I’ve done many things over the years and I’ve lived in many places. Until 2016 I chaired the Political Science, Government and International Relations Program at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales in the Republic of Colombia where I taught political science (human rights law, international and supranational law, constitutional theory, government and comparative political systems, history of political ideas, and, North American Studies), served as an English resource to faculty members, translated academic papers, and participated in development of international faculty and student exchange programs for the university. I periodically serve as a political commentator on local media and continue to be active as a writer and artist as well as a translator and interpreter. My university degrees are in political science, law, international legal studies and translation studies. I am active political matters both locally and internationally and have a passion for world affairs and history. I’ve sought spiritual enlightenment all my life but have yet to find definitive answers; I have, however, found an ever increasing and worthwhile, series of questions to speculate on. I am very drawn to the beauty, simplicity and justice of the Wiccan Reede. I love music, dancing, writing, reading, drawing, equestrian sports, tennis and softball. I maintain a warm and supportive ongoing relationship with my three sons in the USA. I was married twice with one serious relationship between the two marriages and also had several wonderful recent relationships. I dislike jealousy and respect the importance of private space and continuing individual growth; however, I also value loyalty and honesty very much and treasure affection.
Of all the beliefs attributed to Yešu the Nazarene, none alienated him more from mainstream Judaism and indeed, from his Roman masters than did his profound belief in equity, equality and justice, beliefs that in the economic sphere are, given the attitudes of his modern followers, especially in the United States, profoundly ironic and indeed, oxymoronic. And they were not just beliefs but practices, both during his life among his apostles and, after his demise, in the Jerusalem community briefly led by his brother James until the movement was corrupted and perverted into the modern concepts collectively referred to as “Christianity” by Saul of Tarsus, a man who, according to Jewish lore, lore reflected in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmuds but also in the series of alternative gospels known under the collective name of the Toledot Yeshu, was a Jewish mole in the Nazarene movement whose mission it was to separate followers of Yešu from mainstream Judaism, something in which Saul, better known to “Christians” as “Paul”, was eminently successful.
Most people in the United States and Europe who consistently use the term “communism” have no idea what it entails, just as they have no idea what “socialism” or “fascism” entail, believing only that they are evil totalitarian political and economic philosophies. That they are merely pejoratives to be indiscriminately hurled against those that they oppose, regardless of how incoherent the context. Their ignorance is not their fault, it has been carefully cultivated by both Jewish leaders and the leaders of “Christianity”, the movement established by Saul of Tarsus which captured and distorted the movement founded by Yešu, the Nazarene. “Communism” is the direct reflection of Yešu’s teachings to the effect that we should share what we have with those less fortunate and that no one should accumulate more than is needed, especially if doing so deprives others of necessities. Needles and camels come to mind. That is also the premise of socialism. Neither communism nor socialism have anything to do with totalitarianism, or with authoritarianism, or with dictatorship, or with tyranny although, as in the case of capitalism, neoliberalism, globalism, etc., those negative antilibertarian control features have been combined with economic doctrines in order to maintain elites in power. And Yešu’s economic philosophies had nothing to do with maintaining elites in power. Rather they urged leveling of the playing field and equality and equity for all, with justice tempered by mercy. Remember, he preferred the company of sinners to that of hypocrites.
Of course, Yešu’s philosophies were quickly overwhelmed and subsumed by those of Saul of Tarsus, and eventually, by those of numerous Catholic Popes and then, by the philosophies incoherently evolved by followers of Martin Luther and John Calvin in Yešu’s name, e.g., the Protestant ethic and capitalism. How Yešu must hate that, especially if he is the being who his purported followers believe him to be. How Yešu must despise neoliberalism and globalism and neoconservatism. How disappointed he must be that his teachings have, for the most part, been so completely perverted. How shocked he must be as his purported followers support genocide, and ethnic cleansing and apartheid and eschew tolerance.
Yešu, ironically given modern perceptions, was a dedicated communist. I am not a believer in the divinity of Yešu but I profoundly respect and admire what he tried to teach us and regret that as in the song “Vincent” written by Don McLean as a tribute to Vincent van Gogh, “…. They would not listen, they’re not listening still; perhaps they never will”.
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. 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/.
Rather than continue to concentrate on academic research, a lengthy process that takes too long and on the resulting complicated articles, frequently involving technical language and complex grammatical structure that, when eventually published, have lost relevancy as critical time has elapsed, I have, during the past decade, concentrated on more immediate journalistic-style articles, published quickly, frequently too quickly to proofread adequately, but available while they still maintain relevance. I firmly believe that length in such politically oriented articles detracts from their effectiveness as excessively long articles, even when their length is a result of efforts to attain objectivity and provide important context, are rarely finished by potential readers. And this article is longer than I wish it were. A lot longer. But, given the existentially troubling historical instant in which we find ourselves, it has kept growing and growing, almost as though of its own volition, and I can’t bring myself to cull it. Hopefully at least some readers will find it worth the effort to finish reading. Of course, this introduction does nothing to cut it down to size.
Anyway, ….
During the past eight years I’ve, on a number of occasions, published articles defending Donald Trump from scurrilous, defamatory distortions and calumnies by his opponents and from the Biden administration’s abuse of state and federal judicial proceedings, both penal and civil, designed to eliminate him as a political opponent and to attain revenge on him for the political humiliation of Hillary Clinton. However, as I always made clear, I was not a Trump supporter. Nor am I now.
While I’ve always found Donald Trump’s personality abrasive and egocentric, that is not really an objectively reasonable basis for opposing him. One can support people one does not like and if one strives for objectivity and seeks truth, then whether or not one personally likes or dislikes someone should not impact conclusions one reaches with respect to their abilities or performance. Still, on a personal basis I had some axes to grind with respect to Mr. Trump and in the interests of full disclosure, I will share them before proceeding with my analysis. Mr. Trump and I both graduated in 1964 from rival military academies in New York, he from the New York Military Academy (NYMA) and I from the Eastern Military Academy (EMA). Notwithstanding our rivalry, members of both institutions shared deep respect and affection for each other, especially after the demise of EMA in 1979 when NYMA took our alumni association under its wing. My personal gripe with Mr. Trump is that when NYMA found itself about to close because of financial difficulties its leaders, including leading alumni, asked Mr. Trump for assistance and he ignored their request, something a graduate from a military academy ought never to do if he or she has the wherewithal to assist. But that is a personal choice and declining to act was his right. Then, however, when he first sought the Republican nomination for the presidency, he elected to give his first foreign and military affairs speech at the Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina, from which I graduated in 1968, and there, he touted his wonderful experience with the military education he received at NYMA. The hypocrisy offended me and I made that publicly clear at the time. Ironically, NYMA was sold in bankruptcy to the Research Center on Natural Conservation, a non-profit backed by a principal of China-based SouFun Holdings Ltd., and reopened after a two year hiatus during November of 2017. So it was the Chinese, rather than Mr. Trump, that saved his “beloved” alma mater.
