Miss Him? He's back....

Only Full County 2020 Audit of Votes Show a 6% Fraud Rate for Mail-In Ballots

Der *Lieder das Americas!

Were the Colorado Shootings Retaliation for Biden's Bombing of Syria?

Remember the Syria bombing? Or has it already been flushed out of your short-term memory hole without a stop in long-term memory?

The Fruits of Fraud...

The Dementia Can No Longer be Hidden. Where are the Calls for Exercising the 25th Amendment Now? Yes, it was Always just so much Hypocrisy from the Uniparty Elites who Now allow the Faceless Deep State Bureaucrats to Rule without any threatening or supervisory figureheads. Just keep the coproate donations a coming.

American Exceptionalism

From the point of view of their source or origin, then, we may classify constitutions as follows:

• Sovereigns granted charters to their subjects.
• Constitutions framed by ordinary legislative assemblies
• Constitutions framed by constituent assemblies.

 Ours was NOT an Octroyed Constitution.

As an ‘octroyed constitution’ is evidently enacted top-down by a monarch, there is some confusion to be found in legal literature regarding the concept of an ‘imposed constitution’ and the ‘technique of constitutional octroi’. In their contribution to the Oxford Handbook of Comparative Constitutional Law, devoted to ‘Process’ and within their developments about ‘constitution-making as an international effort’, Claude Klein and András Sajó consider for instance that ‘the involvement (of the occupying power) may reach the level of imposition (constitutional octroy)’ and refer in a footnote to ‘various forms of colonization’. 12

Check the date...  ours is older than dirt.

Octroyed Socialism or Marxist Revolutionary Socialism - Why America's Socialists are Often So Confused

“If you want a thing done, and well done, do it yourself”

-Benjamin Franklin

Definition of octroi

1: a concession or privilege granted by an absolute sovereign and serving as a limitation on his authority

2a: a tax on commodities brought into a town or city especially in certain European countries : a municipal customs

b: the agency for collecting such a tax or the city entrance at which it is collected

from "International Socialism Review":

During the revolutionary period that followed The Communist Manifesto, Marx and Engels’ articles in the Neue Rheinische Zeitung continually appealed to action from below by the populace. In this connection Engels wrote at one point: “In Germany there are no longer any ‘subjects,’ ever since the people became so free as to emancipate themselves on the barricades.”58 At the beginning of another article, praising the resistance of the Poles to Prussian conquest, he relates a touching anecdote about a practical philanthropist, picked up from a biography of the priest Joseph Bonavita Blank. The holy man was frequented by birds that hovered on and about him; and the people wondered mightily to see this new St. Francis. No wonder: he had cut off the lower half of their beaks, so that they could get food only from his own charitable hands. Engels comments on his parable: The birds, says the biographer, loved him as their benefactor. And the shackled, mangled, branded Poles refuse to love their Prussian benefactors!59 The experience of the revolution was one of the reasons why Marx was sensitized to the necessity of breaking the German people from the habit of obedience to authority from above: For the German working class the most necessary thing of all is that it should cease conducting its agitation by kind permission of the higher authorities. A race so schooled in bureaucracy must go through a complete course of “self-help.”60 Around the same time he embodied the same idea in a letter, which we have already quoted in the preceding chapter: “Here [in Germany] where the worker’s life is regulated from childhood on by bureaucracy and he himself believes in the authorities, he must be taught before all else to walk by himself.”61 The Octroyal Principle Of course, this applied not only to the Germans. It was ever present to Marx’s mind when he discussed the phenomenon of the state-sponsored “revolution from above” in connection with Bonapartism. In pre-Bismarck Prussia, there were the Stein-Hardenberg reforms-from-above, designed to rally support against Napoleon; in Russia there was the tsar’s emancipation of the serfs. Marx commented (in English): In both countries the social daring reform was fettered and limited in character because it was octroyed from the throne and not (instead of being) conquered by the people.62 “Octroyed” is a rare word in English, but deserves to be more widely used. Its connotation—more than merely “grant” or “concede”—is precisely the handing down of changes from above, as against their conquest from below. (In fact, “octroyal socialism” is a fine coinage for the opposite of the Marxist principle of self-emancipation.) In his book on the 1848 revolution in France, Marx recurs to a characteristic metaphor of the theater (as in “theater of war”): in this case, not the contrast between “above” and “below,” but rather between the active participants on the stage of history and the passive onlookers of the pit or the wings. On the first stage of the revolution: Instead of only a few factions of the bourgeoisie, all classes of French society were suddenly hurled into the orbit of political power, forced to leave the boxes, the stalls and the gallery and to act in person upon the revolutionary stage!63 On the peasantry who were momentarily set into motion—to give Bonaparte his election victory of December 10, 1848: For a moment active heroes of the revolutionary drama, they could no longer be forced back into the inactive and spineless role of the chorus.64 This metaphor illuminates Marx’s concept of the revolution from below as self-emancipation. Less figuratively, in another passage, Marx mentions indicia of the proletariat’s immaturity: As soon as it was risen up, a class in which the revolutionary interests of society are concentrated finds the content and the material for its revolutionary activity directly in its own situation: foes to be laid low, measures dictated by the needs of the straggle to be taken; the consequences of its own deeds drive it on…. The French working class had not attained this level; it was still incapable of accomplishing its own revolution.65 The proletariat was as yet incapable of carrying through a rising from below, under the self-impulsion of its own class drives. After Bonaparte had consolidated his power, Engels remarked that he hoped the old scoundrel was not assassinated. For in that case the Bonapartist clique would merely make a deal with the Orleanist monarchy and go right on: Before the workers’ districts could think about it, Morny would have made his palace-revolution, and although a revolution from below would be thereby postponed only briefly, yet its basis would be a different one.66 In the First International If the principle of self-emancipation had to be spelled out more formally in 1864, it was because of the problem Marx faced in drawing up the program of the new International so as to gain the agreement of a wide variety of political views. What programmatic statement could delimit the organization as a class movement of the proletariat, yet avoid lining up with any of the various ideological tendencies within that class (or outside it)? The very concept of a class program which was not a sect program—not the program of a Marxist sect either—was itself a basic Marxist concept; but for this the movement was ready. “The Preamble to the Rules” was Marx’s solution, beginning with the clause on self-emancipation which we have already quoted. The principle was so deceptively simple that naturally academic historians of socialism never got the point until years afterwards. Thus the eminent Belgian historian Emile de Laveleye (one of those who, Engels rightly remarked, spread nothing but “lies and legends” about the history of the International67) wrote in Le Socialisme Contemporain in 1881: The International also affirmed that “the emancipation of the laborers must be the work of the laborers themselves.” This idea seemed an application of the principle of “self-help”; it enlisted for the new association, even in France, the sympathies of many distinguished men who little suspected how it was to be interpreted later on. This affords a new proof of the fact frequently observed, that revolutionary movements always go on increasing in violence. The originators of the movement…are replaced by the more fanatical, who, in their turn, are pushed aside, until the final abyss is reached to which wild revolutionary logic inevitably leads.68 In other words, the confusion was than, and is now, wholly DELIBERATE.

