"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!

https://www.quora.com/profile/Myname-271/https-www-quora-com-Isnt-it-kind-of-obvious-that-all-existence-is-governed-by-infinitely-complex-interactions-of-energ Isn't it kind of obvious, that all existence is governed by infinitely complex interactions of energy systems that we don't understand, and that all science, mathematics, philosophy and religion are, basically, just total nonsense? https://www.quora.com/Isnt-it-kind-of-obvious-that-all-existence-is-governed-by-infinitely-complex-interactions-of-energy-systems-that-we-dont-understand-and-that-all-science-mathematics-philosophy-and-religion-are-basically-just-total https://www.quora.com/profile/Colin-Mathers https://www.quora.com/profile/Colin-Mathers PhD in Physics & Mathematics, University of SydneyJust now And yet you can post stupid questions on the internet using a computer which is designed and built using all that nonsense. Seems like its a you problem. Not everyone has a brain capable of understanding modern science and mathematics. There is nothing wrong with that, but you should at least be able to understand that the things you use to communicate with others through smartphones and computers were designed and built by people who do understand modern science and mathematics. My Comment: And, yet, you can post stupid answers on a system of questionable value, the internet, which was developed by businessmen, amateurs and the military. Oh, and there were a few silly technicians, people who wasted their time on science and mathematics, who were occasionally employed by them. Not everyone is so stupid as to waste their time on meaningless science and mathematics. There is nothing wrong with that, but, you should at least be able to understand that the things that we communicate with others through smartphones and computers, which are really no better than pencil and paper anyway, are claimed by arrogant , incompetent, and dishonest mathematicians and scientists to have been exclusively developed by them, when they actually were only peripheral players, anyway. 1 view

From a song by Franz Shubert

Gently flow my distant song, Through the nightfall's tender throng, Down through this sweet encumbrance, To my darling, my sweet romance. Tender treetops whispering softly, In the moonlight's chilly stream, So, my darling, fearful traitor hostily, Shall ne'er be seen. You hear the nightingale calling? My, how flees you, she! By my tones enthralling,  Sweetheart, flee to me! You understand my bosom's visions, You know the pains of love, Sweeten with silver tones My heart like a dove. Let your breast be set in motion, Hear me, sweetheart dear! Trembling I await thy vision! Come, reward my devotion!

Why we are ruled by pathological liars

Why we are ruled by pathological liars Deception is a very powerful technique for social manipulation. So, all professionals — doctors, lawyers, politicians, engineers, scientists, mathematicians, and, of course, businessmen — tend to be pathological liars. They have to be, to control people. In a sense, you could see all professional activity as being the direct lineal descendant of the priest/witch doctor who ruled tribal society. And, he was above all, a brilliant social manipulator. He probably was right sometimes. However, most of the time, he was wrong. But, he couldn’t ever admit that now, could he? Because then, nobody would trust or believe him now, would they? So, his greatest and most powerful skill, was lying systematically about everything, and anything, to try to convince people that only he truly understood reality, and could make everyone safe, and comfortable. These days, of course, we say that the priests of the past were pathological liars, but, now, we have the marvelous “scientific method” that guarantees progress and truth. This is total nonsense, of course. Christians thought the Bible guaranteed progress and truth, as do the religious leaders of all the world’s other religions, regarding their own sacred religious texts. Communists did, and do, think the works of Karl Marx guarantee progress and truth. Russians think a strong Russian leader guarantees progress and truth. Americans think the US Constitution guarantees progress and truth. Englishmen think their King guarantees progress and truth. The Japanese think their emperor guarantees progress and truth. etc. etc. etc. And, all of this, is complete and total nonsense. Actually, progress and truth are extremely rare indeed. You may never experience them at all, in your lifetime. There is trial and error, there is luck, and, unfortunately, that’s about it. All the bureaucracies and educational institutions guaranteeing progress and truth are lying their bloody heads off!

Our new commander-in-chief is a senile serial felon in diapers : Republicans cannot pass legislation with just a 221-214 majority in the House. There is no American government!

