FAVE RAVE - Rutger Bregman - The 2025 Reith Lectures

"Immorality and unseriousness 

are the two defining traits of today's leaders.
They are not accidental flaws,
but the logical outcomes of what I call
the survival of the shameless"*

This years Reith Lectures by historian  Rutger Bregman focused on how the reemergence of a moral revolution can happen. He gives examples from history when this sort of moral resurgence has happened, and how it has usually arisen out of a small group of ernest and committed campaigning individuals. If this needs to happen if we are to remotely stand a chance of avoiding democracy being totally subsumed by the corruption of techno-fascism - in our present situation where does it start? 

In his talks he made reference to how news media and cultural institutions are already being cowed into uncritical tugging of the forelock to Trump's authoritarianism. In the talk as originally broadcast by the BBC in the UK, he stated how Trump was 'the most openly corrupt president in US history'. This has since been edited out of the talk before being posted on the internet. As if to demonstrate one of his points with even greater transparency. 

These four twenty five minute lectures, neatly encapsulate our current situation, what needs to happen right now, and where we might be heading if we do nothing to arrest our current state of moral and political decline.

First Reith Lecture - Are we Living Through The Fall Of Civilisation?

Second Reith Lecture - The Collapse of Trust

Third Reith Lecture - How Utopian Dreams Became Reality

Fourth Reith Lecture - Can Humanism Survive the Age of AI?

* Taken from the First Reith Lecture

FEATURE - Naomi Klein - End Times Fascism

This interview on Democracy Now with Naomi Klein provides some much needed ideological background to what is happening in the US and in the wider right wing authoritarian regimes around the worlds. That they are basically preparing for the end of our existing civilisation, some even expect the rapture. And we should be seeing tech cities hiving them selves off as independent cities with their own laws and jurisdictions, free of wider constraints. They are looking forward to the time post the collapse of democracy. Frightening stuff but it tells us what is really going on behind all the protectionism and xenophobic hostility. 

ARTICLE - Where Free Speech Is Useless

There have been times in my life where I have mistakenly thought myself a good listener. I've struck up a friendship with someone, who I later realised used their time with me to perform this weeks emotion dump. Having found someone willing to listen and not contradict them, they go straight for what makes them most pissed off and angry. Over time you realise its the same issue every time you meet them that they have a beef about - how wrong and pig headed other people are - being the favoured one. Once this dawns on you, you have then to consider, do I say anything about this, because you don't really want to become the object of this pissed off friend,  do you? 

So you gently venture into the outer border territory, just to see how they might react, but leave yourself enough room to back off quickly if it starts to look too tricky. Being extra cautious because this person has been known to punch out, when crossed. Experiments completed, you come to the conclusion that this friend of yours is not actually interested in your opinion, and if they heard the full truth of what you had to say, there would be some sort of violent response. If you're lucky, only verbal. 

You might say, well tell them regardless, its not much of a friendship anyway. Yeah, I've tried the nuclear option, and the one person I did that too no longer utters a word to me, nor even acknowledges me in the street. I did hurt them, because I got under their armour and prodded purposefully about. But it had no effect whatsoever on changing their behaviour, which had been my naive aim. People have to want to change themselves, frank interventions really only work when the object of them is almost at the point of realising the same thing for themselves. 

What I could chose to do in such circumstances, would be gradually increase the time between meeting up, until at some point perhaps these meetings might cease altogether. Because another thing about this type of friendship is that its you who has had to do the running all along in arranging to meet up regularly. Though you've had precious little airtime or personal reciprocal benefit from it. Now you might say, what has this little personal homily got to do with free speech? Well.......

Ideally, in a democracy, free speech functions as a way to express opinions, grievances and ideas, to put them in the public arena. There is always a consequence to speaking out, in that what you have said is open to challenge, exploration, condemnation or refinement in the process of public dialogue. Free Speech is an informal right, not an absolute one. I'm always a bit worried when governments want to legislate to support free speech, it gives off entirely the wrong vibes. Opinions which are slanderous, untrue, incite violence, libel to cause an affray, or are designed to undermine democracy itself, often have some form of legal redress or limit put upon them.  Free Speech is useful when used in this manner, its fundamental to a fully functioning democracy. Its not perfect and often its a difficult call when two conflicting groups fail to discover a way forward with an issue.

