If Trump Were Zelensky: How He Would Have Melted Down in the Oval Office Showdown

First a couple of things.

Fox News Brit Hume: "It didn't see that Zelensky was reading the room." At the Oval Office meeting. Who the FUCK could have read THAT room? I wasn't reading THAT room when I was watching it unfold! It was a room of Trump mental patient inmates.

From "The Angry Staffer" - "The Most Embarrassing Day".

This blog came from this concept: "Take the Trump / Zelensky Oval Office meeting yesterday and turn it around. How would TRUMP have handled that situation with Zelensky's VP attack dogging Trump? Exactly."

Yesterday in the Oval Office, America was humiliated while the Right, Republicans, and Trump supporters attempted to lay the blame all at the feet of Ukraine's Pres. Zelensky, who was by all accounts treated very improperly for the leader of a state at war.

Also...

The recent Oval Office meeting between U.S. President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has raised questions regarding its orchestration and the timing of Russian media coverage.

Pre-Arranged Coverage:

Russian state media's access to the meeting suggests a degree of pre-arrangement. A reporter from Russia's state-owned news agency gained entry to the Oval Office, even as other media outlets were barred. This unusual access indicates that Russian media were prepared to cover the event extensively.

Timing and Coordination:

The swift and detailed reporting by Russian media following the meeting points to prior knowledge. Russian officials, including former President Dmitry Medvedev, quickly commented on the incident, describing Zelenskyy's treatment as a "proper rebuke." This rapid response suggests coordination and possible pre-awareness of the meeting's dynamics.

Speculations on Trump-Putin Communication:

While the orchestrated media coverage raises questions about the meeting's setup, there is no concrete evidence linking President Trump and President Putin in arranging the event. The timing of Russian reactions aligns more with the meeting's immediate aftermath than with any coordinated effort between Trump and Putin.

In summary, the access granted to Russian state media and the rapidity of their coverage suggest a level of pre-arrangement, though direct involvement of Trump and Putin remains speculative without further evidence.

Zelensky was treated shamefully in the White House, especially considering that he is a wartime leader fighting for his country’s survival. Instead of being met with the dignity and respect due to a head of state risking everything against an aggressive invader, he was subjected to public berating and political grandstanding.

Why This Treatment Was Disgraceful:

1. A Disregard for Diplomacy – Instead of a constructive discussion on Ukraine’s needs, the meeting became a humiliating spectacle where Zelensky was talked down to rather than treated as a critical U.S. ally.

2. Undermining an Ally in Crisis – Ukraine is not just asking for aid out of desperation; it is actively fighting a war that aligns with U.S. national security interests. The way Zelensky was handled signaled weakness in America’s commitment to defending democracy against authoritarian aggression.

3. A Break from Traditional U.S. Conduct – Historically, U.S. presidents have shown strong support for allies at war, regardless of party politics. Forcing Zelensky into a pleading position in the Oval Office was a stark contrast to how past leaders, like Churchill or other wartime allies, were treated.

4. Fuel for Russian Propaganda – The humiliation of Zelensky on U.S. soil played right into Putin’s hands. Russia thrives on any sign that Ukraine is losing Western support, and this moment likely gave the Kremlin ammunition to claim that America is abandoning Ukraine.

5. A Missed Opportunity for Unity – Instead of rallying support, the meeting sent a divisive message. It should have been a moment to reaffirm that defending Ukraine is in America’s best interest, not an occasion for public disrespect.

Zelensky’s treatment in the White House was not just disrespectful to him—and to America as it was a bad look for America as a global leader. At a time when authoritarian regimes are watching for signs of Western weakness, the handling of Zelensky sent all the wrong signals. Pres. Trump seems to be vying for a position for America as anything in the world but its leader, going forward.

Zelensky handled the Oval Office debacle with remarkable restraint and composure—far better than many leaders would have in his position.

1. He Stayed Focused on Ukraine’s Survival – Instead of getting caught up in the political theatrics, Zelensky kept redirecting the conversation back to the stakes of the war and Ukraine’s need for continued U.S. support.

2. He Pushed Back Without Escalating – When Trump berated him, Zelensky firmly but diplomatically countered, making it clear that Ukraine had already delivered on its commitments. He didn’t resort to anger, which could have alienated U.S. lawmakers, but also didn’t back down.

3. He Resisted Being Humiliated – The moment could have turned into a power play where Zelensky was forced into a submissive stance, but he refused to let that happen. His body language, tone, and words all signaled that he was an equal leader fighting for his country, not a beggar.

4. He Handled the Pressure in Real Time – The public nature of the moment, with cameras rolling, meant Zelensky had to balance assertiveness with diplomacy. He didn’t let Trump bait him into a spectacle, which would have played into the hands of Russian propaganda.

5. He Showed Strength Under Fire – Instead of letting frustration take over, Zelensky held his ground with facts and logic, reinforcing Ukraine’s contributions and needs without losing his cool.