Liberals, Ben Shapiro is Coming for YOU!

Free Speech...R.I.P.

Democrats React to Voter Integrity Laws as Vampires to Mirrors, Crosses, Garlic, and Holy Water

Monica Showalter, "President Joe Fraud attacks Georgia for passing election integrity law"

Joe Biden, who was elected on a raft of election irregularities, is unusually upset about Georgia's legislative effort to clean up its voting system.

According to Politico:

President Joe Biden slammed Georgia's new voting restrictions, calling them 21st-century “Jim Crow” and urging Congress to pass election reform bills.

“This law, like so many others being pursued by Republicans in statehouses across the country is a blatant attack on the Constitution and good conscience,” Biden said in a statement Friday afternoon. “This is Jim Crow in the 21st Century. It must end. We have a moral and Constitutional obligation to act."

In the statement, Biden called on Congress to pass H.R. 1, or the “For the People Act,” which would reform ballot access and campaign finance. It would require states to offer same-day voting registration as well as two weeks of early voting, among other things. The House passed the bill earlier this month but it faces an uphill battle in the Senate amid heavy Republican criticism of the bill. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell has said the bill is about “rigging the system.”

Biden also urged Congress to pass the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act, which would bring back Voting Rights Act protections that the Supreme Court took down.

Later on Friday afternoon, Biden told reporters that the new law is an “atrocity."

So what is it specifically that's got him lathered up?

Georgia's broad new elections law will add an ID requirement for voters requesting an absentee ballot, cut the length of runoffs, and effectively turn the election board over to the legislature. It also limits drop boxes and prohibits people from giving voters in line food or beverages. Voters in Georgia’s primaries faced several-hour lines at times, particularly near and in Atlanta, a heavily Democratic area in the closely divided state.

He doesn't like voter ID. He doesn't like election day, he wants election season extended and extended to give Democrats time to get the result they want. He wants those cronies on the election board calling the shots, not the Constitutionally-tasked legislature. He wants unsupervised drop boxes left around for anything to happen overnight. Kind of like those Atlanta midnight suitcases.

Right now, he's distorting and spinning, though, going for the lo-fo vote, claiming the cruel Georgia legislature won't permit water to thirsty voters waiting in line in the hot sun.

The legislature had good reasons to do this -- it's a bid to prevent illegal campaigning in line. After all, free water is an emolument, a cheap one for sure. But as is commonly known in Latin America at least, some voters can be bought with a bag of beans. Hugo Chavez used to hand out washing machines. The Democrats would like to get the camel's nose under the tent, starting with bottled water. Many Democrats, after all, have learned their tactics literally at Hugo's knee. Hugo was never a warning, he was a how-to guide. Certainly these Democrats have.

The law doesn't say anything about supposedly impartial election organizers handing out water, or putting it in a bin for those who need it. That might be something voters can ask for. But to have Democrats handing out bottles of water with their Biden stickers on is pure third world politics. Joe, though, as usual, is doing what he does best in this situation, which is distort and lie.

Georgia's move toward election integrity is not Joe's job but he can't stop ranting. He brings up the state legislative matter, which is none of his business, again and again and again, horning in on someone else's job. Apparently, he's gotten comfortable with rule by executive action now, and thinks he should rule each state, just as the Soviet Politburo once did. He's yelling "Jim Crow" in a bid to yell racism. He's effectively saying black voters never have any ID...He's screaming "atrocity." He's yelling "un-American" even though the republic has gotten by without these newly created holes such as same-day registration and election day with in-person voting for, from the dawn of the republic. What he wants are the newer mass junk mail ballots, the lost-chain-of-custody systems, and the monstrous ballot-harvesting from voters' doors, all of which are illegal in any country which does have election integrity.

He's got the hyperbole going and instead of his typical lost and sleepy torpor, he actually sounds furious.

He would be.

Because a guy who's been elected himself on a slew of election irregularities -- starting with those suitcases in Atlanta, or that a phony water pipe break, or that suddenly sharply flipping tally that came in the dead of night, after all those election observers were suddenly sent home only for the counting to restart -- isn't exactly a guy who'd like to have the anomaly of his election exposed by a new election from an airtight high-integrity voting system. There might be a voter reaction and for him, that can't get out.

What's more, the yelling from far-left Sen. Raphael Warnock has an equally funny ring. He's being investigated for voter registration fraud, brought on by these monstrous holes in the system that the legislature is trying to correct. He knows he can't get re-elected unless the holes remain. For a probable election cheat to yell about voter integrity is probably something he should stay away from.

Ensuring ballot integrity is exactly what making every vote count is about. Opening the door to cheating cancels out great numbers of valid ballots. It also invites the other side to play by the same tactics, making elections free-for-alls, all about who is most skilled at cheating, not what voters want. Elections are what the state legislators in Georgia are responsible for, and somehow, Joe doesn't want them to do what they were elected to do in their state.

Going through with an airtight system in Georgia might make a difference in voter confidence though, and fairly reflect actual voter wishes.

From Joe's perspective, these moves to ensure ballot integrity are to him a threat and he's revealing it. These measures might make his election as president look ... funny ... in comparison. That's a problem for him. That's the root of his desperate bid to obstruct a fair vote. He's yelling voter exclusion but what he wants is exclusion of his opponents, and the disenfranchisement of Republicans, cancelling out their votes by fraud, one by one by one.

Never mind the will of the voters, or the need to restore the voter perception of fairness, which has taken a battering. Were these legislators elected fairly? Absolutely. Is this their Constitutionally mandated duty to organize elections? 100% true. And as representatives of the people of Georgia, they ought to be making the rules, and cleaning up the open invitations in the system for fraud. But Biden can't help himself from interfering. He wants those skeezy Georgia election results, which by all indicators, were brimming with fraud, to become the usual result now, so no one thinks his own election was amiss.

That explains why Biden's on the warpath to stop this matter of none of his business. He will marshall extremists in his administration such as his Antifa-apologist attorney-general to take this legislative move on. He wants elections like his to be the norm, but if he were smart, he would sit this one out. In Georgia, this legislature will resist Joe's yelling and interference, with all it has and force Democrats to get elected on their socialist arguments, not their sleazy tactics. To defend themselves, they can bring those irregularities leading to Joe's election up, again and again and again, so that there's never any doubt. For Joe, that could be embarrassing.

Absentee Voting = Fraud on Steroids?

Source

The Cynical Self-Debasing Post-Modern 'Master' in a Capitalist-Democracy...

Wielding the Knowledge Fetish - Accepting knowledge so that we can ignore it.

