Plato’s Socrates: The Parable of the Ship

  Famously, Socrates has told Glaucon and Adeimantus in Book V of Plato’s Republic (488a-489a) that there would be no rest from ills in the cities unless philosophers rule as kings. Not knowing what philosophy is, or what philosophers are, someone, a Harvard man, has also famously said he would rather be governed by any of the first 20 names selected from the Boston phone book! The point is well taken, especially if these could manage to deliberate together for the common good, especially since we do not happen to have a wise man or woman, nor do we know how to find a genuine philosopher. But through books Five, Six and Seven, Socrates undertakes to explain what a philosopher is, and in doing so, also has occasion to explain the good, or rather the child of the good, as distinct from, but necessary in order to know, the just.

   Socrates explains who the real philosophers are through three images, called the ship, the line and the cave. This, we say, is the peak of all human writing, though certain things written by the apostle John, and perhaps Ezekiel, the Sermon on the Mount, and Genesis, written perhaps by the hand of Noah, Enoch, Abraham and Moses, are also contenders for the highest writing we have.

   As translated by Allan Bloom, Socrates explains:

…So hard is the condition suffered by the most decent men with respect to the cities that there is no single other condition  like it, but I must make my image and apology on their behalf by bringing it together from many sources- as the painters paint goatstags and such things by making mixtures. Conceive something of this kind happening on either many ships or one.  Though the shipowner surpasses everyone on board in height and strength…

The shipowner is the people, or the whole polity.

…he is rather deaf and likewise somewhat shortsighted, and his knowledge of seamanship is pretty much on the same level…

That is true of both the many poor and the few rich, in every city and so in every nation…

…The sailors are quarreling with one another about the piloting, each supposing he ought to pilot, although he has never learned the art and cannot produce his teacher or prove there was a time when he was learning it…

These are the politicians, almost without exception, and the political parties, promoting partisan opinions. Most have never read their own Constitution or the writings of their founders, or this work of Plato on justice, though some have even owned universities. Some have used universities to defraud the elderly, while teaching such topics as real estate scams for profit, calling this virtue and knowledge, provided it is accompanied by good fortune, or luck. And they honor the gambler if he wins or cheats and gets away with cheating, not to mention other ways of making money regardless or law or ethics. And this they call “education.” They hold to the strangest standards of merit regarding rule, such as wealth, good lineage of ancestry, management ability, concern for the many and ability to bring gifts and pleasure, all of which are at best partial.

…Besides this, they claim it isn’t even teachable, and are ready to cut to death the man who says it is teachable…

This is not an exaggeration. Nothing is more common or more comforting than the teaching such as relativism, that there is no knowledge regarding justice or what is right to do, let alone what is right for man or the best way of life and the hierarchy of ends according to nature that is the basis of the right priorities. Socrates was put to death in a case of judicial murder, as told in another of those greatest books, Plato’s Apology. He describes this elsewhere as being like the trial of a doctor by a pastry chef before a jury of children.

…And they are always crowded around the shipowner himself, begging and doing everything so that he’ll turn the rudder over to them. And sometimes, if they fail at persuasion and other men succeed at it, they either kill the others or throw them out of the ship. Enchaining the noble shipowner with mandrake, drink, or something else,…

We have just suffered a very strange Oxy or opioid epidemic, which quite suspiciously has prepared our nation for the subversion of our constitution, and could not have been better devised to that end if it were a conspiracy, as it not only has made us unable to think so as to paralyze our ability to respond, it has fueled the heroin trade and organized crime with the money needed to further the enterprise of taking power.

…they rule the ship,, using what’s in it; drinking and feasting, they sail as such men would be thought likely to sail. Besides this, they praise and call “skilled sailor,” “pilot” and “knower of the ship’s business” the man who is clever at figuring out how they will get rule…

At a certain point about twenty years ago, political science became the study of elections and how to win elections, a sophistry or rhetoric like the subjection of the study of law to forensics, or how to win arguments, even making the weaker argument appear stronger, as promoted by our “adversarial” court system. This study of the campaign adviser took over politics, in part because, it was thought, one would then be employable, assuming this, an illiberal goal, was the end of all education. Those who think this way are indeed like materialists in discussions of metaphysics, as though they do not see the mystery of form at all, or those in politics who can only deliberate ad hominem, arguing that such a person or motive is not worthy of being not be heard. These do not have access to the starting of genuine education or deliberation, and so the resort is power.

…either by persuading or by forcing the shipowner, while the man who is not of this sort they blame as useless. They do not know that for the true pilot, it is necessary to pay careful attention to year, seasons, heaven, stars, winds, and everything that’s proper to the art, if he’s really going to be skilled at ruling a ship. And they don’t suppose it’s possible to acquire the art and practice of how one can get hold of the helm whether the others wish it or not, and at the same time to acquire the pilot’s skill…

Knowledge and rule tend in opposite directions, which is part of the reason that wise rule, or the best regime, is for almost all practical purposes impossible. And as Prospero himself learns, rule requires a great deal of experience, as we have statesmen starting out in the states, while working at this, while necessarily neglecting what would be the necessary studies.

