GOD- Chapter 1

Barker spends the earliest parts of this book leaping to the defense of mentor & originator of this book, Atheist icon Richard Dawkins. He defends him against religious types who had been (predictably) outraged by his previous work The God Delusion. He also once again (this is page 1) says that those who say Dawkins is strident are definitely, absolutely wrong, and also mentions that there are others who believe he is contentious (again, this is unequivocally true, if not a ‘bad’ thing.) He continues-

“There is precious little in The God Delusion that could be considered strident”

Well, I cannot directly comment on this as I have not read the book (& if I did, I forgot.) However, I would be willing to guess that is most certainly is strident from what little of Dawkins I have been exposed to, and the type of rhetoric he engages in, at least here.

One of the duo's central claims is that “the bible should be allowed to speak for itself,” a naïve assumption considering no text simply speaks, but is interpreted & constructed from the subjective glance of the viewer. This would most certainly be true of as contentious a text as the bible, & one that has been yoked to such an array of uses, from promoting tolerance to genocide -- pretty much you could use the bible for either, & anything in between. The bible is one of the most utilitarian & wide-purpose texts out there. This is not conjecture either, but a reflection of the long & storied history of biblical textual usurption. Rulers have been using it for literally millennia for such political purposes. At this point, the bible is the literary equivalent of Barack Obama c. 2008 -- all things to all people (while it is nothing to some others.)

Barker reveals in the introduction that he was educated in an Evangelical university as part of his past-life as pastor (he doesn’t say from which one here, though.) He reveals that this stint as pastor was just 19 years long; in contrast, Barker has spent the last 34 years as atheist-- his time as pastor was quite a short stint compared to his current incarnations as ‘new atheist.’ This is an interesting note, & one I would think would be notable to the reader as they move through Barker’s works.

A younger Barker

“If you are a believer,” he writes, “you should be happy to see us promoting bible-reading.” With a subtitle like the one this book has, fat chance. If they are reading this, chances are they are a movement atheist, a non-believer, or at least someone who is seriously questioning Christianity. On page 3, Barker says that bible translations sometimes not only come out different, but actually contradict each other. Intriguingly, he then drops this bit, inspired by his former works --

“...the evangelical New International Version (NIV), while often very good, sometimes distorts & obscures the meaning of the text making problem passages disappear”

Interesting, as NIV is a favoured translation (for now.) Barker then goes on critique President Obama’s lame & completely value-neutral criticism of terrorists as ‘warping religion,’ a religion that ostensibly in ‘un-warped’ form would be very peaceful & bring harmony to humans everywhere. Those of us who study history, of course, find that religion, especially those of the Abrahamic variety, often bring with them exactlly the opposite, leaving thousands dead in the wake. On pg3, Barker writes --

“...Obama’s own deity actually uses the word ‘terror’ to describe his intentions”

& then labels several instances where Yahweh actually does describe his intents & actions as terroristic, & quotes from Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy, Isiah, Jobe, Psalms, & Ezekial where this is evidently the case. Then he says that it is Yahweh who is strident, not he (This obsession about being strident!)

Various transcriptions of 'YHWH'

On pg 4, Barker quotes President Obama as saying:

“Talking about faith-based violence in the Middle East, Obama said on September 10, 2014: ‘No religion condones the killing of innocents”

On the contrary, Barker points out how Yahweh often commanded exactly that in his ‘good book.’ Christians (less often one finds Jews who support these positions contemporarily) will try to justify, for example, the extermination of the Canaanites as due to their ‘wicked’ nature, but Barker rightly points out--

“...the only reason they think the Canaanites were more corrupt than other cultures is because the bible says they were”

lol

Absolutely. He continues--

“...you will notice the words ‘evil’ & ‘wicked’ did not mean in the bible what we take them to mean today: they merely meant worshiping another god. Simply having the wrong religion made you a bad person, regardless of your actions”

I would say that this is not an attitude confined to the past, as the chauvinistically Yahwist Israelites’ attitude has transmitted, barely-modified, to Christians today. Doesn’t having the ‘wrong religion’ make you ‘bad,’ condemnable to hell by God for all eternity? I don’t think this has changed at all, & hiding under the surface, barely-concealed is the disdain for those of a different religion.

In the introduction, Barker points out that the books that comprise the orthodox bible we carry today were composed “sometimes...centuries later in another language and country, with a different agenda.”

Some cringe-inducing sentences early in the book:

“I have written elsewhere that theology is really me-ology”

“Anyone who talks like that is a dangerous person, or at least crudely insensitive. If I were that woman, I would start running toward the closest shelter”

That last quote is especially cringe-worthy because of the New Atheists track record of patriarchal attitudes, misogyny, & disrespect for women.

