Who better to sound the triumph of anti-establishmentarianism, and of human freedom and individualism, than the Nazis in 1940?

Fredrich Schiller was one of the greatest exponents of human freedom and individualism in human history, in his plays and philosophy, so much so, that Ludwig van Beethoven chose his poetry as the basis for his greatest musical composition, his Ninth Symphony, in which Schiller's poetry forms the basis of the entire work, his Ode to Joy. So, who better to brilliantly trumpet forth Schiller's message of universal brotherhood, than the Nazis, at the height of their power, in 1940? As Shakespeare so wisely tells us, There are more things in heaven and earth, than our philosophy hath dreamt of. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j0veQ1vP1Ww&pp=0gcJCQQLAYcqIYzv

What did Isaac Newton mean, exactly, when he said "I make no hypotheses"?

Newton wasn't saying he dealt in pure fact, or even pure mathematics. Mathematicians do make hypotheses. I think Newton was saying that intuition is all we really have, and we don't know where it's coming from. It is profoundly ironic that the greatest light of the enlightenment really was an extreme romantic at heart, who didn't even really believe in mathematics, or any scientific method, at all. While Galileo abhorred all theory, believing in pure data, he did have a very high opinion of mathematics, as a means of summarizing data. I think Isaac Newton, although one of the greatest mathematicians in history, actually only saw mathematics as a rather crude way of describing reality, and this view is very far from the Pythatorean view, the view of most mathematicians, that mathematics is actually the language of nature itself.

Two tales of the July 20 1944 assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler

Hollywood superstar Tom Cruise condescended to do a version of the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler in 1944, "Valkyrie", in 2008. I enjoyed it, and, it is very entertaining indeed. And, you see, that is the problem, precisely! Because, I'm afraid, events like the attempted assassination of Adolf Hitler, in 1944, were certainly not entertaining at all. Although the film sticks fairly closely to the actual historical events that occurred in this incident, in a superficial sort of way, the entire psychology of the film is 180 degrees off from the psychology at the time. You see, everybody seems to be rather nice, even the senior Nazis, and everybody seems to be having a fair amount of fun. No one seems very stressed out, at all. And, that certainly is not the way people felt at the time. Quite the opposite, actually. Everyone was frightened, desperate, paranoid as Hell, and, with good reason. What Tom Cruise is doing, is creating a "feel good" film about the asssassination. Like "wouldn't it be fun, and great, if we could kill Hitler? Then, everything would be great again in Germany, right?" This is consistent with traditional American optimism, that all we have to do, is get along, and work hard, and everything will be fine. This is the Any Rand objectivist philosophy "Blue skies, smiling at me, nothing but blue skies, do I see." This message of absolute social conformity is certainly NOT what motivated the conspirators, at the time. Quite the opposite, actually, as we can immediately, and readily see in the extremely realistic portrayal of these same events in the film July 20, 1944, produced in Germany in 1956, just twelve years after the events in question, by people who would all have been well aware of exactly the situation, at the time. People are terrified, they don't know what to do, so, they think they try a desperate "roll of the dice", to see if it helps. They don't think they'll succeed, they don't even particuarly think it would help, if it did succeed, but, they know they have to try something, because the current situation is intolerable. And, in human history, that is usually how real progress actually occurs. Desperation, fear, uncertainty. No blue skys before, or after. Just darkness, occasionally shot through with blinding light.

Genius is ninety percent inspiration, ten percent perspiration

The phrase "genius is 99 percent perspiration, and one percent inspiration" is derived somewhat from academic  Kate Sanborn's observation that "talent is perspiration", in the early 1890's, but much more specifically, and popularized by inventor, businessman and billionaire, Thomas Ediston.   Bear in mind, that Thomas Edison was a man who certainly stole most of his ideas from individuals who certainly did not share this philosophy at all, like Nicola Tesla, Samuel Morse and the real inventor of motion pictures, Louis Le Prince, who Edison may have actually murdered, before he could patent his invention in the United States.  So, it might be more accurate to say, that Edison was not a genius, but, a very hard worker, who stole all his ideas from people who really were geniuses.    Actually, and this is really pretty obvious, genius is ninety percent inspiration, and ten percent perspiration. It's the people who make themselves perfect receivers of information who have the great ideas that constitute genius.   On the other hand,  it's the really hard workers, who are ruthless and willing to do anything to bring a project to fruition, who generally make these ideas well known, and apply them effectively, in practice.  It's not that these people aren't useful at times, but, they aren't the whole story.  The problem is, Edison's self-promoting disinformation would give people the impression that it is the whole story, and that, unfortunately, can seriously retard progress.  Because, you see, the term "professional scientist" is oxymoronic, as is the term "scientific method".   True genius is not a method, and, it is not a profession.   It cannot be either, because, we have no idea where it really comes from, and we never will. So, creating and funding massive institutions to create genius is, by definition self-defeating, and an enormous waste of money.  Much better to just support everyone at a level where they have adequate means to receive and generate good ideas.

