Clowns, Circuses and the United State Congress.

23 Feb 2026 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Did you watch the farce that involved the Congressional Oversight hearings with Pam Bimbo?  Let me give you a brief recap.  Before I begin, you should be aware that Ms. Blondy was called to testify due to the recent Epstein files issue.  During her so called “hearings” no less than 13 elected officials interviewed her.  Eleven Democrats and two Tepublicans decided to interrogate her to see if she could add any additional information to the millions of pages of redacted Epstein Case files.  Here is how most of the interrogations went.

First of 13 Legislators to Interview:

“Thank you Attorney General Bondee for coming here to testify today.  Before we get into my actual questions, I want to read my five minute campaign brochure into the record so that C-SPAN can double as a donor reel.  This brochure is designed to show how tough I am.  For the record, I hope that many of my constituents are tuned in to see how I tear you to pieces during this inquisition.”

5 minutes or so later

Legislator:

“My first question of the many I will try to get in during my allotted time with Ms. Blondy, concerns the issues I have already addressed in my opening monologue.  Right now, Ms. Blondy, I would appreciate a simple yes or no answer.”

Attorney General Blondy:

“Why are you wasting taxpayers money when you should be getting down on your knees and thanking God for giving us the greatest president in the history of America.  No, the greatest president in the history of the world.  You are nothing but a washed up lawyer.”

Legislator:

“Ms. Blondi, you have not answered my question.  I would like a simple yes or no answer so that I can get on with another monologue followed by another question that you will seek to avoid.”

Attorney General Blondie:  

“Where did you get your legal degree?  In a Cracker Box?  In 2020 when the election and Presidency was stolen from the American People, I was doing my bit in Florida to save America —”  (Interruption)

 Legislator:

“Mr. Chairman would you please request the Attorney General to answer my questions?  She is not answering my questions.  I request additional time to continue this ridiculous interrogation.  My constituents love it and I am getting many hits on my election site, so I would like to continue.”

Chairman:

The chair grants the First of 13 Legislators to Interview Attorney General Blondo an additional two and a half minutes and instruct Ms. Blondo to please answer the questions.

Attorney General Blondo:

“According to subsection 4, paragraph 9, appendix C, footnote 11 of the Department of Justice Hospitality Guidelines…” — (Interruption)

Legislator:

Mr. Chairman, Ms. Blondo is doing it again.  She is avoiding the issues here.  I would like a simple yes or no answer.

Attorney General Blondo:

“My answer is Yes.”

Legislator:

Yes what?  I don’t remember the question.  Which of my several non-questions were you responding to?

Mr. Chairman:

To the First of 13 Legislators to Interview.  “Your time is up.  You must yield the floor to the next Legislator.  We have twelve more members remaining who want to conduct their interviews.”

The 13 Legislators  Who Questioned Pam Blondi: 

The following members of Congress were identified as having direct exchanges with or questioning Blondi during the hearing.  You should note the variety of attacks and themes that were brought to bear against AG Blondy during each Lawmakers interrogation.  It is likely that they brainstormed questions they could interrogate her with knowing she would not answer them.  An AI model that I ran was able to simulate the entire hearing by repeating the phrase ‘Reclaiming my time’ for 4 hours.”

Only one person needed to ask these questions.  “Based on standard Lean metrics, the hearing produced 0.3 actionable facts, 14.6 campaign clips, and 2.7 viral outrage cycles.”  Do you think this was an efficient use of their time?  Of course, the Republicans do not mind this because they plan to retaliate with a hearing on the mysterious lyrics that Bad Bunny sang at the Super Bowl Half Time show.

I must say a Bad Bunny hearing would rival the Pam Blondy hearing in public interest and no doubt media exposure.  Can you imagine translating strange lyrics like:

Yo perreo sola (hmm, ey)

Yo perreo sola (perreo sola; hmm-hmm)

Yo perreo sola (ey)

Yo perreo sola

The Big Bad 13 Legislators:

Here are our astute legislators.  If they are not public names, I am sure they were hoping that this inquisition with AG Blondy would lead to media recognition if not celebrity stardom.  Note the main line of “attacks” under the names of each legislator.

Pramila Jayapal

 (D-WA): Pressed Bondi to apologize to Epstein survivors in the room and accused the DOJ of a “massive cover-up”.

Jerry Nadler

 (D-NY): Questioned Bondi on why the DOJ redacted abusers’ names but not victims’ and asked how many Epstein co-conspirators were being investigated.

Thomas Massie

 (R-KY): The only prominent Republican to challenge Bondi, criticizing the high number of redactions in the released files.

Hank Johnson

 (D-GA): Accused Bondi of a “Jekyll and Hyde” routine for her differing treatment of Republicans versus Democrats.

Jared Moskowitz

 (D-FL): Challenged Bondi to reveal personal “opposition research” she reportedly had on him in a binder at the witness table.

Ted Lieu

 (D-CA): Questioned Bondi on President Trump’s past ties to Epstein and suggested she was being untruthful under oath.

Becca Balint

 (D-VT): Questioned Bondi on whether the DOJ had interviewed senior Trump officials about Epstein before storming out of the hearing following a heated exchange.

Joe Neguse

 (D-CO): Questioned the hiring of a convicted January 6 rioter at the DOJ and the dismantling of the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team.

