HBO's smearing of a dead man is one thing, but the Manson documentary brings up the question if we should allow the license to smear the living

 

The damage control from Ashley Morgan Smithline’s statement made under oath that she was manipulated by Evan Rachel Wood, Ilma Gore and ambulance-chasing attorneys looking to make a quick buck to “misremember” her relationship with Marilyn Manson (Brian Warner) has been mainly self-serving denials from those attorneys afraid of being disbarred, and Wood simply denying everything and posting Instagram screenshots of statements allegedly made by Smithline, apparently made out of “fellowship” or possibly added-in by someone who was given access to her Instagram password (i.e. Gore).

Meanwhile. Megan Fox, the host of the podcast The Fringe and who attacks just about anything that seems hypocritical regardless of what side of the political spectrum, is suggesting on PJ Media that HBO should be added to Manson’s defamation lawsuit. Fox claims that she viewed the Phoenix Rising documentary a few months ago with an “open mind” and came out of it believing that 90 percent of it was “all lies.” There was “no attempt at all to fact-check the allegations” and that the documentary “was simply the fantasy of Evan Rachel Wood and a bunch of other women who were never seriously questioned about their wild claims.”

Fox goes on to say that she kept asking herself “this is a crime?” concerning allegations of BDSM-type “abuse” that they “signed-up” for at the time, but now “didn’t like it after the fact.” To Fox, it just sounded "worse" than it actually was because it wasn’t just one or two women, but (nearly) everyone who supposedly had a relationship with Manson who was complaining about this. Most people who worked around him thought Steve Jobs was an “asshole” as a person, but is that a “crime”? Most people who know Manson well don't even say that.

Fox also noted that the women constantly “contradicted themselves.” There was not one single shred of evidence presented by any of the women to back-up their claims of abuse. Wood showed what she claimed to be a “scar” from one alleged abuse incident which she “keeps” as “evidence.” That is like believing that Amber Heard is still keeping that “zit” bruise on her cheek as “evidence” in 2022…

 

 

…to "prove" that the “bruise” from the 2016 TRO was “real”:

 

The most “telling parts” were when the alleged “victims”—all “adults” at the time--all admitted they could leave and did, yet many of them came back on their own volition. Fox observes that during her appearance on The View, Smithline was clearly having trouble believing her own stories, and it would have taken a just few skeptical questions to have made her “crack” then.

Wood on her own appearance on The View seemed unable to describe the “abuse” she allegedly suffered when asked to repeat it without a script, claiming it would six hours to tell it—meaning six hours to remember her story or re-read and memorize the script. Wood claiming that she was a “minor” at the age of 19 also shows us the degree to which “victimization” is simply a matter what one wants or thinks people are supposed to believe without question because that is what the times requires them to believe. No personal responsibility required, as Wood tries one's credulity by insisting she was completely "naive" and couldn't think for herself (see also Eliza Bleu).

I personally have not seen the “documentary” nor intend to, but it does appear that HBO has succumbed in the MeToo era to conduct such smear campaigns without evidence. Sure, it’s easy to go after a dead person (Michael Jackson) who can't defend himself, but this documentary helped to destroy a living person’s life today. So what did other people who claim to have gone into it with an “open mind,” or admitting to disliking Manson and were willing to believe anything against him? We can find that on Reddit here: https://www.reddit.com/r/marilyn_manson/comments/tfyizw/phoenix_rising_discussion_thread/ along with a few excerpts:

I am not really a Manson fan. I definitely leaned towards believing Evan's accusations prior to watching the documentary. Now, after watching, I support Manson 100%. The doc was an utter failure. It was extremely biased and attempted to indoctrinate the viewer with new ideology on what constitutes "abuse" to convince you that what Wood experienced was in fact abuse. But the abuse narrative didn't always match the details of her story, which sounded mostly like a naive relationship and consensual acts that, many years later, had become embarrassing and very regrettable for her…I believe that once she started this campaign against Manson there was no turning back, and she has been willing to embellish and oversell the accusations to justify her actions. Manson doesn't deserve this. While he may very well be a flawed individual who crossed the line, there is not nearly enough substance in this film to justify his public lynching.

 

 Just watching it now, can't believe some of this self gratifying bull shit. Just watched the bit where she is saying she didn't have a sex education. And the way she found out she was normal was that she just happened to find a fucking porno mag on the side of the road.

