Vive le bombe! (2006)

This film provides an excellent insight into both a fascinating botched nuclear test in Algeria, in 1962, and to French attitudes towards war and nuclear weapons. Known as the Beryl accident, it was an underground nuclear test that breached containment, irradiating a number of French soldiers guarding the site. They were required to keep their exposure a secret, following eight months of hospitalization, in order not to "undermine French security" -- confirm that French nuclear technology wasn't necessarily all that it was cracked up to be! The film is particularly interesting because of what it reveals about the French attitude to their nuclear deterrant, which is particularly relevant today, as it is becoming more and more critical for the defense of Europe against threats from Russia, and as it is effectively being expanded to, and subsidized by, both Germany, and Poland. The French undersecretary of for defense who is central to the action here explicitly states that nothing is worse than War, and the purpose of this essential nuclear deterrant, is that France should never be threatened by war, again. Arguably, the purpose of the Maginot Line in 1939 was to ensure this, as well, but, that didn't work very well, at all! Arguably, the French just sat out WWII, not particularly caring who won, as long as they didn't lose millions of men, like they did in WWI. This is the reason that FDR thought France was a "failed state", and wanted France split up divided between the US and Britain. Churchill vetoed this, however, and backed DeGualle, saving France. Basically, since 1919, and the end of the First World War, the French have had enough of war. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VzlZtAMHHNM

We are approaching endgame in Iran --- The Emperor Donald Trump has no clothes

Trump has been playing his Apprentice President games with Iran, and the world as a whole, for a couple of months now, and as he vacillates wildly between threats of mass destruction, and promises of eternal peace and goodwill throughout the Middle East, most people, and very particularly the IRGC, are beginning to find it more and more difficult to actually take him seriously. Sure, he may bomb Iran some more, or not. But, history teaches us that it's impossible without nuclear weapons to actually defeat a nation with air power alone. So, there is babbling in the Trump camp about "economic fury", as if somehow Iran can be brought to its knees by blockading and pirating some Iranian vessels in the Persian Gulf. Possibly, if Iran was an isolated Island, this might have some effect, but, quite obviously, Iran is not. Actually, even mass bombing of all civilian infrastructure in Iran would only make her people more determined to resist America and Israel. Such acts would prove the violence, irrationality and imperialism of the American regime under Donald Trump. As if more proof was really necessary! So, by this time, Iran is simply refusing to negotiate, and Trump is frantically sending offers to Iran via intermediaries simply to get Iran back to the bargaining table. Will Iran come back? Probably only if Trump essentially concedes control of the Middle East, and more particularly the Strait of Hormuz, to Iran. In other words, if Trump runs away, with his tail between his legs. The Emperor has no clothes.

Why was William Shakespeare so obsessed with Sir John Oldcastle?

William Shakespeare was a very adroit survivor, unquestionably, he wrote plays for public viewing of an variety and intensity that was without precedent up to this point in human history. Of course, even Shakespeare had to accommodate his "masters", the government in power in England, there were things he couldn't possibly say. However, Shakspeare did enjoy under Eliabeth I of England, a degree of freedom of expression that was extremely unusual, his "Fairie Queen" was using her authority with a lightness of touch that bordered on semi-democracy, to some extent because she was a genius, and to some extent because it worked rather well, indeed. So, Shakespeare was undoubtedly very grateful to the system, and the people behind this system, that allowed him to write his very experessive plays. This probably explains Shakespeare's fascination with the character of Sir John Oldcastle, the military leader of the heretical protestant Lollard Sect, and early boon companion of Henry V. Because Oldcastle was really an earlier incarnation of Martin Luther. Martin Luther got lucky, and he knew it. Luther was well aware, throughout his entire life, that he could well share exactly the same fate as other so called "heretics" -- burning at the stake. However, if no one tried, if no one took the necessary risks, then no social progress would ever occur, ever. Society would remain stagnant under the control of ignorant bureaucrats and priests, and humanity would never advance. Shakespeare saw Sir John Oldcastle as an example of one of these great men, and a native son of England, who had failed, but, who had helped to lay the foundations for the ultimate freedom of the English people, by his great courage and sacrifice. Shakespeare knew he still couldn't, even under Elizabeth I, openly discuss this man who tried to kidnap his sovereign, Henry V, and to force desired religious reform on the English people before its time. However, he did the best he could. He created a satirical character in Sir John Falstaff to immortalize in encoded form his sacrifice, and his courage, and his contribution. This characerization is a very interesting and compelling illustration of the incredibly convoluted and unupredictable and distorted path of true human progress. https://ota.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/repository/xmlui/bitstream/handle/20.500.12024/A02633/A02633.html?sequence=5&isAllowed=y

