God is, effectively, an anti-ontological being

Some observations on the nature of war and conflict by Nobel Prize winner Anatole France

Car toutes les armées sont les premières du monde;. La seconde armée du monde;, s'il pouvait en exister une, se trouverait dans un état d'infériorité notoire; elle serait assurée d'être battue. Il fau- drait la licencier tout de suite. Aussi toutes les armées sont-elles les premières du monde;. C'est ce que comprit, en France, l'illustre colonel Mar- chand quand, interrogé par des journalistes sur la guerre russo-japonaise avant le passage du Yalou, il n'hésita pas à qualifier l'armée russe de première du monde; ainsi que l'armée japonaise. Et il est à remarquer que, pour avoir essuyé les plus effroyables revers, une armée ne déchoit pas de son rang de première du monde;. Car, si les peuples rapportent leurs victoires a l'intelligence des génereaux et au courage des soldats, ils attribuent leur défaites toujours a une inexplicable fatalité. Anatole France, L'ile des Pengouins All armies are the best in the world. A second army, if it were possible to exist, would be in a state of obvious inferiority and its defeat would be certain. Such an army should have been abolished immediately. And so all armies are the first in the world. This was understood in France by the famous Colonel Marchant, who, when asked by a journalist about the Russo-Japanese War, replied without hesitation that the Russian army was the first in the world, and so was the Japanese army. It is worth noting that even the most shocking failures do not lower an army from the rank of the first in the world. This is because nations attribute their victories to the genius of their commanders and the heroism of their soldiers, while they always attribute defeats to an unforeseen disaster. Anatole France, Penguin Island I found this interesting quotation in, of all places, Wikipedia Hebrew, in Hebrew of course. The Israelis, given their state of incessant warfare with all their neighbors, all the time, necessarily have to try to have some understanding of war at a very deep level, both in order to win, and, in order to understand their own limitations, in order to survive. Now, the interesting thing here, is that this goes somewhat beyond the classic observation that the first casualty in warfare, is the truth. Because, people aren't lying here, even to themselves. They really believe that their army is the best in the world, and, you'll notice the accuracy and universality of this observation. The Americans, the Chinese, the Russians, the Ukrainians, the Germans, the British, the French, the Israelis, the Iranians and the Turks, all really believe they have the best army in the world, and would argue the point to you at some length. Now, of course, a tiny nation like Denmark would merely insist that they had the best soldiers in the world, and the best weaponry, and the best generals. They would probably agree that, entirely on their own, they wouldn't be able to defeat a great power, but, simultaneously, they would also insist that they could readily call up allies to supplement their efforts, thus, in combination, constituting the best army in the world. The key point here, is that it is virtually impossible for most people to admit that their country could lose a war, ever. Now, of course, this isn't an entirely rational point of view. People win and lose wars all the time, no nation always wins, no nation always loses. The fortunes of war are most unpredictable, there are too many variables in play for the results of wars to be entirely predictable, ever. However, even to attempt to fight a war, an existential conflict in which everything is in play, it is essential to believe you will win, that you cannot possibly lose. The risks are so total and enormous, that even considering the possibility that you might lose will tend to undermine your ability to fight, at all. You must be invincible, or, you cannot fight at all. To what extent are the leaders themselves of nations infected with this same irrational belief in their own invincibility? They seem to be. Since their own risks are as great, or greater, than the average person's, they must be just as irrational about their nation's power as everyone else is. So, what does this tell us about the nature of human conflict, and how dangerous it can be? This tells us that extreme, unresolvable conflicts lead to total irrationality at all levels, and the quest for pure destruction to resolve these conflicts, and no one is ever immune from this irrationality. So, isn't that why we should always attempt, if at all possible, to seek mediated compromises, rather than conflict? Because the way of war, is the way of total irrationality, and total destruction, always.

Is the MAGA-Trump reign of terror about to come to an end?

US Government shutdowns are somewhat pooh-poohed by conservatives in particular, because of their contempt for government in general, but, bear in mind, the longest government shutdown in history was under Donald Trump, and, it only lasted 35 days. There's actually a very good and simple reason why government shutdowns don't last very long in the US, and that's because no federal government agents, and not even the US military, are paid a thin dime while they're going on. Nothing. Not till they end. Sure, they get back pay when they're over, but, that doesn't help much if they go on for years, does it now? And, so, if they went on very long at all, even a few months, there would be massive loss of personnel in all services -- Homeland Security, FBI, CIA, ICE, Airport Security -- at the federal level, and, quite likely, a real risk of mutiny in the military as a whole, as service personnel ceased to be able to support their own families. All the federal law enforcement agents would quit, out of sheer necessity, and the US military would be in open revolt against their own government. So, now that you understand precisely why government shutdowns don't last very long, you can understand just how powerful a position the Democrats are now in, now that the US population as a whole has had just about enough of the fascist tendencies of the Trump government. Effectively, the Democrats can virtually eliminate the entire US federal law enforcement service -- including and especially ICE -- by forcing them all to quit, or face starvation. They can put the US military in a position where they will actively revolt against Donald Trump, so that they can feed their families again. The Democrats can crush the entire federal government if they wish. And, at this time, the people would support them, they've had enough. So, what's going to happen, exactly? I would suspect, at some point, enough pressure will be applied to the Trump administration that they will simply have no choice but to abandon most of their policies. ICE will be largely dismantled, the border will be opened up again, the cities will be demilitarized, funding will be reestablished to critical government agencies, that have been cut back. Of course, the Senate could just abandon the filibuster. Then, the Republicans can do what they want. But, if that happens, when the Democrats take over again, they'll do exactly the same thing. And, Republicans wouldn't like that at all, would they now?

The prosecutors of Tyler Robinson are making a serious legal error.

