Legalism

President Trump has performed an impressive bait-and-switch with his followers and the American people at large. The law is a tool created by the government, and agreed upon by society, to penalize unjust behavior. What Trump has done is distort this perception and argue that laws determine “Right” and “Wrong.”

This new “religion of law” was recently on display in the interaction between William Barr, Trump’s de facto personal lawyer, and Congress.

Amy Klobuchar: “Are the President’s actions, detailed in the report, consistent with his oath of office and the requirement in the Constitution that he take care that the laws be faithfully executed?”

William Barr: “Well, the evidence in the report is conflicting, and there’s different evidence, and they don’t come to a determination as to how they are coming down on it.”

Notice how Barr evades saying if he thought it was consistent (the question he was asked). He then punts the responsibility of the answer to the report. The investigation was not intended to determine if anything was unethical: it was to determine if it was illegal.

It does not stop there, the stage has already been set for the rot to go much deeper. When faced with the prospect of obstruction of justice, Trump’s lawyers have already floated the argument that since Trump, as President, is the head of the enforcement branch, he cannot obstruct justice.

Allow me to summarize this circular argument:

Something must be illegal to be wrong.

The president is above the law.

Therefore:

Trump can do no wrong.

This conflation must not be allowed to enter our minds. Laws are reactive by nature, and to act as though a law determines “Right” from “Wrong” is to outsource one’s moral compass to politicians. This is a strange prospect for those who rallied behind the “drain the swamp” slogan.

A great deal of attention, and ink, has been spent on Barr’s memo about the Mueller investigation. Upon reading, Barr lays out a compelling argument against the President being forced into an interrogation. The entire memo reads as a defence of presidential powers from being infringed upon by the other two branches of government.

Barr lays out four arguments against the interrogation, out of which the fourth informs his actions since the Mueller report was released: “Even if one were to indulge Mueller’s obstruction theory, in the particular circumstances here, the President’s motive in removing Comey and commenting on Flynn could not have been “corrupt” unless the President and his campaign were actually guilty of illegal collusion.” [Page 3 of his memo]

According to Barr, Trump was innocent and these actions were the desperate attempt of an innocent man. This would mean that Trump is weak-willed, and the temptation to use his position of authority for personal benefit was too much for him to handle; that, or Trump lacks confidence in his behavior being scrutinized by the public eye, but his time as a celebrity would lead one to believe he has no fear of public opinion.

Dianne Feinstein: “You still have a situation where a president essentially tries to change the lawyer’s account in order to prevent further criticism of himself.”

William Barr: “Well that’s not a crime.”

Dianne Feinstein: “So you can, in this situation, instruct someone to lie?”

William Barr: “To be obstruction of justice, the lie has to be tied to impairing the evidence in a particular proceeding.”

It is relatively clear that Barr saw Mueller’s end result – no clear illegal actions but no exoneration – and ran with his fourth argument. The Mueller report lays out a timeline rife with unethical behavior. It is very difficult to prove an illegal action when the action is asking someone to break the law – it is difficult to prove motive.

It is clear, however, that this pattern of behavior has continued since the events detailed in this report. The New York Times reported, on April 12, that Trump privately urged Kevin McAleenan, a border enforcement official almost named Acting Secretary of Homeland Security by Trump, to close the southeastern border to migrants. According to the NYT, it was not clear what Trump meant by the request, or his additional comment that he would pardon McAleenan if he encountered legal problems as a result of the action.

This event corroborates with actions detailed by Mueller, illuminating a pattern of behavior by the President. On its own, it is an impeachable offence,”The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” [Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.]

This was an offer for a transaction: Trump offered a promotion and a pardon in exchange for McAleenan to close the border. This is called bribery.

This is not the action of an innocent man. The President, charged with upholding proper execution of the law, is actively attempting to persuade another to break the law on his behalf. Had McAleenan carried out this request, Trump would have successfully thrown responsibility for this action onto McAleenan’s shoulders. Sure he promised to come to McAleenan’s defence, but this is an act of cowardice. This is not acceptable behavior for a President.

While Trump’s actions tread within a legal gray area, our Founding Fathers foresaw this type of crisis. This is why impeachment is a political act, and not a legal one. Impeachment does not remove Trump from office. It is the levelling of charges against him so that he may mount a proper defence. Because these are very questionable actions by the President, they lead to very serious accusations about his behavior in office. Instead of hiding behind Barr or other lawyers, the President should stand before Congress himself.

He should answer for this behavior so that the American people can better understand his conduct in office by the authority granted to him by voters. He must be judged not on the legality of his conduct, but whether it has been acceptable or not.

Admiration for a Demagogue

It is unlikely that a white male born in America could find a more useful juxtaposition than to compare his life against than in the recorded words of Malcolm X. With terms like demagogue and the anti-Muslim rhetoric in the air, what better way to expand one’s thoughts than to sit and read the intimate story of a self-proclaimed Muslim demagogue?

