Reflections on the 126th Anniversary of my Grandmother’s Birth

Posted on by
Reply

Soooo, today, June 24, 2026, is the anniversary of the day one-hundred-and-twenty-six years ago when Juana Valbuena Rubiano, the future queen of Manizales, patroness of the arts and of civic causes, spiritual leader and entrepreneur was born.  She was my maternal grandmother and, of course, she still is, just not on our plane of existence anymore, or is it plain?  Or both?  Everyone seemed to refer to her as “Doña Juanita” but we called her “la Mamita”.  So did my own three sons.

She was an amazing woman and, as was the custom in the Republic of Colombia then (not anymore though), she tacked on the names of her spouses.  The first was my grandfather Jean Eugénio Mahé, a physician descended from a French noble family and clairvoyant as well.  A pretty good catch except that, like too many good things, he didn’t last.  He died young leaving his young wife, Juanita de Mahé then, with two young children: my mother, María de Rosario de Nuestra Señora de Chiquinquirá (a mouthful) Mahé Valbuena and her younger brother, Francisco Eugenio Mahé Valbuena.  Eugenio’s funeral was wonderful; everyone came, everyone to whom he’d extended credit especially.  He’d taken his role as a physician seriously and payment, as in communism, varied with the person’s ability to pay.  But after the funeral no one paid their debts and my grandmother Juanita was left with very little in the way of capital.  Fortunately, she was not only extremely beautiful but a survivor  and she invested the little capital she had in a small shoe business and then sold it when it became profitable and purchased a hotel in Manizales, the famous Hotel Roma on 22nd street between 23rd and 24th avenues, today the place where the Notary Number Two of Manizales, stands.

Being beautiful, suitors were plentiful and one won her heart, his name was Germán Restrepo and he too, like my grandfather Eugénio, was from a prominent family, this one Colombian, a family with politicians and presidents and entrepreneurs galore.  Unfortunately, he was its black sheep, and a very dark shade of black.  He was handsome and charismatic and especially charming, but work was not his thing, nor was fidelity.  And bigamy was not something he disdained.  He would leave and return, then leave again, always charming his way back into my grandmother’s heart.  He did do two good things though, in fact, great things.  He gave my grandmother two more children, daughters.  First Carola and then Livia.  Livia is still around although in California, everyone else in this reflection (other than grandchildren and great grandchildren and great-great grandchildren) now resides beyond the veil. 

My grandmother was not a “Women’s Liber” although she was the mold from which the very best of them were made.  She was a natural leader, generous and responsible and an example to follow when success seemed impossible but had to be attained.  I love and admire her very much.  So does Livia.  So do my three sons and the many children of my Uncle Francisco (we called him Pacho), all of whom, like me, are her grandchildren.  And many of the grandchildren now also have children and they have all heard about their Mamita. 

My grandmother left a legacy in Manizales, well, many in fact, but one in particular, her beautiful country home: a small pink castle speckled in gold set atop a large hill with an arroyo at its base and millions of flower’s she’d planted (or had planted) up and down the hill, mainly carnations but roses as well and fruit trees.  It had its own name, the Atardecer (Sunset), and it had a pool with an adjacent gazebo and, nearby, a large artificial lake with ducks and swans and a tiny lake house where equipment was stored.  She left it in trust for pregnant girls whose families had disowned them.  It was named after her:  the Hogar Juanita”.  Unfortunately, as too often happens in Colombia (and elsewhere), after her passing an unscrupulous politician appropriated it, sold most of the property to real estate developers, and the main building is now leased to a private School, “El Nuevo Gimnasio”. 

Sometimes people are terrible.  But then again, there are people like her.  I have never met anyone better or kinder or wiser or more loving.  And I’ve met a lot of awesome people.

She lived past one hundred but decided she did not need to attain the age of a hundred-and-one, so she left us.  Gone but certainly not forgotten.  Anyway, today is her birthday and, as always, my heart and soul are with her.

Happy birthday Mamita!
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Reflexiones sobre el progresismo colombiano en el amanecer después del solsticio de verano, 2026

Posted on by
Reply

No obstante la gran probabilidad (para mí, realidad) de que intervención extranjera por parte de los EE.UU., Israel y sus colonias latinoamericanas (Argentina, Bolivia, Ecuador, Paraguay, etc.) impactó nuestra elección presidencial en forma importante, la realidad es que el progresismo colombiano, en temas electorales cometió grandes errores durante los últimos cuatro años y no con respecto a las políticas que se propusieron como grandes reformas en el Congreso sino en la manera que se buscó implementarlas, y en las relaciones públicas.  Aún más, peleamos entre nosotros a todo nivel en forma constante y publica y es más fácil organizar gatos que organizarnos a nosotros.  Decisiones importantes sobre candidaturas no se hicieron en forma estratégica sino en forma exageradamente idealista e ideológica ignorando la meritocracia y la percepción pública.  Escoger una mujer noble pero sin experiencia como vicepresidente fue un error mortal.  Y escoger a Iván cepeda como nuestro candidato presidencial sin considerar su impacto unificador con respecto a la derecha, en vez de alguien como Clara López, fue otro.

Si en los escrutinios triunfa de la Espriella, lo cual es probable dado el control sobre la judicatura, el Consejo Nacional Electoral, la Registraduría y la Procuraduría  por la derecha, entonces es probable que la derecha gobernara no por cuatro sino por lo menos por ocho años, teniendo un vicepresidente muy preparado y ambicioso listo para las contiendas del 2028.  Tenemos que mirarnos en un espejo real y pensar bien cómo vamos a seguir.  ¿Existe una figura capaz de liderar una oposición efectiva en el Congreso durante los proximo cuatro años cuando somos minoría aunque con el partido más grande?  ¿Existe alguien con el carisma, la sabiduría y la experiencia para ser serio candidato presidencial serio en el 2028? 

