Antidepressants on BBC: The Oxford Study, Questioned here by Anti-psychiatry

    •    This news report began by saying that this new study has “proven” that anti-depressants are good for us, “ending all controversy,” “finally.” What it actually demonstrates is that for a pre-selected group, the drugs were more effective “on the average” than a placebo, or a fake pill, and that over an 8 week period (i.e., ignoring long term effects and discounting the initial bad reaction many people have to these drugs), for those categorized as suffering “moderate to severe” depression, while agreeing that antidepressants are over-prescribed for “mild” depression. These categories, mild, severe and the like, themselves are not established scientifically (but rather are set on the basis of a common sense judgment). Hence, far from proving that a million more people in the U. K. need to be drugged, and far from ending all controversy about antidepressants, the study only shows that slightly more than half of people who are very sad say they like the drugs for a little while. We knew that. What we do not know is why the BBC is sending out such drivel at such a time.

      The following are some of the tweets preserved as the news reports were released, in reverse order and roughly edited:

         They spent six years studying a pre-selected group, “120,000,” and never mention “SUICIDAL” tendencies as a known side effect on the BBC. As the old Mum says, “it says so right on the (f’n) can, those are the “side effects.”

         Andrei Chipriani is the shrink who published the study reported on the BBC that I accuse of being profitable disinformation. Oh, and today, they add, only “60%” “Respond” to their “treatment,” and those are indeed the basis of their stupid study, just as I guessed:

    Tweet:…And, those few are probably pre-selected for those who report that they do feel better, disregarding the “side effects!” Antidepressants do far more harm than good, and the drug oligarchs (panels of shareholder value algorithmic bank accounts) can stuff them, perhaps with some “Abilify.”

       “Just don’t smoke weed for depression,” cause the f’n oligarchs might not be able to control the profits, and its less addictive than coffee! I have said I will believe the shrinks and society in general are actually concerned with depression remedies when they legalize weed.*

       Similarly, we might begin to trust the “professionals” in their efforts at rehabilitating people from heroin addiction if they would recognize the obvious benefit of marijuana to such an effort. We have just been subjected to an enormous, now uncovered Oxy-heroin scam, and the drug companies legal and illegal are still interfering with Congress and public opinion to retain this multi-billion dollar industry. One immediately saw genuine pain sufferers forced to cry out loudly because Congress began to limit Oxy for everyone, with a blanket law, rather than craft laws carefully to follow distinctions, and return to non opioid pain remedies so as to stem the flow of the children into the river of the heroin dealers. My own representative is still spouting such drivel. We saw invisible criminal actors organized to make money off the rehab efforts, rehab recruiting companies whose first question was what is ones insurance company, swallowing up the seven hundred some million dollars Congress threw at the problem to make it look like they were doing something. Investigative journalism uncovered and reported on such things centered especially in certain cities in Florida. Now it is becoming apparent that the same efforts are being redoubled into antidepressants.

       One cannot believe the combination of stupidity and dishonesty in the once trustworthy medical profession, where doctors once took seriously an oath to heal, period.

       Weed in small amounts churns the knowledge within the soul that compensates the conscious attitude, so that, as with dreams, the soul produces healing contents on its own. The shore line between conscious and unconscious becomes slightly more passable, and thought mildly awakens, which is why the old fashioned non addictive remedies, weed and coffee, and even the toxic and addictive alcohol and naturally grown, less carcinogenic cigarettes, were the politically correct ancient remedies, rather than the TOXIC AND ADDICTIVE self serving prescriptions of BIG PHARMA.

       I will not let them go for the death of the musician Nick Drake, apparently from an accidental overdose of prescribed antidepressants. They neglect the little practical inconvenience that suffering souls forget how much they have taken, or hurt so badly they do not care.

       The BBC “study” is a fine example of profitable disinformation. Strangely, it tells us what to conclude, telling us the study has “proven,” “finally” etc, and THEN it explains, in words that most do not hear, about how limited the scope of their stupid “study” is. What it actually claims to show is that on the average the drugs seem to perform better than doing nothing plus taking a fake pill, and that only for a few. And it is questionable whether the study even shows that!

    [Interlude] Sarcasm often does not come across in writing, due to the limitations of the written word. And so I have takes to marking sarcastic statements before saying the, as an exclamation point is often not sufficient punctuation. Comedy in general is based both on an ignorance and knowledge. Hobbes famously noted the satire of ignorance involved in every joke, as there is something we have to “get,” and it would not be humorous if we already knew or if everyone got it. Hence, comedy is inherently dangerous due first to the anger of the ignorant, which must be dodged, like the Fool in King Lear. But there is also a common sense truth at the same time, communicating knowledge. There.

    There are four great songs of despair in our study of lyrics, but I will not include these here. Rather, here are some remedial sad songs:

    Leonard Cohen — Suzanne

    Leonard Cohen – Farmous Blue Raincoat (Audio)

    Leonard Cohen – Famous Blue Raincoat (Live)

    [sarcasm] Oh, but they meant only a certain kind of depression, “moderate” to “severe,”and admit antidepressants are over-prescribed for “mild’ depression. And what they “prove” they are more effective on the average than placebos, so a million more need to take them.

    [sarcasm] Here is the argument that overcomes the reasoning below on the “proof” final in the “Oxford U.” study addressed below: I am heard by some 20 people, while the drug manufacturers are on BBC. Can you not smell disinformation?

    Yeah, someone finally liked my Leonard Cohen tweet! Thanx again!
    In the news just now is the terrible shooting and our response to it is considering gun control and “mental health” remedies. So I tweeted:
    Now, BBC, do me a study to counter the reasoning that if a bad man, who does not care about others or believe that murder is wrong, then is made to feel suicidal with easy access to guns….[sarcasm] oh, but “all question has been put to rest forever.”
       I have one person right here who says antidepressants made her feel suicidal. “Its a side effect, they tell you when you take ’em. They know that, they say it on t.v., its just a side effect. But other drugs make me feel that way, too. Lyrica is another I cannot take…”
       That same person has a brilliant insight into depression that shrinks do not get because they are too interested in their sophistry, treating souls to make money and gain reputation. Mum said: The purpose of depression (in natures psychic hygiene) is CHANGE. Depression is how we adapt, and as with anger, when we set things right, it has a purpose, though no souls are properly ordered so sadness does get away from us. What if we use drugs to inhibit the natural hygienic function of sorrow? The tears that clear the eyes and then they sparkle?
    By the way, did they take into account, for example, whether those treated with drugs for moderate to severe depression had for example just lost a child or spouse? Usually they do not. By the way, we do admit there is such a thing as unnatural depression, but it is much more rare than the Big Pharma bank account shareholder value algorithm would find profitable for us to believe.

       Sarcasm: BBC A British study has finally ended all question: Antidepressants are good, and a million more people could benefit from them. I believe they simply asked, do you feel better, short term? W/o checking why these drugs seem to be involved in 100% of one kind of shooting.

       *The present efforts to grow “medicinal” weed are plagued by organized crime and again corrupt legislation. Growers poison the organic plant with phosphorous and other chemicals sold to growers to maximize profits off a limited number of plants set by law. Attempts are made to control seeds, and the original plant is bound to be a subject for genetic engineering.

Tweets Preserved 2/22/2018

I kind of had a big day yesterday, and the day before. Hope those poor trolls are keeping up! P.S. when you find a guy who gets as much WORK done, producing value, you let me know, eh?

  1. Guenn is Cosby’s great song. Lancelot. Crosby Nash BBC – Guinnevere (2 of 5) via

  2. Crosby, Stills & Nash – “GUINNEVERE” Original Recording with Drums & Bass

  3. 4/4 Thomas Jefferson’s family came from Snowdon- Geoff, Jeff, get it? It goes Merlin Ambosius, Aurelius Ambrosius, Uther, Arthur. At York, Constantine is crowned like 308 A.D, almost 200 yrs before Guenevere, of royal blood.

  4. 3/3 Gildas retreated to Brittany due to the English. One rumor is that he does not write about Arthur because a family member was killed, so he threw books into the sea- hence no one believes. The Welsh then did not write. St Patrick is like 432 A.D, “last” Roman Christian Brits.

  5. On Arthur, a couple tweets below, Thomas Jefferson is Welsch, that is, British, with ancestors from Snowdon, the mountain where Merlin Ambrosius retreated. a later Ambrosius is also the name of the king of the Britons in the 490’s, and Uther was I think his brother.

  6. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Mark A. McDonald

    20 bucks says this is the same chick as in “Operator.” But he can’t forget, so its not a wish in that sense. He died in the plane wreck that year. Shoulda stayed on the ground?

  7. If. Jim Croce – Time in a bottle – 1973

  8. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Ticia Verveer

    Read Geoffrey of Monmouth (1100’s), Nennius (9th c.) and Gildas (5th c.) the wise, “the most ancient British writer.” Its the Welsch or Brits that are way cool. Arthur is real, Gwenevere from York, where Constantius crowned Constantine. Avalon is Gloucester Abbey. Arthur 516-532.

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  9. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Ricky Davila

    Sealed backup copies in the possession of each voter are the additional step necessary. End data collection and targeted interference, or we will never have another free election.

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  10.   Retweeted

    Audrey Hepburn photographed by Larry Fried backstage at Gigi, 1951

  11. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted CNN

    So Marco, Why are Americans not talking? Boycott the Republican Party!

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  12. Anne Applebaum Retweeted Dennis Kokkelink

    thanks to and the Hans Van Mierlo foundation for a great evening!

    Anne Applebaum added,

  13. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted History Lovers Club

    Do you know what the sign “I am a man” means? Declaration, 2nd sentence, with Lincoln on the Dred Scott case.

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  14.   Retweeted

    Today in 1916: The German 5th Army attacks the French 2nd Army north of the historic city of , thus beginning the Battle of Verdun. The battle ends on December 18 with a French victory, but not until after ~300,000 French and German soldiers are killed.

  15. Dude should quit travelling. Move to Colorado.

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  16. Mark A. McDonald

    They’e already switching their stocks to Antidepressant drugs till the storm blows over. No joke.

  17. Fascinating political moment right now, as gun lobby and allies recognize they’re *massively* on the wrong side of public opinion and have to figure out some kind of Houdini trick to escape.

  18. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Marco Rubio

    Ja, “We are a nation of people,”Marco, who know our leaders have a little problem with Russia, and do not get the significance of it YET! But good for at least facing those students, and knowing one cannot know what to say. If the Senate knew, Trump would be impeached TOMORROW

    Mark A. McDonald added,


    Arrival of Beaker folk changed Britain forever, ancient DNA study shows

  20.   Retweeted
  21. Boycott the Republican party.

  22.   Retweeted

    Study proves six out of seven dwarves are not Happy

  23. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Jack Van Impe Min.

    Tonight, I saw maybe six drones fly over in formation. That is the fist time I have seen that! I was feeding cats, so I did not have time to sit and watch them.

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  24. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Jack Van Impe Min.

    Jack is the greatest living preacher of whom we know, though Henry up the street is pretty good. (I’d still drink a beer right in his parking lot, if I could drink!)

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  25. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Jack Van Impe Min.

    Jack of course knew Billie Graham. I’v been enjoying the biographical stuff on Graham today. But he would not talk about the revelation, just the gospel, as if setting many things aside to get one thing across to presidents and some in high places.

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  26. …And, those few are probably pre-selected for those who report that they do feel better, disregarding the “side effects! Antidepressants do far more harm than good, and the drug oligarchs (panels of shareholder value algorithmic bank accounts) can stuff them, w some “Abilify.”

  27. Just don’t smoke weed for depression, cause the f’n oligarchs might not be able to control the profits, and its less addictive than coffee! On Antidepressants and the oxford U. study, see the series of tweets below, in order.

  28. The BBC “study” is a fine example of profitable disinformation. Strangely, it tells us what to conclude “proven,” “final” etc, THEN it explains in words most do not hear, about the limited scope of their stupid “study:” -on the average better than nothing + a fake pill 4 few.

