Thinking in sadness and fear about what is being forced on us

I have a long list of posts I want to do. But this is stuck in my head, so I'll write about it. This is my personal take on the terrifying mess we are in. 

Given the vast stretches of wasteland and mindless to insulting garbage that dominates American cable TV, various drama series from Europe have a lot of appeal. They are usually very well produced, written, cast and acted. Most of the series about life and events from ~1900 to the end of WW2, have central themes of (i) war, (ii) various forms of bigotry, (iii) the corruption, brutality and evil that humans do, and (iv) the endless fight against all the myriad forms of human badness and evil. The Europeans seem to have been and probably still are significantly preoccupied with such matters. 

One can see why. That's where two huge, bloody wars were fought.

Although these series are all fiction, it is obvious that the badness portrayed is inherent in the human condition. In my opinion, these series are fiction but they portray quite plausible human reality. There aren't excursions into the supernatural. Just events that one can easily envision as coming from a core of truth.

La Otra Mirada (A Different View) was made in Spain in Spanish with English subtitles. It is a series about a girl's school in 1920s Spain in Seville. It brilliantly portrays the struggle of women to slowly, painfully break free from all the heavy constraints on their freedoms and power to control themselves and live as they wish. The brutality and intolerance of men, and some sympathetic, complicit women, in opposing that slow progress is made crystal clear. The series is heartbreaking in how it shows the wreckage and vast waste of a society dominated by men and by religious (arrogant, heavy-handed Catholicism), political ideology (insane, arrogant fascism), and deeply ingrained misogynistic social norms, all of which oppressed and denigrated women and their role in society. 

The British series Foyle's War dives into the social and political chaos that started with WW2 in Britain. All the badness that humans, mostly men, can inflict on others is laid out in great detail. Sometimes the attackers force the attacked to into untenable situations that force a sacrifice core moral principles of the defenders of what is good and decent. They are dragged down to the level of behavior of the attacking human monsters. Only good and moral intentions differentiate the defenders from the monsters. Although Foyle and and the other characters fictional, Anthony Horowitz the show's creator, said that many of the storylines are grounded in real life.

Hotel Portofino is a British series about a fictional British family who run a hotel on the Italian Riviera during the 1920s after WW1. Poison and badness of the bigotry and misogyny and the arrogant political extremism, i.e. fascist Blackshirt thugs, are clear. Some regular people are swept up in Facsist horrors as aggressors, while others are victims. Some willingly participate or are silently complicit aggressors. Many innocent oppose as best they can. As is routine in these series, some of the rich (elite) men are scoundrels who cheat on their wives and/or are thieving moral scumbags. Wealthy businessmen are commonly portrayed as cruel, greedy pigs, often thieves, and usually misogynists too. Those thugs could not care less about politics, other than trying to avoid it entirely, unless it can make them more wealthy and powerful. Not surprisingly, the fascist ideologues cannot be reasoned with. They mindlessly ruin lives and murder with no moral qualms. They see as their behaviors as a sacred, infallible service to a cause far higher than mere individual well-being. 

____________________________________________________________________

What is the point of that? 

This is the point: In drama series like those three, all the poison, lies, brutality, bigotry, misogyny, hate, greed and mindless cruelty come across loud and clear. Political and religious extremism are common carriers, i.e., moral justifiers, of what an old roommate of mine liked to call awfility (awfulness). Those series show things like criminals stealing food from hungry civilians, murders, corrupt military leaders and businessmen, and ghastly betrayals of innocent wives, other people and nations, often with lethal results for some of the innocents. Heck there is even desecration of corpses and water torture scenes. What is morally and practically good or defensible is simply not a concern to the bad people. They are at war, either their own personal war (criminals and the insanely greedy) or war "for the greater good" (fascists and Nazis). Weakness in the rule of law for elites, including judges and powerful business people, but not average people, also comes across loud and clear.

A sane person just can't miss all that stuff. Just can't.

So, what is on my mind is probably obvious to readers who have made it this far. 

When I look at the traits and behaviors that arrogant, aggressive ideologues, extremists, liars and grifters, especially the elites in those series, I get a feeling of empathy for what the fictional victims experienced and lost. More to the point, I also feel sadness and fear about what most Americans will experience and lose if the American 2024 elections come out the wrong way. Those series convey the same kinds of emotional poisons and bad behaviors that America's radical right authoritarian MAGA movement and its morally rotted leader DJT now attack us innocents with. Just like in the fictional series, (1) American elites know exactly what they are doing and why, (2) there is confusion and splits in rank and file society, much of which is deceived and betrayed by the knowing elites. 

