==

“You marvel; remembering that of course your world is your world. Your subjective ontology (aka that which is objectively true for you). This is the orientation amidst the salience landscape of the inter-subjective meaning-ness we share. Some things shine bright to you in this world, some things feel apt, and some things resonate with a deep relational hum.”

Dr Jason Fox

==

Aren’t you afraid?

 

‘Of what?’

 

‘Of losing yourself.’

 

‘That’s what I’m hoping for.’

—–

Maggie Stiefvater

===

Simply because things, in reality, have expired doesn’t mean we willingly let them go. In fact. We tend to put them on expensive oxygen machines attempting to breath life back into them. We invest gobs of money on life support systems on things that are for all intents and purposes, dead, rather than investing all those resources (mental, physical, monetary, time) on what we see before us, i.e., the emerging, the alive and breathing stuff. In my pea like brain this happens because we have a crazy relationship with the concept of “want.”

Which leads me to what we (you) want.

We are in a weird world in which:

1. We seem to think if we don’t, or can’t, get everything we want, the world is going to crumble before our eyes
2. We seem to think if we don’t, or can’t, get everything we want, we have lost, i.e., somehow there was a pathway to getting 100% and the ‘others’ didn’t get it
3. We seem to think about public issues as personal issues, and vice versa, conflating some fairly horrible personal compromise advice and public good compromising.

While a and b are absurd mindsets, it I with c where we actively make ourselves miserable. We receive an onslaught of banal personal advice suggesting any compromise screws us individually, as in dreams, desires and some fairly unforgiving beliefs in ‘things.’ Its nuts. And unhealthy.

The suggestion is that if you “compromise with life, you kill your dreams and live your plan B, C and D.”

Once again. That’s nuts.

Rarely, if ever, does anyone get 100% of what they want. And let’s be clear. Rarely, if ever, 100% of what you want is actually the best for 100% of the people let alone, in the end, 100% good for you. Therein lies the challenge of compromise. Your 100% never represents the best for the 100%. Your world is your world. Period.

Which leads me to say we have corrupted the way we think about how collective debates and agreements work.

Simplistically, the corruption has occurred in individualism. Look. I am not suggesting every individual shouldn’t seek out what they want or even what they believe is best for them and what they believe. What I am suggesting that pursuit shouldn’t ignore what the other people in their community, city, state, province, country and maybe even the other 7,999,999,999 people in the world may want and need. That’s the layers of compromise. Yeah. That’s a lot of layers. Yeah. Maybe that’s why getting 100% of what you want is a bit of a fantasy. But in fantasyland there are people screaming ‘winners and losers’ ignoring the fact that, well, no one seems to be winning and shitload of people are thinking they are losing. We have corrupted compromise or at least corrupted the idea of conflict and conflict resolution.

“The corruption of the age is made up by the particular contribution of every individual man; some contribute treachery, others injustice, irreligion, tyranny, avarice, cruelty, according to their power; the weaker sort contribute folly, vanity, and idleness; of these I am one. It seems as if it were the season for vain things, when the hurtful oppress us; in a time when doing ill is common, to do but what signifies nothing is a kind of commendation.”

Montaigne

This corruption of compromise breeds a sense of everything changing, but in an invisible corrosive way. We only see the change in a low level slightly nagging a feel of unease and unhappiness. And because of that, mentally we shift our focus to what is visible and away from the invisible <that which creates the unease> and we fixate on what we think we know rather than unlearning/revising what we know. In other words, we get stuck in the fantasyland of what we want as being the ‘be all and end all.’

Once again. this is nuts.

We want lots of things and the odds of getting all these things is really really low. And you know what? Sometimes what we think we want is not actually what we need nor what we should want. Your world is your world.

Which leads me to integration, not compromise.

Technically speaking, what we need to be doing more of is not compromise, but integration. Integration is a Mary Parker Follett idea. In 1925 Follett argued that conflict, as a natural and inevitable part of life, does not necessarily have to lead to adverse outcomes. Rather, if approached with the right attitude a conflict can present an opportunity for positive or constructive development. Follett suggested there are three ways to respond to conflict:

• Dominance
• Compromise
• Integration

Dominance means victory of one side over the other. This works in the short term, but is unproductive in the long run. Compromise means each party having to give up something for the sake of a meaningful reduction of friction. Far from ideal, compromise often leaves parties unsatisfied – having given up something of value. Integration means creatively incorporating the parties’ fundamental desires/interests into the solution, i.e., no one gets everything they want, but everyone gets a bit of what they need.”

Great life solutions integrate aspects of what everyone brings to the table and if we are really honest, the end product is probably a bit better than any individual solution going in. And isn’t that the way it is supposed to work? You don’t get everything you want, but you get a lot of what you need. Sometimes your world can become bigger than just your world.

Which leads me to the horizon of ‘better.’

Your world, while yours, is an emergent thing. What I mean by that is it is never still, never stagnant, and never something you can clearly see (albeit clarity can reside in contextual moments). The outlines can be a bit vague most of the time. Why?

“A horizon is a phenomenon of vision. One cannot look at the horizon; it is simply the point beyond which we cannot see. There is nothing in the horizon itself, however, that limits vision, for the horizon opens onto all that lies beyond itself. What limits vision is rather the incompleteness of that vision.

One never reaches a horizon. It is not a line; it has no place; it encloses no field; its location is always relative to the view. Every move an infinite player makes is toward the horizon. Every move made by a finite player is within a boundary. Every moment of an infinite game therefore presents a new vision, a new range of possibilities.”

James Carse

Which leads me to say that we all know the world is often not kind yet we make our own world.

Not only has the world become a bit nastier it sometimes feels like if you are not nasty there is something wrong with you. You aren’t strong. You aren’t a leader. You aren’t confident. Well. That’s not only nuts it’s also a pretty unhealthy way of thinking about life.

As Milton said:

“The mind is its own place, and in itself,

Can make heaven of hell, a hell of Heaven”

Mindful living of life sometimes requires intense focus and dedication to make even the smallest of progress. That is tricky in today’s world with the perverse incentive on social media to constantly have an eye-catching update. Progress actually happens slowly (mostly uneventfully) through long-term dedication. If you think revolutionary change happens quickly, you are ignoring the decades of groundwork. Uhm. Kindness takes some groundwork too.

