Hand written.

“In the decades since Nixon’s Southern Strategy, the GOP perfected exploiting racial divisions. Few politicians have embraced this tactic as explicitly or ruthlessly as Donald Trump. By reviving deep-seated racial and cultural grievances, he forged what is now known as Southern Strategy 2.0. While his rise and first term were marked by inflammatory rhetoric and symbolic measures, his second term has taken a far darker turn. Since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, the Trump administration has waged a brutal, state-sanctioned war on immigrants combining overt racism with draconian policies that flagrantly disregard due process. In what follows, we trace the evolution of Trump’s strategy from subtle dog whistles to aggressive state violence. Trump has long been known for discarding subtlety in favour of explicit racism. From his 2015 campaign launch speech when he infamously described Mexican immigrants as “rapists” and criminals to his repeated calls for a “Muslim ban,” his rhetoric was always designed to exploit the fears of a segment of white voters. Those early statements served not merely as inflammatory sound bites but as clear signals to voters drawn to a brand of nationalism rooted in racial resentment. Even as he built his image as a defender of traditional American values, his language was steeped in contempt for the nation’s increasing diversity. Claims that immigrants were an existential threat to American economic and social stability became the underpinning of his appeal to white, working-class, and rural communities. Over time, the dog whistles he once used in carefully coded language gave way to a more head-on assault one that leaves little doubt about his priorities. Today, as his second term unfolds, that overt racism is not just rhetoric but now underpins policies that curtail the rights of communities of color and immigrants. Whereas in previous years, his words served as markers of tribal identity, they have now evolved into a legal and institutional program of exclusion. The transformation from talk to action is as clear as it is damaging.cv Throughout his first presidency, Trump implemented policies that pushed the envelope of conservative immigration enforcement The “zero-tolerance” policy at the U.S.–Mexico border, with its deeply controversial family separations, became emblematic of his willingness to use state power to satisfy a racially charged agenda. However, these measures pale in comparison to the actions of his current administration. Since his inauguration on January 20, 2025, the Trump administration has escalated its assault on immigrants to levels never seen before. Nearly three months into his second term, his government has commandeered the full force of executive power to reshape immigration enforcement. The administration has now implemented a policy that systematically dispossesses potentially innocent immigrants of their legal rights. In an unprecedented move, individuals apprehended on U.S. soil are being removed without the due process guaranteed by the American legal system. Rather than relying on established deportation channels—processes designed to balance security concerns with fairness—Trump’s operatives send these immigrants directly to a notorious detention facility in El Salvador. Critics and human rights advocates have compared this facility to a modern-day gulag. The administration has not hidden behind red tape or excuses; President Trump himself has proudly taken credit for these measures, asserting that they serve the dual purpose of protecting national security and preserving an “authentic” American identity. This is not merely a tweak to existing policies. The new program has involved both the intensification of border enforcement and a broad campaign of interior raids targeting undocumented communities. Sanctuary cities have been red flagged by federal investigators, and large-scale operations have been launched to uproot immigrant populations with little or no connection to criminality. The consequences are severe. Families are being torn apart; vulnerable individuals are detained without a chance to challenge their fate in court. By linking immigrants to crime and portraying them as invaders who threaten public order, the administration has found fertile ground among its core supporters. Fear is being weaponized as a tool of mass mobilization. The narrative is not one of legal reform but of racial dominationa policy calculated to reinforce the notion that non-white immigrants are aliens to the American experiment. This strategy is a deliberate escalation over past measures, marking a profound, state-sanctioned breach of both legal and moral boundaries. Embracing White Nationalism A cornerstone of Trump’s Southern Strategy 2.0 has always been his tacit marriage to extremist elements. Early in his political trajectory, he demonstrated a willingness to embrace far-right nationalist rhetoric. For example, after the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville—where white supremacists clashed with counter-protesters, resulting in the death of activist Heather Heyer—Trump’s response claiming there were “very fine people on both sides” was widely interpreted as a vote of confidence in extremist ideologies. Such moments, once dismissed as political missteps or careless remarks, now resonate with renewed significance. The administration’s current policies are a natural evolution of that earlier radicalism. By bypassing due process and deploying aggressive tactics against immigrants, the government validates the extremist perspective that sees racial purity as essential to national identity."

Your country?

