It’s becoming a problem

It’s becoming a problem. When people start asking, “Is @_elena the first genuine superstar of the Fediverse?” – we should all pause. This isn’t idle praise, it’s the reproduction of celebrity culture, liberal imperialism, and vertical hierarchy in a space that explicitly set out to reject those structures.

Have you ever thought – just for a moment – that this might be the completely WRONG path for a horizontal network like the #Fediverse? Yes, we need mess. Yes, we need experimentation. But this? This is #mainstreaming in its most seductive form, a soft power grab, hiding behind friendly faces and growing marketing gloss.

Both #pubconf2025 and #fediforum, and the people who attend them, are becoming a showroom for this liberal capture, promoting star-making and platforming over community process and open governance. It’s a mirror of the conference-industrial complex, repackaged for the #dotcons-weary.

We’ve seen this before: #NGOs turned movements into funding funnels. Influencers replaced organizers. Polite panels replaced fourm-level solidarity. It’s been happening here the last few years. But we do need to remember, the Fediverse isn’t a playground for fame, it’s a commons, to distribute power – not concentrate it. We don’t need to unthinkingly push people down the superstars’ path. We need peers, comrades, care, conflict resolution, and actual shared infrastructure.

So let’s be honest, if you’re pushing “the first superstar of the Fediverse,” you’re not pushing decentralization, you’re pushing brand culture, mainstreaming logic, and attention economies repackaged for liberal feels.

That’s not radical. That’s not native, it’s not what we came here to build. Let’s compost this celebrity logic before it roots too deep. Let’s stay messy, collaborative, and resist the temptation to crown anyone. Because if we don’t? We’re just rebuilding the same old pyramids – with slightly alt avatars.

Let’s look at the more #mainstreaming #dotcons path. The not-so-subtle message we need to remember on social media: Dictators hate to be ignored. Especially on their “special days” – birthdays, elections, court appearances, or orchestrated spectacles. These moments are designed to dominate the media cycle and, by extension, the social media algorithms.

They thrive on attention, and whether that attention is praise or outrage, it fuels their visibility and power. Here’s the social tech they exploit:

When you doomscroll their face, the algorithm sees interest.
When you post disgust, the algorithm sees engagement.
When you argue with trolls, you’re boosting the signal of the original post.
When you call them names, it still centres them.

That’s the #dotcons feedback loop, engagement is king, and dictators know how to play that game. Let’s break this circle, on these days, do something different:

Share stories of local mutual aid.
Link to historical context that exposes the long game of these power grabs.
Boost voices that decentralize attention, not concentrate it.
Post about books, direct action, food sovereignty, climate organizing, and tools for collective autonomy.
Highlight grassroots projects like #OMN, which are building sustainable, decentralized alternatives.

This is how we take the air out of #mainstreaming fires. Starve the algorithm and feed the resistance. Focus on things that actually matter, remember: not engaging is a strategy. Ignore the circus. Build the commons.

#KISS

Why does any of this matter?

Because power matters, and power is never given – it’s taken, built, and at its best, shared. That’s why we care. That’s why the #Fediverse matters.

Let’s rewind: Private property wasn’t born from reason or consensus. It came from someone with a club drawing a line in the sand and saying:

“Cross this, and I’ll kill you.”

That’s the origin of power in the current #mainstreaming paths – violence, enclosure, and exclusion. This is not the foundation of the #Fediverse.

The Fediverse flows from a different source, built in open, social webs, where the lines we draw are “blowing in the wind.” Yes, a lot of people don’t get this. That’s why they try to jam it back into old models: branding, control, platforms, “governance,” and “best practices.” They want order. They want power they can hold.

But here’s the thing, There is such a thing as society, and we need to build tools that reflect this, not deny it. The beauty, and challenge, of the #Fediverse is that there is no central governance.
And that’s a good thing. Because it means we aren’t trapped by legacy systems of control. We don’t have to fit into the broken economies and top-down paths that dominate the “real” outside world.

The Fediverse was born from the “cats” of libertarianism and anarchism (without the [O]). And in this space, we have the radical opportunity to build different, native paths, based in trust, mutual aid, and the #4opens. But to keep building this, we have to compost the mess pushing: People pushing “common sense” corporate-style governance are part of the problem, they want to tame the wild, they want hierarchy where there should be networks, they want control where we need flow.

