"How Dare You Diss The Sacred Bill of Rights" - Hate Mail

WHEN I WAS GROWING UP in the early post-WWII years I heard a number of times variations on the claim that "it can't happen here."  Which in my family was considered to be nonsense.  The faith that the United States couldn't ever become something like the Third Reich or Italy under the fascists or other kind of "right-wing dictatorship" because of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was something easy for a middle-class or affluent white American male to believe because those things worked for affluent white males of the kind who comprised virtually all of the on-air and in print media producers.  Young people now might find it hard to believe how few of those were even white women back then.

I never believed it, our WWII veteran parents didn't believe it, my grandparents who had experienced anti-Irish bigotry and witnessed other kinds of bigotry didn't believe it. I have never believed in American exceptionalism. I don't believe any human group or nation is exceptional.  Perhaps it's being Vatican II Catholic in Northern New England at the very end of Protestant hegemony here but I have never believed that any People anywhere were reliably virtuous or reliably safe from their weakness and selfishness and our inevitable ignorance that "it" couldn't happen among them. Sin is a universal certainty.  No one is safe from evil, anywhere, anytime.  The closest thing there is to that kind of safety is to be found in actual equality, not in some daffy notion of absolute "rights" and "complete freedom" without mandatory responsibility for the results of actions and consequences under those.

It wasn't until much later that I read the statement of a Black Civil War soldier who made the point that whatever the Constitution said about freedoms and rights, Black People had lived as slaves under it for generations and he was not deluded that it was something under which Black Peoples' rights were protected.  On the contrary, as was proved by the then recent experience of the Dred Scott ruling, as much Constitutional law as Brown v Board or any other act of the government, proved that the Constitution and Bill of Rights were more than merely implicated in the subjugation and enslavement of Black People, they had been quite comfortable with it for more than a generation, by that point.  The Constitutionally established Supreme Court used it to deny the person-hood of Black People EVERYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES. And after the national baptism in blood, the Civil War, The Constitution was, in the post-Reconstruction period, intrinsic to the resubjugation of Black People under Jim Crow and lynch law and the dainty Supreme Court contribution to both, "separate but equal".  Which rested on the Supreme Court told Constitutional lie that things were equal. "Equal Justice Under Law" should be the first part of the Supreme Court's hideous secular-pagan temple that is removed and put in an exhibition of official hypocrisy and legal corruption.  

That the Roberts Court is using the First Amendment to reimpose voter suppression, racial segregation and discrimination and other features of Jim Crow and expanding that to discrimination against LGBTQ+ People, reimposing the subjugation of Women at the same time UNDER THE CONSTITUTION proves that it is MORE USEFUL FOR THAT than it has proven in history to be useful for establishing equal justice, equal rights and equal freedom under equal responsibility. That we are seeing a national resurgence of police killings of Black People as the Civil Rights and Voting Rights Acts are demolished is not any great surprise considering what else is happening, especially in the entertainment media and, yes, even the "news division" of media corporations.   America has been led into fascism by Hollywood and TV shows, comedians who aren't funny and who replace racism and bigotry for humor, Trump being a product of that kind of entertainment as much as Reagan was.

Any Native American could have said the same thing, that the Constitution had been in effect as the American government had murdered their People and stolen their lands and tried to wipe them out.  I have pointed out the conclusive documentation that it was still an active governmental policy during the height of admitted eugenics in the 1930s in even states like Vermont to wipe out Native Americans. It is an absolute historical fact that the Nazis were learning some of what they soon would implement from American eugenicists. The Supreme Court had, less than ten years earlier found that such involuntary eugenics was not banned under the Constitution with the Bill of rights, EVEN WITH THE CIVIL WAR AMENDMENTS ON TOP OF THOSE.  Eugenics was, as established Supreme Court law by as lauded a Constitutional expert as Oliver Wendell Holmes jr, fully consonant with such a genocidal program.  As his secretary Francis Biddle discovered to his certain discomfort when he was a Judge at the Nuremberg trials, the Nazis lawyers could cite Holmes SUPREME COURT RULING to excuse the genocidal actions of their clients.  

Our national myth of freedom and justice for all has been a false front on the fact that our indigenous form of unequally applied fascism, white supremacy, has ruled us through a combination of voter suppression under a campaign slavery then of apartheid terrorism and murder and the Constitutionally set up inequality of the Senate and the Electoral College.  Jim Crow and the return of de facto slavery was first accomplished under the Electoral College by a corrupt deal between Rutherford Hayes and the slave power and appointments by that regime to the Supreme Court.  We are still living under that form of governance, today.  American Apartheid ruled for generations in the former slave states and elsewhere for decades without much of any opposition under the Constitution.  If the Civil War didn't wipe it out, the idea that the temporary fixes of the Civil Rights era would permanently end it without abolishing the mechanisms that empowered it from the star, is a delusion of college-credentialed People trained to not think about reality as opposed to the  mythology of the Constitution and, even more so, the Bill of Rights.  

I will point out that, in his more candid writing, John Marshall admitted that the adoption of the Constitution without the Bill of Rights was a close call for the document.  The main part of the Constitution which gives us the Electoral College, the anti-democratically constituted Senate, etc. was very far from universally acceptable to those at the time of its adoption.  One of the idiot Trumpers recently cited Patrick Henry to such stupid effect when he was among the more vocal skeptics of the thing.

I will also repeat that it is a fact that the most lauded of the Founders, Madison especially, was not enthusiastic for a Bill of Rights and it is not that surprising that as dedicated a group of slave owners and rich aristocrats as who governed the country and most of the states adopted a Bill of Rights that has proven to be so ineffective in guaranteeing equality.  Madison's part in its creation under the First Congress was his reluctant keeping of a bargain he had to make with the Virginia legislature for them to adopt the scheme to start with.  Do you think he and his fellow slavers really intended it to promote full equality and equal rights for all?  He became ever more cynical about democracy as even poor-whites of no property were enfranchised in the Jeffersonian revolution.  Though I don't suppose some Broadway song and dance guy is going to tell that in some pop music spectacle. 

Any progress towards equality from the time of the adoption of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was through struggle against the order set up under both of those.  As the Trumpian danger to even that Constitutional order proves, the right to lie as granted so stupidly under the absolute language of The First Amendment endangers even the peaceful transfer of power, the lauded fruit of the Constitution, itself.   It's clear from both the Bush II and Trump regimes that the Electoral College is a corruption of that lauded practice of American Democracy, as well.  It has worked to thwart the majority of voters more than twice in our history, always to terrible effect, perhaps the Jeffersonian example being the sole exception where it might, might have been better.

It may be easy for affluent white People to believe that the Constitution and the golden calf of the Bill of Rights protects us from "it happening here" but that is as big a lie as anything that comes out of Trump's mouth or thumbs twitting on any given day. It certainly has happened, constantly and consistently for Black People, Native Americans, other People of Color, LGBTQ+ People, Women (especially Women belonging to those and other subjugated groups) . . .  And that's not to mention even white men in the economic underclass.  

In just about every way it has happened here and it is happening here under the Constitution and the Bill of Rights right now.  For Black People living under American apartheid it was always like living under fascist terror and it is still like that.  Government actions especially police actions, the administration of "justice" by the judicial system has always valued Black lives, the lives of other targeted minorities and Women and the economic underclass as worth far less to nothing as compared to those of affluent white lives. That our government acts against us in a system of unequal or, really, any scale of economic valuation is proof of the failure of egalitarian democracy under the Constitution.  I think it's dangerous to allow rich people to hire better or more lawyers than the poorest person can get, even in civil cases. If I were to write a new constitution, I'd put that into it.  

The media certainly has contributed to it happening here, not only the alleged news and what they choose to put on but far more potently in the entertainment media which constantly streams that message to fill the minds of the large majority of Americans who get all of their ideas primarily from that.  Or from the minds of their parents and associates who have spent decades absorbing that message.  The media are free to do that BECAUSE THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS THEY ARE AS FREE TO DO THAT. That we may be free to promote egalitarian democracy in the outskirts of the media is of piddling significance because it is such a harder sell and will never have as much money backing it up.  Of course the discrimination and devaluing of lives has an economic motive driving it, everything the media does is about money, in the end.  EQUALITY IS FAR LESS PROFITABLE FOR THOSE WITH MONEY AND SO POWER, so it is in their economic self-interest to promote inequality and discrimination JUST AS IT WAS FOR THE SLAVE POWER AND THEIR NORTHERN ALLIES TO PROTECT AND PROMOTE THE ENSLAVEMENT OF BLACK PEOPLE.  The media especially the entertainment media, has always devalued Women and objectified them, commercial culture, "pop culture" has been the main propaganda force doing that.

The Republican Party since 1964 when the Goldwater faction took it over sought to harness white racism as a means of achieving power, a trend which has only accelerated and swamped those of a milder oligarchic tendencies to the point where Trump and his Trumpzis now control the Rotten Old Party.  So racism and other forms of bigotry spread through paranoid rantings on FOX Lies and its imitators serve a double purpose for those who really do control the media and, so, politics in the United States.  The First Amendment with it's irresponsible, values neutral, pseudo-scientific objective language is less than no help in correcting that.  How can it when even "civil rights attorneys" who get on MSNBC declare that Trump and his allies "have a right to lie?"  

I could point out the role of the Republican Party, Republican women such as the putrid Phillis Schlafly, in  thwarting the movement for gender equality, using anti-LGBTQ+ hatred as their major propaganda too.  The media and "pop culture" made things much, much easier than it should have been considering Women outnumber men.  I will remind you that the Constitution as it is in 2023 as it was in the beginning, does not establish that Women are equal, the actual majority of the American People does not have that explicitly pointed out in the actual governing document of the country. The attempt to put that in fell to the First Amendment permitted regime of lying that has governed us as much as anything.  In America, one of the surest means of thwarting egalitarian democracy is through lying in the mass media.  One of the less effective means of obtaining equal justice is through telling the truth in opposition to those lies.  

So the complaint that I have told it plain, that it happens here (especially to targeted minority groups) and is getting worse BECAUSE OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE BILL OF RIGHTS, as made worse under the Supreme Court and its extra-Constitutional usurpation of the power to nullify duly adopted federal laws giving "constitutional" excuses for it, is an expression of an entirely a-historical, white-supremacist parochial mythology which even a fairly cursory reading of American history refutes.  