Which leads me to making your world just a bit kinder.

I will admit that kindness and niceness need to get a bit tougher (and, yes, I believe you can be tough and be kind and nice). What I mean by that is it seems like there is something unique to our era that encourages the tricksters and cheaters to not only have confidence, but be confidently nasty. They thrive in fantasylands of myths and tales willing the narratives to take the form of reality; even when they are not. And when you point out the magical thinking or fantasylands, they get nasty.  I say that to make a point about increased nastiness and tough niceness. There is increased nastiness in the world because there is an increase in cheaters try to convince us of some alternative reality. They have to be nasty in order to shut down, well, reality. Well. Reality, of course, is your world and, of course, your world is your world. Ponder.

==

“that’s the same thing as having an affair”

==

The closing arguments in the presidential campaign is a contrast in a number of things, but mostly it has become a contrast between respectful and disrespectful. One campaign has unequivocally stated that no matter who you vote for you will be listened to and represented and the other has, well, referred to ‘other voters’ as the enemy within. The heinous parts are tucked within the definition of ‘enemy.’ Because in this case the enemy is grounded in some 1800’s version of what a traditional marriage should be about – women subservient to men. Yeah. Reminder. Its 2024 not 1824.

Which leads me to a Harris-Walz campaign ad voiced by actor Julia Roberts which encourages women to vote for Vice President Harris in the presidential election, even if their husbands are backing former President Trump.

“In the one place in America where women still have a right to choose, you can vote any way you want. And no one will ever know,” Roberts says in the ad as a woman on screen meets up with her husband after casting her ballot for Harris. The voter winks at a fellow female voter as her husband asks if she made the “right choice.”

Suffice it to say, MAGA world has not responded well. In fact, some have suggested that a wife lying about her vote is as bad as an affair. Yeah. Ponder that one as a closing argument.

“If I found out Emma was going to the voting booth and pulling the lever for Harris, that’s the same thing as having an affair”

Fox News host Jesse Watters

==

“I think it’s so gross. I think it’s so nauseating where this wife is wearing the American hat, she’s coming in with her sweet husband who probably works his tail off to make sure that she can go you know and have a nice life and provide to the family, and then she lies to him saying, ‘Oh, yeah, I’m gonna vote for Trump,’ and then she votes for Kamala Harris as her little secret in the voting booth”

Charlie Kirk

To be clear. They are suggesting a husband is working hard to afford his wife’s lifestyle and her action undermines him. Ponder that just a bit.

Look. I am sure there are politically split households, but in the Trump era it is just difficult for me to envision. It is quite conceivable that someone could have voted for Romney in the same household where someone voted for Obama, but Trump is so divisive, and not normal, that it seems like a bridge too far. But I believe that is something that particular couple needs to navigate, not me. Regardless. The idea that a woman, a wife or partner, simply has to do anything let alone vote some way simply because the man does is a horrible thought. Oh. And a horrible closing argument to the majority of a 2024 population.

“Listen to this twit make Donald Trump’s closing argument. Women, you know what to do. #VoteKamala.”

==

“Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if me and Trump won just the normal gay guy vote, because, again, they just wanted to be left the hell alone,”

JD Vance

==

This election cycle is nearing its end (thank god). But the closing arguments for each campaign have been, well, enlightening. Let’s just say the normal candidate has stayed the course, consistently offering polices, vision and ideas – and using words that “normal” people use. The other candidate has, well, chosen a different path. I imagine they view it as “a less traveled path but far more interesting” in their minds. That less traveled path includes not just the crazy shit and a barrage of lies, but some fairly abhorrent words and thoughts.

Which leads me to normal gay guys.

I am not gay. I do have a number of friends who are gay. All of them are normal. All of their friends are normal. They, mostly, have normal issues and normal opinions and live a normal life. And, as most normal people, they want to be left alone to live their own lives. So. Here is where it becomes non-normal. JD Vance suggested that White upper- and middle-class children are incentivized to identify as transgender to gain admission to elite colleges. Uhm. And then tied that to gay people.

“Think about the incentives, if you are a, you know, middle-class or upper middle-class White parent and the only thing that you care about is whether your child goes into Harvard or Yale, like obviously, that pathway has become a lot harder for a lot of upper middle-class kids, but the one way that those people can participate in the DEI bureaucracy in this country is to be trans, and is there a dynamic that’s going on where, if you become trans, that is the way to reject your White privilege. That’s the social signifier. The only one that’s available in the hyper-woke mindset is if you become gender nonbinary.”

JD Vance

Now. I will admit. Parts of that sound like madeup gobbledygook to me. But the net of it is absurd. Worse? The implication is that a trangender chooses whether they are transgender or a gay person chosses to be gay. And somehow within that choice is normal or non-normal. Fuck you JD. That’s what I say. You are, or you are not, it really isn’t a choice to anyone.

Beyond that.

Studies have found that because of the discrimination, harassment and lack of support they generally experience in earlier grades, students who identify as transgender would be a lot less likely to have access to higher education in general, let alone an Ivy League school that is difficult to get into, compared with those people who identify with the gender that matches the sex they were assigned at birth.

I find the overall Trump campaign closing argument uncompelling and, frankly, abhorrent for the most part.

Appealing to the “normal gay guy vote” is a weird play.

But it gets a bit weirder. Democrats, apparently, not only don’t seek the ‘normal gay guy’ vote , but they want America to be unhealthy and overweight.” Huh? Because, apparently, if you are in poor health and overweight you will become a liberal. Yeah. And its actually a play for straight male vote:

“Have you seen all these studies that basically connect testosterone levels in young men with conservative politics? Maybe that’s what’s going on. Maybe that’s why the Democrats want us all to be, you know, poor health and overweight is because that means we’re going to be – no, it means we’re going to be more liberal.”

There are no studies that ‘basically’ say this. He is just making shit up. All in all it is quite the closing argument to America.

==

“Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws.”

Plato

==

“Good buildings come from good people, and all problems are solved by good design.”

