WP: Evan Wright, unflinching author of ‘Generation Kill,’ dies at 59

The Washington Post reports:

Evan Wright, a modern-day gonzo journalist who embedded with an elite U.S. Marine battalion in Iraq for prizewinning articles that were published in Rolling Stone and grew into the book and HBO miniseries “Generation Kill,” died July 12 at his home in Los Angeles. He was 59.

The cause was suicide, according to his family.

Mr. Wright wrote for magazines including Time and Vanity Fair but was perhaps best known for his contributions to Rolling Stone, the literary home beginning in the 1970s of Hunter S. Thompson, the renegade writer who embodied the personal, sometimes subversive brand of reportage known as gonzo journalism.

Mr. Wright rejected the frequent comparisons between him and Thompson.

“‘Gonzo’ speaks of writing that is more about the reporter than the subject,” he wrote in a book-length collection of his articles, “Hella Nation: Looking for Happy Meals in Kandahar, Rocking the Side Pipe, Wingnut’s War Against the Gap, and Other Adventures With the Totally Lost Tribes of America” (2009). “With few exceptions, my intent has always been to focus on my subjects in all of their imperfect glory.”

But for better or worse, the analogy stuck. To readers interested in the affairs of the world beyond those reported in the columns of more tradition-bound publications, Mr. Wright’s byline carried the promise of a riveting, insightful, visceral read. He infiltrated a gathering of neo-Nazis in Idaho, reported from the trenches of anarchist groups and chronicled the lives of sorority girls at Ohio State University, in addition to profiling show business celebrities including Shakira and Quentin Tarantino.

Mr. Wright was most celebrated, however, as a war correspondent, embedding first with the U.S. military during the Afghan war and then, in 2003, with the Marine First Reconnaissance Battalion in Iraq. His writings from Iraq, a three-part series published in Rolling Stone as “The Killer Elite,” received the 2004 National Magazine Award for reporting.

“Writer-photographer Evan Wright risked his life to get this story — a rollicking, profane, brutal look at the Marines of Bravo Company, who led the charge into Iraq last year,” read the citation. “In the course of myriad firefights, mortar shellings and ambushes, Wright won the trust of his subjects, but he remained clear-eyed, depicting the soldier’s cold-bloodedness as well as their humanity. Brilliant down to the last detail.”

Mr. Wright expanded his articles into the book “Generation Kill: Devil Dogs, Iceman, Captain America and the New Face of American War,” published in 2004 and adapted in 2008 into an HBO miniseries that Mr. Wright co-wrote with David Simon and Ed Burns, both of “The Wire.” In a post on X after Mr. Wright’s death, Simon recalled him as “charming, funny and not a little bit feral, as many reporters are.”

I first met Evan Wright in 1996 when he was an editor at Larry Flynt’s porn magazines. He started publishing in Rolling Stone in 1999 and I only saw him occasionally after that.

We were always on good terms. In December of 1998, he paid me $1000 to write an essay about the Pope for a Seth Warshavsky publication. I was supposed to get paid $3000 but after I turned in my work, I settled for what I could get.

Evan Wright profiled me in the August 19, 1999 issue of Rolling Stone:

“Porn attracts a wacky element,” Luke Ford says. “Case A: Luke Ford.” Since April 1998, Ford, a thirty-three-year-old convert to Orthodox Judaism, has been writing a daily Web column covering the triple-X industry (lukeford.com). Ford exposes drug use, mob connections and murder plots, and details the operatic dramas of porn stars’ daily lives. Sometimes the column is about little more than Ford’s fascination with his own life. He posts naked pictures of himself cavorting with porn actresses, and when his stepmom sent him a letter calling him “devil possessed,” he put it on his site. (Ford’s father, a Christian evangelist, brands Luke “mentally unstable” as a result of a head injury he suffered as a teen.)

…When the leaders of the top adult video and Internet companies gathered at a secretive conference in Cancun, Mexico, in the spring, Ford was a prime topic. The owner of a chain of adult stores [Edward Wedelstedt] was reportedly heard saying not only that Ford is a “menace to society” but “no one should worry about him anymore – Luke’s going to end up as a spot on the pavement.”

Death threats notwithstanding, everybody in the adult business reads the column. The secret to his success? “People in the porn business are extremely self-involved,” says Michael Louis Albo, executive editor of Hustler Erotic Video Guide. “Luke angers them, but they love reading about themselves in his column.”

The Evan Wright profile helped me to reconnect with an old friend from UCLA.

Evan wasn’t careful with his facts. I had journalist friends who despised Evan because they believed he was untrustworthy, they alleged he would paint dishonest narratives if they served him. I saw that Evan was playing a game that served Evan.

Evan’s career peaked with his publication of the book Generation Kill in 2004. Nothing he published after that had the same impact.

He was intermittently a heavy drug user.

Evan was an introvert. That we each spent so much time in the porn industry reveals our self-destructive sides. We enjoyed slumming it. In some ways, we felt more comfortable with the refuse of society rather than its best.

Smiling Arab emails me:

Thoughts on Evan Wright bro? Just saw that he died of suicide, seemingly lost amidst the vacuum suck of the last 3 days.

Supposedly he just appeared in an HBO Max doc about one of those schools that would take in “troubled” kids and beat the fuck out of them and sometimes fuck the fuck out of them too. Like I think it aired last week or something and he killed himself the next day. Shocking shit.

He was easily the one guy from your old interviews that seemed genuinely impressive. “Generation Kill” is about the only book from the Iraq War that is readable today. I have a bunch and they’re all trash. Even books about ISIS are total fucking garbage and it’s only been like 6 years since the Caliphate fell.

When I think about Evan Wright, it brings up this quote: “He who fights with monsters might take care lest he thereby become a monster. And if you gaze for long into an abyss, the abyss gazes also into you.” – Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil: Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (1886), Chapter IV. Apophthegms and Interludes, §146).

The one piece of advice I got from Evan was to pick my enemies carefully. He thought I was reckless with the way I went after everyone in power on my blog and he urged me to be more selective with my targets.

Evan appeared to be a gonzo journalist, but ultimately he was a careerist – he put his career before every other consideration. He played the game more carefully than I did by following the dictates of those with power such as Larry Flynt, Seth Warshavsky and Rolling Stone.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on WP: Evan Wright, unflinching author of ‘Generation Kill,’ dies at 59

Why Did The Biden Administration Give Trump Incompetent Security? (7-14-24)

01:00 Media underplays stories that go against their narrative, https://www.mediaite.com/opinion/in-defense-of-a-cautious-media/
04:00 Veteran journalist David Samuels says the news media is the propaganda arm of the Democratic party, https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/news/articles/portal-donald-trump-elon-musk-david-samuels
11:40 An Apocalyptic Security Failure (Ep. 2286) – 07/15/2024, https://rumble.com/v571hol-an-apocalyptic-security-failure-ep.-2286-07152024.html
17:00 Secret Service had abundant warning of Trump shooter
28:48 Larry C. Johnson & former FBI HRT Sniper Chris Whitcomb on the Failed Assassination of Donald Trump, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cA3ueMsAcTM
32:00 Elliott Blatt calls in
54:00 Director of Secret Service is not resigning but the buck stops with her
https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/2024/07/15/trump-rally-shooting-witness-warning/
1:06:45 Kip calls in about Jews and mysticism
1:42:00 Somebody who knows high powered rifles knew within five seconds of hearing the shots on Trump and seeing the blood on Trump, you knew it was an assassination attempt
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/07/15/us/politics/trump-rally-crowd-gunman.html

Transcript.

Sometimes the media downplays stories like the Trump assassination attempt on Saturday night, making them sound dull. It makes you wonder why they’re underplaying it even days later.

A column by David Samuels states that mainstream media often acts as propaganda for the Democratic Party and tends to minimize news against their narrative. For example, when Donald Trump was shot at during a rally, there was initial confusion over whether it was a bullet or glass that hit him—media outlets reported with caution.

Reports indicate law enforcement had been warned about the shooter well before he fired at Trump but failed to act in time. This raises questions about security competence and intentions under the Biden administration since they oversee Secret Service appointments.

There are two main theories: either Trump received poor security due to incompetence or there’s an assassination plot involved. No one responsible for this failure has resigned or admitted fault yet.

It seems crucial now more than ever for an independent investigation into this matter, as relying solely on internal reviews might not yield transparent results given potential biases within current leadership structures.

The security at a recent event where former President Trump was speaking has raised serious questions. Was it incompetence or an inside assassination plot? The Secret Service’s failure to secure the perimeter and monitor threats is alarming. Surprisingly, those with knowledge of rifles quickly identified the shots fired as coming from a high-powered rifle at a distance—an obvious assassination attempt, something media guidelines won’t label without bureaucratic confirmation.

Where were the Secret Service when shots rang out? Video evidence shows their delayed response in covering Trump and apprehending the shooter. This level of incompetence suggests two possibilities: either gross negligence by security or complicity in an assassination attempt. Most experts on firearms tend to lean right politically, offering different insights than mainstream media.

Understanding the history of the Secret Service is crucial here. Once part of Treasury and focused on financial crimes, they’re now tasked with protecting dignitaries like the president—a duty they seemingly failed at during this incident.

This lapse has led some to speculate that there might be intentional sabotage within Biden’s administration—though I don’t subscribe to that theory myself. It’s hard for people to believe such staggering incompetence could occur without malice behind it.

As more details emerge about the shooter—who had explosives and purchased ammunition just hours before—the investigation raises further doubts about its thoroughness and objectivity. With past FBI failures fresh in memory, confidence wanes in their ability to uncover motives or prevent similar incidents.

Despite calls for accountability after what could have been a live execution caught on camera, no resignations are forthcoming from top officials like Secret Service Director Kim C., who insists she’ll stay on despite admitting responsibility for this fiasco.

In Washington D.C., words aren’t always matched by actions; even near disasters aren’t enough for leaders to step down or be dismissed. Now we wait anxiously for investigations that may never reveal if this was truly an act of ineptitude or something darker within our government’s ranks.

The committee investigating the assassination attempt on Donald Trump should take over from federal authorities and hold televised hearings under oath. They must question counter-snipers and others involved to ensure nothing is covered up.

