Lex Anteinternet: A deeply sick society.

Lex Anteinternet: A deeply sick society.: 

A deeply sick society.

We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honor and are shocked find traitors in our midsts.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.  

C.S. Lewis.

Let's start with a couple of basics.

You were born a man, or a woman.  We all were, and you can't change that.  If you are a man, no amount of surgery or drugs is going to make you bear life and bear all the consequences of the same, from hormonal storms on a monthly basis, to monthly blood loss, to a massive change of life, mid life.

Thinking that you can, and even wanting to makes you deeply mentally ill.

And a society that tolerates that attempt, is deeply sick.

An account I follow on Twitter notes the following:

22 years old Was 17 years old when Covid hitI wonder when he started going down the trans path

It's worth asking that question, and we'll touch on it in a moment. 

Part I.

Robert Westman,¹ who tried to be Robin Westman, but failed.  The photo alone shows you can't choose to be a woman if you are man, and that he was accordingly deeply mentally ill.  "You don’t need a weatherman. To know which way the wind blows"  Subterranean Homesick Blues by Bob Dylan.

Robert Westman, mentally ill young man, raged against the reality of life that had tolerated his perverted molestation of himself and lashed out against the existential nature that doomed his molestation to complete failure, and a deeply sick society now will wonder why.  Moreover, even his final act shows how deeply he failed in his effort. Women nearly never resort to mass violence in frustration.

That's a male thing.

And so we start, again by finding myself linking back to some old threads on this blog, unfortunately.  This was the first time I tackled this topic. 

Lex Anteinternet: Peculiarized violence and American society. Looki...: Because of the horrific senseless tragedy in Newton Connecticut, every pundit and commentator in the US is writing on the topic of what cau...

And I did again here:

Lex Anteinternet: You Heard It Here First: Peculiarized violence an...: (Note.  This is a post I thought I'd posted back in November.  Apparently not, I found it in my drafts, incomplete.  So I'm posting...

The first time was intended to be the magnum opus on this, and indeed it likely still is.  It's still worth reading:

Peculiarized violence and American society. Looking at root causes, and not instrumentalities.

And on that, I'm going right to this:

Who does these things?

It's pretty apparent that you could go to the average gun owner, and actually equip him with a machinegun, and he'd never do anything with it.  It's also apparent, from a recent mass killing in Casper Wyoming, that if you arm some people with medieval implements, they'll use them for murder.  That's correct; recently in Casper Wyoming, there was an event that fit this pattern that was committed with a bow and arrow and a large knife. Grisly, to be sure, but telling.  It isn't something new in the arms that's causing this, it's something new in the mind. But what?

I'm not qualified to be a psychologist at all, but I am trained to observe human behavior and to analyze it, and there are certain things that seem quite connected here, but which are ignored.  These are the things that need to be looked at prior to our doing anything, as the solutions are to be found here.

What we're seeing in many of these murders is that the killers are mentally unstable in a truly insane sense. The attempted assassin of a politician in the US seems to fit this category.  Others, and here's where the New York Times article is helpful, are not so much insane, but they fit into a category of people who, by some means, are subject to a personality disorder that renders them socially marooned, and it would seem, it renders them also incapable of empathy, but fully capable of despair.

Some of these individuals are quite smart. The recent killer in Newton Connecticut, apparently afflicted with Aspergers Disease, seems to fit this category.  The killer in the Denver theater shootings also very clearly had some sort of personality disorder and was very well educated and intelligent.  Others are not so smart, but a consistent strain of some sort of very pronounced personality disorder runs through these stories.  The killer in the Casper Wyoming murders was self-diagnosed with Aspergers, and based on his personal history, I suspect his self diagnosis was correct.

Does this mean that everyone who has these conditions is a time bomb waiting to go off?  Absolutely and clearly not.  And, if we assume (perhaps quite incorrectly, however) that incidents of these conditions are not increasing in frequency (which they very well may be), what that tells us is something else.  If we've always had people who have been so afflicted, but haven't had this particular set of problems, something else has changed. What could it be?

First, before moving on in this, however, what is it about these conditions that make them unique. That's important. What we know is that the conditions make these people socially awkward. In some cases, they divorce them of empathy.  That seems to be all the more to the conditions that we can discern, that's relevant here.  But, as the vast, vast, majority of people who have these conditions also have moral standards, and usually go on to live fully productive lives, it tells us something is also wrong at the societal level, and not as much the individual one.

And also this:

Maybe the standard was destroyed

There's been a lot of commentary the last few years about the lack of prayer in school, and as recently noted on the Ramblings of a Teacher blog, there's been an email and Facebook item circulating that promotes the return of daily prayer to public schools.  Like the author of that blog, I think that idea misses the mark.

What I do think, however, is that we've seen an evolution from a loosely recognized general standard, which was frankly religion based, into the concept of "tolerance" for other ideas, which has now slipped into complete moral relativism that lacks any standards at all.

This is, I think, fairly demonstrable by history and the result isn't good.  A brief look at that history is instructive.

This is not to suggest that the country had a uniform Christian history and that this suddenly fell apart recently, that wouldn't be true.  And it wouldn't even be true to maintain that the country has been uniformly religiously observant throughout its history.  What would be true, however, is that a loose set of Christian standards was generally recognized, even by those who were not religious, or even a-religious, and even though the degree to which people closely identified with religion has changed varied enormously over the country's history.

Early in the nation's history the country was almost uniformly Protestant, although there was more than one Protestant church that was present in the country, and the doctrinal differences between them were in some instances quite pronounced.  It would be false to claim that they all had the same theological concepts, and indeed some of them had radically different theologies.  Indeed, even those several Protestant faiths that were present in North America had acted to strongly repress each other here, on occasion, and had been involved in some instances in open warfare in the British Isles..  Catholics, and Jews, were largely absent from the early history of the country, except with Catholics nervously present in some very concentrated regions.  The Catholic presence in the country really became pronounced first in the 1840s, as a result of the revolutions in Europe and the Irish Famine.  This actually created huge concern amongst the Protestant sections of the county, who were often very anti Catholic.  This started to wane during the Civil War, however.  Jewish immigrants came in throughout the 19th Century, some from Europe in chief, but many from Imperial Russia, where they sought to escape Russian programs.

The purpose of this is not to do a treatise on religion in the United States, which would be a massive work and which, at this point, would pretty much cease to be illustrative of anything relevant to this discussion, but rather to note something else.  Even though the degree to which the American population was adherent and observant of their Faiths, and even though the country has had, at various points, very strong doctrinal differences in the population, to the extent that it impacted public policy, the country had a culture that loosely recognized a very loose set of Christian principals as social principals.

This was so much the case that everyone, even members of non-Christian faiths, and even those who were members of no faiths at all, recognized what the standards were.  Interestingly, up until quite recently, people who chose to ignore those standards, and in any one era there are plenty of people who do, often recognized that they were breaching the standard and sometimes even that doing so was wrong.  To use a non-violent example, people generally recognized that cheating on a spouse was wrong, even if they did it.  Most people were a little queasy about divorce even if they divorced and remarried.  Nearly everyone regarded cohabitation out of wedlock as morally wrong, even if they did not attend a church.  Sex outside of marriage was generally regarded as wrong, and indeed even the entertainment industry used that fact as part of the risque allure when they depicted that scenario.

