Dead Secrets, Living Leassons

 This first appeared fifteen years ago.

I often watch "Secrets of the Dead" on PBS. I like the program for what it reveals about Western Intellectuals. One episode speculated that the Christians burned down ancient Rome (Christians who were at the same time Jews), thus, in this rendition, clearing Emperor Nero of arson -- though he may have fiddled during the flames, no way to tell.

I first saw the episode that will reprise on Wednesday (Aztec Massacre) in April. It deals with the encounter of the Aztec Empire with "Cortés and the Conquistadors." It centers on captured Spaniards (including women) who were sacrificed along with some unruly subjects of the Aztecs.

The ritual involved skillfully ripping the heart out of a living human; lifting said heart up to the sky while it is still beating; tossing the heartless (and maybe headless, I forgot to take notes) body down a steep flight of steps; butchering said heartless/headless/discarded body.

Well, I thought we could all come together on this behavior and say, "That is just wrong." Liberal and Conservative could finally agree -- Marxist Intellectual and capitalist Robber Baron as well.

OK, maybe we all know that one special "exception" to the rule where ripping out the heart might be understandable (though never condoned). But to do this by the thousands? At what point have you gone from a Civilization that has "a problem" to "A Problem" that has a civilization? I mean, talk about the church militant.

Gee, I lack nuance. First, the slaughter was done to keep the sun in the sky, and the sun is still up there so they must have done a pretty good job. Plus, the Aztecs lacked beasts of burden and their subject peoples kinda filled that role. And what do you do with an ornery beast of burden? You turn him into a much-needed protein supplement -- and do it in a way to encourage "the others." So: Sun's in the sky. Maize is in the fields. Pyramid's gettin' built. Capital's kept clean. And all the Spaceships are solar-powered (sorry, that was Atlantis). Why, times were almost good.

Then Cortes shows up -- a combination entrepreneur and labor-organizing thug who's gonna steal your retirement. If only he weren't an entrepreneur but, alas!

At this point, the Aztec Priestly caste became the "resistance." What's the evidence they turned into minutemen? There were Spanish heads included in those skull racks -- along with the heads of their new-fangled horses (Listen, burden-carrying oppressed peoples, those ponies want your jobs).

Well, I concluded that one priestly caste (tenured academia) identifies strongly with another priestly caste. The Priests no doubt bathed more frequently than the on-the-make Spaniards. They were respectful of (their) learning and knew the value of a good protein supplement. They knew how to get additional sacrifices from their unwilling populations to keep their institutions up and running. They did not beg for grants, they just took that pound of flesh, only by the ton!

I, on the other hand, saw those Aztec intellectuals as bitter men clinging to their religion and razor-sharp obsidian ceremonial blades, all the while fearing change and blaming migrants for bringing "new ideas and new beliefs."

Meanwhile, with the help of a vicious pandemic, the Spaniards slipped into the role of the Aztecs. 

Those who rule in the present can have a certain regard for the problems the Aztec rulers faced. I mean, keeping the sun up in the sky is thirsty work. And as the sun gets closer, the globe gets hotter. That means more sacrifices to push it back up and keep things cool. And how do you get folks to willingly sacrifice (or unwillingly, when it comes down to it) to keep that grand project well-resourced?

Am I being unfair here? Let me think. Nah.

Maryland Man or Salvadoran Savage?

Liberal Media HUMILIATED as DESPERATE Dems in Polling FREEFALL

The Democrats have chosen their stand-in for every put-upon innocent in the world: Kilmar Abrego Garcia. Of course, one must be willing to ignore a few items on his resume (or rap sheet).

In Patron-Client relationships, the patron offers protection and benefits to clients in return for loyalty and service. This is a feature of Progressive Politics (one of their criticisms of Trump are his "transactional" relationships). We often see them defending people who are hardly deserving of these efforts  -- their clients. These campaigns are not about saving these clients (in fact, they are disposable) but about recruiting others impressed by the display of power. In a sense, a "Dead George" is better than a live "Maryland Man."

At the same time, the movement goes after the opponents with few, or no, holds barred (see: Jan. 6ers). Attacking the "good" while defending "the bad" reenforces loyalty among the cadres. Anyone can champion the innocent, it takes a servile hack to champion the guilty. Still, it's the "under the table" benefits that keep the influential and wealthy recruits attached (see USAID etc.). Their cronies grow hungry and need to be fed.