 

Also, she spoke as if he was the bogey man who’s coming after her. Like, she supposedly got twitter death threats and moved her family like she was running from Jason Vorhees. Also, she threw her dad under the bus after the story of her staying with him, which looked like thanksgiving, twenty minutes later she’s talking about how her dad didn’t do what he was supposed to and abandoned her. Then after “leaving” Manson, she comes back and sees the kneeler.. and then acts like she was in another horror movie. Maybe just going back for more meth. Wait she didn’t know what meth was and Manson “kept her awake”. Sure…

…And also, she goes right back to the boyfriend she left for Manson, then says that he was victim shaming her. I’ve dated a girl that probably felt victim shamed. Not right away. The first time I heard the abuse stories I was terrified and scared for her and we sort of bonded. A year later the stories had cracks. She would constantly tell them (in weird moments out of nowhere)but slightly differently. Get mad when I would question the facts because in my mind they were different than before and less plausible now. We got in a fight, she stayed at her friends house. Came home with a black eye, said she was raped by two “***er (which was distressing, never heard her use the big N before) and when I asked if she went to the cops she of course didn’t and when I went to call she told me not to…this went on until I found out she was just drunk and had a fight with her friend who kicked her out of her apartment. Sorry, just had to get that one out. Let’s say Evan was giving me Holley vibes.

 

Another thing I thought was funny about the doc... She saved a giant painting done by Manson all these years, then suddenly decided to deface it and make it her own after all these years... on camera... when she's happening to be making a documentary on it. Not to mention why did she save all their old love letters (and a huge painting) if she's that tormented by the memories? Pretty sure most sane people throw away old love letters when they break up with someone at some point. Especially if they cause emotional damage. Everything about that doc was so staged and pitifully done.

A response to someone who claims that “victims” have different ways of “dealing” with such artifacts, and who doesn’t “understand” why anyone would disbelieve the accusations when so many women are making them: That’s everyone with PTSD. Avoidance of triggers is a required symptom to get the diagnosis. I’m not saying she doesn’t have PTSD, I’m saying clearly the items her alleged abuser gave her isn’t triggering for her. So he’s most likely not the source of her PTSD. It’s easy to dismiss because of all inconsistencies, lies and manipulation that has come to light. The proof of Ilma Gore as a puppet master, contacting and providing scripts to alleged victims. How can you know all this, and still believe their words? Their exact same, scripted words?

 

It just kinda felt like ERW has bounced from person to person looking for a home and ends up in weird or unhealthy or unbalanced situations that will further hurt her (this includes that Gore woman who kinda seems like she was running the show) since she seems very lost.

 

By the end of the doc I was siding with Manson. She didn’t have any evidence that he was abusive and I get the feeling that she has some serious emotional/mental issues. I actually believe that she believes she was abused, but I’m not buying it.

 

“I didn’t know what meth was” is ridiculous. She was in the movie 13, they talk about meth…not to mention anyone born in the late 80’s knows what meth is because it legit tore this country apart. When that Cleary guy says the word on tour was SHE was doing more drugs than Manson she immediately jumps on him saying it was HIM.

 

I went into this 1000% not even needing to be convinced of MM guilt. I was like oh, this happened I don't even need to be convinced - let's just hear the story because I love docs. I really like ERW as an actor and have only ever felt indifference to dislike for MM - just to be clear where I'm coming from. Literally 15 minutes or so in, ERW said something about her childhood and then it immediately cut to her mom who was repeating the exact sentence, word for word. I was like hmmm, I guess they're just showing how credible her story is? As the doc went on, it began to feel incredibly scripted. I felt like the entire thing was written out word for word, scene for scene. Like, the scene where she tells her kid "I love you", then he says "I love you more" and it goes on for like 1 whole minute. That scene felt so unreal - how does that happen suddenly when you're getting filmed?...

… There were so many moments where it was like who does that while they're getting filmed?! Then at times I was like oh wow, I really feel for her, that's awful. And then it would be overshadowed by like the joy in her face in re-telling the story and how perfectly stated everything was - like no one is that good at talking about things just straight from their memories. Even down to her crying...I hate to say this, but it felt so fake. The scene where she is either actually talking to the FBI and grabbing her hair or she is literally in an empty office to let HBO film her re-enactment of the meeting - I have no clue what's weirder. That was a very, very weird scene. The way she spoke over the other victims and tried to make it sound like he loved her the most/treated her the worst…

… It even got to the point where the doc was trying to say MM is such a freak that I felt the doc was taking that image of him and being like see, he really is that bad twisted guy - wasn't it easy to believe? And I am by no means defending the guy, but there's weird people who are into weird sh*t that wouldn't hurt a fly. Not to say that's him, I just dislike people using stereotypes to try and shape my opinion. It feels like such low hanging fruit.

