LOYAL

 

Well, this just in: Donald Trump found guilty on all 34 counts in his hush money trial, which I suppose fits right in the word-of-week topic.

There is this retirement-age woman at the bus stop every workday morning who likes to talk—or rather, complain, about something to whoever will listen, about work, about the bus being late again, the way Seattle has gotten “worse” over the years, why these electricians across the street are on strike because they make way more money than she does. 

Since I’m a “regular” at the stop, if I am the only one available, I am the designated listener, and I respond by mostly agreeing with whatever she says. It is her privilege to get on the bus first, meaning if I get to the stop first and then she shows up, I have to concede the first spot. She has a walking stick and moves very “deliberately,” meaning that when I follow her on the bus I have to walk “deliberately” as well, as not to upset her by walking too closely behind her to be "rushing" her.

The other day we got on the bus and she sat in her usual seat and I sat in mine a few rows behind. A little while later a man of around 55 or 60ish who I had not seen before on the bus got on and sat in front of this woman. It didn’t take long before a little tiff took place, this time started by this man who didn’t know that this little old lady with ambulatory issues wasn’t going to listen to his complaint about her hooking her walking cane handle to the top frame of the seat he was sitting in. Myself, I didn’t  see the reason for his complaint; the handle was in one corner by the window, and he was sitting on the aisle side.

I thought he was just being an asshole, so I spoke-up to defend my “friend” whose name I didn’t know (and she didn’t know mine). He told me to mind my own business, but I pointed out he was just being (well) an asshole complaining about a non-issue. Eventually the “discussion” died away, the man decided maybe he was looking like an asshole too, and the woman wasn’t listening to him anyways, so he moved to the front of the bus.

In our discussion about the incident the next morning in which she thanked me for the support, the woman told me she believed that this individual—who was black—acted in this manner because she was a woman. I disagreed; I thought that it was political, that she was a white woman who was “disrespecting” him and his “space” because he was black. My observation was that he was just “creating” an “issue” out of nothing to make this political “point,” and that the "issue" was so minor as to be a nonexistent “infraction” completely undermined his “point,” meaning he was just being (well) an asshole.

Of course, it reminded me of some of her complaints, and the rare times I offered an alternative explanation away from her rightward slant she would veer-off into another topic of complaint. But it wasn’t much of a choice: be “loyal” to someone who was not a friend, but was “friendly,” or someone who I would otherwise sympathize with given my own life experiences if his "issue" was a legitimate one, which in this instance was not and just seemed he was bullying on a "little person."

So lets talk about what it means to be "loyal":

 

Former Trump Attorney General William Barr claimed that he didn’t care what history deemed to be his legacy for working for a corrupt dictator and allowing $6.5 million of taxpayer money to be wasted on the pointless Durham "investigation" that was another example of Republican hypocrisy, this time about who actually "weaponized" the DOJ for political purposes: “I don’t care about my legacy. I’ll be dead."

Of course some people, like Judge Aileen Cannon, are too loyal to the cause of Trump, throwing the snowflakes of their credibility on a bonfire (of course disappearing the moment it leaves their possession). We see Cannon in court frustrating prosecutors with a seeming inability to understand the meaning of statutes and then admonish them for being frustrated, and yet she allows the Trump defense to run amok over common sense with nonsensical arguments meant to waste time, knowing full well she will oblige.

What am I loyal too? One thing I am loyal to is video disc formats over streaming services that can pull out of circulation video files you supposedly “own,” or can only be viewed through a proprietary video player. I last week I received a copy of the new “restored” Blu-ray release of the Frank Capra classic Meet John Doe, the rights to which Capra and a partner sold to a third-party distributor which then allowed the original camera negative to fall into disrepair and rot before it was trashed.

The film fell into public domain limbo before ClassicFlix used the “best available” nitrate prints from the Library of Congress and the British Film Institute (in the fact the UK print was apparently used for the opening credits), and with 400 “man hours” of work “millions” of various imperfections were removed or stabilized to create a transfer suitable for Blu-ray release.

