Tag: politics

The House of Azag: A Contempory Lamentation

The text explores the myth of Ninurta and the contemporary retelling of Azag’s story, emphasizing themes of power, complicity, and the consequences of forgetting history, blending prose and verse to convey a timeless lamentation.

Cuneiform tablet: nir-gal lu e-NE, balag to Ninurta Seleucid or Parthian Period, ca. 2nd–1st century BC Mesopotamia, probably from Babylon (modern Hillah) Clay tablet inscribed with a hymn of praise to Ninurta, the storm god and vanquisher of Asag, the demon of disease. The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Object No. 86.11.349 (Public Domain Image – Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art)
Cuneiform tablet: nir-gal lu e-NE, balag to Ninurta
Seleucid or Parthian Period, ca. 2nd–1st century BC
Mesopotamia, probably from Babylon (modern Hillah)
Clay tablet inscribed with a hymn of praise to Ninurta, the storm god and vanquisher of Asag, the demon of disease.
The Metropolitan Museum of Art, Object No. 86.11.349
(Public Domain Image – Courtesy of The Metropolitan Museum of Art)

On the Inspiration for The House of Azag: A Contemporary Lamentation

Inspiration often comes suddenly and from unexpected sources. While rereading Samuel Noah Kramer’s The Sumerians: Their History, Culture, and Character (1963/1971), I came across a passage recounting the myth of Ninurta, “the god of the stormy south wind,” who in battle destroyed Asag (Azag), “the demon of sickness and disease, whose abode is in the kur, or netherworld” (p. 151).

This passage immediately sparked a question: How would the story of Azag’s heir unfold in the modern age of plague and divisive politics? And how might it be told in the style of a Sumerian lamentation or myth?

The result is a hybrid of prose and verse, a structure reminiscent of ancient lamentations, epic chronicles, and prophetic texts. The prose sections serve as a narrative scaffold, unfolding the events and guiding the reader through the cycle of tyranny, reckoning, and return. The verse distills the emotional and symbolic essence of these events into stark, prophetic utterances, in keeping with the brevity and weight of traditional lamentation poetry.

By blending these forms, The House of Azag mirrors the ancient mode of storytelling in which history, myth, and warning are inseparable. It is both a retelling and a foretelling, a meditation on the cycles of power, complicity, and ruin—and the price a people pay when they forget the past.

An Audio Reading of D.S. Yarab’s The House of Azag: A Contemporary Lamentation

The House of Azag: A Contemporary Lamentation

Part I: The First Reign

The Time of Pestilence

In the days of turmoil, when truth was cast into the dust and the air itself grew thick with sorrow, there arose a ruler from the House of Azag—Azag, the demon slain by Ninurta, yet never truly vanquished. His tongue dripped venom, his hand withered the harvest, and his breath carried pestilence upon the wind. The multitudes, fevered and blind, hailed his coming, for they had forgotten the old warnings. They did not recall the tale, the curse, the name:

From the House of Azag, Azag, the demon slain by Ninurta.

And so, in his first reign, he set forth a sacrifice—one not of fire nor incense, but of breath and blood, of silence and mourning, that the land itself might wail beneath his shadow.

The Reign of Plague

He, of the House of Azag, heir to ruin,
Crowned in blight and anointed in ash,
Raised his hand, and the heavens grew silent,
Breathed his word, and the earth was unmade.

Fevered winds bore his whispered decree,
A covenant sealed in the shroud of the dead.
And they, the lost, the beguiled, the willing,
Bowed before the plague-born throne.

His altars dripped not with oil nor myrrh,
But with breathless sighs and broken names.
And still they called him savior, still they knelt,
Though the air itself was thick with wailing.

The Judgment

Thus was the land cast into shadow,
And the wise were scorned, the healers undone.
Not by sword nor by fire, but by silence,
Did the House of Azag reign.

