Author: plinyblogcom

Our usual inclination for unrestricted, casual musing, somehow led us to a novel, all-encompassing and ubiquitously, applicable, conceit. Our Planet contains a fundamental, unchanging and metaphysical source of natural energy, demonstrable, not alone in its gravity, shifting of its tectonic plates, electricity, and meteorology, but indeed, in an entire, “obligatory,” panoply of earthly, dynamic phenomena. The same is inclusive of evolution and life itself, as well as the formulaic, growth and decline, of its fauna and flora. [general comment: If all of humankind’s research and exploration to date, have provided somewhat less, than full and all-encompassing, explanations for these eternally present, phenomena, they have done so, at least sufficiently, to rationally dispel atavistic beliefs in superstitious, and non-empirical, causation.]

We would venture to say, that, by dint of evolution’s development of a unique, advanced and sentient, being, viz., Homo sapiens, there, was implicitly, created, a measure of derivative, analogy between, Man’s recognition and acceptance of his planet’s immutable, phenomena, on the one hand, and on the other, his analogous, recognition of an eternal and existential, obligation, to, likewise, abide by certain fixed, immutable principles, relative to all humankind, desirous of living in society.  

Humankind, by its beneficially, permanent election, to live in society, voluntarily and necessarily, assumed the existential obligation of living in accordance with societal, mutually, accepted principles; the latter, as stated, a metaphysical requirement, as fixed and non-negotiable, as the planetary, phenomena, of tides and gravity. If any thematic difference should exist between the two comparatives, it is, fundamentally, in their nuanced etiology, i.e., the difference between, accruing such obligation by empirical and pragmatic necessity, as distinguished from the analogous, but naturally created, planetary concomitance, of eternally, inflexible and unalterable, dynamic phenomena.

“Principles,” as such, may permissibly, be defined as fundamental truths, which function as individual guides for belief, and behavior. They are society’s “GPS,” reliably and enduringly, directing the individual member of society along the correct orbit to the traditionally, established and agreed standards of acceptable action. Societally standardized, established principles, themselves, are the empirical result of the cumulative, anecdotal life experience of its members, within the realm of that society.

The mainstream individual, based, on the course of his life experiences, gradually accrue a consistent self-identity, a self-image, founded upon his perceptive recollection of personal experiences; notably, his past responses to life’s varied stimuli. Based upon this developed, self-image, he gradually construes, and thereafter maintains, stable and acceptable principles, consistent therewith, enabling the rational evaluation of his own views and behavior, as well as those of others. Possessing moral principles entails situating ones compass’ due “North,” sited on a perceived good self-image and an assured sense of confirming rectitude. The latter is inclusive of personal behavior, to the extent of its being in harmony with the acceptance of established and consistent societal principles. Should certain of his society’s principles, be altered or eliminated, the compliant citizen responsively, amends or eliminates them, in response. Illustrations of the latter observation, are noted, in the cases of the Statutory, elimination of the prohibition against selling and drinking alcoholic beverages and, as well, the wise retirement of the cumbersome, unfair and religiously, biased “Sunday Blue Laws.”

The thematic point is that those, inner-directed individuals, whose developed and secure self-image have the required capability to evaluate their own thoughts and actions, within the context of their personally established, inner sense of rectitude, i.e., principle. Others, not so constituted may be relegated to the dependent and vulnerable position of reliance upon others, (“outer-directed”).

The etiology of the insufficiently socialized, persona may be associated with a voluntary or situationally, casual approach to liberal education and the consequent lack of introspective inclination towards self-examination, and insight, relative, as well, to other members of his society. His perception of life and of its critically, nuanced issues is, but, a shallow one, if at all, existent. His dependence on those others, who seem to appear, confidently knowledgeable (who, in reality, may be feigning such knowledge) is his default. His failure to develop his own self-image, consistently adhering to personally developed, guiding, principles, makes him vulnerable to demagoguery or, dependence in “group think.”

This lack of ability or, alternatively, the disinclination, to live in accordance with personalized, stable and consonant principles, provides an arable field for the development of the “cult,” and of delusional conspiracy mongers. It renders credible and attractive the accepted notions and diatribes of sly, “snake oil salesmen,” in sync with their ignorant, horde of compliant, acolytes; in lieu of efforts to exercise reason or to develop independent thought. Principles of rectitude, morality and good government, are witlessly, abandoned, or, conceivably, deemed to be nonexistent, on the part of such useless, and often, dangerous, “populist” citizens. For such individuals, reliance upon a tactically convincing charlatan, is facile and convenient, compared to the strenuous effort expended in the employment of an underdeveloped, and accordingly, unused, personal exercise of reason.

To date, there has existed, yet another, immutable, and frustrating, comparative; in addition to the stated, obligation on the part of the Planet, to exist with other phenomena, and the permanent charge on humankind living in society, to eternally, live in conformity with established, principle. It is the existential necessity of a democracy, such as ours, to maintain a population of educated and informed citizens, living, indeed, in accordance with established, principle, on one hand, and, on the other, the continued, absence of the requisite ability of society, to date, to do so.

-p.   

*N.B. [For many early centuries, prior to the advent of plumbing and of flush toilets, the utilitarian, chamber pot served as a portable toilet. [The titles’ initials stand, in aesthetically, selected order, for the odious, “ménage a trois,” of Putin, Orban and Trump, the dramatis personae of this writing].

We were profoundly, shocked, to learn that Viktor Orban, the totalitarian Hungarian, Prime Minster, has become the role model for American Conservative Nationalists, and was invited as guest speaker at the Conservative Political Action Conference, (“CPAC”, carefully, pronounced) in Dallas, Texas. After a brief, romantic, visit to Donald Trump, the latter, an amorous and esteemed partner in the (themed) ménage a triose, Orban went on to deliver his invited speech in Texas. Reportedly, the speech expectantly amounted to a paraphrase of “Nazi” propaganda, and notably, received the universal approval and enthusiastic applause of that audience.  Orban, apparently, admonished the United States for its large population of immigrants, its flagrant intermarriages, and mixed race population and the consequential threat to white Christian dominance of the West. He, received a standing ovation, from the right-wing audience, in response to his pronounced attacks on, what he called, U.S. “gender ideology.”