But not, apparently, for UHD release, at least not in the opinion of videophiles who thought the Blu-ray was about as far as the print would service:

 

I have to agree that film buffs probably would be disappointed with a UHD transfer; sure it would look slightly better, but given the elements used it would probably look even “softer." Nevertheless as we shall see, the new print does look markedly better than previous releases on DVD.  Frankly, I was waiting more impatiently for the Warner Archive Collection to release Red Dust, Sex and the Single Girl, The Candidate, Lisztomania (which I did an overview of here) and anything at all with Norma Shearer on Blu-ray. 

Of course things have to be done “right”; Shout Factory learned its lesson when it originally released a horrible DNRed-to-death Blu-ray of The Sailor Who Fell From Grace With The Sea from a terrible source, and subsequently re-released it after partnering with the distributor who actually had the rights to film elements suitable for an HD release.

Thus after announcing some years ago that they were going to release the Bruce Dern film Tattoo on Blu-ray, a few months later they withdrew the release, claiming that they couldn’t find “suitable elements” for an HD transfer. Frankly, in this case something was better than nothing, since this title was only available on a now OOP Region 2 release (which I of course have).

This certainly explains why certain “announced” titles take forever to actually get a street date, sometimes even a year, or not at all. Last May on its Facebook page Kino Lorber announced the upcoming release of the Philo Vance Collection on Blu-ray, but it wasn’t until this past March that it appeared for pre-order on Amazon, which I then purchased at 50 percent off the street price. What followed was delivery schedules promised then abandoned, and Amazon requesting that I “confirm” the order or cancel. Why? So if I chose to cancel and re-order it I would have to do so at the full price. Hell, Kino Lorber didn’t even have it in stock, putting it on a “wish list” to see how many people actually wanted it.

Well, I did want it, but not because I am necessarily a fan of the William Powell pre-Code, pre-Thin Man detective films (Powell himself wasn’t a fan of the character), but because I am a fan of pre-Code films generally and Louise Brooks (Pandora’s Box), and the collection includes one of her rare Hollywood films, The Canary Murder Case (she plays a much-too-brief role as the “canary”), which supposedly has been treated to a 4k transfer from the original camera negative. The film was originally shot as a silent picture, but Paramount decided later to have the actors return to dub their own voices and do reshoots; Brooks apparently refused to do this without additional pay, and given her reputation for being “difficult” to work with, the studios essentially made her a persona non grata afterwards.

Eventually standing my ground paid-off, and when they finally did receive a limited amount of stock, Amazon was forced to ship it to me at the guaranteed pre-order price.

Now I am waiting for Kino-Lorber to announce a street date for that Dyanne Thorne 4-film Ilsa collection with supposedly new 4k transfers. It was “announced” August last year, with an “expected” release date of “early 2024.” Well, it’s mid-2024, and there is still no release announcement. 

But when it comes to film-collecting my sense is limited: After watching the 1972 film The Heartbreak Kid directed by her mother, Elaine May, I was curious about what else the Oscar-nominated Jeannie Berlin did, and that led to my overview of the film Bone on this site. Unfortunately she didn’t do a whole lot during her “prime”; that Newyoka accent was better suited to comedy roles.

Berlin’s only apparent starring role, in the 1975 film Sheila Levine is Dead and Living in New York, seemed  destined to Paramount’s scrap pile (like Looking For Mr. Goodbar); both the film and Berlin’s performance were mercilessly panned at the time, and Berlin was apparently so distraught by the reaction that except for an appearance in an episode of Columbo the following year she didn’t do another film for 15 years, with only sporadic appearances since then; one of them was in Paul Anderson’s Inherent Vice (those Seventies were such a “cool” time, were they not?). Of course anything that stars Joaquin Phoenix has to be at least “interesting.”

Then I discovered last week that an Australian film distributor released late last year a 5-film Blu-ray set from director Sydney J. Furie. Who directed Sheila? That very man, and Blu-ray.com actually had a review of the Sheila BD from that set. Look, I had watched that crappy-looking Amazon Prime print Paramount originally gave them (there is a better print now) and I still liked the movie, and I liked Berlin in it, so I moseyed on down to Amazon and found that they were selling four copies of the Furie set for $130 each. That’s nuts (I purchased Criterion’s 13-film Fellini Blu-ray collection for that price, although I would have paid that just for the Nights of Cabiria BD) but if these sell out there will probably not be another opportunity to get Sheila on any disc format, except this at eBay prices.

