More Saturday Male Beauty

 

Greenland to Minneapolis: Epstein Explains Everything

Numerous mental health experts have described the Felon as a malignant narcissist who is focused 24/7 on himself and his overweening ego.  No one and nothing  else matters to him.  In keeping with this is his lack of any empathy towards anyone else - e.g., young children and U.S. citizens being kidnapped and brutalized by ICE thugs - and a never ending desire to be depicted as a tough guy, much like a Mafia boss, except with even fewer morals.  The past weeks have involved the Felon and his evil minions insulting century long allies, threatening Greenland, ranting at Davos and pushing an international agenda seemingly designed by Vladimir Putin, and, of course, never ending lies. Many of these actions appear either batshit crazy or treasonous unless one looks at perhaps the real goal behind all the insanity and turmoil: keeping the media distracted from the Epstein files and the Felon's Department of Justice ignore the law and failing to release the files which one can only assume must have extremely damaging information on the Felon and his "best friend", Jeffrey Epstein.  A piece at Salon looks at this explanation of the craziness of the last few weeks. Here are article highlights:

Between sending an army of goons from Immigration and Customs Enforcement into Minneapolis and threatening to invade Greenland, Donald Trump [the Felon] has successfully knocked the Epstein files out of the headlines — for now. The president’s long and intense friendship with Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sex offender who died in jail awaiting trial for sex trafficking minors, was getting another round of heavy media scrutiny in December. The Justice Department was scheduled to release millions of documents related to the case — and then failed to do so.

This came after reports emerged that Epstein called himself “Don’s best friend” and that the two men spoke multiple times a week for years, in addition to frequently partying together. The reluctance of Attorney General Pam Bondi and other shamelessly corrupt officials to release the files, as required by law, suggests they are worried that what’s in them could somehow be even worse.

But while a fascistic assault on a major American city and the threat of starting World War III are understandably crowding out discussion of the Epstein files, Trump’s repeated demands that this story go away aren’t going to be heeded. . . . . Media outlets are marking that it’s been over a month since the deadline to release the files, with no sign that the Justice Department has made any movement beyond a few embarrassing photos of men other than Trump hanging out with “Don’s best friend.”

Invariably, whenever the Epstein files are brought up in relation to Trump’s other atrocities and scandals, a go-nowhere discussion about the word “distraction” erupts. Since the deadline for the Epstein files came and went, Trump has attacked Venezuela, invaded Minneapolis and threatened Greenland. Some, like Democratic strategist James Carville, have argued Trump wants to “draw attention away from Epstein.” Others have gotten angry at the “distraction” language, correctly pointing out that Trump’s abuses of foreign countries and liberal cities are rooted in his hatreds and grievances.

All these issues are tied together under one common theme: Trump is the worst kind of bully, a cowardly one. Like his friend Epstein — who enjoyed targeting small, helpless teenage girls — the most important thread throughout Trump’s life is that he tries to feel big by harassing those who he feels can’t fight back.

[T]here’s overwhelming evidence the president shared Epstein’s view that what makes one powerful is avoiding conflict with those who can truly challenge you, and instead preying on the young, the small and the disadvantaged. In a civil trial, journalist E. Jean Carroll accused Trump of using his physical size to overpower her during a sexual assault, a claim the jury found to be true. The common theme of the over two dozen women who have accused Trump of sexual abuse or harassment is of a man who only goes after those he believes can’t defend themselves because they’re asleep or cornered. Or, as was the case of the pageant contestants who said he leered at them in the dressing room, he literally owned the event. Reporting shows that Trump and Epstein shared an enthusiasm for creeping on teenage girls, exploiting their dreams to be models and bullying them into accepting unwanted sexual attention.

This pathetic stance of feeling strong by going after the vulnerable has permeated Trump’s behavior of the past few weeks, whether he’s consciously trying to distract from the Epstein files or not. . . . . Speaking to reporters ahead of the World Economic Forum, Trump kept up his third-rate gangster act, sneering that it would be “a very interesting Davos.” The tone he used was clearly meant to be menacing. While the situation very serious — his behavior could blow up the NATO alliance — it’s also pathetic and clownish.

This theme of cowardly bullying is the big story of ICE’s invasion of Minneapolis. There’s a lot of big talk from MAGA figures about fighting crime, but the actual targets of the invasion are teenage Target employees, an old man in his underwear and, of course, 37-year-old Renee Good, who was killed by an ICE agent after she and her wife lightly taunted him for playing dress-up in his camo. No one in good faith could see these victims — all citizens, by the way — as a legitimate challenge, much less a threat, to anyone, especially to armed ICE agents.

Trump’s dread of the Epstein files appears to be rooted in a fear that the MAGA base will sour on him if they get more details of his lengthy involvement with the notorious sex trafficker. But what’s so telling is how his other actions — many that the base thrills over, such as the sadistic abuse taking place on the streets of Minneapolis — share the same poison root that led Trump to be so fond of Epstein for so long.

Whether the targets are vulnerable young women, lightly populated ice-covered islands or regular folks in Minneapolis, Trump’s modus operandi never changes: He makes himself big by picking on those he sees as small. He’s a man who will kick a mouse and pretend he wrestled a bear — and then demand the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts.

