Posts tagged ‘an ending analysis’

About Richard Nixon and Donald “Donny” Trump


Nixon largely wasn’t delusional, except in thinking what power could accomplish despite rationality. He was sane enough that when a rational exit from the Vietnam War was presented to him, he immediately took it. I think that he simply wasn’t educated/intelligent enough to accept a list of things that had to be done to avoid and avert a nuclear war because of China, Mao and Kissinger’s “Sleeping Giant” analogy and associated protocols, which were largely aggressive/hostile; protocols based on territorially-based fear, which is something at the very basis of language [communication-centered representative systems devised and maintained for the purpose of group or at least “largely” controlled actions by setting definitions and consequent valuations and maintaining their stability–generally to the point of extension into legality. I’m still bemused once in a while, wondering where Nixon’s point of balance, means of determination of correctness of course, value system in terms of expectable consequences to given actions, method of determination of correct protocols and procedures–where that was or could have been. It took no pressure for him to accept the explanation of why it would be utterly proper to simply end the war while noting (in his speech announcing the ending) something along the lines that ‘honor would be preserved for both sides’–instead, he used the exact wording of the military enlisted man who was the origin of that short note–after having been warned in the same note not to use that wording. For one thing, a very important one, “face” is simply not “honor”; that was used solely for explanation. Nixon also acted on advice; whether or not he did so properly is another matter.

Trump is irrational. This was startlingly evident in the days of his television show and in many tales of his past, present and future. He is incapable of empathy; I don’t think that can be said of Nixon, who was simply a weak man put in a basically impossible situation. The war had been won. Had the winner declared it, at the same time that nation would have implicitly declared itself an imperialist power. Instead, there was a continuing search for years for a rational way out.

At the beginning Trump openly searched for a way to legitimately use nuclear weapons (roughly, “What are they for if you don’t use ’em?” to paraphrase his attitude). It appeared to me that he discussed with Putin what his means of retention of power might be in the U.S. I’ve seen no other mention of this, so I’m broaching that matter in exactly that way; it could well have been misapprehension on my part. That his modern heroes did in fact secure retention of power leads me to suspect I could have been correct. It does not lead me to believe that I am. For one thing, the minor research I’ve done on the man indicates he is irrational, not least because of his father and consequent upbringing. To cast aspersions for that on him (the victim) is verging on irrationality itself. However, isolation from holding power in any way for him ever again–is strongly indicated. Behaviorism itself [determinism by means of clearly indicated ’causes’ as delineated according to a course of belief commonly termed ‘knowledge’] indicates that after a certain point it is nearly impossible for an individual [beginning on the multicellular animal level, at the very least] to act against training that equates to survival protocols. Again, he isn’t to be blamed. If anything Donald Trump and his followers are to be pitied…if, that is, they don’t succeed in overwhelming our bastions of the somewhat-sane. Should they, nuclear war is expectable as a minor first effect.

State schools rewrite history, yes. Why has it apparently occurred to no one that belief-centered schooling (religious and extremist political groups, basically), sheltered from any scholastically-centered [“academic”] studies is virtually guaranteed to have many more errors than anything which is even loosely centered about the empirical method? The moment the word “proof” occurs, the “scientific” method has entirely been abandoned. Hypothesis>Theory>FULL STOP. Even if you could be present at every occurrence of a given event or sequence of events, and the prediction offered by means of the given theory was correct each and every time–that would not constitute “proof”. You cannot separate cause and effect. In fact, “cause” itself is a theory. The pool ball “wants” to go toward its target, it isn’t caused to do so; prove I’m wrong.

At the wrong end of the cosmos (that’s irony, folks), come people like Donny. Mr. Trump may be more properly viewed as victim rather than ghoul or perpetrator. I don’t know, to be honest. What I do know is that he’s dangerous, and worse than that proud of it. From personal experience, that last is good for no one. I really feel sympathy for him, but I’d be as likely to show it to him as I’d be to show it to a rattlesnake or Komodo Dragon. Donald would interpret sympathy or empathy only as weakness, because he’s been trained that way.

His attraction to others is precisely that of a sideshow at a circus, and as meaningful. However, the success of his attraction is exactly as horribly meaningful as was the attraction of Hitler. Note the homicidal tendencies of his followers, to boot. That he should have come to power ranks exactly with Dunkirk as to the species-ending capabilities of the “media”–those who make their living by amplifying anything which might catch attention, endlessly, at ever-increasing volume and ever-decreasing judgement or even sanity.

January 8, 2021 at 10:44 pm Leave a comment