Many Republicans, particularly senile salesman Donald Trump, are claiming there is now a "mandate" for change. They are claiming that they will pass huge tax cuts, they are claiming that they will deport tens of millions of undocumented immigrants, they are claiming that they will "clean up the swamp" of the Federal government, they are claiming they will bring peace to the world through strength, they are claiming that they will grow the American economy, create jobs, and Americans will all be more prosperous. None of this can possibly happen, of course. The first thing to bear in mind, is that Donald Trump is a senile serial felon in diapers, the military cannot possibly trust him with state secrets, and, they won't. Trump will be systematically ignored by all military commanders, including, and perhaps especially, those he actually appoints, himself. Trump simply hasn't much of a knack for maintaining relationships, you see. And, the military knows, that with their lives on the line, they simply cannot trust a senile, cowardly, bully and loser like Donald Trump! So, effectively, Trump's impact on foreign policy will be minimal, other than the fact that the US will not be supporting Ukraine during his administration. That's OK, the EU has plenty of resources, and, they can certainly take up the slack. No problem! The Russo-Ukraine war will continue, as before, more or less, anyway. The conflicts in the Middle East between Israel and Hamas, and Israel and Iran, will continue more or less as before, effectively unchanged. Not surprisingly, given what a useless loser managed to win the US election by 4%, the voters didn't give him any congressional mandate, at all. Despite there being twice as many Democrats up for reelection, the Republicans managed only 4 pickups, giving them a rather modest 53-47 majority in the Senate. It takes 60 seats to break a filibuster, effectively meaning the Republicans in the Senate are rather limited in terms of what they can do. As for the House, with just a 221-214 majority, they can't do anything at all without Democratic assistance. Bear in mind, House members all have to go to the voters every two years, so, effectively, the leadership has no control over them at all, they're too beholden to the voters, and have to be campaigning, all the time. There's no possibility of every single Republican wanting to further increase the deficit with further tax cuts, let alone corporate tax cuts. So, further tax cuts are off the table. The Republican leadership will blame the Democrats, of course, but, further tax cuts will be off the table, and, that's fine with most of the Republicans. Even the renewal of the tax cuts from the first Trump Presidency are unlikely to be renewed, the deficit is just too big already. We need tax increases, and, we will get tax increases. Of course, the Republicans will blame the Democrats for that, but, who really cares? Since Republicans are rather a big part of the "swamp" of the federal government, they are very unlikely to cooperate at all with "cleaning it up". Trump is too senile to do much more than drool these days, so, don't expect him to be able to do much with the "bully pulpit", he'll simply be ignored, most of the time anyway. No significant changes are to be expected from the Republicans in the next few years with regard to the structure of the federal government. And, of course, there is the much touted deportation of tens of millions of undocumented immigrants, most of whom are gainfully employed as cheap labor throughout the American economy. Racist conservative Americans hate these people because, of course, they have to hate someone. Anyone! However, there has never been the slightest possibility that any US Congress, of any composition, would or could ever pay for the trillions of dollars required to do this, let alone risk the implied consequences of all out civil war involved. So, mass deportations are dead on arrival. Ain't a gonna happen! As for the US economy, who knows? It will have its ups and downs, as it always does. Americans have happily elected a non-government, with no mandate to do anything whatsoever. So be it! Most Americans are anarchists, anyway, aren't they?

Elon Musk has become a born again Christian! Isn't that comforting?

https://www.yahoo.com/news/once-atheist-hero-elon-musk-155640603.html

This is the way to deal with billionaires!

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russian-court-reportedly-fines-google-160502356.html

Interesting book

https://www.amazon.com/Universal-Purpose-Lifes-Evolution-through-ebook/dp/B0DGC41T7H/ref=sr_1_1?s=digital-text&sr=1-1

Some Definitions

Some Definitions Scientist: A scientist is someone who pretends that they have developed ideas and concepts of great intellectual, cultural, and practical significance, that will dramatically improve the way we live, and will change everything in a very positive way and will solve all the world’s problems. In fact, scientists never do anything at all, other than say how great they are. Engineer: An engineer is someone who claims they have developed, and are developing technologies of immense value to humanity, that will achieve great things, solve the world’s problems, and make the world a much better and more interesting place to live in, and will vastly increase humanity’s potential, and will empower everyone enormously. In fact, all engineers ever do is blow things up, and say what a great job they did. Doctor: A doctor is someone who claims to be great healer, who saves peoples’ lives, who cures them of terrible diseases and makes them whole again, someone who eases pain and suffering, and is an angel of mercy to all mankind. In fact, doctors just charge people a ton of money to kill them slowly and painfully.

