Archive for November, 2020

True and false Positive Thought

November 16, 2020

After writing about Trump and destructive positive thinking, I thought it useful to write about constructive positive thought. So here goes.

Real positive thinking

With persistance and learning, it is amazing what people can achieve.

Learning is vital and requires interaction with the world and occasional failure. If I cannot fail I cannot learn.

  • Think of how often young children fall over when they try to walk, or how often they make garbled noise or confused statements when they try to speak. Yet they get on with it, and almost everyone succeeds.

Most problems are not insurmountable, but if they seem insurmountable perhaps they can be bypassed? Perhaps I can do something different and more effective?

Perhaps I can learn from someone else?

People who point out problems, don’t have to be believed at face value, but they may need to be thanked, especially if they have experience and I can learn from them.

Cliche: every problem presents opportunities… for learning.

I don’t know how things will turn out or how the process will work in advance. I should let things flow once I’ve started. (If you are religious then think about leaving the end place to God)

Some things are improbable and possibly doable. Some things are physically impossible. It is good to be able to distinguish them – choose something possible to begin with.

  • For Example, it is improbable in the extreme that you will become a skillful and famous ballet dancer if you first start training at 50. However, you might become a good dancer, or you might enjoy dancing, you might found a new type of dance – all of which are worthwhile. In the current world you cannot peddle your way from Moscow to the Moon. You cannot bring back the dead. You cannot build a perpetual motion machine. You cannot regrow your chopped off legs by will power but you might still be able to live a fully satisfying life. We cannot continue our current ‘developed world’ lives as they are, without catastrophe, but we can perhaps change to something better.

I can work with my materials not against them. I don’t command the world, it is what it is. There are always limits. Sometimes we don’t know what those limits are. Sometimes we do, and sometimes we only think we do.

My thinking shows me the world I experience and interpret. Therefore I need to learn the most useful and accurate thinking I can get, and that usually involves getting things wrong and correcting myself.

I might think I have succeeded, only to find its another learning experience. That’s fine.

Total success and dominance are not the point!

Life involves surprise! That’s wonderful and adds to my creativity.

False positive thinking

I can do anything without fail.

I know everything already.

Everything is easy, or should be easy, if I think right.

Problems do not exist. All problems are unreal, and I should not think about them, as that attracts more problems.

People who point out problems are enemies trying to pull me down.

The world is whatever I think it is. I shape the whole world to be what I want.

Everything will work out exactly as I have planned it, and if it doesn’t I just reassert that it will happen that way and only that way.

I’m the greatest!

***********

Real positive thinking is realistic. Keep going, keep learning and keep changing.

Trump and the deal

November 15, 2020

One of the things that has surprised me about Trump, is that I thought he might do deals – that is what he is supposedly famous for, and people keep telling us he is not a politician and he is always open to a deal. His famous book is The Art of the Deal

But he seems incapable of doing what normal people might call deals.

In normal business, my understanding is that a ‘deal’ leaves all sides relatively happy. In Trump world a deal seems to be an agreement in which Trump wins. Or as the co-author of the Art of the Deal remarks:

To survive, I concluded from our conversations, Trump felt compelled to go to war with the world. It was a binary, zero-sum choice for him: You either dominated or you submitted. You either created and exploited fear, or you succumbed to it — as he thought his older brother had….

In countless conversations, he made clear to me that he treated every encounter as a contest he had to win, because the only other option from his perspective was to lose, and that was the equivalent of obliteration. Many of the deals in “The Art of the Deal” were massive failures — among them the casinos he owned and the launch of a league to rival the National Football League — but Trump had me describe each of them as a huge success….

From his perspective, he operated in a jungle full of predators who were forever out to get him, and he did what he must to survive.

Tony Schwartz I wrote ‘The Art of the Deal’ with Trump. His self-sabotage is rooted in his past. Washington Post. 16 May 2017

The above is, of course, opinion from a person who listened to Trump for a long time, but there are plenty of people around, who allege that in their direct experience of him, as a business person, Trump’s idea of a deal was to not pay contractors or suppliers, and threaten them with legal warfare if they complained.

Obviously I don’t know how true any of these assertions are, but it seems characteristic of his visible politics, and he supposedly was involved in over 3,500 law suits before entering politics (see here for for an expanded list) – and some of his frauds like Trump University [2] and the Trump Foundation [3], [4] are quite well known – so its not implausible. It also appears that he took money from his presidential campaign funds and transferred it to his own businesses.

One example of the failure to make a deal is that, despite the Republicans controlling the Senate and the Reps for two years, Trump was unable to get a deal to improve Obamacare. He kept promising that one will turn up in the next fortnight, but it never happens. He could not even get the Republicans to fund his fence with Mexico. He even threatened to close the government over it towards the end of 2017, without any one yielding to the deal. He blamed Democrats, despite having Republican majorities, but he did not, would not, or could not, do a deal with Democrats. He had to take the money from other programmes. I quote from wikipedia to save space:

Trump signed a declaration that the situation at the southern border constitutes a national emergency.[101] This declaration ostensibly made available $600 million from the Treasury Forfeiture Fund, $2.5 billion from the United States Department of Defense[b] (including anti-drug accounts), $3.6 billion from military construction accounts, for a total of $8 billion when added to the $1.375 billion allocated by Congress.[103] Around February 21–22, it emerged that more than a third of those funds had already been spent for their original purposes, and were therefore unavailable.[104][105]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_wall#cite_note-105

When both the Democrats and Republicans passed a motion to stop the US participating in Saudi Arabia’s war with Yemen, Trump did not deal, he vetoed it.

Some people say he has sabotaged two peace deals with the Taliban – but he has carried out his threat to bomb the shit out of them, apparently dropping more bombs than were used in all Bush Jr’s wars.

But then he has apparently carried out more attacks on Somalia than any other US President – and Somalia is not exactly a threat.

And the US is no longer required to report how many people it has killed through drone warfare – an achievement, but perhaps not a deal.

He did not do a deal in Syria, he just abandoned the US’s Kurdish allies, even while he kept troops there. He did not do a deal with the Iraqi government when they insisted he remove troops, he just kept the troops there.

He did not do a deal with Iran, he just withdrew. He seems to have deliberately destabilised a peace agreement and pushed Iran towards nuclear weapons. He could be looking for a war there. That is one reason he could be stacking the Pentagon.

He did not manage a deal with China. China is still pressing in the South China Seas, and suppressing democracy in Hong Kong. The Trade War with China, which he thought was easily won, is still going, with no obvious advantage to the US – although lots of taxpayers money has been used to prop up big agribusiness. It might be possible to think this is a good thing, but its not a deal.

He failed to get a deal with North Korea, and testing nukes continues.

He did not improve the deal with Paris agreement. He just withdrew.

The usual impression I get from international meetings is that few world leaders think Trump is great at making deals, and they seem to have little evidence he is any good. He appears to spend most of his time at such meetings saying how wonderful he is, how bad everyone else is, and talking with Putin in secret.

I don’t know of anything the US has got from his deals with Putin, but perhaps he benefits a bit.

The only deal I know that seems decent was the economic treaty between Serbia and Kosovo. I don’t know how much he had to do with that. I have read that he claimed he was ending centuries of bloodshed, in a war which ended 20 years ago, and Serbia still does not recognise Kosovo’s right to exist.

The middle East treaty seems to have been about giving Israel what they wanted, abandoning the Palestinians and getting signatures from people who were not at war and shared no common borders.

He seems to have even refused to talk with people in the US who were protesting about black people being shot and beaten up by police. Instead he seems to have encouraged the police violence that started the riots, and praises white guys for shooting bullets and paint pellets at rioters. No deal there. He seems to have decided it was to his political advantage to keep the situation tense, rather than to do a deal.

Likewise rather than deal, he seems to have overridden States’ rights, so as to push higher pollution levels on States that wanted to make their own laws about what was acceptable.

So he does not deal that well.

Most politicians would probably not insist on total subservience and loyalty to themselves. That seems to be Trump’s idea of a deal. Consequently it is not really a surprise that after years of FoxNews’ unswerving support, and the kind of lovey-dovey interviews he can cope with, he threatens to destroy them after they reported he lost.

To most people this could seem like a political attack on free speech – but hey its Trump and he is not a politician.

I don’t know of any deals done with the Democrats, but his 4th July Speech seems to reveal his attitude to deals again. This is traditionally a speech in which Presidents try to draw Americans together. Trump used it to blame the ‘the left’ (which to his audience would mean Democrats) for everything that was wrong. He tried to make them appear Unamerican.

as we meet here tonight, there is a growing danger that threatens every blessing our ancestors fought so hard for, struggled, they bled to secure.

Our nation is witnessing a merciless campaign to wipe out our history, defame our heroes, erase our values, and indoctrinate our children…

In our schools, our newsrooms, even our corporate boardrooms, there is a new far-left fascism that demands absolute allegiance.  If you do not speak its language, perform its rituals, recite its mantras, and follow its commandments, then you will be censored, banished, blacklisted, persecuted, and punished.  It’s not going to happen to us….

That is why I am deploying federal law enforcement to protect our monuments, arrest the rioters, and prosecute offenders to the fullest extent of the law….

 The violent mayhem we have seen in the streets of cities that are run by liberal Democrats, in every case, is the predictable result of years of extreme indoctrination and bias in education, journalism, and other cultural institutions….. [and so on and so on]

Remarks by President Trump at South Dakota’s 2020 Mount Rushmore Fireworks Celebration | Keystone, South Dakota. White House 4 July

Yet again, it appears that if you don’t completely admire and agree with Trump, you are evil and his enemy – there is no deal. There is certainly no attempt to understand what is going on.

That seems to be his main political strategy: Don’t deal, and stir up the conditions for civil war, to stop the other side from winning.

And now he won’t go, and personally I worry about what might happen next.

And he is ignoring Covid, so it will get worse and at best make Biden’s job harder. Biden has to deal with the Republicans, misinformation, and the disease, plus handle climate change.

It might be suggested that aiming to win, or stop the other side from winning, all the time, is not compatible with Democracy or dealing. Democracy needs people to be able to win, lose and share with other citizens.