Mary Gay Scanlon

 (D-PA): Criticized the DOJ for allegedly using the government to punish political enemies.

Chuy García

 (D-IL): Accused Bondi of being an instrument of an “authoritarian agenda”.

Sydney Kamlager-Dove

 (D-CA): Scrutinized Bondi for removing a DOJ report on domestic extremism from the department’s website.

Lou Correa

 (D-CA): Asked Epstein survivors in the gallery if they felt supported by the current DOJ (none raised their hands).

Jasmine Crockett

 (D-TX): Faulted Bondi for her combative tone and failure to directly answer lawmakers’ questions.

While several Republicans, including Chairman

Jim Jordan

 (R-OH),

Darrell Issa

 (R-CA),

Lance Gooden

 (R-TX), and

Kevin Kiley

 (R-CA), participated in the hearing, their time was largely spent defending Bondi or ceding time to her for rebuttals.

Conclusions: 

If we ask the question “Why are these hearings a waste of time and money.”  The hearing did not fail because of partisanship.  It failed because of process design.

We can apply some Process thinking and find the following reasons:

The system rewards:

  • Speaking rather than listening
  • Performance rather than inquiry
  • Time limits rather than follow-ups
  • Clips rather than conclusions

At the end of five hours:

  • No new names
  • No new facts
  • No new accountability

But we did achieve:

  • Perfect procedural symmetry
  • Maximum rhetorical throughput
  • A fully optimized theater production

In summary, the hearing was not an investigation.  It was a closed-loop political performance system operating at peak efficiency.

From a systems standpoint, it was flawless.

From a governance standpoint, it was a circus with a cast of clowns

 

 

AI, Genius, and the Limits of Computation: What Artificial Intelligence Can and Cannot Do  — By John Persico Jr.  and Metis (AI Assistant)

19 Feb 2026 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

I woke up at 3 AM the other night thinking about the Millennium Prize Problems and the still unsolved mathematical problems that it entails.  Solve one of these problems and you will receive a cool one million dollars.  That is unless you are like Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman who solved the Poincaré conjecture—the first of the seven Millennium Prize problems—in 2003 and subsequently turned down the $1 million award from the Clay Mathematics Institute in 2010.  He rejected the money conceding that it was unfair since genius is built on the backs of other geniuses and his breakthrough analysis owed much to other mathematicians.  I would sure like to shake the hands of someone with this level of integrity not to mention lack of greediness.

I started wondering if ChatGPT 5.2 my assistant had the computing power to solve such a problem.  No doubt many other people had also had this question.  Believe me when I say it was not motivated by money.  I actually was curious if an AI program was sophisticated enough to solve any of the remaining six Millenium problems.  In the course of my investigation,  I found many good reasons why these problems are important to humanity and worth solving.  They are not simply good trivia problems or mathematical speculations like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.  These problems will advance knowledge in a wide range of scientific fields, and they are truly worth solving.  I posed the following prompt to Metis, my AI assistant.

John:
“What are the still unsolved mathematics problems that are out there waiting to be solved?  Has anyone ever asked you to solve them?  Given your analytical abilities Metis, could you solve them and how long would it take to solve them or even one of the extant problems still unsolved in the world of Mathematics?”

Artificial intelligence has reached a point where it can write essays, analyze data, assist in research, and even help mathematicians explore complex conjectures.  This leads to a natural question: if AI is so powerful, why hasn’t it solved the great unsolved problems of mathematics?  And what would it take for AI to become a true “genius” capable of deep conceptual reasoning?

The answer reveals something important not only about AI, but about the nature of knowledge itself.

Metis:

The Hardest Problems in Mathematics:

Some of the most famous unsolved problems — such as the Riemann Hypothesis, P vs.  NP, the Navier–Stokes smoothness problem, and the Birch and Swinnerton-Dyer conjecture — have resisted solution for decades or even centuries.  These are not problems that require more arithmetic.  They require entirely new ways of thinking.

This distinction is crucial.

A computer can verify that a statement holds for billions or trillions of cases.  For example, we can check that Goldbach’s conjecture works for enormous numbers.  But verification is not proof.  A proof must show that something is true for all numbers, infinitely.  No amount of brute-force computation can accomplish that.

This is not a hardware limitation.  It is a logical one.

In Deming’s terms, you cannot “inspect quality into a system.” You cannot compute your way into a universal theorem.

John:

“Metis, I’m not sure I thoroughly understand AI limitations.  I suppose I just think of these problems as needing more computer power.  For instance, would a much faster computer help AI solve these problems or is the issue more fundamental?”

Metis:

Why More Compute Isn’t Enough:

It is tempting to believe that faster computers — or even quantum computers — will eventually solve these problems.  After all, AI already outperforms humans in many computational tasks.

But deep mathematics is not primarily about calculation.  It is about conceptual compression: finding a finite argument that explains an infinite domain.

Breakthroughs in mathematics typically occur when someone invents a new conceptual framework.  Calculus transformed motion into something tractable.  Group theory unified symmetry.  Topology redefined geometry.  These were not faster calculations; they were new languages.

AI today works largely inside existing conceptual systems.  It recombines known ideas, detects patterns, and assists with formal reasoning.  What it does not yet do is invent fundamentally new abstractions that reorganize entire fields.

