The State Explodes Itself

In week two, the State scandelabra still gives off its gentle glow. Sadly -- but dolorous, plodding drama remains our daily fare, and rupture and cataclysm are yet to be invited in (but they wait, ever, always patient) -- the amount of fuel provided for the scandals is still tightly controlled. Thus, the light emitted by its burning provides neither warmth nor enlightenment. It is not a light to read by, not detailed or genuinely informative manuscripts in any case.

Yet we can scan those missives printed in large, block lettering. Since the media and most commentators write in the manner of a three-year-old unable to control his crayons, there is some material to be consulted, albeit with difficulty. A few instructive phrases and drawings emerge from the clutter. For example:

President Obama used his weekly radio address on Saturday to reassure the American people that he has “played no role whatsoever” in the U.S. government over the past four years.

“Right now, many of you are angry at the government, and no one is angrier than I am,” he said. “Quite frankly, I am glad that I have had no involvement in such an organization.”

The President’s outrage only increased, he said, when he “recently became aware of a part of that government called the Department of Justice.”

I am especially moved by Obama's obviously sincere pledge to "enforce what he called a 'zero tolerance policy on governing.'”

A few readers, those of bleak and bitter outlook (which stands in stark contrast to my absolute commitment to sunny, bumptious joy, utterly uncomplicated by any reference whatsoever to facts or likelihoods) might question the advisability of this particular executive -- Mr. Kill List, the Drone President, Death's Head in Perpetuity, as you will -- campaigning for anarchism. I greet such announcements, however dubious their origin, with welcoming arms. Calls for no more government must not be ignored. Preach it, brother!

Oh, you complain, but that report is not serious. At this particular moment, "serious" is a markedly peculiar word to apply to any aspect of these stories. Here's a "serious" news report. Top Obama aides, including Obama's chief of staff, all knew of the specific nature of the IRS abuses. They all "intentionally kept Obama in the dark." We are informed that systematically depriving the president of critical information is their job.

This is your government at work. "Serious" has been banished to another world. I ache for the moment when a single person, finally rebelling against the ludicrous pretense of treating muttered blurps and smuffles as language that signifies meaning, stands up at a press briefing, and cries in despair: "When you lie in bed in the middle of the night unable to sleep, do you ever weep for your shattered soul, that you find it so easy to be such a goddamned liar? And are we any better, that we refuse to acknowledge that you are a goddamned liar, and that we are all liars too?"

Now, that would be serious. It might even be momentarily interesting, until the suffocating forces of murderous convention and habit erased the question and the person who had falteringly, futilely reached out to connect with something recognizably human, in however damaged and attenuated a form. No, none of that for us. The White House spokesman declares: "“I mean, nobody’s been more outraged by the reported conduct here than the president of the United States."

He's only the president. It's not as if you can expect him to know anything, or to be aware of facts and events. I wonder if there's any point in hoping that a critical number of Americans might wake up and protest against this monstrous government. Is there any reason to protest a nightmare, or a fever dream? You pray that it passes, that you survive somehow. People may finally lash out -- when the children haven't eaten for two weeks, when gas is available only to "important" people with the required government documents, when the water that comes out of your tap is unsafe for humans and animals, when grocery store shelves are empty for months at a time. But they won't be protesting then: they'll be screaming before they die. And Boston tells us how the State will respond: with sufficient terror to ensure that most people scream behind closed doors, and die in agony out of sight, offstage.

In the meantime, the ridiculous pageant continues. Everyone plays his part, pathetically hoping that if we all refuse to acknowledge the truth, facts will contort themselves to satisfy our collective fantasy. And the State is insistent that we may view it in only two ways: either the State is run by the most idiotic collection of incompetent nincompoops the world has ever seen, or a gang of singularly determined, endlessly scheming liars and vicious, bloody murderers is in charge, who will lie about everything and murder anyone.

That is an aspect of this awful moment that carries a certain grim satisfaction: the State itself thus offers a comprehensive, irrefutable case against its own existence.

Hold the bastards to it. They could resolve the situation peaceably, and vaporize themselves.

You Say You Want a Peaceful Revolution

I desperately hope that this post proves to be entirely unnecessary. I wish more than anything that some people are already beginning to make plans along the lines I will describe. If they are, this post will be redundant and beside the point. Nothing would make me happier.

Even though I think it's possible that such plans are already afoot, I haven't seen any stories or reports to convince me that is so. (If you have, please let me know immediately.) So here goes.

I'll state at the outset what I would love to see happen: a massive protest on the order of a million or more people descends on Washington, D.C. At the same time, huge crowds of protesters also congregate in other major cities, at least five and hopefully more than ten.

The central peg on which such demonstrations could be structured would be an anti-tax protest movement. From the perspective of such a movement, the unfolding IRS scandal is a gift from heaven. I myself don't consider the IRS story a "scandal," because I regard the behavior about which we are now learning as typical of the State's operations (as I discussed briefly here). I also think what we're learning is only the smallest tip of a gigantic iceberg.

But with regard to the protest movement I'm describing, my particular views about this story are utterly irrelevant. The critical point is that the IRS story is getting a lot of attention -- and a lot of people are deeply, profoundly angry. Another part of the reaction is equally, and perhaps even more critical: people are very angry across the political spectrum. The fury isn't restricted to the left or the right: it encompasses people of every political persuasion.

For those who fervently hope for major changes to the abominable State that rules us, this is the kind of moment to be seized without delay. The peg is not simply an anti-tax protest: everyone will be asked to refuse to file their tax returns next year. It is perfectly understandable that only a very small number of individuals refuse to file tax returns now: the dangers are very great for the man or woman who does so alone. This is more true when the protester has a family, and particularly true when the protester has children who depend on him or her for survival.

But what if millions of Americans declare that they refuse to file future tax returns? Is the government going to pursue all of them? And what if a sizable number of well-known people, including some famous celebrities, join the movement? Would the government threaten all of them? I say: let the bastards try.

A little more than a year ago, I described what such a protest might look like. In that article, the prospect of an attack on Iran was the impetus for the protest -- but this description could apply with equal force to a tax protest:

Even much larger numbers of protesters won't stop the horror that may be coming toward us. Remember what happened in 2002-2003. There were huge protests across the world -- and still the war against Iraq began. So protests that last for a day or less and then disperse aren't sufficient. But what might work is 500,000 or a million people (or even more) descending on Washington, D.C. -- and simply staying. The purpose would be very simple:

SHUT THE PLACE DOWN.

Just shut it down. Don't leave. Shut the damned place down completely -- until the U.S. Government disavows any and all plans to attack Iran in the present and foreseeable circumstances. Think of it as Occupy multiplied by a factor of 10,000, or maybe 50,000. And think what might happen if New York, Chicago, San Francisco and several other cities were shut down in the same way. We'd at least get the bastards' attention. It would be a colossal news story.