Our relevant professionals are not required to tell the truth and serve justice and egalitarian democracy.  I'm talking about lawyers and the judges and other professions which are comprised entirely or mostly of lawyers. It is what lawyering turns into under any system which allows it, the highest end lawyers are largely in the business of gaming the law and The Constitution for the benefit of those who can pay the most and want inequality and the profits and psychopathic gratification they receive from feeling superior.  Trump's use of lawyers and their diligent devotion to aiding and abetting their criminality is an example.  The Constitution and its established order has let him get away with flagrant criminality almost every time.  The one time it didn't was when he and his Nazi father were prosecuted for discrimination under civil rights laws which the Roberts type Court will demolish.  They are under their use of the First Amendment for LGBTQ+ people, already.  In a way lawyering is set up to favor those who serve the gangsters, those who break "the law" and those who have enough power to make the wrong they want to do unillegal, to use O Henry's brilliant neologism which describes that perfectly.

Trump as a political disaster happened UNDER THE CONSTITUTION BY THE RULES SET BY IT.  Bush II happened under the Constitution as rigged by the five Republican-fascists of the Rehnquist court with the collusion of Bush family members in Florida and at FOX Lies.  The vilely sanctimonious Republican lawyer James Comey, as head of the FBI and the New York Time under its Supreme Court granted "right to lie" made it certain that he would prevail in the last weeks of the the 2016 election, the New York Times printed its Sullivan Decision protected lies that Hillary Clinton was about to be indicted.  And Trump gained office with fewer votes under the Electoral College.   The same Electoral College he and his goon gang of lawyers and Republican-fascists in state governments tried to rig in 2020.   If they had not done that it is very likely Trump would never have been president and the Supreme Court would not be dominated by Republican-fascists right now.

The fact that we are in real danger of Republican-fascists winning in 2024, AFTER the hard experience of the Brooks Bros. putsch of 2000 and the Trumpzi insurrection of 2021, the basic Constitutional corruption AND THE SUPREME COURT USURPATION OF POWERS not having ever been fixed no matter how bad it has gotten up until now is a guarantee that sooner or later MUCH MORE OF IT THAN ROUTINELY HAS HAPPENED HERE WILL HAPPEN IN EVEN WORSE FORMS.  Never forget that the same Bill of Rights which got a right to lie for FOX and the NYT puts automatic weapons in the hands of the mass killing fascists and Neo-Nazis.

You can count on it happening here, the only difference now is that it is going to happen to a lot more White People than before, though a lot of those are obviously too TV and movie and internet addled to even understand who is doing it to them.  They think it's Black People, Latinos and drag queens who are their oppressors, that's how easy it is for the media to sell lies. That is another thing that has gotten worse. The mass media allowed to lie, to tell any lie, to deny even the worst lessons from the past, THE SHOAH FOR  THE LOVE OF MIKE!, is as free to tell those lies as the lies that the Nazis told and the fascists in Italy and the Imperial military establishment told in Japan and the Stalinists in the Soviet empire and the Communist Party in China or the Kim regime in North Korea are free to tell the lies that they depend on.  Lying always will be the foremost danger to equality and democracy.  Any First Amendment which does not explicitly say there is no right to lie is a guarantee of "its  happening" under it.  A first amendment that does not constantly have provide the incentive to get the truth right while permitting ever more lying is morally degenerate.  Egalitarian democracy, legitimate and decent government is a product of morality, in the end.  It cannot exist in moral relativism which permits lies and false witness to flourish. Democracy is equal or it cannot be legitimate government.  

Egalitarian democracy depends, absolutely, on the voters knowing and valuing the truth or it is vulnerable to lies and those who lie.  If even an effective minority of voters believe lies, democracy is damaged and endangered.  Allowing the mass media to carry lies is one of the greatest dangers to democracy there is, allowing those lies to weaponize prejudice and bigotry is the proven tool of then enemies of egalitarian democracy and even any would-be democracy short of equality under the law.  Ours is such a stupidly self-endangered democracy, I wonder if the reason that the slave-owners and land-stealers and financiers who adopted the Bill of Rights didn't fear the truth because they feared it would set Black People and Native Americans and Poor-whites free, to the cost of their own unequal wealth.  It doesn't much matter if it was intentional because that has been the effect of it. They certainly set poor-whites against their natural allies in seeking equality through lies and targeted meager privileges.  

The earliest and worst sins of America may have been racism and the murder which always comes of racism.  But along with that is the sin of lying, both of which are enshrined explicitly and implicitly in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.  Not least of all they are embedded into the fabric of the country but in the scheme of government set up under it.  Even if lies can be overcome for a majority of the voters, the Electoral College and the usurping Supreme Court can overcome that to empower an effective minority of those who buy the lie and enslave us all.  The Roberts Court is making that worse than it was after the Voting Rights Act was passed, nothing will ever be fixed until an even more powerful Voting Rights Act is adopted and protected from future John Roberts and his gangster "justice" cronies.  But that won't even be enough until the "right to lie" is removed from the mass media and the idiotic idea removed from the collective lore of the lie-protecting lawyers.  

It's Later Than We Are Led To Think - Time To Learn To Shoot

From today's Countdown with Keith Olbermann

Dateline Lake Arrowhead, California.

If you think I overwork that phrase "stochastic terrorism" think again.  

Think of the "libs of tic-toc" psychos and everybody who has encourage hatred and distrust of the LGBTQ community like Ron DeSantis.

Friday night an as yet unidentified assailant went to fashion designer Laurie Carlton's Clothing Store in Southern California, ripped down the Pride Flag she had hanging outside and when she confronted him about it he shot her to death.  She was the mother of nine.  The murderer fled was confronted by police and killed.

This is a hate crime, it is hate encouraged by and often directed stochastically by the Republican Party. The sooner we start recognizing this the sooner we can do things to remove the threat that party and its cult represent, represent just to letting everybody not get killed.

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

Amen.

This is something that should be hung around the neck of every single Republican.  I'd say from Susan Collins to Roger Stone but I don't really believe there is any difference between Susan Collins and Roger Stone, not now that she's probably never going to have to depend on duping the eminently dupable voters of Maine.  The skank voted against impeaching Trump EVEN AFTER JANUARY 6TH,  even though that would have permanently removed him from ever, again, holding public office.  That is absolute proof that she is all-in with whatever the Republican-fascists do, a broken weather vane that always points whichever point to the right that she figures is as far right as she can go and still dupe Maine voters .    Those of use who were never duped by her should never let anyone who was forget it.  Every in-the-closet gay Republican-fascist, Lady G aka Lindsey Graham, every one of those whose names we don't all know should now and forever be outted and we should insist that the media not shield them as it has Lindsey Graham like forever.  No LGBTQ+ person who votes Republican should ever not be called on it in public.

The use of Black People, Latinos, other members of minority groups and Women as targets for violent hatred, scapegoating and objects of fear  by Republican-fascists before and during the Trump cult has always been stochastic terrorism just as it always has been, only it hasn't been this overt since the mid to late 1960s.  There was a reason white supremacists left the traditional Southern Democratic party for the Republican-fascist party and it was because the majority of the Democratic Party and its national and many of its state and local candidates rejected that kind of thing.  That is the reason that the Democratic Party is a truly diverse party while the Republican fascists are not.  

The use of violence by and on behalf of Republicans is only going to get worse, it is already much worse than idiots in the media used to make believe it would never be.  I always remember one of the smarmy NPR hosts on All Things Considered mouthed the cliche "The first person to say "fasist" loses."  Such idiotic rules still rule such venues of the media, I doubt those who believe the New York Times, as I think of them, "NYT wits" will see much of it, probably not even as the fascists take control of the nuclear weapons.   They are all in on it as certainly as Susan Collins always was in the absolute zero of her heart of cold hearts.   I despise Susan Collins

I think it's time for us to consider preparing for the violence they will unleash.  I'm considering doing things I never thought I would, like learning to shoot a gun.  I remember reading Ida Wells Barnett talking about how in the face of lynch law she decided to 

 "I had bought a pistol, the first thing after Tom Moss was lynched, because I expected some cowardly retaliation from the lynchers. I felt that one had better die fighting against injustice than to die like a dog or rat in a trap. I had already determined to sell my life as dearly as possible if attacked."

and I am well past beginning to think that LGBTQ+ People should consider that as a realistic responsibility, now.  Only they should practice regularly, probably together.  If the cowards thought we might shoot back better than them, they'd cower or go after those they figured wouldn't fight back.  

Margaret Susan Thompson Preaches for the Twentieth Sunday in Ordinary Time

 

Have you ever been called a “dog”? That is what happens to the Canaanite woman in today’s gospel and, admittedly, the first time I read the passage, it came as a pretty big shock. This is not the sort of language we normally associate with Jesus. In modern terms, it comes dangerously close to calling her the “b-word” (which is, after all, the technical term for a female dog). And yet, by the end of the encounter they had, he is calling her a “woman of great faith” and granting her wish that he heal her daughter. Stated simply, the unnamed Canaanite woman—a foreigner, an alien—becomes one of only two women in scripture who manage to change Jesus’s mind. [The other, of course, is Mary during the wedding feast at Cana, but what nice Jewish boy is able to say no to his own mother?]

This anonymous seeker has a lot to teach us—ALL of us. How many of us find ourselves pleading with civil and ecclesial authorities, who tell us—as Jesus’s companions say here—to “shut up and go away,” because she (we!) keep shouting after them. [Actually, at that point, she’s spoken only once.] But as we might say about her today, “nevertheless, she persisted.” She truly is being “dogged,” isn’t she? So maybe Jesus’s epithet is not that problematic after all. And maybe we need to persist, as well.  

Also, let’s not forget that the Canaanite woman is petitioning not for herself, but for her daughter. If today’s prelates are, according to Catholic teaching, the descendants of those disciples accompanying Jesus, are we not the daughters of the one for whom she is asking to be made rid of a demon? Does this mean that, if she’s told that “her wish will come to pass,” then we, too, are going to be rid of the demons that plague us?