Why didn’t the Secret Service neutralize the shooter, Crooks, who had a gun aimed at Trump for several seconds before firing? In standard law enforcement, an immediate threat like this would be met with lethal force. Yet it seems they allowed Crooks to fire eight shots before responding. This raises questions about their protocols compared to private security or other law enforcement agencies.

Alejandro Mayorkas of Homeland Security oversees the Secret Service, yet despite their failure during this incident, he expresses full confidence in them. This could imply either complicity in an assassination plot against Trump or a blatant lie given their incompetence.

Former FBI informants have been encouraged by the agency to cause chaos previously – what does that say about current events?

Experts knew immediately upon hearing gunfire that this was an attempt on Trump’s life; however, media waited for official confirmation before acknowledging it as such.

Once attacked, protection of President transitions from Secret Service to a DOJ investigation led by the FBI. Despite claims of effective protocols since 1981’s attack on Reagan, this event suggests otherwise.

Secret Service agents are trained extensively for various scenarios including perimeter defense and close-protection detail. Elon Musk’s support for Trump highlights these professionals’ bravery rather than any political bias they may hold.

Finally, personal spiritual revelations can lead one away from societal norms towards truth-seeking isolation—a journey not always understood by loved ones but significant nonetheless.

Kip calls in: At 38, I realized everything I thought was wrong. Your work made me appreciate things differently and now, I see you hold a key to questions that need answering. We’ve both seen how the media turned on Trump overnight despite his cognitive decline over years – it’s that same force. The richest people in America are pulling strings behind the scenes.

I’m past caring about Hollywood politics; what matters is who’s really in control and if those we’ve converted might be involved without veering into conspiracy theories. People act primarily out of self-interest; this explains why one day they love you and the next they don’t.

Luke: Groups have unique gifts but also downsides – like Ashkenazi Jews’ high verbal IQ or African Americans’ improvisational skills contrasted with higher crime rates. These traits affect how different groups navigate society.

Jewish law seems inflexible from outside, but living it reveals its flexibility – knowing what’s acceptable within their community has been crucial for survival as minorities throughout history.

Intelligence among Ashkenazi Jews surged a thousand years ago due to selective pressures in Europe where only the smartest survived and thrived, leading to their success today across various fields.

In conversations around intelligence, openness plays a significant role alongside other personality traits like extroversion and agreeableness which correlate with success in life. This could explain why certain groups seem more successful than others in particular areas.

Expert looking at Secret Service counter-sniper: I’m baffled by his actions. If I were using that scope, I’d first spot my target with my own eyes then use the scope to zoom in. It seems like when he lifted his eye from the scope, shots rang out and Trump was hit. The men on the roof seemed to be tracking the shooter for some time before engaging him after eight shots at Trump.

This raises questions about whether it was a Secret Service decision to delay responding. Positioned on a flat roof, one sniper kneeled – not ideal – while incoming fire killed one and injured others; they only engaged after significant delay.

There’s speculation that law enforcement knew of a threat to Trump for 26 minutes but did nothing, suggesting either an assassination plot or gross incompetence within the Secret Service.

Witnesses saw someone suspicious climbing onto a roof with a gun; however, despite reports, no action was taken by local or state partners present at the scene. This oversight begs whether it was deliberate ignorance due to an interest in seeing harm come to Trump.

Further complicating matters is how this person managed undetected access onto the roof with equipment despite being spotted by civilians who alerted authorities – all ignored or unaddressed by law enforcement communications channels including those of Secret Service.

The rules of engagement call for deadly force only under immediate threat which may explain hesitation if there were uncertainties about identifying friend from foe among non-uniformed individuals aiming weapons at Trump. However, given clear protocols against such scenarios, failure suggests possible complicity in an assassination attempt or profound systemic failures raising concerns over who orchestrated such inadequacies within presidential protection services.

Ultimately these events lead us back to questions regarding responsibility and accountability within security operations tasked with protecting former President Donald Trump during this incident where so much went wrong yet seemingly unnoticed until too late.

The BBC interviewed a man who claimed multiple people on the ground saw a threat near an event. Surprisingly, this didn’t reach the Secret Service in time to delay the individual’s stage access. CBS News reported that one sniper observed Thomas Matthew Crooks looking up at the building and then disappearing. Later, with a range finder and backpack in hand, he reappeared.

Snipers inside were watching for threats at a Trump rally when they spotted Crooks outside. Partygoers nearby also noticed him climbing onto the roof armed with a rifle. Questions arose about why perimeter surveillance failed to detect him sooner.

During an FBI press conference, there was no clear answer as to how Crooks got onto the roof or where aerial surveillance was during this incident. The media has been criticized for its handling of the story, with some outlets seemingly downplaying or misrepresenting it.

It is crucial to ask why there was no perimeter or aerial surveillance and why it took so long for snipers to engage the shooter once identified as a threat. Proper protective intelligence should have prevented such an incident from occurring close enough to endanger lives.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Why Did The Biden Administration Give Trump Incompetent Security? (7-14-24)

Joe Biden & The New Class

Rony Guldmann responds to my email:

Hey Luke, I have been pondering your question about Biden’s cognitive decline, even though that issue appears to have been at least temporarily superseded by the events of this weekend.

As to what’s going on with Biden, I think you need to look at Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression‘s discussion of the New Class and its contradictions, which are perhaps manifested in the shielding of Biden. I note Alvin Gouldner’s observation that:

The culture of the New Class exacts still other costs: since its discourse emphasizes the importance of carefully edited speech, this has the vices of its virtues: in its virtuous aspect, self-editing implies a commendable circumspection, carefulness, self-discipline and “seriousness.”

So, Biden clearly presents a problem on this front. But, of course, a lot of people have strong career interests in a second Biden term, as unlikely as that now appears, and will not sacrifice these for the greater good. This is because, as I write:

However, Gouldner also stressed that the New Class is no gathering of benign technocrats selflessly promoting the public good. For it is a morally ambiguous “flawed universal class” that is “elitist and self-seeking and uses its special knowledge to advance its own interests and power,” and so “embod[ies] the collective interest but partially and transiently.”

When you contrast Biden’s cognitive decline (and denial about it) with Trump’s triumphal, fist-raising defiance of death this weekend in Pennsylvania, you have the perfect symbolic embodiment of conservatives’ belief that a decadent liberalism is sapping the vitality of the country, with Trump carrying the flame of that endangered vitality.

I’ve been rereading Rony Guldmann’s book Conservative Claims of Cultural Oppression and found these references to the New Class:

Alvin Gouldner observes that higher education is the institution through which the “New Class is at first readied for contest against the old class.” Colleges and universities are “the finishing schools of the New Class’s resistance to the old class.” Taking this notion to its logical conclusion, conservative claimants of cultural oppression believe that the elite universities from which the liberal elites hail are more akin to social fraternities than to Platonic academies.

Admission to elite colleges is commonly seen as a marker of intellectual merit. But more important, writes [Angelo] Codevilla, is the candidate’s contribution to a “social profile that fits the school’s image of itself,” a commitment to “fit in,” to be “in with the right people,” and give “the required signs that one is on the right side, and joining in despising the Outs.” Academic merit is a social construction of the ruling liberal elites, an institutional filter designed to weed out conservatives and set the stage for widespread liberal domination. First inculcated in the university, the elites’ “tastes and habits” are later enforced with the threat of social ostracism. It is, writes Anderson, simply assumed in Rawls’s Cambridge or Manhattan’s Upper West Side or the CBS newsroom that one has “the correct liberal opinions,” and those who do not will simply stop receiving dinner invitations. In withholding these invitations, liberals are just doing what they were trained to do in the college classroom, where the ostracism of conservatives was first introduced to them as “progressive” behavior.

The elite university believes it has replaced an old WASP-regime of social virtue revolving around gentility and “character” with a new regime of intellectual virtue revolving around raw mental firepower. But conservative claimants of cultural oppression charge that the new intellectual virtues are social virtues in disguise, just as automatic and unreflective as those of the WASP ancien régime. It is the elite universities, laments Gelernter, that produced Obama, the “symbol of the new American elite, the new establishment, where left-liberal politics is no longer a conviction, no longer a way of thinking: it is built-in mind-furniture you take for granted without needing to think.” Consequently, the nation is “filling inexorably with Airheads, nominally educated yet ignorant; trained and groomed like prize puppies to be good liberals.”222To defend liberalism as a mere conviction is to refuse the role of the liberal prize puppy, to refuse liberalism as a social identity. But perversely, it is liberalism qua social identity, qua automatic social reflex, that has been culturally credentialed as the embodiment of a privileged intellectual acuity. Just as the classic finishing schools strove to inculcate a certain physical posture, so the elite universities now inculcate a certain mental and spiritual posture through which to announce oneself curious, broad-minded, given to scientific detachment and dispassionate analysis, etc.— that is, as a member of the anointed in good standing. With this training having tethered students’ self-esteem to liberalism, they become prize puppy liberals who cannot see that their intellectualism is really an exercise in social signaling…

But just as the Left relativizes the value of economic liberty to the interests of capitalists, so conservatives relativize the value of expressive autonomy to the New Class culture of wordsmiths, artists, and entertainers. Bork observes that the student radicals of the 1960s were later attracted to careers through which they could influence opinions and attitudes,73their ultimate passion. But not everyone shares this passion. And the radical expressive individualism liberalism celebrates will only resonate for those who share this powerful need for symbolic manipulation—and the social privilege that permits it. It is only the molders of opinion and sensibility whose career paths require an unqualified right to continually transgress the boundaries of decency and good taste. Liberals will sugarcoat this aggression in anodyne abstractions like self-expression or autonomy. But conservatives believe these abstractions are ideological instruments of elite domination, initiated in the 1960s and continuing to this day. The 1960s were, as Kimball says, a revolution “of the privileged, by the privileged, and for the privileged.”74Itwas a revolution, not of individualists against collectivists, but of one collective against another, of the people of fashion against the common people, whose cause has now been taken up by conservatives…

Gouldner argued that the New Class of professional knowledge workers is a progressive force in some ways. It has no truck with traditional hierarchies, including all the privileges of the old class of bourgeois capitalists. The New Class furthermore promotes a linguistic culture, the “culture of careful and critical discourse”(CCD), that de-authorizes “all speech grounded in traditional societal authority.” However, Gouldner also stressed that the New Classis not a group of benign technocrats selflessly promoting the public good.166Rather,it is a morally ambiguous “flawed universal class”167that is “elitist and self-seeking and uses its special knowledge to advance its own interests and power,”168and so “embod[ies] the collective interest but partially and transiently.” While the New Class is hostile to traditional bourgeois interests and values, it is itself a cultural bourgeoisie whose commitment to freedom is qualified by its interest in maintaining its cultural capital. It may be egalitarian when attacking the privileges of the old class, bourgeois conservatives. But it also seeks to maintain its own guild advantages, to which end it attempts to “control the supply and limit the production of its culture, to oppose any group that restricts its control over its culture, and to remove legal or moral restrictions on the uses for which its culture may be purchased.” As the defender of free thought and expression, the New Class opposes formal censorship. But as a cultural bourgeoisie, it has its own interests to protect, and practices unofficial censorship by limiting discussion to members of its own elite, dismissing those who have not been properly credentialed as irrelevant. Even as it subverts old inequalities, the New Class “silently inaugurates a new hierarchy of the knowing, the knowledgeable, the reflexive and insightful.”

