A Cult

 A CULT

There comes a time when one is required to call something by its correct name.  A cult following, according to Wikipedia, is a group of fans who are highly dedicated to some person, idea, object, movement, or work.  Trumpdom has now become a cult.  People will drive hundreds of miles and sleep in their cars overnight to see Trump in person.

They have taken as their guide the Deadheads, the fans of the Grateful Dead, who follow the band from venue to venue.  They attend the live performances of the band wherever.  The people of Trumpdom have taken on this same aura of cultness.  They go for the show; they go for the performance; they're hooked on the presentation.  They drive hundreds of miles, they sleep in their cars, they buy and wear Trump paraphernalia - - hats and what not - - and always the videos and the selfies.  It's a real scene; they have bought in. 

But once a cult, always a cult; it cannot transform itself into another form; the fans will not allow it.  They have to have the show.   Without the show, the followers will disappear - - no show, no fans.

Trump no longer has a choice, he must give them what they want.  And giving them what they want is profitable, just ask the Grateful Dead.  It is and always has been a profitable enterprise to be a cult leader and Trump understands this very well. 

Trump knows this is where the money is:  Trump Land - - a vision made to fit whatever idea of America one might have.  There is no coherence, no ideological thread, no actual vision of the future, simply a rant of unfulfillment, of some unarticulated need for something not present.  Trump's fan club can give you no rational basis for their adoration; just as the Deadheads can give you no rational basis why they will follow the Grateful Dead around the country other than to possibly gain some semblance of comaraderie with other Deadheads.

It is an interesting idea though, to have a president as cult leader with cult followers who will fulfill the will of the cult leader's every whim.  Just think, a president as cult leader!  Don't visions of Jamestown or Waco come to mind when you think it: they do for me.  That should give a person some hesitation in welcoming such a thing, but alas, I may be overwhelmed with the excitement of it all.

Nevertheless, it is an interesting spectacle.  Usually the cult and cult followers are some small, fringe group of people you don't know and have never heard of  who are following some Yahoo you also don't know and have never heard of.  Not this time.  It's major - - serious stuff; one that we ought to pay attention to and see where it lands.  

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

The Inferno

 THE INFERNO

For those unsubscribed, The Inferno is a poem - - a fourteenth century Italian poem written by a guy named Dante.  It has become, more or less, the average Christian's view of what hell is like for those of less than required obedience and worship.  How it  became the vision of hell for the modern believer is difficult to understand since it was completed in 1314.

For those with computational difficulties, that is 710 years ago.  Yes there was a civilization back then and once again it was located in Italy.  The Italians seem to have a proclivity of advancing civilization every thousand years or so.  I'm certainly ready for the next effort.  But back to The Inferno.

The Inferno is a poem, it is not a report from someone who has visited hell and given us a full scenario upon their return; nor has any of the underworld creatures portrayed there risen and presented documentaries of life in Hades.  Once again, for those unacquainted with poetry, or literature of any kind, poetry is literature - - in this case someone's visualization of somewhere else or in this case an extended metaphor.  A poem is a collection of words that create meaning in the person reading them, in this instance Hell.

Dante's Hell fairly well represented life in 1300 for those who couldn't cope for one reason or another.  It must have occurred to a few that what Dante was really doing was portraying life as it was - topside.  From what I understand, and because of this depiction,  Dante didn't create a very good impression on the folks in charge of Florence at the time and it was suggested that he be a candidate for burning at the stake.  Hence he fled Florence for safer environs.  He apparently wasn't up for experiencing hell while still alive.

Today poets are simply ignored, so no danger there of burning to a crisp over an open fire.  But our standard version of Hell has Dante to thank.  I'm sure others have opted for their own characterizations, but Dante is the king of Hell.  His was the best and by the best I mean the most complete depiction.  I'm sure that such figures as Calvin, Knox, Wesley, Increase and Cotton Mather, Billy Graham, Jerry Falwell, and Oral Roberts all had their particular visions of Hell for those who fall away from the faith and would share their visions every Sunday with the faithful.

Hell has always been and probably will always be the method by which you keep the unlearned and needy in fear and in line.  Do what I tell you or Hell is the result with concurrent suffering, agony, and serious pain for ever and ever.  This has worked for thousands of years and seems unabating.  Wouldn't surprise me if the Incas, the Aztecs, and Mayas had a similar place for those so chosen.  If it works, use it; and they do.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

 

The Enemy

 THE ENEMY

One of the more ironic attitudes in modern American life, and in Iowa particularly, is the attitude that China is our enemy.  After all, we have declared it so and once declared it becomes fact.  This is how it works folks.  So, if we can give it as a fact that China is our enemy then we must be prepared for war or whatever.   It is time we gave it some thought however, which though difficult, is necessary.

I have not made a definite calculation, but I would suspect that at a minimum half the things in my house and office are made in China or by Chinese (Taiwan included).  So the first item to consider is how do we maintain when there is nothing to buy at Walmart (if Walmart still exists since the majority of the stuff they sell us is from China) and we can not replace the most mundane items needed in our daily existence?  A declaration of war would be a serious hindrance to our consumption of needed and unneeded household items.