The Gospel of Matthew is largely directed to the Jewish people, and historians tell us that the Canaanites were their traditional enemies. [When Joshua fought the battle of Jericho, it was against the Canaanites, after all.] This is probably part of the reason that Jesus initially rejects the woman who calls out to him—though why he is in Tyre and Sidon, a region where there were no Jews, is never made clear. So when he eventually does respond to her plea, calls her faithful and promises to heal her daughter, he is opening up the promise of the Good News beyond the nation of Israel. And that, in turn is a fulfillment of the prophecy in today’s first reading, from Isaiah: “The foreigners who join themselves to the Lord… will be acceptable on my altar, for my house shall be called a house of prayer for ALL peoples.” As the response to today’s psalm proclaims: “Let ALL the nations praise you!” Paul, too, in his letter to the Romans, speaks to the gentiles and declares: that “God might have mercy upon ALL.”

ALL peoples. While this can be understood as referring to ethnic groups—to “gentiles”—there is nothing to suggest that it can’t be understood in other ways, too. God’s house is open to women, to the LGBTQ+ community, to the poor, to the stranger, to those of different abilities, and to so many more. Even to tax collectors, which Matthew was (and so he, too, like the Canaanite woman, was something of an outsider). Perhaps Pope Francis’s decision to invite women and other laypeople to participate in the upcoming Synod on Synodality is a step in the “all people” direction?

The words that the woman uses in addressing Jesus, “have pity on me,” can also translated as “have MERCY on me.” These are words we use in every Mass: kyrie eleison. At that moment, we are petitioning God in the same way that the Canaanite woman called out to Jesus. So, although we do not know her name, we commemorate her each time we gather. Her plea is our plea. She is our foremother and we express her petition in the same way she makes it: in hope and even expectation that God will respond. We do this, even when we are told by the successors to those who told her to “shut up and go away” that we ought to do the same.

Maybe it’s not surprising that this gospel reading is buried in the “dog” days of summer, because it truly is revolutionary. It resonates especially with me because I’m a woman, but it has much to say to all of us who feel like we don’t fit into a box, and who sometimes feel tormented by a demon, like the daughter in need of healing. In other words, it speaks to us all. And so it calls us all to be dogged, persistent—and, like the Canaanite woman, “of great faith.”

This is one of the stories in the Gospels that makes me think that preachers and priests don't read it right.   I think Jesus was teasing the woman, saying that she and he both knew she wasn't supposed to be talking to him and he wasn't supposed to be listening to her.  I think he was teasing his audience who certainly would have been inclined to think of her in those terms, both because she was a woman and outside of the in-crowd of Jesus and his disciples.   I can't for a second believe he didn't intend to help her.   I think he was making a point that would have scandalized many of his own followers and given his critics some material to use against him.   I think reading him any other way makes him seem like a bit of a prick.   Since she mentions Mary at the wedding feast telling him they'd run out of wine, I think Jesus's answer to his mother was probably some mother-son teasing of the same kind.   What am I supposed to do about it?   Probably said with a comic eye-roll and whatever expression of comic exasperation would have been appropriate for the occasion.  A pious priest or preacher-man who cultivated a pose of piety is probably the least likely to get it though I'd imagine any number of mothers who had a son with a sense of humor and a good relationship with her would have gotten it.

Saturday Night Radio Drama - Dermot Bolger - Morning Coffee

 Morning Coffee

 

Morning Coffee by Dermot Bolger directed by Eithne Hand

A stranger from the past drives into the yard of on an elderly couple. Is this seemingly benign intrusion the action of a man seeking to make atonement and bring justice, or wreak havoc on the lives of the couple?"

Morning Coffee is a play that is either about a man refusing to accept any status of victimhood or else about a man so traumatised by childhood events that he cannot admit them into his present life, even if they have shaped his life. It is about a perpetrator who has slowly come to understand the implications of his actions and now feels a need to be shamed and published in old age. It is about an elderly couple who, after decades of loneliness, have found each other and built a small republic of love where they are determined that whatever secrets they share will go with them to the grave.

Starring Donncha Crowley, Tatiana Ouliankina, Helen Roche and Eamon Morrissey

The Authentic Church Cannot Be An Adjunct To Gangsterism - Last Questions And Answers In This Series

THE NEXT QUESTION, as well, was obscured but, based on the answer I think it was about what was going to happen to  the Church in the predatory economy.

Well, the Church is being kicked out of Egypt so we're going to find out.   It means to abandon our notions of establishment and entitlement and privilege.  I don't want to be dramatic but as von Aber(?) said, "to become poor men and women after the poor Jesus."  And we are, us institutional types are ill-equipped to do that.  But that's what's going to happen.   And institutional types regard that as a great misfortune.  It might be the best thing that could happen to the Church.  Which means we got to sell all these big buildings to someone else and so on and so on.   
 
At Andersen where I worship, about two years ago it's like all at once everybody decided to quit going to church.  It's happening.  And I think for the institutional Church that's the chickens coming home to roost for the way we've ordered our life.  And it doesn't feel very good.

It didn't feel very good when they left Egypt.  They're two verses into the wilderness and they want to go back.  And they say to Moses, "you brought us out here to die."  

So the power of Pharaoh keeps pulling us . . . It's like [characters in] these movies who try to leave the Mafia and you can't get out.   You can't get out of Egypt but you have to go.  

Then the man who I assume is Peter said: You know it's happening.  I don't know if you know Rich at Emmanuel Presbyterian.   So he's decided to talk to the Church and [they decided] to take some of the money out of their endowment - most people think the purpose of the endowment is [to watch the endowment and keep it large] -  and invested it in a neighborhood cooperative food market.  That is a huge step out of [Egypt?].  

I've filled in with what I think I may have discerned on the recording but am not fully confident I got the words right.  What is in square brackets is my assumption of the meaning of what I couldn't hear.  

Which suggests a good example of how to start leaving the predatory economy in which an endowment is more important than the least among us.  As they said, it's happening, taking a chance on giving food in a modern urban food desert.  Jesus told People to sell everything they have and give the money to the poor and follow him.   I know of one church building around here which was abandoned - along with its congregation - by the Catholic dioceses of Maine.   The building was sold and bought by an activist, semi-moderate, for Baptists congregation which turned it into pretty much a social service entity as well as a place with Sunday services.  That hadn't been absent in the previous Church but it was clearly ineffectively weak on that.  Such things had more theoretically been encouraged but the US Catholic Conference of Bishops has been far more caught up in squabbles about issues like LGBTQ+ clergy and same-sex marriage, not to mention the priest-pedophile scandal.  The Baptists there now seem to ignore issues like marriage equality,  I have the feeling they won't be a "welcoming church" in that regard - which, as a member of the LGBTQ+ community I certainly don't agree with of find just - but they feed People and provide them with some other services.  The same is true for the UCC Church in the next town over, though even with that their congregation is certainly petering out through the indifference of younger people.  Which I find pretty hard to take but I haven't joined them, either.  Most of those Catholics I know who were members of the parish obliterated by one of JPII's bishops have stopped going to church.  If mainline Protestantism is in danger from the indifference of its members Catholics are even more so from the clerics who hold all of the power.  

I think Christianity is going to be sorely missed if the more pessimistic view turns out to be true.  Certainly missed by those who need to be served by it, though they don't seem to join enough to keep it going.  I think the problem is that the popular culture and, to a far less powerful extent in terms of actual influence, academic orthodoxy is all in with the gangster (Pharaonic) regime.  I can't resist pointing out that given my usual identity of most governments with gangster rule, I take it as confirmation of my theory that someone as wise and insightful as Walter Brueggemann compared those to the Mafia.

This all reminds me of Karl Rahner's prediction that Christianity of the future would be a "winter" Christianity without the elaborate, florid growth of institutions and culture of the past.* If those old elaborations were replaced by what Brueggemann and others are talking about as the Gospel, Law and Prophetic action I think it would probably be the best thing that could happen to it, though I'd certainly miss the great organs and choirs which are a part of that old institutional church.  I don't think those were at all entirely superfluous to attracting People to church where they could be encouraged to stand up against Pharaoh.  We are, after all, up against a system which gains its influence by attracting the greatest number of eyes and ears.  

I am confident that the "spiritual but not religious" substitute is not going to be any kind of replacement, neither will American style Buddhism or "mindfulness," though that seems to be fading in fashion.   What is needed is the opposite of what I imagined when I first read about Rahner's prediction which, I realized in writing this, was like the secret Christianity under communist governance or like the secret Jews from the time of the expulsion and forced conversion in Spain which reportedly survives even in Latin America.  Such a private, quietistic Christianity under indifference instead of oppression would be the worst thing that could happen because then there would then be no reason for Christianity to survive.  


Another inaudible question followed but it was about The Lord's Prayer, whether the line should be "forgive us our debts (as we forgive our debtors),"  as opposed to "forgive us our trespasses."  which is certainly a directly relevant question considering the topic of the lecture is a predatory economy.  Walter Brueggemann's answer was:

Presbyterians - I'm a Calvinist.  [The question was] in The Lord's Prayer do we say "Forgive us our trespasses," or "Forgive us our debts."  

I'm a Calvinist, Presbyterians would rather have their debts forgiven than their sins.  [laughter] Isn't that right? [laughter] But, you see, you can also do "trespasses" and you could think about how the predatory economy trespasses on the life of vulnerable People.  So you can do it either way.  The new translation is "Forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us,"  the problem with that is "sin"  is a terribly misunderstood word in the Church.  And that's probably not very helpful either.  

I follow the French Catholic translation and say "Forgive us our wrongs" though I alternate with all of the above, too.  As an Irish Catholic I might not be able to define sin but I believe I know it when I do it and am far more confident about my ability to know it when someone does it to me.

The last question seems to have asked if there was a just economy anywhere in the world.  

Well, I think that you'd have to think in terms of,  not in terms of absolutes but in terms of relative arrangements and some neighborhoods are currently more that way than other neighborhoods.  I guess that if one were to talk about national economies one would probably talk about the Scandinavian economies but I don't know much about that.

I think there are gestures in neighborhoods that make those efforts.  But not absolutely so.  Well, if it's in terms of nations I would think those Scandinavian countries come close to it but the problem is all of those models for us is no other nation in the West has a history of slavery.  And the history of slavery has wounded all of our possibilities in that regard. Which makes it so much more difficult and so much more complex here.  That's what I think.  