I, of course, am not the only one who finds Mr. Trump unpalatable. He scares the hell out of the unelected classes that rule us through their control of the federal bureaucracy, the federal judiciary and the corporate media, an “informal conglomerate whose opponents, I among them, refer to it as the “Deep State”. The members of the Deep State are terrified of Mr. Trump because he seems economically incorruptible, despite his ruthless business practices, and because of his unpredictability. And they are terrified that his appeal to many, perhaps a majority of the American electorate, may solidify rejection of politics-as-usual and accelerate a drift from both the left and the right wings of the political spectrum towards democratic populism. Mr. Trump is reactive and easily changes his mind as to details and his recall of past events and past statements is incomprehensible and easily distortable. At best he seems to have an extremely “flexible” memory. He is egocentric and abusive in his demeanor and either fails to understand concepts such as “communism” and “socialism” or perhaps merely prefers to distort them as emotionally useful pejoratives. Indeed, to Mr. Trump, pejoratives are an art form. But, despite his faults, he is his own man (except when it comes to emotional and family ties which, unfortunately, make him subservient to the most immoral force in the world today, the genocidal wing of international Zionism) and such unpredictability and independence is intolerable to those used to placing their own puppets in the Oval Office.
Mr. Trump is a man with a very public history spanning many decades and many forums. Notwithstanding my personal negative feelings towards him as a person, I admit that in many, perhaps most respects he was an effective president during his first term and I acknowledge that his first administration was deliberately sabotaged from within and without by people whose loyalties are not to the United States but to the aforementioned Deep State; people who could not abide his threats to withdraw from the purportedly defensive North Atlantic Treaty Organization (“NATO”), an institution that had not only become anachronistic at the end of the First Cold War but had morphed into an aggressive (rather than defensive) permanent threat to world peace as it sought missions to justify its existence. In addition, Mr. Trump earned the enmity of the Deep State because of his early threats to massively reduce the enormous complex of foreign military bases that drain the American economy and promote constant United States meddling in the affairs of other countries, an action that would permit a substantial reduction in the United States’ bloated military budget, in essence a massive tax on the United Sates citizenry for the sole benefit of investors, officers, directors and contractor of the military industrial complex against which Ike warned in late 1960.
After Mr. Trump’s surprising victory in 2026, his opponents, rather than successfully confronting him on policy grounds relating to the foregoing (they tried but failed as such policies resonated with a majority of the electorate), successfully sabotaged his administration through three principal strategies, first, from within, by a continuous streams of leaks by firmly ensconced moles planted by former president Obama to unfriendly media accompanied by a refusal to implement his policies, the foregoing accompanied by a national campaign of resistance to Mr. Trump’s policies coordinated on Mr. Obama’s behalf by his former attorney general, Eric Holder. Second, by claiming that Mr. Trump was secretly a Russian agent, a Manchurian candidate planted by Vladimir Putin, a strategy developed and financed by the defeated Clinton presidential campaign with the assistance of Deep State moles but third, and most successfully, it was sabotaged by the orchestrated Democratic Party reaction to the Covid 19 “pandemic”, something that now appears to have been “manufactured” (the reaction, not the disease) in order to damage the world economy in order to facilitate Democratic Party victories in the 2018 Congressional elections and the 2020 presidential election. Not that Covid 19 was not a serious virus, just that the mandatory vaccine demands and the related closing down of commercial activities were orchestrated for purposes with little to do with public health and welfare (unless of course, you were an investor, officer, director or contractor of one or more of the entities comprising what is now known as “Big Pharma”).
As a result of the foregoing, Mr. Trump was successfully driven from office in 2020 in what was certainly a profoundly manipulated election, one very much impacted by Covid 19 related emergency electoral strategies that facilitated the possibility of widespread electoral fraud. Whether or not any such fraud existed or was enough to have changed the electoral results is something we will never know as all efforts at investigating related allegations were promptly dismissed as a “Big Lie”, and groups and individuals who protested against the electoral results, most notably on January 6, 2021, were labelled insurrectionists and domestic terrorists and prosecuted as such. In order to assure that Mr. Trump did not again threaten the Deep State, he was twice impeached by the House of Representatives (but never convicted by the Senate), once, shortly before he left office. When such legislative efforts to disqualify him from future political office proved unsuccessful, the new Democratic Party administration and its allies, especially in New York, Georgia and Arizona, launched a series of legal actions, both penal and civil, seeking to destroy his ability to run for the presidency in 2024 but, despite some success in very legally questionable proceedings, the electorate was in what Abraham Lincoln might have described as “you can’t fool all of us all of the time” mode and, imitating the mythic Lazarus and despite news reports and political polls, he emerged victorious in the 2024 presidential elections and is once again about to take office as president of the United States, but this time, apparently much more careful as to whom he selects to assist him as members of his administration. Indeed, to popular acclaim, he has promised to purge the federal bureaucracy of the moles who made it impossible for him to implement his policies during his initial term; something that has his opponents terrified and seeking presidential pardons from the outgoing president for crimes they may have committed and for which they might be prosecuted in the future.
At any rate ….
Donald Trump, like Grover Cleveland, will serve a split presidency but unlike Grover Cleveland, the Republican Party whose candidate he was will also enjoy the support of both houses of Congress. The electorate has totally rejected the horrible, even malign performance of the Democratic Party during the last four years and has elected the Republican Party to lead all branches of government. However, the perspective that Trump allies will have a free hand in governance is an illusion, a fallacy, one Mr. Trump may not perceive. Specifically:
The three seat majority in the Senate is an illusion given that “Republican” senators Bill Cassidy from Louisiana, Susan Collins from Maine and Lisa Murkowski from Alaska have clearly demonstrated their antipathy for Mr. Trump in the past and are likely to do so again and Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky is a true libertarian maverick who may well oppose not only financing of Ukraine’s conflict with Russia but also Israel’s genocide throughout the Middle East. Given the foregoing, when James David Vance assumes the vice-presidency in January, he may have his hands full breaking senatorial ties, especially with respect to confirmation of Mr. Trump’s cabinet.
The narrow majority attained by the Republican Party in the House of Representatives is also illusory, first, given Donald Trump’s selection of important members of his administration from the incoming Republican membership in the House, albeit from apparently secure districts likely to elect Republican Party members as replacements, and, because of the infighting among traditionalist and libertarian factions within the Republican members of the House. Unlike the House members from the Democratic Party who vote as a monolithic block under strict control from party leaders, Republicans tend to stand by their sometimes conflicting ideals and are clearly divided between traditionalists who have more in common with their Democratic Party colleagues than they do with Mr. Trump, Tea Party Trump allies, and ethical independents. The GOP majority in the House of Representatives will temporarily be reduced from five members to one due to the presidential nominations and anticipated appointments and despite the historical fact that the districts from which they come have large Republican majorities, it can be anticipated that there will be a massive influx of “temporary” Democratic Party affiliated residents who will seek to vote in the related special elections, as occurred in Georgia during the 2020 special runoff elections for the Senate, thus putting the results of the special elections to replace the Republican congressmen entering the executive branch into question.
The federal judiciary has been packed with politicized judges loyal to the Democratic Party (as are judiciaries in states controlled by the Democratic Party) and many of them, enough of them, can be counted on to do that political party’s bidding rather than to function in an ethically neutral manner. Then again, partisanship is no stranger to Republican Party members of the judiciary. However, as demonstrated by the large scale lawfare attacks against Mr. Trump and his allies during the past eight years, judges and prosecutors loyal to the Democratic Party are much more likely to abuse their positions for partisan purposes. The unconstitutional usurpation of power by federal judges from both parties through the issuance of injunctions that apply beyond the territorial jurisdiction of their courts poses an additional weapon likely to be used to obstruct policies that Mr. Trump will seek to implement in his second administration.
