Category Archives: Political

Reflections on Moral Quandaries and Ambiguities

Posted on by
1

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 Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; 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. 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.

Reflections from the Edge of a Seemingly Bottomless Pit

Posted on by
Reply

November 5, 2024 is purportedly federal election day in the United States of America but the concept of an “election day” has become meaningless.  And that may not be a negative although how that has come about is troubling given that the main goal of that evolutive process seems to have become, not the implementation of more effective democracy but rather, the facilitation of more efficient electoral fraud and manipulation.

How so?

Well, in its least malign aspect, the evolving trend towards a voting season rather than an electoral day looks to “lock-in” voters prior to the availability of information necessary to make adequately informed voting decisions, thus making electoral manipulation more feasible.  That, of course, is tied into the manipulation of essential information by the corporate media through not only the publication and dissemination of distortions and outright lies as facts, but by the obfuscation of important relevant information, the Hunter Biden laptop from Hell being a prime, albeit far from the most important, example.  At least as nefarious are the range of voting procedures crafted by those who seek to minimize electoral safeguards through a longer, less organized and poorly monitored voting cycle, one where, for example, the State of California has criminalized required identity verification prior to voting and indeed, where most states controlled by the Democratic Party have taken steps to permit the casting of votes by people who provide no proof of who they are nor of their right to do so. 

The mass mailing of unsolicited ballots coupled with the ability to “harvest” and return such ballots is obviously designed, in its most benign aspect, to create a “market” for the purchase and sale of votes, and for the theft and unauthorized casting of ballots in its most nefarious form.  And that is where we find ourselves as the electoral season draws to a close “on or about” this November 5.  I use the phrase “on or about” because there is no longer a “hard date” by which votes must be cast given that judges and electoral officials in Democratic Party controlled states, and even in Democratic Party controlled counties and electoral districts have taken to insisting that the absence of postmarks or the receipt of ballots with postmarks beyond the date fixed for their return should be ignored in the interests of what they claim is a more ample form of democracy, something that seems akin to the old political slogan of “vote early and vote often”.

I have long avocated for an electoral period rather than an election day in order to make participation in the electoral process more convenient.  Decades ago I proposed that elections should take place over a series of set dates, perhaps as long as three or four, with results published daily to motivate the lazy to cast their votes when it became obvious that their participation would be essential in order for candidates they preferred to emerge victorious. But I understood that as important as participation in the electoral process was, safeguarding of the electoral process was at least as important, and that real democracy required limiting participation to eligible voters through strictly enforced safeguards, safeguards in fact effectively imposed in the poorest and least technologically advanced countries, safeguards such as photo identification cards, signatures and fingerprints.  In the Republic of Colombia where I currently reside such procedures are uniformly applied and though not perfect (electoral fraud still exists), at least efforts are made to minimize electoral fraud rather than to promote it.

In the United States, democracy is not thriving, it never has.  At the best of times the country has been ruled through a patchwork two-party dictatorship at the local, state, regional and federal levels, the “duopoly” at it is referred to by its critics, among them many smaller political parties, independent candidates and concerned voters.  But today’s Democratic Party seeks to eliminate even the duopoly.  During the past four years it has utterly corrupted the penal and judicial systems in order to minimize the ability of opponents to run against its pre-selected candidates, and I do not refer specifically to Donald Trump.  He at least is powerful enough to fight back.  But rather, to the most decent among alternative options, people like Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., the son of the assassinated senator and former attorney general, Robert Francis Kennedy and the nephew of the assassinated president, John Fitzgerald Kennedy; people like the eminent and brilliant Afro-American philosopher, academic and civic leader, Cornell West; people like eminent physician and civic leader, Jill Stein; people like former Democratic Party congressman and peace activist Dennis Kucinich.  Perhaps even worse, in an effort to retain permanent dictatorial power for the ill-named Democratic Party, the Biden administration has done everything possible to curtail opposing viewpoints through criminalization of the right to hold and express opposing opinions and in that effort has recruited the major news media and the major internet platforms.

Not that the GOP, the Grand Old Party, otherwise known as the Republicans are all that much better although, except when it comes to blind allegiance to Zionists imperil ambitions, it is significantly less inclined to engage in military adventures abroad or to censorship and lawfare at home.  Still, its candidate in this election is one of the world’s least pleasant persons, an egotistical, self-promoting demagogue.  How far have we sunk as a polity when he seems far more trustworthy than the slick loophole specialists who oppose him, the Clintons and the Obamas if not quite the Bidens, those who offer us as a choice the chameleonic Kamala Harris, lawyers all, lawyers beloved of the quasi-cultural Hollywood and New York elites and, of course, of the Deep State moles who believe they’ve found the “one ring to rule us all and in the darkness bind us”.

Absolute power seems to be the goal and, as the old adage claims, “absolute power corrupts absolutely”.  Today, the descendants of those who believed they were fighting against such tyranny instead find themselves actively involved in promoting genocide, ethnic cleansing and apartheid on the one hand as they court nuclear holocaust on the other, all in order to enrich the tiny minority of billionaires reliant for their political and economic power on perpetual war and oppression.  And on our own cowardice, cupidity and stupidity.

It is, in all probability, too late to defeat the forces of darkness arrayed against us, but we can still, at least, back our own versions of Tolkien’s Frodo: I allude to people like Jill Stein and Cornell West who are still options, and in other elections, we can decide to vote for any candidate unaligned with the duopoly.  As always, if enough of us took that road less travelled, we might somehow find ourselves glimpsing a light at the end of that deep dark tunnel into which we’ve been forced to descend, assured that the wreak of filth and death we smell is really milk and honey.

As the purportedly Wicked Witch of the West exclaimed in the 1930’s movie version of “The Wonderful Wizard of Oz”, … “what a world, what a world”!  But perhaps hers is not the last word.

In 1875 poet William Ernest Henley, perhaps channeling the “darker days referenced by Sigmund Freud, wrote a poem he entitled “Invictus”, one I share as I close, albeit set in prose:

Out of the night that covers me, black as the Pit from pole to pole, I thank whatever gods may be for my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance I have not winced nor cried aloud.  Under the bludgeonings of chance my head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears looms but the horror of the shade, and yet, the menace of the years finds and shall find, me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate, how charged with punishments the scroll, I am the master of my fate: I am the captain of my soul.

_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; 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. 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/.

“Antisemitism”: a Disturbing New Semantic Perspective

Posted on by
Reply

Is renewal of antisemitism the best way to resolve today’s geopolitical crisis, perhaps an existential crises?  If that’s true it’s an incredibly disturbing rejection of the ethics and morality that finally evolved during the past century. 

But is it true nonetheless?

The answer depends on how one defines (or rather, re-defines) antisemitism, something that has become an accelerating trend led by Zionists, both Jewish and Christian. The “re-definers” insist on defining “antisemitism” as any criticism of the Zionist anti-Islamic agenda thus, opposition to ethnic cleansing, apartheid, mass-murder, property theft and genocide when practiced by Jews or Jewish allies, is now defined according to them as “antisemitism” and such definition is more and more frequently being codified into law, especially in the United Kingdom and now in the United States and the European Union.  If one accepts that definition as valid, then the corollary is that antisemitism is morally and ethically a positive rather than a horrible trait, and antisemitism thus becomes, not a ludicrously unjustifiable prejudice but an essential trait necessary to promote equity, justice and world peace. 