To be native to the Fediverse, we have to stop importing “common sense” control systems. Instead, we must use code – and culture – to build native #openweb society. Tools that empower. Processes that are messy, open, federated, and yes, hard to define. Organizing for community empowerment need to embed anti “common sense” in the same way the Fediverse is anti-enclosure. Because if we forget this… We don’t build a better web, we just recreate the old one with new colours. Let’s not just repeat history, let’s not draw new hard lines in the sand with the same threat of old clubs. A step away from this is to build bridges, not borders.

It would be helpful to talk about the industrial-scale air freshener being sprayed to mask the stench of collapse. An example, while Gaza burns and genocide unfolds in real time, too many on the soft left are busy sniffing their own ideological mess.

“Oh, but they used a plane once…”

“Oh, that project isn’t perfect, so let’s not support it at all…”

“Oh, their anti-Nazi message is just a header image. That’s clearly useless propaganda…”

This is troll logic. This is #psyop brainrot, it’s weaponized idealism used to undermine action.

“Sure, they’re doing good - but not perfect. So discredit, disengage, demoralize.”

It’s the tactic troll farms use on the #dotcons to feed manipulative, because it appeals to insecure egos and a culture soaked in #stupidindividualism, where the look of moral “purity” is more important than building power, solidarity, or impact.

And too many fall for it, because they don’t see it for what it is: A feedback loop that leads nowhere. A stalling tactic. A demobilizer. It’s not accidental, it’s designed to stop us acting.
It’s strategic passivity masquerading as moral high ground.

“Don’t link to that, it’s not flawless.”
“Don’t share that resource, the font is ugly.”
“Don’t support that campaign, they once took a selfie on a plane.”

Are you serious? While people are being murdered by states, you’re sniffing out aesthetic imperfections? Here’s #KISS:

Nobody wins by demanding perfection.

Nobody builds movements by tearing down every action.

Nobody helps anyone by blocking solidarity and smearing efforts.

We need to focus attention, not fragment it. We need to act in coalitions, not purity circles, we need to smell the rot, not cover it with ideological air freshener. Because this isn’t a game, it is about #powerpolatics, and how it’s wielded or lost. And while you troll your own side for imaginary infractions, the fascists are laughing – and organizing.

Please, please try and STOP being a prat, thanks.

When we block thinking, it’s pratish #dotcons behaviour

We’re living through a cultural shift. The #Fediverse, the #openweb, and grassroots tech projects like #OMN were born to challenge the values of the corporate web, not to reproduce them.
But what are we doing instead? We’re seeing people attacked simply for linking to context and history. Linking is native to the open web. Attacking people for linking? That’s native to #dotcons. Take this example: When we post links to hamishcampbell.com, a site with over 20 years of radical media history, no tracking, no ads, no monetization, some people respond with hostility. Instead of engaging, they block, slur, and accuse.

Why? Because the link was shared on a #dotcons platform? Because it challenges their gatekeeping norms? It’s absurd. The truth is simple: #KISS – Keep It Simple, Stupid.
This site is part of a long history of grassroots movements. No one is selling anything. No one is farming clicks. Yet bitter, shrinking cliques still push to block it. That kind of behaviour? It’s at best compost – something to shovel through as we grow better soil.

If you don’t get why this matters, start here: Why linking on the open web matters. Not linking is a dangerous cultural regression. The act of linking is a kind of mutual aid: it’s memory, solidarity, and a way to keep the commons visible. When you attack people for linking, you’re actively damaging the infrastructure we need to resist the #deathcult of #neoliberal capitalism.

Here’s another angle worth reading: CrimethInc on mutual aid vs. charity. Mutual aid is not charity. Linking is not self-promotion. These are fundamental ideas. The #Fediverse is built on these values, it thrives when people share freely. But when we import #blocking behaviour and #dotcons paranoia, we replace trust with fear. We end up with closed circles, bad vibes, and petty gatekeeping.

This is not how we build shared infrastructure. This is not how we win. So please: Let’s stop slurring people for sharing knowledge. Let’s stop policing links with fear. Let’s link more, think more, and rebuild grassroots, networked culture rooted in trust, not control. Because without this? We’re just another branded platform, with nicer avatars and the same old decay underneath.

We’ve Spent 45 Years Worshipping A #Deathcult

For more than 40 years, the default #mainstreaming path has led straight into worshipping of what can only be described as a #deathcult. This isn’t just metaphor, it’s literal. We’ve watched the ecosystem collapse, inequality explode, communities fragment, and culture rot under the weight of corporate-controlled sameness. And through it all, the one thing we haven’t been allowed to do, culturally, politically, or economically, is to imagine an alternative.

