Lex Anteinternet: "We are weary".

Lex Anteinternet: "We are weary".: 

"We are weary".

That's a line from Crisis magazine's editor, Eric Sammons, about the Papacy of Pope Francis.

I’m not going to carve sections out of the article, as I will sometimes do, as I try to be constantly conscious of the fact that he is the Pope and deserves respect. Additionally, as Pope Francis tends to be vague, which I think is his nature, not intentional, as Sammons and others like to claim (and in the professional world I've known professionals who were absolute geniuses, but whose instructions were completely impossible to understand) I don't want to be in the position of criticizing something that's magisterial, when I think it isn't.  Indeed, Ed Conte, the Canon Lawyer, regularly puts out statements on his blog, which is linked in here, that people making some specific criticism have fallen into heresy in regard to this item:

What if the Western World is the "special case"?

And it comes in the wake of The Synod on Synodality, which "progressives" in the Church have celebrated but which has been fatiguing in the extreme on the orthodox.  

And given this, Sammons is correct in at least that statement.  Many of us are weary.

Sammons is also correct that to a certain extent many are marking time, that being the old military term for marching in place.  Pope Francis is now quite elderly and there's a sense that we're worn out and waiting for the changing of the guard. This isn't the same at all as wishing somebody dead, which would be gravely sinful, but rather just knowing that we're at the end of things in this Papacy, probably.  The next one is around the corner, one way or another, probably.  Pope Francis is 87 years old.  At 87, as a man, you could pass any day.  Of course, it's not completely impossible by any means that he'll be the Pope for another decade, and perhaps, although it's unlikely, another two.

I think this is true, FWIW, of politics as well.  People have fatigued in a major way of Donald Trump, whom I'm not comparing to Pope Francis, and of Joseph Biden, whom I'm also not comparing to Pope Francis, and are marking time.  As with all of these individuals, there are the ardent supporters and the ardent opponents, whom are not tired, and they are the ones who do most of the talking.  As Sammons notes, however, there are now a lot of people who sort of shrug their shoulders and simply go on. They aren't ignoring things per se, they're simply too weary to react much.

Whether you'd be inclined to react much or not depends on how religious you are, in regard to the Pope, or how political you are, in terms of American politics.

Some, on both sides of the Papacy, react quite a bit.  Most people trudge on. As St. Paul notes, married men have the concerns of the day for their families, and women do as well.  Being assailed by the constant winds of religious storms adds to their burdens, and they close the windows and doors, or mostly do.  Probably a lot frankly did when they received a handout on the Synod on Synodality and saw its childish artwork and cartoon sans serif font.  "Oh great, more 1970s stuff".

The devout, including clerics like on Catholic Stuff You Should Know, will complain that Americans pay more attention to football than religion.  Lots of people note that most Catholics just ignored the Synod process and didn't participate.  Some assert that participation came more from the Catholic left than any other. And indeed, all this is probably true. But fatigue is an element of it.  At the time of the Synod, we were already years into the Francis Papacy and occasionally distressing quotes. The German Church was years into its march into heresy, and nothing was stopping it.  We were right out of COVID 19 when the doors of the churches had been closed.  And now somebody wants us to participate in a Snyodal process?

Most people are just going to ignore that.  Those who don't, are the already fanatically devoted, perhaps temporarily in the case of those without the burdens of making a living and providing for a family.  Some are the tirelessly devout, who are to be admired.  Some of the tirelessly devout, on the other hand, who already were suspicious of Pope Francis, turned their back on him.

And the same with American politics.  People are endlessly weary of Donald Trump and his extremism, and of the extremism of the American left, and have had enough.  For that reason, the current polls, which we already know most people will not participate in, may not mean very much.  The primaries are marching on, and a lot of American voters may simply skip them.  In the end, Biden may stand a better chance than things currently reflect, simply because people detest him less than Trump.

There probably are lessons to be gleaned from all of this, but they're hard to pick up from the inside.  If you are the person leading the charge, looking back to see who has dropped out of it, or never joined it, probably isn't something that you do much.  Those right around you, at the head of the charge, obscure your vision anyhow.  

And, particularly for the elderly, effecting change takes on a sense of impending mortal limitation.  If you don't get your work done, it might never get done.  For Trump and the MAGA, if he isn't reinstalled as President, his movement will fall apart and his goals, whatever they are imagined to be, will fracture into pieces, some irreparably broken. For Pope Francis, if he's attempting to steer the Church in certain directions, and it certainly seems to some extent, with the Synod, he is as to how the Church is structured, if he passes before his hoped for changes are complete, the next Pope may see that they are not in the form which he hoped for.  Pope's after all, are monarchs.