So with such things happening on the ships, don’t you believe that the true pilot will really be called a  stargazer, a prater and useless to them by those who sail on ships run like this…

   Shakespeare’s The Tempest opens with a ship in a storm, and there one sees the legitimate king subjected by the pilot and boatswain in a futile attempt to avoid disaster.

#16-1464 to Void the 2016 Russian-U.S. Election

…On our news, we have only heard about how the CIA has Vlad directly ordering cyber attacks on the elections. And they talk about our response. #16-1464 is the Revived Re-vote case, to void the 2016 election due to Ruskies meddling to elect Donney and co.

   Elections are assumed by the constitution, fundamental, and, we say, “think the Supreme Court has nothing to say about it?” They say, “no precedent,” we say it is unprecedented. The case is based on Article IV.4, plus things said in the Classic and Yarbrough cases, which are about the suppression of the black vote. Federalist 68 indicates that the electoral college was to provide a remedy should some foreign power raise some “creature of their own” to the presidency. Mark Small has written up the case, and it is granted mandamus, with a response from the Trump-Russophiles due by July 7. For my Amicus Brief- which is a letter that any citizen is allowed to submit as a friend of the court, Amicus meaning Amigos, friends (in Latin rather than Latin-American). I tried to write only things I could add, without repeating much that is in the case. The truth is that when the Trump-Russians interfere with political association, speech and free political action, violating two clauses of the First and then the Fifth amendment liberty clause-when they do this, they leave a trail, and collusion is demonstrated in the very attempt to silence free opposition. This is a whole un-mined category which coheres with the other categories of evidence to “prove” what is by now so obvious the few doubt it: Russia elected Trump for us, and we do not know their full perfidious purpose even yet, but we do not want to find out! Hence we are asking the court to provide a remedy such as a re-vote. And if some think that this will cause “civil war,” to have a new election, we see who was against elections, we see that fascism rising is what will cause civil war, and we see the fourth clause of the second sentence of the Declaration as well, which means that we are not required to give up on republican or free self-government. My draft is at mmcdonald777Wordpress, with three sevens- my secret site where I tell the truth about my other site, and its more fundamental purposes. I am hoping for criticism and feedback on the draft before I print it, and send it in.

“Thomas Jefferson lives!”

– John Adams, July 4, 1826.

Revive the Re-vote: Declare 2016 Elections Void due to Russian Interference

   Jeroll M. Sanders has done an ingenious work in preparing the Supreme Court case # 16-907, which was denied by the Supreme Court without explanation. I am repeatedly in admiration of her direct and relaxed common sense in stating profound and trenchant points transcending legalese, and recommend reading her write-up of the case, which I have just read entire for the first time today. Especially ingenious is her basing the case on Article IV and on the Twelfth Amendment, points that are both true and difficult to see, though obvious once stated. She has run for Mayor, and receives my endorsement of the CLC for this and higher office. The Appeals court denied the case because no precedent was provided, for events that are in fact unprecedented, though without recourse these have become the way of our world quite quickly. Supreme Court precedent in election cases outside civil rights issues are very sparse: the question has simply never arisen before. Our constitution contains perennial principles that are quite sufficient to meet circumstances that are new, and there is no reason that new circumstances do not call for setting precedents. For surely an election determined by foreign invasion through the internet is not a constitutional election, or not what the founders had in mind by “election.”

The Appeals court also alleges that the political branches of the U. S. government have made no such determination, and for the court to determine that the United States was “invaded,” triggering the Article IV requirement that the national government defend the states from foreign invasion, would “disregard the constitutional duties that are the specific responsibilities of other branches of government, and would result the court making an ineffective non-judicial policy decision.” But what if, as Sanders indeed indicates, the 17 U.S. intelligence agencies had in fact concluded that such an invasion aiming to influence the elections did in fact occur? Ms. Sanders cites Mark Morell, the Deputy Director of the central intelligence agency, as stating on CNN that Russia’s meddling in this election is “the political equivalent of 9/11.” I would have added, had I been permitted, that General Hayden had called the Russian meddling, “the greatest covert operation in history.” In fact, had I been permitted to write an Amicus brief, a letter citizens may submit to inform the court regarding a pending case, I would have suggested bringing the CIA right into the Supreme Court, both to tell the court what could be told and to tell them there was more that could not be told to protect “sources and methods,” but that their conclusion was and is that there had been significant Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