Secondly, China has been around since recorded history and obviously pre-recorded history.  So it is safe to say that China has been here thousands of years, is here now, and will be here (I'm willing to wager) long after we are gone.  You can have all the wars you want, you can obliterate half the planet and make the other half uninhabitable, but China will still be here and we will not.  This is my bet.  We are newbies and whether we have enough collective intelligence to last very long is currently open to question.

Another boogeyman: China doesn't want our farm ground, they want our money and they are getting it as fast as we print it.  We print money and then give it to the Chinese, South Koreans, Indians, Saudis, ad infinitum.  These are the people who have all our money.  And I'm not saying this is necessarily a bad thing - - just look at all the junk we have laying around that we have traded the Chinese for - -  junk for money.  Seems logical to me.

What we should be doing instead of declaring China an enemy, we should be declaring some helpless little country minding its own business as our enemy.  We have a solid track record in this regard:  Panama, Grenada, Dominican Republic, Venezuela, Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, etc.  Declaring war on Grenada or Iraq doesn't quite have the same risks as declaring war on China.  So once again, let's give all this a little thought before we get too carried away with this enemy stuff.

Richard E H Phelps II

Mingo

Circle the Wagons

 IRCLE THE WAGONS

Some have suggested that I have particular political views which permeate my short articles on our current life here in the 21st century U. S. of A.  I may, but my efforts are simply from various random musings generated by the books that I am reading.  Currently it is Hannah Arendt's ON VIOLENCE, a tome recommended to all.

What has occurred to me in the past and consistently thereafter is the "circle the wagons", "build a fort" mentality of our law enforcement.  Once again, I may be accused of picking on cops.  I'm not picking on cops: I'm simply making an observation worth making. 

I grew up when westerns were everywhere.  From Gene Autry, The Lone Ranger, John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, and all the rest.  Upon invading the land of the Sioux or the Cheyenne or the Comanche or the Apache, one often was required to circle the wagons or for a more permanent placement, to build a fort.  Forts were necessary in hostile territory; without one, you wouldn't last long; you would be dead.

The analogy I'm making, and it comes with observations that are uncontestable, is with the current practices of our law enforcement.  Now, I'm not familiar with law enforcement practices in states other than Iowa, but one can assume, I expect, that other states are similar.  Our local law enforcement here have built themselves forts.  They are forts in every respect.  They have limited access, they have protective structures between them and the access the public may have, and they have the guns.  Sheriff offices and police stations can be described in no other manner than as forts in the genre of the old Western.

Now, what is significant about this, is the attitude of our law enforcement of the general public.  The only reason that you would house yourself in an impregnable structure is because you are afraid of something and that something is the public.  Now one can say that it is just the bad guys.  I don't have a fort to work or live in and so far, in a long number of years, I have not been accosted by the "bad guys".  So the question must be asked, who are the bad guys and will they be attacking sheriff offices and police stations where locked or unlocked everyone has access to firearms and are continually trained to use them.

It is the same with our courthouses.  To be locked and monitored by security at all times and to be wanded and metered to gain entry is simply another sign of fear.  Our government is afraid of us, the indigenous population.  This really can not be contested and it actually should frighten us.  Can you really believe that a government who is afraid of its citizens will act in their best interest?

Richard E H Phelps II
Mingo

Jobs

 JOBS 

An interesting article appeared in the opinion pages of the Des Moines Register on Sunday, 7 April, and something one might ought to pay attention to (if one were ever to read a newspaper which doesn't often appear to be the case). After all, newspapers still attempt, and I say 'attempt' guardedly, to give us some notion of what is happening, not only in our immediate surroundings, but planetarily. 

The comment was made that for every 100 positions available for employment here in Iowa, only 67 people are available to fill those 100 positions. Now this brings me to several issues. First, for the working people of Iowa, this is good news - - the fewer people available to work, the better the pay should be. Secondly, this by itself lends support to Governor Reynolds decision to send troops and officers to the border to keep all those people who are looking for jobs from coming to Iowa. 

You would never have thought, would you, that our governor would actually want to help the working person of Iowa. As they say Who Knew? As long as we have more jobs than people, our McDonald's and Walmart employees might actually have some confidence that a person who will work for even less will not take their low-income, no-benefit jobs. 

The article was also discussing the problem with people finding employment while on probation for some criminal infraction. Apparently, the Iowa House has passed a bill allowing a person to reduce his or her time on probation if employed. Having long

understood the purpose of probation: first, ensuring that the probationer will do what he or she is told for an extended period of time and second, to become a "productive member of society" – the encouragement of employment by probationers seems to be contradictory in its effects. Sending troops to the border decreases the labor supply while granting early release from probation for working non-sustaining, low-paying jobs increases the labor supply. 

Seems to me we are a little confused here. We either want fewer employees or we don't. Which is it? Confusion seems to be the order of the day. Maybe if we would read a newspaper once in a while (which started this conversation), we might be able to give some intelligent thought to these issues which apparently are causing a great deal of angst amongst the general population. Since I am not referencing the particular reader of this article, who obviously reads a newspaper occasionally, I am not insulting anyone unnecessarily. 

Richard E H Phelps II 

Mingo