The End

The timeline of the downfall of the US:

The first six weeks (too many instances to individually list)

Insane trade war (done in bi-polar fashion) with our closest allies and trading partners.

Threats to invade Canada, Greenland, Mexico and Panama, as well as exiling Gazans.

Threats to our NATO commitment

Pulling funding and support from the Ukrainian defensive, appeasement of Fascist Dictators

Dismantling USAID, leaving countless food and medical supplies abandoned while people die.

Pulling Federal funding from academic institutions unless ideological goals (of Big Brother) are met.

1.20 Designates cartels as terrorist organizations and deploying the military to the border (superficially and precariously defensible, however Republican rhetoric has amped up, calling Democrats as colluding with the cartels, creating a false narrative for them to connect the dots)

1.20 Pardon 1500 criminal traitors as ideological enforcers.

3.09 Legal resident Mahmoud Khalil is abducted and disappeared to a prison camp, without charge of a crime

3.11 President Musk calls Mark Kelly a traitor for visiting an allied country at war.

3.14 Vice President Trump gives a disgusting speech to the DOJ, transforming it into a department of ideological warfare and

    labels the media "illegal":

3.15 invokes the Alien Enemies Act of 1789, last used in WWII to detain and imprison legal immigrants into prison camps.

The Return

Words Have Meaning!

While a lot of derogatory labels get thrown out by all sides of the political spectrum, if one actually applies the conceptual meaning of those words to actual political process, one can determine whether those labels are true or false, that is whether they correspond to the ideology and policy.  "Communist" gets thrown at the American liberal left, although that "left" is far to the right of all other liberal parties around the world.  But, if we actually define Communism - the abolition of private property (the means of production), we can ask if it applies.  Nowhere has the American liberal/democratic movement called for such an abolition.  Business, or the basic structure of the American economy, is nowhere on the chopping block. A good example is California -"Commiefornia" as empty-headed ideologues call it. Not only is it the world's fifth largest economy, it's home to the richest - private- businesses on the planet, those corporations which drive the international capitalist market, as well as producing enough surplus to create a class of potential oligarchs. Additionally, if one drives through the state, one will see dotted across every location, private small businesses. Everyone is potentially involved in production on their own terms, and making a buck. It's simply incorrect, a lie, to question the state of the state in relation to capitalism.  It becomes a term simply for "things I don't like."  And given the massive population, land, and business relations, both domestic and foreign, there simply has to be government involvement to avoid complete chaos. But that, as is clear from most of FAANG's presence,the system does not imped massive profits from capitalism.

"Fascist"is another term that gets thrown around, although the right generally throws it out re-actively in a kind of "doth protests too much" defensiveness.  But, what would an accurate position of that name realistically involve?

The 14 Characteristics of Fascism
by Lawrence Britt Spring 2003 Free Inquiry magazine

The 14 identifying characteristics of fascism. :
1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism
Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays.

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights
Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc.

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause
The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial , ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc.

4. Supremacy of the Military
Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized.

5. Rampant Sexism
The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy.

6. Controlled Mass Media
Sometimes to media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common.

7. Obsession with National Security
Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses.

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined
Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies
or actions.

9. Corporate Power is Protected
The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually
beneficial business/government relationship and power elite.

10. Labor Power is Suppressed
Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed .

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts
Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts.

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment
Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations.

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption
Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders.

14. Fraudulent Elections
Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections.

Furthermore, we have the points of “Ur-Fascism or Eternal Fascism” by Umberto Eco:

