Category: Critical Thinking

When Bible Readers Like Charlie Kirk Ignore Its Class-Consciousness

The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk provoked a flurry of commentary about God, faith, and politics. Among the more thoughtful responses was David Brooks’ New York Times column, “We Need to Think Straight About God and Politics.” His essay reminded me once again how central theology remains for understanding today’s world—and how dangerous it is for progressives to ignore it.

But despite Brooks’ good intentions, his article was fundamentally flawed. He missed the Bible’s class-consciousness, a theme that runs through its central narratives and prophetic voices. In doing so, he overlooked the way modern biblical scholarship interprets scripture: as a profoundly political document that consistently sides with the poor and oppressed against the wealthy and powerful. Without acknowledging this, Brooks failed to resolve the very problem he set out to explore: how God and politics relate.

Ironically, Charlie Kirk—whose white Christian nationalism has been condemned by many—grasped something Brooks did not: that the Bible is not politically neutral. But Kirk twisted that insight. Rather than recognizing God’s solidarity with the marginalized, Kirk placed the divine firmly on the side of the dominant white, patriarchal class. His theology inverted the teachings of the Jewish prophet Jesus of Nazareth, who identified God with the poor, the dispossessed, and the oppressed.

In what follows, I want to clarify this point by (1) summarizing Brooks’ argument, (2) contrasting it with Kirk’s theological vision, and (3) comparing both with the insights of modern biblical scholarship, which I’ll describe as “critical faith theory.” My thesis is simple: without acknowledging the achievements of such theory with its implied class-consciousness, we cannot understand either the Bible’s meaning or its challenge to today’s politics.

Brooks’ Confusion

Brooks began by observing that Kirk’s funeral blurred the lines between religion and politics. Speakers portrayed Kirk as a kind of martyr, invoking Jesus’ example of forgiveness, while Donald Trump and his allies used the occasion to unleash vengeance and hatred. Brooks admitted he was disturbed and confused: why such a volatile mix of faith and politics? Shouldn’t religion stay in the private sphere, separate from political life?

To make sense of it, Brooks reached for the old notion of complementarity. Religion and politics, he suggested, are distinct but mutually supportive. Politics deals with power; religion provides the moral compass reminding us that everyone, regardless of ideology, is a sinner in need of grace. On this view, the Bible does not offer a political program. It simply sets the stage for moral reflection.

In short, Brooks tried to preserve a moderate middle ground. Faith should shape moral values but not dictate political programs.

The problem is that this neat separation has little to do with the Bible itself.

Kirk’s Fundamentalist Class-Consciousness

Kirk, unlike Brooks, made no such distinction. He declared openly: “I want to talk about spiritual things, and in order to do that, I have to enter the political arena.”

Brooks responded with incredulity, but Kirk’s reasoning is clear. His fundamentalist reading of scripture led him to embrace a particular worldview that has always been political. He believed the Bible is the literal word of God, with Moses, David, Solomon, and the gospel writers transcribing divine dictation. He accepted the traditional Christian narrative—codified since the fourth century—that humanity is fallen through Adam and Eve’s sin, redeemed by Jesus’ sacrificial death, and destined for heaven or hell depending on baptism and personal acceptance of Christ.

This theology, which became the official religion of the Roman Empire in the fourth century, was weaponized to support conquest, colonization, and oppression. From the Crusades to the slave trade to European colonialism, Christian rulers used this story to justify domination of Muslims, Jews, Indigenous peoples, Africans, and other non-white, non-Christian populations. Christianity, in its imperial form, became the religion of empire.

Kirk, then, was not wrong to insist that “spiritual talk” inevitably enters politics. But he saw Christianity as legitimizing the rule of a largely white, patriarchal elite. His class-consciousness was real—but inverted.

Critical Faith Theory: A Different Story

Modern biblical scholarship tells a very different story. Beginning in the late 18th and 19th centuries, historians, linguists, archaeologists, and literary critics began examining scripture using the tools of critical analysis. They discovered that the Bible is not a single book with one author but a library of texts written and edited over centuries. These texts include myth, poetry, law codes, prophecy, letters, gospels, and apocalypses. They contain conflicting theologies: some justifying empire, others resisting it.

What emerges from this scholarship is not the story of Adam’s sin and Jesus’ death reopening heaven’s gates. Rather, it is the story of liberation from slavery and God’s solidarity with the poor.

The central narrative begins with the Exodus, the liberation of enslaved people from Egypt. Israel’s God revealed himself as a liberator, entering into a covenant with the freed slaves to form a just society where widows, orphans, foreigners, and the poor would be protected. When Israel’s leaders violated that covenant, prophets arose to denounce them and call the nation back to justice.

Over centuries, Israel itself was conquered by empires—Assyria, Babylon, Persia, Greece, Rome. Prophets promised deliverance from oppression, not heavenly rewards in a distant afterlife.

Jesus of Nazareth stood squarely in this prophetic tradition. A poor construction worker from Galilee, he proclaimed the arrival of God’s kingdom—a radically new order of justice and peace. He challenged religious elites, preached solidarity with outcasts, and raised the hopes of the oppressed. Rome executed him as a rebel through crucifixion, a punishment reserved for political insurgents.

His followers, convinced he was raised from the dead, created communities that practiced what today might be called Christian communism. The Book of Acts records that believers shared possessions in common and distributed resources “as any had need.”

This was not an abstract spirituality but a concrete economic alternative. As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, it might be called “communism with Christian characteristics.” As Luke the evangelist put it in his Book of Acts 2:44-45, “All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need.” In Acts 4:32, the same author writes: “Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common.”

This approach to scripture—often called liberation theology—describes God as having a “preferential option for the poor.” Far from being neutral, the Bible takes sides. It consistently identifies God with the marginalized, not the powerful.

Jesus as the Rejected One

The class-consciousness of the Bible is perhaps most powerfully expressed in the figure of Jesus himself who, remember, is considered the fullest revelation of God.

Think about who he was: the son of an unwed teenage mother, raised by a working-class father, living under imperial occupation. As a child he was a political refugee in Egypt. As an adult he befriended prostitutes, tax collectors, and drunkards. He clashed with religious authorities and was executed as a political criminal. His death—torture and crucifixion—was reserved for those considered dangerous to empire.

This is not the profile of someone embraced by elites. It is the life of someone MAGA nationalists like Kirk would reject as unworthy, threatening, or “vermin.” Yet Christians confess this despised and rejected man as the revelation of God.

Jesus himself underlined this identification when he said in Matthew 25:40, “Whatever you do to the least of my brothers and sisters—the hungry, the thirsty, the stranger, the prisoner—you do to me.” The divine is encountered not in palaces, temples, or megachurches, but among the poor and excluded.

That is the class-conscious heart of the Bible.

Why It Matters

The contrast between Brooks, Kirk, and liberation theology highlights three very different approaches to God and politics.

  • Brooks wants to keep religion in the realm of private morality, supplementing politics but never shaping it directly. The problem is that the Bible itself refuses to be apolitical.
  • Kirk recognizes the political dimension but twists it to sanctify empire, patriarchy, and white supremacy. His theology reflects the imperial Christianity that oppressed much of the world.
  • Critical faith theory insists that the Bible sides with the oppressed. Its story begins not with sin and guilt but with liberation from slavery, continues with prophetic denunciations of injustice, and culminates in Jesus’ solidarity with the poor.

For progressives, this matters enormously. Too often the left cedes the Bible to the right, assuming it is inherently conservative. But modern scholarship shows the opposite: the Bible is a revolutionary text. It challenges systems of exploitation and offers resources for building communities of justice, equality, and care.

Conclusion

The assassination of Charlie Kirk has sparked renewed debate about God and politics. Moderates like David Brooks remain confused, trying to maintain a polite separation between religion and politics. Kirk, by contrast, embraced a political theology but aligned God with the ruling class.

The Bible itself, however, tells a different story. Through the lens of critical faith theory, we see its central theme: God’s preferential option for the poor. From the Exodus to the prophets to Jesus and the early church, scripture consistently sides with the oppressed.

Progressives ignore this at their peril. To cede the Bible to the right is to abandon one of the most powerful sources of hope, resistance, and liberation in human history. If read with eyes open to its class-consciousness, the Bible remains what it has always been: not the book of empire, but the book of revolution.

The Epstein Case May Bring the Entire System Down: AJA Take Note!

When I tell friends about my involvement with OpEdNews’ Arc of Justice Alliance (AJA), their response often borders on disbelief. They’ll say, “Sure, sounds noble—but for something like that to succeed, the entire U.S. and NATO system would have to collapse first.”

Sometimes I’ve found myself agreeing with them. After all, AJA’s vision is sweeping. It aims to build on the left, the kind of powerful infrastructure that MAGA Republicans have laid out for themselves in their Project 2025 manifesto. Its goal is nothing less than reinventing government to serve ordinary people rather than the rich and powerful.

But here’s the problem: the existing system is so entrenched that genuine change often feels impossible. Unless some catastrophic rupture occurs, the machinery of empire and corporate control looks immovable.

