Hamas attacks in retaliation, Israel is made out to be the victim. Israel attacks Sudan, Yemen, and we either don't talk about it or claim it was Hamas. Now Israel fires weapons into Iran and when they fire back, it's considered an aggressive and violent attack against the Israeli people.

Biden is dragging his citizens headlong into a war we should have no part in to support a country who does not care about collateral. He promised debt relief, gender care, pay increases, and we have seen NO positives on any of those fronts all while he desperately pours resources into supplying the murder of innocent Arabs.

You who support this war hate the Arab people, you're all just too much of pussies to admit it. So you hide behind these excuses. "Oh, Israel's just defending itself. Oh, that was someone else". You wish for the death of all the Arabs without any of the social repercussions of actually admitting that, so you claim anyone who wishes for the killing to stop is actually antisemitic and "wants to kill all the Jews".

Palestine will be free and the Israeli government will face punishment for the crimes they have perpetrated.

THE END JUSTIFIES THE MEANS: A Little Discussion into the Machiavellian Concept and Its Applications to MILGRAM

Hello there!! Welcome to my discussion into MILGRAM and the Machiavellian concept of the end justifying the means. Apologies in advance if stuff doesn't make sense, I feel like this was a very complicated thing to explain??

enjoy the es headers to divide some of my thoughts lol

I was thinking about something and the phrase "The end justifies the means" popped into my head, especially for Haruka.

Like, I feel like the end (getting his mom's attention) certainly justified the means (murder) in his point of view.

But, such an idea is often frowned upon, as "That snappy justification for everything “sinful and wicked” sounds good on paper at first to some realists, but in practice, it is a slippery slope to despotism and immoral horrors. See Hitler, eugenics, and other horrors like that." (Source)

However, the Machiavellian concept has more nuance to it.

"Machiavelli in all cases is implying that “the means” matter, and “the ends” don’t magically justify them, yet sometimes it is worth accepting all the ramifications of “unjustifiable means,” and the damage they do to one’s reputation, for the end goal.

In other words the ends don’t cancel out the means in every respect, but they may none-the-less justify to some extent the original less-than-virtuous actions needed to secure the ends. . . .

DO THE ENDS JUSTIFY THE MEANS? The ends can sometimes justify the means, and the ends are often more important than the means. Sometimes, one must muster up criminal virtue to ensure an end which brings the “greatest happiness,” but one must understand that we are talking about the “greatest happiness” theory here. Thus, people should consider the philosophy of consequentialism and consider the morality of the means as well as the result of the ends, and not just seek their ends by any means without consideration. Machiavelli as a political thinking, virtuous master, and republican would no doubt apply the same sort of reason to the seeking of a perfect happiness theory. Truly, one could argue, that only a tyrant would consider ends to justify means – period…" (Source)*

*The source is from the same link as above.

Now, I'm not calling Haruka a tyrant (he's literally 17 and was neglected as a child, of course he'd do what he could.)

However, Haruka believes in the original idea, that his mother's attention justified killing someone. But, here it states that to some extent, these actions can be justified.

So, Haruka can't entirely justify his actions because of just the end. He begs for his INNOCENT verdict despite what he can and says he will do. There are obvious consequences to these actions and it's not fair to take just the ends into account.

In fact, as I write this, it makes me believe that MILGRAM, underneath all of this, is asking you:

"Does the end justify the means?"

You see this throughout the entire project, either subtly or directly:

Haruka - As aforementioned, does getting his mother's attention justify killing someone?

Yuno - (I'm using the pregnancy entrapment theory here as it's very plausible, but you could use many different theories.) Does getting someone's attention/love justify trapping them in a pregnancy?

Fuuta - (help this one's complicated ^^;;;) Does someone dying justify your mindset of destroying all "evildoers"?

Muu - (See, this one is complicated as well as her murder and why is heavily debated, so I'll go with Muu trying to kill Rei because she wasn't forgiven and also because she wanted the suffering to end. Please let me know if there is a much more nuanced idea.) Does the ending suffering justify killing someone?

Shidou - Does saving a singular person justify all the other people they've killed to save them?

Mahiru - (See, once again, complicated, since we have no idea what her murder is, but I'll try a guess. Once again, please let me know if there is a much more nuanced idea!) Does someone dying justify overwhelming love?

Kazui - Does someone dying justify lying, but telling the truth in the end?

Amane - Does someone dying justify your faith?

Mikoto - Does protecting someone (or in this case, an alter) justify killing someone?

Kotoko - Does serving justice justify possibly killing someone?

One thing I forget to mention in the original posting (and I'd like to thank @inferablossom for this point! Please take a look at their reblog here!) is the application with Es and MILGRAM itself.

In their words, they say, ". . .the treatment of the guilty prisoners. . . that's an important thing to look at. All the prisoners who were voted Guilty had their thoughts rejected in the fork of hearing lots of voices condemning and judging them, something that's been not unfairly called out as psychological torture. We are being asked to judge these prisoners as forgivable or unforgivable. Some of them, people won't find forgivable, and many have stated an intention to forgive them later, but not now, with an intention to make them 'better' in some way. But can we justify essentially subjecting people to psychological torture to achieve this aim? And on the other side, for Kotoko, many people likely voted her forgivable based on her crime, but she also deemed it as accepting her deal and therefore sanctioning her violence against other prisoners. Can we justify actions that could lead to her harming many people?"

As I stated in my reply, I honestly wasn't looking into MILGRAM because I was so focused on the prisoners, but it's a great point!

I'm basically restating my reply here, but:

Can we justify putting prisoners through "psychological torture" to ensure "betterment"? Can you forgive someone terrible to save someone else?

For example, Haruka and Muu. After Haruka made that threat in his 2nd VD, people must have seriously been considering voting for Muu's innocence to stop him from committing suicide. However, we all automatically went to a guilty verdict.

Voting for Kotoko's innocence caused her to beat up the other prisoners. So, are you able to justify these actions that can lead to more?

As an audience, we must see if the ends justify our means, see if violence can justify forgiveness, and if "betterment" (or in what Alice said in their tags, harm mitigation) can justify psychological torture.

This is very reminiscent of Fuuta's 2nd MV, where he yells at Es for being just like him. Es, and I suppose us as well, justify their actions by saying this is MILGRAM and they must find the truth.

(Can finding the truth behind someone justify psychological and physical suffering?)

It also reminds me of Amane's voting! Everyone wanted her to realize her murder, but it caused her to become more "stuck" with her beliefs. Can betterment justify a guilty verdict, causing psychological torture, to realize one's murder?

If we were to judge ourselves, would it be fair to say we'd give ourselves a GUILTY verdict?

Quick Side Topic: In voting in MILGRAM, I like to take into a few factors: personality (it is not affected as much, but depending on the situation, it does help), actions, and the crime itself.

I'm not saying anyone who voted certain prisoners the opposite way is wrong to vote that way, but I like to think of these factors to fairly judge, as if I was part of a jury in a trial.

For example, since her voting period ended last month, Muu. I voted her guilty because of her disregard for Haruka's threat and guilty prisoners' wellbeing, saying they deserved it, no? (In my eyes, no one deserves such a fate unless they have done something EXTREMELY, EXTREMELY wrong. I'm not justifying murder, but I'm saying the actions done to them were wrong.) Her personality didn't really swing my vote any way. Her murder, however, did. In my eyes, it seemed like she was trying to get retribution for her bullying (I have this whole theory that one of Rei's friends were being bullied, killed herself, and Rei called her out on this.)

Back on track...

