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/

Were the writers of the Christian Gospels educated Jewish exiles from Judea seeking revenge against Rome?

Most historians tend to accept these days that there was someone, or possibly a group of people, something like the Biblical Jesus -- a great teacher, or teachers, who attracted a wide following in early 1st century Judea, and was subsequently crucified for disruptive behavior. And, that these events led to some upheaval rather shortly throughout the Roman Empire, an echo perhaps of earlier uprisings such as the Spartacus Slave Revolt of over a century earlier. The Romans actually found these Christian rebels rather puzzling, because it wasn't by any means clear what exactly they wanted, or why, only that they were most uncooperative and defiant of Roman authority, in general. Some decades following the death of Jesus we have the final Masada uprising against the Roman authority in Judea which leads, ultimately, to the complete absorption of Judea into the Roman Empire by sometime in the 2nd century AD. Perhaps half the entire population of Judea was exterminated, and many fled to exile throughout other parts of the Roman Empire. And, it's at this point, with the final Masada uprising, that Christianity begins to be formally codified in the form of the Christian Gospels, particularly the four Gospels of Mark, John, Luke and Matthew. The particularly interesting thing here, is that historians really haven't the slightest idea who these people were, what their actual names were, where they came from, or, even, exactly why they wrote what they wrote, or, for who. The Christian apostles, are, effectively, a total blank slate. They presume that the Gospels began with the Gospel of Mark, because the references to people, places and historical events in it correspond to the period of the Masada uprising against Rome. Actually, the earliest existing papyrus scroll with fragments of the Gospels included in it dates from the middle of the second century AD, more than a century after the death of the presumed Jesus Christ. Jesus becomes a progressively more divine and exalted figure throughout the Gospels over time, from Mark, through John, to Luke and Mathew, till, by some time in the second century AD, with Matthew, he is actually the Son of God and, God himself. It's almost as if the writers of the Christian Gospels were developing an extremely sophisticated public relations exercise over time, in an effort to convert as many people as possible, and hold them as firmly as possible, by trying out versions of the story that were most persuasive. Is it possible, that, that's exactly what they were doing? One thing almost all historians agree on, is that the writers of the Christian Gospels could not possibly have been disciples of Jesus. They were much too well educated, they were expert writers of Greek as a second language, and Greek was an international language of the highly educated, not something the peasants of Judea, who Jesus dealt with, would have had any familiarity with. So, in fact, there were no eye witness accounts of anything Jesus might have said, or done, at all. These accounts of Jesus sayings and miraculous doings may not be entirely fabricated. Perhaps there were stories of what Jesus said and did, which the actual writers of the Gospels heard, and perhaps, there may have actually been some eyewitnesses of these sayings and doings, among them. Or, perhaps not. So, who were these writers of the Gospels, and, why did they write them? They weren't disciples of Jesus, they were too well educated, so, they didn't actually see or hear any of the things they wrote about themselves. What, exactly were they trying to do, and why? Well, let's suppose they were well off, highly educated upper class Jews from Judea, and they were angry about what Rome had done to their nation and people. And, suppose, they saw the potential in the Christian uprisings for a way to counterattack against Rome using these Christian rebels, and, possibly, to propagate elements of the Jewish religion simultaneously. So, they thought, "Well, we can't defeat their legions, obviously, how about some other weapons? How about we use the power of our own God, in words, in scripture? How about we forge a weapon in words, that the Romans cannot fight, that the Romans cannot defeat? How about a campaign of psychological warfare against the Roman legions that makes them the slaves of our God, rather than the other way around?" And, that's exactly what they did. The pen, is mightier than the sword.

The poet Homer was a court physician who simplified Greek polytheism to help understand reality

