensified.

The book — Designing Nature’s Half: A Practical Guide to Conserving 50% by 2050 — is not a Robin Liberte project. It’s being written in a different register, for a different purpose, and for a different audience. It builds on more than 25 years of my professional career in conservation, biodiversity science, landscape planning, and environmental governance, and represents a sustained effort to confront how land, power, institutions, and ecological systems are structured in an increasingly destabilized world.

I cannot continue producing the level of political writing Robin Liberte’ deserves while also completing the book this year, without weakening both. Rather than dilute Liberte’s voice, I’m choosing to focus my attention instead of fragmenting it.

Doing the book’s work with intellectual honesty requires sustained, uninterrupted attention. So, through the remainder of 2026, I will be placing Robin Liberte on sabbatical.

This is not a retreat. It’s a strategic narrowing of focus, stepping back from daily political response to finish work that requires depth, continuity, and long-term commitment.

I know you’re here for political resistance and anti-authoritarian analysis, and I’m grateful for the role you’ve played in sustaining this space.

But if you’re also interested in how climate change, biodiversity loss, conservation, and land governance intersect with political power and systemic risk, you’re welcome to follow the book’s development here:

• Substack: Designing Nature’s Half

• Website: DesigningNaturesHalf.com

My intention is not to disappear, but to return with work that is deeper, more rigorous, and more strategically useful than what I could produce while split across worlds.

Thank you for being part of this project of resistance, clarity, and refusal.

In defiance and in solidarity,

—-Robin Liberte | The Mother of Exiles. Activist. Artist. Author.

TL;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.

Subscribe now

Share

Authoritarianism today often begins through gradual institutional change that is quieter and easier to overlook than overt force.

Limits weaken, oversight slows, and authority expands by degrees. Force appears later, when resistance becomes visible and harder to ignore.

That order matters because it explains why the present moment feels both abrupt and familiar. Armed agents now operate openly in civilian space around the country, enforcement actions turn deadly, and extraordinary powers are discussed as reasonable responses to disorder.

None of this emerged all at once. It followed years in which language, law, and administrative procedure steadily widened what the Trump regime claimed the right to do, inside a democratic system that had already been systematically hollowed out.

What is happening in Minnesota makes that progression visible.

Over the past year, federal forces have been deployed across a growing number of U.S. cities, including Los Angeles, Chicago, Portland, Washington, D.C., Memphis, New Orleans, Charlotte, and most recently, Minneapolis. These deployments were justified through immigration enforcement and crime-control narratives and, over time, normalized the routine presence of federal power in everyday civic life.

This matters because each deployment teaches the state how much force it can use without being stopped.

The expanded federal presence in Washington, D.C., where I spent the Fall, demonstrated that armed enforcement could be introduced, contested, and ultimately sustained without decisive institutional intervention. Courts hesitated, city, state, and federal legislatures failed to assert authority, public debate narrowed to tactics rather than legitimacy, and resistance was reframed as disorder rather than dissent. What emerged was precedent.

Minnesota is where that precedent is now being applied.

Here, consequences can no longer be held at a distance. Earlier deployments of federal troops allowed democratic erosion to remain procedural, abstract, or geographically remote. In Minnesota, that buffer disappears as armed enforcement intersects directly with daily civic life, and legal authority, public resistance, and state power confront one another in real time. Democratic backsliding is encountered directly, in public space and institutional conflict.

Minnesota reveals what becomes visible once this process is already underway.

How Democratic Backsliding Actually Works

Democratic backsliding is often misunderstood because it is measured against the wrong expectations. Many people look for a single rupture—a coup, suspended elections, or a permanent emergency—and when those moments do not appear, they assume democracy, however strained, remains intact.

This account focuses on structure rather than motive. Backsliding advances through systems that persist regardless of individual intent.

Legal authority expands in small steps, enforcement discretion widens, and oversight weakens through delay, deference, or institutional exhaustion. Each change can be defended as technical or temporary, yet together they shift the balance between state power and public restraint.

The sequence matters because each step lowers the cost of the next.

Force does not appear at the beginning of the backsliding process. It appears after friction has already been reduced.

Courts still exist, legislatures still meet, and media still report, but their ability to interrupt power weakens as authority moves faster than restraint.

By the time the state force becomes visible, the terms of debate have already changed. The question is no longer whether the state has authority, but how forcefully that authority should be exercised. Resistance is treated as disruption, oversight is framed as obstruction, and actions that once required justification begin to operate by default.

This is how backsliding proceeds while elections continue, courts issue rulings, and constitutional language remains in use. Democratic form persists while democratic constraint weakens, and power no longer needs to break the system when it can operate through it with minimal resistance.

Minnesota illustrates this stage clearly. Armed enforcement and institutional conflict with the public emerge after authority has already been normalized, and limits have weakened, making what appears to be escalation a predictable sequence.

From Disruptive Force to Administrative Control

Security states take shape over time, and changes in how force is used explain why repression can intensify even as it appears more orderly.

In early phases, force is visible and disruptive. It intimidates opponents, fractures civic space, and demonstrates dominance, functioning primarily as momentum.

As power accumulates, that form of force becomes a liability. Resistance movements undermine legitimacy, unpredictability unsettles institutions and elites, and control requires a different posture.

Force is reorganized into bureaucracy. It becomes embedded in agencies, procedures, and official language, while violence is administered through enforcement, justified by law, and carried out as routine.

This marks a shift in how regimes govern. Episodic violence intimidates, while institutionalized force endures because it presents itself as normal, lawful, and necessary.

Modern authoritarian systems follow this logic even when dictators and their regimes and tools differ. Early confrontations test tolerance, while later enforcement embeds authority in daily practice, producing calm surfaces that often conceal deeper consolidation.

This describes the direction in which power is consolidating. Minnesota belongs here because it shows force moving from episodic deployment toward routine enforcement while democratic friction still exists and still matters.

