“Follow The Leader”

Stephen Miller – neo-fascist, racist follower of Jeff Sessions, AG, architect of the racist immigration policies, likely to run the White House Press Office soon.

“Trump TV” as a thing is actually up and running – state sponsored propaganda for The Leader, our Big Brother. Don’t know German? “Führer” means “The Leader,” “The Guide,” the only person with “the real truth” – anything to the contrary is a lie, aka “fake news,” even if absolutely true. Because “real truth” is what The Leader says and expects and demands – and you’d best conform to.

If this traitorous bastard is not standing at that narrow bridge over the Rubicon, he has already crossed it, leading probably half or more of U.S. Americans with him by belief, fear, apathy, or inertia.

A propaganda arm of any government turned openly and with full force against its own people to keep the Leader in power, to bypass free media inspection and reporting, is, by definition, an active symptom of tyranny – at least in the making.

You thought I was joking when I wrote my parts of “GOP NAZIS” and all the essays over the years before Trump and afterwards. Or you didn’t look and see what I said at all. Which is fine – I’m not the best messenger. Certainly, I’m no one, and not famous so why would you, in this age of celebrity, have known what I said or given a damn if you’d heard it?

But I am one messenger and one last vestige of an American citizenry that had faith in that Constitution, the Bill of Rights, Civil Rights, Civil Liberties, Human Rights, and their expansion and protection – the protection of actual human beings, all of us.  I’m what a “regular” U.S. Citizen used to sound like.

This present “tissue of bullshit,” to quote William S. Burroughs, is not that (protection of our rights and liberties) at all. And it deserves no better than utter contempt and condemnation. The use of the values of liberal democracy to undercut and destroy liberal democracy and its values always was the weak spot in our form of government and society if enough people lost faith in our form of government and could care less about “society.”


“Enough,” more than enough people in the USA and Europe have lost faith in liberal democracy and civil society; it hasn’t ever been a stable thing in the US.  We went through a Civil War over it; a hundred years of Jim Crow “laws” and lynchings, bombings, the KKK, an American Nazi Party, various white nationalist/separatist organizations, domestic terrorism, mass xenophobia before and after 9/11… all alongside small steps in the direction of a genuine and humane civilization: universal suffrage for men and women from any and all backgrounds, public education, free speech and privacy expansion, LGBTQ rights, the recognition of black and Latino people as actual human beings, open borders, refuge against tyranny and violence, a decline in anti-semitism, destruction of “laws” against “race mixing,” and so on.

We almost had a public health care system for a moment.  Just a moment.

For every advance, a reaction in the opposite direction until, now, a major attempt to roll it ALL back, even the notion of liberal democracy and a republic itself, res publica, the “public thing” that benefits all as an ideal, even when not fully a reality.

THAT decline did not happen in a vacuum.  That happened because enough people lost faith in such – and don’t even understand what these things are, how precious, how delicate, how easily ruined from within.

In fact, I don’t doubt 9/10ths of Americans reading these words (if they bother to read anything) even give a damn to find out what they mean.  They (we) are angry and emotional, passionate, enthusiastic people and such people as that do not think; they act. And when they act, they destroy.  Because creation and preservation can only arise from a calm, thoughtful, care-full consideration as a pre-occupation, pre-activity, a guide for reasonable, self-restrained action later.

If I am doing anything, as I’ve often observed, it is this: Watching and commenting and theorizing for people who are not yet here.  People who may find something, anything of worth in the debris of my thoughts as I have little hope for the people presently in the grip of self-imposed or self-accepted delusions. And none of this will survive if you do not remember it and repeat it to others later, by word of mouth, and discuss these ideas.  My words will go away soon and my name is written on wind.

These, my countrymen, are not a people who will turn inward and doubt themselves and their beliefs for one moment as that requires effort and results in wonder and not a little fear and humility and a search for solid, rational answers, not the ready-made answers floating in the culture or subcultures that misguided them to begin with.  That fed them lies and tribal, parochial myths in place of truth… which is always cosmopolitan in character… that makes one a citizen of the world.

