The Epstein File: Corrupt Universities

 

Harvard’s Money Reputation Laundering

When we look at the miscreants that took Epstein money, the focus shouldn’t be on the ambitious and morally corrupt alone. People like that are everywhere. Yes, it is fun to name and shame, but in the end that is only cheap thrills.

Non-hideous people were also tempted into his maw by perversions of administration and misincentives. These institutional twists fostered corruption that allowed Epstein to remain influential by trading favors with the rich and powerful. We’ve already examined the role of corrupt reporters that allowed Epstein to thrive. Now we have to review the academic institutions that benefited from Epstein’s donations. In this case, that would be Harvard University.

Jeffrey Epstein’s association with Harvard cleansed him of seediness and gave him a carrot to dangle in front of young women without hope. He told young girls “he was on the board of directors at Harvard University. He promised that once she took her SATs and obtained the scores she needed, he would write a letter of recommendation for her, which he said would carry significant weight with regard to her admission.” He wasn’t on the board at all, but a naive search would show the entanglement of his name with theirs. This allowed him to find new prey for the appetites of him and his associates.

Harvard University got money. Millions of dollars of donations from Epstein gave him cache. The same is true for MIT Media Labs. This is how it worked, and why.

The Tell with Christine Axsmith is a reader community that examines gaslighting, systemic misinformation and coercive control. We chat about cults and pimps and solutions.

Elisa Knew

Larry Summers asked his friend Jeffrey Epstein for help securing money for a project of his wife, Dr. Elisa New. Dr. Elisa New was featured in the Wall Street Journal recently because a pet project of hers was funded by a non-profit Jeffrey Epstein controlled to the tune of $110,000 in 2016, and she also received a gift from Leon Black through Epstein’s recommendation. That’s bad enough. What’s really galling is that she knew he was problematic and took the money anyway. That’s what’s really revealed in the Epstein emails.

“… as soon as they heard about the gift, they took my project more seriously.”

In contacting Epstein to get her money, Dr. New advised a twisted path for forwarding the donation so that it wouldn’t be associated with his name. You know - reputation laundering. It belies Harvard’s claims that it didn’t take donations from Epstein after 2008 when he “plead[ed] guilty to state charges for solicitation of prostitution and one count of solicitation of prostitution from a minor in exchange for a 13-month prison sentence and registering as a sex offender.” Dr. New wrote:

[T]he best way for that money to come, I think, is as a gift to Poetry in America, an initiative at EdLabs at Harvard University. This will give me discretion over its disbursement to HarvardX and WGBH, but this will be absolutely be a Harvard gift that will count as Campaign success and from which Harvard will take some (but not as much) overhead.”

Incidentally, EdLabs at Harvard University was closed in 2019 when an investigation into Professor Roland G. Fryer, Jr. “concluded that he engaged in unwelcome sexual conduct toward several individuals, resulting in the creation of a hostile work environment over the course of several years.”

Subscribe now

In 2014, a New York Magazine article about Jeffrey Epstein mentions Professor Elisa New and describes possible reasons for setting aside any feminist qualms about him:

“Larry Summers wife, Elisa New, drops by. She teaches American poetry at Harvard and is putting together a proposal for a series on poetry that WGBH in Boston may produce and Epstein is advising on where she might go for added support … Perhaps it’s just the ultimate feminist nightmare: Men (and a few opportunistic women) continue to come to Epstein’s because, no matter their public bows to modern manners, they simply don’t care that he offends every aspect of feminist sensibility”

A Lolita Reading to Please Epstein

The degradation doesn’t stop there. In a twisted power move, Epstein prods her to read “Lolita,” a book about a French literature professor who sexually abuses a 12-year-old girl. Dr. New knew of Epstein’s sex crime conviction, and to fund her project asked him to use his powers to turn on the money spigot. The price of getting funding for a project that will educate the public about poetry is having to go along with this barely-disguised teasing. Dr. New tries to pivot the focus of the conversation to another book, doubtless trying to keep some self-respect. See below:

But Why, Elisa? Because It “Changed Everything”

One imagines that being a tenured professor at Harvard University would be the pinnacle of anyone’s ambition. It seems not. There are pecking orders within pecking orders, even at the nation’s most prestigious university.

