Man Demonized by Woman

If particular care and attention is not paid to the Ladies, we are determined to foment a Rebellion, and will not hold ourselves bound by any Laws in which we have no voice, or Representation. Abigail Adams
Criticism: The Demon Lover, on the Sexuality of Terrorism, by Robin Morgan, copyright 1989
Robin Morgan, born in Lake Worth, Florida and removed to New York, was enrolled in modeling school when she was two-years-old. By the age of four she had her own radio show, and by age nine she was a television star, playing Dagmar from 195O to 1956 in Mama, based on Kathryn Forbes’ Mama’s Bank Account and its theatre and film adaptations, I Remember Mama, the story of an immigrant family as told by a daughter who aspires to be a writer – Robin has acknowledged Mama’s lessons as a source of her feminine power. Robin eventually defied her own mother and dropped acting for poetry. She attended Columbia University and worked as a literary agent and freelance editor – she would eventually become a contributing editor to Ms. Magazine for many years, and its chief editor from 1989 to 1993.
Ms. Morgan, as Leftist and Yippie, contributed to left-wing, counter-cultural, and anti-war journals in the 1960s, but like other disenchanted young women she became fed up with the male domination of political wings and groups, and she committed herself to radical feminism. She was a founding member of New York Radical Women, and helped create the street-theatre ensemble, W.I.T.C.H., best known for putting hexes on both the male-led right-wing House of Unamerican Activities Committee and the male-led, left-wing Chicago Eight.
Speaking of witches, she wrote her recent, historical novel, The Burning Time (2006), portraying the Inquisition as a war on Irish witches by bigoted men, particularly Bishop Richard de Ladrede and his army, sent over for the purpose. No doubt the women were learned and the men stupid in those days, and the women would rather do without them if they could. For example, Dame Alyce Kyteler, a noblewoman who practices the Craft (Wicca), was delighted to be rid husbands in general –she had had four – and John in particular as she wallowed on goose-feather-stuffed pillows under her goose-down coverlet, and watched the “sliver of a new moon glowing through cloud wisps in a celestial game of hide-and-seek. No chilly drafts –and no complaints from John. Savoring the pure luxury of it, she stretched again, gurgling a low laugh of pleasure.”
Robin Morgan is dedicated to ‘Sisterhood’, a loosely knit, grassroots feminist coalition she sees as the network to implement the only possible solution to the traditional violence of Fatherhood, now threatening to destroy the world of humankind with its higher technology. Just as the struggle of blacks, with the help of a few courageous whites, helped to free whites from their vices, now women can help free men from their viciousness with the help of a few courageous men. If women are to lead the way, they must stand apart in feminine solidarity, a stance from which they should naturally cast a wary eye on those would-be male feminists who are more interested in seducing and perverting the female cause than in obtaining the purported justice of sexual equality.
Given the postmodern and deconstructionist cultivation of ambivalence and ambiguity, not to mention the traditional herd-like behavior of the human majority, extreme stances must sometimes be taken to get much done. Otherwise we are left with the sort of reform that amounts to tinkering with the status quo. Radical feminists deserve our gratitude for talking back and acting up, but they get little thanks since the First World banked hard towards the Right. Of course the Right has its Patty Hearsts in its top ranks, but it is still dominated by men under the influence of traditional Patriarchism. Neoconservative leaders have complained about the “feminization” of our culture, a process that allegedly makes sissies if not unpatriotic cowards of bullies. And of course the Left as we know it would be dominated by its own patriarchal models, who would gladly afford women higher education credits along with bulldozer-operator and fighter-pilot jobs.
Yes, women influenced by radical feminism have won much for both men and women, but the guard is being dropped in favor of implants, and women are being re-assimilated. Who needs liberal studies such as Women’s Studies now that liberation has been won? What library scientist needs to include Women’s Issues in his or her taxonomy now that being a woman is no longer an issue? The remaining feminist radicals are atavistic throwbacks, mere caricatures of their selfish selves; absurd clowns and dissident dikes in need of spanking, slapping around, smacking down and other reform-schooling. Feminists have broken up into more than a dozen ideological camps and are at each other’s throats – perhaps an instinctive hangover from thousands of years of competing for mates? Good women are standing behind and slightly to the left of their confident strongman again, where they smile and nod in agreement from time to time during his cock-and-bull campaigns. Wherever a great man exists, a woman is behind him; the bigger his gun, the safer she is, at least from the clutches of other men. Never mind the fact that he might be just another conman and terrorist in the sacred home and abroad.
Robin Morgan refuses to succumb to reassimilation or to the defeatism of those who say feminism or love or peace is no longer worth talking about when the world is at arms-as-usual. Blah, blah, blah, they say: Why talk things over when people are out to get you? It’s better to make a pre-emptive strike and call the horrendous results the necessary evil of a just war. But Ms. Morgan insists on fighting the good fight, the spiritual jihad that may somehow undermine the demon in man someday. That is her career, after all. She keeps saying the same things over and over again, hoping against hope that men may remember things from their repetition and eventually act on what they’ve learned. Morality after all is expressed in timeless platitudes; the sin is in not restating them in some seemingly original way for the sake of a capitalistic copyright. Sometimes her personal grammar is not clear enough for righteous thinkers. For example, instead of saying that all men are terrorists at heart, she says that our concept of terrorism today is a figment of an impoverished imagination:
“Yes, the murder exists,” Ms. Morgan admits. “The fear exists. The grief exists. But yes, the terrorist is a figment of our imagination – and more, a figment of our lack of imagination. The terrorist is the logical incarnation of patriarchal politics in a technological world. The terrorist is the son practicing what the father has practiced, and claiming to have found his identity in doing so.”
 It does not take much of an imagination to see that war is highly organized state-terrorism, and that the men who wage it are akin to the violent men whom we call terrorists because they have some cause to do violence but do not have their own state or uniform or nation. Why did not the terrorists get themselves a flag, don uniforms, climb into a truck and attack the nearest military base with machine guns instead of flying planes into the dual phallic symbol of American military and economic domination? Yet Ms. Robin’s most hysterical detractors, especially men who naturally resent being demonized, resort to their own hackneyed phrases when criticizing Demon Lover. According to them, her book reveals a confused gazpacho of jargon, feminists boilerplate, hysteria, polemics, and just plan nonsense, and when these revelations are made at college, the shrill and dreary ideology subsidized with tax dollars is called women’s studies, the bane of tradition scholarship and high civilization itself.. 
 But let us continue with our women’s studies: In Demon Lover, Ms. Morgan attributes age-old terrorism to the tyrannical-father-versus-rebellious son patriarchal system and its death-religion. She claims that our male-dominated, ecstatic death-politic approach to life is a form of group psychosis, and that its fundamentalist-based institutional religion constitutes a hateful lust for annihilation: “All organized religion… has always been a political movement, consistently articulating a politics of Thanatos, and just as consistently targeting women as the worst impediments to that politics.”
A patriarchal state is naturally a warring state, either preparing for war, making war, or recovering from war. Terrorized women, fearing for their lives, cooperate with the predominantly male terrorists, even participating in their crimes: She quotes Patricia Hearst: “What happened to me happens to women all the time. I’ve been kidnapped, held prisoner, threatened, beaten, humiliated, raped, battered. I’ve been lied to and lied about and disbelieved. The only difference between what happened to me and what happens to other women is that mine was an extreme case.”
A number of Ms. Morgan’s observations are certainly applicable to the moronic plutocracy of the United States; for instance, “When power and wealth are combined with ignorance… the result is societal violence, making almost inevitable – in the patriarchal pattern – the enforced ignorance and terrorist violence of groups like the SLA.” Since men are natural-born terrorists who only mind their manners when intimidated, they might easily be led by gangsters into doing what they would rather do, turn the world into a bloodbath. The usual either/or, friend-or-foe, “Those who are not with us are agin’ us”, attitude shall justify the mass suicide/homicide.
The F-type or fascistic – right-wing authoritarian – is well known for its either/or attitude, its intolerance for the essential ambiguity of life, hence rational man would impose his totalitarianism on his hysterical woman and terrified children at home, and terrorize those abroad with his militant state apparatus. Of course the implication that nice Americans are like Nazis is politically incorrect in the United States. Decent, law-abiding citizens of pre-Nazi and Nazi Germany were also quite nice. The German neoconservatives or Nazis agitated against the right of women to work outside of the home and to receive the same pay as men: Women belong with children, in the kitchen, in church. Of course the German New Conservatives, fathers of the current neoconservative movement in the United States, agitated against contraception, abortion, and homosexuality – abortion was banned in 1934.
Robin Morgan notes that our own Oliver North was a typical nice guy, the poster-boy kind of hero neoconservatives adore. Ronald Reagan called him a “national hero” although he was characterized by many others as a “terrorist”, a term that made him chuckle. “This is the man who had adventuristically waded through scores of illegal and covert murderous actions with a boyish grin on his all-American face. And this is the ‘born-again’ Christian who states that he has ‘a personal relationship with Jesus Christ as a driving force’ in his life. This is the anti-reproductive-choice zealot, one who is ‘pro-life’ and whose car bumper sticker boasts ‘God is Prolif-ic.’ None of this terrorist tradition is contradictory in the context of a hero.”  American heroes like Oliver North are trained to cut the cord to their mothers, who represent life and who are therefore the ultimate destroyers of what a man should value most of all – death. Wherefore he must be born again, not to a woman but to a powerful father-figure. Yet he, the born-again hero, the successful terrorist, will appear to be normal; and he is normal in his terrorism, for “the hero is only the average man writ large.” The representative terrorist might even be elected to Congress or the White House.
Ms. Morgan is not mystified by the fact that “those people most enamored today of the fetus’ ‘right to life’ are usually the same people who support capital punishment, compulsory military service, and increased funding for armaments. To the ‘savage mind,’ the taboo at the core of all taboos is that blood cannot be cleansed except in the fire of male contest, whether for territory, wealth, power, fame or souls.” Women shed blood to bear children; men shed it to murder them, and must rid themselves of the life-affirming women who stand in their way: witness, for mythological instance, the sadistic Babylonian brutalization of Tiamat by her son Marduk in order to create a patriarchy.
“A lack of ambivalence cannot tolerate complexity or compassion,” Ms. Morgan unambivalently stated. “A lack of ambivalence is the hallmark of leadership – in the State-that-is as well as the State-that-would-be. Indeed, the State-that-is trains its sons in this lack.” Boys must be trained for manhood, and that includes making sure that, instead of living for a cause, they die violently for a cause – those who object to this shift from wanting life to lusting for death are deemed traitors. To be men – she quotes Paulo Freire – is to be oppressors: That is what manhood and its violent religion is all about. It would make things and people scarce hence more valuable by destroying and killing them.
