Terrorism

Published at 10:01 on 23 April 2025

Timothy Snyder seems quite sure that it will come, and Trump fascists will exploit it.

His essay is incomplete, though. It fails to mention the possibility of left-wing, anti-Trump terrorism. Or, should I say, politically-motivated crime, since that is basically what “terrorism” is. “Crime” is of course itself a political term, as it merely means anything the government has proclaimed to be a crime.

It doesn’t even have to involve violence in the normal sense, i.e. violence against people. Vandalism of Tesla property is now being called “terrorism” even though vandalism has traditionally been considered a property crime, not a violent crime. Of course, that doesn’t stop politically-motivated vandalism from being labelled “violence”, either.

The above all just goes to show how politically-charged common terminology is. Even the Associated Press, normally regarded as one of the better mainstream news agencies (to the point that it is currently engaged in a court battle with the Trump regime), is getting in on the game.

Anyhow, don’t dismiss the possibility of some real terrorism on the Left, as Snyder apparently does in his essay, seeing as how he simply doesn’t mention it. Margaret Killjoy is considerably more honest in her recent essay that touches on the same subject.

However terrorism comes, if it comes, Trump is likely to exploit it. And if it comes in the form of left-wing terrorism, Trump is particularly likely to exploit it. However, it might not come. Contrary to popular mythology, the American populace, especially the more left-leaning parts of it, is remarkable in particular for its docility.

This makes left-wing terrorism less likely, but it makes a backlash more likely should it happen, because many otherwise opposed to Trump will side with the fascists if it does. Gotta take a firm moral stand against “violence,” after all, even if nobody gets hurt in the “violence” and the State is engaging in far worse actual violence.

As Killjoy points out, this would be a strategic error. Trump wants to create a fascist state regardless of what the Left does. Trump exists in the context of a nation with an exceptionally docile and acquiescent Left. Just compare the USA with the likes of France and Greece when it comes for the propensity for unrest to emerge in response to outrages from the Right, or with what the Left was doing in Germany, Italy, or Chile before those countries underwent fascist transitions in the 20th century.

Yet it is the USA that is presently undergoing a transition to fascism, not France or Greece. If a docile Left actually prevented fascism, we would not be where we are today.

To sum up: If fascists try to take freedom away, some people will attempt to resist it. The resistance will not be 100% coordinated and optimized. Some elements of it might choose tactics you (or I) disagree with and/or regard as unstrategic. The root problem is, however, not the resistance. It is the fascism.

I don’t know what to do about this other than to point it out. To fall for the whole “the Left provoked fascism” garbage is basically the same thing as a battered wife falling for her abusive husband’s lie that she is forcing him to hit her, and that she needs to try to be a better wife.

Ogni Morte di Papa

Published at 09:21 on 22 April 2025

The title of this entry is an Italian saying that literally translates literally to “with every death of a pope,” and idiomatically to “once in a blue moon.”

Well, it happened, and it was inevitable. And odds disfavour the next pope being as liberal as the current one is, simply based on the pool of most likely candidates. My hope is that he’s at least not going to be a raging fascism-abetting reactionary who goes around loudly praising the likes of Trump, Netanyahu, Putin, and Orbán.

Dear Liberals: Just Stop

Published at 13:36 on 18 April 2025

Just stop with all the fantasies of accountability to come.

Just stop talking about trials in The Hague for the disappearances to El Salvador. Just stop talking about impeachment. ‘Cuz it ain’t gonna happen.

We’ve seen this before. No one save for a relatively few nobodies got prosecuted for what happened on 6 January 2021. And those nobodies have now all been fully pardoned.

Only a few nobodies got prosecuted for what happened at Abu Ghraib, for that matter. Nobody got held accountable for lying the USA’s way into the Iraq war, even when the liars resorted to illegal retaliation like revealing the role of Joseph Wilson’s wife as a secret CIA agent.

While we’re on the subject of lying one’s way into wars, nobody got held accountable for lying the USA into the Vietnam War or lying the USA into expanding that war into Cambodia (an act directly responsible for creating the power vacuum that the genocidal Khmer Rouge regime soon filled), either.

It’s pretty damn obvious why someone like Trump eventually showed up on the scene. Decades, and I mean decades, of US history point to a precedent of a president being able to do, well, basically whatever the hell he wants to do. And get away with it. The Supreme Court merely made de jure what anyone with a brain could see was already de facto.