What liberals interpret as conservatives’ primordial anti-intellectualism is better understood as a specific reaction to the New Class culture, to the cognitive privileges which that culture affords its liberal membership. The New Class’s cultural capital is ostensibly founded on the culture of careful and critical discourse, which is laudable if taken at face value. But as a culture, CCD must take on a life of its own in order to fulfill its cultural function as a hero-system, to which end its libertarian features will be compromised as necessary. Its membership seeks to be recognized, not merely as having been insightful on some particular occasion, but as “the reflexive and insightful.” They wish to see themselves as the kinds of people who make insightful observations. And this requires that the concrete meaning and function of their intellectual ideals be circumscribed accordingly, so that what qualifies as “serious” speech is defined by their identitarian needs—the “mainstream” as the Duke deconstructionist put it. Professionalism, writes Gouldner, is “among the public ideologies of the New Class, and is the genteel subversion of the old class by the new.”

Translated into our framework, this is a hierarchy between those who stand above the “peculiarly human emotions” and those who do not, between those capable of naturalistic disengagement and those whose sensibilities remain anthropocentricor “pre-modern.” This is the distinctively liberal “bigoted clause,” the distinctively liberal “Moral Order” in relation to which conservatism represents a form of contagion. The New Class may not feel disgust toward homosexuality or go out of their way to shame unwed mothers. But they nevertheless feel themselves emancipated from a certain kind of “lowness,” as Gouldner puts it, which they now identify with conservatism. Hence their conservaphobia, which is simply the corollary of the ethos of disengaged self-control and self-reflexivity. Conservaphobia is always couched in a utilitarian façade, as a response to the perniciousness of conservative ideas. But conservatives correctly sense that it is a source of intrinsic identitarian satisfactions, and this is why they claim cultural oppression.

The elitism of the liberal elite is an elitism, not of wealth, status, or even education, but of moral luck, the fact that they have been undeservedly blessed with the capacity to sublimate, intellectualize, and etherealize their illiberalism, and thus be illiberal with comparative impunity. Their illiberalism may be less pernicious by some measures. But this is nothing for which they deserve any credit, because this is a difference of social background and personal constitution, not individual courage or intrinsic virtue. Just like everyone else, they have been, as Heidegger says, thrown into a particular field of social meanings. And their good luck on this front is, from the cosmic viewpoint to which they themselves aspire, just as arbitrary as the inherited fortunes of third-generation plutocrats. Hence conservatives’ perverse sense that liberal equality taken to its logical conclusion would somehow redound to their cause. Their claims of cultural oppression transpose the categories which liberal discourse applies to the world onto that very discourse, because it is here that the sublimated conservatism of liberals can be discovered. These claims’ profound, ceaselessly innovative perversity, their ineluctably convoluted character, is the direct outcome of this effort to transpose the ideals of liberalism onto this meta-level. This is the philosophical meaning of what liberals mistake for mere rancor.

…Gouldner observes that the New Class demands “instinctual renunciation” of its members and that, moreover,

“The culture of the New Class exacts still other costs: since its discourse emphasizes the importance of carefully edited speech, this has the vices of its virtues: in its virtuous aspect, self-editing implies a commendable circumspection, carefulness, self-discipline and “seriousness.” In its negative modality, however, self-editing also disposes toward an unhealthy self-consciousness, toward stilted convoluted speech, an inhibition of play, imagination and passion, and continual pressure for expressive discipline. The new rationality thus becomes the source of a new alienation. Calling for watchfulness and self-discipline, CCD [culture of critical discourse] is productive of intellectual reflexivity and the loss of warmth and spontaneity. Moreover, that very reflexivity stresses the importance of adjusting action to some pattern of propriety. There is, therefore, a structured inflexibility when facing changing situations; there is a certain disregard of the differences in situations, and an insistence on hewing to the required rule.”

Posted in America, Rony Guldmann | Comments Off on Joe Biden & The New Class

Donald Trump Shot – Why Did The Secret Service Operate With Reckless Disregard? (7-14-24)

01:00 The Secret Service’s Reckless Disregard For Donald Trump’s Safety, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=156382
1:25:00 The case for forcing the mentally ill into treatment, https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/the-case-for-forcing-the-mentally-ill-into-treatment.html
1:36:00 Charles Murray. The collapse of the social sciences in the West, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaCA7j9iLrA
1:41:00 Trump ASSASSINATION Plot Details REVEALED
1:44:00 I Wish The News Media Had Given Joe Biden As Much Scrutiny As An NFL Coach, https://lukeford.net/blog/?p=156302
1:51:00 Stephen J. James joins the show
1:55:00 Candor vs courtesy
2:05:00 Is Lizzo attractive?
2:26:10 Stephen J. James reflects on his recent visit to America
3:25:00 Secret Service protocol is to not fire on a shooter until he fires first?

Transcript.

Podnotes summary: I’m reflecting on the Secret Service’s response during an incident where a shooter targeted Donald Trump. The assailant fired eight shots before being stopped by security. This raises questions about why law enforcement didn’t act sooner despite having the shooter in sight and warnings from the crowd.

I’m speaking from Los Angeles at 6:10 AM on July 14th, analyzing video footage of the event. It seems that trained snipers had ample time to react but failed to do so until after numerous shots were fired. Additionally, it’s perplexing that no officers were stationed on a nearby roof with a clear view of Trump—a prime spot for an attempt on his life.

The Secret Service is currently under scrutiny; their history includes scandals and apparent incompetence which overshadow their recent emphasis on diversity within their ranks. Despite this focus, there was still a significant lapse in protecting President Trump effectively.

Furthermore, some Democratic legislators have previously sought to remove Trump’s Secret Service protection—actions that align with rhetoric painting him as a danger to democracy. Such language can dangerously imply justification for violence against him.

In light of these events, one must question whether protocol was followed or if priorities were misplaced leading up to this serious breach in presidential security—an investigation led by agencies like the FBI will hopefully provide answers soon.

Lastly, while media coverage initially downplayed the situation as “loud noises” disrupting a rally rather than acknowledging it as an assassination attempt against Donald Trump—a narrative shift only occurred hours later when officials addressed it directly. This highlights potential bias and reluctance among news outlets when reporting incidents involving controversial figures like Trump.

Imagine if Trump hadn’t ducked when he did; he saved his life, that’s a fact. The evacuation failed; Secret Service should cover and evacuate but didn’t act right. Dan Bongino, an ex-agent, says they failed massively and suggests the director resigns due to repeated ignored security requests for Trump.

The Secret Service focused on trivial things like agents’ tie colors instead of real threats—such a failure in their primary duty: protecting lives. Structural issues within the organization lead to incompetence despite having capable individuals.

Dan emphasizes structural excellence over personalities; without it, even good people fail in their roles. This recent incident is not isolated but part of a pattern of Secret Service failures needing congressional investigation.

There was also criticism about gender diversity priorities potentially compromising physical capability requirements for protective agents—a controversial stance questioning women’s roles based on strength stereotypes.

After an assassination attempt on Trump, there were delays in official communication and speculation about motives and political violence biases—raising questions about law enforcement transparency and media narratives surrounding such incidents.

Tim Mc, a former security detail member for presidential and vice-presidential events, shared insights on Twitter about the assassination attempt on Donald Trump. He explained that the Secret Service uses a multi-tiered defense system. The inner tier provides close protection; these are agents who rush to shield Trump after an incident. The second tier involves mid-range threat identification and response, often staffed by local law enforcement attached to the detail temporarily—this is where Tim worked.

The extended tier covers long-distance threats like snipers. When shots were fired at Trump, counter-snipers couldn’t react immediately because they focus on distant threats beyond 150 meters—the range within which the shooter appeared. Consequently, when responding to this closer threat, a sniper had to significantly adjust his aim.

A serious question arises: how could someone get onto a rooftop with clear sight of Trump despite prior scouting of vulnerable spots? It suggests there was a failure in the middle tier responsible for securing nearby buildings—a role typically filled by local law enforcement rather than Secret Service.

Witnesses reportedly saw someone with a gun but police failed to act quickly enough due to limited communication between local officers and Secret Service liaisons. This inefficiency can be exacerbated when multiple agencies work together without familiarity or adequate information sharing.

In 2004 during President Bush’s tenure, miscommunication nearly led to disaster when Secret Service mistook positioned SWAT teams as threats. Delays in identifying real threats can stem from confusion over whether armed individuals belong to security teams or not.

Blame for this breakdown seems directed at whoever was supposed to secure areas around buildings where shooters could perch—an assignment likely given to local law enforcement officers present at such events.

As investigations continue into new security measures following this event and its impact on political discourse surrounding Donald Trump’s safety becomes more heated, many questions remain unanswered regarding how such an attack could happen amidst supposedly tight security protocols.

New York magazine: Many people who worry about subway safety are infrequent riders. There’s a stigma against fearing subway violence, but it’s a justified fear that should be met with compassion. Some argue that disturbed individuals on the subway aren’t bothersome, ignoring the link between mental illness and violence. To truly help those with severe mental illnesses, we must grasp their deep-rooted issues.