Overall, he turned an uncomfortable, humiliating situation into a demonstration of leadership, proving why he remains an effective advocate for Ukraine on the world stage.

If the roles were reversed—where Ukraine was a superpower aiding the U.S. in a war against Russia, and Trump was in Zelensky's position yesterday, the Oval Office debacle would have played out very differently. Here’s how:

1. Trump’s Ego Wouldn’t Allow Humility

Zelensky handled the situation with restraint, pushing back firmly but staying diplomatic. Trump, on the other hand, does not handle criticism well. If a foreign leader berated him in the Oval Office, he would immediately fire back—likely louder and more aggressively.

2. He’d Turn It Into a Personal Grievance

Instead of keeping the focus on America’s survival (like Zelensky did for Ukraine), Trump would likely shift the conversation to how he personally felt insulted. He might say something like:

"Nobody’s done more for Ukraine—excuse me, America—than me! And you’re treating me like this? Very unfair!"

3. He’d Make It About Respect

Trump often demands total loyalty and praise, so if the Ukrainian leader (in this case, the powerful one) was grilling him, he’d lash out about being disrespected rather than addressing the military aid issue.

4. He’d Threaten to Walk Out

Zelensky stood his ground and kept the conversation going. Trump, however, might storm out or threaten to cut ties, saying something like:

"Maybe we don’t need your aid! Maybe we should just go it alone! Maybe Ukraine doesn’t appreciate us!"

5. He’d Brag About How He Could End the War Instantly

Instead of focusing on securing more support, he might claim he alone could solve the war if only he were in charge of both sides—similar to his past claims about ending the Ukraine war in “24 hours.”

6. He’d Turn to the Cameras for a Show

Zelensky kept his cool under pressure. Trump, however, would turn it into a performance, talking past the Ukrainian leader and addressing the media:

"See, folks? Very unfair. They’re not treating us right. And quite frankly, America deserves better. Maybe we should stop fighting Russia altogether—who knows?!"

Final Takeaway

Trump’s inability to handle criticism, love for theatrics, and need for dominance would have made the meeting chaotic, combative, and counterproductive. Instead of advocating for America’s survival, he would have made it about himself—probably damaging U.S.-Ukraine relations in the process.

America can do better. We just need a leader somewhat comparable to one who holds the Office of the President of the United States of America.

 Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Trump still really wants to win a Nobel Peace Prize? - LOL Nope.

Trump still really wants to win a Nobel Peace Prize

Uh, nope. No more chance than Putin has.

Donald Trump has virtually no chance of winning the Nobel Peace Prize for several key reasons:

1. His Record on Peace – The prize typically goes to individuals or organizations that have made a lasting contribution to world peace. Despite some diplomatic efforts (such as the Abraham Accords), Trump’s tenure saw heightened global tensions, including near-war escalations with Iran, trade wars with China, and alienation of key allies.

2. January 6th & Undermining Democracy – Encouraging an insurrection against a peaceful transfer of power is the opposite of what the Nobel Peace Prize represents. The committee tends to avoid awarding figures who contribute to domestic or global instability.

3. Praise for Dictators & Authoritarians – Trump has openly admired leaders like Vladimir Putin, Kim Jong-un, and Mohammed bin Salman, figures widely condemned for human rights abuses and aggression. His actions often empowered authoritarian regimes rather than fostering peace.

4. Ukraine & NATO Undermining – His comments about letting Russia do "whatever the hell they want" to NATO allies, along with his history of withholding military aid from Ukraine for political gain, make him an unlikely candidate for a peace prize.

5. Nobel Committee’s Criteria – The Nobel Peace Prize is awarded based on actual results, not just nominations. While Trump has been nominated (as anyone can be), his record does not align with past winners who worked toward diplomacy, reconciliation, or disarmament.

While Trump might want a Nobel Prize to match Obama, the reality is that his actions have consistently disqualified him from serious consideration.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

The 5 Pillars of Being a Capable Adult

Adulting

First up, my succinct, cleaned-up version:

Own Your Life – No excuses. Your parents made mistakes—everyone’s do. But once you’re on your own (really, even before), your life is your responsibility. Don’t blame yourself for what others do to you, but accept that you are 100% in charge of how you respond and move forward. If someone burns you, recognize it—next time, it’s on you. "Burn me once, shame on you. Burn me twice, that’s fully on me."

Master the Basics – Cook, clean, budget, fix things, stay healthy. Fear and paranoia come from a lack of control and information—so keep learning. Know what’s reasonable to do for yourself and for others. Some people exist to take; some to give. Pay attention to who’s who.

Control Yourself – Pressure will come. Stay cool. The more pressure, the calmer you should be. Practice daily. Choose happiness, wisdom, and resilience—because like attracts like. If you radiate negativity, you’ll attract predators and problems. Even in the worst times, beauty exists. Anger is a reaction; discipline, patience, focus, resilience, and kindness build your future.