While it isn't true that other countries in the West don't have some history of slavery in virtually no other country with a written Constitution which still governs its ruling structures and institutions was slavery so deeply embedded into what remains as the current Constitution.

The features of it supporting slavery still fully active to accomplish those goals, even with the alleged emancipation of slaves pasted onto that slave-market edifice.  The cultural remains and habits of such a deeply evil thing in a country remains for many generations but when the legal support for that evil is not expunged it probably takes many more generations than it would have and I think it never is defeated until those constitutional and legal and judicial supports for slavery are abolished in fact as well as in mere legal notions.  

I think it is one of the worst things about the Constitution that we still have, for all intents and purposes, including the unjust stealing of labor and the results of labor and wealth by the wealthy, the same Constitution, especially as most of the Supreme Courts have twisted it to mean, has given us most of our worst problems and we are still required to worship it and its writers.  America is founded in that kind of idolatry.  And it is entirely a secular idolatry.  The modern "white evangelical" deification of the founders, the Constitution, the various myths of the South, West, Mid-West, etc is decisive proof that it is as saturated with a particular modern, Hollywood fed paganism as admittedly secular gangsterism is.  And so is the secular academy and, far more so, media.  

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

I think that this short lecture and question session is one of the most important ones I've heard in a while.  I could mention that something of an extended version of it was given in Walter Brueggemann's Willard Lecture which can also be heard, though I'm not up to transcribing an hour and a half, these days.  

He is almost certainly right that once it leaves our modern, Western, secular Egypt, better days for the Christian Church may be ahead for us but it won't come in the same old wine-skins.  I am beginning to think the same about the Roman Catholic Womenpriests movement and Intentional Eucharistic Community movement as opposed to the official Catholic Church, though Francis seems to me to be making the path for progress straight for whoever comes later.  I certainly don't think better days for Christianity can come in trying to claw back a time which has about run its course.  The same is true for American democracy though it's probably a lot less likely to survive, it certainly won't without those kind of changes I talked about above.

I'm also so grateful for Walter Brueggemann, his work, his continuing witness and testimony and the generous abundance of his writing and speaking available to us.  I can honestly say he's had such an important impact on my life this past number of years and I hope he has on others.  I have no doubt that his work will help guide Christians for generations to come.  


* Elizabeth A. Johnson described the situation of Christianity in "winter" as consisely as anyone I've read, including Rahner.

A winter season: such is Rahner's metaphor for the situation of faith in the modern world.  Keeping his eye on middle-class educated European persons who are trying live a Christian life, he sees that this is a world  that no longer easily communicates the faith.  First off, a person can no longer be a Christian out of social convention or inherited custom.  To be a Christian now requires a personal decision that brings about a change of heart and sustains long-term commitment.  Not cultural Christianity but a diaspora church, scattered among unbelievers and believers of various stripes becomes the setting for this free act of faith.  Furthermore when a person does come to engage belief in a personal way, society makes this difficult to do.  For modern society is marked not only by atheism and agnosticism but also by pessimism, which restricts what we can know to data accessible from the natural sciences,; secularism, which gets on with the business at hand, impatient of ultimate questions, with a wealth of humanistic values that allow a life of ethical integrity without faith;  and religious pluralism, which demonstrates that there is more than one path to holy and ethical living.  All of these call into question the very validity of Christian belief.  

I think that Johnson's optimistic view of secular "humanism" and ethics is as unrealistically optimistic as the traditional view of what comes out of easy, socially conventional or inherited Christianity.  I think the most frequent outcome of such secular ethics is at least as vulnerable to fading, within an individual, personal life but certainly in a family history is that it fades rather faster than much of genuine Christianity.  Even when it does continue to go through the motions.  So I don't buy that it is something that a community and ever more so a country can depend on to maintain what is needed to keep out of the clutches of Pharaonic gangsterism translated to modern life.  Marxism faded to gangsterism much faster than The Law did for the Children of Israel, they managed to avoid rule by a king for a long time, and even then it was no paradise on Earth.  The fading of modern Israeli democracy for Likud coalition fascism is another example of that.  

But that is what Christianity is up against and, I am ever more convinced the perils of the attempt to live authentic Christianity in community and the peril that American democracy faces are precisely intertwined.   Egalitarian democracy EVERYWHERE is dependent on the moral content of Golden Rule equality and the practice of that, in turn, depends on a belief that God has constructed human life in that way.  I agree with Brueggemann that in the context of the United States, it is dependent on the rejection of our indigenous form of fascism (gangsterism), white supremacy.  I recall that when he visited the United States the Lutheran martyr, Dietrich Bonhoeffer found authentic Christianity in the Black Church and not in the white Churches and seminary.  As he noted "only a suffering God can help."   You don't find a suffering God in easy, cultural Christianity or in any kind of secularism or humanism.  Ironically, the hope that comes along with the crucified Jesus is an antidote to the pessimism of secular modern paganism with its material gods because on the third day he rose from the dead into new life.  See Also:  James Cone, The Cross And The Lynching Tree.  

I'll end this with this from the Staple Singers:

Very Difficult To Do But There Is No Substitute For That

UNFORTUNATELY the next question that Walter Brueggemann took is inaudible.  From his answer I assume it was a practical question, as the most important questions we can deal with are, about how we can more effectively build the alternative to the predatory system, now.

HIS answer after joking that that was a question for Peter, that all he did was read "ancient texts"  was:

Obviously, it has to do with creating neighborliness.  It has to do with helping People position themselves in NETWORKS OF SUPPORT AND OBLIGATION.  And to abandon People without that kind of human network is to abandon them to death.  So, it is a matter of networking in very local ways, I think THAT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO DO,  BUT NO SUBSTITUTE FOR THAT.

And I think the case I cited about Nehemiah when he forced the have and have-not Jews into covenant with each other, he was creating a network of mutual responsibility and support.

And I think you can see that in Paul's letters as well.  You know, Paul in Galatians, almost back to back, he says "Everyone must bear their own burdens," and then, right quickly, he says, "BEAR ONE ANOTHER'S BURDENS."  You gotta do both.

That was my capitalization for emphasis.

I don't know about you but I've relatively frequently heard the first part of Paul's formula referred to by those who oppose benefits for poor People and those in destitution, pretending they're all about individuals being responsible for themselves.  Or from "new atheists"  who want to attribute lack of charity to Christians.   I've never heard anyone else cite the second part of it in which everyone is responsible for the burdens of their neighbors.  Perhaps liberals here pay a price for their Biblical illiteracy.  I don't know if in other places not so under the influence of what New England Puritanism decayed into, the stingy, self-righteous conceit of selfish individualism if the mutual sharing of burdens is mentioned but I never heard anyone mention that part of what Paul said.  I think that decay of Puritanism extends well into the middle-part of the country, by the way.  It would seem to be wide-spread among "white evangelicals" in Iowa.

And it's part of not only the selfish individualism of the Trumpian fascist right that is in opposition to networking of mutual obligation to those who have burdens heavier than our own, I found that well within the would-be hippy fad of my early adulthood.  I never could much buy into that because I'd seen a genuine alternative in The Reverend Martin Luther King jr's Beloved Community already.  And other never to be fashionable alternatives.  

The American myth of individualism, "rugged individualism" does decay into what Walter Brueggemann said, as posted yesterday:

So Donald Trump, for example,  has this long list of neighbors who he perceives as threats.  And it turns out that's a winning way to label People and then you don't have to be neighborly.

That's not only encouraged by personal selfishness but the paranoia instilled by TV and movies and pulp fiction.  Cabloid news specializes in that kind of acid thrown at any tendency towards neighborliness.  

Neighborliness, especially to People who have little to offer someone who has way too much already, is presented as a burden.  And there is a burden to it.  The exclusive neighborliness of the affluent based in a chance of taking or finding advantage instead of burden sharing is an entirely different thing.  It's easy for the affluent or those who aspire to be affluent to be nice to other rich people or those who can enhance their status, it's unthinkable for a Trump to do anything to the poor or destitute or even the middle-class but game them and exploit them for gain.  The American affluent ethos is the ethos of the con man.  

The entire success of American Republicans since Eisenhower and even before was the management of the worse and worst tendencies among the middle-class and working class, setting them against their neighbors, their fellow workers in competition, managing them and their often media created fears and anxieties and pressures to conform and then setting them against THOSE BELOW THEM IN WEALTH.  The insularity of white communities under a color line which could enjoy a pittance of privilege was enough to set them against Black People, other People, even other whites within that category, to their mutual harm and for the managed benefit of those with real wealth.  Our institutions are largely part of that, including the elite educational institutions and even the allegedly Christian churches.  That may be most true for those states which longest maintained legal segregation, which is reflected in their generally abysmal standard of living for even poor-whites and their depressed incomes, healthcare and education. But I doubt there is a single state in the United States where it is not true to one extent or another.  In New England it is often far less formal but it is there, often tied to where someone went to school or the wealth of their family.  

It even extends well into the would-be left in which snobbery and class is certainly a determinant of things.  Marxists who see the underclass as "masses" to be managed, not individual People to be supported and to support a local network of mutual love and kindness hold as ruthless a view of life as the financier and investor class who they allegedly oppose, which is why Marxism with real power instead of theoretical imagining turns out to be grindingly oppressive.  

The United States with its legacy of genocide and land stealing and slavery and, yes, subjugation of Women is an especially hard sell for what Brueggemann is pointing to in the Jewish tradition of Jesus and Moses.  Which is one of the reasons you can find Republican-fascists these days rejecting the Jesus of scripture for a comic book white-supremacist fascist superhero of their illiterate imagination.

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

As I will never stop pointing out, lies and false witness and slander are an absolute guarantee that that kind of neighborliness can't happen.  The Constitutional permission to lie is one of the most serious obstacles to it because of our own indigenous founding myth.  I was thinking of hearing one of the liberal-lawyers of MSNBC, this one directly from the civil rights community, reciting the insanity that Donald Trump had "a right to lie" which always infuriates me.  I don't think the elite-university trained lawyer  even really thought about what he was saying as he said it.   He certainly didn't take the consequences of such an insane notion into consideration.  So much of the bedrock of predatory systems is a matter of such conventional thinking.  Even such obviously irrational thinking.   