In the Introduction, we also learn that “the first time the word ‘love’ appears in the bible is when God told Abraham to burn the son that he loved,” & an interesting argument RE: figurative vs. literalist interpretations of the bible on pg 7:

“They (fundamentalists) should insist that metaphor be invoked as sparingly as possible. Otherwise, anything goes. Yes, the Prodigal Son is a parable, & Adam & Eve may be symbolic archetypes, but why stop there?...What is to stop me from saying that Yahweh himself is just one huge figure of speech?”

After introducing so many bible quotes and narration along the lines of “god said this, god said that,” Barker wants to assure some of his more sensitive New Atheist ideologue readers that he is not implying he actually believes Yahweh is real. “It would be excruciatingly tedious,” he writes, “ to keep qualifying ‘God, a fictional character,’ or ‘God, the deity depicted in the Hebrew stories,” although Barker apparently believes that this is what is necessary in terms of ideological purity for this crowd. Then Barker presents quotes suggesting that Thomas Jefferson & Thomas Paine would agree with his central premise, & the Paine quote is especially breath-taking:

“Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel & torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness, with which more than half the bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the world of a demon rather than the word of God”

As well as this Elizabeth Cady Stanton quote: “The Bible & the Church have been the greatest stumbling blocks in the way of women’s emancipation,” which, I believe, is borne out by the historical record. Another gem reproduced by Barker here is that of Ruth Green, here described as a “grandmother,”

“I found that the bible’s personalities, God’s favorites, & even God himself to be utter reprobates”

Anne Baxter as Nefertiti in "The 10 Commandments"

Part one of GOD is ostentatiously named “Dawkins Was Right,” only confirming more that this book is a monument to Barker’s ideological mentor. We also get an interesting bit of exegetical knowledge that many of the ‘Ten Commandments’ statues erected in stone throughout the country were in fact produced as promotional pieces for the Cecil DeMille film “The Ten Commandments,” & that these “movie props, (include) meaningless ‘Canaanite’ lettering at the top, continued to be erected decades after the film was released.” Interesting, but also something that sort of undercuts the seriousness & reverence of much of these ‘hallowed monuments’ that people are so devoted to (see Supreme Court cases over their removal.). Also in chapter 1 is a somewhat-blatant insertion of Dawkins ideology fitted awkwardly into this book about the bible. After accusing the Israelite god of being ‘jealous,’ Barker writes “Jealousy is rooted in biology. We instinctively choose a mate primarily because of our ‘selfish genes’ that evolved to be copied into future generations.” & then undercuts the traditional Marxist-Sociology explanation for the development of patriarchy (tying the phenomenon together with the settlement of permanent agricultural plots), replacing this with a Dawkinite ‘biological’ argument:

“It is obvious that the Old Testament writers were projecting their biological feelings of sexual insecurity onto their culturally derived deity, a male god”

What the hell is a biological feeling? Would that refer to a thought prompted by instinct? A physical sensation borne out of sensory stimuli? Or something else? He doesn't develop that point further. Barker points out that Yahweh says that his name is ‘jealous,’ & also explains how the Watchtower Society’s use of the name ‘Jehovah’ is an erroneous constructed guess-name for the deity (inserted the vowels of 'Adonai' into the spaces in the tetragramaton YHWH.

Logo of the Watchtower Society, the governing body of Jehovah's Witnesses

Some choice quotes:

“ The reason the ancient Israelites thought they possessed the source of all knowledge is because it says so in a book that they wrote” (11)

“...the Lord is avenging & wrathful” (Nahum 1:2) (13)

“The Lord Jealous clearly has issues with sexual insecurity & self-respect, not to mention anger management.” (17)

Sounds like Barker is describing his fellow New Atheist leaders in that last one. Lol.

More to come.

“GOD” - Richard Dawkins’ Foreward + Introduction

The Book

Dan Barker

Hot off the presses: GOD is here! No, not figuratively (I mean, duh, he is everywhere, right Janica?) GOD is the 2016 release by Dan Barker (an Evangelical preacher before his conversion to Atheism in 1984) that carries the intentionally provocative sub-title “The Most Unpleasant Character In All Fiction.” When I first ordered the book, browsing among the other 2016 releases (I really like that phrase for some reason), I failed to see this under-heading, & so was expecting this volume to be a citation-&-quote packed book of the kind Bart Ehrman & Elaine Pagels have been churning out (that choice of language is not fair to them, however, because somber crafting describes much more accurately the type of activity these two scholars engage in) since the 1970’s. Instead, the sub-title reveals that GOD is transparent in authorial intent -- This is going to be a polemic. Now, of course, that does not mean it has to be useless for the serious reader, nor does a polemic have to be immediately discarded for fear of inaccuracy. Polemics or pieces of propagandistic literature can be factual & educational while, at the same time, advancing their narrow ideological goals. For every Mein Kampf there is Empire Of Illusion, masterfully written screeds capable of emotive movement, drawing the broad stroke of contemporary situations while also providing factual scenarios that bring depth to the patina of decay painted by their authors.


