Monthly Archives: May 2023

On the Coronation of Charles Philip Arthur George Mountbatten-Windsor (formerly Hanover)

Posted on by
Reply

Charles and I are of an age, albeit with drastically different life experiences. 

He has a warm spot in my heart, despite my leftist, democratic socialist political tendencies.  He visited my alma mater in Charleston, the Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, on two occasions a half century apart.  Once as a young prince in 1970, and then again, as the inchoate king of the Britons, in 2020.  On the latter occasion, my beloved alma mater granted him a degree honoris causa.  I’ve followed his difficult life (despite all the wealth, privileges and trappings) closely, and have come to believe that in many ways, it is an allegorical reflection of our times.

He has been criticized, often, too often unfairly, for whatever he does and doesn’t do, in the “heads I win, tails you lose” manner now prevalent in the corporate media and among the faux leftists who for some reason or another, have decided that only they are conscious, and have consciences, that they are the repositories of virtue and morality despite their consistent failure to attain any of their supposed goals, and instead, have succeeded only in generating intolerance, hatred and polarization, while permitting the worst among us to continue to rule unabated.

That’s sort of weird, given that Charles’ background is exactly what the worst among us aspire to possess.  Still, while Charles has the trappings, they have the power.

I am confessedly among the minority who find that his late, former-wife, Diana, was among the most egocentrically frivolous and devious among us, which of course, made her a media darling.  That she used Charles to ascend the social ladder she so craved, and that once there, she sought to ensconce herself, at his expense, and even at the expense of her purportedly beloved children (who she primarily raised through self-serving photo ops).  But she did it with such grace and style that the commons loved her, regardless of her obvious “indiscretions.  She was an inverse Cinderella, … or was that Camila.  And what does the adjective “inverse” do to the concept I seek to portray anyway?

Charles was the victim of duty every second of every minute of every hour of every day of his life.  The “Duty” which prevented him, for a long time, from being the husband of perhaps the only woman he ever loved, and instead, being placed in a loveless and counterproductive marriage, which, like a plague, still refuses to set him free, even after the death of his “fairy tale” wife, “fairy tale”, but not in a good way.  He was subservient to his mother, as he was duty bound to be, and it seemed as though he would never attain his own, independent destiny, and even as he was crowned “King”, perhaps he never will.  He’ll be an afterthought, a cipher, an interregnum, and one tainted at that.  At least among the “woke”.

To me he has been, is, and I think will continue to be a symbol of courage and duties honored under difficult circumstances, all too often in no win situations that refuse to grant him the status of “human” we all proudly claim as our own.  But that’s the nature of monarchy, and of real monarchs, and of real men, at least as men were once defined.  Not as selfish, self-centered misogynists, but as chivalrous defenders and providers for their families, their communities and their nations.  Not perfect by any means, but compared to his brother Andy and his youngest son harry; compared to his late, former wife, Charles is a complex human being deserving of admiration, not because of but notwithstanding his royal standing.

I like the newly crowned King, I’ll confess it, but as a person, not as the crystallization of the purported aristocrats among whom he was born and who from now on, will surround and seek to suffocate him more than ever.

If I were a believer, which I may or may not be, I’ve never been sure (other than that I am not a believer in the religion “created” by the egregious Saul of Tarsus), I would end this, and perhaps I will, whispering “God Save the King”!
_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2023; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) 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.  He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com.  He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (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 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/.

Supercilious Sally

Posted on by
Reply

Supercilious Sally is a proud member of the “woke” generation; those morally enlightened and superior intellectuals so willing to sacrifice their time to show others just how evil and mean spirited they are. 

In honor of her non-white brethren, she spends inordinate amounts of time in tanning parlors, and wears expensive designer-ripped jeans and African-style jewelry and sandals.  And she permed her hair too.  She’s a frequent Vegan, but not religious about it, sometimes a great piece of meat really hits the spot, especially if no one is looking, and lobster and crab and shrimp, yummm.