Oh, that's crazy, you think. That could never happen. Why not? Attacking Iran is crazy. Invading Iraq was crazy. The U.S. Government claiming it has the "right" to assassinate anyone in the world for any reason at all -- or for no reason, just because they feel like it -- is crazy. Most of what's happened in the last ten years is crazy. I see no reason to believe that lunacy is a trait on which the fuckers in the ruling class hold a monopoly. Those of us on the side of peace and life, instead of war and death, are entitled to some craziness, too.

The IRS story is perfect for these purposes, much more perfect than the Benghazi or AP stories. The IRS story gets everyone where they live (or try to): everyone recognizes that if the State can go after Tea Party organizations, the State can go after them.

In that earlier post about such massive protests, I described in some detail an ad that would help to educate people and mobilize them to action. I encouraged others -- especially those with much larger readerships than I have (which is almost everyone) -- to take up the idea, build on it, change it if they wish (maybe you have a much better idea, which would be great!), and get it talked about. No one with a sizable readership did a damned thing.

I've been through this several times before; one major example from my blogging is described in the previous article. I understand why people don't do anything: it takes time; it might bring unwanted government attention to you; perhaps people think it's too fanciful and fantastic. Maybe they simply think it's a lousy idea. Then come up with your own!

But Jesus, what an opportunity lies immediately to hand. You can easily rewrite my Iran ad for the purposes of an anti-tax protest. The tagline of my ad was: "So ... who are the Nazis now?" The answer, which the content of the ad makes inescapable, is that the U.S. government's actions are equivalent to those of the Nazis. Yes, it would be hugely controversial. Yes, it might cause a firestorm.

That's the point.

So rewrite the ad with a different aim. Perhaps the tagline is: "So ... who are the French aristocrats now?" Or: "Who are the Ancient Romans now?" There are doubtless much better ones.

The fact that millions of Americans across the entire political spectrum are furious is, as I said, an incredible gift. I hope it isn't squandered. It doesn't matter in the least that conservatives and liberals (and right-leaning libertarians and radicals on the left) are angry for what might be largely different reasons. From a tactical perspective, you can set all that aside.

Several years ago, I wrote: "In periods of general social dislocation, upheaval and turmoil, possibilities for coalition-building appear that may not exist in other times. We are living through such a period today in many ways." In that essay, from November 2009, I discussed why I thought a coalition between the Tea Party movement and those on the liberal-left side of the spectrum was possible. That article had been intended as the first of a series. I never completed it -- primarily because I finally, reluctantly concluded that the primitive tribalism that dominates our politics in fact made such an alliance impossible.

Perhaps enough has changed at this point to make such a coalition workable. Now those who regularly follow politics know that the U.S. government claims it has the "right" to murder any of us it chooses, wherever we are in the world, for whatever reason it wishes. Tens of millions of Americans continue to suffer enormous economic hardship. Speaking generally, I think it is accurate to say that many more Americans are desperate and fearful today in ways they haven't been, even fairly recently.

Desperation is a profoundly uncomfortable state of affairs for anyone. It opens up possibilities for action that hadn't existed before. And millions of Americans, on both the left and the right (using those terms broadly), see a government that is more and more oppressive and abusive, a government that claims unrestricted power, a government that claims it can destroy any one of us it wants to destroy. The IRS story captures all those elements, and more.

In the earlier post about a new coalition, I described how what appear to be highly unlikely alliances can be forged, using the example of the anti-slavery movement. I wrote:

It is not necessary, and usually it is not even possible, to restrict one's compatriots to those with whom one agrees about all issues, or even a significant subset of issues. One need not and should not expect or demand that those with whom one joins in a particular cause agree with or endorse one's general views. In this case, Clarkson and Wilberforce disagreed on every other then-current issue of importance and controversy.

But they agreed about slavery, and they agreed that it must be ended. That is all one should require and, I stress, that is all that is necessary. As in this case, the goal must be very clearly defined, and the members of the coalition must be fully committed to it. I would go still further: provided the goal is defined in a way that is not subject to compromise and equivocation, even the reasons which inform the participants' commitment to that goal need not be the same. Provided they agree on the goal itself -- as here, that slavery be ended -- that is all that is needed.

Imagine Washington, D.C. shut down entirely for an extended and indeterminate period of time. Imagine New York, Chicago, San Francisco, Houston, Los Angeles and other cities shut down in the same way.

I absolutely reject the argument that it's not possible. History is filled with occurrences that no one predicted, with developments that no one had regarded as at all likely. And the world is full of possibility. The crime most frequently committed by most of humanity is to fail to recognize the fact of those possibilities, a fact sublime in its promise.

Start with a series of ads that are seen and mentioned everywhere: on television, on millions of blogs, Tumblr posts, and tweets. The call to arms can be very simple and direct: NO MORE TAXES -- UNTIL YOU CHANGE! Perhaps it is structured around the no-more-taxes pledge -- and perhaps the day of arrival in Washington, D.C. (and other cities) is Tuesday, April 15, 2014. We have lots of lead time. It could be the story of the century -- and for once, that empty phrase might actually be true.

As a strategic matter, and to encourage as broad a coalition as possible, maybe the call to arms should remain that open-ended: UNTIL YOU CHANGE. I wouldn't presume to suggest a list of demands at any time, either now or months from now. And perhaps such a list isn't needed or advisable; that is how coalitions are splintered. That kind of open-endedness might also be a good idea with regard to the bastards running the government. If millions of people descended on Washington and other cities and actually shut them down indefinitely, if millions of people refused to file tax returns -- well, who knows what the bastards might offer. It might be more than anyone now thinks. In effect, the protesters would be demanding: STOP WHAT YOU'RE DOING NOW -- where "what you're doing" refers to the oppressive, abusive, murderous policies of this government. (As I'm writing this, I think one demand that I would hope everyone could agree on would be that the government unequivocally renounce its claim of a "right" to murder anyone and everyone it chooses. But even that demand might be inadvisable.)

Consider this, too: if a series of ads appeared, if it became a huge story, if tens of millions of people signed the NO MORE TAXES pledge (have a central site where all the names appear, including, we hope, lots of famous people and celebrities), if millions of people additionally pledged to go to Washington, and San Francisco, and Chicago on April 15 next year -- and if all that happened by next January or February, the government might offer concessions in what they hope would be a preemptive measure. If they don't offer enough, go ahead with the April 15 protests. Once events are set in motion and gather sufficient force, possibilities will open up that are now unimaginable.