Soooo, this is going to be a polemic treatment, framing God (or, more accurately Yahweh) as “the most unpleasant” fictional character possibly devised. Behind the provocative title are ideological assumptions -- we go into this book knowing that the authors (for really it is a collaborative project between famous Movement Atheist Richard Dawkins & Barker the former preacher, who is something of his protege) posit that they know that this Yahweh-God is a fictive being. Note that this is the same certitude expressed by the clerics, for it should ring familiar to the audience. I have felt for some time that Movement Atheists (known as ‘new atheists’ in some works, including this one) are the other side of the fundamentalist coin, that they posit unmediated access to the answers to Reality much as the Christian or Muslim does. The difference is that their ideology is ‘science,’ or some crude, degenerated form of it, and that it is known rather than believed.


That being said, I am going into this book viewing it as firmly within the canon of the ‘new atheists’. We will see if my expectations are tenable as the book reveals itself to me. I have thusfar read the Introduction & the Foreword. Before that, however, I looked to the inflated praise that accompany such books, present on the dust jacket flaps & back. Some intriguing things to be found there-


GOD exposes “The moral depravity of the bibilical god”


GOD is an “unrelenting deconstruction of the bible”


“After reading Barker’s book...the monstrosity of God is undeniable”


“A must read for any serious student of the bible”

Yahweh rendered, mostly likely accurately

Some hefty praise indeed. As I do consider myself a ‘serious student of the bible’ (really more of Christian exegesis, but ‘details-details’) I am looking forward to seeing what this book has to offer. I am hoping that it is more than the sub-title & celebrity-status of the co-author seem to suggest.

According to the dust jacket “former ordained minister & current atheist” Dan Barker “proves that Dawkins was right” about Yahweh/God -- That of all fictional beings, this one is the worst. I’m sure for their ideological crowd this seems like a ‘gotcha!’ Kind of point against ‘the other side’, but the more that particular claim is isolated, the less important it seems to be. Who really cares who the ‘most evil’ fictional character is? I mean, perhaps Literature students….Also, those of us who study religious people & how religion is practiced know that what texts say is less important than how people interpret the text & why it is found relevant to individuals. Simply put, much of people’s religion is their own -- what they make of their particular doctrines, scripts, & characters etc... It is about as much about culture as it is scriptural quotation. So all of this is sort of a so what, but as the authors rightly point out, actually reading the bible with fresh, open eyes can be liberatory for a person of a certain situation.

Moving forward, the organization of GOD is structured rather pedagogically (perhaps the authors earnestly intended it is a teaching tool for fundamentalists seeking to leave religion)--

“In part 1, Barker begins each chapter with his own commentary on one or two biblical stories that Barker & Dawkins have chosen to illustrate a characteristic on the list”

Comedian Julia Sweeney foreworded Barker's previous book The Good Atheist

Barker, whose previous book featured a foreword by television star Julia Sweeney, chooses his mentor (& apparent inspiration for this book) Richard Dawkins to foreword GOD. ‘Really who else would it have been?’ Should have replaced this particular chapter heading, as we learn that GOD was not only inspired by Dawkins, but by a single sentence the ‘master’ wrote. Jesus (literally). Btw, the ‘dedication’ of this book reads-

“Dedicated to the memory of Patricia Ruth Barker, who was infinitely nicer than God”

We get it. Why does this book have to hit us over the head with its thesis numerous times before we even have a chance to turn to page 1??

In the Dawkins Foreword, after a rather disingenous & outright misleading calculation on the cost of ‘Gideon Bibles’, we are presented with some basic claims of Dawkins-Barker. With a shred of one of the opening sentences -- “...a cursory look at the Bible should be enough to convince a reasonable person…” -- we can see bold-face propaganda techniques being employed, reinforcing the idea of GOD as an anti-Yahweh propaganda-polemical text. The implication delivered by the firebrand-extraordinaire Dawkins is that if one disagrees with the assertion that the Bible (as it stands today) is a horrible demonstration of ‘the love of God’, than that person is not employing reason. Interesting that these authors did not consider that there are multiple reasonings so that there should be no one reason. Or perhaps they did consider it. And threw it out because it made for a less coherent position-argument.