Speaking of religion, she’s not religious, although she is spiritual, … well, … in her own way.    Religion, after all, is a scam, unless it’s way-out, alien oriented religion, then, as long as it’s not Scientology, it’s fine.  Her’s is the inverse “white-man’s-burden”, teaching white men how horrible they are is her primary calling, especially her “white, male-chauvinist” dad from whom she and her mother, his ex-wife, have to extract the money they require to fund their work, teaching others how much further they needed to go to attain enlightenment, and to fund their lifestyles of course.  Okay, they need to extract as much money as possible from him, he doesn’t deserve what he earns anyway, no matter how long and hard he works.  They have much more meaningful uses for his income.  And they really, really need it.  When you want something enough, it’s the same as a need.  And she is kind to her dad, on his birthdays she’s taken to telling him that despite all his faults, she doesn’t hate him.  Not really.  Not all the time.

She does not refer to herself as supercilious, just “Sammy” (she did not like “Sally”, it was way too Caucasian).  It was her mirror which coined that silly “supercilious” sobriquet, and it was only adopted by those around her who were not among the enlightened.  She tells everyone to just call her “Sammy”, for some reason, believing it implies that she’s part black.  She may be right as far as her heart and soul are concerned.  But there are those who just call her “Silly Sally”, something she hates, and she hates them, albeit in a sort benevolent manner, at least in a manner of speaking.

She’s a busy young woman with all her rallies and protests and all, especially those that might get a tiny bit out of control, with a bit of rioting and justified looting, perhaps even a bit of arson, and if some of those white-male-chauvinist small business owners get injured, well, it’s their own damned fault for not having seen the light; for not having grasped the urgency of admitting their moral and ethical inferiority.  Damned money grubbers!  She’s proud not to be among the employed which gives her time for her non-credit, self-improvement classes and social media policing and censoring activities, activities for which she receives a stipend of sorts from generous and enlightened Democratic Party supporters, especially those affiliated with the wonderful Clinton Foundation and the enlightened George Soros. 

She’s sort of sexually promiscuous, when she can find someone woke enough and still capable of performing oral sex for hours on end, an activity she proudly disdains.  She’s usually not into intercourse, she will not contribute to over-population, in fact, she’s a proud abortion veteran having undergone procedures five times already (and she’s not yet twenty-three).  She’s not one of those fake activists who only talk about things, she’s an active participant in the prochoice movement.  If not for her need to engage in abortion generating activities, she’d be a lesbian with a black girlfriend, or better yet, “trans”.  She’s a trans-activist too.

She’s at odds with her mother for not having engaged in more productive interracial, extramarital sexual activities, ones where she might have been born black and perhaps even seemingly poor, not too poor, but poor enough to be able to hold it over other people’s heads at rallies.  And to qualify for minority set asides and affirmative action programs.  Perhaps she’ll find an interactive videogame into which she can subsume herself as the virtual personality she wishes she was, that she imagines she is, that she does all she can to appear to be, but without the related unpleasantness; and as long as it doesn’t take too much effort.

She loves the new trends in entertainment where the new norms require that the cast and characters be totally integrated, racially, religiously, sexually and morally; hopefully sometime soon, society will reflect Hollywood’s new paradigms.  And she’s all for removing all that inconvenient history.  She read somewhere that someone, George something or other, had a character in one of his novels who claimed that “if you can control the past, you can control the present and the future”, so she’s among those who demands that history be changed to suit their whims of the moment, after all, to her and her friends, history should be dynamic rather than static.  And creative history is best of all.

They’re the “woke”, and proud of it!
_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2023; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) 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.  He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com.  He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (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 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/.

Trump, Clinton and the Dystopian New York Penal System

Posted on by
Reply

Former president Donald Trump has been indicted by a politicized Manhattan grand jury handpicked by New York County District Attorney Alvin Bragg for misclassifying a purported political expense, a settlement payment to a porn star, as a business and legal expense, while former presidential candidate Hillary Clinton and her campaign staff and attorneys, who were in fact sanctioned for classifying the funding and distribution of the infamous Steele dossier as a legal expense, not only got a pass, but publicly revel in the difference.  As does most of the corporate media, as do Democrats everywhere.

