Is Trumpism Truly Moving America Closer to Fascism?

Below is a link to an article that openly explores the question as to whether or not the rise of Trumpism can truly be likened to a turn towards fascism in the United States.  

To me, the answer has always seemed quite clear. To be forthright, yes, Trumpism has gotten us closer to fascism, and if it is allowed to rise again, it will bring us even closer still.  

Apparently, many Americans, both on the left and the right, struggle to either understand this, or to accept this. Trump fans, of course, do not like it when they, or the man who they apparently love so much, or the entire political movement that they so identify with, is likened to fascism. It seems to me that a lot of Americans do not actually understand what fascism is. But they do understand this much: it is not a compliment. It is generally understood to be a bad thing, because both sides hurl accusations of fascism at one another.  

So, is calling Trump, or Trumpism, just another political slander, trying to discredit some legitimate political ideology?  

No, it is not. Trumpism truly does resemble fascism so closely, that it is irresponsible to try and undermine, much less dismiss, evidence of these similarities.  

How is Trumpism similar to fascism?  

Well, first and foremost, Trump clearly believes in one thing, above pretty much all others, and it is this: might makes right. He was deathly afraid of anything that might compromise the illusion of strength. If anything possibly compromised this image and threatened to make him look weak, he went to extraordinary lengths to try and hide it, or to do something that would make him appear strong to his supporters. It does not matter if there was any validity to what he was saying or not. It does not matter if America was in worse shape for his being president, so long as he could claim that it was better, and that he was the greatest president in history. It did not matter if he literally censored some news (particularly regarding climate change) and relentlessly attacked the media, so long as he came across seemingly stronger for it.  

Admittedly, it took me a while to understand what the appeal was for so many people. After all, Trump used a strategy of lying and or attacking the media whenever they asked him unflattering questions, or reported news that was not favorable to him or his administration. But the very fact that this strategy – and let us understand here that it was nothing more than a strategy, or to put it another way that is truer to the nature of a con artist like Trump, just another empty gimmick devoid of any serious meaning – made him appear stronger to his supporters. To them, this was the epitome of strength, because he was getting under the skin of the liberal elites, or the libtards, or whatever other phrase these people used to try and dismiss critical news of Trump.  

It had long perplexed me that anyone could see this as true leadership, let along some kind of admirable strength in a leader. But there came a point when a high school classmate posted something on Facebook about Kayleigh McEnany, and how not answering questions was somehow “owning” the stupid liberal elites, or libtards, or whatever the hell it as. Basically, the post suggested that she was kicking some liberal ass. I do not remember the exact words that were used, but it was more or less on that level.  

By that point, I was tired of engaging former classmates on the topic of politics, having had numerous bad experiences with it before, so I did not ask this person how this could be viewed as “winning.” Trump had promised that, once he was president, the country would just go on winning and winning, until we Americans got tired of winning. We would get tired of it to the point that we would ask him to stop, but he would refuse, and keep the country winning. Yet, the only real “winning” that I saw was very similar to this, which was a method or strategy practiced by almost every enthusiastic member of the Trump administration. It was enough to make me wonder if Trump had simply misspelled “whining,” which would have been a whole lot more accurate. Indeed, he and his cronies did an awful lot of whining, and yes, most Americans truly did get tired of it. And sure enough, for once, Trump was true to his word, because when many Americans asked him to stop all of the whining, he refused.  

Still, how could this be viewed as “winning?” Do these people seriously think that they win a debate by refusing to answer tough questions?  

Then it occurred to me that the answer had been in front of me the entire time, and it was just that I had perhaps refused to believe it, or could not see it. Indeed, for them, anything that drove the elitist libtards cray was indeed a notch under the “win” belt. When you regard a group like this as the enemy of the country, then yes, it is their definition of winning.

And that brings me to the first way that Trumpism tends towards fascism: xenophobia. Is it a stereotype, or overblown, to suggest that Trump himself, or his supporters, are racists? They sure seem to get tired of hearing it. But when you ignore one thing after another that surely suggests that racism is at play, that does not negate it from being a problem. They ignored all of the signs, including Trump’s speech announcing his candidacy in the first place, when he said that Mexicans were criminals and rapists. They ignored the Muslim registry, or defended it. They ignored him singling out his “African American” at a rally. They ignored his comments about how all of those African and Central American countries were “shithole nations,” and holding Norway up instead as an ideal nation for immigration to the United States (as if Norwegians who enjoy a higher standard than Americans do are just lining up to move here). They ignored when Trump posted a video of one of his supporters yelling “white power!” during the 2020 election. And all of that was just him. There’s also Stephen Miller, and Steve Bannon. And there’s also the fact that white nationalists were among his staunchest supporters, and he received the official endorsement of the Ku Klux Klan.              