This book, The Autobiography of Malcolm X, first crossed my path on the shelf of a junior high school teacher’s desk. There was a certain stigma floating around the book. Deep within Southern Louisiana where the black/white divide is still palpable in the older generations, and within a portion of the country proud to be called “the Bible Belt,” assigning a book as outspoken as Malcolm was did not likely to go over well. The teacher had assigned it to the honors students, which I was not a part of, but the book and name lodged themselves in my memory.

Malcolm’s life plays out in the fashion of a Greek tragedy. He starts with nearly no advantages and relies on his wits to make quick cash. The early portion of the story is fascinating as Malcolm has moments of self-reflection: the older mind which produces the recollection adds minor commentary on his younger, less experienced self. At points it is quite sad as the deep scars inflicted from a life lived under bigotry can be felt in the commentary.

Even uneducated as he was, at this early stage of his life, Malcolm’s intelligence and charisma reveal themselves as he evades the law and becomes a successful hustler. The immaturity of his age and success of his ventures leads him to seek bigger scores, and the section ends with Malcolm heading a 4 man crew, drawing the attention of the authorities, and landing him behind bars.

Prison is a time of reflection and learning from one’s mistakes – refining or reforming. A formulaic period for Malcolm, he meets an individual by the name of Bimbi who changes the course of Malcolm’s life forever. Bimbi wasn’t like the other prisoners but commanded the respect of the prison populace with his words and knowledge. “What fascinated me most of all was that he was the first man I had ever seen command total respect… with his words,” Malcolm said. [periods are his]

He would have a cluster of people riveted, often on odd subjects you never would think of. He would prove to us, dipping into the science of human behavior, that the only difference between us and the outside people was that we had been caught. He liked to talk about historical events and figures. When he talked about the history of concord, where I was to be transferred later, you would have thought he was hired by the Chamber of Commerce…

This is around the same time he meets Elijah Muhammad, who befriends and manipulates Malcolm through a significant portion of his life. These two individuals inspire Malcolm to begin educating himself. He enrols in debates and hones the skills that will carry him through the rest of his life.

Greek tragedies’ heroes are always plagued by a fatal flaw, and for Malcolm it was a certain amount of intellectual short-sightedness. Throughout the book Malcolm has a habit of taking statements at face value and this is how Elijah manipulates Malcolm to the degree he does. There are two very fascinating moments in Mecca which illustrate this short-sightedness. He is profoundly touched by the comradery of the Muslims of all skin colors in Mecca, and he is flattered by how the royalty treat him.

What he fails to see is the variance of treatment around him because it is not based on race. Malcolm is treated well because he is a rarity: a Muslim American. This, in essence, is great PR for those in power as they derive it from the faith. It becomes apparent to the reader but escapes Malcolm as he describes how he was vetted early on to ensure that he was a true believer. The irony is lathered on thicker as Malcolm prays, and has an escort who forces others to divert around him.

The second moment is when Malcolm’s mind jostles with the concept of “whiteness.” Elijah instilled in Malcolm a racist interpretation of the world. Considering the time period, it is entirely understandable that it took root. Witnessing the lack of emphasis of race on display forced Malcolm to recognize that the issue ran much deeper. Unfortunately, at the time, he commits mental shorthand and relies on faith to explain the variance in behavior. Though I will point out, in his closing chapter, it seems he hasn’t stopped reflecting on this moment, and had he lived longer he may have cast off the ideology.

Gifted with the wisdom of progress, readers can easily identify the flaws in Malcolm’s thoughts; however, the greater scope with which readers can view his time period demands a sense of forgiveness for his short-sightedness. Malcolm’s outrage was both righteous and justified, even if the bigotry he fought against inevitably permeated his own thoughts.

I personally admire Malcolm. He transcended the limits placed on him at birth through rigorous discipline. He had his flaws, but they are only easily apparent because he opened himself up intimately to the reader. It’s this honest depiction of himself that allows readers to learn from his success and failures. He was not perfect, but it is because of outspoken people like him that society can enjoy the progress we have.

He ends the book on an ominously foreshadowing note:

Yes, I have cherished my demagogue role. I know that societies often have killed the people who have helped to change those societies. And if I can die having brought any light, having exposed any meaningful truth that will help destroy the racist cancer that is malignant in the body of America – then all of the credit is due to Allah. Only the mistakes have been mine.

The book was published in 1964. Malcolm was assassinated on Feb 21, 1965, in a terrorist act by The Nation of Islam.

Roots of cyberpunk

With the invasion of advertising and surveillance seeping through the foreground of everyday life, I felt it necessary to visit a seer of this fishbowl existence.

Slightly overshadowed in the public’s mind by the success of Bladerunner, William Gibson’s book “Neuromancer” is equally as important in the creation of a subgenre of Sci-Fi known as cyberpunk. Anyone familiar with RPGs such as Shadowrun owe due respect to this book, along with Gibson’s other works, for many of the fundamental themes in these games.

The main character Henry Case, a low level criminal hacker and junkie, is a self-destructive and reluctant protagonist. I wouldn’t go as far as to call him suicidal, as some have, because it is self-preservation which motivates him throughout the story. He’s poisoned by an antagonist and must pull off a number of heists to earn the cure.

