Mercury Is Always In Retrograde

The entirety of humanity—worldwide—seems convulsed with right-wing, reactionary, anti-rational, anti-scientific sentiment. Dostoyevsky’s Grand Inquisitor was right: our species is not yet ready to accept the freedom and the responsibility offered by the exercise of our reason (and by Dostoyevsky’s Jesus). We don’t want to have to make decisions about things; thinking is too hard, too stressful. 

So people everywhere, even (perhaps especially) in those societies that are best-educated and thus potentially best-equipped to advance positive policies for humankind (the collective responsibility in these privileged societies being greater, it may follow that the collective refusal is correspondingly more onerous) are renouncing the single trait that distinguishes us from other creatures: our ability to make moral choices, discerning what is good from what is bad for the well-being of our species.

In any event, this zealous quest for authoritarian rule is a willful rejection of human freedom—a retreat to the brutishness the Grand Inquisitor recognizes as satanic, but—fortunately for the Rulers—controllable. And for the Ruled—comfortingly mindless.

And so, everywhere, all those aggrieved folks demanding “freedom” are actually submitting themselves, willingly and even enthusiastically, to freedom’s very opposite: the tyranny of inquisitors, dictators, religious authorities, gurus, charlatans, influencers, The Old Farmer’s Almanac and interpreters of Mercury in Retrograde. No wonder Trump won: he’s gonna, like the Inquisitor, “take care of us, whether we like it or not.” And, sadly, most of us do like it.

Same Old Weirdness

Why do journalists continue to feign “surprise” at Trump’s frantic bullshit—his flip-flopping, fantasizing and falsifying? Surely, by now, all of us (including his own “Faithful”) recognize that, c’mon, he doesn’t mean ANYTHING at ALL by ANY of it—that he may say something on Monday, contradict it on Tuesday, deny it on Wednesday, and forget it on Thursday. As Tim Walz says, it’s all just “weird.”

I’m amused to note, though, that many of the Faithful seem secretly (and hypocritically) relieved by this out-of-touch-ness. Since they consider themselves “good” people, they take self-forgiving comfort in knowing that their Great Leader himself is “fake” and therefore has no real-world intention of implementing (or indeed remembering) any of these dubious positions that even they, the Faithful, find embarrassing, aberrant or downright unethical.

 As for the rest of us, those who DO know a hawk from a handsaw, well, instead of pedantically “fact-checking” stuff that everyone not brain-dead knows is twaddle, shouldn’t we just dismiss the whole melodrama as a moronic rerun of a children’s show that no thinking adult would ever watch? Saturday morning fantasy. Certainly not worthy of prime-time “analysis.” It’s just so weird.

Dumbass Faux Pas

In today’s American English, the adjective “faux” does not actually mean “false.” Rather it denotes something that is “almost” true—and which is usually more instantly gratifying, both “physically” and “spiritually”—than dull, often unpleasant, truth. “Faux” is probably what Donald Trump (vaguely) means when he advocates “truthful hyperbole.” 

By dictionary definition, of course, hyperbole is necessarily “false”—and hence, in any scientific, objective context, it simply cannot be truthful. No, in the original French sense of the word, hyperbole is unquestionably faux, i.e., fake.

Nevertheless, because The Donald’s bullshit often “sounds” good and “looks” good, many “lite-headed” Americans choose to believe that it is not a lie: that the BS is merely fashionably faux—in the American sense— like the “leather” on their biker pants or the “fur” on their hoodies. And, well, shinier and fuzzier than the genuine article. In short, a better deal for the money. Seemingly. (Until it falls apart disastrously after being used twice.)

This is why these folks will vote for a Faux Fixer (and a probable felon) to be president. The polls suggest that DJT will indeed win and attempt to Make America Great Again—again. Americans have always been suckers for hyperbole and “almost truth.” So, here we go, friends. Again. Another dumbass faux pas.

.

The Bloodbath of Terror

“Now, if I don't get elected, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the whole ... that's gonna be the least of it, it's gonna be a bloodbath for the country, that'll be the least of it." (Donald J. Trump, March 17, 2024, at a rally in Ohio.)

Today, a few days later, the talking heads on cable news are all atwitter trying to determine what Trump meant by “bloodbath.” Well, probably he didn’t actually MEAN much of anything—certainly nothing specific. He was bullshitting—off-the-cuff, as usual—and, as we should have learned by now, bullshitters are not much interested in rational discourse or the conveyance of any genuine information. No, rather than meaning,Trump’s words mostly communicated INTENT. Intent to rile up emotions, animosities, grievances—and, above all, FEARS. That’s his  modus operandi, after all—his own personal form of terrorism: a bullshit-induced bloodbath. 

Undoubtedly, it is by wielding this weapon of mass brain destruction that he intends to regain power and inaugurate the carnage (his word) of The Great Bloodbath of Bullshit Terror.