Lamentablemente no lo veo.  Lo que veo es que como en Argentina, volveremos a ser colonia no solo de los EE.UU., pero de Israel, con sionistas comprando valiosas partes de nuestro país.  Y la culpa es nuestra por haber desperdiciado una oportunidad casa única.  Quizas, algún día tendremos otra oportunidad de crear un país progresista justo, equitativo, económicamente y ambientalmente sostenible, meritocratico y en paz pero, por ahora, solo nos queda aprender como funcionar en forma unida sin peleas internas constantes y como triunfar sin dividirnos y sin ser soberbios con respecto a nuestro éxito.

Ojala el señor Abelardo de la Espriella no sea quien parece ser y que su lealtad sea hacia Colombia pero muy posiblemente volvió la horrible noche que por tantos años ha oscurecido la tierra más bella de mundo.

_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; todos derechos reservados.  Permiso para compartir con atribución.

Guillermo Calvo Mahé es escritor, comentarista, analista político y académico residente en la República de Colombia. Aspira ser poeta y filósofo empírico y a veces se lo cree.  Hasta el 2017 coordinaba los programas de Ciencia Política, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. En la actualidad, participa en entrevistas radiales y televisadas, foros, seminarios y congresos cívicos y edita y publica la revista virtual, The Inannite Review disponible en Substack.com/.  Tiene títulos académicos en ciencias políticas (del Citadel, la universidad militar de la Carolina del Sur), derecho (de la St. John’s University en la ciudad de Nueva York), estudios jurídicos internacionales (de la facultad posgrado de derecho de la New York University) y estudios posgrado de lingüística y traducción (del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de la Florida).  Sin embargo, también es fascinado por la mitología, la religión, la física, la astronomía y las matemáticas, especialmente en lo relacionado con lo cuántico y la cosmogonía.  Puede ser contactado en guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com y gran parte de su escritura está disponible a través de su blog en https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Reflections on Fathers and Fathers’ Day – June 21, 2026

Posted on by
Reply

Fathers’ Day, the underappreciated holiday, one where I frequently reflect on its sadder aspects but, this time, a bit of introspection seems in order. 

I didn’t get to really know my father until very late in life; he and my mother separated when I was three and for many years, until I was fourteen, I was told that he’d died.  During most of those years the paternal role in my life was filled by my step father, Leon Kokkins, a New Yorker of Greek descent, one with a great deal of love to give but not terribly responsible (as a result of which he and my mother separated when I was fifteen).  By then however, I was a boarding student at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York, and father figures abounded there.  Memorable among them was Leopold Hedbavny, Jr., then the dean of faculty but eventually, the headmaster (my mentor and eventually my boss), and there was George Chamberlin, the father of one of my classmates who took a special interest in me, and Abe Rothchild, the father of another of my classmates.  After Eastern there was the Citadel and at the Citadel, perhaps the greatest father figure of them all, and not just with respect to me but with respect to thousands of cadets: Thomas Nugent Courvoisier, the Boo, the Citadel’s Lord of Discipline but with a heart big enough to care for us all, especially for those, like me, who needed him most.  So today, I salute them all although none of them are here among us anymore, at least not physically.  But across the veil I think they sometimes gather to see how I’m doing which keeps me on my toes.

And now two of my three sons are fathers and I’m a grandfather.  My third son, the youngest, is a world class uncle, or so I understand.  And I have many, many former students, starting with the 1969-70 academic year, many of them seemed like sons and much later, daughters to me, and they, in their turn, are now parents.

All of them are meaningful to me and provide me with many reasons to dwell on the links between parents and their children and children and their parents, repositories of great joys and great sorrow, of wonderful memories but also, reflections on opportunities missed.  And opportunities just around the corner.

A complex but beautiful tapestry.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

A Reflection on D Day, Eighty-Two Years Later

Posted on by
Reply

June 6, 2026

Today’s anniversary of the invasion of Normandy on June 6, 1944, primarily by United States and British troops is a bitter day for me because the things we were taught our ancestors fought for and that so many died to attain seem to have been illusory, mere propaganda.  “Never again” has become, “Look away and move on, nothing here to see”.  Genocide and ethnic cleansing have become, if not acceptable, at least easy to ignore while lawyers quibble of their meaning.

Those who died and were maimed and fought on that day expected better from us but we’ve let them down, we’ve let them down completely, and that’s a travesty not worthy of celebration.

Democracy is and perhaps has always been at best dysfunctional, everywhere.  And the United States now has its own Führer, an uber-leader who can do no wrong in the eyes of his followers.  And European countries have coalesced into a sort of Fascist Italy, each country ignoring the will of the vast majority of its population under weak, corrupt and inept leaders, all (perhaps with the exception of Russia and Spain) terrified to abide by the purported signature accomplishment of the Second World War, the decisions of the Nuremburg tribunals and the Charter of the United Nations, lest the Zionist media and financiers (rather than Nazis) destroy them, one by one. 

An image of the see-no-evil-hear-no-evil-criticize-no evil simian caricature comes to mind (my apologies to simians everywhere). 

So many lives lost on and after June 6, 1944, so many promises made and never kept.

That’s what I’ll remember today, a day of mourning rather than celebration.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Reflexiones sobre un desastre inminente

Posted on by
Reply

Acabo de pasar un rato charlando con un colega mío.  Fue mi colega durante el tiempo que yo ejercía como docente universitario en Manizales.  Trabajábamos en el mismo departamento y ambos coordinamos, en diferentes tiempos, el mismo programa.  Él es un excelente y muy admirado profesor, un hombre inteligente, destacado y muy bien educado (con doctorado), y él es un hombre honrado.  Un hombre bueno.  Durante nuestra charla él me hizo saber que detesta a Gustavo Petro y, entre otras cosas que me sorprendieron, que él ahora entiende y comparte la postura del sionismo en Palestina.  Eso me decepcionó muchísimo pero él es alguien que respeto y admiro mucho y, entonces, me debo preguntar, ¿cómo llegó a pensar así? 

