The Greanville Post

WHAT SO PROUDLY WE HAIL

Paul Edwards — Fri, 06 Nov 2026 02:19:10 +0000

Please share with friends, kin and workmates—as widely as possible.

Paul Edwards
WHAT SO PROUDLY WE HAIL
After the latest elections it seems warranted to review the values, principles and virtues for which America stands, and to reaffirm the great moral imperatives that guide us in voting.

This inventory begins at home to enumerate those mandates and conventions that define Americans in our relations with each other under the institutions and laws that operate today.

If there is one single moral attribute that characterizes the whole of our people, from its earliest days to the present, it is racism.

From the first we have held virulently hostile views toward people of any shade of color not our own off white. Through colonial times, we hated native people so fiercely that we exterminated them, which had the ancillary effect of making their lands ours.

We then imported captured blacks, whom we despised equally, as slaves. This would have continued indefinitely but for a war between white economic blocs when, to weaken the South, Lincoln freed them penniless into misery and abject poverty.

Blacks still live in quarantine, excluded from white society except for star athletes, celebrity icons, and media tarts. Society is a failsafe impermeable fortress to exclude them, and interaction of the ‘races’ is almost nil. Feared and distrusted by most whites, they are no longer lynched and murdered, except by police. ²

Our disdain extends to all peoples of color but is also visited on those who are white but not the right kind of white. Some Asians and all Arabs, but even many Europeans qualify. One could say this is really xenophobia but why quibble over terms. Color prejudice is ineradicable in the American soul. It is the only one self generated, innate with us, and ubiquitously cultivated.

The lynching of Jesse Washington (Waco, TX, 1916). Jesse was beaten, stabbed, castrated, and slowly burned over a period of two hours in front of a crowd estimated between 15,000 and 20,000 spectators. ¹

In fairness, all other entrenched attitudes—which serve us in place of principles—were infused by America’s Capitalist Titans.

For example, the matter of our civil rights and liberties. We only found out we had any after our nation was created. Since then, Americans have adamantly insisted on them, but only for the right people. The list of people who are not right is very long, including all identified as ‘those who just don’t think the way Americans do’, on which there is fuzzy but firm consensus.

Our most potent government inculcated prejudice is unqualified devotion to Capitalism. Few Americans can explain how it works but all have been instructed that it is the sanctified way business must be done in order not to be Communist, condemned to a monstrous horror we furiously detest but can’t define, either.

Capitalism is our official religion, replacing Christianity, with its troublesome moral demands, and our paramount duty is to worship it, relishing its effect on us and all life. We furiously reject the heresy and hellish diabolism of other economic systems.

Christianity is mostly dead, Our politicians all declaim we are a Christian nation, but their sanctimony is used chiefly to placate the simple-minded, old ladies, and fudds. What’s holy is money.

A majority of us celebrates the fact America has been a violent, brutally pagan pirate empire through its entire history, motivated by the whole array of vices Christianity specifically condemns.

And our other basic values and principles? Not surprisingly, they are tied to our Capitalist religion as major tenets of the faith.

Central to it is worship of money, our most cherished principle. Yet we harbor no desire to trouble the mega wealthy, or badger the huge corporations that make America rich by attempting to increase our own wages or benefits. We’re happy to pay our way and get by. If you can’t get rich yourself, just worship those who can. Billionaires, not movie stars, are America’s idols.

Accumulating stuff is also a virtue we hold dear, as your stuff, because besides being an indicator of your prosperity, it raises you visibly above the have nots, and determines your ranking as a person.

As to our principles regarding foreign affairs, we haven’t much interest in, or deep concern with, overseas policies. We trust our government, no matter who is President, to go on doing the wise, kind, benevolent things America has always done for the world.

Look what we’ve done for brave little Israel, our beloved ally, funding its fight against inhuman Hamas and affirming its right to self-defense against Anti-Semites. We back dauntless Ukraine in its courageous fight against what Reagan wisely termed, ‘The Evil Empire’. And when Iran refused to stop working for a nuclear bomb, as we told them to, we gave them a sound whipping.

We have put strong leaders in Latin America: Milei, in Argentina, and Bolsonaro in Brazil, though his son just lost to a cheating Communist. Consider how we spanked Venezuela’s Drug Lord and jailed him, and shot all those drug dealers in powerboats, and how we’ve made the rabid Communists in Cuba howl. It must be said that our foreign policy continues as noble as ever.

We sent our most penetrating, constructive intellects, V.P. Vance and Secretary Rubio, to Europe, to jerk those Socialists into line, and put spine in their flabby leaders. We told them to beef up their armies, hate Putin, and punish their radical, trouble-making underclass, all blacks and Arabs. In short, we ordered them to shape up, clean house, get set for WWIII, and buy American oil.

This about sums up the many reasons we can be proud to be Americans, where we know we’re free. Our election indicates some trouble, with so many Democrat Communists and traitors elected, but we have no doubt that, in the Home of the Brave, our superior values will prevail and the future will be ours.

^{ADDENDUM & NOTES: The inhumanity of racism

1} THE LYNCHING OF JESSE WASHINGTON:

AI Overview

The lynching of Jesse Washington was a racially motivated public murder that occurred on May 15, 1916, in Waco, Texas, and is widely known as the "Waco Horror". [1, 2]

The Event

The Victim: Jesse Washington was an illiterate 17-year-old African American farmhand who may have had an intellectual disability. [1, 2, 3]

The Accusation: Washington was accused of the rape and murder of Lucy Fryer, the wife of his white employer, at a farm in Robinson, Texas. After days of police interrogation, Washington confessed. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The Trial: On May 15, 1916, Washington was tried at the McLennan County Courthouse in Waco. Following a swift four-minute deliberation by an all-white jury, he was convicted of murder and sentenced to death. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5]

The Lynching: Immediately after the verdict, an angry mob seized Washington from the courtroom. They dragged him to City Hall, where an estimated 10,000 to 20,000 spectators had gathered. The mob tortured, beat, stabbed, castrated, and repeatedly lowered and raised Washington over a bonfire until he was burned to death. [1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]
More than 4,400 racial terror lynchings occurred in the U.S. South between Reconstruction and World War II (documented extensively by the Equal Justice Initiative). [1, 2]
Historic lynchings were public acts of racial terror and vigilante violence designed to enforce white supremacy, Jim Crow segregation, and voter suppression after emancipation. [1, 2]

² Racial integration remains spotty in America, despite the ubiquitous and often ridiculous false depictions of a happily integrated society we constantly see on TV commercials and other mass media.

The Social and Cultural Evolution in Prehuman Nature: From Genes to Brains, From Honey Bees to Crows

Bruce Lerro — Fri, 06 Nov 2026 01:18:50 +0000

Please share with friends, kin and workmates—as widely as possible.