As conditions continue to worsen for many millions of Americans -- and they will, for that is obviously the State's plan -- the pressures on the existing system will grow. In time, they will grow to very dangerous proportions. History, and the logic of the situation, tell us that those pressures will eventually erupt in violence. At a certain point, violence will be inevitable. But we may not be there yet. There may be time for a peaceful revolution.

A lot of people are deeply angry, and torn with anxiety about the future. If those colossal energies are directed toward a specific end, an end which will appeal to millions of Americans, there may still be hope for peaceful change, and even change on an enormous scale.

Don't say it could never happen. Things that could never happen take place all the time, and sometimes on a monumental scale. What I'm describing -- what I hope for -- represents a massive, once in a lifetime event. And it all starts with a conversation you have with a good friend. If you have that conversation, millions of others might have it, too. Get a group together to get some ads made. Start planning for demonstrations next spring.

It can happen. You can make it happen. And as long as I'm able, I will do everything I can to help.

Start talking about it, or about another, perhaps better idea. No one else is coming to save you. And if he says he'll save you, he's the last person you should trust. Obama should have taught you that, if nothing else.

What are you waiting for?

For All the Deluded and/or Stupid People (which is most people), and a Second Iron Law

[UPDATE: I added a few brief comments toward the end of this post in an attempt to avoid one possible confusion. You'll find them in brackets immediately following the Second Iron Law.]

I may have some more particular comments about the various unfolding "scandals" when I feel slightly better than terrible physically, which is how I feel at the moment. I heard some of Limbaugh's comments on the IRS business this morning. Limbaugh's typically penetrating wisdom caused me several minutes of uproarious laughter. He went on and on about how "mean" the IRS and the Obama administration were to go after their political enemies. This is "unAmerican!," Limbaugh screamed. "America is about fairness," he intoned, "about the idea that everyone has an equal shot."

Along those lines, my favorite comments to date might be from a letter to the NYT:

I believe that all Americans, and not just the Republican Party, should seize on the issue of the Internal Revenue Service’s focus on conservatives. We should all be very concerned about a government agency using its power for political ends.

This is genuinely impressive. It is stupidity refined and shaped into a weapon of massive destructive power, stupidity that is positively metaphysical in its reach. Idiocy on this scale obliterates universes.

To use "its power for political ends" is what any and all government agencies do. That is the reason they exist. The State itself, including its various critical appendages (such as "the law"), is a weapon forged by the ruling class to protect and increase its own power and wealth. The State and its appendages are used against everyone else. Thusly, as explained by Albert Jay Nock:

The positive testimony of history is that the State invariably had its origin in conquest and confiscation. No primitive State known to history originated in any other manner. On the negative side, it has been proved beyond peradventure that no primitive State could possibly have had any other origins. Moreover, the sole invariable characteristic of the State is the economic exploitation of one class by another. In this sense, every State known to history is a class-State. Oppenheimer defines the State, in respect of its origin, as an institution "forced on a defeated group by a conquering group, with a view only to systematizing the domination of the conquered by the conquerors, and safeguarding itself against insurrection from within and attack from without. This domination had no other final purpose than the economic exploitation of the conquered group by the victorious group."

The same is true of the United States, and it has been true since the time of the founding. As set forth in that article, one of the ruling class's chief weapons in the founding of the United States was the Constitution itself.

What is notable about Limbaugh's comments regarding "fairness" and "everyone" having "an equal shot," and regarding the letter to the Times, is the universality of these particular delusions. In different terms (and sometimes in the same terms), every politician and almost every commentator now wailing and whining about how "outrageous" these abuses are offers the same perspective. This is true whether the politician or writer is conservative or liberal, or libertarian, or supposedly "radical." And as detailed in the concluding section of my article about how the Constitution betrayed the very brief and genuinely radical impulses behind the American Revolution, even writers such as Chris Hedges and Glenn Greenwald appeal to "the rule of law," and the "original" understanding of the law's purpose. In Greenwald's case, it should be emphasized that what he hails as an ideal -- "law has been completely perverted from what it was intended to be – the guarantor of an equal playing field which would legitimize outcome inequalities – into its precise antithesis..." -- tracks perfectly the rationalization and distortion offered by America's new ruling class to justify the Constitution. As stated by Terry Bouton:

[T]he governments that emerged from the Revolution often fostered massive inequalities of wealth. At the same time, they redefined "democracy" as an ideal that could be reconciled with those disparities. By transforming democracy into a concept that encouraged uninhibited wealth accumulation rather than wealth equality, the founding elite (and subsequent generations of elites) tamed what they could not defeat. They turned democracy from a threat into an asset by making it into a concept that supported their own ideals and interests.

In this manner, Greenwald not only misses the point entirely: he adopts and advances the State's own propaganda and heralds it as a noble goal toward which we must strive (or to which we need to return). When a well-known "dissenting" writer absorbs the State's propaganda to this extent, we are in very deep trouble. As, indeed, we are.

I want to mention briefly one other aspect of the all-too-familiar charade now playing out. Everyone, beginning but hardly ending with the asses in Congress, is demanding investigations! We must get to the bottom of this! We must fix these abuses, and make certain that nothing like this ever happens again! Every time we go through this routine, I'm reminded of something I wrote just before the midterm elections in 2006. Yes, my friends, almost seven bloody years ago. After setting forth the reasons for my conclusion that it wouldn't matter a damn whether Democrats won or not -- and who was right about that, hmm? -- I wrote a passage which applies to any investigations, any time, conducted by Democrats or Republicans (or anyone else in the national government and, at this point, in government at any level):

Ah, but the Democrats will investigate the Bush administration's endless crimes. The investigations will restore honesty, decency and "true" American values to government. All the universes will be saved! Do people actually believe this nonsense? All such investigations will be exactly like all other government investigations of itself. People seem congenitally incapable of grasping that all politicians are now part of the same corrupt system, which aims only to protect itself and its existing prerogatives, as it simultaneously seeks to expand them. (The exceptions in the political class are so few that they don't matter.) In the end, all such investigations and committee hearings will conclude just as the 9/11 investigation concluded (and any other investigation you care to name): some criticisms will be made, general fault will be found but no one in particular will be condemned in terms that might cause distress, and some new guidelines and regulations will be proposed and enacted. Neither party wants to judge the other too harshly or cause irreparable harm: they don't want to, because they count on the same consideration in return. Both parties are happy to accede to this deal, for it is precisely how their system continues on its merry course, guaranteeing their lives of immense comfort and privilege, together with their hold on power. Many of the rest of us, both here and abroad, will be screwed, maimed or dead -- and just when exactly did that concern the governing class?