How strange is that?

Given such re-definition, the law of unintended consequences comes into play, something of which many thoughtful and conscientious Jews are only too aware and, consequently, reject, insisting that such Zionist actions must not be made in their names.  They’re aware not only of the ethical and moral quagmire involved but of the eventual re-evaluative reaction, one that may well prove all too similar to reactions from which Jews have suffered throughout their history.  Reactions that have treated all Jews as responsible for the actions of a few and consequently eventually labeled Jews generically as selfish and morally repugnant “others”.  Reactions in which Jews, in a generalized sense, are first admired, respected and permitted to attain substantial political and economic power only to lose it all, and to all too frequently, lose their lives as well.

The cycles of Jewish power and then despair are seemingly tied to the concept of genocide, something with which notwithstanding perceptions, Judaism has been historically linked, more often, as is the case today, as victimizer than as victim. Current Zionist leaders in Israel have recently expressed admiration for historical incidents involving genocide engaged in by the ancient Hebrews and avocate for the morality of engaging in similar conduct today notwithstanding its classification since the second war to end all wars as involving crimes of lesse humanidad and thus, purportedly anathema. The actions that Israeli leaders have recently defended as appropriate include the use of rape, torture, collective punishment and mass extermination as legitimate military tactics. 

Unfortunately, examples of Jewish orchestrated genocide lauded by Israel’s current leaders abound in the Tanakh as they do the Old Testament of the Christian Bible.  Both record in positive terms numerous instances of genocide, sometime engaged in directly by the Abrahamic divinity (e.g., the destruction of the so called cities of the plain, Sodom and Gomorrah, etc.; the Great Flood, the murder of the Egyptian first borns, etc.), but all too frequently genocide directly perpetrated by Jews themselves, as in the slaughter of all the men, women and children of ancient Jericho and in a large number of other Canaanite cities by Joshua, Saul, David, etc.; and the genocide visited on Christians in Jerusalem in the seventh century during the Sasanian conquest in the year 614 of the Common Era.  The unfortunate corollary has been that the Jews themselves have subsequently suffered calamities all too similar to those that they inflicted on others, e.g., the Babylonian conquest, the Roman conquest, the millennia of antisemitism which followed the purported torture and execution of Yešu the Nazarene by the Jerusalem Sanhedrin and finally, the so called Nazi Holocaust.

We now find ourselves once more in what seems a new cycle. 

Starting in the nineteenth century, instigated by fundamentalist Christians in the United States who hoped to accelerate the end of the world and the so called “second coming”, Jews who’d attained economic power in the United States, the United Kingdom, France and elsewhere sought to reverse the tide of European and American antisemitism by creating a homeland for the Jewish people, eventually settling on the part of the Ottoman Empire referred to as Palestine.  The fact that Palestine had been inhabited for millennia by the descendants of historical Jews who’d converted, first to Christianity and then to Islam, and by others, especially Arabs who’d wandered in over the centuries, was deemed of no importance to this new movement which its adherents referred to as “Zionism”.  Nor was the fact that such plans were anathema to Orthodox Jews who viewed them as contrary to the dictates and plans of the Hebrew divinity.  In implementing their plan, the Zionists were ruthless from the beginning, eventually exposing their brethren in Germany and Eastern Europe to the tragedy commonly referred to as the Nazi Holocaust, a disaster essential to the success of the Zionist goal as, following that calamity, the victorious powers in the second war to end all wars finally complied with their commitments to Zionists for their purported help in persuading the United States to enter the first war to end all wars on the side of the victors.  Thus, despite the supposed right of popular self-determination, Zionists were awarded sovereignty over most of Palestine in 1947 despite being a small minority of Palestine’s total population and since then have sought continuous expansion through ethnic cleansing, theft of land and genocide.  As in the case of ancient Sparta (which Zionists seem to revere), since 1948 Zionists and other Jews have found themselves a minority in a sea of virtual slaves they were prepared to dominate by whatever means seem useful, the decisions of the Nuremberg tribunals (which Zionists had largely crafted) be damned.

Which is where we find ourselves today.  Pretty much damned.

Semitism has now been re-defined by Zionists as a Spartan-like creed that insists that anything done to maintain power over a subjugated population, including its elimination, is proper and defensible regardless of the hypocrisy involved, and, conversely, that anything which stands in the way of such “Semitism” is obviously antisemitic and must be destroyed. 

That attitude mortgages the future in favor of the greed of the moment in much the same way that, according to traditional Christians, the leaders of the Jerusalem Sanhedrin did two millennia ago when, addressing Roman concerns over the crucifixion of what to them seemed an innocent man, they purportedly told the Roman procurator in Palestine that any sins involved would be on their heads and on those of their descendants.  So very much like Luis XV’s purported refrain, “après moi le déluge”.

“Deluge”, … how appropriate.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; 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. 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/.

Tangled Political Realities as November 2024 Approaches

Posted on by
Reply

In terms of political organizations, the concepts of “conservative”, “liberal”, “progressive”, “left”, right” and “center” no longer have any real meaning. Their meaning and context have been vacuumed, distorted and destroyed by those in charge of perpetrating and perpetuating lies and disinformation, the corporate media, faux historians, controlled academia and those who control the Internet (including both social media and search engines where algorithms rule). Such terms are now merely tools to polarize us, to divide us and to make us easier to control.

Two relevant opposing concepts do however exist: state-ism and populism.

Statists include an ironic amalgam of those who honestly believe that current governments are beneficent and the answer to all our social, economic and political problems with cynical deep state operatives who see the state as the ideal tool to control us and through such control, to extract ever increasing profits for the billionaire class. The latter is comprised of moles buried throughout the bureaucracy, the judiciary and the media who assure that government works to perpetuate the worst among us in power while keeping the bulk of us safely divided.

Populists are an amalgam from diverse, frequently opposing sociopolitical perspectives who share a belief that the institutions of government have been perverted and thus oppose them. In general, they share beliefs in real democracy and real liberty but acknowledge that such concepts do not currently exist.  Populists comprise the vast majority but have permitted statist to maintain them divided into opposing camps based on the fake labels listed above, i.e.: “conservative”, “liberal”, “progressive”, “left”, right” and “center”, which populists take seriously. The labels are institutionally fake but contextually relevant. The differences exist for populists but the reality is that far more unites each sector of the populist political spectrum than that which divides them. Something that statists seek to obfuscate at all costs because, should populists attain their common interests and often complimentary goals, the statist empire could be destroyed and the dreams of equity, relative equality, justice and peaceful coexistence might become realities.

Statists use divisive emotions to maintain dictatorial control: what were once known as “wedge issues” which keep populists at each others’ throats. Issues like abortion and gun control and immigration, and they distort sociocultural divisions like gender, sexual orientation, race, nationality and religion keeping real problems festering because as long as they remain unresolved, populists can be kept from uniting. And, of course, the most cynical and thus most effective statists in the United States are today found in the Democratic Party and among the traditionalist wing of the Republican Party, and in the United Kingdom, in the once populist Labour Party and in the Conservative Party, in each case, merely virtually identical two-headed-Hydrae.

