Showing posts with label Vance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vance. Show all posts

February 14, 2025

Vance gave a speech at the Munich Security Conference for an audience of one, Donald Trump, By Hal M. Brown

 ..

Vance didn’t give a hoot about what the people in the room thought about his speech at the Munich Security Conference when he went on and on lambasting our allies for things like arresting protesters who violated the no-protest zone at abortion clinics.which he decribed as an affront to free speech. Of course there was no mention of the country which was the home of Alexei Navalny where exercising free speech can get you poisoned and imprisoned. 

Considering that this is a security conference and there’s a war raging in Europe, what did the audience hear about Ukraine? We barely heard crickets.

Fom Vance’s speech.

Now Yeah. I hope that's not the last bit of applause that I get, but we, we gather at this conference, of course, to discuss security and normally we mean threats to our external security. I see many great military leaders gathered here today. But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine, and we also believe that it's important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense, the threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America. Now I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don't go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too. Now these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. For years we've been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy. But when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we're holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard, and I say ourselves because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team.

As you see above according to Vance “the threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within.”

Here’s another piece of pro-Russian propaganda Trump will like:

Now we're at the point of course that the situation has gotten so bad that this December Romania straight up canceled the results of a presidential election based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbors. Now, as I understand it, the argument was that Russian disinformation had infected the Romanian elections, but I'd ask my European friends to have some perspective. You can believe it's wrong for Russia to buy social media advertisements to influence your elections. We certainly do. You can condemn it on the world stage even. But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few $100,000 of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn't very strong to begin with. 

Clearly the real audience for his speech was primarily one person, Donald J. Trump, his lord and master. The message to Trump is that he is saying that there’s nothing to worry about when it comes to Russia. Secondly, it was the anti-woke and pro-life members of MAGA who bother to tune in to morning television.

Vance is deluded if he thinks Trump actually cares about any of the pro-life falderal. Nobody who thinks rationally would doubt that the notoriously cheap Trump would readily pay for an abortion for a woman he inconveniently impregnated. Mathematicians don’t have a number infinitesimal enough to measure how little Trump cares about aving the life of the unborn.

I listened to Vance for as long as CNN was broadcasting it. That gave methe the idea for this Substack. Then I found the entire text. If I was a real journalist I’d read the entire thing and comments on all the thingsI thought were relevant. Instead I just searched for the words “Ukraine” and “Russia.” 

Addendum on reviewing the entire speech I found this part just plain weird:

And trust me, I say this with all humor. If American democracy can survive 10 years of Greta Thunberg's scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk. 


UPDATES: 

From Vance Tells Europeans to Stop Shunning Parties Deemed Extreme, NY Times

Vice President JD Vance told European leaders on Friday that their biggest security threat was not military aggression from Russia or China, but their own suppression of free speech — including efforts to block hard-right parties from joining governments.

An audience that was largely expecting Mr. Vance to lay out the Trump administration’s priorities for the trans-Atlantic alliance, NATO military spending and negotiations with Russia over ending the war in Ukraine, instead received a lecture on what Mr. Vance described as the continent’s own failures in living up to democratic ideals.

Those failures, Mr. Vance said, included efforts to restrict so-called “misinformation” and other content on social media and laws against abortion protests that he said unfairly silenced Christians.

Perhaps most strikingly, the vice president called on Europeans to drop their opposition to working with anti-immigration parties, calling them a legitimate expression of the will of voters angered by high levels of migration over the last decade. Those parties include the Alternative for Germany, or AfD, parts of which have been classified as extremist by German intelligence.

Excerpt:

None of this was particularly well-received by Europeans at the conference listening to the speech — and according to Politico's White House reporter Dasha Burns, the anger and derision burst out in the overflow room. The audience reportedly groaned as Vance highlighted the "threat from within," and one woman in attendance shouted out, "he's such a puppet!"

"In the end, there was palpable shock and anger," Burns concluded.

Trump and his associates have often not been met with the reactions they were hoping for when speaking on the world stage. In one of the most well-known incidents, diplomats openly laughed at Trump as he gave a speech to the United Nations in 2018 — though after the fact he insisted they were simply "laughing with me."