Overcoming America's COVID-19 Semmelweis Reflex

Robert Jones, "COVID and the Semmelweis Reflex" 

As recent as the mid-1800s, five women in 1,000 died in deliveries performed by midwives. On the other hand, when physicians performed deliveries, the death rate was often 10 to 20 times greater. This was because physicians often began their day performing autopsies with bare hands and then, without washing their hands, examined pregnant women and delivered babies. Midwives, on the other hand, did not perform autopsies. These physician-caused deaths were due to puerperal fever, a horrendous way to die characterized by high fevers, painful abscesses, and a tortured decline into a nightmare of irreversible sepsis.

Ignaz Philipp Semmelweis was the Hungarian physician who spent his life as a voice crying in the wilderness trying to reduce the death rate of pregnant women. He had discovered that if physicians simply washed with a chlorinated lime solution before examining pregnant women or delivering babies that the death rate dropped to less than 1%. Because his view countered prevailing medical opinion, he was shunned by the medical profession and died an ignominious death at the age of 47.

The “Semmelweis Reflex” is a metaphor for our reflex-like tendency to reject new knowledge because it contradicts with an established belief or norm. That is exactly what is happening today with COVID.

Around the world, a small number of esteemed physicians have found combinations of drugs that can produce a near complete cure for COVID, as long as patients are treated when the viral load is low.

Dr. Thomas Borody is a gastroenterologist and infectious disease specialist in Sydney, Australia who discovered cures for two diseases, ulcers and Crohn’s. According to Dr. Borody, the tri-combination of ivermectin, doxycycline, and zinc is a near complete cure for the outpatient treatment of COVID. Dr. Borody states, “it is just hard to believe how simple it is to cure the Corona virus.”

The Front Line COVID-19 Critical Care Alliance (“FLCCC”) was organized in March 2020 by a group of critical-care physicians. Their outpatient COVID protocol also contains ivermectin and zinc, but adds to it vitamins C and D, quercetin, melatonin, and aspirin. In a recently published paper, the FLCCC concluded that “ivermectin, a widely used anti-parasitic medicine with known anti-viral and anti-inflammatory properties is proving a highly potent and multi-phase effective treatment against COVID-19.”

Also, an international group of medical experts from 16 countries have recognized ivermectin (which is typically used in combination with other drugs) as a safe and effective treatment for COVID. According to Dr. Pierre Kory, who is the President of the FLCCC, “This group is the latest in the growing number of experts from around the world who recognize Ivermectin’s role in fighting this pandemic.” Dr. Pierre Kory continued, “The BIRD [British Ivermectin Recommendation Development] panel used the highest form of medical evidence, a meta-analysis, to evaluate data from over 20 trials of Ivermectin before concluding it’s safe and effective for use in treating COVID-19.”

Given the compelling evidence that there is a close to 100% cure for COVID, it is mindboggling that a person who tests COVID positive will not be offered any medical assistance. Very recently, on March 11, 2021, Dr. Peter McCullough testified to the Texas Senate HHS Committee about this very issue. He states, “patients actually think that the virus is untreatable and so what happens is they go out to get a diagnosis… [and] it says here you’re COVID positive, go home, is there any treatment, no, is there any resources I can call, no, any referral lines/hotlines, no, any research hotlines, no.” He continues, “that is the standard of care in the United States, and if we go to any of our testing centers today in the United States I bet that is the standard of care.”

In short, what we have here is a near complete failure to respond to the COVID crisis due to our reflex-like tendency to reject new knowledge (i.e., that COVID can be effectively treated) because it contradicts the established belief that COVID cannot be effectively treated. The federal government has failed because it has not evaluated possible treatments for COVID and put its imprimatur on the treatments that are safe and effective. Also, the majority of physicians have failed because they have not put into practice the safe and effective treatments that now exist for COVID. Just as in the time of Semmelweis, these failures have severe and real consequences, including needless death and suffering.

"Magical" Words from the Global Corporate (aka "Master") Discourse

In a "Democracy" it can sometimes be hard to identify the origins of the "Master Discourse"... but it shouldn't be.

1. The transnational capitalist class and the discourse of globalization 

By Leslie Sklair, 2000 Presented by Christina Vollbrecht

2. Capitalist Globalization 

Global System Theory-Transnational Corporations Culture-ideology of Consumerism 

Transnational Capitalist Class Owners and Globalizing Globalizing Consumerist elites Controllers of TNCs bureaucrats and professionals (merchants and and their local politicians media) affiliates 

Units of Analysis: Transnational Practices (TNP) which cross state boundaries but do not originate with state actors or agencies.

3. Purpose

• The paper sets to demonstrate that the dominant forces of global capitalism are the dominant forces in the contemporary global system.

• Here, the focus is on the transnational capitalist class and how it has constructed a discourse of globalization to further its interests.

• Its implications include the conclusion that globalization is not a “western” ideology, but a globalizing capitalist ideology.

4. Argument 

Combinations of the TCC, use Discourses of national Discourses of sustainable competiveness development to further the interests of global capital.

5. THE TRANSNATIONAL CAPITALIST CLASS (TCC)

• (i) owners and controllers of TNCs and their local affiliates;

• (ii) globalizing bureaucrats and politicians;

• (iii) globalizing professionals;

• (iv) consumerist elites (merchants and media).

• They constitute a global power elite, dominant class or inner circle in the sense that these terms have been used to characterize the dominant class structures of specific countries.

6. THE TRANSNATIONAL CAPITALIST CLASS (TCC)

The TCC is transnational (or globalizing) in the following respects:

•(a) The economic interests of its members are increasingly globally linked rather than exclusively local and national in origin.

•(b) The TCC seeks to exert economic control in the workplace, political control in domestic, international and global politics, and culture-ideology control in every-day life through specific forms of global competitive and consumerist rhetoric and practice.

•(c) Members of the TCC have outward-oriented global rather than inward-oriented local perspectives on most economic, political and culture-ideology issues.

•(d) Members of the TCC tend to share similar life-styles, particularly patterns of higher education, and consumption of luxury goods and services.

•(e) Finally, members of the TCC seek to project images of themselves as citizens of the world as well as of their places and/or countries of birth.

7. TCC IN DEPTH: THE GLOBALIZING POLITICIAN (the technopols)

• They support cosmopolitan ideas and meet normal international professional standards,

• Sell sound economic policy in their own countries,

• Political leaders active in remaking damaged social and political systems,

• Choose freer markets over state intervention and liable to favor democracy of pluralist polyarchy.

• Thus they understand that corporations expect policy continuity to safeguard investments.

8. THE DISCOURSE OF CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION: COMPETITIVENESS

• The insertion of the nation-state into the global capitalist system is facilitated by the transnational capitalist class through the discourse of national competitiveness.

• The TCC achieves this through facilitating alliances of globalizing politicians, globalizing professionals and the corporate sector.

• Global capitalism succeeds by turning most spheres of social life into businesses, by making social institutions— such as schools, universities, prisons, hospitals, welfare systems—more business-like.