So please, liberals, stop it. Even if you manage to pull a rabbit out of a hat and defeat Trump electorally in the next few cycles, in the big picture, it won’t change a damn thing. Nobody will get more than the lightest of slaps on the wrist, the Right will come roaring back yet again, and the next time will make this time look like they were just pussyfooting around.

Yeah, yeah, sure Lucy. This time the Democratic Party establishment won’t pull the football away. Just stop it.

And stop talking it being the Right as the ones who have trouble acknowledging reality. Their belief that their Führer can do whatever he wants and get away with it is, unlike your fairy tales of accountability coming from within the system, actually a plausible belief.

Unless…

Unless, that is, you get realistic.

Unless you open your eyes and see the Democratic Party and Establishment liberalism for what they actually are: not as any sort of actual opposition to the USA going fascist, but as willing co-participants in the process.

I don’t mean all liberals (or all Democrats) here. Many are in fact sincere in being revolted by fascism. I hope the liberals reading this are.

But I am not talking about individual beliefs; I am talking about the role of Establishment liberalism and the Democrats overall, in general. And that role has (again, overall and in general) been the role of willing co-participant.

I am sorry if this conclusion stings, but it is really the only logical one in light of amply demonstrated historical facts.

We need to acknowledge that the Democrats are not going to do jack shit about the fascist trend in the USA, unless there is some serious pressure from below. Alternate, non Democratic Party-affiliated, grassroots organizing needs to be done, with the aim of rendering the country ungovernable unless accountability happens.

Maybe even some pressure that plans to impose its own form of independent, non-governmentally-sanctioned accountability on the fascists. Because maybe that’s the sort of threat it will take for official accountability to happen.

And if you doubt this, I suggest you need to read more about labour activism and how workers got greater rights in the USA in the early 20th century (clue: it wasn’t entirely peaceful and law-abiding).

And if you don’t want to do such organizing, well, you don’t have to and I can’t make you.

Just shut up and cut the crap about accountability. Because, if so, it ain’t coming.

Xi Realizes China’s Role

Published at 14:50 on 14 April 2025

In a move whose significance is being overlooked by many, China’s leader recently came openly out in favour of working with the EU, to the exclusion of the USA, in defence of “…international fairness and justice and international rules and order.” This is both highly significant, predicted here, and very much good news, as it is probably a precondition for turning back the fascist tide.

In more good news, Spain seems to get it as well, while the fascists seem too addled by too addled by groupthink and leader worship to realize the full import of what is happening.

Now, this is Trump we are talking about, so that policy could well (and probably will, and to some degree already has, with the temporary tariff exemption for certain electronics goods) turn on a dime, but that is only of limited significance.

  1. China knows that the U.S.A. is unreliable, and will not soon forget it.
  2. The U.S. economy is certain to be damaged by the trade wars. A fascist regime that damages itself early on is less a threat than one that makes a strong start.

From a political dark arts perspective, my hope is that this all results in a generalized Sinophobia amongst the Trump right, which would help lock China in as an anti-Trump world power. The world needs an anti-Trump world power, and China is the most logical actor to become such a power.

Note finally that this process might take a while to complete. It’s not as if the current state of China-EU relations is all sunshine, lollipops, and rainbows. That, however, is mostly the lingering result of a world order that is now squarely receding in our rear-view mirror. The logic of a strategic partnership will, I hope, prove itself too strong to ignore.

There Is No Plan

Published at 09:57 on 9 April 2025

It is amusing to see all the Trumpsplainers trying to hypothesize why Trump is doing what he is doing, when simply observing all the easily-observable facts and applying Occam’s Razor yields a far simpler and far more logically consistent explanation.

Trump has no hidden master plan with respect to trade policy. He’s not a man of great intellect. He’s the sort of intellectually and morally compromised individual that only a bourgeois society, in thrall to capitalism and possessed of a need to rationalize the power that capitalists have, could elevate to a position of great power.

Trump is exactly who he appears to be: a child of privilege, born into great wealth, whose entire life has taught him — correctly — that in a bourgeois society there is no true rule of law, that the wealthy and powerful are not bound by the laws that bind lesser people.

Trump’s inherited class privilege got him out of having to serve against his will in Vietnam. It got him a degree from an Ivy League school. It got him a huge head start in business. Once in business, he used that class privilege to repeatedly shaft his suppliers, and to repeatedly evade any serious consequences for doing so.

It is Trump’s power as capitalist, the authoritarian leader of the capitalist firm with near absolute power to fire employees at will, that got him his most famous byline during his career as an actor playing a capitalist on television.

