In Fascism there is always a struggle. “Mein Kampf.” The Nation is always in peril from without and within. The peril requires unusual sacrifices, special powers to deal with the Enemy.
Loaded language is used to push a Narrative. Narratives create Mythology. Mythology leads to Iconization and Demonization. They can become a causus belli. Or a reason to commit atrocities.
Did you know that the people who invaded ancient India and set up the Hindu religion were secretly German? That’s why they were the Master Race. The Brothers Grimm proved it!
Beautiful, Mike. This is such an important argument. One more point is the words used in the Orwellian renamings are not just labels: they have prior meanings in the public psyche.
Calling the “Department of Defense” the “Department of War” is quite different from calling it the “Department of ZDXRBOT.”
The word “war” triggers deep ancient synapses, and the tech bros know it.
I don’t think you’re being pedantic, alarmist or any other label those who minimize what’s going on want to throw at your sound, valid arguments.
It’s unfortunate that people don’t learn from history. How many others in our history have raised their concerns at the time of major events, been chastised, and then proven in the end to be correct? If I was a betting man, I would bet that a year from now those same people assigning labels to you now will be saying, “Mike was right!”
"What we have learned about what man learns from history is that man learns nothing from history." —Winston Churchill (11/30/1874-1/24/1965)
And we should all ask, why is that? If you could learn not to put your hands over a hot stove, then why can't you learn what others experienced by being burnt from events to the acts of humankind in the past? Is it because people are ignorant or naive? It's because people did not feel the horrendous pain or endure suffering to make sure that that wound would never be forgotten-a scar they would see every day to remind them not to do this, not to allow that? I don't have an answer to explain human behavior. I have watched it over my 83 years, always being amazed at what I see and what I experience.
Well said Mr. Strum - from a person being 81 years young.
An offering: Churchill was correct - but only pertaining to those that didn't read History or didn't have the ability to "think out of the box" - which I believe might be inherent, but which can be taught.
I personally believe that the axiom "...We are what we have been taught..." - can be applied to Churchill's comment - and to life itself for that matter.
What I believe Churchill was delineating - was that unless one had personally experienced something, and if not taught "don't go there" - chances are that one will experience the burn from events unknown to them - but which have taken place previously - and are Historically documented.
It's amazing what you can learn from reading History from several perspectives -- but one has to take the time to read, assimilate, and learn.
I am 83, but I'll take the two years you've given me. Mr. Strum is my father. I am a physician. And although I don't attach much significance anymore in light of what has happened to my profession, Mr. Strum sounds alien to me.
From what my 83 years of perspective have given me, I think that Churchill's quote about history relates more to what the vast, overwhelming population of human beings has not learned. I interact with highly educated professionals from the world of medicine and science and biology, and I'm astounded at how often they have forgotten about what we have learned from the past. What is so simple is knowing what past therapeutics have worked to heal illness and yet those have been pushed aside and forgotten by a younger generation that has no sense that there's anything worthwhile learning from the elder.
I think Churchill and I believe myself are cynical about what man is able to do versus what man does. For sure, the less well-read, the less educated, the less principled an upbringing of a person will have its obvious effects on how that person views today's world in the frame of past history.
But how many people in this country who are 60 years or older and still do not recognize the hallmarks of fascism can go by 1, 3, 5, 10 years and not see the blatant actions of a fascist regime under our president and his excremental cabinet and Republican Congress?
So forgive me if I am being somewhat or significantly pushy. I've been around the bases more than one time. I've traveled around the world and spoken to different people. Americans, my native country, tend to be far less involved insofar as not taking those that rule their house seriously. And because of that, we have a bully and his buddy bullies running and ruining this country. They are onerous and odorous and odious. And we elected them and we approved them for department heads. If we get out of this mess, do you think we will have learned our lesson about what we must do for our democracy to survive? See my book on Amazon under my name, Stephen B. Strum, and my son, Adam Strum.
The name does matter and I have recoiled from its first use. To say it doesn’t matter ignores that small matters will never grow into big matters. All the while, we know historically that they can or do. By virtue of saying Department of War you give power to the entities that believe and act as though it really is a department of war, which it isn’t at all. Only Congress can determine through law, its real name and so far it has done no such thing.
Keep being “pedantic” while so many others “scroll” through life with eyes glazed over.
Mike, your posts are consistently provocative, and I say that in the most positive way. Words have meaning. They always have and they always will to a mind that is working. And by the word "working," I mean someone that enjoys energy spent on cognitive function. That is in distinction to the glitz, the trivia, the little thin crust of the conversation so many have with texts and with other social media glimpses that barely touch on anything that could be defined as intellectual. I suppose the human being is inherently lazy. An object that stays at rest continues to stay at rest. This is what I see so much of in this country, even coming from the cerebral hemispheres of people who are college educated with degrees and who seem in everyday conversation to certainly not be in the category of ignorant or naive.
And yet, to have verbal interaction with the next door neighbor about how could he possibly equate the criminality of the Republican Party under the Trump administration with his dislike of comma Harris. And instead of voting to keep Trump out of office, he would write in his dog's name as his candidate of choice.
How do you have a discussion with someone that said they work for the CIA and that appears to be highly educated and who tosses out the words "Jesus" and Christ repeatedly and yet in the same sentence praises Trump as being one of the greatest presidents of this country?
To that man above and the many other pseudo-Christians, I speak out as a Jew, circumcised and bar mitzvahed just like Jesus was, to say, just like Marshall McLuhan would say in Annie Hall, "you know nothing of my work."
Words have meaning, words have power, and yet the words uttered from the cesspool of Donald Trump's upper orifice were ignored again and again.
America and Americans, the way you make your bed is how you sleep in it. Many of you have truly been blind or ignorant or have had self-interests that have led you to follow or even extol this villainous creature. This must be an expression of a pathologic family unit or assorted educational system. I hope we can find our way in this country and, learn our lessons.