Once again, there is so much more nuance to each of these characters than DOES THE END JUSTIFY THE MEANS? Haruka is certainly more than wanting his mother's attention; Yuno more than trying to get pregnant from someone; Fuuta more than his mindset; Muu more than her suffering; Shidou more than his dead patients; Mahiru more than her boyfriend; Kazui more than his lies; Amane more than her faith; Mikoto more than his DID (Can't recall if this is the right term.); and Kotoko more than serving justice.

But, that's what some of their ideals and murder itself boils down to, can you justify murder? Can you look at why they did it (motive/goal), what happened (murder/means), and your own morality and decide if you can forgive someone?

Can you look into yourself and truly find that there is a justification for murder?

In the words of Es in former English subs for UNDERCOVER, "You get to know them and tie them with their EGO? Can you really judge them? Is it really okay to be done with deciding with just your EGO? Will you be able to forgive them after listening to their sins?"

Can you look past the less-than-virtuous means to justify the end?

In the words of the new English subs, "Shouldn't you look beyond your EGO, before it all ends?"

Can the ends justify murder?

AUTHOR'S NOTES:

If you've made it this far, thank you for reading my little discussion into this topic. Once again, I apologize for any confusing parts in this. I myself am still trying to grasp the concept, but my thoughts are now in writing.

I'm not well versed into some of these characters, so I am willing to edit this to fix any mistakes I've made in their little analysis of them! Thank you for your help if you do!

I think the first thought of this concept and how it was comparable to Haruka and it started snowballing.

When I realized I had my thoughts down in a whole essay/discussion, I realized it would probably be best to divide this up into easier to read chunks??

MILGRAM is an amazing music video project and considering the release of I Love You is soon, I'm excited to see what is in store. If I recall correctly, they said this was an intense trial, so oh dear! ^^;;

Here's to more amazing songs to analyze!

I'm not Pro-Trump and I'm not Pro-Biden. I'm only concerned with the truth and it would seem the right-wing is spreading lies and fake news again with altered video clips.

This morning many people are spreading a video of Joe Biden, calling him "Sleepy Joe" because it appears as though he might be sleeping while visiting wildfire survivors in Lahaina in Maui County, Hawaii.

This is FALSE.

When you actually watch a longer clip, you can see that he obviously wasn't sleeping.

In fact, he had his head down as the speaker was talking about the massive amount of people who had lost homes, family members, and lives. Multiple people sitting around him were wiping tears from their eyes as he bowed his head for a brief few seconds.

Yes. Joe Biden is old. No, he isn't the greatest speaker in the world -- far from it. But what's the purpose of trying to mislead people into believing he fell asleep, when it is obvious that that was not the case? This is just pathetic and it does nothing but make the Republicans look weak.

"Dammit, Ariel, you almost got arrested, not just fired!"

// TW - mention of rape, threats of violence, school shooting (averted but still being TW'd)

// "Dr. Sieger, in my defense, you didn't announce yourself. I was defending my students and myself." Ariel was looking particularly relaxed, but it was clear from her face that it was coming down from a place of extreme tension. "Besides, my name was on that hit list."

Mike Sieger, the school principal, was holding an ice pack to his left side. There was anger in his mien, but it was visibly tempered.

"Yes, but we don't allow clubs on the campus, even in case of an emergency. I'll merit that I forgot to announce my entry, but you're quite lucky I'm not having you listed as at fault for my injury."

// It wasn't a particularly good day. Students were on edge already thanks to the winter holiday coming up, and Ariel kept a pulse on social media. There were obvious hoax threats being sent out, but one seemed too out of the ordinary. The others gave specific times, actions posed, and so on. Reportable, easily investigated, taken down.

This one, however, named a date. December 9. Today.

It named three teachers.

Blaise Marte.

Frank Jacek.

Ariel Haymarket.

No student had these teachers in common. However, the teachers all had a Houston gay bar in common. Blaise was celebrating a friend's engagement and the three teachers were tagged on the photo.

Ariel wasn't out as trans, per se, but she was quite vocal about anti-LGBT bills and managed to shame her state house rep into silence over a particularly heinous "education" bill that sought to defund scholarships for students in need. On top of her being a regularly seen name in syndicated crossword puzzles, she was known for her being rather vocal - and critical of both Democrat and Republican to boot. Her work email signature always featured Howard Zinn, so her colleagues knew where she stood. But she made sure to hide her politics from them. After all, she was there to help them do the research, not feed them the answers.

Things were plodding towards midterms anyway - no assignments, reviews, study halls being arranged. Ariel was playing some lo-fi chill music to help the kids relax. However, it was in the calm that Ariel heard two stray pops.

Something was wrong.

Ariel instructed the class to hide per the lockdown drills.

Something was very wrong.

Where did the pops come from? What gun made them?

Ariel turned off the lights and made sure the door was locked. Window covered. Phones silenced and music turned off. It was nearly dark in the room.

Ariel searched in her supply cabinet for Old Wolfram, an aluminum baseball bat with a tungsten core. She commissioned it after her friend survived a break-in and rape attempt.

More pops. A lot of them, in fact. No announcements.

Something was wrong. Tension was building. Ariel could only ask for her students to keep quiet and hidden.

The door. The lock started to jiggle. Ariel readied her club and stood by the door - foolishly, but better to surprise the intruder. The door slowly opened. No words. Bright light hid the person coming in.

Ariel swung as hard as she could at the intruder.

// "Dr. Sieger, it was self-defense and all but I cannot begin to apologize-"

"Ms. Haymarket, you were doing what you thought was right for your students and you thought you were doing something that would help. I was the one who forgot protocol in announcing the all clear. Besides," Dr. Sieger paused, wincing in pain. "Only thing I'm asking is that you talk to the counselors and the mental health team. And please leave the bat at home."

"Would it be a problem if I took tomorrow off as well?"

"Ariel, I'm about to send an announcement home about closing the school to let the students have some time to process and clean up. Your students especially need it after that scare."

Ariel got up to leave. Frank and Blaise already spoke with Mike regarding the day. However, a question popped into her mind that made her stop halfway into standing up.

"What happened to the student? I heard they were an alum."

"They barely got shots off. SRO spotted them and called for Sealy PD for backup. Gunned down in B Hall. No one else was hurt, thankfully."

"Isn't that -"

"Blaise's hallway."

Interview with Mary Trump

"Donald Is a Fascist and the Republicans Are Trying To Destroy Our Democracy"

In an interview, Mary Trump, the only niece of the former American president, talks about an uncle she describes as dangerous, his enduring power and the growing hate in America.

— Interview Conducted By Marc Pitzke | 08.25.2021

— SPIEGEL International

Mary Trump: "He's literally the weakest person I've ever known." Foto: Sara Naomi Lewkowicz / DER SPIEGEL; Michael Reynolds / Zuma Press / action press

Mary Trump, Donald Trump's only niece, has just finished a talk show appearance by video chat from her kitchen. She's sitting in the library of her apartment building, trying to relax. The ceiling-high shelves behind her are filled with carefully curated coffee table books. Through the wall of windows, one can see Manhattan's thick traffic below.

Trump, however, seems irritated. "This was the first time I've been treated badly in an interview," she says.

She had just appeared on "The View," a popular morning chat show, where they discussed politics, the pandemic and racism. Yet one co-host checked out of the conversation without even greeting her: Meghan McCain, daughter of the late senator John McCain, who had been reviled and insulted by Donald Trump even as he went to his grave.

The younger McCain is famous – infamous – for her own conservative tirades. After the show with Mary Trump, she tweeted: "There is no 'good' Trump family member to me."

And there it is, Mary Trump's burden: her last name.