Scale depends less on how often force is used than on how widely its possibility is felt, which explains why fear becomes more effective than force.

Fear as a Governing Mechanism

Nazi Germany’s Gestapo demonstrates how fear functions as a governing mechanism.

Its power came from leverage rather than omnipresence. Limited manpower, combined with unchecked authority, was able to produce social uncertainty that performed the work of enforcement.

People altered their behavior because they could not predict when attention would fall on them, who might report them, or how ordinary actions might be reinterpreted as disloyal. Fear circulated throughout society rather than remaining confined to the institution.

Denunciation amplified this effect as employers, neighbors, coworkers, and family members became sensors, where volume mattered more than precision, and control emerged from uncertainty itself.

Repression is scaled by changing expectations rather than increasing personnel. Self-censorship became routine, and compliance became habitual.

Law continued to operate, but its function shifted toward justification.

Modern authoritarian systems reproduce these dynamics through administrative warrants, discretionary enforcement, and expansive security language, where uncertainty paired with authority remains the essential ingredient.

Once fear becomes rooted, enforcement no longer needs to be continuous. Control shifts onto society itself, caution feels rational, and the state only needs to remain plausible as a force to contend with.

This is why fear-based governance often appears calm. Streets remain orderly, institutions continue to function, violence becomes selective, and the cost of control falls as compliance settles into habit.

Patterns of Control

Authoritarian systems face a shared problem: extending control beyond constant force.

Different regimes have solved this problem through varying combinations of surveillance, coercion, and social manipulation, often implementing many, if not all, approaches.

Saturation-based systems trade speed for stability as surveillance penetrates daily life, records accumulate, pressure applies selectively, and opposition weakens through eroded coordination and trust over time.

Terror-based systems trade durability for immediacy. Alignment occurs quickly, institutional capacity deteriorates, expertise collapses, and paranoia spreads as regimes increasingly police themselves.

These tradeoffs shape how power adapts over time. Systems with greater capacity and legitimacy tend toward saturation and uncertainty, while systems facing acute threat turn toward terror.

Modern hybrid systems draw selectively from both patterns, seeking behavioral compliance while limiting institutional damage.

A Democratic Boundary Case

Earlier encounters show how democratic systems have slid and how they once recovered.

From the late 1950s through the early 1970s, federal authorities conducted covert programs targeting political movements through surveillance, infiltration, disinformation, and harassment under national-security justification.

Democratic institutions remained formally intact, yet restraint failed as oversight lagged and practices normalized through repetition. The programs ended through exposure and coordinated response, as journalists revealed their scope, courts reasserted limits, and legislatures imposed reforms.

Several conditions enabled reversal then, but those conditions have changed. Surveillance is durable, data interoperable, oversight is slower, and public trust is thinner.

This case functions as a benchmark for democratic vulnerability.

Why Guardrails Fail

Guardrail failure emerges from institutional misalignment.

Courts delay, legislatures fragment, media normalize, and civil society exhausts, allowing power to flow through the gaps.

The central danger is the gradual loss of institutional friction. Institutions remain visible while constraint weakens.

Minnesota illustrates this condition clearly. Engagement exists. Constraint does not.

What Still Works

Some safeguards can still slow or reverse backsliding, but only under demanding conditions.

Courts matter when they act early and decisively. Exposure matters when it reveals systems rather than incidents. Legislatures matter when they impose binding consequences. Civil society matters when it coordinates rather than fragments.

These elements work together or not at all. Isolation accelerates consolidation.

The window for constraint remains open, but it narrows as enforcement becomes routine.

The Enforcement Phase

The United States is operating within an active enforcement phase of this process.

Authority expanded earlier is now exercised openly and repeatedly. Enforcement actions become more frequent, administrative authority hardens into physical presence, legal justification authorizes action more often than it limits it, and oversight remains active but delayed.

Normalization accelerates as each deployment lowers the threshold for the next.

Minnesota captures this condition clearly, where enforcement intersects daily life and institutional response slows without halting movement.

Where the United States Sits Now

Democratic backsliding exists along a continuum. At one end sits a fully functioning democracy with real limits on power. At the other sits full authoritarianism, where enforcement operates without restraint.

The United States occupies a position between those poles. Elections still occur, courts still rule, media exposure still carries cost, and civil society remains active.

At the same time, authority advances with the expectation that restraint will arrive late or fail. Enforcement is treated as decisive, oversight as interference, escalation follows criticism, and federal force has become normalized in civilian political space.

Taken together, these conditions place the United States in a late stage of democratic backsliding, approaching the boundary with electoral authoritarianism. Democratic form persists while timely constraint weakens.

Outcomes are not yet fixed. Reversal remains possible, but it requires early, coordinated friction. Normalization and delay push movement in the opposite direction.

Closing

What is at stake now is whether democratic limits reassert themselves before enforcement becomes the default mode of governance. Once that shift completes, reversal becomes far more difficult, even when formal institutions remain intact.

Subscribe now

Share

This 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 minutes

Subscribe now

Share

Reading Time: 10 minutes

TL;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.

Transcript

SECTION 1 — Democratic Fatigue

Democratic 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 Shifts

As 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 Solution

As 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 Reconfiguration

Under 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 Displaced

As 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 Continuity

As authority consolidates and democratic participation is repositioned, continuity becomes easier to identify. Existing arrangements of ownership, administration, and economic coordination persist. The relationship between state authority and economic power remains intact, even as political form changes.

Institutions adjust their posture rather than their basic composition. Personnel rotate through leadership roles. Procedures are modified to support centralized decision-making. Structural relationships endure. This persistence reflects the system’s capacity to reorganize while preserving its core functions. Administrative systems continue to manage labor, resources, and compliance. Markets continue to operate, and capital continues to circulate.

Decision-making becomes more insulated. Authority is buffered from disruption. Reversal becomes less frequent. Uncertainty is reduced through centralized command and enforced coordination. Visible changes can be substantial. New symbols appear. New language circulates. Authority becomes more explicit and more concentrated.