The point of this isn't to suggest that various topics regarding marriage and non marriage are somehow related to this topic. Rather, the point is to show that there was more of a concept of such things at work in society, and that's just an easy one to pick up on, as the changes in regards to it have been quite pronounced.  But, if the argument isn't to be extremely strained and fall flat, other examples would have to be given.  So, what we'd generally note is that there were a set of behavior and social standards that existed, and they generally seem to have a root in the "Protestant" ethic.  I'll note here that I'm not claiming this as a personal heritage of mine, as I'm not a Protestant. Simply, rather, it's been widely noted that this ethic has a long running history in the US, and North American in general, and has impacted the nation's view on many things.  These include, I'd note, the need to work and the value of work, and the relationship of the individual to society, all of which have greatly changed in recent decades. Again, I'm not seeking to campaign on this, merely observing that it seems to have happened. This is not a "Tea Party" argument, or direction towards one political thesis or another.

The point of this is that, even though there were multiple Faiths, and people of no faith, there was a general concept of a set of standards that were almost universally accepted and they had roots that went way back into the country's early history..  Included in that set of beliefs was that you didn't harm others.  It isn't that people didn't do it, it's that they knew it was wrong to do it.

Starting in the 1960s, however, American society really began to break a global set of standards down.  The concept of "tolerance" came in. Tolerance means to tolerate, not to accept, but over time the two became confused, and it became the American ideal to accept everything.  Even people with strong moral beliefs were told that they must accept behavior that was previously regarded as morally wrong, or even illegal in some places. There are many present examples of this that a person could point to.  The point here is not that toleration is bad, but rather that confusing tolerance with acceptance, and following that a feeling that acceptance must be mute, probably isn't good.  Toleration sort of presupposes the existence of a general standard, or at least that people can debate it.  If they can't openly debate it, that' probably is not a good thing.  If self declared standards must be accepted, rather than subject to debate, all standards become fairly meaningless as a result.

The overall negative effect this has on a society would also be a major treatise in its own right and I'm not qualified to write it..  Most cultures do not experience this, as most are not as diverse as ours. Whether any society can in fact endure an existence without standards is open to question,  and the very few previous examples that creep up on that topic are not happy ones.  It is clear that most people do in fact continue to retain  bits and pieces of the old standard, and perhaps most people are very highly analogous to our predecessors who lived in eras when standards were very generally held, and there were decades of American history that were just like that.  But for some people, who are otherwise self-focused, and with problems relating to other people, the weak nature of the standard is now potentially a problem.  Unable to relate, and in a society that teaches that there are no standards, they only standards they have are self learned, in a self isolation.

But what are they learning then, and how?

No place to go, and the lessons of the basement and entertainment.

Standards were taught, first in school, and then in the workplace  And, frankly they still are.  That's quite a burden on both, however, as a society that otherwise has such loose standards is asking an awful lot of the school and the workplace.  Truth be known, there was never an era when schools were really expected to impart a standard, it was assumed that kids came into school with one and that some re-enforcment could be done there.  Asking schools to impart a moral code is a pretty tall order,, and pretty darned unreasonable to expect.  It's even more unreasonable for the workplace to do so, so no standards are going to be taught there, save by individuals through their own examples.  But is there even a workplace to go to? 

There is a school to go to, that much we've made clear.  And as evident, I'm not keen on the trend in some quarters to blame schools.  I doubt very much that the average public school of 1912 was teaching a lot more in the way of a set of standards than the school of 2012.  Kids came into school with one, and as noted, it was re-enforced.  And I'm not keen on expecting schools to teach what parents and society simply earlier did.  I don't even know if that's possible, but it doesn't seem really reasonable.   At any rate, what about after school? That is, after graduation?  What do people graduate into?

I've analyzed that here from time to time, and need to do so more as it related to the changes in society topics I've addressed from time to time, but this is a critical aspect, I suspect, of this overall topic that's been missed.

The recent killer in Casper Wyoming was very intelligent and highly educated, but his lack of an ability to interact meant he couldn't find work. School, didn't fail him.  Something else did.  The killer in Newton was an adult, and he seems to have been fairly intelligent but with severe personality problems.  The killer in Colorado was also very intelligent, but was dropping out of school.  All of this is reflective, to a degree, of modern American economics

Since World War Two we've gone from a manufacturing society to a consumption society. And in doing that, we've sent a lot of manufacturing overseas.  What on earth, you'd be justified in asking, does that have to do with this?  Here's what.  It has completely changed the nature of available American jobs.

Prior to World War Two less than 50% of the American population graduated from high school.  This wasn't seen as a  problem really, as at least the males departing from school had jobs they could generally enter, save for period of economic distress.  And many of the jobs provided for life long careers.  Machinist jobs, for example, and heavy manufacturing jobs, did not require a high school education and they did provide a solid middle class career.  There were a lot of analogous employments.  Indeed, it wasn't until after World War Two that anywhere near the current number of Americans, or Canadians, or Europeans, went on to advanced education

Most of the men who entered these careers were average men, the same guys who take up most jobs today in any one field, but a few of them were not.  There were always a certain percentage of highly intelligent people with bad social skills who were not capable of relating to others who could find meaningful productive work where their talents for detail were applied in a meaningful way.  There were also places for individuals like that on farms and fields.  And in retail, indeed in retail shops they owned themselves.  Even as a kid I can remember a few retail shops owned by people who had next to no social skills, but who were talented in detail work.  The Army and Navy also took a percentage of people who otherwise just couldn't get along, often allowing them to have a career path, even if just at the entry level, which allowed them to retire in 20 or 30 years.

Now, this is all gone.  We live in the age of certification, and that promotes college education for some who are not well suited for the careers that they're studying, and it encourages certification of everything, which requires some social skills. Now even a college degree does not guaranty employment, and worse yet some level of social skills are necessary for most people with a college degree.  This means that some of the class of people we've been discussing are dangerously marooned.  They can get an education, but they have a very hard time doing anything with it. And that leaves them at home, bitter, and highly educated.

So what do they do with their time?

As noted, there was once an era when even the severely socially disabled generally worked.  People didn't know not to encourage them to work and having to work was presumed as a given.  Not all work is pleasant by any means, but the irony of this is that many of these people were well suited for fairly meaningful work.  Some men silently operated machine tools day after day in a setting that required a lot of intelligence, but not very much interaction.  Others worked in labs. Some on rail lines, and so on. This isn't to say that everyone who had these jobs fit into this category, which would be absolutely false.  But my guess is that some did.  And some ended up as career privates in the Army, a category that no longer exists, or similar such roles.  They had meaningful work, and that work was a career and a focus.

Now, for some of these individuals, this is all gone. The expectation of work probably isn't, but the ability may very well seem to be. So what do they do?

One thing it seems that they do with their time is to play a lot of video games, or computer games, and a lot of those games are highly male oriented, and highly violence oriented.  Quite frankly, by all appearances, they appear to be highly sexualized as well.

This is one aspect of this situation that is completely new.  Violence isn't new, and the implements aren't new, but this type of cartoon active violent entertainment is.