I will try to conclude this series tomorrow with a rather chilling prediction about the future of the Church which could be the best thing that could happen to it.  

to sustain the way we're living, the way some of us are living

THE LAST SENTENCE in Walter Brueggemann's short lecture on Pharaoh's economy as it is today is:

It could well be we are the fourth repreformance of a neighborly economy in the face of predation.  

His first answer to a question lays out the evidence for that being the truth.  I'll remind you some of the questions are not audible on the recording, part of the first one wasn't on my computer.


Questioner:  How are we as individuals participating in that [the predatory economy]?  

Brueggemann:  I think that the consumer economy is our participation in an unsustainable standard of living.  And the reason that we have to have such an incredibly strong military is to protect an unsustainable standard of living.  If we didn't have to be managing and manipulating the world economy through globalism, which we have to do to sustain the way we're living, the way some of us are living, we wouldn't need to spend ourselves into oblivion for the military.  

Does that make sense?  That's what I think.

And I think our moral capacity to live that way is grounded in the theological notion of American exceptionalism.  "We are, in fact, God's chosen People so we are entitled to live this way at the expense of many other People."  

That's what I think.  And that's what makes it so hard.  Who wants not to do that "when it's so terrific?"  That's what I think.  We wouldn't have had that scary article about inequality if we were not propelled by greed that is grounded in our fear of running out and being scarce.  So it's an endless proposition in which most of us continue to go through the motions.  And the longer that we participate in this unsustainable scheme the less we stay in touch with the humanity of our neighbors.  Because all of our neighbors turn into rivals and competitors and threats.  So Donald Trump, for example,   has this long list of neighbors who he perceives as threats.  And it turns out that's a winning way to label People and then you don't have to be neighborly. 

 
One of the things which has been remarked on about those who have been arrested and convicted of Trump's attempted putsch on January 6th, 2023 is that most of them were affluent.  They are either solidly middle class or noticeably above middle class.  Certainly almost all of the leaders of the effort, from Trump down to his indictable lawyers and those scheming in the Willard Hotel were quite rich.   Most of them had the leisure time and wealth to travel to DC and stay in hotels there - working class and poor people don't generally have the means to do that, no matter how The Apprentice and FOX Lies addled they may have been.  Just as those who participated in the successful 2000 "Brooks Bros." putsch  begun by Jeb Bush and Bush cousin John Ellis on FOX Lies to put their brother and cousin in the presidency - with the collusion of a bare 5 to 4 vote of the usurping Supreme Court - were stinkin' rich.   No one should for a second believe that the attempted putsch of 2020 is unrelated to the successful one in 2000. 

The corruption of the United States is the corruption of the super-rich and the rich and those who aspire to be rich in the 1780s rigging the system to prevent rule by the large majority who are not rich and have nothing but a deluded notion that they are going to be rich.  The Electoral College that both the Bush family and billionaires foreign as well as domestic used to put Bush II Trump in power was one of the longest lasting successes of those super-rich framers of the Constitution and it worked just as they, no doubt, hoped it would to thwart the will of a majority of voters who are not rich and who may sense the system is rigged against them.  And it's corruption is so endemic to the United States that we will be hard pressed to get rid of the thing, so many of the smallest population states being so thoroughly in the hands of white supremacists and others propagandized by phony civics, a bit from school but most of that absorbed through the lying media, the entertainment division the most potently corrupting of that.  

That we are seriously in a position to have to worry about a Trump or a DeSantis or any other Republican-fascist regaining the white house and controlling the judiciary and the Congress and the military and police AFTER THE DISASTER THAT TRUMP HAS BEEN is all the evidence any rational person would need to show just how bad off we are.

The extent to which that is a product of the media corruption of the minds of the American People cannot be overestimated because with the rise of electronic mass media that is the most influential force in the United States.  More than education, more than old-fashioned off-line Churches, more than the residuum of common decency that the popular culture has done its best to swamp.  The consumer culture that Walter Brueggemann correctly points to in his answer is the major force in corrupting even those who still have some of that fading remnant of something like The Law, The Prophets and The Gospel in their unconscious memory.  It is seductive in attracting us to want things, things we need, things we think we need, things that anyone with any maturity and sense would know they not only don't need but have no use for, advertising as well as what's allegedly not advertising in the entertainment programming is all a part of that.  It is, for worse and even worse than that, what has constructed the American culture which now is in the process of losing egalitarian notions and even majority-wins electoral democracy because an effective minority of the voters in enough states can swamp the majority no matter how much the majority wins the general vote by.  

Pretending that the slave-holding, land-stealing, shady-financiers who drafted the Constitution and adopted the Bill of Rights were importantly ready to live by majority rule and that American history is a history of those who wanted equal rights of struggle against the Constitution and the Supreme Court which has, in fact, been the most persistent force for thwarting equality and effective democracy is our national myth just as the tales of Solomon  as presented in a children's "Bible" or some Hollywood "Bible" epic might construct the uninformed imagination of another of the reenactments of the Pharaonic system as presented in the story of Joseph in Egypt and in Exodus.  I think it is not at all irrelevant that among the models of the American government most intentionally studied by those who wrote the Constitution was the Roman republic which was plenty unjust and immoral and violently oppressive even before it naturally devolved into the hellishness of the Roman empire.   I will point out what God told Samuel to tell the Children of Israel when they asked him to anoint a king for them just like all the big countries surrounding them had.  It got them a Saul.  

And we are so TV, internet and movie addled that those of us who want one will settle for the As Seen on TV glory of Donald Trump, with his morbid obesity, his drug use, his diapered incontinence and his absurd clown makeup and hair extensions.   

That is the cost of white privileged faux affluence for an effective minority of the voters under the influence of the freest media in the history of the world.  That is the cost of our consumer economy.  That is the old story that goes back to before the Exodus.  

One of the hardest of the several hard truths about how to get out of this we have to face is the extent to which those of merely comparative privilege due to their whiteness and temporary good fortune AND THOSE WHO ARE DECLARED TO BE OPPOSED TO ALL OF THIS are seduced and habituated into the basis of the corrupt system and how some of its worst features have been sold to us as "civic virtue,"  that replacing the actual morality of the Scriptures.  No doubt something like that along with the distracting purity policing,  also found in the scriptures,  permitted even many in the underclass to get seduced into the Solomonic regime, the colonial system under Persia and in Palestine during the Roman occupation.  It should never be forgotten the extent of French collaboration and merely passive acceptance of Nazi occupation in France and those occupied by some of the worst regimes in modern history.   Among the things we will have to do is to tell the truth about American history, including the Constitution and the sanctified idol of the Bill or Rights.    None of this is going to be easy,  none of it will happen on the grounds of secularism, it doesn't have what is needed to even face the truth. 

"Jesus got executed by Rome because the empire is scared to death of a neighborly economy" - And The American Empire Doesn't Want To Hear Him Either

HAVING BEEN A SOCIALIST for all of my early adulthood and into my early senectitude and never having been a captalist, then or now,  it was a great shock to me to find out, starting in the late 1990s, that socialism is a mild anodyne compared to the radical economics of Jesus and the milder form of the same economics in the Mosaic tradition.  If you want a radical presentation of redistribution and reparations, the Gospels and the Prophetic tradition growing out of the Mosaic law is the most radical thing I've ever come across.  That most of the talk about reparations in the United States comes from what it considered a radical part of the civil rights struggle, the belated reparations paid by the part of the American population which has benefited the most from white supremacy, white People to those who our indigenous form of fascism has targeted for exploitation and early death is no great surprise.  Those who benefit from inequality suffer from a pandemic of either poor eyesight or feeble-mindedness.  Which could account for the controlling faction in Republican-fascism devolving way past the point where even some affluent Republicans feel uneasy about watching their antics and hearing their ravings.  

That some of the worst of that comes from those who claim "Christianity nationalism" as a part of white nationalism they really favor is of absolutely no account.  No more than the fascists claim to champion "freedom" and "democracy."  I'm convinced that lying is the foundational sin of our Bill of Rights addled intellectual foundations.  The foremost sin of our founding was the leaving out of the Constitution the word "slavery" which was the motive of so much of it, our founding document is riddled with that enormous sin and its remnants remain even after the post-Civil War congress sought to abolish it definitively in the few and far from unsullied years before Rutherford Hayes used the pro-slavery provision, the Electoral College and a corrupt deal with the slave-power to end Reconstruction.  

But the biggest suckers in our country's tradition, the poor-whites who don't notice their exploitation blinded by their  merely somewhat privileged level of privilege within the scheme, are also targeted by white supremacy.  The media has convinced them that instead of the rich and the corruption baked into our system through the Constitution and, yes, the Bill of Rights and the wealthy who exploit that, it's their fellow victims who are to blame for their troubles.  

I say that to remind you that this is a political blog, the idea that we are to leave the radicalism of the Monotheistic tradition out of our politics is another scheme to disempower what has been the most powerful engine of struggle against the political-economic system of the United States - the merely secular struggle against it as embodied in such things as the ACLU have been everything from relatively impotent to downright collusive with the worst of it.  Look for ACLU in my archive to see examples.

But back to Brueggemann for the real tradition any effective change in the country will have to come from, in the end.

So there are incredible provisions in the Book of Deuteronomy that protest against the predatory economy.  

There are provisions that say things like you have to pay People their wages on the day they earn them.  No wage theft.

It says that you take anything in collateral for a loan from a poor person that if they have one coat you can take their coat for collateral during the day but you've got to take it back to them at night cause they need to sleep in it.  You can pick it up the next morning for collateral but then you've got to take it back at sundown.  Imagine doing that on a 30 year loan.  Moses's idea is you should bother with it.

In Deuteronomy 15 the Mosaic regulation is at the end of seven years you've got to cancel debts because Moses had determined that there should not be a permanent underclass.  And the way to prevent a permanent underclass is to cancel debts.  

And then in the Jubilee year Moses ups the ante by saying every 49 years you've got to give everything back to People, everything you took from them.  Which is REDISTRIBUTION AND REPARATIONS.  

So The Bible is, essentially, from the Mosaic tradition, is an act of alternative to the predatory economy.  


Now, very quickly, I think I've used up my time, but very quickly, I want to tell you about three reperformances of the Exodus narrative in The Bible.  Two of these you will know about one you may not know about.