1. The cult of tradition. “One has only to look at the syllabus of every fascist movement to find the major traditionalist thinkers. The Nazi gnosis was nourished by traditionalist, syncretistic, occult elements.”
2. The rejection of modernism. “The Enlightenment, the Age of Reason, is seen as the beginning of modern depravity. In this sense, Ur-Fascism can be defined as irrationalism.”
3. The cult of action for action’s sale. “Action being beautiful in itself, it must be taken before, or without, any previous reflection. Thinking is a form of emasculation.”
4. Disagreement is treason. “The critical spirit makes distinctions, and to distinguish is a sign of modernism. In modern culture, the scientific community praises disagreement as a way to improve knowledge.”
5. Fear of difference. “The first appeal of a fascist or prematurely fascist movement is an appeal against the intruders. Thus Ur-Fascism is racist by definition.”
6. Appeal to social frustration. “[…] one of the most typical features of the historical fascism was the appeal to a frustrated middle class, a class suffering from an economic crisis or feelings of political humiliation, and frightened by the pressure of lower social groups.
7. The obsession with a plot. “The followers must feel besieged. The easiest way to solve the plot is the appeal to xenophobia.”
8. The enemy is both weak and strong. “[…] the followers must be convinced that they can overwhelm the enemies. Thus, by a continuous shifting of rhetorical focus, the enemies are at the same time too strong and too weak.”
9. Pacifism is trafficking with the enemy. “For Ur-Fascism there is no struggle for life but, rather, life is lived for struggle.”
10. Contempt for the weak. “Elitism is a typical aspect of any reactionary ideology.”
11. Everybody is educated to become a hero. “in Ur-Fascist ideology, heroism is the norm. This cult of heroism is strictly linked with the cult of death.”
12. Machismo and Weaponry. “This is the origin of machismo (which implies both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality). Since even sex is a difficult game to play, the Ur-Fascist hero tends to play with weapons—doing so becomes an ersatz phallic exercise.”
13. Selective Populism. “There is in our future a TV or Internet populism, in which the emotional response of a selected group of citizens can be presented and accepted as the Voice of the People.
14. Ur-Fascism speaks Newspeak. “All the Nazi or Fascist schoolbooks made use of an impoverished vocabulary, and an elementary syntax, in order to limit the instruments for complex and critical reasoning.”

By looking at such criteria, an objective uses of terms can be determined. If one party aligns with such characteristics, Fascism can be used as accurate description (if not proper label). It then is elevated above a "things I don't like" term of uselessness. (Masks are fascist because I don't want to act responsible in public). It's clear that the current dominating party conforms to these characteristics.

 

 

Murder Machines

Be hard on yourself
You've been spoilt for years
Be hard on yourself
You'll be glad you did 

                - Marillion - Be Hard on Yourself

 

While I’ve been attempting to comprehend the pandemic era's place within contemporary history, as well as preparing to absorb Marillion’s proclamation that we only have an hour until it’s dark, the Real has once again further intensified as another intrusion as the 2020s progress. Of course, this is from the perspective of a very complacent time period in history. With the exception of 9/11 and the following economic turbulence, the era since at least 1984 has been considerably uneventful, particularly 1991- 2001. We got too used to it. As one meme recently expressed, we don’t want all of the twentieth century coming back in the 2020s. But, now we have it, the largest wart in 70 years, in geo-political terms. As I noted before, following the devolution of 2016, some will suffer. We weren’t prepared for it to be in such an advanced nation, entering into the first world, and inextricably linked to the second. One day life was perfectly normal, and the next morning it was definitely not. I have also noted George Friedman’s prediction that we would go to war with Russia in the 2020s. [1] This seemed to be far too much of a stretch. But, here we are.

For those that mindlessly place the blame on the current administration, I defer to Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, and John Bolton. [2] Not only because it has been their job to understand this context, but they were actively involved in the implementation of policies of the previous administration. An administration that explicitly promoted the idea of the US exiting NATO, which would result in its dissolution allowing for unchecked Russian expansion. Furthermore, plenty of blame can be located in the Libertarian rhetoric of questioning the existence of NATO for the last decade. Without its continued deterrence, this situation would have developed much sooner, and at the cost of the sovereignty of many countries. The purposes of the Western alliance has now been revealed and proven, and any further attempts at its deterioration can be seen for the political propaganda it is. [3]

It could be argued, and is now becoming quite apparent, that we wasted thirty years ignoring improvements to Russia-Western relations. I contended in the 90s that there should be improved agreements between Russia and the US to diminish the risks of confrontation. However, after 1999, maybe even 1998, I’m not sure this would have really been possible. There was only a small window. And the subsequent republican administrations dismantled arms agreements rather than enhancing them.

