Thursday, March 28, 2024

More Thursday Male Beauty


 

Trump Bibles Make a Mockery of Christianity

At a time when church attendance continues to fall as reported by a new Gallup poll (only 21% of Americans attend church weekly), Donald Trump has taken to hawking bibles as yet another shameless and utterly disingenuous con to shake money loose from his MAGA followers. The irony is that in addition to the ugliness of evangelicals/Christofascists the merger of "conservative" Christianity with right wing Republican politics is a driving cause of Christianity's decline in America.  Trump's latest money gambit merely underscores how how evangelicals have sold their souls and any shred of morality to their new orange god.  Trump's version of Christianity is much like that of his followers albeit even more morally bankrupt.  In the MAGA universe, "Christian" is a label one wears while engaging in feigned piety while actually ignoring Christ's social gospel.  Hence, MAGA's support for GOP policies slashing the social safety net, cutting fund to feed poor children, and demonizing anyone and everyone who is not a white evangelical Christian.  Indeed, Trump has given evangelicals license to show their true selves and in the process put the toxicity of "conservative" Christianity on open display.  A piece at Salon looks at Trump's latest con and those who embrace it.  Here are highlights: 

Earlier this week, Donald Trump unveiled his newest grift to squeeze money out of his cult followers: Trump-branded Bibles. Claiming the book contains the "King James version" and "also includes the Founding Father [sic] documents," Trump promised "you have to have it for your heart, for your soul." The screenshots of the video are funny by themselves, but I highly recommend watching the ad Trump cut for these Bibles. Trump radiates total contempt for Christianity. 

This is Trump in his angry-bored mode, letting viewers know with his listless tone and posture that he thinks all this Bible stuff is dumb. The not-at-all subtle message of the video is that Trump doesn't believe any of this faith-in-God crap, but he definitely believes in using Christian identity as a weapon to make money and dominate his foes. 

Many Trump opponents on social media replied with video clips underscoring how Trump may be the single most ignorant person in the country about the contents of the Bible.

It's a point I've made many times myself. But it's time to consider the strong possibility that Trump's disdain towards the practice and theological beliefs of Christianity is not a surprise to his followers. It's likely a selling point that Trump's version of "Christianity" is void of faith and morality. His pitch to his followers has a certain appeal: They can have the identity "Christian," and all the power that goes with it, minus the parts they don't like. No boring church services or Bible study. No tedious talk about "compassion" and "grace," which only gets in the way of the gay-bashing and racism. And definitely no need to worry about that Jesus guy, with all his notions about "loving thy neighbor" and "welcoming the stranger."

Their new lord is Trump himself. He's a lot more fun for the redhats since his message is "kick thy neighbor" and "build the wall." Frankly, I'm sure most of them find it a huge relief, not having to pretend they ever cared about that peace-and-charity crap. 

Trump products tend to be marketed with claims that range from "deeply dubious" to "FTC violation." While I am not about to waste $60 on a Trump Bible to see where it falls on the misleading advertising scale, I will note some red flags in the quality control department. The ad copy promises that, within this book cover, customers will get the "King James Version translation," as well as a copy of the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the lyrics to "God Bless America," among other texts. But it also promises an "[e]asy-to-read, large print, and slim design." People who actually read books should instantly see the contradiction.

[A]nyone can see that this is a lightweight volume. Page count-wise, it looks less like "War and Peace" and more like a user manual for a can opener. . . . It seems impossible to stuff the entire Bible — as well as all those other documents — into that sleek bit of binding, even if you do cut out every passage where Jesus does "woke" stuff like healing the sick and feeding the poor. 

Not that it matters, of course. The pages of Trump's "Bible" could all be blank, and there's a good chance no one would ever know it. In the right-wing publishing industry, books are not made to be read. They are to be displayed on your shelves, unopened, so you can glance at them and feel that somewhere, a liberal is "owned." . . . .The point of a Trump-branded Bible is to use it like their Dear Leader does: As a photo prop, not something to turn to for guidance or wisdom. 

