Oh wow. Thanks, man, but there is also the idea that the United States is going to someone help this process along. Right? OK: So, how are “we” (US?) going to save Iran again? Can you all run that one by me—? once again—? I want to understand.

President Trump got asked something. What, in this present US attack and decapitation of the leadership, would be the the “worst case” or worst outcome. The reply to that was that the worst possible thing would be if the new leader - that means the guy who gets into power now that we killed the other one who is yesterday’s news) is “just as repressive.” Oh, so Trump is now against repression? That would be just terrible. Except it happens all the time under DJT, right? If it is undocumented immigrants, go for it. Even for the ones who did no terrible thing like a felony crime, or even the ones who have a green card. Them you can repress because DJT said to. That is “repression” doh…… So is the president actually opposed to it? Nope. Trump is not at all against repression. He uses it every day. Nor is Trump actually for that matter in favor of liberation. Nope. He actually stops at the very act of intoning the waerds! Fantastic. He likes words.

In our standard cultural language practice we make it difficult to use the word “regulation.” Economists are not in favor of this. That is a mistake, in my view, because checks and balances need to apply.

Anyone who thinks he has been called on to kill an ethnic group (e.g. Persians) is essentially a poorly-regulated person. I do not think that Trump knows what the world “liberation” means.

Trump prefers the phrase, Dept. of War. And Trump likes the world “peace” at times. “Board of Peace” seems to have an appeal. Trump often likes particular phrases (ie, when you add two words together): Liberation Day

He wishes to be “the biggest,” and to be Great. Yet he never requires the opinion of anyone else. It is he, himself who is biggest — or should be rightfully if all is well in the universe. Whatever it is he likes, we had better just accept it.

“Liberation” is a good word, for him. For whom? No one, except (by implication or implicative if I used such words…) the great “self” figure: Me, myself, and I.

Here is a link for Trump’s notion of “the people rising up,” that does not work as an article to read but you can get the gist from the title alone so who cares, right?

euters.com/world/middle-east/trump-says-iranians-should-rise-up-against-government-if-ceasefire-declared-2026-04-06/

---

Or: “you go even back to January and you think about what the president was saying about the Iranian people, right—this was to help them overthrow the regime.” [The Atlantic (if I did not give the exact reference, that means “don’t bother”)]

US/American is not about any political view. You can be whatever you want. It was more like the idea that all citizens may think freely, express opinions, etc. But you may vote for whomever you like.

So can one be a fascist? I say: yes. Nothing disqualifies fascism it is a point of view. There are specific books and theories. Anything under the sun is allowed. Some restrictions are mentioned by JS Mill, but this is connected with doing any actul harm which would be different. Saying, “I think one group should rule and the other should be subjugated” is within the rules of freedom and democracy. It is no more illegal than writing a fascist literary work would be. We do not restrict literature or ideas.

Fascism is a point of view. So it is fine with me to assert ones right to talk about any poitical system. Nothing wrong with having an idea. It is that one group is special, and the other should be treated like crap, subjugated, made to bow, to defer to your, their master, etc.

Any point of view that may be studied is no more than a point of view and it is not a living thing unless someone tries to put it into play.

What, then is the political system of US/America? It is what persons want. There is no point of view in the Constitution, no particular policy is advocated. Except…

Except that the people would need to vote for it! There is an enormous effort currently — to hide this. This is an effort to depart from the real history of the nation, to throw into the garbage can the ideas of Washington Jefferson, and Adams.

They took a stand for democracy, even if they did not call it that. They had the idea that the individual human being was the unit of worth, not the individual who believed in a king or aristocracy. It was a new beginning

The persons who were in the “founder” position were aristocrats. Now they will need to retain values. Traditionally, that is connected with aristocracy, breeding, education, and aquired skills of various sorts.

But we need to cancel “aristocracy.” I cannot be that these founding era persons just wanted to give up all their values, just like that, or cancel everything good and decent. I do not think they understod a society concerned primarily wth aquisition of money That would not have appealed to them. But what, then would?

If one has values, if a society needs these values, how was this expected to be maintained? How would these presmptive “civilized” values be retained, when what you had was a completely new political system? Well, they never really worked it out. (However, an extemely idealistic viewpoint would have it that the founding figures “thought of everything,” and their “Constitution” is a miracle, and so forth).

The default answer is these things -the basic foundations in values -were just supposed to be there. They would get retained naturally because.. IDK. Why would democracy be self-sustaining? Well, there is no reason. They thought they would try it??? Maybe Jefferson tried a few black slaves, too.

The values or social skills would get retained naturally, just because… Why? Well, you see some truths are just “self-evident.” Things will be fine.

But that is all total bulshit.

“ Both candidates suffered personal attacks; Adams, for his perceived lack of masculine virtues, Jefferson for rumors that he had fathered children with one of his slaves and, enamored with French revolutionary ideas, had plans to install a Bonaparte-like dictatorship in America. His heterodox Christianity also raised charges of atheism. ” (JSTOR)

The political founders of the country took a stand for democracy, for a system of political rule, but not for some particular political position, which was up to the people. Washington had a position, Adams had a position, Jefferson had a position, and the guy who came after him (help! Okay, who?)

Voting should mean our participation in this equality, as informed citizens (not vote lever-pullers with no common sense or set of values, eg monkeys).

Participation is by average, ordinary persons. The Constitution is in favor of voting, not much else. Who we vote for is up to us. There is no politics in the US Constitution.

There is freeom — plenty of that.

There are opinions. Some people do have definite opinions.

Most populat songs are not about politics. They have a romantic nature, or they express emotions and these emotions run the gamut from states of despair to states of exhuberance. Yet, persons also need to agree about certain things or follow certain rules. There is no specific doctrine about what those rules should be

They are rejecting any sort of outsiders. A simple version of conservatism might be called “outsiderism” — the rejection of outside influences.

Rejecting outsiders can look pretty ugly. I had a sheriff’s deputy say to me, “get out of Pinellas County.” But it is a place filled with tourists, and snowbirds1 from up North. How I am the outsider, but they are not doesn’t have much logic to my little outsider brain but the deputy (this is from the jail) is always right because he has a uniform. Somehow he “belongs here.” And I don’t. As if conservatives “belong” but liberals cannot. It then follows that liberals should be just totally removed or exempted from being part of society (b.t.w. I am not one; and I am no more conservative than liberal).

Unlike conservatives (they would presumably use reason, if competent that is) practitioners of outsiderism are automatically right. There are many such persons, including a lot of police and apparently the whole department, in St. Pete. So, face it. This is a human tendency. Their authority comes because of who they are — so, it doesn’t follow they would have good arguments, get support from listening to others, etc. None of that applies, with outsiderism. All you need is to call the other person outsider. That ends it. That “outside” person’s exclusion need not be accurately reasoned out or argued for. So, they declare others to be “outside.”

The president and the Sec. of War get to decide who should be bombed.

Members of the current administration (one of whom said a.i. turns electricity into intelligence) look more like comic book characters than rational human beings.

• Pete Hegseth amplified calls to send Iran back to the “Stone Age.”

When I saw that I immediately thought, “why”? It is because they did not follow Hegseth’s or Trumps’ COMMANDS.

The essential offense is refusal to obey, for which they are to have their ground scorched (or the modern equivalent which is no better).

Hegseth cannot tolerate being DISOBEYED.

The Iranians are not obeying him, that’s the problem.

There is no “alternative theory” for these guys.

In practice, if you don’t obey you will end up dead.

If there is anything that sounds more like “genocide,” I do not know what that would be. Hegseth is not really explaining everything. Would the Iranians, once so bombed, still be able to live. Or would this finish them off? Would they be able to get sufficient food and water, post-being so bombed. I.e., “back” to the Stone Age. The post, which looks to me like a social media sort of thing, looks like this:

So I don’t know — is that social media or not? (I use Substack, and also Facebook a little bit, but that is all I know about social media. I do not really talk to many persons.)