Stephen Gardiner

==

This began as conversations with a number of people about technology and technology companies. But what I quickly found myself doing in conversation after conversation is shifting away from technology, specifically, and just speaking about people. What I mean by that is that we have a tendency to speak of humans in a dehumanizing way with regard to technology, i.e., some nebulous good actors and bad actors. If we strip away the word ‘actors,’ at its core we’re basically speaking of people and, therefore, discussions around technology or society or business or almost any facet of a community and civilization should revolve around what makes a person do what they do. I don’t disagree that we need some fairly heroic efforts to address our technology driven future, but maybe instead of heroic we should simply speak of behavioral values.

Which leads me to technology and the future.

That said. I do agree heroic efforts are needed to bend the arc of technology. I believe people, left to their own devices, would design a nice tech future. And while technology may be an opposing force, I would argue its business’s objectives that drive the future off course. I say that because I am less worried about ttechnology and more worried about business. Fix business and technology stuff, as well as the people stuff, will follow (in my mind). I worry a bit about bad actors, maybe a bit less than most people, because I see good actors stepping up to the plate and fighting the bad actors. If you haven’t listened to this podcast Kevin Scott  , at the end he offers up his view on this (and I have stated that view for several years so I agree). It’s a good listen in general although I find he, as do most tech people, talk about rural in a very tech-centric siloed way (and I have other views about how tech could help the rural splits). Regardless. The ‘good actors’ will be the ones who recognize:

• it is a humancentric world where the optimal future is found in technology as an augmentor
• there will be uneven distribution of benefits from technology and we should seek to mitigate that
• it should be a learning-oriented future

Which leads me to who the good actors will be.

Sometimes the problem in today’s world is that it’s not particularly easy to be identify the good actors versus the bad actors especially as there is an increasing level of self-identified rebels (all proposing they are rebels for the good of people). The rebels are rarely hesitant about specifying which things, including values, they reject. The problem is everybody feels like they are rebel these days. What that means is that every one, every citizen, will at some point have some aspects of their life ridiculed by argumentative rebels. And when everyone becomes a rebel, the entire narrative will fundamentally get mired into the mud of hypocrisy. What I mean by that is a fundamental cause of disaffection is the contradiction between what any particular community, or class of people, says it believes; and what it does. These contradictions create confusion and that confusion takes on some fairly ugly hues which ultimately contaminates our view of society. The contamination is captured n some seeming hypocrisy. We may say we believe in mobility, but not for some people. We may say we believe in a Christian ethic, but not in business. Across the country we preach morality and yet certain people don’t have to play by those rules. We support altruistic endeavors, but we vilify anyone who works for it. We proclaim ourselves to be nonviolent people driven by hope and aspirations, but we insist that each person be allowed to have his or her own gun and fear ultimately drives the fundamental desire to own a gun. We preach the virtue of loyalty and business, yet we see the people who do this often reach the age of retirement spiritually empty and economically unprepared. We view success in society grounded in a creed of accumulation, but ultimately, we discover that this brings neither happiness nor stability. This creates a constant state of contradictions and hypocrisy within which good actors and bad actors battle.

Which leads me to rebels as good and bad.

So, our rebels tend to be good and bad. But maybe we should judge the rebellious a little differently accepting that the majority of life and progress is found in between the contradictions. What I mean by that is the progress typically resides in the gray. And while responsibility demands black and white, and the solutions demand a proper assumption of responsibility in the attention to the problems requiring change, the solutions are not simple nor simplistic. The true heroic rebels and the good people are those who showcase a willingness to challenge the patterns, which is not about change in particular, for it is within navigating the patterns and challenging them which instigates the change where it is needed. I would argue the truth is the rebellious shouldn’t focus on some generic set of values, but rather an increased emphasis upon the most vital of values: responsibility. And the true test of the good rebellious resides somewhere in a future where the responsibility to affect the patterns is not exciting, but merely hard work. Yeah. Less flashy victories just simply the performance over the long haul that determines the value of the rebellion and the rebellious.

Which leads me to optimism.

In a world which encourages dystopian thinking and dystopian views, optimism is often the most ridiculed of values. I will confess that throughout my life I have generally been optimistic. I often refer to myself as a cynical optimist. That said. Part of optimism is a belief that it is not illogical to trust, at any given moment, that you will survive. I find it reasonable to think of optimism in that kind of framework. It may seem naïve and uncomfortable to many people to entertain the thought of optimism, but I would be remiss if I didn’t suggest that I am impressed by the power of optimism throughout history. Simultaneously, it is fair to suggest at any given point we will go into some kind of collapse and when we do all the dystopian thinkers can say I told you so. But. Up until the “I told you so” moment, millions of  businesses will have been started, millions of people will have hugged each other, millions of people will have economically improved, and millions of people will just simply be better today than they were the day before. It is with that thought I believe cautious optimism should be the foundation of mindsets, attitudes, and beliefs. I’m certainly not suggesting that we shouldn’t be mindful of the problems that we have, but the truth is we have been living with those problems for decades and in general they shouldn’t  terrify us – and I think a lot more people would benefit by taking a moment and recognizing this. Look. We make progress, never as fast as we want, but the truth is the integration of opportunity is always in progress even if not always recognized. On balance I think cautious optimism is not misplaced. I think we should all have reasonable hopes that not only our own personal lives will get better, but that our communities and our countries will get better also. But in the end if you’re looking for good actors versus bad actors, I remain relatively convinced that the acceptance of responsibility will not only differentiate the productive from the unproductive, but the good actor from the bad actor. The people who organize their lives well, will probably do so around the concept of responsibility. And maybe that is where I am. The good actors are responsible. Ponder.

==

“I’m the opposite of a Nazi!”

Donald Trump, reassuring us that he is definitely, totally, absolutely not a Nazi.

==

Fascism: a populist political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual, that is associated with a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, and that is characterized by severe economic and social regimentation and by forcible suppression of opposition

At the core of fascism is loyalty to tribe, ethnic identity, religion, tradition, or, in a word, nation.