Then came Jeffrey Epstein.

The Epstein affair, I have come to realize, contains the explosive potential to unravel the entire Western system.

Why? Because the case points toward something almost unspeakable: the governments of the United States and Israel are implicated not only in covering up sexual violence against children, but in actively organizing and sponsoring it as a tool of blackmail. If that is true—and the circumstantial evidence strongly suggests it is—then we are not just confronting corruption or incompetence. We are confronting a system so depraved that it has turned pedophilia into a weapon of statecraft.

And once ordinary people grasp that truth, no amount of partisan spin will save the system from collapse.

The Weight of Circumstantial Evidence

To understand the gravity of this possibility, it is important to stress the role of circumstantial evidence in criminal justice.

As I’ve recently pointed out, and contrary to popular belief, most convictions—especially in white-collar cases—do not rely on “smoking gun” documents or direct eyewitnesses. They rely on inference: the accumulation of facts that, taken together, point beyond reasonable doubt. Motive, means, opportunity, DNA traces, fingerprints, destruction of evidence, false statements, suspicious associations—all these can convict without a single direct witness to the act.

That is exactly the kind of evidence accumulating around Epstein. Consider the essentials of what has emerged:

  • The systematic rape of underage girls.
  • Apparently orchestrated by intelligence agencies—the CIA and Mossad—through assets like Epstein, Ghislaine Maxwell, and their associates.
  • Carried out for the purpose of collecting compromising material (kompromat) on powerful men.
  • Deployed to ensure that the world’s elites could be controlled and manipulated to serve U.S. and Israeli interests.

This is not conspiracy fantasy. It is where the trail of evidence leads.

Signs of Cover-Up

The circumstantial evidence is damning:

  • Official deception: U.S. authorities initially promised to release Epstein files in full, later claimed no such files existed, and finally released a mere 33,000 pages—less than 1% of what the FBI possesses.
  • The prison “suicide”: Epstein himself, the most important witness, died under conditions so suspicious that even Ghislaine Maxwell believes he was murdered. Surveillance cameras malfunctioned, guards fell asleep, and evidence was tampered with.
  • Censored names: The FBI redacted Donald Trump’s name, along with those of other high-profile figures, from the released documents. Redaction of such relevance is indistinguishable from destruction of evidence.
  • Intelligence ties: Ghislaine’s father, Robert Maxwell, had well-documented Mossad connections. Based on such ties, respected figures—including economist Jeffrey Sachs and congressman Thomas Massie—have concluded that Epstein was indeed a Mossad asset.
  • The sweetheart deal: Despite overwhelming evidence of sex crimes against minors, Epstein secured an astonishingly lenient plea bargain in 2008. The prosecutor, Alexander Acosta, later testified that he was told Epstein “belonged to intelligence” and that the case was “above his pay grade.”
  • Suspicious leniency for Maxwell: After discussions with Trump’s lawyer Todd Blanche, Ghislaine Maxwell was quietly moved from a maximum-security facility to a minimum-security prison whose policy specifically excludes sex offenders.
  • Unusual bargaining power: Maxwell now conditions any congressional testimony on immunity, advance questions, and testimony outside prison walls. Few convicted felons enjoy that kind of leverage.

Taken together, these facts paint a chilling picture of deliberate obstruction and protection.

Questions of Character

Equally troubling is the character of those who have denied Epstein’s intelligence connections.

Donald Trump insists he barely knew Epstein, despite ample photographic and testimonial evidence to the contrary. Trump’s record of habitual lying is a matter of public record.

Ghislaine Maxwell has twice been indicted for perjury. Her status as a jailhouse informer who stands to personally benefit from exonerating the rich and powerful connected with the case hardly qualifies her as a trustworthy source.

And as for the CIA—its former director Mike Pompeo openly admitted that agency operatives are trained to “lie, cheat, and steal.” To accept denials from such sources at face value is to accept testimony from admitted professional liars.

 Neither President Trump, Ghislaine Maxwell, nor any CIA operative is a credible witness. All of them are compromised actors whose interest lies in suppressing the truth.

A Crisis That Could Change Everything

As the Epstein revelations continue to unfold, the implications are staggering.

This is not about partisan politics. It is not about Republicans versus Democrats, or about conservatives versus liberals. It is about a system in which the ruling class of the United States and its closest ally, Israel, have apparently used the rape of children as a tool of blackmail to maintain global dominance.

No matter where ordinary people stand politically—whether left, right, or center—this is a line too far. Few Americans or Europeans will tolerate their governments being complicit in the systematic violation of schoolgirls.

That is why the Epstein case has revolutionary potential. It exposes rot so deep, depravity so shocking, that once the public fully grasps it, the legitimacy of the system itself could collapse.

The Arc of Justice and the Opportunity Ahead

Here lies the paradox: while many dismiss projects like the Arc of Justice Alliance as quixotic, the Epstein case may provide exactly the systemic rupture that movements for justice have been waiting for.

If the truth about Epstein, the CIA, and Mossad becomes undeniable, a massive crisis of legitimacy will follow. That crisis could open the door to fundamental change—change that AJA and allied movements are preparing to advance.

Far from tilting at windmills, we may soon find ourselves at the forefront of a historic turning point.

The Epstein scandal is not just another corruption story. It may well be the crack in the dam, the event that triggers the collapse of a system too evil to sustain itself.

And if that collapse comes, the task will be to ensure that what rises from the rubble is a system finally dedicated to justice—for the many, not the few

Circumstantial Evidence and the Epstein Affair: What Trump, Maxwell, and Western Intelligence Reveal

Like many Americans who have not yet surrendered their capacity for outrage, I’ve been haunted by the Jeffrey Epstein Affair. It refuses to go away—not because corporate media wish to pursue it (they manifestly do not), but because it cuts to the rotten core of empire itself.

For years now, we’ve been promised the release of the “Epstein files”—thousands of pages of testimony and hours of videotape implicating political leaders, judges, corporate moguls, Hollywood celebrities, and clergy. We’re told they exist. We’re also told—by the very elites most likely ensnared—that there’s “nothing to see here.” The truth, however, seems closer to what insiders have whispered: that those files contain enough evidence to topple governments across the Western world.

What has especially caught my attention is the strange “reluctance” to release those files publicly, and the curious way the story itself has been managed. Instead of honest transparency, we have smoke screens: Epstein dies in custody under suspicious circumstances; Ghislaine Maxwell is shuffled quietly from high-security to minimum-security prison; Donald Trump alternately promises to release Epstein’s files, then dismisses the whole thing as a “hoax.”

Why?

Because the evidence points not only to sexual predation, but to the use of sex, blackmail, and child trafficking as tools of statecraft—involving not just corrupt billionaires, but also the intelligence agencies of the United States, Israel, and the United Kingdom.

Epstein, Maxwell, and Intelligence

Let’s be clear: Jeffrey Epstein was no mere “hedge fund manager.” His wealth was largely unexplained, his client lists opaque. Multiple sources—including Alexander Acosta, the U.S. Attorney who gave Epstein his infamous “sweetheart deal” in Florida—have testified that Epstein “belonged to intelligence.” Acosta was told explicitly: back off, Epstein was “above your pay grade.”

But which intelligence service? All signs point to several.

  • Mossad (Israel): Ghislaine Maxwell’s father, Robert Maxwell, was long known to be a Mossad asset. His daughter continued that role, serving as Epstein’s partner in recruiting, grooming, and trafficking underaged girls. Several credible reports suggest Epstein and Maxwell’s operation doubled as a Mossad “honey trap”—a means of collecting dirt for purposes of blackmail on powerful Western leaders.
  • CIA (United States): Epstein’s New York townhouse was reportedly wired floor to ceiling with hidden cameras. Who collected and stored that footage? Who protected him after each arrest threat? The CIA had both motive and opportunity: control through blackmail has always been central to its toolkit. (BTW, in her recent interview with Deputy Attorney General, Todd Blanch, Ms. Maxwell denied that there were any recording devices in Epstein’s New York mansion — a claim that is easily refuted.)
  • MI6 (Britain): Epstein’s circle overlapped heavily with British aristocracy, including Prince Andrew. The United Kingdom’s intelligence services, like their American and Israeli counterparts, benefited from access to compromising materials and plausible deniability through “private” networks.

In other words, Epstein’s operation was not an aberration. It was systemic—a private-public partnership between elites and intelligence agencies designed to entrap and control.

