For the second time, I see the guy in a Trump t-shirt and a Trump cap.  What’s funny is it’s a different Trump t-shirt and different Trump cap, indicating he has a whole wardrobe of such stuff.

I don’t know how much I should be impressed at a statement of defiance in a hostile environment in and about Portland.  Or, I don’t know to what degree I should find him a boob.  I found people in Obama shirts and paraphenilia circa 2008 / 2009 to be boobs, and that was a president I largely approve.  (Just don’t think id-ing with a politico is a good statement.)  So.  Given the twin ills, do I fine him boobish or double boobish?

VII.  Dejavu.

Speaking of Trump’s staff, the National Security memo — authored by Rich Higgins, who was later pushed out of the NSC — is very disturbing. That these are the views of a key White House staffer, and that this information actually landed on the president’s desk, would make Lyndon LaRouche blush.

Actually what’s cited here appears to be in keeping with past Larouchian literature.  Nothing makes anyone with the org blush.

Foreign Policy: “Trump is being attacked, the memo says, because he represents ‘an existential threat to cultural Marxist memes that dominate the prevailing cultural narrative.’ Those threatened by Trump include “deep state” actors, globalists, bankers, Islamists, and establishment Republicans.”

More: “Though not called out by name, [National Security Adviser] McMaster was among those described in the document as working against Trump, according to a source with firsthand knowledge of the memo and the events. Higgins, the author, is widely regarded as a Flynn loyalist who dislikes McMaster and his team.”

And here’s the thing… That Andrew Breivicks (2011 Norwegian terrorist) had a plagiarized essay of a Larouchie penned article decrying “Cultural Marxism”.  It is important to note that the author who wrote it has expressed his horrors at the appropriation.

VIII.  THE SUMMER POST OFFICE TOUR!  FLOODING THE ZONE!

Greenwich, and we’re TRUMPIER THAN TRUMP, CHUMPS.  3 for Larouche / Trump, or Trump / Larouche.

Outside Town Hall Tuesday morning, Greenwich resident Patrick Servidio and two other members of the conservative LaRouche Political Action Committee handed out literature stating that President Donald Trump’s alleged connection with Russia during the presidential election was a British-directed hoax aimed at moving the U.S. to war with Russia and Middle Eastern countries.

“We’re out here to defend President Trump and the American system,” said Servidio. “We are in a very dangerous situation, and it’s a coup against the President of the United States. And this has never happened before in the history of America, but this is all British controlled.”

A registered Republican, Servidio has lived in Greenwich for 74 years.

Circleville…

Shopping plazas!

Myles Robinson, of the Massachusetts-based regional office of the LaRouche Pac Movement, brought his message to Richmond on Friday. With a full display of information and graphics which explain the LaRouche cause, he stood on the sidewalk of the Chariho Shopping Plaza on Main Street, explaining the Movement’s concerns to those who pulled over.

“We’re building a movement to protect President Trump from the FBI coup attempt, and potential assassination,” he said. “The problems are not being caused by Democrats,” he went on. “It’s a much bigger issue.”

Hey da.  About that Glass Steagall… it appears to mean as much for Trump as it does for Larouche, so maybe this isn’t such a reach after all?

“Defend Trump from the Coup!” “Donald Can’t Do It Alone.” “Trump Wants Peace: How About You?” “China, Russia and the United States Can End War.” “Build the World Landbridge!”

Signs and slogans proclaim the pro-Trump, anti-establishment stance of two men who set up a desk in the grass in front of the Ridgefield Post Office parking lot on Thursday, July 20, talking politics to whoever would stop to listen.

“We’re trying to protect Trump from the coup, and we’re calling for Glass-Steagall,” said John Scialdone of Hackensack, N.J.

BURN!!!  YIMBYs are a compelling man-bites-dog story for lazy reporters who treat San Francisco as metaphor and, as one local reporter told me, “Trauss is a beguiling figure to cover because she doesn’t seem reined in by the bounds of common decency.” She’s like followers of Bob Avakian or Lyndon LaRouche at a rally hawking sectarian newspapers.

Iran tv on sanctions.  North Korea “debate” with William Jones and William Overholt.

The Altramura Center for the Arts has a Schiller Institute relaying of Verdi.

Blast from the past.

Caulkins also recalled the 1980s battle with the Lyndon LaRouche organization. Then a perennial presidential candidate, LaRouche spurred controversy when he moved his campaign headquarters and fundraising operations to South King Street in 1983.
The friction between the organization and other businesses came to a head when fraud charges were brought against it because of allegations that individuals, especially the elderly, were being scammed. LaRouche was convicted of mail fraud and conspiracy and sentenced to 15 years in federal prison. He was released in 1994.
As one of the community critics of LaRouche and his associations, Caulkins came under threats during the period.
“That was a fun thing,” Caulkins said, recalling that people would drop off donations at the store to support him amid threats of litigation. It was also scary. He said LaRouche associates would come into the store, lay guns on the counter, and tell the clerks, “You tell Stanley Caulkins—he’s next.”