Dr. New wrote that Leon Black’s gift to her Poetry in America project gave her status at Harvard, “but first and foremost, it gave me leverage, enabling me to set down a solid Harvard base for my activities by giving the school something to point to: this public humanities project among the list of project the Dean supports.” It got her project new respect. “… as soon as they heard about the gift, they took my project more seriously.” That elevated status got her a “rewired studio space” and “woke up the Dean to Harvard’s role in producing the highest quality humanities content for the WORLD, and not just for Harvard students.” Leon Black’s gift coming from Epstein’s support and the gift from that non-profit he was affiliated with allowed Dr. New to dream about future projects, presumably for the public benefit also. See excerpt below:

Many, many people associated with Epstein after his initial arrest for sex crimes. He did them favors, like donating to charities, getting daughters modeling jobs or meetings with Harvard professors. He offered Woody Allen a chance to teach film editing at his home, since they were friends. Tempting morsel, indeed, for any aspiring filmmaker.

For Dr. New, Epstein’s favors allowed her to manifest her dream of educating the public about poetry. This was only possible because an institution with billions in its foundation would only take her ideas seriously if there was a large donation attached to them.

That is the corruption. When a fabulously wealthy university weighs its priorities based on donations, the sincere and ambitious would be tempted, or even forced, to seek support from where ever they could get it. Even a sex offender.

It is that Dean’s evaluation criteria for which projects to support - when Harvard is insanely wealthy as an institution - that has good-minded professors consorting with the sleazy with spare cash. If that is the metric of a project’s value, of course lines will be crossed.

Harvard does not need more money. It has billions. And billions more. Ranking projects by how much money they bring into an academic department is absurd. All that decision-making process does is make little poetry professors scrabble around for cash - when they don’t need it anyway.

That is the part of the system that has to change. Dr. Elisa New just got caught in the gears.

Support our sponsor Kreiner Natural Soaps.  Specially made for sensitive skin with wholesome, natural ingredients.

 

The Epstein Files: Corrupt Reporters

Corrupt reporters allowed Epstein to prosper and become powerful, and played a major role in his staying powerful. An ecosystem of withholding information by corrupt reporters for a future book or some power leverage is a systemic problem that degrades the media’s role in our democratic system. Reporters find a neat, embarrassing nugget of information, and refrain from reporting it to advocate for the person they are supposed to exposing or to sell a future book.

This problem is systemic and is not limited to the Epstein matter. The corruptibility of writers who are trusted with truth-telling is a feature of modern political reporting. It is that feature which Epstein, and others, have used to maintain operations and to deceive the public.

It is written to and from two people who didn’t need clarification on “knew about the girls” - and neither does anyone else these days. They were discussing Epstein’s and Maxwell’s practice of luring girls into sex work. So Wolff knew. And gave Epstein media advice.

Landon Thomas, Jr.

Thomas wrote for the New York Times, and in that role communicated with Epstein about Donald Trump. Long after Epstein had been convicted of a sex crime, Thomas gave him a warning about a possible tell-all book.

But wait - there’s more! Thomas asked Epstein for money for a charity. You know, the guy that he was supposed to hold to account and roast when warranted. That trick got him fired from the New York Times, especially after “confessing” he has become friends with Epstein.

Michael Wolff

You can always rely on your friends in times of need. If you are facing media attention, a reporter pal can give useful tips and advice. In this case, writer Michael Wolff advised Epstein (did we mention he was a sex offender?) on how to handle the media and to help him write a response Trump could use if asked about Epstein during the presidential debate. From AP:

After being confronted, Wolff explained that it was all part of his kind of journalism. No apologies. Only excuses. It is understandable that Epstein was one of his “valuable sources.” That’s plausible. What is harder to believe is that Trump’s close relationship with Epstein wasn’t newsworthy enough to be put in one of his four books on Trump. He and Epstein believed Trump might be asked about their relationship during a presidential debate. Just the possibility of that happening means the topic is important enough to include in a political book.

But it doesn’t end there. Another email exchange implies that Wolff knew and understood about Epstein’s trafficking activities. Read the last sentence: “of course he knew about the girls as he asked ghislaine to stop.” It is written to and from two people who didn’t need clarification on “knew about the girls” - and neither does anyone else these days. They were discussing Epstein’s and Maxwell’s practice of luring girls into sex work. So Wolff knew. And gave Epstein media advice.

Olivia Nuzzi

Imagine writing an article for a major news outlet about a noted sex and heroin addict from a prominent political family who is running for President. You somehow start an affair online which is best characterized as lopsided and humiliating. In trying to stay useful, and therefore worthy of a phone call, you hide huge political news about this candidate dumping a dead bear cub in Central Park. You write a plan of action for him when he is excluded from the presidential debates. You strategize together to parlay his assets into a position in the Trump administration.

