My thanks to Violeta Kelertas*
I STAND LIKE HAMLET
my own, with eyeless
Lachrymal bone, give me
back my tears. Coronal
sutures, unstitch
life’s dead-end labyrinths.
Peace, peace, sweet prince.
on one side the Angel of Death,
that which vanishes,
~ Oriana
Leonardo da Vinci, anatomical drawings
*
IS BEAUTY NATURAL?
In
1833, two years into his five-year voyage on the HMS Beagle, a
24-year-old Charles Darwin wrote a letter home to his sister Catherine,
entreating her for supplies. He didn’t ask for food or funds (which were
running thin, given his unpaid position as the ship’s naturalist) but
for something he thought more essential: ‘When you read this I am afraid
you will think that I am like the Midshipman in Persuasion who never
wrote home, excepting when he wanted to beg: it is chiefly for more
books; those most valuable of all valuable things.’
Both Darwin
and the ship’s Captain, Robert FitzRoy, were deeply concerned with which
books to take on board and how to fit as many as possible. FitzRoy
writes that ‘considering the limited disposable space in so very small a
ship, we contrived to carry more instruments and books than one would
readily suppose could be stowed away in dry and secure places’.
Darwin
lived for five years in a cabin that also functioned as the ship’s
library; perhaps some 400 volumes were crammed into a roughly 10 ft by
11 ft space. He slept and worked surrounded by teeming bookcases,
bindings eroded by damp sea air and swaying slightly with the tide.
His
favorites are clear from his papers, and his 1833 reference to Jane
Austen’s Persuasion is one among many. Two years earlier, when he first
began the journey as a fresh university graduate, he told his sister
Caroline: ‘I will not take Persuasion, as the Captain says he will not
read it, & there is no danger of my forgetting it.’ His
correspondence is dotted with Austen references in a way that conveys a
genuine fluency with her work. ‘Lydiaish’ means flirtatious, ‘like Mrs
Bates’ code for overly doting, ‘like Lady Cath. de Burgh’ stands in for
stern, and ‘a Captain Wentworth’ was his cousin’s term of endearment for
Captain FitzRoy. His private notebooks likewise reference numerous
Austen characters, and three of Austen’s novels figure on his 1838-40
reading list.
Though she would never encounter Darwin’s research –
Austen died in 1817 – her own work was steeped in the same scientific
and philosophical tradition that paved the way for his theory of
evolution. She wrote in an era obsessed with explaining the natural
world; the word ‘biology’ burst into usage in England around 1800.
Austen’s acute, almost clinical, attention to detail resembles the style
of early British naturalists. In Jane Austen and Charles Darwin (2008),
the literature scholar Peter Graham explores parallels between Austen’s
sensibility and Darwin’s, arguing that both ‘were keen observers of the
world before them, observers who excelled both in noticing microcosmic
particulars and … discerning the cosmic significance of those small
details.’
The two also share a concern with the philosophically
rich relationship between the natural world and aesthetic beauty. Darwin
was fascinated by capricious ornamentation – natural features such as
the peacock’s plumes, which seemed to serve no other purpose but beauty,
even to the detriment of other sorts of biologic fitness. He saw a
paradox: the naturalist posits that all that exists can be explained in
natural terms. And, yet, there is a sense in which ornament, in its
superfluity, goes beyond what nature dictates. How can the naturalist
make sense of ‘excessive’ beauty, of nature’s ‘wonderful extreme’, which
may appear to defy or transcend the closed logic of the naturalistic
worldview?
Austen prefigures Darwin’s contention that aesthetic
ornamentation is a natural human practice that places us in continuity
with the wider natural world. Like Darwin, she grapples with ornament’s
apparent superfluity, and the tension between naturalism and aesthetic
‘excess’. She writes evocatively of this clash in Pride and Prejudice:
‘I shall never forget her appearance this morning. She really looked
almost wild,’ gossips Mrs Hurst after Elizabeth traipses across dirty
fields to see her ill sister. Worst of all: ‘her petticoat; I hope you
saw her petticoat, six inches deep in mud, I am absolutely certain’. The
aesthetic is literally drenched in the natural; human ornament splashed
with mud.
In his love for Austen’s work, we glimpse a Darwin
less often discussed: one with a deep reverence for beauty, aesthetics
and the arts. In Austen’s relentless observation, we glimpse an artist’s
scrupulous scientific eye. Darwin and Austen form two sides of the same
Janus-faced dilemma. What is the role of beauty in the naturalist’s
worldview? What is the role of naturalism in the artist’s?
Austen
is obsessed with the natural. A keyword search yields that she uses
some variant of the word ‘natural’ more than 500 times in her six
novels. In Northanger Abbey (1817), Catherine reaps the blessings of
‘natural folly in a beautiful girl’ and is possessed by ‘feelings rather
natural than heroic’. In Pride and Prejudice (1813), there is Lydia’s
‘high animal spirits’ and ‘natural self-consequence’, and in Sense and
Sensibility (1811), Edward’s ‘natural shyness’ obscures his (‘by no
means deficient’) ‘natural taste’. In Mansfield Park (1814), we see
‘natural claims’ and ‘natural powers’, and in Emma (1816), Harriet’s
‘natural graces’ run up against artificial class boundaries. In Austen’s
final novel, and perhaps Darwin’s favorite, Persuasion (1818), Anne
reasons with herself, insisting ‘how natural’ is the ‘oblivion of the
past’ as she attempts to forget Frederick and his ‘natural sensation of
curiosity’.
Austen’s interest in the natural is readily apparent.
Her relationship to naturalism is more difficult to pin down. There are
two closely related respects in which Austen might be called a
naturalist. Firstly, she is stylistically engaged with naturalism as an
artistic movement, or what Peter Graham describes as ‘selective and
artful manipulation of detail’. In his naturalist manifesto ‘The
Experimental Novel’ (1893), Émile Zola characterized this as an aversion
to ‘irrational and supernatural explanations’. In Northanger Abbey,
Austen makes her literary naturalism transparent; she critiques a
popular journal’s ‘unnatural characters’ and ‘improbable circumstances’
as a mark against its literary merit. Northanger expresses through
satire what Zola asserts in his manifesto: ‘[N]ature, being there, makes
itself felt, or at least that part of nature of which science has given
us the secret, and about which we have no longer any right to romance.’
This
naturalism involves not a denial of emotion (as we often see Austen’s
heroines attempt) but, as Zola puts it, ‘the necessity of analyzing
anger and love, of discovering exactly how such passions work in the
human being’ through careful observation. For him, naturalist literature
provides us with ‘human data’ and indeed, for Graham, Austen is a
master of the form, taxonomizing the social ecosystems of
strategically limited ‘knowable communities’, from Highbury to Bath, in a
manner not dissimilar to the way that Darwin analyzes the ecosystem of
the Galápagos Islands. She is sober in her pursuit of the mundanities a
natural historian would note in their daily log; ‘of all this
littleness, she evades nothing, and nothing is slurred over,’ writes
Virginia Woolf in 1925 on Austen’s style. Likewise, in an 1850 letter
critiquing Austen, Charlotte Brontë decries her ‘miniature delicacy’.
Austen is a naturalist in form and methodology. Her use of detail and
carefully circumscribed choice of scope allows her to pursue a
particular realism and psychological acuity.
The second way in
which Austen engages with naturalism extends beyond participation in the
literary movement, to her philosophical commitments. As Graham
summarizes, a philosophical naturalist is ‘someone who believes that
natural causes offer sufficient explanation of the world, its origins,
and its development.’ This philosophical perspective is generally
characterized by an extreme sort of empiricism that privileges the
scientific method as the highest, or even only, avenue to truth. Graham
proclaims Austen and Darwin as ‘perhaps the great English empiricists of
the 19th century’. Austen’s ‘clear, cold eye’ directed ‘at the concrete
particulars of the world’ situates her alongside philosophical
empiricists who rejected the existence of anything that couldn’t be
verified through sense data, ie, non-material things like God,
mind/consciousness, Platonist universals, transcendent moral law, etc.
Indeed,
Austen’s work models a sort of everyday analogue to the scientific
method. I would argue that the primary mode by which her characters
progress in their moral development is via a form of epistemic humility
and responsiveness to evidence. By learning to see beyond their
motivated biases, Austen’s heroines are able to take in new information
that allows them to better understand their social world. This can be
seen everywhere in Austen’s work: Elizabeth’s revision of her hypothesis
about Darcy’s character, in light of the updated evidence of the
fateful letter; Emma’s continual observations and modifications of
hypotheses regarding ideal matches; Marianne’s revised judgment of
Colonel Brandon – the list goes on.
Northanger Abbey offers a
particularly powerful demonstration of Austen’s naturalism, marrying
both its stylistic and philosophical dimensions. Writing in The Journal
of Aesthetic Education in 2008, Eva Dadlez argues that Northanger Abbey
mounts ‘a naturalistic argument for the adoption of naturalism …
Step-by-step, Austen moves us from melodrama to naturalism, negotiating
an evolution in our reactions and our sympathies as she does so.’ In her
1850 letter, Brontë laments how Austen ‘ignores … the unseen seat of
reality.’ If Austen is a naturalist, this is not a failure but a triumph
because, for the naturalist, there is no such ‘unseen’.
In his
early writings, Darwin ‘conceived of beauty first of all as scandalous
excess, as potentially self-destructive luxury,’ writes Menninghaus.
This was a deep problem for the naturalistic worldview in which what
exists is what evolution strictly accounts for. Excess is an unnatural
aberration, its putative existence a counterpoint to the theory. In
Sense and Sensibility, we see a vivid instance of ornament’s destructive
tendency: a pin in Lady Middleton’s dress pierces her progeny,
‘slightly scratching the child’s neck’ as it ‘produced from this pattern
of gentleness such violent screams’. The order of life and its
perpetuation through motherhood is marred by a tiny ornament.
In
his later work, Darwin offers a way to reconcile the tension between the
apparent existence of excessive beauty and naturalism’s denial of
excess. His solution is a paradox at the heart of existence: superfluity
is itself necessary and, as such, never really superfluous. He assigns
ornamentation a biologic function in sexual selection. Menninghaus
writes that ‘though [they are] mostly handicaps in the “general
conditions of life”, esthetic ornaments provide competitive advantages
in the highly specialized context of sexual courtship.’ As Darwin puts
it in The Descent of Man, ‘the power to charm the female has sometimes
been more important than the power to conquer other males in battle.’
In
part, the very purposelessness of these aesthetic features is what
renders them desirable. One recalls the fragile fabric of Northanger’s
Mrs Allen’s dress at the first ball in Bath, impractical for dancing,
but ‘such a delicate muslin’, unlike anything ‘in the whole room, I
assure you.’ Its delicacy impedes the dress’s function, and yet this
very delicacy is what distinguishes the dress and makes it attractive.
By devising a functional explanation for the appearance of excess,
Darwin can make sense of ornamentation in a purely naturalistic
framework. Far from being unnatural, abundant ornamentation is a
phenomenon germane to, and demanded by, the natural world. What we might
perceive as excessive beauty is an illusion. Nothing in nature is
genuinely superfluous. These instances of ‘extreme beauty’ serve a
critical function in providing competitive advantages in sexual
selection.
Both Darwin and Austen are sharp observers, responsive
to evidence and resistant to supernatural explanations. And, yet, the
pair also share an obsessive interest in beauty, in its abundant and
even superfluous presence in our world, and the way it may threaten a
naturalistic worldview. Reading them alongside one another enriches our
understanding of both. Darwin’s love for Austen illuminates his deep
fascination with the esthetic, and his contention that accounting for
beauty is an important part of giving an account of the natural world.
Austen, read alongside Darwin, invites questions regarding the contours
and perhaps limitations of her naturalism. In her insistence that
fashion can be engaged with in more or less natural ways, she resists
Darwinian resolution without fully committing to Benjamin’s
transcendence. This tension between totalizing naturalism and a
transcendent esthetics of ornamentation pulses throughout her corpus,
and keeps the questions she and Darwin both grappled with alive and in
view.
https://aeon.co/essays/how-austen-and-darwin-converged-on-the-question-of-beauty?utm_source=Aeon+Newsletter&utm_campaign=88a238e8dd-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2024_11_08&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_-e088b817f1-838110632
*
FROM KAFKA’S “DEAREST FATHER” LETTER
“And I could never understand why you were insensitive to the sorrow and shame you inflicted on me with your words and judgements —it was as if you didn't sense your own power. And I certainly made you ill with words; but I knew what I was doing, though it hurt me, but I couldn't control myself. I couldn't hold back my words though I regretted them. But you landed blows with your words and you were clueless — you never pitied anybody, not then, not later — and people were defenseless before you.”
*
Hermann Kafka (1854-1931) was the fourth child of Jakob Kafka, a shochet or ritual slaughterer in Osek, a Czech village with a large Jewish population located near Strakonice in southern Bohemia. Hermann brought the Kafka family to Prague. After working as a traveling sales representative, he eventually became a fashion retailer who employed up to 15 people and used the image of a jackdaw (kavka in Czech, pronounced as kafka) as his business logo.
*
James Baldwin, for LIFE Magazine in 1963
"An artist is a sort of emotional or spiritual historian."
*
WHY TRUMP WON (ACCORDING TO THE GUARDIAN)
~ “It’s like being sucked into a tsunami,” said Vivian Glover, a Kamala Harris voter from South Carolina, about the realization that Donald Trump had been re-elected as president.