His entire life has taught him that he can do whatever he wants, follow his whims wherever they lead him, and not only evade personal consequences, but exist in a society where huge numbers nevertheless still continue to admire him and celebrate his power.

Another characteristic of Trump is his inflated ego. This is amply-demonstrated by his numerous statements boasting of his own imagined great skills. He always thinks he is the smartest guy in the room.

Although himself a capitalist, he doesn’t always personally adhere to capitalist orthodoxy, which is pretty much squarely behind free trade. He probably would, if he were better at reasoning things out and following logical implications. But he’s not the brightest bulb in the chandelier of society. (He just thinks he is.)

For whatever reason, he has long been a big fan of tariffs. That many very smart, very bourgeois, very pro-capitalist economists think otherwise is irrelevant. That even most apolitical economists think otherwise is irrelevant. That even many left-leaning economists think otherwise is irrelevant. The consensus of social scientists, like the consensus of any sort of scientists, is irrelevant. He’s sure he’s the smartest guy in the room, after all.

Trump is so much a fan of tariffs that he once called himself a “tariff man.” He once went so far as to quip that trade wars are good and easy to win.

By virtue of assuming power in a sick republic that has amassed ever-growing power into its presidency and which has never held a president accountable to the law, Trump now has the power to create tariffs. So tariffs there are.

Last time, Trump was never fully prepared to rule. He actually was surprised he won in 2016. He never seriously planned to win, so he had no ideas (before winning) of who to assemble into an administration.

So when he won, he was forced to wing it. A lot of the folks he assembled weren’t the greatest, but a few key ones were actually competent. And even the mediocre ones could usually recognize a truly moonbat when they saw one. So his worst ideas tended to get stalled, slow-walked, and watered down.

Not in 2024. He knew he could win because he had won once before. He had plenty of helpers and followers who knew he could win and who came up with plans for what to do if he won. He assembled a team of unquestioningly loyal sycophants. There is no pushback from within this time.

So tariffs there are, and tariffs there will continue to be until Trump himself decides to change course. And Trump is now more insulated from reality than ever, so tariffs there might continue to be for some time, despite how much harm they are causing.

There is no 3D quantum chess strategy. There is just a narcissistic fascist with great power acting on his personal whim. Nothing more, nothing less.

As to what happens next, I am sure top capitalists are trying to twist Trump’s arm and get him to reconsider his policies. Who knows, they might even be successful. Trump could declare victory, citing a willingness on the part of trading partners to negotiate, and turn off the tariffs.

Then again, he could persevere; he is more insulated from reality than he ever was. This trade war could be to Trump as the Ukraine war is to Putin. Note that Putin is still in power despite how much worse than planned his Ukraine war has gone. But also note that Putin had consolidated power a lot more before he embarked on his Ukraine misadventure.

If he perseveres, expect the fascist playbook to be followed: his regime will blame the resulting economic problems on immigrants, transpeople, and others it has chosen as its scapegoats. And, the USA being the morally compromised society it is, the scapegoating may well prove to be successful.

If you’re looking for predictions, “Trump will continue to do whatever his whim dictates” is not a very good predictive theory. I suspect this is why so many pundits are avoiding this most obvious of theories.

But it doesn’t matter. The world does not organize itself around making life easy for pundits. There is no secret strategy.

Update: Well, that didn’t take long. Looks like the capitalists persuaded him to put most of it on hold… for now (or until his whim takes him in another direction).

Getting Dragged, Kicking and Screaming, to the Cause of Revolution

Published at 16:35 on 3 April 2025

That is my summary of where career conservative J.V. Last is right now. Late last month he wrote an essay which included the following:

The Democratic party has more to learn from Alexei Navalny or the protesters in Serbia than it does from Chuck Schumer or strategists obsessing over message-testing crosstabs. This battle is half mass mobilization and half asymmetric warfare. Over the next year those tactics will matter more than traditional political messaging as it has been practiced here in living memory.

Granted, he still has faith in the Democratic Party that I don’t have, but he’s not really that far from what I have already concluded here earlier. It took about four years for the corpse to start stinking badly enough for even some conservatives to now realize it, but here we are.

Inconvenient facts are curious things. They don’t become any less inconvenient when you ignore them. Quite the contrary, in fact.

And make no mistake: I am glad to see individuals like Last finally start coming on board. It’s what growing a movement looks like.