If you read the Iliad with attention, in Greek, it's perfectly obvious that its writer wasn't just a poet, he was a scholar of some considerable training and experience. The descriptions of battle injuries constitute much of the action in the Iliad, and, they are anatomically precise, and disconcertingly so. His presentation of the counsels and speeches of the great Greek and Trojan lords are compellingly real, and psychologically accurate, as you would expect from a court physician regularly in attendance at the feudal councils that constituted government in Homer's time, in ancient dark age Greece. Because, of course, that's what the poet Homer had originally been. He was a court physician, trusted with treating the ills of the Greek Lords, and in attendance as a great wise man at their counsels. When he went blind, later in life, he was still loved and respected, and they kept him on as their poet-philosopher. And, a great philosopher is exactly what Homer was. Like his physician successor, centuries later, the great Aristotle, Homer helped redefine the nature of our understanding of the universe, in Western Civilization. Aristotle developed the concepts of intense empirical observation, and theoretical summaries of these observations, to help predict the define further investigations of reality itself. Homer, the earlier incarnation of Aristotle, helped to simplify and reify our understanding of reality, by moving away from traditional polytheism, with its almost infinite number of Gods. Instead, and in its place, Homer postulated a concept of reality very closely associated with the feudal councils he was so familiar with. Reality was postulated as being composed of a small number of great Gods and Goddesses, who ruled by power and discussion, and whose powers were very great, but, somewhat limited by their competition with each other, and the nature of reality itself. So, people came to understand the universe in strictly anthropomorphic terms, in terms of a few great men and women making decisions, taking actions, controlling the forces of nature, and the behavior of human beings. As such, people came to think very analytically and critically about these things. Why would these human-like Gods choose to do one thing, rather than another. For what reason? When, and why, exactly? How could the Gods be understood, and their decisions be predicted, or influenced? What were the patterns that could be observed in these things? Necessarily, it was much easier to think analytically and try to understand a few Gods and Goddesses, than thousands of Gods of all types, throughout all the material world, all the animal kingdom, and all of society, as was the case in traditional polytheism. So, progress in thought and understanding was more likely with this basis for understanding. And, as well, and perhaps even more importantly, Homer was such a compelling and brilliant poet, because of his scholarly background, that the ancient Greeks specifically developed the first true alphabet specifically to transcribe and record Homer's poetic songs into written form, for accurate repetition. And, this alphabet made literacy easy and universal in ancient Greece, much simpler than earlier logograms, requiring the memorization of hundreds or thousands of symbols. With universal literacy, and Homer's brilliant simplification of polytheism, the Greeks had a terrific advantage in terms of understanding and communicating reality!

"Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!"

"Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!" I, like so many others have been stunned by the beauty of this Shakespeare quotation, from Romeo and Juliet, when Romeo first sets eyes on his beloved. What an incredible image, where did he get it from, why exactly is it so compelling? What original genius! However, just recently I have considered an alternative possibility. Many of you will have heard of the tragic incident of a homeless woman from New Jersey deliberately burned to death on the New York subway. https://apnews.com/article/new-york-subway-burning-woman-688e2ebd46f0eb8f5c9e3430cf2b4bd5 Leaving aside the possibility that this might, indeed, have been preferable to life in New Jersey, isn't it really quite amazing how perfectly accurately this Shakespeare quotation described this woman's situation at the time? It is absolutely technically accurate, in detail, and, would have been particularly compelling in the sixteenth century, when witch burnings and the burnings of heretics were very common indeed, and when torches and candles were the only source of light after dark. Now, just before Shakespeare's birth, bloody Queen Mary was, indeed, burning heretics, male and female, rather frequently throughout England, and, one could actually smell their burning flesh on a regular basis throughout the land. So, isn't it rather likely, that Shakespeare would have heard about this, and known people would have witnessed it? And, when these unfortunate women were set alight with torches at the stake, wouldn't the fat from their burning flesh have caused the torches to flame ever more brightly? So, what could possibly be more natural, than that people would have shouted "Oh, she doth teach the torches to burn bright!" So, actually, the reason this particular passage and image in Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet is so compelling, is precisely, because he didn't make it up, at all. It's real! Shakespeare's just thought he could use it, and, perhaps, sanitize it a bit, for popular consumption. Indeed, I'll bet people in the audience in the sixteenth century actually laughed at it, recognizing its origins, and the reference! Of course, historians don't like this kind of thing. Historians are very socially conformist individuals, and don't like anything that confirms just how nasty, malicious and destructive human beings really are. That's why historians don't like to admit that political assassinations are often very useful indeed. Absent Leon Czolgosz' assassination of President McKinley, Theodore Roosevelt might never have come to power, and necessary reforms and controls on robber baron capitalism might never have been put into place. Absent, Gavrilo Princip's assassination of Archduke Ferdinand of Austria, the Austro-Hungarian Empire might never have broken apart, and the nations making it up might never have gained their freedom, etc. So, next time you see a Shakespeare play, try to think what Shakespeare really had in mind, because, it's probably not at all what it seems, or what historians say!

