Umair Haque once wrote about hypernormalization—how a society can spiral into failure while everything looks totally normal. His blog's gone now (flushed down the digital drain), but the gist was:
“The most shocking part of becoming a failed state is how normal it all seems.”
Hollywood sold us collapse as a spectacle—explosions, riots, dramatic music. In reality? It’s a slow toilet clog. Everything looks fine… until the water starts rising.
If we’re circling the bowl now, we’ve got to ask: when did someone first hit flush? This isn’t sudden—we just masked the smell and kept using the bathroom.
I usually skip politics with Americans—it’s hard to explain plumbing issues to someone still admiring the tile. But even conservatives are starting to notice the stench. Trump wasn’t the mess—he was the flush. And he’s still jiggling the handle.
Anyway, here’s your daily dispatch of leftist anxiety as Trump guts the social safety net and hands out tax cuts like gold-plated toilet paper at Mar-a-Lago.
I have a question that nags at me (apologies first if this deviates from the blog mission). How should academics approach the world of organized crime in their analyses? For one thing, I feel like organized crime is a real element in analysis of a society but is difficult to consider in an evidentiary context. For me, the problem is that a lot of books on relations of organized crime with legit (but corrupt) politics can mostly rely on 'he said/she said' or some crime figure's testimony in a court proceeding. While that is fine, I feel that testimony like that can be suspect (maybe that guy is lying to rat out people, right?). I feel like there is definitely criminal power at work in the corporate and political world, but how to judge it properly seems difficult. Is the best we can do is suspend conclusions?
Omg, going right now getting the book. I am sure, I will enjoy it. Thank you so much for your fabulous work. I love absolutely everything you write. You need apprentice to continue in your footsteps. We need more great thinkers like you.
And check this out:
https://www.theguardian.com/wellness/ng-interactive/2025/may/22/hypernormalization-dysfunction-status-quo
Starmer, Macron and Carney 'on the wrong side of humanity,' says Netanyahu
(From the Guardian)
Talk abt turning reality upside down, eh?
ps:
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/may/22/children-elderly-dying-starvation-gaza-health-minister
Dan-
pb edn in 2 or 3 days, they tell me
Liv-
You cd be my apprentice, no? pb edn out shortly. Once again, feel free to review on Amazon.
abrazos,
mb
Dr. Berman,
Umair Haque once wrote about hypernormalization—how a society can spiral into failure while everything looks totally normal. His blog's gone now (flushed down the digital drain), but the gist was:
“The most shocking part of becoming a failed state is how normal it all seems.”
Hollywood sold us collapse as a spectacle—explosions, riots, dramatic music. In reality? It’s a slow toilet clog. Everything looks fine… until the water starts rising.
If we’re circling the bowl now, we’ve got to ask: when did someone first hit flush? This isn’t sudden—we just masked the smell and kept using the bathroom.
I usually skip politics with Americans—it’s hard to explain plumbing issues to someone still admiring the tile. But even conservatives are starting to notice the stench. Trump wasn’t the mess—he was the flush. And he’s still jiggling the handle.
Anyway, here’s your daily dispatch of leftist anxiety as Trump guts the social safety net and hands out tax cuts like gold-plated toilet paper at Mar-a-Lago.
Flush wisely.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQiukyzB6x0
Doctor,
I see it's only on Kindle. Will there be a paperback edition shortly?
You're the best, Dr. Berman.
Dr. Berman,
I have a question that nags at me (apologies first if this deviates from the blog mission). How should academics approach the world of organized crime in their analyses? For one thing, I feel like organized crime is a real element in analysis of a society but is difficult to consider in an evidentiary context. For me, the problem is that a lot of books on relations of organized crime with legit (but corrupt) politics can mostly rely on 'he said/she said' or some crime figure's testimony in a court proceeding. While that is fine, I feel that testimony like that can be suspect (maybe that guy is lying to rat out people, right?). I feel like there is definitely criminal power at work in the corporate and political world, but how to judge it properly seems difficult. Is the best we can do is suspend conclusions?
Omg, going right now getting the book. I am sure, I will enjoy it. Thank you so much for your fabulous work. I love absolutely everything you write. You need apprentice to continue in your footsteps. We need more great thinkers like you.