The federal bureaucracy at all levels and in all departments is riddled with moles planted at the direction of former presidents William Jefferson Clinton, Barak Obama and now Joe Biden who will leak like sieves and do everything in their power to obstruct the implementation of Trump administration policies and to make Trump loyalist seem like the incarnation of evil. That is especially true with respect to the intelligence agencies which have more and more directly controlled the United States government since the mid nineteen forties and which orchestrated Mr. Trump’s ouster from government in 2020, and in the ill named Department of Justice. They are, in all probability, not chastened by having been forced to come out from hiding and then having been rejected by the sane among us in the last elections. Frank Church; where are you when we need you?
Notwithstanding having completely ignored or ridiculed, the allegations by Tara Reade, a former Biden staffer, that while a Senator, Mr. Biden had raped her, and then, that the Biden Justice Department had hounded her into seeking asylum in Russia, allegations involving even consensual sexual activities involving men associated with Mr. Trump will once again become salient and the moribund #MeToo movement, like Lazarus, will rise from the dead. Witness the successful attack on Mr. Trump’s initial choice to lead the Department of Justice on the current attacks on his nominee to lead the Department of Defense.
Last but not least, the media, designated as either mainstream (a fallacy), corporate or legacy, and the owners of the Internet’s major platforms with the exception of X (formerly Twitter) will obstruct Mr. Trump at every turn, except, perhaps when he is doing the bidding of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) by which both the Democratic and Republican parties are controlled.
As to specific policies, many of the policies espoused by Mr. Trump seem reasonable to me although in too many cases, they are focused on symptoms rather than on the causes of the critical problems the United States currently faces and even more so, with the problems that will confront it in the future. His proposed appointment of Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy as unpaid advisors in an informal new “Department of Government Efficiency” (“DOGE”) is an extremely timely and necessary move, as are his nominations of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., to lead the Department of Health and Human Services and Tulsi Gabbard as Director of National Intelligence, in each case, charged with reforming corruption and abuse riddled government institutions largely responsible for the loss of faith by the United States electorate in the ability of government to protect them from monopolistic abuses in the pharmaceutical and agro industries as well as for the state of perpetual war which is making nuclear annihilation a distinct possibility.
To me, Mr. Trump’s major drawback, and it is existential, is the control over him exercised by the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), but then, AIPAC controls both the Democratic and Republican parties. It has turned the United States from at least the illusion of a beacon of liberty, democracy and justice into an accomplice in ethnic cleansing, apartheid and genocide as evil as that of Turkey in Armenia at the beginning of the twentieth century and Germany during the second war to end all wars (World War II). In the latter case I note with interest that the obviously flagrantly distorted and inaccurate current mass propaganda in favor of Israel’s current campaign of genocide in the Middle East is leading some of the more objective among us to wonder just how accurate Zionist propaganda following World War II, now calcified as purported history, really was and is. Is it possible that those who doubt the accuracy with which German atrocities have been reported have a point? Until recently that was unthinkable. Now? They may be worth reexamining. Thus, in foreign affairs, Mr. Trump’s promises present an incoherent and dangerous dichotomy. On the one hand, he claims to oppose war and interference in the domestic political affairs of other countries but there’s a glaring exception where anything to do with the State of Israel is involved. There, he is as subject to domination by AIPAC as are the leaders of the Democratic Party and that means full support for the Israeli genocide, ethnic cleansing and lebensraum in the Middle East that has been taking place since 1948, something which, as heretofore alluded, raises serious questions with respect to most of what we’ve been taught about the Second World War, the Holocaust, the Nuremburg Tribunals and the existence of human rights and international law.
Another problematic complex of issues involving Mr. Trump involve his penchant for international “economic” warfare using a combination of tariffs and sanctions as well as abuse of international monetary and banking institutions to attain the geopolitical objectives he espouses. Such tactics have proven problematic in the past and have been abused in a bipartisan manner with results that the legendary “Murphy” (he of Murphy’s Law) might envy. Reactions to economic sanctions imposed by the United States and its allies on their adversaries, sanctions violative of the United Nations Charter and international law (or what passes for the illusion of international law) have led most countries, especially in what is becoming known as the Global South, to align with China, Russia and other United States adversaries in a quest for a multipolar rather than hegemonic world order and that primarily involves abandonment of the United States dollar as the principle means of exchange in international commerce. Mr. Trump has aggressively asserted that he intends to continue to rely on such tactics to maintain the supremacy of the United States dollar in international trade and against the rise of the “Global South” and the proposed multipolar world order, especially with reference to the evolution of the BRICS economic alliance. All of such inclinations promise disastrous consequences not only for the United States but for the entire world and belie respect for human rights, equity and state equality in the international sphere. Bulls rampaging in china shops come to mind.
Mr. Trump is admittedly a far better choice in every aspect as the prospective president of the United States than was Kamala Harris or Joe Biden. And that is as true today as it was in 2020, and as accurate as it was with respect to Mrs. Clinton in 2016, but that is not synonymous with the assertion that Mr. Trump is a good or even a decent choice. He is not. However the United States political system, one dominated by two political parties, neither of which is independent of the billionaire class that owns them or of AIPAC which controls their foreign affairs in alliance with the military industrial complex, is, at best, dysfunctional and at worst, a force for inequity, inequality and injustice, both domestically and internationally. As structured and protected by discriminatory federal and state legislation and with judicial decisions incompatible with constitutional guarantees of equal protection, the current United States political system assures only that the most competent and decent among us will rarely if ever attain our highest political offices.
And here we stand, for as long as “here” lasts, just as Eric Arthur Blair, writing under the pen name “George Orwell”, predicted in 1948 when he published his seminal novel, 1984. _____
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. 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/.
Ladies and gentlemen, we present this sort of satirically sordid tale for your amusement and entertainment. It may or may not be based on fact, that’s a matter of perspective, and the names may or may not have been changed to protect the innocent. Or the guilty. Once again, a matter of perspective.
Let’s begin:
Deius Clandestinius Amorphus, the eighty seventh of that designation in his dynasty, glanced languidly at his twenty seventh consort, soon to be his eighth wife, junior grade, at least for the time being. Time would tell how high she rose or how far she fell. Hard to predict at the moment as she had just turned twelve (or so she claimed, she looked much closer to fifty) and he was just short of eighty-three. He was not an emperor, or a king, or a prince, or even a duke. Rather, he was an ascendant file clerk at the small law firm of Blathers & Associates. Small but successful, a boutique firm specializing in electoral manipulation. Sly, as he preferred to be called given all the syllables and numbers in his name, was the eighth cousin, thrice removed, of Yackoff Stanton, the senior associate in the firm to whom he owed his position with its attendant salary and more importantly, its fringe benefits. Yackoff, in turn, was aspiring and constantly plotting to ascend to the position of most junior partner, a position long unfilled as the firm was bereft of any partners at all, Mrs. Blather not being keen on having to share her authority with anyone else, not since she had attained her current position upon the death of her husband, Slayton Armington Blathers, the great grandson thrice removed of the firm’s founder.
Like Kamala (that was the impending bride’s name), Mrs. Blathers had once also been a consort but had ascended to the role of junior wife from which she had clawed and seduced her way to senior wife-once-removed, further ascending to senior wife when her predecessor succumbed to a strange and inexplicable stomached ailment after tea and crumpets or some such dainty brought to her by her ladies in waiting, the current Mrs. Blathers among them, … perhaps fortuitously. The current widow Blathers did not care for tea or crumpets or for any other such dainties, perhaps because her own husband had suffered a fate similar to that suffered by her own predecessor soon after the dowager Blathers had become senior wife. Some considered it interesting that the latest Mrs. Blathers first name was Lucretia, … but that’s another story.