PERSPECTIVES & ANALYSIS

Bruce Lerro

The Social and Cultural Evolution in Prehuman Nature: From Genes to Brains, From Honey Bees to Crows

What is culture good for? Why do we have it at all? Why not continue to transmit information through genetic means? What types of conditions existed that catalyzed selective pressure for culture? What are the dangers of having culture and what are the benefits for some organisms that outweigh the risks? John Tyler Bonner’s great book The Evolution of Culture in Animals assumes that biological evolution is a necessary condition for the emergence of culture. Culture is not freely constructed. It must have biological equipment as a foundation. Nevertheless, culture is not simply the creature of biology. Culture can change the ecology and the ecology in turn controls the direction of the selection of genes.

But what do we mean by culture? Anthropologists have given us many definitions but taking the long view that Bonner does allows us to claim a simpler definition. Culture is the system of passing on information primarily by behavioral and symbolic means rather than genetic means. The emergence of the brain in turn is a necessary mediator but not sufficient condition for culture. In other words, without a brain there is no culture but many other animals have a brain but do not have culture. The brain allowed organisms to learn, to teach and to increase the flexibility of responses to the point that responses can not only be passed on but invented.

Genetic vs Cultural Evolution
In genetic evolution genes pass on information containing molecules from one individual to another through fertilization. In cultural evolution information is passed on through language not through fertilization but through learning and teaching. In genetic evolution the number of offspring is the number of times it has been able to transmit genetic information across generations. This can occur repeatedly between two individuals (monogamy) or through many individuals (polygamy). In cultural evolution information can be transmitted from one individual to another or between many individuals. In biological evolution changes are slow. Most mutations are unfavorable and when one favorable mutation occurs it takes many life cycles—hundreds of years for a new gene to be present in a significant number of individuals. In cultural evolution, especially today, changes can occur within a single generation.

In order to better understand the emergence of culture in animals we need some preliminary definitions from biology. According to Bonner the phenotype is the sum of all the visible structures that compose the organism. This includes both the body and its behavior. The genotype is the (invisible to the naked eye) collection of genes that specifies the characteristics of the phenotype. As Dawkins might say the phenotype is the survival machine of the genes. The phenotype mediates the relationship between genes on the one hand and ecology on the other. The most effective ways genes can perpetuate themselves is by having closely related survival mechanisms (families) that house them and are helpful and altruistic with one another. Genes are not selfish as individual molecules but as a class of identical copies capable of replication in successive generations. The more copies, the more numerous they are in next generation The genome is the assembly of genes of any one individual organism minus the brain. The brain carries whatever behavioral information exists and is housed in the phenotype.

Why Evolve to Multicellular Organisms?
In order to understand these complex processes that lead to culture in animals we must go deep into organic evolution and build our way forward. To begin with, why do we have multicellular organisms at all? After all, there are far more microbes than multicellular organisms and many are successful. However, under some conditions genes have a better chance for survival if they are carried by larger organisms. Why? If the rate of change in the ecology increases, they can trade off competing with smaller organisms for the exploration of new environments. In other words, the energy expended in competition in a familiar environment is traded for less competition and more exploration, a dangerous but sometimes necessary choice.

Who Needs Brains?
What does having a brain do for organisms? Why have them at all? Or why do some organisms have brains while others do not? The reason for having a brain is a further development of the same reasons for organisms becoming multicellular. When ecologies change quickly brains are useful because they can make decisions faster than genomes. In environments which change slowly, brains are unnecessary because the slow rate of genetic change on organisms is satisfactory and the cost of producing brains is too high.

The genome produces rigid predisposition patterns. In a reflex as little as one neuron may be involved, and the impulse spreads from one branch of the nerve axon to another. The next step beyond this involves two neurons, a sensory and a motor neuron. But neurons can excite or inhibit therefore having one or two possible results instead of just one. This means that there is now a division between what comes in (the senses) and what response is taken (motor). Input can be expanded or reduced instead of passively taken in. Outpoint can also be expanded or inhibited. In some smaller celled organisms there are simple brains, but these are decentralized. In the complex brain of larger organisms the brain is more centralized. One reason Bonner gives for the centralization of the brain is mechanical efficiency.

“If nervous system of an animal is to increase, the larger size and needs more neurons to control its parts or because it is advantageous to sense the environment more critically …centralization is probably the most effective method to adopt”

If the nervous system of an animal is to increase—either because the animal is evolving to a larger size and needs more neurons to control its parts, or because sensing the environment more critically is advantageous—centralization (forming a brain or a ganglion) is the most effective method to adopt.

This centralization leads to an increasing connection between neurons to occur over shorter routes and resulting in a quicker response which is more critical and creative. This includes behaviors such as more choices for which resources may choose from and the capacity to expand to new environments.

For example, let us say that as an ecological setting becomes colder, a genetic response is the appearance of genetic variants which may result in fur blubber. But in humans, the response to low temperature in a human society is to make clothing and put the clothing on. If the temperature has gotten colder gradually, the genetic strategy works fine and there is no need for a brain. In fact, it is too costly. However, if a drop in temperature is sudden, those organisms using a genetic strategy will die whereas those human societies that can make and use clothes have a chance at survival. Under these conditions it pays to have a brain. In other words, the growth of organizational complexity in organisms is a response to:

quickly changing environment and
adaptation to complex forms of social organization (as we shall see).

What the genome and the brain have in common is: they are both physical bodies; they both take and store information; and they give out instructions and alter information. They are at the same time symbiotic. While the brain evolves out of the genome as an efficient survival machine to perpetrate genes, the brain can also perform behavior that goes beyond the genes as we shall see.

Origins of Genome-Brain Dichotomy
The roots of the genome-brain split has to do the costs and benefits of slow as opposed to quick responses. The major differences between biological and cultural evolution has to do with the quality and speed of response necessary to survive. The hormonal response to any environmental change is conspicuously slower than a nervous response. Following Haldane, Bonner identifies five kinds of time that biological processes take:

molecular—fast—less than one second;
physiological—transmission of an impulse along a nerve or contraction of a muscle—one second to one hour;
developmental—life cycle varies from 50 minutes—for bacteria to 70 years;
historical- a number of generations beyond an individual but too short to produce major genetic changes and
evolutionary/genetic – 10,000 years to produce a new species

These types of time overlap: the developmental lives of individuals are like tributaries which flow into the river of various historical periods. The river of historical time flows into the ocean of evolutionary processes. The relationship between speed and size is interesting. According to Bonner, at the microlevel, from electrons to large molecules speed of motion decreases with size. However, from larger organisms through to celestial bodies speed increases with size. These two extremes meet up where a small object is too large to move by physical forces. Brownian motion no longer has the ability to budge the particles because they are too big. This is the point of minimum size for living organisms.