   And had I been permitted, I would have suggested a third scenario to add to the two presented by Ms. Sanders: Wikileaks, soon after the case was denied by the Appeals Court, revealed that our own government knew of vulnerabilities in our new spy-marketing tech that leaves these open to hackers, but that the agencies decided not to protect us so that they might themselves exploit these vulnerabilities. My own brother had just accused me of insanity, quite seriously, for saying that, as he summarizes in caricature, “the T.V. is watching me.” After the Wikileak became public, I offered to accept his apology, when he delivers it. What was once madness is now common sense. Then he assured me that it is only the newest “smart” tech instruments, and assured me too, as did the agent he sent to make sure it was safe to seize me if possible, that it is only used for “marketing” purposes. And what is an election? How similar to marketing? We will never have another free election if we cannot restore the security in our persons, papers, houses and effects guaranteed by the Fourth Amendment in the Bill of Rights in our U.S. Constitution. And this shows the reason for such security: people like nations have enemies bent on using every bit of information they can skim only against their targeted person. And in fact what occurred in the 2016 election is that the Russians bought and hacked into every bit of “marketing” information, passively collecting data, and then used this to target interference again through our computers, as through Kaspersky, which handles four hundred million security accounts right from Moscow, or some similar method- I have no particular evidence against Kaspersky except the sort of attacks which walk right past their security onto my home computer, namely Russian and Trumpster attacks. Targeted interference might be either mechanical, operational, or intimidation. What if one’s words are simply allowed less publicity, and one were to do this to 25% of the words of one’s political opponent, while expanding the publicity of fake news by 25%? I would have added this and similar information in an Amicus brief submitted to the Supreme Court, except I was prevented by at least three ostensibly Russian attacks including a death threat, and forced to cease working on the computer after February 4th, 2017. A documented death threat came from Trumpsters January 28th, and this is right there on Twitter, excepting the tweet redacted by the sender after I identified it as technically a death threat. But the most serious came while commenting on a letter to be sent to President Obama a few days before the inauguration, when first prostitutes and then a scary face with the word “Assasin” came up under the page I was writing on to take over my computer screen. Facebook has commented that given modern marketing techniques, it would be quite easy to throw an election this way, and a report on NPR (Probably from the BBC) confirms that the Philippine election was in fact turned this way- spy marketing tech collecting information and then targeted interference. Indeed, we will in fact have to choose between this “internet of things” and free government with free elections, at least until we figure out a way to have both. The oblivious Americans do not even realize that this is the choice, and plunge headlong into a world that makes perhaps the worst imaginable and surely the most pervasive tyranny a mathematical necessity.

   It is beyond my capacities to explain why the police have ignored my complaints, even as stand in amazement at what my Trumpster relatives have done of late, and these are people I have known for fifty years. The police would not even look at the computer to see if there really was a death threat, and did not provide the protection needed to secure the right of a citizen to continue political work guaranteed by his liberty, as required by the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Rather, everything I have said has been as if only used against me. As described in part in a previous blog, my Trumpster relatives, having tried to have me “treated” for the mental illness of  not being oblivious to these new things, and for trying to warn them of the dangers of tyranny and of this tyranny, drew up a perjurous complaint saying that I, who had done nothing wrong and even had said not a single thing thing that is false, be seized as a “danger to myself and others.” The writer of the complaint demonstrably and intentionally lied, and part of her charge was literally that I was working on a Supreme Court Case. I had said so when I was prevented from continuing my work, which I consider quite important. The instigating relative, though, an Uncle, was careful to try to avoid demonstrable perjury. I will ask him in court if he was influenced by anyone in the Trump organization, since his efforts happen to coincide with Russian and Trumpster efforts aiming at the result that I “stop doing what I am  “doing now.” That message came over my phone right when I was receiving the tweet string that knocked me off the internet and prevented me from continuing to work on this Supreme Court Case. I did not look long enough to see if this string contained a fourth death threat, but it included many things I had said that angered the Russians and white supremacists, as well as personal information used to hurt and let one know that they are not just on the internet, but in your phone and in your drugstore and anywhere else the new tech allows them entry bought or forced. I have seen the new world that is emerging, perhaps a little more closely than most. These things are quite demonstrable, and plenty of reason to ask the court to reconsider. I thought we might gain an unanimous decision, rather than have to rely on the partisan 5-4 majority, as this is far beyond a partisan issue.

Tax Exempt Status for Political Churches?

   Today an executive order was signed which will allow churches to more freely endorse political candidates. Opponents say this chips away at the separation of Church and State, and something does seem fishy about what has occurred. In discussing this, I will tell a story, as well as argue, as I have to the Christians up the street, that the Christians are deceived by Donald Trump. Jesus does not support Tyrants, nor does Pope Francis- as the fake news story tried to have it- support Donald Trump, nor should American Christianity allow itself to be enlisted in the emerging anti-Muslim “nationalism,” elsewhere and more truly termed fascism. Who is your neighbor?