“The contrast between the two campaigns couldn’t have been more stark. On the one hand an intelligent, highly qualified public servant with a unifying message, and the opponent someone who epitomizes corruption, immorality, dishonesty, incompetence, racism, misogyny, tyranny and has clearly indicated his willingness to embrace authoritarianism.”
“This election felt like a chance for real change, and I was inspired by the idea of having a female president,” said Sydney, 40, a teacher from New York. “I believed in her vision for a more inclusive and just America, and it’s difficult to let go of that hope.”
Despite Sydney’s disappointment, Trump’s decisive victory and remarkable political comeback did not surprise her. “I think the biggest issue for a lot of Americans is simply the economy,” she said.
Glover and Sydney were among many hundreds of US voters who shared with the Guardian via an online callout and follow-up interviews how they felt about the outcome of the presidential election, what had decided their vote and what their hopes and fears were for Trump’s second presidential term.
Among those who had voted Republican, many said they had expected a Trump win, and that the polls had never properly reflected the atmosphere on the streets of their communities. They had voted for Trump, many said, because they felt he would handle the economy and international geopolitics better than Harris would have done, and because they wanted a crackdown on illegal immigration.
Various Trump voters, among them young first-time voters, women and citizens with immigration backgrounds, said they had voted for the billionaire this time because they saw a vote for Trump as a “vote against woke” and against what they saw as leftwing extremism, a vote for “common sense”, and as a vote against “biased” media, which they felt had unfairly persecuted Trump for years and could no longer be trusted.
Scores of Trump voters expressed outrage about Democrats including Harris and Hillary Clinton likening Trump to Hitler and calling him a fascist.
Some male respondents said they had voted for Trump because they were tired of men being “vilified”, unfairly called “misogynist” and “blamed for everything”.
Although Trump was far from perfect, many supporters said, his second term would hopefully lead to more peace globally, economic stability and an improvement to their financial situation, more secure borders, and a return to meritocracy and “family values”.
Of those who said they had voted for the Harris-Walz ticket, many were shocked by the election result and had expected a Democratic victory, citing extremely tight polls and Harris’s perceived strong pull among younger people and women.
Various Democratic voters blamed Trump’s landslide victory on a lack of education among his supporters, as well as on social media platforms such as X and YouTube, where the “manosphere” has become highly effective at undermining progressives, their policies and campaigns.
Becky Boudreau-Schultz, 50, a receptionist and the mother of a teenage boy from Mason, Michigan, felt the Democrats had underestimated the sway of these platforms.
Trump, she said, “put on a show” that sought to tap people’s fears about immigration and loss of independence.
“His followers eat that up. Kamala ran on civility but, obviously, that is not America’s mood. Mainstream media seemed to warn people of Trump’s horrible potential but his supporters weren’t and aren’t watching.”
Instead, she felt, voters were turning to “social media echo chambers that masquerade as actual news sources”.
Many Democratic voters were highly critical of the Harris campaign, which, scores felt, had been out of touch with the average voter, did not sufficiently connect with concerns of young men and ethnic minorities, and had failed to address Americans’ most pressing worries. It had been a mistake, many said, that the campaign had centered on vague, abstract slogans such as “saving democracy” and “not going back”.
“What I’m reading and watching suggests the Harris team and many others misjudged much of the electorate,” said Judith, a retired Harris voter from Vermont.
“The population needed more attention on food prices, gas prices. Hearing how robust the economy is does not buy their groceries. The Hispanic and Black populations feared their job security would be threatened by allowing more immigrants into this country. These things mattered more than Trump’s reputation and criminal record. I get it, sadly.”
“We lost it because we’re not speaking to the issues that Americans are so concerned about,” said 77-year-old Bill Shlala, from New Jersey, a Democrat who has voted Republican in some races over the years, and who worked in special education.
“We’re not talking about, how do I not lose my house to medical bills? How do I afford to send my child to college? Joe Biden has attempted to correct that a little bit, especially with outreach to unions, but we became the party of the elites.
“The Republicans and the extremists understand the angst of the American people, and they’re calling on that angst without any real plan. But then we presented no alternative.”
Many Harris voters felt that the vice-president had not been a good candidate, but mostly reckoned that it had been too late to find another one, citing Biden’s late decision to pull out of the race.
“Harris had an impossible job with minimal time to reach voters,” said Carla, 71, a retired professional in the legal sector from Ohio.
“Biden should have never run for re-election. There would have been a different outcome if Democrats had had the time to run primary elections and pick a strong candidate.”
Various people suggested that Tim Walz, the Minnesota governor, had been a poor running mate. Others defended Harris.
“I feel Kamala Harris did an excellent job of campaigning,” said 81-year-old Pat, from Colorado, who holds a college degree in journalism and is retired. “But too many felt that ‘they were better off four years ago than now’.”
Pat is now plagued by concerns about Trump firing experienced federal workers, deporting immigrants, exposing pregnant women to severe health risks, ignoring climate change and rolling back support for Ukraine.
“I’m appalled. I’ll never understand why someone as vulgar and unhinged as Trump is so popular with voters, including my sons in Missouri,” she said. “I can only hope that his bark is worse than his bite regarding democracy, immigration and abortion.”
Jack, a 19-year-old college student from Minnesota, was among a string of Democrats who said they had only reluctantly turned out for Harris, citing a lack of clear policy and the party’s move to the right on some issues, such as immigration.
“This was my first election, and I voted for Kamala with minimal enthusiasm,” he said.
“I don’t think Kamala was the right candidate, but this [loss] is owed to the complete strategic failure of the Dems in focusing on getting votes of independents and moderate Republicans. A [moderate] Democrat will lose to a real Republican every time.”
He was “not at all surprised that Trump won”, as the economy had “not improved for the average American on the ground”, he said.
“I also believe this nation is too fundamentally misogynistic to elect a female president. We can elect a rapist before we can elect a woman.”
“I completely reject the accusation that men like me voted for Trump because of misogyny,” said a male professional with Hispanic roots in his mid-40s from Florida who wanted to stay anonymous.
“My wife and I did not vote for Trump because we could not live with a female president, but because we wanted Trump to be our president. We think he’ll do great things for our country and the world, and as a family with grandfathers on both sides who fought the Nazis in [the second world war], we are outraged by claims that Trump voters are fascists.
“We are decent citizens who are very active in our community. We just want less crime, secure borders, a strong economy driven by entrepreneurial growth not state handouts, affordable prices, and fairness in the labor market. We believe President Trump will deliver on those.”
Although he felt “vindicated” by the election result, he and his wife remained “afraid to come out publicly as Trump supporters”, he said. “We fear social and professional repercussions. That’s why the polls keep getting it wrong.”
“I voted for Trump and consider myself a moderate,” said Hayden Duke, 45, a teacher from Maryland. “I’ve voted for all parties in the past.
"I couldn’t be happier that we have rejected the Biden-Harris wokeness, weakness and lack of common sense which have destroyed our economy and allowed wars to take place all over the world. I have been called a Nazi, a fascist, a nationalist and more by supporters of Harris.
"Normal people are so tired of being lectured by these suffocating moral guardians, looking down on us and speaking down to us and shoving their viewpoints on everyone else.
"This crowd has likened Trump to Hitler – but Hitler killed [millions of] Jews and others, Trump hasn’t killed a single person. They say Kamala Harris lost because of misogyny, but I’m ready for a female president. I voted for [would-be Republican presidential candidate] Elizabeth Dole all the way back in 2000.”
Had Harris chosen the, in Duke’s view, the more broadly appealing Pennsylvania governor, Josh Shapiro, as her running mate, Duke felt she might have won Pennsylvania and possibly the election – an opinion that was shared by various people.
Others took the opposite view. “The Democrats refused to listen to the public on Gaza which I think lost them support,” said Tom, 28, a higher education professional from Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, who “had a feeling” Trump would win. Having voted “unenthusiastically” for Biden in 2020, he did not vote at all in 2024.
“I think the assassination attempt on Trump really solidified and unified his base, while the Democrats have gotten deeply fractured over Gaza and didn’t have strong messaging,” he said.
“I don’t think that Kamala Harris ran a strong campaign. It was unclear what her values and policies actually were, other than ‘I am not Trump.’ I do not think that is enough for many people, but that’s what Harris was banking on – people rejecting Trump again. What was the Harris plan for healthcare? I don’t think she did enough to differentiate herself from Biden.”
Tom was among a number of people who said they were actively looking into moving abroad now. “This Trump term is going to be terrible,” he said. “I want to finish my master’s degree and then look into moving to another country.”
“This election proves that centrist, pro-war Democrats weren’t the answer,” said Margarito Morales, 40, from Austin, Texas, who works in tech and said he had voted for Harris. “Biden won the popular vote with over 80m votes, and now Trump won it with much fewer votes.”
Many younger people, Morales felt, chose to abstain or to vote for Jill Stein in the absence of strong leftist policies that would have excited them, such as universal healthcare, student loan forgiveness or lowering the cost of going to college.
“The Democrats went with the status quo, and it isn’t working. People didn’t feel inspired. People with immigrant parents did not know what may happen to their families under the Democrats,” he said, citing the party’s recent moves to tighten border restrictions.
Several people who got in touch said they had backed Trump for the first time in 2024, despite having concerns about him and his Maga movement.
A 25-year-old mechanic from Iowa who wanted to stay anonymous “disliked both candidates in 2020 – their policies, personalities, and campaigns.
“This year,” he said, “I voted for Donald Trump.”
A key point in his decision had been his financial stability, which has been crumbling over the past few years, he said.
“I believe Donald Trump’s administration will do a better job helping the American people financially and improving international stability. I do, however, have concerns for young adults who are pro-choice, and those in the trans community whose rights may be under attack under the new presidency.”
Milly, in her 40s, from Washington state, was another first-time Trump voter. “I voted for Obama twice, but the liberal movement in America has lost me, because it completely changed,” she said.
“The DEI [diversity, equity and inclusion] movement has completely radicalized itself, from initially wanting to push back against actual sexual and racial discrimination to pursuing an absurd, deeply unfair equality-of-outcome agenda. These extremists are alienating so many people with pretty liberal views.”
Being pro-choice, Milly said she was planning on lobbying the Republican party to soften its stance on harsh abortion bans in some states.
“I still identify as a liberal, but I’m a liberal with limits: society’s norms can’t be overhauled entirely just to suit tiny minorities and extreme political fringe movements. I hope Donald Trump will bring common sense and realism back into American political discourse.”
Jacqueline, 63, a retired photographer and writer from Arizona who described herself as disabled, fears that the new reality under Trump may become unsurvivable for people like herself who depend on the social security net, which she believes the new administration wants to get rid of.
“We’re talking about social security for the elderly, for disability, for veterans, death benefits for widows, food stamps. I live in a very poor area. People can’t feed their families without food stamps. People like me, my neighbors, this whole community, many people that voted for them, will have no way to survive.”
Another huge worry of hers is Trump’s possible environmental policy. “Climate change affects everything, and if we don’t fix that, nothing else matters. He’s going to reverse everything that the Biden administration has set up to mitigate climate change and to make the transition to renewable energy.”
Jacqueline also struggles to wrap her head around the new reality that America now has a president with a criminal conviction.
“If you’re a felon, you can’t get a good job, you have to put that on every job application, that label follows you around. But you can be president of the United States. It’s literally insane.”
Josh, an engineer in his 50s from Pennsylvania, has an answer for people who cannot understand why more than 74 million Americans were not put off by Trump’s criminal record.
“The people calling Trump ‘a convicted felon’ need to understand: many people like me voted for Trump not despite this kangaroo court conviction, but because of it. His trial was a shameful persecution of a political opponent by a Democratic prosecution. It fired me up.”
JT, 28, a full-time employee from Texas, was one of various people who said they considered Trump “the lesser evil”, and voted Trump in 2020 and 2024, despite disliking the available candidates in both elections.
“I voted for Trump based on two reasons,” he said. “I feel I was better off economically when he was in charge. And I’m originally from California, and watched as the Democratic party’s rule there made it so much harder for people like me to get ahead.”
Alongside exploding prices, high taxes, and higher crime and homelessness rates, he pointed to California having become “way too focused on identity politics.
“Harris is from California, and I don’t want the USA to become like California. I’m a mixed-race person of color and have never liked identity politics. I don’t care about race or gender or orientation; I want results.”
He wants stronger borders and immigration enforcement, considering it “insulting” that people like his foreign-born family had to wait for years in difficult circumstances before being able to immigrate legally while others cross the border illegally.
“Harris fixated on democracy being in danger and abortion, ignoring the two huge concerns of economy and immigration,” he said.
“I have a ton of concerns about Trump, mostly about his personality and lack of morals, his weird tirades and personal attacks. He outright lies, a lot. But as long as he is able to improve the economy like in 2016 and improve on the immigration issue, I’ll consider it a win.”
Elizabeth McCutchon, 61, a psychiatric nurse practitioner and mother of five, voted for Harris, but is married to a Republican.
“The mistake of the Democrats has been to keep asking the question, ‘How could you?’ rather than, ‘What did we not understand about American voters?’” she said.
“There are some Harris voters who are now saying they will have nothing to do with people who voted for Trump. I think this sort of behavior will be used by Trump voters to demonstrate how out of touch Harris voters are.
“I don’t think Trump will provide the change that his voters were promised. But he is different than the status quo.”