Non-motility and Motility in Bacteria
According to Bonner, bacteria motility is a primitive forerunner of nervous coordination and brains. When the organism can’t move it is completely dependent on where it is—in a favorable location it thrives and in a bad location it perishes. In the case of bacteria if non-motile is capable of spore formation they can avoid destruction by:

becoming dormant or
if they are transported from one place to another by chance).

One reason for bacteria to remain non motile is if they live in an aquatic environment where there are currents which bring the nutrient to the cells. If the rate of environmental change in nature is slow, not moving and competing with other organisms is a better bet than being mobile and developing a whole new anatomy that goes with it which allows it to move. In a fast response an organism moves away from an undesirable location to a desirable one.

Motile vs Nonmotile Animals and Plants
Trees and shrubs are non-motile and rely on seed dispersal for their continued existence. This includes by wind, water or animals. Plants also are sustained by photosynthesis if they can stay in the sunlight.

“For plants with separate male and female individuals and for plants requiring cross-fertilization even though one plant has both male and female parts of the flower, the male pollen is brought to the female stigma by wind, insects, birds or bats.” (pg. 73)”

For a large photosynthetic animal, the constraints of their size would not allow them to acquire enough energy from the sun to do much moving. An animal would have to wait for the next sunny day to recharge. This drives photosynthetic animals to become more motile. Motile animals disperse by their own locomotion, including foraging, chasing prey, running away from predators, finding mates, moving away from inhospitable weather. Under conditions where food is scarce for animals, nature selects for two new features: cunning and discrimination. When food is scarce cunning helps so that hard to find food may be trapped. The second skill is the attraction to meat which gives greater concentration of energy in large morsels. Both cunning and meat eating invite the cultivation of a brain.

It would be too linear to assume that once the locomotion strategy occurs all animals remain motile. Some return to a non-motile state. Bonner gives the examples of adult sponges, barnacles and some mollusks—mussels or oysters. But why revert? Bonner argues that if the organism is going to filter-feed in an area where there is a current, as with bivalves and ascidians, it would be a waste of energy to rush around if the current will automatically bring food to the animal.

Non-Human Animal Societies
Earlier we defined culture as the system of passing on information primarily by behavioral or symbolic, rather than genetic means. We said that the emergence of the brain was a necessary but not sufficient condition for culture. But what is the place of society in the relationship to culture and the brain. Do you need a brain to have a society? Do you need a society to have a brain? Do you need a society to have culture? Do you need a culture to have a society? How do all these interact? What is a society, anyway? Bonner’s brief answers are:

you do not need a brain to have a society—bees;
you need a society as a foundation of culture. Societies are necessary but not sufficient conditions for culture and
there are societies without cultures, but there are not cultures without societies.

A weak definition of a society is a cohesive group of intercommunicating individuals of the same species. Seen in this light there are animal societies with various levels of a division of labor, sharing of food and nurturing that still pass down information genetically rather than culturally. Social insects are one of the most extreme cases of social organization with a biological basis. Here is a very rigid division of labor—social complexity-without their beyond any propensity of culture. This might be compared to the social organization of apes, which is loose, yet they have far more cultural ingredients. It is even possible for organisms to not have a brain and yet have a society.

Adaptive Advantage of Being Social
But why be social at all? What are its adaptative advantages? Being social allows organisms to:

preserve their genes through kin selection. The organism is more effective by forming a society;
closely related organisms have genes in common and through cooperation they increase their chances of preserving those genes for subsequent generations and
communal task selection by communal activity certain tasks can be performed by a group that would be impossible to achieve as separate individuals. However, among some species it doesn’t pay to be social. Bonner gives an example of the Indian tigers and the South American jaguars who hunt alone because stealth is needed. If they hunted in packs they would have more difficulty stalking unobserved. In these species even kin selection is not enough to counteract the positive selection for noncooperative hunting.

But stealth alone is not the determining factor in being social. Among social bacteria, social amoebae and many fungi stealth is needed but together they are important for effective dispersal. Additional factors keep them together when the food supply is patchy (as opposed to concentrated) and if whether there is a constant threat. Whether birds are solitary or in flocks also depends on whether the food is distributed in patches or whether it is evenly distributed. Under patchy conditions they are more social and if resources are evenly distributed, they are more solitary.

Modification of the ecology—beavers build dams; birds construct nests. The modification of the environment allows more control over what becomes of them.

Primitive Social Forms
Our general association with societies is that individual organisms of a species that are not physically attached when they come together. However, they can be physically attached. For example, cellular slime molds amoebae that feed as separate individuals then aggregate by chemotaxis to form a multicellular mass. They are separate cells at one moment and a multicellular organism the next. Individual bacteria cells feed in a swarm, conquering large prey individual bacteria they could not digest as separate cells. There are two castes:

spores are reproductive caste and
stalk cells are workers who do not propagate.

Social insects
In higher invertebrates there are new qualities that make them more of a society such as:

cooperation between individuals in the colony not just in feeding but in taking care of their brood;
a division of labor connected with reproduction—sterile castes in the colony;
overlap of at least two generations of individuals in the colony so that offspring will assist their parents at some moment in their existence and
a temporal or age difference between workers is used as a means of a division of labor. Among honey bees young workers stay in the hive and attend to housekeeping and take care of the brood. As the workers age they become foragers.

If an insect society has all four characteristics they are considered by E.O. Wilson to be “eusocial”. This includes ants, bees, wasps and termites. A big part of the life of social insects that is genetically determined is the ability to achieve different sizes and shapes. However, what is not determined by genes is which specific individual became queen or different kinds of workers. This is determined by the behavioral dominance hierarchy; the balance of pheromones exchanged between individuals or variable success in competition for food. Therefore, the immediate use of caste determination is nongenetic

But why is caste control achieved through behavior and chemicals rather than genes? The former provide a way to reach a balance in the division of labor. Rather than a rigid program, increased flexibility allows a fallback strategy under crisis circumstances. For instance, if an accident or a war were to eliminate the majority of soldiers in a termite colony, the ratio of soldiers to workers could be restored. There is some teaching and learning among social insects but it is rigid compared to mammals.