Since Thatcher’s “There is no alternative” the world has been locked in a feedback loop. Fukuyama told us it was the “end of history.” Blair polished the same lie in softer tones, calling it a “post-ideological society.” What they all meant no matter how broken, no matter how brutal, it’s this, or “chaos”.

This ideological mess, our progressive chattering classes, call capitalist realism. The imposed feeling that everything else has failed, that even critique itself must operate within the narrow #neoliberal system, never against it. That anything outside is too utopian, too dangerous, too naïve to be worth considering. The result is generations raised not to debate capitalism, but to tweak it around the edges. And when the tweaks fail, when the system cracks the official line is always: “That’s just how capitalism works. And this is a capitalist country. What else do you want?”

But the truth is, there were alternatives. There are alternatives which keep being crushed, ignored, and parasitized at every turn. This is why we need to talk more about the parasite class and the memory hole. Every time a genuine alternative surfaces, every time a counter-current starts to build, there’s a swarm, a parasite class gathers. Not to support, but to feed, to suck the creativity, the vision, the life out of resistance and repurpose it for the status quo. This is the essence of #mainstreaming, it cannot generate ideas, only feed off of them.

Just look at any radical movement over the last four decades. Greenham, Climate camps, Digital commons, #Occupy, #BLM, The Fediverse. Each time, there’s a surge of energy, messy, collective challenge to the dominant #mainstreaming stories and paths. And each time, the #NGOs, institutions, think tanks, and media players show up, not to amplify the challenge, but to smooth it over, make it palatable, safe, marketable.

Meanwhile, the people actually doing the work, building networks, holding the line, defending autonomy get sidelined. Then forgotten, or worse, written out of the story entirely. The result is activist history rewritten by the least effective, most self-promoting voices. The messy, thus vital truth gets buried under branding and bureaucracy. The stories of resistance become content for the same system they were fighting against.

This is where the #OMN comes in, the #OMN (Open Media Network) exists to break this pattern, by holding open spaces for the stories that matter. To surface the compost, not the plastic packaging. It’s not about building a new platform for ego. It’s about building a garden for alternatives to grow. We’re trying to reboot history here, document from the bottom-up, not top-down. To give focus back to the people who said “don’t look at me,” and ask them to please speak, because if they don’t, the parasites will write the ending. Again. We need open tools with shared protocols, trust-based networks that isn’t just reactive, but generative. Not perfect, not polished, but messy and alive, like all growing alternatives must be.

What we don’t need is a healthy #deathcult, the #NGO crew have little understanding of this needed negative imagination. Let’s be blunt, we don’t want the #deathcult to be healthy. We don’t want to be its lifeblood. We don’t want to be mainstreamed. We want the current mess to collapse under its own contradictions. And it will, it is, but feeding it while it failes is not helping.

Only if we remember that our job isn’t to improve capitalism, but to compost it. Not to brand rebellion, but to build real, rooted alternatives. We’re 45 years deep into a dead-end story. It’s time to write a different one. And that begins, as always, with remembering what they told us to forget.

Telling Our Stories: Activist History and the Parasites of #Mainstreaming

All activist history is soaked in struggle, not just against the oppressive systems we set out to confront, but also internally, against the deep currents of sectarianism that fracture our own movements. The history of Greenham Common Women’s Peace Camp offers a vivid example. The colour-coded gates, yellow, red, blue, were more than navigation markers. They were flags of ideology, staking claims in this radical space, they were spreading stories. This was strength, it was a reflection of our tolerance: the ever-present bridging of views of ourselves as we build collective power.

And what is negative in this networked space? The same pattern, again and again. The loudest, most performative, and often the least effective people are the ones who tell the story. “Look at me,” they shout. “I was there. I led.” But where are the people who actually did the work? They’re still busy doing it. Quietly. Relentlessly. With their eyes on the issues, not on the spotlight. “Don’t look at me, I’m busy,” they say, trying to keep the fire alive.

The result is a warped memory. A messy, inaccurate activist history dominated by ego, not impact. And this distortion doesn’t only affect our understanding of the past, it shapes the strategies of the present and the futures we dare to imagine.

This problem doesn’t end with internal dynamics. Around every genuine social alternative, there gathers a familiar class, the parasites. These are not builders. They do not risk, they do not create. They arrive when the work is already done, when the energy is starting to rise, and they feed. They bring language, branding, metrics. They bring funding models. They bring institutional polish. And they bring rot.

This is the strong flow of #mainstreaming, the parasite class turns counter-currents into lifeblood for the dominant #deathcult, giving the reformist rebellion just enough edge, just enough cool to remain relevant. It does this because the mainstreaming, what we call the #deathcult, has little vitality of its own, being built on extraction, not creation.