Saturday Morning Male Beauty

 

Friday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Thursday Male Beauty

 

MAGA Jesus is Doing Incalculable Damage to Christianity

The wrongly named "Christian Right" has done much to destroy the reputation of Christianity over the decades given that evangelicals and "conservative Christians" more often than not are motivated not by Christ's true gospel message, but instead by hatred of others (e.g., racial minorities, LGBT individuals and non-Christians). Completing this picture is constant Pharisee like behavior which gives lip service to Jesus even as the gospel message is utterly ignored, particularly when it comes to the treatment of others.  This already ugly picture has only worsened as evangelicals have embraced the Felon (the embodiment of the seven deadly sins) and applauded the cruel and brutal manner in which those deemed to be undocumented immigrants - based largely on skin color .  are brutalized by ICE agents (the image at right is a boy being seized by ICE agents).  Indeed, many of these ICE thugs have been recruited by appealing to far right and evangelical "Christians" who embrace the cruelty being visited on immigrants and American citizens alike. Things will likely get even worse as ICE now claims they do not need court issued warrants to break down doors and search private residences. The damage done to the Christian brand will be incalculable as noted in a piece at The Atlantic: 

Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, has become an evangelist of a certain sort. During her tenure, her department has on multiple occasions released slick social-media recruitment videos in which scripture verses feature prominently.

One video quotes from Isaiah 6:8 (“Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, ‘Whom shall I send and who will go for us?’ I said, ‘Here I am. Send me.’”); another quotes from Proverbs 28:1 (“The wicked flee when no man pursueth; but the righteous are as bold as a lion.”).

What’s striking is less that the federal government is using Bible verses in its promotional videos than that the agency doing the recruiting is Immigration and Customs Enforcement. The videos, set to music, include militaristic images. They show heavily armed agents in tactical gear, weapons drawn, donning masks, looking through night-vision goggles, zip-lining from helicopters, breaking down doors, and conducting nighttime raids.

The message the Trump administration is sending is not subtle: ICE is doing the work of God. The brutal and sometimes lethal tactics being used by a growing number of ICE agents are divinely sanctioned. Come join this holy campaign.

Leni Riefenstahl would have approved.

THE KILLING OF RENEE NICOLE GOOD by an ICE agent, Jonathan Ross, has thrust the Department of Homeland Security into the red-hot center of American politics. . . . Noem, for her part, claimed that Good “committed an act of domestic terrorism” before she was shot four times at point-blank range. After Ross shot Good, a voice on one video could be heard calling her a “fucking bitch.” The Justice Department, meanwhile, is now investigating Good’s widow, prompting six federal prosecutors in Minnesota to resign.

The shooting in Minneapolis wasn’t surprising; under Donald Trump, and especially his immensely powerful aide Stephen Miller, ICE has become militarized, much larger, more aggressive, and less accountable. One former high-ranking Trump-administration official described ICE to me as a “paramilitary police force” under the control of Trump and Miller. (This person requested anonymity for fear of death threats.)

Miller has declared that agents possess “federal immunity,” while Vice President J. D. Vance has said they have “absolute immunity.” . . . Federal agents have already flooded the streets of Minneapolis. It is a city under siege; residents there say it “feels like an invasion” and compare it to a “military occupation.” Which is precisely what Trump wants. This has been the game plan all along.

The Bible-quoting videos that ICE is using to recruit agents have a certain logic behind them. DHS says it is looking to hire “brave and heroic Americans,” but it obviously has a special focus on recruiting young men who identify as Christians and whose attitudes and moral instincts align with Trump’s, especially on immigration. Majorities of white evangelicals favor deporting undocumented immigrants to foreign prisons in El Salvador, Rwanda, or Libya without allowing them to challenge their deportation in court (57 percent), and approve of placing immigrants who have entered the country illegally in internment camps (53 percent).

“It has become virtually impossible to write a survey question about immigration policy that is too harsh for white evangelicals to support,” Robert P. Jones, the president of the Public Religion Research Institute, recently wrote.

Tobias Cremer is a member of the European Parliament. His book The Godless Crusade argues that the rise of right-wing populism in the West and its references to religion are driven less by a resurgence of religious fervor than by the emergence of a new secular identity politics. Right-wing populists don’t view Christianity as a faith; rather, Cremer suggests, they use Christianity as a cultural identity marker of the “pure people” against external “others,” while in many cases remaining disconnected from Christian values, beliefs, and institutions.

Many right-wing populists, despite being secular, are successfully recruiting Christians to their cause. And rather than Christians leavening the secular right-wing movements, those movements are prying Christianity further and further away from the ethic and teachings of Jesus.

The Trump administration has gone one step further, inverting authentic Christian faith by selling in a dozen different ways cruelty and the will to power in the name of Jesus. It has welcomed Christians into a theological twilight zone, where the beatitudes are invoked on behalf of a political movement with authoritarian tendencies. This isn’t the first time in history such things have happened.

In the 1920s, within the German Evangelical Church, a movement emerged: Deutsche Christen, or “German Christians.” They became a “church party” that actively supported Adolf Hitler, who self-identified in public as a Christian, even as he privately despised Christianity as a weak religion. Many Germans believed that Hitler had been chosen by God to lead the German state.