Hitler ruled much of Russia for years. Do Russians perceive Hitler, historically, as a Russian Tsar?

I've always been surprised by how positively Adolf Hitler is portrayed in the Russian media, and always has been. After all, the Russians suffered some twenty million deaths, military and civilians as a result of Hitler's invasion of Russia, how could they possibly portray him in positive terms? But they do! Hitler is always portrayed as inspired, rational, brilliant and charming. A great guy! In contrast, the British and Americans always portray Hitler as a total lunatic, raving and screaming at everyone for no very obvious reason, at every opportunity, and they tend to refer exclusively to the most violent passages in his speeches -- which, of course, were pure theatrical acting on Hitler's part, to entertain the audience -- as if these represented Hitler's true, habitual personality. The Germans tend to have a rather more nuanced portrayal of Hitler. He is portrayed as brutal, and crude, but, also rather inspired, at least at times. So why would the Russians "like" Hitler? Does this make any sense at all? Well, first of all, the Russians, unlike the British and Americans, who ridicule their enemies, tend to treat their enemies with respect. The Russians tend to see this as the best strategy to deal with their numerous enemies on all sides, lest the Russian people become complacent about them. Your enemies are smart, your enemies are dangerous, deal with them accordingly, is the traditional Russian view. However, there may be more to this, in the case of Hitler. Napoleon, for example, does not tend to be portrayed as positively in Russia films and TV series as Hitler is. Napoleon is portrayed as being capable, but, also, rather arrogant, and unable to perceive his own limitations. A fairly accurate portrayal, of course, in terms of his 1812 invasion of Russia, and disastrous retreat from Moscow. So, why do Russians seem to actually "like" Hitler? Well, bear in mind, Hitler actually did conquer and rule much of Russia for years. He didn't just rush down the road to Moscow, and, then run away with his tail between his legs, having lost his entire army, like Napoleon did. Hitler genuinely was a Russian leader, at least rather briefly. And, when you consider some of the leaders Russia has had, Hitler really may not have been any crazier, more brutal, or more destructive than some of them, like Stalin, Ivan the Terrible, or even Peter the Great, by some accounts, anyway. So, to the Russians, was Hitler, effectively, just another Russian Tsar, who didn't last too long, or do a particularly good job? But, as an actual Russian leader, do the Russian people actually accept Hitler up to a point, and admire him up to a point? Is this a possibility, anyway?

The Trump mandate

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/polarized-america-41-americans-have-favorable-view-trump-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-12-17/

A brief summary of Hitler's life.

Hitler was spoiled by his mother, and beaten by his civil servant father. His father died when Hitler was in his early teens, and Hitler’s mother supported him until she died, a few years later. He was a mediocre student, probably more from lack of interest than lack of ability, but reasonably popular. With his mother’s death, Hitler was on his own. He became an indigent vagrant, eventually supporting himself modestly as a painter of street scenes, living in charity rooming houses. Eventually, with the coming of WWI he signed up, and, in his first infantry engagement, his entire battalion was wiped out, other than himself. This experience, combined with his ability to survive suicide missions as a messenger, gave him a sense of divine protection, and divine mission. Having survived WWI almost unscathed, and having received an Iron Cross first class for bravery, he was able to secure employment with the military authorities. He discovered a talent for public speaking. With the unsuccessful communist Spartacist uprising in 1919, his nascent antisemitism became inflamed, as a result of Jewish involvement in this plot. The authorities felt a need for a Hitler’s speaking ability in this uncertain period, and, he became more important. Eventually, he built up the Nazi Party, as a major political force. He tried to take over Bavaria in 1923, but, his attempt was crushed by the Weimar authorities. It wasn’t until the Great Depression that Germans were desperate enough to support the Nazis, and put them into power. Hitler made himself all powerful dictator, and showed some political brilliance in systematically building up the German economy, and taking over Austria, and Czechoslovakia. However, Britain and France had had enough, and when he invaded Poland, they declared war. During this period, Hitler was living the life of a very rich man, enjoying a life of luxury and power. When he invaded Russia, Hitler bit off more than he could chew, and his situation became progressively more desperate as the US joined the fight against him. Hitler aged rapidly trying to control the situation. He was injured badly by a failed assassination attempt less than a year before the end of the war. And, when he finally committed suicide at the end of the war, he was a broken man.