In the meantime, Hillary Clinton and her groupies try to re-seize control of the Democratic Party from a dazed and confused Joe Biden so that she can have one more chance to be the first female president while the Obama camp keeps pulling tangled strings behind the scenes to deflect her aspirations but is itself confused as to whether Michele or “AG” (his real name is Eric but he can’t let us forget he was once the Attorney General) Holder should replace their inept current figurehead, and Donald Trump keeps smirking and holding massive rallies while we ignore that three decent people are seeking to lead us out of the Deep State wilderness: Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Jill Stein and Cornell West, PhD.

And the rich keep getting richer, the poor, poorer, the economic center keeps shrinking and people keep dying massively in elective and genocidal wars while defense industry dividends soar and the corporate media shouts:

“Nothing here to see!  Move along!!!  Turn the page!!! Or else!!!”

_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; 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. 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/.

A Wakeup Call for Black Voters

Posted on by
Reply

African Americans were brought in chains to the Americas where for centuries they were forced to serve as slaves and, in a political sense that has not changed. After the purported emancipation of American slaves they’ve permitted themselves to remain in political slavery, first to the Grand Old Party and now, for almost a century, to the party that sought to keep them enslaved, the Democratic Party. In part that’s because American slaves, unlike the slaves in Haiti, did not free themselves. Haiti can hardly be qualified as a success but it’s version of Simon Bolívar and José Francisco de San Martín y Matorras and yes, George Washington, Toussaint Louverture should be an inspiration to all descendants of Africans stolen from their own lands and forced into slavery. Abraham Lincoln should not.

American slaves were emancipated only through a cynical ploy by Abraham Lincoln, a racist who believed African Americans could never coexist with whites and should all be expelled from the Union he loved. A cynical racist who believed that African Americans should never have political rights in the United States of America. American slaves were emancipated, not to enjoy the fruits of freedom and the ability to attain their highest potential, as individuals and as a race, but rather, to preserve the Union and to lower the cost of labor for Northern factory owners thriving as the industrial revolution permitted the evolution of what became known as the “gilded age” in the United States.

Slaves in the United States were emancipated, not because slavery was considered an intolerable evil, but because victory in the Civil War was essential for Northern industrialists to realize their dream of an American Empire. They were emancipated only to dissuade the United Kingdom and France from supporting the Confederacy’s aspirations for independence. In fact, when they were initially purportedly emancipated during the Civil War, they were emancipated only in the Confederacy over which the Union lacked legal jurisdiction but remained enslaved in the Union itself. That seems ironic based on how history has been taught in the United States for the past century but anyone can read Lincoln’s initial inaugural address where he said (and anyone can verify it on Google): “I have no purpose, directly or indirectly, to interfere with the institution of slavery in the States where it exists. I believe I have no lawful right to do so, and I have no inclination to do so.”

The fact that Americans of African descent were emancipated by cynical whites by no means implies that there have not been brilliant, ethical and visionary leaders of African descent in the United States, leaders, for example, like Frederick Douglas or Marcus Garvey or Malcolm Little (later known as el-Hajj Malik el-Shabazz and finally as Malcolm X) or Martin Luther King, Jr., leaders who believed that Americans of African descent should break the bonds of political slavery that prevented them from attaining the role in American society to which their numbers and their talents should have entitled them.  Indeed, as of 2019, there were a total of 255 different African American led groups in the United States that avocated for African American political independence. But the old overseer system that controlled African Americans during their days as slaves, the system of treacherous African American overseers who betrayed their brothers and sisters, never ended. It just morphed into a system controlled and funded by people of all races that sees African Americans as a commodity to be controlled and used, especially in the political arena where African Americans can be herded into a monolithic voting bloc that serves its masters rather than its members just as slaves enriched plantation owners while they were maintained at barely subsistence levels. A system run by modern overseers like Barack Obama and Kamala Harris and Hakeem Sekou Jeffries and Charles Diggs and Charley Rangel and Kweisi Mfume and Shirley Chisholm and Louis Stokes and William L. Clay. Heroes to African Americans because some among them participated in apparently successful battles for desegregation and civil rights but whose principal loyalties were and are to the white led, power mad, ill-named Democratic Party.

The Democratic Party is a strange amalgam of disenfranchised minorities and fringe groups without common bonds other than their deluded acquiescence in their own continuous betrayal, especially since the ascension of the Clintons to political power in 1992. The party’s principal strategy is the use of polarization to goad their betrayed supporters to maintain them in power so that the party can, in turn, serve its real masters: the billionaire class, Wall Street, trial lawyers, but most of all, the military industrial complex. It seems amazing, especially with reference to African Americans, how successful condescending platitudes, backslapping and utter hypocrisy have been in keeping their voters in line even when, as in case of the Clintons, they are devastatingly betrayed. Witness the Clintons (two for the price of one) deformations of the criminal justice and welfare systems that devastated the African American community. But that’s exactly what overseers are for. What they’ve always been for.

The reality is that Black Power is an inchoate reality, as is the power of each and every component of the incoherent alliance that conforms the modern Democratic Party, but a reality that will only be realized when such groups are emancipated from political slavery and attain their own political power through their own political parties under leaders loyal to their constituencies rather than to the hidden leaders of what has come to be known as the Deep State. Shifting from one component of the political duopoly that has ruled the United States since the Civil War to the other is meaningless. Only a multiparty system embracing real democracy rather than its verisimilitude can bring about a real American Dream, a society where every American citizen can attain his or her own greatest personal potential, for their own benefit, and where overseers are consigned to the Hell they deserve.

Of course, the United States constitutional system at all levels, as implemented by legislation, regulations, rules, ordinances, decree and judicial decisions, poses a huge impediment to political emancipation and democracy. It was designed by slaveholders precisely for such purpose, with the seductive illusions of democracy, liberty and opportunity for all held out like a carrot, but the carrot has always been a mere mirage and only the stick has been real.

It’s not as though African American political parties don’t exist. Cornell West, PhD, a brilliant American philosopher of African descent is running for president during this electoral cycle, although the Democratic Party is doing all it can to keep him off the ballot in November, and the following are an illustrative listing of current African American political parties in the United States: the African People’s Socialist Party, the All-African People’s Revolutionary Party, the Black Hammer Party, the Black Panther Party, the Black Riders Liberation Party, the Freedom Now Party, the Harold Washington Party, the New Afrikan Black Panther Party, the New Black Panther Party, the Progressive Democratic Party, the Revolutionary Action Movement, the Revolutionary Black Panther Party, the Umoja Party and the United Citizens Party. However, they are singularly unsuccessful because the overseers appointed by the Democratic Party (and its allies in the corporate media) keep them virtually unknown.

