The Kremlin Connection: Does Trump After All Owe to Russian Backers?

Russia. Trump. What now?

Many Americans HAVE found convicted felon, adjudicated sex abuser, malignant narcissist/pathological liar, and career criminal, (twice imperfectly impeached, 30,000+ lies told to American citizens as POTUS45), Donald Trump... winning the 2024 election, BEING curious, if not, SEVERELY Bizarre.

Matt Gaetz for AG? Then he resigned Congress. Well, on that latter part, Yay!

Some very bizarre Trump nominations for his "administration". Look, you CAN put unqualified or even stupid people in charge, but that burdens all those beneath them. Our government deserves better. As do we all.

Janes: North Korea - The hardest OSINT environment? (audio 46mins)

Oh, by the way...Blast from the past...2023:

Medvedev suggests that Elon Musk launch campaign to amend US Constitution

Many of us feel there is something untoward going on, but we can't put our fingers on it. DOJ, SCOTUS and Congress have repeatedly let America down on curbing or putting away a convicted criminal, twice impeached (crippled by the MaGA GOP as it was), Donald Trump. Autocracy and autocratic methodology seems to have a maze-like path through democracy toward crumbling it from the inside, deluding those who have traditionally and historically stood against it (like the GOP, the once and no longer "Grand Old Party").

We will find out what happened years, or decades later. But we're in dire straits, NOW.

So then, what is this?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X" (Elon's infected Twitter)

Kefkaroth Sephka with 88 followers, is an odd account. Russian disinfo? Or sharing something we should know?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X"

Interesting?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X"

OK, so what the hell does all that mean?

Analysis of Russian presidential aide and Chairman or the Russian Maritime Collegium Nikolai Patrushev said Trump owes after winning the US elections.

Patrushev: "Trump relied on forces to which he has obligations."

Speaking with the Kommersant newspaper, Nikolai Patrushev said:

"And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them."

Which is a compliment in rhetoric that indicates he's not critiquing or denigrating Trump, but reminding him, praising him. Thus he's talking about Russian influence, not anti-Russian American, or world power influences aligned against Russia. 

This is disturbing.

What is Kommersant? Kommersant (Коммерсантъ) is a prominent Russian newspaper known for its in-depth reporting on business, politics, and international affairs. It was founded in 1989 and is one of Russia’s oldest and most respected private publications. Kommersant is well-regarded for its coverage of the Russian government and global events and is considered to have a relatively balanced perspective, though it operates under certain constraints common to Russian media. The paper publishes a wide array of content, including investigative journalism, economic reports, political analysis, and interviews with Russian and international figures. Its tone and quality are often comparable to major Western business and political publications.

Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia's Security Council, recent statement that Donald Trump owes "obligations" to certain "forces" after his 2024 U.S. election victory are widely seen as suggesting that Trump's success was bolstered by influential groups within the U.S. to which he might feel indebted. This implication aligns with Russian critiques of American politics, particularly around the influence of elite or interest groups shaping U.S. policy.

However, Patrushev did not specify which "forces" he was referring to, leaving room for speculation and interpretation, particularly among analysts who often interpret these statements as part of Russia's broader narrative criticizing Western democracies and their leadership dynamics. Patrushev has frequently suggested that U.S. leaders, including Trump, are beholden to powerful domestic influences, which he views as detrimental to global stability.

For further context on this statement and how it fits into Russia's ongoing critique of the U.S., see sources like EADaily, The New Republic, and others reporting on recent Russian official statements.

How is this not about Russian forces helping Trump get elected?

We know Putin finds Trump as many of us do with reality in our eyes and ears as a cheap criminal who sows chaos and corrupts all he comes into contact with. But Putin loves to sow chaos in Western democracies. It aids his efforts in a force multiply dynamic.

Patrushev’s comments did not specifically state that Russian forces assisted Trump in getting elected in 2024, but rather vaguely suggested that Trump “relied on forces” and now has “obligations” to them. This phrase could be interpreted in different ways, but Patrushev's language aligns with a broader Russian critique of American political dynamics, implying that Trump, like other U.S. leaders, may owe favors to influential groups within the U.S. itself.

To be clear, Russian officials often frame U.S. politics as heavily influenced by powerful domestic interests—be it corporate elites, political lobbies, or other internal actors. By using the term “forces,” Patrushev may be pointing toward these internal influences rather than suggesting Russian intervention. This is consistent with Russia's recent narrative, which downplays its own role in U.S. elections while casting doubt on the independence of American leaders due to their reliance on domestic power groups​.

Without a direct accusation or evidence, Patrushev’s comments remain speculative. Or do they? While this could provoke interpretations about Russian interference, the statement’s ambiguity suggests it’s more a part of Russia’s rhetorical stance rather than an admission of direct involvement.

But this also sounds very much like a mafia-style, indirect threat which would also fit Russian government style.

Patrushev’s language can also and easily be interpreted as carrying an implicit, even “mafia-style” tone, something often observed in Russian diplomatic rhetoric. Russian officials sometimes use vague but pointed language, leaving their statements open to interpretation while signaling a message that may seem menacing or suggestive of influence. In this case, Patrushev’s comment that Trump “relied on forces” to whom he “has obligations” sounds intentionally ambiguous, which leaves room for multiple interpretations, including one that hints at an indirect warning.

This style aligns with broader Russian messaging that often critiques Western politics as being influenced by powerful interests, while subtly implying that Russian knowledge of such influence could affect future relations. Patrushev’s comments might be designed to foster uncertainty about who holds sway over U.S. leaders like Trump, while also subtly conveying that Russia has insight—and perhaps leverage—regarding these dynamics.

That's very Russian from a country who are experts in long-term efforts against their enemies, and in cloaking reality in obfuscation and distraction.

Russian officials have used similar language in the past to suggest that Western leaders are not fully autonomous and may owe their positions to certain interest groups, subtly casting doubt on their independence. This rhetorical style can serve multiple functions: distancing Russia from accusations of interference, casting aspersions on Western political systems, and creating a sense of strategic ambiguity that can be read as a veiled warning or signal to other nations.

In this case, it’s reasonable to view Patrushev’s statements as potentially serving these dual purposes: as part of a long-standing critique of U.S. politics and as a reminder of Russian awareness and potential influence in global affairs​.

Telling the Kommersant newspaper, Nikolai Patrushev said:

"And as a responsible person, he will be oblighed to fulfill them", which is a compliment in rhetoric that indicates he's not critiquing Trump, but praising him. Thus he's talking about Russian influence, not anti-Russian American or world power influences aligned against Russia. 