As language, this looks very pre-figured, like Hegseth is merely repeating a trope. IT is a very well-know phrase, of course, so Hegseth could easily know the phrase as an available language cliche’.

The general idea I get is this would FORCE the other party to obey. In actual fact, they would die.

He doesn’t care about that.

Meanwhile, Trump is -rather weirdly -mentioning that they calling him king, or that he is getting a Jesus-like “reception.” This would appear more like wishful thinking on the part of Mr. Donald J. Trump.

He WISHES he were a king, and that might be nice.

He might have to commit genocide to get there.

Whether we should have bombed is another question, but that country was up to no good and I do not know how you can you kill 30,000 of your countrymen —? because they protested you? So should someone intervene? Maybe. Anyways we now may add another country to the list of US interventions: Korea, Vietnam, Angola, Venezuela, and now Iran (as well as Iraq). I do not know whether all of those countries are better off because of U. S. intervention.

The “Trump governmnet” is so stupid. I could defeat them, myself, by becoming a political consultant and working my ass off advising these people on how to win some elections (I just want “independent thinkrs,” I don’t care about R’s and Dem’s), and yes I could be telling our political class how to go about unseating him and his MAGA support system. I am confident I could do it. No, I do not know their political consultation system. I tried to contact “The Lincoln Project” — just to see. How did that go?

They put me on the email list. Okay, fine. Now I get emails from them (Lincoln Proj) and now I know I do not want to work for them at all. They do not seem all that talented to me. But another political consultant I know about is Carville. James. The old boy done got hiszself a good Facebook “story” now playing, in which he is saying there is change going on. (Didn’t Bob Dylan cover that?) Yeah. People be sick ‘o Donald Trump.

But why? Isn’t He a good leader? Isn’t he making America great? Is there any possible thing He could be doing wrong? I can think of this one flaw: He is basically motivated by his own self interest rather than love of the country. The ONE unforgivable thing.

Donald, you did not care about the country. You cared about yourself.

You blew it. He is fundamentally neurotic and self-oriented.

He propounds a philosophy of selfishness. Not only the Donald. Hegseth, etc. That is what they have in common. No matter who the leaders are, there is going to be in all casses the idea that something is important. But what is it?

For Donald, it’s Donald.

Donald, if all you care about is yourself, then no one else is going to care about you.

But we have a war going on. Let’s take a look at the latest news, then. Here is the code for CSIS. <https://www.csis.org/programs/latest-analysis-war-iran> Back in the day, I examined it for some reason. At tht time, I found it gray, wonkish, dull. They seem to have competely gone into fantasyland. Nothing worthwhile in terms of information (but still interesting in terms of illustrating these times). Maybe there is something better. We move over to NBC. They compile.

“A huge turnout of food delivery riders gathered in Manila today to receive cash aid amid rising fuel prices in Manila.

As the conflict continues and global oil prices remain volatile, the country’s government is considering temporary fuel tax cuts to mitigate the impact on an economy heavily reliant on imported oil.” (“food delivery riders” sounds like persons who use cars to deliver food?)

A theme emerges which is that the world is overly dependent on oil — and things like “fertilizers.”

and they difficult to control. Palantir, however, is some piece of shit software trying to function as a human control mechanism. It just helps the police oppress.

For P. Theil, the ultimate fantasy is total control and he believes this may now be possible. He is exactly this same person in his business dealings (or business “life” as if he had one) as well. It is the same “control mechanism” in business as in personal life and this is the same as the process of how this mental delusion of control operates.

It is all one Bonafede freak.

And it is all the same to the control mechanism – a robot (machine, non-intelligent).

But I guess it is all a big social circle as well and that is why Theil has to be connected to Epstein. Epstein essentially was set up to act in the way that attracts these men, and that predictably worked. The method also involves a few steps: first, luring them with underage girls. Next, “ties established” with huge, lucrative business investments by which these persons are as I understand it able to quite easily sell huge chunks of companies. The investment opportunities are pre-packaged and they can sign each other’s contracts to make the exchange without actually having any deep participation in the day-to-day affairs of running these businesses.

None of these billionaires have any real talent. Trump would say such a thing: “He’s is no-talent person and not popular at all.” But suddenly who is a loser and who isn’t a loser is not that important. Trump-ko doesn’t know the damn difference anyway. Artificial isn’t natural.

When the money gains are seen for what they are (not easy to do) they are revealed as what they are: hollow shells of humans. Not that there is anything wrong with that but they are not highly qualified or special individuals. So – they might do anything.

They would probably also hold a theory that everything they are doing is being done for some higher purpose. If that is hollow, take it away. That taken out of the picture, then, it all falls apart. These companies are worthless.

Do human being have a higher purpose? stay tuned… But, the philosopher who worked this out was actually GWF Hegel. Hegel, like everyone else, thought his theories were correct.

But things change over time. It’s all dialectics… One era succeeds another.

He is correct about what he say (mostly about ICE). First Trump will speak, or he will give some directions intended for the lackeys to follow out and then what actually transpires is that an act of idiot mendacity is committed by ICE forces. He knew what would happen, and since it is implausible to suggest Trump is not aware that anyone is gonna get harmed by this, it must be that He is intentionally harming people.

And, if He is intentionally doing harm, He is of course culpable.

And this is the fellow that wants to be called a great person? Let us examine further what is Trump is setting up or putting into motion.

This is the very definition of fascism.

He will not (intentionally) cause those on His side to come to harm, and not cause His side to feal fear.

If current immigration tactics do not go His way he will then require a loyalty oath! I think so, sure. So, that would eliminate a sector of ICE.

The remaining (ICE) police forces will be His true loyalists. And they will be more severe — never less. This has to be stopped

So, “fascism” divides persons into “our” group and the “other” group. In Nazi Germany, the first group that was othered were the communists.

Hitler’s first move was he tried to be a communist. They kicked him out. Later, he rounded them up, tortured and killed them.

What we are seeing right now is a group of people trying to bring the USA to fascism.

It is increasingly clear that this is what is going on.

Notes: The Menace of Fascism Hardback - 1933 John Strachey

Note2: I read also a book published more recently that described Hitler’s early life, his probably homosexuality, and his early attempt to join communism. It is a very good book. Professional historians dislike it, acc. to duck search. Both of these books are absolutely great.

Looks like we need another “investigation.” Which is what Fox or ‘Fox Live’ must be thinking, according to anyone’s inductive logic, based on what we are able to see. Suddenly it is the “investigation slant. Every so often, a new “slant”/angle appears on the regular Fox Live news coverage. This t.v. station (no, not really, more of a national network feature but I don’t know how they speak) “swoons” and suddenly gives its slant — and they are now doing “investigation” mode. I am not impressed, rather I wonder why they like investigation mode. News networks are like houses of fetishism. The Fox ship of state regularly gets stuck in gear. But this is a different gear from last week. Then, we the listeners had to watch the Maduro story, not about the military “infiltration” (and exfiltration,” a new word to me). And it was not about the body snatching act. But Fox somehow decided that what you want to know from their t.v. coverage is Maduro is in now Brooklyn. This is all you need to know. You know, incarcerated. During that feature, the whole network gets frozen on the legal details. It is the whole affair regarding the legal matter of how Maduro goes on trial, not something else (like why was he could be kidnapped at all). So now there are all these supposedly fascinating legal questions and it is time to interview lawyers.

Nice touch, from the news-pauper or journalism industrye.

It you don’t want to face the truth, or dig the truth out, I guess you get stuck in “investigation” gear. (looks like ‘digging’! - fooled ya! ) Anyways. They (Fox) are really into this idea, that they should cover the idea: “investigate.” This presumably makes the television network feel comfortable. Investigation supervisors. That is not really the way to protect of journalistic integrity — but, yeah, then, whatever…

I wonder how they’ll handle the next big story? [Impeaching K Noem]

[how to address Kristi Noem]

Kristi Noem: YOU are an unwanted person. Her rights and privileges need to be severely curtailed.