Fox says that if Manson’s defamation trial occurs, it ought to be “fun” seeing his various accusers exposed; I suspect that a few of them will “turn” before that happens. If HBO is forced to defend itself about why it aired this smear-doc without properly vetting it (especially after Smithline was prominently showcased), we will likely get a taste of how Heard was able to smear Johnny Depp in the UK trial. For all involved in this miscarriage of justice, Fox suggests that this biblical injunction is in order:

 

 

Of course it would have been easy to avoid all of this, as Heard failed to learn: just stop lying about being a "victim," especially when you had choices.

Surprise, surprise, the U.S. and the EU managed to "survive" the winter, and Ukraine is still hanging on

 

There is no telling what people will do when faced with a “crisis.” In “underdeveloped” countries, they have been living in what we would call a “crisis” situation since historical records were kept, yet somehow they survive. In Europe, which received at least 40 percent of its natural gas imports from Russia in 2021, it was declared that a “crisis” was afoot once sanctions against Russia was put in place and gas imports were slashed by over half, with only those countries who maintained a “dialogue” with Russia who continued to receive gas imports.

In order to fill the gap, 62 percent of Europe’s natural and liquefied gas has come from Norway, the U.S., Qatar, Algeria and Nigeria. Because of warmer than normal temperatures, and a voluntary reduction of one degree Celsius off heating, savings of one-third off heating bills was achieved. Overall, Europeans managed to achieve 20 percent in energy savings, while countries like Germany looked the other way at cross-border “interconnections” for additional supplies.

The  UK was apparently an “outlier” in these efforts, with Bloomberg noting that in her brief tenure as prime minister, Liz Truss “pledged tens of billions of pounds to subsidize households’ energy bills for as long as two years. Her government made little effort to secure additional gas supplies while opposing measures to encourage conservation.” What else would we expect from pampered English-speaking countries? For now at least, the U.S. can supply most of its own energy needs while being a net exporter.

Bloomberg also noted that Russian efforts at energy blackmail turned out to be a catastrophic mistake, forcing Europe to seek out alternative sources away from a country that could no longer be trusted and was perceived as an enemy in the world order. Gazprom has been forced to sell its excess to countries like China and India at rock-bottom prices, the latter of which has turned around and resold the gas to other countries at a profit (which some suggest is a "backdoor" way for European countries to get Russian gas). Meanwhile, the Italian energy giant ENI has exploration plans that intend to replace a major portion of Russian gas by 2025.

It is still being said that these alternatives to Russian gas is not enough, and there still could be “catastrophic” consequences if there is also a warmer than normal summer, not just because of energy use for air conditioning, but water evaporation that would reduce the supply of water powering hydroelectric plants. While 90 percent of gas storage units were full heading into winter, much of that was Russian-imported, and that is now all gone. But will Europeans find a way to muster through this? Probably. Ukraine, however, is a different story.

Russian attempts to disrupt or destroy electrical infrastructure has of course had a major impact on the lives of Ukrainians, with in many places blackouts lasting for days or longer. Russia claims that in doing this and targeting apartment buildings with the help of Iranian “suicide” drones that it is not targeting civilians, is just another reason why anything coming out of the mouth of a Russian is worthy of only a frustrated eye-roll.  

How exactly are Ukrainians surviving the winter without reliable electricity, water or heating? Heating bricks to keep food warm, leaving cold food outside instead of in a refrigerator, melting snow for water, turning on gas ovens for heat. There are also many displaced persons who have not left the country, who depend almost solely on humanitarian assistance. However, in war zones where the Russians planted mines in farm fields, farmers look to spring planting at their own risk. Hospitals have had to find creative ways of keeping people alive in between electrical outages.

And of course there is the tens of billions of aid not just in civilian and military aid, but to cover massive Ukrainian government debt. One estimate is that this year $38 billion will be needed to keep Ukraine viable for the coming year. While this may sound like a lot, it is still a virtual drop in the bucket in comparison to the combined U.S. and EU countries total government budgets (not to mention less than the net worth of few of the world's richest men).  If anything, especially for NATO countries, they have at least discovered the limitations of their own military capabilities and the need for an "upgrade."