  29. On sarcasm: Comedy is based both on an ignorance and knowledge. Hobbes famously noted the satire of ignorance, but there is also a common sense truth at the same time, communicating knowledge. There.

    Leonard Cohen — Suzanne

  30. Leonard Cohen – Bird on the Wire 1979

  31. Leonard Cohen – Famous Blue Raincoat (Audio)

  32. Leonard Cohen – Famous Blue Raincoat (Live)

  33. [sarcasm] Oh, but they meant only a certain kind of depression, “moderate” to “severe,”and admit antidepressants are over-prescribed for “mild’ and “prove” they are more effective on the average than placebos, so a million more need to take them.

  34. [sarcasm] Here is the argument that overcomes the reasoning below on the “proof” final in the “Oxford U.” study addressed below: I am heard by some 20 people, while the drug manufacturers are on BBC. Can you not smell disinformation?

  35. Yeah, someone finally liked my Leonard Cohen tweet! Thanx again!

  36. Now, BBC, do me a study to counter the reasoning that if a bad man, who does not care about others or believe that murder is wrong, then is made to feel suicidal with easy access to guns….[sarcasm] oh, but “all question has been put to rest forever.”

  37. I have one person right here who says antidepressants made her feel suicidal. “Its a side effect, they tell you when you take ’em. They know that, they say it on t.v., its just a side effect. But other drugs make me feel that way, too. Lyrica is another I cannot take…

  38. Sounds like Trump: [sarcasm] “The Nunes memo ends all question of collusion, Russian involvement turning the election, and my being indicted and impeached” TOMORROW!!

  39. Sarcasm: BBC A British study has finally ended all question: Antidepressants are good, and a million more people could benefit from them. I believe they simply asked, do you feel better, short term? W/o checking why these drugs seem to be involved in 100% of one kind of shooting

  40. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Hillary Clinton

    But as usual: USE MIRROR! We must look for the possibility that mr. Florida shooter, in an organization that helped Russia help Trump, did not act entirely alone. With old fashioned detective work, run the hypothesis (which of course MIGHT be wrong).

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  41. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Matt Novak

    INDICT! IMPEACH!! REVOTE!!! Cure the surface by going to the source of the problem. Fix it.

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  42. Michael Skolnik

    Most excellent!

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  43. n ICE is chasing imprisoning and deporting my Chaldeans, etc, we scream, stomp and threaten, and they are still holding my Chaldeans, we know something is terribly wrong. Not to mention the TRUMP IS NOT IMPEACHED YET!!! WE’RE TOO STUPID

  44. Those kids are taking on a bit too much responsibility. Maybe we need to not make them work so hard so soon, Eh? And of course, listen the first time, so they don’t have to keep going. Glad ICE is all over the right priorities today.

  45. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted God

    Nor ignore genuine conspiracies because conspiracy theories are false..

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  46. Theodora Anne Merry Retweeted liveoak1212

    When I was 12, I protested Vietnam. Some of the wisest words come from the mouths of children, some of the most innovative ideas, the bravest acts. Young people are not jaded, tired or easily ignored, as they remind us of our passionate youth.

    Theodora Anne Merry added,

  47. ICE is still holding the 70 Chaldeans for deportation? To placate the “alt right?” REAL justice has real priorities, if we have not been reminded INDICT! IMPEACH!!

  48. Old Joke : Why wasn’t Jesus born in America? They couldn’t find three wise men and a virgin.

  49. At least “they” did not allow “commercial” drones to deliver pizzas.

    Look, Congress needs to pass LAWS that bust crimes using every new technology, especially government abuses, and we are not responding. That has been obvious for well over two years. Fist the damage has to be done, then we begin a process to fix what was obvious. Meanwhile…

  50. Amy Siskind

    Expected guilty plea by Alex Van Der Zwaan tells us at least 3 things: -Mueller knows a lot that we don’t know -Mueller will indict for lying to (should scare any Trump official who was interviewed) -Basically locks in that Gates will plea, which pressures Manafort to flip

    Ted Lieu added,

  51. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Mark A. McDonald

    Or, e could figure out what country- and century he’s in, and make up some britches outa that there red cloth justa hangin thar doin’ nothin’ on ‘is ouse!

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  52. Now that drones can attact us using facial recognition, the hijab will necessarily become fashion. The Berka Boys!

  53. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Brasilmagic

    And they took me away for… 911 has no britches anyway!

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  54. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted tRick Salsman

    St. Jim

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  55. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Ted Lieu

    On the back: I survived the Trump Putin usurpation of 2016-2018

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  56. Mark A. McDonald Retweeted Hamilton Electors

    And to “research” antidepressants involved in the more usual, suicidal form of public anonymous victim shootings. A certain sort may involve antidepressants 100% of the time, a but different, though, from Florida and Las Vegas.

    Mark A. McDonald added,

  57. I just learned that hovering over those imogis, it says what they mean. I invented the peace-sign-with-a-heart-to-make-a-face, that looks like you know who. “The visionary mystic of peace-love”- says Bowie. Jesus hippies, jesus freaks.

  58. BBC: Great, now there may be drones using facial recognition to attack individuals! I want trumpics to pay for the fact that I now get to consider such a thing, and other things, due to their having placed my photo on the internet for the first time, to which I never consented.

  59. Franni here. Since it’s Al’s birthday, and since he’s working so hard, I wanted us to do something special for him.

  60. Democrats and Republicans (used to) have two different views of the common good, the democrats a compassion for the welfare of the many, while the republicans cared more for then wealth or commerce and nobility of the few. The common good appears in two deliberating to a middle.

  61. Again, anything unbelievable is fair game. Data collection, Kaspersky and targeted interference turned far more than 80’000 votes in the swing states.

  62. Do not assume that the Russian goal is this o that small thing, like reading American two dimensional motives into a tyrant. We cannot imagine the bottom of the means or ends. Foreign war, civil war and the destruction of America for world power ends: Tyranny 101.

  63. Ted Lieu Retweeted Michael Holmes

    Over 70 days ago I led a letter with a dozen Members of Congress asking Jared Kushner a simple yes/no question: Did he speak with any foreign nationals about the troubled loan for 666 Fifth Ave? still refuses to answer our simple question. Now we know why.

    Ted Lieu added,

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.

Paul Johnson: Modern Times on Marx and Communism

   Paul Johnson was a major part of a realization that occurred in my education, changing me from a regular Jesus hippie to something a bit more serious. At the University of Dallas, we had a class called Marx/Lenin, and here I was able to read deeply into Marx, seeing the philosophic turn that is inseparable from the mass killings in the communist tyrannies of the Twentieth Century. Modern scholars do not get the essential connection between the theory of Marx and the millions of corpses in Russia, China, and Cambodia, let alone its similarity to the Nazi holocaust of the Jews, as Communism and Nazism are extreme opposites of the political left and right. I wrote a 40 page term paper, which was not unusual, and have Marx reduced to some 12 or 16 fundamental points that he keeps repeating, but that do not jump right out at the reader from Das Capital. The hypothesis, regarding how this arose as a development of the bloodshed of the French Revolution, will have to wait for the publication of that paper. But one day, when he was visiting from Great Britain, I had the honor of buying Mr. Johnson a cappuccino at the coffee bar there at UD, and we talked a while, though I could do little more than express my gratitude for his history writing. Later, in my American Government class, I would include excerpts from his work, to try to get the students to awaken to the significance of what is at stake in our study which began with a bit of Aristotle on the 6 kinds of regime and the principles in the Declaration of Independence.

   Johnson teaches:

There is no essential moral difference between class-warfare and race-warfare, between destroying a class and destroying a race. thus the modern practice of genocide was born.

                                                                Modern Times, p. 71

 Johnson cites Lenin himself:

   The extraordinary commission is neither an investigating commission nor a tribunal. It is an organ of struggle, acting on the home front of a civil war. It does not judge the enemy; it strikes him…We are not carrying out war against individuals. We are exterminating the bourgeoisie as a class. We are not looking for evidence or witnesses to reveal deeds or words against the Soviet power. The first question we ask is- to what class does he belong, what are his origins, upbringing, education or profession? These questions define the fate of the accused. This is the essence of the Red terror.

                                                                       Modern Times, p. 71

Again contrary to the modern scholars, the same diabolical intention is quite present in the thought of Marx:

The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envision it…

   The bloodshed and of the French Revolution is what caused Jefferson to recoil from his until then unlimited assertion of the rights of man against the ancient monarchies. Something never before thought possible appeared here for the first time, and developed into the class-ocide and genocide of the diabolical modern totalitarianisms. And what, after all, did the scholars think the “violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie” (Communist Manifesto, Marx-Engels Reader, p. 483) would look like? What is strange, though, is the continuing war against the ineradicable bourgeois nature at the root of private property. The above is from a series of excerpts from the correspondence of Marx and Engels assembled by Alexsandr Solzhenitsyn in the Mortal Danger, cited by Thomas G. West in his essay which argues quite persuasively that the core of Marx is this violent Revolution (rather than the theoretical historical-economic determinism.* Lest there is any difficulty convicting Marx in a brief blog,

There is only one way of shortening, simplifying and concentrating the bloodthirsty death throes of the old society and the bloody birth pangs of the new- revolutionary terror…

We are pitiless and we ask no pity from you. When our time comes we shall not conceal terrorism with hypocritical phrases…

The vengeance of the people will break forth with such ferocity that not even the year 1793 enables us to envision it…

We shall be constrained to undertake communist experiments and extravagant measures, the untimeliness of which we know better than anyone else…Until the world is able to form a historical judgement of such events, we shall be considered “beasts,” which doesn’t matter…

Finally, West cites Solzhenitsyn,

Marx and Engels reiterated on many occasions, “once we are at the helm, we shall be obliged to enact the year 1793.”

The Mortal Danger, pp. 113-114

Johnson also notes that Churchill uniquely was the only one who saw the Marxist regimes for nearly what they were, and are. Then the West was allied with them in defeating Hitler, and of course no one wanted to call them out. Johnson writes:

…with one exception none of the Allied statesmen involved even began to grasp the enormous significance of the establishment of this new type of totalitarian dictatorship, or the long term effect of its implantation in the heart of the greatest land power on earth. The exception was Winston Churchill…Churchill never wavered in his view that it ought to be a prime object of the policy of the peaceful, democratic great powers to crush this new kind of menace while they still could.

                                                                              Modern Times, p. 73-74.

So, it is not so surprising that such a thing could come to be and so few notice. Marxism is not accurately characterized by “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need, ” as it is presented, nor is it about holding hands and sharing things.

 But it is not that these things were entirely hidden. It is more that they are beyond the pale of the human imagination, or perhaps what Nietzsche calls our “horizon.” Johnson cites a 1918 Russian army newspaper:

Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds, let them be thousands, let them drown themselves in their own blood…let there be floods of blood of the bourgeoisie.

Modern Times, p. 70

Communism, of course, preceded fascism in history, just as Marx preceded Nietzsche in German thought. The theoretical division between theory and practice on the right requires quite a bit more explaining, as Nietzsche is not especially anti-Semitic, nor even especially into the restoration of the Roman fasces, as might be thought of Machiavelli. The thought based on the principle of power after the destruction of all ethics is not opposed to using any difference to impose itself upon human beings, considered as matter, or to return to a Marxist phrase, “masses.” Lenin, of course, ignored the Marxist idea of the communist revolution as developing by the necessary march of a determined historical dialectic out of the industrial revolution- as the owners of the means of production- and transferred the theory to the Russian peasantry, a non-industrialized demos, who were then to revolt against the few rich and the owners of land in Czarist Russia. But this little change is not without a Marxist basis.  In the preface to the 1882 Russian edition of the Communist Manifesto, Marx, just before his death, writes:

   If the Russian Revolution becomes the signal for a  proletarian revolution in the West, so that both complement each other, the present Russian common ownership of land may serve as the starting point for a communist development.