Violent works of literature have existed forever.  Beowulf, for example, is pretty darned violent.  The Nibelungenlied is awash in blood and gore. The Iceland sagas are pretty darned violent.  But they're all written. And the written word is just a tiny evolution of the spoken word.  Both seem to serve the function of redecoration and entertainment, but neither seem to lodge in the brain in a way that comes out as "I'd like to replicate that".  Indeed, to a degree they seem related to the function of play, in which humans replicate certain scenarios as unconscious rehearsal for what we'd do in similar situations.  In other words, to use the Beowulf example, "if confronted by hideous evil I will. . . ."

Visual images seem to be different to us, as a species.  This seems, therefore, to dull us to what we see, or to actually encourage us to excess.  It's been interesting to note, in this context, how sex and violence have had to be increasingly graphic in their portrayals in order to even get noticed by their viewers.  In terms of films, even violent situations were not very graphically portrayed in film up until the 1960s. The first film to really graphically portray, indeed exaggerate, violence was Sam Peckinpah's The Wild Bunch.  Peckinpah used violence in that film to attempt to expose Americans to what he perceived, at that time, as a warped love of criminal violence and criminals, but the nature of our perception largely defeated his intent.  At the time, the film was criticized for being so violent, but now the violence is celebrated.  In that way, Peckinpah ended up becoming the unwitting and unwilling equivalent, in regard to violence, to what Hugh Hefner became intentionally in terms of pornography.  Ever since, violence has become more and more graphic and extreme, just to get our attention.  Likewise, Hefner's entry into glamorizing and mainstreaming pornography starting in the 1950s ended up creating a situation in which what would have been regarded as pornography at that time is now fairly routine in all sorts of common portrayals.

Recently, due to video games and computer games, both of these items, sex and violence, have crossed over from film into a type of hyperactive concentrated sophisticated cartoon portrayal.  Video games have popularized the concept of over muscled, hyperactive, amoral violent men, whose glory is their violence.  Their reward very often is an over endowed cartoonish female.  Neither portrayal is realistic in anything that it seeks to portray.

So, then, certain people are left with no work, and no socialization.  In a prior era, these people fit in, even if they were awkward themselves. Their work was valued and on Friday night, when pay came, they were dragged along to the local bar, the Union Hall, or the Enlisted Man's Club, even if they had little to say and were work oriented.  More than a few probably found a family that way.  Others never did, but their work and workers became a sort of family

Now, they're in the basement watching a make believe world glamorizing violence with M4 carbines which seems to offer them hero status and sex.  

This, I would note, rolls us back around to the analysis that this sort of violence and the Arab suicide bomber are committed by the same type of people.  Youth unemployment in the Middle East is massive.  Those societies have a set of standards, to be sure, but they're under internal attack, with one group arguing for standards that only apply to the group itself.  And violence has been massively glamorized in the region, with the promised reward for it being highly sensual in nature.  In other words, out of a population of unemployed young men, with no prospects, and very little in the way of learned standards, recruiting those with narcissistic violent tendencies should not be very difficult.  The difference between there and here is that there, those with a political agenda can recruit these disaffected misguided youths with promises of the reward of 70 virgins, while here we're recruiting them through bombardment by violent entertainment. 

All of that is still valid, and in particular, I think, we need to consider again:

I've analyzed that here from time to time, and need to do so more as it related to the changes in society topics I've addressed from time to time, but this is a critical aspect, I suspect, of this overall topic that's been missed.

The recent killer in Casper Wyoming was very intelligent and highly educated, but his lack of an ability to interact meant he couldn't find work. School, didn't fail him.  Something else did.  The killer in Newton was an adult, and he seems to have been fairly intelligent but with severe personality problems.  The killer in Colorado was also very intelligent, but was dropping out of school.  All of this is reflective, to a degree, of modern American economics

Since World War Two we've gone from a manufacturing society to a consumption society. And in doing that, we've sent a lot of manufacturing overseas.  What on earth, you'd be justified in asking, does that have to do with this?  Here's what.  It has completely changed the nature of available American jobs.

Prior to World War Two less than 50% of the American population graduated from high school.  This wasn't seen as a  problem really, as at least the males departing from school had jobs they could generally enter, save for period of economic distress.  And many of the jobs provided for life long careers.  Machinist jobs, for example, and heavy manufacturing jobs, did not require a high school education and they did provide a solid middle class career.  There were a lot of analogous employments.  Indeed, it wasn't until after World War Two that anywhere near the current number of Americans, or Canadians, or Europeans, went on to advanced education

Most of the men who entered these careers were average men, the same guys who take up most jobs today in any one field, but a few of them were not.  There were always a certain percentage of highly intelligent people with bad social skills who were not capable of relating to others who could find meaningful productive work where their talents for detail were applied in a meaningful way.  There were also places for individuals like that on farms and fields.  And in retail, indeed in retail shops they owned themselves.  Even as a kid I can remember a few retail shops owned by people who had next to no social skills, but who were talented in detail work.  The Army and Navy also took a percentage of people who otherwise just couldn't get along, often allowing them to have a career path, even if just at the entry level, which allowed them to retire in 20 or 30 years.

Now, this is all gone.  We live in the age of certification, and that promotes college education for some who are not well suited for the careers that they're studying, and it encourages certification of everything, which requires some social skills. Now even a college degree does not guaranty employment, and worse yet some level of social skills are necessary for most people with a college degree.  This means that some of the class of people we've been discussing are dangerously marooned.  They can get an education, but they have a very hard time doing anything with it. And that leaves them at home, bitter, and highly educated.

Over the coming days and weeks pundits will ponder this event, and mostly spout out blather.  The explanation here may have deeply disturbing aspects to it, but the underlying root of it is not that complicated.  Robert Westman fell into the trap that ensnares some of the young in our society and hoped to completely change his nature by changing the outward morphology of his nature.  He was mentally ill.

A just society treats compassionately the mentally ill.

We do not live in a just society.

By and large, we just turn the mentally ill out into the street to allow their afflictions to grow worse until those afflictions kill them. Go to any big city and you'll see the deranged and deeply addicted out in the street.  This is not a kindness.

Gender Dysphoria is a different type of mental illness, but that's what it is.²

And its deeply delusional.

To put it bluntly to the point of being crude, no man, no matter what they attempt to do, is going to bear children and have the risk of bearing children, bleed monthly, and be subject to the hormonal storms that real women are subject to.  And, frankly, men generally become subject to some, if varying, degrees of drives that are constant and relenting, and never abate.³ 

No woman, no matter what she attempts to do, is going to hit a certain age in their teens have their minds turn to women almost constantly, as men do, in a way that women do not understand, and frankly do not experience the opposite of themselves. 

Indeed, no man really wants to be a woman, or vice versa.  What those engaging in an attempt to pass through a gender barrier seek is something else, and what that more often than not in the case of men likely is to drop out of the heavy male burdens in an age in which it increasingly difficult to meet them.  In spite of everything in the modern world, women remain conceived of as more protected, and therefore not as subject to failure for not meeting societal expectations.

Being a man has never been easy.

In the days of my youth, I was told what it means to be a man

And now I've reached that age

I've tried to do all those things the best I can

No matter how I try, I find my way into the same old jam

Good Times, Bad Times, by Led Zeppelin.