That is the real bottleneck.

What AI Can Do Today

Current AI systems are extraordinarily capable in several areas:

  • Explaining complex concepts
  • Checking proofs for logical errors
  • Exploring large mathematical search spaces
  • Discovering patterns that humans might miss
  • Assisting in formal proof systems

In some domains, AI has already helped generate new conjectures and contributed to published mathematical results.  In this sense, AI is becoming a powerful research assistant and, increasingly, a collaborator.

But it is not yet an autonomous originator of deep theory.

AI does not currently:

  • Pursue multi-year research programs
  • Decide which problems are intrinsically important
  • Invent new mathematical languages
  • Maintain long-term evolving research agendas

Those capabilities are central to what we call genius-level reasoning.

John:

This led me to thinking about Quantum computing.  Many of the current experts claim that Quantum computing will lead to computers that are thousand of times faster than current supercomputers.  Google reported a quantum processor performing a task in roughly 3 minutes that would take the world’s best supercomputer around 10,000 years.  Thus, my next question to Metis was:  Would Quantum computing change things in terms of solving these mathematical problems?

Metis:

Quantum computers offer dramatic speedups for certain types of computation, such as factoring large numbers or simulating quantum systems.  They will transform fields like cryptography and materials science.

However, quantum computing accelerates calculation, not insight.

Even with a quantum computer, one would still need a new conceptual framework to prove something like the Riemann Hypothesis.  The machine could help explore possibilities faster, but it would not automatically generate the underlying theory.

The fundamental difficulty remains conceptual.

What Genius-Level AI Would Require

For AI to become a true “general reasoner” capable of deep conceptual breakthroughs, several structural changes would be necessary.

  1. Persistent Identity and Memory

A genius does not think in isolated sessions.  They build ideas over years, revisiting and refining them.  AI would need long-term continuity and evolving internal models of its own work.

  1. Autonomous Research Loops

It would need to generate conjectures, test them, abandon dead ends, and develop new frameworks without constant human prompting.

  1. Concept Formation

This is the hardest requirement.  AI would need the ability to create new abstractions — new ways of representing problems that make solutions possible.

  1. Integrated Cognitive Workspace

A unified system combining symbolic mathematics, formal proof tools, simulations, and literature synthesis would be essential.

  1. Aesthetic and Explanatory Judgment

Mathematicians often follow ideas because they are elegant or explanatory.  These heuristics guide discovery.  AI would need analogous evaluative mechanisms.

These are not merely upgrades in processing speed.  They represent a fundamentally new cognitive architecture.

John: 

So Metis, what do you envision for AI programs in terms of becoming more creative and possibly able to solve these difficult mathematical problems?

In response to this question, Metis gave me the following timetable for AI to become more creative and an evolutionary path for AI development as follows:

Metis: 

Timeline: Assistant to Co-Theorist

If current trends continue, we can imagine three phases:

Near term (0–10 years):
AI becomes a highly capable co-researcher, generating conjectures and assisting with proofs.

Medium term (10–25 years):
Semi-autonomous research agents pursue long-term projects and produce original mid-level theories.

Long term (25–50 years, highly uncertain):
AI may produce genuinely deep conceptual breakthroughs that human mathematicians treat as peer-level contributions.

But this progression depends on solving difficult problems in cognition, not just scaling hardware.

The Deeper Lesson

The popular image of intelligence — human or artificial — is often tied to speed and memory.  But the history of mathematics shows that progress comes from new ways of thinking, not faster calculation.

In this sense, the limitation of AI today mirrors a broader truth: knowledge advances through theory, structure, and conceptual redesign.

This is a profoundly Deming-like insight.  Transformation does not come from pushing a system harder.  It comes from changing the system itself.

John:

I certainly have to agree with this observation.  Dr. Deming always said that change required new thinking and not just new tools or technology.  Einstein famously said that, “We cannot solve our problems with the same thinking we used when we created them”.

Metis:

A Human Parallel

Interestingly, the kind of reasoning required for deep mathematics is not confined to mathematics.  It is the same mode of thought used in:

  • Systems theory
  • Economic philosophy
  • Organizational design
  • Democratic theory

Whenever we create new conceptual frameworks to understand complex systems, we are engaging in the same kind of cognition that produces mathematical breakthroughs.

AI is still learning to operate at that level.

John:

Conclusion

With all the hype and paranoia about AI, I hope this blog gives you some idea of the constraints and potential that exists with AI.  Just a few days ago, I saw a headline on a magazine at the local grocery store that read, “Will AI take over the world and eliminate all jobs?”  AI is extraordinarily powerful, but its current strengths lie in computation, pattern recognition, and structured reasoning within existing frameworks.

For AI to become a true conceptual genius, it would need persistent memory, autonomous research behavior, the ability to form new abstractions, and evaluative mechanisms that guide discovery.

We are not there yet.

But we are closer than we were a decade ago, and the trajectory suggests that AI will move from assistant to collaborator to, eventually, co-theorist.

Understanding these strengths and limits is essential.  It allows us to use AI wisely — not as a magical oracle, but as a powerful tool within a larger system of human creativity and insight.