The interesting thing about this is the idea we have that the even the hugely egoistic, terrorist, powerful “big” man cannot interfere wih this. If the House has votes for it (impeachment is in the house, trial the senate and it was all worked out in the 1780s by the Americans) it has to happen. Yeah, right. Hey, wait. Didn’t Trump (who won the gold medal of honesty in a fake vote) try to overturn an election? He is the guy who already tried to overturn the election. He could pull something. He seems capable of anything, totally weird person after all, and capable of anything, even something that stupid. In fact this whole Trump Drama is stupid.

The houses of Congress work by certain rules. It has for over two hundred years been run by certain successful men in the affairs of this nation. And the globe. They are trained in their fields and the country is fully capable of paying a salary to many experts who tend to agree on what reality is. They know those rules. The Constitution is a matter of law, or a sort of basis for all the laws, isn’t it? Despite their training, those men do now decide on these rules. The Constitution tells those worldly men of D.C. what their rules even are. You don’t just improvise. The men who work in Washington, D.C. know what to do, and the alternative would be something like obeying the current president. Which in this case, means Trump.

So, anyways, if the Constitution is going to be followed, then to get an impeachment trial they need an exact number of votes. When Republicans resist they show us perhaps something about how much they care about this. The transgressions of Noem should be obvious. She lies, perhaps carelessly. She follows after her master. Lying is encouraged by Trump. He is her master. Also a great global trend-setter, because Donald flies around the world. In a plane. A lot. But does Congress care about the lawless acts, the transgressions themselves? These transgressions are now common. These are things being done by Trump, through his lackeys. Noem is one of his lackeys; she follows Trump’s orders. She runs HHS. And there are several others who are like this. These persons are okay with the inimitable style of Donald, they directly follow his lead. The president gives prompts. That is how they know things, e.g. what say — but whatever: they are definitely not following the Constitution. So that means it is violation of the very legal foundation of the country (nation — whatever). How is one to act? At a given time?

(well what they know is this…) Right now Trump’s theme is: “double down on Minnesota criminal terrorism.” He says “crime.” He says “terrorist.” B isn’t that what Trump is? He is himself the terrorist; just say it!

Next time you get arrested by a police officer—? - why not advise him about this little fact that he is a terrorist? I think “fascist” confuses them. But they do use the word “trrrist,” and he will be likely to knows what it means.

For Noem? I think she can be called an “unwanted person.” Maybe it is time to suggest to her that she leave public service.

Noem! I take you by the wrist
Noem you are a terrorist
Noem, you have to come with me
Washington, D.C. has no job for YOU!
White House clearance is
…rescinded

(I wish Congress could do that!)

The principle of governance is “The People.” This is well-known, even on the populist level of the society. I was taught this, at school. This is the established idea of the US.

One is not being a good president … and our neighbors are being physically abused by masked ICE officers.

A democracy must respect the rights of all persons. There are some exceptions in the case of serious criminals. In many cases it is perfectly clear to police whom they are confronting. This, however, is not the case with the unauthorized visitors called “illegal. They are being called “criminals,” by the president. Trump was elected twice — against a weak Democrat each time (Hillary and Kamala). It does not make any sense to treat them (the general run of the public) the same way that criminals are treated. One ought to follow correct procedures, which some policeman fail at. So this is what happens (ICE abuses, etc.).

So why is DJT trying to do this? I think that it must be that He is trying to consolidate power (as an American dictator or King). For Trump, it is a test, and he either pulls it off or he has to try again, later. It is specifically his test of: “can I get whatever I want?” I feel that many of the Press are okay with this. The Press is shameful here~

But others think of it as judicial. But it is not a judicial matter. It is about whether the idea of America survives.

Because: this man Trump is trying to destroy the place.

They are not legitimate, Mr. Vance. Why does Vance say that ICE is legitimate, when Donald Trump is a terrorist. All the terrorists use gangs of thugs, and ICE are Trump’s thugs. This is his initial try at having a gestapo. He needs practice. He is getting it. Eventually, we might see him unleasing these thugs against every American, you see. Well, I don’t know. It seems logical, that’s all. You and me as well? Who will the thugs will be defending—? ~ no one.

Yet the media refuses to admit who the thugs are. Come on, do I need to say ‘fascist’? I don’t care what terms you use. There is a right-wing thug network being assembled. Police do not defend people; they attack persons. There is no “left-wing network” but there is nobody policing the police. What antifa network? There isn’t any. There is only the fact of certain long-standing abuses committed under cover of law, by ICE. Since 2003. No investigation of the police, ever. That is why they are so useful. The leading edge right now seems to be ICE. They are not nice people. The ICE behavior is nothing new. I saw videos on Facebook ten years ago and I already felt strongly about it. Persons were complaining. All this time. And Vance did not get the memo.

But, in real time, the JD Vance act is deteriorating. This is my impression, watching. I suppose he is psychic and knows what happened in Minneapolis. He doesn’t seem to make sense. I thought he understood hillbillies in particular.

“I’m certain she violated the law.” Who told him to be certain? Maybe Donald told him to act certain. And, Um—was it a lethal violation or was it not? “I don’t know what was in her head…” Why should he know? You get this impression of persons who do not make sense. And he knows what is absurd: “The idea that this was not justified is absurd, and (everybody) knows it in their heart.” I don’t know that! Is it that he did not know what was in her head — but? He knows everybody’s heart. So, this is garbage. Wake the fu*k up, JD.

As I just said, ICE was already an issue for us “sensitive” types. We knew about the abuses of ICE. Many persons who care about human rights had already heard about this. It needs to be explained to the American people why we should not assume that they would continue to act that way? Past abuses are already well-known. Why is that not discussed? No reason is given to us. Nobody is addressing the well-known issues involving past ICE behavior. This has never been addressed. JD says “make people feel more secure and safe…” He isn’t a good liar. “reasonable and rational” Are ICE agents abusers? Yes or no. So Vance seem to be assuming that anyone called a “law enforcement officer” is legitimate.

So, that is one of the first things to attack them on! They simply are NOT legitimate. ICE are not good cops or legitimate. They are abusers. Abuses of ICE have never been investigated. Vance keeps contradicting himself. Now he says, “why can’t (people)” just voice their concerns peacefully, etc. “… ICE is just doing their job.” What job?

They couldn’t spell “learning…” This is Vance again, criticizing the spelling of the Somalian welfare cheats.

All this is to enable an American government led by a president who, darn it, just seems to enjoy killing. In my opinion, Donald Trump enjoys killing people, which is mostly a tragedy — for Trump himself. What is this man doing????

This is a terrible tragedy — for Donald Trump! Here is a poor deluded man, throwing his life away for what? All to be thought of as a big man, a superstar. He cannot bear to face what he is. He is sort of an bland unappealing type. No that won’t do. Ego too big. So, he gets himself the power of life and death — over others.

Persons such as Vance facilitate that. Once he became the president, Trump went out and found these persons: the cronies. I should probably say henchmen. Trump is a criminal and his associates are criminals.

I have suspected it for a long while. I did dare to write such a thing— to write it out. That the only real goal is to senselessly kill more and more persons. Like other dictators in history. Dictators kill senselessly.

If my terrible fears are correct, that is all that will happen. Trump will never become right. Everybody think they know something—when, in fact, they do NOT. But Trup never had a lot of adulation, early in his life. Not considered an intelligent, respected sort of person. He was not popular. He was no star.