It doesn’t work. He dumps you anyway and tells everyone you are a sex-crazed stalker.

Time to write a book! In it, you reveal that this candidate is abusing prescription drugs, and not sober in AA like he presents to the world. Of course this fact, like the dead bear cub in Central Park, is something you were paid to tell America months before, but allowed your sexual relationship - such that it was - to lure you into advocacy for that deranged politico.

When Olivia Nuzzi was outed as having a relationship with the subject of a profile she was writing at the time, she was fired. Rightfully so. The problem, systemically speaking, is that a corrupt reporter held back very relevant information from the public contrary to her role’s obligations. See the trend?

“Journalistic Ethics”

These stories of compromised loyalties are the center of modern media rot. Writers seeking personal gain withhold very relevant information from the nation and whatever publication that is hiring them. These corrupt reporters sway decisions of the electorate by hiding reality, hoping to cash in with a book, or in Nuzzi’s case, to have RFK, Jr.’s baby. (I know). They gather factoids and barter them for favors, even if the person is a moral toad.

Share

The depth of journalistic corruption can be measured by the willingness to flatter and protect a sex offender or a married sex addict who demands submissiveness. They were willing to engage with living repulsiveness, become friends with it, embrace it. Honestly, there seems to be no bottom to the people they would find common ground with to advance their own interests.

So now the media turns to academic outlets about “journalistic ethics.” Amidst the cluck-clucking, nothing changes. From the Northeastern Global News:

Ethics is no longer enough.

All journalistic entities need a written commitment by reporters that all conflicts of interest are disclosed and that no information will be withheld from reporting that later finds its way into a book or leaked emails. And there needs to be a penalty for violations.

This would not be a violation of the First Amendment, as it would be part of the job description of a reporter.

I can hear the screaming already. Add your comments below.

Support our sponsor:  Kreiner Natural Soaps.  Your source for natural soap for sensitive skin.

The President's Stalker

 

Single White Female

Chatted with some friends last week about the movie Single White Female, which was made back when you could actually write advertisements for roommates with that kind of title. The implication was that anyone matching that description should be pretty safe as a roommate. Pure prejudice and assumption. Then the movie dismantles your false ideas about race and gender as the single, white female roommate escalates into a bizarre and creepy attachment to the main character. It becomes clear that she is actually dangerous.

When Natalie Harp hit the public consciousness this week, the situation was laughed at. Ms. Harp, an attractive 35-year-old White House staffer, was infatuated with President Trump. The President, in turn, was flattered by her attentions. The whole scenario seemed sad and a little pathetic. The withering commentary about the whole “Natalie” situation was delicious revenge.

Then came the details. Harp was a conduit for foreign leaders to connect with the President of the United States. Harp didn’t even start the security clearance process for a year after working directly with the President. She waltzed around security regulations and had to be giving everyone else in the White House stress migranes with her access and influence. Think of it: you have worked and studied so hard, achieved so much, that you are now a staffer in the White House. Now all the effort means nothing because some woman with a portable printer prints out memes for Trump. And SHE’s the one with the influence. It’s got to be galling.

For sensitive skin, our family tradition of soapmaking for you.

Harp as a Stalker

There’s more to this story, though. She’s a dangerous stalker. Our witticisms are blinding us to the reality of how Harp is acting and what it means. A few decades ago, the popular wisdom was that stalkers are harmless. Now, stalking is considered a homicide in slow motion.

Merriam Webster defines a stalker as “a person who pursues someone obsessively and aggressively to the point of harassment.” Let’s break it down.

A Person Who Pursues Someone Obsessively

Ms. Harp does not take a day off. The White House is a very intense place to work. Most staffers last a few years and then leave. It is exhausting. Yet, Harp never leaves. She works on Sundays. She speaks to the President “late into the night,” implying long hours at work, alone with Trump. Just the volume of working hours leaves no time for anything else in her life, even eating. Her entire life’s focus is President Trump almost every waking moment.

Harp follows the President everywhere. She carries a printer with her as she prints out memes and social media comments from the internet that flatter President Trump. Most people would consider this behavior insufferable, like being prey to a digital wildebeest.

Harp credits him with survivng cancer, which somehow justifies her slavish devotion. Trump approved a program to accelerate new cancer treatments for people with advanced stages of cancer. She was one of those people, and has gone on stage in front of people to thank the President for saving her life.