Is Vladimir Putin giving up on the Ukraine War?

Russia is hurting economically, as a result of the costs of the Ukraine war, and sanctions. In addition, Russia is suffering increasing domestic attacks from the extremely sophisticated Ukrainian drone program, and these are, to some extent, anyway, undermining the confidence of Russians in his leadership, although his support still remains quite strong, in general. And, of course, Russia is suffering regular heavy casualties from its infantry assaults in Ukraine itself, which have only been making incremental, minimal advances for some years now. So, it does look quite possible that this temporary "victory" ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia might be the prelude to something bigger, and more permanent, in the way of a peaceful settlement. Now, of course, the main obstacles to peace here have always been the intransigence of both sides. Ukraine insists on full integrity of its original pre-2014 borders, although Crimea and much of Donbas are probably happier belonging to Russia than to Ukraine. Ukraine also insists on its right to join NATO, which Russia sees as a direct threat to its own territory. Russia basically wants to go back to the status of Ukraine under the USSR, where it is a semi-autonomous Republic fully under Russian control. Obviously, by this time, neither side is going to get its way completely. Given Putin is now acknowledging that Russia is willing to end the conflict soon, and that Donald Trump is only providing limited assistance and support from the US to Ukraine, and even this with strings attached, Ukraine may be under pressure to make concessions, as well. The most likely outcome, I suspect, will be one in which Ukraine volutarily cedes the territory conquered by Russia to Vladimir Putin -- Crimea, Donbas, and much, but not all of the Black Sea Coast -- and, in return, Russia accepts the presence of NATO troops in Ukraine as "peacekeepers", although, effectively, this, of course, gives the remaining 80% of Ukraine effective status in NATO, by the mere presence of these NATO peacekeepers there. If, as seems likely, Poland and Germany continue their planned military buildup over the next few years, these two NATO states alone could, quite possibly, be sufficient to provide adequate military support to discourage any further Russian military incursions into the rest of Ukraine. Thus, a stable peace, with both sides getting something could be obtained. The 80% of Ukraine remaining would get genuine security, and Vladimir Putin would have acquired a sizable, important new piece of territory to add to the Russian federation, and claim as his legacy to greater Russia.

How well do secular leaders who challenge religious leaders usually do, historically speaking?

As a general rule, secular rulers who directly challenge religious leaders have a lot of problems, and are often crushed completely. We think of the medieval popes excommunicating leaders, who had to come begging to them on their knees for forgiveness, we think of the key role Pope John Paul II played in bringing down the Soviet Union, we think of the need for secular leaders in the medieval world to create alternative popes to support them, in their ambitions and worldly goals, because they knew how essential it was to have some religious backing, even an artificially created one. The critical social role that religion always has, and still does play in the lives of ordinary citizens muust never be underestimated. Religion has always aided in education and social services, and it has always played a key role in setting guardrails on the actions of politicians, not allowing them to overstep their bounds in their actions, protecting the people against the excessive oppression of ruthless tyrants. To some extent, so called "atheistic" societies simply make a religion of the state itself, but, frequently, this disappoints, and these so called atheistic societies have to admit and tolerate more conventional religious figures, whether they like it or not. Robespierre was largely brought down by his attempt to formally replace Roman Catholicism, in France, folowing the Revolution, with the worship of the "Supreme Being", perhaps a projection of the state itself. The communist Chinese have found they can't really do entirely without Confucious, Buddha, and even Roman Catholicism, and some traditional polytheistic religions like the worship of the sea Goddess Mazu. Lenin and Stalin would have been truly horrified to see Tsar Nicholas II now worshipped as a Holy Saint of the Russian Orthodox Church, after they murdered him and his entire family!

Trump is playing games again

Donald Trump is an entertainer and a businessman. This makes him a pretty good politician, in some ways anyway, in the US, in any case. However, he has no real concept of war, real war, at all. None. How could he? Trump has been protected his entire life, he really doesn't know what it means to fight for survival and freedom, it's not a concept he understands. His own freedom has never been signficantly constrained, he has always gotten his way, for his entire life. So, he just doesn't get why other people, and sometimes other nation states, don't want to give him entirely what he wants, just because he wants it. The notion that other people and other countries really don't care what he wants, doesn't register on his psyche, or consciousness. So, he pulls stunts like Project Freedom, where the entire US Navy is assigned, at immense expense, to attempt to escort of couple of insignicant merchantmen through a hail of Iranian fire, while Iran also trashes the neighboring Gulf States, and the US can do nothing about it, because the Congress won't pay for any more missiles or drones for the US Navy. Trump is trying to make it look like he's doing something. He's also trying to somehow persuade other world nations to put themselves in harm's way to do the same thing, which they certainly will not do.

The Assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler in 1944 -- An excellent, gritty treatment from Germany, in 1956

This is a gritty, painfully realistic, detailed treatment of the assassination attempt on Adolf Hitler, in 1944, produced just 12 years later, in 1956. The environment of paranoia, desperation and hopelessness in Germany at the time of the assassination attempt is lovingly recreated, there is no question whatsover to the viewers -- contemporary Germans themselves -- why this assassination attempt was made. These were all loyal German citizens, but, they had been forced to the end of their patience, and their tolerance. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8rHvP37nek

William Shakespeare couldn't possibly have been antisemitic

Many people make the mistake of thinking that The Merchant of Venice proves that Shakespeare was an antisemite. Nothing could possibly be further from the truth. In fact, The Merchant of Venice proves that Shakespeare could not possibly have been an antisemite. Sure, Shylock is presented in fairly antisemitic terms, as being at times, and with some people, greedy and predatory. However, he is also presented as being capable of deep love and devotion, and of having extremely human feelings and needs, and of experiencing deep suffering for very human reasons, that anyone can relate to. And, bear in mind, this was during a period in which England, and Europe as a whole, were still virulently antisemitic, despite tendencies to religious tolerance under Elizabeth I. Also, remember who we're dealing with here. We're dealing with William Shakespeare, a man of infinite subtlety of expression, perhaps no one in history more so, almost certainly no one in English, more so. The Merchant of Venice presents Shylock in terms, however superficially antisemtic, that can actually be rather easily acted, without changing the text at all, to represent Shylock as the hero of the play, and this has actually been done, particularly in the early twentieth century, in the Yiddish theatres of New York City. Shakespeare certainly would not have written the play this way, unless it was his quite specific intention to write the play this way. Indeed, the subtext of the Merchant of Venice probably is, quite specifically, that Jews were being put in a position by Christians where they must, always, have their "pound of flesh", for money, simply to survive, and Shakespeare is indeed criticizing society for this fact, and for arranging things this way. It can quite easily be seen that Shakespeare isn't criticizing Jews, he is satirizing European Christianity, and its marginalization of those "outside the fold". Shakespeare was obsessed with and fascinated with religion. He grew up a few years after the heretic burnings during the reign of Bloody Mary, he had heard and read of, from across the English Channel, the horrific massacres of Protestants perpetrated by Catherine de Medici, in particular the St. Bartholomew Day Massacre, during his own lifetime. He was living, in England under Elizabeth I, during a period of comparative freedom of expression and religion, and he valued this immensely. However, he could see what was coming, and anticipated the thirty years war, and Oliver Cromwell. Shakespeare's own treatments of religion are extremely tentative and coded -- notably, the presentation of Falstaff aka John Oldcastle, leader of the Lollard rebellion, executed as a rebel and a heretic, in Henry IV parts I and II, and in the Merry Wives of Windsor, all of which, particularly the latter, are coded historical representations of Oldcastle's rebellion and execution. No one has ever even attempted to present The Merry Wives of Windsor for what it really is -- not a silly farce, but, actually, an extremely black satire of John Oldcastle, and of Christianity in Europe, prior to the Reformation. Wouldn't it be interesting to present these two great works of Shakespeare -- The Merchant of Venice, and the Merry Wives of Windsor -- for what they really were, perhaps on a single double bill: satires of European Christianity, and the extreme dangers of religious intolerance?

Why is Trump saying the Iran war is over?

In his latest twist on the Iran War, Trump is now saying that it is officially "terminated". This is, presumably, of course, to allow Trump's efforts to maintain large naval forces in the Middle East to try to influence Iran, without any congressional oversight. Trump is playing word games, as per usual. Or, is he? There probably is a quite real sense in which the war is terminated. Trump failed to eliminate the Iran regime, and, Trump also failed to prevent Iran from taking over the Strait of Hormuz, and shutting down sea traffic in the Middle East. Furthermore, he doesn't know what to do about it. So, effectively, there is no point to further military action against Iran, so, the Iran war is over. Of course, the situation might change, and, in any case, Trump would like to be able to pressure Iran, somehow, although he isn't quite sure how to do it. So, really, the reality of the situation is that the US has lost the war, which Trump will never say, of course, but, Trump is still hoping to win another future war against Iran, which, however, the US public appears extremely disinclined to support. And, this puts Trump in a very awkward position politically, which might result in his political demise, and the loss of his freedom, perhaps as soon as next year. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/us--iran-congress-040412863.html