SEX IS A BIG FAT BUST FOR (SOME) MEN TOO

 I hope this post is yet another broadside against the (mostly rich) White Male Patriarchy.
Two things no one tells you about; indeed, many of those who feel them may deny feeling them. Or deny such feelings exist. But they do. And if you want to be a real man and not simply an Adult Male Hominid, or, worse still, a Standard Male S**t, you must be honest about them.
Before I articulate the feelings, let me just say this: for me, three qualities make a man out of an Adult Male Hominid, to be written henceforth as an AMH. They are:first, integrity. You tell the truth and, with God's Help (available on request, sometimes called prayer) are honest about yourself and who and what you are, while also acknowledging what you may not yet know about yourself.
Second, responsibility. You acknowledge your mistakes and at least express the hope that you've changed since making them. And you do what you can for those close to you. Ask them what they need from you; unless you need serious work on anger issues it will almost never be your absence. Maybe not even then.

Third and last, courtesy. Unless someone is being an a**hole before your very eyes, treat them with the courtesy and civility with which you'd want to be treated. Be civil with both judge and janitor alike.

 And now for these feelings. The first is not a good feeling. When you enter a woman and your body seems to ask you, 'What am I doing here?' it's time to pull out and tuck it in. I speak from hard experience. I didn't and I learned later that my partner was ill for some days after. I admit I've no empirical evidence for a connection there; only my own hunch.
The second is this: a time may come when you feel that sex is simply not worth everything that comes with it anymore. I suspect you won't feel this way while you're young; it 'll probably be mostly middle-aged and old men like me who feel this way. Yes. There comes a time when you may feel that sex just isn't worth all that comes with it. When it comes, if you'll pardon the pun. Such a time is here for me.
For me, sex is just not worth all the hysterical drama that, at least in my case, comes with it. And that doesn't only apply to my wife; I feel I've no reason to believe it'd be much different with any other woman of any legal age.
When this happens, you realize something: you have no major reason to consider other men as your rivals or competitors. Some will ask, why don't I ditch my wife? A number of reasons. First, she says she still loves me. Second, I'm not into breaking anyone's heart, especially one that breaks as easily as does hers. Even when a woman has her own livelihood, Malachi's dictum to the ancient Jews can still apply: 'Don't you know that, when a man divorces his wife, he overwhelms her with cruelty?'
My late first wife told me of her divorce from her first husband and boy, did it ever sound like what Malachi was talking about! We promised, at least implicitly, that we wouldn't visit that on anyone. And I silently promised God and myself I would never visit such a thing on anyone. And for me, a big part of being a man is to keep such promises. So there are two good reasons not to part, I'd say.

In D.H. Lawrence's work titled We Need One Another, he also had harsh things to say about what he termed  'men and women smashing each other to bits', and he continued, 'All I ask is that they pause and consider.' I guess those lines sank pretty deeply into what was then my young man's brain.
I'll go further and say, when men find themselves feeling this way about sex, that doesn't mean, by any stretch, that they are 'lesser men'. If anything, I suggest it may be indicative of growing into deeper adulthood. Such freedom from sexual compulsion can give men a chance to be better brothers to one another and truer protectors of those humans smaller, weaker and not yet as knowledgeable as they.
And, thus, to do their part in tearing down the patriarchy that shields evildoers who are rich, white and male. And under NO circumstances will I term them 'men'!
A growing number of women have been increasingly vocal about being fed up with males in general and wanting nothing from them but to be let alone. Well and good. Now, I'm speaking up as a man who now feels much the same about females and perhaps speaking for other men who feel the same way. I can clean according to my liking, I enjoy cooking for myself. And at my time of life, it's very unlikely I'll have children. There were times when I wanted that but I never had enough money on which to have a family. 
So, with sex not worth the effort anymore, I can be content in my life with my current spouse and our pets.

WHY NOT? THINK ABOUT IT

 Who do we want, who do we need to lead the snowballing movement to preserve, strengthen and, aye, extend democracy?
What sort of experience does such a person need?
Certainly we want one who will know what we're supposed to be about as a country. For myself, that means the above. And that means putting on the gas for 1) strengthening and extending the safety net for all of us 2) adding all adults to the voting rolls 3) the 'greening' of our economy, pushing renewable energies and regenerative agriculture forward 4) an abject apology to our traditional allies, reopening USAID and behavior abroad much more in line with what we profess and/or aspire to be.
We DON'T want anyone with connections to interests tied largely to the obscenely rich. This last will probably exclude most white male politicians and officeholders, so we may have a problem with getting the group I call doughfaced dinkyjohnnies on board. But will we need them? Unsure about that.
And how much 'political experience' would such a leader need? If we're holding out for officeholder experience, it may have to be either a woman or a man of color.
But allow me to ask a question: at any game, who actually sees the most of what's actually happening? The participants or the spectators? Think about it.
What about someone who has watched politics since a young age (twelve, in my case) but didn't dive in because they already saw the amount of actual public service time diminishing and the time spent raising campaign funds mushrooming, and said 'no' to that?
Again, think about it.
For myself, I would LOVE to see Jasmine Crockett, on whom I have a positively tremendous (political?) crush and whom I call 'Queen of the Texas frontier', win a presidential election! Question is, is that possible yet? We Democrats ran women twice and narrowly lost both times, thanks largely, imo, to the group I call 'doughfaced dinkyjohnnies' which, again imo, explains why they just couldn't bring themselves to vote for a woman!
In any case, I have NO connections to ANY billionaires or other power brokers. I have watched politics since I was almost twelve and I hope I've 'loined' a thing or two about them. I would do all I could for the four urgencies I've listed above. While it's not a job I really want (I have history I want to write at some point and I ain't no spring chicken, as the saying goes) I feel duty-bound to at least put myself forward as willing to serve our country if called to this. And I am an aging pale male with an impeccably English family name. And religiously Protestant into the bargain.
Feel free to ask any questions and please share this post widely.

AN INSTRUCTIVE CONVERSATION

                This morning, about 8:15, I was musing on the idea of, rather than execute a large number of MAGAts after the coming American Nuremberg, lifetime public humiliations for them. I think I heard some advice within my mind.
 

GOD: You may be a bit too fond of seeing others 'get their just deserts'. You need to watch out for that. It, too, like hate, can eat at you from within.
ME: But, Father, what else is there other than mass public executions? Don't we almost have to make examples, that such an assault on democracy not be repeated? Where and what is the justice?
GOD: My justice is restorative. I have only employed, or permitted people to employ, retributive 'justice' only when it is plain they understand justice in no other way.

Silence for a while as I muse on this. Then something else occurs to me.

ME: Restorative. Of what? Trust?

GOD: Certainly. That would be the 'floor' Individual and collective. But there's more. Restore what's within each person as well.

ME: But, Father, too many of them have eaten themselves inside with hate--and they've gulped it down with sickening eagerness! Yes. they gulped it down because they had no healthy relationship with You or, for that matter, with themselves or, probably, anyone or anything else except maybe their guns--but how can something that was never there be 'restored'?

GOD: One step at a time, my son. That process is a bit too complex for you to digest as yet, although that may change. But in any case, whatever you do, with My help, avoid schadenfreude. It's unhealthy for you and, really, all humans too. See, schadenfreude is, although milder and, thus, slower-acting and, sometimes, less perceivable, like killing another human. Including in war. Such acts either throw up or build up barriers between humans and I. While these barriers are not insurmountable, they do usually require considerable effort to bring down. That's one thing My Son Joshua, when He's called on, does a lot of. It comes back to not losing sight of your enemies' humanity. Yes, I know they don't see you as human either. And allied with this, drop the dangerous notion that your enemies' hate, and their desire to kill all of you, negates their humanity. That's something that can be too easily flipped on its head and used against you. Their are many battles in which My Spirit had much work to do to keep the soldiers' internal lines to Us at least fairly open. Many of them have felt this inside.

ME: Those who felt Your presence: many of them thought it was because You approved of their actions, am I right?

GOD: True enough, but I was able to set them right once they came home to Me.

ME: So, then, those soldiers who felt Your presence, You were protecting the connection between You and them, not approving of their actions?