New York City isn’t facing a surge in violent crime; there was an increase in murders and gun crimes in 2021 due to various debated reasons, including police reluctance. However, crime rates have since fallen significantly.

Despite lower crime rates, many New Yorkers still fear crime, especially on subways. This disconnect may stem from policies around mental illness treatment which are too lenient and endanger public safety. For instance, in Toronto 2015, a mentally ill woman killed someone but was released within seven years.

The U.S has struggled with treating severe mental illness since state psychiatric hospitals began closing after the Community Mental Health Act of 1963. Today’s inadequate facilities and overburdened doctors can’t meet demand – yet some advocate for even less government intervention.

Contrary to popular belief among educated circles, we’ve become less heavy-handed with involuntary treatments due to policy changes like Medicaid incentivizing private care over state-run facilities.

The current approach is failing by most standards; reforms are needed to make it easier for professionals to treat individuals without consent when necessary.

After decades of tearing down institutional care options for the severely mentally ill and homeless populations at risk of untreated psychosis or paranoia – conditions linked to higher criminality – society hasn’t found effective solutions despite knowing better approaches exist.

Some resist acknowledging any connection between serious mental illness and violence under misguided social justice views while others incorrectly assert that because many groups are more likely victims than perpetrators of violent crimes this means they’re not more likely offenders themselves – this logic fails as it doesn’t accurately assess risks associated with untreated severe mental illnesses which studies show do correlate with increased likelihoods of committing grave acts of violence.

In summary: Fear of subway violence is rational given links between untreated severe mental illnesses and heightened risks of violent behavior; however societal attitudes towards treatment remain conflicted amid persistent misconceptions about danger levels posed by those suffering from such conditions despite clear evidence suggesting otherwise.

Luke: Many conservatives distrust mainstream media, citing delayed recognition of Joe Biden’s apparent cognitive decline—a topic not covered in academic articles despite many on Donald Trump’s fitness for office. In 2020, a study by public health experts found no evidence of major cognitive challenges for either Biden or Trump.

The shooter, Thomas Matthew Crooks from Pennsylvania, donated $15 to ActBlue after Biden’s inauguration but later registered as a Republican. His online presence is minimal with only speculation about his political activities.

A former Secret Service agent highlighted security concerns at rallies like Trump’s where securing all areas is challenging. Local law enforcement typically assists but it’s unclear if they secured the building where the shooter was positioned.

Molly Hemingway suggests Attorney General Merrick Garland and FBI Director Christopher Wray should recuse themselves from investigating this assassination attempt due to potential conflicts of interest.

In response to this incident, discussions have emerged about whether such moments will be remembered vividly like other historical events and how people engage with news through alternative media seeking candid perspectives over polished mainstream narratives. There’s also debate over when it’s appropriate to comment on someone’s physical appearance in public discourse—highlighting tensions between candor and courtesy.

Women often excel in various aspects of life. For instance, during TV interviews with female journalists, I tend to perform better; their presence motivates me to do well. Similarly, a caring conversation with a woman once reenergized me when I was battling fatigue on a film set.

Women can also be more effective in certain professional roles. Many talent bookers for TV shows are women because they excel at the job. Jane Goodall’s success is another example—she was specifically hired because it was believed that her nurturing qualities would make her ideal for studying chimpanzees.

However, there are times when being around attractive women can be distracting. If I were injured and attended by an attractive female agent, it might distract me from the task at hand due to natural attraction.

Discussing public figures candidly could lead to more honest conversations about their capabilities or shortcomings without unnecessary politeness masking important truths. This shift towards openness may mean acknowledging uncomfortable facts like Joe Biden’s aging or Kamala Harris’ perceived lack of competence without sugarcoating them.

Physical appearance does have an impact on how we’re treated and how we navigate through life—it’s almost unavoidable. While beauty standards still dominate places like Las Vegas where attractiveness is marketed heavily, views on body image are changing—with both positive and negative reactions to weight loss becoming apparent in society.

Ultimately though, while physicality plays a significant role in our lives and interactions with others—in many ways acting as destiny—it doesn’t define everything about us or our potential outcomes entirely.

People with mental illness commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

Mike reacts by recalling an experience where he noticed a stark contrast between attendees at two parties—one with blue-collar workers and another with college-educated professionals—leading to a discussion on whether wealth influences attractiveness.

Claire argues that judging people solely on looks is shallow, advocating for evaluating individuals based on their honesty and willingness to accept facts. She also touches upon gender biases in society.

The conversation shifts to politics, discussing the portrayal of Donald Trump as a threat to democracy and how such rhetoric may incite violence. Claire condemns the media’s role in creating hostile atmospheres while emphasizing the need for greater scrutiny of journalists’ actions.

Mike adds his thoughts on free speech and double standards in public discourse, questioning what constitutes good or bad speech. The dialogue concludes with speculation about Joe Biden’s presidential campaign viability amid concerns about his mental fitness and potential successors if he withdraws from the race.

Finally, there are reflections on security measures following an assassination attempt at a Trump rally, highlighting issues within government competence rather than conspiracy theories.

Larry and his wife attended a Trump rally in Pennsylvania, an election battleground state. During the event, discourse escalated as President Biden was criticized for incendiary comments targeting Trump. The rhetoric on both sides has been heated; some have irresponsibly likened Trump to Hitler or called him a Nazi, stirring dangerous emotions.

The left’s language is under scrutiny following past events where political figures were targeted with violence. Now, after Biden’s remarks about putting Trump “in a bull’s eye,” concerns rise over potential harm fueled by such statements.

Political violence isn’t new in U.S. history; it has sadly recurred throughout time. Recent events have reignited these fears, prompting calls for calm and responsible speech from leaders across the spectrum.

As election tensions mount, Democrats express frustration with Biden’s candidacy while Republicans capitalize on recent incidents to bolster support for Trump. Some speculate whether this could shift electoral outcomes or even lead to changes in candidates.

Amidst security concerns following an assassination attempt at the rally—where heroic actions saved lives—the Secret Service faces criticism for not preventing the shooter’s access to a vantage point near President Trump.

This incident raises questions about resource allocation within federal agencies and their focus amidst rising political strife as America heads into another charged election season.

The Secret Service’s protocol is under fire for allowing a gunman to shoot eight times before responding. Critics argue that private security would have acted faster, deeming the Secret Service unfit for protecting figures like Donald Trump. Despite praise for a counter-sniper’s quick 3-second response, many view their performance as inadequate.

There are calls for transparency and regular updates from law enforcement to prevent conspiracy theories and political tension. Oversight has been welcomed by some who trust field agents but question leadership in Washington due to past controversies.

After the recent incident, there is an urgent need to review and change security protocols, just as they were transformed following Reagan’s shooting in 1981. The focus should be on preventing such events at outdoor venues which pose significant challenges.

Leadership must take responsibility, ensuring agencies have the resources needed solely for protection missions—nothing else should distract from this goal.

Updates are anticipated from both President Biden and the FBI regarding this matter and how it will be investigated further. Speaker Mike Johnson also announced a full House investigation into what led up to this event.

Posted in America | Comments Off on Donald Trump Shot – Why Did The Secret Service Operate With Reckless Disregard? (7-14-24)

We Learned Everything We Needed to Know About Biden in 1988

Alexander Stille, a professor of international journalism at the Graduate School of Journalism at Columbia University, writes in The New Republic:

Biden was preparing his first run for president in January 1988, his closest aides made an emergency trip to Wilmington to talk the candidate out of what they considered a disastrous folly: buying another house. Biden was already struggling to pay off the debt on another equally grand house, a 10,000-square-foot Du Pont mansion whose upkeep had put his finances in disarray. As Richard Ben Cramer describes it in his book What It Takes: The Way to the White House, a masterpiece about the 1988 election and a remarkably prescient portrait of Biden, the 44-year-old senator drove his advisers all around Wilmington in his Bronco truck, trying to explain why he absolutely must have this other house on top of the one he couldn’t afford.

“The first thing you’ve got to know about Joe is the house. Probably the first thing he will show you,” Cramer begins, referring to Biden’s Du Pont mansion. “It’s the kind of a place 1,000 Italian guys died building. A library fit for a Carnegie, a living room about half an acre … whatever he gets, the house eats for breakfast. That house loves cash.… So that’s why Joe decided he had to have another house this time. It was 17 acres, a $1.1 million estate … an enormous main house with a sauna in the master bath, a swell apartment over the four-car garage … and the outdoor pool had a separate cabana that was itself like a nice suburban home.… And then there was the tennis house with the other sauna and the indoor pool … and, of course, the indoor tennis court … it was a compound … it was … Hyannisport! He could see the goddamn thing in Life magazine.”

One of Biden’s aides told him, “You can’t run as a Democrat, a guy who’s in touch with middle-class values when you’re on TV in your indoor tennis court.” But Biden wasn’t listening, Cramer reports: “No, he said, with a dazzling Biden smile, into the sudden silence … there was another house. (‘Believe it or not … this other thing happened.…’) And this time, he got all three of them into the Bronco for the trip to the city.”

Cramer’s book, published in 1992, describes a whole range of Biden behavior and reflexes that we are seeing all too clearly in the current stand-off between the president and those who are trying to persuade him to drop out of the presidential race: single-minded fixation on a goal; a stubborn refusal to listen to advice or contrary evidence; a willingness to act and never to doubt or second-guess himself; a seemingly infinite belief in his ability to beat the odds, to talk anyone into anything; and a conviction of being a man destined for greatness. “The house, the world, were malleable to his will,” Cramer writes.

These behaviors have often served him well—he did eventually become president—although it is worth recalling that in 1988 he was forced to withdraw from the race after it was discovered he plagiarized a speech by the British politician Neil Kinnock. Biden’s aides were also not wrong about his real estate obsession: He spent much of his life juggling multiple mortgages, underwater in debt, and when he retired from the Senate he was the chamber’s poorest member. “There was (to be perfectly blunt, as Joe would say) a breathtaking element of balls,” Cramer writes. “Joe Biden had balls. Lots of times, more balls than sense. This was from the jump—as a little kid. He was little, too, but you didn’t want to fight him—or dare him. There was nothing he wouldn’t do.” 