That said, the idea that the West is to blame is nonsense. There was no agreement to not expand NATO, and although it is undesirable for Russia, particularly leadership that wants to reform the Soviet Union, that is the playing field that we have legitimately inherited. The idea that the US and the USSR disengaged from the Cold War on equal terms is pure fantasy. Wars have consequences. The reality is that the USSR lost. Their untenable political-ecomonic system failed and they were the ones that were forced to change (and replace that system with another corrupt, untenable system). The result was a victory for the US, providing the advantage. Disregarding the desires of American influence, the issue of NATO membership is openly free to the existing nations (unlike the Warsaw pact). It is those countries that are freely expressing interest in membership. And now, under direct threat of nuclear attack, we can see the pressing need for these countries to participate, as well as the continued mission of NATO.

Further nonsense is the ubiquitous comparison to the American invasion of Iraq. While the invasion was a massive strategic blunder, undermining not only the whole of US history, but that of the Western Liberalism as well.

However: this event emerged from a specific context. First, the US was actually attacked, prompting a response. Although it was the wrong country to prosecute such a response, Iraq was not altogether removed from the situation. The region was already involved in a complex multitude of conflicts which were intertwined with Islamic terrorism. Iraq was ruled by a dangerous dictator, had invaded other countries, was committing its own war crimes, and had been in violation of international law. Repeated violations, and concerns of its weapons program were a concern for the international community. The US response not only had support of its close allies, but NATO and UN support as well. Even Russia hesitantly agreed that the weapons inspections were not working. There was not a great international resistance. Saddam did not have the support of the people, and had intervention been done in a less destructive way, could have been better supported by the populace. While there were war crimes committed as part of the campaign, the operation itself was not a war crime. US policy did not target civilians, flatten civilian infrastructure, or siege cities. Grave mistakes certainly happened, and should have been fully prosecuted, but were not an intentional element of strategy.

I think the most damning condemnation of it is to judge it by the standards of the legacy of the Untied States, which supposedly attempts to uphold rigorous enlightened standards and democratic principles. In the overall field of history, it is less suspect to scrutiny, and this is why it was such a disappointment and should have been avoided

As nuclear powers, now toe-to-toe on the red line, it seems time is the dimension that will determine the fight. Before Russia can gain an advantage, and block international aid, US intervention must be able to prolong the resistance to ultimately weaken the Russian force. All we can do is:

1. Provide as many weapons as fast as possible.
2. Find ways to provide humanitarian assistance and prevent war crimes.
3.Wait out a Russian defeat (of itself).
4. Re-think military alliances, both in terms of internal NATO requirements, and NATO’s relationship with intermediate countries.
5.Affect regime change in Russia
6.Assertively pursue new arms limitation agreements, to reduce the dangers of escalation in future stand-offs. 

Perhaps the most startling revelation of this confrontation, is the test of the Russian military.  We know know that the most feared military for 70 years is impotent in combat against a peer nation, let-alone one that outspends, and out-trains it, by many, many factors.  Given US combat experience, there is no match.  But, more worrisome, is the fact that Russia now knows we know.  This means they have no conventional threat. And, they have no economic threat.  We have already beaten them is these two arenas That leaves only the strategic threat of WMDs. We are now in uncharted territory.

[1] who also noted that there would be a significant labor shortage and the US would have to import workers. I think its time for a re-read.

[2] Bolton, the most right-wing war-hawk in the Trump administration not only reveals that Biden is not "weak," but, predictably, claims that Trump couldn’t even find Ukraine on the map - which is quite telling.

[3] At this point, I’m firmly convinced that the Libertarian “party” is only a propaganda arm of Russian authoritarianism. Look at how fast they started posting memes of Russia as a utopia once, it;s cut off from the West. Ethnically singular, legally protected from the “fake news” of non-State media, excepted from the social programs of public health (vaccines), etc. Clearly it is the Russian Oligarchs that are the idolized position of the Libertarians, free to exploit all others for their own gain, as they clearly only support libertarian freedom for “me,” separate from the authoritarianism needed for all needed for all the dirty masses who must kept in ideological line. Never again can they be trusted.

 

Note: The above graphic is not meant to suggest that B-52s, or the USAF, are a murder machine (currently), although, of course, they potentially can be.  We have now reverted to a pre-post-Cold War stance, in which the defenses and deterrents that combat those current murder machines have the potential, through escalation, to cross the line into strategic mass destruction. Waking up to see potentially nuclear-armed B-52s headed towards the border of a nuclear aggressive country, certainly, marked the point of departure between these eras of relative global stability and possible catastrophic confrontation.