Time & time again in both the foreword & the introduction, Dawkins-Barker push against the claim that Dawkins & his claims are strident. It is this particular criticism that must rankle Dawkins the most because it is repeated over-and-over in the relatively-short Foreword, & because it is probably true. Reasons to believe Dawkins is strident are apparent; one does not need to look far, for on VIII of this very book we find this sentence-

Catherine Blackwell as male

“If you happen to be a member of the Gideons, I challenge you to read Dan Barker’s book & then ask yourself why you don’t instantly resign”

If that is not strident than I must be unfamiliar with the true meaning of the term. Lol. From here Dawkins proceeds to slam the Gideons (‘nobody reads their bibles’) & then explains how this book has its origins in a Dawkins conception of how best to represent his information with scripture quotations. Finding the project expanding beyond his comfortable reach, Dawkins tasked protege Barker with fleshing-out the argument that Yahweh is the most evil of fictions (not because it is fictive, but because of the content of that fiction). After explaining “Dan Barker’s book had its origin...in a single sentence of my own The God Delusion”, (gag me with a spoon) he says that the assertion of Yahweh as the ‘most evil fiction’ may lead people to believe he is strident, but he assures the reader that the rest of his work is certainly not strident. Of his work & central assertion of The God Delusion he writes:

“From the day I wrote it, I always knew that every one of my list of nineteen nasty attributes could be fully substantiated in the bible, but I didn’t know quite how richly & thoroughly every one of them could be documented”

Could this man be any more strident? Dawkins assures the reader of the credibility of Barker to his claims of familiarity with the material: He was a preacher after all & “thrust it in the face of countless victims of the doorstepping pastor he once was” as Dawkins puts it.

We finally get to a fact 75% of the way through the foreword, as Dawkins claims “Even today, more than 40% of American think the world began exactly in the way Genesis describes, less than 10,000 years ago”. Bemusing, & most likely true, though I haven’t chased this particular statistic with any furor. I just assume it to be true because it jives with not only my experience of the United States of America (& Bibleville, where I currently live), but also because I have heard some stats that sound vaguely similar in the past. If true, it is certainly something that 40% of Americans really believe that all of humanity stemmed from one man & one woman, that the woman corrupted the man, that woman is responsible for pain & earthly suffering, for our fall from ‘paradise’, & that ‘knowledge’ itself is thus an enemy, zoologized as the snake: literal evil. This should bring us pause. Knowledge is the enemy. Satan is knowledge. Woman is his accomplice, & it is through her power that he corrupted human-kind. Is this not the message of fundamentalist Christianity?

Dawkins finishes his foreword with a complete lie:

“We have all become acculturated to the idea that criticising religion is somehow not done, it’s bad taste, you just don’t do it”

Dawkins. Photoshopped but lol.

This is coming from a man who has literally built his career upon withering critique of religion. He has become a celebrity & media star, a leader in a movement ascendant upon his attack on religion. Is he literally trying to say that what he is doing is going against the grain, because for the movement Atheists who consume the ‘red-meat’ he produces, it is hardly extraordinary. At this point is Dawkins really doing anything special? I wouldn’t say that his entire career has been unspectacular (not at all), but there is really nothing earth-shattering about a withering critique of Christianity based on comparing the word of Christians with the deeds of Christians. Enlightenment-era anti-clerical polemicists were doing this in the 1700’s. Pagan authors were doing so in 100CE, or even earlier than that. Dawkins thinks that he & his fellow ‘new atheists’ are special-- maybe only if one is operating from a Christian-based worldview are these claims ‘shattering’ to anything. To everyone else, it is old news, and worse, polemically-tinted old news. The potential of this material to be used as grist for a disingenuous ideological attack is real. Much like the genre of outrage operating in talk radio identified by media scholar Sarah Sobieraj, this type of content on the pages of GOD does the same thing for ‘new atheists’ -- advancing old claims, ‘scoring points’, general tomfoolery, intellectually dishonest aspersions, & the use of emotion rather than the ‘reason’ they speak of in such reverent terms. One wonders, is reason really their ‘north star’ or is it something else? & What is that something?

Me & GOD

Perhaps I will find out in the body of GOD. Problematizing aside, this book has been entertaining & enjoyable thusfar & I anticipate reading it further. If nothing else, I am predicting that it will be a brief glimpse into a political ‘new atheist’ worldview with perhaps some facts, some scripture quotes, & connections betwixt the two.

& so that is what I will expect.

REVIEW: Tinashe, Tinashe

Tinashe
Tinashe
Compilation

Image used for the Spotify comp. release Tinashe

One day a while back I was shocked to find a new Tinashe album, apparently chucked onto Spotify without any fanfare. An immaculate picture of the svelte RnB vixen served as the cover image for what I (wrongly) assumed was her 2nd studio album. I thought it a little strange (at the time) that it was 20 tracks & both of her recent singles were omitted, 'but', I thought, 'this is what record companies do all the time now.' In the case of Tinashe, what I thought I was witnessing was a failed & botched attempt at a campaign, unraveling in slow-motion. First there was an (unfortunately) Chris Brown-assisted lead single Player. I could go on & on about how I feel about the 'let's-tack-Chris-Brown-on-here-so-we-can-get-radio-play" strategy (It doesn't work!) but I won't do that here. Player is a mildly un-inspiring piece of Electro-RnB, very modern & shiny, but completely unmemorable otherwise. Nobody will remember it, anyway, except for the music video, which the label clearly shelled out a fair amount of dollars for. It is a shame because, after the 'failure' of Player to really catch on, Tinashe may not receive this treatment again. After Player set the charts alite, becoming a top-200 hit in France, the label followed it with another single (this time sans-douchebag**). It was (is?) called Ride Of Your Life, & is about how a 'blunt-ride' with Tinashe would be the best time of your pathetic life. The trip-inducing single cover shows her with a toy car driving out of her mouth. whooooo.