Entiendo que por Iván Cepeda probablemente mi apreciado y admirado amigo no votara y que por Abelardo de la Espriella, aunque lo considera vulgar, … pues no sé.  Creo que en eso el comportamiento de la Colombia Humana y del Pacto Histórico tuvo impacto pero también el comportamiento de nuestro presidente.  Ambos partidos, ya unificados, han sido incoherentes con duras peleas internas, peleas groseras compartidas públicamente, y eso ha costado muchos votos.  Por ejemplo, la incoherencia, en plena campaña electoral, de buscar una pelea con la Alianza Verde y con Santiago Osorio Marín me fue incomprensible, a no ser que fue sabotaje intencional.  Por cosas como esas, parte del pueblo colombiano no confía que desde la izquierda se pueda gobernar.  Quizás no votaron por De la Espriella o por Paloma Valencia, quizás votaron por Claudia López o por Sergio Fajardo o por Mauricio Lizcano, quien sabe.  Pero no tenemos su confianza.  Ni, dado nuestro comportamiento, la merecemos.  Y, por eso, hay seria posibilidad que un fascismo verdadero gobernará nuestra patria por los próximos cuatro años, y del fascismo no es fácil liberar un país.

En lo personal, conozco y quiero mucho a Gustavo Petro pero sus constantes peleas en nada nos ayudan.  Y, sus enemigos, nuestros opositores, sabiendo eso, buscan atormentarlo en forma constante para que reaccione en forma exagerada.  Y así demasiadas veces lo hace.  Y eso nos cuesta mucho y, más importante, le cuesta mucho a Colombia.  En especial porque, aunque Iván Cepeda en eso es muy diferente, los medios de comunicación y la derecha política lo tratan como si fuera una copia idéntica del presidente Petro.

¿Entonces, qué hacer? 

Desesperarnos y rendirnos en nada nos servirá.  No nos servirá ni a nosotros ni a nuestras familias ni al pueblo colombiano que tanto amamos.  Creo que, uno por uno, tenemos que admitir que no somos perfectos y que acertadamente, colectivamente no fuimos perfectos durante los últimos tres años y medio.  Que, aunque creemos profundamente en las políticas de la administración de Gustavo Petro, del “Gobierno del Cambio”, tenemos que admitir que no fueron ni implementadas ni defendidas en forma adecuada.  Pero también, debemos acertar que de nuestros errores hemos aprendido.  Que reconocemos que la humildad es una virtud y que la arrogancia, aunque sea merecida, de nada positivo sirve.  Y desde esa postura, debemos defender las políticas del petrismo, las diversas reformas que tan necesarias son.  Y que solo Iván Cepeda luchara para implementarlas mientras que el Señor de la Espriella las acabara.

Defendiendo sin reservas al presidente que tanto queremos, pero quien es lejos de ser perfecto, nos cuesta, no nos suma votos.  Y sumar votos es esencial.

_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; todos derechos reservados.  Permiso para compartir con atribución.

Guillermo Calvo Mahé es escritor, comentarista, analista político y académico residente en la República de Colombia. Aspira ser poeta y filósofo empírico y a veces se lo cree.  Hasta el 2017 coordinaba los programas de Ciencia Política, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. En la actualidad, participa en entrevistas radiales y televisadas, foros, seminarios y congresos cívicos y edita y publica la revista virtual, The Inannite Review disponible en Substack.com/.  Tiene títulos académicos en ciencias políticas (del Citadel, la universidad militar de la Carolina del Sur), derecho (de la St. John’s University en la ciudad de Nueva York), estudios jurídicos internacionales (de la facultad posgrado de derecho de la New York University) y estudios posgrado de lingüística y traducción (del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de la Florida).  Sin embargo, también es fascinado por la mitología, la religión, la física, la astronomía y las matemáticas, especialmente en lo relacionado con lo cuántico y la cosmogonía.  Puede ser contactado en guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com y gran parte de su escritura está disponible a través de su blog en https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Análisis sobre los resultados de la primera vuelta de elecciones presidenciales en Colombia, 2026

Posted on by
Reply

Como era predecible, Colombia va a segunda vuelta con Abelardo de la Espriella e Iván Cepeda y, con el dinero disponible para de la Espriella desde sus propias fuentes y fuentes con origen en países como los EE.UU., Israel, Argentina, etc., tiene buena posibilidad, quizás probabilidad de ganar en segunda vuelta, en especial si hay reconciliación con Paloma Valencia, Álvaro Uribe y el Centro Democrático. 

Paloma Valencia cometió muchos errores y le costó.  Más que todo en su decisión sobre su fórmula vicepresidencial, Juan Daniel Oviedo Arango, quien, por ser gay, le restó muchos más votos de los que le agregó.  Los votos que le resto se fueron con de la Espriella y los votos que le agrego se los cobro a Iván Cepeda.  Esa es nuestra Colombia.  Ademas, por buscar aproximarse al casi inexistente centro político colombiano, perdió muchos votos de derecha, todos los cuales, con mucho placer, los acepto Abelardo de la Espriella.

En el caso de Iván Cepeda, también creo le costó mucho su selección de formula vicepresidencial, Aida Marina Quilcue Vivas, una mujer noble y admirable, pero comparada con José Manuel Restrepo Abondano, la formula vicepresidencial de Abelardo de La Espriella, sufrió mucho.  José Manuel Restrepo Abondano le sumo mucho a de la Espriella en temas de educación,  trayectoria académica y gubernamental, importantes debilidades de Abelardo de la Espriella.  Y la masiva diferencia en los gastos de dinero hizo el resto.  También, creo que los jóvenes no salieron en forma masiva para apoyar al senador Cepeda como lo hicieron con Gustavo Petro.  Eso siempre ha sido el problema con contar con el apoyo de las generaciones más jóvenes.