And here lies the source of the recurring stress, that is present in every activist conversation worth having today. We don’t want the #deathcult to be healthy. We don’t want to be the raw material for its constant renewal. But how do we resist this co-option without collapsing into more sectarianism? How do we build spaces where the real work is visible and valued, without falling into the trap of ego?

This isn’t just about correcting the history books. It’s about reclaiming our stories so we can reclaim our strategies. If we don’t tell the truth of our movements, the parasites will. And they will use our truths as the next marketing campaign.

So, the challenge, we need to build cultures of memory and documentation that serve the work, not the egos. We need to resist the urge to pointlessly divide over differences when we could be multiplying our strengths. And urgently, we must recognize and mediate the damage parasites do, not with purity tests, more with clear boundaries and rooted values like the #4opens and #PGA hallmarks.

This is not about nostalgia, rather it’s about survival. It’s about #makeinghistory, the stories that keep the fire burning, not just for ourselves, but for everyone who still works for a better world,

A call-out for collective tech with teeth

It’s important to be honest about the landscape we’re working in. Just about every so-called “alternative tech” or #opensocialweb event – especially those run under the #NGO banner – is riddled with institutional parasites. They talk a big game about ethics, governance, and decentralisation, but their main role is to capture energy, not release it. The value in these spaces is minimal, maybe a few decent corridor chats, but structurally, they serve the status quo.

What we’re seeing is an attempt to #mainstream change by reshaping it into something more passive and marketable. It’s branding, not building. It’s funding cycles, not freedom. And people are so used to the #feudalism of current #FOSS governance models, full of gatekeepers, toxic meritocracy, and internalised hierarchy, that they don’t see the need to move past this. They double down instead, its just #blocking masked as principled caution.

That’s why the #OGB project (Open Governance Body) takes a radically different approach: build it permissionless and let it loose. No waiting for gatekeepers, no begging for funding, no asking nicely. Just making space for people to actually do the thing – together, in the open. If it works, people will come. If not, we try something else. But we stop wasting energy on the #mainstreaming rituals.

The key is to recognise that there’s a different and much larger group of people, beyond the usual suspects, who can be empowered by tech if the structures are simple, human, and social enough. People who want to work together, share power, and build resilience, not just ship code. Yes, the tools need to exist, the ideas already exist, what’s been missing is a path that doesn’t instantly collapse into control.

That’s why #OGB is a #KISS project, it’s not about perfection. It’s about functioning enough to seed community processes that can grow over time. Something you can pick up and use, rather than argue about forever in a GitHub issue or a grant proposal.

Let’s be real, people are up shit creek without a paddle right now. And most of what’s presented to them as “solutions” are just more mess dressed up in new UX. If we want people to find different ways out, we have to build different places to look. That means creating tech ecosystems rooted in social trust, creativity, and actual autonomy, not more extractive platforms or performative NGOs.

We also need to deal with the deeper issue of apathy and Laissez-faire fatalism. People feel the system’s broken but don’t believe it can be changed. They’ve internalised the idea that trying is pointless. So we need to design structures that take this into account. Systems that don’t rely on constant enthusiasm or perfect participation. That hold space through thick and thin, for the long term.

This is where there’s real space for creativity and care, not just in what we build, but in how we build it, and who we build it with. Not self-promoting conferences, not glossy decks, but compost piles and messy gardens, things that live, change, and root themselves in everyday needs.

The #OGB project is just one shovel. But there are others. Pick one up. The ground’s ready.

Evangelicals and the hardright

We’re seeing a pattern here in the UK similar to what Kristin Kobes Du Mez maps out in Jesus and John Wayne, the rise of hypermasculine, nationalist evangelical Christianity that’s far more about power than faith. It’s a core part of politics across the Atlantic for decades, and now the same push is happing here in the UK

Oxford city center, well funded free propaganda

In the US, white evangelicals didn’t back Trump despite his obvious corruption and lack of basic Christian values – they backed him because he embodied their real gospel: patriarchal authority, militant nationalism, fear of outsiders, and a fantasy of strongman salvation. Du Mez shows how generations of evangelical pop culture, from John Wayne to Duck Dynasty – laid the cultural foundations for this, replacing the Sermon on the Mount with cowboy swagger and authoritarian power plays.