“Religion is not about awe and joy…. Religion is about terror…. In the balance between these two figures – the jealous god and the satanic rebel – our lives swing perilously, and have swung so for centuries. The coming of the messiah has always meant revelations of the apocalypse: the end of the world.” The secular manuals of terror are simply the sacred texts paraphrased. Indeed, violence is the main subject of patriarchal literature – high levels of violence are encouraged in the media and fed to children while depiction of sexual love is discouraged if not banned. A man learns to behave well, publicly, on the streets of his town, while satisfying his violent tendencies behind closed doors in his castle; or abroad, where he calls the innocent murdered men, women and children “collateral damage.”
Ms. Morgan mentioned the terrorist tactics of the Sicarii and Zealots who fostered uprisings against Rome: “Their aim was to intensify Jewish lack of confidence in local Jewish authorities, and to incite such hatred between Jews, Romans, and Greeks that all negotiations would be impossible.” Today real men are not to worry too much about random killing, for they were given their mass-murder license and a religion to purge blood-guilt long ago. When their ethics are questioned because millions of innocents are killed, they shall revert to such excuses as necessary evil or collateral damage. “It’s not coincidental that random murder of average citizens, including those in no way connected to power, emerged as a strategy of insurgent struggle after the random murder of average citizens had become a ‘legitimate’ military tactic conventional wars.” We note that when push comes to shove, it is all right to nuke entire cities – many American men said they wanted to turn Baghdad into a “parking lot” just for the hell of it during the first military-industrial-energy complex war on Iraq. As for the role of women, they must cooperate in the usual crimes against humanity or else; an ancient instance: Jewish women and children were given no choice “about either the campaign of terror or the mass ‘suicide’ of Zealots at Masada, a suicide now honored as the exemplification of heroic self-sacrifice, yet they too perished in a heroism defined by their men.”
The very nature of a patriarchal state, rooted as it is in the family under terrifying fatherhood, is violent: The State bestows power on the terrorists who win. “Far from being a threat to the State, terrorism is the means by which men under patriarchy judge one another fit to succeed. Our “family man” is the Latin “pater familias,” or “owner of slaves.”
Of course the son or next generation is bound to rebel. A terrifying backlash against the State at home may follow the State-sponsored terrorism of the United States abroad. “Anti-State terrorism seems to emerge most violently in those countries where, a generation earlier, acute State terrorism and literal fascist philosophy was the rule.” We note that the aim of the 9/11 terrorists was largely symbolic, made for the media; there was a huge media uproar and the entire nation panicked. If the paters familias, the patriotic paters of the fatherland, had been watching over their brood, the “lucky strike” would not have occurred; but they were too busy backbiting and looking out for themselves, according to the competitive American Way of Gilded Individualism. We imagine that a new, homegrown generation of terrorists might arise when things go south; they may not refrain from killing hundreds of thousands of their kind, doing a great deal more damage than al-Queda by simply going after the vulnerable public facilities in their own neighborhoods –May the Patriarchs forbid it!
As fate would have it, Robin Morgan was living a few blocks from the World Trade Center during the 9/11 attack – she saw the second tower struck. She provided her “Sisters and Friends” all over the world with graphic reports of the events over the next few days, via bulk email. On Day Two, she thanked them for their condolences and for offering her places to stay, noting “astonishingly” that many of them cited her book Demon Lover as an appropriate analysis of the root causes of the demonic attack. And, “even in the midst of deep sorrow and grief you have renewed my belief that art, attempted clarity of thought, and a stubborn politics of transformation do make a contribution, make a difference. But so far, as we know all too hideously, not enough.” She asked the recipients of her email to feel free to share her communiqué with their networks, and asked them to do all they could do to educate people on why such tragedies happen:
“It is not just ‘madmen’ or ‘monsters’ or ‘subhuman maniacs’ who commit dramatic violence, but that such acts occur in a daily climate of patriarchal violence so epidemic as to be invisible in its normality – and that such acts as this attack come from a complex set of circumstances, including despair over not being heard in any other way; desperation over long-term, even generational, suffering; calcification of sympathy for ‘the other’; callousing of sensibilities, blatant economic and political injustice, tribal/ethnic hatreds and fears, religious fundamentalisms, and especially the eroticization and elevation of violence as a form of ‘manhood’ and ‘solution.’ Violence is psychosis – but it’s a psychosis that contemporary incumbent leaders of most nations share with their insurgent opponents.”
Terrorism has been commonplace for centuries, yet it serves the violent propensity of the neoconservative authorities to declare a violent, “infinite” world war on terrorism in the name of so-called democracy and the Terrorist Almighty. Mind you that every political family has defended terrorism as a bona fide principle of action, and that many are the terrorists who became heroes because they were victorious, perhaps founding their own fatherland. But terrorism is warranted today only in defense of democracy; that terrorism includes pre-emptive defense. Of course that defense, trained even to war in time of peace, is glad to have an enemy.
We recall that in 1986 ‘terrorism’ was the main concern of U.S. citizens, but in no one year in the 80s were more than 30 U.S. citizens killed in terrorist incidents. 23 were killed in 1985, yet over a hundred were killed by lightning. Seven U.S. citizens were terrorist victims in 1987 – three of them accidentally.  Prior to September 11, 2001 and the U.S. president’s declaration of an infinite war on terrorism, the world was more pacific than in previous decades. In reality, there was little political violence in comparison to period of the world wars and the so-called Korean and Vietnam police actions, even though the neoliberal globalization vaunted by American-style corporatism in the name of consumer democracy and capitalist profit had in fact wrought unprecedented social violence and inequality. Of course we should not forget that the U.S.-led sanctions in Iraq had by some estimates killed over a million Iraqis, the overwhelming majority of them women and children. At last the sole superpower had a Global Satan to replace the Evil Empire.
The Crusaders who marched East over strange lands to rid themselves of domestic crime had their anti-Christ in Mohammed: “Mohammed was seen as Anti-Christ,” wrote Michael Fox in People of the Crusade (1997), “and resistance to Islam concentrated the will of Europe into a high and holy aim, drawing together rough, lawless people demoralized by too many years of invasion. It came to seem, to many of the best reforming minds in the West, that the very stability and safety of their society depended in a large way on the resolute fight against the power and claims of Islam.”
God needs Satan; the World Trade Center and Pentagon bombing was a patriarchal-god-send to the neoconservative administration, whose presiding officer had named Jesus Christ as his political hero during his political campaign. The Crusades and the persecution of Jews in Jesus’ name proves that the Redeemer is a tribal god in the minds of his born-again worshipers; when their bloodlust contradicts the new testament, that of love, they revert to the old, and, as frustrated Jews, claim that the new must fulfill the old.
Wherefore the Terrorist Almighty has his awful, arbitrary sway over the minds of men; or rather they have created him to justify their terrible conduct. There is nothing new under the Sun, said the Hebrew imperialist whose empire wound up shrinking despite the increase in trade thanks to his camel-technology innovation. For Ms. Morgan and other like-minded women, all men are trained terrorists – men and women alike fear the sound of a male footstep behind them, and for good reason, but they fear not the dainty female footstep. The “new” terrorist haunting us is the same old terrorist armed with higher technology – the higher the technology, it seems, the lower the morality.
Ms. Morgan reported from terrorized Manhattan that she had watched sophisticated people sobbing in the streets. People had lost their jobs; they worried about their sons in the military; they were unnerved by security checkpoints; they mourned, felt wounded, humiliated and outraged. The sad scene reminded her of sights she had seen when she worked for UNRWA – the United Nations Relief and Work Agency for Palestinian Refugees. “And I see my friends like Zuhira in the refugee camps of Gaza or West Bank, Palestinian women who have lived in precisely that emotional condition – for four generations.” Yet liberal New York City under attack by demonized Arabs brought out the best in people, including its mean-minded mayor; he had ignored the threats on the horizon while cracking down on jaywalking and window-washing beggars, but he rose to the disastrous occasion in the eerie limelight of Ground Zero.
In any event the Big Apple is more civilized than Jerusalem, the epitome of patriarchal residence Ms. Morgan has described in Demon Lover as hell on earth, an idolized hellhole for patriarchs of various hostile persuasions: “Jerusalem, the holy city, is for me an uncivil hell. In a smoldering populace, factions barely coexist by ignoring one another, repressing one another, or avenging themselves upon one another… Small riots, clashes, street friskings, car bombings occur each day as matters of no consequence. The secular Israelis are at civil war with the Haredim, the ultra-Orthodox Jews. The latter have been torching bus-stop shelters postered with ‘pornographic’ bathing-suit advertisements. They have also been firebombing movie theatres that stay open on the Sabbath, attacking and throwing stones at Israeli women wearing slacks, and gaining seats in the Knesset. Some secular Israeli’s have responded by bombing Orthodox synagogues…. None of the men wear veils or children. The men wear guns. The tourists wear Bermuda shorts and cameras. This makes it easy to tell them all apart. Jerusalem is the only place in the region where I encounter street sexual harassment – and it is from Israeli soldiers, catcalling and making sucking sounds…. To wander too near the Orthodox Jewish section is to invite being stoned or beaten. The suburbs boast homes that are walled compounds…. In the camps I was not afraid, yet in Jerusalem I am afraid.”
Global Sister Morgan noted in her email that a mosque had already been firebombed in the U.S.; Arab Americans were hiding their children indoors; two murders had been classified as anti-Arab hate crimes – one of the victims, a Sikh, had been killed because he wore a turban, yet “there were not nationwide attacks against white Christian males after Timothy McVeigh was apprehended for the Oklahoma bombing.” As for Christians, she observed that Christian leader Jerry Falwell blamed the 9/11 attacks on “the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists and the gays and lesbians… the American Civil Liberties Union”, and others who would secularize America; another prominent Christian America leader, Pat Robertson, whose organization had campaigned for President Bush, concurred with the placement of the blame.
Ensconced in her Greenwich Village nest, Robin said she had not yet hung an American flag, nor had she pinned a red, white, and blue ribbon to her lapel in the aftermath of the attack. Instead, she wept for the city and the world and clung to a different loyalty, “affirming my un-flag, my un-anthem, my un-prayer –the defiant un-pledge of a madwoman who also had mere words as her only tools in a time of ignorance and carnage: Virginia Woolf.”
What is to be done? Again, as men fight, fight, and fight, women must talk, talk, and talk. Robin Morgan believes that women, confronted with violence, must talk back, despite the fact that they might be violently chastised by self-righteous men who, in the heat of the moment, prefer war to peace, and for that cause will dismiss any objections with the back of a hand. One of them said, “Yeah, Mohammad Atta was probably turning in his grave at the thought of radical feminists talking about the psychosexual politics of terrorism.” But Robin Morgan is not deterred by the childish patriarchal prejudice of her critic and his demented cousin in terrorism. “I urge you to write letters to the editors of newspapers, call in to talk radio shows…. Talk about the root causes of terrorism, about the need to diminish this daily climate of patriarchal violence surrounding us in its state-sanctioned normalcy….”
October 2006
Miami Beach