In an odd way, however, there's some comfort for the weary in all of this, particularly for Catholics.  The Pope many feared would make radical changes really has not, and his most controversial act does not change any doctrine. While it does explore things theologically, it does so on the topic of blessings (and is hard to understand for a layman).  Its issuance has made the rise of the African Church manifestly apparent, and that the future lies in that direction, and towards orthodoxy, pretty clear.  Catholics can rest in that the Catholic belief that the Holy Spirit will not allow the Church to fall into error has not been tested and found wanting.

Politically, we have yet to see how things will resolve.  It's scary out there, to be sure.  But perhaps the weariness disguises disgust at a system that's been increasingly failing since the 1980s and needs to be fixed.  Perhaps that will happen as well.

Lex Anteinternet: Two random items. Andy Griffith and Taylor Swift

Lex Anteinternet: Two random items. Andy Griffith and Taylor Swift: 

Two random items. Andy Griffith and Taylor Swift

Taylor Swift

On "X", fka "Twitter" a man who was the father to a large family of daughters (it was either 7 or 9), and who is very conservative, posted an item expressing relief for Taylor Swift.

His points were really good.

Populist right commentators are all up in arms about Swift right now, for reasons that are darned near impossible to discern.  It seems to stem from her expressing support for Democratic candidates in the past, including Joe Biden in 2016.  Well, guess what, she has a right to do that.  You have a right to ignore it. 

She also expressed support for abortion being legal.  I feel it should be illegal.  That doesn't mean she's part of a double secret left wing conspiracy.

But, and here's the thing, there are real reasons to admire her, or at least her presentation, and the father in question pointed it out.  He'd endured taking his daughters to Miley Cyrus, Ariana Grande, "Lady Gaga" etc., and found them disturbing.

Indeed, they are.

Miley Cyrus went from a child actress to being a freakish figure posed nude on a ball, looking like she was a meth addict who was working in a strip club.  Ariana Grande has at least one song that's out right graphic about illicit sex.  Lady Gaga has made a career out of being freakish, until she couldn't any longer, and like Madonna is another woman who was the product of Catholic Schools who took to songs that are abhorrent in terms of Christian, let alone Catholic, morals.

Swift, in contrast, can only be criticized a bit for dressing semi provocatively on stage, but only somewhat so. Off-stage, she's always very modestly dressed.  Indeed, she's a throwback, with her ruby red lipstick and classic nearly 1940s appearance.

And in terms of relationships, it's noted that she's dating a football player.

Now, we don't know what their private lives are like, but they're admirably keeping them private.  It's hard to know what Swift's views are on most issues.  And we really don't need to.  But in their visible relationship, made visible to us only because of media fascination, they're quite proper.  As the poster noted, the football star is "courting" her.

It's not that there's nothing to see here.  There's nothing to see here which any conservative in their right mind wouldn't have an absolute freak out about.  They're behaving exactly the way in public that supposedly Christian conservatives want dating couples to do.  No piercings, no weird tattoos, no scanty clothing.

Which would all suggest all the angst is about something else, and what that is probably about is the secret knowledge that huge numbers of real conservatives can't stand Donald Trump and won't vote for him.

The Andy Griffith Show

I was at lunch two days ago at a local Chinese restaurant, and across the way an all adult family was discussing the plot of the prior night's Andy Griffith Show rerun.  It struck me that that may not have happened since the 1960s.

It's interesting. 

The Andy Griffith Show went off the air before the Great Rural Purge in Television, but not my much.  It ran from 1960 to 1968.  It was consistently focused on the rural South, and it felt like it depicted the 1950s, which it never did, save for the fact that what we think of as the 60s really started in about 1955 and ran to about 1964.  Indeed, while the show was in tune with the times in 1960, it really wasn't in 1968.

But that in tune with the times is what strikes me here.  The family was speaking of it as if it was a currently running show, not like it was something from 60 years ago.  That suggests that in some ways people have groped their way back in the dark to idealizing the world as it was depicted then, rural, lower middle class, devoid of an obsession with sex (although it does show up subtly in the show from time to time), and divorce a rarity.

Now, the world wasn't prefect in 1960 by any means.  But the show didn't pretend to depict a perfect world, only one that was sort of a mirror on the world view of its watchers.  To some degree, that world view had returned.

Epilog

The Taylor Swift story also appears on the most recent entries for City Father and Uncle Mike's Musings, both of which are linked in on this site.

Lex Anteinternet: Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Lex Anteinternet: Should I Stay or Should I Go?: 

Should I Stay or Should I Go?