Now, we’re seeing the UK version of this evangelical hard right mess pushing. Funded by US networks, hardline churches are expanding fast, particularly in working-class and migrant communities. These aren’t your local Church of England vicars or even your average happy-clappy congregations. We’re talking about groups pushing anti-LGBTQ+ agendas, climate denial, strict gender roles, and blind allegiance to state power, often with serious foundation and corporate money behind them.

Groups like Christian Concern, the Alliance Defending Freedom (which has set up shop here), and various Prosperity Gospel outfits linked to US megachurches are growing in political reach. Evangelical academies and ‘leadership training’ institutions are popping up, producing media-savvy influencers and aspiring MPs. The goal? To reshape UK politics around a Christian nationalist vision, just like in the States.

You can already see it in the way culture war rhetoric is creeping into #mainstreaming politics. Attacks on “woke culture,” trans rights, and environmental protections are all increasingly cloaked in moral panic and biblical justification. This isn’t an organic backlash, it’s strategy.

These churches are increasingly aligning with the hard right, providing the “moral” gloss for austerity, nationalism, and climate delay. And like in the US, they present themselves as victims, claiming persecution whenever they’re called out for bigotry and misinformation.

Let’s be very clear, this has little to do with Jesus, and a lot to do with building a new authoritarian consensus under the banner of faith, flag, and fossil fuels. If you want to know where we’re going unless we push back hard, look at the US. The seeds are already here, and they’re being watered with foreign money and feed on homegrown reaction.

A lot of resources are put into this outreach

This is why our response has to go beyond satire and eye-rolling. We need to compost this mess before it can root. Because this isn’t about church or state. It’s about who gets to shape the future, and who gets left out entirely. These people are funded to push the hard right mess in the UK. when you lift the funding lid, this is more about #classwar than “religion”.

Trumpism and the progressive paths to an alternative future

#Oxford

The Fediverse is opening, but there is a cost

With the #Fediverse gaining increasing #mainstreaming attention, we’re entering a familiar cycle, an influx of well-funded #NGO-branded projects trying to “fix” the #openweb by reshaping it in their own narrowing and to often blinded paths.

Take this year’s #chatteringclass event, #FediForum. Alongside breathless praise, last year, for #Threads joining the #opensocialweb space, we’re seeing the launch of shiny new tools: #BonfireSocial, #Channelorg, #Bounce. That promise innovation and ecosystem growth, but look closer, and you’ll see the #NGO pattern: branding over substance, silos in disguise, and a creeping return of the mini #dotcons under new, friendlier wrappers.

Let’s take Channel.org, On the surface, it looks like a #mainstreaming version of the #OMN project #indymediaback – community news channels, a grassroots publishing model, maybe even respectful federation. But scratch that surface and the cracks show quickly:

The default feeds are anaemic #NGO fodder
The orgs list reads like a who’s who of liberal foundations, with the usual hidden gatekeeping logic behind the scenes.
And it’s yet another “pay or pray” model: either be a professional #NGO or get nudged out.

In short, it’s likely just more #techshit to compost. A well-polished box built to contain, not empower. A place where “participation” is narrow and boring. This isn’t to say there’s zero value. There will be overlap with what we’re doing in the #OMN and #indymediaback spaces. But experience tells us, these projects rarely cooperate. They prefer to rebuild from scratch, with branding and compliance hardcoded. They see networks as products to manage, not native cultures to nurture. In the end they sell out, it happens.

And the result? A growing layer of parasites attaching themselves to the living Fediverse. That familiar smell of funding cycles, strategy decks, and locked-down roadmaps. We’ve seen this before. We know where it leads. The real question isn’t what’s new? It’s what’s native?

We don’t need a branded reboot of the same paths, what we do need is more funded and sustainable grounded, messy, radically open alternatives. Ones with deep roots in social movement history, not just nice UX. Ones that resist capture, and refuse in the end to turn community into product.

That’s the path we’re on, if the NGO track wants to build parallel paths, fine. Just don’t expect us to be polite about this mess making, we’ve already walked that road too many times. Live and let live, compost #techshit and build real alternatives #KISS

You know your getting big when parasites like this start to attach… salt and branding irons come to mind.

Trumpism and the progressive paths to an alternative future

Reflections from the Rothermere Institute Symposium #Oxford

This recent panel brought together a group of notable scholars – Melinda Cooper (Australian National University), author of Counter-Revolution and Family Values; Kristin Kobes Du Mez (Calvin University), author of Jesus and John Wayne; Joel Suarez (Harvard University), author of Labor of Liberty, forthcoming; and Noam Maggor (Queen Mary University of London), author of Brahmin Capitalism. – to explore the political and moral economy of the Trump Era United States. Their combined analysis is a vivid picture of how we arrived at our current political moment and the limited pathways out of it.