The prosecutors of Tyler Robinson for the murder of Charlie Kirk, in their anger, are making a very serious legal error. Tyler Robinson is guilty of simple murder, by Utah Law, not aggravated murder, which requires circumstances that do not apply here. The prosecutors are attempting to argue, that because the shot he fired could have hurt someone else in the area, that he put others in "extreme danger". This is patently false, unless virtually all gun crimes are considered aggravated murder, and, they are not. The reason they are doing this, is because they want Tyler Robinson to inevitably be either executed, or have life in prison without parole, which are the only options for aggravated murder, under Utah law. Now, Utah Law has a simple murder charge, which involved penalties from 15 years to life in prison. And, the judge has the option of stipulating that the defendant does not have the option of parole, if convicted. That is the correct charge here. Sure, Tyler might be out in 10, 15 or 20 years. That is a possibility. However, that is the normal procedure in these cases. The fact is, because Donald Trump took such an interest in this case, they're making a special issue to try to ensure Tyler is punished as severely as possible, whether this is legal, or not. The problem from the prosecutors point of view here, is that Tyler is simply not guilty of aggravated murder, under Utah Law. He may have slightly increased the danger for the people in the area, but, he was obviously a skilled marksman, he only fired one carefully aimed shot, and no one else was touched, as he quite reasonably expected. The "extreme danger for others" criterion simply does not apply, and that is quite obvious. Sure the prosecutors might talk the jury into a conviction. They don't care what the law says, they're just thinking that this is a guy who killed someone, and they want him punished as much as is possible. However, Tyler can, quite literally, get dozens of appeals, over a period of decades. And, this conviction is illegal, and some judges with a legal bent are going to see this, and, they're going to acquit him. And, he can't be tried for simple murder, after the aggravated murder acquittal. Ever. That's double jeopardy, totally illegal under US law. Tyler will get acquitted, he will have no criminal record, and he will have an excellent case against the state of Utah for prosecutorial misconduct, that will make him a rich man. Is that what the prosecution really wants? The prosecutors should go for what they certainly can get, a conviction for simple murder. They are making a serious legal error here, that they will certainly regret, in a few years, if not sooner.

How confusing social and physical reality distorts human perceptions

One of the more striking illustrations of exactly how our perceptions of physical reality can be distorted by social structures and controls, is, interestingly, to be found in a major current phenomenon in popular culture -- The Lord of the Rings. Where does the idea that rings have great power over physical reality come from, exactly? After all, rings are primarily simple ornamentation, why would anyone think they had any power at all, beyond, perhaps, creating a certain physical attraction to those bearing them? Nevertheless, the concept of Rings of Power lies very deep in popular mythology, from the Ring of the Niebelungen to Wagner's Ring Cycle to the Lord of the Rings in its various incarnations, since JRR Tolkien wrote this fantasy classic. And, the roots of this phenomenon in popular culture lie much deeper, and are older than this. Where is this all coming from, exactly? Well, there is one way in which, for a time anyway, rings did posess a certain considerable practical power over the physical world. I am thinking of chain mail armor, which is formed by interlocking metal rings. For many centuries, chain mail armor was a very important means of self-protection in warfare, and provided an excellent defense against arrows, spears and swords. Still though, it's a bit of a stretch from chain mail armor -- just one of many forms of defensive armor -- to the "rings of power" that can control the entire world, isn't it? I think the more persuasive explanation of the power of rings is not practical or physical, but, rather, merely social. Rings, particularly large expensive rings, with gemstones, or sophisticated engravings, were, for perhaps thousands of years, a preogative of the rich and powerful. Indeed, signet rings, with special engravings, were often used as official seals of Kings and other powerful individuals, when dipped in melted wax, and could be the basis for a wide variety of critically important legal proceedings such as treaties, wars, great financial endowments, political appointments, or judicial court decisions of a criminal or a civil nature. The Ring syboloized official power and privilege. However, people are easily confused. One thing becomes associated with another in people's minds, and social power, in our unconscious, becomes associated with physical power, the ability to destroy whole nations, or the entire world itself. Social power can appear to match divine powers of physical creation, although, when we look quite closely, this is almost never the case. The social powers of the world's leaders are declaimed on high, and form the basis for much of our attitudes to reality. However, on close inspection, it is often found, that the emperor, although he may indeed be the emperor, has no clothes at all!

Why do the presentations of Starship launches come across like an episode of "The Price is Right"?

I just watched the complete Starship 10 mission presentation, and what struck me, was how it didn't really come across as a news broadcast, at all. What came across was a kind of advertisement, a focused and artificial cheerfulness that reminded me of the TV gameshow "The Price is Right", where gameshow participants are selected for their mindless enthusiasm, and their greed. Everyone in the TV audience was dancing and clapping and cheering and smiling just like the game show contestants on The Price is Right. When pieces of the Starship were torn off, the commentator used the term "liberated", as if this were a very good thing, and not a bad thing at all. There were smiling pretty young women interviewed who said how incredibly exciting the mission was, and how fabulously successful it was, and what an incredible job SpaceX was doing. The commentator regularly said how magnificently everything was going. What was particularly striking to me, was, that when the Starship second stage exploded into flames at the end of the mission, the commentator didn't even bat an eyelash, or respond in any way whatsoever. A huge fireball exploded right behind him on the screen, and, it seemed like he didn't even notice it at all, or that it never happened. I found that truly fascinating. I think what we have here is typical Elon Musk, which is to say, pure disinformation. It's quite clear that Elon Musk is making money just by repeatedly blowing the Starship up over and over again. He wants to cut costs by 99.9% on mega-rockets like the Saturn V or the more recent SLS, and is claiming that the fact that he cut costs on medium sized rockets by 30% through partial reusability means that he can do it. Apparently, such a pathetic sales line is compelling to rich investors, since it's working. The rich are hoping they can cash in on space, or visit it on the cheap, and will believe any lie Elon tells them. I don't know if the Starship will ever actually be used for anything, or, it's simply the most recent incarnation of Howard Hughe's Spruce Goose, on steroids, however, I do know that it's quite impossible for Elon Musk to make colonization of space practical with liquid fueled rockets. They simply aren't efficient enough -- too expensive, too unstable, too dangerous. However, at a billion dollars a pop, launching Starships as billion dollar firecrackers is very profitable indeed. So, by God, The Price is Right!