Fixing iPhone Video Colour

Published at 09:15 on 31 March 2025

Executive Summary

Export your video from the Photos app in original, unmodified format. Then, in the Finder (yes, the Finder), right-click on the video file you exported and choose Services → Encode Selected Video Files, and choose your encoding (1080p in my case). The result will be an HD video that can be shared on YouTube and which will not be all desaturated and overexposed.

The Details

The first time I tried importing a video shot on my iPhone into DaVinci Resolve it happened: the video was all washed-out and overexposed. It brought back bad memories of uploading still photos to the Web and viewing them on my Mac in the late aughts, as the overall effect was quite similar.

Then, the fault was Apple software botching colour management. Specifically, Safari was assuming that any image file without colour management data embedded in it should be displayed using the native Apple colour space. The latter has a wider gamut than the de-facto standard sRGB colour space, and using it to view unconverted sRGB data causes photos that look overexposed and desaturated, i.e. “washed out.” The same web page would have photos that would look just fine on Linux and Windows systems.

Mac fanboys at this stage would get all pompous about how “Apple does colour management right” when in fact Apple was getting it massively wrong. Yes, Apple did use a colour space that provided a wider gamut than Windows or Linux. Yes, Apple system tools and libraries had support for reading colour space data before Linux and Windows did, but their handling of data with no colour space information was flawed; what should have been interpreted as sRGB was instead being interpreted as being in the native system colour space.

So it was Apple’s fault. The workaround was to always embed colour space data in every image saved for Web use, and to always save that data in sRGB form. Windows and Linux would ignore the colour space information but the image data would be sRGB so it would display correctly there. Apple software would see the sRGB colour space metadata and do the necessary conversion before passing it on for display.

Eventually, Apple fixed their broken colour management, but old habits die hard and I still save still images in the above way for Web use.

I don’t know exactly who is at fault here, but:

  • The iPhone camera application is being weird. The Rec.709 gamma and colour space are the industry defaults for 1080p (i.e. “HD”) video (in fact, they were developed for use in HD video), yet if you tell your iPhone to shoot video in “HD” mode, it uses the Rec.2020 colour space with the Rec.2100 HLG gamma. You get an oddball video file instead of a standard HD one.
  • The Photos app on both the iPhone and the desktop Macs will display the resulting video just fine, as will QuickTime Player and iMovie.
  • When you import the video into DaVinci Resolve, the result looks all washed-out.
  • When you export the video from the Photos app and tell it to use 1080p format, it does convert the colour space, but it does a poor job of it. The result looks somewhat washed-out and it has weird colour shifts.
  • When you add a colour space transform to DaVinci Resolve’s colour processing, it also does a poor job of conversion.

So at this stage my money is on it mostly being DaVinci Resolve’s fault. It seems to be ignoring colour space information and assuming everything is Rec.709. It also seems deficient in reasonable defaults for colour space conversion (if the Finder can do it and get acceptable results without a lot of tedious tweaking by hand, DaVinci Resolve should offer a way to do this as well).

But Apple doesn’t completely escape blame here. If video colour space conversion is so tricky to get right (and I think this is part of the problem), then why use the troublesome Rec.2020 colour space when the user is telling the Camera app to shoot HD videos?

Apple fanboys should at this stage have a nice hot steaming cup of STFU. Yes, I know that Rec.2020 is “better” in the sense that it has a wider gamut and finer resolution than the industry standard, and thus preserves the ability to do more recovery of correct information in postprocessing. But the user has told the Camera app to shoot an HD video. That is critical. When the rest of the world talks about an “HD” video, they are talking about a video in the Rec.709 colour space, not some oddball Franken-video with the HD resolution but a non-HD colour space that will massively fail when shown on most video players on most platforms. Preserve the ability to shoot and save with greater colour resolution, yes, but don’t call it “HD” video if it’s not recording standard HD video.

There is, thankfully, a way to do a colour space conversion that produces acceptable results. It is hidden in, of all places, the Finder. See the executive summary above.

This, too, is Apple’s fault. The conversion should not be hidden in the Finder. It should not be in the Finder at all. It should be an option in the Photos app. (Well, it is, but that option doesn’t do a good job. Apple needs to fix the colour space conversion in Photos and clean up the Finder to not have the feature creep it does.)

To reiterate, it all brings back bad memories of what life was like fifteen or so years ago with still images. Implementing colour management in ways that could be theoretically superior to industry standards, but botching the implementation and making life needlessly difficult for your users, just seems to be in Apple’s genes. And mostly ignoring the desirability of embedding colour space info in media files seems to be in everyone else’s genes.

Canada, the USA, and Individual Liberty

Published at 08:01 on 8 March 2025

Or, “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” versus “peace, order, and good government.”

