I keep getting emails from the far right that scream “the Socialists are coming” or “left wing terrorists threaten Trump supporters” or “Hollywood is trying to buy Congress” or “Stop Political Persecution by DOJ” or “Keep the FBI out of Your House.”

All of them are scare tactics that can’t or won’t come true.

But if I sent out a political email that said, “Vote Against the Religious Jihadists Who Destroyed U.S. Women’s Freedoms!” I’d be considered an unhinged exaggerator at best and a hatemonger at worst.

And yet, that email I can’t send would be more accurate than all the rightwing scare tactics that currently fill the internet and infosphere.

Seven of the nine justices on the Supreme Court are Catholics (or 6 ½ if you consider that Gorsuch was raised Catholic and now professes to be Anglican), and six of the seven effectively voted to take away a woman’s control of her own body.

That wasn’t a scare tactic. It already happened… and it seems like eighty percent of Americans have forgotten that our Supreme Court is dominated by members of a minority ultra-conservative belief that wants to return American women to being broodmares.

Inflation will come and go, and even if it doesn’t immediately subside, it doesn’t take your freedoms; it just raises the cost of living. As for the “socialists coming,” the members of the so-called left wing in the United States would qualify as centrists in most first world democratic societies. I certainly don’t call investigating the theft of government documents and classified materials “political persecution,” and no one else should either. And I don’t see that the FBI will be breaking into everyone’s house, possibly the local police in certain communities, but not the FBI, if for no other reason than there aren’t enough FBI agents to come anywhere close to the number required.

Yet a vast number of Americans will vote based on unrealistic fears, rather than against the political party who appointed American religious fanatics to the Supreme Court, fanatics who make no secret about their desire to reduce personal freedoms even more, based on a faith practiced by a minority of the American people.

Over just a twenty-four hour period earlier this week, I received emails declaring that I had “won” an iPhone14 Pro, a Pfizer Treatment, a $5000 Shell gas card, a Ninja food processer, a Zempire tent, a Craftsman generator, a Yeti cooler, a Ryobi lawn mower, a “Hobby Lobby” reward, a Titleist TSi3 Driver, a Traeger Grill Timberline XL, and a $500 Delta Airlines Gift Card.

If I responded to any of these “winning” notices, I can guarantee that I won’t have won something for nothing, and that, most likely, they’re all scams to get hold of personal information and my money or tie me into a long-term contract of some sort. I also can’t believe that they’re “misguided” marketing ploys, since there are only two companies on that list from which that I’ve ever purchased goods or services.

That doesn’t include the 50-100 political solicitations (daily) for campaign contributions, from both political parties and from one independent candidate, each of which declares that the Republic will fall without my donations and that the need is urgent, because the other side has or is marshalling more funds.

Even though my spam filter rejects/collects somewhere over 300 messages a day, it doesn’t catch another 100-150.

All of this says a great deal about the United States, and most of what it says is anything but favorable.

What strikes me most is not only the volume of these pleas and offers, but that the more “commercial” spam appeals must be effective at separating a considerable number of people from their money, because even internet bots take some effort, time, and equipment to spew out such a volume of fraudulent offers.

All this “free” stuff also plays to the insatiable appetite of American for something they don’t have to pay for, which is exactly why we have inflation at a recent high and far too many people blaming the politicians instead of themselves.

College professors today are facing an ever-increasing number of students who seem either unable or unwilling to learn.

In practical terms, there are only three basic ways to learn: reading, listening, and doing. All learning comes from these, either separately or in combination with the others.

The current generation entering college has grown up with computers, cell phones, Google, and social media. They’re a Google away from any specific fact. Their attention is fixed on their cell phone, and they’d rather be on the cell phone than doing almost anything else – even sex, according to some studies. And fewer and fewer of them read, either for school or pleasure.

The result of this devil’s brew is that the majority can’t read or write that well. Because of social media’s constant interruption and attraction, they also can’t focus or concentrate that effectively, and more and more of them show ADHD symptoms. They’re so used to visual or audio-visual stimulation that they can’t listen well enough to process information aurally. Nor can they concentrate enough to remember anything that the cell phone or social media doesn’t pound into their skulls.