I don't think lectures on what it means to be a man occur anymore.  I  know that I've never delivered one, but I didn't need one to be delivered either.  The examples were clearly around me, including all the duties that entailed.  We knew, growing up, that good men didn't abandon their families, and provided for their families, and were expected to protect women to the point of their own deaths.  Women weren't expected to protect men, at all.

Some men have always sought to escape their obligations, of course, and we all know or new those who did.  Most aged into disrepute over time.  Others got their acts together.  

You can’t be a man at night if you are a boy all day long.

Rev. Wellington Boone.

And some have always descended into madness.  But society didn't tolerate it, and it shouldn't have to.

So what do we know about Westman?

Not that much, but what we do know is revealing:

• He killed himself after his cowardly murders.
• He'd developed an inclination towards violence.⁴
• He once attended the Catholic school whose students he attacked,  leaving in 2017 at the end of Middle School.
• He started identifying as a female in 2019, age 17, and his mother signed the petition to change his name.⁵
• After middle school attended a charter school and then the all-boys school, Saint Thomas Academy, which is a Catholic military school. ⁶
• An uncle said he barely knew him.⁷
• His parents were divorced when he was 13.
• He worked at a cannabis dispensary, but was a poor employee.⁸

What can we tell from this?

Maybe nothing at all, but the keys are that in spite of they're being Catholic, his parents divorced, and his mother thereafter tolerated to some degree his drift into delusion, while at the same time there's evidence they were trying to correct it.  After school, he drifted into drugs, which is what marijuana is.

Blame the parents?  Well, that would be too simple.  But societal tolerance of divorce and transgender delusion is fostering all sorts of societal ills.

It's notable that he struck out at a childhood school.  That may be all the more his violence relates, but probably not.  His mother had worked there.  He was likely striking out at her too.  And he was striking out an institution that doesn't accept that you can change your existential nature, because you cannot.  He likely was fully aware of that, which is why he acted out with rage at it, and then killed himself.

There may, frankly, be an added element to this, although only recently have people in the secular world, such as Ezra Klein, began to discuss it.  Westman may have been possessed.

Members of the American Civil Religion don't like to discuss this at all, and frankly many conventional Christians do not either.  Atheist and near atheist won't acknowledge it all, of course.  But Westman's flirting with perverting nature may have frankly lead him into a really dark place, and not just in the conventional sense.

Part 2. What should we do?

Well, what will be done is nothing.  Something should, however, be done.

The topic of gun control will come up, which brings us back to this:

You Heard It Here First: Peculiarized violence and American society. It Wasn't The Guns That Changed, We Changed (a post that does and doesn't go where you think it is)

We're going to hear, from more educated quarters defending the Second Amendment, that firearms have not really changed all that much over the years, society has. This is completely true.

But we're at the point now that we need to acknowledge that society has changed.  And that means a real effort to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally ill needs to be undertaken.

When the Constitution was written, Americans were overwhelmingly rural.  Agrarianism was the norm everywhere.  People generally lived in a family dwelling that included everyone from infants to the elderly.  Normally the entire community in which a person lived was of one religion, and everyone participated in religious life to some degree.  Even communities that had more than one religion represented, still had everyone being members of a faith.  Divorce was not at all common, and in certain communities not tolerated whatsoever.⁹ 

Westman was mentally ill.  Transgenderism is a mental illness. He was a drug user.  Cannabis is a drug.

In 1789 the mentally ill, if incapable of functioning, would have been taken care of at home by their families.  Transgenderism would not have been conceived of and not tolerated.  Alcohol was in heavy use.  Marijuana was not.  The plethora of narcotics now in circulation were not conceived of.

Yes, this will sound extreme. Am I saying that because a tiny number of transgendered might resort to violence they shouldn't own guns?  Yes, maybe in a society that simply chooses to tolerate mental illness, that's what I'm saying, although it also strikes me that the people who have gone down this deluded path might be amongst those most needing firearms for self protection. So, not really.  I am saying that attention needs to be focused on their mental state.

Am I saying that marijuana users shouldn't own guns?  Yes, that is also what I'm saying, along with other chronic users of drugs, legal and illegal.

And as we choose to simply ignore mental illness, perhaps the time has come to see if a would be gun owners is mentally stable and societally responsible before allowing them to own guns.  People in chronic debt, with violent behavior, with unacknowledged children in need shouldn't be owning firearms.

Of note, at the time the Second Amendment was written, none of these things was easily tolerated.

Part 3. Getting more extreme.

Knowing that none of this will occur, I'll go there anyhow.

Societal tolerance of some species of mental illness should just end. There shouldn't be homeless drug addicts on the street and gender reassignment surgery and drugs should be flat out illegal.

For that matter, in the nature of extreme, plastic surgery for cosmetic reasons should be banned.  Your nose and boobs are fine the way they are, leave them alone.

No fault divorce should end, and for that matter people who have children should be deemed married by the state, with all the duties that implies.  Multiple children by multiple partners should be regarded as engaging in polygamy, which should still be regarded as illegal.

Love between man and woman cannot be built without sacrifices and self-denial. It is the duty of every man to uphold the dignity of every woman.

St. John Paul II.

Yes, that's rough.

Life is tough for all of us.  Ignoring that fact makes it harder on all of  us.

Part 4. Doesn't this all play into Dementia Don and his Sycophantic Twatwaffles?

Unfortunately, it does.  I fear that this may prove to be the Trump Administration's Reichstag moment.

Indeed, this event is like a gift to people like Stephen Miller who will now assert that this came about due to the liberal policies of Minneapolis, and moreover, as proof that outright attacks on transgendered are needed, the same way the Nazis asserted that dictatorship was necessary in Germany after the Reichstag fire.

Isn't that what' I'm stating?

I am not.

I think we need to address mental illness as a mental illness, and do what we can to treat it.  And rather obviously, what I've stated above doesn't square with Second Amendment hardcore advocates.

And as part of that, we need to get back to acknowledging that the mentally ill are mentally ill, rather than "tolerating" it.  

And we need to quite tolerating "personal freedom" over societal protection, right down to the relationship level.  A married couple produced this kid.  Once they did that, they were in it, and the marriage, for life.  That included the duty not to make dumb ass decisions for their child, like changing Robert's name to Robin.

Part 5.  What will happen?

Absolutely nothing.

People on the right will argue its not the guns, it's the sick society.  People on the left will argue that the society isn't sick, except for the guns, and the guns are all of the problem.

Nothing, therefore, will occur.

Well, maybe.

If anything occurs, it'll be that Dementia Don will use it as an excuse to send the National Guard into Minneapolis.

Footnotes

1.  His name was Robert, not "Robin". The free use of female names for men afflicted by this condition and the press use of "she" for what is properly he, is part of the problem.

2  By gender confusion, I"m referring to Gender Dysphoria, or whatever people are calling it, not homosexuality.  Homosexuals don't fit into this discussion at all.  For one thing, homosexuals are not confused about what gender they are.

3.  This does not advocate for license, although some men argue that it does.  Inclinations are not a pass for immorality.

Anyhow, I'd note that even honest men in cebate professions acknowledge this.  Fr. Joseph Krupp, the podcaster, frequently notes having a crush, for example, on Rachel Weisz.