==

a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

==

Nazi : a harshly domineering, dictatorial, or intolerant person

==

So. Kinda feels like if you have to tell people you are not something, you have an issue. Just the fact anyone would have to explain, let alone a presidential candidate, that “I am not a nazi” means that some people may actually be thinking you are one. Uhm. That seems bad if you want to be a president. It makes it a bit difficult to simply bucket it into the “other side being hyperbolic” category. Anyhoo.

Let’s be clear. One can be a fascist, and apply fascist rhetoric, and not be a nazi, but if one is a nazi, they are fascist. Trump wallows in the wretched hollow in-between.

In that in-between he fosters a lot of fascist like shit. Once again, he could absolutely spew fascist rhetoric and not be a nazi. Social scientists have pointed out for decades that not all fascist movements are the same nor created equal. It’s an idea that morphs to the user and to the context, but for the most part it is a counterrevolutionary reaction to the rise of Marxism, socialism, or liberalism. For Hannah Arendt, it was totalitarianism. For others it is seen as a contingent process (a counterreaction to socialism and/or liberalism. Is it an ideology? Is it more a style of leadership? Is it a political method? All I really know is whatever it is, it is always captured in rhetoric. And that means we end up debating words and meanings.

Which leads me to Trump (“the opposite of a nazi”).

We are continuously encouraged to not believe what Trump says, but if we can’t trust what a president says, how do we attain common understanding? (answer: we don’t. ever.). That becomes a bigly problem because his aggressive rhetoric never ends; it doesn’t even pause. If Trump is elected next week, it will continue all day, every day, for four more years. And it will be in front of you, in the news, on your screen, on social media, every day, for four more years. And THAT means we will debate all day, every day, what is fascist and what is not. Lets be honest. We just can’t tune it out. It is unreasonable to expect everyone to simply tune out the firehose of invective. When a presidential candidate says things like this, it is newsworthy. When the President says things like this, it is definitely newsworthy.

The roots of Trumpism is grounded in something real – mass disillusionment with liberal democracy (or just government writ large). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out the roots of fascism reside in mass disillusionment. From there we shift to charismatic leadership as a facet of fascism. It’s a mass political movement led by a charismatic leader. Now. Bernie Sanders is charismatic, but no one would say he’s a fascist. Heck. Some movements are authoritarian, but that doesn’t necessarily mean they’re fascist. Here is where context matters – “what is it about the context today that shares something from a previous context, in terms of how we understand fascism back then?” And that’s where there’s a major debate, right? The goalposts constantly move so we reformulate, and we say, “these are things that constitute fascism.” To be clear (once again). Trump thrives in the wretched hollows within this goalpost shifting.

Which leads me back to the beginning: we are publicly, honestly, discussing fascism.

Here is the thing. The most important thing (in my mind). The fact we are even having the discussion. One of the characteristics of Trump and Trumpism, and even MAGA, is that it always explores the ‘lines’ of things. It edges into the unacceptable, the illegal, the gray areas of norms. It creates just a bit of plausible deniability and just a smidge of acceptability. So, in the end, how do we judge because it is a nuanced thought. So, let’s offer a nuanced thought and a non-nuanced thought to end this Trump and fascism debate:

1. Nuanced – “the enemy within.” Fascism is grounded in a an unequivocal “us versus them” narrative where “them” is defined by “us” and while someone may self-identify as an “us,” you are not admitted to the “us club” unless the “us elite” (authoritarian/totalitarian inner circle) accept you. I am fairly sure Trump WOULD have been a Nazi (as long as he could be a leader), but I don’t think he is one, he is simply a stupid narcissistic bully, i.e., an authoritarian. In fact I don’t know anyone who’s a liberal who doesn’t think “Donald Trump is an authoritarian, perhaps, fascist leader.” I would be surprised if it hasn’t crossed the mind of every sane person. Suffice it to say if someone is considering it, you just may be.

2. Non-nuanced – consistent signaling. Every leader attempts to craft lasting relationships with people grounded in the ability to send the right signals at the right time, i.e., the ability to show not tell (although “showing” the right words offers through lines). A leader’s vision is just a big ball of signals. In fact that’s what the vast majority of human relationships consist of. Trump’s superpower is consistent signaling while getting the external world to view his often heinous signals in a one-off manner. My point here is if someone sends out a bunch of signals, over and over and over again, it just may be that the signals are indicative of a larger truth.

Ponder.

==

“His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it.”

on Hitler’s philosophy

==

“the rules were that you guys weren’t going to fact-check.”

JD Vance

==

“What you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.”

Donald Trump

==

I was tempted to call this “the comeback of the deplorables” or even “insisting on the right to lie”, but then there was truly a gathering of deplorable speakers at Madison Square Garden for Trump’s closing election argument. They insulted Latinos, Black Americans, Palestinians and Jews. Trump advisor Stephen Miller’s claim that “America is for Americans and Americans only” directly echoed the statement of Adolf Hitler that “Germany is for Germans and Germans only.” While it is all truly deplorable, it also employs some psychological voodoo. When coupled with “the enemy within” it permits Latinos, black Americans, Palestinians, Jews and even some white people to proudly stand behind MAGA with “not me, them.” In other words, they aren’t talking about me it’s the enemy. The voodoo gets wrapped up n a shitload of lies (which I will get to) but what they all seem to forget is you, the citizen, don’t get to choose whether you are the enemy. MAGA hierarchy chooses. They choose by your words, behavior, attitude, and most importantly, servitude to Trump. Yeah. The big lie they are selling is America is for Trump and Trump only. That is fact. And, weirdly, its about the only fact/truth MAGA world seems to embrace. But this lie is SO big, SO audacious, that disaffected groups actually begin believing Trump offers salvation (or at least a better path). I mean, c’mon, how can any Muslim/Arab American believe Trump – the author of the Muslim travel ban, unrepentant Netanyahu “do-whatever-you-want” advocate – will actually have Palestinian Arab interests in mind going forward. Seriously? I have written before about how Trumpism is based on some alternative reality thinking, but underpinning it all is the MAGA movement is based on the freedom to lie. The MAGAverse is shameless with regard to lying. Their lies are broad sweeping audacious narratives of an America that doesn’t exist. The federal response to hurricanes, eating dogs and cats, even the truth about some ‘open border’ all border on insane audacious lies about reality. And non-Americans (the real enemy, not some nebulous ‘enemy within’) take note and step in and amplify. Is it election interference? Sure. But while Russia, Iran, and China generate about 20% to 30% of the political content and comments on social media, they also amplify the crazy domestic created disinformation. Yeah. The largest purveyors of disinformation are homegrown (could these actually be ‘the enemy within’?). All of this creates a firehose of information until people become overwhelmed by the task of trying to figure out what is real and simply tune out. Facts help define reality and are pretty stubborn against those who deny, and defy, reality. While this may seem unnecessary to state, but facts provide affirmation for what we see with our own eyes. What I mean by that is the alternative reality folk relentlessly state, not just suggest, that reality is something different than what reality is. They bludgeon us with an alternative reality to ultimately get us to either (a) question what we see as reality or (b) just give up and believe the alternative reality is reality. The lies become reality. Yeah. While “misinformation” is simply false information, which we all spread innocently and correct with accurate information, “disinformation” is a deliberate lie to convince people of things that are not true. MAGA insists on the right to lie and consider any fact-checking “censorship.”