She will be forever linked to her uncle, his lies, is hubris, his incompetence, his autocratic tendencies – and the damaging fallout from his one term as president.

Last year, the psychologist published her memoirs: "Too Much and Never Enough." The book revealed the horrific family history of the Trumps – and made her a target of Trump fanatics, who still worship the former president. For months, she hardly left the house – because of COVID-19, but also out of fear of being recognized and vilified.

Now Trump, 56, has written a second book, "The Reckoning: America's Trauma and Finding a Way To Heal." It addresses the darkest period of U.S. history, with the nation's enduring racism, and, of course, her uncle.

DER SPIEGEL: Ms. Trump, last summer you called your uncle the world's most dangerous man. Now that he's out of office, do you still feel that way?

Trump: After the election, I was happy for about a minute. I was very relieved, of course, but the number of people who voted for him was just heartbreaking. Seventy-four million! Yes, Joe Biden won. But the Democrats in general didn't win enough. We needed a total repudiation of Donald and his party, and we didn't get one.

DER SPIEGEL: So, you think he still presents a danger?

Trump: We're not out of the woods. It became clear right after the election that he was going to do everything in his power to undermine the legitimacy of the results and that the Republicans were just going to let him do it. For him, losing is not acceptable and winning doesn't mean legitimately winning, it just means getting the win. He knows he didn't win, but I don't believe he knows he lost, either.

DER SPIEGEL: How so?

Trump: He's been trying for two years to steal this election. I don't believe he can wrap his head around the fact that everything he did, all the stops he pulled out, all the stops the Republican Party pulled out for him, haven't worked. So, he's still trying to steal this election.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you see Jan. 6, when a mob of his supporters stormed the Capitol Building, as such an attempt?

Trump: He is very good at finding people weaker than he is, which is shocking because he's literally the weakest person I've ever known. But they're out there obviously, in large numbers. Then, there are people who are much smarter and powerful than he is, who know how to use him. So, it's a very dangerous combination. Were there people around him who knew that it could very possibly lead to that moment? Absolutely. Was he completely willing and comfortable to take advantage of the situation and make it worse for his benefit? Absolutely.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you think he welcomed what he saw on Jan. 6?

Trump: Oh, my gosh, yeah. It was probably one of the best days of his life. The worse it got, the happier he was. It wasn't an accident when he told the mob that if he wasn't granted the victory, it was Mike Pence's fault. So, should we be surprised that people were running around with nooses wanting to string Mike Pence up? It would have been perfectly fine with him. Absolutely. The only thing he probably regrets about that is that there wasn't more violence.

DER SPIEGEL: What went through your mind that day?

Trump: I hadn't listened to his speech beforehand, because I've tried whenever possible not to listen to him or look at him, because I don't care what he has to say. At first, like everybody else, I found it really hard to know what precisely was going on. It just looked like a mess. The first word that came to mind was tawdry. But then it became obvious to me that it was much worse than that. This is our Capitol! This is the center of – well, I don't like to say American democracy, because I don't think America has ever completely been a democracy like we aspire to be.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you think he will run again in 2024?

Trump: I don't know. But because he's being enabled, he sees an opening. He feels the power. He also knows that the only way he stays out of legal trouble is to get back into power.

DER SPIEGEL: Does it weigh on you to be so personally connected to his world? In your new book you reveal that in 2017, a few months after your uncle's inauguration, you went into inpatient treatment for post traumatic stress disorder. What happened?

Trump: I just remember feeling so out of control. I remember spinning out and didn't know how to stop. I lived in a very Republican town then, so I was really isolated. For the first time in my life, I lost friends because of an election, and I knew I needed to do something. But despite the fact that I'm a psychologist, I didn't know there were treatment programs for that. I knew there were for addictions, but I didn't know there was such a thing for post-traumatic stress.

DER SPIEGEL: Your uncle traumatized half the nation.

Trump: Every once in a while, I think about how this country will be forever stained by what he did. That's really hard. We never recover from that. Maybe in 200 years, but not while I'm alive.

DER SPIEGEL: Don't you think his spell is broken? Joe Biden's policies are pretty popular, and Trump's "Big Lie" hasn't amounted to anything.

Trump: The Democrats don't understand the seriousness of the threat. They are playing by rules in a rulebook that the Republicans lit on fire. There are no rules anymore. They need to start fighting like their lives depend on it. But they're just not willing to do that. There is an unwillingness – also in the U.S. media – to use the kind of language that is accurate and necessary to get people to understand the seriousness of the threat.

DER SPIEGEL: How serious is it?

Trump: Donald is a fascist, and the Republicans are an autocratic, anti-democratic, counter-majoritarian party that would be perfectly happy to establish some kind of apartheid in this country. They are actively trying to destroy our democracy. If they win back the House in 2022, it would be fatal to the American experiment. I wouldn't be surprised if they make Donald, two years before the presidential election, speaker of the house. And then there will never be another Democrat allowed to win an election.

DER SPIEGEL: Do you really believe that?

"The Democrats don't understand the seriousness of the threat. They are playing by rules in a rulebook that the Republicans lit on fire. There are no rules anymore."

Trump: We see it happening already. Last year, there were 155 million presidential votes cast in this country. There have been maybe 36 cases of voter fraud, which is a vanishingly small number. And yet, we've got hundreds of voter suppression laws in place or being pushed by the Republicans. If the Democrats lose the House and/or the Senate in the 2022 midterms, it's over. It is over.

DER SPIEGEL: You don't think the U.S. democracy is resilient?

Trump: The way this country is structured is inherently anti-democratic.

DER SPIEGEL: What do you mean?

Trump: The U.S. Constitution is not a democratic document. For example, we currently have a 50-50 split in the Senate, but the 50 Republican senators represent 40 million less people than the 50 Democratic senators – because the constitution gives every state two senate seats, no matter how populous.

Trump supporters in Washington, D.C. on Jan. 6: "It was probably one of the best days of his life. The worse it got, the happier he was." Foto: Shay Horse / NurPhoto / Getty Images

DER SPIEGEL: In your new book, you write: "The ugly history of our country is filled with sordid, barbaric and inhuman acts committed by average citizens which were encouraged or at least condoned by the highest levels of government. To deny this history means to deny our national trauma." That's a devastating judgement – how did you come to that conclusion?

Trump: If there's one thing Americans are very good at, it's perpetuating myths about ourselves.

DER SPIEGEL: For instance?

Trump: One of the most astonishing things this country got away with was portraying itself as a beacon of democracy during World War II, while at the same time an entire population of people was being held in what was essentially a closed, fascist state in the South. Black Americans who served their country came home only to be lynched because they had the audacity to wear the uniform. Part of that is also that people think that the North were the good guys. But a large percentage of Northerners were really racist, too, and perfectly happy to have Blacks freed, but did not want them to have any political power, so they decided that it was more expedient to make common cause with the former Confederates than with the freed men and women.

DER SPIEGEL: Isn't the way of looking at U.S. history changing rapidly?

Trump: The right is doing everything to make sure that Americans continue to stay ignorant about their own history. Imagine if post-World War II Germany hadn't taken the steps that it has taken.

DER SPIEGEL: Not all Germans back then were too excited about that, either.

Trump: That's a good point. It requires the political will. We let people off the hook for flying the Confederate flag because they claim it's just about their Southern history. But they know what it means. It means that they are completely on board with white people owning black people.

DER SPIEGEL: Is the U.S. still a racist country?

Trump: If you're a white adult American, it's almost impossible not to be racist because of the media environment we grow up in, our families or our friends' families, the influences of our education. But when you become an adult, you need to take responsibility for that stuff. If we don't acknowledge it, then it's never going to change. But it's very hard to acknowledge that.