While I enjoyed this character’s struggle to function, it was Gibson’s supporting character, Molly Millions who shined as the most enthralling of the tale. She serves as the muscle of the tale, tackling a number of assassinations and the majority of the fighting throughout the story. This could also be because as a supporting character, Molly is shielded from firsthand knowledge of her thoughts or motivation; however, her no nonsense attitude and powerfully confident actions make her a memorable character.

If a memorable crew is a good start, the backdrop for the tale The Sprawl is Gibson’s real contribution to the literary cannon. Spanning the entire East coast of the US, The Sprawl is a massive city which has the feel of a futuristic 1930’s gum-shoe movie. The atmosphere shares a feel with dick Tracy’s universe. It felt so similar, in fact, that I constantly expected Molly to be a femme fatale: spoiler, she doesn’t flip on Case.

The bartender’s smile widened. His ugliness was the stuff of legend. In an age of beauty, there was something heraldic about his lack of it. The antique arm whined as he reached for another mug. It was Russian military prosthesis, a seven-function force-feedback manipulator, cased in grubby pink plastic. “You are to much the artiste, Herr Case.” Ratz grunted; the sound served him as laughter. He scratched his overhang of white-shirted belly with the pink claw.

This isn’t the only backdrop. I can’t say with certainty, but Gibson may have been the first to create the word Cyberspace. Case regularly “jacks in” to the virtual infrastructure, The Matrix, and armed with armed with viruses and accompanied by a computerize ghost of a dead friend carries out data heists.

“The matrix has its roots in primitive arcade games,” said the voice-over, “in early graphics programs and military experimentation with cranial jack… Cyberspace. A consensual hallucination experienced daily by billions of legitimate operators, in every nation, by children being taught mathematical concepts… A graphic representation of data abstracted from the banks of every computer in the human system. Unthinkable complexity. Lines of light ranged in the nonspace of the mind, clusters and constellations of data…”

Case’s “Flipping” from each reality is disconcerting, and I could see it turning off some readers. Gibson employs this to make Case an unreliable narrator which works, but can also make the reading difficult at times (I skimmed back slightly a few times to sort out where I was). From an artistic standpoint I loved it, but I could imagine some people not enjoying it. I may read Gibson’s sequels and I hope to see him refine this technique.

The only personal qualm I found with the story was Gibson’s choice for an ending. I won’t spoil it, but I will stress that the gripe is of personal tastes. Gibson went for the flashy ending and executed it well. Remember, I had the Dick Tracy concept in mind and suppose I expected a less futuristic ending. All things considered, I may read a sequel so that should speak for itself.

Overall, Gibson’s world creation was magnificent, his characters are memorable, the story is solid, and this was his debut as a novelist. How many authors have a hand in establishing a subgenre in their first attempt?

With regards to AOC

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez has become a subject of contention between the inflamed tribes of Democrats and Republicans. Her outspoken nature has made her a regular target for flogging by Fox News. To her credit, she has withstood this mudslinging and met adversity in an admirably confrontational fashion.

To my knowledge members new to congress typically lay low in the early years lest they garner attention and illicit public ire. This may have worked before social media established itself, but the appeal both Trump and Ocasio-Cortez have benefitted from reveal the strengths this new medium bestows upon current day politicians. The tweet is the new fireside chat. Shares, likes, and retweets are the bricks which pave one’s way to leadership in new emerald city cyber-commune. Fame and infamy are now synonyms as either begets the other.

Taking the aforesaid into account, how does this form my opinion of the young idealist Ocasio-Cortez?

First: It cannot go unnoticed that she is young. At 29, I can acknowledge that I too recognized the many problems in the world and saw the power of the government as a clear tool to amend the many ills which plagued the country. I was neither as cunning, driven, nor confident in my convictions to rise to the position of influence which Ocasio-Cortez has earned. However, this young age means that regardless of how well studied she is, her life-experience is limited. This is neither a good or bad thing, it is just a fact that will influence her opinion on judgements going forward.

Secondly: as I previously mentioned Ocasio-Cortez is an idealist. H. L. Mencken once said, “An idealist is one who, upon noticing that a rose smells better than a cabbage, concludes that it makes a better soup.” This is a good quote for encapsulating Ocasio-Cortez’s attack on Wells Fargo CEO Tim Sloan.

On the heels of her victorious performance against Cohen, Ocasio-Cortez carried her momentum into a foolish looking scolding of Sloan. Employing the same demeanour, Ocasio-Cortez ferociously proposed that lenders be held accountable for the actions of those they lend to. As in Mencken’s example, listeners/viewers can follow Ocasio-Cortez’s logic; unfortunately, this would bring lending – byproducts of which are both good and bad – to a grinding halt.