President Trump Is Us Gone Mad






29 April 2017

The failure of Hillary Clinton to win the presidency of the United States despite her great majority of popular votes overall may be attributed to the strategic error of her campaign in neglecting a few key states wherein she lost all the electoral votes simply because she lost the popular vote in those states by a very small margin, thereby giving Donald Trump a wide margin of electoral votes in the elector college, where electors do not vote their conscience, as was intended by the Framers of the Constitution, but almost all routinely cast all their votes for whosoever won the popular vote in their states.

That is, the Electoral College system has become a farce. The perversion of the electoral system in the United States was referred to by Walter Bagehot, in The English Constitution (1867), wherein he compared the virtues of the English Cabinet to the American Presidential system:

“The presidential system not only gives the executive power an antagonist in the legislative power, and so makes it weaker; it also enfeebles it by impairing its intrinsic quality. A cabinet is elected by a legislature; and when that legislature is composed of fit persons, that mode of electing the executive is the very best. It is a case of secondary election, under the only conditions in which secondary election is preferable to primary. Generally speaking, in an electioneering country (I mean in a country full of political life, and used to the manipulation of popular institutions), the election of candidates to elect candidates is a farce. The electoral college of America is so. It was intended that the deputies when assembled should exercise a real discretion, and by independent choice select the president. But the primary electors take too much interest. They only elect a deputy to vote for Mr. Lincoln or Mr. Breckenridge….” “The member of electoral college is but a messenger, a transmitter: the real decision is in those who chose him, who chose him because they knew what he would do.” (See Note)

President Trump, a consummate bamboozler, claimed that the election returns were skewed by fraud, that he actually won the popular vote, but of course there is absolutely no evidence of that or any of the other bizarre claims he has made before and after he was elected.

That is, after all, what a showman does. Nonetheless, many people thought the carnival would end the day he took office. It has gone on and on, and TV armchair psychiatrists have diagnosed him as psychotic instead of neurotic, the norm for most of us.