And so, too, when we see things like the widening difference between the upper and lower classes, the disappearance of the middle class, big measures like deregulation of corporations little measures like the subjection of waitresses tips to the restaurant owners, one must wonder indeed if someone is not trying to cause what is avoided in fact by labor unions and stock ownership by the middle class, to make the creation of a revolutionary proletariat regardless of the theoretical ridiculousness of Marx and the resilience of political liberty.

II. What Marxist Communism Is

   Previously, we have written on the three secrets of the vision of Fatima and on Twentieth Century Ideological tyranny, as well as on the difference between “socialism” and Marxist communism.

   It is not even like the communism of the first Christians in the Acts of the Apostles, nor the community of goods supposed to occur among the priests, who are not supposed to have any concern for things of the body. In Plato’s Republic, there is a community of goods, and even of women and children, but this is among the very few guardians, and not at all among the majority of citizens. Nor is it at all correct to present twentieth century ideological tyranny as an error of expecting to apply some “ideal” of justice to a recalcitrant material world. Marxism is an intellectual perversion, a tyranny regardless of whether a single Stalin or a technically oligarchic politburo happens to hold power. It is much more a diabolic inversion of the imagination of the Christian West that arises out of the void in the imagination left following the fall of the medieval world. That is the true way to connect the modern tyrannies with the classical understanding of what now appears as a garden variety of tyrant. That, at any rate, is what we will try to explain in our theoretical understanding of modern communism, where we gather the 13-15 points called “Marx in a Nutshell.” But, in a word, though it is not comprehensible without acquiring the categories (and a sort of political theory that unified field theory in physics would be like): Twentieth century totalitarianism in an intellectual perversion expressed through the diabolical or inverted political imagination that is based on what in the natural form is baptism, the birth of the nous out of the world. Hence, as Marx says, the violence is “spiritual,” not normal political, violence, as Satanism is in a sense an atheistic religion. It is an inversion of the sacrifice in baptism, projected into the political world.

Johnson, Paul. Modern Times, Chapter 2: The first Despotic Utopias.

Marx, Karl. The Marx-Engels Reader. Edited by Robert c. Tucker

Solzhenitsyn, Aleksandr I. The Mortal Danger: How Misconceptions about Russia Imperil America.

West, Thomas G. “Marx and Lenin.”

A New genetic-neurochemical Big Pharma study came out today…

   Admitting that they could not see “schizophrenia,” “Bi-polar” disorder, depression or alcoholism by looking at brain cells.

But now they are working on genetic reasons to drug the people they have heretofore been lying in order to drug.

   The truth is that these “diagnoses” are based on fashionable opinion, tradition, common sense and the flawed, uncultivated, “normal” minds of shrinks making six figures to hawk drugs for Big Pharma. These drugs, though, indeed hurt minds, doing more harm than good. They are usually toxic and addictive, while Marijuana is never recommended either for “depression” or for recovering from the Big Pharma induced oxy-heroin scam.


   Ina Jaffe of NPR, though, reports just this week, and since December of 2014, that 80,000 seniors in nursing homes are given anti-psychotic drugs illegally, for “dementia,” which is contrary to any prescription, and sometimes just for convenience. 80,000 felonies, and no one is looking it?

   These are old studies where they say the same things they supposedly discovered just now, and there are many more google pages.

Breaking: Philosopher discovers genetic propensity to gullibility, especially pronounced in American psychiatrists, along with nuero-chemical indicators! We analyzed the genes and brains of Americans suffering from the profit motive, an ethical disease that occurs when the appetites related to self-interest take priority to ethics in the soul.

   Diogenes the philosopher used to live in a barrel and jerk off in public, but he did not take money for treating human souls with no scientific basis. Alexander the Great said “If I were not Alexander, I would choose to be Diogenes.” Diogenes did not say he wanted to be Alexander, but did ask that the conqueror with the self-deification complex get out of the way of the sun.

   Socrates was notoriously prophetic, and used to fall into a trance, as just before the Symposium. In Plato’s Republic, he gives the advice that would have saved Greece from Alexander. We’d drug him, but they could not hear him anyway, and killed him, by judicial murder. Democracy: Justice is abnormal, not to mention the right functioning of the human mind, otherwise known (but not to our shrinks) as intellectual virtue.

Scientists find new genetic roots of schizophrenia | UCLA

Oct 19, 2016 – Using a recently developed technology for analyzing DNA, the scientists found dozens of genes and two major biological pathways that are likely involved in the … Because the causes of schizophrenia are poorly understood, current medications can help diminish the symptoms but do not cure the disorder.

Gene breakthrough on lithium treatment for bipolar disorder …

Nov 8, 2017 – Genes linked to schizophrenia in psychiatric patients suffering from bipolar disorder are the reason why such patients don’t respond to the “gold standard” … new genes within the immune system that may play an important biological role in the underlying pathways of lithium and its effect ontreatment …

NIMH » Taming Suspect Gene Reverses Schizophrenia-like …

May 22, 2013 – “While mouse models can’t really do full justice to a complex brain disorder that impairs our most uniquely human characteristics, this study demonstrates the potential of dissecting the workings of intermediate components of disorders in animals to discover underlying mechanisms andnew treatment …

Understanding schizophrenia: Genetic research offers hope for …

Jan 16, 2017 – What can studying the human genome teach us about the origins and treatments for psychiatric diseases like schizophrenia? … Schizophrenia is one disorder in particular about whichgenetic and genome-wide association studies have revealed new information and potential treatmentoptions. Figure 2.

Schizophrenia gene discovery offers hope for effective drug – Stat

Jan 27, 2016 – The bad news is that if schizophrenia is indeed caused by too much pruning of synapses, finding a therapy will be “challenging,” said Goldstein. That’s because the brain likely has a small tolerance for the wrong amount of pruning: too much may lead to schizophrenia, but too little could be crippling. A drug …

Groundbreaking New Schizophrenia Research | Psychology Today

Mar 23, 2016 – The truth, though, is that schizophrenia cannot yet be cured; it can only be managed. One day this could change. Perhaps genetic testing could alert doctors to people at risk, or understanding what’s happening at the level of the genome might one day lead to new treatments. As it stands now, though, we …

The concept of schizophrenia is coming to an end – here’s why › Psychology & Psychiatry

Aug 24, 2017 – One person’s experiences may result from a brain disorder with a strong genetic basis, potentially driven by an exaggeration of the normal process of pruning … Some new interventions, such as the family-therapy based Open Dialogue approach, show promise for a wide range of people withschizophrenia …

Discovered: Gene associated with schizophrenia risk regulates early …

Sep 25, 2017 – gene associated with the risk of schizophrenia regulates critical components of early brain development, according to a new study led by researchers … Understanding the function of thisgene — described this month in journal Molecular Psychiatry — could lead to more effective treatmentsfor schizophrenia.

Schizophrenia Gene Study May Point to New Treatment – Forbes

Jul 21, 2014 – Looking for a new schizophrenia drug is probably like looking for a needle in a haystack, but as of today, the haystack got a lot smaller.

Scientists confirm genetics of schizophrenia – CNN –

Oct 19, 2016 – (CNN) Creating an effective treatment for schizophrenia requires a better understanding of its biology, of the genes that cause it. Using technology to … The science team hopes its research, published Wednesday in the journal Nature, leads to new medications to treat the disorder. More important, using a …

ACLU Complaint: Does the Mental Health Code Supersede the Bill of Rights?

   Charges of perjury were reported to Washtenaw County deputy John G____, and he said this was submitted. Nothing is done about the charge, that is, I am simply ignored, so that the same may or similar may occur again. I am afraid to call and ask what is being done.


Complete description of situation 

 On Mach 24, I was seized in my driveway, drugged and held for 20 days for a compulsory psychiatric evaluation, despite having violated the rights of no one, done not a single thing that I have not a perfect right to say and do (such as speaking at my own address), nor even having said a single thing that is false. I was, contrary to law, not informed of the “charges,” for three days, during which time I was taken to the University of Michigan psychiatric ward briefly and intrusively evaluated, tested and drugged without counsel, and transferred to Promedica Hospital in Monroe. There I was held for seven days before gaining access to counsel, and compelled to wait five more days before an independent evaluation could be gained, and a full 20 days before appearing, still not bodily, before a judge. Upon hearing the truth of some of the circumstances behind some of the charges, it was determined that they had no right to hold me, and I was released, despite the effort of my sister to have me committed and further drugged.

   The objects of my complaint are many, and could not be listed on the form, but include the Washtenaw Sheriff, the judicial branch, University of Michigan Hospital, and the relatives filing and submitting the perjurous complaint. Promedica too is in violation of the law requiring that I have access to all records they have kept on me, as has been denied repeatedly, beginning from the time I was preparing for my trial.
How do you think the ACLU can assist you?

   You cannot remove the permanent stigma that results from such an episode, but I would like to have a lawyer and to seek compensation. At present, all who I once worked for shun me, in part because I am nearly disabled, but also due to this slanderous and perjurous accusation.

   The question is whether the Bill of Rights, the First, Fourth, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments take precedence over such things as the Michigan mental health code and the current fashionable practice of compulsory submission to mental health evaluations. On a philosophical basis, we reject the assumption that modern psychology has knowledge of the soul, much as one might reject the Medieval first principles that allowed government to torture people while calling it “help,” and “cure.” Everyone knows that the principle of psychology are an “eclectic” and contradictory hodge-podge, which, with some good ideas, remain anything but knowledge or certainty, though the assumption that they know is quite profitable for the drug industry. I asked one doctor, who was trying to give me addictive and toxic drugs, “on one hand, you have chosen for me a lifetime of addiction to toxic substance, on the other, you say I think too fast and do not keep the proper hours of sleep and waking.” The lawyer said I was the easiest case of this sort for which he had gained release. One point was that I had managed to avoid being drugged for ten days and seemed fine, except that I have these funny conspiracy like theories, such as that of Trump-Russian election fraud, which both branches of Congress are now considering, but were no where near to considering, say, in December and November! must just be me! Ja, I have this abnormal paranoia that I might be seized in my driveway for nothing on the decree of some deluded relatives! This stinks to high heaven, and in addition to a lawyer, I need a private investigator. The federal and state executive have made it clear they will do nothing but hurt me. Another is indeed that Oxy was a scam and a conspiracy, which almost no one held in November, but is now common opinion. Common opinion is not scientific knowledge of the soul.

   Now I want every record, such as that blocking my entrance to Canada, expunged, and to be compensated, beginning with 20 days, 24 hours at 15 ? per hour, and quite a few apologies, as from my bother for helping by saying that I was mad for thinking that the tech is “watching me.” What was madness is now common sense. The lack of a Fourth Amendment subjects us, including philosophy, to the harmful rule of utter ignorance. Or do they care to tell us about dopamines, chemical “balance,” and the health of the soul? They will surely begin by demonstrating the refutation of Plato’s Allegory or the cave. restore the Fourth Amendment, or you will NEVER have another free election. Oh, but it must be just me! The Holy Spirit, by the way, is also banned from speech if modern psychology takes precedence over the Bill of Rights.

   Where no crime is committed, no ones rights violated, nothing done that one does not have a perfect right to say and do, do relatives, for reasons of filial and political disputes, have the rights to have one seized just because they are poor?

