Reflections on Lisa Hilbink’s Assessment of Ran Hirschl’s Criticism of Juristocracy

Posted on by
Reply

Abstract: Reflections on Professor Lisa Hilbink’s critique of Professor Ran Hirschl’s perspective on kritarchy (or kratocracy or dikastocracy, to which he refers as juristocracy; i.e., rule by judges); reflections on the reality that the concepts of democracy and rights are not coherent as currently understood, and that neither judges nor legislators possess the ethics and independence necessary to effectively exercise constitutional control; and, criticism of the misuse of linguistics to confuse issues such as democracy and rights and on the dubious nature of current concepts of constitutional control.

Key words: Juristocracy, kritarchy, kratocracy, dikastocracy, legislators, judges, democracy, liberty, pluralism, rights.

Introduction:

This year I ran across an article published by Professor Lisa Hilbink, PhD, entitled “Beyond Manicheanism: Assessing the New Constitutionalism”.  It was published in the Maryland Law Review[1] over two decades ago.  The version I ran across was an unfinished draft of the article which she shared on Academia.edu during 2005 and one sentence criticizing the now late professor Ran Hirschl, PhD, set me off in an unexpected direction.  Dr. Hilbink wrote, at least in the February 2005 draft, that: “Hirschl’s central argument is based on a stark distinction between courts as insulated,…semi-autonomous, professional policy-making bodies on the one hand, and legislatures as faithful mirrors of popular will, on the other.” 

While I tend to side strongly with critiques of what Dr. Hircshl referred to as “Juristocracy” in his lauded 2005 book, Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism;[2] the quote made me focus on the reality that if legislatures ever truly reflected the beliefs and goals of their electorates, that is certainly not the case today thus, “faithful mirrors of popular will” they certainly are not.  Today, their constituents are not those who “vote” them into office but those who finance their campaigns and the political parties that post them.  Of course, that’s also true of heads of state and chief executives.  Thus, while unelected judges are all too frequently oligarchical and elitist, so too, for the most part, are legislators and the political heads of executive branches. 

That should certainly not be the case but, as long as political campaigns are costly and privately financed by non-voters (as demanded by the United States Supreme Court[3]), then the possibility of elected officials acting in the interests of the voters who elect them rather than in the interest of the billionaires who fund them is, at best, improbable.  Especially since so much of the expense of being elected eventually winds up in the coffers of the legacy media, a complex of simplistic organizations owned and controlled by the same billionaires who provide the bulk of the political contributions.

The Relative Positions of Dr. Hirschl and Dr. Hilbink:

Dr. Hirschl’s core argument with respect to kritarchy (or kratocracy or dikastocracy, to which he refers as juristocracy; i.e., rule by judges), is, as I understand it, that the post-World War II global trend of empowering courts and recognizing inviolable constitutionalizing rights as a means to limit “democratic abuse of democracy and social justice” (an ironic turn of phrase), is a ruse, and that the reality is that the expansion of John Marshall’s concept of judicial review and judicial constitutional control[4], which morphed in the twentieth century into the concept of judicial activism and the organic constitution, was instead driven by threatened political elites, economic stakeholders, and judicial leaders engaging in “hegemonic preservation” to protect their policy preferences from majoritarian politics.

Dr. Hilbink’s position, on the other hand, criticizes Dr. Hirschl’s “hegemonic preservation” theory which she describes as positing that the global expansion of judicial power is not a neutral victory for human rights but a strategic move by a tripartite coalition of threatened political elites, economic elites seeking to lock in neoliberal market policies and high-court judiciaries seeking to protect their interests from the “vicissitudes of democratic politics”, something accomplished by shifting decision-making from majoritarian legislatures to insulated courts.  She does so although acknowledging the empirical weight of Dr. Hirschl’s case studies, by arguing that Dr. Hirschl fell victim to the exact same Manichean trap as the liberal “enthusiasts” he criticizes. According to her, where the legal scholars Dr. Hirschl criticizes romanticize judges as uniquely noble, principled actors operating entirely above the political fray, Dr. Hirschl swings to the opposite extreme asserting that he views judges and institutional design as uniquely self-interested and collusive. While admitting that a court’s origins may not always (or even usually) be pure, she asserts that that does not necessarily mean that long-term institutional impacts are malevolent.  In conjunction with the foregoing she differentiates the mother of judicial activism, the United States Supreme Court, from constitutional courts and courts vested with constitutional authority as well as general oversight of legal systems in other countries, seeming to admit that Dr. Hirschl may be correct with respect to the former, but not necessarily with respect to the latter.  In that regard, Dr. Hilbink argues that the judicial role in constitutional control is not monolithic and instead, involves massive structural variations such as how judges are appointed, their legal subcultures, and their professional norms, all of which dictate whether a court acts as an elite shield or a democratically responsive partner.  Dr. Hilbink finally notes that Dr. Hirschl relies heavily on a rigid dichotomy between “law” and “politics”, implying that there are questions that are purely moral or political and that transferring them to a courtroom strips them of democratic legitimacy to which she counters by asserting that that judicial review and legislative policy-making can be interactive and mutually supportive rather than inherently adversarial.