And then, in a year or two or five, and as on every other similar occasion, inventive ways will be found to circumvent the brand spanking new guidelines and regulations -- and the corruption and dishonesty will continue pretty much as before, via new routes and avenues. It's all a charade, by means of which politicians, the major media, and "serious" commentators (and bloggers) can convince themselves of their own virtue, that this time they really mean it, and that everything will be different now. An interesting question is how many times people can fall for such complete bullshit, and still be regarded as serious, credible or intelligent to any degree at all.

It helps to perpetuate the charade -- one that encompasses every aspect of domestic and foreign policy -- that most people know nothing of history, either our own or that of other countries. It's as if none of it ever happened before. For most of these people, it's as if nothing ever happened before. No wonder they so easily believe that this time will be different. For them, there are no other times at all. Everything is new to them, even and especially their own iniquity.

In the case of the present "scandals," it may turn out that some scapegoats will have to be offered for sacrifice. If the scandals prove to be especially nasty and ugly, a few people may be fired; perhaps several individuals will eventually even go to jail. That doesn't alter the dynamics I've described. In fact, I spoke of this phenomenon in "It's not the sex. It's never the sex":

In exceptionally rare circumstances, a member of the ruling class may set aside the rules in a way that draws just a bit too much attention. As a result, all those "ordinary" people may become a trifle unruly; they might begin to wonder if the system is rigged against them in some basic way. Obviously, it is, but it would hardly do for the filthy masses to begin to grasp this central fact. In these situations, the ruling class will have to make some minor adjustments. ... A member of the ruling class might have to surrender one particular plum he had set his eyes on. This is not a matter of great significance for a member of the ruling class; there are many other plums waiting for him, including some of those plums he has enjoyed before. In all its essentials, his life of luxury, privilege and power will go on as before.

The ruling class will never open the door to anything that might seriously call into question its power and its prerogatives.

I will close for the moment by noting two of what we might term Silber's Iron Laws. The first is a principle I've written about for some years:

Any individual who rises to the national political level is, of necessity and by definition, committed to the authoritarian-corporatist state. The current system will not allow anyone to be elected from either of the two major parties who is determined to dismantle even one part of that system.

Although I'm certain I wrote about this dynamic still longer ago, one of my first uses of this formulation will be found here, where I discuss it in detail.

Here is a Second Iron Law. I've become convinced of the truth of this Law over the last several years; I think it is not only true, but that it must be true. This is how I now express it:

When the State's corruption and claims to power are so pervasive that they dominate every aspect of a nation's operations, attempts at "reform from within" will be transformed into "improvements" that are more brutal and oppressive than the particular original abuse the reformers sought to rectify. That is: the "improvement" will be worse than the original problem. Meanwhile, the abuse which the reformers sought to address will most often continue in some form; typically, its operations will be more effectively camouflaged, so it will be easier for both the ruling class and the reformers to pretend that it has, in fact, been '"fixed."

To put it another way: when the State has amassed a sufficient degree of power, expressed in the State's penetration and dominance of all critical aspects of a nation's activities, attempts at reform serve only to strengthen the existing system, rather than weakening or "improving" it.

[ADDED: I should note that, in specific circumstances, a reform within the existing system may be valid and important, and it may even improve some people's lives in significant ways. In that sense, the reform may constitute an improvement, but only in a highly delimited manner. And the Second Iron Law will remain true in that the existing system will be strengthened because of the reform, not weakened. So such an "improvement" still carries significant risks. These are complicated questions, and I'll discuss them in a future article.]

I guarantee you that all "reforms" that come out of the current "scandals" will follow this pattern. By the way, I refer to the current stories as "scandals" with quotes because they are not "scandals" in any manner at all, if we use that term to designate events which are truly shocking and unexpected. Whether we speak of Benghazi, or the IRS behavior, or the AP surveillance, we are speaking of behavior that is entirely typical of the State, especially of this State. And it was only last week that I reminded my readers once again of the overwhelming fact that "the U.S. Government already possesses the power to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants." I regard those people who profess to be shocked! and outraged! by these recent stories in the same way I regard adults who are devastated to discover that Santa Claus doesn't actually deliver their Christmas presents. I could simply say that that they're idiots, which is certainly what they've allowed themselves to become. It would perhaps be more to the point to observe that they are like profoundly damaged children who have never grown up, and who have never addressed the tragic wounds inflicted on them in their early years of life. I'll return to these issues.

I will soon be writing much more about the Second Iron Law, and I will offer several notable manifestations of this principle. And I will explain why I say it must be true. But one overarching, inescapable example of the phenomenon I describe should be tragically familiar to you: the presidency of Barack Obama. I predicted that this would necessarily be true of Obama -- and I predicted it before he was elected, in May of 2008. Because many people don't follow links, I offer you this description from the beginning of that article:

[T]here is nothing so dangerous as the illusion of opposition, when in fact no such opposition exists. Many of us have seen movies or read books which, in broad outline, tell the following story: a cruel villain inflicts terrible misery and suffering on innocent victims. A brave, fearless defender of the victims unexpectedly appears. The victims rally behind their defender, and they increasingly come to view him as their savior. The battle between the villain and his forces on one hand, and the victims and their defender on the other, rages fiercely. One side seems destined for victory, and then the other. It takes a very long time before victory is assured for either side; the toll of battle is awful for everyone. Finally, the villain defeats the victims and their brave defender, and the villain emerges as more powerful than he had ever been.

In the final scene, we learn the truth: the victims' defender had been working for the villain all the time. The defender had never been on the side of the victims: instead, at every critical juncture, he made sure to misdirect the victims' efforts just enough to make certain that the villain was never seriously threatened. The defender had to do this subtly; he had to lie on every matter of moment, and he had to do so repeatedly. He did all this expertly, and the victims never suspected his actual goal. The defender is handsomely rewarded for his work, for he delivered the victims into the villain's power, making certain that the victims would never again be a genuine threat. And the illusion is complete: even after they had lost and their lives had been destroyed forever, the victims never doubted their hero or the fact that he had fought for them so bravely.

The balance of that essay explains why Obama is the "brave, fearless defender" of that fictional story, and why he will always "betray" the victims he repeatedly proclaims he wishes to save and protect. Of course, it is only a betrayal to those who permit themselves to believe in delusions, and who cannot or will not understand the nature of the State that is increasingly determined to destroy our lives.

Some people will not forgive me for having been correct on this matter of singularly grave importance, or for having been correct for the right reasons. Tough shit.

And I'm not done, not quite yet.

On the Occasion of a Not-Unbirthday

This past Sunday was not my unbirthday. It was also not Karl Marx's unbirthday. Coincidence? And all those Cinco de Mayo celebrations every year ... yes, for me. So many people! So much wonderful food! I always tell them not to make such a fuss, but they do insist. Terribly sweet.