This is disturbing.

The additional context from Patrushev’s statement to Kommersant—that Trump, “as a responsible person, will be obliged to fulfill” his obligations—does indeed shift the tone. Instead of sounding critical or cautionary, this phrasing can be read as supportive, suggesting that Trump’s responsibilities are aligned with groups Patrushev views favorably. Such language could imply Russian influence or expectations of Trump, especially if Patrushev is indicating he trusts Trump to fulfill obligations that benefit Russian interests or are aligned with Russia’s geopolitical goals.

This interpretation aligns with a broader Russian diplomatic approach that often uses indirect language to signal shared interests or mutual understanding with foreign leaders. If Patrushev is indeed hinting at Trump being "obliged" to Russia or Russia-aligned groups, it would reflect a complex dynamic. 

While Russia has officially denied interference in U.S. elections, Russian officials have sometimes hinted at understanding or even approval of Trump’s policy directions that align with Russian interests, such as questioning NATO’s role or opposing certain sanctions. We know, American intelligence community has clearly stated that Russia, China, and Iran specifically have interfered in our 2024 election in various ways.

• As the U.S. election nears, Russia, Iran and China step up influence efforts
• FBI reports new hoax videos, after warnings that Russia is trying to undermine election

These statements certainly could be disturbing, as they imply a confidence that Trump, even as a U.S. president, might prioritize commitments aligned with Russian interests. Such confidence could be interpreted as Russia expecting that Trump’s actions will favor or accommodate Russia if he follows through on these so-called “obligations.” This perception can lead to concerns about foreign influence on U.S. leadership, especially given the ambiguous but suggestive rhetoric Patrushev employs​.

Buckle up America. Four more years of the nightmare grifter in the White House and remember...

We did this to ourselves!

Looking for hope? Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: "This isn't forever."

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

In the One Act Play, "Denude", Legacy and War Lay Bare the Struggle for Redemption

I came across a 2022 film, "Foxhole", it was pretty intriguing and entertaining. Where Over 36 hours in three different wars, a small group of soldiers grapples with mortality, futility, and an increasingly volatile combat situation. It reminded me of my play on a similar concept.

Perhaps I should have named my play that. But, perhaps not. Allow me to explain. Back in 1983 while at Western Washington University, I wrote a play about two soldiers in a foxhole (with supernatural overtones). It takes place between three very different wars: Vietnam, WWII, and the War of 1812, in that order.

Two soldiers, Trappist and Menses, are stuck in a foxhole during a war. Trappist tries to engage Menses in conversation, offering him some rations of fruitcake and peaches, but Menses is agitated and angry about having been sent there. The tension between them rises as they face the threat of enemy fire. Trappist tries to calm Menses, but the situation intensifies until Menses, in a fit of panic, ends up shooting and killing Trappist.

After Trappist's death, a surreal sequence occurs where Trappist appears as a ghost, revealing to Menses that they've been intertwined through multiple lives, with Menses repeatedly being the cause of Trappist's death in various previous wars. Trappist implies a cycle of reincarnation and their eternal connection.

Eventually, as Menses faces the brink of death himself, Trappist guides him into an ethereal realm, indicating they're both on the verge of departing. The play ends with Menses acknowledging his own death and Trappist urging him to follow into the afterlife, hinting at a reason to celebrate despite their demise.

How does that tie in with one's consideration of themself and their ancestors who served in those previous wars?

A person's understanding of their self-identity, as well as their view of their family lineage, can be deeply influenced by the legacy of ancestors who served in past wars like the War of 1812, WWII, and the Vietnam War. This connection to the past often impacts how they view duty, patriotism, resilience, and their place within their nation's history.

Here’s how these aspects might shape someone's perception of themselves in the context of these wars:

1. Sense of Duty and Patriotism

• If someone has ancestors who served in one or more of these wars, they may feel a heightened sense of duty or responsibility to carry on a family legacy of service and sacrifice. This can manifest as a strong patriotic sentiment, where they view their own life in the context of defending and upholding the values for which their ancestors fought.
• Knowing that a family member faced hardship and danger to protect sovereignty and national interests can deepen a person’s respect for their country and motivate them to contribute in their own way, whether through military service, civic engagement, or simply by embodying values like courage and dedication.

2. Personal Identity and Self-Worth

• The knowledge of an ancestor’s bravery, resilience, or sacrifices in wartime can enhance a person’s sense of self-worth. They may view these traits as part of their family identity, inspiring them to persevere through their challenges and to embody the resilience displayed by previous generations.
• For instance, a descendant of a WWII veteran might take pride in knowing their family contributed to defeating fascism and defending freedom on a global scale. Similarly, a descendant of a Vietnam War veteran might carry an understanding of the complexities of war, including the struggles soldiers face during and after service.

3. Connection to Broader Historical Themes

• People often feel a connection to history through their family stories, seeing their ancestors' participation as part of a larger narrative about freedom, justice, or ideological conflict. This sense of continuity with the past can lead to a deeper appreciation of the challenges their ancestors faced and how those challenges are relevant today.
• For example, understanding that an ancestor fought to defend American sovereignty in the War of 1812 might give someone a stronger appreciation for independence and self-determination. Learning about a WWII veteran ancestor might evoke a sense of responsibility to stand against injustice, while a Vietnam veteran ancestor might prompt a deeper understanding of the costs of war and the importance of questioning authority.

4. Reflection on Service and Sacrifice Across Generations

• For some, having family members who served in different wars with varied goals—protecting sovereignty, fighting ideologies, or containing threats—can highlight the changing nature of patriotism and service. It may lead them to reflect on what service means today, especially in a world with new and different types of challenges.
• They may also see each generation’s service as a testament to their family’s ongoing commitment to the values they hold dear, like bravery and sacrifice. This perspective often strengthens family bonds, fostering a sense of pride and a commitment to carry on those values, even if not through military service.

5. Ethical and Moral Reflection

• A person's view of their ancestors’ service can also involve ethical considerations, especially in wars like Vietnam, which raised questions about the morality of conflict and governmental decisions. Descendants of Vietnam veterans, in particular, may grapple with the moral complexity of that war, leading to nuanced views on service, authority, and foreign policy.
• This ethical reflection may result in a more complex form of patriotism, one that respects the sacrifices made by family members but also acknowledges the lessons learned from the consequences of these wars. Such reflections can prompt a desire for peace and responsible leadership, influencing the descendant's choices and beliefs.