African American voters bear a terrible stigma as a result of the homogeneous manner in which a majority have voted over the decades. They tend to be the balance of power in American politics and have been so since they were formally granted the rights of citizens pursuant to the thirteenth fourteenth and fifteen amendments to the United States Constitution following the Civil War. In reality, although they’ve derived few tangible benefits as a result of their political subservience, they’ve been responsible for the election of the administrations responsible for World War II, the Korean War, the Vietnam War, the wars on Serbia and Kosovo, the destruction of Libya (Africa’s most economically successful state), the promotion of civil war in Syria, the Ukrainian conflict, and, for Israeli genocide, ethnic cleansing and Apartheid in Palestine.  Those are intolerable moral burdens for a people to bear. For any people. But especially for a people who have been so utterly abused for over half a millennium.

What Americans of African descent really need if real freedom and real independence and real emancipation and real personal realization are their goals, rather than fourth class illusory citizenship, is their very own “Toussaint Louverture”.

If you’re an American of African descent and don’t know who he is, look him up. 

You may be glad you did.

______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; 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. 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/.

The Law of Unintended Consequences and the First United States Presidential Debate of 2024

Posted on by
Reply

United States president Joseph Robinette Biden was a disaster in his initial 2024 presidential debate against Donald Trump, the truncated affair orchestrated by CNN which, at the demand of the Biden administration, excluded presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Jill Stein and Cornell West, PhD, each of whom would also have trounced the inept Mr. Biden. Mr. Trump performed well, to an extent curbing his impulsive nature and was the clear winner. However, the fear of accountability should Donald Trump return to the Whitehouse will increase rather than decrease abuse of the corporate media and the legal system by the Deep State, possibly leading it to panic and take ever more drastic actions to prevent the American electorate from exercising its political rights.

So, what to expect?

Well, the potential for an assassination of Mr. Trump orchestrated by the Deep State is higher than ever. The potential for adverse judgments against Mr. Trump in the pending wave of “lawfare against him orchestrated by the Deep State, the Biden administration and their supporters at the state level, including private citizens, will increase. And the Supreme Court will experience massive pressure from mortified traditional Republicans, especially on the Chief Justice, to rule in favor of Mr. Trump’s opponents. It seems clear that the law of unanticipated if not unintended consequences is merrily at work.

If Mr. Trump nonetheless survives and prevails, assuming massive electoral fraud is unsuccessful, no sure thing, Deep State moles will once again seek to obstruct not so much Mr. Trump’s policies as his ability to govern. There is really very little difference in the policies of the modern Democratic Party and the GOP, other than with respect to abortion and the Second Amendment.
If Mr. Trump is artfully defeated and the electoral fraud is more obvious this time than it was in 2020, then ever increasing civil strife is possible, although the Deep State is so well armed that a civil war would probably prove futile. At any rate, regardless of the results, the electorate, already utterly polarized may fragment from bipolar to multipolar which would be the only positive thing.

The one sure thing seems to be that whoever eventually wins:

• The ensuing administration will continue to support genocide in the Middle East, probably expanded from just the Palestinians to the Lebanese and the Syrians as Nazis in Hell smile and say, we told you so and welcome aboard to their former non-Soviet adversaries in World War II.

• In Europe, confusion may reign. A Trump victory should surely generate much needed introspection and a settlement of the Deep State orchestrated Ukrainian quagmire may result. But it’s also possible that a creeping advance to a third world war, initially conventional but eventually nuclear, will continue. Still, the corruption of the ideal of European unity by NATO may finally be perceived by the electorates in France and Germany and in the flotsam that echoes the posture of those two subservient polities throughout Europe.

• The de facto Sino-Russian alliance is likely to strengthen, as is the growing closeness of Iran, North Korea and Syria with that group, but that would be true regardless of the results of the United States’ election and Global North hegemony will continue its decline as the Global South continues to evolve politically and economically. The demise of the United States dollar will continue as faith in its ability to function as a neutral reserve currency has already been shattered by the abusive United States international economic sanctions regime.

It is unfortunate that with three decent alternative candidates, the Deep State and its corporate media will exclude them from consideration by voters this November but that has been the case since the unexpected Republican victory in 1860, 164 years ago. The echoes of Cassandric warnings are loud and clear but the three monkeys that represent the so-called Western World continue to plug their ears, shut their eyes and cover their mouths.

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; 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. 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/.

Observations on the Release of Julian Assange from Belmarsh Prison

Posted on by
Reply

At long last Julian Assange has been released by the vile government of the United Kingdom after a guilty plea was extorted by the equally vile Biden administration in the United States.  It is not only way past time, but the imprisonment and indictments of Julian Assange should never have happened nor should the traitorous actions of Lenin Moreno, then president of Ecuador, or the betrayal of all standards of journalism by what passes for journalism throughout the NATO bloc, ever occurred.

The extorted release of Julian Assange by the ill-named United States Department of Justice highlights the putrid nature of what passes for justice in the United States and the United Kingdom, legal systems that punish the innocent and reward the guilty through “plea bargains”, really a system for extorting the innocent by threatening them with draconian punishment if they do not agree to accept often unfounded prosecutorial accusations while conversely rewarding the guilty through sentences (if that) much more lenient than they deserve for their wrongs.  The former is certainly what happened in the case of Julian Assange but it is so obvious that prosecutors just wanted cover for their own crimes of lesse humanidad that it highlights the plight of millions of Americans and others subjected to this ludicrous travesty. Plea bargaining is capitalism imposed on the justice system, a “let’s make a deal or else” concept identical to that used by extortionists in organized crime, an obvious form of state sponsored racketeering. 

I’m thrilled that Julian Assange is free but it’s analogous to a situation where after having murdered millions, the Nazis (or Zionists) let one of their victims survive after torturing him or her into confessing that he or she was a traitor to the master race.  No punishment could be too severe for those responsible, not only for prosecuting the Assange case but all other plea bargains where innocent people are coerced into admitting guilt in order to escape from continuing torture. Had the Biden administration any trace, any semblance of decency it would have released Julian Assange with profound apologies and just compensation for the torture inflicted upon him for having dared to seek and share the truth concerning terrible state sponsored crimes. But that was not the case and the Biden administration needs to be held accountable rather than given credit. 

The governments of the United States and the United Kingdom are not the only villains. The purported profession of journalism finds itself indelibly stained by its conduct throughout the Assange saga, especially media such as the United Kingdom’s Guardian or the United States’ Washington Post, New York Times, CNN, MSNBC and Fox News.  Decent people should boycott every enterprise that supports them through advertising or grants or just plain bribes.

It is unlikely that Julian Assange will ever be able to return to the brave brand of real journalism we all so desperately need.  Well, all but the very worst among us, our political and military leaders.  A decade of torture will have, if not broken him, seriously debilitated him, and worse, set an example for anyone who might otherwise dare to cooperate in exposing inconvenient truths involving the travesties of the NATO bloc of purported libertarian democracies.  And that was the goal of the Biden administration.  As George W. Bush once falsely proclaimed on the deck of a United States aircraft career, “mission accomplished”.  But at least Julian Assange is free and will soon be in the bosom of his wonderful family who will do all they can to make him whole again.

As for us, all we can do is do our best to hold the real villains accountable, those who have totally perverted the concepts of justice, of legality, of ethics and of morality; those for whom perpetual war is the worthiest and most profitable goal and who have politicized and destroyed what pass for legal systems.  And to fearlessly emulate Julian’s quest for truth, a torch he has probably now passed to us.