Is it possible to fight a war and not be a war criminal? How about Erwin Rommel?

Erwin Rommel, The Desert Fox, is a popular and enigmatic figure in military history. Having been forced to commit suicide by the Nazis -- he was given the alternative of suicide, or a public trial for treason, with the consequent destitution of his entire family -- has become something of a martyr and legend for people on all sides of WWII. He almost certainly knew about, and approved the Von Stauffenberg bombing plot to kill Hitler, in 1944, but, he wasn't involved in the planning to any extent. This was enough for Hitler to want him dead, so, the Nazis arranged it. Rommel was somewhat unique, in that he was respected by all sides, even at the height of the conflict, as an honorable and brilliant commander and general. He had no significant involvement in slave labor programs, extermination campaigns, the murder of civilians, or any other activities normally associated with war crimes. He was a brilliant and successful Nazi general, who was frequently used by Hitler for popular political purposes and propaganda, because of his effectiveness, his charisma, and his courage. So, let's just suppose that Rommel survived the war. Perhaps Hitler decides he needs Rommel too much to kill him. After all, Albert Speer is supposed to have known about the plot, and the plotters were even planning on keeping him in his position of Minister of Armaments and Munitions, if their plot had succeeded! Nevertheless, Hitler never touched Speer. He probably found him too useful. Perhaps, he might have changed his mind, and decided to spare Rommel as well, for the same reason. Or, quite possibly, if Rommel had refused the option of suicide, Hitler might have decided a public trial and humiliation of such a popular figure simply wasn't worth the political fallout, and might have backed off, at the end. Hitler was always very, very sensitive to German popular opinion, which is why he had such a hold over the German people. So, once they win the war, what exactly do the allies decide to do with Rommel? Will he be charged as a war criminal? On what basis, exactly? After all, Werner Von Braun and his merry band of engineer-rocketeers was certainly involved much more in killing civilians, slave labor programs, and war crimes in general, but, they were never touched at all! Von Braun wasn't merely a member of the Nazi Party, but a member of the infamous SS, responsible for the Jewish Holocaust. Why go after poor old Erwin Rommel? Rommel was never even a member of the Nazi Party, and openly disapproved of their policies! It might be instructive to compare the case of Admiral Donitz, the head of the German navy, and, hence of their highly successful U-boat campaign. Donitz would have employed slave labor in building his ships, and, his U-boats targeted civilian and military alike. Furthermore, his U-boat blockade of Britain was highly successful, and put the entire nation at risk of starvation. Yet, despite all this, he only got a ten year sentence at the Nuremberg war crimes trials. So, why would Rommel have been charged as a war criminal, at all? For what purpose? The Soviet Union, and Josef Stalin, who had suffered the most from the war, probably wouldn't have given a damn about Rommel one way or another. They never even fought him, he wasn't a Nazi, he was just a terrific general, and the Russians respect great generals, even amongst their enemies. I suspect even the Russians wouldn't have insisted on Rommel being charged for war crimes. So, I strongly suspect Rommel wouldn't have been charged with anything at all. He would simply have been an old, highly respected general, respected by friend and foe alike, and, would likely have gone into German politics, with some success. As his son eventually did, of course, OTL. Erwin Rommel represents something fairly unique, the "good general", the noble warrior. He reminds me a bit of WWI German air ace Baron Von Richthofen, who was shot down over enemy lines after having shot down 80 allied airmen in the course of the war. The allies buried him with high honors, and some even cried at his funeral!