Your point is spot on. Language shapes not just points at reality. And reality is not a static entity, it is emergent. It drives me nuts how sloppy people are in their use of language (I almost want to say, especially on the left. We should know better.)
What do you feel is "sloppy" language that "the left" uses?
You write here that "it"drives you nuts.
Does this mean that you care more about the language used, over the content of what's being conveyed by the language being used; especially by "the left".
And if it is by the left - what is it about that language being used by "the left" - that drive's you more "nuts" than the language used by "the right"?
Hey Mike, great piece. I also think words matter and when we don't call things what they really are, we run into trouble. What you're describing in this piece, and also in your chat with respect to people misunderstanding your purpose is the exact same pushback my husband and I get from his family. He's tried to talk openly and get them to engage but he's interpreted by them as mean spirited, negative, only interested in his POV, etc.. I'm not sure how we'll ever right the ship when so many people willfully refuse to engage because they don't like to be made to feel uncomfortable. Ostrich syndrome.
Of course there are "bigger fish to fry" 🙄 What are they doing to tackle that list? I think a letter to their Representative or even painting a new protest sign would be a better use of time than to chide anyone else for being pedantic. Words matter. Like when we hear 'boots on the ground' but nothing about the men and women wearing those boots.
It may be a radical tangent to your argument, but I wonder, here, at how the right employs this sort of doublethink/double speak in their "Lincoln was a Republican" argument. They argue that Abraham Lincoln was, perhaps, the most consequential progressive in American history. (This proceeds from the "Lincoln freed the slaves" tale; in actuality, the slaves freed themselves by fighting for the Union during the Civil War, and Lincoln was an astute enough a politician to get ahead of this event by supporting the 13th Amendment.) But, they ignore the subsequent history of the 20th century, in which the Democratic and Republican parties changed places. As the Civil War generation died out in the first half of the century, the Democratic Party moved from racist segregation (racist slavery "lite") to a center-left, but definitely more progressive position in the second half of that century. (Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, even Clinton, to a lesser extent.) The Republican Party, in a mirror-image movement, went from the progressive positions of a Teddy Roosevelt to the centrism of a Dwight Eisenhower, to the class warfare (war of Republicans as a class against Americans as a class) of a Ronald Reagan, to the blatantly autocratic and totalitarian positions of the Trumpists, in the early 21st century.
But, through all this change, the two parties kept their names, teams that wore the same colors or jerseys, as they switched goals. The Cartesian argument is that language determines thought, then action. Yet, here, we have a case of thought and actions changing (inverting), while the names, the words, remain the same. How does this square with the Cartesian argument that the word, the name, defines the thought?
Well, I mean, if a Republican wants to try and use Lincoln as a cudgel upon which to defend themselves vis-a-vis the moral charge I make against them, then I invite them to do so. I know much of the history of Lincoln and the formative years of these United States. We'll see whose argument stands the pressure of argumentative scrutiny. I invite any partisan Republican Party supporter to throw the example of Abraham Lincoln down in front of me as some moral license to support this illegitimate president. Beyond invitation, I dare them to do so, actually. Please. Feed me the sustenance of these foolish arguments, such that I can demonstrate the charlatanism in them all.
Mr. Babson -- you just hoisted the "Cartesian Argument" up on it's own petard ---.
Well done.
I would offer one thought though - as I checked the National Archives before writing this response:
"...About 40,000 (including former slaves) of the "from 170,000 to 200,000" black soldiers serving in the Union Army during the Civil War - lost their lives in that War; with records showing that almost 30,000 of them died from illness, not in battle.
The records state that "approximately 360,222 total Union soldiers (including white, but not black) lost their lives in the Civil War, with approximately 314,000 to 360,000 being white soldiers..." -and I would agree that the math doesn't quite work out precisely - but "you get the drift" / point.
Also -- if you check out the records pertaining to "what" Lincoln was for, "when", and "why"... it's up to you as to whether or not you might want to do a "rethink" about what you've posted here.
Above (below?) reply is my reply to Mr. Brock's comment on my comment about Cartesian semiotic process. Newbie in this posting environment, and I'm like the Wizard of Oz, trying to fly his balloon for the first time--I don't know how it works.
As to Lincoln, you can hardly blame him for his comment during the Secession Crisis, when he said (paraphrased) that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all enslaved people, some enslaved people, or no enslaved people, he would do it. And, you can't blame Frederick Douglass for rejecting this statement, as strongly as possible. But, after several hundred thousand (the exact number is unclear; I have long heard "276,000," but little citation for that number) Black American soldiers and sailors fought for the Union (under the first principle of alliance: the enemy of my enemy is my friend), returning them to enslavement was impossible (another paraphrase: "You can't put a shackle back on a hand that has held a rifle."). Lincoln understood that, hence his work to get the 13th Amendment through Congress. I think, throughout his life, Lincoln opposed slavery, but, in 1861, he thought that abolition needed to yield to preserving the Union. That position failed, and, by 1865, following four years of civil war, conditions were very different, so Lincoln did what he could (which was considerable) to abolish slavery. John Wilkes Booth cancelled what more Lincoln might have done to reconcile the prose of the Constitution with the poetry of the Declaration, a national disaster that ranks with 1/6/21 in American presidential history.
I am not arguing that "Lincoln was a Republican" is, in any way, a justification for what the Republican party has become at present--an anti-American party which, whether it knows it or not, is trying to change the United States into a version of "Russia West." Which provides sycophantic excuses for the only attempted self-coup by a U.S. president, namely 1/6/21. I am intrigued by how these changes in these organizations happened, yet their names/words did not change. Does this perhaps singular, one-off process contradict the Cartesian idea that the word creates the thought and actions(s)? Is it the exception that proves the rule? My comment is an effort to get deep into the weeds of semiotics, or linguistic/philosophical theory. As such, it is an exercise in pedantry.