GOD: Just so, my son, just so. I never have approved of humans killing humans. And if Scripture records Me as ordering that, it was only because, first, that's how I was heard and second, in some instances, there was nothing else for it given the humans with whom I had to work.
And when you write that history of your times, lean into, as you say in your times, the restorative understanding of justice over the retributive.

ME: I think of Trump and his MAGAts were offeed this, they'd probably call it a scam.

GOD: Then that might be a place where you need to offer them a choice between having their psyches rebuilt according to My specs or a remaining lifetime of humiliation. That would at least be better than executing them.

ME: Heavy stuff, but I'm honored You think me ready to hear and digest this.

GOD: I appreciate that. Don't forget to share it.

ME: No indeed! With Your help, I won't.

A TRY TO FRY A BIG LIE

 "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him someone to look down on and he'll empty his pockets for you."

LBJ said those words in a limo along what was then the new I-40 interstate to the young Bill Moyers. The year was 1964.
It is also possible to substitute 'Arab or other Muslim' for 'white man' and 'Jew' for 'colored man' with at least as much truth. Before 1948, most Muslims regarded Jews about the same way as 'common n***ers' were looked on in the Jim Crow South and, indeed, much more of our country as well.
And I have no idea whether or not the legal abolition of 'untouchability' in India in 1950 caused adverse reactions from higher-caste individuals in any economic class, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.
The great W. E. B. DuBois wrote at much greater length and in much greater detail about what he named 'the psychological wages of whiteness' than I ever have and, probably, ever will. In any case, my mind works better the other way: distilling the essence of whatever I write about. That is, what does it boil down to?
Right now, right here, methinks what I name the illusion of automatic or unearned superiority boils down to two things: first, it can, among those who have little and many, if not most, of whom, barely scrape by each day living paycheck to paycheck, drain plenty of what might be righteous rebellion against those who already have more than what's good for them--as seen by their continual and bottomless greed! I suspect their real greed, though, is for power rather than for money per se.
This happens because, once a hairless biped hath a group on which s/he is not only allowed but encouraged to look down, they can, at least to a point, shrug their shoulders and mutter, 'At least I'm still better than [fill in the blank}' and not rebel against those who have much more wealth and, thereby, actual coercive power. At least not after saying or thinking that, anyhow.
We cannot say often enough that such 'superiority' is illusory, counterfeit and only helps to keep the other 'rackets' (I think of such 'superiority' as a racket in and of itself) of the greedy going.
And now I turn unsympathetic eyes on that group. Let me be clear that I certainly don't mean that to be wealthy is to automatically be viciously greedy; I know some (at least) moderately wealthy folks who are quite generous. Some made it on their own and some inherited wealth, but suffice it to say none seek to be Supreme Rulers of the World.
And this is the second function of such fake and divisive 'superiority': as long as a ruling class, as a group, can keep those below them fighting each other, they can usually be sure of holding onto all the wealth and power which they enjoy and do not want to share with anyone else; be sure of that!
This is why, when those divisions appear to be weakening and the working classes are unifying themselves, the forces of the greedy and, usually, a government which listens to those greedies throw the kitchen sink at the efforts of the unifiers of the 'little people'. Read what that vicious old queen J. Edgar Hoover did against attempts to build a trans-racial coalition of working people. That was an unmentioned but large part of his COINTELPRO operations!
And look at what Rupert the Gnome and all his networks and publications are doing right now. Without Rupert the Gnome and Roger(Ailes) the Groper, no president Trump!
We cannot urge each other to 'follow the money' often enough. Not so much the campaign contributions (although keeping tabs on them is important) as who benefits from X, Y or Z. To put it classically, cui bono? It seems we can keep saying this ad nauseam before it sticks in the minds of enough of us but maybe these times, with Orange Julius Caesar hankering to be a real Caesar, are pressing that phrase into the minds and hearts of more, maybe many more, of us. Let us hope so!
Let's see if we can make LBJ to be mistaken this time and strengthen and extend democracy. We ain't finished yet, brothers and sisters!

LANCING A LIE & OTHER WEIGHTY MATTERS

 Not long ago, I read a post by someone I respect in which he seemed to think to have fallen for the lie that Israel is not only a 'white' country, but indeed 'ultra-white'. And that their Arab cousins are 'people of color'.
That doesn't make sense. Isaac and Ishmael were half-brothers, both sons of Abraham. Jacob, later known as Israel, was Ishmael's nephew.
How many people know that the Shoah happened because Nazis, many other Germans and their fellow-travellers from other European countries, hyped up on racial pseudo-science, decided that the Jews were essentially 'brown bastards' and that all their pathetic attempts to assimilate into Europe were actually a sinister plot to contaminate the Pure Aryan Blood of Blue-Eyed Nordics? 
And now Europe is faced with those same cousins, and their non-Arab fellow religionists who are apparently making far less of an attempt, if any, to assimilate to their new host cultures and some of whom have openly declared they mean to remake Europe into Eurabia! It's way above my pay grade to assert this, but I do at least wonder if having to deal with Muslim minorities is not a sort of judgment upon Europe, as if God has said: "OK, you didn't believe Israel really wanted to assimilate. Now, get a taste of these cousins of theirs, many of whom have no intent to assimilate! Like that better, do you?"
I know a woman, now in her nineties, who, when she was a wee lass starting school at P.S. 221 in Brooklyn in the 1930s, was not considered 'white' by many white so-called Christians right here on the North American continent. Canada, I'm looking at you too; I haven't forgotten what W.L. Mackenzie King had to say about Jews!
It is because of the 'civilized' nations of the world all shutting their doors to Jews frantically trying to escape certain death that too large of a segment of both Israel and the Diaspora can say, with too much truth, 'We have no real friends except our own people. It has always been this way and always will be this way, until Judgment. Almost all others hate us and they will hate us regardless of how much good or evil we do. So let us do whatever we need to protect ourselves, for no one else will.'
I think I should also point out that the Jews who have returned to Israel from elsewhere in the MENA region tend to vote Likud, and further right, more than do those Jews returning from Europe or the Americas. I must ask, what do they know about Arabs that the rest of us either don't know or refuse to acknowledge?
Even the liberal wing of both Israel and the Diaspora has somewhat switched gears in response to this. No longer do they speak of making friends among other peoples but they now ask (as I agree they should) what is right? Are not we as a people charged with pursuing justice? And how is it 'justice' to let little children starve, however bloodthirsty their parents might be against us? Remember Ezekiel 18:1-4. Tom Friedman does an excellent job of capsulizing this in his NYT column on July 30.
The right-wingers will say, with an unfortunate amount of truth, the minds of those children are already poisoned against us thanks to UNRWA and Hamas! And their mothers will tell them that we feed them because we're afraid of them. They will LIE to their children about us! Why should we help those who already want to murder us all?
So, what now? What shape can peace assume? I also want to forestall famine in Gaza and I frankly detest Bibi and his gang. I also want UNRWA disbanded and no more multigenerational refugee status (imagine if Germany had done that after WWII! I think it safe to say that all Four Powers--USA, UK, USSR and France--would not have allowed it!) and Hamas banished. 
Not sure about the PA; I think it might be a better deal if we put the dozen or so sheikhs of Judea, Samaria and Gaza in charge as a confederation as they are willing to recognize and work with Israel. Perhaps they might be under joint guidance from Israel, the UAE and maybe Jordan.
On a related matter, if the Druze of Syria are asking for Israeli protection, I say let them have it! The Druze have stood by Israel; let Israel reciprocate!
So much for what I think. I am not on the ground in Israel but far away across both the Mediterranean and the Atlantic. But I stick to sources I know to care about the actual people--of all kinds--in that region.
If the 'civilized' world wants to show it's changed since 1940, one thing they can do is support those organizations which seek to build relationships between individuals of different communities and that seek to realize equal justice for all within Israel and Israeli jurisdiction. Maybe those Israelis on the no-friends-but-our-own side just might rethink their stance then. In any case, it's worth a try.


NB: for those unacquainted with Scripture, here is Ezekiel 18:1–4:
The word of the LORD came to me: ‘What do you mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel:
‘The fathers have eaten sour grapes and the children’s teeth are set on edge’?
As I live, says the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer repeat this proverb in Israel. For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son — both alike belong to me. The soul that sins is the one who will die.

NOW. NOW. NOW!