Now, I know that history doesn’t usually repeat itself—exactly—but they say it nonetheless sorta “rhymes.” It might, therefore, be instructive for DJT to remember that Robespierre, who invented the Original Reign of Terror, was eventually (believers in karma would say “inevitably”) himself a victim of the bloodbath he relished soaking in and kept so brimming with gore. Here’s Robespierre meeting his dear old friend, Madame Guillotine. So it goes.

Proper Penis Etiquette

As I was reading about the history of the Olympic Games, I came upon this picture of an athlete from ancient Greece. Now, I remembered that the Olde Tyme Greeks greatly appreciated the naked male body—and consequently they demanded that athletic competitors perform unclothed—obviously for the greater delectation of the spectators. But I was rather surprised to see that this particular youth had, it seems, tied a pretty little bow around his penis. Well, I asked myself: what’s THAT about? Was this a fashion statement? A less-than-subtle invitation to admire the “package” thus wrapped up? Phallically fascinated, I quickly googled “penis tied with bow” and came upon this explanation in Wikipedia: 

“Kynodēsmē ("dog tie") was a cord or string or sometimes a leather strip that was worn primarily by athletes in Ancient Greece and Etruria to prevent the exposure of the glans penis in public (considered to be ill-mannered) and to restrict untethered movement of the penis during sporting competition.” (for more more contemporary illustrations, see : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kynodesme )

So, this was a kind of (truly) bare-minimum jockstrap intended to prevent two things: 1)penile flopping and 2)foreskin slippage. Apparently, it was quite bad form to reveal one’s glans penis in public—so for the sake of modesty, the concealing foreskin needed to be kept firmly in place and tied shut—hence the string-around-the-tip.

The fancy bow was probably mostly decorative.

It occurs to me that, originally, at least, circumcised athletes, with their immodestly exposed glans—would have been quite unwelcome at the Olympics. (The Greek sports commentators would undoubtedly have been scandalized.) Perhaps that is why nowadays Olympians tend to coyly veil their goods in Spandex and Speedos. Thus the spectators can still enjoy the view, with no risk of being offended by a glimpse of glans.

 

I kinda miss the bow, though.

The Bad Faith of Both Liberal Christians and Christian Nationalists

I was once a member of a very liberal, “inclusive” Episcopalian church, whose congregation was zealous in extending “Christ’s love” to everyone, everywhere and in denouncing “Christian nationalism” as bigotry. But in recent years, I have grown quite skeptical of “religious” people (even liberal Episcopalians) who, out of a sense of fairness—or perhaps just indifference—glibly espouse “freedom of religion,” as a basic tenet of their “Christian” faith. They understand and accept, of course, that American law legitimately gives everyone the right to practice any or no religion—it’s up to the individual, not the state, to decide. But I think their faithful allegiance to the Constitution may reveal a pretty unfaithful (and perhaps counterfeit) commitment to basic Christian doctrine. 

Because the notion of freedom of religion does not accord very well with Christian claims of exclusivity and salvation through Jesus. Consequently, there is considerable cognitive dissonance involved when an individual opts to “believe” in one transcendent, extra-legal path to truth, while simultaneously affirming that other religions (or no religion at all) might ALSO be the “best way” and therefore have an equal claim to ultimate truth. In other words, it seems to me that an allegiance to “freedom of religion”—when adopted by a self-proclaimed “religious” person—amounts to little more than a disingenuous paraphrase of Orwell’s formula: “all animals are equal but some are more equal than others”. Aren’t these “Christians against Christian nationalism” actually asserting (with maybe a virtuous wink?) that all religions are equally worthy, but ours is really more worthy?

If so, that’s Orwellian newspeak, i.e., delusional, complacent hypocrisy, well-meant, perhaps, but fundamentally insincere—language intended to reduce the possibility of actual understanding. Bad faith, both literally and philosophically.

But, as someone is sure to object, what if this belief in the collegiality of all belief systems is a genuine intellectual and emotional stance, held with no reservations whatsoever? Well, then, it seems to me that the liberal “Christian” needs to recognize the utter shallowness (indeed, fatuity) of his Christianity. After all, if one religion (say Christianity) IS really no better than any other religion (or no religion), then what, for goodness’ sake, is the point of clinging to that particular religion (except, maybe, for the comfort of familiar rituals and communal potlucks)? Why not just commit ourselves to the human race (a cause we can all—more or less—agree on) and resolve to devote our lives to being decent human beings? 

So, then, does freedom of religion remain a “good thing”? Well, as a legal matter, yes, of course. Absolutely. In the U.S., the land of the free and the home of con-men and pyramid schemes, the Constitution guarantees that all citizens have the right to choose any religious affiliation they like. My only quibble here is that the very act of making such a choice—among a bunch of equally fantastical and equally unprovable creeds—seems pointless and absurd.  Why not just choose freedom FROM religion?