At the same time, the operating environment remains familiar. Economic hierarchies persist. Production continues. Extraction and accumulation proceed under revised political conditions. Continuity operates at the structural level. Political form adapts to preserve system function. Authority intensifies to secure stability. Democracy is repositioned to sustain legitimacy.

The tension between stability and participation remains present and is managed through containment, insulation, and control.

SECTION 7 — Ending

By the time authority consolidates to this degree, the shift appears procedural and routine. It is embedded in the everyday mechanisms through which decisions are made, justified, and enforced. Order has been delivered as a governing priority. Stability organizes political evaluation. Continuity is maintained through insulation, coordination, and command.

Democracy remains present within this arrangement. Its language circulates. Its rituals persist. Power moves through narrower channels. Decisions take shape earlier, within restricted settings, and across fewer points of challenge. Participation follows those decisions, and legitimacy is sustained through public alignment and acceptance.

Once these patterns take hold, they become self-reinforcing. Authority organizes decision-making. Stability becomes the standard by which outcomes are judged. Democratic forms remain in circulation, but they operate within boundaries already set.

From inside this arrangement, the system appears settled. Choices narrow. Alternatives feel abstract. Power moves along established channels, and legitimacy follows behind it. The significance of this structure lies in how it shapes the range of responses that remain available after order has been restored.

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.

Subscribe now

Share

This 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.

Subscribe now

Share

Reading Time: ~9 minutes

TL;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 Now

In 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 Blame

When 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 Scapegoats

The 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 Pattern

This 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 Germany

In 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 Chile

In 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 Russia

In 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 States

In 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 Politicized

When 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 Line

What 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, and neighbors. This fight to save democracy ends when people stop engaging.

Subscribe now

Share

This 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 minutes

Subscribe now

Share

Reading Time: 5 minutes

TL;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.

Transcript

Democracy and the Price of Engagement

How participation is shaped by time, cost, and sequencing

People 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 engaged
and 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 timing
rather 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.

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

Share

Reading Time: 7 minutes

TL;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 Reorganized

Democratic rejection, institutional withdrawal, and the use of unilateral force in U.S. governance

Part 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 Examples

The 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 Difference

History 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.

Subscribe now

Share

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.)

Subscribe now

Share

Reading Time: 7 minutes

TL;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 Detention

There 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.

Subscribe now

Share

Listening Time: 12:30 minutes

Series Note

This 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.

Subscribe now

Share

Episode 01: The System We’re Already In

This 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 Constraint

In 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.

Subscribe now

Share

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.

Subscribe now

Share

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 Detention

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.

Subscribe now

Share

Preview: 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 minutes

TL;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.

Subscribe now

Share

Chronicle: The Undeclared War - The First Enforcement of the “Trump Corollary” and the U.S.’s Return to Hemispheric Rule

1. A Line Crossed

This 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 Doctrine

In 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: Venezuela

The 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 Functions

This 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, 1936–1938

Before 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–1982

Argentina’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–Today

Modern 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, 1980s

The 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 Phase

Which 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 Set

The question is not whether this action will be defended. It already has been. The question is how often it will be used, because when undeclared war becomes policy, restraint becomes optional; and history shows that once that threshold is crossed, it is almost never crossed only once.

This is where we are now. Not at the end of something, but at the beginning of its enforcement phase.

We will know this moment mattered not by how it is justified today,
but by how routinely it is invoked tomorrow.

This is not speculation. It is precedent.

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.

Subscribe now

Share

TL;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.

Subscribe now

Share

I. When Dictators Try to Become the Nation

There 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 Face

Long 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 Map

After 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 Wall

In 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 Shrine

In 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 Antiquity

In 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 Rome

In 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 Capital

In 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 Man

In 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 Home

I 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

Once you start looking, the pattern becomes impossible to unsee.

It shows up as a timeline.

As the slow realization that what you learned to recognize in other countries is now being written into your own. Here’s the current tally of Trump making America him.

June 14, 2025 — A military parade.
On his birthday, which also marked the 250th anniversary of the U.S. Army, tanks rolled and troops marched in the streets of Washington, D.C., folding military ritual into personal celebration.

August 26, 2025 — A portrait banner hung from the Department of Labor.
That summer, Trump’s face stretched across the façade of the Department of Labor, a federal building meant to stand for workers, labor rights, and public service to the American people.

October 20, 2025 — Demolition of the East Wing begins.
The White House started to come apart as crews tore down the East Wing to clear space for a new ballroom—paid for largely by private donations from major tech companies, defense contractors, cryptocurrency firms, and wealthy patrons. Trump also pledged personal funds, shaping the project to suit his own taste.

November 25, 2025 — The redesign of the America the Beautiful National Parks Pass.
Images of sweeping landscapes and wildlife of our National Parks were replaced by Trump’s scowling face beside iconic statesman, George Washington, breaking a long tradition of honoring the nation’s shared natural inheritance.

December 3, 2025 — The Institute of Peace is renamed.
The United States Institute of Peace became the Donald J. Trump Institute of Peace.

December 18, 2025 — The Kennedy Center is renamed.
The John F. Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts became the Donald J. Trump and John F. Kennedy Memorial Center for the Performing Arts.

December 22, 2025 — A battleship class is named.
Trump announced a new class of U.S. Navy battleships to be named after himself, referred to as the “Trump-class” with the lead ship designated as the USS Defiant. Secretary of the Navy John Phelan described the USS Defiant as the largest, deadliest, and most versatile warship ever conceived.

Each of these can be defended. Each can be explained away.

Together, they stop feeling like coincidence.

From banner,
to building,
to institution,
to monument,
to fleet.

From using the symbols of the nation to claiming them as his own.

You have already seen this story. The only difference now is that it is happening here.

And it is only the first year.