 Well, it's happened. We no longer have a SCOTUS. We have a Fascist Grand Council (hereafter the FGC) which still calls itself the SCOTUS, but is no longer. By their decision yesterday, they have shown their only interest in the Constitution is to make it solely an instrument for the rule of the rich white males! Their only interest in democracy is to drive a stake through its heart and bury it twelve feel under!
So, fellow citizens, if you wish to remain citizens and not decline into subjects, and abject subjects at that, now--right now--is the time to rise up and say 'NO!!' to what the FGC has handed--or, rather, thrown down in our general direction and in the autocratic style familiar in prerevolutionary Versailles and/or St. Petersburg!
I say that by such an action they have sawn off the branch on which we all sit, including them, although it's likely they'll be drawn apart by wild horses sooner than acknowledge that. That they themselves have thereby abrogated their authority.
A warning to my 'fellow' pale males without money: in a way, we shall be their first targets. They will target us with lies. They (that is, the FGC, national GOP politicians, the Fascist noise-and-lies machine) will try to convince us that we, too, are part and parcel of the same class as they. Why, some of them will even condescend to enter our bars and taverns and maybe even will buy us a beer and invite us to sit down with them--if they think they can get what they want from us!
No, brothers, be not deceived: all that mob sees us as their useful dogs, to keep the women and everyone of color at a 'safe' (for them and them only!) distance and to be abundantly fed with crow--that is, by and with James (or Jane?) Crow, Esq. Jim Crow has put on 'bidness' attire, gussied up his name and has hired a secretary. If we were to put on our best and come into their clubs, most of them would scowl at us and hiss, "What the hell are you doing here?!"
But with the women and anyone of color, they won't even waste time trying to humbug them. They'll tell them flatly, "We don't share any power with you anymore! Get back to the kitchen, the barns, the cornfields, the whoopie-houses and stay there! Our word, and only our word, is law to y'all!"
What they don't tell us is those words also apply to us, their supposed 'brethren'--but only when it serves their interest. Apart from that, they mean those words to apply to us as well.
The FGC's decision yesterday carries with it the implication that wealthy white males can do as they like with anything and anyone they choose. Including making free with our goods, our monies and our womenfolk. Droit de seigneur is back all right, but not necessarily for us. Only for them!
Some time ago, actually in the wake of the 2016 election, the time came to dust off Madame and prepare to use her. We are now overdue for that. Maybe only in the sense of disabling the political and economic power of our currently ruling oligarchy, but I say, by any means necessary!
All of us, male and female, whatever color of skin, hair and eyes we have, who have little or no more wealth than our humble homes and vehicles and whatever skills we may have, need now to join together and unseat our Fascist Grand Council, put the Fascist noise-and-lies machine out of business and dump almost any and every officeholder with (R) before or after their names, depending on local circumstances.
Can we wait till midterms? I'm not sure of that anymore. Hath not this FGC given Trumpelthinskin a more effective tool to suspend or cancel elections altogether? I'm not sure but it surely looks and feels that way to me.
Now is the time for all of us who have no or little wealth to rise up and take back what rightfully belongs to all of us, all of We The People. God willing, we shall do this nonviolently but if the Fascists start shooting, let us respond. Now, fellow citizens (for the moment anyway). Now, all colors, races, ethnicities and faiths. Now, men and women. Now. Now. Now!

 

ORGANIZE! UNITE! WIN!

 

Well, here we are, back to the 1930s. The great, mostly white middle class produced by postwar legislation and the boom on which it rode, is now mostly gone. Sixty percent of Americans are again living hand-to-mouth. And yet, our ignoble oligarchs are still not satisfied. And they won't even be satisfied with medieval-style ownership of all us peasants!

Most of you have, courtesy of Faux News and other such fascist media, have fallen for the lie that the political and economic descendants of the planters have been using on us ever since Bacon's Rebellion in the Virginia colony of the 1670s.

One of that rebellion's remarkably rich ironies is, it actually began because enough newly-freed indentured servants thought that the colonial legislature wasn't grabbing enough of the natives' land quickly enough!

But whatever its roots, Bacon's Rebellion terrified the Virginia planters because black and white indentured servants made common cause against the Virginia aristocracy. From then on, blacks were to be slaves all their lives and whites would be indentured for a few years, then used to do the planters' dirty work while being fed the lie that THEY were now part of the ruling class!

How many of you have been told that lie and swallowed it in its current form? That you, too, might be rich one day and it'll all be by your own efforts?

Sorry-not-sorry to tell you that you've been sold a bill of goods! IF your grandchildren are lucky, they'll be doing exactly the same work you're doing now! If they're UNlucky, they'll be literal beggars and some will have their their starved, probably unburied carcasses merging with landfills! And you can guess what your granddaughters might have to do in order to keep breathing, can't you?

One lie you've been told is, y'all, or your grandparents, made it by their own efforts while others (and we know who THAT means) 'had things handed to them'.

THAT lie started the day after the 13th Amendment made technical slavery illegal in the whole country. Some of you may remember that the Emancipation Proclamation applied only to the 'states in rebellion', not to the loyal slave states. And, since so few of us have known any African-American, LAtino or native individuals, too many of us have swallowed that LIE, generation after generation!

And now, as a pretty direct result of too many of us allowing ourselves to be pitted against other working people of different skin shades, what every president beginning with FDR and ending with Carter has built, fostered and maintained is....gone, gone, GONE! No more middle class majority; too many of us started to think of ourselves as aristocrats! Not a smart move when your family's middle-class prosperity was built on the GI Bill and FHA insured home loans!

This next item is something neither most of you, or parents and grandparents, could have been expected to know or even ask after: those programs were secretly 'labelled' 'For White Men Only, or Almost'. Almost no African-American, Latino or Native applying to those programs got anything from them!

Again, this is something almost none of you could be expected to know.

I know about it because I heard about it and did my homework and because my daddy was also a Southern white anti-racist. And probably mostly because of him I was lucky to grow up in what is still too rare in our country: a successfully racially (AND economically) integrated neighborhood. Three cheers for West Mt. Airy!

This is how I know no person of color ever got anything we didn't get first and out of which they were initially shut out for too long! Yes-sir-ee! Y'all got help and they didn't, at least till the 1960s! And even then they were only added to the list. Which is to say, you were never excluded from help on racial grounds!

But you, and/or your parents and/or grandparents,swallowed the hornswoggle!

Now, if we are to return to the days when there were no billionaires (although there've always been wealthy individuals, and that's OK) we need to TAX the rich according to their ability to pay! Maybe in order to do that, some of you need to understand that the likelihood of your families becoming wealthy is about as likely as being able to reach the moon by flapping your arms!

Most of our current billionaire class is making sure that none of you or your grandkids will EVER be able to join their ranks! If you want our children and grandchildren to have a real chance at better lives, first requirement is: you have to want this for ALL our children of all colors and act, especially vote, accordingly! Don't fall for ANYTHING that tries to pin our problems on some low-power group that can barely hit back OR onto honestly earned, disinterested expertise, but FOLLOW. THE. MONEY. As the citizens of the Roman Republic once asked, Cui bono? Who benefits?

Our oligarchs try very, very hard to prevent you, or anyone honest and not downright worshipful towards them, from finding the money trail! Every single law that makes following the money harder for ordinary folk has to go into the trashcan!

Organize across the lines of race, ethnicity and faith!

WE now stand on the brink, if we do it together, of creating something that human history has not yet seen: a multiracial, multiethnic, multi-faith, secular, representative, democratic republic!

Until now, we Americans have been pioneers of one form or another! And now history is giving us another chance to be pioneers again--this time for all of us! White, Native, Black, Latino, Asian, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Buddhist, Sikh or whatever! Let's return to what we have been in this respect and NOT let the greedy, ruthless, dam' near psychopathic billionaire class knock us apart!

STICK WITH WESTERN CIV, FELLOW LIBS, PROGS, ETC.