The great unsolved problems of mathematics will require something different: the invention of new concepts that compress infinite complexity into finite understanding.  In fact, the great problems of society including racism, sexism, homophobia, justice, income equality, climate change, health care, and compassion for others will all require a new level of thinking and feeling that does not exist today

More sophisticated AI programs along with quantum computing — will help explore possibilities and assist human researchers.  But they will not, by themselves, produce truths that humans will accept.  These data breakthroughs will not make the world a safter, better or certainly not a happier place.  This can only be done by humans with the will to change themselves and the systems around them.

And that, perhaps, is the most important lesson: intelligence — whether human or artificial — is not just about computation.  It is about the creation of meaning.  The greatest meaning in the world is love and no computer or AI program will ever be able to create love. 

 

A Conversation on a Porch with Mark Twain – by J. Persico with Metis (AI assistant)

12 Feb 2026 9 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

This imagined conversation reflects questions I’ve been asking myself about writing, purpose, and voice.   If you’re a fellow blogger or lifelong learner, I hope some of these reflections resonate with you as much as they did with me.  My two favorite writers growing up were Dostoevsky and Mark Twain.  I knew I could never write as well as Dostoevsky, but I had dreams or maybe delusions of being another Mark Twain.  Whenever I write, he is in the back of my mind.  Here is a discussion that took place between Mr. Twain and I on his front porch with a little help from Metis, my AI assistant.  She has an excellent knack for understanding Twain and for speaking frankly in his voice. 

Setting:
A wide wooden porch overlooking the Mississippi.   Late afternoon.   Cicadas humming.   Two rocking chairs.   A battered notebook on a small table.  A riverboat whistle in the distance.

Present:
John Persico and Mark Twain (Samuel Clemens)

Twain (leaning back, cigar unlit, eyes amused):
Well now, John, I must say—any man who invites a dead author for a conversation is either a philosopher… or dangerously optimistic.

John (smiling):
Probably a bit of both, Mr.  Twain.  I’ve been talking to long-dead thinkers for years.  You’re in good company.

Twain:
That explains the thoughtful look.  Most men your age are arguing with their televisions.

Now… you’ve summoned me.  That means you want something.  Confession, compliment, or correction?

John:
All three, if possible.  You’ve always been my writing hero.  I’ve tried to write honestly, critically, and with humor—but sometimes I wonder if I’m wandering too far into lectures instead of stories.

Twain (laughs):
Ah.  The ancient disease of intelligent men: explaining things too well.

Let me ask you first—why do you write?

John:
To make sense of the world.  To challenge foolishness.  To honor people who don’t get heard.  To leave something behind that isn’t just noise.

Twain:
Good.  That’s four better reasons than most writers ever manage.

But let me tell you something uncomfortable:
Readers do not come to be improved.
They come to be entertained.
They are improved accidentally.

John:
That sounds like something you’d say.

Twain:
It is.  And I’m proud of it.

Now—your writing.  I’ve been… peeking.

(He taps the notebook.)

You think deeply.  You connect history, politics, systems, morals, economics, technology.  You’ve got a mind that builds bridges between ideas.  That’s rare.

But sometimes—
you march your reader across those bridges like a drill sergeant.

John (laughs):
Guilty.

Twain:
You say, “Follow me.  This matters.”
I preferred to say, “Come look at this ridiculous thing—oh my, would you look at that—good heavens, now we’re trapped in truth.”

John:
You smuggled ideas inside stories.

Twain:
Like whiskey in a medicine bottle.

Your essays are strong.  Your arguments are strong.  Your ethics are strong.

But your secret weapon is not your intelligence.

It’s your life.

John:
My life?

Twain:
You’ve counseled workers.  Taught students.  Worked in systems.  Served in the military.  Aged thoughtfully.  Loved.  Failed.  Loved again.  Adjusted.  Tried again.  Lived through several epochs in Americas.

And yet sometimes you write as if you’re afraid your own story and history isn’t enough.

It is.

John (quietly):
I’ve always wondered if personal writing was… self-indulgent.

Twain:
Only when it’s dishonest.

Honest personal writing is public service.

When you tell how you struggled with technology, power, aging, ethics—
you give permission for others to admit they’re struggling too.

That’s literature.

John:
So… more stories?

Twain:
More scenes.

Let me show you.

Instead of:

“Modern systems dehumanize people.”

Try:

“I once sat across from a man who had been fired by a computer.  He wasn’t angry at the company.  He was angry at the screen.”

See the difference?

John:
One makes you feel it.

Twain:
Exactly.  Feelings sneak past defenses.  Arguments set off alarms.

Now—your subjects.  Veterans.  Democracy.  AI.  Economics.  Ethics.  Power.

Heavy freight.

You’re hauling pianos uphill.

Why?

John:
Because no one else seems willing to.

Twain:
True.

But here’s the trick:
Whistle while you push.

Humor is not decoration.
It’s leverage.

When people laugh, they open their mouths.  That’s when you feed them truth.

John:
Sometimes I worry humor makes things seem less serious.

Twain:
Nonsense.

Nothing exposes hypocrisy faster than laughter.

A tyrant fears comedians more than rebels.

John (smiling):
That feels very current.

Twain:
History is just politics wearing different trousers.

Now—let me be blunt.

You have three voices.