What Cramer shows beautifully is that you have to be a little crazy to want to run for president, to believe you can and should be the most powerful person in the world. It requires an almost pathological belief in yourself and your destiny. In Biden’s case, Cramer describes the strange combination of inferiority and superiority complex, failure and success, that become fused into a powerful, stubborn, preternatural determination that he can overcome any obstacle.

But Biden appears to have failed to heed a lesson his mother imparted to him, according to Cramer: “The most important was: tell the truth, and do what you promised.”

Biden in 2020 promised to be a “bridge” or “transition” candidate, reportedly telling his advisers he wouldn’t seek a second term, and now is failing to face—and tell—the truth about his obvious cognitive decline, about his historically low approval rating, and the widespread view among voters that he should step aside. The world at 81 years old looks very different from when he was 44, and his deep-seated character traits now have hardened into something quite different. His gritty determination looks like blind obstinacy, his boundless belief in himself seems like arrogant self-regard, and his attempt to bend the world to his will appears like a delusion of grandeur.

Posted in Joe Biden | Comments Off on We Learned Everything We Needed to Know About Biden in 1988

The Secret Service’s Reckless Disregard For Donald Trump’s Safety

The Secret Service operates with reckless disregard for Donald Trump’s safety. Yesterday they allowed a killer to scale to the top of a building just 140 yards away from Donald Trump with a clear shot to the former president, and despite people bringing their attention to the killer for several minutes, they did not protect Trump. The Secret Service sharpshooter had the killer in his sights prior to the attack and he did not take a shot until after the killer had squeezed off eight shots at Trump.

When you look at the public facts as we know them as of Sunday at 5:30 AM PST, it looks like the Secret Service was happy to let Trump to get shot. They only did enough to appear professional.

I don’t believe the Secret Service was in on the assassination attempt. I believe they were so incompetent that they made it look like they were in on the hit.

The Conservative Treehouse writes:

I’m not going to narrate what you can witness with your own eyes and ears. The camera lens is pointed toward two U.S Secret Service protective detail snipers on the roof behind President Trump. One is the spotter. Turn on sound. You can clearly see both USSS spot the shooter, do nothing, wait for the incoming fire, then respond.

We will soon hear, “mistakes were made.”

The FBI is investigating.

TMZ reports: “We’re told he shimmied up, then army crawled to his final position on the roof — all with a rifle in hand, mind you — and then he lined up his shot, despite people clearly noticing him down below and attempting to flag cops or whoever else would listen, we’re told.”

I wonder why the police sniper did not shoot the killer until after the killer had squeezed off eight shots.

Joe Biden called out the shooting as “inappropriate.”

The MSM under-played the story for as long as they could, avoiding the obvious truth that Donald Trump was the victim of an assassination attempt.

I just checked The New Republic website (4:33 am PDT, 7-14-24) and there is no mention of the Donald Trump assassination attempt.

Democrats argue that democracy is on the ballot. That Donald Trump is an existential threat to democracy. That if Trump wins, this will be America’s last election. So their primary argument against Trump provided all the justification needed for an assassination attempt on Trump. There is no similar rhetoric by Republicans. No prominent Republican argues that a Joe Biden presidency ends democracy in America. In fact, the primary line of attack on Joe Biden by Republicans is the very opposite — that Joe Biden is senile. There’s nothing in a senility charge against Joe Biden that encourages violence.

When Trump made the case after the 2020 elections that the vote was rigged, he removed all moral constraints for those who believed him. When conservatives argue that abortion is murder, they remove all moral constraints for dealing with people who perform abortions.

Many people don’t like moral constraints, and they embrace any opportunity to drop constraints.

I don’t know much about the shooter, but no man is an island. He operated within a context that allowed him to do what he did. In a different situation, he would not have shot anyone.

Steve Sailer writes:

How soon until we start hearing Frontlash “concerns” from people who have been condemning Donald Trump as an existential threat to Our Democracy about a possible Backlash by Trump supporters?
By the way, are we ever going to have a Conversation about the uselessness of a petite lady Secret Service agent at shielding a 6’3” 250 pound candidate with her body?

I was watching CBS News Saturday night. Anchor Margaret Brennan urged people to stay off social media, where she was getting ripped for criticizing Republicans for not dialing down their rhetoric.

Posted in America | Comments Off on The Secret Service’s Reckless Disregard For Donald Trump’s Safety

Black Pill: How I Witnessed the Darkest Corners of the Internet Come to Life, Poison Society, and Capture American Politics

Elle Reeve’s new book just came out. Here are some excerpts:

* You can dabble in racism, hang out on racist websites, read fascist literature, and later come back to the normal world, but when you use your real name in the movement you have passed the point of no return. You can quit, but you can’t leave. No one will forget what you’ve done. The movement takes away your friends and gives you new ones, but they don’t really like you, and they’ll turn on you the moment you become a liability, or “cringe,” an embarrassment. After the movement ruins you, it will laugh at you. You deserve it. You were never really good enough, but the movement had fun while it lasted, You, of course, did not.
At the center of the movement is a group of old men. The old men provide the money — but there is never enough money to do much of anything, and the old men are always pushing the young men to find a new source. When the wealthy inventor Walter Kistler developed an interest in race science in his later years, one of his aides told me a significant part of his job was to stand between Kistler and the grifters who wanted to extract money from him. “He was like a childlike genius — brilliant, but naïve, easily manipulable,” the aide said. “We were basically all policemen… because Walter’s checkbook would be in his pocket and whoever walked in, he said, ‘Okay, here is a check.’ ”
The old men offer validation. They have overlapping clubs and conferences, and when a young man gets an invitation, it’s a sign he has promise. One of those old men was Bill Regnery…

* Richard Spencer calls these old men vampires. “They see something that is alive, and they want to go suck its blood. And then the second they don’t think it’s alive, or it’s objectively dead, they want to move on to something else,” Spencer said. Regnery was Spencer’s chief vampire, and backed him for a decade. When Regnery died in the summer of 2021, Spencer did not go to the funeral.
The old men cultivate young men to be public faces for the movement. They give them just enough praise to get them hooked and working for more.

* [Matt Parrott] mentioned he was antisocial. He’d testified he was an introvert, an accidental revelation of some vulnerability. Afterward, he’d said, “It’s really hard to not be yourself after several hours of that kind of drilling. The real you boils out.”
I tested the waters with one of my favorite questions: Are you left – handed? Parrott said he was. [Matt] Heimbach was left – handed, too, which I’d noticed while looking closely at a photo of him in the middle of a brawl — he had a puffy red left hand. I asked Parrott, in a tone of shamelessly fake casualness, what he thought of the ubiquity of the word “autist” in white nationalism.
It was like whispering the secret password in a fairy tale — the whole side of a mountain opened up. He said he’d been diagnosed with Asperger’s in the nineties, and that Heimbach had, too.

* The movement will get you punched, sued, jailed, divorced, bankrupted. But it will never let you go. Matt Heimbach had a round face with thick black hair and eyebrows, and he was always grinning, but underneath it was a seething anger. “My biggest advice to people in the movement is like, Don’t fucking leave , because there’s no point,” Heimbach said. “If you’re already in, your life is fucked.” It will leave you with no one to confide in but the journalists who’ve exposed what you’ve done.
Heimbach had been blackpilled, trapped in a nihilistic hopelessness that the only thing to look forward to was to watch the world burn. I reminded him that quitting the movement might provide some benefits that he hadn’t considered. When white nationalists kill people, they tend to kill each other. I said quitting would reduce his risk of being one of those killed.

* Heimbach was fired from McDonald’s after management discovered he’d been a professional racist. He read me his termination letter and said, “They never forgive you. They never forgive you…. There’s no expiration date for how long your life will be ruined.” His voice had more edge than usual. “You get to a certain point where everything is just like that Springsteen song, ‘Glory Days.’ You just sit around like, Man, remember 2015?

* [Evan McLaren] spent a decade in white nationalism before coming to the realization he’d been a fool. In 2022, he posted a statement online, saying, “My revulsion for conservatism and the political right wing is total. I reject and disavow my past actions, views, and associations.” He apologized for what he’d done and said he didn’t expect to be forgiven. In conversations with me, he was unsparing: the movement was toxic and destructive and ruined people’s lives. He’d met many people he thought would have serious psychological problems even if they weren’t involved in it.

* “Sometimes when you hate something so much, you’re so motivated that you’ll make these connections, and they might be correct almost despite your motivations,” Richard Spencer told me. He was talking about a rival white nationalist [Greg Johnson] he thought was a vicious gossip. They’d feuded for years. But his rival had once accused him of auditioning to be on the Kremlin’s payroll, and years later Spencer admitted that, in retrospect, that catty bitch was on to something.

* It was March 2022, and I’d called him about the divide among white nationalists over which side to support in Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I wanted the lay of the land, but Spencer kept talking about himself.
I’d first spoken to him by phone in 2016, when he was one of the few willing to be associated with the alt – right by name and on the record. Spencer said he was a narcissist, but this made talking to him easier, because he felt no shame and so he didn’t conceal his motivations. But it also meant he often failed to notice telling details about other people and why they did what they did, because his attention was elsewhere, on himself. He’d continued to answer my questions in all the years since, as the fortunes of the alt – right rose and fell, and so did his. There were times he’d gotten so lost in his own monologue that if I interjected an “uh – huh” to show I was listening, he sounded startled, as if he had forgotten someone was on the other side of the call.
* Russia found the far – right activists useful in the United States and Europe. It cultivated relationships with them both online and in real life. Russian trolls had used fake social media accounts and fake news sites to inflame racial tensions and stage protests. The state – controlled TV network RT had interviewed as “experts” a variety of extremists, including Spencer himself. Maria Butina had become intimately close with conservative activists, particularly in the National Rifle Association, before she was convicted in 2018 of acting as an unregistered foreign agent on behalf of Russia. Russia had invited fringe political parties to Crimea to build legitimacy for its annexation.