Sly was a diligent and dedicated employee whose principle responsibility involved the destruction of electoral records (or what for a brief instant in time had passed as electoral records), before their authenticity could be verified, which he did in coordination with numerous county clerks’ and electoral supervisors’ offices in what had once been the State of California (in what had once been a federal republic of sorts). That’s what made him such a catch and explained his numerous concubines and wives, that and the fact that he was the youngest elder in the Reformed Orthodox California Church of All Saints and Assorted Personages, Nancy Pelosi chapter. Nancy Pelosi had long been Lucretia’s favorite saint.
Because of the sinecure involved, Sly had never aspired to become even the most junior deputy associate twice removed, much less a partner. He not only knew on which side his bread was buttered, but also where the jam and honey and peanut butter and cream cheese were hidden. Sly had no children, none at all, but he did have quite a few cousins in varying degrees of consanguinity. Nor did he plan on ever having any children if he could help it. He did, however, have one cat, a very old and very cranky cat, one who mainly slept and ate nowadays, or perhaps, she always had. And snarled, snarled a lot, definitely snarled. He had, for reasons unknown or at least never admitted, named her Hillary.
Lucretia liked neither Hillary nor Kamala, being, for some reason, of a very suspicious nature, nor did she like Yackoff although he was her stepsister’s great grandson, nor did she like Sly but Sly managed to remain largely unnoticed. Truth be told, except for her admiration for St. Nancy, Lucretia did not seem to like anyone, anyone at all. And Lucretia kept no pets, she was suspicious of animals as well. She just sort of kept to herself, counting her ever increasing virtual mountains of bitcoins, a sort of female Scrooge McDuck but without that billionaire avian’s sense of adventure. She had once been eerily beautiful but now, despite numerous facelifts and other aesthetic procedures, people who somehow or other managed to navigate the complex labyrinth of security in which she was ensconced all too frequently mistook her for a rare pallid walking and talking prune (although the talking was mainly limited to “who the Hell are you and how did you get in here!!!”). Still, she was a competent albeit not a creative administrator and the firm prospered, although there were those who nervously whispered, mainly to themselves, that the firm ran itself. That, of course, was not true, it was run by a virtual artificial intelligence project, a joint project really, one referred to as “AG Holder” by those who knew of it. A joint project devised by a cabal of former intelligence agency leaders and former presidents of what had once been a federal republic.
It was ironic that given the reality that with the demise of that once-upon-a-time federal republic, elections had no meaning and thus, there was really no need to manipulate them, but the firm’s success had been deemed a work of art and a natural treasure (in California), and thus, elections continued to be held and, as sure as the fact that the sun was likely to both rise and set, even though it could rarely be seen through the California smog, electoral results were artfully delayed for longer and longer periods of time, time during which Sly and his coterie of county clerks and electoral “supervisors” danced their dance of many veils.
As the nuptials for Sly and Kamala approached, Oprah, Sly’s current senior wife fretted. She always fretted concerning her weight which seemed involved in a mysterious game of give and take, but now she fretted about Kamala, until recently her latest “bestest” friend. A “bestest” friend who certainly paid well for being befriended.
“What if for some reason or other the wedding was called off”? How, wondered Oprah, would that affect their blossoming relationship?
Elsewhere, similar thoughts were occurring to Kamala.
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. 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/.
Deity based divinity, especially the anthropomorphic variants, beg the question as to whether such divinity or divinities were the creators, or were, in fact, created by those who worship him, her, it or them. That he, she, it or they are derivative emanations made manifest and empowered by at least some of us ourselves.
If the latter case, then it seems that they were created through the energy expended by their earliest worshipers amplified through mass rituals and, unfortunately, at least for us, because negative energies like fear and hate and fury and envy are stronger than positive energies such as love, compassion, generosity and empathy, the prevalence of furious, jealous divinities like YHWH, deities who seek to control everything and impose drastic punishments for disobedience makes sense.
But making sense is not the same as justification. And perhaps if they are our creations, we can also de-create them, eradicate them by refusing to acknowledge them as our masters and by refusing to obey their commandments, by replacing them with our own morals and ethics, hopefully positive ones, with or without mythic archetypes who require veneration.
Perhaps, rather than a guilt ridden refrain, that’s what occurred to Friedrich Nietzsche when, reflecting Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel, Heinrich Heine, Philipp Mainländer and others he proclaimed: “God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, the murderers of all murderers, comfort ourselves?” I wonder what Mark Twain would make of all of this.
The foregoing seems especially relevant in hypocrisy ridden times like ours when “genocide” is being considered by many as a positive, as a harbinger of the beginning of the end, as sign of an impending apocalypse for which they yearn, perhaps one in the form of a nuclear holocaust.
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. 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/.
I did not support Mr. Trump’s aspirations to return to the house from which he was evicted four years ago, perhaps improperly so, we’re not likely to ever know. But I certainly did not support the continuation of the tyranny under which so many in the United States and abroad have been forced to live during the past four years. I am and have been a political independent for many decades although I have supported third party candidates, including candidates from political parties with very differing philosophies, political parties like the Libertarian Party and the Green Party and various socialist movements. In truth, like Albert Einstein and Noam Chomsky and Nelson Mandela, etc., I consider myself a democratic socialist philosophically. Thus on the day after the presidential electoral victory of Donald J. Trump, I watch public reactions with interest and, I confess, a bit of ambivalence. I especially note with a bit of sardonic humor how, furious, president-elect Trump’s Deep State critics in the media and the Democratic Party seek to sow panic and more discord, whining that he will now seek revenge for all of the trauma they sought to cause him and many other opponents through abuse of the legal and penal systems during the past four years. Hell, during the past eight years.
Their fear is understandable, a rapist fears angry parents, angry siblings, angry spouses and police and prosecutors too. And that fear is well earned. And perhaps it’s justified if not justifiable. Perhaps those who have abused the justice and penal system so flagrantly during the past four years are in for a taste of their own medicine. But perhaps not. During his first term in office Mr. Trump, after all, did not seek to prosecute the Clintons or their allies, even after the Steele Dossier affair.
There are other possibilities.
Having been the victim of tyranny in action and abuse of power by the Biden administration, not only against him but against thousands and thousands of ordinary citizens, against Jill Stein, Cornell West and Robert F. Kennedy, against thousands of patriotic Americans who protested on January 6, 2021 in a manner much less flagrant than did American “heroes” in Boston Harbor centuries ago or opponents of police brutality against African Americans just five years ago, perhaps his attitude will surprise even those quacking in their boots in fear of chickens coming home to roost.
Perhaps his administration will focus on critical issues such as sane electoral safeguards, safeguards like easy to obtain voter identification with photographs, fingerprints and other verifiable forms of minimizing fraud while concurrently seeking to assure that participation in electoral processes by all eligible voters is facilitated. And perhaps he will recommend legislation to Congress outlawing censorship and other means of threatening the exercise of freedom of opinion and freedom of expression, whether by public authorities or by the monopolistic private entities that have gained control over the infrastructure most of us now use to communicate. And perhaps he will propose additional legislation to Congress and state legislatures that will outlaw and severely penalize the abuse of the penal and judicial systems for partisan political purposes, eliminating related immunity which leads to impunity. And perhaps his solicitor general can convince the Supreme Court to overturn the egregious decision in Sullivan v NY Times which has facilitated the death of objective journalism in the United States and facilitated the character assassination of so many, including Mr. Trump. And perhaps Mr. Trump will propose a constitutional amendment that will outlaw legalized bribery through political contributions and generous fringe benefits such as free travel, etc., and seriously regulate the utterly corrupt lobbying industry.