So yeah, whether or not it is acknowledged by his supporters or not, xenophobia certainly appears to be a very serious issue, and one of the key, striking similarities that Trumpism has with fascism. So striking, in fact, that it cannot be easily dismissed as alarmist.              

Then, there’s the whole inability to criticize them thing. Anytime anyone said anything that was remotely critical of Trump or his administration, he freaked out. Called the media “fake news” in an obvious attempt to dismiss everything that they said, which of course also allows him to conveniently not answer questions or be accountable for his actions. Add to that his attempts to control stories coming out about climate change, effectively censoring such stories and research, and you get a decidedly anti-science, anti-knowledge administration. Maybe this was not quite like book burning, but in this day and age, it feels like it is done in the same spirit, and often with the same meanness in spirit, at that. Also,  remember,  the whole backlash against what  is called "Critical Race Theory " is mostly an attempt to whitewash our history.  

Perhaps the most obvious way in which Trumpism resembles fascism is militarism. Right away, Trump increased the military budget to ridiculous proportions, giving them more money than they themselves had asked for. Then, there was the matter of him claiming to know more than his own generals about certain military matters (particularly regarding ISIS) is something that certain dictators in the past have been known for, as well. Finally, there was his fixation on military parades and shows of military strength and seeming devotion to him. All tendencies that we can observe in fascism. 

President Franklin D. Roosevelt warned Americans many decades ago that the "essence is fascism" was "ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power.” Despite Trump's claims that he could not be bought, for all intents and purposes suggesting that he was beyond corruption, he himself acted like an autocrat, and saw no problems or conflict of interests promoting the interests of corporations and extremely wealthy Americans seemingly first and foremost, ahead of the majority of Americans. Quite conveniently, his own business interests were well taken care of and benefited from his policies, as well. Public land once belonging to the people were sold off to private interests. Corporations and the wealthiest Americans got all sorts of tax benefits and breaks, adding to the already absurd wealth gap. The corrupt power of the de facto corporate supremacy had certainly not begun with Trump, but it was greatly accelerated under him, even while he himself shamelessly claimed otherwise to the only people who would believe him: his most loyal, unyielding supporters.

Finally, there is his unceasing demand for loyalty and love. He had each member of his cabinet meeting heap praise on him at one point, and seemed to always, without fail, demand gratitude for the job that he was doing. And he always assumed that what he was doing was beyond wonderful, but indispensable to all parties involved. The unspoken assumption, then, of course, is that everything would simply fall apart without him, that the country would simply completely unravel, and thank goodness he was there to prevent that complete chaos from happening. After all, he was the self-proclaimed "law and order" president. He demanded it from his supporters, as well, and as if we needed still more flag-waving and chest thumping, there was a wave of aggressive nationalism that is still very much in evidence. This support showed a very aggressive, even militant side to it, as was evidenced by the spike in hate crimes that coincided with the political rise of Trump, and which became most obvious earlier this year, when the unruly crowd of Trump supporters stormed the Capitol in Washington. 

So yes, Trumpism really is fascism. That is not just some kind of exaggerated political slander, or political tactics. It is the reality, and that is why so many Republicans, even, were willing to risk or even end their political careers in order to stand up to it. Of course, Democrats were expected to be opposed to Trump and Trumpism, but the fact that so many prominent Republicans were willing to do so, knowing that their political prominence would end as a result of it, is telling. For once, these politicians were willing, or seemed willing, to put their own narrow self-interests aside to warn Americans about a real danger, and that danger was the fascistic tendencies that they saw in Trumpism. Some of the prominent names included, but were not limited to Jeb Bush, John McCain, Mitt Romney, Senator Jeff Flake, and House Leader Liz Cheney, and again, those are just a few. That does not include the hand picked members of Trump's own staff, including Vice-President Mike Pence, who admitted that he and Trump would never see eye to eye about what happened on January 6th, and the storming of the Capitol Building in Washington, which again, itself also resembled a fascist attempt at a coup d'état. It seemed straight out of the practices of Hitler and the Nazis, with their Beer Hall Putsch. 