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command.”

George Orwell, 1984

A unified, well-functioning, democratic society depends on shared understanding of factual reality, but men who embrace fascist techniques (which is really only tactical fascism) seek to consolidate power and serve authoritarian interests.

Thanks to MAGA’s false claims of, well, almost everything, and their denigration of political, scientific, judicial and media institutions shatters trust and America is being dividing into a false us and them. Inevitably that shattered trust in government, and divided citizenry, will make it harder for America to solve its problems because solutions, and ideas, are not easily transferable amongst peoples (and that is how ideas spread). Yeah. The real impact happens when effective ideas spread.

That said. Trump avoids any real give and take with regard to his alternative universe so his false world can’t be challenged by reality. He obviously wants to make sure people (voters) cannot base their decisions about the country’s future on facts. His insistence on the right to lie, cloaked in a rotten subversion of freedom of speech, is a continued refusal to deal with reality. He, and MAGA elite, foster a dissatisfaction that stems from a perception that societal changes, cultural shifts, economic issues, or demographic change, have eroded what once made their country “great.” A misguided nostalgia becomes a lens through which present grievances are projected onto an idealized past, whether or not it has any fucking bearing on reality itself.

This whole MAGA thing is fucked up. Dangerously so. It’s a deplorable narrative. America DOES belong to Americans. Americans who are not enemies, but rather neighbors. Americans who know their neighbors may believe different things, pray differently and do different things, but we still look out for each other and go to all our kid’s activities and say “good morning” when you see them in the morning. I just don’t see the same America Trump does. And I am banking on the fact most people do not come November 5^th.

====

“In a desperately awkward situation we reach for the nearest platitude. “

Michael Lipsey

===

“Platitude: an idea (a) that is admitted to be true by everyone, and (b) that is not true.”

H. L. Mencken

===

“It is becoming clear that the old platitudes can no longer be maintained, and that if we wish to improve our morals, we must first improve our knowledge.”

Havelock Ellis

===

I imagine we have all been in a situation which demands you to say something. Empty spaces almost demand you to step forward with a word or two and, well, say something. Unfortunately, that ‘something’ often shifts toward ‘anything’ and not all empty spaces are created equal. What I mean by that is the worst empty spaces are those awkward situations where you begin scrambling for any word(s) to fill up that space, i.e., “say anything” which leads to some awkwardness.

Which leads me to awkward.

Awkward, bungling, inept and even ungainly are all words which refer to actions lacking in skill or grace or even to the faulty results of such actions. Yeah. We just become mentally clumsy in these situations. ‘Clumsy’ meaning a halting or imprecise action and having a propensity for making mistakes with all the impending uncomfortable results that coincide with your clumsiness. That said. Let’s just say awkward is proportionately less bad than pure mental clumsiness and emotionally it is tied more to a state of mind, being unnerved, than clumsy <which is tied more to physical>. From there we bring in inept which suggests you never find the right word and ungainly which suggests a lack of grace which reflects many of us as we scramble for a word or phrase (source: Hayakawa).

Which leads me to scrambling.

Scrambling leads to all the above adjectives/descriptors. Because when we scramble most of us do it out loud; rambling along until we find some safe space. Sure. Some people do it silently <hoping like hell some words arrive before the appropriate time passes>, but most people just punt by, well, offering the ‘nearest platitude.’ And maybe it is within the scrambling itself that we separate the amateurs from the professionals – the inept-inclined from the skilled-inclined. Or as the U.S. Navy SEALs say, the people who can “get comfortable being uncomfortable.” The problem is awkward situations make amateurs of many of us and caught off guard we, well, get into our own head. What I mean by that is dig around for “the phrase that pays,” i.e., something to deploy against the quiet space demanding you to say something.

==

“You’re told that you’re in your head too much, a phrase that’s often deployed against the quiet and cerebral. Or maybe there’s another word for such people: thinkers.”

Susan Cain

====

All the while you struggle to stay focused on what needs to be accomplished … struggling because awkward situations make you feel uncomfortable and you are desperately seeking to get out of the discomfort zone and into the comfort zone.

Yeah. I just said that. I point it out because some asshat is going to come along and say something trite like “remember, it’s a good thing to feel uncomfortable … it means you’re moving forward and exploring new territory.” Yeah. Well. Let me point out that not all uncomfortable is created equal and not all exploration is meaningful.  Awkward situations are often situations of survival. And if that sounds dramatic I meant it to. In business, more often than not, success is  a battle of attrition – survive and advance. Die and done.  And while survival in an awkward situation is always a tricky thing in business … all that scrambling around in your head <thinking as it is sometime called> is compounded by a belief you need to … well … not die.

Which leads me back to platitudes.  

Most platitudes are played simply for survival.

• They sound stupid <sometimes>.
• They sound hollow intellectually <often>.
• They sound meaningless <because more often than not they are>.
• They sound like you had nothing better to offer <which is true>

Uhm. They also permit you to play another day.

Even the best of the best get caught with no words in an awkward situation. And even the best of the best will offer a platitude in an awkward situation.

Look. The business world seems slightly more unforgiving today than it has been in the past.