And, I'm still puzzled as to how the two over-institutional political parties in the United States did the "Great Do-Si-Do," through the course of the 20th century. Why, in respect to their positions in 1900, by 2000 (definitely by 2025) Republicans had become Democrats, and Democrats had become Republicans. How, were he alive today (as well as being 217 years old, and, probably, begging for Booth's bullet), Lincoln would now be a Democrat, since even Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee could not bring themselves to drink Trump's orange Kool-Aid. (Worst. Bourbon. Ever!)
Really, my comment is not (just) snark. How did this happen?
Hi David -- a very fair and concise presentation of (to use some "little bit back vocabulary"), i.e., "where your head's at".
I would offer the follow as to what I've come to believe on this:
1.) Labels are just that - labels - to be either self- affixed, or allowed, for whatever reason; to be affixed to one-self by others.
Taking that position into consideration, and having studied the Civil War, and him and his life rather extensively over the years; to me - a person such as Lincoln, who was observed to have had a very strong "sense-of-self" while also being humble about it, i.e., he didn't shout from the rooftop: - also had a personality of self-respect; self-determination; and self-reliance.
My personal belief is that Lincoln politically placed himself in a political party that he felt comfortable with - which is a human thing and not a "label" -- that would afford him a path to where he wanted to go - because of his core beliefs: - which I believe - from before he ran for office - was anti slavery.
So he predetermined his path and the type of people he wanted to associate with,
knowing full well, as he was no dummy; that if he was elected - he would have to meet and greet all comers - which was the case as the Country ran up to the Civil War.
So as to the flip of political labels -- the people and their political views stayed- while the labels changed - I believe - due to the putrid reputation of people making the carpetbaggers - who effectively sabotaged the political changes in the South.
The South was where the landed gentry, with their "human" possessions first landed in this Country to be with their baked-in mind-set of Modern Conservatism (which I've documented by observation) with their really close ties to the various church derived religions of the time - and in their area of influence -- "...they ruled the roost..". -- until the Northern Armies went through their Armies like "poop through a goose" - which they have never forgotten.
A factual point that I believe needs to be made known and understood - knowing the History of the area and the people that basically got their political, economical, and military "heads" handed to them on a platter:
--- the President of the Confederacy - one Jefferson Davis, a member of the Union Army Officers cadets at West Point- chose to put his personal allegiance to "his belies" rather than to the US ;
--- just before being arrested for Treason for Rebellion, escaped to parts unknown;
--- cam back later into the US - with a phase he had coined - in an attempt to to reignite the rebellion.
The phrase was:
--- "...Make America Great Again..." - or MAGA.
Trump didn't come up with that phrase -- Jefferson Davis did; and I believe that today - by the present Republican Party with it's MAGA core - they don't want to take the US back to the 1950s:
--- they want to take it all the way back to pre Civil War days;
--- based on the seven tenets of their ideologies.
I am suggesting to you - through this documentable US History - that because they are Modern Conservatives and their centuries long ideology, as they are not the first to believe what they do -- you have it backwards.
The former Republican Party, now the demonstrated and documented "Trump Nazi Evangelical MAGA Party" - has it's ideological roots going all the way back to the last of the Bourbon Kings in France, King Louis XIV, with his Courts; Church; and business types all declaring "Free Enterprise Without Restriction" - just before the French Revolution.
It, as an ideology, then went to Britain - where it is still today as the Conservative Party, and then - to here.
And in between them landing in the South - they appeared as the German Third Reich Nazi Government and Party under the dictatorship of one Adolph Hitler.
The string of History dots denotes that the ideologies did not change - the labels did.
The final takeaway from this documented History - is that the focal point of all of the Modern Conservative's ideologies are only two:
1.) "...make as much money as one can; in as little a time frame as one can; with as little restriction as one can develop / legislate; in order to own as much "possessions as one can accumulate..." - while
2.) "...grabbing as much "power" / political / economic / with as little restrictions as is possible..." -- full stop.
A Zebra can not change it's stripes.
but there ae a whole lot of Zebras in certain places.
All of "the others" in this Country- and around this rock we all live on; who are not "Modern Conservative Nazis":
--- hold "people" to be their focal point.
And it has been this way for the Centuries after Louis XIV.
I'm just suggesting you consider this documented History - and not the "labels" - as they are a dime a dozen - and are worth about as much.
Control of the narrative, that is the goal,"war",the administration title suggests force,which maga supporters confuse with power..since they mostly have had their 'power' taken from them,by deceptive persons and policies..they flock to the term in the hope that they may reclaim some of that power. Alas,they are deceived again. Dickens was correct when he warned,paraphrased, "beware of ignorance and want-and of the two-ignorance is the greater evil."
To Mike Sudalnik -- can I offer a couple of thoughts for you to consider about "The MAGA".
They, to an individual: have independently, conscientiously, brought themselves to believe the ideologies of Conservatism, especially the Modern Version of Conservatism.
I'm not making this statement as an opinion.
I'm making it based on decades of observing them, listening to them, and reading documentation of their actions and voting records in both State and National elections over the last decades -- because I felt that it was important to the future of this Country as a Republic while growing up.
So what are the documented facts as to what these ideologies are - as voiced in the MAGA "battle cry" of "...Free Enterprise Without Restriction...": - hidden in "...Make America Great Again...".
1.) "Totalitarianism" -- where THE PARTY controls THE GOVERNMENT, and seeks to punish it's political enemies, eliminating decent from anyone;
2.) "Dictatorship" -- where THE LEADER controls absolutely everything;
3.) "Limiting Personal Freedom: -- where THE COURT and THE GOVERNMENT takes away personal freedom without cause or recourse;
4.) "Xenophobia" - perpetuating the White /Nordic Race Heritage - while eliminating all others as "inferior";
5.) "Nationalism" -- "rebuilding the Country - ...because it has been persecuted against by all other nations;
6.) "Loyalty" -- where each PARTY MEMBER swears total loyalty to THE LEADER as THE PARTY LEADER ---- and then to the Country - and
7.) "Sovereign Economy" -- where THE GOVERNMENT runs everything "...for it's 'war needs'..." - both economic and "otherwise.