Jeremiah Blues 2020+

 How can one make sense of the experience of 2020?  Perhaps the best way is the realization of the no-sense that underlies history.  There is clearly a sense that 2020 will be a crossroad point in history, with change of direction that will lead the path into the future. A convergence of replays of 1918, 1929 and 1968 (and the 1860s) have dislodged our sense of stability and security.

    The initial "historic" event of the year, COVID-19, was beyond what most had experienced in several generations - the inability to "solve" the emerging problem, the uncertainty  (with its certain destructive impact), and the inescapable ubiquity of a true pandemic have undermined our modern society.  The necessity of realizing the breakdown of normality has  caused a psychological trauma within our collective unconscious, the first felt by most outside of "unthinkable" modern spaces like Sarajevo or Syria).  This force has infiltrated and subverted the impregnable defenses of the unshakable first-world. The only way to comprehend the unnegotiability of this event, is to realize it as an intrusion of the Lacanian Real into the "Stable" construct of Symbolic Reality.  Our language, laws, ideology, principles, and even our science, cannot contain it or shield us.
     

As Tony Myers has described the Real, it is:
    "anything that is interpreted differently discloses the presence of the Real. AIDS is a good example of this. Some people interpret it as a punishment for homosexuals, a divine retribution for carrying on a  non-Christian way of life. Others see it as part of a plot by the CIA to stem population growth in Africa, while other people consider it the result of humankind's interference in Nature. All these explanations circle around the same brute fact of the disease which carries on regardless of the reasons attributed to it. In other words, AIDS is an irruption of the Real. It is meaningless in itself and all these interpretations of it are attempts to Symbolize it, attempts, we might say, to divine a message in the Real where none exists. For the Real is meaningless and senseless-it just persists, and meaning can only be found within the reality of the Symbolic Order."

This example of another coronavirus illustrates the trauma of Covid as as an intrusion of the Real.  It's a Chinese plot to destroy Trump.  It's an American plot to destroy China.  It's a global plot to inject microchips into the population. All ways to interpret this brute intrusion.  This event itself would be historic enough in its direct impact on the totality of individuals that constitute global activity.  However, beyond that we must ask: How does history happen?  Do events, (and their resulting cultures, policies, and world-views) occur as we pre-plan and enact them through reasonable and practical considerations? Or do they involve a certain amount of randomness, occurring beyond the precise world that we can carefully control?  Like our own best-laid lives, history "is what happens while we make other plans."

Against the background of a Covid world, the tension was going to inevitable break into violence, and the Real infiltrates not only nature, but society. For those "law and order" advocates that condemned the protests-turned-riots by the criminal undesirables, let us not forget Philadelphia 1985 when police bombed (literally) and burned down a neighborhood, killing 11 people, including five children.   It is interesting to note Jean Baudrillard's work America, in which he discusses the concept of asepsis:

"In Philadelphia, a radical sect named ‘MOVE’, with a bizarre set of rules, including one forbidding      both the practice of autopsy and the removal of rubbish, is cleared out by the police, who kill eleven    people by fire and burn down thirty adjacent houses, including those (the irony of it!) of all the neighbours who had called for the sect to be removed. This, too, is a clean-up operation. They are getting rid of rubbish and patina, getting back to an original state of cleanliness, restoring. ‘Keep America Clean.’"

Of course, now that the radical right has shown definitely that it isn't really about the law, its about control (Fascism), and power defines what the law means.  There is nothing above it (or more fundamental). It was the transition into a new year and new political landscape that finally synthesized social violence and politics. A breakdown of both political and daily social function has shown the intrusion of the Real into the Symbolic systems that found our everyday functioning. Of course, the right-wing propaganda compares the 2020 election to the 2016 one, and the capitol siege to the 2020 riots. 

As for the election, in 2016 the Democrats were accused of refusing to accept legitimate results when they wore pink hats and had peaceful marches.  Far removed from organized (conspiracy) attempts to overthrow the legitimate 2020 results.  No one on the left claimed the Trump did not officially occupy the office of president, only that he was sworn in on a technicality - a deficiency built into the fabric of our system,- and the outcome, however legitimate, was a result of  voter influence by foreign propaganda and political maneuvering (Comey).  The impeachment did NOT exonerate him from these accusations.  He very much did NOT have a mandate.  A professional, honorable person in that position would have been very prudent and should have appealed to the opposite side - the majority- for cooperation.  As for being President by upholding the office through professional action, the four years revealed a failure in this respect, culminating in the capitol siege.