  This conflict arose out of filial and political circumstances. Despite holding a PhD in politics, I am financially ruined, and partially disabled, due to losing teeth, an eye twitch, joint problems and an unknown digestive disorder. I care for my elderly mother, her house, yard and 5 cats* while living mostly in a shed. I was accused twice prior to the March 2 accusation, once when in the presence of one sister I told the homeowner/mother that she was out of cat food, and the sister was angry because she had just loaned money for the gas bill. Social services was called on me, and was persuaded to leave me alone by the threat that if “talking” to anyone cost me five dollars in time I do not have, I would sue. An additional point was that, for example, an opioid addicted relative had spent a week there, with an additional cat, and for seven days I was literally the only person who manually washed a single dish. My chores far exceed three hours per day seven days per week, which must be considered plenty in exchange for the rights of a renter, though I pay more when I can work, it costs the homeowner almost nothing to have me here, in circumstances similar to a foreign worker.
I had also been working on political matters on the internet, and had learned that the t.v., phones and especially the computer were spying on us by camera and microphone as well as other unknown means. I received much interference, including death threats, one while working on Supreme Court Case #16-907, which I immediately reported to police. My mother, though, is quite moody, as we think, due to prescription drugs, and for some time, on certain days, would forbid me to try to explain even simple matters, flying into a tantrum especially if I expressed any limit to my ability to keep up with dishes and chores, or to keep concentration while working on the internet. She reported to my brother that I think the t.v. is watching me, and Social services was called a second time, this time with arms, so that my life was indeed endangered. I had turned off default settings for Windows 10, through which I was indeed being spied upon for over two weeks, placed tape at the top of the computer, and heard just two days after being accused of insanity that our executive agencies had left vulnerabilities in the tech that indeed allow foreign governments to hack what data they cannot buy from companies allowed to suspend our Fourth Amendment guarantee of security in our persons, papers, houses and effects. One indeed appreciates this amendment when under a possible death threat, as blogger was killed in Bangladesh, even by elements learning his itinerary and meeting him at an intersection.
The police arrived with John G___, who I knew from reporting the death threats, which I took quite seriously. He brought with him another nice agent who was very interested in whether I had read the Koran, and in my having written on the last book of the Bible. I cannot read the Quran anymore without thinking of whether it is quite safe, though the book is important to contemporary political studies, and I will include this point in a First Amendment complaint. Then the social workers came to try to persuade, or in hindsight trick, me into coming along for their nice evaluation, and it is here my relatives learned that I could not be taken away without consent unless I were a danger. So they drew up the perjurous accusation.
The main point of the perjury is that I threatened to “beat his nephew J___ head in in with a baseball bat.” What actually occurred is that, when I received the death threat, I tried through three different women to get a message to J____, this sister’s son, that this was not the time to be sneaking around this property at night, as I had indications was occurring. I also had two questions about suspicious things he had done here. He was sent away just before I came here, about four years ago, for stealing, including his grandmother’s oxy. The mother then said I had “threatened to kill J____,” and would not allow five efforts to correct her error. My sister indeed assaulted me in my living room when I tried to explain what I did say, which I of course have a perfect right to say, and spoke this for his own protection. One death threat included the threat to seize and torture me, and I hold a black belt in Shotokan Karate, though I have never struck a single person, even in many years of classes. Indeed, I have done a bit of thinking about justice and the use of force, as well as about rights and the U. S. Constitution. I may indeed have said that if a male did to me what my sister had done in technically assaulting me, I would indeed kick his ass, in a conditional sentence, the first clause being conveniently removed.
Additional accusations are all like that, perjury spun out of an animus inspired one sided view. I have text message conversations up to just before I was seized, in which three Trump supporting relatives insist that I “get help,” and I try to explain my circumstance, which they had taken it upon themselves to judge. My Uncle, who I had asked to look at the death threat on my Twitter account January 28, failed to find this, the least serious of three or four death threats, but did conclude from partisan animus that

” I fear that Mark is only one step away of doing something really scary” “He has gone from an extremely nice, educated, caring person who everyone enjoyed talking with to an extremely agitated, unpredictable, frightening and scary person.”***

I have worked for both this uncle and this sister, and was a supporter of Ben Carson together with him and my father. I had tried to talk with these Trumpsters about politics, trying to explain why I think we have got our nation into a whole lot of trouble. This uncle forwarded e-mails out of context to my brother, the one who tried to have me taken away for realizing that the spy-tech was spying on us. I warned this uncle too about the Trump plan to attack Chicago (Remember?), as he has a son and grandchildren there. I also famously predicted, as in a blog, that the Trump-Russian plan would have us “send our sons and grandsons out in brownshirts and receive them home in boxes.”**  All this is allowed so long as government acts for twenty days on one false side of a story, so that Washtenaw is quite liable, as are the hospitals. The truth could easily have been known. It remains for this uncle to explain what outside influence there was on him from the Trump organization, and how he influenced my sister in about five counts of demonstrable perjury. She asserts, for example, that I said I have “no time for lifesaving medical help,” when she knows that I said this in answer to why I do not follow her prescription determining that I need to see her friend Jake, and “get help.” After all, she once worked at a veterinary clinic. Following her perjurous accusation, without even informing me of its content, University of Michigan psychiatrists made diagnoses on the assumption that I was “threatening relatives.” They took my liberty for 20 days, from which alone, because poor to begin I will never recover. I could have been shot had I become the least upset, asserted my nights or indeed only been subject to accident, and that danger continues.

Notes: *Incidentally, two of the cats were dumped here by this same sister. Due to obligations to my creditors, I have considered myself unable to own pets, though I have been stuck with cats on two occasions, at quite an expense for one near homelessness.

**Too, having asked this uncle to help publish my book, and offering to double this rich man’s money, I also sarcastically offered to let him invest in a carpentry casket business, since under Trump this might be trending, if indeed there are such resources remaining to us. Perhaps the harshest thing I said was, “Do you have enough money yet?” But the answer “no” indicates that this too, and the implied dishonor, was misunderstood. Such statements were misunderstood, and without asking me to clarify, acted upon. My uncle has a “PhD” in “Education,” but the study did not progress for him beyond the fundamental question of merit pay for teachers, similar to the best of what one might find at Trump University. In his dissertation, he barely raises the question of what merit or virtue is in education, leaving this question to a democratic opinion process, no doubt of others with as much or more to say about what virtue is. I asked if he knew that I had written on the first principles of psychology, but then I realized that he does not know what a “first principle” is, or what the word (archai) even means. (No one really knows what a first principle is.) But he has literally never encountered this in his studies, and does not care to encounter it or try to understand it. I overestimated both his intelligence and his virtue, which, as shown, can indeed be dangerous. And whose delusions have indeed caused genuine harm? I have not even said a single thing that is not true, as the mad as well as those in error do, of course so far as I know, or I would correct this), and have indeed taken a great deal of flack to speak truths that are crucial for the good of our nation. And believe it or not, in saying I had received apparently Trump and Russian death threats, I was accused for “Saying things I could not prove!” As though one ought never speak without demonstrable, certain knowledge, especially when accusing another of being “scary” and “dangerous” endangering their lives and ruining the economies of various others.

***Indeed, when one receives a death threat, it is generally understood to be the fault of the one delivering, not the one receiving the threat, and the crime is assault. I was told by two Trumpster relatives, when I told them they had placed me in danger of being shot legally, that if I were shot, Castiled, it would be my own fault. Had I but exited my shed with a coffee cup in my hand, no one would do a thing but bury me, which is why it is important that government leave people alone when no rights are being violated by them.

Leo Strauss on Solitude

…the philosopher cannot possibly desire to rule. His only demand on the political men is that they leave him alone…(p.207)

   That’s why I yell at my cats- even the “gentleman,” Mr. Black, my “best animal,” “Leave me alone!” If I were a true and full philosopher, I would likely never yell (and they would never listen (Republic, opening), though they do not anyway). And that’s why Justice Black (or Frankfurter?) said, “the right to be left alone is the right most prized by civilized man,” and why the U.S. Declaration, setting rights above duties, is so excellent.* It allows for the Holy Spirit: it is the house without a roof, open to the sky. All men (universal sense, which of course includes women, not of course, qua women, but qua men) have the faculty developed in the philosopher: The philosopher embodies and shows the excellence of man, hence, “all men are created equal-” equally endowed with rights, as Lincoln explains in his speech on Dred Scott. So here, Strauss continues,

   …The philosopher cannot lead an absolutely solitary life because legitimate “subjective certainty” and the “subjective certainty” of the lunatic are indistinguishable. Genuine certainty must be “inter-subjective.” The classics were fully aware of the essential weakness of the mind of the individual. Hence, their teaching about friendship: the philosopher is a philosopher in need of friends.

                                                                                      On Tyranny, p. 208

Tyrants, of course, cannot have friends.

  It is irony itself that the tyrant is surrounded by flatterers and bigger and smaller fish. Some he depends upon to mirror his prestige, while others he depends upon for safety. Meanwhile, the philosopher must hide away in the woods like Merlin to keep mankind from tearing themselves to shreds if they encounter him, who is by nature a gadfly.

   The philosopher too is one of the many, a citizen like any other, with the peculiar advantage that he is one of the few who can speak. There are very few substantial letters to congresspersons, amplifying the voice of those among the people that are able to speak of things that mater. Most, of course, cannot.

   Athens killed Socrates the Philosopher, and Plato and Xenophon wrote Apologies of Socrates, arguing of course that this should not have occurred. Xenophon wrote that far from being punished for not believing in the gods of the city and for corrupting the youth, Socrates was deserving of honor. Socrates, required to tell the truth because he is in court, said he deserved free meals in the Prytanium like an Olympic victor.

   Honor, which the philosopher does not seek for its own sake, in the sense of recognition, is needed for his own protection. It is also good for men to look to and esteem things truly honorable (Leo Paul S. de Alvarez).

   Had Athens honored rather than judicially murdered Socrates the philosopher, Greece might have become an autocthonous nation, more than a match for Persia, and avoided the Imperialism of Alexander that destroyed Greek liberty .

   But you see that since the madman and the philosopher are indistinguishable to the folks in the neighborhood, many things follow. The Constitution supersedes the “Michigan Mental Health Code,” which is unconstitutional when it seizes a man for mere speech because others are deluded and self-interested or imagine him a danger, and act upon this delusion rather than allow him to explain. And the case is important enough to pursue to the ends of the earth. They live like slaves because they fear death, and like the Miller in Grimm’s goat story, will do things so base as to destroy the value of their having lived at all. It is no grave dishonor to be considered mad, nor to lose all one’s friends as Odysseus did while having done or said not a single thing wrong. They could not restrain themselves from the cattle of Helios, or, their ignoble self interest proves them incapable of philosophy. But then Odysseus sees, and gets to see Nausikka.

   This leaves open the possibility that there was no outside influence in what caused my family- people I have known for fifty years- to hurt me so badly I will likely never be reconciled. “…But a sin against the Holy Spirit…” And what do you think the context indicates He is talking about?

Note* So long as one does not violate the rights of another, “society” is required by our fundamental law to at least leave him alone.

Psychology: Fidelity and Love

   On the Ted Talk this morning, they had a fellow, the writer of a pop science book, who argues theoretically in favor of lust. The argument is something like this: that fidelity in love is the mere invention of males attempting to possess women as property, that it enters the human world with agriculture, and so is contrary to our natures. We have begun a discussion of biology, psychology and love a few blogs back, and there are of course great mysteries involved. But to begin an attempt to defend the poor lover and human love, even Shakespearean love, we will say this: The love “contract,” or the agreement of fidelity that lovers enter into, and that courtship is about, is because the beloved can destroy the soul or, if that is an exaggeration, “break the heart” of the lover by infidelity. It is this, the broken heart, and not “property rights” that fidelity is about. The lover, impelled by nature and at its mercy, does not even foresee, but the conjugal union brings with it a fusion: the two become “one flesh” or soul, again an exaggeration, but true in part. St. Paul writes that even the union with a prostitute bring this about, so that the promiscuous are literally dragging about their history as baggage. Erotic union causes a filial connection. Events that would otherwise be telepathic or prophetic even occur because the two literally participate in one love, a soul higher than the soul of either, and yet it is themselves. Most people are base and do not love, but that does not mean that the marriage customs, built up over thousands of years of hard experience, are unnatural or harmful.

   It is no coincidence that the conjugal union is the participation of man in the Creating of the creator, and the perpetuation of the generations, continuing according to one account a four billion year continuous genetic lineage. And the reason marriage is sacred is that the soul is an image of God, male and female. The Creator appears at the incarnation, and the highest image of God in the scriptures – the wedding of the Bride and Lamb- is reflected in marriage. So both the Creator and Redeemer are reflected in human marriage: Called the mystery of the bridal chamber.