Yes, it is well past the time to put away our collective reservations about admitting how closely Americans flirted with fascism under Trump. By pretending that it was less than it actually was, we are still effectively flirting with it, seemingly too shocked by it's reality to come to terms with it. If we are to defeat Trumpism, then we need to recognize it for what it is, and state it boldly. Indeed, Trumpism is fascism, and as such, it is anti-American in terms of being opposed to democracy and the American Constitution. It represents a threat to our American way of life, and our democracy, which seems far more fragile now than it did before Trump was elected in 2016. What remains for us now is not only to acknowledge that these similarities to fascism are just too numerous and too extensive to be dismissed as mere coincidence. Then, we have to make a choice: do we want to preserve our democracy, or do we want to see this man, and his absurd movement, complete the job of eroding American democracy and ushering in a new age of a peculiar brand of American fascism?

Is It Finally Time to Begin Calling Trumpism Fascist? by Ed Kilgore, July 14, 2021:

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2021/07/is-it-finally-time-to-begin-calling-trumpism-fascism.html?utm_source=tw&s=04&fbclid=IwAR31SR6d4IvlQXsoeV8I5t0t1u_pi4WIK0FasxQCOgZ2Qnd3oydX9SvFStg

July 28th - Anniversary of the End of the Reign of Terror

Today, July 28th, marks the anniversary of the end of the Jacobin "Reign of Terror" era of the French Revolution. It effectively ended on the 9 Thermidor year II (27 July 1794), when the two men most responsible for orchestrating "The Terror," Maximilien Robespierre and Saint-Just, found their roles reversed as they were captured, and then early the next day, were themselves sent to the guillotine to face "le Rasoir National" (national razor). The events leading to his arrest and his being led to the guillotine shortly thereafter continue to be unclear, and will likely remain obscured in history. After all, there were no television cameras or recording devices back then, and Robespierre himself had limited access by the press to a lot of governmental proceedings like this. However, one thing for sure is that Robespierre himself was the final victim of the very "Reign of Terror" that most historians feel that he was most responsible for, being the leader of the "Committee of Public Safety" (Comité de salut public in French).

Kind of gives a new take on that expression "death by committee," now, does it not? Or maybe even that expression originated from the events of the French Revolution, although I cannot say for sure. 

Most of us know that the French Revolution was more or less largely defined by it's excesses, and that is of course especially true of the "Reign of Terror," when an estimated 16,000 plus Parisians were executed by the blade of the guillotine in the Place de la Révolution in Paris (which is now known as the Place de la Concorde). This, of course, included most of the most prominent figures of the Revolution, including, but certainly not limited to, Maximilien Robespierre, George Danton, Camille Desmoulins, Louis XVI, and Marie Antoinette. Even the inventor of the guillotine, physician Joseph-Ignace Guillotin, was himself sent to his creation to meet his end. Those were grim times indeed.

It should be noted here that the guillotine was originally designed as a humane way of sending people to their deaths, and emphasized equality. As surely anyone with a decent grasp of history knows, there were all sorts of grueling and horrifying methods of execution that had existed prior to the French Revolution. Between numerous nations, there were several methods of execution that had been used, including hanging (the most common in France prior to the Revolution), as well as some that automatically make people cringe, such as being sent to burn at the stake, or the use of the Iron Maiden in Britain. Even beheadings had been especially horrifying prior to the guillotine, which was designed to be efficient and, again, to remove as much pain as possible. It was quick and efficient, and often described as feeling like a cool breeze on the back of your neck, before instant death.

With the sheer numbers of citizens who were sent to the Place de la Révolution to be guillotined during "The Reign of Terror," it became clear to everyone that the revolution had spiraled out of control, and that the excesses were glaringly obvious. It was a tragedy, of course, and was the dark period that followed the bright focus earlier on liberating the French people from what had been brutal oppression at the hands of the Ancien Régime in the feudal system of absolute monarchy that had existed prior to the outbreak of the revolution. 