However, I have been noticing the concept of what free speech is has been adjusted online, one that is in danger of neutering its democratic purpose altogether. People are free to say whatever they like online, but can seem entirely unwilling to be subsequently challenged or enter into dialogue. In fact, any challenge, exploration, condemnation or refinement is often being portrayed as an infringement of their free speech, that they are being cancelled by the request to be accountable. Its no coincidence that this is the favoured cry of the far right, who might be wearing an acceptable democratic 'beard', but are no friends to democracy ideologically. This form of consequence free Free Speech is utterly useless, and is simply just venting and dumping onto the capacious clouds of the internet, poisoning the discourse.

There is much talk about free speech being in danger from left wing 'wokery' but stunned silence when it comes to the right wing travesty of Free Speech now taking hold in the US as we speak. Closing down accountability, banning journalists, removing minority rights etc. But to be honest the left is just as bad closing down discussions on contentious subjects, resorting to simple name calling, using offence as a reason to curtail an open conversation, insisting on particular language being used. There are difficulties society has around many subjects, trans rights is one. The right wing want to ban gender theory and its consequences, the left want to ban anyone who doesn't agree with gender theory. Thus any discussion or exploration of the issue by society at large is completely stymied, because the engine of free speech to explore what the issues are, is being encumbered by coercive controls.  

But in truth, a lot of what is making people unwilling to enter into dialogue, particularly online, is the level of violence and threat that you can suddenly find yourself in receipt of. One of the shared characteristics that my two examples of difficult friendships had, was they were both to a degree lonely and isolated people, both with bad quick tempers. And one suspects a lot of online trolling is by people who don't get out enough, have few real friends they can interact with, and have a lot of suppressed anger issues. Interacting with people online can be fraught with real difficulty, because of the semi-alienated nature of it. Without the body language and a lived sense of their mood and way of being. What you feel able to say online is very different to what you would say to them in person. There appears to be little room for nuance. No waiting for the right most opportune time to say something, its the 'nuclear' option straight away.

Recently there was an ARC conference. The Association for Responsible Citizenship is a broadly right wing, Christian Nationalist organisation. I glimpsed the beginning of one young chaps talk where he began by saying he felt free for the first time to fully express himself. The subtext was he was now in a context where he wouldn't be challenged or shut down, he was safe within the supportive bubble of that conference. What he went on to say was that all the moral ills of modern society could be laid at the door of homosexuality and gay marriage being liberalised. So you could instantly see why his experience would be that he was rarely heard out. I have little sympathy for his viewpoint, obviously being its target. But it also felt desperately sad that he felt unable to get all his shit off his chest elsewhere. Go to the gym man.

Some how we need to get Free Speech back into the real world, of real people, hammering out the issues in real time and real space, And, just as a polite addendum, don't forget that we all have freedom of choice. No one has to sit and listen to anyone off loading their half baked ideas, if they don't want to. We can make the choice to walk away. They don't dish out medals for endurance. Remember, no one will be willing to change their mind, if they don't first respect you or your opinions. Nor if you shout loudly at them does your rectitude appear more convincing. People are innately resistant to change their views, however wrong headed, until you put a lot of time and effort into winning their hearts first.

ARTICLE - Cultivating A Moral Culture

In the West, we have inherited a moral culture, drawn from our civilisations long and intimate association with Christianity, over millennia. We cannot, even in our present decidedly secular age, avoid its consequences or influence. And indeed, why would we want to?  We remain a country which benefited from partaking in that Christian infused history, even though the collective practice of the Christian faith itself, may no longer be widely adhered to.

Most religions have two facets; the theoretical, theological ideals and the ethical consequences of those ideals, put into daily practice. Many faiths make hardly any distinction between the two, one flowing directly out of the other. Faiths can have their own divinely ordained laws, which the practitioner has to rigidly adhere to in order to be considered a 'good person'. Christianity has successfully secularised much of its general ethical and moral imperatives, that in a sense they can and do stand alone, semi - independent of it.

Some people today who may refer to themselves as Christian, are often cultural rather than active Christians. They feel an affinity towards Christianity, but this is disconnected from Christianity as a fully engaged, church attending, daily practiced faith. Cultural affinity and religious belief are quite different beasts, not interchangeable terms. To what extent we are a Christian country, cannot be claimed purely on the basis of cultural legacy alone. This burgeoned from what we once were, not necessarily from what we are now. Even though it's influence may persist centuries later.