In terms of the violence, the comparisons would be laughable in less serious circumstances. Once again, the left is accused of condoning the riots.  Of course no one in any rational manner, or in any political capacity endorsed, condoned, encourage, incited or promoted such activity.   As criminal activity, it was never labelled as anything but criminal.  Two major differences stand out:

1. It was extra-political, or at the least extra-legal.  While making a political statement and attempting political goals, these events aimed at something outside of the parameters of the functioning governmental process. While groups like BLM are closer in thought to the Democratic party,the are not synonymous, nor was it was a Democratic sanctioned issue.  No one did in the name of Democrats and no one sported shirts or flags and acted in the name of an individual.  Furthermore, the protestors have a legitimate cause. The problem is that the justice required for the solution is not to be found with the justice system nor the political process.  Without recourse to an established system, only no-legal means might remain, hence an extra-political situation.  As such, the manifestation of frustration and anger may be illegal, but whether it is unethical remains in question. Certain from inside the system it appears so.  But, as already revealed the system is incomplete and any progress to an equitable system may necessitate criminal behavior.  When criminal behavior is enacted for a purpose, it is up to the individual to commit to responsibility for it.  They must consider the repercussions and be prepared to face them.  If they find that justice will be further advanced, then the ethical decision is for them to make. For example, freeing a slave pre-Civil War was clearly criminal. Nevertheless it was the correct action.  While the circumstances are not currently as clear-cut as that, it may be proven in the future that discrimination in civil rights requires revolution outside of the system. Reflecting on the serious of rioting, let's not forget that some rioting is quickly overlooked (and it's a bit of an American tradition).  Burning garbage cans, overturned cars, and broken windows are not unheard of results of sporting events, and have no inherent value at all.  But, these crimes are dismissed as nothing (but crimes). So, to claim that the 2020 riots were downplayed in respect to 2021 is disingenuous at best.

 However, what just happened was not equivocal, it is distinct level  , and direct comparisons area category mistake.

 2. The siege was Anti-American. A far larger difference between the two events involves the political overlap.The siege was not just criminal, it was a higher level of violation: treason.  In attempting to overturn the election and destroy the legal process, it attempted to negate the very laws of the land.  In this itself, this event has no relation to the riots. But, far worse, is that this insurgency is led by the Comander-in-Chief himself.  Not since Emperor Palpatine have I heard of a leader controlling two forces pitted against each other.  With some Senator and Representative already complicit in treason with the President, the insurgency is both internal and external to the established government and unequivocal to criminal riots. 

Before the Capitol siege, the State Capitol takeovers by Militias in the summer were already well beyond protests. If you attend a protest armed- that is terrorism, plain and simple.  Even worse if do it on government property.  As a way of influence politics through fear and intimidation, brandishing weapons is terrorism.

What we are dealing with is not just differences of policy, and beyond differences with ideology.  It is meta-ideology.[1] A deeper ideology which has co-opted, corrupted, and radicalized the conservative ideology.  The growing cult (influenced by QAnon) has expanded to redefine the Deep State as to include The media, academia, the FBI-CIA-intelligence agencies, the Supreme Court, Mitch McConnell, Fox News, Big Tech, Walmart, the cabinet, and VP Mike Pence. Every thing and everyone the defends the Constitution becomes a target, an enemy of the state.  America as a state is now the enemy of the "patriots." The coup of the Republican party is evident in the RINO accusations, when solid conservatives are condemned as not real Republicans.  The is absurd and obviously backwards.  That split is apparent only because the party was commandeered by a far more conservative and radical ideology.  A more authentic party, clear in its ambitions and presentation would be honest in its alternative to the Republicans, something like "The America First Party", "or the American Fascist Party." As a far-right party, the choice would be clear for voters.  Instead, we have political action on false pretenses, a cult unlike any previous party - stores of propaganda merchandise, shirts and flags with an Messianic icon. It is a Twenty-first century update of the The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, patterned on the Book of Revelation.  It is more than a political movement, it the foundations of a religion, a very false and dangerous one. "Draining the swamp" means destroying a democratic society and leaving an omnipresent swamp of corrupt oligarchy. Fighting the Deep State means ignoring, violating and overriding the US Constitution.