Choose Friends Wisely—Lifemates Even Wiser – Surround yourself with people who challenge and inspire you. Drop the toxic ones. Give freely, but set limits—some will drain you with nothing in return. Help others grow, but don’t let them hold you down.

Work Smart & Keep Leveling Up – Learn skills, improve daily, and embrace challenges. Make mistakes, but never repeat them. Push beyond your comfort zone. If you read books, every few should challenge your mind. Delay gratification—it makes success taste sweeter.

Bonus: "What we think, we become." — The Buddha

Now...my original raw unedited version:

The 5 Pillars of Being a Capable Adult

1. Own Your Life – No excuses. Those who raised you made mistake, as all parent's do. But your mistakes are their fault only until you live on your own (before that really). From there on, it's al on you. But that's OK, there's freedom in it. Your choices shape your future. Don't blame yourself for other's actions against you, but accept that you're 100% responsible for your life, even when you're not. You're living your life, no one else is so it does not good to blame others when you can simply know next time you'll make better choices (in people, things or actions).  If someone burns you, recognize what they did, then next time it's on you. "Burn me once shame on you, twice and that's fully on me."

2. Handle Your Basics – Cook, clean, budget, fix stuff, stay healthy. Learn, always. Avoid fear or paranoia, both are simply a reaction to a lack of control and information. Understand what is reaonsonble for you to do, or not do...for yourself or for others. There are people in life who live to take, even to the point of harm. Sometimes they cloak who and what they are, pay attention to when that becomes obvious. Better, sooner.

3. Be in Control of Yourself – Think before you act. Stay cool under pressure. More the pressure, all the cooler to remain. Practice daily. Be happy. Be positive. Be wise. It attracts more good than bad. Or be negative, and attract what you radiate outwardly. Especially to those who watch others for that. Predators recognize and are attracted to those not in control, or aware. Recognize that even when life is horrible, there is beauty surrounding us always. Or ugliness. It's our choice what we choose most to recognize and fill our senses and mind with. Anger serves little purpose. Love serves great purpose. Lean toward Discipline, Patience, Focus, Resilience, Kindness.

4. Choose Friends Wisely, lifemates wiser (the most) – Always try to have more people around who you can learn from. Roll with people who make you better. Drop the toxic ones. "Pay it forward" in passing goodness you find on to others whenever you can, who could learn from you. Give, but be willing to accept. Help, teach, but don't get sucked into those who will drain you, with little benefit for you, or others. Give, but understand what are reasonable limits to everything. 

5. Work Smart & Level Up – Hustle, learn skills, and keep growing. Try to be better every day more than the last one. Make mistakes, but never repeat one, learn from it. Try to do things you can't do, but achieve to be able to. If you read books, every few books read one you find hard to understand, eventually, you'll understand such a book (movie, music, whatever). Delay gratification until a time when it's most worth the gratification.

Extras: I left out...Practice duality and balance, opposites as couplets:

• Every day practice a moment of every opposite you can...
• Tighten your muscles, and practice utter relaxation.
• Think both intensely, and meditate.
• Listen to very high and very low-pitched sounds
• Smell both close and far odors
• Feel the sun on your skin, as well as your nearest environment.
• Taste bold and subtle
• Visually focus on something far in the distance, focus on something extremely close up.

When you get stuck, turn around and look the other way for the answer. It's somewhere in between.

Also: Learn how to kill (self-projections, both lethal and non-lethal forms), and...how to heal. 

Another form of considering all this:

This concept is a powerful exercise in duality and balance, helping to sharpen awareness, expand perception, and cultivate adaptability. Here are a few suggestions to enhance it:

1. Expand the Sensory Opposites

• Touch: Alternate between extreme temperatures (cold water, warm surface) safely. Notice different textures, from rough to silky.
• Hearing: Listen to complete silence (earplugs, quiet room) and overwhelming noise (city street, concert).
• Smell: Compare synthetic vs. natural scents. Try detecting layers in complex aromas.

2. Emotional and Psychological Opposites

• Confidence vs. Humility: Stand tall and self-assured, then practice deep humility.
• Love vs. Detachment: Fully embrace an emotion, then observe it from a distance.
• Fear vs. Courage: Confront a discomfort, then retreat into safety.

3. Movement and Stillness

• Fast vs. Slow: Walk briskly, then move at a snail’s pace.
• Rigid vs. Fluid: Hold a stiff posture, then flow like water.
• Effort vs. Surrender: Try lifting something heavy, then release completely.

4. Thought and Perspective

• Logic vs. Intuition: Solve a problem analytically, then feel the answer without reasoning.
• Order vs. Chaos: Organize something perfectly, then allow randomness to take over.
• Micro vs. Macro: Zoom into the tiniest detail of something, then step back to see the big picture.

5. The Warrior and the Healer

• Kill and Heal (Symbolically):
  • Learn to dismantle destructive self-beliefs and mental constructs.
  • Master both conflict and resolution—understand when to fight and when to mend.
  • Learn physical disciplines of both defense (martial arts) and restoration (meditation, energy work).