DER SPIEGEL: How much do you blame your uncle for that?

Trump: I blame him for the fact that it's becoming more and more acceptable to be openly racist. What Donald did was prove that racism is a successful platform when you run for office in this country. People like him are out there very openly being racist and white supremacist, and they're getting tens of millions of people to vote for them because either they agree with them or they don't have a problem with it because lower taxes are more important. We're in a really dangerous place.

"The Republicans are an autocratic, anti-democratic, counter-majoritarian party that would be perfectly happy to establish some kind of apartheid in this country."

DER SPIEGEL: Do you also blame him for the disastrous COVID-19 situation here last year?

Trump: That's been one of the worst things for me to deal with. Knowing that your uncle is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people is not a good feeling. That many died in exactly the same circumstances my father did, alone, because my uncle, who could have gone to the hospital to be with my dad, rather went to the movies. So, that's been really, really hard. Because of his incompetence and his cruelty we're still struggling with this. Because of his encouragement of the unvaccinated and his failure to model decent behavior, which he is incapable of doing. It's just a kick in the teeth.

DER SPIEGEL: Wasn't he one of the first to get vaccinated?

Trump: Secretly! Everybody in the family got vaccinated. They're all vaccinated. Imagine how people are going to react when they find out that they've all been betrayed and the people they put their faith in lied to them for political expediency.

DER SPIEGEL: Psychologically, how do you get people to admit they've lived a lie for so long?

Trump: It's hard. I don't hold out hope for most of these people. I really don't.

DER SPIEGEL: That sounds rather pessimistic.

Trump: I am bizarrely a quite optimistic person. Maybe that took a hit over the last couple of years. But I am pretty much an optimist. I haven't given up hope.

DER SPIEGEL: Yet the next Trump generation seems ready. Do you expect your cousin, Donald Jr., or your cousin Ivanka, to run for political office?

Trump: No.

DER SPIEGEL: Why not?

Trump: My uncle is such a buffoon, but he does have charisma. If you met him, for the first 10 seconds you would see it. After that, you would realize that he's a total psychopath, but a lot of people are very susceptible to his kind of charisma. Donald Jr. and Ivanka don't have any of that. They don't survive politically without him. They don't survive in business without him. No, I don't see that. Hopefully, they'll all end up in jail.

DER SPIEGEL: What's next for you?

Trump: My next book will not be about my uncle. I'm taking a break. Never write a book about trauma while you're still being actively traumatized.

DER SPIEGEL: Ms. Trump, we thank you for this interview.

— Mary Trump's latest book, "The Reckoning: Our Nation's Trauma and Finding a Way To Heal," was published in August by St. Martin's Press. The book has also been published in German translation by Heyne Verlag.

— Mary Trump, 56, holds a doctorate in psychology and has known the former president since childhood. Her father Fred Trump, Jr., Donald Trump's older brother, died in 1981. Her first book, "Too Much and Never Enough," about her uncle became a bestseller in the United States in 2020.

Noticed someone citing that Kirby vs. Fascist Phone-Trollers anecdote on your other page, and I think they missed a crucial bit: Jack was not *initiating* violence. He wasn't trawling the block with a crowbar, intent on clubbing the next blue-eyed kid who sorta seemed to fit the bill. He was *responding* to a mealy-mouthed calling-out, and while I'm sure he would've thrown down if said shitheads had stuck around, that still isn't the Righteous Pre-emptive Aggro(C) being flogged by this pundit.

I generally try to avoid politics on this blog, but since this current situation is tied into comics as well as politics, I give to you a comic history lesson:

Back during World War II, the majority of the American public was in fact initially opposed to punching Nazis.

Seriously! The fighting over in Europe was viewed as “those silly Europeans are at it again the way they have been for the past several centuries really”. It was Somebody Else’s Problem Certainly Not America’s Problem.

Meanwhile, the Holocaust was at the time not something widely known outside of the populations being affected, and even those who did know often didn’t believe it was true or as bad/extensive as it was claimed to be. Plenty of countries, including America, were resistant to taking in Jewish or other Holocaust refugees.

It was not until Pearl Harbor got attacked that the Americans switched to approving of punching Nazis, because at that point it was a matter of literally self-defense. That is when punching Nazis became seen as OK: not because Nazis were horrible people, but because they punched us first.

So when the folks at Marvel created that iconic picture of Captain America punching Nazis? That was a radical statement back then. That was a very, very ballsy, controversial thing to do. That was Jewish creators saying before Pearl Harbor, “This should be America’s problem to address, dammit!” at a time when they were the only Americans being affected and so the majority of Americans didn’t care. It was not something taken as granted to cheer on, and if the Jewish folks had gone around back punching Nazis just for being jerks they would have been viewed unfavorably and arrested for assault and battery.

And as you say, even that iconic moment people talk about wasn’t Kirby going around punching Nazis just for saying rotten things, that was Kirby threatening to engage in self-defense towards someone who made a threat of violence against him first.

Plus ironically that threat was made in response to the statement of a Captain America punching Hitler, because, again, the majority of the American public didn’t see that as a thing we should be doing, though only a minority were as big jerks about their disapproval as that guy who threatened Kirby.

Because you see, the thing is: Superhero comics are a fantasy. They are a fantasy where generally the bad guys are obviously bad guys you have a moral license to punch and the good guys are the people with the moral license to do the punching. ***

But the real world doesn’t work that way, especially in this era. Social, political, and economic power often matter more than physical power. And too many the people with social, political, and economic power are morally terrible people. And those terrible people can and will wield that social, political, and economic power against you, successfully, if you ever punch them in a way that doesn’t look good to the general public that fuels their power.

Because, I mean, Nick Spencer is left-wing! Like, the guy has constantly showed left-wing sensibilities and politics. A large part of his Sam Wilson run has involved sticking it to the right and promoting leftist ideas, to the point where he even pissed off Fox News for a time, and Nick Spencer has frequently expressed left-wing sentiments on his own time. Making Cap a Nazi was even borne in part from the classic far-left belief that all patriotic white people must be white supremacists. So this sudden idea that Nick Spencer is right-wing is totally and utterly bizarre when compared to the facts of what Spencer has historically stated and promoted.

No, the fact that Nick Spencer is saying punching people for talking is bad should tell you “the majority of the American public will view you as morally bad for engaging in violence for reasons other than self-defense”, not “Spencer somehow got a magic brain transplant and did an instant 180 to become right-wing”. ****

People like to complain about respectability politics, but the cold hard truth and reality is that politics is in the end a PR game. It’s a PR game where the people who get the best PR among people who go out and actually vote are the people who get into office and become able to pass policies. And it’s a PR game where the politicians choose to pass or veto policies based in large part on what will curry favor with the people who get them into office.

So the cold hard truth and reality is that being morally and/or factually right does not always mean anything. No matter how morally and factually right it might be to punch Nazis, if it’s not seen as socially right (and therefore usually also politically and/or economically right), you will lose and be punished.

So you then have to ask yourself whether the consequences of your group losing and being punished are worth the satisfaction of “morally justified” violence. And since the consequences for this round of the left losing socially was putting into power Republicans who fully intend to do things that will badly harm lots of people, I feel the answer is no, losing socially is not a fair trade for being morally right.