(image: My thanks to Kerry)
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2024/nov/12/voter-reaction-trump-win
from the Brookings Institute:
Harris’ tactical choices made her problems worse
First, she spurned opportunities to create a clearer political profile. Although Biden’s unpopularity burdened her campaign, she refused to separate herself from him in any way that broke through to persuadable voters. Similarly, by refusing to explain why she had abandoned the progressive positions on crime, immigration, health care, and climate change, she blurred the public’s perception of her and opened the door to the Trump campaign’s charge that she was a closet radical. Thinking back to the successful campaign of Bill Clinton in 1992, some Democrats were hoping Harris would have a “Sister Souljah” moment in which she broke with some party orthodoxy in order to show her independence, but this did not happen.
Second, Harris’ decision to avoid media interviews during the first half of her campaign created the impression that she was dependent on scripted remarks and afraid to think on her feet. Answering tough questions can enhance a candidate’s reputation for competence and character, a potential upside to which Harris and her campaign seemed oblivious for much too long.
The public’s judgment of Biden’s performance on two core issues—inflation and immigration—was harshly negative, and Harris inherited this disapproval.
Women’s share of the total vote rose only marginally from its level in 2020, and Harris’ share of the women who voted did not increase from Biden’s 2020 levels.
Democrats knew that the election would be close, but the scope of their defeat will likely trigger recriminations first and then an extended period of soul-searching. As was the case after Michael Dukakis’ defeat in 1988, the party will be forced to engage in a debate about the causes of its defeat, and what is sure to be a long and lively primary campaign will determine the path forward.
https://www.brookings.edu/articles/why-donald-trump-won-and-kamala-harris-lost-an-early-analysis-of-the-results/
Oriana:
My wonderful handyman, Rafael (who voted for Harris), provided a simple answer: Harris had a short campaign and failed to make herself known to the wider public — who mostly had no idea who she was and what she stood for. She was an obscure figure running against someone known to the whole world.
*
*
MISHA IOSSEL ON THE ELECTION
More than half of all adult Americans read below the equivalent of a sixth-grade level.
And they vote. And then we have what we have. (Facebook)
*
TRUMP: REALITY VERSUS THE LIES
The Reality
In January 2025, the 4th Reich of Hitler’s Ghost will be installed in Washington. The Ghost brings with him an immediate agenda of retribution towards his enemies. That indeed was Hitler’s approach to government. All of Hitler’s speeches were directed at the grievances of the German people, some real, some (most) imaginary. His loyal supporters believed in their hearts that he had their best interest in mind at all times.
This Republican Administration will not be the Party of Lincoln. That party forgave the Southern Forces when they were defeated in battle. This will not be the party that emancipated the slaves. No doubt, there will be new classifications for the marginalized people of America.
Trump already named one class — those who attend his rallies: The Basement Dwellers.
What makes this election a very dark outcome is that Republicans will control the Senate and most likely the House of Representatives. Trump hates guard rails and mostly ignores them. Very few guard rails will remain. The occasional filibuster in the Senate may help, but only if the Republicans allow that procedural obstacle to survive. The Courts can slow down and even stop some initiatives. The Republicans could change the law in some situations to mute the Court’s authority. It will be a struggle to counter his worst tendencies. Very few in his own party will stand up to him when he exceeds any norm, let alone precedents and laws.
The Lies
Donald Trump has said his economic plan will help make homes more affordable, and that he will reduce interest rates. Both were lies on his part. It reality, he will have very little control over either issue. He has little to no control over the Federal Reserve Board that sets interest rates. He will be loath to initiate any government funded program to build affordable housing to the masses across the country. For sure, a Republican Congress will not pay for that. They have a federal government to dismantle as their main objective.
The damage to our bilateral relations with other countries will be problematic. He views all relationships on a transactional basis: He gets something when they get something. He has no clue that America is a powerful country because of those countries which supports us, and those who will send their troops to stand by our own when in harm's way.
Trumps likes to use tariffs as a way to punish countries with which we trade. Economists will tell you that it is the consumer who pays those tariffs, not the foreign country. Yet Trump keeps falsely telling voters that he will make the other governments pay those tariffs. That is a lie that some voters fell for. When you buy a foreign made product, the tariff has already been factored in the price that you pay. The foreign government never pays the tariff. Yet this theme attracted voters to Trump. A willingness to ignore the truth will imperil their own future.
As far as the election is concerned, it appears that all along it was “the economy, stupid”. The inflation of the last two years hurt working class families, and it hurt the lowest wage earners hard. People who were able to make ends meet just two years ago had to chose how to spend their last $30: Put gas in the car to get to work or buy diapers for their infant. The same was happening to many of the millennials who are in entry level jobs.
I found it interesting how many of the young voters expressed the opinion that the government should be run like a business. Since Trump was “businessman” they assert that he would know how to run the country. That sounded a lot like news stories on Fox news. (More later on running the government like a business.)
It was startling to learn that 47% of Latinos voted for Trump. Again, they were harmed by the recent inflation cycle, and they decided that Harris must have been the cause. If Trump succeeds in expelling “millions of illegal aliens” as he has stated, virtually every one of those voters will know someone who will be ejected under Trump’s immigration first year agenda.
*
If Trump wants to have any hope of controlling inflation, the country badly needs those immigrant laborers. They will take the lowest paying jobs that real “Americans” will not take. It has been that way since 1620 when 20% of those founding “fathers” were servants. That has never changed over the course of American history. Over the years many of those aliens ended up serving in our Wars. The Irish fleeing the Great Famine in Ireland arrived just in time to be drafted or recruited to fight in America’s Civil War. Among those were my wife’s great grandfather.
Honorable service in the U.S. Armed Forces has long been way to work towards citizenship. Aliens are included on the names of the dead on the wall of the Vietnam Memorial. I served with Aliens in the Army. They were good soldiers. If Trump is successful in his immigrant expulsion program, then those jobs go unfilled & undone. The real “Americans” who voted for Trump will pay more out of their wallets as those low-cost workers leave our shores.
If you listened to the Democratic campaign speeches, those were mostly about policy — how they would govern, and the principals underlying those programs. That type of presentation can appeal to college graduates who have been taught how to analyze and think through problems.
Trump seldom talks policy, not in any degree of detail. His crowds enjoy the one-liners — they are easy to remember and repeat, especially chants based on gullible lies they want to believe. They enjoy watching the spectacle of a journeyman school yard bully practice his craft.
Trump’s rally gatherings are tightly controlled private events to prevent dissent in front of the cameras, or the crowd. These were not public forums where all are admitted. That turned out to be a good thing. His last rally had him simulating oral sex on a microphone. No Joke.
Part of the problem that Trump creates for all of us is that a sizable number of his supporters willfully limit the sources of information that they receive. Trump can get away with his lies because his base has no real clue that so much of what he says are lies. For many of them, their entire input is from Facebook lies, TikTok posts, or one paragraph Twitter-like feeds.
People who can see past this self-imposed shell are not credible to Trump supporters. The blatant disregard for experts & science that his base has is astounding. Reality is painful for them — it is better to ignore informed sources as well as the truth. They assert that Twitter knows better, especially the endless conspiracy theories. One can only wonder how many of his voters can actually articulate what is involved in the “Scientific Method”? It’s a modern world. Voters need to be informed, not duped.
Trump’s Appointments
Trump’s appointments have always been marginal at best. Look at how often Trump speaks about his past appointments as being ineffective and a disappointment to him and others. The appointment of Hegseth for Secretary of Defense is an example of a bad fit, poor experience, poor intellectual capacity, and poor choice. Hegseth’s attempt to roll back the military will have negative consequences. But there is a benefit for Trump — this is a way for him to promote a poorly informed personality from Fox News.
The Federal Budget
The Republican Congress has already announced that they will be on tear to cut federal budgets. They are keen to gut the “Administrative State.” This is a once-in-a-lifetime event for them. Elon Musk has volunteered to rip out $1 trillion dollars in government spending in the first year. It will be difficult to stop this activity. The effect will be devastating, especially for the most vulnerable & marginalized people among us — the very people that put Trump in office.
A significant number of federal workers will be out of employment. Trump voters may cheer “Right On” for that outcome, but the economic impact of the loss of those jobs will be profound. Those workers have the expertise that makes the government work. That core knowledge will be lost. The impact will ripple through a nontrivial number of households in the economy of every state. At least this Trump policy will reduce inflationary pressures in the economy.
The Republican party carries a exhaustive number of grievances about government functions. The departments or areas up for elimination or gutting include education, health, the EPA, SEC, FDA, labor relations & work place laws. Let’s look at just one small example. There are companies that want overtime laws changed to allow workers to exceed 40 hours per week without invoking overtime pay. Why would a Republican administration object to such a minor adjustment?
Education is a prime target for elimination. The department is focused on public education at all levels. How foolish is that! The modern Republican party does not care one bit for public education. They can’t force prayer in public schools, they can’t force the teachers to include bible study assignments, and the can’t fire those teachers at will.
Republicans are the party of private education. The party has abandoned public schools altogether. Look at where Trump was educated, and look at where his children were educated. Do the same for the leaders of the Republican Congress. Do the same for the mega-donors that paid the tab to get all these people elected.
If Republicans keep the Education Department, it will be to support the “School Choice” movement. This is all about subsidizing private religious-based schools by using public school dollars. “School Choice” is a great way to help those families with $80K incomes get their kids out of public schools and into the Bible program of their choice.
College Pell Grants and low interest federal student loans will be curtailed or eliminated. High profit, Fly-by-Night student loan programs will return. For profit colleges will be back, despite their inability to actually train people to get well-paying, permanent jobs. It makes one wonder how many more people will not get the chance to go to college? Besides, college makes one less “Republican” because it teaches you to think & solve problems. Who needs that!
Sadly, the lowest earning classes will have to continue to rely on public schools which will be more and more marginally funded — an outcome that they voted to be put in place.
The EPA is an easy target. The EPA makes it more expensive to operate business. Those laws can be chucked to make businesses more competitive — and far more profitable. Never mind that the EPA works to improve the health of all Americans.
Why have a Department of Health? Health is a private matter. The Republicans intend to terminate the Affordable Care Act. Never mind that the Republicans have never put their own “less costly” proposal on the table, one they claim will provide better care. When the Affordable Care Act is eliminated, why have a Department of Health? Again, this is a department that works to provide health resources to the lowest classes in society. Why have that on the Federal budget?
The Consumer Finance Protection Agency will be under intense attack. It interferes with businesses in so many ways it is stunning. Banks are being restricted on the fees they can charge customers — how outrageous! We will see a resurgence of “Payday loan” offices that were forced out of business by Obama and Biden. They are absolutely predatory towards the lowest wage earners in the country. They will return on most every corner in certain areas of each town and city. They will be gifts bestowed to the lowest wage earners based on their own voting record.
The FDA will be a target. Their oversight of vaccine development and health outreach programs will be a coveted target. Access to certain drugs will be curtailed, such as drugs to support gender affirming care, and drugs to manage STDs, among other categories. Recall that the Supreme Court rejected the right of privacy between a patient and doctor when it comes to an abortion in the Dobbs decision. There is every reason to believe that patient privacy will be rejected again by this Court. When the Supreme Court decided to overrule Roe vs. Wade, women lost a stunning degree of control over their own bodies. Privacy for women is no longer a right. There will be an attack on women’s right to access to the “Morning After Pill”. That is nothing more than an early abortion pill anyway.
Women’s Rights
Women who support the right to chose to have a abortion have been heard on state ballot issues confirming that care in seventeen states. No doubt more states will follow. However, enshrining the right to abortion in State Constitutions is of little value if Congress passes a law banning abortion at the Federal level. A Federal Law will nullify the State. If women help elect enough Republicans to Congress, then a State right to an abortion will be overruled. American women voters have not taken this assault on their rights seriously. The religious zealots will win in the end, no matter how many lives are ruined without the right to choose.
Women who voted for Trump did not anticipate an assault on birth control. That too is coming and it is no an idle threat. The religious zealots are after those drugs as well. Perhaps a law to eliminate birth control will finally get the attention of the electorate. Maybe even some men may be concerned at the loss of that right for the women in their lives.
It is stunning to consider the number of women who objected to the overturning Roe vs. Wade. What is absolutely baffling is the percentage of those women who voted for Trump in the last election. Is it possible that they are so uninformed as to how the Dobbs decision came about? Is it possible that they are so uninformed that they do not know the name of the man who appointed the judges who overruled a women’s right to chose? Could they really be that uninformed? Are they that stupid? The last election appears to answer that question as a big yes.
One can go one step further in dealing with women’s rights. There are fundamentalists in this country who feel that women do not need the right to vote. If women do not value their own personal rights, why even let them vote? There is a point to be made here. Seriously, the last election proved that a substantial number of women are too conflicted to be allowed to vote. Female suffrage can be reversed.
Social Security
Ever since the Social Security program was established in 1935, the Republican party has been devoted to eliminating, or at least significantly curtailing it. Despite what Trump promised, the Republican party will attack the program. They will argue that they are saving it, that they are improving it. But make no mistake, their intent is to defund Social Security as much as possible. There are so many ways to cut benefit outcomes for everyone and hide that from voters, at least long enough to pass them into law.
Any single approach may not succeed, but a half-dozen back alley proposals can be used to roll back the program. Reducing COLA’s is one option. Roll back everyone’s benefits by 20% is another. Increase the retirement age. Perhaps those options are too obvious, but devious methods will make it to the final vote. No doubt, there will be clever sounding solutions to shortchange those who are retiring.
Social Security has become the bedrock of retirement for many people in the country. Far too many people are not able to save for retirement. Some were far too busy raising a family to stash money away for the future. Social security meant dignity to my grandparents and parents. I have family photos of my aged ancestors prior to social security. They were living in abject poverty after a lifetime of hard labor, and you can see it in the photos.