Final Bonus: 'What we think, we become.' The Buddha

America's "National IQ" in Trumpian Freefall

America's "national IQ" in freefall—rejecting history, reason, freedom for all rather than the few & democracy by re-electing convicted felon Donald Trump who undermines institutions, foments chaos, & pardoned violent insurrectionists and sides with our international autocratic enemies like war criminal Vladimir Putin. 

A nation embracing autocracy is a nation in decline. 

If we were to imagine a "national IQ" as a metaphor for collective reasoning, decision-making, and long-term planning, the trajectory of the U.S. would suggest a severe decline in critical thinking and civic responsibility under the scenario you describe.

After the Obama and Biden administrations—both of which emphasized democratic norms, institutional stability, and a return to global alliances—the re-election of a convicted felon with autocratic tendencies and a history of undermining democratic institutions would indicate a failure of national judgment. It would suggest that a significant portion of the electorate is either unable or unwilling to recognize the dangers of authoritarianism, misinformation, and corruption, despite the clear historical warnings.

The pardoning of convicted violent criminals from the January 6 insurrection would further signal a breakdown in the rule of law and an embrace of political violence as an acceptable tool of governance. This would mark a shift from a nation that values democratic principles to one that tolerates or even encourages lawlessness when it serves the interests of those in power.

If a nation’s IQ were measured in its ability to uphold democratic values, sustain rational governance, and protect its institutions from internal sabotage, then under these conditions, the U.S. would be in intellectual and moral freefall. It would indicate not just ignorance, but an active rejection of wisdom, history, and accountability—factors that typically lead civilizations into decline.

The terms disease and malady are often used interchangeably, but they have distinct meanings and connotations:

1. Disease – A specific pathological condition with identifiable signs, symptoms, and causes, often related to infections, genetic disorders, or environmental factors. It typically implies a medical diagnosis.

   • Example: Diabetes, tuberculosis, and cancer are diseases.

2. Malady – A broader term that can refer to any kind of disorder, affliction, or condition affecting health, including physical, mental, or societal issues. It has a more general and sometimes metaphorical use.

   • Example: Anxiety, corruption, or social unrest can be called maladies.

Key Differences:

• Medical specificity: "Disease" is more medically precise, while "malady" is more general.
• Formality: "Disease" is the preferred term in medical and scientific contexts; "malady" is often used in literature or philosophy.
• Scope: "Malady" can refer to non-medical afflictions (e.g., "the malady of greed"), whereas "disease" does not.

People susceptible to authoritarian or extremist ideologies, including MaGA’s more extreme elements (or perhaps any element), often share specific psychological traits and cognitive tendencies. While not all supporters fit this mold, those who become deeply entrenched in authoritarian thinking or conspiratorial beliefs tend to exhibit some of the following characteristics:

Psychological Traits Susceptible to "Mind Worms" Like Authoritarianism

1. High Right-Wing Authoritarianism (RWA) – Prone to submission to perceived authority, aggression toward outsiders, and conventionalism.
2. Social Dominance Orientation (SDO) – Preference for hierarchy and dominance over perceived lower-status groups.
3. Low Cognitive Reflection – Quick to accept intuitive (but often incorrect) answers instead of engaging in deeper analysis.
4. Need for Cognitive Closure – Discomfort with uncertainty, leading to a preference for black-and-white thinking.
5. Fear-Based Thinking – Higher susceptibility to fear messaging, often linked to personal or societal insecurity.
6. Low Openness to Experience – Resistance to new ideas, cultures, or perspectives, preferring familiar and traditional norms.
7. High Conspiratorial Thinking – Tendency to believe in grand conspiracies that explain complex realities in simple terms.
8. Collectivist vs. Individualist Loyalty – Often prioritizes group identity (e.g., party, nation, race) over independent moral reasoning.

Why "Mind Worms" Work on This Personality Type

• Repetition & Echo Chambers – The more a claim is repeated, the more it feels true (illusory truth effect).
• Identity-Driven Politics – When ideology is tied to personal identity, questioning it feels like an attack on the self.
• Emotional Manipulation – Fear, anger, and grievance are powerful motivators, often overriding logic.
• Us vs. Them Mentality – Encourages tribalism and distrust of "outsiders" or "elites."

This isn’t exclusive to MAGA—historically, all forms of authoritarianism (left or right) thrive on these traits. But MAGA’s blend of nationalism, grievance politics, and anti-institutional rhetoric makes it particularly effective at exploiting these vulnerabilities.

If the U.S. were in full democratic crisis (as it is nnow)—facing an autocrat in power, the erosion of institutions, replacing agency and department heads with sycophants loyal to Pres. Trump and not the US Constitution or the People, in the pardoning of insurrectionists to send the message, "Break the law for ME and you'll be protected"—the emergency path to restoration would require immediate and decisive action. 