Questioner: "Why did you leave the Republican Party?"

George F Will: "The same reason I joined it. I am a conservative."

If I were to listen to people like Marjorie Taylor Greene, or some of the Freedom Caucus here in Wyoming, it would be go.

If I listen to lifelong residents here in the state, including some lifelong Republicans whom would currently be classified as RINO's by the newly populist Wyoming GOP, it would be stay.  Alan Simpson, who is an "anybody but Trump", former U.S. Senator, and who the Park County GOP tried to boot out as a elected precinct committeeman, is staying.

The problem ultimately is what time do you begin to smell like the crowd on the bus?

Konrad Adenauer of the Christian Democratic Union, West Germany's first post-war chancellor.  He worked towards compromise and ended denazification early, even though he'd speant the remaining months of World War Two in prison and barely survived.  By CDU - This file was provided to Wikimedia Commons by the Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, a German political foundation, as part of a cooperation project., CC BY-SA 3.0 de, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=16173747

To put it another way, I'd give an historical example.  It's often noted that quite a few Germans joined the Nazi Party as it was just a way to get by, or advance careers, etc., during the Third Reich period of German history.  When I was a kid, there was a lot of sympathy, oddly enough, for that view amongst those who were of the World War Two generation, although at the same time, there was a widely held belief that militarism, combined with radical nationalism, were something that was basically in the German DNA.  The US, as is well known, didn't even particularly worry about letting former Nazis into the country.

The Germans themselves pretty much turned a blind eye towards this, so many of them had been in the Nazi Party.  Even post-war German politicians who had spent the war in exile did, as it was the programmatic thing to do.

Since that time, however, that view has really changed.  It started to in 1968 when German students rioted and exposed former Nazis in the police.  Germans haven't really come to terms with it, but having been a member of the Nazi Party is a mark of shame, and it's become to be something despised everywhere, even if a person did it for practical reasons and wasn't really involved in the party.

And it should be a mark of shame.

Americans have been sanctimonious about that for a long time, but starting in the 1970s lots of Americans became ashamed, in varying degrees, of our own ancestors in regard to various things.  Ironically, the backlash to that, symbolized by Confederate battle flags, is part of what brings us to our current crisis.

Ed Herschler, former Marine Corps Raider, and Democratic lawyer, who was Wyoming's Governor from 1975 to 1987.  Herschler probably wouldn't have a home in today's Democratic Party in Wyoming.

I registered as a Republican the first time I was old enough to vote. The first Presidential Election I was old enough to vote in was the 1984 Presidential election, in which I voted for Ronald Reagan. The first election I was old enough to vote in was the 1982 off year election.  I honestly don't know who I voted for Senator.  Malcolm Wallop won, but I very well have voted for the Democrat.  Dick Cheney wont reelection that year against Ted Hommel, whom I don't recall at all.  I probably voted for Cheney.  I know that I voted for the reelection of Democratic Governor Ed Herschler, who was one of the state's great Governors. 

A split ticket.

Split tickets were no doubt common in my family.  My father would never reveal who he voted for in an election.  The first Presidential election I recall was the 1972 Election in which Nixon ran against McGovern, and I asked who he voted for when he came home. He wouldn't say, and I don't know to this day.  

I knew that my father registered Republican, but not everyone in my father's family did.  My grandmother, for one, registtered Demcrat,somethign I became aware of when we were visiting her, which we frequently did, at her retirement apartment here in town.  She was pretty clear that she was an unapologetic Democrat, which made sense given that she was 100% Irish by descent.  Most Irish Americans, at that time, were Democrats, and all real ones were Catholic.  Reagan, who claimed Irish ancestry, woudl have been regarded a a dual pretender for that reason by many of them.

My father's view, and it remains mine, that you voted for the person and what they stood for, not hte party.

But being in a party means something, and that has increasingly come to be the case.

I switched parties after that 1984 election.  I was, and remain, a conservative, but the GOP was drifting further from a conservative center in that period, and as I've noted, the election of Ronald Reagan paved the path for Donald Trump, although I won't say that was obvious then.  And also, Democrats were the party that cared about public lands, as they still do, and cared about rural and conservation issues that I cared about and still do. The GOP locally was becoming hostile to them. So I switched.

Campaign image for Mike Sullivan, Democratic Governor from 1987 to 1995.

