What Kind of Progressives Would Vote for Trump?

It’s time to speak frankly to the voters out there who say that Donald Trump will be no worse of a president than Hillary. Generally speaking, I believe these voters are suffering from a bad case of grandiosity. Even if they’re not personally inclined to be grandiose, they most certainly are grandiose in their willingness to tempt fate for the sake of their own peevishness. If you believe these people, they’re so pure and so brilliant they’ll know how to get the upper hand over a fascist dictator! Clearly they are delusional

Am I not afraid of alienating these voters, you ask? Why should I be afraid of alienating people who, when the whole world is teetering on the edge of a cliff, choose to add to the problem? That is not courage. It’s a denial of the desperate seriousness of our situation. It’s a denial that the situation has been desperately serious since before many of them were born. Grandiosity is not a good thing under any circumstances, but it is especially out of order when humility is called for.

The miracle of Bernie’s campaign should not be taken as an indication that we can do whatever we want to do. Yes it represents a toe-hold, but things could easily go against us even if we do everything right. And in my opinion it can’t possibly be the right choice for everyone to go their own way so early in this effort. Maybe these voters were only focused on what’s in it for them after all, but whatever their reasons their actions won’t affect me or my generation. What they decide now will affect them and their children.

I also want to talk about the YouTubers who pretended to support Bernie during the primary campaign and who continue to try to influence the outcome of the general election. Does it not make you the least bit suspicious that they’ve continued to bash Bernie since the primary ended? Why do you suppose that is? I have a theory about that.  I can just imagine the conversations they’ve been having with their benefactors:

YouTubers:  “But I don’t want to bash Bernie anymore. Wouldn’t it make more sense to talk about something else?”

Benefactors: “We’re not paying you to make sense you silly twit. Get back out there and read the script!”

Finally, if you’re thinking that Hillary created candidate Trump and that’s why you’re so determined not to vote for her, all we know for sure is that Bill Clinton encouraged him to run—Bill Clinton who seems unable to talk for five minutes without revealing some damaging little tidbit about Hillary; Bill Clinton, who benefited from her private server as much as she did, but as soon as it was discovered told her that she was in trouble; Bill Clinton who staged that drama with Loretta Lynch on the tarmac in Phoenix; Bill Clinton who still bristles at the suggestion that the Democratic Party has moved back to the left as a result of this campaign; Bill Clinton, the good buddy of Donald Trump.

Maybe if you people would stop re-living a campaign that’s been over for more than a month, we could talk about whether it’s possible to make Hillary Clinton into our president. We could start by discussing the possibility of running interference between her and the First Gentleman.

If the DNC fails to deal with Hillary’s health issue one way or the other I will hold them all responsible for the outcome, but for now we have to go forward with what we know. And I say to those who are still screaming that you don’t want it to be like this, join the club!

Will We Have an Odd Couple in the White House?

I’ve been listening to people try to explain Hillary’s logistics after her collapse on September 11, and none of it really makes sense. Why did she go to the 9/11 event if she had pneumonia, and once she collapsed why on earth didn’t they take her to the hospital? Then, why would she go to her daughter’s apartment to be near her grandchildren while she’s deathly ill with pneumonia? Finally, why didn’t her doctor feel it was necessary to be there?

The same observers thought it was fishy that Hillary came out of her daughter’s apartment ninety minutes later and appeared to be just fine. They also thought it was strange that the Secret Service allowed her to stand on the sidewalk unguarded and that no one objected when a small girl ran up to her to get a picture. Last but not least, Hillary looked thinner when she came out of the apartment than when she went in. When they added all these things up many people decided the second Hillary must be a body double! Now here’s my question.

If that Hillary was a body double, why are they so sure the woman who collapsed at the 9/11 event was the real Hillary? If she was a fake too at least that would explain her shabby appearance and her straight, slicked-back hair-do. It would also explain the following.

Don’t you think it’s strange that two different people were able to get a shot of Hillary Clinton being hoisted into the van while the secret service guys were staring in their direction? The agents must have seen them taking those pictures but they didn’t react. What can explain that? And regardless of the circumstances, what can explain the Secret Service throwing an incapacitated former first lady and Secretary of State headfirst into a van?

Whatever these people were up to I’m afraid we’ll be facing some hard facts before this is over. Increased doubts about Hillary’s health this late in the campaign make a Trump ascendancy inevitable. We should probably be asking whether anyone in Hillary’s inner circle will benefit from a Trump presidency.

A New Theory About Hillary’s Health Problems

An article in the Washington Post has raised the alarm that Hillary Clinton may have been poisoned.((Cindy Boren, The man who discovered CTE thinks Hillary Clinton may have been poisoned. Washington Post, September 12, 2016. Available: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/early-lead/wp/2016/09/12/the-man-who-discovered-cte-thinks-hillary-clinton-may-have-been-poisoned/))I’ve been thinking the same thing.  It’s disturbing to even be thinking such things let alone writing about them so I’m glad someone else said it first.

