"will to affect the distant"

“in the morning when thou risest unwillingly, let this thought be present. 'i am rising to the work of a human being. why then am i dissatified if i am going to do the things for which i exist and for which i was brought into the world? or have i been made for this, to lie in the bedclothes and keep myself warm'. but this is more pleasant, dost thou exist then to take thy pleasure and not all action and exertion? dost thou not see the little plants, the little birds, the ants, the spiders, the bees working together to put in order their several parts of the universe? and art thou willing to do the work of a human being and dost thou not make haste to do that which is according to nature?" marcus aurelius__________________________ “western mankind, without exception, is under the influence of an immense optical illusion. everyone demands something of the rest. we say "thou shalt" in the conviction that so-and-so in fact will, can and must be changed or fashioned or arranged conformably to that order, and our belief both in the efficacy of, and in our title to give, such orders is unshakable...in the ethics of the west everything is direction, claim to power, will to affect the distant. here luther is completely at one with nietzsche, popes with darwininas, socialists with jesuits..." oswald spengler. decline of the west________________________ why would i be “dissatisfied”?...well…first of all no one has ever actually given me a final definition of what the “work of a human being” might be…there seem to be manifold definitions mostly engendered by those who believe that ”the efficacy of” and their “title to give, such orders is unshakable”…belief, like truth, is utterly subjective and entirely capable of being misplaced…from politicians to executives to the clerisy ( whether religious, academic, op-ed pundits, or any of a string of inane youtube “influencers” ) there are any number of the unshaken who believe they know how i should comport myself in the face of “the work of a human being” and i am forced to question exactly who might benefit most if i fall into line with their thinking…ozzie has a valid point about that “immense optical illusion” foisted on almost all of us…old marcus was, aside from a miserable stoic, the emperor of rome and one suspects that his “work of a human being” was to maintain and expand the privilege of himself and his bastions of hangers-on…so who benefitted most from his “work”?...when i clock in who is the winner?...i earn money and so gain access to goods and services…that is fact…and who benefits more from those transactions?...myself or the shareholders and top tier of the corporation?...i have my suspicions…I also have the numbers that confirm my suspicions…you could find an algorithm to do the ceo’s job at considerably less cost…we’re back to ozzie’s “thou shalt” delivered in imperious tones and backed up by a raft of specious reasoning from those theologians of greed called economists ( and let’s not leave out the clerisy )…so i awoke before the alarm went off this morning and as an act of defiance of the “system” and as a posthumous affront to the dead emperor and the entire , miserable stoic project ( an evasion of addressing life on all its levels and a philosophy that smacks of quietism on the best day it ever had…epictitus and that slum-lord seneca can get bent ) i shut it off before it went off and stayed “in the bedclothes to keep myself warm” for another hour…then i got up and took the dog out which was to the sole benefit of the dog and myself…that was reasonable “work of a human being”.

ideology masquerading as principle

ideology-n. a system of ideas or ways of thinking pertaining to a class or individual esp. as a basis for some economic or political theory or system, regarded as justifying actions and esp. to be maintained irrespective of events. the shorter oxford English dictionary

in an interview in the sunday new york times kevin d. roberts…head wonk at the heritage foundation, maintains the aim is to “institutionalize trumpsim”…this brings up a number of points…it would seem mr. Roberts has already elected don trump to a second term as president…and “trumpism” needs a definition…the first point is still moot and we actually have an answer to the second…the heritage foundation is involved in something called “project 2025” which is a conservative group bent on imposing their values despite what anyone else may think…they have produced a book titled “mandate for leadership: the conservative mandate”…a manifesto for the kulturkampf…a sample of the verbiage runs like this…”reducing the number of federal employees seems an obvious way to reduce the overall expense of the civil service, and many prior administrations have attempted to do just this. presidents bill Clinton and barak obama began their terns, as did ronald reagan and donald trump, by mandating a freeze on the hiring of new federal employees but these efforts did not lead to permanent and substantive reductions in the number of nondefense federal employees”…so the military and its enormous expense are inviolate…that is clear…what is not clear is why “prior administrations” failed to reduce the federal payroll…project 2025 does not stop to consider that you cannot administer a de facto empire with a small government…shades of grover nordquist and his desire to “drown” a shrunken federal government in a bathtub…so long as you are policing an empire you will have bureaucrats…my thoughts are they will simply be those infused with trumpist ardor if mr. Roberts has his way…and what does he see as “substantive”?...he ballparked 50,000 lost jobs and added that he wished the losers no harm and hoped they would thrive in the regular economy as old federal buildings were “repurposed” for commercial activities ( how much empty commercial space is there where you live? Good luck there kev )…”mandate for leadership” has fifteen chapters dealing with separate government agencies involved in regulatory activities and an outline for what to do with each…for health and human services for instance, “protecting, life, conscience, and bodily integrity: the secretary should pursue a robust agenda to protect the fundamental right to life, protect conscience rights [ “health and human services prohibits recipients of health and human services funds from discriminating against institutional and individual health care entities for their participation in, abstention from, or objection to certain medical procedures.” church amendments to the public health service act definition of “conscience rights”], and uphold bodily integrity rooted in biological realities, not ideology.”…no more abortions and none of that transgender nonsense in a “trumpist” America…so in an 800 plus page ideological manifesto they dismiss current administration policy as “ideology”…of course they will call it “conservative principles” or “ faith-based beliefs”…that does not diminish it as ideological warfare on a national scale..