Aggressively

Harp leaves little notes of admiration for Trump to find, which is more than a little aggressive in terms of method of contact. Even People Magazine has taken notice. She wrote:

“I miss when you used to call during my talk show days, and we’d talk about everything and nothing,” the former One America News Network host reportedly wrote in one of the letters. “I need to reunite my past self with my current into a better version who will make you proud. And please, when I fail, will you tell me?”

“You have the absolute right to cuss me out, if need be, when I deserve it, because no one knows or cares about me more,” she reportedly continued in part. “It is I who is unworthy.”

“I also am sorry if I was an embarrassment walking the course in Scotland” reports the New York Times. The letter goes on to say: “I want things to always be right between us. I also know I’ve been distracted all week (forgetting to eat throughout the days, and even forgetting to sleep, and only catching a couple hours at a time).”

In direct aggression news, Harp allegedly hopped into the trunk of a car to be close to the President when there wasn’t enough room inside of his car. Think about it. She had to talk someone in the Presidential motorcade into popping the trunk while she climbed in there. Surely there was some protest from the Secret Service. No one thought this was normal, even for a guy who feels he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and still be elected.

To the Point of Harrassment

Federal law defines stalking harrassment as actions creating a reasonable fear of death or grievous bodily injury. Trump is not afraid of our dear Ms. Harp, but I guarantee other people at the White House are. But “would be reasonably expected to cause substantial emotional distress to a person” does apply to Trump. Just because HE isn’t seeing the weirdness of it all, doesn’t negate what a reasonable person would suffer in terms of substantial emotional distress. Because hiding in a trunk to be near your boss is something that would give anyone a reasonable fear for their safety. And more, leaving little notes of slavish devotion would accelerate those fears.

So yes, Hart’s actions are harassment.

Danger!

So many problems in this scenario. The Journal of the American Academy of Psychiatry and the Law published “Assess and Managing the Risks in the Stalking Situation” by Paul E. Mullen, Rachel Mackenzie, James R. P. Ogloff, Michele Pathé, Troy McEwan and Rosemary Purcell (2006) 34 (4) 439-450; where it outlined some home truths:

In most stalking situations, except where the target is a public figure, the presence of threats increases the risk of a progression to violence.^7,32–34 Even though most stalkers do not carry out their threats, all threats should be taken seriously, as they are distressing in and of themselves, and not enough is known to differentiate the empty threats from harbingers of assault. (emphasis added)

While President Trump is a public figure, in this case he has a personal relationship with Ms. Harp. The article mentions risk factors that don’t apply to her as far as we know, such as substance abuse, history of violence, low education level, but “[c]are must be taken, however, as there is suggestive evidence that, when very serious or fatal violence occurs, it may involve a different pattern of risk factors with no association with either substance abuse or prior convictions.” (emphasis added).

Roughly 10 - 33% of stalking victims are assaulted. See James D, Farnham F: Stalking and serious violence. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31:432–9, 2004; Schwartz-Watts D, Rowell CN: Commentary: update on assessing risk for violence among stalkers. J Am Acad Psychiatry Law 31:440–3, 2003.

That’s a pretty big chance for an 80-something guy to take.

Why I Am Optimistic: Trump is Losing His Pillars of Support

 

Why I Am Optimistic

When you’ve lost Laura Loomer, you’ve lost the conspiracy industrial complex.

Referencing “Why Civil Resistance Works,” Erica Chenoweth and Maria J. Stephan’s book of the same name,

Every autocrat has to depend on pillars of support: business community, security forces, civil servants and state media.

Trump is Losing His Pillars of Support

Business Community

Farming and construction industries are being hurt from a lack of workers to, well, do the work. Cue more expensive food. Small businesses that relied upon international trade are losing revenue because they lost their source of components and can’t replace them with something Made in the USA.

Wall Street

These idiotic tariffs have caused punishing losses on Wall Street - something which Trump is very sensitive to. More than that, Trump is always changing the tariffs and changing the deadlines for them to take place. Maybe no one in this administration has noticed, but the world economy is very inter-dependent and trade-reliant. Cut off the outside supply, and there will be panic in the boardrooms.

Share The Tell with Christine Axsmith

Civil Servants

There are massive layoffs of civil servants that have simply been reversed. Many are still without jobs, but thousands have returned to work. More than that, recent events like the flooding deaths have demonstrated to everyone the important role of government. Whatever you might think about the people working for this Administration, they can’t fly bombers or collect taxes. That takes civil servants.