Notwithstanding their differing perspectives, however, both challenge the romantic, mainstream view that the global expansion of judicial review is simply a natural, benevolent evolution toward human rights and social justice, both arguing that while constitutional courts are highly effective at handling procedural liberties, collective identity, or negative rights, they rarely advance economic equity or redistributive justice and both view the insulation of policy-making from direct popular democracy as a defining hallmark of modern constitutional frameworks.

An interesting debate and convincing performance by Dr. Hilbink.  My perspective is somewhat different and more analytically pessimistic for different reasons.  I see both centered on the impact of what purports to be democracy in governance and on which of two competing institutions can best reflect and protect it.  But, to a great extent, I believe that democracy is and has always been, at least in its current incarnation, illusory and confusing.  If the argument is better defined and more limited so as to involve only the concept of majority rule, then any delegation to a select group, whether unelected judges or elected legislators, in each case, where immunity for ignoring the will of the majority is immune from consequences (other than non-reelection or reappointment), has historically been doomed to failure.  And the obverse, direct democracy, as Socrates is reputed to have observed and experienced, is not an answer.

My Observations:

With reference to the foregoing, I have long felt that linguistic abuse as a means of obfuscating reality has, to some extent, been a weapon well-used by lawyers, politicians, journalists and academics to confuse the electorate.  I have written concerning that as it applies to the term “democracy” which, rather than reflect the concept of majority rule, has been so loaded down with contradictory concepts and platitudes as to make it, as a concept, unworkable.  That is especially true when democracy is defined as a concept melding majority rule with liberty and pluralism, each of which is at odds with the others.  As opposed to majority rule, liberty is a purely individualistic concept grounded on individual autonomy and pluralism is grounded on the rights of minorities vis a vis both individual and majority rights.  The term “rights” is as incoherent but for different reasons.  Rights purport to involve something inherent rather than granted and thus subject to neither conditions nor limitations, no matter how reasonable.  How unreasonable is that?  Based on that definition, no rights exist, have ever existed and can never exist, as is demonstrated by the reality that rights are respected by governments only when convenient.  The purported solution?  Keep expanding their scope into even more improbable, albeit worthy areas (like the environment, peace and social welfare).  That is not to imply that something aspirationally similar to rights, perhaps involving mandatory government spending priorities, would not be meritorious, but all we have, anywhere, are artfully phrased non-functional “guarantees”.  I note that “guarantees” are generally unattainable oxymorons, at best implying reasonable efforts.

Conclusions: So, what was the question???

Well, I think the question relating to my diatribe concerning the nature of democracy and of rights was, or should have been, where does the concept of a constitution fit into the foregoing?  Or perhaps, where should it fit in.  Not in the organic sense of establishing and regulating the branches and organs of governance but in the more esoteric sense of seeking to create a just and workable balance between majority rule, liberty and pluralism and to create a mechanism to at least approach the concept of rights.  And to determine just how calcified related decisions should be, calcified in the sense that a constitution seeks to impose current values on future generations while ignoring important aspects concerning the values of generations that preceded us.  That would then bring us to the questions raised by Drs. Hirschl and Hilbink as to what kind of institution could most effectively act as the enforcement mechanism for constitutional goals, dictates and aspirations.  At that point, their arguments would acquire significant relevance, although perhaps as starting points for evolution towards a truly efficient, just and objective means of constitutional control, something which may well prove as solely aspirational as the “rights” and respect for “democracy” that most constitutions purport to guarantee.  At least so long as the humans involved remain so prone to elitist self-preservation and the cancerous quest for ever increasing control, regardless of their roles.

References:

Calvo Mahé, Guillermo (2026): “Of Counterintuitive Courts, Constitutions and Bibles“; The Inannite Review on Substack, October 06, 2026, available at https://guillermocalvomah.substack.com/p/of-counterintuitive-courts-constitutions?r=lwzkv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web.

Calvo Mahé, Guillermo. “A Very Brief Observation Concerning the Concept of Treason in a Pluralistic Democracy”; The Inannite Review, Substack, Aug. 2, 2026, available at https://substack.com/@guillermocalvomah/note/p-209521381?r=lwzkv&utm_source=notes-share-action&utm_medium=web.

Calvo Mahé, Guillermo. “Motley Constitutionalism: A Labyrinthine Aphorism”; Medium, 30 July 2023, available at https://guillermo-calvo-mahe.medium.com/motley-constitutionalism-a-labyrinthine-aphorism-9270c689f12d.

Calvo Mahé, Guillermo (2026): “Of Counterintuitive Courts, Constitutions and Bibles”; The Inannite Review, Substack, Oct. 6, 2026, available at https://guillermocalvomah.substack.com/p/of-counterintuitive-courts-constitutions?r=lwzkv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web.

Calvo Mahé, Guillermo. “Sobre el control y la revisión constitucional: Un análisis comparativo centrado en las repúblicas”; XII Foro de Tendencias Contemporáneas de Derecho, Universidad de Caldas, Nov. 2017, Manizales.

Hilbink, Lisa (2006): “Beyond Manicheanism: Assessing the New Constitutionalism”; 65 Md. L. Rev. 15 (2006); University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, Baltimore.