 I have what might be seriously unhappy news for a good many of my fellow liberals, progressives, 'greenies', etc.
If you cherish such ideas as democracy, the rule of law and justice for all (including other creatures and ecosystems) under that law, the only civilization that even entertains such quaint notions is that which has in large part grown from the creative tension 'between Athens and Jerusalem'--that is, Western civilization and its subsidiary cultures.
Because of what Jerusalem brings to the table, there is some understanding that the strong should uphold and strengthen the weak. 'A flickering wick He will not quench,' etc. Does Muslim culture say or live this at all? Do the civilizations of China, the Indian subcontinent, or of the Americas say or do likewise?
Athens brings the faculty of clear and acute observation; Jerusalem a cultivation of compassion which stood alone in the ancient world, along with the ongoing attempt to apply divine revelation to human life. Both may well have self-critical faculties probably unequalled in the ancient world and still all too rare in today's world. I defy one and all to show us any culture or civilization with anything like such setups!
I've heard a little of the concept of ubuntu, summed up as 'Because we are, I am'.
Well and good. We of and in the West have, indeed, historically not paid enough attention (at least for perhaps the last two centuries) to connections between ourselves and other creatures and life-forms. Certainly in the US of A, neoliberal individualism has gone some ways too far; I'll be one of the first to agree with that!
Two things are important to remember here: first, as I've written before, democracy is based not on any Romantic claptrap about the (on life-support) Goodness of Humankind but on exactly the opposite: every single hoomin is equally corruptible by economic and political power, which are almost always the same thing, and only other humans can check the corruption of others. If we want God to keep us free of such corruption, we must ask Him to do so and ask that on a continuing basis--and be prepared for responses to come from unexpected quarters.
Second, by reminding the rich and powerful that they are as human and as mortal as the rest of us, we are actually doing them a mighty service. Without such reminders, wouldn't they find themselves diving towards Dives in record time? I certainly think so. As we contain and constrain their power, we also pull their eternal souls back from the lip of the Fiery Pit on the edge of which they totter!
I know of no other culture or civilization that, at least in theory and at least sometimes in practice, puts such checks on those entrusted with such power. If anyone else does, well, friends, speak up right now and hold not your peace! Expound on the arcadias of which most of us won't know and tell us how they do it! After all, democracy is not yet complete and will probably not be within the lifetimes of nearly all of us currently breathing! We can still use quite a bit of help that way.
Two places in the ancient world strike me: first, Cahokia, where it seems that the natives of that area tried 'civilization' but eventually gave it up as not worth it. Second, Mohenjo-Daro, which seems to have been remarkably democratic inasmuch as it shows it had sanitation facilities for all its inhabitants and no monarchical great palaces or temples or anything like that. We've probably only begun to scratch the surface of what each place will be able to tell us today!
Dr. Franklin acknowledged the Six Nations as being (at least in part) as being more politically and organizationally advanced than us colonists and he sought to copy certain sections of how they ran their business. Another strength of Western civilization: the ability to note and, when beneficial to at least some folks, adapt parts of other cultures.
Anyhow, fellow liberals, progressives, etc., stick with Western civilization. Yeah, it's had and has its own shortcomings. Find me a culture and civilization that doesn't have them on our fallen planet!
Stop trying to be better than Jesus Who asked the rich young man, "Why do you call me 'good'? There is none good save God."
And, finally (I hear the relieved sighs!) don't forget that the underpinning for the Enlightenment which provides much of our intellectual fuel has very definitely Judeo-Christian underpinnings. Ponder that long and well, brothers and sisters.

THE INEQUALITY OF ISLAM WITH JUDAISM & CHRISTIANITY

 

Let's not deceive ourselves about Islam. Islam per se is not our enemy, but they have a l-o-n-g way to go before they can be equal partners with (most of) Christianity and Judaism in Abrahamian culture and civilization.

Why do I say this? Simply this: today, most Christians and nearly all Jews understand how inherently evil slave trading and slave holding are and nearly all the 'voices' in both faith communities reflect this. Not so with Islam. Islam was the 'faith' that opened the first (which might still be proceeding under the law's radar) great slave trade, the trans-Sahara slave trade which has lasted not four but fourTEEN centuries with a death rate closer to 85 percent rather than the 25 percent or so from the Atlantic slave trade--which, btw, began as an extension of the trans-Sahara slave trade!

No: in the absence of Muslim voices unafraid to raise themselves against slavery and slave-trading across the board and in favor of EQUAL human rights and dignity for ALL, Muslim and non-Muslim alike, I for one neither can nor will accept the 'equality' of Islam with Christianity and Judaism.
Individual Muslims are another matter. Toward them I hope I will always show Christian charity, mercy and forbearance.

Some will say, it took Christendom long enough to come to that point. Just so. But it has, and almost from the beginning it had figures which were at least uneasy about the implications of slave-trading and slave-holding and who raised their voices accordingly. All the way back to Fray Anton Montecito who scourged his fellow Spaniards for their treatment of the natives in 1512--five years before the Reformation began.

Who can Islam put up beside Fray Anton, Bartolome de las Casas, Samuel de Champlain, Roger Williams and John Woolman? If such figures are there, why do we know nothing about them?

Until and unless such figures can be found and put among pioneers of human freedom, 'mainstream' Islam cannot be seen as an equal and we may need to treat it as a likely enemy of human freedom.

Leftists, be not deceived: if the Islamists win a jihad, you'll be among the first batch of the executed and your alliance with them will make exactly NO difference!

PROBABLY FUTILE CALL TO 'FELLOW' PALE MALES

 So now MAGA and their Orange Julius Caesar have served notice on us: NO more heroes of color, no female heroes or exemplars to be held up AT ALL! And pale male mediocrities (maybe I should apply for a post; more than one person might see me as such a critter) will be promoted over better qualified women and people of color! And saying to all the out-groups, your excellence will no longer earn you anything; only saying 'Sho' Massa!' loud enough and long enough may get you a few picayunes!
But to all those pale males who think, perhaps with tremulous near-ecstasy, they are about to be restored to their 'rightful' position with the lowest of them still better than the best people of color, let me let you in on a secret which today's 'planters' will probably chase me down for telling you:
The new rule for women and people of color that excellence will gain you nothing but the blindest obedience may get you something also applies to....y'all! To all us pale males without money, connections or social capital!
Yes, that's right! We too are now subject to the same rules the oligarchs are reinstating for women and people of color. But no one, except women and people of color, are telling us that!
And how do I know this? I know it because of memories which came out in therapy decades after my dad erected a firewall against them by means of hypnosis. Memories of seeing my father rankly abused by his planter of a boss at the small Midwestern women's college where he worked and on which campus we then lived. I also know it by hints he dropped about his being let go from another business a few years later. Whether there's a connection between the two I don't know and don't expect to know in this world.
But I do know that my dad did what was expected of him and he still got knocked in the head. Maybe twice. And he was a white Southerner of mixed British ancestry (English, Scots, Welsh) Our family name is of impeccably English origin. Maybe what knocked him askew is that we come from the Southern whites the ex-planters called 'scalawags' during Reconstruction.
That is, Southern whites willing to work with the freedmen and the Yankee Carpetbagger transplants in the Reconstruction state governments. The ones with antebellum memories of being squeezed and muzzled by the greedy, arrogant and prideful planters. The ones who know why no Southern state had any public education for anyone of any color until Reconstruction. And the ones who knew that, already by 1835, no Southern state was any kind of democracy even for white men! Only for rich white men!
So two colors determined whether these states were democracies: white and green! Or, back then, white and gold, as coin was still 'specie' as was said. That fits better as white and gold were also the colors of the prerevolutionary French monarchy--and we all know what happened to that!
Probably that's a big part of how I got to be a second-generation Southern white anti-racist.
I used to wonder why my dad had such a passionate hatred for 'whiteness'. The sixteen years since January 2009, and much of what I've seen and heard during them, have answered that question most emphatically. Today, I share my dad's deep hatred of the falsehood called 'whiteness', possibly with interest.
Anyway, 'fellow' pale males, I have pathetically little hope of you. I have little hope that you won't take the devil's bargain which, once again, the oligarchs offer you of doing their dirty work in exchange for lying to yourselves and thinking yourselves one of the ruling caste when you're not. You're only their bitches doing the work they consider too nasty for their delicate, inbred, palsied hands!
Mind you, I would never be happier to be mistaken in this than now. If you wise up and join with people of all colors and all women to build a strong working people's coalition capable of demanding what our country needs and seeing it done, I will be very pleasantly surprised!
Prove even LBJ mistaken when he said, "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him someone to look down on and he'll empty his pockets for you."
Prove both me and LBJ mistaken in that! You call yourselves Christians; so show yourselves so by not needing to look down on anyone!