At least, that’s the dichotomy as it is commonly presented on both sides of the border. Or, should I say, it is so far as Americans are even aware of the second quoted phrase above, and most are not. It is a dichotomy that I disagree with. While it is possible to pick and choose examples that fall into that narrative, one does not have to try very hard to find counterexamples to it.

Zoning and Land Use Planning

I live in a neighbourhood of the sort that simply does not exist in most US West Coast cities. The sole exception is San Francisco, which is old enough to predate most planning and zoning laws. My neighbourhood does not predate such laws, yet it has a form more typical of neighbourhoods that predate such laws in the USA.

First, the lot sizes are a lot smaller. In the USA, supposed land of individual freedom and property rights, there was a government agency (the FHA) handing down dictates from above regarding, amongst other things, minimum lot size. Properties in nonconforming neighbourhoods would be not be eligible for government-underwritten mortgages, so not surprisingly, municipalities and developers caved to the demands. In Canada, supposed land of submission to good government, the Federal government was largely silent. The market dictated lot sizes, and since there was a market for 3500 square foot lots, such lots were platted and sold.

Second, a lot of the people who first settled here were immigrants from southern Europe. They were not wealthy. They could only just barely afford homes, and many of them couldn’t afford homes on their own; they could only afford them if they split their housing cost with some tenants. So they did just that. Now, this was against the law, these areas being at the time zoned for single family use. But then a curious thing happened: the City of Vancouver blanched at enforcing the law. These were people’s homes after all. These were individuals with property rights choosing to do what they wanted with their property. Is this the sort people we are, to come down with the mailed fist of authority onto individuals pursuing their own dreams with their own homes in their own way? So East Vancouver ended up becoming neighbourhood after neighbourhood of mainly duplexes. Eventually the city acknowledged reality and legalized such uses.

Americans have tried to do this, too. Sometimes it flies, but usually it doesn’t end so well. Neighbours notice other neighbours have too many cars parked in front, or have too many people entering and exiting, some routinely using the exterior entrance to the basement. A zoning violation gets reported. And the city usually comes down hard on such things. We have neighbourhood standards to enforce after all. Conform to the norm or suffer the consequences.

Policing

Independent police oversight, in which a third party investigates accusations of unlawful behaviour by law enforcement officers, is the norm in Canada and many other First World democracies. It is the exception to the norm in the USA, where police departments are generally trusted to police themselves. How this can be squared with Canadians having faith in government and Americans questioning authority is simply beyond me.

Incarceration

No nation locks up as many people as does the USA, either per capita or in absolute numbers. Not even China. Not even Russia. Not even Cuba. My guess is that North Korea should probably be number one on that list, but accurate data is sort of hard to come by when it comes to the Hermit Kingdom. Still, if your standards for a core human rights measure are “well, at least we’re better than North Korea,” let me suggest that your standards define the bottom of the barrel. Again, how this can be squared with Canadians being the ones more accepting of authority and submission to it is simply beyond me.

Prohibition

This one’s a little murkier. Both the USA and Canada went on an ill-fated experiment to micromanage which substances adults may or may not imbibe, and it went poorly in both countries. The difference is that when it started going poorly in Canada, it got repealed. Because of course it did: it was just like the illegal duplexes of which I wrote earlier. Do we really want to be in the business of policing what private citizens want to drink in their own homes? Is that the sort of society we are?

The USA doubled down. Respect authority! Obey! Time for a new, powerful, Federal police agency! Only after the doubling-down failed, and a Great Depression made people realize that a legal, profitable, alcoholic beverages industry might prove to be something of an economic shot in the arm, did the failed experiment finally end. In the meantime, Americans acquired a taste for Canadian whisky which led to one of Canada’s more profitable export industries.

On cannabis, some US states such as Colorado and Washington beat Canada to the game at legalization. Sort of. It’s still illegal on the Federal level, so what we have is a legal gray area where cannabis is illegal under Federal law but legal under State law, so the state and local cops won’t enforce what is a Federal matter. Plus it’s an all-cash business; banks are Federally regulated and don’t want to have anything to do with it.

Canada took its time (and many Canadians were embarrassed that it took so long), but cannabis is now completely legal here. Pot shops take credit and debit cards, because of course they do, that makes life easier for your customers and the banks have no qualms about serving just another legal business.

One area that fits the popular narrative is that no province pushed the envelope the way any US state did and tried to legalize cannabis before the Federal government was ready.