Hirschl, Ran (2004): Towards Juristocracy: The Origins and Consequences of the New Constitutionalism; Harvard University Press; Cambridge.

_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television in both Colombia and abroad (e.g., NewsX World in India); and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

[1] Hilbink, Lisa (2006): “Beyond Manicheanism: Assessing the New Constitutionalism”, 65 Md. L. Rev. 15 (2006); University of Maryland Francis King Carey School of Law, Baltimore.

[2] Harvard University Press; Cambridge.  The book won the American Political Science Association’s Law & Courts Section 2021 Lasting Contribution Award.

[3] See, e.g., Buckley v. Valeo (1976); Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010); McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission (2014); Federal Election Commission v. Ted Cruz / Senator Ted Cruz Committee v. Federal Election Commission (2022); and Federal Election Commission v. NRSC (2026).

[4] Which I have criticized in diverse articles, some of which are listed at the conclusion of this article.

Reflections on the Bolsonaro Dynasty and the 2026 Brazilian Elections

Posted on by
Reply

The following is the transcript for the segment by Guillermo Calvo Mahé in a special report by India’s NewsX World with respect to the Bolsonaro Dynasty in Brazil, a reality regardless of the final results of the 2026 Brazilian Elections.  It has been slightly edited to correct grammatical issues and provide context and updating information has been added:
_______

On Sunday October 4, the Brazilian electorate followed the path of most recent Latin American elections, at least as far as the Congress is concerned, rejecting the progressive left and embracing the conservative right.  In that context, a question arises as to whether Brazil’s turn to the right is a reaction against what the public perceives of as a moribund and corrupt economy (notwithstanding significant progress in minimizing poverty during the current administration) or whether it reflects the crystallization of a Bolsonaro family dynasty (given the fact that so many members of the Bolsonaro family are now in elected positions of power).  Jahir Bolsonaro, the family’s patriarch, was 38th president of Brazil, having served in that role from 2019 to 2023 and as a member of the Chamber of Deputies from 1991 to 2019.  Previously, he served as a captain in the Brazilian army.  However, he has been in prison serving a twenty-seven year sentence for organizing an attempted coup against his successor, the current president of Brazil, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, who is currently running for reelection against Jahir Bolsonaro’s son, Flavio.

One answer to the unexpected results of the initial round of the Brazilian elections which involved not only the presidency but the Chamber of Deputies, a significant part of the Senate and the powerful state governors seems to be that, come what may during the final round of presidential voting on October 31, Jahir Bolsonaro has managed to install his family firmly in control of the Congress and in likely control of the presidency.  If so, that would quickly lead to his from imprisonment and expand Bolsonaro family control of the federal judiciary as well.

So, who are the members of the evolving Bolsonaro family dynasty?  Let’s start with Flavio.

Flavio is not his father’s clone nor a mere figurehead.  He has his own 23 year political career including eight years as a senator and, although his father is certainly Flavio’s political mentor, they have differing styles and different focuses, something Flavio emphasizes: 

  • Flavio’s presidential campaign stressed down to earth economic issues and concerns rather than abstract ideological issues and Flavio used a more restrained personal style, reaching out to centrist voters as well as focusing on conservative themes.  Still, like his father, he also stressed his relationships with the United States and Israel would be much more positive, his relations with China more limited and that his interests in the BRICS coalition would be secondary at best.
  • As in all recent elections in Latin America, Flavio’s stressed the problem of allegedly rampant crime and a decline in morals urging a return to traditional Christian values and was highly critical of the threats of an emerging socialist state.
  • Flavio’s campaign focused on sophisticated use of targeted and tightly focused social media rather than on the mass, amateur WhatsApp forwarding networks used by his father and, perhaps thanks to his brother Eduardo’s US contacts, his use of the Internet was extremely well financed by, among others, the Rockbridge Network, a group co-founded by U.S. Vice President JD Vance and backed by prominent right-wing donors and Silicon Valley investors such as Peter Thiel and Rebekah Mercer, and supporters of Israel.

Of course, a political dynasty such as that established in India by the Nehru–Gandhi family, in the United States by the Kennedy and Bush families or as is common in many Latin American countries, is a complex concept, but it is one that the family’s patriarch, Jahir Bolsonaro, has apparently mastered. 

The second round of the presidential election is not clear cut as most believe given that 40 million voters either did not participate (notwithstanding Brazil’s mandatory voting requirements) or cast null or none of the above ballots in the first round of voting and, as October 25 approaches, polls indicated that it is tightening, although Flavio remains in the lead, but, even if enough voters who failed to participate in the initial round were pulled into the Lula camp to overcome Flavio’s initial two million plus lead and a Lula comeback took place, a Bolsonaro political dynastic structure seems firmly in place, one that, given the age of its diverse members, could last for decades. 

For example, in addition to Flavio, Jahir Bolsonaro’s current wife, Michelle, Jahir’s third wife and Flavio’s second step mother, is virtually the same age as Flavio and an ambitious political power on her own, especially among evangelical Christians and among conservative women, two constituencies largely responsible for Flavio’s success in the first round.  She is also extremely powerful in the Liberal Party, the political party that sponsors the Bolsonaro family, even more so than Flavio.  In the recent elections she attained the highest vote ever for the Brazilian Senate.  But Flavio and his brothers have had serious conflicts with Michelle and their goals and ambitions are not always compatible.