The Post article proposed that the Russians or Trump might be the culprit. I disagree. Another analyst thinks it could be the people in her campaign. My suspicion is worse than that. My suspicion is so horrible I hope it’s wrong.

The toxicology tests should be done by a trusted lab leaving nothing to chance. In the meantime, Hillary should be given a new team of caretakers just to be safe.

 

Hillary and Romney are Apples and Oranges

Recently Hillary made a comment that caused everyone on the other side rise up in righteous indignation. She said that half of Trump’s supporters represent the ‘basket of deplorables’. I realized I had to say something about this when I saw a YouTube title comparing her comment to Romney’s 47% comment. How ironic that Trump’s racist followers (and she didn’t include all of his followers–just half of them) are now demanding unqualified respect for their loathsome views.  Talk about political correctness!

The main problem with this whole drama is that Trump’s supporters haven’t made a good case for the level of indignation that they’ve been trying to drum up. Clinton’s and Romney’s comments are not comparable.  It is legitimate to criticize people for a political stance, especially one that has caused terrible problems in the past; it’s not legitimate to criticize people for being poor. Hillary was right on this one.  Romney was wrong.

The Unending Nightmare of the IMF

(Correction: I said the IMF compresses to 2.  Thus was a mistake.  International Montetary Fund compresses to 7.)

A combination of things led me to interpret Bernie’s campaign as the announcement of a messianic age: the email-release revealing that his supposed atheism was invented by the DNC; my shock at the way his supporters were being ignored; and the conviction (or determination) that his campaign would not be erased from history. However there are specific rules about what believers can expect from a messianic age and you can’t go around inventing your own messianic scenario. One of the things I still hope to understand from Eisler’s book is the basis of messianic hopes and whether they have a constructive role to play here and now. Of course my talk of a messianic age brought up some of the old fears of apocalypse.  However, I wish that’s all we had to worry about.  Unfortunately, there are worse things, by far.  Perhaps Eisler’s book can help me clarify the role of messianic thinking in geopolitics. I’m referring to Christine Lagard’s strange occult speech.

On January 15th, 2014, Christine Lagard gave a speech filled with occult references, and bandied around a version of numerology complete with what I think were misleading instructions about how it should be interpreted. I am not implying that I think numerology has any ultimate meaning—only that it seems to have meaning for Lagard. Because of the role the IMF plays today in our politics and economics, and because Le Gard went to such trouble to call attention to it, maybe we should start by doing the math.

According to Eisler, we should use the system found on inscribed tablets of the Dodonean oracle-priests and familiar to readers of Homer. This system is found in the twenty-four cantos of the Iliad and the Odyssey. It uses the twenty-four sequent letters of the Greek alphabet—Α = 1, Β = 2, Γ = 3, . . . Κ = 10, Λ = 11, . . . Φ = 21, Χ = 22, Ψ = 23, Ω = 24—, without the supplementary signs Stigma, Koppa and Sampi used in the other series. Eisler tested the hypothesis of Wolfgang Schultz in his own book, Weltenmantel und Himmelszelt, and he identifies it as the system used by the Orphic and Pythagorean mystics to conceal their innermost mystery-secrets. However it’s possible Lagard used a different system.

At the beginning of her speech she mentioned the ‘magic number 7’, saying that it’s ‘in all sorts of themes, religions’. She also makes it clear that the numbers should be compressed.

Both January 15 and 2014 equal 7: 01 + 1 + 5 = 7 and 2 + 1 + 4 = 7. In other words, the entire date equals 14, not just the last two digits of the year as Lagard claimed in her speech.

If we use the Greek letters for January, we get the same result. January in Greek is Ιανουȧριος, or 9 + 1 + 13 + 15 + 20 + 1 + 17 + 9 + 15 + 18 = 118. Compressing 118 gives 1 + 1 + 8 = 10. So again that’s: 1 + 0 + 1 + 5 = 7.

Next she tells us that 2014 will mark the 100th anniversary of World War I. The date of the beginning of World War I, June 28, 1914, doesn’t give us a 7 in the same way that January 15, 2014 does, so maybe it’s not relevant. However the number 28 is important as the fulfillment of the number 7: 1 + 2 + 3 + 4 + 5 + 6 + 7 = 28.

Then she says 2014 is also the ‘70th anniversary of the Bretton Woods conference that gave birth to the IMF’. The 70 compresses to 7.  International Monetary Fund compresses to 7.  (This is a correction.  I originally said 2.)

Next she says, it’s the 25th anniversary of the fall of the Berlin Wall. 2 + 5 = 7.

The Berlin Wall fell November 9, 1989. November in Greek is Νοεμβριος. This is 13 + 15 + 5 + 12 + 2 + 17 + 9 + 15 + 18 = 106, which compresses to 7.

1989 is 1 + 9 + 8 + 9 = 27. (Compressed this is 9, however the number 27 may be important in itself.)  November 9, 1989 is 106 + 9 + 27 = 142. 1 + 4 + 2 = 7.