_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; 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. 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/.

Porque Colombia ha requerido un nuevo Constituyente desde el 1991

Posted on by
Reply

Como ocurre en muchos otros países, en Colombia, al parecer, adoramos a nuestra Constitución.  “Adoramos” es la palabra perfecta por que la tratamos como si fuera una reliquia sagrada no obstante que en casi todas sus metas, posiblemente en todas, ha sido un fracaso.  La “adoramos” pero en poco la respetamos y en menos la cumplimos.  Eso se ha notado en diversas ocasiones por la derecha política y también por la izquierda.  Pero el rechazo a su modificación, una modificación seria, ha sido inmenso.  ¿Y, por qué?

Pues en parte, la realidad es que una reforma eficiente de nuestra Constitución actual tendría que ser tan extensa que resultaría en su remplazo.  Nuestra Constitución está llena de palabras lindas y conceptos hermosos, tantos que es la segunda más larga del mundo.  Pero entre las lindas palabras y los hermosos conceptos están las cláusulas que permiten evadir todas sus promesas.  Un laberinto de requisitos técnicos incumplibles.  Sus promesas han sido ignoradas porque su implementación requiere colaboración política en el Congreso y requiere un Ministerio Publico honesto y eficiente, algo que, por la manera en el cual sus miembros son escogidos, ha resultado imposible.

Para evaluar una constitución, cualquiera constitución, se tiene que medir que tanto se ha logrado cumplir con sus metas.  Hagamos el ejercicio: ¿Se estableció la paz?  ¿Se eliminó la corrupción?  ¿Se logró la equidad?  ¿Se logró la igualdad?  ¿Se logró la justicia?  ¿Se ha eliminó la impunidad?  ¿Se ha disminuido la polarización?  ¿Se ha cumplido con los derechos prometidos?  ¿Se ha logrado la democracia? 

Si somos honestos y objetivos, creo que en ninguno de estos casos fundamentales la respuesta sea sí.  Entonces, ¿para qué sirve esta Constitución?  Bonita si es.  Pero es disfuncional.  ¿Y, por qué?

Pues, en gran parte no es justo decir que no sirve.  Si les sirve a algunos.  A los corruptos, a los ladrones.  A los que tienen el dinero para evadir la justicia.  Pero más que todo, les sirve a los partidos políticos.  Los reales sujetos de la Constitución colombiana del 1991 no son los ciudadanos, ellos son meros objetos.  Los sujetos son los partidos políticos y por ende, los que se benefician de la Constitución son los que controlan a esos partidos. 

Para entender lo anterior se requiere entender la diferencia entre un sujeto y un objeto.  Un objeto es una persona jurídica o natural o institucional sobre cual el poder del estado es ejercido.  Eso incluyo humanos, animales y hasta objetos inanimados, como carros, mesas, comida, etc.  Un sujeto es un objeto que tiene derechos de manejo sobre el poder político que lo impacta, pero derecho y poder real, no meras ilusiones.

En Colombia, los legisladores en el Congreso tienen que hacer lo que dice su partido o pierden sus curules.  No elegimos individuos al Congreso sino partidos.  Lo único que podemos hacer, si las listas electorales son abiertas, es cambiar el orden en el cual los candidatos podrían recibir sus curules.  Nada más.  Por lo tanto, no podemos elegir a quienes nos parecen los mejores y los más honestos líderes políticos para nuestro congreso, o para nuestras asambleas departamentales, o para nuestros concejos municipales.  Eso no es democracia.

En Colombia, planes estratégicos parecen imposibles lograr porque un plan estratégico requiere más de un periodo electoral para completarse, sea de derecha o de izquierda.  Tenemos la absurda noción de, no solo prohibir la reelección, sino también prohibir que una persona que ha ocupado un cargo político ejecutivo, o tiene familiares que han ejercido una función ejecutiva, tenga que esperar un año para superar esas limitaciones que actualmente son inhabilitantes.  Por lo tanto, lo normal es que ningún líder político que busca ascender en sus cargos pueda cumplir el periodo total para el cual fue escogido.  O renuncia un año antes del fin de su periodo legal, o, adiós a una nueva elección.  ¡Qué estupidez!  Esas limitaciones no existen en ningún país exitoso del mundo.

Lo que Colombia requiere, lo que cualquier país requiere, es una constitución decente y eficiente sin promesas incumplibles.  Una constitución escrita en manera comprensible por la ciudadanía.  Y, una sin aspectos plenamente legislativos que no tienen por qué estar incluidos en una obra tan permanente como debe ser constitución.  Una constitución real es algo extraordinario que solo debe tener cuatro funciones: 

  • Primero, crear y delimitar las instituciones estatales.  Es decir, las unidades geográficas y las instituciones gubernamentales como son la legislatura, el ejecutivo, la rama judicial, los procesos electorales, y los medios de control político, y, ademas, las instituciones responsables por la estricta interpretación constitucional y por resolver conflictos entre las diversas ramas del estado.
  • Segundo, toda constitución es inherentemente antidemocrática buscando impedir no solo el poder de la mayoría sino el poder de futuras generaciones.  Todo supuesto derecho fundamental o humano es antidemocrático en ese aspecto.  Pero antidemocrático no implica algo negativo o abusivo, ese aspecto es esencial para proteger la libertad, la autonomía personal y al bienestar y a la independencia de las minorías.
  • El tercer aspecto plenamente constitucional es el de establecer prioridades con respecto al ejercicio del poder, más que todo en temas presupuestales.  La realidad de mucho de lo que se define como “derechos fundamentales o humanos” nada tiene que ver con el concepto de un “derecho”.  Un derecho es inherente, nadie lo da, es eterno, no se puede condicionar.  Entonces, por supuesto, hoy en día, ningún derecho existe ya que ninguno cumple con esos requisitos pero si existen o pueden existir prioridades.  No podemos garantizar la paz, como promete nuestra Constitución, ni un medio ambiente sano, ni la educación, ni la salud, ni viviendas dignas, etc., pero una constitución si podría exigir que los primeros gastos estatales trataran con una función específica, luego, si hay suficiente dinero restante, con otra, y lo mismo hasta que se agota el dinero.  Entonces, en vez de derechos incumplidos, tendríamos prioridades incondicionales delimitadas constitucionalmente.
  • El cuarto y último aspecto trata con su permanencia.  Enmendarla debe ser, no solo difícil, sino que debe requerir de la misma formalidad con la cual se adoptó, y en ambos casos, eso debe, al final, incluir la aprobación directa del primer constituyente, del pueblo, o por plebiscito o por referendo (dependiendo en si hay más que una opción presentada).  Y debe haber proceso dentro de la misma constitución no solo para su enmienda, sino para su remplazo total y eso, por medios no solamente convocados por el gobierno, o por una rama del gobierno, sino por iniciativa popular suficientemente amplia par no resultar en propuestas poco serias o poco apoyadas por el pueblo.

Esos cuatro aspectos y ningunos más tratan con temas que se deben incluir en nuestra carta magna, en nuestra carta política, en nuestra constitución.  Lo que se incluye en una constitución se tiene que cumplir.  Si no se cumple, entonces ahí no debía estar y si esta, se debe de eliminar.