If you want to see what I am thinking throughout the day follow me on BlueSky here.

For those who want to wade through the entire speech, below. I added paragraph breaks where I thought they made sense from CSPAN is the text of Vance’s speech.

00:00:12

Excellencies, ladies and gentlemen, please take your seats. It is now my honor and pleasure to welcome the Vice President of the United States, Mr. JD Vance, who was here last year as senator, and we are very happy that he has come back to Munich, and we are very much looking forward to his speech. Please welcome Vice President JD Vance.

Show More 00:00:54

Well, thank you and thanks to all the gathered delegates and luminaries and media professionals and thanks especially to the hosts of the Munich Security Conference for being able to put on such an incredible event. We're of course thrilled to be here. We're happy to be here. And you know, one of the things that I wanted to talk about today. is of course our shared values and you know it's great to be back in Germany as you heard earlier. I was here last year as a United States senator. 

I saw a Foreign Minister, Foreign Secretary David Lammian joked that both of us last year had different jobs than we have now, but now it's time for all of our countries, for all of us who have been Fortunate enough to be given political power by our respective peoples to use it wisely to improve their lives, and I want to say that you know I was fortunate in my time here to spend some time outside the walls of this conference over the last 24 hours, and I've been so impressed by the hospitality of the people even of course as they're reeling from yesterday's horrendous attack. And the first time I was ever in Munich was with, was with my wife actually who's here with me today on a personal trip, and I've always loved the city of Munich and I've always loved its people, and I just want to say that we're very moved and our thoughts and prayers are with Munich and everybody affected by the evil inflicted on this beautiful community. We're thinking about you. We're praying for you, and we will certainly be rooting for you in the days and weeks to come. 

Now Yeah. I hope that's not the last bit of applause that I get, but we, we gather at this conference, of course, to discuss security and normally we mean threats to our external security. I see many great military leaders gathered here today. But while the Trump administration is very concerned with European security and believes that we can come to a reasonable settlement between Russia and Ukraine, and we also believe that it's important in the coming years for Europe to step up in a big way to provide for its own defense, the threat that I worry the most about vis a vis Europe is not Russia, it's not China, it's not any other external actor. And what I worry about is the threat from within. The retreat of Europe from some of its most fundamental values, values shared with the United States of America. 

Now I was struck that a former European commissioner went on television recently and sounded delighted that the Romanian government had just annulled an entire election. He warned that if things don't go to plan, the very same thing could happen in Germany too. Now these cavalier statements are shocking to American ears. 

For years we've been told that everything we fund and support is in the name of our shared democratic values. Everything from our Ukraine policy to digital censorship is billed as a defense of democracy. But when we see European courts canceling elections and senior officials threatening to cancel others, we ought to ask whether we're holding ourselves to an appropriately high standard, and I say ourselves because I fundamentally believe that we are on the same team. We must do more than talk about democratic values, we must live them. 

Now within living memory of many of you in this room, the Cold War positioned defenders of democracy against much more tyrannical forces on this continent. And consider the side in that fight that censored dissidents, that closed churches, that canceled elections. Were they the good guys? Certainly not. And thank God they lost the Cold War. They lost because they neither valued nor respected all of the extraordinary blessings of liberty, the freedom to surprise, to make mistakes, invent, to build, as it turns out, you can't mandate innovation or creativity just as you can't force people what to think, what to feel, or what to believe, and we believe those things are certainly connected. And unfortunately when I look at Europe today, it's sometimes not so clear what happened to some of the Cold War's winners. 

I look to Brussels, where EU commissars warn citizens that they intend to shut down social media during times of civil unrest the moment they spot what they've judged to be hateful content. Or to this very country where police have carried out raids against citizens suspected of posting anti-feminist comments online as part of combating misogyny on the internet, a day of action. 