Far too often being caught in an awkward situation and not offering the right words, or simply offering a platitude, brands you as someone who “cannot think on their feet.”

What bullshit.

Certainly … if you are consistently inept in an awkward situation … you are inept.

Certainly … if you are consistently ungainly in an awkward situation … you lack grace.

Certainly … if you are consistently clumsy in an awkward situation … you are clumsy.

But no one has the right words all the time in every awkward situation. And there are worse things than offering a platitude when scrambling for something to say like, for example, making shit up. But making shit up is a thought for another day. Today? Suffice it to say it never hurts to have a platitude handy for an awkward situation when you just cannot think of anything, or the right thing, to say. Ponder.

===

“My body is a parlor trick called survival.”

Jayy Dodd

===

==

“People demand freedom of speech to make up for the freedom of thought, which they avoid.”

Søren Kierkegaard

==

Denial is a river in Egypt. Denial is also Trump’s superpower. He denies reality. Shamelessly denies what everyone can see. And in doing so he, well, lies all the time. About everything. It’s his ju jitsu act. And while I am going to talk economics, let me first point out that in this whole Trump ju jitsu shitfest, journalists are Trump’s best friend. Seriously. Why? Trump insanity gets normalized by journalists. Trump gets a free pass for his ignorance, lack of reality and non-seriousness. Journalists turn themselves into pretzels making his insanity normal sounding and his nonseriousness, and ignorance, sound serious and insightful. While Trump narrates a reality ju jitsu, anyone supporting him constantly performs narrative ju jitsu to make him sound sane (or even good for America).

Which leads me to the economic jiu jitsu.

It seems like the most common ju jitsu is that the Trump economy was great. And while many of the things that I’m about to say with regard to the economy will vary on an individual basis, the average community will be reflective of the facts and reality. Let’s set aside the pandemic period for now. The economy during the Trump administration was basically the same as during the Obama administration. And I’m even being a little generous there in that GDP growth was often a little bit lower, wages didn’t increase as much, and all of those things got compounded by some fairly negative aspects. I would also be a remiss if I didn’t point out because of all Trump and his administration’s blowhard hyperbole, we all seem to overlook that generally speaking inflation was exactly the same as it currently is under the Biden administration and it was about the same as the Obama administration. Also, just as during the Obama administration, prices were generally about 20% higher than the Bush administration years, the prices during the Trump administration years were about 20% higher than during the Obama years. Yeah. Cost of living increases – all the time. Remember, this is non-pandemic comparisons. So let’s move to unemployment. The reality is anything under 5% is basically full employment and reflects some healthy natural employment churn. That said. It is absolutely reflective of unemployment lower than 5% that employment will increase among minority groups. As jobs increase employers need employees and oftentimes they will broaden their scope of their search. Minorities benefit there. This is also true because labor participation was basically the same between Trump and Obama years (and Biden years) so the employee pie was about the same. But my point would be is, generally speaking, the Trump Administration economic years were not spectacular; just relatively good – at least from a vanity metric standpoint. I mention the vanity metric point because all of this this overlooks how the Trump Administration made the economy work.

“Trump shows he has no desire to be transformational or even to shape the future, he favors only transactional relationships dealing on the basis of cost–benefit calculations as to how each deal works in America’s perceived economic or political interests.”

This is important because you can make an economy look good in the present and, yet, be doing little to build an economic structure for the future (as a note: the Obama administration never got enough credit for that). Anyway. The Trump administration used a complex jujitsu system wherein they would layer a depth and breadth of tariffs on all countries, not just China, including our allies, and then they turned around to subsidize many of the American industries to help them compensate for having to pay those tariffs. That warped methodology had two consequences. First consequence was it ballooned the debt and the deficit without a corresponding economic growth. What I mean by that is that we spend a lot of money simply to overcome a horrible policy and not to spur growth. The second consequence was while the Trump Administration always argued that the heavy tariffs would encourage an America first manufacturing boom, it didn’t occur. And while there were many reasons, I will just focus on this particular part of the policy in that there was no incentive for American companies to invest in building out because they were receiving government subsidies to maintain the status quo and reap the profits. If that sounds as stupid a policy as it sounds; it is. So, there was no particularly great economic growth, there wasn’t any particular business expansion, and while most Americans were relatively comfortable because we maintained the financial status quo, American lives certainly weren’t progressing.

Which leads me to the pandemic and its effect on the economy.

We all lived through that time. It was horrible for people, but many large institutions made a shitload of money. Regardless, the pandemic shook the entire economic etch of sketch. Let me digress a moment because I feel a need to ask a question here because currently the American economy, its business growth, it’s household income growth, and the basic solid fundamentals of the economy is the envy of the world. Throughout the pandemic the American economy maintained a solid footing significantly better than any country in the world and while inflation increased significantly it didn’t increase to the level of any other country in the world. So, by any measurement whatever the Biden administration was doing was working. The pandemic, economically, for people was a painful time and I imagine it’s difficult when in pain to envision that it could actually be worse, but it could have been, i.e., scan the world’s countries.

Which leads me to my question: does anybody really believe that Trump and his clown car administration would have managed the pandemic economy either during the pandemic or coming out of the pandemic better than we did?

Seriously. Does anyone not believe he would actually try the same crazy shit China is doing right now to save their economy (short term bullshit rather than longer term fundamentals)? Oh. Does anybody not believe that Trump would have spent hours in front of cameras blaming China for any and all of the economic problems that America had (assuming no responsibility and assuming a ‘victim of’ mentality)? Does anyone truly believe Trump, himself, understands how an economy works? The amateur economist Trump administration (of which there are none who support anything the Biden administration actually did) would have flailed about pulling all the levers they could to create at least one vanity measurement they could point to to suggest that we were not going over a cliff. In comparison the Biden administration kept its head down, went about their business of crafting a healthy economy, and actually rescrambled the entire economic etch a sketch. They saw it as an emergent opportunity to reconfigure supply chains, to invest in American manufacturing, and building and creating a solid infrastructure for the economy moving forward. As a result, the economy, the results, and the structure itself is probably stronger than it has been since possibly World War Two. We are building, we are growing, we are investing, and there were more new small business licenses issued during the Biden administration then the Trump administration by far. To reprise my main point in this section – does anyone truly believe Trump and his administration would have managed this to a better economic place? Oh. And while we complain about inflation and the cost of living, the pandemic did play a pretty significant role in where we are today. It kind of releveled the pricing playing field. I still believe we are facing what I would consider pandemic pricing. Businesses learned a lot about what people were willing to pay and most of those companies have no desire to reduce their prices now that inflation is low again.