• Various forms of benchmarking are used in most large institutions to measure performance against actual competitors or an ultimate target, zero defects, for example.

9. THE DISCOURSE OF CAPITALIST GLOBALIZATION: COMPETITIVENESS

The fractions of the Transnational Capitalist Class Globalizing bureaucrats and Globalizing professionals politicians Create the discourse of National Economic Competitiveness Through World Best Practices and Benchmarking To support the capitalist interests of: Commodification of all Intense discipline on High standards to institutions related to the the workforce reduce competition culture-ideology of consumerism.

10. THE CORPORATE CAPTURE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

“As the concept of sustainable development is further defined, we believe it will begin to resemble our outline of an economics for community.” (Daly and Cobb, p. 371)

•‘the Brundtland Report called on the cooperation of industry ... the business community is willing to play a leading role, and to take charge’.

•the idea of ‘sustainable growth’ had replaced the idea of ‘conservation’ and industry could get on with its job.

•Big business successfully recruited much of the global environmental movement in the 1990s to the cause of sustainable global consumerist capitalism by incorporating potential enemies into what Gramsci called new historical blocs.

11. THE CORPORATE CAPTURE OF SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT

The fractions of the Transnational Capitalist Class Owners and Globalizing Consumerist elites Controllers of TNCs bureaucrats and and (merchants and and their local politicians media) affiliates Create the discourse of Sustainable Development Through New Historical Blocs and Neo-liberal globalization To support the capitalist interests of: Free enterprise Unlimited production Unlimited consumption

12. Conclusion

• The combination of the discourse of sustainable development with that of national and international competitiveness provides powerful weapons for the transnational capitalist class.

• Globalization is not a Western but a globalizing capitalist ideology, whose discourse and practices are necessary to negate the growing class polarization and ecological crises characteristic of this latest stage in the long history of capitalism.

13. Questions

• How does the discourse of competiveness strengthen and perpetuate inequality?

• In what other areas can you see the role of the TCC shaping or controlling discourse?

• What affect does increased bureaucratic control of social institutions have on the natural variety and development those institutions might have?

• Can you identify this phenomenon in your experience? (in school, church, work, social organizations?) 

• In your opinion, is this phenomenon acceptable or inacceptable/beneficial or harmful?

Moralistic Hubris - How America's Liberals Lost their Way...

...and established a secular religion that paid lip service to "Social Justice" instead of providing de facto  plain old actual Justice.

Montaigne's Humanity

Theodore Dalrymple, "Montaigne’s Humanity"

The great essayist warns us against intellectual pride—but also delights in the variety and contradictoriness of life.

Ours is an age of ideological hatred, stronger than at any time I can remember. In the good old days—or perhaps I should say, in my good old days—the ideological choice was simple: you were either a Communist or an anti-Communist. Nowadays, though, we have feminists, ecologists, antiracists, multiculturalists, transsexual activists, and many others to contend with. People who disagree on various matters now find it hard to be in each other’s company, viewing the other not merely as mistaken but morally defective, even evil (I do not altogether exclude myself from these strictures, for I am the product of my time, too). Bad temper seems practically universal, the default setting of all debate, which tends rapidly to degenerate into name-calling. This tendency preceded the advent of Donald Trump as president, and I suspect that it will survive his departure.

Against the baleful atmosphere of bitterness and vituperation in which we now live, the essays of Michel de Montaigne can act, if not as a complete remedy, at least as a soothing balm: for Montaigne (1533–92) was the least ideological of writers. He said that he wrote for himself and only about himself: but this does not mean that he is self-obsessed in the way that the patient of psychoanalysis, say, is often self-obsessed. Observing the contradictions within himself, his swiftly changing moods and vacillations of opinion, Montaigne concludes that the world itself is complex and changeable, and therefore not to be apprehended by a single principle or two. “The world,” he says in “Of Drunkenness,” “is nothing but variety and dissimilarity.”

He invites us to examine ourselves. “If,” he says, “we sometimes looked more inwardly, and employed the time in probing ourselves that we spend in examining others and learning about things exterior to us, we should easily discover how much our own fabric is built of failing and fragile pieces.” Infinite variety, changeability, contradictoriness—these were not only the subject of his seemingly disparate essays, but his delight; not for him the dull certainties of the grands simplificateurs, of whatever bent.

Montaigne repeatedly warns us against too great a certainty about our knowledge and our conviction that our way is the only right way. He warns against pride in our own learning and intelligence. “I do not share that common error of judging another by myself,” he says, in his essay on Cato the Younger. “I easily believe that another man may have qualities different from mine. Because I feel myself tied down to one way or opinion, I do not oblige everybody to espouse it.” And speaking of the folly of estimating the true and the false, the possible and the impossible, entirely from one’s own knowledge and experience, he admits that an empty mind more easily accepts the first thing presented to it with plausibility, but he also says that people who believe themselves to be especially knowledgeable will often disdain or condemn as false whatever does not seem likely to them—a foolish presumption.

In the recent history of medicine, we encounter a striking example of this tendency, when two Australian researchers proposed—with good evidence—that the great majority of peptic ulceration was caused by infection with a bacterium called Helicobacter pylori. How could this be, when experts had studied the disease for years and knew it to be associated with smoking, a certain kind of hard-driving personality, and the stomach’s production of either too much or two little hydrochloric acid? Besides, were not all bacterial diseases already known and fully described? The two researchers faced the incredulity of those for whom the new could not be true because if it had been true, they thought that they would already have known it.

“We must judge with more reverence the infinite power of Nature,” said Montaigne, “and with more consciousness of our ignorance and weakness.” However much we come to know, in other words, knowledge is always finite, while ignorance remains infinite. As Sir Isaac Newton, a man not always given to modesty, put it a century and a half after Montaigne, “I do not know what I may appear to the world, but to myself I seem to have been only like a boy playing on the seashore, and diverting myself now and then finding a smoother pebble or a prettier shell than ordinary, whilst the great ocean of truth lay all undiscovered before me.” Montaigne would have approved.

We flatter ourselves that we live in unprecedentedly hazardous, conflict-ridden, and changing times: but probably we have always lived in such times, and the memory of a safe, peaceful, and stable period is a trick of memory or the result of a defective grasp of history. Certainly, Montaigne could reasonably claim that he lived through the most momentous changes and the most perilous times. The dangers of his epoch were incomparably greater and nearer to the individual than those most of us like to frighten ourselves with today.

Intellectually, Europe still had not fully absorbed the shock of the discovery of the New World and its inhabitants, who seemed so different from Europeans that some denied that they were fully human, even claiming that, being natural slaves, they were incapable of self-government and therefore rightfully conquered and dispossessed. The controversy of Valladolid took place when Montaigne was 17 or 18 years old—Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda arguing for the natural incapacity of the Indians and Bartolomé de las Casas taking the opposite position, each believing that he had won the dispute. Montaigne was decisively on Las Casas’s side. One could almost call him the first multiculturalist, as well as a believer in the happiness, if not the nobility, of the savage—that is, of Man before he became civilized.