Despite the fact there were no customer reviews for this I sucked it up and bought the thing, and when it showed up all five Blu-ray cases had broken holders and four of the discs were loose; none appeared to be damaged, however. How could this have happened unless the distributor deliberately gave Amazon damaged product because they were too cheap not to use broken cases for something that was supposed to be “new”? I mean at $26-per-disc for which The Boys in Company C was the only film with a "fresh" rating on Rotten Tomatoes (The Lawyer doesn't even have any reviews).

Now, I  have just expended more than a thousand words and I haven’t even gotten to the point of the post. That means we have to return to Meet John Doe. There are people who believe that this film has a lot to say about our current political climate, particularly on how it relates to how certain business people exploit gullible working people for their own political and financial gain. 

Here we see Ann (Barbara Stanwyck), just told she was losing her job as a columnist for the Bulletin because of low circulation. Her pieces are not “exciting” enough to increase circulation, so in one last column she invents something that will "shake things up": a “John Doe” who wrote a letter to her announcing that he is going to commit suicide by jumping off a building on Christmas Eve because the world is such a hellhole and nobody gives a damn:

 

Local officials are concerned about the impact of this letter on the safety of their positions…

 

…Ann admits to her editor that she doesn’t know who this “John Doe” is, but why not put out an advertisement for a suitable stand-in:

 

This “John” (Gary Cooper), whose name is actually John, seems suitable for the purpose, since Ann seems immediately attracted to him. He is an unemployed former minor league baseball pitcher who seems willing to get off the streets for a little while and play the “game":

 

However, he friend The Colonel (Walter Brennan) warns him that he is just going to turn into another “helot”:

 

You're walking along, not a nickel in your jeans, you're free as the wind, nobody bothers ya. Hundreds of people pass you by in every line of business: shoes, hats, automobiles, radios, everything, and they're all nice lovable people and they lets you alone, is that right? Then you get a hold of some dough and what happens, all those nice sweet lovable people become helots, a lotta heels. They begin to creep up on ya, trying to sell ya something: they get long claws and they get a stranglehold on ya, and you squirm and you duck and you holler and you try to push them away but you haven't got the chance. They gots ya. First thing ya know you own things, a car for instance, now your whole life is messed up with a lot more stuff: you get license fees and number plates and gas and oil and taxes and insurance and identification cards and letters and bills and flat tires and dents and traffic tickets and motorcycle cops and tickets and courtrooms and lawyers and fines and... a million and one other things. What happens? You're not the free and happy guy you used to be. You need to have money to pay for all those things, so you go after what the other fellas got. There you are, you're a helot yourself.

The Colonel also has sense enough not be fooled by propaganda from the media (or politicians):

I don't read no papers, and I don't listen to radios either. I know the world's been shaved by a drunken barber, and I don't have to read it.

Ann, who is initially in it for the money, composes John’s various outrages against the system:

 

Now having found a “voice,” the “people” take to the streets, demanding “change”:

 

The Bulletin's new publisher, D.B. Norton (Edward Arnold), who had previously “fired” her, now sees that Ann and the newspaper can be useful to him to promote both sales and something else he has in mind…

 

…while a representative from a rival newspaper seeing itself losing sales attempts to bribe John into admitting he is a fake:

 

But John responds to the appeals of Ann that he is actually doing some good for working people, so he reads from her script:

 

But when John has second thoughts and skips town, he is recognized and is told that he has influenced common people who ignored their neighbors before, but now see the good of coming together for a common purpose to improve their lives:

 

Up springs “John Doe Clubs” all over the map, and Norton—who financially backs the clubs—tells the skeptical Bulletin editor to keep up the press releases and to keep his nose out of the reasons why he thinks he can benefit personally from the clubs:

 