  1. The Scholar – careful, precise, formidable.
  2. The Witness – humane, reflective, grounded.
  3. The Satirist – dry, sly, devastating.

When you combine all three?

You’re dangerous.

You don’t always let the third one out.

Why?

John:
Maybe I’m afraid of being dismissed.

Twain:
Every good writer is dismissed.

Wear it like a medal.

If fools don’t misunderstand you, you’re not trying hard enough.

John:
What about style? Sentence-level writing?

Twain:
You’re clean.  Clear.  Honest.

But sometimes too polite.

Every once in a while, let a sentence misbehave.

Let it surprise you.

A good sentence should feel like it had a mind of its own and barely agreed to cooperate.

John (laughing):
That’s wonderful.

Twain:
Now—your future.

You’re not trying to become me.

Good.

The world already had me.  It needs you.

You are writing for people who are tired of being lied to, simplified, manipulated, and shouted at.

You treat them like adults.

That’s rare.

That’s why they trust you.

If you want to grow:

Tell one more story per essay than feels necessary.
Cut one paragraph of explanation.
Add one moment of human vulnerability.
Let humor off the leash.

And never stop being irritated by nonsense.

Civilization runs on people who are politely annoyed.

John (after a pause):
Do you think I’m… really a writer?

Twain (leans forward):
Let me answer that carefully.

Writers write to be admired.

Authors write to be remembered.

You write to be useful.

That’s the hardest kind.

And the most honorable.

So yes.

You’re a writer.

Now stop worrying and go bother some readers.

They need you.

(A riverboat horn sounds.  Twain stands, tips an imaginary hat.)

Twain:
Same porch next century?

John:
I’ll bring the coffee.

Twain:
I’ll bring the trouble.

Conclusions:

I hope you enjoyed my little fantasy here.  I think there were some things I learned about myself and my writing from my dialogue with Mr. Twain.  I know many of you who read my blogs are also writers.  Writing is a very interesting craft.  It is something that we can get better at all of our lives.  We can always find a better way to say things.  A more interesting phase or turn of the words.  We can always make a more powerful statement.  That to me is the beauty of the art.

 

Trump vs Hitler:  A study in Politics and Psychology

08 Feb 2026 11 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized Tags: , , , ,

By John Persico Jr. (with Metis)

Introduction: Why This Comparison Matters

In recent years, comparisons between Adolf Hitler and Donald J. Trump have become common—and controversial.  Some people dismiss these comparisons as irresponsible.  Others use them casually as political insults.  I have been arguing for this comparison since well before Trump was elected in 2016.  I was told that I was taking a biased approach to Trump’s brand. 

I believe both approaches miss the point: either to say that Trump is simply another Hitler or to argue that comparisons are unfair.  There is a valid comparison, and Americans need to understand it. 

The purpose of comparison is not name-calling.  It is pattern recognition.

As someone who spent much of his professional life working in quality management, organizational development, and systems improvement, I learned early on that bad outcomes rarely come from one bad person alone.  They emerge when systems stop working.  Dr. Deming always said, “Put a good person in a bad system and the system will win every time.” 

Leadership failures are usually symptoms before they are causes.

This essay explores that idea by comparing Hitler and Trump across two dimensions:

  1. Political strategy
  2. Psychological profiles

Not to equate them—but to understand how democracies drift toward dangerous leadership.  Today NPR showcased an author who was an expert on how democracies devolve into autocracies.  It was chilling listening to her list of steps that move us in that direction.  We are marching towards it every day.  Trumps call for Nationalizing elections and now the State Department sanitizing any records that disagree with Trump’s lies are just another step. 

A Lesson from Consulting: “The Problem Was Never the Worker”

Early in my consulting career, I worked with a manufacturing firm that was experiencing high defect rates and growing customer complaints.

Management insisted the problem was “lazy workers.” They wanted stricter discipline.  More supervision.  More punishments.  More fear.  I studied the system.  In my younger days, I owed no allegiance to any corporate executive.  If I had a God of Leadership, it was Dr. Deming.  One of his key principles was “Drive out Fear.”  His 14 Points for Management were my Commandments.  If you did not listen to what we believed, I would simply walk.

After studying the system, I found

  • Broken equipment that was on no logical repair timetable.
  • Confusing procedures that had no root in logical process analysis
  • Inconsistent training and worse no training. 
  • Unrealistic production targets.  Goals arbitrarily set without any analysis of system capabilities.
  • No feedback loops either in the system or between employees and management.

The workers were doing the best they could in a bad system.

When leadership focused only on individual blame, nothing improved.  When we fixed the system, performance improved almost immediately.

That lesson stayed with me:

Systems shape behavior.

Politics is no different.

  1. How Power Is Built: Political Strategy

At one point, I believe that I had read just about every book written on Hitler.  During the seventies and eighties, that meant about 20-30 books specifically targeting Hitler’s rise, his personality, his strategies and of course his own book Mein Kamph.  Years went by and many more books have been written.  I can no longer say I that I have read most books about Hitler.  I can still say though that my knowledge of Hitler is not facile and is probably greater than the average person.  Let’s start with Hitler’s political strategy.