Shakespeare's The Merry Wives of Windsor is not what it seems.

William Shakespeare was obsessed with Sir John Oldcastle. This is hardly surprising, Oldcastle had been a close friend of the young Henry V, before he became King, fighting alongside him heroically. After Henry was crowned, Oldcastle joined the heretical, Protestant Lollard sect, more than a century before Martin Luther. He fought to kidnap Henry V, in 1414, and to stage a military coup in England, in order to force Protestant religious reforms. He escaped, was a fugitive for three years, and was captured in 1417. His manner of execution was particularly bizarre, he was chained and hung up by his midriff, and set on fire, to symbolize the twin crimes of rebellion and heresy. Shakespeare was born in the early years of the reign of Elizabeth I, and just following the reign of Bloody Mary, and her persecution of English protestants. Hundreds were burned at the stake. Naturally, Shakespeare was fascinated and terrified of religious persecution. To Shakespeare, John Oldcastle was the perfect tragic hero, as a protestant martyr, but, as a rebel against the crown, he was simply too controversial to be dealt with directly. So, he created the character of John Falstaff, and turned it into a caricature of John Oldcastle. effectively inverting his characteristics. Instead of a puritan martyr, he becomes a profligate, greedy, sensual drunkard. Effectively, Shakespeare's way of dealing with John Oldcastle parallels the nursery rhymes, particularly: Mary Mary, quite contrary How does your garden grow? With silver bells, and cockle shells, And pretty maids all in a row. This is about Bloody Mary, expanding cemeteries, instruments of torture, and people awaiting execution. Shakespeare is inverting reality, to deal with it, as nursery rhymes do. Falstaff seeks money and seduction, Oldcastle seeks religious reform. Falstaff escapes, Oldcastle escapes. Falstaff is beaten, Oldcastle is captured. Falstaff is pinched and burned with tapers, Oldcastle is hung in chains and burned alive. Falstaff is accepted at the end of the play, Oldcastle is accepted as a protestant martyr by Shakespeare's time.

This blockade of a blockade that the US Navy is conducting in the Persian Gulf is just a show

Donald Trump has already concluded that the Iranians are too tough a nut to crack. Let's give him credit for that, Trump is no one's fool, although he is a bit of a clown. Trump can't very well say "Hey, I can't beat them, I'm out of here!", can he? So, instead, he's created this rather surreal blockade of a blockade concept -- Trump is very creative -- to give him a bit of cover before he completely shuts down all military operations. After he finds, to no one's surprise, especially himself, that the Iranians really don't care if he wants to blockade their own blockade of the Persian Gulf, he will announce that he has "totally defeated Iran on air, land and sea, and, therefore, they are no longer a threat." Then, his ships will sail away, careful not to get too close to Iran. The Iran war will formally end within a couple of months, with Trump sounding the triumphs of his own military operations, and with Iran in full control of the Persian Gulf, and, really, of the entire region. Trump's already said that oil prices will remain high, so, he's basically acknowedging that he has no control whatsoever in the Middle East anymore, at all.

Military technology has changed, that's why the Iran and Ukrainian wars have been unpredictable.