The Deutsche Christen promoted the idea of a “heroic” Jesus, even an Aryan Jesus, who fought against the Jewish influence in German life. . . . . In the Martin Luther Memorial Church in Mariendorf, built in 1935, a wood carving on the pulpit depicts Christ preaching to a small group that includes a helmet-wearing Wehrmacht soldier. The church included other Nazi imagery, including an Iron Cross in the church’s chandelier and a baptismal font adorned with a Nazi SA stormtrooper, his head bowed in prayer. The church reflected the desire to construct a Volkskirche—a church that would serve the nation.

America in 2026 is not Germany in 1936; far from it. But we would be mistaken to pretend that political movements that aren’t as malevolent as Nazism can’t still advance sinister ends. We should also acknowledge that over the course of its history, Christianity, which has had glorious moments, has also taken some very dark turns.

Huge numbers of American fundamentalists and evangelicals—not just cultural Christians, but also those who faithfully attend church and Bible-study sessions and prayer gatherings—prefer the MAGA Jesus to the real Jesus. Few of them would say so explicitly, though, because the cognitive dissonance would be too unsettling. And so they have worked hard to construct rationalizations. It’s rather remarkable, really, to see tens of millions of Christians validate, to themselves and to one another, a political movement led by a malignant narcissist—who is driven by hate and bent on revenge, who mocks the dead, and who delights in inflicting pain on the powerless. The wreckage to the Christian faith is incalculable, yet most evangelicals will never break with him. They have invested too much of themselves and their identity in Trump and what he stands for.

Thursday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Wednesday Male Beauty

 

The Felon and America May Face a Harsh Reckoning

The lives of some 340,000,000 Americans are likely to be harmed in numerous ways by the actions of one elderly, delusional man, who congressional Republicans lack the spines and/or balls to rein in.  The Felon is a classic narcissistic bully who believes everyone will cower before him, forgetting that the best way to deal with an obnoxious bully is to hit back hard, preferably causing significant pain.  Europe and America's former allies - all alienated by the Felon's insane demands for Greenland and threats towards Canada and others - may not sit back and take further abuse. Yes, striking back and retaliating may carry a cost and some pain, but doing nothing and being bullied by a sociopath in the long term is even more painful and costly.   Should former allies collectively hit back hard (giving the Felon a the equivalent of a bad bloody nose), the Felon will not be the only one to suffer. American consumers will pay still higher prices, rejected allies could dump well over a trillion dollars of U.S. government securities making it harder to support the national debt, the domestic auto industry could greatly harmed, and Wall Street could see more significant drops. All, again, due to the insanity and delusions of an elderly, crude, narcissist at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue who seemingly is taking orders from Vladimir Putin. All of this could be avoided if Congressional Republicans had the spines to confront the Felon and tell him that the insanity either stops or he will be removed.  A piece in the New Republic looks at some of what the Felon is potentially unleashing:

In 2025, Donald Trump scared people. And institutions. Go back in your mind to the way he came out of the gate, gunning the accelerator on every front. Pardoning the insurrectionists. Dismantling the executive branch. Firing inspectors general and heads and members of independent commissions. Arresting people for writing op-eds. Threatening universities and law firms. Shipping people off to El Salvador.

That was Round One in the Trump boxing match against reality, and for a time, Trump was winning. The shock felt from his attacks on political opponents and institutions left them flat-footed. Some prominent law firms caved to Trump’s threats and agreed to do pro bono work for his pet causes. Universities cut deals to stay out of his gunsights. Media companies capitulated. Amazon decided to make a movie about Melania (it debuts at the end of the month at—you guessed it—the “Trump-Kennedy Center”). Trump’s power reached from the normal political realm down into the culture itself. A number of firms and universities and others fought him, but the general cultural vibe was very much in the direction of trying to stay in line—the better to avoid the tyrant’s attention—or actively trying to win it with embarrassing acts of sycophancy.

Now we’re at the start of Round Two of the boxing match, and I smell something changing. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have been impressively uncompromising—and uncompromised, which is more important—in their public statements since ICE hit town and executed a blameless U.S. citizen. Trump and the cowardly Pam Bondi (does she understand how the history books will treat her?) launched investigations into the two men. Walz and Frey responded by saying, in essence, Bring it on.

Over the weekend, three high-ranking American Catholic cardinals denounced Trump (not by name) and his imperial bullying in what was, for cardinals, a strongly worded statement. “Our country’s moral role in confronting evil around the world, sustaining the right to life and human dignity, and supporting religious liberty are all under examination,” they wrote. That followed statements by Pope Leo criticizing Trump for his treatment of immigrants.

Last Friday, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney announced that his country had made a deal with China that would dramatically drop tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles and allow nearly 50,000 of them to be sold in Canada. This is a move to keep a close eye on. . . . . These vehicles are good. Maybe not just good. They look amazing. And they’re cheap, comparatively. That’s why Joe Biden imposed a 100 percent tariff on them in 2024—to keep the competition safely on the other side of the planet. Then–Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau followed Biden’s lead and imposed the same level of tariff. Both were protecting their car industries, and this is one form of protectionism that I’d imagine most Americans support: No one wants to see Detroit die.