Recent polling indicates that DJT has a slightly better than even chance of winning the electoral college -- he is +2% as of July 19.

A modern American version of what those fiction drama series show can happen here. We can lose our freedoms to some form of bigoted, kleptocratic authoritarian government with a brutal, wealthy White male Christian Taliban to enforce God's infallible moral requirements on us (but not themselves of course -- morality is purely optional and pick and choose for the elites). Maybe MAGA thugs won't march in the streets and seek out opponents to murder or beat senseless, but there will be brutality and corruption on a vast scale, dwarfing the shocking level of corruption that plagues our society, government and commerce today.

That we are being attacked like this and on the verge of losing our country to unspeakable, corrupt radical right authoritarian darkness makes me sad and fearful. I very much hope that my sadness and fear are misplaced. With some luck, they are.

Blog note: Links to comments broken

Yesterday Disqus comments to posts here, all of which automatically go to my gmail, got messed up somehow. When I click on the View Reply button in my Disqus emails I get this error message from clicktrackingurl.

My ability to find and respond to comments is crappy compared to normal. I may not respond to some comments I would normally respond to. Sorry. I posted my bug report to Disqus this morning. Kieran responded saying they are experiencing apparently the same issue. 

Grumble, grumble . . . . . . 

Happening today - Patriotic Fashion Show Tuesday, September 17th

https://theamericafirstwarehouse.ticketspice.com/america-first-fashion-show

https://www.theamericafirstwarehouse.com/

 

About supreme court justice lies; Little bits

 A Kansas City Star opinion comments:

There’s still one recourse for Supreme Court 

justices who lied at their confirmations

First it was overturning Roe v. Wade, ending the federal constitutional right to abortion in the United States. Then it was the recent ruling in Snyder v. United States, allowing public officials to in effect take bribes in the way of “gratuities” and “rewards.” And now it is the recent ruling in Trump v. United States, which holds that presidents should enjoy “absolute immunity” for so called “official acts,” which in essence means that a president could even commit premeditated murder, and it would not be a crime — as long as the president declared the murder an “official act.” The lunacy of this court is mind boggling. People all over the country, and even around the world, are rolling their eyes in disbelief that the Supreme Court of the United States would do such a thing — but it did. People feel that there is nothing that can be done about Supreme Court justices who obviously lied during their Senate confirmation hearings when they testified under oath that “nobody is above the law” — including the president. Chief Justice John Roberts testified at his confirmation hearing: “No one is above the law under our system and that includes the president. The president is fully bound by the law.” Justice Samuel Alito testified at his confirmation hearing that “no person in this country is above the law, and that includes the president and it includes the Supreme Court.” Justice Neil Gorsuch testified at his Senate confirmation hearing, “No man is above the law.” Justice Brett Kavanaugh testified at his confirmation hearing, “No one is above the law in our constitutional system.”

In essence, all these justices committed perjury at their Senate confirmation hearings, which is a crime under Title 18 of U.S. Code. Under the law, witnesses commit perjury “after having taken an oath” to testify under penalty of perjury if they “knowingly and willfully” make “any material false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation” with respect to “any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee, subcommittee, commission or office of the Congress.” Under the law, the perjury committed by these justices at their respective Senate confirmation hearings could subject them to fines or imprisonment of up to five years, or both.

The liars may be "subject" to prosecution. But with Merrick Garland The Traitor in charge of the DoJ, one can confidently predict there will be no prosecutions. Not even an investigation. The DoJ Manual, whatever the heck that is, comments on perjury laws, which apply to regular people, but not people like federal court nominees, DJT and other rich and/or powerful elites:

Perjury -- Overview Of 18 U.S.C. §1621 And 1623 Violations

Several Federal statutes criminalize perjury and related false statements. The two most commonly used statutes for perjury offenses are 18 U.S.C. §§ 1621 and 1623. Section 1621 is the traditional, broadly applicable perjury statute, and is used to prosecute perjuries committed before legislative, administrative or judicial bodies. Section 1623, added in 1970, eliminated some of the proof problems associated with these difficult prosecutions, but Congress limited its applicability to false statements before Federal courts and grand juries. (emphasis added)

Well rule of law fans, there you have it. Congress neutered its own useless perjury law that was intended to give the law some teeth. Instead, we got milquetoast. That tells us a lot about deep moral rot in our government.