Military/National Guard

There is resistance within the military and security ranks. I know this because immigration activists in Los Angeles were tipped off before the National Guard and ICE arrived in that park, which was virtually empty by the time they got there. The ones who did that had to be part of the security forces that were ordered to storm the park.

The Tell with Christine Axsmith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Epstein-Haters

The howls of betrayal by (what is now) former Trump supporters was most striking. Even wacky Laura Loomer is condemning Trump for not releasing Epstein’s client list. Oh, and Alex Jones cried about it. He couldn’t bring himself to blame Trump at this point, but he will get there. My right-wing nutjob social media feed was full of Trump denunciations. He simply won’t get away with this reversal. Many of his supporters invested their identities in wanting retribution against the pervert elites. He will pay a big price for that one.

Joe Rogan Bros

When Joe “I don’t like to think too much” Rogan is condemning your policies for being stupid, you’ve got a problem. Actually, you’ve got several of them: it looks bad on the surface (where Joe likes to live) so you are losing the narrative, people feel sorry for immigrants who are just living their lives like them, people don’t want their neighbor sent to war-torn Sudan never to see their families again, and your policy is messing with how people see themselves.

Actually, that last one is a big one, and will be the focus of a future article.

Handy-Dandy Tips For Defeating Tyranny

Join the protests, but take a bath first. And comb your hair and wear clean, nice clothes. No one cares about your self-expression. You need people to be open to listening to your message first.

Maybe taking to the streets isn’t your thing. OK. Then find some other form of resistance. I told my paid subscribers my little action already, but find something that works for you: put up stickers that say “Don’t obey in advance” and “Defeat fascism”, delete Amazon and Twitter off of your phone (throw in Facebook and Instagram for good measure) OR READ A BOOK!!!!

You heard it here first, folks.

Fight the AI Slop

 

Fight the Machine

When I was a girl, some grown-up asked me why I used big words. “Because they’re pretty,” I answered. He was shocked, but it made sense to him. Later, I was fired from a babysitting job for using “weird words” that her daughter had started to use, too. “You mean vocabulary?” I asked. That was the end of the conversation.

And so, as we descend into the age of AI slop, let’s revive those little words and expressions that were such attractive curlicues in our language. In the decades since that question, I’ve expanded my expressions to include the archaic, which my husband and I traded back and forth daily. G-d, I miss that man. The words in old books are beautiful things, like discovering treasures in an old box of jewelry at a yard sale that has been overlooked for too long.

Who knew it could lead to revolution?

Share

Now that we are inundated with AI slop, what better way to evoke actual feelings than to communicate with words never used by AI? People are dying for real, authentic communication and connection. It gives a lift to the soul to know a person thought about you and wrote something meant for you. It didn’t used to. But here we are.

So here is a handy-dandy list of expressions to weave into your email discourse:

• whither, thither

• yon

• lest

• “draw a bath” means to fill the tub with water

• nary

• anon

• betwixt

• buss on the cheek

• naught

• wherewith

• ribald

• n’er do well

• rapscallion

• rapier wit

• cut to the quick

• to wit

Add to the list in the comments!

The Tell with Christine Axsmith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Rewriting an AI Email 

From ChatGPT:

Subject: Temporary Closure of 5th Floor Bathrooms Due to Construction

Dear [Team/All],

Please be advised that due to scheduled construction work, the bathrooms on the 5th floor will be temporarily closed starting [start date] through [anticipated end date].

During this time, we ask that you use the restrooms located on other floors. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your patience and understanding as we work to improve our facilities.

If you have any questions or need assistance, feel free to contact [Facilities/Building Management] at [contact info].

The Alternative:

Subject: Construction Inconveniences Impede Our Bathroom Use on the Fifth Floor

Dearest Co-workers and Uneasy Allies,

Alas, the fifth floor bathrooms are not available for use by any of us, no matter the need, for the next two weeks. Ongoing building improvements prevent any such measure of relief.

Until such time as these improvements are complete, please use the restrooms elsewhere in the building. Your inconveniences related to this situation are a cause of woe to us, the building management; and we are indebted to you for your graciousness and good manners.

Any inquiries will be embraced and promptly responded to. Our Facilities Manager always answers phone calls to this number xxx-xxx-xxxx and awaits your thoughts.

You Were Right and Nobody Cares

 

“You Voted For It”

Oh, how we love to gloat! Feels good, huh? Na-Na Na Na-Na! Whippee! I am superior! But somehow, it changes nothing. Those fools can’t see how wrong they were! They can’t admit they are idiots! What’s wrong with them?