Sepúlveda had contended that many of the Indian customs were so abominable—the hecatombs of humans sacrificed by the Aztecs, for example—that it was not only morally permissible, but morally obligatory, to destroy their civilization and replace it with a superior, kinder, gentler one: that of the conquistadors. This was for the good of the Indians themselves. Montaigne rejected the argument completely and suggested that those using it look more closely at their own record. “I am not sorry that we notice the barbarous horror of such acts,” he says, speaking of the supposed habit of Brazilian Indians of tearing their prisoners of war to pieces and roasting and eating them, “but I am heartily sorry that, judging their faults rightly, we should be so blind to our own.”

Here we should recall that Montaigne lived through the French Wars of Religion, during which Catholics and Protestants inflicted untold torture and death on each other, such that millions were killed or died of resultant famine over the course of several decades. (Montaigne did not live to see the conclusion of these wars—usually dated from the Edict of Nantes, promulgated by Henry IV, allowing for toleration of Protestants—and must therefore have thought that they would be without end.) During these wars, burnings at the stake were not uncommon: the ambassadors of the Ottomans to Paris—an alliance between France and Ottoman Turkey was then being negotiated—were treated in 1534 to the spectacle of the burning at the stake of Protestants, for posting anti-Catholic placards across the city. Anne de Bourg, the university teacher of Étienne la Boétie, Montaigne’s great friend, was burned at the stake for his Protestantism.

Therefore, Montaigne speaks with some asperity, derived from reflection on the times in which he lived, when he says:

I think there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead; and tearing by tortures and the rack a body still full of feeling, in roasting a man bit by bit, in having him bitten and mangled by dogs and swine (as we have not only to read but seen within fresh memory, not among ancient enemies, but among neighbors and fellow citizens, and what is worse, on the pretext of piety and religion), than in roasting and eating him after he is dead.

Montaigne invites the reader to examine more closely his own record, or that of his country, and not to come to too swift and censorious a view of others. It is perhaps better to ensure that one’s own behavior is without blemish than to demand perfection of others or seek by force to reform them.

In his essay “Of Custom,” Montaigne castigates our tendency to believe that our way is the best or the only way, simply because the way we do things now is the way we have always done them. He provides a list, several pages long, of different customs throughout the world as it was then known. Here is a sample of his enumeration, which even today might retain its ability to startle:

There are places where there are public brothels of men, and even marriages between them; where the women go to war alongside their husbands, and take their place not only in the combat but also in the command. Where they not only wear rings in the nose, lips, cheeks, and toes, but also have very heavy gold rods thrust through their breast and buttocks. . . . Where it is not the children who are the heirs, but the brothers and nephews; and elsewhere the nephews only, except in the succession of the prince. . . . Where they sleep ten or twelve together in bed, husbands and wives. . . . Where the wives who lose their husbands by violent death may remarry, the others no. . . . Where husbands can repudiate their mates without alleging any cause, the wives not for any cause whatever.

The point here is not whether all of Montaigne’s anthropological examples exist in reality, much less whether his list of human customs is exhaustive, but that, once apprehended, the variety of customs, the existence of which nobody could deny once it is pointed out, must naturally make us examine our own ways of living and reflect on ourselves with greater objectivity.

In what is usually taken as the central essay of his book An Apology for Raymond Sebond, Montaigne asks his most famous question: What do I know? (This question became the title of a famous series of short books in France, published by the Presses Universitaires de France, on a huge number of subjects.) The occasion of the essay is a theological treatise by an obscure and forgotten Spanish theologian who taught in Toulouse in the fifteenth century, which Montaigne translated at his father’s request; but Montaigne uses it as a pretext to ask not only what he knows but also to ask what the value is of knowledge itself—whether, for example, it makes a man happier or wiser or better—to which he gives a mainly negative answer.

Pride in knowledge is foolish. Another intellectually disquieting or disorientating factor during Montaigne’s lifetime was the Copernican Revolution, which overthrew the immemorial assumption that Earth was the center of the universe and that the sun revolved around it. If something “known” for so long, which seemed so obvious, could turn out to be mistaken, what indeed could we know?

Not being a systematic thinker, Montaigne offers only philosophical hints or suggestions. His mind is allusive rather than analytic; we find in him thoughts that prefigure later developments but nothing that resembles a doctrine more than a general attitude. His skepticism, both in moral and empirical matters, is not thoroughgoing or metaphysical but rooted in observation. You cannot, after all, use evidence to claim that all evidence is doubtful. When he tells us that the customs and moral conceptions of mankind vary in time and in place, he does not doubt his belief that there really are places, for example, where “they cook the body of the deceased and then crush it until a sort of pulp is formed, which they mix with their wine, and drink.” Nor is he a complete moral relativist: if he were, he would not be able to say such things as that there is more barbarity in eating a man alive than in eating him dead. Customs may vary, but barbarity is barbarity.

In other words, he calls us not to complete agnosticism as to whether a real world exists external to our thoughts, or whether nothing is good or bad but thinking makes it so, but to a certain modesty: to remember always that we might be mistaken, which is not the same as saying that we always are mistaken. The concept of mistakenness depends on the possibility of attaining truth; if every thought were error, then that thought itself would be error and therefore untrue. “Anyone,” he says, “who shrewdly gathered an accumulation of the asininities of human thought would have wonders to tell”; but, of course, he would have asininities to tell only if he could recognize them as such. The condition of man in the face of stupidity is thus not entirely hopeless.

Montaigne is himself sometimes wrong. He does not entirely free himself of the superstitions of his age. He believes, for example, that ostriches hatch their eggs by looking at them. And he was himself a source of the damaging superstition later taken up by Rousseau:

The Brazilians [that is to say, the native peoples of Brazil] died only of old age, which is attributed to the serenity and tranquillity of the air. I attribute it rather to the tranquillity and serenity of their souls, unburdened with any tense or unpleasant passion or thought or occupation, as people who spend their life in admirable simplicity and ignorance, without letters, without law, without king, without religion of any kind.

Not only is this a very unlikely description of any group of human beings that has ever lived, but Montaigne himself contradicts it by describing Brazilian wars and head-hunting, evidently having forgotten what he himself had written. But the myth of the noble savage persisted despite its inconsistencies, and probably it persists in most of us in a diluted fashion when we long for the simpler life that we never achieve, or even take the first steps toward.

Montaigne also fails to make some necessary distinctions. He asks what we can know of the world when we know so little of ourselves. This is only an apparent paradox; and when he says, in support of his argument, that “we [humans] are no more versed in the understanding of ourselves in the physical part than in the spiritual,” he does not foresee the immense advances in understanding of human physiology that would take place in the centuries following him. Whether we will ever advance much in the understanding of what Montaigne calls the spiritual part of humanity remains to be seen—myself, I doubt it, and secretly hope not, for the knowledge once obtained would certainly be abused, but, Montaigne-influenced, I admit that I might be incorrect. Only time, not dogmatism, will tell.