_________________________________________________________________

_________________________________________________________________

Elon Musk Writes, Then Deletes, a Post Musing About Threats to Biden and Harris -- Hours after what the F.B.I. called a second attempted assassination of former President Donald J. Trump, Elon Musk wrote on his social media site — and then deleted — a post suggesting it was odd that nobody had tried to kill President Biden or Vice President Kamala Harris. Mr. Musk said the post on X had been intended as a joke.

Ah good, it was just a joke.  /s

Leon, as the demented DJT called him, Musk is a shameless liar.

_________________________________________________________________

Russia Ramps Up Air Assault on Ukrainian Cities -- The Ukrainian authorities on Monday said that they had repelled a “massive” Russian attack on Kyiv in the early morning hours. They said it was the eighth attack on the Ukrainian capital in just over two weeks, in what appears to be an escalation by Russia of its long-running air campaign against the city.

This is just a reminder, that if the war does not end in a peace settlement, the Ukraine will be pulverized into the stone ages, even if the Russian military is corrupt and inept. Sooner or later the Ukraine will no longer be able to defend itself. Then the Putin genocide will commence.

Too bad the US and the West torpedoed a peace agreement when one was possible. Now it is very likely too late, just like it is very likely too late for a "two-state solution" for Palestine. Just my hopefully wrong opinion.

_________________________________________________________________

Portage County Ohio sheriff: 'Write down the addresses' of Kamala Harris supporters who display yard signs -- Sheriff Bruce D. Zuchowski, who took office in 2021, made the remarks in Facebook posts shared to two separate accounts on the night of Sept. 13. "When people ask me...What's gonna happen if the Flip - Flopping, Laughing Hyena Wins?? I say...write down all the addresses of the people who had her signs in their yards! Sooo...when the Illegal human "Locust" (which she supports!) Need places to live...We'll already have the addresses of the their New families...who supported their arrival!" Zuchowski wrote.

Hm, that's a sheriff talking. Sheriffs have a lot of power. Too bad he is a foaming at the mouth radical right authoritarian thug. The rule of law is rotting away before our eyes in real time.

_________________________________________________________________

Calls for J.D. Vance to resign after he admits that he created pet-eating story about immigrants -- Fact check: J.D. Vance did not create the pet-eating story about immigrants in Springfield, Ohio, but he has admitted to amplifying and spreading these unsubstantiated claims. Origin of the claims: The rumors about Haitian immigrants eating pets in Springfield, Ohio appear to have originated from far-right activists, local Republicans, and neo-Nazi groups before Vance echoed them.

Well, aren't far-right activists, local Republicans, and neo-Nazi groups a reliable source of accurate, nuanced, properly contextualized and empathetic information and news? Not? Oh, never mind. It's election season.

_________________________________________________________________

Salon writes:

Donald Trump is openly running a 

Great Replacement Theory campaign 

Donald Trump made clear on the Philadelphia debate stage this week, as he has throughout his three presidential campaigns, a basis of his run for office. Trump is running on the platform that non-white immigration is an existential threat to the nation. This time around, Trump has made his primary message, the so-called Great Replacement Theory (GRT), more vivid than ever. It is therefore of existential importance in understanding the stakes of this election to have clearly in mind what has happened in the past when GRT has been the central driving narrative both of individuals and of states.

According to the Great Replacement Theory, the nation’s greatness, its traditions and its practitioners, are existentially imperiled by an influx of foreign races, ethnicities or religions. The foreign elements are sometimes described in the narrative of GRT, as vermin or diseases.

GRT was central to the official Nazi motivation for the genocide of the Jews of Europe. Hitler blamed the loss of World War I on Jewish betrayal of Germany. But this betrayal, for Hitler, was intimately connected to the Great Replacement Theory, via the introduction of Black soldiers in the French army subsequently occupying the Rhineland, the so-called “Black Horror on the Rhine.” In Mein Kampf, Hitler writes:

It was and is the Jews who bring the Negroes into the Rhineland, always with the same secret thought and clear aim of ruining the hated white race by the necessarily resulting bastardization, throwing it down from its cultural and political height, and himself rising to be its master.

Aw geez, now we're reduced to quoting Hitler. But if the shoe fits, hit someone with it. Hm, wrong quote. I wonder, did Hitler equate being Jewish with being non-White? Seems so. Is there a historian in the house? Anyone? Ah, Perplexity raised its hand. So, what do you have to say about that? Perplexity says:

It's kind of you to ask. Let me say this about that: Hitler and the Nazis did view Jews as a distinct "race" that was separate from and inferior to the "Aryan race" they considered to be superior. Nazi ideology was based on racist theories that divided humanity into different races, with the "Aryan race" considered superior. The Nazis classified Jews as a separate, inferior race, not just a religious group

 

Well history fans, there you have it. The origin of the GRT, at least according to one historian.