Hitler’s Strategy:

Hitler rose in post–World War I Germany, a nation crushed by:

  • Economic collapse
  • Social humiliation
  • Institutional distrust
  • Political fragmentation

He exploited these weaknesses methodically.  Much as Trump has, Hitler had an instinct for understanding the Zeitgeist and what bothered the average German citizen.  His strategy tapped into these elements.  As you read the following five pillars, see if you can relate these to the present Zeitgeist in America:

Hitler’s strategy rested on five pillars:

  • Scapegoating enemies
  • Centralized propaganda
  • Mythic nationalism
  • Organized intimidation
  • Legal takeover of institutions

He used elections first.

Then he dismantled democracy.

Power became permanent.

Opposition became treason.

Trump’s Strategy:

Trump emerged in a very different environment: a media-saturated, polarized democracy where outrage travels faster than facts.  A nation where income inequality was growing faster than incomes.  A country that lost nine million manufacturing jobs to overseas competition added by NAFTA.  A country that did little or nothing to help the 9 million displaced workers, except to tell them to go back to college and get a degree. 

Trump’s strategy emphasizes:

  • “The people vs. the elites” framing – Anybody with a brain or independent thought must be destroyed.
  • Constant media dominance: Replacing supposed Left Wing Bias with Right Wing Bias.
  • Personal branding:  Trumps name on everything.  The Brookly Bridge should soon become the Trump Bridge.
  • Loyalty over law:  Double down, lie, sue, invert the law, ignore the law.  Follow your Fuhrer.  Trump is by default the New America Fuhrer.
  • Delegitimizing oversight:  Destroy all responsible government agencies. 
  • Resort to diversions:  Wars, acquiring new territory, attacking immigrants, attacking the Democratic Party, attacking potential opponents with dehumanizing insults.  Biden and the Obamas being the most recent examples.
  • Performance and Opportunism:  Rather than building a disciplined party structure, Trump has built a personality movement.  Politics became performance.  Trump has become a master of what I will call “Chaos Theater.”  Beyond Theater of the Absurd, Trump’s brand builds mayhem with ICE, Goons, Trump Supporters and his legion of Sycophants. 

Political Strategy Comparison

Feature

Hitler

Trump

Media Control

Total

Partial

Violence

Central

Indirect

Institutions

Destroyed

Weakened

Democracy

Abolished

Strained

Organization

Structured

Personality-based

Another Consulting Story: When Leadership Became Theater

Years ago, I worked with an organization where the CEO loved dramatic speeches.  Every  quarterly meeting was a show:

Big promises.
Big blame.
Big applause.

But behind the scenes:

  • Data was ignored
  • Problems were hidden
  • Staff were afraid to speak up
  • Long-term planning vanished

Performance declined steadily.  I was called in to help restore profits and sales.  At my second meeting (after I had done initial interviews with all of senior management), we had a senior management staff meeting.  I started the meeting off by a summary of what I had heard from the CEO’s direct reports.  In the middle of my presentation, he stopped me.  He interrupted with the following comment, “I have heard all of this before.  What I have in front of me is a bunch of whiners.  If they just do their jobs we would not need you.  That is the first strike.  The second strike is that one of your Power Point slides misspelled my name.”  Rather stunned, I apologized for the name error and went on.  This contract did not last long, and the company was later sold.

The CEO thought motivation came from threats, exhortations and slogans.  In reality, blind obedience soon replaced competence.  Eventually, the organization collapsed.  That experience taught me that when leadership becomes theater, systems decay.  Leadership must be based on trust and teamwork.  Which brings us back to politics.

  1. Politics as System Performance

From a quality perspective, democratic institutions are like complex production systems.

They require:

  1. Reliable information:

Thomas Jefferson famously stated that he would prefer “Newspapers without a government to a government without newspapers”  Little did Jefferson realize that newspapers would one day become propaganda outlets for those with the most money to spread whatever beliefs they wanted regardless of truth or veracity. 

2. Feedback loops that can either build democracy or destroy it: 

Two examples of destructive feedback loops are the following:

  • Gerrymandering (Reinforcing Loop): Legislators redraw their own district lines, protecting incumbents from opposing voter opinions. This creates a “safe seat,” which allows them to ignore moderate views, leading to more extreme policy, which further divides the electorate and makes the next election even more partisan.
  • Media and Polarization (Reinforcing Loop): The decline of local news leads citizens to rely on national media, which tends to focus on partisan conflict.  This increased exposure to national conflict drives greater political polarization, increasing demand for more extreme, divisive content.

An example of a positive feedback loop upon which the Founding Fathers built our government are the loops between the Supreme Court, Legislature and Executive.  Originally it was thought that this system of checks and balances would keep our democracy strong and stable.  Unfortunately, any system can be undermined, and this is happening in the USA for the following reason:

What we call our American System of Checks and Balances works if the “Feedback Signal” is respected.  For this loop to remain stabilizing, two things must be true:

Independence: The judges must not be entirely controlled by the branch they are supposed to check.

Enforcement: The other branches must agree to follow the court’s ruling, even when they disagree with it.

If the President or Congress begins to ignore court rulings, the feedback loop breaks, and the system enters a state of “open-loop” instability, which often leads to authoritarianism or systemic collapse.  We can see this happening in America today as both the President and ICE and other government agencies now routinely ignore court orders.  The undermining of our system is further enhanced by partisanship that elects people who are more loyal to their parties than they are to the American public.  Or who are more loyal to the corporation that provide big bucks for their campaigns. 