I remained a Democrat probably from about 1984 until some time in the last fifteen years.  Being a Democrat in Wyoming meant that you were increasingly marginalized, but finally what pushed me out was that it meant being in the Party of Death.  The Democrats went from a party that, in 1973, allowed you to be middle of the road conservative and pro-life.  We had a Governor, Mike Sullivan, who was just that.  By the 2000s, however, that was becoming impossible.  Locally most of the old Democrats became Republicans, some running solid local campaigns as Republicans even though they had only been that briefly.  Even as late as the late 1990s, however, the Democrats ran some really serious candidates for Congress, with the races being surprisingly close in retrospect.  Close, as they say, only counts with hand grenades and horseshoes, but some of those races were quite close.  The GOP hold on those offices was not secure.

Dave Freudenthal, Democratic Governor from 2003 to 2011.

Before I re-registered as a Republican, I was an independent for a while.  Being an independent meant that primaries became nearly irrelevant to me, and increasingly, as the Democratic Party died and became a far left wing club, starting in the 2000s., it also meant that basically the election was decided in the primaries.  Like the other rehoming Democrats, however, we felt comfortable in a party that seemingly had given up its hostility to public lands.  And frankly, since the 1970s, the GOP in Wyoming had really been sui generis.  Conservative positions nationally, including ones I supported, routinely failed in the Republican legislature. Abortion is a good example.  The party nationally was against it, I'm against it personally, but bills to restrict it failed and got nowhere in a Republican legislature.

The Clinton era really impacted the Democratic Party here locally.  Wyomingites just didn't like him.  That really started off the process of the death of the Democratic Party here.  As center right Democrats abandoned the party in response, left wing Democrats were all that remained, and the party has become completely clueless on many things, making it all the more marginalized.  But just as Clinton had that impact on the Democrats, Trump has on the GOP.

Throughout the 70s and 80s it was the case that Wyoming tended to export a lot of its population, which it still does, and then take in transients briefly during booms.  In the last fifteen or so years, however, a lot of the transient population, together with others from disparate regions, have stayed.  They've brought their politics with them, and now in the era of Trump, those views have really taken over the GOP, save for about three pockets of the old party that dominate in Natrona, Albany and Laramie Counties.  A civil war has gone on in some counties, and is playing out right now in Park County.  In the legislature, the old party still has control, but the new party, branded as the Freedom Caucus, which likes to call its rival the UniParty, is rising.  The politics being advanced are, in tone, almost unrecognizable.

Like it or not, on social issues the old GOP's view was "I don't care what you do, just leave me alone". That attitude has really changed.  Given a bruising in the early 1990s due to a Southeastern Wyoming effort to privatize wildlife, the party became pro public lands for awhile. That's change.  The party was not libertarian.  That's changed.  

Money helped change it, which is a story that's really been missed.

Like the Democrats of the 90s, a lot of the old Republicans have started to abandon the party.  If there was another viable party to go to, floods would leave.  A viable third party might well prove to be the majority party in the state, or at least a close second to the GOP, if there was one.

There isn't.

So, what to do?

While it'll end up either being a pipe dream or an example of a dream deferred, there's still reason to believe that much of this will be transitory.  If Trump does not win the 2024 Presidential Election, and he may very well not, he's as done as the blue plate special at a roadside café as the GOP leader.  Somebody will emerge, but it's not really likely to be the Trump clone so widely expected.  And the relocated populists may very well not have that long of run in Wyoming.  Wyomingites, the real ones, also tend to have a subtle history of revenge against politicians who betray their interests.  Those riding hiding high on anti-public lands, anti-local interests, may come to regret it at the polls later on.

The Johnson County invaders of 1892. The Republican Party, whose politicians had been involved in the raid on Natrona and Johnson Counties, took a beating in the following elections.

Or maybe this process will continue, in which case even if Trump wins this year, the GOP will die.  By 2028, it won't be able to win anything and a new party will have to start to emerge.

We'll see.

None of which is comfortable for the State's real Republicans.

Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 54th Edition. The swift and the not so swift edition.

Lex Anteinternet: Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 54th Edition. The sw...: 

Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 54th Edition. The swift and the not so swift edition.

• Twitter has banned searches for Taylor Swift.

This tells us something about the danger of AI, as what they were searching for is AI generated faux nudes of the singer.

It also tells us something about entertainers we already knew.  Yes, their art counts, but part of their popularity, quite often, is that they're a form of art themselves. Which leads us to the next thing.

Everything about this is wrong on an existential level.  AI, frankly, is wrong.  

And once again, presented with the time, talent, and money to be sufficiently idle to do great things, we turn to the basest. 

• There's a creepy fascination going on with Tyler Swift

I don't know anything about Tyler Swift, other than that she's tall, and from the photos I've seen of her, on stage she wears, like many female singers, tight clothing.  She appears to be very tall, and is sort of a classic beauty.