Of course this can’t last forever. Europeans will certainly survive this, and regardless of how the war ultimately ends, sanctions against Russia will likely continue as well as weaning off Russian gas in order to make them think twice about invading another country, which the U.S. and the EU failed to do in the aftermath of the Crimean invasion. Most of us want to see the Russians “defeated” in their unjustified invasion punctuated by war crimes, but it seems the “price” required is far from being paid int total by either side.

But at least we can say that it is possible for the countries aiding Ukraine to find ways to “survive” the war, and in the U.S., despite complaints by the far-right, hardly anyone has noticed any change in their situations that can be traced to aid to Ukraine.

Romeo and Juliet lawsuit another example of the MeToo movement shooting itself in the foot

 

The Criterion Collection just released a new 4K remaster of the 1968 Franco Zeffirelli film Romeo and Juliet, considered one of the best film versions of a Shakespearean play. I watched it the other day, and it looks good both in the transfer and the film itself. There is a 2016 interview session included in the bonus section featuring Olivia Hussey and Leonard Whiting, in which it is briefly mentioned that all “everyone” wants to talk about is the bedroom scene…

 

…before passing on to the next subject. Hussey seemed to express  amusement about it, and in the past she had defended doing the scene as being important to explaining the relationship between Romeo and Juliet. The interview described the production and personal feelings about the experience, and there was no sense of acrimony at all; in fact both actors called it a "great" experience, and had nothing but praise for the director, and didn’t seem to regret anything at all.

But that has changed since California passed a law removing the statute of limitations on past memories of sexual abuse in regard to that now “infamous” bedroom scene which frankly was tame even for 1968. Hussey and Whiting are suing Paramount Pictures $500 million for being “forced” by the now evil Zeffirelli to bare, when  Whiting was 17 and Hussey was 16. 

Attitudes about sex were certainly different when I was younger, and now we find "new," self-serving views being retrofitted to old ones. I mean, if people didn't think it was "wrong" back then, why are they being punished now just because political attitudes have changed 50 years later? We can assume Italians (and Europeans generally) had different attitudes about sexuality both then and now than the people in California who passed the law, from which this lawsuit smells of “suppressed memory” and jumping on the MeToo bandwagon for money.

One thing I noted is that while film viewers (and Hussey) had a few seconds to gaze at the natural "exhibitionist" Whiting’s behind, the actual view of Hussey’s naked bosom was a blink-and-you missed-it occasion; in fact Criterion's transfer seemed to conceal it further by making it darker than previous editions on disc. Forgotten was Zeffirelli’s motivation was for this scene, since I don’t think it was precisely what Shakespeare envisioned: it was to underscore how “deep” their love was. And given the life expectancy of the time--32 years if a child survived to the age of ten--Romeo and Juliet were certainly considered to be "adult" for the time. Back in Medieval times, marriage was legal at the time of puberty, which for girls was at the age of 12.

But historical accuracy has no meaning for today's world. Hussey and Whiting now claim that the bedroom scene “hurt” their careers, with Hussey further asserting that the “trauma” of the experience continues to affect her more than 50 years later, despite the fact she has done nudity in film since then.  All of this is of course suspicious; IMDB lists 46 Oscar-winning actresses who have appeared “nude” in film, and I know they missed a couple (Mary Steenburgen, for example, who did so in her best supporting role in Melvin and Howard) while a couple of others don’t really belong on the list (I mean, you actually have to show something).

Even today, we are told that girls “mature” faster than boys. According to Psychology Today—which posted an article a week ago entitled “Borderline Personality Disorder and Character Assassination” which I suspect that the author had Amber Heard and a few others we know about in mind—“girls tend to optimize brain connections earlier than boys…researchers conclude that this may explain why females generally mature faster in certain cognitive and emotional areas than males during childhood and adolescence.”   

What I put in italics is important. Do you recall when you were 16-years-old? Didn’t you think you “knew it all”? In some states you can be charged with murder as an "adult" at that age, or even younger. I know I thought I "knew everything" when I ran away from home at 14 and was going to be a hermit or a mountain man living off the land (my new life lasted all of 12 hours).