Therefore, his life subsequent is the deluded attempt (this is “neurotic”) to either actually be a more attractive person or else, Well—just give me more power. Then it won’t matter. Somehow, no one will know that he is a bore. So he is killing people. And why? ~persons do not like him enough. He grew up in New York home to a lot of smart people. And he wasn’t that smart… So he essentially needs to HIDE the fact that he is not smart. And he is killing or abusing persons, simply because he is confused about how to deal with the fact that he is not all that much of a star actually. Not that charming or that profound or interesting in the firs place. So, he wants to hide that. . And that’s it. So, because of that, he kills people. That is sad. He harms himself.

And I still hear JD Vance in the background, as he drones on and on, because now he to can pretend to be somebody important, and so he is using certain little phrases that sound like things an intelligent person would say. But there is no consideration of all the problems involved in administering Venezuela.

“a guy who… defended himself against being rammed by an automobile,” Vance says. What does “rammed” mean here? Is that even true. How did the officer “defend” himself by shooting a woman who was driving away. That is not “defending.”

Eventually, they will attack you, too. Why not? They enjoy it!

I fear that this is not about immigrants or Somalian society or welfare fraud. It is about pointless violence, a violence that may happen against anyone, anytime. I hope I’m wrong.

“…an extraordinary military operation captured Venezuela’s dictator Nicolás Maduro and his wife…”

Extraordinary. It is so obvious what the implication of that word is in this context. I speak English. I know what “extraordinary” imples in the language.

But no worries. They claim to be a “bipartisan” organization so I tried another article

This next CSIS guy is, Mark F. Cancian. First,

The capture of Nicolás Maduro and his wife has electrified the world…” It did? Okay, wait. Why did I not experience extraordinary electrification? What else do Cancian say, after “electrified the world? “[…fied the world] and generated immense discussion…” Yeah, discussion is good. I favor social discourse. But what is this “immense” discussion? I do not think he is referring to the critics, so who is having the “discussion”? The left, etc.? It’s a mainstream organization run by a “Pritsker” individual (millionaires, all of ‘em). This is the mainstream, he cannot be talking about the entire discussion, including people CSIS does not admit to the existence of. (Chomsky was closed off from these discussion, for years. I am now under suspect-tion now just, because I said man’s name!) But, actually, critics far outside CSIS’s orbit (probably: correct me, if they have leftist radicals on board and CSIS but I do not think they do) people on the Left are discussing it more (you can find it if you search eg Substack). Not that I am Left. No. Not me. I was never stronly Left.

In any case, immense discussion if fine.

In the first section of the Cancian article, the author runs down “A Brilliant Military Operation”. [h]ttps://www.csis.org/analysis/maduro-raid-military-victory-no-viable-endgame

But in the next section, we learn that “President Trump said he had not been in contact with the Venezuelan opposition and barely mentioned them…” So there is rally no plan. This is “A Setup for Political Failure " and it “will never work.”

Well, we shall see. Reports will follow, I am sure, on how Venezuela is doing under the new leader, “Trump”???

As I said, their emphasis, or tone, is that they sound reasonable. There is also a hostile tinge mixied into that: “Maduro is flooding our nation with (drugs)...” “..holding people hostage in their apartment buildings.” But that is also not reasonable. But our wonderful legal system is reasonable. Ah we are so reasonable. That is this guy’s theme: he is a “Seth” something who is a constitutional attorney, or something. I don’t know what the hell they are doing... I have a reasonable mind. This does not make sense, and it not reasonable, but that is of course precisely why they need to frame it as being above all, super-reasonalbe. They are showing that an appearance of reasonableness is what they are valuing. That has nothing to do with actually being reasonable. (The kind of guy I obviously am. I am, like Mr. Reasonable!)

On the other hand, the think-tank CSIS is saying that bombing a nation and capturing its president is spectacular. Let’s just put the picture of a bomb, dropping on a city, on our featured webpage. Here it is. I mean, the link, including the intial lette “h” which I had to omit and then manually insert: https://www.csis.org/analysis/maduro-captured-what-comes-next-venezuela

It was, according to CSIS, an “extraordinary” “military operation.” He could easily have said “special” military operation. Must be some sort of Russian-English translation problem there. But anyways, what did I search to get the CSIS website about number six? I searched <overthrow of maduro>. First a.i. assures me that it “occurred.” That reminded me that the word has two “r”s though, which I seem to forget all the time. Thank you, artificial reminder.

That search term on duckduckgo gives you a list in which the word “overthrow” does not occur once. It only appears in the a.i. result. I searched using the word “overthrow” because that sounded like a normal word to use, and at the same time I was not hearing the word used. And the word itself does not occur on the initial search page with about one sentence after each hit.

Can the government just go and do something? Just because it wants to? Yes, it’s a free country. Right? So, the government is as free as any other person or organization to do anything that is legal. The sticky point there may be that the government is the very institution that creates the laws. This means that the government first of all must follow its own laws. This is why it is called “political.” What if there is no law againt it? Well then I suppose one may do it. Is there a law against invading another country? No!

I thought Fox Live was doing just fine. I had compared it to C-span, as it just covered the news in a very hands-off fashion. I saw no bias. I praised the station Fox and all. There were all kinds of activists and liberals on there. I thought they were doing well. With the Maduro affair, all this has changed. Two weeks ago, this also happened. After that killing in Australia, which occurred at a Jewish religious event, and thus involves the Jewish people, who have suddenly clearly become delegated to some kind of propaganda use for international elites, Fox Live did this. It was constantly on, the same kind of talk all about this one event, over and over and over every time I looked at the station in the BK. It is reminiscent of CNN after the original trauma of 9/11: just the same pictures over and over and over and one wonders what this behavior could possibly prove.

But that is all they have: the same lies. What more should I say? This Fox Live

coverage is revolting. But that is what they play, here are the 

BK.

-two points, it rhymed.

And now, on Fox, this guy says that U. S. will be “running” the country, using the same language Trup used. Another guest was saying something like, “it is not that difficult to run the ministries of VenezuelaThat is the first I heard of this. Now, finally, they are going to give the Democrats a little coverage. Also, weirdly, suddenly they care about drugs! Anyways, it’s all lies. But you knew that already.

But the really weird thing that Fox here is dictating what we want to see. The false “fact” they are pushing is that the really important discussion is a legal discussion of Maduro as a captive defendant, as if somebody knows that this is what needs to be constantly discussed. I am telling you. They come back to this over and over again: where he is “being housed,” the legal process around housing etc. The assumption is that this is the important discussion, or this what what we decided to request but no one requested it. As if it is a foregone matter that we care the most about all the legal technicalities of Maduro’s trial. Why?

why why why

There is no reason to put all this stuff on. It is just to take up space. Now you cannot discuss anything else, e.g. whether Congress has the authority to declare war, why aduro canceled elections (he probably accused fraud like Trump did?) So it is like the strategy is to decide, for us, that what we really want to hear is courtroom analysis, and right from the day after the military operation.

As I said, I have no choice in the matter: this is what is on at the restaurant I use. There is soething to be said for that. OTherwise how would I have been able to see both the great stuff that was on Fox Live for a few weeks and then the death of that version of Fox Live, first for the Australian massacre, and then for the current story. Why is this (supposedly) the only story we care about? B.t.w. — Burger King’s dining room is EMPTY. Nobody wants to see this. Totally weird. I have never seen anything like it. I am surprsied every day.

So, despite the level of technology (and along with that the apparent enforced social passivity encouraged by profit-seeking businesses) we have the delusion of: “everything gonna work, plus it’ll be effortless.” So we are thinking, “gee, this will be easy.” Just click. It’ll be effortless.

Not only that — there are people who click twice!

There are certain things the West is just not very good at. What it is that be missing for them? It is the open-mindedness that would lead to re-assessment. Therefore, a bad action is only compounded, never corrected. New knowledge is missing. This is fatal for a society.