Someone asked, “Why do some British people not like Trump?” An articulate and witty writer wrote the following response: “A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Obama possessd. So, the stark contrast does throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief. Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty, or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I do not say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it is a fact. He does not even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty. Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he does not just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and automatic nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance, or depth. It is all surface. Some might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we do not. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He is not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He is more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege. And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully and racist. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down. So, the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a few of us– of look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that: You do not need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man. This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty hard to miss. After all, it is impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump. And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumps of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created? If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

Nate Whight

Agree. Someone asked, “Why do some British people not like Trump?” An articulate and witty writer wrote the following response: “A few things spring to mind. Trump lacks certain qualities which the British traditionally esteem. For instance, he has no class, no charm, no coolness, no credibility, no compassion, no wit, no warmth, no wisdom, no subtlety, no sensitivity, no self-awareness, no humility, no honour and no grace – all qualities, funnily enough, with which his predecessor Obama possessd. So, the stark contrast does throw Trump’s limitations into embarrassingly sharp relief. Plus, we like a laugh. And while Trump may be laughable, he has never once said anything wry, witty, or even faintly amusing – not once, ever. I do not say that rhetorically, I mean it quite literally: not once, not ever. And that fact is particularly disturbing to the British sensibility – for us, to lack humour is almost inhuman. But with Trump, it is a fact. He does not even seem to understand what a joke is – his idea of a joke is a crass comment, an illiterate insult, a casual act of cruelty. Trump is a troll. And like all trolls, he is never funny and he never laughs; he only crows or jeers. And scarily, he does not just talk in crude, witless insults – he actually thinks in them. His mind is a simple bot-like algorithm of petty prejudices and automatic nastiness. There is never any under-layer of irony, complexity, nuance, or depth. It is all surface. Some might see this as refreshingly upfront. Well, we do not. We see it as having no inner world, no soul. And in Britain we traditionally side with David, not Goliath. All our heroes are plucky underdogs: Robin Hood, Dick Whittington, Oliver Twist. Trump is neither plucky, nor an underdog. He is the exact opposite of that. He is not even a spoiled rich-boy, or a greedy fat-cat. He is more a fat white slug. A Jabba the Hutt of privilege. And worse, he is that most unforgivable of all things to the British: a bully and racist. That is, except when he is among bullies; then he suddenly transforms into a snivelling sidekick instead. There are unspoken rules to this stuff – the Queensberry rules of basic decency – and he breaks them all. He punches downwards – which a gentleman should, would, could never do – and every blow he aims is below the belt. He particularly likes to kick the vulnerable or voiceless – and he kicks them when they are down. So, the fact that a significant minority – perhaps a few of us– of look at what he does, listen to what he says, and then think ‘Yeah, he seems like my kind of guy’ is a matter of some confusion and no little distress to British people, given that: You do not need a particularly keen eye for detail to spot a few flaws in the man. This last point is what especially confuses and dismays British people, and many other people too; his faults seem pretty hard to miss. After all, it is impossible to read a single tweet, or hear him speak a sentence or two, without staring deep into the abyss. He turns being artless into an art form; he is a Picasso of pettiness; a Shakespeare of shit. His faults are fractal: even his flaws have flaws, and so on ad infinitum. God knows there have always been stupid people in the world, and plenty of nasty people too. But rarely has stupidity been so nasty, or nastiness so stupid. In fact, if Frankenstein decided to make a monster assembled entirely from human flaws – he would make a Trump. And a remorseful Doctor Frankenstein would clutch out big clumps of hair and scream in anguish: ‘My God… what… have… I… created? If being a twat was a TV show, Trump would be the boxed set.

Nate Whight

___

The average American Trump supporter is a gun toting, neoliberal, bear shooting, death penalty supporting, misogynist, who believe that LGBT people should be stoned to death Old Testament style, a white supremacist, anti-vaccine, climate change denying, anti-evolution, anti- science, flat earth believing, pro-life, anti- intellectual, sanctimonious evangelical Christian, Islamophobic bigot. Chem trail obsessive, xenophobic and a racist. Also ignorant, stupid, perverted and possibly demented.