Abelardo de la Espriella recaudo y gastó más que el doble las sumas que les eran disponibles a Paloma Valencia e Iván Cepeda y eso, sin contar la masiva cantidad de dinero adicional gastado “indirectamente” por interventores internacionales.  Ese dinero dominó a los medios sociales, en especial TikTok e Instagram.  Los dominó, no solo con apoyadores, sino con “bots”, falsas noticias, espectáculo, etc., manejados con la enorme experiencia y dinero del sionismo.  Y el apoyo casi total por los medios de comunicación que les pertenecían en algunos casos a antiguos clientes, no sobró.

No sé si en segunda vuelta Iván Cepeda se pueda recuperar a no ser que, por el constante y exagerado triunfalismo del liderazgo del Pacto Histórico, muchos de sus adherentes se encontraron perezosos este domingo.  Y ahora se encuentran totalmente despiertos.  Lo dudo.  Entonces, esperemos que la carne de mula, como ahora se come en Argentina, nos guste.  Por suerte, soy más que todo vegetariano.

Pronto veremos.

_______

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; todos derechos reservados.  Permiso para compartir con atribución.

Guillermo Calvo Mahé es escritor, comentarista, analista político y académico residente en la República de Colombia. Aspira ser poeta y filósofo empírico y a veces se lo cree.  Hasta el 2017 coordinaba los programas de Ciencia Política, Gobierno y Relaciones Internacionales de la Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. En la actualidad, participa en entrevistas radiales y televisadas, foros, seminarios y congresos cívicos y edita y publica la revista virtual, The Inannite Review disponible en Substack.com/.  Tiene títulos académicos en ciencias políticas (del Citadel, la universidad militar de la Carolina del Sur), derecho (de la St. John’s University en la ciudad de Nueva York), estudios jurídicos internacionales (de la facultad posgrado de derecho de la New York University) y estudios posgrado de lingüística y traducción (del Centro de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de la Florida).  Sin embargo, también es fascinado por la mitología, la religión, la física, la astronomía y las matemáticas, especialmente en lo relacionado con lo cuántico y la cosmogonía.  Puede ser contactado en guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com y gran parte de su escritura está disponible a través de su blog en https://guillermocalvo.com/.

Political Echoes from Southern Climes

Posted on by
Reply

On Sunday May 31, 2026, a week from the day on which I write this introspection, Colombians will head to the polls for a presidential election.  In Colombia as in much of the world, the electoral process is less controversial than in the United States, with participatory rights carefully monitored through required identification through official, state issued identification documents.  Also, in Colombia, if a candidate receives more than 50% of the vote, he or she will be the victor, if not, the top two vote recipients will face off in a runoff on the 21st of June.  In Colombian the candidate with less votes never wins, as happens from time to time in the United States, although how votes are counted may impact that observation, as it did with respect to the manipulated, well, perhaps stolen is a more honest term, election that took place in Colombia on the 19th of April in 1970.  However, notwithstanding precautions, as in much of the world the electorate’s confidence in electoral integrity may be at a low point and that because, as in the United States, information manipulation is rampant.

In that regard, the primary election for the selection of a Republican candidate for the House of Representatives from the State of Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District is illustrative as to how massive infusions of cash can distort the vote through massive albeit temporary increases in questionable participation.  To be fair, the same was probably the case in recent senatorial elections in the State of Georgia so it’s a bipartisan phenomenon.  It may also have been the case in the United States’ presidential election of 2020 (which reflected massive but subsequently not duplicated electoral participation).  So, what does Mr. Massie’s improbable defeat in Kentucky have to do with Colombian presidential elections about to take place?

Well, Mr. Massie was defeated by massive infusions of cash orchestrated by groups aligned with a foreign government, the State of Israel to be specific, and the State of Israel is very interested in the results of the presidential election in Colombia, as it was in the last presidential election in Argentina, and in Honduras and in El Salvador and in Bolivia and throughout Latin America, especially in those countries that have proven to be critics of Israeli genocide and ethnic cleansing.  In those countries, money illegally provided by Israel or Israeli supporters made the difference between the election of a progressive popular government and the victors, all governments led by admirers of current United States president Donald Trump and Israeli Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu.  Two of the three leading candidates for the Colombian presidency are also admirers of Messrs. Trump and Netanyahu and, as in the case of the aforementioned Latin American countries, have been able to spend massive amounts of money on their campaigns, albeit not necessarily directly.  Somehow, social media has proven extremely kind to them, even beyond the posts admittedly paid for by them and their supporters (as was the case in Mr. Massie’s Kentucky primary election).  Indeed, attribution to the sponsors of the most outlandish Colombian posts is almost impossible to ascertain.…  Almost as though they involved intelligence agency professionals.

Notwithstanding the foregoing, neither of the pro-Zionist Colombian candidates currently leads the electoral pack.  That position is held by Senator Iván Cepeda Castro, a progressive follower of current Colombian president Gustavo Francisco Petro Urrego, a vocal critic of genocide and ethnic cleansing.  He has comfortably led throughout the electoral campaign in all reliable polls (although the term “reliable” with reference to polls may be an oxymoron).  His two chief competitors are Abelardo Gabriel de la Espriella Otero and Paloma Susana Valencia Laserna, both right wing politicians although Ms. Valencia has tried to capture some of the political center by ironically selecting as her running mate a gay male, Juan Daniel Oviedo Arango.  Ironic because Ms. Valencia has always been opposed to most LGBT+ issues but, as the ubiquitous “they” say “politics makes strange bedfellows”.  Mr. de la Espriella is a successful albeit unsavory lawyer having represented the worst elements of Colombian society including paramilitary death squad leaders and corrupt politicians.  He refers to himself as “el Tigre”, employs a sharp military salute whenever possible (despite, like Mr. Trump, having “legally” avoided compulsory military service) and is bereft of any government experience, running as an “outsider”.  Ms. Valencia on the other hand is from a prominent Colombian political family, has been a member of Congress for a long time and was personally selected as a candidate by former Colombian president Alvaro Uribe Velez.  She enjoys the support of most traditional political parties and politicians although party members in some cases, especially with respect to the Liberal Party, have refused to accept the decision of their party’s leaders.  In addition to the three front runners there are numerous other candidates, some of whom are well known, but none has more than a 3% following in recent polls.