I don’t live in such a place and time.  I’m just leaving fragments of a map that might allow others, one day, to go search for that place and moment themselves.

6-7 August 2017
Richard Van Ingram

Links to some evidence:

“Trump TV” on YouTube

Keith Olbermann Predicts Trump TV, 11/3/2016

Sinclair Broadcasting Becomes Trump TV

Stephen Miller In Running For White House Communications Director

#Trump #TrumpTV #propaganda #authoritarianism #fascism#WelcometoAbsurdistan #Putin #media


Abortion: A Real Solution

Or, A Not So Modest Proposal To Make As Many People As Miserable As Possible, All In The Name of Being Absolutely Moral

For the sake of argument, let's say that abortion is immoral. I don't care what ethical system or religious belief one uses here, I'll simply grant at the outset: Abortion is immoral. Wrong. Not to be done. Ever.

Does this mean, then, we can rightfully create legislation to ban it under all circumstances? Well, why not? I’ll go ahead and give that one to you as well: Abortion, let’s say, is a subspecies of murder; we make murders illegal, therefore abortions must be covered by similar laws and precedents, with similar punishments following.

So, here’s our principle: If it’s immoral, it ought to be illegal.

Fine and good. Abortion is now both immoral and illegal, defined as a sort of murder. Let hurrahs spread throughout the land, let the pulpits resound with great rejoicing at our great ethical strides. Let Right-To-Life groupies roll around on sidewalks outside the homes of women who’ve had abortions and call for the police to perform their duly appointed tasks.

So, now what?

By the end of the day, we have a great number of women and teenaged girls who are pregnant and who don’t want to be. They don’t want the children that will be born. Some of the pregnancies will be, as they often are, the mangled fruit of rapes and incestuous attacks by relatives, molestations by neighbors, even by the very clergy who pressed to make abortions (and birth control) illegal.

But most of the pregnancies will be accidental: the pill failed; the condom broke; the people involved sort of slept together in the heat of the moment without thinking through the possibilities. The couple discovered the rhythm method is about as effective as any other form of voodoo. We’ve all heard the stories if, in fact, we haven’t been in the starring roles.

In my future world, the women and girls doubtless get sent off for “counseling.” I’m sure tax money will be involved, since this is a matter of law and we are preventing murders. Much of it will be funneled to “faith-based” organizations, which are always more than eager to get a public hand-out to spread their private interpretations of the Good News. The counselors’ jobs will be to talk the women into keeping their children – as they will go to jail (or worse) if they find an abortionist or try a “home remedy.” Many, some stricken with fear and guilt and heads swimming with tales of an afterlife filled with Eternal Death, Hell, and The Man With the Pointy Stick, will decide to keep and raise the babies.

But will they do a good job?

If it’s immoral to murder, and abortion is murder, so we make it illegal to abort, then it should be illegal to leave children in the hands of biological parents who don’t want them. Because if it’s immoral to mistreat children, and not caring for, loving, wanting, and voluntarily devoting oneself to one’s child is a form of mistreatment, then we should make it illegal to leave children in the hands of people very likely to mistreat them.

Now, some women who become pregnant accidently do decide they genuinely want their children. And some extended families also really want the children, so aunts and uncles and grandparents step in and become surrogate parents when the mother cannot perform this role.

But many times, especially if abortion is absolutely illegal, a great number of women will be left who have no extended family (or any they trust) and who have no desire (and maybe no ability – mentally, spiritually, or financially) to raise children. For that matter, they may be 12 or 13 year-old girls who can’t decide whether or not to wear cherry-flavored lip gloss to the 8th grade dance, much less how best to go about raising a child.

What do we do?

Assuming we’re talking about males of legal age, we could legally require the biological fathers to step up to the plate and pay or take custody – but proving paternity may well be an issue, and it will cost money for conclusive DNA tests… and I assume, again, we will be using tax money, as this is a matter of law. And we could be talking long, drawn out court battles – and, in the meantime, the children will be born, and we will have to do something with them, even if the courts haven’t arrived at their Solomon-esque answers yet.

We could fund orphanages. But let me ask: Is it better for young Oliver Twist to wind up in an orphanage run by the state (with yet more tax money) or by a religious institution (probably run, in part, with tax money) that doesn’t care for him as an individual member of a family – or is it better for Oliver to be raised in a supportive family where he will be cared for by people who obviously love children? Which is likely less inherently abusive?

I think we’d say the latter. In fact, the former just sounds like Oliver is going to be warehoused to keep him out of our collective hair. And that could be a form of immoral mistreatment and, by definition, if we’re going to make everything that is immoral also illegal, it should be against the law to place a child in an orphanage.

Here’s what we must do, then:

If abortion is immoral, and it is illegal because it is immoral (since we have decided all immoral things should also be illegal), we must place all unwanted children with families that want children, respect life, and who have gone on record as being in favor of banning abortion. These people are obviously moral – they tell us so at every opportunity. These people obviously love children, even to the point of wanting to force women and girls to bring unwanted children into the world. The right place for these children to be, ethically, is with the people who love and want unwanted children. So, it would be immoral to put the unwanted children anywhere else.

In short: By law, if abortion is made illegal, people and families who supported making it illegal should be forced, by law, to adopt all unwanted children for as long as there are unwanted children.

A nice, simple solution. Legally force women to have children they don’t want on moral grounds. Then legally force those who supported making abortion illegal to adopt all the unwanted children… on moral grounds.

This would be easy. Legally require that the membership rolls of all Right-To-Life organizations be made available to the government. These people go first. Children will be randomly assigned to them as they come available. Next, anyone who is a registered member of a political party that has an anti-abortion plank in its platform will be assigned some children. After that, anyone who belongs to a party that refuses to take a stand on the issue will be blessed with some unwanted children. Then, anyone who lives in a state with elected officials who are actively anti-abortion will be granted the boon of a few babies. We could do this proportionally – if the candidate won by 62% in a district, for example, we can randomly assign the children to 62% of the households if the pro-life voters are too bashful to stand up and admit their votes voluntarily.

Voilá. No more unwanted children. And if, paradoxically, the pro-lifers, their homes now packed to overflow capacity with life, complain they can’t take care of the children, we can tell them to practice celibacy and give up on having biological children of their own; we can tell them to work harder, maybe get a few more jobs, spend their retirement money; and we can tell them that if they dare neglect the children, we’ll put them into jail for poor parenting and then reassign their allotted batch to their neighbors.

There. Everyone’s happy and everyone got what they wanted. All we had to do was be consistent and say that, if it’s immoral, it should be illegal, no matter what. All abortion is illegal, child abuse is illegal, and not taking care of all the children you demanded be brought into the world is illegal.

Some might, frustrated with the writer by this point, argue that I am using a premise that makes no sense, namely: If it’s immoral it ought to be illegal. Perhaps some would be inclined to say that not everything that’s immoral can be made illegal without tyrannical or absurd consequences, or they’d say that even if some aspects of morality can be legislated, it doesn’t follow all aspects should be.

Some might even say that, even if abortion is immoral, it makes no practical sense to claim all abortions should be made illegal – a decent, free society is simply ill-equipped to be run on the basis of moral absolutism. Otherwise we face the specter of hordes of unwanted children placed in inherently abusive situations and the possibility of citizens being forced to do the moral thing – take care of unwanted children whether they like it or not.

We have to put up with some measure of imperfection and incompletion and accept that much of morality revolves around social pressure and voluntary compliance, not the force of law and government, to function adequately. Maybe morality is a struggle and is always incomplete, even unclear, a difficulty and an ongoing argument. Many people might say something just like this.

My answer is that this all sounds very human. If you’re satisfied with human-like answers, with what Socrates once called “a human sort of wisdom,” then reject my proposal, by all means. Flee from it and oppose anything that sounds vaguely like it. But if you want to live in angelic perfection and in a moral utopia, contact your elected representatives right away and let them know that nothing short of Heaven will satisfy you while you have to live on Earth, and ask them to legislate accordingly.

Thank you for your time.


Asmodeus Satanis

(originally written 2008)