In addition to Michelle, the Bolsonaro clan now boasts a number of other members of Congress with current and future electoral aspirations.  Flavio’s brother Carlos (age 43), the family’s social media and digital genius, is now in the Senate; 28 year old Jair Renan, Flavio’s half-brother, is now a deputy in the Chamber of Deputies; Flavio’s brother Eduardo, age 43, is a former Deputy who fled to the United States when threatened with possible prosecution for lobbying foreign powers to intervene in his father’s trial (he was convicted in absentia) but used his exile very successfully to cultivate strong ties with members of the Trump administration and is likely to return and resume his political career; and, Jahir’s brother, the uncle of the clan, Renato Bolsonaro, age 62, also won a seat in the incoming Congress. There are also Michelle’s two daughters waiting on the sidelines (one in her teens and the other in her twenties), the eldest from a previous relationship. 

So yes, Flavio Bolsonaro successfully used economic discontent to pull ahead of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the initial round of voting but a Bolsonaro political dynasty definitely seems to be coalescing in Brazil although perhaps, who will lead it, is not always clear.
_____

As an update with respect to the election itself, it appears that foreign interference in the second round of Brazil’s presidential elections has significantly intensified, including alleged intervention by Meta in favor of Flavio Bolsonaro. The Lula campaign has formally accused Meta’s platforms (Instagram, Facebook, and WhatsApp) of having utilized biased algorithms, restricted content distribution, and disabled advertising capabilities to systematically disadvantage Lula and favor Flavio.

The core allegations against Meta have involved accusations that the Meta AI engine is intrinsically biased. For instance, the AI system reportedly refused to generate campaign images or content when using the prompt “Lula 13” but readily generated them for “Flávio 22”.  The Lula campaign specifically claimed that Instagram restricted Lula’s official profile from promoting feed posts, froze or interrupted video view counts and temporarily caused his profile and other left-wing leaders to disappear from search results prior to the first round of voting.  The allegations have neutral support; for example, the non-profit group Ekō alleged that Meta broke Brazilian electoral laws by approving foreign-funded, AI-generated ads that spread disinformation and hate speech. A separate study from the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro found over 1,600 irregular political advertisements on Meta platforms funded primarily from the United States and Israel which violates Brazil’s ban on foreign electoral spending.

In mid-October 2026, Justice Marco Aurélio Bellizze of Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court ordered Meta to take immediate action to guarantee equal treatment for both candidates. The court mandated that Meta apply identical criteria for its AI tools and barred the company from suppressing political content or search results to cause a campaign imbalance. Meta was also issued a tight deadline to submit granular, profile-by-profile explanations of any restrictions applied to Lula’s accounts.

As expected, Meta denied any political bias rejecting all claims of “deliberate” bias or political engineering, stating that its systems do not distribute content based on ideology and are applied equally worldwide.  In its defense, Meta cited widespread, unrelated global technical issues. The company stated that a freeze on Instagram Reels view counts impacted creators across more than 100 countries and was not isolated to Lula’s account. Similarly, a brief disruption to ad-creation tools affected users globally rather than targeting specific campaigns.

Notwithstanding the abovementioned, given time constraints, none of the foregoing is anticipated to have a significant impact on the highly polarized electorate.  Indeed electoral violence and threats of violence, primarily from supporters of the Bolsonaro which have sought to intimidate the electorate may be more important.  For example, on October 7, 2026, a major fire devastated UFPE’s Innovation Directorate building in Recife, destroying pharmaceutical, computer science, and genetics laboratories. This incident followed two other fires at the institution within an eight-day span, causing an estimated R$100 million in damages and obliterating two decades of scientific research.  The fires broke out immediately after students held protests on campus supporting President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and opposing Flavio Bolsonaro ahead of the October 25 presidential runoff election. Because the fires occurred hours after students received explicit bomb threats attributed to Bolsonaro supporters, Brazil’s Federal Police and the Federal Prosecutor’s Office opened a criminal investigation into the matter.
_______

© NewsX World and Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television in both Colombia and abroad; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Of Counterintuitive Courts, Constitutions and Bibles

Posted on by
Reply

Kritarchy (or kritocracy) is the term for rule by judges or the judiciary.  It seems the inevitable consequence of vesting the judiciary with the power to “interpret” constitutions and, when constitutions are deemed supreme, to effectively control government in the form once exercised by dictatorial political bureaus (politburos) and the central committees in one party states.  Unless the “judges” charged with constitutional control (control being the end result of purported review) are democratically elected for fixed terms, something which only occurs in Mexico and Bolivia (but even there, the nomination process is controlled by traditional branches of government and, in Mexico, the term is long, 12 years) they are obviously antidemocratic elites.  Kritarchy is thus a specialized form of antidemocratic oligarchy rather than an aspect of democracy which sort of makes sense, given that constitutions, by their nature, are inherently antidemocratic, in the sense that democracy requires majority rule.  However, given the reality that in purported democracies popular apathy is more the rule than popular participation, democracy as such is more a fable than a reality.  A majority is more than a plurality and when large segments of a population do not participate in democratic elections, real majorities (50% of the eligible electorate plus one) are rarely if ever attainable.