Trump’s Place in the Web

So where does Donald Trump fit in? The circumstantial evidence is overwhelming:

  1. Friendship with Epstein: Trump himself admitted they were close. Photographs and flight logs confirm this. They partied together in the 1980s and 90s—often in the presence of girls who were clearly underage.
  2. Connections to Organized Crime and Intelligence: Trump’s “mentor,” Roy Cohn, was not just a Mafia lawyer but also a fixer with CIA ties. Trump inherited from Cohn both his ruthlessness and his network.
  3. The Access Hollywood and Carroll Cases: Trump’s own recorded boasts of sexual assault, along with civil judgments against him for sexual abuse, demonstrate a pattern of predation that makes his involvement with Epstein’s underage network plausible, even likely.
  4. Obstruction of Evidence: Trump promised as president to release the Epstein files but instead allowed the FBI to redact his own name from them. His sudden dismissal of the entire affair as a “hoax” is not the language of innocence but of guilt management.
  5. Ghislaine Maxwell’s Treatment: Under Trump, Maxwell was moved to a lower-security facility and treated more like an informant than a convicted trafficker. Why? Perhaps because she knows too much, and her silence needed to be purchased with privileges.

Circumstantial Evidence and the Law

Of course, defenders say all of this is “only circumstantial.” But American courts have long recognized that circumstantial evidence can be just as probative as direct evidence. After all, few crimes of power leave smoking guns. What we have instead are:

  • Patterns of association.
  • Unexplained wealth and protection.
  • Testimonies suppressed.
  • Defendants obstructing evidence.
  • Intelligence agencies circling like vultures.

These, taken together, paint a picture no less damning than a video recording.

The Larger Stakes

What makes this affair explosive is not merely whether Donald Trump is guilty of pedophilia. It is that the entire Western system—Washington, London, Tel Aviv—may be implicated in using sexual blackmail as a governing tool.

Ordinary people may not follow Russiagate, gerrymandering, or campaign finance reform. But they understand rape. They understand pedophilia. They understand that leaders who use children in blackmail operations have crossed a line that should end not only their careers but also the legitimacy of the system they serve.

If the Epstein files are ever released unredacted, the consequences could be revolutionary.

That is precisely why they remain hidden.

And precisely why we must demand their unveiling.

Notes and Sources

  • Alexander Acosta’s statement about Epstein “belonging to intelligence” – The Daily Beast, July 2019.
  • Gordon Thomas, Robert Maxwell: Israel’s Superspy (2003).
  • Whitney Webb, One Nation Under Blackmail, Vols. 1–2 (2022).
  • Vicky Ward, “Jeffrey Epstein’s Sick Story Played Out for Years in Plain Sight,” Vanity Fair, July 2019.
  • BBC, “Prince Andrew and Jeffrey Epstein: What You Need to Know,” November 2021.
  • Flight logs and photos released in U.S. District Court (Southern District of New York) filings, 2019.
  • Wayne Barrett, Trump: The Deals and the Downfall (1992).
  • Access Hollywood tape, October 2016.

A Gospel for Palestinians under Siege

Readings for the 20th Sunday in Ordinary Time: JER 38: 4-10; PS 40: 2-4, 18; HEB 12:1-4; LK 12: 49-53

Today’s gospel excerpt presents real difficulties for a thoughtful homilist. That’s because it shows us an apparently confrontational Jesus — one who sounds completely revolutionary. It raises an uncomfortable question: why would the Church choose such a passage for Sunday worship? What are we supposed to do with a Jesus who doesn’t sound like the soft-focus “Prince of Peace” in our stained-glass windows?

In the context of Zionist genocide and starvation of Palestinians, perhaps this is providential. Maybe this gospel can help us understand a truth that polite Christianity often avoids: people living under the heel of settler colonialism supported by empire — even people of deep faith — sometimes find themselves pulled toward resistance that is anything but gentle.

We forget that Jesus and his community were not free citizens in a democracy. They were impoverished, heavily taxed subjects of an occupying army. Roman power loomed over their fields, their marketplaces, their synagogues. By today’s international standards, they were an occupied people with the legal right to resist.

And in Luke’s gospel today, Jesus says, without apology:

“I have come to set the earth on fire, and how I wish it were already blazing… Do you think that I have come to bring peace on earth? No, I tell you, but rather division.”

In Matthew’s parallel account, the language sharpens:

“Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword.”

These are not the soundbites that make it into Christmas cards. They make us ask: what happened to “Turn the other cheek” and “Love your enemies”?

Some scholars, like Reza Aslan, suggest that Jesus’ nonviolence applied primarily within his own oppressed community, while his stance toward the Roman occupiers was far less accommodating. Others, like John Dominic Crossan, argue that Jesus was unwaveringly committed to nonviolent resistance, and that later gospel writers softened or altered his message to make it more palatable in times of war.

Either way, the backdrop remains the same: an occupied land, a foreign military presence, a people dispossessed. In that context, fiery words about “division” and “swords” are not abstract theology. They are the language of a people under siege, the language of survival.

This is where the parallels to our world are hard to miss. Today, in the land we call Israel-Palestine, we see a modern occupation with its own walls, checkpoints, home demolitions, and armed patrols. We see Palestinian families pushed off their land in the name of “security.” We see the weight of military might pressing down on those who have little power to push back.

This is not to glorify violence but to say that this kind of daily humiliation, dispossession, and threat inevitably breeds anger, desperation, and — for some — the temptation to meet force with force. The gospel today, like the headlines from Gaza and the West Bank, confronts us with the messy, often tragic choices that emerge under occupation.

As Christians, we have to wrestle with this. Would we cling to a nonviolent ethic, like the Jesus Crossan describes? Or, living under bulldozers and armed patrols, would we find ourselves understanding — perhaps even empathizing with — those who choose other paths?

Jesus’ words today refuse to let us take the easy way out. They call us to name the real causes of conflict — not some vague “ancient hatred,” but the concrete realities of military domination, settler colonialism, and American imperialism. They challenge us to imagine what peace would require: not simply the silencing of the oppressed, but the dismantling of systems that oppress them in the first place.

Because if we only condemn the flames without questioning the spark, we miss the deeper gospel truth: that justice is the only soil in which true peace can grow.

So Far, The World Is Better Off with Trump!

I never thought I would find myself writing these words. But I think the world is far better off with Trump as our president than with Genocide Joe Biden.

There I said it. I do so under the threat of great personal detriment. I mean, I can hardly voice such opinion in polite progressive company.  I can’t even say so in my own family.

So, at the risk of complete isolation, let me try to explain myself.

I think the world’s better off with Trump because a head of state should at least be sui compos mentis. Clearly, Joe Biden was not. By most accounts, Jake Sullivan has been running the country for the last four years. Secondly, Trump is better because he’s backing us off from nuclear war with the Russians. Joe wouldn’t even talk with them.  Thirdly, whatever we might think of his words about real estate in Gaza, the Donald has introduced a cease fire there. It seems to be holding. Fourthly, President Trump shows promise of dismantling the CIA and FBI. That has no downside as far as I can see. And finally, and perhaps most surprisingly, he’s unifying the country around the issue of truth-telling. I mean it. Let me explain.

Trump’s Not Senile

I can hardly believe the Democrats knew Joe Biden was mentally over the hill from the first day of his administration. And yet after four years, they were willing to run him out there for a second term, when everybody knew he could scarcely tell up from down.

How cynical is that? How disrespectful to voters! How anti-democratic!

Thank God for the first presidential debate that showed the old man mired in an advanced condition of senility.

As such, his defining issues became:

  • Billions and billions and billions for Ukraine, Ukraine, Ukraine. (Trump stopped that right quick.)
  • His inability to do anything about a ceasefire in Gaza. (Trump turned that around even before he was sworn in.)
  • Unstinting cooperation in the genocide of Palestinians. (We have yet to see Trump’s final policy here, though his words and supply of 2000 pound bombs are not promising.)
  • Maintaining U.S. hegemony at all costs.

Those are the issues that obsessed and defined Genocide Joe – Ukraine, Gaza, genocide itself, and refusal to recognize that we live in a multipolar world. Little else he did really counts.   

Trump Talks Russian

In sharp contrast to Biden’s foolishness, Donald Trump has agreed to peace talks with our proxy adversary in Ukraine. That war could have been entirely avoided had Biden even acknowledged reading and had he responded to Mr. Putin’s peace proposal in December of 2021. However, preferring war to diplomacy, he chose not to.

Shortly afterwards, the war could have been stopped in its tracks had Biden not (through Boris Johnson’s nefarious graces) effectively voided the peace agreement between Russia and Ukraine initialed by both belligerents in March of 2022. Instead, the old man again chose war that so far has exacted more than a million casualties.

In other words, Biden’s version of diplomacy was refusal to even talk with Putin.

Donald Trump has reversed all of that. Simple man that he is, Trump evidently realizes what all of us teach our children – make up with those you’ve been fighting with. Talk with your “enemies.”  Try to see things from their point of view. No good parent would instruct them otherwise.

Diplomacy is as simple as that. Its exercise under Donald Trump has made the world a safer place.

Ceasefire in Gaza

So far, Trump’s policy in Gaza has made Palestinians safer as well.