Entonces, si vamos a superar todos los problemas antes mencionados: ¿que debe abordar una constitución decente y eficiente para Colombia?  Pues hay modelos que debíamos investigar, pero no copiar.  Lo que funciona en otras partes no necesariamente funcionaria aquí.  Llegamos a donde estamos copiando conceptos constitucionales desde esa potencia del norte que tanto daño nos ha hecho, y copiados en forma incoherentemente descontextualizada ya que Colombia no es una federación y no aspira a ser un imperio. 

Una república que si me parece que tiene un modelo admirable que nos podría, en parte, funcionar, es la de la República Irlandés.  Ellos gozan de un modelo parlamentario pero no idéntico al inglés.  El modelo de gobierno parlamentario es mucho más democrático que el presidencial y mucho más eficiente.  Eso porque tanto la cámara baja del parlamento, la más importante aunque es denominada los comunes, y el ejecutivo son internamente ligados y cuando no están de acuerdo, en vez de congelarse la gobernación, hay nuevas elecciones para la cámara baja (y, por ende, el ejecutivo) y es el pueblo el que resuelve la crisis.  El parlamento escoge el primer ministro, quien es el jefe de gobierno pero no el jefe de estado, y el parlamento y el primer ministro, conjuntamente, escogen los jefes de los diversos ministerios.  La cámara alta, el senado, es muy innovadora ya que no es democrática, como es la cámara de los comunes, sino pluralista.  Sus miembros no son elegidos popularmente sino por diferentes segmentos de la sociedad.  Algunos son nombrados por el presidente (el jefe de estado, diferente siempre que el primer ministro), otros son elegidos por los sindicatos, otros por las universidades, otros por las cámaras de comercio, etc.  Y el presidente es elegido popularmente siendo la única persona elegida a nivel nacional.  El presidente es encargado más que todo con control político, con las fuerzas armadas y con temas diplomáticos.  Eso permite gobernanza por un tiempo indeterminado, un tiempo que podría ser o muy largo o muy corto, dependiendo en la voluntad popular.  El periodo electoral constitucional es de cinco años, pero no hay límites sobre re-elección.  Al mismo tiempo, podría ser más corto si el primer ministro pierde la confianza del parlamento o si el primer ministro, queriendo aumentar su respaldo en el parlamento, disuelve al parlamento y convoca elecciones tempranas. 

Quizás el aspecto que más admiro del sistema estatal de la Republica Irlandesa es el electoral.  Como en Colombia, las elecciones a los comunes se basan en listas, pero las listas no se conforman por los partidos sino por los electores en forma individual.  Por ejemplo, en el sistema colombiano actual, el Departamento de Caldas es representado en la Cámara de Representantes por cinco personas.  Pero los electores solo pueden votar por una y, al votar por esa, su partido y todos sus otros candidatos reciben el apoyo.  En la Republica Irlandesa, cada ciudadano tendría cinco votos, y los colocaría en orden de prioridad sin consideración de diferencias partidistas, creando así su propia lista.  Así se mantiene el concepto de proporcionalidad entre los diversos grupos de candidatos, sean por partido o independientes, pero no se obliga a que el voto sea limitado a un partido.  Ademas, una vez elegidos, los parlamentarios votan su conciencia y no pueden ser destituidos por diferencias entre ellos y sus partidos.

Entonces, tanto la derecha representada por los seguidores del expresidente Álvaro Uribe Vélez y la izquierda representada por el actual presidente de Colombia, Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego, en parte, tenían la razon cuando decían que Colombia necesitaba un nuevo constituyente constitucional, pero ambos estaban equivocados cuando deseaban limitar los temas constitucionales a los cuales se limitaría esa convocatoria.  Necesitamos iniciar de nuevo porque los cambios esenciales para lograr un país democrático, libertario, equitativo, justo y libre de corrupción e impunidad necesitan un sistema muy diferente al que tenemos y al que siempre hemos tenido.  Un sistema en el cual son los individuos y no los partidos que gobiernan.  Pero por esa razon, los que ahora dominan el poder, tanto los de derecha como los de centro, izquierda y los meramente pragmáticos están totalmente en desacuerdo con un nuevo constituyente ilimitado.  Para ellos, su peor pesadilla es la devolución del poder al pueblo, en especial, si no logran dominar sus decisiones electorales por medio del temor, por medio de las mentiras, por medio de la manipulación o por medio de la corrupción.

Nuestra Constitución actual no es más que un rompecabezas conformado de montones de acuerdos políticos entre personas que buscaron beneficiarse personalmente y beneficiar a sus diversas agrupaciones politicoeconómicas y sociales.  Un rompecabezas incoherente, uno lleno de contradicciones irresolubles.  Por eso ha resultado imposible cumplir con sus numerosas hermosas promesas.  Un cambio de vestido o un poquito de maquillaje no serán adecuados para reformarla.

Una Colombia ideal, una Colombia utópica en temas de su gobernanza es posible, una Colombia mucho más eficiente y realmente honesta.  Una Colombia mucho más equitativa y justa.  Y eso es, no solo posible, sino probable.  Pero necesitamos desamarrarnos de los enlaces maquiavélicos con los cuales nuestros representantes nos enlazaron en 1991.

_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; todos derechos reservados.  Permiso para compartir con atribución.

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

On the Assembly and Attempted Destruction of a Straw Man as a Political Golem: a reality check

Posted on by
Reply

For most of this millennium, candidates for the United States presidency have been absolute horrors, recognized as such by the majority of the voters, but, what passes for democracy in the United States is really a multilevel filtering system that leaves the candidate selection process virtually free of public participation, thus, only candidates acceptable to the oligarchy that actually rules us ever obtain the major party nominations essential for electoral participation.  Indeed, the process has failed only three times during the past century, the election of Richard Millhouse Nixon in 1968, the election of James Earl Carter, Jr. in 1976, and the election of Donald John Trump in 2016.  In each case, the furious traditional political apparatus quickly destroyed the successful candidates.  The latter case is the most interesting however, especially, as it was undone by electoral machinations during the 2020 election, and because a possible replay is in process right now, and it is carefully tied to the concept of a “straw man”.

The concept of “straw men” and, in today’s egalitarian atmosphere, “straw women” is essential in today’s sociopolitical context where manipulation and hypocrisy are the rule and truth an irrelevancy to be avoided at all costs.  In that context, the Democratic Party, a once essential ideologically-leftist political force (now bereft of any ideology except a quest for permanent dictatorial power dedicated to the profits possible in the antithesis of Kant’s “perpetual peace”), crafted the ultimate “straw” man”, a sort of golem, one essential to the modern ill-named Democratic Party (given its vacuity of principles).  That is, given the reality that the principle candidates offered for the highest office by the Democratic Party generate little if any public support on their own and thus, it has become essential for that Deep State pillar to “create” a vilifiable figure against whom to run; a boogey man to frighten voters, one apparently as evil in every way as it is possible to portray so that the even more horrible candidates offered to the electorate by the Democratic Party seem the better option, a concept known as lesser evil politics.  Of course, that also requires that other available options offered by non-traditional political parties and movements such as Jill Stein, Cornel West, PhD, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., etc., be hidden and silenced, but with a subservient mass media, that has never proven difficult.