Montaigne is full of pregnant thoughts, the very pregnancy of his thoughts suggesting that an underlying human reality exists that does not change much, at least over prolonged periods. “The impression of certainty,” he says, “is a sure token of folly and extreme uncertainty.” I don’t think that anyone capable of the least detachment would fail to recognize the applicability of this truth to our present cultural situation. Montaigne had seen where the conflicting religious certainties of his age, all only flimsily arguable, could lead. We must hope that we have enough wisdom to avoid a repetition of the French Wars of Religion.

Four centuries before Franklin D. Roosevelt’s famous inaugural address, Montaigne wrote in “Of Fear” that “the thing I most fear is fear.” He tells us that it is possible to be too polite, that we can incommode people by too elaborate a politeness, when the whole point of manners is to put people at their ease. He tells us of our desire, for reasons of vanity, to talk of things other than those in which we are genuinely expert. He recognized the importance and power of the placebo (and nocebo) effect. He grasps that child’s play is not just child’s play but an important stage in growing up; that travel is, or ought to be, a philosophical experience; that judgment is more important than knowledge; and so on.

Or again, foreshadowing a modern school of philosophy, the object of which is to show the fly out of the fly bottle—to release mankind from the false puzzles into which its misuse of language leads it—Montaigne says:

Our speech has its weaknesses and its defects. . . . Most of the occasions for the troubles of the world are grammatical. Our lawsuits spring only from debate over the interpretation of the laws, and most of our wars from the inability to express clearly the conventions and treaties of agreement of princes. How many quarrels, and how important, have been produced in the world by doubt of the meaning of that syllable Hoc!

An exaggeration, no doubt, as was Pascal’s assertion that all unhappiness arises from an inability to sit quietly in a room, alone: obviously false if taken literally. But no one—certainly no one ever involved in a protracted lawsuit—would deny the element of truth in what Montaigne wrote, or that conflict over the meanings of words can be bitter.

If Montaigne was unsure of the value of what he knew, what did he really believe? He was an observant Catholic throughout his life, but I doubt that he believed very deeply in the dogmas of the faith. He was content, I think, to accept the religion of his forefathers because he did not believe in any individual’s capacity to work everything out for himself. He regretted Protestantism not because he thought it in error, or wicked, but because it had stirred up hatreds that resulted in untold misery and death.

We cannot derive a coherent doctrine from Montaigne. He was skeptical about the profound finitude of human knowledge but believed in facts, which he used to establish points that he wanted to make. He was not a rationalist but did not disdain logic to make an argument, and was therefore not an irrationalist, either. Rather, his skepticism was a call to intellectual modesty, and his appreciation of the immense variety of the human and natural world a reminder that the ocean of truth lies all before us and will forever do so.

2021... 2020 Redux?

Will the Real US *Presnit Please Stand Up?

Will the real president of the United States please stand up?: There's no evidence that Joe Biden is actually serving as president

Can anyone just tell us who the hell is running our federal government right now?

You literally get censored out of existence for suggesting that anyone other than Joe Biden won the election last November. Yet there is no evidence today — four months later — that Mr. Biden is actually serving as president.

A weird Tron video this week appeared to show Mr. Biden — looking every bit the part of Max Headroom — interfacing with House Democrats in Congress. Digitally, of course.

He droned on for a few minutes using scripted psycho-pablum, sitting alone at a table. The table was empty except for his instruction manual. As he spoke haltingly, he looked up at a giant screen from which House Speaker Nancy Pelosi stared awkwardly, fake smiling.

One could imagine the Dem droids watching from somewhere in the cybersphere nodding along obediently.

The digital president then opened the floor for questions.

“I’m happy to take questions,”

 he said, pretending for a moment to actually be the leader of the free world.

Then he remembered.

“If that’s what I’m supposed to do, Nance,”

 Mr. Biden added, using his bizarre nickname for the smiling droid staring down at him.

Her face twitched. Mr. Biden, apparently, had failed to display proper subservience.

“Whatever you want me to do,”

 he added meekly.

Even more alarming than his failure to display proper subservience was the notion that Mr. Biden had offered to allow questions and possibly even answer them.

The Overlords were not pleased.

They immediately issued a long censorship “beep.” Then the Overlords cut away from the video of the man claiming to be the leader of the free world and replaced it with a test pattern of colored bars.

There would be no questions. And certainly no answers.

Just a few days before, someone claiming to be the American president bombed Syria. The bombing was followed by a report out of the White House that Vice President Kamala D. Harris was not included in the decision to bomb Syria and that she was very displeased with the decision.

That may or may not rule out Ms. Harris as the person who is operating the federal government right now. Certainly, it seems to suggest she is, in fact, not currently the president.

Either way, it doesn’t answer the pressing question we all deserve to have answered.

Who is the president of the United States right now?

Offshoring is Back! Thanks China Joe!

Do You Have Vaccess?

In Fraud We Trust...

Jay Valentine, "The Sovereign Crime of Industrial Scale Vote Fraud"

Recently our team was invited to meet with 2020 election fraud investigators in downtown Austin. Our team, with some of the top criminal profiling talent in the country, was happy to attend. At the last minute, our new pals cancelled their meeting.

Since we changed our schedules and lost those days, we decided to hold our own confab.

Our team members were the lead builders of one of the world’s most sophisticated criminal profiling systems in use by law enforcement today. We broke the eBay auction fraud rings and deployed a never-before-used technology to end auction fraud as an emerging crime category. We identified numerous Medicaid fraud rings and were hired by most of the top 10 property and casualty insurance firms to solve auto crash rings that eluded the FBI and every fraud technology.

What we do not talk about much is our team’s record predicting crime. There were several occasions when we predicted terrorist activity and warned government agencies. There is a particularly famous one, involving a military base, where they did not listen. That's one for another day.

When you are at the table with some of the top criminal profilers in the world, talking about industrial scale election fraud, you do more listening than talking. And the listening was interesting. The profilers have zero interest in U.S. elections. Two of them did not vote and had unflattering opinions about both presidential candidates. Their comments were most insightful because they saw the current questions about election fraud so differently than the American media.

To them, 2020 election fraud was an industrial level crime. It was of such magnitude that it moved from the category of an election crime to a sovereign crime.

Sovereign crime. It does have a ring to it.

Sovereign crime is not something we see a lot of in America as our governmental institutions are generally not organized to commit, support or hide a crime.

Most Americans have never seen an organized crime take place, in plain view, supported by or covered up by governmental institutions. But it happens all the time around the world, even in some countries that are quite Westernized.

Sovereign crime means your government was a participant, active or passive, enabling vote fraud.

Governors and secretaries of state refusing to cleanse voter rolls, refusing to check signatures for mail-in ballots – even during recounts, changing the voting rules weeks before an election, qualifies as your government messing with your vote.