For you need to let a new bird into your cage. You need to have the door open. Even if you cannot help living in a cage, open the door once. And, once in a while, let a new thought in. But no. This is a threat to them

That seems to threaten these people. They comprise a “Western elite.” It was not great, but at least it existed and a society could form around it. Today it is very uncertain who should properly speaking be assigned to this group. I do not see them. I cannot find it. And if this elite -the people occupying the standard positions (somebody has to do it — I just cannot see how they are a very good elite) —positions of authority or influence. So, if the persons occupying those positions should all fall en masse for the delusion of “just click” —? we in trouble.

We live in a human collective — a society, a nation. Who, I wonder, gets the control positions in the society? (I know it ain’t me)! If an elite has various powerful roles to play, then it is really the question of how a society… How does the society allocate power? OK so that’s the q. The answer is straightforward — if, that is to say, we go back to 1775 o6. There was a competent elite at that time. This group geared up for social and polictical change, declared (revolution) war, won (sent the British fleet back after sinking half of the ships), and governed the new independent political state that had been created in North America. At that time, a competent elite, once English, transformed to being “American” and continued to lead the nation by occupying the elite positions. Those positions reflect influence or power. The government was hosted by Washington, Adams, and Jefferson. All three have geneological ties to the earlier system of aristocracy. That country was able to prosper. News leaders were found and the nation got through the 19th century, all the way up until 1900. Flash-forwards. After all this time the elite now either comprise a very different group — or, more likely, they are not a true “elite” at all. That does not exist. Remember, we were talking about being open-minded or independently-minded.

We are piloted by a.i. We don’t have any leaders. Nothing

Over time, and as control positions are handed off from one person to another, the elite transforms repeatedly. Until there isn’t one.

Eventually, control positions are in the hands of a group who exeplify the statement I make above. What is missing is: “open-mindedness that would lead to re-assessent.” They will claim they do not need to re-assess and they are indisputably right about everything. That these persons whould be the leaders is just a bad thing for everybody.

There are many things that do not make sense in our society. These bad items should be rejected.

You re-assess, you evolve, you change.

Of what use are we who do not spend to keep the fires of the market economy alive?

Our job was to blow hot air over the embers but we have gotten cold. We are disgusted

Cold and sick.

What is very clear is that none of our institutions are very strong. We cannot count on protection. The embassy does NOT have our back. If I living in Mexico, I would not go to the U. S. government, if I needed help as an American in Mexico. I’d go to the Mexican government. They are throwing “aliens” into prisons in other countries now and they given enough time will be throwing U. S. citizens in there too. Which country? It might not matter which country.

I have not contributed to the economy. They don’t need me and I don’t need them. Social bonds fray and then it fails. So, I a not so far a target for the security forces. But how long do I expect them to leave me alone? What about when they start coming for Substackers? I’m not writing cookie recipies here. When do they just fabricate some charges and drag me away to whatever gulag they have selected for the prisoners? We do not have such prisons. But Trump doesn’t give a damn. If you let him bomb the boat, he’ll come back and do some more bad stuff. Next time it will be U. S. citizens, accused of crimes, e.g. “internationalism.” But he cannot say that because of all the multi-nationals. I am a citizen. I could supposedly vote against Trump in the next election cycle. But it takes eight to ten years for these things to get figured out. Nobody knew Trump was a heartless individual who would bomb persons at sean, calling it “necessary,” or call the dead Saudi figure Kashoggi a “bad guy” while embracing the murderer totalitarian Saudi prince as our friend. So, as member of the voter population, I -

- can just call back Trump anytime. Yeah, right. We are stuck. And, as a citizen of the United States of America NOW YOU TELL ME TO TAKE HAPPINESS -

- in a holiday? Not feeling this. Since I am Jewish, too. So, Well I never really got into a lot of celebrating at this time. But now we have a president who betrays the founding principles of this nation and the press does not call foul on it. Well, that pretty much ruins my Christmas...

They have told me that school is her only safe, happy place.

When I was in grade school, a typical presentation might be eg: the American Story. It is would be an indoctrination program. Just propaganda. But I am not here to tell you whether that is appropriate — or not. It’s okay in the fifties, its a scandal in the sixties, and it is oppression in the seventies in certain highly elevated circles. So, yes, we had these presentation made to us. We received the programs. They had these programs in the school, where, over and over, they shoved into our face the American Story. And with all the force and fanfare that they could. This is what they call giving you you eddykation in school. Even if we had tried to criticize the content of these indoctrination programs or throw spitballs you know, they had the right to tray and transmit these, the Liberal democratic doctrines, to us kids. This was the tradition and, bad as it was, we had to listen. And they were determined. By golly, they are going to present some version of how to act in the world. It is essentially their version of everything. Well somebody has to have a version. So is there something wrong with that? I reckon our representations of reality have lost their force. And thus, no mainstream presentation of the American Story exists. The center does not hold.

If I reference a “center,” which I did, the point of a discussing “centers” is that I wish to reiterate that something has to bind everyone together. How that was done in the case of US/America was not clear to scholars; it is in some doubt. The capitalist lifestyle changes; but, they were determined, determined to present something. In point of fact, most of the little citizens in the classroom probably had our doubts. We were the real Americans. We were not the spectators. Just picture this: it is a suburb of Chicago, 1961- from first grade to sixth. This is about when my first “Iron Butterfly” record came along. That aggregation was composed of very healthy, well-adjusted young fellas, out West—? ~ I believe so. ‘67. So, not all the little kids believed the propaganda. Some grew up to be criminals and rebels of a bewildering variety, while others simply cheated on their taxes. For there are as many ways to not be a true blue American as be one. The country had to absorb them all, as it did. We are the decent persons. And they are not. //Fishing boats / We had to kill them / Venezuela//:

But those who were good, decent citizens would go on to “real” jobs — like city clerk, assistant statistician. Or, molecular biology! Vaccine production! Such possibilitles ~

But is that the real American story? What is, then? Which story are they forcing on our kids in classrooms across the country this time? Perhaps it is Stephen Hawking’s version of how it is To Be in Outer Space. The safe Reality place? What about the feelings in our hearts? Just trust the science they tell us. Come on. I’ll trust it if it is science. Just show me that it is really science. Actually explain. But — let us continue on the unifying theme of the American Story. (hint: turns out it’s the embrace of equality.)

The American colonists took up arms. They fought the enemy. That enemy—? Endland. And the Americans were too good for the British. And then the British navy, defeated by a huge chunk of land, a rock, first explored by Columbus and Vespucci or Ronald McDonald or some mythic figure, turns back, back to England with ye! It took another fifty years or so for the frothing mess to settle out, but it did and eventually the all-clear came and it was clear that the British were gone. There ensued a century of rapid and intensifying industrial build up. During that time, we had something to bind us together. Something, arguably, was being built. Not clear what that is however.

No one quite knew the point of all this. The system of social organization was not quite clear enough. So, I would like to clarify. Please notice. This coming part of the Substack article is what I am able to put together on the nature of the American political project and the explanation that it should be so deeply held and beloved for the industrialization process as well and the subsequent enrichment process in the succeeding century.

There was a clear choice. One particular system or particular nations is not the same as another. Now Britain had a monarch: those people would follow either a king or a queen. Very different from the U. S. They developed a similar industrial society as the Americans, in fact the British created it. There was the Industrial Revolution, as it is called: the Steam Engine, etc. The British remain distinct, however. And why s that? They held onto their monarchy for a longer period. Later, many British became quite democratic or perhaps they became populist and a also this was bit challenging for conservatives, who wanted to remain within the stream in the stream of history.

However, back in the United States of America a hard decision had been made. The former colonists set up this new system now where the total of votes cast took care of things and in the national elections, they elected the president. This is important to take into consideration, as even just from that one may see where they were going with this. They state it clearly... they did not want a king and it was thought that a single document could take care of all of this. Just call it the “Constitution,” with a capital “C” —and we are off to the races I suppose.