One popular theme has been to “privatize” Social Security. That is, let American business mange the program. After all, many young people who elected Trump want him to run the government more like a business. Yes, Social Security can be privatized. The way that will happen is that each business will take a portion of the Social Security funds to cover their administrative and professional costs. They are after all, a for profit business. What would one expect them to do? That means what is left over after business takes their cut, there will be reduced benefits from today’s level.
The mantra that government should be run like a business misses the whole point.
Government is not a business; it is not a profit making operation. Businesses always have been and always will require a profit to operate. Turning governmental functions over to business will only make those business more profitable and government more expensive. But, as with most everything Republican, there will be a winners in the business community.
Medicare
There are any number of proposals for Medicare, every one of which will raise medical costs for every retiree. There is no end of ideas how to do that. I am not going down that rabbit hole, but the Republicans most surely will. To the Republicans, health care is not a right. It is something you are expected to pay for yourself, just like your groceries, your rent, your car repairs.
It will be even worse for Medicaid. Again, the lowest income families will carry the heaviest burden, and some will likely decide that they can’t afford health care. That would, in part, solve the Republican problem with health care. Never mind that these were the people that voted overwhelmingly for Trump. (In the end, they will get what they voted for.)
Privatize Weather Forecasts
This one kind of blind-sided me. I am a man of science by training. I view government scientific programs as one area that should be politically neutral. Science benefits everyone. It has made all of our lives better. But I have to admit, I did not see this one coming. There appears to be an planned attack on NOAA, the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration. NOAA must have stepped on someone’s toes in the party. Perhaps they helped the EPA learn something about air pollution, or pollution in the ocean. Yes, on the table will be an attempt to terminate NOAA.
If you are not sure how NOAA affects your life, then here is a clue: Your daily weather forecast. Beside helping you plan your life for the next 24 to 48 hours, it also greatly help our military operations. But that is of little concern to a Republican Congress hell bent on gutting the “Administrative State.” (Steve Bannon will get to watch the gutting process.)
So what happens if Congress privatizes the functions of NOAA? Remember, private companies exist to make a profit. You should be prepared to pay for weather forecasts in the future. Not sure if there is a hurricane coming? Be prepared to pay for that information.
The Near Future
Unless the Republicans run into unexpected resistance over the next two years, the federal government will look unrecognizable on many fronts. Many governmental funded programs will have disappeared. The greatest impact will be on those least able to afford and adapt to the changes. The country will be less prepared to deal with events that cannot be predicted or anticipated.
The year before Covid-19 hit, Trump eliminated funding for the U.S. Public Health Service, a 200-year-old Federal agency. That very agency that could have led us through a disaster that killed 1,219,487 Americans. World War II only cost 407,316 American military deaths. Covid-19 was three times more deadly to the U.S. than the last major World War. America had lost its infrastructure to deal with a national health crisis because of Trump. How many people will die from the next round of cuts in our national government?
Words of Solace
Alas, there are no words of solace. However, we will see Heroes who attempt to defy the Republican onslaught. There will be efforts to slow, hinder, and occasionally stop the elimination of the so-called “Administrative State.” Perhaps in 25 years we can build a wall on which to enshrine their names. ~ The author, a PhD eminent in his field, has a focus on American history.
Oriana:
Thank you, dear friend, for this essay. In spite of the darkness, these are, to some extent, the words of solace — they show that at least some members of the public are fully aware of the consequences of Trump’s ruinous programs to decrease the benefits to many — especially the “basement dwellers” — while making the rich richer.
(By the way, I am surprised that no one has expressed any outrage over Trump calling the majority of his supporters “basement dwellers.” It confirms the belief that Trump can say and do anything — perhaps indeed shoot someone on 5th Avenue — and not lose any votes. I suppose that all that counts is his being the opposite of the “liberal elites.” I remember the gusto with which he exclaimed, “I love the poorly educated!”
The poor tend to be not only poorly educated, and also the most easily brain-washed. We have moved very far from FDR’s kind of thinking about the chief role of the government. Why, the very idea that the government should do good things for the people! The chief Republican idea is that the Government is evil — everything else stems from that.
Is it really that hard to see that public health programs, for instance, mean protection from diseases that used to spread like wild fire, or greater gain for businesses when recipients of Social Security can afford the goods and services? Would it really be glorious to have many more old people homeless and starving? Dumpster diving keeps senior citizen physically fit! The streets would also be a more lively scene with more young people unemployed because of cuts to job training programs and the high cost of education. ("We don't need no edjookayshon!")
When a social program is competently managed, everyone gains. Europeans are in shock when they experience the American health system. It never occurred to them that what what matters is not anyone’s health, but the big profit that can be made off illness. Cancer is fabulously lucrative for Big Pharma.
Another mentally ill person perpetrates mass shooting? Well, that’s a small price to pay for the freedom from the taxes it might take to have effective programs aimed at prevention. And so on ad nauseam . . .
There is also the matter of Trump's infatuation with dictators and his promise, "You'll never have to vote again."
(my thanks to Kerry for the image)
*
RFK, JR., ON COVID
Trump's nominee to lead the Department of Health and Human Services, in July, 2023:
“COVID-19 is targeted to attack Caucasians and Black people. The people who are most immune are Ashkenazi Jews and Chinese.”
OK, it’s good to know I’m immune, even though I had it… twice.
Elections matter. Trump voters have deserved this creep. ~ Misha Iossel, Facebook
*
MINI-TRUMPS: MISHA ON OTHER NOMINEES
Matt Gaetz is a coked-up pedophiliac clown. Tulsi Gabbard is a Kremlin asset. Pete Hegseth is a sleazy right-wing talk-show host covered in Christian-Right tattoos. Kristi Noem is a dog-killer.
Why is Trump nominating them? Because he is mentally unfit to be president.
They are not his loyalists -- there are mini-him, made in his own image: wholly indecent, wholly immoral, wholly incompetent and unfit, loyal ultimately only to themselves.
*
KAMALA’S GREATEST MISTAKE
In all of the swing states, Pennsylvania with 19 electoral votes is the most critical. It is commonly heard that he who wins Pennsylvania wins the presidency. Pennsylvania has a very popular Democratic governor in Josh Shapiro whose approval rating hovers around 65%. Shapiro was a finalist in the race to become Kamala Harris’s vice presidential nominee.
He would have delivered Pennsylvania to her and thus the White House. He is extremely articulate. But he’s Jewish and a supporter of Israel. The left wing of the Democratic Party hates Jews. Harris used that excuse to deny Shapiro. But the real reason was that Shapiro would have outshone her on the campaign trail and even in the White House.
Instead, Harris chose the bumbling governor of Minnesota, Tim Walz, who brings no state to her because Minnesota is already solidly blue. Walz has become a cheerleader of sorts for Harris on the campaign trail. He is known to embellish his resume, for instance he said he fought in a war but actually he never did so. Already a liability for Harris, she has dispatched him to never never land.
How could a woman aspiring to the most powerful office in the world make such a grave mistake? Was she so insecure about Shapiro that she dropped him from the ticket? In his interview for the vice president’s job, Shapiro apparently asked Harris what his job description as VP would look like. That was a fair question, even though it is well known that the VP serves as an assistant to the president and does whatever the president asks him to do.
In no case must the VP outshine the president. But Shapiro is naturally articulate and to the point; Harris is anything but. That is why Shapiro lost out. Walz came in saying that he would do whatever Harris asked him to do. He got the job.
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/blogs/strategic-insights/kamala-harriss-biggest-mistake/
Josh Shapiro: perhaps in 2028?
ELECTIONS HAVE CONSEQUENCES
When prices of everything go up 50-100% because of the tariffs, I'll remind you this is what you voted for.
When tropical fruits, spices, coffee, tea etc go up because of import tariffs. When domestic crops go up because migrant workers were deported. When small businesses and farms file for bankruptcies because they can't keep up with the price of imported materials, farm equipment, labor costs etc. I'll remind you, this is what you wanted.
When your kids can't get any college grants because he dismantled the Dept of Education. When your water supply is poisoned by a factories because he dismantled the EPA. When people are contracting measles and other preventable illnesses because he put an anti-vaxxer in charge of the Health Department. I'll remind you, we're Making America Great Again.
When Latinos who voted for him watch their friends, neighbors, family members, and even themselves get deported. I'll remind them, elections have consequences.
And in 4 years when we look around and say “promises made, promises kept,” maybe you guys will vote accordingly. ~ Scott Mann, Quora
*
PAN-RUSSIAN CHAUVINISM
Russians aren’t “nationalistic” — that’s a common misconception in the West. Their idea is called “pan-Russian chauvinism”, and it’s inherently imperialistic.
It was the founder of the Soviet Union Vladimir Lenin who wrote about “pan-Russian chauvinism” first, back in 1914 — as soon as Russia entered WW1.
He was also the one who consistently called Russia “prison of nations”.
“Russian” is a national identity that’s rooted in the imperial legacy that prioritizes dominance, expansion, and cultural assimilation.
“Thanks to generations of Russian imperial propaganda, many abroad are confused about what it means to be a Russian,” writes Ukrainian journalist Maksym Eristavi, author of “Russian Colonialism 101”.
He continues:
“Many think it is an ethnicity or even a race. When in fact it is an imperial and political identity of a colonizer, inseparable from the superiority complex.”
The superiority complex towards any other nation or ethnicity that’s been absorbed by Russia — first positioned as “dangerous to Russia”, then invaded and physically and culturally exterminated, the territory Russified and repopulated (that’s what Russia is doing on the occupied Ukrainian territories now).
The territory of the state that today is known as “the Russian Federation” is populated by hundreds of smaller nations, many of which by now have nearly completely disappeared. And many of these nations — like Tuva and Buryat peoples (which Russia only occupied in WW2), are being disproportionally sent to the war in Ukraine now.
‘Russians’ are “an intellectual construct that has emerged around 18th century when Russia was spending enormous amount of resources on a global PR campaign to rebrand itself away from Muscovy, the monarchy — to Russia, the empire,” explains Eristavi.
Being “nationalistic” is about doing what’s good for the nation. But Russians aren’t about that.
Russians of today are a political community, united by the idea of Great Mother Russia, which is taking care of her little kids — and like a caring mother, has the right to discipline them for misbehaving — beat them up or even kill some, because “I gave you life, so it’s my right to take it.”
Putin’s idea of “gathering historic Russian lands” penetrates to the core of the Russian political identity, based on pan-Russian chauvinism, expansionism and cultural assimilation.
It speaks to the ages-old cultural code — and the 70 years of the communist ideology didn’t contradict it at all. Vice versus, the idea of “perpetual global communist revolution” was a fundamentally expansionist idea — expansionism on steroids.
Marxism, paired with pan-Russian chauvinism and imperial expansionism, produced a dangerous breed of maniacs, convinced in their righteousness and led by the maxim, “The goal justifies the means.”
And all the current Russian leaders, who are aged 70+, were brought up on the ideology of Leninism in the USSR. They all had read Lenin’s works and used his quotes in essays and assignments. They were members of the communist party.
The Soviet-style cruelty and inhumanity are natural to them. It’s empathy and dignity that feel foreign to them. ~ Elena Gold, Quora
Victoria Schlomsky:
Russia Federation is also a fascist kleptocracy and gangster state. Putin is a despot and his corrupt inner circle are henchmen plus murderous enforcers. The Russian government and military are Machiavellian —the ends justify the means.
*
WHY SO FEW RUSSIANS VOLUNTEER TO FIGHT
I drove thirty miles from Kremlin and this is what I saw. A big puddle between two rows of Soviet era garages. A crude construction with metal doors welded into brick masonry. In the background there’s a tall apartment block surrounded by summer dachas.
Yesterday, I visited my friend whose childhood friend is stationed with the invading forces in Ukraine. He said that out of promised 200,000 rubles per month soldiers get at best 50,000 rubles ($500) which soldiers use entirely to buy food, clothes and items of personal hygiene.
The rest of the money is stolen by the regional authorities and the ministry of defense. That’s one of the key reasons why there’re fewer and fewer volunteers to go to war.~ Misha Firer, Quora
*
RUSSIAN SOLDIERS WHO REFUSE TO FIGHT
Thousands of professional Russian soldiers and officers refused to go to the war in Ukraine. That’s why Russia is struggling to get enough military personnel and had to beg the North Korea for troops.
Even now — 2.5 years into the full-scale war in Ukraine — there are professional Russian military personnel who stood their ground and refused to be involved in Putin’s illegal war.
“I am an officer. I have never been to Ukraine. From the very beginning of the war, I refused every offer to be deployed,” started his message to human rights activists from a Russian serviceman, who asked for help in evacuation from Russia.
The group called “Idite Lesom” (“Go through the forest”) has been helping Russian men to escape the army service since the first year of the war — to avoid mobilization or get help in deserting and escaping Russia.
By now, they helped thousands of Russians to avoid being sent to the war — and assisted in extractions, so these who were already drafted could get out of Russia.
Their recent officer-evacuee continues his story:
”Now they have opened a criminal case against me. I received a summons that the trial is scheduled for the 12th [November 2024]. I am not going to change my position and most likely (as the investigator told me) they will give me a suspended sentence the 1st time, and then they will offer it [going to the war in Ukraine] for the 2nd time. I refuse, they will add it to my prison term, up to 5-6 years,” writes the man who became an army officer before Putin decided to invade Ukraine.