Orban had dedicated more than a decade, tactically and egregiously, to successfully, destroying Hungary’s, democracy, its free media, Court system, its democratically, based election laws and Constitution, in his desire remain in autocratic power. His racism, homophobia and demagogic style, has proven to have great appeal to the current plethora of aberrant, (Trump-loving) members of the Republican Party, consonant, with his autocratic theories. We have previously, (See: ”LEMMINGS”) posed the question: Is the successful attainment of an autocratic future, in which liberties and legal rights are, universally, circumscribed, ultimately desirable, to the, MAGA members of the present Republican Party?

Official government investigative research revealed that Russia (Putin) had improperly, meddled in the American election, tactically, and wrongfully, to assist in Trump’s elevation to the U.S. Presidency. Thereafter, an intimate, Putin-Trump, “bromance,” was demonstrably, made undeniable, in the public media. Regarding this bizarre, relationship, we have, on occasion, expressed our view, that the wily, Putin, (by such election support, feigned, friendship, and faux narcissistic admiration, of the witless Trump), did so, mindful of his intention to invade Ukraine, and was, artfully, intending to take advantage of Trump’s unquenchable and neurotic need for approval and narcissistic admiration; for the tactical purpose of deterring, predictable, future American assistance to the besieged Nation.

Trump, has frequently made clear his enduring approval of Putin’s repression of human rights and general autocratic policies, and has often, publicly stated that he was “tight” with (the despicable and dangerous autocratic) Putin. All three of our named chamber pot, scoundrels, uniformly, denigrate the democratic vote, educational enlightenment, truth, equality, free speech, the free media, women’s bodily autonomy, universal equality, homosexuality and same-sex marriage. They unanimously, and wholeheartedly, support, the pernicious cause of alleged, White, Christian Superiority, and subscribe to the neurotic and paranoid fear of the bogus, “Replacement Theory,” are xenophobic and oppose immigration. We would persist in our repeated, declaration of the evident reality, that the elimination of rights and human liberty would be as painful to such witless, supporters, as to their, democracy-loving opponents.

The mainstream, traditional, American citizen, presently, finds himself, in a veritable, quandary, concerning the millions of fellow citizens, lacking adequate education and sufficient awareness, to realize that reverence for this odious, chamber pot of autocratic scoundrels, will not fill the perceived, empty spaces in their lives; but, instead, misuse such witless citizens, in their perverse quest for unlimited, power?

Until enlightened citizens, dedicated to the traditional, American, way of life and its protection of constitutional freedoms, can solve this existential dilemma, the present threat to democracy, will endure and metastasize, promoted, by the honored, dignitaries, inhabiting the human chamber pot and as well, their ignorant and misled lemmings.

-p.

It is noteworthy that authoritative, reference sources, relative to the developmental history of the species, Homo sapiens, uniformly, reveal a singular, eternal, conundrum. The subject dilemma is one that has eternally, existed between society’s traditional practice of granting lesser status and commensurate treatment to the female gender, and, in contrast, the latter’s eternal and ultimate, facility to bring about determinative social change.

The Old Testament recites that the first female, “Eve,” was created from a rib of the first Man, “Adam.” This atavistic representation, we perceive, was intended as an enduring declaration that Woman was born as an appendage to Man. Traditional societies, from the Paleolithic to the present era, have traditionally, granted an ancillary, or secondary, status, to women, compared to Men; conceivably, due to such prescribed, traditional folkways, or, alternatively, based on their protective size and strength. The differences in anatomical structure mandated that Women had the responsibility of giving birth and nurturing the babies, while the more physically, capable Men went off to the hunt, in addition to providing protection.

Such universally, eternal allocation of lesser status, however, seems, to us, markedly at odds and inconsistent with our readings of history, from the prehistoric era to the present. The universally misread (in our view) apocryphal, initial tale in Genesis, concerns the cast of Adam, Eve, “The Forbidden Tree of Knowledge,” one apple and a serpent (snake),” all situated in the Old Testament, venue of the “Garden of Eden.” The snake, coiled up in the  “Forbidden Tree of Knowledge,” induces Eve to wrongfully, induce Adam to partake of a forbidden apple, for which grave offense, Adam and Eve (Mankind) were, forever, evicted, from the Garden of Eden. The protagonist, Adam, who succumbed to Eve’s temptation, was the miscreant, culprit causing sinful Mankind to be forever banned from Eden.

In previous writings, we have stated that, even as a revered myth, its symbolic representation, on close reading, is, inarguable, poppycock. A great many ancient cultures saw the snake as a symbol of fertility; if a modicum of analysis is applied to the holy scenario, the symbol of fertility in the “Tree of Knowledge,” would, logically and symbolically, represent “mental fertility.” The reductive and religiously, useful, portrayal of “Original Sin,” can more charitably, and perhaps, more rationally, perhaps, be seen in a more perceptive and consistent (with ancient mythology) symbolic interpretation. Eve (Woman) offered the existential ingredient for elevated, life, viz., “knowledge,” to Mankind, which Adam (Mankind) accepted, and thereupon, discovered his “nakedness,” (self-awareness). Humankind was banished from Eden (i.e., animalistic, ignorance) forever. It is markedly, unjust, that, instead of Womankind being celebrated, and awarded the highest of praise, for bringing to Man, existential knowledge (reason), the female protagonist is charged as an accessory to “Sin,” for being a “temptress,” and as an accessory offender to  (Adam), Mankind. Any review of human history reveals, by contrast, the existential indispensability of women to the civilized existence of Mankind, and not as an accessory to Man. Still, Genesis, indisputably, is not history. Far from the narcissistic, male perception of the female, as adjunct to male existence, empirical truth may demonstrate, just the obverse.

The early, Classical Greek playwright, Aristophanes, was fully aware of such reality when he wrote the Greek Comedy, “Lysistrata.” (411 B.C.).  In the Classic Greek play, the continuous, bloody warfare between Athens and Sparta, seemed, endless, until the admirable, female protagonist, Lysistrata, successfully, organized a women’s strike, in both warring States, denying sexual privileges to their men, unless and until they make peace. The historically, chronic tragedy of the Peloponnesian Wars, as portrayed in the theme of the play, abruptly, abated, the warlike, males being induced to peaceful, submission, by their women. The playwright, inarguably, was not extolling the importance of sex, but, effectively, the eternal moderating influence on the male, of the female gender.