We apologize in advance for repeating the slanders in the interest of fair comment on the nature of psycho-political commentary: He is delusional because he supposedly believes that facts are fake; he is a malignant narcissist, a sort of devil who loves himself as god so much that he hates the humankind he would deceive and annihilate in a nuclear holocaust; he suffers from attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, as evidenced by his pacing about the White House in the wee hours, tweeting like mad, and muttering “To do or not to do, yes I shall but no I shall not, to do or not to do, yes I shall, but no I shall not, yes, no, yes, no, tweet, tweet, tweet. ” And that is not all.

The latest poll I took from a representative sample of a dozen people at the South Beach Crunch gym has The Donald’s worst sin not as groping, something women seem ambivalent about given the man, but, all answered “Yes” to “Is the president an egomaniac?” Some added obscene words next to the box, but that is outside the scope of the poll.

That was admittedly a loaded poll question, for whom do we love but ourselves when we love others? That is made obvious by the people who love the president very much. The only thing maniacal about self-love is when it is all too obvious.

In any event, narcissism is inappropriately applied to Mr. Trump because he loves nymphs, and that was not the case with Narcissus at all. And nowadays we have huge mirrors, so there is no chance he will drown himself in a pool.

The question should also be asked of ambivalent humankind, whom do we love most of all when we hate others if not ourselves?

Why, the President has just finished his first hundred days in the White House including weekends in his Florida Mansion, and, according to Leaky Leaks, people are confessing to priests that they want him dead as soon as possible, but are tormented by the thought that Pious Pence would take over, because they believe he is an unctuous snake so do not want to pray with him, or, even worse, Wily Ryan, because they see a satanic glow in his eyes.

There is no chance of impeachment because, as President Jefferson truly observed after resorting to it behind the scenes to prevent the judiciary from being an independent branch of government, impeachment is a farce that should not be tried again. That he was correct was proved, at least as far as presidents are concerned, by the impeachment of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. As long as Spin-The-President gives Republicans more wins than losses, and President Trump is their Bully-in-Chief, there will be no impeachment. There is no way the Senate would convict President Trump, anyway, at least not until after the next election.

The President’s cabinet could appeal to Congress to relieve President Trump from his duties if he were unfit, mentally incapacitated or certified insane by a bipartisan panel of psychiatrists. Forget about that. It is best for his councilors and department heads, if they wish to keep their jobs, to keep him in invisible chains, try to minimize his appearances so the public cannot see the drooling and slobbering attended to privately by his attractive daughter, probably the only person who loves him unconditionally as she does her best to distract him from tweeting and help him clip coins.

The best thing his advisors can do at the moment is familiarize him with one of the chief merits of President Calvin Coolidge (Silent Cal), who observed that politicians do little harm to themselves by keeping quiet. That is not always true, but President Trump should learn how convenient it would be for him to just shut up; that should in part defray concerns about his Mental Age.

The reality is this: President Trump is not really in charge of anything now, not even when he goes to the toilet.

That does not mean he is insane. We like to think one person can lead us into Zion, but our presidents are enchained by innumerable organizational influences from the day they take the Oath of Hypocrisy to serve the will of the people instead of their prejudices e.g. idiotologies and theologies, when they take office. The office changes the officer. President Ronald Reagan was once a bleeding heart liberal. President Franklin Roosevelt was once a fiscal conservative. And so on.

Alas, there is no such thing as the General Will of the People other than currents upon which leaders can bob as corks, swim downstream or sink trying to go against the flow, perhaps giving a little guidance along the way as pilots as circumstances force their hands.

It is a great deal of fun to poke fun at public figures, and even to despise them, but it is not politically correct to laugh at and despise mentally disturbed people. The cause of most mental disturbances in individuals will be found in society. That society is presently hysterical and obsessed, has nearly gone stark raving mad.

If this president be a Narcissus for his blatant self-worship, the reflection he is seeing in the mirror is the huge base of supporters who love him and would continue to do so if he shot a Democratic dead in broad daylight on Broadway. They love him for the reason that they love themselves, and they believe the circumstances they hate are unnecessary and can be changed for the better. We elect the leaders we deserve. What is definitely called for in all of us is therapeutic self-improvement. Then something constructive may be done.



“It is true that the British House of Commons is subject to the same influences. Members are mostly, perhaps, elected because they will vote for a particular ministry, rather than for purely legislative reasons. But, and here is the capital distinction, the functions of the House of Commons are important and continuous. It does not, like the electoral college in the United States, separate when it has elected its ruler; it watches, legislates, seats and unseats ministries, from day to day. Accordingly it is a real electoral body. The parliament of 1857, which, more than any other parliament of late years, was a parliament elected to support a particular premier, which was chosen, as Americans might say, upon the ‘Palmerston ticket’, before it had been in existence two years, dethroned Lord Palmerston. Though selected in the interest of a particular ministry, it in fact destroyed that ministry. . . .

“The independence of the legislative and executive powers is the specific quality of the presidential government, just as their fusion and combination is the precise principle of cabinet government.” “The executive is crippled by not getting the laws it needs, and the legislature is spoiled by having to act without responsibility: the executive becomes unfit for its name since it cannot execute what it decides on; the legislature is demoralized by liberty, by taking decisions of which others (and not itself) will suffer the effects.” “(T)he cabinet can compel legislation by the threat of resignation, and the threat of dissolution; but neither of these can be used in a presidential state. There the legislature cannot be dissolved by the executive government; and it does not heed a resignation, for it has not to find the successor.” “(U)nder a presidential government a nation has, except at the electing moment, no influence; it has not the ballot-box before it; its virtue is gone, and it must wait till its instant of despotism again returns.”

“It has been said that England invented the phrase, ‘Her Majesty’s Opposition’; that it was the first government which made a criticism of administration as much a part of the polity as administration itself.” “There are doubtless debates in the legislature, but they are prologues without a play. There is nothing of a catastrophe about them; you cannot turn out the government. The prize of power is not in the gift of the legislature, and no one cares for the legislature. The executive, the great centre of power and place, sticks irremovable; you cannot change it in any event.” “(A) parliamentary or cabinet constitution possesses an additional and special advantage in very dangerous times….” “Under a cabinet constitution at a sudden emergency this people can choose a ruler for the occasion. It is quite possible and even likely that he would not be ruler before the occasion….” “By the structure of the world we often want, at the sudden occurrence of a grave tempest, to change the helmsman, to replace the pilot of the calm by the pilot of the storm…But under a presidential government you can do nothing of the kind.” “There is no elastic element, everything is rigid, specified, dated.”

“Even in quiet times, government by a president is, for the various reasons which have been stated, inferior to government by a cabinet; but the difficulty of quiet times is nothing as compared with the difficulty of unquiet times. The comparative deficiencies of the regular, common operation of a presidential government are far less than the comparative deficiencies in time of sudden trouble, the want of elasticity, the impossibility of a dictatorship, the total absence of a revolutionary reserve.”

“…a strong cabinet can obtain the concurrence of the legislature in all acts which facilitate its administration; it is itself, so to say, the legislature. But a president may be hampered by the parliament, and is likely to be hampered. The natural tendency of the members of every legislature is to make themselves conspicuous. They wish to gratify an ambition laudable or blamable; they wish to promote the measures they think best for the public welfare; they wish to make their will felt in great affairs. All these mixed motives urge them to oppose the executive. They are embodying the purposes of others if they aid; they are advancing their own opinions if they defeat: they are first if they vanquish; they are auxiliaries if they support. The weakness of the American executive used to be the great theme of all critics before the Confederate rebellion. Congress and committees of Congress of course impeded the executive when there was no coercive public sentiment to check and rule them.”