As a society, we generally hold a belief say in fairness, founded on a desire that we all be treated equally. But we are perhaps unaware of why equality is felt to be so fundamental. It's perceived as an inherent expectation and a right, to be treated equally and fairly. But this has not always been so. Christianity's study and interpretation of Neo Platonism in particular, had a huge effect on the shaping of Western civilisations moral structure. Ideas of a democracy, an equal and fair society, emerge from the Christian infused reinterpretation of Greek philosophical ideas.

Today, if the idea of fairness came under attack, the very need for it questioned, and we were called upon to defend or explain why everyone should be treated fairly, would we know where to start?  Most of us do not have an actively engaged with Christian faith to draw upon, nor sufficient knowledge of the history and development of philosophy or Christian moral thought, to even begin answering that one. I certainly don't.

You could say, that we know what the flower  looks like, but no longer understand its roots, the seed and the soil from which it grew and sustained it. Nonetheless, we value fairness as a guiding principle, without fully grasping all that lies beneath it. And you might say that that is perfectly fine. Most of us are not going to be asked to intellectually defend the idea of fairness, probably ever. Though in these days of fascistic tech oligarchs and burgeoning authoritarian politics, we can no longer passively ride on that assumption.

With the increasing secularisation of morality in the 20th Century, has come a simultaneous emphasis on morals as an individual personal preference, rather than a collectively held or top down imposed belief. This has resulted in our society's grasp on morality feeling in a fragile state, openly attacked or disregarded, particularly from the extreme wings of politics. Whilst we have progressed in knowledge and material wealth, we are regressing morally in wisdom and compassion.

Denuded of the scaffolding of the Christian belief system that originally structured them, social morality begins to look more 'optional'. This doesn't mean we all have to become Christians again, so meaning and stability will instantly be restored. Being an active Christian practitioner requires an entirely different level of faith and commitment. That I for one would find hard to accept in all its particularities.

Christianity hugely transformed Western Civilisation, but its reach evolved slowly and over many millenia. By comparison its decline has been relatively rapid. Once the genie of individualism was let out of the bottle, its not proved possible, or desirable, to force it back in. I for one, cannot see how we could reverse engineer our way out of this one. It may be impossible, without resorting to something resembling dictatorial enforcement. Which would seem entirely counter productive. However, it maybe feasible, if we were to become critically disillusioned with individualism itself, then the situation could radically alter.

In terms of exploring a way forward I want to propose three headings - convergence, education and exemplification.

CONVERGENCE

The UK is a country of many faiths and no faith, and yet, we still largely respect, adhere and conform to customs that are primarily Christian in origin. Even on a secular level, the moral compass still has to work, be useful and valuable, or we would have throw them away or abandoned them all by now. Human beings recognise there is a need for boundaries. On the level of morals there is often a higher degree of convergence between us, and between different faith teachings on morals, than we might imagine. To fully appreciate this, we'd have to loosen any notion that everything morally good and true, has arisen exclusively from a Christian fountainhead. Moral themes are shared across a wide range of faiths and no faith, even if the degree of emphasis and purpose differ.

I am a Buddhist, though I was not brought up as one. Due to my Methodist upbringing, which encouraged tolerance and moderation in all things, this is somewhat inbuilt into my psyche. I don't think that will change, even if I wanted it to. That I don't want to, is because tolerance and moderation are not incompatible with my Buddhist practice - of cultivating loving kindness towards all beings, the inter-connectedness of all life, and the mistrust of intoxication in all its multifarious forms. To make convergence work, connections have needed to be actively drawn by me. Convergence forms out of an awakening awareness of a degree of reciprocity. A recognition that we do share values in common. If you only look for the differences, that is all you will find.

EDUCATION

Here I'd say is near the crux of why we may be morally going awry. You do have to actively draw moral or ethical connections. To inculcate them in us all from childhood. Once, these ideals would have come to us from multiple directions via the state, church, school and your parents. But in an individualistic secularising society you cannot assume that this continues to be so.  Traditional channels such as the family may fail to form those links. Nonetheless education remains key, whether that be in the form of learning about citizenship, ethics, or cultivating a wider spread understanding of what our shared values and morals are, where they came from, why we have them, what there social purpose is.