V. Naming It

At a certain point, the pattern stops being subtle.

When a dictator’s face hangs on buildings, replaces landscapes, reshapes the people’s house, and brands institutions and steel, history gives us a name.

This is how cults of personality are built.

What Stalin did with cities.
What Mao did with walls.
What the Kims did with a capital.
What Saddam did with antiquity.
What Mussolini did with Rome.
What Trujillo did with a capital’s name.
What Napoleon did with a republic.

And now, in the world’s oldest constitutional democracy, a president is inscribing himself onto its most visible institutions.

The materials are different. The language is American. But the impulse is the same.

This is not just self-love. It is appropriation: the quiet conversion of shared institutions into personal monuments, converting public inheritance into private legacy.

Because once your name is on buildings and ships, once your vision has altered the White House, you are no longer just governing the present. You are trying to pre-write the future.

This is how dictators try to outlive accountability.

Impeachment, elections, and revolutions can remove a man from office, but stone and steel are harder to undo.

We like to believe that voting is enough, but history is full of dictators who kept elections while emptying them of risk.

Stalin staged votes that offered confirmation, not choice.
Saddam ran referendums that returned near-unanimous approval.
The Kims preserved rituals of acclamation.
Napoleon wrapped the empire in plebiscites that made domination look like consent.

They did not abolish elections. They hollowed them out.

Max Weber, a German Sociologist, called this charismatic authority—power justified not by law or tradition, but by the supposed exceptional nature of the man himself. When that authority is carved into buildings and steel, it becomes an environment.

Self-monument is preparation. It teaches people that the dictator is permanent. And that is what makes watching it unfold so unsettling. Because this is a man who has already shown his willingness to reject an election he lost. So, when he begins inscribing himself onto the nation, history tells us to treat it as architecture for a future where ordinary remedies may no longer apply.

VI. Anger and Unease

There is anger in seeing this happen.

Anger at the brazenness of it. Anger at the casual way buildings, symbols, and public spaces are taken.

There is also unease.

Because this doesn’t just threaten laws. It threatens the sense that the country you live in will still recognize itself tomorrow.

Dictators do not only seek loyalty. They seek resignation.

Unease comes from recognizing that this works.

Each step feels survivable on its own, until one day you realize you are living inside something you would have sworn could never happen here.

Anger says: this is wrong. Unease says: this is working.

Holding both at once is what it feels like to watch a democracy tested from the inside.

VII. Refuse the Mirror

Every dictator who tries to carve himself into a nation is chasing the same illusion: that stone and steel can make him permanent.

History shows how fragile that hope really is. None of them escaped history. They only delayed it.

What does not fade on its own has to be confronted.

Because the mirror they build is not just about how they want to be seen. It is about how they want the country to see itself.

To accept that mirror is to accept that the nation and the dictator are the same thing.

Refusing it is an act of citizenship, and also an act of resistance.

It means saying this ends. Here. Now.

It means naming what is happening while it is still happening; and here, right now, it’s fascism.

It is fascism that personalizes power.
It is fascism that demands loyalty over law.
It is fascism that replaces institutions with a man.
It is fascism that converts public inheritance into private legacy.
It is fascism that teaches people to stop imagining removal.

If the people who can see it will not say it, who will?

Refusal is not symbolic. Refusal is what keeps this from becoming permanent. Because once maps change and rituals harden, undoing them becomes generational.

That is what is being decided now.

This is why anger matters. Why unease matters.

They are alarms.

History recognizes its own shapes.

And so should we.

This is not a suggestion.
It is a line.

Refuse the mirror.
Refuse fascism.
Join the resistance.

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.

Subscribe now

Share

Reading Time: 21 minutes

TL;DR

• I went to Washington to help launch sustained, nonviolent resistance against an illegitimate regime, and to see if people power could really take root.

• What we found wasn’t a single turning point, but the beginning of something fragile and real: thousands showing up, hundreds returning, learning how to last.

• A people’s revolution isn’t spectacle, it’s a disciplined, collective withdrawal of consent, built on shared responsibility and care.

• History and experience show that change depends on preparation: reliable participation, organizational maturity, coalition building, and readiness for transition.

• We’re in the in-between time now, when the quiet work of building decides whether democracy can be renewed.

Subscribe now

Share

I. Prologue: Leaving for Washington

I left for Washington in early October with a backpack that was too heavy and a heart heavier still. Not because I thought I was going to change history. Not because I had a plan. But because staying home had begun to feel like its own kind of surrender.

The country was in free fall. Every headline felt like another door slamming shut. Courts bending. Institutions blinking. A regime tightening its grip while pretending it was all still normal. And in that narrowing space, the same question kept rising, quieter each time but harder to ignore: If not now, then when? If not us, then who?

So, I went.

I told people I was going to volunteer. Which was true, in the plainest sense. Refuse Fascism and the Trump Must Go movement were calling for sustained nonviolent resistance beginning November 5, and I wanted to help however I could: pass out flyers, carry signs, hold space, and listen. I wasn’t arriving as anything more than another body willing to work. Another pair of hands. Another voice in the crowd.

But inside, I knew it was more than that. It felt like crossing a line you can’t uncross.

There comes a moment when watching is no longer enough. When posting, arguing, and doomscrolling start to feel like motion without movement. When the only way to find out what’s real is to step into it, even if you don’t know what waits on the other side.

There comes a moment when watching is no longer enough.

On the flight in, the city crept closer on the map while everything else grew less certain. I didn’t know who I would meet. I didn’t know what the streets would feel like once the chants began, or whether anyone would really show up. I didn’t know if this would be a spark or just another brief flare swallowed by the dark.

What I did know was this: something in me had already shifted. The choice had been made. I was no longer asking what they were going to do. I was asking what we might be able to do together.

Washington, DC, waited.

And so did whatever came next.