Ultimately, the Republican party was the Frankenstein that built the monster of Trump. And, Trump is the Frankenstein that built the monster of his cult. It is all out of their control.  And, the spreading danger it possesses needs to be eradicated before it consumes American democracy. Covid was not the only virus to mass spread in 2020, and we are now living in the Real, hoping for a Symbolic reconstruction to normalize history.

Addendum: I just noticed that the last post I made, High Rise, involves the fracture of the Symbolic social order into the Real. Although written by April, I was reading it at the end of 2019.  I guess 2020 was doomed to be the coming storm.

[1] Not only is it an ideology - a viewpoint considered universally true and foundational (when it is contingent and arbitrary), but one that resides secretly underneath an ideology- creating a double falsity.

Jeremiah Blues 2017.10 Part 2

After listening to more mental gymnastics by the right today, I have to revisit yesterday's controversy.  First, the backlash against the CBS lawyer who was unsympathetic to the shooting victims is being framed to make her into some kind of liberal poster child while calling for her perpetual firing (and probably worse if many conservatives had their way).  She is no spokesperson for the left. And second, they have tried to tie her disrespectful attitude into some larger view coextensive with the mainstream media. She isn't a representative of the popular view either. But in this new paradigm it's their fault. And hers. And ours.  But never theirs.

I would urge conservatives who think that media reporting has become uncivilized, and yearn for some long lost detachment from the public sphere, to look back at where this started.  One only needs to look back to the 1990s to see the fragmentation of public discourse into uncivilized confrontation. with the start of Fox News and the rise of Rush ( and a demeaning attitude toward the presidency).  The right started this de-evolution.  Anyone who finds Geftman-Gold's posts distasteful better check that they have not supported all of the vile things spewed nightly on Fox from Hannity, O'Reilly or Coulter, who have said things just as bad.

Even worse, I have to again refer to an advisor to our very own president, Mr Scumbag Alex Jones who has said things far worse.  But yet, I never heard calls for his immediate firing or exile from the American community. No, he got promoted to presidential advisor.  His disgusting fake accusations against the children of Sandy Hook should have got him excommunicated from the human race. So, before I hear one more word of bitching from conservatives, they better take at look at their own closet of past sins and denounce those which they have been complicit with.

Furthermore, it is amazing how the right has twisted and distorted events to make themselves look good.  It is what they do well, and they are far better at preemptive psychological warfare than  liberals.  Now, in their perverse narrative, the left has become the Fascists, inciting violence and waging war on: whites (dafuq?). To illustrate, they cite Charlottesville.  So although one of their Neo-Nazis killed an innocent person, the left are (now) the totalitarian aggressors.  The cognitive dissidence is strong.  But this is the danger, that their outrageous lies will become the recognized narrative.  Conservatives are the masters of fake news, and they are becoming masters of identity politics, driving a wedge between traditional Christian whites and everybody else, and trying to divide liberals into white/non-white conflict as they make the idea of  a white liberal a contradiction (although I imagine that numerically whites are still a significant majority of the left).

This outrage on the right is just a mask to cover the monstrosities currently emerging, but it may take down the entire country.

Jeremiah Blues 2017.10

So, here we are once more. From the unlikely hyper-real world of Las Vegas, a land of entertainment and escape, we are once again confronted with the definition of terrorism.  With no "other" here, we are left with only one of us, as definitively us as one can be, with no clear political motive.  Response to the 2016 St Cloud "attack" was a strong assertion of "terrorism,"  even though this individual had no explicit ideological motive.  The result was no fatalities and only minor injuries, although people expressed that they would not go to the mall anymore.  This would have clearly been just a crime, perpetrated by a lone-wolf deranged individual, if not for the otherness of his being.  So now, without otherness, we are, predictably, hearing about a mass-shooting, but not the T word.  It seems, however, that the scale of an action, even without ideological or political motive, can elevate an event into terrorism.  If a non-fatal knife attack can be terrorism, this certainly is.  The fact that someone could shoot 600 people, in an expectably innocent location, was unthinkable. Now it's not and we have to recognize how far gone we are before the next one happens - and it's bigger.