Regarding Natives and Barbarians

Decisive Battle at Nuuanu by Herb Kane
“The decisive downward step…is not the change ‘Unbeliever’ to ‘Barbarian’, but the change from ‘Unbeliever’ to ‘Native’, in the definition of the stigma by means of which the oppressor seeks to rob his victim of an inalienable humanity. In stigmatizing the members of an alien society as ‘Natives’ of their homes, ‘top-dog’ is denying their humanity by asserting their political and economic nullity…. By designating them as ‘Natives’, he is implicitly assimilating them into the non-human fauna and flora of a virgin ‘New World’ that has been waiting for it predatory and acquisitive latest human discoverers to enter and take possession in virtue of a right of ’eminent domain’ over a ‘Promised Land’ deemed to be the gift of some war-goddess of Private Enterprise…” (Arnold Toynbee)
In Eurasia, nomadic peoples who descended from the North were generally known as “barbarians”. The Ta-taerh or Tatars were a clan akin to the Chinese, yet the label was applied to all nomads. The Mongols warned Europeans not to call Mongols Tatars. The Tatar clan vanished about 1200 A.D. after being conquered by the Mongols. Yet long thereafter the term was used to designate both Mongols and Turks. As for the Mongols mong-ku (brave people), they are descended from the ancient Turks and an ancient Siberian tribe (Tungusi). The Chinese called them Hiung-nu, meaning the mass of nomads, and also used pejorative names, such as one meaning “devils.” The Turks became a political football for the experts and politicians for quite awhile.. “Turk” means helmet, supposedly because the Turks wore helmets or came from near a helmet-shaped mound. A related term, the Chinese, ‘Tou-kei‘, meant “insolent dog,” and, more recently, “foreign dog.” All three terms were practically synonymous with “barbarian.”

Mainstream Media Bakes Farewell Cake For Ethically Challenged Mayor

Philip Levine (l) Jimmy Morales (r)


The report of a decline in bribery is fake news

By David Arthur Walters


March 31, 2017

“MIAMI BEACH Bribery attempts drop, but they still happen,” declaimed the headline at the top of the front page yesterday.

That was followed by the subheading: “A survey reveals that 22 percent of Miami Beach public employees say they’ve been offered a bribe at some point in their career.” The employees were not asked if they accepted bribes. Pray tell.

That percentage does not jibe with a subsequent statement about the December 2016 survey that of “218 employees in departments most likely to be targets of bribery… 100 reported having been offered a bribe as some time in their career.”

Well, 100 divided by 218 is 45.9 percent, not 22 percent, but never mind that because the timing of “sometime” makes meaningful comparison impossible, and so does the rest of an incomplete hodgepodge of statistics from several years of surveys instead of a straightforward table of side-by-side statistics for all categories.

The employees were not asked if they accepted bribes, and the report does not say whether employees who said they received offers were asked to identify the persons who offered the bribes so an attempt could be made to corroborate their statements or law enforcement alerted to keep an eye on them.

Of course there is a difference between a free lunch and a cash donation, and lunch will probably be declined.

What is clear is that the report takes the cake, that it is a liberal propaganda piece bidding Mayor Philip Levine—a wealthy media mogul who was himself disgraced for soliciting campaign contributions from developers of city properties—farewell forever because his political career has been washed up with the defeat of his great friend Hillary Clinton.

The “Get It Done” mayor’s vainglorious demeanor and censorious conduct alienated honest reporters to begin with. What followed turned many of his followers against him, although he certainly is not to blame for everything that has gone wrong.

Haste makes waste: “King” Levine’s “prime minister,” city manager Jimmy Morales, is partly to blame for bad planning and thuggish rush to completions resulting in massive public disturbances, costly overruns and stalled projects.

Exposure of public corruption is improbable because the parties to it are unlikely to confess to it unless someone rats them out or law enforcement gets something else on them and offers them a deal.

The administration has made that more difficult, for example, with its software upgrades, making it inconvenient for delators to confidentially access online building permit and inspection records, requiring them to identify themselves and obtain permission from the owners. And that is not all to show that the often advertised “increased transparency” is a canard in respect to some crucial records.

The administration has also replaced municipal magistrates or “special masters” who hear code violation cases with virtual stooges who provide no meaningful review for the discriminatory policymakers who are their masters.

The city has in the past refused to adopt a county whistleblower ordinance to encourage informers to come forward.

The county ethics commission, a retirement farm for prosecutors, is a joke on Miami Beach taxpayers despite its randomly correct findings. Just prior to the last wave of arrests, its director, Joe Centorino aka “Sleeping Joe” declared at a meeting with bloggers that Miami Beach had cleaned itself up, and when a reporter noted that, bullied him by email. The Miami Herald has ignored numerous reports of inadequacy of that commission as well as allegations of Miami Beach corruption, not to mention the commission’s egregious violation of public disclosure law when its commissioners were filmed whispering behind folders at a meeting.

The result of the ethics commission’s recent “investigation” into allegations made by one Antonio Halabi damned the commission to infamy for its lack of due process: the commission forwarded his allegations, including evidence that the city manager had raised himself above the law, to city officials. The accused naturally responded in the negative; the commission took their word for it and dismissed the case without offering Mr. Halabi an opportunity for rebuttal.

That is not all that demonstrates the incompetence and selective enforcement of the ethics commission and the bullying attitude of its director when his investigations are criticized.

Now here we have another condignly unbalanced report from the Miami Herald, representing the so-called fourth branch of government that is in actually part of the real fourth branch, the bureaucracy, posing as news in a way that suits the very definition of “fake news,” false inferences from survey facts that do not really indicate facts at all.

The city is congratulated for taking an expensive ethics course run by the county ethics commission, a notion that was scoffed at by the likes of Commissioner Ed Tobin, because even a moron knows what corruption is. Or maybe not, because when wrong is done long enough, wrong seems right.

Mayor Levine and the majority of commissioners he sponsored waived the city’s ethics requirements so that Commissioner Tobin could apply for the police job while sitting on the commission. Levine lauded Tobin, and said he would like to similarly waive the ethics code for himself. But when the commissioner crossed him, he accused him of being unethical, leaving us to wonder why the commissioner failed to pass the ethics test given under the purview of the mayor’s new police chief, forcing him to get at police officer job on the mainland with the City of Miami,

Mr. Levine may be one of the most ethically challenged mayors to sit on the dais since the notorious Mayor Alex Daoud. Just for example, millions were paid by the city for the air rights above the Sunset Harbour shopping center owned beneficially by him and his great friend and partner Scott Robins, and then, while mayor, he attempted to push through zoning to his advantage; the ludicrous premise handed down by the state ethics commission was that the advantage to him would not be immediate. This time, however, the county ethics commission did not put its nose where there is no sunshine.

The city also is applauded for the allegedly improved morale of its employees, who “felt” they have better whistleblower protection. The mayor naturally “thinks” there has been “a tremendous change in culture” under his tenure.

Please “think” and “feel” again, because thinking in itself is not knowing, neither are self-congratulatory feelings.

Critical thinking is indeed useful, so think again about what deposed Mayor Matti Bower said after Mr. Levine was crowned a strong mayor over his court of faux reformers as his prime minister bragged about the number of people fired, leaving key people around in honey pots such as the problematic Building and Code Enforcement departments for years, yet now saying key staffers were replaced.

City workers, averred Madame Bower, a grandmotherly politician who was friendly with scores of employees, reported they said they had been cowed by the new regime. That is, fear and intimidation was the rule.

We all know the corporate drill: you had better have a good attitude and be positive about us or you had better find another job.

Here is something else to “think” about: The “indicative” statistics quoted by the Miami Herald are meaningless in terms of “indicating” facts.  South Florida is by virtue of its Third World influences perhaps the most corrupt region in the United States. Federal law enforcement is charged with curbing corruption of the local, county and state police power in all departments, but with a deliberately limited staff. Economists have even declared that a certain degree of corruption is good for business. Republicans led by President Trump may desire to cut the FBI staff in half. Miami Beach is a drop in the bucket. Arrests there come in intermittent waves as a handful of investigators work priorities from place to place. When Miami Beach is hit, corruption may decline for awhile, and lessons are learned as to how to avoid detection.