Each and every one of these tenets is continuous and documented "observable" in the language used, the political position taken, and the decades long voting records of only one of the two Political Parties in the US today -- and it isn't the present day Democratic Political Party.
World History also identifies who believed those seven ideologies:
--- The Third Reich Nazi Government and Nazi Party Members under Dictator Adolph Hitler.
A fact when closely examined: -- you can't get a single piece of paper between the MAGA / present day Republican Party's new Bible - Project 2025 and now 2026 - and the ideologies of The Third Reich Nazi Government and Nazi Party.
Because I am a "brat" of a US ARMY Officer - when I was a young boy, I lived and played with kids that had parents that hade the exact same ideologies as stated above:
--- in Germany, 1 1/2 years after the end of WW II in Europe as my father was one of Gen. Patton's Tank Battalion Commanders and was assigned, like Gen. Patton , to start the "rebuild" of Germany.
I lived in Germany for three years, and because we had a German maid who had lost her parents to The Nazi - over the years we kept in touch and I learned first hand how some of the people of Germany - knowingly turned themselves into The Nazi.
The MAGA, and Republican Party voter(s): by themselves: turned themselves into the home-grown Nazi we now find within the US -- and they did it by choice.
The US as a Country - does not owe any citizen anything -- full stop.
The US as a Country - as set up as the almost 250 year old Republic that it is -- makes possible - "anything" - including those that for their self-centered reasons - have chosen to try and destroy it.
Their individual action of casting their vote, which is a fundamental right as granted under the US Constitutional to all US citizens, -- is also legally defined as being an overt act of Treason - if that vote were to bring damage or harm to that Constitution .
In this case - their individual votes have bought damage and harm to the Constitution:
--- because they cast their individual votes for a publicly self-declared Dictator on Day 1.
In this case - they cast their individual votes for Politicians in their Political Party that are daily working to bring damage and harm to the Constitution - by not daily performing their duty to protect the Constitution - by willfully; observably; and documented; acquiescing their legislative duties and power under the Constitution --- to their "Leader / Dictator" - one Donald J. Trump.
The MAGA - and every other Republican Party Member / voter - has turned him or herself into the Nazi - by their ideology / action / and speech.
They are now , by legal definition - "the enemy" -- and should be treated as such -- because their individual and collective; demonstrated; documented "actions" speak the truth as to who and what they are - over their prostrations to the contrary.
Do I feel strongly about this?
As a now severely physically disabled US Navy Vet (early Vietnam) - who left "actual 'skin in the game' ' - at sea - in theater -- Do Ya Think!
Each on of use controls our narrative.
The Nazi MAGA does not confuse anything - "it" knows what "it" wants - and that is found in two words -"Money" and "Power".
If one has any self respect; self-determination; and self-reliance - no self-power can be taken away - that's just male bovine pasture pastry spewed out to obfuscate the situation.
No one forced the individual into being a Nazi MAGA -- they turned themselves into The Nazi MAGA - and finally:
Get it through one's head: -- this is no time to wax poetic: as Charles Dickens didn't have a thing to do with this.
When you quote someone's statement, it is a point of emphasis applied to your personal statement. Not poetry! If you do not grasp the meaning of the quote-say so,ask for clarification. All actions are choices,good or bad..when your choices destroy people and their lives you are evil.When the choices support their lives,this is good. Simple,the names applied throughout time have changed,but the results have not...by their actions,you will know them.
If words didn't matter, there would not be corporate empires built on branding. And these are not "little" things. Like the battle with my kids over leaving things in the kitchen sink - "but it's only a fork" - allowing the little thing becomes another little thing, which become a bigger thing, which eventually becomes a mess. They didn't change these names for grins. They did it to see if they could get away with it, then use those new names to refrain or re-anchor our thinking.
A solid example of how their branding works came when I saw an anti-Trump commentator use the term "Stop the Steal" to describe the effort to overturn the 2020 election. Here was a person who used their terminology to reference their attempt to commit the theft. There is no snappy, on-brand phrase to describe Trump's attempt to steal the election, so we use his - and every time we do, it suggests the election was stolen.
I’m with you on this, for the reasons you give and for others you have mentioned before. War is only one means of waging defense and usually not the most cost-effective one. Which is why most clear-thinking national security strategists believe war should be waged as a last resort, after all other means of pursuing our national defense and national security interests more broadly have been exhausted. One concrete consequence of this misnaming effort has been the weirdly light and flippant slide into actual physical war with Iran, without consulting the American people, Congress, or (God forbid) our security treaty allies and friends, current and/or former. The misnaming of the department of defense was one factor in facilitating the slippery slide past diplomacy and other measures short of war in pursuing national defense without the friction built into our democratic system. In a way you describe better than I could, this friction included language. Not anymore. It sometimes feels as though the techno-authoritarian nature of this political project has stealthily defanged our democratic protections, leaving the renegade defenders to defend with our harmless gums. Keep up the powerful writing and analysis.
Mike, just reread this article and I agree with you about the nature of words and meaning and symbols. I state the obvious when I say I believe the regime, as stupid as they appear, had this in mind. Let’s not give them even one millimeter.
Well Written Words! About the meaning of words.
And the term “Warfighter,” over “Service Member.”
In Fascism there is always a struggle. “Mein Kampf.” The Nation is always in peril from without and within. The peril requires unusual sacrifices, special powers to deal with the Enemy.
Loaded language is used to push a Narrative. Narratives create Mythology. Mythology leads to Iconization and Demonization. They can become a causus belli. Or a reason to commit atrocities.
Did you know that the people who invaded ancient India and set up the Hindu religion were secretly German? That’s why they were the Master Race. The Brothers Grimm proved it!