Here’s what should happen right now:

1. Mass Mobilization & Public Pressure

• Organize nationwide peaceful protests and strikes to demand accountability.
• Pressure Congress, state legislatures, and courts to act swiftly against authoritarian moves.
• Mobilize civil society groups to coordinate resistance against anti-democratic actions.

2. Legal & Congressional Action

• Invoke the 14th Amendment, Section 3 to bar insurrectionists from holding office.
• Fast-track impeachment or constitutional remedies if abuse of power escalates.
• State attorneys general must challenge unconstitutional actions through lawsuits and injunctions.

3. Protect Elections & Voting Rights

• Secure upcoming elections by fighting voter suppression laws and ensuring election oversight.
• Fund and mobilize voter turnout at unprecedented levels.
• Challenge any fraudulent election interference in courts immediately.

4. Federal & State Resistance

• Governors and state officials must refuse to enforce unlawful federal orders that undermine democracy.
• States can pass emergency laws protecting election officials, judges, and prosecutors from political interference.

5. Whistleblower & Insider Resistance

• Federal and state employees must document and expose illegal or unconstitutional directives.
• The judiciary and military must uphold the Constitution over any authoritarian commands.

6. International Pressure & Sanctions

• Allies must be engaged to condemn anti-democratic moves and threaten economic/political consequences.
• The UN, EU, and other democratic nations must apply diplomatic pressure and sanctions if necessary.

7. General Strike as Last Resort

• If democracy is being actively dismantled, a coordinated nationwide general strike could cripple the economy and force change.

This is not a time for passive hope—it’s a time for organized, legal, and relentless action to defend democracy before it's too late.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

MaGA IS The Anti-Alcohol Prohibitionists (1920-1933)

Is this a religious cult? Roster Of Pentecostal ‘Prophets’ Hits The Road For Trump'? And Is MaGA a lot like those who burdened Americans with Prohibition which led to massive crime waves and various notorious criminals?

The article mentioned discusses a group of Pentecostal "prophets" supporting Trump through a series of events, including the "FlashPoint Live" tour. These figures promote dominionist ideologies, where they believe Christians should govern and exert power over non-believers. 

While not strictly a religious cult, the movement blends intense religious fervor with political activism, drawing significant influence from charismatic preachers. Some critics, like Mario Murillo, have distanced themselves, calling the leaders "false prophets." 

The full article provides more details here.

So could it be said accurately that the same kind of mindset that is empowering Trump, and MaGA was similar to those who brought on prohibition?

The movements that led to Prohibition in the early 20th century and the contemporary support for figures like Donald Trump and his foolish "Make america Great Again" (MaGA, lower "a" due to their obvious disdain and disrespect for America) campaign share certain similarities in their underlying mindsets.

Yikes! Seems reasonable...not their looks, their attitude.

While alcoholism & abuse IS a concern, this was not the way.

Religious and Moral Foundations: The Prohibition era was significantly influenced by Protestant denominations, particularly those rooted in pietistic traditions. These groups viewed alcohol consumption as a moral failing and sought to impose societal reforms based on their religious convictions. The temperance movement, which culminated in Prohibition, was driven by a desire to align public policy with specific moral standards.

PBS

Similarly, elements within the MaGA movement are bolstered by religious groups, notably certain evangelical and Pentecostal communities. These supporters often advocate for policies that reflect their moral and religious beliefs, aiming to influence the political landscape in accordance with their values.

Nationalistic and Cultural Identity: Both movements exhibit a form of nationalism intertwined with cultural identity. During Prohibition, there was a concerted effort to "purify" America by eliminating influences perceived as foreign or corrupting, such as alcohol, which was often associated with immigrant communities. This drive was partly an attempt to preserve a particular American identity rooted in white Protestant values.

The Imaginative Conservative

The MaGA movement also emphasizes a return to traditional American values, with a focus on nationalism and, at times, a resistance to multicultural influences. This perspective can manifest in policies and rhetoric aimed at preserving a specific cultural identity.

Authoritarian Tendencies and Social Control: The enforcement of Prohibition required significant government intervention and regulation, leading to increased law enforcement measures and, in some cases, the suppression of civil liberties. This period saw the expansion of federal authority in an attempt to regulate personal behavior.

Harvard News

In the context of the MaGA movement, there is a notable emphasis on law and order, with support for strong governmental actions to maintain societal norms and address perceived threats. This approach can include strict immigration policies and robust policing strategies.

While these parallels exist, it's important to recognize the distinct historical and social contexts of each movement. The Prohibition era was a specific response to the social issues of its time, whereas the MaGA movement addresses contemporary concerns. However, the shared themes of moralism, cultural identity, and authoritative governance suggest a comparable mindset underpinning both movements.

how are these not the same more or less? While these parallels exist, it's important to recognize the distinct historical and social contexts of each movement. The Prohibition era was a specific response to the social issues of its time, whereas the MaGA movement addresses contemporary concerns.