‘The most uneducated buffoon in history stands at a podium, bloated with self-importance, lips pursed like a carnival barker ready to sell turd milk to the unsuspecting. He grins a grotesque smirk stretched across his face as he scrawls his name onto a hollow decree, a sham celebration of the dismantling of knowledge itself. The Department of Education falls, not with a bang, but with wheezing verbs, suffocated under the weight of his own staggering ignorance. Surrounding him are the usual suspects: cowards in expensive suits, servile sycophants clapping like trained seals, and racist opportunistic ghouls picking clean the bones of democracy. Liars, fools, and thieves all parasites fattening themselves on the hardships of the many. They stand in rigid formation, dead-eyed and soulless, their allegiance sworn not to country, not to principle, but to power, and the dark, festering rot that clings to it. And there he is the convicted wrong, the living embodiment of septic tank spew, his voice a noxious fog of grift and grievance. He lectures the world on right and wrong, irony clawing at the walls, desperate to escape the grotesque theatre of his moral void. The stomach turns, the air curdles, and for a moment, history itself recoils watching, in horror, as the great American experiment teeters on the precipice, led by a man who couldn’t spell “precipice” if his life depended on it.’

Totally agree with you. The moderators are sanctimonious, cencorious, petty idiots who do not tolerate freedom of speech or thought. I was banned for pointing out that in the USA there is a thriving business that treats tropical fish unethically. This was the offending comment. ‘According to major veterinary organizations and animal welfare groups, intentionally breeding animals for physical extremes which inherently causes chronic suffering, reduces life spans, and passes on harmful mutations is considered highly unethical. Despite clear evidence that the breeding practices of certain fish breeds such as Goldfish lead to them to suffering from a range of different conformational malformations causing pain, discomfort and life limiting conditions, some breeding societies have followed societal fashion for ‘cute’ fish, prioritising the aesthetics, rather than the health of animals. The types of Goldfish most prone to illness are long-finned varieties and heavily inbred colour morphs. Their genetic history and physical traits frequently leave them dealing with chronic conditions including abnormal behaviours. The breeders produce fish with biological genetic inbuilt obsolescence.’

I am fearful about the extreme ignorance, simple mindedness and gullibility of some of the electorate. They are completely blind to the effects of neoliberalism, which is the main guiding force behind the bumptious, odious and fascist/racist Republican party who believe that competition is the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised; public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance, and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

I am fearful about the extreme ignorance, simple mindedness and gullibility of some of the electorate. They are completely blind to the effects of neoliberalism, which is the main guiding force behind the bumptious, odious and fascist/racist Reform party who believe that competition is the defining characteristic of human relations. It redefines citizens as consumers, whose democratic choices are best exercised by buying and selling, a process that rewards merit and punishes inefficiency. It maintains that “the market” delivers benefits that could never be achieved by planning. Attempts to limit competition are treated as inimical to liberty. Tax and regulation should be minimised; public services should be privatised. The organisation of labour and collective bargaining by trade unions are portrayed as market distortions that impede the formation of a natural hierarchy of winners and losers. Inequality is recast as virtuous: a reward for utility and a generator of wealth, which trickles down to enrich everyone. Efforts to create a more equal society are both counterproductive and morally corrosive. The market ensures that everyone gets what they deserve. We internalise and reproduce its creeds. The rich persuade themselves that they acquired their wealth through merit, ignoring the advantages – such as education, inheritance, and class – that may have helped to secure it. The poor begin to blame themselves for their failures, even when they can do little to change their circumstances.

Agree.

The Trump administration officially eliminated the 2009 EPA “endangerment finding,” stripping the federal government of its legal authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions.The administration rolled back regulatory requirements for automakers, loosening curbs on gasoline-powered vehicle pollution. Trump has heavily promoted a “drill, baby, drill” energy agenda, easing limits on industrial pollutants and attempting to keep aging fossil-fuel infrastructure online. He routinely mocks climate science on social media, frequently pointing to severe winter weather or downward revisions in worst-case climate projections as supposed evidence against global heating.The most uneducated buffoon in history stands at a podium, bloated with self-importance, lips pursed like a carnival barker ready to sell turd milk to the unsuspecting. He grins a grotesque smirk stretched across his face as he scrawls his name onto a hollow decree, a sham celebration of the dismantling of knowledge itself. The Department of Education falls, not with a bang, but with wheezing verbs, suffocated under the weight of his own staggering ignorance. Surrounding him are the usual suspects: cowards in expensive suits, servile sycophants clapping like trained seals, and racist opportunistic ghouls picking clean the bones of democracy. Liars, fools, and thieves all parasites fattening themselves on the hardships of the many. They stand in rigid formation, dead-eyed and soulless, their allegiance sworn not to country, not to principle, but to power, and the dark, festering rot that clings to it. And there he is the convicted wrong, the living embodiment of septic tank spew, his voice a noxious fog of grift and grievance. He lectures the world on right and wrong, irony clawing at the walls, desperate to escape the grotesque theatre of his moral void. The stomach turns, the air curdles, and for a moment, history itself recoils watching, in horror, as the great American experiment teeters on the precipice, led by a man who couldn’t spell “precipice” if his life depended on it.