Part II: The Fall and the Interregnum

The Elder Warrior’s Time

And so it came to pass that after the years of pestilence, when the land was burdened with sorrow and the cries of the forsaken rose to the heavens, an old warrior took up the mantle of the fallen city. He was a man of the elder years, not swift but steadfast, not mighty in arms but resolute in purpose. And he stood against the darkness, bearing the weight of the withered earth upon his back.

He drove out the ruler of the House of Azag—not by blade nor by fire, but by the will of the people, who in their suffering turned against the master of plague. The temples of deception cracked, the halls of power shuddered, and the great beast was cast into exile, retreating to the shadows of the wastelands.

Yet the abominable beast does not slumber.

The Warrior’s Triumph

He, the warrior of elder years, stood firm,
His hands worn, his voice a beacon.
And the people, weary of death and despair,
Turned from the House of Azag.

The tyrant fell, his name a whisper,
His throne an empty husk of ruin.
And for a time, the land breathed free,
And the winds carried no plague.

Part III: The Second Reign

The Return of Wrath

But the abominable beast does not die. Even as the warrior sought to mend the broken walls, the deceiver’s voice slithered through the ruins. He whispered of old glories, of stolen kingdoms, of vengeance against the weak. He promised dominion to the cruel, riches to the corrupt, and absolution to the faithless. And in the dark corners of the land, where grievance festered, where truth was forgotten, and where justice was mocked, they listened.

And the warrior—burdened by years, by the weight of a land divided—fought not with sword or fire, but with weary breath and reasoned word. And they laughed, for reason had no purchase in the ears of the blind.

Thus, through falsity and oath-breaking, through fear and fury, the House of Azag rose once more. And this time, not in sickness, but in wrath.

The Return of the Abominable Beast

He, of the House of Azag, whisperer in shadow,
Spoke in silvered lies, and the deaf gave answer.
He stirred the dust, and the bitter took arms,
He spread his hand, and the oath-breakers swore.

Not by plague, but by vengeance, he came,
Not with fever, but with fire.
The halls of wisdom he razed,
The scribes he silenced, the truth he unmade.

Part IV: The Willing Hands

The People’s Bargain

And when he, of the House of Azag—Azag, the demon slain by Ninurta, called forth his name from the abyss, they who had once trembled at his touch did not recoil. They did not remember the pestilence, nor the wailing of their own dead. Instead, they gathered at the gates, voices raised in fervor, hands outstretched not in defiance, but in welcome.

For he did not come as he had before, cloaked in sickness and ruin. This time, he came bearing gifts—promises of glories unearned, of burdens lifted from their shoulders, of enemies cast into the void. He did not call them to serve, but to rule. He did not ask them to sacrifice, but to consume.

And so they bent the knee, not in chains, but in hunger. Not from fear, but from desire.

And the warrior, standing upon the walls, cried out: “Have you forgotten?”

But they turned their faces from him.

The Willing Betrayal

He, of the House of Azag, called to the lost,
And they answered, not with dread, but with praise.
For he did not come with pestilence,
But with crowns of dust and golden lies.

He whispered: “The land is yours.” And they rejoiced.
He promised: “The labor is no longer yours.” And they knelt.
He declared: “The past is a burden. Remember it not.”
And they cast their own memories into the fire.

Epilogue: The Consequence

The Reckoning to Come

Thus, the gates were flung open, not by the tyrant’s might, but by the hands of the desperate and the blind. They, who had suffered under his reign, now lifted him upon their shoulders, crying, “He is the chosen! He will restore what was stolen!”

But there was nothing to restore. What they had lost, they had cast away.

And when the reckoning came, they wailed once more,
Crying out, “How could we have known?”

But their hands were not clean.

For they had built the throne, brick by brick.
They had paved the way, stone by stone.

And when the monstrous beast took his seat,
He did not need to command them.
They carried out his will before he spoke it.