Currently Mr. Cepeda, whose father was a Colombian senator assassinated by paramilitaries (such as those represented by Mr. de la Espriella) leads Mr. de La Espriella by more than 10% and Ms. Valencia by well over 20% but the sum of Mr. de la Espriella’s numbers and those of Ms. Valencia roughly equal those of Mr. Cepeda thus, while Mr. Cepeda is close to the 50% threshold for victory in the first round of elections, he is not there.  That makes a potential second round competitive, given the ideological compatibility of Mr. de la Espriella and Ms. Valencia and their mutual dedication to former president Uribe.  That creates an ideal scenario for foreign electoral interference in which both the State of Israel and the United States are clearly participants and rather well experienced.

The question then is, as it was in Kentucky, whether enough voters are willing sell out their country’s interests to foreign states, as voters in other Latin American countries have recently done (and, honestly, as has so often happened in the past) or whether given the disasters that the recently elected Trump and Netanyahu aligned right wing governments have proven to be (contrasted with the success on most fronts of Colombia’s current progressive government), Colombians will prove wiser and more patriotic than their continental counterparts (and also, wiser and more patriotic that the majority of United States’ voters in the State of Kentucky’s 4th Congressional District).

The reaction in the United States to Mr. Massie’s defeat has ranged from smug arrogance on the part of the Israeli-First component of Donald Trump’s MAGA coalition to dismay among those Trump voters who believed that he would prove different than the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) owned presidents of the past half century, something that might lead to a huge electoral reversal for the Republican Party in the United States this November, although the reality is that AIPAC controls both the United States’ Republican and Democratic parties, at least at the leadership levels.  The decision in Colombia is likely to impact not only Colombia’s future but also elections in other countries, not least of which might be this autumn’s United States congressional elections, and it might also impact the future of the Middle East, realities of which Colombian voters, for the most part, are blissfully unaware.  In the meantime, as has apparently become the norm … everywhere, false news and rabid calumnies fill Colombian airwaves and social media.

So, Sunday, May 31, 2026, perhaps a day to be long remembered; …

Hopefully not in infamy.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

A Brief Reflection on Gerrymandering and How to Minimize It

Posted on by
Reply

Gerrymandering is now completely out of control thanks to the GOP, the Democrats and the politicized judiciary.  The only practical solution is one adopted by most countries in the world and that is multi-legislator districts, preferably on a state wide basis, with proportional representation.  How would that work?  Or better yet, how does it work successfully in so many places. 

Well, take California with, I believe, 55 representatives elected to the House of Representatives.  Each California voter would have 55 votes which he or she could allocate to a single candidate (55) or divide among a number of candidates.  As an illustration, if a voter wanted to allocate his or her votes equally among eleven candidates, each would receive five votes, or the 55 votes could be distributed among the eleven candidates in any manner the voter deemed appropriate.  Or the voter could provide one vote each to 55 candidates.  California, with the largest representation in the House is the most complex example, states with less representation would be inversely simpler.  It is, in essence, what happens in the states that only elect one member to the House, it is a statewide contest with no gerrymandering possible. 

To make things easier, California and other states with large House membership could be divided into smaller voting districts.  In the California case for example, it could be divided into five voting districts, each electing eleven legislators,  While that would still permit efforts to distort the vote through gerrymandering, it would be more difficult to do so and less efficient, but in any case, much better that the single member system we have now.  And it can be implemented on a state by state basis through local legislation rather than on a federal level which would, in my opinion, require a constitutional amendment.  The latter might be the best solution for the long term but harder to implement. 

Something to consider for those who really care about electoral integrity rather than merely about maximizing the power of the political party to which they have become subservient.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

“We the People” on the Concept of Oaths

Posted on by
Reply

In the United States there are sacrosanct symbols, especially the Constitution and the Flag, perhaps also the armed forces.  All public officers are required to take a solemn oath to protect and defend the Constitution; the citizenry at large is, at one time or another, required to do so in the form of the “Pledge of Allegiance” but I believe all of the foregoing are a mistake.  I believe it is a mistake because oaths are, or should be, not only solemn but sacred with consequences, serious consequences for their violation[1].  And the reality is that, as in the case of “sacred scriptures”, most people honor their oaths superficially, very visibly and audibly, but not profoundly.  Exceptions are the rule.

Take the Constitution.  The version promulgated in 1787 has been officially amended twenty-seven times, although amendments have sometimes cancelled each other out, for example, the 21st amendment repealed the 18th, and the 20th, 22nd, 23rd, and 25th amendments all redefined the election and succession processes.  However, unofficially, via purported “interpretation”, the Constitution has been amended thousands of times and each of the latter involves a violation of related sacred oaths.  The decision by John Marshall in the case of Marbury versus Madison where the concept of constitutional review was usurped by the Supreme Court[2] is a prime example but so was the Civil War (more accurately perhaps, the War Between the States).  The 16th and 17th amendments fundamentally altered the federal nature of the republic created by the Constitution as did, in a sense, the 13th, 14th, 15th, 18th and 19th each of which, in one sense or another, shifted power from the states to the federal government[3].

That violations of the sacred oaths involved may have been morally justified only emphasizes that the oaths to defend, preserve and uphold the Constitution should never have been required in the first place, especially given that the United States of America was founded on the principle of the propriety of oath breaking when circumstances deemed such violations of sacred honor justified.  All of the “Founding Father” broke their sacred oaths of allegiance to the British Crown.  In that respect, the case of Benedict Arnold is particularly meaningful raising the issue of which was worse, his initial violation of his oath to King George III or his violation of his subsequent oath to the Continental Congress?  And what of Robert E. Lee, placed in the impossible situation of either violating his oath to the federal government (which had, in effect, suspended the Constitution to which the oath had been made) or his oath to the State of Virginia?  Or what about Abraham Lincoln who clearly violated his oath to the Constitution in existence at the time he first took his oath of office and, of course, his pervious oaths as a Congressman and military officer which have been justified, properly perhaps, as required in order to fulfill his aspirations for a more just and powerful Union?