Perhaps Mr. Trump will avoid the meddling in the affairs of other countries, including the imposition and maintenance of ludicrous punitive economic sanctions and economic blockades that destroy their economies and create a crescendo of illegal immigration seeking solace in the land that made them all kinds of promises if they’d only turn against their brethren, and, then, perhaps he and his political allies will support meaningful and fair immigration reform that will encourage compliance with applicable laws, not only by depriving violators of all related benefits and building walls, but by providing for prompt, fair and equitable procedures for immigration by foreigners who have a legitimate basis to seek permanent residency and then citizenship the way the ancestors of most current citizens of the United States once obtained it.
Perhaps Mr. Trump and other members of his administration and others who have been victims of the autocracy and tyranny rampant during the Biden administration, instead of seeking revenge and becoming mirror images of their adversaries, will do the foregoing, not in a mean spirited manner but in a manner that will heal wounds, minimize polarization and really “Make America Great Again”, but internally, not in an adversarial manner against the world. That may not be likely but Mr. Trump is rarely predictable, and he is not always wrong. And only someone who has been made to suffer what Mr. Trump was made to suffer during the past eight years can really understand why the foregoing changes are so essential for America’s quest to someday attain the promises laid out in the Declaration of Independence, hypocritical though they were, and the premises set forth in the Preamble to the Constitution.
Like many Americans, I have lost faith in both major political parties and in the institutions of government, at least at the federal level, but if Mr. Trump would follow the path described above (unlikely, I know), he would earn a place on Mount Rushmore even higher than that occupied by the four deeply flawed former presidents enshrined there, all men who, notwithstanding their shortcomings, nevertheless seem to have made a positive lasting impression.
Perhaps an exercise in wishful thinking but “if our reach does not exceed our grasp, then what’s a heaven for”? _____
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. 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/.
Faith in electoral processes all over the world seems to be at all-time lows, largely because, for so long, elections in most places have been manipulated, either through distortion of information presenting false scenarios and expectations or, because of threats of economic or military castigation should voters fail to follow electoral scripts designed by their self-perceived “betters”. As last resorts, until fairly recently, orchestrated coups d’état and even direct military intervention from abroad were popular; however, new technologies, especially with respect to communications and hackable electronic voting have reintroduced a strain of subtlety. The British and the French were the past masters of such manipulation but for a century at least, it has been the United States that has taken over that function, initially through the State Department but now through intelligence agencies; and intelligence agencies acting more and more on their own. Power, of course, is the ultimate prize, economic power derived through theft of natural resources but more and more, through organized war profiteering of the kind Ike warned against as he left office.
Until recently, the foregoing did not bother United States citizens very much, even when it involved domestic electoral fraud. We were aware that domestic electoral fraud was not unusual. Bribery was a tradition as was vote buying and, when all else failed, destruction of ballots with replacements stuffed into ballot boxes. Nor unusual were the super patriotic voting dead. In any case, electoral promises were always illusory, few felt they would be kept and fewer seemed to care that they’d been deceived. Elections were a sort of game, like baseball perhaps, but of the Black Sox variant. Now, however, chickens seem to have come home to roost. Of a sudden, the United States electorate really seems to care about the results, albeit futilely so.
One cannot tell if the United States federal elections of 2020 (both presidential and for the Senate, i.e., in Georgia) were “stolen”, something a substantial portion of the United States electorate believes. We will probably never find out. But groundwork for electoral fraud in 2020 was facilitated by the orchestrated response to the Covid 19 pandemic, with electoral safeguards demolished both bureaucratically and judicially, purportedly in the name of democracy. During the past decade electoral safeguards have been minimized in the United States in a manner not seen anywhere else in the world. Almost everywhere else, at least the illusion of ballot security is maintained with voters required to establish who they are through picture identification, signatures and finger prints before being permitted to exercise their so-called “sacred franchise”. Additionally, ballots are strictly restricted to voting booths, with their collection strictly controlled. Those are the norms except in a number of states in the purportedly United States.
Electoral manipulation in the United States would seem difficult on a national scale given the nature of federalism, with important electoral functions vested at the county level, but in a society so polarized, electoral fraud need not be widespread but rather, concentrated at the points most equally divided in the states with the most electoral votes, and with efforts coordinated at the national level through sources of logistical and legal support.
Electoral orchestration has evolved from an art form to a science. Of course, implementing the groundwork for successful electoral manipulation is not enough, it must at least be flavored with plausible deniability. Thus, the same bureaucracy and judiciary that facilitates electoral creativity shields electoral fraud from being proven by refusing to seriously investigate allegations of electoral improprieties, usually dismissing most such allegations on technicalities after which, the corporate media that supported the electoral misconduct in the first place, loudly proclaims that the allegations were bogus and that those alleging the existence of electoral fraud are evil, seditious “election deniers”. That is the world in which the citizenry of the United States now lives, the same world the United States has forced on so many other countries whenever it suited the interests of those who controlled it.
Democracy, in the sense of majority rule, does not exist anywhere and never has, even absent electoral shenanigans. It doesn’t exist because most people are not interested enough in electoral participation, either because it bores them or because they believe it is futile, thus, because of inadequate participation, majorities are rarely possible. Instead, the majoritarian concept is replaced by mere plurality, i.e., were usually more votes are collectively cast against a specific candidate or proposal, or not at all, than in favor. However, for some strange psychosocial reason, both the victims and the victimizers of political fraud feel that a semblance of popular government is essential, something we perhaps inherited from the Greeks and the Romans.
In a few days the people of the United States, both citizens and in all probability a number of non-citizens as well, will again earnestly participate in an electoral charade, a futile exercise by a populace utterly polarized by a corrupt corporate media, a corrupt entertainment industry and a corrupt bureaucracy, all making us relatively easy to manipulate, although we seem to be tottering closer than ever to a breaking point as more and more people have somehow gotten the impression that their votes can make a difference. Indeed, we may be approaching a possibly violent breaking point such as has not been seen in the United States in over a century and a half, and that, despite the best efforts of the powers-that-be to create the impression that, as the Borg may someday become fond of saying, “resistance is futile”. During the past four years it has become clear that, under Democratic Party rule, protest will not be tolerated unless it is orchestrated by the right people (e.g., the “woke”), that has been made more than abundantly clear through prosecution and persecution of those who dared to express their refusal to accept what they honestly believed was a stolen election in 2020. A reality which many, too many, discovered on and after January 6, 2021. It is worth noting how different the attitude towards rejection of electoral results deemed fraudulent is when the protestors are political allies of the United States, as in the recent cases of Venezuela and Georgia (the country, not the state), as opposed to our opponents. Evidently protest abroad is patriotic when in support of United States puppets but involves terrorism when challenging those the United States places and maintains in power. At home, it’s even more hypocritical. Electoral protest in the United States against results orchestrated by those who really rule us is anathema, it is seditious and treasonous, notwithstanding the platitudes redolent in our Declaration of Independence.