Historic revelations of the innate impactful, power of women, are manifold, and belie the traditional perception and treatment, as inferior, or secondary, to men.  Gender bigotry, throughout history, proscribed women from owning real property, signing contracts  (legally, they were under the “coverture” of the husband), denied any but a primary education,  limited in social life to family and to the friends of their husband, proscribed from carrying on trade, denied the right to vote, and, generally, were discriminated under law, especially, in cases of divorce. Victorian literature, traditionally and stereotypically, pictured the woman, sitting in the parlor, sewing her husband’s linens, while he, manfully, rode off to the hunt.

Today, many of the atavistic restrictions, imposed by society (men) against women, have been eliminated, or at least, ameliorated, often, due, in large part, to the action of strong, dedicated and courageous women. Today’s women vote (since, 8/18/20), enter into contracts, own real property, as well as personal property, obtain licenses and engage freely, in commerce and the professions, including the ministry, legally sue, inclusive of divorce, serve in the military, engage in professional sports, and deservedly, claim constitutional equality. Names of admirably, heroic and dedicated women, deserving of kudos for these, and other beneficial reforms are numerous, and include, Florence Nightingale, Margaret Sanger, Susan B. Anthony, Elizabeth Cady, Harriet Tubman, Eleanor Roosevelt, and Betty Friedan. Each generation has produced its nuanced, roster of talented and dedicated women, as reformers and leaders, who memorably, have been at the helm of movements, seeking, and obtaining, appropriate, equality.

The legality of the (natural) right of American women to request an abortion was justly and necessarily, settled and recognized, approximately, fifty years ago, by an impartial, Supreme Court of the United States, in the precedential case of Roe v. Wade. Said landmark decision, in addition to its recognition of women’s privacy rights and bodily autonomy, saved those women of modest financial circumstances ( who could not afford foreign hospital procedures), from possible death and severe bodily injury, often brought about, by their desperate relegation, to incompetent, possibly unsanitary, “back alley” abortion providers.

In the recent SCOTUS case of Dobbs v, Jackson, the High Court, disappointingly, turned partisan, and in an unconstitutional award to religious interests, heartlessly, overturned, its half century, precedential recognition of the natural right of women to procure an abortion, and granted the States, the authority to set their own abortion policies. This decision approved anti-abortion, religious-oriented States, contrary to the specific provisions of the Constitution’s Establishment Clause and its 14^th Amendment, to proscribe abortion; showing no empathy for underage, unwanted, and dangerous pregnancies, or those due to incest or rape.

Our confidence in ultimate justice, and notably, our respect, for the empirically, demonstrated, moral power of America’s resolute body of female (and mainstream male) citizens, enables our prediction, that this perniciously, shameful and injurious, denial of women’s natural, personal bodily rights will not long endure.

-p.    

N.B. [ Weighing the entire spectrum of tragic, losses of personal intimacy, occasioned by the universal shift from (natural) spoken conversation, to the transmission of impersonal, images, onto a small, hand-held, lighted screen, (i.e., “smartphone”) the romantic and memorable phrase, “ I love you,” has empirically, suffered a shameless decline, from first place, in consequence,  to a  pragmatic, second place, behind three, impersonal words, viz.,  “On” “Select,” and “Play”]

*Scenario # 1:

We arrange our mise- en- scene, to be, on an early evening, at a dimly lit, romantic, New York City, East Side Restaurant. On this rainy and cold, November, occasion, our attention is soon drawn to two well-dressed, attractive guests, both in their early 30’s, sitting, at an intimate table for two, in front of the ersatz (but warming) fireplace, as arranged in advance by the solicitous, male diner.

Before we proceed further, in this anecdotal romance, we would like to go back to late October, preceding the dining event. The young man’s name is Sheldon Lewis, (“Shelly’) a recent graduate of NYU Dental College. The young woman’s name is Florence (“Flo”) Gibson, a graduate research assistant, at Mount Sinai Hospital’s Laboratory for Research in Infectious Diseases. Shelly has never been married. Flo was married for a brief time, prior to her husband’s death from an aneurysm.   

They had met each other after a few, mutual, unsuccessful, searches on an internet dating service, specializing in college graduates under forty. For a period of approximately, ten days, prior to their arranged, dinner date, they had mutually exchanged several, lengthy introductory texts, and e-mails, plus two, (televised) “virtual, meetings.” Based upon their personal impressions, derived from these prior communications, they were mutually, desirous, of physically, getting together, perhaps, as suggested, at a dinner date to further their mutual acquaintance. After making a reservation at the restaurant, Shelly texted the details of the coming event and Flo e-mailed her enthusiastic acceptance.

The couple arrived, excitedly, each at precisely the agreed time, at the appointed restaurant, and, after warm, mutual, introductions, waited a short time, in the restaurant lounge for a table assignment. Each, from time to time, subtly, peered at the other to eliminate any possible doubt that the other transmitter of electronic messages and seen in their two past virtual meetings were, in fact, the same. Flo silently had been of the mind that Shelly was a bit, taller and had more hair; Shelly had the impression that Flo was slimmer and curvier. They were shown to the pre-arranged table (by the ersatz fireplace), and Flo, excused herself, nervously, to go to the restroom.

After she left, Shelly took out his smartphone, called his friend, Jeff, and in a somewhat, querulous voice, told him that his date might be a substitute, someone, a bit chubbier and less appealing than in the virtual meetings. As soon as Flo arrived at the ladies” rest room, she took out her smartphone and, shrewdly dialed Shelly’s e-mail number. Shelly, who had just completed his call to his friend, tapped his phone and was rather surprised to note that the caller was Flo, herself. “Is everything ok?” he typed.  Flo, after letting out an involuntary sigh of relief, at the recognition of his voice, typed the following e-mail response: I was going to ask you a specific question, but I can just as well, ask it when I return to the table. Upon her return, to the table, both parties, for the moment, remained strangely silent.

Shelly picked up his menu, pointing to Flo’s copy, and said, “I suppose we might as well order,” to which suggestion, she, a bit nervously, agreed. The diners, similarly, ordered a cup of onion soup and swordfish from the summoned, waiter who compliantly, noted their requests, typing the information on his smartphone, which was instantly, transmitted, to a computer in the technologically, modernized restaurant kitchen. The meal soon arrived and the couple, now, somewhat, more relaxed, chatted about their past, their families, work experiences, and interests.

Following a truly delicious dinner, they expressed their mutual intention to meet for dinner again in the very near future, and, hesitatingly, decided to go their respective ways home; identically, anxious and impatient, to return home to e-mail the other, to express just how very much the evening was enjoyed. After a few days of electronic communications, neither thereafter, contacted the other.