To acknowledge the occasion -- and at my age, and given my health, about all I can say is, "Hell, managed to survive another year! Still here to annoy you!," and then I laugh a lot -- here are a few things that have nothing whatsoever to do with politics, and therefore are not at all representative of the shit end of life. And thank God for that.

During the first season of Britain's new National Theatre in the early 1960s, Laurence Olivier, its first director, decided to revive an early Noel Coward classic, Hay Fever. In my not at all humble opinion, it is one of the funniest plays ever written; the second act curtain, if done well, is brilliantly hilarious to a degree that might cause one to collapse helplessly on the floor. Olivier asked Coward himself to direct. It was an enormous and well-deserved boon to Coward's reputation, which had suffered mightily during Coward's set-to with the "angry young men" who emerged as playwrights during the 1950s. (Coward later made amends for some of his intemperate remarks during the fracas, which went on for a long time and played out in full public view, with vituperative newspaper columns among other battles.)

Hay Fever is about a wildly flamboyant, staggeringly narcissistic theatrical family. They are also hugely entertaining (after several hours, they might well not be so in real life, at least that has been my experience, but this resolutely and triumphantly has nothing to do with "real life"). It turns out that each of the four members of the family (the mother, a well-known actress of a certain age, the husband, a novelist, and a son and daughter, both about 20-ish) has invited a guest to their country house for the weekend, unaware that the other three have done the same. (Once the weekend has taken a serious turn for the worse, one of the family refers to the visitors as "the drearies.") The family members are each looking forward to an innocent (?) romantic entanglement with their guest.

One of the visitors is Myra, who has designs on the husband. Myra is described, as I recall by the mother-actress in one of her more acid moments, as a far too obvious, would-be temptress who "uses sex as a shrimping net." In the revival, Myra was played by a very young Maggie Smith. The scene between her and the husband was done on television -- and here it is. Truly wonderful. (I just watched it again, and it is about as perfect as these things get.) From various reports, Maggie's most hilarious moment occurred in the third act, during an incredibly awkward breakfast when the guests are plotting their escape from this plainly insane and dangerous family. After eating a tiny morsel of food, Maggie-Myra declared, with contemptuous disdain that would shrivel galaxies: "This haddock is disssssgussting." At which point, the entire theater erupted, according to those same reports. Too bad that moment wasn't captured, but you can hear Maggie saying it with her nasal twang, can't you?

One of my favorite theater stories occurred during that revival. It was a big prestige production, so the celebrated Edith Evans was cast as Judith, the mother-actress. That was perhaps inevitable, but Evans was by then too old for the part and not at all glamorous or charming in the required manner. (The divine Rosemary Harris played Judith in a Broadway revival in the mid-1980s, and she must have been perfect in the part. I could happily kill myself for not managing to get to New York to see it.) I attended a Noel Coward tribute evening in Los Angeles in, oh, I think it was the late 1980s. Michael York was on the panel, as was Lynn Redgrave. Redgrave had been a member of the National Theatre company during its early years.

Redgrave told several tales about the Hay Fever rehearsal period. She was a wonderful mimic, and her Edith Evans impersonation was wonderfully funny, while also being very affectionate. In addition to not being right for the part, Evans had great difficulty remembering her lines, which drove Coward more than slightly crazy. Finally, before an early preview performance (not in London, as I remember), Coward went to Evans' dressing room. He informed Evans that her understudy -- Maggie Smith again! -- was entirely prepared to go on, and if Evans failed to offer marked improvements to her performance, Maggie would be put in. Evans was line-perfect that night, and close enough to perfect from then on. (The theater can be very cruel, which is news to no one.)

But the story I adore is a different one. Because some of you may be ignorant tarts who know far too little of the glorious history of The Theahtuh, I need to tell you that, very shortly after Christopher Marlowe trod the earth (far too briefly, and who ordered him killed anyway? and why?), Beaumont and Fletcher were also writing (mostly heavy-breathing potboilers of the kind then popular).

At one point in Hay Fever, Judith is playing "lady of the manor," exulting in the simple, beautiful country life (which she can't wait to escape via a return to the stage, where she will be loved once again by her adoring fans). She looks out across the sweet little river but a short distance from the house. During rehearsals, Evans would insist on saying, "On a very clear day, you can see Marlow." And she kept saying it: "On a very clear day..." Coward finally couldn't bear it another moment. "Dear Edith," he exploded, "the line is, 'On a clear day, you can see Marlow...' On a VERY clear day, you can see Marlowe -- AND BEAUMONT AND FLETCHER!"

She said it correctly after that.

If you want to experience a somewhat muted sense of what an evening of Coward would be like, there is a complete performance of Present Laughter on Youtube (Part I, and Part II). The play is second-rank Coward; I've always thought it would benefit significantly by being cut by roughly half an hour, or even slightly more. (Private Lives and Hay Fever, both of which I consider divine, move like lightning.) And the production is good, but not exceptional. Donald Sinden gives a fine performance in the lead, which is a killer role (originally played by Coward himself), Dinah Sheridan is lovely, but several of the others range from merely adequate to verging on poor. I blame the director, for the performers in general work far too hard at what they think is funny, rather than simply inhabiting the characters. Still, it's the entire play rather than selected scenes, taped during a live performance. And it's far more enjoyable than many other ways of whiling away a few hours. (I saw the New York revival with George C. Scott in the lead -- he also directed -- in 1982. Scott was truly wonderful, and hugely funny. Of course, he was a spectacular actor; in comedy, he was spectacularly funny. I still remember him from Plaza Suite close to 50 years ago, especially in the farcical third act. And Scott in Present Laughter was a revelation in terms of the range of performance that the play can contain: it's hard to imagine an actor as different from Coward in almost every respect. In that NY revival, Nathan Lane made his Broadway debut in the can't-miss, very showy role of the young playwright; he was wonderful, as is the actor in the Youtube performance. It's a terribly funny part when done well.)

My not-unbirthday wouldn't be complete without Maria Callas. Here's a Callas performance I don't think I've mentioned before: Dalila's first aria, "Printemps qui commence," recorded in 1961. Callas's voice was in serious decline, but she still had the resources needed for this particular piece. And it is a miracle of expressivity, phrasing, word and tone coloring, and everything else that is part of great interpretation. (You should know what she's singing during this initial seduction of Samson: here's the text with poor translation.) Mentioning Callas gives me the opportunity to once again offer two earlier essays for those who might be interested. They remain among my handful of personal favorites: my initial tribute to Callas and her art; and this later, admittedly wandering collection of ruminations on a variety of subjects. In that second piece, the concluding section (beginning with, "In my work, I write what I do...") tells anyone who cares the reasons that impel me to write, and why I always return to certain subjects. (Speaking of cuts: I seriously considered cutting a third of that second essay before publishing it. But then I thought: What the hell. It's my blog, and these are the subjects I love more than any others. So I left it the way it was. But as I said, it wanders in parts. Permit me the indulgence, if you will.)