Interesting.  What is Maryland to do about this Roger Taney statue, the man — Supreme Court Justice — best known for authoring the Dred Scott Decision?  In a previous bout of statue removing, they decided to “compromise” by sticking up fellow Marylander and Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall statue.

I tend to want to keep these things up, and contextualize them… maybe change the meaning of what the heck a statue is representing, though I suppose that means a degeneration of the Marshall statue.  Here they are — Supreme Court Justices from Maryland!

Which, theoretically, would have put me on the side for now embattled Maryland state Senator Mike Miller, except then he’ll lob this at us…

Miller, an avid reader of history, also defended Taney’s character, describing him as a man with a “complex” past.
“Unlike George Washington who freed his slaves upon his death, Taney freed his slaves early in his life,” the letter said.
“Roger Brooke Taney was not a Confederate officer and he remained loyal to the Union until his death in 1864,” Miller wrote. “Many historians have debated the conflicting anti-slavery words and works of Roger Brooke Taney.”

Might be an interesting subject for a book, I suppose, in exploring the what of the great compromises upon compromises in societal racism on not wholly evil men.  But put it this way — the founder of the Ku Klux Klan — or, something of some early key figure — ended up denouncing the entity as it turned to a more violent vigilance and into the role as military wing of the Democratic Party.  All very interesting. Not worth venerating or celebrating the guy.  His statues must go… as they are.

What have we done to anger the Sun God?

Conversely, what have we done to please the Moon God?

I’m thinking of that quote from Howard Dean, mocked and pillored as it was as a tone deaf caricature from coastal elitists, that the Democratic Party oughta get the votes of those with confederate flag decals on their pick up trucks.  And indeed, we run right into that snippy Fran Lebowitz quote that she doesn’t care what Trump voters want, we know what they want, they want the Confederate Flag.

And I suppose we have that obvious equation on just how much, how steeped, how much of this adopted culture the party would tolerate as it patches some disparate parcels of America to a hoped for majority — you do understand Dean’s sentiment even as we run right against that problem.  The one figure in the 2016 Presidential field (such as it was) who’s expressed some cultural deference on the Confederate flag, Jim Webb, ran a less relevant campaign than Lincoln Chafee.

To move toward an ever more extreme variant, there’s a comment I saw spurring about on “who these bozo Klan members in White Sheets” were — something from an old kindly grandpa, somewhat more sympathetic than most will give as thought it were William Jennings Bryan at the 1924 Democratic Convention platform debate against denouncing the Klan by name (and channeling the spirit of Donald Trump over the past week) — “Just look at the shoes.”

And there we have the currently en vogue quote from Lyndon Johnson — “If you can convince the lowest white man he’s better than the best colored man, he won’t notice you’re picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he’ll empty his pockets for you.”

And sure.  Sure.  But now we come face to face with the images at that “Unite The Right” protest, and see… jackals… with nice clothing.  Their shoes are fine.  And so we have the much mocked commentary of “Imagine if they suffered any actual oppression — how long they would last.”

And to be a tad tone deaf — seeing that we had some Bernie or Buster Jill Stein voter who shot Republican Congress members at the Congressional baseball game — so I maybe a little unpopularly end up sliding the Hitlerite youth who drove his car into the counter-protesters from the literal neo-nazi lead group of protesters …

just like the ACLU does…

That oughta be good enough.  Like, I sometimes think the awful administration has its advantages — he’s lands as a standard Republican who’s problems on this score are making him ineffectual in passing policy and it was doubtful the Democrats could win both 2016 and 2020 and Hillary Clinton sucks and wouldn’t get much either and if you had to win one you’d want 2020 due to the same problem that greeted the Democrats redistricting wise that happened in 2010 …

But!  It is here with the equivocation on this mass that consider themselves Trump’s Shock Troops that you see a little bit of… why it matters.

I’m sure you’re aware of that which is the Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.  But reading about, I’m wondering if there’s some fissure within the movement — on when and where we’d need to get going.

And I’m not speaking of this…

The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement seperates its followers into two groups, VHEMT Supporters and VHEMT Volunteers.
VHEMT Supporters agree that we need to stop breeding as humans are overpopulated, but do not agree we need to go as far as extinction. They believe we should all cease breeding until humans have reached a “sustainable” population. Meanwhile, VHEMT Volunteers see extinction as the only sure way to avoid breeding ourselves back to today’s density.

Anyways, I would argue that the “Population control”group is, by definition, not in the category of “Voluntary Human Extinction” advocating, even if their arguments coincide to a degree.

But go to this paragraph from the book American Nerd, by Benjamin Nugent, page 93…  Now we’re in the category of transhumanism, and negating the question of when a human dies off and when the robot takes its place…

…and it doesn’t even matter if Hans Moravac considers his “the machines are our progeny, and we shall be leaving them as our human forebears” thesis as parcel to “Voluntary Human Extinction”…

Would we have two groups of advocates for the cause… one when the fauna overtakes all human traces — see The World Without Us — and the other wanting to develop our machine progeny and needing to stave off environmental or nuclear catastrophe just long enough to get resilient or self-replicating machinery to dominate or at least hold sway on the planet?