So, aside from political affinities, what is the difference between these two situations?

Well, the Trump situation involved an issue not necessarily tied to politics and thus, not illegal in any sense.  It could well have involved an expense classifiable as involving business or personal factors and should perhaps be classified as the response of a victim of blackmail and extortion entitled to protection under the penal system.  On the other hand, there is no doubt about the nature of the Clinton expenditure, a political expense involving a fraudulent campaign disguised as a legal fee, thus, the case against Ms. Clinton and her campaign organization is much stronger.  Other than that, not one thing.  Well, Trump is despised by the Deep State and Mrs. Clinton is their idol although both Mr. Trump and Ms. Clinton are unpleasant and unsavory characters.  But justice is supposedly blind, albeit purportedly in a positive sense, stressing its neutrality, not in a negative sense involving utter incoherence, hypocrisy and malfeasance.

The 2016 electoral cycle was a wakeup call, but not in a good way.  The People, fed up, reacted in a manner much different than that anticipated by the corporate media and traditionalist politicians in both major United States political parties.  They made it clear that they were prepared for real change.  But rather than correct the injustice, inefficiency, corruption and misfeasance that led to the revolt by the electorate, from both the left (the Sanderistas) and the right (the Tea Party), a massive reactionary campaign was launched by traditionalist politicians in both major political parties to silence populists of all bents, to censor opposition to Deep State (i.e., Democratic Party) candidates, to facilitate a market in electoral ballots, and thus to assure a satisfactory, predetermined electoral outcome.  Further, in order to preemptively quell furor over the foregoing, a massive prosecutorial campaign was implemented, with agent provocateurs insidiously planted, to insure that electoral protests would not be permitted to spread.  Instead, the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the justice system spread a veil of silence, promptly dismissing, usually on procedural grounds, all legal actions seeking to demonstrate the existence of electoral irregularities, making it impossible to determine if enough irregularities took place to change electoral outcomes.  Something we will now never know, although many have strong suspicions.

The results of the 2020 elections were profoundly satisfying to the Deep State.  Mission accomplished.  The attempted mini-revolt that seemed brewing in 2022, was at least minimized.  Now 2024 is looming, and the Deep State, fearful of another revolt in 2024, as implied by most polling data, is seeking to limit opposition to its candidates, not just through control over available information, but also through abuse of the legal system, and it may work. 

Mr. Trump, to the dismay of many, the disgust of some and the panic of others, is once again running for president.  But unlike 2016, he seems a much stronger candidate; certainly within the GOP.  That is in large part because of the horrendous performance of the Biden administration in every possible sense, but, it’s loyalty to the Deep State is unquestionable, hence, Mr. Biden will also apparently run again.  And Mr. Trump may well defeat him, if given a chance to run.  Which is why litigation, both penal and civil, is being resorted to by those who have good cause to fear his return to power.  Mrs. Clinton?  Much as she might wish she were still relevant, she seems to have been consigned to a role as an embittered relic of days we wish were gone-by but which, unfortunately, have just changed some of the cast.  Of course, perhaps one should beware of the “walking dead”.

What a world in which Messers. Trump and Biden and the ghosts conjured by Mrs. Clinton are the candidates offered up to lead the purportedly free world, especially when there are people like Tulsi Gabbard and Dennis Kucinich and Even, Joseph Kennedy IV available as alternatives, but there you have it; we are collectively up the creek with no paddles in sight.

Sooo, in conclusion, an imprisoned candidate in the United States is precluded from conducting a political campaign, and in many states, from being on the ballot.  That, clearly, seems to be the Deep State’s ultimate backup strategy for 2024. 

Which explains all the Trump related litigation and the dichotomy in Mr. Bragg’s approach to law enforcement.
_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2023; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet) 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.  He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review, available at Substack.com.  He has academic degrees in political science (the Citadel), law (St. John’s University), international legal studies (New York University) and translation and linguistic studies (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 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/.