*Scenario #2:

John, an undergraduate Engineering student, at the Jesuit College, “Our Lady of the Holy Algorithm,” had been, energetically, engaged in the sweaty process of rushing to his twelve o’clock, mathematics class, at the Thomas Aquinas Building, when he happened to observe, what he considered, the most uncannily, attractive and appealing female student. She was sitting on a College bench, under a shaded, Elm tree, holding a textbook, which she was quietly and intently, engaged in studying. Normally, possessing a shy persona, John found himself, nevertheless, irresistibly, drawn to the far seat on her bench, all the while, unblinkingly, staring at her sunny, but intent, face,  her long, beautiful red hair, and, more subtly, at her crossed, shapely legs, protruding, from her argyle, pleated skirt.

John, somehow, conquering his customary shyness, ventured to say to the pretty, female student, “Excuse me… I don’t usually… I just wanted to talk…please do not think that I am aggressive, because, I never am… but you looked, forgive me, so nice, I felt that I wanted to come over and just say hello. There was no response, from the young woman, other than, calmly, and pleasantly, looking up from her book. My name is John, he continued. I am an engineering student here, at Our Lady College. She sweetly smiled and said that her name is Susan and that she too, is an engineering major, awaiting the commencement of the noon Mathematics class at the Aquinas Building. By good fortune, it was the same class, John was to attend, and, under the circumstances, they sat in adjacent seats, during the lecture demonstration.

Upon leaving, class, John ventured to invite Susan to lunch at the college cafeteria and she cheerfully accepted. At lunch, both spoke freely about their lives up to that point, their families, interests and likes and dislikes. The natural ease of their conversation resembled that of a date between two close and affectionate friends. At the end of a period of a full hour and one-half, they reluctantly parted, but, not before mutually exchanging cell phone numbers, and modestly, kissing on the lips. Each party, on the way to his and her next destination on campus, looked back, warmly smiled and waved.

John e-mailed an invitation to talk, via text and/or e-mail, a suggestion quickly accepted by Susan.  By perverse luck, it was the beginning of the Official Spring Break, and each party was, for two weeks, relegated, as a needed alternative to costly, long distance telephone calls, to communicate by e-mail or text.  In the absence of Susan’s lovely, personal presence and attractive voice, her remembered loveliness seemed to be a bit faded, in John’s memory. Susan was, as it happens, too busy with pressing family matters so that her electronic messages were somewhat, hurried and by virtue of the empirically impersonal nature of the chosen medium of communication, were perceived to lack the uniquely, spontaneous, energetic nuance, as recalled, of their exciting two weeks, preceding the Spring Break.  However, instead of growing increasingly ardent, by virtue of their separation, such electronic exchanges became more impersonal and mundane, caused, conceivably, in light of the selected, impersonal medium as well as their rather short, albeit, romantically. exciting, previous history.

On return to college, following the conclusion of the Spring Break, John and Susan saw each other, Tuesdays and Thursdays, in math class and somewhat uneasily, exchanged smiles and friendly greetings with the implicitly shared, realization that their previous romantic assumptions must have been misconstrued.    

-p

The hubristic and philosophically, un-American practice of book censorship has been the critical subject of several of our past writings. The purported justification for its chronic continuance appears to be attributed, (or diagnosed as) to a ( neurotic,) self-appointed, elevated, “lay ministry,” arrogating to itself, a perceived, “moral,” duty, to the protection and perpetuation of its own ethnocentric, and reductive perception of human affairs. It may be more likely, that many of such miscreants, in reality, are merely seeking power and influence, by the sham representation of the dutiful enforcement of a construed code of morality. In any event, as appears to us, that, with respect to all-stereotypical, iterations of evangelical style enterprises, the motivations are all reductive, smugly arrogant and objectionable.

The creative and aesthetic literature of exceptionally talented and insightful authors constitute their beneficial legacy to an ever- continuing progress of human advancement. The hubristic book censor, by the bogus assumption of singular duty, arrogantly, purports to possess a more responsible moral compass than does the brilliant book author, or his readers, and whose arrogant determinations are relegated to a published “banned book list,” for determined, reader avoidance or, perhaps more effective, Gestapo style, burning.

Before we go further, on this revolting, “Dark Ages,” atavistic, dynamic, we would, revealingly, furnish a sample, of the high quality literature, now doing undeserved time on the current, banned list. It is felt, that an informed, note, of the recognized authors and their book titles, alone, would suffice as a cogent argument against book censorship:” The Great Gatsby,” F. Scott Fitzgerald,” To Kill a Mockingbird,” Harper Lee, “Grapes of Wrath”- John Steinbeck, “Ulysses”- James Joyce, “Catcher In The Rye,”- J.D. Salinger, “ Beloved”-Tony Morrison, “Of Mice and Men,”- John Steinbeck, “Brave New World,”- Aldous Huxley, “American Tragedy,”- Theodore Dreiser, “1954,”- George Orwell, “As I Lay Dying,”- William Faulkner,” Call of the Wild,”-Jack London, “For Whom the Bell Tolls,”-Ernest Hemingway, “Gone With The Wind,”- Margaret Mitchell,” Blue Eyes,”- Toni Morrison. We could, without special difficulty, fill this page, and yet, another, with a continued list of great works of literature, which were relegated, ignorantly, or due to un-American, bias, to the dreaded, “Banned Books” list; the reading of which, salubriously, should be encouraged rather than abandoned, to the book Gestapo. As can be observed from the proffered sample, the same are among the plethora of fine written works that make for commendable and enlightening reading. Additionally, it has been shown that reading books, encapsulating all viewpoints, is a necessary stimulant to the development of a maturely somewhat, educated mind.

In all candor, we are, somewhat, inclined to doubt, that the “censors” and, certainly, the assemblage of compliant dupes, that support their pernicious, autocratic discipline, are (serious) readers, at all. We are confident, in our presumption, that the adherents to such Gestapo policy, thoughtlessly and loyally, ascribe to such “group think,” determinations, as the officially, shared, position of their unholy tribe.

It appears undeniable that primary among the various alleged purposes, the strategic policy of banning books has as its proponents’ ulterior motive, the autocratic control of individual thought, the universal and fundamental dynamic of reprehensible, totalitarian rule.    

–p.

