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.

Nayib Bukele's fascist dictatorship in El Salvador

The key point to understand about Bukele's dictatorship in El Salvador -- and Bukele himself brags that he is a dicator, by the way -- is that he has maintained a state of emergency in the country for years now, in which no one is entitled to due process by law. No legal defense, no court proceeding, you are in jail indefinitely, if Bukele says so. In other words, Bukele is the law in El Salvador. He has also rounded up 2% of the country and warehoused them in concentration camps which he now wants Donald Trump's neo-Nazi regime to help him finance, and Mr. Trump is playing along quite happily, too! Bukele has bulldozed the country's Constitution so he can stay President indefinitely -- no wonder Donald Trump loves this guy! -- and replaced the entire Supreme Court of the country and its prosecutors with close personal allies, completely under his control. Sound at all familiar? Of course it does. Nayib Bukele is Donald Trump's role model. Now, like rather a lot of fascist dictators historically, Bukele is, actually, very popular with his people. Mussolini, Franco and Hitler were all very popular, as well. After all, it's best to get along with a leader who can put you in prison forever, anytime he feels like it, isn't it? So, you might as well get along with him naturally, so, you're, inevitably, rather better off liking him very much, aren't you? So, you love the guy! And, they do! Now, the problem Donald Trump has in mimicking Bukele's regime, is the sheer size of the United States, and its diversity. It simply would be rather difficult to get all the states to play ball, let alone all the people in them. While a few million people can be controlled pretty well with a large military, hundreds of millions cannot be. So, Donald Trump's fond dream of being America's Nayib Bukele may be just that -- a pipe dream. Let's all hope so!

Elon Musk makes a fetish of being a thoroughly worthless and destructive human being. Is this going to catch up with him shortly?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/wisconsins-attorney-general-asks-state-124712892.html

Doesn't Leo Tolstoy's rip-off of Gustave Flaubert's Madame Bovary illustrate what the entire writing profession is really about?

Why the courts are skinning and stuffing Donald Trump and Company

Donald Trump isn't that bad a guy. He's creative and hard working, and he has interesting ideas. On the other hand, he's also very aggressive, selfish, self-involved and dishonest. He's also probably got a touch of dementia these days, although he retains his deeply inbred gift for the gab. So, why are the courts skinning and stuffing Donald Trump and everyone associated with him these days? And, they are! Look at this recent appeals court decision to uphold Judge James Boasberg's blocking of the illegal application of the Alien Enemies Act in time of peace. The Bush appointee didn't even ask a question during the proceeding. Just "thumbs down" to Trump. The Obama appointee characterized it as Nazi stuff. And the Trump appointee --"Well, you know, I must dissent, because these Tren Agua guys are really bad, ,but, of course, I'm still upholding Judge Boasberg's decision to block Trump's order, because, obviously, the plaintiffs will win their court cases against Trump in court." In other words, the best Trump can hope for, now, even from his friends, is doubletalk. You see, Trump really does want to turn himself into Mussolini or Hitler these days, he just doesn't have the capacity to do it. When Trump says the system is broken, he's right. But, the system is always broken, you know. The idea is, don't make it a lot worse!

Trump's attacks on Canada have made a Liberal Party majority government likely this year

https://338canada.com/

For the moment, Judge Boasberg seems to have scared some sense into Trump's Nazi border Czar, Tom Homan

https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-border-czar-says-wont-153229731.html

Can Tesla continue to operate as a business, given the righteous anger being directed worldwide against its CEO, that incarnation of all evil, Elon Musk?

https://abcnews.go.com/US/tesla-vehicles-vandalized-us-musk-began-white-house/story?id=119910817

For the first time in American history, a federal judge has blocked a Presidential Executive Order before it's even been signed

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/03/15/judge-blocks-trump-alien-enemies-act/82408225007/

Donald Trump's real role model is communist witch hunts prosecutor Roy Cohn

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Cohn If you really want to know where Donald Trump is coming from, take a look at one of the slimier characters in US history -- legal "fixer" Roy Cohn. Cohn is best known as Joseph McCarthy's prosecutor during the communist witch hunts of the 1950's, and he also played a key role in getting the Rosenbergs executed for "spying", at about the same time. Cohn helped to get Ronald Reagan elected by advancing the career of John Anderson, to split the vote with Jimmy Carter. And, in particular, Cohn helped Donald Trump to get out of trouble with the government for violating the fair housing act in his construction projects in the 1980's. Trump liked Cohn's style. The best defense, is a good offense. If the government sues you, sue the government. As Adolph Hitler said "attack, attack, attack". Never say die. Never give up hope. Keep on fighting, always do as much damage as you can. It won't make you popular, but, it might help you survive. Eventually, as he was dying of AIDS from his homosexual tendencies, Cohn's enemies proved too much for him, and, they were able to get him disbarred. Will Donald Trump share a similar fate, dying slowly while his enemies gather around to tear him to pieces? We shall all see, won't we?