i have not finished perusing this and imagine there will be more overt self-deceit or, perhaps, it is simply an attempt to disguise scrapping what’s left of the constitution as some sort of return to morality…small wonder the fundamentalists are on board…and we will ( for now ) leave out the implications of kev’s stated desire to remove power from the bureaucrats and return it to congress…given the sclerotic state of that group of doctrinaire conspiracy theorists and wholly owned grifter criminals ( what was that twain said about congress? ) that cannot possibly bode well for the bulk of the polity…in fact I cannot see much of anything in these pages aimed at the actual wellbeing of the bulk of the population…a framework for government by the elite for the elite…which wouldn’t be much of a change actually…they simply don’t like the veneer of what passes for democracy in this country.

extra-judicial assassinations

all adolescents test boundaries...entitled ones moreso one suspects...someone needs to sit on this one...nixon's lawyers argued in open court in 1974 that the president was immune to prosecution for four years at a time no matter what he might do...of course that was an attempt to beat a conspiracy ( a both flexible and loaded word in today's political lexicon...ask the house of non-representatives ) to commit burglary rap...nixon never tried to kill anyone ( unless, of course, you count vietnamese )...the supreme court of the time rejected that bullshit unanimously...with the bench loaded with today's partisan yahoos who knows...they may just endorse dictatorship ( in the words of chamfort, "it's easier to make something legal than to make it legitimate " )...so navy seals as the hitmen of the executive branch? i am told that military personel swear to uphold the constitution which could be a sticky point for a literalist...unless, of course, you stack military leadership with loyalists and label your political opponents "enemies of the constitution"...then the military becomes the nkvd and absolutely no one is safe from denunciation as a maga heretic...this would lead to not just an expansion of detainment camps ( concentration would be, one imagines, strenuously avoided ) for undocumented immigrants but a general burgeoning of enclosures of barbed and razor wire ( electrified or not )...there is a subset of the polity that lust for an authoritarian government...either so they could be as violent as their nature dictates or stop thinking, take your pick ( or choose both )...and one has to wonder under what circumstances that wire might come down with "president for life" trump and his cadres in charge...it is going to be an interesting year ( or more )

the stench of yet another presidential year

“…the minority must surrender up their judgement and will to majority…private opinion must give way to public judgement…he must be a vain, conceited individual who can think himself capable as to judge of what is necessary for the support of government s those whom the nation has chosen & entrusted for that very purpose…it is the duty of the citizen to submit to it ( the majority ); and to give up his private sentiments to the public will…the false patriot is the man who willfully misrepresents his government ,and the conduct of its officers, or, without just cause, creates distrust and suspicion of the legislature, or the executive, or of the principle officers of the government, and openly opposes, or secretly foments and encourages opposition to the execution of the laws.” Supreme court justice Samuel Chase in a charge sheet to the grand jury investigating Thomas Cooper, editor of the Sunbury and Northumberland gazette for violation of the alien and sedition act of 1798 on 12 April 1800____________ Of course all this federalist flummery in favor of majority rule turned to abhorrence of mob rule when Jefferson won the 1800 election and set a president for whining political losers that has confused the electoral process since and has surely been in evidence over the last few years…if not since 2000…one can easily question the “public will”…stop and ponder on some of the people you know, and group-think ( politicians love a mass rally ) and in-group bias can easily be manipulated by a cadre of debased and lying political whores…no one is objective so setting an objective benchmark for political behavior has always been a problem…pragmatic naturalism ( have a shufti at pragmatism by William James, my copy is only 134 pages long ) is the quintessential American philosophy and that situational ethic says whatever works is good…so whatever it takes to win is ethical…ends justify means…and in the end Chase’s vaunted “public will” is secondary at best…whomever manipulates it most efficiently is the winner…buckle up people, things are getting more interesting by the minute.