****

For References for the “Trump at war” section see:

https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/donald-trump-defense-contractors

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/01/record-7423-bombs-dropped-afghanistan-2019-report-200128142958633.html

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/jan/28/us-afghanistan-war-bombs-2019

https://ips-dc.org/ending-the-myth-that-trump-is-ending-the-wars/

https://ips-dc.org/remember-trumps-choices-war-walls-and-wall-street/

https://upstatedroneaction.org/wp/trumps-military-drops-a-bomb-every-12-minutes-and-no-one-is-talking-about-it/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/05/22/obama-drones-trump-killings-count/

https://theintercept.com/2020/10/29/trump-yemen-war-civilian-deaths/

https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/11/02/trumps-plan-to-withdraw-from-somalia-couldnt-come-at-a-worse-time/

Trump refuses to concede? What about the law?

November 13, 2020

[Why do I keep writing about Trump? Isn’t this blog supposed to be about climate and technology? Yes, but it is also about disorder and unintended consequences, and the sociology of information.

In the contemporary world Trump has become central to, and illustrative of, these phenomena. He is not responsible for them, but he seems to use, and intensify, them to both keep power and to assert power. He uses the dynamics which are already present with apparent expertise, and his success with those dynamics not only shows something about how they work, but may eventually undermine the ability of the USA to function. That is why I find Trump and ‘Trumpism’, interesting.]

Democrats and the left in general are being way too optimistic about what is happening in Washington.

Trump has not left the White House. He has another two months in which he has the power of an elected King and, given he owns the attorney general and many judges, pretty much the power of an absolute monarchy.

He is engaging in legal warfare. He is stacking agencies with his own people (including a guy who had called Obama a “terrorist leader”) and sacking opponents (including the man who contradicted him over the potential use of the 1807 Insurrection Act to deploy active-duty military units against protests). It is reported that he was wanting to strike Iran’s main nuclear site, as Iran was (not surprisingly) increasing uranium stockpiles. He was persuaded not to, possibly by Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo and others [1], [2]. The Iranians warned that “Any action against the Iranian nation would certainly face a crushing response” [3]. Assuming he leaves office, Trump has two months left in which to try and threaten and irritate the Iranians into a war, so we shall have to see what happens.

He has the Republican party gathered around him, playing along with him, to keep their power and position. He has a massive network of underground media which has no responsibility to anyone or any Truth other than Republican Victory, and the victory of the wealth elites.

On top of that he can, and largely has, established in the minds of Republican voters that there is a question about this election. And that question will remain, even if all of Trump’s challenges fail in the courts, or in the recounts (And some may succeed, who knows? Mistakes do happen). It may even remain if he concedes, but he may never concede – why should he?

That will justify Republican non-cooperation with Biden. It will justify Republican attempts to impeach Biden, and find cause to impeach him – this is despite the ease with which they refused to even listen to the evidence about Trump.

Even if the voting claims do not pan out, then some Republican states might say there is enough doubt to ignore the votes and use their powers to send whomsoever they want to the Electoral College – which would probably benefit Trump. There are apparently precedents.

But even if this does not happen in enough States to make a difference, Trump’s current campaign will keep the fake news sites hot and may even justify continual popular insurrection. Attempts to end that insurrection will be taken as showing the repressive nature of Democrats and the ‘deep state‘. It is likely to justify a Trump family campaign at the next election and the return of overt fascism – this time with few pretenses.

You should not dismiss what he might do.

Most democrats are assuming the law and convention counts for something. They gave in to the ‘referees’ in the Bush/Gore election. However, authoritarians know the law is about power and establishing their legitimacy. It is a weapon – nothing else.

The law will not save us against a united determination by a major power block to keep power – especially if one side foolishly believes in the others obedience to lawful process and convention.

Trump and black magic: A Jungian view

November 12, 2020

What is a black shaman, or black magician?

The usual answer is that it is someone who works with ‘dark forces’.

However that is not quite enough. Even if we were clear what ‘dark forces’ were, sometimes we need to work with the chaos, or destructiveness, to produce healing.

I guess that is the point: the black magician works with dark forces for their own personal power or for the pleasure of destruction.

The most obvious dark forces present today, are the forces of the socially repressed but vengeful collective unconscious – brought out by a failing and flailing society. Trump manifests what Jung calls the shadow, the denied harmful parts of the collective personality, and its projection onto those with little power.

The use of these forces for personal power and destruction is why I think of Trump as a ‘black Shaman’.

  • [I should add that there are large dispute as to whether ‘shaman’ is a valid analytical category – see Kehoe’s book Shamans and Religion for a relatively good introduction to the debate – I’m using the term in its normal western meaning of a person who summons, travels with and/or listens to spirits, even if that is no excuse]

Trump seems to have spent most of his life creating chaos and destruction to build his power and support his ‘righteousness’ or his apparently unending ability to ignore, or celebrate the harms he creates – an ability which often seems contagious, so that we are dealing with collective shadow forces.

The Background

In business Trump appears to use threats and the promise of using the law to attack, and an ability not to be held responsible for failure. He is an excellent salesman, and self-promoter, although it appears he sees what he wants to see, rather than face ‘what is’. He is excellent at self-deception. I am sure he really believes that Covid is not a problem and that he cannot lose.

However, he has many failures and not a few frauds to his name, but is imagined to be a success. this imagined success is vital to his real success.

He has repeatedly threatened to sue individuals who speculate he’s exaggerating about his riches, and he once even made good on such a threat, suing the author of the 2005 book TrumpNation for estimating that his empire was worth as little as $150 million. (That lawsuit was thrown out.) Forbes editors also say Trump regularly lobbies them to increase the magazine’s estimates of his wealth…. Forbes pegs his fortune at about $4.5 billion

Donald Trump’s 13 Biggest Business Failures. Rolling Stone 14 March 2016

In 2015 the Washington Post Reported:

having looked at Donald Trump’s detailed financial filing with the Federal Election Commission: He owns assets worth at least $1.4 billion and has liabilities of at least $265 million.

Bump, Trump has assets of at least $1.4 billion — and that’s about the best we can say. Washington Post 22 July 2015.

He supposedly persuaded workers in his Casino companies to take stock in the company as their pension fund, so when the companies went bust the workers lost their pensions. This was perfectly legal. Even more scrupulously:

Trump used his company as a means of transferring his personal debt load onto shareholders, issuing rounds of junk bonds to build up cash that would erase his own debts.

Caldwell. How Trump’s Casino Bankruptcies Screwed His Workers out of Millions in Retirement Savings. Mother Jones 17 October 2016.

So he partly salvaged his loses on the backs of his workers. Despite this, his supposed business success, his TV success and his celebrity, makes him a symbol of the American dream. Winning in America creates its own morality, which justifies that victory. He is considered ‘tough.’ Even his documented tax evasion might help amongst those who hate taxes. He is not a person, but a vessel for shadow mana – a projection of what American people should want to be, and do want to be – although it is probable that a nation composed of people like him would collapse in faction and distrust. However, his image attracts and energises; even those who do not worship him, still find their thoughts returning to him, without considerable effort – and this reinforces his attraction and centrality to the world.

In politics, he works with, and summons up, the genuine grievances of the American people, who have been abandoned, suppressed, marginalised, and thrown out of decent paying work and who suffer precarious survival chances. They face loss of home and landscape, and have lost hope, through the consequences of the kinds of policies he, and his fellowship of the wealth elite have bought and supported for their own benefit.

The American people’s living standards have at best remained stable. Social mobility appears to have slowed. Their children probably don’t have a great future. Yet they are bombarded with messages that tell them if they just think positively, or act right, then they can overcome everything. They too can learn The Secret and succeed. They can be wealthy, sexy, healthy and attractive. Those who fail to do this are clearly worthless – it’s easy after all, just a matter of correct thinking. In the neoliberal illusion, there can be no talk of social class or opportunity structures (inequality, corporate power, the distribution of wealth, and the coming environmental collapse) which might explain the problem. It is all personal failure, which is also known to be untrue. It is an immobilising contradiction.

Trump gives people hope again. He is is one of the few politicians (who can get media coverage) who acknowledges what people feel, and directs that feeling into action – even if the action is primarily just letting off steam, or threatening outgroups. His followers can do something, and feel something together with crowds of others feeling the same, which gives them validation. Now, they can fight for their own improvement, and positively hope for further upgrades.

Rather than cultivate that grievance so as to overturn the policies that make the problems, or investigate what should be done to deal with these real problems, Trump turns those grievances into hatred and anger against his enemies – who just happen to be the people most likely (not certainly) to repeal those destructive policies.

Trump gives the real grievances a false target, and given that you cannot talk widely about the real causes of ordinary peoples’ loss in the US, then it works pretty persuasively. After all the mainstream media says similar things, and ignores or hides the real problems, and has been for a long time. This is part of what I have called the “Neoliberal Conspiracy” initiated by the powerful and wealthy. Ordinary people seem to be being conspired against by the wealth elites, although it is hard to tell if the conspiracy is deliberate, or whether it just grows out of the wealth elites defining corporate power and corporately dominated “free markets” as good.

In this sense, Trump benefits twice: once from the policies that transfer the people’s wealth to himself and which support his business crimes against workers and contractors, and second from the anger that the results of these policies generates.

Trump persuasively creates a fictional world in which life makes sense, people can find someone to blame (which is easier to deal with, than blaming the system which is praised on all sides), and he has plenty of people who have already been playing along with that position, who try to be radical by dismissing any critical narratives about real power, and pretending that Trump stands alone, with real Americans, against the horrors. We can see that what seem to be pure right wing ‘news’ sites are flourishing, without responsibility, and are now perhaps the new mainstream – boosting the message. The background creates the conditions for his performance.

Trump as ‘Shaman’

Trump is dependent on his audience for energy. He must give speeches to feel their energies flowing through him. In that sense he seems dependent on the crowds for meaning as they are dependent on him for meaning. And yet the speeches are odd, full of incoherent rambling. Looked at as words they can be almost meaningless, yet I suspect they act as incantations – disrupting what is left of the rational mind and replacing it, like an Eriksonian hypnotist, with repeated phrases about how great we are, how persecuted we are, how we can overcome everything, how things are going well, how the Democrats are traitors. How things are better if we just hand over our power to the shaman.