Social Vertebrates: Birds and Mammals
Because birds and mammals have larger brains, their behavioral possibilities are wider. They can perform a greater variety of tasks and they do so rapidly to accommodate both immediate and sudden needs. In social vertebrates such as birds and mammals social organization expands to include mutual protection, effective feeding, mating, infant care and migration. In order to perform the social structure expands beyond the family. There is little in the mammal world comparable to the morphology of insect casts. Whether there is dominance in a social group, according to Bonner, depends on how much competition there is for food and the presence or absence of predators:

The life of a baboon on the savanna is much more precarious than forest life. Not only are there leopards, and other…predators, but food can be scarce during periods of drought. For howler monkeys, relatively safe up in the canopy in a region of the world where there is little seasonal change and ample supply of leaves and fruit there seems to be small pressure.

The social division of labor can be seen in wolf hunting in which the pack ambush or outflank a large prey animal—caribou or mountain sheep. Among the hamadryas baboons of Africa the band is a feeding unit and the troop is a unit of protection against predators of the night. When migrating much social behavior is connected to territorial defense. For instance, when red deer are fleeing, they are organized into patterns with the leader in the front and the second in command in the rear, guarding the back.

From Learning to Teaching
What is the difference in the processes and skills that go from social learning to teaching something to someone else? At the extreme ends of the spectrum of teaching is simple imitation on one hand and complex instruction on the other. All social learning differs from communication. The evolution of communication is a movement from emitting of chemical signals to chemical and tactile signals and then to audio visual signals. The most basic form of communication involves the analysis of a signal and the immediate response to it. Even the most basic forms of social learning involve something more that. Here a signal emitted is specifically designed to alter the behavior of another.

At the base of all behavior rooted in genetics are predispositions or instincts. Here the entire behavioral act is directly inherited and has a fixed action pattern in their orientation to light. They can fly toward the light or move away from it. The basic song pattern of birds is inherited. In many organisms a combination of instinct and learning is best. In the case of birds while the basic song pattern is inherited, improvements in the song occur through trial and error by the birds hearing themselves sing and listening to mature birds sing.

In the twilight of learning stands habituation and sensitization. In habituation there is a change of behavior which occurs by repeated identical stimuli. In habituation there is a lessening of a response based on repeated trials. In the case of sensitizing, a repeated strong stimulus builds up in the individual until it departs. The most basic form of learning is imitation which involves learning without any teaching involved. Slow learning occurs through imprinting. Here, learning takes place only within a restricted youthful period. The stimulus received afterward is ignored. On some occasions rapid learning takes place. An example is a bird avoiding a distasteful insect or a confrontation with a dangerous predator.

Types of teaching
The most primitive kind of teaching is self-teaching. This is where birds change their songs as they hear them or monkeys that learn how to make great leaps through the trees by long practice. In simple teaching an organism learns by imitating the model. In human societies this is an apprenticeship. Here no special information is communicated. In complex teaching the information is not simply imitated but is acted upon. A student receives a set of instructions but the student doesn’t mimic the instructions, they act on them. The results of their action is a lesson.

Imitation
It somehow appears self-evident that all creatures could imitate each other. But according to Bonner they do not. This is one of the ways that invertebrates are distinguished from vertebrates. It is only possible to give instructions when the instructor and their pupils have an inborn, innate ability to give and receive messages. Among bees some learning takes place but there are a limited number of instructions they can transmit. Among honey bees in search of food the scout dances to indicate the source of food. The slower the dance the greater the distance is the from the source. A dance straight-up means towards the sun. A dance straight down means away from the sun. The instructions are specific, precise and rigid.

Bees do not learn from other bees. They have a code for distance and direction but this is inherited. What flexibility exists lies entirely within the confines of questions of distance and direction. A scout bee has no way of telling the other bees anything about the color of the flowers, their shape and size. If anything unexpected happens it has no way of communicating it. For example if flowers are on a horse drawn cart that is slowly moving west, bees cannot communicate the complexity of this context.

The adaptive advantages of imitation are:

In parental care it is advantageous for the parent in its effort to contribute genes to future generations to model adaptive behavior rather than the offspring reinventing the wheel.
It is advantageous for the offspring to protect themselves and copy adaptive behavior not only of parents but of other adults since they have mastered the survival skill.
If imitation can be improved by parents reinforcing the trial and error process, that is advantageous.

Besides using direct signals we can also teach indirectly by using artifacts. Bonner points out animals can leave artifact messages which would be instructive by way of leaving a trail. Ants leave trail substances that they secrete from one of their many glands. The ant that follows discovers only that another ant has been there and it instinctively runs along the trail. This is a signal rather than a lesson. In the case of human culture our teaching artifacts involve writing, tape recorders and television where lessons can be drawn.

Evolution of Flexible Responses: Genome Flexibility
In the last sections we’ve focused on how learning and teaching led to the accumulation of more meaningful information. In this section we return to the relationship between the genome and the brain in how it relates to the evolution of behavioral responses, from rigidity to flexibility.

Let us begin with the two extreme poles. In genetic evolution the most rigid behavior begins with asexual, vegetative or parthenogenetic reproduction in which there is no variation. Then there is asexual reproduction with mutation as ones finds in bacteria. This leads to behavior which is relatively rigid. These involve either reflexes (in which only one response is possible) or primitive forms of behavior (in which two choices are possible). There is no true learning which takes place. There is either habituation or sensitization at best. Both of these responses are adaptive in slowly changing ecologies.

As the environment undergoes more rapid change sexual organisms emerge in which there is now both mutation and recombination. This variation allows for the invention of new survival machines which can a) manage unexplored environments, or b) cope with changing environments. In circumstances in which the entire ecology may be changing, sexuality is a good strategy.

In sum, genetic flexibility ranges from asexuality to sexuality. At the extreme end, while cultural evolution is not lawless, as a result of individual experience information which is not genetically inherited can be passed on through learning and teaching. Innovation and inventions take place which have no direct connection with genetics. Multiple behaviors are possible.

Evolution of Flexible Responses: Genome and Brain Flexibility

Ernst Mayr identifies the conditions under which it is an advantage to have a single response and the conditions under which multiple behaviors work better. Single responses involve behavior between animals of the same or different species (these involve communication). This is communication which is ritualized relations with the same species such as courtship among fish, insects and birds, aggressive displays and parent-child relations. With other species these include prey-predator relations which can also involve both single and multiple-choice responses. As an example birds either flying away from a predator or attacking a predator by mobbing.

Conditions for multiple actions involve adapting to the overall ecology (having nothing to do with communication). This includes choice of food or habitat selection. Single responses go with more predictable environments and multiple behaviors go best with unpredictable environments. The appearance of culture emerged as a new niche that arose from the experimentation of animals with multiple choice behavior. The last form of flexibility involves various forms of adaptation based on differences in mating strategies. These include monogamy, polyandrous and polygamous mating.

Before turning to the early beginnings of culture, here is a summary in chart form of the differences between the genome and the brain. Included are a few differences that are not covered in this article.