Mark Twain is known to have said,” The truth has no defense against a fool determined to believe a lie.”  The pragmatic wisdom of Twain’s observation was never so emphatically, confirmed, as it has been since the misfortune of Donald Trump’s surprise ascendance to political power and the American Presidency. Trump’s undemocratic, autocratic policies, exclusively founded on neurotic self-love, egoistic arrogance, aggravated by colossal ignorance and incapability, set in motion, a skewed, novel and unprecedented, perception of the office of the American Presidency. Of all his feckless, undemocratic and autocratic-style policies, the most fundamentally damaging was, (and is) his programmatic attack on factual truth, in favor of the subjective conception of a more acceptable, “alternate” reality, thus, injecting a new, corruptive element or pathology to infect the populist lexicon.    

Our nuanced, simile, that “Truth” is the “existential epoxy,” joining Man and Society, should require little argument. Accordingly, on weighing the pernicious effects of the full inventory of Trump misdeeds, presently, engorging his full to bursting, cornucopia of miscreant behavior, this was the most injurious; constituting a pernicious crime, in effect, no less fundamental and damaging, in reality, than the commission of felonious treason against human evolutionary anthropology.

As an aggravating feature, as revealed in our reading of World history, and the literature, from Walter Scott and William Shakespeare, to that of our contemporary authors, is the hazard to the functioning of human society, of large numbers of uninformed and guileless, citizens. Such useless individuals have been shown, among other presented challenges to human development, to be inclined to ascribe validity to false and irresponsible, political and social memes and tactical propaganda. These factors provide the foundational explanation for the unlimited number, as well as the bizarre nature, of the popularly, metastasized, pathology of delusional ideations, imparted by Donald Trump, and unhealthily, infiltrating the American blood stream. It is a bizarre and disturbing phenomenon, that loyal Trump sycophants, persistently, eschew empirical facts, and instead, cultishly, curate their Trump inspired, preference for delusional ideation (“conspiracy theory”).

A partial list of  illustrative examples, of such bizarre  conspiracy theories are: the delusional belief that the Presidential election, which Trump lost, was “stolen,” that Israel sends rockets to earth from outer space,  that Covid vaccine contains tiny computerized, government trackers, that the 9/11 events were an American, false flag operation, that immigrants, per se, are prostitutes and drug dealers, that America was founded as a “Christian Nation,” that horse anti-worm medicine cures the Covid virus,  that  Americans, with black and brown colored-skin, are plotting to replace Americans with white colored skin,” that liberals are sub-rosa, child molesters and sex traffickers, that the 2^nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution grants to every American, he right to carry deadly weapons, that there are evil  books, such as, “The Diary of Anne Frank,” “Huckleberry Finn,” “Grapes of Wrath,” “The Great Gatsby,” “Beloved,” and, “To Kill A Mockingbird,” that inspire evil thoughts and are included in the copious list, of  “prohibited reading,” that “birth” occurs at the very moment of conception, that government empathic programs are (the dreaded) “Socialism,” that there is a secret, world-wide conspiracy, of Jewish Bankers, to rule the world, that Global Warming is a tactical ruse  by the left wing, that coastal liberals desire to take over the Nation, that there is a voluminous number, of “caravans”, of undesirable Mexicans and Central Americans, intent on emigration to the U.S, for nefarious purposes, and many more, factually, unsupported and delusional, ideations. It boggles the ordinary mind to take note of the many adherents to the mad cult of Trump, who are ardent perpetuators of such paranoid ideations, and would, simultaneously, assert any cognizable claim, whatsoever, to human sanity.

We can recall reading and noting the following statement, but regrettably, did not, also, note the attribution: “History will speak of [this] cult, and how easily they were gaslighted, how they embraced the most flawed leader in cultish history; how they rallied against their own personal interests, (see earlier, plinyblog, “LEMMINGS”) behind an obvious con. But the true disaster was the normalization of a madman.”

Contrasted, for example, with a purely theoretical situation, of a National dividedness, founded in differences in political philosophy, the schism might, in such case, at a minimum, be rationally, comprehended. However, political or economic principles have little to do with this veritable, “Cold War,” between the cultish supporters of the autocratic, Donald Trump, and the mainstream citizens who favor the continuation of our democratic form of government. We have speculated,  in earlier writings, as to the etiology of the observably, large number of supporters of Donald J. Trump, the latter, a persona which, in reality, calls for an extended therapeutic seat on a psychiatrist’s couch for critically needed psychotherapy and appropriate medication.

The rationale for such large support for such an artless, immoral and incapable persona may appear unexplainable; but the existential threat to democracy is all too evident. The dire consequences of autocracy, thoughtlessly, ignored, by the Trump cult, in its quasi- religious adoration of the Orangutan haired, Pied Piper, if successfully, implemented, will bite them every bit as deeply and painfully, as it would the presently, concerned, mainstream, American citizens.

-p.    

The applicable venue of this writing can reliably, be set, in that distinct, inner area of the psyche, wherein reside, the most intimate and private of our thoughts, which we choose to call, the “Meta Umbrella” area. It is, precisely, here that our often referenced, “life-long, private conversation with ourselves,” takes place. It is that sensitive and discreet neighborhood, of the psyche, where the empirically, established and determinative, guide, viz., the self-image, has its functional sway and introspective jurisdiction in the resolution of moral ambiguities.  Uncountable, personal experiences of self-validation, as well as remorse, are referentially, stored at this home office, or library, of morally, overriding determinations. When necessary, the inner psyche can also perform yeoman duty as an intermediary, by way of its abiding, protective, Meta- psychic umbrella, selectively, repelling the storm of falsity and other repulsive stimuli.   

The private nature of each individual is, empirically, confirmed, and easily, demonstrated, by his own, exclusive reaction to external stimuli. An illustration of such singular, Meta level, response, may take place, at bedtime, following the conclusion of a busy and tiring day. Thereafter, a subtle turn of the pillow to its cool side, the consequent, sigh and an inner feeling of comfort, at times, to the degree of evoking an unwitnessed, half-smile of contentment. (See early blog, “The Cooler Side of the Pillow.”) Singularly, exclusive, and personalized pleasure, is likewise, experienced, by the removal of tight-fitting shoes upon arriving home, at the end of a working day. These uniquely, private, personal responses emanate from our referenced, deeply private portion of our psyche, the essential intimate, “Meta Umbrella.” Like the actual, handheld, appliance, utilized on rainy days, the scope and effect of this psychic umbrella are only wide enough, for each, distinct person. These intimate and exclusive, sensations, respectively, each serve as a contextual reminder of our universal and distinct individuality.

