He is the puppet, she is the puppet, we are the puppets …

Most often than not you might hear the term “puppet” being used to describe politicians, especially heads of nations. Even though such term would make lots of sense, especially in Kingdoms and non-democratic regimes ... Today more and more it us who are the puppets
Patronage Oath
This content is available for free provided you pledge

Penumbra Gazette's content [not rarely] discuss sensitive/controversial issues [sometimes] in [extremely] colorful/emotional/intense language. Additionally, we may have integrated or lined to contents from third-party providers that contains explicit content or descriptions of self-harm, war(s), crime(s) and/or etc. You understand that the purpose of consumption of the material available is the artistic pleasure and intellectual enlightenment ...

You understand, are aware of, and accept the risks involved in consuming the material provided on/through this website – specifically Penumbra Gazette. However any other use than the two aforementioned are not granted.

You're at least 18 year old, or otherwise are accompanied by parent or adult guardian regarding the consumption of the contents.

PS. this is a test edition of Patrons' Oath, hence "We reserve the right to update it in the future (& notify you via e-mail)."

To not see this reminder again



Most often than not you might hear the term “puppet” being used to describe politicians, especially heads of nations. Even though such term would make lots of sense, especially in Kingdoms and non-democratic regimes which the colonial empires, prominently the United Kingdom and later on its offspring, the United States, tried to establish around the globe, but when in a [fake] democracy a Con Artist reaches the nomination of being the head of the nation, it is no more the politicians who are the “puppet" but the mass itself.

This is how the founder and one-woman editor of Brain Pickings, Maria Konnikova, reflects on the current conditions in the United States public:

It is in times as divisive as ours and as sundered by conflicting perspectives that the mastery of such intelligent, kind-hearted, and considered disagreement emerges as a supreme art of living. To respond in a reactive culture, to marry firm moral conviction with a spirit of goodwill and the porousness necessary for appraising other perspectives in order to evolve one’s own, is a Herculean feat of character.

This is how Kamira Riis, lecturer, Researcher, and author, reflects her emotions and evaluations in "A Letter to my Father, The Man Who Chose Donald Trump Over Every Woman in His Life”:

When I was 14 years old, there was a moment when I made you so angry you told me that you hated me. In the whirlwind of my teenage years I may or may not have been insufferable. I never once considered that you might have meant it because the apologetic hug you gave me in what I’m sure was a wave of guilt cancelled out the pain. That moment has always lived in the very back of my mind, deafening in its quietness. Knowing that you are voting for Trump, I can only assume that what you said half a lifetime ago was true.

Paul Graham, the co-founder of Y Combinator, the most prominent startup incubator of Silicon Vally, reflects on the current divide in the United States population with the following tweet:

Liberal vs conservative is like a dispute between one group that says every integer is even and another that says every integer is odd.

But in case you aren’t blind, it won’t be hard to understand that it is not people who are against one another.

“A group that thinks every integer is even and a group that thinks every integer is odd.” Isn’t it a good sign that there is a deep divide in political opinion inside the society?

No. Even if Paul Graham would be absolutely right about his observation of the current state of the public opinion, it isn’t hard to understand that both groups are misinformed about mathematics.

A father who says to his child that “I hate you” is not an individual who means what he says but a father who has no idea what he should say to her child and what he shouldn’t and what parenthood means and what it doesn’t mean.

Last but not least, the “Herculean feat” may not really be a Herculean feat, if you could realize that there is no such a divisive and conflicting perspective in our minds, rather this is us who has turned into puppets designed to oppose each other.

I am not a cynical intellectual who walks around with a fog of cigar surrounding him, while his daily life is a mix and remix of Coffee and Alcohol, and his love life a series of one night stands …

Maybe you expect me, that I should have first had few publications on politics before ever you could consider thinking about my judgment. Or maybe you are one of those who doesn’t accept any politically related statement unless a famous, independent political institute had done few studies and research on that subject, which back my opinion.

In my opinion, all such expectations are just like stupid questions on forms you fill to sign up for a dating app. When you met in person, none of the answers to those questions really matter. So, just because the media dictates you that political statements are only then valid, if we have researchers and studies and books and lectures and all the rest of the non-sense backing up such statement, it doesn’t mean that the brain in your head is to no use.

So, in case you still trust your brain for political matters, let me show you why I think this way:

Donald and Melania Trump’s wedding | Photo from an article by Claire Bernish and

This is not Donald Trump’s first marriage, not even his second but his third marriage. To be frank, the celebration of the third marriage is kind of an insignificant thing after all. Most of us want our first marriage be our only marriage and okay, we agree, once you made a mistake and you’ve learned and this time you have really found the perfect peer … but … I mean … Yet, another time? The third wedding of someone is something that you shouldn’t bother to take part in, unless you are really close friends, and it will upset them if you don’t show up.