If you wish to forget politics entirely for a while -- and those of us who remain remotely sane must desperately wish to do so, at least now and then -- I hope you enjoy a few of the links.

Unconsciousness Sometimes Seems the Best Choice

I'm a good person. Mostly. I don't deserve to have horrible things happen to me. Mostly.

I was making my morning rounds. I perused some news stories, read a review of the new Gatsby film -- at which point I realized I was voluntarily choosing to subject myself to horrible things. Enough of that!, sez I. Let's read Tarzie! That should be diverting.

And I saw this. Innocent lamb that I am, I followed the link to the Corey Robin article. And I read it. (I didn't claim to be a healthy person. I said I'm a good person. Mostly.)

Because he enticed me as he did, I am compelled to conclude that Tarzie is a thoroughly rotten human being. It's my own fault. He's not named "Rancid Tarzie" for no reason.

As for the Robin piece: I was reading along, thinking how tiresomely predictable it was, when my eyes grew wide with disbelief as I took in this passage:

No, the connection between Nietzsche and the free-market movement is one of elective affinity, at the level of deep grammar rather than public policy. It will not be found at the surface of their arguments but in the lower registers ...

"the level of deep grammar..." Jeepers. Do you need a pressurized diving suit to descend to that level? "in the lower registers..." Robin seems overly preoccupied with going deep and low. Funny that he mentions Freud in his piece. "Funny" may not be the most accurate word to describe this torturous characterological quirk. ("Quirk" is a decidedly polite term for the problem at issue.)

Whenever I read passages like that, I always have the same question; I apologize in advance for the use of highly technical philosophic terms. The question is simply: What the fuck does that mean? And I always marvel at the ability of professional bullshitters to spew reams of pretentious, vacuous verbiage, just as I rock with laughter at the transparency of the attempt at intellectual intimidation. "I speak of THE LEVEL OF DEEP GRAMMAR. That is how smart I am, you stupid piece of excrement! I am brilliant and supersmart, far smarter than you. You should take instruction from me, and be grateful for it!" The article is filled with similar passages; read it all if you need to punish yourself severely. (Given Robin's preferred method of argumentation, it's amusing that he accuses libertarian theorists of "ideological mystification." I believe our friend Freud referred to that as projection.)

When I am assaulted by carefully cultivated obfuscation of this kind, one judgment (among others) forces itself upon me: "You, sir, are an unmitigated asshole." I am aghast that people can make a good living ladling out such lumpy crap.

I noted one other aspect of Robin's article; in fact, it's impossible to miss. In the course of his not-that-long piece, Robin manages to pimp the following: his essay in The Nation (which Robin says is "long"; no, I will most definitely not be going there); the paperback version of his book (it's "now available"!); and the conference in Luxembourg at which Robin is "presenting." And Robin informs us, oh so casually, that he wrote his post from Luxembourg; that is just how special he is. You're not presenting at a conference in Luxembourg, are you? That's because you're a dumb shit.

That's a lot of self-pimping for a single post. Someone is indeed expert at marketing and selling -- and it's not only the monsters of libertarianism that so bedevil Robin.

It's a funny old world.

Helen Mirren, Dressed as Queen, Stops Gay Parade

Actually true. And she swore. A lot.

Unaccountably, they didn't mention that "Helen Mirren" is a drag act going way back. It's like post-modernist, deconstructivist whatchamacallit! Yeah, I know that "she" is married to Taylor Hackford. But ... Taylor Hackford? An Officer and a Gentleman? Everybody's All-American? Like, totally gay. Just saying.

Aw, I'm kidding. Or am I? (My favorite drag queen name is still from Torch Song Trilogy: Bertha Venation.)

P.S. C'mon, I adore Helen Mirren. Or "Helen Mirren." W/e.

Politics Is the Shit End of Life

Aw, what a bunch of grumpy sourpusses you are. (I see you, my friends. You are.) You think about the martial law experiment in Boston and what a stupendous success it was, and you're all sad and stuff. Or you contemplate the wider phenomenon -- how the ruling class is making broad-based preparations for violently stamping out civil unrest (almost certain to happen, and perhaps very soon, as "austerity" gobbles up the lives of more and more "ordinary" Americans, so that the insatiable appetite of the ruling class for more money! and more power! is momentarily satisfied) -- and you succumb to black depression. No need to worry about that! Once the State installs a comprehensive net for identifying those individuals suffering from mental health "issues" -- by which the State will mean anyone who fails to regard the all-powerful State as your greatest imaginable benefactor, and anyone who dares to question the idea that the State should have limitless powers while you have none -- the State will make sure you're treated for your problem. Look, you may get some good drugs, maybe some ECT thrown in to be certain you're "normal" -- and once you do, you won't care about any of this crap any longer.

I say, laugh at the fuckers. They must hate being laughed at. They work so hard at being serious and earnest, and well-meaning. They desperately want you to believe they're good people, and that they think very, very carefully about those measures the times call for. I just look at them and listen to what they say, and I think: What a colossal crock of shit. Politics is only and always about power, which only and always means power over other human beings. Anyone who devotes a substantial amount of time -- or his entire life, God forbid -- to achieving power is a shit-eating buffoon. The desire for power over others is the most profoundly deforming desire of all: it corrupts everything it touches. To put it very briefly: politics is the shit end of life.

On this point, I strongly recommend the Robert Higgs article excerpted here. A brief taste of Higgs:

Although I admit that the outcome in a stateless society will be bad, because not only are people not angels, but many of them are irredeemably vicious in the extreme, I conjecture that the outcome in a society under a state will be worse, indeed much worse, because, first, the most vicious people in society will tend to gain control of the state ... and, second, by virtue of this control over the state’s powerful engines of death and destruction, they will wreak vastly more harm than they ever could have caused outside the state. ... It is unfortunate that some individuals commit crimes, but it is stunningly worse when such criminally inclined individuals wield state powers. ...

With regard to large-scale death and destruction, no person, group, or private organization can even begin to compare to the state, which is easily the greatest instrument of destruction known to man. All nonstate threats to life, liberty, and property appear to be relatively petty, and therefore can be dealt with. Only states can pose truly massive threats, and sooner or later the horrors with which they menace mankind invariably come to pass.

The lesson of the precautionary principle is plain: because people are vile and corruptible, the state, which holds by far the greatest potential for harm and tends to be captured by the worst of the worst, is much too risky for anyone to justify its continuation. To tolerate it is not simply to play with fire, but to chance the total destruction of the human race.