The teachings of Jesus Christ were always a poor fit for Republicans. They're just way more into decimating Social Security than they are into loaves and fishes. What Trump offers when it comes to Christianity is what he offers his followers in every other aspect: permission to stop pretending to be good people. His gift to them is his shamelessness. Through Trump, his followers can realize their fantasies of being unapologetic bullies. This is the same schtick as MAGA members who claim to be "patriots" while attacking the rule of law and democracy. Trump tells them what they want to hear: You can be a Christian without compassion.  

Even before Trump's version of a "Bible" was being sold, his hollowed-out version of "faith" had cannibalized what was left of evangelical Christianity, which had already spent decades remaking itself as the culture war arm of the GOP. This is most easily tracked in the rise of churchless Christians. . . . MAGA is basically their religion. Instead of prayer and Bible study, they "practice" their faith by watching Christian-branded online content that is, in actuality, just about right-wing politics. 

Replacing the real Bible with Trump Bibles is a too-perfect symbol of what has happened to evangelical Christianity. The mistake is in believing Trump's followers are confused or ashamed about their devotion to a godless creep who laughs at true believers. In Trump's hands, the Bible is not a text for prayer and reflection, it's just a weapon. It's much easier to beat people down with a book if it's closed. 


Thursday Morning Male Beauty


 

Wednesday, March 27, 2024

More Wednesday Male Beauty


 

Trump and Hitler: The Frightening Parallels

Far too few Americans know little accurate, detailed history as schools and colleges give short shrift to the teaching of government, social studies and history. Add to this the number of Americans who pay little attention - often saying they "don't do politics - and one has a recipe for sleepwalking into a dictatorship.  Worse yet, many on the political right, including some media moguls (think Fox News) who know better focus on perceived short term political or monetary advantage or foolishly believe that they can control and manipulate demagogues like  Donald Trump, a man with little self control and consumed by his ego and narcissism who has contempt for the rule of law and democracy itself. A new book Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power”  paints the picture of Adolph Hitler's rise to power and the parallels between Hitler and his enablers and Trump and his enablers are in some ways frightening. A very lengthy piece in The New Yorker looks at the book and while the author notes that history does not repeat itself per se, the same things do, only with different players.  The book stresses how many Germans falsely “trusted that constitutional processes and the return of reason and fair play would assure the survival of the Weimar Republic."   Much the same is occurring today in America and the false belief that something similar cannot happen here is very dangerous.  Here are article highlights.

Hitler is so fully imagined a subject—so obsessively present on our televisions and in our bookstores—that to reimagine him seems pointless. As with the Hollywood fascination with Charles Manson, speculative curiosity gives retrospective glamour to evil. Hitler created a world in which women were transported with their children for days in closed train cars and then had to watch those children die alongside them, naked, gasping for breath in a gas chamber. . . .  Yet allowing the specifics of his ascent to be clouded by disdain is not much better than allowing his memory to be ennobled by mystery.

So the historian Timothy W. Ryback’s choice to make his new book, “Takeover: Hitler’s Final Rise to Power” (Knopf), an aggressively specific chronicle of a single year, 1932, seems a wise, even an inspired one. Ryback details, week by week, day by day, and sometimes hour by hour, how a country with a functional, if flawed, democratic machinery handed absolute power over to someone who could never claim a majority in an actual election and whom the entire conservative political class regarded as a chaotic clown with a violent following. Ryback shows how major players thought they could find some ulterior advantage in managing him. Each was sure that, after the passing of a brief storm cloud, so obviously overloaded that it had to expend itself, they would emerge in possession of power. The corporate bosses thought that, if you looked past the strutting and the performative antisemitism, you had someone who would protect your money.

The decent right thought that he was too obviously deranged to remain in power long, and the decent left, tempered by earlier fights against different enemies, thought that, if they forcibly stuck to the rule of law, then the law would somehow by itself entrap a lawless leader. In a now familiar paradox, the rational forces stuck to magical thinking, while the irrational ones were more logical, parsing the brute equations of power. And so the storm never passed. In a way, it still has not.