The thing is, the revolution was inevitable. Had it not happened in France specifically at the time that it did, it surely would have happened elsewhere at some point. France was, in retrospect, perhaps the most likely candidate, because of the nature of the Ancien Régime, and because of how much they had needed to borrow to fight wars overseas, particularly in the perennial chess match between Britain and France at the time. France had spent enormous sums of money during the Seven Years War (often known in North America as the French and Indian War) and, ironically, supporting the rebel cause during the American Revolution. Some of the ideas from the American Revolution helped inspire the French Revolution, although the debt that France incurred as a result of these conflicts forced the monarchy to dramatically raise taxes on the people, who were starving. Of course, anyone who has visited France and seen some of the elaborate palaces, Versailles being only the most famous and impressive of these, will at once understand that the Ancien Régime did not want to compromise any of their own luxuries in the process, so they felt that the third estate (the 97 percent of French people who were just trying to make it, and not at all living lives of luxury) could and should pay for it.

Indeed, it cannot be said with any certainty that Marie Antoinette, when told that the masses were starving, actually responded by saying the words, "Let them eat cake." However, there is no doubt that the nobility were largely indifferent to the sufferings of the masses, all while forcing them to pay heavy taxes in order that they themselves, members of the French nobility (and particularly the royal family, of course) should live in grand and opulent lifestyles. Louis XIV had desired the Versailles palace in order to impress foreign heads of state, and felt that only a place like that could reflect the full glory of the King of France. He seemed to feel it was a strategic necessity, although he also invited thousands of members of the French nobility to live there, ultimately so that they could be controlled and kept under watchful eyes. As for the masses, very few of them ever got to enjoy the benefits of such places and, in any case, those who got the chance only did so rarely. Versailles might be an attractive tourist destination these days, but it should be remembered that this was the king's royal estate - one of many - and was not really open to the public at the time.  

So yes, when the royal family who supposedly were divinely chosen to rule over France seemed so indifferent to the suffering of the vast majority of the French people, which they themselves of course created, then it was time for a change. Indeed, the Revolution became bloody and has even come to be defined by it's excesses, as well as how it all ended with a tyrant like Napoleon taking over. However, it should also be remembered that the French Revolution happened because the French kings had for so long ignored the plight of their own people, and just kept adding to their burdens. Also, Napoleon was seen as a tyrant who tried to take over Europe, but let us not forget that it was those other European nations, all still ruled by monarchies themselves, who waged war on revolutionary France, trying to forcibly suppress it from the outside. Napoleon was a brilliant general and military strategist who simply allowed France to enjoy some remarkable successes on the battlefield, and like other opportunists at the time, he simply used his growing status to eventually grab power, quite literally (he grabbed the crown from the Pope). 

All of this I say not to condone the excesses of the French Revolution, such as the "Reign of Terror," but rather as a reminder that it seems that sometimes, people criticize the French Revolution without really seeming to understand the brutality of what had been in it's place beforehand, and the necessity of getting rid of the  Ancien Régime. It most certainly was not sustainable, and needed to go. And, in point of fact, it did go. Perhaps we do not like to think of the image of a literal killing machine prominently displayed in a square of a capital city for public executions of high profile figures. However, the French Revolution ended absolute monarchy. Even when the Bourbon dynasty was restored after the Napoleonic wars, the fact of the matter was that the French people had had enough of it, and when kings tried to grab too much power, the people took it away from them. There were subsequent revolutions in France throughout the 19th century, in 1830, in 1848, and again in 1870-71. Ultimately, the monarchy of France was abolished. And yes, I personally think that this was a good and necessary thing.

We right do well to remember all of this in our own age, when corporations and the very wealthy elites also seem intent on grabbing as much power and money as possible, of hording and then hiding these staggering fortunes in offshore accounts. I cannot say with absolute certainty how or when some kind of uprising will occur, or whether it will shake the world like the French Revolution did. However, that the current system is unsustainable, there is no doubt. Much like the Ancien Régime, elites today simply have gone too far, and lost sight of any sense of limitations.

In any case, I meant to publish this a couple of days ago, but admittedly got a little too busy with things to actually do so. However, I added some movies, all from Youtube, that you can watch, all about the French Revolution.