The Royal Canadian Mounted Police always get their men!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/alberta-rcmp-officer-charged-sexually-232423640.html

OMG! I can't find the Kursk Incursion anymore. What happened to it? How did I lose it?

Https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2024_Kursk_offensive#/media/File:August_2024_Kursk_Oblast_incursion.svg

Canada and Mexico needn't fear US tariffs. America is now a socialist parliamentary democracy!

This year, American voters made their decision. They, marginally anyway, decided to fill the office of the Presidency, the Executive Branch, with a serial rapist and a pedophile, who has earned his living by systematically committing tax fraud of the grossest and most extreme type, for many, many decades. Donald Trump isn't merely grossly unqualified to fill the office of the Presidency, Donald Trump is a very poor excuse for a human being. So, accordingly, in their flexible, adaptable way, Americans are coming to terms with this situation, and dealing with it in an appropriate fashion. When Donald Trump attempts to appoint pedophile drug addicts to his cabinet, so that he can have people he can really comfortably relate to around him at all times, they are politely told by Senators that they would best withdraw from contention, or face sufficient public scrutiny that they will never get out of prison, alive. And, accordingly, they do, indeed, withdraw from contention. Isn't democracy wonderful? But, really, the implications go rather beyond this. While the motto of Trump supporters may be "Let's make America great for pedophiles again!", probably the majority of Americans do not entirely subscribe to this view. So, actually, what these Trump supporters really voted for, although they may not realize it, is to totally vacate the Executive Branch of office for the next few years, and leave all decision making up to Congress. Hence, what we have in Congress now, is a kind of joint Prime Ministership between the leader of the House of Representatives, and the leader of the Senate. As for the judiciary, the Supreme Court, and all other judges would be well advised not to trifle with the Congress, or they might find themselves impeached and locked up rather quickly. America is now a socialist parliamentary democracy! Why "socialist" you ask? Well, think about it. Sure, these members of Congress are all rich capitalists, that's true, but, they are also members of the government, and they like their jobs. Fact is, there's no such thing as a capitalist committee. The very concept of a "capitalist committee" is oxymoronic. Capitalism is individualism, it is money making as an end in itself, as the ultimate good, pursued by wildmen, by cowboys who will do anything whatsoever to make a buck. People like Elon Musk, for example. So, what exactly does government by committee have to do with capitalism? Nothing whatsoever! Zip-all, nada, zilch! Sure, you could have a President who was a capitalist, and that would influence the structure and behavior of the US government, but, you cannot possibly have a capitalist, all-powerful Congress. That is a psychological, political and sociological impossibility. Even most of the Republicans in Congress will act like socialists under these circumstances, they won't have any choice in the matter, they will be forced to think in terms of political control, long term social outcomes, revenue streams to achieve these goals. They simply won't have the time or opportunity for capitalist greed, corruption or initiative. We can see this already, as even the Republicans are saying among themselves now, that the Trump tax cuts from his last presidency will not be renewed for ten years. Maybe for four years, we can't afford to lose so much tax revenue. Once the Democrats get into the mix, they won't be renewed at all, and, instead, we'll have tax increases, including corporate tax increases. So, what about these proposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada, that Trump says he will enact, on day one. Well, the problem here, is that Congress is given full control of all Commerce, including international Commerce, by the US Constitution. Now, that said, the President is supposed to have some expertise in national security, so, at times in the past, Congress has temporarily delegated some authority to Presidents to regulate some aspects of tariff decisions from the White House. However, Donald Trump has no expertise whatsoever in national security, so, really this doesn't apply in his case. In any case, the only law currently in place that authorizes the President to have any say in tariffs is one from 1974, which gives the President the right to authorize a 150 day 15% tariff on a specific country, if the President can prove national security issues are in play. Which, he certainly can't with Canada or Mexico. So, there will be no tariffs, at all. Fact is, we're not going to be deporting tens of millions of immigrants either, or federalizing state national guards just because Trump says so. He can only do that in the case of mass rioting, otherwise no. Fact is, Trump is just living in his rubber room in the Oval Office from now on, while the socialist congress runs the country, including foreign policy and the military. Know any soldier or NATO leader who would trust Donald Trump? I sure don't!