First, Solomon, King Solomon was Pharaoh's son-in-law. And he is the principle predator   inside Israel.  So Solomon taxed  People to death.  So Solomon must have been a primordial groper - if I can use that presidential word - because he had three hundred wives and seven hundred concubines.  And he is known for having built the grand Temple in Jerusalem that is filled with Gold! Gold! Gold! Gold! and cheap labor.  

The gold came from predatory commerce and taxes and the cheap labor meant that he didn't have to spend much of his gold to build The Temple.  So The Temple in Jerusalem is a monument to predatory economics.  And if you read the texts carefully, the Biblical God says, "I ain't gonna stay there, you can't put me in a place like that and expect me to stay there!  For I am a God of emancipation."   

The response to Solmon's predation is the whole prophetic movement of the eighth and seventh century BCE in which their oracles are essentially an expose of the predation of the elite of the city of Jerusalem.

I've come to wonder as an alternative to the modern speculation that Deuteronomy was a very late addition to the Five Books of Moses conveniently  "found" while they were doing some renovation at the ol' Temple, which just happen to coincide with Josiah's reforms. . .  I wonder if it may have been an actual ancient text which the corrupt Solomonic regime had suppressed but didn't dare to obliterate entirely.  As an aside, I fully believe the long description in Exodus of all the gear and duds that the priestly class got to have was probably an addition done under that priestly corruption. If you want to see how easy it is for that to happen under a regime of corruption, look at what the Supreme Court did to the 14th Amendment as its adoption was still within living memory and to other provisions of the Constitution and duly adopted laws.   The Supreme Court is our corrupt temple priesthood working in that abysmal temple the Congress should kick them out of and turn into a Museum of Constitutional Corruption.  I think that Deuteronomy, as it probably originally was, may have been an authentic attempt to encode The Law as it came to Moses.  Of course it, like all of the Old Testament was subject to a long tradition of editing and amending, so what we have now isn't "the original" which may have been superior or inferior to what comes down to us.  


The second reperformance of the Exodus in the fifth century BCE under the Persian government -  this sounds contemporary - what those governments did, empires basically exist to collect revenue, that's what all empires do.  Including the US empire/  And what they do is hire locals to collect the taxes to send to the imperial capital.  So   Nehemiah is one of these governors that collect money to send to Persia.  He taxes other Jews.  In Nehemiah 5, if you do not know Nehemiah 5 see if you can find it in your Bible and take a look. Nehemiah 5 says   People were having to sell their children to pay their taxes and to sell their fields to settle their mortgages. They were desperate.

And when Nehemiah the governor hears about it he is indignant and he calls a meeting, in Nehemiah 5 of the Jews who were vulnerable and Jews who were predators and he says, "You guys are all Jew.  You need to stop doing this to each other, "  and he forced them into a covenant.  Now mutatis mutandis.

What I want to suggest to you is that what has happened in our society is that very many People have been so trapped by the empire, by the predatory empire that they have forgotten that they are human.  And when you forget that you are human you can exploit other human beings and not notice that they are human.  So the work of somebody like a Nehemiah is to get these People who have forgotten they are human and to remind People of their common humanness, which requires economic solidarity that is worked out as Jubilee.  

The third reperformance, that I'll do in one sentence, is that the Roman empire was another predatory system and in the New Testament The Jesus Movement is essentially a response of a neighborly economy to the predation of Rome with which some Jews had colluded.

Simply observe how badly we have read The New Testament when we thought it had to do with private sin and going to heaven.  When, in fact, The New Testament is essentially about a neighborhood alternative in economics.  Jesus got executed by Rome because the empire is scared to death of a neighborly economy.   

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

There is nothing that the American empire fears more than the real political-economics that would come from those who believe themselves to be Christians or others whose religious tradition contains things like The Law, the Prophets and the Gospels taking those, in the context of egalitarian democracy, as normative for not only their own actions but the way that governments and secular laws should be.     

The idea that the merely administrative non-denominationalism necessary for there to be justice in terms of governmental action in a diverse country should be normative for our public lives and as a basis of law making is one of the biggest and most successful campaigns for suckering of the American People starting in the 18th century.  The biggest part of that suckering was through making Christianity an unthinking, unknowing object of disrepute among those who never found out the first thing about it and many who understood that giving it up was a prerequisite for social and professional acceptance.

Democracy is rare in the world, egalitarian democracy far rarer.  It's clear that not every substrate of religious or secular ideology will produce equality and democracy.  They certainly won't produce economic justice and a decent, sustainable life for everyone on a reliable basis.  Of course The Law as found in the Old Testament meant to govern The Children of Israel or even the teachings of Jesus meant to govern individual lives or small communities beleaguered by worldly kingdoms will not, by themselves produce something like an egalitarian democracy in the modern sense.  Time continued after the presentation of those revelations for a reason and the reproduction of the context in which they were given is not only not going to happen, it cannot happen.  

But the moral content of those in terms of an egalitarian society is a bedrock requirement of such a national government.  Anyone who can't or won't agree to equality, economic and political and legal justice, protecting the environment and other necessary values needed to do that has no safe inclusion within the community or the country except on the basis of their, perhaps reluctant, acceptance of them.  Corrupting the minds of The People against those has no safe place in an egalitarian democratic country.   Especially no mass media promotion of the opposites of those should be allowed to swamp those egalitarian life giving, life sustaining values, our experiment with anything goes in the mass media has brought us to the brink of violent fascism, where we are teetering at the moment, capable of recreating the worst of 20th-21st century oppression and mass murder as any other People, anywhere.  Hollywood promotes little else than anti-democratic degeneracy,  the unregulated tech sector produces even worse.  

The dangers we face are dangers based in the corruption of The American Peoples' minds and nothing did that more than the mass media.

That there will be problems from religion in our political discourse is a given.  THE GREATEST STUPIDITY OF THEOCRACY IS THAT IT REFUSES TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL HUMAN INSTITUTIONS, RELIGION NO LESS THAN POLITICS OR ACADEMICS OR THE LAW IS BOUND TO BE AN AVENUE OF CORRUPTION AND THAT MUST ALWAYS BE FOREMOST IN OUR MINDS.  The great Jewish tradition is great because of its acknowledgement of that in-baked tendency towards building corruption, as Brueggemann implies when he cites Solomon himself as a reenactment of the signal injustice of the Joseph-Exodus narratives.  I think his example of the period of Persian hegemony carries a warning for Americans of the romantic-secular-would be radical notion that if only we could do what Lenin or Stalin or Mao or some other damnably romanticized gangster of nominal Marxism of socialism had done to their People, it would be better than what the white supremacist gangsters did here.  It never was, it was just a different form of gangster rule.  That along with the suckering of us under anti-anti-communism on behalf of some of the worst of American "radicals" was what caused the American left to go seriously wrong, to our lasting disablement.  What the flying goons of Republican-fascism revive under that freest of free presses that secular left got for the fascists.  

It is one of the greatest things about the Hebrew tradition that their religious Scriptures carry their own confessions and warnings that even when People try to live under the most radical programs of justice devised, there is always almost a guarantee of failure which we must recognize for what it is.  That failure being in that tradition exactly placed in those humanly constructed institutions that are treated with the most pious stupidity, the government and the established church.  In American in 2023, the idols of secularism, of "civic religion" in Sandra Day O'Connor's putrid phrase, replace those of religious establishment.  "The Bible," even "Jesus" turned under that  from what they are into totems of white supremacist gangsterism as a rub on bronzed, bottle blond-troll-doll haired, lying, As Seen on TV, tub of lard is our Solomon in his golden toileted temple of Mammon something that even those who want what the Constitution claims to protect and defend can't keep from regaining the presidency with his crimes and lies right out there in the light of day.  

You've always got to be on the look out. There is no automatic vehicle of man-made institutions or man-made law that is going to protect us from having our most innocent seemingly innocent weaknesses and follies and tendency to sin known and exploited by those who want to con us into slavery (Black) and servitude (White) and death (all of us.)  The Constitution including the Bill of Rights, especially in the hands of the U.S. Supreme Court included in that. That is how radical this really is.  

 

we've got the best context in which to read The Bible because we live in a predatory economy that practices the unfair allocation of resources

I'M GOING TO EASE back into daily or nearly daily posting by starting with a short series going through a talk Walter Brueggemann gave to a group about how The Bible is a response to a predatory economy.  My rule for myself is that I have to transcribe the whole talk before I start posting the parts.  Then I will present parts of it with my own observations on it.  

I don't know who the group he was talking to was, I also don't know who "Peter" (Block)  he refers to is, though I would guess he's the pastor or leader of the group he's addressing.  If someone knows I'd welcome the context.  I will note that at the end, where he answers questions, some of the questions are audible and some are not, though his answers are.  I'll note which are which when we get to those.

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

Well, I'm glad I get to be with you to talk a minute.

Three theses about the Bible.

- The first thesis is that the Bible, most of the Bible, Old Testament and, for Christians, The New Testament originated in a context of a predatory economy, that was extracting wealth  from vulnerable People to transfer it to powerful People.  And that was practicing unfair allocation of resources.

There was a lead story in the New York Times this morning, did you see it?  A long article saying that inequality is only going to get worse and worse and none of our efforts will do anything and the only thing that will disrupt it will be a war.  So that's the context in which we read the Bible.

- The second learning I've had about The Bible is that the Biblical Community, Israel and the early Church in the New Testament make a response to the predatory economy that is one of resistance and that proposes a neighborly alternative.  

- And the third learning I have had is that The Bible is best read in a context of a predatory economy. Which means we've got the best context in which to read The Bible because we live in a predatory economy that practices the unfair allocation of resources.  So that's an overview of what I've been learning of late.  And, then, what I want to do, cause The Bible does it, you have to reduce those theses to narrative, so Peter is going to have us tell stories after a while. The Bible is essentially, I propose, a series of stories about a predatory economy and the neighborly response to a predatory economy.

So the first and big story that governs all the other stories is the story of Pharaoh in Egypt.  Pharaoh may or may not have been an actual historical person.  But what Pharaoh is, he's a type or he's a metaphor,  He's a stand-in for all predatory economies.  And the story of Pharaoh is a story of a nightmare of scarcity and a policy of accumulation, the success of monopoly, and then as will always happen with monopoly, when accumulation ends in monopoly it always ends in violence.  

Predatory economies are intrinsically violent.  