4.  Again, some women grow violent, but its a minority and, when it occurs, tends to be accompanied by something else.  There are exceptions.

5. I don't know all of the details of his personal life, of course, but that was inexcusable on his mother's part.  I'll note, however, that by this time his parents were divorced and no woman is capable of raising children completely on her own.  Again, I don't know what was going on, but this screams either extreme "progressive" views, or a mostly absent father, or extreme fatigue.

6.  I didn't even know that there were Catholic military schools.  

Military schools have always been institutions for troubled boys, and this suggests that there was an attempt to put him in a masculine atmosphere and hopefully straighten him out. The school had both a religious base and a military nature.  Both of his parents must have participated in this.

7. The modern world fully at work.  People move for work, careers, etc., with the result that nuclear families basically explode, nuclear bomb style.  People more and more are raised in families that are the immediate parental unit, or just one parent, that start to disintegrate the moment children turn 18.  This is not natural, and is part of the problem.

8.  I don't know of course, but I'd guess that in order to be a poor employee at a cannabis dispensary, you have to be a really poor employee. There are bars with bartenders who don't drink, but I bet there aren't any dispensaries with employees that aren't using.

The impacts of marijuana use are very poorly understood, but as it becomes more and more legal, that there are negative psychological impacts for long term and chronic use is pretty clear.

9.  Contrary to widespread belief, not only Catholicism prohibits divorce.  The Anglican Communion does not either, and at that time particularly did not tolerate it.  Divorce occurred, but it was not common.

Also, and we've touched on it before, the United States at the time of its founding was a Christian nation.  It was a Protestant Christian nation, but a Christian nation.  Protestants of the 19th Century would not recognize many Protestant denominations today at all, even if they are theoretically the same.  A 1790s Episcopalian, for example, would be horrified by many Episcopalian congregations today.  In contrast, a Catholic or Orthodox person would find the churches pretty recognizable, save for the languages used for services.

Lex Anteinternet: Some Grim Predications

Lex Anteinternet: Some Grim Predications: 

Some Grim Predications

“I wish it need not have happened in my time," said Frodo.

"So do I," said Gandalf, "and so do all who live to see such times. But that is not for them to decide. All we have to decide is what to do with the time that is given us.”

J.R.R. Tolkien, The Fellowship of the Ring

I still think that Vance will be President within 18 months of the inauguration.  Trump's clearly a demented, unhinged, fool who always had a defective narcissistic personality made worse by his declining mental status.  It's really impossible to ignore at this point, although the damage he does will be lasting.  Vance can't act immediately, as Trump put in sycophants and lackeys in his cabinet, but it's increasingly clear to non Maga Republicans that Trump's unhinged.  

Indeed, Vance acting quicker than 18 months, maybe even with in the first six months, is becoming an increasing likelihood. The nation will breath a sigh of relief no matter what Vance is like, as he isn't Trump, and by that time all the dirty work of firing government employees will have been done.

But I also think I can, at this point, see some other things happening with a high degree of probability, all of which depend to some degree on what Vance ultimately does, that will result from his administration, or occur during it. Some will surprise his supporters.  Here's what I think we're going to see, which the assumption being we're within the 18 month window, or perhaps that I'm wrong on that.  Indeed, if I'm wrong, the likelihood of these predictions goes up.

Note that predicting these events isn't the same as cheering them on, or hoping for them, or even remotely wishing for them. What I hope and pray is that God deliver the United States and grant to it what is his will.  I don't wish harm or disaster on anyone.  I think, at the end of the day, that Donald Trump is a demented old fool who deserves pity,  the nation that has chosen him as the Chief Executive is suffering from a sort of foolish dementia itself, and that all the proof that ever needs to be given on why people shouldn't be allowed to get massively rich has been given.

70% Chance

How solitary sits the city, 

once filled with people.

She who was great among the nations

is now like a widow.

Once a princess among the provinces,

now a toiling slave.

 Lamentations.

I'd give the following about a 70% chance of occurring.

Get ready for massive gun control (and worse).

Symbol of the Freedom Caucus, um, Nazi Germany's Sturmabteilung.

Eh?  With the NRA in Donny's pocket.

Yep.

The reason for this is pretty obvious.  Trump has no natural affinity for firearms, although apparently his son Eric does.  Trump's love for the NRA was because they loved him more than they loved their country, or anything else.  The NRA was and is his tool.  The NRA can thank Wayne LaPierre's leadership for that.*

But we're about to see some massive violence in American society, which gets to a couple of other predictions

Mass shootings, and by that I mean real ones, not ones where five people are shot up in a gang fight, are probably likely to break out here soon on an increased scale.  Political violence is about to occur.  You can't release 1,000 Brownshirts into society and not have violence break out and you can't routinely insult up to half the nation before somebody gets mad.

And sooner or later, some of that is going to be directed at Trump himself.

Of course, it already has. There's been two attempted assassinations of Trump already.  That's not going to stop, it will occur again.  

I'm not wishing that on him, or anyone else, but only a fool could deny that it might occur, or indeed that it will occur.  The level of tension is too high in the country for this not to start playing out, and Trump is making it worse on a daily basis.

The last President this hated was Abraham Lincoln, who was perhaps ironically hated by the same people who are MAGA today.  That's the last time the country was this divided, and that division resulted in John Wilkes Booth killing Lincoln.  Trump isn't comparable to Lincoln in any fashion, his own demented imagination aside, except for the level of hatred they both engender, and interestingly from the same classes.  It was probably nearly inevitable that somebody would take a shot at Lincoln, and it likely is the same in regard to Trump.

And frankly, like Booth going after Lincoln, the general trends fit the pattern, as do the sorts of personalities involved.

Leon Czolgosz

Leon Czolgosz killed William McKinley, whom Trump suddenly discovered, as Czolgosz was an angry unemployed anarchist and a member of a despised minority.  

We're about to see a dip in the economy, which I'd guess will be a massive recession, and there are going to be a lot of angry unemployed around.  For that matter, there are about to be a bunch of angry unemployed former Federal (and State) employees and we seemingly have a problem with angry semi employed veterans around right now.

Charles Whitman. . . he doesn't look like an unhinged killer, does he?

An angry radicalized veteran is what Lee Harvey Oswald was.  Charles Whitman was also a veteran. Indeed, they'd both been Marines. The country has spent the last several decades absolutely idolizing veterans to the point where we've seen at least three mass killing performed by them and barely took notice of that fact.  With the war in Afghanistan causing thousands of head injuries and a devotion to servicemen that's so profound that we excused their refusal to get vaccinated and have ignored service member presence at the January 6 insurrection, we're really setting ourselves up, something that's been amplified by the AR15 Effect.

And we're also in the process of making entire foreign and ethnic populations angry.  Palestinians who naively hoped for a less pro Israel administration now have a kook who proposes to take over Gaza and make it into a sort of Club Med.  Canadians openly boo the Star Spangled Banner at sporting events now every time they're held.  A hockey game in Montreal this past week showed at least one American hockey player nearly in tears.  The United States is experiencing a level of contempt not leveled at it since the height of the Cold War, when Communists nations and their fellow travelers displayed it.  And Trump has made vague threats against Iran, which has never had a problem with murdering people.