We can go further: as noted, Whiting and Hussey were 17 and 16 at the time they shot the bedroom scene with only implied sex. How many 16-year-olds have had consensual sex with each other--or even younger? Why do we hesitate to call that “rape” too? According to the CDC, one-quarter of high school ninth-graders claim to have had sex—and how old are kids in that grade?—and 60 percent by the 12^th grade. That’s a lot of “traumatized victims” coming out of our high schools. Gender victim politics wants us to believe one thing, when the reality is another.

There are those who are suggesting that Hussey and Whiting are actually doing more harm to themselves than good, applying current victim “sensibility” to an era where attitudes about sex were a lot “freer” than they are today; good or bad, that is simply the case. In fact they are ruining their own reputations by attacking the one film they are best known for and is regarded as a “classic” in some film circles. Long-time San Francisco Chronicle film critic Mick LaSalle is one of those, calling the lawsuit an “embarrassment” for the two. He observes that

It’s always sad and depressing whenever people in their 70s turn against the wisdom they once had as teenagers. But it’s particularly sad in this case, because Whiting and Hussey are essentially sacrificing their artistic identities and desecrating one of the most beautiful films of a generation at the altar of today’s neo-Puritanism and in the pursuit of money — lots of money.

LaSalle goes on to note that for 50 years Hussey has defended doing the “nude” scene for artistic purposes, and had expressed nothing but affection for Zeffirelli. She never mentioned anything about feeling “distressed” or having long-term “trauma” over it. Further, calling the scene “pornographic” is absurd:

The scene at issue is not remotely pornographic. There’s no sex. Whiting’s backside is seen for several seconds. Hussey’s breasts are seen for perhaps one second. Hardly “poisonous,” the scene is simply beautiful. Marc Huestis, the impresario who brought Hussey in for a special program at the Castro Theatre in 2008, puts it this way: “It’s shaped so many young people’s sexuality — gay, straight, women, men — and in a good way.”

The film also hardly harmed the career of the actors, with Hussey previously admitting that she turned down many good roles that she now “regrets.” But that “regret” has now turned against the film that is basically the only real reason why she and Whiting have any “fame” or a career worth mentioning at all.

So what explains this sudden turnaround? The recent law signed by Gov. Gavin Newsome caving-in to pressure from activist groups not only considerably expands the statute of limitations on “sexual offenses,” but allows judges to triple a jury award if it is determined that there was an “attempted or successful cover-up” of the alleged offense. What does that mean, anyways? That the victim was told it wasn't a "crime" at the time, but she is now told she that was "lied" to?

Adults well past even the new statute of limitations are being given three years retroactively to claim to be victims, or the statute of limitations can be ignored if an adult suddenly becomes “aware” that something that happened in the distant past was actually "sexual abuse." This is the exception that Hussey and Whiting are trying to take advantage of now at the last minute.

It all just seems crazy, yet this is where the MeToo “believe all women” mentality has brought us. On one of the many California law firm websites which traffic in the presumably easy-to-win and highly profitable business of sexual offenses—of which actual “penetration” is a significant minority of cases—we are presented a list of “warning signs” that can make it easier to convince women at any age that they suffered sexual abuse as children:

·        Bleeding, bruises, or swelling in the genital area

·        Changes in hygiene, such as refusing to bathe or bathing excessively

·        Exhibiting signs of depression or post-traumatic stress disorder

·        Experiencing sudden difficulties in school

·        Committing self-harm behaviors

Even if there is no evidence of the first of these “warning signs,” a “therapist” or attorney who “specializes” in these cases can see anything they want to see, and persuade someone that they think can make a believable victim see the same thing. In the era of MeToo, there are people who are eager to oblige because it makes them feel “special,” and if they don’t like someone, or feel they were not “respected” during an encounter, or somehow reinterpret a perfectly normal interaction into a twisted pretzel, knowing that society is supposed to believe them without question. Now, a father showing any physical affection for his child (say, hugging) can be viewed as being “sexual” if needs to be seen as "evidence."

This is why the fanatics found the verdict in the Depp/Heard trial in Virginia so disturbing; unlike in the UK trial, Heard was forced to produce the “evidence” to back her claims of abuse while expecting the jurors to believe her fantastical claims simply because she was a woman. When the jury essentially called Heard a liar and the real abuser, this set in motion what the fanatics fear: that while real cases of abuse are adjudicated in the “normal” fashion, it is the questionable accusations that are getting most of the attention on social media. The fanatics only have themselves to blame for this by continuing—like Heard herself—to be in complete denial of the wrong-doing that almost everyone else sees. If they are going to lie to us, who else is lying too?