All retained skills or knowledge require memory at some level, and STEM fields and music, as well as others, simply can’t be mastered without learning and retaining facts and procedures. A number of professors have remarked on the inability of students to retain knowledge and mental process skills. On one day students show they understand the matter or skills being discussed or demonstrated, but within a day or two, they recall or retain little, even when they’ve demonstrated the first steps the day before.

What’s missing? The ability to focus for any period of time and concentrate on material and skills one doesn’t know. That ability is also required for actual thinking.

Under these circumstances, is it any wonder that the United States, despite its wealth and size, can’t produce enough high-level professionals in STEM fields? Or that the drop-out rate in music and other information intensive programs has increased over the years?

Or that more and more people in the United States believe simplistic slogans that can’t be supported by facts.

Having observed politics for quite a few years can give one a perspective that most voters don’t have. That perspective can also be rather frustrating.

Right now, the United States is experiencing higher inflation rates than at any time since the period from the mid-1970s through the early 1980s, and polls show that inflation is the greatest concern of most Americans coming into the mid-term elections. Because the Federal Reserve is deeply concerned about the economic impact of continuing inflation, the Fed has increased interest rates sharply over the past six months, which effectively increases costs for consumers in addition to already increasing prices.

The major causes for inflation are the massive government aid during the COVID epidemic, the historic low interest rates [which spurred increasing housing demand and boosted prices and inspired other purchases], and the Russia/Ukraine war. Now, most Americans were happy about the first two causes, but they’re unhappy with the longer-term costs of higher prices and higher interest rates to damp inflation, and many will vote against Democrats in the mid-term elections as a result. But the majority of causes were begun by the previous administration, and people generally supported the continuation of aid and low interest rates by the present administration.

This is a pattern that has recurred over much of the last century, where the administration in power gets the blame or credit for actions undertaken by the previous administration. President Carter got blamed for situations created by previous administrations, while Reagan got credit for the impact of Carter policies. The first President Bush had to deal with the excessive spending of the Reagan administration by increasing taxes, and lost his bid for a second term, while Clinton got credit for the better economic conditions created by the Bush reforms.

The reason this happens is because the fundamental economy usually doesn’t change that quickly, except in the rare cases such as COVID, and people vote on what they see and feel NOW, not on whose policies and actions created the present economic conditions, which means that many of those voters are, in effect, voting for or against the previous administration, not the present administration.

Every so often I get a comment like that, more often lately in the books of “The Grand Illusion,” and I just want to shake my head. In fact, sometimes I do. I feel the same way when someone makes comments about just wanting to get rid of politicians and politics.

What many of these people fail to understand is that, like it or not, politics are responsible for all the achievements of the human race, and that the declines of past great civilizations largely resulted from the failure of politics.

Why do I say that?

Because individuals acting alone are limited in what they can do. Cooperative effort is what enables technology pretty much anywhere above late stone age, and cooperative effort requires social organization. Social organization falls apart without a political structure of some sort. While some theorists will claim that a market system trumps politics, even market systems need politics to function above the stone age.

Regardless of which is more important, there have never been any societies with a technology at or above the bronze age without some form of unified political and economic system.

Now, I understand the need for entertainment in fiction. If a fiction book doesn’t entertain a reader, it’s generally a failure. But just as non-stop action is totally unrealistic, as I pointed out in an earlier blog, so are societies without at least plausible economic and political structures.

You can’t maintain an autocratic kingdom or even high-tech society without enforcers of some sort, and a set of enforcers, whether a military-police structure or a secret police, requires organization and structure, which in any system involving human beings requires politics. Non-autocratic technological societies have differing structures and differing politics, but politics remain necessary.

I could ask the question of why at least some “action-oriented” readers readily accept the impossibility of non-stop action and reject the impossibility of societies without workable politics, but the answer is most likely that, because they don’t see or understand that politics can be as deadly, and often more deadly, than military or other action, they find direct violence and action more emotionally satisfying. That lack of understanding on a larger scale in society is why autocrats like Putin, Hitler, Mussolini, Orban, and more than a few others gained power through political means, rather than by direct military force.