I suppose that's the root of it.

Apparently, right wing media and MAGA people are just freaking out about Tyler Swift.  This has been headline fodder for some time, but I only got around to looking it up now, as I don't follow entertainment at all and don't care that much.

Swift is dating some football player.  I don't follow football either, so that doesn't interest me.  Beautiful female entertainers dating sports figures, or marrying them, isn't news, and it isn't even interesting.  Consider Kate Upton and Marilyn Monroe.  Indeed, under the evolutionary biological precept of hypergyny, most rich women in entertainment would naturally gravitate in this direction, as much as we like to pretend that our DNA does not push us in one direction or another (lesser female entertainers, such as Rachel Ray and Kathy Ireland, tend to marry lawyers).  Billy Joel may have sung about the opposite in Uptown Girl, but that truly is a fantasy.  There's really very little direction from them to otherwise take, whether they are cognizant of it or not.

And so now we have this total weirdness:

Right wing conspiracy theorist Jack Posobiec: 

People who don’t understand why I have been commenting on Taylor Swift and Barbie are completely missing the point and NGMI These are mascots for the establishment. High level ops used as info warfare tools of statecraft for the regime.

Newsmax host Greg Kelly:

They’re elevating her to an idol.

Idolatry. This is a little bit of what idolatry, I think, looks like. And you’re not supposed to do that. In fact, if you look it up in the Bible, it’s a sin!

Far right activist Laura Loomer:

The Democrats’ Taylor Swift election interference psyop is happening in the open … It’s not a coincidence that current and former Biden admin officials are propping up Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce. They are going to use Taylor Swift as the poster child for their pro-abortion GOTV Campaign.

Donald Trump fanboy and poster child for political train derailment, Vivek Ramaswamy:

I wonder who’s going to win the Super Bowl next month. And I wonder if there’s a major presidential endorsement coming from an artificially culturally propped-up couple this fall …

And if all of that isn't weird enough for you, a host on the right wing  OAN claims the Swift football dating is a deep state psy op, because sports brainwash kids when they should be focused on religion. 

This is insane.

Liz Cheney warned us that idiocy had crept into the nation's politics.  What more evidence of this is required than this?

• Celebrity endorsements.

Some of this stems from a fear that Swift might endorse President Biden.  I read something that claimed she had in 2020.

I don't know if she did or not, and I don't particularly care.

There are a host of celebrities who have endorsed Trump.  Nobody seems to get up in arms about that, or even notice it.  So why the concern.

Probably because Swift is seen as the voice of her generation, and that sure ain't the generation that MAGA is made up of.  I.e, she's young and an independent female.  

Look at it this way, would you rather have her endorsement, or Lauren Boebert's?

I frankly don't get celebrity endorsements anyhow.  I don't know why we care what any actor or singer thinks about anything.  Freaking out about it is just silly.

• Jay Leno is seeking to be the guardian and conservator for his wife, Mavis, who is 77, and has dementia.

This is a tragedy.

It's also a tragedy in the nation's eye. Most of the time really notable figures endure something like this, it's out of the public eyesight.  We didn't watch Ronald Reagan decline on the news.  Of course, we're unlikely to see Ms. Leno endure this either.

But this serves as a warning.  Old age, we often hear, isn't for wimps.  And one of the things about it is that those who remain mentally fit have to take care of those who do not.  Most families find this out.

But what about when they're running for office?

• The National Park Service reports a 63-year-old man died on a trail in Zion National Park.  Heart attack.

This headline tells us something, too. 63, we're often told, isn't old. But then we're not too surprised when a 63-year-old dies hiking, are we?

• A concluding thought.  We're getting scary stupid.

Freaking out about Tyler Swift, letting two octogenarians run to carry the nuclear football, engaging in endless weird conspiracy theories. . . we've really let the dogs of insanity out big time.

Frankly, a lot of the time the "elite", by which we mean the educated elite, the cultural elite, etc., kept a lid on this.  It wasn't as if the opinions of "the people" didn't matter, but they were tempered.

That's not happening in the country now at all.  Swift is part of a left wing conspiracy, efforts to prevent gender mutilation are due to right wing meanness.  This is out of hand.

Last Prior Edition:

The Lost Cause and the Arlington Confederate Monument. Cliffnotes of the Zeitgeist, 53d Edition.

Lex Anteinternet: We just passed the anniversary of the Beer Hall Pu...:

We just passed the anniversary of the Beer Hall Putsch, which the poster above commemorates.  The Nazis, every year after they came to power, commemorated their failed coup attempt.