The Hitler-Mannheim recording -- 11 minutes of casual conversation between Adolf Hitler and Marshall Mannheim from 1942.

The real Adolf Hitler quite casually and analytically explaining the rationale for his actions and the reasons for his problems in the invasion of the Soviet Union, in the middle of World War II. Have a listen, there are English subtitles, if you need them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oET1WaG5sFk&t=1s

What the history of energy teaches us about its future

It took 1500 years to fully develop the steam engine, and, the way it's going, it looks like it might indeed take that long to fully develop nuclear power. While nuclear power has existed for almost a century now, it's still a very poorly understood technology, with innumerable problems and enormous expense involved in attempting to develop any meaningful applications.  Sure, we have a wide range of practical applications, but, there's an uncertainty about them all, and immense problems, and, it appears, the full potential of this energy technology is far from being achievable, at this time.  The first applications of steam engines, during the time of the Roman Empire, were just toys.  And, that's the way it stayed, for about 1500 years.   A combination of lack of interest, lack of imagination, and lack of necessary related technologies posed insurmountable obstacles.   People were reasonably content with the way things were, as they usually are, so no one was interested in this big a change to things.  We have entire theoretical conceptions of reality dedicated to the notion that we can't do new things.  Currently, the most obvious example is Einstein's Special Theory of Relativity, which states that we cannot travel faster than light, making colonization of other Solar Systems virtually impossible.  H-bombs would actually give us enough energy to do this, were it not for Einstein's postulates.   Possibly, governments don't really like the idea of people being able to escape them by travelling to other earth-like planets?  Or, maybe wealthy capitalists find the notion of vastly more efficient energy sources a threat to their current monopolistic powers?  Who knows. Side by side with steam energy, of course, was chemical energy.   And, actually, chemical energy was used to some extent, but, somewhat awkwardly.  All fire is chemical energy, of course, and fire is one of mankind's oldest technologies, far pre-dating our own current species of mankind.  We've had chemical rockets for thousands of years, and, to some extent they were used in warfare, sporadically.   Burning coal as a source of chemical energy became more and more common as human civilization progressed, although it does tend to poison the air badly.    Neither chemical nor steam power can be fully developed as a source of power for engines without high quality iron and steal to build engines with, and related machine tools and machine tooling.  And, of course, the very concept of powered engines has to be developed, first.   Steam engines likely preceded Chemical engines because steam is rather more benign and less destructive than small chemical explosions. So, what does all this have to do with nuclear power?  I think it means that there are many slips twixt the cup and the lip.  Developing new energy technologies involves many, many stages, often entirely new conceptions of reality that are not easy to conceive of, detailed, precise new technologies that no one has ever seen before, or even dreamed of.  And, no one really knows where to look for these. Currently, the Chinese are developing the world's first thorium reactor.  That is very good, because there's a lot more thorium around, than uranium.   Will this lead to a nuclear revolution?  Almost certainly not.  But, it is clearly a step in the right direction.  How about controlled nuclear fusion.?  I would argue this is a dead end.  Trying to build a nuclear fusion source that cannot do any damage, but still produces a lot of energy, simply seems to be a contradiction in terms.   How about nuclear bombs as energy sources and power sources.    This is possible, but, surely these "bombs' could be made less "bomb-like" and more "energy-like".  Couldn't this be explored?  It's a new concept, but, as we've seen, historically, new concepts are fundamental to new energy sources.

Joan of Arc and the Salem Witch Trials -- a socio-historical comparison

While I'm unaware of these two extremely well known historical incidents having ever been systematically compared before, I think you'll find that the two have some remarkable similarities. In both the case of Joan of Arc, and the Salem Witch Trials, we have adolescent girls manipulating, and being manipulated, by powerful men, to achieve their own objectives, for their own reasons. In both cases, we hear strident cries of "witchcraft". Although Joan of Arc was canonized as a Saint by the Pope during the Babylonian captivity, actually, it's quite clear that she was having a great deal of fun lording it over all the powerful warlords in play, during her period of ascendancy, just like the girls in Salem were loving every second of dominating the community of Salem, and, ultimately, all of New England society, at all levels. https://salem.lib.virginia.edu/images/mattwitch1.jpg I think a significant point here is simply the fact that adolescent girls could have such massive, if temporary effect on society, because that's only possible if society is, or is becoming, centralized to a high degree. And, clearly this was the case in both New England and the time of the Witch Trials, and in France when Joan of Arc played her particular role. These young girls tapped into the increasing ability to gather a mass audience and influence it quickly, in their developing societies, to such an extent, that everyone was taken off guard, and surprised, and astonished. And, these facts presage the ultimate revolutions that overturned their respective societies in the coming decades -- both the French, and the Americans, respectively throwing off the yoke of the English, because of centralization of power locally, to repel the English. Now, the difference here, is that Joan of Arc represented herself as an agent of God, and was burned as a witch, and ultimately became a Saint, while the girls in Salem falsely condemned others as witches, and these Salem girls themselves went on to leave fairly uneventful lives following their brief period of stardom. Joan was a religious girl who had seen the damage the English were doing in her country, who had seen family members killed by them. She convinced herself she was a chosen prophet and savior of her people, probably hormonally driven to some extent. She fought and suffered for her people, achieved some brilliant victories, suffered and survived serious injuries, only to be captured by the English, and done cruelly to death by them. However, she could have been ransomed by the French King, who offered nothing for her. This may have been a mistake. This gave the English the opportunity to discredit the King's instrument in a trial for heresy. In any case, the power games involved here were of a very high order. https://i.pinimg.com/736x/f2/67/c0/f267c0b69840ffd081706bc78527ced5.jpg The Salem witch trials more reveal the growing independence and power of the colony of Massachusetts, its government structures, and their ability and facility to influence the people, in response to popular demands. This, of course, grew greater and greater with the coming decades, even if trials for witchcraft were discredited.