Shirhan Sirhan.

Sirhan Bishara Sirhan was a Palestinian who had formerly adored Bobby Kennedy, we might wish to remember.  The current goofball Secretary of Health and Human Services' father was running for the Presidency at the time he was murdered for his support of Israel.  That was at a time when the Muslim population of the United States, and the immigrant Middle Eastern population, was quite small in comparison to what it is today.  And Kennedy hadn't betrayed the misbegotten trust of an Islamic population the way Trump has.  Nor did Kennedy accuse anyone of eating cats and dogs, or create an environment in which Native Americans now carry their IDs out of fear of being expelled from their own country for looking too brown.

Truman's would be killers were members of the Puerto Rican Nationalist Party, and we don't even usually think of the Puerto Ricans being all that angry.

Funny, by the way, with all the talk of adding a state, Trump doesn't mention Puerto Rico. . . I wonder why that is?

And added to that, Trump's targeted Mexican drug cartels.  For years some have been convinced that John F. Kennedy was "Paddy Wacked" by the Mafia or by Irish American mobsters working for the Mafia.  It seems to lack any real credibility, but if the mob had reasons to go after Kennedy, whose father had connections with bootleggers, who was going after them, surely the Mexican mobs have just as great of incentive, and frankly are much more violent.

Finally, and one that is admittedly unlikely, there are growing rumblings about a military strike on Trump.

Just the other day I saw an officer post an item which, while veiled, clearly argued that his fellow officers needed to be prepared to disobey illegal orders, basically like the members of the U.S. Attorney's Office in New York just did.  Okay, that's one thing. But then this past week I saw outright cries, from civilians, that the military oath to protect the country from foreign and domestic enemies applies to Trump, as he's a domestic, and maybe, a foreign enemy.

He may in fact be a foreign enemy, I'd note.  We've raised it here before, but now Time's raising it.

It is perfectly possible that Trump is a knowing Russian agent, in which case there's some sort of duty for somebody to do something, if not actually what's being urged.  On this we might note that the Army kept the Venona Files for decades before anyone knew it, and didn't really trust Franklin Roosevelt to know the truth about what was in it.  The Venona Files revealed that the U.S. Army was aware that people like Alger Hiss were Soviet spies, they just didn't feel they could get any traction on it, and for that matter Whitaker  Chamber's efforts to enlighted FDR outright failed.  The point is that the service, if Trump is a paid or compromised Russian agent, may very well know it, but be afraid at this point to act on it.  I wouldn't blame them for being afraid.

But, if that's the case, and of course we don't know that it is, it's worth noting that officers will act independently if they feel they have no choice or are obligated to.  That's what nearly caused the US and the USSR to nearly go to war over Berlin.  The officer in charge lacked clear instructions and was headed to war with the Soviets on one occasion when JFK was President before the clear instructions came in.  If the Service is stilling around with information that Trump is simply a Russian tool, and to an outside observer there's plenty of circumstantial evidence that he may very well be, it's not impossible that the service, or the CIA, might actually act.

Of course, the fact that Trump is still living is pretty good evidence that neither the military or the CIA actually have anything of this type on him or he'd already be dead.  If they had something, they probably would have done something by now.

On this topic, however, we might recall France.

France's politics became enormously polarized before World War Two, much like are own are, right now.  World War Two made the French far right ascendant.  Petain would have recognized the Project 2025 crowd pretty easily.  The Second World War put the French far right sort of in the trash can, from which its never emerged, but French politics didn't return to normal for decades.  One of the thing that occured in that context is that France fought two bitter colonial wars, one in Indochina and another in Algeria, in the decade following the Second World War.

DeGaulle's decision to pull out of Algeria lead to an internal anti DeGaulle movement inside of the French Army itself, the Organisation armée secrète.  The OAS not only opposed DeGaulle's decision to leave Algeria, it tried to kill him numerous times.  One such fictional attempt is the plot of the excellent book Day of the Jackal, which has been made into a movie twice.

The OAS was bitter about leaving Algeria, and not really happy about what happened in Indochina.  Of course, Algeria was an overseas department of France, so giving it up is sort of loosely analogous to leaving American Samoa or perhaps Puerto Rico, so the analay is strained.

Having said that, it was Donald Trump, not Joe Biden, who surrendered to the Taliban, something that Trump's deluded followers were easily distracted from, including those followers who served in Afghanistan.  But the fact remains we shed blood and then left, and now have a large population of veterans who served there.

And Trump is imperiling our relationship with Taiwan.  "Losing" China in the 1940s, is what caused the Republican Party of that era to be shaken out of its foreign policy slumber and lead directly to the McCarthy Era, which saw the first expressions of something resembling what we're now seeing, point being, if we "lose" Taiwan, it's going to shake something up.

And Trump's course seems likely to lead us from withdrawing to an 85 year commitment to the security of Europe.

None of this means a military coup or an internal strike on the Presidency is going to  happen, but all of it does put the overall violent situation that Trump has fostered into a very strange position.  Men who have spent 30 years dedicated to defending the West might not really take it that well if they're told to cozy up to a side they know to be the enemy.

What would happen if the military actually acted in this fashion?  I think we'd see far right riots for about a week, and that's about it.  Most of the far right is a pack of paper tigers.  Faced with a military action, or an action by a limited number of servicemen, they'll just accept it as the right thing to do and claim they were for it all along.

Back to civilian actors.

If all this seems far fetched, I've already seen two barely veiled calls for assassination on Blue Sky or Twitter.  People outright hoping somebody will kill Trump.  During the Super Bowl I heard several people either outright note what an assassination opportunity it was, or in the words of one person "what a John Wilkes Booth moment."

So where does this lead, if it happens?

If Trump survives the next attempt, he'll slap down an executive order banning wide classes of long arms and handguns, as well as orders massively curtailing civil liberties.  My guess is that most semi automatic long arms will be outright banned.  If Trump asks Congress to do it, the Democrats are already all in, and the dog like GOP will do exactly what Trump wants.  He'll probably simply ban handguns as well.

And, as noted, he'll curtail civil liberties.  In that sense, such a thing would be a gift to him.

And there's a good chance he'll do that when the next big mass shooting occurs.  It's probably already being worked out.

And what's the risk to him?  It's not like the NRA is going to suddenly turn its back on somebody they fanatically worshipped.  Hitler, to a degree, turned on the SA, but they didn't turn on him.  The NRA will roll over like a dog and come out for whatever he asks for.

If Trump doesn't survive, mass violence will break out in the Populist Storm Trooper camp who will blame the murder on the fantastical "deep state". They already believe they're freedom's vanguard in this fashion.  J. D. Vance will use the event to declare an emergency and then he'll do the same thing.  That will last for about a week, as noted, until Vance declares all is well.

Indeed, William McKinley, whom Trump so adores, provides an example.  McKinley's Vice President was  Theodore Roosevelt, who many in the  GOP feared as a dangerous radical.  Roosevelt wasted no time making the government his own.  The  Trumpite lackeys and Elon Musk will be shown the door, and we'll have National Conservatism, like it or not, and whether or not anyone voted for it.

The upcoming marginalization of Evangelical Christianity.

It's overdue anyhow. 