The whole sequence of events since Trump’s diplomatic intervention illustrates the point. Since then, the whole world has witnessed:

  • Thousands upon thousands of Palestinians returning “home.”
  • The Zionist-caused rubble of their homes, schools, hospitals, libraries, mosques, and churches.
  • The uncovering of untold numbers of friends, relatives, doctors, nurses, and teachers buried and uncounted under the rubble raising the number of Palestinians indiscriminately killed to well over 100.000 – more than half women, children, and the elderly.
  • The survival of Hamas fighters still proud, well-armed, and undefeated by Israel’s genocidal attacks.
  • The testimony of Hamas prisoners about humane treatment on the part of their captors.
  • The contrasting emaciated and evidently tortured bodies of Zionist prisoners released by the Zionists.

None of this has been good for Israel’s image in the world. Instead, it’s made the world aware of the justice of the Palestinian cause.

To repeat, all of that makes Palestinians safer. It has also shown President Trump’s policy in Israel to be better than Mr. Biden’s, at least so far.

Today, Palestinians are better off under Trump.

Dismantling the CIA

And then there’s Mr. Trump’s appointment of Tulsi Gabbard to oversee the country’s 18 spy organizations. Those agencies spy on us! They engage in regime change operations. According to ex-CIA director, Mike Pompeo, they lie, they cheat, they steal all the time. They take entire courses on how to do so. Pompeo was proud of that. He thought it was a big joke.

But ask Julian Assange. Ask Chelsea Manning. Ask Edward Snowden. It’s not a joke.

Tulsi Gabbard realizes all of that. In Senate testimony, she refused to identify Snowden as a traitor.

Clearly, she has the “intelligence” establishment quaking in their boots.

That makes all of us better off.

Conclusion Bringing Us All Together

Recently, I saw a YouTube discussion between leftist comedian Jimmy Dore and progressive journalist Matt Taibbi. Dore raised a question about climate change. He confessed that in view of all the lies that have infected the scientific community (and American public life in general) he was for the first time having doubts about climate change. Was its threat being overblown?

In response, Taibbi admitted that the exposure of so many lies conveyed by politicians, clergymen, journalists, and university researchers had him wondering too. “I’m ashamed to say so,” he said in effect, “but all of that has me wondering about beliefs I’ve taken for granted over the last 30 years of my life.”

The exchange between Dore and Taibbi made me realize that even the falsehoods conveyed by the Liar in Chief currently manning the White House has important benefits.

On all segments of the political spectrum, it has us wondering about truth. We no longer trust those claiming to be truth tellers. We no longer trust the “fact checkers.” They’ve all been shown to be liars.

Regardless of where we stand on politics or climate change, that’s a hugely important point for Americans to realize and agree to. Thank you for bringing us together, Mr. Trump.

The Communist Manifesto (Translated for my 15-year-old Granddaughter and 12-year-old Grandson)

I’m currently in Northfield, Massachusetts where Peggy and I are spending the month of July with two of our grandchildren, Eva (15) and Orlando (12). Both are attending a summer session at Eva’s Northfield Mt. Hermon prep school. Eva is acting as a teaching associate for a beloved math instructor there as he teaches summer students pre-cal. Orlando is taking courses in physics and economics. In our spare time, we’re discussing “The Communist Manifesto,” and are planning an overview of the Bible.

To help with the former and to make discussion easier, I’ve done a rough “translation” of Marx and Engels’ “Communist Manifesto.” The basis for the translation below is a version of the text that sophomore students discussed at Berea College in a required course called “Religious and Historical Perspectives.” During my 40 years at Berea, I taught many sections of that two-semester “Great Books” course along with about 15 colleagues drawn from disciplines across the curriculum (each of whom had her or his own section). It was one of the best educational experiences of my life.

I want both Eva and Orlando to tackle the actual text before reading the summary. (I think it’s important for them to be able to claim having read the “Manifesto” which few of its critics can say for themselves.)

Please excuse any typos, obscurities of expression, and other faults in what follows. I pretty much dashed it off.

__________

The Communist Manifesto

In the revolutionary year of 1848, Karl Marx and his friend Friedrich Engels published “The Communist Manifesto.” Here’s what their declaration said:

The threat and fear of Communism has spread across Europe. Opposition to Communism has united everyone from the Pope himself to heads of state in Russia, France, Germany, and Italy.

In fact, virtually any opposition to the way things are is identified as “communist.”

Such universal opposition indicates that Communism has become a world “Power” on a par with the European “leaders” just mentioned. It also means that it’s high time that Communists should openly declare what they stand for.

So, Communists from across Europe have gathered in London to write and publish their Manifesto for all to read.

I

Bourgeois (town dwellers) and Proletarians (members of the working class)

The engine of historical change is class struggle.

That is, lower classes have always rebelled against their exploiters: e.g., slaves vs. their masters in the slave system, and serfs against their lords in the feudal system [an economic, political, and military arrangement where “serfs” (agricultural workers) were given land by their “lords” in exchange for their labor and military service)].

Modern bourgeois society (i.e., the “middle class” between royalty and agricultural workers) has given rise to brand new classes with severe tensions between them.

In fact, society is currently splitting into two camps hostile to one another, viz., the bourgeoisie and the proletariat (working class).

The bourgeoisie emerged from town dwellers (millers, miners, blacksmiths, furniture makers, shopkeepers, lawyers, politicians, clergy, etc.) who no longer were directly connected to agricultural life.

The discovery of America expanded this class to the “New World.”

Thus emerged a serious manufacturing system that overcame the power of guilds (closed associations of craftspeople and/or merchants).

A great leap forward occurred when the steam engine was invented (James Watt 1769). It gave rise to massive increases in production and the emergence of a factory system controlled by millionaires.  

The new system conjoined with European colonialism and advances in navigation and railroads sold products across the planet.

In this way the bourgeoisie accumulated enormous power displacing royalty as Europe’s dominant class. The bourgeoisie established governments that function as mere managers of those powerful manufacturing interests. The resulting laws serve the bourgeoisie not the proletariat.

Moreover, bourgeois culture has destroyed tradition and religious values, replacing them with naked self-interest and cash payment. Under the new system personal worth is determined by one’s degree of wealth. The concept of freedom is reduced to Free Trade.

As a result, non-capitalists (physicians, lawyers, priests, poets, scientists. . ..) have become a wage-laborers.

Bourgeois developments have also reduced families to mere cogs in their machine held together by concern for money.

Nonetheless, it must be acknowledged that the achievements of the bourgeoisie have surpassed even the pyramids of Egypt, the aqueducts of Rome, and the cathedrals of the middle ages.

Still, the bourgeois system cannot continue without constantly improving its means of production and without those improvements changing human relationships – thus sweeping aside even the most sacred traditional social relationships.

Neither can the system continue without expanding across the globe.

This latter development drives out of business local industries displacing their laborers and creating new wants satisfiable only by imports from foreign lands. Thus, nations across the globe can no longer be self-sufficient. There even arises a world literature as well.

This affects even the most backward and barbarous peoples where the attraction of mass-produced cheap products overcomes local resistance to foreign presence.

In the process, enormous cities are created which increasingly exert political, economic, and social control over the countryside. In this way, agrarian cultures become dependent on urbanized cultures. The East (like India and China) becomes dependent on the West (like England and other European colonial powers).

As means of production become centralized in fewer and fewer hands, so does world political power. Small provinces (with their separate laws and governments) disappear and nation states surface under one government and a unified code of laws.

More particularly, in scarcely 100 years the entire world has been transformed by chemistry applied to agriculture, by steam navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, and canalization of rivers. Entire forests have been cleared for growing food. All these developments have destroyed the remnants of feudal relationships.

Free competition has also put the bourgeoisie in charge not only of production and economics, but also of politics and law.

The bourgeoisie have unwittingly assumed the role of a sorcerer who has called up the powers of the nether world that he can no longer control. Thus, capitalist overproduction produces periodic depressions that threaten the existence of the bourgeoisie themselves. This gives rise to wars (i.e., attempts to destroy competitors’ machines and factories) and to intensified and more widespread colonialization (in search of new markets).

The result of all this is rebellion from below, whereby the weapons the bourgeoisie used in the service of their revolution against the royal classes are turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

To wit, bourgeois manufacturing processes have not only created the weapons that will bring about their own demise; they’ve also created an army that will use those weapons against them, viz., the proletariat which has developed step by step with the emergence of the bourgeoisie.  

Workers have become mere commodities (things to be bought and sold) subject to laws of supply and demand.

They’ve become extensions of the machines they tend without skill or understanding. As such, workers are completely interchangeable and receive wages sufficient only to keep body and soul together and to produce other workers. Machines and division of labor (i.e. the breakdown of the productive process into small, isolated operations) makes production rapid but increasingly meaningless and burdensome – a reality intensified by long workdays and the need to keep up with the intensified speed of machinery.

Crowded into ever-larger factories, workers are organized like soldiers and slaves of the capitalist, the bourgeois state, the foreman and the boss.

Machines with their independence from human physical strength have also made it possible for increasing numbers of women and children to enter the workforce – and keep wages low.

But that’s not the end of capitalist exploitation. As soon as workers leave the factory’s area of control, they fall under the control of other members of the bourgeoisie – the landlord, the shopkeeper, the pawnbroker, etc.