Jeffrey Epstein is God, and Donald Trump is his chosen prophet!

Virgin born of Paula Stolofsky in 1956 -- she, the most blessed of all mortal women -- Jeffrey Epstein was clearly of divine origins to all who knew him, from a very early age. Beloved of all women, especially young women, he used his talents in mathematics and science to procure a teaching position at the highly prestigious Dalton School, despite having no college degree. Clearly, even at the age of 21, the world could already see his divine mission, his heaven sent gifts, that God himself was manifest in all he did, especially with very, very young girls. Truly, he pursued his unique Godly vocation with zeal at the Dalton School, blessing all the underage drinking girls he possibly could, every chance he got. But, Satan reared his ugly head, and the evil school authorities failed in their appointed task of blessing our one true God, Jeffrey Epstein, and dismissed him from his appointed and chosen task at the Dalton School. God Epstein saw the evil in the school administrators, but, it troubled him not. God's will was done, and Jeffrey Epstein used his divine gifts to procure incredibly wealthy clients of all types in the American financial world, blessing them with the greatest of all gifts, the holy child virgin girls of all America. God is Great! Hallelujah! Jeffrey Epstein, our Lord and Savior, showed stunning divine mathematical insight in creating the greatest of Ponzi schemes, the most extraordinary of tax havens for the superrich, all the while giving them the greatest of gifts of extremely youthful female flesh. And, Lo, one day, our Lord God Epstein encountered his one true, chosen prophet. It was at a party with innumerable underage girls, and, the Prophet Donald Trump was busily amusing himself. Our Lord Epstein could see in Donald Trump the one man who could spread his message, and inspire the multitudes to follow him, where he led. The Prophet Donald Trump's stunning salesmanship skills were manifest throughout his careers in real estate and entertainment. All would follow him. Trump would Make America Great Again, by the will of our Lord and Savior Jeffrey Epstein! And, so God Epstein trained and led the Prophet Trump, and Trump followed where he led, lured on forever by youthful female flesh. https://s.yimg.com/ny/api/res/1.2/cIHkJwHjuZCBmWIwh4Q9eg--/YXBwaWQ9aGlnaGxhbmRlcjt3PTI0MDA7aD0xNzc4O2NmPXdlYnA-/https://media.zenfs.com/en/the_week_574/57dac8d1ef217913efaae38dadd76425 And, behold, the God Epstein was martyred in the flesh, indeed, by the Prophet Trump himself! All this, to fulfill his ultimate destiny, of bringing truth to all Mankind. For the Prophet Trump now went on to preach the Word of Epstein, and all listened to him, for, they knew that Epstein would Make America Great Again. Hallelujah! And, the great hordes of MAGA disciples worshipped and bowed down to the prophet Trump, and they gave homage to God Epstein, and they sacrificed all their daughters, granddaughters and, yea, even their great-granddaughters on his Holy Alters! And, behold, the entire world was consumed and worshipped at the feet of Epstein, Trump and MAGA, and they gave homage with youthful female flesh forever, and ever, for this is the truth and the light. Amen!!

Americans really did win the War of 1812, but, not for the reasons they say

One of the great bones of contention between British and Canadian historians on the one hand, and American historians on the other, is who really won the War of 1812. Canadian and British historians note the failure of the American forces to take Canada, despite repeated attempts. This, they conclude, proves the War of 1812 was a complete failure. American historians point out that the capture of Canada was never a stated objective of the war, but, rather, that the war was about British infringement on American sovereignty on the high seas, in terms of impressment of sailors and the trade blockade of Napoleonic France, and in terms of interference in America itself. They conclude that America won, because these problems ended with the end of the war. Actually, the real objective of the American government in this war was rather different, and relates to the whole basis for the American Revolutionary War, as well -- the destruction of the Native Indian tribes, and the manifest destiny of Americans to conquer the entire West. The British had never been sympathetic to this, and tended to take a much less exploitive approach to the Native Americans, and they were quite actively getting in the way of the American settlers. So, in 1776, the Americans started to take quite active steps to get them out of the way. And, they did just that! But, not entirely. By the 1790's, the British were again struggling to contain the American expansionist settlers, and were arming the native Indian tribes so they could defend themselves against the Americans. This tendency increased as the American population and expansion increased, so, by 1812, the Americans decided they had had enough. With Britain occupied by Napoleon in Europe, they were convinced they could cause the British more than enough trouble in North America, that they would be forced to get out of they way, and they could do as they will with the Native Americans, and their lands. And, they were quite successful in this. https://cdn.britannica.com/40/154940-138-EA54BCA5.jpg This is the Ninth Article of the Treaty of Ghent, signed by Britain and America in 1814, to end the War of 1812. ARTICLE THE NINTH. The United States of America engage to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom they may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against the United States of America, their Citizens, and Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly. And His Britannic Majesty engages on his part to put an end immediately after the Ratification of the present Treaty to hostilities with all the Tribes or Nations of Indians with whom He may be at war at the time of such Ratification, and forthwith to restore to such Tribes or Nations respectively all the possessions, rights, and privileges, which they may have enjoyed or been entitled to in one thousand eight hundred and eleven previous to such hostilities. Provided always that such Tribes or Nations shall agree to desist from all hostilities against His Britannic Majesty and His Subjects upon the Ratification of the present Treaty being notified to such Tribes or Nations, and shall so desist accordingly. https://res.cloudinary.com/aenetworks/image/upload/c_fill,ar_2,w_3840,h_1920,g_auto/dpr_auto/f_auto/q_auto:eco/v1/gettyimages-150618775?_a=BAVAZGDX0 Effectively, this article totally defangs the Indian tribes in American territory, and totally eliminates any legal rights whatsoever of the British government to arm them, so they could defend themselves against American exploitation, ever again. This is a blank check to the American government to exterminate the Native Indians, and steal their lands. And, that's exactly what the American government has been doing, ever since. So, America really did win the War of 1812, didn't they?

