I have met the Resistance inside the White House and it is…

Donald Trump!

Am I asserting President Trump wrote this quasi-treasonous piece in the New York Times himself?

Maybe, but more likely, it was a group, community effort.

This essay was written and composed and hammered out around a conference table, and once complete, planted for the newspaper with the realization that such an anti-Trump-insider scoop would make the newspaper’s editorial staff wet its collective Lefty shorts, for this opportunity was too good to pass up, regardless of the anonymous nature of the text.

This essay was written with the full support and coordination of the same Senior Trump officials the essay claims to indict as “anonymous.”

As to who was tasked to pen it, it could have been anybody, but I guarantee you that the composition and the concept went through numerous editorial revisions before it was presented to the NYT as the sole work of an anonymous Trump Administration party willing to spill the beans of “steady state” plans to persist the White House’s march through the entanglements of big bad dangerous Donald.

The Left eats it up and they are so excited and voracious for such press that they turn to naive, blind fools and will let any diatribe in the gate simply because it purports to be real and regardless of its sketchy genesis.

Undoubtedly, the author of the story has been notated in the event leaks spill with the NYT’s beans; it is necessary that the culprit be identified,  and better, be named as a lone schemer. The deep tendrils of the machinations behind this article cannot become public knowledge; the identity of a fall-guy Administration official can, however, and this person’s identity is erected as an emergency trigger.  President Trump has signed off on the treasonous treatise the Times swallowed its ethics to print.

President Trump works best, is inspired most ferociously, when his enemies rise in a hysterical, spastic manner. The editorial has accomplished this. The Left is going berserk and trampling all over their slimy feet in a single-minded quest to publicize this insider scoop. It is against this backdrop that President Trump emotionally and strategically prospers.

When the circus comes to town, he steps up to his ringmaster’s platform. This is where he shines and what this “publicity false flag” stunt has serve to elicit from the usual suspects. A crescendo of Trump hate rises, to a din, and will soon die out while the President continues accomplishing policy wins which people barely pay attention to because they are too busy distracted by smoke and mirrors, many planted by the Trump administration itself.

Ultimately, why would an insider critical of Trump and embedded in the Administration write such an editorial. Why go public so visibly and blow your “cover.” Nothing can be accomplished from such a move if indeed your overriding goal is to let the President finish out his term.

You obviously don’t fear of the “potentially catastrophic” situation so direly that you are driven to go public and shed that precious anonymity in order to neutralize the Dangerous President.


Extinctionism: the common nonsense of collective groups.


*A decidedly non-academic perspective on economic culture, its manifestations in our society and our way of life*

Driving to the train station, I was listening to one of the few rabid right wing radio stations in Los Angeles.

The morning host discussed a lawsuit involving Sherwin Williams.  In this lawsuit, the paint manufacturer was astoundingly being sued for having lead in their paint more than a century ago. I paraphrase loosely because the point of this post is not Sherwin Williams, corporate malfeasance or the lunacy of being sued in such a temporally backwards manner. The point is that the host painted the lawsuit as an obliteration of logic and reason. Along the way he threw in a hypothetical “maybe we should sue Barack Obama for supporting traditional marriage” before he began playing politics and shifted to the homosexual marriage narrative.

My SO, listening, as we neared the train station, said “common sense.” Not nearly the right-winger I am, she still appreciated the ludicrous nature of the details relayed by the radio host. “Common sense,” her implication being that people should use common sense instead of deferring to such absurd legal maneuvers.

I didn’t say anything, but it occurred to me that common sense has become such a nefarious, elusive concept today that it needs to be spelled out, mapped for us, because we can’t even agree, societally, what common sense is when all traditional modes of thought are called to question.

Common sense on an individual level is predictable; common sense on a collective level is erratic, chaotic and spurious. Common sense, when considering its incarnation among a diverse group of people, becomes an affectation in itself, a dramatic device manipulated to bolster agendas.

When a group shares the traits of the individual (or vice versa), the concept of common sense is less of an obstacle; when the group is a patchwork of conflicting values and backgrounds, common sense’s definition becomes the average vision of a disparate set of concepts painted by the sheer diversity of the group. The average snapshot of common sense ultimately does not resemble any of the individual definitions of common sense. It becomes an undefinable beast beholden to no individual;  instead, this morass of collective common sense is beholden to all in amorphous levels of unrecognizable common sense.

How can we teach common sense, much less preach it, when the only common sense which can be memorialized is the polluted blend of a concept that bears no resemblance to what we know it does, individually?