I look to Sweden, where 2 weeks ago the government convicted a Christian activist for participating in Koran burnings that resulted in his friend's murder. And as the judge in his case chillingly noted, Sweden's laws to supposedly protect free expression do not in fact grant, and I'm quoting, a free pass to do or say anything without risking offending the group that holds that belief. And perhaps most concerningly, I look to our very dear friends, the United Kingdom, where the backslide away from conscience rights has placed the basic liberties of religious Britons in particular in the crosshairs. 

A little over 2 years ago, the British government charged Adam Smith Connor, a 51-year-old physiotherapist and an Army veteran, with the heinous crime of standing 50 m from an abortion clinic and silently praying for 3 minutes. Not obstructing anyone, not interacting with anyone, just silently praying on his own. After British law enforcement spotted him and demanded to know what he was praying for, Adam replied simply, it was on behalf of the unborn son, he and his former girlfriend had aborted years before. Now the officers were not moved. Adam was found guilty of breaking the government's new buffer zones law, which criminalizes silent prayer and other actions that could influence a person's decision within 200 m of an abortion facility. He was sentenced to pay thousands of pounds in legal costs to the prosecution. 

Now I wish I could say that this was a fluke, a one-off crazy example of a badly written law being enacted against a single person, but no, this last October, just a few months ago, the Scottish government began distributing letters to citizens whose houses lay within so-called safe access zones. Warning them that even private prayer within their own homes may amount to breaking the law. Naturally, the government readers to report any fellow citizens suspected guilty of thought crime. 

In Britain and across Europe, free speech, I fear, is in retreat. And in the interests of comedy, my friends, but also in the interest of truth, I will admit that sometimes the loudest voices for censorship have come not from within Europe but from within my own country, where the prior administration threatened and bullied social media companies to censor so-called misinformation. Misinformation like for example, the idea that coronavirus had likely leak leaked from a laboratory in China. 

Our own government encouraged private companies to silence people who dared to utter what turned out to be an obvious truth. So I come here today not just with an observation, but with an offer. And just as the Biden administration seemed desperate to silence people for speaking their minds, so the Trump administration will do precisely the opposite, and I hope that we can work together on that. In Washington there is a new sheriff in town, and under Donald Trump's leadership we may disagree with your views, but we will fight to defend your right to offer in the public square, agree or disagree. 

Now we're at the point of course that the situation has gotten so bad that this December Romania straight up canceled the results of a presidential election based on the flimsy suspicions of an intelligence agency and enormous pressure from its continental neighbors. Now, as I understand it, the argument was that Russian disinformation had infected the Romanian elections, but I'd ask my European friends to have some perspective. You can believe it's wrong for Russia to buy social media advertisements to influence your elections. We certainly do. You can condemn it on the world stage even. But if your democracy can be destroyed with a few $100,000 of digital advertising from a foreign country, then it wasn't very strong to begin with. 

Now the good news is that I happen to think your democracies are substantially less brittle than many people apparently fear, and I really do believe that allowing our citizens to speak their mind will make them stronger still, which of course brings us back to Munich. Where the organizers of this very conference have banned lawmakers representing populist parties on both the left and the right from participating in these conversations. 

Now again, we don't have to agree with everything or anything that people say, but when people represent, when political leaders represent an important constituency, it is incumbent upon us to at least participate in dialogue with them. Now to many of us on the other side of the Atlantic, it looks more and more like old entrenched interests hiding behind ugly Soviet-era words like misinformation and disinformation who simply don't like the idea that somebody with an alternative viewpoint might express a different opinion or, God forbid vote a different way or even worse, win an election. 

Now this is a security conference, and I'm sure you all came here prepared to talk about how exactly you intend to increase defense spending over the next few years in line with some new target. And that's great. Because as President Trump has made abundantly clear, he believes that our European friends must play a bigger role in the future of this continent. 

We don't think you hear this term burden sharing, but we think it's an important part of being in a shared alliance together that the Europeans step up while America focuses on areas of the world that are in great danger. But let me also ask you, How will you even begin to think through the kinds of budgeting questions if we don't know what it is that we are defending in the first place? I've heard a lot already in my conversations, and I've had many, many great conversations with many people gathered here in this room. I've heard a lot about what you need to defend yourselves from, and of course that's important, but what has seemed a little bit less clear to me and certainly I think to many of the citizens of Europe is what exactly it is that you're defending yourselves for. 