Schadenfreude and the Politics of Resentment: A Society Unmoored

The author reflects on a troubling societal trend where individuals derive joy from others’ misfortunes, particularly amidst widespread economic inequality. Instead of advocating for fairness, many focus on undermining those with minor advantages while overlooking systemic issues that favor the ultra-wealthy. Historical concepts like Nietzsche’s ressentiment underline this destructive mindset. The piece illustrates this with a union example, where members aimed to diminish benefits for others instead of promoting broader equity. The author emphasizes the need to redirect resentment towards addressing inequality, fostering solidarity rather than division, and calls for reclaiming virtues like justice and compassion in the face of collective suffering.

Throughout my life, I have encountered individuals and groups who seem to lack not only a moral and ethical compass but even a basic sense of self-interest. When they witness others losing an advantage—whether in employment, social standing, or opportunity—they do not respond with sympathy or concern but instead with unrestrained joy, reveling in another’s misfortune. Rather than advocating for fairness or seeking to improve society or their own standing, they take solace in the suffering of others, as though deprivation itself were a form of justice.

This perverse celebration of the misfortune of others becomes even more striking when we consider the actual distribution of power and wealth in our society. While workers resent each other’s minor advantages, America’s top 12 billionaires have amassed over $2 trillion in wealth—an increase of 193% since early 2020. The displacement of legitimate economic anxiety onto fellow workers, rather than the rigged systems enabling such extreme concentration of wealth, exemplifies how resentment is weaponized against collective interests. Instead of questioning the forces that have hollowed out the middle class, many find misplaced satisfaction in seeing others fall.

This phenomenon is not new. Philosophers and historians have long observed the destructive power of ressentiment—a term Nietzsche used to describe the corrosive, festering resentment of those who feel powerless, who, unable to elevate themselves, seek instead to bring others down (Nietzsche, 1887/1989, p. 36). The weaker spirit, he argued, does not strive toward greatness but seeks revenge against those who embody what it cannot attain. In our current dystopian era, where the richest 1% now control 54% of all stock market wealth—up from 40% in 2002—this sense of powerlessness has fertile ground in which to grow. Rather than demanding fairness or aspiring to something greater, many find solace in celebrating the stripping away the rights and relative advantages of others, while the true beneficiaries of systemic inequality remain untouched.

When the slide into the current era began, I began to see this corruption of the spirit play out in the most mundane of settings. Decades ago, in the workplace, I encountered a revealing example of the mindset that prioritizes resentment over solidarity. Our office had only a limited number of private offices and computers, with the former assigned to attorneys based on job classification and the latter distributed by seniority across all employees, including attorneys and investigators within the collective bargaining unit. When discussions arose about relocating to a new office space, the union sought input from the membership on concerns to bring forward to management. At the time—which was years before I became a supervisor—I was the local union steward.

To my astonishment, a significant number of members advocated for the union to ask management to eliminate private offices for all non-managers in the new space simply because not all job classifications had been granted them. Their logic baffled me. Rather than seeking to extend a benefit to more workers, they focused on stripping it from other bargaining unit members, as though incremental improvements in working conditions for some created intolerable working conditions for others.

Fortunately, I was able to argue—successfully—that this approach was entirely backward. Instead of resenting those who had obtained an improved working condition, we should advocate for an expansion of the working condition rather than its elimination. The rational course was to request that more job classifications be made eligible for offices, using objective criteria related to job duties and their similarities to those that already warranted offices. While we were ultimately unsuccessful in securing additional offices, we did succeed in shifting the mindset of the membership. What began as an impulse to strip others of their advantage out of frustration became, upon reflection, a collective effort to push for broader equity. We may not have won the tangible benefit, but we avoided the far greater loss of allowing ourselves to be divided by shortsightedness and resentment.