Of course, we know how this story goes. German politics were a mess in 1923, but by the early 1930s they were becoming more and more polarized and voters feared the choice was between the Communists and the Nazis. Parties in the center, like the SDP and the CDP were abandoned as voters flocked to vote against the left or the right.

The Nazis came to power, to Germany's everlasting discredit, and through Europe into murder and the world into war.

On Veterans Day Donald Trump, who never served a day in the military, posted this:

Truly, this is frightening.

Lex Anteinternet: Red meat for the dogs. Hatred.

Lex Anteinternet: Red meat for the dogs. Hatred.: 

Red meat for the dogs. Hatred.

Animals don't hate, and we're supposed to be better than them.

Elvis Presley

"Bolshevism without a mask" Nazi poster from 1937.

As silly as it may seem to say, something (well, a lot of things) has been really bothering me about the current blather coming out of Republican quarters.

It is not that a conservative party, although it is unclear if that is what the GOP is anymore, would have nothing to say, but it's not saying it. I'm not hearing from any William F. Buckley's or George F. Will's on the merits of conservatism.  George Weigel isn't breaking through to the audience.  Politician wise, I'm not hearing the voice of a Ronald Reagan or Barry Goldwater being taken seriously.  I was hearing a bit from Mitt Romney, but he's stepping away from the podium.  Asa Hutchinson and Chris Christie are still there, but they're not making it above the din.

I am hearing from a lot of candidates, local and national, who speak with short invectives, however.  I won't bother with the Boeberts or Greene's but even locally it's pretty upsetting.

Somebody acting in anonymity (but with enough in the way of time and resources available to purchase signs supporting their blog) is accusing people of being "RINO's", as if they can define half the state's GOP that way based on their own assessment. The head of Wyoming's Freedom Caucus and at least one of its members calls Republicans they disagree with and the Democrats the "Uniparty".  Our congressman purports to have knowledge that there's a "place in Hell for those who pursue policies that are intended to increase the price of food, energy, and housing" as if anyone anywhere has a policy that actually is intended to do any of those things.

And then there's Trump.

Ceterum (autem) censeo Carthaginem esse delendam.

Cato.

Trump rages against his opponents. They're debased, insance, Marxists, fascists, and the like.  It recalls the radical statements of earlier demagogues.

Here he stops at nothing, and in his vileness he becomes so gigantic that no one need be surprised if among our people the personification of the devil as the symbol of all evil assumes the living shape of the Jew.

Rather, it's campaigning on almost one thing, and one thing alone.

Hitler, Mein Kampf.

Ideas are more powerful than guns. We would not let our enemies have guns, why should we let them have ideas.

Stalin.

And what is being expressed is hatred.

Hatred.

And that, more than anything else, is what unites the GOP increasingly with the spirit of fascism, and ironically enough, Communism as well.

It's not that conservatives or populists have nothing to say.  Rather, they don't say it much, and only rarely as sort of a battle cry.  Instead, their public image is based on hate.  It's not all of us together, and we must find a way, listen to my ideas, but rather, it's us against them, they're vile, and must be destroyed.

Trump isn't arguing any policy positions.  Instead, he spews hatred.  His opponents, legal and political, are mentally incompetent, deranged, fat, etc. etc.  He doesn't appeal to logic, but emotion, and the emotion he appeals to is hatred.  People need to fear his opponents, as they are Der Untermensch, i.e., subhuman.

Indeed, the entire yapping class appealing to the populist in the GOP, which is now a populist party, appeals to fear and hatred in a radical way.  The scary left wing intelligentsia is going to insert itself into the schools, or vaccines, or whatever, and turn us all into drones, and your sons and daughters into debased freaks.

Authoritarian movements that have little else going for them other than fear have always behaved this way.  If you didn't support the Ku Klux Klan, Catholics are going to take over and give the country to the Pope and black men are going to rape your daughters.  If you don't support the Nazi's, the Communist Slavic Jewish hoards are going to take over and rape your daughters.  If you don't support the Communists, the big monied (probably Jewish, they always get the short end of the stick in this stuff) are going to control everything and starve your daughters.  It's not our ideas against theirs, but rather us against them, and in the end, they must be destroyed.

I imagine one of the reasons people cling to their hates so stubbornly is because they sense, once hate is gone, they will be forced to deal with pain.