What is the positive vision that animates this shared security compact that we all believe is so important. And I believe deeply that there is no security if you are afraid of the voices, the opinions, and the conscience that guide your very own people. Europe faces many challenges, but the crisis this continent faces right now, the crisis I believe we all face together, is one of our own making. If you're running in fear of your own voters, there is nothing America can do for you, nor for that matter, is there anything that you can do for the American people who elected me and elected President Trump. You need democratic mandates to accomplish anything of value in the coming years. 

Have we learned nothing that thin mandates produce unstable results, but there is so much of value that can be accomplished with the kind of democratic mandate that I think will come from being more responsive to the voices of your citizens. If you're going to enjoy competitive economies, if you're going to enjoy affordable energy and secure supply chains. Then you need mandates to govern because you have to make difficult choices to enjoy all of these things, and of course we know that very well in America. 

You cannot win a democratic mandate by censoring your opponents or putting them in jail, whether that's the leader of the opposition, a humble Christian praying in her own home, or a journalist trying to report the news. Nor can you win one by disregarding your basic electorate on questions like who gets to be a part of our shared society. And of all the pressing challenges that the nations represented here face, I believe there is nothing more urgent than mass migration. Today, almost 1 in 5 people living in this country moved here from abroad. That is, of course, an all-time high. It's a similar number, by the way, in the United States, also an all-time high. 

The number of immigrants who entered the EU from non-EU countries doubled between 2021 and 2022 alone, and of course it's gotten much higher since, and we know the situation, it didn't materialize in a vacuum. It's the result of a series of conscious decisions made by politicians all over the continent and others across the world over the span of a decade. We saw the horrors wrought by these decisions yesterday in this very city. And of course I can't bring it up again without thinking about the terrible victims who had a beautiful winter day in Munich ruined. Our thoughts and prayers are with them and will remain with them. 

But why did this happen in the first place? It's a terrible story, but it's one we've heard way too many times in Europe and unfortunately too many times in the United States as well. An asylum seeker, often a young man in his mid-20s already known to police, rams a car into a crowd and shatters a community. How many times must we suffer these appalling setbacks before we change course and take our shared civilization in a new direction? 

No voter on this continent went to the ballot box to open the floodgates to millions of unvetted immigrants, but you know what they did vote for. In England, they voted for Brexit, and agree or disagree, they voted for it. And more and more all over Europe, they're voting for political leaders who promised to put an end to out of control migration. 

Now I happen to agree with a lot of these concerns, but you don't have to agree with me. I just think that people care about their homes. They care about their dreams, they care about their safety and their capacity to provide for themselves and their children, and they're smart. I think this is one of the most important things I've learned in my brief time in politics. Contrary to what you might hear a couple of mountains over in Davos, the citizens of all of our nations don't generally think of themselves as educated animals or as interchangeable cogs of a global economy, and it's hardly surprising that they don't want to be shuffled about or relentlessly ignored by their leaders. 

It is the business of democracy to adjudicate these big questions at the ballot box. I believe that dismissing people, dismissing their concerns, or worse yet, shutting down media, shutting down elections, or shutting people out of the political process protects nothing. In fact, it is the most surefire way to destroy democracy. And speaking up and expressing opinions isn't election interference, even when people express views outside your own country and even when those people are very influential. 

And trust me, I say this with all humor. If American democracy can survive 10 years of Greta Thunberg's scolding, you guys can survive a few months of Elon Musk. But what German democracy, what no democracy, American, German, or European, will survive is telling millions of voters that their thoughts and concerns, their aspirations, their pleas for relief are invalid or unworthy of even being considered. Democracy rests on the sacred principle that the voice of the people matters. There's no room for firewalls. You either uphold the principle or you don't. 

Europeans, the people have a voice. European leaders have a choice. And my strong belief is that we do not need to be afraid of the future. Embrace what your people tell you, even when it's surprising, even when you don't agree. And if you do so, you can face the future with certainty and with confidence knowing that the nation stands behind each of you, and that to me is the great magic of democracy. It's not in these stone buildings or beautiful hotels. It's not even in the great institutions that we built together as a shared society. 