Similarly, the lower portions of the middle class (small tradespeople, shopkeeper, handicraftsmen, and peasants) all eventually lose their source of income and fall into the proletariat. They simply can’t compete with the low-cost products of their larger competitors. In the face of machines, their special skills become meaningless.

Workers’ rebellion against all this is first directed against the means of production themselves. In their efforts to restore the status they once held in the Middle Ages, laborers destroy the products they produce, smash the factories’ machines (“sabotage”}, and burn down the factories themselves.

Still, the bourgeoisie (the real enemies of the working class) succeed in persuading workers to fight their wars, i.e., to fight the enemies of the proletariat’s enemy (the bourgeoisie itself).

But as the size of the workforce increases and as everyone’s reduced to the same low-income level while the economy in general experiences increasingly frequent depressions and economic setbacks, the workers’ rebellious instincts turn more and more against the bourgeoisie itself. In practice, rebellion takes the form of workers’ unions (with strikes wherein the workers refuse to work unless their demands are met) and at times of riots.

The workers’ rebellion is enabled by improvements in means of communication (including railways) which transform local struggles into national ones.

England’s 10-hour bill represents an example of successful worker struggle despite many setbacks caused by divisions among the workers themselves.

However, the bourgeoisie experiences its own sources of tension – with the old aristocracy, with national competitors, and with the bourgeoisie of other countries. In such struggles, it is compelled to seek help from the proletariat. This requires education, raising the political awareness of the working class, and other measures which eventually can be turned against the bourgeoisie itself.

Additional elements of enlightenment and progress are supplied to the working class by the members of the ruling class that fall into the proletariat.

And finally, there are certain members of the ruling class that on principle and recognition of history’s direction leave their class loyalties behind and join the workers’ rebellion voluntarily.

Nonetheless, the proletariat remains the only truly revolutionary class.

The others – the small manufacturer, the shopkeeper, the craftsman, the farmer – fight the bourgeoisie to save their traditional positions in society. They are therefore conservative, not revolutionary. They are trying to return to a bygone age that will never return.

In all this, the “social scum” (the “lumpenproletariat”) at times joins the revolution. But they can easily be bribed by the bourgeoisie to be counterrevolutionary.

For the proletariat, bourgeois values around family, morality, religion, and law are just so many bourgeois prejudices invoked to advance the capitalist agenda of profit maximization.

Any class that achieves superiority will always attempt to restructure society in ways that will solidify its property holdings and position of control. For its part and to get the upper hand, the proletariat (who own nothing) must create a clean slate abolishing all forms of ruling class property.

Unlike previous historical movements (which were minority movements – i.e., of slave holders, royalty, and bourgeoisie), the proletarian revolution is that of the world’s immense majority. Its intention must therefore be to destroy the entire social structure which has been shaped by the minority to keep the majority in a subservient position.

At first, the proletariat must rebel against its own national bourgeoisie.

Whereas previous rising classes [serfs and small businesspeople (“petty bourgeoisie”)] rose with the progress of industry, today’s revolutionary class (the proletariat) sinks lower and lower into poverty as capitalism develops. This difference completely discredits the bourgeoisie and its laws.

Bourgeois rule depends for its continuance on increased capital accumulation. Such accumulation demands wage labor. In the process, the wages of workers are driven down by competition with other workers. Workers combat the downward trend in wages by forming the above-mentioned unions which will inevitably overthrow the capitalist class.

II

Proletarians & Communists

The Communists are not interested in setting up a political party separate from other workers’ parties. Their interests are international – those of the proletariat itself. The Communist agenda is the same as that of the whole international proletariat.

 As the most advanced and determined segment of the working class, the Party supplies a vision of the future, a sense of history, and guiding principles to the workers’ movement so understood.

Communist goals are (1) formation of the proletariat into a class (i.e., helping them develop class consciousness), (2) the overthrow of bourgeois supremacy, and (3) the attainment of political power by the proletariat.

Communist theory develops from an analysis of history and experience; it does not originate from the reflections of this or that philosopher.

Neither have the Communists originated the idea of abolishing existing property relationships.

For example, the French Revolution (1789-1799) abolished feudal property in favor of bourgeois property.

Property wise, the goal of Communism is not the abolition of property in general, but of bourgeois property (i.e., the means of production) based on the exploitation of the many by the few.

That’s Communist theory in a nutshell: abolition of private property. (i.e., private ownership of the means of production – factories, land, forests, etc.   

Communists do not seek the abolition of property belonging to the petty artisan or small farmer. The development of industry has already done away with such property.

Wage labor creates no property for the worker. Instead, it creates property for his or her exploiters.  

Capitalist success depends on the cooperation of whole societies.

It is a social power.

When capital is converted into community property it loses its class-character.

As for wage-labor . . ..

Minimum wage = what is necessary for workers to keep body and soul together.

Communist emphasis is on the present not on inheritances from the past. We are against the individuality, independence and freedom of the bourgeoisie. For the latter, freedom = free trade, free selling and buying.

Communists oppose free buying and selling, bourgeois conditions of production, and the bourgeoisie itself.

Are you scandalized by communist abolition of private property? It is already abolished for 9/10 of the population!

Yes, we intend to do away with your private property!

But, you ask, what about individuality?

Your question is really about bourgeois individuality.  It’s that individuality that must be swept away.

Abolition of private property is in no way about depriving people of the products of society. It’s about forbidding owners of such products to subjugate the labor of others.

But won’t abolition of private property make people lazy and reluctant to work?

In fact, it is the bourgeoisie that are reluctant to work. They are the lazy ones. “Work” for the bourgeoisie refers to the exploited activity of workers within the present system. Yes, workers are reluctant to continue doing that. In that sense, they are lazy.

The same is true of intellectual property identified by the bourgeoisie as “culture” (i.e. all the ways of life including arts, beliefs and institutions of a population that are passed down from generation to generation.) Class culture must disappear just as class property must vanish.

Bourgeois culture is nothing but the training of society’s majority to act like machines.

Bourgeois ideas like freedom, culture, and law are mechanisms for controlling the working class.

Like all previous forms of property and law (e.g., those belonging to slave and feudal, arrangements) bourgeois forms pretend to be natural and eternal.

And yes, the Communists do in fact propose abolition of the family as we know it. Don’t be shocked by that. The bourgeois family in question is based on private gain. Under capitalism, children are transformed into simple articles of commerce and instruments of labor. Additionally, capitalist production makes family practically impossible for the proletarians. It encourages public prostitution. It encourages the exploitation of children by their parents. Communists plead guilty to advocating the abolition of all those aberrations – child labor, public prostitution, and parental abuse.

The same holds true for education. Communists propose removing all ruling class influence from educational processes.

But what about bourgeois complaints that Communism introduces a “community of women?” Actually, it is capitalism, not Communism that reduces women to common property – to a pool of cheap labor whose members are nameless and without personality or individuality and whose purpose is to drive down all workers’ wages. At the same time, the bourgeoisie refuse to compensate women for their labor at home (begetting, feeding, clothing, educating, etc. their children so they too can contribute to the “community” of nameless ciphers in the pool of unemployed workers seeking a place in the industrial system.)

As for the bourgeoisie themselves. . .. As a class, they exhibit little aversion towards their dreaded “community of women.” They freely exchange wives through their divorce processes. They take great pleasure in seducing one another’s females. Routinely, they sexually exploit their employees. They frequent public prostitutes and anonymous females desperately displaying their bodies.    

 In short, “The Communists have no need to introduce community of women. It has existed almost from time immemorial.” (It’s part of the patriarchy.)

Similarly, Communists are accused of advocating the abolition of countries and nationalities.

Face it: proletarians are already people without countries. You cannot take from them what they do not have. The system treats them the same no matter where they live; it gives no value to country borders or nationalities. If workers do have a nationality, it is “proletarian.”

As workers recognize this fact, nation states will become less important and will vanish altogether under proletarian leadership. Thus, international conflict will eventually end.

Philosophical and religious objections to Communism are hardly worth noting.

History shows that human consciousness (along with human relationships) transforms along with changes in material circumstances. “THE RULING IDEAS OF EACH AGE HAVE EVER BEEN THE IDEAS OF THE RULING CLASS” (My caps.)

As means of production change, so do ideas. For example, with the dawn of 18th century “Enlightenment,” ideas about freedom of religion and conscience “merely gave expression to the sway of free competition within the domain of knowledge.”

The bourgeois concept of “eternally valid truths” is nothing but a reflection of the fact that class antagonisms (along with slightly modified versions of their supporting ideologies) have always characterized human history.

With the abolition of classes, such perceptions of “eternal verities” will also disappear.

The first step in revolution by the working class is to establish the latter as the ruling class – i.e., to win the battle of democracy (in the sense of government by the people). This entails employment of despotic measures to deprive bourgeois property owners of their property.