At a dinner party, Ann learns that Norton intends on forming a “John Doe Party," for which he expects to be its nominee for president and even win with the "endorsement" of his other business cronies who hope to benefit. But he seems to stray off message that he is “looking after” the people’s “interests,”  asserting that the country has made too many “concessions” to common people, and it needs a leader with an “iron fist” who will instill “discipline,” suggesting fascist inclinations:

 

John, instead of making the expected speech at the John Doe Convention in which Norton is to be endorsed, arrives unannounced at the party to say that he isn’t going to play ball anymore, because he knows Norton doesn’t really have the interests of the people in mind, just his own:

 

Norton tells him that if he does that, he will regret it. Before John can address the crowd, Norton arrives to announce that he is one of them, “duped” by John just like they are…

 

…and John, denied the opportunity to speak and tell the attendees that he may be a fraud but that the ideals he spoke to were not, is pelted by garbage by the angry throng:

 

John decides to follow through with jumping off a building, but Norton and his fellow gangsters find him and threaten to conceal his sacrifice…

 

 

…but Ann, feeling guilty and apparently in love with John, arrives to beg him not to jump, and that real losers were people like Norton, who wouldn’t be there if the John Doe idea wasn’t still alive, because they were afraid of it and wanted to subvert  because it would destroy their power:

 

As if to prove this was true, a group of common people also arrive on the scene, telling John they still believed in him and that they would restart the movement:

 

Capra was obviously aware of the corrupt influence of wealth and power in politics, and this was probably no better exposed by FDR in his 1936 Madison Square Garden speech, pointing out that for 12 years (1920 to 1932) the country had been ruled by a Republican Party that existed only for the benefit of powerful interests, not the people:

For twelve years this Nation was afflicted with hear-nothing, see-nothing, do-nothing Government. The Nation looked to Government but the Government looked away. Nine mocking years with the golden calf and three long years of the scourge! Nine crazy years at the ticker and three long years in the breadlines! Nine mad years of mirage and three long years of despair! Powerful influences strive today to restore that kind of government with its doctrine that that Government is best which is most indifferent.

For nearly four years you have had an Administration which instead of twirling its thumbs has rolled up its sleeves. We will keep our sleeves rolled up.

We had to struggle with the old enemies of peace—business and financial monopoly, speculation, reckless banking, class antagonism, sectionalism, war profiteering.

They had begun to consider the Government of the United States as a mere appendage to their own affairs. We know now that Government by organized money is just as dangerous as Government by organized mob.

Never before in all our history have these forces been so united against one candidate as they stand today. They are unanimous in their hate for me—and I welcome their hatred.

Now, didn’t it come out during the New York hush money trial that Trump ran his “business” like a Mafia don? The jury apparently believed so. FDR went on to describe how the country was then, and how it seems to be reviving today with Trump and his political and business mob hoping that they can concoct a "message" that will conceal their plans from exposure:

Those who used to have pass-keys are not happy. Some of them are desperate. Only desperate men with their backs to the wall would descend so far below the level of decent citizenship as to foster the current pay-envelope campaign against America's working people. Only reckless men, heedless of consequences, would risk the disruption of the hope for a new peace between worker and employer by returning to the tactics of the labor spy.

Here is an amazing paradox! The very employers and politicians and publishers who talk most loudly of class antagonism and the destruction of the American system now undermine that system by this attempt to coerce the votes of the wage earners of this country. It is the 1936 version of the old threat to close down the factory or the office if a particular candidate does not win. It is an old strategy of tyrants to delude their victims into fighting their battles for them.

Like Norton, Donald Trump is businessman with fascist, authoritarian impulses who only seeks gain for himself while feeding his supporters empty slogans attacking their—or rather, his—perceived enemies, or those people (say, Hispanics) that he has a personal dislike of;  he no intention of fulfilling his “promises” to working people if it “harms” his own greed or that of his corporate friends. His 2017 tax cut was meant to help himself; all working class people got of it was considerably smaller tax refunds. 

Blacks and Hispanics are less well-off overall than whites—yet a majority of white people seem to blame them for all their “insecurities,” and Trump cynically obliges them, largely due to his own racism and prejudices. He makes the ludicrous and racist claim that "millions" of people are coming into the country from prisons, mental institutions or are terrorists; that in itself suggest an inherently delusional, narcissistic nature that does not accept the common humanity of other groups who he sees as not "equal." 