The theological underpinnings of Evangelical Christianity are too thin to withstand any sort of examination by anyone who cares to do it and a Christian religion that basically holds that anything you can do is okay, as long as you do it with a member of the opposite sex, is not very Christian.  But the linking of the anti democratic populist far right with Evangelical Christianity will be something that it can't endure when things blow up in this Administration's face, and that is going to happen.

Mike Johnson with his smarmy smile, and Trump closed eyed as if he is in deep thought will be what people remember when they lose their jobs and have no place to go.  Health and Wealth Christianity, which is contrary to the Gospel, won't have a long shelf life when you are poor and sick and somebody on television is yelling at you.  People who voted for Trump as he was "Godly" won't remember that when they're lining up for assistance that isn't there, and Musk has gone on to have five more children with three more concubines.

When the bloom is off the rose of populism, Evangelical Christianity is going to tank.

The bad thing, I suppose, is that a lot of people leaving it will just leave religion altogether.

We'll have troops coming home in body bags within a year.

I don't know from where, or when, but we will. This administration is too reckless not to get troops killed, and when inflation creeps up over 7%, which is only months away, it'll need a distraction.  Nothing distracts like war.

Trump has found plenty of countries to pick on.  My overall guess, however, is that he'll pick on one that seems like it can't do much, or he'll pick a fight with Iran, which really can.  A war against Iran is one that we frankly can't win, as wars end when the people you attack decide they're over.  The Iranians are never going to agree that we beat them.

If I'm right, the irony will be that there will be dead Americans coming home for decades, and frankly they'll be blood right here on our shores.  Iran has no problem with waging a terror campaign right here, and that will itself spark a bunch of civil repression here in the US.

The United States will return to democracy, but we'll be irreparably harmed.

The populists had and continue to have a real point about rule by unelected officials. There's been complaints about that for decades. The complainers didn't understand what they were complaining about, which was the rise of a large Federal government from 1932 on, and ironically a lot of the complainers will be the fist to suffer as agencies shrink.  When people in the Trump camp can't get Medicaid, and a lot of them are receiving it, or drive on pothole filled highways, they'll be getting exactly what they deserve.

But only 50% of the country was in the Trump camp during the election and only a fraction of them are hardcore.  The country will come back.

But it won't be the same.  Much of the damage will be permanent and those who voted for it should be reminded of it every year for the rest of their lives.

People believed that Trump was going to take on government waste, and some still believe it.  Mostly he's just cutting.  Trump and Musk are very wealthy men born into wealth.  For them, people suffering economic deprivation is an abstraction.  

The US will be eclipsed as a major power

Flag of the European Union, which may be about to eclipse us as a the Western power people listen to.

The US really entered the world stage with  World War One.  Under Trump, we're stepping off.

That is in fact what a lot of people want, they just don't want comes next.  The world now will be a bipolar one, with the European Community standing for what the US did, and China being its main opponent (but read below).  We'll dance to their tune.  People who thought that Trump was going to make America great again will find that it has become just a second rate power with none, and I mean none, of the claimed things that were going to be achieved, achieved.

There's always been an element of this in American thought.  There were those who were opposed to even getting ready for the Second World War.  The US entered World War One when German ambitions began to hurt us to the extent we could ignore them.  After World War Two the GOP went isolationist again rapidly until it began to hurt us pretty quickly.

Going isolationist again will hurt us, and quickly.  I think, as noted, it'll get us in a major war with China, Russia and South Korea.  The difference this time is that we're hated worldwide. We'll fight a lot of that on our own, and badly.

If there's an upside to this, and I don't really think that there is, it appears to be that Europe is going to resume its traditional role as the dominant Western force.  Americans, for the first time in decades, are going to have to get used to being also rans.  In fact, in this context, it might be for the first time in US history where we basically have a seat at the children's table and nobody pays that much attention to us as we're not adults.  In a way, that's a lesson that we failed to learn somewhere and its time to learn it. Time to grow up.

If that's correct, and it seems likely that the National Conservatives are panicking it is, as they're sending Musk and Vance to try to lecture Europeans, it'll mean that much of the the external things National Conservatives are working on won't matter.  The US view on climate change, won't matter.  US tax policies, won't matter.  

We'll basically be like what Brazil current is, in regard to the rest of the world.

On a related item, within a few years of Trump's death, which will be soon anyway you look at it, he'll be such a despised figure in American history that his grave will be a frequent target of vandalism.  The government won't really bother, after a time, to guard it.  He'll be held in contempt, including by those who now fanatically worship him.  Americans will regard those who voted for him as contemptible fools, including the majority of people who voted for him, who won't admit that they did so.

50% Chance

Let all their evil come before you

and deal with them

As you have so ruthlessly dealt with me

for all my rebellions.

My groans are many,

my heart is sick.

Lamentations.

Some more remote possibilities, but not all that remote

We'll be in a type of world war.

Chinese poster from 1971. The Chinese have long memories.  Americans have the memories of gnats.

And I don't mean figuratively, I mean actually.

Somewhere around here is a post that predicted, at the time it was posted, that we would be at war with China within, I thought, about five years.  We aren't at that mark yet. 

China wants Taiwan and have been openly planning to invade it for years.  The Biden Administration was fairly openly planning on the defense of Taiwan.  Japan and the Philippines expect it to occur as well.

Trump is now punishing Taiwan economically, and China is going to move to get it.  The Chinese are not dumb, and my guess is that they don't figure that Trump will be around long either.  

North Korean Army poster.  North Korea is desperate, and it undoubtedly regards Trump as a complete doofus.

Trump's a demented doofus who is destroying the American government.  This would be the ideal time for China to act.  And if they do, and I think they will, North Korea will attack South Korea shortly thereafter.  Whatever has gone on or is occuring in Eastern Europe, Russia will launch a massive fully mobilized campaign against Ukraine, and maybe the Balkans and Poland.  You can easily see a scenario where China attacks Taiwan and North Korea attacks South Korea later that same week, and Russia has a major offensive occuring within a month.

Russian poster equating the Russian invasion of Ukraine with the Soviet victory in World War Two.

Indeed, if I led China, and the morals of the Chinese leadership, I'd do it. The balance of risks is on their sides, and will even be more on their sides after Elon Musk takes the meat cleaver to the military.

What will Trump do?  Probably babble and vacillate.  He'll yap for about a week on the basis that world leaders listen to him.  After a week, the situation will be grave for Taiwan and we'll be in an all out war in South Korea.  We'll act then, but we'll have lost a week which means when we do, we're going to take a naval pounding.

Trump, it might be noted, didn't answer his country's call when it came in Vietnam.  Musk managed not to be conscripted into the South African Army by migrating to Canada.

I think our chances of winning such a war are very slim.

A war like that isn't avoidable and we'll get in it.  Probably with Vance as head of state as Trump's escorted out the door babbling.

Trump's going to defy the courts

Napoleon, who claimed he was acting to save the country and went on to get a lot of people killed.  Don quoted him just the other day in what is likely a prelude to ignoring the courts.  Napoleon ended up in exile and was likely murdered by poisoning.

This is pretty obvious and will happen soon.

The thing is, this won't go well, and will prove to be one of those things he'll move away from quickly.  Courts have a lot more power than they did in times past and they really aren't afraid of Trump.  Once Federal Marshall start slapping people in prison or impounding assets, things will change.