Then add onto all of that the problem that the group of people calling for violence against terrible people are often the same group of people notoriously terrible at discerning who is and isn’t really a terrible person. This is a group of people which has a historical record of continually strawmanning and twisting things people say, of profiling people based solely on their headgear and clothing and facial hair, of doing things like hypocritically saying that your skin color or sex or orientation alone automatically makes you inherently bigoted or other negative assessments. So on top of going around punching people for reasons other than self-defense being generally not a good idea, these people who want to punch Nazis these people may not even necessarily correctly discern who should be punched.

So all in all, please don’t invoke the ghost of Kirby to go around saying you should punch people for speech alone, especially since one more point: That iconic Kirby moment people talk about is Kirby having to respond to someone wanting to punch him for speech alone.

No, the real, successful way to fight the Nazis and other scum right now is to build your own social, economic, and political power high enough to fight them on their own battlefield unless they degenerate things into physical violence. Because only then will you get to punch awful people and still come out of it on top in the ways that ultimately matter logistically.

I won’t respond to any replies on this account to this specific post, FYI, partly because I don’t want political discourse to take over this blog, and partly because quite frankly most of what I’ve said here is simply reporting fact and the rest I feel logically follows from that fact, so there’s very little of this I view as up for debate anyway.

And anyone who would want to make any response about my being right-wing, a Nazi, a Trump supporter, justifying violence, victim-blaming, or so on, would do nothing but prove my point above about a certain group of people being prone to strawmanning/twisting and generally being bad judges of character, since I would hope it would be obvious from how often I post about minority characters, have lamented about comic titles promoting diversity not doing well, and was despondent after Trump got voted in, that none of those things are the case.

*** To address the people using the specific argument: “Nick Spencer writes comics about people punching bad guys, how can he say we should use polite discourse instead of punching“: Well, you see, Nick Spencer is this thing we call “an adult of sound enough mind to tell the difference between reality and fantasy” which is a concept the people who are asking that question should really look into.

**** And yes I am aware of Spencer’s “SJW Brigade”, which should, again, tell you how even left-wing people view stereotypical SJW behavior, not, again, that Spencer somehow magically became right-wing out of nowhere. It should be an informational lesson about some of the negative ways average people perceive leftist causes, not as a reason to knee-jerk classify people who are on your side as “the enemy” just because they criticized you, even if you feel it was unfair criticism.