   I was pleased to find a church and preacher I quite liked, just up the street, as I could walk there, and had stopped going to both a Catholic and Baptist Church, each for different reasons. On my first visit there, the pastor commented that he was forbid to speak politics from the altar, and the whole congregation seemed quite paranoid about me, as if I were some liberal come to spy out their tax exempt status. They stopped raising their hands in prayer, for example, though the second time I was there, when they prayed for me as I had asked, they raised their hands, and some even spoke in tongues, which was quite a powerful experience. I told them I needed help, that I needed work and a lawyer, and was in some difficulty at home there up the street, but they would only give me their first names, and, as said, seemed quite suspicious. Apparently there had been a robbery on the property recently, and of course one never knows.

   After my second visit, I decided to write to the pastor about some things I had learned from his preaching on John, about the tax exempt status question, and about how the Christians are quite deceived about Donald Trump. When I was a teacher at the community college, of American Government, I would tell the kids that they of course were allowed almost limitless free expression of religion, but for me to preach Jesus from the lectern would violate the establishment clause, though I would comment on the Bible as a part of the unwritten constitution of the Americans, as George Anastaplo discusses this in his book on the constitution.* I thought maybe similarly the parishioners have a right to express politics, but not the preacher from the pulpit, and this is close, but not quite it. I said this as much to demonstrate how the Establishment and free expression clauses fit together as to communicate silently that I would like to teach about Jesus but cannot- and this was not my job. I told Tom, the Pastor, that similarly he was limited from certain things about politics, though that it not quite it. I too would refrain from any partisan politics in class, and, I told him, I was concerned that Christians be free to teach the ethics of the Bible, including the teachings that homosexuality is not good for the soul, from Moses and Paul, and even that abortion is wrong, though this is a Greek Hippocratic, and not a Mosaic teaching. Leviticus distinguishes between killing a born child and causing a miscarriage as by striking a pregnant woman, and the latter is not murder, though it is a crime. Jesus never got around to teaching against homosexuality, as though it were not so much a priority, though Paul does, in Romans 1. I wrote too that Paul in Romans 2 implies that violence against gays is the result of repressed homosexuality (“you yourselves are doing the same things”), as this is a more serious or higher level of sin. And what, I asked Tom, if it is true that homosexuality is bad for the soul and also true that our use of pesticides and suburban lawn chemicals is interfering with the hormones of our youth? Plus, people are not required to be Christian in order to be American, and this is extremely important. As I have a braided ponytail, since I have not been able to afford haircuts for two years, kind of like it, and used to grow my hair long when I was in High School and College, I think they thought I might be gay. Rather, I think of Lancelot when he comes out of the woods for the final battle in the movie Ex-Calibre.

   So I wrote him a two page letter discussing these things, since he did not have much time on Sundays for discussion. I also gave him my website and Twitter numbers, as I like to promote myself and was surely not worried about revealing my true self to him. I wrote that it seemed unconstitutional to forbid him to say just about anything as a preacher, except to incite crimes, as when a speech becomes an action, in slander, libel, false advertising, perjury, fake news and such, fraud and other ways of harming people, and this of course, like all our constitutional questions, can become extremely difficult. We forbid religious expression even of students when, as when the Texas High school prayed as a group in the end zone after each touchdown, though, unlike Germany, we try to allow hate speech, though this too can cross the line to become an action, violating rights that it is the purpose of government to secure.

   I wrote to Tom that Trump was not a Christian (though I might be wrong), that he hardly believes that murder is wrong, let alone that abortion is murder, that he does not care about any sexual morality, let alone transgender issues, that the Miss Universe Pageant (held in Russia at the building owned by Tillerson) demonstrates a disregard for adultery as an ethical crime, or promotes adultery as well as the regard for sex over love, that his defrauding of the elderly through Trump University demonstrates a willingness to lie and steal, and his willingness to use the law to hurt people, such as the blacks and the liberals and the Mexican immigrants is characteristic of a tyrant, and that the Christian’s opposition to Hillary was far from sufficient reason to invite Russian and KKK influence into U. S. politics. Fascism is quite opposed to the message of the Gospel, I argued, and the Christians quite snowed by Donald Trump, who is a salesman and will say and use anything for his own advantage or self interest. I think I am stating the matter a bit more clearly today than I did in the letter to him, but you get the gist of what was said in the letter.