James Baldwin, The Fire Next Time

Trumpist populations tell us that Democrats are deranged to the extent of being Untermenschen.  They must be destroyed.  It's gotten so bad, that to merely call somebody a "RINO" is the equivalent of calling somebody subhuman. An entire Wyoming website, which moderate Republicans asked to unmask itself, exists only to do that, as if calling somebody a RINO in the context in which the position that seem to determine that would have left you out of the GOP mainstream in the pre Trump era, is preposterous. But it happens now all the time.  No Democratic or moderate Republican position can be considered, as they are the hideous Untermenschen.

Indeed, hate has become such the defining factor, that all of the former standard which conservatives adhered to have gone by the wayside, although frankly they started to as long ago as Ronald Reagan. "Family values" are to be defended, but divorces and personal sexual misconduct mean nothing, because as long as one is a populist, your infidelities are irrelevant.   Biden is corrupt because he's a Democrat. Trump is pure because he's a Republican.  I'm not saying anything about either man, but defining their morality based upon their party is all the more that needs to be done.

I have decided to stick to love...Hate is too great a burden to bear.

Martin Luther King Jr., A Testament of Hope: The Essential Writings and Speeches

Cato urged that Carthage be destroyed as a detraction.  Hatred never serves humanity, but in the end serves one man.

If all a politician or public figure has to offer is invective, they should be disregarded.  Moreover, if that's principally what they have to offer, they should be cast aside.

Hate isn't a policy.  It's a vehicle, more often than not, for the person publically spewing it.

Related threads:

Red Meat for the dogs and cowardice.

Lex Anteinternet: Rich Men North of Richmond, Part II. American Fascisti.

Lex Anteinternet: Rich Men North of Richmond, Part II. American Fasc...:  

Rich Men North of Richmond, Part II. American Fascisti

 I just posted this item:

Lex Anteinternet: Rich Men North of Richmond, Part I. Resisting the...: Rich Men North of Richmond , which is independently produced, I think, had made a big Internet and music scene splash, and frankly, not beca...

This, and it's not a new theme here, took a look at how we got to where we are, where populism has taken over the Republican Party.  How, the question ultimately is, can people who see the plaint truth about Donald Trump and his attempt to subvert American democracy continue to support him?

Most of the comments along these lines never really are able to answer the question.  Indeed, we haven't here. That's because they all assume that most people are rational, and this is at least somewhat true, and that most people will yield to truth in the end, which is also somewhat true.  Indeed, droves of people have left the Republican Party and become independents.  However, and this is important, more than 1 million voters across 43 states switched to the Republican Party from 2021 to 2022, and that trend hasn't stopped. 

That is, while a lot of educated "country club" or middle class conservatives have abandoned the GOP, a lot of people are coming in.  And they're coming in during the current political atmosphere.

Which leads us to this.

What if it isn't the case, deep down, that populist Republicans, who now control the GOP, aren't aware that Donald Trump is lying about losing the election.  What if, at least deep down, and on some level, they know that he's lying.

What would that mean?

Well, what it would mean is that the disaffected class that intends to vote for a Rich Man north of Richmond while complaining about Rich Men North of Richmond have reached to the point where they no longer regard their class as legitimate, and therefore what they are doing and supporting as completely legitimate, because the other view doesn't count.

Consider this Facebook exchange I saw the other day: 

"I almost lost my Corvette and my cat!"

All reactions:

2222

27 comments

Like

Comment

Share

Their bullshit needs to end through constitional revolt.

Eh?

Or:

Office Hours: Why are Republican voters more willing to believe every sort of lie?

Tonight’s Republican debate and Trump’s discussion with Tucker are likely to be cesspools of lies, but lies don’t turn off Republican voters.

Maybe the first reply answers the second.

Maybe Republican voters aren't really willing to believe every sort of lie, or at least not in the way baffled pundits of all types are baffled by, myself included.

Maybe they know they're lies, but lies that seem, to them, to serve a greater truth, in their view.

And that's what is really scary.

The first comment, boxed in the way some people like to do with Facebook comments, refers to one of Joe Biden's endless blundering statements, which in this case related his bad experience with a house fire to what occured on Maui.  It was a really goofball thing to say.  But the fact of the matter is that there isn't anything Joe Biden says that populists don't hate, even things they would have fully supported if he hadn't said them. And that's because Biden, who started off a centrist, went to the center left, and then went fully to the left, is a representative of Democrats, whom the populists essentially see asn objectively evil.

This is almost impossible for main stream and conventional Americans to grasp, and even though in the populist movement who fairly clearly hold these views would be unwilling to usually admit them in this fashion, but all the signs are there.

Class reduction through objectification is an old and very established thing.