You know, when people see it, I walk in, we do polls, and they do a poll. “We interviewed 73 people, and President Trump is down 57 points.” This is a poll. See, this is a poll. When you draw crowds like this. This is not the crowd of somebody that’s going to lose the state of Michigan. This is not. This is not. And look at this crowd. You can’t even see the end of it. You can’t. This is not the crowd of a second place finisher. Do you agree with that? No. No. This is our crowd, all together. We’re in this together and we’re doing it together. As long as I’m President, we will remain the number one producer of oil and natural gas anywhere on this planet. And for the first time, we are energy independent. You never heard that term before. We’re energy independent, and you know, we have very good relationships in different parts of the world. In some we help. We don’t have to, though. Now we don’t have to do … We do what we want, but we have some very good allies and partners that we’ll help them, but we don’t need their oil anymore. We have so much oil. We have more oil than anybody, okay? And it’s an incredible thing that it’s happened over the last few years. A lot of great things. And you’re paying, what, $2 a gallon for your gasoline? That’s okay.

Donald Trump and Mike Pence held a campaign rally in Grand Rapids, Michigan on November 20. Rev.com

Through this incantation, and subversion of coherent thinking, he gives hope. He gives endless hypnotic positive assertions. Things are not bad, the awareness of bad things is promoted by his enemies, you can ignore them, as things really are going well. And if some of the media don’t agree with him, then that just proves everything is really fine, because we know the media are evil.

And it doesn’t matter if he lies, the lies point to the greater truth. As a shaman, he utters mystic symbols, which point towards the real truth of what cannot be said (perhaps what the truth should be). This is the truth that is felt in the heart or in the gut – which needs no testing. Reasonable speech tends not to speak to the passions, it is denuded of affect and ineffective – especially to crowds who want passion – who want to be enlivened, lifted out of a sense of powerlessness – and he enlivens them – he frees their energy. And this is Good.

Looked at literally much of what he says is lies. Lies repeated so often, they become assertions of faith – that mark the believer. As Hannah Arendt said:

The result of a consistent and total substitution of lies for factual truth is not that the lie will now be accepted as truth and truth be defamed as a lie, but that the sense by which we take our bearings in the real world—and the category of truth versus falsehood is among the mental means to this end—is being destroyed.

…one could make people believe the most fantastic statements one day, and trust that if the next day they were given irrefutable proof of their falsehood, they would take refuge in cynicism; instead of deserting the leaders who had lied to them, they would protest that they had known all along that the statement was a lie and would admire the leaders for their superior tactical cleverness…..

Arendt Origins of Totalitarianism. Quoted at Vox Populi 31 January 2017

If the ‘other side’ can be defined as responsible for all evil, then victory is all that counts. If lies help win that victory, split the opponents, or cause them discomfort the lies are good by definition. It does not matter if words are literally false.

Such lies function as what some psychologists call “blue lies”; lies which are told on behalf of one’s group against another group – they reinforce identity (and the denied identity politics Trump engages in), and are recognised as being used to hurt the others. These lies can:

actually strengthen the bonds among the members of that group….

University of Toronto psychologist Kang Lee explains, blue lies fall in between generous “white” lies and selfish “black” ones. “You can tell a blue lie against another group,” he says, which makes it simultaneously selfless and self-serving….

The lies are beneficial for your group…. They help bring some people together by deceiving those in another group….

 “Many people are angry about how they have been left behind in the current economic climate” [Maurice Schweitzer says]… Trump has tapped into that anger, and he is trusted because he professes to feel angry about the same things.”

“Trump has created a siege-like mentality,” says Schweitzer. “Foreign countries are out to get us; the media is out to get him. This is a rallying cry that bonds people together.”

Smith. Can the Science of Lying Explain Trump’s Support? Greater Good Magazine. 29 March 2017

The suggestion Trump makes is that Trump is persecuted like his followers are persecuted. He is one of them. If correct, this serves as a further example of the functioning of ingroups and outgroups. Outgroups are those who can be lied about when it benefits the ingroup, or confuses the outgroup, or angers them. If the ingroup lies about itself to boost its standing and power, that is also good. If the outgroup lies about anything, then that is still bad, as it points to their greater falsehood.

These lies are to believed when useful. They may never be taken entirely seriously, but they are never entirely disbelieved, or put aside (truth and falsehood are no longer taken as absolute opposites in practice). People are free to use the lies whenever it becomes time to denounce the others, and they will not be called out. At worst these lies are taken as rumours which point to the real truth about how dastardly the others are.

Lying can also be regarded as an art which produces admiration. A person might go along with the lies in admiration of the sheer entertaining effrontery and fantasy of it, and because of their inner truth. Going along with the lies, may well later lead to a tacit belief in the lies.

Sometimes Trump’s aim seems to be simply to turn his followers grievances against those who stand up to him, or who say he was wrong (and get defined as outgroup), but would not threaten the policies which are the basis of his power. Part of the illusion he attempts to create is that he is always right, so people who disagree must be wrong, and be deliberate saboteurs; again outgroups are evil. In any case they are enemies, and they are the real liars.

In this act of suppression, he can use the force of others. It was not he who gets armed people into the streets, or who generates death threats to Dr. Fauci, it is the peoples’ legitimate anger which he encourages and excuses. Through these threats they are standing up to the elite – unfortunately not the right elites.

He also attempts to create the idea he is the victim; “no president has been more persecuted than myself”. This relies on people’s short memories. Many presidents have been attacked more than him; some have been shot, some have faced years of intrusive inquiries with little result.

However, as already stated, this victimhood establishes the idea he is one of the real people who are victimised daily, just as his misspelling, and incoherence in his tweets, and the mockery they promote, supports this ideal connection; and as does the dismissive snobbishness of much of the ‘intellectual’ response to Trump – that will not recognise the real base of his power in people’s discontent and powerlessness.

However, his victimisation is fictitious, and it is easy for him to stand against it – he is squarely part of the inherited wealth elite, he has wealthy and powerful contacts in the US and internationally, and he is President of the United States – an elected King, with power of war, secret police, appointment of justice, pardon and preferment. This victimisation distracts from his overt power, and creates the illusion he is fighting against what oppresses the people, and that he is standing up for them, and mastering their problems. And he can invent solutions which have never happened, but such is his persuasive power that his supporters do not seem to question this, as these events should be happening, and will if we hold strongly to the belief and don’t challenge it.

Given the problems he identifies are immigrants, Mexicans, black people, rioters, professors, journalists, feminists etc., these are also relatively easy to defeat. They also fit in with the already established modes of hatred in the community – people who are different – people who are sometimes unpleasant, or up themselves, but who have little power.

These processes also disarm the Democrats and other opponents, who seem to think, even after these past four years of Presidency, that the law will stand up and act to enforce the conventions and fair play, when the law is largely a tool of power, and Trump and his party are the power.

Occupy Washington

The current occupation of the White House illustrates how this works.

Before the elections, Trump tried to cast doubt on the results if he lost. He threatened to challenge the results. He campaigned on the idea that his followers were going to be cheated and disenfranchised – while attempting to disenfranchise large parts of the population by making pre-polling difficult where possible, by casting doubt on postal votes and trying to suggest postal votes should not be counted, or would not be counted. This was on top of the usual Republican efforts to prevent people in their outgroups from voting. He was doing what he alleged the enemy was doing. That someone was doing it, made it plausible the enemy would do it. This would also distract from the fact that his side was doing it.

However even if these Republican threats to disenfranchise people did not disturb the awareness of his followers, they were still rightly feeling cheated (the system does not work for them) and disenfranchised (the vote and the party, really does not deliver people who really represent them or do anything for them). Corporations ride over them. They are even threatened with losing employment, livelihood and survival to protect the despicable weak because of Covid.

On top of that, if the other side is truly evil and victory is all that counts, then Trump’s behaviour is perfectly ‘reasonable’. If the outgroup won then it would clearly be dire, because even when ‘our group’ wins the consequences are not great now (possibly in the future) – imagine how bad it would be if the others got in?

So Trump used people’s sense of disenfranchisement to increase their disenfranchisement, and set up the possibility of a rule by force. A rule in which he stayed in the White House whatever the people voted. This rule would sever any responsibility to the people, because he had broken the system. What keeps it going is he, himself and his shamanic power to channel unconscious rage at the system, whose workings people are not conscious of. He can appoint who he wants to, and do whatever he wants, because he spoke directly to the people and reinforced the deception through scapegoating. Republican politicians would know that they have depended on the deception for their power and, if the real fraud was revealed, their party would probably suffer – although in reality many people would never believe the fraud was unreal. How could the President, the magic man, the success icon, really loose?

The politicians would also know that nobody would protect them from the President’s vengeance, if they did not support him.

At this moment what does it cost them to play along with the President? If he goes, and the fraud charges stick, they can use them to justify attempting to tear Biden down. If the fraud charges fade away, they can carry on as usual, without fearing others in their party, and if the President succeeds in his coup, then they can claim to have supported the fraud charges all along and without having risked the wrath of the autocrat. Also they might find it reassuringly useful to believe that the Democrats cheat and lie like they do themselves, that makes it fair.

Comments by Jung

As some people will recognise this piece is influenced by memories of Jung’s work on the period before World War II.

After writing this piece I browsed Jung’s collected Works Vol 10 Civilisation in Transition, to see what I had forgotten. In this section are some very free paraphrases of what Jung wrote, together with a few paragraphs from an old interview, and a few additions by myself I have substituted Americans for Germans for example – please don’t take these as direct quotations from Jung, hopefully they add to the ‘analysis’ above.

Of course Jung is talking about Hitler, not Trump, and while they may be very different, the similarities seem significant enough for the purpose.

*****

[#454] The individual Americans’ feeling of weakness, indeed of non-existence brought about by the social system and its response to them, was thus compensated by the eruption of hitherto unknown desires for power. It was the revolt of the powerless. Americans wanted order, wanted revenge, and wanted a meaningful life, but they made the fatal mistake of choosing a victim, and creator, of disorder and unchecked greed, for their leader.

This man was the most prodigious personification of all human inferiorities. He was an utterly incapable, unadapted, irresponsible, psychopathic personality, full of empty, infantile fantasies, but cursed with the keen intuition of a rat.

[#419] Another diagnosis of Trump would be ‘pseudologia phantastica’ which is characterized by a peculiar talent for believing one’s own lies. … Nothing has such a convincing effect as a lie one invents and believes oneself, or an evil deed or intention whose righteousness one regards as self-evident. Especially if it can be changed for another lie as needed – which one also believes is true. A person who tells people what they want to hear, at that moment, will nearly always be more persuasive, than one who is consistent, or checked by reality.