FOR DEMOCRACY'S SAKE, DO NOT 'FOLLOW ORDERS'!

 

If I were the Canadian Prime Minister, I would be ordering a general mobilization, troops to the border and put a conscription bill before Parliament after Trumpelthinskin's latest expression of greedy lust to absorb our neighbor! Further, I would appeal to our Armed Forces to refuse to invade Canada if Orange Julius Caesar issues orders to do so. I might even suggest they might want to turn their weapons on the whole MAGA/Project 2025/Federalist Society gang!

What Donelon is after is the marginalizing of ALL of us who are not white, male, straight and RICH! And I suggest in the strongest possible terms that all my 'fellow' palefaces, be they male or female, should examine themselves to see whether, and how, each of us may have colluded in the marginalizing of our fellow citizens with darker skins and/or different sexual orientations, because, now, Donelon means to send us the same way unless we become their overseers and slave-patrollers! So, then, what will you do?

Will you take the devil's bargain that the oligarchs MAY (not necessarily WILL) offer you or will you do what's best for ALL of us, including y'all, and join with black, brown, yellow and red working people and be part of a working people's Rainbow Coalition?

I remember November 4, 2008. My heart was so full that night as I witnessed the election of Obama, something I did not expect to see in my lifetime. I actually thought we were becoming post-racial.

The sixteen years between then and now have taught this straight pale male a hard and bitter lesson.

I thought we were moving past racism. LOL, right? So much for what a straight pale male can know, right?

I used not to know why my dad detested 'whiteness', including his own. Boy, do I ever know why now and don't I share it--with interest!

I exhort you all to turn from your heedless ways and complete the rainbow of a working people's coalition to defend and extend democracy! Help us stay on the path of building something that has, so far, been absent from human history: a multiracial, multiethnic, multi-faith representative democratic republic!

Take up the pioneers' path and let's march forward together on it!

• 
  

CAN'T YOU GET THE IDEAS RIGHT SIDE UP?!

 We all need to 'know our tribes'. But neither can we make them into idols without losing what is best in them.
And this is just what both Islamists and 'Christian' nationalists do. They seek to grab all power in whatever countries are cursed by them. They seek to rob their neighbors of their God-given freedom of conscience, faith and worship. And, since neither can conceive of a god who is no more than the head of their particular tribes, they believe the whole world is organized exactly as are they and that all the talk about 'creative freedom' and 'the marketplace of ideas' is simply a ruse to clear the path for 'atheistic, komm'niss, sosh'list, FAG i-dees'.
Well, pardners, why, then, do you need the state's help in fighting such 'idees'? If your ideas are better for us and healthier for the planet, why are you losing the contention of ideas and losing it bigtime without prohibition on criticizing this or even saying that? Like, for instance, wanting to prohibit even the use of the words 'climate change'? Or any criticism of Islam and/or the Qur'an?
If your ideas come direct from God as you claim, why do they bring so much more DEATH and misery in their wake? No, dudes, I for one don't buy it. Serving the Lord our God with all our minds does NOT mean, we switch our minds off! No; the God I know wants us to engage our minds with his, even to the point of speaking up even to Him and asking why--but be prepared for at least the implication you can't digest His reply--at least not yet.
My continuing conversation with God seems to indicate that He shares infomation and answers question on a need-to-know/ability-to-digest basis. That is, whether we really need to know and/or can digest whatever answer(s) there might be. And He knows this far better than we can, in much the same way as we know what's good for our children's bodies and minds; what they can digest.
Those who want to 'freeze' their societies either in the 1950s or at around 1000 seem to think that they know what's good for the rest of us because they want complete and total overlordship over the rest of us--including those of us far more advanced than they are! Again, no dice, dudes! And you Islamists, beware: I have an electric shaver with your beards' names on them!
And your belief that you can 'freeze' culture is still more evil and ridiculous! If you knew any truthful history, you'd know how culture changes all! the! time!
Imagine culture as a 'tube' which is, indeed needs to be, open-ended towards the future! If you want a vigorous culture attractive to others, that's how it needs to be. Try to sew up the end of the tube pointing towards the future and you seal your culture's death warrant, for it will wither without the oxygen which comes from cultural interaction.
G. B. Shaw once wrote, "Our societies' vigor springs not from the purity of our genes, but from us being arrant mongrels." And I for one say he was right.
Anyone who owns dogs or cats, or who works with them, has seen how some breeds can be overbred and, when they are, they acquire ailments unknown to the more vigorous and fortunate mongrels, or mutts as we call them here.
I don't know what animal example the apostles of the lie of 'racial purity' will cite, but I have all dogs and all cats to cite to prove that lie for what it is!
I suggest the proponents of such lies as racial and/or cultural 'purity' are motivated by the nagging knowledge that their cultures, or subcultures, or 'tribes' really are less advanced than they 'ought to be.'
And they are eaten up with envy. Both among our fascisti and in too many Middle East Studies departments, they try to dress up their bad ideas with ten-dollar words which have nothing real behind them except bigotry.
Are they trying to be better than the Son of Man who, when a rich young man (a ruler? not sure) asked him, "Good Teacher, what must I do to attain eternal life?" responded with, "Why do you call me 'good'? There is none good save God."? Then they've set themselves up a mountain which cannot be climbed except by freely given and unmerited Grace. Are you ready to take hold of that? Not everyone is by a long shot!
We liberals have been too civil and polite for far too long. We need to refresh our memories as to whence the ideas we know are true come and to express them in as few words as is possible. Beginning with that, the more rights we all have, the more secure everyone's rights are. Power, not human dignity, is the zero-sum game and NO, the two are not the same by any means!
If you're interested in finding out more why we almost always get these ideas upside-down, askew, or any way but the right way, here's a link to another post where I put out an idea which I hope will be helpful.
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1544353602029642191/6491367396937253970
No: diversity is, within a universally-supported democratic framework, our strength in the West, both in the variety of our DNA and how quickly we assimilate helpful new materials into our cultures. Within the universal support of democracy, diversity is not a weakness but a strength.

BACK AND FORTH

 A few days ago, I was quite surprised to see that the difficulty of high-powered, highly intelligent and, presumably, good-hearted women in finding a partner is still out there! Will and Ariel Durant mentioned this when they wrote a century ago!
But then, why should I be? The recent election showed that we still have more than our share of the type of male wuss I call 'doughfaced dinkyjohnnies'. They'd rather vote for a hereditarily rich white male (he is no man by my definition of that worthy thing!) who is also a convicted criminal and knows only how to make our government a private enricher for himself, rather than a woman of color who, all her working life, has had only one boss: WE! THE! PEOPLE! First, the people of San Francisco, then of Alameda County, then the state of California and finally the whole country!
And she has served each very well!
However, I've found that not all the onus is on we males. Let me ask the women out there a question: if a man (and I mean a real man; that is, one who lives with integrity, responsibility and courtesy) told you he could be a good and able househusband (a redundancy, really, as 'husband' means 'home manager') and was willing to be the primary caretaker for any children you might have---how many of you would want to take him up on that? Even if you are a high-powered, highly-salaried person?
I mean, look at his place by all means! If he says he'll clean, see if his place confirms that. If he puts himself forward as a cook, check his kitchen. If he has pets, check them out too. Not to mention his way with little young people.
But, having done all that and pretty much finding it all 'checks', will you still feel he's 'less of a man' because his monetary worth is judged less than yours? If you do, guess what: you're shooting yourself somewhere between the foot and your female parts, to use a dated description.
Again: if an adult male hominid lives his life with integrity, responsibility and courtesy (and works on all three) he is a man. And, so long as they are men according to this definition, none of them are 'manlier' than any other. Indeed, the only billionaires I'd dignify with that description are Nick Hanauer, Uncle Warren (Buffett) and maybe Bill Gates.
I was fourteen years old in 1970, when late 20th century feminism came center stage and TIME magazine 'ratified' it by featuring Kate Millett on its cover. I thought, now it'll all change.
I and my brother babysat for a number of families during our teens, mostly (but not exclusively) for families with boys. But the 1980s, in this respect, was a 'retro' decade. Some reasons for that were 1) inflation and 2) GOP giveaways to the already obscenely rich. Such giveaways tend to take money out of circulation. I remember when Bush II did the same thing in 2003; almost immediately in its wake the local economy felt like it had less 'oxygen' in it.
But as a result of the factors mentioned here, a two-earner family started to go from a luxury to a necessity. Thus, only now do ads feature husbands who are cooks and/or see to the laundry and even apply good old Vicks VapoRub on a sick child.
Anyhow, I hope my guideline for manly character and behavior proves useful for both males and women.
Before I go, let me tell my fellow males this: in the end, you will find being a man according to this definition more satisfying, in and of itself, than any other way of living. Also remember the great Lord Acton's maxim: "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely." If we are to save the souls of the wealthy, we must curb their earthly power. For our earthly good and their spiritual health!