Continuing on the theme of taunting and insulting people doesn’t change their minds, let’s examine a new way to analyze belief systems.  Chris Shelton, a cult expert, just introduced a new model of understanding belief and persuasion: REM. 

“The REM model gives us a way to move beyond surface-level disagreement. We stop asking ‘why are they so irrational?’ and start asking ‘what emotional needs or moral beliefs are shaping this person’s logic?’” explained Shelton.

This new approach explains how people fall into cults and certain belief patterns like conspiracies or politics. Essentially, he “wanted to understand why people act the way they do.” That’s what the REM model explains. Further, it is a model to understand all human belief, not just extreme ones. Any quotes are attibutable to Chris Shelton.

Share The Tell with Christine Axsmith

Reason - Emotion - Morality

Reason 

Reason or rationalization. It is the reasoning we use to justify our behaviours after the fact. Actually this type of thinking is usually just coming up with rationalizations. It is the logic people tell themselves about what they think or how they act. 

Emotion

Emotion layer includes “our immediate emotional reactions and our longer-term emotional needs,” according to Chris Shelton. “Needs like safety, connection, identity, control and meaning.” It could include acceptance, relief from grief or trauma, stability or “validation they never got elsewhere,” Shelton said. These powerful emotional needs are drivers for behaviour and then reason comes along to justify it.

Morality

Deepest part of who we think we are. Good/evil, right/wrong. Emotionally grounded and feels true. A shift in this layer will change an entire worldview. 

To get the emotional need met, morality can shift to “obedience is good, outsiders are evil, and questioning the leader is wrong.”

Reciting facts won’t work to change their mind because the underlying emotional needs are still being met by the belief system. “It also explains why a person leaves a cult, like when they see a leader contradict their teachings it hits the core. The emotional needs of belonging starts to conflict with emotional reactions anger or grief from what they’ve seen.” Then reasoning starts to change.

People don’t change because of logic alone. Safety and shifted values lead to change.

It is the moral break from the old belief system that leads to change, not reasoned arguments. When “a moral foundation shifted, the emotional bond cracked, and suddently all the rationalizations fell away,” explained Shelton. People don’t change because of logic alone. Safety and shifted values lead to change.

“The REM model gives us a way to move beyond surface-level disagreement. We stop asking ‘why are they so irrational?’ and start asking ‘what emotional needs or moral beliefs are shaping this person’s logic?’” explained Shelton.

Foundations for beliefs need to change first - then the beliefs will change. It explains why logic and facts don’t persuade people. Personally, I think this idea a ground-breaking. If a person feels safe, valued and heard, you could change their beliefs in time. “Connection, storytelling and shared values” change minds.

“If you want to help someone change, arguing with their reason rarely works. Instead, listen for the emotional needs they are protecting. Pay attention to the moral values they are trying to live up to. That’s where real transformation happens.”

The REM model is useful in everyday life, not just extreme examples like cults. When in disagreement with someone else, ask youself: What layer am I reacting from? Am I stuck in reason while the real reason is emotional or moral? Or when judging others, ask yourself what needs or values might be underneath their behaviour?

See Shelton’s better explanation:

https://youtu.be/DOPdEf1TGNM

 

A Touch of Rebellion

Fight the Machine

When I was a girl, some grown-up asked me why I used big words. “Because they’re pretty,” I answered. He was shocked, but it made sense to him. Later, I was fired from a babysitting job for using “weird words” that her daughter had started to use, too. “You mean vocabulary?” I asked. That was the end of the conversation.

And so, my little Tellions, as we descend into the age of AI slop, let’s revive those little words and expressions that were such attractive curlicues in our language. In the decades since that question, I’ve expanded my expressions to include the archaic, which my husband and I traded back and forth daily. G-d, I miss that man. The words in old books are beautiful things, like discovering treasures in an old box of jewelry at a yard sale that has been overlooked for too long.

Who knew it could lead to revolution?

Share

Now that we are inundated with AI slop, what better way to evoke actual feelings than to communicate with words never used by AI? People are dying for real, authentic communication and connection. It gives a lift to the soul to know a person thought about you and wrote something meant for you. It didn’t used to. But here we are.

So here is a handy-dandy list of expressions to weave into your email discourse:

• whither, thither

• yon

• lest

• “draw a bath” means to fill the tub with water

• nary

• anon

• betwixt

• buss on the cheek

• naught

• wherewith

• ribald

• n’er do well

• rapscallion

• rapier wit

• cut to the quick

• to wit

Add to the list in the comments!