Literally the thrillz. The Thrillz.

So, I find this gigantor album on Spotify (It is legal here now! lol #3yearsagocomedy) sans its 2 singles, and I just assume that it is some sort of asinine major label release strategy, in whose arcane logic I could never possibly grasp. Actually, it is not an *album* so to speak, though the material is completely new to me and to, I assume, most of what will become the audience of this record. What Tinashe actually is is a collection of tracks the singer had already released on previous mix-tapes, dating from around 2012. So that makes this a *mix-tape compilation*. lol. Literally the farthest thing from an official studio album release. But the quality, breadth of instrumental palette, sophistication of delivery, song-writing, & production led me to believe whole-heartedly that this was, in fact, a studio album (& quite a well-produced one at that). This being 2012-era material, it is plausible perhaps that it reminds me of LeToya's 2009 exquisite Electro-R&B album Lady Love. It also reminded me, for reasons of production, to Tamar-sans-Braxton's (at this point) debut album, 2000's Tamar. Both LeToya's 2nd & Tamar's first are far from wholly satisfying ventures (few R&B or Pop albums are, really), but on certain tracks, each demonstrated the current of life that runs through the history of Urban music; that R&B is dynamic and continues to be alive. Tamar & Lady Love on the whole sounded quite unlike albums released in their midst, were quite chill affairs, relaxed with a sometimes-cynical approach to the world around their creators. Both used exquisite synthesized arrangements, but it was Lady Love that has been, for me, the defining exemplar of what it means to be "Electro-R&B" since I devoured this album in 2009/10. Beautifully electronic, yet still urban, Lady Love has simply been one of the most astounding aural experiences to grace my headphones ever.

Destiny's Child-reject LeToya's 2nd studio album

Well, this has gone on for like a page and I have yet to actually talk about Tinashe. Woo! Ok, moving on. My point in bringing up Lady Love & Tamar is that, simply put, if you like albums like these, if you like your R&B to bring a lot more to the table than it is normally required to do, than check out the tracks on Tinashe because you will be spinning these (metaphorically, of course, unless you are a hipster*) for months. Unless you have already heard these, in which case you are not an arriviste-philistine like I. Highlights of this mixtape compilation (so bizarre) include Black Water, Midnight Sun, Middle Of Nowhere, 1 For Me, Vulnerable, Reverie, I'm Selfish, & the absolutely-exquisite Who Am I Working For. Black Water is a focused, atmospheric warning. & I love a good morality tale/prophetic warning in pop musick so I love this one especially. Black Water also is one of those songs that uses the line like "expensive things don't mean a thing" or some such variant thereof. So good! & scary! (as 'Blackwater' also kills people!) Pretty much Tinashe's entire output is atmospheric but Black Water is especially so. Midnight Sun is an exquisite 'I'll be there for you when no one else is' song (again, another cliche, but so delicately & exquisitely executed that the result is a precious gem almost as beautiful as the woman herself) that ends in a surprisingly-explicit come-hither sex rap. Middle Of Nowhere succesfully & evocatively communicates the desolation of a desert life despite the fact that we all know it is really about the isolation of suburban life (probably; I don't know). 1 For Me is an only somewhat-forlorn admission that Tinashe has not found her love, but that he (or she??) has not arrived in her life yet (Quite relateable, one would think.) Vulnerable is the odd song that you find a female character not only pursuing a male in an almost-rapey way, but that she is insatiable in demanding the cravings of her ego (& id) to be fulfilled. Reverie is a lovely ChillNB banger. I'm Selfish details a woman's struggle in coming to terms with the fact that she is a bad lesbian. Every time she tries to turn toward her female lover, the desire for a man overcomes her once again, and she must deal with her 'selfish' ways. Not enough songs about this, I think. Clearly aiming for 1) status as the Tea Party anthem of summer 2016 & 2) the musical calling-card of confused, but employed, people everywhere, Who Am I Working For (no '?') is a masterfully executed & arranged Electro-R&B where 2012-era Tinashe complains about being a broke bitch & having to pay up because the tax-man is at her door. I'm actually kind of worried for Tinashe, because if he is actually at your door, you must be a pretty-serious delinquint in that respect. Tinashe needs some tax relief & also perhaps some learning from the example of Wesley Snipes!