“You are my last hope,” he writes. “In any case, I will not go to kill or die. I am in the city ... Military unit ... I have an international passport, an internal ID, a military identity card (but I think I will send the military ID to my parents, because I am afraid that they can find it in my personal belongings). I have the indictment and the summons itself.”
To be accepted as a refugee in another country is hard for Russians now. The FSB with its constant sabotage operations in Europe is a real threat and without documents proving that you are in danger in Russia, one may not get a positive answer seeking a refuge.
This guy got extracted and by now had crossed to a European country safely.
Many other Russian men who refused to fight in Ukraine were arrested and prosecuted. Many of these who were caught as deserters are sent to Russian kamikaze assault squads at the front, never to be seen again.
Recently, 17 Russian soldiers were freed by the Russian military police at the front from dog cages, where their commander kept them — for refusal to fight. This happened because the men’s wives and mothers came with the police to the unit to look for them — someone sent them the information. Otherwise, these “refuseniks” would either die in cages — or agree to go on the assault, to get out, and die in the assault.
At the front itself, Russian soldiers are often thrown in a pit (fully undressed, in autumn cold — without as much as the underwear) for refusal to follow commanders’ orders or breaking rules. Some ”refuseniks” get shot or die from the torture.
Russian occupational army means total humiliation, torture, bribery (soldiers have to bribe commanders to avoid being sent to assaults), theft and lawlessness. They torture their own and the Ukrainians in the occupied territories. They are a gang of thugs and murderers, not professional military.
With over a 1,000 average daily losses at the whole front (killed and wounded), Russian commanders are completely numb to any suffering. They know they are sending people to their deaths, and they know they have turned into monsters. Most of them drink non-stop or use drugs to detach from the reality.
There are no illusions in the Russian army about who they are and what they are doing in Ukraine. The servicemen have to either accept it — or they will likely end up dead.
Putin must be terrified about the prospects of this horde returning home to Russia. Putin needs a constant, never-ending war. Or another war where he can send his dehumanized goons. ~ Elena Gold, Quora
David Levitch:
From your reporting, it sounds like if one were to travel along the front, it would be like going up the river in “The Heart of Darkness.” “The horror, the horror.”
Elena Gold:
That’s what it sounds from the reports of the Russian soldiers who managed to escape. “We are being sent to be slaughtered like cannon fodder, into the enemy's fortified machine gun pillboxes, into a head-on collision.”
Carol Weaver:
What an awful way to treat human beings. There's mental illness in this war. Putin=death!
Gilbert Watts:
When the soldiers come back there will be trouble. Even in Canada after WWI, there were riots by soldiers in Winnipeg because they had been mistreated (not to the same level as Russia, but due to the post-war economic hit). Putin is dead already, he just doesn’t know it yet. And it will be abrupt like it was for Ghaddafi, Mussolini, Hitler, and other tyrants.
*
ARE WE CLOSE TO WW3?
There was only 21 years between World War 1 and World War 2. It has been 79 years since World War 2. It is doubtful there will ever be a World War 3 because of mutually assured destruction (MAD). There have been many horrific events since the end of WW2 but none have resulted in a worldwide nuclear war due to MAD. The Cuban Missile Crisis, the shooting down of KAL Flight 007 and the invasion of Ukraine would have been the impetus of a world war had it not been for MAD. The reality is, no one can win a nuclear war.
If Russia hit America with all of its nuclear weapons and America did not retaliate, it is possible that would eventually kill everyone in Russia. Materials like strontium 90 would be picked up into the stratosphere and deposited back in Russia eventually giving everyone there cancer. A Russian attack like I mentioned could cause a nuclear winter that would block the sun for 25 years and kill all life on earth. If America retaliated and fired thousands of nuclear weapons at Russia, there is no doubt Russia would cease to exist. America would also cease to exist because there can not be a winner in a full on nuclear war. Nuclear weapons have pretty well ensured a world war cannot happen because starting a nuclear war would end the country that first launched the missile. What leader would decide to destroy their own country.
The only real exception of fear of Mutually Assured Destruction is Iran due to their Shiite religion. When Iran builds a successful nuclear weapon they are likely to attack Israel and America with a nuclear weapon. If or when that happens, there will likely be real damage to Israel and America and Iran will be a radioactive sheet of glass. That will still not cause a worldwide nuclear war.
Michael Sullivan:
All that needs to happen is a madman in control.
*
WOODROW WILSON: THE CLOSEST AMERICA HAS EVER HAD TO HAVING A TYRANT 
He made America a progressive offer they couldn’t refuse.
The man was a racist unlike any other who has ever served in the White House. People in his life time thought he was racist. He thought race mixing was regressive. He re-segregated the government. He had Klan members to dinner in the White House. They watched Birth of a Nation. Progressivism in the 1920s was all about identifying race and keeping them apart (and you though DEI was a new thing didn’t you?).
W. WILSON AND “SCIENTIFIC RACISM”
But that wasn’t the worst. He introduced eugenics and forced the sterilization of thousands of homosexuals, mental invalids, and blacks. Lots and lots of blacks. Because he wanted to make a more perfect human, and that didn’t include dark skin.
He saw the Constitution as something to be gotten around. He declared the declaration of independence to be “of no great import.” He wasn’t just a constitutional activist. There have been plenty of those. He called it outmoded. When the Constitution got in the way of his progressive, he tried to move it aside. “The President is at liberty,” he once declared, “both in law and in conscience, to be as big a man as he can. His capacity will set the limit.”
Or my favorite:
No doubt a lot of nonsense has been talked about the inalienable rights of the individual, and a great deal that was mere sentiment and pleasing speculation has been put forward as fundamental principle.
He tried to redefine sedition and free speech to just be anything he didn’t like. He arrested WWI draft protesters long after November 1918 (this is where the famous “fire in a theatre isn’t free speech” line comes from). Their crime was protesting a draft for what they saw as a pointless European war (heads up, it was). But it was worse than that. Seventeen men who refused service in Europe were sentenced to death, and thousands were sentenced to a life of hard labor. Luckily Warren Harding pardoned them all. But any Jan 6th rioter, BLM rioter, or Hamas hippie should take note on what other presidents have done to people like them.
He established the Committee on Public Information, which was supposed to be a BBC style news service. However, he used it to push fake news on the masses, including lying about U.S victories in Europe and manufacturing German atrocities (in case you thought fake news was a new thing). Worse, newspapermen who tried to publish stories that went against CPI propaganda were censored by the CPI.
The Spanish Influenza. You had a hissy fit about masks in 2020? Paying fines and not being allowed in Starbucks without one? In 1920 people without masks were thrown in jail. In a cell with other non-mask wearers. All coughing on each other. If you think the government engaged in pandemic overreach in 2020, go look at what Wilson did in 1920.
He oversaw and supported the 18th amendment. Prohibition was another progressive brain child. In case you thought ‘the war on drugs’ was new, our boy Wilson was waging it 100 years ago. This one isn’t 100% on him, but he supported it (while keeping a bottle of whisky in the Oval Office).
So instituted eugenics, waged a war on drugs, sent protesters to hard labor, revitalized the KKK, created the only American propaganda office to date, and felt the constitution was something to be worked around.
I’d say that is worse.
Oh, and sumbitch introduced daylight savings. ~ Rob Gallagher, Quora
Douglas Hof:
In one of the greater acts of ridiculous censorship in American history, during WW1, a man was thrown in jail for making a movie about the Revolutionary War. Insulting to our British allies, you see …
James Flack:
And his meddling in the treaty of Versailles almost certainly was a major factor in causing WW2. He insisted on a league of nations that had no chance of passing the senate, because he pissed them off, and backed reparations that crushed Germany…
Shawn N:
Every time someone asks who I think the worst POTUS was, it’s always an easy answer: Wilson. Wilson was a truly special level of evil. I honestly believe if his Presidency was 20 years later he would have been a full-throated Hitler supporter. I don’t mean that in the flippant way folks throw that name around. I think he would have genuinely admired Hitler’s ideology of the central figure wielding as much power as possible, and he would have been at least sympathetic to Hitler’s racial views.
Robert Sockett:
Most Presidents who are on the winning side of a war are lauded as great presidents and are usually in the higher reaches of best presidents lists. Wilson has been also but recently a new light has been shone on the bullshit he endorsed while in office and his rankings have dropped. He was also the leader of the 1919 peace hearings in Paris where his cat herding instincts failed miserably setting the stage for WW2.
Nick Papadakis:
Wilson was a racist at home — even by the standards of his era.
But he tried to save Europe in 1919 by proposing a Marshal like plan, which the Anglo-French rejected thus making it possible for WWII to happen.
Bill Feldman:
And he was more than a little responsible for unleashing the American (not Spanish) flu on the world. He insisted that sick soldiers in Kansas be sent to France with the rest of their units.
*
November 11, 2024: HIGHEST RUSSIAN LOSSES
. . . launching hordes of men and weapons into "meat assaults" in multiple directions.
In the Kursk region of Russia, which Ukraine entered more than three months ago in August 2024, the Ukrainians are surviving against a group of 50,000 people, 10,000 of whom are North Koreans.
A young Russian soldier tried to blow himself up, because their commanders told them not to surrender to Ukrainian forces. He survived to tell his story.
The Russian commanders tell their soldiers that it’s better for them to blow themselves up with a grenade if they are being surrendered — because otherwise, commanders threatened, they would be horribly tortured.
This young man and his mate decided to follow their commanders’ advice — but luckily for them, they weren’t successful and only got wounded.
The Ukrainians who captured them brought the Russian medic, part of the same unit, who was also captured, to attend to the wounds properly. Then they transported the wounded captives to a hospital.
It’s been known for a while that Russian soldiers are advised to blow themselves up in case they are about to be captured. Some soldiers even do it when they are being attacked by a drone.
The issue with this isn’t only the certain loss of life, but also the soldiers who do it are not eligible for the 5 million ruble ($56,000) death payout. If the self-blow recorded on video, the family will be denied the payout, because it’s considered self-harm, and not a death in combat.
Still, the commanders keep telling scary lies to their soldiers (they don’t tell them about cancelled death payouts). Probably, because they fear that otherwise soldiers will be surrendering en masse.
Mass surrender is what’s been happening in the Kursk region since the Ukrainians invaded.
One explanation of that: Kursk region had a large number of Kadyrov’s guys (“Akhmat” units) stationed there “to guard the border”. They are known for their cruelty to Russian soldiers from non-Akhmat units, with rapes of young Russian conscripts being a “norm” that’s accepted and not even worth complaining about.
Russian soldiers may be more terrified to be shot by Kadyrov’s guys for not wanting to fight (“Akhmat” is also used as “barrier troops” that shoot deserters) than by their prospects at the Ukrainian captivity.
Fear is how Putin’s goons rule. ~ Elena Gold, Quora
*
WHY THE SOVIET-FINNISH WAR WAS SO HARD ON THE SOVIETS
There's a big difference between an army and "a bunch of guys running around shooting guns." In 1939, the Soviet Army was the latter.
Why?
I'm sure you're familiar with the Soviet purges in the 1930's. Well, they were worse than you think. 80-90% of the military's upper officers were purged during this period. For example, 13/15 generals - the equivalent of a 3 or 4 star general were purged. And although most people who were purged were merely temporarily kicked out of the party and therefore the armed forces, most of these purged officers were not returned to the military until late in the war or afterwards.
Next, equipment was bad. When the Germans invaded, the USSR was in the later stages of a massive re armament drive. However, 1939 was way before that point so the military of the Soviets was more backwards than you would think. Also it didn't help that most of their troops were poor conscripts fighting in a foreign country, which would naturally give them lower morale than if say they were fighting to defend their country from extermination by a certain Central European nation. Also they were ill equipped for winter and wore green uniforms, which you might notice, does not blend into white very well.
Finally, the Finns offered a very solid defense. They were independent from foreigners for the first 2 decades since the medieval ages when their land was a part of the Kingdom of Sweden so they would naturally fight hard to protect their country. It also helped that the leader of the Finnish forces, Carl Gustaf Emil Mannerheim, is widely regarded as one of the greatest military minds of all time. ~ Quora
**
A SIXTY-EIGHT YEARS OLD PEDIATRICIAN GETS FIVE-AND-A HALF YEARS FOR ALLEGED NEGATIVE COMMENT ABOUT THE WAR WITH UKRAINE
Ahead of the verdict, Nadezhda Buyanova was led, handcuffed, into the courtroom and locked inside a glass and metal cage.
Through the glass, the 68-year-old pediatrician told me what she thought of her predicament.
"It's absurd, just absurd," the doctor said.
"I can't get my head around what’s happening to me. Perhaps later I’ll be able to."
The pediatrician had been reported to police by the mother of a 7-year-old boy she’d been treating.
The woman had claimed that the doctor had made negative comments about the boy’s father, a Russian soldier, who had been killed fighting in Ukraine and that the doctor had said Russian servicemen there were legitimate targets.
Ms Buyanova denies making such comments and there is no audio or video recording to prove she made them.
But back in February, she was arrested and charged with spreading false information about the Russian armed forces. After a short spell under house arrest, she was placed in pre-trial detention.
Now Ms Buyanova was in the dock and about to learn her fate.
Before the judge entered, court officials ordered camera crews out of the courtroom. Along with other journalists, we were ushered into the corridor.
Minutes later the door to the courtroom opened again.
"Five-and-a-half years!" cried one of Ms Buyanova’s supporters in the public gallery. "She’s been sent to a penal colony for five-and-a-half years!"