Charles Hughes U.S. Chief Justice. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Evans_Hughes https://www.nationalbook.org/books/charles-evans-hughes/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merlo_J._Pusey

How much longer can Ukraine hold out? The British say, "Not much longer".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1fkK42nJjtQ Russia is advancing on all fronts, and pummeling Ukrainian infrastructure with a ferocity which will make it virtually impossible for Ukrainians to survive the coming long, hard winter. Russians, of course, love winter offensives, so, the rate of advance is only likely to increase in the coming winter. By this stage, of course, NATO has essentially given up on the notion that Ukraine can mount effective counteroffensives, as Russia quite systematically liquidates all Ukrainians in their supposed "invasion" of Russia in Kursk. There was never any rush about this, of course, it was always quite clear the Ukrainians there weren't going anywhere, except to the graveyard, of course. By this time, the only hope of a NATO/Ukrainian victory has been based on the "overwhelming" Russian casualties reported by Ukraine, which, supposedly, would make Russia quite literally run out of manpower within a year or two. That these casualty figures have been exaggerated by at least an order of magnitude is rarely discussed in the Western media. I'm old enough to remember the "body counts" from the Vietnam War, and, we all knew how much those were worth! Another possibility suggested is that the Russian economy is about to collapse. The problem here, is that the Russian economy is now growing faster than any other in the industrialized world. A third possibility for "victory" for NATO/Ukraine, is that democratically elected Vladimir Putin is actually a brutal dictator, so extremely unpopular in Russia that he will be overwhelmed by a popular revolt. However, the problem with this hypothesis is that Putin was just elected with 80% popular support, about double the best any NATO leader has currently, and his support is quite steady among Russians, despite some rather limited opposition to his highly effective rule. Finally, there's always the hope of a military coup against Putin. However, given the successes of his military on the battlefield, and the general prosperity of Russia currently, and Putin's high level of popularity, this possibility does seem rather more remote than coups in the NATO nations, doesn't it? So, is this NATO backed war in Ukraine about to mercifully end itself? The British seem to think so, and nobody hates the Russians like the British, do they?

Russia is continuing its steady progress to taking over all of Donbas

https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2024/10/9/russian-troops-grind-towards-pokrovsk-take-second-ukrainian-town-in-a-week While the Western media continues to generate its fantasy Russian casualty figures a la Vietnam era body-counts, Russia continues to take towns and territory on its way to conquering all of Donbas, its key objective when it invaded Ukraine. At the moment, it is systematically surrounding the large city of Pokrovsk, pre-war population 400,000, from all sides, by taking all the towns intervening, from the East. It's taken a couple just this week, with substantial territory, moving forwards every single day. Now, the West seems to accept that Ukraine can't actually take any of this territory back, it's too well fortified, and the Ukrainians simply haven't the manpower to do it, their military has been totally decimated. So, rather than talking about Ukrainian "counter-attacks" to retake territory, now the Western media is simply sticking to its script of claiming "overwhelming" casualties on the part of the Russians. Now, even the BBC has acknowledged, that its best efforts at research can only actually verify about 70,000 Russian dead in the entire war, about a tenth of the regular claims for Russian "losses". They comfort themselves by saying the "actual figure" is "believed to be higher". Well, maybe, but, probably not much higher. Now, that's just dead, of course, and, there are wounded as well, but, in most wars, the maimed and the dead turn up at about equal numbers, so, that really only means about 140,000 permanently out of action, or, about 1/10 of 1% of Russia's total population in three years of war, hardly an insurmountable figure from a practical point of view. When the Russians do take Pokrovsk -- which even the Ukrainians are acknowledging is inevitable by this stage -- that's pretty much it, for Donbas, Russia will effectively control it 100%. So, what happens then? True, the Russians have only taken about 20% of Ukraine so far, but, it's probably the best 20% of Ukraine! When they've finished taking Donbas, probably within a few months now, I suppose they could just keep going -- take Kharkiv, take Odessa, retake Kherson, eventually move on to Kiev. At what point will the West give up? Ever? Will the West want to keep fighting the Russians for decades, as they systematically colonize the rest of Ukraine? I doubt it actually. The war may be over next year, as Zelensky's support collapses. One can only hope so!