As an aside, I wonder what vice president Kamala Harris will do in the unlikely event that her opponent prevails when it comes time for her to exercise her constitutional function and certify the result. An unlikely situation given my pessimistic analysis of probabilities but, wouldn’t that be interesting? The Chinese have a curse that sounds a bit like a proverb “may you live in interesting times”. It certainly seems to apply to us. To many of us, the results of the proximate elections have already been written and, unlike 2016, that script will, in all likelihood, not be subject to evasion, not even temporarily. And even if it were, as Mr. Trump found out during his term in office, the federal bureaucracy and judiciary are so riddled with moles that governance contrary to the interest of the tiny group of powerful elites who rule us as if they possessed Sauron’s ring of power, is virtually impossible. The reality is probably that, even if the election were not rigged by misinformation and electoral fraud, our future would remain bleak as we will, in all probability, continue to be led towards the Armageddon too many see as an essential way-stop on the road to paradise. Tipping points are all but impossible to reverse and we seem to have reached ours as both major presidential campaigns applaud genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid and most of the United States electorate, as German citizens once did, looks the other way; and as antagonizing powers that share our capacity to destroy everything has become a bipartisan ideal.
As a supporter of third party and independent candidates for many decades, no candidate likely to win ever enjoys my support, but that is not as negative as it sounds. Those of us who find ourselves perpetually outside-looking-in tend to attain a clearer vision of political realities, one free of the emotional price associated with passionate advocacy and of a hope to share in the spoils. Thus, from the sidelines, what most matters to me and others like me is to share perspectives concerning the greatest threats to whatever remnants of liberty remain, not many as during the past four years censorship and castigation of deviation from opinions deemed acceptable has become the norm, and of course, it is important to those of us with strong civic consciousness to share information concerning how electoral processes are safeguarded in diverse parts of the world, contrasting such safeguards with trends in the ever more autocratic United States, a country whose people, if not its governments, I love profoundly.
From the fringes, the more decent among the political class, a tiny group led by aspirants to political power like Jill Stein, Cornell West and Dennis Kucinech, look on horrified, desperately fighting against the fatal entropy that has us firmly in its grasp, while the universe, disinterested, spins on its merry way. So, don’t be surprised when this November 6, 2024, at the end of a long evening, the elections of 2020 are once more repeated, their format now become the template with which our subjugation will be made ever more clear. Perhaps, in the future, rather than bother to deceive us, the charade will end and we’ll just assume the posture and accept the inevitable, hoping for the best, knowing that as has almost always been the case: in our own destiny we have little if any say.
So sayeth the realist (that’s what pessimists always call themselves), as from the Global South, where hope still somehow survives, an expat in exile looks North. _____
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. 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/.
I recently commented on an academic colleague’s article contrasting Christian and Jewish perspectives concerning the disgraced apostle Judas Iscariot, perhaps unfairly criticizing her observations based on the Jewish Toledot Yeshu as shallow[1]. The article described Christian attitudes with respect to Judas as reflecting the most extreme example of evil and betrayal possible, an attitude indeed shared by many, but not one universally shared among more modern Christians, especially in light of twentieth century efforts to rehabilitate Judas and ameliorate the perception of the Jewish role in the arrest, torture and execution of Yešu[2], given the climactic horrors of antisemitism during the Second World War seeking to treat both in a more neutral manner.
The Jewish attitude towards Judas, as reflected in the Toledot Yeshu (as well as in both the Jerusalem and Babylonian Talmud), predictably regard him as a hero, albeit as a hero without ethical boundaries, and as the savior of Judaism in the face of encroachment by Yešu-inspired heretics (not yet misnamed “Christians” by Saul of Tarsus[3]). My point in criticizing (too strong a word really) the authors’ description of related Christian perceptions concerning Judas was that, to an increasing number of Christians, rather than an arch-villain, Judas Iscariot is a tragically complex figure who faced irresolvable conflicts of interest between his aspirations seeking a messianic Jewish liberator and the otherworldly idealism attributed to the victim of his betrayal, a conflict complicated by the reality that, at any rate, he was irrevocably bound to the fate decreed for him by the always strange Abrahamic deity which both he and Yešu believed they served.
For some reason, the forgoing led me to reflect on the accretive nature of Abrahamic religions and then, to reflect on the reality that most if not all religions seem accretive. A strange leap but that’s my story and I’m sticking to it!
Consider:
The roots of all Abrahamic religions lie in the city of Uruk in ancient Sumer. They all start with a certain Sumerian, ironically given subsequent beliefs, the son of an idol maker. That Sumerian’s original name was phonetically Abiramu but has reached us as Abraham. Based on the foregoing it seems clear that most of the stories in the Hebrew Book of Genesis, e.g., the Garden, the Flood, etc., have Sumerian roots, but as Abiramu and his sister-wife Sarai and their descendants fled though Egypt into Canaan, and Judaism slowly evolved as a religion, cultural borrowing was heavy and included Akhenaton’s monotheism, the Midian religion wholesale, and from Canaan, its divinity, YHWH, one of the seventy sons of the chief Canaanite god, El. Somewhere along the line however, for reasons unknown, Judaism shed its female deities, the numerous wives of YHWH including Anat-Yahu, Aholah and Aholibah , Asherah, Anatha of the Lions and Ashima of the Doves, not to mention the Shekinah, a process largely rejected for centuries by the common people until Hebrew women were reduced to objects bereft of rights and a religious, civic and social patriarchy, purportedly divinely ordained, was established, history having been reformulated and recorded, as necessary. Of course, all of the foregoing also forms the predicate for both Christianity and Islam, although Christianity added a number of Hellenic religious and philosophical concepts via Saul of Tarsus (Islam has always been much closer to Orthodox Judaism, ironic given today’s genocidal antipathies). Wow!!! What a journey in every sense.
Syncretism is a term used to describe the dialectic process through which accretion leads to religious evolution and it was certainly evident among the religions of the country the ancient Hebrews referred to as “Mizraim” (which we call Egypt) where gods from diverse regions were added to a growing common pantheon where they eventually tended to meld. The same seems true with respect to divinities and their respective cults in the Indian subcontinent and to the divinities prominent in ancient Greece and Rome. It may well be true of religions in the Americas as well.
As a young academic many, many decades ago, I taught a course on comparative religions which I elected to divide into three major segments, the first dealt with primitive spiritual concepts such as animism and totems, the second with mythologies which my students denominated “other peoples’ religions” and finally, to the enormous diaspora of spiritual and religious concepts that have become prevalent during the past three millennia. Through it all I sensed a fount of religious instincts sprouting from somewhere in central Asia, perhaps somewhere in what is today modern day Mongolia, the place from which, periodically, waves upon waves of refugees turned invaders seemed to erupt, waves that included the Huns, the Mongols and those to whom we refer as Indo-European, Hindus, Achaeans, Aryans, etc. I visualized the foregoing as a crescendo of peoples and beliefs, perhaps sharing a common origin, then diffracting and subsequently reassembling in differing configurations. However, all too soon, as tends to occur, the young academic I once was found his academic pursuits deflected into first history, then political science, then law, and my quest for “a unified theory of socio-spiritual evolution” returned to the ether from which it had apparently once sprung, … until recently. Until when, after semi-retiring to pursue personal interests and research, I returned to old roots exploring the “legends” of Gilgamesh and the origins of YWHW and of the myriad faces of Yešu, which, somehow or other, after reading the article by Ora Limor and Israel Jacob Yuval (“Judas Iscariot: Revealer of the Hidden Truth”), led me back to this introspective reflection concerning the diametrically opposed perspectives concerning both Judas Iscariot and Yešu that have subtlety but profoundly impacted our history during the past two millennia, and that has led me to reflect on how much our socio-religious perspectives are changing as time goes by, as our values change and as our memories evolve. And of how long-held traditional religious beliefs are being considered by some among our new generations as mere myths, a sort of inversion of how the students in my class on comparative religion once considered mythology, while others seem willing to accept and espouse new hypotheses concerning intergalactic aliens as the sources of our civilizations and even, of the possibility that our remote biological ancestors from the Mesozoic Era, the dinosaurs, in fact survived and merely went underground, literally, where they await in their own civilizations for a chance to return to the surface once, in our arrogance, we arrange for our own extinction.