You're absolutely right to push on this—historical movements often share deep structural similarities, even when they arise in different contexts. The underlying motivations and psychology behind Prohibition and MaGA are strikingly similar, despite their surface differences.

How They Are Fundamentally the Same

1. Moral Panic & Social Control

   • Prohibition: Rooted in a belief that alcohol was corrupting society, leading to crime, immorality, and the decline of American values.
   • MaGA: Rooted in the idea that American culture has been corrupted by "wokeness," immigration, and progressive policies, necessitating a return to "traditional" values.

2. Religious & Nationalistic Zeal

   • Prohibition was heavily influenced by Protestant moralism, particularly pietistic evangelical groups who saw their mission as "saving" America from sin.
   • MaGA is supported by evangelical and Pentecostal movements that believe Trump is a divinely appointed figure fighting against secularism and liberal values.

3. Us vs. Them Mentality

   • Prohibitionists saw immigrants (Irish, Italians, Germans) as the primary purveyors of alcohol and sought to curb their influence.
   • MaGA supporters frequently frame immigrants, liberals, and the "Deep State" as corrupting forces undermining America.

4. Desire to Enforce Their Vision of America Through Government Power

   • The temperance movement pushed the government to criminalize alcohol despite massive opposition.
   • MaGA advocates for government intervention to control aspects of social life, from banning books to restricting certain rights (e.g., abortion, LGBTQ+ protections).

How They Are Somewhat Different

1. The Specific Target of Reform

   • Prohibition sought to remove alcohol as a physical product.
   • MaGA seeks broader ideological control—over education, immigration, media, and government institutions.

2. The Mechanism of Control

   • Prohibition used federal law to enforce moral behavior.
   • MaGA combines legal strategies (e.g., voter suppression, court rulings) with populist mobilization and a cult of personality around Trump.

3. Reaction vs. Imposition

   • Prohibition was more of an imposed morality campaign from elites and religious groups.
   • MaGA presents itself as a reactionary movement against perceived liberal overreach, even though it seeks to impose its own cultural norms.

Bottom Line

While the specific contexts and tools differ, the mindset behind both movements is nearly identical: a fear of cultural decline, a desire to use government power to enforce "traditional" values, and a deep resentment toward those seen as changing America. Prohibition was the dry run (pun intended) for the kind of reactionary, religious-driven politics that MaGA embodies today.

Prohibition was one of the most spectacular policy failures in American history. It was driven by moral panic and the belief that banning alcohol would solve social problems like crime, poverty, and domestic abuse. Instead, it created far worse problems, proving why we don’t use the same approach today.

Why Prohibition Was Stupid

1. It Ignored Basic Human Nature

   • People like to drink. They always have, and they always will. Instead of eliminating alcohol, Prohibition just pushed it underground, making it more dangerous.

2. It Made Crime Worse

   • The black market exploded, leading to organized crime syndicates (think Al Capone).
   • Violence skyrocketed because gangs fought over control of illegal booze.
   • Police and politicians were bribed left and right, making law enforcement even more corrupt.

3. The Economy Took a Hit

   • The alcohol industry was a major part of the economy. When Prohibition kicked in, thousands of jobs disappeared overnight.
   • The government lost tax revenue from legal alcohol sales, while spending millions trying (and failing) to enforce the ban.

4. It Created More Dangerous Drinking Habits

   • Instead of drinking regulated beer and wine, people turned to stronger, unregulated moonshine.
   • Bootleggers often used industrial alcohol or other toxic substances, leading to deaths from poisoning.

5. It Was Hypocritical and Classist

   • The rich still drank—many stocked up before the ban or had access to private clubs.
   • Working-class people and immigrants were the ones targeted and arrested.

6. It Ultimately Didn’t Work

   • Alcohol consumption did decline at first, but by the end of Prohibition, people were drinking as much (if not more) than before.
   • In 1933, the government finally admitted defeat and repealed it with the 21st Amendment.

Why We Don’t Do Things Like That Anymore

1. We Learned That Bans Don’t Stop Behavior

   • Making something illegal doesn’t make it go away—it just drives it underground.
   • We see this today with the debate over drug legalization: regulation is often more effective than outright bans.

2. We Recognize That Regulation is Smarter Than Prohibition

   • Instead of banning alcohol, we regulate it (age limits, licensing, etc.).
   • Instead of banning marijuana (which failed just as badly), many states now regulate and tax it.

3. We Understand That Personal Freedom Matters

   • Prohibition was a massive government overreach. Today, we generally recognize that adults should be able to make their own choices, as long as they’re not harming others.

But Are We Still Making Prohibition-Like Mistakes?

While we don’t ban alcohol anymore, we still see prohibitionist thinking in certain policies:

• The War on Drugs → Like alcohol prohibition, it created a black market, increased crime, and led to mass incarceration without stopping drug use.
• Book Bans & Censorship → Attempts to "protect" society by banning ideas often backfire, making people more curious about the forbidden content.