Pay up Tinashe!

Anyway, all-in-all, Tinashe is undeniably bloated, but there are true gems in here if you are willing to sit through about 15 'chill&b' songs that all blend into one another. Tinashe's delicate vocals are sometimes very nearly short of astounding &, as I said, the production is simply stellar. To think this was not even officially-commissioned material, and that the artists were receiving no compensation for this work is even more curious, as this really could have helped her debut studio effort, Aquarius (also a lopsided venture.) Tinashe is the best Spotify-only mixtape compilation that you have ever heard, dare I say, the best Spotify-only mixtape compilation of the decade, perhaps even of the century. I can say that with some certainty ☭

Tinashe's debut studio album Aquarius could have used some of these songs!

*But this spotify-only mixtape compilation is certainly not on vinyl, so that makes you a lying hipster

** Interestingly, Chris Brown has just 'lashed out' at Tinashe & other artists who 'unfollowed' him on social media after he publicly mocked R&B singer Kehlani when news of her suicide attempt surfaced in the media. Tinashe also made a recent disclosure that she didn't choose Chris Brown for Player: "It's really the label"

Verdict: Stream it! ✓

Tinashe 

1. Black Water ★

2. Midnight Sun ★

3. Secret Weapon ✓

4. Middle Of Nowhere ★

5. Just A Taste ⛌

6. 1 For Me ★

7. Daybreak ⛌

8. Fugitive ✓

9. Stunt ✓

10. Ain't Ready... ★

11. Vulnerable ✓

12. Fear Not ⛌

13. Stargazing ✓

14. Yours ✓

15. Slow ✓

16. Another Me ⛌

17. Come When I Call ★

18. Illusions ★

19. Reverie ✓

20. I'm Selfish ★

21. Ecstasy ⛌

22. Who Am I Working For ★

Points for comparison:

Donald Trump Is Nothing

Photo: FOX News

If one is to believe the polls proffered by News Corp.'s FOX News Channel, then Reality star Donald Trump is currently the candidate preferred by Republican voters out of 'a race of 20' others, mostly actual politicians. This is surprising historically for a number of reasons, but also has precedent in several other ways. Formal Bourgeois democracy has retained elements of 'spectacle' and entertainment probably since the beginning of the republic. This is evidenced by bandwagons, campaign-created sheet music, records, and the like. However, the political process (while serving as quite thrilling entertainment for Americans who consume news products) has stopped short of involving actual, active entertainers to play the roles of candidates (minus, of course, the cases of former Gov. Schwarzenegger of California, former Gov. Ventura of Wisconsin, and former President Reagan). 

American media speculate on Donald Trump for President, 2007. Photo: FOX News, America's Election HQ

Because Trump's rehabilitation in cultural prestige has been so tied up in a former that is quite prestige-less, Trump suffered from the start from a credibility problem. Add to that the perception by many that Trump has been gaming the American political system for decades by teasing a presidential run for several cycles and never following through. Each time, the American news media followed Trump breathlessly at his press-conferred and other events, half-unknowingly employing themselves in his public relations team. When these runs failed to materialize, these selfsame journalists rightly expressed that they had been used to promote his NBC show "The Apprentice," one of the 'original' shows still active from Reality's 'golden era.' As each election cycle passed, and Trump either made himself an active voice through the media commentating on events, or heavily suggesting that he would run as a candidate himself, he inserted himself more and more into the politico-media culture of the United States, thus undermining his damaged Reality-show credibility while positioning himself as a central 'outsider' figure seeking to reform the Republican party. 

The 2012 Republican primary candidates, oft-labeled as 'clowns' or 'sideshows'. Photo; RPR

Donald Trump has come to be seen as not only a realistic, but a leading candidate for the Republican nomination, Add to this the fact that the last two presidential elections have seen Republican primaries described as 'sideshows' filled with political 'clowns.' Donald Trump now not only fits in, but his certain brand of hanger-on-ism (standing on the margins of campaigns, milking them for his own benefit) is not only normal, it is political acceptable. Formal Bourgeois Democracy continues to evolve and advance forward, in the image of not the democratic ideal, but toward the image of a completely capitalized world: Elections are to be used for the promotion of products (people included). This is the situation Donald Trump has created, inherited, and stepped into in 2015. 

As journalists and pundits on American televisions actually began to realize that Trump's campaign was resonating with those polled, they began to change their tune. Up until the last few weeks, and the release of the FOX News poll, they had been summarily dismissive and skeptical of his efforts. FOX Business' Charles Gasparino was among those who have not shifted position as Trump rose in polling number, but instead still insists that Trump intends his campaign to be for promotional purposes. A vast many others are now taking Trump quite seriously, and this includes Gasparino's FOX colleagues. The change was so uniform, that one would be tempted to believe the issue was addressed in FOX's daily memos from above to journalists. For whatever reason, the most convincing being poll numbers (I presume), some Republicans are now hitching their proverbial wagons to the Trump Train. 