[#418] All these pathological features — complete lack of insight into one’s own character, auto-erotic self-admiration, denigration and terrorization of one’s fellow man (how contemptuously Trump speaks), ability to summon the shadow, falsification of reality, determination to impress by fair means or foul, bluffing and double-crossing — all these were united in the man whom a strange fate chose to be the political, moral, and religious spokesman of the USA for four[?] years.

Is this pure chance? Or is it some kind of destructive compensation? Some longing for death and destruction to break the monotony and desperation of people’s lives?

[#454] Because of his closeness to the shadow, Trump spoke for that shadow (the inferior part of everybody’s personality), to an overwhelming degree, and this was another reason why people went for him. These failings of psychic development allowed the President to crystalise the problem, and symbolise a way forward…. He gave them other people to denounce; a focus for their hatred and loss. He joined them together in their collective shadow. He forged that shadow from the ruins of the country and its despair. He gave relief with a cause identified, even if wrong.

[#455] In Trump, every American should have seen his own shadow, his own worst danger. It is everybody’s allotted fate to become conscious of and learn to deal with this shadow. But how could the Americans be expected to understand this, when nobody in the world can understand such a simple truth when it applies to them? How many on the left, gained a sense of righteousness for themselves by denouncing Trump’s followers as their own shadow, rather than engaged with them as people? The point of the shadow is to separate, and promote retreat into fantasy and violence, to keep oneself proud, while bonding with others who denounce the same people.

[interview] Trump’s voice is nothing other than his own unconscious, into which the American people have projected their own being; that is, the unconscious of seventy or so million Americans. That is what makes him powerful. Without the American people, and their collective psychological states, he would be nothing…

[interview] Trump does not think – he listens to his shadow and its whispers and speaks it directly. He is like a man who listens intently to a stream of suggestions in a whispered voice from a mysterious source, and then acts upon them….

[interview] Trump’s power is not political, it is magical. With his unconscious perception of the real balance of political forces at home and in the world, he has so far overcome the merely rational expectations of any opponent. His apparent irrationality is a strength, which undermines any supposedly rationally acting opposition with its unreal, customary and derogatory, expectations of him….

[#426] Believing one’s own lies when the wish is father to the lie is a well known hysterical symptom and a distinct sign of a sense of inferiority – one cannot face up to truth… Reality, only dimly perceived at best, is to be completely blotted out. In an individual we call this sort of thing an hysterical twilight-state. When a whole nation finds itself in this condition it will follow a mediumistic leader over the housetops with a sleep-walker’s assurance, only to land in the street with a broken back.

[interview] With Trump you are scared. You know you would never be able to talk to that man; because there is nobody there. He is not a man, but a collective. He is not an individual, but a whole nation, or the nation’s disruptive unconscious. What he thinks at that moment is taken by him as righteous with no quarter. Agreeing with him merely 95% of the time may not be enough to satisfy him. I take it to be literally true that he has no personal friend. How can you talk intimately with such a person?

[#432] The phenomenon we have witnessed in America is nothing less than an outbreak of epidemic insanity, an irruption of the unconscious into what seemed to be a tolerably well-ordered world (but which, ultimately, was not), channeled by an otherwise empty shaman, probably initially by accident, until he came to crave the power and meaning it gave his own life.

Trump is no mere gangster or thug and understanding him as such will not help combat him.

Addenda June 2025

Trump celebrates the Shadow of America. It is all out in the open: greed, pettiness, bluster vindictiveness, fear of difference (whether political, racial, sexual, intellectual), sacrifice of the inferior, attraction to violence and dominance, vicious hierarchies, and multiple people beating up on much fewer people. Through identification with the leader people can throw off repression of the shadow, which is energising and exuberant. You can hurt anyone who is not approved. It feels good to throw off repression along with crowds of others. By following Trump you can be free.

A Podcast

November 8, 2020

On climate change and psychology

Shortening Time Horizons and the Crises

November 8, 2020

An initial rave, with and in response to Panu Pihkala.

We are frequently told we should live in the present, and focus on the moment, as a mode of therapeutic behaviour. At the same time people complain about other people’s lack of history and their lack of understanding of how events connect together.

This article briefly explores the dilemmas of this issue.

If we live solely in the present then, to some extent, we are stripped of our conscious past and our experience. We can call this having a short time horizon.

As is well known, experiences are given their meaning by their context, and one context is always our previous experience. This context and experience, also suggests to us how we could act in the current situation. Sometimes we can get stuck in repeating the acts, but sometimes we can learn from that past. Without the past we have no space for conscious reflection and action – so we might make no conscious progression – we are simply locked into automism, and ‘pure response’ to what appears to be happening to us.

This is helped by our ways of living.

The Internet helps us live a haze, as its multiple links can always take us everywhere, so that we do not develop a continuous train of thought, we are always accepting in the moment and only have reflex like criticisms of what we read. If we like it, then it is correct and we might pass it – the act of passing it on, is also an interruption of thought – if we don’t like it, then it is false and we can forget it – we don’t have to ponder, we can just abuse.

We go over text by quickly scanning rather than with attention, to select what we want to know, to bolster what we want to know, or confirm what we want to know. This behaviour makes us more vulnerable to manipulation. When we present something which turns out to be embarrassingly wrong we can delete the whole thread, so we don’t have to be reminded of our failure, we just live in the present.

Because we move on quickly and keep to the present, then we do not for example, have to read books, we can just accept the summaries by those who tell us what we want to hear.

Our places of work, in general, are restructured, and re-organised almost at whim. Many people do not even have a place in the workplace which is their own – they are shifted around deliberately, networks and connections are constantly broken – new software changes our ways of proceeding. We build only on ‘flexibility’ – which generally means accepting that we should “do as we are told”.

As part of the acceleration of life, it can be inconvenient to remember the past. What is the use of knowing MS-DOs or CPM now? What is the use of remembering the hardships of earlier days, when we have the hardships of now – and do younger people really want to be told of the problems of being young in the 1970s, as an aid to life? Is it remotely relevant to them?

This lack of past is convenient for society’s dominant forces, because we cannot see events getting worse, or learn how to avoid them, and we cannot learn from the past.

We don’t have to know anything about Marx, socialism, worker’s rights or whatever, because that was the past, and we are in a different and better(?) world, which has no interest in what the past can teach, except perhaps in flashes.

It seems to be the case in the contemporary world that followers repeatedly dismiss the past lies of their heroes, and anticipate that their leader’s current statements must be the truth because they have no reason to distrust them – partly because they cannot remember the past lies, or the past times the pronouncements did not turn out as expected. Knowing everyone has no past, there is no attempt by those leaders to construct a coherent and vaguely true narrative – other than the narrative that they are always successful or always correct, no matter how often they fail. No one can check them, and if they do then it is not relevant, because of the new important conflict that has arisen.

Indeed leaders may attempt to overwhelm people still further by generating constant upheaval and scandal, so that the past is always overwhelmed by the present.

Low time horizons strip away both meaning and recognition of the complexity that is fundamental to the world. As well as stripping away the past, we strip away the future.

Without a sense of time, then we cannot understand events that move in time, and change radically over time, like pandemics and exponential increase of cases – we are probably not very good at understanding that anyway – we just reduce the event to this moment. The figures at this moment are always static and deniable. “Life can go back to normal,” to booze, physical contact and social eating, without there being any change, or any possible consequences of that action. Indeed it is doubtful whether people think hard about the consequences for those who are less healthy than themselves. Those people can look out for themselves – everything is simple – there is no effect.

With climate change, we can assume the change is somewhere in the future, therefore not troubling to us now, which also helps those who profit through generating climate change. With the constant new information, refutations and scandal, the majority of people will not remember last years’ fires, they may be open to being persuaded that those fires were not that bad, by people who could have a longer strategy to make the situation worse, or who are just reinforcing their own defenses against awareness. Without history people will not notice the heat as it increases, because they adapt and get used to it, until it is too late.

The shallow time horizon lowers the change of us seeing the trajectory of changes as they pass – things have been as they are now, forever.

In this process, we are possibly defending against anticipated trauma – the knowing that we, and our children, are probably doomed. If so, this is part of a flight from personal death into an eternal present, where it can be no worse than it currently is – it is a mode of denial and defense, backed up by the routines of our lives

The US Election

November 7, 2020

There is so much information coming in, I could be mistaken about anything at this moment, but that is the situation that we live in, so let’s go on anyway. The talk is of fraud, and it is probable someone is being fraudulent.

If there was widespread evidence of fraud coming from independent sources, then it would be vital to challenge the election result. However, the challenge is largely coming from people who don’t seem to have much regard for the truth, who have spent months beforehand preparing to challenge the results, who tried to make pre-poll voting as awkward as possible by limiting booths, who tried to stop mail voting, who tried to stop the post office delivering mailed votes, who tried to stop the counting of mail votes, who have argued that no votes should be counted after election day, who regularly try to disenfranchise large sections of the population, who have essentially threatened not to leave power, who alleged the results of the last election that they won were fake because they did not win the popular vote, who threatened that they would only accept the results of the previous election if they won, who ‘joked’ about staying for at least three terms, who seem unconcerned about foreign states intervening in the election on their behalf, who actually asked supporters to vote twice, who never seem to worry about how easy it is to hack voting machines, and so on. Coming from those people, it simply seems a way of potentially avoiding loss.

For some strange reason despite the claims of fraud, the Republicans have managed to keep the Senate, and it looks like they managed to take seats in the lower house, but they managed to lose several ‘Republican States’ in the Presidential vote. This seems to be being forgotten – so its an odd set of election frauds.

It is also odd, because, previously, Republicans fought hard and successfully to prevent a recount in Florida in the Bush/Gore Election, so their current concern with voter fraud, and preventing a miscount, is a bit weird at best. Even more weirdly, they have not yet lost the Presidential election, and they seem to be asking for counting to stop because the results are not going their way – not to examine fraud. This could change of course.

That a party wants to win, or thinks they should win, is not evidence they have won. That they think the votes should not change when absentee votes are counted is not evidence either.

True, votes need to be held up to scrutiny. People from both parties need to watch the counting (which as far as I can see is happening, despite allegations otherwise), although crowds of unofficial observers are not being let in, for what seem like obvious reasons to me, unless you want vote theft to occur. So its fair enough that people outside observe through binoculars if that makes them happy, although a video link would be easy to maintain.