These "misfires" and loss of power displays are an existential threat to the movement. A moderate camouflage is called for.

Tactics and Tariffs

The Genius Behind The Trump Tariffs

We export Government Debt. "Junk" is sold to US consumers for dollars and Junk (dollar-denominated Treasury Debt) is bought by foreigners. Incumbent -- and often incompetent -- politicians can spend money to keep their supporters happy without raising taxes. If the dollar were backed by gold, we would have run out of gold (and imports) in the 1960s. But then we could not have fought the Vietnam War and built LBJ's not-so-Great Society.

The dollar is now backed by American assets (such as real estate -- when they sell our debt, they can buy our houses). We sacrificed our industries to re-elect politicians and benefit Wall Street, Silicon Valley, and the Wealthy Everywhere. Next, we'll sacrifice our homes. We need to get spending under control.

The President should announce a trade deficit target. The deficit was $1.2 trillion last year, so put it at $800 billion this year, $400 billion the year after, and a max of 200 billion every year after that. Impose penalty tariffs for each year a nation sells 10 percent more than it buys. The more goods a country buys from the US, the more it can sell in return. 

Oh, the Horror!

Global Financial Bloodbath: $5 Trillion Wiped In 2 Days | Will Europe Turn To China

For decades, one of the biggest—if not the biggest—US exports was (and is) debt, mostly government debt. Foreign nationals use Treasury bills as collateral, often in trade with nations other than the US. Meanwhile, Wall Street makes out as the "middle man," and Congress Critters can spend money feeding their special interest friends without raising taxes. So we are selling off bits of our nation in return for trinkets.

To cut the trade deficit, we will need to cut the budget deficit or save more as a nation (and consume less). In recent years, the Treasury floated more short-term debt, which we must roll over, so interest rates may not decline by much (although those looking for a "cash" position while things get sorted may want what the Treasury offers). Painful adjustments (many affecting quite influential groups) will be required.

Inflation has helped boost the stock market beyond the valuations the traditional "P/E" ratios would suggest. We may be witnessing a return to the mean, which may seem mean indeed as investors race to "de-leverage" first. Meanwhile, most corporations bought back shares when interest rates were low, pumping up the market, and may be selling now.

It is said Europe will turn to China to replace the United States, while China turns to Europe to replace the United States. I wish them luck.

He's got it Wrong.

 I Break Down Every Key Moment of Trump & Zelenskyy’s Fight (to PROVE who’s really right)

I don't always agree with Paul Warburg's opinions, but I find his analysis of the Ukraine conflict informative. His take on the Oval Office Meeting misses the mark. 

I support military aid for Ukraine -- even when Biden "paused" it in the early days of his administration, I thought it should continue. To me, that pause was like ringing the lunch bell for Putin.

I am surprised that people who shrugged off Russia's Crimea grab are such war hawks now. I'm also aware that the longer the war lasts and the aid flows into an impoverished nation, the more people become dependent on the new status quo. This is not a criticism of Ukrainians; it's a criticism of the human race (in the meeting, Zelensky made a comment that kinda serves as proof). One thing Trump's plan has right: you have to offer them a better future. Also, no one voted for Trump because he would give security guarantees to Ukraine (quite the opposite). He's gone about as far as he can go in that direction.

I watched the whole thing and never got the feeling that President Zelenskyy wanted to sign the agreement (or even wanted to be there). If you were hiring a partner for peace, he would fail the interview. Also, when he handed President Trump those photos, it was obvious to me that he didn't tell Trump in advance. If I'm right, that was a big mistake and awfully rude. What I saw was a guy who wanted to maneuver Trump into saying something, out of politeness and in front of the press, that would be useful later.

If Zelensky only gets pre-screened questions from reporters, that's not Trump's fault (Trump was called a Russian spy daily for a couple of years). It is laughable to suggest that a "rude" question would throw Zelensky off his game. Was it done so Trump could say something nice about him later? Gee, what planning!

West Winging It

FULL Body Language Analysis of Trump and Zelenskyy's MELTDOWN

During the turn of the Century, The West Wing was a popular political Comedy/Drama about the Presidency of the United States of America. It was fiction, so the progressive president (Martin Sheen) could come out looking a little better and his conservative foes a little worse than might be the case in, say, the real world.