Gloria La Riva of the Party For Socialism And Liberation, is a non-Bourgeois candidate running for the presidency in 2016. Photo: PS Celebrities

Tomorrow, August 6th, 2015, the first Republic presidential primary debate will be broadcast on the FOX news channel. Donald Trump will appear where several other, far more sober, candidates (Businesswoman Carly Fiorina, For. Gov. Pataki of New York, and others) have been excluded due to poll numbers. It remains to be seen whether Trump's intentions will be made any clearer by this appearance, or whether he will come out stronger or weaker in his performance. None of that is of much importance unless one still buys into Bourgeois democratic politics. What I mean by that is if you believe which candidate is selected and wins is really of much consequence. When one develops what in Marxism is called a 'class consciousness,' it enables individuals (heretofore 'voters' or 'citizens') to understand that their interests lie not with the differently flavoured elites displayed on the stage, but with members of their own class, those invisible individuals of excellence, with the potential to trascend Empire and Capitalism and enable the country to survive. Those individuals are not selected by FOX to participate in the debate. These individuals won't be on television, or have Reality shows, or have enough money and connections to run. These individuals may not even vote themselves. But I am quite sure in the hidden, alienated masses there lies true leaders, like the PSL's Gloria La Riva. These unspoken, anonymous people are the latent potential of the American proletariat. 

Trump & co. are nothing more than expensive American post-modern entertainment. They are best to be not taken seriously, or if 'taken' at all, 'taken' as continued representation of the illegitimacy of the American form of government. Whomever of these elect few are, in the end, selected, they will continue to act as functionaries for their class, raping and pillaging American worker's wealth, sending it overseas to corrupt American client states, being used to attack independent Syria and other states outside of the American axis, and (most horrific of all) being used to maintain the Apartheid system in the state of Israel. 

Donald Trump is worth as much as the American political system. By this, I don't mean in dollars. Those will be worthless in the end as well. I mean worth as in historical worth, significance of moving history forward, helping man in society achieve his potential in the human project. And, by this definition of 'worth,' Donald Trump is worth precisely as much as the United States' Capitalist Formal Democracy: Nothing.

Leaders of Ukraine: Helenus, Priam II, Helenus II, Priam III, Archaeanax, Satyrus, Satyrus II, Dynamis, Balamber, Attila

Ukraine is @ the centre of 'The New Cold War'

Ukraine has been a major flashpoint in terms of world conflict since the beginning of the country’s civil war in early 2014. From this point until now, Ukraine has been a major news story. As perhaps the centre of the ‘new Cold War’ it is necessary for news consumers (& learned people) to understand at least some contextual history of Ukraine. For Ukraine has not always existed, and as a national idea has a much shorter ‘history’ than, say, a unified China.

Flag of the Hellenistic Bosporan Kingdom

So what was occupying the modern territory of Ukraine before ‘Ukraine’? It turns out that the area has a rich & exciting history behind it. Many languages have been spoken, many spiritualities practiced, & many cultures developing have been a part of the Ukrainian (pre)history. An obvious place to start, controlling for personal interest & jumping to the ‘Classical Age,’ we find that Ukraine was a major centre on the periphery of Hellenistic culture. The powerful, culturally Greek Bosporan kingdom is first-and-foremost among these Greek-Ukrainian polities. The Bosporan kingdom occupied what is now known as the Crimean peninsula (today claimed by both Ukraine & the Russian Federation), & was ruled by a succession of semi-legendary rulers of high repute. Apparently this older empire specialized in the trading of slaves, that is, live human beings captures from outside the Hellenic world. Bosporous maintained very close ties to the Athenian City-State, & could provide the esteemed city with slaves for labour, funneled from Central Europe, Asia, or perhaps even the Caucasus. In a sense, Bosporous functioned to fuel the ‘underside’ of the Athenian order, though it was not viewed that way at the time, of course.

Helenus, King of Bosporous, Son of Priam & Hecuba, Brother of Prophetess Cassandra

Along with the spoken Greek language, the Polytheistic faith practiced in Achaea was also present here in Bosporous. The story of Bospouran leader Helenus betrays the close ties between Greece & Bosporous at this time. Helenus, who became one of the early kings of Crimea, was the brother of the Trojan Prophetess Cassandra. In accounts of the fall of Troy, he is also known as Scamandrios. Helenus somehow survived & became quite successful, ruling over a vast realm as King of Bosporous. Of the members of the Trojan diaspora, Helenus was a fortunate inhabitant of a rather unfortunate city. Even when he lived in Troy, prior to its fall, he was renowned for his ability to see into the future. Unlike the disbelief & ignorance that befell Cassandra, Helenus was believed by the leadership of Troy. Despite this, it was Cassandra who was given the ability as an Apollonian boon first. Cassandra then taught this power to her brother, he seemed to have more success in converting it into practical use (Cassandra was never listened to).