What does that mean?

“The story of the metric system starts, somewhat unexpectedly, in 17th Century England, with the proposal by the natural philosopher John Wilkins for a consistently decimal system of units. The Europe of his time was divided by the use of innumerable different systems of measure, with each country using its own traditional units (and in many cases, a lack of even national standardisation meant that different regions within countries would use their own measures). To remedy this, Wilkins conceived of a single, rational standard, based on the best science of his time, which all nations could equally share. His idea for a “universal Measure” was not adopted in his era, although that very phrase would ultimately (via Greek translation) give us the name of the metre.”!

Given the time gap between the events recorded in the gospels and the and the estimated time they were written, the fallibility of human memory, and the potential unreliability of eyewitness testimony, the Gospels are not historically reliable with regard to the resurrection of Jesus. The gospels were written decades after the events they describe. They are reliant on the memory of unknown persons, oral traditions, and possibly other written sources that are no longer available. What’s wrong with memory? Human memory is fallible, particularly over long periods of time. It’s feasible that the authors unintentionally introduced errors while describing the resurrection event. What’s the problem with oral tradition? It was a means of transmitting information in societies that were largely illiterate. Unfortunately, as stories are passed down, the retelling of the story can include slightly different details due to memory distortion and reconstruction, and the differences can become amplified as the story is retold many times. We have watched this happen in a manner of minutes of a story being told. If you’ve ever heard of the telephone game this is a great example of this phenomenon happening. Perhaps the gospels were based on prior sources. If they are, we know nothing about these prior sources. We also have the problem of eye-witness testimony. We perceive events through the lens of our beliefs and biases. Confirmation bias can cause someone to remember details that they perceive as affirming their beliefs while disregarding information that contradict their beliefs. This can influence how we interpret and make sense of it when we’re giving an account of it at a later time. This issue can be further compounded when witnesses to an event discuss what they saw. This can lead to a sense of conformity where people alter their memories of an event to align with what is widely agreed upon. Along with an absence of external corroboration that a resurrection occurred, I find the gospels to be unreliable with regard to the resurrection.

All of them. !s a scientist, I am accustomed to the idea that truth claims ought to be justified with some reasonable evidence: if one is going to claim, for instance, that a Jewish carpenter was the son of a God, or that there is a place called heaven where some ineffable, magical part of you goes when you die, then there ought to be some credible reason to believe that. And that reason ought to be more substantial than that it says so in a big book.

Religious claims all seem to short-circuit the rational process of evidence-gathering and testing and the sad thing is that many people don’t see a problem with that and even consider it a virtue. It is why I don’t just reject religion, but actively oppose it in all its forms - because it is fundamentally a poison for the mind that undermines our critical faculties.

Religious beliefs are lazy jokes with bad punchlines. Why do you have to chop off the skin at the end of your penis? Because God says so. Why should you abstain from pork, or shrimp, or mixing meat and dairy, or your science classes? Because they might taint your relationship with God. Why do you have to revere a bit of dry biscuit? Because it magically turns into a God when a priest mutters over it. Why do I have to be good? Because if you aren’t, a God will set you on fire for all eternity.

These are ridiculous propositions. The whole business of religion is clownshoes freakin’ moonshine, hallowed by nothing but unthinking tradition, fear and superstitious behaviour and an establishment of con artists who have dedicated their lives to propping up a sense of self-importance by claiming to talk to an invisible big kahuna. It’s not just fact-free, it’s all nonsense.

Spot the apostrophe.