The Tell with Christine Axsmith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Rewriting an AI Email

From ChatGPT:

Subject: Temporary Closure of 5th Floor Bathrooms Due to Construction

Dear [Team/All],

Please be advised that due to scheduled construction work, the bathrooms on the 5th floor will be temporarily closed starting [start date] through [anticipated end date].

During this time, we ask that you use the restrooms located on other floors. We apologize for any inconvenience this may cause and appreciate your patience and understanding as we work to improve our facilities.

If you have any questions or need assistance, feel free to contact [Facilities/Building Management] at [contact info].

The Alternative:

Subject: Construction Inconveniences Impede Our Bathroom Use on the Fifth Floor

Dearest Co-workers and Uneasy Allies,

Alas, the fifth floor bathrooms are not available for use by any of us, no matter the need, for the next two weeks. Ongoing building improvements prevent any such measure of relief.

Until such time as these improvements are complete, please use the restrooms elsewhere in the building. Your inconveniences related to this situation are a cause of woe to us, the building management; and we are indebted to you for your graciousness and good manners.

Any inquiries will be embraced and promptly responded to. Our Facilities Manager always answers phone calls to this number xxx-xxx-xxxx and awaits your thoughts.

The Tell with Christine Axsmith is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

 

Note to AGNÈS CALLAMARD on article Gaza and the End of the Rules-Based Order

Note to AGNÈS CALLAMARD on article Gaza and the End of the Rules-Based Order

Appreciated your comments in Foreign Affairs about Gaza.  Excellent analysis, until the end of the article.  I am reading How Terrorism Ends by Audrey Kurth Cronin and it provides insight into, well, how terrorism ends.

A rules-based order is a valuable tool for creating a standard that is applicable evenly and to all.  But it is not going to stop a terror group, nor help in bringing them to the negotiating table.  It is also not going to stop Israeli overreaction.

You can't just insist on a ceasefire.  You must negotiate your way there. 

"For all parties, negotiations may be a type of interaction that is seamlessly connected to more violent forms.  To expect the opening of talks to mean the instant cessation of violence is naive and sets up expectations among the broader population that are counterproductive." (How Terrorism Ends, p.37)

and 

"Ceasefires are difficult to negotiate if one side has little else besides its ability to strike." (How Terrorism Ends, p.40) 

Israel and the Palestinians are not the only ones in this conflict.  Condemning either one without addressing the others in the room is essentially just talking to yourself. Yes, it would be great if both parties would agree to a ceasefire.  They aren't and they won't.  Pointing at the rules won't bring them there.

Saudi Arabia and Iran

Hamas' attack on October 7th was directly related to the Israel/Saudi Arabia agreement to open up ties.  Any proposed ceasefire that doesn't include Saudi Arabia and Iran will not happen.  

The United States made the same error in the 90s while attempting to negotiate a political solution during the breakup of Yugoslavia, where the Serbs were not integrated into the plan.  The result was extreme violence.

There are so many parties involved in the Gaza conflict, asking for symptoms of the problem to just stop isn't realistic.  It certainly isn't effective.

I have yet to see a chart of all the players related to the Gaza conflict and how they are connected.  Better minds than mine can do that.  But acknowledging them and their role in the conflict is essential to start to talk about a ceasefire.

Because we all know what happens when one of them doesn't feel heard.

Note to Cornel West - America is Already Great - we just need to be fed

Identity matters.   Economic blame, even deserved blame, just won't win on its own.

How are you giving people an identity that can unify us as Americans?

Make America Great Again?  America is already great - we just need to be fed.  

We've created this machine based on fear.  It is hungry, and never has enough.

It's time to feed ourselves - no more expensive toys of death until our bridges stop collapsing, until every child is well-fed and strong - in body and mind.  Until we own our own water and soil.  Until there are no more homeless veterans.  Until there is hope again.

Make America Great Again?  WE are the strength of this nation.  The real America that's been overlooked and taken for granted.  No more.  Let them hear you, brothers and sisters.  Register to vote.  That alone scares the thieves of your tax dollars - who will always find a new way to buy killing machines from their friends.  And feed your children into it.

Every Veteran should have a home, free college, and free healthcare.  At least let them buy into Social Security at cost.  Is that too much to ask?  What do you think?