Serious trauma in toxic social media content

The WaPo published a sad, frightening opinion in artist-drawn pictures about what it is like to moderate social media content. The opinion is one of a WaPo picture series called Shifts, an illustrated history of the future of work: 

‘I quit my job as a content moderator.

I can never go back to who I was before.’

Alberto Cuadra worked as a content moderator at a video-streaming platform for just under a year, but he saw things he’ll never forget. He watched videos about murders and suicides, animal abuse, child abuse, sexual violence and teenage bullying — all so you didn’t have to. What shows up when you scroll through social media has been filtered through an army of tens of thousands of content moderators, who protect us at the risk of their own mental health.

Although Perplexity makes it sound like content moderation is a huge expenditure to businesses, one of its search results indicates that Facebook spends a paltry ~1.5% of revenues on content moderation. Content reviewers are often provided by third-party contractors. Content moderation involves nuanced decisions, especially for issues like hate speech or misinformation. Unfortunately that can't be fully automated, at least not yet. So, human moderators take mental damage from the filth and shocking cruelty that some immoral or evil people post online.

Well, that's just how exuberant American markets running free wild and butt naked do things. Perplexity, and at least some radical anti-regulations economists/plutocrats, say they spend huge amounts on content moderation. So what is a high, medium or low business cost is in the beholder's eye, right?

Some interesting reader comments about the WaPo opinion piece to consider:

1. What is happening to this content moderator is called secondary trauma and it is serious. Anyone who works with trauma victims is vulnerable to it, including myself as a Child Protective Services social worker.

2. Nothing brings out the dark side of human behavior quite like anonymity. So much evil is caught and punished only because the bad behavior was witnessed. Even then, people will claim innocence. But be forewarned, every video of animal abuse, specifically, indicates a future human abuser / killer. That's a historically consistent connection. [I wonder if that is true]

3. I am generally opposed to AI, but this is one case where the use of a tool that would identify and report any abusive videos or links to them is beneficial. Human memory and exposure to violence and abuse attacks the psychological system and all bodily systems in a detrimental manner. Computers are clearly the answer in this situation.

Another point to consider: The discussion above ignores toxic social media content that has helped poison and radicalize much of American politics. That is an entirely different kind of immoral/evil content. 

Q: What, if anything at all, should be done about people posting brutal filth and evil online, e.g., (i) get rid of anonymity, (ii) force social media companies to spend more on content moderation and research on how to prevent and treat trauma, (iii) force social media companies to find ways to make AI do all or essentially all of the content moderation, (iv) something else, (v) some combination of all the above, (vi) nothing at all because our exuberant, butt naked free markets are handling the problem beautifully, or (vii) completely eliminate all content moderation and let millions of voices spew the beauty of 100% unrestrained free speech as some free speech absolutists want?

__________________________________________________________________

Un-numbered footnote:

A personal anecdote to consider if you are not yet in TL/DR mode:

In law school, I took two semesters of family law and one of criminal law. That was all in 1 year. At the end of that year, I developed significant insomnia. It took several years for it to go away. I attributed my insomnia to the nightmares that morphed out of various horrific court cases and decisions we had to study and internalize to some extent. Some of the cruelty and sheer savagery from some of what we had to learn was traumatic to me. In particular, the savagery in family law was shocking. Some parents heartlessly used their kids as tools of war between themselves. Child wreckage was all over the place. Some parent were simply vicious monsters who enjoyed literal physical and/or mental torture of their children, some as young as 2 or 3. Sometimes the kids got murdered, some got starved, some got repeatedly beat up, and a few got all three. 

I recall a guest speaker in two class sessions, a prominent San Francisco appeals court attorney who represented women in divorces in wealthy families. He had to carry a concealed, licensed gun to protect himself from enraged rich husbands and the thugs they sometimes hired to do "mischief." The husbands who failed to hide their wealth from the forensic accountants the attorney hired usually wound up extremely pissed off. They had to pay a lot more than they wanted to pay in the divorce settlement. That enraged some of them and they threatened to kill the wife's attorney and/or the wife. Most rich husbands in this attorney's line of work took serious measures to hide wealth any way they could think of. Description of real life murders were involved in those class sessions. I could go on and on and on about horrors like this, including other speakers with equally horrific stories of savagery and brutality. But cap off this anecdote, after taking those three classes, I firmly decided I would never, ever go into criminal law, or especially the even more horrific family law.