And yet, this very same ugly impulse now dominates our national discourse. The cruel celebration of public servants losing their livelihoods becomes even more troubling when viewed against economic realities. While many Americans cheer the human pain that the elimination of government positions and the middle-class existence which such positions enabled, the ultra-wealthy’s share of national wealth has reached levels not seen since the 1920s. Even more striking, as the oligarchs’ wealth share has nearly quadrupled since 1953, their share of total taxes has remained virtually unchanged. Yet rather than questioning this dramatic shift in resources, many find satisfaction in seeing their neighbors lose healthcare benefits and perhaps even their homes.

This misdirection of resentment has particularly pernicious effects along racial lines—an all-too-familiar pattern in American history. While the median Black family holds just 12.7% of the wealth of the typical white family, and 28% of Black households have zero or negative wealth, political entrepreneurs channel economic anxieties into racial antagonism rather than solidarity. The very communities that could benefit most from collective action are instead pushed toward celebrating each other’s losses rather than confronting the systemic structures that perpetuate their deprivation.

Even those who remain employed in federal service are subjected to arbitrary and senseless disruptions, yet their plight is met not with sympathy but with open derision. Some are forced to return to offices that lack the space to accommodate them, while others are ordered to relocate across the country to similarly ill-equipped workplaces—an absurdity greeted with applause rather than outrage. The schadenfreude is both bizarre and troubling, driven not by principle but by petty resentment: If I had to go back, so should they. I was never allowed to work from home, so why should they? I doubt they were even efficient in the first place.

These justifications are not arguments but thinly veiled expressions of bitterness, exposing a society conditioned to revel in the suffering of others rather than demand justice, fairness, or rational policy. Worse still, there is little recognition that these actions—these firings, transfers, program terminations, and other disruptions—whether arbitrary, capricious, cruel, irrational, intentional, or, at times, unfortunate yet necessary—inflict real harm on individuals with families and loved ones, embedded in communities not unlike our own.

This kind of envy serves only the interests of those who seek to keep us divided, distracting us from the real issues that demand our attention. Understanding the true scale of inequality—where most Americans’ wealth is tied to their homes while the top 1% controls over half of all stock market wealth—can help redirect resentment toward productive change. Rather than celebrating when others lose benefits or job security, we must recognize how the concentration of wealth and power benefits from our division.

This lesson has been articulated time and again by thinkers from across traditions. Aristotle’s concept of megalopsychia—the great-souled person—stood in contrast to those driven by pettiness and envy, emphasizing instead the nobility of advocating for the common good (See Book IV of the Nicomachean Ethics). In the Christian tradition, agape—a selfless, communal love—demands that one’s neighbor be uplifted, not torn down (1 Corinthians 13:4–7).

Yet in modern America, these lessons are too often ignored in favor of a corrosive, zero-sum mentality that pits the powerless against one another rather than against the forces that perpetuate their economic insecurity and often economic suffering. A society where 26-28% of Black and Latino households have negative wealth, while billionaires added over $2 trillion to their fortunes during a global pandemic, has deep structural issues to address. Yet instead of confronting these systemic challenges, we have allowed ourselves to be divided, finding hollow satisfaction in our neighbors’ misfortunes rather than building the solidarity needed for meaningful change.

This is the moral failure of our time—not just the overt corruption of those in power, but the willing embrace of cruelty by so many in the public. A nation that delights in its own suffering, that views the suffering of its neighbors as a victory rather than a tragedy, is one that has lost its way. The challenge before us is not merely political but fundamentally ethical: to resist the temptation of resentment and to reclaim the higher virtues of solidarity, justice, and shared human dignity.

Yes, there is a legitimate argument for addressing the national debt and curbing government spending. And yes, when Congress engages this issue in a constitutionally sound manner, it may result in job losses in the public sector. Such decisions, if undertaken with deliberation and fairness, may at times be necessary. However, what we have witnessed thus far is not a measured fiscal policy but a reckless, chaotic purge—carried out without regard for Constitutional norms, the rule of law, economic stability, or human impact. Even where reductions in government employment may be warranted, they should never be occasions for celebration, nor should they serve as fuel for the schadenfreude and politics of resentment that have become disturbingly and consistently prevalent.