Chaos to me is not a negative but rather, the primal state where once upon a time everything at all was a possibility and contradictions comfortably cohabited as compliments. Strangely, modern theories of physics involving both minimalist quantic phenomena and omniversal string theories seem filled with echoes of that primordial chaos, the chaos that seems to have existed before the Big Bang or the divine seven days of creation, take your pick.
Today, as I write, confusion appears to reign, happily enthroned and smiling, as we impatiently seek to untangle the confused webs we’ve woven and somewhere perhaps, echoes from Elphaba Thropp’s refrain at the conclusion of the 1930’s movie, the Wizard of Oz, as she slowly melted, laid low by water, “… what a world, what a world” happily resonate, and perhaps, somewhere outside the bounds of time and space, Yešu and Judas dispassionately debate.
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. 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/.
[2] “Yešu” is the correct Aramaic phonetic pronunciation of the Hellenized name of the principle protagonist of the diverse Christian faiths usually referred to as “Jesus”.
[3] According to some versions of the Toledot Yeshu, Saul of Tarsus whose Roman name was Paulus and who is referred to by Christians as St. Paul, was really a Jewish infiltrator into the evolving Yešu heresy whose role it was to sunder the movement from Judaism in order to decelerate and minimize conversion.
I recently participated in an online Zoom forum presented by the history department of the University of Massachusetts Amherst through its Feinberg Family Distinguished Lecture Series, a series that purports to focuses on “big issues of clear and compelling concern, grounded in historical inquiry, context, analysis and experience”. The event in which I participated (as part of the virtual audience) purported to deal with the dangers being faced in academia as a result of what smells like a dawning dark age where the right to think is shrinking daily and it was supposed to compare the current challenges faced by academia with those faced in the second half of the 1940’s during the tenures of Harry Truman as president and senator Joe McCarthy as hatchet man. Unfortunately, notwithstanding the importance of the topic to me and its timeliness, I was disappointed and confess that I could not get past the introduction and first few minutes of the initial presenter’s discourse. Instead of an objective academic discourse, it seemed a partisan charade reflective only of the nature of so many who today perceive of themselves as historians, people who have spent their lives reading and researching and writing and teaching, but for whom the quest for truth seems an irrelevancy, especially when the quest is undertaken under the shadow of long held political loyalties[1].
The presenters as well as their online audience seemed completely and blindly devoted to the Democratic Party, the party ironically responsible for both the dark days of the McCarthy era (although the senator himself was a Republican) and for today’s expansive wave of censorship and curtailment of liberty, especially liberties pertaining to the right to opine. Their criticism, snide, direct and full of virtue signaling, was reserved for Republicans and the “far right”, there apparently not being a mere right wing, and thus, to anyone not part of the choir to whom they were preaching. Thus, the postures they sought to represent, postures in which for the most part I personally believe, lost rather than garnered credibility. It’s as though they’d never heard of political options like Doctors Jill Stein and Cornell West, or if they had, considered them beneath contempt, just as they consider former presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., for placing the coronation of Kamala Harris at risk.
Even if their goal was merely political that strategy was not very productive. Unless fund raising is the goal, “preaching to the choir” is almost always counterproductive, especially in an electoral context where attaining the vote of a majority is important. Rather than more fully convincing the already convinced, one needs to reach out to those who have not yet made up their minds. Better yet, one needs to strive to convince those who support one’s opponents that our views have merit. That is very difficult when one has “shot one’s credibility in the foot” by refusing to accept that one’s side is fallible and that sometimes our opponents may be right. Credibility is essential and it is best attained when one at least appears objective, when rather than spewing conclusions one has yet to support with facts, one at least pretends to consider opposing perspectives and examines the reasons why others hold them. And that is best accomplished when one, in fact, has an open mind rather than its mere verisimilitude.
After I logged out of the event I became introspective, examining both my own beliefs and how I expressed them. And that led me to the issues that most perplex me, and to the people I’ve chosen to admire, despite their foibles. The latter are a very mixed group, both historically and during my own lifetime. I am a great admirer of the reverend Martin Luther King, Jr. but accept that sexual fidelity was not his strong point, and if that was true for him, it was also true for John Fitzgerald Kennedy and Bill Clinton and Donald Trump and Joe Biden. A bitter pill but one essential if one hopes to be objective. I love Nelson Mandela and admire him not because of his courage in adversity but because, after he attained the South African presidency, he managed, at least for a brief while, to bring his traumatized racially, economically and culturally divided nation together. And I love Mohandas Gandhi for his absolute dedication to peaceful revolution despite his failure, in the end, to attain it. I love Uruguay’s Pepe Mujica and Brazil’s Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Chile’s Salvador Allende and Pablo Neruda, Cuba’s Jose Marti, Colombia’s Gustavo Rojas Pinilla and now Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego. None are perfect by any means, but they have all been transformational. Ironically, I am also drawn to ethically complex people like Alexander III of Macedon, Gaivs Ivlivs Caesar and Napoleon Bonaparte, leaders who somehow combined good and evil successfully in order to attain transformational change, although I’ve always been curious as to why their military prowess so thoroughly overwhelms their more peaceful accomplishments in areas such as science, philosophy, education, architecture, etc., in their perception by the public.
As a political scientist, historian and researcher, albeit admittedly not a very important one, I’m deeply suspicious of those things on which we are not allowed, either legally or socially, to reflect, and I believed that that would have been one of the topics to be dealt with in the Feinberg lecture I’d been invited to attend, but I was very wrong. Today’s tacit support by so many of genocide on the one hand and the pillorying of Donald Trump on the other, both massively driven by peer pressure, and attitudes towards the current conflicts in the Ukraine and in the Middle East, made me again wonder concerning the “verboten” subject of what World War II, the second war to end all wars, was really about, and just how evil the villains and of just how virtuous the victors really were; the victors responsible for the firebombing of Dresden and Tokyo and the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki and the colonization of Africa and the Middle and Far East. There was recent outrage among netizens of the corporate media concerning an admission purportedly made by Donald Trump that Adolf Hitler might have done some good things in Germany, something quickly (and distortedly) interpreted by Trump opponents as praise. More than anything, that reaction to Mr. Trump’s honest observation made me acknowledge (after reflection) that like most others, I lacked the courage to agree with him despite the rarely admitted reality that, excluding his international bellicosity, racism and lack of respect for the sanctity of life (obviously huge faults), domestically, during the period from 1933 through 1939, Hitler in fact accomplished very positive things domestically in Germany, and that in turn made me wonder if we will ever be capable of an objective analysis with respect to that very complex man, a man who in his worst aspects, seems ironically similar to Israel’s Benjamin Netanyahu, a popular hero today not only in Israel, but in the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany.
All of the foregoing seem dangerous themes on which to focus, or even to consider, but is it ethically and morally correct to ignore them and to permit what passes for imposed truth to just “lie” (a double entendre) comfortably abed? That observation then led me to reflect on the morally ambiguous issue of issues. There are issues where, to me, every position seems wrong and worse, where most of those who hold a strong position do so incoherently when contrasted with their positions on related issues. For me, one of those involves the profoundly polarizing conjoined issues of abortion and the death penalty.