It is our principal theme, that such inner “self,” viz., the rationally profound, metaphysical portion of the psyche, is universally and eternally, available, as a fixed, personal, guide to selective choices, or found solutions to problems, and reliably guided (and consistent), as stated, with one’s personal and long-established, self-image. The personal exercise of mature judgment, valuably, contributes to Man’s society, in bright contrast with the mindless, uninformed, “group think” of popularly existing “tribal” cults. Confident reliance upon one’s own personally acquired, standards of rectitude and equity (i.e., within his own personal umbrella) as opposed to reliance on outside, populist influences, in the determination of moral and political issues, is the hallmark for useful and informed citizens.

The personalized, psychic umbrella of mature perception is likewise, capable of rendering yeoman service, when needed, in the nature of a shield or buffer, against criticism or unjust attack, and is eternally, available as a comforting, inner assurance of one’s individual perception of rectitude. The curation of an inner- self, which is determinative, moral and confident, is of existential importance to being a valuable citizen, and the fitting, or useful, response to Trump’s, tactical, demagogic influence to his large, amorphous cult and his pernicious delusion of “alternative facts.”  

We would recommend that one’s next, personal experience of ephemeral pleasure, derived, perhaps, from contact with the cooler side of his pillow, ought to serve as an enduring and meaningful reminder of his independent, singularity, and his individualized capability, in fact, his mature responsibility, to maintain and express his own independently derived, determinations, ( i.e., under his exclusive) psychic umbrella).

-p.

A few years ago, as was revealed in an earlier essay, we experienced an exasperating loss, but one which, on reflection, later usefully raised our consciousness and enlarged our previous reductive perception, as to a common assumption. The nature of such enlightenment is the theme of this writing.

As related in the prior essay, two, rather precarious, “bare root,” pear tree saplings, generously, but, by inexperience, given to us in October, were miraculously, kept alive until the spring planting season, by their continuous maintenance and nurturance in a second bathroom kept cold by an open window.

Subsequently, good fortune, tantalizingly, shined its capricious light on us. In spring, the pear saplings, which had, by some secular, miracle, survived the entire bare root winter in our cold second bathroom, were very gently scraped at the roots, and, optimistically, planted by us in such a fashion that the wind might enable their cross-pollination and, hopefully, consequent fruit production. After the passage of many anxious weeks and dutiful watering sessions, verdant leaves did appear and we joyfully celebrated the hoped-for, woodland miracle of the trees’ survival.

Sadly, our short-lived, arboreal good fortune seemed to wane. To condense several years into a modest paragraph, we would indicate that rather than, predictably flowering in the coming year or, perhaps, two, it took a full ten years before the two young, leafy trees flowered, and thereafter, two more years to bear noticeable fruit. We purchased a long fruit picker and arrived at our (then) weekend home with high expectations of being, rewarded, finally, with an indisputably, well-deserved bumper crop of pears.

Did we mention that our summer residential property, at the time, was near a pond? Perhaps not, in this retrospective redux, of the event. In any case, when, as previously, stated, we arrived, at our then country residence, with excited anticipation and the intention to harvest a long-awaited (12 yrs.), bumper crop of pears, we discovered to our great dismay, that both young pear trees had been chewed down to pointy stumps, evidently, by the pond’s local beavers. Our initial reaction of shock and disappointment, as stated, did, in time, however, lead to a truly revelatory, enlightenment; one, which we feel, would be useful to again articulate, most especially, to other” landowners.”   

Our shocked discovery of the arboreal tragedy, was, as stated, responded to, with major angst, disappointment, and annoyance, even anger, directed towards the beavers, as the unquestioned, perpetrators of the tragic event. A few days passed, and such anger morphed, in stages, to peaceful resignation, and thereafter, to a more comforting perception and realistic understanding of the normalcy of the incident, and finally, to a more valuable, metaphysical and enlightened understanding.

In common with the  “homeowner,” who expresses righteous anger at the deer who ate “her” planted flowers or the rabbits that ate “her” veggies, our salient error was the unshakeable assumption that such natural acts constituted a theft of (our) private property, “our” flowers, “our” pear trees. It is, rationally, certain that the hungry critters have no knowledge or instructive instincts, regarding Man’s, ethnocentric, conception of property ownership and property lines; they live in nature, and are simply, and existentially, hungry, respecting which, they do, in fact, have existentially instructive instincts.

In the rarified dimension of Planet Earth’s human society, exclusive ownership or transfer, of designated, real property, can be changed by legally approved purchase or sale. However, this writing’s spotlight is not focused upon the acquittal of animal guilt, by their defense of lack of proprietary perceptions; it is instead, focused upon what may be the human singular (ethnocentric or hubristic), arrogated, assumptions of presumptive “ownership” of selective, portions of the Planet.

Among the developed folkways of the human inhabitants of the Planet, is the legal capability to purchase “exclusive ownership” of identified pieces, or, “parcels” of property, from other “owners,”  desirous of selling the same by contract, culminating in an event of actual transfer of ownership (the Closing”). The signature, event, is attended by the seller and purchaser, their respective, attorneys, a representative from a “Title” company (to insure the accuracy of the recited boundaries of the transacted property, etc.), and, possibly, a representative of a Mortgage Company. The event concludes with the “delivery” of a new deed signifying transferred ownership to the purchaser, which is referentially, filed in the local Land Office (County Clerk).

It is a matter of irrefutable fact, that neither, beavers, deer, rabbits, or any other forest critters are customarily, afforded formal notice or invitation, to participate in the ceremony of real estate conveyance. One cogent reason may conceivably, be that the legal and practical effect of this civil dance, as a practical matter, is of interest to, and binding, only on other interested or affected members of the species, Homo sapiens. Thereafter, any unauthorized attempt to exert rights, upon the subject land, by non-owning, Homo sapiens, without permission, such as trespass or harvesting fruit, is a legal wrong, and legally, addressable. 

It may confidently, be said, that the existence of the local fauna and their naturally based, franchise to freely, partake of the local eatables, is millennia’s older than the advent of Man’s recognition of real estate ownership. The latter concept is singular to modern man, who, we gradually came to realize, conveniently, arrogates to himself, self-serving rules of exclusive ownership rights, respecting personally desired, portions of the Planet. “Critters” have existed long prior to evolution’s radical revelation, of a so-called, “sentient” being.