Beautiful, Mike. This is such an important argument. One more point is the words used in the Orwellian renamings are not just labels: they have prior meanings in the public psyche.
Calling the “Department of Defense” the “Department of War” is quite different from calling it the “Department of ZDXRBOT.”
The word “war” triggers deep ancient synapses, and the tech bros know it.
I don’t think you’re being pedantic, alarmist or any other label those who minimize what’s going on want to throw at your sound, valid arguments.
It’s unfortunate that people don’t learn from history. How many others in our history have raised their concerns at the time of major events, been chastised, and then proven in the end to be correct? If I was a betting man, I would bet that a year from now those same people assigning labels to you now will be saying, “Mike was right!”
"What we have learned about what man learns from history is that man learns nothing from history." —Winston Churchill (11/30/1874-1/24/1965)
And we should all ask, why is that? If you could learn not to put your hands over a hot stove, then why can't you learn what others experienced by being burnt from events to the acts of humankind in the past? Is it because people are ignorant or naive? It's because people did not feel the horrendous pain or endure suffering to make sure that that wound would never be forgotten-a scar they would see every day to remind them not to do this, not to allow that? I don't have an answer to explain human behavior. I have watched it over my 83 years, always being amazed at what I see and what I experience.
Well said Mr. Strum - from a person being 81 years young.
An offering: Churchill was correct - but only pertaining to those that didn't read History or didn't have the ability to "think out of the box" - which I believe might be inherent, but which can be taught.
I personally believe that the axiom "...We are what we have been taught..." - can be applied to Churchill's comment - and to life itself for that matter.
What I believe Churchill was delineating - was that unless one had personally experienced something, and if not taught "don't go there" - chances are that one will experience the burn from events unknown to them - but which have taken place previously - and are Historically documented.
It's amazing what you can learn from reading History from several perspectives -- but one has to take the time to read, assimilate, and learn.
I am 83, but I'll take the two years you've given me. Mr. Strum is my father. I am a physician. And although I don't attach much significance anymore in light of what has happened to my profession, Mr. Strum sounds alien to me.
From what my 83 years of perspective have given me, I think that Churchill's quote about history relates more to what the vast, overwhelming population of human beings has not learned. I interact with highly educated professionals from the world of medicine and science and biology, and I'm astounded at how often they have forgotten about what we have learned from the past. What is so simple is knowing what past therapeutics have worked to heal illness and yet those have been pushed aside and forgotten by a younger generation that has no sense that there's anything worthwhile learning from the elder.
I think Churchill and I believe myself are cynical about what man is able to do versus what man does. For sure, the less well-read, the less educated, the less principled an upbringing of a person will have its obvious effects on how that person views today's world in the frame of past history.
But how many people in this country who are 60 years or older and still do not recognize the hallmarks of fascism can go by 1, 3, 5, 10 years and not see the blatant actions of a fascist regime under our president and his excremental cabinet and Republican Congress?
So forgive me if I am being somewhat or significantly pushy. I've been around the bases more than one time. I've traveled around the world and spoken to different people. Americans, my native country, tend to be far less involved insofar as not taking those that rule their house seriously. And because of that, we have a bully and his buddy bullies running and ruining this country. They are onerous and odorous and odious. And we elected them and we approved them for department heads. If we get out of this mess, do you think we will have learned our lesson about what we must do for our democracy to survive? See my book on Amazon under my name, Stephen B. Strum, and my son, Adam Strum.
Hi Tim, -- a personal thought - as Mike and I are "exchanging" on another of his presentations.
It's not that the premise that Mike presents is correct or incorrect -- it's the deluge of personal opinions he continually uses in each presentation.
"Opinion" is not "Fact" - and although Mike has an incredible vocabulary -- so does AI.
The name does matter and I have recoiled from its first use. To say it doesn’t matter ignores that small matters will never grow into big matters. All the while, we know historically that they can or do. By virtue of saying Department of War you give power to the entities that believe and act as though it really is a department of war, which it isn’t at all. Only Congress can determine through law, its real name and so far it has done no such thing.
Keep being “pedantic” while so many others “scroll” through life with eyes glazed over.
I have been noticing phenomenon for a long time. I can’t thank you enough for putting this principle in such clear and thoughtful language.
Mike, your posts are consistently provocative, and I say that in the most positive way. Words have meaning. They always have and they always will to a mind that is working. And by the word "working," I mean someone that enjoys energy spent on cognitive function. That is in distinction to the glitz, the trivia, the little thin crust of the conversation so many have with texts and with other social media glimpses that barely touch on anything that could be defined as intellectual. I suppose the human being is inherently lazy. An object that stays at rest continues to stay at rest. This is what I see so much of in this country, even coming from the cerebral hemispheres of people who are college educated with degrees and who seem in everyday conversation to certainly not be in the category of ignorant or naive.
And yet, to have verbal interaction with the next door neighbor about how could he possibly equate the criminality of the Republican Party under the Trump administration with his dislike of comma Harris. And instead of voting to keep Trump out of office, he would write in his dog's name as his candidate of choice.
How do you have a discussion with someone that said they work for the CIA and that appears to be highly educated and who tosses out the words "Jesus" and Christ repeatedly and yet in the same sentence praises Trump as being one of the greatest presidents of this country?
To that man above and the many other pseudo-Christians, I speak out as a Jew, circumcised and bar mitzvahed just like Jesus was, to say, just like Marshall McLuhan would say in Annie Hall, "you know nothing of my work."
Words have meaning, words have power, and yet the words uttered from the cesspool of Donald Trump's upper orifice were ignored again and again.
America and Americans, the way you make your bed is how you sleep in it. Many of you have truly been blind or ignorant or have had self-interests that have led you to follow or even extol this villainous creature. This must be an expression of a pathologic family unit or assorted educational system. I hope we can find our way in this country and, learn our lessons.