"The sentence is monstrously harsh," the doctor’s lawyer, Oskar Cherdzhiyev, told me.
"We didn’t expect this, even given what is happening today [in Russia]. Just a few words proved enough to put someone behind bars for such a long time."
Alina, one of the doctor’s group of supporters in court, said: “For me it was important that Nadezhda saw that a lot of us came today, so that, if a miracle didn’t happen – and we were all still hoping for a miracle – it would be just that little bit easier for her."
"It's very difficult to speak about this. We’re all in shock."
The law against spreading false information about the army is one of several harsh pieces of legislation adopted in Russia since the country's full-scale invasion of Ukraine, with the aim of silencing or punishing criticism of the war.
The imprisonment of a Moscow pediatrician is the latest sign that, for Russia, a war abroad is fueling repression at home.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/ckgrkg02jz3o
*
ALDOUS HUXLEY ON THE ANTIDOTE AGAINST EXISTENTIAL HELPLESSNESS
To understand anything — another person’s experience of reality, another fundamental law of physics — is to restructure our existing knowledge, shifting and broadening our prior frames of reference to accommodate a new awareness. And yet we have a habit of confusing our knowledge — which is always limited and incomplete: a model of the cathedral of reality, built from primary-colored blocks of fact — with the actuality of things; we have a habit of mistaking the model for the thing itself, mistaking our partial awareness for a totality of understanding. Thoreau recognized this when he contemplated our blinding preconceptions and lamented that “we hear and apprehend only what we already half know.”
Generations after Thoreau and generations before neuroscience began illuminating the blind spots of consciousness, Aldous Huxley (July 26, 1894–November 22, 1963) explored this eternal confusion of concepts in “Knowledge and Understanding” — one of the twenty-six uncommonly insightful essays collected in The Divine Within: Selected Writings on Enlightenment.
Huxley writes:
Knowledge is acquired when we succeed in fitting a new experience into the system of concepts based upon our old experiences. Understanding comes when we liberate ourselves from the old and so make possible a direct, unmediated contact with the new, the mystery, moment by moment, of our existence.
Because the units of knowledge are concepts, and concepts can be conveyed and transmitted in words and symbols, knowledge itself can be passed between persons. Understanding, on the other hand, is intimate and subjective, not a conceptual container but an aura of immediacy cast upon an experience — which means it cannot be transmitted and transacted like knowledge. Our forebears devised ways of transmitting knowledge from one generation to the next — in words and symbols, in stories and equations — which ensured the survival of our species by preserving and passing down the results of experience. But knowing the results of an experience is not the same as understanding the experience itself. Complicating the matter is the added subtlety that we may understand the words and symbols by which we tell each other about our experience, but still miss the immediacy of the reality those concepts are intended to convey. Huxley writes:
~ Understanding is not conceptual, and therefore cannot be passed on. It is an immediate experience, and immediate experience can only be talked about (very inadequately), never shared. Nobody can actually feel another’s pain or grief, another’s love or joy or hunger. And similarly nobody can experience another’s understanding of a given event or situation… We must always remember that knowledge of understanding is not the same thing as the understanding, which is the raw material of that knowledge. It is as different from understanding as the doctor’s prescription for penicillin is different from penicillin.
Understanding is not inherited, nor can it be laboriously acquired. It is something which, when circumstances are favorable, comes to us, so to say, of its own accord. All of us are knowers, all the time; it is only occasionally and in spite of ourselves that we understand the mystery of given reality.
A century before Huxley, William James listed ineffability as the first of the four features of mystical experiences. But in some sense, all experience is ultimately mystical, for experience can only be understood in its immediacy and not known as a concept. (Half a century after Huxley’s generation swung open the doors of perception beyond concept with their psychedelic inquiries into the mysteries and mechanics of consciousness — and swung shut the scientific establishment’s openness to serious clinical research into the field with their unprotocoled playhouse of recreational neurochemistry — science is finally documenting the ineffable contact with raw reality as the primary payoff, both clinical and existential, of psychoactive substances.)
At the heart of Huxley’s essay is the observation that a great deal of human suffering stems from our tendency to mistake conceptual knowledge for understanding, “homemade concepts for given reality.” Such suffering can therefore be allayed by replacing the confusion with clarity — with a total awareness of reality, unfiltered by the “meaningless pseudoknowledge” that arises from our reflexive and all too human habits of “over-simplification, over-generalization, and over-abstraction.”
Such total awareness, Huxley observes, can produce an initial wave of panic at the two elemental facts it reveals: that we are “profoundly ignorant” — that is, forever lacking complete knowledge of reality; and that we are “impotent to the point of helplessness” — that is, what we are (which we call personality) and what we do (which we call choice) are merely the life of the universe living itself through us. (Anyone able to think calmly, deeply, and undefensively about free will will readily recognize this.)
And yet beyond the initial wave of panic lies a profound and fathomless sea of serenity — a buoyant peacefulness and gladsome accord with the universe, available upon surrender to this total awareness, upon the release of the narrative enterprise, the identity-intoxication, the conditioned reflex we call a self.
Huxley writes:
This discovery may seem at first rather humiliating and even depressing. But if I wholeheartedly accept them, the facts become a source of peace, a reason for serenity and cheerfulness.
In my ignorance I am sure that I am eternally I. This conviction is rooted in emotionally charged memory. Only when, in the words of St. John of the Cross, the memory has been emptied, can I escape from the sense of my watertight separateness and so prepare myself for the understanding, moment by moment, of reality on all its levels. But the memory cannot be emptied by an act of will, or by systematic discipline or by concentration — even by concentration on the idea of emptiness. It can be emptied only by total awareness.
Thus, if I am aware of my distractions — which are mostly emotionally charged memories or fantasies based upon such memories — the mental whirligig will automatically come to a stop and the memory will be emptied, at least for a moment or two. Again, if I become totally aware of my envy, my resentment, my uncharitableness, these feelings will be replaced, during the time of my awareness, by a more realistic reaction to the events taking place around me. My awareness, of course, must be uncontaminated by approval or condemnation. Value judgments are conditioned, verbalized reactions to primary reactions. Total awareness is a primary, choiceless, impartial response to the present situation as a whole.
Huxley notes that all of the world’s great spiritual traditions and all the celebrated mystics have attempted to articulate this total awareness, to transmit it to other consciousnesses in the vessel of concepts — concepts destined to enter other consciousnesses via the primary portal of common sense, and destined therefore to be reflexively rejected. In consonance with Carl Sagan’s admonition that common sense blinds us to the reality of the universe and Vladimir Nabokov’s admonition that it blunts our sense of wonder, Huxley writes:
Common sense is not based on total awareness; it is a product of convention, or organized memories of other people’s words, of personal experiences limited by passion and value judgments, of hallowed notions and naked self-interest. Total awareness opens the way to understanding, and when any given situation is understood, the nature of all reality is made manifest, and the nonsensical utterances of the mystics are seen to be true, or at least as nearly true as it is possible for a verbal expression of the ineffable to be. One in all and all in One; samsara and nirvana are the same; multiplicity is unity, and unity is not so much one as not-two; all things are void, and yet all things are the Dharma — Body of the Buddha — and so on.
So far as conceptual knowledge is concerned, such phrases are completely meaningless. It is only when there is understanding that they make sense. For when there is understanding, there is an experienced fusion of the End with the Means, of the Wisdom, which is the timeless realization of Suchness, with the Compassion which is Wisdom in action.
In a sentiment the great Zen Buddhist teacher Thich Nhat Hanh would come to echo half a century later in his life-broadening teaching that “understanding is love’s other name,” Huxley concludes:
Of all the worn, smudged, dog-eared words in our vocabulary, “love” is surely the grubbiest, smelliest, slimiest. Bawled from a million pulpits, lasciviously crooned through hundreds of millions of loudspeakers, it has become an outrage to good taste and decent feeling, an obscenity which one hesitates to pronounce. And yet it has to be pronounced; for, after all, Love is the last word.
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/love-is-the-last-word-aldous-huxley-on-knowledge-vs-understanding-and-the-antidote-to-our?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
*
THE MAN WHO SAVED THE INTERNET
At around 7 am on a quiet Wednesday in August 2017, Marcus Hutchins walked out the front door of the Airbnb mansion in Las Vegas where he had been partying for the past week and a half. A gangly, 6'4", 23-year-old hacker with an explosion of blond-brown curls, Hutchins had emerged to retrieve his order of a Big Mac and fries from an Uber Eats deliveryman. But as he stood barefoot on the mansion's driveway wearing only a T-shirt and jeans, Hutchins noticed a black SUV parked on the street—one that looked very much like an FBI stakeout.
He stared at the vehicle blankly, his mind still hazed from sleep deprivation and stoned from the legalized Nevada weed he'd been smoking all night. For a fleeting moment, he wondered: Is this finally it?
But as soon as the thought surfaced, he dismissed it. The FBI would never be so obvious, he told himself. His feet had begun to scald on the griddle of the driveway. So he grabbed the McDonald's bag and headed back inside, through the mansion's courtyard, and into the pool house he'd been using as a bedroom. With the specter of the SUV fully exorcised from his mind, he rolled another spliff with the last of his weed, smoked it as he ate his burger, and then packed his bags for the airport, where he was scheduled for a first-class flight home to the UK.
Hutchins was coming off of an epic, exhausting week at Defcon, one of the world's largest hacker conferences, where he had been celebrated as a hero. Less than three months earlier, Hutchins had saved the internet from what was, at the time, the worst cyberattack in history: a piece of malware called WannaCry. Just as that self-propagating software had begun exploding across the planet, destroying data on hundreds of thousands of computers, it was Hutchins who had found and triggered the secret kill switch contained in its code, neutering WannaCry's global threat immediately.
This legendary feat of whitehat hacking had essentially earned Hutchins free drinks for life among the Defcon crowd. He and his entourage had been invited to every VIP hacker party on the strip, taken out to dinner by journalists, and accosted by fans seeking selfies. The story, after all, was irresistible: Hutchins was the shy geek who had single-handedly slain a monster threatening the entire digital world, all while sitting in front of a keyboard in a bedroom in his parents' house in remote western England.
Still reeling from the whirlwind of adulation, Hutchins was in no state to dwell on concerns about the FBI, even after he emerged from the mansion a few hours later and once again saw the same black SUV parked across the street. He hopped into an Uber to the airport, his mind still floating through a cannabis-induced cloud. Court documents would later reveal that the SUV followed him along the way—that law enforcement had, in fact, been tracking his location periodically throughout his time in Vegas.
When Hutchins arrived at the airport and made his way through the security checkpoint, he was surprised when TSA agents told him not to bother taking any of his three laptops out of his backpack before putting it through the scanner. Instead, as they waved him through, he remembers thinking that they seemed to be making a special effort not to delay him.
He wandered leisurely to an airport lounge, grabbed a Coke, and settled into an armchair. He was still hours early for his flight back to the UK, so he killed time posting from his phone to Twitter, writing how excited he was to get back to his job analyzing malware when he got home. “Haven't touched a debugger in over a month now,” he tweeted. He humblebragged about some very expensive shoes his boss had bought him in Vegas and retweeted a compliment from a fan of his reverse-engineering work.
Hutchins was composing another tweet when he noticed that three men had walked up to him, a burly redhead with a goatee flanked by two others in Customs and Border Protection uniforms. “Are you Marcus Hutchins?” asked the red-haired man. When Hutchins confirmed that he was, the man asked in a neutral tone for Hutchins to come with them, and led him through a door into a private stairwell.
Then they put him in handcuffs.
In a state of shock, feeling as if he were watching himself from a distance, Hutchins asked what was going on. “We'll get to that,” the man said.
Hutchins remembers mentally racing through every possible illegal thing he'd done that might have interested Customs. Surely, he thought, it couldn't be the thing, that years-old, unmentionable crime. Was it that he might have left marijuana in his bag? Were these bored agents overreacting to petty drug possession?
The agents walked him through a security area full of monitors and then sat him down in an interrogation room, where they left him alone. When the red-headed man returned, he was accompanied by a small blonde woman. The two agents flashed their badges: They were with the FBI.
For the next few minutes, the agents struck a friendly tone, asking Hutchins about his education and Kryptos Logic, the security firm where he worked. For those minutes, Hutchins allowed himself to believe that perhaps the agents wanted only to learn more about his work on WannaCry, that this was just a particularly aggressive way to get his cooperation into their investigation of that world-shaking cyberattack. Then, 11 minutes into the interview, his interrogators asked him about a program called Kronos.
“Kronos,” Hutchins said. “I know that name.” And it began to dawn on him, with a sort of numbness, that he was not going home after all.
*
Fourteen years earlier, long before Marcus Hutchins was a hero or villain to anyone, his parents, Janet and Desmond, settled into a stone house on a cattle farm in remote Devon, just a few minutes from the west coast of England. Janet was a nurse, born in Scotland. Desmond was a social worker from Jamaica who had been a firefighter when he first met Janet in a nightclub in 1986. They had moved from Bracknell, a commuter town 30 miles outside of London, looking for a place where their sons, 9-year-old Marcus and his 7-year-old brother, could grow up with more innocence than life in London's orbit could offer.
At first the farm offered exactly the idyll they were seeking: The two boys spent their days romping among the cows, watching farmhands milk them and deliver their calves. They built tree houses and trebuchets out of spare pieces of wood and rode in the tractor of the farmer who had rented their house to them. Hutchins was a bright and happy child, open to friendships but stoic and “self-contained,” as his father, Desmond, puts it, with “a very strong sense of right and wrong.” When he fell and broke his wrist while playing, he didn't shed a single tear, his father says. But when the farmer put down a lame, brain-damaged calf that Hutchins had bonded with, he cried inconsolably.