The responses today were completely predictable, from "Hillary's attack of the 2nd Amendment is wrong," (without any reasons given), "there's nothing you can do to stop this," to "it's the price of freedom." Well, that's some great freedom we have.  We are clearly paying too much.  Not all rights are equal: when they come into conflict the right to life must come first, it is a higher right, without prominence no other rights can even be sustained. Furthermore, there are, of course, things that can be done.  It is indeed the job of government, the very reason for its existence, to provide reasonable protection.  That is why we have everything from local police to the military. [1] Certainly, you can't stop all crime (although we still take proactive measures), but there has to be attention to protection, and mitigation, of mass public events. As Robert Reich stated: "This is a crisis of public health and safety."  This event clearly refutes the pro-gun arguments, or myth, that you only need good guys with guns to shoot back.  There was no possibility of that helping here (and the band even had guns).  Even police were not equipped to fire back, it would have required a sniper of supreme skill. Only preventative measures pertaining directly to firearms can help mitigate such future events. The hypocrisy of the right is astounding.  No expense is too great to protect us from them, you know, the real terrorists, no matter how small the event.  Walls, travel bans, trillions of dollars on wars that cost millions of lives (theirs, not ours) - it's all necessary.  We can lock ourselves in, but none of that makes us safer, because the danger is already here - in us.

It's time the government does its job serving the people.  And stops being a hostage to that portion of Americans who worships guns as a religion, as they place their empty, mythical, "rights" above actual reasons, debates, and practicalities.  If the country is serious about protecting us from terrorism, then gun regulation has to be a part of that.  Otherwise this whole elaborate structure of keeping America safe is just a sham.

Regarding the CBS executive and her inappropriate post, she's probably not a person one wants to defend. However [2], her classless response reminds one of another high-profile tweeter.  But, in this case CBS fired her, so there is thankfully a system to compensate. Despite the poor sentiment, deliberately unsympathetic and not retaining the humanitarian position she would apparently hope to hold, an interesting consideration emerges.  One is responsible for the world they create, even if they become victims of their own negative effects.  These terror events are not precisely equal, there are degrees of difference.  As horrific it as this one has been, the Sandy Hook event contained a further dimension that I don't think needs explanation.  And, this event may be a layer removed from a concert filled with teenage girls.  It seems likely that the majority of attendees do support extensive, or unlimited, gun rights, it is a view consistent with the country subculture. I would seriously be interested in statistical information on that. Additionally, we have an extreme example of white on white violence here. What if this concert was a rap one where a gang shootout result in similar deaths?  Would anyone on the right care? Or would they say that the moral decadence of that subculture was to blame?  What if it was an NRA convention?  Surely the dominant views of the participants play a role when they are directly relevant to the outcome.

In terms of other obnoxious responses, Alex Jones has once again called this a false-flag event.  At least he's consistent. But, it's odd that before he made such ridiculous accusations as an attack on the president (as head of the deep state).  Now he seems to be ranting against the deep state because of its detachment from the presidency (and his savior) But, Scumbag Jones can't have it both ways. Either the president has control of government, or he doesn't. That doesn't change because one approves of one and not the other.  However, I think he might be somewhat right even in his ludicrous delusion.  If the deep state perpetrates events to manipulate the population, it will certainly happen during conservative administrations as much as liberal ones.  And, I would wager any draconian moves would really happen in a conservative era.  The smoke and mirrors show is enacted to place the blame on the left  (look at how well the gun industry did under Obama, for instance, as opposed to now).  If Jones wants to fight the deep state, he's on the wrong side. But, he doesn't. He just wants to promote his own brand of authoritarianism.

[1] Of course, that's only a minor function of their existence. Preserving power structures, it could be argued, are their rai·son d'ê·tre.  However, we should still try to get these entities to provide service to the citizenry that maintains them.

[2] After hearing the mental contortions of conservatives trying to defend Mnuchin's use of taxpayer money when their own party and current administration are (in theory)  built upon ending such corruption, as well as Trump's "very fine people" remarks, it seems that everyone is defend-able these days.