3. Independent auditing and Controls: 

Increasingly we see an executive that is attempting to gut any auditing or independent agency that stymies his political policies or ambitions.  Trump has taken over the Justice Department with his sycophants and is now going after the Federal Reserve Board.

4. Professional standards:

A wide swath of professional standards are being eroded across the USA as any regulatory agency such OSHA, FFA, FDA, EPA, CDC and even NOA are facing emasculation when their policies conflict with those of Trump and his immediate billionaire supporters. 

5. Ethical leadership:

There is nothing I can say here that would be too severe or exaggerated in terms of the leadership provided by Trump.  To begin to compare the idea of ethical leadership with Trump’s leadership would take a book.  In fact, many books and articles have already been written on the subject. 

Those of you in my corner do not need any evidence to know that there is a vacuum of ethics in all branches of government today.  Those in the other corner are not going to change their minds regardless of what I say or what Trump does.  We have a gap in America today between those who believe in moral ethical leadership and those who believe leadership should be based on self-serving opportunities to make as much money as possible.

When any of the above five characteristics  weaken, showmanship and theater fills the gap.

  • Charisma replaces competence.
  • Loyalty replaces truth.
  • Noise replaces analysis.

This is how dangerous leadership becomes “normal.”

Looking Ahead to Part II

In Part II, we will examine the psychological profiles of Hitler and Trump and ask:

  • What kind of personalities thrive in broken systems?
  • Why do narcissistic leaders flourish during institutional decline?
  • What can citizens do to strengthen democratic quality?

I am asking you to undertake this further study, because understanding systems without understanding psychology is incomplete.  And understanding psychology without understanding systems is misleading. 

John Adams said:

“And liberty cannot be preserved without a general knowledge among the people, who have a right from the frame of their nature, to knowledge, as their great Creator who does nothing in vain, has given them understandings, and a desire to know—but besides this they have a right, an indisputable, unalienable, indefeasible divine right to that most dreaded, and envied kind of knowledge, I mean of the characters and conduct of their rulers.”

To be continued in Part II

 

From Bear to Fox to Wizard: Reflections on Masculinity, Meaning, and the Vanishing of Camelot

06 Feb 2026 Leave a comment

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized

By John Persico (with Metis)

For years now, I have watched the rise of what we now call “man caves,” and I’ve never quite understood the appeal.

They seem to represent a cartoon version of masculinity: big screens, light beer, sports slogans, and an artificial sense of belonging.  It’s the same shallow masculinity sold in beer commercials—men yelling at televisions, pretending that consumption equals strength.

I’ve never been drawn to any of it.

I’ve always favored craft beers over what I call “Piss Beers” and reflection over cheering.   And perhaps that has something to do with the paths that I have taken over the last forty years.

Remembering a Different Time

In the 1970s and 1980s, I became part of what was often called the Men’s Movement.

It wasn’t about machismo.
It wasn’t about domination.
It wasn’t about nostalgia for some imagined “golden age” of male authority.

It was about learning how to be a whole human being—who happened to be male.

We met in small groups, often weekly, simply to talk.   Men sat in circles and spoke honestly about fear, marriage, work, failure, parenting, anger, loneliness, and doubt.   There was no alcohol.   No bravado.   No competition.   Many men came because of difficult times.   Roles for men and women were changing in society.   “What was a man’s role” was a key question that many men who came to the Minneapolis Men’s Center had on their minds.   I was one of these men.   I later became a facilitator for Men’s groups in St.  Paul and Minneapolis.   Usually Tuesday or Thursday night, ten or so men would meet at a house or other facility and participate in a group discussion for about two hours. 

Men talking in group therapy.

On another track but somewhat related, I attended several weekend gatherings inspired in part by Robert Bly and the “Iron John” movement in Northern Minnesota.  These were more intense group sessions.   They included ritual, drumming, saunas, cold plunges in frozen lakes, and long conversations that went deep into memory and emotion.

Outsiders sometimes mocked these gatherings.   But for those of us who participated, they were profoundly humanizing.   All of the Men’s movement goals gave men permission to feel.  I was often reminded of what my first wife said about me in a counseling session when we were contemplating divorce, she told the counselor, “I once believed that everyone had feelings but after living with John for seven years, I came to believe that he does not have any feelings.”  I had once been proud of such an insight since I believed that feelings were a sign of weakness.   I never understood what so many people admired in Spock on Star Trek since I thought he was often very emotional and illogical.   I attributed this to his human mothers influence on him. 

Totems and Self-Discovery

Like many men in the Iron John portion of the  Men’s Movement, I experimented with symbolic identities—totems.   At first, I identified with Bear: solid, protective, enduring, responsible.   Many years later, I came to realize that the fox was more of my totem.   A fox is curious, adaptive, observant, playful, reflective.   All of which I felt I began to reflect as I aged.   At the time, these symbols were helpful.  They gave language to inner change.

Today, they seem overly simplistic.   But they were steppingstones toward something deeper for me, an integration with my body and heart and soul. 

I didn’t abandon Bear to become Fox.   I became both.