Kritarchy is defended as essential to protect human and minority rights from democratic abuse, an obvious fallacy as that assumes judges who prioritize such concepts and that is no more likely in a judicial tribunal than it is in a popularly elected legislature or even, in a popularly elected autocracy.  Since the Biden administration’s 2013 destruction of the selection of federal judges in the United States through political consensus via the filibuster (Murphy is still chuckling about that), federal judges in the United States have been more politically biased in their decisions than ever, making it clear, in the cradle of judicial review, just how wrong the infamous decision in Marbury versus Madison (really John Marshall versus his despised cousin, Thomas Jefferson) was.  And an incoherent Kritarchy such as that which runs rampant in the United States today is, procedurally, as bad a form of government as currently exists.

Thus we find ourselves, politically and economically, where we do, rule by judges bought and paid for by plutocratic kleptocracies with merit a sort of pejorative, except in the Hobbesian sense of merit, i.e., merit being equated with brute power.  It’s as ironic as is the reality that many, perhaps most, perhaps virtually all evangelical pastors are politically tied to Zionism which, when it involves religion at all, insists that the purported Christ, about whom such evangelical pastors incessantly preach, is deemed by their Zionist overseers as, at best, condemned to an eternity in Hell drowning in a pool of molten excrement.  Seemingly, the blind leading the blind would be quite an improvement over the deaf, dumb and blind simians who “guide” us today.

We humans are a strange, incoherent and evolutionally counterintuitive species.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television in both Colombia and abroad; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Remembering the Seventies

Posted on by
Reply

The 1970’s: Eastern Military Academy, the faculty and Susan, they say you can never go back but I did, and it’s never left me, except for Susan.  Or did I leave her? St. John’s University, the School of Law and Joan Aceste and Joyce Raskin and June Callwood, fantasies and friends, Mario Cuomo and hard work, success, and regrets.  Always regrets as time marches on.  The Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law, awakening and Helene Alba; the world opening up to teach me how wrong I’d too often been and would be again.  The New York State Assembly and then, Kaufmann and Feit and Vickie Forest. All things I should have kept but let go.

What an awesome decade, perhaps the most challenging and happiest of my life; until the eighties and my three sons, Billy, Alex and Edward. 

What a full life it’s been, and what a full life it is, even if it’s consistently taken a turn towards the dark side.

But the seventies were special, full of optimism and certainty, even if it was misplaced.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television in both Colombia and abroad; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Reflexiones sobre reflexiones

Posted on by
Reply

«Ve’betarayin yehon qadmayin ve’qadmayin betarayin» («הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִהְיוּ אַחֲרוֹנִים וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים – רִאשׁוֹנִים» en hebreo); la primera frase estaba en arameo.  «Los primeros serán los últimos y los últimos serán los primeros», según se dice, eso proclamó Jesús —o más exactamente, Yešu—. Pero ¿qué hay de los que están entre esos dos polos? ¿Existirá una relación inversa en toda la escala? ¿Y qué decir de los que ocupan el centro: los insípidos, los tibios o casi fríos, aquellos que, buscando mantener abiertas todas las opciones, se niegan a tomar partido? ¿Dónde se situarán y cuándo?

Por supuesto, están los hipócritas, los mentirosos, los manipuladores; aquellos que adoptan una postura sin intención alguna de actuar en consecuencia y que, de hecho, a menudo actúan de manera totalmente opuesta a lo que dicen defender. Suelen congregarse en la política, el derecho, el periodismo y entre el clero.

Hay quienes consideran que los que están en el medio son los peores de todos: los cobardes, los cómplices. Claro que en ese punto intermedio hay diversas variantes, y tal vez distintos olores. La ambivalencia. ¿En qué se diferencia de la indecisión? ¿O de la apatía? ¿Y cuál podría ser la relación entre la apatía y lo patético?

Hay quienes afirman que «es mejor haber amado y perdido que no nunca haber amado». ¿Cómo se traduce esto conceptualmente en el caso de quienes expresan su opinión y resultan estar equivocados, frente a aquellos que, por miedo a equivocarse, nunca opinan?

¿Dónde te situarías tú?

Es solo una pregunta.

Se atribuye a Albert Einstein la siguiente frase: «El mundo es un lugar peligroso para vivir, no por causa de los malvados, sino por aquellos que no hacen nada al respecto».

Me pregunto qué diría Yešu.
_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; todos derechos reservados.  Permiso para compartir con atribución.