Why film critics can't take Mel Brooks seriously as a truly great film maker

Truth is funnier than fiction. Reality is truly incomprehensible and bizarre, and the best jokes are simply very straightforward and direct representations of the truths we rarely encounter, and have difficulty facing. And, Mel Brooks knows this. He knows it very well, and, it is the basis of his entire comedy. And, the reason film critics may have such difficulty accepting Mel Brooks as a serious filmmaker may simply be that the film critics themselves do not want to face the simple, and often quite unpleasant truths that Mel Brooks makes clear, readily apparent, and incredibly funny. Mel Brooks is a satirist, a brilliant satirist, and, he is not just creating random slapstick humor to amuse people. His films are incredibly fun to watch, but, that's because Mel Brooks is telling the simple truth! Let's consider what are probably his three greatest films -- The Producers, Blazing Saddles and Young Frankenstein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Producers_(1967_film) The Producers is a total trashing of Capitalism as it applies to the entertainment industry, as a couple of producers, played superlatively by Zero Mostel and Gene Wilder, attempt to make a fortune by swindling innumerable vulnerable financial victims of their life savings, by investing them in a production that cannot possibly succeed, on the basis of the principle that no money is owed on a production that actually makes no money at all. So, they simply sign up limitless victims for a "half-share" of the profits of a sure flop. Great idea, right? Sounds like the kind of thing Donald Trump has been doing his whole life, doesn't it? Unfortunately for The Producers, the production is immensely successful, and, they end up going to prison, since a half-share of the profits can't go to a hundred different investors. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blazing_Saddles Blazing saddles manages to fuse a total trashing of both American Capitalism, with a total trashing of American Politics, which, of course, is a very reasonable thing to do, indeed! Corrupt politicians and greedy capitalists get together to try to destroy a town that's in their way on the American frontier in the Old West, but their plans backfire when they underestimate the courage and intelligence of a young black man -- Cleavon Little -- who they try to set up to take the fall by making him sheriff of the town they intend to destroy. Instead, he turns the tables on them, and brings them to justice. A traditional western themed approach combining hysterical comedy with social satire. Absolutely brilliant! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Frankenstein Young Frankenstein is a wickedly funny satire of modern science and medicine, suggesting that, actually, we've made much less progress in both, than most people think, by presenting a retrograde version of 1930's horror films in the 1970's. This aspect of the film is, I think, still not that well understood by the film critics and scholars. Mel Brooks is making a very specific point here, at a time when most people still worshipped our "great progress" in science and technology and medicine. "Hey folks, look closely, these guys are just a bunch of clowns, after all!" I think people really don't fully appreciate how brilliant Mel Brooks is, because they don't want to accept his rather cynical conclusions about human nature, and modern society.

Some observations on science and relativity

The thing you have to understand, is that the notion that “higher education” is immensely valuable, is essentially a twentieth century delusion. Universities, largely in the modern sense, have been around for a thousand years, and, they really were never taken particularly seriously before the twentieth century. They were considered something that mainly wealthy young people could do to pass their time for a few years, till they found something to do. Occasionally, universities provided the opportunity for young people to establish relationships that might benefit them later in life. In the twentieth century, as the result of relatively rapid scientific and technological progress in the preceding few centuries — for reasons we still don’t entirely understand — universities “seized the day”, and claimed direct credit for all of human progress. So, they claimed that, the more university degrees you had, the smarter you were, and the more important scientific and technological progress you would make! And, they got enormous government funding, and private funding too, on the basis of this delusion and fabrication. In fact, true scientific and technological progress is entirely unpredictable, and comes, when it comes at all, usually from gifted amateurs, businessmen, and the military. There is no “scientific method” at all. None. The “scientific method” is entirely a myth, used to rationalize and justify whatever it is that scientists happen to feel like doing. In terms of FTL travel, you have to understand that Einstein provided a mathematical band-aid to wave away the fact that light travels as a waveform in a vacuum. You need a medium to create a wave-form. Supposedly, there is nothing in a vacuum. Now, what this proves, is that there’s a lot going on in a vacuum that physicists had no clue about. But, that would involve admitting ignorance, something that would undermine the credibility of physicists. They don’t want to do that. So, Einstein told a complex mathematical lie, that saved them from that. Goody for Einstein! Greatest scientist in history! In fact, if we actually could get to the speed of light, nothing whatsoever would happen, other than that we wouldn’t be able to see light anymore.

The Russians are still obsessed with Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina".