To believe in democracy is to understand that each of our citizens has wisdom and has a voice, and if we refuse to listen to that voice, even our most successful fights will secure very little. As Pope John Paul II, in my view, one of the most extraordinary champions of democracy on this continent or any other, once said, Do not be afraid. We shouldn't be afraid of our people even when they express views that disagree with their leadership. 

Thank you all. Good luck to all of you. God bless you. Yeah




January 8, 2025

Whether it's demented or not, we're all now at the mercy of Trump's big brain, by Hal M. Brown.

 





How the holy Hell does Hezbo-f*cken-llah being involved in Jan. 6th pop into Trump's brain when he's downplaying what happened on Jan. 6th? 

Here's is the excerpt about this from HuffPost:

Trump took questions from reporters near the end of the roughly hour-long remarks, during which he pledged to make “major pardons” for people convicted of participating in the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.

Asked if he intends to pardon anyone convicted of violent offenses for their actions that day, Trump dodged — instead appearing to blame both the FBI and Hezbollah, an Iran-backed militant group in Lebanon, for the violence.

“We have to find out about Hezbollah, we have to find out about who, exactly, was in that whole thing,” Trump said. “Because people that did some bad things were not prosecuted.”

Hezbollah? Really? These guys?


Trump likes to brag about how intelligent he is. He characterizes this by saying he has a very, very big brain. Consider this from a science website:

Trump's "Very, Very Large Brain" Comment Underscores Myth About Intelligence

Intelligence has a lot more to do with what's inside your brain than its size.

BY SARAH SLOAT
SEP. 27, 2018
Excerpt:

President Donald Trump has repeatedly dedicated moments of his presidency to informing the public about his intelligence. A few weeks before he took office, Trump announced he didn’t need daily intelligence briefings because “I’m, like, a smart person.” In January, he reminded everyone on Twitter that his “two greatest assets have been mental stability and being, like, really smart.” Now, he’s telling reporters about his “very, very large brain.” But contrary to longstanding claims, a bigger brain doesn’t mean a smarter man.

Speaking at a press conference in New York on Wednesday, Trump referenced an interview that Michael Pillsbury, the Hudson Institutes director for Chinese strategy, gave to Fox News last month. Pillsbury said that China respects Trump because he is “so smart.”


“If you look at Mr. Pillsburgy, the leading authority on China, he was on a good show — I won’t mention the name of the show — recently,” Trump said. “And he was saying that China has total respect for Donald Trump and for Donald Trump’s very, very large brain.”


The article explains that the size of a brain has nothing to do with intelligence: "Assuming that absolute brain size is decisive for intelligence, then whales or elephants should be more intelligent than humans, and horses more intelligent than chimpanzees, which definitely is not the case.” 

Perhaps Trump really believes his brain is literally larger than 99.9% of the world's population and that this means his IQ ranks in the upper 1/10 of one percent. Of course this would put him off the top of the IQ test scales at the Einstein level.  

If brain size determined intelligence, Trump would be less intelligent than he was as a young man because brains shrink as people age:

"Your cerebral cortex, the wrinkled outer layer of the brain, gets thinner as you age. It's especially noticeable in the frontal lobe, which processes memory, emotions, impulse control, problem-solving, social interaction, and motor function. Thinning can also be noticeable in parts of the temporal lobe, which is located behind the ears and helps people understand words, speak, read, write, and connect words with their meanings." WebMD

The brain shrinking, or atrophy, that is inevitable when one ages does not affect intelligence. What does happen with some people when they age is that they develop one or another form of dementia. 

Human brains weigh between 2.8 to 3.1 pounds. Brain size can vary slightly among different populations and individuals. Gender also plays a role in brain size variations. On average, male brains are about 10% larger than female brains. However, this difference disappears when accounting for body size, and importantly, there’s no evidence that this size difference translates to any cognitive advantages. (Reference: Human Brain Size: Exploring Dimensions, Comparisons, and Evolutionary Significance)

There's no way of knowing if Trump has dementia at this point. There's no actual diagnostic test for it like an MRI which can find a brain tumor that is affecting behavior. A dementia diagnosis can only be made with a full neurological assessment. Whether you're an expert or a lay person you can only reach a conclusion based on your observations of Trump's behavior.