Hutchins didn't always fit in with the other kids in rural Devon. He was taller than the other boys, and he lacked the usual English obsession with soccer; he came to prefer surfing in the freezing waters a few miles from his house instead. He was one of only a few mixed-race children at his school, and he refused to cut his trademark mop of curly hair.
But above all, what distinguished Hutchins from everyone around him was his preternatural fascination and facility with computers. From the age of 6, Hutchins had watched his mother use Windows 95 on the family's Dell tower desktop. His father was often annoyed to find him dismantling the family PC or filling it with strange programs. By the time they moved to Devon, Hutchins had begun to be curious about the inscrutable HTML characters behind the websites he visited, and was coding rudimentary “Hello world” scripts in Basic. He soon came to see programming as “a gateway to build whatever you wanted,” as he puts it, far more exciting than even the wooden forts and catapults he built with his brother. “There were no limits,” he says.
In computer class, where his peers were still learning to use word processors, Hutchins was miserably bored. The school's computers prevented him from installing the games he wanted to play, like Counterstrike and Call of Duty, and they restricted the sites he could visit online. But Hutchins found he could program his way out of those constraints. Within Microsoft Word, he discovered a feature that allowed him to write scripts in a language called Visual Basic. Using that scripting feature, he could run whatever code he wanted and even install unapproved software. He used that trick to install a proxy to bounce his web traffic through a faraway server, defeating the school's attempts to filter and monitor his web surfing too.
On his 13th birthday, after years of fighting for time on the family's aging Dell, Hutchins' parents agreed to buy him his own computer—or rather, the components he requested, piece by piece, to build it himself. Soon, Hutchins' mother says, the computer became a “complete and utter love” that overruled almost everything else in her son's life.
Hutchins still surfed, and he had taken up a sport called surf lifesaving, a kind of competitive lifeguarding. He excelled at it and would eventually win a handful of medals at the national level. But when he wasn't in the water, he was in front of his computer, playing videogames or refining his programming skills for hours on end.
*
Janet Hutchins worried about her son's digital obsession. In particular, she feared how the darker fringes of the web, what she only half-jokingly calls the “internet boogeyman,” might influence her son, who she saw as relatively sheltered in their rural English life.
So she tried to install parental controls on Marcus' computer; he responded by using a simple technique to gain administrative privileges when he booted up the PC, and immediately turned the controls off. She tried limiting his internet access via their home router; he found a hardware reset on the router that allowed him to restore it to factory settings, then configured the router to boot her offline instead.
“After that we had a long chat,” Janet says. She threatened to remove the house's internet connection altogether. Instead they came to a truce. “We agreed that if he reinstated my internet access, I would monitor him in another way,” she says. “But in actual fact, there was no way of monitoring Marcus. Because he was way more clever than any of us were ever going to be.”
Many mothers' fears of the internet boogeyman are overblown. Janet Hutchins' were not.
***
At around 2:30 on that Friday afternoon, Marcus Hutchins returned from picking up lunch at his local fish-and-chips shop in Ilfracombe, sat down in front of his computer, and discovered that the internet was on fire. “I picked a hell of a fucking week to take off work,” Hutchins wrote on Twitter.
Within minutes, a hacker friend who went by the name Kafeine sent Hutchins a copy of WannaCry's code, and Hutchins began trying to dissect it, with his lunch still sitting in front of him. First, he spun up a simulated computer on a server that he ran in his bedroom, complete with fake files for the ransomware to encrypt, and ran the program in that quarantined test environment. He immediately noticed that before encrypting the decoy files, the malware sent out a query to a certain, very random-looking web address: iuqerfsodp9ifjaposdfjhgosurijfaewrwergwea.com
That struck Hutchins as significant, if not unusual: When a piece of malware pinged back to this sort of domain, that usually meant it was communicating with a command-and-control server somewhere that might be giving the infected computer instructions. Hutchins copied that long website string into his web browser and found, to his surprise, that no such site existed.
So he visited the domain registrar Namecheap and, at four seconds past 3:08 pm, registered that unattractive web address at a cost of $10.69. Hutchins hoped that in doing so, he might be able to steal control of some part of WannaCry's horde of victim computers away from the malware's creators. Or at least he might gain a tool to monitor the number and location of infected machines, a move that malware analysts call “sinkholing.”
Sure enough, as soon as Hutchins set up that domain on a cluster of servers hosted by his employer, Kryptos Logic, it was bombarded with thousands of connections from every new computer that was being infected by WannaCry around the world. Hutchins could now see the enormous, global scale of the attack firsthand. And as he tweeted about his work, he began to be flooded with hundreds of emails from other researchers, journalists, and system administrators trying to learn more about the plague devouring the world's networks. With his sinkhole domain, Hutchins was now suddenly pulling in information about those infections that no one else on the planet possessed.
The tweet put forward a simple, terse statement that shocked Hutchins: “Execution fails now that domain has been sinkholed.”
In other words, since Hutchins' domain had first appeared online, WannaCry's new infections had continued to spread, but they hadn't actually done any new damage. The worm seemed to be neutralized.
Hutchins hadn't found the malware's command-and-control address. He'd found its kill switch. The domain he'd registered was a way to simply, instantly turn off WannaCry's mayhem around the world. It was as if he had fired two proton torpedoes through the Death Star's exhaust port and into its reactor core, blown it up, and saved the galaxy, all without understanding what he was doing or even noticing the explosion for three and a half hours.
When Hutchins grasped what he'd done, he leaped up from his chair and jumped around his bedroom, overtaken with joy. Then he did something equally unusual: He went upstairs to tell his family.
Janet Hutchins had the day off from her job as a nurse at a local hospital. She had been in town catching up with friends and had just gotten home and started making dinner. So she had only the slightest sense of the crisis that her colleagues had been dealing with across the NHS. That's when her son came upstairs and told her, a little uncertainly, that he seemed to have stopped the worst malware attack the world had ever seen.
*
Along with his plea, Hutchins finally offered a public confession on his website—not the full, guts-spilling one he wanted, but a brief, lawyerly statement his attorneys had approved. “I've pleaded guilty to two charges related to writing malware in the years prior to my career in security,” he wrote. “I regret these actions and accept full responsibility for my mistakes.”
Then he followed up with a more earnest tweet, intended to dispel an easy story to tell about his past immorality: that the sort of whitehat work he'd done was only possible because of his blackhat education—that a hacker's bad actions should be seen as instrumental to his or her later good deeds.
“There's [a] misconception that to be a security expert you must dabble in the dark side,” Hutchins wrote. “It's not true. You can learn everything you need to know legally. Stick to the good side.”
His motives for confessing are different now, he says. He's told his story less to seek forgiveness than simply to have it told. To put the weight of all those feats and secrets, on both sides of the moral scale, behind him. And to get back to work. “I don't want to be the WannaCry guy or the Kronos guy,” he says, looking toward the Malibu hills. “I just want to be someone who can help make things better.”
https://getpocket.com/explore/item/the-confessions-of-marcus-hutchins-the-hacker-who-saved-the-internet?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
Oriana:
The source is a very long article about how Marcus Hutchins developed his career in writing malware, nearly went to prison, and how he eventually came to regret his life of cybercrime and went over to the side of helping people. But the main fact is that at 22 he single-handedly stopped the worst cyberattack in the world.
I realize that my severe condensation has created some big "holes" in the narrative. I left out the parts about how Hutchins, prior to his finding the kill switch for a super-virus, engaged in creating malware. That was the reason for his arrest by the FBI.
*
JUPITER HAS NO SURFACE
Jupiter's Red Spot, an image taken of Jupiter by Voyager 1. The Great Red Spot, a storm large enough to hold three Earths.
The planet Jupiter has no solid ground – no surface like the grass or dirt you tread here on Earth. There’s nothing to walk on, and no place to land a spaceship.
But how can that be? If Jupiter doesn’t have a surface, what does it have? How can it hold together?
Even as a professor of physics who studies all kinds of unusual phenomena, I realize the concept of a world without a surface is difficult to fathom. Yet much about Jupiter remains a mystery, even as NASA’s robotic probe Juno begins its ninth year orbiting this strange planet.
Jupiter’s mass is two-and-a-half times that of all the other planets in the solar system combined.
Jupiter, the fifth planet from the Sun, is between Mars and Saturn. It’s the largest planet in the solar system, big enough for more than 1,000 Earths to fit inside, with room to spare.
While the four inner planets of the solar system – Mercury, Venus, Earth, and Mars – are all made of solid, rocky material, Jupiter is a gas giant with a composition similar to the Sun; it’s a roiling, stormy, wildly turbulent ball of gas. Some places on Jupiter have winds of more than 400 mph (about 640 kilometers per hour), about three times faster than a Category 5 hurricane on Earth.
Searching for solid ground
Start from the top of Earth’s atmosphere, go down about 60 miles (roughly 100 kilometers), and the air pressure continuously increases. Ultimately, you hit Earth’s surface, either land or water.
Compare that with Jupiter: Start near the top of its mostly hydrogen and helium atmosphere, and like on Earth, the pressure increases the deeper you go. But on Jupiter, the pressure is immense.
As the layers of gas above you push down more and more, it’s like being at the bottom of the ocean – but instead of water, you’re surrounded by gas. The pressure becomes so intense that the human body would implode; you would be squashed.
Go down 1,000 miles (1,600 kilometers), and the hot, dense gas begins to behave strangely. Eventually, the gas turns into a form of liquid hydrogen, creating what can be thought of as the largest ocean in the solar system, albeit an ocean without water.
Go down another 20,000 miles (about 32,000 kilometers), and the hydrogen becomes more like flowing liquid metal, a material so exotic that only recently, and with great difficulty, have scientists reproduced it in the laboratory. The atoms in this liquid metallic hydrogen are squeezed so tightly that its electrons are free to roam.
Keep in mind that these layer transitions are gradual, not abrupt; the transition from normal hydrogen gas to liquid hydrogen and then to metallic hydrogen happens slowly and smoothly. At no point is there a sharp boundary, solid material, or surface.
Jupiter cross section
Scary to the core
Ultimately, you’d reach the core of Jupiter. This is the central region of Jupiter’s interior, and not to be confused with a surface.
Scientists are still debating the exact nature of the core’s material. The most favored model: It’s not solid, like rock, but more like a hot, dense, and possibly metallic mixture of liquid and solid.
The pressure at Jupiter’s core is so immense that it would be like 100 million Earth atmospheres pressing down on you– or two Empire State buildings on top of each square inch of your body.
But the pressure wouldn’t be your only problem. A spacecraft trying to reach Jupiter’s core would be melted by the extreme heat – 35,000 degrees Fahrenheit (20,000 degrees Celsius). That’s three times hotter than the surface of the Sun.
Jupiter Helps Earth
Jupiter is a weird and forbidding place. But if Jupiter weren’t around, it’s possible human beings might not exist.
That’s because Jupiter acts as a shield for the inner planets of the solar system, including Earth. With its massive gravitational pull, Jupiter has altered the orbit of asteroids and comets for billions of years.
Without Jupiter’s intervention, some of that space debris could have crashed into Earth; if one had been a cataclysmic collision, it could have caused an extinction-level event. Just look at what happened to the dinosaurs.
Maybe Jupiter assisted us in our existence, but the planet itself is extraordinarily inhospitable to life – at least, life as we know it.
The same is not the case with a Jupiter moon, Europa, perhaps our best chance to find life elsewhere in the solar system.
NASA’s Europa Clipper, a robotic probe launching in October 2024, is scheduled to do about 50 fly-bys over that moon to study its enormous underground ocean.
Could something be living in Europa’s water? Scientists won’t know for a while. Because of Jupiter’s distance from Earth, the probe won’t arrive until April 2030.
https://www.discovermagazine.com/the-sciences/how-can-jupiter-have-no-surface-a-look-at-the-planet-that-could-swallow-1?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
*
MORE YOUNG PEOPLE ARE SURVIVING CANCER, BUT THEIR LIVES ARE ALTERED BY IT
Four years ago, Lourdes Monje was 25, had quit an uninspiring job in New York, and was crashing at a sister's apartment in Philadelphia while plotting a career shift to teaching.
"Instead, I found cancer in my body," Monje says.
On Halloween morning of 2020, Monje felt a strange bump on their left breast. An agonizing series of scans and biopsies revealed cancer that had spread to spots on the lung. That devastating diagnosis narrowed Monje's vision of any future to a small, dark point.
But at the next appointment, Monje's oncologist explained that even an advanced diagnosis is not a death sentence, thanks to revolutionary changes in cancer care. Technology, using tools like artificial intelligence, is better at identifying cancers, earlier. AI can help radiologists read mammograms, and the chemical profile of cancer cells can be determined so targeted therapies can succeed.
A generation ago, the typical cancer patient cut a very different profile than Monje: Older, with an empty nest, living at or near retirement, and thus more financially secure. In older age, the average patient also had peers aging into illness alongside them — and few survived very long.
So Monje represents, in many ways, the new generation of cancer survivor — a person who is younger, less financially secure, and still having to navigate life after treatment, from dating to career, sex and child rearing.