Would that we had the wisdom to see it.

References

 Aristotle, and Terence Irwin. Nicomachean Ethics. 2019. 3rd ed., Hackett Publishing Company, Inc., 2019, https://www.perlego.com/book/4620092.

Nietzsche, F. (1989). On the Genealogy of Morals (W. Kaufmann & R. J. Hollingdale, Trans.). Vintage Books. (Original work published 1887).

LSE Inequalities. (2025, January 2). Ten facts about wealth inequality in the USA. London School of Economics and Political Science. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/inequalities/2025/01/02/ten-facts-about-wealth-inequality-in-the-usa/

Tomorrow: The Response to a Republic in Crisis

A Republic does not fall in a day, nor is it restored in one.

Today was the reckoning—the recognition of what we have lost, the indictment of our failures. But reckoning alone is not enough. If the Republic is to endure, we must turn from despair to restoration.

Tomorrow is that turn.

It is not a promise that the Republic will be saved. It is a challenge: that we must choose to save it. Not by rhetoric, not by grievance, not by empty nostalgia, but by reclaiming reason, morality, and purpose—by remembering what the Republic was meant to be.

What shall we make of tomorrow? That choice is ours.

A reading of the D.S. Yarab’s essay “Tomorrow”

TOMORROW

What shall we make of tomorrow?

If Today is the reckoning, then Tomorrow must be the response. But where does restoration begin? Not in speeches, nor in promises, nor in the empty rituals of politics. It begins in the only place it can—within ourselves.

A Republic cannot be saved by its institutions alone. Laws, constitutions, courts, elections—these are but scaffolding. They do not stand without a foundation, and that foundation is the people. If the people are unmoored, if they are ruled by grievance, by appetite, by fear, then no law will save them, no leader will redeem them. If the people themselves are lost, then the Republic is lost with them.

We have been taught to believe that we are powerless, that history is something done to us rather than something we shape. But this is a falsehood. The truth is that the fate of a nation is not determined by its rulers alone—it is determined by its citizens, by what they accept, by what they demand, by what they are willing to stand for.

If we are to restore reason, we must reclaim the habits of thought that we have abandoned. We must question, we must listen, we must doubt, we must seek to understand before we seek to judge.

If we are to restore morality, we must hold ourselves to a higher standard than those we condemn. We must not mistake vengeance for justice, or self-righteousness for virtue. We must remember that morality is not merely a tool to wield against our enemies but a mirror in which we must see ourselves.

If we are to restore purpose, we must remember that liberty is not the right to do as we please but the responsibility to govern ourselves, to live not as individuals alone but as a people. We must choose to build rather than to destroy, to create rather than to consume, to serve rather than to rule.

But we cannot restore what we do not understand.

Education: The Foundation of Restoration

We must educate ourselves—not with propaganda, not with the comforting lies of factional loyalty, but with truth. Real education is neither indoctrination nor mere vocational training. It is the development of the mind, the sharpening of judgment, the capacity to distinguish the essential from the trivial, the real from the false. It is learning to think.

The founders of this Republic, despite their flaws and contradictions, understood that knowledge was the safeguard of freedom. Jefferson wrote that “If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” Franklin warned that democracy was always one step from tyranny if the people lacked the wisdom to guard it. Washington, in his farewell address, cautioned against faction and the corruption of reason by unchecked ambition.

Yet today, we have forsaken the intellectual inheritance of the Republic. We do not educate for wisdom—we educate for compliance. We do not seek understanding—we seek affirmation. We do not debate—we shout. We do not learn—we consume.

A people who will not think for themselves will be ruled by those who think only of themselves.

If we are to reclaim the Republic, we must first reclaim ourselves. We must read not to confirm what we already believe, but to challenge it. We must seek facts, not slogans. We must recognize that learning is not a passive act but an active responsibility, that ignorance is not an excuse but a failure.