Guillermo Calvo Mahé es escritor, comentarista, analista político y académico residente en la República de Colombia. Aspira ser poeta y filósofo empírico y a veces se lo cree.  Hasta el 2017 coordinaba los programas de Ciencia Política, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. En la actualidad, participa en entrevistas radiales y televisadas, foros, seminarios y congresos cívicos tabto en Colombia como en el exterior y edita y publica la revista virtual, The Inannite Review disponible en Substack.com/.  Tiene títulos académicos en ciencias políticas (del Citadel, la universidad militar de la Carolina del Sur), derecho (de la St. John’s University en la ciudad de Nueva York), estudios jurídicos internacionales (de la facultad posgrado de derecho de la New York University) y estudios posgrado de lingüística y traducción (del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de la Florida).  Sin embargo, también es fascinado por la mitología, la religión, la física, la astronomía y las matemáticas, especialmente en lo relacionado con lo cuántico y la cosmogonía.  Puede ser contactado en guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com y gran parte de su escritura está disponible a través de su blog en https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Reflections on Reflecting

Posted on by
Reply

“Ve’betarayin yehon qadmayin ve’qadmayin betarayin” (“הָרִאשׁוֹנִים יִהְיוּ אַחֲרוֹנִים וְהָאַחֲרוֹנִים – רִאשׁוֹנִים” in Hebrew), the first was in Aramaic. 

“The first shall be last and the last shall be first” Jesus, more accurately Yešu, is reported to have declaimed.  But, what about those in between?  Will there be an inverse relationship all the way through?  And what of those in the middle, the bland, the lukewarm or almost cool, those who, seeking to keep all options open, refuse to take a stand.  Where will they stand and when?

Of course, there are the hypocrites, the liars, the manipulators, those who take a stand with no intention of acting on it, indeed, who frequently act in a manner totally opposed to that they claim to espouse.  They tend to congregate in politics, and law, and journalism, and among the clergy.

There are those who feel that those in the middle are the worst of all, the cowardly, the enablers.  Of course, there are a number of flavors in the middle, and perhaps odors.  Ambivalence. How different is it than indecision?  Or apathy?  And what might the relationship between apathy and pathetic be?

There are those who assert that “it is better to have loved and lost than never to have loved at all”.  How does that translate in the context of those who opine and turn out to have been wrong versus those, who, fearing to be wrong, never opine at all?

Where would you place yourself? 

Just asking.

Albert Einstein is credited with saying: “The world is a dangerous place to live, not because of the people who are evil, but because of the people who don’t do anything about it.”

I wonder what Yešu would say?
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television in both Colombia and abroad; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Very Brief Reflections on the 2026 BRICS Summit Held in Bharat Mandapam in Pragati Maidan, New Delhi, India on the 12th and 13th of September

Posted on by
Reply

During September 12th and 13th of this year I had the privilege of participating in a brief forum conducted by India’s NewsX World on the 2026 BRICS Summit, as it was taking place, and of interacting with senior military, judicial and diplomatic personnel from various countries, including the Peoples’ Republic of China, The Union of South Africa and, of course the Republic of India.  It was a very rewarding experience.  The following are some of my observations on the summit, and its results.

Prime Minister Narendra Modi did a masterful job of balancing diverse interests and perspectives including those of three countries in active military confrontations, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Iran, as well as beautifully dealing with endemic border friction between the host country, India, which currently holds the presidency of the BRICS, and the Peoples’ Republic of China which will assume the presidency during 2027.  It seemed that Mr. Modi and Chinese President Xi were carefully laying the groundwork for strategic continuity among the BRICS community, a very welcome attitude. 

The Unanimous Joint Resolution addressed numerous critical issues, including many down to earth pragmatic projects that touch the everyday lives of their citizens in areas involving health, livelihood, culture and human rights.  There had been concerns that the increased membership of the BRICS, now comprising eleven full members: Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa, Egypt, Ethiopia, Iran, Indonesia, and the UAE; alongside ten partner nations, Belarus, Bolivia, Cuba, Kazakhstan, Malaysia, Nigeria, Thailand, Uganda, Uzbekistan and Vietnam, would render consensus unlikely and consensus is required because, unlike the European Union or the United Nations, unanimity is the rule, sovereignty and equality being a pillar of the group.  Of course, there was another possibility, that a forum more democratic and inclusive than that provided by the United Nations Security Council could, even if with divergent interests and goals, through compromise, consensus and real diplomacy among equals, attain social, political and economic objectives that have alluded older and more structured institutions, institutions where oligarchical constraints limit productive long term solutions.  Seemingly, at least for now, the latter succeeded thanks to the collaborative efforts of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Presidents Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping.

On the issue of dedolarization, the Indian perspective prevailed, perhaps because the European Union’s experience with the Euro has made BRICS members unwilling to follow suit, sovereignty in the European Union having become passé at best, but also because of two other important factors: first, India’s unwillingness to antagonize the United States, something with which a number of other members and partner nations concur, especially Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and now Bolivia; and secondly, because the BRICS countries have developed and are in the process of expanding fiscal solutions to the abuse of the United States dollar as the principal international means of exchange.  Chief among such emerging modalities are BRICS Pay, central bank digital currency proposals and, bilateral agreements such as those in place between the Russian Federation and the Peoples’ Republic of China as well as Iran and, the New Development Bank.