Neither the Iran nor the Ukrainian wars have followed a predictable path. In particular, both Iran and Ukraine have done rather better than expected against -- superficially at least -- more powerful adversaries. What are the reasons for this? Historically, changes in the nature of technology as it applies to military activities have always had dramatic impacts on war, and on politics. The invention of the stirrup gave mounted calvalry a huge advantage over heavy infantry, the basis of the power of the imperial armies of Rome and China, among other great powers. Even a small number of armed horsemen, firmly mounted in stirrups, could overcome large numbers of heavy infantry, organized by great imperail powers. Thus, the Huns, the Mongols, Tamerlane the Great and others were able to run rough-shod over great and stable powers, for many centuries. Thus, we had the age of chivaly, from "cheval", the French for horse. The invention of heavy cannon changed the balance of power again, to large centralized nation states like the French, the Russians and the Ottomans. These heavy cannons required heavy industry and centralized social control to be produced, maintained and transported. Then, the invention of light, portable muskets and rifles once more shifted the balance of power to smaller groups that could function largely independently of the great powers, leading to the Amerian and French Revolutions. In the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, mass industrialization again favored the great powers and centralized control, with machine guns, fighter plans, tanks and, finally, nuclear weapons, crushing individuals. In the late twentieth century, with the Gulf War, the US used expensive, advanced computer controlled weapons to crush Iraq's Saddam Hussein. What's happened now? Advanced, computer controlled weapons have gotten very cheap. Nations that are outmatched in terms of industrialization and wealth by great powers, can use the power uf fleixibility and independence of highly motivated individuals to effectively annihilate the full power of these same highly industrialized great powers, through the vehicle of these very cheap controlled weapons, the so called "drones". Their ability to produce and deploy these drones cannot be undermined, except by total annhilation, which is impractical except with nuclear weapons, and, first use of nuclear weapons will result in global annihilation. The great powers are in a box!

Why the term "passing the buck" is no longer current in the English language

I've just noticed that one my favorite phrases -- passing the buck -- is no longer current, at all. Young people have never heard it. Even highly educated young people, like young educators and librarians have never heard it, or don't know what it means. It's really a wonderful and highly efficient way of describing government and instituional irresponsility, not doing anything about obvious problems, saying it's not their problem, it's someone else's problem -- "buck passing". So where did it go, and why? I think this might really be rather simple. In the past in Britain, America, Canada and Australia, say 50 or 100 years ago, it was generally assumed that government and institutions in general did their jobs pretty well. They were responsible and effective, most of the time anyway. If they could do something about an obvious problem, they would. So, when they didn't, people got mad about it, and complained that the authorities involved were just "buck passing", a term of contempt and denigration. However, by now, everyone knows, particularly young people, that, as a general rule, institutions and government never take any responsibility for anything, if they can possibly avoid it, and, they usually can avoid it. Unless they are absolutely forced to do something, these bureaucrats really never do anything at all, ever! And, this is quite common knowledge. So, effectively, this very efficient way of describing official irresponsibility has ceased to be useful or necessary, because, effectively these days, it is actually tautological. Officials are always irresponsible!

What was the "martyrdom" of Thomas Beckett really about?