   It is also true that love is the navel of our attachment to the earth of cave, and that the jilted lover can be dawn to the fundamental penance that leads up and out. The attachment to the earth and to the mother is beneath the attachment to the beloved, and its conquest is the overcoming of the fear of death. When this is trapped in the material, it can become a literal suicide, or worse. The attachment at the root of the family presents each with the fundamental questions, and the opportunity for some most fundamental errors.

   The true lover does not desire another beside the beloved, and so it is the beloved that must be persuaded. Maybe one in ten actual humans love this way, but the happiness of the household depends in large part on the way to which they follow the example. Similarly, jealousy excludes infidelity, or at least would be contradicted by infidelity. A test of fidelity is whether one becomes jealous, but for humans to make such things by artifice renders the elation artificial already, and harms the love. Affairs cause faction in the household, as the staying one will withdraw from the love, cannot celebrate the holidays together in the same way, etc. It also causes faction in the soul, so that one cannot act in unison with himself, and becomes clumsy. making mistakes.

   Love has its own ethics and its own understanding of justice, as assumed though inexplicable in the words “cheating,” “faithful” and such. One suspects that the lovers use these words so that loves justice will be assumed and they will not have to explain, because we can’t! And so the language is that of contract and promise. These things are just assumed, and no one can explain them, let alone convince one who does believe: Then I saw her face / Now I’m a believer” say the Monkeys, contradicting Darwin. But i heard a straying husband once who lamented that, having seen what the affair had done to his wife, he was quite shocked, and would never sacrifice so much pain for so little pleasure.

   Of course there are many different ways that humans participate in erotic union, but the suggestion is that these are all based upon and understood in light of the natural conjugal union at the root of the family, called “fertile” rather than infertile love.

   From the start, the biology of the matter no more supports the argument of lust than the argument of fidelity. Fidelity is different for men and women due to the circumstance in which women find themselves by nature, being the ones to bear or carry the child.    The male may be confused as to whose child he is raising, but the woman cannot be so confused for the same cause. Infidelity, if one can get away with it, would be selected for, but fidelity would decrease deaths from cuckolded husbands and due to sexual diseases, and so have an obvious claim to natural selection. The human family is much older than agriculture, and it is suspected that the continuous rather than cyclical human estrus was invented by nature to fuse the family. But this as often can destroy the family. When things are well, the couples are together caring even for the bodies and pleasures of one another, and after a fight or argument it is well known what occurs when the couples make up. It is even possible to argue that true and free lust occurs only in the conjugal union. The human family goes back even millions of years, into the avian and reptilian nature, where the family first emerges to care for the young. Swans and certain birds even excel mankind in fidelity and the attachment of love that joins the couples. The continuous human estrus is as likely to break as preserve the human family, but another common experience is the emptiness of the brief liaison. Bar patrons joke about wanting to chew their own arm off in the morning. The suspicion is that deep within our nature. love and the conjugal union are involved in the mystery of human connected-ness at the root of our political and filial nature. I am thinking of Allan Bloom, who writes of love this way, as the root of our connected-ness to other persons, or the reason that almost all humans cannot be alone. For the true priest or solitary philosopher, there are different mysteries, but for almost all practical purposes, it is not good for man to be alone.

   The mysteries of mankind involve the distinction between the filial and political nature, endogamy and exogamy, and the connection of families into polities through intermarriage. The incest prohibition acts upon us as if it were biological, that is, “lust” does not even operate within the family, and humans cannot even consciously address the theoretical issue, such, as Freud noted, is the human unconscious- and our Ted Talk biologist has not even begun to consider such “scientific” questions, but the treatment of man as wholly animal by the evolutionary theorists fundamentally destroys the specifically human nature and indeed destroys the soul, and this is not even an exaggeration. Psychologist well know, without any theoretical basis, the grave harm done by molestations and violations of the prohibitions, though modern psychology literally has no theoretical basis to account for this. It is as though our human soul were fundamentally disturbed, and in the worst cases, split personalities even emerge, as though one soul cannot acknowledge what has occurred to another within the same soul. The psychologists thankfully revert to law, common sense and repression, and do not notice the theoretical marvel which the law assumes. The harm done to children by the indiscriminate lusts of criminal adults is beyond notorious. These laws are ancient for us beyond the Decalogue, so that Moses himself, while addressing the facts and furthering civilization by forbidding the practices that some cultures in 1300 B.C. did not yet forbid, struggles to understand the theoretical basis. Neanderthal man may have been filial and not political, but for our species, such things are indeed inhuman, crossing the bounds of the humanity of “Cromagnon” man. We are indeed, as Aristotle wrote, the “political” animal, joined into tribes and these into villages by filial connections that are established by love. Exogamy then is for us most natural, and we suggest that Ted and his remarkable guest have not begun to think out even the anthropology involved in a defense of animal lust. Love is a rare and delicate plant, and human customs, rightly conceived, aim to uphold this beautiful thing against a tide of animal nature threatening to sweep away all that is priceless and hard won in human civilization. The law is like a trellis that allows roses to grow in abundance. To say that such things are based upon some mere patriarchal right of property is a joke, and a bad joke if we begin to think the matter through.

   Love is for the lover attended by jealousy, though for the one loved, this is not as impelling, and it comes upon us by nature. The lover must contract the fidelity of the beloved to preserve his own soul from jealousy, which can so possess the lives and thoughts of lovers as to make their lives from morning until night a misery. This comes upon the lover as did the love, like a force of nature o like a daemonic possession, and would call it the influence of an “archetype, and each is measured by and responsible for his own reaction to painful jealousy. One can do little to correct the circumstance except to leave or recede, but many things to make it worse, and suspicion itself can drive the beloved away. Bloom, in commenting on Othello and Lear, notes that the beloved does not owe love, and the lover cannot command love. But infidelity means that the beloved does not love you. Stupid of us to think ourselves worthy of love, as though we were the best for the beloved! Love implies an inflation: “I am the best of those that speak this speech,” says Ferdinand in Shakespeare’s Tempest. The heo will be sent out to slay the dragon for the princess and by the princess, though she does not do this knowingly, but apparently by nature.In each relation, it seems, there is as in Plato’s Phaedrus, a lover and a beloved, or as Jung writes, a container and one contained within the whole that is the love. Mutual lovers are rare among the couples, and the lover must seek to inspire the “ant-eros,” to win the heart of the beloved. Consider the things Prospero says to Ferdinand about the challenge to overcome his lust until marriage: Weeds will infest his marriage bed if he does not succeed in this fundamental establishment of the order of soul where he is able to control himself even in under the influence of his strong love for Miranda. The lover is indeed not capable of doing this himself while in love, and that is why it is thankful or fortunate that Ferdinand has the wise man to compel him, and that we once had the marriage customs of courtship and convention.

A Note * The word love does not occur in the index of our textbook titled “Abnormal Psychology,” perhaps because they wish to assume that love is normal! There is however a disorder called the “dependent” personality, and “co-dependent” has become a catchphrase in the fashionable opinion that parades itself as science under the banner of our pseudoscience, unworthy of the trust we give to these supposed knowers and healers of the soul. One suspects that these phrases are the inventions of beloveds seeking to escape the annoyance of the pain of some lover’s broken heart, and that the shrinks are among the base who do not love. In fact, without an understanding of eros and the human soul, it will be impossible to establish a science for the treatment or healing of the human soul, and while we possess the study, we do not possess the science. I will be thought arrogant for asserting the superiority of Plato, Shakespeare and the Bible to all of modern psychology, but be this as it may, and let the accuser provide a theoretical explanation for why that, or any other thing, is truly wrong on the basis of their pseudo-science. Modern psychology has not begun the serious study of the soul, and the authority it assumes for itself is harmful to humanity.  We at least can begin to provide a theoretical basis for arguing why this, or any other thing, is harmful, right or wrong: The health of the human soul.

Note 2: What is at stake in the argument of love and lust is, an the one hand the beautiful things that make life meaningful and worth living, and on the other, a momentary and usually fruitless thing called a “pleasure.” Eros must be feed from its imprisonment in matter as Ariel, the spirit that serves the wise man, is freed from his imprisonment in a cloven pine, but threatened with imprisonment in an oak. Two different theories of the nature of man underlie the question of whether the excess human eros or libido creates the higher human things by a “sublimation,” or whether there is not rather a natural gradient that eros ascends, a “ladder of love,” as in the Symposium.

Note 3. Lyric poetry contains an understanding of the soul and love far superior to our pseudoscience. Jack White writes: “How dare you. How old are you now, anyway,” and “You took a white orchid, turned it blue.” Another tragic love lyric showing the height, depth and intensity of the passions involved in the question of fidelity is Seven Nation Army. We have  lyric interpretation on these, in blogs and in Chapter IX of the book of music commentaries.

Niel Young writes: “Country girl…

I think your pretty

Got to make you understand

Have no lovers in the city

Let me be your Country man

Note 4: This strange lyric, in its irrationality, demonstrates a number of points about common sense and love:

Jack White: I Fell in Love with a Girl:

Fell in love with a girl
I fell in love once and almost completely
She’s in love with the world
But sometimes these feelings
Can be so misleading
She turns and said “are you alright?”
I said “I must be fine cause my heart’s still beating
Come and kiss me by the riverside, yeah
Bobby says it’s fine he don’t consider it cheating now

Red hair with a curl
mellow roll for the flavor
and the eyes for peeping
can’t keep away from the girl
these two sides of my brain need to have a meeting
can’t think of anything to do yeah
my left brain knows that our love is fleeting
she just looking for something new
and I said it once before but it bears repeating now


can’t think of anything to do yeah
my left brain knows that our love is fleeting
she’s just looking for something new
and I said it once before but it bears repeating now

Fell in love with a girl
i fell in love once and almost completely
she’s in love with the world
but sometimes these feelings can be so misleading
she turns and said “are you alright?”
I said “I must be fine cause my heart’s still beating
come and kiss me by the riverside, yeah
Bobby says it’s fine he don’t consider it cheating now

can’t think of anything to do yeah
my left brain knows that our love is fleeting
she just looking for something new
and I said it once before but it bears repeating now

A Query on Hamlet and Madness

Bring me to the test

And I the matter will reword,

which madness would gambol from…

Hamlet says he is not mad because he can reword what he says into different words, same thing. His speech is not involuntary. A nice preface for a Comprehensive exam on Plato’s Sun, line and Cave.

“My uncle-father and my aunt-mother are deceived,” Hamlet tells Guildenstern (II,ii, 372). In what, my dear lord? Guildenstern asks, and Hamlet tells him:

I am but mad north-northwest. When the wind is southerly, I know a hawk from a handsaw.

And then Polonius enters.

   In my Hamlet essay, I got hawk and handsaw: A hawk is an actor, and a handsaw is one who saws the air too much with his hand, as is mentioned elsewhere in the play, when Hamlet gives advice to the actors. Polonius is a bad actor, while Hamlet wants his mother, Uncle and Guildenstern to think he thinks Guildenstern is a good actor, preserving the veil of illusion, and is still giving him the opportunity to see what he is doing in spying on his friend. But I did not get these wind directions, though a good explanation is in the Arden notes: “when the wind is southerly, “the watcher’s eye is turned away from the sun and so can see more clearly” (p. 258). There might be something to this, if my reader is considering my previous blog.

   The play Hamlet is of course famous for the question of weather Hamlet is really mad or is just faking it, in the antic disposition” he says he will put on to hide his knowledge of the true circumstance in the Kingdom: his uncle has murdered his father Hamlet, and has seized the throne and married the mother of Hamlet. The movie “the Ninth Configuration,” I believe, suggested that he is faking it, but as a defense against a genuine madness, of which he is in danger. Hamlet is the only one who knows the truth about what is occurring in the kingdom. Hamlet talks like Shakespeare himself, though, and those who do not understand or inquire are allowed to believe he is mad. He has had his love, if he loves Ophelia, used as a spy against him, as is being done with Guildenstern in this moment, and no readers seem to think that very significant. Ophelia, of course, drowns herself accidentally in a genuine madness in which she literally does not know what is going on around her. This, though, is caused by the genuine flaw of Hamlet, which is not madness but revenge, and of a strange sort that attempts to influence the immortal souls. Ophelia dies, tragically, because Hamlet, her love, killed her father while he, Polonius, was spying on him, and he thought it was the King. Tragedy, as Aristotle writes, affects those near to one another in kinship, its causes bound up with the filial things. Hamlet would have dealt with the “king” one way or another, except that he wanted to wait until the king was up to no good, assuring that his soul would not go to heaven. Note that domestic spying was once considered being up to no good.* Hamlet does not follow the Socratic reasoning about revenge, and the play turns screaming toward tragedy from this single event.