Without this we are left with looking at Trump's behavior to try to discern whether these recent examples of his throwing out abberant ideas are a manifestion of brain disease or of Trump's psychological condition. It may very well be the latter. Trump may be feeling that, since he has won the election, he can totally let loose and express any thought no matter how weird or unrealistic that pops into his mind. 

A personal note: When group of residents in the senior community where I live started an improv group, I didn't even consider joining even though I thought it would be fun. I think I have a modicum of talent for this. I knew I couldn't do improv without being able to go blue and unleash my inner Lenny Bruce.

Where did Hezbollah come from when he was trying to gaslight about Jan. 6th? You can say it doesn't matter. Maybe it doesn't. It could be that he'd been seeing stories about it on the news or reading about it since. It has been in the news:

We are still left with not knowing what is really going on in Trump's big brain. It could be that he's showing more signs of dementia. It could be that we're seeing the true Trump unleashed in all his unhinged glory.

If this is dementia one thing is certain: it will get worse. If this occurs there will be a point where it will be impossible to hide given Trump's lust to be in the limelight and his being a motor mouth. He won't have the advantage of being given questions in advance like he was 30 minutes before his Fox News Iowa Town Hall (see article). Besides, even being given a heads up about questions wouldn't make a difference since the results of an election won't be in the balance. He won't feel he has to come across as presidential.

There is no way anyone with severe dementia can present as cognitively unimpaired. If this happens we have the 25th Amendment scenario. I have no doubt that once it is obvious to the public, Vance would lose his loyalty to Trump in a New York minute.

 

----------------------------------------

I post my blogs on Stressline.org where you can subscribe (for free everywhere) and on Substack where, if you want to submit your email, you can be notified of all new blog posts. I also post them on Medium because this enables them to be easily found on internet searches.

The halbrown.org platform includes a Disquis comment section. To use it you have to register on Disquis.

October 6, 2024

If we have President Trump, President Vance, or both, in the future we'll be living in "1984" on steroids, by Hal M. Brown, MSW

 

Well known promo picture for 1984 colorized by Kolorize.cc Click image to enlarge

There's no real need to go chapter and verse through George Orwell's 1949 novel "1984" to understand why referencing it here (as is done elsewhere) describes what Trump and Vance want the United States to become. Each hopes to become Big Brother. Vance anticipates that within a year or two he will assume the position of president.

Project 2025 isn't a novel, but like "1984 it describes a totalitarian country run by a dictator whose government uses mass surveillance of citizens and repressive regimentation to control the behavior of the population.

Consider that in 1949 when "1984" was written the cyber capacity to track the social media habits and the physical location of people didn't exist. In 1949 there was no National Security Agency (NSA) with its vast satellite network:



Today you can be tracked by your car and cell phone GPS, but this is child's play for law enforcement agencies. Survellience cameras are ubiquitous. Police can monitor your driving and send you tickets for infractions. Banks, ATMs, and stores have cameras. Facial recognition can be used to identify you and, I assume if not now eventually, will be used to find out where you are. 

Are you really sure that when you read a website like this some hacker hasn't turned on your device's camera and microphone?

Another novel that is being written about as a warning about what could happen in American under Trump and Vance is Margaret Atwood's 1985 "The Handmaids Tale." Consider that Covid can be tracked by analysis of wastewater and ask yourself whether the government could decide to determine whether residents of a given area were using mifepristone (half of the so-called abortion pill) or any kind of banned birth control. Federal funds could be withheld from the community. Worse than that government agents could interogate all the females of child bearing age living there to make sure that if they are pregnant they don't have an abortion.

In 2025 under a Trump and Vance Americans could try to run from a repressive government but they wouldn't be able to hide.