A Medieval rendering of the ancient city of Troy

Not only was Helenus a member of Troy’s royal family (He was a Prince), but he also participated in the war. The future king of the Bosporous participated in a Trojan raid against the Greek camp “on the west plains” of Troy. These forced were led by the brother of Helenus, Hector, who was also a prince. Unlike Hector, Helenus survived and thrived after the war. In the midst of this, Helenus prophesied the founding of Rome. This is ironic, as it was the empire that sprang up from Rome that ended up subjugating, then puppeteering the Bospouran kingdom much later.

Bosporan money depicts one of Helenus' successors 

Independent kings of Bosporous followed Helenus: Priam II, Helenus II, Priam III, Archaeanax, Satyrus, Satyrus II. A queen, Dynamis, led the kingdom into its terminal period as a Roman client state. Rome was changing as a polity itself, making the transition from Republic to Empire, and was subjugating several neighbouring nations that had previously existed on the periphery of the Greek world (which was now in total Roman control). In the years since Helenus, Greece had deteriorated as a nexus of political power (if not cultural power), and the new leaders of Crimea submitted to Rome. Dynamis was installed by the Romans after a bizarre & quite complicated succession struggle by her relatives. The figured she would serve as a reliable client Queen, grateful to be given power over her squabbling male rival relatives. They were correct in this assumption.

Early-Modern depiction of the Hunnic invasions

In the 200’s, the balance of power in eastern begin to shift dramatically. The disruption did not derive from any of the recognized centres of power in the Roman world, but from the very sorts of migrating tribes that would later cripple & supplant it. After the year 200, tribes that had previously occupied the steppe began to move into peripheral ‘civilized ‘ nations, such as Bosporous. This was devastating to the Roman satellites, and Crimea & Bospouran Anatolia were raided & plundered of wealth by Goths & others at this time. The kingdom of Helenus & Dynamis was beginning to be swept into the sea by uncouth, barbaric, Asians. The economically important practice of shipping slaves (oftentimes the same peoples that were now invading Bosporous) was disrupted & ultimately destroyed by these doings. This removed the lynchpin of Bospouran prosperity. Rome apparently did not send any aid to its subservient, & was overrun by the latest group of roaming barbarians (The Huns) in the century after. After the Huns destroyed what was in-essence the only successor-state to Ancient Troy, they quickly moved for Rome itself.

Areas under the Hunnic Hordes (@ their greatest extent)

Wave after wave of ‘barbarians’ trampled over the territory of what is now Ukraine in the coming centuries, as fleeting as fast-moving clouds. These groups rarely left much permanent material that can be analyzed today. As a result, the cultural history of the Ukraine @ this time is difficult for even professional historians to piece together. The Huns so effectively wiped out not only the Hellenistic culture present, but also smashed the other roaming groups that came before them. The Goths reported that the Huns were led by a chief named Balamber, who defeated them in battle. The Hunnic horde first attacked the southern Goths, who had become situated in what was the heartland of the Roman Empire. Balamber’s forces entered the Italian peninsula, defeated the Ostrogoths, & moved onto the Visigoths, who they also promptly defeated. Remaining Goths retreated into the Roman Empire (itself retreating Eastward). The Hunnic hordes followed into the Eastern Roman Empire. The Huns (led by Uldin) ransack Thrace & then, for unknown reasons, begin to retreat toward their previous lands. The Romans, under Eutropius, scored a few mostly symbolic victories against the retreating hordes.

European rendering of 'barbarian' leader Attila

The roaming hordes had left the lands of the Roman Empire completely, just three years after first entering them. To avert future encroachment by the hordes, the Romans came to a compromise with the Hunnic tribes. In the resulting treaty, Rome agrees to unhand any refugees of Hunnic lands & send them back (to almost-certain death). After ‘eliminating the threats to their power,’ the brother-chiefs of the Hunnic tribes, Attila & Bleda, decided to break the treaty by invading a market-town named Castra Constantias. in 440, Castra Constantias stood on the banks of the Danube, & also included one of the forts that marked the frontier of the Roman Realm. “In the following campaign,” Hunnic “armies came alarmingly came alarmingly close to Constantinople” (Now the capital of the Roman Empire)...

For more on the 2nd Cold War

For more on King Satyrus II of Bosporos

For more on the Treaty of Margus, broken by the Hunnic Hordes when they invaded Castra Constantias