It was a really positive event, what’s striking is how much this conversation resonates not only in the U.S, but globally – particularly in the U.K., where the disintegration of the liberal centre is now fully visible. Over the last decade, we’ve seen the collapse of centrist consensus, leaving voters with a stark binary: hard right or hard left.

The collapse of the centre is leading us to the only way, is hard. In the U.S., when push came to shove, voters turned to the hard right, embodied in Trump and his sprawling ecosystem of grievance, authoritarian populism, and billionaire-backed influence networks. In the U.K., it’s not hard to imagine a similar dynamic emerging in the near future.

Crucially, what’s filling the vacuum left by #neoliberalism is not a return to liberal values. It’s a wholesale political realignment. The liberal centre has, so far, chosen to move toward the “respectable” conservative right, not leftward. Their ideological flight from the left has allowed the far right to become the current primary locus of political imagination.

The question is, will there be a swing to the left? And if so, what kind of left will emerge? Can it be a liberating left, rather than a reactive or technocratic one? Can we imagine a progressive future that is not just a repeat of 20th century social democracy, one that is rooted in new realities, yet grounded in solidarity, care, and the commons?

The neoliberal legacy and the rise of oligarchy. Several speakers traced today’s crisis to the economic architecture of late capitalism. Quantitative Easing (QE), the worship of capital gains, and financial deregulation have created a political economy that favours rentier elitists, tech monopolies, and patriarchal family capitalism. These forces are now shaping politics directly, not just through lobbying, but through ideological control and cultural engineering.

Oil, gas, tech, and finance capital have all converged around a new parasitic oligarchy. This is not the “free market” they pretend to champion, it’s a state-dependent, deeply subsidized regime of asset accumulation. Their “libertarianism” is a mask, when you strip away the rhetoric, you find private capital totally dependent on the state – for subsidies, legal protections, and military-backed global markets. The American right’s political project is to eliminate the centre, cleansing moderate Republicans, capturing courts, weaponizing information systems, and exporting this authoritarian model globally.

Evangelical capitalism: The cultural engine, a key insight from Kristin Kobes Du Mez, is the role of white evangelicalism in this. Far from a sideshow, it forms the emotional and moral backbone of Trumpism. Patriarchal authority, nostalgia, submission to hierarchies, and promises of prosperity through obedience, these values echo through both megachurch sermons and Republican stump speeches.

Multi-level marketing, prosperity gospel, and the language of “blessings” have created a totalizing religious capitalism. It’s self-reinforcing: hard to exit, deeply social, and rooted in fear of the “other.” This is not just religion, it’s political economy, culture, and affect rolled into one. And yes, it’s white evangelicalism as #MLM, it’s a pyramid scam, a con.

Progressive futures are harder than they look, if the right is already moving toward a post-capitalist oligarchy, the left must also imagine post-capitalist futures – but with radically different foundations. Unfortunately, the progressive movement is fragmented, caught between nostalgia for New Deal liberalism and utopian paths with little grounding in material politics.

The chattering classes, policy think tanks, legacy media, technocratic #NGOs still cling to the dream of returning to neoliberal “normalcy”. But this is a dead end. As some panellists noted, even Trump and neoliberalism may not be opposites, but continuations of the same project: one naked, one dressed in civility.

What’s needed now is not a fantasy of restoring the centre, but a real commitment to build something new: grounded in solidarity, regenerative economies, climate realism.

Lessons and questions for the left:

Can progressive movements discipline capital and at a very basic level reengineer markets to serve social goals?
Can we reclaim the state as a tool for collective transformation, or can we do something radically different?
Can we learn from the global South, where post-colonial states have been navigating these contradictions far longer?
And can we build institutions that don’t replicate hierarchy, but still scale power and coordination needed in this globalist mess?

There’s a lesson from history here, progressive eruptions often pull from the past, from older traditions of mutual aid, labour solidarity, cooperative economics, and community defence. We don’t need to invent utopias from scratch, we need to recover the parts that worked, compost the ones that failed, and build with humility and collective care. But we do need to build.

You can support one of these paths https://opencollective.com/open-media-network

#Oxford

Evangelicals and the hardright

Climatechaos and the hard right is a cycle of collapse

The entanglement of hard-right politics and accelerating climate breakdown represents the most dangerous feedback loop in the coming century. Each crisis fuels the other, creating a devastating cycle of social upheaval and environmental destruction. As the climate crisis displaces millions, soon to be billions, of people from their homes, the far right exploits their suffering to consolidate political power. In turn, that power is wielded to block and reverse the long needed climate action, further degrading ecosystems, destabilizing societies, and setting the stage for even greater human displacement.

The problem in this crisis is the shrinking of what scientists call the “human climate niche”, the range of environmental conditions in which human societies can flourish. As global temperatures rise, vast swaths of the Earth become uninhabitable. Hundreds of millions are already trapped in areas plagued by deadly heat, water scarcity, failing crops, and collapsing health systems. Without urgent intervention, billions more will face similar conditions by 2030. Heat-related deaths will rise. Extreme weather events, floods, hurricanes, wildfires, will ravage entire regions. Entire communities will be forced to move, or die.

Despite this clear trajectory, wealthy nations – those most capable of mitigating climate impacts-have spent the last four decades systematically undermining efforts to curb environmental destruction. Climate policies have been diluted and blocked, not out of ignorance, but because they threaten the profits and power of entrenched elitists. Culture war narratives, pushed by billionaires and corporate interests, portray even the smallest, least affective environmental regulations as attacks on “freedom” or “national identity.” Climate denialism has returned in force, repackaged and rebranded, while scientists and activists face harassment, misinformation campaigns, and strong state repression.

As the crisis deepens, displaced people inevitably seek safety across borders, particularly in the global North. Instead of sanctuary, they are met with xenophobia, violence, and militarized borders. The far right seizes on these moments to fuel fear, spreading the lie that migration, not climate inaction, is the true threat. They weaponize suffering to advance nativist agendas, dismantle civil liberties, and double down on fossil-fueled growth. The result is a nightmare loop: climate devastation drives displacement, displacement drives reactionary politics, and reactionary politics fuel further climate devastation.

The evidence is stark in Europe. Refugees fleeing war, drought, and collapse are vilified, turned into political scapegoats by far-right parties who rise to power on the back of manufactured hatred. Their platforms universally involve gutting climate legislation, slashing social programs, and retreating into nationalist fantasies. What emerges is a fascist politics of abandonment, one that condemns the vulnerable to death while protecting elitist interests at all costs.

To pretend that the fight for climate justice is separate from the fight against fascism is a dangerous illusion. These struggles are intertwined, and neither can be won in isolation. Preventing the collapse of Earth’s life-support systems requires more than technological solutions or market tweaks, it demands a cultural and political transformation grounded in solidarity, justice, and collective power.

This transformation won’t come from above. It must be built from the ground up: through grassroots organizing, mutual aid, and global alliances committed to resisting authoritarianism and building alternative futures. We need to challenge the systems – economic, political, and ideological – that sustain both planetary destruction and far-right resurgence.

Without this kind of deep resistance and renewal, the trajectory is clear: an increasingly unlivable planet ruled by increasingly violent regimes. But another path remains possible, if we have the courage to take it. Have people who fixated on #mainstreaming noticed that they are useless? We might get some change challenge done when they do… so please tell them thanks.

The wall of funding silence

In the sprouting landscape of #openweb infrastructure, it’s not just code that gets ignored, it’s the possibility of change itself. Projects like #makeinghistory, part of the wider Open Media Network (#OMN), aren’t asking for much. They’re not flashy. They’re not political in the #mainstreaming sense. They just quietly build the back-end tools that allow people to document their histories, publish from the grassroots, and hold space for the memory of struggle that shape our progressive liberalism. But that seems to be too much.

The wall of funding silence – We’ve submitted funding proposals – dozens over the years, to every channel supposedly set up to fund the #openweb non-mainstream side of tech. From #NLnet to #NGI, from “open futures” to the latest EU moonshots. Most of the time, the response is a polite no, a vague shrug, or silence.

Sometimes, we get honesty – “This kind of effort is very hard to seek grants for” or “I don’t have an obvious candidate for you.” What they don’t say is what’s really going on: The system does fund this kind of work, look at the bonfire fresco as an example, but only when it’s a shadow of the status quo.

There’s a path through this, if we’re honest about the rules of the game. One such route is the #makeinghistory project, a non-threatening, archive-based approach that doesn’t scream radical, but quietly lays the groundwork for deeper change. What funders may not realize (or perhaps they do) is that by supporting it, they also enable development on #indymediaback and the metadata “soup” back-ends of the OMN, the very infrastructure needed to reboot truly grassroots media.

It’s a shadow funding path. And yes, that might feel cynical. But if you’re unwilling to fund change directly, maybe you’ll fund the shadows of change. Sometimes the only way to sneak truth past the gatekeepers is through the side door.

We do need to get past this broken balance, the hard part is that many of these funders do think they’re doing good. And to be fair, they are, a little. But the balance is broken. That imbalance is invisible to most, especially those inside the comfort of stable institutions. When we push back, it looks like we’re hitting “good” people with little sticks. It’s messy, and it’s easy for them to just turn away. We get told to be grateful. To celebrate, the seedling being planted in the foreground, while bulldozers level the rest of the forest behind it.

Stick or Carrot? So what do we do? We talk about sticks and carrots. The truth is, our sticks are tiny, dwarfed by corporate lobbying, government inertia, and internal conservatism. The peaceful, hippy route changes nothing long-term, but conflict isn’t working either. We’re stuck in between, too radical for the boardroom, too polite for the barricades.

But here’s a thought: maybe it’s not about the size of the stick, but where we aim it. We’re not here to fight good people. We’re here to point out that a little good is not enough, not when the stakes are this high. If we don’t build space for change, it won’t happen. And if funders like #NLnet want to be the change they speak of, then they need to fund the infrastructure that makes it possible, even if it’s uncomfortable. Even if it’s messy. Even if it’s indirect…

What Now? We’ll give it a month. Then maybe we nudge a bit harder. But no shame, no blame. Just a call for balance, for trust, for a shift in what “doing good” really means.

The pushing of doomed projects

#OMN #makeinghistory #indymediaback #NGI #NLnet #NGIzero #openweb #4opens #deathcult #mainstreaming #funding #changechallenge

Governance, the mess of AI tech-fix paths

Seminar Reflection: Philosophy, AI, and Innovation – Week 6
Topic: AI Deliberation at Scale
Speakers: Chris Summerfield (Oxford & AI Safety Institute), MH Tessler (Google DeepMind)
Key texts: Jürgen Habermas, The Structural Transformation of the Public Sphere (excerpt) and Summerfield et al., “AI Can Help Humans Find Common Ground in Democratic Deliberation”

This seminar focus is on scaling democratic deliberation via AI. The example proposal is the #HabermasMachine a test projects to facilitate large-scale consensus using #LLMs (Large Language Models). The framing, unsurprisingly, is drawn from the elitist tech sector – Google DeepMind and Oxford – with a focus on “safety” and “moderation” over human messiness and agency.

The problem we face is that this #techshit path might work, but for who is the question, what kind of “public sphere” is this #AI recreating, and who holds the power to shape it? These are strongly top-down, technocratic proposals, rooted in a narrow utilitarian logic. The underlying assumption is that human decision-making is flawed and must be mediated, and ultimately managed, by algorithmic systems. Consensus is determined not through lived human to human dialogue or, as I like to say – mess, but through an AI that quietly nudges discussions to centrist consensuses.

There is no meaningful eye-to-eye group interaction in this project, no room for DIY, #bottom up agency. Participants become data points in a system that claims to “listen,” but acts through elitist mediation. It is consensus without community, and safety without solidarity. What’s missing is the power of mess, the presenter ignores this central question: Can we build messy, human-scale deliberation that doesn’t rely on top-down interventions?

Projects like this are not grassroots governance, rather it’s governance-by-black-box, mainstreaming by design, the incentive model is telling: ideas that align with the status quo or dominant narratives are rewarded with more money. Consensus is guided not by grassroots engagement or dissenting voices, but by what the algorithm (and its funders) consider “productive.” This is the quiet suffocating hand of #mainstreaming, cloaked in neutral code.

#TechFixes paths like this are about stability at all costs, yet we live in a time when stability is the problem, with #ClimateChaos threatening billions, the demand is for transformation, not moderation.

This is AI as intermediary, not a facilitator of the commons paths we need. Transparency? Not here, no one knows how the #AI reaches consensus. The models are proprietary, the tweaks are political, and the outcomes are mediated by those already in power. The system becomes an unaccountable broker, not of truth, but of what power is willing to hear.

We need to be wary of any system that claims to represent us without us being meaningfully involved. This is a curated spectacle of consensus, delivered by machines, funded by corporations, and mediated by invisible hands. What we need is human to human projects like the #OGB, not tech managed consensus. This #mainstreaming path isn’t compost. It’s simply more #techshit to be composted, mess is a feature, not a bug.

In the #OMN (Open Media Network), we explore paths rooted in trust, openness, and peer-to-peer process. Not asking for power to listen, but taking space to act. We compost the mess; we don’t pretend it can be sanitized by top-down coding.

#Oxford #AI #techshit #dotcons