Table 1 Comparison of the Genome to the Brain

Genome	Category of Comparison	Brain
Produces the structure of the brain	Which came first?	Brain is the product of genes
Contains all genetic information of an individual genotype	What kind of information?	Contains all behavioral or symbolic information as part of the phenotype
Makes genes	Lowest unit of operation	Makes society and culture
Process of gene replication. It builds proteins required to build and rebuild organisms over the life cycle	What is processed?	Movements and cognition
In DNA —makes RNA -proteins	Where is information coded?	Information signals from the sensory systems and motor systems
Passes information containing molecules by fertilization from one generation to another	How is information passed on?	Passes information through language in tools through learning and teaching
Is responsible for rigid predisposition due to slow changing ecology	How structured or how flexible?	New behavior patterns from older behavior in reaction to a rapidly changing environment
Reflex, one neuron—Steady input and passive	How many neurons and what is the nature of input?	Two neurons, sensory and motor Input can be expanded or reduced
Simple brain, decentralized Less critically necessary for ecology for smaller organisms	Kind of brain?	Complex, centralized need is more critical for ecology for larger organisms
Less connections between neurons	Nature of the connections between neurons	Learning leads to increasing connections between neurons
Less varied, occurs over shorter distances, occurs more immediately	Means of communication	Varied across the senses, Occurs over long distances Occurs over a considerable span of time
Little or no memory storage	Memory storage	Longer memory storage
Less variety	Resource Variety	Choose from a myriad of sources such as insects. Expand to new niche
As a reaction to low temperature, genetic variants can appear such as fur or blubber	Strategies reaction to low temperature	As a reaction to low temperature Make clothing, use clothing
social insects and other invertebrates wasps can walk, fly, eat, find a mate, prey w/o learning	Examples in nature	Chimps, crows, ravens, dolphins Hominids
Slow ecological change	Driving force	Rapid Ecological change
Simple organisms	Organizational complexity	Multicellular organisms
Stay in familiar ecology, have to compete	Strategy	Forced to explore new ecologies
Non-motility	Stable or movement?	Motility
Become dormant	Responses	Initiate moving to new niches
Be transported by animals, wind and water
Plant life	Forms of life	Animal life
Photosynthesis	Sources for reproduction	Trapping animals using cunning
Seed dispersal		Meat-eating for concentrated protein and brain development
Concentrated, evenly distributed	Resources	Patchy, unevenly distributed
Sending and receiving signals: emission of a signal and immediate response to it	What happens with signals?	Learning and teaching. Emission of a signal specifically designed to alter the behavior of another

Reaction: Instinct: entire behavioral act is directly inherited act performed without instruction or trial and error	Type of conduct	Response Comes from society or culture. Trial and error
Insects –fixed response: fixed action pattern in orientation to light		Learn correct response rather than fixed

Early Beginnings of Culture
In the grand sweep of organic evolution the nature of adaptation splits in two directions: one branch remains in a given niche and continues to compete within that niche. The other explores new niches. It no longer competes or competes with those that remain in the existing niche. In the case of the relationship between land and sea, plants and animals came to a branch point. Some remain aquatic while others mastered various innovations that would be required to survive on the terrestrial environment.

The first change required in the exploration of new environments is the increase of motility and the second is the evolution of the brain. As a result of the centralized brain follow

the integration into social groups
the ability to learn
the ability to teach
the increasing flexibility in behavioral response—multiple choices as opposed to one or two choices.

Many birds and mammals have a kind of primitive culture in which behavior is transmitted but more to imitation rather than by teaching. True culture must not only have behavioral transmission but also must provide a respond to that information which includes multiple possibilities.

Five Kinds of Behavior That Lead to Non-Human Culture

physical dexterity—tool use

For example, the holding of thorns in the beaks of Galapagos finches to remove grubs from trees and the use of rocks to break abalone and other mollusk shells by sea otters and termite foraging among chimps. This includes such considerations as where to poke, what kind of stick is best and how to twiddle the stick. The manner in which the young are fed by oystercatchers also involves tool use. Bonner points out:

“They either put the mussel on some hard sand and peck or hammer very hard with their bill to break the shell at its weakest spot or they insert their bill into the open siphon (when the mussel is under water) and snip the adductor muscle which keeps the valves of the mussel closed”. (173-174)

learn rather than inherit information about predators

With the increasing motility across land, it is to the prey’s advantage to be able to identify new predators and adapt to different predators in different ecological contexts.

auditory communication within a species

Any learned bird song can play a role in individual recognition. Also, dialects support group cohesiveness. In the case of New Zealand saddleback they do not learn a song solely when they are young but can learn songs at any time in their development. Among the chingolo sparrows, the males are known to wander and when they arrive at a new destination they can learn a new dialect different from their own.

geographical locations are partly cultural

While the general direction of birds, north in the spring and south in the fall, are built into the brain and influenced by hormones, the exact path or location of final destination is cultural. In his work with geese, Lorenz was able to introduce new places to geese because he was imprinted upon their brains as a “human foster mother”

inventions or innovations

In the four areas above there is learning and imitation. Innovation is the first time any of these new behaviors occurred. In terms of physical dexterity. For example, the first time any new tool is used or the first-time titmice birds in Britain opened milk bottles by pecking through the aluminum foil. Also, is the first time macaques washed the sand off sweet potatoes before eating them.

Human Culture
The development of the brain not only improves the ability to form sustaining relationships with members of one’s own species as a social means of adaptation. With increasing brain size there is the increased ability to recognize individuals of one’s own species. Pair bonds can form, be extended to kin and eventually expand to non-kin. The number of recognition signs and signals also increases. The brain not only allows the ability to make multiple choices and to learn and be social, but through the increase in the art of true teaching humans develop a more expansive and precise culture. By this Bonner means not simply imitation but a new action which is the result of a specific instruction by the teacher. This is only possible with a specific verbal language.

In part, culture is a product of a crisis in the development of the size of the brain. If the brain were to become too big, the birthing process would become problematic. To resolve this, nature selected a few genes that affected the timing of development so that the growth of the brain could be completed outside the parental body in interaction with the socio-cultural world.

Back to Abject Democratic Silliness and Deceit on Ukraine

Oliver Boyd-Barrett — Thu, 05 Nov 2026 22:48:14 +0000

Please share with friends, kin and workmates—as widely as possible.

OLIVER BOYD-BARRETT

Back to Abject Democratic Silliness and Deceit on Ukraine

And, OMG, Back to Zionism and Russiagate Lunacy

Just in One Day: Back to Biden

In his post-election press conference on November 4, 2026, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer stated that a primary goal for the incoming Democratic congressional majority is to “check on Trump’s chaos at home and abroad”.