EXEMPLIFICATION

Exemplification has a more significant role than one might at first think. Society, however imperfect it maybe, has to reflect and model its values and mores, if it wishes everyone to buy into and follow them. 

We need to feel included, to have any sense of investment in the society we live in. If people are alienated, hostile or feel bypassed, ignored, or vilified by society at large, then this will undermine anyone's willingness to conform to social norms. This highlights the need for exemplification on all levels. That everyone has to consciously feel the benefits of being part of society, or else moral cohesion will fracture and break down. That this is already happening is indicated by widespread apathy and cynicism.

Our leaders, political, social, cultural as well as religious, need to walk their talk. They cannot just play lip service, but demonstrate through their words and actions, moral rectitude. When our leaders openly lie, misrepresent, bullshit and dissemble with no apparent shame or consequence, create divisions in society, and pick on minorities Then we are being set an example, that puts us on a slippery slope to the disintegration of democratic civilisation itself.

Finally, it is down to us too not to fall prey to paying lipservice either. To exemplify the best in us. Not to wait for official backing or government initiatives. Be an admirable person, with no unearned airs or graces. Recognising that no one ever changes because you preach at, or berate them, but you might inspire them through your lived example. Aspire to be as open hearted, attentive and kind member of society as possible, because this is a rewarding thing to do in itself.

Transformational change comes usually from two directions, top down, or rising up in a ground swell. Both from a desire for things to change. I like to imagine these two things happening simultaneously, to meet in the middle in one unified beneficial benign upset.

200 WORDS ON - The Populist

Populist politicians present policies as popular expressions of 'the will of the people'. This cannot be claimed by any party when it draws its legitimacy from a third of the population. At best exhorting the ‘will’ in a majority vote first past the post system,is only partial in its efficacy. Drawing upon tropes of the populist is a political strategy centuries old.

The Populist adopts whatever they believe has wide popularity in the general public, or within their imagined core voters.

The Populist will often say one thing to be popular, and speak the exact opposite later the same day. In a different context and time, contradictory ideas are given equally enthusiastic voice. Resulting policy inconsistency brings chaos in there wake. Truth becomes chained to context and place, not the facts of the matter.

The Populist is compelled by their own innate inconsistency, to argue they never said something, have been misquoted, or taken out of context. If these fail to stick, they lie or attack whoever is pointing out the cognitive dissonance.

The Populist stands for nothing substantive, except their own popularity and pampering of their ego. They are tragically, the consequence and crude manifestation of Post-Modern relativism.

PEACEFUL PROTEST - Slogan No 8

 Apparently........

Peaceful
Protest
Praised
For
Being
Really
Soft
Cuddly
And
Lovable

PEACEFUL PROTEST - Slogan No 7

 Apparently........

Documentary

Footage

Unearthed
Of

Unknown
Peaceful
Protest
Twenty
Years
Later

PEACEFUL PROTEST - Slogan No 6

 Apparently..........

The
Shocking
Truth
Of
A
Peaceful
Protest
That
Upset
No
One

PEACEFUL PROTEST - Slogan No 5

 Apparently......

Peaceful
Protest 
Permitted
Because
They
All
Had
Really
Tidy
Hair

PEACEFUL PROTEST - Slogan No 4

 Apparently..........

Man
Discovers
Peaceful
Protest
Had
Been
Going
On
In
Garden
Shed

PEACEFUL PROTEST - Slogan No 3

 Apparently..........

THE
ONLY
TRUE
PEACEFUL
PROTEST
FALLS
ASLEEP
ON
THE
SOFA

PEACEFUL PROTEST - Slogan No 2

 Apparently............

THE
ONLY
TRUE
PEACEFUL 
PROTEST
NEVER
GETS
OFF
THE
TRAIN

PEACEFUL PROTEST - Slogan No 1

Apparently..........

THE
ONLY
TRUE
PEACEFUL
PROTEST
IS AN
INVISIBLE
ONE

                       

ARTICLE - Wildfire Economics

First there is a stack of wood, a pack of firelighters. a box of matches and some sort of fire pit. Through experience humankind learnt how to create and contain fire until we could use it to provide light, energy, warmth. Further harnessed, fire can drive engines and industry. Any fire should never be left to burn unattended lest it goes out, or worse still allowed to escape, burning out of control. Setting alight any crops or houses close by. In fact, anything that happens to fall in its path will be consumed by its flames. 