   After missing Church the day that I delivered the letter, I appears for my third sermon, the fourth week since I began to walk up the street on Sundays to his church. He met me on the steps on the way in, said things that indicated he had misunderstood me to be pro-abortion and pro-gay- a misunderstanding, as I am quite the centrist, with rather unique positions on all the issues, due to thinking a lot about both sides, and trying to teach. Tom had said two things that had indicated the sort of news stations he was listening to- that the report of Trump calling up 100,000 national guardsmen was fake news (Trump changed his mind), and that Obama had christened many new intelligence officers just before he left office. It was also clear that he did not have time, as do I, for a detailed and vigorous study of the news. Teachers of American Government sometimes have a natural tendency to become centrists, though not always. My philosophic studies of the roots of both left and right wing extremes, in communism and fascism, and seeing how the extremes of both the right and left political characters leads people into twentieth century totalitarianism either way- this also impels me to my unique centrism.  I had argued that when we vote for a president, we vote for a man capable of the executive office more than for a party platform, one able to be president, for the good of our nation, and that both the Republicans and the Christians were simply snowed by Donald Trump. I do not much appreciate Jesus being used for political self interest, and so do not mind stepping up, even to talk to a preacher. I was told that I would not be happy at their church, and it was clear that I was being asked to leave. But I knew he misunderstood me and sincerely wanted to hear the sermon. A woman coming up the stairs backed my saying that Trump was cozy with the White Supremacists, as Steve Bannon had been chosen Chief of Staff. In his previous sermons he had added great points to my understanding of the famous scene where Jesus, resurrected, asks Peter, Do You love me? He said that God wants our fellowship, and Jesus indeed our friendship, profound teachings, and he had showed me that Peter just goes back to fishing, back to money-making, when he returns to Galilee after the crucifixion. A Catholic had showed me that cool thing about the two scenes with the charcoal fire, and I was seeing confirmation about my learning that it is John and not Peter who is the guy, even as the Eastern Orthodox Church might show us Catholics. And Tom showed me something about the calling to be a preacher, I thought, about agape and two kinds of philo, feed my lambs, shepherd my sheep,” and “feed my sheep,” thee different things in answer to the two or three different questions, do you love me, then he prophesied Pete’s death and he said “follow me.” And what is it to Peter if indeed John did remain until He came to visit him on Potmos, or even if John remained, as he did throughout the crucifixion, more faithful to the last day?

   These are the sort of things I was seeing, and though I was quiet throughout the sermons, and tried to be helpful and friendly to everyone- discussing the six kinds of machines with the son of one man who is a member, etc, Tom made it clear that it was not their choice that I return. I had said on the steps going in, “Do you mean to say that I am not welcome in you church unless I am a Trump supporter,”? and he could not say yes for fear of the law about the tax exempt status. I was attacked in speech on the way out as I tried to explain, accused of disrespecting our President and government contrary to Romans !3 1-7, and I asked what they thought Paul did when, some ten years after writing this, he was ordered by Nero to give up the names of his fellow Christians? Did he obey his government? No, that is surely not what he means by obedience, and if the Christians were ordered by the Nazis to answer, “Do you have any Jews,” we would be obligated to lie- that is my teaching, anyway, or that that is not what John means by liars. Rather, the “liars” might be those who tell the truth to save themselves, as perhaps Peter did around the first of the charcoal fires.

   I was also accused for raising my voice to the preacher, in the back of the church on the way out, though I said I thought Tom had the Holy spirit in his preaching, and “wise” I called him to one I tried to proselytize to come that Sunday but not his political theory. “I am a PhD in politics,” I pleaded. Accused of disrespecting the House, said to a woman, Who’s house is this? And to their surprise- for they did not seem to know the saying, I quoted: “Fist remove the log from your own eye, then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.” I backed out the door saying loudly, “This is the word of the Lord,” to my own surprise, and wandered home wondering about the ironic joke on me that I had clearly failed to remove the splinter from my brothers eye and keep myself in the class I was enjoying.

   I had put one dollar in the collection in an envelope which asked for my address. A few days later I received a letter with no return address, with a checklist of similarities between Hillary o the Democratic platform and the Nazi’s, things I too complain about when government becomes like Big Mother,” making me spend 1/2 hour plus a day for the last seven years rolling my own cigarettes ’cause they tried to tax us out of smoking, o indeed ending my teaching career because Politics and Philosophy had been White male dominated departments prior to affirmative action, and the liberal arts could be used in a way that medicine, for example could not to promote the feminist superiority teaching or the understanding that equality means numerical equality rather than equal opportunity regardless of prejudice, as if we would require a proportional number of short Asian women in pro baseball or the NBA.

   So, is Tom a religious or a political organization? And what would happen if the law compelled him to let me stay, so long as I was not disruptive? And just as I did not claim the benefits of common law marriage, because my fiance never would officially marry me, so I toil for free in the work of my nation and my faith indistinguishable. Perhaps if the Trumpsters are going to use Jesus to snow the Christians, they ought at lest pay their taxes.


Note *The Constitution of 1787 by George Anastaplo opens with a discussion of some of the comprehensive influences on the American Constitution. Examples of Biblical influences that can be discussed in a political science course are Genesis 9:6, which presents the reason that murder is wrong, and Deuteronomy 25:3, forbidding the return of escaped slaves. The difference between the scientific, Judicial and religious use of scripture is quite interesting in elation to the First Amendment and Establishment from the lectern. Deuteronomy 25:3, though it is not law for us, is yet why I could not, as a Michiganian, swear allegiance to the pre-Civil War Constitution. Up here, we knew that it was, as Montesquieu explains, a violation of political liberty to compel one to do what is wrong (or prevent one from doing what is right (Spirit of the Laws, XI). The contradiction could have been corrected by appealing to the Article IV requirement that each state be guaranteed a republican form of government, avoiding the civil war. But Jackson’s man Taney could have prevented the 265,000 American deaths in the civil War had he but decided that Dred Scott was a man. Sometimes there is silence in an awful moment which could and should have gone another way, and many lives and much suffering are at stake. This topic came up when we were discussing the engenius basis of Supreme Court case # 16-907, which argued that the election was unconstitutional because the national government is required to protect the states from foreign invasion, as occurred by the Russians through the internet.