II. The Horizon: Why I Call It a People’s Revolution

I didn’t go to DC chasing a slogan. But somewhere between packing my bag and stepping onto that plane, I realized I needed a name for what I was hoping for, not just an action, not just a protest, but a different kind of future.

I started calling it a people’s revolution. Original, right?

Not because it sounds dramatic, and not because it promises something fast or easy, but because it names the only force I still believe can meet this moment: ordinary people, acting together, with discipline and courage, withdrawing their consent from a regime that no longer deserves it.

When institutions fail to stop what is plainly wrong, when laws are twisted to protect power instead of restrain it, the burden doesn’t disappear. It shifts. It lands on people, on whether we are willing to show up for each other and insist, without violence but without apology, that this is not acceptable.

A people’s revolution, as I mean it, isn’t chaos in the streets. It’s collective refusal. It’s saying: we will not normalize this, we will not collaborate with it, and we will not look away while the foundations of democracy are hollowed out.

It’s also not about tearing everything down. Maybe some of it, but not all of it. The Constitution is not a relic to discard. It’s an inheritance, unfinished, imperfect, but rooted in the idea that power comes from the people and must answer to them. What makes this regime illegitimate isn’t that the promise is broken beyond repair. It’s that it violates that inheritance while daring the country to pretend otherwise.

So when I say people’s revolution, I mean a nonviolent struggle to force democratic possibility open again; to clear space for renewal, for repair, for a future where rules mean what they say and those who govern do so with our consent, not our resignation.

That horizon is what pulled me east. Not a guarantee. Not a blueprint. Just the belief that if anything is going to change, it will begin with people deciding, together, that this is the line.

III. Crisis of Legitimacy and an American Precedent

What I felt most before leaving wasn’t just anger, it was something colder. The sense that the ground rules themselves were giving way. This wasn’t about one bad law or one outrageous decision. It was a pattern: power consolidating, accountability thinning, institutions signaling they could be bent without breaking, and then bent again. The language of democracy was still everywhere, but its substance was draining out.

A crisis of legitimacy doesn’t announce itself with a siren. It creeps in. It shows up when people stop arguing about what’s right and start wondering whether it even matters anymore. When the system still speaks the words, but fewer and fewer people believe they mean anything.

That feeling is old now. It’s commonplace. And that’s a problem.

In the 1770s, the colonies didn’t leap straight to independence. First came Britain’s Intolerable Acts, proof that power would be imposed upon the colonies, not negotiated. Then, the First Continental Congress, an attempt to stand together and be heard. Only after that did the Declaration of Independence appear, naming a pattern of abuses and drawing the line from grievance to refusal.

What made that moment revolutionary wasn’t just the courage of the words. It was the shift in claim: legitimacy no longer flowed from the crown. It flowed from the people.

That same question hangs over our moment now. Not whether we like who’s in power, but whether this regime still deserves to govern at all.

On December 13, in front of the White House, that question was spoken out loud in the form of The People’s Indictment of Donald Trump, a unified declaration that what we are living under is not merely unjust, but illegitimate. It didn’t pretend to be a court. It didn’t need to be. Like its historical echo, it was an assertion of standing: when institutions refuse to hold power to account, people can still name what they see.

I don’t put these moments, The People’s Indictment and The Declaration of Independence, on the same scale. History doesn’t repeat that neatly, but the rhythm is familiar: grievance becoming coordination, coordination becoming declaration, and declaration pointing toward collective action.

A crisis of legitimacy isn’t resolved by better messaging or a single election. It’s resolved when enough people decide that the story they’ve been told no longer matches the reality they’re living, and are willing to act on that difference.

That was the deeper current pulling me to Washington. Not just resistance, but the old, unsettling question returning again: Who has the right to rule, and, which side are you on?

IV. The Test: What The Movement Was Meant to Be

The Trump Must Go movement wasn’t built as a single protest or symbolic outcry. From the beginning, it was framed as something harder: a sustained campaign of nonviolent resistance meant to confront an illegitimate regime and force a political rupture.

That distinction mattered. Many were already marching, filing lawsuits, organizing voters, sounding alarms. Trump Must Go Now asked a different question: what would it take to move from episodic protest to continuous pressure, pressure that couldn’t be ignored, waited out, or easily absorbed?

The answer, at least in theory, was simple and daunting: show up. Keep showing up. Bring more people with you. Do it nonviolently, visibly, in a public space tied to power. Make withdrawal of consent not an idea, but a lived reality.

November 5 was named as the starting line, not the finish. The goal wasn’t catharsis. It was durability.

That made Trump Must Go Now a test. A test of whether outrage could become commitment. A test of whether discipline could hold, and whether strangers could cohere under pressure.

I didn’t go to DC believing this test would automatically succeed, but I believed it was the right one to run. Because without trying to build sustained people power, in public, in daylight, together, everything else felt like rehearsal.

What followed would show us both how much was already possible and how much still had to be built.

V. On the Ground: What It Looked and Felt Like

November 5 arrived warm and bright, the kind of fall day that makes every sound carry. By the time people began gathering, the air already held that mix of nerves and resolve, strangers greeting each other, banners unfolding, chants tested like instruments finding their pitch.

About three thousand of us came.

From the ground, it felt like faces stacking into waves, voices rising into something wider than any one throat, footsteps echoing as we moved together through the city.

A rally. Outbeat music. Then a march. Not as a spectacle, but as a declaration.

We were here. We were many. And we weren’t pretending this was normal anymore.

What stayed with me wasn’t any single speech. It was the moment when you realize you’re no longer just participating, you’re being carried, by the rhythm of chanting, by bodies moving in step, by the simple, startling fact that you are not alone. After that, the work didn’t stop. It narrowed. It focused.

On November 15, then again on November 17 and November 24, we came back to the White House. Smaller numbers, hundreds each day, but with an even sharper edge. Crime scene tape wrapped the perimeter, bright and unforgiving: this place, this power, marked as the site of a political crime that continues to take place.