Last May I posted about the late Carl Sagan’s book The Demon-Haunted World in which he writes of his fears about a world turning to misinformation, “feelings” and pseudoscience instead of facts and science. He noted that the infamous McMartin Preschool case was only a “taste” of what was to come. Children were shown toy dolls and coached into pointing out areas they had allegedly been “touched,” and from there came tales of underground tunnels, baby sacrifices, children flushed down toilets and even the daycare workers turning themselves into witches and flying about. Yes, for years during the “satanic panic” people actually took those claims at face value before the accused perpetrators were cleared.

But just when you thought that alleged victims might refrain from making such fantastical claims if they want to be taken seriously, there is now the Marilyn Manson case, where the LA Times is now reporting that former accuser Ashley Morgan Smithline admitted that Evan Rachel Wood and her "associates" manipulated her into "misremembering" her relationship with Manson and to make false allegations against him.

As Sagan observed, a society of “victims”—especially of the sexual variety—exploded with the advent of what he regarded as the “pseudoscience” of modern “therapy,” which gives license to often unlicensed “therapists” to implant memories or offer “suggestions” to explain why someone feels or acts in a certain way. If a person is “unsure” if their interactions with a parent were “sexual” in nature, then the therapist or psychologist should work as though they were, without examining alternate explanations.

Victims of sexual offenses, real or imagined, seem to grow and spread like weeds today in an environment where declaring one a “victim” is not only encouraged but nurtured, especially if useful as blackmail for financial gain if the target has money; so often now we see that financial considerations are the primary reason to bring accusations. Do Hussey and Whiting really expect to win their case and be awarded a nine-figure settlement? As far as the money is concerned, they probably believe it is the “statement” that counts; but like how Heard’s fantastical claims drifted further and further away from her “evidence,” many people will look incredulously at their claims and only see a blatant money grab or act of vindictiveness, and that becoming the only reason why anyone would bother remembering who they are.

With trip to Kyiv, Biden shows he is the real “MAGA Man”; Trump. DeSantis and Greene are just termites who would destroy the country from within

 Here is one view  in regard to Joe Biden's surprise visit to Kyiv...

 

President Biden’s secret visit to wartime Kyiv is an example of America in its finest tradition. This trip took guts…Make no mistake, there was risk involved in this trip. Traveling to the capital of a nation fighting a shooting war with a great power, the U.S. had no way to choreograph with exactitude the circumstances of his travel or arrival. Neither the U.S. nor Ukraine has total control of the airspace. Neither the U.S. nor Ukraine could guarantee Biden’s security on the ground.

At home, it may often feel like our republic is irretrievably fractured. Abroad, mistakes and wrong turns have tarnished our reputation for competence and steadfastness. But America is still, for all its faults, seen in dark and terrible places as the last best hope. Beyond our shores, people still react to our presidents with hope…We should remember that.

Was this some partisan left-wing monologue that we should expect to hear from the Democrats’ side? No, this was written by Mark Antonio Wright, the executive editor of the National Review, the “traditional” conservative publication founded by William F. Buckley Jr., which has on occasion felt compelled to respond to what Donald Trump and the far-right call “conservatism.” So what has been the Republican response to Biden’s secret visit in war-torn Ukraine near the one-year anniversary of Russia' s unjustified invasion of conquest?

Trump merely reiterated his “friendship,”  “trust” in and belief in Vladimir Putin’s lies about not intending to invade Ukraine. Putin knew Trump to be a fool who could be "played" and knew he wouldn’t lift a finger to help Ukraine. If the rest of Europe had acted unilaterally while the U.S. did nothing, the U.S. would have lost what credibility it had left to influence world events. In other words, Trump would have made this country more weak than it has ever been. In a world that is so interconnected economically and ideologically, Trump’s bullying tactics were simply being ignored and alienating fellow democracies who no longer trusted us to lead. Trump's "American First" foreign policy never brought manufacturing jobs back to this country, it just made Trump look like a braggart who talked a lot of hot air that some people actually thought was "great." So much for "thinking."