We must resist the seduction of easy answers.

We must understand what we have lost.

The Spirit of the Republic

The Republic was never meant to be an empire. It was never meant to be a mere tax revolt. It was never meant to be a vessel for ideology, oligarchy, or faction.

It was an idea. A radical, fragile, difficult idea: that a free people could and should govern themselves—not by force, not by wealth, not by divine right, but by reason and consent.

This idea has been betrayed, not by one party, not by one movement, but by all who have sought power for its own sake, who have turned democracy into a game of conquest, who have mistaken governance for domination.

The Republic was meant to be a living thing, a constant dialogue, a place where principles could be tested against reality, where reason could temper passion, where justice could stand apart from vengeance.

But we have let it become something else.

We have let it become a battleground for competing tribes, each seeking to impose its will rather than to govern in common cause. We have allowed it to be captured—by interests, by ideologues, by oligarchs, and finally by would be tyrants who have no stake in the future of the people they claim to serve.

We have mistaken cynicism for wisdom. We have mistaken manipulation for leadership. We have mistaken spectacle for governance.

But the Republic is not yet lost.

If we understand what has been taken, we can take it back.

If we remember what the Republic was meant to be—not a possession, not a weapon, not an empire, but an ideal—we can begin the work of restoring it.

Not through empty gestures. Not through rage or grievance. But through the slow, difficult work of becoming a people worthy of self-governance again.

The road to restoration is not a single act, nor a single moment. It is a thousand small choices, made every day, by each of us.

What shall we make of tomorrow?

That choice is ours.

An Essay About the State of the Republic Entitled “TODAY”

A Reading of D.S. Yarab’s essay “TODAY”

TODAY

We are a nation without reason.
We are a nation without morals.
We are a nation without purpose.

We have failed our inheritance.
We have failed our promise.
We have failed our future.

Once, we were a people who sought wisdom in the governance of reason, who fashioned our republic in the crucible of Enlightenment thought. We held that truth could be discerned, that knowledge was the safeguard against tyranny, that free inquiry was the antidote to superstition. Yet, we have cast aside the intellect of our forebears, bartering reason for the cheap currency of factional dogma, of ignorance parading as virtue.

Once, we understood that a republic, to endure, must be anchored in moral responsibility. The city upon a hill was not merely a boast—it was a charge, a demand, an expectation. Yet, we have allowed that moral vision to fragment, perverted into empty postures of righteousness, where sectarian division supplants shared virtue, and the sacred call to justice is drowned in the clamor of self-interest.

Once, we were a people of purpose, our liberties not mere indulgences but the instruments of human dignity and national strength. We were called to the defense of freedom, not merely for ourselves but for those who would follow. Yet, today, our purpose dissolves in the tide of complacency, our freedoms bartered for fleeting comforts, our equality abandoned to the rising chorus of cynicism and despair.

All factions—left, right, and center—have forsaken the principles that once defined us. Each has wrapped itself in the illusion of virtue while kneeling at the altar of Mammon. We claim fidelity to truth, but we scorn reason when it contradicts our desires. We speak of morality, yet we wield it as a weapon rather than a compass. We invoke purpose, but only as rhetoric to mask our pursuit of power and comfort.

And so we arrive at Today.

If we are honest—if we strip away our illusions and stand before the bar of judgment without recourse to excuse, evasion, or self-justification—we must confess: we are all complicit. No single faction bears this burden alone, nor can any claim the mantle of righteousness. We, the people, have chosen indulgence over discipline, grievance over responsibility, spectacle over substance. And in that choosing, we have undone the Republic.

But we are not bound to our ruin.

We must restore reason.
We must restore morality.
We must restore purpose.