  • BRICS Pay is a collaborative cross-border payment system developed by the BRICS economic bloc to facilitate transactions using local national currencies while bypassing the U.S. dollar and Western-dominated networks like SWIFT.  BRICS Pay functions as a cloud-based connector linking national payment systems (such as Brazil’s Pix or China’s CIPS) enabling retail (QR code-based) and business to business transactions directly in member currencies, removing the need for a U.S. dollar intermediary.
  • Central bank digital currency proposals, under the leadership of India, seek to connect central bank digital currencies for smoother, dollar-independent cross-border tourism and trade settlements using blockchain technologies.  The plan focuses on connecting existing national fast payment systems and sovereign digital currencies rather than creating a new single currency union. The initiative builds on the 2025 Rio de Janeiro declaration which encouraged efficient and interoperable cross-border payment mechanisms within the bloc in order to lower transaction fees and bypass multiple intermediary banks for businesses, exporters, and travelers.
  • The BRICS New Development Bank already provides an alternative (albeit limited by capital constraints) for emerging and developing economies to the abusive controls imposed on loans through the United States controlled World Bank and International Monetary Fund.  It aims to fund infrastructure and sustainable development across emerging economies, positioning its future around local currency financing, digital asset integration and expanded cooperation among diverse economic states of development.  To date, the New Development Bank has provided alternative financing options for development projects across the Global South, having funded close to 100 projects totaling over $32 billion.  It is currently primarily funded by the Peoples’ Republic of China but new members Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates could, should they chose to do so, vastly increase its current capitalization.  An interesting indirect aspect of the existence and potential evolution of the New Development Bank may be the leverage it provides the BRICS with respect to making control over the World Bank and International Monetary Fund more democratic and their operations less intrusive, one of the goals set forth in the Joint Resolution.

Other very pragmatic proposals I found intriguing include the BRICS Global Value Chains Action Plan 2026–2030, an invoice discounting mechanism for trade finance; a dedicated micro, small, and medium enterprise digital platform launched by India during 2026 to connect users with access to knowledge, finance, and international markets; and, a micro, small, and medium enterprise cooperation portal and a startup innovation fund.  However. to me, the most important aspect was the call to resurrect international law, virtually assassinated by Israel and the United States, and to reform major international institutions such as the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, the International Monetary Fund which have never met the needs of the vast majority of the world’s population (almost half of which resides in BRICS member nations), but have instead, represented oligarchic interests interested in looting the less developed world and maintaining traditional privileges. 

The article by Pepe Escobar accessible through the following link shared below provides other interesting (although perhaps less optimistic) perspectives on what was a very important and well attended summit: https://geopoliticsprime.substack.com/p/history-on-a-roll-brics-yemen-hormuz?r=lwzkv&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web. It is worth reading.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution. Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television in both Colombia and abroad; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Nihilistic Pessimism

Posted on by
Reply

Lugubriously lethargic lassitude is the art form the legacy media has perfected on behalf of its masters to keep us from realizing what has happened to the world we hoped to leave as a legacy for our descendants, the world we thought we’d be able to glimpse and, at times enjoy, the world we were promised if we would just work hard and behave.

It is the hopeless state that assails us when we seek to exercise our political duties and go to the polls with no real choice at all, all the available candidates having already been bought and paid for with our money but certainly not for our benefit.

It is the residue we’re left with when those who own and control us abuse us, and we’re left without recourse in the face of their immune impunity.

It is our reaction when we are forced to realize that Jeffrey Epsteins rule our world through their bought and paid for proxies and that we can, at best, sit and watch as children are abused and Palestinians are slaughtered for fun and profit, hoping that the vision of German Lutheran pastor Martin Niemöller’s “First They Came” will not apply to us, at least not in the near future.

It is what being inside a societal black hole’s event horizon feels like for those not among the Chosen.  It is what being aware feels like in the Dystopia we live in, one where we sometimes envy those blissfully unaware among us, those who make it possible.  It is what we feel when we’ve come to realize that the metaphorical sign atop the gates of mythic Hell joyfully proclaiming the death of hope already apply to us.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Reflections on Dodger and the Late, Great, Sir Terry Pratchett

Posted on by
Reply

I’m reading Dodger, a sort of historical novel by Terry Pratchett, well, “Sir” Terry Pratchett, “the late” Sir Terry Pratchett.  I’m very fond of the author and his many novels and Dodger has many of the elements I most like in a novel: real historical characters, albeit in fictional settings, at least in part, although perhaps the most important parts; and, a protagonist that I find beguiling, whether or not I identify with him.  But so far Dodger has not dazzled me as it has the reviewers, may Sir Terry’s soul forgive me.

In part that’s because, as I do with all of Sir Terry’s novels, especially now that he is unlikely to write any more, I am stretching it out as long as I can and it may be that, because of that, it has not caught fire for me, and, at any rate, there are still over seventy pages to go, but, it feels contrived to me.  It involves a genre different than the one I associate with Pratchett novels and lacks the savage wit and comedy that usually generates a bit of uncontainable laughter, laughter of the out-loud variant, which makes it seem strange (although had it been written by another author, perhaps that reflection would not stand out as much).  But then again, I love historical novels of all kinds and by many different authors and most are not usually funny. 

I enjoy philosophical interventions in novels, interventions that lead me to reflect on the human condition and on my personal condition, and that aspect is seemingly present but for some reason it doesn’t resonate, at least not for me.  I don’t quite know why.  I thought, for an instant, that perhaps I was just angry at Sir Terry for having proven to be mortal and having left us (after all, he was born two years after I was) but that was just an excuse I made up.  I’m concurrently reading and enjoying a number of his other novels (Going Postal comes to mind). Actually, in some cases I’m rereading novels I first read decades ago.  Actually, some, half a century ago, when Terry Pratchett was both alive and a commoner, before he became first Sir Terry and then, the late Sir Terry. 