Thus, enter “Donald John Trump”, a former Democrat and former best friend of the modern Democratic Party’s founders, Bill and Hillary Clinton, the “straw man” extraordinaire, particularly given the shade of his hair which so nearly matches that of Hillary.  The perfect foil for first, Hillary Clinton and then, Joseph Robinette Biden, … at least, so it seemed.  However, despite the best efforts of the Democratic Party and its puppet masters in the Deep State as well as of the mass media, things did not go according to script in 2016 and possibly, during 2020.  2024 remains to be seen.  However, lessons were learned as a result of the 2016 fiasco, and with the elimination of anti-electoral fraud mechanisms through mass mailing of electoral ballots and their collection through indirect means without required verification, the ability of voters to make incorrect electoral decisions has been severely limited.  Additionally, the criminalization of challenges to electoral results, regardless of how suspicious such results seemed, have made unacceptable results improbable.

The Democrat’s “straw man” for 2016, Donald Trump, proved enigmatic.  He apparently started out with all the attributes Democrats had hoped for when Bill Clinton urged him to run for the presidency in opposition to his own wife.  “The Donald” (as he likes to style himself) was and is an arrogant egocentric, egomaniac with a propensity for ludicrous superlatives for purposes of self-promotion, coupled with childish bullying tactics and a proclivity for name calling.  Obviously, at least initially, he was the ideal opponent for the most polarizing and disliked political figure in United States at the time, Mrs. Clinton.  Of course, he’d have to first defeat a host of Republicans eager to go head to head against Mrs. Clinton who, with respect to them, was bound to lose, so, the Donald had to be positioned, with the help of the docile mass media, for maximum exposure.  After all, who, seeing the Donald’s ludicrous posturing, linguistic vulgarity and pomposity would not, in the end, consider Hillary the lesser evil and, holding their noses, covering their eyes, plugging their ears and covering their mouths, vote for her in preference to the Donald?

The first part of the plan worked, albeit perhaps too well.  The Donald steamrolled his Republican opponents and became a darling of the populist segment of the Republican Party.  A strange political bloc which had, in large part, rejected the corruption inherent in all major United States political institutions.  It involved an informal hodgepodge of diverse political groupings ranging from libertarian to extreme conservative but, its largest segment involved a disorganized, leaderless group that described itself as the “Tea Party”.  While not formally organized or led, people who self-identified as members of the Tea Party tended to vote in concert and, to the shocked surprise of the traditional segment of the GOP, they soon constituted a majority of the Republican Party’s electorate.  The Democratic Party experienced a populist wave itself in the form of backers of purportedly independent and progressive Senator Bernie Sanders, but he quickly sold out his Sanderistas, leaving them sucking their thumbs and wondering what happened.  That left only the Donald for those sick of traditional politics as usual, and lightning struck via the law of unintended consequences, leaving both Machiavellian Democrats and traditional Republicans flabbergasted. 

The “Deep State” (an informal alliance of billionaires, intelligence agencies, the mass media and moles planted throughout the federal bureaucracy by the Obama administration), was especially flabbergasted but not totally unprepared.  The Deep State, which had enjoyed an unbreakable grip on both major parties since the Clintons’ victory in 1992, was faced with the ultimate “loose cannon” in the Donald, a billionaire who was beholden to no one and whose megalomania knew no bounds.  Indeed, the Donald seemed a sort of Mussolini who perceived that he was worthy of deification.  Unfortunately for the Deep State, the Democratic Party and traditionalist Republicans, a major segment of the electorate agreed with him and still does, that despite the massive attacks to which he has been subjected since he was surprisingly elected president in 2016 and much more so since he refused to accept the obvious electoral manipulation and possible electoral fraud that led to his defeat in the 2020 re-run.

The Donald’s policies mainly dealt with treating symptoms fairly well, while ignoring underlying causes and his administration did unexpectedly well during its first three years, but John Fauci, MD, the federal Centers for Disease Control and the corporate media came to the Democratic Party’s rescue during the fourth year of the Trump administration, successfully leveraging a global virus into an international economic disaster and blaming it all on the hapless Donald.  It took a major Deep State managed misinformation campaign, a fake foreign political interference scandal and a gullible public, especially among African Americans to undo the 2016 debacle, but, with the help of a mole ridden federal bureaucracy, by January 20, 2021, the Donald was out of the picture, at least temporarily.

But the Clintons had created a political version of the Frankenstein monster, a golem who went on to crush them, and seems ready to do so again despite the Deep State’s new massive campaign against him, one pitting the subverted United States Justice Department and Democratic Party controlled state and local chief legal officers and tame judges and juries bringing deeply flawed legal and criminal actions against him.  The Donald though, like a good golem, just refuses to die.

So, what happens if he wins again?  He’s been leading in most polls, most of the time? 

Well, there is a significant possibility that he would be prevented from assuming his office by a real “insurrection”, you know, like the ones foreseen in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution, not like the limited protests that took place on January 6, 2021 (and which seemed to have been infiltrated by Deep State agents whose goal was to use them as a means of preventing more meaningful protests from taking place, a sort of “straw protest” strategy).  If that takes place, all bets are off.  The Deep State, which would have been responsible for orchestrating the insurrection, would immediately label opponents to that de facto coup d’état as “insurrections and, since it controls the armed forces, intelligence agencies, police forces, prosecutorial agencies and the judiciary, as well as the mass media, the real insurrectionists would continue to govern, and those seeking to defend the Constitution would promptly be imprisoned or, perhaps, even disappeared (as happens in so many countries that experience United States intelligence agency orchestrated coups d’état).  And then what?

Good question.

There are of course, other options.  “Non-straw person” options.  At least three.  There is African American philosopher, Cornel West, PhD, a brilliant civic leader who, unfortunately is running a terrible campaign; there’s traditional Green Party candidate Jill Stein, a brilliant Jewish woman opposed to Israeli genocide and military opportunism in favor of liberal domestic programs; and, then there’s Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. (RFK, Jr.), a courageous liberal anticorruption crusader with a lifetime of real achievements but who, unfortunately, is tied to Israel because a Palestinian assassinated his father in 1968.  Of the three, the Israeli backing Zionists who control so much of the mass media (not Jews, Zionists) and the political bribery process known as campaign contributions will assure that only pro-Israeli RFK, Jr., has any chance, although his opposition to other Deep State military projects like the Ukrainian adventure designed to overthrow Vladimir Putin in the Russian Federation and the series of provocations designed to incite a hot war between the United States (or its proxies) and the Peoples’ Republic of China over the Chinese province of Taiwan make him anathema to the billionaire class that rules us.  However, RFK, Jr.’s poll numbers keep going up, so much so that now, not only the Democratic Party is “dead” set on preventing his candidacy (I use the term dead because, notwithstanding the assassination of his father and uncle, the Biden administration refuses to provide RFK, Jr., with secret service protection), but so is the Trump campaign and a magnificent recently released video narrated by Woody Harrelson presenting the real RFK, Jr., rather than the parody portrayed by the mass media, is making so many waves, that the oligarchs of the Internet have started a campaign to block its distribution (his campaign just filed a related law suit against META).  A campaign identical to the one waged by them against Mr. Trump in 2020.  The link to the video, as of right now, is https://www.kennedy24.com/who-is-bobby-video-donate?utm_campaign=elon_musk&utm_medium=email1&utm_source=joinkennedy.  Who knows how long it will be permitted to function.  Watch it if you can.