In empirically candid fact, the beavers gnawed down two young pear trees, not “our” two pear trees, the local deer prefer to survive on eating sweet flora, such as flower petals, irrespective of “the legal owner’s” aesthetic arrangements, and rabbits, as ever was their wont, munch away on available lettuce.

In the realistic and rational context applicable to Mother Nature, no money or real estate ceremony can elevate humankind’s essential Planetary, status above recently-arrived, “Squatters.”

-p.   

In common with other mainstream members of society we, continue to lament, the widespread continuance, of reprehensible, selfish human behavior totally, devoid of considerations of empathy and charity.  Should such observation, require contemporary, illustration, we might easily, cite,  Russia’s cruel incursion into Ukraine, the warlike, the saber-rattling actions of North Korea, in its bellicose display of rocket barrages into the Ocean, and on the domestic scene, the egregious, ignorance and racial mindset of Trump and his large swath of cultish devotees.

For some time, we resignedly attributed the regrettable panoply of Man’s inappropriate behavior to the possible, innate, protective persona of Man. Those of us, imbued with the more traditional, positive, perceptions of mainstream America, conceivably, have been devastated, at what appeared to be an existential defect in the extant persona, or ultimate essence, of Homo sapiens, which conceivably, might, portend its ultimate, self-destruction.

We are pleased to declare, to the reader, that we have arrived at an alternate, more promising, and empirically, plausible, theory, which we present to the reader for his thoughtful consideration.

We will posit that every enlightened thinker is in accord with the scientifically confirmed “Darwinian Theory of Evolution.” The entire universe of renowned scholars in the disciplines of, anthropology, sociology, biology, chemistry, geology and medicine, have ratified the empirically, demonstrated, eons-long, steady development of improved and complex function, from simple-cell organisms and primitive flora, to the contemporary stage of capabilities of the sentient human being and the present, aesthetic wonder, of a magnificent chrysanthemum.

Empirical evidence has reliably, acknowledged, that it was evolution’s slow, plodding, journey from ape-like, brachiating biped, to today’s, functional and mental iteration of a sentient, Homo sapiens. In this essay, we have chosen to confess to established academic heresy, by positing that Man’s contemporary iteration might indeed, not be the ultimate one, biologically intended, by a still ongoing process of human evolution. We will elucidate our radical and optimistic theme, in the paragraphs that follow.

Fundamentally, we would dare to pose our thematic question, as to what reductionist or egotistic, basis exists, for man’s fixed and declared assumption that evolution has (already) run its course? On what guiding principle can we not look forward to its future dynamic developments? Evolutionary dynamics, has to date, wondrously, produced a superior functioning, sentient human being; nevertheless, why assume that the present state of his evolution, viz., the nascent capacity for enlightenment and psychic growth (for example, empathy, judgment) has attained its potential zenith? Is it not conceivable, that, at present, that Mankind may only be at a brief “whistle stop,” in a biologically, determined journey, to its ultimate and potential, evolutionary destination?  To be clear, we suggest that humankind’s evolutionary advances to Man’s present physical configuration, do not, necessarily, comprehend its full, potential development, as to the refinement of his inner persona and the sanctity of his moral compass.

As a contextual, illustration, one might imagine, a prehistoric scene, in which, two, growling Neanderthal men, are, hungrily, fighting over a carcass of a killed small animal, as compared to that of two, non-growling contemporary, husky, workman, hungrily, and sociably, eating their lunch at noon break, or perhaps, an elderly, senior citizen being assisted across a busy street, by a younger person, contrasted with the ancient practice, of the Norse culture, to abandon the elderly, on the glacial ice, to die. Picture the well-attended, spectator-blood sport of gladiators, fighting to the death, as compared with today’s non-contact rule in basketball. Consider the recent rise of charitable programs, soup kitchens and public health programs, in historic contrast, to the mandatory incarceration of paupers and debtors, in the days of Victorian England. Think of the speed at which modern medical science, dedicatedly, produced an effective vaccine against covid, contrasted with the hapless chanting of medicine men of the first Americans. These illustrations are emblematic of an inarguable, developing evolution of man’s spiritual recognition of a humanistic, moral responsibility, to help others.

The Dark Ages practices, of cruel and barbaric religious persuasion, have, over time, morphed to that of more peaceable, evangelical propaganda; today, mentally unwell individuals are properly perceived, as “ill,” rather than possessed by demons. These are empirical examples of an improving, humanistic, persona, reflective of a developing, empathic awareness of others, which we maintain, thematically, is properly, ascribed to the dynamics of a still ongoing (psychic) evolution, of humankind.

Notwithstanding contemporary reports of humankind’s acts of cruelty, unrestrained ambition, and absence of moral compass, it is our newly attained, belief, that the present point of evolutionary improvement may be characterized or perceived as reduced speed at an evolutionary, whistle-stop; yet, is eternally, pursuing its way towards its natural destination. The relevant proviso, however, is that pending arrival, at that destination, those thoughtless humanoids who are heedlessly, engaged in their irresponsible and atavistic tendencies, do not, prior thereto, effect the destruction of the Planet, and its naturally, evolving, dynamic processes.

-p.      

Readers doubtless will recall the classic Whitman Sampler, an item, somewhat in vogue. in the era in which it was still “cool,” for an invited dinner guest to bring one as a gift. The item was, and, it still appears to be, a handsome, boxed assortment of chocolate-covered candies containing, raisin, nut, crème, nougat, coconut and others. The salient feature, unique to of this box of treats was the element of personal choice; our personal favorites, as recalled, were the nut and the coconut.

Manifestly, in direct contrast to the freely selective, Whitman Sampler, many concepts, foundational to the existence and proper functioning of human society, are not subject to nuanced preference, but are mandated, by empirical necessity, and thus, are fixed and immutable. The most fundamental of the latter is the recognition and perpetuation of factual truth. The maintenance of acceptable interpersonal relationships, safety, health, the feasibility of communal enterprise, conduct of commerce, integrity of family and social integrity, learning and advancement, in essence, the dynamics of society itself, is existentially, reliant on the universal assumption of unaltered, truth.