Standing there, you could feel the difference between a mass gathering and sustained presence. Fewer people meant you could see each other more clearly. Learn names, share chants, or hold a sign for someone whose arms were shaking. It felt less like an event and more like a vigil, not mourning what was lost, but refusing to let it pass quietly.

Then, on December 13, we returned again.

This time, the action carried a different weight. The People’s Indictment of Donald Trump was read aloud, a collective naming of what so many of us had been carrying: that this wasn’t just a bad administration, but a regime that had forfeited its claim to rule. And once more, the White House was encircled with tape, the words made visible in space.

Listening to the indictment, with traffic humming and tourists stopping to stare, I felt the strange collision of the ordinary and the historic. No thunder. No rupture in the sky. Just people, standing in public, saying: this is not legitimate, and we are here to call it out.

Between those days were countless smaller moments: handing out flyers at Metro, quick conversations with passersby on cold sidewalks, lots of laughter over coffee and drinks, quiet check-ins when someone looked exhausted, and another person stepped in. None of it glamorous, but all of it necessary in building a movement.

From the outside, it might have looked modest. From the inside, it felt like learning how to breathe together.

“From the inside, it felt like learning how to breathe together.”

Not a victory, but a beginning.

VI. What Held: Seeds of Future People Power

People showed up again and again. In the cold. After long days. Despite illness. With tired legs and hoarse voices. There was no guarantee waiting at the end, just the knowledge that if this was going to mean anything, it had to be carried by real bodies in real space.

Discipline held as practice: in how conflict was handled, how lines were held, how we treated each other as already living the future we were trying to build.

And people stepped into what needed doing. No titles required. If flyers needed wheatpasting, hands appeared. If a gap opened in our line, bodies moved. What mattered wasn’t perfection. It was the instinct: that this is ours to carry.

We also weren’t alone.

On October 18, before the larger No Kings 2 mobilization, we hosted a rally at 14th and U streets, then marched about a thousand people to join the broader coalition on Pennsylvania Ave. On November 22, we joined the Remove the Regime rally and march at the Lincoln Memorial. Different banners, different approaches, but shared resolve.

What held across all of this was recognition. Strangers realizing they weren’t strangers anymore. Fear finding names and faces just like ours, and the sense that the ground beneath us was forever changed, even if just a little.

These were seeds. Not a harvest. But you could see them in exchanged numbers, in promises to return, in the feeling that something fragile but real had begun to take root.

VII. What This Moment Taught Us: We Still Have to Build

About three thousand people came on November 5. In the weeks that followed, it was closer to three to five hundred per action. That isn’t a failure, it’s a fact, and facts are gifts if we’re willing to learn from them.

“Facts are gifts if we’re willing to learn from them.”

They showed us that urgency alone doesn’t become mass participation. That moving from sympathy to sustained commitment is a harder bridge to cross. That people power is built less like a switch, and more like a track that’s laid one section at a time.

Out of those weeks, four lessons came to mind:

1. Participation has to be reliable, not just inspired.

2. Organization has to mature alongside passion.

3. Fracture has to be made possible, and a path forward visible.

4. Consolidation has to be prepared for from the start.

None of these were abstract. You could feel them in what could or could not be coordinated, in how much depended on too few, and in the question hanging over everything: what comes after the regime falls?

What last Fall gave us was clarity. About the gap between outrage and capacity, and the patience people power demands. About the movement we would have to become if the next wave is to be larger, steadier, harder to ignore.

VIII. What a People’s Revolution Actually Requires

A people’s revolution isn’t just about how many show up. It’s about how much a movement can hold.

It starts with protecting people: sharing the burden so no one carries everything alone, building ways for the work to be distributed, supported, sustained.

“A movement that can grow without breaking those who built it is a movement with a future.”

It requires organizational maturity: clear rhythms, communication that reaches everyone who needs it, a culture where stepping into responsibility is normal and supported.

And it requires a coalition: no single organization can win this war alone. “We the people” is diverse by definition. Solidarity doesn’t mean sameness. It means choosing to stand together without demanding purity.

Pulling that off is a design challenge, not a grievance. Holding all of that together points toward a three-pronged discipline:

1. Build durable internal capacity.

2. Weave coalitions that can move together.

3. Focus collective pressure where legitimacy, or lack thereof, is decided.

Not stages. Muscle. This is what people power actually requires: courage and craft; anger and architecture; moments and muscles built over time.

Demanding, and hopeful at the same time.

IX. Two Sides of the Same Coin

Vision without practice burns out. Practice without vision dries up. A people’s revolution needs both. The horizon gives the work its direction. The work gives the horizon its weight.

In DC, you could feel that braid forming in chants that carried meaning, in arguments people stayed engaged in, in exhaustion that didn’t cancel resolve.

Together, vision and practice become momentum.

And once you feel that weight, you start asking not just what you want, but how others have learned to carry it before you.

X. Lessons from History: How People Power Forces Democratic Openings

South Africa. Poland. The Philippines. Chile. Serbia. Tunisia. Different nonviolent movements. Different paths. Similar pressures but different approaches.

History doesn’t give formulas, but it does give us orientation. Openings to depose dictators are rarely accidents; they are made thoughtfully, strategically, in a well-coordinated, coalition-based way.

XI. What We Learned: The How, What, and When of Change

By December, the story wasn’t just what had happened. It was what it had taught us. Not in theory, but in practice.

Change grows out of participation that is reliable, not just inspired; people coming back when the cameras are gone. Change depends on organizational maturity; sharing the load so energy doesn’t burn itself out. Change becomes possible when fracture meets legitimacy; when loyalty to a regime costs more than stepping away. And change is not finished at the fall of a regime; consolidation decides whether courage becomes renewal or just another chapter of loss.

All of it brings us back to what we saw in DC: Build durable internal capacity. Weave coalitions that can move together. Focus collective pressure where legitimacy is decided. Not as slogans, but as disciplined action.