In essence, an individual who is aware of their ancestors' service in these wars might see themselves as part of a continuum—a living link in a chain of history where ideals, sacrifices, and national struggles persist across generations. This connection can provide a foundation for their identity, values, and choices, blending personal pride with the lessons and legacies of their family's past.

The story in the play weaves together themes of fate, trauma, and the eternal bonds forged in conflict, all while exploring complex questions of identity and guilt. Here are some key interpretations and symbolic meanings in the context of the information provided:

1. Cycles of War and Trauma

• The recurring deaths of Trappist at the hands of Menses across multiple lifetimes suggest that the two are caught in a cycle of violence and tragedy. This echoes the generational repetition of war itself, where similar patterns of suffering and sacrifice recur across different conflicts and eras. Just as descendants of soldiers might see the same themes—sovereignty, ideology, and national duty—play out repeatedly, Menses and Trappist are symbols of those individuals trapped in an endless loop of conflict, with trauma continually passed down.
• Menses’s agitation reflects the disillusionment soldiers often feel in wartime, questioning the reasons behind their deployment. His panic mirrors the moral struggles many soldiers face when their sense of duty clashes with the reality of violence. Trappist’s calm and offering of food—fruitcake and peaches, items often shared as comforts in hard times—may represent an attempt to find humanity and shared purpose amid the chaos of war.

2. Reincarnation and Generational Karma

• The cycle of reincarnation between Trappist and Menses hints at karma, suggesting that Menses is doomed to confront and ultimately reconcile with his violent tendencies across lifetimes. This ties to the idea that wars, like personal conflicts, are cycles that humanity struggles to break free from.
• Their intertwined lives may serve as a metaphor for how each generation inherits the unresolved conflicts and traumas of the last. The idea that Menses is repeatedly responsible for Trappist’s death could represent how individuals, knowingly or unknowingly, perpetuate historical violence and trauma. Only by confronting and understanding this pattern can they hope to transcend it, symbolized by Menses’s journey into the afterlife guided by Trappist.

3. Acceptance of Mortality and Transformation

• As Menses faces his death with Trappist guiding him, there’s a shift from violence to acceptance. Trappist's ghostly presence serves as a reminder that death does not end their connection; rather, it offers a chance to confront their history and possibly find peace. This moment of acceptance transforms death from a feared enemy into a passage to a new understanding.
• The final scene, where Trappist urges Menses to "celebrate" despite their demise, could be interpreted as an embrace of life’s cycles, including the ending of those cycles. In acknowledging his own death, Menses may be symbolically breaking the pattern, suggesting that the only way to escape the violence of reincarnation is through acceptance and transcendence.

4. The Dual Nature of War as Both Binding and Destructive

• The foxhole setting forces the two characters into a close and claustrophobic bond, highlighting how war can create intense relationships under life-threatening circumstances. Trappist and Menses are bound by shared danger, but it also becomes their undoing. This dynamic reflects how soldiers in various wars develop lifelong connections with comrades, yet these relationships can be strained or tragically severed by violence.
• The ghostly revelation of their past lives serves as a metaphor for the shared traumas soldiers carry through life, as well as across generations. Each generation’s unresolved trauma perpetuates cycles of violence and suffering, a reminder that without healing, past conflicts may continue to haunt the present.

5. Celebrating Release and Finding Meaning in Tragedy

• The story’s ending implies that through death, Menses and Trappist might finally break their pattern. Their celebration may signify a release from the karmic ties of their past, freeing them from repeating this violent cycle in the future.
• This celebration can also be seen as a tribute to the perseverance and resilience of those who endured trauma in war. Despite the violence, the connection between the two characters represents a testament to shared humanity, a poignant reminder of the relationships and sacrifices made in the most challenging circumstances.

In sum, the story of Trappist and Menses speaks to the profound and often tragic connections forged in wartime. It reflects on how the legacies of past conflicts live on within individuals, affecting identity and behavior across generations. Their journey through death and reincarnation suggests that finding peace may require acknowledging and accepting past violence, ultimately leading to release and transformation.

But, what about that weird title: "Denude"?

The title Denude perfectly captures the play's core themes by suggesting a stripping away of layers, exposing raw truths, vulnerabilities, and the essence of each character beyond the facade of duty or anger. Here’s how it resonates with the play’s elements:

1. Stripping Down to Humanity: In the intense, close confines of the foxhole, the two soldiers are forced to confront not only the external war but also their own fears, beliefs, and mortality. Denude suggests this process of laying bare, as Trappist and Menses shed the societal and psychological armor they carry as soldiers. This reveals their raw humanity, flaws, and connections that transcend a single lifetime.

2. Revealing Cycles of Trauma and Violence: The title reflects the peeling back of time itself, exposing the repetitive cycles of conflict that these characters—and by extension, humanity—are trapped in. Through the surreal revelation of their reincarnation, Denude conveys how, stripped of superficial identities, they are left with only the core of their unresolved karmic bond.

3. Ancestral and Emotional Exposure: The play tackles heavy themes of inherited trauma and the weight of ancestral conflicts. Denude speaks to the exposure of these deep-seated wounds that each character carries, inviting audiences to consider the ways in which war and violence strip away innocence and leave behind scars that ripple through generations.

4. A Journey Toward Redemption and Truth: Finally, the act of “denuding” hints at a spiritual or existential uncovering—a stripping away of the cycles of violence until only truth remains. As Trappist leads Menses toward acceptance and, ultimately, peace, the title suggests a process of shedding illusions, perhaps even ego, to confront and understand their shared history.

Denude thus encapsulates themes of revelation, vulnerability, and the journey toward a profound understanding of self and others, central to the play’s exploration of reincarnation, war, and redemption.

So should I have titled it "Foxhole"? Maybe, maybe not. Is the play any good? Yeah, I think so. It's also, from a stage manager's and director's perspective, kind of a cool, and versatile play. And a bit spooky in the performance, making it interesting to act in.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Why Protect Ukraine? Why Not Ask, Why Protect Yourself?

From Nagy Sándor off of Facebook (cleaned up from original, for clarity).

For those who ask...

Why Ukraine Matters?

Ukraine is one of the largest countries in Europe, with an area of 603,548 square kilometers and a population of approximately 44.13 million (as of 2020).

Ukraine’s Key Natural Resources:

• Uranium Reserves: Largest in Europe.
• Titanium Reserves: 2nd in Europe, 10th globally.
• Manganese Ore Reserves: 2nd in the world, with 2.3 billion tonnes, accounting for 12% of global reserves.
• Iron Ore Reserves: 2nd largest globally, with 30 billion tonnes.
• Mercury Ore Reserves: 2nd in Europe.
• Natural Gas Reserves: 3rd in Europe, 13th globally, with 22 trillion cubic meters.
• Coal Reserves: 7th in the world, with 33.9 billion tonnes.
• Overall Value of Natural Resources: 4th in the world.