Next, she tells us that 2014 marks the 7th anniversary of the ‘financial jitters that turned into the greatest global catastrophe since the Great Depression’. The 7th anniversary comment looks to be the main relevance of this date as well.

It’s not hard to guess why she chose January 15 for an occult speech in the year 2014, but what do the correspondences mean? Is she hinting that her cabal had a hand in those events? Unfortunately this system can be used to ‘prove’ just about anything, so it’s anyone’s guess.

However there several things in this speech we can talk about without feeling ridiculous. I’ll deal in this post with one interpretation of Lagard’s emphasis on weakness. ‘Weak and fragile’ is the way she described the previous 7 years.

By coincidence, I was researching the relationship between the theories of Joachim of Fiore & secularism and found an article about Gianni Vattimo that seems relevant.  ((Gianni Vattimo, (1936–) Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: a peer-reviewed academic resource. Available: http://www.iep.utm.edu/vattimo/)) I realize the connection of Vattimo with the IMF is random but it’s amazing how well it fits.

Vattimo is an Italian philosopher and cultural commentator, who is currently a Member of the European Parliament and a gay rights activist. He is influenced by Joachim of Fiore, but also by the works of Nietzsche, Heidegger, Gadamer and Kuhn. His ideas have influence across disciplines such as feminism, theology, sexuality studies, and globalization.

Vattimo is “well known for his philosophical style of ‘weak thought’ (pensiero debole). ‘Weak thought’ is an attempt to understand and re-configure traces from the history of thought in ways that accord with postmodern conditions. In doing so, the aim of ‘weak thought’ is to create an ethic of ‘weakness’…” But what does this entail?

Vattimo, an ‘End of History’ type of philosopher, believes there is no longer a coherent narrative which is accepted in the West. In his view this process is a positive thing–it was initiated by Jesus Christ who  came to expose society’s propensity for sacrificial religion.

Vattimo posits that history has lost its unilinear character in three principle ways: theoretically, demographically, and through mass communication. To explain the theoretical process he uses Walter Benjamin, who argues that unilinear history is a product of class conflict. Vattimo thinks that demographic effects in modern Europe, in particular mass migration, have acted to undermine the notion of Europe’s unilinear history. This process is aided by mass communication which facilitates the rebellion of previously ruled peoples. The chaotic aspect of mass communication will lead to ‘emancipation’, in his view–a view that contrasts with that of Adorno, Horkheimer, and Orwell, who thought that a homogenization of society would result from mass communication. As a result of Vattimo’s reading of Nietzsche, he thinks mass communication will lead to an increase of interpretations rather than facts.

Vattimo’s philosophy is not free of contradictions and hypocrisy. In spite of his supposed acceptance of a variety of interpretations, he firmly believes that his diagnosis of the situation of late modernity makes the best possible sense of this interpretative plurality. In another example he accepts the wearing of a cross as part of the secular furniture of the West but he rejects the wearing of the chador, which he thinks is an example of strong thought.  Never mind that the chador could be worn out of choice in a ‘weak’ sense. (Vattimo is an atheist but he was educated as a Catholic.)

Weak thought is Vattimo’s philosophical style but it’s also his agenda.  It has lead him to posit that the only plausible late-modern, Western philosophical outlook is ‘hermeneutical nihilism’.” According to Vattimo, one must weaken the traces of the tradition into which one is ‘thrown’, and this can be done by twisting the old traces of Being. (Hermeneutics is a branch of knowledge that deals with interpretation, especially of the Bible or literary texts.)

“Determined in this manner, Vattimo’s philosophy of ‘weak thought’ involves a withdrawal from metaphysics by avoiding new foundations or complete assent to any position.”

Is it just me, or would it be more realistic to break free of Joachim’s third-age tyranny? Although this philosophy is all wrapped up in a new package, it’s not new at all.  In fact it’s been proven over and over again to be harmful.   Unfortunately our illustrious leaders have seen fit to put the cart in front of the horse or in other words the money in front of the common good. Maybe they’re afraid that if they give up Joachim’s third-age dream their reign of bloody terror will come to an end.

In my opinion, Lagard’s speech was a manifestation of an abusive relationship. Here a powerful representative of a powerful institution had the gall to rub her secrecy in our faces and then let us struggle to understand its implications. And the torment continues today.  Subsequently we’ve seen the destruction of Syria, blatant disrespect for the electoral process, and the bulldozing of tribal burial grounds in North Dakota, all directly related to out-of-control corporate power. (I’ll provide my arguments later for how these things connect to Lagard’s speech.)

Philosophy is one thing. Imposing one’s philosophy on the physical world and then teasing people with this magical nonsense is another thing entirely. We need time to talk about these ideas. Unfortunately, Lagard and her minions seem determined to avoid honest dialogue.  Perhaps they’re afraid their philosophy won’t survive our scrutiny.

It should go without saying that this behavior is not acceptable, but apparently it needs to be said. Call off your dogs Christine Lagard. It’s time to talk.