Not “Let Them Eat Cake” Quite Yet

The phrase “let them eat cake” endures because it captures a specific kind of regime failure: not cruelty, not propaganda, not even contempt, but detachment—an elite class so insulated by its own fictions that it offers symbolic nonsense in response to material reality.

In that case, the public does not merely conclude that the rulers are lying. The public concludes that the rulers no longer know they are lying, because reality has stopped intruding into the regime’s mind.

That is the distinction we must keep clear right now. “Don’t bring guns to a protest” is not that moment. It is not a national epiphany. It is not the collapse of the narrative into absurdity. It is the old thing, the thing this administration was always going to do: apply rules asymmetrically, weaponize legality, and treat rights as permissions for allies and liabilities for enemies.

A demand for public disarmament is not cognitive rupture; it is regime security logic. It says: the state reserves violence; the out-group must be unarmed; the in-group may posture as defenders of liberty while the machinery of coercion grows teeth.

That contradiction is glaring to anyone who still remembers what the Second Amendment has been sold as for decades. But it does not unify Americans into one shared moral verdict, because guns are not a shared baseline in this country.

Even many gun owners do not treat guns as the “bread” of civic life. For some, firearms are identity. For others, insurance. For others, threat. For others, sacred text. That fractured meaning prevents the gun issue—even when the hypocrisy is obvious—from becoming the single, galvanizing proof that the regime has lost its damn mind.

Nor is the regime’s propaganda response to the Minneapolis killing of a VA nurse the “cake” moment, even though it should be. A U.S. citizen, a critical-care nurse who served veterans, is dead. Videos circulated widely. Federal officials issued a narrative that, in the eyes of many viewers, does not match what the public can see.

It is hard to imagine a cleaner moral test of a government’s legitimacy: a citizen killed in public view, followed by official statements that treat the public’s eyes as irrelevant.

And yet that, too, is not the “eat cake” moment.

Why? Because it is still legible as deliberate fabrication. It is still recognizably strategic. It is still the familiar authoritarian move: deny, attack, reverse victim and offender, and hide behind “investigations” while the apparatus continues operating.

The administration is not offering cake because it believes cake is bread; it is offering cake because it believes some portion of the country will accept cake as bread if it is delivered by uniformed men on television.

This is the grim truth of the fabrication era: moral catastrophe alone does not guarantee a moment of reckoning. Even a death that should unify the nation can be partitioned into tribes, filtered through partisan media, and dissolved into arguments over who counts as a victim. The suffering is real; the consequences are not evenly felt; the meaning is not universally shared. That is precisely how a regime survives while doing things that should end it.

So it is not enough to identify the cruelty. We have to identify the failure mode.

The failure mode I am watching for is when fabrication becomes self-intoxication—when a regime that has lied so long, and punished truth so hard, begins to govern as if its own propaganda is an operational description of the world. That is the “let them eat cake” transition: the point at which the ruling class does not merely lie outward, but loses the internal capacity to perceive reality inward.

If you want a concrete version of that transition, it will not arrive as a rhetorical scandal. It will arrive as a material collision.

The United States is still fed. The shelves are still stocked. The trucks are still running. People are still working. That is why the country can absorb moral horrors without immediately snapping in half. The system has slack.

The moment of catastrophic and irreparable self-harm will come when that slack is gone—when the administration’s incompetence or corruption, or its deliberate wrecking of institutions, translates into visible scarcity and cascading economic pain.

When shelves are bare and the administration’s mouthpieces insist they are full; when families cannot buy what they need and are told the problem is imaginary; when costs spike and the public is ordered to pretend otherwise. That is the “cake” moment, because it is the moment the regime’s internal narrative must collide with the population’s shared lived experience.

Bread is not ideological. Heat is not partisan. Empty shelves are not a feeling. Hunger is not a talking point.

When that collision arrives, it will not only punish the public. It will punish the regime’s project. It will destroy the credibility necessary to keep a coalition together through fear and fiction. It will force elites—business, finance, media, bureaucracy—to decide whether they are protecting the state or protecting the regime. That is where fracture becomes possible, because self-interest stops aligning with the lie.

None of this means we wait.

Nothing has fundamentally changed. President Trump and his lieutenants were always going to hurt people. That is not an accident of optics; it is the core of the governing style. The apparatus they are building is designed to coerce, to intimidate, to make ordinary life contingent on obedience, and to punish the act of seeing clearly.

The correct response is not to treat every outrage as the long-awaited final straw. The correct response is to treat each outrage as data—evidence of what the regime is willing to do now, and what it will do later if it is not stopped.

Push back is still required, precisely because the reckoning has not arrived on its own. Push back means refusing the normalization of political violence by uniformed agents. Push back means insisting that video evidence matters more than press conference theater. Push back means organizing, litigating, documenting, striking where lawful and effective, and building a counter-public that does not accept the regime’s monopoly on reality.

Do not mistake the absence of a single “cake” phrase for the absence of danger. The regime does not need one catastrophic soundbite to ruin a nation; it needs time, permission, and a public trained to lower its expectations.

The “cake” moment may still come. If it comes, it will be awful—because it will be the moment the machinery of fabrication breaks the country’s material spine and then tries to gaslight the public about the fracture.

Until then, the mission is unglamorous and relentless: keep reality alive, keep accountability alive, and keep the regime’s harms legible while there is still enough slack in the system to stop the slide.

---

https://bsky.app/profile/johnrraymond.bsky.social