TRANSCENDING BONELESS DISLIKE

 This is an open letter to all the traitors (imo) who either voted for MAGA or who did not vote at all:
I probably don't like any of you, especially the ones who see the only point to helping others is to make yourselves look 'good'. I think of you and then I remember John 1:5. "For the light shines in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not."
That darkness is y'all. Not that we're a set of particularly bright lights, but for good or ill, y'all put the bar plenty low! Y'all are used to squelching most, maybe not all, common human or even fellow-mammal feelings. Maybe if you have pets you're partially open to those feelings. I know many's the time I look at our two dogs in loving wonderment and appreciation, including and perhaps especially when I compare them with humans and it's us who come up short! I strongly suspect that those of you who have pets have known the same feeling, perhaps more often than I have.
As you are in the darkness, you can't comprehend kindly feelings for any human unlike yourselves. And so, you can only comprehend showing such feelings as being what you call 'virtue signalling'. That is, we're trying to show you benighted wicked fools how much better we are than you!
I admit, that's exactly what some of us are trying to do. But only some of us, and a minority among us at that. If it weren't so, we 'scalawags' would have bolted from their camp a long time ago!
And I'll let you in on a little secret: you don't need to 'love' nobody in order to do right by them as God gives us the light to see, understand and do what's right!
First, get--and keep--this straight: the God who brings up the sun on both the good (us) and evil (y'all) and brings the rain down on both the just and the unjust (harder to decipher who's who here) has NOT appointed you to say who's deserving of help in obtaining life's basics (decent food, clothing and shelter, health care, clean air and water) and who isn't! If God considers us all as equally deserving,
then who the hell (literally) are you to say who's deserving and who isn't?!
I know, pretty certainly, that it is possible to have no tender feelings for this or that set of bipeds in order not to maim them, internally or externally, in order to 'save' them, or because someone told you, "Never give nuthin' to no n***er, s**c, 'injun' or k**e", to make sure they, too, are decently fed and sheltered, etc. All you need to do--and you can do this, certainly if you ask God's help to do so, He will extend it--is remember how you would want to be treated.
And it doesn't hurt to recall this line from Proverbs--yes, I said Proverbs!--"If your enemy is hungry, give him something to eat, and if he is thirsty, give him water to drink. In doing so, you will heap glowing coals on his head." At least, if your enemy has a conscience, you'll be doing that. Because a human with a conscience, helped by you, her enemy, will probably ask, "Why are we enemies? This person just fed me and/or gave me water." If s/he has no conscience, then that's another matter for another time. I think I can confidently say, virtually all of us do have consciences. Some of us have such overweening consciences that they bid fair to drive the rest of us nuts, but, again, that too is for another time.
How do I know God will help you in this? I'll tell you: right now, he's helping me transcend my anger at and, indeed, my utter disgust for all you traitors--that is, traitors to our common birthright and to the promise of our country becoming something never before seen in human history: a multiracial, multiethnic, multi-faith democratic representative republic where there is no hierarchy save that of true knowledge and ability!
If you need help and we come across each other, I will do what I can and not mention politics. If you need more than I can do, I'll point you to where you might find what you need and, again, make no inquiry as to your politics. Get it?
That's what it comes down to: recognizing and honoring the things all living things have in common and the connections between us. That is, if I inflict real injury (by which I don't mean butthurt) on you, it'll come back somehow to bite me in my hairy ass. And the same applies to you, however frenetically you try to deny it.
In any case, the crew you've elected, that is, the Orange Ogre and his MAGAts, are poised to make some of those connections quite painfully clear to you and us. And that's why we are poised to fight them every millimeter of the way.
Many of us see the connections you either don't see or refuse to acknowledge. If we can, we'll save your asses as well as our own--but for you, the price may be to have the butts of your egos crimsoned; your egos might not be able to sit for a year. Be ready for that!

ESAUS--OR WHAT?

To all who gave a con their vote on Tuesday or before: do you know what you've done?
Do you really know for what you've voted?
To those who've sold our common birthright for the false promise of lower prices for milk, eggs, bread and gas: you have been hornswoggled by this con. Indeed, if he legislates the McKinley-era type tariffs he wants into law, expect to be paying a lot more for the goods you need and want!
That big plasma TV screen you'd like to buy? If it's made anywhere but in the good ol' USA, you'd better buy it now because anything made anywhere else, starting next year, will be 20 to maybe 100 percent more expensive! And why? Tariffs, that's why!
I need to ask God's forgiveness on a fairly constant basis because I am looking forward to, a year or so hence, to drinking your bitter tears over seriously high prices and smacking my lips to boot!
Then again, I might have tears enough to shed myself at the same time if Project 2025 gets its greedy hands on our SSI and thereby impoverishes us--and tens of millions of others! How many people do y'all know who rely on Social Security for at least a large chunk of their income, if not necessarily the bulk of it? Do your parents of grandparents rely on that? Know anyone incapacitated in an industrial accident who now needs that income? Or who do you know with chronic illnesses? Mike Johnson, Repiglican Speaker of the House, looks forward to ending the Affordable Care Act and having those people thrown out on the street to die. Very likely he and his political owners will dance on their graves as well, after making sure you're not looking. If you are, they know how to assume pious poses with remarkable speed!
And how many hunters have voted for the Orange Con? I got news for you: the policies that he means to pursue via Project 2025 will probably denude your favorite hunting grounds and eventually make them disappear. Do you think that preserving those areas is not connected with being 'green'? Well, enjoy (Muhahahahahahaha!) the consequences of your seriously large mistake! This might be a really serious matter; I've no idea how many impoverished rural fellow citizens rely on hunting to put meat on the family table. Will they be able to keep doing so? I wonder; so should you.
Last but by no means least: how many of you showed what dough-faced dinkyjohnnies you really are by not being able to bring yourself to vote for a woman at all, never mind a woman of color, however capable she might be? Wisconsin, Michigan and (I am bitterly ashamed to list a home state here!) Pennsylvania, ye all have shown yourselves to have more than your share of such dinkyjohnnies--and probably not all of you dough-faced as well. I saw the percentages of African-American and Hispanic males who fell for the con's scam! In any case, you showed us, both on Tuesday and before then, eight years ago, what your real problem is!
The only thing I have to say to those who've voted to make us cry is: boy, have you ever missed the point! We almost never cry for ourselves, but almost always for people, creatures and other life-forms in greater danger, and less able to help themselves, than are we. Including....y'all!
Do you really think that deluding yourselves that others are suffering more will ease yours? When your children cry from hunger, will it ease your mind to think that blacks and browns are hurting more?
Y'all remind me of John 1:5: 'The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness comprehended it not.'
But to be fair, we are not completely enlightened either. Certain Yankees (and by that I mean New Englanders, not generic Northerners) act as if their region has a patent on virtue, and that addytood (to put it in 'Philadelphian') seems to have largely infected our educated class. David Brooks is right to point out that our educated class doesn't seem to see or comprehend how much working people require serious respect, not condescension, from them. Our educated class needs to listen to working people of all colors with much more open minds--and not with any predetermined agenda of our own. Brooks is right about that.
You've voted against your own actual interests with remarkable ignorance, and perhaps malicious ignorance, at that. Our educated class is by no means guiltless in this; I admit that. But in the end, it was you who sold our common birthright for what amounts to cheaper French toast, which is equivalent to a mess of pottage all right!
And I thought you all hated French things!

DEATH TO ALL SHARIAHS, BY WHATEVER LABEL!