The “how” is patient construction. The “what” is legitimacy reclaimed. The “when” is preparation meeting opportunity. Not a promise of speed, but a promise of direction.

What we were given last Fall wasn’t victory, it was orientation.

XII. From Emergency to Preparation

For weeks, everything felt like emergency, but emergency can’t be the only posture. Emergency mobilizes, but it also exhausts.

What those weeks offer is a pivot: from reacting to preparing; from measuring moments to building capacity. That shift only becomes real after the alarms fade.

It looks like setting up the next meeting, even when you’re not sure who will come. Like writing notes from the last one, so the work doesn’t vanish when people go home.

XIII. The In-Between Time Is the Real Work

“The in-between time is where movements are actually made.”

The real work looks like smaller rooms, longer conversations, fewer people.

It looks like a handful of people sitting around a scratched table, trading calendar dates and Signal numbers. Like someone bringing half-finished signs and asking if anyone can help paint. Like a late-night message checking in on someone who seemed quiet, and a reply that says, “Yeah. I’m still here.”

Nothing heroic. Just the slow, human work of becoming real to each other. It looks like turning showing up into habit. Clarifying roles. Building trust across difference. Learning to move together when no one is watching.

From the outside, it can look like nothing is happening. From the inside, everything is.

This is where movements are made.

XIV. From Stopping the Regime to Rebuilding Democracy

Stopping an illegitimate regime matters, but people don’t risk everything just to end something. They do it to open something.

Rebuilding democracy means taking our inheritance seriously again: empowering the people and being answerable to them. It means cutting the ties between government and oligarchy. Opening space for new leadership. Restoring meaningful choice in how we vote, if we ever vote again. Insisting on economic dignity for all. And ending the dominance of money in politics once and for all.

Not as a manifesto, as a direction of travel.

Stopping the regime is necessary. Rebuilding democracy is what follows us home.

XV. Reframing December 13

December 13 was a line drawn. The question that opened this story, “Who has the right to rule and which side are you on?”, still hangs in the air. December 13 didn’t answer the question; it proclaimed it for each of us to answer as free-thinking Americans, like our forefathers and mothers before us.

XVI. What Comes Next

What comes next isn’t waiting, it’s being born: Deepening participation, sharing the burden, weaving coalitions, keeping pressure focused where legitimacy is decided, making our withdrawal of consent visible again and again.

Not louder. Better prepared.

XVII. Epilogue: The Work Worth Doing

I left for DC with a backpack that was too heavy, a heart full of emotion, and a mind full of questions. I didn’t know what I would find. I didn’t know who would be there. I didn’t know whether any of it would be enough. What I knew was that staying had begun to feel like surrender. I know now, that line can’t be uncrossed.

When I got home, I set my backpack down by the door and realized it felt lighter, not because it held less, but because my own burden was lessened.

If you’re still here, still listening, it’s because something in you already knows this too.

You’re not alone.

There is a place for you in this work; not someday, not after you’re “ready,” but now…especially now, in the in-between time where movements are actually made. A place to show up. To help carry the load. To learn alongside others. To grow into whatever leadership this moment asks of you, as it emerges through doing the work together.

Come build with us. Come prepare with us. Come be part of the people who refuse to let this story end where it is. Not a single march, not a single day, but a long, shared commitment to do the work worth doing, until democracy is not just defended, but renewed.

We’ll meet each other in the in-between time, and stay, until the opening comes.

In defiance, and in solidarity,

I am, Robin Liberte’, The Mother of Exiles. Activist. Artist. Author.

Subscribe now

Share

Subscribe now

Share

Official Video:

Artist: Waking Stone

Subscribe now

Share

Nonviolent Protest & The People’s Indictment of Donald Trump

A Unified Declaration of Illegitimacy

On Saturday, December 13, at 2 PM, we return to the gates of the White House — the symbolic and operational core of a regime that has spent the past twelve months dismantling every democratic guardrail meant to protect us from tyranny. We gather at 16th & H NW for a rally, march, and mass photo action, part of the fourth major nonviolent protest at this location since November began.

And we return with purpose:
To deliver the People’s Indictment of Donald Trump.
To surround the White House in crime-scene tape.
To declare, publicly and without apology: The Trump regime is illegitimate.

Why We’re Back

The momentum of the Trump Fascist Regime has not slowed — it has accelerated. In the past week alone, Trump has:

• escalated racist scapegoating against immigrants and refugees,

• suspended asylum,

• embraced open war crimes in the Caribbean,

• called the Somali people “garbage,”

• sharpened war moves against Venezuela and threatened Colombia,

• increased the total number of National Guard in the nation’s capital to 2,700,

• and doubled down on calls for arrest — even execution — of senators who urged the military to refuse unlawful orders.

This is not “politics.”
This is fascism tightening its grip.

The only force that has ever stopped a consolidating fascist regime — anywhere, in any century — is the people themselves, organized and unrelenting in the streets. That is why we return.

THE WHITE HOUSE IS A CRIME SCENE

TRUMP MUST GO NOW!

Subscribe now

Share

The People’s Indictment of Donald Trump

A Unified Declaration of Illegitimacy

History is unforgiving on one point: once fascists consolidate power, the path to removing them narrows to a razor’s edge. We cannot wait for that point. The Trump regime — through repeated injuries, usurpations, abuses of power, and acts of violence — has already forfeited any claim to democratic legitimacy.

Therefore, We, the People, indict Donald Trump for crimes against humanity, against the Constitution, and against the future of this nation.

Below is the text to be read on December 13:

I. A Regime of Tyranny & Betrayal of the Constitution

The Trump administration has systematically violated the foundational principles of constitutional governance: liberty, justice, equality, consent of the governed, and the rule of law.