Frankly, I would like to see Trump spend one night in jail, so that this convicted felon would be a far worse individual than  95 percent of the migrants he demonizes and dehumanizes. Of course this doesn't mean anything to his supporters, since any “advances” from the bottom that people who are the "others" are made are at their “expense,” which merely underlines a lack of understanding or simple human decency.

A UC Berkeley News article by Edward Lempinen tried to explain why so many voters remain “loyal” to Trump despite the fact that he checks the box on every “symptom” of psychopathy in his personality. The manufacturing industries of the past are disappearing overseas or jobs taken over by automation, writes Lempinen. But who is to blame for that? Corporations and businessmen like Trump, whose greed has been the cause of a continuously growing wealth gap that the Trump tax cut only exacerbated.

There seems to be “an apathetic lack of awareness” of reality. Many people prefer to “follow a political party as they would a football team, researchers say. Values may be less important in shaping allegiance than family tradition or the shared identity and social pressures of a community” and that “Most low-engagement voters simply follow the cues of their preferred party leaders. If a popular leader fans division, they polarize. If the leader appeals to emotions such as sadness or anger, their passions are aroused. When a popular leader continually employs division and misinformation to promote his goals, loyalists can drift from democratic standards — and from fact-based reality.”

One researcher quoted noted that people may be “persuaded” by stories told by the “preferred” leader, even if the stories are inventions or make no sense, but simply appeal to a certain emotional impulse. It doesn’t matter if Trump never delivered on any of his “promises” to working people; if he at least beat-on those groups they were resentful of, that “satisfied” them.

Trump’s loyal support has taken on the quality of a cult: “People begin to identify with the group and feel accountable to its members and especially to the leader. They fear that defection would let others down, or that they could be rejected by this group with which their identity has become deeply connected. So, when Trump doesn’t release his taxes, or has a dalliance with a porn star, or abuses his power, his allies develop a supportive rationale and remain ardently loyal.”

There is another "explanation" for this incomprehensible loyalty: his fanatical supporters see in Trump their own failures as human beings, and they not only take comfort in that, but this provides them with a sense of commonality and connection with power.  

Despite the fact that Trump has proven himself to be unfit to occupy the highest office in the land and has done his best to poison the court system with extreme-right fanatics (oh, and Alito and Thomas are not self-aware enough to even "caution" their wives about their anti-democratic behavior?). They gut the civil rights of those on the wrong side of the “culture wars,” and are seemingly ignorant of their decisions’ impact on the long-term survivability of this country both as a democracy and a livable and civil environment. 

Trump and  his loyalists are simply too motivated by hatred of those who want to do something better, which they regard as only being what upsets the “status quo”--and their power--as they wish it to be. They become like those who refuse to hear the truth, doubling down on stupidity and ignorance, shouting over the voices of reason:

 

KAFKAESQUE

 

Kafkaesque: relating to, characteristic of, or resembling the literary work of Franz Kafka; marked by a senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity. 

I suppose some people are vaguely aware of Franz Kafka's novella Metamorphosis, about a man who wakes up one morning turned into a beetle, and the various complications in his life thereafter, ending in his decision to allow himself to die after his family has left him abandoned in his bedroom. There is also Orson Welles adaptation of Kafka’s The Trial, in which Anthony Perkins’ character is informed he is accused of some unnamed capital crime for which he cannot defend himself from, and no one can seem to help him determine what he did wrong.

When films go “art” these days, it is just a lot of camera and CGI tricks with minimal “plot” with the apparent intention of being a vanity project for the director and a total mindfuck for the viewer. Last weekend I finally got around to watching Joaquin Phoenix in the “horror-comedy” Beau is Afraid, which passed mostly unnoticed last year. I thought it was Fellini on an LSD trip, while at least one reviewer called it “Kafkaesque,” which I think is an accurate assessment given the above definition. 