To do so, we must abandon the golden idols who are unworthy to serve us, the oligarchs who plunder us, the ideologies that subvert reason. We must cast aside the anger, the bitterness, the division that have led us to forsake one another, that have severed us from our future and our purpose. If we are to be a people again—if we are to reclaim the inheritance we have squandered—we must choose anew. Not comfort, not grievance, not self-interest. We must choose to be worthy of the Republic, or else surrender to its final dissolution.

If we continue on our present course, where do we go?

If we have abandoned reason, morality, and purpose, what remains?

It is no longer a question of mere decline but of transformation. A Republic that ceases to be a Republic does not simply fade into irrelevance; it becomes something else, something unrecognizable to those who once believed in its founding principles. Have we already crossed that threshold? Have we slipped, not merely toward decay, but into authoritarianism?

The signs are unmistakable. A government that no longer serves its people but instead entrenches power. A citizenry that, weary of self-governance, willingly submits to rule by force or deception. A society that exalts spectacle over substance, division over unity, and vengeance over justice. These are the hallmarks of a nation no longer free in spirit, even if it still pretends to be free in form.

Authoritarianism does not always come with the fanfare of a coup or the boot of the oppressor; more often, it arrives in whispers, in the slow erosion of rights once taken for granted, in the willing abdication of responsibility by a people who have lost the will to govern themselves. It arrives when power, unchecked, ceases to be accountable. When the institutions meant to preserve liberty instead secure their own perpetuity. When law becomes a weapon, wielded not for justice but for control.

If we have not yet fallen fully into authoritarianism, then we are on its precipice. A people who no longer hold their leaders accountable, who no longer value reason, morality, or purpose, will find themselves ruled—not by wisdom, not by justice, but by those who know only how to command and demand obedience.

And so, we face a choice.

Do we accept this slow descent into tyranny, consoling ourselves with the illusion that we are still free, so long as we are comfortable? Do we resign ourselves to the idea that the Republic was always doomed, that we are powerless to reclaim it?

Or do we resist?

To resist is not merely to oppose a party or a faction. It is not to trade one demagogue for another. True resistance is the restoration of the very things we have abandoned: reason, morality, and purpose. It is the rejection of fear and cynicism, the refusal to accept the inevitability of our own undoing.

It is to say, as those before us have said in darker times: not yet, not now, not here.

Today is the reckoning.

What shall we make of tomorrow?

The Gulf of Mexico Renaming: A Shift Toward Authoritarianism

Perhaps historians, social commentators, and others have overlooked the significance of the official renaming of the Gulf of Mexico by the U.S. government. In retrospect, this single action—more than all the other actions of the recent past—may be the clearest indication that the Republic has slid into authoritarianism.

Consider this: every other action undertaken recently, no matter how heinous, illegal, or unconstitutional, was not truly surprising. These actions were long planned—rooted in old hatreds of people, ideas, and ideologies that have been debated in this country for decades, if not longer.

But to the point—he had a thought, perhaps fleeting, perhaps deliberate, to arbitrarily rename the Gulf. This was not a longstanding controversy, not a battle waged over decades. No committee debated it, no scholars weighed in, no political factions fought over it. It had never been considered or raised. It is not a point of hate or ideology. It was simply arbitrary, irrational, and ahistorical. And yet—voilà—it was done. No resistance. No hesitation. The act was obeyed with the same mechanical efficiency as in North Korea, the Soviet Union, Communist China, Nazi Germany, or Fascist Spain.

It was a test. Could he control thought, speech, and language itself without resistance? Yes. He could.

There were no legal battles, no protests, no challenges. The Gulf of Mexico was not—and had never been—an issue of public contention or even a discussion. Yet this renaming was an exercise in raw, unchecked power. And no one even stopped to ask, Wait—what? Why?

Thus, the Authoritarian States of America arrived. The Republic can be declared dead as of the day the U.S. government—or, at the latest, Google Maps—recognized the change.

Orwell warned us. Read Nineteen Eighty-Four. Read Politics and the English Language.