The one which I am most familiar is "Danton." It is an excellent film about specifically the "Reign of Terror." I have seen it several times in my life now. The first time was either as a kid, or at most, as a teenager, when my understanding of the events was limited at best. The next time was at Rutgers University for a course that focused on the French Revolution, specifically. And now, I just finished watching it again earlier today (one of the reasons that I did not publish this earlier, because I wanted to watch it as a reminder of what happened, because life can sometimes make you forget such things).

I think this film really captures the essence of what it must have been like, and what happened. You can see the power struggles, the very informal and impersonal way that Robespierre calls others "citoyen" (the precursor to the infamous term "comrades" used by the Bolsheviks). There are moments of dark humor, such as when the imprisoned Camille Desmoulins rejects the opportunity to visit with Robespierre, who has come to prison to visit with him, and possibly give him a chance to get out of prison and the inevitable death sentence that comes with it. The response ("Tell him Camille is not home") is morbidly funny. Also, Danton's meeting with Robespierre offers both insight and humor, with Danton condemning Robespierre and strongly suggesting that he does not represent the French people, that Robespierre wants everyone to be like heroes in novels, that he has an unreal quality and is overly powdered and impersonal.

It is a very good, albeit dark and depressing, movie. But if you want to kind of get behind the scenes for the darkest chapter of the French Revolution, it is strongly recommended. The other videos I added also, because they should provide some strong background about the French Revolution and what led up to it, and how it began to spiral out of control. I cannot say that I have seen all of them, although in time, I intend to. However, they were added here in case you, the reader and potential viewer, are interested enough to pursue further exploration on this topic.

Eric Clapton’s Racist Past Now Being Remembered

When you think about Eric Clapton, there is one thing that obviously comes to mind. He is one of the greatest guitar players in history, and is a legendary musician of his time. He played with the Beatles, was in some incredible bands, and had some amazing stuff that he wrote in his solo career. 

Indeed, his music career is the stuff of legends.

Yet, he is also known for something else: a strain of generally xenophobic views that he has shown glimpses of through that long, legendary career. 

Last year, he began speaking out publicly against the Covid-19 lockdown. And while this itself is not necessarily a racist thing, of course, it reminded some of Clapton's racist rantings decades ago. Perhaps this is, not least of all, because many seeming racists are the most vocal critics of the lockdown, not least of all avid Trump supporters in the United States, and the generally pro-Brexit, anti-immigration crowd inside of Great Britain.

Clapton did a song late last year with fellow legendary musician Van Morrison, called "Stand and Deliver." It takes a stand against government lockdowns.

This had some unintended consequences for Clapton, because people suddenly remembered another episode when Clapton let his viewpoints be known. I had vaguely heard of this once or twice, but was again, a but short on details. But on August 5, 1976, while on stage in Birmingham, in the United Kingdom (and apparently while quite intoxicated, as I understand it.

Below is a summary of what he said. The exact wording remains in dispute. No recordings of it exist. But the fact that he did in fact say this is apparently not at all in dispute. Here is what he said:

Do we have any foreigners in the audience tonight? If so, please put up your hands… So where are you? Well wherever you all are, I think you should all just leave. Not just leave the hall, leave our country … I don’t want you here, in the room or in my country. Listen to me, man! I think we should send them all back. Stop Britain from becoming a black colony. Get the foreigners out. Get the wogs out. Get the coons out. Keep Britain white 

Unbelievable. 

In fact,  the backlash to this rant was what inspired some to create "Rock Against Racism."

Just goes to show that just because someone is brilliant in some ways,  that certainly does not mean that they are necessarily noble or enlightened,  or even remotely decent human beings. 

Eric Clapton's Past Racist Comments Surface After Announcement of 'Anti-Lockdown' Single by Jon Jackson, 11/27/20:

https://www.newsweek.com/clapton-morrison-lockdown-single-1550863

Did Eric Clapton Once Unleash a Racist Rant Onstage? In late 2020, internet users highlighted a shocking episode from the legendary blues guitarist's past. Dan MacGuill Published 4 December 2020:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/eric-clapton-racist-rant/

Universal Marijuana Legalization Could Be Beneficial in Fight Again Climate Change

Anyone who follows this blog or knows me and my position on marijuana legalization knows that I am, and have long been, an advocate of legalization. That has been my position since at least the early nineties, when I first really began to pay attention to this issue, and be a bit more knowledgeable about it. In fact, it was probably my position well before that, going back to the eighties, although I admittedly knew very, very little on the topic.  