President Zelensky of Ukraine started his political life with a similar program. You get to write the script. The clever things you say and do ultimately work out in your favor -- regardless of the mid-show hilarious hiccups. Unfortunately, starring in a "West Wing" style show is poor training for sitting in the almost sacred setting (for most Americans) of the West Wing Oval Office while dealing with President Donald Trump. During that meeting, he wanted commitments from Trump in public, in front of the world, that he couldn't get in private. Unfortunately, Zelensky wasn't writing the script.

Abraham Lincoln, during the Dark Days of the Civil War, said, "We must disenthrall ourselves." I read that as a fourteen-year-old boy and wondered what "disenthrall" meant.  To be enthralled was to be emotionally caught up in a book or a movie or a love affair. So, to "disenthrall" means to disengage your emotions and try to look at the situation you are in objectively. President Zelensky was not capable of doing that. Indeed, he wanted to "enthrall" Donald Trump and perhaps everyone else.

His inability to view the world objectively has set him up for failure. Hopefully, he will leave the scene soon and accept the gratitude of his grateful nation before that turns to loathing.

By and large, commentators assume that if Kamala Harris were President, the largess towards Ukraine would continue. Why? It was Biden's administration that pushed the war, largely as a part of their anti-Putin morality play (See Ukraine's Color Revolution, Hunter and Burisima, Trump's first impeachment, etc.). Democrats are the party of Secretary of State Hilary Clinton's "Russia-US Reset Button" (this after Russia took part of Georgia -- not the US state). After that little show, Putin grabbed Crimea and eastern Ukraine, and Obama shrugged. In its first days in 2021, the Biden Administration stopped the arm shipments to Ukraine that Trump began (they wanted to engage with Russia diplomatically). That was like ringing the lunch bell for Vladimar Putin. He geared up for war, not diplomacy.

If Harris had won on Nov. 5, the American Media would have started the distancing process on Nov 6. It would be time for "a new look." It would go on from there, and it would be ugly. There would be story after story of Ukrainian corruption. Many of these stories might actually be true (truth is not a priority in a political operation). Why would this happen? Because our involvement in the War in Ukraine is a political loser. Why are the "experts," who shrugged off the Crimea invasion when they were in power, war hawks now? Why did they manipulate Zelensky into confronting Trump in the Oval office to effectively repudiate the very agreement he was there to sign? It's part of the political operation. They want to regain power. Blowing up the peace deal hurts Trump and helps them. Any leader who can "disenthrall himself" would see that and avoid the trap.

Zelensky did confirm what I wrote about in the Post "Ukraine's Thriving Enterprise." He said the Ukrainian people are actually doing all right despite the hardships of war. This is why Trump is offering them an alternative prosperous future. We can get rare earths from our 51st state -- Greenland, Canada, maybe Cuba. Who wants to be first?

Z-mania

 Breaking: President Trump and VP Vance Spar with Zelensky in the Oval Office

In the past, the US made agreements with Joseph Stalin, Breshnev, and Mao -- but Zelensky warns the US about making a deal with Putin. He also tells JD Vance that his intelligence breifings are crap (which may be the case -- unless they are focused on LGBTQ matters). But hey, Z, Marco Rubio knows his dictators.

By lecturing on Putin's untrustworthiness, Zelensky wanted Trump to give a public "reassurance" that could be spun into a security guarantee. It blew up in his face.

Europeans don't understand the US. Trump went way out on a limb for Ukraine. His supporters -- you know, the people who got him elected -- oppose massive aid for Ukraine, and they certainly don't want US corporations economically entwinded there (and their employees being human shields in the border lands). Many are outright hostile to our involvement, which goes back to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's first Trump impeachment over that "perfect Ukrainian phone call" -- to Zelensky, as fate would have it.

Now, European "intellectuals" try to score "we stand with Ukraine" debating points after Zelensky wants to tell the US who it can negotiate with. What's the reaction of most Americans to all this? Fine, it's your problem now.

Zelensky played a leader on TV, where he got to write the script and the clever ending. Well, not today. Today he screwed the pooch. The American people will never support a forever war in the middle of Eurasia. Trump went further with this deal than is politically wise.