Plainly, this is deadly serious business. Yet if we shift our perspective somewhat, we can also see that it is comedy gold.

I was reminded of the laugh potential when I stumbled across this NYT story this morning: "U.S. Is Weighing Wide Overhaul of Wiretap Laws." Here's the opening paragraph:

The Obama administration, resolving years of internal debate, is on the verge of backing a Federal Bureau of Investigation plan for a sweeping overhaul of surveillance laws that would make it easier to wiretap people who communicate using the Internet rather than by traditional phone services, according to officials familiar with the deliberations.

Think how much Dick Cheney must love this shit. I betcha he laughs All. Day. Long. Christ, here's Obama -- the great liberal, progressive, antiwar, civil liberties champion, what-the-fuck-ever Obama -- doing crap Cheney could only dream about. Again! For the 2,493 gabillionth time!

Okay, here's the second paragraph of the story:

The F.B.I. director, Robert S. Mueller III, has argued that the bureau’s ability to carry out court-approved eavesdropping on suspects is “going dark” as communications technology evolves, and since 2010 has pushed for a legal mandate requiring companies like Facebook and Google to build into their instant-messaging and other such systems a capacity to comply with wiretap orders. That proposal, however, bogged down amid concerns by other agencies, like the Commerce Department, about quashing Silicon Valley innovation.

That is goddamned sweet. Don't you think it's sweet that "other agencies" are "concerned" about "quashing Silicon Valley innovation"? The State -- this State, which claims it has the "right" to murder anyone and everyone it chooses, whenever it wants, for any reason it dreams up -- wants y'all to keep inventing stuff. Before it kills you! Triple Grade A comedy, man.

But that was just the warmup. Now we get to the good stuff:

While the F.B.I.’s original proposal would have required Internet communications services to each build in a wiretapping capacity, the revised one, which must now be reviewed by the White House, focuses on fining companies that do not comply with wiretap orders. The difference, officials say, means that start-ups with a small number of users would have fewer worries about wiretapping issues unless the companies became popular enough to come to the Justice Department’s attention.

They are so thoughtful and kind. And sweet. They're looking out for the little guy. The only problem is that the little guy has to stay little. Get too successful, and whammo!

Then the Times gives us the serious message:

Still, the plan is likely to set off a debate over the future of the Internet if the White House submits it to Congress, according to lawyers for technology companies and advocates of Internet privacy and freedom.

I like that "Still..." The "Still" means that the State is being reasonable. It isn't asking for much at all -- just the power to threaten companies with nonexistence if they fail to comply with the State's orders. But the State is going to do it nicely. It's kinda like the State ordering you to kill yourself. But the State realizes you might find it difficult to hold the gun and fire it into your head yourself -- so they'll send someone to do it for you! The State is only looking out for you and your safety. That's what the State does!

And we're going to have "a debate over the future of the Internet"! Again! Don't people ever get tired of this shit? (I've written about this for fucking ages; see "The Internet As You Know It Will Cease to Exist," from 2009.)

And here's my favorite funny part, which involves, of course, one of the spokesasses for the F.B.I.:

Andrew Weissmann, the general counsel of the F.B.I., said in a statement that the proposal was aimed only at preserving law enforcement officials’ longstanding ability to investigate suspected criminals, spies and terrorists subject to a court’s permission.

“This doesn’t create any new legal surveillance authority,” he said. “This always requires a court order. None of the ‘going dark’ solutions would do anything except update the law given means of modern communications.”

"This always requires a court order." Because the Obama administration would never, ever do anything at all without observing all applicable legal requirements.

I'll wait a few minutes until you stop laughing. Comedy fucking gold, dude.

Are you okay now? All righty, then. See, one of the funniest parts of this routine is that it's entirely true in one sense. That's because "The Law Is a Lie." Or, as I regularly phrase it, I shit on the Law. The Law is not the protector of individual rights and freedom, and it never was. The Law is a weapon devised by the ruling class to protect and increase their own power and wealth. The Law is one of the means by which the State controls you, as it strengthens the grip of the ruling class. Dictatorships and even totalitarian governments have laws. When you appeal to the "sanctity of the law" and the goddamned miracle of "the rule of law," you play directly into the hands of those who rule you.

When we understand this, we also understand, for example, the idiocy of all the earnest demands for the "legal memos" that purportedly "justify" the Obama administration's Murder Program. Suppose we had all those legal memos. What difference would it make? It seems doubtful that those who so seriously demand to see them expect to discover legal reasoning previously unknown to them, which would suddenly cause them to say: "Oh, yeah! Never thought of it that way! Sure, murder whomever you wish! I see now that it's perfectly legal!" Nor would such disclosure cause the State to give up the Murder Program, especially now that Congress has approved it. Give it up? Are you fucking kidding me? (And we have seen the legal memos "justifying" the Bush administration's use of torture. Did that make any difference? Not a jot. And the Obama administration never stopped torturing, although most commentators have enthusiastically, and very stupidly, convinced themselves otherwise.)

The continuing charade, as exemplified by this latest NYT article, is remarkably idiotic for another reason. The simple fact is that, because of all the powers already granted to the State and buried in statutes, regulations, administrative rulings and all kinds of other pronouncements that no one can possibly keep track of, "the U.S. Government already possesses the power to do whatever it wants, whenever it wants, to whomever it wants." I've been over this argument in detail; you can start here and here.

The State already has comprehensive surveillance powers that enable it to wiretap and spy on anyone it wishes, anytime, anywhere, in any medium. And since the State claims absolute power -- that is, the power to murder anyone it wants, anywhere in the world -- "debates" of this kind are a notably ridiculous sideshow.

But carry on, by all means. Let's have another debate about "the future of the Internet." Perhaps the State will grant a few concessions to its critics, who will then congratulate themselves on having fought another battle with some measurable degree of success. Of course, the concessions won't matter a damn to the ruling class, which will still be able to do whatever the hell it wants. And the ruling class will laugh and laugh and laugh.

But I'll be laughing too, motherfuckers. If we're going to be dragged into hell, and the ruling class now appears more determined than ever to do precisely that, I intend to laugh all the way.

Fuck 'em. Make my laughter a crime, shitheads! Oh, you did? Aren't you clever motherfuckers.

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

The Klown Quotient Increases

In one of my posts about the Boston experiment -- that charming exercise by the Terrorist States of America to determine how easily martial law might be imposed and just how much Americans will love brute State violence when it is deployed here at home (and our terrorist leaders now know that most Americans will love it adoringly and without question) -- I spoke briefly about the degree of competence most people wrongly attribute to those in positions of authority and power. In commenting on how profoundly mistaken that typical view is, I wrote: "The Killer Klowns of Death who patrolled Boston and environs last week are exactly as competent as that young, doubtless 'well-intentioned' guy who took your order at lunch -- and got it wrong. Now that should scare the shit out of you."