All votes need to be counted, unless there is evidence which suggests particular votes are fake – such as two postal, or booth, votes supposedly from the same person. With postal votes, it is easy to set the votes aside for investigation before counting. We need to find out how many people, if any, appear to have voted twice. We could even ask which vote the person wants to be accepted, if the person wants to comment and we cannot prove they voted twice. Checking votes for legitimacy, should be easy to do – otherwise the system needs changing.

Recounts need to be routine, not special, especially if the vote is close. Anyone can make mistakes. However, votes should not be discarded because they are votes for the ‘wrong person,’ and parties should not be able to stop a recount when the result is close.

Democracy depends upon conventions. If the conventions become routinely broken, then democracy becomes broken. President Trump has destroyed conventions repeatedly. His party even refused to listen to the evidence in his impeachment case. He lies repeatedly. He lies to such an extent, that any sensible person would think that any assertion Trump makes which appears to benefit himself, is likely to be false, unless proven otherwise.

Democracy, of any type, depends on the assumption that your opponents are honourable. Unfortunately after this election it seems impossible to assume our opponents are honourable. It does not matter what side you are on, Donald Trump has now disrupted that sense of honour for everyone , and this will almost certainly not be fixed easily. Whoever wins, significant numbers of the other side will feel they have been cheated, and will likely feel any future cheating and dishonesty by themselves is justified by this.

Democracy is fragile. US democracy may never recover from what has happened, because Trump has set a precedent for ignoring conventions and for discovering that abuse of power can be hidden by assertion, party support, repeated fiction and what looks like a dedicated networked propaganda machine of youtube videos, internet rumour, and minor stations. Every unscrupulous politician in the world will have learnt how easy this is.

Trump will probably not stop the destabilisation. There is a story told by Richard Branson, from before the 2016 election, which possibly illustrates Trump’s behaviour. You don’t have to trust Branson, for it to be relevant, but what did he gain from this?

Some years ago, Mr Trump invited me to lunch for a one-to-one meeting at his apartment in Manhattan. We had not met before and I accepted. Even before the starters arrived he began telling me about how he had asked a number of people for help after his latest bankruptcy and how five of them were unwilling to help. He told me he was going to spend the rest of his life destroying these five people.

He didn’t speak about anything else and I found it very bizarre. I told him I didn’t think it was the best way of spending his life…..

I was baffled why he had invited me to lunch solely to tell me this. For a moment, I even wondered if he was going to ask me for financial help. If he had, I would have become the sixth person on his list! 

Branson. Meeting Donald Trump. Richard Branson Blog. 21 October 2016

One story is not evidence of anything, but it fits with what we know of Trump’s continual vindictiveness against those he perceives as opponents. We also know he blames others for his failures.

According to USA Today back in 2016:

the presumptive Republican presidential nominee and his businesses have been involved in at least 3,500 legal actions in federal and state courts during the past three decades. They range from skirmishes with casino patrons to million-dollar real estate suits to personal defamation lawsuits….

since he announced his candidacy a year ago, at least 70 new cases have been filed, about evenly divided between lawsuits filed by him and his companies and those filed against them. And the records review found at least 50 civil lawsuits remain open even as he moves toward claiming the nomination at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in seven weeks….

The legal actions provide clues to the leadership style the billionaire businessman would bring to bear as commander in chief. He sometimes responds to even small disputes with overwhelming legal force. He doesn’t hesitate to deploy his wealth and legal firepower against adversaries with limited resources, such as homeowners. He sometimes refuses to pay real estate brokers, lawyers and other vendors.

As he campaigns, Trump often touts his skills as a negotiator. The analysis shows that lawsuits are one of his primary negotiating tools. He turns to litigation to distance himself from failing projects that relied on the Trump brand to secure investments. 

Penzenstadler & Page. Exclusive: Trump’s 3,500 lawsuits unprecedented for a presidential nominee. USA Today 1 June 2016 – update 23 October 2017. [emphasis added]

This is unsual, even for an ‘important’ business person.

Trump does appears vengeful, and probably will continue his denial of loss and use the courts in an attempt to prevent loss. It seems improbable he will concede defeat and he will cling on in the hope that he can make any Biden victory be the subject of suspicion and contempt – wrecking things for others might be pleasurable for him. He has until mid January to wreck as much as he can – it is only convention that stops sitting presidents from doing this after they are voted out.

Whether he needs to be successful or not in persuading his selected judges to decide for him, we are all probably set for an even greater run of authoritarian and non democratic power, whatever the declared result of the election.

We should also remember, that should he get in, Biden will have to work with a hostile Senate, particularly if they stick with the view he is a fraud, that attacking him as a fraud is popular electorally, or with the view they had of Obama that they need to destroy him. Then it will be awkward to get anything done.

Likewise, there is probably no solution to the Covid problem, now the disease is so established, and now the anti-vax movement will feel free to protest against Trump’s vaccination solution given that Trump is not proposing it.

Marx? 01

November 6, 2020

Why write about Marx at all?

Marx appears to have almost zero political and philosophical importance in the contemporary world. Hardly anyone reads him, and not surprisingly. He is a voluminous 19th Century writer who’s work is long, dense, and heavily sarcastic. His work is infused with an ‘inverse Hegelianism,’ with Hegel being one of the most difficult to read philosophers of all time.

He is dead. He is gone. Who reads, or criticises, any other social philosopher-analysts of the 19th Century such as Carlyle, Ruskin, or Spencer?

Maybe some people read Adam Smith from the Century before – but they tend to disregard Smith’s complexity. His moral theory, which is the basis of his other work, is usually ignored and all the focus goes on to the throwaway line about the invisible hand – in which ‘the market’ metaphorically becomes the hand of God. That gets quoted enough to suggest it has some social purpose the rest of his work does not.

Dismissing Marx

Anyway, it is easy to dismiss Marx and it is still done regularly.

People say he is to blame for the communist slaughter. If so, then we dismiss Jesus, Mohammed, capitalism in general and so on. Mass slaughters, dispossession, and slavery follow those movements everywhere.

What people do with a thinker or a system, is not the same as what the thinker thinks. Besides, with experience, we can always ask ourselves, what were the good bits and what led to the slaughter. Indeed, that question might be essential for any thought.

We can dismiss Marx as an atheist and a materialist. Sure, but again so what? Religion in Marx’s time was rarely (not entirely, because you can’t suppress it entirely) a field for spiritual exploration, or for consciousness raising. It was primarily about accepting your place, and obedience to those above you. It was about supporting colonialism and acting as a means of social control.

Even today, much religion is about praising, and gaining, social power. If one reads almost anything by ex-pope Benedict about the saints and thinkers of Christianity, then that is his recurring refrain – ‘this person was good and obeyed Church Authorities’.

Religion, today, is often about being rewarded by money and heaven for condemning others. It is often about turning one’s back on the poor and dispossessed, because they brought it on themselves through sin. It seems to be about buying products from God’s representatives, like preacher authored books, blessed items, wealth and salvation.

Any person with a spiritual drive might feel they had to resist some of contemporary religion’s massive obedience complex, complacency and harshess – but it is much easier and more politically acceptable to criticise Marx.

What do we mean by materialist to begin with? what do we mean by matter or spirit? Not questions people usually bother with at depth, just retreating to what they have been taught. Yet these might be vital questions, which perhaps Marx can help with…. Who knows?

We can be told, triumphantly, that Marx failed. His major optimistic prophecies did not come true, or have not come true, yet. The worker’s revolution did not come, capitalism adapted, the state did not wither away.

However, how many prophecies come true? How many other of Marx’s less optimistic prophecies appear accurate? I will say in passing that more than any other 19th century thinker, of whom I am aware, his work describes what we face now. And this is from a person who also thinks Carlyle, Ruskin and Spencer are worth reading.

Why bother with Marx?

It is easier not to bother with Marx. It is socially acceptable not to bother with Marx. It often seems socially risky to bother with Marx, certainly to praise him. Indeed we might say he has become a whipping boy to support neoliberal and corporate power.

Marx is easy to criticise because he has been made symbolic of all that is bad. Sometimes all you have to do to discredit someone is say they are a Marxist. No need to bother about what they have actually thought. Not only do certain people want to dismiss Marx without having read him, or trying to understand him, they don’t want anyone else to read or try to understand Marx either. Take Jordon Peterson….

If neoliberalism has no challengers then perhaps it can keep on steering its way to the end of the world (literally), and to increasing the fortunes of billionaires at the cost of others, and pretend this is good, or is being done by somebody else.

So one good reason for reading Marx and trying to understand him, is that ‘they‘ really don’t want you to. They will try and smear you for doing so. They will attack you for doing so. It is much easier to go along with the flow and just condemn him unread, or through reading a few lines here and there. That’s much easier.

Why don’t they want you to read him? Well that is what you need to find out, by reading him.

Media and Social Research

November 5, 2020

This is a description of how I try to sort out the highly politicised from the less politicised information. It cannot be definitive and other people may well do a lot better in smaller space.

Its important because almost all research into, or attempts to understand, contemporary social phenomena cannot avoid politicised information or the media – it is the sea we swim in, the air we breathe etc.

Video evidence

First off, never trust 5-10 second clips on youtube, or elsewhere, of someone saying something.

This technique of extraction is frequently a deception, or at best aims to give a false impression. Some tapes are edited so that the subject of the comment is provided by the narrator/presenter rather than the person speaking, which makes distortion even more likely. “Here is Bill Gates laughing at the State of world economy” Shift to Bill Gates saying “We are stuffed” nervous giggle. Everything is being framed, or given meaning, by the commentator providing context, not by the person being ‘quoted’ or their conversation.

Meaning does not inhere in words alone, but in words and context together. Giving words a completely different context can change the meaning of the words radically.

Consequently, you always need a considerable amount of the actual interview before and after the particular clip, to figure out what people are trying to say. Often people fail to say what the context makes clear they are trying to say – live language is messy and often badly formed. The short clip usually depends, for its political effect, on people not bothering to check up the actual context.

It is wise to be even more distrustful of clips which slow down a person’s facial expressions or freeze them.

If there is a facial close up, then we need to check whether that actually has anything to do with what is happening. For example, there was a video of Trump’s expressions when he was asked to condemn white supremacy in the last debate. His pain, reluctance and dilemma seemed obvious. However, the close up had no context that could not have been added by the editors. Did his expressions have anything to do with the questions he was being asked in the background? Were the shots from somewhere else in the interview? In other words the presentation could be perfectly real, but we were not given the evidence to make sure it was real. If we took it at ‘face value’ then we were trusting the video makers and allowing them to manipulate us, if that was what they wanted to do.