https://www.quora.com/Why-do-physicists-lie-all-the-time

Russia has remarkably quickly taken full control of the high ground, and the very important strategic fortress town of Vuhledar

https://www.yahoo.com/news/russia-secures-biggest-victory-since-164038972.html This is being described as the most important victory for Russia in six months of warfare. Although not a huge city, this town of some 15 thousand people was very heavily fortified, and is situated to control supply lines to much of what remains of Donbas, out of Russian control. Russia now controls more than 80% of Donbas, and, the way things are going, there doesn't seem to be much question that they will control all of it, by the end of the winter, if not earlier. Now, I know what many of you are thinking. "It was supposed to just be a 3-day operation, here it is, coming up on three years later, and they're still fighting. Doesn't this prove just how incompetent the Russians are, they can't even defeat the Ukrainians." Well, first of all, it's not just the Ukrainians. It's the Ukrainians plus limitless NATO assistance. The total amount of aid -- economic and military -- given to Ukraine so far from all NATO nations, is comparable to perhaps half the entire U.S. military budget, by far the largest in the world. Absent this aid, the war would certainly have been over, with a smashing Russian victory, within a month or two. Also, Ukraine is, actually, the second largest nation in Europe in terms of land area, after Russia, with a pre-war population of nearly 50 million people. So, between the massive NATO aid, and the size of the country, it's hardly surprising that Russia is having to work at this a bit. Now, many are claiming that Russia has proven that NATO is vastly superior to Russia in terms of military skill. After all, America defeated Iraq quite easily. Twice! Well, let's take a look at that. First of all, the population of Iraq in 1991 was 20 million people, in 2003, it was 27 million people. About half the population of Ukraine. And, about half the land area. Also, and perhaps more critically, Iraq was not getting 400 billion dollars in outside assistance, they were managing on their own. Finally, and perhaps most critically, America went in very big, from the start, they had nearly a million men in the initial assaults. In contrast, the Russians went in with just a couple of hundred thousand troops. They weren't expecting massive NATO assistance, and, that was the difference. If the Russians had went in with a million men, from the start, it would all have been over in days, probably, certainly weeks. What Russia is doing now, is colonizing Ukraine, one town at a time, and, it looks like Russia has achieved its primary objective, the reassimilation of Donbas into Russia. And, whoever wins the U.S. election, there's nothing whatsoever that can possibly be done to reverse that!

https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Why-does-China-do-ANYTHING-with-Japan-if-China-hates-them-so-much-Decouple-from-them-deport-Japanese-pull-the-plug-ANYTHING-China-needs-to-stop-acting-all-buddy-buddy-with-Japan-and-see-them-like-the-enemy-they-are

Epitaph on the grave of a beloved child -- Starship, R.I.P.

I will land Starships on Mars in two years, he said. I will land astronauts on Mars in four years, he said. I will build a great city on Mars in twenty years, he said. And, all the while, the FAA was grumbling, the FAA was mumbling and fuming. "Your Starship is, a liquid fuel powered Atomic Bomb! You want to land it on land! On our watch, it's our responsibility This is no mere technicality. It's a potential environmental catastrophe!" But, there were no ships large enough to catch the Starship on the seas. There was no engineering technique skillful enough, no systematic approximation technique bold enough, to tackle this particular problem. No hybrid approach that combined waterfall methodology with agile principles, No methodology to build a fully and rapidly reusable rocket. I will land Starships on Mars! I will land astronauts on Mars! I will build a great city on Mars! Starship, R.I.P.

The FAA is extremely reluctant to give Elon Musk approval to land Starship on land