 As propounded by nearly all Islamists, 'shariah' law is of the Devil.
That's right. You read that right.
Why do I say that? Simply this. As I contemplate those societies ruled by it, I notice that nearly everything in that code is directed towards keeping all the real power in the hands of a few males my age and older, including many of the young women.
Thus, a secondary aim of 'shariah' law is to keep the males between the ages of 18 and 25 from seizing what the older males have (mostly) stolen and divvying it among themselves, including and, perhaps, especially, the young women.
And to this end, they seek to outlaw music and, of all things, female laughter! Why? Because these might EXCITE the young males, who are such babies that they have NO self-control whatsoever! Of course, they are probably also jealous of the simple joy of life that such laughter can, and often does, betoken!
We who live in countries where more female flesh is seen ought to drive it into the heads and hearts of these diabolically-inspired male bipeds that we, not they, are the manlier ones: are we excited to the point of rape by bikini-ed women? For a preponderance of men here and elsewhere, the answer is a definite NO.
We, not they, are the ones who have learned (I admit, to varying extents) to control our hormones rather than be blown about by them!
I can hear a foaming reply from some of them, viz. "You have NO manly hormones in you; there is nothing you need resist! WE are the manliest; liquid fire runs through our veins!!"
I think the best answer to this and other such garbage is, "Ye-ah, dude. Whatever." Then, as they dance with foaming from their mouths, pass the popcorn and the iced tea. Then get ready for some serious conflict.
I say anyone and everyone living in any democracy who says democracy should be killed and shariah 'law' take its place ought to be immediately deported to a country so ruled! Then we'll all be quite happy, won't we?
Warning: we do have those here who seek to institute a 'Christian' version of shariah law. The best-known plan now goes by the name of Project 2025. Advocates of that can be deported to Russia, which is probably the closest thing to what they lust to do to us here.

TRIBES AND FAMILIES

More thoughts stringing themselves together. This particular string starts with why, in today's world, people leave their native countries to go and live elsewhere. As a general rule, people tend to leave places that feel as if they are 'closing in' on their inhabitants and seek out places with both more room to breathe and more secure ground under their feet. These two things are not contradictory, as some ignorant Randians might think, but rather complementary. For without the security afforded by a rule of law and some measure of popular participation in the making of those laws,  safety for one's life, limbs and goods becomes a horrifyingly chancy matter for an individual and her family.
People migrate to where they can breathe easier in terms of safety and/or can be better fed, clothed and sheltered than in the native lands. Or they migrate in pursuit of a particular ideal, whether it be making a new nation or resurrecting an old one. But I suspect such migration as that to be relatively rare.
In any case, for a society to be attractive to immigrants a rule of law, trusted and upheld by the large majority of its citizens, seems to be a prerequisite.
It follows that whatever evaporates or vitiates trust of that rule will, if unchecked, impoverish and re-tribalize a modern society. Such theft of trust re-converts a polyglot federation to a collection of mutually hostile and perpetually warring tribes. This includes all that discourages wide participation in politics and government and which discourages civil discussion of issues about which most of us feel pretty deeply. The so-called Republican party and the noise machine of Faux News, Rush Limburger and all his mimics are indescribably guilty, guilty, GUILTY of such discouragement and, to a dangerously snowballing extent, have been guilty of such discouragement for at least forty years and probably more. Their attempt to put themselves above the law and then to use the law as a club to beat all non-white non-straights-and-males down is a big part of this as well.
Jew-haters claim that Jews break up other 'tribes' while keeping their own intact. Intact? Just how intact are they, one can wonder, when there are probably above 100 million people on this globe with some ancestral connection to ancient Israel, yet who do not call themselves Jews, Israelites or even Hebrews?
The reason for why some remnant of the nation of ancient Israel still calls itself that is probably The Tetragrammaton, aka YHWH. Get it?
I can think of another nation whose beginning includes at least the partial abandonment of tribalism based on DNA, on the 'sib' which was the first political unit of most Teutonic tribes including the Angles, Saxons and Jutes. When those three tribes conquered and settled the greater part of Britain and began the stop-and-go of making it into something called 'England', many sibs were broken up. A man might be a resident of, say, Sussex while his brother or cousin lived many miles away in Essex. And so on. And so the basic societal unit changed from one based on DNA to one based on proximity, on shared residence. As settlements settled, DNA crept back as at least a partial determinant, but not necessarily the primary one.
That process was repeated as first Englishmen, then Dutchmen and, later, border English, Scots, and Scotch-Irish settled along the Atlantic seaboard.
In the last case, whole communities crossed the Pond and went west looking to grab land from the natives. It can be argued they never abandoned the sib or clan as the basic societal unit and thus remained at a more primitive stage of development than other colonial societies. Sarah Huckabee Sanders, and those who agree with her, seem to underline this as they don't acknowledge anything but 'blood', aka DNA, as the maker of what they call 'families' but might better be called 'relational clusters'.
'Family', as Robert Frost wrote, is 'the place where they have to take you in', where they acknowledge you as 'one of us' although years might have gone by. But DNA ain't necessarily the determinant. I suggest the determinant is how much love we feel among our 'families'. If, when we're there, it's more a matter of compulsion of some kind (including 'family duty') than wanting or needing to be there--well, I will be bold and say this: that ain't no 'family'; just a common DNA, or, 'relational' cluster of bipeds! Most relational clusters at least attempt to be families, to give credit where it's due.
The extent to which that ideal is realized is certainly highly debatable.
Democrats seem to at least begin to understand that family is where we each feel safe and cared for in ways which we need and can best get there. Where we are built (back?) up and not torn down, but where we're also kindly called on our particular forms of b.s. 'Republicans' at least act as if they don't understand this and don't want to. It must be plain that the Democrats are the ones who are, in the best and broadest sense, the genuinely 'pro-family' party.

FACTS & TRUTHS

 

I just heard Professor Tim Snyder explain that, for democracy to survive and flourish, we need a common understanding of the facts and the truths they show us. Quite true.

And for that to happen, any society needs a vigorous self-critical component. Part of why Western societies and culture still dominate the globe is that the West's common culture may not have been born in the next thing I'll mention, but it was definitely fostered and nurtured in the creative tension between two highly self-critical societies. One (Athens) is characterized by rigorous empirical observation. The other (Jerusalem) is typified by its understandings of divine revelation.

Both societies were and are highly self-critical; I might almost say exceptionally so. The late Samuel Huntington commented; Western superiority primarily emanates from our superiority in organized violence--that is, our armed strength. But whence cometh that superiority but from our scientific primacy? And whence comes THAT but in our willingness to test new ideas and, thus, either make new tools OR adapt tools from elsewhere?

Our diversity and willingness to try what's new are strengths, not weaknesses. One real weakness we might have is forgetfulness of our societies' underpinnings--that is, we forget how rooted both in Scriptural understandings and empirical science we are!

I defy anyone to show me any society, at anytime, anywhere, that has a self-critical sector as vigorous as do Western societies and cultures. And yes, I admit that sometimes that sector is shortsighted sometimes and goes overboard in its criticism of its own mother cultures. And that it takes a liberal to admit that--most harmfully in its response to Israel's defending itself in this current war.

Any society's self-critical sector needs to defend the best in that culture while going at those parts of the culture which are actually hangovers from times not as 'enlightened' as our own and which contradict those things for which we say we stand!

At the same time, we dare not ('dasn't' for old-time Yankees) admit individuals from other societies who are dedicated to the destruction of ours. I support a wholesale expulsion of Islamists (not Muslims per se) from ALL Western nations! We can know them because, when we bring up their uncomfortable truths, they start 'screaming' in one way or another. We also have such truths, but some of us at least are working on them. Are their societies?

I don't think so!

Anyhow, as we prepare to vote, ponder this post, and beware of all those who duck from the light of truth, be they Islamists from elsewhere or our own native fascisti, whatever they call themselves!

Vote for she who does not duck from truth--Kamala and Tim!

  ·

TRUTHS ABOUT DEMOCRACY & AUTOCRACY

 It seems like this is the time to write such a post as this.
Back during the tie of our revolution and what is now called our 'Federal' era, there was quite a bit of talk about comparing, to quote Sam Adams, 'the tranquillity of servitude to the animating contest of liberty'.
What it seems didn't occur to anyone was, servitude ain't tranquillity. I wrote such a post and titled it so; here is a link to it.
https://www.blogger.com/blog/post/edit/1544353602029642191/8505401765231773381
And one thing even I didn't mention much was, how stressful it can be to 'dance attendance' on a thoroughly corrupted despot of either sex. Which is probably why many wise men and women kept away from princely courts and the like and were also often careful to stay out of the sight and hearing of such despots.
Now, democracy is by no means based on any Rousseauvian Enlightenment claptrap such as the Inherent Goodness of Humankind. We are nowhere near that good, and democracy knows this. Indeed, it's based on the sound ground that none of us corruptible bipeds deserve to be trusted with anything near absolute power and that, accordingly, power ought to be divided in such a way that no one has anywhere near more power than is good for them (or the rest of us) and, also, that no one is left without a voice and some chance to exercise it. This is true not only of mere political but also of economic and financial power; perhaps especially true of the last two types of power.
"Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely."
This all-too-true saying was coined and popularized by the great Lord Acton, a mid-Victorian political luminary. In the past, we have assumed that the wealthy will be less open to corruption as they already have all the material benefits they may want. This has also proven to be only a partial truth. Yes, we have had such public-spirited rich folks as the Cecils, many of our Founders such as Washington, Jefferson and Madison and, later, the Roosevelts, Kennedys and (let's be fair) the Lodges and Cabots.
However, in recent years we have seem far too much of what Teddy Roosevelt justly called the 'malefactors of great wealth' who are indeed quite corrupted by the possession of too much wealth and too much power. Those such as Musk and Trump and the latter's supporters seem driven by a lust for absolute power, including a desire to bring feudalism into the 21st century USA!
While autocracy cherishes outward (and often phony and misleading) signs of religious devotion, democracy is actually essential for the growth and strengthening of true religion. In direct proportion to any faith being part of the governmental establishment anywhere, its religious fervor will be largely persecutorial and, thus, contrary to the will of God. Real faith is fostered in an atmosphere of liberty of conscience and only in that atmosphere!
Democracy also necessitates a number of things without which autocracy can muddle along and which it indeed fears and tries to suppress: first, a citizenry educated in the spirit of science and which seeks real truth, which has as little to do as possible with telling thugs what they and their toadies want to hear! And they never want both the good and bad of any story, never mind the ugly. (Wah-WAH-wah!) But all three elements, along with the beauty often created by the struggle between them, are necessary so that the good from history can be strengthened and the bad needn't be repeated. (Wah-WAH-wah-wah!)
Second, a press unafraid to ferret out corruption (which is just about necessary for autocracy!) among those entrusted with power by the public and still more among those possessed with great private power. We need a truth-in-reporting law and maybe a set of them!
Democracy is the only form of government capable of correcting its mistakes--and mistakes there will be, always, this side of Judgment, in any government. All of us are susceptible to corruption or just being badly informed; yes, myself included. Let's remember that even Jesus addressed a rich young man thus: "Why do you call me 'good'? There is none good but God."
But this should be no excuse for not trying to be good; we only need to remember that mistakes on our parts will be inevitable. And democracy gives us the means of correction. It can take a while but is far less dependent on the whims of we corruptibles than is autocracy.
And that is why we need anti-lobbying laws and publicly financed election campaigns too.
Some may think this a paradox, but it is no such thing in a system which needs truthful information to run well. We also need civil servants who know their actual jobs and who can explain in plain language, with a minimum of 'shop talk' (if any) how they serve We The People!
I feel a bit like I'm bouncing these points around; it may be that other fingers can articulate these matters better than this aging pale male. Still, I hope that this at least begins to make the case for the defense, preservation and, yea, the extension of democracy and the continual push-back against autocracy!
Remember something ol' Harry (Truman) once said: "If you want to live like a Republican, vote for the Democrats." Rarely was a truer word spoken, even by that blessedly blunt president.
I think in 1980, too many of us thought we were aristocrats and voted accordingly. We can never afford to forget how plebian nearly all of us are. Real aristocrats look after the real welfare of those lower down the ladder. They (we?) understand that, 'When we all do better, we all do better.'
Not to mention that, by removing the 'super' from 'super-rich', we actually help to save their precious souls from absolute corruption and them toppling over into the fiery Pit on the lip of which they walk! Seriously; think about it!

BEHIND WHICH EYES?

 As the Democratic ticket hangs between its choices, certain questions must be asked: of the thirty-some representatives and four senators begging Biden to withdraw, how many have significant racial minority populations in their districts? What are they afraid of? Do they think their soccer moms will either go the other way or stay home in November? Allow me to suggest that, if the party keeps the issues of reproductive choice, public education (for) and a vibrant economy alive, that happening gets less and less likely? Or are they afraid that the cash spigots from what are still probably mostly neo-liberal donors for them may dry up?
Or do their districts still have relatively large percentages of those pale males I call doughfaced dinkyjohnnies? How many 'shiny object' voters might these districts have who will respond more positively to someone who only looks and sounds 'commanding' but with no truth behind it as opposed to a commander who is sometimes not very commander-like, but who knows his/her business thoroughly and has used, and continues to use, that knowledge for the benefit of the people s/he serves?
Maybe we should push harder on that point. The representatives who serve districts with either high racial minority populations or even high proportions of struggling whites within the Democrats (looking at those Philly suburban districts which were red and are now blue) are still silent or, now, openly supportive of Biden/Harris. This ought not to be ignored; no block of voters is more loyal to or works harder for Democratic candidates across the ballot than politically engaged African-American women, especially (I guess) the church ladies among them.
There was once another Democrat at the top of the ticket who many 'pros' thought would go down in thumping defeat and they were terrified lest he should take the party with him. But he ran--and he won. And this was with defections on both the party's right and left! Anyone care to guess this man's name?
Harry S. Truman. Good ol' Harry.
And now we hear rumors that the 'Republicans' now want to force an outright resignation from Biden!
I think only Roger Daltrey and The Who have words for whence this noxious nonsense emanates!
Allow me to explain: the MAGAts, who now own and run the formerly Republican party, are lineal (mostly political) descendants of those who wanted ol' Milhous to fight to a finish and who probably bear a mighty grudge against onetime Establishment Republicans as well as nearly everyone else who ain't one of them! So, to The Who's lyrics from the song with the intriguing title of Behind Blue Eyes:

I have hours only lonely
My love is vengeance that's never free

Remember, vengeance is what Trump and indeed most MAGAts, now live for! And a few more interesting lyrics which stir the pot:

No one knows what it's like to be the bad man
To be the sad man behind blue eyes

And a little further on:

No one knows what it's like to feel these feelings
Like I do--and I blame you!


Do you understand? They blame us for their half-century of butthurt and they now seek any kind of revenge including forcing the resignation of a well-working Democratic president! And also they blame anyone else but themselves for something else. Back to Roger again:

No one knows what it's like to be hated
To be fated to telling only lies

FATED? Like hell, you doughfaced dinkyjohnnies! NO ONE is FATED to that! You--yes, YOU--have CHOSEN to be among the ones who, according to the Book of Revelation, 'loveth and maketh a LIE'
You have the power to turn and repent as have a growing number formerly among y'all--but yet you cling to the lies which act as walls between us all!
Well, let me tell y'all something: those to whom you've made yourself feel superior by hating them know very well how it feels to be hated for something about your person you cannot change! Nearly everyone with skin darker than raw dough knows how that feels, beginning with Jews and going right on through skin shades to Africans and those of African heritage in our common hemisphere!
And so your toxic bread which YOU have cast upon the waters comes back to you now! I am also a pale male and any patience I might have had for your butthurt whining is LONG gone! And Trump also lies to you when he says, it's all right to hate. Now you know the feeling you've inflicted on others and, Jaye (my late first wife), forgive me for using a phrase you never liked to hear from me--you are justly served!
Forgive this digression; I mean my point to be that, while the African-American community, especially the women, stand with Biden/Harris, so will I. It is they that uphold democracy, the rule of law and the truth in general most steadfastly and among whom big mouths with fat wallets and shiny-object chasers seem to have the least influence. And no group works harder for Democratic candidates up and down the ballot. And that those calling for Biden to withdraw are those least influenced by these worthy women. We cannot afford to mutilate their enthusiasm in the way some neo-liberals seem to want to do, because without that--it they stay home--we really are done for!