Memos to Self

Recently, I cleared out my pockets for pieces of paper scribbled on by me, and sorted through them with the intention of removing intellectual clutter from my life.  What was so important, I wondered, about these thoughts, that I wrote them down and carried them around, possibly for weeks, even after I could no longer remember what any of them were.  So I pulled them out and read them — a mixed bag of random pensées*, of no particular importance except perhaps to record what I was thinking about in the month of June 2024.  

“Language and thought—a country needs to speak the same language to have unity.”

My thinking here was that if the language we speak reflects how we think, and how we think reflects who we are as a people, then a country in which people speak one or several different languages without sharing any one language in common is going to have trouble getting along.  This failure to get along arises from our inability to understand each other in the most literal sense—what you say to me sounds like gibberish, and vice versa.  If you expand this to the figurative sense, forget about it.  We’re lost.

“Is it propaganda if it’s true?”

Modern people are much more savvy to the idea of propaganda than we used to be.  Maybe the Internet opened our eyes.  But what if a known source of propaganda puts out a story designed to support a particular viewpoint, and let’s say also that the story turns out to be true.  Is it still propaganda?  I’m going to say yes, because propaganda is at least partially defined by intent.  If the intention is to deceive or manipulate, then it’s propaganda, pure and simple.  Its trueness doesn’t change the fact that the wielder of the story did so with dishonest intent. Nor however does the fact that it’s propaganda make it false.  This is an important distinction.

“Geopolitically speaking, all the places where we got the borders wrong are going to get fixed.”

Around the world, European powers have redrawn borders and created nations, often with little regard for the custom or desires of the local inhabitants.  Eastern Europe has a particularly rich history of shifting borders, first as the long borderland between Russia and Europe, later as individual territories under the various empires that once ruled that part of the world.  They’ve undergone a great many changes over the centuries, so many that one wonders if a region so much in contest and in flux can ever be stable.  

Nevertheless, there are borders that are still being fixed to this day.  This is not going to stop happening until all the people who speak the same languages live in the same countries.  See “language and thought” above.

“America’s goal is global hegemony.  It accomplishes this goal by means of regime change.  The name of this game is ‘Let’s You and Him Fight**.’”

America’s method of obtaining regime change is by proxy, or to put it another way, by provoking war between America’s target and a convenient antagonist willing to fight a war in America’s stead.   And while this methodology doesn’t produce much in the way of stable democracies, it’s ace at achieving regime change, which is really all we care about — as long as a “friendly” government is installed in its place. 

“Good people are obliged to show they care; worrying is an obligation.”

I don’t agree with this position.  It’s a huge waste of emotional energy and accomplishes nothing. But from a social standpoint, it’s considered bad form not to worry about the things that others worry about.  And so we wrap ourselves in worry in order to fit in.

“If nothing matters, then there’s nothing to worry about.”

This is true, but most good people won’t agree that nothing matters. In fact, we’re expected to believe that everything matters greatly, which necessitates worry.  See above.

“Express yourself through writing.  Write for the future.”

Once interpersonal communication becomes impossible, you have only one resort if you need to express your thoughts — and let’s face it, we all need to express ourselves from time to time.  That last resort is writing.  As for your intended audience, it’s clearly not your contemporaries.  They wouldn’t understand, and for all you know, you might be tossed into a dungeon somewhere for expressing unsanctioned views.  Your audience is now limited to either yourself or some future reader who isn’t obsessed with who’s going to win the presidency. You are nevertheless assisted by the fact that having no living audience to please, you can say whatever you want — provided it’s true to you.  You may feel lonely writing anonymously for no one, but remember that Voltaire spent the better part of his life in exile, and we still remember him today.  (He did not give up writing or society, however.  Maybe Voltaire is a bad example…)

That’s it for the latest crop of notes. I’m now able to throw out a half dozen small sheets of paper and the semi-cryptic notes they contain, while the thoughts themselves are preserved and extended, if not into eternity, at least for the near future, which is ample for my purposes. As for the one sheet of notes I did not include, it was a rambling two paragraphs on AI, the topic de jour for sure. Not that it matters.  I’ll have plenty of time to think about that in the future, although by then, AI will no doubt have rendered thinking obsolete. 

* One of the sheets of paper contains a sketched arrangement of three pansies, under which is written the word, Pansies. I hereby dedicate it to André Breton.

** “Let’s You And Him Fight” is actually one of the “games people play” from the 1964 book of the same name by psychiatrist Eric Berne. Giving snappy names to his games is part of the reason the book was so popular.

It’s The End Of The World As We Know It

There’s a funny skit on the Don’t Crush That Dwarf album by Firesign Theatre in which two tv news anchors banter about the apocalypse.  “Last year, Patty, you and the viewers will be interested in noting that the world ended.”  To which his partner replies, “As we know it, Hugh!”

This is kind of what’s happened to us.  The world, as we knew it, has ended and now we’re in a new world, feeling less than brave, and facing all four Horseman of the Apocalypse at the same time.  For people who’ve been living in the virtual world for most of the last two decades, waking up and discovering that the real world that we were counting on is going, going, gone, the whole flaming mess we’re in must seem like a bridge too far.  How could we have gotten to this?

I’ll leave you to puzzle that out on your own while we move on to the more existential discussion of what should be doing with ourselves while the world finishes collapsing. If this really is the end of the world, how do we justify continuing to waste our time on business as usual?  Don’t we want to do something better with our lives, both individually and collectively, than what we’re doing now?  This assumes that you don’t love what we’re doing now.  If you do, you’re fine — carry on.

This thought came to me while I was preparing to switch gears once again to taxes and I thought, here they’re talking about nuclear war on NPR, and I’m about to spend an hour or more finding out why the PayPal account is out $28.  Does that $28 even matter given the enormity of the problems that face us “out there,” and what our lives are likely to be like in the coming days, weeks, months?

Assuming we get through this geothermal nuclear war scare, and I certainly hope we do, the fact still remains that we live on a planet amongst people, ourselves included, who still see war — the murder and destruction of people and cities for political reasons — as a viable and even desirable option, depending on how much we hate (or fear) our enemy.

Why do we even believe in war anymore?  Haven’t we gotten beyond that with our AI and our Internet and our supreme intellectual superiority over all things?  How can intellectually superior people still think that blowing things up and killing people is a worthy endeavor that we have to keep doing?

War is one horseman we could do without and we have the ability and the means to do so.  If we could put personal gain and our emotions aside (which we can), we could let go of things that aren’t helping anyone, and embrace other views that serve us better.  For instance, people could negotiate fair terms with each other and avoid war.  We could do that.  But we’d need to let go of our hatred first, which will be difficult not because we can’t but because we don’t want to.  For whatever reason.  But all said and done, it is within our power to end war.

Ending war would give us more money to do other things, and this would enable us to work to solve other pressing issues, such as disease (the pandemic which is not really over even though we say it is), famine (our farming methods are killing us and the planet but we don’t care), climate change (whose effects are already proving disastrous), and poverty (which negatively affects not only the sufferers but society at large).

We could survive the 21st century with some form of ecosystem and culture intact, but we won’t be able to do it with the values we have now or the tools we’re using.  We need to stop choosing and following leaders who have these old, outworn, and completely counterproductive values.  We need to define for ourselves what the new values will be, and be honest with ourselves that if they don’t include peace, love, compassion, mutual aid, joy, fairness, and equality, then we can forget about it.  We’ll still be in the old world of war, hatred, selfishness, greed, anger, unhappiness, unfairness, and inequality.  And we all know where that leads — straight to where we are now, or to reiterate my opening salvo, “the end of the world.”

Do we want that?  I don’t.  And yet everything we do continues to support this bankrupt “dominant paradigm.” There has to be a better way, but until we find it, we’ll all keep marching on — to work, to war, off into the sunset.

We’re led by by our leaders to believe that we, people of Earth, are powerless to solve our problems.   We’re not.  We just don’t want to yet.  We’re not prepared to sacrifice any aspect of the present for a better future, even if the present sucks!  Maybe it’s just a matter of the devil you know, but if we don’t get over it, we’re going to run into a new devil and this one will be merciless.

In closing, I will prove my point about the present state of human values.  You will know where yours are by just how crazy my next sentence sounds to you: The old world may be ending but we can make a better world for all of us by adopting values that serve the entire planet and working toward goals that benefit us all.  See how easy it is?  Let’s just hope that we come to this realization before there’s nothing left to save but piles of ashes, corpses, and debris.

How To Unify The Country

When divisions reign between the people, and there are sides, and each side hates the other, things can get very heated.  Consider the old truism that the worst feuds are family feuds.  Well, here in America, we used to be Americans but now we’re Good Americans and Bad Americans, and, if news media is any indication, we despise each other.  Moreover, we have had four straight years of this hatred.  I lived through the entire 1960s, but even during that similarly divided time, I never feared for the Republic.  Today, people are evoking the Civil War as a comparable period. 

Now cynics know that America’s current division does not have to lead to civil strife.  Our hatred for each other could be united into hatred for a third party somewhere else — a Russia, for instance, which Americans are accustomed to hating from at least the time of the Bolshevik Revolution, if not before.

What are we talking about here?  War, pure and simple.  Wars have a unifying effect on the populace.  It’s simpler to hate a foreign enemy, exciting even, and there aren’t the moral issues you have to deal with when hating your neighbors.  For whatever reason, people tend to fall for it.  By people, I mean the press and a significant number of the nation’s citizens.  There’s an added benefit for presidents, in the form of another truism:  “You can’t criticize the president during wartime.”  That was the story they told us with George W. Bush, and it worked!

Using war as a diversion to pacify the people is not a new device.  While reading about 16th century essayist Michel de Montaigne, I ran across a surprising example of the unifying effect of a common enemy on a warring populace.  Essentially, the France of his day was immersed in a brutal and bloody civil war between the Catholics and the Protestants, filled with massacres and torture and all the rest.  It was the definition of internecine strife, and there seemed to be no stopping it.  The people warred on for the better part of 30 years.  

So what finally ended the killing?  Why, a foreign enemy, of course.

Henri IV, a strong king in contrast to the weak monarchs who had preceded him, took the throne of France, after which he promptly started a war with Spain who had been funding an insurgency in parts of France.  It was a brilliant move.  The Spanish didn’t mind since fighting wars was about all they did in Europe then.  Meanwhile, the citizenry were forced to shift their attention to the war effort, as all the men were drafted into the military.  With the men out fighting the Spanish, there was no one left to commit atrocities at home, and the civil war that had consumed the country for more than a generation quickly ended.

That makes it all seem very tidy, but really, it must have been horrible to live in the 1500s.  They had their own pandemic (the Plague), extreme division between people, major economic hardship, and weak leadership at the top. Oh wait, that could be today…   

Returning to the point, the past is tidy, but the present is always uncertain.  While there’s no indication that Biden is going to start a foreign war, we shouldn’t be surprised if he does.  After all, his banner is Unity.  

Poking the Hornet’s Nest in the Middle East

President Donald Trump is now focusing all his attention on the Middle East, and this is causing the rest of the world to look there too. It’s also causing Middle Eastern nations to look at themselves and take sides. Since there are at least two major factions, led by the Saudis and the Iranians respectively, one would expect that a US invasion of Iran would lead other Middle Eastern countries to get involved on one side or the other. As a spokesman for Iran said last night, one bullet could set the whole region ablaze and US interests with it. Read More

Governing by Decree: Presidential Power in the Age of Trump

If it seems as though the US President is the boss of the whole world, it’s because in many ways, he is. Presidential powers for modern presidents are prodigious. With the power to impose sanctions and tariffs, control the government through executive orders, and order military action, a determined president can create a lot of geopolitical mayhem. Read More

The Barbarians

Although on some level I must have known this already, somehow I was surprised to learn (in a book on Celtic history called The Ancient Paths by Graham Robb) that the ancestors of most white Americans were the same people we remember in history as “the barbarian hordes.”

Usually we think of barbarians in the context of the Fall of Rome, a momentous event oft lamented. But in fact, the Romans had spent the previous 200 years “subjugating” the barbarians — Celts, Gauls, and other non-Romans — all over southern and central Europe.

By barbarian, of course, they meant mean “hairy animal.” By subjugate, they meant to kill. The Romans killed as many non-Romans as they could and enslaved the rest. Apparently they weren’t even that into having sex with the locals (a time-honored tradition of armies everywhere). The end result of this killing campaign was to wipe out native culture, i.e., the native French, British, Belgian, Iberian, and southern Germanic people — to such a degree that today we have only the barest idea who the native non-Roman Europeans were.

How ironic then that the British, the French, the Iberians, and the Germans should all conquer territory around the world and commit the same crime of genocide against new “barbarian hordes” — for instance, the “savages” of North and South America, the peoples of Africa and the Middle East, as well as the Jews, Gypsies, and other so-called non-Aryans around the time of World War II.

Is it in our blood, innate and instinctive to human beings? Or was it planted there? History is written by the victors, and we tend, as a race, to ape history even if we don’t actually know any. Who are the “barbarians” of our own day, the people in need of subjugating? Could they be Middle Eastern or North Korean or Russian? Will there ever be a time when subjugating the weaker goes away?