Your point is spot on. Language shapes not just points at reality. And reality is not a static entity, it is emergent. It drives me nuts how sloppy people are in their use of language (I almost want to say, especially on the left. We should know better.)
Kenneth - a question if I may.
What do you feel is "sloppy" language that "the left" uses?
You write here that "it"drives you nuts.
Does this mean that you care more about the language used, over the content of what's being conveyed by the language being used; especially by "the left".
And if it is by the left - what is it about that language being used by "the left" - that drive's you more "nuts" than the language used by "the right"?
Yes, WW3 is being fought on the
Plains of the English Language'
a skeet at a time.
Fascism leads with a lie, and boilerplates over it.
Small grammatical errors loom large in small contexts.
(#Waiting for unuse of an Oxford comma to determine something*)
Hey Mike, great piece. I also think words matter and when we don't call things what they really are, we run into trouble. What you're describing in this piece, and also in your chat with respect to people misunderstanding your purpose is the exact same pushback my husband and I get from his family. He's tried to talk openly and get them to engage but he's interpreted by them as mean spirited, negative, only interested in his POV, etc.. I'm not sure how we'll ever right the ship when so many people willfully refuse to engage because they don't like to be made to feel uncomfortable. Ostrich syndrome.
Of course there are "bigger fish to fry" 🙄 What are they doing to tackle that list? I think a letter to their Representative or even painting a new protest sign would be a better use of time than to chide anyone else for being pedantic. Words matter. Like when we hear 'boots on the ground' but nothing about the men and women wearing those boots.
Interesting.
It may be a radical tangent to your argument, but I wonder, here, at how the right employs this sort of doublethink/double speak in their "Lincoln was a Republican" argument. They argue that Abraham Lincoln was, perhaps, the most consequential progressive in American history. (This proceeds from the "Lincoln freed the slaves" tale; in actuality, the slaves freed themselves by fighting for the Union during the Civil War, and Lincoln was an astute enough a politician to get ahead of this event by supporting the 13th Amendment.) But, they ignore the subsequent history of the 20th century, in which the Democratic and Republican parties changed places. As the Civil War generation died out in the first half of the century, the Democratic Party moved from racist segregation (racist slavery "lite") to a center-left, but definitely more progressive position in the second half of that century. (Presidents Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, even Clinton, to a lesser extent.) The Republican Party, in a mirror-image movement, went from the progressive positions of a Teddy Roosevelt to the centrism of a Dwight Eisenhower, to the class warfare (war of Republicans as a class against Americans as a class) of a Ronald Reagan, to the blatantly autocratic and totalitarian positions of the Trumpists, in the early 21st century.
But, through all this change, the two parties kept their names, teams that wore the same colors or jerseys, as they switched goals. The Cartesian argument is that language determines thought, then action. Yet, here, we have a case of thought and actions changing (inverting), while the names, the words, remain the same. How does this square with the Cartesian argument that the word, the name, defines the thought?
Well, I mean, if a Republican wants to try and use Lincoln as a cudgel upon which to defend themselves vis-a-vis the moral charge I make against them, then I invite them to do so. I know much of the history of Lincoln and the formative years of these United States. We'll see whose argument stands the pressure of argumentative scrutiny. I invite any partisan Republican Party supporter to throw the example of Abraham Lincoln down in front of me as some moral license to support this illegitimate president. Beyond invitation, I dare them to do so, actually. Please. Feed me the sustenance of these foolish arguments, such that I can demonstrate the charlatanism in them all.
Mike -- a simple question.
"...Who died and made you God..."?
It's not for anyone to say that "you can't challenge your wind mills" on your sub-stack - because you control it's content.
But "geese" man -- get real.
I think of Mike Brock as Imploring dissenters to “Challenge” him. Not as many Takers as he Implores.
Mr. Babson -- you just hoisted the "Cartesian Argument" up on it's own petard ---.
Well done.
I would offer one thought though - as I checked the National Archives before writing this response:
"...About 40,000 (including former slaves) of the "from 170,000 to 200,000" black soldiers serving in the Union Army during the Civil War - lost their lives in that War; with records showing that almost 30,000 of them died from illness, not in battle.
The records state that "approximately 360,222 total Union soldiers (including white, but not black) lost their lives in the Civil War, with approximately 314,000 to 360,000 being white soldiers..." -and I would agree that the math doesn't quite work out precisely - but "you get the drift" / point.
Also -- if you check out the records pertaining to "what" Lincoln was for, "when", and "why"... it's up to you as to whether or not you might want to do a "rethink" about what you've posted here.
Above (below?) reply is my reply to Mr. Brock's comment on my comment about Cartesian semiotic process. Newbie in this posting environment, and I'm like the Wizard of Oz, trying to fly his balloon for the first time--I don't know how it works.
As to Lincoln, you can hardly blame him for his comment during the Secession Crisis, when he said (paraphrased) that if he could preserve the Union by freeing all enslaved people, some enslaved people, or no enslaved people, he would do it. And, you can't blame Frederick Douglass for rejecting this statement, as strongly as possible. But, after several hundred thousand (the exact number is unclear; I have long heard "276,000," but little citation for that number) Black American soldiers and sailors fought for the Union (under the first principle of alliance: the enemy of my enemy is my friend), returning them to enslavement was impossible (another paraphrase: "You can't put a shackle back on a hand that has held a rifle."). Lincoln understood that, hence his work to get the 13th Amendment through Congress. I think, throughout his life, Lincoln opposed slavery, but, in 1861, he thought that abolition needed to yield to preserving the Union. That position failed, and, by 1865, following four years of civil war, conditions were very different, so Lincoln did what he could (which was considerable) to abolish slavery. John Wilkes Booth cancelled what more Lincoln might have done to reconcile the prose of the Constitution with the poetry of the Declaration, a national disaster that ranks with 1/6/21 in American presidential history.