Ryback’s story begins soon after Hitler’s very incomplete victory in the Weimar Republic’s parliamentary elections of July, 1932. Hitler’s party, the National Socialist German Workers’ Party (its German initials were N.S.D.A.P.), emerged with thirty-seven per cent of the vote, and two hundred and thirty out of six hundred and eight seats in the Reichstag, the German parliament—substantially ahead of any of its rivals. In the normal course of events, this would have led the aging warrior Paul von Hindenburg, Germany’s President, to appoint Hitler Chancellor. The equivalent of Prime Minister in other parliamentary systems, the Chancellor was meant to answer to his party, to the Reichstag, and to the President, who appointed him and who could remove him. Yet both Hindenburg and the sitting Chancellor, Franz von Papen, had been firm never-Hitler men, and naïvely entreated Hitler to recognize his own unsuitability for the role.

[A] failed attempt at a putsch in Munich, in 1923, left him in prison, but with many comforts, much respect, and paper and time with which to write his memoir, “Mein Kampf.” He reëmerged as the leader of all the nationalists fighting for election, with an accompanying paramilitary organization, the Sturmabteilung (S.A.), under the direction of the more or less openly homosexual Ernst Röhm, and a press office, under the direction of Joseph Goebbels. (In the American style, the press office recognized the political significance of the era’s new technology and social media, exploiting sound recordings, newsreels, and radio, and even having Hitler campaign by airplane.) Hitler’s plans were deliberately ambiguous, but his purposes were not. . . . . he had, Ryback writes, “been driven by a single ambition: to destroy the political system that he held responsible for the myriad ills plaguing the German people.”

Ryback skips past the underlying mechanics of the July, 1932, election on the way to his real subject—Hitler’s manipulation of the conservative politicians and tycoons who thought that they were manipulating him—but there’s a notable academic literature on what actually happened when Germans voted that summer.

The popular picture of the decline of the Weimar Republic—in which hyperinflation produced mass unemployment, which produced an unstoppable wave of fascism—is far from the truth. The hyperinflation had ended in 1923, and the period right afterward, in the mid-twenties, was, in Germany as elsewhere, golden. The financial crash of 1929 certainly energized the parties of the far left and the far right. Still, the results of the July, 1932, election weren’t obviously catastrophic.

The Germans were voting, in the absent-minded way of democratic voters everywhere, for easy reassurances, for stability, with classes siding against their historical enemies. They weren’t wild-eyed nationalists voting for a millennial authoritarian regime that would rule forever and restore Germany to glory, and, certainly, they weren’t voting for an apocalyptic nightmare that would leave tens of millions of people dead and the cities of Germany destroyed. They were voting for specific programs that they thought would benefit them, and for a year’s insurance against the people they feared.

Ryback spends most of his time with two pillars of respectable conservative Germany, General Kurt von Schleicher and the right-wing media magnate Alfred Hugenberg. Utterly contemptuous of Hitler as a lazy buffoon—he didn’t wake up until eleven most mornings and spent much of his time watching and talking about movies—the two men still hated the Communists and even the center-left Social Democrats more than they did anyone on the right, and they spent most of 1932 and 1933 scheming to use Hitler as a stalking horse for their own ambitions.

Schleicher is perhaps first among Ryback’s too-clever-for-their-own-good villains, and the book presents a piercingly novelistic picture of him. Though in some ways a classic Prussian militarist, Schleicher, like so many of the German upper classes, was also a cultivated and cosmopolitan bon vivant, whom the well-connected journalist and diarist Bella Fromm called “a man of almost irresistible charm.” . . . . He had no illusions about Hitler (“What am I to do with that psychopath?” he said after hearing about his behavior), but, infinitely ambitious, he thought that Hitler’s call for strongman rule might awaken the German people to the need for a real strongman, i.e., Schleicher. . . . .the game plan was to have the Brown Shirts crush the forces of the left—and then to have the regular German Army crush the Brown Shirts.

Schleicher imagined himself a master manipulator of men and causes. He liked to play with a menagerie of glass animal figurines on his desk, leaving the impression that lesser beings were mere toys to be handled. In June of 1932, he prevailed on Hindenburg to give the Chancellorship to Papen, a weak politician widely viewed as Schleicher’s puppet; Papen, in turn, installed Schleicher as minister of defense. Then they dissolved the Reichstag and held those July elections which, predictably, gave the Nazis a big boost. 