Anyway, as we see the United States government, along with that of the United Kingdom, Canada and Australia defend Israeli genocide with all the armaments they can supply, even diverting armaments from the Ukraine, making a sick mockery over the claims made to justify military adventurism since World War I, we can sit by, glued to our television screens (if we’re older) or to our computers and cell phones (if we’re younger), being spoon fed deceptive propaganda and assured that everything is and will continue to be just fine, as long as we vote the way we’re supposed to or even, if we don’t.  It may not make a difference how we vote anymore.

So, how about those Yankees?  Or Dodgers, or whatever will distract us from the issues that will mold our future and that of our children for generations to come.

“Bajigabajiga that’s all folks!!!! (Porky Pig, circa, 1937).
_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; 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, an intermittent commentator on radio and television, and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications.  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/.

The Civic Ironies that keep us Politically Caged

Posted on by
Reply

On May 10, 2024, Jonathan Cook published an article on Substack entitled “Biden’s war on Gaza is now a war on truth and the right to protest. The media’s role is to draw attention away from what the students are protesting – complicity in genocide – and engineer a moral panic to leave the genocide undisturbed”.  The topic was timely and essential, but for me, it raised another issue, a political reality that is utterly ignored, one that deals with the fact that the relevant political division today is not between right and left, or between liberals and progressives versus conservatives, but between Deep State minions and tools, and the populists who oppose them.  Two definitions are essential in understanding the foregoing, the definition of what we mean when we use the terms “Deep State” and “populists”.

The Deep State is an informal but profound alliance between the military industrial complex (against which president Dwight David Eisenhower warned us in November of 1960); the intelligence agencies of the United States, the United Kingdom and the State of Israel, plus their counterparts in diverse NATO member states; the traditional mass media in the United States and in US allies; the Democratic Party; and, traditionalist members of the Republican Party such as the Bush Family, the Cheney family, the McCain family and their political allies.  The Deep State has riddled the federal government at all levels with moles, i.e. unelected bureaucrats, especially in the Department of Justice and its state and local level analogues, and throughout the federal judiciary; moles who carry out the orders of their billionaire masters rather than those of the people we elect to run our government, unless, of course, those interests coincide.  Populists, from both the left and the right wings of the political spectrum, are individuals and organizations who believe deeply in democracy and liberty, but believe that the formal governmental institutions responsible for guaranteeing such concepts are inept and corrupt, and thus, they have little faith in the traditional political castes.

The Deep State manages to hold unto dictatorial power (i.e., control of legislative, executive, judicial, police and electoral functions) by keeping the populists divided based on fringe issues, most notably abortion and the right to bear arms, and by focusing attention on polarizing issues such as race, gender, sexual preferences, national origins, religion (and its absence) and the fake war on terror.  Under the Biden administration, the Deep State has criminalized the right to protest, unless, as in the case of the Black Lives Matter rights, the protests serve their domestic political aspirations.

It is obvious that the Deep state profoundly manipulated the 2018 congressional elections and the 2020 presidential elections and that such manipulation had a profound impacts on the results.  It is also at least possible and possibly likely, that the use of mass mail-in ballots without requiring the voters themselves to turn them in facilitated electoral fraud, possibly enough to have impacted the 2020 presidential election.  Many of those who protested those results, whether violently, peacefully or through the legal process have been subjected to the full weight of federal and state penal systems in clear violation of the most fundamental principles of what used to pass for democracy in the United States, and that includes not only Republicans, but independents and members of smaller political parties.  Many people who despised the GOP candidate in that election had no problem with the subversion of the civic rights involved as it helped their “team” to win, despite that such victory proved utterly hollow (where is health care for all, world peace, economic wellbeing, equity, equality, etc.?).  But now, in a sense, the precedents they applauded have come back to haunt at least some of them, actually, the very best among them.  I refer to the current police and legal attacks against students, faculty members and others who dare to protest against Israeli genocide.

As in the case of the Deep State machinations in the 2020 presidential elections, it is clear that the students, faculty members and others protesting against Israeli genocide have an existentially valid point.  Everything they demand involves what the Nuremburg trials following the second war to end all wars prohibited and sought to punish by invoking the death penalty against the leaders involved and forever outlawing their political movements, outlawing them everywhere, but that has not proved to be the case as neo-Nazis rule the Ukraine, with full Deep State support, as well as Israel.  And those who dare to point that out, to protest against it either violently, peacefully or through legal actions, find themselves persecuted, both civically and legally, with their futures placed in serious jeopardy, as is the case in the series of trials against protesters and critics of the results of the 2020 presidentai election.

It is profoundly ironic that the issues involved in both cases are so similar, while those involved feel that the two principle issues are completely different, and that the members of each group have nothing in common, when in reality, they are, in fact, so similar.  Each group is comprised of deeply committed individuals who profoundly believe in truth, justice and equity, and who are willing to risk their “lives, property and sacred honor”, a phrase once attributed to United States founding father Patrick Henry”, to see justice done.  They have a common enemy, the Deep State which adroitly manipulates them and uses each of the groups against the other in order to maintain the dictatorial power that permits it to abuse police at all levels and the penal laws such police and departments of justice are sworn to uphold, in order to continue the very profitable state of perpetual war, to continue to overthrow governments and to keep the truth under wraps, as it does, for example, though the imprisonment of one of the world’s only real journalist, Julian Assange.  All actions which maximize the profits and minimize the risks of the wealthiest and least honorable among us.

How ironic that Trump supporters, to whom it is obvious that he is being persecuted through abuse of power in order to prevent his return to power, and that the corporate media has made a mockery of the truth in order to assist in that process, trust that same media when it calumnies against those who oppose genocide, apartheid and ethnic cleansing, deeming them domestic terrorists, the same label it applies to those who expressed their outrage at what they perceived to be massive electoral fraud, in their protests at the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021.  And how ironic that the students, faculty members and their supporters who are being subjected to high handed mass media and police abuse and abuse of legal processes to stifle their protests against obvious genocide, with tactics all too similar to those used against the s called January 6 terrorists, don’t realize that they not only have a commonality of interests in the legal process, but that many of their goals are compatible rather than antagonistic.

It is irony such as this, it is our own civic incoherence, which permits the worst among us to attain and maintain power, while the lives of the best and most courageous among us are destroyed.  Something for all of us to consider as we vote this November and to consider that there are at least five candidates running for president, not just two, and that many political parties and movements are fielding candidates for the Senate and the House of Representatives, not just two.  And that the same is true at the state and local levels.  And that the only wasted votes are those we decline to cast for the things in which we believe and which we instead cast based on induced fears and in support of purportedly lesser evils.
_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2024; 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, an intermittent commentator on radio and television, and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications.  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/.