Once a fire is allowed to get out of control in this way, fire turns from something we harness for our mutual benefit, into a savage wildfire, completely beyond all reasonable human restraint. Getting it back under control can prove extremely difficult. You may in the end have to resign yourself to using a fire break, wait till it burns itself out, and then count the cost. Those who immediately count the cost, will have just lost their homes and livelihoods to the fire, and perhaps even someone they loved.  Fire, left to its own devices, is a cruel and merciless monster.

This is where our government currently appears to be, playing fast and loose with the fire of the economy. Behaving as if there were no detrimental consequences to doing nothing, to inaction, of not attending to it, and then begrudgingly envisaging a kick start to the dwindling economic fire by pouring petrol onto it. I leave open to question whether this is happening through ideological dogmatism, economic naivety, incompetence or as a deliberate strategy of arson to burn off the deadwood? Whatever the reason, they appear willing to countenance an economic wildfire. Heaven help anyone who is unable to get out of the way of the advancing conflagration.

BE VERY VERY VERY AFRAID - Liz Truss & Brexit - The Room Next Door

 Er Er Er Er Er Er 

BE VERY VERY AFRAID - Liz Truss - Leaving Her Leadership Launch

 How to get lost when exiting a small room, with only one door, the door you came into it through.

BE VERY AFRAID - Liz Truss - Pork Markets - The Room Next Door

 Ms Pork Markets at her robotic best.

FINISHED READING - Thomas Cromwell by Diarmaid MacCullough

This finely written and absorbing biography of Henry VIII's most effective, yet least loved, minister is a compelling page turner to read. Even though the historical story itself is well known. That it should come out now must at least be in part because of Hilary Mantel's heavily fictionalised and Booker Prize winning Wolf Hall Trilogy.

Like Mantel, Diarmaid MacCullough has the unenviable task of bringing the man to life from often such slender sources. For the historical biographer, making up what's missing and going straight for fiction, is not a route you can take. Informed conjecture and supposition, simply putting two and two together, is how you fill in the gaps in the narrative. With Cromwell there are significantly more gaps and traces that need following up and fleshing out, to give a better sense of the man. Other people's recorded impressions are important, Eustace Chapuys, the Emperor Charles Vs ambassador for instance. An unusual level of respect and a friendly relationship developed between them, but one has not to forget that what his communications back to his master will always be slanted towards what he wants to hear.

Immediately prior to Cromwell's fall and execution, it is clear that a large part of his correspondence is disposed of, lest it proved to be too useful to his accusers, by adding to the incriminating evidence for treason. So what is left is only half of a conversation. Mostly of people are either writing to Cromwell, or are people who knew him writing of him to others, or about him after his fall from power. All done with a large dollop of hindsight. From this McCullough skilfully weaves a different sense for what the man may have been like. Cunning - very likely, a bit of a chancer - true, able to improvise policy on the hoof - certainly. But he always semed to have a clear idea of where things might go should he be able to either bend the kings will in his direction or more often take full advantage of Henry's whims or disinterest when they arose.

Henry himself, later spoke of regretting the loss of his most loyal servant. Chosing, as he was often prone to, to place the blame on others for this rather than his own vengeful anger. Cromwell's loyalty to him was certainly there, but also an ongoing and developing religious reformism that he found ways of slipping past Henry disguised beneath the king's own rapacious desire for increased sovereignty and money.

The idea for dissolving monasteries to fund other projects came from his former master Cardinal Wolsey. Once the idea of breaking with Rome, as a way to resolve the King's Great Matter over his marriage came to the fore, the dissolving of these papist institutions was not rolled out fully formed. It evolved in fits and starts, and its clear Cromwell himself was pragmatic and didn't initially think a root and branch fundamentalist removal was necessary. That it went as far as it did was entirely at the King's behest. Though when it came to his worst intentions and actions Henry always appeared to find ways to make them appear to be other people's ideas. Particularly if it went wrong or his subjects disapproved..

Stern portraits by Holbein don't really give you the real sense for what the qualities of Cromwell were. Who rose from being the son of a brewer to becoming the Earl of Essex. He lived close to the edge of disaster many times, surviving - Wolsey's infamy - Henry's marriage crisis - the  Pilgrimage of Grace where the rebels all blamed him not the king - until the arranged marriage to Anne of Cleve's proved to fatefully trip him up. 