On the surface at least, Tolstoy's "Anna Karenina" would seem to be a simple rip-off of Gustave Flaubert's brilliant and incredibly popular portrait of an adulterous married woman, and, her inevitable downfall in still extremely patriarchal nineteenth century Europe, written over twenty years earlier. However, there's actually more to it than that. This is a very Russian novel, about Russian society, morals, culture and social changes in the 1870's. And, this period was critical, as all Russians now know, to subsequent developments in Russian history -- the assassination of Alexander II, the accession of Alexander III and Nicholas II, and their movements to greater authoritarianism in Russia, the Russo-Japanese War, the Revolution of 1905, WWI, the Revolution of 1917, and three quarters of a century of communism. In this recent adaptation of Anna Karenina, there is a very unusual twist to the perspective on the novel. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuaxy4YQzAA We see, in this particular version, the events of the novel, interspersed with observations of a period thirty years in the future, in Manchuria China, during the Russo-Japanese War, in 1904. And, the general in charge of the station of Russians fighting the Japanese in China, is none other than Prince Vronsky, the anti-hero and lover of Anna Karenina! And, the plot thickens. The actor playing Count Vronsky is an older man, not the actor playing Count Vronsky in the action occurring in the novel, in this particular production. Instead -- believe it or not! -- the actor playing Count Vronsky in the action from Anna Karenina here, is now playing the station doctor, who is mostly performing amputations, in the action ocurring in 1904! So, what exactly is going on here, do you think? I think, Anna Karenina is being used as a symbol for Russia as a whole here, something that Leo Tolstoy himself may have had in mind. And, I think Vronsky is being used as a symbol for the forces attacking and destroying Russia from within. But, the producers of this particular production are extending the analogy thirty years into the future, to increase its power. And, thirty years into the future, Vronsky has become Russia/Anna Karenina, and the station doctor has become Vronsky, the destroyer of Anna/Russia. An interesting sub-plot here is the rather charming and intimate relationship that develops in 1904 between the older Count/General Vronsky and an adolescent Chinese girl who seeks shelter from the war in the Russian station. This is very typical of all Chinese and Russian historical films these days -- Russians and Chinese are presented as being natural allies and lovers, throughout all of history.

Technically correct term

What's the technically correct term for the precise interior decorating style used by Gene Hackman and Betsy Arakawa in their fabulous 13 million dollar house, just before they died under unusual circumstances? "Terminal clutter".

Trump political advisor Stephen Miller's stunning resemblance to Gestapo Chief Heinrich Mueller

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_M%C3%BCller_(Gestapo) I'm becoming rather concerned about something. We've all noticed how much power young Stephen Miller is acquiring in the White House, largely subsuming both the functions of POTUS and the Attorney General. Now, obviously Mr. Miller's politics are extremely far right, even for MAGA and the Republicans, involving the suspension of all civil liberties, including habeas corpus, and giving the President absolute dictatorial power to do whatever he wants, anytime he wants to. Indeed, he sounds very much like a Nazi, perhaps even the head of the Gestapo. However, what many people do not realize is that Mr. Miller actually bears a genuinely stunning resemblance to the actual Gestapo Chief Heinrich Mueller. I don't know if this is actually cultivated, or, whether it's just a sign of a truly profound spiritual and personality resemblance, that manifests itself in a physical resemblance. However, I do believe it is something everyone should bear in mind!

Message to "Elon"

Hi: This is Myname 271, and, I have to admit, although I still don’t think you’re Elon Musk, you are putting on a very good Elon Musk act, so, I thought you might be at least a bright graduate student in engineering and worth talking to. I can understand you would be less than enthusiastic about me ridiculing the Starship in public, that’s fair enough. I guess, at the very least, it might be a kind of reducto ad absurdam to the whole massive liquid fueled rocket concept, so, even if it never works, the mere fact that it never works is a kind of experiment in itself, and proves the need to move on to other more advanced technologies, and, that in itself might prove useful. I think what looks most promising to me are variations on the Project Orion concept, from the early 1960's. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Orion_(nuclear_propulsion) The Cuban Missile Crisis largely sidetracked this research, because people became frightened of the real possibility of a thermonuclear war, and tight controls were put on all future use of nuclear "weapons", even for peacetime purposes. Conventional controlled nuclear fusion research appears to be something of a dead end. Sure, it's pretty safe. It's also totally useless! Billions of dollars to, at best, produce enough power to light a few light bulbs for a few minutes, if that. There are small A-bombs in the American nuclear arsenal that only produce conventional levels of explosive yield, but, they're still very expensive to produce. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W54 If the price could be brought down considerably, and radiation yields could be reduced, then there might be some potential to use these for space propulsion. There are other more exotic possibilities that have been explored: https://defence.pk/threads/nuclear-bullets-the-most-dangerous-soviet-project.526352/ Soviet nuclear bullets! Yes indeed, actual nuclear bombs the size of a bullet, made out of Californium, believe it or not. It's unclear exactly how far the Soviets got with this, but, it might have some interesting applications. Could a nuclear bullet be used to trigger a very small H-bomb, and could the nuclear material be dispersed sufficiently to render the "bomb" less explosive, and more of a drawn out nuclear reaction, something between a conventional nuclear reaction, and a "bomb", something that could actually power a well-reinforced rocket? How cheaply could this be produced, and how efficient a source of energy might it be? https://www.quora.com/profile/ (https://www.quora.com/profile/)Myname-271

What if Napoleon had been defeated at the battle of Marengo?

Napoleon only managed to win the battle of Marengo, in 1800, out of incredible luck. He had been outgeneraled, outfought, outstrategized and basically ambushed, and was on the verge of total defeat. Then, a close general friend of his got himself killed rushing in reinforcements, and, almost simultaneously, the Austrian forces were thrown into confusion by the explosion of their ammunition wagons in the middle of their forces. This combination of events was sufficient to turn the tide of the battle. What if Napoleon had, really, lost the battle of Marengo? Would he have been captured, or perhaps killed? Would that have been the end of Napoleon's career? How would that have affected the future course of European, and of world history?

What does Donald Trump teach us about the nature of existence, and epistemology, in general?