   Our psychology, with its DSM and its material causes, is not much in advance of the explanations of madness then current, such as that it based on the humors, perhaps an “imbalance,” and is effected by the weather.

   The two plays of Shakespeare on madness are Lear and Hamlet, and I have a three page discussion on modern psychology in the notes to my book on Lear, which has largely been ignored. There is more in the draft of the first chapter of my book on psychology, if anyone is interested. But no one even cares if Hamlet is the only one who knows, on supernatural evidence, what is going on in the kingdom, and he suspected something of the sort, that “something is rotten in Denmark.” The question is what is to be done about it, and of course in classical tragedy, the protagonist makes the wrong choice due to a flaw in his otherwise noble character. Shakespeare also wrote tragedy about villains, Macbeth and Richard III, characters that are essentially flawed though they have some noble element enslaved in the service of their villainy. Hamlet is not a villain.

   Our psychology is incapable of even this ethical distinction, though thankfully it does assume that “values” are facts when considering the “sociopath” and the “psychopath.” It does not even raise the question or try to distinguish between genius and madness. But Al-Farabi is not incapable, and as cited in my psych chapter, has something to say about the distinction between genius and madness.

   But let it suffice to say that if Shakespeare is a sane example, merely saying things most do not understand is not a sufficient indication of madness. One might be the only one who knows what is going on. Such may be accused of madness, and our psychiatry seek to seize and drug them all the same. Psychology can then easily be made the instrument of tyranny. The accusation of madness is extremely serious, not something the courts should allow to be used for ulterior motives, as against the vulnerable, because, as in communist Russia of the Twentieth Century, it will be so used.

*Spying is a deep and terribly complicated question, because it is fine against serious crime and foreign enemies, but places one into a “state of nature” with the one spying, because one is then in their power to the extent of the spying. One can assume it is a state or condition of war, which is outside the civil society or law in some sense. Claudius is in fact trying to kill Hamlet, and Polonius is helping the tyrant kill the lawful heir- though he may think of himself as “help”ing. The use of women and love in spying is far more grave than the perpetrators can possibly realize, or they would not be doing it, though it is less of a crime against those who do not love. It is in truth a violation of religious rights (Genesis 1:26), though it may be thought only a matter of appetites, again by those souls incapable of love..

Seized For Mere Speech

   “You must have done something wrong,” they will say, and “There are two sides to every story.” No one seems able to believe it. But I was seized in my driveway and taken away, on a perjurous “mental health” complaint. Three times, the “social services” were called on me, and after learning that they could not have me taken away for “treatment” unless I were a “danger to myself or others,” they simply drew up a perjurous complaint. I stare in amazement at the circumstance, thinking there must be something more than I am seeing. People I have known for fifty years are trying to hurt me in astonishing ways, and succeeding. I have done nothing wrong, nor even said a single thing that is false, yet have been accused like a scapegoat, forbid to speak in my own defense, each accusation answered yielding to a new accusation, everything I say being used only against me, quite as though in answering I spoke to a box of rocks or a brick wall. Is it that having no money, there is simply no justice in relation to me? Or perhaps that everyone to whom I speak is on Oxy, and unable to comprehend a two sentence answer? What have I done? What have I said that is even false?

   Ah, but “you are crazy!” I was just told that today for saying that the reason people do not understand me is that they are on opiods, to a person who is in fact on opiods. The first time social services was called, my mother, where I live- caring for her and her five cats and house and property- had borrowed money from a sister to pay a gas bill, and the sister resented it and decided it was my fault. She is known for viscious attacks, “going for the eyes,” I call it, metaphorically, when she is enraged (but I am “mad”). We are always very poor, especially after winter, in the spring. I got through this first social services call alright, I thought, pointing out that I was the only one involved not on psychiatric drugs or oxy, and that I did plenty of work to cover a reasonable rent. When I had work, I did pay 300$ plus the chores, but the chores continually increase. I used to work for some of those who are now my accusers. But lets see, I live mostly in the shed out back except for essential functions for which one legally needs a house, and have nothing like the rights of a renter. I am simply silenced in my own house, or, at my own address, since I own nothing, except a truck, and many many books- I used to be a teacher, but that is a different story. Let it suffice to say I did a fine job till the end, with no complaints, until that last semester when I failed a couple kids for cheating bad- the students cheat nowadays a lot, and we let most of it go. Liberal arts is no way for a white male to flourish in American community colleges nowadays, and anyone involved with the colleges knows exactly what I mean. In politics and philosophy- previously white male dominated professions- no white males were hired to full time positions for the last fifteen years, and everyone knows this. The well connected went to work for think tanks, etc., but I do not live that way, by networking and cultivating connections. I worked quite a bit at painting and labor for craftsmen, old friends, but eventually- before there was any health care- lost my teeth and fiance, developed a twitch in my eye, and, as these are the days of feminism- hit the road. I bounced around at two different addresses, working across the street as a cat shepherd, then staying with my father for a while, till he threw a glass at the wall behind me for saying something true, and it was time to leave. A place opened up here, where there is my beloved shed, when my nephew was, we think, caught stealing Oxy and expelled. When my mother was in critical for a month and a half, I was taking care of her many cats and visiting her for many hours till I and my ex-fiance were drained. But then I put a picture window in the shed, which had been a chicken coup, thinking too that one day I would like to live there. It is my older sister who first thought of converting the shed, when she was pregnant with my nephew. She is an old farmer and a horse girl, and it is that same nephew who moved out when I moved in. I have been three years trying to get time to clean out the garage to make it useful again, and three years trying to clean up the last of my father’s junk piles, left as when one dies, right as it was the day he finally left. I was showing this to the son of another nephew the other day, before I figured it was just too dangerous for me to spend time with him. I was already careful to never be in the position of a legal guardian, as is even a teenage babysitter, even while his grandmas go to the store and want to leave him with me, because I was being accused by everyone of anything, and I have no money. Things are not the way they used to be, and while we have made great improvements, many things are now destroyed that will be irretrievable. See, it is not that I do not take account of these things. I had to insist that I not be left with the child, despite them- my mother and sister- acting like there was something wrong with me for foreseeing that I might be accused. I was correct in fact that people were looking for anything to accuse me of, and that anything at all might be invented. The poor are now extremely vulnerable, and we have no lawyers, so are always wrong no matter what. The women own and have taken through the courts all the property in the United States, it seems, but we who do not yet know better than to speak a word against feminism are learning. My judge will likely be a woman, and as I have said, I was seized and as if charged for mere speech.

   So, my charming sister, the middle one, first accused me, over the gas bill. I told my mother one day we were out of cat food while the sister was here- it is her responsibility, while I do all the cat labor, 7 days a week, and many other things. People are always trying to put their cats off on me, because I like them, ans I must say I cannot justify it to my creditors. Lawn cutting and snow shoveling and much trash, and some driving and shopping, etc, which no one will recognize. I have told them, “get out your pencil,” but no one will. “Why is there only one side to your ledger?” and “put an add in the newspaper for it then,” because I also work security and am on call 24 hours and seven days. I am subjected too to moods no renter would abide, and can be two days at a time without facilities. I understand and do not mind so much, but it needs to be recognized, when I am accused as if of welshing off the mother. I would estimate the cost at ten dollars an hour might be 600-1000$ per week. Put an add in the newspaper. But I do have a side of the ledger. The older sister dumped two cats on me years ago, probably mad because I gave them tuna and wet food, and they liked me, and I cleaned her cat litter boxes almost daily when I lived there for a while, between my father’s and the shed. My mother would leave the door open in the winter, after her dog would let himself in, and I told her too that she could not afford to do that. I also told the social services worker that, and though he did not return my calls, he left me alone. I threatened to sue if the affair cost me even 5 $, as I cannot afford this excrement. I am the poorest person that you know.

   I work also in the house, on the computer, and was working hard at writing and politics when I received a death threat. I have a PhD in politics, and work on some high level matters, though, because I am dirt poor and this is America, no one believes me. It is probably better that way. But count, if you doubt me- the number of phrases and even whole issues that show up on my blog before they show up in the news, and you will get what I mean. There are a few of us like that, I am not the only one, but the Oxy-heroine scandal and the Russian election of 2016 are prime examples. Property seizures is another- I saw them taking the autos of the poor because they could not afford to oppose “them,” over and over, and in 2009 the Detroit News covered the issue, and they had to back off a bit. But it was quite a scam, the chop shops owned by a brother-in-law of a cop, in town after town. I know this is not the sort of thing people concerned primarily about the health of the body do. Getting Jackson off the 20 instead of Hamilton off the 10, and John 15:13 in relation to police, are other examples. I like when people use stuff off my website, and true things are hit on often by many people at once. Others were onto oxy before me, but not many, and we have always seen what is happening with the psycho-dope, as we call it. We still want Madison booted up from the 5000$ bill to one in regular daily use. It is a certain kind of thing I do that others do not do, cultivating thought and insight. I may still be the only one saying how- if I am right, the 2016 election was turned- through the spy-marketing system, Kaspersky or something like it, and targeted interference. The CIA, though, seems hip this, as does the Supreme Court case. I say these things, though, especially for my side of the ledger, since I am now continuously accused.

   When one receives a death threat, it is the fault not of the one receiving it, but of the one sending it, correct? I showed the death threat to a librarian, and was launching my new political party- the CLC, that day. I had gone down to the county a couple days before, under, as I thought, the death threat, to pick up the forms to collect 3000 signatures needed to run for U. S. Representative. The circumstances of this first death threat are too unbelievable to even describe, though it is clear from previous blogs, and that is all I will say here. I told 9 different levels of government, and no one asked me a single question, and no one likely will, unless I am killed-making it much more difficult to do so. I did not think I had much of a chance running for representative, though my credentials are superior to the one who holds the job, and he is not doing his job. Well, as I would say, he is doing half his job- the partisan half, and I would plan to represent all the people. The first “C” stands for “centrist,” in contrast with “rightist” and “leftist.” I showed the death threat to a librarian, and seriously thought I had been followed on three occasions, so I had asked to speak to a trusted FBI agent at the library, where I quickly wrote two letters to important people I would want to write if I were shot in the street on my way to vote and set up the table at the polls to advertise my new political party. When I left the library, after waiting for 6 hours, a family was parked next to me and getting into the car, so I waited and had a smoke before I turned the key, so they could get clear, just in case. Pretty crazy, eh? When I told my father about what I thought was happening, he called the librarian, who told him with assurance I was “schizophrenic.” She spoke with assurance, as if someone with authority had told her this. It is, of course, illegal for a shrink to diagnose someone they have not personally examined- the “Goldwater rule-” even for diagnoses as minor as “narcissism.” My father- he has a high school diploma- explained that this, “schizophrenia,” is biological and chemical, and one of the signs is- surprise- that the person does not admit they have it, and will not submit to the experimental druggings they call “help.” Kind of like Freud, if you do not believe his theory, the Freudians would say that is due to “resistance,” a technical psychological term, for the Freudians. No one ever checked to see if the death threat might be true. But another sign of the disease may be thinking that it matters if things feared or imagined are in fact true. Our psychology ignores, regarding even “depression,” whether or not sad things have in fact occurred. To be sad is pathological regardless, which may be better theory for selling drugs, though not for caring for human beings. But I told my father, about the family getting into the car next to me, if that was you, and you thought you received a serious death threat, do you have a smoke and wait before you turn that key? I had the time. Or do you suppress the knowledge of the possibility, and start the engine as if nothing were going on? Choose. I gave my mother five days to think about that question and make a choice, when she argued I was obliged to take no precautions. In typical Trump fashion, though, the death threat would be turned to accuse me of what the Trumpsters are in fact doing.