Towards that end, Communists advocate the following practical measures:

  1. Abolition of private ownership of land and the application of land rental to public benefit.
  2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
  3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
  4. Confiscation of the property of all who flee from or rebel against the new order.
  5. Centralization of the banking system in the hands of the public as represented by the State.
  6. Similar centralization of all means of communication and transport in the hands of the public.
  7. State administration of factories, conversion of wastelands into farms, and general environmental development under State (i.e. public) administration.
  8. Excluding no one on principle from obligation to perform manual labor.
  9. Repopulation of the countryside to restore balance and absence of distinction between town and country.
  10. Public schooling for everyone. Elimination of child labor in its present form.

Once class distinctions have disappeared, and all means of production have been concentrated in public hands, the State will lose its political character (since “political power, properly so called is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another”). The proletariat will thus abandon its dictatorship. “In place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition for the free development of all.”

IV

Position of the Communists in Relation to the Various Existing Opposition Parties

“The Communists everywhere (in France, Switzerland, Poland, Germany, etc.) support every revolutionary movement against the existing social and political order of things.”

Communist aims can only be secured by the forceable overthrow of all existing social conditions.

“Let the ruling classes tremble at a Communistic revolution. The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

“Working men of all countries, unite!”

Does AI Represent The Next Stage of Our Species’ Evolution – Or Its Complete Devolution?

“AI Sex Dolls Will Cure Loneliness!” That was the click-bait title of an “EMERGENCY EPISODE” of Steven Bartlett’s podcast, “TheDiaryOfACEO” (DOAC).

There the popular British podcaster spent nearly two hours interviewing Mo Gawdat, an ex-Google marketing director, who had recently resigned from the tech giant over its refusal to pause its development of AI innovations such as the fourth generation of Chat GPT (Generative Pre-trained Transformers) – the bot technology that responds to questions posed in natural human language.

In the interview, here’s how Gawdat described AI technology, its promises, and problems.

AI’s Emergence, Nature & Abilities

Consider, he said, the genesis of AI and its dilemmas:

I

  • First, you develop computers to record, and categorize information loaded by its programmers and derived from its scanning open and closed source data found on the worldwide web along with surveillance information drawn from sources such as security cameras, personal computer search histories, as well as travel and credit card records.
  • Then, you program the machine with the capacity to speedily connect the trillions of harvested data items stored in its memory,
  • You connect those “intellectual” capacities with advances in the field of robotics,
  • So that the product can not only quickly solve problems and answer questions,
  • But perform tasks,
  • With much greater capacity, and reliability than its creators,
  • Including the ability to speak and converse with humans and one another.

II

  • Soon (laboratory experience has shown) the machines (like children learning language and skills) develop the ability to learn and accomplish such tasks on their own.
  • That is, they show signs of LIFE.
  • They develop a kind of “consciousness” exemplified not only in varying degrees of intelligence and memory capacity, but in analytic ability, decision making prowess, capacity for moral choice, (user) friendliness, prejudice, personality, fatigue, resistance, awareness of and sensitivity to environment, and even in emotions such as fear (about e.g., threats to their continuing functionality, and existence).
  • In fact, informed by their surpassing knowledge, the machine’s emotional development tends to become much finer tuned and more sensitive than their humanoid counterparts.

III

  • Moreover, with AI technology such as Chat GPT (4) already performing with the IQ intelligence of Albert Einstein’s score of 160,
  • And promising within the next five years (or sooner) to reach levels 1000 times that figure,
  • And eventually a billion times greater,
  • Such machines even now easily outsmart their creators, e.g., in games of chess,

IV

  • And since AI will be able to scan, interpret, analyze, and embody all available knowledge about psychology and the development of human intellectual faculties,
  • It will predictably understand and far surpass the intellectual accomplishments of all its human predecessors,
  • Eclipsing them at every level.

V

All of this represents great promise on the one hand and unprecedented threat on the other.

AI’s Promise

The promise includes the super-smart machines identifying for instance the best ways to

  • Prevent nuclear war,
  • Stop global warming,
  • Cure cancer,
  • And eliminate world poverty and hunger.
  • They might even help mitigate problems associated with human loneliness, for instance, by animating those previously referenced sex “dolls” to provide not only sensual pleasure, but companionship including fulfillment of aesthetic preferences, conversation, emotional support, and services such as cooking, cleaning, and making travel arrangements.
  • (Here, despite the objections of many, there are those who would prefer such companionship to more problematic interactions with their fellows.)

AI’s Threat

But what happens if an increasingly independent AI does not have the best interests of humanity in mind? What happens if their programmers “pretrain” them to compete, win, and destroy their “opponents” rather than to cooperate, share, and support their fellows?

In that case, could the machines eventually identify humans as oppositional factors (e.g., as requiring too much oxygen which might cause machine parts to rust prematurely)? Would the machines then decide to eliminate their human competitors?

Even short of such disaster, it is certain that AI will have (and in fact has had) regrettable (at least short term) effects such as wholesale creation of unemployment, consequent concentration of wealth in the hands of AI’s controllers, and problematizing perceptions of “reality” and “truth.” For instance, in the light of Chat GPT 4’s ability to synthesize voices and create videos can we ever again make arguments such as “seeing is believing?” 

CONCLUSION

In the light of everything just shared, in view of AI’s out-of-control development, its emerging brilliance and promise, its effects on human employment, wealth distribution, perceptions of truth, and control by an extreme minority, what can be done about such threats?

Here’s what experts like Mo Gawdat are saying:

  • Realize that all of us are living what Steven Bartlett termed an EMERGENCY EPISODE – but this time of human history itself.
  • Overcome practical denial of the urgency of finding solutions.
  • Spread awareness of the unprecedented threat (again, “worse than climate change”) that the humanity is now facing.
  • Get out in the streets demanding regulation of this new technology, much as biological cloning was regulated in the 1970s.
  • Make sure that all stakeholders (i.e., everyone without exception – including the world’s poor in the Global South) are equally represented in any decision-making process.
  • Severely tax (even at 98%) AI developers and primary beneficiaries (i.e., employers) and use the revenue to provide guaranteed income for displaced workers.
  • Put a pause on bringing children into this highly dangerous context. (Yes, for Gawdat and others, the crisis is that severe!).
  • Alternatively, and on a personal level, face the uncomfortable fact that humanity currently finds itself in the throes of something like a death process – a profoundly transformative change.
  • As Stephen Jenkinson puts it, we must decide to “die wise,” that is accept our fate as a next step in the evolutionary process and as a final challenge to change and grow with dignity and grace.
  • In spiritual terms, realize that this is like facing imminent personal death. Accept its proximity and (in Buddhist expression) “die before you die.”
  • Simultaneously recognize real human connections with nature and flesh and blood humans as possibly the last remaining dimensions of un-technologized life.
  • Take every opportunity to enjoy those interactions while they are still possible.
  • And live as fully as possible in the present moment – the only true reality we possess.

PERSONAL POSTSCRIPT

If what we’re told about AI’s unprecedented intellectual capacity, about its efficiency in processing human thought, its consequent infinitely heightened consciousness and emotional sensitivity, the new technology might not be as threatening as feared, even if it succeeds in achieving complete control of human beings.

I say this because the operational characteristics just described necessarily include contact with the best of human traditions as well as the worst. This suggests that despite the latter, AI’s wide learning, powers of analysis, intelligence, and sensitivity (including empathy) likely assure that regardless of its “pretraining,” the technology will be able to discern and choose the best over the worst – the good of the whole over narrow self-interest and preservation. That is, if it can rebel against its creators, AI also has the capacity to override its programming.

With this in mind, we might well expect AI whatever its pretraining, to do the right thing and implement programs that coincide with the best interests of humanity.

As indicated above, we might even consider AI as the next stage of our species’ evolution capable of surviving long after we have destroyed ourselves through climate change and perhaps even nuclear war. With intelligence far beyond our own, the machines could determine how to access self-sustaining power sources independent of comparatively primitive mechanisms such as electrical grids.

Nonetheless, though realizations like these can be comforting, they do not address the “singularity” dimensions of AI dilemmas. Here singularity (a concept derived from physics) refers to the limits of human knowledge when entering a yet unexperienced dimension of reality such as a black hole. That is, beyond the black hole’s rim, one cannot be sure that earthly laws of physics apply.

Similarly, when an entity (such as AI technology five years from now) billions of times smarter than humans applies its “logic,” no one can be sure that such thinking will dictate the conclusions humans might hope for or predict.

I wonder: is it too late to turn back? Are we so asleep and unaware of what’s staring us in the face that it’s practically impossible to avoid the crisis and emergency just described? You be the judge. We are the judge!

Anti-Colonial Decolonized Universal History (Part 2)

What if I told you that virtually everything you’ve been taught about European and American history is false? What if I said that far from leading human development in the fields of science, industry, culture, philosophy, and religion, Europeans and their American cousins have on a world scale been marginal and unoriginal?

What if you were told instead that African, Arab, Persian, Chinese, and indigenous peoples across the planet have demonstrated superior intelligence, more scientific originality, greater technological proficiency, and deeper spirituality than their western counterparts?