Schumer: The Senator from Israel. Poster boy for the Democrats' corruption and sheer cynicism. It is Zionist neoliberals like him who made Trump look good, and inevitable.

While Schumer’s immediate post-election remarks focused heavily on lowering costs and using the “power of the purse” to bring a swift end to the administration’s war with Iran, his broader messaging regarding Ukraine centers on reversing the pullback of American support.

Schumer’s continuous position on Ukraine highlights a clear path forward for the new majority. Over the course of the legislative cycle, Schumer has fiercely championed robust aid packages and strict economic measures, pushing for the passage of the Russia sanctions bill. He noted that the bill “sends an unmistakable message to Moscow that America will back Ukraine to the hilt” and will continue to look for new ways to support their defense.

Schumer previously blasted President Trump’s statements blaming Ukraine for the Russian invasion as “disgusting” and “shameful,” arguing that the administration was actively repeating Kremlin propaganda. He reiterated that the people of Ukraine did not start the war (no, it was started by US neocons whose purpose since the late 1990s has been to press NATO ever eastwards towards Russian borders with a view to destabilizing and ultimately breaking up the Russian Federation into small statelets, a policy helpfully outlined by RAND in its 2019 report, Extending Russia) and that supporting them is directly tied to protecting future generations of Americans from authoritarian expansion (no, it is tied to throwing Western taxpayer money to the corrupt neo-nazi regime in Kiev where it is creamed off by Zelenskiy’s dictatorial cabal).

Following the Democratic midterm sweep, European leaders and Ukrainian observers expressed renewed hope that the incoming Congress taking office in January 2027 will actively work to counter Trump’s suspension of aid and restore mended ties with Kyiv. This is because Europe doesn’t have the resources to fullfil its boasts of going to war with Russia in 2030, no matter how much money Germany’s Blackrock Chancellor Merz raises and how many young Germans he manages to conscript and desperately wants the US fully back in the fray.

Schumer’s understanding of the Russian conflict is entirely backwards and Schumer is one of the most culpable politicians in promoting an entirely false narrative, one that benefits the US arms industry and nobody else.[And the US ruling class obsessive global hegemonist interests.—Ed)

Military Industrial Complex

His connections to the defense sector primarily stem from campaign contributions, legislative earmarks, and advocating for military contracts to boost the New York economy. Schumer was the leading Senate recipient of defense sector contributions during the 2022 election cycle, taking in $387,407. His leadership PAC, IMPACT, and the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee (DSCC) regularly accept bundled donations from prominent federal lobbyists representing major corporate and tech-focused defense firms like Palantir and SpaceX. Top defense giants, including Lockheed Martin’s Employee PAC, have historically listed Schumer among their top New York beneficiaries due to his position on key committees and his leadership role.

Schumer actively leverages his legislative power to direct federal defense spending to New York-based manufacturers, viewing the defense industry as an economic engine for his home state. He has spent years successfully advocating for Lockheed Martin’s facilities in Syracuse and Owego, New York. This includes helping secure a $1.2 billion contract for the Owego plant to build Marine One presidential helicopters, as well as billions in additional defense contracts. Using the CHIPS and Science Act, Schumer has coordinated strategic partnerships between the Department of Defense, GlobalFoundries, and Lockheed Martin to secure domestic semiconductor pipelines specifically for military and aerospace technologies. He also pushed for a $1.5 billion DoD loan to Wolfspeed in Mohawk Valley to scale up silicon carbide production for the defense supply chain.

Because of his proximity to defense interests, Schumer faces regular pressure from the progressive wing of his own party. Senators like Bernie Sanders have publicly pressured Schumer to reconstitute the historic Truman Committee to investigate “war profiteering” within the military-industrial complex. Progressives argue that consolidated mega-contractors (like Lockheed Martin and RTX) are engaging in price-gouging and prioritizing stock buybacks over cost-effective national defense. Left-leaning critics and anti-war advocates routinely criticize Schumer for voting to block resolutions aimed at halting weapons sales or ending unconditional military aid to foreign allies.

Zionism

Because Schumer may be considered a Zionist we cannot be sure that his support for continued war with Russia over NATO’s proxy, Ukraine, will cancel out his support for destabilization of West Asia in favor of Israel.

He aligns with the principles of Zionism—specifically liberal Zionism—through his self-described identity, legislative actions, and career-long political defense of Israel. As the highest-ranking Jewish elected official in U.S. history, he has frequently stated that his support for the existence and security of a Jewish state is a core pillar of his identity.

Schumer frequently traces his Zionist convictions directly to his name and ancestry. He often invokes the Hebrew root of his surname - Shomer, meaning “guardian” or “watchman” - to explain his purpose in Washington. In speeches to Jewish and Democratic organizations, he has stated: “I have always tried to be in the Senate ‘Shomer Yisrael’ - someone who guards and watches over America’s critical partnership with Israel.” He regularly notes that his generation, growing up in the immediate shadow of the Holocaust, views the survival and military supremacy of Israel as a non-negotiable moral necessity.

A tangible way Schumer acts on his Zionist beliefs is through his legislative leverage in the Senate. He views securing American financial and defense assistance for Israel as a primary function of his leadership. He helped shepherd massive supplemental security packages through Congress, including billions in emergency defense funding. In public addresses to Jewish community groups, he explicitly defined his role by saying, “One of many of my jobs in the U.S. Senate is to fight for aid to Israel - all the aid that Israel needs,” even calling the preservation of these security programs his “baby”. Despite immense pressure from progressives within the Democratic caucus to place strict conditions on or completely block arms sales to Israel, Schumer has consistently opposed broad, systemic restrictions on U.S. military assistance.

Schumer’s ideology falls squarely into “liberal Zionism,” which argues that the best way to secure Israel’s long-term future as a secure, democratic Jewish state is through the eventual realization of a two-state solution. This perspective was most famously on display in March 2024, when Schumer delivered a sweeping Senate floor speech harshly criticizing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He argued that Netanyahu’s right-wing coalition and opposition to a Palestinian state threatened to make Israel an international “pariah,” thereby endangering its survival. Schumer maintains that criticizing the political leadership of Israel is an act of love and preservation for the state itself, drawing a sharp distinction between opposing specific government policies and opposing Israel’s right to exist.

Schumer is instrumental in the Israeli campaign to equate criticism of the State of Israel with racist anti-semitism. In his 2025 book, Antisemitism in America: A Warning, Schumer links modern security threats faced by Jewish people globally to threats against Israel. While he maintains that standard criticism of Israeli military policy is not inherently bigoted, he argues that rhetoric which seeks the total dissolution of the state of Israel or crosses into ancient anti-Jewish tropes constitutes antisemitism. He has used his political capital to push back against anti-Zionist campus movements and to significantly increase federal funding for Jewish community and synagogue security.