In my opinion, the only oath we should take is not to intangible symbols, usually too complex to comprehend and usually contradictory as well, but to “We the People”, a noble sociological and civic complex of interrelationships to which the symbols we revere should be inextricably bound.  But “We the People” is also a complex and frequently incoherent concept that seeks to meld contradictory beliefs such as “democracy” (the will of the majority), “liberty” (the autonomy of the individual, no matter what a majority believes) and pluralism (the protection of minorities in a quest for equality and equity) as well as to the amorphous, frequently contradictory concepts of legality versus justice; to due process and equal protection, to freedom of conscience, of expression and of assembly.  And what of the human tendency towards evolution?  Not only biologically but morally and ethically.  That which a society in one instant seeks to crystalize soon becomes calcified and obsolete.  Should a society be entitled to bind a future society through oaths to values that may become anachronistic?

Some of the concepts referenced above are reflected in the United States Constitution and, before that, in the Declaration of Independence, and many are embodied in the Charter of the United Nations[4].  But none of them encompass the totality of “We the People” although perhaps some guidance is provided in the Preamble[5] to the Constitution of the United States as to the role for which the concept of “We the People” was created; i.e., “We the People of the United States, in order to form a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Based on the foregoing, perhaps, at least in the United States of America, the Preamble to the Constitution should be the crux of the only oath we should be asked to take.  One to the effect that, on our sacred honor we would each swear that we would  do all we can to “establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity”, understanding that “We the People” are not only those of us alive today but our ancestors and our descendants and that our actions and decisions need to take into account our traditions, our current needs and aspirations and the welfare and aspirations of our progeny.

Wouldn’t it be great if that was an oath not limited to citizens of the United States of America but to everyone, everywhere?  If we took such an oath seriously, as all oaths should be taken, then perhaps justice and equity and equality and the common welfare might indeed someday prevail in a world at peace.

Something that at least deserves our consideration.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

[1] In this regard, perhaps the 3rd commandment of the Decalogue should be taken into account: “You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes his name in vain”, which refers to oaths using the “Lord’s” name as an enforcement mechanism.  Formal oaths in the United States are normally taken on the Christian Bible and in the name of the Abrahamic divinity (“So help me God”), notwithstanding the 1st Amendment to the Constitution’s secular requirements.

[2] See, e.g., Calvo Mahé, Guillermo et. al. (Jiménez Ramírez, Milton Cesar, editor, 2020): “Capítulo I. Evolución del control de constitucionalidad en los estados unidos.”; El control de la constitucionalidad en episodios: acerca del control constitucional como límite al poder; Universidad de Caldas, Facultad de ciencias jurídicas y sociales; Bogotá.

[3] See, e.g., Calvo Mahé (2023): “Motley Constitutionalism: a labyrinthine aphorism”; The Medium; July 30, 2023 available at https://guillermo-calvo-mahe.medium.com/motley-constitutionalism-a-labyrinthine-aphorism-9270c689f12d.

[4] Some aspects are also reflected in the Preamble to the Charter of the United Nations, i.e.:

We the peoples of the united nations, determined to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, … to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbors, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples, have resolved to combine our efforts to accomplish these aims ….

[5] There are two very different perspectives with respect to preambles.  One is that they are merely aspirational without any binding effect.  The other, the one to which I ascribe, is that they embody the fundamental premises on which the promises and agreements which follow are based and to which they must conform, in the absence of which, the covenants embodied will have been extinguished.  In a constitutional sense, that would mean that no amendments could impact the concepts embodied in a preamble without destroying the constitution, and perhaps, at best, replacing it.  Something which occurred when the United States Constitution of 1787 unconstitutionally extinguished the Articles of Confederation, or, in the Republic of Colombia, when the Constitution of 1991 unconstitutionally replaced the Constitution of 1886.

Irreconcilable Incoherence and the Unalterable Demise of Empathy

Posted on by
1

Another “assassination” attempt in the United States.  The third one in two years.  All three directed at Donald J. Trump.  Several while he was a presidential candidate and now one as president.  Predictably, the president and his supporters blame Democratic criticism of Mr. Trump and the media’s reaction to the Epstein scandals while refusing to acknowledge that they themselves engage in similar rhetoric when given the chance, both branches of the AIPAC controlled uniparty doing everything possible to increase polarization within the United States electorate[1]. 

To me, the issue is more serious and more strategic.  What to me is very different this time is that the Trump administration no longer treats assassinations or murders of heads of state or of their families or of their cabinets and their families as crimes, at least when the United States and Israel engage in such activities.  The generality of such crimes which constitute violations of the most fundamental principal of international law, jus cogens, no longer seems applicable in the context of the United States and if assassination of political leaders is no longer a crime when engaged in by the United States, how would it then be a crime when engaged in against its own leaders?  Legal logic, possibly an oxymoron, would dictate that political assassination is either always or never legal.  In the pure legal sense, there is no room for self-serving hybrids.

Cole Tomas Allen, a 31 year old engineer, a purportedly highly intelligent and well educated individual, apparently believed that it was his duty to target Trump administration officials because of their connection to Jeffrey Epstein’s heinous crimes involving rape, pederasty, sexual abuse of minors, murder and satanic rituals, crimes which Mr. Allen’s targets refused to investigate, at least that’s what he claimed according to a note he sent family members minutes before the attack.  There are also allegations that he was a pro-Ukraine fanatic furious because of declining United States support for the Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelenskyy regime and even a photograph briefly posted on Instagram of Mr. Allen in an Israeli Defense Forces sweatshirt[2].  Indeed, “Never Trumpers” have little trouble believing that all three purported attempts on Mr. Trump’s life were orchestrated, something to which Mr. Trump’s reactions sometimes add credibility.  For example, immediately following the latest incident Mr. Trump and members of his cabinet went on the air to indicate how the incident proved the need for the “Big, Beautiful White House Ballroom” currently tied up in litigation.  Furthermore, Mr. Trump and his supporters used the incident to justify renewal of authority for warrantless spying on United States citizens.  Based on the prevalence of artificial intelligence, it’s impossible verify any of the allegations involving Mr. Allen’s motivation, ludicrous though they may be.  If they are. 