* Spencer was in a mood to reflect on his marriage in a way he hadn’t been before. “All these things that I overlooked — you look back now and it’s like, Holy shit, she was trying to do something .” He admitted he’d adopted some of Kouprianova’s views as his own. But he thought he was too smart to get played by the Kremlin. “I feel like I am an unrecruitable asset, in the sense that if someone suggests something to me, that makes me almost more skeptical. I march to the beat of my own drum,” he said. “Isn’t it much more easy to work with dumb people who are easily suggestible?”
Spencer and Kouprianova met on Facebook in 2009 and married the next year. He thought she was very smart, but that he was smarter. Most people who’ve met both told me they thought it was the other way around.

* Each told me they suspected the other was suffering from a personality disorder. They’d surreptitiously recorded each other during fights. Kouprianova had accused Spencer of physical and emotional abuse. They fought over child support. Kouprianova’s first lawyer withdrew from the case, in part, the lawyer wrote, because of “your desire for vengeance and taking down the Spencer family.” Some of Spencer’s lawyers dropped him, too.

* “He came across as a shy and nerdy grad student,” she said. “The way he comes across in his John Travolta suits — this really cheesy, sometimes scary, but very extroverted person in the last couple years — that would have been such a turnoff for me.” He knew all these obscure black – and – white Soviet films, and at the time, she thought it was cool he liked what she liked. But looking back, she said, it was all a manipulation, just narcissistic love bombing. He was flooding the zone with these references to impress her, and to drown any second thoughts she might have with affection and attention.
She didn’t see this coming, she said, this obsession with race and eugenics. When they met, Spencer was a libertarian. He’d had a Jewish mentor and dated an Asian – American woman. He told her the political book that had influenced him the most was by Justin Raimondo, a gay antiwar activist. She’d explained it the same way to the Huffington Post : “I didn’t understand the nuances of American politics. I knew he was conservative, but…”

* Spencer did not have the self – control to match his ambition, Kouprianova thought. When she compared his personality to historic political figures, they were more motivated, more organized, more Machiavellian than he was.

* Spencer made an ideal spokesman. He didn’t look like a guy who had nothing in his life to be proud of so he was proud of being white. In crowds, he could project confidence and self – control. That facade faded over time and under pressure. In a smaller group, he could be awkward and self – conscious, and fail to read the room. He once walked into an interview in a hotel room and asked my producer for a cigarette, as if he could smoke in a hotel, and as if he could smoke in the interview like it was the 1950s. He told me he can’t stand it when people don’t like him.

* “I’ve always been very lonely,” Spencer said. As a child, he’d never felt like he was part of the world around him; he couldn’t connect with other kids. Maybe they could sense even back then that he felt superior to them. But Spencer was not good at anything — not math, not English, not sports. He was awkward, goofy. In middle school, his teachers told his parents he wouldn’t be able to go to college, he said, “because I was almost retarded because of my dyslexia.”

In therapy for dyslexia, he’d listened to Mozart and recorded himself repeating words, and then played them back over and over again. He thought it rewired his brain. By the end of high school, he’d caught up to the other kids in math and sports, and he did well on the SAT. But it was not enough. He didn’t get into Princeton.
It stung, even if he knew it was embarrassing to be stung by it. Spencer asked me once why the journalists who wrote about him were so desperate to figure out his origin story. I told him it was probably because the popular image of a racist was a broken – down old man in an Alabama trailer park, but he was upper middle class, and most elite journalists were upper middle class, and so they were confused why someone like them would do what he’d done. He paused for a second, then said it was because he didn’t get into Princeton.

* The first time Matt Heimbach met Spencer was at a hotel room party after a conference. As some guys were leaving on a booze run, Spencer requested bourbon or whiskey — Heimbach didn’t remember what exactly, just that it was fancy. They brought back Mad Dog 2020 and were partying in the room when Spencer returned. “He just looks disgusted and asks, ‘Did you get me my whiskey?’ ” They told him to drink a beer like a real man. “He started to throw a hissy fit. One of the guys was like, ‘Richard, go in the hallway.’ Like ten seconds later, we just hear ka – thump and we run outside…. Richard has been lifted off his feet and is being slammed into the wall by a drunken college white nationalist going, ‘You drink’ — thump — ‘what we give you’ — thump — ‘Richard!’ — thump .” Heimbach remembered Spencer squealing, “Put me down!” He seemed to cherish the memory.

* Spencer was in search of a donor. He’d always wanted a donor. He wanted to run a think tank and publish essays and research on the superiority of white people and the West, and he wanted someone to pay for it who was not his mother. Regnery had founded the National Policy Institute, a white nationalist think tank, a few years earlier as a vehicle for a friend who’d since died. Spencer thought it was an empty shell. After exchanging emails, Spencer flew to Florida and made his pitch. In January 2011, Regnery made Spencer head of NPI and a sister organization, Washington Summit Publishers.
Regnery had a lot of money, but he didn’t want to dump much of it into NPI. Instead, he urged Spencer to find some other external source of funding.

* Spencer brought Kouprianova. She knew her husband wasn’t there to celebrate Murray. He’d talked about other old men, she said, and the possibility they would leave him large donations in their wills. [Walter] Kistler was a prime example: “This guy is in his nineties, so God knows about his state of mind at this stage.” They did see Murray briefly, but she thought he snubbed her husband.
Even so, they had a great time, partying with “all these Seattle society hags,” Spencer said. He felt momentum, like things were coming together. “I was flying high…. I was like, We’re gonna have a billionaire, we’re gonna have a billionaire …”

* Spencer had a contract with Kistler. Eventually, Spencer was offered a $50,000 kill fee. He took it. He bragged to his wife that he’d played hardball and won.

* Greg Johnson, who ran the white nationalist website Counter – Currents, noticed an element of the drama that most of the mainstream media coverage barely touched. “The Russian angle, I think, leads to the most plausible hypothesis for why this conference was shut down: NPI and Radix are Russian propaganda organs; Dugin, the chief speaker, is an ideologue of Russian chauvinism and an apologist for Stalin…. Jobbik, which was also associated with the conference, is pro – Russian, which is rather tricky in a country invaded twice by Russia in the last century,” Johnson wrote. He didn’t like Spencer’s new direction: “He has basically abandoned ethnonationalism and turned into an apologist for Dugin and reactionary Russian chauvinism.”

* Spencer had created the Alternative Right website in 2010, and ran it with a couple of writers for a while. Then he got mad at the writers and killed the site. He wanted to focus on his pretentious journal, Radix , and be the next Nietzsche. But the term “alt – right” was catchy, one white nationalist wrote, because it signaled distance from mainstream conservatism without endorsing national socialism or white nationalism.

* When Spencer finally realized the alt – right wave was swelling, he tried to surf it. Because he was willing to use his real name when few others would, he became the face of it by default.

* Kouprianova thought Spencer enjoyed the negative attention, because it was any attention, and that he wanted to be feared, because it made him feel alpha. She thought he had no sense of self without a reaction from others. People called her Spencer’s beard, and she was in a way — not to make him look straight, but to make him look like he had it together. She felt forced into a role of “Russian Suzie homemaker,” which she resented, because she’d lived abroad and spoke three languages. He told her, You make me look normal.

* Spencer was a draw. He shapeshifted to fit the desires of the people around him. From back in Montana, Kouprianova had watched her husband morph into this flashy, cheesy “alpha” persona. When people called him chubby on the internet, he went on a diet and ate only one meal a day. When they started calling him gay, she said, “all of a sudden these groupies appear, proving to the outside world he’s not.”

* Spencer and Froelich were spotted leaving the afterparty together at Charlottesville 1.0. Gossip spread quickly, and Identity Evropa investigated her. Both she and Spencer denied they’d done anything other than talk. Kouprianova was pregnant with Spencer’s second child — it was not a good look.
Froelich heard another guy, who went by Eli Mosley, was interested in her. “Eli has claimed me,” she texted Spencer. “Did he inform you of his decision? Or full white sharia?” Spencer asked. She said, “I guess white sharia.” Within a few weeks, Mosley was doxxed. His real name was Elliot Kline. He was pudgy, with a reddish beard and his hair cut like Spencer’s, and he liked to say he looked like a potato. Froelich offered him a place to stay for a bit. He never left.
He didn’t have a normal job, and she made the money working at a restaurant. But the texts show they liked the idea of being a power couple.

* Through the summer, Spencer felt euphoric. He was at the height of his power within the alt – right. He bragged to Froelich that people worshiped him like a God, and she watched the teenagers in awe of him at the nazi parties. He told her he was the L. Ron Hubbard of the alt – right, that he was building a new religion.
“You can’t go back,” Spencer told me later. “I just wish I could have asked myself, Do you like these guys? Richard, I know how you feel about ugly people …”
Back in Montana, Kouprianova looked at the photos posted online of the crowd Spencer was hanging around. The elderly men in tweed were gone, and now there were these younger, rougher – looking guys. Every six months there’d be someone new who served as his right – hand man, and now it was Elliot Kline. Kline was named Identity Evropa’s public representative for Charlottesville 2.0, but he also served as Spencer’s representative for its planning. Kline texted Spencer, “This is going to be a violent summer.”
Kline had a reputation as a clout chaser and a name – dropper. In private, he saw Spencer as a useful tool. Kline thought he was smarter and better. He told Froelich he needed to work out more to prepare for Rahowa, or “racial holy war,” she later said under oath. He was building a militia for Spencer, and he would lead them into victory, and then depose him. Once a white ethnostate was established, Spencer would be the first against the wall, Froelich said in a deposition. When a lawyer asked her to state explicitly what that meant, she explained, “That he would put Richard Spencer against a wall and shoot him dead.”
Spencer thought those guys loved him because he was great, not because they wanted to establish a base of power before stomping on his face to seize the crown.

* “The movement is magnetized to shit,” Spencer said. “Any form of shit it sees, it wants to go die on that hill…. It’s just like, Oh look — more shit! Let’s go involve ourselves. Let’s at least endorse it. It’s just so insane.” The alt – right was a shit magnet because some people were attracted to it not despite the stigma around it, but because of it. It was bad, and it made people angry, especially their parents. Spencer had imagined himself as the next Nietzsche, but instead he was the next Marilyn Manson.
After Froelich invited Spencer to the AltRight Discord server, he texted her, “Wow, the forum is insane.” He asked if someone could create an elite room with no shitposting, and she replied, “You are Richard Spencer. All you need to do is demand it and say who you want in and it is yours.” He declined: “It’s better to have intermediaries, like you, then for me to simply demand stuff.”