 As a consequence, it is alarming, to note that said ageless and universally, accepted, supporting pillar of organized society, became degraded, and, tactically, forced into a tenuous back seat to personal expediency, under the dystopic term of Donald Trump. The former President, known for his unabashed, serial mendacity, was the irresponsible and bizarre creator of the. “Alice in Wonderland,” artifice of “alternate facts,” (intended to shield his incapacity and ignorance) to subjectively, and tactically, distort reality. In aid of the same, he vociferously impugned the veracity of authentic, reports of the Nation’s institutional and legitimate media. Man’s empirically, existential reliance on the assumption of factual truth, with his atavistic assistance, descended into a new venal franchise, analogous, in its casual and arbitrary significance to the nuanced selection of a bonbon from a Whitman Sampler.

In the present writing, we seek to express our, deliberated, attribution of the etiology of the bizarre phenomenon, in which, Trump’s acolytes choose to disbelieve confirmed facts, yet, accept Trump’s, arbitrary version of “alternate facts” and fabricated distortions of reality, and bizarrely, find a facile credulity in paranoiac, conspiratorial ideations.

It is with great concern and dismay, that we have noted the perverse influence and cult-like reverence, afforded to Donald Trump, evident in the Nation’s under-educated, and atavistically bigoted, population. It is our best estimate that the etiology of this phenomenon is revealed in their perceived, personal identification with Trump’s purported stance against the (non-existent), influential, “intellectual-elite,” and roadblocks to programs seeking the amelioration of inequality and social needs. The foregoing, supplemented, by the presumed, discontent with their limited, personal lives, Trump’s tactical, snake oil, demagoguery, and, most effectively, a perceived and personally redeeming, identification with Trump’s societal irreverence and brash, barroom quality pronouncements. Such large, horde of “underbelly” Americans, in their elective choice of their orange-haired, social avatar, as President, had been financially supported by industrial polluters, who, sociopathically, afford to profits, a higher priority over governmental health regulations; the latter, famously, opposed by Trump.

We, at first, found it, extremely, challenging to comprehend, or at minimum, to derive a conceivable rationale, for the preferred choice of bizarre beliefs and denials of belief, on the part of these devotees of Donald Trump, in contrast to their uniformly persistent denial of verified fact. In their own, irrational and undemocratic, (analogous) iteration of boxed candy samplers,” not one of their presented choices might emulate any reasonable standard of acceptability of the traditional American options, here analogously, represented by those of the venerable, Whitman Sampler.

We would choose to state our deliberated, understanding of the dynamics of the seemingly unfathomable choices by the Trump devotees, with a cursory analysis and attained conclusion.

In aid of understanding, we start with the subject of Evolution, the rejection of man’s rational, acceptance of which, cannot be objectively, based. The World’s acknowledged scientists have determined the age of our Planet, at more than three million years ( not six days before an “omnipotent,” Deity needed to rest), blood studies, anthropological and fossil proofs of fauna and flora, the instructive order, level and contextual setting in which fossils are discovered, decades of geological research and the persistence of archaic, vestigial organs in man, constitute demonstrable proof, of the universal scientific and mainstream accepted, Darwinian theory of evolution.

The irresponsible denial, by Donald Trump, of the existence and danger of Global Warming and its visibly, disastrous effects over the past decades, as well, remains, loyally and persistently, denied, by his followers; this despite the ratification of its potential for planetary destruction, by the World’s great scientists, including oceanographers, meteorologists and relevant scientists. The perturbing off-season weather, unprecedented typhoons, storms, forest fires and, even national boundary erasing, tsunamis, do not seem to attract their acceptability to the factually accurate, impending danger.

At the advent of the covid pandemic, our former, ignorant and irresponsible President, by his public disparaging remarks, was responsible for the cynical disbelief of many of his cult, of the warning of the Nation’s top medical scientists, to the effect that we were in substantial jeopardy from the spread of the potentially, mortal virus. Trump’s false downplaying of the seriousness of the contagious viral infection, led many of his followers to refrain from the prophylactic measures, universally recommended by medical profession to wear facemasks, distance oneself from others, and be vaccinated. The non-wearing of masks and avoidance of vaccination, as a defined partisan show of support for Trump, resulted, in hundreds of thousands of misled citizens, who, predictably, were infected and died.  “Dr.” Trump had initially, “prescribed” bathroom solvent and thereafter, horse warmer, as his, Whitman Sampler, style of preferences.

In singular contrast, to the loyal, unified, non – acceptance of objectively certified, fact, the Trump loyalists, regularly, maintain and defend a wide array of irrational conspiratorial ideations, all of which, we submit, might, appropriately, be pathologically, diagnosed, as paranoid. These include, bizarre ideations, such as:  the U.S. Government was responsible for the 9/11 event, as a false flag operation; that there are conspiracies to take over the country, by, the (non-existent) “intellectual elite”, or, alternatively, the “ bi- coastal liberals;” that the State of Israel launches rockets to the Earth from outer space that horse worm medicine is effective prevention against the covid virus; that an international cabal of Jewish bankers has been secretly, conspiring to take over and dominate the World; that the vaccine against covid contains intrusive, microscopic transmitters, that the communities of color, aspire to replace their fellow white Americans; that abortion, albeit, performed at the earliest stage, is an act of homicide, (since “birth commences at conception”), that same sex marriage is an unnatural abomination; that the previous, (certified as accurate and fair) Presidential election was stolen, despite its multiple certifications as fair and accurate, and with absolutely,  no evidence to the contrary, that America was intended by its founders, to be a white and Christian nation, and, most charmingly, that liberals are child abusers and sex  traffickers.

We have concluded that the bifurcation of mainstream citizens, who accept empirically certified facts, and those who immoderately reject them, yet, give credence to irrational and bizarre ideations, has a tenable rationale.  In our view, the dilemma had its origin in the many citizens who (for various reasons) chose to accept Trump’s all-out war on truth, his exaltation of the concept of “alternate facts” and his pathological approval of a tailored, reality subjectively, deemed more satisfactory.

Such obdurate denial of empirical reality, amounts to, no less than an unforgivable, and ungrateful heresy, against evolution’s sentient (anthropological) accomplishment, and predictably, destructive of any conceivable form of functioning society. The maintenance of “truth,” is the essential epoxy that binds individuals and their society.

No analogous iteration of the dynamics of the Whitman Sampler’s arbitrary, franchise, can exist in the existential human choices, between fact and selective reality, one, completely, unrelated to personal taste or circumstance.

-p.