Which leads me to the fundamentals of this ju jitsu.

Trump lies. He lies relentlessly and shamelessly. Therein lies the underpinnings of his economic ju jitsu. He states so confidently his economy was the best, and the current is the worst, that a shitload of people don’t know what to believe. Part of his ju jitsu magic resides in his hyperbolic confidence with regard to his own smarts (stable genius, big brain, etc.). This is truly ju jitsu because while he is a masterclass hyperbolic salesman, he doesn’t know shit about how a business is run let alone how an economy works. Don’t believe me? My newest proof point is the interview he just did with Bloomberg on the economy. I encourage everyone to watch. He doesn’t understand how an economy works let alone how economic tactics work. Regardless. Even within the fundamental lie structure in his ju jitsu narrative, he needs something else to undergird the lies – an enemy.

Which leads me to the enemy within ju jitsu.

The feelings of economic wellbeing in the present translates into economic fears, or hopes, for the future. Tucked within that is the sense of an “on-off” valve. What I mean by that is if you don’t feel good about the present, there is a subtle sense that something, or someone, is keeping the valve “off” from that wellbeing. Someone like Trump preys on that and begins the ju jitsu that there are American citizens purposefully holding the valve off. They would be, well, the enemy. Uhm. Someone to hate. Some group has to be blamed for all the troubles the leader’s supporters feels they are suffering (whether it is real or not). Trump has a complex mix of deplorable, non-deplorables, demonizing immigrants, the media (whose job is to hold him accountable publicly), and all Democrats, deflecting his own shortcomings by blaming these groups for undermining him . creating the ultimate mental ju jitsu that all of them are undermining “you” and, worse, they embody true evil. In their unification against this evil enemy, true believers will support their leader no matter how outrageous his behavior gets (even including “eating dogs and cats). I wish I could say this ju jitsu is craftmanship, but it is fundamentally idiotic and utterly insane. It is not just rhetoric ju jitsu, it is a dangerous mix of business fraud, lawlessness, amoral or unethical winner-take-all and authoritarian behavior.

Which leads me back to the economy.

Facts. Inflation continues to fall and is now back to levels of even the Trump administration. The Federal Reserve is cutting interest rates (reflecting a decline in inflation). Job growth under the Biden administration continues to grow (under Trump we lost net jobs). While Trump falsely espouses “100%” of all new jobs created under Biden “have gone to illegal immigrants,” the number of native-born Americans in the workforce increased by 6% under Biden. The crime rate is down, violent crime reduced by 15.2% in just the last year, according to the FBI. The entry of migrants at the southern border between December 2023 and January 2024 fell by 50% as a result of actions of the Mexican government in cooperation with the Biden administration, and crossings fell even more, by 40%, to their lowest level in four years, as a result of Biden’s executive order on asylum policy in June. Immigrants commit fewer crimes than native-born Americans (the average 25-year-old male from Latin America is less likely to commit a crime than a 25-year-old white male). 48% of immigrants arriving between 2020 and 2022 have at least a bachelor’s degree, while 38% of native-born Americans have a bachelor’s degree. But let me close on the economy that Trump seems to deny. The Biden administration has crafted a historic economic recovery with strong growth, very low unemployment, and inflation returning to normal. It is, and has been, focused on lowering costs for all people and expanding the economy. That strong economy at home is simultaneously helping to power the global economy and strengthening domestic economic resilience.

“We have not come this far without a struggle and I assure you we cannot go further without a struggle. We know now that government by organized money is just as dangerous as government by organized mob.”

FDR

In the end, Trump has always been a grifter and always has believed in ‘government by organized money (the wealthy)’, therefore, Trump needs all the alternative reality ju jitsu he can muster because (a) he must convince blue collar America he is for them, (b) he must scrape up every possible voter with some grievance and (c) convince people the economic reality doesn’t exist. He will never reach a 50% majority. His ceiling is maybe 36% of adults (47% of voting adults). He will certainly lose the popular vote by millions as he did in 2016 and 2020. The only way Trump can win is by inflaming people into believing losing is losing to some alternative universe evil through some ju jitsu where fellow citizens are evil and the America we see today is in some economic shithole. Ponder.

==

“Oh, you need me.”

==

On the horrible Bill Maher show he recently had on a horrible guest who espoused the idea of democrats demonizing men and the “male crisis.” First. I find it rich that some right wing nutjob is harping on the fragility of men. Whatever happened to self-reliance and “pulling oneself up by one’s bootstraps?” Second. A pernicious aspect of this whole male crisis narrative is how they strawman the argument with “toxic masculinity.” What I mean by that is the Right falsely suggests that all men, and masculinity, is broad stroked as ‘toxic’ by “the Left.’ Its nuts, absurd, and creates a false narrative. As a man myself let me be clear, you can be masculine without being toxic. Toxic simply means being a dick. You can be masculine without being a dick. To be clear, as a man myself, all men will be dicks on occasion, but to be toxic you have to be a dick consistently and almost all the time. Selectively being a dick is just being a guy.

Which leads me to what exactly is this “male crisis” we are speaking of.

A lot of men are losing their positions as breadwinners or just losing out on having dominant positions in society. That doesn’t necessarily have to do with men, it just may be a reflection of progress. So before I get to men, specifically, let’s talk progress from a macro perspective. In a complex society where there is progress there will always be some who benefit more than others. Those who may have been marginalized in the past will find opportunities in the wave of progress to get ahead and those who have benefited in the past will no longer have as easy an access to the benefits. Its not exactly a zero-sum game, but it may feel like it. Its actually just asymmetry which is a characteristic of complexity. Society, and economies, are rarely characterized by one similar progress characteristic. There will always be at least one component, or one industry, which will be underperforming versus others. That’s how it works. In this particular case, some men may be underperforming in this wave of progress, or may just feel like they are underperforming, and this creates a multitude of issues – which is being labeled a “crisis” (an absurdity in and of itself).