If you want to be too radical, you can even assert, actually if Donald and Hillary would have somehow ended up together and Melania and Bill, it would have made more sense. Not only because they have traits that guarantee a happier and longer lasting marriage if coupled in this order but even optically they are better fit in this order. Hillary and Donald are both narcissist individuals running for the presidency for no other reason than “I should be the president”. Can you recall the early days of their campaigns? Hillary wanted to be president because she has the qualifications and Trump because he always wins. Just for pure comparison: Early days of campaigning of Bernie Sanders, he publicly stated that he doesn’t think to win the nomination but still there are issues that he wants to draw the attention of others to it and fight for …

One can imagine if Melania and Bill would have been together, as Melania is more the kind of woman whose first concern is how she appears in the eyes of other people and takes time of her child, then it would have been hard to hear sexual allegations against Bill Clinton …

Should you really believe that someone whose attending one’s third wedding have fundamentally different views of the world and how it should function? Such deep differences that even their very distant supporters can’t withstand each other, even if they live in the same place, even if they work at the same place, even if they are part of the same family?

Can’t you see there is something wrong here?

If you take a step away from this election’s heavy atmosphere in the society, you might as well be able to realize there are no fundamentally different ways and means to improve the quality of life of a population, and if ever, at least, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton won’t give a shit about it, unless it affects their personal's gain, just as they simply don’t give a shit about it to pose in each others arms for a wedding photo or to use the rhetorics and logics of five years old in a serious political debate.

For Trump, his record of not giving a shit about authenticity and integrity of his actions are no secret. From encouraging the public to buy the share of his Casino Business while few months down the road declaring bankruptcy, his Trump University, or even his very name, that if he today is called Trump and is proud of his heritage, actually his heritage was called Drumpf, before deciding to change their family name for marketing appearance. And the very fact that everyone in his campaign needs a “real” before their Twitter name, is the topping of his dishonesty.

While Trump has no record as a politician and can always claim that his campaigning experience has changed him and from today, he is going to build some real opinion about the world based on what he believes rather than what is better marketable, Hillary Clinton’s record as a politician is even worse.

The problem is not that it took her “a village” to write the jokes she read at Al Smith Dinner, or that at the ending of her speech she claimed to believe that “our greatest monument on this earth won’t be what we build, but the lives we touch” while perhaps the one who touched her life the most is no one else than Donald Trump, the man who shift the entire focus of her campaign, her speech style, her speech rhetoric, the points she defends and the ones she opposes … what is a politician if all these are decided by her opponent; No, even that doesn’t really matter. The real matter is that now after the Podesta Email Leaks by Wikileaks, everyone knows exactly the only thing that defines Hillary Clinton’s position on important political matters is how her aids estimate the reaction of the public to such positioning by her. This is hilarious. Instead of having aids who can guide you on defining new paths for the future government, her biggest achievement as politician is how to become favorable in the eyes of the public, and in case she will loose one of her Wall-street backers for such a position on policies, then the solution is not far away: “you need both a public and a private position”.

While the majority of thinkers in the United States consider the society to be extremely divided on a historically unusual level, the reality has nothing to do with such evaluations.

One of the best atmospheres for a Con Artist to fish as big as possible when it comes to electoral situations is a deep divide in the group who should vote, a divide so deep that people will act disregard of reason or even their emotional attachment to one another. A divide so deep that any form of communication to open each other people’s eyes to the reality be considered as fruitless. Only in such conditions, a Con Artist can fish the result of the election. Cause otherwise his tricks would be easy to uncover.

Such situations are not rare, nor the United States is the first country who is stuck in such ridiculous situation in recent decades.[1] The cure is not in secretly endorsing one candidate over the other, or publicly claiming that in this unusual situation one must choose the lesser evil of the two choices. The solution is embracing one’s role as a human being. Each single one of us, whether we vote or not is accountable and as well responsible for who becomes the president and which policies he or she executes. The solution lies in accepting our roles as human beings and embracing our mental capability for understanding the world. Of course, our understanding is limited and subjected to numerous mistakes, but those who execute the policies, the political parties, shouldn’t be the one who give us our understanding of the world. As long as we pay the Prostitutes of Wisdom to be our brains, we are destined to be the puppets of political parties.

[1] Eleven years ago, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad organized the same circus in Iran as Donald J. Trump in the United States. Just as Trump is famous by Modi’s supporters in India, Ahmadinejad also enjoyed a great deal of fame and popularity by different population groups of foreign nations. Just as Donald Trump gained the coverage of domestic news outlets in foreign nations for his politically irrelevant performances, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad beat every former Iranian politician on coverage of domestic media outlets of other countries, that wasn’t due to his policies or economic plans but irrelevant performances.


  • Published:


  • Author: Scrappy Nobody

from Penumbra

Series of Random Works