Starship has been Elon Musk's baby for 12 years now, and, he's been launching various versions of it for six years or so. It's never worked worth a damn, and, it probably never will. In the last two years he's launched a "final version" of Starship four times, and, it's never had a fully successful mission, despite the astonishing cost of a billion dollars per launch for a rocket that cannot get beyond lower earth orbit. Nevertheless, however useless this pile of garbage is, it is, as they say, "Elon's money", so he can waste it as he sees fit. Problem is, a rocket this huge, when it explodes, has the effect of a tactical nuclear weapon on the immediate environment. And, now, for the fifth mission, Elon Musk wants to land his Starship on land! And, quite naturally, the FAA is seeing red over this. The cannot afford to overlook the possibility, or indeed, the probability, of a truly massive environmental catastrophe, and quite possibly many deaths, on their watch. Of course, SpaceX is crying foul over a delay of several months on the award of the license, and, of course, SpaceX is insisting that the FAA license will, inevitably be granted at the end of November. Actually, this is rather unlikely, unless SpaceX modifies the mission's stated objective, to make the landing on sea, instead of land. Some of the more reasonable supporters of SpaceX are accepting this, acknowledging that it must be proven that landings can be accomplished safely, consistently, outside of a land based areas which could suffer catastrophic damage if anything goes wrong. And, the problem with trying to land on the sea, is that the rocket is too large to be accommodated by any normal sea-borne vessel. So, exactly how SpaceX and Elon Musk can proceed is unclear at this point in time, and, precisely how they can proceed with the mission is very much up in the air. Fact is, the Starship seems to have taken over from Controlled Nuclear Fusion as the Garbage Technology you can make the most money investing in. It can't work, it won't work, it won't ever work, but, the mere fact that people are willing to bet their money on it working, means you can make money investing in it. Unfortunately, the entire world Stock Market works on this principle, garbage technologies that are effectively marketed so that engineers, scientists and businessmen can make their money lying for a living. And, this may explain why Russia and China, which largely exist outside of the entire Western disinformation machine, are able to wipe the floor with the West militarily, despite our on paper claims of massive economic and military technological superiority. Fact is, the West is running on disinformation, and very little else. Maybe that's why Elon Musk is so very successful!

Even the British are becoming more reasonable in their estimates of Russian casualties in the Russo-Ukraine War.

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cjr3255gpjgo Since the beginning of the Russo-Ukraine War, we've been hearing systematic disinformation about Russian casualties from the Western media, generally of the order of 1000 casualties a day or so. In fact, these casualty figures, inflated by an order of magnitude or more, are one of the main reasons Russia was presented as "losing" the war, despite systematic advances on the battlefield, that the Ukrainians seemed unable to stop, despite virtually limitless supplies of weapons and ammunition from NATO. The notion was that Russia couldn't possibly sustain these casualties, that the Russian people would revolt against their leaders, or, at the very least, Russia would simply run out of men to fight with. Now, possibly because the West is getting a bit tired of trying to prop up the Ukrainians in a conflict they cannot possibly win, at last the Western media is starting to acknowledge the inevitable fact that, actually, Vladimir Putin has been fairly careful to try to minimize Russian casualties, and, has done so! In fact, rather than 1000 casualties a day, the Russians are probably only experiencing about 100 casualties a day -- substantial, but quite easily sustainable by a nation of 150 million people, extremely patriotic, and making great progress in terms of reintegrating much or most of the nation of Ukraine back into Russia. Indeed, it is quite possible that the Ukrainians are experiencing, and have been experiencing rather higher casualties than the Russians have! Ukraine's rapidly failing Kursk incursion, where Russia is quite rapidly destroying the Ukrainian guerrillas there, and continued steady progress in conquering the whole of Donbas -- now 80% Russian controlled -- combined with fairly modest Russian casualties throughout this special military operation, make a major Russian victory in Ukraine almost inevitable, and this stage. And, even their mortal enemies the British, are now acknowledging that the Russian Bear is very healthy indeed, and doing just fine militarily. The West may have learned its lesson, and, this war may be coming to a close, with a resounding Russian victory, of course.

How did Napoleon travel to and from Russia safely after the burning of Moscow?

It’s actually an interesting question. Given virtually his entire army was totally destroyed, and he was the most sought man in Russia, how could he possibly have survived? Of course, he might not have, and the French simply put a double in his place. This is a real possibility. I believe he had his own transport, his personal carriage and horses, and very loyal guards. That might have done the trick. He simply fled, leaving his entire army to freeze to death. That might explain this paradox. https://www.quora.com/unanswered/How-did-Napoleon-travel-to-and-from-Russia-safely-after-the-burning-of-Moscow

Do you miss Fidel Castro?