Many people love Donald Trump, and many people hate him. However, even the people who are indifferent to Donald Trump -- like myself -- are very aware of him, and the important role he is currently playing world affairs. Donald Trump is a disrupter, a challenger, a social non-conformist. He often does much more harm than good, at least in the short term. Nevertheless, people tolerate him, at least up to a point, because he is perceived to be interesting and useful, at least, at times. He rather perfectly matches Elon Musk's silicon valley ideal of "moving fast, and breaking some things." That's exactly what Donald Trump does, all the time. In a broader historical, and philosophical sense, Trump may be seen as a kind of personal example of the dialectical method, as described by Hegel -- thesis, antithesis, synthesis. Present a strong position, provoke other contrary positions, achieve a meaningful, useful practical reality between them. This is a very confrontational, competitive approach to life, but, certainly a very common one. And, at least at times, anyway, it seems to be somewhat effective. Are there other, better, approaches to life, that are less competitive, and confrontational? Well, supposedly scientists have their "scientific method", which generates systematic progress through controlled experimentation and public discussion. However, when we look closely, we find that progress of a meaningful, practical type is rather thin on the ground in professional science, despite the frantic claims of scientists to the contrary. Many if not all world religions claim wisdom and progress are possible through worshipping their own particular divinities, whatever those might be. However, all major religions disagree on what those particular divinities are, exactly. So, we have Donald Trump, playing the fool, babbling incoherently and getting attention, and people scratching their heads over it all, and trying to figure out what it all means, after all. By this stage, just a few months into a term he may, or may not, be allowed to finish, Trump appears to have largely given up trying to do anything at all, and is mostly just babbling. Almost all his executive orders have proven so totally impractical and illegal, that they have been completely rejected by the courts, and his Republican Congress may be unable to pass any legislation at all, it is so totally confused, and out to lunch. Likely, taxes will go up massively in the US this year, precisely the opposite of what most Trump voters were hoping for. If Trump is sent to prison -- as seems quite possible -- what will we have learned from him?

Nazi militarist Donald Trump attacks Mexican President for not allowing American troops to invade her country

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-blasts-mexicos-sheinbaum-rejecting-003341709.html

What if Louisiana governor and Federal Senator Huey Long hadn't been assassinated in 1935?

Huey Long was a somewhat unique character in American history. A socialist populist with broad appeal, but, also, a man with violent and dictatorial tendencies. He died young, shot to death by a political opponent at the age of just 42 years. What would have happened if he had survived? Huey Long was seriously running for President in 1935, as a both governor of Luisiana, and federal senator from Luisiana, a unique combination, and qualification. He was systematically attacking Franklin Delano Roosevelt's New Deal as not being hard enough on the rich, and good enough for the poor. He was acquiring broad support, because, by 1936, it was looking like the New Deal wasn't working very well, at all. But, Huey Long did not let anyone stand in his way. He was indifferent to the Constitution, or to the Legislature. If they opposed him, he threatened them, bribed them, or used his own legal machine to crush them. He did help the poor, and the poor people loved him. But, the rich hated him, and the middle class was ambivalent about him. He may have had the potential to be a dictator. Or, he might have been an enlightened, if somewhat ruthless politician, who would have helped the United States. Would Huey Long have defeated FDR in 1936? What would the United States have been like, if Huey Long had become President in 1936?

What if Senator Joseph McCarthy of Wisconsin had become President of the United States?

Red baiting, hate mongering demagogue Joseph McCarthy was remarkably popular for a time, in the US. He played into the fear of the US population of the Soviet Union, Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong, and the fear of communism, and a thermonuclear world war in which the entire world would be destroyed, forever. As a brilliant, ruthless and amoral social manipulator, McCarthy showed an ability to manipulate the fear and xenophobia of the American people to acquire political power, to the point that even President Dwight D. Eisenhower himself was probably somewhat frightened of him, for a time, anyway. He attacked anyone and everyone as communists, or potential communists, or fellow travelers, and, for a time, this strategy proved highly effective in persuading the American people to support him. They were that angry, and, they were that frightened. Paranoia is a very powerful motivator. Eventually, particularly in attacking the military, McCarthy overplayed his hand politically, he was publicly censured, and died a few years later, of hepatitis. So, suppose, somehow, McCarthy himself had managed to become President of the United States? How would that have worked out? What would he have done, exactly? I could see attempts at using his paranoid attacks to acquire dictatorial power. To terrorize the judiciary, and the population as a whole, as was the case anyway, to some degree, during this "red scare". I could see deportations of suspected communists to prisons in fascist strongholds like Franco's Spain, with whom McCarthy, no doubt, would have established very close diplomatic relations, and be on the best of terms. Fascist Francisco Franco would, no doubt, have been a regular and honored guest at the President McCarthy White House. There would be regular threats of war, economic battles with nations who traded with the USSR, economic instability and turmoil because of these. A climate of extremism and fear would be created. At some point, the opposing Party would take over Congress, and they would impeach and remove him from office. Any thoughts?

What if there had been no Berlin Airlift in 1948?

In 1948, Josef Stalin decided he'd had enough of the power sharing arrangement in Berlin, and that he'd use his control of surrounding Eastern Germany to assert direct Soviet control over the former German capitol. This would make it much more difficult for the allies to influence and potentially destabilize East Germany from Berlin itself, and would give the Soviet Union a much better base for potential further advances into Western Europe. So, all Western aid and support into Western Berlin was shut down, the highways and railways closed, using Soviet military might, and electric power and gas were shut off. Two million West Berliners were at risk for starvation, in the dark. US President Harry Truman -- who is still worshipped as a God in Germany for this, actually -- decided he'd use Western air power to supply the Berliners, and demonstrate the air power of the Western allies, at the same time. He mounted an unprecedented show of air power, supplying comfortably all the inhabitants of West Berlin exclusively from the air, with Western air power. And, in so doing, he saved the inhabitants of Berlin from submission to Stalin and the USSR. What if old Harry Truman hadn't done this? Clearly, West Berlin would have fallen, and all Berlin would have been securely in the Soviet block. This would have made all of East Germany much more secure from Western influence -- no need for a Berlin Wall, at all. And, as such, the USSR would have been on a much firmer footing in Western Europe, as a whole. Remember, it was the fall of the Berlin Wall that led to the collapse of the USSR. No need for a Berlin Wall, how much longer does the USSR last, and how much farther does the USSR get, to total world domination?

What if Benjamin Franklin hadn't been interested in electricity?

While Benjamin Franklin is most credited for being one of the founding fathers of the United States, he was, also, a very brilliant amateur scientist, perhaps one of the greatest of all time. It was Benjamin Franklin who finally proved that lightning -- which had been thought to be a manifestation of God, and divine will, for the most part -- was actually directly related to the electromagnetic phenomena that had already been studied by scientists for many centuries. It was Benjamin Franklin who invented the lightning rod, the first important, practical electrical invention. And, Benjamin Franklin developed the concept of electrical charges, related to the flow of electricity. So, what if old Ben Franklin had never been interested in electricity, at all? How would this have affected the progress of science, and technology, in general?

What happened to Saidit.net?

Saidit.net, although right wing in tone, used to be a very nice site. You could post anything you wanted, of any political stripe. You'd get extremely active and uncensored debate. And, since nothing could be voted down, you didn't have to be extremely popular all the time, as you do on reddit, if you wanted to stay on a site. Since Trump was elected, however, the more popular sites are heavily pre-edited, and if you post anything even vaguely critical of Donald Trump, on any site, you are accused of "trolling", banned from the site, and, the owners are so paranoid they'll actually block any public location you might be posting from, even large ones, indefinitely, lest you might slip through and create another account! Actually, it's kind of fun to force Saidit.net to actually block entire large metro-library systems indefinitely, for fear of having any vaguely anti-Trump posts located anywhere on the site. They'll open them up perhaps twice a week or so, and, then, if you post anything they don't like, they'll block the entire public site again for a while. Try it, you might find it interesting, and fun.

Trump's ICE Gestapo tactics have soured Americans on his immigration policies, now

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-isn-t-even-popular-182237879.html

What would have happened if the Portuguese had allied with Napoleon?

hat might have changed things quite a bit. It was the conflict between Napoleon and Portugal that ultimately led to the Peninsular War, and, these difficulties were motivating factors in Napoleon’s invasion of Russia, which led to his ultimate downfall. If Portugal had allied with Napoleon, Napoleon would likely have had a much fuller control over Europe, in a much more readily controllable form.

Donald Trump is forcing America's young people to kill their own parents, to defend against his fascist dictatorship. Well done, Mr. Trump!

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62g8d47z86o

What did the Queen of France, Joan of Arc, accomplish during her short reign according to French historians?

What did the Queen of France, Joan of Arc, accomplish during her short reign according to French historians? Joan of Arc was never Queen of France, or remotely close to it. She was a peasant girl who saw visions — she may have been schizophrenic — and insisted on joining and leading French armies trying to defend the nation against the English invaders. She was a kind of mascot who inspired the French — who probably would have eventually driven the English off anyway, since they had a much greater population than England had — but whose actual historical significance, is, actually, open to question.

A brief study of allusions: Gaslighting : The Good Samaritan : "I guess we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto" : "Round up the usual suspects"

I've been becoming progressively more uncomfortable with the extremely common use of the term "Gaslighting" -- from the superb 1944 film marking 17 year old Angela Lansbury's film debut -- for propaganda and disinformation. This wonderful psychological thriller is about a situation where a woman is slowly driven insane by distractions and disinformation. Now, I suppose it's hardly surprising that this analogy would be used for Donald Trump's behavior a lot, but, still, the parallel to the film is quite a stretch, and jars. Propaganda and disinformation are just that, they aren't, quite literally the film "Gaslight". And, the analogy is so fragile that it can be abused, quite easily, so that the use of the term "gaslighting", itself becomes gaslighting! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaslight_(1944_film) I have similar problems with the use of the wonderful New Testament story of the Good Samaritan, which is now applied to anyone who we feel has done a good deed, for any reason whatsoever. The Good Samaritan, in the New Testament, is about a kind of person considered an enemy alien, at the time, for local Jews -- the Samaritans -- who helps a man in need of assistance out of the kindness of his heart. The man had been beaten and robbed, and left for dead by the side of the road. Many devout Jews ignored him and just walked past, but, the reviled Samaritan gave him food and medical assistance to make him well. Now, these days, in the US, this term is used for people who shoot a robber dead! I'm quite certain, this was NOT what Jesus had in mind! Jesus was rather big on people doing no harm, you know, to anyone, even robbers. So, the situation is used to advance political agendas that have nothing whatsoever to do with Christianity. On the other hand, I rather like the phrase "I guess we're not in Kansas anymore, Toto", from the Wizard of Oz, and use it myself. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Wizard_of_Oz This term can be used to apply to any situation in which things have changed so completely, that they are unrecognizable, and our normal expectations of reality no longer apply. The tornado has taken Dorothy and her dog Toto to another universe, the Land of Oz, where the rules she has learned to live by no longer exist. It seems to describe a lot of situations rather well. Another allusion I use, and I think works quite well, is "round up the usual suspects", from the very end of "Casablanca", one of Humphrey Bogart's most beloved starring roles. Rick has just shot dead the Nazi officer who was about to arrest him. His new friend, the French Commandant of Casablanca, rather than turning Rick in, decides to shield him, and orders his men to "round up the usual suspects". So, whenever someone deflects the blame from himself, or a friend, we can use this phrase. This leads to another rather nice common allusion, almost immediately afterwords, when Rick says "Louis, I think this is going to be the beginning of a beautiful friendship". I like that one too! Whenever we help each other, friendship blossoms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casablanca_(film) I think the reason I like the latter two, is because they are actual phrases, that can be used in related circumstances that do not confuse the issues. In contrast, Gaslighting and The Good Samaritan refer to complex, rather special stories, that can easily be, and are, grossly overgeneralized to situations that have little to do with the actual details of the originals. Thus, they can be used as propaganda, rather more easily, than very specific phrases, which either apply, or do not.