Ukraine’s Agricultural Importance:

• Ploughed Land: Largest in Europe.
• Black Soil (Chernozem): 3rd in the world, making up 25% of the global supply.
• Sunflower & Sunflower Oil: Largest exporter in the world.
• Barley: 2nd in production globally, 4th in exports.
• Maize: 3rd largest producer and 4th largest exporter.
• Potatoes: 4th largest producer.
• Rye: 5th largest producer.
• Honey: 5th largest producer globally, with 75,000 tonnes.
• Wheat: 8th largest exporter in the world.
• Eggs: 9th largest producer.
• Cheese: 16th largest exporter.

Ukraine can meet the food needs of up to 600 million people.

Ukraine’s Industrial Strength:

• Ammonia Production: Largest in Europe.
• Natural Gas Pipeline System: 2nd largest in Europe, 4th globally.
• Nuclear Power: 3rd in Europe, 8th globally in installed capacity.
• Railway Network: 3rd in Europe, 11th globally, spanning 21,700 km.
• Manufacturing of Locating Equipment: 3rd in the world, after the United States and France.
• Iron Exports: 3rd largest globally.
• Turbine Export: 4th largest globally.
• Rocket Launcher Manufacturing: 4th largest globally.
• Clay Exports: 4th largest globally.
• Titanium Exports: 4th largest globally.
• Ore & Concentrates Exports: 8th largest globally.
• Industrial Protective Products Exports: 9th largest globally.
• Steel Production: 10th largest globally, producing 32.4 million tonnes.

It gets down to this: 

Europe and America didn't want to protect Poland when Hitler invaded. 

That, was a mistake.

You do not placate such as  Hitler, Putin...or Trump.

You stand against them. 

You stand up for humanity. 

You do not isolate. Why?

Because it never ends well. You can't see what's going on. You can't protect yourself, or others. You allow those with your and other's best interests to make those their best interests.

Wake up, face your troubles, fight back...for yourself and others. Before it's too late and your fighting only for yourself and yours, and you're losing.

Tyranny of the Majority: Why Gerrymandering and the Electoral College Don't Serve Democracy

Isn't Donald Trump winning the popular vote exactly the reason for the Electoral College to begin with?

Where Did the Term “Gerrymander” Come From?

While the Electoral College was originally designed to balance the interests of smaller and larger states and to prevent more populated areas from having too much influence over the selection of the president, its purpose was to ensure that all states, regardless of population size, would have a meaningful role in the election process. This system means that winning the popular vote nationwide doesn't always guarantee a candidate the presidency; instead, a candidate must secure enough electoral votes by winning individual states.

In recent years, some argue the Electoral College does not fully represent the popular vote, especially when a candidate wins the Electoral College but loses the popular vote. Others see it as a way to maintain state representation and avoid a scenario where only high-population areas dominate election outcomes.

So what's the purpose of Gerrymandering in all this? Weren't the Framers concerned about a popularity vote?

The Framers were indeed concerned about a purely popular vote. They feared that direct democracy, where decisions are made directly by majority vote, could lead to what they called "the tyranny of the majority." This concern was partly why they created the Electoral College — to act as a buffer, giving each state a proportionate voice rather than allowing the most populous areas to entirely dictate election outcomes.

Gerrymandering, however, is a separate issue tied specifically to the drawing of congressional and state legislative districts, not to the Electoral College directly. Gerrymandering allows political parties in power to shape districts to favor their party, sometimes creating "safe" seats and minimizing competition. While the Electoral College itself isn't affected by Gerrymandering, gerrymandered districts influence the House of Representatives and, indirectly, political power within states.

Here's where it does relate, though: Gerrymandering can influence which party holds power at the state level, which can, in turn, influence presidential elections. For example, if one party controls a state's legislature due to Gerrymandering, they may enact voting laws that can affect voter turnout and electoral outcomes. Additionally, in extreme cases, Gerrymandering could impact the selection of electors if a state decides to allocate electoral votes by district (as done in Maine and Nebraska), though this is rare.

In short, while the Electoral College reflects the Framers' goal of balancing power among states, Gerrymandering represents a more modern manipulation of electoral influence within states, often intensifying partisan divides and making it more difficult for some votes to carry equal weight.

Gerrymandering is often seen as "democratically insane," as it distorts the principle of one person, one vote. The goal of democracy is to ensure that the will of the people is accurately reflected, but Gerrymandering manipulates district boundaries to favor a particular political party or group, undermining that principle. By shaping districts in ways that dilute opposition votes and concentrate supporters, it creates a skewed representation in Congress and state legislatures. This process can reduce competition, lower voter engagement, and ultimately result in elected officials who do not reflect the will of the majority.

As for the Electoral College, many argue that it has indeed become increasingly problematic, especially in recent years. The system was originally intended to balance the influence of smaller and larger states, but in practice, it can feel broken. For example, it’s possible for a candidate to lose the popular vote but still win the presidency, as happened in 2000 and 2016. This disconnect between the popular will and the electoral outcome has led to significant criticism, as people feel their votes may not have equal weight depending on where they live.

Critics argue that this makes the system less representative and that it disproportionately elevates the influence of swing states while ignoring others. It has also fueled calls for reform, including proposals to either abolish the Electoral College altogether in favor of a direct popular vote or to move toward a proportional allocation of electoral votes.

In both cases — Gerrymandering and the Electoral College — the frustration stems from a sense that the systems no longer serve their original democratic purposes effectively. They seem to disproportionately favor political elites or certain regions, creating a sense of unfairness and eroding trust in the democratic process. This has led to widespread calls for reform in both areas, though achieving such changes is a complicated and often contentious issue.

So what the hell was the purpose of Gerrymandering?

Gerrymandering is primarily for manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor a particular political party, group, or incumbent. A practice typically employed by the party in control of a state’s legislature to maximize their electoral advantage in future elections. Gerrymandering works by strategically drawing district lines to either "pack" voters from the opposing party into a few districts (thereby minimizing their influence in other districts) or "crack" their voters by spreading them across multiple districts to dilute their voting power.

The primary goals of Gerrymandering are:

Political advantage:

By manipulating district boundaries, political parties can create districts that favor their candidates or policies, ensuring they win a disproportionate number of seats compared to their actual support in the general population.