Now the Miami Herald also reports that the $3.5 million recently plundered from city coffers, an event that led to the departure of finance department staff, “remains unsolved and under investigation.”

The mayor’s wealth sidekick on the dais, Commission Rick Arriola, told the Huffington Post that the matter is under investigation, that the city will get back every penny. and that “audits are the responsibility of the city’s outside auditors and the city’s CFO.”

What a ridiculous statement that is, for the problem is that the finance department and auditors did not bother for ages to reconcile cash balance on books to cash in bank, a routine bookkeeping procedure.

Mr. Arriola would surely fire his controller and bookkeepers for failing to detect the imbalance in a month if not in a day given the modern software relations between banks and their clients.  Since he is so sure of recovery, he should personally guarantee it, as the amount is rather miniscule for him given his good fortune.

By the way, the attack pieces of the Huffington Post were so imbalanced that I was tempted to rebut them and give the mayor some little credit for the hundreds of millions allocated for the war against global warming. At least we are not wading around in knee-deep water in South Beach.

Yet it is high time that a major media outlet took the mayor and his ilk to task  despite more threats of SLAPP libel suits. It is safer to do so now that his great friend Hillary Clinton has gone down in flames.

But the Miami Herald must “feel” sorry for the mayor, and “think” that it has a duty to boost from time to time the official sources needed bolster its sales. Therefore we have this astonishing farewell cake baked for Mayor Philip Levine




CAN I VIEW PERMIT HISTORY ONLINE?Permits issued for any property in the City of  Miami Beach from 1990 to 04/26/2016 are available through Velocity Hall Online Permitting.

Click here to access permits before 04/26/2016 Velocity Hall Online Permitting

Permits and other processes transitioned to the City’s new software can be obtained via the Citizen Access Portal at

Note:  If you are not either the owner, contractor, engineer, architect  or owner representative, you will not be able to register at the Citizen Access Portal and therefore; may submit a public records request to the Building Department’s Records Management Section.  Click here to download the Records Request Form















The Marquis de Condorcet’s Progressive Technique




The Marquis de Condorcet (1743-1794) was the youngest and only philosophe of note who played a major role in the French Revolution. He was already a celebrated mathematician when he took up politics and became a member of Voltaire’s Enlightenment clique. Opposed to the sentimental approach of Rousseau to human nature, Condorcet employed mathematical language, extending differential calculus and the theory of probability to moral and social behavior, employing statistical methodology to analyze sociological phenomena.

Condorcet is best known for pioneering perhaps the first modern theory of progress. The social scientist presumes that human behavior like the rest of nature is subject to certain laws which he might discover through the careful observation of phenomena and reflections thereupon, leading to the formulation of hypotheses for experimentation.

Human evil, he believed, was largely due to the miscalculation of human interest. In sum: evil outcomes are due to errors in judgment. Humans are natural-born gamblers: they instinctively weigh the chance of one result against another. To obtain better results, a scientific method is needed to eliminate error; to wit: the social calculus of probability.

The application of mathematics and political arithmetic to social science provides us with a quantitative degree of certainty about what outcomes will obtain when conditions are manipulated. Presumably social scientists conduct their studies for the benefit of society, that society may improve or progress. Condorcet is best known for pioneering perhaps the first modern theory of progress.

So the social scientist presumes that human behavior like the rest of nature is subject to certain laws which he might discover through the careful observation of phenomena and reflections thereupon, leading to the formulation of hypotheses for experimentation.

Nature including humankind is undoubtedly subject to laws, but human beings, endowed with the power of reasoning, have the ability to modify the application of natural laws to their personal and mutual advantage. The ability to reason is natural, therefore so is progress. Reasoning may be employed to ascertain logical means to measurable progress. For instance, probability theory employs symbolic logic to determine what course of action is most likely to succeed. Hence progress in is augmented by a precise language grounded in facts of sense.

It follows that human progress is entirely up to us, that it is not dependent on the miraculous intervention of transcendental forces beyond our apprehension and comprehension. Therefore Condorcet was “anti-Christian” as Christianity was then conceived. He was raised by Jesuits, who apparently had a knack, at least when confronted with rebellious young minds, for cultivating brilliant “atheists,” especially in France.

Human beings, he asserted, progress from conditions of brute enslavement, including enslavement to their own passions, towards mastery over those conditions. Mastery is achieved by the removal of certain obstacles to the ultimate perfectibility of humankind, such as elitism, tyranny, popular prejudice, ignorance. The impediments to progress can be removed from the progressive highway by scientific and technological advances, and political revolution.

The goal of progress is freedom, but absolute freedom from restraints, absolute power, is impossible, not to be had except in Chaos. Relative freedom, on the other hand, is possible, and is always from an evil towards a good. The perfectibility of man, however, which is indefinite, is by no means assured. National and class inequalities may be eventually reduced, and the lot of individuals improved via the historical movement is towards equality; not absolute, totalitarian equality, but the equality of rights, the equality of freedom without regard to race, color, creed or sex (Condorcet was an advanced feminist).

Wherefore Condorcet advocated freedom in order; freedom under law; freedom legally constituted with a constitution, preferably that of a liberal democracy.

He was enthusiastic about the outbreak of the Revolution, but he did not conceive of Reason as a raving lunatic or murderous fanatic. His independent adherence to reason instead of the bloodthirsty mob would cost him his life.

Condorcet had considerable influence in England. For instance, his thinking had an impact on an eccentric inventor and English radical by the name of Charles Stanhope (Lord Mahon). Stanhope, the son of a mathematician, was like his father in important respects. Joseph Priestley, a man very much admired by Condorcet, dedicated his third volume of ‘Experiments on Air’ to Charles Stanhope’s father.

Condorcet also admired Stanhope’s associate, Richard Price, an important adviser to the fledgling United States of America. Price pioneered actuarial methodology for mutual aid societies, devising sinking fund schemes to fund social security and reduce the national debt.

Practically all radicals worth their roots were enthusiastic about social mathematics and political arithmetic. That is not to say they were cold-hearted, calculating, mean-minded men. An emphasis on reason may be compensation for underlying passion. Condorcet, despite his romantic temperament, was wrongly depicted as an arid, heartless man.

Condorcet lost his life attempting to thwart the Jacobin movement. He had been “proscribed” by the Jacobins, meaning that he was to be decapitated, so he went into hiding. He eventually disguised himself and left the house he was hiding in because he feared for the safety of the painter’s widow who had insisted on harboring him there despite his protests. After wandering about for three days with a tattered copy of Horace, he walked into a tavern where he was pointed out and arrested.

On the day of his imprisonment, while awaiting the guillotine, he died, some say by self-administered poison he allegedly kept hidden in his ring. Suicide would have been a fitting end, for he always said that even there are laws regulating the universe, man has the natural power to modify their application for his own benefit, and that is the very nature of his freedom.

Condorcet circumspectly warned his daughter against unregulated passion shortly before he died, highly recommending reason as passion’s proper guide. And he wrote his incredibly optimistic essay on the history of progress under the shadow of the guillotine.

No doubt he had his doubts in dire circumstances, but he still enjoyed a degree of certainty he called “hope,” hope not for his own fate but for man’s movement into the next epoch along the long road of indefinite perfectibility. He eschewed the opposite, pessimistic perspective on probability that considers the long-term disadvantage, that the house always wins in the long run, because if something can go wrong it eventually will.

No, the Marquis de Condorcet was certainly not a cold-blooded, heartless being. He was an enthusiastically human being.

Ea as sovereign political principle of Hawai`i






What in the world did the Polynesian word “Ea” mean before it was politicized by “native Hawaiians” to mean the sovereignty of their kings? The dictionary definition claims that, first of all, the word means “sovereignty,” in the context of “the (Ea) of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.”