Likewise a couple of days ago I saw a video of people being beaten up at a Trump Rally and a cut back to Trump saying something like “We are having a really good time here. USA, USA, USA” – how do I know Trump’s comments had anything to do with the beating without more context? Before I would comment on his facial expressions, or the sayings, I would need to check other videos, full transcripts etc.

Videos are easily edited nowadays, and some people can construct fake videos of people saying things they did not, completely from scratch.

Believing with your own eyes, can need caution, but believing a short and obviously cut video is leaving yourself open to manipulation.

The research principle is simple. When you are using someone’s words against them then always start with the best and most complete source, and make the context visible. Be aware that some people will chop up and misquote sources, so you always need to check.

Go to the full source, if possible

Consequently, when someone shows me or tells me of something particularly stupid, ignorant, incoherent or vicious that Trump has said. I refuse the 5 second youtube clip and go to the whole transcripts (when possible – the WhiteHouse and Rev.com seem good sources) – or to his tweets (there is also a search engine for his tweets). If there is a real issue as to what he said, then transcripts with video are good, as its easier to get body language as a context as well as other words, situation and what he is responding too, if necessary.

Tweets are useful because they can show you how some Trump supporters are reading what he has written. This helps reveal ‘dog whistles’ and makes it easier take note of fake corrections (when he has officially doing as his advisors advise but which he does not believe). But even that does not necessarily tell us what Trump himself thinks. For that you need to look at the surrounding Trump tweets to get the context.

Repetition helps resolve meaning and intent

Repetition says a lot. Anyone can say things they would rather not have said in a moment of passion, but if they say it repeatedly then it is telling. For example, if we get repeated messages from Trump telling police to be violent towards protestors, or telling supporters to beat up protestors, or giving support for people who hurt protestors or offering to pay their legal fees, or supporting people who do armed protests and occupations, then we can more sure that this is substantial part of his politics. Whether you want to call this ‘fascist’ or not is up to you – that is an interpretation.

Likewise if a person repeatedly says they know more about ‘blah’ than people who work in ‘blah’ for lots of different ‘blahs’, then we can hypothesise that they really do think they know nearly everything, and are not smart enough to recognise their incompetence in fields they have no experience in. Thus we can be less inclined to take their pronouncements in those fields as being accurate or automatically trustworthy.

Again if a person repeatedly contradicts what they said less than five minutes ago, then that is also part of their modes of operation.

These are reasons why some of my blogs about Trump go on and on. I’m just trying to use lots of his words to show that what he is saying, or how he approaches a problem, is not a momentary aberration. I provide lots of context, so it is easier to conclude that he actually does seem to think in that way….

The same with anyone, I go to a decent whole source, not a hostile newspaper, TV channel or a person on Youtube, if at all possible.

Confirmation from the person

If I can’t find any official source for some widely alleged process, such as for Trump’s supposed war on child rapists, I check what is available and look at how plausible it is. Has Trump tweeted about this a lot (before recently, when he may have heard its popular with his voters)? Has he spoken about it a lot (before recently)? Are there any of the results being claimed, being reported or used by the Republican party officially in a tight election campaign when it would be useful? Given the lack of any supporting evidence of material which we would not expect to find under any President (checking what past presidents have done or said), this war does not seem remotely plausible.

Trump has not acknowledged it, until it became useful. The charges which are supposedly being made against major ‘enemies’ have not been laid. He has not confirmed them, or the evidence against his enemies. Just vague assertions.

What reasons do we have to think that ‘Q’ or their followers are not false flags? are not part of the ‘Re-elect Trump committee?’ are not lying or directing us to false sources, and so on?

Looking for overt bias

If a youtube or media, presentation continually and casually slams one side of politics and avoids important parts of the question which could throw a bad light on their side, then I assume they are probably so biased as to be ‘fake news’, and only to be taken seriously as ethnographic studies. Even so, one should never dismiss the possibility that they could be right on occasions. There is always the joke about the stopped clock.

I generally save myself time by assuming that the Murdoch Empire lies and abuses people for political reasons. They seem to attempt to generate anger and contempt in their audience against their enemies. This generally shuts down curiosity and investigation in that audience – these enemies are not worth checking up on. Everytime I’ve ever investigated something the Murdoch Empire have been plugging, which sounds off, it has turned out to be wrong. However, I still quote Murdoch stuff because sometimes it is a useful source for what people believe, or which creates what people believe. Again, they may sometimes be correct, just remember the hypothesis that their prime function is to please their owner and boost his power.

However, if someone in the Murdoch Empire reports something that happens to slam those that Murdoch normally supports, then that is probably worth investigating, as possibly accurate.

Mainstream media

A frequently used argument takes the form of “you rely too much on mainstream media.” Or you don’t do research because you rely on mainstream media.

Let us be real, mainstream media is not always accurate. Some media is more biased than others. Often I find people who say this tend to trust highly biased mainstream media, that appears to condemn other media as part of its marketing campaigns – to manufacture trust for itself.

However, the bias of mainstream media does not mean that a person on youtube who reports the news you want to hear, is necessarily unbiased, nor attempting to manipulate you, or not financed by those attempting to manipulate you. Exactly the same tests should be applied to them as you might apply to mainstream media. To repeat: if they casually nearly always dismiss one side of politics, then the chances are high they are not doing their research.

However, you define mainstream media, (some people appear to say that Fox or Breitbart are not mainstream, which almost certainly shows they are likely to have been manipulated), it does not mean that everything which is reported as mainstream is necessarily untrue. I’ve said before that if the mainstream media tells me that it is likely that a 200m fall without some form of safety equipment will kill me, then I don’t have to disbelieve it on principle. Again the problem is that I am likely to accept what I, or my friends, assume is true without bothering to check. It is also not the case that because most of the mainstream media do not always flatter Trump, that I have to think he must be a good guy – the media might be correct about that. There might be some media owners who legitimately think Trump is a fraud, because they have business experience with him, or something.

Many people seem to think that research simply means trying to confirm or elaborate what you already think you know. Or they might think that by looking at ‘underground’ news or youtube videos, or self-proclaimed ‘alternative news’ they are getting the truth. This is not necessarily the case. It may even be that many of these sites are even less concerned with accuracy and responsibility than the ‘lamestream’ media.

It is also worth looking at the emotional context of the ‘news’. If the main context is the host’s anger, contempt, mockery or shouting, then you can probably assume the station is not unbiased, and may well be aiming at replacing accuracy with manipulation. The show may not want you to be curious and think, it may just want to get you stuck in a ‘frame’ in which you always see whoever they define as the ‘bad guys’ as bad, who are not worth checking up on, to see if the reports are coherent, consistent or correct. Again, this does not mean everything they report has to be wrong, but it does imply that it needs to be checked up. Was what they were saying or implying actually real, or confirmed by better sources?

If one is going to be skeptical about media sources, which is clearly a good thing, then don’t only be skeptical towards media that reports things you would prefer not to be true. This is directed skepticism, which often functions as a form of dogma, misdirection or manipulation.

Accounts of what evil people do

If a book or document is supposed to show how corrupt the writers are, I read the text, just as I would go to the original words of the a person who is supposedly saying something that admits they are corrupt. This is yet another instance of how research involves going to the best original source. It is way too common for political writers to distort the words of others, either deliberately or not – knowing that most people will never check, they will just assume the pre-defined ‘evil people’ are ‘evil’. One of the major aims of political parties is to stop people reading the other side – hence read the other side as a matter of principle, you may well be pleasantly surprised.

Same when a movement is being dismissed as white supremacist, socialist, or violent. Don’t assume it has to be true.

Media Silence

If something is not talked about in the media, that is significant. Thus I find the lack of discussion, during the previous election, about Trump being charged with child rape interesting. I wonder why Trump’s business crimes have such little media traction, or why there is so little interest in his promotion of pollution and wilderness destruction. I wonder why Trump’s military activities get such little reporting, that many consider him a peace president, I wonder why most people don’t seem to know about the Republican’s efforts to shovel taxpayers’ money at the corporate and billionaire sector, rather than the people, as part of their Covid response. I wonder why the media accepted Barr’s summary of the Mueller report, when any sensible person would have wondered about Barr’s accuracy. I wonder why the ecological crisis is so under reported by most news media, and the work of denialists and delayers is so widely reported.

I also find it interesting that despite what seemed to be massive amounts of twitter video showing what seems like unprovoked police violence at protestors, bystanders, or even against black people trying to drive away from the ‘riots,’ this seems to be ignored. Even though some of the people being harassed were journalists. When I also come across twitter reports of white guys looting and burning, with the police just standing by and watching, I wonder why this is not news? I also wonder why police where allowing armed white folks to wander around through a disturbance even when this was also obviously being filmed. I then wonder why Biden’s condemnation of the violence was so under reported, while him supposedly not condemning the violence was being widely reported.

This silence does seem pretty coherent.

What does it say about the media?

A sample argument

Recently there has been an argument about doctors receiving extra money for Covid treatments. I had always understood that hospitals received more money for serious diseases in the US. There was a lot of discussion about this payment in April or earlier, before it exploded again in November. This extra money is not surprising or unreasonable as some Covid cases are dangerous and require extended treatments, although I understood the payment was for Covid patients on respirators, not general Covid patients etc.

My understanding of the current (November 2020) scuffle is that Trump said

Our doctors get more money if someone dies from Covid. You know that, right? I mean our doctors are very smart people. So what they do is they say ‘I’m sorry but everybody dies of Covid’ .

Donald Trump Rally Speech Transcript Waterford Township, Michigan October 30. Rev.com 30 October 2020

So Trump was accusing doctors inflating covid deaths to get more money for themselves personally.

Trump presents no evidence, which is not also simply evidence of how he thinks (“people claim false stuff for their own advantage all the time”). I don’t know if doctors also get money for individual cases they are treating, they may not. Without direct evidence to the contrary, I assume that most doctors have some professional integrity. They are not politicians trying to to keep the economic figures good by persuading people that a disease is less dangerous than it appears, not wanting to count cases, or pretending that people really died of other causes, or claiming to know the results of elections before the votes are counted.