Three Doctor Zhivagos

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Zhivago_(novel) Boris Pasternak's book, Doctor Zhivago, is an attempt by the the poet to analyze and summarize in the form of a long novel his own life experience, and the Soviet experience in general. It's certainly a very critical work, but, it is not an entirely negative presentation of even the worst periods of the Soviet Union. It was much too negative to be published in the Soviet Union, of course, and Pasternak was forced to turn down his Nobel Prize, and was subject to a certain amount of persecution because of it. It accurately presents the Soviet system as a response to the corruption and brutality of the Tsarist regime, but also details the even greater brutality of the early Soviet regime. Zhivago suffers terribly because of all this, and dies young, because it has all worn him out completely. However, his illegitimate daugther by the young woman he loved lives on. As does his poetry, which acquires a certain renown. The implication is, that, although there is much that is negative in the Soviet Union, the jury is still out on it, and there is still hope that it may improve, and turn into something truly beautiful. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctor_Zhivago_(film) David Lean's 1965 film of Doctor Zhivago, starring Omar Sharif and Julie Christie, is a rather successful attempt by the director to turn this book into a highly accessible romantic melodrama. It is, also, remarkably apolitical. There's really no critical evaluation of the Soviet Union, at all. The Tsarist regime is presented very negatively as being brutal and corrupt, the Soviet Union is presented as being an inevitable transformation into something new, that has potential, but, is still crude and unformed. I suppose that given when the film was made, in the 1960's, this isn't terribly surprising. Leonid Brezhnev's USSR was not nearly as brutal or repressive as the Stalinist regime had been, and, although not particularly prosperous, it wasn't desperately poor either. Things seemed to be getting somewhat better, in the USSR, for a while, anyway. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lcTn8gcsK28 In 2006, the Russian Federation produced an eight hour miniseries based on Dr. Zhivago. It is significant, and of interest in a number of ways. In particular, as is usual in contemporary Russia, the Tsarist regime of Nicholas II is presented very positively indeed, there is no indication of any brutality, or corruption, at all, really. When Tsarist troops attack Russians, it is always, and only, in pure self-defense! This is historically false, of course, but, bear in mind, Vladimir Putin's Russian Orthodox Church has actually made Nicholas II a Saint and Martyr of the Russian Orthodox Church. Everyone in Tsarist Russia is presented as happy and prosperous. It is only with WWI, and then the Russian Revolution, and Russian Civil War, that everything falls apart. The fact that WWI was largely a distraction arranged by Nicholas II to prevent his regime from being toppled by strikes goes, of course, unnoted. Zhivago is presented as a good man, destroyed by the Revolution, his life rendered utterly meaningless, and empty, by communism, and he disappears, without a trace. Among other things, this film indicates that rather bizarre view many Russians now have that Nicholas II represented the ideal ruler, and Imperial Russia the ideal Russian government. Something to be borne in mind, in dealing with the Russians!

The correct historical analogy to Elon Musk -- Elon's a cross between Henry Ford and William Randolph Hearst

Elon Musk is becoming a progressively more significant figure internationally, so, I thought it might be helpful to find historical personages he resembles, in order to understand and predict his influence a bit better. I think the best I can come up with, is that Elon's a cross between Henry Ford and William Randolph Hearst. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Ford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Randolph_Hearst Both were creative and inventive in their own ways, but, above all, both were excellent businessmen. And, also, both became heavily involved in politics in the course of their careers, often with very mixed results, and frequently, in ways that made them unpopular. Also, both arguably had fascist leanings, particularly as they grew older. Henry Ford was both a businessman and an inventor, although probably more of a businessman than an inventor. He certainly didn't invent the automobile, but, he did refine it somewhat, and, in particular, he made it very highly marketable. Ford was, in particular, critical in the development of automated mass production. To such an extent actually, that he was rather viciously satirized by Aldous Huxley as the basis for the entire religious and social structure of his anti-Utopia, "Brave New World", as "Our Ford", in which all the citizens wear the sign of the "T", for Ford's Model T automobile, and technology in general. Ford also leaned progressively more fascist in his later years, supporting Mussolini and Hitler, and strongly opposing all unionization of his factories. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_New_World William Randolph Hearst was a newspaper magnate, son of a rich mining entrepreneur, who grew up in great wealth, and decided to use his money to influence and control public opinion through the newspaper industry. His politics were liberal and progressive at first, and he was critical in advancing the career of Republican Progressive, Theodore Roosevelt. As he grew older, however, his politics moved progressively farther to the right, and by the time of the Great Depression he was openly supporting Mussolini and Hitler, and advocating dictatorship in the United States. He was unsuccessful, of course, but his efforts to some extent marginalized his media empire. I think we can see Elon Musk as a fusion of Ford and Hearst, and can predict his behaviors and likely effects to some extent through the prisms of their respective careers in industry, the media, and politics.

In El Salvador, Bukele has imprisoned 2% of the total population, official homicides are being dramatically undercounted, and human and civil rights have ceased to exist.

https://foreignpolicy.com/2024/08/08/el-salvador-bukele-crime-homicide-prison-gangs/