Trump has openly defied federal courts, ignored lawful orders, targeted judges and attorneys, and replaced constitutional norms with personal decree. Federal agencies have been weaponized against immigrants, protesters, journalists, and political opponents. Democratic rights have been shredded, civil liberties treated with contempt, and marginalized communities placed directly in the crosshairs.

II. Crimes of Fascism & the Consolidation of Dictatorship

Trump’s MAGA fascism is not chaos — it is a coherent program for authoritarian rule under a white-supremacist, Christian-nationalist state.

Count One: Violent Persecution of Immigrants

Militarized strike forces and unlawfully mobilized National Guard units were deployed to target immigrants, while ICE carried out disappearances, family separations, and deportations into conditions of torture and abuse.

Count Two: Lawless International Aggression

Trump has waged unauthorized military actions, backed genocide, invoked imperial domination, and abandoned international law.

Count Three: Attacks on Elections & Voting Rights

By empowering election deniers, pardoning January 6 attackers, and enabling widespread voter suppression, Trump has attempted to cement minority authoritarian rule.

Count Four: Subversion of the Courts

A Supreme Court packed with loyalists has weaponized the “shadow docket” and undermined judicial independence.

Count Five: Weaponizing Federal Power Against Opponents

Law enforcement powers have been twisted into instruments of retribution against journalists, NGOs, activists, and political opponents.

III. Repeated Injuries, Usurpations & Abuses

The Trump regime has intensified white supremacy, misogyny, anti-LGBTQ+ bigotry, environmental destruction, and militarism. It has attacked science, public health, and the ability of entire communities to live with dignity and safety.

It has exalted the Confederacy, purged diversity programs, erased Black and Native histories, dismantled reproductive rights, targeted transgender people, and embraced 19th-century doctrines of conquest.

This is not drift — it is design.

IV. Violations of Human & Civil Rights

These include, but are not limited to:

• suppression of protest and the press,

• warrantless surveillance and militarized policing,

• cruel and degrading treatment of detainees,

• rollback of LGBTQ+ rights, disability rights, racial equity programs, and reproductive freedoms,

• family separations, deportations into torture regimes,

• abandonment of global human-rights standards.

These are moral and legal atrocities.

V. A Government of, by, and for Tyrants

Trump and his accomplices have enriched themselves by dismantling public health, environmental protections, social programs, and lawful oversight. This is an authoritarian plutocracy — corrupt in design and practice.

VI. The Mandate of the People: Trump Must Go NOW

Fascist regimes are never legitimate. Trump’s rule threatens the future of humanity in a century defined by the climate crisis and global instability.

Therefore, we assert:

• Donald Trump must be removed from power immediately.

• The Trump regime is illegitimate.

• Its continued rule violates the Constitution and human rights.

• Further oppressive action constitutes a direct attack on the people.

VII. A Call to Action for a Free & Just Future

Fascism is not hypothetical; it is here, now, and accelerating. It cannot be adapted to, negotiated with, or waited out. It must be defeated.

There can be no business as usual under fascism. That is why we call on people everywhere to join us in sustained, nonviolent mass resistance — to walk out of work, walk out of school, and come to Washington, D.C., returning again and again until the Trump regime falls.

The future is unwritten.
Which one we get depends on us.

IN THE NAME OF HUMANITY,

WE REFUSE TO ACCEPT A FASCIST AMERICA.
TRUMP MUST GO NOW!

Subscribe now

Share

Some weeks feel like history is whispering through the cracks in the pavement, trying to get our attention. This is one of those weeks.

Every morning brings a fresh headline engineered to numb us: another cruelty, another power grab, another deliberate erosion of what remains of the democratic imagination in this country. It’s the slow, grinding machinery of fascism, eager to convince us that resistance is futile and attention is a luxury.

But you and I know better.
We know that power only calcifies when people stop showing up.
We know that silence is its favorite collaborator.
And we know, because we’ve already lived it, that when people return again and again, with discipline and clarity, something shifts.

Today, we begin the next phase of that shift.

For the next seven days, we build—out loud, on purpose, and in motion—toward Saturday, December 13, when we return to the White House for:

Surround the White House 2.0:

The People’s Indictment of Donald J. Trump

This isn’t a rally. It isn’t a symbolic gesture. It’s a line in the sand drawn by the people themselves. A refusal to normalize a regime that governs through fear, myth, and brute power. An indictment issued not by a court that can be bent or bullied, but by a public that refuses to disappear.

If you’ve been with us since November 5, you already know what we’ve become: A structure. A cadence. A presence.

The press didn’t pay attention because we shouted louder—they paid attention because we returned. Because week after week, the resistance became visible in the streets: marshals coordinating movement, medics tending to bodies and spirits, outreach crews interfacing with tourists and federal workers, musicians keeping tempo, artists rebuilding visual imagination in real time. A web of volunteers stretching across the city, holding open space where the regime wants only obedience.

This next week is about scaling that.

Volunteers are out everywhere—metro stations, campuses, parks, crowded sidewalks—talking to strangers, inviting them into something bigger than despair. We’re calling on everyone to step onto the stage of history on December 13 at 2PM, at the White House gates, where the world will be watching who shows up and who stays home.

If you can come to D.C.:
Come. Bring friends. Bring new people. Bring the urgency this moment demands.

If you can’t be here physically:
Support those who can. Help keep our frontline sustained. Movements are built from a thousand different kinds of participation—only one of which requires being physically in the street.

Next Saturday, we gather to deliver the People’s Indictment of Donald J. Trump — a collective statement that we do not consent to fascism, we do not consent to the dismantling of our futures, and we will not stand down as cruelty becomes governance.

History will not remember who stayed comfortable.
It will remember who showed up.

I hope to see you at the White House.

— Robin Liberté

If this moment is pulling at you, don’t ignore it.

Step into it. Share this call. Talk to your people.
Show up in D.C. on December 13 — or help someone else get there.

History is not something we watch unfold.
It’s something we make with our bodies, our voices, and our courage.

Join us.

Subscribe now

Share