The Communist Parties of the world practiced this extensively.  They represented "the workers" or "the people". Their opponents were exploiters of the people, in their propaganda.  Ultimately, that meant that they could be killed in the millions, as they weren't really people.

The Nazis did this with the Jews, as well as with the Slavs.  Jews and Slavs were lessor, in their propaganda, although bizarrely they were also supposed to be a super crafty opponent.  Never mind that none of that was true or that any rational thinking would dispel such an absurdity, that's what they promoted and that's what the German people adopted, resulting in the death of millions.

Lesser fascist movements and near fascist movements held the same view of Communists, and to some extent Socialist, that the Nazi Party did, which hated Communists along with the Jews (and indeed generally assumed that all Communists were Jewish), and therefore felt perfectly justified in suppressing them to the point of death if necessary.  Of course, in many places, the Communists (who weren't majority Jewish by any means) felt the same way about right wing movements. At any rate, therefore, this produced severely repressing governments like that of the Italian fascists or Spanish Francoist, who nonetheless quite frankly enjoyed widespread popularity with large segments of their people.

And notable with all of these movements, they reduced their ideology, at the street level, to a single man.

The Nazis of course reduced it to Hitler.  Indeed, the Führerprinzip held that everything should "work towards the Führer.  People didn't really know what Hitler might want to do on any day to day level, but they generally could grasp it, and that was the thing to do.

Hitler in armor as "The Standard Bearer".  I doubt Hiter ever rode a horse, and certainly not one like this, but goofball uberheroic portraits of autocrats is an autocratic thing. Witness all the portraits of Trump as a Revolutionary War patriot when he was never in the service.

And the Italians did that with Mussolini, 

Typical portrait of Mussolini, focusing on his face with his jaw jutting out defiantly.  To most people, he looks like a jackass, but to true believers, this was his admired visage.

And the Reds in Russia did it twice, first with Lenin, and then with Stalin, before becoming sufficiently entrenched that later leaders didn't need a personality cult.

The PRC did it with Mao, and North Korea has done it with every single one of their leaders.

And all of this is highly instructive.

Reduced to a man, thinking over the complicated failed thesis that these movements put forth was unnecessary.  People didn't read Mein Kampf.  Most Russians at the time of the Revolution could barely read, and they weren't going to sit down a read a pamphlet by a British Library Butt Sitter.  Most Chinese weren't going to bother with Mao's Little Red Book.  People just figured that they weren't doing well, and it was somebody else's fault, and it seemed that the Communist, the Fascists, etc. ,had their back and grasped it, at least right up until the state came for them, or conscripted them, or confiscated everything they had.

Or, by way of another example, it may very well be the case that Southern secessionist grasped that blacks were in fact people and equal people at that.  Their actions clearly demonstrated, that, from entrusting their children to slaves for care to the Jeffersonian expedient to wifely succession.

In each of these instances, it should be noted, the supposed "difference" was emphasized as an excuse for acting with extreme bias towards the other group.  Nazis called their opponents Untermenschen, "below people".  American Southerners certainly portrayed blacks that way.

German propaganda poster, which appears to portray Soviet paratroopers as Untermensch.

Have you listed to the comments of populists?

Hearing random Republicans accuse Democrats of being Marxists and Socialists is common.  Republicans that don't toe the extreme right wing line are "RINOS" or Democrats, with that being said as if being a Democrat meant you were an Untermensch, which pretty much what is meant.  Even run of hte mill Republican conservatives in Congress, who at one time would have "disagreed with my distinguished colleagues" now hurl the invective "Democrat" or accuse somebody of "supporting Biden's radical. . . " as if there's any truth to the accusation.  It's pretty much the same thing as a Communist in Stalin's ear accusing somebody of harboring incorrect views, of a Nazi accusing somebody of being Jewish, or of a pre-1970 Southerner claiming that "somebody has a 'nigga' in the wood pile", without any credit being given, respectively, to 1) harboring different views isn't a criminal act, 2) being Jewish isn't either, and 3) having African American ancestry (which a huge number of Southerners do) isn't shameful, except for the compulsion that ancestry may indicate.

I fear we're here:

And if we are, that answer the question of why criminal activity doesn't phase some Trump supporters.

Now, this doesn't explain it all.  Some of it is the phenomenon of extreme frustration with having been long ignored.  Some of it is a long-running American belief in conspiracy theories.  Some of it is the disbelief that thing could have really gotten so astray, which would mean, in part, that we let them go so badly.  But not all of it, and not all populists.

The question is, therefore, how large is this group, and what does that mean?  If Trump takes the Oval Office a second time, it will be disastrous, although to what extent, cannot yet be told.