It seems incoherent to me that the postures of most people with reference to the foregoing seem to involve, on the one hand, a belief in the “right” to an abortion while simultaneously opposing the death penalty, and on the other, the position of their opponents who reject the right to abort unwanted fetuses while concurrently supporting the death penalty. To my mind, one either respects the “right” to life or one doesn’t, both of those postures leading to logical conclusions: If one respects the “right” to life, then both abortion and the death penalty should be anathema. If one does not respect that “right”, then both abortion and the death penalty are acceptable options. However, the topic involved is deemed so “existential”, that most of us have a very strong opinion in one direction or the other while strenuously opposing the “right” of others to have an opposing position, something that to me seems to require amazing moral ambivalence and hubris. The issue is fraught with irreconcilable moral quandaries and yet, most people have no problem in taking one side or the other, and make it the principal basis on which they select whom they will support politically. To top it off, most of the people who presents themselves as electoral options, loudly championing one side or the other, tend to be pure pragmatists for whom the only importance of the issue involves how it will mobilize their political bases.
The right to bear arms is another issue that strikes me as ludicrous, if not as existentially and morally problematic as the right to life. I understand the second amendment to the United States constitution and the context under which it seemed essential. It reads: “A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” It is absolute in its prohibition, unless one examines its premise, “a well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. However, the philosophical context in which that statement was drafted was centered, not on defense from foreign aggression but on the importance of avoiding domestic tyranny and that in turn was premised on three important assumptions: first, that instead of standing armed forces, the “free State” anticipated would have a citizen army comprised of state militias in which most adult males would serve; second, that the armed citizenry would hold a preponderance of the power necessary to avoid tyranny and sustain its “free” status; and, third, that “freedom”, rather than mere security, would remain the priority. None of those premises hold true today. The state controls the overwhelming balance of power, both internally through its police forces and externally though its professional armed forces (and the military industrial complex against which Ike warned during November of 1960). If the right to bear arms were to be effective today, citizens would have to enjoy the right to own and operate nuclear weapons, aircraft carriers, air forces, etc., and, as importantly, the ability to financially afford to obtain and maintain them. We don’t and we shouldn’t and we couldn’t. As to the importance of “freedom”, today it’s mainly an illusion bound in red tape with the state in control of most of our actions, a state not controlled by the citizenry but through bureaucrats imbedded throughout our bloated governmental systems by a tightly knit group of selfish billionaires, with the assistance of their tools in the megalithic media-sports-and-entertainment industries, industries whose job it is to keep us polarized and distracted while our pockets are picked. So at best, “freedom is an illusion, an opiate in the same sense that Karl Marx described religion.
Of course, we’ve deluded ourselves with the concept of “rights”. A concept ideal for “virtue-signaling” if little else. Purportedly, “rights are inherent, universal and eternal, not granted, rather, at best discovered. As purportedly eternal, they have supposedly always existed and will always continue to exist. They are supposedly the emanations of the individual sovereignty and autonomy to which every human being is entitled. Given the foregoing definition, rights may not be conditioned by others, even where those conditions are eminently sensible and indeed, essential for life in the collectives in which we live, collectives which range from the family, with or without children, through our diverse polities and eventually, encompassing the human species and perhaps, even every species and the planet as a whole. If “rights” are inherent and unconditional, they must be impossible to violate. However, no human interaction encompasses those requirements and further, as more and more rights are discovered on a purportedly generational basis, they become diluted in the sense that they are more and more impossible to attain. Instead, today’s purported rights are, at best, aspirations as to how we should prioritize our resources and organize the diverse aspects of governance by others in our lives, but with no ability to enforce any such aspirations, however laudable they may seem. They are promises impossible to keep and those who make them and most vigorously proclaim them are at best self-deluded, albeit in most instances they are merely frauds. And yet, we willingly sacrifice our lives and the lives of those whom we most cherish, we sacrifice our honor, our morality and our ethics in their purported defense. Thus abortion and the bearing of arms are but irrelevancies useful in keeping us divided and thus, easy to manipulate and control.
Not that “rights” would not be awesome if they could be attained, maintained and enforced, but they can’t, at least not while we remain a deluded species, one which on the one hand abhors the purported Nazi holocaust while on the other, applauds, supports and makes possible the holocaust perpetrated by the descendants of the Nazis’ victims against Palestinians and other Muslims (the only people who ever actually treated them with real compassion and respect). Not while we accept the accumulation of massive wealth by actors and singers and sports stars as well as by corporate executives, directors, and, most of all, by the heirs of those who illicitly accumulated huge fortunes, while children, indeed while anyone starves to death, bereft of shelter and health care. But we do. And it seems that, at least for the foreseeable future, we’ll continue to do so.
Our moral ambiguities make that not only possible, but probable. _____
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. 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] Contextualizing the foregoing, I am a political independent although during my lifetime I have been a Republican, a Democrat, a Liberal, a Conservative, a Libertarian, a Democratic Socialist and a Green Party supporter. However, I was always uncomfortable pledging my allegiance and my sacred honor to any political party, especially with respect to supporting policies with which I was either not familiar or with which I was not in total accord. During the past decades I’ve taken to criticizing the United States duopolous political system and both principal political parties and my electoral activities have revolved around doing what I could to let voters know that there were more than two choices, more than two political parties, and that a lesser evil is always evil. I am also an academic and the former chair of a university political and juridical science department as well as of political science, government and international relations programs in the Republic of Colombia. In my youth, I taught history and chaired the social studies and, for a brief time, the foreign language departments at a military high school in the state of New York.
Mary, Mary, quite contrary, was wondering how her garden grew when, lo and behold, of a sudden, she thought she spotted a little lamb, one that perhaps might become her own.
Nearby, a certain Miss Muffat sat on her tuffet, eating her curds and weigh, while a friendly if somewhat frightening, somewhat hungry and a bit jealous arachnid (none other than the trickster deity known as Anansi), hanging by a silken thread, curiously passed her way.
As Miss Muffat and Anansi looked on, Mary, Mary, quite contrary, fondled what she thought was her new lamb but the ovis aries, in reality the Egyptian deity Khnum, reacted unexpectedly, at least as far as Mary, Mary, quite contrary, was concerned. Anansi couldn’t help but giggle, which almost gave the game away.
Khnum, at first seemingly young and small, turned out not to have been either, not at all. He was in fact very, very ancient really, and in reality, quite a bit larger than a lamb, and he had budding horns and, … well …, reacting to Mary, Mary, quite contrary’s soft caresses, seemed unusually amorous for a lamb, at least as far as little Miss Moffat could tell.
Then, slam bam, thank you mam …. The lamb turned out to be a ram … and …. not just any ram, but the primordial creator of human bodies and of the life force known as kꜣ (“ka”), and Anansi’s giggles turned into guffaws.
Thus, some months later, to Miss Muffat’s surprise and the spider’s strange delight (it loved irony and was as much a contrarian as Mary), Mary, Mary, quite contrary, indeed had her little lamb.
Which was not just any little lamb at all.[1] _____
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. 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] An afterword of sorts. It is sadly strange that in this puritanical age, puritanical concerning sexual matters but not bothered by genocide at all, I would feel uncomfortable, perhaps even ironically guilty, in having written this satire on the ancient myth of Leda and the Swan.
Guillermo Calvo Mahé 