Of course, I’ve changed during those decades.  During that more than half century.  And not just once or twice and not slightly, but seemingly totally at times (several times).  And the current version of me does not enjoy things other versions loved (such as Robert Heinlein’s writing style).  I still love Terry Pratchett’s and I really enjoyed his collaborations with Neil Gaiman but Dodger has, so far, inexplicably fallen flat, at least for me, if not for the critics.  Then again, critics frequently panned Terry Pratchett’s novels, at least before he became Sir Terry, as they pan many works of literature, cinema and what was once the silver screen that I thoroughly enjoy (the older Star Trek series are examples (ntil Voyager and the change in focus that followed, which the critics loved).  

Well, I still have a bit over seventy pages to go and, who knows, perhaps suddenly in those seventy pages it will all come together for me.  An epiphany of sorts.  At any rate, for now, my apologies to Terry Pratchett and to Sir Terry, and to his ghost (who is most assuredly reading my writing and laughing, although perhaps not for the reasons I would most appreciate).

Interesting though that I decided to write this “reflection” before I finished Dodger leaving both me and the late, great, Sir Terry Pratchett somewhat of an “out”.  I think he would at least have chuckled at that.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Reflections on the Wisdom Attributed to Socrates and on the Wisdom of Chauncey Gardiner

Posted on by
Reply

“I neither know nor think that I know”[1]

The last part of my education, long after I’d attained degrees in political science, law and international legal studies, involved, in part, linguistics and, to my surprise, it vastly enhanced my grasp of the other disciplines I’d studied, as well as of communication in general, as though I’d previously been intellectually two dimensional but after grasping essential aspects of linguistics, I’d attained the ability to perceive and to express myself in three or four. That led me to understand how Noam Chomsky had managed to attain such profound wisdom concerning both society and human nature although, perhaps, not with respect to all of his associates.

Something similar had occurred to me many decades earlier when, towards the end of my initial degree in law, I’d taken an elective course in jurisprudence, a course which should really have been a mandatory first semester course.  Especially meaningful in that course was the section on Hohfeldian Terminology, a system of eight fundamental legal concepts created by American jurist Wesley Newcomb Hohfeld in 1913 to clarify ambiguous legal language, obviously an aspect of linguistics applied to law[2].  It is probably not very familiar to practicing attorneys today, although it should be.

Earlier in life I’d regretted not having studied higher mathematics as the little exposure I’d had in college to the field had led me to believe that most of us were largely blind, deaf and dumb with respect to the reality surrounding us.  For some reason, however, philosophy did not impacted me in the same manner, probably because it is so premise driven; i.e., given a premise accepted as accurate, logic leads to conclusions that seem brilliant but which usually have little to do with reality.  Indeed, the most important thing I learned of practical value while studying philosophy was that when predicted conclusions did not reflect reality, the premises were usually at fault.

I am now the sum of diverse currents having made many, many mistakes and learned from some of them, perhaps having gained at least a trace of wisdom in the process, especially, a willingness to accept that there is a great deal I don’t know and the ability to sometimes discern what it is that I don’t know.  Perhaps the most important thing I’ve learned is that an open mind is a wonderful thing but ought never to be confused with an absence of opinions and beliefs, all of which should be continuously put to the test; perhaps the test I learned from philosophy: if the expected results prove inaccurate, the drawing board needs to be revisited rather than ignored through a plethora of excuses.

Interestingly, the latter concept seems anathema in politics were an open mind is considered an indicia of the absence of principles, a trait popularly referred to as “waffling”.  Hence, a politician willing to reconsider his or her positions in light of experience is looked down upon as untrustworthy, something which does a lot to explain where we find ourselves: easily manipulated and unwilling to accept reality, even when it smacks us in the face. 

As opposed to politicians, great mathematicians and physicists are constantly testing their premises, something that seems a corollary to David Hume’s belief that absolute truth may be impossible to prove but that what he referred to as “conventions”, tools we use in lieu of truth for practical purposes, i.e., because they seem to work (until they cease to be reliable, at which point they are discarded), were good enough in the short term[3].

Socrates taught by feigning ignorance and pretending to seek knowledge from those he taught, among them Aristocles, who we know by his nickname, Plato.  Or perhaps, Socrates really did have an open mind and was misinterpreted, kind of like the character Chauncey Gardiner so well played by the late, great, Peter Sellers in the film, Being There.

_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

[1] Plato. (1997): Apology (H. Tarrant, Trans.) in J. M. Cooper (Ed.), Plato: Complete Works (Stephanus p. 21d). Hackett Publishing.

[2] Cullison, Alan D.: (1967): “A Review of Hohfeld’s Fundamental Legal Concepts”, 16 Clev.-Marshall L. Rev. 559; Cleveland, available at https://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2997&context=clevstlrev.

[3] Hume, David (1739–40; 2009 publication): A Treatise of Human Nature; Edited by P. H. Nidditch. Oxford: Clarendon Press.