Now, let me qualify this statement. I am not a pothead. Not even close. That is not to say that I have not tried it, because I have. Twice. But neither time did I feel much of anything. Someday, I might be willing to try it again. In fact, I probably would have, if not for the invasive drug testing that both of my jobs potentially have. In fact, at my previous job, we got tested fairly frequently. These always were set up as a surprise, to catch you off guard, but it was hard not to notice that these tests came about twice a year. And as much as I hated this aspect about the job, the fact of the matter is that this was just one of several aspects about this job – and it was hardly unique to this particular job – that I had to hold my nose and look the other way and just kind of take, you know?  

So, that is the main reason why I have not tried marijuana more frequently, most likely. Mostly, it’s nervousness about the possible ramifications on a professional level. It is not because of all of the propaganda about the supposedly harmful effects of cannabis use, or that it is supposed to be some kind of a gateway drug to other, more serious and harmful drugs. Or that it is addictive. While I myself have very limited experiences with taking marijuana, admittedly, there are some friends of mine who take it much more regularly than me. Mostly, they take it on occasion, as well, hardly confirming any notions to it being addictive. Over the years, I have known more than just a few such people, who take it pretty much only occasionally, and it just seems too common to suggest that this is actually either addictive, or a gateway drug.  

Now, getting back to what I began to learn in the early nineties, when I began to have stronger, and more informed, opinions favoring legalization. It was around that time that I learned about it from several different source. One of them was the Environmental Club at my community college, an era with almost exclusively fond memories. That was about the first time for me learning about how incredible cannabis was, in terms of all that it could be used for. That included good quality clothes (yes, I still have a garment or two made from the stuff). Yet, that is not the only thing that marijuana would be good for.  

It also can be used as paper, and has been in the past. Did you know that some drafts of the Constitution were written on marijuana paper? George Washington and Thomas Jefferson used to plant marijuana. The best part is this: marijuana plants can regrow quickly, up to four times faster than traditional forests groomed for paper manufacturing. So it could potentially save our forests, assuming that those forests are not then torn down to be manipulated for other purposes, since many elites would likely view forests as wasteful use of land space, because they cannot necessarily profit tremendously from it.  

Later, it would be a revelation to me that, in fact, marijuana also had some medical benefits. It can ease people’s pains, provide some measure of comfort to people who are suffering.  

Oh, and it is a whole lot cheaper, more accessible, and more natural, than a lot of the drugs that Big Pharma tends to produce.  

After learning about stuff like that, the main question that I had was why more people were not in favor of legalization?  

Remember, back then, most people were still opposed to marijuana legalization, although that slowly began to change.  

The only real reason, seemingly, that there could be any serious opposition to it seemed to be that it cut into the profits of certain industries. Why were so many people still opposed then, or even now (approximately one-third of Americans are still opposed to legalization)? Because certain industries who traditionally made tremendous profits felt threatened by it, and produced all sorts of convincing propaganda meant to discredit the drug in the eyes of the public.  

What industries? Well, the tobacco industry, for one. The alcohol industry would be another. Both of those can be defined as drugs that allow people to escape, provide some comfort. And marijuana would likely be a serious threat to their profits.  

Also, the paper industry. Again, how can you compete with a completely natural plant that grows four times faster than trees?  

Of course, the healthcare industry and Big Pharma. With so many profits hinging on the latest and greatest new drugs meant to minimize suffering and/or cure people of their ills (talk about addictive!), marijuana providing comfort was not good news for these people. Indeed, it was viewed as a threat.  

And so naturally, opposition to legalization, to the end of the new prohibition, remained strong. Many Americans still remained opposed, believing the hype about how destructive marijuana was, even though the facts did bear these “facts” out.  

That hardly seems to matter among Americans, of course. It has not mattered in a long while, because people believe seemingly only what they want to believe. That has become more the case over the years. Yet somehow, surprisingly, and perhaps even amazingly, public opinion began to shift on the subject, nevertheless.  

Now, most states have legalized medical marijuana use, and a number of states have legalized recreational marijuana. More and more states seem to be doing it, and Uruguay, Canada, and Mexico have all done it, as well. Clearly, the trend is going in the direction of legalization.  