Note that I did not watch videos of savagery and slaughter that social media content moderators have to watch. I experienced horrors and sadness only by reading about then and hearing about them in lectures. That's a softer form of exposure. The intensity of my exposure to mayhem and horrors was less than content moderators, but it still really got to me. 

Mental gymnastics: Comparing modern people to historical figures

In writing a response to a complex set of comments this morning, a mini-epiphany hit like a ½ ton of bricks, assuming it isn't some kind of self-delusion. "Reputable" comparisons I recall between historical figures and modern day people always or almost always include comparison-weakening caveats that go something like this:

It's important to note that these are controversial comparisons made by critics. Supporters of the criticized modern person would strongly reject any parallels to bad, e.g., Nazi or fascist, historical figures or policies, e.g., genocide, mass murder, etc. The situations are very different historically and contextually.

There it is -- very different historically, contextually and controversially. You can't reliably compare a modern monster to a historical monster because history, context and/or controversy. All monsters have to be monstrous in the same ways, with the same quantity and degree of damage or evil and little or no controversy? Right? 

Hm. Maybe not right. In my opinion, that deflects from a factor that is at least as important. Is there something else that is fundamental and informative in addition to history, context and controversy? From what I can tell, at least some controversy always attaches when bad people are accused of doing bad things, e.g., DJT says he is not a crook and liar. They all deny their badness, or justify it as not bad because it's necessary, or even morally right on its own.

Is that caveated "reasoning" always mostly true or incomplete and thus often misleading? Consider this tussle I had with Perplexity this morning, where I asked about a comparison between (i) Heinrich Himmler, head of the Nazi SS and the mass-murdering inventor of the Nazi holocaust, and (ii)  callous, modern day MAGA freak Steven Miller, inventor of less ghastly things. Here is a follow-up question to what struck me as an unsatisfactory initial analysis[1] that Perplexity made in its comparison of Himmler with Miller, which I did not ask for but got anyway:

Follow-up Q: In your answer comparing Miller to Himmler, you say that "the situations are also very different historically and contextually", but doesn't a better, reasonable comparison include consideration of their callousness and authoritarian mindset [as much or more] than history and context?

A: You raise an important point about comparing historical figures based on their personal characteristics and mindsets rather than just historical context. When examining the similarities between Stephen Miller and Heinrich Himmler, there are indeed some concerning parallels in their authoritarian tendencies and apparent lack of empathy [apparent lack of empathy??, how about obvious lack]:

Both Miller and Himmler have demonstrated a willingness to propose and implement harsh policies targeting vulnerable groups. Miller has been a key architect of restrictive immigration policies, including family separations at the border. Himmler, of course, was instrumental in carrying out the Holocaust and other Nazi atrocities.

They share an apparent callousness toward human suffering resulting from their policies. Miller has shown little concern for the welfare of immigrants and refugees affected by his proposals. Himmler was notoriously ruthless in pursuing Nazi racial ideology.

Both exhibit authoritarian mindsets, favoring centralized power and control. Miller advocates for expanded executive authority on immigration, while Himmler helped build the Nazi police state.

They demonstrate an "us vs. them" mentality, portraying certain groups as threats to be controlled or removed [a common authoritarian justification for bad to horrendous behavior]. Miller focuses on immigrants, while Himmler targeted Jews and other Nazi-defined "undesirables".

Both rose to positions of significant influence at relatively young ages by aligning themselves with authoritarian leaders (Trump for Miller, Hitler for Himmler).

Q: Here's the mental gymnastics question of the day, what is more important in making comparisons between different people in politics or history, alive and/or dead?:

1. Context, history and policy or behavior differences

2. Mental similarities, including considering degree of extremism, and degree of  authoritarianism, i.e., likely intended behavior in view of constraints by relevant context, e.g., level of personal and political power, and degree of public, political and/or institutional support and opposition, social context

3. Both carry about the same degree of importance, both are necessary to reasonable, less misleading comparisons

Footnote:

1. My initial, pre-epiphany question asked for a photo comparison of Himmler and Miller, who I thought looked a lot alike. The Perplexity "history and context" response knocked me off that thought because it prompted my mini-epiphany. But, Perplexity did cough up a photo of chief Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, who Perplexity apparently "decided" offered a better physical comparison:

One is Goebbels, the other Miller --

can you guess which is which?

Himmler ...................................................... Miller              .

Bonus mental gymnastic questions:

Q: For what it is worth, if anything at all, what is the closer (1) facial comparison, and (2) policy comparison with Miller, Goebbels or Himmler?

Q: Is Germaine off his rocker?