Only after that, may Ea mean “life,” “air,” “breath,” “spirit,” and so on.  Nonetheless, the typical native Hawaiian identity of “life” with their own, racially biased rule of the islands naturally predominates, regardless of the fact that some of the most vigorous proponents of racial independence from “haoles,” a pejorative for white foreigners, are themselves “hapa haoles,” that is, of mixed race, hence are plagued by personal insecurity, which is, of course, naturally blamed on foreigners.

As a result of the prevalent identity crisis, which is by no means unique within a Westernized society besieged by rampant egoism, the assimilated “natives” sorely lack political solidarity and cultural unity, as is evident in perpetual cycles of recrimination and self-denigration within their councils and by malicious gossip on social media such a Facebook.

Wherefore Ea, interpreted as the struggle for independence from others, rather than aloha, the spirit of love for others, wins out, even among mutual admiration groups engaged in the worship of their “beautiful genealogies.”  And the spirits of aloha as well as Ea, those words being Hawaiian, are naturally considered as the private property of anyone with native blood as well as would-be natives.

The phrase “the (Ea) of the land is perpetuated in righteousness” became the motto of the English-style monarchy which self-righteous missionaries helped the original Hawaiian aristocracy fashion as the missionaries helped themselves to the land and impoverished the ordinary natives who would be decimated time and again by foreign diseases and habits because, according to the missionary charters back East, missionaries wanted to save ignorant “savages” or “heathen” from material and spiritual poverty. The motto was retained by the American territorial republic after Ea was “stolen” from the original Hawaiians by “thieving whites,” and is presently the motto of the American State of Hawaii.

The United States became more than willing to assist with that task, with easy access to sugar and the strategic value of Pearl Harbor in mind. The British were interested, but given the unprofitable venture in the American colony and the complete loss of sovereignty to the revolution there, they were not willing to invest in sovereignty over the Sandwich Islands. When a renegade English captain by the name of Paulet seized the sovereignty of the king, England handed it back with an apology, and the king of Hawaii said, according to the interpretation of today’s sovereignty activists, “The (EA) of the land is perpetuated in righteousness.”

Sovereignty activists who harken back to the defunct kingdom tend to overlook the fact that the chiefs and paramount chief of the biggest island, after which the Sandwich Islands are now named, being fearful for the maintenance of their rule, once gave their sovereignty over the island to Britain; upon which sailors planted the British flag on shore as the chiefs chanted Hail Britannia. Nor do they fain recall that King Kamehameha the Great, having all the islands under his sway after waging brutal warfare and pushing opposed troops off a cliff to pacify them, wrote a letter to King George of England subjecting Hawaiians to British sovereignty.

Think again. England was not about to protect Hawaii from other nations without substantial rewards for doing so in the form of taxes, trade, and conquest, and the chiefs certainly would not appreciate British rule.

Time does not stand still. Things change. What was then was then, and what is now is now. We would forgive our fathers for their wrongs and celebrate their righteousness even though progress is somewhat impeded by the fact that the son is the father of the man, and that, regardless of liberal political theories, fathers rule families hence to some degree chiefs rule tribes and clans, kings countries, governors states, presidents corporations, dictators soviet unions, so on and so forth. In other words, humankind naturally organizes itself hierarchically from simple to complex; fathers, paters are the foundation of patriotism.

Hawaii is now a state, so get used to it, for it is the best of all possible states notwithstanding silent racism and internal bickering. If the interpretation of the motto is true, that sovereignty over a land by the ultimate landlord depends on the righteousness of the sovereign, then the fact that the United States has power over Hawaii is right until its leaders are by revolution overthrown for abuses of power; and then the successors can keep the same motto to assert their own form of righteousness.

Native Hawaiians, who may call themselves kanaka maoli, real men, meaning native people, sometimes politically defined as those people who have a certain quota of blood of the people who lived on the islands before the arrival of Captain Cook, and who lived there for some time thereafter, are divided among themselves as to what to do about the fact that their king’s kingdom along with the land they worked, the very basis of their wealth in common, was taken from them with the help of kings who helped themselves.

A few pure-blooded kanakas remain. The hapas or “half” breeds are many; but the hapas may not be “half,” anymore; they are perhaps from the stock of several “races” or cultures. They are exceedingly beautiful, but they have been discriminated against, and they discriminate among themselves. Still, elements of the Hawaiian culture survive, so they are not yet hopelessly mixed up. Many of them are patriotic citizens and are relatively happy with the way things are now, as if being Hawaiian in the State of Hawaii were the optimal state at the moment. Others are catching up with the haoles (foreigners, whites) but are not so happy. They are in two camps.

We have natives who want at least parity in terms of the benefits received by the original people on the mainland, the Native Americans or American Indians; that would be the self-government or sovereignty, of a so-called nation-within-a-nation status, with land reserved for their exclusive use. They believe they deserve something “extra” as compensation for the suffering of their ancestors, a certain percentage of whose blood flows in their veins according to genealogical studies, at the hands of the whites, whose culture the old chiefs admired and adopted for their own uses because its power appeared to be superior to their own at the time.

On the other hand we have locals including whites who desire absolute sovereignty. They want the kingdom back, or rather they have formed an ideal Kingdom of Hawaii on paper; it appears to have established sovereignty over a website named after the old name of Kauai, Atooi; the island that voluntarily submitted to King Kamehameha the Great after he conquered Oahu. The virtual Kingdom of Hawaii has detailed plans for its monarchy.

At issue, of course, for all those concerned, is what sort of government would in reality be constituted if its proponents have their way. Would it be government be one, a few, or many? Would it be an absolute or a limited monarchy, or a representative republic, or a democracy, or a mixed government?

The last monarch was Liliuokalani, who became queen when her brother, King Kalakaua, died. He was a member of aristocracy, elected king after King William Lunalilo died without an heir and without naming a successor, and was considered by nobility to be of lower caste than his predecessors.  The royal government was basically managed by white foreigners. King Kalakaua was coerced into approving a change from absolute to limited monarchy. Queen Liliuokalani proposed to restore the form of the old regime and therefore sovereignty to the native elite; wherefore, even though she desisted with that plan, thirteen whites associated with the cane sugar business boom, with troops standing conveniently by, with plans to cede the islands to the United States, got her to resign her sovereignty in trust to the United States, and she never got it back despite the sympathy of President Grover Cleveland.

Members of the sovereignty movement will not submit to any status subordinate to the United States, and so have been a stumbling block for those who want “extra” rights under the wing of Uncle Sam; that is, benefits not had by other citizens of the United States. Those others may love the Hawaiian culture very much, but they have their culture too, and do not believe they should be trumped by the principle of seniority.

I asked several leaders of the sovereignty movement what unique quality of spirit the native Hawaiian culture has to contribute to the world, and what the meaning of Ea was before or besides sovereignty.  I thought the Aloha Spirit, the Hawaiian version of Love, might be their contribution, but I was greeted with utter silence.

The camp struggling for an entity to be recognized by the United States as a self-governing nation within the American nation greeted me with “Aloha” and “Mahalo” for asking. Wherefore it occurred to me that the divide between the camps may be between arrogance and humility, between would-be kings and nobles, and ordinary people destined to suffer the leaders they suffer.

But then a leading member of the nativity camp, who is of mixed descent, grew weary of my several polite questions about the historical basis of her circles’ version of culture and the form of government it desired for its “self-governed” nation within the United States, whereupon she publicly denounced me, declaring that I was a “flippant and insulting” person, and withdrew her version of aloha because she doubted that I would contribute anything to her cause.

As for the future of a Hawaiian monarchy, it is highly improbable short of a nuclear apocalypse that there will ever be a Kingdom of Hawaii reigning over the Hawaiian Islands. What good is a paper kingdom or a website kingdom?

Well, an ideal or spiritual kingdom as opposed to a real and material kingdom may come to rule minds and thus have an impact on the behavior of bodies. Sovereignty itself implies the rule of mind over body.