I couldn't figure out a way to illustrate this blog until I realized that an app I just bought to colorize a batch of old black and white paper photos from my childhood could also be used to intensify what 2025 and beyond could look like.

Some images from the movie, like this one, look more foreboding than the colorized version.



In "1984" we had Winston Smith as the protagonist. He worked in a mid-level job at the Ministry of Truth. He kept his hatred for the Party secret. When he discovered that there was a resistance group called the Brotherhood he and his girlfriend Julia joined it.  However, they were betrayed by a Party spy and arrested by the Thought Police. He was sent to be "reeducated" through torture by his worst fear, rats, and through mind manipulation by the Ministry of Love. Eventually he betrayed Julia and realized he loved Big Brother and was released. The end of the book tells what happens after he is happily sitting in a cafe after he is a "free" man:

“He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."



In the Big Brother world of Trump and Vance I doubt a Winston could survive as long as he did let alone there being a Brotherhood undergound resistance standing a chance of being effective. I doubt it could be organized in the first place.

Whichever of my illustrations you think suggests what our country could look like, imagine Trump or Vance in the pictures as Big Brother.  If you value freedom, democracy, and a tolerant multi-ethnic pluralistic America, all of these images should scare the bejesus out of you. 





Addendum: 

Voters should assume that a vote for Trump is a vote for Vance. I wrote about this (here) several days ago and it is finally being covered in progressive media.




Recent blogs:






October 3, 2024

It can't happen here. Some people "get it" and want it. Some people don't "get it", don't want it, and may vote for it. By Hal M. Brown, MSW



J.D.Vance just put a sugar coating on what he and Trump want to turn America into. Those watching the debate who want Trump's MAGA dictatorship for the country saw through this as a performance to make Trump look reasonable, although, lest they believe he was more moderate than Trump, he made it clear he was a loyal co-pilot flying the end of democracy Trump airplane when he refused to say whether or not Biden legitmately won the election (see article).

There are those in America who are all in with Project 2025 to the extent they understand it in broad strokes, i.e., that it turns the United States into a White dominated authoritarian country. Among Trump supporters I expect there are at least a few who see that he is becoming more and more unhinged and know that if he doesn't succumb to dementia he could get seriously ill or die in office. This would make a very happy Vance president. (Image by Perhance Photo AI)

  I wrote about this yesterday (here). 

It has to be reassuing to the hard core Project 2025 Trumpers that should this happen his co-pilot Vance is there to keep the airship of state flying in the right, the very far right, direction.

Then there's a large group of Trump supporters who don't "get it" and don't want it. They see the Democrat's warning about the end of democracy as political fear mongering. Whether they know about the Sinclair Lewis 1935 dystopian novel of the name or not, they may think "it can't happen here" with the important addition "but if it does it won't effect me."


Here's an excerpt from Wikipedia about the novel:

Having previously foreshadowed some authoritarian measures to reorganize the government, Windrip (the new president) outlaws dissent, incarcerates political enemies in concentration camps, and trains and arms a paramilitary force called the "Minute Men" (named after the Revolutionary War militias of the same name), who terrorize citizens and enforce the policies of a corporatistregime. One of Windrip's first acts as president is to eliminate the influence of Congress, which draws the ire of many citizens as well as the legislators themselves. The Minute Men respond to protests harshly, attacking demonstrators with bayonets. In addition to these actions, Windrip's administration, known as the Corpo government, curtails women's and minority rights, and eliminates individual states by subdividing the country into administrative sectors. The government of these sectors is managed by Corpo authorities, usually prominent businessmen or Minute Men officers. Those accused of crimes against the government appear before kangaroo courts presided over by military judges. A majority of Americans approve of these dictatorial measures, seeing them as painful but necessary steps to restore American power.

For those who don't think it can happen here and don't want it to happen here the message to get through their fog of denial is very simple. Vote for Trump and not only can it happen here, it will happen here. It is a visual cliche by now but bears sharing again.


Previous blogs.


30 Barbies: Not good at parenting or at the maths. By Hal M. Brown

 In the past few days we’ve had Trump or his minions prove that they probably failed their math  (or as the Brits say “maths”)  in grade sch...