In my usual fashion, I was far too generous in my assessment of the Killer Klowns in question. (This is because, despite some critics' view that I am too bitter and angry -- an egregious vilification directly targeted at the most tender reaches of my soul -- I am a goddamned Mary Poppins.) That earlier piece devoted several paragraphs to a discussion of the fact that Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was outside the perimeter within which the authorities conducted their search, the perimeter they viewed as "solid."

While the authorities initially maintained that Tsarnaev was outside the perimeter, it appears that he was actually inside the perimeter:

Police officials initially said the boat was in the backyard of a house just outside the perimeter of the area where investigators had conducted door-to-door searches all day. But Commissioner Davis, of the Boston police, said this week that the boat had been inside the perimeter.

“It was an area that should have been checked,” he said. “We are not sure how long he was in the boat. There was a pool of blood near where the car was dumped about four or five blocks away from the boat."

Here's more on the same point:

Sue Lund lives about five blocks from where police engaged in a wild shootout April 19 with the two Boston Marathon bombing suspects and about eight doors down from where the one who escaped alive was found 18 hours later

Yet, during the all-day manhunt, she said police never searched her Franklin Street home or garden shed in Watertown, Massachusetts. Ten other neighbors had the same story and said they didn’t know of any homes that had been searched on Franklin, where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was discovered by someone on the street about 30 minutes after an area lockdown was lifted

“A lot of people’s lives were put in danger because someone in charge wasn’t doing his job,” said Lund, 61, as she stood on the wide front porch of her Victorian house. “People could have been killed because after the lockdown ended everyone came streaming out of their houses and suddenly we were in a combat zone."

As should be obvious, this revised version of events reveals even more incompetence than if Tsarnaev had been outside the perimeter. Now we're told that Tsarnaev was within the small area where authorities were convinced Tsarnaev was hiding-- but unaccountably, one entire area of Franklin Street, the area where Tsarnaev actually was, wasn't searched by authorities at all.

What the hell? No one was keeping track of which streets and which houses had been searched and which hadn't? So the authorities conducted a haphazard, hit-and-miss search -- actually, a miss-and-miss search -- and then, when this utterly incompetent search was completed in the view of authorities, "That evening they lifted the order [which wasn't an order but merely a request that people stay indoors], fearing he had escaped."

That is: the authorities believed an armed, exceedingly dangerous suspect was still at large, but that he had escaped from the area where they had searched. In fact, Tsarnaev was still within that area, where he had been all along. But the authorities said: "It's safe for you to go outside now! Enjoy!" Sue Lund is completely correct: "A lot of people's live were put in danger..." We could easily have witnessed "Slaughter on Franklin Street." Oh, thank you, glorious FBI, magnificent police, and superlative everyone else in authority! Thank you for keeping us safe!

As it turned out, Tsarnaev was not armed. So what prompted the police to fire heavily into the boat where he was hiding? Who the hell knows:

Here's another one to add to the list of lingering questions about the manhunt for the Boston Marathon bombers: Why did police fire dozens of shots into the boat where Dzhokhar Tsarnaev was hiding when he was unarmed and they were trying to take him alive? While police originally said that officers "exchanged gunfire" with Tsarnaev and captured him with several weapons, officials now say that no gun was found in the boat. That explains why no shots were fired at the Watertown man who found the 19-year-old in his backyard, but apparently the gunshot wound to Tsarnaev's throat wasn't self-inflicted — or at least wasn't a last-minute suicide attempt as police closed in on him.

Given the information available to us, I don't particularly fault the authorities for thinking Tsarnaev was probably armed (assuming they did believe that; at this point, I'm not at all confident about any aspect of this); that in itself doesn't seem to be an unsupportable conclusion at the time. But it certainly raises many questions about why the police fired "dozens of shots into the boat," since Tsarnaev obviously couldn't have fired first. Moreover, the police's behavior provides some factual basis for those who argue that the authorities would have preferred that neither of the suspects was taken alive. This sequence of events also provides a stark warning to all of us: if you think the fact you are unarmed might provide you a measure of safety in dealing with the police in some future scenario, think again. And again.

This level of incompetence ought to be profoundly shocking. As far as I'm concerned, anyone in a position of authority during this catastrophe should be fired forthwith; at a minimum, they should never again be in a job where they order people to take any kind of action involving weapons of any sort. (I myself would never let any of these Klowns within 50 feet of a microwave or a DVR ever again.) But, hey, this is the Terrorist States of America in the 21st century: they will all doubtless be promoted.

Two further points should be kept in mind. Although the story of what happened in Boston is now undergoing a series of revisions in a manner typical of the State (remember all the revisions to the bin Laden assassination story, as one example), the story (with revisions) remains the story the State wants to tell. This is what the State wants us to know. The revisions are parceled out, bit by bit, in small increments so as to prevent too many people from noticing what colossal fuckups these people are. And it works! Just imagine what the actual story is -- and the degree of incompetence the full truth would reveal.

Second: this degree of incompetence is typical of the State. The State fucks up everything it touches. We are all familiar with the stories about a SWAT team descending on a house in a drug raid, killing the family dog, and maybe killing a human being or two just for kicks. Then it turns the house they wanted was actually the one next door. You should also recognize that this is the way U.S. military and covert forces conduct operations abroad. Did you think that U.S. armed forces knew precisely what they were doing in Iraq? Or that they demonstrate superlative competence in Afghanistan, or Pakistan, or Yemen, or Somalia, or many other countries today? (This is an inquiry separate from the question of what the hell they are doing there in the first place -- and of course, they should not be there. My argument is that, even on their own terms, their incompetence is staggering.)

They never demonstrate competence in any measurable degree. They are just as competent overseas as they were in Boston -- which is to say they are not competent at all. But they certainly have many fearsome weapons at their disposal, and they feel no reluctance about using them. (Some will argue that the State does, in fact, get a lot done, both domestically and abroad. To which, my brief answer is: Give the State massive powers, and of course it will get some things done. This kind of defense of the State follows the same pattern as the argument that Obamacare is "good" because it will help some people. As I've discussed, that is an idiotic and utterly invalid argument.)

Equally distressing is the fact that the stupendous incompetence shown in Boston will not cause most people to question their idealization of authority, or to revise their view that those involved in the Boston experiment were "brave heroes." Much remains to be said about why this idealization of authority is so deeply ingrained in almost everyone, and why it is close to impossible to dislodge. I'll get to it soon.