So, based on the foregoing, how is Mr. Allen to be judged based on the current state of the law?  Or is he to be judged at all?  After all, conviction without trial is hardly unusual now, at least when the United States is involved.  Or Israel.

Many people I know, men who I trust admire and respect and who share a similar educational background with me, at least through undergraduate studies, see no problem with what the United States and Israel have done to leaders in Iran, and in Gaza and in Lebanon and in Syria and in Libya and in Iraq.  The list goes on.  But they’re horrified when assassination is “attempted”, even unsuccessfully, in the United States, whether the attempts are successful or not and whether against United States political leadership or against civic leaders like Charlie Kirk (unless, of course, it involved an Israeli project, the assassination Charley Kirk and of United States president John F. Kennedy in 1963 comes to mind, or the attack on the USS Liberty).  Paranoia, apparently, is catching and I may have a touch, which brings to mind a probable urban myth concerning President Richard M. Nixon who, purportedly once exclaimed: “just because I may be paranoid does not mean there are not people out to get me.  In Mr. Nixon’s case he was obviously right (no pun intended).

So, is “the do as I say and not as I do” refrain some parents used in the past (perhaps some still do) applicable when it comes to legal concepts such as crimes?  In legal systems the concept of “comity”, a concept related to reciprocity, would seem applicable.  But do legal systems still exist?  Did they ever?  Or are they as much of an illusion as are the concepts of democracy or of liberty or of accountability for one’s actions regardless of who one is (i.e., that purportedly no one is above the las)?

It’s entirely possible that neither international nor constitutional law (at least United States constitutional law) now exist.  Perhaps only the “state of nature” posited in the seventeenth century by political philosopher Thomas Hobbes exists, one where only power matters (as Donald Trump has expressly stated).  The demise of law and of legal systems in an international context seems like a cancer metastasizing but one which may soon spread to domestic law.  Remember when, starting with the Obama administration, it became acceptable, if perhaps not really legal, for United States agents to kill United States citizens using drones and other means without a trial or even an indictment and without the excuse of self-defense?  I do.  It sickened me then, it sickens me now.  It especially sickens me when its probity among our citizenry depends on the political party in power at the time.  Especially in light of the reality that, in the United States, both major political parties are AIPAC owned, AIPAC bought and paid for.

My friends who find the extrajudicial execution of United States citizens and foreign leaders acceptable are, to the best of my knowledge, Christians, and religious Christians at that, and they claim to live in accordance with the Decalogue (the formal term for the Ten Commandments), or at least to try to do so.  Most insist that the Decalogue should be posted in classroom and courthouses and in public buildings and public spaces.  One of the commandments, not the least important, forbids murder.  But, then again, it’s never really been taken seriously as a universal proscription, after all, we have abortion and capital punishment and war and “collateral damage” and lately, much to the surprise of many of us but not to many of my friends, the perception that genocide itself is not really wrong, or that deliberate mass murder of hundreds of thousands of civilians, most women, children and the elderly, is not “technically” genocide.  Not any more anyway.  Most of my conservative friends also claim to believe in a “strict interpretation” of the United States Constitution adopted in 1787 and of the first ten amendments thereto (adopted shortly thereafter), the ones contained in what we refer to as the Bill of Rights.  However, their attitude towards both the Constitution and especially the Bill of Rights has undergone a gradual metamorphosis and strict construction is no longer as strict as it once was.  That is especially true with respect to the first, fourth and fifth amendments to the Constitution and with respect to the fourteenth amendment adopted following the War Between the States (also referred to as the Civil War, although there was nothing “civil” about it). 

I wonder what my friends would feel “duty bound to do” if, as Mr. Allen purportedly believed, they believed that Mr. Trump and members of his administration were in fact involved in rape, pederasty, pedophilia, murder and satanic rituals and that it seemed that their actions would never be prosecuted?  Would it matter?  Would they dare to take the law into their own hands as Mr. Allen purportedly attempted to do?  Should they?  I was once pretty sure they would, after all, they were heroes many times over under circumstances involving life and death, their own and those of men and women they commanded.  Now, I’m pretty sure they would not.  But also, that they should not.  John Wilkes Booth firmly believed that Abraham Lincoln was a tyrant responsible for hundreds of thousands of deaths.  Brutus believed the same with respect to Julius Caesar.  Indeed, most political assassins are firmly convinced of the justice of their respective causes.  And they are frequently not wrong.  But as a society, until very recently, political assassination was anathema.  Or at least purportedly anathema.[3]  Is that still the perspective we should adopt?  Pragmatically it is and should be despite the resulting impunity, otherwise political violence would be even more prevalent than it currently is.  But the lid to the amphora in which Pandora purportedly kept the ills of the world safely locked has been smashed to smithereens.

I’m not a believer in the divinity of the person my friends refer to as Jesus (his real name was the Aramaic rendering of Yešu), nor am I any longer a believer in the god Yešu is said to have worshipped, YHWH, and whose son Yešu purportedly was[4].  But I am a believer in many of the proscriptions contained in the Decalogue and specifically the proscription against killing, and I am a believer in many of the teachings concerning interpersonal relations attributed directly to Yešu.  And I am a believer in the United States Constitution although I think it is long overdue for a massive revamping[5].  Consequently, to me, any assassination is anathema, any murder is anathema and all genocide is anathema.  But the greatest crime of all may be the corruption of the bravest and best among us, those we believed would protect us from the evil and corruption that surrounds us, those who, seeing it all, now accept it as right and proper and patriotic.  Something certainly not unique to United States society.  It obviously occurred as the Weimer Republic came to an end.