One of his main legacies to us in modern Britain is the increased centrality of Parliament as a governing body, beginning to act independent of the Monarchy. The dissolution itself profoundly changed the religious and cultural landscape of England. From which many current day attitudes towards Catholicism and overseas bureaucratic institutions, have their origins.

The English Reformation did not arise out of religious principles, but was driven primarily by the lust of its sovereign, his greed for increased sovereignty, self interest and a pecuniary driven land grab on a huge scale. As a period in history it holds many echoes of the Brexit movement and the divisive atmosphere of contemporary Britain, where 'Remainers' are the equivalent of the Anti-Christ. Increased sovereignty may be what grabs the headlines, when more importantly 'for whose economic benefit' is the question that should really be being asked.

CARROT SCORE - 6/8

WATCHED - The Social Dilemma

If you've ever wondered how you became so addictied to your iPhone, iPad or tablet, then watch this documentary. Not long ago social media outlets had huge followings but the companies that owned them were financially precarious. They started to sell advertising space on their sites, monetising the attention span of their followers, They weren't only selling audience numbers, but also what you viewed, your interests and what you bought. They were selling you and your data. 

Google and Facebook developed algorithms that would push any material at you that, based on your previous activity, it thought you might like. The frequency of your time on the site became an additional sales tool to encourage advertising investment. You buy a kitchen knife online and end up getting sent adverts from sites selling scimitars and machetes. 

This development and monitoring of our activity on social media becomes it's reason to exist, sending us notification emails, posts, anything to keep you on the site looking, checking and giving it your attention. In this way we were all being trained in an addiction to social media. Compelled to look incase we are missing out on something.

Some of the individuals involved in the rolling out of these programming initiatives started to be uneasy at the unforseen consequences of them. The increasing prevalence of fake news, conspiracy theories, medical quackery and political manipulation of elections. Algorithms have no moral compass, they just keep shoveling any material they think you might like in your face. Its how Trump turned himself into the voice of the left out and disaffected, irrespective of this stance being fraudulent.

So people who self harm or feel suicidal get sent more posts from similarly desperate people. People with a grievance against individuals, races, religions or cultures receive posts from people holding similar intolerant viewpoints. The opinions we hold, right or wrong, true or false, get encouraged and sustained by other posts from like-minded folk. These opinion bubbles go largely unchallenged. The division between Us and Them, becomes ever more exaggerated and the common ground we share left unexplored or actively derided. What is disheartening is how social media companies still suffer from a huge degree of public denial about their culpability in this. 

What can you do? Well right now turn off as many notifications on your phone or tablet as you can. Minimise your engagement, try to train your self to check emails and social media only once or twice a day.  You could come off social media altogether or decide to use one not multiple outlets. I post primarily through this blog now. Everything you do online will be being monitored, so it's always best you take care what you put out there.  Post responsibly; think twice or thrice before you press send and publish - do you want this out there and why?  

Internet forums work because they flatter our self esteem, vanity and ego, that we and our opinions matter. It is something that I have to remind myself of quite frequently is, who cares? In the bigger scheme of life none of it matters. Don't take Trump as your role model, be self- censoring online.

Give this documentary a watch, it really is deeply insightful about why our civilisation and democracy has gone so seriously wonky lately. Its available to stream on Netflix.

200 WORDS ON - The Double Bluff Fraud

When you misrepresent who you are, what is happening, what other people need to do, you commit fraud, a con upon an individual, community or country. It's most commonly financial fraud, but can be political, sexual or institutional. It is lying for personal advantage. Fraud is corrosive because it not only betrays trust but undermines faith in what is true.

When fake news, fraud and brazen lying becomes as endemic as they are now, it is harder to ascertain exactly what is true. It corrupts political discourse when political leaders spread stories they know to be untrue, deliberately deploying misinformation into the public sphere.

The effectiveness of a fraud depends on the conviction with which the perpetrator tells the lie and how easily other individuals believe and spread it. Human kind is so easily self deluded, we often so want something to be true we'll turn the tables on the truth bearers and say it's they who are the fraudster's. But such delusion is different in intent to the double bluff fraud that's perpetrated by Trump and his political ilk. To knowingly spread malignant untruths to maintain political power, lays the foundations for the democratic fraud that is fascism.