   But when one believes they have received a very serious death threat, they do not act the same as they did, nor as all the people around them act who do nothing serious and are not under a possible death threat. I joked that I had pissed off so many interests with my blogs it could be coming from any one of six or seven places, and they would never figure it out if it occurred. And what I had seen surrounding the election of August 2, a primary, had me quite concerned. When I was at the county building picking up the forms for signatures, and reported that I thought I was under a death threat, I was told by the police at the county building to just drive right on over and report the threat to the County police. That seemed a little odd, as I had seen some very strange things on my way in. I reflected that these- the county police- were accused on my website of slandering my father, and had done quite a few illegal things to him in his folk-heroic efforts to get his township to obey the open meetings act and decided instead to report the threat to the State police. I have also read Serpico. So I decided to go for the State Police. Twice I went to State Police posts that were empty, and ended up at the city police asking for a State officer, but the state police would not believe me. Some very strange things I will not discuss were happening that were quite consistent with being followed. Mad people often think they are being followed, but sometimes people really are followed. Real agents study knowing how to tell when one is being followed, and the difference is, of course, whether or not it is true. One has nothing to lose if he cautiously takes the possibility seriously, and quite a bit to lose, perhaps, if he does not. But when I got home, a writer who I followed- I shit you not- had a story titled, “We’ll get you next time, you little bastard,” right there in my e-mail. It is part of the evidence that I have asked the Canadians to preserve. One of course does not know if one is right about such things, and if you are wrong you are “schizophrenic.” But if you are right, and you ignore it, you are dead. As I have said, they are not going to send a notarized copy with copies to the police and to ones father and uncle. They are going to communicate a death threat so that it is received only by the recipient, then disappears, if that is at all possible. There may be evidence of not a single mob death threat, yet no one doubts that these occur- no one. They just do not care or have the balls to care. Only one of my 3 death threats failed to do this, disappear- documented January 28th on twitter, but that is why this is the one I have taken least seriously, and even said I would forgive him, as it was more a technical threat of death by a boisterous speaker, hopefully. No one to this day has ever looked at this threat, though I have asked quite a few people to do so, and I reported the other two to police. As usual, I say I have presented plenty of reason to take note of and even look into the matter. But my uncle- the one who said I was “one step away from doing something really scary-” in a court document under penalty of perjury- this same one, said I had to have proof in order to do anything, and the police too said I had to be able to press charges, or they would do nothing. This is beyond brilliant, since the proof of a mob or any serious death threat is on the pavement before any charges can be brought. And so, what proof did he have to say such a thing, under penalty of perjury, with a great deal of harm at stake? One cannot prove a thing that is false- that is logic.

   We have a right, of course, to take reasonable precautions in such a circumstance, just in case it is not nothing, not a delusional hypothesis, but true. I sent word to my nephew, who has stolen from both the residents here, that this was not the time for him to be sneaking around the property at night. That is all I said, and never spoke to him directly. asked by my mother to explain, I did. This then became, as in the game of telephone, where one whispers a thing along a line of participants and sees to his amazement what comes out the other end- became that I had “threatened to kill my nephew,” and by the time my sister accused me in the court papers I say are perjury, this had become, “he threatened to beat his nephew_______’s head in with a baseball bat.” I was also accused of threatening to “Kick his ass.” What I said was rather that I had three things to say to him, the warning for his own good and two questions, about why, when he came here to clean up his stuff in the garage, the only place he cleared was one place right where one can climb up and see whether or not I am sitting at my desk. And did anyone pay him to do so? I would ask him these questions, I said, and if he assaulted me for mere speech, as my sister had already done, I would not treat him as I did a girl, and I may have even said I would “Kick his ass,” I do not remember. I said that about the owners of the Friskies cat food company, again in a conditional sentence, “If” the MSG drugged cats knock the old woman down the stairs because they get under her feet “then” I would…, my thought is find the bourgeoisie responsible and knock them off their porch, but it is not likely I’d be able to find them. (We are rather starting a class action suit, and pressuring the company before their monopoly does cause this to happen.) Courts are to civilize the violence between humans as we prevent our being treated unjustly, as may well result if one does nothing and this becomes well known. I have been told that there is nothing we can do about Friskies because a federal standard calls MSG “natural” and so it must be allowed.I do talk that way. But I have certainly said nothing that I do not have a right to say. And it turns out, from a half a ladder and a box of stuff I found up above the place that was cleared out, that he probably was sneaking around at night, though probably not to steal. So if one were sneaking around at night, startled and hiding in the garage or under the stair, it probably would not be and a hit man coming to carry out a possible threat of death or torture, so what I said could only have prevented a mistake. Tire tracks in the field and a huge snapping turtle discovered by the front porch are also quite suspicious. Hamlet accidentally kills Polonius, who should have been his father in law, because Polonius is spying on him and Hamlet thinks it is the King, who Hamlet wants to kill while the King, who murdered Hamlet’s father, is doing something perfidious. But in such circumstance, though the hit man would be very stupid, one cannot count on a hit man not being stupid. And one would not be very smart ask to check his ID. Death threats are indeed more likely to cause harm by accident. That is why they are a crime, considered assault, a form of not constitutionally protected speech.

   But that was last fall already. The second time the social services was called to the house, it did not result in my being taken away, because there was no reason to do so. I discovered that the spy tech in our houses is spying on us and the information collected is not secure. Everyone knows this, but none will systematically think out the implications. That is not my fault, and may well be a virtue- again, if it is true, and I am afraid it is true. This is a fact, and we are stupid if we think, as the agent who visited to try to take me away required me to think, that we can be assured that this is only used “for marketing purposes.” Anyone who pays has access to anything they pay for, not to mention hackers, political enemies and government, with its errors. That is why we have a Fourth Amendment, and anyone who thinks can easily know that this, the Fourth Amendment, is no longer observed. I am not even going to explain how I figured this out- that my tech was spying on me in significant ways. You will not believe me, and it would take too long, but I looked the question up through Google, and it turns out I am correct. Camera and microphone full bore, on three different technologies, T.V., computer and telephone, all day and night, whether these instruments are turned on or off. Once, in the middle of the night, just after we had switched to Microsoft Windows 10, the sound came on loud as if to scare me, and a camera came on the screen and snapped a picture of me. They were apparently pissed because I would not give them even the information required to distinguish the various users of this machine, as though that were an obligation of ours. Even the director of the FBI puts tape over the top of his computer, but if they are not a few moves ahead of us, they are simply not very smart, and in fact they are. What the people do not understand is, that one cannot think out the significance of these things. Everyone says “I have nothing to hide,” playing up to those watching, when anyone can know that government is not always pure and not the only ones with access. But that becomes real easy, at least in certain ways, when you are under a death threat. One can no longer say “I am going to the store, do you need anything?” without a whole different set of practical reasoning. I wondered how they could as if know where I was going, did my heroin-oxy addicted niece stick a bug in my house in exchange for…but no. The tech is spying, sold and hacked, and anyone who buys the line that this is only for marketing purposes cannot work on anything serious anyway, and might consider an offer to buy the Brooklyn Bridge. I heard, on the news, a man assassinated in Bangladesh, a blogger, at an intersection, stabbed by four who met him there and then shot by a fifth- you figure it out- if you can. We will never have another free election as long as this continues, and the people are just too stupid to figure it out and too slavish to do anything about it. When I threatened to sue Microsoft- I never consented to the spying even by buying their products- they blamed the FBI, and this too was on the radio news. I have an archive blog complaining about it. But it is, again, not my fault and perhaps a virtue that I listen to the news and no one else does. Perhaps it is not those who study and think but those who do not who are the ones here that are not listening.

   But the second call to social services was because I was trying to persuade my mother to get rid of the spy tech. I live here and walk between my inside room and the bathroom, and am sick to death of the publicity regarding my gastric troubles, as well as the general loss of privacy. Before I learned about the spying, a friend discussed a very private molestation he had suffered, right on Roku, Magnovox, Microsoft and Toshiba. We even tried to sue over it, but the TV lawyer thought the case too expensive. He is busy suing the taxpayers through the city for accidents that can be easily exaggerated. But I am surprised we did not get coupons for psychotherapy. The Americans are so stupid!

   We also tried to sue over Oxy, and this does seem to be the reason not only for mood disorders and practical inabilities, and sleep disorders, but also for the fact that Americans now have trouble following a two sentence explanation of much of anything. But it is an ethical or moral problem that the one explaining is then blamed, and that before they get to the end of the sentences to even hear what is being said!

   My mother threw a temper tantrum because she could not stand my saying, as they put it, to make me sound as crazy as possible, that “the T.V. is watching us.” What used to be madness, in 1984, is now common sense. I had already given up trying to persuade her, and called the police to press charges: It is illegal in Michigan to record any conversation between two people unless one of them consent. The police will do nothing. I did not really realize that one cannot even buy tech anymore that does not spy on you and sell the information. I seriously hoped to persuade her to get rid of it, and said I would be justified if I threw the damned thing out in the front yard and smashed it. This too became “Mark threatened to smash the T.V.,” come to think of it. But the mother called my brother, who accused me of madness and of not paying money to stay here. Again I had to defend myself, and did so before the accusation shifted. I have no money and no work, cause I’v not been well and have few teeth, but as I have said, I do plenty of chores- at least three or four hours a day of matters I am not responsible for, which, 7 days a week over 30 days at even 10$ and hour comes to easily enough to stay mostly in the shed and have equal renter rights. But it is the mom’s house and part of my purpose here is that she be able to stay as long as possible, and she cannot stay here alone: that is how she wound up in critical last time. She would get in squabbles with all 4 siblings, and I am the only one, frankly, who will pick her up out of the ditch while she is bitching at me, in part because I understand these things in a different way. I hold a PhD in Politics, and a double B. S. in Psych and Philosophy, with a graduate minor in literature, and have written 2-4 books, depending on how one wants to figure it. Plus I am a Christian, and Jesus teaches that sort of thing. But the brother would have none of it: I need “help,” and they “Love me” so much they are going to get this for me- by getting me evicted and if possible seized and taken away for drugging. But even if the cops, when they come, make a mistake and shoot me, it will be “my own fault,” said both my brother and my uncle, and there are plenty of examples on the internet. In the Philippines, it is even a favored and fancy way of carrying out a death threat, but it is still too risky in the U. S., if not by much. Good thing I did not get angry at the injustice- my martial arts teacher said he would be dressing up in Ninja- but it is, no, just a figure of speech, for God sake! I have literally never struck a person in my life, even in training (and that is almost unheard of), not that I would not. As I have said: “If you hit me, I will hit you back,” or press charges, or both. And if you drop off the first half of this conditional sentence and charge me, I will charge you with perjury. Although the right of self defense is not exactly in the Bill of Rights, the courts of course will recognize this, as does common sense, and also the right to use force in defense of others. One would be hard pressed to find someone who has thought out the use of force theoretically as I have, nor one who has exhibited more self control. I could go on, but won’t. One ought not lie about such things or abuse the police and the “mental health” system, so that these are there when they are needed under truth. When, 2 days later, Wikileaks reported that the CIA knew of certain vulnerabilities in our tech but left us exposed, that all smart tech and everything hooked up to the internet was in fact spying on us whenever anyone with access wants, I invited my brother to apologize. He is objectively demonstrated to be wrong. But they just go on to the next accusation.