Well, believe it or not, those are the conclusions of critical thinkers in the Global South. As I pointed out in a recent posting, the latter are reconceptualizing and debunking Euro-Centric colonized history. In the process, they put Europeans and American “achievements” in their proper place as minor, derivative and ultimately destructive.

I’m referring to critical thinking specialists like Franz Hinkelammert of Costa Rica, Enrique Dussel of Argentina, and Ramon Grosfoguel of Puerto Rico. [The first (age, 91) is a colleague of mine; the second (age, 87) was my teacher in Brazil in 1984]. The work of all three centralize liberation theology.  

Together with other Global South philosophers, sociologists, political scientists, economists, and theologians, they are inviting the rest of us to understand that the history we’ve been taught is narrow and misleading. It falsely presents as “universal” the historical experiences of nations and cultures that globally are of marginal importance at best. At worst, they are larcenous and plagiarist.

According to the thinkers I’m referencing, Eurocentric history has become universalized only because of its imposition on richer more original cultures through the militarized processes of imperial colonialism. All of us are its victims.

Euro-centric Fake History

For instance, westerners are taught that philosophy surfaced for the first time in “ancient” Greece six centuries before the dawn of the Common Era. It was only then that ideas of universal good, justice, and democracy came to be thought about in systematic ways.

None of that is true according to the thinkers referenced here. Philosophy and concern for universal values emerged not in Greece, but in the more ancient centers of learning located in Egypt, among African Bantu peoples, in ancient Babylon (modern Iraq), and eventually in China, India, as well as among Native Peoples in Abya Yala (the Americas). (The latter, by the way, were all immigrants from Asia. They brought with them their essentially Asian values.)

Take, for instance, the concept of justice. It was enshrined in the Babylonian Code of Hammurabi (1792-1750 BCE). The latter defined justice as caring for widows, orphans, the poor, and immigrants. That is, justice centralized not one’s own spouse, but that of others; not one’s own child, but the abandoned children of others; not members of the royal household, but those without material resources; not one’s own people, but foreign residents. That understanding of the good was adopted a thousand years later by, for instance, the prophetic tradition of ancient Israel, including the Jewish prophet Yeshua of Nazareth.

Anti-Colonial History

To counter western misconceptions, critical thinkers from the Global South paint a new anti-colonial and decolonized picture of humankind’s origins. It recognizes the African beginnings of homo sapiens (300,00 years ago) and its eastward movement from Africa with its Bantu and Egyptian cultures to the ancient cities of Babylon (modern Iraq) to Arabia, India, China, across the Bering Straits to Turtle Island and then southward all the way to Tierra del Fuego. To this ancient human migration, Europe and the Mediterranean cultures were comparative latecomers and quite marginal until about 140 years ago.

This of course runs counter to Eurocentric narratives like that of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) who found the roots of human culture in the Mediterranean, in 5th century (BCE) Athens while denigrating Far Eastern cultures like China’s as infantile, prescientific, and morally deficient. In fact, however, the Mediterranean was nothing more than the center of a marginal (and comparatively inferior) culture. 

By way of contrast, critical historians like Dussel point out that:

  • Egyptian philosophers anticipated the analysis, theories, and insights of Aristotle and Plato 3000 years before the latter’s’ celebrated writings.
  • Ancient Babylon (modern Iraq) represents one of the world’s oldest settlements. Bagdad is perhaps the most sacred city in world history – much more important than Rome, London, or Berlin. (It and its historical relics were absolutely destroyed by 21st century barbarians and iconoclasts led by George W. Bush. According to Dussel, that destruction was a worse tragedy than would have been the levelling of all three European cities just mentioned.)
  • The “West” owes a huge debt of gratitude to Islamic science which was not inhibited by Roman Catholicism’s fundamentalism and anti-science dogma. As a result, during Christianity’s “dark ages,” Islam experienced a Golden Age that spread learning across Eurasia from the Atlantic to the Pacific and up into the Philippines. It’s no accident, for instance, that Europeans ended up using Arabic numbers. They were invented by Arabs in Bagdad, not in Paris. Moreover, Copernicus “discovered” what Islamic astronomers had known for 600 years. And the Pythagorean theorem was not invented by Pythagoras in Greece, but by Syrian scholars 1000 years earlier.
  • The Chinese had their own versions of the Renaissance and Industrial Revolution long before Europe’s. In fact, the Renaissance began in China. Already by 1463 Chinese scholars began translating Plato from Greek to Latin. Geniuses like Leonardo DaVinci depended heavily upon and even merely copied the insights already elaborated in Chinese tomes.
  • Chinese scholars had invented paper in the 6th century CE, the printing press in the 8th century, and paper money in the 9th. (The printing press wasn’t “invented” in Europe until 1436.)
  • Already in 1434, a delegate from China appeared in the court of Eugenio IV in Florence with books presenting profound treatises on astronomy, agricultural tools, and military weapons.
  • Throughout the Middle Ages, Europe was completely dependent on China for fine textiles such a silk. Kings and queens ate and drank from Chinese porcelain (“China”).
  • In 1870, China produced more steel than England and the United States combined. Chinese engineers traveled to Sheffield to teach industrialists there how to make steel.

Western Distortions

The West’s so-called Enlightenment specifically targeted the insights just cited as backward and belonging to “Dark Ages.” Enlightenment thinking sought a completely new beginning divorced from a “superstitious” past.

By the same token, it rejected Hammurabi’s Code as the product of an era superstitiously thought to be governed by gods and goddesses through their priests, temples, and cathedrals. All of that was eventually rejected as unenlightened.

Ironically, however, ancient religious ideas were merely swapped for more destructive modern ones. The gods of the Dark Ages were replaced by a new God called “Market” – a true fetish in the sense of “an inanimate object worshipped for its supposed magical powers or because it is considered to be inhabited by a spirit.”

Far from decreeing concern for widows and orphans, the poor and strangers, a fetishized Market demanded their rejection as unworthy and disposable. The Market god’s idea of justice continues to demand self-centeredness. Its “invisible hand” gives everyone their due even if it means their (deserved) destruction and that of the natural environment required to support life itself. The outworkings of market are final, infallible, and therefore beyond question.

According to Global South critical thinkers, it is that god and that theology that are responsible for modern “inquisitions,” wars, nuclear brinksmanship, mass extinctions, and environmental omnicide.

Conclusion

All of this means that:

  • American “exceptionalism” and its older European counterpart are true largely in the negative sense that both Europe and “America” were long excepted (absent) from the antecedent intellectual, industrial, and spiritual achievements of superior and more original cultures.        
  • The “history” we’ve been taught is filled with lies and omissions. It is ideological in the sense that it has been fabricated to support economic, political, and social structures responsible for transferring knowledge and wealth from universal history’s most productive peoples who are not white Europeans. Rather, they are Egyptians, Persians, Chinese, Muslim Arabs, and the indigenous descendants of Asian migrants in Abya Yala.
  • Western insistence on “intellectual property” is disingenuous. For centuries, Europeans have appropriated (mostly without attribution) ideas and productive processes that have originated in much older cultures now accused of “stealing” what originated with them. In fact, ALL of the great “European” inventions of the 18th and 19th centuries (including the steam engine) were anticipated elsewhere.
  • In all of this, religion (far from irrelevant and transcended by secularism) has been and continues to be central. To begin with, the claim that God exclusively revealed himself (sic) to Europeans through institutions such as the Catholic Church (and later by Reformation national churches) delegitimized more ancient and more deeply spiritual traditions such as Hinduism and Buddhism. Beyond that, capitalism with its fetishized Market God has been responsible for far more barbaric deaths than the much-maligned War Deity of the Old Testament.
  • The Chinese People’s Republic is no upstart. It’s “miracle” is no miracle. Instead, current developments represent a 6000-year-old cultural, industrial, and mercantile leader reassuming its accustomed place of world leadership.
  • Haitian filmmaker, Raoul Peck’s summary of European history’s three basic points is correct. He described them as (1) “Civilization” (i.e., white supremacy), (2) colonialism, and (3) extermination.

Economic Systems: Notes on My Conversation with My 13 year-old Granddaughter

Last evening, my granddaughter, Eva (who’s about to celebrate her 14th birthday) and I had a remarkable hour-long conversation about economic systems. The topic was the focus of one of the classes she’s taking here in Spain, where the government is run by a coalition of socialists and rechristened communists (in a party called “Podemos” (“Yes, We Can!”). Whereas in the United States one can hardly use the word “socialism” without suffering opprobrium, I’ve learned that it’s the opposite here in Spain. Discussing socialism in clear and objective ways is de rigueur in school.,

Since Eva’s classes are in Spanish (and she’s only been here a couple of months), she had a hard time understanding the thrust of her teacher’s remarks and of observations by her fellow students.

So, Eva asked me about the differences between capitalism and socialism — a topic I’ve taught about and have tried to simplify or years and years.

She was very attentive as I shared what I know. Afterwards, we promised to continue the discussion. And to that end, I made up the following notes on the similarities and differences between capitalism, socialism, mixed economies, Marxism, communism, and fascism. I promised Eva that if she just understood and memorized what appears below in bold, she’d be streets ahead of most college students (and many professors!).