Talking to a friend last night about how split/fractured the U.S. is at this point in time, how genuinely divisive and disturbing it's become for many of us. Uncomfortable. For both sides. (Especially for those of us who are Independents I would add...). He made several very intriguing comments. (Mind you he's more "left" than most Democrats. So he's no democrat. And I'm obviously not that. I lean both right and left, depending on what we're talking about. But we're okay with that. We don't let it come between us.) We were discussing the obvious mistake in judgement (besides a heinous disregard for basic ethics) that the democratic party made, and the subsequent harm this mistake has inflicted on its party members (AND everyone else in America) by not allowing their party to naturally go in the direction it wanted to, i.e. in support of an outsider, in their case Bernie Sanders, and instead just insisted that their candidate be Hilary Clinton, despite what their members were seeming to call for. Michael Moore called it weeks before the election. Trump would win. Truth be told my opinion is that Trump would have won against Bernie too. BUT many Americans would at least still be part of the system. They'd vote. They'd care. After the shenanigans (that's a very kind label for the crimes and corruption we witnessed) that the democratic party pulled to pretend Hilary was "the legitimate candidate", millions of people, especially the young, went back to their old MO -- "screw both of those parties, they both suck, screw this whole system. I'm out." And of course, many just didn't bother to vote. They stopped caring. But now here we are. Half the people happy with the outcome. And half the people very unhappy. Just like in the Obama years. Totally split. Which has compelled me to start thinking the same thought I think whenever I contemplate the "civil war" or as some people call it "Lincoln's war of aggression". (Their label.... Let's not digress to that yet. There'll be time for it later.) If people in red states are really happy with how things are and the direction they claim to want to go in, why not let them? And why not let blue staters go in the direction THEY want to go? Loads of people are anti-abortion. I get it. I'm pro-life myself. But also pro-choice. Hell, I'll even admit that abortion is murder in my humble opinion. But I just can't bring myself to believe that I have the right to dictate what another person should or shouldn't do in/with their own life. I believe that's a human right. So in that, I am liberal. I get it. It's upsetting to some. Makes sense to others. And frankly I'm okay with that. I'm also okay if half the population of the country wants to ban abortion. Totally fine with it. That should be their choice. Their decision. As my friend said last night, "If the federal government banned abortion tomorrow through all this supreme court stuff about to go down, ten states would hold emergency sessions overnight and pass a law to legalize abortion in their states. That's how it works. So it shouldn't even be an issue." He believes democrats have gotten lost in ideologies that distract them from real issues. He's entitled to his opinion. Just as democrats are. And he's right about abortion. Just like marijuana or gay marriage, abortion will become legal again in at least ten states overnight. Without question. So let's not quibble over it. Truth is, America IS split. Ideologically morally politically split. And it has been for a long time. What many don't quite understand about the ambassador is that I felt bad for republicans during the Obama years. Mind you, I was both a fan of certain aspects of the man -- he was a great orator, patient and thoughtful in his decision making and more liberally minded than the alternative, but I was also NOT a fan of many aspects of him and his agenda. (That's just me and it's not important.) The point is, oftentimes I personally felt empathy for republicans during Obama's years in office because I felt like the country was being pushed too far progressive too quickly for the comfort of many folks who leaned "conservative". And one could feel their pain. It was disquieting and upsetting for them. It wasn't the "America" they were accustomed to. Now I know that a lot of my friends who are democrat would immediately respond "too bad". Which is hilarious. Because that's just what republicans are saying to democrats NOW. But as my friend said last night, "You can't force people to acquiesce to your position. All you can do is make a convincing argument and hope they eventually evolve to your point of view." Totally agree. America was forcing an extremely progressive agenda on a large portion of the population and it was doing so quickly. Hence Trump. Safety. Comfort. Back to "normal" for them. Life feels good again. I get it. I really do. So why not let's just face facts and get real AND do something about this. Rather than all the arguing. We live in TWO Americas now. Maybe we always have. We may be united in our desire to be protected by our military against foreign invasion. And we both want to use the U.S. dollar as our primary currency. And heck most of us probably would all want to stay a democratic republic and primarily capitalist. (My aforementioned friend is the exception. He doesn't like capitalism. And i not only respect his viewpoint, but I can understand it to a certain degree.) But most of us can probably all agree that we are UNITED on those issues. Everything else, we're split. Totally completely split. No wiggle room. So why don't we just make it official and split? Many people may not readily remember that we split India up into two countries, a Hindu one and a Muslim one. It's called Pakistan. It's possible. It's doable. Yes geographically it will pose a few challenges. For the most part, those of who tend to lean more blue live on the coasts. WA to CA and MA down to VA, with a few blue states in the middle, SOMEtimes... Not only do we know WHO we are, we know what we want and what we don't want. And it's about time we stopped trying to convince each other that WE are right and YOU are wrong, and instead just make the split. Two countries. Dictated democratically by the people who LIVE in those countries. Think about it for a minute. Don't shut down. Red staters will ban abortion in their country. And they'll get NO argument or fuss from blue staters. Let them do it. Perhaps they'll close their borders off to immigrants of all shapes and sizes for a while. Let them. We have a labor shortage in America right now. (Maybe they don't get that? But who cares? That's the point. We need to stop trying to convince each other that the other side is "right".) So the blue states will take the immigrants. Red staters want to keep the healthcare system how it is. In fact they want to roll it back to "how it used to be before Obama messed it up". Cool. Blue staters want universal health care. They consider it a basic human right. Who are we to try to convince red staters they're wrong? Let them have monopolistic for-profit companies running their healthcare system and bankrupting them everytime they get sick. Seriously. Just let them. And blue states will switch to a single payer universal healthcare system. Consider "the welfare state" collection of issues. That's a BIG one. But it doesn't have to be. Imagine we just let the red states get rid of all the social welfare programs they want to in "their country". Welfare, gone. Food stamps, gone. Medicare and Medicaid probably reduced or minimized. Cool. We'll keep it in the blue state country. And from what we can tell, a lot of the wealthiest people in blue states don't mind paying a little more in taxes in order to secure a more humane safety net for their neighbors. So yay for them. Let them stay in blue state country. And if they don't like it, they can always move to red state country. They're rich. They can afford it. In the case of religion and religious imagery, let's face it, red staters have been getting the short end of the stick on these issues for years. They're being forced to take down religious symbols in their own hometowns. Forced to not be allowed to pray in their own schools. That just doesn't seem fair. I myself practice a religion. But I just happen to believe in religious freedom AND separation of church and state, and because I recognize that a lot of blue staters are Atheists and though they don't know it, that too is a religion, I don't mind their banning religion from most public things and from government. It makes sense from a strategic logical point of view. For blue staters. Maybe just not for red staters... As long as they let me keep my church and practice freely, I'm cool. And truth be told most atheists and blue staters aren't trying to rip down churches. But do they go too far sometimes? Yes, in my opinion, for the comfort of many red staters they do. So let the red state nation be rid of atheist liberals. We'll deal with them in blue state country. We don't mind. We'll take them. And red states can have whole public schools or towns even named after Jesus or Mary or Christ if they want to. LET THEM. It's their country. Dig? Now, we could go on and on. And what's interesting is that a lot of people are probably reading this and thinking that THEIR country sounds AWESOME. The country they most align with that is... And that's the point. Their country WILL BE awesome. For THEM. No more arguing on social media. No more protests and marches and screaming and shouting in the media 24/7. No more insane tweets from the president. Hell, most blue staters won't even read tweets from the red state president. And why should they? He's not their president. They'll read tweets from their own president. And let the red staters consider FOX News an actual media outlet. As outlandish as that may sound to some, it's their sovereign right as a nation. Just as it is the right of blue staters to consider the New York Times a media outlet (not that I'm equating one with the other. But many red staters do.... Let them.) Of course the blue state country needs to grow the hell up and recognize that MSNBC is NOT a media outlet. Call it what it is, political propaganda or entertainment. But that ain't objective journalism. Chances are it will be easy to get most blue staters to acknowledge that if they got FOX News the hell off of their TV -- except for entertainment purposes, like say you want to just chill and have a laugh after a long day at work. FOX News can be hilarious at times. It's perfect for that. But it just won't be called "news". More like the Stephen Colbert show. It's satire. It's funny. So let's get to the heart of the matter. The REAL heart of the matter. The red states will never allow the blue states to create their own country. And if they were smart, they wouldn't. Because the majority of the economic power of the U.S. presently is in blue states. The big dogs are all in blue state nation. Sound familiar? Yep. Now we're back to "Lincoln's War of Aggression" due to fear of economic collapse, where he ordered the entire force and might of U.S. military to attack the Southern States and force them to NOT secede. Even though they wanted to. Now I'm no Southerner. Nor a confederacy lover. Honestly the site of that flag creeps me out. But I respect other people's rights. And state sovereignty. And if southern states wanted to keep on truckin as they were and leave the Union to do so, so be it. The North was just too scared of what would become of them without the economic powerhouse that the South was at that time. That's the cold hard truth of it. And I just bet that the same exact people who wanted to secede 150 years ago would be demanding that president Trump NOT allow the blue states to secede and start their own country NOW. Think about it for a second. Regardless of which party you tend to side with. Will red staters really allow WA, CA, NY, NJ, CT, VT, NH etc start their own country and separate from the U.S.? Probably not. But not because they don't like the idea... Hell they'll love the idea once they get how awesome their country is going to be. Peace at last. Peace at last. But what would they do economically? Where's THEIR Wall Street? Where's THEIR Amazon and Microsoft and Intel and Apple and Google and Facebook and Twitter etc? That's the real issue, just as it was 150 years ago. Well, I'll tell you what they'd do. First off, a lot of republicans are smart and wealthy people who work on Wall Street. So they're not going to be without brains. Despite what snobby democrats think or say. Red State Nation can either start their own big tech companies. OR the blue state nation can easily draft up a bilateral free trade deal with the red state nation. Trump loves bilateral trade deals. He'll have a field day. Of course, he'll have to move. New York is just about as true blue liberal as they come. (But wasn't Trump a democrat for most of his adult life? Oh yeah, but sssshhhhhh. We pretend that didn't happen. I'm joking of course. Most know I sincerely believe that president Trump has noble intentions for America, is one hell of a hard working machine AND he's WINNING. Big time winning on a lot of fronts. I may not happen to agree with every direction he's going in or wants to go in, nor with his unorthodox methods, but unlike democrats (which I'm not), I don't mind admitting the above. And that's the problem with many democrats. They refuse to even entertain the possibility that Trump loves America and has good intentions. And that's just close minded and wrong. So... LET THEM LEAVE. See? Again and again we arrive at the same place. Screw the democrats and their progressive anti-Trump bs. Let them start their own country. Easier.) (Yes, I know, by now one might be thinking, "well where the hell are YOU going to live mr. ambassador?" Honestly I'd probably go Big Blue. I may not like democrats, especially now. But I do tend to just feel more comfortable in as liberal of an environment as possible. My motto, "if it's not hurting anyone, let us do it." And that goes both ways. Which also makes me align with the republicans a lot. Because in some ways republicans are very "let us do what we have the rights to do". And that's the problem with the country right now as it stands. We just have two very different groups of people who want very different things. So if red staters want guns in every room of every house and now in every classroom of every school, heck, let them have it. In that aspect, I may occasionally be more of a libertarian. Who knows? Maybe we end up with three or four countries. A little Europe. It could be very cool.) Of course there will be some discomfort in the process at the beginning. There always is. As many people will want to move. We have to remember that the red and blue demographics are symbolic. Most states are more purplish... But generalities do exist. Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina etc. aren't about to go blue anytime soon. And why should they? Truth be told, they shouldn't be forced to. Not when we have a simple solution right in front of us. Imagine a world where all the bickering and arguing and right versus wrong is just gone. No more "f*ck trump" signs and social media posts. They're gone. All that is over. For lack of a better way of putting it, we have our paradise and they have their's. And if you suddenly wake up one day and you realize that you don't like the country you live in, you can always apply for a visa to move to the other country. Heck it's just one state over in some cases. And we're still in "the United States". Sort of. And that's really what it comes down to: We'll still be united in many many ways. We'll share the military. We'll share the same currency. We'll share the same financial markets. But socially and politically and perhaps even fiscally we'll just be very different nations. And THAT would be a very good thing for everyone. We'll be less stressed. We'll be happier. We'll be healthier. And best of all we can finally make our own laws and stop this constant see-sawing with the laws every 4 to 8 years. It's maddening for all of us, no? Instead we let it go. We stop the madness. We accept that we are sincerely two very different groups of people at this point. So the question I pose to you on this eve of Independence Day, is not whether you agree with this or not. I've already made up my mind. We either head there and start implementing it now, or we continue to tear ourselves to pieces on a daily basis and keep feeling angry hostile upset sad and stressed. I know which I've chosen. No sense in trying to talk me out of it. And that's the point of this post. Those days are gone. It's a dumb game anyway. And a complete waste of time. My question is this: How do we start the process? How does it work? Where do we start? How did the South start? Where did they go wrong? How can we avoid the same fate? What's the strategy? Are there any legal grounds for states to do this? Or has the federal government gotten so damn big and bloated and fascist that it's made it impossible? (See? I told you I'm hard to peg down... But see, I'd rather try to respectfully convince my Blue State Nation citizens of the importance of smaller government than argue with red staters over gun control or immigration or social welfare programs or universal healthcare or abortion. There are just some issues that neither group is ever going to budge on. But there are SOME that we'll both be able to massage a little bit to make most people in each of our two countries happy. And that's really what it comes down to.) It's time to vote for happiness and health my friends. It's past time. Let's just accept our differences, stop the arguing and create two independent nations that are united on many or at least several fronts. And don't worry... We'll both still have Twitter and Facebook and Insta and Skype and Facetime. So we won't even miss each other. But we sure won't be bickering all the time anymore. Paradise I tell you. Absolute paradise is ours for the taking. All we have to do is take that first step.