But Carney, with elbows clearly up, has different ideas. OK, Trump, make all the fifty-first state jokes you want. You think I’ll just let this happen? Well, try this on for size: I’m going to bring Chinese E.V.s onto North American soil.

Detroit must be in a dead panic over this. And Trump is learning that little Canada with its mere 40 million people actually has some leverage over the mighty United States that the bully didn’t think it had.

And if Canada has leverage, what about the EU? The EU is the world’s third-biggest economy, after the United States and China. Does Trump really think he can impose tariffs on the EU over this Greenland madness and the EU won’t retaliate? Trump is set to speak in Davos on Wednesday. EU leaders are scheduled to meet in Brussels on Thursday. They’re not going to take whatever idiocy he launches lying down.

So, all over the place, and in a range of realms, people have started to confront the bully. There remains, however, one group of people, or two closely related groups, that have yet to join the club: corporate America and Wall Street—the biggest cowards in the country.

Why haven’t they? We know why. They’re mostly Republican, and they voted for Trump. They want their tax cuts. They’re terrified of crossing him. . . . . But this too may be starting to change. Detroit, as noted, has to be worried that Trump is setting off a chain of events that may put them out of business. European countries are beefing up their defense spending, which should get a gravy train rolling for American defense giants—but the EU already started freezing out U.S. contractors last fall, and if Trump tries to seize Greenland, U.S. contractors will lose billions in opportunities. And even some Wall Street figures have been critical of Trump recently over the scandalous investigation of Fed Chair Jay Powell and Trump’s proposed credit card interest rate cap.

I’m not expecting much out of these people. They don’t care about anything, really, except their bottom line. But the king’s madness is starting to affect that. If Trump drives this country into a position where most of the world—save Russia, Hungary, Chile, El Salvador, and a handful of other right-wing dys-fantasy lands—wants to do business with China and the EU, corporate America and Wall Street will miraculously find their backbones. And once that happens, Trump won’t have many friends left.

Trump’s shock troops still scare some people on the streets of our country, and tragically so. Over the weekend, I saw a heartbreaking sign posted on the door of a Mexican restaurant in Minneapolis: “WE ARE OPEN,” the sign said. “Please wait for us to unlock the door. Thank you for understanding.” It’s reasonable that those poor people should be scared. What a ghastly sight to see in the United States of America.

But those of us not facing that kind of direct threat? For that cohort, 2026 will not be a repeat of 2025. And the bully will learn what bullies throughout history have learned. Eventually, people decide they have had enough. And “eventually” is coming.

How much harm everyday Americans and businesses will suffer remains to be seen, but the pain is likely to be significant.

Wednesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Tuesday Male Beauty

 

The Felon's Letter to Norway Should Be the Last Straw

Anyone who has paid even a modicum of attention over the last decade knows that the Felon has the temperament of a petulant five year old with a fondness for bullying others and throwing tantrums when he fails to get his way.  During his first regime, there were "adults in the room" who curbed his worse desires, but this time around those adults are gone and in their place are ideologues as crazy as the Felon or sycophants who always tell the Felon what he wants to hear.  Now, the Felon is unfettered and his unfitness for office is on constant display as he weaponizes the Department of Justice, uses ICE agents to brutalize undocumented immigrants and American citizens alike and threatens to blow up the NATO alliance and invade an ally simply because his sick ego cannot get over the fact that he did not receive a Nobel prize.  If there were any doubt about his motives in threatening Greenland and Denmark, the Felon put it all in writing in a letter to the prime minister of Norway (Norway has no role in determining Nobel winners).  We are looking at possible war against allies, tariffs that will raise costs for American consumers even more, and the possible destruction of trade alliances all because of the ego of an individual who has seemingly gone over the edge into a fantasy world.  It is time for congressional Republicans to act and remove this threat from the White House.  A piece in The Atlantic looks at the insanity:

Let me begin by quoting, in full, a letter that the president of the United States of America sent yesterday to the prime minister of Norway, Jonas Gahr Støre. The text was forwarded by the White House National Security Council to ambassadors in Washington, and was clearly intended to be widely shared. Here it is:

Dear Jonas:

Considering your Country decided not to give me the Nobel Peace Prize for having stopped 8 Wars PLUS, I no longer feel an obligation to think purely of Peace, although it will always be predominant, but can now think about what is good and proper for the United States of America. Denmark cannot protect that land from Russia or China, and why do they have a “right of ownership” anyway? There are no written documents, it’s only a boat that landed there hundreds of years ago, but we had boats landing there, also. I have done more for NATO than any person since its founding, and now, NATO should do something for the United States. The World is not secure unless we have Complete and Total Control of Greenland. Thank you! President DJT

One could observe many things about this document. One is the childish grammar, including the strange capitalizations (“Complete and Total Control”). Another is the loose grasp of history. Donald Trump did not end eight wars. Greenland has been Danish territory for centuries. Its residents are Danish citizens who vote in Danish elections. There are many “written documents” establishing Danish sovereignty in Greenland, including some signed by the United States. In his second term, Trump has done nothing for NATO—an organization that the U.S. created and theoretically leads, and that has only ever been used in defense of American interests. If the European members of NATO have begun spending more on their own defense (budgets to which the U.S. never contributed), that’s because of the threat they feel from Russia.