A beautiful woman, by the way, has posed in a national publication to celebrate personal “Ea” as a most powerful word to be enjoyed by all. She is sovereign over her body, and let no man think he owns it. Groups or corporations including nations considered as persons have their Ea as well.

Ea considered as sovereignty asserts independence. Alas for egoism that independence depends on the cooperation of other independents, and that bodies are subject to mechanical laws; and minds as well if bodies and minds are really one. Free will, if there be such a thing, is a limited monarchy. Nothing and only Nothing is absolutely free from something.

The “I” and the “We” are inseparable. No individual or group is entirely independent. Sovereignty is slipping away from interdependent nations to a globalism without a definite sovereign, despite regressions along the spiral such as that we are now seeing, for example, in England, and in the United States, which has fallen into the twenties on the scale of democracy.

Despite the clash between native nationalism and cosmopolitan modernity, the postmodern devolution into tribalism, international corporations rule the globe, and their internal rule is not democratic. National borders are becoming increasingly irrelevant. Sovereignty depends on information, and the information business rules minds.  As it is on the World Wide Web, so it is on Earth.

So the virtual Kingdom of Hawaii may somehow wash brains and establish sovereignty over minds in Hawaii with real effects, but their vision of those effects seems to be influenced by the status quo and appears in images to be somewhat like business as usual under a change of the guard. I shall inquire further into their propaganda and make further attempts to break through the wall of silence raised against “dumb haoles” who do not know what is going on.

What many people are naturally interested in is ground to stand on, that is, real estate for the virtual or ideal state we imagine. That is, land usage.

Original Hawaiians were commonly accustomed to communal land usage, managed by extended families, in which the king, nobles, and commoners had a mutual interest under a sort of feudal arrangement. They once petitioned their king not to relinquish to whites the sovereignty over the land entrusted to real Hawaiians by the gods. If the land were divided up, they believed, with quitclaims given to the chiefs, and foreigners as well as natives were allowed to own plots as private property, sovereignty would be lost to everyone concerned save the whites who had infiltrated the islands and government. Private ownership would allow foreigners to take advantage of many “pukas” or points of entry, and grab everything for themselves. There were indeed hundreds of pukas; the deeds were done; and thus we have today government by mixed races over a system of private property dominated largely by who got there first and capitalized on the opportunities.

The whites with money and Christianity wound up with most of the land. The king and nobles liked the religion and the civilizing effect of money. But the supervisors and commoners had difficulty getting their minds around the concept of private land ownership. Only a few “tenants” filed their claims in time for their portions and had them proven in time under misunderstood rules. Some had no money to pay the commission for the deeds. Others associated to obtain common interest in parcels where they carried on traditional agricultural pursuits such as kalo (taro) farming in remote areas, that is, places not overrun by enterprising whites.

Is all that the work of Ea? Has Ea always meant sovereignty, and, if so, over what by whom? What did Ea mean when the Polynesians had sole possession of the islands?

I shall take up that subject in a future essay, after asking a few more “dumb haole,” purportedly “flippant and insulting” questions. Being ignorant, after all, is precedent to getting really smart, and perhaps worming one’s way into the group of those who know it all. As things stand now, what Hiram Bingham said of the natives may well be said of me, in which case I may be reincarnated to appear as the white god Lono once I am enlightened about my Origin.

“But great as was the darkness of their minds, and pitiable as was the confusion or grossness of their ideas of the divine attributes, still, every one of them was created with conscience and freedom of thought and will, which made them accountable to their Creator and Moral Governor.”


Dead Babies and The Ivanka Trump Venue






Suffocated babies and Ivanka with a darling live baby




The televised news feature of a weeping woman being handed her baby, after it had suffocated to death in its incubator because the hospital had been bombed by Russian and Syrian planes, was especially depressing.

I turned to my Facebook news feed and the first thing I saw was an unsolicited advertisement from the “Editorial Team @IVANKATRUMPHQ” with a pretty picture of Ivanka Trump holding a baby. Ivanka Trump informed the public that “as of today, Ivanka Trump is becoming my personal feed. Follow Ivanka Trump HQ to keep up with $TeamIVanka….”

Well, everyone knew that Ivanka was on her dad’s transition team and that she was sitting in on important conferences with political leaders. Naturally there were many questions about mixing politics with business. Her business is about women and children. Although the Russians are bombing women and children in Syria, her dad said he likes Vladimir Putin, and apparently wants America to be friendly with Russia. Her dad loves to communicate on social media. And now the juxtaposition of a healthy live baby with a dead baby on social media moved me to pose a question to Ivanka on her Facebook post, where I identified myself as a member of the press.

“I just saw the tape of the bombing of an Aleppo hospital. Babies were being taken from incubators and handed to their mothers to die. Other babies not in incubators were left behind. Is it true that your father supports the Russians who support and participate in bombings in Syria? If so, do you agree with him?” It turned out that the baby was already dead.

“There’s probably a different venue to ask this,” responded one gentleman. “Write her father a letter, not her.”

“This is her personal business website. It is not a Donald J. Trump website. It is not a Republican Party website. It is not a White House or any other government website. I don’t know how you got on this beautiful, pink, feminine website which sells products for women, but it’s time for you to open the war room window and climb out!” responded a woman.

Hypocrisy, or the underlying crisis of our kind, the gap between our ideals and reality, cannot be resolved by simply changing hats for pretty bonnets.

Chris Isadore @CNNMoney on Nov. 23, 2016, referring to a blog posted by Ivanka’s company, reported that “Ivanka Trump is trying to put a little space between her company and her father,” and that the “company” said, “Our company’s mission is not political – it never was and it never will be, and that Ivanka now as “an increased opportunity to advocate for women and be a positive force for change.” Chris reported that “Ivanka Trump is on her father’s White House transition team and helped craft his policy on child care and maternity leave. She also sat in on Donald Trump’s meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, his first with a foreign head of state as president-elect.” Some unidentified person at the Ivanka Trump company, simply named Ivanka Trump, said that, “As a private citizen, with full awareness of her heightened visibility, she will broaden her efforts to take a stance on issues of critical importance to American women and families,” meanwhile, the company will keep working to “inspire and empower women to create the lives they want to live.”

“Don’t waste your time,” advised a self-styled brand ambassador to Ivanka’s sycophants in response to my question to Ivanka. “David wishes Ivanka knew he existed.”

Well, I do not fawn on celebrities or suck up to powerful people, so I considered that comment to be his self-portrait.

And there was more. To which I answered that I figured the venue was appropriate given the circumstances, and that my intention was not to start a forum on the issue, but to get a direct response from Ivanka.

I am not by any means hostile to Ivanka, because I do not know much about her. I do have reports from New York City that many New Yorkers despise the whole family, and curse family members on the streets. And I heard about the man who got himself seated on an airplane close to Ivanka and her kids so he could publicly admonish her. In my opinion, streets and airplanes are not proper venues to insult people, because I have been so insulted in public that I was glad I do not carry a gun.

My question was certainly not loaded with an insult. I simply wanted an answer, and I expected it to be a sincere denial, which I would report. I do not believe that Ivanka or her dad condones war crimes howsoever defined, or appreciates the death of civilians.

Millions of women and children are killed in wars and as a result of related sanctions. The killers on both sides who invariably believe they are on the right side do not consider such killings to be murders or war crimes. The civilian casualties are called “collateral damage.” The brutal criterion of “civilization” is power. The more powerful one side is, the more the civilizing effect, and the more the collateral damage, by far exceeding the number of military casualties. Another argument we see is that people deserve the leaders they have, and the deadly consequences of that leadership.

Neither “Ivanka Trump” responded by deadline; that is, neither she nor her company with the same name answered. Maybe she needs a new brand consultant.

If she had responded with a denial as expected, I would have had an open door to follow up with questions as to what she and her dad intended to do to help save women and children from horrors such as those perpetrated in Syria.

Perhaps I shall have a reply after she puts the baby down, changes hats, and looks at the dead babies.