The national government refusing to investigate the most egregious examples of voter fraud like hundreds of thousands of more ballots than voters in several states, that is a pretty good indicator that they are passive participants in industrial level vote fraud.

The refusal of the FBI to fully investigate Jesse Morgan’s truck with the hundreds of thousands of ballots going from New York to Pennsylvania – yet dispatching agents to a NASCAR location to investigate a garage pull-down they hoped was a noose – well, that’s a good indicator, too.

Wait, we’re not done here.

The United States Postal Service managers telling employees to backdate ballots so they could be counted illegally. Does that sound like your government – sovereign government – participating in vote fraud?

Our team noted that this might be the first time in American history that the government from the states to the national to its agencies coordinated to either fake the vote or hide the faking.

Our profilers comfortably said the 2020 election fraud was on such a scale that it was impossible for the major law enforcement agencies to not have known about it in advance.

Governmental law enforcement either actively engaged in the fraud, which is impossible to prove, or knowingly acquiesced after the fact.

Pretty clearly, the evidence is piling up that the FBI had zero interest in trucks with ballots crossing state lines, ballots being shredded in Maricopa County, tens of thousands of ballots received before being mailed and all sorts of other clues any competent law enforcement agency would at least investigate.

The conversation did not go where I expected it.

There was no interest on our profilers’ part in doing investigation of massive voter fraud. They felt it was so obvious and the current work being done by citizens and published on hard-to-find blogs was state-of-the-art and no further investigations would find much more. Their comments were striking because they said the data easily available showed the election fraud patterns had two very alarming characteristics: It was not the first time this was tried, and it will be performed again, at scale, in the next election.

Here is where the conversation got very interesting:

Violent criminals have known profiles and when law enforcement properly applies certain profiles, there can be very accurate predictions about what such persons will do next.

Fraud criminals have their own patterns. When we were doing insurance fraud, we often said, with authority, that fraud is a constant. If you stop it one place, it will pop up somewhere else.

Fraud criminals are often highly educated. In our world, they are doctors, attorneys, insurance investigators, chiropractors, running fraud rings spanning multiple states. If someone were caught and the ring broken, those who did not go to jail did not become priests or open small businesses. They started other fraud rings.

Fraud is a constant. Fraud becomes a profession.

Fraud rings, when organized, grow. They continue to expand with new entrants, slightly different profiles, corrupting more people with money that dwarfs what one might make honestly. Fraud techniques are like an organic species: what works, thrives; and what fails, dies out. Patterns emerge. Patterns equal prediction and prediction enables eradication.

Here is where our profilers made a critical connection.

The 2020 election fraud did not just happen. It is impossible for an organization, spanning many states, using similar techniques (fake ballots, shutting down counting at the same time, more ballots than voters, dead voters, underage voters) to succeed the first time at bat. There are just too many moving parts.

So here we developed a thesis.

The team, educated in some of the most sophisticated organized fraud tactics, posited that this was not a dry run. Their thesis is that if one were to seriously evaluate the balloting in many states for 2014, 2016 and 2018, one will find traces of what happened in 2020. That project is under discussion.

Their second thesis is that this is not over by any means. This kind of election fraud was hugely successful. If one even questions the 2020 election, one can be banned from social media and labeled e a “conspiracy theorist” by sovereign governmental agencies.

The team believes the best is yet to come.

Fraud perps are greedy and when left to commit fraud, for which there was likely millions of dollars in remuneration either presently or in the future, they are not going to stop. As fraudsters recognize that national law enforcement refuses to investigate and the courts will not look at evidence, they are emboldened. Who wouldn’t be?

Our courts and law enforcement are saying “come, commit all the fraud you want, we won’t investigate, and if there is litigation, we will toss it out on procedural grounds.”

If anyone protests, the FBI may raid their home with an assault vehicle.

Don’t believe me, well, meet Christopher Worrell.

And meet retired Army Sergeant Kenneth Harrelson, who, like Chris, attended the Don’t Steal The Vote Rally and was greeted by an FBI turreted vehicle while he was cleaning out his gutters.

This is our government in action covering up election fraud. FBI Director Chris Wray is promising each of us the Roger Stone Experience if we doth protest too much.

We are dealing with a new type of crime, at least new to most Americans: sovereign crime. This is it, folks! This is what it looks like.

Just think if the courts and government did this for Medicaid fraud. We might all do it!

So if you are an election fraud perp, what would you do? Double down! Yes, you would, you know you would.

Fraud is a constant. What we saw in 2020 is going to happen in 2022 and 2024 in a very big way. Maybe bigger since there are no constraints.

It is here the team made their most startling prediction.

The data from 2020 are strong enough to predict exactly where the most egregious fraud is going to happen and how it is going to happen.

Texas data sent to us showed the 2020-type fraud did happen in 2016 and 2018 in a smaller degree but with the same pattern. It was not reported. In hindsight, compared with 2020, a pattern emerges.

Profiling works. Fraud is a constant. Bad guys without pushback overplay their hands.

Your government, at the state and federal level, the FBI, government agencies can be in on the scam. That is the realization slowly being accepted by millions of Americans.

We have technologies that can identify dead voters the moment they cast a ballot. We can identify people who are out-of-state, voted twice, are underage, live in a vacant lot or a UPS or FedEx postal box. We can even show a photo of that vacant lot so you can see where your fake neighbor claims to live.

Literally, the second their ballot is counted, they can be flagged as a likely fraud.

Yes, we can deploy that technology today. We have done it in the insurance industry for decades.

We can predict where election fraud is going to happen. We can predict how it is going to be done. We can deploy technologies to identify likely fraud within seconds of when it happens.

The question is, if the government is pretty much in on the election fraud, does it really matter?

2021 America 2021

Order in the court

Decision to abort

The monkey wants to speak

So speak, monkey speak

Speak monkey, speak

Speak monkey, speak

Speak monkey, speak

---

Variants

“Order in the court, the monkey wants to speak, the first one to speak is a monkey for a week!” 

"order in the court

the monkey wants to speak

speak monkey speak

the first one to speak

is the monkey of the week"

Order in the courthouse,

The monkey wants to speak.

No laughing, no smiling

No showing your teeth!

Silence in the gallery

Silence in the court

The biggest monkey in the world

is just about to talk!

Order in the court

The judge is eating beans.

His wife is in the bathtub (bathroom?)

sinking submarines

Silence in the Courtyard,

Silence in the street

The biggest fool in [town name]

Is just about to speak

ENTERTRAINMENT -Why Hollywood Needs to Do the Thinking for EVERYONE!

...and now a word from the World's Leading Communist Philosopher...

The Oxford English Dictionary gives Latin and French origins for the word "entertain", including inter (among) + tenir (to hold) as derivations, giving translations of "to hold mutually" or "to hold intertwined" and "to engage, keep occupied, the attention thoughts or time (of a person)".