* [Christopher Cantwell] was also the most emotionally volatile person I have ever met — man or woman, adult or baby. In a few days he would tell me, “I find myself in tears more often than a man my age probably should.” So as a man of “reason,” he framed his emotions, like anger, as a rational response to the news. His voice got higher, and he spoke faster, even as he insisted he was genetically predisposed to appreciating the cold, hard facts of capitalism. He wasn’t going to Charlottesville to debate UVA students about public policy. He was going to create a massive spectacle to provoke an emotional response — to make his enemies afraid, and to make young white guys think he looked cool.

* In the park, Robert “Azzmador” Ray was filming the scene for the Daily Stormer. Azzmador had a gray wizard beard, a thin braid down his back, and a criminal record that began with a 1990 arrest in Dallas for illegally selling an interracial porno tape called Three Way Cum.

* Parrott did not eat right and did not exercise, and most of the time he tried to forget he had a physical body. If there were people eager to punch a nazi in the face, he was a soft target. But Parrott waded through the brawl unpunched. People who wanted to fight were high on adrenaline, and their eyes were searching for other fighters.

* There were about half a dozen guys, among them Elliot Kline, Nathan Damigo, Jason Kessler, and Richard Spencer. They asked one another, What should we do? What should we say? Spencer stood to address his men. They’d been drinking, and when Spencer began ranting, someone in the room was secretly taping.
“We are coming back here like a hundred fucking times! I am so mad! I am so fucking mad at these people! They don’t do this to fucking me! We are going to fucking ritualistically humiliate them! I am coming back here every fucking weekend if I have to! Like this is never over. I win! They fucking lose! That’s how the world fucking works. Little fucking kikes — they get ruled by people like me. Little fucking octoroons — I fucking — my ancestors fucking enslaved those little pieces of fucking shit! I RULE THE FUCKING WORLD! Those pieces of fucking shit get ruled by people like me. They look up and see a face like mine looking down at them. That’s how the fucking world works. We are going to destroy this fucking town!”

There was no pretense of irony, or that this was one big cosmic joke, or that he simply wanted open debate among reasonable people. Spencer sounded sweaty and crazy. A couple guys clapped lightly, and one offered a soft “yeah.” But right there, in that room, Spencer lost the movement.
Evan McLaren, who was then Spencer’s loyal right – hand man, could feel the other guys turn on their icon. McLaren felt a shift in himself, too — maybe it had not been a good idea to make peace with Spencer’s narcissism. So many people had been implicated in so much damage, dozens were bloody and three were dead, but all Spencer cared about was his wounded pride.
Long after he’d quit the movement, and apologized, and moved across the Atlantic Ocean, McLaren smiled as he quoted the rant from memory: “They don’t do this to me .” Spencer’s greatest flaw, in its purest expression, at the climax of the disaster it had created. It had been like watching a villain’s final monologue in a play.

* Unite the Right’s attendees had been so proud to show their faces in public, but activists methodically identified them one by one and published their names on social media. They became pariahs in their towns or colleges or even in their families, and they were fired from their jobs. They were kicked off their own social media accounts, so they couldn’t defend themselves or reach new supporters.

* I learned a lot about Cantwell just by standing in his apartment, saying nothing, as the crew set up our interview. His home was hostile to the human psyche. Every corner was stacked with some kind of object for self – improvement — weights, protein powder, supplements, niche kitchen appliances. He’d printed out signs on computer paper in big bold text that read, “STOP SAYING FUCK,” and he’d taped them under his television, by his bathroom mirror, on his fridge. The windows were covered with blackout curtains. He was slamming Sugar Free Red Bulls and taking huge rips from a vape. When I asked how he slept at night, he leaned his head back, his voice tight as he held the smoke in his lungs, and said, “It’s a struggle.”
The night he’d gotten home from Virginia, he said he noticed a big bottle of whiskey on a shelf, and he took it down and drank it till he blacked out. All he remembered was the hangover the next day. After that lapse, he was trying to control his alcoholism.

* Matt Heimbach and Matt Parrott found themselves in a love triangle. Heimbach was having an affair with Parrott’s third wife, Jessica. The Parrotts had just had their first child, a girl. Heimbach was married to Parrott’s stepdaughter, Brooke, and they had two small boys. This meant that Heimbach was having an affair with a woman who was both his best friend’s wife and his wife’s stepmom. At the time, Heimbach and Brooke were living in a trailer on Parrott’s property in Indiana.
The affair ended, but in early March, according to a police report, Jessica and Brooke decided to test Heimbach’s commitment to ending the relationship. Was it really over? They made a plan: Jessica would try to seduce Heimbach, and Brooke and Parrott would film through a window outside. In one sense, it worked: Heimbach responded to Jessica’s romantic overtures. But as Jessica and Heimbach began to get physical, Brooke got upset and ran away, and Parrott fell through the box he was standing on. Then Parrott ran around the home and confronted Heimbach. He ordered his best friend to leave his property, jabbing Heimbach in the chest with his finger. Heimbach put Parrott in a headlock and choked him out.
When Parrott came to, Jessica was standing over him. He ran into the house, and Heimbach entered. Parrott demanded Heimbach leave, and when he didn’t, Parrott threw a chair at Heimbach. Heimbach choked him out again. When Parrott got himself together, he grabbed his four – month – old daughter, ran to Walmart, Walmart, and called the cops. When police arrived, they heard Heimbach yelling at Brooke to tell the cops everything was fine and ask them to leave. She refused, and Heimbach kicked a wall and grabbed Brooke’s cheeks and pushed her on the bed. Cops entered and arrested Heimbach. Heimbach was already on probation for pushing a Black woman at a Trump rally in 2016. A judge sentenced him to thirty – eight days in jail for violating his probation, and a few months later, Heimbach pled guilty to battery for attacking Parrott.

* The divorce took eighteen months. Kouprianova said it cost her $40,000 in legal fees. Spencer was held in contempt of court for failing to pay $60,000 to the court – appointed investigator who determined the best custody arrangement. Multiple third parties involved in the case said they thought both Spencer and Kouprianova were acting irrationally. Kouprianova had originally decided to move to Winnipeg to be near her parents, but in April 2019, changed her mind and decided to stay in Whitefish. She and Spencer both still live in the same mountain town of 8,500 people.

* Parrott was living in Indiana, in the same town where he grew up, with his three kids and his fourth wife. It was ten years since he’d met Matt Heimbach, who was now living far away with his own two children. A few weeks earlier they’d gotten on the phone to gossip about the movement, and Heimbach reflected, “We really did get mixed up with the most despicable evil stupid motherfuckers in America.” Parrott agreed, but it was worse: “We did, bro. We followed those guys into battle.”
Heimbach had found another job, though he knew that eventually someone would recognize him and he’d be fired again. He’d accepted that the decisions he’d made at nineteen meant he might be stuck in this cycle for the rest of his life. It required some finesse in his personal life, he said. “I have to begin every first date with ‘By the way, you should know…’ Do you know how not sexy that is? To be like, ‘You should read my Wikipedia page before our second date’?”

* In 2022, Richard Spencer told me he was no longer a white nationalist. “I care about civilization more than race,” he said. He hadn’t quit trying to be a public figure, tweeting his commentary on politics and old far – right rivals. The most attention he’d gotten in years came with the revelation that he’d listed his political affiliation as “moderate” in his profile on Bumble, a dating app whose best – known rule is that women speak first.
Spencer would take only limited accountability for his starring role in the “Summer of Hate.” He’d said during the Charlottesville trial that he’d been “slumming it” by hanging out with the alt – right. He’d later told me that in 2016 and 2017, he was the most racist he’d ever been, and that he’d felt pressure to be the most far – right guy in the room.
But at his core, he was who he was. Spencer told me he liked Christian nationalism, because he thought associating the religion with the mania of QAnon would help destroy it. “I hate Christianity, okay?” Spencer said. “I hate Jesus Christ. I would have fucking oppressed that hell out of — I know that I come from Roman blood, the kind of people who would fucking crucify him, who would go in and knock down your stupid fucking temple — that’s who I fucking am , Elle,” he said. “In case there’s any ambiguity about the type of person I am, that is the type of person I am.”
Spencer still wanted to be the guy, but he was thinking bigger than politics. He’d turned his energy to building a cult of Apollo. He thought his new religion would eventually take down Christianity, and with it, its slave morality, as Nietzsche called it, which held that humility and obedience were good and power and wealth were bad. Spencer’s Apollonian cult would value strength, beauty, and intellect.
“Everyone’s like, Oh, we need more democracy, or We need more rights — it’s like, what are you fucking talking about?” he said. “We’ve had more democracy and liberalism and all this Christian Semitic stuff — we have more of that than we’ve ever had. How many Abrahamics are there on the planet at the moment, five billion?… We’ve tried the shit, sister.” He wanted humanity to make a covenant with a better god, like Zeus. But of the race stuff, Spencer said, “You have to move past it.”

Posted in Alt Lite, Alt Right, Richard Spencer | Comments Off on Black Pill: How I Witnessed the Darkest Corners of the Internet Come to Life, Poison Society, and Capture American Politics

Journalism’s “Crazy Old Aunt” Helen Thomas and Paradigm Repair

Elizabeth Blanks Hindman and Ryan J. Thomas published April 18, 2013:

Veteran White House correspondent Helen Thomas abruptly retired in summer 2010 after she gave unscripted remarks widely perceived to be anti-Semitic. This case study applies paradigm repair and attribution theories to explore how mainstream journalists repaired the damage to their profession’s reputation. It concludes that they (1) situated Thomas’s remark against a backdrop of journalistic excellence, subtly reinforcing the point that her career should now come to an end; (2) suggested Thomas’s remarks were caused by senility; (3) condemned her remarks as racist; and (4) raised the norm of objectivity.