Incumbent protection:

Gerrymandering can be used to protect current officeholders by designing districts that favor their re-election prospects, reducing competition and increasing the chances of electoral success.

Party entrenchment:

In some cases, Gerrymandering aims to create long-lasting political dominance by designing districts that consistently favor one party over others, even if their overall support in the population is not as strong.

Weaken opposition power:

By splitting or concentrating opposing voters, Gerrymandering can prevent the opposition from winning a fair share of seats, even if they have significant overall support in the state.

Historically, Gerrymandering has been used in the U.S. since the early 19th century, and while its purpose is often to favor a political party, it has also been used in the past to manipulate ethnic or racial representation. For example, in some cases, districts were drawn in ways that diminished the voting power of minority groups. This practice, however, has been limited by legal rulings that aim to prevent racial Gerrymandering and ensure fair representation under the Voting Rights Act.

While Gerrymandering can provide short-term political gains for those in power, it's widely criticized for distorting democracy, leading to uncompetitive elections, reducing voter turnout, and fostering political polarization. Which seems reasonable to me. So why does it still exist?

I see no valid reason to offer ways in elections to support a ruling party as it aids "the tyranny of the majority."

Many critics of Gerrymandering do share concern that it contributes to "the tyranny of the majority." The idea behind a fair, representative democracy is that all voices — including those of minority groups — should be heard and have an equal opportunity to influence the political process. Gerrymandering undermines this by allowing those in power to manipulate district boundaries to entrench their dominance, often at the expense of true representation.

When Gerrymandering is used to favor one party, it creates a political system that isn't truly responsive to the will of the voters. Instead of districts being competitive and reflecting a broad range of political views, they become "safe" seats, where one party has an overwhelming advantage. This can lead to a lack of accountability, as politicians in these districts have little incentive to listen to the concerns of voters outside their base. It also limits voter choice, as some districts are designed to ensure a particular party will win no matter the actual vote.

Concerns about "the tyranny of the majority" is valid in the context of unchecked power. In gerrymandered districts, even if a majority of people in a state or region support a certain candidate or party, the way the lines are drawn can mean that minority views are systematically shut out. This can lead to a situation where a large portion of the population feels politically disenfranchised, knowing that their votes are less likely to make an impact.

In an ideal system, elections should reflect the will of the people in a fair and transparent way, without manipulation. Gerrymandering distorts that, turning elections into contests of political strategy rather than true reflection of public opinion. Some advocates for reform argue for independent commissions to draw district lines instead of leaving the power to political parties, aiming to create fairer, more representative electoral maps.

So why does Gerrymandering still exist? It seems ludicrous and contrary to the American citizen. It persists because it allows political parties to manipulate district boundaries to secure electoral advantages, protect incumbents, and maintain power. It thrives due to the control state legislatures have over redistricting, limited federal oversight, and legal challenges that often fail to address partisan Gerrymandering. 

Increased political polarization, voter apathy, and a long history of the practice also contribute to its continuation. While some states have implemented reforms, resistance from those benefiting from the system, along with legal and structural challenges, makes it difficult to eliminate Gerrymandering altogether.

One wonders if this was a primary concern, to get our elections under control, eliminate Gerrymandering by partisan groups lacking neutrality (districts DO need to be drawn after all), dark and big money in our elections has to go, Citizens United needs to go (a first sign if not others before it to indicate there was an increasing problem with the SCOTUS). The best case would be for all of us to pay for our elections, and have them go through a neutral and monitored governing body with no money going to any campaign. This would have to be a compartmentalized group, outside the reach of political or government. 

Both parties would be supplied advertising, ads, etc. While it would require taxes, sad how that frightens so many, it would finally clean up our elections, stop the abuse, and lead to more reality. This would lead to more bi-partisan work being done, with more good decisions bravely being offered, and in the end more good ideas being utilized.

I would offer we also need to get back to news as a "loss leader". Eliminate for-profit news. Social media, OpEds and entertainment news may well today prevent that. We may well be quite beyond saving this situation. Oddly, comedy news has been a boon in this area, often pointing out much of what no one else is willing to address.

A potential solution could involve a combination of publicly funded advertising and stricter regulations on media ownership and content:

Publicly Funded Advertising: 

Implement a system where all political candidates receive equal funding for advertising, reducing the influence of private money. This could be funded through a small tax, ensuring a level playing field.

Stricter Media Regulations: 

Enforce regulations that limit the concentration of media ownership and ensure diverse viewpoints are represented. This could help reduce the bias and sensationalism often seen in for-profit news.

Non-Profit News Organizations: 

Encourage the establishment of non-profit news organizations that prioritize public interest over profit. These organizations could receive government grants or tax incentives to support their operations.

Educational Campaigns: 

Launch educational campaigns to inform the public about media literacy and the importance of critical thinking. This could help people better understand and evaluate the information they consume.

Transparency in Advertising: 

Require full transparency in political advertising, including clear disclosure of funding sources. This could help voters make more informed decisions and reduce the impact of misleading ads.

Ultimately, the goal should be a system that ensures power is not concentrated in the hands of a few, whether through Gerrymandering, electoral manipulation, campaign coffers (greatly supplied by a few billionaires or soon, trillionaires), or other tactics. The health of OUR democracy relies on its ability to fairly represent all people, not just the majority, not just those in power.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Veterans Day - Echoes from the Past: Ben Franklin on Pres. re-Elect Trump & America

Today is  Veteran's Day. I'm a vet. I wish all veterans a better future than we now seem to be diving into. I know, that against all rationale, reality, and proof to the contrary, many believe in Donald Trump. What the Hell America? 

First...Thomas J. Brennan - Military Journalism in “The War Horse” & “Shadows of Fallujah” | The Daily Show

We look at the entirety of someone in their character, actions, beliefs, and how they (and we) treat our weakest citizens. And it hasn't been well. 

Mahatma Gandhi is often quoted as saying, "The true measure of any society can be found in how it treats its most vulnerable members."

Hubert H. Humphrey, former U.S. Vice President, also famously stated: “The moral test of government is how that government treats those who are in the dawn of life, the children; those who are in the twilight of life, the elderly; and those who are in the shadows of life, the sick, the needy, and the handicapped.”

Fyodor Dostoevsky, the Russian novelist, wrote in The House of the Dead: “A society should be judged not by how it treats its outstanding citizens but by how it treats its criminals.”

The election of Trump spawned the foul and disgusting: "Your Body My Choice", response from the worst of Trump's supporters.

We can do better. Far better. Eventually, we will.

Moving on...