I am not arguing that "Lincoln was a Republican" is, in any way, a justification for what the Republican party has become at present--an anti-American party which, whether it knows it or not, is trying to change the United States into a version of "Russia West." Which provides sycophantic excuses for the only attempted self-coup by a U.S. president, namely 1/6/21. I am intrigued by how these changes in these organizations happened, yet their names/words did not change. Does this perhaps singular, one-off process contradict the Cartesian idea that the word creates the thought and actions(s)? Is it the exception that proves the rule? My comment is an effort to get deep into the weeds of semiotics, or linguistic/philosophical theory. As such, it is an exercise in pedantry.
And, I'm still puzzled as to how the two over-institutional political parties in the United States did the "Great Do-Si-Do," through the course of the 20th century. Why, in respect to their positions in 1900, by 2000 (definitely by 2025) Republicans had become Democrats, and Democrats had become Republicans. How, were he alive today (as well as being 217 years old, and, probably, begging for Booth's bullet), Lincoln would now be a Democrat, since even Jeff Davis and Robert E. Lee could not bring themselves to drink Trump's orange Kool-Aid. (Worst. Bourbon. Ever!)
Really, my comment is not (just) snark. How did this happen?
Hi David -- a very fair and concise presentation of (to use some "little bit back vocabulary"), i.e., "where your head's at".
I would offer the follow as to what I've come to believe on this:
1.) Labels are just that - labels - to be either self- affixed, or allowed, for whatever reason; to be affixed to one-self by others.
Taking that position into consideration, and having studied the Civil War, and him and his life rather extensively over the years; to me - a person such as Lincoln, who was observed to have had a very strong "sense-of-self" while also being humble about it, i.e., he didn't shout from the rooftop: - also had a personality of self-respect; self-determination; and self-reliance.
My personal belief is that Lincoln politically placed himself in a political party that he felt comfortable with - which is a human thing and not a "label" -- that would afford him a path to where he wanted to go - because of his core beliefs: - which I believe - from before he ran for office - was anti slavery.
So he predetermined his path and the type of people he wanted to associate with,
knowing full well, as he was no dummy; that if he was elected - he would have to meet and greet all comers - which was the case as the Country ran up to the Civil War.
So as to the flip of political labels -- the people and their political views stayed- while the labels changed - I believe - due to the putrid reputation of people making the carpetbaggers - who effectively sabotaged the political changes in the South.
The South was where the landed gentry, with their "human" possessions first landed in this Country to be with their baked-in mind-set of Modern Conservatism (which I've documented by observation) with their really close ties to the various church derived religions of the time - and in their area of influence -- "...they ruled the roost..". -- until the Northern Armies went through their Armies like "poop through a goose" - which they have never forgotten.
A factual point that I believe needs to be made known and understood - knowing the History of the area and the people that basically got their political, economical, and military "heads" handed to them on a platter:
--- the President of the Confederacy - one Jefferson Davis, a member of the Union Army Officers cadets at West Point- chose to put his personal allegiance to "his belies" rather than to the US ;
--- just before being arrested for Treason for Rebellion, escaped to parts unknown;
--- cam back later into the US - with a phase he had coined - in an attempt to to reignite the rebellion.
The phrase was:
--- "...Make America Great Again..." - or MAGA.
Trump didn't come up with that phrase -- Jefferson Davis did; and I believe that today - by the present Republican Party with it's MAGA core - they don't want to take the US back to the 1950s:
--- they want to take it all the way back to pre Civil War days;
--- based on the seven tenets of their ideologies.
I am suggesting to you - through this documentable US History - that because they are Modern Conservatives and their centuries long ideology, as they are not the first to believe what they do -- you have it backwards.
The former Republican Party, now the demonstrated and documented "Trump Nazi Evangelical MAGA Party" - has it's ideological roots going all the way back to the last of the Bourbon Kings in France, King Louis XIV, with his Courts; Church; and business types all declaring "Free Enterprise Without Restriction" - just before the French Revolution.
It, as an ideology, then went to Britain - where it is still today as the Conservative Party, and then - to here.
And in between them landing in the South - they appeared as the German Third Reich Nazi Government and Party under the dictatorship of one Adolph Hitler.
The string of History dots denotes that the ideologies did not change - the labels did.
The final takeaway from this documented History - is that the focal point of all of the Modern Conservative's ideologies are only two:
1.) "...make as much money as one can; in as little a time frame as one can; with as little restriction as one can develop / legislate; in order to own as much "possessions as one can accumulate..." - while
2.) "...grabbing as much "power" / political / economic / with as little restrictions as is possible..." -- full stop.
A Zebra can not change it's stripes.
but there ae a whole lot of Zebras in certain places.
All of "the others" in this Country- and around this rock we all live on; who are not "Modern Conservative Nazis":
--- hold "people" to be their focal point.
And it has been this way for the Centuries after Louis XIV.
I'm just suggesting you consider this documented History - and not the "labels" - as they are a dime a dozen - and are worth about as much.
Control of the narrative, that is the goal,"war",the administration title suggests force,which maga supporters confuse with power..since they mostly have had their 'power' taken from them,by deceptive persons and policies..they flock to the term in the hope that they may reclaim some of that power. Alas,they are deceived again. Dickens was correct when he warned,paraphrased, "beware of ignorance and want-and of the two-ignorance is the greater evil."
To Mike Sudalnik -- can I offer a couple of thoughts for you to consider about "The MAGA".
They, to an individual: have independently, conscientiously, brought themselves to believe the ideologies of Conservatism, especially the Modern Version of Conservatism.
I'm not making this statement as an opinion.
I'm making it based on decades of observing them, listening to them, and reading documentation of their actions and voting records in both State and National elections over the last decades -- because I felt that it was important to the future of this Country as a Republic while growing up.
So what are the documented facts as to what these ideologies are - as voiced in the MAGA "battle cry" of "...Free Enterprise Without Restriction...": - hidden in "...Make America Great Again...".