While I have always remained critical of idealism and its unforseen consequences, I actually find Ocasio-Cortez’s both heartening and encouraging. My cynical core has been genuinely moved by Ocasio-Cortez and the generation she represents. Under normal circumstances I would fear her cries of injustice as an emotional appeal which could cause a power-grab proportional to Trump (though with better intentions) , but her stuffy surrounding members, both Democrat and Republican, will temper Ocasio-Cortez’s actions. If she endures within the Congress, I think she truly has the potential to become a great force for America.

She is both confident and confrontational enough to force herself to be taken seriously, and at least for now she seems to have her heart in the right place. For these reasons alone she has earned my respect.

Lack Thereof

The mislabeled nature of Osho’s title becomes painfully obvious within the first few sentences.

At first glance it will be apparent that Intelligence: The Creative Response to Now is a collection of speeches as writers tend to correct inconsistencies before print. In most instances public speakers also edit these errors out prior to performance, and while the off-script nature of speeches can inject error an experienced speaker keeps this to a minimum. Errors abound in Osho’s speeches, yet he presses on undeterred.

Intelligence is not an achievement. You are born intelligent. Trees are intelligent in their own way, they have enough intelligence for their own life. Birds are intelligent, so are animals. In fact, what religions mean by God is only this – that the universe is intelligent, that there is intelligence hidden everywhere. And if you have eyes to see, you can see it everywhere. Life is intelligence. – page 1

Born Chandra Mohan Jain, Osho had many names throughout his life and like his connection to these names, his definitions of words seem equally as fluid. Osho, as I will refer to him, enjoys reinterpreting words to shrink the available vocabulary in a discussion. He does this to such an exhausting extent that a notebook and pen are required to steelman his arguments. This is made further annoying when one learns Osho has no real point, and instead this is a long-winded act of sophistry. I suppose if one were practicing for debate this might be of some value, but for the casual philosophy reader this is not a case of the speaker’s English as a second language. I do not recommend this book to anyone, and only purchased it myself on recommendation from a friend.

Osho claims that all people are born of equal intelligence and yet society, through some malevolent scheme, drills that intelligence out of us. As proof for these claims Osho offers up appeals to authority through short fables involving characters such as Einstein, Hegel, Buddha, Jesus, and even, audaciously enough, himself. His ignorance of these characters – fictional or not – is only eclipsed by the arrogance with which he employs them.

He formed a new-age type movement which emphasized meditation and mindfulness as a central doctrine, and like the fake martial arts master who speaks in riddles, Osho keeps followers by making his message hard to decode. Sometimes defining intelligence as curiosity and sometimes as understanding; he values intelligence over intellectualism – the latter of which he defines as thinking. In Osho’s world, intelligence comes from the heart and intellectualism resides in the head.

After ostracizing listeners from society by propping it up as a boogeyman, they are comforted by being offered a cure: meditation. “The society is very much afraid that if the child’s intelligence is left intact, then he will never be a part of any slavery, of any structure of domination (page 113),” Osho said. “Meditation is needed only to undo what society has done… It simply negates the damage, it destroys the illness (page 6).”

Meditation is a means for stepping outside of one’s self and reflecting upon experiences, and at one point Osho even acknowledges this himself. Unfortunately, his muddled language makes this less than clear. It is the topic of meditation and its purpose that introduces fallacy into Osho’s argument.

Committing a common error among meditators who lack a background in psychology, the ability to teach meditation often leads to a false confidence in understanding cognition. Having withdrawn and reflected on their own thought process, meditators often conclude that everyone else’s thought processes must be the same as their own.

Thinking cannot give you the right answer because thinking can only repeat that which is known. Thinking has no vision for the unknown. Have you ever tried thinking about the unknown? How will you think about it? You can think only about that which you already know; it is repetitive. – page 76

Osho’s lack of imagination is not universal. Entire genres of literature are devoted to the unknown. Science fiction, for example, bravely predicts what the future will look like often with eerie accuracy. In the past, entire pantheons were created in an attempt to explain away the fears of the unknown. If this seems like a rather short rebuttal to his assertion, I apologize, he makes assertions such as this and takes for granted that the receiver accepts them.

As one works through the book incidents such as above make it increasingly difficult to take Osho seriously. Perhaps he was charismatic in his performances; however, when committed to ink the charm is lost. There is no real substance to be found in any issue Osho raises and there even seems to be an admission by him that he has nothing of value to contribute: “I go on teaching, knowing well there is nothing to be taught. That’s why I can go on infinitely,” he says. “If there were something to be taught I would be finished already.” – page 97

If he has nothing to teach, it must be asked, why continue peddling this drivel? As with Osho’s explanation of cognition, he again draws from personal experience when speaking of leaders.

The leader is continuously in need of being convinced again and again that what he says is right. For that he needs growing numbers of committed people. And the more fanatically committed, the more convincing they are to him… And in a circular way, his certainty convinces the followers – because he becomes louder, more stubborn; he becomes absolutely certain. Ifs and buts disappear from his language – whatever he says is the truth… It is the psychological need of both… – page 56

A cult of listeners reassures Osho that he is correct. His tirades against intellectualism reveal that it is a topic often on his mind. What are these speeches if not a poor attempt to be an intellectual? It is clear through his false citations of public figures such as Einstein that Osho envies their prestige. By courting a group of followers he justifies his grandiose idea that he is just as intelligent as they are. This is an individual of weak self confidence who manipulates others to reinforce his own ego. It’s disappointing to say, but this outline of a public figure may sound familiar to American readers.

Language and Information

Reporters, journalists, news: terms which, in practice, reflect differently than the traditional image summoned to one’s mind. The terms themselves have been stretched to represent so many different shades of the same color that many consumers have failed to distinguish one from the other.

This is a failure of language, and imagination.

When many Americans envision journalists, and the synonyms (at least in practice), reporters and “the news,” an image of a champion of the people comes to mind. While in this era that champion tends to be an opinionated talking head like Rachel Maddow or Tucker Carlson, the populace still expects these champions to fight for the truth. This expectation comes from a time when Americans received their news from titans like Walter Cronkite. The replication and continuation of this role has distorted its original meaning.

“We live in a world where there is more and more information, and less and less meaning.” – Jean Baudrillard: Simulacra and Simulation, page 79.

Consumers need to remember that, in the print form from which the news began, there was a section titled “Opinion.” On the television this has changed: instead of an opinion section, hosts of their own shows are giving their, or the channel’s, views. This is vastly different in style and content from news which, in theory, is meant to be stripped of opinion and intended to present as many facts as possible. It is a very difficult craft, and writers occasionally fall short. Editors are in place to sift out these errors, but errors do slip through. No organization is perfect and the organizations themselves will tend to lean ideologically to the left or the right. The opinions section was meant to give the writers a space to vent their personal views.

The current media landscape shares many similarities with that of pre-WWII. During that timeframe newspapers were the main source of “news” and were employed as megaphones for propaganda. A lengthy read through the works of George Orwell will give a sense of the climate. While he is only one of many journalists writing and experiencing the phenomena, he wrote the essay, “Politics and the English Language,” which intimately described the connection between language and thought:

Modern English, especially written English, is full of bad habits which spread by imitation and which can be avoided if one is willing to take the necessary trouble. If one gets rid of these habits one can think more clearly, and to think clearly is a necessary step towards political regeneration. – George Orwell: Politics and the English Language.

This “necessary trouble” is the digestion and contemplation of information consumed: the effort of switching from intuitive thought to analytic thought. This becomes more difficult as the resource expended to do so is time – a resource which producers have targeted and unrelentingly seek to monetize. This is detrimental to analytic thought as it requires focus as the switch only occurs when one has time to reflect.

(I would suspect that this is where much of the appeal of the “mindfulness” movement comes from: a sort of backlash against advertising.)

Orwell identified and used storytelling to make this issue more soluble. In his last book “1984” the language “Newspeak” was used to control thought. Lacking words to transmit certain ideas made those ideas difficult to manifest, and while Orwell’s depiction saw the government manufacturing this mental shackle, it can be assumed that it is less intentional in our time. The entities circulating the current poor state of the English language are decentralized, and in the hands of a number of private businesses; however, the consequences are the same.

Algorithms set the rules of how the lingual memes, as well as pictorial versions, will replicate. Similar to the Darwinian rules for nature, the algorithm sets the parameters for meme-evolution.

Since the media landscape is the medium through which ideas and their vehicle, language, is most widely propagated, understanding this behemoth is essential. In confronting this endeavor the French philosopher, Jean Baudrillard, is a useful consultation.

Taken in its totality, Baudrillard’s work is an almost obsessive view of how the reproduction of commodities distorts the very assumptions, thoughts, meanings, and associations people link to said commodities. To analyze a commodity, Baudrillard uses a model of signifier/signified: the signifier is the commodity itself, while the signified is the meaning or experience people associate with it.

Baudrillard’s writings ominously predicted the age of social media, but his opinions were formed around that of the 24-hour news cycle. Like most postmodern philosophers, his works devolve into artistic and less empirical language, but if waded through the gems of insight are prescient.

Rather than creating communication, it exhausts itself in the act of staging communication. Rather than producing meaning, it exhausts itself in staging meaning. A gigantic staging process of simulation that is very familiar…. More and more information is invaded by this mind of phantom content, this homeopathic grafting, this awakening dream of communication. A circular arrangement through which one stages the desire of the audience, the antitheater of communication, which, as one knows, is never anything but the recycling in the negative of the traditional institution, the integrated circuit of the negative. – Jean Baudrillard: Simulacra and Simulation, page 80.

This is a build up to a point he makes two paragraphs later:

Thus not only communication but the social functions in a closed circuit, as a lure – to which the force of myth is attached. Belief, faith in information attach themselves to this tautological proof that the system gives of itself by doubling the signs of an unlocatable reality. – Jean Baudrillard: Simulacra and Simulation, page 81.

The myth I seek to shed light on is that of reporters, journalists, news, etc as the champions of the people and bearers of truth. Journalists, like every other profession, have bills to pay. As such they must sell two products: something for consumers to pay attention to, and the consumers attention sold to advertisers.

This by no means should destroy all trust in their profession and turn consumers to the likes of social media for their information. Journalists and reporters, those who create the news content, are held accountable to bad reporting: they lose credibility, can be sued, and can be fired. Social media are not held accountable in the slightest for these issues.

How one should ingest their news is probably best explained by Bertrand Russell when he spoke of how to inoculate a society against propaganda:

The schoolmaster should select an incident which happened a good many years ago, and roused political passions in its day. He should then read to the schoolchildren what was said by newspapers on one side, what was said by those on the other, and some impartial account of what really happened. He should show how, from the biased account of either side, a practised reader could infer what really happened, and he should make them understand that everything in newspapers is more or less untrue. – Bertrand Russell: Free Thought and Official Propaganda, page 23

Outrage towards the aforementioned professions is healthy as it has already proven to force the fields to shape up, but consumers can never expect to let their guards down. Accepting one’s information from a single source, or a multitude of agreeing sources, is unhealthy for a consumer’s thoughts and worldview. Instead of hatred towards the liberal or conservative media for portraying a fallacious worldview, consumers should be happy for the existence because, circling back to Walter Cronkite, what if someone in a trusted position decided to lie and no alternative existed? An opposing worldview is imperative, either for showing errors in one’s judgement or validating already existing opinions.

In the end anyone can be charmed by cheap appeals to pre-existing desires. Any assumption that one source or side of an argument will provide the best information will lead a consumer to look rather foolish.

Technology’s Crude Impact on the Future

In 10-20 years Louisiana’s economy will collapse if it does not diversify. Worse still, the cause of this impending future will have global reaching effects.

On 7/11/18, Joe Wheeler, Executive Director of the Houma-Terrebonne Airport Commission, stood before the Terrebonne City Council to seek the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding to assist with grant funding.

The goal is to move forward in testing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles, or drones, so that parts and eventually people can be flown to oil rigs in the Gulf. Much of the research of drones is being done at North Dakota University. Wheeler is looking to take these pre-tested drones and put them into service. The Houma airport was chosen for safety reasons because large swaths of southern Louisiana are marsh, uninhabited by people, which creates a safer environment if an aircraft were to fail.

During his presentation, Wheeler, said Nabors Drilling already has a fully autonomous rig in the North Sea. Because of this, Wheeler predicts that by 2025 the oilfield will be autonomized. (For those interested in the plans of the drones: 2018 remotely piloted, 2019 optionally piloted, 2020/2021 semi-autonomous aircraft, and 2022 fully autonomous [highly autonomous]).

Bear in mind, this is a prediction by one man making a sales pitch. While this is likely exaggerated, the hourglass has been set. The oilfield will become autonomous, and Marx’s prediction of technology replacing human labor will be fulfilled in this sector. While it is fair to assume that not all will be replaced – obviously some will be required for maintenance and supervision – the scope of the industry will vastly alter.

Real wealth manifests itself, rather – and large industry reveals this – in the monstrous disproportion between the labour time applied, and its product, as well as in the qualitative imbalance between labour, reduced to a pure abstraction, and the power of the production process it superintends. Labour no longer appears so much to be included within the production process; rather, the human being comes to relate more as watchman and regulator to the production process itself…He steps to the side of the production process instead of being its chief actor. In this transformation, it is neither the direct human labour he himself performs, nor the time during which he works, but rather the appropriation of his own general productive power, his understanding of nature and his mastery over it by virtue of his presence as a social body – it is, in a word, the development of the social individual which appears as the great foundation-stone of production and of wealth. – The Fragment on Machines, by Karl Marx: page 7-8

This has startling implications. The oilfield has been a place for the working class, both higher educated and not, to flock and reach substantial incomes (not only is the pay impressive, $45.75 average pay across all occupations in November of 2018, but room and board are provided while offshore, reducing the cost of living for a portion of one’s year). This will further widen, and deepen, the already impressive fissure that is the wealth gap. Just as america has witnessed the sentiments expressed in the 2016 election, with former and active coal miners outraged by the crushing effects of technology taking their livelihoods, Louisiana and oilfield communities elsewhere will soon suffer.

Currently, oil is essential to military power. This means those who have influence on the availability of oil hold sway over governmental decisions. While the working class is necessary for the harvesting of this product, their approval is necessary in leadership. Shifting dependence from that segment of the population to technology means also consolidating the political influence into the hands of those who control that technology.

When a majority of the population in a democracy feels a lack of control on their destinies they look to candidates who exhibit authoritarian qualities: demagogues often step in to fill this vacancy. These individuals often appeal to a population’s baser emotions.

Take for instance Aristotle’s observation of a demagogue:

After the death of Pericles, Nicias, who died in Sicily, was the leader of the upper classes, while Cleon the son of Cleainetus led the people. The latter appears to have corrupted the people more than anyone else by his violence; he was the first to shout when addressing the people, he used abusive language, and addressed the Ekklesia with his garments tucked up when it was customary to speak properly dressed. – Aristotle and Xenophon on Democracy and Oligarchy, page 171: XXVIII, 3-4

Aristotle continues to list a few more noteworthy individuals, then summarizes what’s left, “…there was an unbroken series of demagogues whose main aim was to be outrageous and please the people with no thought for anything but the present.”

When a populace has an uncertain or threatening future the mass conscious tends to focus on immediate gratification or solution. This can be useful when facing a threat such as war, when decisions must be made for survival purposes; however, this is not healthy for the society long term.

This could change, with the advent of some new energy source, but I don’t expect it to do so in such a short period of time. One possibility would be a breakthrough in battery technology which would suddenly unlock the potential of “green” energy. This would at least create a demand for workers, and open a new job market.

Viewing the West through Russian eyes.

(During the writing of this and posting, Amazon began offering a digital version of the book. Also reposted once, to properly space paragraphs.)

The current political environment, panicked over disinformation, presents Russia as a shady mastermind working from behind a curtain to influence opinions. With that in mind, I sought out a text which might shed some light on these motivations.

Alexander Dugin is a philosopher, advisor to Vladimir Putin, and author of a number of books. Americans who search for him on Amazon wouldn’t know this, because, for some reason neither Dugin nor any of his works are offered there. Without speculating on this, just know that this increased my anticipation as I ordered the book “The Fourth Political Theory” from a UK distributor.

I was utterly disappointed when what I found lurking between the covers of this forbidden tome was a highly educated mind, poisonously envious of western society.

Another intelligent Russian, Gary Kasparov, when speaking to the viewers of The Economist, warned people not to view Putin as a chess player, but rather as a poker player. In this context, Dugin operates in the same manner. I was often left wondering whether he believed what he espoused, or if he merely wanted his readers to believe it.

After laying a foundation 13 chapters long, Dugin felt comfortable enough to reveal his hand:

“The current world is unipolar, with the global West as its centre and with the United States as its core.

“This kind of unipolarity has geopolitical and ideological characteristics. Geopolitically, it is the strategic dominance of the Earth by the North American hyperpower and the effort of Washington to organise the balance of forces on the planet in such a manner as to be able to rule the whole world in accordance with its own national, imperialistic interests. It is bad because it deprives other states and nations of their real sovereignty.”

“When there is only one power which decides who is right and who is wrong, and who should be punished and who not, we have a form of global dictatorship. This is not acceptable. Therefore, we should fight against it. If someone deprives us of our freedom, we have to react. And we will react. The American Empire should be destroyed. And at one point, it will be.”

Frankly, I was surprised by this unfettered outburst, but I must admit, I respect it. While we’ll return to it for my assessment, I can respect that he revealed his opinions. If for no other reason at all, this chapter makes the book valuable to a western reader.

What we have in Dugin is a mind who has scoured countless philosophical works, but has a sense that his country lacks the freedom to carry out its desires. He says that his country and its people have a potential for greatness which is stifled by the West.

Rather than point to as many texts in their entirety, Dugin would have done much better to quote the passages which would make his point. Instead he points to the entire texts and moves on expecting the reader to accept his interpretation of the work. I am suspicious that many of these references are playing loose with the interpretations, but I leave that to other reviewers to handle.

Dugin laments that America is unjustly stifling other countries from expressing their desires, but what appears as an intentional omission on Dugin’s part is the obvious question his entire book begs to be answered: if not America, than who?

Entertaining this idea isn’t difficult. “The West” lacking America would bend its knee to China and suddenly “The East” would be in power. Lacking the checks and balances, along with the overall power American citizens have over their government, Xi Jinping would suddenly wield a tremendous amount of authority on the global stage.

The theme of the West’s suppression of other countries runs throughout the book, and in this regard makes it feel akin to “The Communist Manifesto,” only because of the many references Dugin smatters throughout the book, it is accessible to a much smaller audience.

Considering what censorship Xi enacts on his on populace, I find it safe to assume Dugin would lack the same privilege to speak out against other leaders the way he does against America.

“The Fourth Political Theory” ironically illustrates what American leadership entails. For all its flaws, which there are many, america is influenced by the will of its people, and freedom of speech is paramount. With America at the helm, its citizens will defend Dugin’s ability to publish his works. Contradictory ideas like his are what keep the global dialogue healthy. One day another country will take the lead. Hopefully it stays a liberal democracy and improves upon what we already have through dialogues like this.

I am open to a new political theory, but what Dugin proposes is to cast off a flawed but working system for an empty alternative. He proposes, as an alternative, a form of government based around “Dasein.”

While this term does lead to interesting philosophical and ideological inquiry, it is hardly the basis for a government. At the risk of straw-manning Dugin’s argument, it would be similar to suggesting a government to be established on the theory of “Tao.”
If Dugin really believes this form of government could work, he has the ear of his leader. Let his country take the risk. Implement the policies and prove it works. Show that it creates the maximum freedom while retaining stability and I’m sure democracies will follow (just as democracies followed America’s example).

Now, if Dugin would like to argue that Russia is doing so already, I would argue that democracies have already proven to be perfectly content not to follow suit.

One interesting and perceptive point Dugin did raise was his distinction between “freedom from,” and “freedom to.” I quite enjoyed it and found the nuance engaging. He is mostly honest in his rendition of the two, and argues that liberalism only outlines “freedom from,” while allowing “freedom to” to be defined by the individual.

He is only disingenuous in a few places: he says the “freedom to” holds no political and ideological value, and towards the very end of the section he straw-mans liberalism.

The reason “freedom from” is so strictly defined is because all whom are governed can come to agree upon what he or she can no longer tolerate; however, where said individuals cannot agree is what makes everyone feel happy and fulfilled. One could, and I would, argue not that “freedom to” lacks value, but instead that it is priceless and cannot be defined.
As for the latter disingenuous representation:

“In everything else, liberals go rather far, repudiating practically all sociopolitical institutions, right up to the family and sexual differentiation. In extreme cases, liberals support not only the freedom of abortions, but even the freedom from sexual differentiation. The family, as another form of society, is thought by them to be a purely contractual thing, which, as with other ‘enterprises’, is conditioned by legal agreements.”

This is where Dugin is stepping from philosophical usage of “liberal” to the political usage of the term. He seems far too educated to do this unintentionally. As such, it seems rather manipulative on his behalf.

In America these are political arguments being held between conservatives and liberals. It appears that Dugin is employing a sleight of hand with his terminology to denounce all democracy by using a portion of the American liberals to represent the entirety of democracy.

Without diving into how fervently issues like abortion and sexual differentiation are argued in America – enabled precisely because of liberal democracy – instead, I would like to point out that instead of argue, in Dugin’s opinion, the resolution of these difficult issues would be decided and imposed by a new philosophy. Here, the “freedom from” is essential. By giving those under liberal democracy “freedom from” a government imposition, the populace has “freedom to” argue these difficult moral and ethical questions. I would question who Dugin presumes would know the answer to these.

The charade Dugin attempts to play is presenting Liberal Democracy as “liberals” in the political sense. In statements such as this, he illustrates the exact danger of stepping away from democracy. The sneering manner with which he describes abortion, sexuality, and questioning family, serve to cut the legs out from under his argument. For Dugin, these issues are already determined and they, along with other issues, are not to be questioned.
He advocates all religions in his government when the one thing that has tempered religions’ animosity towards one another is the very system he wishes readers to discard. He condemns technology while never admitting that weaponry, once created, is something all countries must live with – to cast technology off would be to accept domination by those who choose not to.

By his own admission, Dugin is far too educated to believe what he espouses in this book. The frothing contempt he fails to mask behind these pages reveals a child throwing a tantrum at being denied by a responsible adult. We have seen this activity before from his own country’s history. Dugin has merely repackaged the Narodnost movement for a new age.

Just like Mikhail Pogodin before him, Dugin is stoking contempt for progress and beseeching readers to fall back on religious doctrine. This book is worth reading for entertainment, to listen to the braying of those with illegitimate power contort, squirm, and thrash at the reality of someone telling them “No.”

Workers demonstrate in New Orleans

Hundreds were mobilized in defiance of Donald Trump, Monday, as the president gave a speech to the nation’s farmers.

Around 500 protestors marched the perimeter of the Ernest N. Morial Convention Center, Wednesday, January 14, chanting slogans, carrying signs and carting props.

“No Trump. No KKK. No fascist USA,” chanted the crowd, as it marched down Convention Center Blvd.

Bri Guzman, a resturaunt worker and activist in the International Socialist Organnization, who lives in New Orleans, heard about the march through religious groups on social media: People’s Assembly, and Congreso.

Guzman said Trump is a symptom of a larger problem, and that his tendancies for what she considered fascism are a trend America has been headed towards for some time.

To this she cited Stop and Frisk measures as an attack on the working class.

When asked if she thought protest should only be non-violent, Guzman said violence in self defence was acceptable.

“We aren’t here to pick a fight,” said Guzman. “But we are going to fight to protect our own.”

She said vandalism which has characterized the Black Lives Matter movement were property damage, not violence on people. According to Guzman, this is an important difference to the two deaths of children in the border crisis.

“Let’s say a window or two gets broken,” Guzman began, “it’s nothing compared to the life of people that have crossed different countries. “

Close by, and with a police presence supervising, a small group of people stood in support of Trump.

Douglas Olander, and his wife Chrystel Olander, are owners of Big D’s Seafood Inc.

The two weren’t so much counterprotesting as they were trying to raise awareness to a seperate

“Trump doesn’t actually know how little we get paid for our product – that’s what it is,” said Douglas.

Douglas’ sentences were paused as he spit out dip. He didn’t blame Trump for the lack of attention American fishermen received; instead, he made it his mission to get the message through.

“We don’t like asking for hand outs whatsoever but when you work 7 days a week – 18 hours a day – and at the end of the week you still don’t have nothing to show for it,” said Douglas. “Well, now we gotta ask for help.”