Good thing, too. Again, legalizing marijuana would be good for the environment, as well. It would be good in terms of saving land and water resources, and can contribute to decarbonizing industries.

Dr. Michael Obersteiner, the director of Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, recently said:  

“It might turn out to be a land-saving crop in the sense that you would need more land to produce the same amount of protein, oil, biomass if produced by different specialized crops. The land saving would spare the expansion of cropland into forests. This will create substantial emission savings.”  

The British Hemp Alliance (BHA) says the plant can also host other environmental benefits. Rebekah Shaman, BHA managing director, and co-founder said:  

“Hemp has wide-ranging applications, including construction materials, biodegradable plastics, and uses in the automotive and aerospace industries.           

“People working in the sector believe the plant has been underused and overlooked partly because of the stigma around marijuana, another form of the cannabis plant used as a drug. But hemp could help create a lucrative green and sustainable economy – heralding its rapid growth and ability to aerate the soil. It is the world’s most versatile natural product, potentially replacing wood, cotton, and all petroleum-based products.  

“Compared to cotton – that requires about 1,400 gallons of water for every pound of produce – hemp requires half that, or even less, and yet produces 200-250% more fiber on the same amount of land.” 

To read more about this, please take a look at the article, from which I obtained the above quotes, and which I found to be quite informative. Enjoy!

Hemp Could Be A Crucial Tool In The Fight Against Climate Change by Andrea D. Steffen, June 21, 2021:  

https://www.intelligentliving.co/hemp-tool-against-climate-change/

Movie Review: Un Peuple Et Son Roi (One Nation, One King in English)

This 2018 movie was something I just happened to stumble upon, almost accidentally, some weeks ago. But it was about the French Revolution, a topic that always fascinated me, and the 14th of July (France's national holiday, or Bastille Day, as it is known in English) was approaching. It seemed intriguing, and so I began watching it. 

Then, just like that, it was gone. I had watched maybe half of it, and it just stopped. But I was able to watch it at home, although it had to be broken up into two days. it had seemed a bit of a strange movie at first, very different from the other movies about the French Revolution that I had seen. That said, by the time I saw it at home, I knew much more what to expect. 

Unlike the other movies about the French Revolution that I covered here, this one feels more abstract. There are fictional characters here, which is rare in those other movies that I recently reviewed. And these characters feel like stereotypes on some level, almost illustrations of the ideal, and ideally idealistic and very politically active people of the time. 

At times, this reminded me of Les Misérables. There is a character, Basile, who at times, reminds me of Jean Valjean. He is not free, imprisoned presumably quite severely in a typical manner that did not fit the crime. Basile is a mystery at first. He seems a vagabond, without a past and without any family, without even a hometown. He seems to know nothing, understand nothing. Yet, he gets caught up in the Revolution, which finds him going from the countryside to Paris, the heart of the revolutionary events that had altered the country. 

Basile finds a home with a hospitable family living under the shadow of the Bastille, which of course was recently overtaken by Parisians, and which is already in the process of being torn down. We see the people on the streets below, celebrating the deconstructing of the Bastille, seeing the sunshine in their neighborhood for the first time, the imposing towers of the bastille no longer an obstacle to light and warmth, in some obvious examples of symbolism. 

At his new home, with the father figure of L'oncle, a glassmaker, Basile finds himself suddenly, surprisingly, in a love affair with Françoise, a beautiful young woman who recently lost a child just before the Revolution really got going. She and Basile give birth to a new baby, and new hope for the new age. 

L'oncle makes glass, and this adds a modern, scientific element to this movie. The imagery feels much more modern than what we expect for a film that is supposed to take place during this pre-Industrial Age era. It represents light both literally and figuratively, of course, as well as the coming age of industry and machines and progress. 

We see the city of Paris starving, while we also see out of touch politicians debating. Some seem inspiring, some others depressingly attached to the old order and way of doing things, and too scared to commit to any serious change. Eventually, we see them take the final choice of what to do with King Louis XVI, or citoyen Louis Capet, as he came to be known. Once they commit to taking the action of beheading the king, figuratively and literally, there is no turning back. 

This is an interesting movie, showing glimpses of the prominent revolutionaries to come just a little bit later in the Revolution. Men like Robespierre, Danton, and Marat, who figures quite prominently in this movie. It is a decent movie, and entertaining. Recommended. 