That people who share backgrounds so similar to mine have such divergent perspectives so passionately held is problematic.  For all of us I suppose.  As is the profound general demise of empathy and tolerance which has been replaced with intolerant polarization and the rejection of the philosophies reflected in United States Bill of Rights, philosophies that the world seemed to admire so much and which many societies sought to emulate.  But today’s world seems more like one in which the most fervent fascists defeated in the Second World War would feel comfortable.  Assassination of political leaders and their families and extermination through genocide and ethnic cleansing has somehow become reasonable, at least to many, and the imbalance of wealth between the wealthiest and the poorest now seems an unbreachable chasm.  As in preludes to civil wars, we see each other, even within families, as not just mistaken but evil, and we seem unable to even consider the reasons others hold opposing views.  The apparent human instinct to vilify is availed of by tiny minorities comprised of the worst among us in order to keep us divided and easily controlled, fighting each other while we’re slowly bled, morally, ethically, economically and physically.  We react based on our fears rather than our hopes, fears that are induced rather than prudent, casting aside the values of tolerance that we had seemingly been developing over the past several centuries.  The values which echoed those the gentle Nazarene from Palestine tried to teach us millennia ago.  Values largely predicated on a single concept: empathy.

How is it that so many Christians, that so many military officers (both serving and retired) who have willingly put their lives at risk to uphold a noble system of values, now so cavalierly reject them?  How is that those who so cavalierly wasted the lives and welfare of so many of my fellow alumni[6] now rule unfettered and without sacrifice over us?  People like the current president of the United States and his predecessor Joseph Robinette Biden, or Barrack Obama, or George W. Bush, etc., people who have no “skin in the game”, either theirs or their families.  People who continue to send the best of us to waste their lives, taking the lives of other young men and women, other sons and daughters, other mothers and fathers, other siblings and friends as though they were irrelevancies because they were born elsewhere and feel as strongly about their values as we purport to feel about ours?

How sick is that?  How sick are we?  Where have our values gone?  Where has our humanity gone?  For what have we exchanged it?  Would our planet be a better place without us?  If Yešu in fact lived, whether as a divinity or merely as an ethical human being, what would he think of us, especially of those who promote assassination and murder and genocide and ethnic cleansing and inequity and inequality and injustice, in his name?

So, back to more current events, should we be surprised that political assassination attempts and that mass killings in our schools are seemingly becoming so normal when the organized mass murder of so many millions abroad has become praiseworthy and when the armaments industry has become the prime beneficiary of a major portion of our earnings?

Are we really as stupid and manipulable and lacking in decency as the worst among us hope?  It’s hard to imagine that we are when we think of those we love and respect but, when we listen to them now, when we read their posts and their opinions, the decency inherent within them seems to have vanished.  It seems to have been stolen in a manner identical to the way the virtue of children is stolen when they’re raped and abused.  Something sickeningly more common than until recently, until after Epstein and friends were brought into the light of day (sort of), we thought possible.  But our hypocrisy and lack of empathy and ability to rationalize makes it possible, heaven or something like heaven, help us.
_____

© Guillermo Calvo Mahé; Manizales, 2026; all rights reserved.  Please feel free to share with appropriate attribution.

Guillermo (“Bill”) Calvo Mahé (a sometime poet and aspiring empirical philosopher) is a writer, political commentator and academic currently residing in the Republic of Colombia (although he has primarily lived in the United States of America of which he is also a citizen). Until 2017 he chaired the political science, government and international relations programs at the Universidad Autónoma de Manizales. Previously, he chaired the social studies and foreign language departments at the Eastern Military Academy in Huntington, New York. He is currently the publisher of the Inannite Review available at Substack.com; an intermittent commentator on radio and television; and, an occasional contributor to diverse periodicals and publications. He has academic degrees in political science (BA, The Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina), law (JD, St. John’s University, School of Law), international legal studies (LL.M, the Graduate Division of the New York University School of Law) and translation and linguistic studies (GCTS, the University of Florida’s Center for Latin American Studies). However, he is also fascinated by mythology, religion, physics, astronomy and mathematics, especially with matters related to quanta, cosmology and cosmogony. He can be contacted at guillermo.calvo.mahe@gmail.com and much of his writing is available through his blog at https://guillermocalvo.com/.

[1] See, e.g., Fisher, Anthony L. (2026): “The shameless hypocrisy of MAGA’s post-WHCD attack blame game”; MS Now, April 28, 2026, 6:00 a.m., EDT.

[2] See, e.g., Olson, Cade (2026):  “The Correspondents’ Dinner Shooting, Time Travel, and Solomon’s Temple: Conspiracy Roundup”, Substack, April 28, 2026.

[3] The Central Intelligence Agency, the Mossad, Britain’s MI6, etc., clearly not only believed otherwise but acted otherwise.  Do you perhaps remember Ngô Đình Diệm and the havoc that ensued?  Or president Kennedy?

[4] Jews, of course, reject those assertions as discussed in the Toledot Yeshu (See Calvo Mahé (2024): “The Life of Yešu According to Diverse Jewish Sources”; Academia.edu.).  Muslims take an equivocal position between the two, respecting Yešu as the second most important man who ever lived, and as their savior, but not as divine.

[5] See Calvo Mahé (“2023): “Motley Constitutionalism: a labyrinthine aphorism”, Academia.edu.

[6] E.g., of graduates from the Citadel, the Military College of South Carolina and from the Eastern Military Academy, and from institutions like those that to me seem so noble, institutions like the Virginia Military Institute, the United States Military Academy at West Point, the United States Naval Academy at Annapolis, the United States Air Force Academy at Colorado Springs, Norwich University, Texas A&M, etc., and, of course, of the men they led.