Russiagate

Schumer was also a significant player in the Democratic Party’s fake charges in favor of Hilary Clinton’s presidential candidacy in 2016 that then candidate Donald Trump was a Russian stooge. This campaign was a vile assault on what was then still left of American democracy and electoral integrity. Critics of the Trump-Russia investigations (often referred to as “Russiagate”) argue that Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer played a prominent role in validating and amplifying narrative elements that were later discredited or lacked substantive evidence. From the perspective of these critics, Schumer leveraged his leadership position to keep the public and legislative focus on allegations of collusion.

Immediately following the 2016 election, Schumer teamed up with bipartisan lawmakers, such as Senator John McCain, to call for full-scale, aggressive congressional inquiries into Russian interference and potential ties to the Trump campaign. Critics argue this early institutional push gave formal legitimacy to what they viewed as an unverified premise.

Following the 2018 Helsinki Summit, Schumer publicly echoed suggestions that the Russian government held leverage over Donald Trump. He stated on social media that millions of Americans would wonder if “the only possible explanation for this dangerous behavior [sic] is the possibility that President Putin holds damaging information over President Trump.” Critics point to this as a key example of promoting unsubstantiated personal narratives.

When President Trump criticized the investigations as a “witch hunt,” Schumer continuously defended the integrity of the Special Counsel and congressional investigations. In January 2018, when Senator Dianne Feinstein unilaterally released the transcript of Fusion GPS co-founder Glenn Simpson (the firm behind the controversial and largely discredited Steele Dossier), Schumer publicly praised her transparency. Critics argue that defending these procedures kept unverified opposition research in the mainstream media cycle.

In media interviews during the early stages of the probe, Schumer publicly pushed investigators to look beyond cyber activities and “follow the money trail,” suggesting deep financial networks between the Trump campaign and Russian interests existed. Critics argue that asserting the existence of “all kinds of money trails” prior to concluded evidence helped fuel public speculation.

For more on Russiagate see Oliver Boyd-Barrett’s Russiagate and Propaganda (Routledge 2020) and Oliver Boyd-Barrett and Stephen Marmura (Eds) Russiagate Revisited: The Aftermath of a Hoax (Palgrave Macmillan 2024)

I note there are stories this week concerning the hacking of commercial freezers throughout many part of Europe, and bomb threats that have downed many European flights. I do not think this is a Russian modus operandi but, rather, suspect that it is a modus operandi that since long before Russiagate, Western intelligence agencies have worked hard to project on to Russia.

We have had many weeks now of a determined campaign to persuade the world that Russia is engaging in hybrid warfare against Europe, since Europe cannot find any better evidence to support its allegations (to justify its insane gifting of European wealth to Kiev) that Russia intends to invade Western Europe, and Europe needs a pretext to force America back into the action in the hope that this will help forestall Europe’s suicidal self-inflicted economic decline and the abandonment of all pretenses at welfare state capability to look after its own people.

The US: Everything Changes, Everything Remains The Same?

Roger Boyd — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 23:25:51 +0000

Please share with friends, kin and workmates—as widely as possible.

ROGER BOYD

The Republicans lost the mid-term elections big time, with the Democrats gaining across the board:

Senate: Democrats gained control after flipping at least 7 seats, including Republican strongholds of Kansas, Texas, Iowa, Ohio, Maine, North Carolina, and South Carolin. At least 54 Democrat seats (NBC projects 55), with only 51 needed for a majority.
House: Democrats gained control after flipping at least 20 seats. At least 230 (NBC projects more than 250) Democrat seats, with only 218 required for a majority.
State Governors: Democrats have won the governorship in at least Texas, Georgia, Ohio and Iowa. With Alaska, Kansas very close. Democrats will have 28, and possibly 30, out of 50.
State Legislatures: Democrats won both houses in Wisconsin and Minnesota, and look to gain unified control in Pennsylvania, Michigan and Arizona. In another eight states, they deprived the Republicans of the supermajorities; Florida, South Carolina, Indiana, Missouri, Iowa, Ohio, Kansas, and North Carolina. In Kansas and North Carolina this means that the Republican dominated legislature can no longer override a Democrat governor’s veto on legislation.

Odious figures, like the overtly fascist Tom Cotton, senator for Arkansas, maintained their seats in the new Congress. Some states, like the Carolinas, Arkansas, much of the South and Southwest, specialize in picking scum for representatives.

Although the US democratic system does hold all 435 House seats up for re-election in the mid-terms, it held only 35 out of 100 Senate seats up for re-election. The representatives in the House only serve two year terms, while the senators serve a six year term with one third of Senate seats up for re-election every two years. This differentiation between the House (2 year terms and all contested every two years), the President (4 year term) and Senate (6 year terms and only one third contested every two years) was designed to block a populist takeover.

It greatly extends the time required to take all three levels of government to at least 6 years, with the totally unrepresentative Senate (2 senators from each state irrespective of relative population) having the longest tenures. The less urban states, with a lower population, tend to lean Republican (more. conservative), so this design greatly benefits the Republicans and right-wing Democrats. The need for a super-majority to override a presidential veto is also part of this anti-democratic design.

Democrat winners in the Texas election celebrate the coming of a "Blue Wave" in a state supposedly impregnable to even fake progressive politics.

The Democrats do not have anywhere near the super-majority required to override a presidential veto of legislation, or to convict and remove the president. This will tend to lead to an impasse, as the legislature can refuse to consider any proposals from the executive while the executive can veto any proposals from the legislature.

The perfect situation for the oligarch gains made under Trump (tax cuts, gutting of any anti-trust oversight, gutting of environmental and other regulations generally, degrading of the administrative state, greater war spending etc.) to be solidified. It will be two more years until the Democrats have a chance to win the presidency, and they are also just another wing of the oligarch-controlled political duopoly. Only a few of the Democrats elected even aligned with the fake-left bourgeois progressive Democratic Socialists of America while the rest are neoliberals with varying levels of progressive cultural values.

The mid-term results serve the Democratic Party well, as it can point to the presidential veto for not changing anything while holding very public performative investigations and impeachments of the administration; with a few careers destroyed for public consumption. A large amount of smoke but no real fire of change. Even the War Powers Act, that is supposed to give Congress the right to stop a war, is quite vague and open to executive branch dissembling (is it a war? did the war end then get restarted? etc.) and constitutional challenge. The Trump administration will no longer be able to push forward its agenda through its own legislation, but as courtier class fellow brothers and sisters, the Democrats have historically found ways to move the oligarchic agenda along through disguised accommodation. The Democratic Party is overwhelmingly Zionist, and while it may want to push war with Russia and aggression toward China a bit more, there will be little or no change in a foreign policy that is the purview of the executive. The only real way for the Congress to hold sway on foreign policy is through the power of the purse, but the Democrats are very fully supportive of the Military Industrial Complex.