Then you had Trump’s seeming main rival in 2024, Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis—who mainly rivals him on the level of who is more extreme in their mental imbalance. DeSantis declared Russia a “third-rate” power that didn’t deserve anyone’s attention, claimed that Ukraine was being given a “blank check” to defend its sovereignty, and suggested that without Western military aid to Ukraine, Putin wouldn’t be thinking twice about invading NATO countries like those in the Baltics, which are particularly vulnerable to Russian aggression. Yeah, this is a guy who also believes that projecting strength on the international stage is a sign of weakness.

And then of course there was Marjorie Taylor Greene, who we are told by Rep. Steven Cohen “made a fool of herself” during an intelligence briefing on the Chinese spy balloon caper. Greene claimed she didn’t believe anything she was told by intelligence officials, and that she was speaking for “average people”—who she apparently assumes are all as uneducated and uniformed as she is. She is now proclaiming that Republican states should “secede” and create their own country; Greene seems to forget that Georgia voted Democrat in the last presidential election, so someone should check her mental capacity for public office.  Like most of the others on the far-right, she poo-pooed the historic visit to Kyiv and blasted Biden for “ignoring” the train wreck disaster in East Palestine, Ohio and of course “the border” again, which of course has become a racist dog whistle.

Now just because East Palestine voted 3 to 1 for Trump in the past two presidential elections and the people don’t blame Trump at all for another one of his petty moves to “erase” Barack Obama’s initiatives, which included ending the TPP agreement which would have been a powerful tool to counter Chinese domination of trade, and this time a case directly related to the train disaster, doesn't mean we should just give them the cold shoulder. But they are too blind in their "strongly conservative" attitudes to realize that the Obama administration instituted new rules in regard to replacing 19^th Century braking technology for trains carrying hazardous materials with Electronically Controlled Pneumatic (ECP) brakes, and Trump vacated the rule.

Just to show you the stupidity of both the industry and Trump, the line that operated the train, Norfolk Southern, had previously indicated that it was intending to install ECP brakes. But after the Obama administration put out a rule requiring them on trains carrying hazardous materials, their bonehead executives decided that they were not going to be told what to do, and Norfolk came in opposition to the brakes. But Trump has the “forgotten people” in mind, he says, but that apparently doesn’t mean the people of the deteriorating town of East Palestine that Trump only “helped” in the sense of giving them scapegoats to gripe about. By ending the Obama initiative and caving in to industry demands of ignoring public safety, he  showed he was only interested in his rich friends and corporate profits.

We are told that Trump is visiting East Palestine to tell them all about how much he “cares” about them, and they will likely believe him despite all the evidence that he doesn't (talk about "nuking" a problem)...

 

...because they still don’t understand the different level of “caring” a narcissist like Trump has for people like himself and everyone else. That’s the kind of country Trump and the rest of the fascist far-right wants it to be: one that "unknowingly" self-destructs from within, with civility, morality and simple common sense cast aside on personal whim.

People like Trump and Greene are acting not for the national good, but their own private prejudices that most of the people who have voted for them happen to share, when before self-respecting people wanted to work at solutions instead of simply “nuking” them. Instead, we have what John Boehner called “legislative terrorists” like Jim Jordan who only have destructive impulses, and they and the people who vote for them are either blind or don’t care about the effects of their efforts to turn people against each other.

This is supposed to make America “great again”? A divided country cannot be “great” if there is a segment of the population that wants to destroy the other. This is what Russian hackers and propagandists involved in election interference were aiming at, and the far-right unsurprisingly have been the Kremlin’s most reliable tool in this. That is why the Kremlin and various pro-war Russian commentators are infuriated that Biden was able to arrive unmolested in Kyiv. It showed that the U.S., at least in the sense of its power projection in the world, was “great” again, leading a pro-democratic coalition against the forces that would oppress it. 

But under Trump, the U.S. projected weakness from both within and without; but while far-right forces continue their efforts to destroy the country from within like so many termites eating away at the structure, at least from the outside the U.S. is again projecting strength as the leader of the free world.

“Freedom” of course is not a general vision of the far-right in this country, but an expression of individual cupidity. Not everyone is allowed to have “freedom”  if it isn’t by the far-right’s definition; like a child having a hissy fit, it cannot abide those who actually want this country to be great, which means not looking backwards to find “solutions” to new problems or employs those that have been proven not to work, but forward to address inescapable changing times. This country has to show the way, and that is what Biden did and what far-right fascists and Trumpists are not.