Movie Review: BBC's "Terror! Robespierre and the French Revolution" Television Movie

This BBC special, made for television movie is both entertaining and quite informative. It is done in a strange mixture of acting and documentary that actually works quite well in this case. You have noted authors and thinkers who argue both against and in defense of the French revolutionaries who orchestrated the most morbidly fascinating chapter of the Revolution, generally known as "The Reign of Terror" or even simply as "The Terror."

As the name implies, this project does not examine the entirety of the French Revolution. You will not see depictions or descriptions of the fall of the Bastille, the Oath of the Tennis Court, the Women's March to Versailles, or even the beheading of King Louis XVI or Marie Antoinette. Somewhat surprisingly, they hardly even mention Danton, who in other movies and books, figures quite prominently in this chapter of history, and rightly so. Here in this movie, it is clear that Robespierre and the Committee of Public Safety views Danton, and to a lesser extent, Camille Desmoulins, as a threat, but Desmoulins gets much more attention here than Danton, who again, feels almost conspicuous by his near absence. 

Two men who do figure large in this particular movie are Saint Just and, not surprisingly, Maximilien Robespierre, who is named in the title, of course. Robespierre played a leading role in the Revolution leading up to, and of course during, the period known as the "Reign of Terror." 

With this movie/documentary, we get a bit of a feel for what it would have been like inside of the Directory, in a way that more conventional movies and television depictions probably cannot. Certainly, I have never seen a movie version that made me understand their way of thinking quite as much as this particular movie, done partially in documentary style, managed to do. You can at least understand why they did some of the things that they did, if not perhaps quite sympathize, knowing what it led up to. This was, after all, supposed to be the beginning of a new age, when science and reason trumped old superstitions, and when the antiquated old, feudal order of a monarchy that claimed divine right to absolute rule gave way to a new order, where the people no longer looked up to a monarchy, but looked out for it's own interests.

This was well done, and should be regarded essential viewing for anyone looking to study the French Revolution's chapter known as "The Terror." I had learned, both in college classes and textbooks, as well as in subsequent movies and such, what some of the ideas were during the French Revolution, and why they came to be enacted. Again, though, this movie makes it feel like it comes to life more than any other movie that I have seen before. It really was quite fantastic.

Highly recommended!

A Visit to the Rose Garden At Colonial Park, Somerset, New Jersey

Yesterday, I posted a review of a recent visit to Duke Farms in my town of Hillsborough, New Jersey, after visiting it with my son.  

Today, it seemed like a good idea to post a review of Colonial Park in nearby Somerset, which also is a gem of a park. My girlfriend and I visited the park yesterday afternoon.

There are some really nice parts of this park, but perhaps my favorite is the Rudolf W. van der Goot Rose Garden, which has a decent sized rose garden, a large gazebo, and several arches covered in overgrown vines, giving them a rustic, yet formal, look. I went there perhaps a month and change ago, and the scent from the roses was everywhere. That was not as much the case yesterday, although there were some parts of it that had that pleasant aroma.

However, there were more birds singing, and more butterflies going from plant to plant than I remember in previous visits, which proved quite pleasant in it's own right. 

Another part of the park is quite pleasant, as well. There is a gazebo here as well, and some flower beds nearby surrounding it. It is quite nice and aesthetically pleasing as well, although I personally still prefer the rose garden. 

Not far away is the larger part of the park, where there are other recreational activities. There is a playground for children, basketball and tennis courts, and plenty of walkways and bike routes, as well as some woods for some mild hiking. There are also some ponds, and even a water fountain in the middle of one of those ponds. Again, quite pleasant, allowing you to get away for a little while. 

Indeed, this is a very pleasant park that my girlfriend and I have gone to quite often over the course of the years, because it is very pleasant. Behind the rose garden, there is a long walkway along a canal, which feels so much like part of the park, that I included pictures of it here. When you walk along this way during the warm months, you are likely to spot some turtles on tree branches over the water, soaking up the sun. They are usually fairly easy to spot if you are looking for them.

The Rudolf W. van der Goot Rose Garden in Colonial Park

I always loved these plants that look like they are covered in an early morning winter frost. Not sure what they are called, but they always looked spectacular to my eyes.

We've always loved this little cottage, which would not look out of place in rural Ireland or Britain somewhere. 

Some of the turtles by the canal.