Well, this document we call constitutional, or “the” Constitution, gave authorities power over the People (and yet by some magic still protected basic rights). The political divide that characterized the system which then emerged was the system of right and left. Thereafter the national conversation was: R v. L. The idea behind the Constitution is that nobody has absolute rights at all but that is just law (idealistic) and this idea of law was certainly present in England itself all way back to the Magna Carta. Power in the Constitution is not unitary but rather it is to be divided amongst several (3) branches of government. So, let us state the larger case for what was happening. The general feeling of the Consititution -and the background matter of the Constitution -is that now the People are going to decide, which is different, isnt it, from if it is just a single individual who rules, i.e. the monarch as in British life.

Individual rights and equality are important concepts here. These individual rights become very important in American life. (“Equality” whatever that is is presumptive and is held as basic.) Whereas in England the king was to be attended to and taken care of and have his shoes polished or whatever.

So, the whole basis by which we hang together is important and for one hundred years it was the respect for equality, human rights, and rule of law that held it all together. But I must also, as a child of the twentieth, must mention that there are very likely other possilbe considerations, such as culture—and nature! (Chasing butterflies, for example.) Civic values are not the only ones. Once the American is liberated, s/ he is free to search out the best way to live. Different persons are going to go in different directions eg Virginia or Tennessee. Hugh Hefner and Richard Nixon, who lived in the same period, might not be entirely in step as to how a person should live in post-war US/America, but they both shared the same values as members of the same society. There was an active, engaged, serious set of values based on equality and individual rights within law. These principles are of course, liberal. Conservatives accepted things like voting and some level of dissent (not much they could do about it). They just want to put the brakes on. Understanding some of those parties at the Playboy Mansion, you can’t blame ‘em, can you? That system was able to hold up during the 19th and 20th centuries. It began to fail in the 1980s, and surely that system is defunct now.

. . .

The U. S. has a strong basis in equality. We need to decide whether we want to lose it or keep going with it. But if we are all equal, how are we to express that equality? This is also important. It is the responsibility of any country to provide entertainment (outlets). The people, for their part, need to have some channels so they can express their freedom in an organized fashion, not as mobs in the street, or criminals. So they have to have culture or sport. Yes, much of this can be taken care of by culture, sports, and the arts and having picnics or channeling that energy in healthy ways.

Everyone has energy. But we need to find some ways of organizing it or controling it. Girls Scouts, Boy Scouts, Peace Corp. You get it. The brown shirts, the red shirts, the black flag.

“ They have told me that school is her only safe, happy place. “ (accessed from here: https://audioboom.com/posts/8225777-what-s-causing-the-trans-explosion-helen-joyce )

. . .

For how long that the world been psychotic? It went psycho, but —when? Last year? Yesterday? Institutions such as schools are almost as basic as the air we breathe, and this I believe is what culture is. We are embedded within this culture, whether we know it or not — and, with its schools. For me as a kid, school was that basic, it was not optional. It is the basic institution, if you were a public school student as I was. I don’t remember whether I liked school or not, particularly —it was necessary. There were good teachers; there were the bad teachers. I had both kinds thrown at me. The system did not always work! Once my parents had to intervene. They stepped right in there. That one teacher hated me, singled me out. It was a man. They found out that he had been fired from teaching posts before! In the end this teacher left the school and that was over with. He drove me out of my mind. I was at my little kid wits end!!!!#

Life went on. We didn’t rejoice over getting the teacher fired, but rather mopped up and went about our business as persons within a democracy. That teacher was not acting the right way in class. (Even a kid could tell!) The episode ended; we cleaned up the spilled paint and went on with our lives, because there was something to live for, ever hopeful about this country, to which we had placed our hands over our wee little hearts. So, we got a minimal education in the democractic society that nurtures us — and that we go to places like Vietnam and Israel to fight for. That was the context within which I became ultra-rebellious, now over thirteen but perhaps—? ~still a child. It was still the tail end of the hippie era, and there was plenty to rebel against, and I began to have enormous problems with my parents. I destroyed the relationship. I feel chagrin and confusion over this. Other persons I have known have had trouble understanding it. I had dreams of attacking my father. He did not seem to understand what the complaint involved. I do not understand this.

There were institutions that supported me. I got the needed support. The institutions had not gone crazy yet. There was society in general. That is to say there was cultural support: there was a music scene, there were great literary dissidents like Vonnegut, etc. Whomever it was. There were all kinds of alternative cultural heros: I connected with various books that I collected. Some books by Wilhelm Reich, a student of Sigmund Freud who went on to having extremely original ideas --- very easy to call too far out there and therefore is that persons “fake,” etc. Well, he was a fully-qualified doctor. He was one of those persons who picked up all the basic scientific and medical knowledge like a sponge. Then, after medical school, Reich operated a free clinic for the working-class in Vienna, Austria. This was the nineteen thirties. Some of Reich’s ideas are difficult to follow. I had records (music), and spent hours a day listening to selections. My record albums constituted a treasury, a collection of a sort. Some were popular, some were obscure. I didn’t care much either way.

I did all right; I believe that the way I was able to make my own life was a mthod of piecing together the things I liked about the world and yet depending on the institutions that worked as that time. Record albums that now sell for two hundred dollars were unknown to others. It was music before it was a commodity with “market”/dollar value. They could be in cut-out bins for two to three dollars. People who would later be “collectors” had no idea what was going on. These records were cheap for ten years: 65-75. Some persons cnnot find anything unless you put a price tag on it! then it glows like neon. I did not buy that many; life was there to be lived with products or with only your own head and hands. These things were not organized through the schools. School was one of the worst places, it was not the best, and to be sure not the only good place. After high school, I got a crappy job. I lasted about five months.

I was a rebel. I did not really understand the mainsteam world. I didn’t like it. But it was there. I thought maybe someday our alternative hippy culture (we had probably stopped using the word already, but the vestige remained) would come back. Some new cultural transition might occur. I too wanted a new, cool world.

The world, to my view, was not psychotic yet. But it wasn’t very good, and the hope was you could get something better. That never arrived and now, forty, fifty years later we have come to a place where our children are very, very unhappy. They do not have the options I did. I had no idea at the time that I needed the remaining viable institutions. Culture works like that, it supports you. But you do not need to support it consciously. Culture takes over nature, modifying it. I divided the culture I lived in into good and what was bad, or what I thought that consisted of: conservatives mostly bad, hippies and other freaks mostly good. Today the culture has become weak and now there is less solid ground for kids to stand on while growing up and freaking out and rebelling.

All that rebellion takes, or took, place on the basis of one unified system, by which I refer to capitalism now, so our biggest cultural basis is capitalism. Not unexpectedly, I was against that. And this view dominated for many years, up until I was in my thirties. Ultimately I began to see the bigger picture. Something opened up. And by asking myself questions about the problems in the distribution of wealth globally, this being in the context of “globalisation,” I found a new answer in economic theory.

This was a policy idea. It is a proposal for a new world wealth distribution arrangement, a sort of “capitalism version two” or a wealth program that would span the globe. This was my only main intellectual breakthrough.

Since then: I tend to take a certain amount of time each day to think about economics.

here is an example of my Economics writing. This piece describes New York:

These are all Americans (are they? not sure why I said this…). Below is your encounter with four examples the AMerian know-it-all. They are all sure that MTG is whatever they think she is. But don’t bothering to do any research or anything. Did they ever carefully check out any of their facts? (or learn to appreciate others?) Well I do not think so!

I think MTG is actually a great example of the sort of person the country needs. While she may have sounded like a total loyalist for the opening scene, I quickly noticed she was genuine. [here, the text reverts to original, if you are reading it again….] But she has been (or was) willing to show us an independent mind. She was doing this all along, but the four persons in the examples below did not notice or didn’t check or didn’t care. And maybe she had high hopes for Donald. Well, I did too for a spell. Many of us did. I think that since MTG fits with the “conservative” designation persons turn off. Conservative. Therefore it’s obvious: there going to be no respect from know-it-alls. I won’t use “block quote” this time. It seems distracting (so my copies are direct, and no edits were done on my part; readers can figure out that the article the comments are in response to was very anti-Marjorie Taylot Greene):

I love it! It spoke to everything I was thinking. No sympathy for MTG. It’s a good compilation of her previous behavior. Honestly, I don’t believe for a moment that she has “seen the light” and is remorseful at all.