I’ll end my rant by revisiting the tired but occasionally useful metaphor of a baby in bathwater. Personally, I am convinced that ALL religions, including both Christian nationalism and liberal Episcopalianism, amount to little more than fantastical bathwater, grown opaque over the centuries, but with absolutely NO BABY soaking within. Though these waters are indeed murky, I remain confident that anyone exploring them thoroughly will find, as I did, that there’s nothing alive and nothing of value in the tub. Just gray soak-water, grown cold. No. Baby. Nada.

So please, dear liberal Christians—simply acknowledge the futility of searching for a baby in the bilge and, in an act of much-needed housekeeping, toss it ALL out. Once you do so—once you free yourself of ALL notions of Christian exceptionalism—I am confident that you will be much better equipped to combat, "in good faith," the very real threat you have correctly recognized in “Christian nationalism.”

Immigration Assholery

I’ve been studying my historical atlas and I’ve come to the conclusion that America’s so-called “border problem” is mostly manufactured, politically-driven (both parties love it), "assholery." Because, in the long run, as my atlas maps demonstrate, migration is best understood as a phenomenon arising from overwhelmingly powerful human instincts (self-preservation, self-betterment). Can such “natural” herd displacements be successfully and definitively halted? Well, the maps offer little evidence that walls and razor-wire are effective, at least in the context of groups over time. Hard as our neo-Know Knothings try, they simply cannot “do” much of anything to stifle the primordial human impulse to migrate toward a greener pasture whenever such a pasture becomes available and for as long as its grass remains greener and more desirable than the left-behind turf. In short, 

self-interested migration is basically beyond the control of individual governments, except in very limited and unsustainable contexts (eventually, the walls will be breached, the rivers forded, the rules circumvented, the posses outrun). 

Mass migrations do eventually end, of course. But they generally do so of their own accord, rather than in response to legislation or police action. They simply peter out when the destination country, hitherto considered golden, is no longer found particularly desirable—either because the home country environment has improved substantially or because the destination country has changed internally and grown appreciably less welcoming and “livable.”

Exceptions to these patterns do occur, of course—in cases such as involuntary displacements (slavery) and transitory impediments of the sort mentioned above—those desperate, stopgap attempts to legislate/regulate human movement with walls and incarcerations and deportations, etc. But none of this finger-in-the-dike stuff really works in the long term, does it? 

No, the uncomfortable (for some) truth is that immigration cannot, in fact, be definitively halted except by something too extreme for most reasonable Americans even to contemplate: accepting or inaugurating “negative” changes to our society and economy that would make the United States itself considerably less desirable—for outsiders, but also for us native-born citizens. This is the repressive, white supremacist agenda of the right-wing: keep the immigrants out by making America a thoroughly brutal, hate-based state—a place no “outsiders” (and, indeed, few sane insiders) would want to live in.

What, for goodness' sake, is the point of such willful, self-inflicted loss (of attractiveness and decency)? What sense can be made of a fight for national “purity” if this battle can be “won” only if we choose to make our country unattractive and unlovable—by deliberately altering our constitutional framework and by deliberately compromising our economy—which depends upon a workforce augmented by immigrants? What justifies such self-destructive behavior? Tribal loyalty? Racial prejudice? Religious bigotry? All amount to little but unpardonable “excuses.”

Surely we urgently need to "snap out of" such puerile clan mentality and confront the REAL problem—which is--yes--the necessity to change--but in desirable, positive ways. 

In my view, the best we can, and should, do at this juncture is strive to make the inevitable (absorption/ integration of newcomers) more humane and less disruptive—both for immigrants and for the society they are determined to enter. Yes, they are likely to influence and change that society, at least in some measure. Is that scary? Yes, of course—all change shakes and jerks us about. Nevertheless, as the cliché has it, change is inevitable and it is also a motor for growth, provided it is understood and shaped by creative minds. 

Let's get on with it, then! As I noted in consulting my migration maps--and this is an important point--the most successful of human societies throughout history have faced change without self-deception, adjusted to it, evolved and progressed in response to it and in alliance with it.

On the other hand, those societies that have recoiled into protectionism, nativism, xenophobia—all those defense strategies generated by atavistic fears-- have generally devolved into unhappy, repressive and fascistic states—North Korea, Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Guatemala, Colombia, Venezuela. 

Such places have no "immigration problem", of course, (lucky them??), because who, really, given an alternative, would choose to live in one of these miserable states? 

No, these are the undesirable countries people leave (if they can)--remember Donald Trump's pungent adjective "shithole"-- in order to move to the United States—precisely because the United States remains (for the moment, at least) a relatively desirable place to live. Let’s do our best to keep it that way and not, by committing immigration assholery, transform ourselves into an undesirable shithole just to keep "those people" out. We must find ways to welcome the migrants rather than seek futile and shitty ways to exclude them. Immigration has always made America great! (Just consult ancestry.com.)