Yet what matters isn’t the specific phrases, but the overall message: [the Felon] Donald Trump now genuinely lives in a different reality, one in which neither grammar nor history nor the normal rules of human interaction now affect him. Also, he really is maniacally, unhealthily obsessive about the Nobel Prize. The Norwegian Nobel Committee, not the Norwegian government and certainly not the Danish government, determines the winner of that prize. Yet Trump now not only blames Norway for failing to give it to him, but is using it as a justification for an invasion of Greenland.

Think about where this is leading. One possibility, anticipated this morning by financial markets, is a damaging trade war. Another is an American military occupation of Greenland. Try to imagine it: The U.S. Marines arrive in Nuuk, the island’s capital. Perhaps they kill some Danes; perhaps some American soldiers die too. And then what? If the invaders were Russians, they would arrest all of the politicians, put gangsters in charge, shoot people on the street for speaking Danish, change school curricula, and carry out a fake referendum to rubber-stamp the conquest. Is that the American plan too? If not, then what is it?

For the past year, American allies around the world have tried very hard to find a theory that explains Trump’s behavior. Isolationism, neo-imperialism, and patrimonialism are all words that have been thrown around. But in the end, the president himself defeats all attempts to describe a “Trump doctrine.” He is locked into a world of his own, determined to “win” every encounter, whether in an imaginary competition for the Nobel Peace Prize or a protest from the mother of small children objecting to his masked, armed paramilitary in Minneapolis. These contests matter more to him than any long-term strategy. And of course, the need to appear victorious matters much more than Americans’ prosperity and well-being.

The people around Trump could find ways to stop him, as some did in his first term, but they seem too corrupt or too power-hungry to try. That leaves Republicans in Congress as the last barrier. They owe it to the American people, and to the world, to stop Trump from acting out his fantasy in Greenland and doing permanent damage to American interests. He is at risk of alienating friends in not only Europe but also India, whose leader he also snubbed for failing to nominate him for a Nobel Prize, as well as South Korea, Japan, Australia. Years of careful diplomacy, billions of dollars in trade, are now at risk because senators and representatives who know better have refused to use the powers they have to block him. Now is the time.

Tuesday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Monday Male Beauty

 

The Felon's America vs. the World

Unfortunately, far too many Americans do not know history they way they need ot in order to make well reasoned decisions both in terms of America's own true history and most certainly when it comes to international affairs.  This failing seems to be on steroids when it comes to the unqualified advisers and sycophants that surround the Felon, an individual who seems hell bent on blowing up the world order that has kept the United States safe and prosperous for literally my entire life time. Insanely, the Felon and the likes of Stephen miller, the Felon's equivalent to Josef Goebbels, seem to believe they can threaten allies, hit them with tariffs and numerous insults and still have them at one's beck and call when needed  A very long piece in The Atlantic looks at the much more dangerous world the Felon is steering us into which will threaten the United States' global security and lead to increases in defense spending even as everyday Americans pay even higher prices for essential consumer goods. It's as if a madman is now dictating policies that we do anything but make "America First" or "make America great again."  Indeed, unless congressional Republicans grow a spine and put restraints on the Felon, they will be complicit in a serious weakening.  Here are article highlights:

The [Felon's] Trump administration’s National Security Strategy made it official: The American-dominated liberal world order is over. This is not because the United States proved materially incapable of sustaining it. Rather, the American order is over because the United States has decided that it no longer wishes to play its historically unprecedented role of providing global security. The American might that upheld the world order of the past 80 years will now be used instead to destroy it.

Americans are entering the most dangerous world they have known since World War II, one that will make the Cold War look like child’s play and the post–Cold War world like paradise. In fact, this new world will look a lot like the world prior to 1945, with multiple great powers and metastasizing competition and conflict. The U.S. will have no reliable friends or allies and will have to depend entirely on its own strength to survive and prosper. This will require more military spending, not less, because the open access to overseas resources, markets, and strategic bases that Americans have enjoyed will no longer come as a benefit of the country’s alliances. Instead, they will have to be contested and defended against other great powers.

Americans are neither materially nor psychologically ready for this future. For eight decades, they have inhabited a liberal international order shaped by America’s predominant strength. They have grown accustomed to the world operating in a certain way: Largely agreeable and militarily passive European and Asian allies cooperate with the United States on economic and security issues. Challengers to the order, such as Russia and China, are constrained by the combined wealth and might of the U.S. and its allies. Global trade is generally free and unhampered by geopolitical rivalry, oceans are safe for travel, and nuclear weapons are limited by agreements on their production and use. Americans are so accustomed to this basically peaceful, prosperous, and open world that they tend to think it is the normal state of international affairs, likely to continue indefinitely. They can’t imagine it unraveling, much less what that unraveling will mean for them.

Recently, Trump’s boosters among the foreign-­policy elite have even started pointing to the early-19th-century Concert of Europe as a model for the future, suggesting that skillful diplomacy among the great powers can preserve peace more effectively than the U.S.-led system did in the uni­polar world.