I have not found any evidence in favour of that proposition about doctors inflating cases to get money. My understanding is that doctors and other people, were denying that doctors fixed results to get payment, not the assertion about payment itself, but I can’t read everything – it is possible that someone did argue that hospitals do not get paid – but that is not evidence of a general position.

It seems quite common for people to take an attack on a dubious statement, and turn the attack into an attack on something less dubious and triumphantly refute the made up allegations about the non-dubious part. In this case they might say that Doctors were denying there was extra payment for Covid cases, when the Doctors were denying this led them to rig Covid figures as a matter of course.

This commonness of this process implies that it is a good idea to actually read the attack and get the full message to see if they were attacking what they were said to be attacking.

As a matter of interest I note Forbes is claiming that “More than 20% of U.S. physicians have experienced a furlough or pay cut as financial hits from the coronavirus strain COVID-19 batter the healthcare industry, a new analysis shows.” Which I guess by the same kind of logic would imply that physicians and surgeons are more likely to dismiss the dangers of covid to restore their incomes. But that does not seem to be reported widely.

If I did want to find how the payment system works, there will be a government website somewhere that has hospital payment figures on it (unless Trump is having it suppressed, which seems unlikely) and I would use that to find out if individual doctors, as opposed to hospitals, get paid. A good news article will reference that source – if they are attacking doctors and they don’t, they are problematic.

Likewise if I want to find out how much the death rate seems to have increased through the disease I will look for figures on excess deaths. If those figures suggest there are less deaths than normal, then it may be the case that coronavirus helps people survive with other diseases. If the excess deaths is still excessive when Covid deaths are subtracted I will probably assume we are underestimating Covid deaths, or there is something else majorly wrong, such as another unknown pandemic. I would also like to know how many people are long term sufferers from the disease or who receive what looks like permanent damage from the disease, as that seems anecdotally commonplace, but so far no luck.

Another Sample

Earlier in this blog I investigated the common allegations that Trump told people to drink bleach to combat Covid-19. He didn’t. He responded to announcements that forms of light and disinfectant killed the virus quickly outside the body, by suggesting research should be done into the possibilities of killing covid inside the body with similar techniques.

This may not have been that sensible, but was understandable.

However, after the fuss developed, rather than saying these were suggestions for research and people should not do this at home, Trump appeared to claim he was being sarcastic, possibly to expose journalists. There is no evidence of sarcasm either. But it does seem evidence that taken with other evidence, suggests he does not generally respond well to criticism.

Final sample

In the week before the election the Trumpsphere, was full of a video clip of Joe Biden which was used as ‘evidence’ that Biden was fixing the votes. It had Biden saying

We have put together I think the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.

Now this is suspicious, because:

  • All the versions of the video I have seen provide no context, other than condemnation. They just give that statement, non of Biden’s surrounding words at all, or the questions he might have been responding to.
  • They don’t report where the statement was made, so its difficult to check.
  • They are implausible, as who is really going to say that they are going to defraud the electorate in public?
  • Biden is known to mangle words on occasions – not whole paragraphs like Trump, but sentences, so maybe he meant something else?
  • We have Police Vice squads, major crime squads etc. While we may be cynical about their effectiveness, we don’t expect them to officially promote vice and major crime. So, without the hostile framing, Biden used a normal linguistic construction meaning an ‘extensive organisation against voter fraud’.

These kinds of issues should have made people suspicious, especially given that it seemed to be used by, and possibly originate with, the Trump campaign. We should not expect the Trump campaign, or any other campaign, to be 100% honest. So we need to find the original. This is not that hard, if you were really doing research as opposed to looking for what you want to find. This is the context. I quote it at length simply to demonstrate the importance of context. I’ve italicised the excerpt to make it clear.

one of the things that I think is most important is those who haven’t voted yet. First of all, go to iwillvote.com to make a plan. Exactly how you’re going to vote, where you’re going to vote, when you’re going to vote. Because it can get complicated. Because the Republicans are doing everything they can to make it harder for people to vote. Particularly people of color to vote. So go to iwillvote.com. Secondly, we’re in a situation where we have put together, and you guys did it for President Obama’s administration before this, we have put together, I think, the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics. What the president is trying to do is discourage people from voting by implying that their vote won’t be counted. It can’t be counted. We’re going to challenge it and all these things. If enough people vote, it’s going to overwhelm the system. You see what’s happening now. You guys know it as well as I do. You see the long, long lines in early voting. You see the millions of people have already cast a ballot. And so, don’t be intimidated…..

Thirdly, for those who’ve already voted, it’s not enough, God love ya, it’s not enough that you voted. You got to go out and get your friends. You’ve got to go out and get your family. You’ve got to go out and get people. There’s so many people like the old days when we used to be it used to be a lot easier. There’s so many people when you get over that, were you able to knock on doors and know Mrs. Smith didn’t have a vehicle that you drive her to the polls. You make sure that you get your friends, your family, because, look, you know, as John Lewis said before he passed away, you have a sacred right and it’s a sacred obligation to vote, particularly young people.

“We got Joe!” Pod Save America, 24 October 2020.

So yes, it seems like Joe Biden was worried about Republicans trying to encourage people not to vote.

Use of Media

Let’s be clear, newspaper articles, news site articles ,youtube videos, etc are at best a starting point, or something that can be quickly used to point in a direction for research. Nowadays, articles or stories are written and produced quickly, with the best information the person can get at the time or, in the case of the Murdoch Empire, the best guess at what Rupert wants to said (This is massively documented by the way). There is lots of media analysis, which explains why time, advertising and financial pressures make media not as good as it was 20 to 30 years ago. Although its now old, Nick Davies Flat Earth News was a good starting book – and since then it has got worse.

I have found the Guardian to be generally, but not always, accurate. More importantly I have found them willing to correct articles when they have made a mistake, and to acknowledge the mistake. This is heartening, although clearly what is a mistake can be disputed. The only time the Murdoch empire seems to correct a mistake is if they are threatened with legal action and think it is libelous and they cannot get away by pretending it is opinion – and the correction is often not connected to the original article at all.

If a media source does not check out, then I don’t use it, or retract the use. I don’t just pass on to the next source.

There are always better sources.

Hopefully this at least gives the reader some idea of what is involved in trying to find truth in the world. It takes a bit of work.

The Boss and information distortion – disinfectant for the soul

November 3, 2020

It is often said that President Trump recommended that people drink or inject bleach. This is simply not True. The President suggested that research into the therapeutic effects of light, heat and disinfectant, be carried out. Faced with people pointing out that disinfectant taken internally could cause harm, he later suggested that he was being sarcastic. There is no evidence in his phrasing or intonation to suggest that this later statement is true either. He was more likely to be trying to avoid responsibility what he had said.

To me, the whole event resembles the pointy headed boss making an ignorant suggestion, confident in the experience that everyone will go along with him and praise him, because that is what happens in business – everyone knows their place. It’s private, its ‘brainstorming’, and staff may look at each other wonderingly, and say something like “sure boss, we’ll put that brilliant idea out there and see what happens”. They hope he will forget it in a couple of weeks, because he almost always moves on, but if he doesn’t they will either say that its being worked on, or that its a great idea, but its dangerous, or the doctors don’t like it or something – anything to move on…. Business exists to protect the employer, because people’s livelihoods depend on it. You never push the boss into a corner – you just let stupidity be – that is the safest way to go.

Capitalism and hierarchy tend to block sensible decisions. This seems to be a story about a person who shoots off their mouth, no problem there, but can’t admit they might have been wrong, which probably is a problem.

So pardon me while we get some context to try and see what might have been happening.

Injecting what? A suggestion for research

First off, we have the triggering event.

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’re also testing disinfectants readily available. We’ve tested bleach, we’ve tested isopropyl alcohol on the virus, specifically in saliva or in respiratory fluids. And I can tell you that bleach will kill the virus in five minutes; isopropyl alcohol will kill the virus in 30 seconds, and that’s with no manipulation, no rubbing — just spraying it on and letting it go. You rub it and it goes away even faster. We’re also looking at other disinfectants, specifically looking at the COVID-19 virus in saliva…..

Remarks by President Trump, Vice President Pence, and Members of the Coronavirus Task Force in Press Briefing, White House 23 April

Bryan has previously mentioned the effects of light on the virus on surfaces… but that is not the problem. Here, Bryan is clearly talking about disinfectants outside the body, but he mentions saliva – which can be a boundary breaking substance.

The President’s response is to improvise ‘ideas’ around this….

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you very much. So I asked Bill a question that probably some of you are thinking of, if you’re totally into that world, which I find to be very interesting. So, supposing we hit the body with a tremendous — whether it’s ultraviolet or just very powerful light — and I think you said that that hasn’t been checked, but you’re going to test it.

The employee has played along as expected – saying ‘great idea we’ll follow that up…’

[THE PRESIDENT:] And then I said, supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do either through the skin or in some other way, and I think you said you’re going to test that too. It sounds interesting.

ACTING UNDER SECRETARY BRYAN: We’ll get to the right folks who could.

Employee realises that the boss is more serious with crazy idea than he thought, but he deflects to make it someone else’s problem. But the boss is on a roll.

THE PRESIDENT: Right. And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in a minute. One minute. And is there a way we can do something like that, by injection inside or almost a cleaning. Because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs. So it would be interesting to check that. So, that, you’re going to have to use medical doctors with. But it sounds — it sounds interesting to me.

The boss lets his innate skill and intelligence run away with him. If stuff works outside the body, then it should work equally well inside the body. Pure logic

[THE PRESIDENT:] So we’ll see. But the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute, that’s — that’s pretty powerful….

Maybe the President realises that not everyone here is an employee paid to praise him and he backs off a little

[THE PRESIDENT:] We’ve — I once mentioned that maybe it does go away with heat and light. And people didn’t like that statement very much. The — the fake news didn’t like it at all. And I just threw it out as a suggestion, but it seems like that’s the case, because when it’s on a surface that would last for a long time, when that surface is outside, it goes away very quickly. It dies very quickly with the sun.

He is just acting like a boss, making a vague “brilliant suggestion”. He has forgotten he is President of the US, with followers who believe everything he says, and that this is a health briefing. Careless words cost lives. So he has landed himself into a problem… which is revealed shortly when…..

Doctors emphasise that it is not safe to inject bleach and disinfectant, as they are toxic [that is why they work to kill bacteria and viruses] and so please do not do it. For example:

John Shields, MD, FAAOS

Please do not ingest or inject disinfectant.