Beau is apparently a very paranoid individual living in a literal nightmare world that he has no control over and where it is finally "revealed" that his torment is being orchestrated by his supposedly dead mother for various personal offenses. The film ends in a “trial” in which Beau is tried for “offenses” for which he is allowed no defense against; even his “defense lawyer” is killed half-way during the proceedings.

After that I watched Gaspar Noé’s Enter the Void, which was another “trip” into mindless weirdness, where a drug dealer in Japan in a seedy part of Tokyo where all the place names are in English is set-up by his best friend in a drug bust where he is shot and killed, and spends the rest of the film gliding through the air to view the various ramifications of this event. Neon lights give the film an otherworldly appearance, which is about the only saving grace of watching this incomprehensible film where we are simply given an outsider’s view of people moving and talking and doing not “normal” things. Kafkaesque for sure, and I should have been prepared for that, having also seen Noé’s Irreversible.

I must admit I only dug it up from my collection (another disc I bought on impulse but never got around to watching) because the Colonel posted this video…

 

…of one of the actors in the film, Spanish actress Paz de la Huerta, who in this video is seen pushing back at the claims made by a trans individual, who “speaking” for her claimed that Marilyn Manson had done some bad thing to her. Paz was so angry about this that she threatened to sue this person unless her name was blotted out of the video, and then posted a message on her Instagram site reiterating that Manson was a friend and had never did anything untoward against her. Instead she turned it around and accused this accuser of abusive behavior toward herself.

Anyways, I had to find out when I had purchased it so as to find the correctly dated external hard drive I copied it too. During the course of this investigation  I noticed that Paz had done a photo book that was now OOP. These are the "senseless" and "disorienting" prices that third-party sellers were asking for it…

 

…somewhat more inflated that the prices eBay sellers were asking for, in the $274 -$360 range. There must be a lot of “nice” pictures in this book, given that Paz wasn’t particularly “shy” about doing certain things on film, but I had no plans on blowing a whole paycheck on it. But wait, what is this:

 

I seemed to remember that I waded through the book once, and put it away and never looked at it again. Did I miss something? It took me four hours of work to find it…

 

…and I rediscovered a slim volume with mostly images of Paz in various costumes in various poses in various locales. Interesting if you are a fan of the photographer’s work, but damn, if anyone with a prurient interest in this and shells out that kind of money, they are going to be sorely disappointed. Oh sure, she looks “sexy” for the most part, but there were maybe a half-dozen images of strictly incidental “naughty” stuff; in fact, if you were just thumbing through the book, they  would be the photo equivalent of “blink-and-you-missed-it.”  

So what is the antidote for watching such films? Why not one where the writer/director wants us to believe that he wasn’t "hurt" by the all the negative reviews and “admits” that he and the cast set out to make the most “brain dead” movie ever made, in this case the 80’s “horror-comedy” Surf II, the title meant to be an “in-joke” because it implied it was a “sequel” of a film that was never made. At least it got the “senseless” part down pat, about some put-upon “nerd” who to get even with the cool surfer dudes creates a soft drink called “Buzz Cola” that turns surfers who drink it into zombies. 

I admit the only reason why I purchased this “special edition” Vinegar Syndrome Blu-ray release was because Laugh-In’s Ruth Buzzi and Fridays Brandis Kemp both showed up in this in one of their infrequent film appearances. If this movie accomplished anything after watching those other two films, it was that it reoriented my mind to a place where I could recognize what a really bad film was.

But the times we live in now isn't a bad movie we can laugh at (not with), but a seemingly Kafkaesque world that escape from seems increasingly unlikely. It is a living nightmare world where “real life” in the Age of Trump is marked by that “senseless, disorienting, often menacing complexity" where nothing is safe for sensible people. 

I suppose that for people with any common sense and desire for civility and simple human decency find this country in the depths of something that seemingly is in the hands of those who are blinded by the their desire to see the world as nightmarish terms that only nightmarish "solutions" can "fix." You have a U.S. Supreme Court that was once a sensible bulwark against fascism and culture war fanaticism now having a majority that has metamorphosized into the very corruptions that it was meant to protect a democratic society based on laws and civil rights from.