As a purely historical matter, this is delusional. Even the most well-managed multi­polar orders were significantly more brutal and prone to war than the world that Americans have known these past 80 years. To take one example, during what some call the “long peace” in Europe, from 1815 to 1914, the great powers (including Russia and the Ottoman empire) fought dozens of wars with one another and with smaller states to defend or acquire strategic advantage, resources, and spheres of interest. These were not skirmishes but full-scale conflicts, usually costing tens—­sometimes hundreds—­of thousands of lives. Roughly half a million people died in the Crimean War (1853–56); the Franco-Prussian War (1870–71) resulted in about 180,000 military and up to 250,000 civilian deaths in less than a year of fighting. Almost every decade from 1815 to 1914 included at least one war involving two or more great powers.

Today’s equivalent of 19th-­century multi­polarity would be a world in which China, Russia, the United States, Germany, Japan, and other large states fought a major war in some combination at least once a decade—redrawing national boundaries, displacing populations, disrupting international commerce, and risking global conflict on a devastating scale. That was the world as it existed for centuries prior to 1945. To believe that such a world can never return would seem to be the height of utopianism.

Precisely to escape this cycle of conflict, the generations of Americans who lived through two world wars laid the foundations of the American-led liberal world order. They were the true realists, because they had no illusions about multi­polarity. They had lived their entire lives with its horrific consequences. . . . . They did this not because they wanted to re-­create the world in America’s image, but because they had learned that the modern world was interconnected in ways that would ultimately draw the United States into the great-power conflicts of Eurasia anyway.

No country had ever before played the role that the traditionally aloof United States took on after 1945.  . . . . This combination of geography and reach allowed the United States after World War II to bring peace and security to Europe and East Asia. Nations scarred by war poured their energies into becoming economic powerhouses. That made global prosperity and international cooperation possible.

Perhaps more extraordinary than America’s ability and willingness to play the dominant role was the readiness of most other great powers to embrace and legitimize its dominance—­even at the expense of their own potency. In the decades after 1945, almost all of the countries that had fought in the world wars gave up their territorial ambitions, their spheres of interest, and even, to some extent, power itself. Britain, France, Germany, and Japan not only relinquished centuries of great-power thinking and conduct but placed their security and the well-being of their people in the hands of the distant American superpower.

[F]ar from regarding the United States as a danger to be contained, most of the world’s powers saw it as a partner to be enlisted. America’s allies made two remarkable wagers: that the United States could be trusted to defend them whenever needed, and that it would not exploit its disproportionate might to enrich or strengthen itself at their expense. To the contrary, it would promote and benefit from its allies’ economic prosperity. . . . This was the grand bargain of the American order after 1945. And it was what allowed for the extraordinary peace and stability of the subsequent decades, even during the Cold War.

All of that is now ending.  [The Felon] Trump has openly celebrated the end of the grand bargain. His administration has told Europeans to be ready to take over their own defense by 2027 and suggested that allies and strategic partners, including Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, should pay the United States for protection. Trump has launched aggressive tariff wars against virtually all of America’s allies. He has waged ideological and political warfare against European governments and explicitly threatened territorial aggression against two NATO allies, Canada and Denmark.

[The Felon] Trump and his supporters seem to believe that the rest of the world will simply accommodate this new American approach, and that allies, in particular, will continue to tag along, subservient to a United States that cuts them loose strategically, exacts steep economic tribute from them, and seeks to establish a “concert” with the powers that directly threaten them. But the radical shift in U.S. strategy must force equally radical shifts among erstwhile friends and allies.

What does Europe do, for instance, now that it faces hostile and aggressive great powers on both its eastern and western flanks? Not only Russia, but now the United States, too, threaten the security and territorial integrity of European states and work to undermine their liberal governments. . . . . Will the once-great European nations surrender to this fate?

If history is any guide, they will choose rearmament instead. The task will be monumental. To mount a plausible defense against further Russian territorial aggression while also deterring American aggression will require not just marginal increases in defense spending but a full-scale strategic and economic reorientation toward self-reliance—a restructuring of European industries, economies, and societies. But if Germany, Britain, France, and Poland all armed themselves to the full extent of their capacity, including with nuclear weapons, and decided to forcefully defend their economic independence, they would collectively wield sufficient power to both deter Russia and cause an American president to think twice before bullying them. If the alternative is subjugation, Europeans could well rise to such a challenge.

Asian partners of the United States will face a similar choice. . . . Japan may need to choose between accepting subservience to China and building up the military capacity necessary for independent deterrence. . . . . South Korea and Australia, too, are reconsidering their defense and economic policies as they wake up to challenges from both East and West.

The consequence of a newly unreliable and even hostile United States, therefore, will likely be significant military buildups by former allies. This will not mean sharing the burden of collective security, because these rearmed nations will no longer be American allies. They will be independent great powers pursuing their own strategic interests in a multi­polar world. They will owe nothing to the United States; on the contrary, they will view it with the same antagonism and fear that they direct toward Russia and China. Indeed, having been strategically abandoned by the U.S. while suffering from American economic predation and possibly territorial aggression, they are likely to become hotbeds of anti-­Americanism. At the very least, they will not be the same countries Americans know today.