Talking to a friend last night about how split/fractured the U.S. is at this point in time, how genuinely divisive and disturbing it's become for many of us. Uncomfortable. For both sides. (Especially for those of us who are Independents I would add...). He made several very intriguing comments. (Mind you he's more "left" than most Democrats. So he's no democrat. And I'm obviously not that. I lean both right and left, depending on what we're talking about. But we're okay with that. We don't let it come between us.) We were discussing the obvious mistake in judgement (besides a heinous disregard for basic ethics) that the democratic party made, and the subsequent harm this mistake has inflicted on its party members (AND everyone else in America) by not allowing their party to naturally go in the direction it wanted to, i.e. in support of an outsider, in their case Bernie Sanders, and instead just insisted that their candidate be Hilary Clinton, despite what their members were seeming to call for. Michael Moore called it weeks before the election. Trump would win. Truth be told my opinion is that Trump would have won against Bernie too. BUT many Americans would at least still be part of the system. They'd vote. They'd care. After the shenanigans (that's a very kind label for the crimes and corruption we witnessed) that the democratic party pulled to pretend Hilary was "the legitimate candidate", millions of people, especially the young, went back to their old MO -- "screw both of those parties, they both suck, screw this whole system. I'm out." And of course, many just didn't bother to vote. They stopped caring. But now here we are. Half the people happy with the outcome. And half the people very unhappy. Just like in the Obama years. Totally split. Which has compelled me to start thinking the same thought I think whenever I contemplate the "civil war" or as some people call it "Lincoln's war of aggression". (Their label.... Let's not digress to that yet. There'll be time for it later.) If people in red states are really happy with how things are and the direction they claim to want to go in, why not let them? And why not let blue staters go in the direction THEY want to go? Loads of people are anti-abortion. I get it. I'm pro-life myself. But also pro-choice. Hell, I'll even admit that abortion is murder in my humble opinion. But I just can't bring myself to believe that I have the right to dictate what another person should or shouldn't do in/with their own life. I believe that's a human right. So in that, I am liberal. I get it. It's upsetting to some. Makes sense to others. And frankly I'm okay with that. I'm also okay if half the population of the country wants to ban abortion. Totally fine with it. That should be their choice. Their decision. As my friend said last night, "If the federal government banned abortion tomorrow through all this supreme court stuff about to go down, ten states would hold emergency sessions overnight and pass a law to legalize abortion in their states. That's how it works. So it shouldn't even be an issue." He believes democrats have gotten lost in ideologies that distract them from real issues. He's entitled to his opinion. Just as democrats are. And he's right about abortion. Just like marijuana or gay marriage, abortion will become legal again in at least ten states overnight. Without question. So let's not quibble over it. Truth is, America IS split. Ideologically morally politically split. And it has been for a long time. What many don't quite understand about the ambassador is that I felt bad for republicans during the Obama years. Mind you, I was both a fan of certain aspects of the man -- he was a great orator, patient and thoughtful in his decision making and more liberally minded than the alternative, but I was also NOT a fan of many aspects of him and his agenda. (That's just me and it's not important.) The point is, oftentimes I personally felt empathy for republicans during Obama's years in office because I felt like the country was being pushed too far progressive too quickly for the comfort of many folks who leaned "conservative". And one could feel their pain. It was disquieting and upsetting for them. It wasn't the "America" they were accustomed to. Now I know that a lot of my friends who are democrat would immediately respond "too bad". Which is hilarious. Because that's just what republicans are saying to democrats NOW. But as my friend said last night, "You can't force people to acquiesce to your position. All you can do is make a convincing argument and hope they eventually evolve to your point of view." Totally agree. America was forcing an extremely progressive agenda on a large portion of the population and it was doing so quickly. Hence Trump. Safety. Comfort. Back to "normal" for them. Life feels good again. I get it. I really do. So why not let's just face facts and get real AND do something about this. Rather than all the arguing. We live in TWO Americas now. Maybe we always have. We may be united in our desire to be protected by our military against foreign invasion. And we both want to use the U.S. dollar as our primary currency. And heck most of us probably would all want to stay a democratic republic and primarily capitalist. (My aforementioned friend is the exception. He doesn't like capitalism. And i not only respect his viewpoint, but I can understand it to a certain degree.) But most of us can probably all agree that we are UNITED on those issues. Everything else, we're split. Totally completely split. No wiggle room. So why don't we just make it official and split? Many people may not readily remember that we split India up into two countries, a Hindu one and a Muslim one. It's called Pakistan. It's possible. It's doable. Yes geographically it will pose a few challenges. For the most part, those of who tend to lean more blue live on the coasts. WA to CA and MA down to VA, with a few blue states in the middle, SOMEtimes... Not only do we know WHO we are, we know what we want and what we don't want. And it's about time we stopped trying to convince each other that WE are right and YOU are wrong, and instead just make the split. Two countries. Dictated democratically by the people who LIVE in those countries. Think about it for a minute. Don't shut down. Red staters will ban abortion in their country. And they'll get NO argument or fuss from blue staters. Let them do it. Perhaps they'll close their borders off to immigrants of all shapes and sizes for a while. Let them. We have a labor shortage in America right now. (Maybe they don't get that? But who cares? That's the point. We need to stop trying to convince each other that the other side is "right".) So the blue states will take the immigrants. Red staters want to keep the healthcare system how it is. In fact they want to roll it back to "how it used to be before Obama messed it up". Cool. Blue staters want universal health care. They consider it a basic human right. Who are we to try to convince red staters they're wrong? Let them have monopolistic for-profit companies running their healthcare system and bankrupting them everytime they get sick. Seriously. Just let them. And blue states will switch to a single payer universal healthcare system. Consider "the welfare state" collection of issues. That's a BIG one. But it doesn't have to be. Imagine we just let the red states get rid of all the social welfare programs they want to in "their country". Welfare, gone. Food stamps, gone. Medicare and Medicaid probably reduced or minimized. Cool. We'll keep it in the blue state country. And from what we can tell, a lot of the wealthiest people in blue states don't mind paying a little more in taxes in order to secure a more humane safety net for their neighbors. So yay for them. Let them stay in blue state country. And if they don't like it, they can always move to red state country. They're rich. They can afford it. In the case of religion and religious imagery, let's face it, red staters have been getting the short end of the stick on these issues for years. They're being forced to take down religious symbols in their own hometowns. Forced to not be allowed to pray in their own schools. That just doesn't seem fair. I myself practice a religion. But I just happen to believe in religious freedom AND separation of church and state, and because I recognize that a lot of blue staters are Atheists and though they don't know it, that too is a religion, I don't mind their banning religion from most public things and from government. It makes sense from a strategic logical point of view. For blue staters. Maybe just not for red staters... As long as they let me keep my church and practice freely, I'm cool. And truth be told most atheists and blue staters aren't trying to rip down churches. But do they go too far sometimes? Yes, in my opinion, for the comfort of many red staters they do. So let the red state nation be rid of atheist liberals. We'll deal with them in blue state country. We don't mind. We'll take them. And red states can have whole