1.) "Totalitarianism" -- where THE PARTY controls THE GOVERNMENT, and seeks to punish it's political enemies, eliminating decent from anyone;
2.) "Dictatorship" -- where THE LEADER controls absolutely everything;
3.) "Limiting Personal Freedom: -- where THE COURT and THE GOVERNMENT takes away personal freedom without cause or recourse;
4.) "Xenophobia" - perpetuating the White /Nordic Race Heritage - while eliminating all others as "inferior";
5.) "Nationalism" -- "rebuilding the Country - ...because it has been persecuted against by all other nations;
6.) "Loyalty" -- where each PARTY MEMBER swears total loyalty to THE LEADER as THE PARTY LEADER ---- and then to the Country - and
7.) "Sovereign Economy" -- where THE GOVERNMENT runs everything "...for it's 'war needs'..." - both economic and "otherwise.
Each and every one of these tenets is continuous and documented "observable" in the language used, the political position taken, and the decades long voting records of only one of the two Political Parties in the US today -- and it isn't the present day Democratic Political Party.
World History also identifies who believed those seven ideologies:
--- The Third Reich Nazi Government and Nazi Party Members under Dictator Adolph Hitler.
A fact when closely examined: -- you can't get a single piece of paper between the MAGA / present day Republican Party's new Bible - Project 2025 and now 2026 - and the ideologies of The Third Reich Nazi Government and Nazi Party.
Because I am a "brat" of a US ARMY Officer - when I was a young boy, I lived and played with kids that had parents that hade the exact same ideologies as stated above:
--- in Germany, 1 1/2 years after the end of WW II in Europe as my father was one of Gen. Patton's Tank Battalion Commanders and was assigned, like Gen. Patton , to start the "rebuild" of Germany.
I lived in Germany for three years, and because we had a German maid who had lost her parents to The Nazi - over the years we kept in touch and I learned first hand how some of the people of Germany - knowingly turned themselves into The Nazi.
The MAGA, and Republican Party voter(s): by themselves: turned themselves into the home-grown Nazi we now find within the US -- and they did it by choice.
The US as a Country - does not owe any citizen anything -- full stop.
The US as a Country - as set up as the almost 250 year old Republic that it is -- makes possible - "anything" - including those that for their self-centered reasons - have chosen to try and destroy it.
Their individual action of casting their vote, which is a fundamental right as granted under the US Constitutional to all US citizens, -- is also legally defined as being an overt act of Treason - if that vote were to bring damage or harm to that Constitution .
In this case - their individual votes have bought damage and harm to the Constitution:
--- because they cast their individual votes for a publicly self-declared Dictator on Day 1.
In this case - they cast their individual votes for Politicians in their Political Party that are daily working to bring damage and harm to the Constitution - by not daily performing their duty to protect the Constitution - by willfully; observably; and documented; acquiescing their legislative duties and power under the Constitution --- to their "Leader / Dictator" - one Donald J. Trump.
The MAGA - and every other Republican Party Member / voter - has turned him or herself into the Nazi - by their ideology / action / and speech.
They are now , by legal definition - "the enemy" -- and should be treated as such -- because their individual and collective; demonstrated; documented "actions" speak the truth as to who and what they are - over their prostrations to the contrary.
Do I feel strongly about this?
As a now severely physically disabled US Navy Vet (early Vietnam) - who left "actual 'skin in the game' ' - at sea - in theater -- Do Ya Think!
Each on of use controls our narrative.
The Nazi MAGA does not confuse anything - "it" knows what "it" wants - and that is found in two words -"Money" and "Power".
If one has any self respect; self-determination; and self-reliance - no self-power can be taken away - that's just male bovine pasture pastry spewed out to obfuscate the situation.
No one forced the individual into being a Nazi MAGA -- they turned themselves into The Nazi MAGA - and finally:
Get it through one's head: -- this is no time to wax poetic: as Charles Dickens didn't have a thing to do with this.
When you quote someone's statement, it is a point of emphasis applied to your personal statement. Not poetry! If you do not grasp the meaning of the quote-say so,ask for clarification. All actions are choices,good or bad..when your choices destroy people and their lives you are evil.When the choices support their lives,this is good. Simple,the names applied throughout time have changed,but the results have not...by their actions,you will know them.
If words didn't matter, there would not be corporate empires built on branding. And these are not "little" things. Like the battle with my kids over leaving things in the kitchen sink - "but it's only a fork" - allowing the little thing becomes another little thing, which become a bigger thing, which eventually becomes a mess. They didn't change these names for grins. They did it to see if they could get away with it, then use those new names to refrain or re-anchor our thinking.
A solid example of how their branding works came when I saw an anti-Trump commentator use the term "Stop the Steal" to describe the effort to overturn the 2020 election. Here was a person who used their terminology to reference their attempt to commit the theft. There is no snappy, on-brand phrase to describe Trump's attempt to steal the election, so we use his - and every time we do, it suggests the election was stolen.
I’m with you on this, for the reasons you give and for others you have mentioned before. War is only one means of waging defense and usually not the most cost-effective one. Which is why most clear-thinking national security strategists believe war should be waged as a last resort, after all other means of pursuing our national defense and national security interests more broadly have been exhausted. One concrete consequence of this misnaming effort has been the weirdly light and flippant slide into actual physical war with Iran, without consulting the American people, Congress, or (God forbid) our security treaty allies and friends, current and/or former. The misnaming of the department of defense was one factor in facilitating the slippery slide past diplomacy and other measures short of war in pursuing national defense without the friction built into our democratic system. In a way you describe better than I could, this friction included language. Not anymore. It sometimes feels as though the techno-authoritarian nature of this political project has stealthily defanged our democratic protections, leaving the renegade defenders to defend with our harmless gums. Keep up the powerful writing and analysis.
Mike, just reread this article and I agree with you about the nature of words and meaning and symbols. I state the obvious when I say I believe the regime, as stupid as they appear, had this in mind. Let’s not give them even one millimeter.