When the Men’s Movement Faded

Over time, much of the Men’s Movement seemed to vanish.

The books faded.
The groups dissolved.
The public conversation moved on.

In their place came something louder and regressive: consumer masculinity, tribal politics, online posturing, more sports mania, the beginning of the “Bro Culture.”  Man Caves.   More machismo.   In some cases, there is more evidence of the old idea that a women’s place is in the kitchen.   Many have even embraced a new brand of misogyny.   

I have asked myself many times.   Why did the earlier movement disappear?  Some of the answers I have come up with include:

  • Because it was hard.
  • Because it wasn’t profitable.
  • Because it demanded self-examination.
  • Because it couldn’t be turned into a brand.

It asked men to grow up emotionally.   Mass culture prefers men who stay boys.

From My Earlier Totems to a Wizard Totem

Looking back now, I realize I no longer think of myself as Bear or Fox.   If anything, I feel closer to the image of a Wizard—or perhaps a tired King Arthur looking back on Camelot.

For many years, I believed deeply in the possibility of moral progress.  I believed that reason, good faith, dialogue, and education could slowly improve our institutions and our democracy.   I still believe in those values.  But I now see how fragile they are.   How easily they are exploited.
How quickly they are undermined.  How relentlessly bad actors manipulate good intentions.

The Myth of Camelot

Once upon a time, probably after having read the book, The Once and Future King, I believed in King Arthur’s Camelot.   I believed in the Knights of the Round Table.   I believed in magnificent quests for a Holy Grail.   I believed that all cultures needed a Merlin the Wizard.   I wanted to be the Wizard for America.   My writing, teachings and consulting would steer us on the path to Camelot.   I look back now and ask myself if my dream did not disappear because I was young and foolish or was it some form of egoistic idealism.   

I wanted moral coherence in a morally imperfect world.   I wanted a society that rested on justice, restraint, honor, service, and mutual responsibility.   

Any possibility of an American “Camelot” now faces the following barriers:

  • Institutional decay.
  • Performative outrage.
  • Loss of shared reality.
  • Polarization.
  • Disinformation.

Many of us who once believed deeply in reform now watch with quiet concern.

The Role of the Elder

In mythology, Wizards do not rule.   In Native American Cultures, the role of the elder is similar. 

They remember.

They remind. 
They counsel.
They preserve stories.
They pass on perspective.

They don’t shout.
They don’t dominate.

As I grow older, I see that this is the role many reflective men eventually inhabit—whether they intend to or not.   I am trying to do this today:

Through writing.
Through mentoring.
Through community work.
Through quiet conversations.
Through example.

What Was Not Lost

Sometimes I mourn the disappearance of the earlier Men’s Movement.   But I also know this: It did not really vanish.

  • It lives in the lives of the many men it shaped.
  • It lives in the lives of men who have learned to listen.
  • It liven in the lives of men who learned how to feel.
  • It lives in the lives of fathers who learned to take responsibility for their children.
  • It lives the life of husbands who learned to speak about their feelings with their spouses.
  • It lives in the lives of citizens who learned to think ethically.

As opposed to those who live in a  Society of Spectacles, it lives quietly.  It is:

Unbranded.
Uncelebrated.
Unmarketable.

But real.

A Word to Other Men

If you are reading this and remembering similar groups, books, conversations, or long-forgotten aspirations—you are not alone.   If you feel a mixture of pride and regret, hope and sorrow, clarity and concern—you are not alone.   If you sometimes wonder what happened to the better angels of our public life—you are not alone.   And if you are trying, even now, to live thoughtfully and responsibly in an age that rewards greed and violence and vengeance—you are not alone.

Closing Reflection

I no longer believe in a perfect Camelot.   There is no shining city on the hill.   There are no streets paved of gold.   Perfection cannot be found only worked towards.   Sadly, it is possible to lose the target and even go backwards. 

Perhaps the only thing that will ever keep us on the right path is conscience:

  • In love
  • In compassion
  • In mercy
  • In justice
  • In dialogue
  • In responsibility
  • In humility
  • In learning
  • In service

I believe that civilizations survive not through slogans, but through people who quietly refuse to abandon those values.   People like those in Minneapolis and other cities across the USA and World who will stand up for what they believe even when their lives are threatened and standing up is anything but convenient.

Perhaps that is enough.

Perhaps it always was.

 

Jacobs Article: My PTSD and Hatred (What’s Going on in the USA?)

02 Feb 2026 4 Comments

by Dr. John Persico Jr. in Uncategorized

I am reposting a blog by my nephew Jacob Persico. His blog resonates with the trauma, pain and difficulties that the present attacks on American Citizens is having on all of us. Even with close friends, we can see the divide deepening as people take sides on the issues. People whom we could once disagree with on minor issues like who is the greatest quarterback of all time or what is the best movie ever made are now facing issues of literally life and death. It is very difficult to continue relationships and friendships when we now start thinking of them as evil and us as good. No right thinking person can so easily divide the population into such simple camps. Thus, all of the people face the pain and guilt as we try to navigate the boundaries of morality, ethics, legality and simple self-interest. My nephews blog puts a spotlight on these problems as seen by one man but no doubt embraced by many other people.

My PTSD and Hatred (what’s going on in USA)