Plato, "Protagoras"

I proceeded: Is not a Sophist, Hippocrates, one who deals wholesale or retail in the food of the soul? To me that appears to be his nature.

And what, Socrates, is the food of the soul?

Surely, I said, knowledge is the food of the soul; and we must take care, my friend, that the Sophist does not deceive us when he praises what he sells, like the dealers wholesale or retail who sell the food of the body; for they praise indiscriminately all their goods, without knowing what are really beneficial or hurtful: neither do their customers know, with the exception of any trainer or physician who may happen to buy of them. In like manner those who carry about the wares of knowledge, and make the round of the cities, and sell or retail them to any customer who is in want of them, praise them all alike; though I should not wonder, O my friend, if many of them were really ignorant of their effect upon the soul; and their customers equally ignorant, unless he who buys of them happens to be a physician of the soul. If, therefore, you have understanding of what is good and evil, you may safely buy knowledge of Protagoras or of any one; but if not, then, O my friend, pause, and do not hazard your dearest interests at a game of chance. For there is far greater peril in buying knowledge than in buying meat and drink: the one you purchase of the wholesale or retail dealer, and carry them away in other vessels, and before you receive them into the body as food, you may deposit them at home and call in any experienced friend who knows what is good to be eaten or drunken, and what not, and how much, and when; and then the danger of purchasing them is not so great. But you cannot buy the wares of knowledge and carry them away in another vessel; when you have paid for them you must receive them into the soul and go your way, either greatly harmed or greatly benefited; and therefore we should deliberate and take counsel with our elders; for we are still young—too young to determine such a matter. And now let us go, as we were intending, and hear Protagoras; and when we have heard what he has to say, we may take counsel of others; for not only is Protagoras at the house of Callias, but there is Hippias of Elis, and, if I am not mistaken, Prodicus of Ceos, and several other wise men.

Welcome to the Progressive Land of Imaginaria...

Victor Davis Hanson, "The Progressive Imaginarium"

 

Because the West is a self-critical, affluent, tolerant, and leisurely place, the number of the victimized has grown to far outnumber the vanishing pool of victimizers.

"T-Bone” lives in the progressive Imaginarium.

Senator Cory Booker (D-N.J.) conjured him up as his fake pal from the ’hood. The “Bone” would now and then materialize to prep the yuppie Booker on his street cred.

“T” was the umbilical cord of authenticity with the underprivileged black community for Booker—the vegetarian, Rhodes scholar, Stanford- and Yale-educated, privileged child of two IBM executives.

“Corn-pop” also resides in the Imaginarium. Good ol’ Joe Biden from Scranton occasionally would summon the “Pop.” Supposedly he was one tough, African American, razor-wielding gangster that the youthful Mighty Joe Biden won over.

But first, as a lifeguard of an inner-city swimming pool, defiant, and armed with his own 6-feet of chain, Joe told us he taught Pop the meaning of obedience.

In his impromptu séances, Joe has conjured up lots of Imaginarium denizens. Along with Corn Pop, there was the anonymous bully—son of a donut shop owner—whose head Joe slammed down on the counter. The felony? The brute had insulted his sister and the Biden family name.

Never believe that after a half-century in Washington politics, the multimillionaire beltway Biden has gone soft. He’s still the authentic white, working-class brawler. The scion of coal miners, Biden boasted of wanting to take Donald Trump behind the proverbial gym for a trademark Biden whomping.

Jussie Smollett’s alt-white bullies also dwell in the Imaginarium. They were hunting for nonwhite prey with bleach and a noose. Unfortunately, they picked on the wrong guy and met the knight Jussie in the wee hours of the morning in Chicago’s subzero temperatures.

The diminutive Smollett fought them both off—while still holding his sandwich and using his cell phone.

Prince Harry and his wife Meghan Markle, Duchess of Sussex, checked into the Imaginarium, along with their TV interview host and fellow Montecito mansion-dweller Oprah Winfrey.

The royal couple’s new $15 million home is not far from Oprah’s $90 million estate. Recently in an interview, the two detailed all the racial slights they suffered from the apparently inveterate racist British royal family.

One royal supposedly even inquired about the possible skin tones of their soon-to-be-born, young son Archie. Such were the Torquemada inflicted pains that the hip young royals had to suffer from these Heart of Darkness imperial leftovers!

Oprah sympathized. She, too, had been a victim of systemic racism when a clueless Swiss clerk once declined to show the world’s most famous celebrity a locked away $38,000 crocodile purse.

It was difficult to determine whether Oprah’s gripe hinged on the alleged race-based arrogance of the minimum wage clerk. Or, as Oprah put it, “Obviously ‘The Oprah Winfrey Show’ is not shown in Zurich.”

In the progressive fantasy house, people come and go, like the prep-schooled Smith coed, Oumou Kanoute. She says she was rousted from her lunch, apparently by a working-class privileged janitor, a security guard, and the kitchen help. Supposedly these deplorables could not tolerate the presence of a proud black woman in their midst.

That most of what Kanoute alleged was a demonstrable fantasy earned her a slot in the Imaginarium.

It’s crowded there with Native American tribal elder Elizabeth Warren, Latino Hilaria Baldwin, wife of Alec, black activist Rachel Dolezal, Native American medicine man Ward Churchill—and robust dynamic hands-on president Joe Biden, who has yet to give a press conference or an unscripted talk.

What explains this packed house of left-wing fantasies?

First, a toadying media prefers being woke to being factual and honest. It eagerly hypes any perceived conservative as a clickbait racist, sexist, or homophobe on the slightest of pretexts.

Second, the professional classes and rich are in a dilemma of needing to damn the inequity and nastiness of Western consumer capitalism, which they themselves have mastered.

The woke privileged certainly are not willing to give up their own insatiable appetites that are the fruits of their one percent existence. So they play victims and strain to invent interaction with the authentically poor to remind us of their common-man bona fides—and relieve their guilt.

Three, politicians, academics, media people, and celebrities are not necessarily muscular folk and their soft life bothers them. So now and then they are reinvented as chain-carrying, counter-slamming, Chicago-brawling toughs.

Fourth, race increasingly is divorced from class. So what happens when upward mobility renders old-style class conflict and oppression inert?

The elite victim then turns to race as something that is not so fluid a status as class. A Meghan Markle or Oprah can enjoy being among the most privileged on the planet, and still say they suffer from crocodile-purse racism and royal high-handedness.

So because the West is a self-critical, affluent, tolerant, and leisurely place, the number of the victimized has grown to far outnumber the vanishing pool of victimizers.

And the Imaginarium is now bursting at the seams.

Where the highest priority goes to banning Dr. Seuss images and slapping warning labels on Disney Classics like Peter Pan, Lady and the Tramp, Swiss Family Robinson, Dumbo, Fantasia, et al, lest small children be exposed to the trauma of an largely imagined racist history.

Super-Straights Unite! - No Homo

I'm Super-Duper-Straight! - No Anal or Sodomy of ANY Form!