Narcotics

Canada trusts me, as a responsible adult, to go to my local pharmacy and purchase narcotics over the counter. No, they are not very strong narcotics. Yes, I do have to go and ask the pharmacist for them. Yes, he does ask to see my ID, and does record my purchase, so if I become addicted, it will be evident to the authorities. But I still can do it. Not in the so-called land of the free.

The Draft

Canada has been very reluctant to conscript people into its military against their will. Doing so during World War I triggered rioting and a political crisis. It was the USA that drafted young men to go fight in Vietnam against their will, and it was to Canada that many of these men fled for sake of their individual liberty. It is hard to think of any greater violation of liberty than to force an individual into servitude, yet the USA did just that.

Slavery

And not just during the Vietnam War. For decades, enslaved Black Americans fled north to freedom via the Underground Railroad. It’s not so well known in the USA, but Canada had slavery at one time, too. It just wasn’t so economically important on this side of the border, and quickly ran into adverse court decisions (there was a famous one in what is now Quebec that proclaimed that while slavery was legal, there was no law against a slave running away from their master). It was the so-called land of the free that for decades made peace with slavery and rationalized it because it was economically profitable.

LGBTQ Rights

Sex between consenting adults became fully legal nationwide in Canada in 1969. It took until 2003 for the USA to get to the same place (via a court decision that could be reversed at any time now). Canada also beat the USA when it came to legalizing same-sex marriage (which again is the law of the land in the USA by virtue of a court decision that could be reversed any time now).

And Finally, the Elephant

You know, the decline in liberty accompanying the transition to fascism that most Americans apparently seem just fine with. And sorry, I don’t know any other honest way to interpret those poll results. If Party A is advocating fascism, and Party B is advocating something squarely within the bounds of small-l, small-d liberal democracy, and the overall public takeaway that Party A is approximately where it ought to be and Party B is too far left, well, it seems obvious to me.

But You’re Cherry-Picking!

Sure, there’s things that fit the narrative (I even pointed one out above). But come on now, the last few months should conclusively prove beyond doubt that something is rotten in the supposed Land of the Free and Home of the Brave. Some of us have been sensing the rot for some time.

I suggest it’s merely a commonly-believed narrative, and not any sort of accurate summary of actual political attitudes. The land of “peace, order, and good government” is quite often also the land of “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” and such it has long been.

Looking for Alternatives to Digital Ocean

Published at 09:27 on 23 February 2025

Let me start by saying I have been nothing but satisfied with Digital Ocean, which I use to host this blog, so far. The issue here is not anything Digital Ocean has done, it is what Digital Ocean is highly likely to do in the future.

Digital Ocean is a capitalist enterprise based in a country undergoing a transition from democracy to fascism. The historical role of the capitalist class is to line up in support behind fascist regimes whenever they arise.

I do not know the politics of Digital Ocean’s top management and board of directors. It does not much matter. Even if both are dominated by political progressives, compliance with the rapidly-emerging fascist regime is highly likely.

In a capitalist corporation, management serves at the pleasure of the board, whose prime mission is to act in the interest of the corporation’s stockholders and their desire to maximize profits. Profits are not maximized by staking out adversarial positions to an authoritarian regime.

The above makes compliance the expected outcome, and the historical record of capitalism under fascism bears this theory out.

Yes, even under the Nazis there were businesses like DEF (Oskar Schindler’s firm) and Ernst Leitz GmbH (the makers of Leica cameras) that tried to do the right thing as much as they could. But even they were heavily constrained, and did a lot of complying (both manufactured materiel for the Wehrmacht). Even if Digital Ocean follows in their footsteps (and odds are against it, good guys like Leitz and Schindler are the exceptions that prove a general rule), they will still have to make a public show of being loyal Trump fascists.

Even in the optimistic case, then, this site is likely to end up as collateral damage should it remain on Digital Ocean.

Hence, it is now time for me to move this site elsewhere, which brings me to the requirements for what “elsewhere” should ideally be.

  1. As little US connection as possible. Ideally this would be an organization that is neither owned by US capital, managed or overseen by US citizens, based in the USA, nor physically hosted in the USA.
  2. Cloud hosting that lets me run my own installation of WordPress on my own installation of Linux. I am not interested in sharing an OS installation or a WordPress installation with others; past experience has taught me that both are insufficient to my needs.
  3. The ability to assign a static IP address to a virtual server.
  4. A provider that offers an S3-compatible cloud storage service, since I use such to keep this site backed up.

Any suggestions as to the above would be greatly appreciated!