Whether or not it succumbs to the far right, a rearmed Germany without an American security guarantee will necessarily take a more nationalist view of its interests. All of its neighbors will too. Poland, squeezed between a powerful Germany on one border and a powerful Russia on the other, has over the centuries been repeatedly partitioned, occupied, and at times eliminated as a sovereign entity. With no distant superpower to protect them, the Poles are likely to decide to build up their own military capability, including nuclear weapons. Meanwhile, France is but one election away from a nationalist victory that will hit Europe like an earthquake. French leaders have already told the country to prepare for war against Russia. But imagine a rearming, nationalist France facing a rearmed, nationalist Germany. The two nations might find common ground against mounting threats from the United States and Russia, but they also have a complex history, having fought three major wars against each other in the 70 years before the United States helped establish a durable peace between them.

In a multi­polar world, everything is up for grabs, and the flash points for potential conflict proliferate. The American order for eight decades provided not only security commitments to allies and partners but also common access to vital resources, military bases, waterways, and airspace—what theorists call “public goods.” In the absence of the United States playing that role, all of these once again become targets of a multi­sided competition.

Beijing and Moscow have neither the desire nor the need for any restraining accord with the United States. On the contrary, they have every reason to believe that this is the moment to press on. Xi Jinping has spoken of “great changes unseen in a century,” which offer China a “period of strategic opportunity.” For Putin, Trump’s destruction of the trans­atlantic alliance is such a “great change.” Why shouldn’t he seize this opportunity? He can’t know how long the Trump phase will last in the United States, and if the Europeans rearm, the Kremlin’s window of opportunity may close. Until now, Putin has moved slowly, waiting six years between invading Georgia and annexing Crimea, and then another eight years before the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which was severely hampered by America and its allies. The Americans have now shattered that solidarity, and Putin could well believe that this is the moment to speed up his plans for conquest. . . . The world will look more like the brutal multi­polar era of the early 20th century than like the more orderly, if still brutal, world of the 19th.

This is the new world that America is entering, voluntarily shorn of its greatest assets. The influential Chinese strategic thinker Yan Xuetong once observed that the most important gap between the United States and China was not military or economic power, both of which China could amass. It was America’s global system of alliances and partnerships.

Trump officials seem to expect European and Asian countries to join the United States whenever Washington needs or wants them—to put pressure on China, for instance—even as the U.S. offers them nothing in return. But can you ditch your allies and have them too? . . . . among the most remarkable things about this administration’s foreign policy is that, for all the talk of “America First,” Trump evinces seemingly unlimited global ambition. He enjoys wielding American power even as he depletes it.

Trump’s megalomania is transforming the United States from inter­national leader into international pariah, and the American people will suffer the consequences for years to come. Germany’s chancellor in 1916, Theobald von Bethmann Hollweg, worried that his nation’s behavior risked making it “the mad dog among nations” and would provoke “the condemnation of the entire civilized world.” He was right.

So much of America’s influence in the world has derived from treating others as part of a community of democratic nations or of strategic partners.

Others see this, even if many Americans don’t. Yan, the Chinese thinker, observed that one of the elements holding the American order together was America’s reputation for morality and respect for inter­national norms. . . . . For decades, much of the world supported a United States that acted on these principles and accepted America’s power, despite its flaws and errors, precisely because it did not act solely out of narrow self-interest—much less in the narrow, selfish interest of a single ruler.

That era is over. Trump has managed in just one year to destroy the American order that was, and he has weakened America’s ability to protect its interests in the world that will be. If Americans thought defending the liberal world order was too expensive, wait until they start paying for what comes next.

Monday Morning Male Beauty

 

More Sunday Male Beauty

 

The Felon Has Become a Tyrant

Historians usually note that the origin of Western democracy traces back to Ancient Greece, specifically Athens in the 5th century BC, with its direct democracy featuring citizen assemblies and randomly selected officials. These concepts evolved through the Roman republican ideals (until Augustus made himself emperor) and later through medieval English parliamentary practices (like the Magna Carta - signed by King John, one of my less savory ancestors). The ancient Greeks had a term to define the type of ruler who trampled on democratic ideas and used fear and threats to support their dictatorial, self-serving agenda: tyrant.  Indeed, the Great Seal of Virginia depicts (Virtue), the state's genius, triumphing over Tyranny, a defeated king with a broken chain, symbolizing Virginia's break from monarchy and embrace of republican ideals and has as its motto, "Sic Semper Tyrannis" (Thus Always to Tyrants).  The frightening reality is that the United States finds itself with a self-absorbed, morally bankrupt, ignorance embracing, greed driven would be tyrant in the White House who poses a clear and present danger to both democracy and the very lives and and liberties of American citizens.  Sadly, most Republicans have chosen to ignore their oaths of office to defend the U.S. Constitution from enemies, both foreign and domestic, either out of cowardice or in the hope of self-advancement and enrichment at the expense of their constituents. The resistance to date against this tyrannical power grab instead comes from some brave Democrats and, more importantly, from every day citizens who oppose the tyrant's oppression. A piece in Salon looks at the tyranny we now face:

Two weeks into the new year, the [Felon's] Trump administration has already deposed a foreign leader, bombed several countries, threatened to invade several more, unleashed a secret police force on the city of Minneapolis — killing one protester, shooting an immigrant in the leg and brutalizing many others — and started a criminal investigation, based on bogus evidence, on the chair of the Federal Reserve. It’s a lot. So perhaps it’s not entirely surprising that Donald Trump giving a two-hour interview to the New York Times has been somewhat ignored. 