Considering Donald Trump's history, demeanor, felony convictions, being an adjudicated sex abuser, an insurrectionist, malignant narcissist & a famous pathological liar, what might Ben Franklin say about such a person being elected?

The actor and producer Michael Douglas, having played Franklin in a very enjoyable series recently, was asked, "What would Ben Franklin say about the state of America today?"

Douglas' response?

"Oh, I think he'd have another drink."

If Benjamin Franklin, one of America’s founding fathers, were to witness a figure like Donald Trump being elected president, he might have strong reservations, given his well-documented views on public virtue, integrity, and democratic principles.

Franklin believed deeply in the importance of character, humility, and public responsibility. He saw democracy as fragile, needing a foundation of informed, virtuous citizens and leaders to flourish. His famous response to the question about what kind of government the Constitutional Convention had created:

— "A Republic, if you can keep it" — speaks to his concerns about protecting the new democracy from corruption, power grabs, and the erosion of public virtue.

For Franklin, leadership required moral fiber and self-restraint, values he articulated through his writings and public actions. He warned against leaders who pursued personal gain or who lacked humility and honesty. He often highlighted the dangers of pride and self-interest, considering them pitfalls for both individuals and society. Given Trump’s documented behavior and legal issues, including instances of dishonesty, personal attacks, and various convictions, Franklin would likely view him as an embodiment of the qualities that threaten democratic governance.

Franklin’s views on narcissism and personal ambition were also critical. In his Poor Richard's Almanack, he wrote about the risks of excessive pride and selfishness, warning that such traits could mislead leaders and erode public trust. Given Trump’s self-promotional style and contentious relationship with truth, Franklin might see him as potentially destabilizing, particularly due to his challenges with accountability and divisive rhetoric.

In short, Benjamin Franklin would likely express concerns about a leader like Trump, fearing that such a figure might prioritize personal gain over the public good, challenge the balance of democratic institutions, and weaken the very "republic" that Franklin and his peers sought to establish.

But what about Americans electing Trump because of the economy, casting off values of honesty, integrity, decency, humanity out the window to do so?

Americans, in electing a leader primarily for economic reasons while disregarding qualities like honesty, integrity, and decency, Benjamin Franklin, as a moral philosopher, would likely have viewed this as a grave concern for the health of the republic. Franklin and many other founding figures believed that the moral character of leaders directly impacted the wellbeing and ethical grounding of society as a whole. For them, good governance wasn’t just about material prosperity; it was about promoting civic virtue and ensuring leaders upheld values that aligned with the nation's founding principles.

Franklin viewed democracy as something inherently fragile and requiring continual effort and vigilance. His belief in the importance of civic virtue is evident in his writings, where he emphasized that the success of the American experiment depended on the moral character of both its citizens and leaders. To him, sacrificing ethical standards for economic promises might weaken the republic's foundation and lead to a leadership that pursues self-interest over the public good.

Furthermore, the founders warned about the dangers of prioritizing immediate gains over long-term integrity. John Adams, another prominent founder, famously said, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” This suggests that when a society sacrifices moral standards — even for economic stability — it risks undermining the very framework that upholds democratic governance and freedom. For Franklin and others, the erosion of values could lead to a citizenry more vulnerable to authoritarianism or corruption.

In Franklin's view, democracy was an ideal rooted in trust, transparency, and respect for each citizen's inherent worth. Leaders without these values, no matter their promises, could ultimately compromise the republic by fostering division, undermining democratic norms, and destabilizing the very economic systems they claim to protect. Thus, he would likely urge Americans to consider both character and competence, as an honest, ethical leader would be more likely to truly serve the nation's best interests.

So, what might Franklin say about Donald Trump?

If Benjamin Franklin were to comment directly on a leader with Donald Trump’s characteristics — including the issues of integrity, accountability, and divisiveness — he might express his concern in strong terms, emphasizing the importance of moral character in leadership. Franklin was a pragmatist, but he held firm beliefs about the need for leaders to embody virtues like honesty, humility, and public-spiritedness. Here’s a potential statement Franklin might make based on his principles and writings:

"A republic cannot stand if it places wealth or economic gain above virtue, for what is sacrificed in integrity shall be paid tenfold in discord. The pursuit of power devoid of honor or honesty is not leadership, but tyranny by another name. When we elevate those who scorn decency, truth, and unity, we invite the decay of our own liberty. A society governed by self-interest and bereft of moral character is a society undone."

This hypothetical statement captures Franklin's likely concerns that prioritizing material gain over moral integrity could weaken the republic. He feared that without an ethical foundation, leaders might exploit their positions, and citizens might become more divided, thus endangering the democratic fabric of the nation.

In his writings, Franklin frequently warned against pride, deception, and selfishness. He believed these traits, if present in leaders, could harm the public and set a dangerous example. If Franklin saw a leader who rejected norms of honesty and respect, he might argue that such a person’s influence could corrupt civic life, encouraging citizens to adopt similarly divisive and self-serving attitudes, ultimately weakening the democratic system.

What might Franklin say about the close support of Elon Musk and of both of their collusion with Vladimir Putin, considering that man's murderousness, war criminality, and abuse of American culture and social media intrusions?

If Benjamin Franklin were to observe a close alliance between powerful figures like Elon Musk and a leader aligned with Vladimir Putin’s actions, he would likely express deep concern over their influence on American values, democracy, and sovereignty. 

Franklin was committed to principles of independence, civic responsibility, and an aversion to alliances that could threaten the integrity and self-governance of the fledgling American nation. His writings make clear his skepticism of unchecked power and his fears about foreign influence corrupting the republic.

Franklin might specifically highlight a few key concerns:

1. The Dangers of Aligning with Autocrats: Franklin was highly wary of foreign influence on American affairs, especially from powers that opposed democratic values. His views align with George Washington’s later warning against “entangling alliances.” Given Putin’s record — including war crimes, alleged election interference, and human rights abuses — Franklin would likely view any collaboration with him as endangering democratic principles and aiding a regime that opposes freedom. He would be particularly troubled by the possibility of American leaders or influential figures giving moral or strategic support to someone he would consider a tyrant.

2. Wealth and Power Over Public Good: Franklin believed strongly that leaders should be motivated by public welfare, not self-interest. If he saw a figure like Musk prioritizing economic or strategic gains from foreign alliances over loyalty to democratic principles, Franklin might argue that such behavior exemplifies the kind of greed that undermines public trust and threatens the stability of the nation. He wrote extensively about the moral obligations of the powerful, believing that those with wealth and influence bore a duty to uphold civic virtue and set an example for society.