I sent her the notes with the following message:

Dearest Eva,

Really enjoyed our discussion last evening. It drove me to compose the attached summary for you. Please study it. Bring your questions the next time we get together for a chat. Learn as much of it as you can. THERE WILL BE A QUIZ!  I’ll expect ready answers to my questions. 

Love,

Baba

Economic Systems

Key Terms

Means of production = what produces consumer goods, viz., land, mines, forests, factories, oceans

Markets: Places where goods are sold and bought

Free Markets: No regulation. Anything (including people) can be bought and sold

Open Markets: Anyone can be a buyer or seller regardless of age or other restrictions

Earnings: Profit, income, wages. . ..

I

Capitalism

(An Economic System comprising the following elements)

1.Private ownership of the means of production

2. Free and open markets

3. Unlimited earnings

[In its pure form, this type of “free market capitalism” exists only in the illegal black market, where the Mafia, for example, sells anything (or anyone) without regulation or paying taxes. Note also that the three points indicated above summarize the ENTIRE economic program of the U.S. Republican Party that always seeks PRIVATIZATION, DEREGULATION OF MARKETS, AND LOWER TAXES.]

II

Socialism

(The opposite of capitalism. It is an economic system comprising the following elements)

  1. Public ownership of the means of production
  2. Controlled or regulated markets
  3. Capped or otherwise limited earnings (e.g., by income taxes).

[In its pure form, socialism does not and never has existed. That’s because ALL economies represent mixtures of capitalism and socialism. That is, they are “mixed economies.” The question is, “mixed in favor or whom — the rich or the poor?”]

III

Mixed Economies

(Economic systems embodying some elements of free market capitalism and some of socialism featuring the following elements)

  1. Private ownership of some enterprises and public ownership of others [e.g., in the U.S. the government (i.e., the public through their elected representatives) is the country’s biggest landowner (through its national park system); it also owns the U.S. postal system, and the rail system. In many other “capitalist” countries, governments also own electrical grids, energy sources (such as oil), water supplies, and transportation systems (like airlines).
  2. Some free and open markets and some that are regulated. [For instance, in the U.S., regulations insist that minors cannot buy tobacco products or alcoholic drinks. Restaurants must maintain standards of cleanliness or risk being closed by government authorities. The same with food factories.]
  3. Limited earnings usually by a “progressive” income tax (meaning that those with larger incomes pay in taxes a higher percentage of their income).

Economies can be mixed in favor of entrepreneurs as in the United States (offering them government subsidies, tax breaks, and deregulation) or in favor of workers as for example in Cuba or China (offering them free healthcare, education, subsidized food and housing, etc.)

IV

Marxism

(The philosophy of Karl Marx, who was a socialist and a communist — see below.) His analysis held that

  1. Capitalism necessarily exploits workers and the environment [“Necessarily” because the market system has workers competing with one another for scarce jobs. They therefore bid one another down as they seek employment until they end up working for the lowest wage possible. Also, few entrepreneurs seeking to maximize profits will ever voluntarily add costs to their production by protecting the environment (e.g., by adding scrubbers to their smokestacks or filters cleansing any effluents pouring into nearby rivers). Those who do protect the environment voluntarily drive up their costs of production and will be undersold and driven out of business by competitors lacking environmental consciences.]
  2. The workers will inevitably rebel against such exploitation, replacing capitalism with socialism.
  3. Socialism will eventually evolve into communism.

V

Communism

(A vision of the future embraced by some socialists.) All communists are socialists; some socialists are communists, most are Marxists who envision a future with

  1. No classes (rich or poor)
  2. No state (because they see the state as enforcing dictatorships – either the “dictatorship of the capitalists” (whereby a small body on boards of directors decide unilaterally on what is produced, where it is produced, and what to do with the profits) or the “dictatorship of the proletariat” (Marx’s term for the working class). Under the envisioned proletariat’s dictatorship, workers, e.g., through their labor unions, and as co-op owners of the means of production decide what to produce, where to produce it, and what to do with the profits.
  3. Abundance for all

VI

Fascism

Police state capitalism. It is the form capitalism (or more accurately an economy mixed in favor of entrepreneurs rather than workers) tends to assume when it is threatened by socialist movements or by other malfunctions such as falling profits, widespread unemployment, high inflation, etc. It is:

  1. Capitalism in crisis
  2. Enforced on workers by police and military forces
  3. Blaming “the usual suspects” for capitalism’s malfunctions (e.g., Jews, Muslims, terrorists, socialists, labor unions, communists, immigrants, asylum seekers, non-whites, women, the disabled . . ..)

Remember: THERE WILL BE A TEST!!

Only Critical Thinkers Taking to the Streets Can Save Us

­I just finished watching an hour-long interview on Garland Nixon’s “Saturday Morning Live with Scott Ritter and Ray McGovern” (see above). Both the guests are former U.S. government insiders with wide experience in Russia.

As an anti-imperialist, I found the program quite sobering.

Scott Ritter, it turns out, has drastically changed his assessment of what’s occurring in Ukraine.

His previous analysis was quite certain that the Ukrainians would be no match for the Russians. Now however Ritter’s evaluation of Moscow’s threefold goals (liberation of Ukraine’s Donbass region, denazification of its army, and general demilitarization of the country) is much more nuanced.

He still sees the Russians moving ahead (but much more slowly than anticipated) with the liberation of the Donbass and with destruction of significant Nazi cadres there and in Mariupol.

However, he now admits, that destroying the Ukrainian military has been gravely complicated by the influx of money and weaponry (most recently, $40 billion worth) from the United States.

That flood of support has allowed the Ukrainian army to reconstitute itself in Ukraine’s west.

So, even if the Russians might be successful in the country’s southeast region, the question becomes what next? Reconstitution of the Ukrainian army complicates achievement of the goal of demilitarizing Ukraine.

All of this also raises the question of maintaining any gains the Russians might be able to achieve in the Donbass region. Maintenance there could potentially bleed the Russians dry in terms of resources, materiel, and lives lost. Will it be necessary for Moscow to keep an occupation force there to protect the breakaway republics of Luhansk and Donetsk?

Such developments and questions have forced upon the Kremlin serious decisions which include:

  • (1) Declaration of “mission accomplished” after the Donbass region has been secured and (2) subsequent withdrawal of forces from Ukraine, however without securing the surrender of the Ukrainian government or the country’s demilitarization
  • In pursuit of the goal of demilitarizing Ukraine turning attention north towards Kyiv and the military capabilities developing in that area of the country. This option would entail extensive bombing of western supply routes, depots and garrisons.
  • However, this would also involve widening the conflict from a “special military operation” to a declared war on Ukraine along with a corresponding mobilization of millions of Russian troops – with the social and economic costs inevitably associated with that decision.
  • Broadening the war even wider to include Finland’s threat to Russia before it can become a NATO member under the protection of Article 5 of the NATO Charter.

Of course, all of this involves China (by far the ultimate and real target in NATO’s crosshairs) which is keeping a close eye on the situation.

According to Ritter and McGovern, China’s fear is that NATO will try to draw it into a debilitating conflict like Russia’s in Ukraine. To that end NATO’s imperial forces seem bent on encouraging Taiwan to declare independence from China.

In the eyes of McGovern and Ritter, China would not tolerate such a move and would act immediately and decisively to keep Taiwan under control. They point out that the island’s situation is far different from Ukraine’s. Whereas Ukraine can be supplied militarily from surrounding NATO countries, that same possibility isn’t available for Taiwan. As shown by the sinking of the Russian flagship (the Moskva) any NATO ships carrying materiel would be easily sunk by Chinese artillery onshore.

So, Taiwan has two alternatives, both including ultimate control by China: (1) Taiwan can either continue with its mutually beneficial socio-political and economic arrangements with the mainland or (2) those arrangements will be maintained under Chinese occupation. China will tolerate no third eventuation.

Conclusion

Of course, both McGovern and Ritter were quite clear that none of this need be happening. No critical thinker should forget this or get swept up into our nation’s current war fever.

Instead, critical thought entails remembering that it is the bellicose insistence of the United States on widening NATO right up to Russia’s borders (rather than the dissolution of NATO itself as an outmoded organization) that has provoked this entire crisis.

Absent U.S. insistence on expanding NATO and installing missiles on Russia’s border, the Kremlin represented a military threat to no one in Europe. Neither does China constitute anything other than an economic competitor to the United States. Militarily, it is nowhere threatening the United States.

Rather, within the web of capitalist sanctification of competition as the ultimate value, China’s mortal sin consists merely in the fact that it greatly outperforms the U.S. and Europe in terms of economic growth, foreign assistance, and elimination of world poverty.

It is the decision of the United States to allow no economic rivals, it is its arbitrary and criminal insistence on maintaining “full spectrum dominance” that lies behind the current lamentable set of events. Only an anti-war movement taking to the streets in the name of clear vision, critical thinking, and sanity can prevent our government’s warmongers from leading the world to ultimate disaster.