40%  Chance

Trump's revealed to be an active Russian asset.

Whitaker Chambers warned for years the US government had been penetrated by Soviet agents and was widely derided. Turns out, he was right.  Chambers also did not expect democracy to be able to prevail against Communism.

There's no doubt that Trump is a Russian asset.  Indeed, there's no doubt that he's working out great for Russia, the question still remains why.

There has always been something really odd here that people just haven't been able to pin down.  He could just love Russia because he does, but he could be dancing to their tune as  they have something on him.

If the Russians do have something on him, things can only be kept secret so long. Trump has a lot of enemies including people he now thinks are his friends. What does Musk know that hte rest of us don't?  

What does the CIA and the military, or MI6?

And what does Putin?

When Putin dies, and he's an old man himself, things could suddenly change in Russia and the information open up.  Or somebody else could reveal  it.  If it breaks open, MAGA will deny it.  Indeed, there are still Democrats who pretend Alger Hiss, Harry Dexter  White, and the Rosenbergs weren't working for the Soviets.  But with enough evidence, famously fickle American public opinion can turn, and suddenly.

What Trump holds on politicos opens up.

There are somethings in the political world that are frankly just too weird right now not to have a backstory.

It can't possibly be the case that every Republican in Congress does what Trump wants as they love him.  Not hardly.  And it can't be that they all do it as they feel its for their long time gain with the voters.

Politics have always been dirty and people carry secrets around with them.  William G. Harding was screwing his assistant in the White House and had a prior mistress who was probably a World War One German spy.  Franklin Roosevelt carried on a very long lasting affair.  John F. Kennedy had the morals of an alley cat and bedded Mimi Alford in the White House when she was still a teen, or barely out of her teens.

Some of the people in Congress are compromised somehow.  Some probably have received money illegally, some from illegal sources, and Trump knows about it.  Some probably have turgid affairs with minors, non spouses, and members of the same sex that would kill their careers if it was revealed and Trump or his minions know about that.  My guess is that in the next couple of years we should brace ourselves for lots of these stories, with lots of recognizable names.

A new conservative party will emerge

Emblem of the Progressive Party which nearly replaced the GOP.

It is, quite frankly, a perfect time for one.

There's been attempts at this for years, but now the time is ripe, as there isn't one.  The Republican Party isn't a conservative party at all, it's a populist party. The National Conservative element of it isn't either, it's a Francoist contingent.  

This has happened in the US before. The GOP itself came about when the Whigs collapsed.  And the Progressives made a good run at the GOP for several years in a row.  Had Taft bailed out of the his race with Roosevelt, there's be no Republican Party today, and frankly the Democrats would be the conservative party.

The elements of it are already there. Quite a few Republicans who had been figures lately in the GOP and backed out remain there and are active.  Some Republican members of Congress, such as Lisa Murkowski, consistently talk out of both sides of their mouths about Trump.  Some more cowardly Republicans in high office will privately voice the opinion that he's bat shit crazy, and then go on to support him in public.

All it really takes is enough people with conservative views to actually unite, which is easier said than done.  Having said that, intelligent conservatives are disgusted by much of which is branded as conservatism today, and yet can take advantage of Elon Musk and his band of meat cleaver juveniles to do much of their dirty work for them.

None of these are pleasant

Winston Churchill noted that in the 1930s he felt like a "voice crying in the wilderness" about the dangers of Hitler.  He didn't want World War Two to come, he was trying to do what he could to get ready for it or prevent it.

I feel the same way here.  None of these are things I wish to happen.  I'm pretty certain that some of them shall.

Ironically, all of them are avoidable, but only with great difficulty at this point. The people surrounding Trump are, by and large, small minded and unhinged.  He doesn't like to hear from people who don't agree with him, which makes him a weak person.  Intelligent people, which I do not feel Trump is, can listen to different views and weigh them.  He can't.

Given that, really avoiding these outcomes would require somebody to act now.  If there's somebody close to Trump who can give him the dope slap, which appears unlikely, that might be a means.  More likely, however, it will require something external.

The most obvious external thing would be invoking the 25th Amendment.  That would require, as a practical matter, a vote of 2/3s of both houses, which is almost impossible to imagine right now.  If things go very badly over the next two years, however, it's a possibility.  A much bigger possibility, I'd note, is that Vance boots Trump out in a little under 18 months, but if I'm right about much of this, it'll be too late to avert disaster by then.

That's a possibility, however, which if I were the Chinese I'd weigh.  Which is why, if I led China, I'd attack Taiwan within the year.

There's a small chance that disaster can be averted if the Democrats, which move at the speed of the Baby Boomers, can get their act together and launch an all out assault on the GOP.  So far, they're not doing it.  Some of that will have to be at the state level.  California and New York basically have the ability to cripple the Federal government if they wish to, and both are really Democratic states.  

Remember, LORD, what has happened to us,

pay attention, and see our disgrace:

Our heritage is turned over to strangers,

our homes, to foreigners.a

We have become orphans, without fathers;

our mothers are like widows.

We pay money to drink our own water,

our own wood comes at a price.

With a yoke on our necks, we are driven;

we are worn out, but allowed no rest.

We extended a hand to Egypt and Assyria,

to satisfy our need of bread.

Our ancestors, who sinned, are no more;

but now we bear their guilt.

Servants rule over us,

with no one to tear us from their hands.

We risk our lives just to get bread,

exposed to the desert heat;

Our skin heats up like an oven,

from the searing blasts of famine.c

Women are raped in Zion,

young women in the cities of Judah;

Princes have been hanged by them,

elders shown no respect.

Young men carry millstones,

boys stagger under loads of wood;

The elders have abandoned the gate,

the young men their music.

The joy of our hearts has ceased,

dancing has turned into mourning;

The crown has fallen from our head:

woe to us that we sinned!

Because of this our hearts grow sick,

at this our eyes grow dim:

Because of Mount Zion, lying desolate,

and the jackals roaming there!

But you, LORD, are enthroned forever;

your throne stands from age to age.

*Why have you utterly forgotten us,

forsaken us for so long?

Bring us back to you, LORD, that we may return:

renew our days as of old.

For now you have indeed rejected us

and utterly turned your wrath against us.

Lamentations 

I hope I'm wrong about all of this.

Footnotes

*LaPierre is yet another hawkish boomer who managed not to serve in Vietnam, first due to a student, and then due to a medical, deferment. He's also another Catholic raised person who divorced and remarried, a betrayal of what Catholics believe.

Why do I note this?

I'm finding more and more that people who can set aside serious religious vows can set aside anything.

Related threads:

Some election predictions.

Labels: 2020s, 2024, 2024 Election, 2026, J. D. Vance, Joseph Biden, Kamala Harris, Lying, National Conservatism, Predictions

Additional labels:

Labels: Court, Espionage, European Community, France, Napoleon Bonaparte, North Korea, Russia, Russo Ukrainian War, South Korea, The Madness of King Donald, Third Parties, War, World War Three, Central Intelligence Agency, China, Military, National Conservatism, New Apostolic Reformation, Organisation armée secrète, People's Republic of China, Protestant, religion, Russia, Taiwan, William McKinley