Life, recalibrated
Monje has a cancer subtype known as ER+/Her2- (estrogen-receptor positive, Her2-protein negative) that is among the most common forms of breast cancer, and there are therapies effective at fighting it. New drugs and immunotherapies target and destroy cancer cells while leaving healthy cells intact. Those advances can keep even metastatic disease at bay for years, the doctor told Monje. "She even told me to try to ignore the fact that it was Stage 4, which is a little hard to ignore," Monje says.
bottles of cancer drugs
Lourdes Monje has collected visual reminders of what it means to live with metastatic breast cancer — hospital bracelets, papers, bottles of medicine.
But undergoing those treatments also thrust Monje into turmoil — physically, hormonally, career-wise and, obviously, emotionally. "Life — for me — it felt infinite, and I think that's something that a lot of us have when we're young, is that life feels like it's going to go on for a long time," Monje says. "I spent a lot of time mourning that. I spent a lot of time mourning that I don't have this carefreeness about life anymore. That, I think, has been one of the harder emotional changes.”
People in their 20s, 30s and 40s have been overlooked when it comes to both cancer research and support, says Alison Silberman, CEO of Stupid Cancer, a group for people affected by young-adult cancer. Because they have so much life to live, their needs are greater and more complex, she says.
The flip side of great news
Cancer survivorship today in many ways is revealing the myriad struggles on the flip side of the great news that cancer is increasingly a treatable disease. Many experts worry too little attention is also paid to the quality of life people are left to live when they're no longer actively undergoing medical treatment. She says often their educational, financial, or social concerns go ignored or undiscussed, leaving them unprepared.
"A lot of these survivorship questions are being asked too late, and they've lost years where they could have prepared for it," she says. Things like whether to preserve fertility, how to maintain social and educational connections, or how to budget for out-of-pocket costs of aftercare and manage disruptions in career and income. "Those conversations need to happen earlier and they need to happen more often.”
For Lourdes Monje, ringing the "victory bell" in June 2023 was bittersweet because it was only the end of one part of treatment. "The rest of my treatment would continue indefinitely," said Monje. "That picture and moment represent the reality of never-ending treatment, the importance of celebrating every milestone big or small, and the gratitude for those who are there to share those memories with.”
Those kinds of life questions are still sorting themselves out for Lourdes Monje, whose cancer's been contained, four years on. Like: When — and how — to get back into dating. Only recently, after many years of recovery and deliberation, has Monje felt ready to "dip a toe in the water."
"I think for a long time I felt like I just wasn't worthy of that," Monje says. "I kept feeling like I was just going to be traumatizing someone, so I kept on feeling like: Why do that? Why push that burden onto someone else?”
Monje says being nonbinary made the infertility from treatment a bit easier to accept; unconventional families felt familiar to them. But that hasn't resolved the existential question Monje says is a source of internal debate: "Would I want to form a family with a child, you know, knowing that they might have to see me die young?”
"So much happier with my life”
Monje's new teaching career has also taken longer to launch, in large part because the maintenance treatments she receives cause bouts of fatigue or other side effects brought on by abrupt hormonal changes.
But Monje recently started working part-time, teaching computer skills to immigrants, reminiscent of classes Monje's own parents took when they first immigrated with 8-year-old Monje from Peru two decades ago. "My parents benefited from programs like the ones that I work in now. So it feels like really valuable work that feels very much worthy of my time," Monje says.
There are ways in which cancer focuses a spotlight on the things that make life precious, like family dinners and playtime with nieces. "It makes me savor those good little moments, so much more," Monje says. "It makes me feel so much happier with my life than I was before. On 'paper' I have less than I used to, but the value of my life feels so much more.”
https://www.npr.org/2024/11/11/nx-s1-5172234/cancer-survivorship-young-patient-profile?utm_source=pocket-newtab-en-us
*
HOW TO KEEP YOUR HEART HEALTHY
Exercise is key
“If you put exercise into a pill, it would probably be better than anything a doctor could give you to improve heart health,” says Prof Dan Augustine, a cardiologist at Royal United Hospitals Bath. The NHS recommends 150 minutes a week of moderately intense activity, such as brisk walking “that gets you a bit breathless”, says Augustine, or 75 minutes of higher intensity exercise, such as running or cycling. “If you think back to ancient times,” says Graham Stuart, medical director of Sports Cardiology UK, “we didn’t have cars, we walked everywhere and did manual labor. All the body processes are designed to be active.”
Be aware of what your body can do
“If you have done no exercise in the past, you need to build it up,” says Augustine. “Older people have more cardiac problems when they are exercising. If you are over 40, you need to have a feel for your own risk factors,” for example, if you smoke or have a family history of coronary disease. Augustine advises having regular health checks, which are offered free by the NHS every five years for people aged between 40 and 74, and include monitoring blood pressure, cholesterol level and diabetes risk.
Overdoing it can be bad too
Generally speaking, you can’t do too much exercise. “If you’re doing really intense stuff like ultramarathons,” says Augustine, “there is some evidence that you can cause some heart damage but this probably reverses after three or four days.” What is more concerning, he says, is people overexerting themselves without being aware of underlying coronary disease. This can be a reason why otherwise healthy people collapse during marathons, or middle-aged men out cycling have heart attacks.
Avoid a sedentary lifestyle
“You’re not going to go from zero to 100% in terms of exercise, but just think about how much you’re sitting,” Augustine says. “If you’re getting your 10,000 steps each day then that is pretty good,” says Stuart. Dr Fizzah Choudry, a consultant cardiologist at St Bartholomew’s in London, says she walks around her house in the evening until she reaches this target.
High cholesterol can be problematic
“Cholesterol is a type of fat in our bloodstream that is made in the liver and is also found in the food that we eat,” says Choudry. “Having too much can lead to furring up of the arteries, particularly the heart arteries and the vessels that supply the brain. This can lead to problems such as heart disease and stroke. The cholesterol-laden plaque that builds up in the heart arteries can reduce blood flow to the heart causing chest pain and angina but it can also cause sudden blockage of the arteries, causing a heart attack.”
Inherited risk can be assessed
If you have a family member who has had a heart attack under the age of 60, you should see a doctor, says Augustine. Likewise, “if you have a parent, sibling or relative who has a heart problem that they’re told is inherited, then you must get yourself checked,” says Stuart. You can see your GP or self-refer. It is important to access information on how to live safely with an inherited condition, especially when participating in sport, Stuart adds.
Diet plays an integral role
“I would recommend a Mediterranean-style diet,” says Stuart. “Fruit, vegetables, nuts and pulses are good for blood vessels and good for the heart.” “Swap white bread, rice and pasta out for wholegrain versions because they’ve got more fibre in,” says Augustine. “They are more filling and they are digested more slowly. Protein is really important and helps the body to grow and repair. Oily fish is really good for reducing bad cholesterol, inflammation, and lowering blood pressure.”
Avoid unhealthy foods
“I’m from Glasgow,” says Stuart, “and there is a lot of evidence to suggest that deep-fried Mars bars are not so good for the heart.” “What I say to patients,” says Choudry, who has a specialty in cardiovascular disease prevention, “is try to cut down on fats – particularly saturated fat – and the amount of oil you put into food. Also cut down on carbohydrates. Mostly when people eat, they have a whole plate of rice or pasta and then a bit of meat and a bit of veg. Cut the carbs in half and fill the rest of your plate with white meat, fish and vegetables, and then you will start to lose weight and reduce your cardiovascular risk.”
. . . and other no-brainers
“Stopping smoking can significantly improve your life expectancy on its own,” says Tharusha Gunawardena, a cardiologist who works in coronary intervention at the Royal Papworth hospital in Cambridge, and describes himself as a “glorified plumber”. Choudry explains how her heart attack patients often “have a sudden wake-up call, and say: ‘there’s no way I’m ever going to smoke again’, which is great.” She also sees a lot of younger patients who have used cocaine, which can cause a sudden heart attack straight after taking it, or heart disease in the longer term. “From a cardiac perspective, alcohol in moderation is OK,” she says, as long as you stick to safe amounts, which UK guidelines state should be no more than 14 units over three days or more. “The key thing is not to binge,” says Augustine.
Prioritize sleep
Gunawardena has just come off the night shift. Working nights, he says, has been shown to cause inflammation and worse cardiac outcomes, but he has done a Brazilian jiu-jitsu session to feel “less awful”. “There are a lot of regeneration processes that occur while we sleep and trying to get eight hours of sleep a day is important,” he says. Better sleep can be achieved through positive sleep hygiene, he says, avoiding screens and prioritizing rest before bedtime. “Your heart is a muscle, an engine,” says Augustine. “It needs fueling and resting.”
Stress can lead to unhealthy habits
“Do I have evidence to say that if you are emotionally stressed, that is bad for your heart? I can’t say that,” says Augustine, “but if you are under a lot of stress and your body clock is all over the place … you aren’t going to be as physically active.” “We know that if you’re running on adrenaline, you’re more likely to get abnormal beats,” says Stuart. “If you’re in a constant high-adrenaline environment, you’re more likely to develop problems. How you deal with stress in the modern world is more difficult. I tell the teenagers I see to make sure they get time for rest, whether it’s meditation or a walk.”
Hearts can sometimes race
We become more aware of our heartbeat when we are anxious or nervous, as blood is pumped faster, like when we exercise. Gunawardena explains: “Generally we don’t notice our heartbeat but sometimes people do. This can be because something peculiar is happening, like their heart is racing or beating irregularly. It can sometimes be a normal phenomenon – often contemplating your heartbeat suddenly makes one aware of it, but palpitations, as a symptom, is the unusual awareness of them, where it feels odd.” If someone is concerned about palpitations, especially if they are also breathless and experiencing chest pain, they should see a doctor. “It is hard to be too prescriptive,” says Gunawardena. “It can be a very individual experience. Some people can have abnormal heart rhythms and experience very few symptoms and there are others who find more common, non-life limiting phenomena much more intrusive.”
What is a heart attack?
“A heart attack is when you have a blocked artery,” says Choudry. “And because of the blocked artery, you don’t get blood supply to a certain part of the heart. That is what causes the pain.” Choudry’s team deals with almost 1,000 heart attacks a year and makes about 3,000 coronary interventions, which involve putting stents into people’s arteries when they become blocked, to prevent heart attacks.
A heart attack can feel like a heaviness in the chest
Symptoms vary, says Augustine, but a chest pain “that feels like a weight or heaviness” is common. Some patients describe it as “radiating up to their throat or down their left arm.” This can be accompanied by feeling sweaty or sick. If you think you are having a heart attack you should seek medical advice immediately.
A heart attack can lead to cardiac arrest
“When a person is having a heart attack, the arteries are blocked and the muscles are starved of oxygen,” says Gunawardena. “It sets off this abnormal heart rhythm and that makes the heart beat very fast and irregularly. Your heart should pump in a rhythmic, regular fashion, but when it goes into one of these abnormal heart rhythms, it pumps in a very uncoordinated fashion. And so people pass out and that is when they have what is called a cardiac arrest.”
We should all learn how to do CPR
“I can’t say how important it is that people know how to do CPR [cardiopulmonary resuscitation],” says Gunawardena. “If you don’t know how to perform CPR then learn how to do it so you are prepared if there is a serious complication of a heart attack.”
. . . and how to use an electric defibrillator
“Ideally they should be everywhere where there is sport,” says Augustine. He recommends looking at the Resuscitation Council website for information on where to find them and how to use them.
After a heart attack, avoid driving and sex for a month
Heart attacks “can really upset a person’s confidence,” says Gunawardena, because you can “suddenly become acutely aware of any sensation in the chest.” With sex, “most people tend to feel nervous about it,” says Gunawardena, “and want to have engaged with all the cardiac rehab and exercises first. Like with anything, it’s a case of starting slowly.” Sex, like any form of aerobic exercise, is obviously very good for the heart too.
Statins can be life savers
“In the last 20 years or more, reducing cholesterol with medications such as statins has led to a dramatic reduction in mortality related to heart disease,” says Choudry. “Statins are usually prescribed for all patients who have had heart disease and also those felt to be at increased risk, whether that is down to raised cholesterol or other factors.”
A pace-maker isn’t as life-altering as it sounds
Stuart gives the example of the Danish footballer Christian Eriksen who had an implantable cardioverter defibrillator, a type of pacemaker, fitted after a cardiac arrest at the European Championships in 2021, but is still playing professionally for Manchester United. There are minor inconveniences, like setting off security at the airport but “people can live really normal lives with them,” says Gunawardena.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2023/nov/14/the-experts-cardiologists-on-20-simple-successful-steps-to-a-healthy-heart
Oriana:
Predictably, not a word here about CoQ10 (also available as the more bioavailable ubiquinol), or berberine, which, at the right dose (minimum 1000 mg/day, preferably 1200 or 1500mg) lowers blood sugar and eliminates the needs for statins.
ending on beauty:
THE ANGEL IN SAN FRANCISCO
for Sutton Breiding
In San Francisco an angel
bears a fluted holy water conch —
a marble smile, celestial.
The Golden Gate Bridge
departs into fog, a harp of bones
of builders and suicides.
Cloud-eaten hills,
views of Alcatraz;
drunks grinning to themselves
in Victorian doorways.
Angel, you smile as if you knew
beauty is the sole excuse.
The city rises, half-dream, half-fog,
here on the slippery
ledge of the continent.
Seagulls blur with white sails.
At the Palace of Fine Arts,
a bronze Perseus lifts
the head of the Medusa,
though he himself is headless.
But you, mild angel, bless
all who enter the dim vestibule.
At the tomb of a dead god,
you change stone into hope.
~ Oriana
(image: view of Alcatraz)
No comments:
Post a Comment