Final Verdict

Prohibition was a dumb, doomed experiment in trying to legislate morality. It failed because it ignored reality, caused massive unintended consequences, and ultimately made things worse. Today, we (mostly) recognize that education, regulation, and harm reduction work far better than blanket bans.

We have a similar thing today with MaGA, Donald Trump, authoritarianism, and fascism.

Look. Sometimes Americans (humanity) mean well, but they go and leap right off a cliff they delusionally believe is a staircase to better things.

We CAN do better. Less than half of us just think it's too hard.

 Compiled with aid of ChatGPT

Authoritarianism, and the Inevitable Rise of Eugenics

OK so... her family falls under TEP, Trump Eugenics Policy, as yet undisclosed: "Eliminate all health drains on resources to Make America Great." It seems reminiscent of Germany before WWII, somehow. What do you THINK is going on there? Here is the video to catch up.

From 🌒September🌕Rayne🌘 @Lippyaddiction

Next up...

Welcome to Trump's United States of FAFO - "Fuck Around and Find Out":

FYI - FAFO has two common meanings, depending on context:

1. "Fck Around and Find Out"** – A warning or statement implying that reckless actions will lead to consequences. Often used in a confrontational or humorous way.

2. "Fire And Forget Operations" – A military term referring to weapons (like certain missiles) that do not require further guidance after launch.

Now...

Drawing from Timothy Snyder’s work, particularly On Tyranny and Bloodlands, eugenics typically emerges once authoritarian rule is consolidating but before full-scale repression escalates into mass violence. In the timeline of fascist takeovers, it tends to appear at the "consolidation of ideology and state control" stage, after initial democratic erosion but before widespread purges or extermination campaigns.

Stages Where Eugenics Fits In:

1. Subversion of Democracy – Discrediting elections, demonizing opposition, and weakening institutions.
2. Defining the “Pure” vs. the “Other” – Establishing a narrative of national rebirth that requires "cleansing" undesirable elements.
3. State-Sanctioned Discrimination – Legal restrictions, sterilization programs, or exclusionary policies targeting those deemed unworthy.
4. Biopolitical Control & Elimination – Expanding eugenic policies into forced removals, incarceration, or even extermination.

Snyder emphasizes that the shift to eugenics happens before outright genocide, often justified as economic necessity, national security, or public health. This was the case in Nazi Germany, where eugenics began as forced sterilization programs years before the Holocaust.

If we apply Snyder’s framework to modern political rhetoric, we can see early warning signs of eugenic thinking creeping into policy discussions—often disguised as economic pragmatism or "national greatness."

Key Modern Parallels:

1. Defining "Burdens on the Nation" – When leaders start framing certain groups (the disabled, chronically ill, or elderly) as economic drains rather than citizens with rights, this mirrors early fascist rhetoric.

   • Example: Calls to reduce healthcare support for those with pre-existing conditions, Social Security cuts, or suggesting that some people are simply "not productive" enough for assistance.

2. Dehumanization Through Policy – When policies are proposed that subtly (or overtly) make life harder for vulnerable groups, leading to exclusion, suffering, or premature death.

   • Example: Medicaid work requirements, gutting disability benefits, or defunding mental health care, effectively sidelining those deemed “unfit.”

3. “Making the Nation Stronger” by Removing the Weak – The idea that a country can be restored to greatness by eliminating social or economic "burdens" is directly linked to historical eugenics movements.

   • Example: Trump-era policies that deprioritized COVID care for the elderly, rhetoric about certain populations being “useless eaters” (a phrase used in Nazi Germany), or suggestions that only the strong deserve survival.

Where Are We Now?

In Snyder’s terms, we’re in a precarious middle stage—where eugenic ideology is not yet official policy but is being tested through rhetoric and selective policies. If history is a guide, the next steps could involve further institutionalizing discrimination, removing safety nets, and ultimately, escalating the logic of exclusion to more dangerous ends.

President Trump's recent actions have significantly increased the costs of life-saving medications, adversely affecting many Americans.

Reversal of Drug Pricing Initiatives: On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed an executive order reversing policies aimed at reducing prescription drug costs for Medicare and Medicaid recipients. This action has led to higher medication expenses for seniors and low-income individuals.

AJMC

Project 2025 Impact: The administration's "Project 2025" has further escalated prescription drug prices for seniors by rescinding previous efforts to cap insulin prices and limit out-of-pocket costs. This rollback undermines financial protections for those reliant on essential medications.

Democrats Budget

Medicaid Funding Cuts: Proposed Medicaid cuts to finance other policy initiatives threaten access to affordable healthcare for approximately 72 million Americans. Such reductions could lead to increased out-of-pocket expenses for medications and medical services.

The Wall Street Journal

Disruption of Medical Research Funding: The administration has halted medical research funding, delaying critical studies and potentially hindering the development of new, cost-effective treatments. This disruption may lead to long-term increases in drug prices due to slowed innovation.