On June 7, 2010, the career of veteran journalist Helen Thomas, who had covered the White House since the days of President Dwight Eisenhower, came to an abrupt and ignominious end. The previous month, she had been interviewed on camera by New York rabbi David Nesenoff, who asked if she had any “comments on Israel,” to which Thomas responded, “tell them to get the hell out of Palestine.” When Nesenoff asked if she had “any better comments on Israel,” Thomas replied that “they” (Jews) should “go home” to “Poland, Germany . . . and America and everywhere else.” The interview was posted to the rabbi’s website, RabbiLive.com, on June 3 and quickly attracted media attention and comment. Thomas’s speakers agency, Nine Speakers, Inc., dropped her,2 and her comments were condemned by the White House Correspondents’ Association,3 the Society of Professional Journalists,4 and President Barack Obama, who said her comments were “offensive” and “out of line.”5 On June 7, Thomas announced her resignation from her position as an opinion columnist with Hearst Newspapers and her retirement from journalism effective immediately.6 In her statement, she apologized for her comments, saying they did “not reflect [her] heartfelt belief that peace will come to the Middle East only when all parties recognize the need for mutual respect and tolerance.”7 However, her sixty-year career covering presidential politics was officially over…

To retain good standing within “a group with systematic relations,”10 members must function in accordance with the normative behaviors and standards of the paradigm.

Furthermore, such behaviors become unassailable, for the paradigm “restrict[s] the range of questions deemed appropriate for study,” rendering paradigms as hegemonic. However, they are not impervious; for Kuhn, a paradigm “fails” when the fundamental assumptions on which it is built come into question and are found to be inadequate.

As members of the journalistic paradigm, journalists can be said to be an “interpretive community,” policing their profession and defining, shaping, and reinforcing its norms, values, standards, and practices.

Posted in Journalism | Comments Off on Journalism’s “Crazy Old Aunt” Helen Thomas and Paradigm Repair

So how did the three books on the Biden administration deal with his decline?

Christian Lorentzen writes for the July 18, 2024 London Review of Books about the three books that have come out on the Biden administration:

The Last Politician: Inside Joe Biden’s White House and the Struggle for America’s Future by Franklin Foer.
The Fight of His Life: Inside Joe Biden’s White House by Chris Whipple.
The Internationalists: The Fight to Restore American Foreign Policy after Trump by Alexander Ward.

It’s difficult to divine from the histories of the Biden administration written so far just how active a role the president has played in governing the country…

Whereas accounts of the Trump White House varied from clown show to cesspool, with backstabbing among hacks, mercenaries and scumbags, the histories of the Biden administration present a succession of earnest and credentialled professionals lining up to help the president better the country and the world.

…The issue​ of Biden’s age is not much discussed in these books. Whipple, whose previous books include a study of the job of White House chief of staff, recounts a Zoom meeting between Klain and some of his predecessors during the transition in 2020. Jim Jones, the 82-year-old former chief of staff to LBJ, asked: ‘Could a soon to be 82-year-old man, battered by four years of stress and crisis, serve effectively for another full term as president?’ The question became pertinent in April 2022 when at a ceremony at the White House to unveil a proposed expansion of Obamacare, the former president was mobbed by admirers while Biden, in Whipple’s phrase, ‘looked a little lost’. Republican Senator Rick Scott of Florida said: ‘Let’s be honest here. Joe Biden is unwell. He’s unfit for office. He’s incoherent, incapacitated and confused. He doesn’t know where he is half the time.’ ‘This was, of course, false,’ Whipple insists. ‘Biden was mentally sharp, even if he appeared physically frail.’ Bruce Reed, the deputy chief of staff, told Whipple of a long flight home from Geneva in 2021 during which Biden regaled his jetlagged entourage with old stories, including the one about the time he visited the Kremlin and told Putin he had no soul, until everyone except the president passed out. But Foer writes that Senate Republicans ‘doubted Joe Biden was running his own show. Because of his advanced age, they whispered that he was a marionette, wiggling his arms as Klain manipulated him from above. Aides to Mitch McConnell were blunt in their analysis. They dubbed Klain “prime minister”.’ Tucker Carlson has made Biden’s age one of the central themes of his twerpy routine. Defenders of the president have written off such claims as ‘right-wing talking points’, but like left-wing and centrist talking points, right-wing talking points occasionally have some basis in fact.

A search of Google Scholar July 12, 2024, revealed there have been no academic articles on Joe Biden’s cognitive decline.

Posted in Joe Biden, Journalism | Comments Off on So how did the three books on the Biden administration deal with his decline?

No Country For Old Men

So how concerned have scholars been with Joe Biden’s mental acuity over the past six years? Very little. They do hate Trump, however.

I just put “Biden senile” into Google Scholar. The third result is an article from the December 2023 edition of the journal Political Thought (written by German scholars):

Ulrich Haltern is Chair of Public Law, EU Law, International Law and Comparative Law at Albert-Ludwigs-University Freiburg (Germany) and Martin Flynn Professor of Global Law at the University of Connecticut Law School. He writes:

NO COUNTRY FOR OLD MEN? AMERICA’S ELDERLY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES AS A CRISIS OF THE BODY OF POPULAR SOVEREIGNTY

The world’s oldest democracy is currently also the oldest with regard to its highest decision-makers.

The question whether a person over 80 can ideally or at least reliably fulfil an office such as president of the US is undoubtedly important, for it is rather worrying that Americans discuss the presidential elections with the same concerns as the question whether their parents should still be driving a car. More interesting, however, is the influence of this kind of gerontocracy on the relation between voters and elected, as well as on the system of democratic representation in general. It is not daring to think that a political system, in which the president is more than twice as old as the average citizen (namely 38 years), lacks sufficient contact with its very population…

However, it remains unexplained why other democracies are not gerontocratic. In Europe, the exact opposite is the case: while the population is getting older, political decision-makers are getting younger and younger. Examples include Volodymyr Zelensky, 45, Great Britain’s Rishi Sunak, 43, Italy’s Giorgia Meloni, 46, Spain’s Pedro Sánchez, 51, and Finland’s Petteri Orpo, 53. The latter succeeded Sanna Marin, who had just turned 34 when she got elected in 2019…

The age of American political leaders is alienating younger people from politics. The Economist has shown that the extent to which older voters outrival younger ones is considerably greater in the USA than in other OECD countries. Other studies have proven that the average age of participants in local elections in the USA is 57, almost one generation older than the average eligible voter…

Political identity describes how individuals situate themselves within the political sphere, melding individual and collective identity. Its reference point is the political collective referred to as state or, sometimes, nation.

In the USA, this reference point is much more imagined as an organism than in Europe, where the organic structure of the state has given way to discourse and communication, and where political identity is much more found in the word. The American idea of corporeality − a fusion of body politic and body of the people, reminiscent of the frontispiece of Thomas Hobbes’ Leviathan in its composite nature − provides the state with a life and a value of its own, as an organic appearance of the people. When we as Europeans set foot on American soil, we cannot escape the manifestations of the idea of this value of its own, however strange they may seem to us, from the flag to the civil-religious rituals such as the Pledge of Allegiance, an oath of loyalty towards the nation and the flag of the United States. The higher idea embodied in the body politic of the state justifies its absolute demands towards the civic body that constitutes it, and the individual puts himself at its service: “Nothing is more typical of the American character than to give everything for a greater cause”, said Barack Obama in his inaugural address. Herein lies an ambivalence of American identity, which, on the one hand, emphasises great individuality and freedom, which should strive under the rule of law, but at the same time wraps this individuality into a great collective narrative…

Since this kind of imaginative space cannot be comprehended by intuition, it requires a powerful myth. In the USA, it is the myth of the revolution, in which the sovereign people, We the People, manifested itself and brought the state into existence. It is this big bang that unleashed political power and liberal self-government (unlike Europe’s revolutions, which politically restricted existing monarchic power), and therefore legitimation and legitimacy revolve around this moment of emergence only. The revolutionaries become the heroic founding fathers that the following post-heroic generations are to keep referring to…

American presidents are not only seen as leaders who coin and implement political programmes, but always also as elements of America’s imagined past, in which the nation recognises itself. The nation wants to be led, but it also wants to see its reflection. This reflection is twofold, corporeal and ideal….

At first, the corporeal reflection is as comprehensible as it is enigmatic. It is comprehensible because the public is endlessly fascinated by looking at presidential bodies and because presidents stage themselves as physically identifiable transubstantiations of the popular sovereign. Barack Obama, for instance, who, being black, did not reflect the majority of Americans, put it the way that American history “has seared into my genetic makeup the idea that this nation is more than the sum of its parts — that out of many, we are truly one.” Even more enigmatic it seems that in 2024, two about eighty-year-old men are expected to run for presidency…

Meanwhile, reflection requires positioning oneself in the national narrative of origin. This collective imagination is the corridor of argumentation in which the presidents
have to position themselves in terms of history of ideas. Again, we can learn from Obama. He closely followed Lincoln’s example and adopted his civil religious, morally charged vision of a fusion between the individual and the collective body. Lincoln had fully developed this vision in his Gettysburg speech, in which the semantic of patriotism
and love finds its vehicle, culminating in the theme of sacrifice and not ignoring the willingness to sacrifice oneself. At the very end of his book The Audacity of Hope, Obama
describes how his Washington evening jogging routes lead him to the Lincoln Memorial and the Lincoln Memorial Reflecting Pool. Lincoln and Martin Luther King play a key role in Obama’s account. He, both actually and figuratively, runs towards the two of them, as if they were present for real (and not only their memorials and memories), or as if Obama was able to transcend time. He is reading Lincoln’s Gettysburg speech and second inaugural address. In his head, he hears King’s famous “I have a dream” speech and sees the audience of 250.000 at the Reflecting Pool. Lincoln, King, Obama and the nation become one, thus wondrously and wonderfully suspending the rules of time and space and sweeping along all Americans.

…If we still want to say something unifying with regard to the representants’ age, then that could be that, in their increasingly senile frailness, they represent the disintegrating state of the American Constitution and its institutions. Only with good will can we still discern the might and glory of the political power that rests on popular sovereign representation and spreads apart there. However, even a quick glimpse reveals that the coat of power has been hanging loosely over brittle bones for a long time, and that the end of legitimate representation and its reliable decisions could soon be nigh. Ruffling up their feathers, but short of breath and emaciated, the staff runs across the scene, freezes, stumbles or forgets the sentence just started, but that does not matter: the political itself has broken in two, and its standard performers do not represent a nation.

I don’t recall feeling a fascination for the bodies of presidents.

Posted in America | Comments Off on No Country For Old Men