3. The Erosion of American Values: Franklin valued the American experiment as a beacon of democracy and enlightenment ideals. He would likely view any support for autocrats or human rights abusers as a betrayal of those values, fearing it could lead to an erosion of American identity. Furthermore, he would be wary of social media’s potential for manipulation and division, viewing it as an affront to reasoned public discourse and civic harmony, which he valued deeply.

4. Manipulation of Information: Franklin, a proponent of a free press and transparent communication, would likely view foreign exploitation of American social media as a threat to the republic’s informational integrity. His experience with print and public discourse would inform his stance on the dangers of propaganda, misinformation, and foreign meddling. He might see social media manipulation as undermining an informed electorate, which he viewed as essential to democracy’s survival.

Here’s a hypothetical statement Franklin might make:

“To serve the interests of tyrants, whether by open support or silent collusion, is to forfeit one’s allegiance to liberty itself. Wealth and influence should not grant license to betray the principles that uphold a free people. If we are to maintain a republic, we must guard against those who would place profit above patriotism and power above public virtue. To consort with despots, or to aid in the degradation of our own information and discourse, is to invite tyranny upon ourselves.”

In short, Franklin would likely condemn any alliance that prioritized personal or economic advantage over democratic values, viewing it as a serious threat to both the republic and the moral integrity of American society.

If Benjamin Franklin observed the modern situation of Donald Trump re-elected amid ongoing controversies, legal evasions, and allegations of undermining democratic principles, he would likely be deeply troubled. Franklin, a staunch advocate for the ethical conduct of public servants and a critic of unchecked power, would see such developments as a dangerous erosion of the democratic values he and other founders fought to establish. Franklin’s writings reflect his strong views on the necessity of integrity, accountability, and civic virtue in leadership, as well as his deep distrust of those who wield power irresponsibly.

Here’s how Franklin might have responded to these circumstances:

1. Defense of Accountability and the Rule of Law: Franklin believed that a government’s legitimacy rested on the rule of law. In fact, he advocated for laws and systems that could hold leaders accountable. In this scenario, he would likely argue that Trump’s avoidance of judicial responsibility compromises the integrity of the American justice system. Franklin’s sense of justice was rooted in fairness and accountability, principles he would expect leaders to uphold above all. He warned against leaders who believed they were above the law, recognizing this as a pathway to tyranny.

2. Safeguarding Elections and Democratic Institutions: As a staunch defender of democracy, Franklin would be alarmed at any efforts to subvert the electoral process. He viewed free and fair elections as the cornerstone of the republic, essential for maintaining the consent of the governed. If he saw efforts to subvert elections or avoid accountability, Franklin might have advocated for measures to reinforce the resilience of electoral institutions. He was also keenly aware of the dangers of factionalism and would have seen election interference as a divisive, destabilizing force on the republic.

3. Moral Character as a Requirement for Office: Franklin was a fervent advocate for the moral character of leaders. He believed that personal integrity was a foundation for public service, famously quoting that “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” Given Trump’s history of accusations regarding personal conduct, including alleged assaults and disparagement of adversaries, Franklin would likely criticize the acceptance of such behaviors as setting a dangerous example for the nation. He believed that the character of leaders influenced the character of society, making personal ethics inseparable from public service.

4. Speaking Out Against Corruption and Abuse of Power: Franklin consistently spoke out against corruption, both in public office and private conduct. His life was marked by efforts to limit the influence of those who would use power for personal gain at the expense of public welfare. He would have likely called for those who witness abuses to speak out and take action, viewing civic engagement as essential in preventing the rise of autocracy. Franklin famously cautioned that “those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety,” a sentiment he might extend to those willing to compromise democratic principles for personal or political gain.

A potential statement Franklin might make under these circumstances could be:

“A republic built on the principles of liberty, justice, and virtue cannot endure under the weight of self-interest and corruption. To preserve our democracy, we must demand accountability from all who hold office, lest we descend into the very tyranny we once fought to escape. The freedom of the people is safeguarded not by wealth or power but by the unwavering commitment to truth, honor, and the rule of law. When a leader disregards these values, they invite the downfall of the republic.”

In essence, Franklin would see today’s events as a profound warning about the fragility of democratic institutions and the necessity of an informed, vigilant, and virtuous citizenry to preserve the republic. He might call on Americans to actively oppose corruption, strengthen democratic norms, and demand accountability from their leaders, reminding them that the ultimate power lies in the hands of the people.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

One Motto, One People: Reclaiming E Pluribus Unum to Heal America

With the concern of Christian Nationalism and the recent orientation of forcing "God" into our government, we have to start looking at what the problem is, where it started, why it started, and how to end it. Another concern is how Donald Trump has weaponized things like religion to regain power and get re-elected.

Worries over him and his desires for autocracy, power, greed, and kleptocracy with people like Elon Musk are a serious concern now more than ever.

From the Center for Religion in Public Life - Why E Pluribus Unum Is a Better Motto for Today than “In God We Trust”

1. Embracing True Diversity and Unity

The motto E Pluribus Unum was chosen by the Founding Fathers as an ideal that would unify a country of people from various places, backgrounds, and beliefs. The phrase encapsulates the American experiment: a diverse group of individuals coming together to form a stronger whole. It tells us that every American, no matter where they come from or what they believe, is part of that “One.”

Today, with even greater diversity in the United States than in the past, the meaning behind E Pluribus Unum is as relevant as ever. It serves as a reminder that our differences don’t divide us but make us stronger when they’re harnessed for a common purpose.

In contrast, In God We Trust doesn’t convey the same inclusivity. It implies a shared faith in a single religious concept, which isn’t true for everyone. America is home to a wide array of faiths, as well as people who don’t adhere to any faith at all. While “God” has different meanings for different people, In God We Trust is often interpreted as favoring a specific monotheistic view, alienating those who don’t share that view. In short, E Pluribus Unum brings people together, while In God We Trust can unintentionally create distance between them.

2. Reflecting the Constitution’s Religious Neutrality

One of the cornerstones of American identity is the freedom of religion enshrined in the First Amendment. This amendment ensures that individuals are free to practice any religion or none at all, and that the government doesn’t endorse any particular faith. By choosing In God We Trust as the national motto, the government has unintentionally aligned itself with a specific religious sentiment, creating tension with the very freedoms our Constitution is built to protect.

E Pluribus Unum, on the other hand, doesn’t favor any one religious belief. It’s a motto that respects both religious and secular viewpoints equally, making it a better fit for a country founded on the principle of religious freedom. Returning to E Pluribus Unum would reaffirm our commitment to a government that serves all its citizens, regardless of their personal beliefs.