The Court's ruling in 2013 vacating the preclearance stipulation in the Voting Rights Act that oversaw any attempt by states with past records of voter suppression targeting minorities has been the stuff of mischief in red states ever since, and the court ruled today that partisan politics was not a reason to block an obviously racially-gerrymandered district. Clarence Thomas claimed that since the rule was vacated, federal courts no longer have the right to even examine such cases.

Samuel Alito, the man accused of posting flags in his front lawns supporting the January 6 rioters, election conspiracies and white nationalism (he blamed his wife for them), made the absurd claim in his majority opinion that South Carolina Republican lawmakers had acted in “good faith” when they redrew a map that removed black voters from a district that far-right extremist Rep. Nancy Mace had won by just 1 percent before the gerrymander, and blamed black voters for not presenting an “alternative” map—ignoring the fact that there was an “alternative map” before the gerrymandering.

The AP noted that Richard Hasen, of the University of California at Los Angeles law school, observed that the ruling “makes it easier for Republican states to engage in redistricting to help white Republicans maximize their political power.” Could we have imagined a nightmare vision where we would return to the days of the Roger Taney Court? Could we have imagined that a "settled" case like Roe v. Wade would be vacated by culture war extremist chosen just for that reason?

You see Republican politicians tramping into a court room in support a moral and ethical criminal at least; the Trump’s “star” defensive witness was exposed on cross examination—rather than providing the “kill shot” against the prosecution that Fox News commentators were boasting about—as just another loyal lying gangster in Trump’s mob organization.

You sit back and take in all in wonder “Is this for real? Or is truth more monstrous than fiction?

David Graham in The Atlantic is among those (including the Washington Post) who is trying to “excuse” the posting of the “Unified Reich” post on Trump’s Truth Social website, but who is kidding who here?:

 

 

Trump’s fascist and authoritarian impulses are no mystery, and his former Chief of Staff John Kelly wrote in his memoir that Trump did indeed express admiration for Hitler and those who were “loyal” to him in carrying out his wishes, no matter how inhuman.

Trump promises to deport 15 million “illegals” which he claims will “grow” the economy; economists and employers say the exact opposite will happen. The destructive impact of Trump’s use of Nazi rhetoric in regard to Hispanic migrants suggests a symbolic form of genocide, and before Jewish people get all in a huff, the de facto genocide of native peoples in this hemisphere, and in particular in the U.S., was far worse (admittedly occurring over a greater time period) than what occurred in World War II. People may roll their eyes at the suggestion, but people in this country have a bad habit of doing that when confronted by truths that expose their hypocrisy. I mean how do you explain the decrease from 3.3 million people in pre-Columbian times in the U.S. to less than 200,000 by 1890, and that not including all the births during those several centuries in between?

Historian David Stannard noted that many white historians’ claim that the majority of Native American deaths relating to the presence of Europeans came about through the introduction of diseases is a way to “distance” European invaders from responsibility for the mass dying. But Stannard noted that while there was anecdotal cases of the spread of disease from European traders and settlers through Native American communities, there is no actual study that even pretends to claim that disease was the primary cause of “unnatural” death in the Native American community, from lack of evidence to support such a claim. He goes on to say that

The supposed truism that more native people died from disease than from direct face-to-face killing or from gross mistreatment or other concomitant derivatives of that brutality such as starvation, exposure, exhaustion, or despair is nothing more than a scholarly article of faith.

Those defending Trump’s use of Truth Social as a platform for fascists and racists is from “ignorance” need to bone-up on their knowledge of Trump’s family history. His grandfather, Friedrich Trump, immigrated from Prussia to the US to avoid military service in 1885; in Seattle he “speculated” in real estate, and then during the Gold Rush became rich providing miners with prostitution services. Odd, but somehow this seems to be things that his grandson inherited in his DNA. 

Friedrich Trump returned to Germany in 1901 with the intention to stay there, but authorities there remembered him and removed his German citizenship, whereupon he decided to immigrate back to the U.S. Would we not all be fortunate if he and his family decided to stay in Germany?

His son and Trump’s father, Fred Trump, was arrested in 1927 when he joined a KKK group marching on Memorial Day in New York; of course there are those who “question” whether Fred Trump actually was affiliated with the KKK, but that is beside the point; he was a racist and he apparently handed this attitude down to his children. Folk singer Woody Guthrie even told us about him in a song he wrote in 1954 but never recorded himself, about racial discrimination at Trump’s Beach Haven properties:

I suppose that Old Man Trump knows just how much racial hate
He stirred up in that bloodpot of human hearts
When he drawed that color line
Here at his Beach Haven family project

Beach Haven ain't my home!
No, I just can't pay this rent!
My money's down the drain,
And my soul is badly bent!
Beach Haven is Trump’s Tower
Where no black folks come to roam,
No, no, Old Man Trump!
Old Beach Haven ain't my home!

I'm calling out my welcome to you and your man both
Welcoming you here to Beach Haven
To love in any way you please and to have some kind of a decent place
To have your kids raised up in.
   
Beach Haven ain't my home!
No, I just can't pay this rent!
My money's down the drain,
And my soul is badly bent!
Beach Haven is Trump’s Tower
Where no black folks come to roam,
No, no, Old Man Trump!
Old Beach Haven ain't my home!

Both Fred Trump and his son Donald were the target of a Nixon Justice Department lawsuit charging them with racial discrimination at their residential projects in 1973, but they “settled” without admitting guilt, and apparently continued to discriminate in a less “open” manner against black renters.

This is who this man is. You can’t just “erase” it from his character. Let’s remember Trump’s activities surrounding the Central Park 5. Prosecutor Linda Fairstein, a fanatic who specialized in sex crimes, couldn't overcome jurors’ doubts about the forced “confessions” but they were impressed by the amount of so-called physical “evidence” that she produced that surely must “prove” the accused' guilt. But she certainly knew that as an FBI expert testified, none of that “evidence” could be tied to the accused, or any other suspect in custody at the time.

Fairstein didn't have the guilty party on trial and probably knew it, but in the rush to convict someone given public anger, someone had to “pay,” and Trump’s personal public relations campaign for conviction, highlighted by this paid newspaper advertisement…

 

…was according to defense attorney William Warren instrumental in “poisoning the minds of many people who lived in New York City and who, rightfully, had a natural affinity for the victim…Notwithstanding the jurors' assertions that they could be fair and impartial, some of them or their families, who naturally have influence, had to be affected by the inflammatory rhetoric in the ads."

Trump of course didn’t admit he was wrong after the Central Park 5 were exonerated of the crime after spending years in prison and receiving a multi-million dollar settlement, which Trump called a “disgrace,” still claiming that there was “so much evidence against them” despite the fact that no physical evidence tied them to the crime and that another man who was known to police as a serial assaulter at the park confessed to the crime. Trump insists that “5”  were still “guilty” because he can never admit to being  wrong.   

Apparently neither can his supporters. Nikki Haley has predictably abandoned her criticisms of Trump and is going all-out with the hypocritical, false and inflated rhetoric against Biden. This is the same person who is unable say the word “slavery,” despite the fact that she was the governor of the state that “famously” was the first to declare secession from the Union after the election of Abraham Lincoln (who Republicans hypocritically claim as their "own"). In its “declaration of secession,” the delegates voting for secession were not hypocritical about what the “issue” was:

The General Government, as the common agent, passed laws to carry into effect these stipulations of the States. For many years these laws were executed. But an increasing hostility on the part of the non-slaveholding States to the institution of slavery, has led to a disregard of their obligations, and the laws of the General Government have ceased to effect the objects of the Constitution.

Is it any use banging one’s head against the wall at all this senselessness, leaving one disoriented about where this country is headed? Is it too “complex” as it apparently is for a certain incompetent and partisan "judge," in a case to most everyone else is an “open-and-shut” regarding the classified documents? Trump stooge Aileen Cannon claimed the other day she doesn’t “understand” how a jury could make a reasoned judgment when she is so “confused” about the “complexity” of the case. 

If this “confusion” isn’t deliberate, then we are in a very dangerous, “menacing” place—a living nightmare whose end can only be speculated upon at this moment, and we are heading straight into that runaway train because many people want to keep living that nightmare and never wake-up.