Now, in popular culture, the martyrdom of Thomas Becket is presented as a fairly simple thing. Thomas Becket was a commoner from a prosperous background, who, after obtaining an excellent religious education, advanced through his ability to the position of archdeacon of the Archbishop of Canterbury. As a result, he was then recommended to the still very young King Henry II as Chancellor, and he served this role with distinction, if with some corruption and extravagance. Then, as they both got older, and the Archbishop of Canterbury died, it was perfectly natural for Henry II to have his friend and advisor elevated to the position of Archbishop of Canterbury himself, particularly to advance his own agendas of centralizing power under his control, something Thomas Beckett had thorougly supported as his chancellor. Then, something rather strange apparently happened. Thomas Becket suddenly "got religion", to an extraordinary extent to which led him into direct and fairly violent confrontation with his heretofore master, Henry II. Now, in popular culture, this conflict is generally represented as being little more than public argumentation, in which Beckett puts forward the case that God cannot be controlled by King, so the Church must remain independent of the State. And, again in popular culture, Henry II eventually gets tired of this public arguing, and makes an indiscreet remark to his knights at arms, "Will no one rid me of this meddlesome priest," which leads to the public "martyrdom" of Thomas, very much against the will of Henry II himself. Actually, the truth of the matter is rather different. This conflict was highly political in nature, and, actually, perhaps a bit counter-intuitively, the Pope himself was by no means a supporter of Thomas Beckett in the position he adopted. Indeed, if the Pope had supported Thomas, Thomas certainly would not have been martyred, and Henry would almost certainly have been forced rather quickly to submit to Church independence, something he had to do in any case, following the martyrdom of Thomas. Now, in many ways, the conflict between the Pope and Holy Roman Emperor Fredrick Barbarossa mirrored the conflict between Thomas and Henry. However, while Fredrick was in an excellent position to invade Italy and threaten the Pope, Henry, with his power base primarily in England, and with the French King between his Western French dependencies and Rome, was not. Also, Henry's Angevin Empire and the Holy Roman Empire were competitors for power in Europe. So, actually, Henry II of England, was a supporter of the Pope in his battle for Church power, with respect to Fredrick, so, actually, the Pope was disinclined to support Thomas Beckett's aspiration's to essentially the same power, in England! Hence, to describe this conflict as being effectively about God, or the Church, is a gross oversimplification. It was more a conflict about pure power, itself, or, more specifically, about the balance of power, in England specifically. Thomas Becket virtually set up his own mini-Kingdom in Angevin controlled France for a time, after having escaped from custody after being convicted of embezzlement, and was a fleeing fugitive when he arrived in Norman controlled France. For years he engaged in a cat and mouse power game with Henry, excommunicating English bishops who opposed him, and was thought by many to be trying to actually make himself King. Eventually, he did return to England, after a half-hearted "reconciliation" with Henry. Inevitably, this just escalated the level of confrontation, until Henry finally ordered him arrested. When he refused, along with his armed guard, they killed him. Nevetheless, this "martyrdom" discredited Henry with his own people, and, did result in continued church independence in England for three centuries, until the Reformation of Henry VIII.

Trump is about to cut and run --- but, he's going to do it in P.T. Barnum style!

To give him credit, Donald Trump has correctly recognized that he has no way whatsoever to defeat the the Iranians. They're too tough, too well backed up by Russia and China, too experienced, too big a country, and they're, actually, too smart. Too smart for Trump, anyway. Also too smart for the Israelis. No matter how much is thrown at them, they just keep coming back for more. So, Donald Trump has given up. He's throwing in the towel. He's going to cut and run, and claim victory. However, being Donald Trump, he's going to do it in P.T. Barnum style. Donald Trump is, indeed, going to provide a "grand finale" to his ridiculous failed war, in a rather pathetic attempt to give people the impression that he actually accomplished something. He's going to bomb Iran some more, probably knock out some more of their infrastructure, and then claim that Iran has been bombed back into the stone age. Then, Donald Trump is simply going to run away, leaving Iran in control of the strait of Hormuz, and leaving Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Bahrein, Dubai etc., all to the tender mercies of the Iranians. And, henceforth, Iran is the master of the Middle East!

Trump's speech on the Iran War -- The Gettysburg Address, this was not!

I'm not sure that Trump's speech on the Iran War was the worst presidential speech in American history, but, it was certainly getting there. It was repetitive, uninformative, demented, delusional, confused, inaccurate and effectively meaningless. What is particularly disturbing is how the media is trying to downplay just how very bad it actually was. Rather than simply admitting that the US president isn't playing with a full deck, the media is attempting to pretend that this was actually a serious speech that was intended to convey information, rather than acknowledging that Donald Trump, even when on national televsion, is basically just talking to himself, for his own pleasure, at hearing his own voice reassure himself about how magnificent he always is.