Glad Carney is stepping up, cometh the time, cometh the man. I was using historical precedents for timescale. Modern variables like billionaires, social media, Xi & Putin shit stirring on the side, are fanning the flames. No way to estimate how much it would accelerate the coup just that it would.

No. But I write this last May. 18 months was the time estimate.

This is a slow coup, a fascist take over.

Anything within the normal practice of law and democratic process will prove useless. US is well into the final stage of Paxton’s fascist coup model. History had already told us what needs to be done now. open.substack.com/pub/avenging...

Shady, Creepy, Greedy, Sleazy, Bitchy and Slimy.

Certainly a contributing event.

But it started long before that but successive governments were in ideological capture & in their minds the collapse of the Soviet Union affirmed their beliefs that the American way was right. This permeated through US society.

open.substack.com/pub/avenging...

For decades moral courage hasn’t been a requisite for political success. Wiles and moral flexibility were. It is rare to find a politician with courage and integrity anywhere.

Just wannabes doing their cosplay and getting paid shit load for it.

9/9 Until Britain’s leadership finds a way to acknowledge it openly, we will continue to watch a governing logic collapse in real time and Stamer looks more of a man incapable of handling reality than he normal does.

8/9 conditional or absent, with greater reliance on European coordination and contingencies that quietly bypass Washington. Publicly, Starmer cannot yet say this. His political language still insists the US will never be the problem.

Trump has broken that assumption.

7/9 incompatible commands. Faced with contradictions they are not allowed to resolve, the system overheats. You can almost see the smoke coming out of Starmer's ears.

Privately, UK defence and diplomatic circles are already planning for a world in which American leadership is

6/9 positions cannot coexist if the US becomes the aggressor. That is not a moral dilemma but a logical impossibility.

The result is visible strain. In interviews, Starmer resembles the androids in Star Trek’s I, Mudd, created by Harry Mudd and programmed with mutually

5/9 justified as security necessity, executed on the assumption that others will hesitate.

Starmer understands this. At the same time, he insists publicly that Britain stands unequivocally with the US while also affirming an unambiguous commitment to defend Greenland. Those two

4/9 it, not out of ideology but because he thinks in terms of power and leverage. Greenland is framed as a strategic object and allies outrage as something that will fade after the fact. This is not a Hitler analogy for shock value but a comparison of method: early expansion

3/9 from the United States is seen as destabilising even when privately anticipated. That model only works if the US is broadly rule-bound.

It no longer is.

Donald Trump’s posture toward Greenland is not rhetorical bluster. Evidence increasingly points to his intention to seize

2/9 Starmer remains anchored in a post-1945 Atlanticist mindset, one shaped by establishment thinking that still carries traces of Thatcherism. In that framework, loyalty to Washington is treated as a virtue in itself, NATO unity is assumed to be indivisible and public divergence