Anyone who thinks that the tsunami of gun violence that the United States drowns in is unrelated to to the media and legally mandated  predatory economics that rule American life is a fool.  There is absolutely no distance between the one and the other nor the fact that it is the party of predatory economics.  The Republican-fascist party both in electoral politics and in the federal and state judiciaries are the ones who are preventing effective regulation of gun ownership and use and the champions of the predatory economy.  As I've pointed out a number of times, that is certainly not news to those groups who have been the focus of the predatory economy, Black People, Native Peoples, Women, and previously the specific target of that controlling violence.  The difference now is that middle-class White People are unable to escape it as the inequality cavalierly declared to be insoluble by the New York Times and also unable to escape the violence that the judiciary and the political rigging of our politics has expanded.   Of course what's needed to solve it is considered impossible to those who run and write the "paper of record" because they are totally invested in the predatory economy and what it needs to be imposed.

That story of Pharaoh is in the book of Genesis [the story of Joseph in Egypt].  And when you flip over into the first chapter of Exodus where we meet the Children of Israel who have become slaves it says that Pharaoh treated them harshly.  Which means they had incessant production demands because they had debts they couldn't pay and they had debts they couldn't pay because of Pharaoh's predatory policies.

So that's the context in which the most paradigmatic story of the Old Testament arises.  And Moses is the lead character in a response to that predatory economy.  And the Mosaic drama takes place in three parts, and you know those but it's useful to think about them because our response to the predatory economy might be in three parts.

First part is the Exodus narrative, which means the exit of the predatory economy.  And what Peter has taught me as you know is one way to exit the predatory economy is keep the money local.  That's an exit from the predatory economy, keep it out of the hands of the banks.   

The second moment in Moses's response is the incredible experience in the wilderness of abundant bread, abundant water and abundant meat.  They get water from a rock and bread from heaven and they got meat from quail.  The Bible doesn't explain any of that. But what The Bible affirms is that if you run the risk of getting outside of the predatory economy you move from frightened scarcity to inexplicable abundance. And the problem is that we cannot know that ahead of time.

The third moment in Pharaoh's work [he meant Moses's work, I believe] is at Mount Sinai in which he got the ten big rules for neighborliness.  The Ten Commandments were ten rules for neighborliness at the center of which is the Commandment about Sabbath.  Which is a rule to say do not bust your ass to gain approval from Pharaoh.  That's what Sabbath is about. And I have come to think that for our society Sabbath is the most important and most difficult of all of the Commandments. Because I go around saying if you want to keep Sabbath you have to turn off the NFL.  I said that at a wealthy Episcopal church in Charlotte a couple of Sundays ago and a priest started backing me off, "Well I think People ought to go to church before they go to the football game."  And then I found out the reason he was doing that was the owner of the team was in the audience.  So it was a little bit tricky about that.  

I will forego any more comment for now and give you this from Pops Staples.  

Peace To The Neighborhood

"a typical error of Christian theology" - The Intellectual Courage Of Marilynne Robinson

INSTEAD OF GOING OVER the stupid things said about me on another perhaps even more moribund blog, which might be entertaining and which might give me a chance to exercise my wit after a period of too much seriousness in my life, I'm going to go over one of the most interesting things I've come across this week in an interview with Marilynne Robinson  conducted by Belle Tindal and Justin Brierly on the Re-Enchanting Podcast from Tyndale House.   

After many fascinating passages touching on Marilynne Robinson's long time public fascination with the Puritan tradition and John Calvin, in particular she says the single most insightful and interesting thing about what I think is the Christian theological error of predestination.   It's notable before the question and answer to note that in addition to giving what I think is the exact source and etiology of the error in the theological attempt to make the mind of God obey our own limited concepts of causality (which she insightfully  notes is a product of our limited knowledge of how objects interact) and what I take to be the Greco-Roman conception of "omniscience,"  she definitively calls it "a typical error of Christian theology." I will note that in several places the great Bible Scholar and theologian out of the Reformed (Calvinist) tradition, Walter Brueggemann has dismissed the traditional Calvinist triad of God being "omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent" as coming from Greek classical philosophy and not the Hebrew tradition.  

Far more than is typical of especially modern polemical secular intellectualism, you can see two real intellectuals engaged in theological practice are ready to make a critique of something which is basic to the tradition they come out of and, in Brueggemann's case, was the church that ordained him.  I think that's something that is far more typical and, at least in mainline churches, permissible than it is in modern secularism, both on an intellectual and, far more so a popular and media level.  You don't typically find Harvard credentialed lawyers bringing up the fact that it has produced some of the most corrupt, craven and cowardly lawyers before the public mind and trace it back to some of the most typical strains of thought taught there, nor for those from Yale, Princeton, Georgetown, etc.  

JUSTIN BRIERLY:  It's interesting hearing you say that your approach to writing the novel, you don't necessarily know what's going to happen, you haven't necessarily sketched the end from the beginning. Obviously many people think of a novelist as a bit like God in their "world," sort of has mapped out everything and knows what will happen, and is essentially writing the script in the play. And in a way that's often the way it's associated especially with some forms of Calvinism, that there is a predetermined script and that we are all going to follow. For the glory of God, of course. But none the less we cannot diverge from the character lines and parts that we play, in that sense.  What's your view on that, Marilynne?  Is it like that or is it more like your one where you don't necessarily know what's happening, maybe God doesn't necessarily know exactly what's happening next?

MARILYNNE ROBINSON: I don't speculate on what God knows, that's above my pay grade, as they say.  But, you know, if you read Calvin he, obviously,   neither he nor anyone who believed in predestination believed that it had the kind of consequences that you describe.  They make the argument for the theory, then they are all moralists, ethicists who put most profound importance on the choices you make on the assumption you are making them responsibly out of your own resources or lack there of. If you look at the Summa Theologia or at the Summa Contra Gentiles you will find that Thomas Aquinas believed in predestination.  If you read Ignatius of Loyola you will find that he believed in predestination, it's very straight forward about it.  Augustine, of course, did.  I mean it seems to theology in the pre-modern period to have been a natural consequence of God's omniscience.  You know.  I think that if you understand time differently - haven't written that essay yet - but I think that they are, all of them captive - here I'm talking about St. Augustine - all of them captive to a locked-in causality, the only kind of causal relations that we can see among things before very recently.  And that has very direct determinist implications.

I think predestination is characteristic of Christian theology, it is a typical error of Christian theology that we could learn to think around it.  That Calvin has been associated with it polemically and, based on the ignorance of other traditions that it has been treated as if it has been something that were only his.

As she has in the same interview and elsewhere commented on the modern habit of relying on cartoons drawn by second-third-fourth, etc. party critics and mockers for people who were deep and profound thinkers in place of doing the intellectually responsible thing, READING WHAT THEY SAID INSTEAD OF WHAT THEIR DETRACTORS CLAIMED THEY SAID, I will have to defer to someone who has actually read him.  Though that is exactly what the problem she presents consists of in the beginning, relying on what other people have claimed to have read other authors' works claim about them.  It is a problem that there is no other way to weed out the responsible secondary sources from the irresponsible and dishonest ones than to check their claims against the primary texts.  

Clearly what she criticizes among the would be intellectual class, certainly much if not most of what passes as educated points of view in academia and the even more apt to be irresonsbile tertiary and even remoter reaches of would be erudition in the popular presentation of polemics and pop garbage - the media, for the most part resides in those last two categories.

Most of what is taken to be "educated" and credentialed as that is based in what a cynical older music major told me when we were both taking a course in Bach my Freshman year.  As we were preparing for the mid-term exam (do they still give those?) she said you have to psychoanalyze the teacher, figuring out what they wanted to hear and handing that in to them.  I think that's as accurate a description of the basis of English language education as it has devolved into being - who knows, perhaps it generally has always been that.  The business of credentialing students as being "educated" is a pretty dodgey thing as it is.  

But the most important thing is that she, a confirmed admirer of and student of John Calvin and other Calvinists, has no problem diagnosing what has to count as a major and extensive instance of him getting something very wrong and which has, especially in the expansion and, perhaps, distortion of the idea of predestination.  I think it is one of the major sources of the pathology that infects a majority of those white evangelicals who have adopted Trumpzian fascism, though that's more to do with the fun-house mirror view of the pseudo-religious media than anything from Reform theology at its most responsible and nothing much to do with the Gospels, Acts or the Epistles.   

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

I will note one interesting thing based on Marilynne Robinson's comments about the consequences and and implications of our very human limits in perception, cognition and thinking, especially in regard to the ability to focus on the natural universe that the first two times I listened to the interview I was doing manual labor and didn't look at the screen.  While listening again to type out that passage, the border of the image of the hosts and Robinson, I took the background to be a sort of marbleized paper effect, having a random, unintended spread of color and tone.  But then I realized it was a panoramic view of what I believe is London, with its myriad of intentional, precisely built structures and roadways, no doubt hiding the People and animals and other life in the picture due to its big-picture view.  Science strives to give the big picture view, as well, mashing together many individual objects and events to try to discern some general patterns or non-patterns and to come to some allegedly overall ways to think about those.  That's especially true at the most reductionist scale of things which can only see atomic and subatomic particles and claims that that is the entirety of reality.  

That seemed to be something worth pointing out, too.

The Decline Of American College Alleged Education

Eschaton:   There's reading?  But that's so harrrRRRRRD!

I looked at the link, I haven't participated in it for eleven years and nothing has changed except a lot of the people who used to post there apparently have died or left in boredom.    There are isolated inbred mountain gulches with more new blood in them.

One Thing Is Certain, When America Goes Fascist It Will Be Through Lies Freely Told In The Free Press

BELIEVING THERE IS A RIGHT TO LIE is one of the most dangerous mass delusions that has become common place in the post-WWII era.  In the United States it grows directly out of the language of the First Amendment to the Constitution with its absolute language banning Congress from prohibiting "speech" and publication, something which those who wrote those words and adopted them as law didn't mean to be taken so literally or, really simple mindedly as they now are.  As Jamie Raskin, the constitutional scholar and fine member of Congress has pointed out in answer to the Republican-fascist citation of "freedom of speech" to protect the planning of the Republican-fascist insurrection, the very Constitution, itself prohibits the incitement to commit sedition. Incitement is by every definition an act of speech.  And the laws against libel and slander, especially published in broadly distributed media stood for more than a century and a half after that amendment was adopted.  