   Although the police could find no reason that day to take me away, and I would not go., they eventually resorted to the perjurous accusation. I know what kind of “help” they mean, and I am very busy. And if anyone seriously wanted to help me, they might ask me what I needed, rather than decide for me what I need. A strange officer they brought out with the county cop I know asked quite a few questions as if he were in utter ignorance of our Bill of Rights, questions about my writings, my writing on scripture, and especially “Have you ever read the Quran? And why do I not just accept Donald Trump as President? Why try impeachment or, as I explained I was truly, why work on a Supreme Court case to void the 2016 election due to Russian interference through the internet spy-marketing system (the method that Trump was promised could not be detected, as well as 6 other ways that have in fact been detected)? I actually had to say to this Trumpster agent that I was a U.S. citizen and had a right to work on a Supreme Court case. And “Who do you think does such things, if not a politics PhD?” But Americans are so stupid: surely no poor man! I must have debilitating Narcissism! Religious vows of poverty are now to be declared illegal, or given a new category in the DSM all their own, together with visions, dreams, and comprehensive intellect! That I was working on a Supreme Court case was one of the charges listed in the perjury of my sister that finally, the third time, got me taken away. I said so at all only to emphasize that it was important that I be allowed to continue to do my work, explain to people who do not understand priorities, that some things are truly important. Everything I say has in fact been used only against me, so that like a limed bird, the more I say, the more I am stuck. But, as my friend says, to one who only has a hammer, everything looks like a nail, and that is the intelligence of these agents. I suggested, since he was some slick guy, above our county cops “pay grade,” he develop the capacity to see if what a person says might not be true, and to investigate crimes on the internet, as I could walk them through the death threats, show where and how these happened, and if this were their nail, they would no doubt have all the info preserved. I can demonstrate the perjury from text messages that I recorded. These are in any case available as well to defend us as to be used against us. But they will not look.

   The third time, I was vacuuming the shed, and the cops had been parked across the street while got the mail, and for quite some time. One does not, of course, want to be “paranoid!” A county cop then pulled into my driveway- my sister, lying, had had the mother conveniently and smilingly over to visit when this was to occur, just as my armed brother, who “loves” me and will “help”- I have seen him maybe twice in five years- had come by coincidence to be there the second time they tried, and now they took me, not even allowing me to prepare, turn off the electricity (which the nice officer did for me), get cigarettes, clothing, paper, pen books or cell phone. I am amazed at how everyone around me has lied and schemed quite freely as though I were a child, while again I have said not a single thing that is even false, let alone done anything wrong or that I do not have a right to do. I was taken to the Psych hospital without seeing the seriousness of the charges against me, and so expected to be out shortly. I was interviewed, asked by a shrink who knew me for 8 minutes, “Have you ever been molested?” I asked him, “Have you ever been molested?” and was declared uncooperative, a mental illness, and some other of their nice words, on the perjerous accusation and diagnosis of my alcoholic sister, who is not even a shrink, but does have a high school degree, though she was a D student if I am not mistaken. “Threatening relatives,” I was, and my poverty was interpreted as not taking care of myself, and stated in the most extreme terms possible. Has one not a right to decline toward death? But it was in the cop car that I learned, after he lied about showing me the papers (officer Campbell, I believe), that the Supreme Court case had been denied. I had been knocked off the internet February 4th when I received a long string of many things I had said that angered the Russians, together with some medical information that is not even on the internet, likely sold by my drugstore, and a simultaneous phone call pretending to be a telemarketing scam, beginning “Stop doing what you are now doing,” and offering me 10,000$. I called the police then, but they did not come. I had also called them when a Dr. ___ was writing a letter to President Obama, and I was adding a comment, and Russian whores- likely  from St. Petersburg- came on the screen under a page like that of a man I trust, a WordPress background- followed quickly by a very scary face and 4 words, 2 of which were “Assassin” and “Assassinate.” I offered to show the cop when I reported this to police, but as I said, once one gets the message, these things are likely to disappear as quickly as they came. If they can make them appear up under your page, they can most likely make them disappear. I had just a few days before had a Russian hacker take over a comment on a follower’s website, and take me out West to a pot website- I pretended not to know. I had a hacker on a DNC website (Daily Kos) show me a lion sneaking up on a leopard, then seize my computer, saying my hard drive would be destroyed in five minutes if I did not call this number. I reported that one to NPR, but the FBI is such a joke it is likely to do more harm than good, and I told them a long time ago to watch my computer anyway. I have not called them since they hung up on me, as described in a previous blog. If the local cops can’t handle it, they do need to call, but the State referred me to the county. I had also been visited by “Jack the Judge,” for saying things to Putin like “Get out of the Ukraine,” etc, which the Trumpster Trolls who attacked me January 28th seem to have helped gather to scare me off the internet. I would have continued, though, but was forbidden by the owner, after the police did not come and no one would help defend my rights, or even believe me. Again, I told them I was working on a Supreme Court case. The cop said “Your name is not on it.” I said “I did not say it was.” To this day, everything I have said has only been used against me, like I was the criminal.

   But again, I have done nothing wrong, nothing I do not have a perfect right to do, even said nothing false, but have been taken away and subjected to druggings and attempted druggings contrary to my religion, politics, psychology and medical understanding- some of the drugs may well have killed me, as these are toxic and addictive and do kill people on occasion. I told them they would not care, just take me out the back, and would not even attend my funeral, and that is true. I seemed to be the only one who knew he had a right to refuse their drugs until ordered by a judge. I was offered, prescribed by doctors, various concoctions, though I was able to refuse. I tried to get my doctor to tell them about my strange system, and how things make me sick, but he was no help, and I won’t be going back to that organization again. Their computers are likely hacked anyway, as I have told them, though they cannot imagine why one might care. The Atavan they forced me to take when I annoyed them by persistently insisting they had no right or reason to hold me- I had still not seen the accusation- made me extremely sick with a terrible headache- I have something wrong, as if with my liver, and cannot drink alcohol, so I am very careful. They piss tested me and blood tested me, again contrary to all my beliefs and to the rights of a free citizen. They kept me at a nice place with other troubled people- after all this I still have not gone mad- and got me a lawyer at the latest possible date, or even past the legal limits of Habeus Corpus- the requirement that the executive present one bodily before a judge in order to hold him (Constitution, Article I). By the time the matter came before a judge, the danger that if I saw a Judge before gaining the evaluation of one not interested in selling drugs and beds or interested in confirming all the sue-able things these people had already done, I might be drugged by compulsion, that danger kept me in for 20 full days before I could get the case before a judge after the independent evaluation, and still I have not said a single word in court. My sister pressed to have me committed, like permanently, and drugged, or “treated” as they call it. I watched her on T.V., while friends were there to see key actions occurring behind the scenes. T. V. does not quite fulfill habeus corpus, but given the charges I would have been there in shackles or chains, like a dangerous animal! But hearing the story that I had tried to explain to both my sister and my mother 5 times about what I really said regarding my nephew- that this was not the time for him to be sneaking about the property at night- (I would not “listen”)- the judge determined that the State had no reason to pursue the matter, or that, in effect, twenty days prior they indeed had no right to seize me, and I was released. Indeed, I did exactly the right thing to warn the nephew that this was not the time for him to be sneaking around the property at night.

   After I got a lawyer, the hospital says that I was not so “agitated,” and so “got better.” (Like a Monty Python skit, indeed, “‘E got better.” And now I am told I should consider it “experience,” and ya, we’ll just call it even.

   The strange thing is that my sister and brother were impelled much by my Trumpster uncle, whose delusion indeed did a great deal of harm- I have suggested that perhaps he have a “vacation.” He in turn is in touch with a “psychologist.” I may have received a strangely worded warning by my Trumpster on the internet regarding my relatives, but you can ask those questions yourself if you are an investigator. My brother and sister are both Trumpsters, and why else they are attacking me, I cannot guess. I keep saying, “What have I done wrong, write it down,” and my accusers switched then to my manner of speech when I defend myself from their Protean accusations, shifting shape with every answer and defense. Caricatures without a single example are common, hyperbolic generalized flaws spun out of particulars that have long disappeared. I “shove” my opinions “down” others “throats” as when I warn them about Germany in 1934, and I will not “listen” when they order me to get “help” with their wisdom- I do not even bother telling them or you about Germany in 1946. I have told my uncle and written in blogs repeatedly that if we do what Putin has in mind for us, we will “send our sons and grandsons out in Brownshirts and receive them home in boxes,” and explained this teaching quite well, I thought. I also offered to let my uncle’s investment company invest in a coffin making company, as there might be here a bull market, since he did not want to invest to help me publish my book. Sarcasm does not come across well in the written word. But are we really so stupid, and then so obtuse as not to ask one to explain rather than do genuine harm? They are so “help” full as to rather have me put away to cure my “insanity.”

   I have tried to speak to one example of each kind of Trumpster: a preacher, to tell him the Christians are quite deceived; a rich man, or those who think they are voting for money; a craftsman, or non-rich white guy, and a female Trumpster. The worst kind, those who are not fools, I do not wish to speak to. I was threatened by my sister, before she did this, for calling my uncle a fool. I would learn not to do that, she said. I told the uncle I called him a fool because I would not call him a whore, a slave or a murderer. Trump does not know that murder is wrong: “We have lots of murderers here too,” he told ABC. The whores prostitute things like their honesty and honest industry for money: they make money dishonestly. The slaves serve Trump, from fear or their own attempt to be big narcissists, big actors, etc. And the murderers are genuine gangsters, not realizing that most likely the bigger fish is coming up right behind them.

   But “help,” I would be forever grateful for such help, or genuine inquiry.  You know, a leading characteristic of insanity is that they do not admit they need “help.” But these people assume that we know there is no such thing as death threats on the internet, anymore than there are martians, so that anyone saying such things can be known mad without inquiry. No need to Prove or even investigate. I told my sister:

“If you told me you had three horses down in your barn, and I thought seriously that you might be delusional, why, before I tried to get you evicted, endangered your life and tried to get you committed, I’d just take a walk with you down to your barn and look. And if I did not have time or was not able, I might just believe you, or at least leave you alone.”

She almost looked, but knows not to have the Resistance on her home computer, since what, we know that they are followed by the government and by trolls, if these are still distinguishable. She had her computer shut down, by coincidence, at the same time mine shut down, just after publishing a citizen’s arrest of Donald Trump for election fraud. I saw how Trump said the methods could not be detected, when he does not know this about computers. Someone told him the election would be thrown for him, and that the method could not be detected, so that he was sure if he did not win, Hillary would be guilty of election fraud. I could be wrong, but I doubt it, and that is what trials are for. I think I saw it. These, and not the accusations in their perjury, were what they said was wrong with me according to them just days before they had me taken away, and it is indeed legal perjury. The sister went on about medical matters as if I had pathologically neglected health, when she had just seen me try and fail to prepare for one procedure- she was scheduled to drive for this! The forms they signed have them swear that what they say is true “under penalty of perjury,” and I want to know if the courts mean it. Courts can be abused, and police corrupt, but I expect that since the charge of perjury is true, demonstrable, and necessary to make this stuff stop, they may just follow through. My only conversation with that uncle, who orchestrated much and worded his accusation carefully on the court papers (“I believe…”)-my only conversations with him since Thanksgiving are on text messages and recorded. He forwarded some, misunderstood, to my brother, knowingly out of context, without asking me their meaning- if he is that stupid- intentionally and slanderously to demonstrate how crazy I am. He just knows Trumpsters do not make threats, nor Russians, never use intimidation, and that there never was a plan to bring the “hammer down” on Chicago. He knows this without asking or inquiry, in the same manner as that in which he has perfected his liberal study. His shrink is probably a Skinnerian behaviorist or an MD with a DSM. “Scary,” about to “do something really scary,” just “one step away”- yeah, something scary to the Trumpsters like restoring our constitution by impeachment or a Supreme Court case and by charging these criminals with perjury. When one has done nothing wrong or violated the rights of no one, government and indeed his relatives are obligated to leave him alone. This is our fundamental law, as fundamental as free speech. My ability to argue this demonstrates my sanity, and their inability to understand this argument demonstrates their ignorance, far in excess of that required to make charges of “mental illness” for mere speech. Someone has a lot of explaining to do, begining with the Trumpster Uncle, about his contacts in the Trump organization, and whether what occurred was done for political advantage. But these things happen when a nation elects a tyrant and will not listen to those who study politics and philosophy not for moneymaking but for its own sake. Does anyone know a lawyer wants to make some money on commission? But it is likely we will just call it even.

   So there are two sides to every story, yea, money and power. We have a constitution, and we have the word, but power can forbid us to speak.