Orwell’s 1984 in 2017: Truth and Delusion

   If you seriously cannot tell which is reality and which is illusion, I suggest you look at who is persecuting people for mere speech. And here we see the surprisingly deep importance of the principle of the free speech clause of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. I keep forgetting that there are Trump supporters, and perhaps people who seriously cannot tell, as well as people who due to an ethical failure do not care or are simply willing to pervert the truth for baser interests.

   In Orwell’s 1984, there are of course people who believed that government, or, there are fools.  I recall Orwell’s description of his neighbor’s family, where all were as if wholly deluded, the father, mother and two children, all avid supporters willing to live wholly in the world Big Brother had created for them. There are also people who from fear do not consider truth, and of course a third sort, people who know well the difference, and for some ungodly reason are willing to impose the tyranny and its delusion onto everyone. That is how the domestic life of North Korea appears to us out here in the West. But seriously, who knows? Are there not “two sides to every story,” and did you not know that “truth is relative?” “We have our culture and they theirs,” and did you not know that ethical truth is culturally relative? “Who knows?” or rather, swallow this: if we lived in North Korea, Kim Jong Un would truly be the “Great Father!” Sarcasm is important, and does not, sometimes, come across through the written word. I keep forgetting that there really are Trump supporters. Trump has people willing to believe his fake news, and also to believe his accusation that any criticism of him is fake news. Our press struggles nobly to achieve for us objective clarity in the face of the stupidest lies. Many Americans seriously admire a good sales pitch regardless of the truth. Trump also has people who seriously cannot tell the difference, and, again, third, people who know the truth of the story quite well and are willing to produce for him fake news. And look now across America: Our democracy is seriously having difficulty telling the difference.

   2=2=4, and it does not equal 5. I had a great professor who once mentioned Orwell, and we, the students, were surprised that he would descend to discuss a novelist. He said he liked the work quite well, 1984, but took issue with Orwell’s presentation of human nature as being that malleable. But this was before the age of the Internet. If we do not act now, the orchestrated opinions may soon be those of We the people. It is perhaps an ethical problem, or, at root it is an ethical question: Are you willing to pervert your theoretical mind and common sense for the sake of bodily self interest? Will you do this if they threaten you? Or do they only need to pay you? And how much? For, like the joke about the prostitution of the wife of the man offered a “million dollars” to let the seducer sleep with his wife, we have already established that she is a prostitute, the only remaining question is the price. Read Machiavelli’s play Mandragola. And do you have enough money yet, America?

   But sometimes there is a serious difficulty about truth and a mirror image, which after all does have the same features as the true picture. Birds often are seen trapped in an illusion that the bird in the mirror is indeed another bird, because they have never yet seen such an example, and it takes a while to learn that such an illusion is even possible. Who would intentionally set up a mirror to confuse me in this way? Can we not just trust that the Lord would not make things so difficult for common sense? Do you mean, Mr. McDonald, to say that we really do have to consider such things about the president of the United States? Are we not obligated by the grandeur of the office not to question? Are we not obligated by the chain of command? Yes, indeed, this is not North Korea, yet, and every American citizen has a right to work on a Supreme Court case, to support impeachment when it in the nation’s interest, to speak freely and to ask questions freely. Trump had never read the constitution, and that is why he so often trips over it, and the Trumpsters do not care, and that is un-American!