Which leads me to the male issue.

I cannot remember who the social philosopher was, but someone suggested the core issue is “need.” In order to find meaning, all humans, including men, need to feel two things: they are contributing and their contributions are needed in some way. Simplistically, we humans need to feel needed in some form or fashion. The “needed” creates a sense of connection to other people and the community and the larger society. In its most feminine framing this is ‘nurturing,’ but in the male crisis that is a toxic word (because it is mainly associated with women for some reason). We should note social anthropologist Margaret Mead once said “every known human society has rested on the learned nurturing behavior of men. This behavior being learned is rather fragile and can disappear quickly in circumstances that no longer teach it effectively.” Being needed and nurturing have a symbiotic relationship and it is silly to not discuss the fact men are nurturing beings and at the core of masculinity is giving more than you get, i.e., contribution. And maybe within all that is an actual, real, issue.  Maybe we are not signaling strongly enough to young men how much they are needed for a healthy family, healthy community, healthy society and that their contributions matter.

While I may, personally, think its slightly absurd that we need to do this, or coddle male egos this way, it may be extremely fair that we need to vocalize, just a bit more and a bit more loudly, how much men are needed for a healthy economy and healthy community and healthy society. Maybe we need to be just a bit more specific that it’s not just that we need people, but we need men.

Ponder.

==

“We actually contain a built-in ability to rise above restriction, incapacity, or limitation and, as a result of this ability, possess a vital adaptive spirit that we have not yet fully accessed.”

Joseph Chilton Pearce

==

I have written about limitations as well as rules and breaking a rule before, but today this is just about potential and game theory (in a weird way). Game theory revolves around competition and objectives. Restrictions are less structured in that they are simply the things life offers up as suggestions of what is possible, not possible, safe, and unsafe (among other things). I tend to believe most people eye restrictions with a wary view. We are wary because restrictions suggest a lack of capacity to go farther than the restriction. That suggestion goes against the grain of how we feel about personal potential. We humans DO have a built-in ability to rise above limitations – given the right context that is.

Which leads me to suggest restrictions are rational things in an irrational world.

When restrictions are applied from a societal norm and community way, they actually encourage irrational consistencies. What I mean by that is if a restriction is rational simply by rising above a restriction is deemed irrational. To be fair. The rational consistencies within society demands that we review the idea of what is prescribed, the enforcement of those restrictions, and the rewards of rising above. Part of this rational assessment demands seeking some consistent demonstration of inferiority (below restriction outcomes) through some measurement. We also assess, subjectively, the cost to potential due to lack of deviation from the compulsory restrictions. But underneath it all, the part that chafes the most, is that most societal restrictions are crafted to mold people into what the existing system (power) machine needs. Yeah. Typically, the larger system is built to produce specific behavioral actions which can be measured so the restrictions can be held accountable (to the needs of the system, not human potential). I would be remiss if I didn’t point out then in an outcome of this is a version of pacification of people. The objectives, and mindsets, of community life and society is permeated by restriction measurement ultimately becoming the logic of society.

Which leads me to individual potential and society.

It was Margaret Thatcher who said “there is no such thing as society.” The Thatcher/Reagan era was almost the penultimate individual above all moment in history. That said. Thatcher stood for a particularly brutal version of individualism where there was no society just individuals competing. It was a warped view of progress where great things weren’t achieved collectively, but rather by looking within, grinding through life via will power and hard work to improve your own life (indifferent to everyone else attempting to do the same). It becomes a world of individuals, not a world of We. This is a form of restriction in and of itself and it has become the logic of society where individuals are society; not communities. This begets a society existing of relentless individualizing where the collective good, and progress, is renegotiated in a zero-sum fashion. To be clear. While society is, and always has been, a version of encouraging self reliance, society is not, in and of itself, of the individual, but the connection of individuals. In fact, extreme individualism crafts a restriction enhancing unhealthy reductionism of potential.

Which leads me to social capital.

Social capital is maybe the opposite of individualism (maybe not exactly). I would also suggest social capital is organic game theory. What I mean by that is social capital reflects the extent to which social networks embody norms of trust, reciprocity, and cooperation that facilitate collective action in the pursuit of shared goals. That pursuit of shared goals is where game theory comes in. people, naturally, like to win and, in particular, like to attain goals (shared or not). Social capital demands a willingness to cooperate with others; this includes a willingness to cooperate with strangers and without any clear potential for direct and indirect reciprocity. The goal, in this case, is some individualized vision of potential attained. But even social capital has boundaries it’s just that the restrictions, in this case, are a bit more vague and a lot more expansive than a reductionist individualistic view. That said. I have always found it a bit interesting that E.F. Schumacher wrote “Small is Beautiful: economics if people mattered” smack dab in the middle of the Reagan/Thatcher era. He posited all human activity is a striving after something thought of as good and, therefore, the question at hand becomes ‘good for whom?’ Unless that person has sorted out and coordinated his manifold urges, impulses, and desires, his strivings are likely to be confused, contradictory, self-defeating, and possibly highly destructive.” The restriction of individualism is that it inhibits the mobilization of a collective for a collective good. It is within a goal of collective good where any one individual may not achieve the highest material rewards and yet may achieve their highest potential. Therein lies individualism’s greatest lie – that material success is tied to potential. That narrative actually restricts potential, but also what we, people as humans, truly understand about life. The greatest potential in life is not found in the restriction of individualism, but rather rising above its restriction through collective action.

Which permits me to circle back to the beginning – most people are wary of restrictions; particularly ones that suggest radical individualism.  

Humans are multidimensional constructs who thrive on irrational consistencies. Humans thrive in the connectivity with other humans. Radical individualism, even “self reliance,” inhibits connectivity. It does so because it restricts what one gives in a cooperative context. The individualism tugs people to hold back something, even just a bit, for their own good. It, well, restricts potential. It may not seem rational to give up something for yourself to get more back (at some point), but, irrationally, that’s the way the most effective world works. Ponder.