Ryback’s gift for detail joins with a nice feeling for the black comedy of the period. He makes much sport of the attempts by foreign journalists resident in Germany, particularly the New York Times’ Frederick T. Birchall, to normalize the Nazi ascent—with Birchall continually assuring his readers that Hitler, an out-of-his-depth simpleton, was not the threat he seemed to be, and that the other conservatives were far more potent in their political maneuvering.

Given that Hitler had repeatedly vowed to use the democratic process in order to destroy democracy, why did the people committed to democracy let him do it?

Many historians have jousted with this question, but perhaps the most piercing account remains an early one, written less than a decade after the war by the émigré German scholar Lewis Edinger, who had known the leaders of the Social Democrats well and consulted them directly—the ones who had survived, that is—for his study. His conclusion was that they simply “trusted that constitutional processes and the return of reason and fair play would assure the survival of the Weimar Republic and its chief supporters.”

The Social Democrats may have been hobbled, too, by their commitment to team leadership—which meant that no single charismatic individual represented them. Proceduralists and institutionalists by temperament and training, they were, as Edinger demonstrates, unable to imagine the nature of their adversary. They acceded to Hitler’s ascent with the belief that by respecting the rules themselves they would encourage the other side to play by them as well.

Indeed, most attempts to highlight Hitler’s personal depravities (including his possibly sexual relationship with his niece Geli, which was no secret in the press of the time; her apparent suicide, less than a year before the election, had been a tabloid scandal) made him more popular. In any case, Hitler was skilled at reassuring the Catholic center, promising to be “the strong protector of Christianity as the basis of our common moral order.”

Hitler’s hatred of parliamentary democracy, even more than his hatred of Jews, was central to his identity, Ryback emphasizes. Antisemitism was a regular feature of populist politics in the region: Hitler had learned much of it in his youth from the Vienna mayor Karl Lueger. But Lueger was a genuine populist democrat, who brought universal male suffrage to the city. Hitler’s originality lay elsewhere. . . . . Hitler’s hatred of the Weimar Republic was the result of personal observation of political processes,” Ryback writes. “He hated the haggling and compromise of coalition politics inherent in multiparty political systems.”

Second only to Schleicher in Ryback’s accounting of Hitler’s establishment enablers is the media magnate Alfred Hugenberg. The owner of the country’s leading film studio and of the national news service, which supplied some sixteen hundred newspapers, he was far from an admirer. He regarded Hitler as manic and unreliable but found him essential for the furtherance of their common program, and was in and out of political alliance with him during the crucial year. 

Hugenberg had begun constructing his media empire in the late nineteen-teens, in response to what he saw as the bias against conservatives in much of the German press, and he shared Hitler’s hatred of democracy and of the Jews. But he thought of himself as a much more sophisticated player, and intended to use his control of modern media in pursuit of what he called a Katastrophenpolitik—a “catastrophe politics” of cultural warfare, in which the strategy, Ryback says, was to “flood the public space with inflammatory news stories, half-truths, rumors, and outright lies.” The aim was to polarize the public, and to crater anything like consensus.

What strengthened the Nazis throughout the conspiratorial maneuverings of the period was certainly not any great display of discipline. . . . The strength of the Nazis lay, rather, in the curiously enclosed and benumbed character of their leader. Hitler was impossible to discourage, not because he ran an efficient machine but because he was immune to the normal human impediments to absolute power: shame, calculation, or even a desire to see a particular political program put in place.

He ran on the hydrogen fuel of pure hatred. He did not want power in order to implement a program; he wanted power in order to realize his pain. A fascinating and once classified document, prepared for the precursor of the C.I.A., the O.S.S., by the psychoanalyst Walter Langer, used first-person accounts to gauge the scale of Hitler’s narcissism: “It may be of interest to note at this time that of all the titles that Hitler might have chosen for himself he is content with the simple one of ‘Fuehrer.’ . . . “His hatred for his opponents was both stronger and less abstract than was his love for his people. That was (and remains) a distinguishing mark of the mind of every extreme nationalist.”

Hindenburg, in his mid-eighties and growing weak, became fed up with Schleicher’s Machiavellian stratagems and dispensed with him as Chancellor. Papen, dismissed not long before, was received by the President. He promised that he could form a working majority in the Reichstag by simple means: Hindenburg should go ahead and appoint Hitler Chancellor. Hitler, he explained, had made significant “concessions,” and could be controlled. He would want only the Chancellorship, and not more seats in the cabinet. What could go wrong? “You mean to tell me I have the unpleasant task of appointing this Hitler as the next Chancellor?” Hindenburg reportedly asked. He did. The conservative strategists celebrated their victory. “So, we box Hitler in,” Hugenberg said confidently. Papen crowed, “Within two months, we will have pressed Hitler into a corner so tight that he’ll squeak!”

“The big joke on democracy is that it gives its mortal enemies the tools to its own destruction,” Goebbels said as the Nazis rose to power—one of those quotes that sound apocryphal but are not. The ultimate fates of Ryback’s players are varied, and instructive. Schleicher, the conservative who saw right through Hitler’s weakness—who had found a way to entrap him, and then use him against the left—was killed by the S.A. during the Night of the Long Knives, in 1934, when Hitler consolidated his hold over his own movement by murdering his less loyal lieutenants. Strasser and Röhm were murdered then, too. Hitler and Goebbels, of course, died by their own hands in defeat, having left tens of millions of Europeans dead and their country in ruins.

Does history have patterns or merely circumstances and unique contingencies? Certainly, the Germany of 1932 was a place unto itself. . . . .

We see through a glass darkly, as patterns of authoritarian ambition seem to flash before our eyes: the demagogue made strong not by conviction but by being numb to normal human encouragements and admonitions; the aging center left; the media lords who want something like what the demagogue wants but in the end are controlled by him; the political maneuverers who think they can outwit the demagogue; the resistance and sudden surrender. Democracy doesn’t die in darkness. It dies in bright midafternoon light, where politicians fall back on familiarities and make faint offers to authoritarians and say a firm and final no—and then wake up a few days later and say, Well, maybe this time, it might all work out, and look at the other side! Precise circumstances never repeat, yet shapes and patterns so often recur. In history, it’s true, the same thing never happens twice. 

Be very afraid for the future if Americans refuse to wake up to the danger Trump poses.

Tuesday, March 26, 2024

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty


 

More Tuesday Male Beauty


 

A Forensic Psychiatrist Warns of Trump's Mental Decline

The mainstream media jumps on every gaffe that Joe Biden makes during public appearances yet remains largely blind to Donald Trump's near nonstop gaffes and seeming disorientation and incoherence during his so-called campaign rallies and rants on social media, most of which are strewn with outright falsehoods.  While never a mental giant,  Trump has greatly deteriorated from the Trump of the 1990's and even "The Apprentice" yet much of the media ignores Trump's outward signs of deterioration and the untethered nature of many of his diatribes.  Why?  Several reasons, actually not the least is the media's refusal to see Trump as something far different and dangerous than a typical political candidate combined with a desire to push the "horse race" narrative.  Add to this never ending false equivalency, a tendency to normalize Trump's excesses and danger to the nation and, of course, the simple laziness on the part of too many self-styled journalists.  A piece in Salon that among other things interviews a forensic psychiatrist and a professor of forensic and general psychiatry looks at the signs of Trump's mental decline and why he should never regain the White House.  Here are excerpts: 

Donald Trump’s obvious public challenges with speech, language, and thinking are continuing to get worse. At a recent rally in Ohio, the former president continued to act like a broken computer, going off on odd tangents, rambling, muddling his speech, and saying, “Joe Biden won against Barack Hussein Obama, has anyone ever heard of him? Every swing state, Biden beat Obama but in every other state, he got killed.”

This is not an example of one so-called gaffe or misstatement but rather part of a much larger pattern where Donald Trump confuses people and time. Experts have empirically shown such behavior likely indicates some type of brain disease. Psychiatrist Dr. John Gartner, a prominent psychologist and contributor to the bestselling book "The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President," has repeatedly warned in a series of conversations about Trump’s apparent challenges in cognition and communication that something seems to be very wrong with the ex-president:

Not enough people are sounding the alarm, that based on his behavior, and in my opinion, Donald Trump is dangerously demented. In fact, we are seeing the opposite among too many in the news media, the political leaders and among the public. There is also this focus on Biden's gaffes or other things that are well within the normal limits of aging. By comparison, Trump appears to be showing gross signs of dementia. This is a tale of two brains. Biden's brain is aging. Trump's brain is dementing.

Dr. Gartner’s attempts to sound the alarm about Trump’s behavior have been joined by the hundreds of medical professionals who have signed his Change.org petition, “We diagnose Trump with probable dementia: A petition for licensed professionals only.”

To deny the obvious about Donald Trump’s evidently diseased mind is to deny reality and to ignore the real possibility that a man who is already morally and ethically corrupt and now appears to be experiencing problems with his thinking could be back in the White House with the awesome responsibility and power of the presidency – including the sole authority to order the use of America’s nuclear weapons. Trump’s mind and overall behavior and character are not just a national emergency but a global crisis as well.

Because of a commitment to horserace journalism, fake objectivity and balance, self-interest and fear, the mainstream American news media – especially the elite agenda-setting news media – has largely ignored Donald Trump’s obvious struggles with communication and cognition. The Washington Post’s Jennifer Rubin is a notable exception.

Dr. Elizabeth Zoffman, a forensic psychiatrist and an Associate Clinical Professor of Forensic and General Psychiatry at the University of British Columbia. Dr. Zoffmann shares her evidence-based preliminary conclusion that Donald Trump is displaying a range of behaviors that suggest cognitive challenges if not impairment. The former president appears to be suffering from Behavioral Variant Fronto-Temporal Dementia, Dr. Zoffmann concludes, and needs to be evaluated by neurologists who specialize in the condition.

[O]bservations from viewing old videotape interviews and coverage of Mr. Trump as a younger man form part of my impression that Mr. Trump might benefit from a thorough evaluation by a neuropsychiatrist with expertise in neurodegenerative disorders.

When social awareness is deteriorating the sufferers may become irritable with caregivers. In Mr. Trump’s case, the overall picture is consistent with Behavioral Variable Fronto-Temporal Dementia (with the caveats mentioned about needing a thorough evaluation including an MRI brain scan.) The associated disinhibition exposes unfortunate aspects of his personality and worldview where he repeatedly dehumanizes anyone he sees as “the other." His repeated statements dehumanizing migrants and exaggerating their numbers and suggesting they are all killers is a good example. This meme has caught on with his supporters and in situations of mass-thinking they may pose a danger to migrants seeking refuge.

Mr. Trump’s memes seem to resonate with a stratum of American society that feels disaffected and maligned in a rapidly changing world. Being blinded to new information and new ways of experiencing scientific discovery poses a risk for those people – for example, anti-vaccine people frequently dying of COVID-19 when they could have vaccines.

The most cogent example of President Biden’s cognitive abilities is his recent State of the Union Address. He spoke for 63 minutes, without a teleprompter during many points. There were no tangential digressions, no word-finding problems, his sentences and paragraphs were articulate, he was coherent, and there were no insults or other disinhibited behavior. At times he spoke slowly and purposefully and at other times he was passionate (not shouting). Throughout his speech, there were instances where his stutter caused him to start and pause but he was able to correct himself and not lose his train of thought.

In other instances, I observe President Biden speaking more slowly and purposefully. That may be a sign of thoughtfulness, attempts to control stutter or needing to take more time to gather his thoughts. Whatever else is going on his responses are coherent and socially appropriate.

[Trump's likely] FTD is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder that leads to progressive deterioration and early death. Once again, I caution that my observations combined with those of other experts should lead to a thorough assessment by a neuropsychiatrist expert in the diagnosis and management of neurodegenerative disorders.

Will the media ever wake up and get its head out of its collective ass?  Trump is a clear and present danger to America.