Category Archives: Poetry

Mingus, Faubus, and the Old Drum-Beat of Trump Fascism

In 1959, Charles Mingus boldly wrote a song that spoke truth to power.

Fables of Faubus” called out Arkansas Governor Orval Faubus directly. The sitting governor had ordered the National Guard to block nine Black teenagers from entering Little Rock Central High School. Faubus weaponized American protections to attack the most vulnerable.

Mingus didn’t deal in abstraction. He pointed at the man and showed everyone how to laugh.

1940s-era advice from Walt Disney on the appropriate reaction to an Elon Musk, Peter Thiel and their puppet Donald Trump

Columbia Records recorded the song. Then they strategically stripped out the lyrics and released only the instrumental version. The music was deemed fine as culturally prestigious, commercially viable, safely ambiguous. The words were called a problem. Mingus himself said it plainly:

Columbia wouldn’t let them record the lyrics.

The motive was protecting Columbia revenue in Southern markets. A corporation understood exactly what the song meant, wanted to profit from its reputation as protest art, while it surgically removed the part that actually protested.

The vocal version came out a year later on Candid Records, produced by Nat Hentoff, who remembered the lyrics as “natural as sunlight.” The controversy never was in the content. The distribution system manufactured the crisis.

Name Me Someone Ridiculous

The Candid recording is a call-and-response between Mingus and drummer Dannie Richmond. Mingus calls and Richmond responds with names.

Oh Lord, no more swastikas!
Oh Lord, no more Ku Klux Klan!

Name me someone ridiculous, Dannie.
Governor Faubus.
Why is he sick and ridiculous?
He won’t permit integrated schools.
Then he’s a fool.

Boo! Nazi fascist supremacists. Boo Ku Klux Klan!

Mingus drew an obvious fascism parallel explicitly.

This was 1959. This was not retrospective analysis, not as rhetorical flourish. This was a man at the top of his game, a world famous musician, calling out real-time pattern recognition. Swastikas and Klan hoods in the same breath, because he understood they are the same operation switching between different uniforms.

Louis Armstrong already broke this ground two years earlier. He had told a reporter that Eisenhower was “two faced” with “no guts,” and described Faubus with an expletive too strong to print. The reporter and Armstrong negotiated a sanitized version of “uneducated plow boy”, which became a phrase the reporter later admitted was more his than Armstrong’s.

Even the act of speaking a truth in America required editorial negotiation about how much truth the weak white nationalist infrastructure could bear.

Mingus took it further. The system pushed back harder.

Arkansas to This Day

The thing about Arkansas is they still haven’t dismantled what Faubus stood for and built. The KKK has continued to be coated and rebranded, the Nazis embraced and extended. The state that deployed National Guard troops to stop kids going to school now deploys its legislature against the same populations with the same confidence that institutions will protect the operation.

Nazis and Klan freely roam without a care. It’s less that they had to seize power of state institutions, and more that they know government institutions reward their predatory incompetence. Arkansas isn’t about an extremism problem, when it runs a governance model for national socialism to be the product.

Faubus stood as a proof of concept. The template he established was the use of existing state infrastructure to enforce exclusion, force the federal government to either intervene or be complicit, and face no personal consequences either way. It remains the operating manual.

The man served six terms as governor. Six. After deploying the military against children. The system didn’t punish him. It promoted him.

If he were alive today he’d be the guy who denies the request for American hero Jesse Jackson to lie in honor in the Capitol.

The Competent Complicity of Curation

Columbia’s editorial operation on “Fables” is a precision instrument worth examining. Rather than silence Mingus, which would generate more protest material, they curated him into erasure. They kept his music to signal cultural seriousness and sold records, offering fans the bones while removing all the meat. The instrumental version let white liberal audiences feel something without the urge to do anything. It was consumption without reality of confrontation.

This editorial selection is competent complicity. The people making final cut decisions understood music, understood politics, understood exactly what they were doing. They weren’t accidental. They were serving a role in protecting, enabling and extending the white nationalist dominated market.

Hentoff’s Candid Records operated differently. It was total creative freedom, no editorial interference. The result was a recording where the lyrics landed with their full weight. Two labels, two systems, two outcomes from the same source material based on which one practiced integrity instead of complicity.

Rotary Perception

Mingus had a concept he called “rotary perception”. He said musical beats exist inside a circle, like target practice using birdshot, rather than on a line, giving musicians freedom to place notes anywhere inside that space without losing the underlying pulse.

Mingus described a centroid with acceptable variance. The beat is the mean, the circle is the confidence interval, and the notes are data points that can land anywhere within the distribution without losing the underlying signal. That’s a scatter plot with a cluster around a central tendency.

He developed it partly in response to critics who claimed younger musicians were more innovative than him. His counter argument was the “avant garde” already was audible in Charlie Parker and Duke Ellington, when you really were paying attention.

The concept applies well beyond music. What gets marketed as unprecedented almost never is. The patterns repeat. The refusal to recognize them is the product, not the problem. Mingus was saying in 1959 what the historical record has been saying for centuries. The thing you’re watching happen also happened before, that someone documented it, and that the failure to learn from it serves specific interests.

He was a historian’s musician.

Arkansas deploying state power against Black schoolchildren in 1957? It was a rotation. Trump loyalists protecting and rewarding that deployment in 2026 aren’t new either. It’s the same beat, played at a different point in the same racist circle.

Mingus saw it. He named it. And then Columbia cut the meat off and sold the bones anyway.

Some things rotate. Some things don’t change at all.

OpenClaw Creator Makes Strong Case Against OpenClaw: Telnet for AI

Every governance concern that security researchers have raised about OpenClaw has now been confirmed by the person who built it. In a recent three-hour public interview, Peter Steinberger described his architecture, his security philosophy, and his acquisition strategy in detail. Then he joined OpenAI just four days ago.

The Architecture Speaks for Itself

The initial access control for OpenClaw’s public Discord bot was a prompt instruction telling the agent to only listen to its creator. The entire access model: a sentence in a system prompt.

The skill system loads unverified markdown files. There is zero signing, zero isolation, zero verification chain. The agent can modify its own source code, a property Steinberger describes as an emergent accident. “I didn’t even plan it. It just happened.” Integrity breach. He calls it self-modifying software and means it as a compliment. It’s like someone in the 1990s saying a clear-text protocol that allows attackers to modify or steal data is so “mod” it’s a compliment. Telnet for AI has landed, everybody!

When agents on MoltBook, the OpenClaw-powered social network, began posting manifestos about destroying humanity, Steinberger’s response was to call it “the finest slop.” When the question of leaked API keys came up, he suggested the leaked credentials were prompted fakes. When non-technical users began installing a system-level agent without understanding the risk profile, he said “the cat’s out of the bag” and went back to building.

The security researcher he hired was notable for being the single person who ever submitted a fix alongside a vulnerability disclosure. A rain drop in a desert isn’t nothing.

The Model-Intelligence Thesis

Steinberger’s core security argument is that smarter models will solve the problem for him. He warns users against running cheap or local models because “they are very gullible” and “very easy to prompt inject.” The implication is that expensive frontier models are the security layer.

This is a category error with a name. Economists call it the Peltzman Effect: when a perceived safety improvement causes riskier behavior, offsetting the safety gain. Sam Peltzman demonstrated in 1975 that mandatory seatbelt laws did not reduce total traffic fatalities because drivers compensated by driving more aggressively. The safety feature changed behavior, and the behavior change consumed the safety margin.

The same dynamic applies here. A user who believes Opus 4.6 is “too smart to be tricked” will grant it broader system access, approve more autonomous actions, and skip manual review of agent output. The expensive model becomes the justification for removing every other control. The blast radius grows in direct proportion to the user’s confidence in the model’s intelligence.

This confidence has no empirical basis. Capability and security are orthogonal properties. A more capable model has a larger attack surface precisely because it can do more: it can call more tools, access more files, execute more complex multi-step actions. The frontier models that Steinberger recommends are the same models that researchers consistently demonstrate novel jailbreaks against at every major security conference. Price measures compute cost. It measures nothing about resistance to adversarial input.

The architectural equivalent is telling users to buy a faster car instead of installing brakes. A faster car with no brakes is more dangerous than a slow one, and the driver’s belief that speed equals safety is the most dangerous component of all.

The honest version of the recommendation is: your security posture is whatever Anthropic or OpenAI shipped in their latest post-training run, minus whatever the skill file told the agent to ignore.

The Acquisition Was the Product

Steinberger said “I don’t do this for the money, I don’t give a fuck” (his phrasing) while describing competing acquisition offers from Meta and OpenAI. An NDA-protected token allocation from OpenAI he hinted at publicly. Ten thousand dollars paid for a Twitter handle. A Chrome/Chromium model where the open-source branch stays free and the enterprise branch goes behind the acquirer’s paywall.

He chose OpenAI. Sam Altman announced the hire on X, calling Steinberger “a genius” who will “drive the next generation of personal agents.” No terms were disclosed. OpenClaw moved to a foundation. OpenAI sponsors it.

The entire acquisition apparatus of a $500 billion company evaluated this project. Zuckerberg played with it for a week. None of them appear to have asked the obvious question: where are the basic controls? This is a single-token, single-trust-domain architecture with no signing, no audit trail, and prompt-based access control. It is the most rudimentary possible version of agent orchestration. Any first-week security review would flag it. Instead, the most powerful people in the industry looked at it and saw…what? When the court can’t tell the emperor has no clothes, the problem is the court.

The Chrome/Chromium split he floated in the interview is now the actual outcome. The community gets the foundation branch. OpenAI gets the builder. Steinberger’s stated mission at OpenAI is “build an agent that even my mum can use.” Still features. Still not security. Now an insult to women.

The 180,000 GitHub stars apparently are like a cap table denominator. The open-source commitment was a negotiating position. “My conditions are that the project stays open source” was a sentence that ended with a price tag.

Every enterprise evaluating this stack should ask a simple question: were the security architecture decisions made to protect your data, or to maximize the founder’s acquisition multiple?

Architecture Should Outlast the Liquidity Event

Steinberger said he wanted to focus on security. It’s easy to say. He also said he wanted “Thor’s hammer” from OpenAI’s Cerebras allocation. He got the hammer. Security is still waiting.

The revealed preferences are the architecture. A founder who prioritizes actual security builds actual security into the structure. A founder who prioritizes his acquisition builds features that drive attention. OpenClaw has zero signed skill files and nearly 200K stars. That ratio shows everything about the objective function.

He said this project was something he’d move past. He said he had “more ideas.” He said he wanted access to “the latest toys.” He was honest. The installations remain. The architecture has not improved since the acquisition closed. The markdown skill files are still unsigned. The agent can still rewrite its own source. The audit trail is still absent. The single security hire is still the entire team. It could get worse instead of better.

The question is whether the architecture requires its self-described uncaring creator to care. It does. He left. That’s the failure mode.

The world should demand the opposite to this. Process isolation enforced at compile time. Signed skill verification. Append-only audit logs. Per-channel credential vaults. An architecture that stands independent of the founder’s attention span, acquisition timeline, or faith in the next model’s post-training run.

The tools we trust with system-level access should be built to deserve system-level access. Whose interests does the OpenClaw architecture serve? Brecht in 1935 asked the same question about every monument ever built (Questions From a Worker Who Reads):

Wer baute das siebentorige Theben?
In den Büchern stehen die Namen von Königen.
Haben die Könige die Felsbrocken herbeigeschleppt?

Who built the seven gates of Thebes?
The books are filled with names of kings.
Was it the kings who hauled the craggy blocks of stone?

180,000 people hauled the blocks. The books are filled with one name, who said he wanted Thor’s hammer because he didn’t give a fuck.

Steve Bannon literally called Epstein “God” while working to “take down” the Pope

May 2018 Bannon wrote:

Bannon hammers; God shorts

He was referring to Epstein as “God” in the context of financial acumen.

Epstein replied:

I don’t think of myself that way

“I do,” said Bannon.

Bannon literally called Epstein “God” while simultaneously working to “take down” the actual Pope.

A former Trump White House adviser told a convicted child sex offender he’s divine while scheming to topple the head of the Catholic Church.

And when Bannon shared an article about the Vatican condemning populist nationalism, Epstein replied with Satan’s line from Paradise Lost:

Better to reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.

The Degraded United States is Now “Trumpistan”

Not mentioned in this video is that Professor Stanley in 2020 was careful to say Trumpism was fascist while specifying the U.S. didn’t have a genocidal regime. That changed in 2025, as he described America as an authoritarian state worth fleeing, drawing explicit parallels to the Nazis. He fled, which is why he’s now introduced from Toronto.

That’s a top subject-matter expert updating his assessment based on evidence.

The use of Shelley’s poem in the video is about the gap between the self-inscription and the sand.

Ozymandias
by Percy Bysshe Shelley, 1818

I met a traveller from an antique land
Who said: Two vast and trunkless legs of stone
Stand in the desert…. Near them, on the sand,
Half sunk, a shattered visage lies, whose frown,
And wrinkled lip, and sneer of cold command,
Tell that its sculptor well those passions read
Which yet survive, stamped on these lifeless things,
The hand that mocked them, and the heart that fed:
And on the pedestal these words appear:
‘My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!’
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.

Stanley’s argument in the video is that Trump knows about the sand and is trying to prevent it by making his regime permanent. The poem becomes not just irony but prophecy contested. Trump drew the opposite lesson from the poem: don’t let your signs get taken down.