   But this does not change the truth: Those who say 2=2=5 are lying. The philosopher can always be presented as mad, because the people cannot, without a great natural intelligence and a life of toil devoted to the truth, understand him, and, amid their life absorbed in practical concerns, they do not care. Again that is why our constitution is so important, and free speech so fundamental. I will add that that is why the abuse of our courts and the issue of perjury is so fundamental. I was taken from my driveway and held for 20 days without even getting a single word in to a judge, until a court appointed lawyer gained an independent evaluation by a psychologist who did not have an interest in filling a bed or getting me addicted to their drugs, and this convinced a judge of the rather obvious truth that they did not have a right nor any legitimate power to seize me 20 days prior. The abuse of our mental health system is, along with perjury, very serious, a very important development, because this system needs to be in place and honest for those who truly need it, that is, for genuine emergencies. I have seen it, the courts and our mental health system, corrupted by Trumpsters for political reasons, and this is simply not ok, that is, assuming that we do see something truly wrong with the way of life under Kim Jong Un, and we are not to assume it is simply our cultural preference. I am pressing charges of perjury, but it is quite likely that the police will be told to do nothing, and that the officer will again say that the question is “above his pay grade.” And it is perjury: When certain Tumpster relatives learned by experience that they could not have me “treated” by compulsion unless I were a “danger to myself or others,” they simply lied to say I was. We have an uncle who has a PhD in “Education,” and he was influenced too by some “psychologist,” likely a Trumpster, and perhaps someone in our government who has an interest in my being certified insane: I do not know, and fear to raise these questions so as not to appear “paranoid.” But someone sure does have an interest in presenting as insane, or a mere “conspiracy theorist,” anyone to whom it has become apparent the extent to which Russia threw the 2016 election. Again, if you seriously cannot tell which is truth and which illusion, I suggest you look to those suppressing the questions, to those suppressing free speech, for I was seized in my driveway while the Supreme Court Case #16-907 to void the 2016 election due to Russian interference through the internet was moving through the courts, I having done nothing wrong, not a thing I do not have a right to do, having threatened no one illegally, nor even said a single thing that is false, but for mere speech. One can always tweak and twist a word, and then forbid the accused to explain. The limed bird, remember, the more you struggle to free yourself, the more you will be stuck, if only we use everything you say only against you, will not listen, and insist it is you who will not listen, while it is we who are entering your world to determine how things shall be for you. Liberty is fundamental, and when one has violated the rights of no other, it is the obligation of government to leave him alone. This is fundamental law in America still, the principles of the Fourth and Fifth Amendments and the Third assertion of the Second sentence of our Declaration: “…to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men.” The purpose of government is to secure rights, and so again, since it is apparently difficult, when one has not violated the rights of another, government has no purpose and must leave him alone.

   But in the end, and in “this world,” these questions are determined not by equations on a blackboard, but by power. We must take a stand, or see free government perish from this earth. I can blog, and have a wonderful time, and you can read, dwelling here with the ideas, if you have leisure, but in the end, they control the visibility and access to my writings through the internet, because we have allowed this to occur. The Resistance can tweet all day, but in the end it is on Twitter, and Twitter is being monitored and controlled, and by someone other than “We the people.” They can win because they have money and power, and we are not taking a stand.

IMPEACH TRUMP! House Judiciary Committee

   Below are the House Judiciary Committee members responsible for Drawing Articles of Impeachment.

   The Committee System is not in the Constitution, so any member can begin the motion, but the committee is the usual way we do it.

   House Democrats can start the impeachment process if the Republicans are too blind and slavish. We tried to void the 2016 elections due to Russian interference and election fraud, but our efforts were interfered with and the case was denied by the court without explanation. It is apparently obviously constitutional then to have foreign interference determine the outcome of an election, sending us headlong into confusion and giving ascent to fascism to the delight of Vladimir Putin. The case was very interesting, based on Article IV of the Constitution, the requirement that the national government protect the states from foreign invasion. This means that I am not the only one who realizes that we have been under foreign invasion through the internet. American flaws allowed this to occur: Our own corruption, fear, love of money and racism. Our corruption has allowed organized crime to ascend to a place of honor in public opinion, with tentacles in every money-making and now every political matter. Our own love of money granted supreme power to corporate interests, so that we ignored our own Fourth Amendment to allow spy-marketing, and now the “internet of things,” which no one has the foresight to question. Our fear of terrorism has allowed our FBI/ETC to use the spy-marketing system to spy without limit, and we are left to just hope there is no corruption is our government or hacking of our systems, in which case all our spying will be used by the bad guys. And our own racism has allowed the fascist leaning elements of the American polity, such as the KKK, to enter legitimate politics, all with the blessing of our good republicans, who just know Hillary would have been the worst thing that could happen to America (Sarcasm). Tyranny or fascism is what will occur if we allow these tendencies to proceed.

   The grounds for impeachment are, possibly treason, but certainly Bribery (emoluments), High Crimes (election fraud) and too many misdemeanors to count. The violation of the oath of office occurred just after the election, when Mr. Spicer intimidated the press, violating the free speech clause of the first amendment. Mr. Bannon intimidated the press more seriously later in the week. I have seen intimidation defended on twitter, as “free speech,” so little do we understand our Constitution. The executive of course cannot intimidate the press without violating the First Amendment, but free speech does not protect slander, libel, false advertising, perjury or pornography. And as with yelling fire in a crowded theater, when speech is an action, such as in a death threat, it is a crime, which is called assault. Intimidation interfering with the courts is of course a rather serious crime, o at least once was, in the pre-Trump America. Every manipulation of the media in an election is election fraud, and far more serious than false advertising in business- which is illegal and often prosecuted. “The Pope supports Trump,” remember, and Hillary is, according to the National Enquirer just before the election, influenced by and in league with the Russians (sarcasm again). Trump was proud of and openly admitted to much of this, such as the public intimidation of Meghan Kelly. His supporters may see nothing wrong with this, so long as he is a “winner.” The do not value honest and integrity in business, but rather appearance and “winning.” The list of Russian ties in his campaign- Flynn, Page, Tillerson, Kirchner, etc. keeps growing, while every charge rolls off him like a Teflon Don. As in a mob trial, when jury tampering preempts years of FBI efforts, we need to get at the root cause with some serious and imaginative speculation at the highest levels on the part of those who have access to particulars, the facts unseen by us common folk at the other end of the radio news. Is Congress truly prepared to hold hearings for a year and do nothing while the world totters on the brink of nuclear war? Are the decent Republicans going to be able to control the presidency, or is the fascist element preparing to re-emerge? Why wait to see? The grounds for impeachment far exceed the articles against Nixon, who apparently never thought of snowing the die-hard republicans with the mere words “fake news” and “no evidence.”