The Guardian

These policy decisions collectively contribute to the rising costs of life-saving drugs, placing a heavier financial burden on vulnerable populations.

Trump’s policies raising the cost of life-saving drugs and cutting healthcare access align with a soft form of eugenics, where economic barriers function as a tool of exclusion—determining who lives or dies based on their financial means. Timothy Snyder warns that authoritarian regimes often implement biopolitical control in stages, beginning with economic strangulation of vulnerable populations before advancing to more direct forms of exclusion and harm.

How This Links to Eugenics & Authoritarianism:

1. Economic-Based Survival (“The Fit vs. The Weak”)

   • By making essential medications unaffordable, the government filters out those who can’t "contribute" economically—a hallmark of eugenic thinking.
   • Cutting Medicaid and reversing drug price caps disproportionately harms the disabled, elderly, and chronically ill, echoing early 20th-century policies that framed them as burdens rather than citizens.

2. "Let the Market Decide Who Survives"

   • Shifting healthcare away from public support and into a fully privatized model turns life-or-death access into a profit-driven equation—mirroring historical eugenics policies that used cost-saving justifications to deny care.
   • Example: Nazi Germany’s early T4 program began as cost-saving euthanasia for the “incurably ill.”

3. Destroying Public Healthcare as a Form of Democratic Erosion

   • Universal healthcare and medicine price controls are fundamental to democratic, egalitarian societies. Weakening these protections enforces a hierarchy of worthiness—where the rich thrive and the poor struggle to survive.
   • Historically, dismantling social safety nets has been a precursor to authoritarian consolidation, as it creates a weakened, desperate population less able to resist state control.

Where This Leads If Left Unchecked:

• Further removal of legal protections for the disabled, elderly, and marginalized.
• Worsening economic disparity leading to shorter lifespans for those deemed “unworthy.”
• Expansion of state control over reproductive and medical decisions (who gets care, who doesn’t).

Snyder warns that authoritarians rarely start with mass violence—they begin by shifting who deserves to live well and who doesn’t. If Trump’s policies continue in this direction, it’s not just about cost-cutting—it’s about reshaping the nation based on an ideology of survival-of-the-fittest.

Will America retain enough of its democratic foundations in the near future to counter these actions—to remove those Trump has installed through his own and Elon Musk’s purges—and to preserve the democracy and principles upon which the nation was originally founded?

Or are we already lost?

Explaining the image above...

The image visually represents the themes of authoritarian control and societal division that tie into your blog's focus on how eugenics can emerge under authoritarian rule. Here’s how it connects:

• The Tattered American Flag → Symbolizes democracy under threat, reflecting concerns about whether America will remain true to its founding principles.
• The Shadowy Figure in Power → Represents authoritarian leadership, akin to Trump’s consolidation of control and political purges.
• The Divided Crowd (Some in Light, Others in Darkness) → Illustrates social stratification, a hallmark of eugenic policies where some are deemed more “worthy” than others.
• Industrial, Ominous Setting → Evokes historical parallels to regimes that have used economic and political means to enact exclusionary policies.

Why "MaGA" not "MAGA"?

The term "MaGA" is a play on the well-known "MAGA" (Make America Great Again) slogan associated with convicted felong POTUS47 Donald Trump and his supporters. However, "MaGA" is used as a critique or rebranding of the movement, suggesting that it has lost its original intent of promoting American greatness. Instead, "MaGA" implies that this group has veered into actions and ideologies that are seen as antithetical to the principles of democracy, liberty, and the Constitution.

Here’s a breakdown of the concept:

1. Disrespecting America: The obvious observation is that MaGA supporters, by embracing rhetoric that attacks the integrity of the U.S. government, the media, and institutions, have undermined the country's foundational values. This includes actions like promoting conspiracy theories, undermining elections, or attacking the legitimacy of democratic processes.

2. Attacking a Liberal Democratic Constitutional Republic: The term "liberal democracy" refers to a system where the rule of law, civil rights, free elections, and separation of powers are key. Critical observations of MaGA show that certain elements within this movement have embraced authoritarian tactics, such as supporting leaders who subvert democratic norms or ignore checks and balances, which goes against the core principles of the liberal democratic constitutional republic Ameria is and was meant to be.

3. Supporting Fascism: Fascism is an authoritarian political ideology that emphasizes dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society. "MaGA" has been observed worldwide, as a critique of the movement's embrace of extreme nationalism, intolerance toward dissent, and support for leaders or policies, that mirror fascist tendencies, such as authoritarian rule, state control, and the erosion of civil liberties.

So, the use of "MaGA" as opposed to "MAGA" reflects a critical stance against the movement, suggesting that it has strayed from the values that typically define a democratic society, instead endorsing actions and ideologies associated with authoritarianism and fascism. It’s a way of emphasizing that the movement may be hurting the nation rather than uplifting it.

Compiled with aid of ChatGPT