In this Series Finale of Dobbs for Dummies, we talk about "RESPECT FOR THE COURT," and the impact that this decision has had and will have on American governmental institutions, law, and civil discourse. Not to mention millions of lives in utero.
As an officer of the court, I am essentially ogligated to be honest, transparent, and fair to everyone involved in this legal debate. It is settled for now, and I say that presuming we maintain a constitutional republic and not surrender to barbarism.
Perhaps we should just end it here, and going forward each of us can just figure shit out on our own.
I pretty much stopped writing since January. When your precious, charming, lovely, smart, witty daughter gets married and buys a house, you had better be there to help them make transition, or you have no purpose in life. I also got a part-time job at my true habitat, a local municipal golf course, so 2023 has been a bad year for my blogging.
Still, in the past year, I have managed to cross off a couple of items on my musical bucket list, and learned the guitar solos to Hotel California and Kid Charlemagne. Maybe it's time to start posting videos?
Our legal journey can be summarized, so far, as follows: the Dobbs decision is a resultant of two primary vectors. These vectors are moral force and social experience.
Applied
through Reason during the course of Time, our common law system arrived in 2022 at a place where logic could lead, where apolitical
imperatives could survive, a place where --
after 50 years in the jurisprudential wilderness -- our nation highest
court signalled the merit of reading and following the U.S. Government User's Manual that begins "We the People."
Conscience (Part 1) and Culture (Part 2), refracted through Lessons of History (Part 3), brought the Supreme Court of the United States to this milestone opinion on June 24, 2022.
***
In Part 4, we discuss the legal doctrine upon which I think the Dobbs case truly turns. That doctine is neither Privacy, nor Federalism, nor is it States's Rights, as some would have you believe, Nikki Haley.
Rather,
it is a pet doctrine of Chief Justice John Roberts, whose legal
instinct is to seek to preserve the institutional integrity of the
court with strong deference to a principle called "Stare Decisis" (STAH-ray Deh-CY-sis), or, as I like to call it -- "Poking the Bear."
The 50+ year legal debate over the existence or non-existence of abortion "rights" has culminated with the recognition in Dobbs that, as with the numerous instances listed in footnote 48, SCOTUS is a HUMAN institution.
Not being perfect, we seek the more perfect.
Because we acknowledge imperfection as an intrinsic human quality, legal writer Eric Segall asserts that the Court's past errors, albeit corrected through footnote 48
types of subsequent rulings, nevertheless render SCOTUS opinions as "non-legal."
Segall further asserts that SCOTUS is not a Court and its Justices are
not Judges.
In other words, though we are imperfect, Seagall
takes the position that making wrong legal decisions, invalidates all
future and other decisions, legally speaking. Hmm.
Sorry, Eric, you missed the point. Several
logical fallacies arise from dismissing the Court's legitimacy, discounting their opinions because they historically, though rarely, reverse an opinion. Ad hominem, False Cause, Genetic Fallacy, Straw Man, Non Sequitur, and Hypothesis Contrary to Fact are the most obvious fallacies of Mr. Segall's opinion. That's just for starters.
If
anything, lawyers (the good ones) should take solace in the fact
that, SCOTUS can and occationaly does, reverse itself.
“Let us realize the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends toward justice.”
-- MLK
OK. King might not be the best person you would want to quote, but the principle is one that I believe, which is that reversing a Supreme Court decision, like it or not, indeed, bends the arc of the moral universe.
Alarmists could call it bad karma. Others, divine retribution. Petty political operatives, revenge.
How about calling it a course correction?
As
"A Nation of Laws, and Not of Men," seeking Justice, however idealistic, is the preferrable
and most sane way to fix things, to right wrongs, and to teach us
how best to coexists as human beings. The members of the Supreme Court
aren't called "judges." And to whatever extent my tin foil hat, conspiracy theory espousing, anti-colonial, libertarian tendencies are suppressed, all we have is our fellow citizens doing the best they can to survive, and perhaps, thrive.
They are called "Justices." There is Reason for that.
***
Stare decisis
is the legal doctrine that preserves the status quo, or rather, the proper status
quo. It is a heavy legal presumption that rests on respect, to promote integrity in an institutional setting. Yes, it also rests on an element of faith, a reliance on the correctness of past decisions and their social impact. It is a colloquial acceptance of the
general idea that "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Real life tells us, of course, that our past is chock full of bad, or at least flawed, decisions.
Dobbs
is a remarkable legal opinion precisely because it overcomes the
institutional inertia, as well as the mass effect of the political barriers imposed by stare decisis. At the same tiime, the opinion provides future guidelines for jurists, showing us how to proceed when faced with demonstrably erroneous
and poorly reasoned legal opinions such as Roe v. Wade.
HERE IS WHAT THE COURT ACTUALLY SAID, verbatim [jargon and citations edited]:
"We
next consider whether the doctrine of stare decisis counsels continued
acceptance of Roe and Casey. Stare decisis plays an important role in
our case law, and we have explained that it serves many valuable ends.
It protects the interests of those who have taken action in reliance on a
past decision. [Citations omitted]. It “reduces incentives
for challenging settled precedents, saving parties and courts the
expense of endless relitigation.”[Kimble] It fosters
“evenhanded” decision making by requiring that like cases be decided in a
like manner. [Payne] It “contributes to the actual
and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” [Ibid.] And it restrains
judicial hubris and reminds us to respect the judgment of those who have
grappled with important questions in the past. “Precedent is a way of
accumulating and passing down the learning of past generations, a font
of established wisdom richer than what can be found in any single judge
or panel of judges.” [emphasis added, citing Gorsuch article].
We
have long recognized, however, that stare decisis is “not an inexorable
command,” [Pearson] and it “is at its weakest when we interpret
the Constitution,” [Agostini]. It has
been said that it is sometimes more important that an issue“ ‘be
settled than that it be settled right.’ ” [quoting Brandeis 1932 dissent]. But when it comes to the interpretation of
the Constitution — the “great charter of our liberties,” which was meant
“to endure through a long lapse of ages,” [Hunter’s Lessee] — we place a
high value on having the matter “settled right.”In addition, when one
of our constitutional decisions goes astray, the country is usually
stuck with the bad decision unless we correct our own mistake. An
erroneous constitutional decision can be fixed by amending the
Constitution, but our Constitution is notoriously hard to amend. [Article V]. Therefore, in appropriate
circumstances we must be willing to reconsider and, if necessary,
overrule constitutional decisions.
Some
of our most important constitutional decisions have overruled prior
precedents. We mention three. In Brown v. Board of Education, the Court repudiated the “separate but equal” doctrine,
which had allowed States to maintain racially segregated schools and
other facilities. In so
doing, the Court overruled the infamous decision in Plessy v.
Ferguson, along with six other Supreme Court
precedents that had applied the separate-but-equal rule. In [1937],
the Court overruled Adkins v. Children’s Hospital of D. C., which had held that a law setting minimum wages for women
violated the “liberty” protected by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process
Clause. West Coast Hotel [v. Parrish] signaled the demise of an entire
line of important precedents that had protected an individual liberty
right against state and federal health and welfare legislation. [citing Lochner (holding invalid a law setting
maximum working hours); Coppage (holding
invalid a law banning contracts forbidding employees to join a
union); and Burns Baking (holding
invalid laws fixing the weight of loaves of bread)].
Finally,
in West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, after
the lapse of only three years, the Court overruled Minersville School
Dist. v. Gobitis, and held that public school
students could not be compelled to salute the flag in violation of their
sincere beliefs. Barnette stands out because nothing had changed
during the intervening period other than the Court’s belated recognition
that its earlier decision had been seriously wrong.
On
many other occasions, this Court has overruled important constitutional
decisions. (We include a partial list in the footnote that follows.48)
Without these decisions, American constitutional law as we know it would
be unrecognizable, and this would be a different country. No Justice of
this Court has ever argued that the Court should never overrule a
constitutional decision, but overruling a precedent is a serious matter.
It is not a step that should be taken lightly. Our cases have attempted
to pro- vide a framework for deciding when a precedent should be
overruled, and they have identified factors that should be considered in
making such a decision.
In
this case, five factors weigh strongly in favor of overruling Roe and
Casey: the nature of their error, the qualityof their reasoning, the
“workability” of the rules they imposed on the country, their disruptive
effect on other areas of the law, and the absence of concrete
reliance."
***
I have nothing to add. We can either put on our thinking caps and figure it all out, or . . . OK, just pout.
Agree with it or not, our highest legal authority had to decide whether to poke the bear and disturb a well-established line of cases because multi-generational Justice demanded so. They risked the wrath of those wishing to preserve, protect, and defend mistakes of the past.
Why, after 50 years, did the Supreme Court reverse itself?
Because the ruling in Roe was, in legal terms of art, "clearly erroneous."
Clearly - without logically valid counter-argument.
Erroneous - wrongly decided.
In other words, the Roe decision was so fucked up that -- despite the weight of stare decisis, despite majoritarian mass media pro-choice proscriptions, and despite physical threats of violence -- Conscience, Culture, Reason, Logic, and above all, the Constitution itself compelled the Court to restore balance and to repair the damage done to untold generations of American lives.
Analytically, the Dobbs opinion uses a five-factor test to help determine whether a Supreme Court case is "clearly erroneous", and therefore subject to being overruled:
The Nature of the Courts Error
The Quality of the Reaoning
The Workability of the Decision
The Effect on Other Areas of the Law
The Reliance on the Court's Decision
I will not further elucidate.
The majority opinion is thorough and complete, insofar as it details each of these factors, demonstrating (6-3) how false historical narratives were invented by the Roe opinion, how those narratives disregarded fundamental differences between an abortion "right" and a privacy "right."
The only rational conclusion is that the nature of the error in Roe was so morally and culturally significant (as in Plessy, West Coast Hotels, and Barrett) that we had to reverse course.
The concurring opinions suggest there is more work to be done.
Dobbs decimates the untethered reasoning in Roe -- its arbitrary tests, and its concocted rules regarding "viability" and "trimesters." The inconsistent line-drawing of Roe worsened in Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which wrongly applied stare decisis to affirm Roe, further diluting the "viability" question and jettisoning the "trimester" test for another unworkable standard -- the cost/benefit analysis of "undue burdens."
In the future, my hope is that constitutional jurisprudence which drifts away, unmoored from cultural values, historical roots, and written foundations, will be met with greater resistance, resistance to the deceptions and injustices foisted by unprincipled or unethical lawyers who devalue themselves and cheapen their profession by acting as mere political operatives, with bad intent, harming families, and destroying psyches.
Yes. A long and winding road lies ahead.
It has been a painful course correction, America.
The way things are looking, we had better hold on to our hats.
To review Part 1 (link), you may recall it ended with a bit of time travel. You were led to an obscure Commentary written 38 years ago in a law school newspaper. The writer spoke from the past about how Roe v. Wade had weak, and more likely non-existent, constitutional underpinnings. He asserted that Conscience is the true final arbiter of moral questions that society attempts to answer through legal sophistry. That writer has been doing honest homework on those issues, sustained by a steady diet of locusts and honey, so plentiful in the wilderness of legal unemployment.
Such is the price for honest legal opinion.
Such is the price for sticking to your guns.
But today, it is, finally, water under the bridge.
The river has run its course.
As Thomas Paine put it, "Time Make More Converts Than Reason." Fortunately, you have not been triggered by my past comments enough to have me assassinated, just because I take our Constitution seriously, thank you. I sincerely appreciate your academic integrity, as well as your critical thinking skills.
Now: Roy's Theory can be summarized: E > C > P.
As we journey the river of life, Economics is upstream from Culture is upstream from Politics.
Riding the Legal Beast
Laws are enacted to give us rules, rules through which we navigate the river -- trying to do the least damage and the most good for the "school of fish" that is Human Society. (Who makes those rules and how they are made is a another valid question for another time.)
Understanding the Dobbs case begins with understanding that cultural shifts occur mostly without our conscious attention. There is no way to "respond" or "reply" or "comment" or "like" something as glacial as cultural shifts. I think the reason is because culture is a sum of parts, and the parts are our individual souls.
Culture is a pot of stew, contained by the operation of Economic principles, e.g., supply and demand, inflation, unemployment, etc. Legal opinions are like broth, including any meat, and lentils. And the Chef is the person applying Legal Principles for the Political consumer. You can't make good law from bad cases. And if you have a shitty chef, you get shitty stew. The culture suffers.
Sometime you have to throw out a bad batch. Get new ingredients. Fire the chef.
Sometimes a punt is the best football play. Sometimes a frozen computer needs a re-boot.
So here we are in 2023. Dobbs vs. Jackson is the law. American Culture, that is, We, the People, a body of citizens of a Nation (a Nation of Laws, not of Men), simply could not swallow the shitty politics, the Constitutional stew forced upon us by Justice Blackmun in 1973.
Culture will evolve irrespective, but limited by, enduring natural principles.
The water. The mountains. The forest. The ocean.
None care and none are affected by our puny political grandstanding. Culture evolved, while the so-called "left" paid no heed, insisting upon the un-moored "right to abortion" in contravention of
1) Language,
2) Basic Legal Analysis,
3) the History of Common Law, and
4) Traditions regarding the "quickening" of human life.
And now ... it is finished. My task is simply to present the skinny version of the Court's opinion:
Part II of Justice Alito's opinion addresses those 4 factors in a workmanlike, dispassionate, lawyerly matter, pointing out for all to see that:
The actual language of the 1st, 4th, 5th, 9th, and 14th Amendments contains no express provision creating the "right" to an abortion. To argue otherwise casts away the essential human utility of letters, words, sentences, and paragraphs to communicate.
As for any "implied" right to Liberty in the 14th Amendment which might serve as the basis for abortion rights, that right still must, necessarily, be derived from express provisions contained in the first 8 Amendments in the Bill of Rights, because the last 2 are rights implicitly reserved to the States.
The History of abortion "rights" has extremely shallow, if any roots, in our jurisprudence.
Common Law cases regarding "quickening" shreds notions of viability and trimesters as guidelines for measuring proper and improper abortion. Roe was an excercise of legal folly.
To be sure, and to be clear. -- a person with a uterus (can't say "woman) CAN STILL LEGALLY KILL THE BABY in a Post-Dobbs world. The difference now is that the voice of your community, the impact of your culture, and the values engrained in your sub-culture have a voice.
There is a belief that the Dobbs case is about a "right to privacy," and by corollary, abortion. The self-centered mistake about that belief is that no decision has a more publicly significant and revolutionary impact on the world and society at large than whether to destroy or nourish another person. Families, fathers, brothers, sisters, friends . . . all the "other" voices are now being heard, now greater and heavier factors to consider when uterus-endowed people experience post-coital remorse.
Once again, Mother Nature disrupts human avarice. Dobbs is a result of the combined forces of Conscience and Culture, diverting American narcissism away from self-destructive values, to more precicely pin point the locus of responsibility regarding moral questions of Life and Death.
In the case of abortions, that locus is far, far away from a Washington D.C. It is not determined in a courthouse, or even in a doctor's office. It is in the hearts and minds of two people whose Love (or lack, thereof) will determine their future. And the consequences will be felt regardless of that "choice."
In my "personal" view, under Dobbs, the Federal government no longer sanctions murder because American culture, taken as a whole, does not approve of pernicious irresponsibilty.
Whether "the choice" was or was not -- the Right one -- is still up to the individual.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you, before you were born I set you apart; I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
Jeremiah 1:5
Put simply, the room has gotten louder. The chorus of voices that formed your existence are also there for you, to help you to decide whether new life should (or should not) be realized.
The voices of Culture and Conscience are much greater than one measly legal opinion, at some random point in history, even if that opinion is rendered by the Supreme Court of the United States of America.
Some of us boomers who studied Psychology should easily recall a towering figure from this discipline, a German academic named Carl Gustav Jung. I always thought Jung's work was best understood in the context of his older contemporary, Sigmund Freud. Where the more celebrated Freud is recognized as the foundational thinker in the area of psychoanalysis, Jung's legacy is somewhat broader, and in my opinion, more far-reaching than Freud's in that it has had substantial impact on other fields besides psychiatry, such as anthropology, archaeology, literature, and my major field of study, philosophy.
This is a MANDALA.
It's been six months since I've shared this internet space with -- well, nobody in particular and everybody in general -- and you -- out there in the inter-webs. There's one question a writer should always be able to answer ... who is your audience?
Be patient. I'll get to "Mandela and the Ugly American in a second."
Just to recap, since I posted "No Mercy" we have experienced, inter alia, a Congressional re-boot and the restoration of vertical Federalism under the Dobbs case. Your representatives in Washington D.C. have sent $65 BILLION to a TV comedian in the Ukraine (with potentially another $50B en route). We have seen interest rates continue to rise, and we watched the Houston Cheaters win the World Series.
And the world has not yet come to an end.
Apocalypse Never.
So much for history as we knew it.
In this day and age, within the technological "woo," you are best served by relying on your own capacity for critical thought. Blindly following "the latest thing," is surely the road to ruin.
As Bernie Mac prefaced his wisdom, "Listen, America." Matthew 7:14
Don't listen to corporate media bullshit. Buy Virtue. Buy Quality. Buy Truth.
Then sell, sell, sell.
***
Back to Carl Jung and Mandalas.
Here is a crash course on the topic of Mandalas, if you can spare the Time.
As retired boomers, the internet doesn't matter in our world. Speed kills. We nurture our Time.
To us, social media is "actually talking to someone -- in real life."
So what I have found most compelling about Jung's work was the particular importance he placed on the"mandalas" (see above image), those intricate spell-binding seals, sort of artistic runes containing subconscious expressions reflective of an inner, dare I say, autistic, reality. Jung did some profound research involving the role of mandalas, and, don't get me wrong, I'm no expert in psychoanalysis, but his writings reveal the huge importance of human symbology, and understanding mandalas has expanded my consciousness about how we humans need to express ourselves, somehow, anyhow, including that side of ourselves that everyone else sees, but we cannot.
Not Interested?
The interest rate chart picture above is a sort of mandala. According to Jung, mandalas are fundamental expressions of the human psyche, heavy-handed efforts to "square the circle."
Now here's the twist: This essay is actually about "Mandela."
He is dead, isn't he?
Now, we boomers know a world without Wikipedia. Still, I should address the origins of the so-called "Mandela Effect." It purportedly began in 2009, when an enterprising writer named Fiona Broome had a specific recollection that Nelson Mandela's funeral took place in 1990. It turned out that he was not yet dead, and would not die until 2013.
Broome defines this as modern phenomenonas follows:
The Mandela Effect is when people clearly recall and event in history -- something very specific -- but historical records show that something else happened.
That's all it is.
Just a very clear memory a person has, but it doesn't match historical records.
She elaborates that there is no one-size-fits-all explanation for it, but there are widespread instances where people remember things that, if you delve further, records reveal they are false memories.
Here's my point, (because brevity is the soul of wit, I'll keep it short, so you can go back to decorating your cubicle, or selling stuff, or beta-testing software, or fixing your boss's spreadsheets, or whatever variant of data-mining it is that passes for corporate work nowadays):
Yes, the pejorative stereotype, "Ugly American," mistakenly depicts us as exhibiting loud, arrogant, demeaning, thoughtless, ignorant, and ethnocentric behavior, mainly abroad, but also at home.
Although the term is usually associated with or applied to travelers
and tourists, it also applies to U.S. corporate businesses in the
international arena.
The term originated in popular culture from the 1958 novel by Eugene Burdick, a decorated Navy Lieutenant Commander, PhD.,
Social Scientist, and Southern California surfer
The book is about a U.S. diplomatic worker, a plain-spoken, humble man named Homer Atkins, who is sent to the fictional Southeast Asian country of Sarkhan, to assist and advise with engineering projects. Over the course of his experience, it is Homer, the ugly American, who is the heroic figure. He, along with Col. Edwin B. Hillandale are the lone forces for good. They are the fiew who try and expose America's misplaced priorities, her entrenched interests, as well as the incompetent arrogance and corruption of her diplomatic corps.
The only characters facing these challenges, the only ones perceived by the locals as truly working for the good of the Sarkhan (loosely analogous to Thai, Burmese, Vietnamese or Filipino) people are, in fact, Homer Atkins and Col. Hillandale. That unattractive American engineer was the only decent, effective, positive element of American foreign policy in Southeast Asia during those Cold War years, according to the novel. He built water pumps for the locals, he was kind, learned the language, and in general, was portrayed as a humble, serious person.
Perhaps it is a stretch to say usage of the term "ugly American" a Mandela Effect.
Perhaps it is less a false memory, than a false agenda.
Still, prevailing usage of "the ugly American" is pejorative. I can say, having actually read the book, that the so-called "ugly" lead character, Homer Atkins, was seen by the (ahem) "Sarkhan" people as a decent, sincere, thoughtful American, who, despite his outward appearance, worked to expose and overcome the many corrupt institutions, bureaucratic obstacles and foreign policy blunders of the time.
Just to complete the picture, we should know the President Eisenhower, a Republican demi-god, is rumored to have labeled Burdick's book "sickening." JFK, on the other hand, was impressed enough to send a copy to each of his Senate colleagues. The Ugly American is a classic that needs review in these troubled times, as poignant and incisive a work about American culture as that of Harriet Beecher Stowe or Upton Sinclair.
As we taxpayers recklessly support Khazarian thugs to further NATO's obsolete aspirations and cover-up Defense Department biological weapons laboratories (not a "debunked" assertion). As with Vietnam, or Iraq, Libya, and Afghanistan, we propagandize the masses to maintain control of resources and massive money laundering/human trafficking operations, to keep the world under the Central Banking (ergo, Vatican) enslavement rituals. Remember TRUE history, and be wary of the Mandela Effect.
And as for ugly (read: deplorable) Americans, know that the book is always better than the movie.
For you lawyers, do you recall this classic case study from Torts class?
Palsgraf vs. Long Island Railroad Co. 248 N.Y. 339, 162 N.E. 99 (1928) is legendary because Judge Cardozo's analysis of proximate cause reinforced one of the basic elements required in order to plead a valid cause of action for liability on the grounds of negligence. But back to my point, since I refuse to walk back into those weeds planted in my brain during those hellish indoctrination rituals called "law school" and "bar exam."
Let it suffice to say that chasing Truth down rabbit holes is a journey full of surprises, and you never know where gritty, honest research will lead you. The Newtonian paradigm is gone. Quantum Mechanics and the Butterfly Effect are real things. Dark Matter and String Theory rule science.
For now.
I simply wanted to discuss the problem of Factions in a large republic (link here!).
But, in a momentary lapse of reason, during the course of my study, I had a flashback -- yes, another 80's song (no, not "Take On Me"). This one is by The Fixx, called "One Thing Leads to Another."
Good tune. May be worth your time (3:12 duration). Press "Play," and pay attention to the lyrics.
Or not.
So back to the problem of dealing with Factions, what they are, and how Madison thought we could handle the problem of factionalism within a large republic such as ours. A Faction is a number of citizens, whether amounting to a
majority or a minority of the whole, who are united and actuated by
some common impulse of passion, or of interest, adverse to the rights
of other citizens, or to the permanent and aggregate interests of the
community.”
In Federalist 9, Hamilton needed to address the ideas of Charles Montesquieu, a French Philosopher whose prinicipal work, L'Esprit Des Lois, is one of the greatest works in the history of political theory and in the history of jurisprudence. Madison's Federalist 10 was a sequel to Hamilton's Federalist 9.
See? One thing leads to another.
It started with Federalist 10, a proper study of which necessitated that we retrace the origins of the debate back to Federalist 9, which led to a recognition that Montesquieu's work set the foundational precepts. This sequence of connected historical sources led me to thinking about how so many apparent effects have unacknowledged causes. That led me to realize the legal importance, and occasional futility, of finding proximate causes, which was the key issue in the Palsgraf case. For me, the whole discussion of proximate cause reconciled musically, to The Fixx.
Simple Minds Need Complex Stimuli
Boomers, I've said it before and I'll say it again -- gettin' old ain't for sissies.
Brief history lesson: The Federalist Papers were published under the pseudonym "Publius," and were written to persuade American Revolutionaries that a "federation" of sovereign States was, for many reasons, the best course of action to form a government in the late 1700's.
After we defeated the British, a world without kings became possible. The ideal of human Liberty now superceded the "divine right" of inbred dilettantes. Uncharted aspirations and claims that were made, written, and signed by our nation's wisest elders on July 4, 1776, could now become manifest without monarchic suppression.
"Equal Rights Under The Law!"
Now to the problem of forming that government. Montesquieu advocated Separation of Powers doctrine as a way to address the problem of factions, however, he also contended that the theory would fail in large republics. He thought large republics, such as that proposed on the North American continent were prone to fall into despotism due to their sheer size, and therefore, the cannibalistic nature of factionalism would not be contained. As a sidenote, he was also an early adopter of the notion that climate (!) has a substantial influence on the human society.
Beginning with the formal title, Madison responded:
"THE SAME SUBJECT CONTINUED
THE UNION AS A SAFEGUARD AGAINST DOMESTIC FACTION AND INSURRECTION"
Now that title appears to be written in English, and because I am a natural, native, English-speaking American citizen, I am empowered to understand (as you should) what the author is saying.
Literally. Today. Year 2022.
I mean, WTF did we go to school for? To learn to drink? Was it to learn how to woo a spouse. And by "spouse," I mean that person you married who has a different chromosomal composition than yours.
But I digress.
Look, writers are accountable for the words they utilize. But conversely, a reader is NOT entitled to ascribe to a writer thoughts and ideas not at all supportable in the words expressed in writing. Some may call this form of constitutional/statutory interpretation a curse. I disagree. It would be more precise and correct to say that holding words to the users meaning is a "spell." Deviate from the word, you deviate from the spell. The constitution is a covenant, a spell structured to maximize Liberty (for ALL), by recognizing natural democratic processes, but limiting their reach, in order to counteract and suppress tyrannical leaders, who desire to implement their factional, numerically justified aims, regardless of their adverse effects. Unchecked factions lead to injustice and they are the fatal flaw of direct democracy. Thus, our Founders, through the words "We The People," called for and eventually ratified A REPRESENTATIVE REPUBLIC.
Why? Because words cage thoughts.
Publius creates the argument. Whether you think it valid and logical, or misleading and fallacious, the contention is that the Union of States are a SAFEGUARD, a protection, a precaution, an answer, a bulwark, if you will, literallyagainst domestic factions and insurrection.
Please note the correct usage of "literally."
Whether from the loony left or stenchly conservative right, it is literally indisputable that the Founders saw the creation of our Union (as constituted and ratified among the several States) to be the ideal answer to the problem of political factions, which are the early formative stages of mass psychosis. (Hello, Mr. Hitler)
Despite our large geography, and the cacophony of Tweets, the melting, snowflake tears claiming that THEIR particular untethered rights should prevail over others more wisely and virtuously considered, Federalist 10 shows how we avoid the mistakes of past civilizations and transcend the fate of past governments that descended into centralized, totalitarian, madness, like the current one, surrendered to the whims of senile, insane, child-molesting, sock puppet, power-hungry, criminal creeps of a certain faction. You can guess what THEIR letters stand for.
Jokes aside, spring has sprung. Can you hear the music?
For me, there's warmth and sustenance in the manna from Bobby Jones's little toonamint
which starts in less than two weeks. Golf's big boys will kiss the
King's ring in Orlando, swing through Houston, and re-assemble at the
Cathedral of Golf that is Augusta National.
Way before I became a curmudgeonly ex-lawyer and cyber-entrepreneur,
there was, and there remains, an epic quality to the Masters which I
will admit holds me spellbound, if not because of the ethereal
atmosphere created by their meticulous greenskeeping, then only for the
theater of human folly which is golf, placed on emerald pedestals amid
the looming yellow pines, bright azaleas, and wound around the depths of
Rae's Creek.
The
Masters mythology lives in the same realms as the World Series, the
Super Bowl, the Kentucky Derby, Daytona, Indy, and, okay, sometimes the
Stanley Cup.
In spite of the degrees of separation experienced in daily drudgery,
what passes as a banal earthly existence becomes the stuff of legend
when we gather for these cultural festivals, when simple human will
expels the fickle formulations of spreadsheets and peurile aspirations
of foolish discretion. There is a shared ethos in sport that gives
substance in its immediacy. Reality TV also gives spectacle, but is
empty of character. It is perverse where sportsmanship is noble.
Fans who consider themselves to be "purists" may now be only remnants of
those who have loved sports. The couch-riding, nacho-slurping, beer
guzzler shatters the myth in the same way fat Roman child molesters
cheered for their favorite gladiator in the Colisseum. That is one of
the realities, as are the obsene piles of money changing hands as fans
wager predictions among the winners and losers.
All
the more reason, I think, the Masters is a special event. Its values
and venue serve to give to golfers and fans alike, but especially to
golfers who cherish the game, a chance to portray to the world, a higher
ideal. At this level, golf is not merely token fancy. At Augusta, you
are a "Patron", sharing in the competition in a process taking you
beyond mere spectator. For golfers, the Masters allows us to partake of
the experience whereby we look into ourselves.
Epic sporting events mark time, so that you can know what you were
doing, where you were, at a given point during your life. Humans have
always sought these archetypal reference points, and the individual
dramas played out provide the particular shared experiences for us not
only to enjoy, but to draw upon, for whatever we need that is good;
whatever we need that endures; whatever we need that triumphs;
whatever we need, whatever that may be.
Whether the thrill of victory or the agony of defeat, we golfers share
unlike any other sport, a knowledge of our impermanence and the frailty
of human endeavor. Yet, we gather again, to show the world there is
another world of better things.
The event is not without taint. As a 500-plus year old game, golf has had a beleaguered history fueled by social contingencies, sometimes castigated and sometimes praised by agents of social change. But a real golfer will tell you there are few greater joys than the freedom of spirit found in our game.
Ultimately, though, pro golf is a game of Sorrows. Like every shot in
life that we have ever taken, our old selves are dead and gone. You
will never play a round of golf as the same golfer you were. The
Masters makes an exta effort to pay homage to the amateur golfer, who
has nothing to gain from shooting 65 on Sunday. The touching scene of
Ben Crenshaw's 1995 victory serves as my own "Masters moment" because
the price of victory was death. Transcending sports, the Masters serves
as an "F--- You" to the slimy, ugly, and vulgar things in life.
I'll see you on the back nine Sunday.
[NOTE FROM THE AUTHOR: The above essay was posted on my previous blog, "Wit, Gun and Stein" on March 26, 2009 and is presented again for the benefit of golf aficionados and fans of the good side of Tradition -- everywhere.]
As you and I keep calm and cope with corporate media dialectics, staying the Babylonian money magic stream of lies pitting:
left against right,
conservatives versus liberals
male versus female
black versus white
and of course, the currently popular diametric Russia versus Ukraine,
that old imperial strategy seems destined for failure. It is time for the causes of our national malaise to fail, and to fail in catastrophic ways.
"Choose a side," they implored us.
"Don't worry," they assured us. "We can fix this. Yes, we can."
Well, sorry, Your Highnesses, but that divide and conquer strategy is old and worn. It is dead. It started to die at Runnymeade. It got worse for you in Trenton. Your destiny was sealed in the fields of Normandy and the streets of Moscow. The kids watched you from the living room TV, as you lied and killed your way through the jungles of Vietnam and Nicaragua, sacrificing youth and energy in the deserts and mountains of Iraq and Afghanistan. But you are done. We have devolved, and our constitution is being restored.
Sure, you have made futile attempts, temporarily derailing humanity's quest. Your litany of falsehoods includeds last-gasp efforts over the millennia -- sinking the Lusitania, followed by the Titanic and more.
But we have long since connected the dots . . . between FDR's foreknowledge of Pearl Harbor ... JFK's monetary agenda ... the fake news from the Gulf of Tonkin ... the dark history of Bush family ... 9-11 truthers ... and now ... the plandemic Covid-19 (better known as the Biden election strategy.)
Many youthful researchers doubt the seriousness of your Georgia "Guidestones," dismissing them as an obscure art project by some wealthy nut job. The kids may be right, but try asking the people of Hiroshima or Nagasaki whether there exists a certain faction of world powers and principalities having an express, and very clear, depopulation agenda.
With eyes wide open, to them it's no joke.
But it just won't work. They are destined to fail.
Sure, ordo ab chaowas a nice, catchy motto back in the days of Manifest Destiny, when you could opiate the masses and conjure hellscape visions with technological spell-casting, hypnotic images of horror broadcast to make us afraid. You have harvested natural Caution to exploit irrational Fear. Your lust for the blood of innocence inflamed your hatred for Truth and the Beauty.
Little Lambs became Terrible Tigers, burning bright in the forests of flyover America. And our people perish for lack of knowledge. But now, we know. We know your methods, we know your goals and we have learned your ways. Your time has come, you pinkie-sucking, narcissistic, silk-tie wearing monsters. Your days are numbered.
This week I commend to you an article from The City Journal, a literary organ of the Manhattan Institute.
The piece was written in 2014 by Eugene Kontorovich. At the time, Kontorovich was Professor of International Law and Constitutional Law at Northwestern University Law School.
I had no idea that this symbol, used by Mussolini's fascist regime in Italy, is now plastered all over the architecture of many Federal office buildings in Washington, D.C.
Fascinating.
The fasces symbol may be less notorious than the swastika, but I find it no less detestable. It's meaning and symbolism elicit, in my view, the precise opposite of American ideals, especially the Emersonian ideal of self-reliance, not to mention the concepts of inalienable rights and natural law.
Let me explain. As Professor Kontorovich put it:
"In republican Rome, the chief magistrates were protected in public by lictors: bodyguards who each carried a fasces, a bundle of 12 rods tied together and surrounding outward-facing axes. The lictors used this unwieldy-looking scepter to chastise wrongdoers, and it came to symbolize the coercive power of the consul."
The symbol of the fasces represented magisterial and priestly authority in ancient Rome, symbolizing "strength in unity," the way a bundle of sticks is harder to break than one single stick. The strong implication is that the state power is a derivative from corporal power, the power of physical punishment, and the authority is based in a collective, bound together to (unthinkingly) enforce the will of the ruling class, its media, and entertainment outlets. Essentially, the fasces is a weapon, in Latin, a "bundle," that represents the imposition of authority . . . just because . . . well . . . uh, let's see . . . because a large mob of people say so?
That coercive aspect offends me. Coercion, done by goons, hired by effete elitists. It is what makes fascism so repellant to American sensibilities, yet it is so similar to current events, namely, greater central bank control through militarization of local police.
And yes, the Founding Fathers did have admiration for the ancient Roman Republic. One of the first official acts of Congress was to adopt the fasces as the emblem of the Sergeant at Arms.
The Professor again:
"Fasces were part of the standard visual vocabulary of classicism. Like the lamp and the scales, they represented a particular attribute of the classical view of justice: physical power or the ability to impose order."
"When he came to power in Italy in 1922, Mussolini resurrected the symbol and employed it to represent the strength and unity of the Italian state. Political fascism made physical power and the ability to impose order central to its ideology, and so the term “fascism” quickly became synonymous with authoritarian regimes. Mussolini made the fasces symbol almost as common in Italy as the Nazi swastika became in Hitler’s Germany. If people associate the fasces with fascism less than they associate the swastika with Nazism, it may simply be because Il Duce’s historical infamy pales beside Hitler’s [and our WWII ally, Stalin].
Kontorovich's piece is titled "When Fasces Aren't Fascist. The Strange History of America's Federal Buildings." As I read it, he is rationalizing the existence of fasces in the halls of the U.S. Congress.
Kontorovich is attempting to render palatable the disturbing prevalence of that symbol as merely a cultural speed bump, an almost quirky artistic preference. He says the fasces symbol "had no nefarious connotation before Mussolini."
I beg to differ. The swastika had no nefarious connotation before Hitler either, but we don't see it emblazoned anywhere except those flags hanging on basement walls of shaven headed kook jobs.
Or Buddhist tombstones.
Symbols are powerful. Symbols will be their downfall.
Indeed, the Founding Fathers adopted elements of a republican form of government when they formed the United States of America. However, the idea that governmental power should be dispersed between three branches, and that man's utter depravity and corruptible greed necessitated a de-centralized form of government is a basic American precept that FLIES ON THE FACE of opposing ideals expressed by the symbolism of the fasces. The Sergeant at Arm's actual job is to enforce the rules of the House, so in a small way, the image of the fasces was an appropriate emblem in 1789.
However, the Office of the Sergeant at Arms is NOT the government of, by, or for the People.
The use of the fasces as a symbol in American public architecture did not become prevalent until Mussolini made it so in the 1920's. Fascism was seen as something "cool" in the period of time between the so-called World Wars. Mussolini was admired for getting Italy back on its feet, just as Hitler was admired and promoted by financial interests which included the Bush family, The New York Times, and yes, the Vatican. The fasces symbol, and the philosophy it represented, became so trendy during that period of history that architect Cass Gilbert, and his disciples, imported the "gospel of fasces" into American public life.
It is sad to see how far we have strayed from our Founders vision. That symbol of collective authoritarianism (OK, dictatorship through corporal punishment), expresses ideals antithetical to our foundational precepts. Do I need to repeat the first three words of the preamble again?
OK, Boomer. Let's leave it at that.
I have a medical appointment to deal with some knee pain.
OK, Boomer, do you remember this MTV hit by the band Crowded House?
That song, "Don't Dream It's Over," used the same words as those in the title of this post. Because we are speaking and writing in English, spacing and punctuation rules are less strict than many other languages. Unless we practice writing in Far Eastern or Cyrillic characters, we don't have to bother much with diacritical marks, where, for example, the French circonflexe (the little hat) means the difference between jeune (young) and jeûne (fast). More on foreign tongues later. For now, let's just agree there's a place in the world for old and slow.
One dot, one period, one space bar, one programmer's keystroke, and POOF!, meaning changes. A glitch occurs in the matrix, and hordes of weasels begin to libel and slander your character. What's worse is they openly criticize your hair color and tan lines.
Meaning is interpreted through a reader's preconceptions. So if a single dendrite misfires in the synapse between pen and paper, between thought and expression, the message is too often received bereft of the writer's intended meaning -- a variant of the writer's idea, if you will. One fat finger fault can lead to a divine comedy of misunderstanding. As the eminent writers Page & Plant once put it:
"Sometimes all of our thoughts are misgiven."
Other times, fortunately, the reader or listener indeed "gets it."
And the messenger lives.
The original song meaning, as I heard it, was one of uplifting encouragement, a hopeful message in the face of numerous and divisive intrusions. The artist is telling you in so many words, "Don't give up. Keep on going, even when you are surrounded byidiots trying to separate you from the bonding spirit of family and friends. Despite forces rending your true soul from your original self, despite day to day annoyances like fixing the hole in the wall, towing your car, rumors of war and waste, despite all that, they won't win. The world comes in, like a deluge to build a wall between us, but they won't win.
There is Freedom within, there is Freedom without.
Play.
But then --- one dot and one space --- and the message changes. Punctuation turns something once promising and hopeful into a sad anthem of disillusion and finality. We boomers, we've been there and done that.
IT'S OVER.
Don't dream those dreams . . . of long-haired hippies . . . of chimeric Lennonist utopias.
Get back.
To life.
Get back.
To what is real.
Put simply folks, in order for us boomers to mature gracefully, we must own our generational bias. Step up to your chronological demographic. Challenge the invaders, embrace your misanthropy, your latent liberal racism, your depleted sexism, and hilarious homophobia. Recognize those so-called social injustices of which you have been accused wrongfully, and sometimes, accurately. Pay them no heed. And if you are game, prepare yourself for an occasional slice of humble pie.
Same goes for the kids out there. Romantic ideals are dead.
Don't dream. It's over.
Let Truth be your Master, not pixelated myths from the Reagan era. The Eisenhower era may be okay. Either way, past presidents become dead presidents, but your Time is always your Money. Isaiah 11:6
EVERYONE DISCRIMINATES. (but not everyone is prejudiced).
To discriminateis to select. Discrimination has been vilified, though merely an expression of intent.
Prejudice OTOH assumes facts not in evidence. It's an infantile state of mind, a sort an inverse Dunning-Kruger situation, where a person jumps to conclusions with faulty logic or false facts. Or narcisstic hubris. (Hello, CNN)
Well, the music break is done.
It's been so long since I'd seen the ocean, I thought I should come to California. As is so often the case, the best expression about my trip borrows from well-known lyrics.
Watch the video (3:58) and see. We can ALL see through the corporate bullshit -- it's over.
So, a great French comedian once said, "Zee timing, she eez evereething."
I Think, Therefore I Drink
Based on that, I think once a week should be the proper dosage of this comic relief, plus or minus a paragraph or two. If you could just help me calibrate it . . . if you don't mind . . . that would be great.
We are hunkered down in the Carolina Piedmont, stocked up with white bread, toilet paper, and almond milk. We got hit by a full inch of snow and sleet, just before MLK Day. Then we got hit again just this weekend.
And the NFL isn't rigged. Hmph.
I can hear my Yankee friends laughing scornfully at the Southern facade, the genteel, neurotic, Prince of Tidesmachismo, panicked at the prospect of driving in icy conditions. It's hard.
Speaking of scornful mockery, I will do my best to never mention or use the disrespectful term "President Brandon." Never again. So how's that working out?
And as for you little vegan fairies, stop drinking so much damn soy milk and grow a pair! Tits or balls, I don't care. Wait 'til this summer -- when I'm 64.
There is a reason for stereotypes, regardless of the hundreds of millions of counter-arguments put forth by We the Feeble, We the Sincere, We the Pitiful Bloggers trying to set the record straight. Pay no heed to the boomer behind the curtain. Most of us are probably a lot like this guy anyway --- insofar as having a penchant for quixotic rants.
Speaking for most older bloggers, I don't want to set the world on fire. People just need to have their say, and . . .
Oops. Strike that.
As a matter of fact, during the Summer of 2020, a small group of younger and extremely energetic "bloggers" actually did try to set the world on fire!
From THE LEFTIST HANDBOOK: "Think like us. Or else."
NOW WHAT?
It's been -- one year since we looked at the "inauguration,"
Five years since they laughed at us for saying "fake news,"
Three years since the living room TV showed a "flu" in China,
But it will still be two years 'til they say "I'm sorry, Boomers."
Did you catch the pop reference? If so, you may not be a true baby boomer. You do, however, have the ability to think in non-linear fashion, bless your heart.
And THAT, in a nutshell, is whatthe "Q" phenomenon was about ... the ability to think in non-linear fashion. The phenomenon was more than a reductivist oversimplification: "something, something, something ... politics stand ... something, something ... I love Trump." God, no.
Many others mistakenly believed it was a quasi-religious cult with dastardly racist(!) intent. On closer examination, the Q "thing" was far above and well-beyond that mean stereotype. Nor was it some "right-wing conspiracy," as it was so gleefully, so erroneously, and so fearfully, characterized.
"Luke, trust your instincts."
And for fuck's sake, don't tell me you are so gullible that you are giving any serious credence to Wikipedia, one of the internet's leading fonts of misinformation.
OK, bye. Come back soon. This topic, any discussion of that letter that rhymes with "cue" the 17th letter, creates weird somatic responses in readers, a neuromuscular, gastrointestinal reflux making pink, purple, lime-green, and blue-haired readers, even ones in pinstripe suits, abort rational thought or wear red baseball caps. Or both. I reckon if a reader is triggered by my rapier wit, I am already BLOCKED, i.e., filtered, censored, ignored, ghosted, and generally will never be heard from again by you. Bye Bye Bye.(Uh, is this a bad time to ask you to Like, Share, Comment, and Subscribe? 😉)
Science ≠ Morality
That's alright. Think of this essay as a less-explosive version of the classic millennial TV series, "Mythbusters," and in today's episode we examine the impact of asynchronous mass communication on various digital platforms manifests in the neuropsychology of users, the failure of ethics in journalism, and the national security implications of those effects, particularly those unique to American culture.
Use Ockham's Razor, apply the scientific method, stay smart and skeptical, and I promise you will overcome the initial barrage of auto-reflex impulses subconsciously telling you to reject what boomers (or your elders) say, just because a particularly effective content creator from somewhere on Sullivan Street has captured and cornered our cultural narrative utilizing this ... this ... accursed symbol from the Latin alphabet ---
"Brought to you by the letter Q."
So, back to school. Classical scientific method originated from Cartesian Philosophy, within the discipline called Skepticism. Descartes was a younger contemporary of Galileo, the person generally accepted asthe central figure of the Scientific Revolution. And you may already know the word "science" derives from the Latin word meaning "knowledge." I'm not sure why, but I just noticed that I over-italicize things. Anyway, the first step in using the classic method of applied science is to ask a question. Yes, you too, can be a conscious, critical thinker like me. That was condescending. Sorry about that. Or am I?
Oh, Ram Eye
But seriously even without Adam, Jamie, Grant, Kari, and Tory's help, we should be able to agree that proper science seeks to discover or create Knowledge, not to establish moral constructs.
Think of Science as the Yin. The Yang, the necessary opposing principle of scientific inquiry is Humanism, which seeks to define and prescribe the moral conduct of human beings. Thus, I contend that amorality, the absence of moral proscription, is a definitional, fundamental element of pursuing and having "faith" in the scientific method. Science alone is a grossly imbalanced non-humanistic enterprise.
Think of Sheldon Cooper. He's a really (really) smart character. Great theoretical physicist. To be honest, though, he is a horrible person. Great scientist. Total asshole. And we're talking legendary asshole.
Anyway ... Insofar as that absence of morality's imperatives predicates applied science . . I think . .
er . . .uh . . . wait . . . oh my . . . I'm trying not to digress . . .
really . . . trying . . . not . . not . . . oh, no . . .
... ARGGH ... shiiitt ...
the memes beckon ... the memes . . . the damn memes . . .
What were we talking about? ... oh yeah, Science. Or was it the letter cue?
Shit. I'm already approaching my word limit, which means attention spans wane at this point of the essay. Let us boil it down to the FACTS, and then we can move on to the cure for cancer . . . I mean, the Corona virus, er . . . uh, excuse me . . . I meant, the common cold. Someone stop me.
Definition #1: "Q" was a user handle of a person(s) who posted messages on the internet from October 2017 to December 2020. That user has not been conclusively identified.
Definition #2: An "ANON" is simply an individual human citizen of no particular nationality, ethnicity, or social standing, who "gets," that is, has read, understands, and acknowledges the intrinsic content of the MESSAGE, i.e., the medium, which is -- the Internet.
Definition #3: Distinguishing from the first two definitions, "QANON" is a resultant vector. It is a descriptive noun, invented to capture and communicate to non-readers something they have not personally experienced, but is occurring in the offline world. "QANON" is a MSM entity, borne through manipulation of language, primarily by corporate network gatekeepers, a noun adjunct modifying a manifestation that has had tangible and significant psychological, spiritual, cultural, political, and global impact. The manifestation, the phenomenon, is more simple --- real Anons are people who have read Q posts, and have "heard" the content (well, technically, they "read the message") and have encouraged others, readers and non-readers alike, to think for themselves and make up their own minds regarding the messages. The term "QANON" was put into popular vernacular to be intentionally pejorative and misleading.
That's all, folks. We're talking about asynchronous multi-vector content messaging
. . . and bullies. (Hat Tip: Nikola Tesla and H.G. Wells)
Like Mercutio, I dislike binary political constructs, formal organizations (save the Bar), and their 501(c)3, 501(c)4 quislings. A lot of boomers have been online before AOL and BBS. We had dial-up the internet on x286 processors. We can spot a shill from ten hyperlinks away.
I'm a lot like you.
Not many boomers hang out on the so-called "dark web," although I concede that shit on 4chan and 8chan can get pretty dark. But we're way past cat videos.
Here's the point. To discredit certain informational content, because you don't like the source is simply killing the messenger. It's bad form.
Processing information nowadays, with the massive reach of modern telecommunications technology, demands that users be their own psychological filters. The sources might be lying. Everyone seems to be lying. Online messages are not useful until properly and accurately received. We are programmed to receive. After one receives (sees, reads, or hears) the message, only then can one decide whether the content resonates - True.
We are programmed to receive.
Here's a useful analogy, themovable-type printing press. It really was the Internet of the 15th Century. Gutenberg published the Latin Vulgate. That was, in fact, the actual content, the message in the medium. The Reformation was a cultural phenomenon that came about because of technology, because content became self-filtered. Individuals had to learn to read content that for centuries had been spoon-fed by Father Pete or Friar Tuck or Sister Mary Elephant. Likewise, from 2017-19, we have experienced the Q "thing" with differing degrees of tolerance, humor, fear, and yes, Love.
Your digital device = Gutenberg's press, right?
Now what?
Heck, movable-type printing explains how 600 years later, a Catholic Filipino raised in an American military family identifies as "born-again Protestant polytheist" despite years of institutionalized learning from anally-retentive sadistic nuns, and enduring false accusations of chemically-induced mental illness, overcoming shame of being cast as an inferior heretic who should instead be making proper tribute by confession, by eating wafers and drinking wine with celibate, globalist, perverts in robes reeking of incenst. Spell-check is so wrong.
Dark web, indeed. How's your "compliance" now, Agent Smith?
Mainstream sources (friend, you are now far far away from the mainstream), those entrenched, anti-American forces, apparatchiks protecting their bureaucratic Swamp turf, for whom free spirits and independent thinking pose an existential threat, respond to Q messaging with ad hominem fallacy, followed by implementation of the Saul Alinsky playbook, maliciously characterizing thought-provoking and intelligent content as something "spooky," something to be immediately dismissed as nonsensical and pointless.
Yes, it is valid to point out the cryptic nature of the Q posts, the messages, their inchoate character. And it is correct to say reading the posts are almost or exactly like reading your horoscope. That is a moot point. As with everything internet, there will be encryption. Them's the rules. (sic) "Would you like to play a game?'
For the sake of Science, or more specifically, Social Science, ask this:
How did non-linear, cryptic posts on some innocuous internet message platform used primarily by masturbating teenagers evolve into a consciousness-raising, race and gender inclusive, global movement that allegely threatens the existence (and operations) of the "Deep State?"
Why would powerful internet platforms and corporate network broadcasters censor the content of some dude or dudette's rambling internet posts? Jesus, have you been on the internet lately? Admittedly, the corporate gate-keeping could be done better, and by better I mean worse.
What is more puzzling is this -- the extent to which Anons (not QAnons!) are vilified as unintelligent, and violence-prone, when 99.9% of civic violence since 2017 has been carried out by their opposition.
"But what about January 6th?" you say.
And to that I say, "What-About-ism is intellectually dishonest."
And reasonable minds can agree. Special Counsel Durham's work is not done yet. The midterms lurk.
Put it another way. What IDEAS pose the biggest threat to the world's most powerful elite, not just in America but throughout humanity? Science has been completely divorced from Morality, yet people with little or no knowledge of Virology or Immunology talk and act as if they truly believe they are morally superior to people who are just uncomfortable in face diapers, or who don't want to participate in a genetics experiment, or simply don't like needles.
Even if the abyss between Morality and Science is philosophically irreconcilable, what makes the reconsideration ofmoral precepts so frightening to certain factions in the War of Ideas?
Well, I'm hungry. It's time to end this.
Mark 8:36
"We understand you don't like our censorship policy. But it's for people's safety."
"Fuck off, Liars."
It's not too late, America. Step up. We didn't start the fire.