Yes, I do. He was a cool guy, and did a lot of good for his country. He stood up to the U.S. , and people respected him for it. He survived an untold number of assassination attempts from the CIA, and he never lost his cool. It’s a shame he never made it as a professional baseball player, he would have been great! https://www.quora.com/Do-you-miss-Fidel-Castro

Einstein's acceptance of the "ether"

Einstein FIRST rejected it then in 1919 realized “space without ether is unthinkable” but, as his Leiden speech, it must be FLUID medium (no ‘absolute’ state but an ‘infinite hierarchy’. (‘52 paper & Appx V). He stated that many times from then on! i.e. “1924…“ we are not going to be able to dispense with the ether in theoretical physics”, also; “It would have been more correct if I had limited myself, in my earlier publications, to emphasizing only the nonexistence of an ether velocity, instead of arguing the total nonexistence of the ether, for I can see that with the word ether, we say nothing else than that space has to be viewed as a carrier of physical qualities.” (Einstein to H.A. Lorentz, November 15, 1919, in Kostro 1992) The ether of the general theory of relativity differs from that of classical me- chanics or from that of the special theory of relativity in so far as it is not ‘absolute’ but its spatial distribution is determined by that of matter... We shall not be able to dispense, in the field of theoretical physics, with the ether, i.e. a medium which possesses physical properties; indeed, the general theory of relativity... excludes any direct distant action. Every theory based on close ac- tion supposes the existence of continuous fields; thus they also presuppose the existence of an ‘ether’. (Einstein 1924, translated in Janossy 1962) From https://www.quora.com/profile/Peter-Jackson-545

Putin cracks the whip, America and Britain cower in terror!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/August_2024_Kursk_Oblast_incursion#/media/File:August_2024_Kursk_Oblast_incursion.svg https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/sep/14/ukraine-war-briefing-biden-starmer-stop-short-of-announcing-missile-strike-permission As the Russians continue to liquidate the remaining Ukrainian guerrillas in Kursk, and as they continue to take over the rest of Donbas, another rather significant incident has occurred, suggesting that Russia is well on the way to fully occupying all of Ukraine. Despite intense pressure and demands from President Zelensky, both America and Britain are balking at actually giving him permission for deep missile strikes into Russia. Now, given that Russia is advancing steadily on all fronts, it seems clear that, if Ukraine is to have any chance of defending itself, it needs all the freedom of operation and weapons it can get. Any restrictions will only make a bad situation worse for Ukraine. Indeed, arguably, all current levels of support do is provide the Ukrainians with enough weaponry to thoroughly exhaust themselves losing to Russia! Fact is, America and Britain are terrified of Russia, and probably not just their nuclear arsenal. They're probably also terrified of Russia's powerful army and conventional weapons systems, which are more than a match for anything in NATO's very poverpriced arsenal. Vladimir Putin has made it very clear that if NATO missiles are used to attack Russia, Russia will retaliate against NATO directly, and, NATO knows they are not bluffing. Who knows what they might do? Shoot down British aircraft over the Black Sea, attack NATO bases in Poland, attack the Baltics? While Eurotrash wax eloquent on NATO invincibility, I think we know better, from what's happening in Ukraine. Russia's weapons are more than a match for anything in NATO's arsenal. It's not clear to what extent Russia could actually invade Western Europe with success, but, it's quite possible they would do very well indeed, without having to resort to their enormous nuclear arsenal. So, effectively, NATO is actually making it easier for Russia to colonize and absorb all of Ukraine, by providing the Ukrainians with just enough weaponry to exhaust themselves in fruitless battles with the Russians, but not enough to win. So, the Russians can colonize the Ukrainians at their leisure, knowing the Ukrainians are simply being played by NATO, and prodded to destroy themselves for nothing!

Before WW1 and WW2, what was the most discussed event in history?

n the West, it would probably have been the Battle of Waterloo. That was the event that defined Western history for the century leading up to WWI, to a very high degree. The defeat of Napoleon, and the establishment of new systems of government in Europe, the recognition of Great Britain as the Imperial Power who defined the Pax Britannica worldwide, were all the direct consequences of Wellington’s victory at Waterloo. https://www.quora.com/unanswered/Before-WW1-and-WW2-what-was-the-most-discussed-event-in-history