Yamuna Ramachandran

5d

Replying to

Nunzio L

This is not as much ruthless as it is precise. Every word is true, not an ounce of exaggeration. It’s perfect. MTG hasn’t shown true remorse. It’s the perfect letter.

Lisa Milner

5d

Replying to

Nunzio L

And needed. She’s doing all this soft question interview BS and nobody is calling her on the specifics of her horrible actions. She thinks she’s going to be the new version of the R-party but it’s just lipstick on a pig. All apologies to pigs, which I love.

Desiree Joplin

5d

Replying to

Nunzio L

It is a ruthless letter. But it is one based on verifiable information and facts. If anyone has been following MTG, we have witnessed her shenanigans. Alyssa’s letter is written with no disrespect, no name calling, no threats, and no deflection. Just reminding her of a recent version of MTG we all got to watch in disbelief.

Every one of the persons writing the ‘Comments’ as above is perfectly and sublimely sure of they selves. How has this disease come to be here in MTG’s beloved America — ? certainly this predates COVID-19. There was some American Dumbass present in 1777 too. Although somewhat undetectable at that stage. These persons were just cheap hucksters, in those days these suckers were easily found out and then they would be promptly put out of business. Now they are Internet personalities. We have real “equality” insofar as we read each other just because we on Facebook.

Now the rascals are called ‘WOKE’ and MTG was trying to save us — except that now she has been obliged to take a break (instantly endearing her back to Trump who did the Mamdani Twist again, and said nice things once she was gone—as the orange guy seems to have gone gentle in recent days.

(I wonder if He at least is SORRY that he killed all those fishermen.)

Maybe Trump will stabilize and it just takes time for that. (And in the meantime, people die—there is no “Marxist” revolution, despite Marx and Engels’ predictions of it.) In any case, he will be gone in two years (three if you really like elections).

There’s no sense going back to a lost thought. Trump made himself the center of evrybody’s attention. Now that he has us—? -maybe it is time that we had Him. He first of all needs to draw back on violating normative human rights protections. This applies to the disrespectful ICE raids and to the fisherman -alleged drug smugglers -blown out of international public space/waters seemingly on a whim…

I can understand that Trump is a person who acts, and makes up his mind later. But he needs to be continuously pressured on the pain and suffering, ie the harm and damage he is doing to other persons here and in international zones or climes. If He only cares about himself, and of course the few family members or those who are extremely close to him (not much about people in international waters), he needs to be told a few things. We must be asking Tump about these things.

How do we ask Him these questions? Well, you could just use the normal channels: write a letter to the White House (or your senator or congressman or the newspaper or anyone at all), post to the Internet, stand on the street corners with a sandwich slung over your shoulders. Just do it. Nobody can refuse to see a sign put in front of them. Trump cannot refuse to hear “why are you killing people?” when he was trying to brag about bringing peace to Bulgaria or something.

Wherever He goes, He needs to constantly hear: “Why are you killing people?” Killing is wrong. He didn’t get that memo? He needs to hear: why are you KILLING people… wherever

                  …he goes

MTG was asking good questions and bolting from the herd. For that, she received death threats (or similar kinds of harrassment). Scratching my head — trying to figure out what more hate from liberal know-it-alls is going to prove…

Left and Right create cartoon characters out of one another instead of finding out who they really are. Maybe that is because backing your theoretical points with example is, Well—hard. Oooops—”difficult.”

YOU been lied to. About—? ~just about everything. And, it just never stops. Everyone has lied to everyone, with the consequence of this is a very nice quilt. There is something like a patchwork, a quilted work, a work of quilted lies. It is very nice and the lies have structures and tell stories. You can say there are stories sewed into the quilt, set in. And that is (even if constructed out of a fabric made up of just total lies) of course none other that CULTURE. Like YMCA, the word ‘culture’ blinks on and off; it just smacks us right in the face like a collision with a psychotic right-winger on acid. Do not just shrug off this peculiar structure as being made of lies. For the psychotic liars have more heft than Hegseth knows.

Hegseth, it seems to me, may be considered untutored. And as an untutored man, he is similar to a black hole or what we later assign the label “barbarian” to. A unthinking hyuman bein’.

What you are dealing with here is a person what is untotored or unskooled. No sophistication. It is true as well, if we call that a “barbarian.” That is so. Isn’t that so? Hegseth is not even an interesting person. Yet he, too, thinks he is a big shot. That’s hilarius. I suppose such are had by nearly everybody in the world. Is he really qualified? ...a good fit the military is he? Is he the leading military assistant to Trump? Are they as a team doing the foreign policy side-by-side? The U. S. foreign policy team is Hegseth alongside the ever-competent president Don Trumpo. You know, the DJ Trump of “bigness” fame? Such a team one will rarely see bumble about the stage.

Of history. Most of Trump loyal followers are mediocrities just like Hegseth is, and such persons do not interest me. But what does interest me is the transformation. I see to understand what goes on with us, as our mainstream American culture becomes a dud. And, how did these people who represent a social class which is supposed to be refined or educated, learned or sophisticated, somehow become, Well ---useless. That also interests me.

One may have thought they was well-versed, or masters. Maestros. Well, of course we have are American culture heros and intellectuals. There is no doubt of excellent movies, or poets for that matter (although we probably do not agree on who). So, we have all that but we see how that done become deteriorated. That social class or I should say the intellectual class, is now destitute. Do they have any artistic wealth?

Of course not. It totally dried up. Also leaderless, or headless, is Hegseth. But that is another case: one isolated human being. He is one individual. Hegseth was never sophisticated to start with, so there was no gradual deterioration. Hegseth thinks big muscle mass = more prowess, prowess of a general sort you might say: prowess in life. The issue is not just muscle mass. Scholars, of course, are thought to be refined persons of cultural heft. There may not be the same sort of muscle tissue there, yet (muscle mass or no) the scholar certainly is thought to be a good and decent person ---a gentleman, in short. So both of those are two of the highest qualities.

For the saying is revealing. I mean: ask yourself; what does “a gentleman and a scholar” reveal? It tells us that our esteem for scholars is right up there; it is number one, or number two. (I think it should be number two, that is my opinion.) If you cannot be a gentleman you simply must be a scholar. Donald is neither. He is nice guy, though and I think Donald proves that it is not really necessary. One does not have to be either one of the two. Dictator is something else: I hope you are not one of those, sir. So, yeah. You should be a scholar because that is second only to being some kind of cultured, cultivated grower of deep stains or cultural transmission or something. (”Greatness,” probably.) So they are close in the mainsteam mind. ( of society ) Just slightly tilted to the intellectual.

These people were supposed to mean something. The idea is deep; by which I of course mean to say there was an expectation. Instead of meeting expectatons, in the Western society a void seems to have opened. The institutions have recently revealed themselves to be fundamentally rotten. It is as if it broke, a black hole was opened up, the good and decent scholars fell into it, and sometime later zombies clambered out and they are who run the colleges and institutions now. But the good scholars are definitely gone; admit it, will you.

It follows that for some little while (about 500 years), there was a sort of culture that expressed some life of society, or what is called by Hanna Erlicht “Life” of the mind. The “Western” group had something. This group had something going for it: very unique and quite different than the other cultures around the place. But -and we may say with certainty since COVID -it declined. And we see it happening, or else maybe you do not see it happening. Well, if you have not caught on, which you may not have, that is possible, it does not mean there is anything wrong. Someone needs to be the responsible one. You just needed to follow the lead of others and that was necessary to maintain the society. You were not the ones in authority ---maybe some one slightly above you is more guilty, however...?).