Let childbirth be free.  And the feeding and health of that young American for five years.  You want more babies?  You'll get more babies.  Strong, healthy ones for a strong, healthy America.
Join me, brothers and sisters.  Let's show them how great we are.

Make America Great again?  We are already great.  We just need to listen to the people who made her that way.

America is great.  Again.

The "BRICS IS Cringe" Video by Laowhy86

BRICS is Cringe Video Recap

(forgive the formatting mess)

YouTube's laowhy86 lays out an interesting case for not worrying about BRICS overtaking the G7.  It has some flaws, but here's a recap:

• The BRICS countries all hate eat other.  
• China and India are practically at war.

His thoughts on China:

Regular power outages
High unemployment rates in China
You can't get your money out of China
Massive corporate moves out of China
Lots of government ownership of companies
Huge levels of debt
Trade war with the U.S.
Housing market has collapsed
Banks are not paying loans to people despite protests
The white paper protests 

His thoughts on Russia:

Russia's economy hurt by sanctions, they are not an economic powerhouse

Economy is smaller than either Texas or New York State

Military death tolls is higher than Afghanistan

His thoughts on Brazil:

laowhy86 doesn't like Brazil's current leader Lula

Talks about currency merge with Argentina

New unpredictable leadership counter to what made Brazil great 

His thoughts on India:

India doesn't need BRICS

Balancing traditional support for Russia with increasing capitalist and nationalist policies

His thoughts on South Africa:

Corruption

Power outages

• BRICS Currency Union would be based on gold - which is traded in dollars and most countries store their gold in NY Federal Reserve's vault
• Every one of the BRICS countries has different goals
• Common monetary policy means same interest rates
• Where will the central monetary bank be located?
• Which country will have the biggest vote on monetary matters?
• How much foreign currency trade could actually replace the dollar?

Why Are We Hearing So Much About BRICS?  He thinks it's because most of the BRICS countries are in bad shape.  

"BRICS is Cringe" Analysis

A lot of items on laowhy86's list could apply to the United States, although not in the same degree.  I get his point, though.  Beating the "American is horrible" drum is a popular pastime for Americans who have never seen what horrible actually looks like.  In themselves, high unemployment, high levels of debt, trade wars and military death tolls do not equal a soon-to-be-failing state. 

A few of his points are valid and deserve further discussion.

Liquidity

If you can't get to your money, or convert it into something spendable where you live, then it's like a gift to the people who have it.  If you make a fortune but can't spend it, you have earned nothing.  

Currency conversion is essential for wealth created in one place to be spent somewhere else. The harder it is to convert your BRICS-a-roni to Euro, the less value the currency will have.

Chinese limits on transferring wealth out directly impacts the liquidity of its currency, and by extension, the currency liquidity of BRICS. 

Corporations Moving Out of China

Brazil has lots of international corporations manufacturing products there.  That doesn't seem to be changing despite laowhy86's disapproval of Brazil's current leader, Lula.  I won't even start with that topic.  It is enough to say he isn't pointing to any concrete examples of businesses abandoning Brazil.

China is a different story.  Corporations are leaving China for other Asian countries, leading to unemployment and less need for China's currency.  That's a big deal in terms of providing the liquidity needed for a reserve currency that replaces the dollar.  So, no worries for America there.

The U.S. Navy

I never hear economic analyses that mention shipping trade routes.  See, all these products manufactured all over the world need to arrive safely on ships.  Those shipping lanes need to be safe.  They are kept safe by the U.S. Navy.

The Chinese navy, the Brazilian navy, the Russian navy, the South African navy and the Indian  navy cannot protect the international shipping lanes.  Only the U.S. can do that.  More than anything else, that is why the United States' dollar is the reserve currency.  Because global trade needs us.

Gold

The United States keeps gold reserves safe for many countries by guarding it in the United States.  If you want to get the gold in your hands, you will have to invade.  Enough said.

Final Thoughts on BRICS Ascendant Messaging

Every few years we hear the same fodder:  America is failing, other countries are taking over, America is in decline.  The message takes various forms:  civil liberties are under attack, our "way of life" is under attack, other countries don't respect us anymore, the United States has done terrible things, etc.  I think the American character has a strong self-flagellation streak inherited from the Puritans.  

When a wide variety of media outlets are trending the same message, you have to be suspicious.  When they are repeatedly recycling that message and are always wrong, you have to be dubious.  When they've got nothing good to say, turn it off.

See, flowers and manure go together.  If there's not one good thing in what you're saying, you are not credible.