There will be some moves at the state level on cultural issues, where Democrats have gained control, such as abortion rights and cultural issues. Also, probably some movement with respect to AI data centres; especially in Texas. But even there, while the Democrats may have taken the House, the Republicans still control the Senate. The anti-democratic designs of the Founders still playing out in the present. With the backstop of the duopoly to stop any real fundamental change that the oligarchy does not support, with the latter significantly aided by the US Supreme Court’s legalization of open political bribery.

Subscribe to Great Power Politics, Elites & Energy

By Roger Boyd · Launched 5 years ago

Covering the dynamics between great power politics, elites and energy, utilizing a critical political economic and historical materialist perspective that moves away from a Western-centric viewpoint and dominant International Relations methodologies.

Who Decides the Next Strike on Iran: Trump or Bibi?

Patrick Henningsen — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 22:07:05 +0000

Please share with friends, kin and workmates—as widely as possible.

Who Decides the Next Strike on Iran: Trump or Bibi?

Daniel Davis / Deep Dive
Streamed live on Nov 2, 2026

In this episode of Daniel Davis / Deep Dive, host Daniel Davis is joined by journalist and foreign policy analyst Patrick Henningsen (21st Century Wire) to discuss escalating tensions between the United States, Israel, and Iran, along with the broader political consequences of U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.

Key Discussion Points

Escalation & Claims of Potential Strikes:
- The hosts react to rhetoric and media reports regarding potential renewed or intensified strikes against Iranian facilities (specifically referencing underground locations like "Pickaxe Mountain").
- They scrutinize claims about whether the U.S. or Israel will dictate future military action, arguing that military intervention in the region lacks a clear legal mandate or Congressional authorization.
Criticism of U.S. Foreign Policy & Presidential Strategy:
- Henningsen and Davis analyze recent public statements by Donald Trump regarding his approach to Iran, counter-terrorism, and regional security.
- They argue that foreign policy promises (such as remaining a "no-war" administration) contrast sharply with military escalations, civilian casualties, and continued support for regional conflicts in Gaza, Yemen,and Ukraine.
Domestic Political Impacts & Congressional Oversight:
- The discussion highlights public and electoral pushback against military involvement in the Middle East,pointing to shifting voter sentiments among independent and base demographics ahead of upcoming elections.
- The hosts critique Congress for failing to assert its War Powers authority or block unauthorized executive action, citing specific lawmakers (such as Sen. Chris Murphy) who publicly voiced alarm over classified war planning without initiating legislative blockades.
U.S.–Israel Relations & Public Opinion:
- Henningsen argues that U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East is heavily influenced by Israeli security interests and lobbying efforts, which he contends run counter to broader American economic and diplomatic stability.
- They address comments from U.S. officials regarding global anti-Israel sentiment, arguing that growing international backlash stems directly from military operations and civilian displacement in Gaza and the West Bank rather than broad, irrational hostility.

Trump and Lula Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

Glenn Greenwald — Wed, 04 Nov 2026 01:02:27 +0000

Please share with friends, kin and workmates—as widely as possible.

Glenn Greenwald

In this segment from his show System Update, journalist Glenn Greenwald addresses a viewer question asking him to elaborate on why he views political figures like Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula), Donald Trump, and Barack Obama as "two sides of the same coin" (or in the same political boat).

Core Arguments & Themes

1. The Power of the Anti-Establishment / "Agent of Change" Identity

Establishment Disillusionment: Greenwald argues that across modern democracies, being perceived as representative of the status quo or institutional authority is the single biggest political liability [02:05].
Barack Obama (2008): Obama successfully capitalized on widespread public anger following the Iraq War and the 2008 financial crash. Pitching himself as an outsider promising transformational change allowed him to capture the presidency [04:40].
Donald Trump (2016): Trump ran against both the Republican and Democratic party establishments, framing Hillary Clinton as the face of the status quo while positioning himself as the disruptive outsider who would "drain the swamp" [06:59].
Lula da Silva (Brazil): Lula initially rose to prominence as an outsider and charismatic union leader from extreme poverty, positioning himself as a radical departure from Brazil’s traditional elite [08:14, 10:09].

2. Absorption into the Status Quo

Greenwald asserts that over time, all three figures ultimately assimilated into the very political systems they promised to disrupt:

Obama: Preserved and expanded war-on-terror policies, reliance on Wall Street insiders (e.g., Timothy Geithner), and bank bailouts, which disillusioned many supporters and eroded Democratic support down-ballot [11:20].
Trump: Enmeshed himself within Washington’s political machine, failed to dismantle the establishment, and oversaw military conflicts, losing his original status as an uncompromised outsider [13:39].
Lula: Compromised with Brazil's financial sector and media elites to gain and maintain power (such as issuing his Letter to the Brazilian People). Despite implementing incremental welfare programs, broad structural inequality and poverty persist, rendering him part of Brazil’s establishment after 25 years on the political stage [08:59, 15:25].

3. Broader Political Pattern

Greenwald concludes that this dynamic extends beyond these three individuals to modern political movements globally (such as populist parties in Europe) [14:35]. Anti-establishment figures gain power by promising systemic overhaul, but staying in office inevitably turns them into the establishment, eroding the outsider image that drove their initial success [11:01].

The Greanville Post

WHAT SO PROUDLY WE HAIL

The Social and Cultural Evolution in Prehuman Nature: From Genes to Brains, From Honey Bees to Crows

Bruce Lerro

The Social and Cultural Evolution in Prehuman Nature: From Genes to Brains, From Honey Bees to Crows

Back to Abject Democratic Silliness and Deceit on Ukraine

And, OMG, Back to Zionism and Russiagate Lunacy

Military Industrial Complex

Zionism

Russiagate

The US: Everything Changes, Everything Remains The Same?

Subscribe to Great Power Politics, Elites & Energy

Who Decides the Next Strike on Iran: Trump or Bibi?

Who Decides the Next Strike on Iran: Trump or Bibi?

Key Discussion Points

Escalation & Claims of Potential Strikes:

Criticism of U.S. Foreign Policy & Presidential Strategy:

Domestic Political Impacts & Congressional Oversight:

U.S.–Israel Relations & Public Opinion:

Trump and Lula Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

Trump and Lula Are Two Sides of the Same Coin

Core Arguments & Themes

1. The Power of the Anti-Establishment / "Agent of Change" Identity

2. Absorption into the Status Quo

3. Broader Political Pattern