That such laws were used by those of evil intent, such as the American-fascists, the white supremacists, to attack those of good will, such as the great civil rights movement of the 1950s and after if they so much as published a minor inaccuracy is more than matched by their use of it after the Supreme Court allowed them, as well as others to publish untruths.  The better solution would be for those in the Civil Rights movements to have been more careful with fact checking their claims. The Court could certainly have reduced the financial risks to those who make minor inaccurate statements as they so often do for corporations causing enormous harm doesn't seem to have occurred to the majority in that decision.  

That the "justices" on the Warren Court could not foresee the consequences of the Sullivan Decision, which loosened the wealthy and the American fascists to lie with impunity as well as civil rights groups to mistakenly publish minor inaccuracies only proves what fools those with elite educations tend to be.  

That they had just passed through the red scares of the late 40s and 50s, an era in which lies destroyed many lives and gained power for some of the worst American politicians and demagogues up to that time, lies empowered with the money of millionaires and the few billionaires through mass media,  makes their naive faith in the efficacy of the Sullivan Decision to protect civil rights workers and groups rather astonishing.  It's almost like they hadn't really paid attention to what was going on.  Given that the white supremacy the Civil Rights groups struggled against were empowered by lies, lies told by mouth but more so through the media, up to and including lynch law, you have to conclude that they really didn't consider what the consequences of what they were unleashing were bound to be.  That they were all unelected white men of some affluence makes their unknowing in regard to that quite unsurprising.  

That the mass media, starting with the New York Times took and ran with that absurdly granted privilege to lie with impunity, especially against politicians who might endanger the wealth of the owners of the media and the advertisers who they profited from, liberals, Democrats, etc.  is certainly what happened, even as the civil rights movement faded in the years after the Sullivan Decision was handed out.  Such media being, as well, dominated by affluent white men, again, makes their comfort with what their privilege led to as unsurprising.

If the Sullivan Decision and the even worse decisions built on it starting with Buckley v Valeo were to have the effect we assume was intended by the Warren Court we would never have had the subsequent history of media driven reaction against civil rights, Women's rights, LGBTQ+ rights and advocacy of neo-fascism.  We would almost certainly not had all of the Nixon, Reagan, etc. presidencies, we would certainly not have had the Trump presidency which was built on lies told in the media against Hillary Clinton for decades, THE NEW YORK TIMES AS MUCH A PART OF THAT LIE CAMPAIGN AS FOX Lies WAS RIGHT UP TO THE ELECTION OF 2016.

There is something basically corrupt about the idea that there can be  a right to lie.  There may be an understandable reluctance to punish mistakenly believed fantasies, fictions or even lies told in some innocence because no human being is always entirely accurate. though it's notable that ignorance of the law is not seen as a reason to let someone off for breaking it.  But there is certainly no such thing as a right to lie no more than that there is a right for a seven year old to steal a piece of candy or lie about why a ten-year-old didn't do their homework.  Only a child who steals a piece of candy or lies about why they don't have their homework done is likely to be punished for it.  But to cheat someone out of their livelihood, a right to hurt someone gratuitously of for gain or a right to kill* is quite likely to have been declared to have been a right in a court or in the media at some point during the process if not right through till the end of it.  

In the past two days I've heard people of such wisdom as the estimable Malcolm Nance and Chris Hayes talk as if there were a right to lie, short of inciting insurrection.  I would ask how the distinction between advocacy of insurrection which is allowed because it can't be tied to acts of insurrection and speech which incites insurrection could be defined.  The idea that such a distinction would be made by the same judges who pretend they can't discern the difference between a plain lie and the truth would be regularly made in courts.   

Related to that is the idiotic and as dishonest assertion all over the media during the Trump regime and before that Bush II, that we must know that Trump really believed he lost the election for him to be prosecuted for trying to violently overturn American electoral democracy.  

Both of those sound like lawyerly lying to me, lying of the kind that so many post-WWII decisions by "justices" and judges were made of.  That kind of lying is ubiquitous in the Roberts Court and it was gaining ground in the Rehnquist years, but it goes back right to the start of the Court.  The sloppy language and thinking of the Constitution, in general and the Bill of Rights in particular is an invitation for that kind of stretching language, keeping in mind that "stretching" is a common synonym for lying, "stretching the truth" being the euphemism for it.  Such stretching is certainly not rare on the Supreme Court, the lying Alito published a recent op-ed that did it, lying about the exact wording of the Constitution in regard to the Congressional power to regulate even the Supreme Court.  But, then, as I noted during Alito's, Roberts' and other Supreme Court nominations hearings, everyone in the room knew they lied under oath constantly during those hearings, as did Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Coney Barrett. And the Senate confirmed them, anyway.  The Republican Party is the party of liars, empowering lies, empowers them.

If there is one thing that has been repeatedly proven in the last sixty years, it is that lies are dangerous to democracy.  Democracy can't exist as an expression of The Peoples' mere whims and preferences but relies absolutely on an effective majority of People knowing the truth to the extent that that will inform their free choices in who they elect and whether to maintain them in office.  

It is the evil genius of the billionaires, foreign and domestic and those who control the media that they could thwart and destroy democracy by corrupting the minds of an effective margin of voters, the evil of the Electoral College and computer aided targeting of voters could achieve the rest even against a majority of American voters who voted on accurate information.  

There is a reason that we are in trouble and those stem from the Constitution as it has been effectively gamed by those with resources and who own the media.  Pretending that is not the case because we're afraid of a Constitutional Convention gamed through lies for billionaires is not an effective way to fight it.  The dangers created by a combination of rigging the original Constitutional Convention by slave-holders and land barons and financiers and the short-sighted writing of the Bill of Rights - all of that made worse by the Court grabbed powers under Marbury v Madison - are coming to fruition right now.  That we are in danger from a second Trump regime, gotten through his suckers sucking up lies and the Electoral College which put him in office to start with, proves that those dangers are here and now already.  How much worse would it be to amend the First Amendment to make it explicit that it does not empower liars to lie with impunity and that there is no right to buy or own automatic weapons or to carry guns and to abolish the Electoral College?*

The unthinking conventional sanctity granted to the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights under the secular imitation of "civic religion" is far more dangerous to us than my critical view of it, matching its alleged intentions against its effects in American history.  

I think any accurate view of it from the point of view of those in the underclass, Black People, Native Americans, Women, other groups who have been discriminated against or attacked by those in power or those who are given tacit permission by governments and courts and police agencies, would prove that, by a large percentage, anything good in American history has eventually needed to struggle against the Constitution and, especially, the Supreme Court with its extra-constitutional usurped powers.  

That is something that became apparent to the abolitionists as soon as James Madison's papers were published and they could read his notes on the Constitutional Convention.** The lies of the stage show Hamilton are typical of that conventional sanctity maintained in defiance of historical truth.   Such show biz sanctity is a hindrance to improving on the thing in light of the past two hundred thirty odd years of living under the thing. Such pious bullshit has been part of civic propaganda for most of the time since the adoption of the Constitution.

That and the absurdly difficult rules for amending the thing as it is now makes being coldly honest about what it is essential to achieving and keeping democracy an absolute necessity.  Also facing  how it really works without the cloying and lying show-biz style piety about it prevents real democracy from finally being achieved.  

There can be no reform of the United States without the Constitution itself being reformed.  There is no possibility of reforming the Constitution while it is held to be sacrilege to make an honest critique of it.  Of course, under the present regime of law by judiciary, a direct consequence of the extra-Constitutional power grab for the Supreme Court by John Marshall and, even more so Roger Taney, even the possibility of amending the Constitution is vulnerable to that added burden as their corrupt lies about the 14th Amendment and other provisions in ANY WRITTEN CONSTITUTION proves. I will remind you of Alito's recent lies about the relationship of the Court and the Congress under the Constitution.

Reforming the Supreme Court to be more in line with those of every other court in an electoral democracy is essential to any such reform, without that Constitutional reform is doomed.  That kind of lawyerly, "justicely" lying has to be ground out of the system.  For any once or twice it might have worked for the side of equality and democracy, it has worked against it many times more.

We need to get rid of an understanding of democratic civics which relies on the cloying sentimentality of teary flag-waving patriotism for a real and clear-eyed love of equality and democracy.  That will require an adult acceptance of equal rights and honest representation.  It will require a willingness to give up advantage in favor of equality over a large, diverse, regionally vast country. If that is not possible then the United States was formed under an unrealistic theory and if that is impossible, we should face that reality too.  I think it might be possible for the United States to, for once, really be an egalitarian democracy as, in fact, I think Europe could be.  But not under the Constitution as it exists in 2023, certainly not as it was in 1790 or, even more so, 1963 before the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts were passed or even after Women started to gain some measure of equality.  It is a work for the future which cannot come until we face the terrible reality of the present and the past.

* I did have an idea about how the Electoral College could be made to work differently while thinking about how the 3/5 (turned into a 5/5ths) empowerment of white supremacists under Jim Crow as the Roberts Court is in the process of reimposing.

States should have their Congressional representation be calculated based on the percentage of qualified voters, American citizens over the age of 18 who vote in elections.  That would incentivize the inclusion of all voters in the vote instead of the voter suppression that was enshrined in the empowerment of white supremacy under Jim Crow.  As the great American historian Paul Finkelman pointed out, in the post-Reconstruction South, the merely de jure emancipation of Black People along with Supreme Court enforced "separate but equal" had the effect of enhancing the power of white supremacists who got more congressional representation while continuing to deny Black People their right to representation.  

By making states try to get all qualified voters voting, determined by the percentage of adult citizens living there , would either result in them trying to get everyone to vote. It would also have the effect of making it desirable to count ALL residents in a state during the period census.  If those in power in some states wanted to prevent Black People or Native Americans or others from voting, their Congressional representation would diminish.  The number of electoral votes, if that damnable thing is retained, would fall, as well.  I would decrease the Senatorial representation in states that suppressed votes, too.  There is no reason that such states should be able to swamp the votes of those who live in honest states in that non-democratic body. Given my preferences, hard cases would be reduced to the status of territories, not states.

** The great abolitionist Wendell Phillips' book The Constitution A Pro-Slavery Compact proves that the real character of "the founders" and their Constitution was known well before the Civil War.