The level of war and violence was disturbing. This war and violence went on, and apparently it went on all the time. It continues all through the period indicated, which is the period of expertise and development in which we can say there is some culture. We have another word for the period: modernity. The West is not any worse than the other global conflict horizon is. Lots of local carnage: there were also high levels violence in India, China, so what should one say? I do not know that Western carnage was any more totalistic or extreme than the violence in other places. But it was extreme. We are pointing to a violent society, also, in the years 1500-1800. Things tended peaceful after 1800 except for the two world wars. The end comes by 2020, when Russia invades Ukraine. But the whole period, fromm 1500-2020, was one that nevertheless seemed (to some people) to offer hope of progress. Just now when I gave the end date for this Western civilization (I suppose I am indicting the end of its validity) I could not think of exactly when to end it. I suppose the range could be 2020 back to 2000. (2020 is the extreme last gasp when you could believe in the authorities. Actually, 1999 would be the more accurate however (and, it’s a song).... but we were partying and did not notice it was the end.

And the beat goes on. It’s a large society, a society of classes, and so this story, the story of 500 years of throbbing Western culture, and the one operating under the concept that it was a “civilization” is however missing anything close to universal participation. Even if there was 5% there wasn’t that much participation, which of course points to the lower classes. How difficult would it be to get an education? 90% of the general population of hyuman critters could not even make it past the barrier. The group would be excluded (which includes Hegseth, and probably the dead Dick Cheney since even the upper classes have a few clinkers).

Clearly “equal rights” comes later. So then this concept comes up; and it must therefore involve the effort to make the large (90-95%) disenfranchised sector smaller whereas the “qualified citizen” number must go up. I am not sure that it went up, however much we wish it did. One may certainly see a connection with the subject matter of Thomas Picketty’s regarding participation in wealth. The “industrial” period is about 1720-1900 ---and onwards. Who gives us “rights” is the question. But clearly the answer is the state. This may feel wrong; but we have to admit it. The state legislates. When we start talking about our “rights,” the government does it. That is what the “rights” are, when we start discussing it very much. Thus one has to discuss law. This is why the law exists.

It is a thorny ish all th same/ this issue of law, the issue of to what degree laws can solve so much of the basic problems, our social problematic. Of several systems we have tried, Montsequieu characterises empire, monarch, and democracy. Those three. He, maybe, thought those were the three modern colors. The legal system, the system of law? We created it for the purpose of the general peace. It was not simply some ruling class creating it. It is a tool. It gives persons redress when some rascal tries to do wrong. I would agree with that, but there is something more important than law and this is culture. So, you have to have that, too.

We have to consider that.

Capitalism aligns with most ignorant parts of the society and we should not fail to understand that this is the case; at the same time, it becomes a functioning basis for society. And this is sustained for a short time. This is what we need to accept, so that much is real. So even if it had ignorant elements often running the biggest factories it had a lot of associated effects. And many of these were, arguably, valid or these were effects that sustaned culture. Thus, between the American Revolution and the nineteen-fifties, while an American literature had sprung up, there were also many entrepreneurs had gone in business. I am myself the child of an American business owner. Anyways, they probably were not all as bad as my father. And this was the means of living, the source of income for the family. But despite the association of ignorance and big business, America prospered, with equality and so the big economic actors definitely were no better than other people or something. Bezos is no better of a person than the rest of us, is he? And this is not a difficult argument, is it? Well, that is the condition of being in equal tights. I meant “rights.”

Vance made no secret of his dislike for then-candidate Trump while promoting his book in 2016, calling him such choice insults as “noxious,” “cultural heroin” and “might be America’s Hitler.”

In an August 2016 interview on NPR’s Fresh Air, Vance said he would either vote third party, “hold my nose and vote for Hillary Clinton” or “write in my dog because that’s about as good as it seems.”

“But I think that I’m going to vote third party because I can’t stomach Trump,” he added. “I think that he’s noxious and is leading the white working class to a very dark place.”

“But Vance has dramatically changed his tune over the years,”sy NPR. Yet other sources say Vance’s mother never lived in the region, and neither did he.

My didn’t he do a hillbilly about face? Was joining Trump a shotgun marriage? To me, Vance exemplifies the person who shakes off all expectations, turns his back on all his friends and strikes out as a loner. I don’t think he has any hillbilly friends anymore, do you?

Unfortunately, I did not read the fu*king book. So, I cannot say anything more and that is my “elegy” for this Substack article.

NPR link that started all this: Who is J.D. Vance? What you need to know about the Republican pick for VP : NPR

Oh, yeah, those links never copy!

He learns, at that time, that the press does not care whether he tells the truth. They just print it, and it is fine as long as the paper sells copies because of it.

They let it play out in full view. Everyone sees it. And someone saw what Pete Hegseth did. Following on Trump’s inspiration, Hegseth went farther. This unhinged maniac, whose career was largely in the media (as far as I know) said “kill them all” or ordered the two survivors killed! This strikes one as truly extraordinary since it is a completely unnecessary act of murder. This is not the first time a follower of Trump got in trouble by going too far.

Now, did the older sort of “fascist” do the evil deeds in public? No, of course not. The “concentration camps” were a secret. It was all secret and had to be revealed later This gave honest work to persons, such as journalists and investigators. Now one may not investigate as much because the atrocities were committed on t.v. n the first place.

Or, more accurately, it had to be reported by the Washington Post (which broke the story on the Hegeth order to kill the two survivors, which sound like murder to me). In any case, Hegseth did it in full view of others, others who were just “in the room,” to use Bolton’s clever phrase from his book (which I have not read, since I am Autistic. I only read about two books a year in their entirety, but selected parts of many others) and one of the others gave a credible report to the Wa Po.

I think the reason for the new openess regarding murder and mayhem is our increasing (totally fake) intellectualisation. I have watched in horror, for years, as these persons living in this country with me explore false thought adventures of all kinds. They started “reaching out.” They all suddenly developed passion, too. It fuc*ing makes me sick, quite honestly.

But it also means that, when somebody commites -for example -murder he has a greater word choice in the aftermath. Hegseth calls his strikes “kinetic.” If is not bombing a boat in violation of legal due process, merely because someone is lying about what the boat is doing (corrupting America with drugs—right). Oh, no. It’s a “kinetic strike.” Give me a break, man.

Or it can be ‘WOKE’ justifications. Equipped with your extensive new vocabulary you may go further in publico. (please correct my Latin—Autistm, again!) You have an expansive new set of data/terms. You can go much further — with enough of the utterly meaningless verbiage so characteristic of our degenerate Age.

Now, I do not thnk committed bad deeds in total public view is a good strategy. Trump’s poll number are supposedly falling. I don’t know, but that is what they say, right? So, I did not say it was a good idea! But this is the strategy and the one they use.

And, so, a dictator has to emerge. It is going to be the worst possible type of jackass. These are the “smile as you kill” type people. They are going to kill and then they are going to seriously ask, “why is that wrong?” They need to be shown; they don’t get it. I end up with the idea that these are persons who just like to kill. There is no strategic reason for it, so what other reason is there? The dead won’t talk I guess.

The current dictatorship is behaving randomly and rather stupidly. B.t.w:

Another intellectual failure is what we call “ai.” Ai is not more creative. For example, not any more than an order to kill is. (oh but they were perceived enemies) It’s essence NOT being creative, and yet it is creatively disguised behind the “-large language model-”. It is the perfect “kill” order. So, ai could kill the entire human civilization (society). (”Oh but we don’t know. Maybe we’ll get a break,” bla bla bla)

We need reform and change. There is no hard-right “let’s show them American strength (of our Navy aircraft carrier?)” alternative. Sanity or Death. And it is clear which side Mr. Hegseth is on: he is the death side.