public schools or towns even named after Jesus or Mary or Christ if they want to. LET THEM. It's their country. Dig? Now, we could go on and on. And what's interesting is that a lot of people are probably reading this and thinking that THEIR country sounds AWESOME. The country they most align with that is... And that's the point. Their country WILL BE awesome. For THEM. No more arguing on social media. No more protests and marches and screaming and shouting in the media 24/7. No more insane tweets from the president. Hell, most blue staters won't even read tweets from the red state president. And why should they? He's not their president. They'll read tweets from their own president. And let the red staters consider FOX News an actual media outlet. As outlandish as that may sound to some, it's their sovereign right as a nation. Just as it is the right of blue staters to consider the New York Times a media outlet (not that I'm equating one with the other. But many red staters do.... Let them.) Of course the blue state country needs to grow the hell up and recognize that MSNBC is NOT a media outlet. Call it what it is, political propaganda or entertainment. But that ain't objective journalism. Chances are it will be easy to get most blue staters to acknowledge that if they got FOX News the hell off of their TV -- except for entertainment purposes, like say you want to just chill and have a laugh after a long day at work. FOX News can be hilarious at times. It's perfect for that. But it just won't be called "news". More like the Stephen Colbert show. It's satire. It's funny. So let's get to the heart of the matter. The REAL heart of the matter. The red states will never allow the blue states to create their own country. And if they were smart, they wouldn't. Because the majority of the economic power of the U.S. presently is in blue states. The big dogs are all in blue state nation. Sound familiar? Yep. Now we're back to "Lincoln's War of Aggression" due to fear of economic collapse, where he ordered the entire force and might of U.S. military to attack the Southern States and force them to NOT secede. Even though they wanted to. Now I'm no Southerner. Nor a confederacy lover. Honestly the site of that flag creeps me out. But I respect other people's rights. And state sovereignty. And if southern states wanted to keep on truckin as they were and leave the Union to do so, so be it. The North was just too scared of what would become of them without the economic powerhouse that the South was at that time. That's the cold hard truth of it. And I just bet that the same exact people who wanted to secede 150 years ago would be demanding that president Trump NOT allow the blue states to secede and start their own country NOW. Think about it for a second. Regardless of which party you tend to side with. Will red staters really allow WA, CA, NY, NJ, CT, VT, NH etc start their own country and separate from the U.S.? Probably not. But not because they don't like the idea... Hell they'll love the idea once they get how awesome their country is going to be. Peace at last. Peace at last. But what would they do economically? Where's THEIR Wall Street? Where's THEIR Amazon and Microsoft and Intel and Apple and Google and Facebook and Twitter etc? That's the real issue, just as it was 150 years ago. Well, I'll tell you what they'd do. First off, a lot of republicans are smart and wealthy people who work on Wall Street. So they're not going to be without brains. Despite what snobby democrats think or say. Red State Nation can either start their own big tech companies. OR the blue state nation can easily draft up a bilateral free trade deal with the red state nation. Trump loves bilateral trade deals. He'll have a field day. Of course, he'll have to move. New York is just about as true blue liberal as they come. (But wasn't Trump a democrat for most of his adult life? Oh yeah, but sssshhhhhh. We pretend that didn't happen. I'm joking of course. Most know I sincerely believe that president Trump has noble intentions for America, is one hell of a hard working machine AND he's WINNING. Big time winning on a lot of fronts. I may not happen to agree with every direction he's going in or wants to go in, nor with his unorthodox methods, but unlike democrats (which I'm not), I don't mind admitting the above. And that's the problem with many democrats. They refuse to even entertain the possibility that Trump loves America and has good intentions. And that's just close minded and wrong. So... LET THEM LEAVE. See? Again and again we arrive at the same place. Screw the democrats and their progressive anti-Trump bs. Let them start their own country. Easier.) (Yes, I know, by now one might be thinking, "well where the hell are YOU going to live mr. ambassador?" Honestly I'd probably go Big Blue. I may not like democrats, especially now. But I do tend to just feel more comfortable in as liberal of an environment as possible. My motto, "if it's not hurting anyone, let us do it." And that goes both ways. Which also makes me align with the republicans a lot. Because in some ways republicans are very "let us do what we have the rights to do". And that's the problem with the country right now as it stands. We just have two very different groups of people who want very different things. So if red staters want guns in every room of every house and now in every classroom of every school, heck, let them have it. In that aspect, I may occasionally be more of a libertarian. Who knows? Maybe we end up with three or four countries. A little Europe. It could be very cool.) Of course there will be some discomfort in the process at the beginning. There always is. As many people will want to move. We have to remember that the red and blue demographics are symbolic. Most states are more purplish... But generalities do exist. Alabama, Louisiana, Florida, South Carolina etc. aren't about to go blue anytime soon. And why should they? Truth be told, they shouldn't be forced to. Not when we have a simple solution right in front of us. Imagine a world where all the bickering and arguing and right versus wrong is just gone. No more "f*ck trump" signs and social media posts. They're gone. All that is over. For lack of a better way of putting it, we have our paradise and they have their's. And if you suddenly wake up one day and you realize that you don't like the country you live in, you can always apply for a visa to move to the other country. Heck it's just one state over in some cases. And we're still in "the United States". Sort of. And that's really what it comes down to: We'll still be united in many many ways. We'll share the military. We'll share the same currency. We'll share the same financial markets. But socially and politically and perhaps even fiscally we'll just be very different nations. And THAT would be a very good thing for everyone. We'll be less stressed. We'll be happier. We'll be healthier. And best of all we can finally make our own laws and stop this constant see-sawing with the laws every 4 to 8 years. It's maddening for all of us, no? Instead we let it go. We stop the madness. We accept that we are sincerely two very different groups of people at this point. So the question I pose to you on this eve of Independence Day, is not whether you agree with this or not. I've already made up my mind. We either head there and start implementing it now, or we continue to tear ourselves to pieces on a daily basis and keep feeling angry hostile upset sad and stressed. I know which I've chosen. No sense in trying to talk me out of it. And that's the point of this post. Those days are gone. It's a dumb game anyway. And a complete waste of time. My question is this: How do we start the process? How does it work? Where do we start? How did the South start? Where did they go wrong? How can we avoid the same fate? What's the strategy? Are there any legal grounds for states to do this? Or has the federal government gotten so damn big and bloated and fascist that it's made it impossible? (See? I told you I'm hard to peg down... But see, I'd rather try to respectfully convince my Blue State Nation citizens of the importance of smaller government than argue with red staters over gun control or immigration or social welfare programs or universal healthcare or abortion. There are just some issues that neither group is ever going to budge on. But there are SOME that we'll both be able to massage a little bit to make most people in each of our two countries happy. And that's really what it comes down to.) It's time to vote for happiness and health my friends. It's past time. Let's just accept our differences, stop the arguing and create two independent nations that are united on many or at least several fronts. And don't worry... We'll both still have Twitter and Facebook and Insta and Skype and Facetime. So we won't even miss each other. But we sure won't be bickering all the time anymore. Paradise I tell you. Absolute paradise is ours for the taking. All we have to do is take that first step. via Facebook