That’s too bad. Considering all those events and more, the conversation is an interesting insight into his thinking. As much as we think we know about how his mind works, the [Felon's] president’s interview with four Times reporters showed that he has evolved into something much more dangerous than he was in his first term. 

Many Americans have finally wrapped their minds around the idea that we are dealing with a presidency and political movement that can be defined as authoritarian, and even fascist. But after observing Trump over the past year and seeing how he responds to an interview in which the reporters have the time and opportunity to ask follow-up questions, it is clear that those are not the underlying principles that are guiding this presidency. 

The better definition for Trumpism is an ancient word that should nonetheless be familiar to anyone who recalls the founding ideals of this country: tyranny. Plato saw it as an inevitable consequence of democracy, when a quest for freedom leads to excess and the populace demands a strongman. He defined it, more or less, as rule for himself rather than the common good, maintained under a system of fear and violence, and characterized by repression of the citizenry — particularly those who are educated and ethical — while relying on lackeys to carry out the tyrant’s wishes and whims. 

Plato’s student Aristotle agreed that tyranny was the worst of all possible worlds, but he disagreed that it was the unavoidable outcome of democracy, stressing that the rule of law could mitigate the excesses of the people and tyrant alike. Centuries later, having studied the classics, many leaders of the American Revolution saw King George III as a classic tyrant, and so they fashioned the Constitution around the Aristotelian idea that systems and laws could prevent their new democracy from drifting into tyranny.

The United States has been remarkably lucky that, throughout its 250-year evolution, that assumption had not been seriously tested by any of its leaders until now. Certainly, there have been imperious, corrupt, domineering leaders in our past, but no one has embodied that special brand of ignorance, ego and total self-interest that [the Felon] Donald Trump is bringing to the Oval Office in his second term as president. The rule of law, and our system of checks and balances, have turned out to be quite weak in the face of a man who has no concept of what those are and who operates purely out of greed and self-regard. 

You can see this in [the Felon's] Trump’s character every day. He is not interested in ideology or philosophy. The president believes in himself and himself alone, and he has been so successful at evading all accountability for everything he’s done in his life that he sees himself as invulnerable. That has freed him to rule completely by whim. 

The Times interview, at more than 23,000 words, is a long slog featuring all the usual self-aggrandizement, insults about his enemies — he mentions Joe Biden in derogatory terms 28 times — incessant blaming and whining, and all manner of lies and fantasies that are untethered from the real world. . . . . But there is something new in this interview that we haven’t ever seen so plainly expressed, and it’s important.

Katie Rogers asked, “Do you see any checks on your power on the world stage? Is there anything that could stop you if you wanted to?” 

Trump replied, “Yeah, there is one thing. My own morality. My own mind. It’s the only thing that can stop me, and that’s very good.”  “Not international law?” Zolan Kanno-Youngs asked.  “I don’t need international law,” the [Felon] president said. “I’m not looking to hurt people.” 

Following that exchange, Trump carried on about how he deserves the Nobel Peace Prize for ending eight wars and proving, at least in his mind, that he can be trusted to always do the right thing. 

When asked why he feels the need to “own” Greenland rather than use the existing treaties to get the same benefits, he replied that ownership was psychologically important for him and that he’s always been right about everything. He indicated throughout the interview that he sees no constraints upon him by courts, treaties, agreements or laws, signaling that he plans to act where and when he chooses. And if there is any impediment, he will either ignore it or go around it. 

Trump is making billions as president, and he isn’t trying to hide it. . . . . There are dozens of examples in the interview illustrating his belief that he can do anything he wants, and we are seeing that played out every day in Washington and around the country. The president has unleashed thousands of masked, armed officers on the streets of American cities, and they are battering immigrants and citizens alike, creating a climate of fear that he and his followers use to push even more boundaries. He claims they are doing it for the public good, ginning up one phony crisis after another to justify his actions. 

This is not ideology at work. It certainly has a fascistic and authoritarian character, and there are people around him who fit that description perfectly. But [the Felon] Donald Trump is the ultimate decider, and he cannot be said to have any belief in anything but himself. He is ruling by threats and extortion, period. 

We’ve witnessed the capitulation of the Republican Party and institutions such as law firms, media companies and universities, and we’ve observed opportunists playing the system for their own ends — all of which proves that, for all their world-weary skepticism about humanity’s inherent virtue, the founders greatly overestimated the strength of the average politician or the businessman’s ego and ambition. They thought those who were in competing spheres of power would fight for their own prerogatives, but it’s clear that’s actually quite a rare occurrence when it comes to facing down a tyrant. The most ambitious among them just want a piece of the action. 

The real courage is coming from ordinary people on the streets who are facing down Trump’s secret police and brandishing nothing more than cell phones to document the officers’ savage behavior. It may just be that the average citizens who are brave enough to fight for their prerogatives to pursue life, liberty and happiness are the honorable leaders Plato believed were the only ones capable of running a virtuous state. If so, this suggests that while democracy may have its weaknesses, it is also the best hope for saving itself. 

Sunday Morning Male Beauty