3. Avoiding Division and “Othering”

Sadly, In God We Trust has sometimes been used to define what it means to be a “real” American, creating an “us vs. them” mentality. This mentality has led to a pattern of "othering" fellow citizens who don’t identify with that phrase—whether they are atheists, people of minority faiths, or those who interpret “God” differently. This approach risks dividing us along lines of belief when what we need, especially now, is unity.

The language of E Pluribus Unum shifts us away from viewing people as “insiders” and “outsiders.” It reminds us that we’re all part of one nation, and even when we disagree, we still share a commitment to one another. As a motto, it leaves no room for creating enemies out of fellow citizens. Instead, it creates a sense of common purpose that helps bring people together.

4. A Return to American Values

E Pluribus Unum has deep historical roots, representing the original vision of the Founding Fathers. It reminds us of what they hoped America would be—a united country formed by people of all backgrounds. Adopting In God We Trust as the motto in 1956 was a Cold War move to distinguish the U.S. from the atheistic Soviet Union. While it served a purpose at the time, the Cold War is over, and today we face different challenges that call for a more inclusive approach.

By returning to E Pluribus Unum, we can return to a motto that reflects the diversity and openness our country was built upon. It’s a step back toward the founding principles that united people from all walks of life in the first place, and it can help us create a national identity that’s positive, inclusive, and forward-thinking.

5. Promoting a Motto for All Americans

In a nation that prides itself on democracy, a motto should be for everyone. A motto that only reflects the values of certain groups isn’t fully representative. While In God We Trust speaks to a large portion of Americans, it does not speak to everyone. There are millions of Americans who don’t connect with it and may feel left out or excluded from the national identity it represents. This isn’t just a minor concern; feeling excluded can lead to greater disillusionment with government, less civic engagement, and a more fractured society overall.

In contrast, E Pluribus Unum speaks to every American. It focuses on our common humanity and the shared commitment to creating a unified nation from many backgrounds, cultures, and perspectives. This kind of unity is essential to strengthening our democracy and ensuring that all citizens feel valued and included.

6. Focusing on Civic Values Over Religious Identity

E Pluribus Unum emphasizes civic unity, not religious unity. It doesn’t ask us to believe the same things or see the world the same way, but it does ask us to work together as one people. In times when polarization is high and public trust is low, a national motto that focuses on our civic values rather than our religious identity could help to bring people back together.

It would encourage Americans to see themselves, first and foremost, as citizens who are in this together—not as people divided by religion, politics, or ideology. At a time when we need less division and more common purpose, E Pluribus Unum offers an ideal that transcends our differences.

---

In sum, returning to E Pluribus Unum would help us refocus on the importance of unity across diversity, respect religious freedom, avoid divisive “othering,” and foster a civic identity that includes all Americans. It reminds us that no matter who we are or what we believe, we’re stronger when we’re working together as “One.”

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Disinformation, or what we now call, Social Media

First, I'd like to share this. Marc Maron's WTF podcast opening commentary on the Right's "Wokeism" oft disingenuous rants, in dissecting & explaining the reality of it all, is one of the best I've heard: Episode 1590 - Jessica Lange

Moving quickly on...(but seriously, if you've ever had trouble countering the Right about "Wokeism", because some "Woke" types are a bit extreme, this is a good listen)...

Yuri Andropov, former Soviet KGB chief and later General Secretary of the Communist Party, is often associated with the concept of disinformation ("дезинформация", pronounced dezinformatsiya).

Yuri Andropov

He reflected on his view on disinformation (and propaganda) when he reportedly said:

"You can take some of it once in a while, but if you get too much of it too often, it becomes addictive."

He was talking about how social media works, without even knowing it, back in the late 1970s/early 80s. But not just about those who are fed disinfo, but also those who utilized it for political, or other purposes.

The concern Andropov had regarding those using disinformation can be broken down into a few key points:

1. Loss of Credibility

Andropov, despite his reliance on disinformation, likely understood that excessive use could erode the credibility of the government or institution employing it. If people became aware of the manipulation or falsehoods being spread, it could backfire, leading to mistrust and skepticism, both within the targeted population and internationally. This could damage the credibility of Soviet leaders and the KGB, making it harder to maintain control over the narrative.

2. Backlash and Unintended Consequences

Another concern Andropov might have had was the potential for disinformation to spiral out of control. Once false information spreads, it can be difficult to manage or retract. As disinformation takes root, it can grow and take on a life of its own, leading to unintended consequences. People might start believing and spreading the misinformation further, and the truth might be obscured to the point where it’s challenging to regain control over the situation. This "addiction" to disinformation could create a cycle that was difficult to break.

3. Overuse Leading to Predictability

The repeated use of disinformation as a tactic could make it predictable and less effective over time. If a government or organization becomes known for spreading false information, its efforts could lose their impact. People might become more adept at recognizing and questioning the information they receive, reducing the effectiveness of the campaigns. The very tool that had been so effective in the past could lose its potency if it were relied on too heavily or overused.

4. Psychological and Societal Impact

On a broader level, Andropov might have been concerned with the long-term psychological effects of disinformation. He likely recognized that constant exposure to falsehoods could distort reality and manipulate societies in ways that might lead to confusion, polarization, and instability. If a population becomes addicted to a false narrative, it might lose its ability to discern fact from fiction, weakening its resilience and ability to make informed decisions.

5. Internal Control Issues

For Andropov and the Soviet leadership, internal control was paramount. Disinformation campaigns often had to be tightly managed to ensure they didn’t spiral beyond the control of the government. If they became too pervasive or uncontrollable, it could destabilize the very political system they sought to protect. The addictive nature of disinformation could cause divisions and fragmentation within the leadership and government apparatus itself, leading to power struggles or challenges to authority.

Conclusion

In essence, while Andropov and the Soviet Union’s leadership saw disinformation as a powerful tool for manipulating perceptions and achieving strategic goals, they also recognized the dangers of overuse. Excessive reliance on disinformation could undermine trust, create instability, and eventually erode the very control they sought to maintain.

Interesting times...

Finally, let me drop this on you.

Kleptocracy update... Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Scoop:

Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

Actually? This is not good.

Scoop: Elon Musk joined Trump's call with Zelensky

And gonna do more like that with others.

We have two emotionally immature financial & political leaders who think they know how to run things.

This isn't going to end well.

We've been edging toward kleptocracy.

That wasn't my intention, though.

I hadn't expected we'd just go all-in on it.

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT