A G.K.Chesterton Fiesta:A One Man Red Headed League Or”Sunday” With Following of Men and Women “Thursdays”.

I watched the Trolling Trumpeter insult his hoi poloi followers,telling them that he liked billionaires since they knew how to make money , that he didn’t need their votes anymore,and that he’d come back to them in four years.(maybe)The enchanted will say that he was joking but he looked dead serious to me.It brought back G.K.Chestertons satirical essays about human followership, leadership follies with Sunday being an ape of some sort I believe, and the Red headed League being a conspiracy of illusions.

There appears to be increasing concern about the President elect’s psyche,largely based on behavior such as the above but also because of the nature of his appointments.There need be no concern on the part of the faithful because the plans for impeachment prepared for Hilary Clinton will serve quite well for the Trolling Trumpeter should any of his promises to the hoi poloi have meaning and possible negative impact on the rich and powerful.




  1. In fact, a dance called mapouka (also known in French as la danse du fessier”
    or the dance of the behind”) , which has it origins in the southeast regions of
    the Ivory Coast in Africa, boasts a quite comparable movement to the twerk.

  2. SB (Jan 14, 11:51) has apparently taken some of my comments as a personal criticism or distortion of what she had written. My intent and approach is only to explore ideas and their ramifications. I took a premise she made (with which I agree – promote equal opportunity) and explored various ways this good idea is often misused. Also, depending on how we interpret “privilege” it can be honorable and it can be harmful. Exploring these truths associated with various mindsets allow us to better explain the social and political conflicts dividing our country today. The objective truth or falseness of these ideas exists independently of our feelings about them. Ideally, we value truth over personal feelings. (Interestingly, feelings that grow from beliefs based in true premises are more likely to serve us well to the degree that we need to interact with the REAL world.)

  3. I have not heard of being the object of one’s own empathy.And why is it that resources are always “scarce” when distribution to the needy is at issue? And why is government forceful and corrupt when regulation is the issue and not defense or war? Why too is climatology the imperfect science while economics ( the dismal science)with its many schools has such respect? And what of our medicine?Clearly still an art but bruited about as the world’s best science?

    1. DS: “If what we call empathy spurs us to support or tolerate dysfunctions it is tragic.”

      Of course, the dysfunctions are in the eye of the beholder. Some are very obvious … others are mercurial and stealthy. But, ALL dysfunctions merit caution, not just the ones that threaten the comfort of refuge by the very privileged … especially, when the privileged’s dysfunctions have the capability for greater harm and destruction than the ones who have no choice but to settle. daedal2207’s examples speak for themselves.

      There is a fomented fear of entitlement loss but it’s most viciously clung onto by the very powerful. After all, who wants to do without cake? (Poor Marie Antoinette, she never said it, but she sure was the symbol of inequity!). Why is there so much insecurity amongst those who enjoy unfettered so much? Is it guilt, or the fear of immoral inequity of opportunity? There sure is plenty to go around for all of us … if the sin of greed is kept checked. Well-being is not guaranteed … Nature is the equalizer … but, equal opportunity is man-made. To fail to recognize it is tragic indeed.

      1. SB presents what appear to be a fact and a problem. Everything is “in the eye of the beholder”. In order to collectively navigate this real world mind-tools of evidence and logic are needed to help the eye identify objective reality and dismiss attractive sentiments.

        Nature is the equalizer?
        Only by its laws equally impacting living creatures and with our impending deaths is nature an “equalizer”. Nature’s fundamental process experiments with diversity, not equality. It allows anything to exist that can exist. Nature has no remorse over all the variables it created that die in the effort. Important forms of inequality – physical health, mental health, aptitudes and environmental extremes are to a great extent beyond human capacity to correct. We can, however, enhance our ability to help the greatest number to survive, which means that many in “the sweet spot” of what works best for our species will thrive – indeed, thrive exceptionally. A system that gives the greatest number an equal chance to “run a great race” in “the pursuit of happiness” does not mean that every contestant will perform equally and/or win equal rewards. A system that discourages the best producers can diminish exceptional achievement which tends to diminish the quantity of resources that might have provided needed “nourishment” for those who are less able. If those who are wealthy are so at the expense of those less well off a correction is justified and for the pragmatic sake of efficiency (if not morality) this unfairness should be corrected. If those who are wealthy are so only because nature “privileged” them with unequal talents with which to run an exceptional race, demonizing them is not only unfair, it is harmful – destructive of their potential contributions to every persons’ welfare. Equal rights under the law for every citizen regardless the groups with which they identify was the founders’ effort to provide the most equal starting place possible. This is the essence of equal “justice” for all.

        1. DS: “If those who are wealthy are so only because nature “privileged” them with unequal talents with which to run an exceptional race, demonizing them is not only unfair, it is harmful – destructive of their potential contributions to every persons’ welfare.”

          Where, in anything previously stated, has this position been advocated? I urge you, sir, not to twist my words in order to make your point … that you agree with my premise of promoting equal opportunity which obviously has no guarantee of equal results. Your conclusion is lofty, but your inferences in getting there are less than honorable.

          P. S. No argument with Nature … only with one if its creations.

    2. I too have not heard of “being the object of one’s own empathy”. I don’t think that such a thing was implied in my comments. Anything that we need in order to survive (and also thrive) is a resource. Such things are “scarce” to the degree that there is not enough to go around. We compete for that which is scarce. Bidding with money (which is a form of competition) is one way degrees of need and scarcity are determined. Air is usually plentiful therefore we do not normally bid with money for the air we are breathing. I have never implied that appropriate force is not a good and necessary thing. Our challenge is to determine when force (kind and degree) works best and when it does not. Discipline is recognized by force imposed on self-or-others by self-or-others. Freedom is a lack of force. Freedom cannot exist without the application of appropriate disciplines so the two are always in tension. I would consider climatology and economics both to be imperfectly understood and these areas are calling for good minds (with empirical and logical evidence) to sort out the probabilities that our various guesses are correct. We should be able to agree that all economic systems must allocate scarce resources that have alternative uses (as I have defined “scarce” above). With this base we can build our cases for that which “works best” to produce and distribute the greatest bounty of resources. A great source for exploring this issue is Thomas Sowell’s “Basic Economics”.

  4. That may be true, but would a Pence presidency be better for our populace in most cases? Though he would lack the pathological narcissism and some of the character faults, he also brings with him his own baggage.

    I believe we are stuck paying the price for having a hundred million eligible voters too apathetic to do so. But that’s just my opinion … results may vary.

    1. I apologize for the overwhelming and possibly confusing cynicism.The intended point was that the main concern of the GOP is the shredding of the support net with the accumulation of more wealth by the money elite.Pence offers fewer distractions and is more pleasing to the eye but the message is the same.I believe that the USA is on the way to neo fascism and decline.

      1. A new year is ahead. An accurate projection of the future requires an accurate knowledge of the past and present. We need our beliefs to have a positive correlation with that which is objectively true. Belief is easy. It is the gathering of supporting data (empirical and logical) that is every person’s fundamental challenge. Otherwise we stumble and tumble over misconceptions.
        Daedal2207 believes that the Republican win portends “fascism and decline”, that there will be a “shredding of the support net with the accumulation of more wealth by the money elite”. It would be helpful if he could explain just how fascism is likely to evolve given that the core of the Republican value system calls for a smaller, not a more powerful role for central government. Trump’s selection of “winners” for his cabinet does not necessarily portend a greater gain of wealth only for the wealthy. It can usher into our future the kinds of attitudes and disciplines that make it likely that more of our citizens will achieve the wealth that productive success encourages. Greater productivity (of all sorts) is equivalent to there being more resources newly available thereby serving all our citizens be they rich or poor. Rather than decline, all are likely to gain – but not equally. Has “equality of distribution” become a new religion? Must we to accept an edict that proclaims that this interpretation of “fairness” places its believers on a higher “moral” plane than those who strive for the productivity that enrichens (in fact saves) the greatest number of lives?

      2. Missed this one … though, I’m sure my catatonic state contributed. (Smile)

        Agreed fully with daedal2207. With denial of history (in the same manner which denies science), what comes out of left field and continues to provide confusion is the deliberate attempt to mischaracterize this blog as advocating for guaranteed equal distribution. Really? Is it a typo or obfuscation … because “equal opportunity” (not the ‘other”) has been the clearly stated goal being promoted on behalf of humane social progress. Maybe too empathetic.

        1. I am delighted to hear that for SB, and apparently Daedal2207 as well, “equal opportunity” is to be the preferred goal over a greater equality of distribution. Now, what does that mean? How do we know that the governing system does not (or does) provide the maximum possible equality of opportunity? And depending on meaning, what is the best method by which we can provide this equality of opportunity?
          Why has the “unequal income” or the “wealth gap” been so important to many who contribute to this blog?
          It appears that numerous minds, usually those on the left, are particularly sensitive to the fact that some “groups” and individuals too, are less successful in all the ways that success can be measured. “Gaps” in performance are seen as “proof” that our system, socially and economically, is failing to provide the same opportunities to all. It then seems logical that a powerful enough central government could rearrange resources, reshape the environment, and mold our social values such that we will all be moved to the same or similar starting lines on a more equal playing field. Several problems arise. Such a powerful government is subject to large corruptive forces. Such a government has to be powerful because force is needed to impose the cultural changes needed. This conflicts with meanings of individual liberty. The country does not consist of counties equally rich in resources. Our Constitution can and does guarantee equal individual rights but does not and cannot guarantee an equality of health, smarts, individual and family stability, or a favorable birthplace. Given that nature dealt us such a vast range of unequal playing cards we will never be with perfectly equal starting places and the best playing field will always cause some to stumble – there are limits as to what is possible. If too heavy handed in the process of trying to make amends for the unfairness of nature there is a danger that those with the best cards will cease using them for the productive benefit of all the other players – this includes the ability to produce the resources needed to support a government that referees the play of the game such that the greatest number benefit. The cultivation of appropriate empathy is extremely important. The most appropriate forms of empathy are recognizable when they inspire us to actions that ACTUALLY provide for all of us the greatest benefit. If what we call empathy spurs us to support or tolerate dysfunctions it is tragic.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.