   I cannot believe that the Supreme Court case was simply dismissed, as this seemed to be our best hope for turning things around, confusing as it may have been to have a revote. We suggested bringing the CIA right into the Supreme Court to explain just what happened, or as much as could be explained in order to save our nation and our constitution without compromising sources and methods, and perhaps the court would have just had to trust them on some points. Why this did not occur is simply beyond me, but like the interference I personally experienced and the failure of government at any level to respond, it has the look of Teflon, or the look and feel of jury tampering, where intimidation assures that the Machiavellians will be untouchable in the root of their power because, like Grimm’s  Miller in the story of the wolf and seven kids, “truly, men are like that” See the previous blog “On the Fear of Death”) Again, do they mean to say that foreign influence in our elections is obviously constitutional because there is no precedent? That we must simply proceed, doing the best we can with such results?

   The grounds for impeachment are discussed in more detail in previous blogs here on this WordPress website. Why no member of the House has moved to impeach is also simply beyond me, but I do not know how Teflon works either.

Members of the House Judiciary Committee

115th Congress

Majority Minority

Sources: H.Res. 6 (Chair), H.Res. 45 (D) and H.Res. 51 (R)

From Wikipedia

Let’s Ban All Immigrants from Russia Too!

   The greatest threat to our Liberty is not even ISIS anymore, but Vlad Putin and Bright Bart, who want to check to see if Russia is allowing KKK immigrants from America. Ya, Syrian refugees is difficult right now ’cause some declared war on us, but Russia just got caught doing cyber-invasion! Hijacking our election to have us seat a friggin’ four year old atop US weapons, and we fell for it-we are still falling! Impeach Trump. Void the election of 2016, or find out what Putin has in store- war v. Islam, not just ISIS for US, while he tramples over Europe. Get out of the Ukraine! Take back Twitter. Send back spy-tech. Restore our Constitution!

   The Republicans have shown themselves fools and slaves unworthy of leading a free people. I am not a Democrat, but Centrist: CLC. 

Check out my man Tea Pain of the true America Party

   We need to help settle the sane Syrians, and protect them from evil. We will be repayed tenfold. Aleppo is a Russian Sin.

First Amendment First

   So, the Trumpsters now control the executive branch to some extent, and have openly begun to control the media with intimidation. We need to secure the First Amendment first, by re-opening the media and the internet. Some very odd things have been occurring on Twitter which demonstrate Trumpster control of that media. Perhaps a free bazillionair will see the opportunity to begin a competitor that promises not to allow naked Russian chicks and hackers popping in behind ones pages. Then we can get on with real American politics through this thing.

   Hey Putin, get out of the Ukraine!

Revote: Court Asked: 2016 Election Null and Void?

   At a website called Revote, it is reported that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear the case arguing that the election of 2016 be declared void and new elections held as a result of the foreign intrusion into the internet. The argument is presented that the federal government failed to secure for the states a Republican form of government, as required by the fourth Article of the Constitution. There is not a clause in the constitution dealing with what occurs when a foreign power turns both the election and the Electoral College with spy-marketing and targeted interference and intimidation, (nor, of course, does it say that one must demonstrate the interference was decisive.) So this is an interesting basis, and true in this case [as the Fourth Article basis would have been in the case of slavery prior to the civil war: slavery was unconstitutional because the institution is despotic, the opposite of a republican form of government, and it is a serious question whether a state with slavery can be considered to have a republican form of government. I noticed this one day when it became clear that I could not swear an oath to the pre-1865 constitution because of the fugitive slave clause.] But here the argument is true: the states were prevented from voting properly or holding the elections required to have a free government at all, by the intrusion of a foreign nation, as surely as if they had walked right up and done it by getting their mechanics to work on the election boxes. The result is instant tyranny, to even my amazement how fast, though I had worked out the equation U.S.-4th Amend.=tyranny.

   I had been working on the question of election fraud, and thought we might get a state like Maryland or Vermont to ask the Supreme Court to void the election on the basis of election fraud. This could still be attempted as a parallel motion. The broad question needs to be set on the desk of the Supreme Court as quickly as possible, and impeachment too pursued immediately, due to the harms that may result in the meantime, and the certainty of further interference.