I feel like one should not have to say this.

@jointdocShields, Twitter 24 April

FDA Commissioner Dr. Stephen Hahn, who is an employee found it harder to comment, and appeared to prevaricate on an interview….

DR. STEPHEN HAHN, COMMISSIONER, FDA: So, I think the data that were presented at the press conference today were really important in terms of what kills the virus. And I believe the president was asking a question that many Americans are asking, which is, okay, this is what kills the virus, it’s a physical agent, in this case UV light. How could that be applied to kill the virus in, for example, a human being?

We have plenty of examples in medicine where light therapy has been used for treatment of certain diseases. So, it’s a natural question that I as a doctor would have expected to hear from someone as a natural extension of the data that were presented.

ANDERSON COOPER: But — but just from a medical standpoint, I mean, you wouldn’t — would you — I mean, there are — there’s people who are listening, obviously, to the president of the United States and — and take what he says very seriously.

Are you concerned at all, from a medical standpoint, of somebody, you know, injecting themselves with a disinfectant or, you know, hearing what the president said and — and trying to experiment on themselves, thinking that might be something worth looking at? There’s — is there any evidence about taking a disinfectant that’s used, you know, on the table where I’m sitting and using it internally? That doesn’t seem like a good idea from my — I mean, am I wrong?

HAHN: Yes, I think it’s an excellent point you’re making. You — you — we certainly wouldn’t want, as a physician, someone to take matters in their own hands. I think this is something that a patient would want to talk to their physician about. And — and no, I certainly wouldn’t recommend the internal ingestion of a disinfectant.

CNN LIVE EVENT/SPECIAL 23 April

No condemnation, no explicit statement the President’s suggestion could be dangerous – just he would not recommend it

[HAHN:] Again, this is a conversation that occurs every day in America between a patient and a doctor. I’ve been in that position. I’m sure Dr. Gupta has as well. And it’s really important we address them because people will ask those questions of us.

Really? Every day, patients are asking you if they should be injecting disinfectant to fight their disease?

GUPTA:… I mean, there’s no — those questions may be getting asked, but there’s absolutely no merit to that. That doesn’t need to be studied. You can already say that that doesn’t work, right?

HAHN: And I — and I think, Sanjay, that — that that is exactly what a patient would say to a doctor, and that would be the answer of the medical experts to anybody who answered that question.

COOPER: It does not work.

But it can’t apparently be said by the FDA Commissioner, that the President’s suggestion was not one that doctors would think plausible.

We also might need to point out that the President was also supporting the use of hydroxychloroquine at the time. An official announcement said:

28 million tablets of Hydroxychloroquine have been shipped across the country from the Strategic National Stockpile.

President Donald J. Trump Has Led A Historic Mobilization To Combat The Coronavirus. White House. 14 April 2020

There was some dispute as to whether the substance was of use for Covid. When asked one time, the President said.

[THE PRESIDENT:] I never spoke to a scientist.  But I will tell you this: I did speak with the President of Honduras just a little while ago, and I didn’t bring it up; he brought it up.  He said they use the hydroxychloroquine.  And he said the results were so incredible with hydroxychloroquine.  This happened an hour ago.

I just spoke to him, President of Honduras, and he said — and I guess we made some available to them or whatever.  He was thanking me.  And I said, “How has the result been?”  And he said it’s been incredible.

Remarks by President Trump at a Signing Ceremony for H.R. 266, Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act. White House 24 April

Hidden Sarcasm? or Just can’t be wrong?

So let’s move on to Trump’s defense of his statements.

Can he simply say “I was making a suggestion for research, for research, and I was wrong not to think that people might take my words more seriously than I’d intended. So let’s be clear no one should inject disinfectant at home.” Or something else simple and to the point, which accepts his responsibility for clearing things up.

The answer seems to be ‘no’. He has lived as a boss who is never wrong, and who fires people for disagreeing with him. Face is far more important than truth.

Q Mr. President, can you clarify your comments about injections of disinfectant? They’re quite provocative.

THE PRESIDENT: No, I was asking a question sarcastically to reporters like you, just to see what would happen.

Remarks by President Trump at a Signing Ceremony for H.R. 266, Paycheck Protection Program and Health Care Enhancement Act, White House 24th April

The fault is clearly in the unperceptive reporters who don’t understand his wonderful sense of humour. Nothing to do with him. He has no responsibility for their stupidity.

[THE PRESIDENT:] Now, disinfectant, for doing this maybe on the hands, would work. And I was asking the question of the gentleman who was there yesterday — Bill — because when they say that something will last three or four hours or six hours, but if the sun is out or if they use disinfectant, it goes away in less than a minute. Did you hear about this yesterday?

But I was asking a sarcastic — and a very sarcastic question to the reporters in the room about disinfectant on the inside. But it does kill it, and it would kill it on the hands, and that would make things much better. That was done in the form of a sarcastic question to the reporters.

Okay.

‘Ok?’ indeed. Let’s make this clear. This is Not My Fault. Not my fault. It’s you who are the idiots who don’t get my sophisticated wit.

Q But you were asking your medical experts to look into it. Were you being sarcastic with them?

The response is “Let’s change the subject from disinfectant.”

THE PRESIDENT: No. No, no, no, no. To look into whether or not sun and disinfectant on the hands — but whether or not sun can help us. Because, I mean, he came in yesterday and he said they’ve done a big study. This is a study. This isn’t where he hasn’t done it. This is where they’ve come in with a final report that sun has a massive impact, negatively, on this virus. In other words, it does not live well with humidity, and it doesn’t live well with sun, sunlight, heat. It doesn’t live well with heat and sun and disinfectant. And that’s what I brought out. And I thought it was clear.

Okay? Anything else?….

Later in the same interview he is faced with another set of questions from a few reporters, which seem to reveal the enormous trouble the President has with the suggestion he was possibly wrong. It is just totally unnerving for him.

Q Mr. President, just to follow up on the comments from yesterday, you said you were being sarcastic, but some people may have misunderstood you. Do you want to just clarify to America?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I wish they wouldn’t — I wish they wouldn’t —

No he really can’t bring himself to even clarify.

Q Do you want to —

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I think I did.

This is a boss or an immature teenager. “I’ve already done it” when they haven’t.

Q Can you just clarify to Americans —

THE PRESIDENT: But I do think this —

Q — that you don’t want people to ingest that?

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah. I do think that disinfectant on the hands could have a very good effect.

He shifts back to a different defensible position, because he can’t say, “please don’t inject it, or ingest it”.

[THE PRESIDENT:] Now, Bill is going back to check that in the laboratory. You know, it’s an amazing laboratory, by the way. It’s amazing the work they do. So he’s going to check.

The doctors are going to do the experiments with disinfectant internally? Perhaps he is implying that they are going to check the effect of disinfectant on the skin – which they have already done?

He made a great, sarcastic suggestion, which will be followed up. This seems to be typical spoilt boss behaviour. Again, even though he is defending himself by saying he didn’t mean it and it was a trap to trap dumb reporters, he still can’t let his brilliant idea go.

[THE PRESIDENT:] Because a hard surface — this is a hard surface, I guess, maybe depending on whose hands you’re talking about, right?

People’s hands are like formica? or steel? He still can’t admit that the ingestion idea was not sensible for normal people to try out.

[THE PRESIDENT:] But this is a hard surface. And disinfectant — the disinfectant has an unbelievable — it wipes it out. You know, you saw it: Sun and heat and humidity wipe it out.

And this is from tests. They’ve been doing these tests for, you know, a number of months. And the result — so then I said, “Well, how do we do it inside the body or even outside the body, with the hands?” And disinfectant, I think, would work. He thinks would work. But you use it when you’re — when you’re doing your hands. I guess that’s one of the reasons they say wash your hands. But whether it’s washing your hands or disinfectant on your hands, it’s very good.

So he flips from inside to outside, because despite him being sarcastic, of which there is no evidence, he still made a good suggestion. Anything to avoid being wrong.

[THE PRESIDENT:] So they’re going to start looking at that. And there is a way of, you know, if light — if sun — sun itself — that sun has a tremendous impact on it. It kills it like in one minute. It goes from what was it? Hours to, like, one minute. It’s dead.

So I said, “You got to go back and look.” But I’d like them now to look as it pertains to the human body, not just sitting on a railing or sitting on a wall. I’d like them to look as it pertains — because maybe there’s something there. They have to work with the doc — I’m not a doctor. They have to work with the doctors. But maybe there is something to light and the human body and helping people that are dying. Okay?

Q But just to clarify — just to clarify that, sir: Are you — are you encouraging Amer- — you’re not encouraging Americans to ingest —

THE PRESIDENT: No, of course — no. Of course.

Q — disinfectant?

THE PRESIDENT: That was — interior wise, it’s said sarcastically. It was — it was put in the form of a question to a group of extraordinarily hostile people, namely the fake news media.

Okay. So —

Lets come back to this being some one else’s fault for not understanding me.

Q Some doctors felt they needed to clarify that after your comments.

THE PRESIDENT: Well, of course. All they had to do was see it was — just, you know, the way it was asked. I was — I was looking at you.

He breaks into confusion. And starts attacking the reporter.

Q No, you weren’t, sir. I wasn’t there yesterday. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: I know. I know.

He can’t even be wrong about that – he knew he was mistaken, a sentence ago?

Q [different reporter] You were looking at Dr. Birx.

THE PRESIDENT: What’s that?

Q You were looking at Dr. Birx.

THE PRESIDENT: I was looking at Bill. I was looking at the doctor. I was looking at some of the reporters. I don’t know if you were there. Were you there? I don’t think you were there.

Q I was there, and I watched you ask her.

THE PRESIDENT: No, not you. Not you. Not you. You were there. You — if you’re there, I never forget. You were —

Breaks down into confusion when challenged again

Q I wasn’t there yesterday, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: You were not?

Q No, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: Yeah, I didn’t think you were there.

Yes he was right all along. Of course.

Q Just, Mr. President — Mr. President, I know that you continue to say — you’re obviously —

THE PRESIDENT: Okay, hold it one second.

Q Yeah.

THE PRESIDENT: Any other questions from any other people?

Okay, thank you very much, everybody. Thank you.

Breaks it off. Its too confusing when people listen to him, and don’t give him the breaks a boss is entitled to.

This is probably just what you don’t want in a President, but apparently common in business.